NAPKIN SKETCHES

INCEPTION was very good: could it have been better?

2010-07-18T14:42:00.009-04:00

(although nobody reads this blog, I want to issue a minor Spoiler Alert before we get started. ::whoop whoop:: ok. let's get started.)

I remember when I first saw the trailer for "Inception." First, it's the visuals that grab you. Paris is folding over into itself while Leo DiCaprio and Ellen Page sit in a cafe. Things start exploding around them yet they remain safe as though they're in a bubble. Then it's a train running loose down a major city street. A gravity-defying fight is taking place in a hotel hallway. Then you hear those thumping mechanical horns and it says, "From Christopher Nolan," and suddenly I'm getting out my phone to mark opening day in my calendar. It's about dreams? Sounds good. Sign me up.

The weight of expectations was always going to be a challenge for "Inception," the follow-up to Nolan's much adored "The Dark Knight." Expectations were high, and not just because of Batman and how good it was, but because - let's face it - this has been a miserable summer for adults who want to see good blockbusters. "Inception" stood alone as an event movie this season.

So I watched it. And you know what? "Inception" is actually somewhere between very good and great. It manages to be a fairly complex story with a lot of rules you have to follow in order to keep up, but yet it's never alienating. I think this might be where a lot of the debate is starting to center around. Is it too complex? Or is it actually not complex enough? This somehow seems to be where the debate it heading. You'd think consensus would lean towards one side.

To my mind, the story's complexity isn't a problem. True, it never gets into the "Primer" zone, for better or worse. "Primer" is this fascinating indie picture about time travel from a few years ago. Now there's a movie that really challenges your ability to follow along. It essentially dares you to re-watch it and figure out how everything fits together. "Inception" never gets to that point and that's okay. A major idea of the movie centers around our psyche being like a maze, a place that can being physically explored. I suppose to have felt lost within the story would have been an exciting exploration of that theme, but for all its rules, "Inception" is actually a pretty linear story. They go into the dream. Then they go into the dream-within-the-dream. And then they go down two more levels. They find resolution in Level Four and then the dream is over. A little confusing sometimes but no maze there really.

Here's the thing: maze or no maze, it's a really engrossing movie and there's only one thing I can imagine that could really take it to the next level: let's call it the Ellen Page Factor. She is such an enjoyable presence on screen. But her character is devoid of any real development in this story. I propose we use her character to fix a few things about the movie that could have been stronger.

For starters, like DiCaprio's character says in the movie, when you're dreaming you don't know you're dreaming. So why do all of Leo's crew know that they're dreaming all the time? Wouldn't we as an audience have connected more with the main characters if we saw them struggling to remember that the world surrounding them wasn't real? What if the explanation was that it's a skill they have to learn: to stay fully conscious while interacting with dreams. In that case, Ellen Page's character as the newbie could be the one we see struggling to keep it all straight. I think if the audience saw that it would draw us even further into the story. I understand that would pose new obstacles for the writers, since you wouldn't want to keep repeating the same type of scene over and over every time they move into a deeper dream level. "Oh my god, Leo you've been shot! You're dying!" "No no, come on. We've been over this. Remember? We're in a dream, okay?" "Oh yeah, right. I forgot." Yes, it would get old, so you'd have to be clever with how you did it, but it could be done.

Which brings me to the next thing. I would have preferred it if the Fourth Level Dream was given some time to unfold, to really showcase Leo & Ellen Page stuck in this deep inner dimension, much like his character was years ago. I want to see Ellen Page coming unraveled and having deja vu moments about her real life, forgetting if it ever was her real life. This would be much like "2001" after the wormhole scene. Just a bizarre meditation on life and time until they finally find what they're looking for (speaking of which, why was Leo's character still a young man when he found Saito, who was so old?). I think this would've given the story a little extra something, an extra sense of feeling lost in the whole thing. Maybe it needed to be a little mystical here. Something like a memory long forgotten and and briefly remembered. The sense that life has somehow been going on for an eternity. This would give their re-emergence all the more dramatic release when they finally wake-up.

So that's it really. Hey Chris Nolan, you should have used Ellen Page's character more! That's really my whole point. Otherwise, people who didn't like this movie are either stupid or nit-picking. Because it's a really good movie! And that's really rare for Hollywood lately!

Enjoy Failure

2009-06-01T17:08:00.008-04:00

Dear Blog,

You are all I have left. No one else will listen to my salty rants and my beautiful ideas. So I turn to you in my time of need.

I am almost a fully grown man. I am growing lonelier and ever more bitter with each passing day. Life for me has been a series of bad decisions and missed opportunities. I don't have very much money, I have no women, I have waning hope for finding a truly satisfying career. I have no fundamental hobby to fall back on, I have no plans for my future. Overall, there is nothing much left for me in this world. I am becoming a miserable failure. [If you need definitive proof of my demise, here it is: I know who Jon & Kate + 8 are because I sometimes watch the show. And what's worse is I'm not a.) married to a wife that I can blame it on, b.) a homo, c.) forced to watch it for any sort of publication. This is called failing without dignity, my friends.]

When I'm not watching shows intended for middle-aged female audiences I might be watching sports instead. (I don't bring this up with the hopes of keeping my Man Card. You can't keep your Man Card after you admit to watching anything on The Learning Channel, I think.) Specifically I enjoy watching the NBA Playoffs. This was supposed to be the year when Kobe and LeBron finally battled for ultimate supremacy, like Batman versus Superman or something. That's the match-up everyone wanted, I guess. And LeBron was supposed to win, finally freeing the People of Cleveland from decades of shame and disappointment. But like me, Cleveland was painfully reminded, again, that happiness and victory are never to be found in this life, and that torment and misery will be their only friends.

I sympathize with Cleveland, I guess. BUT - and there is a big but here - I must confess, I'm also taking great delight in their defeat. You might say I'm even basking in it. Let me explain why.

I'm someone who feels like they can't catch a break in life. If I bet on red, then you should bet on black because you will make money, you see? That's how it works. Likewise, if I was a character in the story The Lottery then surely I would be the one who pulled the red marble (or whichever color marble kills you). I am a living, breathing Wile E. Coyote, and I'm tired of failing. But you know what's a nice consolation while you continue to fail all the time? Answer: watching the Road Runner also fail.

This brings me to LeBron James.

King James. The Messiah & Saviour. Redeemer to All Mankind.

He failed. And he wore his agony on his sleeve.

And I swallowed it up like sweet champagne.

Life has endowed LeBron James with so many natural talents that you just start to think that it's not fair. I'm not saying I like that about myself. Boo effing hoo, etc. I got that. Nonetheless, that's where I'm at. And this past Saturday I was offered a rare treat in this life. I got to be a witness when The King - the person who has it all - came up short. He was devastated. He couldn't even bring himself to congratulate the team that won. He couldn't even face the media afterwards. Rather, he just vanished into a cloud of smoke.

Yes, that was probably one of the worst days of LeBron's young life. And yet, I became happier for it? What's wrong with me? Am I the worst person alive?

Listen, I don't have all the answers. Maybe I'm the worst. Maybe I'm not. Or maybe LeBron is the worst for always succeeding all the time. Who really knows?

Here's what I do know: I will continue to enjoy LeBron's failure for the time being and I will do so without guilt. And besides, it's only a matter of time for him before the championships and the parades and the granite statues made in his honor. His ultimate failure is highly unlikely. So for this brief second, this brief moment of despair on the hero's journey, let me just enjoy it. Let me savor the fact that LeBron and I are both failures, and that he is as human as I am.

ps. I wrote the Neko Case essay and it was lame, which helped remind me why I didn't want to write album & movie reviews in the first place. But here's the summary: Neko Case's new album is good so you should buy it if you like good music. i like her voice. the end.

soft & boring

2009-03-30T18:28:00.004-04:00

back to the blog grind.

i've enjoyed a cold, lonely winter and now it is time to begin again the journey we started years ago. i'm reminded of walt's ghost who once told a wounded john locke to get up because there was still work to be done. indeed there is, walt.

my friends, napkin sketches has been a formless forum of free thought for the entire duration of its existence. while this template may never die entirely, i have decided to shift ever so slightly towards a new path. free thought will always reign, but now it will reign within the confines of the arts. yes, i believe we are headed towards the art appreciation phase of Napkin Sketches. here we will not be boring criticizers of art. instead we seek to roll around in great art, to enjoy it, and to champion it.

the next phase begins very soon with a look at the brilliant neko case and her new album, middle cyclone.

what's that you say? i've becoming boring and soft? well my friends you are mistaken. i have always been very boring and extremely soft.

whatever. it's a stupid blog. let's just see where this takes us.

a toast to my country

2008-11-05T21:08:00.017-05:00

here's to the rebels

and to the founders

to the newly free

to the innovators

to the weary

to the heroes

to those who fought just to be equal

to the impossible becoming possible

to all the peaceful resolutions and restored freedoms

to all those who never succumbed to fear

and to those who dared to hope.

we did it.

couric, where art thou?

2008-10-03T00:27:00.005-04:00

many people expected (hoped) that sarah palin would utterly fall on her face tonight at the vice presidential debate (people like me). what would that look like exactly? maybe she would have vomited all over herself on live tv. maybe should would have gone Garth on us and simply stood in trembling silence trying to think of something to say for minutes at a time. otherwise, i don't know what utter failure looks like. i suppose it looks like what eventually happened: the moderator asked a question and sarah palin talked about whatever she could think to say, no matter how irrelevent her response was to the question.

katie couric ruined this woman over the past few weeks, from seeing russia from her backyard to not reading any newspapers to not knowing anything about america's legal history. she was exposed as a know-nothing fraud. i guess in a best-case-scenario for the debate tonight, people who loathe her like myself wish she had stumbled as thoroughly as she repeatedly did with couric.

but that was never going to happen tonight. the debate format limited follow-up questioning and moderator gwen ifill was rarely confrontational with the candidates. in essence, if you're palin and you don't know how to answer a question you simply fill the silence with words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words no matter how loosely they pertain to the question. SHE DID THE SAME THING WITH COURIC, except here's the difference: couric challenged her to go beyond the words with specifics which is the moment she looked down and realized she was walking on air.

that moment never came tonight, so she continued to walk on air i guess. biden is largely to blame for this because it was his job to call her out for dodging questions and he never did because he was playing Prevent Defense. whatever. joe was good otherwise.

in short, we're [hopefully] a just over a month away from never having to think about sarah palin again (that is, until she pops up on 'dancing with the stars' next season). and just for the record before i go on strike from ever talking about her again, i openly root for palin's failure because she represents the worst in the 'american voter.' those who would support her show an uncanny display of disdain for the power of the presidency and the seriousness of the job. they will say she is charming. relatable. has a nice smile. energetic. milf.

to those i would direct them to lauren graham, aka. the mom on gilmore girls. she is all those things and then some. which reminds me what a shame it is that gilmore girls had to rush through its final season a few years ago instead of getting the proper send-off it deserved. maybe it makes me a gay-wad for admitting gilmore girls was a &%#$ing good show, but i don't care. and now i'm starting to think they should bring it back for one last season and chronicle the meteoric rise of mama gilmore as she wins mayor of her small town and stumbles into the governor's mansion shortly thereafter, only then to be called by a floundering presidential candidate for her help. "just be cute," he says. "we'll take care of the rest." i.e. we'll blame the media bias for all your shortcomings, we'll shield you from the public as much as possible, and we'll lobby the debate commission for a format where the vp candidates can't directly address one another. the conservative base will declare you the new reagan, which will remind us just how phony reagan actually was. and together we will maverick our way to the white house.

whatever. sarah palin sucks. the end.

fear & loathing in michigan

2008-09-17T19:52:00.013-04:00

i've been reading the Good Doctor's book about the '72 election, "fear & loathing on the campaign trail," because i can't get enough of this election business. back then it was nixon trying to keep the white house away from the democrats, a bid for re-election against the odds-off favorite to win even his own party's nomination, that person being george mcgovern. in the end, nixon wins the race handedly, and in fact mcgovern almost manages to lose every single state in the union. i'm still reading the book, so how nixon accomplishes this landslide remains a mystery to me.

as we approach the final leg of this never-ending presidential campaign, i thought i would write an ode to the great gonzo journalist in the best gonzo style i can muster...

the democrats were supposed to be a shoe-in this year after the wrecking ball presidency that has been george walker bush / dick cheney. and yet here we are with six weeks before the general election and the polls are dead even. leave it to the democrats to find a way to ruin a perfectly winnable election. they couldn't just nominate some white guy and get it over with. instead they picked a young black guy with the middle name hussein in order to tempt fate as much as possible. not that i dislike obama. in fact he's pretty damn impressive if you ask me. but there sure are a lot of stupid bastards out there who probably wouldn't grab a life line from anyone who's not white, if you catch my drift.

michigan is one of those vaunted "battleground" states you're always hearing about. it's a GD mess of racial, ethnic and economic segregation. getting 50.1% of the residents of this state to vote for the young black fella isn't unimaginable given the devastated economy around these parts (one person in ten is now unemployed in this state). you've got to be some sort of devoted republican to stay true to the GOP this year. you've got to give those slimy rats credit for trying though. there's no shortage of feces they won't try to throw against the wall. and this v.p. gimmick is going in the history books for something, either as a brilliant political stunt the likes of which we've never seen before or the most colossial pander-act of desperation ever attempted in the entire history of american politics, which isn't to say those two things can't both be true. it's not a stretch to imagine some of these yankees with their southern roots and confederate flags getting excited about the lady from alaska. she's the closest thing to dubya on either of the tickets, which is probably not appealing to you or me, but for some of these goofy bastards it's an out-and-out gift from God. personally i don't understand the appeal of presidential candidates who can't explain basic policies and speak with definitive generalities, like "war against russia might be necessary," spoken with no regard for reality. but hey, who doesn't love a good republicans vs. the commies conflict? it really brings me back to the good ole days and i'm starting to think governor palin might be the next ronald reagan after all.

the numbers say it's a dead heat here in The Mitton. traveling around this troubled state day-in, day-out, it's much harder to get a sense of this thing. obama is definitely winning the bumper sticker battle. spotting a mccain bumper sticker is a bit like trying to spot a shooting star. it happens from time to time, and every time it's surprising. i find myself staring at the presumptively white catholic inside said vehicle with a heart full of pity and rage. i want to ask them if they really support john mccain or do they just not want obama to win? i've seen the phrase "Nobama" scribbled in the dirt on the backside of a few cargo trucks and i can't help but assume the truckers inside have fallen victim to the cultish disease called conservative talk radio. do these truckers realize how a mccain vote destablizes the union they take comfort in? why vote against your own interests? it's like a bodysnatchers situation. but at least these folks don't hide their anti-obama vote behind a "mccain" sticker. i can respect that.

i was surprised to see obama yard signs the past few days in the rural parts around grand rapids (a conservative region) and even in the rural hillsdale area. i met a few guys in the little town of charlotte who were as excited as a cheerleader on coke when they saw the obama button on the bag i carry around. it makes me think of iowa. in other words, as long as the white folks are at a distance from the black folk, they are fine and dandy with the young fella.

it's metro detroit that's hard to figure out. obama just isn't getting traction with a majority of the suburbanites, i fear. my city is your classic blue-collar, hardhat kind of town with a democratic club just up the street. so why is it that there are three mccain yard signs within a stone's throw and not one obama sign for miles? why doesn't the democrat club and the UAW hall have signs of support up for all to see? i saw a poll that had mccain up about 20 points in the metro area outside of detroit itself, which only makes sense when you confront the reality of racial prejudice in the region. no big surprise considering the [former] mayor of detroit is now a convicted fellon who used millions of taxpayer dollars for hush money. he's pretty much everything suspicious white people fear obama will become: a power-abusing, blacks-first ruler who flaunts more than he works. there's even a commercial floating out there trying to link obama with this d-bag.

(click on mug for slimy ad)

my car is pretty dirty right now. i have an obama sticker taped to the inside of my rear window. i was in the township of delhi earlier in the day which boarders lansing. somebody in delhi wrote "yes" in the dirt above my obama sticker on my car, which was more exhilirating than it had any right to be. when you're in a close race you'll take any little thing to feel better about your chances. of course, i'm demoralized daily at the sight of a mccain headquarters located in the bottom floor of the building a do work for. and why is there a relatively attractive blonde girl working inside at the front desk inside his office? for the most part it's old folks and stiff white kids coming in and out. but her? like i said, it's a bodysnatchers sort of deal. that's all i can figure. i'm sure she's been convinced obama is a baby killer.

the ladies i know up in the corn fields of tuscola county didn't take too well to obama at first. they took the button off my bag and laid it on the floor, in fact. but we've talked...i've preached the gospel as best i could, even in the face of "i think the president should be from america" ignorance. i can't say for sure if they will all vote for mccain now, but they at least don't seem to hate the young messenger of Hope anymore.

i have no idea what's going to happen in this state. if rock-o can keep railing on this economy thing i suspect he has a chance. and he just about has to win michigan if he wants to be president. but if he can't win these lunch pal types down here then there's no telling where all this is headed. what does it mean when the blue-collars stop voting for democrats?

to be continued...

who needs ears?

