As news of Jim Tressel's resignation broke this morning, I believe I was somewhere around Paducah, Kentucky fleeing the cicada-infested Middle Tennessee Valley for the friendly confines of Kansas City for the summer. Luckily, I picked up a feed of ESPN Radio and the Colin Cowherd morning program somewhere in between three guys trying to sell me Drano in Spanish and an angry and misguided evangelical pastor explaining the inherent sin present in miniature golf on the AM radio dial in rural Kentucky. Cowherd conducted several thought-provoking interviews this morning (as he is, I'll admit, wont to do) in response to the resignation, and the positions of three men in particular ran the gamut of the subsequent public response I have gleaned from perusing the sports blogosphere.
As expected, Kirk Herbstreit came quickly in defense of both the program and Tressel. Arguing that Tressel's actions (or, rather, inaction) was inspired be a conscious effort on his part to "protect his student-athletes," Herbstreit further went on to say that both the coach and the team would be able to land on their feet, and Ohio State would still have a successful year with a QB who is likely to take a shelling from the local media for driving out an extremely popular head coach and an interim head coach who has zero experience in the position at any level, and certainly not as head coach of one of the premier programs throughout Division I college football. In other words, Herbstreit gave the predictable interview of a hopeless, partisan fan--the same illustration of either a subconscious or poorly hidden favoritism that often bleeds into his work for Gameday throughout the college football season on ESPN. I will grant Herbstreit, however, the honor being the least senile of the two-man broadcasting team of himself and Brent Musberger for Saturday Night Football. But that's a lot like bragging about being more sane than the guy who has shoes made of pennies on the street corner and still believes in the tooth fairy.
Robert Smith (not "Close to Me" or the guy who killed Mecha-Streisand, the former stand-out running back for the Minnesota Vikings in the early 90s and current college football analyst for ESPN) went to the other end of the spectrum, painting Tressel as a lone disingenuously pernicious influence on the sanctity of college football that needed to be dealt with in this manner. To his credit, Smith admitted that the kinds of infractions that allegedly occurred at Ohio State are probably occurring simultaneously at institutions throughout the country. However, Smith argued that Tressel's blatant disregard for protocol showed favoritism to his starters, rather than a genuine attempt to protect all of his student-athletes from the disciplinary hand of the NCAA, and that his lie of omission exceeded by degree numerous other recent and historic violations of NCAA rules.
To his credit, Colin voiced his own opinion as somewhere in between the unquestioning reverence of Herbstreit and the jilted antagonism of Smith, both Ohio State alums. As the old saying goes, this is likely where most of the truth lies. More will inevitably come to light as the investigative piece on Ohio State athletics is published in Sports Illustrated in the coming weeks and the NCAA intensifies its probe into the program (ESPN is already reporting the NCAA will launch a separate investigation into potential individual violations by Terrelle Pryor). As just another in a series of high-profile blackeyes for college football in recent years, however, Tressel's resignation and the subsequent sanctions on the Ohio State program simply illustrate a sign of the times in college athletics, and illustrate (just as South Park so brilliantly did last week) the lack of easy answers in the designation between amateur and professional as determined by the NCAA.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Saturday, May 28, 2011
LeBron and America: The Saga Continues
Though the results of ESPN's recent phone poll don't definitively state that LeBron James has gone from hero to pariah in the sports world, they do indicate what casual fans have noticed all year--there's really no substance behind the Miami Heat. There's no compelling drama in favor of this team, only an intense desire to see them fail. James hasn't helped his own cause very much, prompting Jason Whitlock to summarize the view of several prominent NBA personalities and sportswriters in his exclamation that LeBron "looks, feels, and sounds like a lost cause today."
Of course, this is precisely what David Stern and the NBA want. Following the decisive Game 5 of the Bulls/Heat series on Friday, Nielsen reported the Eastern Conference Finals match-up (aired on TNT) was the most watched playoff series in the history of cable television. In a display of mind-numbingly prolonged obliviousness, James indicated after the Game 5 win that he believes "the hate" will go away after the Heat win their championship and move on.
Moving on in sports requires contrition. Look at the major scandals that have occurred over the past several years in the sporting world. First, steroids in baseball. The contrite, honest Andy Pettite enjoyed a decent and dignified retirement during this past offseason. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure the blustery and agitated Roger Clemens continues to get the cold shoulder in service at Denny's. Tiger Woods took a long time to come clean about his infidelity, and still hasn't completely owned up in words to the pain he put his wife and children through as a result of his philandering. Currently, he's enjoying a (to put it mildly) tenserelationship with the public and the media and struggling through the lowest point in his athletic career.
I am not suggesting that James' betrayal (and, let's face it, that's really what it was) last summer comes anywhere close to the rule-breaking or moral bankruptcy of these other athletes. But the American public, while it forgives, does not forgive unconditionally. A championship this year might help heal some of the ill-will toward James (and render Jason Segel's familiar joke in the trailer for the upcoming film "Bad Teacher" a little less effective), but it's not going away overnight. This attitude is just another example in a long list of immature behavior from the self-anointed "King."
Of course, this is precisely what David Stern and the NBA want. Following the decisive Game 5 of the Bulls/Heat series on Friday, Nielsen reported the Eastern Conference Finals match-up (aired on TNT) was the most watched playoff series in the history of cable television. In a display of mind-numbingly prolonged obliviousness, James indicated after the Game 5 win that he believes "the hate" will go away after the Heat win their championship and move on.
Moving on in sports requires contrition. Look at the major scandals that have occurred over the past several years in the sporting world. First, steroids in baseball. The contrite, honest Andy Pettite enjoyed a decent and dignified retirement during this past offseason. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure the blustery and agitated Roger Clemens continues to get the cold shoulder in service at Denny's. Tiger Woods took a long time to come clean about his infidelity, and still hasn't completely owned up in words to the pain he put his wife and children through as a result of his philandering. Currently, he's enjoying a (to put it mildly) tenserelationship with the public and the media and struggling through the lowest point in his athletic career.
I am not suggesting that James' betrayal (and, let's face it, that's really what it was) last summer comes anywhere close to the rule-breaking or moral bankruptcy of these other athletes. But the American public, while it forgives, does not forgive unconditionally. A championship this year might help heal some of the ill-will toward James (and render Jason Segel's familiar joke in the trailer for the upcoming film "Bad Teacher" a little less effective), but it's not going away overnight. This attitude is just another example in a long list of immature behavior from the self-anointed "King."
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Change in the Sofa-House Season 7 Thoughts
As a rabid, watch-every-episode-more-than-once House fan, I went into Season Seven last fall with a good deal of trepidation. House and Cuddy were finally coming together after six seasons of agonizing foreplay, and I found myself asking the question, do I even care anymore? I had a similar response to the reunion of J.D. and Elliot in Season Eight of Scrubs. The self-referential ridiculousness of the whole fling worked moderately well in "My Happy Place," and at least made it believable that these two could have a romantic relationship in spite of the harm they'd caused each other over the past eight years. "Huddy," as it is reverentially called by those same fans that feel the need to abbreviate every celebrity relationship in order for their short attention spans to come to terms with the dynamic human interaction acted out before them, never attained this level of believability for me. Even during the so-called "happy times" of this season ("Unplanned Parenthood," "Carrot or Stick," the first 50 minutes of "Bombshells"), it never seemed as though the two were going anywhere. This season was ostensibly about House carrying forward the evolution of his character begun throughout the dramatic sixth season ("Broken" remains one of the finest episodes of the series, in my opinion), and I'm not sure he ever did that.
