Friday, October 31, 2008

Theoretical Gambling: Week 9


It's Friday, and you know what that means -- time for imaginary gambling! A quick refresher on the rules: The entire "pot" (which started at $5,000 in Week 5) must be wagered, with every game having at least $100, and no more than $1,000, wagered on it. For previous installments, check out the link on the right hand side of the page, or simply click here.

Week 8 record: 11-3
Season Record: 36-19 (65%)
Week 8 vs. Spread: 6-6-2
Season vs. Spread: 26-27-2
Week 8 Money won/lost: -$1,000
Season total (gain/loss): $4,200 (-$800)


Okay, I suck. For two straight weeks I’ve stunk it up. Although, to be fair, last week I went 11-3 picking straight up, and pushed on two of those wins, where just one more point would’ve made me a winner in terms of “money” -- both for the week and the year. Still, you know what they say: “Excuses are like assholes, they’re full of shit.” Or something like that.

Because of the rankness of my picks against the spread recently, I’m doing something a little different this week -– maxing out on the games I feel good about, and going with the minimum on the others. I’m also keeping it short and sweet this week, so let’s get to it:

Texans (+4.5) over VIKINGS

The Vikes win, but don’t have the fire-power to blow anyone out (Caveat: Unless AD goes OFF).

PREDICTED SCORE: Vikes 24, Texans 20
“MONEY” WAGERED: $100

Jags (-7.5) over BENGALS

The Jags blow right now. The Bengals blow now and forever.

PREDICTION: Jags 27, Bengals 17
WAGER: $100

Bucs (-8.5) over CHIEFS

The Chiefs were feisty last week, but at some point the whole No-LJ-and-3rd-string-QB thing has to catch up to them.

PREDICTION: Bucs 31, Chiefs 16
WAGER: $100

Ravens (+1.5) over BROWNS

The Ravens are looking solid, and Joe Flacco is a big reason. He’s a much better all-around athlete than I thought.

PREDICTION: Ravens 21, Browns 17
WAGER: $100

BILLS (-6) over Jets

The Jets suck. Favre might be hurt. And the Bills are at home. I say they cover…just barely.

PREDICTION: Bills 27, Jets 20
WAGER: $100

Cards (-2.5) over RAMS

The Cards are playing good ball right now. Surprisingly, so are the Rams. Only the cards can keep it up.

PREDICTION: Cards 31, Rams 24
WAGER: $1,000

Lions (+13) over BEARS

The Lions have been a little feisty of late. I say they keep this one close.

PREDICTION: Bears 30, Lions 20
WAGER: $100

Packers (+4.5) over TITANS

This is where I go out on a limb. The Titans can’t win ‘em all. I think they lose this one. At home. I know, I’m a crazy person. No one can possibly predict what I might do next.

PREDICTION: Packers 24, Titans 23
WAGER: $100

Dolphins (+3.5) over BRONCOS

The ‘Phins can run, the Broncos can’t stop the run. Sometimes, it’s just that simple. (I hope.)

PREDICTION: ‘Phins 28, Broncos 24
WAGER: $100

Falcons (-2.5) over RAIDERS

I love the Falcons. I know I’ve mentioned that before, but I’m going to keep saying it, so it’ll be easier to link back it to later when they’re a playoff team in a year or so.

PREDICTION: Falcons 20, Raiders 17
WAGER: $1,000

GIANTS (-9) over Cowboys

Brad Johnson sucks. The Giants might be the best team in the NFL. Remember what I said about it being east sometimes?

PREDICTION: Giants 30, Cowboys 20
WAGER: $100

Eagles (-6.5) over SEAHAWKS

The Eagles look to be rounding into shape. The ‘Hawks shouldn’t be able to keep up, even at home.

PREDICTION: Eagles 31, ‘Hawks 17
WAGER: $1,000

Patriots (+6) over COLTS

The shine is off this usually great matchup, but I think they’re closely matched talent-wise.

PREDICTION: Colts 27, Pats 24
WAGER: $100

Steelers (+2) over REDSKINS

17 times the Redskins have played a game the week before a Presidential election. 17 times whether the Redskins won or lost, the incumbent party did the same.

PREDICTION: Steelers 24, Skins 21
WAGER: $200

Obama (-6) over McCAIN

See above. 17 for 17 -- that's serious history. I wonder if Obama will be wearing a Big Ben jersey and cheering for the Steelers on Monday night.

PREDICTION: Obama 336, McCain 202
WAGER: The future of the world

To see which announcers will be calling your team’s game, or to get an early look at what game will be airing in your area of the country check out this site.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Random Rant: Zen & The Art Of Football Viewing


This is where I rant. About random stuff. You might've guessed that from the title.

The gift of modern technology has blessed football fans in many ways over the years, from the original TV broadcasts which brought the games into homes in a way radio never could, to instant replay, and right on down the line. The ridiculous creature comforts of today -– tiny, omnipresent on-screen scoreboard boxes, first down lines, even streaming fantasy stats -– make it easy to forget what is arguably the greatest leap of all time -- the advent of NFL Sunday Ticket in 1994.

Before that time, if you lived out of the area where your favorite team played (as I have since 1989), you had three choices if you wanted to see them play: 1) Pray they were lucky/good enough to be in either a nationally televised game or that they game happened to be shown in your area, 2) Go to a sports bar with a satellite dish to watch the game, or 3) Be disappointed.

