Bureau des fantasmes urbains

Ornic’art - collectif de performers indisciplinaires issu des arts visuels, de la vidéo, du théâtre et de la danse sort de sa Friche la Belle de Mai (Marseille) et vient en résidence à l'usine de TRACES etinstalle son BUREAU DES FANTASMES URBAINS dans la boutik associative de la Maison de la Plage.

Voici le questionnaire qui peut vous aider à définir vos fantasmes urbains qui seront ensuite réalisés par Ornic'art du 2 au 7 mai 2011 dans le quartier Belleville.

Vous pouvez déjà répondre à ce questionnaire et l'envoyer à ornicart@lafriche.org.

1) Qu'est-ce qui vous paraît impossible dans une ville ?

2) Que faites-vous dans vos rêves que vous ne faites pas dans la réalité ?

3) Quel interdit aimeriez vous transgresser dans une ville ?

4) Que feriez-vous dans une ville si vous ne craigniez plus le regard des autres ?

5) Que faites-vous chez vous que vous aimeriez faire dans l’espace public ?

6) Si vous étiez une ville, qu'aurait-elle de particulier ?

7) Si vous pouviez ressusciter, comment aimeriez-vous vous suicider dans votre ville?

8) Si vous étiez une voiture, qu'aimeriez-vous - faire ? - qu'on vous fasse ?

9) Si un passage protégé ne servait pas à traverser, à quoi pourrait-il servir ?

10) Quel élément du mobilier urbain vous paraît érotique ?

11) Si je pose une échelle au milieu d'une rue, où pourrait-elle me conduire ?

12) Si vous disposiez d'une bombe, qu'en feriez-vous ?

Advice Illustrated: Where are the problems?

Prudence resides HERE.

Searching for images, I found this website.

Letter 1 is from a woman whose boyfriend hacked her email, and now uses info about her pre-relationship sexual history to treat her as a promiscuous slut. How can they get beyond this. Prudie says she has learned a Very Important Lesson about this guy. She says to DTMFA. I say I refuse to talk to you, you stupid, stupid, foolish, foolish slut. Indeed, I can only assume that your sluttish ways have given you syphilis, and that it has affected your mind if you need to write the internet lady for advice on this.
The problem is: The LW is a dolt.

The video letter is from a guy whose younger sister and husband have a new baby but who keep up with their hard-drinking lifestyle. Should he speak up? Prudie says regular alchohol abuse is bad, bad, bad. I say if it's abuse (not sure that regular partying is abuse) then intervene, but that has little to do with the new baby. My concern would be their transportation solutions. Unless the LW wants to become the foster parent to an orphan, an intervention may be needed.
The problem is: Not the LW's business.

Letter 2 is from a woman who commutes via public transport and can't stand the smells (BO, fragance) of her fellow commuters. Can she tell them to move to a farther seat if she was seated first? Prudie says there's no way to do this with a stranger and if she wants more distance, she needs to move herself. I say: duh. But people: please wash, and please use fragrance sparingly, if at all (excessive perfume and cologne is one of the downsides of living in France).
The problem is: The LW needs to get over herself and change seats.

Letter 3 is from a tutor of a disabled student who has told her that she cheated on a test (and cheated well: she got her first A!). Should she tattle? Prudie says to tell the parents, and if the parents don't follow through, to stop working for this amoral family. She's handicapped but maintains a B- average in an AP class? Huh? I wouldn't want to make a pronouncement on this without knowing more details, but something seems off. As for the cheating, it depends on her understanding of the gravity of what she did. If she understood it, then sock it to her. If she didn't, then make her understand, but don't put her future at risk for a one-off.
The problem is: Ethics sucks.

Letter 4 is from a student whose divorced parents just don't get along, but who want to throw a joint graduation party. She's said no based on their history of loud bickering and lawsuits. Prudie says have a planning dinner as a test run of their ability to get along. I say: they have always had separate events and now want to try a joint one? Give them a chance. It's a moist run for your wedding.
The problem is: Barely existant.

On French Top Chef

The French showed great resistance to cooking reality TV. Cooking was far too noble to be made into a game! Past efforts were a flop, notably Ready, Steady, Cook, a lively and fun BBC show made so sober and serious it was soon cancelled. Since then, M6 has had great success with Un dîner presque parfait (Come Dine With Me), encouraging them to try Top Chef (TC). Rival network TF1 had success with Masterchef, despite those who poopooed the idea that amateurs could do real cuisine.


(Teaser for TC 2011)


The first season of TC was disturbing: the format was significantly different from US TC. But once I got used to it, I liked it well enough. This season is much better, although perhaps even farther from the US TC.

