I normally write “Snide Remarks” toward the end of the week, but obviously that was out of the question. Writing “Snide Remarks” requires a great deal more mental energy than watching “Law & Order: SVU” does. (It’s probably harder than writing “SVU,” too. Seriously, how hard could it be?) But I do have a couple other new things for you on this autumn Monday.

I managed to see and review “Quarantine” just as my illness was settling upon me. Maybe the movie gave me the virus. Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if I caught it from the audience, which was one of the motlier collections of Portland Lloyd Center denizens that I’ve seen. Who will put an end to white trash parents bringing their horrid children to terrifying R-rated movies? Whoever will deal with that important issue, that’s who I’m voting for. Anyway, “Quarantine” is actually quite good, which is rare for a Hollywood’s Shameful Secret®.

At Film.com, the second installment of my new column Eric’s Time Capsule appears today, featuring “Hoop Dreams,” released 14 years ago this week. Even if you are not familiar with that film, perhaps you will find the column interesting! How do you know unless you read it?

Also at Film.com, I wrote a non-partisan article about the 2008 presidential election, and who should star in a movie about it. (Surprise: No Tina Fey!) I compiled the photos, too, thank you very much. Remember that the Film.com overlords love it when people click the “Recommend” button, as it makes them think that people have actually enjoyed the article.

As for my illness, I’m not at 100% capacity yet, but I am feeling better. I plan to drag myself from my cocoon to catch a screening or two today, and gently ease myself back into my workload (which is more rigorous than you think it is, so SHUT UP).

The best of the bunch is “City of Ember,” based on a young-adult novel about an underground city. Lots of fun for the whole family, and Bill Murray plays the idiot mayor!

“Body of Lies” is a body of meh.

“The Express” (reviewed at Film.com) takes the express train to Mehville. It’s about college football legend Ernie Davis, who surely deserves a more interesting and imaginative biopic than this one.

“RocknRolla” (reviewed at Cinematical) is Guy Ritchie’s latest “Snatch” remake.

Finally, there’s “Quarantine,” which is one of Hollywood’s Shameful Secrets©, and it must be quite shameful indeed: A screening was scheduled, and then canceled. Except that they didn’t actually cancel it — they just told the critics they did. It was still held Thursday night, with the public invited. Apparently it was the same scenario in a number of cities. Nice work, Screen Gems! I’ll have a review this weekend.

Sign up for the “In the Dark” e-zine here.
Listen to this week’s podcast version here.
Subscribe to the podcast’s feed with this URL.

Bill Clinton was a gift to comedians: overweight, Southern, and promiscuous. It didn’t matter that the writers and performers generally supported him politically. A joke is a joke, and Clinton gave them plenty of material. Likewise, you had Al Gore the stiff robot, followed by Al Gore the environmental crusader. There’s always been Ted Kennedy the fat drunk. Meanwhile, plenty of Republican politicians have gone unscathed simply because they weren’t colorful enough to make fun of.

Most of the political humor on these shows isn’t really about politics. It’s about personalities and appearances. Think back to Dana Carvey’s legendary portrayal of George Bush on “SNL.” Did it have anything to do with the president’s policies? Nope. In fact, all there really was to it was a repetition of some of his catchphrases and a vaguely accurate impersonation of his voice. They were lucky they had Carvey, who could latch on to those things and run with them.

Obama is more problematic. As far as his speech goes, he says “uh” a lot, but that’s not much to go on. His voice and delivery are not marked by a particular accent or style. “SNL” has Fred Armisen playing him, but he’s not very good at it yet. He hasn’t found his “wouldn’t be prudent” or “not gonna do it,” to name Carvey’s main Bush-impersonating tools.

What about Obama’s lack of experience? Couldn’t they make jokes about that? The problem is, he doesn’t come across as someone who’s inexperienced. When he speaks, he sounds authoritative and intelligent. People would understand what you meant if you made a joke about Obama’s inexperience, but since they don’t generally perceive him that way, it wouldn’t have the immediate gut-level response that humor needs to be effective. Dan Quayle was youthful and inexperienced — and then he sealed his fate by making a few hilarious verbal gaffes and appearing stupid. If he hadn’t done that — if he had seemed smart and capable to people — the “he’s young and inexperienced” theme would have quickly dried up.

One element of Obama that would be ripe for satire is the Messianic devotion some people have to him. Of course, then you’re really making fun of his supporters, not the man himself, but still, it’s something.

