What's new

The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

So Noel Coward was right!

The birds and the bees and even everyone and everything else do do it!
:biggrin: :melodramatic:

R

Actually it was Cole Porter who wrote ''Let's Do It". Noel wrote his lyrics as a response to Cole's song's popularity. They had a friendly rivalry where each would wittily send up the other with musical & lyrical references.


Mark A. Baker
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
The old days

Thank you Carmelo for the reminder...

Mrs. Peel (Diana Rigg), about the sexiest woman to grace the old B&W TV.

But time marches on...

Diana Rigg
 

RogerB

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Actually it was Cole Porter who wrote ''Let's Do It". Noel wrote his lyrics as a response to Cole's song's popularity. They had a friendly rivalry where each would wittily send up the other with musical & lyrical references.


Mark A. Baker

Oh, really . . .

Never heard Colely Polly sing it . . . . but the presentation of the notion famous for the line "even the birds and bees do it," and the only one I've heard, is from Mr. Famous "High Camp" Himself :biggrin:

R
 
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Oh, really . . .

Never heard Colely Polly sing it . . . . but the presentation of the notion famous for the line "even the birds and bees do it," and the only one I've heard, is from Mr. Famous "High Camp" Himself :biggrin:

R

Cole wrote professionally, but he didn't typically perform except as entertainment for friends on social occasions. There are a few recordings of Porter's singing & playing around, but they are relatively rare. "Let's Do It" was written in the 20s for one of Porter's first broadway shows.

Coward was a performer himself. as well as a composer/lyricist, author, & general all around bon vivant and 'gift to the 20th century'. He often performed the work of other's as well as his own. His musical exchanges with Porter, where one would write or alter a song in response to the other, are particularly fun because of the witty character of the interplay between the two; "Let's Do It" being one especially notable example.


Mark A. Baker
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEnJN1kCvpo&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkCDxu6Z2XE&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCeJhoUohmo&feature=player_detailpage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiHGD24Jt8c&feature=player_detailpage

Originally posted by CarmeloOrchards

the genius was in the small details, the uniqueness of characters, the story, and the cinematography
not big and sweeping like Ben Hur or Doctor Zhivago

or all of the above in the Americanized film treatments of British author, Ian Flemming:

You are sooooo right. Last week I saw the last 2008 version of George Cukor's original 1939 THE WOMEN with Rosalind Russell, beautiful Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Joan Fontain, Paulette Goddard. The latest version couldn't hold a candle to the original. It was a plastic surgery advertisement for our aging great lovelies of the modern screen...Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, Debra Messing, Bette Midler, Candice Bergen, Carrie Fisher, Clorice Leachman etc. The CLASS and subtlety of nuance wasn't there. One did not feel gripped at the soul level. It was a simple women's lib man bashing theme. Not fun. No tears. No hopes. No suspense. No interest in the well being of the of the noble of heart to win out. The nobility of the characters was gone.

Oh, and I do like David Lean who directed Doctor Zhivago. He said at one time something I really admired, indicating that film is an art and not a mish mash to be put together in a board room by too many chefs. He said that the more a film was directed from one person's viewpoint the better. It's just more cohesive.

[video=youtube;T4XTeh6tjIs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4XTeh6tjIs&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

From the famous fashion show 1939 a la Edith Head in the film above

[video=youtube;34nu225IX4E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34nu225IX4E&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
 
Last edited:

FoTi

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

even educated fleas do it

Thats a social group I'm yet to help with word clearing. Seems
they manage fine without my help. :)

It's a waste of time to try to word clear fleas.....they're too hyperactive.....they jump around all the time and don't sit still. Besides that, they'll take off with the first dog PC they see and you'll never see them again......other fish to fry, you know.
 

RogerB

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

It's a waste of time to try to word clear fleas.....they're too hyperactive.....they jump around all the time and don't sit still. Besides that, they'll take off with the first dog PC they see and you'll never see them again......other fish to fry, you know.

And the bastards bite!

Don't like them at all . . . .

R
 

RogerB

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Cole wrote professionally, but he didn't typically perform except as entertainment for friends on social occasions. There are a few recordings of Porter's singing & playing around, but they are relatively rare. "Let's Do It" was written in the 20s for one of Porter's first broadway shows.

Coward was a performer himself. as well as a composer/lyricist, author, & general all around bon vivant and 'gift to the 20th century'. He often performed the work of other's as well as his own. His musical exchanges with Porter, where one would write or alter a song in response to the other, are particularly fun because of the witty character of the interplay between the two; "Let's Do It" being one especially notable example.


Mark A. Baker

Actually, one of my all time favorite little lines in a movie was carried by Noel.

It was in the original version of The Italian Job . . . the one that also starred Michael Caine.

Noel, while in jail as a con, but still ruling the roost, imperially said, "Every one is bent, it's just how you use them."

The discussion was about being able to buy certain influences and favors . . .

A very clever, well played by all and entertaining movie.

I loved his articulation and phrasing . . . it, of course, being a product of him having earlier in his life being a severe stutterer/stammerer. He just simply had to overcome his speak impediment.

A great talent and charming man.

R
 

RogerB

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Brilliant stuff Ted!

