Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinions. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 01, 2015

In Defense of Labels...

Somewhere along the way -- I'm guessing in the late 1980s -- it became declasse to "label." Probably as a response to things like the Civil Rights Amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment, and various minority groups gaining more and more equality. So the days of rich white men "labeling" women and minorities (with stereotypes and false prejudices) were numbered, and the act of labeling people was considered a vestige of a more primitive time.

Naturally, since people are stupid, anti-labeling wasn't relegated to the negativity of racism, gender politics, sexual orientation, and class warfare, but to other walks of life. "You don't have to put a label on it" started to apply to other things, like internal feelings, people's personalities, and the arts. And while this is admirable to a certain extent, it suddenly became not okay to label anger "anger," and an asshole "an asshole." Every emotion was a complex bundle of stimuli from one's biological makeup and their upbringing. And people who were clearly scumbags were "more complex than that" and nice people "once you got to know them."

Fine, I am willing to look at the complexity in human nature and refrain from boiling a complex system of nerves and electric brainwaves down to a glib, reductive sound byte that doesn't tell the whole story. 

There is something a bit chilling, even, about the way we label things like politics, where every politician that makes an appearance on television has (R) or (D) after their name, as if they are sorted into one of two camps. This kind of information used to be instructive, so as to indicate a person's political bent. But now, since the tail wags the dog, the (R)s and (D)s are actually a kind of badge that a politician has to live up to. If you are, for example, a REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY, you are probably human garbage, worse than a (D) and unworthy of having the blessed (R) before your name. Instead of forming an ethos and then picking a camp, your camp picks your ethos for you. 

This is very troublesome and yet it's a topic for another day. For today I speak to you of labels in music. And I don't mean record labels, nor Parental Advisory labels, but rather genre and subgenre labels that I think are absolutely crucial to one's enjoyment and understanding of music itself.


One of the most annoying things that I can hear from a modern musical artist is "I don't want to put a label on my music." You hear this from people like Kanye and Madonna, and you usually hear it after they have built up a nice little career staying in their lane, doing the kind of thing they're good at, right before they veer off into some weird direction. So in order to prevent himself from being labeled exclusively a "hip hop artist," Kanye has to do things like make songs using Auto-Tune, or with Bon Iver, or make all his SNL appearances look like undergraduate performance art pieces. 

But you know what I like about Kanye? When Kanye is doing things like "Through the Wire," or "Gold Digger," or "O.T.I.S." Do you know what those songs have in common? They are soulful, they use breakbeats and traditional hip-hop samples, and they don't add in pretentious bullshit.

But Bill, you are probably saying, Kanye is a capital-A artist, and he has the right to make any kind of music he wants to. And you're absolutely right. What he doesn't have the right to do, in my humble opinion, is continuing to carry the flag of hip-hop (and "hip-hoppers," if people are still using that term) when he is making watered-down, cross-bred music that has nothing to do with the music I grew up listening to.

Kanye is a perfect test case here, because he started out as a regular Chicago rapper, hanging out with Common and John Legend and the Roots, making what those of us in the know very condescendingly call "real hip hop." But the problem is that in the last 15-20 years, Kanye, as big a megastar as he's become, has completely abandoned the aesthetic of what hip-hop used to be. And he's taken the entire hip hop industry with him!

So instead of Kanye making different types of songs and calling it "branching out" from hip-hop -- into soul, pop, electro, what have you -- the stuff that he does now is considered the New Hip-Hop. 

And it stinks.

I want no part of this new hip-hop. There are a couple of good, new artists out there that I like well enough -- Kendrick Lamar, Earl Sweatshirt, Action Bronson, Chance, Pusha-T (sometimes) -- but they are really exceptions to the rule. They are putting out what we'd call "boom bap" hip hop, which is the kind of shit I want to hear. The rest of the current class (guys like A$AP Rocky, Wale, Gucci Mane, Wiz Khalifa, to name a few) are doing things that are very popular, but to me it all sounds like utter garbage. 

Which brings me to my original point: I need labels.

I used to be a true expert on hip-hop and hip-hop culture. Though I grew up in a suburban/college-educated setting, I was an absolute omnivore when it came to rap music. (And my memory is so shitty that I can legitimately say that I've forgotten more about rap music than most people ever knew.) But today, I am no expert. And part of the reason is that I don't have the time nor the energy to sift through all the bullshit that passes for "hip-hop" these days to get to the stuff I want. And that makes me sad.

Finding new hip-hop songs and artists used to be one of the legitimate thrills of life in my teens and 20s. I have tapes upon tapes upon tapes that I would collect from record stores. I could recite entire albums front to back (still can in some cases). I was able to tell which rapper was with which clique, who hard worked with whom, who had beef, etc. And my knowledge of the intertexuality and meta nature of the music itself -- arguably the thing that drew me to it in the first place -- was peerless; the Venn diagram of popular culture and rap lyrics was always a fascination with me, and still is.

It goes without saying that this applies to other genres of music too. I'm not saying that I have to be married to one genre of music or another -- I have around 1,500 albums and the selection is eclectic. But I definitely need labels not only so I can explore the stuff I might like, but to prevent myself from wasting my time with shit I hate.

A good example of this is country music: as a rule, I will always say "I fucking HHHHHAAAAAAATE country." And for the most part I do: country music that is on the radio or being given awards on Sunday night television can eat my shit. If you like it, that's fine, I will not waste one second of my precious time on earth listening to that rubbish. 

But there are a couple country-ISH things that I don't mind listening to. I enjoy the southern guitar pickin' of John Fahey. I like bluegrass and fiddle music quite a bit. And if it's folk, it can turn a bit country and still be okay. I don't like twang, I don't like slide guitar, and I hate the sentimental story-song. 

As mentioned before, there is a subgenre of rap and hip-hop informally known as "boom bap," a term coined by either KRS-ONE or Q-Tip ca. 1993. And boom-bap is miles way from (and streets ahead of) the kind of rap that is popular today. 

If I am going to take a chance on a new hip-hop album, I need to know about it. Back in 1991, you could take a chance on a tape at Camelot records based on one video you saw on Yo! MTV Raps the day before, and probably 80% of the time or better, you would have yourself a solid album. Now, that is impossible. I haven't found a wall-to-wall great hip-hop album since maybe Cannibal Ox's The Cold Vein, in 2001! To try and buy a hip hop album today, in 2015, would be a fool's errand. 

But when I know that the album isn't just a rap/hip-hop album, but a Boom Bap album, I can give it more of a listen. Not because I need to pigeonhole my tastes, but because I know that a boom bap album will have the elements that I like: breakbeats, soul samples, kick-drums on the 2's and 4's, clever punchlines, call-and-response refrains rather than repetitive 8-bar choruses. This is what I like, and I have the right to like it.

So whenever someone says "Hey man, it's music, don't try to label it," I'm going to make a mix tape for them in which I put nothing but binaural drone, ambient street sounds and Yoko Ono's screeching and tell them to be more open-minded about their musical tastes.

Monday, March 09, 2015

Academy Award Corrections: On the Fives


When your intrepid blogger last left you, he was wasting a great deal of time thinking about movies from long, long ago, as an overreaction to a podcast he was listening to. Now, since this past year's Academy Awards have completed -- and buoyed by the discovery of the wonderful Letterboxd website -- he is in list mode again, ready to revisit cinema of the last 50 years, ten years at a time. This time, we are going to explore the fives.

Like last time, I'm only going back as far as the 1960s, for a couple reasons: 1) I don't really know much about cinema before 1960, with only a passing familiarity with some of the works of Billy Wilder and Akira Kurosawa, mostly. (I don't have much of a grasp of the other auteurs of that era.) 2) Let's face it, since only 14 movies came out every year back then, it was hard for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to screw it up. Yes, the Academy notoriously snubbed Citizen Kane in 1941 in favor of the middling, forgotten How Green Was My Valley, but they got a lot right. Even the 19th Academy Awards snubbed It's A Wonderful Life in favor of The Best Years of Our Lives, which, minus all the sentimentality, is a superior film!

Again, this is a kind of combination of my own personal tastes and the longevity of the films in question. I will show you the movies that were nominated in 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995 and 2005, and then the ones that should have been nominated for each year. I will pick movies that were legitimately "Oscar Worthy," both in quality and scope. (I won't throw in any obscure nanobudget indie flick and stomp my feet that it somehow got overlooked; you know what movies are "Oscar movies" and ones that aren't, even if the ones that aren't are generally superior films.)

This exercise serves a few purposes: it is a check on the Academy, it is a survey and snapshot of the best of film in any given year, and it is (to me) an interesting look back at what films were part of "the zeitgeist" and which ones stood the test of time. Here goes!


1965 ACADEMY AWARDS (38th Annual)

The Actual Nominees:
  • The Sound of Music (Director: Robert Wise) (WINNER)
  • Doctor Zhivago (Dir.: David Lean)
  • Darling (Dir.: John Schlesinger)
  • A Thousand Clowns (Dir.: Fred Coe)
  • Ship of Fools (Dir.: Stanley Kramer)
Okay I'm gonna be straight up with you here: The Sound of Music is the only one of these movies I've seen. I know that I am supposed to have seen Dr. Zhivago, but it's like four f*cking hours long, and I haven't had the gumption. I've actually never even heard of the other three, but here are the summaries: Ship of Fools is about a bunch of people on a Nazi-era boat bound for Germany; Darling is about Julie Christie acting like a Kardashian; A Thousand Clowns sounds like a sitcom, where Jason Robards has to put on a charade to make it look like he would be a good legal guardian.

