Meta on acting options, or what Aleksandar Jovanovic makes me think of?

Since seeing Aleksandar Jovanovic as Dr. Livesey in the German Treasure Island or Die Schatzinsel, I took a glance through what else he may have done. As search engines actually have to be beat at the corporations' game to find anything with actual content and there are so many Jovanovics, my Google-fu must be strong to have stumbled upon relevant things.

One of the first things that sprung up was that Jovanovic has a rather versatile face for an actor. So far I think pictures from his different roles have reminded me of about ten other actors, prompting me to want to make a picture comparison post. I would imagine there is no better thing for an actor on some levels, even if I've also heard having "an actor's face" being used as something other than a compliment.

Who's he reminded me of so far? It depends on the pictures and his age in the respective roles but the first one was Tom Sizemore as said. The latest was Javier Bardem in one of the bearded photos. Current remembered list thus far also includes Hugh Grant, Jude Law, Kevin Durand, James Nesbitt and Jason Isaacs via Lucius Malfoy when playing longer haired assholes. Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory surfaced at one stage and there are hints of Lost's Michael Emerson in some acting or whatever plus a clear young Christopher Walken face in another something.

Good face for an actor in any case.

There also appeared to be some choices that seemed reasonably bold without my actually seeing the movies to be able to tell for sure for myself, so that's another thing to possibly applaud. Entirely unrelated to acting, I can also appreciate anybody apparently doing martial arts given levels of both physical and mental discipline sides, but never mind me and my conjecture of what people do for hobbies. A third point of interest was his also writing and directing, not sticking to "mere" acting. Alas, I doubt I'll ever see any of the work from that side, but let's see about the rest, what?

Vollfilm had some information about him in relation to Agentur Lutter, which doesn't seem to list him in their main sections though so possibly an older one. Agentur Vogel and La Gente seemed the respective places for the acting and directing sides. Regrettably, I'm not in casting or making a movie I'd need a director for even if I knew if he was any good at that side. Practise makes perfect so I'm all for new interesting European directors doing whatever it is they are doing in any case.

Agentur Vogel's section for Aleksandar Jovanovic also had a link to a video of some more recent acting he's done. It's split into sections so it's easy to navigate if you want to jump forward to another thing.

The thing about German TV from the outside always seems to be that it's mostly police shows. You have a certain pattern with the German ones and there are tons of them about, some of which even reach my country. Or then it's picturesque doctor's country practises in the Alps or some such thing, the variations available probably being no greater than where I come from. I don't know about the domestic German film market but even with some interesting hits in Jovanovic's résumé the mainstream side probably hasn't that much available if talking particularly meaty roles either.

My first thought relating to that was actually to wonder if anybody remembered any benevolent or good or hero-category German characters from Hollywood movies though? All it ever seems to be is Nazis or Evil German Accented people, depending on the movie or TV show. I mean, while I get that with something like Fringe the II World War tying in leads to Evil Nazis appearing and Bond movies have whatever type of characters they have, where are the rest of the Germans? If not "mundane extras suffering under Nazi!Germans" or whatever.

I never got around to seeing Tarantino's last big hit but think the Green Hornet's current villain Christoph Waltz waltzed into Hollywood through his success in that. You need a big hit to end up doing something visible on the American market, and then you still most likely end up cast as only villains. I half know actors trying to make it in theatres and to break into TV and how much work there usually is in the background before anything happens, if it ever happens, and there are many people who deliberately seem to eschew the main roles in favour of a more Character Actor-oriented career that allows for less media focus on their lives as well. There are the tiers you climb, but you often get stuck on certain ones.

So it's what's available in roles and then the other thing, what people would allow you to play based on what's been seen before, what you look or seem like and even what your heritage is. I could just imagine the hilarity (or otherwise) of a German actor with apparent Serbian roots not getting cast as villains on American style markets. The only thing better, given the history of the recent decades, would be the offspring of that combo and an Iraqi-Afghani person having grown up in Iran and Syria trying not to get cast only as villains in the States. My apologies if the thought offends, but you've got to admit certain difficulties with people's prejudices and ideas.

On that mention of Syria, Ghassan Massoud respect from me his way, with country connections of other sorts on the side, but no more of that in this post, right.

In my glance through things I thought I'd like to have a look at Die Unlösbaren Fälle des Herrn Sand, Nachtasyl and some other movies Aleksander Jovanovic has been in in any case. It's not mentioned on some of the agency lists though so it's possible Die Fälle was rubbish. Or harder to use to sell someone for other things, which is much the same to me when I doubt I'll get to catch it in any case.