That is to say, until last night's season finale. Checking out the responses across the web this morning, viewers seemed to be split by House's final violent act of the season, either loving the spontaneity and the intrigue his Shawshank-like walk along the beach denoted or deeming it underwhelming in comparison to the shocking final moments of the past few seasons. Put me in the former camp, happy to see House finally acting upon his anger in a real and tangible way rather than the "tricks" and "mind games" he's used to playing (remember, early in the episode, Cuddy practically begs him to act out in a real and human way, which is ultimately what he does) and inflicting pain on someone other than himself. I thought it was brilliant, and in spite of my misgivings about some of the later episodes of the season, I'm actually interested to see where the show goes in its next season premiere.
The other major observation I have is that this show simply cannot stand without 13. She is consistently the most interesting secondary character and the brilliance of the writers in having her survive the recruitment process a few years ago shines through in each episode that unveils just a little bit more of her troubled past. "The Dig" was perhaps the finest example to date of the nuances of both 13 and House's character, and stands with "Two Stories" as two of the finest episodes of an, on-the-whole, moderately disappointing season. The ratings reflect this-House averaged about a 10 rating share this year, down from the 13 average of last season and woefully short of the high 24s it consistently hit in its heyday (Season 3). Masters was an interesting addition to the show, but her schtick wore thin rather quickly and had me breathe a sigh of relief when she was finally written off in favor of 13 again.
If next season truly is the end of House, a couple of things need to happen for the show to leave on the high note its potential in the late 2000s indicated. First, David Shore needs to become more involved in his brain-child again. It's no coincidence that many of the finest episodes of the entire series ("Three Stories," "No Reason," "Alone," and "Broken," among others) are touched in some way by the artistic talent of Shore. Second, if Lisa Edelstein truly isn't returning for the 8th season, the writers need to instigate some kind of new, non-romantic tension between House and the next hospital administrator (or at House's new place of employment, as it seems likely based on the consequences of the season finale). We've had sexual tension for seven years between House and Cuddy. The most interesting foils to House have been men who engage in similar tactical and cerebral ploys to get what they want (David Morse's Detective Tritter and Chi McBride's Edward Vogler come to mind). The writers need to invent some similar conflict for this final season of House in Cuddy's absence.
Finally, the show needs to stick to its formula. In the past couple of seasons, the desire to "break out of the box," so to speak, has taken away the dramatic element of the medical mysteries themselves. Whereas I can find myself remembering diagnoses of patients when I watch reruns of early episodes in syndication, I can honestly say I have no recollection of any of the ailments of the cases from the past two years or so. Such a construction eats away at the whole premise of House in the first place, the modern-day Sherlock Holmes cracking the abnormalities of human physiology every week. Would we want to see the crappy love life of Holmes as a focus in every other publication by Conan Doyle?
This season still had some memorable moments. The revelation of Taub as a multiple-father was perhaps my favorite. But House is going to need to do better than that if it's going to deliver to fans as it fades into the sunset.
That is to say, until last night's season finale. Checking out the responses across the web this morning, viewers seemed to be split by House's final violent act of the season, either loving the spontaneity and the intrigue his Shawshank-like walk along the beach denoted or deeming it underwhelming in comparison to the shocking final moments of the past few seasons. Put me in the former camp, happy to see House finally acting upon his anger in a real and tangible way rather than the "tricks" and "mind games" he's used to playing (remember, early in the episode, Cuddy practically begs him to act out in a real and human way, which is ultimately what he does) and inflicting pain on someone other than himself. I thought it was brilliant, and in spite of my misgivings about some of the later episodes of the season, I'm actually interested to see where the show goes in its next season premiere.
The other major observation I have is that this show simply cannot stand without 13. She is consistently the most interesting secondary character and the brilliance of the writers in having her survive the recruitment process a few years ago shines through in each episode that unveils just a little bit more of her troubled past. "The Dig" was perhaps the finest example to date of the nuances of both 13 and House's character, and stands with "Two Stories" as two of the finest episodes of an, on-the-whole, moderately disappointing season. The ratings reflect this-House averaged about a 10 rating share this year, down from the 13 average of last season and woefully short of the high 24s it consistently hit in its heyday (Season 3). Masters was an interesting addition to the show, but her schtick wore thin rather quickly and had me breathe a sigh of relief when she was finally written off in favor of 13 again.
If next season truly is the end of House, a couple of things need to happen for the show to leave on the high note its potential in the late 2000s indicated. First, David Shore needs to become more involved in his brain-child again. It's no coincidence that many of the finest episodes of the entire series ("Three Stories," "No Reason," "Alone," and "Broken," among others) are touched in some way by the artistic talent of Shore. Second, if Lisa Edelstein truly isn't returning for the 8th season, the writers need to instigate some kind of new, non-romantic tension between House and the next hospital administrator (or at House's new place of employment, as it seems likely based on the consequences of the season finale). We've had sexual tension for seven years between House and Cuddy. The most interesting foils to House have been men who engage in similar tactical and cerebral ploys to get what they want (David Morse's Detective Tritter and Chi McBride's Edward Vogler come to mind). The writers need to invent some similar conflict for this final season of House in Cuddy's absence.
Finally, the show needs to stick to its formula. In the past couple of seasons, the desire to "break out of the box," so to speak, has taken away the dramatic element of the medical mysteries themselves. Whereas I can find myself remembering diagnoses of patients when I watch reruns of early episodes in syndication, I can honestly say I have no recollection of any of the ailments of the cases from the past two years or so. Such a construction eats away at the whole premise of House in the first place, the modern-day Sherlock Holmes cracking the abnormalities of human physiology every week. Would we want to see the crappy love life of Holmes as a focus in every other publication by Conan Doyle?
This season still had some memorable moments. The revelation of Taub as a multiple-father was perhaps my favorite. But House is going to need to do better than that if it's going to deliver to fans as it fades into the sunset.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
University Presidents-The Real Reason Liberal Arts Don't Matter
Michael Roth, President of Wesleyan University, posted an interesting editorial to CNN this weekend defending the preservation of liberal arts degrees in modern American higher education. Roth argues that the modern workplace demands the kind of convergence of disciplines and broad critical thinking only a liberal arts education can produce in a newly-minted American worker/intellectual. "We should think of education as a kind of intellectual cross-training that leads to many more things than at any one moment you could possibly know would be useful," Roth insists. As the president of one of the most distinguished liberal arts colleges in the country, Roth's argument is at once poignant, self-serving and vapid.
