Christopher F Reidy
Christopher Reidy
  • Home
  • Blog
  • 83 In the Shade
  • Artwork
  • Videos
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Product Information

CFR BLOG PAGE

The thoughts & Musings of Christopher F. Reidy*

NOTE: Apparently this webpage has some glitches. It tends to randomly switch out visual material.  Why?  Don't ask me.  So, if a pic doesn't match the text...it doesn't!  Rest assured I am trying to amend this problem.  When I get around to it.

*(may contain misuse of apostrophes, miss spellings, overabundance of semi-colons,  wrong word usage, etc.
Please pardon our appearance while we create a new blog experience for you!)

​ALSO: 
Please find a complete index of blog posts on the homepage, for your convenience!

AND YET ANOTHER NOTE:
The visual switcheroos on these blogs have reached a point where there's no way I can correct them all, so I'm just going to leave them be.  If they don't match the text, just think of them as whimsical funsies decorating the text.  I will continue to supply pictures; but I cannot guarantee their context: much like my mind.
Thank you for your patience!

A FURTHER NOTE:
I try to keep this website relatively free of anything truly morally reprehensible or obscene.  However, in the pursuit of honesty; I will be quite frank about sexuality; as I feel one should be.  To  wit: this website is not for children.  It is decidedly "adult"; although not necessarily not "childish."  I do not feel it is suitable, in some instances, for anyone below the age of 17.  Or maybe a very mature 16...or 15 even.  
THIS WEBSITE IS RATED: PG-15

Product Information

Just What Is "The Male Gaze" Anyways?

3/30/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
You hear this phrase a lot.  "The Male Gaze."  It's usually applied generically to images of women by men (literal ones) and the way men look at women (metaphorically); that is to say sexually; in an attempt to objectify the woman and thus render her powerless, I suppose.  That's how I interpret it culturally.  That's my take on the term from the dialectic.
Now you see, I'm already getting all high-falutin' and academic.  Let's back up.
I wanted to know where this term came from, so I did some research.  The phrase, "The Male Gaze" was popularized by a "feminist film theorist," Laura Mulvey in an article she wrote in 1973 that was published in a British film magazine ("film theory journal") called Screen. The article was entitled: "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema."  The premise of the piece is that Ms. Mulvey is analyzing the act of viewing cinema, particularly images of women, from a Freudian viewpoint.  How the act of being "fascinated" by film images is determined by the already present fascination of looking at anything.  Confused yet?
I challenge you to read this article and make sense of it on the first reading.  I've read it three times, with numerous reference books at hand, in an attempt to get to the heart of what Ms. Mulvey is saying.  Try making sense of this:

​"The paradox of phallocentrism in all its manifestations is that it depends on the image of the castrated women to give order and meaning to its world.  An idea of woman stands as linchpin to the system: it is her lack that produces the phallus as a symbolic presence, it is her desire to make good the lack that the phallus signifies."

And we're only starting the second paragraph.  Can you make sense of this?  Do you need to be a Freudian scholar to make sense of it?  To me, she's saying that because a woman doesn't have a penis, men turn her into a giant penis.  And then stare at her?  Is this what she's saying?  Am I wrong?  Does the "male gaze" then mean that men stare at women not to objectify them; but because they're obsessed with their missing penis?
Picture
​Ms. Mulvey then dives even deeper into this idea that because a woman does not possess a penis she is a symbol of castration and thus fear(?) for men and further fascination/obsession.  I'm guessing that "phallocentrism" is synonymous with "patriarchal unconscious": both meaning, I suppose, that men run the show.  The Big Show.  As in life as we know it.  So women represent to men (with their lack of a penis) the "castration threat."  Also, that women can bear children (or not), is not power.  The woman only "raises her child into the symbolic"; which I think means into the status quo of phallocentrism/partirarchal unconscious.  I'm trying to figure this out myself, since Ms. Mulvey uses the most impenetrable and obfuscating language I've ever read in one of these academic theses.  And that's saying something!  Why do academic writers think that putting their thoughts into the most obtuse language makes it seem smarter?
Picture
That's Freud's actual psychoanalysis couch.  Very shabby-chic/Ralph Lauren.  Not what I would've imagined. 
My question for Ms. Mulvey might be: Why Freud?  If she was (is) a feminist, why buy into a patriarchal/phallocentric line of thinking put forth by a man?  Why not just outright reject Freud and his theories.  I mean, they're only theories.  Like "penis envy."  Is that really a scientific fact?  Are all men really afraid that women want to castrate them?  I mean, if that were true, wouldn't most men be trying way less to get laid?  

