Search This Blog

Monday, February 27, 2012

Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie Poulain

In all of the Monday Matinees that I have done, I've focused on a lot of different kinds of films. I've featured romantic comedies, gripping dramas, horror films, animated films, film classics, and even films that were based on true stories.

The reason why I wanted to focus on a wide selection of movies on this blog. To give the blog a little bit of variety.

But, looking back, there's one genre of film that in the nine months since I started this blog I've never featured. I've never done a feature on a foreign film.

(And, no, any entry that I have featured on Harry Potter doesn't quite qualify as a foreign film.)

I'm talking about films that are screened at places like the Cannes Film Festival. Films that are often nominated for Academy Awards, but yet you yourself might not have actually seen them (or even heard of them for that matter).

Some of these films are quite brilliant. They tell a wonderful story, have characters you can really believe in, and they don't believe in using explosions or violence to move the story along.

(Well, unless you happen to be watching a foreign film that is SUPPOSED to have explosions and/or violence in them.)

Today's featured film doesn't have explosions or violence in them. It's a brilliant tale of a young woman living in France who makes the selfless decision to try and help improve the lives of everybody around her, from people who have known her all their lives to random strangers. During the course of the film, she also begins to understand why she is the way that she is, and by the end of the film, she makes some definite conclusions about who she is.

I even remember where I was when I saw this film for the first time. I was in Ottawa at the time, and the movie was playing at one of the many specialty movie houses that were in the city during 2001. The movie had come out that November, and I ended up watching it as part of a class that I was taking. Although the movie was entirely in French, it did come with subtitles. And, I know some people hate going to movies where you're forced to read, but for me, I appreciated knowing what was happening. By the end, I was thinking that the movie was a great film, and I left the theater with nothing but positive experiences.

In France, the movie had the title “Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amélie', but internationally, the film had the simpler title of “Amélie”.



Amélie is a French romantic comedy directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, and starred Audrey Tautou (who some of you might remember from her role in “The Da Vinci Code”), as the character of Amélie Poulain, a twenty-three year old waitress in Montmartre, Paris, France. The film was released in France in April 2001, and seven months later screened in America.

The film itself was critically acclaimed, and did very well at the box office. It won Best Film at the European Film Awards, was the winner of four César Awards, won two BAFTA Awards, and was nominated for five Academy Awards.



The film begins as we meet Amélie. She's a beautiful young woman with a whimsical personality and a vibrant imagination. However, Amélie grew up feeling quite lonely. She grew up feeling isolated from other children her age (something this blogger can definitely identify with). The fact that she lost her mother when she was quite young, and her father became increasingly withdrawn as a result certainly didn't help matters much.

But Amélie (much like this blogger) found ways to hide her loneliness through her active imagination. After all, if the world around you isn't the way that you'd like it to be, you can always create your own world to imagine yourself in. It's great therapy, when you look at it that way.

So, Amélie became a young woman who was incredibly shy and who finds pleasure in simple things. She has had some dating experience, but they all ended in disappointment, and Amélie works as a waitress at a French café called Café des 2 Moulins, a place where the staff is just as eccentric as the people who dine there.



Right from the get-go, we find out exactly when this film is set when Amélie discovers the news of Princess Diana's death on television (as you might know, Diana and her companion, Dodi Fayed were killed in a car accident inside a Parisian tunnel on August 31, 1997 following a high speed chase involving members of the paparazzi), and is immediately shocked. At the time, she is holding a bottle cap which she drops. The bottle cap hits a tile in the bathroom wall and loosens it. When Amélie removes the tile that was loosened, she is surprised to find a small metal box hidden behind it. Inside the box is a collection of childhood toys and knick-knacks from a young boy who lived in her apartment years earlier.



Amélie, upon discovering the box, decides that the right thing to do would be to return the box to its rightful owner. Even though the boy was now a man, she resolved to make it happen. At the same time, she issued a promise to herself. If she could successfully track down the owner of the box, and make him happy as a result of returning the box, then she will take it as a sign that she is meant to spend the rest of her life helping bring happiness to others.

She sets about on her quest to return the box. The first person that she happens to meet is her reclusive neighbour, Raymond Dufayel (Serge Merlin). Dufayel is a skilled artist, but his recent work seems to be stuck in a Groundhog Day-esque rut, as he keeps painting the same thing over and over again – a Renoir piece entitled “Luncheon of the Boating Party”. He's also given the nickname of 'The Glass Man', due to a condition he has which caused his bones to become brittle. With his help, Amélie manages to locate the owner of the box...but rather than deliver the box to him face to face, Amélie decides on a different, more whimsical method.



It is within that moment that Amélie realizes that the promise that she made to herself would now have to be honoured. Helping Dominique Bretodeau reach an epiphany within his life has caused our young heroine to have an epiphany of her own.

She resolves to be the guardian angel towards everyone she meets. She wants to help others, but in secret. And, this is where her imaginative streak serves to assist her.

Through various schemes and plots that are intricate and complex, Amélie manages to impact the lives of people around her, which lead to several sub-plots throughout the film.



One of the first things that she does is assists a blind man to the Metro station, and during the course of the walk, she vividly describes the world around them in every possible detail.



She assists her own father when he talks about his dream of seeing the world, but not knowing exactly how he can do it. It is then that Amélie comes up with a plan to encourage her father to follow his dream by doing something incredibly sneaky. She decides to steal a prized possession from her father's garden, a blue cloaked garden gnome. Having a friend who works as an airline stewardess, she persuades her to take the gnome with her to every destination the plane that she works on stops in. Then every so often, photos of the gnome standing in front of world landmarks are sent to her father through the mail.



(Hmmm...I wonder if this film was the source for the popular Travelocity advertisements...)



