The older "Dancing in the Dark"

I watched The Band Wagon tonight, starring Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse. Holy crow. The plot was, not surprisingly, not the most logical thing--but better than the show within the movie, which purported to be about a writer who writes both children's books (or something) and gory murder mysteries, but included a bunch of totally random songs (e.g., that triplets song, "Louisiana Hayride")--but it had Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse dancing, so I can't complain too much. I want to do this:



(And also, you know, have Cyd Charisse's body. They're about equally attainable.)

Oh, and kudos to the movie for acknowledging the age gap between the leads! Woo!

And now I can tell them apart!

I just watched a bunch of episodes of JONAS, the Jonas Brothers' Disney TV show. (I was going to watch the episodes of Gossip Girl I had on my DVR, but it turns out I either erased the second or it never recorded, and I was too lazy to get up to see what happened that episode. Anyway. I'm not sure that story helped your opinion of (a) my taste in television or (b) my lifestyle in general.) Anyway, I found myself analyzing the show and comparing the brothers to the Monkees, which is a bit tricky, because there are only three Jonas Brothers and four Monkees. Then I was like, "I should watch a bunch of episodes of The Partridge Family and find other sitcoms about 'famous' musicians and compare!" What can I say? It's Friday night. My brain is fried. But my laziness prevailed. Yet I'm going to share my impressions of the show with you anyway. Sorry!

I wasn't terribly impressed with their music. It was OK, I guess. I kept getting the songs mixed up, to the point that I was convinced that the first two episodes I watched kept using the same song over and over--like, it was the title song, and the songs in the episode. I will say, though, that compared with the Monkees, they have way fewer songs in their show. I mean, some of the episodes didn't have any. That may be because the Jonas Brothers were already a hit before the show started; they don't need to promote their music on their show. Plus, it seems that bands today put out music a lot less than they did in the 1960s. So I don't know. I can't imagine going to see these boys in concert, but they weren't, you know, bad.

They are, however, charming, and act fairly well. I've decided that Kevin, whom I think is the oldest (...yes, Wikipedia confirms this), is the Peter Tork of the group. Frequent jokes are made at his expense, though he is, of course, good-hearted and sweet. Nick, the youngest, appears to be the Michael Nesmith--he has the understated humor and from what I can tell, is the brains of the group. Joe is the Davy Jones; he's the heartthrob and seems to be the lead and has the romantic storylines.

Which makes no sense to me. Nick is way cuter, and is the smart one and the one who writes the songs (...in the show at least) and is the one who actually got them started. Plus, again, cutest. And by that, I mean he has, by far, the best hair. Joe really just needs to get his out of his face.

I will give the show credit for its writing. The plots are actually somewhat interesting, if not incredibly unconventional, but there are a lot of little jokes in the show that I liked. (For example, someone mentioned manatees, and Kevin started to sing about manatees. Also, to show that Joe wasn't a jerk, Nick said he'd show that Joe was "panda-loving.") (These were possibly funnier on the show than as written here.) So, credit for that.

Also, credit for the fact that the show isn't on the Disney Channel all the time. I think it comes on maybe once a week; at least, that's what a cursory look at my DVR listings showed me. I happened to catch a marathon. (Which I DVR'd. Don't judge me!) I get the feeling that even though Disney helped propel them, they've managed to retain some control--and good for them.

What I would like to compare with other shows is the handling of the group's fans. In the Monkees, it wasn't an issue, because they were portrayed as being a struggling band--they didn't have fans. But what did the Partridge Family do? In JONAS, there are screaming fans all over the place...when it suits them. They're not horrible about it, but it does jar a person to watch an episode about how the boys are all crushing on the pizza delivery girl, and so going to the door all the time without any noticeable screaming, then to see an episode in which in they can't take out the trash because the screaming girls will take them down.

But that sounds all efforty. And I really don't need to devote any more time or energy into comparing teenybopper rock band sitcoms.

So that means you're 5 degrees away!

I'm reading Can't Buy Me Love, which is about the Beatles, and really delves into their music and the cultural landscape. (I may or may not write an in-depth review at some point.) Anyway, it mentioned that their producer whom they met in Hamburg cowrote the song "Strangers in the Night." I got very excited about this, because my sister's best friend is the granddaughter of the man this producer cowrote the song with! That means I'm only four degrees of separation from the Beatles (me to best friend to uncle to producer to Beatles!).