2008-06-14T14:12:00.000-04:00

coming soon

blue collar blues

2008-04-23T22:18:00.007-04:00

dear mr. obama,

i felt compelled to write you the day after the pennsylvania primary to let you know why i didn't vote for you.

it's not that i was enamored with hillary. in fact, i think we can both agree she's sort of loud and that her voice is something like an alley cat being ground to death by a wood chipper. of course i like bill a whole lot. life was better in the 90's than it is now, and he was president for a lot of those years, so i think having him back in the white house could make times good again. we didn't talk about terrorists and the economy as much back then. it was more about oj simpson and tonya harding and so forth. times were simpler and i liked that. plus bill was just flat out cool, which i'm sure you'd agree with.

but this goes beyond my love of bill. frankly, mr. obama, if i might cut to the chase, i didn't vote for you because i'm afraid of your black skin and your funny name. while i'd be uncomfortable calling myself a racist i do know that i wouldn't want my daughter dating no black. why? they're disruptive in groups at the movie theater for one. second, they'd rather take a check from the government than work. and tell me this: why do so many black folks have handicap parking passes? lazy i tell you.

do you like tyler perry's body of work? i'll bet you do.

another thing: your middle name is hussein. as far as i can tell, that's an arab's name, just like saddam who's hopefully rotting in a pit of fire as we speak. how do we know a black arab like you won't blow up the white house your first day on the job? you'd probably be too lazy to do it on the first day.

of course those are jokes. i don't exactly believe all of that. but i am worried black people will over take the white species and you know they're dying to enslave us for a change. so that's something that lingers in the back of my mind about you.

also, i was told that you're an elitist and i don't like the thought being bossed around by some high-brow know-it-all champagne-drinking black arab. i'll bet the french just love you, don't they? you seem french to me, and i don't like that. senator clinton seems more american to me than you do. i'll bet you drive a prius, too. that just dawned on me.

fact is, i love guns, beer, bowling and The Lord. you seem like you don't, and therefore i'm afraid you won't represent my best interests if you become the president. i guess that's what it really boils down to for me.

i don't like you're pastor either. he thinks america's evil and i think the opposite is true. warrants mentioning.

in short, i don't trust you and therefore you didn't receive my vote. i can't quite put my finger on why that is, but if i figure it out i'll be sure to let you know.

mr. obama, i wish you all the best, mostly, and i thank you for your time.

sincerely,

anonymous blue collar male who's catholic and making less than $50,000 annually with no college education

mcdonald's fights culture

2008-04-12T16:12:00.007-04:00

i want to talk about coffee & mcdonald's for just a minute.

here's the scene: two women are sitting in a bookstore cafe sipping coffee by a fire. think liberal arts grad students. not exactly mcdonald's bread and butter clientèle.

they break away from their NY Times and Dostoevsky and have an exchange similar to the following:

blond white girl: "Hey, so i heard mcdonald's makes lattes now."

jewish girl: "Well that's...that's...fantastic," she says, social consequences be damned.

and then they say things like i don't have to listen to jazz all day long! i can read gossip magazines again! i can watch reality tv! i don't really know how to speak french! i don't even know where paraguay is! what's paraguay?

And then the pitch: Try mcdonald's McCafe coffees. all the coffee, hold the attitude.

and i wonder aloud: who is Ronald McDonald appealing to with this ad?

possibility #1 - they are appealing to starbucks nation

maybe this commercial is on to something. maybe people across the country don't really like starbucks at all. maybe they're just trying to look cultured and intellectual. perhaps it will only take a few brave souls to stand up and break the chains of oppression that starbucks shackles us with. no more pretending. no more jazz or literature or notebooks. no more double roasted beans with italian names. no more! we can be ourselves. we CAN drink cheaper, less flavorful coffee at mcdonald's and chit-chat about non smart things. sweet.

maybe.

possibility #2 - they are appealing to wal-mart nation

assuming possibility #1 doesn't happen, then who else might this ad appeal to? might it be the very people who resent starbucks nation? people who see the starbuck elites as phony liberals and want nothing to do with them? people who revel in being quote-unquote less cultured than other's of us and will stake their superiority flag in the moral high ground of unpretentiousness?

leave it to mcdonald's to pick a culture fight in order to galvanize its base by uniting it against a different type of culture. no other restaurant chain is so self-conscious as to concern itself with the culture level of its customers (except maybe arby's). just advertise your product like burger king does. be proud of your cheap price and guilty pleasure appeal.

this is a classically political tactic, though. imitate your nemesis (hey, let's sell lattes like starbucks does!) and then destroy them for the very qualities that you admired and wanted to steal in the first place. this is like clinton or mccain killing obama on his message of hope and then ripping him off moments later (mccain: "i'm fired up and ready to go!" clinton: "yes we can!").

the final bit of crap here is that most people don't completely fit into one category. who doesn't go to both starbucks & mcdonald's from time to time? why do entities like mcdonald's and/or politicians always try to divide people against themselves in order to galvanize allegiances? i guess i just answered my own question there.

i can speak freely on these things since i'm impartial to the issue. i prefer dunkin' donuts.

when the trilogy was king

2008-02-16T12:39:00.016-05:00

yesterday, i watched the new Indiana Jones movie trailer. at first, i wasn't sure it was even legitimate since homemade trailers run rampant on the net these days. but sure enough, it was the real thing. there he was, harrison ford in his 50's or 60's swinging around with his whip like spider-man. there were explosions. there were tribal warrior people complete with blow darts and grass skirts. and most surprising, it seems that some of the action takes place in the warehouse where the ark of the covenant was stored. all in all, it looks like an indiana jones movie, which is about the best thing we could hope for after a 19 year absence. (i will say one negative thing about the trailer: it starts on a very strange, overly grandiose note, with scenes from the last three films set on a bed of dramatic music saying things like, "he protected the power of the divine" and "he triumphed over the armies of evil." eventually, it settles down and plays the fun indiana jones music, showing us a silhouette of the fedora-wearing adventurer and the real preview begins. the serious nature of the opening doesn't fit indiana jones very well, but clearly paramount wants to hype the indiana jones mythology to lay the groundwork for the new film, which is completely unnecessary. it's gonna make zillions-upon-zillions of dollars.)

so this is a trend, officially now, of old characters being brought back for awkward, tacked-on episodes to box-sets that have long since appeared complete, with no greater offender than sly stallone and his recent rocky & rambo entries. completing the Planet Hollywood Trilogy, we have bruce willis in another "die hard" movie and schwarzenegger in an after-the-fact and entirely forgettable "terminator 3" a few years back.

although i disapprove of how recklessly these franchises are being closed and reopened and pulled into eras they never belonged, and despite the fact that it's embarrassing to see the likes of arnold and stallone shamelessly showcasing their has-been action hero status, i take greater umbrage with a another epidemic of which indiana jones is now a victim: the quadrilogy.

growing up in the 80's, i came to appreciate the triple movie set - aka. The Trilogy - as the gold standard for movie storytelling, none better than, of course, the Star Wars Trilogy. the first film was triumphant, the second tragic, and the third a finale of Good vs. Evil. good movies, good formula, and it set a high precedent for multi-movie stories. three is just right, as it is for many things in life: three meals a day (and three courses at dinner); the holy trinity; three-pointers in basketball; other things.

steadily, the list of great trilogies began to grow. there was star wars. then indiana jones and back to the future came along. alien turned into a nice trilogy as did die hard. and lest we neglect the likes of the karate kid, the naked gun, and the vacation movies.

at this point in history, there was an unspoken understanding that the notion of completing a trilogy was the equivalent of reaching the top of mount everest in the world of movie franchises. it was vindication.

and then something happened.

suddenly reaching the summit wasn't good enough. the studios hadn't made enough money. these seemingly completed franchises could, in fact, be milked for more gold, and before long ripley, who died heroically in alien 3, was brought back in alien ressurection in a nonsensical romp with winona ryder, thus ending The Trilogy's reign in hollywood. go ahead and google "quadrilogy." you'll see that the alien franchise embraces this awful word.

a floodgate opened. the rules dissolved. the role of daniel larusso was being played by a girl in "the next karate kid." chris rock was brought in to add hilarity to "lethal weapon 4." and most egregious of all, word spread that george lucas would write and direct a new star wars trilogy. three plus three equals six, which means star wars was becoming a sextilogy. at least the actor who played C3P0 was happy.

these beloved trilogies were supposed to set an example in Three Act restraint. instead, they've led the stampede toward untidy, greedy, never-ending excess. only "back to the future" and "indiana jones" stood as bastions of the old order. and come this may, only one of them will remain.

yes, it's true that recent trilogies have come to restore some decency to the world, namely, the lord of the rings and matrix movies. but pretenders to the Trilogy Throne have also come along with a false sense of vindication, driven more by gold and an expectations-reduced entertainment-hungry populace than by quality, bastardizing even further the once great notion of a trilogy. movies about pirates and green ogres come to mind. i'd mention x-men and spider-man, but there's no way they hold at three, and even if they do, it's only because they thoroughly ran out of steam by their third installments, respectively. oh yeah, anthony hopkins has improbably reprized his role as hannibal lecter twice now.

so in other words, i have mixed feelings about Indiana Jones & the Overly Long Titled Part 4 Something Something Crystal Skull. but it's helped me understand something. i must accept that most great franchises will not stop at three anymore. basically, the trilogy is dead. instead, it's time i learn how to pronounce the words quintilogy, septilogy and decatilogy. i must prepare for an eventual pre-trilogy of matrix movies in the year 2025. worst of all and most certainly, i must prepare my mind for the eventual Back to the Future Part IV. christopher lloyd will reprise his role as doc brown and he will again return to 1950's hill valley in order to steal the flux capacitor blue prints from his 1950's self. he does this to avoid ever having to live during the 1800's because that was a stupid idea in the first place. two marty mcfly's will be hovering about and getting into trouble per the first and second films, but michael j. fox will not be asked to participate in the fourth installment (well because, ya know). instead, doc will always be saying things to marty - who's in another room - like, "marty, you just stay in the garage. i'll be right back. we'll go over the plans for your Enchantment Under the Sea Dance and subsequent plans to catch lightening just after i answer the door," and so forth. they can perhaps use michael j. fox soundbites from other movies to fill in certain plot holes.

before you know it, the movie will be complete, the hype machine will get started, the advertising blitz will have us all worked-up to see it, i'll write a blog disparaging its existence, we'll all pay to see it, and by the next morning it'll be the furthest thing from our minds. of course, someday thereafter i will mistakenly refer to the films as a Trilogy and my kids will say aloud, "what's a trilogy?" and i will excuse myself to "get something out of my eye" in the bathroom. there, i will weep openly on the cold bathroom floor without shame or pride, naked and alone, longing for days gone by.

Redrum

2008-01-22T23:15:00.001-05:00

~INTERMISSION~

2007-09-22T15:06:00.000-04:00

something to contemplate during this break in the action:

ever settle down on the toilet bowl for a nice "sit" and let your imagination run wild? to be more specific, have you ever imagined you were one of the Independence Day spaceships taking aim over one of the world's great landmarks? there's all that suspense as the giant laser cannon lines up with its target and then the cannon starts to shift and squeeze right before the big blast? and then - boom - destruction occurs.

yeah. i've thought about it.

the theory of love & proximity

2007-08-23T23:16:00.000-04:00

alright alright. let's just get right into it.

it seems to me that most people want to believe in the notion of destiny. and i can't say i'm any different. it's nice to think that there's something bigger at work in the universe. it's nice to imagine that our lives are fulfilling some greater purpose, that every day is another fallen domino playing out in the grand scheme of things.

people are especially guilty of this when it comes to a phenomenon called "falling in love." lovebirds are always destined to be together in their minds. the stars were aligned and all that crap. what's more, these Couples of Destiny are often looking for serendipitous signs to confirm their presumptions of destiny are true.

for example, there’s this mailman who has a rocky relationship with a girl. they used to date and then they broke-up. but now they’re back together again and the mailman is convinced this girl is his destiny.

heaven's way of confirming this to the pair of would-be lovers came in the form of...

dimes. as in small silver coins representative of .10 US cents.

you see, once the mailman and the girl started dating again the mailman started to find dimes everywhere he looked. dimes on the ground. dimes behind the dryer. dimes in his car. dimes in boxes, dimes with foxes. dimes here, there and everywhere. funny thing is, this happened last time the two dated. dimes. lots and lots of dimes. clearly they should get married immediately if not only for the free money their love creates.

i love this notion of destiny. it makes about as much sense as ghosts moving random household objects and slamming doors shut to make their presence known.

but i digress.

the idea of destiny is perfectly nice and all. but i do think there's a more reasonable approach to understanding why people find each other and experience the so-called "falling in love" phenomenon. dump the word "destiny" and replace it with "proximity."

do you have a favorite restaurant? you do? great. OK. now imagine you're eating at this favorite restaurant. look around the place. ask yourself: was this destiny? did fate lead me here? or am i here because it's near my house and the food tastes good?

the answer can only be one or the other. and if you had to bet your life on one of them, which one would you pick? i'm betting on proximity.

it works like this: you meet someone who lives near yourself. they offer you companionship the way a restaurant offers food. and like different restaurants offering unique menus, each person offers an individual brand of companionship. some will be appealing to you, some won't.

the thing is, just about anywhere you go you'll find at least a couple of restaurants you like eating at. and i ask you, is this not also true of people? you think if i packed up my bags and moved to nebraska tomorrow i couldn't find one decent girl there? i'm sure i could. people are "falling in love" all over the world, every day, in every time zone, and they're getting married and having kids and blah blah blah. can that be destiny at work all over the world? is cupid working over time? or is it simply that people want companionship and have plenty of options to choose from?

yes, but what about the dimes? none of this explains away the dimes.

true. very true.

all i can say is maybe there is such a thing as destiny. and maybe destiny sends us extraordinarily subtle / seemingly irrelevant clues to assure us that we are indeed following the path that was paved for us before time began. it's not at all likely that people fantasize about the notion of destiny in order to feel protected in a world that tends to be cruel and unforgiving, right? or to rid us of the pressure of making decisions for ourselves?

some people might read this and conclude that i'm too realistic, that i should cool down and not be so negative. why can't i just let people fall in love in peace? why must i suck out all the romance from such things?

well, to you i say this: my point-of-view is just as romantic as yours if not more so. because at the end of the day i'm choosing my restaurant/companion because they make me happy. simple as that. there's no illusions, no make-believe fairy tales. there's no "we were made for each other" sap. no dimes anywhere. just boring old truths such as "i enjoy your brand of companionship" and "i'm glad we live in proximity to one another." (those are free, boys. you're welcome).

so here's a final note for the lonely hearted out there: don't complain to the heavens about your plight. rather, relocate your business and revise your menu. and lastly know your clientèle. if you're a truck stop don't expect Grace Kelly or Cary Grant to walk through the door. it's okay to lower your standards if you aren't worth much.

re-run: the new holiday

2007-07-29T15:47:00.001-04:00

note: this essay originally appeared 7/29/06

Let's just cut to the chase here. Ladies and gentlemen, Shark Week begins tomorrow night. Break out the champagne and the noisemakers, for this is no ordinary week. After 18 years, this annual summertime Discovery Channel staple has hooked itself to our hearts, and it's time that we celebrate it properly.

When else are we given the excuse to openly worship the carnage-driven bloodmongers that lurk under the sea? Obviously never. You see, the shark is unlike any other villainous animal on the planet. Take another hated creature - like the spider - for example. Although we all fear spiders, we would never participate in Spider Week. Why? Because spiders are too ugly, frankly. They are undoubtedly fascinating beasts, what with their calculating and secretive ways. And those webs; how could such an ugly creature knit such a beautiful thing? Yes, spiders are probably our most beloved animal to hate. But perhaps they are too scary?

Sharks, on the other hand, are the lions of the sea. When they aren't killing, they're sleek and sort of appealing to the eye. Of course at other times they are fierce aggressors who kill with a pathological lack of concern for their victims. It's what they do. They just kill stuff until their stomachs are full.

And who knows? They might kill you or me someday. That's what makes Shark Week so great. We get to study one of our most beloved villains up close, like watching Hannibal Lecter work in "Silence of the Lambs."

The Discovery Channel has done such a nice job with Shark Week over the years, crafting it into the institution it's become, that I believe the annual tradition must be recognized as a national holiday. I mean honestly, Shark Week would instantly be more popular than a majority of our national holidays. Let's take a closer look:

National Holiday Power Rankings:

1. Christmas - still the undisputed champ. gifts and lots of time off work. what more do you want?

2. Halloween - there's something for everyone. kids get candy. men get to wear funny costumes. women get to show off cleavage. and it's all about paganism, which gives it that extra oomph of something.

3. Thanksgiving - lots of eating good food, followed by watching football and playing cards. great holiday.

4. The Fourth of July - the great mid-summer holiday. oh America, i wish i knew how to quit you.

5. St. Patrick's Day - an excuse to drink beer, wear green, sing irish songs and pinch people.

6. Shark Week - this seems a perfect fit. a little lower than those five, a little higher than struggling Easter and all the other disastrous holidays.

7. Easter - sorry Jesus, but Easter is weak. coloring eggs, hiding eggs, hiding baskets, the Easter Bunny? Somebody try to rationalize for me the absurdity of these so-called traditions alongside the observance of Christ's big comeback? i know not everyone believes in/ gives a crap about JC. but Easter, nonetheless, needs a face lift. there's nothing for adults here. nothing. maybe bumping Shark Week to #6 will act as a wakeup call.

8. Valentine's Day - i mean, in theory there's nothing wrong with taking your girl out on the town and having a romantic evening together. but to quote Homer Simpson, "In theory, communism works." this holiday always feels like an inconvenience, like "Oh $#!#, I forgot, Wednesday is V-Day. Sorry dude, I can't make it." and what about all the Eleanor Rigbys out there? What do they do?

9. Mother's / Father's Day - I don't know anyone who takes these seriously.

10. Labor Day - It marks the end of summer. That's strike one. and it stands for nothing. that's two more strikes. i hate holidays that don't stand for anything.

