Rotten Tomatoes has the critics' score at 52% and the audience score at 90%.

Personally, I think that the critics' score should be in the 40s, but otherwise I am pleased with those numbers.

Brief review of A Working Man:

It's Stallone saying "Yeah, John Wick was pretty good... here's how *I* would have done it."

Thinking about this some more.

Back in the late 80s, Mom took us to see an off-Broadway Big River. It was amazing. They blew the roof off of the joint. We bought the Original Broadway Soundtrack and were stunned to discover that the soundtrack, while technically perfect, didn't have anywhere near the oomph that we had just seen. It was like the soundtrack was done at the dress rehearsal instead of in front of a live audience. It was skilled but there was no energy.

And so I wondered "is Big River somewhere?" and there's a youtube of a show in San Jose back in 1999.

This looks like it cost a buck and a half to do. They just set up a camera and zoomed in or panned out as appropriate.

In the current year, you wouldn't even have to zoom in. Just have a fixed 6K camera set up balcony level and zoom in on the footage as appropriate when you're editing it (*MINIMALLY* editing it). Just make sure the sound is synched and you've got yourself a record.

I mean, Big River isn't currently touring anywhere, as far as I can tell (it had a revival in 2004). I'm glad that we've got a copy of San Jose's 1999 Production... they should do that for a lot more stuff. Hooking up the camera, recording the sound, making sure it's synched, and minimal editing time... that can't cost *THAT* much.

From the NYT: The Democrats Are in Denial About 2024

Here's stuff from the middle:

First, they should admit that their party mishandled Mr. Biden’s age. Leading Democrats insisted that he had mental acuity for a second term when most Americans believed otherwise. Party leaders even attempted to shout down anybody who raised concerns, before reversing course and pushing Mr. Biden out of the race. Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects, including crime, illegal immigration, inflation and Covid lockdowns. Mr. Biden’s age became a glaring example. Acknowledging as much may be backward looking, but it would send an important signal.

Second, Democrats should recognize that the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017. The old video clips of Ms. Harris that the Trump campaign gleefully replayed last year — on decriminalizing the border and government-funded gender-transition surgery for prisoners — highlighted the problem. Yes, she tried to abandon these stances before the election, but she never spoke forthrightly to voters and acknowledged she had changed her position.

Even today, the party remains too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences — by race, gender, sexuality and religion — rather than our shared values. On these issues, progressives sometimes adopt a scolding, censorious posture. It is worth emphasizing that this posture has alienated growing numbers of Asian, Black and Latino voters. Democrats who won last year in places where Mr. Trump also won, such as Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Senator Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, adopted a more moderate tone. They were hawkish about border security and law enforcement, criticizing their own party. They did not make the common Democratic mistake of trying to talk about only economic policy and refusing to engage with Americans’ concerns on difficult social issues.

Third, the party has to offer new ideas. When Democrats emerged from the wilderness in the past, they often did so with fresh ideas. They updated the proud Democratic tradition of improving life for all Americans. Bill Clinton remade the party in the early 1990s and spoke of “putting people first.” In 2008, Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and John Edwards offered exciting plans to improve health care, reduce inequality and slow climate change. These candidates provided intellectual leadership.

The main part that got me was "Already, many voters believe that Democrats refuse to admit uncomfortable truths on some subjects".

You'd think that there'd be money in that sort of thing.

One (or three) fixed cameras, just showing the stage as if you were in the audience. I was sure that I remembered PBS doing Les Mis multiple times but I was remembering the Dream Cast Concert (which was 80% as good, really).

Hrm. BroadwayHD exists but it seems to only have a handful of plays at all (and there definitely are some Hollywood movies in there)...

I'm guessing that there is a very vocal contingent of purists doing what they can to keep the transient stage pure, I guess. Huh. They have HMS Pinafore.

Date Nite With Maribou was "Wicked". I'd never seen it, never seen the musical, never heard the soundtrack.

It was really good. I told Maribou that we could see Part II in the theater when it came out.

Seriously, if you like musicals/Oz at all, you should check this one out. It's on Peacock.

You know how, periodically, there's a situation in California that results in house insurance companies leaving the state?

Well, it looks like they're working on a way to make health insurance leave the state: Proposed California ballot initiative ‘Luigi Mangione Act’ would make it harder for insurers to deny medical care

Is it just thumb wrestling and something you say before the match?

It's not a rhyme and googling it hasn't helped me.

I've heard someone say that the only problem is that Snow White is a post-George Floyd movie in a post-post-George Floyd world and so OF COURSE it'll bomb.

But Disney's flops used to mean stuff like "Million Dollar Duck" (which cost a buck and a half).

If you get a kitten, you will find yourself amazed at their destructive capabilities.

An older cat? (Like, defined as 5 or older?), those tend to have calmed down quite a bit (and doubly so for the female ones). A warm lap, a warm blanket, a houseape who is just doing some crochet work might get a swat or two but, hey, it's warm and let's go back to purring.

Good luck on the painting!

And it feels nice being able to run out of tp again.

There's nothing but speculation on the point but the static seems to date back to stuff like the Variety red carpet interview where Zegler mocked the original.

I suspect that Gal Gadot was tasked with mentoring Zegler and explaining that part of the job of being a movie star is buttering up the rubes to make them buy a ticket.

