Burghers, Where were you during the storms Saturday?
Hope all is well, though.
Categories: pittsburgh, outdoors
Or at least that's what I say when I'm moved to hurl the magazine across the room. Still, I'm a loyal reader, and I invite you to gripe about the always liberal, but never radical, New Yorker magazine. Review the reviews, read the news and complain about all the pretentious nonsense.
Ciao, Ragazzi. Labels: food
I feel Chabon is putting the cart (cinema) before the horse (comics). Does Chabon mean the comic looks cinematic to a late 20th C eye, familiar with the cinematic techniques of various film industries of the past 100 years? Or does he mean it looks cinematic to the eye of the day? It would have to be the former. Comics didn't become popular in that period because they looked like movies - they looked better, more exciting, more mobile, more dramatic. Films, by comparison, were sort of doing "less" for the visual imagination than comics, or radio, in some ways . . . the cameras were less mobile than they are now and less mobile than the imaginations of the illustrators. For example, in the way of action and adventure, filmmaking in the US had achieved Chaplin's slapstick, and Tarzan and King Kong - which are all a little stagy and 2-D compared to good comics of the period. It's tough to date these things, and its all related . . but still.
Modern Times (Chaplin, 1938) And this is the exceptional film with a lot of "action" in 1936, not the run of the mill comedy of people chatting, shot head on and from the knees up. 