I am not off to a strong start, but to be fair, this was back in a time when there were separate categories for "Art Direction Black & White" and "Art Direction Color." And really, none of the movies from that era are memorable. In fact, these are the nominees I know of (read: not necessarily seen) from 1965, barely a decade before my inauspicious arrival on this planet: Cat Ballou (seen it), Othello, The Pawnbroker, A Patch of Blue, Marriage Italian-Style, Von Ryan's Express (haven't seen 'em). Mind you, these are the ones I've heard of; I couldn't tell you anything about any one of them.

Because of this, I will leave the 1965 nominees as-is, pleading ignorance and hanging my head in shame.

1975 ACADEMY AWARDS (48th Annual)
The Actual Nominees:
  • One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Dir.: Milos Forman) (WINNER)
  • Barry Lyndon (Dir.: Stanley Kubrick)
  • Dog Day Afternoon (Dir.: Sidney Lumet)
  • Jaws (Dir.: Stephen Spielberg)
  • Nashville (Dir.: Robert Altman)
Now that's more like it!

Not only was 1975 a very good year for film -- a great year I'd say -- but it's a moment in time. All five of the directors on this list are heavyweights, and each a true auteur. Each example is perhaps the perfect example of each director's style, too, if not their best films individually. Just look at this list, encased in primordial amber for our edification.

One Flew was Milos Forman's American coming-out party, and his first American iconoclast. (Celebrating outsiders and rule-breakers would become Forman's calling card in the coming decades, with Amadeus, The People Vs. Larry Flynt, and Man on the Moon.) Barry Lyndon is a slow, plodding, brooding Kubrick film, indicative of his style. Dog Day Afternoon taps into the angst of hot, sweaty NYC, circa 1975, right in Lumet's wheel house. Jaws would foretell a string of huge special effects Event Pictures by Spielberg in the four decades after. And Nashville might be THE consummate Robert Altman film, mixing huge ensembles, a wandering camera, and politics into a satirical tapestry. I watched Nashville for the second time shortly after 9/11, and let me tell you, it holds up in the 21st century better than ever.

Okay, having said that, Barry Lyndon is a dud: it's a boring film that was nominated strictly because it is an "achievement" and had Kubrick's name attached; it's out.

But what's going to replace it? Funny Lady? Tommy? The Sunshine Boys? The Man Who Would be King? I'm having a little trouble finding a suitable replacement. I'm tempted to throw something like Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore in there, but that might be just because I am biased toward Marty Scorsese. Instead, I'm going to pick a wild card.

The 20/20 Hindsight Nominees:
  • One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Dir.: Milos Forman) (WINNER)
  • Nashville (Dir.: Robert Altman) (My Runner-Up)
  • Dog Day Afternoon (Dir.: Sidney Lumet)
  • Jaws (Dir.: Stephen Spielberg)
  • Swept Away ... by an Unusual Destiny in the Blue Sea of August (Dir: Lina Wertmuller)
So, Cuckoo's Nest still holds up as the best movie of the bunch, and one of the best movies of the last 40 years. Jack Nicholson is amazing, as is Louise Fletcher, who is fascist evil personified. The characters are incredible, the climax heartbreaking, and the coda exhilarating. Jaws and Dog Day Afternoon are products of their time and place, but no less worthy of a nomination.

A little cheat with my fifth pick: Swept Away... was technically released in Europe in December 1974, but as far as the Academy goes, there was no way it was released in the United States until 1975, which puts it on the list. If you've never seen Swept Away, it was (very loosely) the template for the 1980s Kurt Russell-Goldie Hawn comedy Overboard. But Swept Away is less concerned with misunderstandings, chicanery, and hijinks, and is more concerned with socio-sexual dynamics, eroticism, and political commentary. It's an absolutely fascinating (and pretty damn hot!) social experiment that asks the question, what happens when your social status is stripped away, and there is no one else around?

1985 ACADEMY AWARDS (58th Annual)
The Actual Nominees:
  • Out of Africa (Dir.: Sydney Pollack) (WINNER)
  • The Color Purple (Dir.: Stephen Spielberg)
  • Kiss of the Spider Woman (Dir.: Hector Babenco)
  • Prizzi's Honor (Dir.: John Huston)
  • Witness (Dir.: Peter Weir)
Full disclosure, again: I've never seen Out of Africa, and although I'm sure it's a fine film, it is the very definition of Oscar Bait. You never see Out of Africa on "best of" lists, such as the AFI's 1998 "100 Years ... 100 Movies" list, which famously featured a ton of schlock. (Although it did include Fargo, which it later removed in 2007 to include The Sixth Sense and f*cking Titanic.) I will take a leap and guess that Out of Africa will not be my favorite film of 1985 when I finally do see it, which may be never.

The other glaring oversight on this list is Prizzi's Honor, and the reason it's an oversight is because it is an absolutely awful, incompetent pile of cinematic garbage. This had to be some kind of lifetime achievement nod for John Huston, because it is roundly awful, in acting, direction and script. Jack Nicholson looks absolutely foolish in this movie.

Great movies that could have been considered:
  • Back to the Future (Dir.: Robert Zemeckis)
  • Brazil (Dir.: Terry Gilliam)
  • Ran (Dir.: Akira Kurosawa)
  • Blood Simple (Dir.: Joel Coen)
Laugh all you want, but Zemeckis won an Oscar for Forrest Gump less than a decade later, so he has the pedigree. Plus, Back to the Future, while slight, is one hundred and fifty-four times better than Prizzi's Honor.

The 20/20 Hindsight Nominees:
  • The Color Purple (MY WINNER)
  • The Trip to Bountiful (Dir.: Peter Masterson) (My Runner-up)
  • The Purple Rose of Cairo (Dir.: Woody Allen)
  • Witness
  • The Kiss of the Spider Woman
I am not convinced that The Color Purple is the best movie of 1985, but I can tell you this, the first time I saw it, I started it very late on a weeknight. I found the entire thing very compelling, if a oppressive. But at the end -- and if you've seen it, you'll know why -- I sobbed uncontrollably for twenty straight minutes. That counts for something.

The most enjoyable film of all of these is The Trip to Bountiful, which also has the best performance of the year, and one of the best ever, by Geraldine Page, a wily elderly who tries to sneak her way back to her hometown. 

And The Purple Rose of Cairo, though not one of Woody Allen's "important" works, is one of his most entertaining, and surprisingly poignant. Witness and Kiss of the Spider Woman, as different as can be, are both worthy entries.

1995 ACADEMY AWARDS (68th Annual)
The Actual Nominees:

  • Braveheart (Dir.: Mel Gibson) (WINNER)
  • Apollo 13 (Dir.: Ron Howard)
  • Babe (Dir.: Chris Noonan)
  • Il Postino (The Postman) (Dir. Michael Radford)
  • Sense and Sensibility (Dir.: Ang Lee)
1995 was a problematic year for a lot of reasons, not the least of which were that three pretty undeserving films were nominated right in the middle of a transformative decade of film.

Il Postino/The Postman is a very cute story, but a year removed from Four Weddings and a Funeral, a cute story is really a throwaway pick. Ditto Babe, an adorable tale, but hardly one that is worthy of the bald guy. Sense and Sensibility, while ticking off all the boxes of Oscar Bait, has resonated almost not at all in the last twenty years.

Great movies that could have been considered:
  • Casino (Dir.: Martin Scorsese)
  • 12 Monkeys (Dir.: Terry Gilliam)
  • Seven (Dir.: David Fincher)
  • Smoke (Dir.: Wayne Wang/Paul Auster)
I am not including two movies in this list that some people love: Tim Robbins's Dead Man Walking and Rob Reiner's Aaron Sorkin's The American President, both high-concept liberal polemics, which -- even to a tree-hugger like me -- have no place in cinema.

Casino is a more intense (but lesser) version of GoodFellas; it is a paint-by-numbers remake that hits all the proper notes, but is often just too gross for its own sake. 12 Monkeys and Seven are a pair of Brad Pitt mindf*cks, and while both are riveting, neither has the appropriate gravitas for an Oscar nom. Smoke is a fantastic movie that never had a chance during Oscar time, despite its impressive cast (Keitel, Hurt, Whitaker, Channing).

The 20/20 Hindsight Nominees:

  • Leaving Las Vegas (Dir.: Mike Figgis) (MY WINNER)
  • Apollo 13 (My Runner-Up)
  • The Usual Suspects (Dir.: Bryan Singer)
  • Braveheart
  • Mighty Aphrodite (Dir. Woody Allen)
So, Leaving Las Vegas might very well be the bleakest, most unpleasant film I've ever watched. But there is no denying both the power of the story -- a man who sets out to abandon his cushy life to drink himself to death -- and the two lead performances. I don't think I'll ever watch it again, but it's a singular piece of art.

Apollo 13 is the best Spielberg movie that Spielberg didn't make. Braveheart, the ultimate winner, is a very entertaining movie, but doesn't hold up quite as well as it should have for such a runaway hit. The Usual Suspects, while wildly imperfect, has stood the test of time, and remains a showcase of great writing, excellent acting, and a terrific twist; if The Sixth Sense could get a nod in 1999 of all years, The Usual Suspects could have taken Babe's place. And Mighty Aphrodite is one of Woody Allen's most clever movies; Mira Sorvino rightly won the Oscar for it.

2005 ACADEMY AWARDS (78th Annual)
The Actual Nominees:

  • Crash (Dir.: Paul Haggis) (WINNER)
  • Brokeback Mountain (Dir. Ang Lee)
  • Capote (Dir.: Bennett Miller)
  • Good Night, and Good Luck (Dir.: George Clooney)
  • Munich (Dir.: Stephen Spielberg)
The 2005 Oscars will go down infamy as the year that Crash won Best Picture. Crash, a well-meaning ensemble film whose script contained all the subtlety of a Gallagher-sized sledgehammer, was not the best picture of 2005. In fact, I would submit that it wasn't in the top 20 films of 2005.

