It was close, but “Mary Ellen”, one of the most ferocious leg-rasslers in Twin Cities history, beat out reader “Tom”, by 14 minutes in posting the Scarlett Johansson/Bob Dylan video of, “When the Deal Goes Down”.
My thanks to both, and if we can coordinate a gathering at say Robin Marty’s every other week “Drinking Liberally” get-togethers at the 331 Club, I’ll buy a beverage for each.
Here are their clips: Mary Ellen’s.
And Tom’s.
(They’re the same.)
From the department of better late than never: The Rake‘s fabulous online editor, Cristina Cordova, was at Voltage this year, too, where she gathered the following video outtakes.
This first one includes great footage of the night’s opening act, Dance Band, along with runway accompaniment by Annie Larson (you know, those jumpers I mentioned in the previous post) as well as the relatively unfinished looks of Labrador. To throw ’em a bone, I’ll admit that I’m coveting Labrador’s strappy green, orange, and white dress (the second to last women’s outfit seen here). But, uh, does that come in a D-cup, please? Also included in this video: Killer panty shot!
This next video features infectious pop by a band called the Mood Swings. I particularly like ’em cuz the lead chanteuse, Sallie Watson, comes straight from one of my fave ’90s local bands, Lily Liver. (She’s also a buyer at Macy’s, according to the program notes.) And as far as the fashion show goes: The moon hung low on its black chord … when pieces by Peloria, a designer exploring the “connection of architectural fibers,” attached some heavy-metal hardware to her dresses and sent their asses draggin’ on down the runway. Nextup was Kjurek Couture: billowy and/or gushing florals. Friends, these are the dresses your boyfriend wishes you would wear.
Last but not least: Now that I’ve given George Moskal’s line a second look, I finally see the nod to Little Edie Beale. Pay special attention, folks, to Moskal’s first and second outfits. They’re fabulous! Second up was Ra’Mon Lawrence, who wowed the audience with his reversible and even transformable clothes. Presto! A cropped jacket became a long dress; a sash became a floor-length skirt. Note the trio of babes who open Lawrence’s presentation. The one in the middle inspired someone in the audience to shout: “Good hair, girl!”
And that’s all she (C.D., who contributed this commentary) wrote.
THREE quick mini media reviews:
ONE: I caught most of Alberto Gonzales’ “testimony” on NPR while driving north last Thursday. As a product of the Watergate era and more televised Nixon press conferences than I care to remember, (the ones with the sweaty upper lip were the best), plus a few impromptu Spiro Agnew vs. inquisitors, Edwin Meese, James G. Watt and Ollie North circuses, I thought I had seen every possible variation on clumsy prevarication in high public officials … until Gonzales took his oath.
It was astonishing. It was so bad in fact that I couldn’t trust my own instincts. So I tuned back in at 8 Thursday night for NPR’s hour-long analysis with Nina Totenberg, not one to normally engage in hyperbole. Both Totenberg and her sources confirmed my gut reaction. A disaster of historic proportions. Unprepared, unprofessional and unabashedly clueless.
Formal reviews poured in the next day. But being the type who regularly thinks darker motivations for public perforemances often go unreported in the mainstream press, (because they can’t be verified by two or more on-record sources), I shifted to hardened cynic mode and asked myself if Gonzales, who we know had “prepared” for his testimony, belly-flopped on purpose. I mean, he’s obviously covering up for someone higher up, and we can all guess who. But did he perform spectacularly badly on purpose?
[Close Up: Eyes darting furiously, searching for a rational with a semblance of logic.] Could Gonzales’ performance be part of a distraction campaign? Yeah! That’s it! Distraction! He’s so pathetically inept he temporarily draws attention away from all the other colossal blunders and scandals of the Bush administration, taking all the focus and heat at least for another couple weeks, giving his mentors time to cobble together fallback Strategy “R” before throwing him under the bus.