Two points:

1) is that it is correct tech to create things as being now . . . it also works if one precisely locates one's creations in the position in time it is to manifest. The error, as he points out, is that most folks unwittingly envision things into a "never arriving future."

2) the science text books also tell us that "relativity" was developed in order to solve the result of the Michelson & Morley experiment . . . . so convinced the boyz were of the fact that the "luminiferous ether" existed, that when the experiment failed to detect and measure it, they went into all sorts of convoluted thinking which led them to the notion that objects shrink in the direction of their travel :duh::duh: That equation is called the famous Lorenz-Fitzgerald Equation :duh: Einstein stole this stuff and came up with his thing on "relativity" . . . . all in an effort to rationalize a failed experiment!

But now the experiment done with more modern and precise equipment shows the "either" does exist . . . and that the equipment does not shrink in the direction of its motion :omg::ohmy::ohmy: Oh,oh, revision time!!

I write about this nonsense in my first book . . . :yes:

The science boyz have sold us a "bill of goods" rather like Hubbard.

R
 
Maureen Dowd in the NY Times today

Ted sent me an e mail putting in perspective the "cut in spending." Perhaps he could publish it here.

The cut was microscopic.

Sanity, these days means knowing the world is headed, economically, to a precipice.

Be that as it may, I really enjoyed Maureen Dowd's column today.



August 2, 2011
Washington Chain Saw Massacre
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

Even before Emanuel Cleaver, the Democratic congressman from Missouri, called the debt deal “a sugar-coated Satan sandwich” and Nancy Pelosi tossed in a side of “Satan fries,” the whiff of sulfur was rising from the Capitol.

The gory, Gothic melodrama on the Potomac is a summer horror blockbuster — without the catharsis.

Most of the audience staggered away from this slasher flick still shuddering. We continue to be paranoid, gripped by fear of the unknown, shocked by our own helplessness, stunned by how swiftly one world can turn into a darker one where everything can seem familiar yet foreign.

“Rosemary’s Tea Party,” an online commenter called it.

If the scariest thing in the world is something you can’t understand, then Americans are scared out of their minds about what is happening in America.

As William Friedkin, the director of “The Exorcist,” observed 27 years after Linda Blair’s head spun 360°, horror movies, like Hitler, pose a chilling, unanswerable question: “Why do bad things happen to good people?”

The horror director Brian De Palma once described the simple essence of his genre: “There is just something about a woman and a knife.” But, in this case, it was the president — and the federal government — being chased through dim corridors by a maniacal gang with big knives held high. Like Dracula’s castle, the majestic Capitol suddenly seemed forbidding, befogged not with dry ice but with the stressed-out Speaker John Boehner’s smoking. Like all great horror movies, this one existed in that surreal zone between fantasy and reality, as the Tea Party zealots created their own reality in midnight meetings.

Just as horror films moved from niche to mainstream in the late-’70s, with successes like “Halloween” and “Alien,” the Tea Party moved from niche to mainstream.

Tea Party budget-slashers didn’t sport the black capes with blood-red lining beloved by the campy Vincent Price or wield the tinglers deployed by William Castle. But in their feral attack on Washington, in their talent for raising goose bumps from Wall Street to Westminster, this strange, compelling and uncompromising new force epitomized “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and evoked comparisons to our most mythic creatures of the night.

They were like cannibals, eating their own party and leaders alive. They were like vampires, draining the country’s reputation, credit rating and compassion. They were like zombies, relentlessly and mindlessly coming back again and again to assault their unnerved victims, Boehner and President Obama. They were like the metallic beasts in “Alien” flashing mouths of teeth inside other mouths of teeth, bursting out of Boehner’s stomach every time he came to a bouquet of microphones. (Conjuring that last image on Monday, Vladimir Putin described America as “a parasite.”)

As Jason Zinoman writes in his new book on horror films, “Shock Value,” “The monster has traditionally been a stand-in for some anxiety, political, social, or cultural.” The monsters of ’70s films channeled grievances similar to the Tea Party’s about, as Zinoman wrote, “government power and mocking nihilism.” Audiences sometimes sympathized with the monsters, as Marilyn Monroe did in “The Seven Year Itch” with the Creature from the Black Lagoon, who, she said, “just craved a little affection.”

The influential horror writer H. P. Lovecraft knew better than to be too literal in his description of monsters.

In the short story “The Outsider,” Lovecraft’s narrator offers a description that matches how some alarmed Democrats view Tea Partiers: “I cannot even hint what it was like, for it was a compound of all that is unclean, uncanny, unwelcome, abnormal and detestable. It was the ghoulish shade of decay, antiquity and desolation; the putrid, dripping eidolon of unwholesome revelation; the awful baring of that which the merciful earth should always hide. God knows it was not of this world.”

I didn’t think I had anything in common with Lady Gaga until I read in a magazine profile of her that she likes to fall asleep watching horror movies. Growing up, my brothers were obsessed with Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolfman and the Mummy. (There was no model of the Invisible Man.) I have an old picture of my brother Kevin and me as children sitting rapt on a bed in our underwear watching “Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.”

