Dark Knighted

Hello beautiful,

Those of you who know me can be quite certain, that when I tell you that I started writing this piece well before I saw the movie the Dark Knight, that I did indeed start writing it then (today is Tuesday, July 15, 2008). Having seen a few clips of the movie, some trailers, some TV spots, and an HBO special, I am convinced that I know the plot, and have seen sufficient amounts of acting and directing to make categorical judgments on all of the film maker's choices. I was right (or wrong. Actually I'm writing this paragraph on Tuesday evening before I'm supposed to watch the film this coming Friday). Eat my shorts Lost; watch me play games with time in real life. I will supplement my work with additional information because I intend this to be an actual review.

I will limit the spoilers to the parts of the movie that are available in the trailers, previews, and TV spots, which are numerous.

Let me start with the best part of the movie. Ledger's Joker is exactly the maniac he is supposed to be. Perfect. If I were giving out Oscars, I'd give him one for best supporting actor and if possible best actor (as well). In his masterful portrayal, he allows his character's free spirit to maniacally control his body, his faculties, and his mannerisms. And when Ledger was in the war paint clown make-up, he simply seemed at home. A common theme in superhero movies is: which is the real personality and which is the disguise: who is the superhero really? Batman asked the question in Batman Begins and expounded upon it further in the Dark Knight. But, for a super villain, and for the Joker in particular, there can be no question. He essentially has no identity other than the one in decaying clown make-up. He looked like and probably smelled like a rotten egg and his facial ticks are reminiscent of hungry lizard.

The schizophrenic acting was perfect, stressing different intonations, varying his cadence, laying out several minimally different accents in one continuous chord, and manipulating the pitch and volume of his voice as if each sentence were relaying a carnival of emotions. Speaking of emotions, the Joker would jump from a jokester to a sad clown, to the monster from It all within one sentence. Watch him tell a random party-goer that he reminds him of his father.

Unfortunately for Jack Nicholson, his Joker has to be compared to this great performance, much in the same way that Steven Weber has to be compared to Nicholson's Shining character. It's not to say Nicholson did a bad job. He was silly, he was cooky, he was wild, he was angry, and he was whiny, just like he is at every Lakers game. Burton's adaptation, which was beautiful in its own right mixes Caesar Romero's prankster with a classic mafia don who has no compunction about killing. Of course, Jack, being Jack, he made it a bit more gritty, and Burton being Burton, he gave the joker some artistry. But, essentially, Nicholson was just Jack Nicholson with some neat paint on his face who occasionally did a dance to pretend he was still spry and agile, which he wasn't.

But, then came The Joker in Heath Ledger. It was a veritable clinic of mania. And that is the perfect joker for our time. His voice and mannerisms would vary from Daniel Plainview's megalomaniac, to Hannibal Lecter's snooty carnivore, to orange Alex's violent sexual predator, to Jack Torrance's unbridled fury, to Agent Stansfield's explosive professionalism, and of course, he mixed in some 70's mafia dons to even it all out. And as a result, we get a character who does not want to rule the world, but who wants to utterly deface it and revel in its destruction. He's introduced to us as a serial mass murderer, a serial killer who kills many people each outing just for the joy of bringing terror to the world. (I was having a reasoned and logical debate about what constitutes the greatest form of evil, about whether Lex Luthor from the most recent incantations of Superman, an uber-powerful man, who thinks at least in part, what he is doing good, warding off an alien superhuman, but is really doing a bad thing is worse than the Joker, who presumably knows what he is doing is wrong. You got lots of evil tyrants on the Lex Luthor side and then a bunch of Charles Manson types on the other. Practically, Lex Luthor is more dangerous because his greed, ambition, and subtlety allow him to do more damage in our world, but theoretically, one joker who could achieve Luthor type power could end the world.)

So, under what circumstances can such a person take over, even a crime syndicate, in an organizational capacity? Well, if there are a lot of unemployed criminals looking for a boss, they might just turn to someone they don't understand. On what planet would they follow a guy who was not only crazy, but also wearing face make up? If they are terrified by a guy dressed as a bat, perhaps they could be soothed by a guy dressed as a clown. Sun Tzu makes it very clear; never push your enemy in a corner because when desperate, they are particularly deadly. Even when you win in those situations, it will often be a pyrrhic victory.

(As I was watching this movie, I didn't once remember that this actor, totally immersed in the role was no longer with us. I don't care what James McAvoy says, if you're a great actor, or probably even a good actor, you could take all the commercialization, all of the paparazzi attention, and all the late night wise-cracks, and make people forget that celebrity for the entirety of a movie. McAvoy is famed for vocally refusing to take spots in advertisements because movie goers would not be able differentiate his selling image from his characters. I have an idea that will resolve this for McAvoy... act. Act differently in Wanted than you did in Atonement or Last King of Scotland or Penelope. Or maybe, take that one facial expression of being overwhelmed by a stronger character, and try putting it into being overwhelmed by the sheer power of an Audi or a Prius or whatever foreign-Hollywood douchebags drive.)

But, back to the movie, the post-Joker Gotham was the darkest setting I've seen since Sin City, which was the most atrociously shocking urban sprawl I have ever had the revolting privilege of viewing. Gotham-Chicago, works less well than Gotham-NY, but is still very strongly up to the task.

My favorite part of analyzing The Joker in this movie is trying to characterize his type of criminal activity and villainy. Is he a terrorist? Certainly, he is blowing up people and buildings for a political message of anarchy and opposition to the Batman. Is he a mobster? He sure is, given that he controls the mob and gets them all kinds of money. Is he a serial killer? I would say yes (see above). An assassin? That's kind of his thing. Spree killer? Watch the movie. Arsonist? Sure. Armed robber? Of course. Kidnapper? No question. Turf gangster? No doubt. Pirate? Watch him try to get into an armored car at high speeds. Torturer? Tyrant? Sexual predator? Maybe not, but his intro to Rachel Dawes character certainly ranks among his creepier moments. You name a kind of villainy and this guy seems up to the task.

The Batman has to contend with this, and as we have found out from the Beginning and even more in this film, the Batman is extremely logical, an unmatched adept fighter, with seemingly infinite financial resources and thus access to countless gadgets and information. And, as we know from the commercials and previews, the Batman will have to make a judgment about how evil he must become to rid the world of this potentially ultimate evil. Further, he must determine how many bad things he can do before he himself is not a good person anymore. Theatrics and deception? What about straight up lying, what about bringing about escalation of violence, what about scaring innocent people, what about hurting bad people, what about killing evil people, what about...? Well, you get it. And his answer to that is Harvey Dent, the clean cut prosecutor who uses the laws in the slightly reformed and improved Gotham judicial system to begin punishing the crime lords.

Bale brings a similar intensity to this role that he did in the first, and though his competition outshines him, there is nothing wrong with that. Eckhart is truly excellent in his role as he transforms from a person the viewer and the public believes in to the person the viewer half understands. The others are quite good as well. I was bothered a bit that Katie Holmes (who was notably weak) was simply replaced by the Secretary, but it didn't ruin much for me.

The beginning of the movie is a bit choppy and chaotic as Nolan and his brother try desperately to tell us where we are now, but the plot and the story are otherwise crisp. The dialogue varies from good to great, and almost every one of the soliloquies is valuable, informative, and entertaining. Some of the action was downright spectacular and some of the comedic moments will fill you with tense laughter.

I talked about the Joker more than I should have, but he embodies this most excellent movie. I'm not a big Batman person, so the fact that I think this was one of the best performances I have ever seen is noteworthy. I avoided tour de force or electric or brilliant or genius because they are either over used not the proper word for his performance. But, I recommend the movie to all movie goers as a movie event whether you like Batman, comics, super natural, action, horror, or whatever. See the movie and make your own judgment.

As for the Joker, who I haven't discussed enough: he is a man of simple tastes, but is he a planner? Are the extent of his plans just disruption? His tactics seem genius and lucky, and his strategies are confusing with or without the whole picture. Is he a performance artist setting Gotham as his stage, is he making a socio-economic-political statement, is he trying to capitalize on a vacuum at the higher levels of power, is he making a religious/philosophical insights into the hearts and minds of mankind, or is he just having sadistic and masochistic fun competing against the Batman for sport? It's likely that there are elements of all of these things, but it's also likely that on the first viewing, you will only notice 1 or 2 of them because you will be enraptured by the sparkling brilliance of his cracked shell. What was Nolan thinking when he unleashed Ledger on this extraordinarily well written role? Well, we don't know for sure, but we can only guess that it was all part of the plan.

Sleep well,
Papa Bear

Post Script: I wrote about half the review before seeing the movie, changing two major errors, but refusing to change typographical errors or opinions. I took out one paragraph because my guess was too close to being right. But, the rest was written subsequently. I interspersed today's paragraphs with last Tuesdays to make it more fun for me. Feel free to guess which paragraphs were written before and which were written after. It makes the entry a bit chaotic, but that seems apt given the subject matter.

Mark's Oscars

Hello reader,

In response to my buddy at http://www.melanism.com blog's challenge to his readers, I have pain-stakingly gone through wikipedia's list of movies every year since the year of my birth, 1980 and used several of my fingers to type out my favorite movie from each year. This is a very frustrating process that takes longer than you might expect, except, if you're like me, and strangely have a favorite movie every goshdarn year. There are a few notable exceptions: Lean on Me couldn't edge out Say Anything in the 80's; Mumford had no chance against American Beauty in the 90's, and nobody this year, not Wall-E's beautifully simple romance or the forceful fun of Iron Man holds a candle to a movie I am going to see within one week.

Additionally, if you want to know my evaluation process and methodolgy: I grade movies based upon 1) entertainment value (whether it's fun to watch or funny), 2) emotional evocativeness (whether the movie connected with me on a personal visceral level or inspired me/got me bawling), 3) intellectual provocativity (whether the movie was thoughtfully prepared or the movie left me pondering/not wondering).

I take into account the plot, the story, the dialogue, the acting, the chemistry, the audio-visual splendor, the directing, and probably a few more things (and mostly in that order). For the purposes of this list, I evaluated how much I appreciated the movie at the first time I saw it, how rewatchable it was over time, and how much I appreciate the movie now. But, mainly, there is a strong emphasis on now.

Then, after evaluating all of those things in depth, I toss them out the window and just make decisions.

You'll notice that very few of these movies correspond with Oscar winners; though, I'm more surprised that some of them do, which proves that even the Oscars get it right some years. To be fair to all of the movies I listed below, I'm totally ashamed for listing every one of them for reasons varying from their sentimentality, their silliness, their cliched-ness, or their utter lack of realism, and yet simultaneously I'm unabashedly proud (except for the aforementioned shame) of these choices as well because these are movies, and there is no such thing as a real movie, or a truly original movie that is not overly sentimental or silly. They are movies, and even accurately depicted unedited documentaries are never wholly precise. The movies below as well as movies in general are simple in their complexity and that is what makes them awesome. So, deal with it.

