Call me cruel, but what is not funny about a monkey lifting weights and a man boxing a kangaroo?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
2006 Animal Olympic Games from Beijing
No surprise, PETA is up in arms over this one...
Call me cruel, but what is not funny about a monkey lifting weights and a man boxing a kangaroo?
Call me cruel, but what is not funny about a monkey lifting weights and a man boxing a kangaroo?
Johnny Knoxville: Cinematic Revolutionary or: Jackass Number 2 and The Birth of American Alt-Pop Cinema
Now I know I'm supposed to feel superior to a movie like Jackass #2, which was the #1 movie at the box office last weekend, and had one of the biggest September openings ever. On the surface, it's just a bunch of rich white guys doing dumb stunts because, for whatever reason, they don't have anything better to do, and you get the feeling that even if they did have something better to do, they'd probably chose not to.
But I choose to try harder than that.
I think it is an interesting idea. This is film being used in a different, creative way. Here is a movie that is completely non-conventional and it got people out en masse and I think we should (or at least can) consider why.
Jim Emerson, editor of RogerEbert.com, recently wrote on his blog, Scanners "I was trying to imagine what it would be like if the conversation about movies (whether academic study, criticism, or casual after-movie talk) ended with the final credits. What if the movie was just over and you never thought about it or discussed it with anyone again? It's unthinkable..." To put it differently, Pepperdine film guru (and recently published author) Michael Gose's oft-repeated creed on movies is "the unexamined film isn't worth watching." And yet, this is exactly the way most people seem to approach film. Hopefully, not you. If that is you, hopefully you will reconsider that approach.
So despite having not seen it as of yet (and in all likelihood I never will, though I may convince myself to by the end of writing this), I will attempt a discussion of why this movie, Jackass Number Two, matters.
The movie exists because the TV show and the first movie were successful. I was never a fan of the show and didn't see the first movie, but I know a little bit about how their act works and know that you can do much more with it in a movie than on a TV show because you don't have to appease advertisers sensibilities. The film format, with a concept such as theirs, gives complete creative freedom.
Movies, through their history, have been predominantly used to tell a narrative, chronological story. Occasionally, something comes along that uses the medium in a completely different way, from Andy Warhol making a 5 hour movie of a man sleeping (aptly titled, "Sleep"; some referred to his early films as "stillies" as opposed to "movies"), to Godfrey Reggio's intriguing, if repetitive, 'Koyaanisqatsi', to the more recent "Waking Life" by Richard Linklater; appropriating the art form to suit the individual needs of the artist in expressing himself/herself, rather than forcing oneself into the constraints of the mainstream.
Experimental or alternative cinema has almost always been pushed to the margins, deemed unfit for mass consumption, because it doesn't fit with traditional principles and expectations of filmmaking. I don't know that this "Jackass" franchise of films stands up to those mentioned above in terms of quality [once again, I haven't seen them], but it certainly falls into that vein. They are telling their story, but in a way unlike anything else in the theaters today. This isn't documentary filmmaking in the sense that we think of it, and yet isn't it exactly that. It isn't fiction, but it isn't exactly 'reality', as the situations are all contrived. It's the odd confluence of reality TV, circus clowns, and the Three Stooges. It doesn't fit anywhere. It defies defintion. It is simply "alternative" cinema.
The difference being, this time it's really popular.
Yes, these boys appear to have created a whole new genre for themselves: Alt-Pop cinema. They are wholly popular, and at the same time wholly non-conventional. Scholars maintain today's audiences are cinematically sophisticated enough to appreciate something different from the norm. This proves it. People can, and at times, want to, consciously or subconsciously, stretch themselves beyond the straight-ahead narrative style.
These films clearly express the point(s) of view of their creators and many identify with or aspire to those ideals, and as such, it resonates with the mass audience in a way alternative cinema never has before in this country.
In Europe, alt cinema gained popularity in the 1960's, particularly the French "New Wave". But in this country, we've always stayed toward the more traditional.
We can intellectualize further about these films as well, commenting about their implications on voyeurism, the idleness of youth, the American culture of excess, the idle rich, sadism, exhibitionism, anti-establishmentarianism, and so on.
Of course, no one (except me, I guess) would dare write about those things in connection to a movie like Jackass Number Two, for fear of being termed an out-of-touch aesthete who is trying to ruin the fun (and because people who know or care about such topics aren't likely to have seen it [i.e. me], and those who will go see it aren't likely to care or understand.) Just noticed I wrote the words, "me" and "I" consecutively in the first sentence of this paragraph. How delightfully, unintentionally self-absorbed, but I digress.
I think if you look past the apparent sophomoric facade, to what is really going on to cause these young men to do what they do, record it, and exhibit it to you (for a nominal fee), you could find your brain engaged with even the seemingly most trivial of cinematic experiences. Think of it, Johnny Knoxville: Cinematic Revolutionary.
Or maybe I'm just an out-of-touch aesthete trying to ruin the fun.
But I choose to try harder than that.
I think it is an interesting idea. This is film being used in a different, creative way. Here is a movie that is completely non-conventional and it got people out en masse and I think we should (or at least can) consider why.
Jim Emerson, editor of RogerEbert.com, recently wrote on his blog, Scanners "I was trying to imagine what it would be like if the conversation about movies (whether academic study, criticism, or casual after-movie talk) ended with the final credits. What if the movie was just over and you never thought about it or discussed it with anyone again? It's unthinkable..." To put it differently, Pepperdine film guru (and recently published author) Michael Gose's oft-repeated creed on movies is "the unexamined film isn't worth watching." And yet, this is exactly the way most people seem to approach film. Hopefully, not you. If that is you, hopefully you will reconsider that approach.
So despite having not seen it as of yet (and in all likelihood I never will, though I may convince myself to by the end of writing this), I will attempt a discussion of why this movie, Jackass Number Two, matters.
The movie exists because the TV show and the first movie were successful. I was never a fan of the show and didn't see the first movie, but I know a little bit about how their act works and know that you can do much more with it in a movie than on a TV show because you don't have to appease advertisers sensibilities. The film format, with a concept such as theirs, gives complete creative freedom.
Movies, through their history, have been predominantly used to tell a narrative, chronological story. Occasionally, something comes along that uses the medium in a completely different way, from Andy Warhol making a 5 hour movie of a man sleeping (aptly titled, "Sleep"; some referred to his early films as "stillies" as opposed to "movies"), to Godfrey Reggio's intriguing, if repetitive, 'Koyaanisqatsi', to the more recent "Waking Life" by Richard Linklater; appropriating the art form to suit the individual needs of the artist in expressing himself/herself, rather than forcing oneself into the constraints of the mainstream.
Experimental or alternative cinema has almost always been pushed to the margins, deemed unfit for mass consumption, because it doesn't fit with traditional principles and expectations of filmmaking. I don't know that this "Jackass" franchise of films stands up to those mentioned above in terms of quality [once again, I haven't seen them], but it certainly falls into that vein. They are telling their story, but in a way unlike anything else in the theaters today. This isn't documentary filmmaking in the sense that we think of it, and yet isn't it exactly that. It isn't fiction, but it isn't exactly 'reality', as the situations are all contrived. It's the odd confluence of reality TV, circus clowns, and the Three Stooges. It doesn't fit anywhere. It defies defintion. It is simply "alternative" cinema.
The difference being, this time it's really popular.
Yes, these boys appear to have created a whole new genre for themselves: Alt-Pop cinema. They are wholly popular, and at the same time wholly non-conventional. Scholars maintain today's audiences are cinematically sophisticated enough to appreciate something different from the norm. This proves it. People can, and at times, want to, consciously or subconsciously, stretch themselves beyond the straight-ahead narrative style.
These films clearly express the point(s) of view of their creators and many identify with or aspire to those ideals, and as such, it resonates with the mass audience in a way alternative cinema never has before in this country.
In Europe, alt cinema gained popularity in the 1960's, particularly the French "New Wave". But in this country, we've always stayed toward the more traditional.
We can intellectualize further about these films as well, commenting about their implications on voyeurism, the idleness of youth, the American culture of excess, the idle rich, sadism, exhibitionism, anti-establishmentarianism, and so on.
Of course, no one (except me, I guess) would dare write about those things in connection to a movie like Jackass Number Two, for fear of being termed an out-of-touch aesthete who is trying to ruin the fun (and because people who know or care about such topics aren't likely to have seen it [i.e. me], and those who will go see it aren't likely to care or understand.) Just noticed I wrote the words, "me" and "I" consecutively in the first sentence of this paragraph. How delightfully, unintentionally self-absorbed, but I digress.
I think if you look past the apparent sophomoric facade, to what is really going on to cause these young men to do what they do, record it, and exhibit it to you (for a nominal fee), you could find your brain engaged with even the seemingly most trivial of cinematic experiences. Think of it, Johnny Knoxville: Cinematic Revolutionary.
Or maybe I'm just an out-of-touch aesthete trying to ruin the fun.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Obrigado
Politics in Brazil have caused the people to live in fear, not just in the slums, as seen in the recent, powerful films, City of God and Bus 174, but also the middle and upper class citizens as well.
The statistics say crime is down overall, but this summer there was an outburst of violence that has put all citizens on edge. An organized crime ring, headed up by drug kingpins currently in jail, unleashed a series of attacks and bombings on civilian targets and against the police in Sao Paolo back in May, and then again in July and August. The police have been ill-equipped to fight back and hundreds have died.
