Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* Stephen Bodio writes an informative, well-arted posting about early rock art from Kazakhstan, and posts about what it's like to share a life with "primitive" breeds of dog. Guest poster Reid Farmer tells some unexpected tales about the Cherokees.

* Thanks to Attu, who points out this entertaining Wikipedia list of films ranked according to the frequency that the word "fuck" is used in them.

* Congrats to Lynn Sislo, whose blog was recently crowned Best Okie Culture Blog. Lynn rants entertainingly about how certain serious-music composers really ought to get a grip.

* Edwin Rubenstein looks at the numbers and concludes that out-of-control immigration is contributing to recent bad economic news.

* John Massengale thinks that some bigtime architects have disgraced themselves with their responses to Katrina's destruction.

* Do celebs who go out in bikinis imagine that they're not going to be ambushed by the paparazzi? (Seemed SFW to me, but my office may be different than yours.)

* Arnold Kling thinks Malcolm Gladwell's healthcare musings need some stern correction. And Arnold kicks off a fun discussion about who deserves to be considered the most influential of all economists.

* Now 70, Donald Sutherland tells John Patterson some nifty anecdotes.

* There's something about a girl and a snake ...

* Tyler Cowen and Alan Wolfe both think that Barbara Ehrenreich's new book is a let-down.

* Alex Tabarrok wrestles with some Jonathan Kozol arguments about public and private schooling. FWIW, I spent a little time with Kozol years ago and came away with the impression that he's quite brilliant and quite mad.

* Chelsea Girl sees no reason why political disagreements should get in the way of hot sex. I discovered the snazzy writing of Chelsea Girl thanks to Jill, who has been squirming contentedly herself.

* The online arts magazine Jerry Jazz Musician asks Terry Teachout about Louis Armstrong, the subject of Terry's next book.

* Eloise suspects that people who are picky about the political correctness of those they buy from must have a hard time buying anything at all.

* Shanti recalls some fraught and unkind moments from her primary-school years.

* This list of the top-grossing movies of all times in inflation-adjusted dollars doesn't include as many recent films as you might expect.

* Margot Kidder -- homeless and crazy no longer -- talks to the Guardian about her very public breakdown.

Best,

Michael

I can't believe that The Last Detail is not on the Wikipedia list. It was a superb movie from the early 1970's starring Jack Nicholson, one of those rare movies that manages to be very funny and very sad at the same time. And it seemed as if every other word was of the four-letter variety.

Posted by: Peter on September 7, 2005 3:15 PM

Looking at the top 10, it's not the lack of recent films that suprises me, but the lack of old films:

1. Gone With the Wind, $1.26bn (30s)
2. Star Wars, $1.11bn (70s)
3. The Sound of Music, $890m (60s)
4. ET, $887m (70s)
5. Ten Commandments, $819m (50s)
6. Titanic, $802m (90s)
7. Jaws, $800m (70s)
8. Dr Zhivago, $776m (60s)
9. The Exorcist, $691m (70s)
10. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, $681m (30s)

Six out of ten are from the 60s and 70s, not what I've have thought of as the golden age of cinema (OK, the maybe 70s for art films, but that's not an issue here).

Posted by: Chris Burd on September 7, 2005 4:10 PM

Thank you so much for the mad hott linkage. I'm happy you've enjoyed my naughty monkey musings.

Cheers,
Chelsea Girl

Posted by: chelsea girl on September 7, 2005 4:40 PM

Pictures of bimbos in bikinis are OK but howzabout posting some pictures of Linda Vester, Laurie Dhue or Paula Zahn in bikinis. You know, for us news hounds.

Posted by: rich on September 8, 2005 9:18 AM

The Top 10 Grossers list is interesting---but it does seem odd that it changes so little over time. Other than "Titanic"---its the same list as would have been true in 1982! Also interesting is that "The Sound of Music" and "Dr. Zhivago" were BOTH in 1965. Must have been some kind of watershed for moviegoing. It shows what suckers we are---in order to make something an "event" movie---just massively raise the ticket prices. People don't realize that the gross isn't really any bigger than it was for, say, "Love Story"--or even "Chinatown.". Just depends on what statistics you quote---they quote total dollars, not total tickets sold. Ahh, marketers, always one step ahead of us. But it does appear, based on recent grosses, that Hollywood may have milked that cow as much as possible.

Posted by: annette on September 8, 2005 10:46 AM

Funny how in all of those shots of starlets lounging around in their bikinis there wasn't one of them reading or with reading material anywhere to be seen.

Posted by: PaulS on September 8, 2005 7:18 PM

Those box office figures for 1965 are more impressive when you consider how much smaller the population of the United States was at that time as well as the fact that in 1965 television was a ubiquitous presence.

Even though the grosses are adjusted for inflation on that chart, do we know that ticket prices have always risen at the same rate as inflation?

According to the MPAA the average ticket price in 1939 was 23 cents. Using an inflation calculator http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ it shows that 23 cents in 1939 is equal to $3.02 today. I don't know anyplace you can see a first run feature for that today.

Posted by: grandcosmo on September 8, 2005 7:31 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?