Today being the first day of the new year, I performed one of my usual annual rituals: the first day weigh-in.
January 1st is always an important day for a weigh-in. It is a natural marker that helps me assess where I am in my (never ending process) of getting myself into better shape. Whereas taking my weight throughout the year is inherently variable, the yearly milestone weigh-in provides a true measure of how things are going for me.
So, here's the scoop. Today's reading, 302.5 lbs.
Now the assessment. I've known for some time that my new year's weight would not be under 300 lbs. Sad, but true. My goal this year was to get my weight down around 290. I wanted to get some distance between the 300 lb. mark and my current self, an accomplishment that would have given me some real sense of achievement and momentum for the next year of the project. While I did on a few occasions touch numbers below 300 this year, I am finishing on the unhappy side of the dreaded register. Given that, I am tempted to label this year as a failure. Not an abject failure; I knew going into today that I have overall reduced my weight over the course of the year--just not as much as I had hoped.
However, looking back on my records, I find that on this same day last year, I weighed in at 317.5. Knowing that my weight had been less than that fairly late in 2009, I had forgotten that my January 1, 2010 weigh-in had been that high. (This is partly the product of the holidays and the accompanying bounce in weight that always comes this time of year.) So given last year's weigh-in, the tally for 2010 is 15 pounds lost overall. That's not tremendous, but overall I think it has to be considered a success. Certainly more successful than gaining weight over the year.
The overall trend is positive. With good fortune and solid effort this year, I believe further success is very achievable. Now I just have to make it happen.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Unexpected
I've been long on talking up the Phillies for how smart they've been in running their organization these last several years. I have made the point to more than one person about how shrewd the Phils have been in transforming themselves into the Yankees of the National League, about their recognition of the fact that--as New York has known almost since they came into the AL--the benefits of going the extra (spending) mile to get on top and stay on top far outweigh the downside of having to shell out major bucks to remain in contention year after year. The Phillies, at last, have "got it."
But even I am taken aback by their cagey maneuverings, which landed Cliff Lee back into the fold yesterday. It turns out there was a reason the Phils let Jayson Werth walk. I'm shocked that they pulled it off, but delighted nonetheless. That's the sort of ballsy move that I love, when I team makes it. The pitching's great, but the offense is having problems? Say "Fuck it" and double down on the rotation, signing another Cy Young winner and giving the competition a "Take that!" Great stuff. And you know, when they're still not scoring come June, there will be another big trade for the biggest bat available.
Because that's the way you do it: make it happen, spend what you need to spend, take the profits on the other side. Are you listening, rest of baseball?
But even I am taken aback by their cagey maneuverings, which landed Cliff Lee back into the fold yesterday. It turns out there was a reason the Phils let Jayson Werth walk. I'm shocked that they pulled it off, but delighted nonetheless. That's the sort of ballsy move that I love, when I team makes it. The pitching's great, but the offense is having problems? Say "Fuck it" and double down on the rotation, signing another Cy Young winner and giving the competition a "Take that!" Great stuff. And you know, when they're still not scoring come June, there will be another big trade for the biggest bat available.
Because that's the way you do it: make it happen, spend what you need to spend, take the profits on the other side. Are you listening, rest of baseball?
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Recently Read
Dismantling The Empire
by Chalmers Johnson
Professor Johnson has finished his decade long career as America's scholarly Jeremiah; he passed away shortly after publication of his final book, Dismantling The Empire. Thus, he will never get to see if we follow through on his prescription and take the necessary steps to save our nation from financial and political ruin.
Dismantling The Empire, a collection of essays published variously throughout the last decade, focuses on the same ground as Johnson's "Blowback Trilogy"--namely the costs to the USA of militarism and imperialism, and the country's urgent need to rein in its "empire of bases" and restore true republicanism in its politics.
Not surprisingly, Johnson spends some time repeating himself; these essays draw heavily upon the Blowback books, and each other, to argue their case. Still, repetition helps to reinforce, and in this case Johnson's repetition solidifies his clearly argued points about the growth of militarism in American society and government, its costs in treasure, prestige, and lives, and the author's belief in the urgent need to reform our politics and reeducate our citizenry in what it means to live in a true democracy, before grim consequences such as bankruptcy, or even outright dictatorship, mark the end of the American experiment.