There appeared to be slightly more meat + variation in roles, but I got that "Als Schauspieler habe ich mindestens 20 Menschen getötet und bin über 20 mal selbst gestorben, und der meistgebrauchte Satz meiner Karriere war: "Ich war´s nicht, ich war´s wirklich nicht," line from La Gente's Client at Work section for him. There were the interesting things, but the rest also offered a strong selection of gangsters and "People likely to rough you up one way or another". If you asked me, the über-slick pictures used on the other agency's site don't necessarily help portray another type of potential either, but that's not my business. People probably know what they're doing when taking shots.

For those of the not German speaking audience (as said, I'm doing on 2 years of it some 15+ years ago myself. Look ma, no hands!), the gist of the problem with the roles was only killing people or getting killed yourself.

Theatre or independent productions may be one answer to some, but it's still probably a limited field I guess, along with people always having bills to pay no matter what they do or want to do. So few of even the people I've focused on briefly to check what else they've done have enough there, if talking my tendency to then ask a lot from the actors focused on as well.

For example, I first saw Mark Strong in The Long Firm where he's excellent, of course, and have since then kept wanting things on equal levels out of everything else he's been in that I've seen. He's played good guys and bad guys, tragic figures and people dangerous to know, so many things in even just the six or so years that he's been on my radar. But with the kind of things that get made, I still keep wanting more depth or more out of him. And that's not going into the other side, of making people forget you even are an actor when some unknown face simply plays some everyday figure. Too much of that gets ignored even by me. But it's not that Mark Strong isn't good, it's that the roles and movies don't have quite enough for the impact I half demand from people I know can deliver it.

I had the same problem with some of the plays seen in London, the oomph or final gut punch or coup de grâcemissing from some characters and plays seen. At which I should do a shout-out to Alex Ferns, who's one of those actors whom I keep forgetting to check out otherwise since he got added to the rosters of attention through the work I saw from him in theatre. I came for Ben Cross and got blown away by Ferns instead.

If it's not clear yet, I have my suspicions that Aleksandar Jovanovic could deliver interesting things if I got to see more of the things out there. I liked bits of the Showreel video's Die Anwälte with him in any case. Mostly that look he does at his ex-wife (?) after that one thing in it. I'm less into the "My daughter is dead!" angst side, but that look stays with you or asks for more than the clip provides. It has elements of old paintings where you don't know what's happened or what is going to happen and projections of all sorts about what is going on in the people's minds surface. The look has stories in it. In my case possibly because I don't know the rest of the details around it all, but the effect remains.

Otherwise, pardon me while I laugh my head off at the thought of that "shaving your chest for a year just to play Rocky Horror in his gold pants" thing. Oh, the further hidden pains of being an actor.

German Treasures

There aren't enough pictures from the 2007 German "Treasure Island" (Die Schatzinsel) production on the Internet. This as a preface to why this post probably seems somewhat crowded with sketches. Alas, they're sketches only of Aleksandar Jovanovic's Doctor Livesey character from that Treasure Island, too, but every little helps?

I may have mentioned before that I never bothered to get a TV when I last moved, my mother using the last one I bought after hers went kaputt. So when I postponed my Christmas visit to her place by one day, I missed the first part of that Treasure Island on TV here. By the time I got around to something of part two, my first glance reaction seems to have been that oh, this one has Tom Sizemore in it, looking unexpectedly hot. 

Second glance said I'd been mistaken on the actor. No offence to Sizemore, who looks fine enough otherwise. A minute or two more told me I even had the language wrong, what with the volume being too low to hear properly late at night.

I have a slight fondness for good Long John Silvers and Tobias Moretti wasn't among the worst at least, and this Treasure Island had packed in a good looking bunch of actors in general. I'm fairly sure pirates didn't look quite such a lot back in the day, for one. It also became clear that their version had gone for a Pirates of the Caribbean approach with Mr. Hunter and Mr. Joyce as well as the ending, but who says no to some derring-do or jolly old romps sprinkled with hints of comedy, anyway? Ben Gunn's Apocalypse Now shot may have been slight overkill though.

Another thing they changed was the character of Doctor Livesey, here played by Aleksandar Jovanovic. Not Tom Sizemore, no. Not Hugh Grant either, even if going by the man's floppier hairstyle of 12 years ago, seen in Kurz und Schmerzlos movie snippets on that rather well-known video clip site.