​So anyways, later in the article, Ms. Mulvey gets into things like scopophilia; which is deriving pleasure from looking at things.  She then examines this phenomenon in the context of watching a traditional movie.  She then posits that the very act of looking at a woman negates her very existence.  She argues (I think), that movies are a male dominated enterprise--the making of them, that is--and that the Woman is in the film only as a catalyst to spur the male to action of whatever kind; and that is it.  Once she does this, she dissolves into nothingness.  Here's another word-salad of a sentence from that section:

Both (scopophilia and ego) pursue aims in indifference to perceptual reality, and motivate eroticised phantasmagoria that affect the subject's perception of the world to make a mockery of empirical objectivity. 

I'm not sure even Ms. Mulvey knows what this means.  My take is that she's saying (and I'm not sure) is that looking at a movie image lets your forget who you are and get turned on by it.  ?
Picture
So, in section 3 we finally get to Ms. Mulvey's first use of the actual term: male gaze.  Here are the sentences:

The determining male gaze projects its fantasy onto the female figure, which is styled accordingly. In their traditional exhibitionistic role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote "to-be-looked-at-ness."
​
"To-be-looked-at-ness" has to be the most understandable string of words in her entire piece.  And to that I say: "Duh!"
Of course women in films are styled accordingly to be looked at.  Who was it that said that the entire history of cinema was boys behind cameras taking pictures of girls in front of them?  Or something of that nature.  And let's remove the camera, shall we?  It's still the same dynamic.  And we might ask the question: "which came first, the male gaze or the female look"?  And not only do women style themselves accordingly to be looked at by men; they even more so style themselves accordingly to be looked at by other women.  I don't think we can really blame phallocentrism here.  Or even chalk it up to that.
Picture
Further on, Ms. Mulvey delves into the specifics of how the female character in a film only serves as the driving force for the male lead's development: his ultimate heroism.  She is only there so that he can be The Man.  The Man who enforces the patriarchal world that all women/feminists are trapped in and must eradicate.  But what about films that have female leads?  I found this parenthesized statement rather telling:

(There are films with a woman as main protagonist, of course.  To analyse this phenomenon seriously here would take me too far afield...)

Too far afield?  Her article is entitled "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema."  That's a pretty big field.  I think leaving out an actual consideration of female protagonists in film is a cop-out.  And what about all those female cinema goers who are in the auditorium, gazing at the ladies on the screen.  Are they enacting the Male Gaze themselves?  I think her theory really starts falling apart when you start factoring in those obvious elements.

​Finally, we get back to the whole "castration fear" hypothesis.  The penis-less Woman on the screen poses a threat to the gazing male ego.  The male ego must then either 1) Demystify the woman by examining her mystery? 2) Devaluing, punishing, saving her 3) complete disavowal/denial by turning the woman into a fetish object (a pair of legs or a face).

So, "The Male Gaze," in Ms. Mulvey's view, is a Freudian based theory of Woman as castration threat and Male Gaze as way of destroying threat.  That's how I read it.  But does it have validity?  I don't know.  You have to assume that Freud was right about everything in order for this thesis to work.  But if it doesn't (Freud's part of this); then couldn't "The Male Gaze" be a very positive thing?  A simple admiration of women and their inherent beauty?  A case of the male simply gazing at a woman because he finds her attractive; not wanting to control or destroy her?
Picture
In the very last lines of the article, again, confusingly presented, I think Ms. Mulvey is advocating for the destruction of a hundred years of film grammar.  She wants to remove, it seems, visual pleasure from narrative cinema.  If that's the case, why make movies?  She says that the image of women has been stolen continually to be used for pleasure (even outside of the male gaze?).  Here is the last sentence.  What do you think?  I think negating the pleasure of looking at women, from narrative cinema or anywhere else, would be a mistake.

Women, whose image has continually been stolen and used for this end, cannot view the decline of the traditional film form with anything much more than sentimental regret.

Well, I think anyone who would only go to see non-traditional film forms instead of a Lana Turner movie would regret that choice pretty quick. 
Picture
0 Comments