As with Johnson's other works, his background as a scholar and policy analyst--his academic focus centered on East Asian nations and their relationships with the USA--rather than a political ideologue lends crucial weight to his conclusions. Johnson's arguments are always logically consistent, forcefully clear, and strike the right balance between thoughtful reasoning and righteous outrage. (Two of the best, most entertaining reads in the book are an essay about disgraced ex-Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham--Johnson's own former home district Congressman--and a review of the film Charlie Wilson's War, which includes the author's acerbic censure of the filmmakers for the parts of the story they left out of the film.) It is difficult to imagine an honest reader picking up any of Johnson's recent works and not being convinced by his rhetoric that this nation is in serious trouble.
Thus, the only question left in the wake of the author's death is simply this: will Chalmers Johnson's legacy be as one of the intellectual founding fathers for a revived, re-democratized United States, or as a prophet of doom whose voice was tragically ignored? For the sake of this nation's future, let's hope it's the former.
by Chalmers Johnson
Professor Johnson has finished his decade long career as America's scholarly Jeremiah; he passed away shortly after publication of his final book, Dismantling The Empire. Thus, he will never get to see if we follow through on his prescription and take the necessary steps to save our nation from financial and political ruin.
Dismantling The Empire, a collection of essays published variously throughout the last decade, focuses on the same ground as Johnson's "Blowback Trilogy"--namely the costs to the USA of militarism and imperialism, and the country's urgent need to rein in its "empire of bases" and restore true republicanism in its politics.
Not surprisingly, Johnson spends some time repeating himself; these essays draw heavily upon the Blowback books, and each other, to argue their case. Still, repetition helps to reinforce, and in this case Johnson's repetition solidifies his clearly argued points about the growth of militarism in American society and government, its costs in treasure, prestige, and lives, and the author's belief in the urgent need to reform our politics and reeducate our citizenry in what it means to live in a true democracy, before grim consequences such as bankruptcy, or even outright dictatorship, mark the end of the American experiment.
As with Johnson's other works, his background as a scholar and policy analyst--his academic focus centered on East Asian nations and their relationships with the USA--rather than a political ideologue lends crucial weight to his conclusions. Johnson's arguments are always logically consistent, forcefully clear, and strike the right balance between thoughtful reasoning and righteous outrage. (Two of the best, most entertaining reads in the book are an essay about disgraced ex-Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham--Johnson's own former home district Congressman--and a review of the film Charlie Wilson's War, which includes the author's acerbic censure of the filmmakers for the parts of the story they left out of the film.) It is difficult to imagine an honest reader picking up any of Johnson's recent works and not being convinced by his rhetoric that this nation is in serious trouble.
Thus, the only question left in the wake of the author's death is simply this: will Chalmers Johnson's legacy be as one of the intellectual founding fathers for a revived, re-democratized United States, or as a prophet of doom whose voice was tragically ignored? For the sake of this nation's future, let's hope it's the former.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Recently Read
Outlaw Journalist: The Life and Times of Hunter S. Thompson
by William McKeon
A volume to be greeted with gratitude by Thompson's fans, for McKeon has finally delivered the clear, concise, balanced, and straightforward account of Thompson's life that has been largely missing till now, especially in the wake of his 2005 suicide. McKeon steers largely clear of the personal axes to grind that have burdened so many of the others who have written on the literary legend. There's no faux Gonzo, no misplaced literary experimentation, no hagiography here; the reader is treated to a simple and direct recounting of Thompson's life, one that makes a complex man a little more accessible to both his devoted readers and those with only a mild interest. Outlaw Journalist provides the clearest look I've yet to find at one of the 20th century's most influential voices; it's a must read for anyone with a serious interest about writers and writing--the elements that go into making a literary life and how that life makes the literary output. Bravo.