I have no problems with the importance and perceived benefits Roth bestows on a liberal arts education. It would be difficult for me to do so, receiving a great deal of my post-secondary training in the arts and "soft" sciences. The problem is with Roth's own colleagues, who he doesn't call out forcibly enough. In fact, he applauds members of his faculty for taking the initiative to establish chairs within their departments that laud their interdisciplinary achievements. This does not lead to the convergence of the problem-solving and analytic skills of English Lit courses invading the theoretical and scientific realms of Math and Science departments on college campuses. It allows the educators to believe they're preserving the ideals of a liberal arts education while encouraging the kind of specialization Roth argues is detrimental to the American education system.
In my second semester of undergraduate work at Belmont, I took part in what was called a "linked-cohort" class. In theory, these classes were supposed to link sub-fields that would ordinarily be thought of as the two poles of academic life. Chemistry and Political Science, Psychology and Art History, Biology and Religious Studies were linked together in ways that I suppose were meant to make administrators like Michael Roth feel like throwing a self-congratulatory knowledge party (I've been to a few of those, the dip sucks). The problem was, the students I knew always viewed the classes as a bit of a joke. No serious attempt was made by anyone to tie the concepts they learned in one class to another, and (more distressingly) none of the professors seemed too interested in that goal, either. The linked-cohort was something you begrudgingly fit into your schedule, completed, and then filed away somewhere near Pauly Shore movie trivia knowledge (I mean for a normal person, not for me where it's located directly adjacent to the mechanical motions of brushing one's teeth) for safe keeping.
Education is a service. It always has been, and it always will be. I'm not saying everyone should be a Faulkner scholar (mainly because forms at the DMV would be indecipherable if that were the case) nor should we all be automatons trained in one discipline. That's kind of what this blog is ultimately about. At the same time, university administrators should not pay lip service to the preservation of a liberal arts education if that's not what is demanded by their students. By ordaining a liberal arts education structure, college administrators make the decisions about what knowledge is necessary for their students. Isn't that the exact opposite of the goal of a liberal arts education in the first place?
I have no problems with the importance and perceived benefits Roth bestows on a liberal arts education. It would be difficult for me to do so, receiving a great deal of my post-secondary training in the arts and "soft" sciences. The problem is with Roth's own colleagues, who he doesn't call out forcibly enough. In fact, he applauds members of his faculty for taking the initiative to establish chairs within their departments that laud their interdisciplinary achievements. This does not lead to the convergence of the problem-solving and analytic skills of English Lit courses invading the theoretical and scientific realms of Math and Science departments on college campuses. It allows the educators to believe they're preserving the ideals of a liberal arts education while encouraging the kind of specialization Roth argues is detrimental to the American education system.
In my second semester of undergraduate work at Belmont, I took part in what was called a "linked-cohort" class. In theory, these classes were supposed to link sub-fields that would ordinarily be thought of as the two poles of academic life. Chemistry and Political Science, Psychology and Art History, Biology and Religious Studies were linked together in ways that I suppose were meant to make administrators like Michael Roth feel like throwing a self-congratulatory knowledge party (I've been to a few of those, the dip sucks). The problem was, the students I knew always viewed the classes as a bit of a joke. No serious attempt was made by anyone to tie the concepts they learned in one class to another, and (more distressingly) none of the professors seemed too interested in that goal, either. The linked-cohort was something you begrudgingly fit into your schedule, completed, and then filed away somewhere near Pauly Shore movie trivia knowledge (I mean for a normal person, not for me where it's located directly adjacent to the mechanical motions of brushing one's teeth) for safe keeping.
Education is a service. It always has been, and it always will be. I'm not saying everyone should be a Faulkner scholar (mainly because forms at the DMV would be indecipherable if that were the case) nor should we all be automatons trained in one discipline. That's kind of what this blog is ultimately about. At the same time, university administrators should not pay lip service to the preservation of a liberal arts education if that's not what is demanded by their students. By ordaining a liberal arts education structure, college administrators make the decisions about what knowledge is necessary for their students. Isn't that the exact opposite of the goal of a liberal arts education in the first place?
Saturday, May 21, 2011
A Sticky Floors and Salty Popcorn Special Feature-Top 10 Greatest Sports Movie Villains of All-Time
Here's a list I composed a few years back and posted over on the ESPN.com blog pages. This is very important work I'm doing, people!
10. Alejandro "Butch" Heddo
Film: Rookie of the Year
You only see him once or twice during the film. But as he's grinding the wood on the grip of his bat, shouting "This one's for mommy! MOMMY!" I got chills. Honestly. He also saved John Candy from having the dubious honor of "fattest guy in the film." Take a look at the tape. It's there.
9. David Simms
Film: Tin Cup
He took Roy's car after schtoinking his ex-girlfriend! Of course, in the end Costner gets the girl and Crockett lays up like the pansey he is. This is in fact the Merriam-Webster definition of justice.
8. Mark (Annie's brother)
Film: Field of Dreams
Again, someone's trying to convince Kevin Costner he's not worth anything. And again Costner proves him wrong. Not only is Mark a smartass realty broker, he also interrupted James Earl Jones' beautiful speech about the history of baseball. And he almost killed Ray's daughter! What a jerk.
7. Ernie McCracken
Film: Kingpin
Played to perfection by the incomparable Bill Murray. Not only did he cause Roy to lose his hand, he then mocked him for it years later. "I didn't want to lose to a guy with no hand, you know?!" Bonus points for a terrific comb-over job.
6. Baxter Cain
Film: BASEketball
Am I the only one who's amused that the great Robert Vaughn's 100th film was Trey Parker and Matt Stone's often overlooked genius sports comedy that includes no fewer than five completely homoerotic sequences? "You're excited, feel these nipples!" Anyway, hopefully inclusion on this list will help make up for the loss of the priceless autographed Ty Cobb baseball bat.
5. Rachel Phelps
Films: Major League, Major League 2
Anytime a former Las Vegas showgirl takes over the team and tries to sell it to another town with Bob Uecker in the booth, you're top 5 material. Did anyone else think Rene Russo was hotter in these movies than Margaret Whitton? Just me? Okay then, moving on...
4. Ivan Drago
Film: Rocky IV
Killing Appollo Creed in the first five minutes wasn't even his biggest offense. He's a Commie for God's sake! Inexcusable pre-1989. And he inspired that terrible and often-mocked montage towards the end of the film. DRAGO!!!! Oh, and by the way Sly, that's a really fantastic speech you made at the end of this film. What I could understand of it. We-es CAN change!
3. Judge Smails
Film: Caddyshack
"It's easy to grin, when your ship comes in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man worthwhile, is the one who can smile, when his pants are too tight in the seat."
Gets some points for having a smoking hot niece and for pulling off that incredible hat, but come on? Treating Spaulding like he did just for being an asthmatic screw-up and his incessant racism put him in the top 3 (Colored boy?!). Now, how 'bout a Fresca?
2. Shooter McGavin
Film: Happy Gilmore
"Nuh-uh. I called it first."
The tour pro whose right arm is just a little longer than his left and a proclivity for end-rhyme threatened to burn Happy's grandma's house down and then relieve himself on the remains. He also wasn't aware Grizzly Adams had a beard. I think that puts him near the top of our list, no?
