I hope this story is true. Not because it appears that the search of Congressman William Jefferson’s office was conducted properly, and not because it appears that the howls of protest from Congress about the search have no basis in fact, and not because – as the Professor notes – this “vigorous” reaction from Congress may mean that there’s more going on here than meets the eye.
No, I hope the story is true because it will mean that these three men – the highest ranking law enforcement officials in the country – possess something that seems to have disappeared from political discourse these days. Unlike the Mary McCarthy’s of the CIA, who prefer to stay in the shadows and leak classified information, or the retired Military Generals, who criticize the current administration’s handling of the war effort from the safety of their armchairs, without fear of personal consequences, these three men are putting their jobs publicly on the line for something they believe in.
And that means they possess something the rest of the political world could use a massive dose of right now. Integrity.
That’s why I hope this story is true.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Friday, May 19, 2006
Doom and Gloom
Things have been gloomy here for the past week - clouds and showers almost every day - and there appears to be no relief in sight until the middle of next week. May is such a treacherous month. It opens like a flower, soft and beautiful, welcoming you into its bosom after a long, hard winter (yes, I know spring is supposed to start in March but up here you take spring when you can get it) and just when you begin to relax and enjoy the warmth and the extra hours of sun, it snaps to like a Marine D.I. and yells, "Drop and give me twenty, you maggots!"
Twenty days of rain, that is. Luckily, we haven't had any flooding in the area but I understand that in parts of New Hampshire and Mass, the Ark business is picking up. Yesterday, we were given a brief respite as the sun came out for several hours. Of course, after the sun went down the clouds rolled back in and we had our first boomer of the season, with thunder and lightning so close it seemed like a scene from War of the Worlds.
Maybe God is protesting the opening of The Da Vinci Code.
Anyway, I have been trudging through the sog this last week house hunting and all in all, it's been pretty discouraging. We're currently in a duplex and after ten years of sharing a wall and all that goes with it (including cigarette smoke - apparently our landlord rents to smokers but only if they agree to smoke outside. So when they go outside and light up - especially in the spring and summer when all the windows are open - all the smoke floats up and drifts into our half of the building and, well, let me just say that if I wanted to live with a smoker, I'd live with a smoker, you know what I mean?) we would really like to have a free-standing house. Of course, we're not in a position to buy one - not with me being out of work and all - so we're looking to rent (and even that becomes somewhat problematical when the prospective landlord asks what you do for a living).
First of all, let me just say that Vermont takes a back seat to no one when it comes to overpriced housing - both rental and purchasing. Granted, the prices drop a bit as you leave the Champlain Valley but then you are faced with higher transportation costs and fewer amenities. Now, there is a school of thought that says that you're not really living in Vermont if you're living in anything larger than a town - the idea being, I guess, that civilization and Vermont are mutually exclusive terms - but that's a discussion for another post, I think. Ideally, I would like to live outside of the city but close enough to commute to it without major issues, especially in winter. Consequently, our search has encompassed an area up to twenty or thirty miles outside of Burlington proper.
In spite of that, we have found relatively few places that we feel we can both live in and afford. The price range has been from $1000 to over $2500 a month and I've been left wondering just what kind of work a person can do in this area to be able to afford $2000 or more a month for a rental. I'm trying to keep it under $1500 (which represents a 50% increase over what we're currently paying) and it hasn't been easy.
The other problem is that the whole business of renting a place has become such a dog and pony show. In order to qualify for a roof and four walls, you have to run through a gamut of credit checks, references, paystubs and blood samples. Okay, I'm kidding about the last one. I think. Now I understand if a landlord is going to give me the opportunity to trash his place, he has the right to know a little bit about me first. Personally, I think it ought to cut both ways but I seem to be in the minority on that. And when I look at the neighbors I've had to put up with for the last five years - all of whom seem to have come straight from Assholes Anonymous - it seems more than a little petty for a landlord to refuse me because I don't happen to have a job at the moment or because I was thirty days late on my car payment two years ago.
The truth is, as long as you pay your rent on time, it doesn't matter how many times your neighbor has to call 911 in order to get some sleep. Unless, of course, your neighbor is your landlord.
For the moment, each day is the same: check out the listings in the paper and compare with the listings online, call people to make appointments to go see places that look interesting, talk to real estate agents to see if they know of places that aren't being listed, and wait to hear back from people you've already spoken to and filled out applications for. Oh yeah, and at the same time, find a job. It's fun. Really.
One other thing to add to the mix - and you might want to stop reading at this point if you're in the middle of eating - I am currently undergoing my first physical in several years and I can tell you with utmost certainty that there are two words no one ever wants to hear in a doctor's office (or anywhere else, for that matter). Those words are (don't say I didn't warn you!) "Juicy" and "Hemorrhoid". When you add the word "Internal" and make the aforementioned noun plural, you have what I call JIHs, which I have been dealing with the treatment of for the past week. I'll spare you the bloody details and sum it up this way:
Ouch. To the nth degree.
Twenty days of rain, that is. Luckily, we haven't had any flooding in the area but I understand that in parts of New Hampshire and Mass, the Ark business is picking up. Yesterday, we were given a brief respite as the sun came out for several hours. Of course, after the sun went down the clouds rolled back in and we had our first boomer of the season, with thunder and lightning so close it seemed like a scene from War of the Worlds.
Maybe God is protesting the opening of The Da Vinci Code.
