Christmas is easily my favorite holiday. Sure, as an atheist it doesn't have any meaning for me, but theists get to enjoy it the most too, even though Easter's the one that should be making them cream themselves. As a cynic, I see right through the fakeness of Christmas, but as someone tired of cynicism, I appreciate that it is a sincere attempt to give people a day where we are all happy. It's a noble effort and I do what I can to assist it. I pack away all my depression and focus on what good things I can.
That is not to say it is not a day or season without its ridiculousness.
Santa Claus
Ever since I can remember, there have been people intent on disproving Santa Claus. All ages I've seen this. I never needed much convincing myself. It was kind of like religion. When I was young, I never considered it much. Once I thought about it, it made sense there was no Santa Claus. Sure, finding my gifts hidden one year* helped convince me he wasn't real, but I was happy I had a more proper face** to put on the person who didn't get me that Megazord. Some people are really adamant to disprove Santa scientifically. With a Bunny who lays eggs, a fairy tapping the black market of used teeth, and leprechauns defending poorly hidden pots of gold*** , those, they let logic do the heavy lifting. But that jolly fat man we must take down with science. I think I have heard every metric known to man to prove how effective Santa has to be. They are always lazy metrics too, like 24 hours / 6 billion or 2 billion**** or 2 billion / (average family size). Sometimes they will get fancy by saying he has a window of 8 hours of night per time zone, giving him 32 hours and they calculate in census information, excluding couples without children younger than 18 or 16 (or any arbitrary metric), and find total travel distance and how he has to pace himself. You always get a different metric from every source, but they all determine that it is physically impossible.
* My parents got really lazy. They covered a pile in their room with a blanket and said "don't go there". It's like they wanted me to find it
** My parents
*** Fact: Lightning taps into the silver market and geysers defend platinum deposits with trolls, and I mean the dolls, not the big scary things
**** The number of Christians
I'm sorry, but flying reindeer, magical elves, immortal being. That work has been done. It doesn't take calculus to prove to me it's not possible for Santa to exist. The story as a whole does it pretty effectively. Not to mention the more logical matters: living in the north pole, how do you fund those toys with milk and cookies*, one factory that produces all the toys, Santa is at every mall in the world, all the toys are made in the north pole but all mine say "Made in China" or "Made in Taiwan"**, deer with a luminescent nose, all the toys fitting on one sleigh, twelve days of Christmas but only one day off work, Jesus was born in the summer, Santa doesn't die of exhaustion, and the list goes on. Yet, the one people always focus on is that he doesn't have enough time to get to all the houses. Should I even mention the fact that these are kids that have to believe this is possible? Kid's for Christ say. All the explanation needed for kids to believe is one word: Magic. Tell that to five year old me, and that's as good as a doctoral thesis (and doesn't bum me out as much while I'm trying to pretend the floor is made of lava and I'm Brenden Fraser from "Journey to the Center of the Earth" 3D)***.
* By the way, touche Mom and Dad for finding a way to get something out of it
** Also disproving the one factory/workshop theory
*** Note: the particular game of the Floor is Made of Lava I'm thinking of may be from my college days
Propaganda
And on that note: Boy-oh-boy. The Nazis could've learned a thing about propaganda films from the Christmas movies. If Disney, the claymation people, and the guy behind Peanuts made propaganda films for Hitler, Anne Frank wouldn't've lasted a week up there and England would be called North Germany*. The best thinking of the 20th century has gone toward making films so convincing, that even as an adult you find yourself thinking "could it all be true?" They are filled with contracts with Father Time to freeze time Christmas Night, houses making fire places, and my personal favorite, sleighs powered by Christmas spirit. Tell me that after watching Miracle on 34th Street you don't find yourself saying "that certainly was a lot of letters. Where do they all go?" Even a Charlie Brown Christmas get you excited about getting a crappy gift. "If they can make that tree so nice, I can certainly find something to do with this counting stick."**. My big fear is that the Christmas movie propaganda will get taken over by the modern agendas. How much longer before Rudolph's nose gets changed to an energy saving fluorescent bulb and you have to set out organic milk and soy cookies for Santa?
* Not to mention I wouldn't have to be subjected to those awful Hanukkah specials they made on kids shows to appear fair)
** No, I have no idea what a counting stick is
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
Top Comedies In Review
So, that's how I've wasted numerous hours at work. Checking by the site stats, I hope all 4 of you enjoyed it.
By the way, I must say I'm a bit peeved that all those posts came up as 11/15. That's not even when I finished editing them. Silly me, but I was under the impression that something called a "post" would be dated with when it was actually posted. Crazy, right?
Whatever, now it's about time for me to go on another hiatus brought upon by forgetting I have this blog at all.
I would like to know if I left any movies off those lists. I tried to give anything worth mentioning a mention, but I know I forgot some.
By the way, I must say I'm a bit peeved that all those posts came up as 11/15. That's not even when I finished editing them. Silly me, but I was under the impression that something called a "post" would be dated with when it was actually posted. Crazy, right?
Whatever, now it's about time for me to go on another hiatus brought upon by forgetting I have this blog at all.
I would like to know if I left any movies off those lists. I tried to give anything worth mentioning a mention, but I know I forgot some.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Evil Twin
Let's see, I can only blame computer troubles for about a week of not updating. Oh well, 90% of my traffic comes from people looking for 2012 Emmy Predictions, so I hardly think anyone's disappointed.
It is a popular belief/theory that everyone has an evil twin. I find this interesting, primarily because the assumption is that the other twin is the evil one.
Here's a fact: I am my evil twin.
Somewhere out there some guy in Wyoming is a pillar in his community. He does charity work, helps old ladies get across the street, listens to advice from other people, practices restraint from vices, works out daily, eats healthy, speaks loudly enough to hear but quiet enough not to call attention, doesn't have to clear his internet history before someone uses his computer, enjoys having an interesting conversation with a stranger, finished top of his class in school, busted his ass to get those grades, started for every sports team he ever played on, played on a sports team, understands chess, posts lists of his accomplishments and accolades on his walls, speaks highly of people when they aren't around, enjoys educational programming, means the book when he makes reference to something, can accurately explain what anyone means by dadaism, dresses nicely, makes bank, has 20 rice bowl kids he sponsors, remembers to stretch before doing physical activity, does physical activity, watches the Special Olympics for the inspiration and competitive spirit of it.
That said, he also hates dogs and watches reality TV, so maybe evil's relative.
How funny is it that we can't just have a twin out there. It has to be an EVIL twin. Honestly, how many people even have eye patches and/or 19th century rail-road tycoon mustaches. I'm deathly afraid of getting an eye injury simply because it will remove all doubt which twin I am. I felt bad for a guy I saw the other day with a big scar down his face. You know everyone thinks there's a guy with no scar accepting a humanitarian of the year award. It's even sadder because, thanks to John Locke on LOST, no one thinks the guy is a badass because he has the scar. I'll save preconceptions ruined by LOST for another time though.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a popular belief/theory that everyone has an evil twin. I find this interesting, primarily because the assumption is that the other twin is the evil one.
Here's a fact: I am my evil twin.
Somewhere out there some guy in Wyoming is a pillar in his community. He does charity work, helps old ladies get across the street, listens to advice from other people, practices restraint from vices, works out daily, eats healthy, speaks loudly enough to hear but quiet enough not to call attention, doesn't have to clear his internet history before someone uses his computer, enjoys having an interesting conversation with a stranger, finished top of his class in school, busted his ass to get those grades, started for every sports team he ever played on, played on a sports team, understands chess, posts lists of his accomplishments and accolades on his walls, speaks highly of people when they aren't around, enjoys educational programming, means the book when he makes reference to something, can accurately explain what anyone means by dadaism, dresses nicely, makes bank, has 20 rice bowl kids he sponsors, remembers to stretch before doing physical activity, does physical activity, watches the Special Olympics for the inspiration and competitive spirit of it.
That said, he also hates dogs and watches reality TV, so maybe evil's relative.
How funny is it that we can't just have a twin out there. It has to be an EVIL twin. Honestly, how many people even have eye patches and/or 19th century rail-road tycoon mustaches. I'm deathly afraid of getting an eye injury simply because it will remove all doubt which twin I am. I felt bad for a guy I saw the other day with a big scar down his face. You know everyone thinks there's a guy with no scar accepting a humanitarian of the year award. It's even sadder because, thanks to John Locke on LOST, no one thinks the guy is a badass because he has the scar. I'll save preconceptions ruined by LOST for another time though.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
TV Spinoffs I Would Like to See
So, I just found this on my computer from a while back. Thought it was funny. Some of the stuff might be a little dated and I don't feel like going back and changing it. Enjoy.
Barney and Friends
Who: Neil Patrick Harris and rotating cast of kids.
What: Barney Stinson is forced into hiding after his numerous exploits around New York (and the world) reach critical mass and he can no longer hide from it. So, he takes refuge in the most unlikely of places: a day care center. To further conceal himself, he runs this day care center disguised as a happy-go-lucky purple dinosaur.
Why: Barney Stinson is the runaway star of How I Met Your Mother, which has been on a decline ever since people got wind of the fact the show is just buying time until it inevitably introduces the Mother from the title (By my estimate, there's only a couple more years till those kids need to be born and I see Ted's bride having a white wedding). It is time for Barney to take over his own show, and this vehicle offers everything NPH (and Barney) could want including numerous singing numbers and plenty of lessons to make up for his blog being shut down.
Untitled 30 Rock Spinoff
Who: Lonny Ross, just about all the current cast except for Tina Fey (after the Pilot), and maybe bring in a big gun like Matthew Perry or Bradley Whitford to give it legitimacy. Head writer: Aaron Sorkin.
What: Liz Lemon, tired of the corporate control of her live comedy show, has a meltdown on a live broadcast, forcing her out of the position on the long running TGS. The network brings in former prized employee Josh Girard, and his production partner (Perry or Whitford) to be the new lead writer and producer respectively. Josh is only willing to do this because the movie production companies blacklisted him after he tested positive on a drug screening (yeah, like Hollywood really cares).
Why: Think of this as a hour long dramatic version of 30 Rock. I could see someone like Aaron Sorkin writing it. How could this not work? It sounds like ratings gold compared to the moderate ratings success 30 Rock has had.
<Formal Retraction: Apologies. This is actually the plot to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It seemed like a good idea. Who would've known it would fail?>
Now I Met You MotherWho: Josh Radnor (Ted), Allison Hannigan (Lily), Jason Segal (Marshall), Kristen Wiig or Bell, or any comedic actress named Kristen who has played Jason Bateman's wife in a movie (the Mother)
What: More of a continuation and renaming of the flagship show, this is the story of Ted's life after meeting the girl of his dreams. Barney's gone into hiding (See Barney and Friends), and Robin finally ditches New York for Japan or France, or wherever she goes.
Why: Even the casual fan is tired of wondering who the mother is. By making this change, new blood is brought into the cast. Some of Ted's annoying qualities can get underplayed. And, the new couple/old couple dynamic can be played on more.
Law & Order: Ice City
Who: Ice T, Ice Cube, and hell, find a way to throw Richard Belzar in the mix.
What: Fin gets thrown back into Narcotics when he transfers to the mean streets of Anchorage (or Minneapolis. The location is secondary, especially after LOLA proved there is so much life in the franchise going to new locations). His new partner, played by Ice Cube, plays compliment to Fin as they solve the case in classic Law & Order fashion.
Why: Chris Meloni is left SVU and Mariska Hagirtay has one foot out the door. Might as well tear things down and add another show to the Law & Order umbrella. I think Ice Cube, though he is best known for his comedic roles in movies like "Are We There Yet?" and "Friday", could somehow find a way to channel a badass. The only risk here is that it may need to be picked up by HBO due to profanity restraints.
DeCoupling
Who: The cast of the original [British] version, except possibly Gina Bellman
What: Where Coupling was the show of everyone coming together, DeCoupling is the show of it all falling apart. Watch as Steve and Susan go through a painful divorce and Patrick and Sally finally confront the issues behind why they have had a 6 year engagement. Also, Jeff is back, still as single as ever to play compliment to them.
