Bullets!

Itemized summary and update. Enjoy!

- This weekend I acquired a paper shredder. New favoritest toy.

- Last night I dreamt that I pulled a puffy sticker out of a wound on my arm. It had previously been covered the band-aid that was over the wound. Icky.

-Another BBCAmerica closed-captioning warning gem: The following program contains accents that would be more familiar if you hadn't dumped our tea into Boston Harbor. How is this channel so awesome?

- feiran and I have finished Robin Hood. If you ignore the "I do believe in fairies!" bits, it was wonderful. And the British are the best ever at euphemistic talk. The in-depth look at the character of the Sherrif of Nottingham basically had everyone trying to say, without saying, that the actor playing the Sherrif plays the Sherrif such that he is gay for Robin. The guy playing Robin cracked up even trying to not-say as much. The writers/creators of the show were hem-hem about it, and the costume lady giggled so hard I missed what she was saying. She did mention that she dressed the Sherrif such that, were he around today, you just knowhe'd be into the Class A drugs. Priceless. Notably missing, a comment from the actor playing the Sherrif, but I love it regardless. I've been telling feiran (probably obnoxiously often) since it started that he's simply the most faaaaaaaaabulous Sherrif ever. Maybe not the best, but definitely faaaaab.

An update on updates

Last Friday's poll results are pretty much what I expected.

It is hard to generalize about adaptations and updates, and yet? We all recognize the good from the bad when we see it. You know what I mean. You can look at something like Twelfth Night and go, "Okay, so the period costume has changed. It's still not going to be She's the Man." Well, I mean you would if you weren't my sister (let's just not even go there).

But why is that, even? She's the Man stars no worse a cast than, say, Clueless (back when Alicia Silverstone was just the chick from the Aerosmith videos). What makes a modern Shakespeare update so awful but a modern Austen update so palatable? Perhaps it's the problem of language in Shakespeare--without it, his plots seem awful thin, definitely bawdy, and often unpalatable to modern audiences (the production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" that we saw really drove home how hatably unforgiveable Oberon's actions are to me, for instance). With the language, it's harder to move the story into a present time. If it's not comfortably clothed in clearly dated costumes, that language won't fly.

I like how y'all preference the people involved over authorial approval when it comes to adaptations, though. I actually really do. Because there are just always going to be some authors who pick fights and have major hate-ons for anyone who tries to adapt their "genius" (ahem, Alan Moore anyone?); whose works aren't even as good as what was made of them (Michael Crichton, I am looking at you, you global-warming-denying motherfucker); or who are stubborn and refuse to see any good in anything made of their work (I know a lot of shit has been made out of her stuff, but Ursula Leguin seems particularly fussy to me). I agree with you folks: the people doing the legwork on a thing are more important and integral to the success (or failure) of an adaptation than the original author.

Plus, it makes for great fun speculating WTF about certain casting choices, directing choices, settings etc. Like trying to figure out what the fuck Edward Norton is going to do as Bruce Banner. Buh-uh?