I got a little overly excited about this, but I don't care. How awesome!

Paying the price

Ads on websites are something we've all accepted. The Internet is free; dealing with the ads is the price we pay. And usually, they're not too bad and it isn't a big deal at all.

I do get annoyed on sites that, after clicking a link, direct you to a short ad, and THEN you get to where you wanted to go. Now, I don't mind in certain cases. But I do get annoyed when it's a website for a publication to which I subscribe. I wish the Washington Post would have a way to realize that I subscribe when I’m fooling around on its website and spare me the ads. Ditto Entertainment Weekly. EW gets a bit more of a pass, as I don’t have to sign in to access content there. But I do for WaPo. If I’m one of the (relatively) few people who’s actually spending money for these publications, the least I could ask is for fewer ads on the websites that I’m subsidizing.

Newsflash: Joining Twitter is NOT required by law

I've long been annoyed by people who are annoyed by Facebook and Twitter. I found the epitome of this viewpoint in a chat on WashingtonPost.com today with food writer Tom Sietsema, who recently starting Tweeting:

Washington, D.C.: Just me, and I'm not a Luddite. I don't really need to read your Twitters or Tweets. If you have a good enough Web site, a good enough blog, and you have discussions on a regular and scheduled basis, then, to me,
that's sufficient. I don't see why everyone needs to be available on every "social network". Heavens' knows I appreciate all that I read under the Sietsema banner, and find almost all of it useful and/or interesting, but I doubt that I need to get minute by minute updates of each and everything. Even if it means I might be missing some minor piece of information in the global scheme of things, or missing out on the most immediate of things critical to the immediate survival of the world.

Sorry, but I don't have a Facebook or MySpace or...or a lot of other ways you can communicate with me, let alone Tweeter.

First of all, it's annoying that this person uses "Tweeter" in the second paragraph, since he or she obviously knows that it's "Twitter," having correctly used it (and "tweets"!) in the beginning of the post.

But honestly, this is sort of the height of what frustrates me about people who complain about Facebook and Twitter. "Who needs all that information? I don't need to know what someone is doing every minute!" Apparently they don't grasp that nobody actually posts what they're doing every single minute. I might check in to my Facebook and Twitter accounts twice or so during and average workday, and it'll take me maybe 10 minutes to scan what people have posted. I enjoy Facebook because it's a good way to have a vague idea of what miscellaneous friends are up to without the hassle of emailing--it makes staying in touch easier! I enjoy Twitter for a combination of similar updates, humorous comments from famous people, and deals on plays and things.

But more than anything else, dude, you don't have to sign up for Twitter. Tom is not decreeing that all must follow him. It's not like he'll offer special 140-character reviews of restaurants. It's just a way to get a different feel for what his life is like. It's like so many other things--television shows, websites, books, movies, people: If it annoys you, don't read it/watch it/hang out with them.

I never really thought it would have a happy ending

I've watched The Office since the beginning. I had watched the British version, and spent the first season of the American version pulling out the DVDs of the British one. But the second season...I was drawn in. Sure, Steve Carell is great in it, and I enjoy a lot of the characters, but I'm a romantic. If there's a couple to ship--any couple, in the world--it's Jim and Pam. So I watch the promos for this week's episode, "Niagara," the episode in which Jim and Pam get married, and I melt. The promos totally make my day.



I watch that and remember going over season two over and over...so many great moments (and a lot of the moments in that promo are from season two), such a classic ending...OK, I have to include it:



Sigh. I could watch it over and over. As well as the confession scene that comes before it.

...Sorry. I just had to watch each of those, like, 50 times. But anyway. It's nice to see that the show's being consistent. They've said for a while that Jim and Pam are clearly compatible. This is where their story logically goes. And they're just going to do it. Huzzah!

And I have to take this time to acknowledge the brilliance of the British Office Christmas Special. I hear "Only You" by Yaz and get all warm and fuzzy. But probably my favorite part is actually around 3:20 of this clip (the last 10 minutes of the special), when Tim talks about coworkers. So true. Oh, Ricky Gervais, I love you.