Why: First of all, Coupling did not seem bittersweet enough when it ended for being a British comedy. Here's how they can make up for it. Just about all the actors are without major scheduling commitments. The important part is getting writer Steven Moffat to pull himself away from Dr. Who. This would prove easier said than done.
Breaking Dawn
Who: Michelle Trachtenberg and any other Whedon-approved actor.
What: A few years have pass from where "Buffy the Vampire Slayer left off". Buffy's dead and Dawn is left to pick up the pieces, only there's a catch. Dawn is not the slayer. Follow as Dawn tries to carry on where her sister left off, without the benefit of having slayer strength and instincts.
Why: If it is possible to ignore what has happened in the "Buffy-verse" via comics since the series ended seven years ago, it would be nice to see Joss Whedon pick back up on the series that made him famous (also, his most successful endeavour to date). Harriet the Spy has not found much success post-Buffy and this would just require singing anyone else from Buffy or Angel who is still willing and getting Whedon to pull himself away from writing and directing those Marvel movies.
Ellen and Bob
Who: Ellen DeGeneras and Bob Newhart
What: A father-daughter comedy about...anything you want. We have two powerhouse stars here who could be dynamite with their dry humor.
Why: Ellen (from shows like "Ellen", "The Ellen Show" and more recently "The Ellen DeGeneres Show") and Bob (from shows like "Bob", "Newhart" and two different shows called "The Bob Newhart Show") are both heavyweights in sitcoms who also have some of the least original show titles in all of TV. Let's try to bring them together and see if we can strike gold.
Bitch Hunter
Who: Will Ferrell as "The Bitch Hunter" and some faceless improv comedians.
What: Follow "The Bitch Hunter" in this mockumentary style show, similar to something like Reno 911 as he hunts down bitches for 30 minutes of hilarity.
Why: The hurdles for this show seem great, but this running gag from 30 Rock's 4th season could be feasible. The show is not a complex one: follow Will Ferrell as he victimizes people during his hunt for bitches. In terms of time commitment, Ferrell could knock this out in a few weekends, barely impeding his movie career. I say, NBC should make a half season order and play it on off weeks on Thursdays. Besides, I really want to see why that bitch had to put down that Mimosa.
There's more, but second drafts are hard so I stopped here (my English grades make so much sense now).
Barney and Friends
Who: Neil Patrick Harris and rotating cast of kids.
What: Barney Stinson is forced into hiding after his numerous exploits around New York (and the world) reach critical mass and he can no longer hide from it. So, he takes refuge in the most unlikely of places: a day care center. To further conceal himself, he runs this day care center disguised as a happy-go-lucky purple dinosaur.
Why: Barney Stinson is the runaway star of How I Met Your Mother, which has been on a decline ever since people got wind of the fact the show is just buying time until it inevitably introduces the Mother from the title (By my estimate, there's only a couple more years till those kids need to be born and I see Ted's bride having a white wedding). It is time for Barney to take over his own show, and this vehicle offers everything NPH (and Barney) could want including numerous singing numbers and plenty of lessons to make up for his blog being shut down.
Untitled 30 Rock Spinoff
Who: Lonny Ross, just about all the current cast except for Tina Fey (after the Pilot), and maybe bring in a big gun like Matthew Perry or Bradley Whitford to give it legitimacy. Head writer: Aaron Sorkin.
What: Liz Lemon, tired of the corporate control of her live comedy show, has a meltdown on a live broadcast, forcing her out of the position on the long running TGS. The network brings in former prized employee Josh Girard, and his production partner (Perry or Whitford) to be the new lead writer and producer respectively. Josh is only willing to do this because the movie production companies blacklisted him after he tested positive on a drug screening (yeah, like Hollywood really cares).
Why: Think of this as a hour long dramatic version of 30 Rock. I could see someone like Aaron Sorkin writing it. How could this not work? It sounds like ratings gold compared to the moderate ratings success 30 Rock has had.
<Formal Retraction: Apologies. This is actually the plot to Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It seemed like a good idea. Who would've known it would fail?>
Now I Met You MotherWho: Josh Radnor (Ted), Allison Hannigan (Lily), Jason Segal (Marshall), Kristen Wiig or Bell, or any comedic actress named Kristen who has played Jason Bateman's wife in a movie (the Mother)
What: More of a continuation and renaming of the flagship show, this is the story of Ted's life after meeting the girl of his dreams. Barney's gone into hiding (See Barney and Friends), and Robin finally ditches New York for Japan or France, or wherever she goes.
Why: Even the casual fan is tired of wondering who the mother is. By making this change, new blood is brought into the cast. Some of Ted's annoying qualities can get underplayed. And, the new couple/old couple dynamic can be played on more.
Law & Order: Ice City
Who: Ice T, Ice Cube, and hell, find a way to throw Richard Belzar in the mix.
What: Fin gets thrown back into Narcotics when he transfers to the mean streets of Anchorage (or Minneapolis. The location is secondary, especially after LOLA proved there is so much life in the franchise going to new locations). His new partner, played by Ice Cube, plays compliment to Fin as they solve the case in classic Law & Order fashion.
Why: Chris Meloni is left SVU and Mariska Hagirtay has one foot out the door. Might as well tear things down and add another show to the Law & Order umbrella. I think Ice Cube, though he is best known for his comedic roles in movies like "Are We There Yet?" and "Friday", could somehow find a way to channel a badass. The only risk here is that it may need to be picked up by HBO due to profanity restraints.
DeCoupling
Who: The cast of the original [British] version, except possibly Gina Bellman
What: Where Coupling was the show of everyone coming together, DeCoupling is the show of it all falling apart. Watch as Steve and Susan go through a painful divorce and Patrick and Sally finally confront the issues behind why they have had a 6 year engagement. Also, Jeff is back, still as single as ever to play compliment to them.
Why: First of all, Coupling did not seem bittersweet enough when it ended for being a British comedy. Here's how they can make up for it. Just about all the actors are without major scheduling commitments. The important part is getting writer Steven Moffat to pull himself away from Dr. Who. This would prove easier said than done.
Breaking Dawn
Who: Michelle Trachtenberg and any other Whedon-approved actor.
What: A few years have pass from where "Buffy the Vampire Slayer left off". Buffy's dead and Dawn is left to pick up the pieces, only there's a catch. Dawn is not the slayer. Follow as Dawn tries to carry on where her sister left off, without the benefit of having slayer strength and instincts.
Why: If it is possible to ignore what has happened in the "Buffy-verse" via comics since the series ended seven years ago, it would be nice to see Joss Whedon pick back up on the series that made him famous (also, his most successful endeavour to date). Harriet the Spy has not found much success post-Buffy and this would just require singing anyone else from Buffy or Angel who is still willing and getting Whedon to pull himself away from writing and directing those Marvel movies.
Ellen and Bob
Who: Ellen DeGeneras and Bob Newhart
What: A father-daughter comedy about...anything you want. We have two powerhouse stars here who could be dynamite with their dry humor.
Why: Ellen (from shows like "Ellen", "The Ellen Show" and more recently "The Ellen DeGeneres Show") and Bob (from shows like "Bob", "Newhart" and two different shows called "The Bob Newhart Show") are both heavyweights in sitcoms who also have some of the least original show titles in all of TV. Let's try to bring them together and see if we can strike gold.
Bitch Hunter
Who: Will Ferrell as "The Bitch Hunter" and some faceless improv comedians.
What: Follow "The Bitch Hunter" in this mockumentary style show, similar to something like Reno 911 as he hunts down bitches for 30 minutes of hilarity.
Why: The hurdles for this show seem great, but this running gag from 30 Rock's 4th season could be feasible. The show is not a complex one: follow Will Ferrell as he victimizes people during his hunt for bitches. In terms of time commitment, Ferrell could knock this out in a few weekends, barely impeding his movie career. I say, NBC should make a half season order and play it on off weeks on Thursdays. Besides, I really want to see why that bitch had to put down that Mimosa.
There's more, but second drafts are hard so I stopped here (my English grades make so much sense now).
Trouble Sleeping
I don't know if it is because I am getting older or something, but I'm finding sleeping to be far more treacherous than it was when I was younger. All the time I'm waking up trying to figure out what I was doing while sleeping.
The other day I woke up. Apparently I was sleeping with my face on my hand. Messed up my left eye for half an hour. I thought I'd gone blind. I started thinking about what kind of eye patch I'd need to get and the best way to stop people from sneaking up on me with weak-side attacks. Thankfully it started clearing up about midway through my Lucky Charms, which was handy because I was not digging the whole messed up depth perception thing while trying to put a spoon in my mouth.
Occasionally my leg will cramp up while I'm asleep. I'm gonna put that up there with someone waking me up by hitting me in the balls. Waking up is bad enough. I don't need the confusion of feeling like my calf is tearing itself apart, And it's not like someone turning on a light, where you can pretend it doesn't bother you until it goes away. You have to react.
The most bothersome one was when my alarm started going off and I wake up with both my arms fallen asleep to my shoulders. I am literally swinging my limp, lifeless arms hoping one of them will land on the snooze button. The longer this takes, the louder the alarm gets and the more that I panic thinking I am going to wake someone up. No one else is home, but that's beside the point.
There's also the rare, but insufferable crease-face, you get from sleeping heavily and still for several hours. This is generally the result of those especially deep sleeps. The crease always goes away but only right before you have to see other people. So, it will hang with me all morning while I get ready. Then I start coming up with things to say to people about my weird crease-face only to find it go away before I have to explain it. This only serves to piss me off because I just wasted all morning coming up with jokes that I won't be able to use.
I don't remember having all this trouble when I was younger. Come to think of it, I didn't really have that problem until the end of college. I wonder why that is? Eh, some mysteries will never be solved.
The other day I woke up. Apparently I was sleeping with my face on my hand. Messed up my left eye for half an hour. I thought I'd gone blind. I started thinking about what kind of eye patch I'd need to get and the best way to stop people from sneaking up on me with weak-side attacks. Thankfully it started clearing up about midway through my Lucky Charms, which was handy because I was not digging the whole messed up depth perception thing while trying to put a spoon in my mouth.
Occasionally my leg will cramp up while I'm asleep. I'm gonna put that up there with someone waking me up by hitting me in the balls. Waking up is bad enough. I don't need the confusion of feeling like my calf is tearing itself apart, And it's not like someone turning on a light, where you can pretend it doesn't bother you until it goes away. You have to react.
The most bothersome one was when my alarm started going off and I wake up with both my arms fallen asleep to my shoulders. I am literally swinging my limp, lifeless arms hoping one of them will land on the snooze button. The longer this takes, the louder the alarm gets and the more that I panic thinking I am going to wake someone up. No one else is home, but that's beside the point.
There's also the rare, but insufferable crease-face, you get from sleeping heavily and still for several hours. This is generally the result of those especially deep sleeps. The crease always goes away but only right before you have to see other people. So, it will hang with me all morning while I get ready. Then I start coming up with things to say to people about my weird crease-face only to find it go away before I have to explain it. This only serves to piss me off because I just wasted all morning coming up with jokes that I won't be able to use.
I don't remember having all this trouble when I was younger. Come to think of it, I didn't really have that problem until the end of college. I wonder why that is? Eh, some mysteries will never be solved.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Top Ten Books I'm Tired of Acting Like I've Read:
These are the books that I've never read. No, these aren't the only ones. That list is much longer and much more embarrassing. The books on here are the ones that at one point or another over the years I have pretended that I've read or like I know anything about. So here they are, in relative order of either how tired I am of pretending I've read or consistency that I've had to pretend.
10. The Giver - Lois Lowry
In recent years, I've realized everyone else read this at some point growing up while I fondly called it "that book with the old guy on it". I think it's about the guy who planted the Giving Tree or something.No point in me retroactively reading it now.
