Zarf and magic
Jan. 24th, 2007 09:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eee1313Recently, through the good people of Best Week Ever, I became aware of a character on All My Children named Zoe. It seems Zoe is a rock star who sings about the underworld and was brought to Pine Valley to do something with the cosmetic company, but then was accused of kidnapping and/or murdering the women who worked there. But Zoe didn't do it, you see, because Zoe is in love with Bianca Kane and wouldn't do anything to hurt her. But it seems this isn't just your average soap opera lesbian relationship, because Zoe is actually a MAN! Yes, that's right, Zoe is transgendered, a woman trapped in a man's body. Anyway, BWE started posting clips of Zarf daily because Zarf is just that awesome and over the top, and I love every moment I've seen of Zarf. Let's recap, shall we?
First, there's the Zarf "slinky slip" breakdown that is the stuff of legend already. Tell me you don't love the way he delivers that last line.
Next up is "They call me MR. ZARF!"
Then Zarf goes on a rampage.
From there, Zarf goes all emo on us.
Zarf tries to escape again, but his plan is foiled.
AMC really wants us to know what it's like to be Zarf, so they give us Zarf vision. God bless you, AMC.
Upon his capture, Zarf goes to jail but would prefer a trip to Oz.
And finally, Zarf sets the record straight.
In conclusion, Zarf is awesome. The actor who plays him, Jeffrey Carlson, is fabulous. Seriously, I love this guy. His portrayal of Zarf has been one of the few things getting me through my afternoons at work, seeing as how I can't wait until the Daily Zarf is posted. Lame, I know, but a girl needs SOMETHING... Anyway, it seems that Jeffrey actually went to college with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
adjrun, and they were in theater productions together and stuff. So that makes me two degrees from Zarf, but in kind of a fake way, seeing as how I've never worked with adj. BUT it seems I have another connection to Zarf. Jeffrey is off to play Hamlet in DC at the Shakespeare Theater Company (feetnik, you have to go!), and I mentioned this to Krista, my coworker who also loves the Daily Zarf. When I told her this, Krista asked for the actor's name, and then ran a search online for him. It seem Jeffrey was in Chicago a while back playing in the Chicago Shakespeare Company's Henry productions as Prince Hal. Also in these productions were Krista's friends Matt and Dan, whom Krista has worked with many times in many different plays. So Zarf worked with Matt and Dan who worked with Krista who works with me. I am OFFICIALLY four degrees from Zarf! KICK ASS.
In news of better acting (no offense, Jeffrey), last night the Scientist and I watched The Illusionist. It was okay. As always, Edward Norton was good, and I was pleasantly surprised with Jessica Biel's performance. Paul Giamatti's accent actually kind of bugged me a little, though I can't place why. But Rufus Sewell was once again cast as a villain. Will Dark City be his ONLY good guy role? Sheesh. Anyway, the movie... It was okay. A lot of it seemed really predictable the whole way through, which was a bit of a disappointment. Eisenheim faking Sophie's death from the get-go just seemed so obvious, and I have to admit I was a bit let down to find out that was the case. I like that he framed the Prince for her murder, though, and will happily admit that the movie became much more interesting once the "crime" aspect of the film was introduced, instead of it just being Eisenheim doing magic and pining for Sophie.
There were some petty things that really bothered me, however. This is so trivial, but it drove me nuts: the locket Edward gives to Sophie is great, but there's no way he could have put that photo in there. The way the locket twisted in half before it opened would not have allowed for Edward's picture to be inside in one piece. If he had cut the photo in half and glued it to the wood so that his face became whole upon the locket's re-alignment, that would have been fine. But it was a loose photo and just couldn't fit in there. (Stupid that something so simple is what drove me bonkers the whole time. It'sdeeablo's "baby Superman" theory in action again.) Another thing that I really didn't like was the way the film was shot, so that it was dimmer at the edges and bright in the center, like an oldsy-timesy film or something. I know it was to help enhance the ambiance, but it bugged my eyes AND made me think of the tunnel vision that happens before I faint, so that's no good. It took me over a half hour to stop paying attention to the faded edges of the screen. And finally, it's explained that Eisenheim was just an illusionist, that the orange tree was all a mechanical wonder, that he faked Sophie's death and revived her later, etc. But how did he do the "raising the spirits" illusion? I want an answer to THAT, dammit.