Another thing about Obama is that he’s black but doesn’t come across as a stereotypical black man. There was a hilarious “SNL” sketch about 10 years ago where host David Alan Grier played Bryant Gumbel interviewing someone on the “Today” show. He was very prissy and “white” on camera, the way Gumbel is, then became a stereotypically loud, black ho-slapper during commercial breaks. (”Girl, your perfume STANK!”) Then again, that was OK because Grier was black. Fred Armisen isn’t. As long as “SNL” has a non-black man playing Obama, they can’t really do anything race-related.

And now here’s the real problem: If you have to go LOOKING for something to make jokes about, the jokes probably aren’t going to work. The nature of this kind of comedy is that it has to play on people’s already-held perceptions of the targets you’re making fun of.

A strongly right-wing publication or TV show could probably make its audience laugh with jokes about Obama’s inexperience, because that audience sees him that way. Most of the shows we’re talking about, however, are general-audience programs. They have to figure out how their entire, vast, broad viewership sees things, and make jokes that will hit home to them. That’s why the jokes usually aren’t about anyone’s actual political views or policies. Those things are harder to summarize in a few words, and, sad but true, wouldn’t get the immediate response from viewers that a simple joke about Dick Cheney shooting a guy in the face would.

Why don’t they make fun of Joe Biden? The same reason as Obama: He’s just not a very colorful character. He’s somewhat famous among political watchers for being long-winded, but that’s not something the average American has seen. It’s something the average American has only read about. (”Apparently, Joe Biden is really long-winded! Huh!”) Biden’s high-profile public appearances don’t offer much for a satirist to mock other than his gigantic game-show-host smile. And since he’d been on the political scene for a long time when Obama chose him, there weren’t those get-to-know-you TV interviews like Sarah Palin had, which might have given Biden a chance to embarrass himself with some gaffes (something else he’s “famous” for, but only in political circles).

The Republicans, unfortunately, have two figures with very easy-to-mock characteristics: an old guy and Sarah Palin. And Sarah Palin, like Bill Clinton, is a gift to humorists. People keep wondering — OK, one person keeps wondering — why I’ve made fun of Palin and not Biden or Obama. Who I’m voting for has little to do with it. Like I said with regard to the talk shows and “SNL,” the writer’s personal opinions are almost irrelevant compared to the potential humor quotient.

The fact is, you gotta go where the jokes are. It’s not like I set out to find ways to make fun of Republicans while holding the Democrats sacrosanct. Believe me, if McCain had picked some ordinary, uncolorful politician as his running mate, I probably wouldn’t be making any political jokes at all this season, apart from the occasional “John McCain is old” crack. And if Obama had picked Hillary Clinton, there would be all kinds of material there. I usually don’t do a lot of political stuff at all. But when a larger-than-life figure appears on the scene, and it’s someone everyone is talking and laughing about, then of course I’m going to go with it. It’s not even really political humor. It’s more like celebrity humor, where the celebrity happens to be a politician.

I guess I stumped everyone with my clue last week: “Next week’s movie, also a horror flick, features an actor who would later play a famous real-life outlaw on a TV series.” I was referring to Muse Watson, who plays the hook-wielding killer in this film and went on to play airplane-hijacker D.B. Cooper on “Prison Break.” (My follow-up clue referred to him as a “stealer of money,” which is probably somewhat misleading. The money he made off with was ransom given to him by the government, which technically means it was extorted, not stolen. Sorry about that.)

Next week’s film is a horror sequel from the mid 1980s. Normally I would just do the original film, not the sequel, but the original is actually pretty decent. Besides, the sequel has a title that literally makes me laugh out loud: “[Blank] II: [Hilarious subtitle].” I haven’t watched it yet, so I’m not sure if the subtitle actually appears onscreen, or if it’s just “[Blank] II.” Anyway, it’s listed the hilarious way at IMDB, and it stars a man who also appeared in not one but two hugely successful film franchises. Is that enough to go on?

One’s first instinct is that Lionsgate is trying to save money by only screening it in the largest markets. But that doesn’t wash: It is screening, for example, in Salt Lake City and Charlotte, N.C., both of which have smaller populations and fewer media outlets than Portland. So if they’re trying to save money by screening it in fewer cities, they’re choosing those cities strangely.

Maybe they’re not screening it in cities where they fear it won’t be received very well? Also illogical, given Portland’s famed liberalism and Salt Lake City’s (and possibly Charlotte’s) conservatism.