While the story itself isn't a masterclass in deep character analysis, adventure being more it, Doctor David Livesey is more on the noble and altruistic side in the book. Here the impression is more of deep suspicion of Jim Hawkins and of his possibly even having ganged up with Silver for the treasure. If I had to describe the character in one word, asshole would be one option. If I had to add something before it, righteous asshole could do.

Not to fear, that's said with considerable fondness. I always appreciate a good character like that. Despite his emphasis on the pirates hanging, "lawful good" or even "lawful neutral" might not be correct in Dungeons & Dragons style character morality categories. There was far too much scheming and potential to be self-serving while focused on the treasure to easily decide what he was. If I had seen more I'd probably know better.

Appreciation it was in any case. So much so I wanted to remember some of that and other things for later as well. I have a bad habit of being economical with videotapes and only grabbing titbits of whatever. If I've already missed however much, grabbing all of the rest seems a little off, but I grabbed a few snippets from here and there in any case. This stems mostly from my being old enough not to have had the Net and having lived in the middle of nowhere, relatively speaking. You have no idea how much incentive a 12-year-old gets to sketch if there are no pictures, no magazines or anything about their TV shows and such. Being able to do that from a video still was a luxury rarely got.

I don't draw often and there are wonky bits in all of them, even if I was only doing 5-15 minute sketches in any case. I kept writing stuff about the wrong bits or what to remember later on the paper as well, only to end up drawing the next things part over those. The eraser blotched up everything, so I couldn't really use that much either.

If there are bits missing, I've erased irrelevant other sketches or texts from there.The example on the right also leads to my endlessly going on about the top being too short or bottom too long and not meaning to draw the head in either as the top of the paper was coming up and blah blah text blah.

(Medizin für Ihre männ(er?) oder nicht?)?

Why post? Well, I don't think I have another use for them either. It takes such forevers to get around to drawing these days that I doubt I'll have time to arrange for a composite type thing or to redo something properly for a colour version. I had in any case stubbornly decided that I was going to get sketches to bring with me back to where I live, since I wasn't going to have access to anything else either. I understand there may be a DVD of Die Schatzinsel, but like I'd ever get to see that. I'd like another glance at their Mr. Joyce Gotthard Lange as well, there being potential in that character, much as they were used like the pair of soldiers in PotC.

It also seems like a vague excuse to get back after the prolonged absence. Same with having an excuse to draw something again, since there wasn't a lot of material about their Treasure Island online.

It turns out that Aleksandar Jovanovic is apparently a common name combination if going by Google results. I also have no idea why Serbian-origined people use "Aco" for its nickname, and I can't for the life of me remember the German rules for pronouncing o in such words. If they'd even apply, given the foreign origins.

That my German is even more rusty than my drawing is no wonder though, since it's been over 15 years since I had my two years of it. All of which later lead to the realization that I'd lived far longer in times without the Berlin wall than with it, and other random cultural ponderings, of which no more here.

Check that Treasure Island or Schatzinsel out in any case. I understand Francois Göske/Goeske is pretty popular among some people as well, and they added in a girl, gasp. And if you do get it from somewhere, throw me a picture or two, please, so I can stop abusing drawings.

Dot

Depressed states of mind pretty much kill most posts or any desire to get back to writing anything, but it's not helped by lack of time to sort things through while online either. Same as ever.

There were a zillion things to go into last week still, after all, so where did they supposedly go? Silence won't help slough through whatever it was.

Depressed again.

The inappropriate post, with tangents

And then I edit, because don't know if want this here or not.

What's a woman (and so on and so forth)?

There are a lot of assessing periods going on for me at the moment I'd say. The trouble with that is that it's a lifelong process on many of the things assessed, not least of which who you are or what you really want, something I've rarely known on the latter front at least.

I know I like Queen, if that says anything about whatever kind of a woman whoever might be. There was something here about dancing, but it probably doesn't need to be. Then again, most of the post probably doesn't.

I'm not an excessive drama queen or particularly extroverted, but I will not be walked over either, and if something actually matters, will not budge, no matter what the appearances of acquiescence given. Saying you're not unreasonable won't say a thing, when everything is about appearances and points of views in such things.

I will be unreasonable if you see it necessary to claim the LGBT front issues or people are wrong in their lives. While none of your business and me at least thus far in no way a chaser either, I personally rather love a man in a skirt and make-up for one, too. I quite love a good military uniform as well, so much difference that makes. *shrug* I haven't really run into either type thus far either. More's the pity me, and more shrugs on top.