Amélie also seems to enjoy playing the role of matchmaker, as she sets up a frequent customer at the café she works at with one of her co-workers. She gets to talking with the concierge of the apartment building she lives in and when the concierge reveals that her husband abandoned her, Amélie manages to locate proof that her husband had tried to send a final letter, hoping to reconcile with her before his death. Amélie even helps out a young grocery clerk named Lucien who is bullied by his boss, Mr. Collignon by playing practical jokes on the man. I guess one could also say that Amélie made sure that people got bad karma as well as good karma, but only if they deserved it.



All this is well and good, and Amélie certainly got great joy out of helping other people find happiness.

But, what about Amélie's own happiness? What was she doing to make sure that she was helping herself?

After a series of conversations with Dufayel (including the significance of the young girl drinking the glass of water in the various copies of the paintings Dufayel was working on), Amélie realizes that she has to examine her own life.



You see, during Amélie's quest to make the world a better place, she keeps encountering a man whose hobby seems to be raiding passport photo booths for discarded photographs. A man that Amélie has developed a liking for. Problem is that Amélie seems to lack the confidence and courage to even introduce herself to him. She discovers that the man is named Nino Quincampoix (Mathieu Kassovitz) after he accidentally drops his photo album on the street after bumping into him. The film then tracks Amélie through the streets of Paris, looking for Nino.

So, does she track Nino down? Does she give him back the album? Does she admit her feelings for him? Does she live happily ever after?

You really expect me to tell you? Watch it yourself!

No, seriously, watch Amélie for real. Don't let the idea of the film having subtitles scare you away. It really is a remarkable film to watch, and it will leave you feeling all sorts of wonderful feelings. Well, at least it did for me, anyways.

I can't speak for what other people got out of the film, but I can certainly tell you what I got out of the film. In many ways, I'm like Amélie...only in the male form and without a French accent. Though I do have a French last name, which at the very least is something.

Like Amélie, I was a very lonely child, who didn't really feel like he fit in to a lot of places, and like Amélie I had a wild imagination that I used as an escape from the loneliness. I used to read Archie Comics and wish that I was inside of them because to me, Riverdale was a place where everyone knew everyone and where people were respected for who they were and not for what they looked like. So, I can definitely identify with Amélie in that regard.

But, I can also identify with what Amélie was doing as well. She was so focused on trying to make other people happy that her own happiness kind of got placed on the back burner. Of course, she did get some feeling of satisfaction and joy in helping the people that she did, but she never could find a way to convince herself that she deserved to help herself become happy.

And, you know, I'm a lot like her in that regard.

I think that's the message that I got from Amélie. That you can spread your love to other people all you want and feel good about it...but that you shouldn't overlook yourself in that equation. And, sometimes, you have to take chances and realize that the only person standing in the way of that happiness that you want so much may very well be yourself.

I'm getting better at learning that lesson. Not quite there yet, but I am improving. Who knows? Maybe one day I'll find someone's photo album on the street, and it will lead me to my own destiny. I guess as long as I'm still alive, there's always time.


Sunday, February 26, 2012

The Controversial Life Of Sinéad O'Connor

Does anyone remember when Sinéad O’Connor was famous for her musical talents and not for the controversy that has followed her in recent years?


Yeah, I know.  Those memories are kind of hazy for me as well.

It’s no wonder though.  Over the last few years, controversy and Sinéad O’Connor have seemingly gone together the same way one would put peanut butter and jelly together in a sandwich.

I mean, yes, let’s give credit where credit is due.  She is a woman who stands by what she believes in, and usually won’t back down from her stances or her beliefs, which is commendable.  Unfortunately, the way that she went about taking a stand has made some to believe that she is nothing more than a troublemaker (a label that O’Connor admits is an appropriate one for her).


The latest bit of controversy surrounding Sinéad O’Connor dates back only a couple of months.  On December 9, 2011 (just one day after her 45th birthday), O’Connor had gotten married to her fourth husband, Barry Herridge, an Irish therapist.  Less than three weeks later, O’Connor filed for divorce.

You know your marriage must have been bad if it didn’t even last longer than the Kardashian train wreck.

O’Connor issued a statement on her official website shortly after the marriage was called off, with her explaining that the marriage was over, making a point to mention that they had only lived together for only seven days total.  Because, I’m sure that everyone who has gotten married has suffered from the seven-day itch.

To make the story even more bizarre, just a week after the marriage was called off, Sinéad O’Connor made people wag their tongues even more when she posted a series of announcements online announcing her reconciliation with Herridge.  So, at this point, I’m not sure exactly what to believe.

And this latest incident isn’t even the most shocking or controversial thing she has ever done in her lifetime!  But, we’ll get to that a bit later.

I figure that since it’s the Sunday Jukebox entry, we might as well talk about the thing that initially made Sinéad O’Connor a star in the first place.


Right from childhood, Sinéad O’Connor had a bit of a rebellious streak in her.  She and her siblings were often abused by their mother (as O’Connor has claimed in several interviews) when they were younger, and Sinéad often acted out as a direct result of it.  At the age of 15, she had already been caught shoplifting, and often skipped school.  It got so bad that she was placed in a building known as a Magdalene asylum (a place where girls who were seen as having poor moral character were sent).  Although O’Connor had some instances in which she hated being there, she did later say that being there helped her develop some essential skills.

Most notably, it helped her become a better writer, and helped her hone into her musical talents. 

By 1983, when O’Connor was sixteen, her father had placed her in a school which was far less restrictive than the one she had previously been enrolled at, and it was here that she was encouraged by her Irish language teacher, Joseph Falvey, to record a demo tape.

The following year, O’Connor met a man named Columb Farrelly after he answered an ad that she had placed in ‘Hot Press’ magazine.  Together, the formed the band ‘Ton Ton Macoute’ (the band name was inspired by the Haitian zombie culture).  She dropped out of school to pursue a career with the band, and many of their performances in Dublin garnered a positive buzz.  Many people who enjoyed the concerts specifically singled out O’Connor’s vocals and stage presence as being the best thing about the band.