Incidentally, melanism also has a list of favorite albums by year as well, but I don't know enough about music to make informed decisions.

Let's see... is there any other way to stall and buy me more time to think over my list? I guess not.

So...

Here goes...

I guess...


Mark's Favorite Movies By Year: Starting in 1980

1980- Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back
1981- Superman II
1982- Gandhi
1983- Trading Places
1984- The Terminator
1985- Rocky 4
1986- Ferris Bueller's Day Off
1987- Evil Dead 2
1988- Die Hard
1989- Say Anything
1990- Edward Scissorhands
1991- Silence of the Lambs
1992- Bram Stoker's Dracula
1993- The Fugitive
1994- Ace Ventura: Pet Detective*
1995- Tommy Boy*
1996- Independence Day
1997- L.A. Confidential
1998- The Zero Effect
1999- American Beauty
2000- Gladiator
2001- Amelie
2002- About a Boy
2003- Big Fish
2004- Garden State
2005- Serenity
2006- Little Miss Sunshine
2007- Juno
2008- Dark Knight (as long as it doesn't suck)

It's a fun activity. But, clear a little time.
What's your list America? And, feel free to chime in, rest of the world.

Great big hug,
-The Papa Bear

* I made an error on the years and had to make a correction: I reluctantly erased Forrest Gump from my list, because I found out that possibly my favorite comedy of all time was actually a 1994 release (and not 1995). Also, I missed that Garden State was released in 2004, so I replaced Win a Date with Tad Hamilton. On the plus side, I was able to insert the most excellent Tommy Boy into the list. Enjoy.

EggTown Blues

Hey brother,

Lost-ophiles, I continue to be amazed with the show, even when the episodes are weak, they stay strong. Lost provided us with more questions, answers, and room for theories and discussion. So, here goes.
SPOILERS below for those who have not seen the latest episode.

Let's start with the obvious question, why is the episode called Eggtown? Is it because Locke made the last two eggs for Benjamin Linus? Is it because eggs are ova, and the episode was about Kate's pregnancy or lack thereof, and/or Kate's child or lack thereof? Or is it because eggs are a cultural and religious icon to symbolize birth and life (think Easter)? Imagine and egg town... a whole town full of life. Not that hard to imagine, I guess. But, sounds a little bit like Lost to have so many legitimate theories. So, who is the egg? Is it Kate getting a second chance at living a normal life, thanks to her lawyer (go lawyers), her mother (who birthed her and tried to reform their relationship because of Jack's testimony,) and Jack's testimony. Jack came off as an honest likeable witness, even though he was lying through his teeth (presumably), and thus he basically saved her life. Maybe, the egg was Aaron, who is one of the few Island babies that we know of (Alex is also an Island baby, if I remember correctly). And the episode was about the Aaron surprise, as Claire, who spawned the egg from eggtown had to share motherhood with Kate, but we'll get to that later. On an island, where women can't have children, eggs come at a premium.

Of course, some other egg related thoughts include the fragile nature of eggs, as in "walking on eggshells." The entire Locke town is dependant on a leader who doesn't have confidence in his own leadership. Of course, the egg is part of the chicken and the egg conundrum, which is a thought about origins and paradoxes, but this episode did not seem to be about paradoxes, at least not more than other Lost episodes. Instead, I prefer to think of the egg town as in how someone eggs a house on Halloween or someone has egg on their face. Locke certainly has egg on his face as he is duped by Linus, by Miles, by Kate, and of course, by Sawyer. The whole town is led by an egghead who doesn't have confidence in himself and is rapidly losing control over his people... well, until his magnificent grenade trick with Miles. Yep, he put the egg on someone else's face. Very nice contrast to the Linus treatment in the beginning of the episode. Enjoy your breakfast.

Of course, the most obvious question from the episode is why Kate is walking around with Claire's baby, Aaron, and pretending it's hers? Of course, it's still possible that the baby is a different baby Aaron named after Claire's baby boy, but we will ignore that possibility because it infuriates me. Various potential answers...

1) Claire lost Aaron in a card game/backgammon game. And then for fun, she goes around yelling, "I've abandoned my boy! I've abandoned my child!" (Yep, that's your Oscar winner people. You have to deal with it.)
2) Claire dies between now and then. Even if that's the case, she could still have been one of the Oceanic 6 or at least, the 8 who "survived" the plane crash.
3) Claire is stuck on the Island, and Kate adopts the kid because someone has to take care of him. Jack, who is Aaron's half-uncle (by blood) does not want the responsibility. Although an interesting side plot may arise if some paparazzo does a paternity test on the kid, thinking Jack is the father.

But, if Claire is stuck on the Island (despite Desmond's vision of her getting on chopper with Aaron), then why did Kate jump at the chance at never leaving the state again? Why is Jack lying under oath about the death of all of his fellow islanders (assuming they are alive)? These people are really locking themselves tight into this story of no survivors.

The most obvious answer to these question has to do with the Abaddon, Linus feud... whereby someone made them make promises and tell lies (and/or had Sayid kill) to protect the others on the Island.

If so, why the ruse about two other people surviving the crash? The likely scenario at this point is that two bodies were found along with the Oceanic 6, and it was apparent that the 2 did not die in a plane crash.

Does Aaron count as one of the Oceanic 6? I have no idea.
Did we answer the question from the end of last season, when Kate said in the flashforward, "he's gonna be wondering where I am." Is that Aaron? Again, I have no idea.

What about the card game between Faraday and Staples Lewis, you ask... Well, the words they used, indicated that these people were playing a memory game, which demonstrated Faraday's progress. 2 out of 3 though, is that progress? Since neither of them appears to have a particular memory problem, then the answer that makes the most sense within the Lost universe, which we know has some sort of time distortion... is that Faraday is seeing things in advance like Desmond, and now is trying to improve his future memory. To rephrase, Faraday is having these visions about the future and trying to maintain the future in his memory. If that's true, then, is 2 out of 3 really progress? Desmond remembers whole elaborate Charlie deaths. I guess, it's still progress.

Speaking of progress. The last of the NBA trades was the most interesting. Wally Sczerbiak and Ben Wallace and Delonte West (becoming solid) and Joe Smith (still solid) for an erratic Drew Gooden, and a good perimeter defender, slasher in Larry Hughes. The point of the trade by Cleveland is two-fold, make LeBron happy by continued management activeness or activity, and also to maximize LeBron in certain unique ways. Wally is an excellent outside shooter, but a bit slow, which hurts particularly on the defensive end. But, on offense, the chances are that the Cavs will have LeBron drive, have the defenders fall in to guard him, and then kick out to Wally, or if they are less wise, then they do not double team LeBron when he drives and watch as he physically beats the other team down.

But, as for the defense, if Ben Wallace is anywhere nearly as good as he was in Detroit, then their defense should take care of itself because he can cover a lot of ground. If their defense suffers, well... then, Boston, Detroit, or maybe Orlando will have to find a way to win the conference. If it does work, then we just gave the best player in basketball more tools to win the championship. He has some tough competition in the Lakers, who were a very good team before getting another very good player for almost nothing and now are a legitimate championship contender. He has some very tough competition in Dallas, who acquired Jason Kidd for one or two chances at a title. He has even tougher competition in Phoenix who sacrificed a very good player for one or two very good chances at the title. Shaq appears fit, and if he was Shaq of 2 years ago, it's tough not to imagine them as the favorites. Except that they all face the toughest competition of San Antonio and Tim Duncan. Manu has somehow improved and is now consistently playing at an all star level and is even averaging over 30 minutes a game, and Tony Parker's quickness will continue to be a boon to this versatile team. Thus, Duncan, still has to be the favorite in that very difficult west. The West even has Houston with Yao and McGrady who have won 11 in a row, as they round into proper form; Denver, with two incredible scorers in Melo and AI with an incredible interior defense centered on Camby; Deron Williams or Chris Paul's team (who respectively have won about 16 of 19 and have the best record in the west). Yeah, the west battles are going to be tough, as they even struggle to make the playoffs against a Golden State team that is intent on returning to the playoffs.

Speaking of the playoffs and AI, and not speaking of politics (where McCain was unabashedly smeared by the New York Times for what appears to me to be his former staffer's concern about the potential, yes, potential appearance of impropriety because he was hanging out with a pretty lobbyist... ridiculous) the Oscars, (other than Juno, American Gangsters, Depp's performance in Edward Scissorhands 2: The Revenge, and Bale's performance in 3:10 to Yuma, I have no vested interest in these candidates). So, as usual, I will speak to something I rewatched this weekend.

AMC, American Movie Classics replayed the movie, The Matrix, which was the ultimate of the Terminator type movies because it superbly deals with so many subject matters. Most obviously, the movie was a special effects masterpiece, with its dramatic fight sequences and morphing techniques from Terminator 2, and of course, bullet-time. Seriously impressive and fun to look at, in the computer sequences, and even the elaborate, stylish cape-like black long coats were magnificent in the various fight sequences. Great care was taken to making the movie beautiful as well as appropriately drab for contrast. I'll point out that the sound and the music were excellent and appropriate at all times. Then, once you are watching the movie, you realize that the movie itself is a lot of fun, with plenty of action sequences, a primitive love story, and a legitimately interesting plotline.

But, those things are obvious, then we get a little less obvious and we deal with many of the same themes dealt with in Terminator 2 about man vs. machine, the present vs. the future, what is life, what is reality, is there a destiny, do machines factor into evolution, (can one John Connor or one Thomas Anderson actually save the world from machines)... etc. Then, we have directly addressed and less obvious religious, philosophical, artistic, psychological, and econo-socio-political references and homages and melds all of these into the modern technological culture. People sometimes complain about the 2nd and 3rd of the series, which are not nearly up to par, though they deal with interesting subject matters, but in a less crafty and less entertaining manner. Additionally, people complain about the acting, as Keanu Reeves, who almost exclusively makes great movies, and Trinity give wooden performances. But, I disagree, I feel that Neo was perfect for the role with his constant look of shock actually appropriate for the character.