I need very little when it comes to day to day life compared to some people it seems, but can say I'm a demanding woman on some other levels. Which ones would be telling. Or as if I knew. I know how to get off sexually in more ways than one, so may or may not demand on such fronts, too. I wouldn't know. Is it relevant? Does it matter? What the hell do you care?

I would rather not get involved if don't see a point for a relationship with some nobody, just in case you'd get cosy over the years, or just because you're supposed to be in a relationship, because you are. I've walked mostly alone so far as well, I rather expect you to add something to the equation if you want to be a part of it, you know?

I occasionally use the word ravenous about some sides, but that's not all of it either. Others have listed words like rational, insight, analytical, perceptive, thorough, determined, integrity, manipulative and sincere when asked what I might be like, and that's what people considered positive adjectives to match. Manipulatively sincere integrity, what a grand combination? Of course you end up with whatever the crowd asked reflects themselves, so whatever worth that is is up to whoever judging. The list did say perceptive. It didn't include dreamer, but that's what you get with others trying to pin you down then.

Running into questions like "What do you value most in life?" and "What is your most admirable quality?" hardly helps, when at least the first one takes more processing power than what you're currently willing to put into it.

The Harry Crawford Show (D)

I continue to have slight problems when watching what Boon there is on that rather well-known video clip site out there. I'm having problems because Harry Crawford half robs me of being capable of saying anything intelligible about any of the episodes. Actual reviews or noting what works and what doesn't in each episode seen would be more informative and work better from an outside point of view, but I end up half gushing over Harry instead.

"You know what I think, Ken? I think breaking and entering’s fun. It’s much more fun than security."
"That’s very interesting, Harry."
"Well, it’s true, innit?"
"Yeah, you always were the villain at heart."
"Now you say it. Anyway, it’s wonderful. I’m getting rid of years of repression."

Oh, Harry. How much can you love a character, anyway? Thieves Like Us for that quote exchange and what was watched the latest. The picture is from another episode. Thieves Like Us is still not one of Harry's finer episodes though, although his basic sense of honesty does show even there, despite quotes like the above.

Harry's a fine man. I'd be lucky to find someone even half as decent as him. I suspect there are plenty of episodes that I've yet to see where Ken plays as good a friend to him, too, but given Harry's supporting role to Ken Boon in the series, he gets more opportunities to exhibit what a good friend he really is. How anyone couldn't find that appealing is more of an existential question than I want to tackle right now.

I normally actually prefer villainous characters if talking characters. That I would have become so fond of a thoroughly decent type like Harry here instead is more of a coup for everyone involved than may be apparent.

Harry gets things done and always seems to have a plan even after losing his previous business. He's the one who originally kicks Boon enough to get him off his ass, so to speak. Can I have one, too? Oh, I'll arrange things fine if I have to or want to, but of the two friends, I'm probably more on the dreamy Ken side. It probably figures that at this stage I'd then remember what I read of Harry's plans getting in the way of Ken's business in earlier seasons, but I also have a problem in appreciating some pragmatism like that in people. If he had pulled a move like that against a mate (of the romantic sorts), it'd be inexcusable. Toward a friend, I can live with the move in a character.

However, it's Harry's "No, honestly, mate, I’m sorry if I was unsympathetic," line in the Honourable Service episode that probably most wins me over. I don't know if it's me or the kind of people I know, but I don't think I've run into that kind of words from anyone throughout my life. Not only is Harry someone who can see if he's done something a bit dodgy or unsympathetic or anything that may not be in the best interests of his relationship with someone, he's also not afraid to apologize outright for it all. Seriously, can I have a Harry Crawford in my life, please? I'd even try to remember to reciprocate like that for everything dodgy I ever do in turn, and I'm sure there'd be more with me than with Harry in the series.

As may be apparent, there is that problem, as said. I end up watching The Harry Show, not Boon.

Calling your suspense

Why is it that in every movie that has ancient treasure grounds of some sort in it, there is never an out without somebody needing to die? I saw National Treasure: Book of Secrets a while ago, that is. I have to spoil it a little in saying that someone is required to stay behind to hold a mechanism up or a certain way for everybody else to get out, or they all drown instead of just one. While I get that traps may be necessary to keep people out, I'm not entirely sure what purpose a mechanism like that serves anymore once someone is in, hence my question.

Did the people who built the place also leave behind someone as a supposedly necessary sacrifice when they were getting out in the first place? Or did the engineers back then have a fancier mechanism to sort it all out, bypassing that stage entirely? Because other than to deliberately kill off that one character, the point of the thing doesn't seem to exist.