In 1985, O’Connor suffered a shock when her mother was killed in a car accident.  Despite the volatility towards her mother, Sinéad was left devastated by the loss.  Months later, she would leave Ton Ton Macoute to embark on a solo career in London, England.

Luckily, upon her arrival in London, people already had an idea of who she was based on her work with the band.  Within a few months of arriving in London, she had gotten signed to recording label Ensign Records.  One of her first jobs with the studio was recording a single called “Heroine” for the motion picture soundtrack for “Captive”.  It was co-written by O’Connor, and The Edge, guitarist for Irish band U2.


Shortly thereafter, Sinéad began work on her debut album, “The Lion And The Cobra”, which was released in 1987.  But the making of the album wasn’t without its problems.  The original producer of the album, Mick Glossop, clashed with O’Connor on multiple occasions, as each of them had different opinions as to how O’Connor’s debut album should sound.  The fallout led to over four months worth of work of recordings being scrapped entirely.  To add to the stress, O’Connor had gotten pregnant with her first child by her session drummer, John Reynolds.  At seven months pregnant, and just twenty years old, Sinéad’s manager, Fachtna O’Ceallaigh, convinced the record execs to let O’Connor produce her debut album herself.

“The Lion And The Cobra” was released in November 1987, and spurned three hit singles.  The album wasn’t a huge commercial success in the United States, but her songs did get a lot of airplay on college radio stations throughout 1988 and 1989. 


And then in 1990, Sinéad O’Connor released her second album “I Do Not Want What I Haven’t Got”.  And from that second album came the song that would get her noticed by the American public, and became a huge worldwide success.



ARTIST:  Sinéad O’Connor
SONG:  Nothing Compares 2 U
ALBUM:  I Do Not Want What I Haven’t Got
DATE RELEASED:  January 8, 1990
PEAK POSITION ON THE BILLBOARD CHARTS:  #1 for 4 weeks

Originally, the song “Nothing Compares 2 U” was a Prince composition, meant for a side project that he was working on.  But when O’Connor teamed up with producer Nellee Hooper to record the song for her 1990 album, nobody knew just how much of a hit it would become.


For the hard life that O’Connor experienced in her teenage years, and her rebellious streak, the music video for the single was surprisingly calm and serene.   It was a simplistic video that featured an extreme close-up of O’Connor’s head as she sang throughout most of the song.  The shots that did not involve the close-up showed O’Connor walking through a park in Paris, France.

TRIVIA:  When O’Connor sings the lyrics “all the flowers that you planted, mama, in the backyard, all died when you went away”, you can see a tear stream down her face.  O’Connor explained that this was not accidental.  It described the complicated relationship that she had with her mother when she was still alive, and how raw her emotions were upon singing that very lyric.

The music video was largely responsible for the song’s success.  It won three awards at the 1990 MTV Video Music Awards, including the award for Video of the Year (the first time that a female artist had won the honour).

Sinéad O’Connor’s second album sold extremely well as a result of “Nothing Compares 2 U”.  Coupled with the success of another single, “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, the album put Sinéad O’Connor on the map, and she had quickly become one of the most sought after entertainers of 1990.

However with the success came the controversy, and for O’Connor, it all began to take place just months after “Nothing Compares 2 U” became a worldwide smash.


In August 1990, O’Connor had a concert booked at the Garden State Arts Center in the city of Holmdel, New Jersey.  One of the practices of the venue at that time was to play a recording of ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ before each concert began...a practice that conflicted with Sinéad’s own beliefs.  Because she had felt that most of the anthems were written during times of war, and therefore in her opinion promoted nationalist tirades. 

I’m just writing what I read.  Formulate your own opinions.

The venue did accommodate O’Connor’s request, and the concert went on as planned without the anthem, but the general opinion wasn’t exactly kind.  It was widely reported in tabloids, and some radio stations pulled O’Connor’s songs from their playlists.


And then came the fateful Saturday Night Live appearance.

On October 3, 1992, Sinéad O’Connor was the musical guest featured on Saturday Night Live, singing an a cappella version of Bob Marley’s “War”.  O’Connor specifically chose the song herself to make a statement against the sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church.  Everything went according to plan and without incident, until she pulled out a photograph of Pope John Paul II while singing the word “evil”.  She then did something that would have people talking for weeks afterwards, and caused a national backlash as a result.


She took the photo of the Pope, tore it into dozens of pieces, and urged the viewing audience to “fight the real enemy” before throwing the pieces of the photo towards the camera.

The reaction from the studio audience was pure silence.  Just moments before, they were laughing at the various sketches put on by the cast of Saturday Night Live, but after O’Connor’s performance, many audience members weren’t sure how to react.  And, who can blame them, really?  It was an incredibly shocking thing to witness.

Reportedly, the producers of Saturday Night Live were just as blown away as the viewing audience, as they had no idea that O’Connor was planning on doing such a thing (they had seen her tearing up a different photo altogether during the rehearsal).  Executive producer Lorne Michaels had described the situation as “on a certain level, a betrayal”, but also noted that it was also “an expression of serious belief”.

At any rate, the damage was done.  Luckily for NBC, the network didn’t face any fines for O’Connor’s performance, as blasphemy was not regulated by the FCC.  But NBC had gotten a total of over four thousand complaints from angry viewers, wondering how the network could have allowed such a thing to happen.  Of course, the show was done live, and not even the executives and producers knew what O’Connor was planning, so very little could have been done to stop it from going on.


Of course, O’Connor was vilified by the press, as well as the public.  Two weeks after the Saturday Night Live appearance, she was set to perform at the Bob Dylan 30th Anniversary tribute concert, and when she took to the stage, the people in the audience were largely opposed to seeing her, and they booed her quite loudly.  At first, O’Connor was set to ignore the naysayers, but eventually she had to leave the stage, as the crowd was getting restless.  While I don’t doubt that it must have been a hard pill to swallow for her, the general opinion was that she had brought it on herself. 

