Skip to main content

From Hero to Zero


Need We Coke Zero? Want we the commercial? Where on the graph do need and want, meet? And What is Love Anyway? This is my way of saying that I don’t love or understand the Coke Zero commercial now found on television, cinema, iPods, and probably billboards in space.

Its all about mirroring, twin-ess, same-ness and yet different-ness. Guy in a black tie is dressed identically to his twin who has a red tie. Mr Red goes for the Coke Ordinaire, Mr Black goes for Coke Zero. There’s drinking, St Vitus Style shaking and much talking in tongues whilst remixed, mashed-up. 80s-esque beats pump out to a green-screen light show. Much like the fever dream of a six-year-old wired on something – say a caffeine-based sugary drink – and who’s spent a little too much time watching the EQ meter on dad’s stereo with defocused eyes.

Coke Zero it’s like the same, but different. Why didn’t they just pay Kate Winslett to say that whilst standing in front of the British Houses of Parliament? That’d do it for me. Ryan Gosling says same whilst posing in front of Mount Rushmore. There you go. Ad Boys – send my dosh care of this blog.

But this is a mere segue to my closing pars. Yesterday I bought an ordinary Coke in a glass bottle with a metal screw top lid. Why? Because Gen-X dorks like me will pay almost 100% more for this kind retro experience. The glass bottle held 385 mls and cost $3.40, the plastic bottle on the neighbouring shelf cost $3.50 and held 600 mls.

Paying more to enjoy something intangible; to enjoy drinking out of glass rather than plastic or a can. I have yuppy desires on a car park attendant’s salary. As well as something against car park attendants, apparently.

Insignificance - Just Got Hotter,

Mr Trivia


Popular posts from this blog

What's with George Eads' Hair? & David Edwards

Hey Zeitgeisters,

Bet you thought this blog would never top “What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?” For those of you who weren’t part of that historical blog entry, it was the glittering moment where I wondered what’s with West Wing star Bradley Whitford’s hair. Good times.

However, tonight, while watching the current series (in Australia) of CSI :Original Recipe, I was forced to witness the unpleasantness of George Eads’ new(ish) 'do and I felt compelled to blog on’t.

George plays the part of Nick Stokes and has spent some 5 or 6 seasons with a haircut “you could set your watch to,” as Grandpa Simpson might say. It was always short; it always had that US Marine Corps vibe; it was always as dependable as the ebbing and flowing of the tides.

Now in something of an El Nino effect, I note that someone in Jerry Bruckheimer’s organization has decided to mess with the length of George’s crowning glory.

Although I chiefly watch CSI waiting for Grissom…

What’s with Bradley Whitford’s Hair?

Okay, Zeitgeisters, that’s as shallow an attention-grabbing start as one could ever want, but I really want to know. And sure, I’m really talking about Josh Lyman’s hair. (I’m like one of those people who insist on calling an actor by their character’s name – only in reverse. e.g. “Go Knight Boat!”)

Whitford plays Deputy Chief of Staff, Josh Lyman, in the Aaron Sorkin-created, NBC television series The West Wing. He plays this part to a tee and now he’s set to do great things in the new Sorkin drama, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. I know this last bit because the Angriest Ex-Video Store Clerk in the world told me.

Oh, and Whitford’s married to the awesome Jane Kaczmarek who plays mom, Lois, in the series Malcolm in the Middle. So Mr Whitford’s your regular pop-cultural icon and yardstick for excellence. We’re here in this, frankly, puzzling cultural landscape, because I’ve just finished watching season four of The West Wing on DVD. And Josh Lyman’s hair has bothered me throughout. It’s…

Institutional Memory

Note: If you’re here, you were connected with Perth’s Film and Television Institute at some point. The FTI in the form that we know it, is being wound up and some of its functions are being taken over by ScreenWest. This is my idiosyncratic tribute to the FTI as it was formerly.
I’m not someone who plans things. Depending on how well you know me, you might be saying “Amen to that” right about now. There was no plan to have anything to do with filmmaking when my friends and I entered our first efforts in the WA Film and Video Festival almost 35 years ago (forerunner of the WASAs). We made experimental films on Super 8 movie film; in-camera editing, falling down sand dunes, raw meat and tomato sauce representing the terrible effects of our filmic violence. Super-8 was the cheapest type of movie film. 8 millimetres in width. You could shoot two-and a-half to three-and-a-half minutes depending on your frames-per-second. We had no money, so shot “longer” at 18 fps. Our tiny epics, like “Mea…