Capote is also a very troubling pick, as it is basically a wasted nomination, given that the film itself is no great shakes, and the real accolades should have been limited to Philip Seymour Hoffman's tour de force performance. Munich is an amazing story, but its brooding and hand-wringing prevented it from being great and from being enjoyable.

Great films that could have been considered:
  • The Squid and the Whale (Dir. Noah Baumbach)
  • Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (Dir. Alex Gibney)
  • Batman Begins (Dir. Christopher Nolan)
Not one of the three films above had a snowball's chance in hell of being nominated for the Oscar for various reasons. The Squid and the Whale is a shoestring budget film with a very unlikable lead in Jeff Daniels; I have several friends who decry its "quirk" factor, but I think it transcends its indie-ness to become a really well-constructed movie. Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room is one of the best, most compelling, and most terrifying documentaries of all time; so of course it lost Best Documentary to the adorable March of the Penguins. And if The Dark Knight can get Academy consideration, why not its nearly-as-good prequel?

The 20/20 Hindsight Winners:
  • Brokeback Mountain (MY WINNER)
  • North Country (Dir. Niki Caro) (My Runner-Up)
  • A History of Violence (Dir. David Cronenberg)
  • Good Night, and Good Luck
  • Cinderella Man (Dir.: Ron Howard)
There is no doubt in my mind, especially a decade later, that Brokeback Mountain stands out as the best film of 2005. The story, the acting, the subtext, all flawless. It is everything that Crash isn't: subtle, thoughtful, deliberate. 

North Country is one hell of a harrowing journey, and I was surprised that it didn't get more Academy love, especially considering the very timely subjects of sexism and harassment in the workplace; the Richard Jenkins speech alone earned it a nomination. A History of Violence, while imperfect, has held up much better than nearly all the other nominees not directed by Ang Lee; Cronenberg is a tough sell, and his Eastern Promises just a couple years later would be equally bleak. But AHOV combines plot and mood perfectly to create a whole. 

Good Night and Good Luck, a parlor trick, to be sure, is still very effective because of its timely parallels between post-war Communist paranoia and post-9/11 terrorist paranoia. It also has a terrific lead performance by the perpetually-underrated David Strathairn.

And Cinderella Man is not a "great" movie by any stretch, but it ticks off all the boxes of Oscar Bait, including the pedigree of Ron Howard. And although it is hamstrung by an absolutely horrible title, and a bad performance by Renee Zellweger, the story itself, and the friendship between Russell Crowe and Paul Giamatti are enough to put it on my list, above many of the Academy's picks.

I really enjoy these little retrospectives, even if no one else will ever read them. They make me want to get out there and revisit all of my favorite movies of the last 50 years, even though I haven't seen as many as I'd like to think. If nothing else, it proves that while imperfect, and subject to a great deal of criticism, the Academy generally gets it right. Or at least right enough.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Academy Awards Corrections: On the Fours

I was listening to the Cracked Podcast, where they talked about Year-End lists, and how they look pretty ridiculous in retrospect. They brought up the interesting idea that there should be a five-year waiting period to decide the winners of the Academy Awards. I thought this was really interesting, so I decided that I am going to look at the Academy Awards through the decades, and we can now retroactively make corrections to egregious errors.

I am only going to be looking at Best Picture, since to go through every goddamn category would be insane. I mean, do we need to correct what the best sound mixing was fifty years ago?

Also, this is going to be my own personal list, of course, but I am going to use common sense. For example, I'm not going to replace a well-known movie with some obscure indie movie that no one's ever heard of. The movies I'll be putting on the list will be an "Oscar movie," meaning that it will not only be good, but it will be something that reasonably could have been nominated, had the Academy not had its head up its ass. Also, I'm only going back to the 1960s, because anything before that is filled with a lot of cruddy, dated movies that I don't plan to ever see. Plus, there were only like 20 movies that came out per year before that, so the Academy couldn't screw it up too badly even if they wanted to.

Since 2014 just passed, let's start with the 4s:

1964 ACADEMY AWARDS (37th Annual)

The Actual Nominees:
  • My Fair Lady (Director: George Cukor) (WINNER)
  • Becket (Dir.: Peter Glenville)
  • Dr. Strangelove (Dir.: Stanley Kubrick)
  • Mary Poppins (Dir.: Robert Stevenson)
  • Zorba the Greek (Dir.: Michael Cacoyannis)
Clearly, my favorite movie of this list is Dr. Strangelove, which is one of the best movies of the entire 1960s. And nothing against the movie, but the fact that Mary Poppins is even on this list shows that there weren't a ton of heavy-hitters in '64. It might be the same reason that we started seeing a tenfold increase in fantasy-action movies after 9/11: escapism.

Great movies that could have been considered:
  • The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (Dir.: Jacques Demy)
  • Topkapi (Dir.: Jules Dassin)
  • Seance on a Wet Afternoon (Dir. Bryan Forbes)
As much as I have a soft spot in my heart for Umbrellas of Cherbourg (including my hopeless crush on Catherine Deneuve ca. 1963), it would have been weird if a French pop-opera had been nominated over any of the American films listed. All five of the nominees pretty much hold up, although to me, Becket feels like classic Oscar Bait in the David Lean/William Wyler/Cecil B. Demille vein; it's got two great performances (Peter O'Toole and Richard Burton) but it's as cold and distant as a 12th Century British costume drama can be expected to be.

For my first stab at this, Oscar got it right.

1974 ACADEMY AWARDS (47th Annual)

The Actual Nominees:
  • The Godfather Part II (Dir.: Francis Ford Coppola) (WINNER)
  • Chinatown (Dir: Roman Polanski)
  • The Conversation (Dir.: Francis Ford Coppola)
  • Lenny (Dir.: Bob Fosse)
  • The Towering Inferno (Dir: John Guillerman)

Okay, this one is going to pretty much undermine the entire point of this exercise, because at least four of these movies deserve to be here, and The Towering Inferno is probably the odd man out. You can't argue with The Godfather II and Chinatown, and The Conversation is kind of a forgotten classic. (If you doubt that F.F. Coppola was the King of 1970s cinema, 1974 should prove it.)

In my opinion, Lenny doesn't hold up on repeated viewings, although Dustin Hoffman's performance is still stunning 40 years later. The Towering Inferno is notable in that it was a big budget disaster movie with two of the biggest stars of its day, Paul Newman and Steve McQueen. And I'll be there was a lot of Hollywood money pumped into it, meaning that it had to be nominated.

Great movies that could have been considered:
  • A Woman Under the Influence (Dir. John Cassavetes) 
  • Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (Dir. Martin Scorsese)
  • The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (Dir. Joseph Sargent) 
  • Murder on the Orient Express (Dir. Sidney Lumet)
The 20/20 Hindsight Nominees:
  • The Godfather Part II (WINNER)
  • Chinatown 
  • A Woman Under the Influence (Dir.: John Cassavetes)
  • Murder on the Orient Express (Dir.: Sidney Lumet)
  • The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (Dir.: Joseph Sargent)
The Godfather II and Chinatown are bona fide classics, two of the maybe 50-75 greatest movies ever made: they stay. A Woman Under the Influence holds up much better than Lenny does, and Gena Rowlands puts in an incredible performance.

Murder on the Orient Express and The Taking of Pelham One Two Three take the other two slots, because they are just as good as The Conversation and The Towering Inferno, and in my opinion, more entertaining. If you're going to reserve a slot for an action movie, I'd take Pelham over Inferno any day.

1984 ACADEMY AWARDS (57th Annual)

The Actual Nominees:
  • Amadeus (Dir.: Milos Forman) (WINNER)
  • The Killing Fields (Dir.: Roland Joffe)
  • A Passage to India (Dir.: David Lean)
  • Places in the Heart (Dir.: Robert Benton) 
  • A Soldier's Story (Dir.: Norman Jewison)
1984 was a good year for a lot of things, but Prestige Movies was not one of them. For every Amadeus, there were three Ghostbusters, Gremlins and The Terminator. It was a watershed year for popcorn movies and pop music ("Born in the USA," "Thriller," Like a Virgin), but when it came to Oscar Worthy Films, the Academy pretty much picked the only five that qualified, and all five meet one of the Academy's unwritten criteria

Amadeus is a period film about a tortured genius. (Mozart, heard of him?) The Killing Fields is a war/journalism picture about the horrors of Cambodia during the time of the Khmer Rouge. A Passage to India was the final film for the legendary David Lean, and it features exotic locales and Alec Guinness as an Indian scholar. Places in the Heart is a triple-whammy: it is directed by an Oscar Winner (Benton, who won the Oscar for Kramer vs. Kramer five years prior); it's about the Great Depression; and it's about social issues like segregation. This movie was made to get an Oscar nod. And finally, A Soldier's Story, which is about the segregation-era American South.

Note that not one of 1984's films took place in the present day: A Soldier's Story takes place in the 1940s; Places in the Heart in the 1930s; The Killing Fields in the early 1970s; A Passage to India in the 1920s; and Amadeus in the 1820s. If ever there were a template for Oscar Bait, this one is it.

So, by default, we aren't left with a ton of replacements. Most of the other "good" movies of this year are light popcorn fare: The Karate Kid, This is Spinal Tap, Beverly Hills Cop. Even movies that might have been considered Oscar Worthy, like, say Romancing the Stone or Broadway Danny Rose or The Natural, all lacked any kind of real gravitas, especially compared to war, segregation, exotic foreign lands and mental illness.

So I'm going to leave this list alone. That isn't to say that it is perfect, or that really any one of these movies (save for possibly Amadeus) is really considered a "classic," but you can't really argue with any of them in a surprisingly weak year. Damn you, Academy!