But, did she care?  Not at all.  She revealed in a 2002 interview that she had absolutely no regrets about what she did, and she’d do it over again exactly the same way.  So, I guess if there is something positive to say about this incident, it’s that she still stands true to her beliefs after all this time.  I guess in that sense, you have to give her props for not being wishy-washy, even if her opinion wasn’t one that was popular.

But, in 1992, O’Connor’s popularity in the United States was at an all time low.  The host of Saturday Night Live the week after O’Connor’s fateful appearance was actor Joe Pesci, who poked fun at the incident, and later explained in an interview that had this happened when he was the host, he probably would have decked her one. 

Madonna was also a huge critic of O’Connor’s action, and constantly took pot shots at O’Connor through the media.  But, O’Connor struck right back, accusing Madonna of being a poor role model for women, given the fact that she had publicly slagged her off as an entertainer, and personally insulted her before the incident had taken place.


IRONIC TRIVIA:  The song that dethroned Sinéad O’Connor’s “Nothing Compares 2 U” was Madonna’s “Vogue”, which hit the #1 spot the weekend of May 18, 1990.  Even more ironic, May 18 was also the birthdate of Pope John Paul II!

And, of course, O’Connor’s sales of her music plummeted in late 1992.  Although O’Connor had released six albums since the Saturday Night Live appearance, none of them matched the success of her earlier albums.

During the late 1990s and 2000s, O’Connor tried to focus on other things, and ended up having a lot of highs and lows.  Throughout her life, she had four marriages, and had four children.  She was ordained as a priest by Bishop Michael Cox, which caused controversy, as the belief of the Roman Catholic Church stated that women could not be ordained priests.

O’Connor was also diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2003, and she confessed on the Oprah Winfrey show that she had attempted suicide on her 33rd birthday in 1999. 

But, Sinéad O’Connor survived all that, and she is now moving ahead with her life (even if the state of her current marriage is unknown).

Despite all the scandal and all the controversy that she has gotten involved in through the years, there’re two things that I can point out as being positive.  I already talked about one earlier, about how O’Connor has stood by her beliefs no matter how unpopular they were.


But when you can tune out the controversy and really listen to her songs the way they were meant to be listened to, they really are beautiful and soulful.  It’s unknown as to whether or not O’Connor will be able to rise above the controversy and just focus on the music again, but I suppose as long as she is still alive, there’s a very slim possibility.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

Merrie Melodies With Sylvester And Tweety

In all likelihood, many of us have never been in the situation that I am about to describe, and for a good many of us, we likely will not ever be in such a situation.

But, have any of you ever felt uneasiness around another person, or even an animal?  As if you think that the minute your back is turned, they’ll strike with full force?

I’ll admit that I’ve felt that way at times.  In all cases though, I was worried over nothing.  In most cases, I imagine that for a lot of people, their worries end up amounting to nothing. 

Well, unless you happen to suffer from extreme paranoia, and you believe that everybody in the world is out to make your life a living hell.  But, that’s a rarity.

What happens though when your fears happen to be one hundred per cent real?

Just picture yourself in this situation.  You’re trying to go about your daily business the best way you know how, but yet you’re always looking over your shoulder.  You have the sinking feeling that someone is watching your every move, waiting for you to let your guard down.  And when the right opportunity presents itself, they strike for the kill.  Or, at least attempt to.

(And, this blog entry is quickly turning into a page that one might find in a ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ book!)

The point is that for a select few of us, having to keep an eye out for danger is a scary reality.  Some have to deal with being stalked and watched each and every day...especially if you happen to be a celebrity.

Fortunately, there are ways in which we can protect ourselves from unsavoury characters that exist solely to cause us to be fearful of our surroundings.  We can take self-defence classes to protect ourselves from being attacked or hurt by strangers and would-be robbers.  We can seek out restraining orders to keep any would-be stalkers at bay.

Or, if you happen to be a little yellow bird, you can take your enemy’s bag of tricks and successfully use them against him.

While I definitely don’t want to downplay the seriousness of having to deal with someone who creeps somebody else out, today’s blog topic deals with a couple of cartoon characters who have had to live through that scenario for sixty-five years.


Today’s blog topic examines the intricate, dysfunctional relationship of Sylvester and Tweety from Looney Tunes cartoons.

Unless you’ve lived under a rock, or don’t believe in watching television (in which case I doubt you would even be reading this blog right now), I’m sure that most of you have seen at least one cartoon featuring Sylvester and Tweety.  If you haven’t, fear not.  I’ve enclosed links to four cartoons featuring the pair, and if you click on the episode titles below, you can watch them!

I Taw A Putty Tat – 1948




I figured that I would post at least one example from a different decade, just so all of you could see how far Sylvester and Tweety evolved over the years.

But, do you know which character appeared first?




That honour goes to Tweety, who made his debut on November 21, 1942.  Though, he didn’t exactly resemble the Tweety that we all knew and loved right away.


Tweety made his first appearance in a cartoon short called “A Tale Of Two Kitties”.  He was created by animator Bob Clampett.  And, apparently his original name was slated to be ‘Orson’, if you can believe it.  Anyway, in Tweety’s first cartoon, he was pitted against two feline antagonists named Babbit and Catsello (an obvious spoof of Abbott and Costello). 

And, in this cartoon, Tweety looked a lot different.  Take a look at this screenshot below this paragraph.


Notice that Tweety’s signature yellow colouring isn’t present anywhere on his body whatsoever?  He looks a little bit pink, wouldn’t you say?  As it turned out, Tweety wasn’t initially designed to be the golden yellow domesticated canary we all grew up with.  Instead, he was more of a free spirit, a real wild child, if you will.