Thoughts On the Slap Seen 'Round the World

3/29/2022

0 Comments

 
A) There's already merch?  Wow...
B) Watching it, I had the sneaking feeling it was staged...
C) So, why would they stage this?  Perhaps the incredible amounts of publicity it is already generating?
D) If it wasn't staged I can only wonder what took so long.  I mean, hasn't everyone wanted to slap Chris Rock?  I mean       he had a show about his life called Everybody Hates Chris, right?
E) Chris Rock's completely unphased response.  Isn't it sort of an involuntary response to touch your face after it's              been struck?  
F) Chris Rock is so bad-ass that he can take a full-on, open-palmed face slap that sends him backwards and then                react as though nothing had happened?  Maybe...but I'm suspicious.  Otherwise, damn!  Represent Chris!
G) The body language of both after the slap does seem to suggest it was real; in which case Will was completely in the       wrong.  There's no defending it.
H) I never thought I'd be on team Chris Rock.
I) Actually, I'm on team Carlton.  Alfonso Ribeiro is the true Star in my book.
Picture
J) I've never thought poking fun of audience members from the stage was ever very funny.  At the Oscars, it reached its nadir with the 2013 "We Saw Your Boobs" number.  Now someone deservedly should've been slapped for that.  I don't find "roasting" funny.  I just don't.  Never did.  That's just me.
​K) That is all.
0 Comments

JAWS!...The Musical!

3/22/2022

0 Comments

 
If you read this blog, then you are probably aware that I am like "super-sensitive" about plagiarism and intellectual property theft.  Why?  Well, because I think I'm a source of supply (I'm not going to use the word victim and buy into that mentality).  But also, I know that in having this public blog I am putting stuff "out there" that others may be inspired by.  And that's cool.  However, if you're going to borrow my cup of sugar, just don't pretend you bought it.  Anyways, I don't want to linger on that.
You also may recall in a recent series of blogs that I started writing a screenplay for a movie musical version of "Jaws," the Spielberg classic from 1975.
Well, the other day, what pops up in my smartphone feed?  An announcement that The Seattle Rep has cast their "Spielberg" in their upcoming musical version of the making of the movie Jaws.
Their show is called "Bruce," after the nickname of the mechanical shark from the movie.  Now, I had no idea this project was being developed when I started up my version (which I've abandoned: I have other stuff I need to do; and I wasn't really serious about it anyways).  And I'm not saying I've been ripped off again (they announced their show in July of 2021; I started my version in early 2022). Maybe I'm saying "great minds think alike"? Wink, wink.
But what I am saying (again); as I've said it before: things zip through the zeitgeist.  That's how you end up with three versions of the same story in three different movies released at the same time.  Or a period in the culture where a certain theme gets a lot of play.  Like remember in the early 70's there were all those songs about evil, witchy women?
Witchy Woman by the Eagles. Rhiannon by Fleetwood Mac. Evil Woman by E.L.O. and so on and so on...​
Picture
So, break a fin Bruce! And fingers crossed you make it to Broadway, because I really want to see it!  It sounds like a ludicrous, totally unlikely, possibly disastrous kind of project; but that's exactly what Art needs to be.  Otherwise, you end up with Finding Nemo, The Musical.  Am I right people?

CFR 3/22/22
0 Comments

Celebrity Slut Support

3/13/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Joan Crawford QCs her sex tape, believed to be Hollywood's first.

Warning: more frank talk about dirty stuff.  May contain "triggering" material. Reader discretion is advised.

Joan Crawford was a slut.  It's pretty well established.  She did little to hide her voracious sexual appetite.  She made it a point to nail every new stud that arrived in Tinseltown.  Getting banged by Joan was a badge of honor for newbies and wannabes.  Male and female (when she was in the mood for a taco).  Joan probably banged more stars then there are in the heavens.  At least more than the average studio boss, as they were more or less limited to one studio.  Joan was unabashed, by all accounts, of her legendary lady lothariority.  She pretty much bragged about it.  She was a slut and she didn't care.  Nobody was going to shame her.  If L.B. Mayer could get laid (layed?) as much he wanted, no questions asked, then why couldn't Joan?  She was really ahead of her time.  An unapologetic slut.  I think that's one of the reasons gay men love her so much.  It's so easy to be slutty if you're a good looking gay man (even not so good looking). 
Now, let me clarify, before you go running to your local GLAAD chapter to report me as a Log Cabin Republican or something.  The opportunities for a gay man to be slutty are endless.  Now you can find out where a slutty guy looking for action and how many clicks away from you he is, in real time, via your phone.  On an airplane and want to join the mile high club with another slutty guy?  Just click the Grindr app on your phone and meet him in the john.  That's how easy it is.  And guys are guys.  They're horny.  Women do not generally engage in anonymous and instantaneous hook-ups.  That's why there are no female glory holes outside of a John Waters movie.  Or cruisy areas of parks and beaches where women wander around looking for sex.  That's just not how women operate.  And if they did operate that way, how many straight guys do you think would go to these places to seek them out?  It's a good question, but I'm guessing a lot.
Actually, I just searched "female glory hole" and a whole lot of stuff popped up.  Yes, women on the business side of  glory holes.  But you know it was a man's idea.  But I digress.
Picture
Warren Beatty holding his gun on the set of Bonnie and Clyde.