OK, lets give that a 20% probability. With an 80% likelihood that Gonzales really is as entirely clueless and overwhelmed as he seems, and just another example of a “loyal Bushie” caught in the headlights. (By the way. I don’t recommend reading Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City” while following either the US Attorney’s story or anything about Alberto Gonzales, Monica Goodling, or, God forbid, Rachel Paulose.)
TWO: With the action at my favorite northern Wisconsin roadhouse winding down early Saturday night — the three hard-smokin’ gals cleaned up on the penny slots and bought their gentlemen callers a round of $1.50 beers — I decided to tune in “Saturday Night Live”, assuming they couldn’t resist a Gonzales skit.
Ok, so I remembered Scarlett Johansson was hosting. Shoot me. But the answer on Gonzales was, “no”. They opened instead with Jason Sudeikis as Bush doing a press conference honing down the terms by which he’d allow “senior White House officials” to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Sudeikis does a better Bush than Seth Meyers, but for sheer spacey pugnacity no one can compare with Will Ferrell’s 15-watt George W.
Later, Meyers and Amy Poehler did a bit called, “Really?” in the middle of their “Weekend Update” shtick. For a satirical skit show that too often pulls punches that might earn it a little more smart crede AND a bigger laugh, the bit was remarkable for the undisguised contempt and derision it threw up at Bushworld. If by now anyone needed some kind of pop indicator of the irreversible implosion of this administration, they could hear it that one little skit.
Obviously, with the exception of the Star Tribune’s political section, everyone paying attention has concluded that this US Attorneys story is prima facie example of the essential corruption at the heart of the Bush/neo-conservative governing philosophy.
To put a sharper point on disgust and contempt, the Robert Smigel cartoon, (you can see it here on Crooks and Liars), was more angry than funny as it posited a Dick Cheney-ordered robot for torturing detainees. (Love the bit where the robot sodomizes “60 Minutes’ ” Steve Kroft.)
Did I mention Scarlett Johansson? Besides everything else, the woman can act. Witness: “Match Point”. (Be a Winner! Your name in print here if you’re the first to send me a link to the video Johansson did for Bob Dylan’s “Modern Times” CD. The one with the ’60s style Minnesota lake vacation imagery. I saw it once, but haven’t been able to connect since.)
THREE: Back in town Sunday night, I tuned in to “60 Minutes” having heard about a piece Anderson Cooper, on loan from CNN, had done on the “Stop Snitchin’” code being pushed by high-profile rappers and their corporate managers.
OK, its maybe six months to a year down the pike since, “Stop Snitchin’” stepped out in hip hop culture. But give “60 Minutes” credit for getting to it. (Basically the code admonishes the hip hop faithful to never assist the police in any way, not even to apprehend murderers and rapists.) Its hard to imagine a more counter-productive attitude if you’re trying to create wider sympathy for your cause, but hey, it sells.
Cooper got one rap star, “Killa’ Cam”, to sit for an interview and concede that selling the “Stop Snitchin’” idea was good for business, and that, conversely, even intimating that you had any kind of moral responsibility to help apprehend violent criminals was bad for business. Moreover — points for candor here — Killa’ Cam emphasized that no record company — including his, which is a division of Time-Warner — would never be so stupid as to step in and tell an artist to dial back on the misanthropy. That, after all, would have a negative impact on shareholder value.
In the wake of Don Imus, and the debate over the pop imagery that may have fueled Seung Cho’s rampage, it was telling that Cooper and “60 Minutes” couldn’t coax a Time Warner executive out in front of a camera.
Cooper, who hit every “60 Minutes” intonation cue in his set-up, followed a riveting piece by the under-used Lara Logan. Titled “Life in Baghdad” it was essentially the stories of two Iraqi families trying to survive our campaign of liberation. (So OK, go ahead and read, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City”. But expect your blood pressure to spike.)