I'm probably forgetting some holidays, like Memorial Day and Columbus Day. But whatever. You see my point. Shark Week would be an instant hit, even as a rookie holiday. And don't worry. We still have time to work out the details. Like, for instance, although it's a week long series on TV, does the celebration need to go for seven days when one day might suffice? Should there be anything as random and absurd as a yule log? Should there be a mysterious figurehead, like Saint Nick?

I don't have all the answers yet. But here's what I do know: there must be at least one major gathering between friends where sea food is consumed and a movie about sharks is watched. Preferably this is done to kick-off Shark Week. Consider attending the party in makeup and attire that gives the illusion that you've been attacked by a shark. And we should all begin working on a song that could compete with any Christmas carol. "Beyond the Sea" or "Under the Sea" will do in a pinch.

In the days that follow, maybe you visit aquariums, maybe you go fishing, maybe you play games in a pool where someone plays the shark and everyone else plays potential victims. I don't know yet.

What I do know is that Shark Week begins tomorrow and I'm excited. Perhaps I'll celebrate by having an entire shark lowered into the roof of my home via a crane.

america is no longer a superpower (or why i hated "transformers")

2007-07-15T20:00:00.000-04:00

if anyone needed final confirmation that a once great nation was nearing a flat line, it came in the form of a Bayian prophesy by way of dreamworks & paramount pictures called "transformers." i watched this societal indictment recently and, if i might quote Toole's Ignatius J. Reilly, it was an abortion.

now let me make my point, plain and simple: if you truly enjoyed "transformers" and you're over the age of 18, kill yourself. you're worthless and brainless.

you're the kind of person who regards your childhood toys with awe and reverence, like somehow plastic ninja turtles and he-men and transforming cars are somehow profound objects worthy to be praised. i hate to be a buzz kill, but uh, they're just toys. for children.

but you people just couldn't wait to watch your little elementary school fantasy become reality on the big screen. WOW! the transformers are in a real live-action big budget movie!! i mean they're cars and they can switch into giant robots! and they fight each other! in a big summer movie!!

stop.

just stop.

please.

this all must end. really. i mean, really. it's time, boys. it's time for us to grow up. let me say it again:

it's time for us to grow up. it's time for us to become men.

it's time for us to play fewer video games. it's time for us to watch fewer superhero movies. more than that, it's time we stop enjoying these movies. because you see, i talked to a lot of people who spoke highly of "transformers," and for the life of me i can't understand where they're coming from. all i can figure is that these people wanted to like the movie because of their 80's nostalgia. and that's the part i can't understand.

was life so good when we were kids - were the toys so good? - that some of us still display them in our homes like decorations?

don't get me wrong. there is a time and a place for toys and video games and all the like. i just think its time we stop letting this shit define our generation. my grandpa's generation fought against a great evil in the world and prevailed. they are now called The Greatest Generation. in contrast, we are a generation of coddled adolescents in adult bodies who speak the language of pop culture. in fact, we should call ourselves Generation Pop Culture, because as far as i can tell that's the only legacy we're leaving behind so far, our universal love and understanding of all things pop.

it's junk food for the mind and if saying so makes me an elitist, so be it.

"transformers" was a horribly told story on every level, and if we as adults can't recognize this then maybe it's too late for us as a people. maybe we've crossed the pop culture point-of-no-return. maybe all the brain junk food has caught up to many of us and made our brains fat and useless once and for all. maybe "transformers" really does signal the beginning of the end.

soprano fans = stupid?

2007-06-26T20:35:00.000-04:00

tony is dead, soprano fans. unfortunately you were too busy complaining about the finale to notice.

i'll be honest, i've never watched one episode of The Sopranos from start to finish, so i come at this as an outsider. I'm Not One of You. nonetheless, i find myself inexplicably fascinated by this show's finale.

i take that back. i know why it fascinates me: because here you have a critically-acclaimed show with a loyal fan base that's about to implode with anticipation for the final episode. the day after, no one seems happy with the show's unfulfilling, all-too-sudden curtain. it didn't make sense. a show with that pedigree couldn't possibly end on such a disappointing note.

well guess what? it didn't: http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

harris's blog explains with painful detail the number of clues that were packed in the last episode to suggest tony's death. he calls it a theory, but i'm ready to deem it a factual conclusion. tony is dead. plain as day.

at this point i want to explain why i think soprano fans must be stupid.

plenty of the clues harris mentions would be easily missed if you weren't watching the show with a fine-toothed comb and a keen mind. for instance, the Last Supper image flies by much too quickly for any commoner to notice. or maybe you're like me and you didn't know that oranges were forebearers of death in The Godfather films and so you didn't notice them in The Sopranos either.

i want to forgive your foolishness, soprano fans, really i do. but how can i after reading the following:

The sensation of imminent death – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was now-famously discussed in an episode called “Soprano Home Movies.”

This same episode was reportedly repeated, out of sequence, re-airing “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” the week before the finale.

And the same exact scene – this same discussion of how death would be experienced – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was also apparently excerpted in flashback in the second-to-last episode.

in other words, you're telling me that once the show's credits started to roll, none of this dawned on you? really? none of this discussion played in your mind at any point? you really thought david chase intended to end his beloved saga with a gimmick? and then you all had the nerve to wake up the following day and complain about how unsatisfying the end was? really? did all of that really happen?

i know i'm monday morning quarterbacking. but i just can't believe it took this long for a more plausible interpretation of the conclusion to surface. how reactionary are we as people? how bad are we at interpreting art when it's not spelled-out for us? why couldn't ONE soprano fan put 2 and 2 together immediately after the episode was over?

that's the thing about this show i never understood. it's considered one of the greatest shows ever made, yet when i hear people talking about it, never do i hear anything of substance. all i hear is "who do you think is gonna get whacked next week?" like it was some sort of survivor-style reality tv show. this show had to be about more than killing, right?

well, yes and no. ultimately the finale is about tony's death, but it manages to make his death something more profound and more deeply felt than some third-person assassination. when the camera goes black, my heart is beating very fast and i get chills. death so sudden, so unexpected, and so predestined. you aren't just watching tony. You Are Tony. and then you die.

my point is that soprano fans should have given this show the benefit of the doubt. instead of complaining, they should have instantly started putting the pieces together. they should've been savvy enough to understand that david chase had something substantial up his sleeve, something better than a "did my cable just go out?" prank.

and now all we're left with is this collective failure. the blind leading the blind and whatnot.

tony soprano must've been rolling in his grave.

sometimes you're ethel

2007-06-01T01:20:00.000-04:00

sometimes the story isn't about you. sometimes it's about something bigger and better than you. specifically, sometimes the story is about the one they call "the king." his birth name is lebron james. and the story is about him and not about you.

i'm writing this just after lebron's instant historic performance, the one that put the pistons down 3-2 in the series. you know, the one where lebron validated all of his years of hype, scoring the last 29 of his team's 30 points and leading the young cavs to an improbable victory in enemy territory.

when i was younger i would've been upset by such a loss, broken-hearted if you will. and don't get me wrong, i'm not happy that the detroit pistons lost today (a loss that almost guarantees elimination). but i understand something now i didn't understand when i was a kid, and that is this: i understand that sometimes it's your time to be the star, the belle of the ball, the main attraction, etc. but more importantly, there are times when it's your turn to ride in the backseat. you're not always gonna be the main star of the program. you're not always gonna be the one they're rooting for.

it can be difficult to come to terms with such a truth, which is why i couldn't do it as a child. with immaturity comes the belief that you are always the star of the show and the center of the universe.

to go a step further, this basketball contest playing out before us reminds us (particularly the piston fans) that sometimes the will of the people is what's most important. and the will of the people would prefer to see lebron james performing miraculous deeds on the hardwood. they don't want to see a boring, efficient piston team win another eastern conference trophy.

so maybe i can just enjoy the ride better this way? no longer worried about losing or failing. there's nothing else on the line for me. instead, i just need to fall in line with the people and enjoy the lebron show for all its worth and accept that my team is playing ethel to his lucy.

i don't want to be a talking head

2007-05-07T19:10:00.000-04:00

note #1: this entry isn't funny at all. not that you come here to crack-up, necessarily. but just so you know.

note #2: this is about sports. so if you hate sports, you're wasting your time here. (see. nothing funny there.)

there's a chance the NBA FINALS this year will feature a rematch from two years ago. if you don't watch basketball, that's the dee-troit pistons vs. the san antonio spurs. granted, we're a long ways off from this being a sure thing, but the fact is that talking heads like bill simmons and the Pardon the Interruption guys have already deemed this potential match-up dreadful / boring / disastrous / awful / woeful ...and so forth.

i'm pissed off because these knuckleheads actually wield some influence over the public, and as long as they're telling people not to watch detroit v. spurs because it's boring, the longer the public will not watch because they've been told it will be boring. and then no one watches because the talking heads told people they shouldn't, and then the talking heads use the low-ratings to prove how boring the series was.

if you don't believe that the talking heads can create anticipation for a sporting event, then i present you with this past weekend's boxing match as evidence of the contrary. nobody i knew before a few weeks ago could've given three dumps about mayweather vs. de la hoya, but after being drilled with stories from the fickle sports media (re: talking heads) for two weeks leading up to the story, complete with the hyperbole of the match "saving boxing," suddenly everyone was talking about this match like they've been following non-heavyweight boxing for years. turns out the fight was so-so, which means it didn't live up to the hype, which means a bunch of people who didn't really give a crap watched anyways. i wonder if anybody had a mid-fight awakening along the lines of: "why am i watching this again? i don't even like boxing."

so i wonder what simmons/kornheiser/wilbon/barkley/paige/espn/fox sports/sports illustrated/free darko/etc. would rather see?

oh, right. the phoenix suns. obviously. PTI and simmons implied as much. sure their fun, freewheeling style of basketball never happens in the playoffs the way it happens in the regular season (i'm not saying it doesn't work; i'm saying it just doesn't happen at all). but the talking heads don't care. they made up their minds long ago. and because of that, if phoenix fails to reach the NBA Finals, you can forget about the sports media giving one dump about it (which is funny since they cover sports for a living).

ps. i'm tired of flabby sports writers complaining about which cities they might have to travel to. drew sharp - detroit free press columnist/contrived contrarian - pissed on the notion of potentially going between buffalo and san antonio to cover potential NHL/NBA FINALS series. and he's not the only one who's done this.

listen jerk-off, most people are stuck behind a desk all day, if they're lucky. don't act like you're some kind of king or something. you're a fat blowhard, lucky to have such a cushy job. just stop talking for a while, okay?

easter: still the worst

2007-04-07T19:37:00.000-04:00

sorry Jesus, but Easter is weak. coloring eggs, hiding eggs, hiding baskets, the Easter Bunny? Somebody try to rationalize for me the absurdity of these so-called traditions alongside the observance of Christ's big comeback? i know not everyone believes in/ gives a crap about JC. but Easter, nonetheless, needs a face lift. there's nothing for adults here. nothing. maybe bumping Shark Week to #6 will act as a wakeup call.

those words were said way back on july 29, 2006 in a piece entitled the new holiday.

with easter day happening tomorrow, i thought it would be fun to remind everybody how lame this holiday actually is. looking back on the words i wrote last year, it strikes me that i still stand by all those thoughts and feelings. in fact, after coloring eggs today my disdain for easter has only strengthened. add to that the fact that i had to work on good friday and that i go back to work on monday - i mean, what is there to like? you get no guaranteed time off! even certain government operations are open on good friday, which says something about how lightly easter is viewed. i mean, the government loves to take time off. if you can't get those guys to take a vacation then you must be doing something wrong.

yes, jesus is cool, as is his story. i like that side of easter. but this is all the more reason why the holiday fails so miserably. jesus in the eyes of most people is either: the Son of God; or one of the most (and to many The most) influential figures to ever exist. does his life and his potential resurrection not justify something better than easter eggs and bunnies and potato salad?

even the color scheme of easter is awful. pastels hurt my eyes to look at. while many women are able to enjoy and celebrate these colors, they leave men feeling uncomfortable and neutered. i hate pastels.

finally, i want to mention the easter bunny. i'll grant you that, as a child, the easter bunny was fun. he brings you candy and small toys and he hides them somewhere in your house in a basket. i don't think he's a particularly creative holiday mascot, and i would've certainly vetoed the idea if i worked for hallmark, but you've gotta give him credit. as ridiculous as he is, kids still fall for it, which really is a testament to how gullible kids really are. they'll believe in anything that nets them candy and toys. still, the point i want to make here is that the easter bunny's success has little to do with the brilliance of his creation but more so with the fact that kids want to believe mystical gift-giving creatures exist no matter how ridiculous it might be. the easter bunny ranks just above an inanimate object on the scale of good mascots.

i say all this to say that i'm not excited about easter tomorrow, and with any luck i've brought you down too.

maybe it should be mccain

2007-03-27T22:19:00.000-04:00

**UPDATE** although this essay was written with half-serious intentions, it should now read as, at worst, a joke, and at its best it can be considered an exercise in critical thinking. as the final paragraph made clear, the onus was on mccain to show us the improvement in iraq. and then came THE Photo Op...the one where he talked about safer strolls through the market in baghdad than ever before...while being protected by the entire united states army. so yeah, he's pretty much dead in the water, which seems worth mentioning.

the '08 presidential election is a long ways off and yet john mccain finds himself in an early hole.

according to rasmussenreports.com:

Arizona Senator John McCain (R), now trails Giuliani by twenty percentage points. For the second straight week, the Rasmussen Reports poll measured McCain’s support at just 15%. That’s the lowest level of support measured so far for the man who began the campaign season as the presumed frontrunner. For the full month of March, McCain’s support has averaged just 16%, down from 18% in February and 21% in January.

at this rate, johnny mac will be down to 0% before the end of the year, which must be embarrassing for his campaign backers. of course, conventional wisdom says that mccain's faltering support is directly related to his iraq strategy: namely, that he wants to keep The Troops in the desert until things get better (also important: he wants to add more troops to the region, not subtract). the majority of the american republic tends to disagree with mr. mccain on this front, which is hurting his popularity.

but here's the kicker: what if mccain is right? what if staying in iraq is the right thing to do? i, like so many others, have refused to even consider this strategy to this point. for me it was simple: if we aren't stabilizing iraq then why are we there? let's get out.

down the line, the dems are telling us whatever we want to hear. they are speaking in terms of exit strategies. they are passing antiwar bills in the House. they are declaring bush a failure, and rightfully so. bush has failed. but still, there is a concern that the dems are overcompensating for bush's mistakes, like they want to leave iraq just to zag away from the president, to prove his war was a failure, to gain the fleeting support of a fickle public. but wouldn't it be foolish to pull the troops in spite of the president?

leaving iraq before it has legs to stand on could lead to seriously dangerous results in the region. yet i don't here the big-boy dems talking about this, which is troubling.

mccain, on the other hand, knows he's killing himself by siding with the surge. *he knows this!* yet he remains faithful to his conviction. and his conviction is based on the fact that he's been studying the circumstances in iraq on his own. his opinion seems to have little to do with focus groups and polling. mccain seems genuinely like he's just trying to do the right thing. and today on cnn he said that the new approach in iraq is starting to show some positive results, which helps secure him in his convictions.

as much as i like the idea of obama or the charm of edwards or the clintonness of hillary, i can't help but find the do-the-right-thing-know-matter-how-you're-perceived mccain to be honorable and also electable.

however, standing by such tough medicine makes this a hard sell to the general public. if he wants to regain favor with the polls, john mccain must explain to us in plain english the progress that is being made in iraq.

does opec actually own texas?

2007-03-21T20:19:00.000-04:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore, who has reversed his political fortunes to become a potential contender in the 2008 presidential race, made an emotional return to Congress Wednesday in an appeal for an even more dramatic rescue -- saving the planet.

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avoid a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.

He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information.

"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis," Gore said. "Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination."

He rejected the contention by opponents of quick action on global warming that the United States should only impose mandatory controls on greenhouse gases if China, India and other rapidly developing nations agree to do the same.

"The best way and the only way to get China and India on board is for the U.S. to demonstrate real leadership," Gore said. "As the world's largest economy and the greatest superpower, we are uniquely situated to tackle a problem of this magnitude," he said.

"You're not just off a little, you're totally wrong," said Texas Rep. Joe Barton, the leading Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, as he challenged Gore's conclusion that carbon dioxide emissions cause rising global temperatures.

Barton and Gore's exchange grew testy at one point -- Barton demanding that Gore get to the point and Gore responding that he would like time to answer without being interrupted.

"Global warming science is uneven and evolving," Barton said.

"A lot of those recommendations are more regulations and more taxation," said former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, though he added that he agrees with Gore that the scientific debate on climate change is over.

"I think we can find answers to use the coal energy, to use the natural gas we have."

Gore was warmly welcomed back by some of his critics, such as Republican Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas.