9. Crime and Punishment - F. Dostoevsky & War and Peace - Leo Tolstoy
This includes any other long-ass Russian novel with a cause and effect title. You know, smart people books. I've read the back of the books and saw Love & Death, so I think I have the gist of them. I know enough about them to steer the conversation away from them at parties*.
*What kind of parties talk Russian Literature. Now you know I'm lying.
8. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams
*Or however old I was. Who's keeping track?
7.The Bible - God
Rephrase: Who has actually read the Bible not trying to make a point*?
I've never claimed to have read it, but like a lot of people, I've talked like I know about it. Where is Ruth in relation to Job? No idea. What are either of the books about? I have a loose idea. Are the psalms just song versions of the proverbs? Couldn't say. I only ever looked through them while trying to not pay attention in Theology class in High School. It's about time I quit pretending I know anything about Paul's letter (or is it letters?) to the Corinthians.
* "I am soooo religious." "It has so much cultural significance." "It's a real page turner". Oops. That last one has never been said.
6. Assorted Plays - Shakespeare
Part of why I don't like to talk about Shakespeare is the one-upsmanship. People who have read a lot of him* won't stop until they throw in a play they have read that the other person hasn't. I could try to dance this dance till we get down to, say Richard I (I think that's one of them), but why don't I give up a lot earlier, at Othello or something? For half the assigned Shakespeare I've ever had, 80% of my reading came looking for things to quote for a term paper.
*My pity on them.
5. Pat the Bunny -Dorothy Kunhardt
It surprising how many children's book's I've read. going through the list of them, I was checking them off like they were episodes of 30 Rock*. I was about to go with Sam McBratney's classic "Guess How Much I Love You" but then I remembered one particularly slow morning a couple years back when I worked at Target when I raided the kid's book section in search of the newest Don't Let the Pidgeon book. Maybe I'll get my chance to finally read this if I ever have a kid. Granted, that throws a wrench in my whole "absentee father" plan.
* It says something about me that my simile immediately went to TV instead of more standard examples.
4. The Great Gadsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald
This is one of those books that fell through the cracks for me. I've picked up enough things about it that I can fake my way through it. In a pinch, I focus on how there's naked ladies in the eyes. It also always helps to throw out the name Zelda. Still don't know who that is, but it makes you seem studied.
3. The Silmarillion - J.R.R. Tolkien
I never read the Lord of the Rings before the movies. I have since. I liked the movies better*. Consider that a great accomplishment of the films. But that's become like getting your Bachelor's degree. Sure. Not everyone has one, but most that would care if you had one, do too. The Silmarillion is like the Master's Degree. It shows that extra level. You know what? Fuck it. Lord of the Rings is long enough. I'm proud of getting through that. Like getting a Master's, I'll probably never bother with The Silmarillion either.
* Yeah. I said it.
2 . Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka
"As Gregor Samsa awoke one moring from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect-like creature."
That is all I know about this story. I've made Kafka jokes for years. I've referenced this story freely. Never read sentence 2.
1 . Oh, the Places You'll Go - Dr. Suess
A favorite graduation gift for over 20 years now, this, the final book by the legendary Dr. Suess. Apparently no one cared to inspire me with a copy of this for Middle-School, High School, or College graduation.It always struck me as odd when someone goes to the kid's section in the bookstore* to by a graduation gift.
*I know. Who still goes to a book store.
Honorable Mention
Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl - Anne Frank
Tuesdays with Morrie - Mitch Albom
Going through Catholic schooling, I've had a number of times when some teacher tried to get me to read this. The movie even put me to sleep, so the book didn't stand a chance. Also, it carried too much "you are a bad person if you don't like this" venom and, knowing I'd hate it, why expose myself to such criticism?
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Hunter S. Thompson
* Not my favorite type of gonzo though.
The Princess Bride - William Goldman
10. The Giver - Lois Lowry
(The book covers are boring. I figure a still from Love and Death is much better)
This includes any other long-ass Russian novel with a cause and effect title. You know, smart people books. I've read the back of the books and saw Love & Death, so I think I have the gist of them. I know enough about them to steer the conversation away from them at parties*.
*What kind of parties talk Russian Literature. Now you know I'm lying.
8. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams
(Never read it, obviously. Don't know if this is the most common cover. I like it best)
I make jokes about the number 42 being an answer and pretty quickly interject that Zooey Deschanel was great in the movie. Truth be told. I barely payed attention to the movie. I actually rather hate the movie because it allows the little Hitchhikers cult to say the most annoying phrase ever. I've never known someone who is reading the book or recently read it. People always tell me "I read that a long time ago" even when I was 12*. *Or however old I was. Who's keeping track?
7.The Bible - God
(Too many covers to choose from so I went off script and chose the closing scene of Life of Brian)
Who has actually read the Bible? Rephrase: Who has actually read the Bible not trying to make a point*?
I've never claimed to have read it, but like a lot of people, I've talked like I know about it. Where is Ruth in relation to Job? No idea. What are either of the books about? I have a loose idea. Are the psalms just song versions of the proverbs? Couldn't say. I only ever looked through them while trying to not pay attention in Theology class in High School. It's about time I quit pretending I know anything about Paul's letter (or is it letters?) to the Corinthians.
* "I am soooo religious." "It has so much cultural significance." "It's a real page turner". Oops. That last one has never been said.
6. Assorted Plays - Shakespeare
Part of why I don't like to talk about Shakespeare is the one-upsmanship. People who have read a lot of him* won't stop until they throw in a play they have read that the other person hasn't. I could try to dance this dance till we get down to, say Richard I (I think that's one of them), but why don't I give up a lot earlier, at Othello or something? For half the assigned Shakespeare I've ever had, 80% of my reading came looking for things to quote for a term paper.
*My pity on them.
5. Pat the Bunny -Dorothy Kunhardt
It surprising how many children's book's I've read. going through the list of them, I was checking them off like they were episodes of 30 Rock*. I was about to go with Sam McBratney's classic "Guess How Much I Love You" but then I remembered one particularly slow morning a couple years back when I worked at Target when I raided the kid's book section in search of the newest Don't Let the Pidgeon book. Maybe I'll get my chance to finally read this if I ever have a kid. Granted, that throws a wrench in my whole "absentee father" plan.
* It says something about me that my simile immediately went to TV instead of more standard examples.
4. The Great Gadsby - F. Scott Fitzgerald
This is one of those books that fell through the cracks for me. I've picked up enough things about it that I can fake my way through it. In a pinch, I focus on how there's naked ladies in the eyes. It also always helps to throw out the name Zelda. Still don't know who that is, but it makes you seem studied.
3. The Silmarillion - J.R.R. Tolkien
I never read the Lord of the Rings before the movies. I have since. I liked the movies better*. Consider that a great accomplishment of the films. But that's become like getting your Bachelor's degree. Sure. Not everyone has one, but most that would care if you had one, do too. The Silmarillion is like the Master's Degree. It shows that extra level. You know what? Fuck it. Lord of the Rings is long enough. I'm proud of getting through that. Like getting a Master's, I'll probably never bother with The Silmarillion either.
* Yeah. I said it.
2 . Metamorphosis - Franz Kafka
"As Gregor Samsa awoke one moring from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect-like creature."
That is all I know about this story. I've made Kafka jokes for years. I've referenced this story freely. Never read sentence 2.
1 . Oh, the Places You'll Go - Dr. Suess
A favorite graduation gift for over 20 years now, this, the final book by the legendary Dr. Suess. Apparently no one cared to inspire me with a copy of this for Middle-School, High School, or College graduation.It always struck me as odd when someone goes to the kid's section in the bookstore* to by a graduation gift.
*I know. Who still goes to a book store.
Honorable Mention
Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl - Anne Frank
(All I could find was that picture of her and she's butt ugly, so instead, here's a picture of Nazi huntin'.)
Another book that begs me to question, has anyone really read this? Not really. We've seen the play on a field trip to a local theater in 4th grade. It was probably a character study at the end of the WWII chapter in a history text book. There's a movie or two out there I'm sure people have watched. And of course, we all know that closing line of hers. I know I've never read it. Why would I? It's so ubiquitous I already know all I need to.Tuesdays with Morrie - Mitch Albom
Going through Catholic schooling, I've had a number of times when some teacher tried to get me to read this. The movie even put me to sleep, so the book didn't stand a chance. Also, it carried too much "you are a bad person if you don't like this" venom and, knowing I'd hate it, why expose myself to such criticism?
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Hunter S. Thompson
(The movie poster is better than any book art I could find)
The renegade literary types love pointing to this one, especially here in Louisville since he's about the only famous person we have other than Muhammad Ali. Gonzo journalism's great and all*. I barely pull off acting like I've seen the movie. Generally I just say something like, "He was one crazy mother fucker. Can't believe he shot himself" to seem in the know.* Not my favorite type of gonzo though.
The Princess Bride - William Goldman
(Is it really "inconceivable that I haven't read this before?)
To be fair, I've never claimed to have read this. This gets special consideration for how people always feel so special for having read it after I say how much I love the movie. I'm sorry. It's a children's book, not The Brothers Karamazov. It isn't much of an accomplishment.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Movie Reaction: The Ides of March
Formula: Covering an actual Primary + $6.75 cover charge.
I knew going in that this was going to be a hard sell for me. There's a lot of competing elements here and it was going to take the unknown variables to determine if I liked it or not.
Cast
I like Geroge Clooney, a lot. Ryan Gosling proved himself this year with "Crazy, Stupid Love" and "Drive". Paul Giamatti is one of those actors I like but don't trust his choices in movies. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, well, how can hate him. Evan Rachel Wood, meh.
It doesn't matter much, because besides Gosling, everyone else is supporting players in the truest sense of it. They all have a couple scenes to shine and are serviceable the rest of the time. Wood doesn't make me a believer and Clooney isn't especially impressive (I'm cutting him some slack since he was also directing).
Plot
Within the bounds of an election story, you can't expect it to be action-packed. Accepting that, I still was not very impressed. There are no major twists I haven't seen before. I knew everything that was going to happen in some form and it felt very tired. All the characters are developed to be exactly as you would expect. The actors are very solid with what they are doing, but at no point does a character go through any sort of unexpected change or show any unexpected sides.
Politics
It's a story about the Democratic Primaries. The speeches are idealistic but to a much different audience than me. A movie like The American President is a good example of how you can do a movie about politics while still keeping vague about it. This movie had a few too many speeches slipping in so real political opinions. Let me be clear. I'd hate it if they did the same with Republican Primaries. I'd like this movie more if it was just about the strategy of winning an election, keeping the politics to a minimum.
Speaking of the Republicans, I will say the movie kept a muzzle on the opinions the filmmakers had about the Republicans. The worst thing they have to say about them is how they were better at playing this dirty game of campaigning. It's no endorsement, but I've seen these things go much differently in the past.
Weaknesses
I think I've been covering those. I can sum them up for fun though.
The movie is paced intentionally slowly. Anyone who doesn't like that should avoid this. The plot is very ho-hum. Most of the actors do good, not great work. Anyone thinking this could be an Oscar contender is wrong. Too many elements missing. I can't recommend it for theaters, but a lot of people could enjoy it as a Netflix rental.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
I knew going in that this was going to be a hard sell for me. There's a lot of competing elements here and it was going to take the unknown variables to determine if I liked it or not.
Cast
I like Geroge Clooney, a lot. Ryan Gosling proved himself this year with "Crazy, Stupid Love" and "Drive". Paul Giamatti is one of those actors I like but don't trust his choices in movies. Phillip Seymour Hoffman, well, how can hate him. Evan Rachel Wood, meh.
It doesn't matter much, because besides Gosling, everyone else is supporting players in the truest sense of it. They all have a couple scenes to shine and are serviceable the rest of the time. Wood doesn't make me a believer and Clooney isn't especially impressive (I'm cutting him some slack since he was also directing).
