I had about as good a long weekend as a Washington Redskins fan staring at a 5-11 season could have.
What an excrutiatingly painful way for the Cowboys to exit. One can only hope that they will bring Terrell Owens back and that Parcells will have had enough.
Oh, and it looks like we finally settled that arguement about who is truly deserving of being called the second best college football team this year--that would be The Ohio State Buckeyes.
Plus, Campbell won its conference home opener in double overtime. Go fighting Camels.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Two Kinds of Movie Reviews I Despise
With the turnover of the year, I usually read more film reviews than usual in anticipation of finding some quality films on top ten lists to see. I've noticed the growth of two types of non-review/reviews that irritate the heck out of me.
1) The "This movie stunk/I wasn't much impressed and someone convince me otherwise" review. Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy. Sets up reviewer as arbitrer with the final word and depends on people who like the film to actually do analysis which can then either be cherrypicked or rejected without counterargument. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Did I mention this was lazy?
2) The "this movie is either great or horrible, but I won't say which because I don't want to influence people who will decide for themselves or get into an argument with people who are wrong...did I say wrong...well, you and I reader know which--great or horrible--it is, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, but we just won't go on the record until there is a consensus upon which we can rest" review. Gutless, gutless, gutless, gutless.
Other than that, I enjoy reading most reviews, even if I don't agree with the take or estimation. I've even "gasp" been known to change my mind in the face of a good analysis.
Any other types of review templates irritate you?
1) The "This movie stunk/I wasn't much impressed and someone convince me otherwise" review. Lazy, lazy, lazy, lazy. Sets up reviewer as arbitrer with the final word and depends on people who like the film to actually do analysis which can then either be cherrypicked or rejected without counterargument. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
Did I mention this was lazy?
2) The "this movie is either great or horrible, but I won't say which because I don't want to influence people who will decide for themselves or get into an argument with people who are wrong...did I say wrong...well, you and I reader know which--great or horrible--it is, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, but we just won't go on the record until there is a consensus upon which we can rest" review. Gutless, gutless, gutless, gutless.
Other than that, I enjoy reading most reviews, even if I don't agree with the take or estimation. I've even "gasp" been known to change my mind in the face of a good analysis.
Any other types of review templates irritate you?
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (2006)
After not much activity for awhile, I feel like I've had a spate of reviews recently. Just filed my review of Tom Twyker's latest at Christian Spotlight on Entertainment.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
The Queen (2006)
Finally saw this today, and I liked it quite a bit. Mirren is all that and the bag of proverbial chips, and I appreciated the way she showed nuanced and controlled emotion where a less accomplished actress might simply go for one note stoicism punctuated by a single, actorly break to signal (without conveying) hidden depths.
I did have a reservation, about which I'm struggling.
On the one hand, I felt like the film committed one of my pet peeves, which was too much underlining, underscoring, or repeating that seemed more for the benefit of the easily bored (or less perceptive) than I like. I'm thinking of the first scene with the buck, replete with tears and dialogue (along the lines of "oh you beautiful thing") that was superfluous; the sort of emotionally intrusive musical soundtrack to create the illusion of emotion that one associates with mainstream, commercial film; not one but three expository speeches from Tony Blair--the "when you get it wrong, you get it really wrong" speech to the aide, followed by the speech to the wife, followed by parts of the postscript scene with the queen; not one but three or four cards on the flowers followed by a reference to the cards on the flowers in the postscript exchange.
On the other hand, a part of me said, "This whole film is about making concessions to the hoi poloi, about having to do violence to oneself and one's ideals so that one's meaning can be received more easily (and lazily) by a mass who isn't sufficiently attuned to or appreciative of one's artistry or performance. For that reason, I thought, "well, maybe those scenes are supposed to grate and in doing so to help you forge an emotional connection with the queen from the inside rather than just as an observer.
My wife's response to that comment was, "Well, that's a nifty spin, hopefully if that wasn't the intent, one of the publicists could come up with it in defending the film." I'm slightly less cynical, and have enough reader-response in my blood that if the film works for me on that frequency, it doesn't exactly matter if that was Frear's motivation for crafting it that way. Sometimes there are fortuitous accidents or results, especially in art that is created through a longer process. It may, for example, have been for non-thematic reasons, that we never see the kids directly, but the effect of their omission coupled with all the rhetoric about protecting them and doing what is best for them informed my response to her character that rippled through the other relationships and parts of the film.
Even within that line of thinking, I really disliked the postscript, but I think fading to black after the archival film of Diana looking at the camera after the funeral session would have been construed as too cynical and left me with a sour taste in my mouth.