What has made matters worse is that there is an upcoming election on Sunday. The main challenger for the presidency had been governor of Sao Paolo until just before the attacks began and thus he was the one mainly responsible for the security situation in the city. The incumbent president has seemed content to stand pat, allowing the unrest to continue, to show the public just how inept the challenger is at securing the people. The challenger has accused the incumbent of collusion with the crime ring in effort to sully his political reputation, sacrificing public security for political benefit. Despite the allegations, the incumbent is favored to be re-elected on Sunday.
Brazil's greatest natural resource is obviously the Amazon Rainforest. Under the current president, the rainforest has seen more deforestation than ever before. The deforestation, however, has led to a growth in the economy as they were able to export lumber and minerals, and use the land to farm corn [for ethanol], soy, beef and as always, sugar.
A local mayor in the rainforest region, Bruno Maggi, was given the "Golden Chainsaw" award from Greenpeace, "for the person who contributed most to Amazon destruction", and he has been dubbed the Soy King. Many Brazilians see farming/felling the rainforest as the key to bringing themselves and the nation out of poverty, while environmental groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund say Brazil can sustain itself without the continued destruction of the world's largest preserve of biodiversity and the "lungs of the earth".
While it's vitally important to save the rainforest, I can certainly understand why the people would say biodiversity doesn't feed my kids. The politicizing of public safety to maintain elected office, though, would be inexcusable if the accusations are true, but right now they are only allegations of a political opponent.
I don't know enough about the whole situation to sit here and advocate one candidate or the other, but I figured I'd lay out some info on an issue happening around the world which is not really making news in the major outlets and could potentially effect us all and if you want to know more, you can look into it.
The statistics say crime is down overall, but this summer there was an outburst of violence that has put all citizens on edge. An organized crime ring, headed up by drug kingpins currently in jail, unleashed a series of attacks and bombings on civilian targets and against the police in Sao Paolo back in May, and then again in July and August. The police have been ill-equipped to fight back and hundreds have died.
What has made matters worse is that there is an upcoming election on Sunday. The main challenger for the presidency had been governor of Sao Paolo until just before the attacks began and thus he was the one mainly responsible for the security situation in the city. The incumbent president has seemed content to stand pat, allowing the unrest to continue, to show the public just how inept the challenger is at securing the people. The challenger has accused the incumbent of collusion with the crime ring in effort to sully his political reputation, sacrificing public security for political benefit. Despite the allegations, the incumbent is favored to be re-elected on Sunday.
Brazil's greatest natural resource is obviously the Amazon Rainforest. Under the current president, the rainforest has seen more deforestation than ever before. The deforestation, however, has led to a growth in the economy as they were able to export lumber and minerals, and use the land to farm corn [for ethanol], soy, beef and as always, sugar.
A local mayor in the rainforest region, Bruno Maggi, was given the "Golden Chainsaw" award from Greenpeace, "for the person who contributed most to Amazon destruction", and he has been dubbed the Soy King. Many Brazilians see farming/felling the rainforest as the key to bringing themselves and the nation out of poverty, while environmental groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund say Brazil can sustain itself without the continued destruction of the world's largest preserve of biodiversity and the "lungs of the earth".
While it's vitally important to save the rainforest, I can certainly understand why the people would say biodiversity doesn't feed my kids. The politicizing of public safety to maintain elected office, though, would be inexcusable if the accusations are true, but right now they are only allegations of a political opponent.
I don't know enough about the whole situation to sit here and advocate one candidate or the other, but I figured I'd lay out some info on an issue happening around the world which is not really making news in the major outlets and could potentially effect us all and if you want to know more, you can look into it.
Summer = Overrated
Back in July, Doug Gottlieb of ESPN Radio declared on his radio show that summer is "totally overrated" for everyone over the age of 18 who doesn't work in a school.
You know what? He's absolutely right.
Summer has been pumped up as the greatest season of the year, but now that it's gone and fall is here, I must say, I prefer the fall.
-The summer has the Tour de France and occasionally a World Cup or Olympics (both of which are only occasionally interesting), but other than that summer sports are boring.
-It's almost always too hot (we had a stretch of 14 straights days over 100 in Fresno back in July)
-People expect you to get out of the house and get some fresh air (as if the air outside is honestly fresh in summer)
-There are big crowds and long lines everywhere, kids are all around trying to get you to run into them in parking lots
-Prices go up for gas, plane tickets, hotels, etc.
-People want to have family reunions
-In shape people walk around with less clothes on making the less fit feel more self-conscious than usual.
-TV is all reruns and shows that are either rip-offs or weren't good enough to get picked up for the regular TV season (Here's lookin at you, "The One: Making a Music Star")
When you really think about it, summer may be the worst season of the year[although in any place where there is snow and freezing temperatures, winter is definitely worst, but since I don't live in such a place, my argument still stands]
Winter has Christmas, New Years, MLK Day, Preisdent's Day, Valentine's Day, the Super Bowl, Oscar-caliber movies in theaters, and best of all, we're as far away as possible from election season.
Spring has the flowers in bloom, Easter, graduations, wonderful weather, clean air, the start of the baseball season, the NFL draft, and movie award season (honestly, who doesn't love handicapping the Oscar races?).
In my opinion, Fall = wonderful and the best of all seasons. The weather is great, kids are back in school and not in my way, prices go down, there are holidays coming up, it's pro and college football season, the baseball playoffs are coming, and the NBA season is coming. New seasons of current shows and new shows premiere on television, there's less yard work to be done, and it's getting closer to the time when we can light up the fireplace.
The only real downside to fall is that there are youth soccer games on Saturday mornings at the elementary school down the street from my house and it makes it very difficult to get home from work on Saturday mornings with parents and kids running across the street with reckless abandon.
So with apologies to the Beach Boys (of whom I am a big fan), summer = overrated.
You know what? He's absolutely right.
Summer has been pumped up as the greatest season of the year, but now that it's gone and fall is here, I must say, I prefer the fall.
-The summer has the Tour de France and occasionally a World Cup or Olympics (both of which are only occasionally interesting), but other than that summer sports are boring.
-It's almost always too hot (we had a stretch of 14 straights days over 100 in Fresno back in July)
-People expect you to get out of the house and get some fresh air (as if the air outside is honestly fresh in summer)
-There are big crowds and long lines everywhere, kids are all around trying to get you to run into them in parking lots
-Prices go up for gas, plane tickets, hotels, etc.
-People want to have family reunions
-In shape people walk around with less clothes on making the less fit feel more self-conscious than usual.
-TV is all reruns and shows that are either rip-offs or weren't good enough to get picked up for the regular TV season (Here's lookin at you, "The One: Making a Music Star")
When you really think about it, summer may be the worst season of the year[although in any place where there is snow and freezing temperatures, winter is definitely worst, but since I don't live in such a place, my argument still stands]
Winter has Christmas, New Years, MLK Day, Preisdent's Day, Valentine's Day, the Super Bowl, Oscar-caliber movies in theaters, and best of all, we're as far away as possible from election season.
Spring has the flowers in bloom, Easter, graduations, wonderful weather, clean air, the start of the baseball season, the NFL draft, and movie award season (honestly, who doesn't love handicapping the Oscar races?).
In my opinion, Fall = wonderful and the best of all seasons. The weather is great, kids are back in school and not in my way, prices go down, there are holidays coming up, it's pro and college football season, the baseball playoffs are coming, and the NBA season is coming. New seasons of current shows and new shows premiere on television, there's less yard work to be done, and it's getting closer to the time when we can light up the fireplace.
The only real downside to fall is that there are youth soccer games on Saturday mornings at the elementary school down the street from my house and it makes it very difficult to get home from work on Saturday mornings with parents and kids running across the street with reckless abandon.
So with apologies to the Beach Boys (of whom I am a big fan), summer = overrated.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Hyperbole
How much more of this do we have to endure?
Rush Limbaugh today, quoting or paraphrasing from Dr. Zawahiri of al-Qaeda, says that the latest al-Qaeda newsletter [or web posting or whatever it was he was reading from] reads like the a newsletter from the Democrats, questioning the US for not joining the Kyoto Protocol, demanding the troops leave Iraq, saying the war would make Americans less safe, etc. Essentially equating the Democrats with al-Qaeda ideologically.
Laura Ingram on Fox News inferred that since the "average American" likes the show 24, that serves as a decent enough referendum of popular opinion approving of 'tough tactics' when it comes to dealing with prisoners/detainees/terrorists.
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace all but accused former President Clinton of allowing 9/11 to happen.
Last week at the UN, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez referred to President Bush as "el diablo" claiming he'd left the stench of sulfur on the podium after his speech the day prior.
A few days ago, Rev. Jerry Falwell declared Sen. Hilary Clinton to be worse than Lucifer, saying seeing her running for president would prompt a larger turnout of conservatives than Beeelzebub himself.
Stop it. All of you. Democrats are not terrorists and are not with the terrorists. The popularity of a TV show has nothing to do with politics. No person alive is Satan, no person alive is the anti-Christ.