Plot
Within the bounds of an election story, you can't expect it to be action-packed. Accepting that, I still was not very impressed. There are no major twists I haven't seen before. I knew everything that was going to happen in some form and it felt very tired. All the characters are developed to be exactly as you would expect. The actors are very solid with what they are doing, but at no point does a character go through any sort of unexpected change or show any unexpected sides.
Politics
It's a story about the Democratic Primaries. The speeches are idealistic but to a much different audience than me. A movie like The American President is a good example of how you can do a movie about politics while still keeping vague about it. This movie had a few too many speeches slipping in so real political opinions. Let me be clear. I'd hate it if they did the same with Republican Primaries. I'd like this movie more if it was just about the strategy of winning an election, keeping the politics to a minimum.
Speaking of the Republicans, I will say the movie kept a muzzle on the opinions the filmmakers had about the Republicans. The worst thing they have to say about them is how they were better at playing this dirty game of campaigning. It's no endorsement, but I've seen these things go much differently in the past.
Weaknesses
I think I've been covering those. I can sum them up for fun though.
The movie is paced intentionally slowly. Anyone who doesn't like that should avoid this. The plot is very ho-hum. Most of the actors do good, not great work. Anyone thinking this could be an Oscar contender is wrong. Too many elements missing. I can't recommend it for theaters, but a lot of people could enjoy it as a Netflix rental.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
Monday, October 10, 2011
I Know when to laugh: Gauging the need for a laugh track
Before I being, some background: I had a little to drink tonight and started typing. Instead of softening my points by proofreading (aka, I'm lazy), I'm posting this as raw as I can. Sorry if any typos snuck by me.
I may only be...carry the 2...24, but I think it is safe to say that I have watched a lot of TV. Without a doubt, my favorite type of show to watch is the sitcom. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would choose anything over the potential to laugh. Laughing at a good joke is perhaps the greatest feeling I have, period. I can't give a damn about reality TV. I enjoy a good dramatic series. But, 10 times out of 10, I am going to give a new comedy series a chance over any other unknown quantity on TV.
People that know me could call me a harsh critic when it comes to comedies. Personally, I think I am pretty easy to please, but I'm quick to recognize lazy writing (All I want is for the joke to fit the character or the world. Is that so much to ask for?).
In the past decade or so, the television comedy has made a dramatic shift. Virtually since it's inception, there has been the laugh track on comedy series, and it has been going away, slowly, but dramatically.
Before I go about examining things too closely, I think I should make my opinion clear. I hate the laugh track.
It is insulting. To both the people making the show and the people watching it, the laugh track is insulting. You don't add gasps and groans to a drama series. The assumptions is that the audience knows how to respond. They are smart enough to interpret what they see. Audiences haven't just become more mature. They have always kept the audience out of dramas. Comedies have never been given the respect.
I say it is just as hard to make someone laugh [sincerely] as it is to make someone cry. There is this misguided understanding that comedy is easy. If that was true, then TV schedules would be filled with more than a night (possibly two) of comedies per network.
The laugh track is insulting and only serves to mask that which otherwise would not generate an honest laugh.
In the early days of TV, when sweetening (Verb: adding laugh track to amplify or create laughter for a live audience) was first introduced, many comedians with past careers legitimately relying on audience laughter balked at the though of adding in laughter. The opinions was "if it's funny, they will laugh. Why should we tell them when to laugh?" I love these men and women and wish they would've been listened to.
Sadly, they were ignored for decades. Show after show was produced with added laughter. I'm talking about TV classics. I Love Lucy, All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Cheers, Seinfeld. There are a lot of very funny shows with laugh tracks. Some of my favorite shows of all time, in fact. I'll even admit that I don't know how well they would've worked without the added laughs.
I've always been aware of it though. Even as a young child, when Jaleel White as Steve Urkel or Christina Applegate as Kelly Bundy walked into a scene and all conversation and action was paused as the audience applauded or woohed, I felt jipped. I knew I was being played to. These interactions could never play out as they do on the show. There is no pause for laughter in real life.
Yeah, there's a good chance I was too sophisticated a TV watcher as a kid (people who knew me then would disagree). I know I enjoyed jokes on Seinfeld when I was 10. Going back, there's episodes of Frasier and Cheers that I would rank among the funnies 22 minutes in history. The laugh track added nothing to this.
The first time I ever laughed uncontrollably at a TV show, I don't know the exact episode, but I know the show: Malcolm in the Middle. It's still perhaps my favorite show of all time. My other favorite show at the turn of the millennium: Scrubs.
There were other out there at the time. Sex and the City was a massive success. The Larry Sanders Show had come and gone without me ever knowing about it. On Sports Night, Aaron Sorkin fought the use of the laugh track valiantly, even if the show didn't last. And, you can't ignore something like the Simpsons avoiding the laugh track which past animated series (The Flinstones anyone?) couldn't.
For me, I zeroed in on Malcolm in the Middle and Scrubs. I loved those shows a lot more than anything else on TV. It wasn't a conscious choice rebuking the sitcom establishment. In 2001, I was 14 and too busy battling with unwelcome erections to have any philosophic causes. I just liked those shows. After a while though, I noticed that neither show had a laugh track in a time when most shows did. I started to wonder about that.
Malcolm in the Middle is a brilliant show. It would've never worked with a laugh track. It's brilliance was in the big laugh. At the end of any given episode, even if I didn't laugh much in the fist 20 minutes, the enjoyment in the third act was greater than any other TV show could offer.
With Scrubs, I didn't leave every episode laughing. There were funny moments in every episode, but sometimes it didn't want you to go away laughing. Sometimes it hit you in the gut, and having an audience saying "awwww" would've cheapened that.
From then, I was hooked. I could still like Friends and Frasier, but I always felt I was being pandered to. I was liberated from the fetters of being laughed at and loved it.
Slowly more and more shows popped up ignoring the need for forced laughter. It seemed to start with USA introducing the comedic procedural with shows like Monk, then Psych. Fox experimented with Arrested Development. ABC had Desperate Housewives. NBC recreated The Office for America. HBO never toyed with sweetings. To this day, I think Lucky Louie is the only show they've ever made that featured a laugh track. Unsurprisingly, CBS was the only one not to switch.
It wasn't until abut two years ago that I learned what was meant by Single-Camera and Multi-Camera. Ostensibly, they are just two styles, but they work better for sans-laugh track and with laugh track respectably. Since they aren't relying on an audience reaction, shows without the laugh track can make the shot they want. whereas the laugh track shows pick from the best of the three or four shots of the scene they have.
Single camera is the way all dramas are shot. Try shooting a muti camera drama and you will understand the kind of handicap sitcoms have been working with all these years. Can you imagine Law and Order shot in front of a live studio audience? I can't either, and that's why Seinfeld will still be watched in 20 years. To be that good despite the laugh track is a herculean feat.
Here is what worries me. Since 2006, only 5 of the 34 nominees for the Outstanding Comedy Series Emmy have been multi-camera comedies (All CBS by the way) and any series that people say has been snubbed in those years (Parks & Rec. till this past year, Community, It's Always Sunny, Louie) are single-camera series. It is not even an opinion, but a fact to say that the best comedy series do not have the laugh track. They trust their audience to know when something is funny. These series appreciate the need for the slow build. An episode that is 2/3s without laughter can have the funniest moments and be most appreciated by it's audience.
The problem is, the multi-camera series still kicks ass. This year's biggest comedies so far: New Girl, sure, but then you have 2 Broke Girls and Whitney. Most successful show from last year: Mike and Molly. The highest rated comedies right now include Modern Family (which gives hope for the future), but after that, Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men reign supreme. NBC's Thursday lineup, which is the strongest comedy lineup in the history of television (not hyperbole. I honestly believe Community, Parks and Rec, The Office, and 30 Rock is as strong as you will EVER see) is a solid 4th in the ratings, closer to the CW than CBS.
I sure hope the masses are just slow to respond and not preferring bad taste, because if this current trend in comedy is just that, a trend, and 10 years from now NBC is premiering Cheers 2020, full of unnatural pauses for people to laugh which would never exist in real life and an online vote on how loudly the audience should laugh after a given joke, I will be very disappointed.
I may only be...carry the 2...24, but I think it is safe to say that I have watched a lot of TV. Without a doubt, my favorite type of show to watch is the sitcom. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would choose anything over the potential to laugh. Laughing at a good joke is perhaps the greatest feeling I have, period. I can't give a damn about reality TV. I enjoy a good dramatic series. But, 10 times out of 10, I am going to give a new comedy series a chance over any other unknown quantity on TV.
People that know me could call me a harsh critic when it comes to comedies. Personally, I think I am pretty easy to please, but I'm quick to recognize lazy writing (All I want is for the joke to fit the character or the world. Is that so much to ask for?).
In the past decade or so, the television comedy has made a dramatic shift. Virtually since it's inception, there has been the laugh track on comedy series, and it has been going away, slowly, but dramatically.
Before I go about examining things too closely, I think I should make my opinion clear. I hate the laugh track.
It is insulting. To both the people making the show and the people watching it, the laugh track is insulting. You don't add gasps and groans to a drama series. The assumptions is that the audience knows how to respond. They are smart enough to interpret what they see. Audiences haven't just become more mature. They have always kept the audience out of dramas. Comedies have never been given the respect.
I say it is just as hard to make someone laugh [sincerely] as it is to make someone cry. There is this misguided understanding that comedy is easy. If that was true, then TV schedules would be filled with more than a night (possibly two) of comedies per network.
The laugh track is insulting and only serves to mask that which otherwise would not generate an honest laugh.
In the early days of TV, when sweetening (Verb: adding laugh track to amplify or create laughter for a live audience) was first introduced, many comedians with past careers legitimately relying on audience laughter balked at the though of adding in laughter. The opinions was "if it's funny, they will laugh. Why should we tell them when to laugh?" I love these men and women and wish they would've been listened to.
Sadly, they were ignored for decades. Show after show was produced with added laughter. I'm talking about TV classics. I Love Lucy, All in the Family, M*A*S*H, Cheers, Seinfeld. There are a lot of very funny shows with laugh tracks. Some of my favorite shows of all time, in fact. I'll even admit that I don't know how well they would've worked without the added laughs.
I've always been aware of it though. Even as a young child, when Jaleel White as Steve Urkel or Christina Applegate as Kelly Bundy walked into a scene and all conversation and action was paused as the audience applauded or woohed, I felt jipped. I knew I was being played to. These interactions could never play out as they do on the show. There is no pause for laughter in real life.
Yeah, there's a good chance I was too sophisticated a TV watcher as a kid (people who knew me then would disagree). I know I enjoyed jokes on Seinfeld when I was 10. Going back, there's episodes of Frasier and Cheers that I would rank among the funnies 22 minutes in history. The laugh track added nothing to this.
The first time I ever laughed uncontrollably at a TV show, I don't know the exact episode, but I know the show: Malcolm in the Middle. It's still perhaps my favorite show of all time. My other favorite show at the turn of the millennium: Scrubs.
There were other out there at the time. Sex and the City was a massive success. The Larry Sanders Show had come and gone without me ever knowing about it. On Sports Night, Aaron Sorkin fought the use of the laugh track valiantly, even if the show didn't last. And, you can't ignore something like the Simpsons avoiding the laugh track which past animated series (The Flinstones anyone?) couldn't.
For me, I zeroed in on Malcolm in the Middle and Scrubs. I loved those shows a lot more than anything else on TV. It wasn't a conscious choice rebuking the sitcom establishment. In 2001, I was 14 and too busy battling with unwelcome erections to have any philosophic causes. I just liked those shows. After a while though, I noticed that neither show had a laugh track in a time when most shows did. I started to wonder about that.
Malcolm in the Middle is a brilliant show. It would've never worked with a laugh track. It's brilliance was in the big laugh. At the end of any given episode, even if I didn't laugh much in the fist 20 minutes, the enjoyment in the third act was greater than any other TV show could offer.