"You're dear to us, but I just don't agree with you on this," Hall said.

dubai's schwartz is bigger than yours

2007-02-19T20:40:00.000-05:00

although dubai is mostly an empty desert in the middle east, its government has chosen to build upwards.

way, way upwards.

meet the Burj Dubai:

no, those other buildings aren't just very short. this is a concept drawing of the soon-to-be tallest building in the world. it isn't finished yet because it's very tall and it will take a long time to build. reportedly, it will top 26-hundred feet upon its completion - 900 feet taller than the sears tower. and i think to myself: maybe too big?

i'll point out, again, that dubai is in a desert, which means there's no real need build up. they have plenty of earth real estate to build on. so the next question becomes why? for the love of jebus, why?! why do this if not for necessity?

the answer to this riddle you'll find surprising i think.

the world is fascinated by penises. a recent poll said that a majority of men wished they had a bigger penis. freud based an entire theory on penises. women talk about men's penis size all the time (ie. sex in the city). large penises are a source of pride for those men who have them; small penises, likewise, bring shame.and i wonder aloud: is there a connection between penises and skyscrapers?to boast having the world's largest building is undoubtedly a source of pride, and skyscrapers do resemble penises in their basic shape, no?

in fact, i'll bet if aliens landed on planet earth tomorrow, they'd quickly question us on why we devote such large shrines to male genitalia. and all the while we'd be saying to them, "what are you talking about?" - completely unaware of the magnitude of our fascination.

now just maybe this is some coincidence. maybe skyscrapers and cocks just happen to look the same in their basic shape. even if this is a coincidence and not actually some subconscious manifestation, still, you must agree that both are physical representations of The Male Ego.

for some reason, both the owner of the penis and the creator of the skyscraper desire to be bigger than the next man/building. a point worth making now is that, in a way, society generally rewards size. this is contrary to my initial reaction that the quest for size is a fruitless reward and that society on the whole could care less how big your penis/skyscraper is. but that's not true. women are as equally fascinated with large penises as men are with breasts (and you're lying to yourself if you disagree). likewise, large buildings are spectacles for the masses. they are attractions for tourists, targets of terrorists.

maybe the quest for size is important?

i don't know the answer to that. but with this in mind, i ask you to reconsider the premise: isn't it possible that The Male Ego is manifesting itself in our architecture in the shape of the most phallic of symbols?

it's become a giant wang contest all over the world.

but this building in dubai isn't simply trying to take the world record. it's actually trying to demolish the record, which is weird, right? in fact, i'm almost ready to say it seems desperate. like, "hey ladies, look how big my penis is. see how big it is? don't you see?" and that's where The Male Ego starts to lose its way. it's one thing to be well-endowed. it's another thing to be an all out freak show. like that guy in rolling stone a few years ago.

if i'm being honest with myself, it's not that i am morally opposed to these "spacescrapers" (TM by the_glide, 2007). what bothers me is that dubai is positioning itself as the city with the biggest penis in the world, which would be something like the annoying rich kid having the biggest cock in the locker room. spoiled rich kids haven't earned such honors. rather, if we had our druthers, it would be the leader who had the biggest member. someone strong. someone with real significance. like, say, New York.

unfortunately, a skyscraper's height is no longer reflective of a city's respective greatness but instead only of its wealth, rendering these once great symbols practically meaningless.

picture the crowd in its underwear

2007-01-23T22:05:00.000-05:00

yeah yeah, the 2007 State of the Union was mostly an unrealistic exercise in hot air blowing and political posturing. i get that. but i'm not here to bust dubya's chops or anyone else in washington for that matter. i'll leave that to the truly political blogs.

instead, what i offer you is the everyman point-of-view. to me, this speech sounded the way they always do: let's get every american a job; let's solve health care; let's cure AIDS in africa; let's talk tough to rogue nations; let's eliminate the use of fossil fuels; the time is now to teach every american student to read; no new taxes; balance the budget! cheaper fast food! robots in every household! better movies from hollywood! free massages for every american! two girls for every guy! (each statement followed by absurd durations of applause from the audience).

as bush talked about his dream agenda, it dawned on me that the moniker "state of the union" means little to nothing. there's nothing really necessary about this annual speech. it serves no practical purpose. the phrase: the state of our union is strong is often heard, but seemingly loosely argued.

and the thing is, i really would like to hear an honest speech about the state of our union. summing up the state - or health - of our country might be tricky. be isn't it possible? it wouldn't have to be a drab numerical breakdown of unemployment figures, murder rates, literacy scores and so on. just do three things: 1.) put things into perspective; 2.) set a succinct strategy for the current major challenges we face; 3.) inspire us. also, like going to the symphony, disallow any applause until the show is over. that'll reduce 10 or 15 minutes easily. shoot to keep it around 25-30 minutes. and that's all you have to do.

but these things will never happen. and so i must now dispense blame.

i could chose to blame the president, but he's too obvious a target. anyways, W is just following the pattern that's already been paved for him by previous administrations. dubya didn't invent the stale notion of the SotU. so i can't blame him for anything other than not having the guts or desire or vision to change the format.

rather than pinning all the blame on the president (whoever it might be), wouldn't it make more sense to blame the guys who actually write the speeches?

a few interesting notes about this SotU ritual. Did you know it's a constitutional requirement of the president to deliver this speech? Did you know it was modeled after the monarch's Speech of the Throne in the UK? Did you know Thomas Jefferson typed his SotU and had a clerk read it to congress, and he did this because he found the pomp and circumstance to be too monarchical? oh but that ol' scoundrel woodrow wilson brought back the big show in 1913.

here's where it gets more interesting. in the 1920's, calvin coolidge delivers the first SotU over the radio for all america to hear live. now i ask you, is it coincidence that coolidge is said to be the first president to have an official speechwriter? therefore, did mass media kill the notion of a self-expressive commander-in-chief?

i'd love to go back to the days of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and Washington's Inaugural, but those days of candid thoughtfulness are clearly gone. too many media members listening all the time, searching for gaffes. fine.

so then, to the speechwriters: be brave! try taking a risk for once in your lives. stop cutting and pasting empty rhetoric from the archives. drop all the needless sentences. get to the point! just tell us in plain language what the state of the union actually is. that's it. that's all you have to do.

buy buy love

2007-01-06T17:33:00.000-05:00

welcome back. i hope everyone had a pleasant holiday. mine was just fine, thank you. i bought good presents, received a few nice things, turned a year older, experienced the new year in an ER because of a friend, and overall felt the "magic of the season."

but let's get back to business.

among all the nice things i received was an album entitled simply, Love. it's by a band called The Beatles.

and let me tell you something. it's very, very good.

what i'd like to do today is explain to you what this album actually is. because it seems to me that people aren't really sure what to make of this. "another compilation? is that really necessary?" that was my first reaction, and i know i'm not the only one.

then i read a review over at Slant. it gave Love five stars and i was confused. how could a compilation receive five stars? i went on and read and learned. although i wasn't completely illuminated, i came to understand the basic premise: Love wasn't a compilation at all. it was more of a remix or reworking or something like that. songs were being blended into other songs and the results were good. this was enough for me to express my interest, and thusly, i received it as a gift.

and then i was in my car driving some long distance. i decided this was the perfect time to crack open the cd. slowly, carefully, i undressed it of that protective cellophane. then i removed that crisp disc from its home and slipped it into the stereo.

it began silently. i turned up the volume to see if i was missing anything. but nothing was happening. i waited.

and then!

it starts with the cool a capella notes of "Ahhh ahhh." BECAUSE. Because the world is round and all that. only voices like on the anthology. no instruments. and the pauses - oh, those pauses! - pauses between each line of the song. this is an epic beginning from the start! it is a signal that something great is about to happen, as it lays the groundwork with that calm-before-the storm, gentile sound. it is like the start of the 1812 overture. no seriously.

and then the action is afoot. a wall of sound fades-in from the distance, some mixture of familiar Beatles' sounds, now blending to create a new unique sound all its own. as it takes full crescendo Paul's familiar "get back" becomes the song, but with new energy not found on the "Let It Be" cut. honestly, "get back" has never been among the great Beatles songs. not in my mind, anyways.

but on LOVE it's undeniable. it has the energy of a concert version along with the clarity of a brand new song. and that's reason #3 to buy LOVE. every song sounds brand new, like they just recorded it. it's akin to watching Star Wars in THX for the first time. the sound quality alone makes this a worthy addition to any Beatle fan's catalog.

the truly fascinating aspect to LOVE, though, is absolutely in the way songs are blended together to create, in essence, the feeling of having new Beatles songs. imagine taking "being for the benefit of mr. kite" and attaching the end of "she's so heavy" to it. that is accomplished on LOVE with - can i say great? - with Great success. and of course henry the horse dances the WALTZ --> BOOM! guitars blaze in, mixed with the psychedelic /carousel chimes of mr. kite.

i understand that none of that probably made sense. but i had to try to explain. you see, LOVE isn't a remix so much as a collage of Beatles' sounds, flowing from one song to the next often without seams. it's the singing from "within you without you" over the wicked music of "tomorrow never knows." it's an acoustic start of "blackbird" that leads into "yesterday." it's "all you need is love" with the final notes of "goodnight" at the end, with sound bites of the band concluding a studio session. it's "strawberry fields" as if john started it alone and was slowly joined by the band.

it is perhaps the greatest mix tape of all time. longtime Beatles producer george martin created this with his son, and together they have pieced together these familiar, comfortable songs to fashion something of a Beatles symphony.

LOVE is to be martin's final work for the iconic band that he's been with for so long. and with this effort, it's as though martin is saying goodbye to a band, to music, and to a time he loved to be apart of. and the joy for the listener is to hear how intimately martin knows this music. that he's able to smash it to pieces and rebuild it into something wholly satisfying is a credit to his amazing expertise as a producer. and it stands as a testament to his relationship with John, Paul, George and Ringo. he not only knew these guys. he was one of them.

***

the need for this essay is almost unnecessary at this point. the word is quickly spreading about LOVE with places like borders, starbucks and all the like spinning it non-stop. so i know this might have a short shelf life. but i just needed to express how stunning it is for myself. it reminded me, again, how much i love the Beatles. i feel lucky just to be alive to experience this work, simply called LOVE, which must now be considered the coda of the fab four's catalog. if it all started with "she loves you" and their big break on ed sullivan, then LOVE is the conclusion to all that. trust me when i say: it's not to be missed.

this hurts me more than it hurts you

2006-12-16T16:08:00.000-05:00

i love coffee.
i love it so much.
i love coffee so much that i think i've caused permanent damage to my stomach drinking its burning deliciousness. therefore i consider myself something of an expert on the matter of coffee. therefore my opinion is valuable.

so then, when i say that Dunkin' Donuts makes a great cup of coffee, i'm not lying. that statement carries a lot of weight.

so then, when i tell you that Dunkin' Donuts has made a giant blunder, that too must be taken very seriously by the masses.

allow me to explain.

for starters, i agree with john goodman. the pride of seattle leans a bit towards the pretentious side of things. venti? grande? barista? naming its coffee chain after a Mellville character?

if starbucks were a person, i don't think i would like it very much. it would reference obscure movies and songs to impress others around them. it would wear fancy clothes no matter what the occasion. it would waste its saturdays saving whales. it would never drink coffee out of a cup that's not biodegradable.

Dunkin' Donuts, on the other hand, seems to be the opposite of all these things. he's just a regular guy working 9 to 5, slogging it out in the fields like all the rest of us. he enjoys a good dirty joke. he loves styrofoam cups for his coffee.

so when i saw the commercial for Dunkin' where it takes a jab at coffee shops that have menus written in "french" or "italian" or possibly (and i'm embarrassed for them here) "frettalian" i thought it might be a victory for the regular guy. because you see, coffee wasn't meant to be the official drink of the yuppies and pseudo-cultural types of the world.

and then during this commercial comes what must be considered the most hypocritical statement of all time. "Come try one of our delicious lattes this holiday season..." or something to that effect. notice anything strange about that sentence?

***

i once knew a girl in high school. she despised the cool kids because she wasn't one of them. and then she spent the next few years trying to become one of them. she worked hard at it, going to all the cool kid events, laughing at their jokes, sitting near them at lunch. and eventually they let her in. and somewhere along the way she lost herself.

i offer this as a warning to you, Dunkin' Donuts. its one thing to be phony. its much worse a crime when you're aware that you're being a phony and yet you chose to be phony anyways. the commercial's premise suggests that you know you're supposed to be the "regular guy." but the lattes suggest that you don't know who you want to appeal to. in fact, a recent story on NPR said D&D was exploring a new look for its franchise...exploring a departure from its traditional orange and purple/pink color scheme for darker, more serious colors. like, perhaps, pine green, white and black? it's also considering changing its name to Queequeg's Coffee. (1)

i could go on, but i won't. i'll just finish by telling Dunkin' Donuts how disappointed i am in them. don't pretend to be from the hood if you're living uptown. you're either one or the other. i'm never drinking a Dunkin' Donuts latte and i suggest you do the same. we'll get those from that frettalian place.

1. this is not true

mute no more

2006-12-05T18:37:00.000-05:00

i have a big announcement to make. before rumors run amuck and destroy the truth, let me just tell you directly that the Mute American campaign has come to rest.

it's been a long journey to be sure, filled with all the ups and downs that life has to offer. and i just want to say thank you to all those who contributed to the Movement, whether it was with your time, your money, or even your sanity. but mostly i thank you for your heart. i couldn't have done this without each and every one of you.

over the course of what has seemed like years, we've worked together to promote the necessity of real democracy in these times that have been so often dark. it was a campaign born out of rage, but nurtured with peace and goodwill.

yes, last month's general election restored a voice to The People of the republic for which we stand. although recent history tells us you can only replace a corrupt government with similarly corrupted individuals, hope remains that this new crop will be somewhat less corrupt than the last.

but the important piece to take away from this experience is that - as hopeless as our system of government can seem at times - it is actually semi functional after all! and if that's so, how mute can we possibly be?

so here comes the next announcement:

after much consideration, i have decided to close the Mute American line of merchandise (which can be found by clicking here). this apparel has been selling like wildfire for months and is sure to become rare and highly valuable in due time (and can be found right here----> click me for valuable merchandise). great stocking stuffers abound! gifts everywhere! this is your chance to by a piece of history!

you see, that's the irony at play here. it took a campaign called "Mute American" to remind the country that it had a voice.

and so now i urge you, please, buy these future historical relics...before they're only available for a thousand times the price at places like eBay.

and rest easy remembering that only through this capitalistic endeavor have we restored democracy's might. in this regard, buying a Mute American button is almost on par with voting.

take it away John Mellencamp...

i am not dead

2006-11-25T18:55:00.000-05:00

not that you were worried.

believe it or not, i've reflected on some of the things this blog's had to say over the past several months and it has led to an interesting place. i've concluded that this blog might just be the most important blog in the history of blogs.

happy thanksgiving to all. we'll talk more real soon.

may the light of destiny shine upon you, Tigers

2006-10-22T16:30:00.000-04:00

We will win. You'll see. We will win.

save music from the future

2006-10-14T09:30:00.000-04:00

I like Beck's music. I own a few of his albums. Overall, I support Beck's career.

So forgive me, Beck, while I speak against you in the next few paragraphs.

In last month's issue of Wired Magazine, Beck talked about the future of music in the computer age. Beck says he's exploring new ways to make albums, something beyond the standard 10-15 song format which has been around since the mid-to-late 1960's. Beck said he's exploring the "album" as more of an interactive, multimedia experience. What does that mean, you ask?

The simplest way to say it is that Beck wants the listener to participate in the creative process. He wants to give the listener the pieces, but he wants the listener to complete the puzzle. Call it the iTunes Effect, if you will. You, the consumer, buy/download something...maybe a CD, maybe a DVD, maybe some digital files...and he wants you to put it together in whatever way you want it.

Even his newest album, called "The Information," offers a mostly blank album cover and it's up to you to decorate it. I'm told it comes with stickers.

yuck.

***

I'll say it again: I like Beck. I really do. Sure he'll never be the G.O.A.T., but he's good at being a decent music alternative with unique style.

But this is a bad idea. About as bad as when the Pistons decided to go teal.

The Album, at its best, is a true expression of something. It can be as powerful as a painting or a film or a book.

And the thing about books, movies and paintings is that they are all finished before they are shared with the world. They are definite things. That's what's good about them. They exist.

Imagine if Moby Dick was a Choose Your Own Adventure book. "Turn to page 17 if you want Ishmael to spit on Ahab. Turn to page 42 if you want Ishmael to start his own whale hunting crew."

When you get to build your own version of Moby Dick you get to tell whatever story you want to tell. Suddenly the devastating poetry of the Pequod's tragedy, of Ahab's manic failure, are all lost. Melville's story is lost. All that exists is you.

And you by yourself is not enough.

***

Of course I shouldn't worry, because Beck's idea is a gimmick. And gimmicks rarely stick.

But still, I wonder what the iPod Era will do to The Album. In this age where you can build your own play lists, remix songs with a mouse, and carry an entire music library in a small hard-drive...what happens to the physical organization of music?

If Dark Side of the Moon was released today, would people download "Money" and a few other cuts and leave the rest? If they did buy/download all the songs, would they play the songs in order? Would the cover art become so iconic?

Let me cut to the chase. Here are my three demands for the future of music:

1.) Artists make objects of art & art-lovers consume the art. The consumers do not alter the objects of art. They intrepret it, share it, and form opinions about it. But the objects of art exist unto themselves, even without the consumers.

2.) Music will continue to be organized and sold in some physical form, preferably as cheap CDs.

3.) Musical artists will continue the tradition of building cohesive albums that are meant to be played from beginning to end. Filler is unacceptable.

***

If Beck wants to embrace the future in order to look like a trailblazer, an innovator, then so be it. And if, alternately, I come off as an old-fashioned, out-of-touch dork, then so be it. But be forewarned: Beck's path leads to a shallower, emptier world without color or meaning.

My path offers enlightenment and truth.

It's your choice who to follow.

let google define ugly

2006-09-30T11:20:00.000-04:00

My message today is a simple one. Without coming directly out and declaring The Word, let me just put it this way...

This is "ugly" according to the ABC network:

From the new ABC show called Ugly Betty comes that hideous creature. Or maybe hideous is too strong a word, so let's call her not pretty. Or at least, badly dressed.

Because let's face it, this girl's not repulsive. Although the costume braces make her mouth huge and her clothes are over-the-top terrible, she has an otherwise pleasant face. Here are a few pictures of the real life actress:

This girl is moments away from being very pretty in real life (yes, she's a little round-ish, but who isn't these days?). But with glasses, braces and frumpy clothes she's suddenly morphed into Ugliness.