Please, grow up. Name calling stopped being cool in about 5th grade (at least until high school, when it was cool to call everything "gay")
Rush Limbaugh today, quoting or paraphrasing from Dr. Zawahiri of al-Qaeda, says that the latest al-Qaeda newsletter [or web posting or whatever it was he was reading from] reads like the a newsletter from the Democrats, questioning the US for not joining the Kyoto Protocol, demanding the troops leave Iraq, saying the war would make Americans less safe, etc. Essentially equating the Democrats with al-Qaeda ideologically.
Laura Ingram on Fox News inferred that since the "average American" likes the show 24, that serves as a decent enough referendum of popular opinion approving of 'tough tactics' when it comes to dealing with prisoners/detainees/terrorists.
Fox News anchor Chris Wallace all but accused former President Clinton of allowing 9/11 to happen.
Last week at the UN, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez referred to President Bush as "el diablo" claiming he'd left the stench of sulfur on the podium after his speech the day prior.
A few days ago, Rev. Jerry Falwell declared Sen. Hilary Clinton to be worse than Lucifer, saying seeing her running for president would prompt a larger turnout of conservatives than Beeelzebub himself.
Stop it. All of you. Democrats are not terrorists and are not with the terrorists. The popularity of a TV show has nothing to do with politics. No person alive is Satan, no person alive is the anti-Christ.
Please, grow up. Name calling stopped being cool in about 5th grade (at least until high school, when it was cool to call everything "gay")
Monday, September 25, 2006
All Saints' Day
No, not the Roman-Catholic day of celebrating the canonized, no not the oft-rumored sequel to cult film 'The Boondock Saints', I'm talking New Orleans Saints. And this one time, not just the players. The fans, the residents of the city, are part of the team on this night, for without them, there is no team, there is no Superdome, there is no New Orleans.
This is a day of celebration for the city of New Orleans. Tonight's Monday Night Football game from the Superdome was their re-coming-out party. They got to show the world that they and their city are still alive and on the way back.
It's also a way to bring the plight of the region back into the public consciousness, if only briefly, and even if it only makes a small immediate impact. The seed has been re-planted. We must remain mindful that the entire Gulf Coast region was devestated, and though it seems like New Orleans, if any, is the only city being attended to, if we can get the big city back on track, the surrounding cities that it supported will most likely come back as well.
There are those who would have us leave N.O. to die, and move the ports and teams and people to other places, similar to the treatment of Galveston after it's great flood. But this is a city so ingrained in our collective American culture that to lose it would be on par with losing Boston or San Fransisco or Miami. We can't lose those cities because they represent the American diversity that is so greatly cherished (at least I hope we cherish it).
So for this one night, we all got to cheer for the Saints in their victory [even Atlanta Falcons' fans] because tonight, it's bigger than football, it's bigger than any team, it's about the city, it's about all of us.
And when the Saints players came out and blocked the punt and scored a touchdown on the first possession...if that didn't bring a smile to your face, I have to question your humanity.
The Atlanta Falcons owner said before the game:
"We want to win, but if you're going to lose a game, this is the one to lose."
Well said Mr. Blank, but tonight, we all won. (Especially the Saints with that 23-3 rout)
This is a day of celebration for the city of New Orleans. Tonight's Monday Night Football game from the Superdome was their re-coming-out party. They got to show the world that they and their city are still alive and on the way back.
It's also a way to bring the plight of the region back into the public consciousness, if only briefly, and even if it only makes a small immediate impact. The seed has been re-planted. We must remain mindful that the entire Gulf Coast region was devestated, and though it seems like New Orleans, if any, is the only city being attended to, if we can get the big city back on track, the surrounding cities that it supported will most likely come back as well.
There are those who would have us leave N.O. to die, and move the ports and teams and people to other places, similar to the treatment of Galveston after it's great flood. But this is a city so ingrained in our collective American culture that to lose it would be on par with losing Boston or San Fransisco or Miami. We can't lose those cities because they represent the American diversity that is so greatly cherished (at least I hope we cherish it).
So for this one night, we all got to cheer for the Saints in their victory [even Atlanta Falcons' fans] because tonight, it's bigger than football, it's bigger than any team, it's about the city, it's about all of us.
And when the Saints players came out and blocked the punt and scored a touchdown on the first possession...if that didn't bring a smile to your face, I have to question your humanity.
The Atlanta Falcons owner said before the game:
"We want to win, but if you're going to lose a game, this is the one to lose."
Well said Mr. Blank, but tonight, we all won. (Especially the Saints with that 23-3 rout)
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Sleep
I've learned in the past 4 days that the body can definitely survive on 3-4 hours sleep every night. Going to bed around 11/11:30 and getting up at 3:30 have proven that. I can function about as normally on a half nights sleep as if I had a full night's rest (which I get about once a week). It doesn't help that I have a job where I can perform just as successfully half-awake as fully awake, leading me to stay awake later than I should.
The problem is that while the body can function on that little sleep, the eyes cannot. Your eyes need sleep. I woke up this morning and my eyes would not open. When they finally did they felt like they wanted to jump out of my head and crawl back under the covers.
Of course it doesn't help that I go to work and sit for an hour and a half staring at a computer screen editing video for the newscast, then sit for 2 hours staring at various tv and computer screens during the newscasts. So needless to say, my poor eyes felt like death by quitting time.
I got home from work around 9:15 and figured I'd take a little power nap to rest my eyes before heading to church. When I woke up it was 12:30.
So much for a little nap, so much for church. Now it's time for an afternoon of staring at this computer screen and watching football on TV. I think my eyes will implode some time later this week; and if that happens, at least I won't have to worry about not getting enough sleep.
The problem is that while the body can function on that little sleep, the eyes cannot. Your eyes need sleep. I woke up this morning and my eyes would not open. When they finally did they felt like they wanted to jump out of my head and crawl back under the covers.
Of course it doesn't help that I go to work and sit for an hour and a half staring at a computer screen editing video for the newscast, then sit for 2 hours staring at various tv and computer screens during the newscasts. So needless to say, my poor eyes felt like death by quitting time.
I got home from work around 9:15 and figured I'd take a little power nap to rest my eyes before heading to church. When I woke up it was 12:30.
So much for a little nap, so much for church. Now it's time for an afternoon of staring at this computer screen and watching football on TV. I think my eyes will implode some time later this week; and if that happens, at least I won't have to worry about not getting enough sleep.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
The Illusionist: A Delighful Deceit
Disclaimer: I personally tend to get more out of movie reviews after I've seen a movie than before-hand.
If you want a recommendation to go or not: I say go see it. If you want to know why, read on. Though I recommend you see it first, then come back and read. But if you are not going to go see it, that's fine too.
I don't know how to write about a movie without 'giving it away' because the ending and the actions contained therein are integral to the experience and to not write about them would be to ultimately do a disservice to the reader and myself. Therefore, be advised, this post may [and probably will] contain spoilers for this film, and possibly for other films if they are referenced.
The Illusionist is a movie about trickery, deceit, and, naturally, illusion.
Throughout the film, Eisenheim the Illusionist performs fantastical illusions and tricks and his audiences are mesmerized, some believing he is performing true magic, his tricks too real to be simple sleight of hand or smoke and mirrors. The crown prince Leopold attends one of his shows and is impressed by his illusions, but is determined to prove that it is all mechanical and Eisenheim is no more than a talented magician, growing ever suspicious of him as his popularity grew. Leopold is a man of reason, while the residents of the city are increasingly convinced that Eisenheim possesses something supernatural.
Chief Inspector Uhl is charged with finding out the truth, particularly when Sophie, the fiance of Leopold dies and Eisenheim is suspected, while Eisenheim charges Leopold committed the murder. Uhl is the audience surrogate, trying, largely in vain, to piece together a complicated puzzle, because we [and he] don't know who or what to trust in a film about illusion (and he doesn't know he's in a film about illusion, but he knows he's dealing with a man with whom nothing is ever quite exact ly how it appears. Consider a scene in which Eisenheim, having been arrested for fraud, pronounces to the crowd cheering for him outside the police chief's office that his illusions are just that and not due to any supernatural powers. Thus he has cleared himself of being a fraud, although he says the words so flatly that once again we don't know if we should trust it. Does he mean what he says, or is he simply trying to protect himself?)
The ending has a very 'Psycho'-esque quality to it, crossed with Rashomon, if you've seen those films [if not, I suggest you see them]. That could "give it away" if you haven't seen it, but then again, once you have seen it [and i recommend you do] you must decide whether or not you choose to accept the ending as the actual course of events, or if it's merely the inspectors way of connecting the images/experiences of the case of Eisenheim which would go otherwise unsolved; an example of the Kuleshov Effect applied to real-life (real-life on screen that is).
It's a movie that forces the audience to be engaged, an active participant in creating the experience, and thereby, every experience of it will be unique. You don't get to sit there passively and let the characters tell you what happens.
The acting is good all-around. Good material just brings out the best in people. I thought Edward Norton (Fight Club, American History X, The Italian Job) gave a great muted performance as Eiesenheim and Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man, Sideways, American Splendor) is pitch-perfect as Chief Inspector Uhl, at all times equally befuddled and intrigued by the illusionist played by Norton . It's one of those ensemble pieces where performances are all dependent on each other and everyone carries their weight in this one. Jessica Biel and Rufus Sewell turn in solid supporting performances as well.
Philip Glass' music is perfect for this movie. His familiar style of utilizing relative simplicity and repetition, creates precisely the sort of hypnotic mood that complements the story wonderfully.