It's not quite Galaxy Quest mocking the computer game style obstacle courses which characters have to run through to get to their objective in far too many movies, but it sweeps close to that. I believe The Phantom Menace was mocked for doing precisely that soon after Galaxy Quest came out, for one.

So I'm sure there are infinite reasons for the people of old to have the balancing board in place as in Book of Secrets, but until somebody gives me an actually sensible or reasonable one other than "It's to kill everyone" (which leads to "Then why have it there as a sporting chance in the first place? Just kill the buggers if you're going to"), I can only look at it as Ye People Of Olde having had strange pastimes. This one on the sports side, their having used it as a make or break level balance- and Being a Bit of a Bastard- test.

In other old ways to build suspense in movies, there is having the landline cut or not finding a phone booth on time when you're in peril. Usually a young woman in peril, more precisely. The new version goes not having network coverage on your mobile phone or having the battery run out while in peril. Once we move to levels where everyone has chips or circuits installed somewhere in their body, the kinetic energy used to power keeping in touch with the world, we run out of even that excuse for creating suspense in movies.

I recently discovered that even cameras can have a GPS tracking system these days. I'm not entirely sure I want them even in my phones, everybody being far too locatable even as it is. Or not locatable enough when a real emergency arises and such get thrown away, or they lose power at critical times if talking someone merely lost. As if kidnappers wouldn't find ways to short-circuit or blatantly cut out GPS-style communication chips even if they were under someone's skin, too. Chips I'm rather clearly against, by the way, if I dislike the Big Brother or nanny state societies even as they currently are. But when I first see a movie use that solution once we've reached the chip states, I'll probably call people out on using that one, too.

Everything is always of its time, but same as my being tired of people instantly jumping at painting in rollercoaster rides and the sort for the new fad of 3D movies, I'm tired of nothing changing on these movie fronts otherwise, too.

I don't normally nitpick, I don't see loopholes particularly clearly when watching movies, I just enjoy them. But could I enjoy something that doesn't automatically just repeat the same old patterns, please?

From lost text to Hamlet (How dare she?)

I hate mistypings on pages that do strange things and delete your two paragraphs of text through mere three new letters typed in.

I had something about the site still not being able to flourish, the way their file manager still isn't working, and you can't do FTP from public computers. Now I don't. I also don't have whatever it was I had written down about having finally seen Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet (minus the first half an hour or so).

I know I was about to write something of 101 reasons to see that being right about the Placido Domingo and his "In Pace" at the end though. That and having appreciated Derek Jacobi and Charlton Heston the most in the actor-fest that it was, having things to say of some details maybe, lose them as you did as more of it passed in front of you.

I usually appreciate Derek Jacobi, sure, but somehow he seemed the most appealing of all the actors in that Hamlet there. Maybe it's that I'd rather play Claudius or Gertrude than Hamlet or Ophelia. Maybe it's that I have problems with some Shakesperean deliveries, no matter how appreciated in general.

While good and audible and all that, I had the occasional flashback to Patrick Stewart's speeches in Star Trek- The Next Generation, all Shakespeare from one angle or another. I don't remember what I thought of Stewart in A Christmas Carol or whatever I saw in London, but there are times when the delivery or "RADA-accented savages" from Blake's 7 or other things begin to grate me for how well everybody projects everything and whatever the technique and skill set. It seems even more bad form to get tired of what is necessary on stage and brings clarity, especially when you generally like Shakespeare and the same actors in other circumstances. Sometimes it just gets too much and you end up rolling your eyes over the same thing yet again. Which is where appreciating Jacobi and some others of the lot comes in, no doubt. Wield it well and it works better than the others, skillful as all may be.

I assume it's me though. "I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire! Why, it appears no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours." Ho, ho, ho.

Once I get back home, maybe I'll have something more intelligent to say, too, although again you're in territories where you'd need to have decades of scholarly attention directed at the thing you're daring to say something about. I do however disagree with an IMDB reviewer on the "Act 4 scene 4 soliloquy (Which again is usually cut out) is nothing short of a cinematic marvel as the camera slowly pulls back as the intensity grows". I thought it the worst if meant to be serious. It was too much for my taste, with the music and the ridiculousness of it all. I couldn't tell if it was intentional, there being potential for that as well, but if not, count me among those to see through such things then.

Things rusty and otherwise

I'm aware that the blog currently looks a little creepy if coming in out of the blue. I imagine it'll even out in a couple of months once I get more things going on the side.