1. Jack Parkman
Film: Major League 2
"Obviously Taylor's thinking...I dunno WHAT the hell he's thinkin'!"
It's really no contest. With a name like Jack Parkman, how can you NOT name him number one? The fact that he played for the Indians for most of the season until it was apparent they were terrible and THEN jumped ship to Chicago is reason enough to hate the guy, but to suggest that Rick Vaughn's new pitch should be called "The Masturbator"? In the words of Harry Doyle, "he's still a dick."
Honorable Mention: Hercules ("Sandlot"), Warden Hazen ("The Longest Yard"), White Goodman ("Dodgeball"-would have made the list if this character wasn't an exact replica of Tony Perkis from "Heavyweights")
10. Alejandro "Butch" Heddo
Film: Rookie of the Year
You only see him once or twice during the film. But as he's grinding the wood on the grip of his bat, shouting "This one's for mommy! MOMMY!" I got chills. Honestly. He also saved John Candy from having the dubious honor of "fattest guy in the film." Take a look at the tape. It's there.
9. David Simms
Film: Tin Cup
He took Roy's car after schtoinking his ex-girlfriend! Of course, in the end Costner gets the girl and Crockett lays up like the pansey he is. This is in fact the Merriam-Webster definition of justice.
8. Mark (Annie's brother)
Film: Field of Dreams
Again, someone's trying to convince Kevin Costner he's not worth anything. And again Costner proves him wrong. Not only is Mark a smartass realty broker, he also interrupted James Earl Jones' beautiful speech about the history of baseball. And he almost killed Ray's daughter! What a jerk.
7. Ernie McCracken
Film: Kingpin
Played to perfection by the incomparable Bill Murray. Not only did he cause Roy to lose his hand, he then mocked him for it years later. "I didn't want to lose to a guy with no hand, you know?!" Bonus points for a terrific comb-over job.
6. Baxter Cain
Film: BASEketball
Am I the only one who's amused that the great Robert Vaughn's 100th film was Trey Parker and Matt Stone's often overlooked genius sports comedy that includes no fewer than five completely homoerotic sequences? "You're excited, feel these nipples!" Anyway, hopefully inclusion on this list will help make up for the loss of the priceless autographed Ty Cobb baseball bat.
5. Rachel Phelps
Films: Major League, Major League 2
Anytime a former Las Vegas showgirl takes over the team and tries to sell it to another town with Bob Uecker in the booth, you're top 5 material. Did anyone else think Rene Russo was hotter in these movies than Margaret Whitton? Just me? Okay then, moving on...
4. Ivan Drago
Film: Rocky IV
Killing Appollo Creed in the first five minutes wasn't even his biggest offense. He's a Commie for God's sake! Inexcusable pre-1989. And he inspired that terrible and often-mocked montage towards the end of the film. DRAGO!!!! Oh, and by the way Sly, that's a really fantastic speech you made at the end of this film. What I could understand of it. We-es CAN change!
3. Judge Smails
Film: Caddyshack
"It's easy to grin, when your ship comes in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man worthwhile, is the one who can smile, when his pants are too tight in the seat."
Gets some points for having a smoking hot niece and for pulling off that incredible hat, but come on? Treating Spaulding like he did just for being an asthmatic screw-up and his incessant racism put him in the top 3 (Colored boy?!). Now, how 'bout a Fresca?
2. Shooter McGavin
Film: Happy Gilmore
"Nuh-uh. I called it first."
The tour pro whose right arm is just a little longer than his left and a proclivity for end-rhyme threatened to burn Happy's grandma's house down and then relieve himself on the remains. He also wasn't aware Grizzly Adams had a beard. I think that puts him near the top of our list, no?
1. Jack Parkman
Film: Major League 2
"Obviously Taylor's thinking...I dunno WHAT the hell he's thinkin'!"
It's really no contest. With a name like Jack Parkman, how can you NOT name him number one? The fact that he played for the Indians for most of the season until it was apparent they were terrible and THEN jumped ship to Chicago is reason enough to hate the guy, but to suggest that Rick Vaughn's new pitch should be called "The Masturbator"? In the words of Harry Doyle, "he's still a dick."
Honorable Mention: Hercules ("Sandlot"), Warden Hazen ("The Longest Yard"), White Goodman ("Dodgeball"-would have made the list if this character wasn't an exact replica of Tony Perkis from "Heavyweights")
Thursday, May 19, 2011
A Sticky Floors and Salty Popcorn Movie Review-That Evening Sun
Ryan Adams requests, in the appropriately-titled "Tennessee Sucks," for "something blue to put us out of our way/'Cause Tennessee sucks in the summer." Roll credits on "That Evening Sun," an adaptation of a William Gay short story directed by Scott Teems and starring Hal Holbrook. The film insists upon a slow, deliberate pace throughout, highlighted by an understated score teeming with the sounds of Tennessee in the summer (13-year cicadas notwithstanding). This is a Southern movie-it's hard not to read into the land ownership conflict between Abner Meecham (Holbrook) and Lonzo Choat (Ray McKinnon). But there's something more to this story. It isn't a pure generational-conflict film, like say a "Gran Torino," but that element is certainly present. It's also not a story of redemption, or of good triumphing over evil. Because there is really no good or evil here. Audiences swaying their allegiance to Meecham immediately for being displaced by a boozing, wife-beating deadbeat who even "walks like white trash" (in the words of Meecham) will be discouraged by some of the revelations of the second half of the film.
This is really where Holbrook shines. He can at once make the audience believe that his claim to his family's farm is legitimate, and that his intentions for sticking around in the tenant cabin are just. At the same time, we can't completely dismiss his lawyer son's (played more-than-competently by Walter Goggins of "Justified" and "The Shield" fame) admission that his father was mean and ill-tempered with him, and with his wife. Whether as a consequence of the source material (I admit, I haven't read the short-story yet) or of Teems' directorial decision, some sympathy is introduced back into Meecham's character in the final act of the film, but this sympathy is immediately undermined by what amounts to be an apparent plot to win his farm back through drastic measures. Throughout all of these developments, Holbrook never allows us to believe that Meecham isn't simply human, reacting to a world that he cannot completely control anymore, no matter how much he'd like to. Meecham's stubbornness, like the Romantic vision of the Confederate soldier fighting for "state's rights" rather than to preserve the pernicious continuation of slavery, becomes his most endearing quality, and Holbrook comes through in spades portraying this flawed protagonist on-screen.
The subsequent performances are nothing to really write home about. Barry Corbin does an amusing turn as neighbor Thurl Chessor, similar in age and temperament to Meecham and thus providing another mouthpiece against the coming tide of modernism in the rural South. When Thurl admonishes to Abner that he should be proud of his son getting out of town and making something of himself, Abner tells us, "I am proud of him. There's a difference between leaving home and forgetting the place exists, though." Teems never lets the audience forget the beauty and majesty of the place Meecham seems to be protecting. The soundtrack and visuals all play into a Romanticized version of the rural South that persists even as the credits roll. You don't have to be from the South or have lived there for a time to appreciate the film, but it sure doesn't hurt.