The cinematography is economical, if not original, and the director clearly spent more time directing the performances than the camera, which is not to say that it's boring stylistically, it's just more conventional than one would expect with such a non-conventional story. The locations [set in Vienna, filmed in and around Prague] are very good and the costuming and set design all seem authentic enough to not be distracting or anachronistic. But the crux of the film is the performances, backed by that hypnotizing music.
It's also one of the few recent films where all [or nearly at least nearly all] the special effects are actually necessary to the story, rather than being over-indulgent or gratuitous.
At the end of the day, the obvious comparison between the illusions of Eisenheim and the illusion of film must be made. Films are seen as moving images, but really they are successions of still images projected in rapid succession, perceived as moving through a phenomenon of the mind known as Persistence of Vision. So, the film director is in a sense an illusionist, creating something that doesn't really exist, or does it?
Does the fact that we perceive something to be real make it so? Can our brains makes sense of being able to perceive the non-existent [an illusion]? Does something have to be tangible for it to be real? Can we see things that do not exist? I sat in the theater watching this film knowing that I was seeing 24 still frames every second, not moving images and yet I was convinced I was watching moving images. Why? Illusion or delusion?
If you want a recommendation to go or not: I say go see it. If you want to know why, read on. Though I recommend you see it first, then come back and read. But if you are not going to go see it, that's fine too.
I don't know how to write about a movie without 'giving it away' because the ending and the actions contained therein are integral to the experience and to not write about them would be to ultimately do a disservice to the reader and myself. Therefore, be advised, this post may [and probably will] contain spoilers for this film, and possibly for other films if they are referenced.
The Illusionist is a movie about trickery, deceit, and, naturally, illusion.
Throughout the film, Eisenheim the Illusionist performs fantastical illusions and tricks and his audiences are mesmerized, some believing he is performing true magic, his tricks too real to be simple sleight of hand or smoke and mirrors. The crown prince Leopold attends one of his shows and is impressed by his illusions, but is determined to prove that it is all mechanical and Eisenheim is no more than a talented magician, growing ever suspicious of him as his popularity grew. Leopold is a man of reason, while the residents of the city are increasingly convinced that Eisenheim possesses something supernatural.
Chief Inspector Uhl is charged with finding out the truth, particularly when Sophie, the fiance of Leopold dies and Eisenheim is suspected, while Eisenheim charges Leopold committed the murder. Uhl is the audience surrogate, trying, largely in vain, to piece together a complicated puzzle, because we [and he] don't know who or what to trust in a film about illusion (and he doesn't know he's in a film about illusion, but he knows he's dealing with a man with whom nothing is ever quite exact ly how it appears. Consider a scene in which Eisenheim, having been arrested for fraud, pronounces to the crowd cheering for him outside the police chief's office that his illusions are just that and not due to any supernatural powers. Thus he has cleared himself of being a fraud, although he says the words so flatly that once again we don't know if we should trust it. Does he mean what he says, or is he simply trying to protect himself?)
The ending has a very 'Psycho'-esque quality to it, crossed with Rashomon, if you've seen those films [if not, I suggest you see them]. That could "give it away" if you haven't seen it, but then again, once you have seen it [and i recommend you do] you must decide whether or not you choose to accept the ending as the actual course of events, or if it's merely the inspectors way of connecting the images/experiences of the case of Eisenheim which would go otherwise unsolved; an example of the Kuleshov Effect applied to real-life (real-life on screen that is).
It's a movie that forces the audience to be engaged, an active participant in creating the experience, and thereby, every experience of it will be unique. You don't get to sit there passively and let the characters tell you what happens.
The acting is good all-around. Good material just brings out the best in people. I thought Edward Norton (Fight Club, American History X, The Italian Job) gave a great muted performance as Eiesenheim and Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man, Sideways, American Splendor) is pitch-perfect as Chief Inspector Uhl, at all times equally befuddled and intrigued by the illusionist played by Norton . It's one of those ensemble pieces where performances are all dependent on each other and everyone carries their weight in this one. Jessica Biel and Rufus Sewell turn in solid supporting performances as well.
Philip Glass' music is perfect for this movie. His familiar style of utilizing relative simplicity and repetition, creates precisely the sort of hypnotic mood that complements the story wonderfully.
The cinematography is economical, if not original, and the director clearly spent more time directing the performances than the camera, which is not to say that it's boring stylistically, it's just more conventional than one would expect with such a non-conventional story. The locations [set in Vienna, filmed in and around Prague] are very good and the costuming and set design all seem authentic enough to not be distracting or anachronistic. But the crux of the film is the performances, backed by that hypnotizing music.
It's also one of the few recent films where all [or nearly at least nearly all] the special effects are actually necessary to the story, rather than being over-indulgent or gratuitous.
At the end of the day, the obvious comparison between the illusions of Eisenheim and the illusion of film must be made. Films are seen as moving images, but really they are successions of still images projected in rapid succession, perceived as moving through a phenomenon of the mind known as Persistence of Vision. So, the film director is in a sense an illusionist, creating something that doesn't really exist, or does it?
Does the fact that we perceive something to be real make it so? Can our brains makes sense of being able to perceive the non-existent [an illusion]? Does something have to be tangible for it to be real? Can we see things that do not exist? I sat in the theater watching this film knowing that I was seeing 24 still frames every second, not moving images and yet I was convinced I was watching moving images. Why? Illusion or delusion?
Friday, September 22, 2006
Dea(r)th of Comedy
Preston Sturges' Sullivan's Travels (1941) is a classic film, that basically serves as an argument in praise of comedy. A film director who wants to make serious social dramas is told he doesn't know anything about struggle, so he goes out on the road, pretending to be poor so he can learn to understand the plight of the lower class. Through a series of mistakes he gets arrested and ends up in a prison camp. One night they take the prisoners to a church where they are treated to a sermon, followed by several Mickey Mouse cartoons. The prisoners sit there and crack up, and for a few minutes they are able to escape. Through an inventive scheme, the director gets out of the prison camp, returns to the studio telling them he is no longer interested in making "message" movies, he wants to make comedies, because it's all some people have. You should watch it if you ever get the chance.
That said, what's happened to comedy?
I remember growing up, Friday nights we'd go to Pizza Hut to order food, then while it was cooking we'd run over the video store that had this deal where you could rent 5 games for 5 days for $5. We'd load up on Sega games, go pick up the delicious pan pizzas, then head home, scarf, and play video games until TGIF came on. Full House, Family Matters, Step by Step, Boy Meets World, Hangin with Mr Cooper, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Dinosaurs [which I never could watch, it freaked me out...which just meant I got to play an extra half hour of video games], and the criminally underappreciated Odd Man Out were a staple of my childhood. Every last one of them were classic comedies that were fun for the whole family. I see them on the various Disney channels today and they are still just as good as they were when I was 9.
Tonight, what's on in prime time? WWE Smackdown, Supernanny, Men in Trees, Deal or no Deal, Law & Order....not a comedy in sight. What happened to those classic family sitcoms?
The sitcom died a terrible death on ABC when they tried to revive TGIF, slipping into oblivion with dreck like According to Jim, George Lopez, Freddie, and Hope and Faith. It's no surprise there isn't a single sitcom in the ABC's fall line-up.
CBS Monday nights [up against football] and Fox Sunday nights [also up against football] are the only comedy blocks on the air this season.
NBC, the former home of comedy, must-see tv they called it, has 2 comedies total on it's schedule, The Office and My Name is Earl, both of which are great, but they are up against Survivor and Celebrity Duets [seriously, wtf people?] and their ratings are paltry at best.
The new CW has a few sitcoms scattered through their lineups I believe. Everybody Hates Chris is funny and people need to find it and watch it.
Look at the comic strips in your local newspaper sometime and count how many of them over the course of a week are actually funny. If that is a number you can count on one hand, there is a problem with the comics.
Also, where are the comedy films? Little Miss Sunshine was very good, I hear Talladega Nights was amusing...but other than those, was there another memorable comedy in wide release in the 2 or 3 months prior? I finally saw Wedding Crashers, the film that set the country abuzz last summer, many hailing it as the next great American comedy. I was borderline offended by how mediocre it actually was. Have our standards honestly dipped so low when it comes to "the funny"?
Maybe our world is just too serious for comedy today, it's no longer the carefree Clinton era. Everyone writing in TV/film seemingly has/thinks they have something important to say, something to contribute to the grand conversation and they don't know how to wrap it in comedy or feel they can't be taken seriously in comedy (guess they haven't seen Dr. Strangelove or King of Hearts).
Comedy died once before, in the late 70's/early 80's, then the Cosby Show hit and everything was back on track until now. So I imagine this is just the calm before the next great wave of comedy descends upon us.
In the meantime, we live in a golden age of television drama, which isn't an altogether bad thing, I just hate having to watch any show for an hour, because there are soooo many commercials, which are almost all bad, except Geico commercials: the new gecko with a british accent, the cavemen, and of course, Little Richard...who knew auto insurance could be so fun?
That said, what's happened to comedy?
I remember growing up, Friday nights we'd go to Pizza Hut to order food, then while it was cooking we'd run over the video store that had this deal where you could rent 5 games for 5 days for $5. We'd load up on Sega games, go pick up the delicious pan pizzas, then head home, scarf, and play video games until TGIF came on. Full House, Family Matters, Step by Step, Boy Meets World, Hangin with Mr Cooper, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Dinosaurs [which I never could watch, it freaked me out...which just meant I got to play an extra half hour of video games], and the criminally underappreciated Odd Man Out were a staple of my childhood. Every last one of them were classic comedies that were fun for the whole family. I see them on the various Disney channels today and they are still just as good as they were when I was 9.