I was actually lucky, because during the time I was in Boston at college and in Boulder after graduation, the Niners were such a good/popular team they were often on anyway. In fact, you knew going into each year they were good for three Monday night games, two Sunday night games, and plenty of late afternoon national games. It helped they played the late games, where’s there less competition, and also that NBC/CBS (whichever was covering the AFC) always used a NIner game -– of which they had two per year -– to jack up ratings by making it a national game. In short, I was spoiled.

Most other fans who lived out of town had to suffer the indignity of calling 1-800 numbers or staring at the Headline Sports ticker for score updates. So when it arrived, Sunday Ticket might as well have been the Holy Grail to football fans. Suddenly, it didn’t matter what game the stupid network chose to put on in your area. It didn’t matter if they played some crappy local matchup over a classic game going on at the same time (I dealt with this a lot growing up -– the Raiders were always on 1pm PDT even if their game sucked while Elway and Fouts were in a shootout at Mile High). Hell, it didn’t even matter if there several great games on at once -– you could watch them all.

But that’s the thing -– you can’t. There’s only so much you can swallow at once. Of course, we didn’t know that in those giddy early days. Like teens discovering the joys of a box of wine, we didn’t just get tipsy on our new delight, we gulped it down until our heads were splitting. Soon, it became clear there were limits (aren’t there always?) -- you have to know when to say when, or risk ruining a good thing. Thus, The Theory was born.

The core belief of The Theory is this: Two football games is the most you can watch and still have a clear idea what is going on in both at all times. The jump button is a big part of this (and the two-tuner receivers have added to that*), but the same is true at a sports bar – watching three games at once is the point when things become disjointed. You start to lose key bits of narrative – an injury update, a measurement, a key play here or there. But that’s not to say you can’t follow more than two games played at the same time. It takes a thoughtful, methodical approach, but I’m just the kind of lazy, underachieving loser who takes non-valuable time out my schedule to come up with approaches to these types of things.

See, while you can only truly follow two games at any one moment, games last much longer than a moment. They last over three hours, and each has its own unique rhythm and pace. Teams get out to big leads, allowing you to drop them from the rotation -– if the score tightens up later, they may re-join it. Some games move along more rapidly than others –- particularly quick games go to halftime early and may be dropped from the rotation temporarily, particularly slow games can be saved until later because the opportunity will still be available.

This brings up one of the key tenets of The Theory: Games which are closer to ending should be given rotation priority over games with more time left. Often this can be the overriding factor –- If three games are tied in 4th quarter, watch two with the least time left. This can change with the score, however. If one of those three hypothetical games was a one-point game (and therefore less like to go to OT), it should be given slight preference over a tie-game with about the same amount of time left.

The Theory is really like a constantly shifting organism –- Game A and B are in the rotation until Game B turns into a blowout and it is replaced with Game C. Soon after, the pace of Game A begins to slow down and it is replaced by Game D, which is speeding to a conclusion. By the time it’s done, Game A is a blowout, but Game B is tightening up, so that jumps in. And so on, and so on. It actually sounds like a lot of work written out like that. And maybe it is. But it’s a labor love.

New Stars:

While we're talking about football on TV, here are a couple of thoughts I've had this week on that subject:

--Sometime 'Inside the NFL' correspondent Jenn Brown -- on the show this week with a piece on the game in London last week -- is suddenly in the argument for "Who's the world's hottest female sportscaster. While I think she's certainly the kind of change we can believe in, this election season I'm still casting my vote for Erin Andrews. It comes down to the big issues: experience, and bigger tits.

--Speaking of sportscasters whose previous TV experience came outside of the sports world, there's a bright new star on the football color commentating landscape: Jesse Palmer, late of 'The Bachelor' and a former 3rd string QB in the NFL (including a brief stint with the Niners). Late last season, he did a few NFL games for FOX and displayed a lot of skill. This year, he's at ESPN, covering college football as both a studio analyst and color commentator on the Thursday night games with Chris Fowler. He's smart, funny, and makes his points without droning on or repeating himself unnecessarily.

----Osi Umenyura did a guest spot on 'Inside the NFL' this week, and while I know he has a whole lot of good football left in him, he already appears a better fit in the studio than former teammate and current NBC studio analyst Tiki Barber, who retired early just so he could announce. Umenyura was brutally honest, handled tough question deftly, showed uncommon insight, and a million dollar smile. You haven't seen the last of him on TV -- although you may have to wait 10+ years until you see him.


* Now you can switch away from a game and know that even if you “miss” something big while watching the other game, you’re still recording on the other tuner and can rewind the see what you’ve missed.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Movie Review: 'Changeling'


This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

Clint Eastwood’s latest project, ‘Changeling’, is like a beautiful girl you want to love, but just can’t. At first, she seems perfect -– she dresses great, speaks intelligently, all your friends like her -– but upon closer inspection there’s just something missing. There’s no spark. While its acting, writing and direction are all exceedingly competent, ’Changeling’ fails to grab hold of the viewer (or at least it failed to grab this viewer).

Part of the problem stems from the true lift story of Christine Collins, a switchboard supervisor in depression-era LA. While her story is real, terrifying, and historic, it does not fit neatly into the classic three-act structure of a film. Rather than play with history and change the story to serve this structure, the filmmakers involved chose to stay true to the facts –- an admirable choice, but not probably not a dramatically sound one, as it leads to a very anticlimactic finish.