by William McKeon
A volume to be greeted with gratitude by Thompson's fans, for McKeon has finally delivered the clear, concise, balanced, and straightforward account of Thompson's life that has been largely missing till now, especially in the wake of his 2005 suicide. McKeon steers largely clear of the personal axes to grind that have burdened so many of the others who have written on the literary legend. There's no faux Gonzo, no misplaced literary experimentation, no hagiography here; the reader is treated to a simple and direct recounting of Thompson's life, one that makes a complex man a little more accessible to both his devoted readers and those with only a mild interest. Outlaw Journalist provides the clearest look I've yet to find at one of the 20th century's most influential voices; it's a must read for anyone with a serious interest about writers and writing--the elements that go into making a literary life and how that life makes the literary output. Bravo.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Recently Read
A Short History Of Nearly Everything
by Bill Bryson
A solid, comprehensive work of popular science, covering a great range of subjects from the full breadth of cosmology to the narrowest confines of atoms, molecules and living cells. It's best for pure novices; someone with a basic knowledge of the sciences will see a lot of this material as old news. And Bryson has one stylistic weakness, a tendency to rely a little too much on synthesizing the conclusions of others (i.e., "According to so-and-so, '...' "). But there's enough original thought here, conveyed with clarity, humor, and wisdom, to make A Short History a worthwhile read for any layman with an interest in the universe around us. Worth a look.
by Bill Bryson
A solid, comprehensive work of popular science, covering a great range of subjects from the full breadth of cosmology to the narrowest confines of atoms, molecules and living cells. It's best for pure novices; someone with a basic knowledge of the sciences will see a lot of this material as old news. And Bryson has one stylistic weakness, a tendency to rely a little too much on synthesizing the conclusions of others (i.e., "According to so-and-so, '...' "). But there's enough original thought here, conveyed with clarity, humor, and wisdom, to make A Short History a worthwhile read for any layman with an interest in the universe around us. Worth a look.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Decisions, Decisions
I will not comment on the NLCS just yet. I'm superstitious enough not to want to jinx anything there, so I'll keep my lips (fingers?) sealed for the moment.
But, having watched the Texas Rangers clinch the AL pennant tonight, I do want to mention a thing or two about Rangers manager Ron Washington.
First, a bit of cold water: the Rangers are getting a lot of credit for not firing Washington this past spring when the news came out that he failed a drug test and came up positive for cocaine use. While everything ultimately worked out very well for Texas, that credit is mostly misplaced. Really, what were they going to do? Fire Washington in the middle of spring training and blow up their season? Sure, maybe they could have hired a new manager who could have pulled the pieces together and kept that team on its upward arc. But the Rangers' options were few and far between at that point. This is especially true when you remember the uncertainty surrounding the franchise and its financial situation at that moment. It says here that Texas kept Washington not simply because he is a good manager (and man, from most accounts), nor out of patience and compassion, but because they had little other choice at that point. It worked out for him and them, and maybe there's a story about good karma in that, but had that crisis happened any time other than spring training, the actions taken might have been very different.
So that's that. On the other hand...
In 2006, the A's--my local nine, as they say--won the AL West and made it to the ALCS for the first time in 14 years. Despite that achievement, they--and specifically, GM Billy Beane--decided not to retain the services of manager Ken Macha.
In the ensuing off-season, Beane had a choice about whom to hire as manager. The options came down to the A's bench coach--and Billy Beane best buddy--Bob Geren, and the aforementioned Washington. Geren had had some success managing the Athletics Triple-A affiliate in Sacramento, had spent several seasons as bench coach on some very good A's teams, and had served as Beane's best man at the GM's wedding. Washington, meanwhile, had been on the A's coaching staff for a decade (part of that time alongside Geren), serving as third base coach and infield instructor. He was immensely popular with the players, many of whom credited him for their success in the field. (If memory serves right, Eric Chavez famously gave Washington one of his Gold Glove trophies in appreciation for the coach's positive influence on his fielding.) However, no reports can confirm Washington's participation in any matrimonial ceremonies during his stay with the A's. Taking this data into account, Beane chose Geren for the A's managerial position. Washington made do with his consolation prize: taking over as Texas Rangers manager.
Fast forward to today. Geren has been A's manager for four years, and this season they finally reached the .500 mark, finishing 81-81 after three losing seasons. They have a promising future, if their young pitching holds up and they can get a few more bats in the lineup.
And Washington just won the AL pennant with the Rangers.