A first difference is the length of each episode. French TV does not use 30- or 60-minute time slots. There is usually an early prime-time program and a late prime-time program. For many years, most programming on TV was just films, and most production of fiction retains the made-for-TV movie format, even when it uses a recurring character. When a US series is programmed, which is very common now on the private networks like TF1 or M6, they will broadcast three hour-long episodes back to back to make up the evening's program.

And thus, French TC is a program that lasts nearly three hours, including commercial breaks. That's about 2.5 hours of showtime, on a weekly basis! Clearly, the 45-minute run time of US TC won't work. So how do they get so much show for each episode? One way they don't do it is with out-of-kitchen scenes. Unlike US TC, we don't see the "private" life of the cheftestants, we don't know where they live during the show, we don't see them interact "off duty". This is not because French TV doesn't like this kind of stuff: they adore it, and are as trashy as anything you'll see. But I'm guessing they don't want to sully the notion of cuisine with sex or other unseemly aspects of life (you will not be seeing a Tiffani rubbing her bra on anybody's head on French TC). In the first season, they did imply that there was a romance going on between two cheftestants, but this year, nothing of the sort.

Instead, they take their time with each challenge, and have added new segments to the show. They begin with the Quickfire (last season called l'épreuve sur le gril, this year l'épreuve coup de feu), which takes about 30 minutes. There are no big cash prizes on French TC, largely because there is no product placement allowed at all in France. As in US TC, winners of the Quickfire get immunity, and may get another prize, such as an appearnce on the network, a recipe in a magazine, etc. There are usually no guest judges for the Quickfire.

The main section of the show are the "épreuves des chefs". The result of the "chefs' challenges" is to designate the losers who will go on to the final épreuve de la dernière chance, or "last chance challenge", not to directly eliminate anyone. Until the final episodes, there were two chefs' challenges in each episode. These were usually team challenges, and the chefs (the producers, in fact), chose which cheftestants would do which challenge, who would be assigned which ingredient, and usually which cheftestants would be in each team within a challenge (while knives are drawn in French TC, they are not used to make up teams or to provide any random element: there is little random choice in French TC).

Typically, one group's challenge will take place in the TC kitchen, while the other group will be "in the field" (sometimes literally, as when a challenge involved cooking pasta for a rugby team, on the rugby field). Most of the time the challenges are similar to those found in US TC (a new take on a traditional dish, etc.). Unlike US TC, most of the time the raw ingredients are those of the TC pantry, with no supermarket visits (because no product placement to justify it). We watch first one challenge, then the second challenge. The losers from each challenge go to the last chance challenge. Losers are designated by a dual vote: the chef judges and the diners. The conceit is that two chef judges judge each challenge, which was devised by one of them (in fact, of course, by the producers). The diners for the rugby challenge would of course be the members of the rugby team.

In order to avoid the last chance challenge, a chef (or team, usually) needs to have had success with both the chef judges and the diners. They pull knives from the block: if the knife is clean, they have succeeded with that jury. If the blade is orange (the TC color, or perhaps because red would be too gross), they have failed. So if either of the two knives (judges and diners) is orange, the team has failed. This can mean that everyone fails, and it's happened that after the two chefs' challenges, which take up the bulk of the show, almost everyone winds up in the last chance challenge.

The last chance challenge always takes place in the kitchen, and is usually something quite simple (make a cold first course, cook fish, make an egg dish). The dishes are tasted blind by the chef judges, who comment on them, and may then ask the cheftestants for additional information. The judges deliberate, and the cheftestants appear at judges' table where the eliminee is announced.

About the judges: There are five of them. One, Cyril Lignac is a young chef, made famous by his many appearances on M6. He has the sneer and sniff role, although he is more hands on and helpful than Tom C. He usually judges as well, but with the diners, where he has the deciding vote in case of ties. The "real" judges are four top chefs, always the same throughout the show. They are real top chefs, and they are treated with great deference by the cheftestants. The conceit is that they are the ones devising the challenges. In the chefs' challenges, they pair up, with two judges working on each challenge. They will provide much more hands on help and advice to the cheftestants. The tone is more that these are young chefs proving themselves, and learning, in a kitchen of a great chef. At the beginning of each challenge, we see a taped segment where the chef giving the challenge shows the dish he made himself.

There are two rather bland hosts, who have nothing to do with the judging.

There were 12 cheftestants in the first season, and 14 this year. This year, three cheftestants were eliminated in the first episode, and one in each of the following episodes until the finale. The last two episodes before the finale did not work by elimination, but on the basis of a qualification, with a series of challenges, the winner of which was qualified for the next week's competition.