This is not necessarily a fatal flaw –- many films choose not to follow typical structure -– but the problem is exacerbated by the fact the choice doesn’t reveal itself until 90 minutes into the movie. Until then, the film plays it straight. Christine (played very well by Angelina Jolie) is introduced as a loving, hard-working single mother, devoted to her young son, Walter. Upon returning home from work one day, Walter is missing. First, the police refuse to offer any assistance, and when they do, it’s only to give her the wrong child and insist it’s hers. That is not, I repeat, not a spoiler. While the title -- not too mention the ads and trailers -- make it appear there’s some mystery about whether the boy is indeed her son, the film makes it clear from the start he is not. Instead, the actual story told by Eastwood is a straight-forward police corruption movie.

The facts of this true story are amazing and appalling -– Christine predicament and treatment is something from a nightmare – but plots involving corruption by the LAPD are a dime a dozen. The period era look and dress is fantastic, as is the cinematography, and it will likely earn Oscar nominations for several behind-the-camera-crew members, but better films (’LA Confidential’) and worse ones ('Black Dahlia') have already covered the same ground recently.

The reason for the corruption angle’s dominance over ’Changeling’ is the weakness of the missing child plotline. It is set up as the core of the film, but it doesn’t receive the same attention after the film’s midpoint. It’s the old bait and switch – Eastwood and screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski exchange the search for Walter for a protester-effects-change-in-the-system storyline. It’s not that it isn’t interesting, but one wonders why they wouldn’t advertise it as such.

Possibly because of this: While it's nice to know the real Christine Collins helped to clean up corruption in the LAPD, it's not like it really took. Really, Ms. Collins was only the first in a long line of people who've been wronged by the Los Angeles police and had that injustice brought to light -- sort of a retro Rodney King.

So, while the last hour of the film is eminently watchable -– supporting Jolie, there are solid performances by Jeffrey Donovan as antagonistic Capt. JJ Jones, and Michael Kelly as the “good cop” Det. Lester Ybarra -– it is tremendously anti-climactic. Christine and her partner in do-going, Reverend Gustav Briegleb (“the voice of god on the radio”), played by a always-solid John Malkovich, spend the final hour of the movie bringing about reform -- Briegleb is a bit like a retro Rev. Al Sharpton in his public rebukes of police brutality. But as this new focus stretched out leisurely I began to fear there wouldn't be a big emotional ending to pay off this 2 hour, 30 minute journey. There wasn’t.

It’s not that ’Changeling’ isn’t a good movie. It’s too well-crafted, too professional, to be viewed as a failure. It’s just not the kind of film I could fall in love with.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’Changeling’:

CONSIDER

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Random Rant: Bud Selig, Midwestern Man of Mystery


I thought I had Bud Selig all figured out. Wishy-washy, ineffectual, sniveling, dishonest. Totally uninspiring. That just about sums it up.

Then Saturday came. In Philly before Game 4 of the World Series, with tons of rain on the horizon for Sunday and Monday, Selig did what all great commissioners do: He made a bold, long overdue decision, going against all rules and regulations in order to adhere to what's right. He announced that no World Series game would end in less than 9 innings, despite rules which specifically that they could if suspended with one team ahead after 5 innings -- rules which have been on the books for over 100 years.

That would be a dynamic, ballsy move by any commissioner, even Roger Goodell, the toughest sheriff outside of Arizona. But for weaselly little Allen "Bud" Selig (Who gets nicknamed "Bud", anyway?) it was a tour de force, a career-defining moment. The Washington Post's Thomas Boswell called it "The Bud Doctrine". I saw ol' Bud in a whole new light.

Then Monday came. Game 5 was potentially the final game of the season, the Phillies with a chance to wrap up their first title in 28 years in front of the home crows, with their dominating ace Cole Hamels on the mound. I understand why the game was started -- it wasn't raining, at least not very hard -- and I can't fins any fault with taking a shot. If you don't, and it doesn't rain the way it's supposed to and you look like an idiot.

Once the game got going, it looked like the right call, too. The Phillies put two runs on the board right off the bat, and Hamels looked to be his usual dominating self. The game was traveling by quickly and the rain was still falling at a manageable rate. Although it had increased, it appeared the game could be gotten in.

Then the 4th inning came. The rains came down harder, and the Rays closed within a run. This were not necessarily unrelated events. With two outs in the inning, Jason Werth misjudged Carlos Pena's deep fly ball to the wall. Although it hit near the top, it appeared it was reachable by Werth -- the first of several flyballs fielders would struggle mightily to find among the raindrops. Pena's double was his first hit of the series, and was immediately followed by Evan Longoria's first hit of the series, and RBI single.

The rains keep steadily increasing, and the field became waterlogged. It seemed an excellent time to stop. But Selig didn't call for it. He claims now he had weather reports which claimed the rain would only get worse -- this now seems true, as the game has been postponed for 48 hours -- and thought they could squeeze it in. That was a bad idea. Correction, a Bud idea.

The field became a joke, which may have led to the rays tying the game in the 6th -- an error by Jimmy Rollins allowed BJ Upton to reach. Upton stole 2nd base in a quagmire, and scored on a base hit ahead of a weak throw (and probably wet ball) by Pat Burrell. When the inning was over, and the game tied, the game was called. This seemed to be quite convenient -- had the Phils led, there would've been an outcry for the rules to be upheld and the game (and series) ceded to Philly. With a tie game, there is no other option than to play it out.