But, back to the imagery: let's see, he is the savior of all mankind whose burden is to bring people the truth. They call him Neo, which in scrabulous or boggle, you would know is One, as the One, the savior. His friends are Trinity, as in the three pronged, one god theory proposed by various Christian doctrines. (Morpheus is the Greek god of dreams.)
In order to bring the truth, he must have complete faith in himself and in his vision for the future. We have a John the Baptist character who has been heralding his arrival. Of course, we have an oracle, a prophet, like the one's the Greek's visited, the liaison to the gods. The Greek gods had to physically overtake the cruel Titans before they could run the world in a more just manner. These characters were fighting for a place called Zion (a Judaic reference, hence the term zionists), the one place that survived the human armageddon. The people in the system are the enemy before they come to believe what he believes. Because, "if you are not one of us, you are on of them." Oh and Cypher even acts as a Judas figure, though his last supper of steak and wine is with the Romanesque bad guys. I'll get to the bad guy soon enough. The references to Eastern religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism with references to enlightenment and rebirth are also evident.

Of course, the Matrix, is an anthem to rebellion, so, much like Star Wars, the good guys have to fight the system. The thing that might make the movie legendary is that the bad guy, Agent Smith has a panache about him. He is a fed, he wears a business suit, and sun glasses. He even wears a tie clip to keep his tie from getting ruffled. No, he's not Darth Vader, but his monotone, and ability to fit into the modern world and boss around cops and frighten Neo with his gestapo tactics is part of the process of bringing old time magical evil into the 20th century or maybe even the 21st century. The guy is a white collar criminal, a computer hacker, technically, a program of some sort, but he dresses like a white collar criminal and fights with mystical toughness when he is not giving highly thoughtful diatribes about the human existence and Dennis Milleresque rants about what is wrong with our culture and our odor.

Of course, the movie is a study of lunacy because the way they describe the nature of reality as a hammer beating in his head is not what normal people think (or at least I hope they don't). It is important to remember that the world is not real, since there is no spoon. There is no anything, and we all live in a dream world and in this world, if you take the proper pills you could fly, and if you take the wrong pills you get fried. In the non-dream world, any one of us could be some very important super hero neo-Jesus. Maybe it's not just a harmless dream, or a facile movie, but a testament the unification of lunacy and rebellion. But, even so, it is very entertaining.

I only touched on a few random religious thoughts and film references, and I left out hundreds of other ideas, explored thoroughly throughout the movie. Frankly, The Matrix and Lost should be classes our children study in school, but not like classes about other TV shows and movies. These are advanced courses because although you can appreciate the movie on any level, like Shakespeare, the more you know, the more you can understand, appreciate, and discuss this art.

Of course, if LeBron (King James) wins himself a championship this year, all of this is moot because it becomes clear that he is The One. Either way, he seems like a good egg.

Stay tuned for the next episode of...
Papa Bear

All Star

Hello children,

After another disappointing basketball weekend, I still contend that the basketball all star game is far more exciting and interesting than any of the other sports all star games. Football's all star game, played after the season's end, also known as the Pro Bowl is an afterthought of the football season, in large part because it comes after the sport has achieved its climax. More importantly, football, which requires a lot more team coordination (with intricate offensive and defensive tactics,) uniting a team with one week of practice is barely serviceable. Despite having great players, and nice throws, catches, runs, and hits, we will not see high quality football. In the basketball all star game, we tend to see great offensive performances with occasional bouts of defense even while there is little fluidity. Ray Allen can still hit a lot of three pointers. LeBron James can still demonstrate complete dominance over all other players, and Chris Paul and Dwight Howard can do just about everything they do in ordinary games despite not having practiced with their teams.

Baseball is another all star game where people can step into any spot in the lineup and still do there thing, but the combination of meaninglessness and lack of basketball caliber highlights make it less enticing than the basketball all star game. With low score tallies, maybe 10 runs, the game is wanting of any serious interest or intrigue. Some people like the hockey North America vs. the World format, but not me. This type of game is irrelevant, except in international competition. I'm not really cheering for the U.S. in a U.S. vs. the world format, unless, they were a real team. But, all star games are the opposite of real teams, but rather a collection of individuals who did not practice together or play together, and are almost exclusively noted for their individual efforts, rather than team sensibilities. The all star game is not international competition, but rather a formulaic individual highlight reel. Of all the sports, basketball, with frequent scoring offenses, and magnificent athleticism, is the ideal for basketball, which is why I always consider it the best, even if it is as meaningless as all the rest.

While I felt the game was a little emptier without Vince Carter and McGrady's two highlight reel dunks each, or Shaq's jovial temperament, it was still the perennial mild disappointment it usually is. The dunk competition itself was not without excitement. The blowing out the birthday cake dunk was excellent, as was the Howard non-dunk superman dunk where he threw the ball down from 5 feet away from the rim. He had some other nice slams too, but overall, the spectacle is not satisfying with so much down time. Though there was obvious creativity with the dunks, the creativity is no longer based on sheer athletic ability like the dunks used to be, which makes the dunks less impressive than the Jordan, Wilkins, Carter jams. The ability and the showmanship are still excellent, but now my interest is rapidly waning. The rest of the All Star Weekend doesn't get much hype, but I always find it interesting how someone like Jason Kapono can hit 20 of 25 3 pointers in 1 minute from all around the three-point line. It's pretty impressive.

Speaking of stars like Jason Kapono, I rewatched Terminator 2 and mega-star Arnold Schwarzenegger reanimate his terminator character, well... a happy go lucky version of his earlier Terminator character. The whole movie from CGI to the intense Hamilton performance was well crafted. It was an enjoyable, provocative movie about what humanity is, whether there is a fate, and the fascinating line between lunacy and brilliance, between madness and intensity, between craziness and supreme organization... you get it. The philosophy behind the movie makes up for where the science lacks. But, then what... What happens after Terminator 2?

Terminator 3 or Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles? Terminator 3 is a movie that is unimpressive in its graphics, mostly for its acting (highlighted by a very unimpressive female terminator), but had incredibly satisfying ending as judgment day occurs. John Connor, the person who was to lead humanity against the machines, was set aside for termination by the machines before he was born, which led to his mother's madness, which led to his preparation. Then, in Terminator 3, the plot is concluded because he had all the preparation required, and now he merely needed the opportunity to lead. At the end of Terminator 3, Connor is taken by the Terminator to a bunker in order to survive Judgment Day, and that bunker "happens to be" the hub of the remaining communication systems. So, this guy with all the preparation is able to commence leading humanity's revival.

The Sarah Connor Chronicles is the opposite of Terminator 3, because it is great in every way that Terminator 3 was bad and bad in the 1 aspect in which the movie was very good. The show is very entertaining with a great realistic, downright frightening terminator good guy (girl). Not only is it entertaining, but the characters are engaging and the show is beautifully crafted. The one pitfall is that the whole premise of the movies is slowly/quickly collapsing. John Connor in the first movie sends Kyle Reese back in time, in part to protect his mother from a terminator, and in part to sire John Connor. Now, that judgment day is delayed (which started in Terminator 2, but is substantially delayed in the TV show,) the timeline is being destroyed. If the machines don't take over for an extra 15 years, then Kyle Reese is much older and other things must have changed in the interim, but what do I know, maybe they didn't change. But, in the latest episode, the very eerie line, "sometimes they go bad" was as creepy as a TV show can get. In the meanwhile, the show is as entertaining as an action movie with some of the thrill of watching a Terminator movie. Of course, there is no Schwarzenegger, but I guess the Terminator series had enough of him and California wants more of him.

But, the political outlook appears increasingly clear as we have two genuinely different options in McCain and Obama. It might not be as civil as I originally anticipated because McCain and Obama apparently had two major spats damaging their relationship in the senate, including one involving immigration, but at least there would be no Clintons or Bushes involved this time. Yet, Obama's February charge continues and it appears as if he will continue into the March 4, Texas/Ohio primaries on a roll. And, I guess, that's how it should be, with Ohio (swing state) and the Republic of Texas deciding the fate of the democratic party. Conventional wisdom seems to indicate that if Obama wins one or the other state, he'll have locked up enough momentum and delegates to force an Obama win on the superdelegates. But, as I've said before, I imagine a knockout is necessary to beat back the Clintons. They are fighting tooth and nail and even accusing Obama of plagiarizing a friend of his. Even if he did it, don't they recycle all of their speeches? Don't they always put two of the same words together in a slightly different order anyway? For politics, how big of a deal is it if two people have the same message? Isn't that even the idea? But, regardless of the size of this stupid scandal, it's clear that the Clintons are going to go nuclear to ensure her victory. So, I stress again the importance of Obama's sweep of those two states and the appearance of a knockout.

Not that he won't do it; in fact, the polls are swinging in his favor. But the polls are deceptive, and they don't account for the hidden anti-Obama vote. So, as in Lost and the Terminator, time will tell. But, as far as I'm concerned there are only two real all stars in this presidential race, and one has his party's nomination all but wrapped up, and the other must defeat a frightening female machine before he could rise to his proper prominence. I had 100 Terminator related quips at the ready, but I used the least offensive one I could find. Jokes suffer when I hold back.

Lesson:

Don't hold back,
ME

Movie Weekend

Movie fans,

I spent the weekend catching up on movies that I should have seen earlier, and movies I should never have seen... twice.

Let's start with the one movie I saw in the theater, the much lauded Michael Clayton. Clooney delivered a very solid controlled performance that deserves the credit it is given. Wilkinson gave a performance unworthy of his name. Not that he was bad, but he was worse than I have ever seen him. He was playing a genius gone mad. Strangely, I didn't buy him as either a genius or a madman. I feel dirty saying it.

The other thing that bugged me about the movie was Clooney's character is supposed to be like The Wolf from Pulp Fiction (for a law firm, not a crime ring) and they constantly mention how great he is at his job, but throughout the entire movie, we don't see him successfully manage any situation for a client. The movie was also pretty choppy, but I might be biased. They showed a trailer for the Dark Knight prior to the movie, and I spent 10 minutes or so, during the movie, thinking several thoughts about the upcoming Batman movie. I'll spare you the details, but my emotions varied widely from rampant excitement for the new Batman movie to anger that they are capitalizing on the death of this guy. It's not a rational anger, so I settled on cautious optimism, except that I am very much looking forward to Ledger's performance and of course Bale's performance.

I also saw the instant classic, the Brothers Solomon with Will Arnett (G.O.B.,) about two socially challenged brothers who seek to meet women and have children. There were shades of Night at the Roxbury and both of the brothers were appropriately creepy. Overall, I could not in good conscience recommend the movie, but I did have a few laughs and so it wasn't a total waste. It was nothing like Date Movie or Epic Movie or what I imagine Meet the Spartans was like, thoroughly unwatchable. I just can't believe they made those two movies.

I then watched The Brave One, which was a solid vigilante flick. Because, who doesn't like a good vigilante film? (I have yet to see Kevin Bacon's revenge movie, but it's on my short list.) In the movie, she made Bernie Goetz look like a guy who didn't kill anyone. Jodie Foster was excellent as usual, in a familiar role for her; a victim who takes control of a situation, see The Accused, Hotel New Hampshire, Panic Room, Flightplan, and I'm sure there are others. But, when she plays it so well, why mess with it? I did believe her as a killer, and I even believed the Michael Corleone no handshaking in a crisis device that the movie employed. Not a great movie, but certainly a solid movie that delivers what it promises.