(Allow me a quick rant about the glasses. This is an entirely out-of-touch idea from the brains behind this show. Lots of people wear glasses. Many of those people look better because of them. Adding glasses to illustrate ugliness is straight out of an elementary school playbook.)

Hollywood once tried to fool us into believing that this girl was also a lost cause:

In the movie She's All That, this actress played a nerd who had to become pretty before the film ends.

(there they go with the glasses again)

Tons of sarcasm is flooding into my mind, but I'll take the high road instead and simply say that Hollywood is all wrong about what makes people ugly. Hollywood's preschool lesson is often that real ugliness is "on the inside," but that's just not true. If only Hollywood would employ actual ugly people they would find this out.

And in an attempt to research true ugliness, I went to the one thing that holds no bias: Google. I searched with the terms "ugly," and "ugly people."

Friends, I present you with...

The Gallery of Google Uglies

(my advanced apologies to these ugly people):

i can't look at this one directly

the real Ugly Betty?

is this a photoshop job?

"I look like a warthog."

I actually get angry looking at this one.

Her face is shaped like toast.

At least they have each other?

I don't even know what to say here.

yep. even pets can be ugly.

All right, all right, I can't take it anymore....no more ugly people.

***

ABC is hoping the gimmick of having an "ugly" main character will be enough to draw viewers in. But as you can see, Ugly Betty isn't really that daring because Betty's just pretend ugly - it's enough to tell our imaginations that she's supposed to be ugly without literally being so ugly that we won't watch.

There's nothing much wrong with that, I guess. It's just that she's not really that ugly when compared to actual ugly people.

arguing for the soft bulletin

2006-09-23T13:20:00.000-04:00

The Flaming Lips have been around for about 20 years now. They've built a reputation for being one of America's most outlandish and absurd rock 'n roll acts. They sometimes wear fury animal outfits and fake blood. Lead singer Wayne Coyne has been seen performing from inside a human-sized bubble ball. They write songs with unusual titles like "Pilot Can at the Queer of God" and "Rainin' Babies." They were best known throughout the '90's as "the band who sang that song about Vaseline." And yet somehow over the span of their last three releases, The Flaming Lips took the leap from "weird indie fringe act" to "essential rock band."

The band's most recent release, At War With The Mystics, carries on with the precedent set by the previous two records. It's a mishmash of electrosonic space rock, with a bit more straightforward rock than Yoshimi or The Soft Bulletin. Yet Mystics isn't quite the opus that both of those other records manage to be. The highs aren't as high, the lows aren't as low.

But neither At War With The Mystics nor Yoshimi accomplish what The Soft Bulletin does. This is The Flaming Lips' finest musical concoction, the album that took them into rock royalty and crowned them as darlings. This is where The Lips most clearly express their artistic vision. This is the album that saved them. It's the book that an author tries to write his whole career and finally does.

Back in the mid '90's, The Lips released an album called Clouds Taste Metallic. It was a surprisingly creative collection of songs that went largely unnoticed by the public. So what do you do when creatively you're starting to actualize but nobody's listening? You've already been dismissed as "the Vaseline song" band? If you're Wayne Coyne & The Lips, you go back to the studio and record Zaireeka, a four-disc album intended to played all at once. Someone say gimmick, right? Maybe so. But Coyne says on the band's website that it was during the Zaireeka recordings that they gained the enlightenment they'd been searching for. They realized then that they weren't a live rock band who records albums; rather, The Flaming Lips were a studio band that loved to tinker and experiment behind closed doors. Understanding this helped them to cement their identity. And once the Zaireeka recordings were finished, their identity understood, they were left with a few songs that just didn't work with the four-disc concept. Those songs laid the foundation for their next release, 1999's The Soft Bulletin.

***

Once the music starts playing, right away you are drawn into the theater of this album. You can picture the stage curtains spread apart as the show begins, the loud echoing drum snares and the "ta da!" keyboards. And then, once the scene has been established, in comes Wayne with that fragile, lovable voice (or, if you're new to The Lips, it's the annoyingly shaky voice), singing the words to a story that starts, "Two scientists were racing for the good of all mankind / Both of them side-by-side / So determined." Like most of The Soft Bulletin, this first song is lush with keyboards and backing vocals singing ahhs and oohs set to a galloping rhythm. Best of all, the keyboards sound a little like they're gasping for breath on their deathbed, like they're being bent and stretched in unnatural sounding ways. The Soft Bulletin is loaded with similar sound experiments throughout, blurring the line between noise and music.

Like following the white rabbit down the rabbit hole into Wonderland, thus begins this odd journey.

***

Like any good story, The Soft Bulletin succeeds in creating a unique universe for the listener. That's not something I can quantify for you, it's just something a person feels. The Wizard of OZ, Willy Wonka, The Royal Tenenbaums, Pulp Fiction - these are all stories that accomplish this. Sgt. Pepper by The Beatles is an album that accomplishes this. Shoot, Super Mario Bros. is a video game that accomplishes this. And so too does The Soft Bulletin. You might just have to take a blind leap of faith with me on this point.

But The Soft Bulletin's greatest strength lies in its cohesive themes, the way it ebbs and flows with tension between victory and defeat. In this regard, it is more than a collection of songs. Rather, it is a lyrically and musically connected work, which lends to the album's sense of being like theater or literature.

A good portion of the album concerns itself with strange stories: talk over spider bites, gashes on your leg, and lifting up the sun. But there is something bigger at work. Like the scientists at the beginning, The Lips themselves seem to be chasing some great discovery. The Soft Bulletin is not sung from the shy diary of some shoegazer. It is a declaration in the form of a story, some vague message of hope (perhaps) to ALL MANKIND!!! (echo, echo, echo)

But these large themes are almost always intertwined with tragedy, failure and the loss of hope. You begin to realize that The Flaming Lips aren't just a fun band playing fun music. Often times they are downtrodden and defeated, pessimists posing as realists.

"Waitin' for a Superman" for example, says:

Tell everybody waiting for Superman
That they should try to hold on
Best they can.
He hasn't dropped them
Forgot them
Or anything.
It's just too heavy for Superman to lift.

In "The Gash (Battle Hymn for the Wounded Mathematician)"
is about quitting in the face of adversity:

Is that gash in your leg
Really why you have stopped?
'Cause I've noticed all the others
Though they're gashed, they're still going
'Cause I feel like the real reason
That you're quitting, that you're admitting
That you've lost all the will to battle on

The pain is more straightforward on "Feeling Yourself Disintegrate":

Love in our life is just too valuable
Oh, to feel for even a second without it
But life without death is just impossible
Oh, to realize something is ending within us...
Feeling yourself disintegrate

You sometimes find yourself asking, "Why so downcast, Flaming Lips? What's the matter?"

However, the conclusion of "The Gash" - the musical apex of the album - is halfway defiant.

Still the battle that we're in
Rages on till the end
With explosions, wounds are open
Sights and smells, eyes and noses
But the thought that went unspoken
Was understanding that you're broken.
Still the last volunteer battles on
Battles on
Battles on

As we journey through this music, we come to understand The Flaming Lips as complex and highly emotional creatures. And this is conveyed not only through words, but also through the music, naturally, which I've not spent enough time talking about. You could give three dumps about the greater themes of The Soft Bulletin and still love it for its sometimes wildly unpredictable and sometimes strangely sweet musical fantasias. Download "A Spoonful Weighs a Ton" and you'll find out what I'm talking about in a hurry. One second it's a bunch of high-pitched sugary notes, trickling piano keys and flutes, and the next a rumbling bit of madness between bass and drums.

Listen to "The Spark That Bled" and it's perfect circle form, from beginning to end, despite the crazy path it takes you in between: contemplation, then blues, then cheer, then almost country, always theatrical. And who can deny singing aloud with the line: "I stood up and I said 'Yeah!'"

"The Spiderbite Song" is great interplay between piano & drums, twinkling chimes and random beeps, and Wayne. "'Cause if it destroyed you, it would destroy me."

And I love "What is The Light?" It changes the mood of the album with that thump-thump heartbeat rhythm and those deep, brooding thrusts on the piano, building a real sense of suspense. And the way it goes straight into "The Observer" - the epic instrumental - is brilliantly executed. Really, what a theatrical album.

***

Finally, you might be wondering, "Great, but what about the two scientists? What cure are they racing to find?" The answer, ladies & gentlemen, is they are trying to figure out how to capture love into some scientific form and use it to heal all sickness in the world. At least, that's my theory. Look at the subtitle of "What is The Light?"

"What is The Light?: An Untested Hypothesis Suggesting That The Chemical [In Our Brains] By Which We Are Able To Experience The Sensation Of Being In Love Is The Same Chemical That Caused The "Big Bang" That Was The Birth Of The Accelerating Universe."

Ultimately, I can't say enough good about The Soft Bulletin. It's just an innovative and challenging piece of work through and through. It raised the bar for anything the band would record afterwards, making The Soft Bulletin their gold standard of achievement, the record that pushed The Flaming Lips into the realm of the elite.

Of course, the immense reception to The Soft Bulletin would go on to put great pressure on their follow-up release. People wanted to know if it was a fluke, or rather, if it was a sign of great things to come. Under this scrutiny, Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots was released three years later, in 2002.

Will we carry this discussion onward, next to examine the brilliance of Yoshimi, and to eventually contrast it against The Soft Bulletin.

america's best kept joke

2006-09-19T22:25:00.000-04:00

For those of you who are unaware, Boston is home to one of our country's greatest jokes. Why this isn't something we all know about and laugh about on a regular basis really baffles me. It's time to bring awareness to this national treasure.

While visiting Boston late in August, I ventured with some friends to a rather famous cemetery. It's called the Granary, and it's home to several dead patriots, such as Sam Adams, Paul Revere and so on. And it's loaded with awesome headstones, like the one below.

Pretty awesome, right?

Okay. So while we ventured through this historic place, I noticed one of my friends was all laughs. Laughter? I thought. In a cemetery?

"See that one over there?" she said, almost excited enough to explode.

We turned our heads slowly, full well knowing we were about to experience something crude and childish and wonderful. Our eyes connected with the object. It didn't take long to understand.

"Can you guess who's grave that is?" she gushed.

We shook our heads, slightly embarrassed, slightly proud to be American.

It was John Hancock's grave. It had to be.

***

Without further ado...

Ladies & gentlemen...I present you with...

John Hancock's grave:

I'm not kidding you. This is the real thing. Seriously. Nothing has been doctored. This is John Hancock's actual tombstone.

And actually, it gets better. Take a look at the inscription on the front:

Do you see it?

Scroll down for a zoom in.

Yep, that's real too. It's all real. Someone with a real brain actually gave us these things.

Is it possible that this is all a coincidence? Or did John Hancock (or a member of his family) have a great sense of humor, demanding a cock-shaped headstone over his grave? Or was the tombstone maker just someone who was especially susceptible to the power of suggestion?

Whatever the answer, the fact remains that this is the best free attraction in the country and everyone should know about it.

Incidentally, I can't wait to see what either of the George Bush tombstones end up looking like.

burger king wins

2006-09-16T13:03:00.000-04:00

In the movie Boyz in the Hood, Lawrence Fishburn tells his son that "there are leaders and there are followers. Which one you gonna be?" (NOTE: I'm not positive Lawrence Fishburn is actually in "Boyz" and I'm not positive that I'm even quoting the right film, and I'm definitely not quoting verbatim. Otherwise...).

Well, along those same lines, ladies & gentlemen, standing tall amidst all the sheep is a fast-food restaurant that has long been searching for identity and purpose, and I'm happy to report, it has found it. Ladies & gentlemen, Burger King has self-actualized before our very eyes.

There are leaders and there are followers.

In a world where fast-food retailers have been guilted into adding salads and other low-fat options to their menus, Burger King has gleefully decided to become the most bad-for-you restaurant on the planet and possibly in the history of the universe. The BK menu boasts the food equivalent of WMD, featuring such items as the triple whopper, something called "chicken fries," and a few other doozies.

The tour-de-force in Burger King's arsenal, though, must be the breakfast sandwich called the "Meatnormous." The name alone evokes images of greasy sausage, ham and bacon layered upon scrambled eggs, all naturally smothered in cheese. And maybe - just maybe - the Meatnormous comes with a side of sausage gravy to dip your sandwich into. It weighs, I imagine, a full pound, and upon digestion of the Meatnormous, I imagine you are overcome with a feeling of immense lethargy as your body uses all its resources to process such a fatty, cholesterol-laden meal (don't forget about the little hashbrown poppers that come on the side; it is your duty to eat those also).

* actual Meatnormous next to a Ho Ho, compliments of someone's MySpace page. Thanks to you.

Science tells us that every action brings forth a reaction. In the case of the fast food industry, the first action came in the form of a movie. "Super Size Me" - the pseudo-documentary / cultural commentary / science project where a man eats only McDonald's for 30 days - created enough short-term embarrassment about how susceptible Americans are to the fatty charms of fast food that retailers like Wendy's, Arby's and McDonald's decided to diversify their portfolios, so to speak. Suddenly yogurt and side-salads were all the rage. Who needed french fries anymore in a post-Super-Size Me world?

"Pshaw. I spit on such cowardice," said Burger King, triumphant.

While the nancy corporations out there mimicked the "Subway Approach," Burger King did the unthinkable. It laughed in Morgan Spurlock's face and said, "Your movie will only make us stronger. We will market food abominations that will make John Candy roll in his grave." And they have.

You might be wondering why I'm so proud of Burger King, a company on the verge of making Phillip Morris seem saintly. It's not that I appreciate destructive food at all. In fact, I never eat at Burger King, not ever. The food is not really the point. I understand that obesity is still rising in our country, and in two years 1-in-5 children will be considered obese, blah blah blahhh. Yes, that's terrible.

What I like is that Burger King has finally become free to be itself. No longer standing in McDonald's shadow, Burger King has distinguished itself as the food destination for men's-men. The King character himself is often seen in commercials either playing in NFL games or hanging out around construction sites or with lumberjacks. And there is nary a woman to be found in any of the commercials. There was even a musical commercial where men just sang and danced about the grandeur of BK's deliciously unhealthy food. They are not ashamed of what they've become. No no. Much to the contrary. Burger King celebrates its new found lunacy with infectious enthusiasm! with joy! with moxie! like Carnival! Seriously, it's like the majority stockholder died and bequeathed his fortune to his 17-year-old son, who now runs BK with all of his buddies.

You see, Burger King's entire identity used to hang on its flame-broiled method of cooking hamburgers. However, that was never quite enough to distinguish them from McDonald's. It was a boring restaurant with boring food choices. McDonald's, alternately, owned the market on fun, what with Ronald, Grimace, Mayor McCheese, Playhouses, Happy Meals, etc. I guess Burger King wanted to be McDonald's for adults. The result was boredom.

But now they find themselves rebelling against the social norm in such a blatant way that Burger King almost comes off looking like a punk rock hero. And that's what's really important here. Call it a new marketing strategy if you want, but I think it's less contrived than that. Burger King discovered that, at its heart, its not a grumpy old curmudgeon meant for grumpy adults after all. It is, in fact, a Fat Man's Paradise. Nothing more, nothing less. That's what it always has been. It just took some time to figure it out. And now...freedom. The freedom to be what they are, like coming out of the closet.

There are leaders and there are followers. And Burger King has finally gone from the latter to the former, even though at the end of the day they might stand alone, left simply to make the world fatter and more pathetic with all their many chicken fries and Meatnormouses. Or their new philosophy may backfire, leading to Chapter 11. No matter the consequences, The King can rest soundly at night knowing it discovered a distinct personality for itself - finally - which is all any of us could hope for in life.

state of the union

2006-09-12T22:06:00.000-04:00

friends, oh dear friends, how i've missed you. let's never be apart this long ever again, agreed?

what can i say? i've neglected my blog. i've opened up cans of worms only to leave them squirming about the floor. quite simply, i've failed you. and i'm sorry.

apollo 13 vs. open water...this was never resolved. the flaming lips battle never occurred. and i've been meaning to say something about Burger King forever.

well friends, i haven't forgotten. Napkin Sketches will be flowing with two or three new essays a week, just like in the good ol' days. now you have one more place to surf while killing time at work.

and in honor of my recommitment to Napkin Sketches, i've changed the look of the place. i hope you like it.

your humble servant,

the glide

pluto is still a planet

2006-08-31T20:56:00.000-04:00

Apparently Pluto is no longer a planet.

I've been meaning to say something about this for a few days now. Might as well break the Napkin Sketches silence with this one, I thought. I mean this story is really really stupid, no? Who knew we, the citizens of planet earth, had an international council of astronomers who carry the power to declare the status of planethood? or to remove it for that matter? Seriously, how did these guys monopolize the power of naming & classifying the universe?

Well guess what? If you ask me, they haven't.

You see, they can change the definition of the word "planet" all they want, doesn't mean they can steal Pluto's planetary status away from us. They can't force me to teach my children that there are eight planets. They can't change hundreds of years' worth of grade school science projects. They can't undo millions of text books. They can't take away what's inside all of us.

Listen up you Indian-giving astronomers: Pluto is not Microsoft Office. In other words, you can't just tweak last year's version because you're bored and you need to justify earning a salary. The Solar System isn't as fickle as that.

Pluto is a planet. That's what they taught me throughout all my years and I ain't changing now. Sure, maybe if you told me the earth was round I'd say "whatever pal, believe whatever you want." Maybe that would make me a fool. But I ask you, what's the harm in keeping Pluto a planet?

You see, the pieces of the Solar System are like characters in a TV show. When you find a hit character that everyone loves you'd be stupid to kill them off. And everyone loves Pluto. Need I remind you of the dog?