One father, a beefy Tony Soprano-type, drops fresh bullet clips into his revolver to drive his kids to school every day. That is of course on the days a suicide bombing, or a raging gun battle or a security sweep doesn’t prevent them from leaving their house at all. (Had to smile at the guy cruising in a big, waddling Buick Park Avenue.)
Logan is pretty no-nonsense and ought to make more appearances on, say, “Face the Nation”. I caught her there once, and could tell her “Lets cut the bullshit” tone and line of questioning was a tad too raw for Bob Schieffer and his administration guests. Here’s a clip of one of Logan’s better pieces.
FILM
Minnesotans Make History
The Minneapolis/St. Paul International Film Festival continues tonight with a collection of locally-made, locally-focused documentaries featuring eight profiles of remarkable Minnesotans. The Minnesota Documentaries Program, Change: Past, Present and Future, shows how some of our very own Minnesotans have elicited social change, and highlights changes we can make for the betterment of our future. The eight films — many of them set around WWII — total 106 minutes.
7:15 p.m., Oak Street Cinema, 309 Oak St. SE, Minneapolis; 612-331-3134; $8 ($6 seniors, $5 students and members).
View A Sacred Heart, by Norah Shapiro.
View A Good Doctor by Maxine Davis.
DISCUSSION
Why Iraq?
Speaking of change… maybe it’s time to take a closer look at Bush’s politics as they pertain to Iraq. Join historical political economist Robert Brenner tonight in a discussion of this very topic. Professor of history and director of the Center for Social Theory for Comparative History at UCLA, Brenner is currently in the process of completing his latest book, Why Iraq: The Politics of Bush II, which seeks to understand the Iraq war in the context of the transformations of the domestic economic and political scene taking place over the last three decades, especially the decline of liberalism and the rise of the Republican far right. I don’t know much about this latest endeavor, but if it’s half as good as his last book, The Boom and the Bubble: The US in the World Economy and Merchants and Revolution, you won’t want to miss this event.
7 p.m., Room 104, Nolte Center for Continuing Education, University of Minnesota East Bank campus, 315 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis; 612-626-5054; free.
READING
Bright Lights, Big Bombs
If you’re looking for something almost as powerful, and perhaps a bit more hip and less heady, stop by Galleria and join author Jay McInerney for the paperback release of his latest novel, The Good Life, a story of love, family, conflicting desires, and catastrophic loss set in post-9/11 New York City. Best known for Bright Lights, Big City, McInerney has been praised as the contemporary F. Scott Fitzgerald. Of course, I consider Fitzgerald contemporary literature, so I resent anyone trying to displace him, but McInerney certainly writes beautifully, and he has Fitzgerald’s knack for illustrating the more internal corruption of wealth.
7:30 p.m., Barnes & Noble Booksellers Galleria, 3225 W. 69th St., Edina; 952-920-0633.
MUSIC
Red Rap
Don’t go on ignorantly believing that Native American music is all about pow-wows and honky tonk. Stop on down to the Fine Line tonight and catch the Indigenous In Music concert, featuring Buggin Malone, Bluedog, Red Pony Band, and Cochise Anderson. Buggin Malone won Best Rap/R&B/Hip-Hop Recording at the 2006 Native American Music Awards as well as Best Rap Artist of the Year at the 2006 Indian Summer Music Awards. Bluedog, inspired by Stevie Ray Vaughan, Santana, Lynyrd Skynyrd, and Jimi Hendrix — with a touch of Janis Joplin vocals — offers a unique blend of contemporary blues, rock, R&B and folk. Cochise, meanwhile, serves up an eclectic ensemble of word songs and powerful poetry with a hip-hop flavor over traditional Native American beats. It should be an interesting show.
8 p.m., Fine Line Music Cafe, 318 1st Ave N, Minneapolis; 612-338-8100; get a free ticket.
Listen to Buggin Malone.
Listen to Bluedog.
Listen to Cochise Anderson.