The finale was semi-live, with challenges beginning off camera during the day, and the final meal prepared and eaten by over 100 diners (viewers who had won a drawing to participate) at a 5-star hotel in Versailles. In a first challenge, one cheftestant was eliminated, leaving the final decision between two cheftestants. There were three juries for the final meal: the 100 diners, the 12 eliminated cheftestants, and the chef judges. While cheftestant Fanny won the vote of the chef judges, her rival Stephanie won the vote of the other two juries, making her this year's Top Chef.

About the cheftestants: this season seems to have drawn a higher caliber of cheftestant. As in US TC, the producers like to have a mix of different kinds of cheftestants with different types and levels of experience. Last year was really absurd, with one of cheftestants being a mere commis and another an apprentice (both were obviously elimination fodder, and packed up their knives in the first episode). There was no such nonsense this year, and even the younger less-experienced chefs were quite good (Alexis, Tiffany...). There were many more talented women, with the finalists being two women (who received a great deal of abuse on internet... they were tough women, assertive and kind of bitchy, which is what it takes to win the show, and to succeed in the business). There were some attractive male cheftestants, including pretty-pretty Alexis (he doesn't photograph well, alas) and the studly but pouty Ronan.

Season 1 cheftestants HERE
Seaon 2 cheftestants HERE

Advice Illustrated: Prudie, please give me an excuse not to shut up

The originals are HERE.

All the writers are asking Prudie for permission to open their pieholes. People, you can open your piehole. That's why it opens.

Letter 1 is from a woman whose brother is in the military, serving in Afghanistan. How should she react when the creepy liberals around her denigrate the military? Prudie provides some conversation-stoppers. I agree with her, except for the notion that those in military actions who commit crimes are arrested, judged, and punished. Some are, many aren't, including the ones truly responsible. And Prudie: self-hating liberal much? Sucking up to Plotz?

Video letter is from an artist who offered some folks a free work of art and sent the wrong catalog to choose from. One of the persons chose her most expensive works. How does she deal? Prudie provides a rather obvious response for a ridiculous question. I say a contract is a contract, and you better make that custom piece for this guy!

Letter 2 is from a woman whose doggie was killed in an unfortunate accident. She wants a new one, which will cost a bundle. Can she make the woman who accidently killed the dog pay? Prudie says she shouldn't expect anything, but she can ask. And she wonders why the woman needs a dog that costs a grand, when there are plenty of dogs available in shelters for nominal fees. I say this woman is a bitch. She lost control of her dogs (after one shits in the public area of her building) and one is killed. It's sad, but it's her fault. And there is no justification in paying so much for a dog (which she didn't actually do... if she had paid that much for the dead dog, she would have said so). I hate you.

Letter Writer 3 is being pressured to attend an annual fundraiser in honor of a deceased friend. They can't afford the show-off event, and make a more modest donation directly to the charity. How do they deal with the pressure from the hosts of the bash? Prudie says asking why she doesn't attend is rude, and she doesn't have to explain. I might be tempted to respond: if you really cared about our dead friend, you would make your donation directly, without using it as an excuse for a social occasion.

Letter Writer 4 was with her engaged friend when they walked in on the fiancé bonking a bimbo in their soon-to-be conjugal bed. Fiancé claims it was a one-time thing, and friend has forgiven him, and will go ahead with the wedding. Should LW try to talk friend out of the marriage. Prudie says yes. I don't really care.

Advice Illustrated, 24 March 2011: Bolts for dolts

This week's selection sponsored by Midge, the new reference in gold-digging artistes

Hi there. The originals are HERE.

Letter 1 is from a dying man who wants to leave money to his mistress in his will. Prudie says it's important to make sure its discreet, and to plan for the truth coming out. I say, yeah. And I look forward to the fake-Christian/fake-Muslim fake attacks on Emily's lack of morality. Pre-emptive yawn.

Biggest fashion issue here is the carpet

Video letter is from a tall girl who wants a snappy reply to the dolts who point out that she's tall. Prudie offers one via a colleague. My reply to the comment: "Boy, you're tall!" would be "And my, you're observant. And a clod.".

A Park Slope susheteria

Letter 2 is from a guy (I just feel this is a sensitive male Park Sloper) who wants to know how to show the staff at the sushi place he eats how compassionate he is regarding the situation in the Land of the Rising Sun. Prudie says to STFU. I say, STFU you weanie. Now, if there's a collection box there, you can donate. And if you were in DC, you could have signed the condolence book at the embassy, but that closed yesterday. You could still do a candlelight vigil or something at a consulate. They're HERE.

