Celebrity Semiotictag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009-12-15://112010-03-04T17:43:03ZWhere Celebrity Goes to Die!Movable Type Pro 5.01Celebrity Infantilization of Cancertag:celebritysemiotic.com,2010://11.40582010-03-04T17:42:12Z2010-03-04T17:43:03ZWhen celebrities get involved with charity causes, be prepared to buy something after having it shilled to you -- but have we sunk so low with the celebrity cause that we are now considered children in need of Pied Piping...David W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
sunk so low with the celebrity cause that we are now considered children in need of Pied Piping into the River for the drowning of our national sorrows?
You can't throw a rock in the air today without it coming down and hitting an advertisement on a Viacom network -- like MTV and VH1 -- and not be smashed in the face with celebrity pleadings for "StandUp2Cancer.org."
]]>
However, I am confused by the baby phrase "standing up" to cancer -- as if the vicious killer of people and the destroyer of families is somehow just a schoolyard bully in need of staring down.
The cutesy, and childish, "Text Speak" logo doesn't help make this a serious call to arms:
Why aren't we "going nuclear" on cancer? Why not "Smash and Kill" cancer? How about his slogan: "Beat Cancer Like You Haven't Yanked Your Junk in a Month!"
But, no. Rob Lowe and other celebrities involved with the cause want us to just "stand up" to cancer as if we've been sitting down and having tea with cancer all this time while smiling and pretending it wasn't stinking up the room.
What's the next infantilized celebrity faux endorsement? "Play Nice with Anorexia?" "Don't Forget to Tell off Alzheimer's?" "Tie Your Shoelaces Before You Go Outside to Play with Sepsis!"
The silliest -- and most unfortunate -- attempt at the ultimate "feel good" moment on StandUp2Cancer.org is the opportunity for you to send a star into the sky for someone recently diagnosed with cancer... but not for free... it'll cost you a dollar. Oh, there's nothing like pretending and wishing on the heavens to help us stand up to that naughty cancer diagnosis.
I am all for raising money for charity -- but we need to do the fund raising with a serious intention and not an infantilizing of the real and present danger diseases cause us all right now in our everyday lives.
Cancer research is already one of the best funded diseases -- and I understand StandUp2Cancer wants in on that distribution-of-wealth-by-disease.
In the USA alone, the National Cancer Institute spent $4.8 billion in 2008 -- so we already have a strong and well-funded effort to "prevent and cure" cancer -- and the more adult we are about the effort, the faster we can realistically deal with an ancient disease that sometimes gets stronger even as it weakens. ]]>
Lady GaGa Crotch Watch Sagatag:celebritysemiotic.com,2010://11.40452010-02-25T15:20:59Z2010-02-25T15:20:14ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
vagina or a penis or neither or both? Are you aware of the intensive "Lady GaGa Cock Watch" movement -- especially in the UK -- that investigates that patch of flesh that makes up her groin? There are serious efforts on the Internet to try to figure out if Lady GaGa is packing a penis... or not.
]]>
Here's another Internet snoop's attempt at circling Lady GaGa's unmasked penis as proof peeking from her underpants:
Here's another circle jerk job indicating the limp, "penile" protrusion, in the Lady's panties:
Those on the other side of the GaGa Saga provide this shining evidence that she, in fact, is vagina-ready and penisless:
GaGa lovers also point to this image as evidence of her fine, if
powdery, womanhood -- and her total lack of man packaging:
Does it matter if Lady GaGa is swinging long or just swinging?
If she prefers women over boys -- should that matter us?
If Lady GaGa likes to stuff her pants -- or her bra -- who are we to care?
The one certainty we know about Lady GaGa is that she can sing -- and she knows how to put on a great show -- both on and offstage.
]]>
Ashley Rodriguez Wins American Idol 9tag:celebritysemiotic.com,2010://11.40292010-02-18T13:36:11Z2010-02-18T14:49:50ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
American Idol. I have watched the show every year and every year it gets worse and worse. The pinnacle of its awfulness is now Ellen DeGeneres -- who wouldn't know funny if it ran up and bit her on the ear -- but I digress. If you're an Idol fan like me, you know the show is never about finding the best singer. American Idol is all about packaging a face and a body that can sell records -- and that's why I am telling you this year's obvious winner of American Idol 9 is Ashley Rodriguez.