1994 ACADEMY AWARDS (67th Annual)

The Actual Nominees:
  • Forrest Gump (Dir.: Robert Zemeckis) (WINNER)
  • Four Weddings and a Funeral (Dir.: Mike Newell)
  • Pulp Fiction (Dir.: Quentin Tarantino)
  • Quiz Show (Dir.: Robert Redford)
  • The Shawshank Redemption (Dir.: Frank Darabont)
1994 is one of the most important years in cinema history, and most people will point to Pulp Fiction as the standard bearer, since it really is the movie that changed movies. Pulp still resonates to this very day, two decades later, as proof that film can go in nearly any direction, so long as it follows the language of movies and storytelling. 

Forrest Gump gets a lot of shit, too, because by comparison to Pulp, it seems like a slight piece of pop entertainment, hardly worthy of being even uttered in the same sentence. But take a step back and remember that Gump was a phenomenon, and it is one of the most intricately and expertly crafted movies of all time, despite whether you agree with its socio-politics or its place on the Academy's pedestal.

1994 was so good that movies like Quiz Show and The Shawshank Redemption didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of bringing home the trophy, and they are both fantastic movies, ones that may have won the Award in any of the two or three years before and after. In fact, you have to give the Academy credit for recognizing Shawshank, a box office flop that would only gain its current cult status a few years later when it caught on via home video. The Academy looks eerily prescient here. So what do we have left?

Great movies that could have been considered:
  • The Lion King (Dirs.: Roger Allers, Rob Minkoff)
  • Ed Wood (Dir. Tim Burton)
  • Heavenly Creatures (Dir. Peter Jackson)
  • Exotica (Dir. Atom Egoyan)
  • The Last Seduction (Dir. John Dahl)
  • Hoop Dreams (Dir. Steve James)
And this is, again, where the problem lies: after The Lion King, which wouldn't be unprecedented, as Beauty and the Beast had been nominated for Best Pic a few years prior, things start to thin out a bit after Ed Wood. The last four mentioned above are all, in my opinion, superior films, but they don't quite meet the Academy's criteria in most ways.

The only real turd in the punch bowl of 1994's actual nominees was Four Weddings and a Funeral, which is fine, but pales horribly in comparison to the other four nominees. The Academy really did get four of the five best films of the year. So....

The 20/20 Hindsight Nominees:
  • Forrest Gump 
  • The Lion King
  • Pulp Fiction
  • Quiz Show 
  • The Shawshank Redemption (WINNER)
I know Pulp Fiction would get the nod from most cinephiles, and it's a landmark movie, don't get me wrong. But once you get past the non-linear storytelling, it doesn't hold up quite as well as hoped. Shawshank, on the other hand, is nearly flawless, and absolutely holds up after dozens of repeated viewings.

And I'm also not saying that The Lion King is a superior film; in a lot of ways it is the kind of movie Disney would have come up with in a focus group. But when you think 1994, you think Lion King more than you think Four Weddings. Also, I think Four Weddings kind of sucks.

I'm not saying these are necessarily THE five best movies of '94, but they are a good survey, twenty years later, of what the year was about.

And finally....

2004 ACADEMY AWARDS (77th Annual)

The Actual Nominees:
  • Million Dollar Baby (Dir.: Clint Eastwood) (WINNER)
  • The Aviator (Dir.: Martin Scorsese)
  • Finding Neverland (Dir.: Marc Forster)
  • Ray (Dir.: Taylor Hackford)
  • Sideways (Dir.: Alexander Payne)
Let's get this out of the way: The Aviator and Ray have no business being on this list, whatsoever. The Aviator is an interesting, dynamic film about another tortured genius, but as a film it's far too unfocused and flawed to be considered one of the five best films of the year. Ray is just an extremely mediocre film, with Jamie Foxx doing an impressive parlor trick for 90 minutes; Ray's inclusion here is an abomination.

There were quite a few movies I liked from 2004, but wouldn't probably be on Oscar's radar, such as Palindromes, Collateral, Garden State, Layer Cake, Mysterious Skin, Friday Night Lights, A Love Song for Bobby Long and The Woodsman. So that leaves a few candidates that could have possibly been in the mix.

Great movies that could have been considered:
  • Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Dir.: Michel Gondry)
  • Vera Drake (Dir.: Mike Leigh)
  • Closer (Dir.: Mike Nichols)
  • Bad Education (Dir.: Pedro Almodovar)
I am not as huge a fan of Eternal Sunshine as a lot of other people are, but it's about fifty times better than Ray. I think Vera Drake is a very underrated, wonderful little film. And Bad Education is criminally overlooked. Closer is basically an update of Nichols's own Carnal Knowledge -- one of the best play adaptations ever made -- three decades later. That said, here is my own list.

The 20/20 Hindsight Nominees:
  • Bad Education
  • Finding Neverland
  • Million Dollar Baby
  • Sideways (WINNER)
  • Vera Drake 
I make no bones about my love for Sideways, and although Million Dollar Baby is a fine film, it doesn't hold up nearly as well against the inexorable march of time as Sideways does.

I am looking forward to going back through the rest of the last fifty-or-so years, decade by decade, to correct the Academy's mistakes. I have a feeling that, unlike the Grammys, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences generally get it almost right. There haven't been too many egregious, "bad" films on any of these lists. (Although get ready for the year 2000, with a movie whose name sounds an awful lot like the type of confection that a candy bar is made of.)

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Kill the Penny!

In 2010, it costs about $0.0167 to make a penny.

The question is this: why in God's name are we still making pennies? At that rate of return, don't you think it's about time we just stop making them?

The government is constantly trying to save money; why not start here? If we are saving 67 cents for every penny we DON'T create, isn't that going to be a financial windfall, given the number of pennies created each year? If the number of pennies we make are in the 1-2 billion range, how much would we be saving by not making them?

I'm not saying we have to stop making them altogether, but maybe take 2011 off and see how it goes?

Have you ever run out of pennies? Ever? Have you ever needed pennies and not been able to find any? Do you ever look in your pocket and say, "I wish I had more pennies"?

Of course not, because they are everywhere. Getting pennies back is like jury duty: it's great in theory but it's just annoying when it finally comes your way.

It costs so much to make a penny because it has become so devalued. It's not worth much now, and it wasn't worth much 20 years ago. What makes you think it's going to be worth ANYTHING 20 years from now?

Why don't we slowly start phasing the penny out? (I'm obviously not the first person to come up with this idea.) Instead of getting pennies back, you can get a 1cent postage stamp, or a stick of gum, or a thumbtack or a band-aid or SOMETHING.

Most banks don't even accept rolls of pennies anymore. How is that even legal?

I'd even be willing to compromise with a 2-cent piece. You can even keep Lincoln's face on it. I'm guessing that most people wouldn't mind getting only $0.02 back in change when they are owed $0.03. That is how worthless the penny has become in our current currency.

Show me one real world item that is worth a penny. One practical equivalent that you could purchase for a penny.

That's right, there isn't one. We don't have penny candies anymore. Hell, I get annoyed by nickels, pennies are five times more annoying.

The worst part of this is that with all these pennies scattered across the globe -- and so many of those forgotten, lost or discarded -- we are probably losing millions of dollars a year in couch cushions alone. It is cluttering up an already cluttered world, and for what. So if you can accumulate five of them you can almost have enough for a small coffee creamer?

Just get rid of the damn thing. It's about time.

Friday, May 22, 2009

R.I.P. Dane Cook

No, he's not actually dead, but my love for him certainly is. It seems that early on, you fell into one of two camps: either "Dane Cook is the Greatest Comedian That Has Ever Lived In This or Any Era," or "Dane Cook is a Fucking Piece of Shit Who Only Is Popular Because of College Co-Eds." I was somewhere between these two frames of mind, in that I always found him funny, but I could tell there was trouble a-brewin'.

[Note: I'm noticing that I'm referring to Dane Cook as "Dane" throughout this post, as if I know him. I don't know him, but referring to him as "Cook" is probably even more douchey.]

Dane Cook's first album -- Harmful If Swallowed -- was an unexpected masterpiece of observational humor and unusual wordplay. He would mine mundane situations for universal nod-your-head-in-agreement truths, such was what everyone says when they get cut off on the highway ("Umm... hello???") and when you are standing around at the scene of a night-time accident (where everybody acts like they are cold). It had some profanity and some bawdy moments, but they were always within the context of his observations. It was a real charmer of an album because not that many people knew who he was back then, and you could introduce someone to it without looking like you were already on some kind of bandwagon.

His second release, a double album called Retaliation, was very entertaining, if imperfect. Everyone remembers "somebody shit on the coats" line, and there is enough laugh-out-loud material on this one to be considered a good buy. Interestingly, the second disc is a lot of dirty stuff, notably the "where's the handle" portion, which is amusing but incredibly filthy.

At this point, you were solidly pro-Dane or anti-Dane. And it seemed that reactions on both sides were wayyy over the top. There are people who refuse to acknowledge that there has been a single funny syllable that has ever fallen from his lips. Note some comments on Dane from his entry at RateYourMusic.com:
There are 24 tracks on this CD but where are the jokes? This is nothing more than some pretty boy comic talking about his everyday boring life in a room full of people that would laugh at anything. ... HIFS was the comedy album that rotated a lot in many various kiddy circles when it came out. Who didn't listen to this? But come on, this guy was a sham. I really hope that no one over the age of twenty actually bought into this stuff and laughed, because it is all very stupid. ... Dane Cook is NOT FUNNY. Seriously. I was heavy into stand up so i got Wright, Carlin, Hicks and Hedberg. ... I could listen to this all the way through without even cracking a smile. I would only do that to prove a point. After the point was proven, I would never listen to this unfunny shit ever again.

Okay first off, don't get me started about these hipster fucks who constantly cite George Carlin and Mitch Hedberg. Carlin hasn't been funny in two decades; in fact his funeral was probably funnier than his last ten albums. And Hedberg had a brilliantly brief streak as the "hot" comic, but by the end of his young life he was so drugged out that he could barely perform. Joe Piscopo had more longevity than poor Mitch.