With Scrubs, I didn't leave every episode laughing. There were funny moments in every episode, but sometimes it didn't want you to go away laughing. Sometimes it hit you in the gut, and having an audience saying "awwww" would've cheapened that.
From then, I was hooked. I could still like Friends and Frasier, but I always felt I was being pandered to. I was liberated from the fetters of being laughed at and loved it.
Slowly more and more shows popped up ignoring the need for forced laughter. It seemed to start with USA introducing the comedic procedural with shows like Monk, then Psych. Fox experimented with Arrested Development. ABC had Desperate Housewives. NBC recreated The Office for America. HBO never toyed with sweetings. To this day, I think Lucky Louie is the only show they've ever made that featured a laugh track. Unsurprisingly, CBS was the only one not to switch.
It wasn't until abut two years ago that I learned what was meant by Single-Camera and Multi-Camera. Ostensibly, they are just two styles, but they work better for sans-laugh track and with laugh track respectably. Since they aren't relying on an audience reaction, shows without the laugh track can make the shot they want. whereas the laugh track shows pick from the best of the three or four shots of the scene they have.
Single camera is the way all dramas are shot. Try shooting a muti camera drama and you will understand the kind of handicap sitcoms have been working with all these years. Can you imagine Law and Order shot in front of a live studio audience? I can't either, and that's why Seinfeld will still be watched in 20 years. To be that good despite the laugh track is a herculean feat.
Here is what worries me. Since 2006, only 5 of the 34 nominees for the Outstanding Comedy Series Emmy have been multi-camera comedies (All CBS by the way) and any series that people say has been snubbed in those years (Parks & Rec. till this past year, Community, It's Always Sunny, Louie) are single-camera series. It is not even an opinion, but a fact to say that the best comedy series do not have the laugh track. They trust their audience to know when something is funny. These series appreciate the need for the slow build. An episode that is 2/3s without laughter can have the funniest moments and be most appreciated by it's audience.
The problem is, the multi-camera series still kicks ass. This year's biggest comedies so far: New Girl, sure, but then you have 2 Broke Girls and Whitney. Most successful show from last year: Mike and Molly. The highest rated comedies right now include Modern Family (which gives hope for the future), but after that, Big Bang Theory and Two and a Half Men reign supreme. NBC's Thursday lineup, which is the strongest comedy lineup in the history of television (not hyperbole. I honestly believe Community, Parks and Rec, The Office, and 30 Rock is as strong as you will EVER see) is a solid 4th in the ratings, closer to the CW than CBS.
I sure hope the masses are just slow to respond and not preferring bad taste, because if this current trend in comedy is just that, a trend, and 10 years from now NBC is premiering Cheers 2020, full of unnatural pauses for people to laugh which would never exist in real life and an online vote on how loudly the audience should laugh after a given joke, I will be very disappointed.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Movie Reaction: Moneyball
Formula:
Major League without all those side stories about the players.
Spoiler Alert: They don't make the playoffs.
If you are a baseball fan, you already knew this. If you didn't read the book, you only have yourself to blame. If you haven't already seen the movie, it's been two weeks. You weren't going to see it.
Cast
You have Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and, well, I guess Phillip Seymour Hoffman's in it some. Chris Pratt's there a little too. Really, you have Brad Pitt for 90% of it and Jonah Hill's there a lot. Brad Pitt does a very good job, though I'm not sure I see any room for Oscar buzz for the performance, but what do I know? Still chubby Jonah Hill is pretty good too. Nothing dazzling, but it's nice to see any of the Apatow crew break into and dramatic features and not fall on their face doing it.
Plot
This is very Brad Pitt-centric. Unlike most Baseball movies I've seen (or sports movies), there wasn't much focus on side-stories of the players as they develop. There's a very singular focus on Billy Beane and his story. It's done well and it shows the different elements of his life: job, family, past, short introspective moments while he's driving. You stay entertained the whole way through, and they do a good job of editing the events to play out in a very cinematic way.
Based on a True Story
Since this is all about actual events, nothing goes as it would in a fictional feature. The team is never in dead-last for the season. There is no watershed moment that turns the season around. They don't win the World Series as the scrappy underdogs. They do what they can with the material available. Also, it was only 2002. Not that long ago. So, they can't overplay any of the events.
In short, the story is limited by the truth, but makes good use of it.
Weaknesses
It's a baseball movie, which means if you don't like baseball, it won't change you mind. Also, there is a major overstatedness of the importance of what was done in the movie. Anyone that knows baseball will be a little annoyed by how largely it claims moneyball changed the game. And, anyone who doesn't know baseball (like me) will erroneously see every baseball management strategy as being moneyball.
In the end, it is the kind of movie that will make a lot of critics' top ten lists but will top none of them.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
Major League without all those side stories about the players.
If you are a baseball fan, you already knew this. If you didn't read the book, you only have yourself to blame. If you haven't already seen the movie, it's been two weeks. You weren't going to see it.
Cast
You have Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, and, well, I guess Phillip Seymour Hoffman's in it some. Chris Pratt's there a little too. Really, you have Brad Pitt for 90% of it and Jonah Hill's there a lot. Brad Pitt does a very good job, though I'm not sure I see any room for Oscar buzz for the performance, but what do I know? Still chubby Jonah Hill is pretty good too. Nothing dazzling, but it's nice to see any of the Apatow crew break into and dramatic features and not fall on their face doing it.
Plot
This is very Brad Pitt-centric. Unlike most Baseball movies I've seen (or sports movies), there wasn't much focus on side-stories of the players as they develop. There's a very singular focus on Billy Beane and his story. It's done well and it shows the different elements of his life: job, family, past, short introspective moments while he's driving. You stay entertained the whole way through, and they do a good job of editing the events to play out in a very cinematic way.
Based on a True Story
Since this is all about actual events, nothing goes as it would in a fictional feature. The team is never in dead-last for the season. There is no watershed moment that turns the season around. They don't win the World Series as the scrappy underdogs. They do what they can with the material available. Also, it was only 2002. Not that long ago. So, they can't overplay any of the events.
In short, the story is limited by the truth, but makes good use of it.
Weaknesses
It's a baseball movie, which means if you don't like baseball, it won't change you mind. Also, there is a major overstatedness of the importance of what was done in the movie. Anyone that knows baseball will be a little annoyed by how largely it claims moneyball changed the game. And, anyone who doesn't know baseball (like me) will erroneously see every baseball management strategy as being moneyball.
In the end, it is the kind of movie that will make a lot of critics' top ten lists but will top none of them.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Food Quality
The level of quality a place brags about tells me a lot about the establishment. Sometimes it is pretty obvious when you should be worried. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to realize that a burger place with a "100% Real Meat" sign is working off lower expectations than the "100% Reaf Beef" place down the street. The devil's in the deets (or "details" as non-cool peeps say [or "people" as less cool people say]) though. Why is one place going on about beef when another has "grade A" beef? Not that I actually know anything about the food grading system. Is choice better than select? (wouldn't good, better, best be a better - I'm sorry - more choice scale?) One for the ages as far as I'm concerned. I'm a classy guy though, so I'll be ordering off the dollar menu of the "grade A" beef place.
There's one place that ranks below all the others though: The Quotation Mark place. I will choose 100% Meat over 100% Grade A Super-Select "beef" 10 times out of 10. That's a little too transparent if you ask me. And don't get me wrong, I've eaten a lot of shit in my life and have the Taco Bell receipts to prove it. In Taco Bell's case, I think people are being too harsh about things like it not being real beef that they use. You know what? Good, I don't want to think real beef tastes like that. I'm not going there to feel good about myself. I'm not going with my friends for the authentic Mexican dining experience. I think that illusion was broken when I passed the homeless man throwing up outside. I'm at Taco Bell because all I have is change and nothing else sounded good.
When it all comes down to it, what my point is is that I am getting fast food, I'm not getting food fast. I want something that is fast first, food second. Any time the customer is put into am assembly line, I'm not concerned over getting a 100% beef patty, with real cheddar cheese, locally grown tomatoes on whole grain bread with a side of natural cut fries with authentic sea salt, soda made with natural flavors and a toy that was rescued from the sunken remains of the Lusitania. Yeah, I'm ordering from the kid's menu. For fuck's sake, it's not a high class meal. It's numbered. Can't be that great.
There's one place that ranks below all the others though: The Quotation Mark place. I will choose 100% Meat over 100% Grade A Super-Select "beef" 10 times out of 10. That's a little too transparent if you ask me. And don't get me wrong, I've eaten a lot of shit in my life and have the Taco Bell receipts to prove it. In Taco Bell's case, I think people are being too harsh about things like it not being real beef that they use. You know what? Good, I don't want to think real beef tastes like that. I'm not going there to feel good about myself. I'm not going with my friends for the authentic Mexican dining experience. I think that illusion was broken when I passed the homeless man throwing up outside. I'm at Taco Bell because all I have is change and nothing else sounded good.
When it all comes down to it, what my point is is that I am getting fast food, I'm not getting food fast. I want something that is fast first, food second. Any time the customer is put into am assembly line, I'm not concerned over getting a 100% beef patty, with real cheddar cheese, locally grown tomatoes on whole grain bread with a side of natural cut fries with authentic sea salt, soda made with natural flavors and a toy that was rescued from the sunken remains of the Lusitania. Yeah, I'm ordering from the kid's menu. For fuck's sake, it's not a high class meal. It's numbered. Can't be that great.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Movie Reaction: 50/50
Formula:
Funny People - (30+ minutes of pointless story line) - (Sick celebrity) + (Sick lead I actually want to see live)
Spoiler alert. He lives.
Penned by a friend of Seth Rogen's and loosely based his cancer experience, it's kind of anthropic that he lives.
I liked this movie a lot. I give it a [surprisingly easy to achieve because I'm not a harsh critic] 9/10, but I walked into it already at least a 7/10. I was going to like it based on cast and previews alone. Reaction time though.
Cast
Joseph Gordon-Levitt does the drama.
Seth Rogen does the comedy.
Anna Kendrick is attractive (she's a pretty good actress too).
Bryce Dallas Howard plays a bitch character again.
And there's some older actors adding scenery, cracking jokes and being emotional when needed.
Seth Rogen can get me into a theater. JGL is virtually there. So, I've planned on seeing this since I heard about it.
No one stretches themselves in this. Rogen gets a dramatic credit to his name without having to change his normal pothead. Levitt plays it very believably (I can't imagine James McAvoy playing the role, as it was originally cast). Howard does a good job in a limited and single-layer role. Kendrick plays a lot more loose than she does in the other things I've seen her in and is delightful doing so. Everyone else does well with the bits they are given.
Plot
It hits every cord it's supposed to. It's very Hollywood. Happy ending. Hits you in the gut when needed. Gets you to tear up with the standard tricks. The story does take any unexpected turns. It never feels like it should either. I say all this in high praise.
A lot of movies with this material aspire to such high points, that it looses the entertainment. Cancer's bad and good people get sick. No hard points to make. Why complicate it?
Come awards season, this will be snubbed without a doubt, however, I doubt I'll like many of the front runners more than this.
Background
This is a pet project for friends Seth Rogen (actor, producer), Evan Golberg (producer), and Will Reiser (writer). Rogen's playing the same role he did for Reiser in real life (the main reason he isn't stretching himself acting). I kind of like that this is the kind of thing that Rogen and Golberg make with their Superbad and Pineapple Express goodwill.
Weaknesses
I hate to say it, but a lot of the stuff with Seth Rogen was tonally in a different movie. The point of his character is to be the one cracking jokes, "distracting" Lovett's character from his situation, but it isn't comfortably done throughout. It's a small quibble and didn't hurt from my enjoyment much. Still, there's scenes with that Apatow style ad-libbing that don't entirely feel comfortable with everything else going on.
Also, sorry. The previews used up most of the jokes. Anyone going in expecting Superbad though is missing the point.
Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend
Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend
Friday, September 30, 2011
IMDB Top 250 Examination
That took longer than expected. As often happens on my working weekends, I had a lot of free time and lacked the resources to do anything interesting. To pass the time, I gave myself a little project.