Babies don't have to be this chubby, but they shouldn't be rail thin, either

Letter 3 is from a woman whose friends think other friends aren't feeding their kids right. Should they break off the friendship? Prudie says to write, maybe anonymously, to the kids' pediatrician. I say: what kind of people are you???? Your response to suspected child neglect would be to stop seeing these people? You prefer closing your eyes to the problem to helping these kids? I don't know about the parents, but you sound like a real piece of merde. That said, you don't give any real info showing there's a problem. Are the kids skinny? Not growing? The crying after having a spoon removed could be any number of things other than a sign of malnutrition (maybe teething?). And just how does the 2yo act "as if he's hoarding" food? Just what does that look like? Stuffing his pockets? Filling his cheeks? And no, these people are not food "connoisseurs" if they forget to eat. Does a wine connoisseur forget to drink????

"Une surprise-party" in French is a dance party held at the home of a teen. 

Letter 4 is from a woman who has accidentally invited her mother's new worst enemy to a surprise anniverary party. Uh oh! Prudie says she may delicately uninvite. I say surprise parties are just about always a bad idea. Cancel the whole thing.

Advice Illustrated: The other side

1)
Dear Prudie,

I'm an attractive young woman who had no lack of suitors. I fell in love and married a guy whose intellect I greatly admired, even though I found him physically unattractive, and pretty lousy in bed. I'm now wondering if I haven't made a mistake, as he treats me like a child and refuses to engage in any serious discussions. All he likes to talk about are the silly TV shows I put on in the evening to relax after a hard day's work. Should I get out of this marriage before it goes on too long?

Signed,
He's awfully dim for such a bright guy

V)
Dear Prudence,

I was seeing this guy for a while, and we just slept together for the first time, which is when I discovered he is uncircumsized. I find this gross: is it too soon to ask him to have himself cut?

Signed,
If God wanted men to have foreskins, he wouldn't have made circumcision a sign of his everlasting covenant

2)
Dear Prudence,

We recently decided to kill two birds with one stone by helping out this unemployed fellow we met. We hired him to tutor our kids, with the goal of getting them through their rote homework faster so they would have time for their arts, hobbies, sport, and more useful activities. He's now bitching because he thinks the kids should do these pages and pages of busywork on their own, which makes me wonder what he thinks I'm paying HIM for. I hate to leave him with no income, but should I feel any scruples about letting him go?

Signed,
Piper payer

3)
Dear Prudence,

I was recently called in by some staff at a company who were interested in unionizing. Many of their colleagues are opposed to unions, because they are convinced that their firm is one big happy family and that if they unionize, they will hurt their company. What can I do to show these employees that unless they join together, they will continue to be called on to provide free labor and duties worthy of domestic servants to those who are making fortunes off their work?

Signed,
Wondering in Wisconsin

4)
Dear Prudie,

Because I'm getting old and a bit forgetful, my family is convinced I have Alzheimer's. I've decided that if they are convinced I'm losing it, I might as well enjoy myself. For example, at a recent party I made sure my son-in-law's sister was alone to see me with the bowl of fruit salad while I pretended to pick out the strawberries, lick them, and put them back in the bowl. My question, Prudie, is: next time, should I just pretend, or should I actually lick the suckers?

Signed,
Sane but silly

Advice Illustrated; Rolling my goo-goo eyes

Letter 1 is from a gal who has a half-sister the product of her father's affair. Half-sib is pregnant and wants LW to be part of the child's life. LW doesn't want to upset her mother, who remained married to dad, or dad, who paid child support but has had no other contact with half-sib. Prudie says that dad was a crappy dad to his other daughter, and that LW doesn't need her parents' permission to have a relationship with her half-sister.
I say, yeah. And wear a condom, guys, when you sleep around.

Video letter is from a guy whose friend is applying to grad school, and using LW's accomplishments to pad his own resumé. Prudie says that if it's really true, LW needs to call him on it, in a nice way.
I say, whatever.

Letter 2 is a clerical worker in a law firm. All staff were invited to the firm's St Patrick's party (huh?), but she later learned that as a pink collar she is supposed to be doing coat check. She played along last year, but doesn't know what to do this year. Prudie says this is work, so do it.
I say, if the party's not during office hours, it's not work, and it she's supposed to work, she should be paid. Ah, those damn unions.

Letter 3 is from a mom whose future DIL is a bridezilla, who is making LW buy a dress in an unattractive color. Prudie points out that weddings should not be Broadway shows with a color-coordinated cast of characters. A bride does not tell her guests what color to wear, even less when it's an elder, even lesser when it's her MIL.
I say that this is the aspect of weddings many gays really long for.

Letter 4 is from a girl who is flirting with a coworker. Due to a cinematic malentendu et quiproquo, he thinks she is someone else. Prudie says to fix this.