I also watched The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, which was way too long. Pitt was good as Jesse James, but believe it or not, I actually preferred Collin Farrell's portrayal in American Outlaws, which was a more fun upbeat portrayal. (Despite his recent travesties, I was very proud of my early recognition of Farrell, who along with Vigo Mortenson in his stellar 2 minute devil performance in The Prophecy got me to look him up and wonder why he wasn't already a major star. He became a major star, shortly thereafter.) But, Pitt had all of the aura you could ask for, and he was both thoughtful and erratic, along with being fearless and ruthless. Ben Affleck's brother was satisfactory in his academy nominated performance, and I am surprised he got acclaim for this work. I have yet to see Gone Baby Gone, which is my top movie priority because a friend of mine actually described it to me as "a triumph." That's quite something. And the last time he co-wrote a screenplay, we got Good Will Hunting, so I definitely want to see what he came up with next. (Ben Affleck is also an excellent sidekick or 2 minute performer in a movie. See Boiler Room, Shakespeare in Love, Dogma, Armageddon, Good Will Hunting, and he was the bomb in Phantoms.)

But, the best movie I saw this weekend was a movie I rewatched, the dynamic and unique, Benny and Joon. Aiden Quinn plays Benny, a garage mechanic (business owner) who devotes his whole life to his psychologically challenged sister, played by Mary Stuart Masterson. We notice great performances by these two, until we meet Sam, the quirky, eccentric, creative, intellectually challenged Buster Keaton clone, played by the extraordinary Johnny Depp. Sam is written exceptionally well, as he does every day things in totally unique ways. But, the performance is beyond exceptional, as Depp half smiles before he reacts to any news. The directing catches his subtle eye motions and allows him to take over a movie that is titled for two other characters. I guess I would pigeonhole the movie as a romantic comedy, though it hits a lot of genres hard. Of the few movies I saw this weekend, this was easily my favorite.

This is an abbreviated blog entry because I was hardly inspired, and I'm working on a larger project, a detective story in parts. I'm thinking it will have audience participation and/or guest authors... probably just audience participation. I'll tell you more about it later.

That's all folks,
The Papa Bear

Not Lost

Hi people,

I am wasting some time before Lost starts this week. So, I watched the lame State of the Union Address, which would be way better if they could turn it into some sort of a competition. I rewatched the highly entertaining Gossip Girl first episode. It was nice seeing the character's evolve and how Dan Humphrey stayed pretty much the same, much like Chandler and Xander and from what I could tell, the Adam Brody character from the OC (but I never watched that, cause it seemed like it was a show for teenage girls). I was also impressed with my first viewing of Samantha Who? which was funny and touching, but the plotline of the episode was father-daughter relationship, which always touches me.

Then, I was rewatching the underrated subtly hypnotic Lady in the Water, which was masterfully created from iys enchanting score to the methodical camera movements. It was Paul Giamatti's finest performance, soulful and witty, unlike his acerbic and nebbishy portrayal of the Sideways and American Splendor characters. However, the twist in the movie was unsatisfying in comparison to the overall greatness of The Sixth Sense and the perfectly crafted, though not very entertaining, Unbreakable.
Now, M. Night Shyamalan's style is now clearly prononounced. He would have to be one of the few modern auteurs with his own unique directorial styles, alongside, Burton, Kevin Smith, Spike Lee, Sofia Coppola, Joss Whedon (I know he shouldn't count, but I'm counting him anyway), a couple of those Spanish directors, and Tarantino. I feel like I'm leaving a few people out, but I look forward to seeing a lot more from these guys.

One guy I'm not seeing much more of is Jason Kidd, of basketball fame, because he has finally come forth and vocally requested a trade (after three years of having his agent request trades). Unlike the Bryant complaint, Kidd has the clout to have his trade request granted while still being "expendable" enough to allow a trade request to yield some positive results for the team. So, I bid him a fond farewell with as much respect as I can muster for a guy who isn't satisfied making his $20 million a year in a great location (the New York area, not New Jersey in particular).

[Warning: The rest of the blog entry is heavilty basketball specific, feel free to avoid the rest of the piece today if you have no interest.]

SO, speaking of basketball, I feel like I should unveil my list of MVP candidates at this halfway point. Keep in mind, this is based on how much each of these candidates deserve the award (which of course is based on a combination of how much they add to their team, in terms of wins, how good they are compared to other players in that position and several other favtors), and not just who is the best player (or else Duncan would have gotten my award every year, and my list is not based on who I think the NBA will end up giving the award to. Some people choose the best player on the best team, others prefer the person with the best statistical year, and others look at a combination thereof combined with star power. Defense should be an issue, but if the player's team defense is sufficient, or if their offense is so overwhelming that it overcomes defensive incompetence, then it should not be totally preventative. Thus, Steve Nash's poor defense was possibly overcome by his facillitation of the most potent offense in basketball 2-3 years ago, with his great court vision, creation of a lot of easy scores, and shooting at over 50% from the field (and great free throw and three point percentages), along with very clutch shooting. Still, I probably wouldn't have given him the award (because his team was good offensively without him), but I understand the choice. So, without further ado...

1) LeBron James- ridiculous player, carrying the team offensively, frankly, carrying his team kicking and screaming because they often hinder him. Scouting report: Great court vision, great decision maker, great driving, solid jump shot (this year), clutch shooter, shut down defender when he applies himself (which is pretty rare, but see what he did to Kobe in the fourth quarter of their last meeting). Great leader and never makes a false move on or off the court. Ultimately, he contributes everywhere and is a force of nature every time he decides to take over a game, which is becoming more and more frequent much to the dismay of his opponents. Almost the passing ability of Magic, almost the athleticism of Michael, and almost the strength of Shawn Kemp, with the numbers that are starting to resemble Larry Bird's or Oscar Robertson or whatever he needs to win.

2) Chris Paul- great player, leading an unexpected team to the best record in the West. Great at driving, great passer, good shooter, great on defense, and taking an otherwise mediocre team to the top. The quickness of Isaiah with the passing of Stockton.

3) Kobe Bryant- ridiculous player, leading a well rounded team to near the top of his division. Very aggressive fourth quarter player, and now that he understands a bit more what LeBron has known since his rookie year, that you improve your team by getting your teammates easy shots, he is having his best year as a player. Slightly worse version of Michael Jordan, substantially worse shooting percentage, lower assist numbers, and never LED his team to a win in the playoffs (unless you count the Karl Malone, Shaq, Payton year). But, otherwise he has the same skill set of Jordan with the ferociousness and the drive to match, but the temperment of Scottie Pippen, which might be the more apt comparison, Scottie Pippen with a better jump shot.

4) Kevin Garnett- leading the team with the best record in basketball, while playing efficient offense (he doesn't take over too many games with his scoring ability, perhaps by choice), but is leading this team which would otherwise be average defensively to be great on defense. His intensity is contagious. Not sure there has ever been a player with KG's quickness and intensity, not to say he's better than the other people on this list, just that he's different than any other player before him.

5) Dwight Howard- physically dominant ala Moses Malone, scares people away from driving on Orlando and then turns around and rebounds the ball. His increasing offensive ability (meaning 1 or 2 very solid post moves) in addition to his penchant for getting open right under the basket makes him dangerous. The guy is leading his team towards greatness.

Top 10 other players who should be on the top 5 list for MVP
1) Tim Duncan- injuries, diminished playing time, along with some tough team losses is barely keeping him off the list. But I fully expect him and the team to round out into form soon enough.
2) Dwayne Wade- talent-wise he's there, but he was injured earlier in the year, and he is still a little reluctant to drive into the lane, which is his primary talent (getting to the free throw line).
3) Carmelo Anthony- he's the dominant scorer on the Olympic team and it's not a coincidence, because he's might be the most versatile scorer in ball, but he just looks a little tired and disinterested.
4) Dirk Nowitzki- psychologically scarred from the disastrous loss last year to the Warriors, but still a dynamic talent with great shooting and solid driving moves at his height with good rebounding skills, and average defense and passing skills.
5) Yao Ming- offensively very skilled, with post moves, a great medium ranged shot and great passing skills; defensively occasionally great and occasionally a serious liability.
6) Tracy McGrady- all of the offensive and defensive skills of Kobe Bryant (maybe more) with slightly less effort on and off the court and no playoff series victories to show for it and worse yet, a constant injury risk. Also, nagging back injuries hamper his overall performance even when he plays.
7) Steve Nash- gifted passer, incredible runner and driver, incredible shooter, incredibly clutch, but porous defensively. But, it helps to have such a strong supporting cast, with the running mate Shawn Marion, Amare, Grant Hill, Barbosa, Bell, and Diaw, He deserves a lot of credit, but it's a great team.
8) Carlos Boozer- offensively, he's among the best post players with a variety of moves, a good mid range shot, and tons of physical strength.
9) Amare Stoudemire- a physically powerful and quick player that uses those skills and Steve Nash to rack up points and opportunities.
10) Brandon Roy- the no name team that's competing in the vaunted West is not actually a no-name team. This guy's got something.

Round out the all star teams, not differentiating between conferences or positions,
16) Baron Davis for his offensive abilities,
17) Deron Williams for his Paul-esque leadership,
18) Chris Bosh for his post game,
19) Paul Pierce for his scoring,
20) Ray Allen for his clutch play,
21) Caron Butler for his ascendancy into being a great player,
22) Josh Howard, at times more dominant than Dirk,
23) Jason Kidd, a triple double machine,
24) Andrew Bynum, great offensive potential, already emerging onto the scene

Honorable mention to Al Jefferson (team is just too bad), Stephen Jackson (actually a captain and makes the team better... somehow), Antawn Jamison (first year that he was better than his old teammate AND the person that he was traded for AND his wife's best friend's husband, Vince Carter (and my favorite player)), David West (emerging offensive force) and Tyson Chandler (emerging defensive force), Marcus Camby (still dominant defensive force, while Shawn Marion slipped and Andre Kirilenko vacillates), Jose Calderon (what a duo when T.J. Ford returns), Hedo Turkoglu (outperforming any of the old Sacramento players and any of the current Kings players who are playing pretty well despite injuries). I would also include a Michael Redd and Kevin Martin if I needed shooters for the Olympics and if it were the Olympics, I would also include Manu Ginobli. Of course, I would give lots of props to Tony Parker for his quickness and floaters down the lane and improved jump shot, and Detroit's starting lineup (Chauncey, Sheed, Rip, Prince, and McD) as solid players on defense and offense. Charlotte and Atlanta have some nice young players too. But overall, the state of the National BA is strong.

