Dogsitting for the past week, I was once again faced with the mystery of "marking one's territory."
Walking the dog, he made sure to fully inspect and "leave his mark" on every fire hydrant, pole, bush, fence post, etc. At one point we came across a small tree branch that had been blown into the middle of the street and he marked that too as I rolled my eyes. He was a small dog too, I don't know where he was storing it all, he may be built like a balloon.
But if one dog marks his territory and another comes by and marks the same territory only for a third to come by and do the same, what is the point? I thought about it like putting a stake in the ground and claiming ownership - if no one recognizes an owner, nothing can be owned. Most websites reinforce my understanding of the behavior without confronting the paradox. But some also point out that dog's urine communicates important information to other dogs. Marking territory can say "Rover was here," "I'm in the neighborhood," communicate their age, sex, sexual status and relationship status.
It is worth noting, then, that dogs marking their territory is depressingly similar to people on Facebook, Twitter, Dating Apps, basically all social media. With dogs, as with people, if you want to find out what everyone's doing you have to check the posts.
What a staple of childhood - the "Price is Right" with Bob Barker on the long Summer days or on days too sick to go to school. I'm not trying to be funny, and I mean no disrespect, but I was surprised by the news because I didn't know he was still alive.
Here's a video of him brutalitizing a man on a soap opera:
A History of Comedy Podcast tells the story of "Windy City Heat" a real documentary about the making of a fake movie where the star didn't know that it was all an elaborate prank.
If you haven't seen the movie, this will all be spoilers.
One of my favorite observations about "Vertigo" is from a Roger Ebert article that is hard to find and not very well known:
Let's close by returning to "Vertigo." Every time I've gone through any film a shot at a time over several days, someone in the audience has noticed something amazing. When I was at the University of Virginia, we got to the point when Scottie (James Stewart) rescues the unconscious Madeleine/Judy (Kim Novak) from San Francisco Bay and takes her unconscious back to his apartment. He gently undresses her and puts her into bed.
"His action is incredible," I said. "He's changing an unconscious stranger."
"She's not unconscious," said a voice in the dark.
"What?"
"She's pretending. That wasn't Madeleine attempting suicide, but Judy playing Madeleine. She's pretending to be unconscious."
And Scotty saved her, did not ravish her, treated her gently, and tucked her in. That may help explain why the next time we see her, coming into the living room and joining Scottie, she has a glow in her eyes. Madeleine went into the bedroom, and Judy came out. It's then she starts to love and pity him. Oh, this is an even deeper film than it seems.
And here is Roger Ebert's analysis of the color palette of "Vertigo" and what each means: link.
A question I had never thought of until a friend sent me this article:
More intriguing still is the classic red candy's tart berry taste (at once familiar and foreign), which has stumped millions of fans for years. But one needs only to look to the candy's country of origin — yes, Sweden — to discover what this red swimmer is meant to taste like. It's the Scandinavian berry of choice, the lingonberry.
I knew at once that I needed to try this out and find some lingonberries. I failed. The next best thing I could find (the only thing I could find) is lingonberry jam.
What does lingonberry jam taste like? I tried to figure it out but failed at that too. It's very non-descript. It's like take strawberry and mix in some cranberry, maybe. Maybe there's some raspberry there but it's so vague. My tests were: I tried it with bread, I mixed it with yogurt, I was so stumped that I tried it naked. Very indistinct.
The main question I wanted to answer was: "Does it taste like Swedish Fish?" Hard to say, another failure. If I had to answer, I'd say "No" but it's very tough. We all know that cherry flavored candy doesn't taste like cherry and orange flavored candy doesn't taste like orange and on and on, so the fact that I can't even get a grip on the taste of the jam, there's no way to make that giant step of abstraction. Failure.
Watching "Rad" on the big screen, especially in contrast to the letterboxed VHS tapes, you really see so many more details that you never have before. When I saw "Rad" last year I noted many such details. Seeing it again, I have just a few more...
First, the big one: in one of the "Rad" deleted scenes, in preparation for the big race, Cru is gifted "the Murray from your store." That Murray, the shop owner and the store are established in the opening "walk this sucker" montage. The store is 7-11. The bike:
The bike has a sign on it. I wish I had memorized it from the theater but it's like a prize for Hell Track or an advertisement or something.
The store owner is someone Cru delivers to on his route:
In the scene where Cru is tempted by The Devil and resists the temptation, the trash can in the background is Pac-Man themed. The opening on the left is Pac-Man, the opening on the right is Ms. Pac-Man. She has a bow in her hair.
The third thing is a repetition... I am once again reminded that every Rad shirt available for purchase on the web is inaccurate to the props in the movie. Oh well.
In the era before this blog, I did some in-depth research to try to figure out where Cochran was. I believe I found it was in Canada, perhaps because imdb lists one of the shooting locations for the movie as Cochrane, Canada. Of course that's a dead end of sorts because the fictional Cochran was in the U.S.. Regardless, the decoding of the BMX magazine has already revealed the Cochran of the movie is in Oregon. It should be noted that the spelling is not consistent even within the movie: sometimes "Cochrane," sometimes "Cochran."
That said, seeing the movie on the big screen, I noticed the license plates in a way I never have before:
You can see how front-and-center this one is but it just blends into the VHS brown fuzz. I was able to find Oregon license plates from the past that look like that but not from the 1980s and not for passenger vehicles. This one is left to the viewer. Someone with access to the higher res will hopefully be able to take a look.