For all that it does well, "That Evening Sun" ends without resolution. I'm sure that's part of Teems' point, and certainly is a component of the post-modern short story Gay wrote ten years ago, but it doesn't allow the film to really come to any sort of cogent conclusion. The audience is left with several characters we're not sure what to do with, and the dramatic action of the final thirty minutes of the film remains somehow detached from the rest of the film. Its implications are never fully explored. This may work in the shorts Teems directed before this feature-length debut, but it leaves this reviewer with the conclusion that Teems and Holbrook tell a very interesting story, but don't really take it anywhere.
Verdict: 3.5/5 stars
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Fear and Loathing on the McCain Trail '00
I just spent the afternoon with David Foster Wallace, reading his account of the 2000 McCain presidential campaign "Up, Simba" compiled in a new edition titled "McCain's Promise" published in 2006. The parallels between his text and Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail are too numerous to recount here. The foreword of my text by Jacob Weisberg makes the comparison tacitly and implicitly, but it would take a willful ignorance not to see that the two authors are doing many of the same things.
Each fashions themselves as something of an outsider, preferring the fringe identity of quasi-ethnography to straight political reporting. Wallace makes a point to insist on his resume in all-caps that he is NOT A POLITICAL JOURNALIST, and Thompson shows a proclivity for crashing political gatherings and press junkets while pooh-poohing the general press corps. Wallace's animosity toward politics seems to come from a more general cynicism, as the question of the genuine nature of contemporary politicians proves to be the major focus of his lengthy essay. Thompson, on the other hand, seems to genuinely believe in the redemptive qualities of McGovern, if only because he views Nixon as a flesh-eating monster (or, at least, that's the image Ralph Steadman is compelled to depict visually in the book as a result of Thompson's prose).
Both approach the writing process in a similar post-modern, rambling way. The back of my Thompson edition features praise from Kurt Vonnegut: "the literary equivalent of Cubism: all rules are broken." Wallace, in true Faulknerian fashion, explores the many uses available for the comma. However, when both authors become cogent, their texts become poignant looks at post-modern politics. The melancholy present throughout Wallace's text appears to be a consequence of the unraveling of politics and morality just beginning to rear its head in Thompson's work, which lacks the cynical perspective proffered by the fallout of Watergate, the American exit from Vietnam, and-well, let's just say all the Reagan years. In this way, it's easy to read Wallace as a kind of spiritual successor to Thompson. The chaos remains intact in Wallace's work, but it's gloomy undertones and final assertion that the voter must look inward to see just how far the salesman perception has ruined the political process causes the text to end on a note that is even less hopeful than the election of Nixon in Thompson's (if that's even possible).
I love both works, if only because they provide not just a commentary on what a political journalist should and can be in the modern era of American politics, but also because they insist upon driving home the notion that politicians, voters and journalists are all human beings, fallible and susceptible to emotional responses. Sometimes we forget that.
Movie review of "That Evening Sun" and some thoughts on The Watchmen graphic novel in the coming days.
Each fashions themselves as something of an outsider, preferring the fringe identity of quasi-ethnography to straight political reporting. Wallace makes a point to insist on his resume in all-caps that he is NOT A POLITICAL JOURNALIST, and Thompson shows a proclivity for crashing political gatherings and press junkets while pooh-poohing the general press corps. Wallace's animosity toward politics seems to come from a more general cynicism, as the question of the genuine nature of contemporary politicians proves to be the major focus of his lengthy essay. Thompson, on the other hand, seems to genuinely believe in the redemptive qualities of McGovern, if only because he views Nixon as a flesh-eating monster (or, at least, that's the image Ralph Steadman is compelled to depict visually in the book as a result of Thompson's prose).
Both approach the writing process in a similar post-modern, rambling way. The back of my Thompson edition features praise from Kurt Vonnegut: "the literary equivalent of Cubism: all rules are broken." Wallace, in true Faulknerian fashion, explores the many uses available for the comma. However, when both authors become cogent, their texts become poignant looks at post-modern politics. The melancholy present throughout Wallace's text appears to be a consequence of the unraveling of politics and morality just beginning to rear its head in Thompson's work, which lacks the cynical perspective proffered by the fallout of Watergate, the American exit from Vietnam, and-well, let's just say all the Reagan years. In this way, it's easy to read Wallace as a kind of spiritual successor to Thompson. The chaos remains intact in Wallace's work, but it's gloomy undertones and final assertion that the voter must look inward to see just how far the salesman perception has ruined the political process causes the text to end on a note that is even less hopeful than the election of Nixon in Thompson's (if that's even possible).
I love both works, if only because they provide not just a commentary on what a political journalist should and can be in the modern era of American politics, but also because they insist upon driving home the notion that politicians, voters and journalists are all human beings, fallible and susceptible to emotional responses. Sometimes we forget that.
Movie review of "That Evening Sun" and some thoughts on The Watchmen graphic novel in the coming days.
What does the Arab Spring mean for the United States?
As reported by CNN, the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes project recently discovered that the recent events of the so-called "Arab Spring" have not improved the image of the United States in Muslim nations throughout the Middle East. The fact that the question was even investigated by the Pew group and reported with such a by-line by CNN suggests two important truths about the average American's conception of foreign policy.
First, we need some kind of context with which to digest new information. Often, that context is historical. When George W. Bush identified enemies of the United States in the 2002 State of the Union Address, he used the term "Axis of Evil" to unite radical terrorist factions in the Middle East and Asia with the unquestionably-evil dictatorships of the Second World War. Today, when a military effort begins to go south, the immediate go-to phrase is that the conflict is becoming "another Vietnam." By naming this the "Arab Spring," the media introduces a narrative of brief success followed by catastrophe. The rebels in Libya and Egypt are fighting against a cruel and un-American ideology. They are struggling for the formation of democratic ideals in their country. And they are doing so in spite of the pernicious influence of an autocratic government clinging to a level of sovereignty they no longer possess (if they did in the first place) through the mandate of the people. The distinguishing characteristics of the actual conflicts in the Middle East fade behind the historical context that is imposed upon them through the classification of the "Arab Spring." The thoughts, concerns, and goals of the reformers in these countries mimic those of the Czechs in the minds of historical-conscious Americans. And, because the ideological conflict in the Cold War was between Soviet authoritarianism and American democracy, the average person jumps to the conclusion that the participants in this rebel movement hold the same values as Americans. Pew's research, then, becomes surprising for the average American.
Though it shouldn't be. Vaclav Havel wrote in the 1980s that the American model of democracy would not work for an independent Czechoslovakia. The efforts of the Prague Spring were made by independent thinkers who sought the creation of their own democracy on their own terms. Though they struggled against Soviet influence on their government, this alone did not unite them with American principles and values. However, the ideological view is simpler to digest. So Americans watch the Arab Spring with confidence, pride, and the belief that even if Gaddafi is somehow able to restore his rule, the clamoring for democracy in the Middle East is a product of the example established by the United States and the modernization of Libya is an eventual inevitability.