Of course, the A's declining record can be chalked up to many reasons beyond the identity of the manager. And there are many reasons why the Rangers have shown steady improvement for four years, up to the point of clinching their first World Series appearance in franchise history this very evening. But it is conceivable that, back in 2006, when he had a crucial choice to make, Billy Beane may have gotten a best man...but maybe, just maybe, he didn't get the right man.
Something to think about, if you have any hiring to do.
But, having watched the Texas Rangers clinch the AL pennant tonight, I do want to mention a thing or two about Rangers manager Ron Washington.
First, a bit of cold water: the Rangers are getting a lot of credit for not firing Washington this past spring when the news came out that he failed a drug test and came up positive for cocaine use. While everything ultimately worked out very well for Texas, that credit is mostly misplaced. Really, what were they going to do? Fire Washington in the middle of spring training and blow up their season? Sure, maybe they could have hired a new manager who could have pulled the pieces together and kept that team on its upward arc. But the Rangers' options were few and far between at that point. This is especially true when you remember the uncertainty surrounding the franchise and its financial situation at that moment. It says here that Texas kept Washington not simply because he is a good manager (and man, from most accounts), nor out of patience and compassion, but because they had little other choice at that point. It worked out for him and them, and maybe there's a story about good karma in that, but had that crisis happened any time other than spring training, the actions taken might have been very different.
So that's that. On the other hand...
In 2006, the A's--my local nine, as they say--won the AL West and made it to the ALCS for the first time in 14 years. Despite that achievement, they--and specifically, GM Billy Beane--decided not to retain the services of manager Ken Macha.
In the ensuing off-season, Beane had a choice about whom to hire as manager. The options came down to the A's bench coach--and Billy Beane best buddy--Bob Geren, and the aforementioned Washington. Geren had had some success managing the Athletics Triple-A affiliate in Sacramento, had spent several seasons as bench coach on some very good A's teams, and had served as Beane's best man at the GM's wedding. Washington, meanwhile, had been on the A's coaching staff for a decade (part of that time alongside Geren), serving as third base coach and infield instructor. He was immensely popular with the players, many of whom credited him for their success in the field. (If memory serves right, Eric Chavez famously gave Washington one of his Gold Glove trophies in appreciation for the coach's positive influence on his fielding.) However, no reports can confirm Washington's participation in any matrimonial ceremonies during his stay with the A's. Taking this data into account, Beane chose Geren for the A's managerial position. Washington made do with his consolation prize: taking over as Texas Rangers manager.
Fast forward to today. Geren has been A's manager for four years, and this season they finally reached the .500 mark, finishing 81-81 after three losing seasons. They have a promising future, if their young pitching holds up and they can get a few more bats in the lineup.
And Washington just won the AL pennant with the Rangers.
Of course, the A's declining record can be chalked up to many reasons beyond the identity of the manager. And there are many reasons why the Rangers have shown steady improvement for four years, up to the point of clinching their first World Series appearance in franchise history this very evening. But it is conceivable that, back in 2006, when he had a crucial choice to make, Billy Beane may have gotten a best man...but maybe, just maybe, he didn't get the right man.
Something to think about, if you have any hiring to do.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Abysmal
Just want to make a quick hit post here to record for posterity the fact that the announcers on TBS's baseball playoff coverage are, in a word, abysmal. In fact, the whole coverage is abysmal. Technical gaffes, missed plays (no one--I mean NO ONE--said a word about the blown caught stealing call in the Giants-Braves game until at least four innings later), confused commentary--just a disaster. It must be nice, to be so unconcerned about the fate of your industry that you would place its showcase events in the hands of amateurs. Another fine call by The Idiot Selig.
Yeesh.
Yeesh.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Reel Reviews Archive
Capote (~)
Shopgirl (+)
Sin City (~)
The Wrestler (+)
Avatar (+)
Inglourious Basterds (+)
Frost/Nixon (+)
Slap Shot (~)
Big Fan (~)
Saturday Night Fever (+)
Shopgirl (+)
Sin City (~)
The Wrestler (+)
Avatar (+)
Inglourious Basterds (+)
Frost/Nixon (+)
Slap Shot (~)
Big Fan (~)
Saturday Night Fever (+)
I Need To Watch More Westerns
It's been a long time since Westerns were the dominant genre in the movie business. They have become somewhat forgotten now. But I just finished watching The Magnificent Seven, and I've decided that I need to watch more Westerns.