Finally, in preparation for this post, I found an old email of mine that notes there is a sign in the film that labels the date of Hell Track as June 26th. I don't have the original source on this, I don't know where I got it from but I trust myself. Somehow I never followed through with commemorating that day... we should all add it to our calendars.
"Another mystery post? What is this, "Unsolved Mysteries?" Who do you think you are, Robert Stack?"
Not hardly. No, this is different and for two very important reasons:
1) Other videos I've posted on Jack the Ripper were extremely well made with painstaking production value. Whereas this one is terrible.
2) The other videos explain the mystery without a definitive resolution. This video solves the case.
In part 2, the video from 0:00 up to 36:00 is pertinent to the conclusions of part 1. It involves the discovery of a "smoking gun" and therefore highly recommended if you've watched part 1.
Everything from 36:00 on is solely devoted from the case to examining the FBI's actions in the shooting of "D.B. Cooper."
I don't know whether you know about the story of D.B. Cooper, I assume everyone does. (Here's Rich Evans explaining.) D.B. Cooper was never found and the case remains unsolved to this day.
But as I say, this video claims to have solved the case and I am convinced. But I'm also annoyed that I have to watch 4 hours of video when the pertinent information could be edited down to 40 minutes to an hour. I don't usually use the term "Boomer" as a criticism but this is Boomered to the toppermost. There's no other way to put it. Pointless segments, slow pacing, clueless camerawork, making it unnecessarily personal, extraneous exposition, basically extraneous everything, and so on. Somewhere in the second hour we're treated to a tour of D.B.Cooper's home and I have to admit, I was not interested in learning where the TV and the couch were. Call me crazy. Somewhere in hour 3, I'm watching video of people in a van finding a place to park and shouting "could this have been edited out?!"
"No, the people need to see the parking of the van. Tell the world."
But that's the long and short of it: good information, the chance to find out the true identity of D.B. Cooper - one of the all-time greatest mysteries - but if you get into it, go in knowing that it's going to be a slog. You decide for yourself; choose your own adventure.
In a previous post, I mentioned it was the exact anniversary of Jack the Ripper's first murder. I would like to correct that, or adjust that slightly. London in 1888 was full of murders and there is some disagreement about what the official Jack the Ripper murders are and which are not, so the day of the first one is a matter of dispute.
But also in that post, I mentioned the possibility of tracking down a documentary from the 1980s which I saw as a child and which somewhat haunted me. The above video is that documentary, in full, on youtube, not to be confused with the TV miniseries "Jack the Ripper" also from 1988.
The first surprising thing about it is this: it's actually quite good. I was expecting to post this as an ironic joke but I'm posting it now as a legitimately entertaining video.
A special TV event from 1988 where a group of experts is going to determine who the real Jack the Ripper is sounds like it should have aged poorly and come off as a joke in network tv cliches. That's fully what I was expecting but this isn't that. It is somewhat dated, for sure, but it's actually well-made, compelling and holds up quite well. Yes, some of it is dated - I love the "going live" to London for no real reason as well as the solemn and pointless studio audience. But those are minor details.
One of the points on which I think the documentary is laughable is probably a matter of controversy. I may be in the wrong, and call me an uneducated rube but am I supposed to believe that even though we haven't the slightest clue who Jack the Ripper was, the FBI can tell that he came from a broken home and had a domineering mother, etc., etc? I try to keep an open mind but it sounds like a parody of real investigation. Not buying your Freudian nonsense. Do better, FBI. (Is it "do better" or "be better?")
My second surprise is this: I watched this as a child and can't fathom how. It starts with a viewer discretion warning, there's rape, prostitution, murder, Satanism... a ghastly crime scene photo (fortunately for my child-self it was an 80s television low-resolution version, the modern one is horrific)... syphillis... suicide... and more murders... that I would see anything like this makes no sense at all. NO sense. I was thinking maybe there was an edited version but any info about where and how it aired is hard to come by. The internet can't even agree whether it was for British television or American. I can't explain the circumstances by which I saw this - you solve a mystery you open a new one.
The host of the program is Peter Ustinov who. is having definite. trouble reading his. cue cards. I immediately imagined the Best of the Worst guys laughing that he was drunk or on drugs. He's not slurring and he lived a long while after this so I think he maybe just didn't care. What a coincidence that in the same time of life and in the same location I saw this, I also fell in love with the Disney version of "Robin Hood" in which Ustinov plays Prince John (and King Richard.) I wonder if I recognized the voice as being the same. Doubtful.
Today is the 135th anniversary of Jack the Ripper's first murder, and while this is not a day I particularly celebrate, it just so happens I've recently come across this excellent documentary.
One thought is below as long as you've watched the video first.
It seems to me, the elephant in this particular room is the combination of the brutality of the crime and the suddenness of the start and stop of the spree. Do serial murderers usually "get it out of their system" and hang up their hat after a certain time? The fact that they stop suddenly suggests we should look at who died around that time, who was arrested, and if there were similar crimes in other countries before or after (though the fame of this case means it's likely there weren't). I don't say this to try to crack open the case that so many people have looked into, just that I wish this was addressed in the video because I'm lazy and don't want to start searching the internet for Jack the Ripper.
When I was a kid in the 80s, there was a TV special where a group of experts were going to get together and finally "decide" or "announce" the real identity of Jack the Ripper. I remember the mentality of being so naive that I believed it was going to happen completely and was just so in awe of the entire proceeding. It was an important event! The secret was finally going to be revealed! We were finally going to know!
But that event (special) did create a lasting impression on me that I've remembered to this day. I should try to track that special down sometime but that also involves searching the internet for Jack the Ripper.