Needless to say, the City of Brother Love is none too pleased. Fans are angry. Hamels claimed after the game that he couldn't throw with his usual velocity due to the rain. Matt Stairs even said that "the big guy (presumably Selig, not God) got what he wanted". That, and a full day (at least) without baseball for the nation sports media to gnaw on this juicy bone of a story, makes for an ugly spectacle for baseball. Or, in other words, standard operating procedure under Selig.

I thought I had Bud Selig all figured out. Turns out, I was right.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Navel Gazing: LA Story


This is where I over-share about my life, spilling all my thoughts, ideas, fears, and aspirations onto the page for everyone to see. Like you even care.

When I was in college at Boston University, I took a job as the Sports Information Director at the Wentworth Institute of Technology. I was badly overmatched at the job, which required more time than a full-time student like myself could give. I left after a semester, but not before I came across something I would keep close to my heart for the next 17 years and counting.

It was tacked to a wall in the Athletic Department, a white piece of paper with some printing on it. I have no idea who placed it there -– it didn't belong among the sweaty men and locker room talk. This is what it read:
IF I HAD MY LIFE TO LIVE OVER

I'd dare to make more mistakes next time. I'd relax, I would limber up. I would be sillier than I have been this trip. I would take fewer things seriously. I would take more chances.I would climb more mountains and swim more rivers. I would eat more ice cream and less beans. I would perhaps have more actual troubles, but I'd have fewer imaginary ones.

You see, I'm one of those people who live sensibly and sanely hour after hour, day after day. Oh, I've had my moments, And if I had it to do over again, I'd have more of them. In fact, I'd try to have nothing else. Just moments, one after another, instead of living so many years ahead of each day.I've been one of those people who never goes anywhere without a thermometer, a hot water bottle, a raincoat and a parachute. If I had to do it again, I would travel lighter than I have.

If I had my life to live over, I would start barefoot earlier in the spring and stay that way later in the fall. I would go to more dances. I would ride more merry-go-rounds. I would pick more daisies.

Nadine Stair
Louisville, Kentucky
85 years old
I photocopied that sheet of paper, and have kept the increasingly tattered copy with me -– tacked to walls in my workplace, taped to a bookshelf next to my desk at home – and looked to it often for inspiration. I even used it to explain a number of life decisions -– the choice to leave multiple jobs, even as a reason to move to LA from Boulder, CO. But like any great quote, or philosophy, or advice, it eventually loses the rush of understanding that once accompanied it and sinks back into the background. Even epiphanies whither on the vine.

You get lulled into some kind of haze, in which you seem to be wearing blinders. You focus on just what’s in front of you, and you lose sight of where you are in the big picture. Like a castaway adrift in a lifeboat, the scenery still looks the same, but you’ve drifted so far off course, you can never get back. This is how marriages are ruined, how people become stuck in professions they hate, why mid-life crises happen.

This is exactly what was happening to me until recently. I was so concerned with making it as a screenwriter, I failed to notice this pursuit was making me miserable. It’s not the writing, per se. I still love to write –- the rush of inspiration, the challenge of development, the thrill of executing an idea –- it’s everything which had surrounded it that was making me miserable.

You see, to achieve my goal –- making a living wage as a screenwriter -– I had to cozy up to several unattractive propositions: living in LA*, employing agents and managers with whom I didn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye, working with any producer who’d pay (or even promise to), etc. Kowtowing to these ugly realities slowly ate away at my soul, and I only realized when it started to kill my joy for writing. In addition, the money from our pitch sale is running out, and I’ve been unable to find a good job (due in most part to the fact I haven’t had a “real” job in about 10 years). My wife and I want to start a family eventually, but since you need a stable income for something like that, we seemed to be drifting further and further from that goal.

That’s when I realized: I don’t even need to be in LA to write anymore. With all the progress made in communicating via the Internet -- e-mail, IM, teleconferencing, Scipe, even a screenwriting program which allows two people to work on the same document simultaneously –- I could be a screenwriter from anywhere. When I first came out, it was a necessity -– I didn’t know anyone in Hollywood, and more importantly, they didn’t know me. But I’ve made my connections in town, I rarely go to many meetings anymore (and could always do them by phone in a pinch), and I’ve established myself (at least a bit) by selling a pitch. My writing partner, Barry, will still live here, in case any face-to-face work must be done in town. So what’s really keeping me here?

That realization excited me, and when I found out an old friend in Boulder had a job waiting for me if I wanted it, that excitement grew. My decision (along with my wife, of course) to move back to Boulder felt incredibly freeing. So was firing our managers, who were making the development/writing process a living hell. Once I freed myself from these uncomfortable constraints, the inspiration returned. And the ticking clock -– knowing I’ll only be here to work with Barry in person until early next year -– lends needed urgency to our current script, a project we’re both passionate about (but have been putting off for too long in order to write more commercial material).

I know that by moving, I may close doors which held opportunities in show business, but sometimes in life you need to make a change, and sometimes that change includes a shuffling of priorities. I still hope to keep writing in Boulder and eventually “make it” as a screenwriter, but I’m not willing to put my life on hold any longer to achieve that goal. At this moment, my dreams of having a family, my mental health, and my (and my wife's) overall happiness all have to trump any career strategy.