Perhaps it's because the genre has dropped so far outside the mainstream, but when viewed with today's perspective, a Western comes across as a remarkably refreshing experience. It is such a different world view contained in those horse operas; the stock and trade elements of the genre are so alien to modern viewers, the characterizations so foreign, the rituals so different from what we're used to, that watching these old films can come across as discovering something new and exciting. The best of them are delightful and engaging anachronisms, like visiting another time and place and relishing the experience of a country we used to know.
I doubt Westerns will ever catch on again and dominate the screen the way they once did. Our country--indeed, the world--has long since passed that time by. But folks could do worse than to step into that world for a couple of hours every once in a while. Viewers might, if ever so fleetingly, find something they may have otherwise lost forever.
Perhaps it's because the genre has dropped so far outside the mainstream, but when viewed with today's perspective, a Western comes across as a remarkably refreshing experience. It is such a different world view contained in those horse operas; the stock and trade elements of the genre are so alien to modern viewers, the characterizations so foreign, the rituals so different from what we're used to, that watching these old films can come across as discovering something new and exciting. The best of them are delightful and engaging anachronisms, like visiting another time and place and relishing the experience of a country we used to know.
I doubt Westerns will ever catch on again and dominate the screen the way they once did. Our country--indeed, the world--has long since passed that time by. But folks could do worse than to step into that world for a couple of hours every once in a while. Viewers might, if ever so fleetingly, find something they may have otherwise lost forever.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
As Expected
Phillies back in first place, by a game as of this post. Nice. Now they just need to carry through and bring the division home--no jinxing it. It will be nice to see at least a few of my preseason predictions actually come through; at the moment, only the East divisions have held form. But another trip to the World Series for the Phillies will help assuage my feelings of frustration, to be sure.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Human Again, Again
Today's reading on the scale came to 296.5 pounds--the first time in over 2 years I'm below 300 pounds. I am, for the moment at least, human again. Let's see how well I can build on this.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Momentous Occasion
It happened just short while ago, in my kitchen. As I walked past the open window, I caught the first distinct whiff of that certain flavor in the air that always says "Fall" to me. I don't know what it is exactly, what constitutes that scent and distinguishes the air of autumn from any other time of the year, but I've always been able to smell it, distinctly, and this evening proved to be the first time this year I met that welcome omen. Bring on the football, falling leaves, holidays, and crisp weather!
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Cinema, verité
I just got around to watching Avatar last week. I was pleasantly surprised, finding a better movie than I was expecting, with some decent character development and a story that was perhaps somewhat obvious, but not really "eye-roll" worthy. Then I finally got around to watching Inglourious Basterds tonight, and again I was pleasantly surprised. Tarantino delivered a tight, entertaining movie (even considering its running time [around 2:30]), not the sprawling mess of a film I thought I recognized at first glance. And just that quickly, Inglourious Basterds moved up the ladder, knocking Avatar down a peg on the list of best movies of last year.
That judgment led me to consider the long plight of special-effects-laden sci-fi epics--a class of film long on success and influence, but short on critical respect. Ever since Star Wars--you know the one I'm talking about; episode numbers be damned--changed movies in America (and around the world, really), received a Best Picture nomination, and then lost to Annie Hall, a string of wildly popular, commercially successful, and visually innovative films have come and gone without receiving much respect come awards season beyond some statues for their technical merits. Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Dark Knight spring to mind as examples of special effects spectaculars that hit the theaters as blockbusters, bringing new dimensions to movie-making that, taken with their financial successes and widespread cultural impacts, would have made any one of them arguably the film of the year at their respective times of release. Yet only The Return of the King actually won the Best Picture award. All the others came up short--some as nominees, others out the running entirely. Avatar is just the latest to join that list of big movies that couldn't.