Certainly, the Tweety of yore was incredibly aggressive and saucy in comparison to the more watered down version we would be used to.  And, given how cunning and sly Tweety ended up, I reckon that old Tweety would have been a sight to behold!

Tweety, like most Bugs Bunny characters, was voiced by legendary voice artist Mel Blanc.  And like many characters voiced by Blanc, each one had a distinctive speech pattern.  In Tweety’s case, Blanc decided to give him a similar speech pattern as Elmer Fudd, where “L” and “R” sounds were changed to “W” sounds, and where the phrase “I thought I saw a pussy cat” was translated to “I tawt I taw a putty tat!”

For three years, Tweety was a solo act.  But around 1945, Clampett began work on a new short, which saw Tweety taking on a black and white cat, designed by fellow animator Friz Freleng.  The cat didn’t have a name at the time, and the only distinctive feature that he had was a severe lisp that caused him to spray saliva each time he said any word containing the letter S.


However, before the short could be made, Clampett left the studios, leaving Freleng as the sole animator of the project.  Freleng took on the challenge, but he made a few changes to the Tweety character.  He was the one who gave Tweety two trademarks that are still associated with him today.  He gave Tweety his big blue eyes, and his bright yellow feathers.  The cat was further developed into an anthropomorphic tuxedo cat.  He was also given the name of Sylvester.


And the first cartoon that they ended up starring in together was 1947’s Tweetie Pie.

Tweetie Pie proved to be a huge hit with fans, and the cartoon short was solely responsible for Warner Brothers earning their very first Academy Award for Best Short Subject (Cartoons).

Sylvester and Tweety made a great pair, despite the fact that in almost every short that the duo starred in, Sylvester tried to have Tweety for dinner.

Literally, Sylvester spent a lot of energy trying to turn Tweety into the ultimate gourmet cuisine, right down to the last feather.

But, somehow, Tweety was always at least one step ahead of Sylvester.  Every time Sylvester reached into his arsenal of weapons, tricks, and booby traps, courtesy of the Acme Corporation, Tweety would somehow come out on top.  He would purposely get the attention of nearby dogs to chase after Sylvester.  Sometimes, Tweety would take Sylvester’s props and use them against him.  Sometimes, Tweety would have some items of his own to defend himself against Sylvester.

Most of the time, Sylvester was dumb enough to screw up his schemes all on his own without any influence from Tweety altogether.  Sylvester wasn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.  I mean, if you look at Sylvester’s track record, anyone he’s ever tangled with has almost always come up on top.  Porky Pig seemed to have more bravery than Sylvester did.  Sylvester’s own son, Sylvester Jr, was almost ashamed to admit that he was related to the big oaf of a cat.  And, it’s hard to ignore the fact that Sylvester would always happen to get a nervous breakdown each and every time he tangled with that baby kangaroo from Australia.


Over the years, Sylvester and Tweety have entertained generations of children, who in turn have shared the cartoons with their own children.  Sylvester and Tweety would end up sharing the stage in their own cartoon, ‘The Sylvester and Tweety Mysteries’, which aired between 1995 and 2001.  The duo also appeared in the 1996 film ‘Space Jam’, starring basketball player Michael Jordan. 

Tweety even appeared in a public service announcement regarding parents being mindful of the temperature of their child’s bath water back in the early 1980s.  You can watch it by clicking here.

Yes, it’s true.  Sylvester doesn’t exactly come off in such a good light when it comes to the way he goes after Tweety...but somehow knowing that Tweety always seems to outsmart Sylvester kind of makes it all worth it in the end. 

Besides, Sylvester has at least proven that the idea of cats having nine lives is true...heck, in Sylvester’s case, he must be on his nine hundredth life at the time of this blog posting.


Um...make that 901...

Friday, February 24, 2012

Who Shot J.R. Ewing?



How many of you love a good mystery?

I know I do. Some of my favourite forms of entertainment involve trying to piece together a mystery of some sort. Picking out all the clues, examining evidence, trying to point a finger at a suspect. I love stuff like that. It's a wonder that I didn't pursue a career in detective work or forensics.

No, actually, there's a couple of reasons. My suspicions are usually wrong, and I hate the sight of blood that is not my own. That's why I didn't go down that career path.

But I can't remember one instance in which I wasn't absolutely fascinated by the idea of mystery. Even as early as my formative years, I used to read mystery books. I was quite into the Hardy Boys Mystery books, as well as a special set of books called the Clue Mystery novel series that would have a bunch of mini-mysteries in each book. It was fun to read through the book and attempt to have the mystery solved before I got to the end of the story, seeing if I was on the right track or way off course.

It wasn't just books that got me hooked. I play a lot of video games on my Nintendo DS that have to do with mystery themes. Phoenix Wright and Hotel Dusk are a couple of my favourites, as well as the various games that require you to locate Carmen Sandiego.

In television, I'm also drawn to mystery related shows and storylines. I admit to actually getting hooked on a soap opera because they had a really big murder mystery going on in one of its plots (and admittedly kept watching said soap opera until it was cancelled). That's how much I love the genre known as mystery.

Today's blog topic has to do with one of the biggest mysteries in the history of prime time television. And, unfortunately for me, it aired the year before I was born, so I missed it when it originally aired. But, those of you who were lucky enough to have lived through the year 1980 might remember this 'who done it' mystery quite well. It was widely reported in newspapers and magazines for a six month period, and reportedly the Queen tried to get one of the stars of the program to spill the secret. Of course, he never told.



The mystery? Who shot J.R. Ewing on Dallas?

The mystery began on March 21, 1980. That was the day that the Dallas episode “A House Divided” aired. It was the final episode of the show's second season. And, J.R. Ewing (Larry Hagman) had been a very, very naughty man.



