Drive In '77

Beats, Rhymes & Life: The Travels of A Tribe Called Quest

Holy smokes!  Michael Rappaport got skillz!  This is easily my favorite documentary about hip hop ever and Top 10 for music in general.  For me, that is a statement.  I love music docs.  Music docs are an obsession and I 've watched even mediocre ones a dozen times, but Beats, Rhymes & Life makes me want to go buy the Blu Ray, hook up the stereo, and crank the dial.  It is a mix of old school hip hop history, the persistence of artistic vision, and the story of a group so influential they've become almost impossible to quantify.

Directed by the aforementioned Michael Rappaport, an actor and notorious hip hop aficionado known for his roles in flicks like Higher Learning and his time on Boston Public, this film tells the story of A Tribe Called Quest.  If you neither know nor own any of their music, chances are you will by the end of this movie.  As a drummer, it was these "Native Tongue" and early hip hop groups like Run DMC that I always gravitated towards when I was searching for grooves to lay under rock and roll.  Tribe might have been the best.  Their loops were always tight and bottom heavy but without all the over tweaked low end you get on modern rap albums.  They carried with them a soul that changed the game and transcended the genre.  They were jazz, they were R&B, they were street, they were poetry and it's about time their story was on film.

For a first dip into the feature film pool, Rappaport displays a keen knowledge of how to capture life and infuse it with history, a skill required for good documentary filmmaking.  He lets the players talk (and they do!) and tell their story all while following them through a new resurgence of performance.  They're a group that has over two decades of history, and no stone is left unturned.  The beauty of the way the collection of images, old and new footage and interviews is assembled is the power of Tribes music.  Throughout, you cannot help but bob your head and feel the flow of their tracks whether it lays underneath the scene or is cranked up in the mix.  Everything is tied together with a perfect bow as if it was that dream Christmas gift you didn't even know you'd asked for.

I don't know what else to say without sounding like some schill blowing endless smoke up this film's arse.  You have to see it.  You must do yourself the favor of seeing it.  If you grew up in the 80s it is required viewing.  A fantastic doc from beginning to end.

Grade: A+

A Farewell to Wizards of Waverly Place

Some of you are no doubt curious why a thirtysomething year old male is writing a piece on the series finale of a Disney Channel show.  Well, simply put, Wizards of Waverly Place is one of the most enjoyable TV shows I've watched in the last decade.  

I'm not saying its the smartest or the most original, rather I enjoyed it immensely.  It has all the elements that have drawn me to Disney shows since the Even Stevens days, mainly a lack of pretense.  These are family shows, harkening back to a bygone era of sitcom and their simplicity and production value remind of a different time before the angry, loud reality programs that shout at me every night.  It might not be the coolest thing about me, but I'm past the point of caring.  For me, WOWP represents 100 plus episodes of quality TV and if we're going wizard for wizard, I liked it more than the Harry Potter series.

After 4 seasons, the show came to a close last Friday night with a spot on finale that wrapped everything with a nice bow and gave fans what they wanted.  I applaud the efforts of cast and crew for all their hard work.

The show was brilliantly constructed from the beginning.  There was a clear departure point (not unlike How I Met Your Mother, but a little easier to get in and out of) of this "Family Wizard Competition.  The premise being each wizard family can have only one actual wizard with powers.  All others remain human and powerless.  The three Russo children spent the series learning magic and growing up with wizard powers knowing that some day, they'd have to battle it out to see who gets to keep them.  Interesting side note, David Henrie appears in both Wizards and in Mother as the son being told the story.  Is Henrie the key to a good finale arc?

As a viewer, you knew it was coming, but there were no set rules for it, so the producers could dangle it always out of reach until the day they needed to execute.  Fans knew it was to be the finale, so there is no room for disappointment.  It was a finale based on satisfying the story from the start, unlike a lot of sitcoms that go through awkward finales.  There was no suddenly two characters are getting married, or weak "someone's moving away" type ending.  It was always about the competition, so we expected nothing more, nothing less.  It was a clear arc that always promised resolution instead of hiding behind "what-ifs" and unnecessary blind sides.

And I know I'm not alone.  Wizards became the longest running Disney Channel Original Program with 106 episodes and a made for TV movie.  It was so popular, it clocked in nearly 10 million viewers for the finale!  They averaged in the high 3's all season, so that is a huge bump of live viewers, making it the current #1 scripted cable show for the season.  In fact, Wizards outpaced the Hannah Montana finale by well over 3 million viewers and we all know how big that girl got in the tween zeitgest.  All of this goes to support my long standing theory: to succeed in TV, you need either a Carradine or a DeLuise!  David DeLuise, wizard family father... boom.  Ratings gold.

Now, addressing the actual finale, it was excellent, but if you factor in the 4 or 5 episodes running up to it, it was superb.  They managed to return popular characters and tie up story lines that have been building for years in the "final 6" which only added to the satisfactory conclusion.  The final hour long episode was all about the wizard competition, a contest both veiled and disclosed to its competitors.  It portrayed the power of family without getting preachy and left us with a fan satisfying double wizard exception.  Was it a cop out to have Alex and Justin receive wizard powers?  Not in the context of Disney family sitcoms.  It is what viewers would want as both characters have endeared themselves through the years.  And it was logical.  It's not like they said "well you both did so well so..."  It made sense, for the characters and the world they inhabit.