…until the bullpen (Version ’06) stepped in and put an end to the mess.
Torii Hunter, who had 21 doubles in all of 2006, already has eleven.
The Go-Go Twins: though they’ve been out-homered 23-9, Minnesota now has 46 doubles to opponents’ 25 (and 19 stolen bases to opposing teams’ four).
Boof is going to have to learn to keep the ball in the yard, but when you look at his numbers from today –seven hits, seven strike outs, and one walk in five innings pitched– it sure seems like he’s close to getting it together. Sidney Ponson he ain’t.
Kevin Slowey in Rochester: 2-0, with six hits, eleven strike outs, and zero walks in eleven and two-thirds innings pitched.
Okay, naturally I’m getting around to my playoff preview less than an hour before the first tip. What follows is my take on seven of the eight series (I went more in depth on my favorite matchup, Houston-Utah, in the post marked “A Little Bit of Everything” a few days ago.), listed in chronological order.
New Jersey (6th seed) vs. Toronto (3)
This is where Raptors power forward Chris Bosh stamps himself on the public consciousness as one of the top ten players in the NBA or continues moving under the radar as a mere superstar-to-be. The Nets shouldn’t have anyone who can contain Bosh: Mikki Moore, Jason Collins, Josh Boone, Bostjian Nachbar and an ancient Cliff Robinson are the possibilities. Sometimes Bosh is a little too unselfish (in a usually good, KG kind of way), but if the Raptors are going to win what should be a tough series, he has to exert his will in the paint and exploit the Nets glaring lack of interior defense.
New Jersey relies on their big (but medium-sized) three of Jason Kidd, Vince Carter, and Richard Jefferson. They are the hottest team in the NBA over the last ten at 8-2, but the Raps have weathered injuries to Jorge Garbajosa and a slew of others and still won two out of three in 2007 (34-17), which has got to be the best mark in the Eastern Conference. New Jersey loves to jack up treys, with the main troika abetted by Eddie House and Nachbar, both of whom are better than 42% behind the arc. If the Nets are scoring from long range and able to compel an up and down tempo, they have a very good shot at winning.
Raptors coach Sam Mitchell has done a marvelous job of maximizing his talent, but for Toronto to prevail a number of uncertain things have to happen. Not only does Bosh have to go off, but two players with Minnesota connections–center Rasho Nesterovic and forward Kris Humphries–have to make the Nets pay for ignoring them to stop Bosh. In his daunting matchup with Kidd, quicksilver point guard TJ Ford needs to know when to push the pace to exhaust the older, heavier Kidd, and when to pull back and not give oxygen to New Jersey’s lethal transition game. Toronto is also leaning on folks with precious little experience, like Jose Calderon, Joey Graham and Anthony Parker. The last X factor is Vince Carter. Will his adrenaline, goosed by his return to Toronto, where he is justly loathed for quitting on the franchise, force selfish play at the expense of better efficiency from Kidd and Jeff, or will he stay within himself and flow within the Nets’ silky offense?
Prediction: Bosh and Carter both play well, if sporadically, with Bosh’s low points more injurious to the Raps. Kidd dominates his matchup with Ford (on the court even more than the stat sheet) and New Jersey wins in 6 or 7.
Miami (4) vs. Chicago (5)
The obvious question is, what kind of Miami team will show up? Wade carried them early, then got hurt. Shaq returned and carried them for a few weeks, then, as Shaq is wont to do in the regular season, began pacing himself as the Heat plummeted. Coach Pat Riley even took a little time off to refreshen himself for the post-season (via a conveniently timed surgery). Wade still has a bum shoulder. Can these guys–including vets like Payton, Walker, Posey, etc–all just flip a switch and not only elevate their games but have their roles sorted out and fallen into sync? That’s a tall, tall order. On the other hand, there is a tremendous amount of talent and guile among the main actors in this franchise.