Right now, it’s time to ride some merry-go-rounds and pick some daisies.

* When a friend recently asked me the reasons why I'd prefer living in Boulder to living in LA, this is what I came up with off the top of my head:
--No traffic
--No smog
--No road rage
--No high speed car chases
--No pretense/attitude/douchebags
--Easier to meet people, make friends
--No lines at movie theaters/restaurants/bars
--Much more fun/less exclusive night scene
--More parking (doesn't sound like a big deal until you live here)
--More beautiful scenery
--Better/older friends already out there (2 best friends from college)
--No police helicopters circling above our apartment all through the night every Fri/Sat
--No long commutes to work (both our commutes are 30+ min. even though we work in completely opposite directions), errands, and friends (I have friends I don't see just because they live too far away)
--Less taxes (here I had to pay to become a small business so I could work as a writer)
--Less psychos/crime: Just in the last few weeks, a SWAT team showed up at out apartment building, broke down our neighbors door & dragged him off in cuffs, and an arsonist began burning cars on our street in the middle of the night. Previously, I've had someone steal parts of my cars 3 times -- once stealing my muffler, once stealing my rearview mirror, and once just stealing everything in my glove box -- and my downstairs neighbor once woke up to a homeless man standing naked over her bed masturbating.
--Better economy: For the price we pay for our little apartment out here, we can have a 3 bedroom house on Sunshine Canyon (a beautiful spot) in Boulder, with a garage, a fireplace and a huge deck overlooking a forest and lake.
--Better place to raise a family (I have more than one married friend who refuses to have kids until they leave LA because they wouldn't want to raise one here)
--Did mention "no traffic" yet? Seriously, this can not be over-emphasized
--For Andrea: Boulder universally listed as one of US's top 10 cities for animal-friendliness, environmental-friendliness, and organic/vegetarian food options

Sunday, October 26, 2008

For Who? For What?: JoePa FTW!


This wrap-up of the weekend in both college and pro football is named after the classic post-game quote immortalized by all-time favorite/whipping boy Ricky Watters.

I decided to shake things up, and start writing about the entire weekend in football – college included. Part of this springs from the fact my Niners are stinking it up so bad, I’m having trouble putting too much thought into the NF of L, and part of it has to do with the fact when I started this blog it was too early in the season to seriously discuss who the best teams in college were. As I’ve previous made clear, I’m not a fan of jumping into to bed and ranking teams before we have a chance to get to know each other a little better.

But with the leaves changing colors (I’m assuming, because the leaves in LA are on strike), and the teams coming more into focus, I figured it was time to unleash The EL’s first ever Top Ten in college football:

1. Texas (8-0)
2. Alabama (8-0)
3. Penn State (9-0)
4. USC (6-1)
5. Oklahoma (7-1)
6. Georgia (7-1)
7. Florida (6-1)
8. Texas Tech (8-0)
9. Oklahoma State (7-1)
10(tie). Utah (8-0)/Boise State (7-0)


Notes: A few differences between my list and the polls – both BCS and AP: I have USC over Oklahoma based on their superior defense; I have both Georgia and Florida over Texas Tech based on playing stiffer competition, but if Tech beats Texas this week, you can expect to see some leap-frog action; So as to not slight either of the undefeated teams from the Mountain West, I have Utah and Boise State tied for the final spot.

Penn State may be 3rd on my list –- and 3rd in both the BCS and AP as well –- but after their big win at the horseshoe over OSU this weekend, I feel they may have the best chance of any team in the nation to play for the National Championship in January. Both of the schools ahead of them, Texas and Alabama, still have to each get through a highly-ranked opponent on the road, a rivalry game, and a conference title game. Meanwhile, Penn State has only one speedbump on its schedule, and the Big Ten is one of the last remaining conferences without a championship game gauntlet to run.

#1 Texas is the hottest team in the nation, maybe even it's best, but they are in an epically rough portion of their schedule and the hard work isn't done yet. Coming off a big win over Oklahoma State, the 'Horns have another tough matchup this week, at undefeated Texas Tech. If the ‘Horns can slip past the Red Raiders, they get the Aggies, and while Texas A&M is 1-5 this year, you know the Aggies will save their best game for the Longhorns. get past the Aggies and Texas lands themselves a showdown vs. the Big 12 North Division champ. That’ll likely mean a rematch with #11 Missouri, this time at a neutral site – Kansas City, where there could be a yet another difficult obstacle -- snowy conditions.

Alabama’s schedule isn’t any easier. They have a tough matchup at #19 LSU in two weeks, and a home game against feisty rival Auburn after Thanksgiving. If the Crimson Tide can survive that, they face an even tougher challenge in the Georgia Dome for the SEC Championship Game – either #7 Georgia or #10 Florida.

As good as both the ‘Horns and Tide are, I simply can’t see them both running the table. Penn State, on the other hand, has just one ranked team left to face, #21 Michigan State, and that game’s at home. If they avoid a stumble there – and I can’t think of the last time the Spartans played spoiler to anyone’s title hopes – ol’ JoePa himself will be having a last laugh on critics (like myself) who called him over the hill years ago.