If you don't like this type of programming, I don't expect you to run out and start watching Wizards and fall in love.  You need to be predisposed to this type of sitcom, but the weird thing is, I think I'm more into them now than I would've been 15 or 20 years ago.  I appreciate their charm and can enjoy them without the need to over analyze their every move.  Wizards of Waverly Place is my favorite so far.  

Thankfully the show is very rewatchable and I know I'll continue to enjoy favorite episodes for years to come.  From the pilot "Crazy 10-Minute Sale" directed by Fred Savage, to their crossovers and multi episode stories about vampires, there are memorable moments abound.  My favorite might be their ode to silent movies but I love the Mr. Laritate scenes and Harper's crazy outfits as well.

So, that's it.  Me talking about a kids show for 900 words.  I can't help it, I loved Wizards and I thank them for making me smile.  

The Greatest Movie Ever Sold

 Morgan Spurlock returns to feature length documentary with an examination of the not so veiled world of product placement in movies.  Spurlock loves to be the guinea pig in his movies, so along the lines of his hit Super Size Me, where he tried to kill himself with McDonald's for a month, this time out he decides to turn his film into a giant billboard of product placement, selling time in the film, wearing a NASCAR inspired suit covered in patches, and even awarding a primary sponsorship which makes the full title of the movie Pom Wonderful Presents The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.

Throughout the movie he meets with potential sponsors and advertising pros to pitch his idea to fund his doc entirely through product placement.  Spurlock cites big time blockbusters, particularly Iron Man, as the framework for his journey, looking at fast food, clothing, cars etc. to explore and exploit for money.

The problem with his thesis is he's not making a blockbuster.  There's no A-List celebrity attached, there is no giant billboard planned on the Gower St. walls of Paramount.  He's not making that kind of film so he cannot attract the kind of people involved in that level of product placement in order to get the scoop on how it works.  Pom Wonderful is great and all, but it's no Coca Cola.  So, while it's intriguing to see the types of products Spurlock can attract to this project, it is in no way indicative of the business of studios and product placement.

It's not a bad film, it's actually quite good, but it is far from an honest one.  It's arc is flimsy, even for a documentary, and there's that little issue of you will not get a real look inside the very odd business of theatrical product placement.  I wanted to know more, I wanted details on the process and to see, like his example of Iron Man, how a big budget movie squeezes financing from corporations.  I didn't get it.  A terse overview of product placement is scattered over the first third, after that it is basically an uncomfortable mix of advertising and a behind the scenes on the making of this movie, which actually kind of never really becomes a movie. 

That's what it is!!  This is a weird EPK for Morgan Spurlock's new film, not the film itself!!  When's the movie coming out?  Oh....

Okay, that's hyperbole, but aside from some entertainment value, there's minimal substance to this doc, and for me, that's not good enough.  It's a neat idea, but as a movie, no.  A big expose in Vanity Fair, sure.  Some webisodes, maybe.  Not a major motion picture.  I will still look forward to what Spurlock does down the line despite my disappointment in The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, but I cannot recommend this to anyone outside of die hard documentary fans.

Grade: C

Straw Dogs (2011)

In a word: ugh.  

Straw Dogs is a remake of the 1971 Sam Peckinpah film of the same name starring Dustin Hoffman Susan George.  It was itself based on a novel, but this rabbit hole is getting too deep already!  Basically, Peckinpah faithful consider this one of his best efforts, a tricky mix of violence and psychological thriller set in a sleepy (fictional) Cornwall town.  The remake is a tricky mix of violence and scenery chewing.

This time around Hoffman's David Sumner is played by James "Cyclops" Marsden which makes me miss his turn in The Box.  His wife Amy is Kate Bosworth and this time around the two are a Hollywood A or B list couple (screenwriter and actress.)  Joining them are that big tall Nordic Vampire from True Blood and James Wood in one of his most uninspired performances ever.

This film lost me about 5 minutes in with the heavy handed characterization of the locals as backwoods Southern idiots.  I'm not even from the South and I was offended by the lazy and over the top stereotypes smeared onto the screen.  Then you had the "Hollywood" couple and their white pants and "fancy ways" and the vitriol that was directed at them just for showing up to the town was ridiculous and presented without motivation.  The line that killed the whole thing was in an early scene  where a waitress tells David she can't accept his credit card because they only take cash and she punctuates it with (paraphrased) "you know cash, that stuff us poor people use."  It came from nowhere with no prior setup and was completely misplaced dialog.  The writer should be lashed for such clunky a clunky exchange.  I've heard better lines on "Real Housewives."

After that, Straw Dogs and I were at opposite ends.  I wasn't a big fan of the original either, but everything from the blocking to the script to the score were grating on me this time around. 