]]>
top 24 are last night. We have months of thumb-twiddling until they give Ashley her crown.
I'm not suggesting American Idol is fixed, but any fan of the show knows the producers have their favorite contestants and Ashley is, by far, their odds-on favorite, and here's how I know:
She's been hidden in the show so far. That's always a big indicator that the producers are holding her back to surprise us later. When we have seen glimpses of Ashley, her face fills the screen. Her undeniable beauty is both winsome and stunning.
It's time for an "urban" female from the East to win. The last two Idols have been men. In the history of the show, we have never had one gender win three times in a row. It's also time for a non-Southerner to win. Seven of the eight Idols were South of the Mason-Dixon line.
She has "the package look." She's tremendously intriguing and her personality sings better than her throat. Watch Simon try to make her cry by not liking her at first and then he'll turn with her later in the show as "she proves" to him that she's a worthy contestant. Or, he'll like her straight off, but then turn against her for a week only to be -- surprise! -- won back to her side the next. Every winner of American Idol has had to face down the wrath of Simon Cowell -- just to throw us off the scent of the eventual "winner" -- and Ashley will be no different.
Ashley was "interviewed" by the Boston Fox affiliate before she auditioned for the final panel of judges. Why spend so much time and energy promoting a local singer who wasn't going to win big?
Ashley Rodriguez has suspiciously become "Puerto Ricanized" to take full
advantage of her ethnicity and cultural fan base and that's important
in promotion and packaging to help uniquely define her in the context of
the American Idol brand. She had been using the name "Ashley
Makailah" before her turn on Idol.
Here's a screenshot of Ashley's current official American Idol 9 page and you can see the naming confusion right there. In text on the page, she's funnily both "Ashley Rodriguez" and "Ashley Makailah" -- and in her video, she introduces herself as "Ashley Rodriguez" while a graphic appears labeling her "Ashley Makailah."
Those inexcusable mistakes won't last long on the website, but it is all
clear evidence we now know it is Fox who wants her labeled "Puerto
Rican" -- by using "Rodriguez" instead of "Makailah" -- and when Ashley
mentions in her video there has never before been a Puerto Rican
finalist on American Idol, all warrants and suspicions are confirmed.
If you do a simple internet search for Ashley right now, you will find she has been promoted as "Ashley Makailah" and not "Ashley Rodriguez." I'm sure all those links will quickly reflect the pressed name change.
Ashley Makailah Rodriguez may not be the best singer, but she makes up for any lack of rhythm and vocal talent with a blazing, yet charming, personality and a fantastic face you will not forget. Place your bets now on Ashley Rodriguez because she's already won American Idol 9. ]]>
The Family Tragedy of American Choppertag:celebritysemiotic.com,2010://11.40162010-02-11T13:43:33Z2010-02-11T13:51:22ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
The Learning Channel announced the quick cancellation of "American Chopper." The last episode will air tonight at 9pm Eastern. Over the six-year run of the show, I watched almost every episode -- purely for the love of seeing Paul, Jr.'s designs come to life in metal -- but the one, universal, totem taken away from the program is the horrible reality of an alcoholic father who is envious of his sons and sabotages them at every turn week after week and year after year. The constant threat of physical violence, coupled with emotional and verbal abuse, makes Paul Teutul, Sr. one of the most despicable men in the history of reality television as he not only strangled, but castrated, his most beloved and most talented son, Paul, Jr.
]]>
Jealousy. Vanity. A bottomless pit of self-loathing that can never be filled.
Sure, Paul, Sr. hasn't "had a drink" in many years, but he still behaves like a drunken bully: He's a "Dry Drunk" and he loves every moment of his never ending rage. He yells and screams and throws things in childish tantrums edged to give him his way.
If you do not bow down to the father, then the father will kill you and it was that threat of real violence that propelled "American Chopper" each week and likely fueled the ratings. You always hoped, in the end, that Sr. would somehow see the light and the error of his ways and just back off his boys a little bit to let them live free and breathe well. It never happened.
The bully in the boy always erupted in the father to punish the prodigal sons, and every single family member who worked with Sr. ended up ostracized or fired.