Around the NFL:

--Don't look now, but the Carolina Panthers are the 2nd best team in the NFC. You may want to argue, but I bet you'll have a hard time doing it. It's not that I think the Panthers are dazzling -- they're not. But this is a process of elimination deal here, and besides the New York Giants, I defy you to name me one team you'd be confident in wagering on against them. Last week, I had them behind only the Giants among NFC teams in my power poll, just ahead of Tampa and Arizona. They beat the Cards this week (albeit at home) while Tampa lost to a the limping former juggernaut known as the Dallas Cowboys. The next team down the list is the Redskins, who struggled to beat Detroit.

Then you start to think about their weaknesses, and they aren't too many. Delhomme isn't the best, but he's proven he can get deep in the playoffs. The two-headed running attack of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart is solid. We all know Steve Smith is a beast. And on D, Julius Peppers is looking like he did a few years ago, which is a good thing. There's a lot of time left in the season, and the Panthers have a very tough run toward the end of the season, but suddenly the Panthers look like a solid darkhorse contender for the Super Bowl.

--The Niners aren't really worth talking about right now, and I don't want to force things, but I do have to say a word about Mike Singletary (with more probably to come). He showed more fire today than any coach or player for some time. And he made more moves fans have been dying for than Nolan ever made. "Samurai Mike" may not be a good coach, but at least for one day he made me believe he is. And even if he fails, I'm glad he pulled JustTurnOvers and sent VD to the showers because that's what they deserved, and his passion is what they need.

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Movie Review: 'Synecdoche, New York'


This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or click here.

Until now, I've stuck to TV reviews because the pickings at the box office have been pretty slim (I considered 'What Just Happened' and 'W.', but neither inspired me enough), and I knew the year-end Oscar release were right around the corner. So, like a man waiting for his steak to arrive avoids eating dinner rolls which might ruin his appetite, I bided my time. Friday, Oscar season officially opened with the LA release of Clint Eastwood's 'Changeling' and Charlie Kaufman's 'Synecdoche, New York', two films I've been looking forward to all year. Despite mixed early reviews, I chose to see the latter.

The most interesting filmmaker in the world has made the most interesting film of the year.

In ’Adaptation’, screenwriter Charlie Kaufman took us through the looking glass. In his directorial debut, ‘Synecdoche, New York’, he goes (at least) a step further, creating the cinematic equivalent of holding a mirror up to another mirror. If I was tasked to write a one-word review, it would be "Metapocalypse". Given two, it might be "Mind fuck".

The title provides plenty of evidence as to what kind of film Kaufman delivers. The word “synecdoche” is a trope, a rhetorical figure of speech that consists of a play on words. The definition is akin to a metaphor: a term denoting a part of something which is used to represent the whole, or a whole of something which is used to represent a part. In Kaufman’s hands, it’s used in several respects –- people who replace one person with another in their lives, the way in which writers use characters to substitute for real people, the way actors use themselves (and are used) to represent other people. It's metaphorgasmic!

Added to the layers of meaning is the fact the movie takes place in Schenectady, New York, which may be spelled differently then "Synecdoche, New York", but is pronounced very similarly. That's yet another trope. Or rather, a trope within a trope -- yet another clue to the storyline: Kaufman is telling us in the title that nothing here is quite what it seems, everything is standing in for something else.

That’s not just the subtext, that’s the actual story. Philip Seymour Hoffman’s theater director, Caden Cotard, isn’t just a stand-in for Kaufman, the project he takes on -– his opus, a huge production planned after he wins a grant, then comes across a gargantuan dirigible hangar in New York City –- is a metaphor for all life as we know it. "It's a play about death. Birth. Life. Family. It's about everything," Caden explains.

Other metaphors abound. When the film opens on Caden getting up in the morning as a radio conversation in the background discusses why there is so much written about the autumn -– because that’s when things start to die -– we know we are going to be spending time inside the mind of a writer obsessed with his own mortality. It’s no surprise then to find the play Caden is currently directing is “Death of a Salesman”.

Kaufman plays it relatively straight through the first third of the film, introducing us to Caden, his wife, Adele (Catherine Keener), a painter of works so small one must view them through microscopes, and their daughter, Olive. The marriage is clearly troubled, as evidenced by Adele and Caden’s visit to their marriage therapist, Dr. Gravis (Hope Davis), a self-help book author with clearly visible insecurities of her own.

After Adele leaves with Olive to work in Germany, a pattern emerges. Caden pushes women away with his sullen, self-obsessed ways, then immediately longs for them –- or at least the nostalgia of them while he ignores the new woman he’s found. Time also slips away from him, he seems to have no concept of it at all.

When Adele immediately gets famous, and then soon after her friend and his daughter, another pattern emerges –- Caden lives through every artist’s nightmare. He’s forced to watch as everyone around him becomes acclaimed for their work -– Adele for her painting, Adele’s friend, Maria (Jennifer Jason Leigh), for her tattoos, and his own young daughter for her body (don’t ask). His nervous system shuts down, and he needs assistance to do any number of simple things -- like the artist who’s lived inside their own head for too long and can no longer interact with society around them.

But the film really takes a turn for the weird when Hazel (Samantha Morton), Caden’s sometime love interest, buys a house while it is actually on fire. The house stays ablaze the rest of the film -– over the course of several decades -– as if to symbolize the constant upheaval going on around us.