Kevin spent his free time meticulously building and painting models of monsters, which he still keeps in a spare bedroom, half a century later. For their second date, he took the woman who would become his wife to a triple feature of horror movies.

If Obama were more of a horror-movie connoisseur, he would know that he was cast as the mild-mannered everyman David Mann (get it?), the driver in the Steven Spielberg classic “Duel,” caught in a road-rage episode with a faceless trucker on the highway who “challenges the protagonist’s masculinity,” as Zinoman put it.

Unfortunately, Obama cowered under his seat during the D.C. horror movie and now plans to try to hide behind his Supercommittee. But the Tea Party slashers roaming the corridors of the Capitol have feasted without resistance on delicious victims and will only grow bolder.

In other words, the president is going to need a bigger boat.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: Maureen Dowd in the NY Times today

Ted sent me an e mail putting in perspective the "cut in spending." Perhaps he could publish it here.

The cut was microscopic.

Sanity, these days means knowing the world is headed, economically, to a precipice.


Everyone knows this, but it's nice to put in to perspective


Federal Budget 101
The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:
U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Amount cut from the budget: $385

So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending?

It is a start, although hardly a solution.

Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt).

You would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.

The root of the debt problem is that the voters typically do not send people to Congress to save money. They are sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state.

To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders. [Emphasis mine.]

It is awfully hard (but not impossible) to reverse course and tell the government to stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now.

In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face the possibility of going into rehab.

By: DAVID THOMAS
Chief Executive Officer
Equitas Capital Advisors LLC
 
Re: Maureen Dowd in the NY Times today

... To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders. [Emphasis mine.] ...

The job description as it is presently laid out is correct. What is in error is what the american people actually expect them to do for them while in office.


Mark A. Baker
 

RogerB

Crusader
Re: Maureen Dowd in the NY Times today

The job description as it is presently laid out is correct. What is in error is what the american people actually expect them to do for them while in office.


Mark A. Baker

Nah, the job "description" may be correct enough . . . the problem is that the bastards "on job" a) are not doing it, b) have ceased representing the electorate and their interests as is the dictate or supposed reason the job c) are corrupt in many ways, not the least of which is that they mislead the public not only with false promises and falsehoods but with bribes of "what they will do for the sheeple when they get elected" but which is never delivered on and d) the only interests who get truly looked after are those who put up funds for re-election expenses . . . i.e., corporate interests who have the $$$ to spend on getting their patsies elected!

It's a broken system.

R
 
Re: Maureen Dowd in the NY Times today

Nah, the job "description" may be correct enough . . . the problem is that the bastards "on job" a) are not doing it, b) have ceased representing the electorate and their interests as is the dictate or supposed reason the job c) are corrupt in many ways, not the least of which is that they mislead the public not only with false promises and falsehoods but with bribes of "what they will do for the sheeple when they get elected" but which is never delivered on and d) the only interests who get truly looked after are those who put up funds for re-election expenses . . . i.e., corporate interests who have the $$$ to spend on getting their patsies elected!

It's a broken system.

R

The difference Roger is that I find that the root of the corruption lies in the people. The nature of contemporary political discourse is merely symptomatic of that widespread corruption. Political careers are predicated on seeking to appeal to the prejudices of the voters. What the american people experience is in accordance with what the american people choose to believe.


Mark A. Baker
 

Auditor's Toad

Clear as Mud
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

As an aside, is it noteworthy the " teaparty " that wants to cut gov't spending has become the zealots?

Are there still people left that do not realize the gov't only has money it takes from us - well except for the debt racked up as they spend more than they confiscate from citizens and businesses that actually produce something?

The liberals who want to ( and do ) increase spending are no longer the kooks but now " mainstream " and those who want to curb this insane spending are no longer "mainstream" but now are the above mentioned "zealots ".

Shit folks. No wonder so many were sucked up by the dream of scientology.

If people love the hope & change Obama has brought in 3 years so far they are going to really be over the moon with what he can do to this country in eight years. Vote for him again - LOL !
 

FoTi

Crusader
Re: The old days - Aboard the Apollo - 1973

Brilliant stuff Ted!

Two points:

1) is that it is correct tech to create things as being now . . . it also works if one precisely locates one's creations in the position in time it is to manifest. The error, as he points out, is that most folks unwittingly envision things into a "never arriving future."

2) the science text books also tell us that "relativity" was developed in order to solve the result of the Michelson & Morley experiment . . . . so convinced the boyz were of the fact that the "luminiferous ether" existed, that when the experiment failed to detect and measure it, they went into all sorts of convoluted thinking which led them to the notion that objects shrink in the direction of their travel :duh::duh: That equation is called the famous Lorenz-Fitzgerald Equation :duh: Einstein stole this stuff and came up with his thing on "relativity" . . . . all in an effort to rationalize a failed experiment!

But now the experiment done with more modern and precise equipment shows the "either" does exist . . . and that the equipment does not shrink in the direction of its motion :omg::ohmy::ohmy: Oh,oh, revision time!!

I write about this nonsense in my first book . . . :yes:

The science boyz have sold us a "bill of goods" rather like Hubbard.

R

Roger, what is your first book?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top