This track record has always seemed unfair. Many of these films far outpaced their contemporary competition in any number of facets. One can certainly argue, for instance, that Jurassic Park, for all its flaws, was destined to have a far greater cultural impact than that other 1993 Spielberg film, the one that actually did win the Best Picture Oscar: Schindler's List. That Schindler's List is a fine movie and influential in its own right is undeniable. But by many a metric, one would be hard pressed to argue that Schindler's List had a greater impact than Jurassic Park. The latter represented a quantum leap forward in the art of special effects, bringing new technologies to the art of filmmaking that continue to evolve and change movies to this day. (Avatar is almost a direct descendant of Jurassic Park, in this sense.) And that comparison, between Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, is one of the narrower battles. Few people today would rank Gandhi ahead of E.T. on their list of favorite movies. And while Annie Hall is a fine movie and fondly remembered, any argument that its impact on movies and our culture outweighed Star Wars would be laughable.
Given these examples, the temptation may be great to view Avatar in a more favorable light than Inglourious Basterds. Its long term impact on film will likely be greater, given its advanced special effects and (perhaps) its 3D presentation. (I'm not sold on 3D as yet.) It is likely that sequels will be forthcoming, and future directors will be taking its cues when making big, blockbuster special effects entertainments. Inglourious Basterds will not have a similar impact. (The odds of it inspiring a string of violent, highly cinema-literate war movies are, shall we say, unlikely.) So why, then, do I rate Inglourious Basterds as a better movie than Avatar, having just watched them back to back?
Two reasons. One, Inglourious Basterds is simply a better overall movie. Better dialogue, better characters, better story. Avatar was fun to watch, but just not up to that snuff. Two--and here's the meat of the matter--Avatar's impact almost certainly will be bigger in the long term, for the reasons previously stated. Yet, taking the long view, that influence is not automatically destined to be positive. As with Star Wars, Avatar is likely to spawn a host of imitators and descendants, most if not all of which will be something much less than the original. (In the case of Star Wars, included among those poor imitators would be its own prequels.) The new technologies and techniques created by James Cameron will be bequeathed to a host of unworthy followers, whose ill-conceived offspring will assault our cinemas for years to come. How many bad movies will waste our viewing hours, annoy us with their saturation advertising, and clutter the shelves (or disk space) of our libraries in the future, all because someone tried to make the next Avatar? As likely as not, we'll suffer no such indignities thanks to Inglourious Basterds.
That, then, is the problem with special effects sci-fi spectaculars. The very thing they hang their hats on, the engine which drives their ascent from the middling ranks of genre up to the heights of movie-making, is the same thing that ultimately sullies their environment. Their very own innovations are what eventually drags the level of their genre back down into the abyss from whence it came--and thus makes the future climb that much steeper. In that way, what appears at first glance to be an unfair lack of respect may in fact be nothing more than justice served ahead of its time. And so, any filmmaker who wishes to rise to the top through the ranks of the sci-fi genre may find the effort leads to an ending which is ultimately--if you'll forgive me for indulging in le mot juste--inglorious.
That judgment led me to consider the long plight of special-effects-laden sci-fi epics--a class of film long on success and influence, but short on critical respect. Ever since Star Wars--you know the one I'm talking about; episode numbers be damned--changed movies in America (and around the world, really), received a Best Picture nomination, and then lost to Annie Hall, a string of wildly popular, commercially successful, and visually innovative films have come and gone without receiving much respect come awards season beyond some statues for their technical merits. Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Back to the Future, Jurassic Park, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and The Dark Knight spring to mind as examples of special effects spectaculars that hit the theaters as blockbusters, bringing new dimensions to movie-making that, taken with their financial successes and widespread cultural impacts, would have made any one of them arguably the film of the year at their respective times of release. Yet only The Return of the King actually won the Best Picture award. All the others came up short--some as nominees, others out the running entirely. Avatar is just the latest to join that list of big movies that couldn't.