Anyway, I have been trudging through the sog this last week house hunting and all in all, it's been pretty discouraging. We're currently in a duplex and after ten years of sharing a wall and all that goes with it (including cigarette smoke - apparently our landlord rents to smokers but only if they agree to smoke outside. So when they go outside and light up - especially in the spring and summer when all the windows are open - all the smoke floats up and drifts into our half of the building and, well, let me just say that if I wanted to live with a smoker, I'd live with a smoker, you know what I mean?) we would really like to have a free-standing house. Of course, we're not in a position to buy one - not with me being out of work and all - so we're looking to rent (and even that becomes somewhat problematical when the prospective landlord asks what you do for a living).
First of all, let me just say that Vermont takes a back seat to no one when it comes to overpriced housing - both rental and purchasing. Granted, the prices drop a bit as you leave the Champlain Valley but then you are faced with higher transportation costs and fewer amenities. Now, there is a school of thought that says that you're not really living in Vermont if you're living in anything larger than a town - the idea being, I guess, that civilization and Vermont are mutually exclusive terms - but that's a discussion for another post, I think. Ideally, I would like to live outside of the city but close enough to commute to it without major issues, especially in winter. Consequently, our search has encompassed an area up to twenty or thirty miles outside of Burlington proper.
In spite of that, we have found relatively few places that we feel we can both live in and afford. The price range has been from $1000 to over $2500 a month and I've been left wondering just what kind of work a person can do in this area to be able to afford $2000 or more a month for a rental. I'm trying to keep it under $1500 (which represents a 50% increase over what we're currently paying) and it hasn't been easy.
The other problem is that the whole business of renting a place has become such a dog and pony show. In order to qualify for a roof and four walls, you have to run through a gamut of credit checks, references, paystubs and blood samples. Okay, I'm kidding about the last one. I think. Now I understand if a landlord is going to give me the opportunity to trash his place, he has the right to know a little bit about me first. Personally, I think it ought to cut both ways but I seem to be in the minority on that. And when I look at the neighbors I've had to put up with for the last five years - all of whom seem to have come straight from Assholes Anonymous - it seems more than a little petty for a landlord to refuse me because I don't happen to have a job at the moment or because I was thirty days late on my car payment two years ago.
The truth is, as long as you pay your rent on time, it doesn't matter how many times your neighbor has to call 911 in order to get some sleep. Unless, of course, your neighbor is your landlord.
For the moment, each day is the same: check out the listings in the paper and compare with the listings online, call people to make appointments to go see places that look interesting, talk to real estate agents to see if they know of places that aren't being listed, and wait to hear back from people you've already spoken to and filled out applications for. Oh yeah, and at the same time, find a job. It's fun. Really.
One other thing to add to the mix - and you might want to stop reading at this point if you're in the middle of eating - I am currently undergoing my first physical in several years and I can tell you with utmost certainty that there are two words no one ever wants to hear in a doctor's office (or anywhere else, for that matter). Those words are (don't say I didn't warn you!) "Juicy" and "Hemorrhoid". When you add the word "Internal" and make the aforementioned noun plural, you have what I call JIHs, which I have been dealing with the treatment of for the past week. I'll spare you the bloody details and sum it up this way:
Ouch. To the nth degree.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Data Mining
No, not the NSA program that's all over the news (and the blogosphere) today. This one is more personal and much more dangerous. (h/t The Bradlands and Rebecca Blood)
Creativity
I was reading a blurb on Paul Simon’s new album Surprise and was interested to learn that he does much of his songwriting in the car:
“…I like to drive, listen to music, and write. I like the nearness of the speakers and the solitude of the empty car. It's easier to improvise melody when the scenery is constantly changing and I'm not likely to drive anyone crazy playing the same song for an hour at a time.”
I can relate to this because I will often listen to the same CD (not the same song, thank God – that would probably drive even me crazy) over and over again, sometimes for weeks at a time and I think it does have something to do with the creative process. When I’m writing fiction, I prefer to have a completely benign environment, both internally and externally. If I’m going to be productive at all, I need to be able to put my mind in a place where I can concentrate on the task at hand, with no distractions or interruptions. This is often easier said than done.
Focusing on one, particular thing can be very difficult, especially when your mind has all the discipline of an ADD child off his meds. Let me insert here a quick confession of sorts: Writing, for me, is a lot like exercise. I always feel better for having done it, but I can’t say I always find the process itself enjoyable. Oh, it happens, of course. When I was writing my second novel, chunks of time just vanished while I was in the flow. Sadly, flow doesn’t show up as often as her cousin “ebb” and when ebb is at the wheel, writing is a painful and discouraging act.
So painful and discouraging, in fact, that it can be difficult to summon the energy to do it at all (hence my last post). Now, I’ve read enough books by and about writing to know that I’m not alone in this. If there’s one thing most writers seem to have in common it’s that we’re all first-class procrastinators. Like other writers, I’ve come up with myriad ways to get myself to write. One way that seems to work consistently is to offer myself a bribe of sorts.
I’ll tell myself that if I will only sit down in front of the computer – leaving email and the Internet alone, mind you – and leave just the faintest possibility open that I might actually, you know, write something (no pressure), then as a reward I can listen to the CD of my choice. The upshot of this, other than making me sound certifiably crazy, is that I will be sitting in front of the computer, listening to music. And at first, that’s all I’ll be doing. I may doodle a little, writing a few lines as things pop into my head. I may stare out the window while I listen. But always I keep coming back to the blank screen.
After it plays through once, I’ll turn it on again. If it’s morning, maybe I’ll grab another cup of coffee. Gradually, as time wears on, the music will switch from foreground to background and the words on the screen will start to take on the shape of whatever is percolating in my subconscious. It may take two or even three turns of the CD to do get me to this point and if this seems like a convoluted way to create the proper mood for me to write something, I won’t argue with you. I’m just telling you what works for me. If you’ve got a better method, then God bless.
