Barbara Bush's Chocolate Chip Cookies

Here is a how-to video on Barbara Bush's Chocolate Chip Cookie recipe. You can get the link to the recipe here:

http://allrecipes.com/recipe/10636/barbara-bushs-chocolate-chips/

Enjoy!

Blue bombs everywhere!!!

I've got a bone to pick with the restoration team at 20th Century Fox. Well, not just me, but a lot of people do. And it's validated. Let's begin with this. Take a look at these two screenshots of DESK SET: one from an SD DVD released in 2004 and one from a Blu-ray released 9 years later. How in Sam's Hell does one go from this:

to this:

Clearly something went wrong here. And what's funny is that NO ONE will speak up about it because everyone is afraid to. There are defenders, however. On www.dvdbeaver.com, an outside source told the website that the blue-ray (excuse the pun) was more accurate than the above shot, based on an IB technicolor print they had seen years ago. Ummmmmmmm? Can I just point out that being a DESK SET nerd, I have seen a 35mm print, two VHS, a laserdisc and a DVD transfer of this film and not once did I ever see the messy atrocity featured in that screenshot?

The paper Tracy is holding in this shot is blue. The posters are blue. His hair is blue. The walls are blue. Even the brown chairs are starting to look blue. And it's not just this one shot either!

Look! Even the damn title card's blue now! What in the world is going on? How is what is seen here any different than the Ted Turner colorizations of the early 1990s?

This isn't the first time this has happened with a Fox Home Video release. It's a recurring thing people have been noticing and pointing out regarding transfers but no one is really standing up and saying 'this is a problem'. Check out this screen shot from the Blu-ray of THE KING & I:

People did actually criticize this one, and 20th Century Fox made no effort to pull the release and fix the problem or address it, which makes me wonder if they acknowledge that this film was timed wrong. I will say this about THE KING & I though: a very intense restoration was done in the 1990s of the film for laserdisc, and the colors resembled the ones that people are most familiar with. In 2004, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences premiered a new restoration from the original Cinemascope 55 negative which toured the world and the color fading of the original negative was addressed. Anyone who has seen this 2004 restoration can also tell you that the film did not have this blue hue to it. So how can 20th Century Fox, for a minute, allow the slop in the screenshot above to get onto store shelves without so much as doing quality control of their product? By the way, for more information on that article that makes a big deal on the color correction of the 2004 restoration (which has the proper colors of the film), see this link: 

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/15/entertainment/ca-cinefile15.

So why does this bug so much? Isn't the content enough, lest some color timing issues? Nay, says this writer. People have been color timing film since day one, and everyone's interpretation of color is going to be a little different, but back in the day when filmmakers actually made films and didn't just have a shaky camera with special effects for two and a half hours, details that engage the viewer on a subconscious level (a foreign concept for most directors today) were minded. This balance of objects in a frame, the overall color palate of the frame, and even where certain colors are in the frame all equaled the great mise-en-scene formula of the film. When one starts to monkey with that to the extent of what you see above, the film as an art piece has been tainted.

Take for example the film REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. The presence of bright red in that film is so intricate to the story line due to its presence on Natalie Wood's lips, James Dean's jacket, the blood from Sal Mineo's flesh...all the same shade of bright red. Now imagine that someone with heavy influence in the restoration department had decided to improperly time the film's colors and that shade of red, which was a main theme of the film, was no longer visible....the relation of the three main characters might no longer subconsciously be reached by the viewer!

It's the same deal with THE KING & I. The presence of gold in the frame is so important. Gold represents the clash between the king and Anna. She is trying to teach her students that there is more to life than objects of monetary value. The king makes it a point, while surrounded by gold, to always talk about how expensive it is to have her there as a teacher. It is also intricate to their characters. In the screenshot shown above, he wears a gold vest, a symbol that he is about monetary value. She wears a white dress, symbolizing her pure heart. In a properly timed screenshot, this message comes across stronger. In the screenshot above, taken from the Blu-ray, it is completely lost.

We as an industry of film archivists, restorers, film theorists, and just as film enthusiasts who want to share these memories with future generations need to stand up and say enough is enough. These films need to be taken care of and ensured that in the transition from film to digital, we are doing our best to replicate a color experience similar to that of when the films were first shown-- if not identical, as close as we can get. So Fox Home Entertainment, please stop peeing on my childhood memories and hire a proper color timer.

The New Beaches Will Bomb Like Normandie

There's a new BEACHES coming out next month and it's bound to suck. Here's why.

 BEACHES is a great story, for those of you who haven't seen the 1988 original. It follows the story of two women, C.C. Bloom and Hillary Whitney who meet on the boardwalk as young girls, and follows their journey into adulthood. C.C. is a poor child star who blossoms into a successful actress while Hillary is an aristocrat who marries the wrong guy and is forced to raise a child by herself. Through their 30 year relationship, we see them struggle with adulting, have a falling out, reconcile, and eventually deal with Hillary's fatal diagnosis of viral cardiomyopathy. One might think "Hey, there's not a lot of plot here" which critics initially did, but there is more to the 28 year old gem that is now a home video and cable TV classic.

BEACHES was released under the fairly new Touchstone Pictures, a little side project designed by the Disney studio to bring in a more adult themed demographic. The films the studio was turning out were generally comedies and very successful. In 1987, Touchstone released STAKEOUT and THREE MEN AND A BABY. Both films cost roughly $15 million. STAKEOUT tripled its production cost in revenue while THREE MEN AND A BABY racked in $168 million, making it the most financially successful picture of the year. The line of films also gave Oscar nominated Bette Midler a contract for a series of films after she had been out of work for roughly seven years. She was rising to the top with hit Touchstone comedies like DOWN AND OUT IN BEVERLY HILLS, RUTHLESS PEOPLE, OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE and BIG BUSINESS, all of which were very successful. BEACHES would be her return to drama after many years.