This track record has always seemed unfair. Many of these films far outpaced their contemporary competition in any number of facets. One can certainly argue, for instance, that Jurassic Park, for all its flaws, was destined to have a far greater cultural impact than that other 1993 Spielberg film, the one that actually did win the Best Picture Oscar: Schindler's List. That Schindler's List is a fine movie and influential in its own right is undeniable. But by many a metric, one would be hard pressed to argue that Schindler's List had a greater impact than Jurassic Park. The latter represented a quantum leap forward in the art of special effects, bringing new technologies to the art of filmmaking that continue to evolve and change movies to this day. (Avatar is almost a direct descendant of Jurassic Park, in this sense.) And that comparison, between Jurassic Park and Schindler's List, is one of the narrower battles. Few people today would rank Gandhi ahead of E.T. on their list of favorite movies. And while Annie Hall is a fine movie and fondly remembered, any argument that its impact on movies and our culture outweighed Star Wars would be laughable.
Given these examples, the temptation may be great to view Avatar in a more favorable light than Inglourious Basterds. Its long term impact on film will likely be greater, given its advanced special effects and (perhaps) its 3D presentation. (I'm not sold on 3D as yet.) It is likely that sequels will be forthcoming, and future directors will be taking its cues when making big, blockbuster special effects entertainments. Inglourious Basterds will not have a similar impact. (The odds of it inspiring a string of violent, highly cinema-literate war movies are, shall we say, unlikely.) So why, then, do I rate Inglourious Basterds as a better movie than Avatar, having just watched them back to back?
Two reasons. One, Inglourious Basterds is simply a better overall movie. Better dialogue, better characters, better story. Avatar was fun to watch, but just not up to that snuff. Two--and here's the meat of the matter--Avatar's impact almost certainly will be bigger in the long term, for the reasons previously stated. Yet, taking the long view, that influence is not automatically destined to be positive. As with Star Wars, Avatar is likely to spawn a host of imitators and descendants, most if not all of which will be something much less than the original. (In the case of Star Wars, included among those poor imitators would be its own prequels.) The new technologies and techniques created by James Cameron will be bequeathed to a host of unworthy followers, whose ill-conceived offspring will assault our cinemas for years to come. How many bad movies will waste our viewing hours, annoy us with their saturation advertising, and clutter the shelves (or disk space) of our libraries in the future, all because someone tried to make the next Avatar? As likely as not, we'll suffer no such indignities thanks to Inglourious Basterds.
That, then, is the problem with special effects sci-fi spectaculars. The very thing they hang their hats on, the engine which drives their ascent from the middling ranks of genre up to the heights of movie-making, is the same thing that ultimately sullies their environment. Their very own innovations are what eventually drags the level of their genre back down into the abyss from whence it came--and thus makes the future climb that much steeper. In that way, what appears at first glance to be an unfair lack of respect may in fact be nothing more than justice served ahead of its time. And so, any filmmaker who wishes to rise to the top through the ranks of the sci-fi genre may find the effort leads to an ending which is ultimately--if you'll forgive me for indulging in le mot juste--inglorious.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A New Equation
In response to this story, I'd like to propose a new equation:
E > mc^2s
Should be read as:
Einstein (is greater than) motherfucking conservative squares
Really, that about says it all.
E > mc
Should be read as:
Einstein (is greater than) motherfucking conservative squares
Really, that about says it all.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
crApple
I have an iPod. Two of them in fact. And I have long been an Apple partisan, having been the owner of a series of Macintosh desktop systems. But I'm getting fed up.
My iPod Touch is--or rather, was--a delightful piece of technology. But then it took a swan dive into the toilet, and this unscheduled dip had, shall we say, a negative effect on it. The screen turned dopey, and no longer displays everything in clear, sharp, vibrant tones. But it's still readable, for the most part. And the speaker/headphone interface wound up screwed up; the music being played would come out of the speaker even when the headphones were plugged in, thus decreasing the volume going into the ears and rendering the volume control non-operable. Not great, but the machine retained some measure of its functionality. Apps still worked, info kept being stored, the music would play, albeit in a crippled state.
Then Apple released an update to the system software. And ever since that update installed on the Touch, there have been issues. The music volume, already problematic, now has developed a habit of going schizo right in the middle of playing, with the usual result being the iPod stops playback by itself. This renders listening to the sounds frustrating, at best.