The good news is that the next time I sit down to write – hopefully, the next day – the process doesn’t take as long to work. And pretty soon, if I continue to find the time to sit and write each day, the ritual becomes set and all I have to do is turn on the music and I’m gone. So when Paul Simon says that he likes to take a drive and create in the car while listening to the same song over and over, I’m right there, man. I can dig it.
Now if I can just figure out how he manages to drive the car and write at the same time.
“…I like to drive, listen to music, and write. I like the nearness of the speakers and the solitude of the empty car. It's easier to improvise melody when the scenery is constantly changing and I'm not likely to drive anyone crazy playing the same song for an hour at a time.”
I can relate to this because I will often listen to the same CD (not the same song, thank God – that would probably drive even me crazy) over and over again, sometimes for weeks at a time and I think it does have something to do with the creative process. When I’m writing fiction, I prefer to have a completely benign environment, both internally and externally. If I’m going to be productive at all, I need to be able to put my mind in a place where I can concentrate on the task at hand, with no distractions or interruptions. This is often easier said than done.
Focusing on one, particular thing can be very difficult, especially when your mind has all the discipline of an ADD child off his meds. Let me insert here a quick confession of sorts: Writing, for me, is a lot like exercise. I always feel better for having done it, but I can’t say I always find the process itself enjoyable. Oh, it happens, of course. When I was writing my second novel, chunks of time just vanished while I was in the flow. Sadly, flow doesn’t show up as often as her cousin “ebb” and when ebb is at the wheel, writing is a painful and discouraging act.
So painful and discouraging, in fact, that it can be difficult to summon the energy to do it at all (hence my last post). Now, I’ve read enough books by and about writing to know that I’m not alone in this. If there’s one thing most writers seem to have in common it’s that we’re all first-class procrastinators. Like other writers, I’ve come up with myriad ways to get myself to write. One way that seems to work consistently is to offer myself a bribe of sorts.
I’ll tell myself that if I will only sit down in front of the computer – leaving email and the Internet alone, mind you – and leave just the faintest possibility open that I might actually, you know, write something (no pressure), then as a reward I can listen to the CD of my choice. The upshot of this, other than making me sound certifiably crazy, is that I will be sitting in front of the computer, listening to music. And at first, that’s all I’ll be doing. I may doodle a little, writing a few lines as things pop into my head. I may stare out the window while I listen. But always I keep coming back to the blank screen.
After it plays through once, I’ll turn it on again. If it’s morning, maybe I’ll grab another cup of coffee. Gradually, as time wears on, the music will switch from foreground to background and the words on the screen will start to take on the shape of whatever is percolating in my subconscious. It may take two or even three turns of the CD to do get me to this point and if this seems like a convoluted way to create the proper mood for me to write something, I won’t argue with you. I’m just telling you what works for me. If you’ve got a better method, then God bless.
The good news is that the next time I sit down to write – hopefully, the next day – the process doesn’t take as long to work. And pretty soon, if I continue to find the time to sit and write each day, the ritual becomes set and all I have to do is turn on the music and I’m gone. So when Paul Simon says that he likes to take a drive and create in the car while listening to the same song over and over, I’m right there, man. I can dig it.
Now if I can just figure out how he manages to drive the car and write at the same time.
Quote of the Week
“Never be frightened by those you assume have more talent than you do, because in the end energy will prevail. My formula is: energy plus talent and you are a king; energy and no talent and you are still a prince; talent and no energy and you are a pauper.” -- Jeffrey Archer
This makes me wonder what the no talent and no energy formula would qualify you for: I would so like to know what my category is.
Okay. The Pity-Party is over. Back to work.
This makes me wonder what the no talent and no energy formula would qualify you for: I would so like to know what my category is.
Okay. The Pity-Party is over. Back to work.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Cultural Currency
Over at Roger Ebert's site, we find Cinepad's Jim Emerson and his list of the 102 movies you must see before you can be considered "movie-literate". I'm not sure I'd agree (where's LAGuy when you need him?) but since I've seen more than half the movies on his list, I guess you could consider me semi-literate. Here's the list. (h/t Rebecca Blood)
How many have you seen?
Yes, I know. I've been on a movie-posting kick. This will be the last one for awhile.
How many have you seen?
Yes, I know. I've been on a movie-posting kick. This will be the last one for awhile.
Endings
I watched this movie last night. It's the kind of movie I love, filled with twists and turns and noirish shades of good and evil. The reviews had been good, it had good people in it (having the next James Bond didn't hurt any) and I had been looking forward to seeing it.
And, all things considered, it lived up to my expectations. The story was great, filled with wonderful dialogue (although the English and the Irish sometimes tend to swallow their words so you have to listen closely or used subtitles, if you have them), lots of plot twists (some of them shocking and some a little confusing - you might have to watch it a couple of times to feel like you caught everything) and, as every noir film should have, a wonderfully dishy female.
All in all, the film was a wonderful ride and I enjoyed it immensely. Right up til the ending. Now, if you haven't seen the movie, I'm not going to give anything away (no spoilers!) but for me, the ending completely changed my feelings about it. Up til that point, this was a movie I wanted to own and watch again and again. And suddenly, it became one of those movies where you say "Okay, I've seen it and I liked it but I don't need to see it again".
