Happy Easter

Happy Easter, everyone! For those of you who don't know the story, today is the day that Jesus Christ crawled out of the grave and disguised himself as a giant chocolate-peddling bunny to elude capture by the zombie-hunters. Forced to suddenly give away his wares in order to create a diversion for his escape, Jesus inadvertently began a holiday tradition. And even now, decades later, people expect free chocolate on this day. Enjoy!

Again, Please Type The Full Words

Earlier I called a journalist out for writing “auds” instead of “audiences” and “distrib” instead of “distributor.” This is completely unacceptable, and any professional writer who shortens words like that should be smacked repeatedly. So, I have to mention that I’ve seen this again. And again. And again.

In the special edition of Variety on actors published in December, 2014, a headline reads, “Jolie’s ‘Unbroken’ Wows Auds at Its Premiere” (p. 9). And in the special “Ultimate Awards Nomination Guide” of Variety (and I’m guessing that this will actually not be the ultimate awards nomination guide; after all, why wouldn’t they published one next year?) there is another incredibly obnoxious shortening of a word. Regarding the film The Theory Of Everything, we get this: “The superb perfs by Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones imbue ‘Theory’ with several dimensions” (p. 56). These writers deserve severe beatings. Perfs? Why this aversion to writing the actual words? Is the word performances so distasteful to them? Do they believe it’s just too long a word for their readers to handle? Well, no, because the word performance is printed in full later in that very same short piece. So they’re not even consistent. Perhaps they just don’t like the word in its plural form, for the writers use “perfs” again in a short piece on the film Whiplash: “sure, it’s secondary to the powerful perfs” (p. 58), but write out “performance” (“an exhausting, physical performance”).

The December 10, 2014 issue of Deadline includes some obnoxious shortening of words as well. A piece on screenplay nominations includes these lines: “That said, I certainly wouldn’t be shocked to see Dan Gilroy grab a nom for his intriguingly creepy Nightcrawler. The film reps his directorial debut, but here is where is name is likely to show up” (p. 31). Particularly irritating is “reps” instead of “represents.” “Nom” (instead of “nomination”) is used again a little later: “but who finally could grab a nom for their very funny Big Eyes” (p. 31). And “nom” is used in the piece titled “Excessive Forces”: “could be looking at first Oscar nom” and “A Golden Globe nom” (p. 33).

The December 5, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter has a short piece on the Scientology documentary, Going Clear (p. 18), but uses “doc” and “docs” several times, including in its headline: “HBO Going Clear: Scientology Doc From Oscar Winner.” (I can’t wait to see this documentary, by the way.)

In the December 12, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter, Gregg Kilday writes “nom” instead of “nomination” and “doc” instead of “documentary” in the line, “Conventional wisdom says foreign films, animation and documentaries are DOA when it comes to Oscar’s biggest nom, but the controversial Edward Snowdon doc – and its all-star pedigree – could stand out in a very muddied field” (p. 42). In the same piece, Kilday writes “toons” and “docs” in this line: “Although the Academy never would admit it, foreign flicks, toons and docs are left sitting at the kids’ table.” Kilday again writes “doc” instead of “documentary” in the following paragraph, and “docs” a few paragraphs after that, and again a few paragraphs after that, and uses “doc” a couple more times as well. Kilday writes “nom” instead of “nomination” four more times. Ouch. Clearly, this is a writer that should be fired and then beaten. Of course, the editor is also to blame for not putting a stop to this.

The December 19, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter uses “noms” instead of “nominations” in the piece titled “Best Picture: It’s The Battle Of The Sexes.” Here are a couple of examples: “While Tracks has received more noms from the early-announcing indie groups” (p. 89) and “But, perhaps tellingly, while several could result in acting noms” (p. 89). And then in a piece on documentaries, writer Gregg Kilday insists on shortening the word to “doc.” Ugh. Even the title is “15 Docs That Must Be Seen.” Here are a few other examples from the piece: “Interviewed in the doc” (p. 91), “one of this doc’s producers” (p. 91), “Oscar-nominated for his doc short” (p. 91), and “this doc travels to the boomtown oil fields” (p. 91).