Most disappointing players
1) Gilbert Arenas- despite incredible talent, he is actually detracting from his team this year. Go figure.
2) Jermaine O'Neal- the guy is at least very talented defensively, (in addition to offense), but where has that been?
3) Ben Wallace- I give him the edge over struggling center Shaq and over all his fellow teammates because his effort (which was his primary asset,) is down, so he is really delivering nothing.
4) Zach Randolph- even though his numbers are fine and the Knicks are not really worse than they were last year, this is more a tribute to the failure of the Eddy Curry- Randolph experiment to have two post scorers that don't play defense.
5) Miami- forget about Shaq. Where are all the other players? I know Zo went down and Wade is injured and Shaq is out, but c'mon... The team is a professional team, they should act like it.

I wanted to say something like the Sacramento stars were disappointing because they have been average despite the absences and injuries of the stars. Sacramento has been doing pretty fine without Ron Artest or Bibby or Martin in large part to a great coaching job by Reggie Theus who can't get the coach of the year because of a lack of wins (unlike Doc Rivers who shouldn't get it because of too little of his own influence on the team). But given that they have played better since the stars came back, I can't say that.

Other Mid-way point awards:
Defensive Player of the Year, Kevin Garnett over Marcus Camby.
Rookie of the Year, Kevin Durant over Al Horford
Coach of the Year, Byron Scott (NO Hornets) over Nate McMillan (Portland T-Blazers).
Most Improved Player, Andrew Bynum over David West.
Most like ME (Mark Ellis), Monta Ellis over Andre Miller.

Also, top 10 centers of all time just for fun:
1) Bill Russell- defensive slatwart, solid offensive skills, and consumate champion, the Joe Montana, or dare I say, the Tom Brady of basketball, with 11 championships with at least two sets of totally different personnel.
2) Wilt Chamberlain, the most dominant offensive force in basketball history, able to score 100 in a game (average 50 points a game for a season), and had another season where he declined physically, so focused on assists, and averaged 10 assists a game for a season, and managed to eke out 2 championships around the Russell era.
3) Shaq- a dominant physical presence, probably the strongest player ever, with remarkable quickness. He was a powerhouse on defense punishing the drivers and shutting down his opponent, and won 4 of his 6 NBA finals.
4) Duncan- Fundamentally sound basketball player who does whatever is required of him, great floor leader on defense, 1 on one defender, and team defender, great post moves, great decision maker and passer, great mid-range shooter and essentially does whatever is required to win the games, leading to 4 titles in 4 finals attempts on at least totally different sets of personnel.
5) Kareem Abdul Jabbar- steadiest greatness on offense out of anyone in this field with sky hooks and the like. Burdened with great teammates like Magic and Worthy and Oscar Robertson that cloud his otherwise incomparable career statistics (and a nice amount of championships, 6 of them).
6) Hakeem Olajuwon- the quickest player on this list with clutch play, great shuffles, post moves and a decent shot, while playing great quick defennse, and two championships snuck into the Jordan era.
7) Moses Malone- who is keeping this spot warm for Dwight Howard and/or Greg Oden, was a physical presence who outmuscled and outhustled everyone for rebounds. Paired with Dr. J, he did get a championship.
8) Patrick Ewing- a dominant defensive force who used his height and athleticism to reach balls all over the court. His offense was excellent, but he was hurt by the fact that he was such a great outside shooter because he came to rely on it over the post moves. Still, his skill and his longevity place him high on this list. No championships for him, but he got to the finals twice.
9) David Robinson- probably the most fluid athlete on this list with a good outside shot and great defensive skills. He won two championships, but the first one was Duncan's credit and the second was Duncan's credit.
10) George Mikan- my understanding is that he was a great inside scorer and the innovator of a number of moves including the hook shot.
10a) Supposedly Arvydas Sabonis belongs high on this list and based on what I've seen in his Portland days when he was already broken down physically, I tend to agree. With his incredible array of post moves, large stature, great three point range, and solid defense (even against Shaq in his prime), had he played in the US earlier, he might have been able to crack the top 5, though I really have no idea how he would compare to these guys, so I am keeping him as 10a.
10b) Bill Walton- great scorer, passer, and wily champion, but his pique was so short, I can't justify putting him ahead of others on this list.
10c) Robert Parish- crafty player whose longevity and solid play was not punctuated by a particularly strong pique, so I could not justify putting him ahead of the others on the list.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Without further, adieu,
ME

Noble Experiment

Hey y'all,

so I finally saw the film Cloverfield the other day and I have a few things I would like to share about the movie without giving any spoilers away. First off, the handi-cam was very shaky and while it provided a little (very little) extra "realism", it provided a lot of extra nausea. Though, I would say, it detracted from the movie overall, I'm glad the movie was trying something new, even if nothing else from the movie was really new. But, yes, cross that off the list of future projects, no more big special effects movies shot on hand held cameras. I got a small taste of it in Blair Witch and it was cool, and I got a little more of a taste for it in Black Hawk Down and it was not cool, and now I think we've (I mean I) had our (I mean my) fill. (And contrary to the popular opinion, I did not enjoy the shakiness of the camera-work in the Bourne Ultimatum and it made me physically ill.) If you want to try something new that's not so new, let's bring back to smell-o-vision.

On an unrelated note, but a legitimate tangent about the nature of the beast and animal nature, is it just me or are dogs getting more brazen and bold? They are now peeing in the middle of the sidewalk and in the middle of the streets, when they used to go only on the walls, trees and fire hydrants. I'm not mad; frankly I'm impressed. No, actually, I'm a little mad. To be fair, more irritated than mad. And dog owners (or whatever the proper term is) for some reason choose my building as the optimal spot to relay their dog's waste. It's as if my building calls out to dogs everywhere, come here and go here. Worse yet, the owners are proud that their dog chose my building and think I should be excited about the discharge. They smile at me politely as their dog defiles my stoop. I smile politely back, because what else am I going to do? Avenge my building with a snide comment? I've never come up with anything good enough. So, my building's entrance still smells like poopy.

Speaking of poo and of New York being ravaged, the Cloverfield follows in a long proud movie tradition of New York destructions. And each of these films have had some sort of biblical analogy about Sodom and NY being chosen for its evil ways. Even movies like the Day After Tomorrow, which was an environmentalist propaganda piece, was meant punish NY, specifically, and the US, in general, because of our evil environmental ways. King Kong punished us for our obsession with spectacle and by providing an ultimate spectacle. Of course, Godzilla punished humanity for the hydrogen bomb, but notably did not target NY. (The remake with Broderick did attack New York, but not nearly as much as the remake of The Producers attacked NY.) But, in Cloverfield, the antagonist likely chooses NY because it's particularly bright (in terms of wattage, not intellect,) and thus NY would provide an ample food source for the behemoth. This end of NY scenario punishes us for being scientifically viable, but science ultimately saves us. Which is yet another thing, I respect about the Cloverfield. I guess another movie in this tradition was Independence Day, but that movie was great for many reasons, so I don't want to compare the two movies and thus belittle Cloverfield's minimal accomplishments... but man, were they minimal.

I also just read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which I had heretofore not read and it is extremely funny, hilarious at times. But, I was concerned that the book tried too hard to be funny by throwing every comedic device Adams could think of into the book. In so doing, the book sacrificed a little of my empathy for an otherwise relatable character in Arthur Dent, who I can only picture as Tim from The Office (British version) and the fluffer in Love Actually. I saw the movie first and felt Martin Freeman and Zooey Deschanel brought life to the characters and the fact that they had a four dimensional relationship added to the book. Most of the jokes were funnier in the book, of course, but the story was better in the movie. And ultimately, I am of the belief that a story makes a movie. To those of you who think I am being sacrilegious for attacking a masterpiece, I am not disrespecting Adams, he co-wrote the screenplay.

Also, I wanted to touch on the Obama South Carolina victory, and kudos to him for standing up to Hillary on the experience issue for once. Her experience fighting for change was being on the board of wal-mart. No offense to the fine company, but that's not part of any 35 years of political experience. And I wanted to note that the media and the Clintons are relatively effectively diminish the South Carolina victory as a Black state, rather than stressing how well Obama did among young people or even that Hillary lost the White vote too. And his victory gave us another dominant victory speech. Also, the impending decline of the Rudy campaign is leaving me with two candidates in the race. I have some reason to believe that a McCain-Obama debate would sincerely be about the issues, and not Clinton-Bush political tactics. But, as long as one of them wins, I'll have something to root for. But, wouldn't that be refreshing? A debate where people are not trying to insult each other, or doubt the other candidate's intentions? A debate where they each acknowledge the integrity of the other candidate, but only argue the very different visions for the future? Now, that would be a noble experiment. But, it might come off as soft or boring or it might make me nauseous, but it's definitely worth a try. And can we make it happen? "Yes we can."

Marked,
Papa Bear

Superbowl Fever

Dear Superfans,

I wanted to start by saying that Heath Ledger's loss was untimely and must be tragic for those who knew him and care about him personally, but even for mere movie fans everywhere, his loss was extremely disheartening. Not only was he a young man (in his twenties) with a great deal of promise as an actor, but he had already started to show some of that promise in a variety, a very wide variety of roles, starting with the teen angst film (Shakespeare adaptation), 10 Things I Hate About You where he played the role of mysterious bad boy courts unattainable girl very well. He also played the poor boy who through luck, effort, and wits, has to earn his spot at the proverbial table in a Knight's Tale, (very loose Chaucer adaptation). He also played the valiantly rebellious son of a reluctant warrior in the Patriot (a Mel Gibson from Braveheart adaptation). And many people have pointed to his well acknowledged role in Brokeback Mountain that demonstrated he had the range to play a serious lead, but if you saw Monster's Ball, I think you would have known his acting chops long before. It was at that point, where he stood up to Billy Bob Thornton, both within the movie and as an actor, that his potential was revealed. Moreover, he was about to have his big break, and jump from independent movie star to A list movie star, in the guise of the Joker in the upcoming Batman flick. Now, it will be eerie watching him play the maniacal villain, whether he plays the role perfectly or imperfectly; that movie is now haunted. So, I express my deepest sorrow for those that loved him, and take solace in the many bright years that he gave us.