Now, you want to hear something crazy? The ending is perfect. It's fully justified by the events of the story and it works beautifully; in a dark, convoluted movie like this one, it's a twist you should see coming but don't (or at least, I didn't). So why did it change everything for me?
Because it's not the ending I wanted.
In his wonderful book Adventures in the Screen Trade, William Goldman says rather succinctly, "Endings, frankly, are a bitch". In the same book, Paul Newman says that the last fifteen minutes are the most important in a movie, meaning, I think, that the ending ultimately determines whether you will or won't like a movie. Endings are what create good or bad word of mouth. In this case, my word of mouth would be to rent or watch it, if dark, noirish stuff is your kind of movie. And then I'd ask you to tell me what you thought. But you won't find it in my DVD case at home.
And maybe that says more about me than it does the movie.
And, all things considered, it lived up to my expectations. The story was great, filled with wonderful dialogue (although the English and the Irish sometimes tend to swallow their words so you have to listen closely or used subtitles, if you have them), lots of plot twists (some of them shocking and some a little confusing - you might have to watch it a couple of times to feel like you caught everything) and, as every noir film should have, a wonderfully dishy female.
All in all, the film was a wonderful ride and I enjoyed it immensely. Right up til the ending. Now, if you haven't seen the movie, I'm not going to give anything away (no spoilers!) but for me, the ending completely changed my feelings about it. Up til that point, this was a movie I wanted to own and watch again and again. And suddenly, it became one of those movies where you say "Okay, I've seen it and I liked it but I don't need to see it again".
Now, you want to hear something crazy? The ending is perfect. It's fully justified by the events of the story and it works beautifully; in a dark, convoluted movie like this one, it's a twist you should see coming but don't (or at least, I didn't). So why did it change everything for me?
Because it's not the ending I wanted.
In his wonderful book Adventures in the Screen Trade, William Goldman says rather succinctly, "Endings, frankly, are a bitch". In the same book, Paul Newman says that the last fifteen minutes are the most important in a movie, meaning, I think, that the ending ultimately determines whether you will or won't like a movie. Endings are what create good or bad word of mouth. In this case, my word of mouth would be to rent or watch it, if dark, noirish stuff is your kind of movie. And then I'd ask you to tell me what you thought. But you won't find it in my DVD case at home.
And maybe that says more about me than it does the movie.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Summer Flicks
Over at Pajama Guy, LAGuy is talking about movies (big surprise, right?) with, among other things, a look at the opening day's gross take for MI-III. With that in mind, let's look at some of the other big movies opening this summer and see what's expected of them. Both Premiere and EW have posted their prospective top ten's and they're both pretty interesting lists.
Premiere
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Superman Returns
Cars
X-Men: The Last Stand
MI-III
Over the Hedge
The DaVinci Code
Click
Miami Vice
You, Me and Dupree
EW
Superman Returns
MI-III
X-Men
Cars
The DaVinci Code
Pirates
Over the Hedge
Poseidon
The Break-Up
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
They also give projected grosses, which I know everyone in Hollywood cares about but I don't, so I'm not going to bother with those. Anyway, let's take a look at those lists for a moment. The first seven flicks are the same on both lists, although they're ranked differently. EW doesn't think Pirates is going to do as good as Premiere does and Premiere thinks that MI-III will do better than EW does and neither one of them are quite sure how well DaVinci will do but other than that, the first seven are pretty much locked in for both publications. After that is where it gets interesting.
Poseidon and Miami Vice are two well-known productions with huge budgets to recoup and big question marks attached. With Poseidon, the first question is “Why?” And well, okay, that’s also the second, third and fourth question, too. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a good answer. Maybe the producers are trying to recreate the perfect storm of the summer of ’72, when a war was raging and gas prices were soaring and people were into big disaster flicks but, personally, I wouldn’t bet on it.
As for Miami Vice, well, let’s hear what (creator) Michael Mann has to say about it: “The last thing I would have been interested in was just doing a remake,” he’s quoted as saying in EW. “We’re doing Miami Vice as if there never had been a television series, doing it real.” While I can understand why Mann would want to lose certain, um, aspects of the original series (there are a bunch of things about the ‘80’s I’d just as soon forget myself), is it possible to take a show that was so emblematic of its time and place and disregard much of what made it popular in the first place? Get ready for the Miami Vice you never knew and loved, sort of like an Oreo version of Bad Boys.
Two of the other flicks on the list (Click and Talladega Nights) are the latest comedies from two stars (Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell) that on paper, at least, seem to play to their strengths; in Click, Sandler finds a remote that allows him to change reality and in Nights, Ferrell plays an ace NASCAR driver who has to contend with a foreign Formula 1 driver crowding his territory. No doubt untold wackiness will ensue. Now, I have to be honest and admit that I'm not a big fan of low-brow comedy. Well, okay, that's not completely true, either. I loved Airplane and the first Scary Movie so maybe I just have to be in the right mood. And, interestingly enough, whenever Sandler or Ferrell are on the screen, I'm not - in the right mood, that is. Anyway, based solely on the blurbs in each magazine, I'll give Click the nod here. The writers did pretty well with Bruce Almighty and besides, any movie with Christopher Walken is always worth a try.