Through it all, Caden can only see himself. So much so, he sees his image in cartoons on TV, in movie posters, in ads on Internet. It’s myopia, plain and simple. And it’s this which leads him to the idea to construct a play which could cover every small detail and nuance of human existence. His huge and ever-growing cast -– each instructed to basically play themselves -- constantly rehearse in his hangar. For so long, in fact, that Caden realizes he has affected the production to such an extent an actor must be cast to play his part. That actor (the always great, always creepy Tom Noonan) then becomes such an influence on the set that an actor must be cast to play the role of first actor.

Confused? Don't worry, it isn’t a Charlie Kaufman movie if you’re not.

With more actors hired to play cast and crew members, the scope of the production soon spirals out of control. Eventually, a second hangar must be built inside the first to represent the entirety of the production -- the rest presumably the city. Then another hangar is built inside the second one, and so on, and so on. The lines become so blurred, you’re not even sure there are, in fact, any lines at all.

At some point you realize it’s a show that can never go on -- the storyline grows every time the auteur thinks about it. Caden sets out to tell a story about everything, but like any creative soul, he inevitably ends up telling one about himself. He pours everything in his life into his work, and it ruins his relationships, which causes him depression and self-loathing, which in turn gets poured right back into his work –- like everything else in the movie, it's a vicious circle, similiar to Ouroboros the mythical snake who eats himself, which Kaufman referenced in ’Adaptation’.

The entire film is like Kaufman's vision of the M.C. Escher's painting where people ascend a staircase in a continual loop. Escher's work is a trick of the eye, Kaufman's his a trick of the mind. I imagine you need a mind as obsessive as Caden's -- yet more adept at self-analysis -- to be capable of coming up with the concepts Kaufman does routinely. Here, he's clearly drawing from his own creative feelings, worries about obsession, navel-gazing, paralysis by analysis, mortality, and probably a whole host of things which flew right over my head, and milking it for all the perverse pleasure imaginable.

With surrealistic, thickly detailed work such as this, you need a top-notch cast, all giving great performances, to have any shot at pulling it off. Kaufman gets everything he could ask for from a stellar cast of independent film vets in Hoffman, Keener, Leigh, Morton, Noonan, Davis and Emily Watson (another sometime love interest in Caden’s life). Michelle Williams also holds her own with these heavyweights as a young actress smitten, then disenchanted, with Caden’s creative obsession. Hoffman could be in for another Oscar nomination, perhaps even Morton, but it's a testimony to both the performances and the material to say the characters simply blend in. Sometimes, I think the old referee test works with actors as well -- you know they're doing a good job if you don't notice them.

The ’Adaptation’ screenplay won Kaufman an Oscar, and this one might very well make it two. Although, it should be mentioned, his win had a slightly lower degree of difficulty because it was for Best Adapted Screenplay despite the fact it was taken as far afield from the source material as any adaptation in recorded history.* Still, I’d be surprised if this one isn’t a nominee for Best Original Screenplay this spring.

But make no mistake, ’Synecdoche' is not for everyone. It won't play well in middle America with Joe the plumber the average Joe. Its orgy of symbolism will have creative types rejoicing, but it will fly right over most people’s heads. It’s esoteric, like a metaphor for metaphors. It’s slowly paced, heartbreakingly melancholy, and filled with humor that's dryer than Arizona in the summer. It makes you work to enjoy it. Some people will call it self-obsessed and self-indulgent, Because that’s exactly what it is. That’s the whole point –- revealing just how deep some artists can live within their own minds. It's like Charlie Kaufman lifting up the hood to his idling brain and allowing us to peer in for a moment, to see the machinery at work. I, for one, can’t look away.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’Synecdoche, New York’:

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

* Not too many screenwriters can get away with adding themselves to the story, let alone turning the author of the source material into a drug-addled slut for dramatic effect. Then again, there’s only one I know of who’d dare try either.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Theoretical Gambling: Week 8


It's Friday, and you know what that means -- time for imaginary gambling! A quick refresher on the rules: The entire "pot" (which started at $5,000 in Week 5) must be wagered, with every game having at least $100, and no more than $1,000, wagered on it. For previous installments, check out the link on the right hand side of the page, or simply click here.

Week 7 record: 8-6
Season Record: 25-16
Week 7 vs. Spread: 6-8
Season vs. Spread: 20-21
Week 7 Money won/lost: -$900
Season total (gain/loss): $5,200 (+$200)

THUD! That was the sound of my ego falling back to earth in Week 7. After two wiing weeks I starting to think I should start making some real wagers, but Week 7 reminded me why I don’t. Although I had a winning record overall, I had a losing record against the spread, and took it on the chin in terms of (fake) money. I’m still technically ahead in the wallet, but if I were really in Vegas –- or even just betting with a bookie -– I’d be paying the “vig” (the nominal service fee), and would therefore probably be around even, if not a little behind.

So, with my previously Mike Nolan-sized ego back in check, and my confidence in myself lower than it is in JT O’Sullivan, I’m back for redemption:

RAVENS (-7) over Raiders

I don’t like the Ravens, I’m not impressed, I don’t think they’re very good. And yet, I’m picking them and giving a TD. This is why you shouldn’t trust me.

PREDICTED SCORE: Ravens 20, Raiders 10
“MONEY” WAGERED: $100

Cards (+4) over PANTHERS

This matchup looks like a push to me on paper, in which case, Carolina should only get 1.5 points for the home-field advantage. Since they're getting 4, I'll take the Cards in pillownail-biter.

PREDICTION: Panthers 27, Cards 24
WAGER: $400

Bucs (+2.5) over COWBOYS

The Cowboys look bad and the Bucs look good, but I say the ‘Boys find a way to eek this out. But I still can’t give points with the way they’re playing right now.