Here are the keys for the Heat:
Which way are the refs calling it? Shaq has always been the toughest guy to judge on the charge/blocking foul spectrum–he both gets fouled and fouls others without drawing whistles more than anyone in the league–and it will be interesting to see if the refs protect Wade’s ability to penetrate as much as they did last year during the playoffs.
Will the team continue to create a niche for Eddie Jones? The longtime Miami swingman, deprived of sharing in last year’s championship, is back in town after being cut by Memphis and provided the sort of hunger and hustle and glue-guy value that is absolutely vital for Miami’s chance at a repeat.
Can Kapono keep nailing treys? Having a kick-out option when the Bulls clog the lane on Wade and also prevent a dump-down to Shaq will really screw with Chicago’s gameplan if Kapono is hot.
The Bulls are much more of known commodity, with the only real questions being whether Nocioni’s plantar fasciitis has truly abated enough for him to be effective, and if Tyrus Thomas can contribute in a meaningful way after an uneven but recently encouraging rookie year. These are two of the deepest teams in the NBA, so the bench play will be a large factor: If Nocioni is hobbled and Thomas shakey, the Heat veteran subs could steal the show from their more star-studded starters.
Prediction: Too much discontinuity, even for a squad as talented and seasoned as Miami. Wade can’t perform at his peak and the play of Shaq comes and goes in a major way. Chicago in five or six.
Orlando (8) vs. Detroit (1)
Brian Hill has been popular enough in Orlando to enjoy two coaching stints with the Magic, but this is a Disney-crazed place that believes in plasticized cartoon fantasias and lemming-style entertainment, so let’s not mistake a source of enthusiasm for a beacon of competence in these parts. Which is a purposefully snide way to say: Why the hell didn’t Hill totally revolve his team around Dwight Howard? And will he finally, finally, get a clue in the playoffs?
The Magic shot out of the gate with a 7-3 record on the strength of Howard’s dominance, prompting early talk that the man-child was a legit MVP candidate. But then Orlando inexorably allowed mediocre point guard Jameer Nelson to control more and more of the offense, with horrific results. Bottom line, Nelson finished the season with 2 more field goal attempts than Howard, despite playing 688 fewer minutes. Howard’s FG percentage? 60.3% Nelson? 43%, including a paltry 33.5% from behind the three-point arc.
For this series, the Pistons have superior matchups at the point guard and small forward spots. Chauncey Billups is simply too strong, smart and talented for Nelson to have his way at either end of the court. The other player important to the offense, Grant Hill, goes up against Tayshaun Prince, an absolutely marvelous defender with quick feet and a huge wingspan. So, unless the Magic plan on riding the outside shooting of Hedo Turkoglu as the super secret plan for upsetting the squad with the best record in the East, they damn well better pound it inside with Howard, who is going up against emotionally inflammable Sheed Wallace, leg and a half phantom defender Chris Webber, the game but undersized Antonio McDyess, the enigmatic Nazr Mohammed, and anyone else the Pistons can throw into the breach.
In other words, the Pistons don’t have a suitable match-up for Orlando’s best player. If Brian Hill and company don’t make it priority one for Howard to average 30 points and 20 rebounds in this series, they will be swept in four straight. Given what I’ve seen from Hill this year, the prediction is Pistons in four.
Houston (5) vs. Utah (4)
To get my take on this series, scroll down to Point 3 on the April 17 entry, “A Little Bit of Everything.” Prediction: Houston in 5 or 6.
Washington (7) vs. Cleveland (2)
Could things have set up any better for LeBron James and the Cavs? First comes this walk-over of an injury-decimated Wizards squad, then a favorable matchup against either Toronto or New Jersey. Meanwhile, the Bulls have to go through Miami and Detroit to get to the conference finals, and the Pistons must cope with either the Bulls or the Heat in the second round; both of which, given Detroit’s thin bench, will leave them spent for the finals. Unlike Sports Illustrated’s Jack McCallum, I hardly think the Pistons will “coast” into the championship game, and as of right now would put my money on the Cavs playing the crown in three weeks or so.