I thought Alex Jennings gave a nice performance as Charles, too. What a pill. Hard to do that role without making him come across as a blithering idiot and, hence, totally unsympathetic.
I did have a reservation, about which I'm struggling.
On the one hand, I felt like the film committed one of my pet peeves, which was too much underlining, underscoring, or repeating that seemed more for the benefit of the easily bored (or less perceptive) than I like. I'm thinking of the first scene with the buck, replete with tears and dialogue (along the lines of "oh you beautiful thing") that was superfluous; the sort of emotionally intrusive musical soundtrack to create the illusion of emotion that one associates with mainstream, commercial film; not one but three expository speeches from Tony Blair--the "when you get it wrong, you get it really wrong" speech to the aide, followed by the speech to the wife, followed by parts of the postscript scene with the queen; not one but three or four cards on the flowers followed by a reference to the cards on the flowers in the postscript exchange.
On the other hand, a part of me said, "This whole film is about making concessions to the hoi poloi, about having to do violence to oneself and one's ideals so that one's meaning can be received more easily (and lazily) by a mass who isn't sufficiently attuned to or appreciative of one's artistry or performance. For that reason, I thought, "well, maybe those scenes are supposed to grate and in doing so to help you forge an emotional connection with the queen from the inside rather than just as an observer.
My wife's response to that comment was, "Well, that's a nifty spin, hopefully if that wasn't the intent, one of the publicists could come up with it in defending the film." I'm slightly less cynical, and have enough reader-response in my blood that if the film works for me on that frequency, it doesn't exactly matter if that was Frear's motivation for crafting it that way. Sometimes there are fortuitous accidents or results, especially in art that is created through a longer process. It may, for example, have been for non-thematic reasons, that we never see the kids directly, but the effect of their omission coupled with all the rhetoric about protecting them and doing what is best for them informed my response to her character that rippled through the other relationships and parts of the film.
Even within that line of thinking, I really disliked the postscript, but I think fading to black after the archival film of Diana looking at the camera after the funeral session would have been construed as too cynical and left me with a sour taste in my mouth.
I thought Alex Jennings gave a nice performance as Charles, too. What a pill. Hard to do that role without making him come across as a blithering idiot and, hence, totally unsympathetic.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Have a tentative date with the spouse to see the midnight show of Rocky Horror Picture Show tomorrow.
I've never seen this "cult classic." Any suggestions about how to calibrate my expectations or what to do to enhance the experience? I'm sort of approaching it as a cultural anthopological experience, but I'm not above actually trying to enjoy the experience.
Any tips for a RHPS newbie?
I've never seen this "cult classic." Any suggestions about how to calibrate my expectations or what to do to enhance the experience? I'm sort of approaching it as a cultural anthopological experience, but I'm not above actually trying to enjoy the experience.
Any tips for a RHPS newbie?
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Army of Shadows (1969)
In her informative and englightening commentary track, Ginette Vincendeau describes Army of Shadows as demythologizing the resistance. (And, no, I'm not saying that particular description is an example of great insight, just using it as a starting point.)
One of the things I admire about the film is how it accomplishes that feat without being cynical. The film eschews, for the most part, spectacle, and its power doesn't come from the action set pieces we are weaned on and come to expect in genre films, set pieces so increasingly frequent that they have become divorced from any real, consequential meaning and hence don't really thrill so much as distract...but I digress.
The film is somber and filled with loneliness, yet it never seems self-conscious. In a short interview clip accompanying the DVD, director Jean-Pierre Melville talks of himself in somewhat self-deprecating terms, insisting that he is not special for having fought in the war. His affect comes across as neither coy nor angry, and it is this perspective that really distinguishes Army of Shadows, I think, from the films that mythologize war or resistance with insistnence on triumphal justifications or laments of martyrdom. (I'm thinking, for instance, of the ways in which Munich covers similar thematic ground but leaves the grating impression that its protagonists are unique for having been bent by environments not of their choosing and are thus somehow not just pitiable but heroic in their suffering.)
The closest recent studio film that I can think of that reminds me of Army of Shadows is not Munich, in fact, but Unforgiven. The latter, with its tone of introspective weariness, eschews violence but doesn't Romanticize damnation or self-castigation the way too many premature reminisces do. In a Summer filled with a wave of 9/11 films that felt suspiciously self-aggrandizingly martyristic (is that a word?) in their totality, it was strange to see this reminder of other worlds shattered, other lives disrupted.