Before that I need to figure out where I can properly stash the website side that have in mind. My HTML skills are indeed severely rusty. I can tell now for sure after getting the main things mostly sewn together, but I dislike the templates that most sites seem to offer these days and apparently prefer to suck on my own levels instead.

Other than that and unrelated, I'm in states of mind where I again half dislike having to as if hold back or control whatever is said or shown in places like these. I'm enough of a hermit to not want excessive attention and aware of how public some things can end up being, but I also find myself displeased with civilized limits to what you should be or seem, when with one flex you'd surpass beyond such in no time. There is a feeling of "I'm bigger than this" and a dislike of not flexing closer to ranges where you'd move unrestrained.

In further unrelated nonsense, I wonder if astrology blogs or sites had anything to say on Venus, Mars and the asteroid Eros apparently having transited the same degrees around 13-14 Scorpio just before this. I have no idea if that should happen often in whatever sign, but admit that my natal Eros at 13 degrees Scorpio may have something to say in my passing interest. These things happen?

Life is complicated

Yesterday's "A Clean Slate" episode reminded me of some other things in mind the past few weeks. The character of Mr. Frisby says something about things not going the way we think they will in life. I figure my grandmother had no intention of having a kid before marriage, to someone she a few weeks ago said just kept hanging around and not giving up on her until she agreed to marry him. I figure a lot of things in life don't work along the official storylines of How Things Are Supposed To Go.

Eva Dahlgren's beautiful "Vem Tänder Stjärnorna" love song says something about saying words you never thought you would likewise, of love changing things so much. At least two sides of the same thing. Doing what you don't expect to because you love someone that much, and ending up in situations that don't work for you, without love.

Also that someone would not have been entirely too keen to marry someone even after getting pregnant. It's not what people expect or think about the past. This especially in light of my grandmother also noting that when someone else had a kid by her husband, your grandfather, that woman moved to another country for feeling she could not show her face around town anymore. Or that loving the same man would have landed a third woman in a mental institute for a short while, things being unstable to no end.

Life. I've been listening to a lot of Julie London and Ella Fitzgerald as of late, love being a big theme in both their songs, of course. "I'm Always True to You Darling in My Fashion" from London happens to be currently on, adding to the above. My grandfather wasn't true per se, but through other reminders and my grandmother's attitude to it, I can't really say anything particularly against his cheating on her either. His not divorcing her, and abusing her otherwise, yes, but not running around town if she didn't care.

Things don't always go the way they're supposed to? When I looked into Leonard Rossiter a couple of years ago I read something about his having had a long term mistress, in secret from what I recall. Others left their wife to marry a younger mistress, yet more others had mistresses that their wives knew about all along. Not exactly polyamory, that not always going as you'd expect either. Life is complicated, circumstances are mixed. Is it better to know and suffer through knowledge, or not know and eventually suffer when finding out? God, life is complicated.

Why are people so willing to ignore it ending in tears or all the hurt it'll cause when it comes to the prospect of love? You know it'll be pain, sooner or later, and yet you want to go for it like nothing else. You keep ignoring the pain later in favour of whatever you can get now. Or keep believing the pain won't last forever and love, anyway. The one thing you do that in exchange for and want.

Not enough love, too much love, nothing ever going as you expect. All so complicated. What are you supposed to say to that?

Holby City: A Clean Slate (D)

I loved Holby City's "A Clean Slate" episode. Or the David Daker-related Mr. Frisby parts that I watched in any case. Thank you. I'd been wondering if simply (?) playing patients and older guest roles in more recent years wouldn't necessarily have much there, but I loved Mr. Frisby.



The above starts it off in a way, about 7:45 minutes into it from what I recall. The theatre scene is probably my favourite though. Two minutes and then some into the second one below.



Like I've said, I love watching what actors do if focus on it from such angles. That rather cheered me up after a weekend of slightly flattened feelings and more, so I'm thankful that the episode was out there and I got to see it.

Who? (D)

I have to say I'm looking forward to getting to catch more of David Daker wherever it is. I saw some of Tom Baker's Doctor Who episodes when I was twelve and always retained a fondness for the series despite my very limited contact with it for some five, six serials, at a guess. So whatever I read of Daker in Who appearances works for me on more levels than one and makes me want to catch it all.



There are so many reviews I need to round up and organize together if ever find the time, but some of the more fun ones say things akin the following.

