And Also: Along Comes a Stranger was a good first effort by a daughter of a well known historian, not much going on over most of it, but a good character study of a mid-aged transplant in Wyoming and how her life changed one summer after meeting her mother-in-law's new boyfriend, who seems a kindred spirit.
---
Certain words have a special flavor to them, one that is not merely a matter of literal meaning. For instance, calling someone a "liar" is not just a matter of the person saying something wrong, even if you think the person should know it is wrong. It implies a certain bad intent. Plus, it brings forth a certain emotional reaction, since again, it implies a certain bad, or even malice, intent. The word does fit sometimes, but even then, at times the emotional reaction makes it somewhat dubious to use in various cases. With a nod to a book by Laura Penny, this leads me to think "b.s." (in effect, a disrespect of the truth, a sort of negligence) works better, or perhaps, simply avoid the emotionally laden term and make your point in some other way. "Plagiarism" also requires care; this is a good discussion.*
If good writing is a skill, putting together a whole television episode or film for which that is but a part of the affair truly is. The S4 Army Wives DVD had a good "from script to screen" analysis of a particularly good episode, one in which the search of a boy and his injured mom played an important role. The search involved various characters, such as Frank (called her in to fill-in), Denise (working dispatch because she is in the last months of her pregnancy), Pamela (on patrol) and so forth. Meanwhile, other stuff is going on in the episode, one that opened with a well put together kitchen scene between the Holdens. The "making of" segment noted how even a little thing as filming making the eggs took a bit of doing, including dealing with the sound of the whisking and getting a good shot of the eggs sizzling on the stove. This all for one episode of one show on television. The director of the episode, and several others, played the mom on Growing Pains.
One thing many DVDs, including the Army Wives series, have is deleted scenes. Often, it is a bit much to call it a "scene," since it is actually a less than a minute chunk (one was :16), at times some part of a scene that was edited out. Some DVDs (not this one) provide commentary that explains why the scene was omitted, for artistic or time reasons. Some are pretty good moments, but they just do not fit for whatever reason. It is interesting to me though how even a small portion that is around a minute can be a noticeable amount of time -- in some ways, that amount of time is a flash, in others, it is quite noticeable. This DVD also has a blooper/outtakes reel ... the Army Wives DVDs as a whole has enough extras that you get a nice feel for the actors outside their roles, including here during line reads and in another case, talking about what they do for fun or for volunteering purposes (acting students, e.g.) on location.
The first part (not aware of any other season split into more than one DVD, but S6 is the longest, probably to its detriment) of the current season will be on DVD in about a month. Meanwhile, it is good to know that S4 of Being Erica is also to be on DVD soon, partially because I do not know when it will be available in the U.S. (I caught one episode online) otherwise. I reserved it in my local library. The first season of another Canadian series that I'm somewhat interested in, at least to see the beginning, Lost Girl, will also be on DVD in the U.S. soon. Some episodes are available for that but I want to see it from the beginning. The two shows are connected, the star of the latter having a supporting role in the first. Now if only the film that Angelina Jolie directed would come to my library.
---
* I think the person here paraphrased a person summarizing the findings of a book [recommended] a bit too closely, but am not sure if a slightly re-worded account would have required citation. I guess if he primarily used her as a source, he should have cited her, though I think what happened here at best a venial sin. Looking at various well sourced articles and books, the line does not always seem apparent, things that seem to me to be general information sometimes cited.
I repeatedly see simple errors that I can't believe were missed by the editors or people who read the material to provide feedback. So, though it's important for various works (though it is normal for newspaper and magazine articles to not have this sort of thing, especially given the linking abilities of online sources, it would be helpful in many cases) to have source material, I do wonder who checks all the cites at all in most cases. Some of these sources are that easy to obtain -- even a professional might find it hard to check some of material.
It is annoying when (usually selectively) a person seems to want detailed cites when I make some comment on a blog. If a media article doesn't have such a thing, why exactly should it be a special notice when I do not? Grain of salt and all that is fine.
---
Certain words have a special flavor to them, one that is not merely a matter of literal meaning. For instance, calling someone a "liar" is not just a matter of the person saying something wrong, even if you think the person should know it is wrong. It implies a certain bad intent. Plus, it brings forth a certain emotional reaction, since again, it implies a certain bad, or even malice, intent. The word does fit sometimes, but even then, at times the emotional reaction makes it somewhat dubious to use in various cases. With a nod to a book by Laura Penny, this leads me to think "b.s." (in effect, a disrespect of the truth, a sort of negligence) works better, or perhaps, simply avoid the emotionally laden term and make your point in some other way. "Plagiarism" also requires care; this is a good discussion.*
If good writing is a skill, putting together a whole television episode or film for which that is but a part of the affair truly is. The S4 Army Wives DVD had a good "from script to screen" analysis of a particularly good episode, one in which the search of a boy and his injured mom played an important role. The search involved various characters, such as Frank (called her in to fill-in), Denise (working dispatch because she is in the last months of her pregnancy), Pamela (on patrol) and so forth. Meanwhile, other stuff is going on in the episode, one that opened with a well put together kitchen scene between the Holdens. The "making of" segment noted how even a little thing as filming making the eggs took a bit of doing, including dealing with the sound of the whisking and getting a good shot of the eggs sizzling on the stove. This all for one episode of one show on television. The director of the episode, and several others, played the mom on Growing Pains.
One thing many DVDs, including the Army Wives series, have is deleted scenes. Often, it is a bit much to call it a "scene," since it is actually a less than a minute chunk (one was :16), at times some part of a scene that was edited out. Some DVDs (not this one) provide commentary that explains why the scene was omitted, for artistic or time reasons. Some are pretty good moments, but they just do not fit for whatever reason. It is interesting to me though how even a small portion that is around a minute can be a noticeable amount of time -- in some ways, that amount of time is a flash, in others, it is quite noticeable. This DVD also has a blooper/outtakes reel ... the Army Wives DVDs as a whole has enough extras that you get a nice feel for the actors outside their roles, including here during line reads and in another case, talking about what they do for fun or for volunteering purposes (acting students, e.g.) on location.
The first part (not aware of any other season split into more than one DVD, but S6 is the longest, probably to its detriment) of the current season will be on DVD in about a month. Meanwhile, it is good to know that S4 of Being Erica is also to be on DVD soon, partially because I do not know when it will be available in the U.S. (I caught one episode online) otherwise. I reserved it in my local library. The first season of another Canadian series that I'm somewhat interested in, at least to see the beginning, Lost Girl, will also be on DVD in the U.S. soon. Some episodes are available for that but I want to see it from the beginning. The two shows are connected, the star of the latter having a supporting role in the first. Now if only the film that Angelina Jolie directed would come to my library.
---
* I think the person here paraphrased a person summarizing the findings of a book [recommended] a bit too closely, but am not sure if a slightly re-worded account would have required citation. I guess if he primarily used her as a source, he should have cited her, though I think what happened here at best a venial sin. Looking at various well sourced articles and books, the line does not always seem apparent, things that seem to me to be general information sometimes cited.
I repeatedly see simple errors that I can't believe were missed by the editors or people who read the material to provide feedback. So, though it's important for various works (though it is normal for newspaper and magazine articles to not have this sort of thing, especially given the linking abilities of online sources, it would be helpful in many cases) to have source material, I do wonder who checks all the cites at all in most cases. Some of these sources are that easy to obtain -- even a professional might find it hard to check some of material.
It is annoying when (usually selectively) a person seems to want detailed cites when I make some comment on a blog. If a media article doesn't have such a thing, why exactly should it be a special notice when I do not? Grain of salt and all that is fine.