I haven't said anything about plot, and I find it hard to speak of the film on that level. It is not plotless, but a narrative summary gives away plot points and connections between them best made by the viewer himself. Army of Shadows begins with a painful image of the Germans marching down the Champs d' Elysee and a speaker saying he will not flee painful memories because they are reminders of his youth. The (relative) retrospective distance allows the film to follow several members of the French resistance and the psychological as well as physical damage that the war inflicts upon them.
Everything and everyone seemed so remote in this film, and that, too, is strange for a war film. So often there is a fraternity amongst those who have seen combat or other rough times together, and the way that the necessities of the resistance robs these fighters of even that is strangely touching. Despite the omnipresent threat of death and one up-close-and-personal assault on a German soldier, the war itself, the rest of the world, seems remote, not a maguffin, surely, but not exactly an antagonist upon which all the moral and spiritual problems of the people in the world can be blamed, either. Normalcy--life without war--is even more remote, and these seem to hold a fear within them, especially in an early, brutal scene, that the change in circumstances for which they hope will not restore the ties they had to the world and others in it.
All of which makes Army of Shadows sound nihilistic and despairing. My central conundrum in thinking about the film is that I did not find it so, and yet I struggle to see a source of hope from within the film. There are things I bring to the film that make it possible for me to see the lives that are depicted as something other than wasted; I must think so, for I believe in one who knows the number of hairs on their heads. But that's my sensibility, not Phillipe Gerbier's.
Perhaps I see hope in the film's postscript, suggesting that we may not be able to escape our fate, but we can find dignity in how we accept it. Perhaps there is meaning simply in telling the truth, however painful, and a nobility in refusing to mythologize one's pain to make it more spritually palatable. Perhaps there is meaning in the small connections, touches, fleeting moments that fill the fringes and transitions of our lives (if not the bulk of them). Perhaps the film gives us a model for not mythologizing our own lives, for accepting the truth of Ecclesiastes that says:
Sow your seed in the morning,
and at evening let not your hands be idle,
for you do not know which will succeed,
whether this or that,
or whether both will do equally well. (11:6)
[For more on this film, see also John's write up at Gladsome Morning. And look for a (hopefully) more coherent discussion of the film next month at The Matthew'sHouse Project.]
One of the things I admire about the film is how it accomplishes that feat without being cynical. The film eschews, for the most part, spectacle, and its power doesn't come from the action set pieces we are weaned on and come to expect in genre films, set pieces so increasingly frequent that they have become divorced from any real, consequential meaning and hence don't really thrill so much as distract...but I digress.
The film is somber and filled with loneliness, yet it never seems self-conscious. In a short interview clip accompanying the DVD, director Jean-Pierre Melville talks of himself in somewhat self-deprecating terms, insisting that he is not special for having fought in the war. His affect comes across as neither coy nor angry, and it is this perspective that really distinguishes Army of Shadows, I think, from the films that mythologize war or resistance with insistnence on triumphal justifications or laments of martyrdom. (I'm thinking, for instance, of the ways in which Munich covers similar thematic ground but leaves the grating impression that its protagonists are unique for having been bent by environments not of their choosing and are thus somehow not just pitiable but heroic in their suffering.)
The closest recent studio film that I can think of that reminds me of Army of Shadows is not Munich, in fact, but Unforgiven. The latter, with its tone of introspective weariness, eschews violence but doesn't Romanticize damnation or self-castigation the way too many premature reminisces do. In a Summer filled with a wave of 9/11 films that felt suspiciously self-aggrandizingly martyristic (is that a word?) in their totality, it was strange to see this reminder of other worlds shattered, other lives disrupted.
I haven't said anything about plot, and I find it hard to speak of the film on that level. It is not plotless, but a narrative summary gives away plot points and connections between them best made by the viewer himself. Army of Shadows begins with a painful image of the Germans marching down the Champs d' Elysee and a speaker saying he will not flee painful memories because they are reminders of his youth. The (relative) retrospective distance allows the film to follow several members of the French resistance and the psychological as well as physical damage that the war inflicts upon them.
Everything and everyone seemed so remote in this film, and that, too, is strange for a war film. So often there is a fraternity amongst those who have seen combat or other rough times together, and the way that the necessities of the resistance robs these fighters of even that is strangely touching. Despite the omnipresent threat of death and one up-close-and-personal assault on a German soldier, the war itself, the rest of the world, seems remote, not a maguffin, surely, but not exactly an antagonist upon which all the moral and spiritual problems of the people in the world can be blamed, either. Normalcy--life without war--is even more remote, and these seem to hold a fear within them, especially in an early, brutal scene, that the change in circumstances for which they hope will not restore the ties they had to the world and others in it.