So, while I don't intend to demean a young man's demise, I do want to give my incites into the football season that is now winding down. I wanted to congratulate Brett Favre for another fantastic season that like so many of his seasons are filled with great question marks, inexplicable flubs, and wondrous magic. This team that for most of the season worked without a go-to running back was forced onto the mythic shoulders of the living legend, who helped carry them to a 13-3 record. Of course, he will be blamed for poor decisions and a poor throw in the freezer bowl that gave the Giants the victory, but to be fair, look at their running game. In cold weather, in harsh climates, running becomes supremely important. Much to their credit, the Giants stuffed Green Bay's running attack and forced Favre to throw the ball just about every time. GB ended up with around 30 yards rushing, which is terrible, but in the cold, it's even worse. So, criticize Favre all you want, not just his numerous interceptions and fatal overtime interception, or even for having almost no passing game after the first half, but I credit the Giants defense for stopping the run, which ultimately put more pressure on Favre then he could handle, particularly with the Giants playing adequately on offense.

Speaking of the Giants offense, Manning had another above average game, which reminded me of a couple of quarterbacks: Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson (not Brady or older brother Manning), which is not what Giants fans want to hear, except that those guys won superbowls too by playing small games. By managing the clock (not turning the ball over) and utilizing the Giants multi-faceted running game, he could use the Giants very good receivers (Plaxico Buress is probably a top 5 receiver in the game and Toomer is a solid secondary receiver) to achieve great things, even in this final game. They won a classic game against the Favre-ettes in the freezing cold, and before that they dispatched of the highly talented Cowboys by limiting Romo, a guy with a heck of lot of moxy, some skill, some leadership, and a down-to-earth personality that will keep him in the playoff hunt for years to come, (but he will have to play well in the playoffs to be the truly great player he can be (in my book)). By limiting Romo, they limited Owens, who is definitely a top 5 receiver in the game (however ornery he is), and Witten who is a very good TE. And they did all this with their steady presence on defense, Strahan hampered, and without a fiery gifted tight end in Shockey (however ornery he is).

But, that having been said, it is my firm opinion that the AFC is much better than the NFC, and whoever emerged from the AFC would be champions. I would favor the AFC even it was the Jaguars who made it to the Superbowl led by Garard, who is a better version of Brad Johnson as their QB, and 2 solid running backs in addition to their physical defense and lines. Indianapolis would have a tough time against the Giants because the Indy D is small and quick and Jacobs could run over them, but Sanders would prevent major flubs on D and the the Indy O is almost as effective as the New England O in that the receivers, when healthy are almost as good and the running back is probably slightly better. Or how about a healthy San Diego with the best TE around, a great defense with Cromartie to guard Moss or Plaxico and Merriman to steroid up the group. Of course, they also have the best RB around (if he plays). I don't blame LT for not playing or for keeping his Darth Vader helmet on throughout the game as he sat quietly on the sidelines saddened by his inability to contribute. My only critique of him is that if he wanted to look like Vader, he should have played for the Empire, his opponent.

No, Belichick is not evil per se, in that he may be a very nice man, good to his family and friends, and a hugely charitable philanthropist. He may be kind to dogs and strangers, and a decent tipper to waiters. I honestly have no idea if he is a budhist monk or a war hero or if he volunteers reading my blog to the blind (although, why would he torture the blind?). But, I do know his football life, and I know his players are among the most physically illegally aggressive (from other players' stories), he was caught cheating by spying (at least twice) [if any otherwise unattainable information was garnered, it would certainly allow him to make better play calls, which would put his team in a better position to stop an offensive play or to know where the other team's defensive holes will be for his own offensive plays, which would in turn give his team a competitive advantage on any given play. How is that not helpful and how is a draft pick a sufficient punishment for that? I don't care that other guys are doing the same thing and have not been caught, we caught him. Should we not punish one speeder because other people are also speeding, see LeBron James. (I would have used murderers or corrupt CEO's instead of speeders, but it would have clouded the issue of letting one person go because other people are doing the same illegal thing.)] Additionally, the guy cuts ties with people who leave his organization like Mangini (not a huge betrayal to leave your job for a promotion somewhere else, is it?), he badmouthed Tony Dungy, and he classlessly ran up the scores against opponents like he bet on "the over" or that New England would beat the spread. So, he is as evil a football coach as we are going to get. Throw in the fact that he has a temper as bad as Parcells with none of the media access and we have ourselves a Star Wars character. The hooded sweatshirt (and tactical brilliance) makes him the ideal candidate for Emperor, working behind the scenes as he puts on the veneer of legitimacy, while his minions ravage the other team. Now, who would his shiny apprentice be, would he be a coach or a player that unquestioningly follows the emperor's orders? Would he be a guy who wears fancy duds and is the face of the Empire? Would he inspire fear in all his enemies with his inhuman skill and cold, calculating demeanor, which manifests into brilliant ability whenever required? I am a fan of Brady as much as the next non-Pats fan, but I really like how this analogy works.

The real question is: can the golden locks and the boyish {cough} charm of Eli Manning play the foil to Brady's cool dark veneer? Keep in mind, Vader won the first fight against Luke pretty easily. But, these two teams have also played before. By the way, I would totally make Parcells Yoda in this way over extended metaphor. And, New England's defense is stacked with playmakers from Asante Samuel to Bruschi to Adalius Thomas to Vrabel to Harrison to Colvin. And their O line is solid not letting people pressure Brady. The RB situation is satisfactory and the receivers are extraordinary with Moss, the most talented (and second best receiver) of all time leading the pack with great height extraordinary athleticism and great hands. Wes Welker is an incredibly speedy and steadfast slot or 3rd down receiver and Stallworth who is extremely talented and will get open if the other teams over protect Moss and Welker. This receiving core with its additions of Sammy Morris and a smattering of other receivers is better than Warner's Bruce and Holt combo and is slightly better than the Harrison, Wayne, Stokely, and TE combos that gave Manning the record a few years back, which probably makes it the best all time (and better than the Moss Carter Minnesota receivers). I can't vouch for the receivers of yesteryear, even Rice's receivers, and I know the rules have changed, the training regimens have changed, and various events have changed making comparisons difficult, but the highest QB TD total in an outdoor stadium team is telling of something. Yes, Brady and P. Manning are on a different level than the other quarterbacks playing at their prime playing today, but their protective lines and receivers are special, historically special.

So, you know who I am predicting, but yes, I would be pleasantly surprised to see the Giants win. I wanted to do a Power 15 list like Peter King does in his Monday Morning QB articles for SI, ranking the top 15 football teams, but I didn't want to steal his bit. I do love lists (extra points if someone has the legitimate word for a list-ophile) and though I do like applying the lists to everything (See my list of the 100 greatest geniuses), I particularly enjoy listing things related to sports. So, this list discussion foreshadows an upcoming basketball list of my choosing (yet to be determined) probably 2-3 articles from now.

Superfan #22,
MPBE

PS: New England Patriots 34, New York/New Jersey Giants 21.

On Patience

Hey readers,

So, I had an eventful weekend, spending Saturday, hobbled and whining about my "football" injuries. I put football in quotes because I was injured during the practice beforehand. Worse yet, we were playing shorthanded, so my limited help, however useless, might have been useful.
But, now, I have a pencil taped to my finger and am limping around like I need a cane. But, canes are cool and I don't deserve one.

But, I followed that loss with a unique form of self-punishment, I went to go see There Will Be Blood. Of course, I use hyperbole when I say, I didn't like it (I would actually rate it around average), considering there were a number of entertaining scenes in the movie, and the film was highlighted by a very good performance by perennial over-actor Daniel Day Lewis.
Every three years, when he makes a film, he is almost universally lauded for his over-the-top antics. Well, sometimes it works, and it worked in this very slow movie, where the only entertainment was seeing him on screen. He maintained this "I drink your milkshake attitude" for just about the entire movie, and I appreciated it.

The downfall of the movie was in large part the total miscast of the role of the preacher, who was uneven in his moments on the film, varying from meek, sensual, violent, brave, cowardly, fiery, and greedy. Perhaps, the actor who played the role should have been able to have this range. To be honest, I thought it was refreshing to have a preacher from the early 20th century not played by a Jonathan Edwards-ian Sinners in the Hands of Angry God tirade, but this kid who was great in Little Miss Sunshine, just didn't have the chops to be a rival to Lewis in this flick.

So, recently, I've sat through this movie and No Country for Old Men and Atonement. So, I'm not exactly Gandhi, but these movies have really tried my patience. That's like 14 hours of 9 hours of movie reel.

But, in my hampered state, I hope to see Cloverfield, and imagine what it would be like, limp-running from the movie monster.

And speaking of movie monsters, I wanted to let you know that in my humbled opinion (it's been humbled by years of opinion rejection) the Terminator TV show has so far proven to be an adequate continuation of the series, even as it confuses me about its time travel theories and how Rise of the Machines fits into the myth. But, as with Adam Baldwin and Nathan Fillion, it's nice to see another piece of the Firefly/Serenity crew get her due. But, more importantly, the countdown to Lost continues.

Enjoy your Martin Luthor King Jr. holiday, and know that I will be at work all day,
PB ME

ReRunning Entertainment

Reader, my Reader,

So, even though politics season is in full swing, I feel it is important to remember what the politics are all about, so I have decided to dedicate one webisode of the blog per week to why we fight these political battles. And, so you ask, why am I so interested in the politics of the day? Because U.S. politics is about choice. And to me, choice means television. And television has basically been shut off, so I am left grasping at American Gladiators, which is still pretty entertaining, a few special moments on various other television programs, and an overrated 2007 film Ratatouille (which I on-demanded) about a rat that wants to be a chef. If I was a kid, I might have liked this animated film, and if I were a chef, I might’ve enjoyed the passion for the artistry, but overall the journey was not very funny, and the messages were not strongly conveyed, and I did not identify with Patton Oswalt's character. Overall, it was a pretty bland piece of cinematic garbage. It wasn’t bad garbage, but it was disappointing, which brings me back to my original point, which was… I am furious at those dang TV writers.

I don’t really care whether the writers deserve the extra $50 bucks from Internet revenue or the health insurance benefits for their cats, or anything else, but, they should go back to work. If you think about it, a strike itself is pretty much a selfish endeavor. Of course, there are many people who are extremely deserving of more money, improved working conditions, and better amenities, and if they are living a destitute life because the owners or managers are being tremendously unfair, then I can totally understand and respect the right of the workers to strike. Additionally, if someone is dramatically underpaid, such as a group of people who earn minimum wage when they are the driving irreplaceable force behind a successful company or industry. But the writers, like the New York City transit workers, and somewhat like the athletes who strike from time to time are paid sufficiently (handsomely? probably not) for their efforts, and they are upset that they are not being paid the proper value (which they define differently than market price) for their efforts.

The problem with the strike (or a lockout from the manager's perspective) for attaining the desired goals is that it hurts people other than the intended, the owners. Usually, these bystanders can less afford to be hurt then the owners. How am I supposed to have sympathy for writers when they are starving out the set designers?