Tonight, what's on in prime time? WWE Smackdown, Supernanny, Men in Trees, Deal or no Deal, Law & Order....not a comedy in sight. What happened to those classic family sitcoms?
The sitcom died a terrible death on ABC when they tried to revive TGIF, slipping into oblivion with dreck like According to Jim, George Lopez, Freddie, and Hope and Faith. It's no surprise there isn't a single sitcom in the ABC's fall line-up.
CBS Monday nights [up against football] and Fox Sunday nights [also up against football] are the only comedy blocks on the air this season.
NBC, the former home of comedy, must-see tv they called it, has 2 comedies total on it's schedule, The Office and My Name is Earl, both of which are great, but they are up against Survivor and Celebrity Duets [seriously, wtf people?] and their ratings are paltry at best.
The new CW has a few sitcoms scattered through their lineups I believe. Everybody Hates Chris is funny and people need to find it and watch it.
Look at the comic strips in your local newspaper sometime and count how many of them over the course of a week are actually funny. If that is a number you can count on one hand, there is a problem with the comics.
Also, where are the comedy films? Little Miss Sunshine was very good, I hear Talladega Nights was amusing...but other than those, was there another memorable comedy in wide release in the 2 or 3 months prior? I finally saw Wedding Crashers, the film that set the country abuzz last summer, many hailing it as the next great American comedy. I was borderline offended by how mediocre it actually was. Have our standards honestly dipped so low when it comes to "the funny"?
Maybe our world is just too serious for comedy today, it's no longer the carefree Clinton era. Everyone writing in TV/film seemingly has/thinks they have something important to say, something to contribute to the grand conversation and they don't know how to wrap it in comedy or feel they can't be taken seriously in comedy (guess they haven't seen Dr. Strangelove or King of Hearts).
Comedy died once before, in the late 70's/early 80's, then the Cosby Show hit and everything was back on track until now. So I imagine this is just the calm before the next great wave of comedy descends upon us.
In the meantime, we live in a golden age of television drama, which isn't an altogether bad thing, I just hate having to watch any show for an hour, because there are soooo many commercials, which are almost all bad, except Geico commercials: the new gecko with a british accent, the cavemen, and of course, Little Richard...who knew auto insurance could be so fun?
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Prescience: or How Arnold and Phil Convinced Me To Not Vote For Governor in '06
Last night I wrote that my work schedule could change at any time, and sure enough when I arrived at work today and saw the schedule for next week, I was scheduled to work on Tuesday, which is typically one of my days off. Definitely jinxed myself there. Working 11 of the next 12 days = unjust punishment. If W really wants to tort...I mean detain and question terror suspect responsibly, he should force them to run the teleprompter for a local TV station all day, every day...they would crack in no time.
Also, I predicted when he was elected to overthrow Gray Davis as governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be re-elected when the time came, despite an ineffective first term. Surprise, surprise, he hasn't done anything, and yet the time has come for re-election and Phil Angelides, the Dem Challenger was D.O.A. Arnold has killed him with TV ads, attacking his personal record as State Treasurer, telling us why P.A. would move the state backwards, with video of angelides doing various tasks, only played in reverse and set to vaudeville-like music.
Meanwhile, Phil, too, went to attacking, telling us how Arnold is the one moving us backwards, his ads showing a man on a motorcycle more than slightly resembling The Terminator, played in reverse. Original ideas...clearly not the strong suit of his campaign. And now his ad tells us all the negative things that have happened under Bush, juxtaposed with footage of Arnold campaigning for him in '04, building to a crescendo, where we are met with this ever-relevant dagger:
"Arnold Schwarzenegger is for George W. Bush. Is he for you?"
As if that has any bearing on our gubernatorial race.
So, it appears we have 2 candidates committed to moving us backwards and making bad commercials, and no one can tell us why we should actually vote for either of them, opting instead to simply tell us why we should not vote for the other guy.
So, barring some new information or tactics cropping up in the next 6 weeks or so until the election, I see no reason to vote for either of these bums. I wouldn't vote for Arnold anyway, and I can't take Angelides seriously....he looks kinda like a weasel.
I'm holding out hope for Snoop to announce his candidacy in 2010.
Also, I predicted when he was elected to overthrow Gray Davis as governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be re-elected when the time came, despite an ineffective first term. Surprise, surprise, he hasn't done anything, and yet the time has come for re-election and Phil Angelides, the Dem Challenger was D.O.A. Arnold has killed him with TV ads, attacking his personal record as State Treasurer, telling us why P.A. would move the state backwards, with video of angelides doing various tasks, only played in reverse and set to vaudeville-like music.
Meanwhile, Phil, too, went to attacking, telling us how Arnold is the one moving us backwards, his ads showing a man on a motorcycle more than slightly resembling The Terminator, played in reverse. Original ideas...clearly not the strong suit of his campaign. And now his ad tells us all the negative things that have happened under Bush, juxtaposed with footage of Arnold campaigning for him in '04, building to a crescendo, where we are met with this ever-relevant dagger:
"Arnold Schwarzenegger is for George W. Bush. Is he for you?"
As if that has any bearing on our gubernatorial race.
So, it appears we have 2 candidates committed to moving us backwards and making bad commercials, and no one can tell us why we should actually vote for either of them, opting instead to simply tell us why we should not vote for the other guy.
So, barring some new information or tactics cropping up in the next 6 weeks or so until the election, I see no reason to vote for either of these bums. I wouldn't vote for Arnold anyway, and I can't take Angelides seriously....he looks kinda like a weasel.
I'm holding out hope for Snoop to announce his candidacy in 2010.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Sabbath
Wednesday is my unofficial Sabbath, so the blogging will rest. For most, the day of rest falls on Sunday, but because of my screwy work week of Thursday-Monday, Wednesday is for me the equivalent of Sunday for the average Monday-Friday'er, and as such, there will be no Wednesday blogging. Aside from this one. Or unless I feel like it. But in general, expect nothing new on Wednesday's....for now, my schedule could change at any time.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
This is news?
Apparently something happened to Anna Nicole Smith's son in a Bahamian hospital and he died. What exactly happened is anyone's guess as the coroner who performed the autopsy [who had also worked on the Elvis and JonBenet Ramsey autopsies] is unsure of the cause of death. We suspect he had an elevated heart rate, was on anti-depressants, and there was a third person in the room when died besides himself and his mother, making his death "suspicious."
John Mark Karr was teaching in Thailand when he decided to confess to killing JonBenet Ramsey. Rumors swirled that he was contemplating a sex change operation, was possibly in trouble with Thai authorities and turned himself in to avoid being arrested there. Then it was discovered he was wanted on child porn charges in California, had married a 14 year old when he was 19 or so, and used to sign his letters SBTC or some such. Also his family said he was in Alabama when it happened, though a Denver area man claimed he saw Karr at a bus depot around the same time, looking shifty. He was flown from Thailand to the US 1st class where he sipped champagne, ate prawns and generally kept to himself, loner that he is. Surprise, surprise he was cleared of all charges.
Seriously, why do we care? What disgusts me is that I didn't have to look up any of that information. I work at a TV station so maybe I've been extra-ordinarily exposed to this incessant news coverage, but anyone who has watched the news lately would feel the same way. And we apparently can't get enough of this non-news. It's terrible that Ms. Smith lost her son, but do we really need to know every step of the investigation? Do you know this young man or his mother or anyone who knows them? And it's tragic that the Ramsey's lost their daughter, but why was her death the subject of national interest for months and years on end? Simply because the parents were suspected? How many children have died/been killed in the country since then and had their stories so publicized [The only one I can think of was the child-to-be known as Laci Peterson's unborn fetus]. Earlier this summer in central California, we were following the disappearance of a woman named Debbie Hawk. She disappeared around Flag Day, and every day, we [and every other local media outlet] covered her case. Of course, all that meant for most days was "Police investigations have failed to turn up evidence in the Debbie Hawk case...ex-husband Dave Hawk is still considered a person of interest." Then, finally, somewhere toward the end of July, we dropped it. The cops seemed to have given up and we stopped, and guess what happened? People forgot. Nobody around here cares about Debbie Hawk, I doubt people would even remember if asked today.
Maybe I'm just calloused, cynical, and generally inconsiderate, but I don't think these stories (among countless similar ones) are of any real importance. They are to the families and communities affected, but to expose them nationally boggles my mind. Especially in a time when the world is in such turmoil. There are more important things going on than what's cooking in the tabloids. Africa is falling apart between turmoil in Darfur, DR Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, and toxic waste in Ivory Coast. (Darfur had been out of the news completely since May until last week when George Clooney addressed it publicly), the Pope fanning the flames of tension between the West and Islam (leading to a nun being gunned down in Somalia), Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro were holding a summit enforcing anti-American ideals among developing nations, Mexico is still unstable over the Obrador and Calderon election, fighting started back up in Afghanistan, the Hungarians want to oust their PM.