All of which makes Army of Shadows sound nihilistic and despairing. My central conundrum in thinking about the film is that I did not find it so, and yet I struggle to see a source of hope from within the film. There are things I bring to the film that make it possible for me to see the lives that are depicted as something other than wasted; I must think so, for I believe in one who knows the number of hairs on their heads. But that's my sensibility, not Phillipe Gerbier's.
Perhaps I see hope in the film's postscript, suggesting that we may not be able to escape our fate, but we can find dignity in how we accept it. Perhaps there is meaning simply in telling the truth, however painful, and a nobility in refusing to mythologize one's pain to make it more spritually palatable. Perhaps there is meaning in the small connections, touches, fleeting moments that fill the fringes and transitions of our lives (if not the bulk of them). Perhaps the film gives us a model for not mythologizing our own lives, for accepting the truth of Ecclesiastes that says:
Sow your seed in the morning,
and at evening let not your hands be idle,
for you do not know which will succeed,
whether this or that,
or whether both will do equally well. (11:6)
[For more on this film, see also John's write up at Gladsome Morning. And look for a (hopefully) more coherent discussion of the film next month at The Matthew'sHouse Project.]
Sunday, December 31, 2006
My 2007 Movie Resolution
Was browsing through Andrew Sarris's (editor) Interviews with Film Directors today and thinking that the interview with Antonioni would be more meaningful if I had recently seen Red Desert. That made me hit on an idea for my 2007 film project.
Sarris's compilation has 40 entries, from Antonioni to Orson Welles. I'll try to screen one film a week, whichever work is most prominently mentioned in the Interview and read that interview. Maybe even blog about it if appropriate.
I figure 40 is a nice number because if I miss a week from getting sick or something, it won't kill me, but it is enough to keep me going pretty regularly.
The first to entries are interviews with Michelangelo Antonioni and Ingmar Bergman. I couldn't find the Red Desert at either Netflix nor Amazon. There were some (pricey) tapes at Amazon, but I put a request in at cafedvd and am keeping an eye out on Ebay. The Bergman interview is from 1956, but it doesn't appear to focus on a particular film. Naked Night is mentioned, but that doesn't seem to be readily available either, so I moved Smiles of a Summer Night to the top of my Netflix queue, since it was the closest in proximity to the interview date that I could find.
The third entry is Robert Bresson and consists of an interview from Cannes about the Trial of Joan of Arc. Currently available through Amazon.com, but only for region zero. Will try to track down where and how I might be able to play that.
The fourth is Peter Brook, so I put Lord of the Flies on my Netflix and Blockbuster queues.
Well, I'm off to research region zero/PAL format.
Happy New Year to All.
Sarris's compilation has 40 entries, from Antonioni to Orson Welles. I'll try to screen one film a week, whichever work is most prominently mentioned in the Interview and read that interview. Maybe even blog about it if appropriate.
I figure 40 is a nice number because if I miss a week from getting sick or something, it won't kill me, but it is enough to keep me going pretty regularly.
The first to entries are interviews with Michelangelo Antonioni and Ingmar Bergman. I couldn't find the Red Desert at either Netflix nor Amazon. There were some (pricey) tapes at Amazon, but I put a request in at cafedvd and am keeping an eye out on Ebay. The Bergman interview is from 1956, but it doesn't appear to focus on a particular film. Naked Night is mentioned, but that doesn't seem to be readily available either, so I moved Smiles of a Summer Night to the top of my Netflix queue, since it was the closest in proximity to the interview date that I could find.
The third entry is Robert Bresson and consists of an interview from Cannes about the Trial of Joan of Arc. Currently available through Amazon.com, but only for region zero. Will try to track down where and how I might be able to play that.
The fourth is Peter Brook, so I put Lord of the Flies on my Netflix and Blockbuster queues.
Well, I'm off to research region zero/PAL format.
Happy New Year to All.
Favorite Theatrical Film Releases from 2006
My friend Ron Reed over at A&F asked me for a year's best list, and I'm not sure I can come up with 10. I hated this year in film. I mean, really, really hated it. Of the 50 notable films listed in Entertainment Weekly's Year End "Critical Mass" column, I think I saw 12, and one (V for Vendetta) was actually a 2005 release, I think.