David's character is probably the biggest flaw.  Hoffman's portrayal 40 years ago was a man flirting with madness and pulling himself away from his wife through his intellectual pursuits.  There was a decent and a logical connection of dots to get from reel 1 to the end credits.  Marsden plays a bit of a twat and replaces the educational obsession with a few scenes of him working at a desk.  This does nothing to set up the infamous rape sequence that punctuated the original.  That time around you could believe Amy's choice to both give in and silently reject what was happening to her, but this time it just felt hollow.  There was no gravity to David so there is very little gravity to the pulse of the movie.  Basically, I could care less about anyone.

I also could not believe David was a screenwriter.  First of all, you wouldn't write your scene list on a big chalk board labeling each one "Sc 1" or "Sc 12" etc.  He knows its a fucking scene, he doesn't need the chalk equivilent of a file extension.  And do I need to say it, "chalk?"  Also, a Harvard sweatshirt?  What screenwriter came from Harvard?

Honestly, I watched the last hour of the movie in fast forward and even at a new image for every minute or so of film, I understood the whole story and it sucked.  Motivation was kicked aside in favor of getting the Nordic vampire to strip whenever possible and then there's a random killing and some fire bombs and a bear trap and we're done.  Which, is pretty much how the first film went too, so I guess I can't dock it too many points!

The original never really stuck with me either, but it was much better at the atmospheric tones and slow pitch storytelling.  I think people shy from remakes because of half ass jobs like this one.  Does it simplify the story?  Yes, which can be a good thing, but in the end it was cast improperly and the technical achievements were limited.  Unless you need to satisfy a raging curiosity, I'd avoid it.

Grade: D

Torchwood: Miracle Day

I'm basically writing this post for my friend Jess, who I know is curious about what I thought of this show but I didn't want to rant on her Facebook wall for 1200 words, so here we are on the blog.  The short answer is I am very "meh" about it.  So if you have better things to do, you can stop here.  Otherwise, read on suckers!

Historically, I like the Torchwood world and Barrowman owns the role of Jack Harkness so completely, but honestly, after Children of Earth (aka S3), I lost most of my emotional connection to the show.  For me, the first two seasons were Torchwood and now, they're just kind of treading water.  I find Gwen a little inconsistent in her actions and have never thought of her as one of my favorites, so with only two team members left, I only like half of Torchwood anyway.  They did add members this time, but it took me 5 or 6 episodes to get into what Mekhi Phifer was doing, and he's not exactly written as "likable."  And Esther?  I'll save her for my gripes.  Which shall begin now...

My first gripe with Miracle Day is at 10 episodes, it is too long.  I wasn't a huge fan of Children of Earth either, but its four episodes certainly did amp up the urgency of every moment.  Miracle Day could've used some of that urgency and a lot more focus.  A lot more focus.  The whole flashback episode was a waste of time especially when there was no pay off to the relationship other than "this is how they got Jack's blood."  Could've been a 10 minute flashback, not a whole episode. The story could've been leaner and brought in at 6 or 7 episodes and I would've liked MD a lot more.   The same could be said for the cast.  Which brings me to...

Gripe #2 is the excess of characters, or rather the misuse of characters.  I love Bill Pullman, but his death row inmate pedophile turned Miracle Day poster boy arc did absolutely nothing for the story.  Come the finale, he was what, a giant bomb?  Anybody could've been the giant bomb (strap Gwen to some plastique), so why build up Oswald and give him all that screen time so he could be some mcguffin while Jack and Gwen discover and debate "the blessing?" (gripe on that coming shortly)  I honestly thought that since Oswald's was the first non death we saw, that he'd hold the key to the mystery, but instead, he was a glorified suicide bomber.  Pullman did a great job with the character, but the writer's didn't use him properly.

Enter Esther, the CIA analyst that goes from resourceful investigator down in the Indiana Jones "hide the ark of the covenant" sized file room to a complete wreck to a tactical moron back to smart analyst then to an "in the way" damsel in distress and then somehow earns the respect of her team by the time she gets shot.  I cannot think of a character so hot and cold in recent television history.  I mean, she works at the CIA as an analyst but can't figure out to call someone else, anyone else when Dr. Juarez won't answer her phone due to a "being burned alive" situation?  (Juarez was a great character by the way because she served a purpose and then got the hell out of the story!)  But Esther was there the whole time doing nothing except blindly following Rex around and blowing her cover to "Soul Man" C. Thomas Howell so she could visit her crazy sister who was another entire waste of screen time.  Her dialog was a wreck, the performance was a wreck, there was no concrete motivation to anything Esther did, she was a complete waste of time.  If you're gonna write in a girl to be Gwen when Gwen isn't there, at least treat her with the same respect in the writer's room.   She's actually probably the first character in Torchwood history that I didn't care *spoiler alert* died.  And I'm going back to Indira Varma as Suzie in the pilot for that one!!  I was seriously bummed she went out so soon because her character had more development in 40 minutes that Esther did in a full season!!  My apologies to Alexa Havins, but you know, that soap opera training didn't help you turn Esther into anything worth while.  

The third character I hated, although loved, was Lauren Ambrose as Jilly.  Loved her because, like a member of "the family" pointed out, she was a hugely over the top cartoon like character in her appearance and a red head to boot, but hated her because again, a really hot and cold character that in the end had very little to do with the outcome of the story.  It seemed, especially with her little coda in the finale, that Miracle Day for Jilly was just a way to set her up for future seasons.  It felt like they gave Jilly dialog they needed to cram in to highlight their themes and not dialog that Jilly needed to be a part of the story.