Also, I know I shouldn't compare/contrast, but having seen The Prestige first, I have to say that this movie really let me down. While The Presitge had fantastical elements that honestly could NEVER happen in real life, I could buy that movie more than The Illusionist. Why? Perhaps it's because for the most part, the illusions* in The Prestige were always about the how. HOW was it done? Secrets were revealed as the movie unfolded, and secrets about the characters were revealed as well. Watching that movie was, to use a bad cliche, like peeling layers off an onion. In The Illusionist, things were telegraphed a mile away to tell you how things were done. When Giamatti's character finally realized that Edward faked Sophie's death, it wasn't a surprise to the audience because they already showed Edward packing up some vial of liquid to give to Sophie, presumably to fake her death a la Romeo and Juliet. Whereas in The Prestige, even the stuff that WAS given away to the audience still had resonance, since there was always some sort of challenging moral dilemma to the magician in question. (Examples: Angier using the cloning machine every night meant he had to kill himself, essentially committing murder AND suicide at the same time and yet not really doing either crime. Or there's Borden leading a completely double life with his twin, thus alienating his wife AND lover to continue his illusions AND eventually leading in one twin's death so the other one could raise the child.) Plus, in The Prestige the "magic" was realistic -- it was shown how the illusions were done (save for the cloning machine), whereas in The Illusionist it was merely special effects on the part of post-production. I kind of liked it being more plausible in the other film.
So yeah, on its own The Illusionist was pretty good, but in comparison to The Prestige it wasn't all that great at all. And The Prestige had David Bowie, so that totally puts that movie on top. Yis.
*They're illusions, not tricks. Tricks are something whores do for money... Or candy.
First, there's the Zarf "slinky slip" breakdown that is the stuff of legend already. Tell me you don't love the way he delivers that last line.
Next up is "They call me MR. ZARF!"
Then Zarf goes on a rampage.
From there, Zarf goes all emo on us.
Zarf tries to escape again, but his plan is foiled.
AMC really wants us to know what it's like to be Zarf, so they give us Zarf vision. God bless you, AMC.
Upon his capture, Zarf goes to jail but would prefer a trip to Oz.
And finally, Zarf sets the record straight.
In conclusion, Zarf is awesome. The actor who plays him, Jeffrey Carlson, is fabulous. Seriously, I love this guy. His portrayal of Zarf has been one of the few things getting me through my afternoons at work, seeing as how I can't wait until the Daily Zarf is posted. Lame, I know, but a girl needs SOMETHING... Anyway, it seems that Jeffrey actually went to college with
adjrun, and they were in theater productions together and stuff. So that makes me two degrees from Zarf, but in kind of a fake way, seeing as how I've never worked with adj. BUT it seems I have another connection to Zarf. Jeffrey is off to play Hamlet in DC at the Shakespeare Theater Company (feetnik, you have to go!), and I mentioned this to Krista, my coworker who also loves the Daily Zarf. When I told her this, Krista asked for the actor's name, and then ran a search online for him. It seem Jeffrey was in Chicago a while back playing in the Chicago Shakespeare Company's Henry productions as Prince Hal. Also in these productions were Krista's friends Matt and Dan, whom Krista has worked with many times in many different plays. So Zarf worked with Matt and Dan who worked with Krista who works with me. I am OFFICIALLY four degrees from Zarf! KICK ASS.In news of better acting (no offense, Jeffrey), last night the Scientist and I watched The Illusionist. It was okay. As always, Edward Norton was good, and I was pleasantly surprised with Jessica Biel's performance. Paul Giamatti's accent actually kind of bugged me a little, though I can't place why. But Rufus Sewell was once again cast as a villain. Will Dark City be his ONLY good guy role? Sheesh. Anyway, the movie... It was okay. A lot of it seemed really predictable the whole way through, which was a bit of a disappointment. Eisenheim faking Sophie's death from the get-go just seemed so obvious, and I have to admit I was a bit let down to find out that was the case. I like that he framed the Prince for her murder, though, and will happily admit that the movie became much more interesting once the "crime" aspect of the film was introduced, instead of it just being Eisenheim doing magic and pining for Sophie.