The last two movies are clearly reaches, like tenth round picks in the NFL draft. If either one pulls through then great, if not, well, that’s what tenth round picks are for. Both choices are directly the result of last year’s summer surprise, The Wedding Crashers. Call it the Owen Vaughn connection. Vince Vaughn was one of the stars of the aforementioned Wedding Crashers and he’s also one of the stars of The Break-Up, opposite his current (possibly) amour, Jennifer Aniston. Owen Wilson, also one of the stars of The Wedding Crashers, is starring in You, Me and Dupree, which sounds suspiciously like a Steely Dan song. The problem here is that Wilson and Vaughn are not starring the same movie so the producers are hoping that the two of them can strike lightning again, only this time separately. Will it happen? Again, I wouldn’t bet on it. There will, no doubt, be a couple of surprises this summer, but chalk these two up to William Goldman’s famous “Non-Recurring Phenomenon”.
So, what would I pick? Glad you asked.
First of all, I’m going to stick with the top seven picks of both magazines. Granted, there’s always the possibility that a movie outside the top seven may over-perform (or one of the seven may under-perform, which is what MI-III appears to have done this weekend) but I would agree that those are the seven to beat. Also, I’m not going to predict box-office because, as I mentioned before, how much a movie makes doesn’t mean diddly to me. I do wonder just what they’ve been smoking at EW, though. They pick six of the movies to make $200 million or more. If they’re talking domestic gross, I don’t think that’s happened before. Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s my list:
Superman Returns
The DaVinci Code
Cars
X-Men: The Last Stand
Over the Hedge
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
MI-III (this one’s a cheat, I know)
Snakes on a Plane
Lady in the Water
Little Miss Sunshine
So there you have it. If I’m right, well, you read it here first. If not, there’s always William Goldman’s other famous dictum: “Nobody Knows Anything”.
Premiere
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Superman Returns
Cars
X-Men: The Last Stand
MI-III
Over the Hedge
The DaVinci Code
Click
Miami Vice
You, Me and Dupree
EW
Superman Returns
MI-III
X-Men
Cars
The DaVinci Code
Pirates
Over the Hedge
Poseidon
The Break-Up
Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby
They also give projected grosses, which I know everyone in Hollywood cares about but I don't, so I'm not going to bother with those. Anyway, let's take a look at those lists for a moment. The first seven flicks are the same on both lists, although they're ranked differently. EW doesn't think Pirates is going to do as good as Premiere does and Premiere thinks that MI-III will do better than EW does and neither one of them are quite sure how well DaVinci will do but other than that, the first seven are pretty much locked in for both publications. After that is where it gets interesting.
Poseidon and Miami Vice are two well-known productions with huge budgets to recoup and big question marks attached. With Poseidon, the first question is “Why?” And well, okay, that’s also the second, third and fourth question, too. Unfortunately, I can’t think of a good answer. Maybe the producers are trying to recreate the perfect storm of the summer of ’72, when a war was raging and gas prices were soaring and people were into big disaster flicks but, personally, I wouldn’t bet on it.
As for Miami Vice, well, let’s hear what (creator) Michael Mann has to say about it: “The last thing I would have been interested in was just doing a remake,” he’s quoted as saying in EW. “We’re doing Miami Vice as if there never had been a television series, doing it real.” While I can understand why Mann would want to lose certain, um, aspects of the original series (there are a bunch of things about the ‘80’s I’d just as soon forget myself), is it possible to take a show that was so emblematic of its time and place and disregard much of what made it popular in the first place? Get ready for the Miami Vice you never knew and loved, sort of like an Oreo version of Bad Boys.
Two of the other flicks on the list (Click and Talladega Nights) are the latest comedies from two stars (Adam Sandler and Will Ferrell) that on paper, at least, seem to play to their strengths; in Click, Sandler finds a remote that allows him to change reality and in Nights, Ferrell plays an ace NASCAR driver who has to contend with a foreign Formula 1 driver crowding his territory. No doubt untold wackiness will ensue. Now, I have to be honest and admit that I'm not a big fan of low-brow comedy. Well, okay, that's not completely true, either. I loved Airplane and the first Scary Movie so maybe I just have to be in the right mood. And, interestingly enough, whenever Sandler or Ferrell are on the screen, I'm not - in the right mood, that is. Anyway, based solely on the blurbs in each magazine, I'll give Click the nod here. The writers did pretty well with Bruce Almighty and besides, any movie with Christopher Walken is always worth a try.
The last two movies are clearly reaches, like tenth round picks in the NFL draft. If either one pulls through then great, if not, well, that’s what tenth round picks are for. Both choices are directly the result of last year’s summer surprise, The Wedding Crashers. Call it the Owen Vaughn connection. Vince Vaughn was one of the stars of the aforementioned Wedding Crashers and he’s also one of the stars of The Break-Up, opposite his current (possibly) amour, Jennifer Aniston. Owen Wilson, also one of the stars of The Wedding Crashers, is starring in You, Me and Dupree, which sounds suspiciously like a Steely Dan song. The problem here is that Wilson and Vaughn are not starring the same movie so the producers are hoping that the two of them can strike lightning again, only this time separately. Will it happen? Again, I wouldn’t bet on it. There will, no doubt, be a couple of surprises this summer, but chalk these two up to William Goldman’s famous “Non-Recurring Phenomenon”.
So, what would I pick? Glad you asked.
First of all, I’m going to stick with the top seven picks of both magazines. Granted, there’s always the possibility that a movie outside the top seven may over-perform (or one of the seven may under-perform, which is what MI-III appears to have done this weekend) but I would agree that those are the seven to beat. Also, I’m not going to predict box-office because, as I mentioned before, how much a movie makes doesn’t mean diddly to me. I do wonder just what they’ve been smoking at EW, though. They pick six of the movies to make $200 million or more. If they’re talking domestic gross, I don’t think that’s happened before. Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s my list:
Superman Returns
The DaVinci Code
Cars
X-Men: The Last Stand
Over the Hedge
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
MI-III (this one’s a cheat, I know)
Snakes on a Plane
Lady in the Water
Little Miss Sunshine
So there you have it. If I’m right, well, you read it here first. If not, there’s always William Goldman’s other famous dictum: “Nobody Knows Anything”.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Just Try and Force Me
It seems that George Lucas has given in to fan demand or maybe he just wants to make a run at Bill Gates as the richest gazillionaire on the planet but he is finally releasing the original three Star Wars movies on DVD in their original form. Pardon me if this fails to generate a big whoop.
