Many people ask me how, at age 78, I managed to accumulate such internet popularity. The web is a young people's game, they say. But I beg to differ. When you're my age, becoming a viral sensation is easy.
If more blockbusters were in contention for Best Picture, it would not be a stretch to imagine a 10 to 20 percent increase in ratings. That would equate to millions of dollars for ABC and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Since the dawn of storytelling, good guys with strong moral compasses were glamorized, while bad guys with wayward moral compasses were vilified. But a slew of recent films and shows have turned gray to black.
Our sense is that True Detective will be as much about understanding what happened between Hart and Cohle as solving a murder. Because of the interviews, we know something about how things turn out. But that only makes it harder to work out.
As men and women ceased to believe in them during the early modern period, fantastic creatures such as the unicorn and eventually even the dragon became symbols of freedom and transcendence. They were, in a sense, also symbols of revolt, but more spiritual than political.
This is an utterly ridiculous method for maintaining political control. Why take children as tributes? Why make them fight to the death? To answer these questions, let's take a look at the sociologist, Foucault, who wrote a lot about punishment and systems of power.
Given my previous experience, I walked into the 8 p.m. showing of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire last night with low expectations. To my delighted surprise, 30 minutes into the film, I was sure that this movie would live up to everything I wanted it to be.
If Katniss has to "choose" Peeta or Gale, she will have to give up doing gender in this splendid, and, dare I say, feminist and queer way in order to "fit" into her and her "girlfriend's" or "boyfriend's" relationship. Now imagine a world in which Katniss wouldn't have to choose.