And another thing. At least Pluto has a solid surface, unlike those other planets made of gas and vapor. Those planets are kind of dumb compared to Pluto, when you really think about it.

But the biggest point here is that most earth-dwellers still consider Pluto to be a planet. We out-number the Space Council and therefore we have all the power. Of course, we all understand that demoting a planet is on par with sleeping with your best friend's girl. You just don't do that. Not ever.

mini sketches: salute to snakes

2006-08-19T12:42:00.000-04:00

Snakes on a Plane has finally hit theaters after many months of Internet hype. And while I long to see this film late some night with drunken hissing masses, sadly I must say I haven't seen it yet. But I will predict before seeing this movie that it will live up to the hype, forcing the studio to try to recapture the magic for a sequel or five. Of course none of them will have the same love affair with the public the way the original has, and most of them will come out straight to DVD. Sam L. Jax will not star in any future volumes, leaving the guy who played Cody in "Step by Step" to play clean-up duty.

Nonetheless, in honor of this special film here is a list of titles for future installments coming soon to a video store near you...

Snakes on a Plane 2: Snakes on a Train
The rationale is simple - change the setting and you have a sequel in the oven. And it rhymes. And the title completely contradicts itself, which is my favorite part.

Snakes on a Plane 3: Snakes...in the Rain!
Trying to capitalize on the rhyming technique, Snakes 3 nearly ruins the franchise.

Snakes on a Plane 4: Snakes take Manhattan
Looking for a proven winner to undo the Snakes...in the Rain! fiasco, the producers take a note from Napkin Sketches and set the disaster film in New York.

Snakes on Planes
If Alien can get away with simply adding an "S" to make its sequel, Aliens, then why couldn't Snakes try it? My crystal ball is also seeing the phrase "double the trouble" for this one. It writes itself.

Nelville Flynn's Travels
The Snakes franchise looks backwards in this installment, making a prequel about Sam L. Jax's character from the original film. It will be much better than it has any right to be, as it deals with Flynn's struggles with existentialism and the future. And nobody will watch it.

so, the franchise makes a power play to try to reclaim its place among the masses...

Snakes on a Plane 7 vs. Anaconda 3
Kind of like Jason versus Freddy or Alien vs. Predator, finally we will answer this age old question. By the way, this is the first one to have a theatrical release since Snakes 2. It makes more money in its opening weekend than Titanic. It stars Joey from "Friends". Then the world explodes and there are no more snakes on a plane movies.

would you rather?

2006-08-17T14:31:00.000-04:00

While we wait for the impending battle between Yoshimi and The Bulletin, let's pause for a moment in our busy schedules to explore the question: Would you rather be one of the Apollo 13 astronauts during their catastrophic mission to the moon OR would you rather be left for dead in the middle of the ocean near aggressive sharks like the couple in the movie "Open Water?"

We talked about this at the 1st Annual Shark Week Holiday Extravaganza, and everyone concluded that they'd rather be in the Apollo 13. However, I think we were under the Shark Week spell at the time, causing largely irrational responses. I recently watched "Apollo 13" again, so hear me when I say that You Do Not Want to Choose the Apollo 13 Mission Lightly. Just because the astronauts survived and the swimmers didn't should not enter into your thinking. Which brings me to the "things to keep in mind" before we get started.

thing to keep in mind #1: Just because the Open Water couple died doesn't mean you would, and vice versa for Apollo 13. So picking the space mission doesn't guarantee your survival. You dig?

thing to keep in mind#2: Don't choose Open Water because you don't know how to fly a spaceship. In other words, imagine you have the same skill sets that astronauts and scuba divers had.

thing to keep in mind#3: This is really an extension of the second rule. Don't make yourself too smart, wiseguy. In other words, just because you've suddenly learned how to fly a NASA spacecraft doesn't mean you'd be able to jimmy a brilliant fix that Lovell, Fredo and Kevin Bacon couldn't figure out. You're equally as smart and able as they were, not smarter.

thing to keep in mind#4: This game isn't necessarily about choosing which circumstance gives you a better chance to survive. I think this should be part - but not all - of your decision.

For those who haven't watched either film (or haven't learned about the Apollo 13 mission through some other non-Hollywood means) go to IMDB or Amazon if you want a recap. But if you're too lazy to do that, here are one sentence recaps of both stories.

Apollo 13: On the heels of the famous Apollo 11 moon landing, three astronauts are sent to the moon on what appears to be a much more uninteresting mission, that is, until the rocket breaks in transit to the moon, leaving the astronauts with almost no power or oxygen and little hope of making back to earth alive.

Open Water: A couple goes scuba diving and is accidentally left behind in the middle of the ocean with mean-spirited sharks roaming about, and nobody's around to help them.

So there's the setup. Dwell on these things and soon enough we will find the light of truth together.

yoshimi battles the soft bulletin: prelude to war

2006-08-12T10:52:00.000-04:00

Did you know that war was brewing?
Can you hear the trumpets sound?
Over the hillside the gunpowder clouds
Forming where rivals surround.

Is it wrong to pit one piece of art against another?
Is there nothing to be gained?

I've given this time and thought, and no matter what is moral or ethical, this battle must commence.

So rise up, Yoshimi! Rise up, Soft Bulletin! For in the coming days you will fight to the death, and once and for all we will know which star shines brightest.

In other words, in the coming days and/or weeks we'll take a look at The Flaming Lips' duel triumphs, "The Soft Bulletin" and its follow-up "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots," and once and for all decide which one is better. An impossible feat? We shall see.

So find those albums and get to listening. Form opinions. Prepare for war.

dance, stanley, dance!

2006-08-08T18:01:00.000-04:00

Being an occasional know-it-all, an expert on all things relating to life, I had firmly understood this about reggae music: every song sounded exactly the same as the previous one and the rhythm never deviated from the bum-chacha-bum-chacha-bum-chacha-bum-chacha-bum pattern of every other reggae song. So I dismissed an entire genre of music as being one dimensional and worthless.

But then after going to Jamaica I realized that the only thing worthless was my opinion.

You see, what I failed to realize is that we all have a little Rastaman inside our hearts. He sleeps most of the time, but if you play reggae music for a long while, the little Rastaman starts dancing around. And when the little Rastaman starts dancing around inside your heart, the end result is always happiness.

I've named my little Rastaman Stanley in honor of the wood-carving, ganja smoking & selling wiseman who lived in a tree by the ocean. Everything about the previous sentence might seem like one giant lie, but I'm going to ask you to take a leap of faith and trust me on this one.

You see, I was once was lame. But now I'm found, uptight but now I see. I can't exactly pinpoint for you the exact moment when the enlightenment came. Perhaps it was the seventh time I heard "One Love" while breathing deep the salty breeze. Perhaps it was the 50th time. I don't know definitively when it happened. You see, Jamaicans are forever listening to reggae music. And if they're near tourists, they're listening to Bob Marley because they think that's what we want to hear (and they're right). Your average Jamaican hears the song "One Love" approximately three times every day, and amazingly they show no sign of exhaustion.

If you want to use the word "brainwash" then by all means, be my guest. But you're not going to convince me that reggae isn't beautiful. Because here's the thing: that repetitive percussion is critical to the Jamaican experience. The steady pulse of the music keeps time for the island like a heartbeat. And once you allow the flow to wash all over you, you end up feeling like you're coasting on a perpetual motion device, a perfect loop with no discernible beginning or end. Eventually you become lost in Jamaica's hypnotizing spell.

I know the cynics amongst us will fear that the Jamaicans are up to something devious with all this hypnotizing. But believe me, they just want us to relax and enjoy life. That is the reason God made Jamaica, I think - to teach the world how to relax. You could even make an argument that reggae music is the meaning of life, in an indirect sort of way.

I was going to conclude this piece with my thoughts on how reggae music relates to racism and September 11th, but it turns out my editor thought it better that I not. He thinks those elements would bring this piece down, which, he said, was not the point of reggae music. I said I knew that already, and that I didn't need him telling me what to think about things. "You're nothing without me! I made you!" I shouted at him, to which he shrugged and said, "Write about whatever," followed by some self-righteous remarks that I didn't appreciate. Sometimes I wish my editor would accidentally drink a cup of acid.

But my point is that reggae music is great no matter what your demographic makeup is. Because no matter your color or religion, you have a little Rastaman sleeping in your heart. And all he really wants to do is dance around and sing the words delivered to us by three little birds: "Every little thing gonna be all right. Don't worry. Singin' don't worry about a thing."

Makes sense, right?

About as much sense as a Jamaican bobsledder.

tale of two cities

2006-08-05T17:03:00.000-04:00

Note: in my mind, this entry is unfinished. i never said exactly what i was trying to say. i wrote most of it a few days ago, and now i'm just punting this unfinished mess away. maybe i'll try it again someday in the future. maybe i won't. but because i'm my own editor, i'm choosing to show you this failed attempt at expression and opinion. in other words, this is truly a sketch.

Detroit is an embarrassment.

I know there are two camps of opinion in this regard, and to many minds it would be blasphemy to speak so boldly against The City. After all, we're on the verge of the Next Detroit. The flowers are rising from the ashes, deals are getting done, contracts are being rewarded....we've got Campus Martius, the ever growing Riverwalk, lofts and lofts and lofts, new restaurants, big casinos, big cranes, overall a new energy and lots of Detroit Love to go around.

Yes, we have all these things. But Detroit has a funny way of reminding you of its shortcomings. And for me the past few days, these shortcomings have been manifesting themselves all too frequently. And in light of these shortcomings, Next Detroit begins looking like a smoke-and-mirrors show. It's a whore with pretty lipstick. It's a junky wearing a tuxedo.

Although I'm covered in this blanket of anonymity, I will speak in vague terms in order to not break the law. Let's just say I'm currently fulfilling a civic duty, and in doing so I've been given a front seat reminder of Detroit's continuing culture of gun violence. I've also seen the incompetence of its law enforcement agency in full blossom. I've experienced the failings of its infrastructure. And my personal favorite, I've been able to participate in the Them vs. Us debate once again, Detroiters vs. Suburbanites. Apparently if you've ever lived within Detroit's city limits you can begin any line of debate with the phrase, "I live in The City," which gives your opinion a weight that cannot be trumped. If you've ever lived in The City, you know more about everything than anybody else anywhere. You understand the mind of every Detroiter that ever lived. You understand the nature of street justice. And you wear all this with a badge of superiority, like you're tougher and more world weary than the rest of us. Of course, many of these people don't live in Detroit Proper any longer, but that's beside the point.

I'm drifting. The real point is that we have two very different Detroit's emerging in the minds of metro dwellers, Next Detroit and Coleman Young's Detroit. I'm wondering which is the real deal?

The downtown is getting better, and that makes me happy. But the downtown region makes up only a fraction of the City of Detroit. So I'm left asking if the "Next Detroit" concept is being implemented anywhere in Detroit beyond its downtown? If not, I will continue to stand by the junky wearing a tuxedo line.

Perhaps the activity downtown can spread throughout the rest of the city. Maybe crime will drop, the schools will improve, the deficit will be reduced, the history will be preserved, faith will be restored in city government, the garbage will get cleaned up, and the Us vs. Them divide will fade away. I'm hoping. Of course, realistically speaking, I don't see this happening (unless it solves all of the city's financial problems). Detroit needs a stronger tax base and it needs a government that knows how to spend that money efficiently. I can't imagine a lively downtown curing this problem, not completely.

My point is that I don't want people to be hoodwinked by the developments downtown. Don't say, "Wow, Detroit's really rebounded." Because what you mean to say is, "Wow, the downtown has really started to rebound." The City has problems that no casino or riverwalk will ever solve.

the new holiday

2006-07-29T11:04:00.000-04:00

Let's just cut to the chase here. Ladies and gentlemen, Shark Week begins tomorrow night. Break out the champagne and the noisemakers, for this is no ordinary week. After 18 years, this annual summertime Discovery Channel staple has hooked itself to our hearts, and it's time that we celebrate it properly.

When else are we given the excuse to openly worship the carnage-driven bloodmongers that lurk under the sea? Obviously never. You see, the shark is unlike any other villainous animal on the planet. Take another hated creature - like the spider - for example. Although we all fear spiders, we would never participate in Spider Week. Why? Because spiders are too ugly, frankly. They are undoubtedly fascinating beasts, what with their calculating and secretive ways. And those webs; how could such an ugly creature knit such a beautiful thing? Yes, spiders are probably our most beloved animal to hate. But perhaps they are too scary?

Sharks, on the other hand, are the lions of the sea. When they aren't killing, they're sleek and sort of appealing to the eye. Of course at other times they are fierce aggressors who kill with a pathological lack of concern for their victims. It's what they do. They just kill stuff until their stomachs are full.

And who knows? They might kill you or me someday. That's what makes Shark Week so great. We get to study one of our most beloved villains up close, like watching Hannibal Lecter work in "Silence of the Lambs."

The Discovery Channel has done such a nice job with Shark Week over the years, crafting it into the institution it's become, that I believe the annual tradition must be recognized as a national holiday. I mean honestly, Shark Week would instantly be more popular than a majority of our national holidays. Let's take a closer look:

National Holiday Power Rankings:

1. Christmas - still the undisputed champ. gifts and lots of time off work. what more do you want?

2. Halloween - there's something for everyone. kids get candy. men get to wear funny costumes. women get to show off cleavage. and it's all about paganism, which gives it that extra oomph of something.

3. Thanksgiving - lots of eating good food, followed by watching football and playing cards. great holiday.

4. The Fourth of July - the great mid-summer holiday. oh America, i wish i knew how to quit you.

5. St. Patrick's Day - an excuse to drink beer, wear green, sing irish songs and pinch people.

6. Shark Week - this seems a perfect fit. a little lower than those five, a little higher than struggling Easter and all the other disastrous holidays.

7. Easter - sorry Jesus, but Easter is weak. coloring eggs, hiding eggs, hiding baskets, the Easter Bunny? Somebody try to rationalize for me the absurdity of these so-called traditions alongside the observance of Christ's big comeback? i know not everyone believes in/ gives a crap about JC. but Easter, nonetheless, needs a face lift. there's nothing for adults here. nothing. maybe bumping Shark Week to #6 will act as a wakeup call.

8. Valentine's Day - i mean, in theory there's nothing wrong with taking your girl out on the town and having a romantic evening together. but to quote Homer Simpson, "In theory, communism works." this holiday always feels like an inconvenience, like "Oh $#!#, I forgot, Wednesday is V-Day. Sorry dude, I can't make it." and what about all the Eleanor Rigbys out there? What do they do?

9. Mother's / Father's Day - I don't know anyone who takes these seriously.

10. Labor Day - It marks the end of summer. That's strike one. and it stands for nothing. that's two more strikes. i hate holidays that don't stand for anything.

I'm probably forgetting some holidays, like Memorial Day and Columbus Day. But whatever. You see my point. Shark Week would be an instant hit, even as a rookie holiday. And don't worry. We still have time to work out the details. Like, for instance, although it's a week long series on TV, does the celebration need to go for seven days when one day might suffice? Should there be anything as random and absurd as a yule log? Should there be a mysterious figurehead, like Saint Nick?

I don't have all the answers yet. But here's what I do know: there must be at least one major gathering between friends where sea food is consumed and a movie about sharks is watched. Preferably this is done to kick-off Shark Week. Consider attending the party in makeup and attire that gives the illusion that you've been attacked by a shark. And we should all begin working on a song that could compete with any Christmas carol. "Beyond the Sea" or "Under the Sea" will do in a pinch.

In the days that follow, maybe you visit aquariums, maybe you go fishing, maybe you play games in a pool where someone plays the shark and everyone else plays potential victims. I don't know yet.

What I do know is that Shark Week begins tomorrow and I'm excited. Perhaps I'll celebrate by having an entire shark lowered into the roof of my home via a crane.

sad to be home

2006-07-25T22:41:00.000-04:00

I felt it as soon as I stepped on the airplane. The feeling was something like a virus, like my head was slowing being filled with concrete. I couldn't smile anymore. I didn't want to talk. I couldn't do anything but sit there with a blank expression. The fun was over and it was time to go home. Goodbye Jamaica. Goodbye paradise. Goodbye to the perfect culmination of things: the friends new and old, the blurry late nights by the pool, the slow breakfasts. the ocean. the women. the wedding. the party. the day after. the goodbyes.

The pilot said it all when he said: "This is a non-stop flight back to reality." And while other people situated themselves for the ride home with books and laptops, ipods and magazines, all I could do was sit and think about what I had and what I was losing.

I took pictures of the sun setting through the window. That's how I passed the time.

Then I saw the lights of Metro Detroit and in a moment it was officially all over. Like Adam and Eve's banishment from the Garden of Eden, I was home.

I got home late at night and unpacked the luggage. All I thought about was the next morning and how it was back to work, it was back to the typical and maddening predictable. It's back to CNN, Sportscenter, Jay Leno, Google, e-mail, crappy pop music, Applebee's, the high gas prices, commuting, alarm clocks, concerns about the Middle East, and all the like.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want to live in Jamaica. This isn't really about Jamaica. It's about the way things could be versus the way things are. Over there, I felt a wholeness. Here, there is an absence.

And now I'm left with this vacation remorse. I'm left with a need to change my life. Maybe this is a common disorder after a good vacation. When my family returned from a trip to Russia many years ago it was not long after that we moved to a new house. Something about traveling made us restless about staying the same. And I find myself going through something very similar right now. I felt it the moment I stepped on the airplane. I knew that something was gonna have to change.

closed for vacation

2006-07-16T15:51:00.000-04:00

I'm leaving to teach Jamaicans the art of napkin sketching.
See you in hell. Or in about a week. Whichever comes first.

mini sketches: thank you, zinedine!