So yeah, 2006 is the year I officially went off the deep end, jumped the shark, whatever. Anyone who wants to dismiss my list out of hand because of my increasingly eclectic viewing habits is welcome to do so, though of all the films I haven't seen from the last year, I can only really, seriously imagine that three (The Queen, Pan's Labyrinth, The Death of Mr. Lazarezcu) would have a serious shot at making me like them enough to deem them worthy of some meaningless honorific such as my best of list. Without further ado, then, here's what I liked from the year that I hated, and here's hoping 2007 has some better mainstream, narrative films that are worthwhile:
1) Shut Up and Sing
2) The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
3) An Inconvenient Truth
4) When the Levees Broke
5) Climates
6) Forgiving Dr. Mengele
7) Manufactured Landscapes
8) Requiem
9) Lake of Fire
10) Miami Vice
Put 3-9 in a bag and shake it up and they could come out in a different order on any given day. They were all films I appreciated but which I'm not sure I could rouse myself to champion would anyone else care to take exception.
I can't make a case for Pervert's Guide being a great film, but it was over three hours (I think), and I enjoyed every minute of it, which ain't nothing.
Miami Vice is on there not because it's a great film but because it was a horrible year for studio releases, it's Michael Mann, and I suspect, like Heat it may grow on me in time. I certainly would rather see if again another three times rather than having to sit through the island sequence of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I mean, really, you would have been happier if I had thrown in Who Killed the Electric Car?
Requiem fell a few notches the second time I saw it, but it is the sort of film that I'm still grappling with and could easily work its way back up in my estimation as easily as it could fall off such a list altogether.
The rerelease of Melville's Army of Shadows was also a favorite theatrical experience, but I always think of these sorts of lists as being reserved for new releases.
So yeah, 2006 is the year I officially went off the deep end, jumped the shark, whatever. Anyone who wants to dismiss my list out of hand because of my increasingly eclectic viewing habits is welcome to do so, though of all the films I haven't seen from the last year, I can only really, seriously imagine that three (The Queen, Pan's Labyrinth, The Death of Mr. Lazarezcu) would have a serious shot at making me like them enough to deem them worthy of some meaningless honorific such as my best of list. Without further ado, then, here's what I liked from the year that I hated, and here's hoping 2007 has some better mainstream, narrative films that are worthwhile:
1) Shut Up and Sing
2) The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
3) An Inconvenient Truth
4) When the Levees Broke
5) Climates
6) Forgiving Dr. Mengele
7) Manufactured Landscapes
8) Requiem
9) Lake of Fire
10) Miami Vice
Put 3-9 in a bag and shake it up and they could come out in a different order on any given day. They were all films I appreciated but which I'm not sure I could rouse myself to champion would anyone else care to take exception.
I can't make a case for Pervert's Guide being a great film, but it was over three hours (I think), and I enjoyed every minute of it, which ain't nothing.
Miami Vice is on there not because it's a great film but because it was a horrible year for studio releases, it's Michael Mann, and I suspect, like Heat it may grow on me in time. I certainly would rather see if again another three times rather than having to sit through the island sequence of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. I mean, really, you would have been happier if I had thrown in Who Killed the Electric Car?
Requiem fell a few notches the second time I saw it, but it is the sort of film that I'm still grappling with and could easily work its way back up in my estimation as easily as it could fall off such a list altogether.
The rerelease of Melville's Army of Shadows was also a favorite theatrical experience, but I always think of these sorts of lists as being reserved for new releases.
Note to Self: Practice More
One of these days I'm going to self publish one of those devotional books about the spiritual lessons learned through every day activities. You know, like "Everything I Needed to Know I Learned Playing Disc Golf."
Anyway, I know I should practice more. Sort of a protestant work ethic attached to all forms of recreation, but not just that. I enjoy just playing disc golf, but I enjoy being good at things, too. And being good requires an investment of time and energy into the disciplines that undergird the development of a skill.
That's a long way of saying, I threw a roller over 400 feet today. Yes, I threw four others, none of which went 85% of that distance, and it was on a field so open that my lack of accuracy wasn't an issue. I'm not consistent enough to throw a roller if I don't have to, and most often when I do, it goes off course.
But there's an untapped upside, clearly, that really should motivate me to work on making this a more viable part of my arsenal...
Assuming, you know, that getting better is a good thing.
Anyway, I know I should practice more. Sort of a protestant work ethic attached to all forms of recreation, but not just that. I enjoy just playing disc golf, but I enjoy being good at things, too. And being good requires an investment of time and energy into the disciplines that undergird the development of a skill.
That's a long way of saying, I threw a roller over 400 feet today. Yes, I threw four others, none of which went 85% of that distance, and it was on a field so open that my lack of accuracy wasn't an issue. I'm not consistent enough to throw a roller if I don't have to, and most often when I do, it goes off course.