Can a straight man be a slut?  Sure he can.  He's just not going to be called a "slut."  He's going to be called a "womanizer" or a "lothario" or a "Cassanova" or a "ladie's man."  All of these terms being more badges of honor than insults.
Just to be clear here, I'm talking about men who in no way have to coerce, force or intimidate a woman into sex.  I'm talking about men like Warren who had to fight off women with a stick.  I wonder if Joan Crawford and Warren Beatty hooked up? He started out in LaLaWood in the late 50's.  Joan was at the height of her Hard As Nails Women of a Certain Age period:
Picture
Yeah, he was in his prime and she was at her peak.  You know they did it!

Before I go into detail about the sluttyness of certain celebrities; I should be up front and say that I was not immune to the lifestyle back in the day.  And by "back in the day" I mean the 80's.  The 80's might have been the sluttiest decade ever; even sluttier than the 70's, if that's possible.  And apparently it was!  I am not, here, going to go into the details of my personal sluttiness; suffice to say that I had my moments.  Perhaps a non-fiction book, investigating the roots of my own personal sluttiness (how do you spell it anyways?) would be the route to go with those particular personal reflections.  I will say that my own sluttiness was borne of loneliness and self-esteem issues.  I'll leave it at that. 

So, let's talk about "celebrity sex tapes."  Does a celebrity who makes a sex tape automatically become a slut?  I would argue, yes.  I think anyone who would make a sex tape, celebrity or otherwise, is kinda slutty.  The two most famous celebrity sex tapes made money for both of the stars (Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian), allegedly.  Millions in the case of Kardashian.  Don't tell me that wasn't all planned.  And of course, that sex tape led to Keeping Up With the Kardashians.  That's a whole other kind of sluttiness.  That's being a slut for money, fame, luxury goods, more money, more fame, haute couture, low couture, mid-level couture, Dress Barn runway (a real draw), publicity, conspicuous consumption, designer goods, luxury cars, VIP rooms, plastic surgery, kitchen appliances, bigger and bigger implants, luxury houses, high rent zip codes, migraine medications, even more publicity, selfies, "influencing," camera time, media saturation, jewelry, patio furniture, endorsements, products, goods....stuff.  Stuff, stuff and more stuff.  One more endorsement...don't worry...it's wafer thin...
And I'm not just talking about Kim.*  I'm talking about her whole family.  I'm sorry, they're just gross.  They take American Wretched Excess to new heights.  Or lows.  It's like Kim's bum gets bigger and bigger with every latest acquisition.  And don't give me all that "...wha, wha, whaaa...they'rrrrrre body shammmmming meeeeeeee..." 
Look Kim, if you don't want your ass talked about and/or criticized; keep it in your pants.  Stop oiling it up and taking selfies of it.  Thank you.
Picture
But celebrity slutiness goes both ways, so to speak.  We've also got what is known in the common parlance as a "Starfucker."
A starfucker is someone who targets celebrities with the intent of, well...fucking them.  But that is so crude.  Let's use "make love," instead.  I've talked about the "Celebrity Love Pass": you know, that ridiculous thing where committed couples give each other a pass if say, Mr. Smith happens to run into his pass at a Holiday Inn; so he gets to make love to Gwyneth Paltrow; that is, if Gwyneth is so interested.  Mrs. Smith gets to make love to LL Cool J if he happens to be up for it at the Motel 6.  That thing.
Now, the starfucker (not to be confused with the "groupie" which is more of a music thing) is someone who finds themselves around celebrities/stars on a fairly regular basis.  Like, a movie critic, say.  Let's pick a well known critic and assume he or she was a "starfucker"; on a purely hypothetical level, of course.  Gene Shalit, say.  Yes, let's use Gene as an example...
Picture
Gene was a pretty powerful critic at one point.  I think.  Let's pretend it's 1986 and the cast of Howard the Duck arrive at 30 Rock to plug the movie on the TODAY show.  Gene makes it clear in the green room that he's willing to give the film a rave review, unlike nearly every other film critic in the country.  That is, if Lea Thompson is willing to "come by my office later." Or maybe Tim Robbins.  Or maybe both.  Because Tim and Lea both know that the film (and thusly, their careers) needs all the help it can get.  And they both know that Gene's solicitous hands on their shoulders means he wants to give mustache rides.
I bet a lot of critics pulled this tactic.  I wonder how often it worked?  Probably more than you'd think.  And who's to say their aren't a lot of stars out there that want to get F'd?  You know, the slutty ones, like Ms. Crawford.  The ones that have a kinky kink where banging someone with "alternative looks" turns them on.  Like maybe Lea Thompson would be totally into Gene Shalit.  She can put another notch on her lipstick case; right next to Roger Ebert's, Gene Siskel's and Pauline Kael's.  Hypothetically, natch.
Picture
So, why do so many people want to F stars and get slutty with them?  I'm not sure.  Stars are just the same old people like us, who got lucky.  They get the Hollywood gloss and put up on a movie screen and then become unobtainable.  So, I suppose the fame part, has a great deal to do with it.  And charisma, I suppose.
So, here's a million dollar idea that will satisfy, hopefully, all the sluttiness on either side of the equation:
The Celebrity Look-alike Escort Service!
That doesn't exactly roll off the tongue though.  We've gotta come up with something more flashy...how about...
StarFuckers Inc.?  Nah, too crude.  What about, The Celebrity Clone Love Encounter?  No.  How about, Fauxlebrity Love Match?  Yeah, I kinda like that.
Fauxlebrity Love Match.​
Picture
God knows this may already exist.  Let's listen in...