My third and final big gripe for Miracle Day was the finale.  Russell T. Davies is given a lot of credit for his work, and while my overall impression of him is positive, I've always felt he resolves his conflicts too quickly for the amount of set up he gives them.  (A trait that Stephen Moffat has gladly attempted to double in the 11th Doctor era!!  Don't blink, the show's over!)  He is a man with a delightful first act, a stretched out second, and then a third that hangs around just long enough to get the point across.  It's his style, no biggie, especially when you consider the amount of quality character development he usually fits in to that second act.  But in Miracle Day, all of a sudden Davies takes the elongated "villain explaining his diabolical scheme to James Bond scenario" and pulls it thinner than taffy on the boardwalk.  When that dude shot Esther I was like "finally!"  The Family has been letting Jack and Gwen and Rex blabber on for like 15 minutes, just throw some fucking blood into the blessing already!!  

I mean, if they were confidant that Jack's blood was only in one spot and that it wouldn't matter if they killed him and his blood got in the China end, then just kill him.  Then you could've had Rex handle his big "a-ha" moment in Buenos Aires with a big fuck you, I've got his blood dumbass and he could've sacrificed himself to save everyone, save the world.  Instead, it was a snail's pace of dialog and an open radio channel the Family gave Torchwood to figure out how to defeat them?  Yawn.

I also hated that Jack and Gwen didn't really know how to solve the problem until they were standing there, which really helped the stretched feeling of the resolution that annoyed me so.  This is where Oswald could've lent some knowledge to the team (he did meet the Family after all) so they would know what to do before descending in the elevator.  Remember how the A-Team loved it when a plan came together?  Torchwood apparently loves it when a plan materializes out of thin air on the brink of destruction and although it shouldn't work, somehow always does!  Not me, I would've loved to see a confidant Jack and Gwen going in to, excuse the pun, spill some blood!  I take it back, don't excuse that pun, I liked it;)  I wanted ass kicking, not "hey, we figured it out!"  Torchwood was like the kid who got a participation ribbon, not the one holding the 1st place trophy.

Don't get me wrong, all gripes aside there were plenty of enjoyable moments in Miracle Day.  Although, I do wonder about Barrowman's contract because he sure got laid a lot in this season!!  Perks of the job I guess.  Gwen had a couple great lines about being Welsh and there were some clever plot devices and nods to hard core Torchwood fans, so yes, it was overall a fun time.  However, it could've been great.  It could've been tightened up and trimmed turned into a lean, mean fighting machine but instead, it was just a little flabby around the waist and wasn't hitting its best lap times.  And that is what is so frustrating about Miracle Day.  It was too Americanized, too slavish to the idea of 10 episodes, too weighed down with the kind of excess story lines and character arcs (or non arcs in this instance) you'd see in a 24 episode drama season to be a great Torchwood tale.  It's almost like it was stuck between a lean mini series and a big full season where you can wander and play on your way to the finale.  They wandered a little, they rushed a little, but they never hit their stride with Miracle Day.  If you love Torchwood, watch it, if you don't, go on a picnic or something.

Final Grade: C.  "I'll let you pass this class, but you need to work harder."

Hockey Hump Day: Dropping the Puck

Opening face-offs for the 2011-12 are tomorrow!!!!  I am so ready for another hockey season to begin.  Some years I'm a slow starter, waiting till maybe December before I really get into it, but this year I've spent all summer doing more research on prospects and roster moves than I have in a decade probably.  I have also started up my own fantasy hockey league!  Instead of playing with strangers, I set up my own on Yahoo! and invited a ton of people.  I ended up with 8 teams, which is good.  Would've liked 12, but people are lazy/busy.  I'm going to get a little trophy for the champ and hopefully make this a regular thing.  And I must admit, I got a really good team!  Let's just say my defense right now is Dan Boyle, P.K. Subban, Shea Weber, and Chris Pronger.  Boom.

So, has anyone heard what's going down with the New York Islanders goalie situation yet?  I was scouring their site and the Yahoo! NYI page earlier, but I can't find any announcements on which two keepers they are starting the season with.  The rundown is former University of Michigan standout Al Montoya who performed very well for the Islanders last season, reluctant waiver victim Evgeni Nabokov, and super contract holder porcelain doll Rick DiPietro.  All three deserve to be in the league and with Nabby finally in camp, the Isles need to make some decisions.  So what are they?  It looks like they might roll all three!  That's not really great for any of them, but considering how fragile DiPietro has been (a real shame because he is a super talented goaltender) they seem to be covering their bases.  But they'll have to move Nabby before the trade deadline or lose him to UFA, which means they need to play him to entice teams and remind them of his skill level.  If I had to bet, Montoya will get the short end of the stick early on.  Any way you slice it, Newsday had this great quote from DiPietro, "I've been here with four on the roster," he said. "Nothing changes my approach, unless I'm rehabbing an injury. There's only two things you can control: How well you prepare and how cool your equipment looks."  And Rick does always seem to have some cool looking gear!