The important thing for Cleveland is to establish the right kind of momentum; treat this series the way boxers deal with sparring partners. LeBron has to work on involving his teammates more often, especially Drew Gooden and Z Ilgauskas, who should be shooting 60% apiece (instead of 47.3% and 48.5%, respectively), by getting easy layups off LeBron’s penetration and pick and rolls. LeBron also have to start laying off the threes (31.%) and start working on his free throws (69.8%)–given the golden opportunity his team has been presented, it is time to stop playing stupidly. Defensive rotations need to be crisper, and the perimeter pressure has to be there from both Larry Hughes and Eric Snow. From the bench, more Aleksander Pavlovic and less Damon Jones; more Anderson Varejao and less Donyell Marshall. And if it costs a game or two to get everything humming, so be it. A gift has been presented–the Wiz without Arenas or Butler has no chance–and the Cavs need to exploit it for the long road ahead.
Prediction: Cleveland in 4 or 5.
Los Angeles Lakers (7) vs. Phoenix (2)
Get out your abacus, because this promises to be a wild and woolly, high-scoring series. The strategy for Phoenix under coach Mike D’Antoni has been to suck opponents into a run-and-gun game, secure in the knowledge that nobody plays that way better than the Suns. But pouring gasoline on the Lakers offense has enough risk to make this a compelling duel. If Kobe is in a groove and making good decisions–one dictated by circumstances rather than the impulses of his ego–and if Lamar Odom and Luke Walton start reveling in fast break drills, then this could easily be a reprise of last year’s classic, seven-game matchup, when Phoenix needed a mighty rally from a 3-1 deficit to prevail.
Yeah, the Suns have Amare Stoudamire back this season, but can he really be expected to play better than Boris Diaw, Raja Bell and Tim Thomas did in last year’s first round beside Shawn Marion on the Suns’ front line? No, the real key isn’t Stoudamire but whether Raja Bell can remain one of the best in the league at frustrating Kobe. If it gets personal, and Bryant wins the battle while losing the war, the Lakers will be quickly dispatched. But if the Lakers follow Phil Jackson’s superb gameplan from last year’s playoffs, and have Bryant distributing first and scoring second, especially given the increasing familiarity among Kobe-Walton-Odom, it might again go the distance.
Of course Phoenix won’t take the Lakers lightly again, and knowing that they’re staring at a gauntlet of San Antonio and Dallas to get to the championship series, they’ll be all business and anxious to dispatch LA as quickly as possible. Expect Kobe to put up some ridiculous numbers at least twice, and for Walton’s stock to rise. But in the end, the best player in the NBA this year, Steve Nash, will orchestrate enough clutch baskets to win the close ones, and the foot speed of Barbosa, the tenacity of Bell, the versatility of Marion, and the explosiveness of Stoudamire will simply be too much talent. Prediction: D’Antoni is right: Not even the Lakers can run and gun with the Suns. Phoenix in 6.
[Part II, written Sunday afternoon]
Denver 6 vs. San Antonio 3
There will be all sorts of chatter about the Melo-AI combo, the most prolific scoring duo to grace the playoffs since the shorts got baggy more than a decade ago. But Denver’s hopes of springing an upset probably depend more whether Marcus Camby can discourage the drives to the hoop by Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili that open up Tim Duncan’s off-the window jumpers and treys from the supporting cast–Brent Barry, Robert Horry, Michael Finley, Bruce Bowen–on the perimeter. Camby led the NBA in blocks per game. He’s also a decent threat on the offensive end, hoisting midrange jumpers trailing the break. Given San Antonio’s ability to get back in transition, he should have ample opportunities to shoot them after the Spurs have rebuffed the initial penetration.