But you can't tell me that you never laughed at Dane Cook. I just don't buy it. I feel that these people probably had a pre-conceived notion about Dane and that probably colored their reaction to his comedy. Not your thing? Fair enough. I find it very hard to believe you never found him funny once.

The flip-side to that is the equally irritating Cult of Dane, which basically amounts to a collection of college age girls (all due respect young ladies) who wouldn't know Bob Newhart from Jim "The Anvil" Neidhardt, and suddenly are experts on the History of American Comedy. These are the people who scream at Dane's every concert ... you know, rather than actually laughing. God forbid Dane would throw out one of his catchphrases, you'd think you were at a fucking Jonas Brothers concert.

I never really blamed Dane himself for this; why wouldn't he try to get the crowd as amped up as he could. (David Cross certainly knows what's up!) And it wasn't his fault that (what I thought was) his relatively smart humor was being co-opted by a bunch of neophytes who just thought he was hot.

Dane's HBO special, Vicious Circle, wasn't bad, but it seemed that he couldn't help but fall victim to believing the accolades. He might have been drafted into the Cult of Dane, but now he was the willing ringleader. (Think: Gaius Baltar, fellow nerds.)

A few months ago, I was very excited to hear his album Rough Around the Edges on a trip from Syracuse to Rochester. I laughed for one track ("15 cents") and the rest was sex-laden material that would have sounded better coming from Jimmy Norton than Dane Cook. It was a crushing disappointment.

Later, I heard a radio interview with Dane, where the interviewer said Dane had been called "an X-rated Brian Regan," and whether Dane took that as a compliment. (If you don't know who Brian Regan is, he truly is the greatest comedian that's ever lived, next to maybe Bob Newhart and 1980s David Letterman.) Dane said "No, I don't take that as a compliment." And while he didn't insult Regan, he said it in a very dismissive way, almost like saying "Don't even compare Brian Regan to ME." He lost me for good there.

And that brings me to his latest special, ISolated INcident, a concert shot in one take and presented commercial-free for its debut. While it wasn't patently awful, it was just not that interesting. Dane went for a lot of the sexed-up humor that he's been using as a crutch lately (I had gravitated to him early on because he found a way to transcend that kind of stuff), including extended passages about web porn (not a single titter from me) and countless references to sexual exploits. It's not like I'm a prude, folks, I just don't find that kinda stuff interesting.

But the worst, new part of Dane's new act is the self-referentiality. In this special, he makes reference to his parents that died (which is fine), but then talks about how he Googled himself and saw all this hatred on the internet. (One funny thing: "When I entered my name into Google, Google came back to me and said 'Are you sure?'") But rather than acknowledge the myriad, valid reasons that some people might dislike him (his ego, the change in direction of his humor), he seems to chalk it all up to jealousy over his success. Instead, I would hope that Dane might figure out that maybe he strayed a bit from his roots. If someone had gotten to Adam Sandler early on, maybe we'd have more Billy Madisons and Happy Gilmores, and less Wedding Singers, Big Daddys and Little Nickys.

Early on, Dane had a kind of humility that any good comedian needs to have. The second a comic starts taking himself too seriously is when he will start to lose his luster. (See: Piscopo, Joe; Carrey, Jim; Murphy, Eddie; Degeneres, Ellen (since rehabbed).) I would love to see Dane act less like a superstar and more like a dumbass comic with flaws and vulnerability. When you are handsome (and suddenly buff, holy shit!), a little self-deprication goes a long way, and until he finds it again, I'm off the Dane Train.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Biiiitch Pleeeease

It took a little longer than I thought for the privileged, assholish movement of the so-called "left wing" to rear it's queer head. I used to be indifferent about Perez Hilton, and now I hope this no-talent shitdick dies in a bucket of AIDS.





I am all for gay marriage and would be completely against any kind of constitutional amendment against it. But this attention-seeking disease-receptacle is the reason that people in the United States hate gays. And Perez Hilton trying to teach people about "state vs. federal" would be laughable if it were funny at all.

The left-wing took a big hit today courtesy of a fascist who actually said he supports things that are "politically correct."

Go sketch some more drawings of ejaculate and penises on celebrities' faces like the good stereotype you are Perez. Gay marriage is now probably further away than it was this time last week. Hope you're happy.

Monday, April 13, 2009

Marshall Blathers

I had a discussion the other day with a dear, dear friend about Eminem, and his value as a rapper and as a musician. She finds him to be great, I countered with the argument that I always have, which is that his being white has a lot to do with his popularity. (If G. Rap Giancana and Pharaohe Monch were white boys, they would have been on the cover of Rolling Stone years ago.)

So anyway, Eminem released a new video, and here it is. (By the way Em, quit being a bitch and disabling embedding of your videos):

I liked it the first two times I saw it, when it was called "My Name Is" and "The Real Slim Shady." Once again, Marshall decides that he wants to be "controversial," directing his ire this time toward such ripe targets as Brett Michaels, Sarah Palin, Amy Winehouse, Jessica Simpson and other personalities that were edgy fodder a year and a half ago. There is a "Jailhouse Rock" parody and a "Star Trek" spoof! Was this video directed by Weird Al? (May his name be praised.)

Not only does the song kind of blow, it shows Em at his most desperate.

There are two sides to Eminem: the serious martyr side, and the goofy celebrity-hating side. When he was a younger rapper in the mid-1990s, he was a pretty typical freestyle battler. He would show up on mixtapes every once in a while to drop a few hot verses, but his freestyles were seldom better than anything from Big L or Madd Skillz. But with a little help from Dr. Dre, he got enough exposure to become arguably the most well-known rapper of the decade. (Apologize to Kanye and Lil Weezy.)

But the song with which he broke through was a crude -- if clever -- harangue against basically anyone who was popular at the time. He speaks of having mammary-related relations with Pamela Anderson (Lee at the time), impregnating Spice Girls and stapling his high school English teacher's scrotum to his leg. This apparently was the "Slim Shady" persona that we were all supposed to find naughty and incorrigible!

Given the novelty nature of this first single, Eminem by all rights should have been relegated to the nerd-rap category next to MC Paul Barman. But Em did a smart thing and immediately positioned himself as not just a nasally blonde jokester, but rather as a tortured and self-reflective storyteller. He ceded his cartoony voice for one of deep rage on songs such as "The Way I Am" and "Stan." In these songs, the pressure of overnight success clearly has gotten to him, driving him and his fans to extreme measures. Ironically, he blames the same media that contributed to his meteoric rise for his torment at that time.

To me, it's this Eminem (is it the "real Marshall Mathers"?) that is the most tiresome. Not only is there something terribly annoying about the meta-nature of rappers making videos for MTV about how the media gives them no respect, but this Eminem is humorless, not clever and woefully uninteresting to me. The delusions of persecution -- whether by Eminem, Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern -- are disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst. Personalities like this thrive on being seen as dangerous, and use it as a bullet-proof shield against any criticism; basically someone can put out a bullshit album, and when the media takes a dump on it, the artist will say that people are "haters" and are out to get them. It's all very phony and annoying.

So usually, when Em comes back to the fanciful whimsy of celebrity-skewering, it's a guilty pleasure. But this one is just so lazy. He talks about Kim Kardashian's fanny (that's American "fanny," not British "fanny"), Lindsay Lohan's lesbianism, Ellen and Portia, and even John Mayer (he whom, although it seems everyone thinks is a douche, actually seems kind of like a relatively cool guy to me). There is no insight here that you wouldn't already find in a Perez Hilton post, and no target that he would have to be afraid would bite back. (Em has yet to talk smack about anyone with any kind of rhetorical savvy.) Even the video is subpar, substituting extravagance, porn stars and special effects for satire.

So I fear that Eminem has leaped above the proverbial shark, and if this is what he's become, we may have already seen his best days. It's too bad, really, because there was a time that he was at least interesting, even if just sporadically so.

UPDATE:

I came across an article at Passion of the Weiss, where he ranks the 10 best rappers of all time. They are listed as such, with my own approval/disapproval:

[Note: missing are Sage Francis, LMNO, Brother Ali, Sole (kinda), Sixtoo and yes, MC Paul Barman, who is kind of annoying, but you can't deny the multi-syllabic technique.]
10. Eyedea (yes, he looks like Eric Devendorf, but he's probably the best battle MC of the bunch)
09. Cage (possibly)
08. 3rd Bass (MC Serch yes, Pete Nice no)
07. The Beastie Boys (no, no and hell no)
06. Slug from Atmosphere (terrible freestyler, decent studio rapper, makes a heck of a song)
05. The Streets (no, but I'm not really into that UK Grime stuff; still he's cool as hell)
04. Edan (fuuuuuuck yes)
03. Aesop Rock (good sweet lord yes, probably should be #1; the only guy out right now whose lyrics actually give me chills)
02. Eminem (for technique, I'd probably put him top 10, but my reservations are listed above)
01. El-P (there is no better lyrical display by anyone of any race than Funcrusher Plus)

Don't believe what Rolling Stone and Spin tell you, babies. Let Unkie Herb lead you in the right direction.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Short Circuit

Among the carnage of the recent economic meltdown was Circuit City, a company that is a model for how not to run a business on a macro AND micro scale.

First, the macro. In the late 1990s, Circuit City launched a new movie format called DIVX/Digital Video Express. The way it worked was that you could rent a movie, and from the time you started it, you had 48 hours to watch it. Afterward, it would become unplayable. But it wouldn't play in a regular DVD player: you had to buy a specific DIVX player. The format was owned by Circuit City, but they were not exactly forthcoming about their new format. They presented it as a compatible service to DVD, and not a competing format.

Eventually, internet chatrooms caught hold of the scam and, in a grassroots effort, started sites like FightDivx.com, which played a part in the format's demise around 1999. (They lost $114M on DIVX.)