(Phone ringing) 
Fauxlebrity Love Match.  How may I direct your call?
How does this work?
How does what work, Sir?
Your service...
Well, if you visit our website, you can find the celebrity look-alike of your choice--
Aaron Rodgers!
We do have an Aaron Rodgers; but he's booked--
Jake Gyllenhaal!
He's out of town.  Very popular you know--
Gene Shalit!
I'm afraid we don't have him.  How about Harvey Keitel?
Young Harvey Keitel?
We have fours Harvey Keitels, at various life stages.  Our middle aged Harvey is available right now...
That could work...
We also have packages.  Would you like to hear about them?
Yes, please.
Well, we have celebrity themed package deals.  For example, you could purchase our Golden Girls package and our incredible versions of Dorothy, Rose, Blanche and Sofia are yours for the night.  Or weekend!
Are they in character?
Well...uhhm...yes...
What if I wanted it to be Bea Arthur, Rue McClanahan, Betty White and Estelle Getty?
What's the difference?
They wouldn't be in character.  They'd be playing themselves.
But Sir, they wouldn't be the actual stars.  Those actresses have all passed away.
Would your employees be willing to pretend they were actually those actresses and then go in and out of both those characters and the characters they played on The Golden Girls?
I suppose you'd have to discuss it with them...
I'm looking at the website right now.  I see you have a Mary Tyler Moore Show package.
Oh yes!  It's one of our best-sellers!
But what if I just wanted Ed Asner and John Amos?
John who?
John Amos.  He played Gordy the Weatherman.
Ah, could you describe him?
He played the dad on Good Times.
Oh, of course!  His character is not part of The Mary Tyler Moore Show package; but he is part of the Good Times package.  And I've heard he really is a good time!
What If I just wanted Lou Grant?
I'm sorry, but we can't break up a package.  You'd have to pay for Mary, Rhoda, Phyllis, Ted Baxter, Georgette and Murray as well.
If I did that, would they all have to come?
Excuse me?
I mean, could it just be Lou and the others could stay home?
Well, the look-alikes in the packages have a kind of routine.  Maybe the other six could just watch?  I mean, you're paying for them anyway.
What kind of freak do you think I am?
Picture
I'm sorry Sir, I didn't mean to imply that you--
I'm just kidding.  I'm a total freak.  So what about Sue Ann Nivens?
Who?
You know; "The Happy Homemaker" at WJM, played by Betty White.
Right!  Well, you see, our Betty White is part of The Golden Girls package...
If I purchased the MTM package, could I get her?
But you just said you only wanted Ed and John.  That would make it much more expensive. And as we've discussed, Fauxlebrity Love Match doesn't break up sets.
It just wouldn't seem right without Sue Ann...
Sir, I really think you're over-thinking this...
I see here you have a Dirty Grandpa package...
Yes, we do; another popular one; and it has an opening!
Yeah, so...like...what stages of life are Zac Efron and Robert De Niro in?
Well, actually, it's interesting that you ask.  Senior citizen Robert De Niro or Dick Kelly, as his character is named, is having a hernia operation.  However, Godfather II era De Niro could fill in.  And our Zac Efron, a.k.a. Jason Kelly, is approximately the age he was in the movie--give or take a year or two.
But doesn't that sort of wreck the whole "grandpa" thing?  I mean if I order a dirty grandpa; I want a dirty grandpa.
I understand your position; but it's all I can offer you at this point.  But I've gotta say...Godfather Part II era De Niro is not too shabby.
Do you have a Godfather package?
We did, but we've had trouble finding good Diane Keatons.
Will the Kelly's recreate the shirtless scene from the movie.
Oh yes.  And the pantless scene.  And the underwearless scene.  Whatever your scene is, The Kelly men will deliver!  Except the grandpa thing.
Do you have a High School Musical package?
No Sir, we don't.  That would be illegal.  We do have a Grease package though.  No one from that movie was under twenty-five.
Nah, Dody Goodman is a little too spicy for my tastes.  Yeah, book me for the Dirty, not really Grandpa package for tomorrow night.
And how would you like to pay for that?
Diner's Club.
Great!  That'll be five-thousand, two-hundred and seventeen dollars and thirty-nine cents.
(Click)
Sir?  Sir?  Hello...pffffft.  Cheap bastard.
Picture
And scene!