So how does a film that is panned by critics, with a very thin plot line, triple its budget of $20 million to $60 million in its initial release? It had to be more than just a hit soundtrack. What were all the critics missing? To be honest, they missed what the people behind this remake are missing: the beautiful way that director Garry Marshall and editor Richard Hasley put it all together. The key to a successful drama is to enter the viewer's subconscious through subtle editing. Only when the subconscious is entered can a heart string really be tugged. If the viewer can see what the editor is doing without analyzing it, then the emotional effect is lost. BEACHES has many touching moments through its editing.

Consider the scene in which the film's hit song "Wind Beneath My Wings" is featured. Hillary is about to die and her death could have been a drawn out process. Instead, Hasley chose to edit it in a sequence that took 11 shots and less than two minutes. Here's a brief analysis. Shot one: Hillary on her bed, in focus as C.C., out of focus, is talking to a nurse about getting her released so she can die at home.

Cut to a melancholy C.C. looking out from a porch. What is she witnessing that is so sad and difficult in her face?

Cut to Hillary and her daughter saying their goodbyes on the beach as C.C. walks towards them.

Cut back to C.C. as her expression changes from sad and difficult to sad and accepting of Hillary starting to fade away.

Cut back to Hillary on the beach. The camera zooms in on the beach chairs as C.C. sits next to her.

Cut to C.C. as she turns and smiles at Hillary, in an attempt to lift her spirits.

Cut to the beach sunset. The beach has the potential to symbolize so much but for this writer, it symbolizes where life begins and ends, and also where C.C. and Hillary's relationship begins and ends (they met on the Atlantic City boardwalk toward the beginning of the film when Hillary got lost).

Cut back to C.C. as a look of fear hits her face.

Cut back to the beach sunset as the camera follows a horse trotting on the sand, and the sun has now mostly set, two symbols of Hillary's soul leaving.

Cut to the funeral. Hillary's coffin is revealed under two symbolic curtains. A group of bodies in black suits in front of the camera peel away to reveal a Hearst, which drives off to finally reveal a coffin. We see a figure in black in front of it.

The camera cuts to reveal the figure as C.C., and we know that Whitney has in fact passed.

So simple, and yet so poignant. There is no dialogue after that first shot-- just music and sound effects. How did the critics miss this? How did the people who decided to remake the film miss this? Unless Lifetime plans on doing a shot-for-shot remake, there's no way their film will even compare. It's debatable whether or not viewers pay attention and notice the editing details of the sequence outlined in this post, but the fluidity is what triggers each level of emotion within them and keeps them returning to this film for repeated viewing. It's flattering that Idina Menzel and Nia Long want to star in a remake, but it's bound to fail, plain and simple. Why? Because the potential of artistic merit in the direction and editing that the original had is lacking.

How the Rosie O'Donnell show saved my life

Growing up gay in a small conservative town in Wisconsin, school was a nightmare. I was picked on, called names, and just felt...different. I was different. I was a gay overweight Indian. This was a town where it was expected for teen boys to fall into the conforming net of society. One was supposed to dress a certain way, gel their hair a certain way, listen to a certain kind of music, even watch specific TV shows. To extend a toe off of this path was to declare the right to be humiliated.

I didn't know it was okay to be gay because I didn't know any gay men. I didn't know anything other than the word "gay" associated with "sin" "Hell" "pervert" "child molester" "weird" "wrong" or "troubled". The connotation of "gay" was never a positive thing. I felt like I was doomed. More than that, I was blossoming into a young man with ideas and opinions, as one does at that age, and my homosexual identity was beginning to become more present. It was becoming harder to disguise myself, which meant that I was starting to expose myself to more bullying on a regular basis. Every day, the bullying got worse and worse. The name calling turned more vile. It then turned into threats. I was living in a constant state of fear, isolation, and disgust of who I was and where I was headed in life.

There was a daily savior to all of this, thankfully. Every day I would get a ride home from school, and to wind down from the hassles, I would throw off my sneakers, plop down, and from 3pm-4pm tune in to my FOX affiliate for The Rosie O'Donnell show. Rosie O'Donnell, with her energy, kush balls, live Broadway performances, interviews with legendary performers, and a heart of charity and love lifted me out of a dark depression I faced.

I was learning about what my hobbies were, and began to take an interest in pop history. This was at a time when there was no Youtube, music videos couldn't be downloaded, and the internet gave you one picture every 10 minutes. Rosie's show would dig through old archives, however, and show clips of rare television shows, live concerts, vintage Tony Award performances (her show displayed a large array of Broadway legends) and I was soon learning that I had a large passion for retro film and television clips, and wanted to veer in that direction professionally when I grew up. I was beginning to find my purpose in life-- my motivation. This helped me come out of my shell and begin to gain the self confidence I needed to not be afraid of the world or myself.

But this show was more than just a distraction to me, it was also a lifesaver. Because episodes featured prominent musicians and Broadway actors, among other popular Hollywood folk, a number of LGBT guests, openly gay at a time when this was rarely discussed, came on screen and suddenly I began to see that there was a light at the end of the tunnel for me. Not only was I not all of those terrible things that people associate with the word "gay" just because I was gay, but here were positive role models that I could look up to and know that one could still be LGBT and be very successful in life. Rosie O'Donnell, years before she came out of the closet herself, taught me through her guests that to be LGBT was nothing to be ashamed of and that it would all be alright.

So, from the bottom of my heart, I would like to say thank you, both to her and her show, for giving me that lesson.


------------------------------------

Follow me on twitter @mediamancub