Keeping it in New York, I just read that Sean Avery has cleared waivers for the Rangers.  No doubt he will be loaned out to a European club or sent down to the Connecticut Whale in the AHL.  Either way, they move his salary off their cap which could see the Rangers more active come the trade deadline as they pump up the roster around Brad Richards for a playoff run.  I would think Rangers fans would be happy about losing Avery, who has always been more of a circus act than a quality hockey player.  Sure he had some productive season, but his antics overtook his work ethic and his attitude has become a burden on the league.  Hence, no takers on the waiver wire for Sean.  Avery appeared to care more about dating celebrities and trying to position himself as some sort of hockey version of David Beckham than playing hockey.  The difference being, despite your opinion on soccer in general, is that Beckham is a hard worker who contributes to teams.  Avery became a clown.  To his credit, it bought him some time in the league, but you have to wonder how much more time, quality time, he could've had if he just buried his head and worked hard.  And didn't sucker punch so many goaltenders....

Finally today, a little update on my Drew Doughty comments from last week.  Drew got his deal, the Kings caved and gave him a long term contract for $7 million a season.  That makes Doughty the third highest paid defenseman in the game, behind only Shea Weber and Brian Campbell.  Which of course brings me to the idea that Brian Campbell is waaaay more overpaid than Doughty!  Good for Drew, he didn't flinch.  Boo on the Kings, they did.  Not only did they flinch, they waited until the plane was leaving for their Euro opener to do it!  Why?  They wasted all that time, kept Doughty practicing with a junior team and not with his teammates for what?  The answer is nothing.  If they could find the money now, they could've found it in August.  On this deal, the Kings get a big fat FAIL.

Alrighty then!  Let's get this season started!!!  I can almost smell the eternal hope of a Sharks v. Flyers finals.  It is closely followed by the bitter scent of disappointment;)  Have a great season everyone!!

Hockey Hump Day: Doughty & Bail Bonds

As part of my new approach to Drive In '77, making it more personal, I will be blogging about the NHL and hockey in general every Wednesday.  So let's drop the puck!!

Doughty Face

As much as we like to talk about free agent signings and trades, the drama behind hold outs is even more enticing.  This season it is all about the Los Angeles Kings and Drew Doughty.  Reports vary, but essentially Dean Lombardi and the Kings are offering him a long term contract that averages about $6.8 million a year.  This would put him as the 4th highest paid D-man in the league and on par with Anze Kopitar as the highest contract in team history.  Doughty apparently wants upwards of $7 million instead and is working out with a junior team in London, Ont.  I've seen London and I've seen the toyota Sports complex where the Kings practice.  I'm gonna have to go L.A. on this one!

The thing is, and I expect to get flamed by King fans everywhere for this, that Doughty, as talented and skilled a player he's been, is still only 21.  That means upside.  That means he should... should get better.  D-men are much like goaltenders, they get better with age.  The prime for defense is right in the 28 to 34 range.  Even if he plays out the offer on the table, he will just be coming to that golden age.  Think about the greats like Lidstrom, Stevens, Langway, Bourque, Neidermayer, Chelios, these guys all played and played well late into their careers, into their 40s!  Experience is earned, not given.  Chara could not have led a team to a Stanley Cup 5 or 6 years ago and neither can Doughty.  He's just not there yet with the best defensemen in the league.  Analysts want to say he is because of his numbers, but there is no way, in my book, that Doughty is a Top 5 D-man in the NHL today. 

In order to consider this young star in the Top 5, who do you leave out?  I mean, you wanna argue Top 10, I'll listen, but otherwise your telling me that a relatively untested D on a team without any banners under his watch, is better than Chris Pronger, Shea Weber, Dion Phaneuf, Dan Boyle, Keith Yandle, Christian Ehrhoff, Mike Green, Chara, Duncan Keith, Kris Letang, Nicklas Lidstrom, Kiklas Kronwall, Brent Seabrook, Lubomir Visnovsky, P.K. Subban, Kevin Bieksa or his own teammate Jack Johnson?  Is my point made?  The NHL is littered with talented D, most of whom have more experience and more playoff success that Drew Doughty.  

It's simple math and the Kings are making a great offer to a young player and that player has a crappy agent telling him to holdout.  I would argue it is too much, but if they can afford it, and they're willing to bet on his continued potential, then Doughty is an idiot to let $200k, more than I've made in the last decade, a year get in the way of what could be a terrific season for an up and coming club.  Drew, ditch your agent and sign the bloody deal.

Shark Tank'd 

The other weird situation popping up this week is the case of my beloved (and aggravating) San Jose Sharks vs. Bad Boys Bail Bonds.  God, I hate those Bad Boy Club t-shirts.  Seriously, could that little rat faced no neck logo get any more annoying?  I actually saw a dude with that tattooed on his arm and he'd pose like the guy when you asked him about it!  But I digress.