This leads us to the second important illuminating feature of the Pew report. Americans generally view their path to democracy as the only possible one, or at least the only desirable one. And why not? Hasn't American democracy been delivered to numerous countries throughout the world (Japan, South Korea, even Iraq) with moderate to extensive levels of success? When any country in the world subsequently calls for a more democratic form of government in the face of autocratic oppression, most Americans view this as a consequence of the fine example of liberal democracy we present. The belief dates back to Winthrop's assertion of Plymouth's status as a "City on a Hill" during the colonial period, and of course Reagan's subsequent use of the metaphor in 1984. We've never quite relinquished that belief, that somehow America is the paragon of liberal democracy. The impulse to question citizens of these countries, during times of great political turmoil and uncertainty, how they feel about the United States in response to these occurrences illustrates this continued insistence upon viewing any democratic development in the world through an American lens.
The events of the so-called "Arab Spring" are undoubtedly important and essential. Autocratic governments, in any shape or form, cannot and should not exist in a global community committed to the values of democracy and equality. When we read into these events the superiority of the American model of democracy, and insist upon our own ideological involvement in what is occurring, we obscure the truth, however. President Obama and all American citizens should welcome the democratic reforms in the Middle East that will emerge from this political movement. But we should treat these developments as indications of the unquestioned strength of our own democratic system, nor should we expect democratic governments modeled after and openly friendly to ours once these reforms are inevitably put into place.
First, we need some kind of context with which to digest new information. Often, that context is historical. When George W. Bush identified enemies of the United States in the 2002 State of the Union Address, he used the term "Axis of Evil" to unite radical terrorist factions in the Middle East and Asia with the unquestionably-evil dictatorships of the Second World War. Today, when a military effort begins to go south, the immediate go-to phrase is that the conflict is becoming "another Vietnam." By naming this the "Arab Spring," the media introduces a narrative of brief success followed by catastrophe. The rebels in Libya and Egypt are fighting against a cruel and un-American ideology. They are struggling for the formation of democratic ideals in their country. And they are doing so in spite of the pernicious influence of an autocratic government clinging to a level of sovereignty they no longer possess (if they did in the first place) through the mandate of the people. The distinguishing characteristics of the actual conflicts in the Middle East fade behind the historical context that is imposed upon them through the classification of the "Arab Spring." The thoughts, concerns, and goals of the reformers in these countries mimic those of the Czechs in the minds of historical-conscious Americans. And, because the ideological conflict in the Cold War was between Soviet authoritarianism and American democracy, the average person jumps to the conclusion that the participants in this rebel movement hold the same values as Americans. Pew's research, then, becomes surprising for the average American.
Though it shouldn't be. Vaclav Havel wrote in the 1980s that the American model of democracy would not work for an independent Czechoslovakia. The efforts of the Prague Spring were made by independent thinkers who sought the creation of their own democracy on their own terms. Though they struggled against Soviet influence on their government, this alone did not unite them with American principles and values. However, the ideological view is simpler to digest. So Americans watch the Arab Spring with confidence, pride, and the belief that even if Gaddafi is somehow able to restore his rule, the clamoring for democracy in the Middle East is a product of the example established by the United States and the modernization of Libya is an eventual inevitability.
This leads us to the second important illuminating feature of the Pew report. Americans generally view their path to democracy as the only possible one, or at least the only desirable one. And why not? Hasn't American democracy been delivered to numerous countries throughout the world (Japan, South Korea, even Iraq) with moderate to extensive levels of success? When any country in the world subsequently calls for a more democratic form of government in the face of autocratic oppression, most Americans view this as a consequence of the fine example of liberal democracy we present. The belief dates back to Winthrop's assertion of Plymouth's status as a "City on a Hill" during the colonial period, and of course Reagan's subsequent use of the metaphor in 1984. We've never quite relinquished that belief, that somehow America is the paragon of liberal democracy. The impulse to question citizens of these countries, during times of great political turmoil and uncertainty, how they feel about the United States in response to these occurrences illustrates this continued insistence upon viewing any democratic development in the world through an American lens.
The events of the so-called "Arab Spring" are undoubtedly important and essential. Autocratic governments, in any shape or form, cannot and should not exist in a global community committed to the values of democracy and equality. When we read into these events the superiority of the American model of democracy, and insist upon our own ideological involvement in what is occurring, we obscure the truth, however. President Obama and all American citizens should welcome the democratic reforms in the Middle East that will emerge from this political movement. But we should treat these developments as indications of the unquestioned strength of our own democratic system, nor should we expect democratic governments modeled after and openly friendly to ours once these reforms are inevitably put into place.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
The Once and Future Tiger
I'll admit it. I was, and continue to be, a Tiger Woods fan. I believe human beings are fallible, and if they honestly request an apology and display remorse for their actions, we as fellow human beings should be able to forgive and move on. Woods shot a 42 on the front 9 at TPC Sawgrass in The Player's Championship this morning before withdrawing with a knee injury. This marks the second time in as many years Woods has removed himself from competition at The Players, and one glance at the messageboards of ESPN.com displays the glaring question facing not just fans of the sport, but all Americans who used to recognize Woods as a sports-world god: Is he done?
Woods hasn't won a tournament in two years. The only major he's been competitive at since his dramatic win at the U.S. Open in a playoff in 2008 has been The Masters both this and last year. Even at Augusta, which was Tiger's course for a decade ('97-'07), Tiger has looked extremely uncomfortable and only managed to remain in contention by putting up a few great holes over 72. There's no consistency anymore. When before you could expect 5-6 holes back-to-back that would put the tournament out of contention for the field, you have a Herculean chip-in followed by a shot that would make Happy Gilmore's Shooter McGavin-inspired meltdown to shame.
Because of the personal problems Woods has been facing, many have suggested that Tiger's current injury woes are evidence of PED use in the past. Those skeptics simply haven't watched the torque that Tiger's body produces. If I tried a tee shot like Tiger's, I'm pretty certain I'd need more than a couple of golf clubs to use as crutches to get off the tee box, as the iconic video from that '08 Open win displays so vividly. What this sentiment, and the backlash against Tiger illustrate, is that America needs symbols from both end of the spectrum. We need champions who can do no wrong, and we need villains whose evil reminds us of our own virtue. As Americans, we refuse to have these two symbols merged into one entity. We resist, we label, and we shape narratives to conform to our own understanding of our reality.
I want to remember Tiger from that '08 Open win. I want to remember the crowd blowing the doors off Augusta National when a long putt sinks. I want to forget what's happened outside the ropes and just enjoy watching the greatest golfer who ever lived. That man, it seems, may be gone. I just hope those memories won't fade as we try to come to terms with the man Tiger Woods was and is. Those images are a lot more fun to remember.
Woods hasn't won a tournament in two years. The only major he's been competitive at since his dramatic win at the U.S. Open in a playoff in 2008 has been The Masters both this and last year. Even at Augusta, which was Tiger's course for a decade ('97-'07), Tiger has looked extremely uncomfortable and only managed to remain in contention by putting up a few great holes over 72. There's no consistency anymore. When before you could expect 5-6 holes back-to-back that would put the tournament out of contention for the field, you have a Herculean chip-in followed by a shot that would make Happy Gilmore's Shooter McGavin-inspired meltdown to shame.