The emergence of Paul Sr.'s new wife on the television show to replace the loss of Paul, Jr. in the cycle shop this season, was a foreboding that not even TLC could ignore based on Paul Sr.'s, established ethical habit of action: The wife replaces the son in the circle of violence, and the wrath of
the father becomes the fury of the husband, and we are but moments away
from an attack on her because she completes the cycle of abuse. Paul,
Sr. will demolish her in situ, and on TV, just as he destroyed everyone
else who stood with him.
It seems ongoing public child abuse was
acceptable to Discovery/TLC for the six year run of "American Chopper"
-- but the threat of the gathering storm of spousal abuse only gets a
few one-hour episodes before finding the producer's axe.
Orange County Choppers was built on the back of Paul, Jr.'s successful motorcycle designs and while everyone at OCC knew that -- Paul, Sr. refused to admit in public that the magic and spine of the business was his son and not him.
I guarantee you Paul, Sr. knows in his gut that Paul, Jr. is the better
man and more talented than he is and that fact gnaws his gut more than
any rotgut ever could -- but instead of accepting the necessary divinity
of a son walking in a father's footfalls, this father prefers to poison
the road ahead by first firing, and then suing, the starshine son:
The Orange County Choppers' Paul Teutul Sr. filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court in Goshen against his son, Paul Teutul Jr., for what could amount to millions in damages. The core argument is over how much Senior should pay Paulie for his share of the company, headquartered in the Town of Newburgh.
In an explosive episode that aired at the beginning of season six of TLC's "American Chopper," Paulie was fired from the company. In real life, as part of the termination, Paulie agreed to sell his 20 percent ownership to his father, according to the suit.
Since then, the two have been unable to compromise on how much that share is worth.
"It's sad it's come to this," Senior's lawyer, Richard Mahon II, said.
Because the two could not agree, Senior is asking the court to appoint an appraiser to value the company. The suit also asks for an injunction barring Paulie from engaging in competitive business activities and interfering with the company's relationship with suppliers.
The fact of human living is that children are born to replace their parents and most fathers would wallow in the success of their sons -- but not Paul, Sr. He sees his sons as competition and he is set to destroy them.
Instead of retiring and letting the son become the godhead of the family
empire, the father prefers to burn down the business to leave behind
only the ashes of what was once almost a great community of family
spirit and friendly creativity.
Mikey Teutul is the most tragic son. He is the buffoon who couldn't
keep a job except for being daddy's Jester. While Mikey was always
ready to crack a joke or try to keep peace in the family -- we knew his
spirit was crushed by his father in childhood and we were only seeing
the overweight and unhappy shell of the fallow man.
This
season, we learned Mikey, like his father before him, is a drunk.
Mikey, with the help of Paul, Jr., entered rehab and wanted to become a
stand-up comedian. We who watch the show know that Mikey's comedy
routine is just another flop in the overlong way station of his
failures.
Some drunks go dry and turn to brittle rage while
others wither from the inside out with no way of becoming someone on
their own terms. We mourn the living life of Mikey Teutul, and we root
for his success, but we also know he will never find peace until he
buries his abusive father.
As "American Chopper" ends tonight, we must now accept what we always
knew from the start, but could never quite confess until now: There will be no
lasting forgiveness or reconciliation in the Teutul family.
That
realization leaves us empty and tarred and we wonder why we invested so
much hope with so little return.
The lesson in "American Chopper" isn't a pleasant one. We've been
taught by the show that sometimes the bully wins and sometimes the good
sons are betrayed by a father's unrestrained cravenness -- and while that lesson
becomes a warning against our naive yearning -- we still can't help but
feel there had to be another way, a less crooked path, a different
method of thinking that could've saved Paul Teutul, Sr. from himself and
salvaged the bright promise of the sons he created and then
systematically destroyed before our eyes for six long, unforgiving,
years. ]]>
Banning the Celebrity Baby Wavetag:celebritysemiotic.com,2010://11.40012010-02-04T14:45:10Z2010-02-04T14:47:05ZToday, I propose the immediate ban on any celebrity using a "Baby Wave" -- the slow opening and closing of spread fingers closing into a fist with the palm facing you -- that red carpet fame carpetbaggers like Paris Hilton...David W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
Heath Ledger's daughter Matilda-- and since the Baby Wave is from a celebrity baby, we're fine its flexing and extension.
