As some of you guys may know, last week I was featured on The Guardian's Film Blog, which was pretty fucking cool. Usually, when news outlets write about my blog, they remark on how novel (read: stupid) an idea it is and how I must be some sort of crazy person.
This time, however, Victoria Beale, the author of this Guardian post, offered up the most insightful and intelligent piece of journalism that's probably ever been written about my little stunt blog.
Like, I really want to hate this, but it's just so articulate and well-written (not to mention, somewhat accurate). Damn you, British people. Why must you always insist on outclassing us simpletons over here in the States?
"Dai's motives are obviously more careerist than creative – he's been on National Public Radio and has courted fans and followers with "Feedback Friday". He wants a platform for his writing in the hope he'll one day be able to wax lyrical on something other than Amy Adams, and has cannily espied the cute parallel and capitalised on the brief burst of fame such an easily précised project might bring him."
Cannily espied! Capitalised spelled with an "s!" These are things that I have supposedly done! Like shit, I am sneakily impressive, aren't I? I don't even know what the accent in the word "précised" means, but goddammit, I'll take it! My good friend Jack described Ms. Beale's article as "the most effective takedown of your work I've ever seen" and I have to agree with him. This woman actually took the time to read some of my posts and analyze them/expose me for the careerist I am. For that, I cannot blame her. However, I can blame her for something else she wrote.
Earlier, she writes:
"With his band of loyal (or incredulous) followers, Dai has instituted his own online traditions such as "Random Actor Tuesday" and "Julie Powell Says the Darndest Things". But – and this is a crucial flaw – who can check? Admittedly Dai has to be familiar enough with the film to say something new about it every day, but who can really know that he's dutifully sitting through all 123 minutes in every 24-hour time-frame?"
Who can really know??? Well, for one thing, I can know. You can trust me, right? You can't? Well, what about Netflix? Surely you can trust Netflix.
 |
| (Click to Enlarge) |
If you still can't see that, please let me make it a little bigger for you.
Are you an old man? Let me zoom in on that again.
And once more, for emphasis.
So Netflix says I have watched 159 hours, 53 minutes and 19 seconds of Julie & Julia. Once I divide that by the running time of 2:03:33, I get...
77.6 viewings of Julie & Julia
That's right. I have officially watched this movie 77.6 times. Also, note that today is day 76, which means I have seen this movie 1.6 more times than I needed to!!! This extra time can be probably attributed to all those instances where I have to go back and re-watch clips/take screenshots for posting purposes. Still, you can't criticize me watching the movie too much.
I know, I know--there will still be skeptics out there. *nerdy internet commenter voice* OMG that is so blatantly photoshopped!!! I assure you, nerds. It is not photoshopped. Since when have I ever posted a photoshopped image on this blog? I don't even have photoshop on my computer.
So this post is for all you doubters out there. Not everything you read on the internet is a lie--just most things.
BELIEVE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julie & Julia Quote of the Day:
Not Mark Ruffalo: "No one will know if you don't do them. It's not like there's, like, the aspic police or something. You could lie."
Julie: "I can't. I just can't."
No comments:
Post a Comment