Comments on This Week in The Stranger

Grant deserves a power hug.

i like lindy's article. liberal mother superiors rule.

Anything with Cthulhu is a-ok with me - and Grant's a great guy.

brendan, Francia Russell and Kent Stowell did not ignore Jerome Robbins during their PNB tenure. they couldn't afford him. he charged high high prices for performance rights and even if you could afford him, he could still turn you down if your company didn't meet his professional standards. Francia told me that san francisco ballet had a very rich patron who wrote a big check every time they wanted a Robbins ballet. all PNB could afford was Fanfare, a corny kid's piece that didn't require much rehearsal or technique. i bet they still paid through the nose for it.

The 'downward slide' of Dungeons & Dragons?!

Also in this issue: shark jumping-- a look back in slow motion.

Cogswell may be a good guy and he may be in a bad state but Cthulhu was a complete abortion. Some good scenes and a great male lead but almost totally unwatchable.

@6

I agree. Minus the male lead.

I commented elsewhere about it yesterday but I'll re-comment here, Lindy's article on the strip club buffet is wonderful, fabulous, awesome, hilarious, sad, knowing, oh geez I don't have enough words for it. I was laughing so hard I thought I'd barf.

Cthulhu: to be certain of its spelling, I had to cut and paste the title - a movie I almost saw @ last year's SIFF but probably saw "La Vien Rose" instead.

I googled "cthulhu" so that:

(1) I could learn how to pronounce it, and (2) I would understand the word's provenance.

I feel bad that Grant lost his ass on the project, but whenever your perceived audience cannot spell or pronounce the movie title, you're probably not standing at the clue busstop. Sorry.

That Cthulu piece is fan-freaking-tastic. Don't die, Grant.

Who wants to help me organize a trip down to Portland for Lindy and friends?

With regards to the "Cthulu" piece; you've _got_ to be kidding.

With all due respect, "Cthulu" was a trainwreck of a production that produced a bad film. In short, a failure.

That in itself, is fine. Making films is hard, and perfectly worthy people fail for all sorts of reasons. But this article is a self-important collection of excuses.

But even as tiresome and trite as it is, it might pass without comment. But to punctuate the wallowing with slights against much better films and to declare that your failure has doomed all other efforts is really beyond the pale.

Shut up, John. I love you, Grant.

That's great. Love him all you want - he's still a tool.

I would offer an example, from the article in question, one of the first of the many excuses to follow. He was a "caretaker" of a property. A property at which he brags of hosting all-night parties. A property that was robbed. His response? The freeway noise drowned out the burglar alarm.

Wow, really? You mean to tell me that the background noise in that house was as loud as the burglar alarm? I find that hard to believe. It is much easier to believe that Grant just slept through whatever, due to the exhaustion, drugs or other excesses he makes a point of later in the article

The aside of his stint as a caretaker serves as a model for the rest of the article - everything is someone else's fault, and he deserves pity for being driven to take drugs and isn't he so noble, high, and poor.

But hey - he got a lot of people high and laid during a five-year party that he talked other people into paying for. Which is a real talent - nobody can take that away from him

He ends with "We want another chance. We want to live like that again." That's great. No self-awareness, no sense that he has any idea of the tragedy that he's responsible for. Just him wanting someone else to pay for this fantasy life of his.

Go ahead and love him - from the sound of the article he won't even remember who you are. But if that's your thing, have at it.