The trade for Steve Blake (a move which only cost them the suddenly redundant Earl Boykins) was a masterstroke for the Nuggets, because Blake is that classic point guard you want as the fulcrum enabling both ends of the Melo-Iverson show. It will be interesting to see if Spurs coach Gregg Popovich uses Parker or Ginobili on Iverson; I’d opt for Parker, who has the foot speed, if not always the inclination, to stay with AI, while Ginobili’s height might hinder Blake’s court vision. If Parker (or Ginobili) can frustrate Iverson into selfish ball domination, and Bowen locks down on Melo, Camby’s defense and the banger-bulk of Nene and Najera become that much more important.
I anticipate bad blood before this series is over. It will be as physical as the Jazz-Rockets, and there is a surfeit of histrionic personalities involved, from coaches George Karl and Pops, to suffer-the-punishment penetrators like AI and Ginobili, to whiners like Duncan. Despite Karl’s wrongheaded penchant for fast-break basketball (even before he acquired Iverson), Denver will win or lose this series in the paint. And that’s why I’m predicting San Antonio in 5 or 6.
Golden State (8) vs. Dallas (1)
Perhaps never has the first game of a first-round playoff series been so crucial to the final outcome. By now everyone knows that Dallas finished six games better than any other NBA team at 67-15, but lost all three tilts with Warriors. The Mavs finished two games shy of the trophy last season, while Golden State is making its first post-season appearance in more than a decade. Whoever wins the opener will have a pretty credible mantra as a psychological edge the rest of the way: For GS, that they have Dallas’s number; for the Mavs, that the playoffs are a whole ‘nother thing than the regular season. This could be over quickly, in 4, 5 tops, or it could be a thrill-a-minute cliffhanger that goes all 7 games.
I’m splitting the difference. I do think Golden State matches up extremely well with the Mavs, with a deep team of versatile athletes that are playing loose and confident under the role-blurring, position-shifting style of coach Don Nelson. Baron Davis and Monta Ellis are more than a match for Jason Terry and Devon Harris in the backcourt, the trade that brought Al Harrington and Stephen Jackson from Indiana provided Nelson with the talented ‘tweeners he cherishes, and a couple of foreign imports, the center Andris Biedrins and swingman Mickeal Pietrus, are superb, relatively low-profile athletes who can get hot and ambush opponents.
But the Mavs will ultimately win because the Warriors are too inconsistent. There will be at least one game where Dallas blows them out by 30 or so, and another where the Mavs vast edge in playoff experience will enable them to escape with a win they otherwise wouldn’t earn. That will be the difference in what could be an extremely entertaining matchup of #1 versus #8 seeds. Prediction: Dallas in six.
One hand, feebly –or perhaps enthusiastically– waving goodbye.
Have we seen enough of Siddhartha?
Yes, I believe we have seen enough.
I had a lovely time at Voltage … I’m sorry I didn’t say so sooner.
You see, I was mightily impressed by the quality of the craftsmanship on display. By chance, I went to Voltage just after visiting with the owner of a fantastic local boutique. I was surprised to learn that s/he wasn’t going to the show. However, s/he did leave me with a local fashion critique, as well as a word of advice for the local couturieres: “Focus less on the trends, more on the detailing.”
Well, friend (who shall remain nameless), I’m happy to report that the local clothes-makers are one up. My favorite collections from Voltage were the following:
Those adorable, well-tailored jumpers from Annie Larson (one of which is posted above). And I just love how she paired them with jellies (at left). I’d get plantar fasciitis if ever I wore such flimsy things nowadays, but a girl can’t help but feel nostalgic for the strong arches of yore.
I also loved George Moskal‘s collection, which was supposedly inspired by the documentary Gray Gardens. Having watched that movie several times over, however, I must say, I don’t see the resemblance. (And besides … everyone, even Miuccia Prada, is copying Little Edie this season, right?) Actually, this collection struck me as being rather ’40s inspired. As a side note, I ought to mention that I stopped by the Design Collective last weekend (Voltage Fashion Weekend) and there spotted Moskal’s hit-of-the-runway babydoll dress. In the off chance you wondered who snagged that finery, check the inset. (Pleased to meet ya’; that’s me!)