]]>
The only thing worse than the spread-fingered-baby-wave is the "Cupped
Baby Wave" where all the fingers move in unison from
an open, but cupped, position into a fingers-on-heel-of-palm closed
state. Some celebrities are repeat "Baby Wave" style offenders.
Actually, there is a worse wave than the "Cupped Baby Wave" -- and it is the "Modified Hitler Salute" -- where one leads with their elbow instead of the hand and fingertips of the palm point behind the head.
The often-mocked "Queen's Wave" -- where one presents the forward-facing palm for the slow and methodical open-palmed "waving" anchored on the axis of the wrist -- is not a bad celebrity wave. It is controlled and shows respect.
The "Over-Anxious Puppy Wave" is one that imitates a dog's wagging tail. The hand moves above the head and forward of the face and the elbow disappears into the arm. Radical waving ensues as the hand blurs against an even and steady eye. This wave begs for attention and can actually form a slight breeze for bystanders.
The most proper celebrity wave is the "Heya Wave" and it is marked by an open hand with fingers slightly ajar and the open palm roughly matches the height of the head. The elbow is constantly visible by the celebrity's side and never moves. The only movement is in the billowy, soft, waving of the palm-front hand that makes eye contact with each observer.
Sometimes -- in order to control the proper "Heya Wave" from becoming a "Over-Anxious Puppy Wave" -- the celebrity must employ handcuffs to keep the arm from losing its elbow and becoming a mast for a blurry hand flag. We honor the dedication to chain an appropriate "Heya Wave" in place.
If these "Rules of Celebrity Waving" are too much to take in -- a simple nod of the head is always better than any sort of wave because it conveys a calm coolness that we expect from those we choose to adore.
]]>
Celebrity Response to Haiti: Genuine, or PR?tag:celebritysemiotic.com,2010://11.39422010-01-15T13:30:52Z2010-01-15T13:30:44ZWhen Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the government response was slow and inadequate -- as we well know by now. The ensuing celebrity response was amazing. Photographs of Brad Pitt helping out really touched me. There's something about when a...Gordon Davidescuhttp://bolesblogs.com
Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, the government response was slow and inadequate -- as we well know by now. The ensuing celebrity response was amazing. Photographs of Brad Pitt helping out really touched me. There's something about when a celebrity really messes up in the eye of the public and then shortly thereafter does a tremendous act of charity that makes me wonder why said celebrity did it.
Now the suffering in Haiti is in the midst of the celebrity cause.
]]>
Tiger Woods is said to be paying for a mobile hospital to be transported to Haiti to help out the devastated country. We already know this is a greater act of charity than Rush Limbaugh will ever do for them. I really want to believe that there is nothing but goodness in his heart and that he would have done this regardless of whether or not he had been involved in the scandal that only took place a few weeks ago. I'm sorry, Tiger, but I know that there is no such thing as coincidence.
There is no check large enough to cover the scandal of sleeping around the way that Tiger did. Even Michael Vick surely must have realized this to some extent -- all of the charitable work he has done since being released from prison was mandated as part of his sentence.
How short is our memory as a people? Eventually, people tend to forget the misdeeds of celebrities -- our attention span isn't nearly this short, though.
Am I reading too much into this? Could it be that this was a genuine effort to help with no self-interest involved whatsoever?]]>
NBC Fails Jay and Conantag:celebritysemiotic.com,2010://11.38972010-01-08T13:38:55Z2010-01-08T13:38:25Z In the biggest recantation since New Coke and Coke Blak, NBC/Comcast are rumored to be reversing their ridiculous removal of Jay Leno from "The Tonight Show" and pushing Conan O'Brien back into the late night boneyard where he belongs....David W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
New Coke and Coke Blak, NBC/Comcast are rumored to be reversing their ridiculous removal of Jay Leno from "The Tonight Show" and pushing Conan O'Brien back into the late night boneyard where he belongs.
]]>
Leaving Jay Leno -- and to this day I do not understand why NBC took Jay away from his winning routine for the loser O'Brien.
Did NBC remove Jay because they "owed" Conan "The Tonight Show?" Uh, no! There's zero loyalty in Hollywood.
NBC obviously thought Conan would bring in a whole new viewership even though Jay was already routinely winning the time slot. Never mess with success!