Whatever the reason, it’s got Portland’s newspaper film critics agitated. Our heaviest hitter, Shawn Levy, who writes for The Oregonian, told Jeff Wells that his paper won’t review the film at all — not an after-the-fact review, not review from the wire services, nothin’. He said our two weeklies, Willamette Week and the Portland Mercury, have issued the same decree.

Maybe Oliver Stone hates Portland because he knows it’s where I live and he remembers my article making fun of the press junket I attended for his last film, “World Trade Center”? Probably not. Paradoxically, the only person who could ever swallow a conspiracy theory that contrived and unlikely would be Oliver Stone himself.

Actually, I know you aren’t really very interested. But I wanted to write about it again to boost the chances that when someone Googles “Live Universe,” they’ll see a blog entry pointing out that Peerflix and LiveUniverse owe me several hundred dollars.

I’d also like to make it known that Peerflix and LiveUniverse are apparently financially insolvent and unwilling to communicate with their clients.

My sole contact at Peerflix, L., finally responded to an e-mail the other day. L. acknowledges my existence about every two weeks, issuing approximately one response for every three e-mails I send her, and simply ignoring the questions she does not wish to answer.

Her latest missive reports that the reason she didn’t reply to my previous queries was that she didn’t have anything new to tell me. Obviously, simply ignoring me is much better than saying, “Sorry, no news!” People who fear that they are being given the runaround by companies owing them several hundred dollars always feel much less anxious after being ignored. So good call, L.!

L. says she still doesn’t know when LiveUniverse will be able to pay me (or the other people they owe — I’ve communicated with several). I’ve asked her twice now whom I should contact directly at LiveUniverse. It doesn’t make any sense to have L. as my only contact when she, by her own admission, has no power to pay me. Who DOES have that power? That’s who I should be talking to. L. has thus far ignored that question each time I’ve asked it.

I sent an e-mail to LiveUniverse headquarters that, predictably, went unanswered.

So that’s the latest. Nothing new, except that Peerflix and LiveUniverse continue to be poorly managed and fraudulent in their business dealings. You should not have anything to do with them or their products.

At Film.com, I wrote “The Differences Between Nicholas Sparks and Shakespeare,” which was necessitated by Sparks actually comparing himself to the Bard. Seriously. He repeated it again in Entertainment Weekly last week. This guy needs to be punched.

And at Cinematical, Scott Weinberg interviewed me and Will Goss about our respective reviews of “An American Carol,” and the reaction they got. Will reviewed it for Cinematical, totally hated it, and got ripped to shreds. I reviewed it here, expressed milder feelings about it, and, um, also got ripped to shreds. Anyway, the conversation about the whole thing might interest you, if you like reading conversations about things.

The Time Capsule works like this: Each Monday, I’ll discuss a movie that was released that same week X number of years ago. I’ll review it, briefly, but focus more on its impact, its legacy, what moviemaking trends it might have been part of, how it fit into the zeitgeist of the time, and so forth (though I think I can promise not to use the word “zeitgeist” too often).

I’ll also talk about what else was going on in the world then: what the hit songs and TV shows were, what other films came out that week, etc.

For my first trip to Eric’s Time Capsule, I’ve chosen “Midnight Express,” released on Oct. 6 (that’s today!), 1978. The fact that this was 30 years ago, a nice, round number, is a coincidence, as I’m not restricting myself to “milestone” anniversaries. Also, 1978 is probably about as far back as we’ll go. The older a movie is, the harder it is to find accurate contemporary information on it, and the less likely it is that our readers will be able to say, “Ah, yes, this brings back memories….”

I’m very excited about this feature. It lets me write about movies in a broader context than just “I liked it/I didn’t like it,” and it gives me a chance to do research, which I enjoy. It also gives me an excuse, in some cases, to watch movies that I’ve never seen before.

Suggestions for the feature aren’t needed, since it’s the release dates that matter, not the films’ quality. I’ll probably focus on good movies, but not necessarily. In general, we’re going to stick to films that are well known, while avoiding those that have been discussed so extensively that anything I had to say would be redundant.

Feedback is always welcome, especially in the form of posting comments at Film.com. (Click that “Recommend” button at the top, too!) Also, note that Eric’s Time Capsule is in the “DVD” section at Film.com, not the “Movies” section, just in case you go looking for it one week and don’t know where to find it.

I hope you enjoy it!

More news later today. Stay tuned!

This week’s “Snide Remarks,” including the audio version, is here.
The audio version (i.e., the podcast) is also here.
Subscribe to the podcast’s feed with this URL.