The December 26, 2014 issue of The Hollywood Reporter again uses “nom” instead of “nomination” in lines like “Among them, they have 11 noms for best and supporting actress” (p. 62) and “If she secures an Oscar nom, it will be her fifth” (p. 62) and “for which she already has picked up a Globes nom” (p. 62) and “with five previous Academy noms, including her recent best actress nom for American Hustle” (p. 62) and “who could well earn her first Oscar nom for playing Michael Keaton’s daughter in Birdman” (p. 62). And, as you probably noticed, that’s just one page. Enough already! Stop, stop, stop.

Religious People Are Peculiar

Clearly the Christian god has some serious issues with jealousy.

Type The Complete Words, Please

The next person who says "celebs" to me is going to find himself or herself smacked in the face. The word you're looking for is "celebrities." There is no reason to shorten it. You're not in that much of a hurry.  And shortening it makes you sound like a moron anyway.

I was reading the December 2, 2014 issue of Variety, and there was a short piece on a documentary film (and it's documentary, not doc). And the writer, Ronnie Scheib, clearly needs a severe beating, particularly for this line: "This caution somewhat fudges the film's throughline, but if Berg can find a distrib willing to brave the forces that have silenced this open secret for decades, the documentary should find avid auds worldwide" (p. 112). Distrib? Auds? Seriously? The words you were looking for are distributor and audiences. Don't be an asshole, Ronnie. Don't make me come after you. Use complete words from now on.

I understand that often it's not the writer of a piece that creates the headline, so I'll let you off the hook for the use of "Doc" in the title.

Bird (Thanksgiving Update)

Those bastards across the street - the ones with that loud bird - have moved. I couldn't be more pleased. But there was a time when I feared they had left the bird behind, and that it was going to scream until it finally died of starvation. I tried to find information on how long that would take, but I wasn't certain just what type of bird it was. You see, the moving truck arrived, and they packed all their belongings into it. And they left. And the house was dark. But the bird still screamed. I thought perhaps they'd come back in a couple of hours to retrieve it and whatever else might be left in the house. But three days passed before they came back for that fucking bird. Three days during which it screamed. Or perhaps it wasn't those people that came for the bird. I suppose it doesn't matter who eventually took the bird. Someone came for it, for it's no longer annoying me, and for that I am thankful.

Poets

When poets give readings and stress every single word as if giving instructions to a retarded child, I want to leap out of my seat and smack them across the face. Because someone needs to let them know they're being bad.

Bad Words

I often use the word "fuck." Occasionally someone will ask me not to use that word around him or her. And sometimes someone will ask me not to swear. Okay, fair enough. But I too have a list of words that I don't want to hear. This is it:

• multitask
• proactive
• blouse (This one is just an ugly-sounding word.)
• nylons (Also an ugly-sounding word.)
• slacks (Another ugly-sounding word.)
• selfie (Not really a word.)
• guesstimate (Also not a word.)
• irregardless (Also not a word.)
• waitressing (Also not a word. "Waitress" is a noun, not a verb. You never hear anyone say "waitering," do you?)
• momentarily (This one I don't want to hear because every time I hear it, it's used incorrectly. It means "for a moment," not "in a moment," so don't tell me you'll be with me momentarily or I will punch you in the face.)
• forte (This one I don't want to hear because every time I hear it, it's pronounced incorrectly - "forte," meaning "an area of expertise," has only one syllable - it rhymes with "snort")
• African-American (This one is just stupid. What would you call a black person in France? And what about white people who were born in Africa and now live in America?) 
• full-figured (Enough already! Please just say "fat" or "large.")
• reboot (This one bothers me specifically when it's used to refer to yet another remake of a film. Don't get fancy. Call it what it is: a lack of imagination coupled with a lack of guts to attempt something new.)

While we're on the subject, I also don't ever want to hear anyone say "is comprised of." That is incorrect. What you should say is "is composed of."

Once everyone has made these adjustments, then we can talk about my use of the word "fuck."