It is certainly the right thing to do to give Jay back his place in late night television -- but is to too late? Have NBC ruined both Jay and Conan with their misguided allegiances?
I think it is Comcast -- the new majority owners of NBC -- behind this switch back to success because NBC had plenty of time to correct the error before it was made and after it was made... all before Comcast finalized the buy deal in early December.
In fact, it has taken Comcast less than a month to push this move on NBC to set things right and that's a good and prescient thing for the rest of us. ]]>
Celebrity Semiotic Archivestag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.38412009-12-25T16:52:13Z2009-12-25T16:52:44ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
Celebrity Semiotic articles can once again be found right here in the Celebrity Semiotic blog!
When you perform a search, everything and everything we've written will appear in those search returns. Thank you for joining us!
]]>
Celebrity Semiotic Archives ]]>
The Unimportance of Celebrity Makeup Statustag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.38392009-12-25T01:11:33Z2009-12-25T01:11:39ZWhat is it about human beings that cause us to simultaneously seek ways to look up to people while at the same time finding ways to bring those people back down to our own level if we perceive them as...Gordon Davidescuhttp://bolesblogs.com
those people back down to our own level if we perceive them as getting too high?
]]>
As a child I wondered what the point of the articles was supposed to be. What was I to learn from seeing these celebrities in this state? Was it somehow going to make me a better person?
Year after year, numerous publications come out with these spreads. Celebrities without their makeup, celebrities when they were in their high school yearbook, celebrities while they are doing their grocery shopping, celebrities smoking while thinking that nobody can see them smoking. What's next -- celebrities using the toilet? I wouldn't be surprised if that's coming down the filthy celebrity obsessed pipeline.
As a child I did not realize that people are so pleased when they see others fail. I was amused by the television show "TV's Bloopers and Practical Jokes" but to me these shows were amusing because they were not real and no real harm was done. Hiding in the bushes and taking photographs of people when they are vulnerable is what causes people to start wearing disguises and to hire look-alikes to distract photographers.
Incidentally, there are thousands of photos of me not wearing any makeup. Would anybody like to publish them? I can part with a few for the right price.]]>
Russell Hantz is the Real Sole Survivortag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.37022009-12-21T12:00:16Z2009-12-21T11:59:28ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
enjoy watching Survivor, but when we spend an entire season rooting for the best player in the history of the game, and then waste three hours watching him lose to pettiness and burnt feelings, we want to turn off the television and never watch the show again.
]]>
A travesty. That's really the only word for it. Wait, here's another one: A joke. You could also go with absurd, ridiculous, lame. I'm going to make sure that I am absolutely clear about this: Natalie winning over Russell is the worst jury vote in the history of Survivor. That honor previously belonged to the All-Stars season, when a bunch of bitter Bettys couldn't handle being outsmarted by Boston Rob and awarded the million dollars to Amber instead. But this is worse. At least Amber won the final immunity challenge, so could argue that she brought Boston Rob to the finals. But this?
You may not like Russell. You may consider him cocky, sneaky, and lots of other things. But he OWNED this game, and he owned the final Tribal Council as well. Natalie's opening speech to the jury contained NOT ONE SINGLE REFERENCE to anything she did well in the entire game, just that it was ''the hardest thing I've ever done.'' Hey, hand her the million then! Later, she talked about how her big strategy was to NOT be aggressive. That was her strategy!!! Don't do anything. Again, hand her the million!
Russell singlehandedly planned the demise of each person in the game and then summarily executed them through the votes of others.
Each week he told us his plans and then made it happen. Who does that? How did he do it? Nobody that cocky and certain ever gets what that they want during the season. Everything fell Russell's way because he did the pushing.
Russell Hantz was magical with manipulating the independent will of other players to form and then serve his need to win.
Russell was a marked man from the beginning. He was strong. He was charming. He schemed in the open. Everybody said he was a threat yet nobody did anything to stop him because he could not be stopped within the covenant of the game.
Nobody could touch him until the final million dollar vote which, to me, is like cheating after the game to fix the final score as a bagful of losers colluded to vote revenge over the honor of excellent gameplay.
During the game, when it really mattered, Russell outsmarted every single one of them by outlasting them, outwitting them, and forcing them to do his dirty business.