But the company was known for all sorts of underhanded tactics. Lots of examples are available. Circuit City had to pay the state of New Jersey over $170,000 in a class action suit over false advertising.

In California, the unfortunately named Muammer Gonlugur, an employee of Circuit City, successfully sued the company for unfair arbitration practices. It doesn't sound sexy, but reading the court document is to read the very definition of predatory hiring.

Basically, the way Circuit City treats their employees makes Wal-Mart look like Wegmans.

My own experience with Circuit City wasn't horrifying or really that memorable. But it was indicative of how they do did business. It was Christmas 1998, and I wanted to buy my dad a portable CD player for Christmas. (This was the Christmas after college when I was living back at home and wasn't paying rent so I had money to burn for the first time ever.)

I saw an ad in the paper selling portable CD players for $39.99 (at the time that was a bargain-basement price), and it was a brand name. So I ran to Circuit City. When I got there asking for the cheap players, oh surprise, they were all out. But, if you're still interested, we have a few more players over here you can look at. Long story short, I walked out of Circuit City with a wonderful portable CD player -- for $119.99. A classic bait and switch, and I fell for it. But after the buyer's remorse I felt, I stopped blaming myself and started blaming Circuit City for luring me in.

The more I read about them throughout the years, the less surprised I got. And now they are reaping what they sowed. They chose the quick buck instead of earning their customers' trust.

And so if there is anything positive about the tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs, it's that maybe the next business that comes along to fill Circuit City's empty spaces will be one of integrity and honesty.

And if not, they, like MCI/WorldCom and Enron before them, will collapse into rubble as well. Here's to the demise of shitty business!

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Olney in New York!

Dear Buster Olney,

Stop being such a fucking baby.

So Joe Torre writes a book (with your own colleague Tom Verducci, no less) and whoops pow surprise! It turns out that Brian Cashman is a company man and A-Rod is a faggot. What a shock.

You think everyone didn't already know that A-Rod is a prima donna shitdick who cares more about P.R. (and I don't mean Puerto Rico, folks) than about whether his team wins or not? Did you think he was fooling anyone with his "I want to be a Yankee" friend-of-the-workingman shit? Just because Torre confirmed it doesn't mean that everyone didn't already know.


So Torre had "the scowl," as you call it, where he would chastise yellow journalists for bringing up sensational stories in press conferences. What the fuck did you expect him to do? Openly comment on these kinds of stories when he is still the manager of the team? And did you expect him to have any loyalty to Cashman or the organization after the way they unceremoniously booted his ass?

Maybe in your feeble little Yankee-lovin' mind, this is going to go down in infamy as Torre's own "I'm not here to talk about the past" moment if he doesn't fess up to writing all this stuff. But you have to remember one thing.

THE REST OF THE FUCKING COUNTRY DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE YANKEES AS MUCH AS YOU DO, BUSTER.

And maybe if you left your fucking cubicle once in a while, you might realize that there are more things out there in the world than the Yankees. And sorry, not every book written about the Yankees can be a sanctifying ode, like your own book The Last Night of the Yankee Dynasty, in which you swoon over "[Derek] Jeter's confidence, [Paul] O'Neill's intensity, [Tim] Raines' humor, [Joe] Girardi's professionalism."

And why do you give your boy Verducci a pass? You mention several times in the article that he wrote the words, but that Torre had to sign off on it. Why not chastise him for allowing his good name to be sullied by such depraved dreck?

Sorry Torre shitted on your squad, Buster, but he was only reinforcing what everbody ALREADY KNEW. You love the Yankees, you feel personally hurt by Torre's words ... we get it. How dare someone spit in the face of Yankee Universe?!?

Quit crying like a baggy-eyed little fruit and be a man, you fucking nerd.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Oscar? I Barely Know'er!

There are two things I love above all others: wasting time and making spreadsheets. I found a way to kill two proverbial birds with one hypothetical stone, by combining these with the Academy Awards.

There are cynics among you who will say that the Oscars are pointless, and that awards should not be given out for art. I kind of agree with the latter part, but as for the Oscars themselves ... well yes, they are pointless. But I like to go into them relatively well-informed. This will not be one of those years, being that I've seen about 3 movies this year, none of which will be considered for the Academy Award.

Why has your humble cineaste fallen so behind in his moviegoing? Well, going to the movies is on the expensive side, and it's hard to find someone to go with me. Also, let's face it, for the most part in the last 5 years or so, movies have ... well, completely sucked ass.

Gone is the scintillating era of the mid-1990s, where even Pulp Fiction ripoffs were fun and exciting. (And if you have to copy a movie, I'd rather have they do it with Pulp Fiction than these goddamn Sons of Saw III.) From about 1989 to about 1998, there was a torrent of innovative and well-crafted films, that also happened to be popular. Look at the list: Boogie Nights, Fargo, L.A. Confidential, sex lies & videotape, GoodFellas, The Usual Suspects, Glengarry Glen Ross, just to name a few. While not perfect, these films were a testament to storytelling innovation, outstanding dialogue, and most importantly, SUBTEXT.

Subtext is sorely lacking in modern cinema. We have movies like Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Million Dollar Baby, Babel, and Ray (again examples) that bat you over the noggin with exactly what they want you to know about their movies. They don't challenge like they once did. And even when the films of the 1990s were not challenging you with their meanings, they were usually challenging you in other ways, such as structure and conflicted characters.

Right now we are in a period that is similar to the 1979 to 1987 period in cinema, where precious little interesting or innovative films were being made. It's why we are seeing two major phenomena: big-time movie actors having their films go straight -- or at least very quickly -- to DVD (Nicholas Cage, Samuel L. Jackson, Al Pacino, Matthew McConaughey); and established movie actors going to TV (Laurence Fishburne, Tim Roth, Kyra Sedgwick, Gary Sinese, Alec Baldwin).

For the latter, it's not that actors are slumming it; they are smart. TV is better now than it's probably ever been, and movies are at their nadir. So why wouldn't an actor get a job with steady work on shows that are far better written than most of the movie crap that comes out. Compare the writing of shows like "The Wire," "The Sopranos" (even with all its flaws), "30 Rock," "The Office," "Mad Men," "Battlestar Galactica" and the like to Uwe Boll's latest reel of cinematic excrement.

Anyway, that is all neither here nor there. Since movies have been so shitty lately, I have naturally become nostalgic for the last two decades of films, waiting for the next great wave of moviemakers to come along. And I'm going to do something rather revolutionary. I am going to correctly predict all five of the Academy Award Nominees this year, before they are announced.

There is a methodology to my madness, and it is this: every Academy Award nominee of the last 20 ceremonies fall into one of ten categories. They are...

  1. Feel-Good Movie:
  2. This is a movie that has a happy, uplifting ending. It forces you to leave the theater with a grin on your grill and a song in your heart. (Examples: It Could Happen To You, Muriel's Wedding, A Christmas Story, It's a Wonderful Life.)

  3. Quirky:
  4. It's a little offbeat, and a little strange. It might have weird camera angles, wacky characters or some kind of goofy voiceover. It is usually slightly funny, often in a twisted or macabre way. (Examples: Spanking the Monkey, Buffalo '66, Barton Fink, Boogie Nights, Citizen Ruth, Harold and Maude, Fight Club.)

  5. Period Piece:
  6. No, it's not about a teenage girl, it's a movie that takes place in a different time, and sometimes in a different country. It harkens back to a more romantic era, and is usually hinged upon a romance. (Examples: Chinatown, Amadeus, Avalon, Ragtime, The Great Gatsby)

  7. "Message" Film: 
  8. It tells gives you a lesson at the end, hopefully one you will take with you when you leave theater. Sure it entertains you, but it also makes you think!!!! Often takes the shape of a courtroom drama. (Examples: 12 Angry Men, To Kill A Mockingbird, Judgment at Nuremberg, The Long Walk Home, The Best Years of Our Lives, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.)

  9. Liberal Agenda:
  10. Different from a message film in that it pushes forth a liberal agenda, rather than one of universal truth. Not always strictly liberal; sometimes just hippy-ish. (Examples: The Contender, A Few Good Men, The American President, Coming Home, Easy Rider, The Ghosts of Mississippi, Dances With Wolves, Amistad, The Cider House Rules.)

  11. Epic:
  12. By definition, longer than two-and-a-half hours, but often with the scope of several years or decades. (Examples: Lawrence of Arabia, Gone With the Wind, Heaven's Gate, The Godfather.)

  13. Inspirational:
  14. Makes you want to stand up and cheer for he who faced the odds and beat them! (Examples: The Shawshank Redemption, My Left Foot, The Pianist, Hotel Rwanda, A Beautiful Mind.)

  15. Weepie:
  16. If you walk out of this one without a tear in your eye, you haven't a heart in your chest. (Examples: The Color Purple, Old Yeller, Love Story, City Lights, Sophie's Choice, Kramer vs. Kramer.)

  17. Gritty:
  18. Raw, sometimes violent. Doesn't blink or let you off the hook. (Examples: GoodFellas, Narc, Saving Private Ryan, Reservoir Dogs, Se7en, Mean Streets, American History X, Requiem for a Dream.)

  19. Surprise Hit:
  20. This is a movie that no one expected to be this good or this popular, and therefore warrants a spot on the list. (Examples: Pirates of the Carribean, Moulin Rouge, The Sixth Sense, Babe, Little Miss Sunshine.)

Now, if you are interested in how the last 20 Oscar races have come out, HERE IS THE SPREADSHEET. It breaks each of the five nominees down into their categories -- and sometimes more than one -- for 1988-2007. That is 20 years of research. The numbers don't lie!