What's happening in San Jose is Jeffrey Stanley, the owner of the bail bonds company, has a block of seats behind both benches at the Shark Tank and likes to have him and his guests wear his company's shirts to the games.  With TV coverage etc. this can be viewed as either shrewd or taking advantage of a situation.  He's getting a certain level of advertising from the placement of his shirts in the arena after all.  Now, the Sharks have issued a new policy that prohbits ticket holders from using their tickets to promote their business.  Stanley is pissed and consulting lawyers.

Honestly, I can see the reasoning behind the idea of the new policy.  It's about abuse.  I can guarantee that if some guy bought tickets behind home plate at Yankee stadium and wore the same shirt with his business logo on it every night, he would be talked too.  I think the issue here is the frequency and volume of the shirts.  If everyone in his group is wearing them 41 games a season, then clearly he is using the tickets as a means of advertising.  I doubt he would adhere to the same dress code if his seats were in the upper bowl.  But it is a slippery slope and it will come down to equal and clear enforcement.

Regardless of where you fall in the argument, the mistake the Sharks are making is in the delivery of the message.  The email in the article is hot and cold and seems to hint at making an example of Stanley, or at least singling him out.  Did all season ticket holders get this email?  I don't know, damn economy forced me to give up my seats three years ago... grumble.  But like my theoretical Yankees example above, I would imagine a personal phone call about their concerns would be more in line with keeping a season ticket holder happy and coming to a more responsible conclusion to the problem.

There is also an implication of "payback" because he cancelled his one year of advertising he purchased from the club last season.  One year of $70,000 for a penalty box ad.  Seriously?  Do you think an NHL franchise A) has a problem getting advertisers and B) gives a shit about losing $70k from a bail bonds company?  Not one bit.  It's also not a an issue of freedom of speech. FOS is about the ability to speak your mind without repercussion.  Stanley is speaking his mind about the situation, good.  It is not about the freedom to advertise which he may or may not be trying to do with his shirts.  Of course, we all know he is right?  The Sharks are just handling it all wrong.

That's about it for my first Hockey Humpday.  It's been great watching the preseason even if I did watch Owen Nolan's last shift in the NHL.  I'll miss ya Buster!!  One of my all time favs for sure.  I'll never forget witnessing that called shot in the All-Star game.  What a moment!  The good was seeing Evgeni Nabokov back on NHL ice, even if that Islanders jersey looked a little strange.  Enjoy your hockey week everyone, I'll be back next Wednesday to spout my unsolicited opinions!

Star Wars Blu Ray Mega Battle Nerd Rage Spectacular Response Bot!!

Last week news hit the internet that George Lucas was adding even more changes to the original Star Wars trilogy for the Blu Ray release, coming in just 10 days from now on September 16th, 2011.  Apparently the Ewoks can now blink.  Okay, whatever.  Can't say it was ever a point of contention for this nerd, but I guess George has been annoyed by the potential impact of Logray overcharging his fellow Ewoks for Visine for the last 30 years.  But the big rumble amongst the bloggers came in the form of a very long "Nooooooooo."

I haven't found any motivation to actually watch the video of the change online, but it seems the cry of "no" uttered by the freshly minted Darth Vader at the end of Episode III has now been added to Darth's body slam of the Emperor aboard the Death Star in Return of the Jedi.  To call back to my Ewok eyelid stance, okay, whatever.  I just don't care anymore, but I seem to be in a minority.

The volume and intensity of nerd outrage was felt from Skywalker Ranch to the bottom of New Zealand.  The jokes and one liners, the insistent need for every film blogger to throw in their two cents (although that's mostly just hit farming), my Twitter feed was littered with shouting and all over what?  A "no?"  Listen, we're nerds, we've heard the word no before, although usually from that cheerleader in our high school science class.  Just me?  Moving on...

Honestly, I think fans are more upset over the horrific cry of "noooo" from Episode III, which was a low point in the film, being used in Jedi or even just being reminded of it, than they are of actually inserting a line of dialog into the movie.  So Vader says "no," who cares.  It's not like they dubbed in a whole line of dialog like "hey there Emperor!  Stop killing my son you wrinkled old bag of bones!"  Now that would be ridiculous, but what amounts to a guttural moan of defiance?  Simmer down nerds, we'll live.

Then there are those who are trying to define their outrage by claiming how much they loved the silent defiance (they're words, not mine) of Vader's act.  Listen, it's not like they couldn't dub in a "no" in the early 80s.  The tech was there.  When I see that scene, I see an oversized plastic costume helmet that allows the actor no chance at emotion and I see the menacing Darth Vader perform what amounts to a comedic double take.  I'm not trying to rob anyone's opinion of it, but frankly, that moment where Vader looks back and forth always came off as comical to me.  Maybe it does to George as well and this is his answer.  Right or wrong, regardless of his past actions or opinions or comments about art, it's still his film.  If you want to relive your childhood, if you're upset that you're in your 40s and have a gut, don't hold a film or a stranger accountable for your crisis.

 This brings me to the impending Star Wars BD release.  Do I want to buy it?  For the extras, absolutely.  For the movies?  Not at all.  I have them.  I have the DVDs and they look good and they sound good.  You know what else I have?  The laserdiscs, and if someone would make a new LD player with an HDMI cable, they'd look as good if not better than the Blu Ray versions.  And they're completely unaltered, pre special edition.  If you want to cry over the changes all day long, get off your ass, spend some cash, and you too can have fantastic copies of the original trilogy on laserdisc.  