The IMDB Top 250 list is the best list I've been able to find of the top movies out there. I don't know the exact rating rules for it (my guess is that it's based on having at least x ratings), but it does a great job of keeping outliers off (or not on long, but more on that in a bit). Part of what works so well with the list is that it isn't a poll in the traditional sense. Star Wars fanboys don't care to try and skew the votes because it's a fluid collection, not a final tally.
That said, the focus is on quantity of voters over quality of them and that keeps this from being another boring critical darling list. Citizen Kane may be influential, but not that many people LOVE it. City of God may be the best "work of art" over the past decade, but it's not the first movie I put on to top my personal list. That's really what it is, a collection of a lot of people's top 10 lists.
Faults
I want to come right out and admit it's faults. It is super modern-skewing. Every year, if you examine it, the average year of the movies goes up. I don't even need to examine it to know that. This is a list made by the internet age. That is why over 60 of the movies have been made since 2000 and each decade has fewer movies and director variation decreases.
The other major fault is that it is more of a "guy's list". You won't be seeing The Notebook on here. At the same time, should you see The Notebook on here? I'll let you decide that for yourself, but a sweeping and (I say this with great pain) timeless epic like Titanic should be on the list. There's no two ways about that. (Granted, this is only my opinion, therein lies the inarguable strength of the list).
Smaller issue like a lack of comedies and domination of American films (though not as much as you'd at first think) I can't hold against it. Comedies are generally too polarizing and .com is an American extension so there's an assumed level of home court advantage.
Strengths
In it's favor there is a lot though. Helping to legitimize it, there is a movie represented from every years going back till 1947. This includes several movies from the 20s. Also, 39 of 84 Oscar winners for best picture are included as well as dozens more nominated films. In the top 20 there are multiple foreign films too. So, the list is more diverse than most would expect for an internet list.
Thanks for keeping with me this far. Below, I've compiled a list of movies in the list based on year. Below that, I have a bit of a breakdown.
Top 250 as of 9/24/11 by release year.
Rank Title (Year) Director
101. Drive (2011) Refn
133. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011) Yates
222. A Separation (2011) Farhadi
11. Inception (2010) Nolan
37. Toy Story 3 (2010) Unkrich
113. Black Swan (2010) Aronofsky
124. The King's Speech (2010) Hooper
182. How to Train Your Dragon (2010) Sanders Dublois
218. The Social Network (2010) Fincher
238. Shutter Island (2010) Scorsese
95. Inglourious Basterds (2009) Terantino
102. Up (2009) Doctor Peterson
162. District 9 (2009) Blomkamp
161. The Secret in Their Eyes (2009) Campanella
192. Avatar (2009) J. Cameron
196. Mary and Max (2009) Elliot
200. Star Trek (2009) Abrams
9. The Dark Knight (2008) Nolan
52. WALL·E (2008) Stanton
100. Gran Torino (2008) Eastwood
139. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Boyle
183. The Wrestler (2008) Aronofsky
217. In Bruges (2008) McDonagh
223. Let the Right One In (2008) Lindqvist
241. Ip Man (2008) Yip
129. No Country for Old Men (2007) Coen
148. Into the Wild (2007) Penn
154. There Will Be Blood (2007) Anderson
178. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Greengrass
191. Ratatouille (2007) Bird
204. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) Schnabel
55. The Lives of Others (2006) Donnersmarck
56. The Departed (2006) Scorsese
71. The Prestige (2006) Nolan
85. Pan's Labyrinth (2006) del Toro
180. V for Vendetta (2006) McTeigue
234. Children of Men (2006) Cuaron
114. Batman Begins (2005) Nolan
112. Sin City (2005) Miller Rodriguez
62. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Gondry
94. Downfall (2004) Hirschbiegel
126. Hotel Rwanda (2004) George
152. Million Dollar Baby (2004) Eastwood
219. Howl's Moving Castle (2004) Miyazaki
214. The Incredibles (2004) Bird
236. Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004) Terantino
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Jackson
93. Oldboy (2003) Chan-wook
142. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) Terantino
172. Finding Nemo (2003) Stanton Unkirch
221. Mystic River (2003) Eastwood
233. Pirates of the Caribbean: ...Black Pearl (2003) Verbinski
227. Big Fish (2003) Burton
246. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003) Ki-duk
18. City of God (2002) Meirelles Lund
30. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) Jackson
51. The Pianist (2002) Polanski
228. Infernal Affairs (2002) Lau Mack
17. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) Jackson
45. Spirited Away (2001) Miyazaki
47. Amélie (2001) Jenet
144. Donnie Darko (2001) Kelly
245. Monsters, Inc. (2001) Docter
242. A Beautiful Mind (2001) Howard
31. Memento (2000) Nolan
61. Requiem for a Dream (2000) Aronofsky
88. Gladiator (2000) Scott
125. Snatch. (2000) Ritchie
163. Amores Perros (2000) Inarritu
14. Fight Club (1999) Fincher
21. The Matrix (1999) Wachowski
40. American Beauty (1999) Mendes
74. The Green Mile (1999) Darabont
136. The Sixth Sense (1999) Shyamalan
225. Magnolia (1999) Anderson
36. American History X (1998) Kaye
43. Saving Private Ryan (1998) Speilberg
134. The Big Lebowski (1998) Coen
164. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) Ritchie
215. The Truman Show (1998) Weir
232. The Celebration (1998) Vinterberg
65. Life Is Beautiful (1997) Benigni
69. L.A. Confidential (1997) Hanson
104. Princess Mononoke (1997) Miyazaki
187. Good Will Hunting (1997) Van Sant
118. Fargo (1996) Coen
149. Trainspotting (1996) Boyle
24. The Usual Suspects (1995) Singer
27. Se7en (1995) Fincher
90. Braveheart (1995) Gibson
117. Heat (1995) Mann
137. Toy Story (1995) Lasseter
169. Casino (1995) Scorsese
181. Twelve Monkeys (1995) Gillam
250. Before Sunrise (1995) Linklater
1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Darabont
5. Pulp Fiction (1994) Terantino
29. Forrest Gump (1994) Zemeckis
33. Leon: The Professional (1994) Besson
122. The Lion King (1994) Allers Minkoff
229. Ed Wood (1994) Burton
7. Schindler's List (1993) Speilberg
165. Groundhog Day (1993) Ramis
66. Reservoir Dogs (1992) Terantino
96. Unforgiven (1992) Eastwood
25. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Demme
41. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) J. Cameron
15. Goodfellas (1990) Scorsese
105. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Speilberg
73. Cinema Paradiso (1988) Tornatore
115. Grave of the Fireflies (1988) Takahata
109. Die Hard (1988) McTiernan
184. My Neighbor Totoro (1988) Miyazaki
244. Rain Man (1988) Levinson
83. Full Metal Jacket (1987) Kubrick
195. The Princess Bride (1987) Reiner
60. Aliens (1986) J. Cameron
145. Platoon (1986) Stone
176. Stand by Me (1986) Reiner
68. Back to the Future (1985) Zemeckis
128. Ran (1985) Kurosawa
79. Amadeus (1984) Forman
76. Once Upon a Time in America (1984) Leone
171. The Terminator (1984) J. Cameron
248. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984) Miyazaki
99. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) Marquand
147. Scarface (1983) De Palma
119. Blade Runner (1982) Scott
173. The Thing (1982) Carpentar
185. Gandhi (1982) Attenborough
209. Fanny and Alexander (1982) Bergman
23. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Speilberg
63. Das Boot (1981) Petersen
77. Raging Bull (1980) Scorsese
98. The Elephant Man (1980) Lynch
12. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Kershner
48. The Shining (1980) Kubrick
44. Alien (1979) Scott
35. Apocalypse Now (1979) Coppola
167. Life of Brian (1979) Jones
230. Manhattan (1979) Allen
243. Stalker (1979) Tarkovsky
135. The Deer Hunter (1978) Cimino
16. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) Lucas
140. Annie Hall (1977) Allen
42. Taxi Driver (1976) Scorsese
188. Network (1976) Lumet
213. Rocky (1976) Avilsen
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) Forman
75. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) Gillam Jones
127. Jaws (1975) Speilberg
179. Dog Day Afternoon (1975) Lumet
211. Barry Lyndon (1975) Kubrick
3. The Godfather: Part II (1974) Coppola
70. Chinatown (1974) Polanski
97. The Sting (1973) Hill
205. The Exorcist (1973) Friedkin
2. The Godfather (1972) Coppola
239. Sleuth (1972) Mankiewicz
57. A Clockwork Orange (1971) Kubrick
240. Patton (1970) Schaffner
153. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) Hill
206. The Wild Bunch (1969) Peckinpah
20. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) Leone
89. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Kubrick
224. Rosemary's Baby (1968) Polanski
138. Cool Hand Luke (1967) Rosenberg
168. The Graduate (1967) Nichols
4. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) Leone
194. The Battle of Algiers (1966) Pontecorvo
201. Persona (1966) Bergman
203. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Nichols
121. For a Few Dollars More (1965) Leone
34. Dr. Strangelove ... (1964) Kubrick
110. The Great Escape (1963) Sturges
190. 8½ (1963) Fellini
58. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) Lean
59. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) Mulligan
174. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) Frankenheimer
237. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Ford
116. Yojimbo (1961) Kurosawa
186. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Kramer
198. The Hustler (1961) Rossen
26. Psycho (1960) Hitchcock
91. The Apartment (1960) Wilder
39. North by Northwest (1959) Hitchcock
80. Some Like It Hot (1959) Wilder
166. Ben-Hur (1959) Wyler
193. The 400 Blows (1959) Truffaut
247. Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Preminger
46. Vertigo (1958) Hitchcock
131. Touch of Evil (1958) Wells
6. 12 Angry Men (1957) Lumet
50. Paths of Glory (1957) Kubrick
86. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) Lean
111. The Seventh Seal (1957) Bergman
123. Witness for the Prosecution (1957) Wilder
130. Wild Strawberries (1957) Bergman
226. Nights of Cabiria (1957) Fellini
197. The Killing (1956) Kubrick
177. Diabolique (1955) Clouzot
189. The Night of the Hunter (1955) Laughton
13. Seven Samurai (1954) Kurosawa
22. Rear Window (1954) Hitchcock
107. On the Waterfront (1954) Kazan
199. Dial M for Murder (1954) Hitchcock
202. La Strada (1954) Fellini
159. The Wages of Fear (1953) Clouzot
207. Stalag 17 (1953) Wilder
231. Roman Holiday (1953) Wyler
81. Singin' in the Rain (1952) Kelly Donen
150. Ikiru (1952) Kurosawa
146. High Noon (1952) Zinnemann
141. Strangers on a Train (1951) Hitchcock
208. A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) Kazan
32. Sunset Blvd. (1950) Wilder
78. Rashomon (1950) Kurosawa
84. All About Eve (1950) Mankiewicz
67. The Third Man (1949) Reed
210. Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) Hamer
72. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) Huston
87. Bicycle Thieves (1948) De Sica
235. Rope (1948) Hitchcock
28. It's a Wonderful Life (1946) Capra
156. Notorious (1946) Hitchcock
170. The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks
175. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) Wyler
54. Double Indemnity (1944) Wilder
19. Casablanca (1942) Curtiz
38. Citizen Kane (1941) Wells
106. The Maltese Falcon (1941) Huston
82. The Great Dictator (1940) Chaplin
108. Rebecca (1940) Hitchcock
157. The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Ford
249. His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks
103. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Capra
132. The Wizard of Oz (1939) Fleming
155. Gone with the Wind (1939) Fleming
64. Modern Times (1936) Chaplin
143. It Happened One Night (1934) Capra
49. City Lights (1931) Chaplin
53. M (1931) Lang
216. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) Milestone
212. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) Dreyer
92. Metropolis (1927) Lang
160. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) Murnau
120. The General (1926) Keaton
151. The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin
220. Sherlock Jr. (1924) Keaton
158. The Kid (1921) Chaplin
And for those out there who like a good break down:
2000-11 69
1990-9 39
1980-9 29
1970-9 24
1960-9 24
1950-9 33
1940-9 17
1930-9 8
Before 1930 7
I'd say that is pretty balanced. This being said with the understanding that newer movies need time to balance and find their place. So far, the only people who have seen Drive saw it in theaters (i.e. people who were already favorable to it). In a month, Drive will be lucky to be on the list at all, let along the top half. There is also a very lopsided number of movies that had Oscar nominations from the past couple years. As time passes, those will disappear.