Writers, in particular, are an unsympathetic group (like in the case of baseball players), because they have a job that nearly hundreds of people dream of. And, it is hard to believe that many people with the same or almost the same amount of talent (unlike baseball players) would not do the job for less money. Of course, there is a calculation that would derive sympathy from even the harsher strike critics, by which if people in a profession are grossly underpaid, woefully undervalued, or in dire poverty, it would thereby be acceptable to harm the other innocents that are depending on the continued regular creation of the product. If the issue is being slightly underpaid or slightly overpaid, then it strikes me as an overreaction and selfish to walk out and leave an entire industry destitute. Mainly, they are not thinking about people like me.

People like me: Non-writers, sure they are hurting the prop guys and the cameramen, and the caterers, and the… I could go on if I knew anything about TV other than the TV Set. I’m not sure if they have the support of those unions, but really who cares if unions support each other, they are helping other unions when they demonstrate the power of unions, they are harming the people in those craft unions. And what if they don’t get the raises or whatever demands they sought, then that union, and all unions lose out, and the individual writers lose out on close to a year’s salary, and the individual non-writer’s lose out on a year’s salary. Try telling that to the camera guy’s kids.

But, most importantly, they are harming me. What about all the people like me out there, for example, me, who have had to suffer at the hands of the tyrannical writer’s union with Tina Fey and her lot of critical essayists ridiculing the entertainment system that we all know and love. What about all of the entertainment I have missed out on? Sure, I take solace in the fact that for every episode of The Office that is being cut from the season, an episode of Two and a Half Men is mercifully being cut as well. But, what about all of that reality TV I am being left with? What am I supposed to do with that? I'm not going to watch it, if that's what you're thinking. So, we need some creative solutions.

How about this? Would anybody even notice if they replayed Friends over with the same dialogue, but changing the the actors and the names of the characters. I wouldn’t. It was a pretty solid show, and good for a laugh with a little emotional attachment to the characters, adequately performed by all the parties involved. But, it was a generic show filled with interchangeable or fungible (a fancy way of saying interchangeable) parts. That having been said, I don’t object to rerecording the whole show. So, someone out there, retool Friends with the high concept of Friends meets Friends, set on the other side of Central Park at a coffeehouse called Central Pork, and hopefully, NBC will replay it. If they outsourced the whole thing to India or Mexico, they can even do it on the cheap and hire "Steven Spielbergo", (the director's Mexican equivalent- a Simpson's reference) to direct. Jack Black and Mos Def are coming out with a similar movie about reshooting all of the major movies of the last several years. Movies are slightly different, because TV shows run out of plot lines, and they are encouraged to use all of the same material that worked the first time.

Well, there you go, so something should be done about the strikes, and to prevent such strikes in general. For example, if unions could work together and strike together, then corporations should be able to strike together because the balance has shifted in another direction. But, rather than resort to multi-lateral negotiations, allowing the corporations to unionize, which would otherwise be referred to as collusion and lead to anti-trust lawsuits, there should be a strike czar. Some professions are not permitted to strike because of safety issues or because of their relative importance to society. For example, police officers or firefighters are not permitted to strike, or air traffic controllers are not permitted to strike because without them, planes would not be able to land (which means that they would not take off, rather than they would fly around forever... or until they ran out of gas and crashed).

So, a strike czar would be in charge of determining whether a certain group of people (or profession) could strike or whether they are not permitted to strike. The job would entail determining whether to assign mandatory arbitration. Then, if arbitration would be assigned, the arbitrators would look to the affordability to the investor/owner/manager/producer and merit of the workers along with all other relevant information. But, the arbitration would not be binding because you cannot force someone to work (See slavery) or a company to maintain its employees (See unemployment); it would mainly be used to decide who should rightly be villified in the court of public opinion. Right now, we are a divided nation, between the red television watchers and the blue television watchers, who respectively believe that the writers should go back to work and stop demanding anything from their employers and the blue TV watchers that believe that the owners are being greedy and hoarding profits. A neutral arbitration would allow us all to hate on one side. It wouldn’t be binding because people can always decide not to work by refusing to work/quitting (which would lead to firings) and/ or refusing to pay/firings (which would lead quitting and lawsuits.)

Moreover, this job, and this level of leadership could not be controlled by the special interest groups because then money would win out and the forces of establishment and the status quo would reign for a seeming eternity (and people would not have a say). It could not be allowed to remain unchecked by the passions of the people because then it would heavily favor the majority of the people, the poorer and more disparaged of the two sides, and it would run the business out of business. So, this kaiser should split the reason and the passion and just operate based on cat-like instincts.

Now, I would like to throw my hat in the ring for a job like this because I have cat-like instincts when it comes to matters of strikes. I knew instantly that the Anthracite Coal Mining Strike of 1902 was a necessary strike and those coal miners deserved some better treatment. Likewise, I can determine when the Boston Police Department needs a raise and are denied the raise, they cannot go on strike because I would rather have unhappy police officers than none (though barely, and I would not want them to be unhappy with me, so my mind can be changed).

Should it be an appointed position? No, because there is too much political posturing and gamesmanship about someone with this much influence. Should it be an elected official? No, because then we have the passions of the people swaying these mostly logical debates. Should it be a write-in or video-contest ala American Idol? No, because who would judge that process. Thus, there are few alternatives other than the logical solution: the position should be seized. And to avoid the temporary persuasion of the people or the long term convincing of the moneyed interests, it should be a lifelong position... preferably passed onto the next generation, so that there are no issue of succession. Lest a person not leave an heir to be strike czar, then succession should be determined by sheer will. The position is titled after a monarchist governmental system anyway, so why not go all the way?

Now, I would like to throw my hat in the ring and then to seize all the other hats to grab hold of this position. But, all of those coal miner strikes could be depressing, so since I am in charge, I leave out those types of strikes from my jurisdictional authority, and in Marbury v. Madison fashion, I decide the extent of my own power, and decree that I only have the authority to decide on strikes in entertaining disputes because that’s all the American people or me care about.

Okay, so, this is all a pipe dream, but can you blame me? My mind is racing from a lack of new television during TV season and it is in my nature to dream and I want to put a stop to it. Instead, because of all of this political excitement, my mind is centered on power, and why don’t the politicians come down hard on the TV issue or the athlete steroids issue. Sure, they are irrelevant to governing, but goshdarnit, someone’s got to talk about these issues. They will not be ignored anymore.

So, I am not the strike czar and TV is still just a fantasy at this point. But, there are certain things we can do to keep occupied during these trying times. We could obviously watch reruns because the difference between that and new shows is generally marginal (discussed at moderate length above) (and watching ReRun dance keeps me entertained for minutes at a time). We could follow different forms of entertainment, like catch up on movies, even though, it’s not really movie season anymore. We could follow art or music, but those don’t combine audiovisual components to my liking. Nor does theater because the set designs are so limited and it lacks the fourth wall that protects me from the dangers posed by actors. Actors have killed before, (See John Wilkes Booth,) and they may kill again (see O.J. Simpson) and they would likely go after the future strike czar.

We could watch sports, football is in the playoffs, and is pretty exciting. Next weekend’s likely Brady-Manning match-up should be a heck of a game. If either of them loses this week, the other really should win the whole darned thing. Jacksonville and San Diego are in my opinion the 3rd and 4th best teams in football, both with explosive offenses and defenses, but not on the same level of the two juggernauts. Dallas and Green Bay are also on that second tier as 5th and 6th best teams. While the Giants and Seattle are much too inconsistent to be considered seriously as title contenders, having to win three games in a row against top tier teams. Basketball is exciting this year with several legitimate contenders against the Spurs, who were last year’s only complete team, and all the legitimate legendary players, both young and old (LeBron, Howard, and Paul, and Duncan, Garnett, and Kidd) and it's always fun to root against the Lakers and watch the Knicks implode.

It's even tough to watch the politics today, as I watch Obama, a hope for the future, getting trounced by Bill Clinton's bitter cynical wife in New Hampshire because she almost cried yesterday. Moreover, despite my big McCain win, I just watched him butcher a really lovely speech. I did find a perfect example of McCain's integrity: one of his son's is in the Marines serving in Iraq right now and I didn't even know about it, nor am I guessing did you. Do any of the other candidates have children fighting for the military? If they did, wouldn't that be discussed very often in the veil of "I don't like to talk about my son fighting in Iraq because that would be exploitative, but I know what the parents of our brave soldiers are going through first-hand. I know what it's like to fear the next phone call..." But, he hasn't done that (though I suspect he might if he is pressed against the wall), and in the interview where he was asked about it, he acknowledged his pride in his son and all his children, and moved on. That McCain guy is all about service, and Obama is an excellent fairy tale (which I can't believe is an insult), and hopefully either one of them or Rudy G. will be the next president of these United States and formally recognize my strike authority.

But, really, people like me are stuck trying to weather the storm of the entertainment drought, with the only limited forms of entertainment to placate us. But, who can be satiated by watching some rats trying to cook something out of nothing? And that, my friends, is why choosing our next leader is so important.

Best regards,
Mark Papa Bear Ellis

Best regards,
Mark Papa Bear Ellis

Wilson's War

Reader,

I recently watched Charlie Wilson's War, which was an entertaining and provocative movie, even though as usual, I was left questioning the "based on a true story" label. But regardless of the entertainment value of the movie or even the historical accuracy, the movie takes an interesting stance on the place of "war" in terms of larger strategic objectives.

The movie in large part glorifies the actions of Congressman Charlie Wilson who was apparently responsible for raising money for covert weapons sales and training Afghanistan's "military". (The movie also passingly tries to pin the current state of Afghanistan and the growth of terrorism on U.S. Congressional apathy, but that is largely irrelevant to the current issue, which is...) The movie makes no apologies for the support for this war against the Soviet Union, even as it demonstrated the typicality of the Soviet helicopter pilots discussing presumably very American or Western relationship problems.

Of course, the movie decries the horrors of war: depicting the injuries in the refugee camps and telling the stories of the victims, which included the indiscriminant actions of brutal Soviet pilots. There was the occasional mention of rape, torture, tactical murder and malice upon children, along with mass murder and displacement. Each of these terrors has always been a relatively common, widely reviled occurrence in warfare. Yet, instead of glorifying a peacemaker or someone responsible for disarmament, the movie chooses the arms supplier as the protagonist and hero and the supply of arms was not one of his "character flaws," (like in Lord of War) but his flaws were actually his philandering and alcohol abuse. The supplying of arms itself was the action that made him heroic and his redeeming quality. Moreover, Wilson's arms supplying was not lauded because he saved the Afghani people or saved individual lives, but instead because by helping conduct this proxy war in Afghanistan, he helped achieve a larger strategic objective of defeating and destroying the Soviet Union.