2006-07-11T22:49:00.000-04:00

While the world continues to begrudge the great Zinedine Zidane for ramming an Italian futball player in the chest with his head during the World Cup Championship game, I want to go in an opposite direction and say thank you to Zidane for doing exactly what every non-italian would've liked to have done.

For those who didn't follow the World Cup, Team Italia will best be remembered for its constant flopping (read: cheating), its shifty characters, and its overall ugly style of soccer. They may have won the World Cup, but I ask you, brothers and sisters, at what cost did it come?

Sensing a grave injustice was lurking in the near future, Zinedine did what any sensible man or woman would have done: he used his head as a battering ram and knocked an Italian to the ground. And I, for one, am grateful for the sacrifice Mr. Zidane made. In the blink of an eye, he single-handedly restored decency to our world, if only for a short time. So thank you, Zinedine Zidane. I will name my first born after you.

And a final word to Italy: you're sinking under water.

the well of sadness runs deep

2006-07-05T16:14:00.000-04:00

dreaming is a waste of time.

it's a practice best left for children to dwell in, not adults. dreaming leads inevitably to disappointment, which comes either from the crushing of hope into pieces of despair from the failure of the unattainable, or proving a stale achievement like so many grocery lists, like kissing the girl you've always fancied only to find her lips are coarse, her breath sour and her technique poor. i could easily dream about my future in all its many facets: what my house will look like, my wife, how many kids I'll have, their names, etc. but i continue to wonder, what good is this type of dreaming?

some may say i'm being negative, and maybe i am. but tell me what good there is in dreaming when you open yourself up to so much disappointment? tell me, does this gamble ever yield a worthwhile dividend?

i had the audacity to imagine a day when Ben Wallace's #3 would rise up to the palace rafters, and the ultimate display of affection between the athlete and his fans would be complete, his legacy frozen into something physical, an object for all of us to keep selfishly to ourselves. he was ours and we would have cherished him forever. all it needed to survive was monogamous devotion.

my dream, now, is dead.

i imagined a day when i would take my kids to see the pistons and i'd point to that #3 in the rafters and tell them, "these banners represent all the greatest players we've ever had in detroit. but that one with the number three, that one was truly special. he was like batman. unlike superman who was born with all the powers of the universe, batman fought evil only with grit, determination, an iron will, anger, and his heart. he had no superpowers to speak of, making his triumphs all the more dazzling." and my kids would smile and imagine what he must've been like. the object would then become ours to share, young and old, something that could only be inherited.

i must be naive for allowing myself to dream like that, for assuming the best-case would come to pass. i will not make that mistake again. i will be grateful for the good things that come my way, but i will not try to anticipate them anymore. whatever happens, happens. and of all the things Big Ben has taught me during the last six years, this might be the most important lesson.

nonetheless, his absence has left a gap of empty space inside of me, a hollowness and an unhealthy unwillingness to swallow reality.

i will conclude with this poem i wrote:

O Mighty Gladiator
May your splendor continue to shine
And take up your shield one more time
Exhibit your majesty unto the unbelievers
until their eyes explode

O Noble Warrior
I wish for you the best
Although you've left me cold and defenseless
My bulwark nevermore to be
I will continue to fight
Although my fight must now come against thee

O, why would the sun refuse to shine?
Why would it let the land turn so cold?
Why would it delight in the breaking of my heart?
Exploding in my chest like so many eyes.

His hands were too small to palm a ball
Yet they were big enough to hold us all
Now he's thrown us all away
Like Christmas trash on garbage day

O folly,
O mystifying despair
Now he must dance in Satan's lair
To play on profane ground
Alongside the ghost of the King of Air

I know somewhere lies goodness in him
Far below the corrupted fibers of his soul
And below the deep wells of sadness in mine
There still lurks a great hero

But now at night silence stands
Where at city's square the bell once tolled
Now it sits cold in dust
Content to hang heavy and quiet
Like Judas dangling from a tree.

detroit's morning star

2006-07-01T13:34:00.000-04:00

What will disgusting Star Jones do now that ABC has cut her loose? Although I'm sure her options are limitless courtesy of her abundant talent, glowing personality and beauty, I'm going to lend her some free advice. I propose Star run for a seat on Detroit's City Council. Think about it. She's black, she's sassy, and she's a celebrity. A real triple threat in Detroit politics. If anyone accidentally caught her appearance on Larry King the other night like me, you too may have noticed her icy serpent's tongue, her ability to spew lies almost with pathological sincerity. In this regard, Star's made to be a politician. And there's only one town on the globe that has what it takes to put her on the ballot. She'd fit right in with Barbara Rose, Brenda, Joann, Monica, Martha and the rest of the gang. And with Star on our side, the New Detroit can't lose.

mini sketches: the beauty of enterprise

2006-06-29T01:22:00.000-04:00

- Do the John Lovitz "Eat Fresh!" Subway commercials signal the end of the Jared era?

- Did Coca-Cola Black already bomb? Or has it yet to be released? It had/will have essence of coffee!

- The new Wayans' film Little Man appears unwatchable. Is it possibly not an actual film but rather a social experiment being conducted by a consortium of universities?

- How fantasic have Red Stripe's commercials been lately? I've seen two really outstanding takes, one about teaching white people how to dance, and the really amazing "buy the beer in the ugly bottle." I'm going to use the word brilliant now. They're brilliant human beings. Well done Jamaica. I'm seriously going to buy a case of Red Stripe beer to honor these simple yet glorious ads. Hooray Beer!

- How much money would you pay to not watch Little Man?

- I have it on good authority that The Lake House is as bad as we feared. Some critics have given it a passing grade, but my source - whom I trust entirely - confirmed our suspicions.

- why do we continue to spell the word "colonel" this way? Isn't it time for a change? Shouldn't we at least add an r? From now on, let's spell it "kernal."

- "They don't have enough people to handle me." Neil Rockind is a genius.

superman gets all biblical on us

2006-06-26T02:00:00.000-04:00

The upcoming Superman Returns is drawing a lot of attention to the Superman as Christ metaphor. Anteneas attuned to this sort of thing were surely alerted when, in the preview, Superman's father (voiced by Brando, originally for the 1978 version of Superman) is overheard saying:

They can be a great people Kal-El. They wish to be, they only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son.

If you've never thought about this before and you want to read about how Superman and JC are parallel figures, some guy wrote a seemingly scholarly essay about it. Before we dig in to the real point of this essay, here's one good example of how they're similar according to Anton Karl Kozlovic, whoever he is:

Superman was an alien immigrant, and like a diaspora Jew, he was forced to leave his starry home (a threatened Krypton) to find a new life amongst strangers in a strange land (Earth). Later, he would again leave his home (Smallville) to live in the Arctic wilderness (ensconced inside the Fortress of Solitude). And then for a third time he would leave his Arctic home to live in a bustling urban city (Metropolis) going about his heavenly Father's (Jor-El's) work. Likewise, Jesus left his celestial home in the heavens to come to the Earth realm. Later, he left his rural home Nazareth (an ancient Smallville) to wander through desert wildernesses, followed by missionary work throughout the Roman-dominated world while doing his heavenly Father's (Yahweh's) work.

And here's a lesser example:

"Interestingly, Christopher Reeve had bright blue eyes. This is part of a long tradition of celluloid saviours having blue eyes. For example, Jeffrey Hunter in King of Kings had 'dreamy blue eyes.'"

So that's all very interesting, sure. I didn't know they picked Reeve because of his lovely blue eyes. However, I'm not concerned over whether this metaphor actually works. Instead, I'd rather waste a few minutes thinking about why a Jesus/Superman metaphor matters in the first place. Because my first reaction was, even if it's a perfect metaphor, so what?

CNN delivers a well-rounded summary of the Superman as Christ comparison, which is a worthy a read of you're interested. It also gives us a look at the evolution of his symbolisms. According to the article, Superman was created by a pair of Jewish men in the 1930's who were "inspired by the Old Testament story of Moses and the supernatural golem character from Jewish folklore." During the same time, Superman is also said to have been "a hero of the New Deal, aiding the destitute and cleaning up America's slums." It goes on to say that "by the 1950's, fears of postwar urban lawlessness had turned him into a tireless crime fighter." However, based on my limited research, the idea of Superman as Christ didn't seem to emerge until the 1978 movie starring Christopher Reeve.

So basically, Superman was created as a character of strength and justice for the Jews, and was reinterpretted over and over to fit the crises of the times. There's a Superman for every season apparently. He's your Personal Superman. Take this for example (from the CNN piece): "Some have also seen the hero as a gay icon, forced to live a double life with his super-self in the closet." Obviously the Superman character has built a history of becoming a symbol for whatever people want him to be. Shaq thinks Superman symbolizes himself:

Wow.

Anyways, if I created Superman and he was intended to symbolize Jewish strength, would I be pissed that other writers took him away from that? No less to symbolize the Christian Messiah?

This reminds me of those English professors I had who tried to apply deep symbolic meaning to every story, play, sonnet, limerick and essay we ever read. Sometimes I was convinced they were just making stuff up. "Green Eggs & Ham" in college would surely stir a discussion about feudalism in the Dark Ages.

I think profs love to do this because, when a story carries a deeper weight in its subtext, it gives the story a level of literary legitimacy. For instance, Jack London's "The Call of the Wild" comes to mind. While I admit now that my prof was right, at the time I hated the book so much that I was unwilling to believe it carried any significance. For me, it was almost impossible to read, some random narrative about a tough-minded dog. I mean, I could write a book about my cat and his struggles for daily survival, and although it would probably lack London's Gander Mountain prose, it would still be about the same things, right?

Of course, "Call of the Wild" isn't just about dogs and wolves and dogs becoming wolves. COTW is a product of its time, a story about Darwin's Survival of the Fittest theory, and it was controversial enough that it was banned by some institutions (I have no source material for you, so...you're kinda gonna hafta trust me here).

Now I don't question COTW's literary legitimacy - it seems pretty clear that London wrote it with Survival of the Fittest on his mind. Rather, it's when college professors insert meaning into things that were never intended by the author...that always made me want to drop out of college (which is what I always remember thinking they were doing with COTW). But this time, I swear that seems to be happening with Superman.

You see, Superman is the lamest of all major superheroes, and the writers back in '78 understood that - unless they could add a greater mystique to his character - he would fail to connect with audiences. He's too good, too infallible for people to root for. Superman is the Yankees and the Lakers. That's why, if Batman and Superman were ever to fight in a movie, everyone would root for Batman. Everyone.

So the writers decided to aim big, to give the Superman story a subtext that would resonate with the general public. Here's a blip from Anton's essay proving that I'm not making this up:

Scriptwriter Mario Puzo (The Godfather) originally constructed Superman: The Movie as a mythologic story based on a "Greek tragedy." Later, other writers were hired and the script reshaped at director Richard Donner's insistence. Donner initially disowned Superman's religious origins. However, many years later, Donner gladly admitted to the Christic subtext: "It's a motif I had done at the beginning when Brando sent Chris [Reeve] to Earth and said, 'I send them my only son.' It was God sending Christ to Earth." It was a dramaturgical decision that made good sense, for just as Superman was literally a super-man, Jesus was "the ultimate Super Jew of his day," "the Christian super-hero," the pop culture "God with us."

In other words, it's a cheap way to give a corny superhero more weight and more meaning than was ever intended. It's the difference between a novel about my cat and London's "Call of the Wild." Both are difficult to get-up for since neither story features animals that talk. But at least COTW is about something. My story wouldn't be about anything. And in the same way, they want us to believe that Superman Returns is about something bigger than meets the eye. But the thing is, I still can't figure out if Superman deserves such a treatment.

M. Night Shyamalan's love-it-or-hate-it Unbreakable - a dramatic film about a security guard who discovers that he's nearly indestructable - "explores the way that humans use comic books to explore mythic dimensions of the real world. The film works on a second level, for within the film itself comic books are in a real sense man's last link to an 'ancient way of story-telling'" (thank you again, Wikipedia). Listen, I like Unbreakable. I like its pacing, I like the acting, and I like the idea of an average guy discovering he's a superhero. But this stuff about comic books exploring the mythic dimensions yadda yadda yadda...is crap. I only bring up Unbreakable because it seems to highlight an increasingly held belief that comic book heroes are truly valuable literary characters on the level of Beowulf or the Red Crosse Knight. At the very least, comics are increasingly being recognized as credible pieces of art, especially graphic novels like "Maus," "Ghost World," and "Sin City." The comic world, much like the videogame world, is maturing. The target audience has shifted from children to adults. And I guess the question is, if these mediums continue to evolve, what's stopping Superman from being considered the modern equivalent of Beowulf? You'll see. I'll bet you $30 somebody's going to make this claim soon.

(I saw X-Men 3, I'm going to see Superman, and I'll probably buy a Nintendo Wii later this year. I'm not looking down on anybody. I'm just saying that Superman isn't Beowulf. Beowulf represents not only an evolution in written storytelling, but also captures a clear shift in religion in England, which would go on to cement Christianity as the world's most widely practiced religion. Superman can't really hang with that, not to mention that the prose-style of the actual Beowulf poem is lightyears ahead of any Superman comic).

I feel like I've said a lot without saying anything concrete. So I'll say this: the screenwriters in '78 put 2 + 2 together, noticed that the Superman character shared some basic parallels with Christ, and they decided to point that out. And now, between Passion of the Christ and Chronicles of Narnia, Jesus's presence in movies is on the public's mind. For whatever reason, the brains behind Returns decided they'd sprinkle Christ into their Superman, with the potential result of luring "red state" moviegoers with the "they lack the light to show the way" line. They've given Superman a weight, even if it's superficial and maybe even slightly gimmicky. Nontheless, as a general moviegoer, I'm fine with this metaphor, and am in fact, more than fine with it, just as long as we don't take Superman too seriously from this point forward, being sure not to confuse him with truly important literary characters.

That said, taking Christ out of the picture, I think framing Superman as having the burden of showing humanity "the light" makes him much more intriguing, and I believe if it weren't for this Christ hullabaloo, I think Superman might be ready to take a leap to the top of the superhero foodchain, where Batman, Spiderman and Wolverine have been reigning supreme for the past 15 years. Truth be told, I'm not sure most moviegoers are going to give two dumps about Superman-as-Christ come this Wednesday. I've just convinced myself - just right this second - that this entire post might've been a waste of time, and that Superman's about to become the king of the universe simply because he hasn't been given a respectable treatment since Superman II, and people are curious to see the Man of Steel fly again.

i don't believe in anything anymore

2006-06-21T10:27:00.000-04:00

hollywood kills new york

2006-06-20T23:01:00.000-04:00

While watching the latest King Kong remake the other day, my brother said, "New York really has gone through a lot over the past few years." As Kong stomped and moaned his way around Broadway, I found myself dumbfounded by my brother's comments. Was my brother relating terrorism to something trivial (and fictional) like King Kong? Then he deadpanned: "I mean, New Yorkers have already had to deal with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man attack, not to mention volcanoes and asteroids."

I was speechless. Perfect setup. Perfect execution.

So in honor of his genius, I propose we waste a few minutes looking at the many ways Hollywood has destroyed New York.

- Peter Jackson's King Kong (4/10 on the destruction scale)

Okay, yeah, Kong throws some cars and he ruins the theater, and *spoiler* when he falls to his death he probably kills a few people. But the damage here is more emotional for those who paid to see The Eighth Wonder of the World and nearly got eaten. The City itself is never really harmed too terribly bad by Kong, which I've decided is a mistake. I mean, if you're going to put a 30-foot ape on the streets of Manhattan then give us some carnage, you know? Have him punch down into the street and pull a subway train out of the ground, have him spin around and fling the subway into a giant Times Square sign so that it explodes and catches other stuff on fire. Of course, that would be ridiculous and totally unbelievable. Giant prehistoric apes in Manhattan would never do that.

- Godzilla, the sucky American version (1/10)

Boy, this movie really sucked. Back eight years ago when it was getting ready to hit theaters, the original ad campaign avoided showing us the actual monster. Shortly there after, my friend and I went to get some Taco Bell and to our dismay we caught our first glimpse of the poorly imagined creature on the Bell's plastic cups. We thought it wasn't possible that Godzilla looked so terrible. We hoped it was a mistake and that it wasn't really him. Well, it was him. And frankly I don't even want to waste anymore time on this movie. He runs through the NY streets or something and I'm sure he makes a mess. I don't really remember.

- Ghostbusters I & II (8/10)

Never before has a villain been as outrageous or delicious as the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. This guy created real havoc during his brief time on earth. Whether he's mercilessly stomping on New Yorkers or reaching out to kill the Ghostbusters, you know Stay Puft has one thing on his mind: killing people!

Even in defeat, Stay Puft found a way to make things hard on New Yorkers. Marshmallow cream rained down upon the city like a plague, which probably triggered an increase in taxes to compensate for the cleanup fees. (Actually, don't they make a joke sort of like this in the sequel? Isn't that why the ghostbusting crew disbanded? If so, it's a good joke and I'm using it again as though it were my own.)

(By the way, having the very evil-looking Gozer the Traveler transform into the Marshmallow Man is one of the most understated jokes in the history of films. I don't care if I'm exaggerating.)

The sequel saw New York's finest ghostbusting outfit fighting against an evil painting in a museum. The obvious solution? Sliming the inside of Lady Liberty with emotionally-charged slime, thereby allowing her to be controlled by a Nintendo joystick. That way the Ghostbusters could rally good-will from those pissy New Yorkers.

Including this might be contrary to the destruction-angle we're focusing on, but face the facts, seeing THE Statue walking around would be a lot for New Yorkers to handle. Some would be devastated, others made stronger. Certainly, it would change them permanently. So I'm leaving it.