Because of the personal problems Woods has been facing, many have suggested that Tiger's current injury woes are evidence of PED use in the past. Those skeptics simply haven't watched the torque that Tiger's body produces. If I tried a tee shot like Tiger's, I'm pretty certain I'd need more than a couple of golf clubs to use as crutches to get off the tee box, as the iconic video from that '08 Open win displays so vividly. What this sentiment, and the backlash against Tiger illustrate, is that America needs symbols from both end of the spectrum. We need champions who can do no wrong, and we need villains whose evil reminds us of our own virtue. As Americans, we refuse to have these two symbols merged into one entity. We resist, we label, and we shape narratives to conform to our own understanding of our reality.
I want to remember Tiger from that '08 Open win. I want to remember the crowd blowing the doors off Augusta National when a long putt sinks. I want to forget what's happened outside the ropes and just enjoy watching the greatest golfer who ever lived. That man, it seems, may be gone. I just hope those memories won't fade as we try to come to terms with the man Tiger Woods was and is. Those images are a lot more fun to remember.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Raging Video Game Nerd-Thoughts on the Gears of War 3 Beta
At about this time last week, I was knee deep in a seven killstreak on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and clearing out Radscorpions in the Mojave Desert in Fallout: New Vegas. I had no interest, nor desire, to shell out five bucks at Gamestop to play the Gears of War 3 beta. Competitive multiplayer in previous Gears games had always been an exercise in frustrating futility for me. I took a Lancer chainsaw to the gut one too many times in the previous iterations, and as a result I have an oily-residue taste in my mouth for the game. So, when a friend tossed a beta code my way on Monday morning, I downloaded the trial version with a healthy dose of skepticism. My fears were realized immediately upon joining a game of Team Deathmatch. Sprinting for the ink grenades on Thrashball, I was stopped dead in my tracks by a Retro Lancer bayonet sticking me from behind. The gore was beautiful...the language that spilled out of my mouth as I threw my controller across the room in frustration was not.
Yet, as I continued playing, a funny thing happened. I started enjoying myself. And...I got good. I don't mean MLG good (I'm pretty sure a couple twelve year-olds had a headshot Gnasher field day with me on Thursday afternoon), but at least better than your average Grandma. As a result, this skeptic was turned into a believer. I'm definitely looking forward to the fall release date with just as much anticipation as that swelling for Modern Warfare 3 and Batman: Arkham City.
It's not all Milky Way fun-sizes and rainbows, however. There are still some major issues I found with the game. Hopefully Epic employees decide to troll moderately-successful (okay, disappointingly-obscure) blogs for some criticism on their product. If Gears of War 3 competitive multiplayer is going to hold my attention, I demand the following three tweaks:
1. Nerf the Gnasher! There's no reason I should be downed from fifteen feet away with a shotgun that has half the range (on the statistics page) of the Lancer. The addition of the Sawed-Off shotgun, with maximum damage but limited range and increased to levels of absurdity reload time, makes close quarters combat a more interesting affair with two styles of play dependent upon the kind of shotgun. When you make the Gnasher as effective as the Sawed-Off within five feet, however, you negate the subtle nuances you're trying to introduce to the standard roll and fire gameplay. Nerf the Gnasher slightly (you can keep the stupid amount of headshot detection the gun seems to possess!) and you'll make CQC way more entertaining and cerebral.
2. Fix the spawns in Capture the Leader! Thrashball, Trenches, and Checkout all have inexcusable spawn shifts once the leader has been taken as a meatshield. There's no reason five members of the opposing team should spawn directly behind the guy that just made the capture. Even if you have to add additional spawn points at certain areas around the map, in the open, specifically for the CTL game mode, it will be better than having the timer click down to 4-5 seconds and seeing Marcus and the calvary magically appear in the perfect position to stick a Lancer bayonet in your backside.
3. Make the Hammer of Dawn an overtime-only weapon! I mean, seriously, on Trenches the team that can take the Hammer gets a match win probably 85-90% of the time. The first thirty seconds of every match I played on the map from Friday on consisted of every member of the opposing teams sprinting to the middle, wildly blasting their shotguns, and a big pile of human and Locust debris lying everywhere. Normally, really awesome. But once that Hammer was acquired, the rest of the match turned into, DUCK AND COVER! I counted the number of wood splinters on the scaffolding near the spawn on Trenches. 1,273. Count them. They're there. Simply change the spawn time for the Hammer to the end of the round, when there is a clear stalemate going on. That will cause the same amount of chaos, but at the end of the match and keep people from bunkering down in the late stages of a CTL match.
There you have it. My statistical, scientific analysis of a game that encourages you to curb stomp your enemy. I always knew I was destined for greatness. If these changes were to occur, competitive multiplayer could be the cream cheese icing on the delicious cake of gaming awesomeness that Gears of War 3 should be. I've got my fork and dessert bib ready.
Yet, as I continued playing, a funny thing happened. I started enjoying myself. And...I got good. I don't mean MLG good (I'm pretty sure a couple twelve year-olds had a headshot Gnasher field day with me on Thursday afternoon), but at least better than your average Grandma. As a result, this skeptic was turned into a believer. I'm definitely looking forward to the fall release date with just as much anticipation as that swelling for Modern Warfare 3 and Batman: Arkham City.
It's not all Milky Way fun-sizes and rainbows, however. There are still some major issues I found with the game. Hopefully Epic employees decide to troll moderately-successful (okay, disappointingly-obscure) blogs for some criticism on their product. If Gears of War 3 competitive multiplayer is going to hold my attention, I demand the following three tweaks:
1. Nerf the Gnasher! There's no reason I should be downed from fifteen feet away with a shotgun that has half the range (on the statistics page) of the Lancer. The addition of the Sawed-Off shotgun, with maximum damage but limited range and increased to levels of absurdity reload time, makes close quarters combat a more interesting affair with two styles of play dependent upon the kind of shotgun. When you make the Gnasher as effective as the Sawed-Off within five feet, however, you negate the subtle nuances you're trying to introduce to the standard roll and fire gameplay. Nerf the Gnasher slightly (you can keep the stupid amount of headshot detection the gun seems to possess!) and you'll make CQC way more entertaining and cerebral.
2. Fix the spawns in Capture the Leader! Thrashball, Trenches, and Checkout all have inexcusable spawn shifts once the leader has been taken as a meatshield. There's no reason five members of the opposing team should spawn directly behind the guy that just made the capture. Even if you have to add additional spawn points at certain areas around the map, in the open, specifically for the CTL game mode, it will be better than having the timer click down to 4-5 seconds and seeing Marcus and the calvary magically appear in the perfect position to stick a Lancer bayonet in your backside.