As it so happens, I have the original movies on VHS - unaltered - and frankly, had little or no desire to purchase the digitally tweaked versions when they came out in 2004. The new (old?) ones will be available individually in 2-disc sets that include a copy of the tweaked one with it (why? So some hopeless geeks can set up two TV's and watch them side-by-side?). Apparently, they will not be released as a box set and will only be available from Sept 12 - Dec 31.
Now, I wouldn't mind having the original movies on DVD and this will probably be my only chance to get them, but I have to say my enthusiasm is not what it was. For me, Lucas has used up a lot of capital with his technically stunning but emotionally stunted newer films (SW I-III) and I'm not sure if it's worth my time or money.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
As it so happens, I have the original movies on VHS - unaltered - and frankly, had little or no desire to purchase the digitally tweaked versions when they came out in 2004. The new (old?) ones will be available individually in 2-disc sets that include a copy of the tweaked one with it (why? So some hopeless geeks can set up two TV's and watch them side-by-side?). Apparently, they will not be released as a box set and will only be available from Sept 12 - Dec 31.
Now, I wouldn't mind having the original movies on DVD and this will probably be my only chance to get them, but I have to say my enthusiasm is not what it was. For me, Lucas has used up a lot of capital with his technically stunning but emotionally stunted newer films (SW I-III) and I'm not sure if it's worth my time or money.
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
Hey, Big Spender!
Reading over my last post got me thinking - yes, I know, that's a dubious proposition - about the economy (in general, that is - my personal economy at the moment is something I'm in denial about) and why it is that, regardless of how the economy's actually doing, certain people are always able to come up with ways to tell you that it's worse than you think.
Right now, for example, if you attempt to have a conversation about the economy and you happen to bring up some of the good numbers from my previous post, it's an absolute certainty that someone within hearing range will say "Yes, but what about the deficit?" and everyone will nod their heads knowingly and then go back to discussing the fine art of popping wheelies on their new riding lawnmowers.
If the economy were a horror movie, the deficit would be the boogeyman. It's always lurking somewhere just out of sight, in a closet or a basement maybe, but it never quite gets to the point where it jumps out at you. And, as Stephen King will tell you, in any horror movie, sooner or later the big bad has to make an appearance. Otherwise, it's like "Pour me another Manhattan, Gladys, and tell the Deficit to keep it down in there, will you?"
The problem with government debt (i.e. deficit spending) is that it never seems to affect us on a personal level. All it is really is buying today and paying for what we bought next week, month, year, etc., which is something most of us are already very familiar with. Deficits can lead to higher interest rates and inflation but not always. They can also help to stimulate the economy and create jobs, especially when coming out of a recession. In fact, if President Hoover had left well enough alone after the Stock Market Crash - instead of raising taxes - the Great Depression might have been only good or so-so.
What's more, I can't imagine the deficit playing any part whatsoever in personal economic planning. If someone gets a raise at work, I can't see them saying "Gee, honey, we should really give this back to the government to help cut the deficit". Or what about when making a major purchase, like a home, does anyone go "Boy, I'd really love to buy that house but what about the deficit?"
For what it's worth, here's one economist's take on our current deficit:
I know, I know. What about the deficits? Can we afford these tax cuts? As our after-dinner speaker last night, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, pointed out: aren't deficits and the associated federal debt at staggering all time highs? Yes -- but as is often the way with after-dinner speakers, that wasn't the whole story. Our GDP is at all-time highs, too. As a fraction of GDP, our deficits and our debt are nothing special. They're about average for the last 30 years. We've seen higher in this country in the past, and in fact many nations today have far worse.
You see that? The deficit is "staggering". Isn't that something? And yet, at the same time, it's "nothing special". As to which one is correct, how should I know? I'm not an economist. But the next time you're having a conversation with your buddies about the economy and someone brings up the boogey-er, deficit, just smile and shake your head.
And pop another wheelie.
Right now, for example, if you attempt to have a conversation about the economy and you happen to bring up some of the good numbers from my previous post, it's an absolute certainty that someone within hearing range will say "Yes, but what about the deficit?" and everyone will nod their heads knowingly and then go back to discussing the fine art of popping wheelies on their new riding lawnmowers.
If the economy were a horror movie, the deficit would be the boogeyman. It's always lurking somewhere just out of sight, in a closet or a basement maybe, but it never quite gets to the point where it jumps out at you. And, as Stephen King will tell you, in any horror movie, sooner or later the big bad has to make an appearance. Otherwise, it's like "Pour me another Manhattan, Gladys, and tell the Deficit to keep it down in there, will you?"
The problem with government debt (i.e. deficit spending) is that it never seems to affect us on a personal level. All it is really is buying today and paying for what we bought next week, month, year, etc., which is something most of us are already very familiar with. Deficits can lead to higher interest rates and inflation but not always. They can also help to stimulate the economy and create jobs, especially when coming out of a recession. In fact, if President Hoover had left well enough alone after the Stock Market Crash - instead of raising taxes - the Great Depression might have been only good or so-so.