Yet the top stories in the news? The spinach e.coli outbreak [admittedly it's important to tell people not to eat tainted vegetables, but must it be THE story all week? We know not to eat it, I don't care where it's coming from, just tell me when I can eat it again, please], the space shuttle was not able to make it's scheduled landing [space shuttle trouble? who's ever heard of such a thing?] and Steve Irwin [I've never seen a non-controversial death last so long in the news. This one I don't get. Nonetheless, RIP Croc Hunter]
On a recent episode of Charlie Rose, Les Moonves, president of CBS, said he thinks Katie Couric's newer format for evening news, with more, shorter stories and interviews with pundits is going to be the new wave in network news, a veritable Cliff's Notes version of the goings-on of the day, not to be mistaken for journalism. I watched an episode of BBC World News and compared it to World News Tonight. The difference? Well, besides BBC's wonderful lack of commercials, but mediocre production execution, was the depth and breadth of the stories covered. There were fewer stories than we traditionally cover, but I felt like I was actually watching the "world news" and learning what was going on in the world. This is not to say BBC is perfect, but there is something to be said for commercial-free news broadcasting [which I know is impractical because commercials are how we get broadcast channels for free (and yet there always seem to be more ads on those greedy cable channels which we already have to pay for)] They had one fluff piece about a road being built through the French wine country, which mirrored one on ABC about global warming potentially ruining California's wine country.
I forgot why I started writing this, but I do know that I wish we could move away from the sensational soft-news stories that don't actually affect us in any real way, and could move toward more meaningful coverage of the events that actual have effects on our lives. That would make life on the teleprompter much more bearable. I don't know how many more stories about overnight house fires I can take.
John Mark Karr was teaching in Thailand when he decided to confess to killing JonBenet Ramsey. Rumors swirled that he was contemplating a sex change operation, was possibly in trouble with Thai authorities and turned himself in to avoid being arrested there. Then it was discovered he was wanted on child porn charges in California, had married a 14 year old when he was 19 or so, and used to sign his letters SBTC or some such. Also his family said he was in Alabama when it happened, though a Denver area man claimed he saw Karr at a bus depot around the same time, looking shifty. He was flown from Thailand to the US 1st class where he sipped champagne, ate prawns and generally kept to himself, loner that he is. Surprise, surprise he was cleared of all charges.
Seriously, why do we care? What disgusts me is that I didn't have to look up any of that information. I work at a TV station so maybe I've been extra-ordinarily exposed to this incessant news coverage, but anyone who has watched the news lately would feel the same way. And we apparently can't get enough of this non-news. It's terrible that Ms. Smith lost her son, but do we really need to know every step of the investigation? Do you know this young man or his mother or anyone who knows them? And it's tragic that the Ramsey's lost their daughter, but why was her death the subject of national interest for months and years on end? Simply because the parents were suspected? How many children have died/been killed in the country since then and had their stories so publicized [The only one I can think of was the child-to-be known as Laci Peterson's unborn fetus]. Earlier this summer in central California, we were following the disappearance of a woman named Debbie Hawk. She disappeared around Flag Day, and every day, we [and every other local media outlet] covered her case. Of course, all that meant for most days was "Police investigations have failed to turn up evidence in the Debbie Hawk case...ex-husband Dave Hawk is still considered a person of interest." Then, finally, somewhere toward the end of July, we dropped it. The cops seemed to have given up and we stopped, and guess what happened? People forgot. Nobody around here cares about Debbie Hawk, I doubt people would even remember if asked today.
Maybe I'm just calloused, cynical, and generally inconsiderate, but I don't think these stories (among countless similar ones) are of any real importance. They are to the families and communities affected, but to expose them nationally boggles my mind. Especially in a time when the world is in such turmoil. There are more important things going on than what's cooking in the tabloids. Africa is falling apart between turmoil in Darfur, DR Congo, Somalia, Zimbabwe, and toxic waste in Ivory Coast. (Darfur had been out of the news completely since May until last week when George Clooney addressed it publicly), the Pope fanning the flames of tension between the West and Islam (leading to a nun being gunned down in Somalia), Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro were holding a summit enforcing anti-American ideals among developing nations, Mexico is still unstable over the Obrador and Calderon election, fighting started back up in Afghanistan, the Hungarians want to oust their PM.
Yet the top stories in the news? The spinach e.coli outbreak [admittedly it's important to tell people not to eat tainted vegetables, but must it be THE story all week? We know not to eat it, I don't care where it's coming from, just tell me when I can eat it again, please], the space shuttle was not able to make it's scheduled landing [space shuttle trouble? who's ever heard of such a thing?] and Steve Irwin [I've never seen a non-controversial death last so long in the news. This one I don't get. Nonetheless, RIP Croc Hunter]
On a recent episode of Charlie Rose, Les Moonves, president of CBS, said he thinks Katie Couric's newer format for evening news, with more, shorter stories and interviews with pundits is going to be the new wave in network news, a veritable Cliff's Notes version of the goings-on of the day, not to be mistaken for journalism. I watched an episode of BBC World News and compared it to World News Tonight. The difference? Well, besides BBC's wonderful lack of commercials, but mediocre production execution, was the depth and breadth of the stories covered. There were fewer stories than we traditionally cover, but I felt like I was actually watching the "world news" and learning what was going on in the world. This is not to say BBC is perfect, but there is something to be said for commercial-free news broadcasting [which I know is impractical because commercials are how we get broadcast channels for free (and yet there always seem to be more ads on those greedy cable channels which we already have to pay for)] They had one fluff piece about a road being built through the French wine country, which mirrored one on ABC about global warming potentially ruining California's wine country.
I forgot why I started writing this, but I do know that I wish we could move away from the sensational soft-news stories that don't actually affect us in any real way, and could move toward more meaningful coverage of the events that actual have effects on our lives. That would make life on the teleprompter much more bearable. I don't know how many more stories about overnight house fires I can take.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Give Us Us Football
I think I've decided Monday will be sports day on the blog. But please don't just skip over it, non-sports fan, because hopefully it will still be relevant in some way. Even if it just makes you think sports are more "pointless", which is a word I want to get to in the coming weeks.
With that said, on to today's musings...
Everyone in the world loves football. No matter where you go in the world, football in the most popular sport. Oh, sure, in all countries except America and Canada, football is what we call soccer, but to them, it's football and it's their favorite game. We have our own brand of football and it's our favorite game as well.
How do we love thee football? Let me count the ways:
-4 of the last 5 weeks, the #1 movie at the box office has been a football movie
-Both games of Monday Night Football's debut double-header on ESPN had ratings that were among the highest in the history of cable
-The prime-time college football game ABC added to their schedule for this season has been a big boost for ABC's Saturday night ratings. The Texas-Ohio State game, a week 2 regular season college football game, got ratings about equal to the average World Series games (when the Yankees aren't playing)
-The boom in fantasy football leagues and players and office pools. Depending where you get your information, it's estimated that anywhere from 15-50+ million people play fantasy football each year, and it goes up every year
-John Madden Football (in it's 16-17 iterations) is the most popular video game franchise of all-time
-Come to Fresno, CA and just count the number of homes that have Raiders flags flying in front of their homes instead of American flags. (Raider Nation is strong in central California, we even have a store in the mall, The Raider Image, that exclusively sells Raiders merchandise)
The list could go on, but I think the point is made. Football has yet to reach its saturation point, if one exists at all. The powers-that-be keep giving us more of it, and we keep gobbling it up.
What I've noticed with the NFL, however, is that while popularity has gone up, true "fan"-dom has gone down. There are more people casually interested, but the days of rabid fans going all out for their teams seem to falling by the wayside. Fantasy players have their allegiances tied up in individual players, and have little concern for which TEAMS win or lose. Fairweather fans jump on and off team bandwagons each year, claiming they picked a certain team back in the preseason as their "darkhorse favorite" (Of course, no one can ever vouch for these soothsayers, because they never tell anyone about these underdog picks, but I believe it was Donald Rumsfeld who so poetically quipped, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.") Perhaps it is just a sign of our culture in general. We are more a individualistic culture today, more aspects of life tailored to suit the needs and wants of the individual, with everything from self-checkout aisles at grocery stores to "My"space, to those fancy "Sleep Number" beds. College football fans, though, are still as passionate about the team/school as ever. So maybe it's not exactly a cultural thing. Maybe it's just people taking the NFL on the same terms as the players. The players are less devoted to their teams today, instead chasing money and potential lifestyle benefits (like opting to sign with teams in states with no state income tax or in nightlife hotspots like Atlanta, Miami, San Diego, and New York instead of Green Bay, Jacksonville, or Cincinnati) over loyalty to the team and fans.
Case in point: Roy Williams, wide receiver for the Detroit Lions, was seen on Sunday jumping up, acting excited after making a big play while his team was down 10 points and on their way to a 34-7 loss. Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press (and author of the very popular novels-turned TV movies "Tuesdays With Morrie" and "Five People You Meet in Heaven") asked him about his actions after the game. He responded:
"I celebrate first downs all the time. I'm not gonna stop that. I'm an exciting player. If I do something exciting, I'm gonna show my actions."
Albom responded, "But you were losing, 10-0."
Williams answered, "What does that mean? ... That means nothing to me. The score means nothing,"
The score means nothing? Are we talking about Who's Line Is It Anyway or the NFL? If this is what the league has come to, players not caring about anything but their own stat lines, with no concern over wins and losses, the NFL can count me out as a fan.
Who am I kidding, no they can't. I love me some football. Go Raiders!