The film provided a re-freshing look at the politics of conducting a war. Nowadays, Hollywood movies, made almost exclusively by those who seek to end U.S. involvement in foreign wars, have tended to merely demonstrate the horrors of wars and portray the personal tragedies incurred, almost never depicting possible benefits of some wars. The films have often taken to portraying the emotional torment of a soldier having to unwittingly fight a battle that he had scarcely signed up for. Sometimes, the plight of the film is to display the realization that the enemy has everyday problems, such as relationship issues, feeding children quandaries, and moral dilemmas much like the American soldier. Some films focus on the "underlying" causes (which are usually shown as American intervention or consumerism. The notion of these stories is often similar to that of Bambi, where America is Man that comes in and kills Bambi's mother. Of course, in the scenario Bambi becomes a terrorist, but I broke from that analogy to soon.) There are occasionally even films that show war's negative impact on American society. But, there are rarely movies, other than run-and-gun popcorn thrillers that illustrate the reasons why an American war was "necessary" (really, why the war was a logical or beneficial strategic maneuver, such as efforts to prevent genocide, to dethrone a maniacal dictator, or to prevent one country from taking over another.) A mild prior example of a movie that demonstrates some of the reasons people continue to advocate for one war or another is Three Kings, (which is mostly an action flick). In Three Kings, there are many typical anti-war devices, such as: the movie is about disobeying disillusioned soldiers, the movie humanizes the enemy during a scene depicting the torture of an American soldier, and it decries the oil issues in the war, as well as the American government's balking at keeping promises of aiding those in need under the suffering of tyranny. But, the ending at least, shows some semblance of why a war might be helpful to the suffering people of Iraq (in Persian Gulf 1,) which puts the movie in rarified air.

Since there is no such a thing as a last resort (see a prior blog entry), there must be some criteria whereby war is an acceptable course of action, when war is a reasonable reaction to a set of circumstances perhaps such as in the case of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. And even though there were other motivations for the U.S. involvement and support for the war, including the larger strategic goal of defeating the Soviet Union, preserving the United States oil interests in the middle east, and trying to implant a U.S.-friendly regime in place of an unfriendly pro-Soviet regime, there was at least one humane interest in the war, protecting civilians from an oppressive government. (Of course, detractors will say, why act in one country and not another? Well, because economics dictate, by definition, that any entity (like a country), has limited resources and must make choices based on those limitations. Thus, no one can act everywhere, whether that means military intervention or supplying foodstuffs to the hungry. So, how do we choose where to act? It would have to be a complex mixture of emotional attachment and a calculated matrix of the level of desperation of the people in need, coupled with our ability to aid those people, and yes, perhaps factoring in that country or people's ability to help us in the future (which would enable us to help more people in the future). So, even though we cannot help everyone, I would contend we should try to help those people who we can afford to help and who can use our help to lift themselves up on their own and then contribute back to making a better society. That statement might be controversial, but its purposefully vague too.)

Of course, one should ask, why resort to war, unless self-preservation (or possibly something as horrid as genocide is involved) when there are other alternatives to war. If there is another way to prevent atrocities, almost everyone would agree that diplomatic means, international pressure, or financial pressures are preferable to massive amounts of killing and American deaths. But, diplomatic means are essentially talking (with often unreasonable counterparts who do not appreciate being told what to do or being talked down to), international pressure is the virtual equivalent of peer pressure (which works on teenagers more than on dictators), and the only ways of influencing an adamant country is usually through money (or other natural resources) or violence. Money in the form of aid, could set a bad precedent and encourage other nations to believe that they should be paid for doing something or more dangerously paid to not doing something "wrong", like let's say ever country demanded money not to start a nuclear program instead of feeding a massive starving population. Sanctions and embargoes often hurt the wrong people, the people without the power to affect change (and makes those people villify the sanctioner). Violence on smaller scales is dangerous because an assasination gives the world the idea that the U.S. controls foreign governments by killing off unfriendly regimes. And whether it succeeds or fails, it might not have the desired affect, therefore excaerbating the problem. Moreover, every future death or attempted murder of a leader in that country and perhaps every other country would make the U.S. a legitimate primary suspect. Smaller scale operations, such as CIA funding of foreign wars or Special Operations involvement are often insufficient to accomplish the task, while war, or a war equivalent is a blunt, aggressive tool that physically forces the opposition into submission. Its the most dangerous tool that we have, so it is not feasible that we enter into war lightly, and even though there is no such a thing as a last resort, it is likely that even flawed ignorant politicians considered the alternate possibilities and eliminated them as options sufficient to achieve the intended goals.

That is not to say that we are still trying to infuse the world with President Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points of Light, spreading democracy throughout the world in an ideological manifest destiny. President Wilson, under Bernard Baruch's tutelage, also established a wartime leadership that some have considered the first corporate capitalist government (a euphemism for fascism) to stave off the German Kaiser. World War 2 was fought in Europe primarily to prevent the spread of fascism. The U.S.-Japanese front was fought primarily because the Americans were looking to secure various oil transport islands (U.S. naval oil supply lines) from Japanese control and domination, which in turn threatened the Japanese oil supply, which was needed particularly for its expansion efforts (which were to gather outside resources, like oil. It's an endless cycle really.) Japan thus felt it had no choice but to attack the United States, and chose to attack the U.S. military and try to decapitate the sleeping giant's Navy, rather than attack the closer tactical island targets. Of course, there were then the domino theory inspired Cold War battles conducted all over the world from Korea to Vietnam to Panama to Israel to...

But, the bottom line is that there were questionable primary motives for just about all of the wars in history, from Helen of Troy to the Napoleonic Wars, from the tax on tea to the Spanish-American War, and from the most understandable wars in American history to the least comprehensible. Regardless of whether the wars in Afghanistan or the Iraq Wars were properly justified by the theories upon which we entered, the final result and the historical perspective will determine the worth and success of the war. Of course, we can academically debate the justification for war (i.e. discuss whether the current war is a delayed conclusion to the war ten years prior that involved preventing a tyrant from taking over an independant ally nation, part of a larger war against terrorism to eliminate ties or to consolidate the ties and open up a new front (keeping attacks off U.S. soil against U.S. civilians), a legitimate attempt to remove a dictator that had used chemical weapons on the Kurdish people and tortured political prisoners with rape chambers, who was thought to have additional weapons of mass destruction, or was a neo-con ploy to maintain the military, oil company lobbying, personal vengeance against Sadaam, and part of a Christian (or Jewish) conspiracy to eliminate a potentially powerful Islamic threat) or the hypothetical repetition of the scenario in the future (e.g. what happens if Iran...), but as long as we all are hoping and planning for the same positive results of a better safer world, we are all on the same page. And as long, as we can all evaluate what is best for the country and the world based on our current situation, rather than trying to reestablish a prior relatively war-less situation 10 years ago, then we are having the right discussion about our current state.

The difference between prior wars and current wars is that the United States has gone through a dramatic increase in the priority of our value of life, so much so that we televise the name of every troop that passes away. And at the same time, we have devalued other things that are still extremely important throughout the rest of the world, such as honor. I am not arguing it as a negative societal change, but it makes war victory a much grimmer and more problematic destination. So, when Bill Murray tried to motivate his troops in Stripes by declaring, "We're America, we're 9 and 1," he was using the old standard for what accounts for a win. (The new-age standard for winning in warfare is often described as "nobody wins", which is not to be confused with the new-age standard for determining children's competitions in that "everybody is a winner".)

Tom Hanks's (and Tom Brokaw's, and I think every other Tom I know's) mild obsession with World War 2, has probably given him a wider perspective as to both the terrors of war and the potential glories of war, at least historically. So, when he makes a film about a more modern war, and of course, most modern wars are fought with constant media attention, and with the scrutiny of modern values, I often pay particular attention to what messages he relays. Of course, Mr. Hanks has a political leaning: liberal, I believe he is a supporter of Hillary Clinton, he is likely for the withdrawal of troops in order to best support the troops, and probably operates under the assumption that the current war in Iraq was not "a war of necessity" in other words, not the best means or even likely an effective method of achieving our short or long term goals. But, with the added perspective, whether or not to attack Iraq and whether or not to currently withdraw troops, there is the possibility that one could see a legitimacy behind the assault, behind the harsh politics of right vs. left, behind the gritty reality of thousands of dead and wounded soldiers, and a nation of Iraq that is only very slowly making progress towards becoming a safe and self-determining country.

So, it is on several levels (two levels) that I applaud the film: it was entertaining in that the characters were quirky, funny, and charismatic and it was intellectually provocative in that the plot was an engaging tale of intrigue in the U.S. involvement in what was essentially the Soviet version of Vietnam, except it actually helped tear down the Soviet empire. And more specifically, the movie played a part in the film industry's rediscovering the potential for honor in warfare. It boldly depicted a historical moment of advocacy for the Wilsonian ideals of spreading democracy throughout the world, even if the original Wilson's ideals were diluted by the president's attempts at stifling democratic processes at home. But, venom towards opposition, or passionate illogical vehemence rarely gets us as a nation, the world as a whole, or you as an avid reader of my "column," closer to a larger good, a larger truth, or larger happiness (which actually comes from re-reading the blog over and over.) (Note, I have political leanings of my own, and if asked, I would freely disclose them and/or please feel free to extrapolate or misinterpret my views at your whim.)

I also saw Sweeney Todd, which was based on a true story. The title character was a butcher falsely accused of something, landing him in prison, and upon returning, he seeks vengeance upon all the people who wronged him. But he settles by taking vengeance on pretty much everyone, because there are two kinds of people in this world: the people who go out about their business and do good things, and the people kicking those good people in the face, so it would behoove the world to get rid of the bad people and it is a mercy to liberate the good people. That theory is unfortunately not that far from truth, but is violence really the answer? Maybe (see above discussion for details). Depp, as always was excellent, and even his singing was up to the task. Burton and Depp made these despicable characters human, and made these crazy characters flawed. I understand that the film was not quite as funny as the show, but I had a good number of laughs (hopefully appropriately, such as the dream sequence picturing the melancholy, pale, psychotically revenge-focused Mr. Todd on typical vacations.) Overall, the movie is not for the feint of heart, but it's a beautifully shot and positively Burton-esque (probably the greatest auteur of our generation). The pairing of this director and actor has placed a virtual lock on my ten dollars (really twelve and rising) from now on. The choice of which movies are going to get my hard earned money in the future is often going to be between some dark comedy musical like a Burton-Depp pairing or instead some war related piece that forces me to think about war and politics and history, and why on earth would someone choose to spend their precious free time dwelling on those depressing things?

Thinking big,
Papa Bear (ME)