What's more, I can't imagine the deficit playing any part whatsoever in personal economic planning. If someone gets a raise at work, I can't see them saying "Gee, honey, we should really give this back to the government to help cut the deficit". Or what about when making a major purchase, like a home, does anyone go "Boy, I'd really love to buy that house but what about the deficit?"
For what it's worth, here's one economist's take on our current deficit:
I know, I know. What about the deficits? Can we afford these tax cuts? As our after-dinner speaker last night, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, pointed out: aren't deficits and the associated federal debt at staggering all time highs? Yes -- but as is often the way with after-dinner speakers, that wasn't the whole story. Our GDP is at all-time highs, too. As a fraction of GDP, our deficits and our debt are nothing special. They're about average for the last 30 years. We've seen higher in this country in the past, and in fact many nations today have far worse.
You see that? The deficit is "staggering". Isn't that something? And yet, at the same time, it's "nothing special". As to which one is correct, how should I know? I'm not an economist. But the next time you're having a conversation with your buddies about the economy and someone brings up the boogey-er, deficit, just smile and shake your head.
And pop another wheelie.
Bush Can't Swim
Donald Luskin looks at the unsung economic boom and wonders why it doesn't get more press:
In this kind of political environment, it seems that everyone is blind to the amazing success story that is our economy. According to the latest polls, 30% of Americans believe we are in an economic recession right now. And among my clients, I can tell you that there aren't any of them who think we're in a real bull market.
Yet over the last six months the S&P 500 has returned about 12%. That's just six months, and it's a bigger return than stocks have had historically in the average full year.
Since the official end of the last recession, in November 2001, the S&P 500 is up 24%. Why isn't that a bull market?
Over the same period, real GDP has grown 15%. At the rate of economic growth we logged in the first quarter of this year, our country grows the equivalent of an entire Australia every year. Worried about high oil prices? At this rate our GDP growth in a single year is three times the value of the entire economy of Iran, oil, nukes and all.
4 million payroll jobs have been created since the recession bottom. The unemployment rate has fallen from 5.5% to 4.7%. Federal income tax receipts are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Household net worth is at an all time high. Per capita disposable income is at an all time high.
Meanwhile, over at The Corner, John Podhoretz is wondering just what the polls mean:
...it seems like everything is hurting Bush. The fact that he is deriving no benefit whatsoever from an economy growing at a 5 percent rate with declining unemployment is surely a landmark in the history of public-opinion research. The polling so clearly out of whack with the stats that one of two things must be true. 1) The economic data — including a jump in personal income — are only numbers on a page and aren't having any positive impact on people. Or 2) the degree of discontent being measured is actually far less severe than the polling numbers suggest. People say the country "is on the wrong track" but they don't actually believe it, or act in accordance with that sentiment. If #1 is right, then the GOP will indeed reap the whirlwind this year and in 2008. But if, as seems more likely to me, #2 is right, then we're going to learn something very telling about the nature of political polling in a non-presidential-election year.
There seems to be some confusion here. If the numbers that Luskin and Podhoretz cite are correct, why isn't the President getting some cred? Is it possible that an economic boom can happen in such a way that people consider it just "numbers on a page"? Or, as Podhoretz suggests, are the polls being manipulated (i.e. worded) in such a way as to make it seem people are a lot unhappier than they really are?
Perhaps it really does boil down to the fact that, for a certain segment of the population, the President just can't seem to do anything right. As Luskin notes:
There was a story in the New York Times last week that says it all. When Bush was hosting Chinese president Hu Jintao in Washington, he took him for a cruise on the Potomac on the presidential yacht. Hu's hat blew off into the river -- and before the Secret Service could do anything about it, Bush jumped overboard to get it. But he didn't get wet! He landed on the surface of the Potomac, and actually walked on the water to get President Hu's hat.
The headline in the New York Times was: President Bush Can't Swim.
In this kind of political environment, it seems that everyone is blind to the amazing success story that is our economy. According to the latest polls, 30% of Americans believe we are in an economic recession right now. And among my clients, I can tell you that there aren't any of them who think we're in a real bull market.
Yet over the last six months the S&P 500 has returned about 12%. That's just six months, and it's a bigger return than stocks have had historically in the average full year.
Since the official end of the last recession, in November 2001, the S&P 500 is up 24%. Why isn't that a bull market?
Over the same period, real GDP has grown 15%. At the rate of economic growth we logged in the first quarter of this year, our country grows the equivalent of an entire Australia every year. Worried about high oil prices? At this rate our GDP growth in a single year is three times the value of the entire economy of Iran, oil, nukes and all.
4 million payroll jobs have been created since the recession bottom. The unemployment rate has fallen from 5.5% to 4.7%. Federal income tax receipts are at an all time high. Home ownership is at an all time high. Household net worth is at an all time high. Per capita disposable income is at an all time high.
Meanwhile, over at The Corner, John Podhoretz is wondering just what the polls mean:
...it seems like everything is hurting Bush. The fact that he is deriving no benefit whatsoever from an economy growing at a 5 percent rate with declining unemployment is surely a landmark in the history of public-opinion research. The polling so clearly out of whack with the stats that one of two things must be true. 1) The economic data — including a jump in personal income — are only numbers on a page and aren't having any positive impact on people. Or 2) the degree of discontent being measured is actually far less severe than the polling numbers suggest. People say the country "is on the wrong track" but they don't actually believe it, or act in accordance with that sentiment. If #1 is right, then the GOP will indeed reap the whirlwind this year and in 2008. But if, as seems more likely to me, #2 is right, then we're going to learn something very telling about the nature of political polling in a non-presidential-election year.