3. Make the Hammer of Dawn an overtime-only weapon! I mean, seriously, on Trenches the team that can take the Hammer gets a match win probably 85-90% of the time. The first thirty seconds of every match I played on the map from Friday on consisted of every member of the opposing teams sprinting to the middle, wildly blasting their shotguns, and a big pile of human and Locust debris lying everywhere. Normally, really awesome. But once that Hammer was acquired, the rest of the match turned into, DUCK AND COVER! I counted the number of wood splinters on the scaffolding near the spawn on Trenches. 1,273. Count them. They're there. Simply change the spawn time for the Hammer to the end of the round, when there is a clear stalemate going on. That will cause the same amount of chaos, but at the end of the match and keep people from bunkering down in the late stages of a CTL match.
There you have it. My statistical, scientific analysis of a game that encourages you to curb stomp your enemy. I always knew I was destined for greatness. If these changes were to occur, competitive multiplayer could be the cream cheese icing on the delicious cake of gaming awesomeness that Gears of War 3 should be. I've got my fork and dessert bib ready.
Friday, May 13, 2011
A Sticky Floors and Salty Popcorn Movie Review-The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
This is a Western? It seemed to me to be two and a half hours of Casey Affleck and Brad Pitt staring at each other. I thought I'd picked the film out of the wrong section of the DVD store. I really wanted to like this film, and to be completely honest, there are a ton of great performances here. Jeremy Renner, Sam Rockwell, and Sam Shepard all shine in supporting roles, but with the possible exception of Rockwell none of them are given enough time to fully develop their characters. Zooey Deschanel seems like a cruel, sexy afterthought thrown into the film for the heterosexual male audience who likely are a little uneasy two hours into the film by the thick sexual tension between Ford and James. I mean, I'm not a Freudian or anything, but the scene with James in the bathtub? More than a little suggestive that something more than hero worship is going on in Ford's head.
Affleck and Pitt are superb, but only when they aren't simply gazing into each other's eyes...which has to be roughly 50% of the film. I mean, Affleck stared into the camera so intently I thought he wanted to kill me by the end of it. The first two hours of the film, consequently, stand as a sickeningly melodramatic foreplay for the aesthetic and intellectual feast that occurs in the film's final 30 minutes. The most interesting part of the movie occurs once James is dead. The psychological toll the assassination has on the Ford brothers is infinitely more interesting than James' descent into madness.
I was also a bit off-put by the past-tense third-person narration present in the film. The only reason I can figure the director decided on this approach was to constantly remind his audience that this re-telling of the story must be digested by an audience removed from the Romanticism of James that was present following his assassination. At the same time, however, Dominik goes out of the way to establish this presentation of James. In the scene where James reveals he has killed Ed Miller to Charley Ford, James insists that Ford should "pity him" as well. By the end of the film, it's difficult not to. The cold, passionate voice of the narrator simply seems out of place. Though I loved the decision of how to shoot the final moments of the film. If it had ended any other way, I would have been more upset than I am.
As it stands, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is not the sum of its spectacular parts. The film drags as an art-house investigation of a time period that simply isn't conducive to that kind of treatment. One gets the feeling that the story being told on screen isn't the truth, but simply another one of Ford's stage shows with overly temperamental characters. Crying doesn't make a Western edgy and realistic, as Dominik seems to want it to do. It simply suggests another kind of Romance that is not heroic. I don't prefer that approach to the gritty realism of, say, an Unforgiven. If you're a Pitt or Affleck fan, however, you can do worse than a viewing.
Verdict: 3/5 stars
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Osama Photos-Doomsday Clock Still Alive and TICKIN'
Last week, when President Obama publicly stated the pictures of a deceased Osama bin Laden would not be released to the public, the response from several newsmakers was predictable. In her always infinite wisdom, Sarah Palin tweeted, "Show photo as warning to others seeking America's destruction. No pussy-footing around, no politicking, no drama;it's part of the mission." Leaving aside the interesting use of a semi-colon in a tweet (hey, I wore a black tie to McDonald's once, too!), Ms. Palin's statement crystallizes the more-than-fascinating social response America had to the news of Osama's death. College students, in particular, took to the streets celebrating death. Now, this isn't going to be a Rashard Mendenhall-inspired rant.
Mental side-note: Speaking of Twitter etiquette, is there any way these professional athletes could hire a Twitter consultant? You know, someone who sits there, at a laptop or with a smartphone near one of these celebrities 24 hours a day, and could translate good ideas into 140 characters that actually make sense, or beat the person upside the head with a 2x4 when they decide to post about "one side of the issue" when talking about a man who killed thousands of innocent civilians? I'm available. And if I get to cherry pick on the catering spreads, I'll work for pennies on the dollar.
The point I'm trying to make is one that has been made before, but was emphasized by the euphoria inspired by the apparent convergence of justice and violence. Let's not forget the unease created by Palin's response to her daughter's pregnancy just a few years ago. Apparently, in her memoirs (at the same level of urgency on my "to read" list as the owner's manual for my car), Palin recounts "gagging on her toothbrush" when she heard news of her daughter's pregnancy on national television affiliates. Yet, the idea of violent photos being released to the public is "part of the mission." If fear-mongering and the destruction of innocence is part of the United States' "mission," I think I'd like to be debriefed and get the hell out, thank you very much.
Family members and those personally affected by September 11th should feel a sense of relief in the days that have followed Osama's death. But that sense of closure should come with the unease that America's thirst for violence, seen in its willingness to celebrate death, is at perverse odds with its sense of moral decency in issues of sex, language, and general decorum. I want to believe that sitting on my butt playing Gears of War 3 late into the night doesn't make me a more violent person. But I can't say that about everyone, and I certainly couldn't say it Sunday night when I saw hundreds of my peers waving flags and singing songs inspired ostensibly by a sense of togetherness, but one that required death and destruction to do so.
Mental side-note: Speaking of Twitter etiquette, is there any way these professional athletes could hire a Twitter consultant? You know, someone who sits there, at a laptop or with a smartphone near one of these celebrities 24 hours a day, and could translate good ideas into 140 characters that actually make sense, or beat the person upside the head with a 2x4 when they decide to post about "one side of the issue" when talking about a man who killed thousands of innocent civilians? I'm available. And if I get to cherry pick on the catering spreads, I'll work for pennies on the dollar.
The point I'm trying to make is one that has been made before, but was emphasized by the euphoria inspired by the apparent convergence of justice and violence. Let's not forget the unease created by Palin's response to her daughter's pregnancy just a few years ago. Apparently, in her memoirs (at the same level of urgency on my "to read" list as the owner's manual for my car), Palin recounts "gagging on her toothbrush" when she heard news of her daughter's pregnancy on national television affiliates. Yet, the idea of violent photos being released to the public is "part of the mission." If fear-mongering and the destruction of innocence is part of the United States' "mission," I think I'd like to be debriefed and get the hell out, thank you very much.
Family members and those personally affected by September 11th should feel a sense of relief in the days that have followed Osama's death. But that sense of closure should come with the unease that America's thirst for violence, seen in its willingness to celebrate death, is at perverse odds with its sense of moral decency in issues of sex, language, and general decorum. I want to believe that sitting on my butt playing Gears of War 3 late into the night doesn't make me a more violent person. But I can't say that about everyone, and I certainly couldn't say it Sunday night when I saw hundreds of my peers waving flags and singing songs inspired ostensibly by a sense of togetherness, but one that required death and destruction to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)