A review of Content and Geometry Miss an Appointment

News about Leonard Cohen and his work, press, radio & TV programs etc.
User avatar
Posts: 5262
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 2:12 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia

Post by tomsakic » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:55 am

Jarkko, indeed, http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/lian.html is without any picture! It was working normally on Monday, when I followed the link from BoHo's review.

As for our film discussions and Top Ten lists, I will follow any such thread in EE, just start it:-)
User avatar
Posts: 818
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:26 am

Post by ~greg » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:22 pm

Tom Sakic wrote:Jarkko, indeed, http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/lian.html/ is without any picture! It was working normally on Monday, when I followed the link from BoHo's review.
If you get to the page via the path:
then you don't get the pictures.

But if you get to the page via the path:
then you do get the pictures.

The difference is that in the first case
there is a slash at the end of the path.

Which is a mistake.


The reason that the slash prevents the images from appearing,
but doesn't affect getting the page, is the following:

The slash at first makes the server think that the path given it,
is to the non-existant folder:

When an HTML server is given a path to a folder,
it looks for a file named 'index.html' in the folder, to serve up.

So in this case the server first looks for:

Which it can't find.

But then the server is smart enough to guess
that maybe the slash was a mistake.

So it removes the slash, and looks for a page: "lian.html",
in the root folder: http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/

Which it finds. And serves up.


But now the real problem begins,
- on the "client" side.

Our browsers (IE7 anyway) ought to,
but apparently don't, realize
that the server removed that slash.

They ought to realize it, because the server does inform the browser
where it actually found the page, vs how the browser had addressed it.
But apparently our browser stupidly assumes, instead,
that the page was actually found where it was (erroneously)

So in this case our browser thinks that the server
actually found the "lian.html" page in that imaginary folder:

So then, when our browser asks the server for the images,
---all of which happen to be specified via "relative links"
in the HTML of the page ---
it asks the server to look for them in that imaginary folder!!!

The server can't know or guess that it's a mistake, this time.
(That only works for urls to HTML pages.)
The only thing it can do is to tell the browser
that it can't find the images where specifed.

And so the browser has to put up red-xs instead.


For example, the first image in "lian.html"
is addressed as <IMG SRC="U2lc-1.jpg">

And our browser prepends to that what it thinks
is the path to the folder that the server found
"lian.html" in. That is, our browser asks
the server to return the image at:

Which the server can't find.
Beause the image is actually at:

When you get these red-xs, right-click on them,
and click "properties", and check out the "Address (URL)".
That's where your browser thinks the image ought to be.
In this case, erroneously:
Address: http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com/lian.html/U2lc-1.jpg
User avatar
Posts: 25464
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:31 pm

WoW, Greg ~ I actually followed all that :D ! Maybe you oughta give some thought to becoming a computer instructor on the side to whatever you do most of the time. You spelled it all out so clearly 8) .

Thanks for untangling all that... physically and conceptually. I've been right-clicking on the red x's, but didn't know to take it any further than clicking on Show Picture, which the server was at a loss to do.

When I get home tonight, I'll try these instructions from there.


~ Lizzy

Post by BoHo » Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:44 pm

Bobbie wrote:I think seeing the actual live show, and then the film, have quite a lot to do with each other. I feel reasonably sure that if I hadn't seen the first Wilner tribute in Brooklyn, which was fabulous, that I would have rated the film in a completely different manner, and I think I would have been somewhat disappointed, and certainly more critical, as I very seldom like any LC covers.


Anyway, to those of you who wanted to know what difference it makes, that's why I asked the question - all the while knowing that they are two separate entities, and can't possibly be rated in the same way. Still, if you'd seen the live show, you might look at the film a little differently.
Hi, Bobbie. Trust all's goodly in your neck of the world. Point taken. The question I'd like to ask, however, involves a film such as Woodstock, The Last Waltz, Stop Making Sense, or Nashville, say:

Do you think those who did not attend those events would not be able to make a richer, fuller, more considered or, perhaps, more expansive assessment of the final artefact?

IOW, when analysing one of these films, are those who were not at the live event itself at a disadvantage when it comes to rendering a critical judgement concerning form and content in terms of verisimilitude and veracity?


"This is poetry of personal and cultural pain and rich, surprising linguistic play, modernist in economy, epic in dimension, bristling with intelligence, illuminated by psychological and spiritual vision."
— Killam Fellow Dr. Thomas Dilworth (February 2007)
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:31 am
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Post by DBCohen » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:25 pm

It’s only today that I’ve stumbled upon this thread, and I just wanted to say that both John’s original posting as well as Greg’s posting on the top of P.2 were great reading material. Keep it up, guys.
John K.
Posts: 858
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:45 pm

Post by John K. » Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:34 pm

post deleted
Last edited by John K. on Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
I love to speak with John
He's a pundit and a fraud
He's a lazy banker living in a suit

User avatar
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 1:37 am
Location: Arlington, Virginia USA

Post by Bobbie » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:28 pm

Hi Judith...