There seems to be some confusion here. If the numbers that Luskin and Podhoretz cite are correct, why isn't the President getting some cred? Is it possible that an economic boom can happen in such a way that people consider it just "numbers on a page"? Or, as Podhoretz suggests, are the polls being manipulated (i.e. worded) in such a way as to make it seem people are a lot unhappier than they really are?
Perhaps it really does boil down to the fact that, for a certain segment of the population, the President just can't seem to do anything right. As Luskin notes:
There was a story in the New York Times last week that says it all. When Bush was hosting Chinese president Hu Jintao in Washington, he took him for a cruise on the Potomac on the presidential yacht. Hu's hat blew off into the river -- and before the Secret Service could do anything about it, Bush jumped overboard to get it. But he didn't get wet! He landed on the surface of the Potomac, and actually walked on the water to get President Hu's hat.
The headline in the New York Times was: President Bush Can't Swim.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Well, Duh!
I know this happened last week but I just can't resist. Noted thespian Pamela Anderson has an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal in which she says "Chimps shouldn't be forced to live like me".
Pam is certainly taking her honorary chair position with PETA seriously. First, she campaigned against chicken sadism, and now she wants to make sure that our "closest living relatives, with at least 95% of the same DNA" are not subjected to cruel treatment in the entertainment industry. Well, she'll certainly have the support of the Spanish Socialist Party.
And since they share 99% of our DNA, can mice be next? I mean, it's not like they're being abused or mistreated or anything. (h/t Jeff Goldstein)
Pam is certainly taking her honorary chair position with PETA seriously. First, she campaigned against chicken sadism, and now she wants to make sure that our "closest living relatives, with at least 95% of the same DNA" are not subjected to cruel treatment in the entertainment industry. Well, she'll certainly have the support of the Spanish Socialist Party.
And since they share 99% of our DNA, can mice be next? I mean, it's not like they're being abused or mistreated or anything. (h/t Jeff Goldstein)
New York, New York
So, I'm just back from New York City and, as I mentioned in the previous post, a great time was had by all. We did all the usual things you should do when you go: see a Yankee game, visit the Empire State Building, go to the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, see a Broadway Show (or two!) and try to sample as much of the local cuisine as possible. For the most part we traveled by subway - or walked, including a memorable stroll across the Brooklyn Bridge - and the people we encountered were friendly and helpful. The weather cooperated as well with gorgeous sunshine and light breezes to keep us from getting overheated. If you've never been or if, like me, it's been awhile, I highly recommend a visit.
Two things to remember: First, whatever amount you think it's going to cost, add at least 30%. And, make time in your wanderings for a visit here.
I'm going to attempt to post a few pics from the trip. I haven't done this before, so I hope it works.
Two things to remember: First, whatever amount you think it's going to cost, add at least 30%. And, make time in your wanderings for a visit here.
I'm going to attempt to post a few pics from the trip. I haven't done this before, so I hope it works.
This is from a terrific butterfly exhibit at the Museum of Natural History.
The original "torch" from the Statue of Liberty. There is a wonderful backstory to this: it turns out that the torch was never meant to be "lit" from within; instead, the design was for it to be reflective in nature, to "shine" by reflecting the natural light of the sun and the moon. However, when the statue was first erected, the U.S. Government gave stewardship of it to the Lighthouse Board, which tried to make use of the torch as, well, a lighthouse, forgetting what a light like this would attract - i.e. birds. Needless to say, it made for a messy situation. When the torch was replaced in the 1980's, gold leaf was applied to make it more reflective, with external lamps surrounding it to add illumination.
This is an inside view of the statue, taken from the highest point that you can now climb on the monument. In addition to the infrastructure, this shot reveals the circular staircase that people used to be able to take up to the statue's head. I have vivid - and scary - memories of climbing that staircase as a young boy.
"The Sphere" by Fritz Koenig. This sculpture once stood in the World Trade Center Plaza. It survived the destruction in this condition and was moved to Battery Park as a memorial.
A look inside the Trade Center site.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Another Shoe Drops
Last week I took my first vacation in over a year and spent five days in New York City. It was my first visit to the Big Apple since 1990 and it was fun but exhausting. I'll have more details as I go on but suffice it to say that I had a great time and wouldn't change anything about it.
Except, that is, for the part about returning home and being told by my landlord that the place where I live (and have lived for the last ten years) has been sold and I have to vacate in sixty days. Sigh. So now I'm not just out of work I'm also about to become homeless.
For the moment, I'm trying to treat this out-of-the-blue announcement the same way I'm treating my loss of a job: as an opportunity, not an ordeal. My doctor (I'm in the process of getting a physical) says that my attitude is healthy. Of course, he also tells me my blood pressure is high, so what does he know? So, the opportunity mind-set is holding but I have to add that if too many more "opportunities" drop into my lap I may start to get a little cranky.
Except, that is, for the part about returning home and being told by my landlord that the place where I live (and have lived for the last ten years) has been sold and I have to vacate in sixty days. Sigh. So now I'm not just out of work I'm also about to become homeless.
For the moment, I'm trying to treat this out-of-the-blue announcement the same way I'm treating my loss of a job: as an opportunity, not an ordeal. My doctor (I'm in the process of getting a physical) says that my attitude is healthy. Of course, he also tells me my blood pressure is high, so what does he know? So, the opportunity mind-set is holding but I have to add that if too many more "opportunities" drop into my lap I may start to get a little cranky.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