But there's an untapped upside, clearly, that really should motivate me to work on making this a more viable part of my arsenal...
Assuming, you know, that getting better is a good thing.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
A Good Day
Today I...
had a seasonable December day that allowed me to play Disc Golf doubles at Buckhorn with my wife (and we shot a 54).
was captured by a cat for a morning nap on my lap.
received a DVD of Tarkovsky's Stalker in the mail as an early Christmas present.
had a home cooked meal of past and sausage seeped in Cranberry juice inspired by Rachel Ray's Iron Chef America episode.
had a nice Cianti with dinner.
played Boggle, and was soundly defeated. (Isn't the English prof supposed to beat the art prof at such games? Must have been the Cianti.)
was caputured by another cat for an evening nap while watching the Sopranos.
did a little bit of academic writing for a deadline that's not until February.
wrote a recommendation to graduate school for a worthy student.
Not a bad day, that.
had a seasonable December day that allowed me to play Disc Golf doubles at Buckhorn with my wife (and we shot a 54).
was captured by a cat for a morning nap on my lap.
received a DVD of Tarkovsky's Stalker in the mail as an early Christmas present.
had a home cooked meal of past and sausage seeped in Cranberry juice inspired by Rachel Ray's Iron Chef America episode.
had a nice Cianti with dinner.
played Boggle, and was soundly defeated. (Isn't the English prof supposed to beat the art prof at such games? Must have been the Cianti.)
was caputured by another cat for an evening nap while watching the Sopranos.
did a little bit of academic writing for a deadline that's not until February.
wrote a recommendation to graduate school for a worthy student.
Not a bad day, that.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Why is this film on Nobody's "Best of" List?
Just saw the first act of Spike Lee's When the Levees Broke.
I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, head and shoulders above the rest, best film of the year, but I'm suprised I haven't seen it mentioned on ANY lists that I've seen to date...it didn't garner a single vote in the documentary category at Indiewire, for instance.
I thought it played in Toronto to make it Oscar eligible, but even if it is not, there are plenty of lists that don't follow the same guidelines. I wonder if it is just the four hour run time that's kept everyone from seeing it, whether it's an anti-Spike thing, or whether people just didn't think it was good.
Everyone I know who has seen it speaks highly of it, though, so who knows?
I'm not saying it's a slam dunk, head and shoulders above the rest, best film of the year, but I'm suprised I haven't seen it mentioned on ANY lists that I've seen to date...it didn't garner a single vote in the documentary category at Indiewire, for instance.
I thought it played in Toronto to make it Oscar eligible, but even if it is not, there are plenty of lists that don't follow the same guidelines. I wonder if it is just the four hour run time that's kept everyone from seeing it, whether it's an anti-Spike thing, or whether people just didn't think it was good.
Everyone I know who has seen it speaks highly of it, though, so who knows?
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
I'm #326...
...if I read the PDGA webpage correctly, I think I'm the 326 rated Disc Golfer in the state of North Carolina! (226 among amateurs and behind the 100 registered pros.)
Now if there were only a Disc Golf/Euchre biathalon...
Now if there were only a Disc Golf/Euchre biathalon...
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Here's one way to help the environment...
...perhaps all the environmental PACs could stop sending me and my wife sheets of address labels when soliciting donations.
Just got back from a long weekend, and I found four different mailers soliciting donations, each with the requisite "gift" of address labels. One had a globe on them. Others had a leaf or something green.
I worked as a temp for a few months in 1988, and I had a long assignment at a PAC office. All it did was send out mailers (and petitions) and count the money that came in so that it could send out more mailers.
Total number of address labels received this weekend: 100+
Total donations made to each group making the "gifts": zero.
Just got back from a long weekend, and I found four different mailers soliciting donations, each with the requisite "gift" of address labels. One had a globe on them. Others had a leaf or something green.
I worked as a temp for a few months in 1988, and I had a long assignment at a PAC office. All it did was send out mailers (and petitions) and count the money that came in so that it could send out more mailers.
Total number of address labels received this weekend: 100+
Total donations made to each group making the "gifts": zero.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Riverfront Park: Augusta, GA
Well, I planned to play the new Championship caliber course at Wildwood today, but I decided to play Riverfront instead. It is a solid course, and a little closer to my skill level. I shot a 59 despite one out-of-bounds and the club score card actually has 56 as par (two holes are over 500 feet).
I played well enough, though there weren't too many birdie opportunities. I managed to practice my approach game, and I pretty much got up and down in two any time I was inside of 200 feet, excepting the one time I yanked my disc and went out of bounds. I met two locals who helped me find the tees and spot my disc, and they were very friendly. If this course had better signage (especially for the short tees I would like it better). I didn't mind playing the standard tees for this round, but if this were my home course, I'd want to mix it up a bit.