So I tried to perform a restore on my Touch. The panel in iTunes clearly says, if you're having problems with your iPod, try to restore it. So I did. Except, when I did, the computer informed me that "there was a problem." The upshot being, it couldn't restore my iPod to its last known settings. Hence, some of my personal info--app content and settings, mostly--got lost in the process. (Oddly, not all; just most of it.) Boom. Gone. Several months worth of checklists, high scores, bookmarks, etc. down the drain.
You may ask, well, what do you expect? You're Touch is broken. Yes, it is, but it was not functionally broken. It still worked, and showed no sign of not working before the software update. Being dinged up should not be a death sentence for a piece of tech. My old iPod mini--the one I now use for music listening--has gone through many a hell of knocks and drops, and it survives quite nicely and does what it always has done. And I've heard stories of other pieces of equipment that have been through a lot--some even through the washing machine--and still came out working. What's up with the Touch that it's so fragile?
Plus, remember, it wasn't the brief toilet swim that knocked it out of semi-working condition. It was limping along, but usable, before the update. It's a software issue, not a hardware issue. And it's further complicated by another software issue: those backups iTunes runs every time you link up your iPod apparently aren't worth shit. Because when the time comes to restore...oops, can't do it.
This episode--along with other recent news--only increases my sense that Apple more and more doesn't give a shit about the quality of its products. It only cares about getting them publicity and selling them.
And that has me thinking about the future. At some point, I may need to seriously reconsider my choice for a computer. And a personal music player. And whatever else the future has to offer. Because Apple is not making the grade. And now, for the first time ever, I'd have to say that if I were asked by someone on the fence, someone looking to buy a first computer or phone or whatever, I would not automatically recommend anything Steve Jobs has had his hands on.
Think different indeed.
My iPod Touch is--or rather, was--a delightful piece of technology. But then it took a swan dive into the toilet, and this unscheduled dip had, shall we say, a negative effect on it. The screen turned dopey, and no longer displays everything in clear, sharp, vibrant tones. But it's still readable, for the most part. And the speaker/headphone interface wound up screwed up; the music being played would come out of the speaker even when the headphones were plugged in, thus decreasing the volume going into the ears and rendering the volume control non-operable. Not great, but the machine retained some measure of its functionality. Apps still worked, info kept being stored, the music would play, albeit in a crippled state.
Then Apple released an update to the system software. And ever since that update installed on the Touch, there have been issues. The music volume, already problematic, now has developed a habit of going schizo right in the middle of playing, with the usual result being the iPod stops playback by itself. This renders listening to the sounds frustrating, at best.
So I tried to perform a restore on my Touch. The panel in iTunes clearly says, if you're having problems with your iPod, try to restore it. So I did. Except, when I did, the computer informed me that "there was a problem." The upshot being, it couldn't restore my iPod to its last known settings. Hence, some of my personal info--app content and settings, mostly--got lost in the process. (Oddly, not all; just most of it.) Boom. Gone. Several months worth of checklists, high scores, bookmarks, etc. down the drain.
You may ask, well, what do you expect? You're Touch is broken. Yes, it is, but it was not functionally broken. It still worked, and showed no sign of not working before the software update. Being dinged up should not be a death sentence for a piece of tech. My old iPod mini--the one I now use for music listening--has gone through many a hell of knocks and drops, and it survives quite nicely and does what it always has done. And I've heard stories of other pieces of equipment that have been through a lot--some even through the washing machine--and still came out working. What's up with the Touch that it's so fragile?
Plus, remember, it wasn't the brief toilet swim that knocked it out of semi-working condition. It was limping along, but usable, before the update. It's a software issue, not a hardware issue. And it's further complicated by another software issue: those backups iTunes runs every time you link up your iPod apparently aren't worth shit. Because when the time comes to restore...oops, can't do it.
This episode--along with other recent news--only increases my sense that Apple more and more doesn't give a shit about the quality of its products. It only cares about getting them publicity and selling them.
And that has me thinking about the future. At some point, I may need to seriously reconsider my choice for a computer. And a personal music player. And whatever else the future has to offer. Because Apple is not making the grade. And now, for the first time ever, I'd have to say that if I were asked by someone on the fence, someone looking to buy a first computer or phone or whatever, I would not automatically recommend anything Steve Jobs has had his hands on.
Think different indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