-Independence Day (9/10)

Some might say this deserves a 10 on the scale of destruction. Starting with the terrifyingly slow move into position over Manhattan to the wickedly slow emergence of the central laser cannon over the Empire State Building, these aliens didn't just obliterate New Yorkers, they scared the hell out of them first, and they did it slowly. This movie set a new precedent for disaster films as it was the first movie to really show us what computers could do for the genre. All anyone in Hollywood wanted to do after "ID4" was imagine the world exploding in different ways. But no computer could recreate the magic of Goldblum/Pullman/Fresh Prince, an acting Murderer's Row unlike anything we've ever seen. These guys were good and they knew it.

The only reason I deny this film a perfect score is because there is only one movie worthy of a 10-fer, and this is not that movie. Still, it's much better than...

-Armageddon & Deep Impact (6/10)

(can you guess which picture is from which movie?)

These two movies are like Shaq and Kobe. For those of you who live in third-world countries and don't understand this analogy, Shaq and Kobe are professional basketball players with tremendous egos. Together, they won three consecutive NBA championships. Apart, they have won none (although Shaq is one win away from his first non-Kobe ring; i might as well squeeze in this analogy before it becomes irrelevant.) Both men refuse to admit that they worked better as a tandem, and instead, both men will spend the entirety of their remaining days trying to outdo the other.

Actually, this analogy doesn't work at all. These movies didn't work well together and they didn't win anything together. So forget about that part.

This was simply a war between two greedy studios to produce meaningless summer fare about global devastation via an asteroid. Only the Antz / A Bug's Life duel a few years later would rival this matchup. I don't know which film ended-up making more money, but I do know that Armageddon had a Criterion edition available, which blows my mind, because Criterion movies are supposed to be very good. It also stars Billy Bob Thornton as the president.

Where Armageddon fails is in its NYC destruction. Yes, they destroy the Chrysler Building (sort of) and I think a few other things happen, but Deep Impact throws us a curve ball when a tidal wave floods the entirety of The City. Plus, Morgan Freeman is president in their dimension. It's really a toss-up over which president is more awesome, Freeman v. Billy Bob. Nonetheless, only Armageddon was parodied by me and my friends in high school using primitive stop-animation. While we didn't win the talent show, we did succeed in creating a masterpiece. Still, Deep Impact stars Leelee Sobieski who still looks like Helen Hunt, which is still weird. So it's a tie.

Before I reveal the greatest New York disaster film of all time, lets take a quick look at some straight-to-video knockoffs that have touched all our lives:

Aftershock: Earthquake in New York (1999)

Tagline: "Terror is off the Richter scale"

Summary: "New York, the city that never sleeps, is trapped in a nightmare of horror and destruction when a massive earthquake rocks the unsuspecting city..."

That might be the most straightforward tagline & summary for anything, ever.

Category 6: Day of Destruction (2004)

Tagline: "Tornadoes, hurricanes, blackouts...There is no shelter from this storm!"

Summary: "A hurricane heading North from the Gulf of Mexico meets a tornado over Chicago. The new superstorm wreaks havoc."

Now honestly, I can't say for sure that this movie even takes place in NYC. But it just looks like it needed to be mentioned. Apparently Chicago, St. Louis and Las Vegas are all devastated by the superstorm. I just thought it warranted mentioning. Plus, it's a perfect segue to The Greatest NYC Disaster Movie of All Time....

- The Day After Tomorrow (10/10)

Sometimes I think this is the worst movie I've ever seen. I love it so much. I mean, some movies are supposed to be bad, like Day of Destruction. But I think the brains behind Day After truly believed they were making a good movie, which makes it all the more a failure.

This movie almost combines every element in all the other disaster NYC films combined.

You get:

waves...

floods....

tornados...

Statue of Liberty problems....

absolute devastation...

overdramatic acting...

birds....

But what really sets this movie's devastation apart is its inclusion of a subplot involving wolves.

So then, a movie with this much New York devastation cannot be denied. It also cannot be denied as being one of the most absurd films of the past 30 years. Seriously, a father walks across the tundra of America's Eastcoast in order to make sure his son is doing okay. He comes with no plan to help them, but at least he comes. While they wait for Dennis Quad to show up, wolves are thrown into the mix, which might seem like a distracting subplot to some people since it has nothing to do with surviving bleak weather conditions.

That said, only The Core rivals Day After in its complete absurdity and hilarity. And that movie has nothing to do with New York, so Day After wins. It's Director Roland Emmerich's finest entry to the genre. If Independence Day was his "Sgt. Pepper," then Day After is clearly his "White Album." I'm not sure what that makes Godzilla, which he also made. The Beatles didn't make bad albums. But whatever. Let's say Godzilla is equal to Ringo's songs, even though I like Ringo more than that. Anyways, you get the point: Roland Emmerich hates New York.

...

Wrapping things up, New York City is probably the best city in the world and I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment to point out that New York really has gone through some very traumatic situations over the past few years, and that if anything, these movies teach us that the worst situations can be overcome with some determination and faith.

Hang in there, New York.

it's evolution, baby

2006-06-16T13:20:00.000-04:00

Do you ever look at indie rock dudes and think to yourself, "What's happening to modern man? Where has his manhood gone?" Because sometime I wonder. They are so skinny and brittle, like fragile constructions of sticks and glass - such a far cry from the thick bones and rough hands that fought in the World Wars and worked the assembly lines.

And I can't help but wonder if this is evolution at work? What with all the video games and computer jobs, is it any wonder that men are losing their way? And I begin to wonder what hope is there for my future sons? Will they be even weaker than our current crop? Will technology prevent the need for muscle mass altogether?

For those who fear for humanity's future the way I do, for those who can see the writing on the wall - that mankind has peaked and is now free falling in a tailspin back to its original algae state, I say to you, Fear Not. For the transhumanismists have taken human evolution into their own hands.

I've now penned three unnecessary paragraphs all in order to ask the following questions: What is transhumanism? And where are the transhumanists leading us?

Transhumanism is a belief that science & technology should be used to move humanity into the next phase of its existence. It will take us so far from where we're currently at that we won't even be called "humans" anymore. Rather, we'll be called posthumans (that is, unless the posthumans don't like being named by a lesser species. Being posthuman, they will probably come up with a term that transcends our language). Monkey to Man to Posthuman...got it? Posthumans will be nearly immortal if not fully, they will barely get sick, and who knows? That's where the fun starts. Their story is yet to be written.

Perhaps we will try to add wings to future men. Or, maybe in the posthuman world, we will breathe fire out of our mouths? Don't forget about the possibility of installing computer chips into our brains. These are all potential steps that transhumanists would probably want us to consider taking. In this Slate article, those types make themselves known. One man is using science & technology to become a cat. With enough tattoos and plastic surgery, he might one day look as believable as a high school mascot.

But let's get down to business here. We could talk about crazy trashumanists forever because their vision for mankind is really hilarious, if not entirely frightening. However, looking past the total loons out there, I'm wondering if maybe there aren't some truly legitimate ideas behind the transhumanists' thinking? Perhaps it is time for us to use our advanced technologies to enhance the human race.

For instance, I'm always hearing about humans only using 5-10 percent of their brains. I want to know what happens when that is boosted up to about 80 or 90%. That would be an evolutionary step, no?

And by boosting brain power, I'm not hoping for mankind to become smarter necessarily (I use the word "smarter" loosely here. You could argue that mankind hasn't been getting smarter at all. Tell me, what will be standing longer: the Egyptian Pyramids or the Luxor in Vegas? Granted, this point is fairly b.s. since the Luxor doesn't stand as a symbol of devolved thinking as much as it stands for the western world's need for cost-efficient immediacy. Nonetheless, i think i make a point here. Have we really been getting smarter?). Getting back to the point, who knows what might happen if we increased our brain power? Telekinesis?

We can dream and imagine all we want. Books and movies have been doing this forever. That's the fun of having evolution's direction in your hands. HG Wells explores the future of human evolution in "The Time Machine" and controlled human evolution in "The Island of Doctor Moreau." The X-Men stories are definitely a variation on this theme. In reality, we could wildly pursue similar dreams for mankind (like being able to control the weather with your eyes), experimenting and tinkering until we find an evolutionary step that makes sense. We could do that. But we shouldn't. (I'm pretty sure Wells is making a similar argument in "Moreau," although I've not exactly read it, so I might be way off.)

If we're truly reaching a crossroads for humanity, one where Darwin's evolution is old hat, the question we need to focus on is what do we wish to become? If we're going to take humanity "up a notch," we need to talk more about where we want to go. If the transhumanists are right - if human evolution is really in our hands now - then these are decisions that need to be made.

Of course, most normal people aren't ready to party with the transhumanists yet. If NASA in the 1960s was asking "In space, where do we go?" the people were probably saying, "Why go at all?" Plenty of moral objections have been made already, and I know that I'm getting ahead of the major argument of whether we should "go to space" at all. What I'm saying is, if I were a transhumanist, I might consider choosing a location to sell to the general public, instead of offering generic infinities. If you're living in the 1960s, what sounds more appealing if you're NASA selling the space program: the abstract "We want to go into outer space!" or the more refined "We want to go to the moon!"

So, to the transhumanists out there: where do we go?

(FYI: I'm not so interested in hearing from the Raelian transhumanists, because I've not been convinced you guys know what you're talking about. Cloning yourself in order to become "immortal?" Eh. I'm shrugging my shoulders. Maybe I'm alone on this one, but immortality in the human sense doesn't do much for me. Spiritual immortality, if it's possible, holds more appeal. Still, at least the Raelians are trying to have concrete ideas. Of course, they really are crazy, though. Believe me).

Anyways, getting back on track, this is the part where I tell you that I've successfully mapped the future of our species.

(Drumroll....)

We need to be better people.

We don't need to be taller or faster or develop a second thumb. I'm not sure we need to get smarter, because so far, the "smarter" we get, the bigger the bombs get.

I'd rather see the global community evolve in its moral clarity. Could we inherently grasp things like patience, tolerance, self-sacrifice, generosity, and all these types of things? Could we also add better appreciation for the arts to the list? If humanity can develop a better inherent understanding of these things, won't that do more for the state of humankind than anything else? And then guess what comes after that? We begin to operate in global harmony, mindful of things beyond ourselves as individuals but instead, we become mindful of things on a societal level! The world sings together in one enlightened voice and the old, inherently destructive nature of man is put to bed forever!

Whew.

Okay.

That might be slightly grandiose in scope. Essentially, I just stood before you and said, "Let's go into outer space!" And our goal is the moon. So then, ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the moon...

The next step in human evolution = a better sense of humor for all humanity.

Think about it. Humor is one of the greatest feats man has ever achieved. People aren't angry when they're laughing. They aren't depressed. They aren't as prone to be jerkholes to other people when they're laughing. Laughter unites people, it builds friendships and relationships. It relieves tense situations. It makes the worst moments bearable.

Think about it. Did Hitler have a good sense of humor? Of course he didn't. How about the judgmental Christian-right? Also humorless. Joseph McCarthy never laughed once; it's a proven fact.

So my challenge to the transhuman evolutionists out there is to find a way to make people funnier. Call it the gateway to moral clarity. Soon enough in our hilarious global society, people will stop tailgating on the roads, murder & war will be a thing of the past, and overly somber films like "The English Patient" will be forgotten forever.

So maybe...just maybe...unlocking that 80-90% of untapped brain power will help this cause. Or maybe there are other ways to make people funnier. I don't really know. But that's really not for me to worry about. I came up with the idea. It's up to the transhumanists now.

is it in you?

2006-06-12T17:08:00.000-04:00

they've been selling us this World Cup stuff for weeks now, saying how everything is different for the Usa this time, or "It's a whole new ballgame," if you will. And on and on.

Here I am watching the replay as I write this. The Yanks are losing 2-0 after 71 minutes.

Initially, hope sprang eternal. I was humming, "My Country 'Tis of Thee" and "Star Spangled Banner," my nationalism swelling. and i watched some tall czech score against us in the first five minutes. and then later they scored again. and then we didn't score. and it was around the 57th minute that i realized i'd been sold a lie.

this US team is horrible. i don't care what they're ranked - they're horrible. it's obvious we don't belong with the Big Boys and we probably never will.

3-0. Czechs score at 75 minutes. and i've never felt so right about anything.

what's worse is they keep scrolling breaking news about Ben Roethlisberger being almost dead, but because I don't believe in stopping the tape before the game's over, I will continue to wonder if the Steeler's QB is living or dead.

you know, there's no sport as maddening to watch as soccer/futball when your team is losing. i've found myself for moments forgetting that i existed. because i don't know the game that well, i can't even tell if the Yanks are trying. it sure doesn't look like they are. it looks like they're just kicking the ball out of bounds whenever they can. i'm not confident in saying they've taken 5 shots on goal today.

we're at 82 minutes. perhaps a great miracle is in the works. then again, perhaps there isn't. OH, but look out three-time World Cup winner Italy! You will see a fierce US team this Saturday! You won't like us when we're angry!! We're #5 in the WORLD. bwahhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha..............

a bad movie lingers on the horizon

2006-06-06T18:44:00.000-04:00

A lonely doctor (Sandra Bullock) and a frustrated architect (Keanu Reeves) begin exchanging love letters only to discover they are living two years apart.

That's the description for the new romantic drama, "The Lake House," which hits theaters June 16th. What do you think about that, huh? Sounds awesome, right?

No. It doesn't.

Now granted I'm a man and I like eating meat and drinking beer. I'll grant you that. I'm not the film's target audience. But listen, I'm also known to be a sucker for certain Nora Ephron movies when they come on TBS. In other words, I will watch some of this garbage when I'm feeling all sensitive inside.

But I'm convinced "The Lake House" has gone too far.

Let's start with the premise. "Two people exchange letters and discover they're two years apart." Two years apart. Now that is an obstacle. They aren't separated by space or circumstance or emotional turmoil or any other typical Hollywood convention. They're separated by time!

There's a little thing called Suspension of Disbelief that almost all fictional films have to be aware of when they're being written, and this story has clearly gone over the deep end. Now the film's writers might argue that what they're attempting is the same as any fictional movie - like say "Star Wars" - where you have to forget about reality in order to believe the story. But I would argue that stories like George Lucas's trilogy do not violate the Suspension of Disbelief principle, despite the fact that wookies and ewoks are flying through space. "Star Wars" starts with that familiar prologue, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." In one sentence, an entire setting is established, and so too, is the audience's expectations. Said differently, the science-fiction genre was invented to host such ludicrous things as Chewbacca. But Romantic Drama is not so flexible. RomCom maybe could pull this off. Drama cannot. Remember the drama "The Boy Who Could Fly?" Actually you probably don't. But trust me, it exists and it features a young Fred Savage. And it's about a boy who can fly. And it's not a joke. It's meant to be very serious.

And guess what?

It sucks.

So that's step one: the premise doesn't fit the genre. But secondly, and more importantly, can't the conflict in this story be resolved very easily? It's not like that movie called "A Moment in Time" or whatever it's called, where Christopher Reeves falls in love with a woman who lived in another lifetime than his. As stupid as that movie is, at least it causes a real delima for the two characters involved. He can't get to the woman he loves. But "The Lake House" dilemma isn't a dilemma at all. I mean, why can't Keanu's character simply write a letter that says "Meet me at the Hilton near the freeway at eight o'clock on the first day of June?" Keanu knows this Hilton existed two years ago, and therefore should be able meet her there. Right? Maybe I'm completely underestimating the tricky nature of time-space, but if it's January 1, 2006 and I write my lover a letter telling her to be somewhere on January 5, 2006, someone explain to me where the hangup is at? I mean, if they had no means of communication, then finding each other would be a problem. Definitely. But I'm told they have a magic mailbox at their disposal.

So I'm left to believe the writers have added horrible twists and turns in order to complicate the rather simple solution to this story. Maybe Sandra Bolluck's secret admirer destroys the mailbox before Keanu can tell her where to meet up? Maybe the film will attempt something on a Back to the Future II scale, with present-tense Keanu hiding from past-tense Keanu, thereby leading to confusing stuff. I don't know.

What I do know is that the romantic duo from "Speed" will be igniting fireworks on the big screen once again. People might attack this aspect of the film, but not me. I actually like Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock. You know, one more movie together and they're the new Hanks/Ryan. Maybe "Speed" was their "Joe vs. the Volcano," which makes "The Lake House" their "Sleepless in Seattle." Of course, I assume that Sleepless is way better than Lake House. So I guess Hanks & Ryan are still in the lead, and there's no way Reeves & Bullock top You've Got Mail. I'm not gay.

Let's just wrap this up before I lose any more dignity. We've all seen "The Lake House" before. In its past life it was called "The Notebook" or "Waiting to Exhale" or "A Walk to Remember." My question is what will "The Lake House" bring to the table the none of those other films could? Time separation? So Keanu + Bullock + Time Separation = "Let's go see the Lake House?" Am I wrong to hate this movie before it's even been released?

son of a blog

2006-05-20T19:03:00.000-04:00

This is ridiculous. How could I have slipped to this depth? I'm blogging now? I'm a blogger?

Well, I'm sure it won't last. In fact there's a 2-1 chance that this post will be the last post. Because I know me. I'm not great with follow through.

Anyways, I'm doing this because I need a space where I can write & think without any restrictions, where I don't have to second-guess myself. Blogs seem perfect for imperfection.

I'm calling this my Procrastination Destination.

If I want to talk about the NBA, I will. Bathroom routines? Yeah. I might. There are no limits.

Because this is my blog. And I am now a blogger.

Welcome to my hell.