But based on that, here are what the five Oscar nominees WILL BE this year:

  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (aka the Epic/The Weepie)
  • Frost/Nixon (aka the Period Piece)
  • Revolutionary Road (aka the Message Movie/Period Piece)
  • Slumdog Millionaire (aka the Surprise Hit/Feel-Good Movie)
  • Vicki Cristina Barcelona (aka the Quirky Comedy)

This WILL BE the list. Mark it down now and bet the house on it.

[UPDATE:

Wow, I blew that one. Three out of Five (The Reader and Milk instead of Vicki Cristina and Revolution Road.) But I'll get 4/5 next year. Write it down and bet the house on it!]

Monday, January 05, 2009

2008 Media Recap

A rundown of my media consumption this year...don't worry it's for posterity charity


    Best Albums I Discovered (didn't necessarily come out in '08):
  • Shearwater - "Palo Santo" and "Rook" - Dense, heavy folk music
  • Bon Iver - "For Emma, Forever Ago" - Folky folks music
  • Nerina Pallot - "Fires" - Great voice, catchy piano pop
  • Stephen Malkmus - "Real Emotional Trash" - His best non-Pavement album ... except for "Pig Lib."
  • MGMT - "Oracular Spectacular" - I first heard of them in 2007, but never thought they'd get big.
  • Vampire Weekend - "Vampire Weekend" - I was late to jump on this train but it's a very good album.
  • Panic at the Disco - "Pretty. Odd" - Not at all the type of album I'd like, but yet I did. What is happening to me?!
  • Fleet Foxes - "Fleet Foxes"
  • Tobacco - "F**ked Up Friends"
  • Oh No - "Exodus into Unheard Rhythms" (2006) - Hip Hop in a time capsule from 1993.
  • Switches - "Lay Down the Law"

    Best Shows:
  • The Sarah Silverman Program
  • Battlestar Galactica
  • 30 Rock (although the 2008-09 season has started a little lackluster)
  • The Venture Brothers (it's from a few years ago but it's probably the densest and most culturally-savvy show since the Simpsons)
  • It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (I finally got caught up and it's great)
  • The Colbert Report
  • Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father - devestating, mesmerizing
  • Summer Heights High - The UK version of The Office directed by Christopher Guest

    Best Movies:
  • The Dark Night
  • Iron Man
  • My Winnipeg
  • Tropic Thunder (for the first half hour or so)
  • Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
  • The Prestige - I know it came out in 2006, but I've been a little behind. It's one of the best mystery films I've ever seen. Ever. Seriously.
  • The Bourne Ultimatum - I thought the other two Bourne movies were just okay, this one kicked some serious ass.
  • Manufacturing Dissent - the best documentary out there exposing the fraud that is Michael Moore
    (it was a seriously weak year for movies)

    Two concerts I went to:
  • Iron & Wine in Buffalo; Glen Hansard in Massachussetts

    Biggest Disappointments:
  • Ben Folds' "Way To Normal" - All the things that have irked me about his songs the last few years have culminated into this steaming pile of shit.

  • The Foot Fist Way - Indie cinema is dead, and if it's not, I will now have to kill it after this sporadically funny but ultimately sloppy farce.

  • The Wire, Season 5 - It was still good -- still the best show on TV, in fact -- but it was the weakest season of the series; the "serial killer" angle was something out of a bad Al Pacino crime procedural.

  • From the Earth To the Moon - yes the 1998 Tom Hanks NASA miniseries. Some episodes were pretty good, some really boring (especially the one with the device of a filmmaker following everyone around), but ultimately it was just a TV movie. I don't know what I expected, just something a little better I guess.

  • The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - It was a great concept and pretty interesting at times, but ultimately it suffered from the same aimlessness that has plagued French cinema for decades.

  • Amy Poehler on SNL - She is just not all that funny, and her Hillary Clinton impression -- though iconic -- sounds absolutely nothing like Frau Cankles herself.

  • Dane Cook "Rough Around the Edges" - the first chink in the Dane Train's armor; too dirty, too inside and just not funny enough. With this and his shitty movies, we may be seeing an epic shark-jump.

    Websites:
  • Deadspin - Not as much as I used to since I don't read it at work anymore, but it's still the best place to find the "comedy pyramid"
  • Politico, Talking Points Memo, Five Thirty Eight, RealClearPolitics, Wonkette, Pollster.com and just about any other left-leaning website in the universe this past year.
  • BeerAdvocate
  • BeerJanglin'! - naturally...
  • Google Reader - now all my unhealthy obsessions in one easy-to-read interface!
  • MP3Sale dot are-you. We'll keep it our own dirty little secret.
  • Last.fm and Pandora - since I am too lazy to read about music and need someone who will tell me what to like.
  • Wikipedia - the best site in the history of the internet, errors be damned!

    Odds and Ends:
  • Hard N Phirm - the "Pi" song is a corker
  • Tori Schulman from "Movie Up"
  • "Firefly" the TV series and its movie follow-up "Serenity"
  • POTUS '08 on XM Radio - my obsession for about 10 months until Election day
  • The Vice Presidential Debate - the epic battle between the MILF and the Mouth
  • Brian Regan's "The Epitome of Hyperbole" - finally a TV special that captures the genius of the greatest stand-up comic of our time
  • Rock Band and Rock Band 2 - don't drink the haterade, it's a real hoot.
  • Opie and Anthony and Li'l Jimmy Norton - outside of their Jill Nicolini phase, they did some great stuff this year. FRUNKIS! It's still my go-to radio show, even though I get Howard now too.
  • Giants beating New England in the Super Bowl. What a wonderful wonderful moment in human history. Of course, no one in the LIBERAL MEDIAL will mention that in three consecutive seasons the Patriots have a) blown an 18-point lead to lose the AFC Championship, b) blown a perfect record to lose the Super Bowl and c) missed the playoffs (yeah yeah, I know Brady was out, cry my a river). Choke much, Bill Belicheat?


So there you have it, 365 days of me sitting on my ass. Hope you enjoyed it.

Friday, October 03, 2008

Biden-Palin Debate Notes

A couple initial thoughts about the Biden-Palin debate...

  • Palin did not have the Garth Algar in "Wayne's World" or Albert Brooks in "Broadcast News" moment that I thought she would have. She didn't collapse, and she didn't freeze up like a deer in the headlights. But after the initial round about the economy -- in which she did fairly well -- she didn't say anything of substance or significance. She used a bunch of generic platitudes: freedom, maverick, government-for-the-people. She came off very confident and competent, but if you read a transcript of what she actually SAID, she was very generic. Still, kudos to her for not dying out there.

  • Having said that, Biden wiped the floor with this woman on the issues. He might not have the "you betcha" populist charm that Palin has, but he was 1000% more sound on specifics than Palin was. He was confident, affable and not at all arrogant or condescending. (Even though I think he should have exposed her a little more for the fraud she is.) His moment where he mentioned losing his wife and baby daughter and not knowing if his child was going to make it was sincere ... not at all contrived or scripted. I played a drinking game with myself that I would take a sip whenever Biden said "change" or "literally" (two words he does overuse). But I could have been a Baptist preacher given the number of times he blurted those out.

  • CNN had a bunch of stuff happening on their HD screens. First, there was a chart at the bottom of the screen that looks like a heart meter that told how men and women in the state of Ohio thought about each particular point being made -- negative or positive. Forget the fact that Ohio voted for Bush two elections in a row, and therefore should have all their electoral votes called into question, it's very distracting to hear a bunch of Wole-Marts moms-n-dads giving their instant feedback to any given piece of information that the VP candidates are saying. Also, on the HD feed, there were running polls by the pundits, giving pluses and minuses for every moment, much like the show "Around the Horn" on ESPN. It was super-distracting.

  • Gwen Ifill was absolutely terrible. She skipped around and didn't give equal time for each one to answer. There were times that I would have loved to have had Biden respond to something Palin said, and other times it would have been great to get Palin's perspective. But Ifill just stuck to her script and didn't allow for the spontenaity that Jim Lehrer had encouraged just 6 days prior.

  • NBC's Brian Williams had three people on a panel for post-debate spin. He had Peggy Noonan -- a former Ronald Regan speechwriter, gee, I wonder who she preferred -- a middle-of-the-road person from NPR (who gave the only worthwhile perspective), and the worthless Jane Swift, former governor of Massachussetts, who was glowing in her talking-points-heavy praise of Palin. If people like Swift, Romney, Pataki, Palin, Schwartzenegger, Ventura and Jeb Bush are any indication, apparently it's not that hard to be the governor of a state. This analysis was worthless. Can we just kill the "spin" that goes on in this country? On both sides? Spin is the reason we no longer have "truth" but only "differing perspectives." I miss truth.

  • I don't think this is going to save McCain. I think that unless something HUGE happens (such as Obama accidentally burning down an orphanage), he is going to take this election. He has the glow around him.

  • I am so annoyed with people confusing "uneducated" with "folksy." Just because you are simple and don't have the "curiosity" gene, does not make you simply "regular folk." We should not be rewarding "regular guys" by voting them into office. We have had a "regular guy" president for eight years and it has been a disaster. Let's not say that since someone didn't get any fancy book-learnin' that they should somehow be confused with salt-of-the-earth regular people. Ignorance is ignorance; stop making excuses for people -- not just Palin, but all people -- who are uneducated but try to pass it off as simply having "small town values." Enough of that shit.

This won't really change the game much, but it was pretty interesting. Palin didn't fall flat on her face, but read the transcript: she really didn't say much other than a lot of hollow catch-phrases. Read this knee-jerk poll to show that it didn't really move anyone either way. The more I've been reading about this, the more I am convinced that Palin actually did more harm than good by being the talking points candidate, and showing her disregard for minutiae.

We shall see....

UPDATE:

See any similarities?


UPDATE II:

Enjoyed this from today's Wonkette.

Thursday, September 04, 2008

Picks 2008 - Football is Here!