I know for a fact that one of the producers flew out to talk to Zegler and explain how the industry works to her (that's the comment that kicked all this stuff off).

In more recent months, Zegler has made dismissive comments about her co-star and Disney did what they could to keep them away from each other in public (such as Zegler calling Gadot a "professional pageant queen" in an instagram post following their appearance at the Oscars).

We'll watch "Trumpism requires Trump to work" evolve into "Trumpism doesn't work at all, not even with Trump" and the question that I have is whether Vance is skilled enough to evolve that into "That Wasn't Real Trumpism".

Vance's charisma is not tree stump quality. It's better than that.

I don't know that it's populist, mind... but he's got four years to learn.

Because Gal Gadot was insufficiently supportive of Zegler in the days that followed the disastrous red carpet interview that kicked more or less everything off.

Gal Gadot, as awful an actress as she is, knows which side her bread is buttered on and so, when she talks about the movie, she talks about her kids and her daughter making an "evil queen" joke and the joys of seeing a movie with her children and something that she hopes all families will enjoy.

"Is it because she's Israeli?"
No... well, kind of. It's because she was insufficiently supportive and the best way to strike back is to make a statement like "Free Palestine" that says "screw you" to Gal Gadot without even *MENTIONING* Gal Gadot.

People who know, will know.

If so, why doesn’t Zegler like that she’s Israeli?

Zegler doesn't *CARE* that she's Israeli.
The fact that she's Israeli provides surface area where the attack may be made.
Nothing more than that.

Or is saying “screw you” to Gadot part of the signaling?

It's the point. Well, Gadot and the producer.

You've never encountered something like this? Never seen it in your five-plus decades on God's green earth? Never saw it in the church? Never saw it in the socialist reading circles? You've never even once seen a game like this one?

I find that preposterous to the point where I'm going to need you to lie to my face about it before I drop it... and I assume you have too much self-respect to lie. So my expectation is something like a pivot to an attack or a hard change of the subject in order to avoid saying "of freaking course I know what the goddamn game is but that doesn't make Palestine a cause not worth supporting!"

Huh. Maybe that'd be the best play. "This is about *PALESTINE*. Not some privileged theater kid! How dare you! This is a *GENOCIDE*!"

Okay, good. My question was whether you were familiar with the phenomenon.

I mean, I know you are. You grew up in the church too.

But, sure. We can pretend.

"What I think she is signaling" is "screw you", both to the producer and to her co-star Gal Gadot.

I think that because I'm familiar with the phenomenon. (Also the whole "but all she said was 'free palestine'!" game. Which I assume you are also familiar with but we can pretend that we came down with the last drop of rain, if you want.)

Don't let his looks fool you. He is evil.

I have said what I'm talking about. I won't shut up about it!

It's the people who keep pivoting away to other topics that don't want to talk about it!

I'm sure that she agrees with the statement "Gaza should be free" and her thoughts on the region amount to little more than that.

Does she sincerely think that Gaza should be free? I think that she sincerely agrees with the statement "Gaza should be free".

I'd compare to California High Speed Rail. "Does she believe that California should have High Speed Rail?"

I think that she sincerely agrees with the statement "California should have High Speed Rail".

Because she’s a celebrity? Because she’s young? I’m confused.

Because I've seen her various carpet interviews. Have you seen them?

This may be something as simple as I have more information than you do.

Oh, you're not going to see it in the theater? Bummer.

I was still hoping to hear from someone who saw it in the theater.

Back to my question: I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about? Do you really think “I know exactly what you’re talking about and why you’re seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists” wouldn’t be a more comfortable play?

The options before auto-setters:

1. Rent a pin boy
2. Do it yourself

You'd only have to do it yourself for two frames before giving the pin boy a dime.

"Can you do it without waking up without a taste of adhesive?"
"We have a problem."

I'm sure that her thoughts on Palestine are fleeting.

I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I’m talking about? Do you really think “I know exactly what you’re talking about and why you’re seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists” wouldn’t be a more comfortable play?

Oh good! I was wondering about this!

Thanks for writing it!

As Turing Tests go, I'd say that this passes mine.

has long been a cancellable offense in this country

Only in a handful of higher-status industries.

To argue that she didn’t mean it, then, requires a bit more than, “I can recognize it when I see it, based on how I was raised.”

It's less of a "she didn't mean it" as much as a "she was giving a different message *ENTIRELY*, one that had nothing to do with the surface level of her comment which was entirely tangential to what she was actually saying."

The surface level of what she was saying does get a great deal of defense from fellow believers, though.

I mean, do you honestly have no idea what I'm talking about? Do you really think "I know exactly what you're talking about and why you're seeing this the way you are but, seriously, this is different from the thing both you and I know exists" wouldn't be a more comfortable play?

Well, lemme tell ya, the whole "cutting remark hiding behind superficial affirmation of membership in good standing" thing is something that the Babtists are pretty good at.

I'd have suspected that it was universal.

I'm guessing you didn't grow up in the synagogue but were fairly secular?

I ask because, as someone who grew up fairly evangelical, that particular move is visible from a million miles away.

But, of course, you can't *SAY* "they don't even care about Palestine" because... hey. That's a deeply cutting thing to imply.