one linkarific evening

I am so disorganized, even when I try to be organized. Here is what has been happening to me lately: I see an interesting entry via Bloglines that I want to keep to read later, or to post here, and I check the Keep New checkbox. This is very handy in the short term, because it keeps track of these links for me and I can also see the source so I can attribute them properly. In the long term, it means that every time I visit my Bloglines account, I see all these bolded items that look like they're holding nice new content, but they're not. What a letdown.

So I am going to share some of these interesting links with you, most of which are related to film in some way, and then I can get rid of all the Keep New checkmarks and start afresh with a nice clean Bloglines account. I can't vouch for any central organizational theme or focus between these links, but I liked them.

Brothers Grimm release date moved up—Brothers Grimm, directed by Terry Gilliam, was originally supposed to be released in Nov. 2004 (right around my birthday, in fact, which is why I remember). Dimension Films pushed back the release date by an entire year, much to my disappointment. But the good news is that the new release date for the film is July 2005. Yay! Via Twitch, verified on other sites.

Mr. Do and Mr. Don't Go to PIFF—PIFF is the Portland International Film Festival. I thought this series of comic strips by M.E. Russell was just as cute as a bug's ear. I saw Double Indemnity in a theater of Mr. Don'ts once, so they are certainly not limited to Portland. I must say, however, that Mr. Do also deserves a clout on the ear, especially for his use of the term "mise-en-scene." Via the cinecultist.

Thirty Days of Movie Character Blogs—To celebrate Oscar season, TCM has created these silly "online diaries" for various movie characters. And you can actually post comments if you are so inclined. I can't imagine Stella Dallas spending enough time on a computer to keep a blog. Ditto for Scarlett. Norman Bates, on the other hand, might have found some therapeutic value from the Web. It's goofy good fun. Via where or when.

"Those kids today ..."—Speaking of people who are clueless about blogs, this Detroit News columnist laments the fact that college journalism students don't read newspapers or traditional print columnists, and therefore they "don't read."

I found this column via About Last Night, in which Terry Teachout noted that blogs are noticeably absent from the column:

"But here’s another thought that occurred to me as I read this piece: could it be that the most immediate effect of the blogosphere on the mainstream media will be to make columnists obsolete?"

And while we're at it, how about traditional movie critics? Heh.

I think the column is stupid and condescending, and it is written in a tone often used by columnists for local papers, which explains why many of us avoid them. I couldn't name many print columnists I read regularly, either (Molly Ivins is the only one that leaps to mind, and I read her columns online), but I do read a lot of opinionated writing on the Web. I'm not as young as the journalism students in the article, but I still feel like most newspaper columnists, local and syndicated, are pompous old farts. I can connect with blog and online journal authors, who often write in a more straightforward and sincere style, and not just to fill column inches.

This is one reason why newspapers are dying. Why should I bother paying for a subscription to read doctored-up press releases and columns by ignorant blowhards when I can get better, more up-to-date, and more intelligently written material on the Web, usually for free?

I hope the students in that journalism class are smart enough to find ways to appeal to under-50 readers, whether it's in a newspaper, a magazine, or some other media outlet.

More on evolving online media—Catherine Jamieson wrote a thoughtful entry about how online photography sites have changed, and the combination of photography and online journalling that she employs on her site. I liked this entry particularly because of this paragraph:

"I have three sets of readers ... They are those who come to read, those who come to look at the pictures and those who come to do both, unsure which they prefer. The readers find all the photographs annoying. The lookers find all the words annoying. The well rounded individuals (like myself, I mean, ahem) seem to like both in equal measure."

This reminded me a lot of my own site. I am never sure who is reading. I don't post enough film-related news to appeal to film bloggers. I don't share enough personal stories to appeal to online journalling fans. So if you're actually reading this, I guess that means you're a well-rounded person of taste and refinement.

Sequels of taste and refinement—Seriously, I don't care how many interviews with Sam Raimi might point to such a thing ... I will believe that there will be an Evil Dead 4 when I see an official trailer. I'm not particularly thrilled about the idea of remaking The Evil Dead, either. Ghost House Pictures seems to be doing quite well on the principle of making cheap horror movies that can be distributed internationally—Boogeyman surprised everyone at the box office—but surely there are plenty of other ideas and scripts kicking around without remaking the film that started it all for Raimi and Rob Tapert. Via Twitch.

2004 World Poll—If you haven't read enough Top 2004 Films list, you can check out this collection of lists on Senses of Cinema. Dozens of lists from an international mix of film critics and film geeks. Via Wiley Wiggins, who is included in the poll.