Another part of this balancing period is foreign films. Because they are foreign, they take more time to make it on the list. This is obvious. As I've already said, there is a rather remarkable number of foreign entries in the list, so the native bias is no impenetrable wall.
One year I would like to highlight: 1957. There are 7 films from 6 directors. You have to go to 1994 before another year even has 6. When you calculate in time, rankings, and number, this is by far the most dominate year on the list. And the one thing all the films have in common: All the directors have multiple entries on the list. In fact, the three most dominate directors on the list are all present.
This brings up another question of about the list. What is it really ranking?
Here's a list of directors with 3 entries or more:
Hitchcock 9 '40, '46, '48, '51, '54, '54, '58, '59, '60
Kubrick 8 '56, '57, '64, '68, '71, 75, '80, '87
Wilder 6 '44, '50, '53, '57, '59, '60
Scorsese 6 '76, '80, '90, '95, '06, '10
Nolan 5 '00, '05, '06, '08, '10
Speilberg 5 '75, '81, '89, '93, '98
Kurosawa 5 '50, '52, '54, '61, '85
Chaplin 5 '21, 25, '31, '36, '40
Terantino 5 '92, '94, '03, '04, '09
Miyazaki 5 '84, '88, '97, '01, '04
Leone 4 '65, '66, '68, '84
Cameron 4 '84, '86, '91, '09
Eastwood 4 '92, '03, '04, '08
Bergman 4 '57, '57, '66, '82
Coppola 3 '72, '74, '79
Jackson 3 '01, '02, '03
Scott 3 '79, '82, '00
Fincher 3 '95, '99, '10
Capra 3 '34, '39, '46
Polanski 3 '68, '74, '02
Lumet 3 '57, '75, '76
Aronofsky 3 '00, '08, '10
Coen 3 '96, '98, '07
Wyler 3 '46, '53, '59
Fellini 3 '54, '57, '63
That is almost half (47.2%) the movies on the list. Then through in 24 directors with 2 entries and two cases of having two directors for three movies. That's more than 2/3s (68.8%) of the list favoring multiple showcases from a director.
That leaves 87 movies with a single entry director. And, as you move up the list, you see fewer and fewer of them. The highest single director movies are Star Wars and Empire, so those virtually count together. After that, City of God (also foreign) is at 18.
And, if you look at the trending on the list, there is greater director variance as it gets more recent.
What conclusions do I draw from this?
Mostly, I see that the list is very much reflective of the directors people see as great. "Paths of Glory" and "The Killing" are great movies, I'm sure, but would they be rated so highly without Kubrick's name? Perhaps. Hard to say, but you would have a hard time convincing me that, say, 9 of Hitchcock's movies are really in the top 250. I don't dislike Hitchcock, but that's steep, don't you think.
Then there's the curious case of Christopher Nolan. Great director with polarized appeal now that he has taken his talents to films with 100 million dollar budgets. He should be on this list, no question. There is an obvious fanboy pitfall in this list in that all 5 movies of his are in the top half of the list and dominantly so. Here's some scope for you. The Prestige is only 2 behind L.A. Confidential and 6 ahead of Raging Bull. Does it really belong there? No, but time will balance that. It more is of a show of Nolan support on the list than anything else.
In the end, the IMDB top 250 is a great list to go off to be a topical but well-rounded movie watcher. It has a greater quality than a list of highest grossing or dvd sales list would. And, it is more accessible (with a greater focus of entertainment over influence) than any AFI list. It is representative of the history of films without being to bogged down by equity for all time periods. Sure, there is heavy favoritism on modern movies. We live in modern times. That's forgivable.
I think it is safe to say I have seen a lot of movies (more than the average person my age without a doubt). Despite myself, I haven't even seen half the movies on this list (121/250). But, I've seen the top 12 (an expiration in Instant Queue away from the top 19) and 37 of the top 50. In other words, I'm doing a good job getting through these and I see the value in most of the movies I haven't yet seen. One of these days I'll hit the 90% mark on the list (one of my major movie goals). Until then, I'm enjoying the ride and trying to keep up.
What's the point of this examination? I figure if you are still reading this, you have a lot of free time or want to see where I am going with this. Sorry. This isn't a term paper, so no grand conclusion here. This is just my response to a story I saw a while back where someone broke down the Top 250, comparing how it evolved in a year's time. The determination struck me as "I't ok for now, but it is growing modern at an alarming rate". I wholeheartedly disagree. The list is never complete so one can never only look at where it is now. The specific ranks are not as important as what makes the list. No one can make a strong case for Life of Brian being 167 and The Graduate below it at 168. Sure, Harry Potter 8 at 133 can't last and Black Swan will take a dive from 113 eventually.
What one should pull from this is the feel for the movies. The list is representative of the evolution of film making. Starting with the early successes of Chaplin and Keaton in the silent age, the early epics from Gone with the Wind to Ben-Hur, the early experimentation of Bergman and Fellini, the great war films and Westerns of the 50s and 60s, the rise and decline of the New Hollywood and it's more into the age of blockbusters with films like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Jaws in the same year representing each, the rebirth of the indie film in the 2000s, and evolutions within a genre ranging from Spartacus to Gladiator, The Bridge on the River Kwai to Saving Private Ryan, and even Star Wars to Star Trek.
...Wow. I need some better hobbies.
The IMDB Top 250 list is the best list I've been able to find of the top movies out there. I don't know the exact rating rules for it (my guess is that it's based on having at least x ratings), but it does a great job of keeping outliers off (or not on long, but more on that in a bit). Part of what works so well with the list is that it isn't a poll in the traditional sense. Star Wars fanboys don't care to try and skew the votes because it's a fluid collection, not a final tally.
That said, the focus is on quantity of voters over quality of them and that keeps this from being another boring critical darling list. Citizen Kane may be influential, but not that many people LOVE it. City of God may be the best "work of art" over the past decade, but it's not the first movie I put on to top my personal list. That's really what it is, a collection of a lot of people's top 10 lists.
Faults
I want to come right out and admit it's faults. It is super modern-skewing. Every year, if you examine it, the average year of the movies goes up. I don't even need to examine it to know that. This is a list made by the internet age. That is why over 60 of the movies have been made since 2000 and each decade has fewer movies and director variation decreases.
The other major fault is that it is more of a "guy's list". You won't be seeing The Notebook on here. At the same time, should you see The Notebook on here? I'll let you decide that for yourself, but a sweeping and (I say this with great pain) timeless epic like Titanic should be on the list. There's no two ways about that. (Granted, this is only my opinion, therein lies the inarguable strength of the list).
Smaller issue like a lack of comedies and domination of American films (though not as much as you'd at first think) I can't hold against it. Comedies are generally too polarizing and .com is an American extension so there's an assumed level of home court advantage.
Strengths
In it's favor there is a lot though. Helping to legitimize it, there is a movie represented from every years going back till 1947. This includes several movies from the 20s. Also, 39 of 84 Oscar winners for best picture are included as well as dozens more nominated films. In the top 20 there are multiple foreign films too. So, the list is more diverse than most would expect for an internet list.
Thanks for keeping with me this far. Below, I've compiled a list of movies in the list based on year. Below that, I have a bit of a breakdown.
Top 250 as of 9/24/11 by release year.
Rank Title (Year) Director
101. Drive (2011) Refn
133. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011) Yates
222. A Separation (2011) Farhadi
11. Inception (2010) Nolan
37. Toy Story 3 (2010) Unkrich
113. Black Swan (2010) Aronofsky
124. The King's Speech (2010) Hooper
182. How to Train Your Dragon (2010) Sanders Dublois
218. The Social Network (2010) Fincher
238. Shutter Island (2010) Scorsese
95. Inglourious Basterds (2009) Terantino
102. Up (2009) Doctor Peterson
162. District 9 (2009) Blomkamp
161. The Secret in Their Eyes (2009) Campanella
192. Avatar (2009) J. Cameron
196. Mary and Max (2009) Elliot
200. Star Trek (2009) Abrams
9. The Dark Knight (2008) Nolan
52. WALL·E (2008) Stanton
100. Gran Torino (2008) Eastwood
139. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) Boyle
183. The Wrestler (2008) Aronofsky
217. In Bruges (2008) McDonagh
223. Let the Right One In (2008) Lindqvist
241. Ip Man (2008) Yip
129. No Country for Old Men (2007) Coen
148. Into the Wild (2007) Penn
154. There Will Be Blood (2007) Anderson
178. The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) Greengrass
191. Ratatouille (2007) Bird
204. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007) Schnabel
55. The Lives of Others (2006) Donnersmarck
56. The Departed (2006) Scorsese
71. The Prestige (2006) Nolan
85. Pan's Labyrinth (2006) del Toro
180. V for Vendetta (2006) McTeigue
234. Children of Men (2006) Cuaron
114. Batman Begins (2005) Nolan
112. Sin City (2005) Miller Rodriguez
62. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) Gondry
94. Downfall (2004) Hirschbiegel
126. Hotel Rwanda (2004) George
152. Million Dollar Baby (2004) Eastwood
219. Howl's Moving Castle (2004) Miyazaki
214. The Incredibles (2004) Bird
236. Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004) Terantino
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) Jackson
93. Oldboy (2003) Chan-wook
142. Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) Terantino
172. Finding Nemo (2003) Stanton Unkirch
221. Mystic River (2003) Eastwood
233. Pirates of the Caribbean: ...Black Pearl (2003) Verbinski
227. Big Fish (2003) Burton
246. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003) Ki-duk
18. City of God (2002) Meirelles Lund
30. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) Jackson
51. The Pianist (2002) Polanski
228. Infernal Affairs (2002) Lau Mack
17. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) Jackson
45. Spirited Away (2001) Miyazaki
47. Amélie (2001) Jenet
144. Donnie Darko (2001) Kelly
245. Monsters, Inc. (2001) Docter
242. A Beautiful Mind (2001) Howard
31. Memento (2000) Nolan
61. Requiem for a Dream (2000) Aronofsky
88. Gladiator (2000) Scott
125. Snatch. (2000) Ritchie
163. Amores Perros (2000) Inarritu
14. Fight Club (1999) Fincher
21. The Matrix (1999) Wachowski
40. American Beauty (1999) Mendes
74. The Green Mile (1999) Darabont
136. The Sixth Sense (1999) Shyamalan
225. Magnolia (1999) Anderson
36. American History X (1998) Kaye
43. Saving Private Ryan (1998) Speilberg
134. The Big Lebowski (1998) Coen
164. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) Ritchie
215. The Truman Show (1998) Weir
232. The Celebration (1998) Vinterberg
65. Life Is Beautiful (1997) Benigni
69. L.A. Confidential (1997) Hanson
104. Princess Mononoke (1997) Miyazaki
187. Good Will Hunting (1997) Van Sant
118. Fargo (1996) Coen
149. Trainspotting (1996) Boyle
24. The Usual Suspects (1995) Singer
27. Se7en (1995) Fincher
90. Braveheart (1995) Gibson
117. Heat (1995) Mann
137. Toy Story (1995) Lasseter
169. Casino (1995) Scorsese
181. Twelve Monkeys (1995) Gillam
250. Before Sunrise (1995) Linklater
1. The Shawshank Redemption (1994) Darabont
5. Pulp Fiction (1994) Terantino
29. Forrest Gump (1994) Zemeckis
33. Leon: The Professional (1994) Besson
122. The Lion King (1994) Allers Minkoff
229. Ed Wood (1994) Burton
7. Schindler's List (1993) Speilberg
165. Groundhog Day (1993) Ramis