Yes, everything is fine in this neck of the woods, thank you (apart from living waaaay too close to misterbush, that is.) I hope all is well with you, too.

Yes, overall, I think it makes a difference in the rating of a film based on having seen the previous live concert (although I'm not sure that it matters in the end to the actual outcome of the review) because what it all comes down to, once all is said and done, is an individual and personal evaluation of taste and opinion (technical aspects aside, of course). Having seen the Brooklyn tribute, I went to the movie theater with a certain expectation, so I already had a perception of how the film "should" be, based on what I'd already seen. There's no way, of course, that the film could have portrayed what happened at the live show. First of all, the show was well over 3 hours long, and there's no way all that could have been put into the film, and still have the bits we really went to see the movie for, which were the Leonard bits. There were some glaring omissions, one of which was Perla doing "Bird", which she did in the live shows, and I kept waiting, in the film, to see more of Julie and Perla in general, but that didn't happen either. And to this day, I still don't know why Julie didn't do her version of "A Singer Must Die" (ala the '04 LC NY event) in the Wilner shows. It would have stolen the show, hands down...

But. Thinking back to concert footage I've seen of Leonard (or other artists) on tour, it occurs to me now that other things have been factored in, such as the camera panning in on the audience, hearing applause, whistlin', and whoopin' and hollerin' ... and I wonder if that doesn't make a difference in how the concert is perceived on film. As one very good example, you mention Woodstock. I didn't go to the concert, for which I still kick myself in the butt for (even to this day) especially when I visit a friend who has her ticket on the wall, matted and framed... (but I was a responsible (and ignorant) young girl then, and "had to work", so I let my friends go off without me. If only I'd had the foresight to see, in the long term, that it was a choice between just another day at work, compared to a history making event. But, who knew? Later on though, I thought the film was ok, and imparted what I thought was a good overview of what went on. I remember liking the footage of goings on in the audience, but my friends were a little bit grumbly about how the film turned out, and said.. "you had to have been there."

I guess I would compare all this to seeing the movie of a book you really love (which I've learned to be very leary of) You just know, that if you really love the book, you are going to be disappointed in the film, and if a friend says.. "I saw that movie of the book you really love, and I thought it was terrible"... to which you reply.. "read the book, and you'll change your mind." The only film that's come close to the real thing for me, was The Cider House Rules.. I was upset when I heard it was going to be turned into a film.. until I read that John Irving was writing the screen play, and no way would he screw up his own book. Similarly, maybe "I'm Your Man" would have been an entirely different film had Hal Wilner done the directing. We'll never know.

And now, speaking of Hal Wilner, I'm off entirely on a different thought... I was surprised and excited to see that he co-produced the new Lucinda Williams cd, West. I wish I knew where to email him (I've looked, to no avail) because it's long been a dream of mine to hear Leonard and Lu doing a duet of that great old Hank Williams song.. "Cold Cold Heart". Lucinda did a cover of it on the Hank Williams tribute cd, Timeless, which was awesome, and every time I hear it, all I can think of is an L & L duet of the same song. I just want to tell Hal what I think he should do... :--) ... ignoring the wisdom of a good friend of mine who tells me that Lucinda might be "too scary" for Leonard... heheh.

In Parky's own words...
"Alla best",
User avatar
Posts: 25464
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Post by lizzytysh » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:04 pm

And to this day, I still don't know why Julie didn't do her version of "A Singer Must Die" (ala the '04 LC NY event) in the Wilner shows. It would have stolen the show, hands down...
I was astounded to hear of this omission in the actual shows, too. "Hands down... " is right. Next best, from what I've seen for the film would have been Julie and Perla with "Anthem." Then, Perla with "Bird on the Wire." How the one and then the next two were omitted is baffling. Antony and Beth Orton [isn't that Mary Beth Orton, and the as-described-here "tipsy, screaming aunt" ~ or some such ~ one?] were the highlights of I'm Your Man for me. For me, they were both very theatre-oriented, art-piece, performances... and stood out for me in that way. They are the two that, when I think back on the film, I have the most specific recollections of how they looked and sounded... Antony most.

I feel better that you had the chance, but didn't make it to Woodstock, either. I don't have the painful reminder of a framed [and matted ~ the gall :wink: ] ticket staring and chortling at me every time I visit a particular friend, though. :wink: . Why didn't the concept of "designated driver" come up back then? That's all I want to know. I'd have gladly been one for that trip and maybe even feel discontented about the movie made of the event. Now, all I can do is wistfully watch it.

~ Lizzy
Post Reply

Return to “News”