"THE TIME WARRIOR gives us Irongron, one of the series' best villains: a powerful and ruthless feudal lord whose rich and witty dialog is the equal of any fictional bad guy."

How could I resist? I'm told it's Sarah Jane Smith's first episode, the one that introduces the name Gallifrey to the series, and it has Jeremy "Yes, I actually do know his face since I used to watch Robin of Sherwood" Bulloch as a less lethal sort than his Boba Fett ever was. What's not to like?

His second appearance as Captain Rigg in Baker-era Nightmare of Eden along with the Creatures of Beauty audio work later on cement some sort of a spot in Doctor Who history for Daker, so I'm not entirely sure why his presence online even on that front remains so low profile. I know fans, I know how cult TV or movie circles latch onto the most random things at times, so why not this?

Daker's Gilbrook in Creatures of Beauty (watch for spoilers with that review) gets praise as the performance of a lifetime, so again, I'm left both wanting access to that and wondering what I'm supposedly seeing that others do find good, but not enough for more than passing mentions. Most reviews glanced through in recent times mention his doing solid work at the least, or things like Boon's creators being pleased that he got cast, and the career's been long enough, for goodness's sakes. I'm just surprised that there has been so relatively little attention overall even so.

To offer some perspective, I say I in passing follow about 400 actors and what they do if happen to catch them somewhere, since I seem to pick them up like others flint. It's far less time-consuming and more selective than the number may suggest, there being few that you focus on at a time and even fewer for whom you'd accept a fan tag.

I'm not sure I'd qualify for a fan of Daker's either for now, in my opinion. I'm rubbish at being an actual fan. I'm far too irreverent and my sense of humour competes with the roses around Sleeping Beauty's castle. Thorny affairs, me and fannishness. But the interest remains and while much like Monty Python's famous Pope, not knowing much about art, we both know what we like. So maybe, since I do like what I see.

After all, how could I (Potentially. We'll see. I hope) not? "Irongron (David Daker, mesmerizing, right up to the top but thankfully never over it)", "...never far from a flagon of wine, delivers about eleven of the niftiest put-downs you'll hear on TV," both from page two of the above reviews. Even with the conclusion that neither episode is Who's best, I always watch for performances. Have a bit of fun.

Then again, you're in shoddy waters whatever you say of Who as a layperson unless an expert of several series of it. By which time you're presumably no longer a layperson, but I digress. As usual.

Mind you, having had a chance to opt for some more lateral jumps, Z for Zachariah needs to be checked out more what I can sometime soon, although I was slightly ambivalent on the book when I read it age nine or ten. Checking things out goes for that other thing talked about as well though, I see. Life is good?

I love a good lateral jumps hunt

I'm doing slow background work for putting together that aforementioned site that I said I wouldn't have time to organize, against my better knowledge. I was reminded of how much material I managed to dig up about something else several years ago simply through lateral jumps and basic use of logic and the tenacity to scour through the web for related info and wanted to try the same here. Half because of how much I apparently enjoy the process of hunting things down.

The main hits you get on search engines may have up to four vaguely relevant hits, but even that depends on what you're looking into. After that it's all the useless spamming junk and sites that have the building blocks and the big name tags and flashy lights to lure you in, but no content. I have an hour or so at most per weekdays to devote to any sort of searches and shifting through sites. I've been glancing through things for a week or two and despite there not being much, if it was all linked to or housed under one roof, it would be a dozen times more than what the flashy sites have. Until they grab any content anyone else has gathered as their own, but alas, that's their problem then.

Because I was good back in the day, I had content on my topic. Style I wouldn't say about, but content there was. I was a little thrown at the reminder from years back, but good for me then.

My personality type in the Meyers-Briggs typing system is INTP. Long story short, much of the type's fun falls under analysis and organizing systems. You may see where this is going. Give me the whole Net to search through as a challenge, add on top the "lateral jumps will be necessary to find anything" factor, provide me with enough time and if it's listed, I'll love the challenge and rewards of having thought up another angle to get something that other people would give up on.

Regrettably, I doubt there will be Internet records about theatre performances from the 1960s unlike some things in the late 1990s that I found in my previous unrelated hunts, but I'll still be having fun in seeing what I uncover through simply using the brain a bit more than most. Oh, for some actual newspaper archive access, come to think of it. You get a lead and start reeling the thread in, see what else you get, nothing wrong with that as a pastime.