You know, I'm not sure if this blog is in support of sluts or slut shaming.  I would never want to shame anyone; but when it comes to being a slut, perhaps a little shaming is a good thing.  You know, a gentle shaming that works as a prophylaxis.  Also, being a slut can put you into actual danger, so maybe being discouraged from the lifestyle isn't necessarily an awful thing.  So be careful out there.  Be safe and play safe!


* Not to single out Kim.  I actually like Kim.  She has charm and a winning personality.  I get why people are obsessed with her.  She's living that life that so many of us want.  Except I don't like that lifestyle: the part where they shove it down everyone else's throat.  I mean, if you're fabulously wealthy great.  You've gotta spend your money somehow.  But maybe instead of going to the Met Gala and sitting around getting glam sessions while you drone on endlessly about absolutely nothing...and having it televised.
Maybe you could use your show (and there's another show coming, from Uncle Walt, no less) to do something a little more kulturally enriching.  How about, "The Kardashians Go to Outward Bound."  Or, "Khloe and Kourtney Join the Peace Korps."  Or maybe we could follow the family as they all learn a trade at a local school.  Perhaps the West Valley Occupational Center.  Kim could learn plumbing.  Khloe could learn how to be a pharmacy technician.  Kourtney could learn how to be a manicurist.  They all could learn how to be manicurists, right?  They're certainly into their nails (and girls, I'm sorry, but those eagle talons don't look good on anyone.  They just don't.  They make you look like a coven of witches).  Kris could go into video production and just give up the pretense and start making a line of Kardashian porn (although, I suppose their show is already just that).
Or maybe they could just open their own school!  The Kardashian Akademy of Ekonomics.  I mean Donald Trump opened his own school, right?  So can the K.'s!  Because if they know anything, unlike Donald, it's how to make money.

CFR 3/24/22
0 Comments

That Time I Wore a Onesie

3/11/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Hey guys!
So yeah, so this guy I'm actor friends with dared me to wear a men's onesie and post the photo on Facebook.  Why?  I have no idea.  But I accepted the challenge and since I didn't own a men's onesie, I went to Goodwill and got a ladies dress and made one.  Original autographed copies are yours for...name a price!  Please allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery.
(I also have ones without the onesie.  Please write for the catalogue by enclosing a S.A.S.E  to 103 Woodvale Court, Vinton VA 24179  Makes a great gift!).
Please be sure to subscribe and press the "LIKE" button.  In fact, you can press all my buttons!
0 Comments

FOX NEWS AD CAMPAIGN

3/11/2022

0 Comments

 
I love FOX News so much I decided to create a boffo ad campaign for them.  Drumroll please...
Imagine it.  A triumphant fanfare (think of John Williams' NBC Nightly News theme.  And BTW, who knew John Williams was the composer?  That guy is everywhere!) with a soaring vocal choir of the tagline: Go Fox Yourself! The words match up with the last four notes of that opening bar. 
Here are some of the dazzling print ads:
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Clio, here we come!
And could you tell I just figured out how to make a meme?
​CFR 3/11/22
0 Comments

File Under "Orwell"

3/9/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
0 Comments

The One That Got Away (thoughts on Adrienne Shelly)