Should Lucas make the original, theatrically released versions of the films available?  Absolutely.  He can special edition Lando white and no one would care as long as they had the original cuts!  Will he?  You know it will happen and he'll make a ton of money off of us once again.  Even if we have to wait till after he dies, it will happen.  If not, for a large pizza I again say, I have the laserdiscs.  Come on over.

Nerd Rage Bonus Feature!!

P.S.  To satisfy your need for anger, all this is to say, I still really, really hate that Lucas put Hayden Christensen at the end of Jedi! The other changes, I can work around or ignore, but that one makes zero sense to me from a storytelling perspective.  Supposedly Lucas said it was because they appear as Jedi and since Anakin became Vader and turned to the dark side, we should see Anakin and not old Vader (David Prowse).  Bullshit.  The entire point of RETURN of the Jedi is that Anakin redeems himself and abandons the dark side of the Force to become a good Jedi at the end of his life.  Therefore, he dies a fucking Jedi so he should appear in the Ewok rave as old Anakin.  Period.  Changing it negates an entire film and betrays the story.  Digital blinking, whatevs.  Altering the story, bullshit.

 

The Curse of High Definition

With each new wave of format technology, we get the drawn out release of catalogue titles.  Sometimes it takes forever, like getting The African Queen on DVD.  Sometimes it happens quick as popular titles with proven sales records are first to hit the market.  Then there are the big guns, like Star Wars, that wait just a little bit till there are enough pieces of hardware in homes to warrant a big release with extra features etc.

While I understand the desire to own beloved films on the new formats, I theorize we've reached our limits.  New transfers are at the point where we don't need to replace our existing copies anymore and that dates back to DVDs.  Sure, a really good audio update with a mix designed for 5.1 instead of the 4 speakers at the local cinema circa 1982 is a welcome addition, but digital scrubbing and turning every gorgeous piece of actual film stock into the monotone world of the high definition look is not only uneccessary, but in my mind, it's also unwelcome.

It will not be long before all processed chemical film stock disappears from the industry.  We're on to digital tape and hard drives and with the cost reduction and "quality" of the image (I use the quotes because that is a debatable subject when it comes to the interpretation of art) we're never going back to clapper loaders taping off giant magazines of stock or the 1st AD yelling "check the gate!"  And unfortunately, the lust for new shinies, and greed, and an overwhelming amount of disc producers with no clue how to treat films with a respect to their timeline is ruining a lot of beautiful camera work.

This is the curse of high definition.  Now, don't get me wrong.  I love my Blu Ray and for modern films (2000 and beyond let's say) with a lot of CG work in both character and extension, the HD quality combined with my HD TV creates an exhilirating home viewing experience.  But for older films, why bother?  

I purchased Bullitt and the Errol Flynn Robin Hood on BD because they were cheap, super cheap, but other than that, my 30+ other BD titles on my shelf are all films from the last 3 or 4 years.  I don't want to see a Coppola film or a Kubrick film in super re-mastered high def.  I want to see the grain, I want to experience the lighting and the faults the way they were tackled in the era in which the film was produced.  Sure, clean up the blacks a little, make sure the image is properly compressed for the frame rate of your HD TV, but the moment watching Apocalypse Now feels like I'm watching Avatar, I'm out.   I don't want to recreate the experience of being on set and seeing "real life" in front of me (as high def promises), I want to experience going to a movie.  It's kind of the same problem I have with 3D.  I know what movies are, I get it and I like it.  Let me enjoy going to a movie.  If I want to blow up aliens on another planet, I'll arrange for that in the real world.  Maybe that's a bad example, but you get my drift.

It's really the same argument vinyl aficionados have given since the birth of digital music and even CD fans have given for small mp3 files; cleaner and newer isn't necessarily better.  Jazz on a 45 with a good needle has the ebb and flow of the spinning records and the crackle of time.  Miles Davis on a CD brings out more bass than the artist intended for you to hear.  It's all about art and the respect to its creation.  The ease of high def transfers threatens that respect.

As we lose the ability to watch films on older formats like laserdisc or VHS, there is a need to transfer them to the new technology, but that doesn't mean we should tweak the crap out of them to bring them up to some modern digital standard.  Today's cinematography all has the same polished look.  It's vivid, but it's bland.  I would even venture to say that HD cameras do a lot to negate on set lighting, preferring instead to add CG lighting effects in post.  That will never look the same, or "right" when compared to the way a light bulb bounces off each individual's skin tone or reacts with various shades of blue.  So when you take it too far, you lose the individuality of the film, you lose the art.  

Think about Disney and the fact they used to employ a small army of people who mixed paint colors for artists.  The colors in Snow White's dress look the way they do because a human hand was involved in their creation.  Now, artists just click on a selection of colors in the computer and run with it.  I don't want some HD transfer of Snow White where the blue in her dress is suddenly 4 shades darker because that's what's in the computer, you know?  Nitpicky?  Sure, but not entirely without merit.