Last but not least, I suppose it adds little to the conversation to note the strength of Katherine Gerdes‘ jersey dress collection. These pieces have flattering, but simple, cuts and drop-dead gorgeous drapes. In other words: Even chunky and/or busty girls can wear ’em! In fact, while shopping, I did spot the dress at left at Design Collective. It had been a favorite from the runway. It just seemed so sassy on that chick with the blonde afro! But, a dress like that you’ve got to be a very special kind of girl to carry off. On me it just looks like a toga. So, I was happy to notice, just yesterday, that Gerdes has finally launched her online store. Now I can order one up in turquoise or heather gray. (Oh, the agony!)
By the way, the photo above is by Jenn Torres.
Now that this blog is fully functional, I vow to be more punctual in providing fashion insights and smack talk. Thanks for reading, friends! Come again, will you?
I’ve been waiting months for this one. By agreeing to publicly discuss and examine their culpability in so profound a failure/lapse should be an acid test for any editor … and publisher, certainly those who have ever nattered about journalistic “transparency”.
Sometimes your credibility rests on your ability to say you were wrong.
Everyone’s talking about the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Film Festival, and for good reason: once again, the good fellows down at Minnesota Film Arts have pulled a rabbit from their collective hats, working with few resources to provide one of the great festivals in the country. There’s a slew of intriguing films this year, but none more interesting to me than those at the Childish Film Festival.
Deb Girdwood and Isabelle Harder have been fighting their own good fight to include the children each year. As I’ve written before, this is an awesome gift to parents in the Twin Cities and especially their kids. We’ve got art programs, theater, music, but very little in the way of adequate alternative movie programming for children. Yes, you can find DVDs and tapes kids can watch, but really, the Childish Film Festival is a place for people–kids–to gather and share experiences. It’s a place to charge the imagination, in ways that surpass the usual garbage that kids get from their local Cineplex.
I’m especially pleased with Bonkers which shows this Saturday, April 21 at 2:30 at the St. Anthony Main. Frankly, I can’t imagine a better afternoon than this: a picnic lunch along the Mississippi, then Bonkers in the early afternoon, followed by a walk and a talk about what your offspring just encountered.
Bonkers is a wacky, kooky, sad, and ultimately profound story of Bonnie, a young girl struggling with her family life. Her mother, Lis, is, in Bonnie’s words, “bonkers”. Lis struggles with what appears to be manic-depression, one minute eating ice cream with Bonnie and then, suddenly, waltzing crazily with the handsome waiter who serves them. Other days, poor Lis lays in bed all day, barely able to speak.
This situation is tolerable because of a loving Grandma who takes care of these two misfits. But when she’s killed in a car accident, Bonnie is thrust into the role of caregiver to her mom, has to feed herself, and stay out of the orphanage. Along the way, Bonnie gets involved in a variety of crazy mishaps, including trying to get her mother to produce a new baby brother, befriending the crazy lady next door, and bringing home an elephant.
Bonkers is crazy-fun, full of the mania kids love, gross-out scenes and touching moments of love and friendship. But it also has that patient, understanding, and ultimately respectful approach to life’s problems that American children’s films avoid like the plague. The filmmakers seem to understand, as ours do not, that children possess brains, are acutely observant, and can often take care of themselves better than adults. I challenge anyone to find a movie from this country with a mother as sexually active as Lis (and she’s no slut–she’s a lonely single mom who wants a good relationship), or that takes a good look at serious mental illness with such aplomb (if anything, we’d overdo the pathos, if we would address it at all). If you want an afternoon of cinematic fun that’s well acted, directed, and thought-provoking to boot, Bonkers is not to be missed.