I played well enough, though there weren't too many birdie opportunities. I managed to practice my approach game, and I pretty much got up and down in two any time I was inside of 200 feet, excepting the one time I yanked my disc and went out of bounds. I met two locals who helped me find the tees and spot my disc, and they were very friendly. If this course had better signage (especially for the short tees I would like it better). I didn't mind playing the standard tees for this round, but if this were my home course, I'd want to mix it up a bit.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Hippodromed
So I just got back from 27 holes of disc golf on the course (but not the configuration) of last year's world championship. Needless to say, I'm one whupped pup.
The round started out well enough, I shot 29 on the first nine holes (10-18), but I got slaughtered on holes 19-27, taking a triple-circle eleven on the 600+ foot 27th. (A circle designates one or more strokes are penalties for going out of bounds or losing a disc).
I managed to recover a little on holes 1-9, even though the disc I lost was my primary driver (Sidewinder), and made a nice 20 footer for par to close out the round. I shot a 104, which isn't going to get any prizes even if they hadn't bumped me up to advanced since there were not enough Master (over 40) players, except at the pro level. That's about 3.8 strokes per hole, which I'm not ashamed of (especially given the 11, and at least 3 or 4 other Out of Bounds plays.
It was nice to play the course, even if I was in over my head.
The round started out well enough, I shot 29 on the first nine holes (10-18), but I got slaughtered on holes 19-27, taking a triple-circle eleven on the 600+ foot 27th. (A circle designates one or more strokes are penalties for going out of bounds or losing a disc).
I managed to recover a little on holes 1-9, even though the disc I lost was my primary driver (Sidewinder), and made a nice 20 footer for par to close out the round. I shot a 104, which isn't going to get any prizes even if they hadn't bumped me up to advanced since there were not enough Master (over 40) players, except at the pro level. That's about 3.8 strokes per hole, which I'm not ashamed of (especially given the 11, and at least 3 or 4 other Out of Bounds plays.
It was nice to play the course, even if I was in over my head.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Earlewood; Columbia, SC
The first time I played Earlewood, there was a steady rain, it was in the high 40s, I was playing a tournament, I had only retaken up the sport for about a year or so, and I was mostly driving with a beat up Leopard. I think I shot in the mid 60s, which seemed pretty good at the time, so I figured I must like the course.
I went back today on my way to tournament in Augusta, and I figure it is about 3/4 of the way there, so it is a good place to stop. Also, I haven't thrown a disc in over a week (finals, don'tcha know), and it might be a good idea to reacquaint my muscles' memory with what a drive feels like.
Earlewood always (okay, both times I've revisited it) ends up being harder than I remember. There are a lot of elevation changes and tough angles and trees. I get off to a bad start despite throwing a roller from an embankment to save a four on a 300+ foot hole, and a hammer to save bogey on another.
One thing that never works in golf is lowballing expectations, and I reflect that golf is a discipline in perpetual disatisfaction.
I probably should be happy that I shoot 31 on my last 10 holes, but all I can think about is going again. I decide not to, though. I've got 54 holes of World Championship course layout waiting for me tomorrow, and even on a disc golf vacation bender I know the difference between shaking the rust off and leaving it all on the practice field.
I went back today on my way to tournament in Augusta, and I figure it is about 3/4 of the way there, so it is a good place to stop. Also, I haven't thrown a disc in over a week (finals, don'tcha know), and it might be a good idea to reacquaint my muscles' memory with what a drive feels like.
Earlewood always (okay, both times I've revisited it) ends up being harder than I remember. There are a lot of elevation changes and tough angles and trees. I get off to a bad start despite throwing a roller from an embankment to save a four on a 300+ foot hole, and a hammer to save bogey on another.
One thing that never works in golf is lowballing expectations, and I reflect that golf is a discipline in perpetual disatisfaction.
I probably should be happy that I shoot 31 on my last 10 holes, but all I can think about is going again. I decide not to, though. I've got 54 holes of World Championship course layout waiting for me tomorrow, and even on a disc golf vacation bender I know the difference between shaking the rust off and leaving it all on the practice field.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
What is Hippodrome and Why Does it Scare Me?
I preregistered for the Hippodrome Winter Tournament, a PDGA sanctioned disc golf tournament taking place this weekend.