In the course of the season, J.R. Ewing had alienated almost everyone in his life. His younger brother Bobby was tired of J.R.'s ruthless scheming. His wife, Sue Ellen was an alcoholic who wanted to see her husband in a casket. Sue Ellen's scheming sister, Kristin was also angry at him for backing out on a promise he made her during an affair they had. There was Cliff Barnes, who had been J.R. Ewing's nemesis for years. Oh heck, why don't we just add Ellie, Jock, Pam, Lucy, Ray, and pretty much anyone else who had set foot in Southfork Ranch during late 1979 and early 1980? J.R. Ewing was that hated.

On March 21, 1980, someone took their revenge out on J.R. Ewing. And they did it with a bang.



That was quite typical of Dallas cliffhanger episodes. Some event would happen that would get people talking around office water coolers for weeks after the fact. Whether it was getting blown up in a car accident, or falling off of a building, or waking up and realizing that a whole season was just a bad dream, Dallas certainly didn't skimp on the dramatics and shock value with their end of season episode cliffhangers. In fact, it was the 1980 cliffhanger that could be considered the granddaddy of all Dallas cliffhangers that have ever aired.

Who shot J.R.?

The cliffhanger episode was elaborately done. Throughout the whole episode, almost everyone in J.R. Ewing's inner circle was rightfully annoyed at him for whatever reason, and throughout the whole episode, we saw everyone utter at least one threat against him. The list of suspects kept growing and growing. When the moment came, and the shot rang out, viewers were left wondering which person pulled the trigger.



And, unfortunately for viewers, the answer to that question wouldn't be revealed for quite some time.

Shortly after “A House Divided” screened on CBS, there was an actors strike that postponed filming of almost every prime time show for three months. Soon after that, in July 1980, another strike had taken place, this one being orchestrated by the Screen Actors' Guild. That strike delayed production by another eight weeks. Viewers had to wait until at least November 1980 before they learned whether J.R. Ewing would even survive being shot, and who the perpetrator was.

That must have been absolutely agonizing for viewers having to wait eight whole months for a conclusion to be brought forth. I know that had I been old enough to watch that storyline as it originally aired, I would have been on pins and needles waiting for the answers.

But with the longer than normal wait came lucrative advertising opportunities for retail outlets to cash in on the 'Who Shot J.R.” pandemonium.



During the summer of 1980, it wasn't an uncommon sight to see people wearing T-shirts and other articles of clothing asking the question 'Who Shot J.R.?”. Some even took it one step further, and wore clothing items reading “I Shot J.R.!”

Many betting places in the United Kingdom and the United States actually took bets from people who tried to predict who the shooter was. During the 1980 American presidential campaign, people from the Republican party passed out campaign buttons, insisting that a Democrat shot J.R.! Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter fired back by stating that he'd have no problem financing his campaign had he known who had pulled the trigger.

(Assuming that there was a reward for finding the shooter, that is.)

Did I mention that the general public were getting so antsy about who had shot J.R. Ewing that the cast members were often asked ad nauseum who had done it? Radio stations offered up speculation. Television interviews with actors were conducted, in which every single one kept quiet. As mentioned before, one cast member was vacationing in the United Kingdom while Dallas was on hiatus, and he happened to meet with the Queen Mother, who promptly asked him who the perpetrator was.

Alas, not even being the ruler of a nation was enough to get Larry Hagman to spill the secret. Larry Hagman was even offered a nice chunk of change in exchange for the name of the shooter. But, Larry later explained that anyone who did attempt to bribe them for information was simply wasting their time and money. At the time of the hiatus, Hagman claimed that nobody in the cast knew anything about the identity of the shooter. Whether or not there was any truth to that statement, it's hard to say. For the sake of this entry, let's just go ahead and believe it.

Viewers had to wait until November 21, 1980 until the answer revealed itself. A full eight months since J.R. Ewing was shot. Miraculously (despite the fact that in the real world, a person who was shot eight months ago would have likely died of blood loss if not by anything else), J.R. Ewing survived his shooting, but he was unable to identify his shooter, on account that the crime took place in darkness. It wasn't until Sue Ellen started to do a little bit of digging, and realized that there was only one person who could have done the dastardly deed.

Would you like to know who it is? Scroll down.













Keep scrollin'...you're almost there...













That's right. The shooter was none other than Kristin Shepard, revealed in the episode 'Who Done It?'



Sue Ellen explained that she stopped by Kristin's apartment holding the gun (at first, it was widely believed that Sue Ellen was the main suspect). Kristin had offered Sue Ellen a drink, knowing full well that Sue Ellen had been drinking quite a bit before arriving at her place, and knowing that Sue Ellen would more than likely pass out if she drank any more alcohol on top of the amount that she had already drank. Sure enough, that's exactly what happened.

Kristin picked up an unconscious Sue Ellen and helped her back into her car, but Kristin pocketed Sue Ellen's gun and kept it on her person. With Sue Ellen unable to do anything about it, Kristin snuck into J.R. Ewing's office and shot him. A few hours later, Kristin found a way into Sue Ellen's place, and stuffed the gun inside Sue Ellen's closet, in an attempt to frame her for the crime.

But, Sue Ellen discovered the nasty plan, and spilled every little detail to J.R., all in front of Kristin, effectively throwing her under the bus (and rightfully so). And, J.R. Is naturally furious about the whole thing, and is ready to call the police to have Kristin arrested. But then Kristin reveals that she has gotten pregnant, and well, you guessed it. J.R. Ewing just happened to be the father.

And since Maury Povich didn't have a talk show back in 1980, J.R. Ewing just had to take her word for it. After all, the scandal that would take place if Kristin gave birth to an Ewing heir in prison would spell financial disaster for Ewing Oil.

Oh, but don't worry. Karma has a way of working itself out. And, when the third season came to its conclusion in May 1981, Kristin received the ultimate comeuppance. And, in this case, J.R. Ewing had nothing to do with it.

At least, physically.

