A Commonplace Book

Contrary to what you might expect given his outspoken distrust of all things written word, Stephen Colbert has published a book, “I Am America (And So Can You)”. There’s an accompanying audio-book version with the same title, and word has it they’re not exact replicas of each other. No doubt someone at the publishing house is hoping to sell both versions to a few of the more die-hard members of the Colbert Nation.

To compare it to its cousin in source material, the literary companion to The Daily Show, “America (The Book)”, was fairly spectacular but was also somewhat divorced from the show itself. The authors took the tone of the show and applied it to American history as well as American politics, ending up as a sort of cross between The Daily Show and The Onion. Colbert’s book, meanwhile, stays closer to home, and I think that might have been a poor decision.

I’ve been more than well aware of how much the live aspect to The Colbert Report amplifies what I like about it, but listening to Colbert’s humor without the crowd and with careful editing really takes something away from the humor. Without going too deeply into the increasingly frustrating divide between The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (and I also hope without sounding too harsh), I think its fair to say that Stewart has regressed into poor imitations of Bush and Cheney for punchlines while Colbert has been pushing into new territory and experimenting as a comedian.

Watching Colbert flub a joke because the on-screen “Alpha Dog Of The Week” graphic barks too early is just as funny as watching him land a joke with perfect comedic timing. Similarly, there’s something amazing, even watching from home, the way he can get the crowd involved. I’m even fairly certain that the flub is planned, but I don’t really care as long as I can get lost in Colbert’s fantastically bizarre universe of wrist injuries, Tek Jansen novels, and killer bears.

By staying close to the format of the show and the character but channeling it into book format, I think Colbert and his staff of writers might have missed the opportunity to push in a different direction, something they do so well on their TV show. Its good for what it is, but the restrictions of the format have left it far short of even the more mediocre bits on the show.

A preview clip from his book can be found here.

And now, your moment of zen:

Word from The New York Times is that the previously ambiguous ending of Blade Runner, an ending I very much liked, has been dropped in favor of a darker and more concrete ending. That’s strange because I thought the ending of the Director’s Cut, though implied, was still fairly unambiguous.

I’ll reserve judgment on whether this was a good or bad move on Ridley Scott’s part until after I’ve seen the new(est) version. Regardless, the following two paragraphs from an article in the Times did both confuse me and pique my interest:

The clue to Deckard’s true nature comes in a scene that was cut from the original release and only recently unearthed by Charles de Lauzirika, Mr. Scott’s assistant and the restoration’s producer[.] In the film, Deckard falls in love with Rachael (played by Sean Young), a secretary at the Tyrell Corporation, the conglomerate that makes replicants. She discovers that she’s a replicant too. Her memories of childhood were implanted by Tyrell to make her think she’s human.

In the last scene of Mr. Scott’s version, Deckard leads Rachael out of his apartment. He notices an origami figure of a unicorn on the floor. A fellow cop has often left such figures outside replicants’ rooms. In an earlier scene, Deckard was thinking about a unicorn. Looking at the cutout now, he realizes that the authorities know what’s in his mind, that the unicorn is a planted memory, that he’s a replicant and that he and Rachael are both now on the run. They get into the elevator. The door slams. The end.

Which of Mr. Scott’s versions is the article’s author referring to here? I haven’t seen any version of “Blade Runner” in several years, but I could have sworn that this is the end of the Director’s Cut (not to be confused with the upcoming Final Cut). So if this is the ending from the Director’s Cut, what could they possibly have added to the Final Cut to remove any ambiguity? And if this is from the Final Cut, why do I think that I’ve seen it before?

Maybe I’m simply confusing myself. Altered endings not withstanding, it sounds like the movie will be worth seeing again for the newly restored film alone, and I look forward to seeing this at the Ziegfield soon.

(”Blade Runner” Poster Comparison via Posterwire.)

Much to my dismay, Dogs Die In Hot Cars has scrapped their second album and is seemingly done for. While they won’t say they’ve split up for good, it certainly doesn’t sound like they’ll be reuniting any time soon.

This isn’t much of a surprise given the years without news of any album progress, but its still unfortunate none the less. I think Glimpse At The Good Life is still the number one most played song on my iTunes.

I Guess I’m Floating has their own take on the break-up and more importantly has a number of mp3s worth listening to (including some rarer tracks).