According to the invite/ad sent me, there will be 27 holes and the layout for one of the rounds will be the same as it was for the '06 World Championships. This year I moved to Advanced Masters division, and I'm usually near the bottom of the tournaments I play in, good enough to compete at the advanced level but not really at the same talent level...combine that with a championship course (read: looooooooong), the fact that the weather in Raleigh and final exams has kept me from regular practice, and I'm thinking I could get roughed up pretty bad this weekend.
But, hey, it's Christmas, and nothing says the semester is over and grading is done like a long road trip to play Disc Golf.
According to the invite/ad sent me, there will be 27 holes and the layout for one of the rounds will be the same as it was for the '06 World Championships. This year I moved to Advanced Masters division, and I'm usually near the bottom of the tournaments I play in, good enough to compete at the advanced level but not really at the same talent level...combine that with a championship course (read: looooooooong), the fact that the weather in Raleigh and final exams has kept me from regular practice, and I'm thinking I could get roughed up pretty bad this weekend.
But, hey, it's Christmas, and nothing says the semester is over and grading is done like a long road trip to play Disc Golf.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Infamous Review at Looking Closer
My latest review, of Douglas McGrath's Infamous, is now up at Looking Closer.
Friday, November 24, 2006
Blockbuster continues to shoot itself in the foot...
I adopted Netflix early, and most marketers will tell you that consumers are creatures of habit.
I've continually tried out Blockbuster's online service, though, and I'm always surprised that they have been so poor at utilizing their strengths over Netflix by failing to capitalize on the potential of online/live store synergy.
Sometimes I want a new release, and these are usually long wait online.
Sometimes I want a hard to find title, like, say, Kurosawa's Rhapsody in August.
So you would think that the new Total Access would be just up my alley. Blockbuster has advertised that you can return Online rentals to the store and get a free movie.
More importantly, given the "no late fees" fiasco and the price fluctuations, the problems with Mycokewards coupons not being honored, the on-line coupon reminders being sent to my inbox the wrong day, the way they advertised a coupon for a "free rental" then put in fine print that it was only for a week long rental (not a new release) unless you had particular online service, you would think they would pre-test the Total Access to get the bugs out of the system before going live.
Think again.
Depsite listing my first choices as "available," Blockbuster has consistently sent me films from the bottom half of my queue. When I went online, their help page said:
We review all "Available" titles in your queue, and determine which titles are available for 2-day shipping at your nearest distribution center(s). If the requested title is outside the 2-day shipping window, it will be skipped over for a title further on your list.
So, um, they will never send me the top item on my list as long as it is not in the nearest distribution center, no matter how long I've waited for it, if there is any other item on my list closer?
Who cares which movie I actually want, they need to be able to say, "x percent were delivered in 2 days or less." Psssh.
They are currrently reviewing this process in order to improve in this area.
I am currently back on the old reliable--Netflix.
You had a window to impress me with your new service, Blockbuster. Instead, it was same old, same old.
I've continually tried out Blockbuster's online service, though, and I'm always surprised that they have been so poor at utilizing their strengths over Netflix by failing to capitalize on the potential of online/live store synergy.
Sometimes I want a new release, and these are usually long wait online.
Sometimes I want a hard to find title, like, say, Kurosawa's Rhapsody in August.
So you would think that the new Total Access would be just up my alley. Blockbuster has advertised that you can return Online rentals to the store and get a free movie.
More importantly, given the "no late fees" fiasco and the price fluctuations, the problems with Mycokewards coupons not being honored, the on-line coupon reminders being sent to my inbox the wrong day, the way they advertised a coupon for a "free rental" then put in fine print that it was only for a week long rental (not a new release) unless you had particular online service, you would think they would pre-test the Total Access to get the bugs out of the system before going live.
Think again.
Depsite listing my first choices as "available," Blockbuster has consistently sent me films from the bottom half of my queue. When I went online, their help page said:
We review all "Available" titles in your queue, and determine which titles are available for 2-day shipping at your nearest distribution center(s). If the requested title is outside the 2-day shipping window, it will be skipped over for a title further on your list.
We understand this may be frustrating if you are waiting for a specific title that is continuously being skipped. We are currently reviewing this process in order to improve in this area. We appreciate your patience as we do this.
So, um, they will never send me the top item on my list as long as it is not in the nearest distribution center, no matter how long I've waited for it, if there is any other item on my list closer?
Who cares which movie I actually want, they need to be able to say, "x percent were delivered in 2 days or less." Psssh.
They are currrently reviewing this process in order to improve in this area.
I am currently back on the old reliable--Netflix.
You had a window to impress me with your new service, Blockbuster. Instead, it was same old, same old.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)