With that said, on to today's musings...
Everyone in the world loves football. No matter where you go in the world, football in the most popular sport. Oh, sure, in all countries except America and Canada, football is what we call soccer, but to them, it's football and it's their favorite game. We have our own brand of football and it's our favorite game as well.
How do we love thee football? Let me count the ways:
-4 of the last 5 weeks, the #1 movie at the box office has been a football movie
-Both games of Monday Night Football's debut double-header on ESPN had ratings that were among the highest in the history of cable
-The prime-time college football game ABC added to their schedule for this season has been a big boost for ABC's Saturday night ratings. The Texas-Ohio State game, a week 2 regular season college football game, got ratings about equal to the average World Series games (when the Yankees aren't playing)
-The boom in fantasy football leagues and players and office pools. Depending where you get your information, it's estimated that anywhere from 15-50+ million people play fantasy football each year, and it goes up every year
-John Madden Football (in it's 16-17 iterations) is the most popular video game franchise of all-time
-Come to Fresno, CA and just count the number of homes that have Raiders flags flying in front of their homes instead of American flags. (Raider Nation is strong in central California, we even have a store in the mall, The Raider Image, that exclusively sells Raiders merchandise)
The list could go on, but I think the point is made. Football has yet to reach its saturation point, if one exists at all. The powers-that-be keep giving us more of it, and we keep gobbling it up.
What I've noticed with the NFL, however, is that while popularity has gone up, true "fan"-dom has gone down. There are more people casually interested, but the days of rabid fans going all out for their teams seem to falling by the wayside. Fantasy players have their allegiances tied up in individual players, and have little concern for which TEAMS win or lose. Fairweather fans jump on and off team bandwagons each year, claiming they picked a certain team back in the preseason as their "darkhorse favorite" (Of course, no one can ever vouch for these soothsayers, because they never tell anyone about these underdog picks, but I believe it was Donald Rumsfeld who so poetically quipped, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.") Perhaps it is just a sign of our culture in general. We are more a individualistic culture today, more aspects of life tailored to suit the needs and wants of the individual, with everything from self-checkout aisles at grocery stores to "My"space, to those fancy "Sleep Number" beds. College football fans, though, are still as passionate about the team/school as ever. So maybe it's not exactly a cultural thing. Maybe it's just people taking the NFL on the same terms as the players. The players are less devoted to their teams today, instead chasing money and potential lifestyle benefits (like opting to sign with teams in states with no state income tax or in nightlife hotspots like Atlanta, Miami, San Diego, and New York instead of Green Bay, Jacksonville, or Cincinnati) over loyalty to the team and fans.
Case in point: Roy Williams, wide receiver for the Detroit Lions, was seen on Sunday jumping up, acting excited after making a big play while his team was down 10 points and on their way to a 34-7 loss. Mitch Albom of the Detroit Free Press (and author of the very popular novels-turned TV movies "Tuesdays With Morrie" and "Five People You Meet in Heaven") asked him about his actions after the game. He responded:
"I celebrate first downs all the time. I'm not gonna stop that. I'm an exciting player. If I do something exciting, I'm gonna show my actions."
Albom responded, "But you were losing, 10-0."
Williams answered, "What does that mean? ... That means nothing to me. The score means nothing,"
The score means nothing? Are we talking about Who's Line Is It Anyway or the NFL? If this is what the league has come to, players not caring about anything but their own stat lines, with no concern over wins and losses, the NFL can count me out as a fan.
Who am I kidding, no they can't. I love me some football. Go Raiders!
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Rush is 'right' on this one [or two, actually...these two]
On his radio show this past Friday, Rush Limbaugh was asked if he would be following Howard Stern, among others, to satellite radio. His response was that the Democratic Party would probably pay him handsomely, buy him a new house, car, boat, whatever to get him to switch to satellite, because the subscriber base for satellite is so small, relatively speaking, that every person who owns a satellite radio system could tune in to his show and it would still pale in comparison to the numbers he regularly draws and the potential audience reach on traditional format radio, so no, he is not leaving any time soon. Of course this is true. He is a mouthpiece that influences so many people, for better or worse, in their thinking as he is an effective speaker who presents himself as an authority on most all topics he addresses, and dresses down all counterpoints with such braggadocio that you almost have to believe him. (Except for the time he said all non-smokers should thank smokers, because their cigarette taxes are bankrolling many of our social services, and never mind the so-called ill effects of "second-hand smoke", a baseless scare tactic drummed up by the "drive-by media", which is a topic I will address in the near future.)
He also said it's content that people care about, not the technology. If you have good content, people will listen, regardless of whether they have to get it from an "old" medium. Les Moonves, president and CEO of CBS said the same thing on an episode of The Charlie Rose Show that same night (though the interview was recorded the week Katie Couric started anchoring her nightly news program). He said when Viacom and CBS split, he and the CBS brand were given the radio and outdoor advertising divisions, which neither side particularly wanted, as they were seen as old hat and not financially viable. Well, today, according to Moonves, CBS outdoor advertisting [billboards] is the most successful of all the divisions between the two companies since the split. And CBS radio accounts for some 20% of revenue for the company. It's about content, not technology. The 'technology' of terrestrial radio and billboards are not new at all, and yet CBS and Limbaugh, have found ways to stay relevant by committing to focus on content, which is what people really want, rather than throwing their efforts being gimmicks and technological wizardry, which quickly burn out your audience, as they will see through the flimsy facade.
Hollywood, I'm looking in your direction. Many of the greatest, longest-running, most popular TV shows ever, Cosby, Seinfeld, M.A.S.H., Taxi, I Love Lucy, The Simpsons, All In The Family, Friends, everything HBO makes, etc make/made their money with shows about regular [or at least regular enough] people dealing with life, without the help of a special effects team.
(As there are exceptions to every rule, I will note the success of Star Trek and the CSI's can be attributed, at least in part to being fancy, though they too rely on characters and content as much as, if not more than, technological whiz-bang)
He also said it's content that people care about, not the technology. If you have good content, people will listen, regardless of whether they have to get it from an "old" medium. Les Moonves, president and CEO of CBS said the same thing on an episode of The Charlie Rose Show that same night (though the interview was recorded the week Katie Couric started anchoring her nightly news program). He said when Viacom and CBS split, he and the CBS brand were given the radio and outdoor advertising divisions, which neither side particularly wanted, as they were seen as old hat and not financially viable. Well, today, according to Moonves, CBS outdoor advertisting [billboards] is the most successful of all the divisions between the two companies since the split. And CBS radio accounts for some 20% of revenue for the company. It's about content, not technology. The 'technology' of terrestrial radio and billboards are not new at all, and yet CBS and Limbaugh, have found ways to stay relevant by committing to focus on content, which is what people really want, rather than throwing their efforts being gimmicks and technological wizardry, which quickly burn out your audience, as they will see through the flimsy facade.
Hollywood, I'm looking in your direction. Many of the greatest, longest-running, most popular TV shows ever, Cosby, Seinfeld, M.A.S.H., Taxi, I Love Lucy, The Simpsons, All In The Family, Friends, everything HBO makes, etc make/made their money with shows about regular [or at least regular enough] people dealing with life, without the help of a special effects team.
(As there are exceptions to every rule, I will note the success of Star Trek and the CSI's can be attributed, at least in part to being fancy, though they too rely on characters and content as much as, if not more than, technological whiz-bang)
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Last Kiss
I'm just gonna jump right in, I'll post to a short plot overview so you can catch up on it if you haven't seen it, but I personally tend to get more out of movie reviews after I've seen a movie.
Be advised, this post will contain spoilers for this film, and possibly for other films if they are referenced.
The Last Kiss
Plot Overview - by way of allmovie.com
"A successful 30-year-old (Zach Braff) with a the perfect girlfriend (Jacinda Barrett) and a lucrative outlook on life struggles with the increasing pressures of adulthood as he weighs the merits of settling down with the woman who loves him against risking it all to be with a comely co-ed (Rachel Bilson) in director Tony Goldwyn's remake of Gabriele Muccino's 2001 comedy drama. Crash and Million Dollar Baby screenwriter Paul Haggis adapts a script originally penned by Italian filmmaker Muccino, and Casey Affleck, Eric Christian Olsen, and Tom Wilkinson co-star."
Here is a movie that understands the cultural milieu of middle America today. The "Gen-X'ers" are growing into parenthood and adulthood and have no idea how it's done. There is this idea that "kids are growing up so fast these days." What this attitude doesn't take into account is while it may be true that kids are growing into adolescence quicker, many get stuck there. We are seeing the emergence of a generation of grown-up kids. We don't know how to start to make a life of our own. We rely on our parents more than our parents did, or our parent's parents did. They say the average player of video games is 33 and it goes up each year. We are "friends" with people from waaaaaay back, who we may or may not even know today, on various social networking sites just because they tie us to our youth. Are we afraid to leave our adolescence? Are we able to? Zach Braff's character embodies the sentiment of the song 'Stop This Train' by John Mayer in which he sings "So scared of getting older, I'm only good at being young." In high school all problems, no matter how minor or ultimately insignificant, seemed like major life decisions and issues. Every problem is a crisis. In high school you can take extreme actions to attempt to remedy these situations, even if they can be rectified without drastic actions. Unfortunately, no one tells you that, and when we grow toward adulthood we carry those same attitudes, thinking decisions made over problems that are probably not as grand as we think are ultimate and can potentially ruin our lives or be the one big decision that will make go everything right from there on out. We can't be afraid to make mistakes for fear that it'll be the end of the world. We can't run and hide and insulate ourselves from all things in life that make us sad, mad, unhappy or uncomfortable. This movie reminds us that this is life. It's like the story of the teen who told his dad he wished he could just skip all the bad times in his life, goes to sleep and wakes up an 80 year old man. By skipping the bad he's missed his entire life. This is not to say that life is all bad; but without the bad how could you appreciate the good. Happiness exists only as a function of the fact that it could not exist. The worse the bad times get, the better the good times will seem. In the end, when Casey Affleck's character tells his soon-to-be-ex-wife that he is not coming back, but he is going to stick around and be the father of his child and she accepts thaat, and Jenna allows Michael back into the house they are modeling their first step toward understanding and accepting adulthood. The two friends who jump in an RV to ditch their cares and responsibilities model the same old reactionary high school-level approach to life.