Since the 'Who Shot J.R.' storyline wrapped up, there have been many, many carbon copies and parodies released. In 1990, everyone was asking the question 'Who Killed Laura Palmer?' on the television series 'Twin Peaks' (it was Leland Palmer). Five years later, people wondered who shot Mr. Burns on the long-running animated series 'The Simpsons'. (It was Maggie Simpson)

Even soap operas had their own version of 'who done it' storylines, and on the British soap EastEnders, a storyline ran during early 2001 which posed the question 'Who Shot Phil Mitchell?' (It was Lisa.)

But, I think that it's a safe bet to say that the most memorable one was 'Who Shot J.R.?' Considering that at one time it was the most watched television program ever (until it was dethroned by the M*A*S*H series finale in 1983), I think it speaks for itself just how big it got.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

No More Copying For You!!!

This week on the Thursday Confessional, I thought that I would confess a regret that I have carried around with me for quite a while.

And, to lead up to this, a story about one of the worst years in my school career.

For any of you who have been following along with this blog, you might know that first grade was an absolute nightmare for me. The teacher made me feel like I was useless, I was treated terribly by some of the kids in the class, and it was just a mess of a year.

As it so happens, first grade was a year in which I did something that I'm ashamed of now.

Now, I hear some of you saying...first grade? Really? That was twenty-five years ago!

Yes, this much is true. I've held onto a regret for that long. But, my hope is that once I explain what that regret is that most of you will understand.

Prior to first grade, I would watch quite a lot of educational television, read a lot of educational books, and play with educational toys. And, it wasn't because my parents made me either. I wanted to. They were things that I enjoyed to do. I certainly didn't think that I had an edge over any of the other children in my class, but looking back on it, I think that may have been the case.

Any doubt that I may have had about that was more or less eliminated during our journal time. What we had to do was draw a picture of something that we did during the day (which granted most of my journal entries were made up, but the teacher didn't need to know that minor detail), and then underneath we would write down what the activity was that we were doing in the picture.



The problem was that a select few lacked the ability to spell basic words. Which was fine. I mean, it was first grade, and not everyone could spell. But when I was in the first grade, spelling was just something that I was always did well in. Looking back on it, I did watch a lot of Sesame Street and Readalong back in the day, and probably learned how to spell from watching those shows. As a result, I probably could spell better than most in my grade. I'm definitely not stating this to brag about my abilities though. Just because I could spell well meant that I had weaknesses in other areas. I could tell you dozens of stories about how horribly I did in gym class. But, that's a different story.

But, when the other kids in my class got word that I knew how to spell many words, they took advantage in a big way. It wasn't an uncommon sight to see a group of kids running up to my desk to ask me how to spell a word or two to finish their homework. They never went to the teacher, because the teacher always told them to figure it out for themselves the best way they knew how.

Unfortunately, the best way they knew how was to ask the big tall kid wearing the green and navy blue sweatshirt how to spell 'cat', 'dog', 'ball', and 'snowman'.

Even more unfortunate was the fact that I was the type of kid who would gladly tell the kids how to spell anything they wanted because I had the misconception that by helping them out, they would become my best friend, and that we'd hang out by the monkey bars all recess long.

It was a fleeting dream, and I wished for it to become true.

But once I helped them out with their schoolwork and the recess bell sounded, the very kids I helped out either ignored me, or made fun of me. I couldn't understand it as a kid. I helped them with their schoolwork, and they still were just as mean to me as they were before.



Then I had the ridiculous idea that maybe telling them how to spell words in their journals wasn't enough. Over the next little while, I took it one step further. When we had to do assignments that were given a grade, such as a spelling test, or a math assignment, I would write my test in such a way that it made it incredibly easy for my neighbours to copy every answer that I had written. Never mind the fact that I was unsure that my own answers were absolutely correct. Because the kids in my first grade class had deduced that I was the 'smart kid', they felt as though they needed to be 'smart kids' too. And, my thinking was that if I helped them become 'smart kids' by letting them copy off of my paper, then that would get me true friendship.

As I stated before, just because I was great at spelling meant that I was weak in other areas. And, in this case, my brain definitely was not working right.

Eventually, the French language teacher that would come to teach us for an hour a day got wise to the whole plan, and she purposely made me sit in a spot away from all of the other kids. She saw that the other kids were copying off of my work, and she wanted to nip it in the bud. So, I was isolated from the other kids in the class as a result.

Here's the thing though. When this had first happened, I remember being so angry and upset at the teacher. She was taking me away from my “friends”. I didn't understand why she had to be so mean by separating me from my friends. It's not until now that I realized that she probably did me the biggest favour that anyone ever really could. So, before I continue on with this, I want to send a shout out to Madame Ruston. Thank you for doing what you did.

Because it wasn't until years later that I realized that I totally regretted doing what I did back in the first grade. And, this leads to today's confession.



THURSDAY CONFESSION #8: I regret letting my classmates copy off of my schoolwork, if only for the reason that it made me feel like less of a person as a result.

Let's start with the obvious reason why right off the bat. It didn't get me any further ahead with my peers. In fact, I probably kicked myself down a couple of notches by letting people copy off of my work. Let's be realistic here. Some of those kids that I let copy off of my work had absolutely no intention of becoming my friend whatsoever. They got what they wanted out of me, and once they had it, I was of no use to them anymore.

I mean, granted, these are six year old children that I'm speaking of here, and six year old children can be quite fickle at times, changing their minds faster than most people change their socks. But when they kept doing it on a repeated basis, it really spoke volumes about the type of kids they were. At the same time, it also spoke volumes over how gullible and naïve I was as a six year old boy. But, at least I can look back and own up to it now.



If I had the brains back then, what I wished I had done was set up a wooden stand similar to the Psychiatric Help stand that Lucy Van Pelt had in Peanuts cartoons, and charged the kids in the class five cents per letter for each word they wanted spelled. If I had done that in first grade, I reckon that by eighth grade, I would have made enough money to retire in Cabo San Lucas.