66. Reservoir Dogs (1992) Terantino
96. Unforgiven (1992) Eastwood
25. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) Demme
41. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) J. Cameron
15. Goodfellas (1990) Scorsese
105. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) Speilberg
73. Cinema Paradiso (1988) Tornatore
115. Grave of the Fireflies (1988) Takahata
109. Die Hard (1988) McTiernan
184. My Neighbor Totoro (1988) Miyazaki
244. Rain Man (1988) Levinson
83. Full Metal Jacket (1987) Kubrick
195. The Princess Bride (1987) Reiner
60. Aliens (1986) J. Cameron
145. Platoon (1986) Stone
176. Stand by Me (1986) Reiner
68. Back to the Future (1985) Zemeckis
128. Ran (1985) Kurosawa
79. Amadeus (1984) Forman
76. Once Upon a Time in America (1984) Leone
171. The Terminator (1984) J. Cameron
248. Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (1984) Miyazaki
99. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) Marquand
147. Scarface (1983) De Palma
119. Blade Runner (1982) Scott
173. The Thing (1982) Carpentar
185. Gandhi (1982) Attenborough
209. Fanny and Alexander (1982) Bergman
23. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) Speilberg
63. Das Boot (1981) Petersen
77. Raging Bull (1980) Scorsese
98. The Elephant Man (1980) Lynch
12. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Kershner
48. The Shining (1980) Kubrick
44. Alien (1979) Scott
35. Apocalypse Now (1979) Coppola
167. Life of Brian (1979) Jones
230. Manhattan (1979) Allen
243. Stalker (1979) Tarkovsky
135. The Deer Hunter (1978) Cimino
16. Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) Lucas
140. Annie Hall (1977) Allen
42. Taxi Driver (1976) Scorsese
188. Network (1976) Lumet
213. Rocky (1976) Avilsen
8. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) Forman
75. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) Gillam Jones
127. Jaws (1975) Speilberg
179. Dog Day Afternoon (1975) Lumet
211. Barry Lyndon (1975) Kubrick
3. The Godfather: Part II (1974) Coppola
70. Chinatown (1974) Polanski
97. The Sting (1973) Hill
205. The Exorcist (1973) Friedkin
2. The Godfather (1972) Coppola
239. Sleuth (1972) Mankiewicz
57. A Clockwork Orange (1971) Kubrick
240. Patton (1970) Schaffner
153. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969) Hill
206. The Wild Bunch (1969) Peckinpah
20. Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) Leone
89. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) Kubrick
224. Rosemary's Baby (1968) Polanski
138. Cool Hand Luke (1967) Rosenberg
168. The Graduate (1967) Nichols
4. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966) Leone
194. The Battle of Algiers (1966) Pontecorvo
201. Persona (1966) Bergman
203. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966) Nichols
121. For a Few Dollars More (1965) Leone
34. Dr. Strangelove ... (1964) Kubrick
110. The Great Escape (1963) Sturges
190. 8½ (1963) Fellini
58. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) Lean
59. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) Mulligan
174. The Manchurian Candidate (1962) Frankenheimer
237. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Ford
116. Yojimbo (1961) Kurosawa
186. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) Kramer
198. The Hustler (1961) Rossen
26. Psycho (1960) Hitchcock
91. The Apartment (1960) Wilder
39. North by Northwest (1959) Hitchcock
80. Some Like It Hot (1959) Wilder
166. Ben-Hur (1959) Wyler
193. The 400 Blows (1959) Truffaut
247. Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Preminger
46. Vertigo (1958) Hitchcock
131. Touch of Evil (1958) Wells
6. 12 Angry Men (1957) Lumet
50. Paths of Glory (1957) Kubrick
86. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) Lean
111. The Seventh Seal (1957) Bergman
123. Witness for the Prosecution (1957) Wilder
130. Wild Strawberries (1957) Bergman
226. Nights of Cabiria (1957) Fellini
197. The Killing (1956) Kubrick
177. Diabolique (1955) Clouzot
189. The Night of the Hunter (1955) Laughton
13. Seven Samurai (1954) Kurosawa
22. Rear Window (1954) Hitchcock
107. On the Waterfront (1954) Kazan
199. Dial M for Murder (1954) Hitchcock
202. La Strada (1954) Fellini
159. The Wages of Fear (1953) Clouzot
207. Stalag 17 (1953) Wilder
231. Roman Holiday (1953) Wyler
81. Singin' in the Rain (1952) Kelly Donen
150. Ikiru (1952) Kurosawa
146. High Noon (1952) Zinnemann
141. Strangers on a Train (1951) Hitchcock
208. A Streetcar Named Desire (1951) Kazan
32. Sunset Blvd. (1950) Wilder
78. Rashomon (1950) Kurosawa
84. All About Eve (1950) Mankiewicz
67. The Third Man (1949) Reed
210. Kind Hearts and Coronets (1949) Hamer
72. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) Huston
87. Bicycle Thieves (1948) De Sica
235. Rope (1948) Hitchcock
28. It's a Wonderful Life (1946) Capra
156. Notorious (1946) Hitchcock
170. The Big Sleep (1946) Hawks
175. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) Wyler
54. Double Indemnity (1944) Wilder
19. Casablanca (1942) Curtiz
38. Citizen Kane (1941) Wells
106. The Maltese Falcon (1941) Huston
82. The Great Dictator (1940) Chaplin
108. Rebecca (1940) Hitchcock
157. The Grapes of Wrath (1940) Ford
249. His Girl Friday (1940) Hawks
103. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) Capra
132. The Wizard of Oz (1939) Fleming
155. Gone with the Wind (1939) Fleming
64. Modern Times (1936) Chaplin
143. It Happened One Night (1934) Capra
49. City Lights (1931) Chaplin
53. M (1931) Lang
216. All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) Milestone
212. The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) Dreyer
92. Metropolis (1927) Lang
160. Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) Murnau
120. The General (1926) Keaton
151. The Gold Rush (1925) Chaplin
220. Sherlock Jr. (1924) Keaton
158. The Kid (1921) Chaplin
And for those out there who like a good break down:
2000-11 69
1990-9 39
1980-9 29
1970-9 24
1960-9 24
1950-9 33
1940-9 17
1930-9 8
Before 1930 7
I'd say that is pretty balanced. This being said with the understanding that newer movies need time to balance and find their place. So far, the only people who have seen Drive saw it in theaters (i.e. people who were already favorable to it). In a month, Drive will be lucky to be on the list at all, let along the top half. There is also a very lopsided number of movies that had Oscar nominations from the past couple years. As time passes, those will disappear.
Another part of this balancing period is foreign films. Because they are foreign, they take more time to make it on the list. This is obvious. As I've already said, there is a rather remarkable number of foreign entries in the list, so the native bias is no impenetrable wall.
One year I would like to highlight: 1957. There are 7 films from 6 directors. You have to go to 1994 before another year even has 6. When you calculate in time, rankings, and number, this is by far the most dominate year on the list. And the one thing all the films have in common: All the directors have multiple entries on the list. In fact, the three most dominate directors on the list are all present.
This brings up another question of about the list. What is it really ranking?
Here's a list of directors with 3 entries or more:
Hitchcock 9 '40, '46, '48, '51, '54, '54, '58, '59, '60
Kubrick 8 '56, '57, '64, '68, '71, 75, '80, '87
Wilder 6 '44, '50, '53, '57, '59, '60
Scorsese 6 '76, '80, '90, '95, '06, '10
Nolan 5 '00, '05, '06, '08, '10
Speilberg 5 '75, '81, '89, '93, '98
Kurosawa 5 '50, '52, '54, '61, '85
Chaplin 5 '21, 25, '31, '36, '40
Terantino 5 '92, '94, '03, '04, '09
Miyazaki 5 '84, '88, '97, '01, '04
Leone 4 '65, '66, '68, '84
Cameron 4 '84, '86, '91, '09
Eastwood 4 '92, '03, '04, '08
Bergman 4 '57, '57, '66, '82
Coppola 3 '72, '74, '79
Jackson 3 '01, '02, '03
Scott 3 '79, '82, '00
Fincher 3 '95, '99, '10
Capra 3 '34, '39, '46
Polanski 3 '68, '74, '02
Lumet 3 '57, '75, '76
Aronofsky 3 '00, '08, '10
Coen 3 '96, '98, '07
Wyler 3 '46, '53, '59
Fellini 3 '54, '57, '63
That is almost half (47.2%) the movies on the list. Then through in 24 directors with 2 entries and two cases of having two directors for three movies. That's more than 2/3s (68.8%) of the list favoring multiple showcases from a director.
That leaves 87 movies with a single entry director. And, as you move up the list, you see fewer and fewer of them. The highest single director movies are Star Wars and Empire, so those virtually count together. After that, City of God (also foreign) is at 18.
And, if you look at the trending on the list, there is greater director variance as it gets more recent.
What conclusions do I draw from this?
Mostly, I see that the list is very much reflective of the directors people see as great. "Paths of Glory" and "The Killing" are great movies, I'm sure, but would they be rated so highly without Kubrick's name? Perhaps. Hard to say, but you would have a hard time convincing me that, say, 9 of Hitchcock's movies are really in the top 250. I don't dislike Hitchcock, but that's steep, don't you think.
Then there's the curious case of Christopher Nolan. Great director with polarized appeal now that he has taken his talents to films with 100 million dollar budgets. He should be on this list, no question. There is an obvious fanboy pitfall in this list in that all 5 movies of his are in the top half of the list and dominantly so. Here's some scope for you. The Prestige is only 2 behind L.A. Confidential and 6 ahead of Raging Bull. Does it really belong there? No, but time will balance that. It more is of a show of Nolan support on the list than anything else.
In the end, the IMDB top 250 is a great list to go off to be a topical but well-rounded movie watcher. It has a greater quality than a list of highest grossing or dvd sales list would. And, it is more accessible (with a greater focus of entertainment over influence) than any AFI list. It is representative of the history of films without being to bogged down by equity for all time periods. Sure, there is heavy favoritism on modern movies. We live in modern times. That's forgivable.
I think it is safe to say I have seen a lot of movies (more than the average person my age without a doubt). Despite myself, I haven't even seen half the movies on this list (121/250). But, I've seen the top 12 (an expiration in Instant Queue away from the top 19) and 37 of the top 50. In other words, I'm doing a good job getting through these and I see the value in most of the movies I haven't yet seen. One of these days I'll hit the 90% mark on the list (one of my major movie goals). Until then, I'm enjoying the ride and trying to keep up.
What's the point of this examination? I figure if you are still reading this, you have a lot of free time or want to see where I am going with this. Sorry. This isn't a term paper, so no grand conclusion here. This is just my response to a story I saw a while back where someone broke down the Top 250, comparing how it evolved in a year's time. The determination struck me as "I't ok for now, but it is growing modern at an alarming rate". I wholeheartedly disagree. The list is never complete so one can never only look at where it is now. The specific ranks are not as important as what makes the list. No one can make a strong case for Life of Brian being 167 and The Graduate below it at 168. Sure, Harry Potter 8 at 133 can't last and Black Swan will take a dive from 113 eventually.
What one should pull from this is the feel for the movies. The list is representative of the evolution of film making. Starting with the early successes of Chaplin and Keaton in the silent age, the early epics from Gone with the Wind to Ben-Hur, the early experimentation of Bergman and Fellini, the great war films and Westerns of the 50s and 60s, the rise and decline of the New Hollywood and it's more into the age of blockbusters with films like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Jaws in the same year representing each, the rebirth of the indie film in the 2000s, and evolutions within a genre ranging from Spartacus to Gladiator, The Bridge on the River Kwai to Saving Private Ryan, and even Star Wars to Star Trek.
...Wow. I need some better hobbies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)