I rounded up a bunch of my friends to make football predictions. In February, we'll come back and revisit these picks and see who knows about football! Here we go!

AFC East Champ
Danny, My Original College Friend: New England
EJ, My First Hispanic Roommate: New England
Bill, Me: Buffalo just kidding, New England
Cunningham, My Football Buddy and Second Tallest Friend: New England
Dunford, Nicest Guy Alive: New England
Toastie, My Cuddliest Friend: New England
Jitter, My Tallest Friend and Rabble-Rouser: New England
Mike (f/k/a Beach Justice), My Favorite Brother: New England
Willie, Cocksman: New England
Javen, Professional Beerjangler: Buffalo!

AFC North Champ
Danny: Pittsburgh
EJ: Pittsburgh
Bill: Cleveland
Cunningham: Pittsburgh
Dunford: Pittsburgh
Toastie: Cleveland
Jitter: Pittsburgh
Mike: Pittsburgh
Willie: Cleveland
Javen: Pittsburgh

AFC South Champ
Danny: Indianapolis
EJ: Indianapolis
Bill: Jacksonville
Cunningham: Indianapolis
Dunford: Jacksonville
Toastie: Jacksonville
Jitter: Jacksonville
Mike: Indianapolis
Willie: Indianapolis
Javen: Indianapolis

AFC West Champ
Danny: San Diego
EJ: San Diego
Bill: San Diego
Cunningham: San Diego
Dunford: San Diego
Toastie: San Diego
Jitter: San Diego
Mike: San Diego
Willie: San Diego
Javen: San Diego

AFC Wild Card teams
Danny: Jacksonville, Houston
EJ: Kansas City, NY Jets
Bill: Pittsburgh, Indianapolis
Cunningham: Jacksonville, Denver
Dunford: Indianapolis, Buffalo
Toastie: Indianapolis, Houston
Jitter: Indianapolis, NY Jets
Mike: Buffalo, Jacksonville
Willie: Jacksonville, Pittsburgh
Javen: Cleveland, Jacksonville


NFC East Champ
Danny: Dallas
EJ: NY Giants
Bill: Dallas
Cunningham: Dallas
Dunford: Dallas
Toastie: NY Giants (fuckin' Kevin Boss baby!)
Jitter: Philadelphia
Mike: Philadelphia
Willie: Dallas
Javen: Dallas

NFC North Champ
Danny: Minnesota
EJ: Minnesota
Bill: Chicago
Cunningham: Minnesota
Dunford: Minnesota
Toastie: (do I really have to pick one?) Minnesota
Jitter: Minnesota
Mike: Minnesota
Willie: Minnesota
Javen: Minnesota

NFC South Champ
Danny: New Orleans
EJ: New Orleans
Bill: Tampa Bay
Cunningham: New Orleans
Dunford: New Orleans
Toastie: New Orleans (you know why)
Jitter: New Orleans
Mike: New Orleans
Willie: New Orleans
Javen: New Orleans

NFC West Champ
Danny: Seattle
EJ: Arizona
Bill: Seattle
Cunningham: Seattle
Dunford: Seattle
Toastie: Arizona (the mighty Cardinal, cuz the little fella has a big heart, plus the season preview from deadspin was hilarious)
Jitter: Seattle
Mike: Seattle
Willie: Seattle
Javen: Seattle

NFC Wild Card teams
Danny: Philadelphia, NY Giants
EJ: Dallas, Chicago
Bill: Philadelphia, New Orleans
Cunningham: Philadelphia, Green Bay
Dunford: Carolina, Arizona
Toastie: Washington, DE-troit
Jitter: Dallas, St. Louis
Mike: Dallas, Arizona
Willie: Philadelphia, Carolina
Javen: Philadelphia, Green Bay


AFC Champion
Danny: San Diego
EJ: Indianapolis
Bill: New England
Cunningham: New England
Dunford: San Diego
Toastie: Indianapolis
Jitter: Jacksonville
Mike: Patriots
Willie: San Diego (over Jacksonville)
Javen: Pittsburgh

NFC Champion
Danny: Seattle
EJ: Dallas
Bill: Dallas
Cunningham: Dallas
Dunford: Dallas
Toastie: New Orleans
Jitter: Philadelphia
Mike: New Orleans
Willie: New Orleans (over Dallas)
Javen: New Orleans

Super Bowl Champion
Danny: San Diego
EJ: Indianapolis
Bill: Dallas
Cunningham: New England
Dunford: San Diego
Toastie: Indianapolis
Jitter: Philadelphia
Mike: New England
Willie: San Diego, 38-23
Javen: New Orleans


(Bonuses)
MVP
Danny: Tony Romo, DAL
EJ: Peyton Manning, IND
Bill: LaDainian Tomlinson, S.D.
Cunningham: L. Tomlinson, S.D.
Dunford: Tony Romo, DAL
Toastie: Adrian Peterson, MIN
Jitter: Brian Westbrook, PHI
Mike: Tom Brady, N.E.
Willie: L. Tomlinson, S.D.
Javen: pass

Offensive Player of the Year
Danny: Tony Romo, DAL
EJ: L. Tomlinson, S.D.
Bill: Adrian Peterson, MIN
Cunningham: L. Tomlinson, S.D.
Dunford: L. Tomlinson, S.D.
Toastie: Kevin Boss Drew "D.Breesy" Brees, N.O.
Jitter: Brian Westbrook, PHI
Mike: Tom Brady, N.E.
Willie: L.Tomlinson/Drew Brees
Javen: Drew Brees, N.O.

Defensive Player of the Year
Danny: Antonio Cromartie, S.D.
EJ: Derrick Johnson, K.C.
Bill: Lofa Tatupu, SEA
Cunningham: Dwight Freeney, IND
Dunford: Jared Allen, MIN
Toastie: DeMeco Ryans, HOU
Jitter: Mario Williams, HOU
Mike: Patrick Willis, S.F.
Willie: Mario Williams, HOU/Julius Peppers, CAR
Javen: Patrick Willis, S.F.

Coach of the Year
Danny: Norv Turner, S.D.
EJ: Tony Dungy, IND
Bill: Ken Whisenhunt, ARI
Cunningham: Tony Dungy, IND
Dunford: Jack Del Rio, JAC
Toastie: Sean Payton, N.O.
Jitter: Jack Del Rio, JAC
Mike: Richard Jauron, BUF
Willie: Romeo Crennel, CLE / Brad Childress, MIN
Javen: Dick Jauron

Offensive Rookie of the Year
Danny: Chris Jones, SEA
EJ: Donnie Avery, STL
Bill: Darren McFadden, OAK
Cunningham: Darren McFadden, OAK
Dunford: Jonathan Stewart, CAR
Toastie: Kevin Smith, DET
Jitter: Kevin Smith, DET
Mike: Dustin Keller, NYJ
Willie: Matt Ryan, ATL
Javen: Matt Forté, CHI / Matt Ryan, ATL

Defensive Rookie of the Year
Danny: Derrick Harvey, JAC
EJ: Glenn Dorsey, K.C.
Bill: Domanique Rodgers-Cromartie, ARI
Cunningham: Glenn Dorsey, K.C.
Dunford: Leodis McKelvin, BUF
Toastie: Glenn Dorsey, K.C.
Jitter: Glenn Dorsey, K.C.
Mike: Dominique Rodgers-Cromarti, ARI
Willie: Vernon Gholston, NYJ / Chris Long, STL
Javen: Chris Long, STL


Passing Leader (yds)
Danny: Carson Palmer, CIN
EJ: Tom Brady, N.E.
Bill: Drew Brees, NO
Cunningham: Tony Romo, DAL
Dunford: Tony Romo, DAL
Toastie: Peyton Manning, IND
Jitter: Tom Brady, N.E.
Mike: Drew Brees, N.O.
Willie: Drew Brees/Peyton Manning
Javen: Drew Brees, N.O.

Rushing Leader (yds)
Danny: Adrian Peterson, MIN
EJ: Adrian Peterson, MIN
Bill: Adrian Peterson, MIN
Cunningham: Adrian Peterson, MIN
Dunford: L. Tomlinson, S.D.
Toastie: Adrian Peterson, MIN
Jitter: Adrian Peterson, MIN
Mike: L. Tomlinson, S.D.
Willie: L.Tomlinson/A.Peterson
Javen: Adrian Peterson, MIN

Receiving Leader (yds)
Danny: Larry Fitzgerald, ARI
EJ: Randy Moss, N.E.
Bill: Randy Moss, N.E.
Cunningham: Terrell Owens, DAL
Dunford: Braylon Edwards, CLE
Toastie: Andre Johnson, HOU
Jitter: Reggie Wayne, IND
Mike: Randy Moss, N.E.
Willie: Braylon Edwards/Torry Holt
Javen: Larry Fitzgerald, ARI

Sack leader:
Danny: Mario Williams, HOU
EJ: Jared Allen, MIN
Bill: Mario Williams, HOU
Cunningham: Shaun Phillips, S.D.
Dunford: Jared Allen, MIN
Toastie: Justin Tuck, NYG
Jitter: Mario Williams, HOU
Mike: Mario Williams, HOU
Willie: Mario Williams, HOU
Javen: Justin Tuck, NYG

AFC Sleeper Team
Danny: Houston
EJ: Kansas City (their defense is going to grab them a couple upset wins)
Bill: Buffalo
Cunningham: Buffalo
Dunford: Buffalo
Toastie: Houston
Jitter: Baltimore
Mike: Buffalo
Willie: Houston
Javen: Buffalo

NFC Sleeper Team
Danny: New Orleans
EJ: Dallas (Romo in '08)
Bill: Detroit
Cunningham: Atlanta
Dunford: Arizona
Toastie: Arizona
Jitter: St. Louis
Mike: Arizona
Willie: Washington
Javen: Carolina


Write 'em down in case the internet crashes!