When the live show started, we could see tears in Russell's eyes. He's a smart guy. He read the room and sensed he had lost the final vote before it was tallied. Again, Russell Hantz was right on the mark and he was right to be furious over the crybabyism of his competitors.
The greatest gift Russell gave us that no other survivor in the history of the game could even attempt -- was finding the hidden immunity idols without any clues. Without the threat of using those hidden idols, Russel would've been done long ago. That fact alone makes him the greatest player in the history of the game.
No clues! That meant Russell spent his days and nights secretly looking for those hidden idols -- and when he found every single one of them -- we were left speechless and admiring. Russell told us he came to play and play he did. He was entertaining and amazing to watch.
If Russell made one error it was taking Natalie, the last remaining
girl in his "Dumb Girl Alliance," with him to the end. She knew he
took all the bullets -- she openly admitted that after winning -- and
she said she did nothing on her own to get tot he end... except to actively hide
behind Russell.
Natalie was the smarmy, innocuous, choice the others could vote for to win while wrapping themselves in the dishonorable flag of "a good person should win" babbling -- while simultaneously punishing Russell for not just beating them, but slaughtering them in every step and instance of the game.
The jury vote against Russell was horrible because it was so betraying
to the spirit of the game. They didn't vote for the best survivor.
They voted against the best survivor in the history of the game by
robbing him of the title of "Sole Survivor" and while they all sat
there, smiling and confident that America would love them -- WE LOATHE
THEM! -- for voting against Russell, the true feelings of the nation were
revealed when Russell won the $100,000.00USD "Viewers Choice Award" and
a bit of right was done to reset Russell within the frame he earned but
did not win: The Real Sole Survivor. ]]>
TLC and their Little People Fetishtag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.36852009-12-18T15:57:01Z2010-03-02T13:32:13ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
UPDATE: March 1, 2010. TLC did it again! They added yet another "Little" show to their Fetish Agenda: Our Little Lives. Now this is getting out of hand!
TLC -- The Learning Channel -- is a strange place to watch stories about American lives. TLC is infatuated with dysfunctional large families like "Jon and Kate Plus 8," the Disgusting Duggars Family in "18 Kids and Counting" and their now litter of 19 children and, finally, "Table for 12." We can rightly dismiss TLC's infatuation with big families because they are trying to recreate the fading revenue magic of the Jon and Kate misanthropy; but why is TLC fetishising on Little People? How many Dwarf shows does one network need? The answer appears to be: Three. The first, and most famous TLC Dwarf show, is "Little People Big World" starring the wacky Roloff family.
]]>
The Roloffs and the Dwarf Doctor were still not enough for TLC, and so they're now giving us "The Little Chocolatiers" -- I swear I saw the show being advertised this week on TLC as "The Littlest Chocolatiers" -- and we immediately begin to realize someone in the TLC programming department is jonesing for more and more reality show Dwarfs while the rest of us are left to wonder why we can't get away from the Invasion of the Little People!
Can "There's money in them thar Dwarfs!" really be a cogent television programming cry?
Can TLC calm down a bit? The Jon and Kate mess damaged their brand, and the overdosing on Dwarfism is teetering on the disgusting and the unwatchable uncomfortable.
Let us hope TLC can find some value in the ordinary and the average and celebrate it on TV and let them forever be done with the "family-as-a-village" programming cudgel and that they will retire their neverending fetishism to create freak show television by exploiting the lives of Little People that farm, heal babies, and make candy.
I'm sure someone at TLC is still mourning the notion that OctoMom didn't have a brood of eight Dwarfs... making the perfect mash of reality television for the network. ]]>
Dexter and the Moral Dead Endtag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.36802009-12-17T13:02:42Z2009-12-17T13:42:52ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
Dexter on Showtime was a brutal end to a murderous season. Dexter, in case you don't know, is a television series about a vigilante killer who works for the government solving murders while secretly killing murderers. The show celebrates the thrill of the kill. Dexter is a needlessly bloody show filled with few surprises, but the final episode was made more interesting by a rabbit punch killing.
]]>
Dexter returns to his home only to find that the Trinity Killer left a final victim: Dexter's wife Rita in a blood-filled bathtub and his young son crying in a pool of sticky blood on the bathroom floor.