Unrelated searches and privacy issues elsewhere have in any case reminded me about how much completely unnecessary information there also exists online, or what can be found out about people when they don't watch it. Me included no doubt, since some of the things I was reminded about last week were new to me in actual practise. I'd heard about them, but not stumbled upon them in practise. Suffice it to say, I don't approve of everything being locatable online. A matter of public records or not, people in Europe do not generally need access to records about US citizens, for example. I'm not going to buy your researching genealogy excuse there.

Not techie enough, not mundane enough

I have issues with the current websites out there it seems. While I'm in no way fluent in HTML, apparently I can't be given even the option of looking into that or working through my own if registering to free website domain services. All I get are the same templates with all the unnecessarily width-eating sidebars you get on blogging sites as well.

There are reasons why I considered some of the sites mentioned below, by the way, so nothing is set in stone or me being entirely ignorant of some past failings. I detested Angelfire's pop-ups years ago already, for example, but had a reason to look into it now.

My HTML skills stem back to 1995, so I know they are outdated. The last time I fiddled about with any of that was around 2003, so that's seven years in the past as well. I do however know enough to be able to look at the existing code on sites where I want to pick a piece from here, another bit from there, and to combine them into something that hopefully works. Basic, cleaner, simple, and no sidebar frills beyond a basic navigational menu.

I however seem to fall in between categories as a user, since I am unwilling to pay for services when I don't know the quality of them and what is available to me as a user before signing up and trying them out. As a free one, you no longer get access even to something like Angelfire's web shell management system. Or so I found out today when writing this, on Monday.

I haven't looked into CSS thus far despite having moved on sites that use it for some of their content. Apparently I now need to if want more control over what my content will look like. Even if it's simply to slash additional and unnecessary things from whatever I have to initially choose to use. Depending on what Topcities.com currently offers for their free users, I may still be able to modify things to pure basics even without CSS. I don't know, since I ran out of time to look into it.

With only an hour or two per day to shift through any of that, I'm at a disadvantage to even have any time to sort it out. I just dislike the current need for everything to look the same. The templates don't vary in what they offer greatly enough and none offer me anything close enough to the basic clean style I'd have in mind.

I realize that "mundanes" these days may like their content out there as well, with easy to use options, but when the main thing that is on offer when you first register is only catering to the lowest common denominator, I feel excluded and less pleased with the service I am offered.

If someone seriously wants to start their own social networking site they should presumably have enough knowledge about the technical issues and questions to know how to do it, too. Today I found out that's not at all necessary and that there are templates to do that as well.

Seriously? You're offering that to people who can't do a thing technically? Why? I cannot quite fathom the logic of letting people who have no idea what they're doing simply run around running something for the sake of it, because whee, it's fun. It must make someone some money somewhere or it wouldn't be an option, but it still seems bizarre.

I also have issues with limiting widths of text to 500 pixels or whatever as with the blogging templates. It narrows things unnecessarily and makes the text look longer than it actually is. I also find it more difficult to read through than wider options. If and when I ever get the time, the options for the blog will get modified as well, it's just to find the time.

I am likewise not entirely pleased with Zymic.com not offering a chance to register using Yahoo accounts, since I want to focus all my activities with this around what I have now. I distrust some of the few other accounts I'd have in use to not go bust entirely if I fail to register in for a month, or more so, for the year it takes to re-allow old account names into use on some other services heard about.

Looking through a "Using the Media Manager for File Downloads" run-through help page I also start missing the times when I could just type in the html and URL for where I want to pick something up from once it's in the folder I want it in. All the jumping between menus and things just to get something to show up? I'd forgotten how time consuming the different menus were in the old days as well, let alone now that they've added several layers on top of it.

I don't want your Rich Text editors or other nonsense to edit in links. I know how. You're confusing people by making it look more complicated than it is and keeping others from doing it more simply or by hand. Inept as I may be with it all, I can tell I'd prefer more basics. I'm having to learn a more graphics based way to do mere links it seems, if at all want my very modest pages anywhere. I learned how to read things without pictures next to them early on in school. Why should I want them in what I do online?

The same goes to sites first offering me twelve or more boxes of text or images to view when I enter. I don't have ADD. I don't need everything thrown at me to try and wow me with all your fanciness when I first enter. You can grab me more easily by having what I need there, easily found and navigable without extra fuss on top.

The templates also finally tell me why these days I can never any more tell if a site I'm taken to is something more legitimate or simply a blog. If everything including blogs looks the same, it takes away from your air of legitimacy or professional tone. Should such things be what you're after, instead of a clean and simple look like me here. No, I don't think I'm entirely pleased here.