(A gross exaggeration, mind you, but at least I would've gotten something out of the deal.)

Alas, not even charging kids for spelling words would have made me feel better about it.

Looking back on it, it's easy to say that I “helped” my classmates learn how to spell by telling them how to spell the words. But, did I really “help” them? I have to say, no.



Let's face it. If someone is given the answer without attempting to figure it out for themselves, I can't really classify that as learning anything. And, every kid that I just told the answer to didn't really learn how to spell any of those words whatsoever. If there was a kid in the class that would just give them the answers any time they wanted them, then what was the point of figuring out how to do things for themselves, right?

And, lo and behold, in my first grade classroom, there was someone who was doling out answers as if they were instant intelligence pills.

Me.

And, looking back on it now, I am so absolutely ashamed of myself for allowing it to happen. Because, I can't help but think that in some way, I contributed to the problem that seems to be plaguing schools, places of employment, and life in general.



We now live in a world where people seem to expect instant gratification for the least amount of hard work and effort. I mean, the Kardashian Klan...um, er, ah...Clan is a prime example of this. What kind of hard word did Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, or any other woman whose names begin with the letter K do to achieve their success? You know, I'm really struggling to come up with anything. I'm certainly not saying that they copied off of test papers, and used people to get to where they were (though they very well could have), but let's make one this clear. I don't consider the Kardashians to be role models for anybody.

And, yet there they are front and center. Famous for doing absolutely nothing.

And, sadly there's examples of people who also do very little to get the maximum praise in the non-celebrity world.

You read of stories like this in the news and through online accounts. People who use cell phones to pass along answers to multiple choice tests. People who download essays written by other people, erase the name of the original author, put their name on it, and hand it in as a class assignment. People who take credit for the work of someone else.

These incidents by themselves now make me see red. It isn't fair that people resort to cheating and lying their way to get through life. What exactly are they learning? How to be a sponge to society? How to manipulate people into getting exactly what they want? How to get the maximum grade possible for the minimal amount of work? It's certainly not how to appreciate a job well done.



Yet there's something that I always wondered.  You know the kids that I helped out as a gesture of friendship, only for them to turn their backs when I needed them?  This is purely hypothetical, but I wonder if they ended up becoming the people who would tell outright lies to get something for free. If they ended up being the people who would blame the teacher for their child getting an F on their report card. If they grew up with the belief that they didn't need to put forth any effort to get what they wanted because they could always find a patsy that would do the hard work for them.

Granted, in a lot of cases, the ones who would take advantage of me the most are people I haven't seen in years (and those people who I HAVE remained in contact with from first grade were people who never did this), but if in fact they did turn out to be the very people that I described in the above paragraph, then I can't help but feel as though I was a smidgen to blame for how they turned out. Because I let them copy off of my work, they didn't really learn how to become self-sufficient, and because of that, there's a slim possibility they may have gotten the impression that they didn't need to be that way.  It sounds silly, but it has always bugged me for some reason.

I now see what my French teacher was doing that day she put me off by myself in class. It wasn't a message towards me saying that I was in trouble, or that I didn't deserve to have any friends. It was more of a message towards the rest of my class that they should learn how to do their own work by themselves, and not to become reliant on someone else to give them all the answers.

I think what eventually woke me up about how what I was doing was not the right way at all was a little project that my eighth grade teacher assigned us. He told us to anonymously write down all of our favourite memories of elementary school, and then he would read them aloud to the class without revealing who wrote what. The intention was for us to be able to look back fondly on our time at elementary school by sharing wonderful memories. Unfortunately, the kids in my class named names. And, from paper to paper, one recurring theme seemed to pop up in my description. One of the only things that the kids would remember me for was the fact that they used to copy off of my test papers.



It was absolutely disgusting and appalling. I felt absolutely sick to my stomach hearing that. Was that all that I was good for? A free ride through school? It was very sobering to hear, and honestly, I felt ashamed in myself that I wasn't able to make more of a positive impression. It's probably one of the biggest regrets that I have in my life. Sure, I gave away information for free so that the kids could get an A on their paper, but for what? I wasn't getting anything out of it, while they coasted through school being completely oblivious and ignorant to what it meant to do a job well done. While I admit my part in the whole shameful behaviour, I doubt that my peers would feel quite the same way. They're probably going around thinking that they were the most intelligent people in the world because they got the best grades in the school, not realizing that they got those grades through deceptive and effortless means.

Or, maybe they spent all their effort coming up with ways TO cheat in life. Who can say, really?

It makes me upset that people like that in the world exist...and it makes me even more upset to know that I very well could have assisted in that when I was a child.

These days though, I've learned from my mistakes, and I never let anyone walk all over me again. I feel that everyone has the responsibility to do their own work, and if they don't do it, they should be held accountable for it. No longer do I let people take credit for anything that I did. I'll help them figure out the answers, but I won't outright tell them what the answers are anymore. The way I see it, I'm doing THEM a disservice for voluntarily offering up answers without telling them how to show their work. I learned the lesson the hard way in that regard.

And, really, while we're at it, shouldn't the teacher be responsible for making sure that the children in his/her classroom are fully capable of understanding the material before assigning them homework? My French teacher seemed to understand this lesson very well. My grade one teacher missed the boat. She didn't tell the kids in the class the answers, but yet, she didn't seem to object when I gladly told them the answers in a misguided belief that they would become my friends. You'd think that by seeing a group of kids around my desk asking me how to spell words would have been a clear indication to her that maybe the way she was handling it wasn't the best approach, but it didn't quite work that way.  I don't see it as making her out to be a scapegoat, just remembering what I saw at the time.  And, believe me, I've been told that my memory is quite good.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that I accept my part in what happened. I just wish everyone else could accept their part as well. But considering that society seems to value instant gratification above everything else, I'm not counting on that to happen any time soon.



But, at least by confessing all today, I can at least feel better about myself. At least that's worth something.