There were some petty things that really bothered me, however. This is so trivial, but it drove me nuts: the locket Edward gives to Sophie is great, but there's no way he could have put that photo in there. The way the locket twisted in half before it opened would not have allowed for Edward's picture to be inside in one piece. If he had cut the photo in half and glued it to the wood so that his face became whole upon the locket's re-alignment, that would have been fine. But it was a loose photo and just couldn't fit in there. (Stupid that something so simple is what drove me bonkers the whole time. It's
deeablo's "baby Superman" theory in action again.) Another thing that I really didn't like was the way the film was shot, so that it was dimmer at the edges and bright in the center, like an oldsy-timesy film or something. I know it was to help enhance the ambiance, but it bugged my eyes AND made me think of the tunnel vision that happens before I faint, so that's no good. It took me over a half hour to stop paying attention to the faded edges of the screen. And finally, it's explained that Eisenheim was just an illusionist, that the orange tree was all a mechanical wonder, that he faked Sophie's death and revived her later, etc. But how did he do the "raising the spirits" illusion? I want an answer to THAT, dammit.Also, I know I shouldn't compare/contrast, but having seen The Prestige first, I have to say that this movie really let me down. While The Presitge had fantastical elements that honestly could NEVER happen in real life, I could buy that movie more than The Illusionist. Why? Perhaps it's because for the most part, the illusions* in The Prestige were always about the how. HOW was it done? Secrets were revealed as the movie unfolded, and secrets about the characters were revealed as well. Watching that movie was, to use a bad cliche, like peeling layers off an onion. In The Illusionist, things were telegraphed a mile away to tell you how things were done. When Giamatti's character finally realized that Edward faked Sophie's death, it wasn't a surprise to the audience because they already showed Edward packing up some vial of liquid to give to Sophie, presumably to fake her death a la Romeo and Juliet. Whereas in The Prestige, even the stuff that WAS given away to the audience still had resonance, since there was always some sort of challenging moral dilemma to the magician in question. (Examples: Angier using the cloning machine every night meant he had to kill himself, essentially committing murder AND suicide at the same time and yet not really doing either crime. Or there's Borden leading a completely double life with his twin, thus alienating his wife AND lover to continue his illusions AND eventually leading in one twin's death so the other one could raise the child.) Plus, in The Prestige the "magic" was realistic -- it was shown how the illusions were done (save for the cloning machine), whereas in The Illusionist it was merely special effects on the part of post-production. I kind of liked it being more plausible in the other film.
So yeah, on its own The Illusionist was pretty good, but in comparison to The Prestige it wasn't all that great at all. And The Prestige had David Bowie, so that totally puts that movie on top. Yis.
*They're illusions, not tricks. Tricks are something whores do for money... Or candy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 05:28 pm (UTC)Zarf IS awesome! Thank you!
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 05:58 pm (UTC)And for arguments sake, Bianca's last name is Montgomery, not Kane even though she is of course considered one of the fabulous Kane women. Bianca's daddy is the brother of the man her momma is now married to. Gotta love soap relationships. It always cracks me up that all her daughters have called her now-husband "Uncle Jack" for years. Ick. Also, now that I think about it Kendall's last name technically isn't Kane either, its Hart since Kendall was given up for adoption when Erica got raped back in the day...this rape occurred all of five seconds before Erica's abortion (the rape is a total retcon. It was never mentioned until Sara Michelle Gellar showed up to play bitch Kendall) that resulted in the fetus medical intern who is now desperately trying to fuck Zarf's only real friend in town, Babe Chandler.
Jesus christ. I miss my soaps.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:06 pm (UTC)And yeah, I was surprised you weren't all over the Zarf love-train, seeing as how you know all the backstory on the world's hottest aborted fetus medical intern. ;)
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:13 pm (UTC)I got a change to watch AMC last Monday when I was off, but I HATE the murder storyline. A few months ago it was announced that they needed to get rid of a bunch of actors and soaps always do that buy implementing the serial killers storyline. Its such BS and I want no parts of it. One of the CBS (i think) soaps did it and it pissed off so many viewers that they did a retcon "oops our bad! Look everyone is really still alive" thing. I also love how jacks adopted son Reggie went to basketball camp in may and never returned. And now they are going to kill off his girlfriend (who he broke up with after she lost her virginity to the fetus, he really IS irresistable, no?).
I just hope they kill Dixie. Cady McClain is a fucking nutcase.
And poor Zarf/Zoe. I hear Bianca's former piece of ass, Maggie, has shown up in town. Tsk tsk.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 05:59 pm (UTC)ALso, he was heartbreaking as King Mark in Tristan & Isolde, and everyone in that is great except, alas, James Franco who was fucking useless and attempting to out-mumble Brando, apparently...
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:22 pm (UTC)Now I feel dumb, though, because I was totally surprised by the ending.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 06:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 09:12 pm (UTC)Since you're a regular watcher, I'll ask you this: Now that Jeffrey Carlson is doing Hamlet in DC, does this mean that Zarf will no longer be a character on the show? I'm going to miss my Daily Zarf.
unemployed sister says...
Date: 2007-01-24 09:57 pm (UTC)Re: unemployed sister says...
Date: 2007-01-28 03:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-24 11:27 pm (UTC)Ok, I've got to get tickets, like now.
Zarf is the only thing worth watching on AMC.