The effect of that final scene is grotesque and Michael C. Hall -- the actor playing Dexter -- said this about filming that final discovery:
It was tough. The fact is when you watch it, it's sort of lyrical slo-mo, but the actual shooting of it was much more frantic and to the point. Coming in, seeing this baby in the blood, turning my head, seeing Rita there, realizing what's happened, picking up the baby, leaving the room -- it happened much more quickly than [how] the scene plays. But it was horrifying. It's the kind of thing that only in its aftermath can you begin to deal with. In one way or another, Dexter will be reeling from it for a long time to come. But Julie in that tub was just heartbreaking -- and the baby on the floor. It was very somber. And also very secretive. Some of the people on set had just gotten pages. So I think everyone was quietly in a private way processing what we were shooting, what this meant for the show, what this meant for Julie.
I wonder why we find such fascination in creating and sharing such endless bloodlust on television.
It's
as if there isn't enough blood-in-the-bathtub killing in the real
world to satisfy us, so we delight in the entertainment of watching
even more, invented, pretend, death to cure our very real and hostile yearnings.
When killing on television is so rote and familiar -- how can we not be irrevocably changed by that viewing experience? Murder becomes ordinary and everyday and that cannot be good for us to become so desensitized to the demeaned acceptance of our early demise.
]]>
Gordon Ramsay Live Burns Uptag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.36782009-12-16T18:36:21Z2009-12-16T18:36:25ZDavid W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
terrible Fox Network, Gordon Ramsay made his unwatchable debut as a live cooking host.
]]>
Gordon Ramsay's Cookalong Live -- should be the first clue that the show is more sap than substance.
Gordon rushed on stage to teach three celebrities how to cook and he was so hyper one wondered what pills he'd popped before he freshened up our screen with his surgically refreshed face.
The hook of the show was people all over the USA "cooking along" with Ramsay -- but the quality of those remote connections was tasteless, bitter, malnourished and unleavened in every way.
Yes, Gordon Ramsay's live cooking show -- where the director had no idea what to focus on for an hour -- is even worse than that other Fox dud: "Osbournes Reloaded."
The uncomfortable reality for Gordon Ramsay fans watching live last night was the realization that he is but two things -- a screamer and a filthy mouth -- and when you take away both of those hallmarks, you must accept the man is truly unwatchable, empty and fallow. ]]>
Why Blogger Sucks Ittag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.36632009-12-16T13:15:00Z2009-12-16T13:15:32ZWe all know Blogger is a sucky place to do any sort of serious blogging -- but sometimes inactive use of a service lulls us into a false sense of satiety and satisfaction and that's precisely what happened to us....David W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
]]>
Celebrity Semiotic blog from Microsoft Live Spaces -- another sucky blogging platform -- to Blogger.
We chose Blogger out of blind loyalty. We started a blog there on January 6, 2007 -- when we wrote our Google Apps book -- and it originally looked like Blogger would be a piece of that suite, but Google wised up and did not, and have not, included Blogger in Google Apps.
We had a serious re-direct problem with Blogger that would send any WWW.CelebritySemiotic.com visitors to the BolesUniversity.com homepage instead of to CelebritySemiotic.com. That is not acceptable and it was wholly Google's problem.
Our A Name records and CNAME records were working fine. There was obviously a problem with our zone file on the Blogger server that -- now 55 hours later -- is not only unresolved, but UN-responded to in the Blogger "help group."
We do not understand how Google can provide "support" in a group when no one from Google is there to process and answer serious calls for technical support.
The Blogger support group is obviously more placebo than remedy and we could never figure out a way to directly contact anyone at Google to help sort it for us.
So, accepting the inevitable and the non-divine, we pulled this blog off of Blogger and inserted here into our Movable Type setup where we've been singing now for a day.
Beware of Blogger -- it is not a serious blogging platform -- and if anything breaks, you are wholly and completely on your own. ]]>
Exporting Blog Content from Spaces to Bloggertag:celebritysemiotic.com,2009://11.36562009-12-14T19:53:42Z2009-12-24T18:25:17Z Do you have any idea how hard it is to extricate your blog content from Microsoft Spaces and import it into another blog hosting platform?...David W. Boleshttp://bolesblogs.com
]]>
If you have any suggestions for pulling content from Spaces and importing it into Blogger, please leave us a detailed comment.
We're looking for an easy and convention solution -- not something convoluted and doomed to failure after the first try.
]]>