In this film, Zach Braff's Michael is punished for his misdeed(s) by being forced to sit on the porch for a day or 2, out in the rain for a while, with only a plain ham sandwich and a glass of sparkling water courtesy of the token gay, black neighbor (filling your minorities quota in one character cuts down on payroll, I guess). He is forced to sit there as a sign of his willingness to "do whatever it takes" to win Jenna back. Depending how you feel about his character at this point, the ending either works or doesn't. In the end she lets him back in, to the house, and to her heart, which is not the decision every one would make, but for her, in that situation, at that time in her life, with everything else that is going on, it strikes me as honest. There are those who have written that the film is not a strong enough condemnation of infidelity because, in the end, all is seemingly forgiven. I disagree, I don't think there should be any question that infidelity is condemned in the film. It just goes one step further, showing the depth of commitment these characters have for each other that they are willing to work through even this most heinous of relational offenses. Unconditional, I believe they call it.
One thing that does bug me in many of these trendy-indie type movies is the uber-hip indie soundtrack; the director/music supervisor saying to audience "ooh, look how obscure and high brow my taste in pop music is" Not that the music is bad, because it isn't, it's just that there is a sameness because they all seem to use similar artists and it's becoming as cliche as using Motown hits in romantic comedies and Hans Zimmer and his oft-overbearing 133-piece orchestral string super scores. (Although I love Motown and what Zimmer did on Lion King) But now I'm nitpicking, and I hate nitpicky reviews. So I'll conclude with a ringing endorsement and a suggestion to go see it.
Be advised, this post will contain spoilers for this film, and possibly for other films if they are referenced.
The Last Kiss
Plot Overview - by way of allmovie.com
"A successful 30-year-old (Zach Braff) with a the perfect girlfriend (Jacinda Barrett) and a lucrative outlook on life struggles with the increasing pressures of adulthood as he weighs the merits of settling down with the woman who loves him against risking it all to be with a comely co-ed (Rachel Bilson) in director Tony Goldwyn's remake of Gabriele Muccino's 2001 comedy drama. Crash and Million Dollar Baby screenwriter Paul Haggis adapts a script originally penned by Italian filmmaker Muccino, and Casey Affleck, Eric Christian Olsen, and Tom Wilkinson co-star."
Here is a movie that understands the cultural milieu of middle America today. The "Gen-X'ers" are growing into parenthood and adulthood and have no idea how it's done. There is this idea that "kids are growing up so fast these days." What this attitude doesn't take into account is while it may be true that kids are growing into adolescence quicker, many get stuck there. We are seeing the emergence of a generation of grown-up kids. We don't know how to start to make a life of our own. We rely on our parents more than our parents did, or our parent's parents did. They say the average player of video games is 33 and it goes up each year. We are "friends" with people from waaaaaay back, who we may or may not even know today, on various social networking sites just because they tie us to our youth. Are we afraid to leave our adolescence? Are we able to? Zach Braff's character embodies the sentiment of the song 'Stop This Train' by John Mayer in which he sings "So scared of getting older, I'm only good at being young." In high school all problems, no matter how minor or ultimately insignificant, seemed like major life decisions and issues. Every problem is a crisis. In high school you can take extreme actions to attempt to remedy these situations, even if they can be rectified without drastic actions. Unfortunately, no one tells you that, and when we grow toward adulthood we carry those same attitudes, thinking decisions made over problems that are probably not as grand as we think are ultimate and can potentially ruin our lives or be the one big decision that will make go everything right from there on out. We can't be afraid to make mistakes for fear that it'll be the end of the world. We can't run and hide and insulate ourselves from all things in life that make us sad, mad, unhappy or uncomfortable. This movie reminds us that this is life. It's like the story of the teen who told his dad he wished he could just skip all the bad times in his life, goes to sleep and wakes up an 80 year old man. By skipping the bad he's missed his entire life. This is not to say that life is all bad; but without the bad how could you appreciate the good. Happiness exists only as a function of the fact that it could not exist. The worse the bad times get, the better the good times will seem. In the end, when Casey Affleck's character tells his soon-to-be-ex-wife that he is not coming back, but he is going to stick around and be the father of his child and she accepts thaat, and Jenna allows Michael back into the house they are modeling their first step toward understanding and accepting adulthood. The two friends who jump in an RV to ditch their cares and responsibilities model the same old reactionary high school-level approach to life.
In this film, Zach Braff's Michael is punished for his misdeed(s) by being forced to sit on the porch for a day or 2, out in the rain for a while, with only a plain ham sandwich and a glass of sparkling water courtesy of the token gay, black neighbor (filling your minorities quota in one character cuts down on payroll, I guess). He is forced to sit there as a sign of his willingness to "do whatever it takes" to win Jenna back. Depending how you feel about his character at this point, the ending either works or doesn't. In the end she lets him back in, to the house, and to her heart, which is not the decision every one would make, but for her, in that situation, at that time in her life, with everything else that is going on, it strikes me as honest. There are those who have written that the film is not a strong enough condemnation of infidelity because, in the end, all is seemingly forgiven. I disagree, I don't think there should be any question that infidelity is condemned in the film. It just goes one step further, showing the depth of commitment these characters have for each other that they are willing to work through even this most heinous of relational offenses. Unconditional, I believe they call it.
One thing that does bug me in many of these trendy-indie type movies is the uber-hip indie soundtrack; the director/music supervisor saying to audience "ooh, look how obscure and high brow my taste in pop music is" Not that the music is bad, because it isn't, it's just that there is a sameness because they all seem to use similar artists and it's becoming as cliche as using Motown hits in romantic comedies and Hans Zimmer and his oft-overbearing 133-piece orchestral string super scores. (Although I love Motown and what Zimmer did on Lion King) But now I'm nitpicking, and I hate nitpicky reviews. So I'll conclude with a ringing endorsement and a suggestion to go see it.
Getting Organized
So I made this thing on a whim last night, but I think if I'm actually going to stick to it, there has to be organization. So hopefully in the coming days I'll come up with a way to structure this thing so I will actually write regularly. Maybe every day, maybe not. We shall see.
Now, to my review of The Last Kiss... Hey, maybe Saturday could be my movie day and every Saturday I will write something about movies. Excellent, one day organized. 6 to go.
Now, to my review of The Last Kiss... Hey, maybe Saturday could be my movie day and every Saturday I will write something about movies. Excellent, one day organized. 6 to go.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Inaugural
It's amazing what having too much free time does to a person who lives essentially alone. Oh sure, Mom and Dad "live" here too, but I do spend the majority of my time by myself these days and the crazy thing is, I actually have time to think about things, whether I want to or not. If I want to stop and think about something, I can just do it. I've gotten to the point where turning off the tv is very easy and I haven't played the ol PS2 in weeks it seems. One thing that has come about is that I realize having the ability to think about things doesn't necessarily provide clarity, and often times causes more confusion and concern that never would've come about if I didn't ever turn off reruns of Seinfeld, wasted away the afternoon on Facebook, or spent all day obeying the commands of rappers on the radio to "lean back", do a "shoulder lean" or "lean wit it, rock wit it" (What's with all this "lean"ing anyway, why can't we stand up straight? Have they no concern for the posture of future generations?)
But i digress...the time all of this contemplation gets disheartening is when you realize that many problems have no easily implementable answer, or that there is a simple solution that will never be realized because of the way the world is structured. The recent John Mayer single, 'Waiting on the World to Change", (which happens to come off of a very good, and personally recommended album, Continuum) comes to mind, as he croons, "Now, we see everything that's going wrong, with the world and those who lead it; We just feel like we don't have the means to rise above and beat it." So, what do you do when you feel like the world is a crazy, mixed-up place, stuck in a rut and there's nothing you can do about it? I suggest you lean wit it, rock wit it, and wait on the world to change.
But i digress...the time all of this contemplation gets disheartening is when you realize that many problems have no easily implementable answer, or that there is a simple solution that will never be realized because of the way the world is structured. The recent John Mayer single, 'Waiting on the World to Change", (which happens to come off of a very good, and personally recommended album, Continuum) comes to mind, as he croons, "Now, we see everything that's going wrong, with the world and those who lead it; We just feel like we don't have the means to rise above and beat it." So, what do you do when you feel like the world is a crazy, mixed-up place, stuck in a rut and there's nothing you can do about it? I suggest you lean wit it, rock wit it, and wait on the world to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)