3/7/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
I've talked about "murder shows" on my blog page.  And last night I binged some Forensic Files.  I mean, at least Forensic Files gets into the science of solving murder cases.  It's not just a show that's solely about people murdering one another.  Perhaps that's a rationalization; for I can't help but feel somehow guilty--perhaps complicit in the murder itself--by indulging in these shows that, let's face it; now actually glorify murder.  I mean, is Keith Morrison not the biggest ghoul on the airwaves?  Bill Hader really nailed it with this sketch:
But, full disclosure: I am often lured into the depths of deathly DATELINE depravity by the dulcet tones of Mr. Morrison.  That absurd folksiness of his delivery actually works.  I have found myself creeping to bed at 5 in the morning after having spent the wee hours with Crime Daddy Keith.  I'm not proud of it.
On a serious note...
So, after last night's murderthon; I got to thinking about my own experiences with murder.  Had I known anyone that had been murdered.  Had I known anyone that had murdered anyone?*  Did I know anyone that knew anyone that had been murdered? (Just for the record, I personally have not ​murdered anyone). The answer to all of these questions, was, unfortunately yes.  And in the case of the first question, it was someone famous.  I deplore name-dropping and at the risk of doing just that, I want to write about Adrienne Shelly.  I knew her.  We went to film school together.  We were in many of the same classes.  We weren't friends: in fact, barely acquaintances.  We were class-mates; no more, no less.  But my memories of her are quite vivid.
Adrienne was murdered in 2006 by a young man named Diego Pillco, in New York City.  He was a construction worker from Ecuador, working in the Greenwich Village building where Adrienne had an office.  I won't go into all the details (the crime is well documented on line); he confessed to it.  But he kept changing his story.  Initially, he said Adrienne had come to the room where he was working and demanded he stop making noise; the confrontation escalated and he snapped and killed her.  When I first heard this story, I remember it did not sit well with me.  I had nagging doubts about it.  Would this tiny woman really have gotten confrontational with a man when she was alone.  In New York City? I mean, she wasn't stupid.  It is far more likely that he targeted her and she fought back and then he snapped.  I guess we'll never know for sure what happened.

Adrienne was in my screenwriting class during my junior year at Boston University.  Her original name was Adrienne Levine. She was Jewish.  A lot of my classmates were Jewish.  I didn't know this until I matriculated there, that B.U. had a high ratio of Jewish students.  One of the school's nick-names was "Be Jew."  That's true (and I got that from other students, presumably the Jewish ones).  A lot of kids from Long Island and the New York area.  Adrienne was from Queens.  Of course, I didn't know all of this at the time.  All I knew is that this girl I had in some of my classes stood out.  Her appearance was ethereal .
Picture
Here's my yearbook picture from my college days.  I remember being miserable the day that was taken.  I had undiagnosed OCD (that's a whole other blog); and I may have been hung over.  Remember when you could be hung over and still take a good picture?  Ah, youth.
Picture
Adrienne was not in the yearbook.  This is how I remember it...
She had left at the end of the first semester of our junior year.  I vividly recall that too.  She sort of made an announcement in class that she wouldn't be back.  She was leaving school to go to New York City and pursue her dreams of becoming an actress.  People who knew her were rallying around her and wishing her well and so on and so forth.  Like I said, I barely knew her.  I'm not sure we ever even had a conversation when she came up to me at some point (maybe in the student lounge) and said good-bye to me personally.  She told me she was leaving. That's all I remember.  I'm sure I wished her luck.  What I do remember is her standing in front of me in such proximity.  Perhaps a foot away, directly in front of me, beaming up into my face (she was extremely petite).  Her look at that time was not the look she had in her movies.  She wore no make-up.  Her skin was so pale as to be translucent.  She often wore her hair piled haphazardly on her head with little wisps hanging down.  She was always in flowing, diaphanous outfits with super dangly earrings: an even more elfin and gamine sort of Edie Sedgwick, by way of New Yawhk.  She shone like some sort of otherworldly being.  She was unforgettable.  Clearly, as I have not forgotten.
Picture
Arresting as she was; I never thought she was a great beauty.  Her features were huge.  But often, people with exaggerated features that you wouldn't first construe as "beauty" have that thing that a movie camera loves.  Adrienne had it.  Once she committed to a hair color and put cosmetics on that skin...kaboom!
We had a mutual friend; Amy.  Amy and I partnered up for a final film project in one of our classes.  We both moved out to Los Angeles around the same time and kept in touch for a while.  One day we were talking and she said, "Did you hear about Adrienne Shelly?"  "No," I replied, "what about her?"  "She's a movie star!  Well, indies, anyways.  She's in Hal Hartley's movies!"  I had no idea who Hal Hartley was.  "They're saying she's like, "The New Brigitte Bardot" of America!"
Picture
"Really?" I asked.
"Really!!!" Amy exclaimed, with three exclamation points.  I was surprised; but I wasn't.  What I was surprised about was that she went and did it.  She said, "I'm going to go be an actress in New York..." and she did just that.  Son of a bitch she did it.  And a rising movie star no less.  She'd beaten the odds.  That odd looking girl from my film class who inexplicably came up to me and said farewell.
At the time, I was working in a video store in Silver Lake.  It was called "Videoactive" (like "Radioactive"? Get it?).  It was the "hip" video store.  I must've been "hip" because they hired me.  Videoactive catered to film geeks.  One whole wall was the "Directors" section.  Hal Hartley must've been pretty hip, too; because he had his own niche.  There were only like two movies in it.  So, after I heard Adrienne was in these movies, I played one in the store.  I recall thinking Adrienne looked great and had that certain je ne sais qua...but I also recall the movie being stultifyingly boring, despite her presence. It was deliberately arch, dry, slow, dead-pan to the point of dead.  I guess that's "mumblecore."  So, Adrienne was one of the pioneers of the genre.  Just looking at that trailer though, you can tell she's wasted in that kind of story.  She literally jumps off the screen.  She needed to be in an Indiana Jones movie or like a quirky Bond girl.
So, she makes this splash and then sort of disappears.  I'm guessing to raise a family.  But then, she returns on the other side of the camera as the writer/director of a little movie called Waitress.  
Waitress was released a year after Adrienne was killed.  It cost 1.5 million to make and it grossed 22 million at the box office.  I'm pretty sure, creative accounting aside, that qualifies it as a "hit."  I went to see it with my husband.  He loved it.  I admired it.  Being cleared eyed and looking at the movie from a business angle; I could see that Adrienne (who both wrote and directed the film) was going for something solid and commercial.  You might say "safe."  But that's not necessarily not a good thing.  She was trying to establish herself as a viably commercial filmmaker and she certainly achieved that with flying colors.  In all honesty, I thought that it was a little derivative.  Kind of Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore meets Mildred Pierce (without the murder stuff).  Hey, if you're going to derive, derive from the best! 
Picture
Don't get me wrong.  I enjoyed and admired the movie.  But I could see that Adrienne had a lot more promise.  I could tell that she had a whole bunch of stuff up her sleeve when it came to filmed entertainment.  Her days in the halls of B.U.'s College of Communication were ones well spent.  And she didn't even complete the course yet!  But then, FATE intervened. That is, if you believe in FATE.  I do, to a certain degree.  But I also think some things are random.  And then, I think some things are a bit of both.
In Adrienne's case, I hope that it was fate.  I hope that it was God calling her back for some reason.  Because if it's not, then what's the point?  What's the point of being born and dropped on this planet?  A husband lost a wife.  A child lost her mother.  The world lost a talented artist.  All because someone wanted the money in Adrienne's purse.  How much could have been in there?  Not a lot, I'm guessing.
​Here's Adrienne's daughter:
Picture
Clearly, Adrienne lives on in her beautiful child.  That's some comfort.