High definition is great, and as we move forward in cinema, the talented directors and filmmakers will figure out ways to manipulate it and create their art, but for the geniuses of yesterday, who are we to pass sentence on their work?  For all we know, Hitchcock might rise up from the grave, pop in a Blu ray of Psycho and then promptly waddle his way over to the studio and bitch slap everyone there for ruining his film.  I'm just saying, do we really want zombie Hitchcock walking around with a grudge?

So that's my old man rant for the day.  It's a useless argument really because progress stops for no man, but maybe if we can all be a little more aware, maybe if we can all let the studios know that we care about the visual integrity of the original film, maybe we can secure a more accurate record of our movie legacy for the future and an appreciation for the process of film production.  Maybe.

Rachel Getting Married

(Forward: Oh my God I could not wait to get the blog up and running so I could throw my two cents in on this picture!!  I’ve had to sit through months of hack jobs and know-it-all's proclaim how fucking amazing this film is and guess what?  It aint’t!  So now you know how I feel, read ahead or don’t, but thankfully I can finally chime in!)

About halfway through this film I was obsessed with whether or not Demme was trying to make us empathize with the lead character’s pain and agony by forcing us to experience every excruciating moment of an actual wedding.  The scenes in Rachel Getting Married are long, and long, and then a little longer.  When nature called during the rehearsal dinner, I was already 5 minutes in.  I went to the can, was in there too long, plunged, and then came back to like another 5 minutes of rehearsal dinner!!  This movie had all the editing prowess of a French film from the ‘70’s. That is to say, none.

 Aside from the pacing issues, what did I really think of Rachel Getting Married, the rookie screenplay from Jenny Lumet?  One word: nepotism!!  If this script crossed the desk of some USC cinema professor, he’d scribble a C+ on the top and demand rewrites.  Jenny comes from Hollywood and got a shot because of the work of her father.  Period.  End of story.  Is it a horrible script?  No, it has some moments, but ultimately the technique screams “look at me, look at me, look how clever I am in revealing information!”  She fails in attempts to hide the whole story in snippets of dialogue like a big game of Clue, but unlike a well crafted piece, say The Usual Suspects, the impending outcome is predictable and derivative.

The real weight around the ankles of Rachel is the ensemble of characters.  Excluding a couple that had no lines, and the father, I found every character to be annoying and an asshole.  The problem with that becomes, I don’t care.  I don’t care about any of them or their petty little family problems.  Why then would I want to pay attention to the ending of this movie?  The only interesting way to end this would be a for a team of sasquatch ninjas to descend upon the reception and take everyone out with homemade throwing stars crafted from the teeth of river otters.  I would pay double for that ending, but it did not come.  Boo hoo.

Jenny Lumet’s style is, look, this happened to me, I am going to write about it!!  Seems to be the mantra for the script.  Yes, you should write what you know, but you should also know when to hold them and know when to fold them.  Case in point, the dish washer loading competition scene.  To quote the youth of today via text message, WTF?!  Apparently the dad is a dish washer loading magician or something, but that is never set up and now we’re stuck in another painfully protracted sequence where dad and future son-in-law are battling it out over who can fit more dirty dishes in the dishwasher.  W....T.....F.  Hey, Demme!  Did you want to cut your running time at all, cause I found enemy number one deep in the second act for ya!

I hate to pile up on a girl who has gotten the chance to see her work made real, but you hear actors talk all the time about how if it isn’t on the page, it will never be on the screen.  Rachel Getting Married just is not on the page.  It could be, mind you, but not the way it was shot.  The dialogue is stale and the McGuffins come at you with the subtlety of Godzilla strolling through Tokyo.

Some of the fault lies with Demme of course, whose apparent self imposed exile into documentary filmmaking has left him a little too rusty to tell a dramatic story the way it demands.  Many of the scenes feel unrehearsed and jerky, like the cast is participating in some sort of improv workshop.  Conversations don’t seem to flow naturally, rather lines are spouted on cue or perhaps a couple seconds after.  There is an unmistakable odor of the amateur floating about the screen which becomes twice as offensive when you consider the resumes of some of those involved in the stink.

Deserving of much credit is the casting.  I’ll give them that.  Not just the main characters, but all the supporting as well.  Demme has an interracial ensemble like too few before it and more so, the story doesn’t rely on any of it.  Race, religion, age, none of it carries any weight in this film.  All are welcome and all are represented.  It is nice, if not a little too utopian, but in an industry where minorities complain daily about the roles available/offered to them, Rachel attempts to right some of that wrong all on her own.

Listen, I don’t want to bag on this movie all day.  Plenty of critics and audiences have enjoyed the flick and maybe a younger more indie me would have lauded its existence, but the me of today just found it boring.  I’m not going to tell you not to see it, but if you do, rent it... or better yet, catch it on HBO.  Rachel Getting Married simply breaks no new ground and does so in a horribly tedious manner.  If I’d paid to see this, I might be pissed off.

Screened: Acadamey Screener (DVD)

Director: Jonathan Demme

Script: Jenny Lumet

Cast: Anne Hathaway, Debra Winger, Fab 5 Freddy, & about 300 others

Fav. Quote: "I'm your harbinger of doom this evening"

Grade: F