But still, I wonder.  Why did Adrienne say good-bye to me personally, all those years ago?  Maybe it was to cement herself in my mind.  Because perhaps the stars are aligned; for better or worse.  And it would lead me to write this blog, that someone who didn't know about Adrienne might read and then they might create some Art about Adrienne and that would lead to something else.  Something that made sense.  Something that brought some good into the world.

*I do not directly know a murderer (as far as I know); but I do have loved ones who know both a murderer and his victim.

​CFR 3/9/22
0 Comments

Breakfast Burrito at the Tiffany Network

3/5/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
So, here's my final application to the Big Three.  Remember when TV was just the three networks and maybe a few UHF channels?  Good times!
CBS.  The crown jewel of broadcast television.  Does the "C" stand for Chuck?  As in...you know who?  And CBS; does the world really need four police shows set in Hawaii?  I mean, don't get me wrong.  I adore Hawaii but enough already.  And could we come up with something other than police procedural/investigative shows?  You're the network that brought us The Twilight Zone and The Mary Tyler Moore Show and Dallas.  Surely you can come up with something that isn't Magnum P.I Joins the FBI with Special Guests the Cast of Every CSI?  ​Surely. CBS, if you're still "The Tiffany Network" you've got some silver to polish. But don't fret; I've got tons of ideas.  Come on CBS...Be Best!
Picture
0 Comments

    Archives

    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    June 2020
    August 2015

    AUTHOR
    Christopher Reidy is from the Boston area.  He attended Boston University where he studied TV and film which eventually led him to Los Angeles.  There he did the Hollywood thing (which he wasn’t particularly good at) and eventually met his partner Joseph.  He was one of the co-founders of the short lived Off Hollywood Theatre Company which staged several of his original plays.  83 In the Shade is his first novel.  He also dabbles in screenplays, toys with short stories, and flirts with poetry.  Life brought him to bucolic Southwest Virginia where he now resides and is very active in community theatre. It may interest you to know Chris is officially an Irish citizen as well as an American. He also enjoys drawing and painting and looking after a passel of 
    ​
    housecats and two turtles.

     

    RSS Feed