PREDICTION: Cowboys 24, Bucs 23
WAGER: $300

Redskins (-8) over LIONS

The Skins have been playing up to the good teams, and down the bad ones. I say that stops this week.

PREDICTION: Skins 34, Lions 16
WAGER: $1,000

DOLPHINS (+1.5) over Bills

The Bills aren’t quite as good as they’ve looked, so they’re due to take one on the chin.

PREDICTION: ‘Phins 20, Bills 17
WAGER: $100

Rams (+7.5) over PATRIOTS

The Rams are on a roll, and the Pats… Well, I have no idea what the Pats are. Don’t get me wrong -– they’ll win, I just have no idea how easily. “When it doubt, say 7 points”, that’s what I always say –- starting now.

PREDICTION: Pats 24, Rams 17
WAGER: $100

Chargers (-3.5) over Saints

Both these teams need to play a lot better. I think the Bolts are the better bet to do it –- especially with Reggie Bush out.

PREDICTION: Bolts 31, Saints 27
WAGER: $500

Chiefs (+13.5) over JETS

The Jets win this one easily against the LJ-less Chiefs, who are also starting the legendary Tyler Thigpen at QB.

PREDICTION: Jets 27, Chiefs 13
WAGER: $300

Falcons (+9) over EAGLES

It’s getting crowded on the Matt Ryan/Falcons bandwagon, glad a got a good seat early. The game’s in Philly, so I think they pull it out, but Atlanta keeps it close.

PREDICTION: Philly 27, Falcons 20
WAGER: $200

JAGUARS (-7) over Browns

I think the Jags are poised to make a run. A game against Cleveland seems like a good place to start.

PREDICTION: Jags 27, Browns 17
WAGER: $300

TEXANS (-9) over Bengals

Same as above, except replace “Jags” with “Texans”, and “Browns” with “Bengals”.

PREDICTION: Texans 31, Bengals 20
WAGER: $500

Giants (+3) over STEELERS

BREAKING NEWS: Santonio Holmes is a pothead. He just got busted with weed in his car, and won’t play this weekend. I probably would’ve picked the Giants anyway, this makes it a no-brainer.

PREDICTION: Giants 24, Steelers 20
WAGER: $300

NINERS (-5) over Seahawks

New Math: Singletary – Nolan + a crappy opponent = A rare Niner win.

PREDICTION: Niners 27, ‘Hawks 20
WAGER: $1,000

Colts (+3.5) over TITANS

Going into the season: Titans underrated, Colts overrated. Now: not so much. The Titans are great, but they can’t win them all. Is this the week they lose? I say “no”, but I’m worried.

PREDICTION: Titans 23, Colts 20
WAGER: $100

To see which announcers will be calling your team’s game, or to get an early look at what game will be airing in your area of the country check out this site.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

TV Review: 'The Life & Times of Tim'


This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or click here.

One of the more pleasant surprises of the fall TV schedule is HBO’s new animated comedy, ‘The Life & Times of Tim’. It’s been sometime since either HBO has introduced a good half-hour comedy (some would say since ‘Entourage’ premiered in 2004, others would say the streak goes all the way back to the debut of ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ in 2000), or anyone has presented a quality animated show for adults (the last one, FOX’s ‘Family Guy’ first premiered in 1999), but both streaks appear to be over.

HBO has tried several half-hour sitcoms for adults in recent years -– ‘The Mind of the Married Man’ and ‘Lucky Louie’ immediately come to mind. While I’m fan of both of the creators of those shows -– Mike Binder and Louie C.K., respectively -– they ultimately failed for the same reason: It’s hard to root for paunchy middle-aged married men who just want to get laid. Sure, we can identify with them (at least, I know I can), but it’s a little depressing. The comedy falls a bit flat, not because it’s doesn’t seem real, but because it does seem real. “Real” works great when it’s ‘Seinfeld’ and you’re discussing harmless social quirks between friends, co-workers, and romantic interests. But “real” is decidedly less fun when the happiness of the protagonist’s wives and children are at stake, and he doesn't seem to care.

That’s right where animation comes in. Nobody cares when ‘Family Guy’s’ Peter Griffin or ‘The Simpsons’’ Homer Simpson does something horribly hurtful to their family because they’re not just cartoonish, they're cartoons. Tim is too, and while the similarities don’t end there -– Tim also shows bad judgment and a penchant for embarrassing those close to him -– Tim is closer to ‘Curb’s' misanthropic Larry David than he is to his animated ancestors. Like David, the humor surrounding him usually comes more from awkward, uncomfortable social moments than it does from broad physical comedy.

This formula is introduced in the first segment of the series pilot (each half-hour show is divided into two 10 minute-ish plots), “Angry Unpaid Hooker”*, when Tim’s girlfriend, Amy (voiced by MJ Otto), arrives home with her parents to find Tim with, well...



Tim’s calm refusal to admit he’s done anything wrong, and the logic he uses to try to explain away a situation which defies any kind of explaining away, is a staple of 'Tim'. This, we quickly learn, is not a show going for just the easy laugh –- like ‘Curb’, ‘The Larry Sanders Show’ and ‘The Office’, they want us to suffer with Tim for every agonizing (and humorous) moment possible.

The best examples come when Tim is asked by his un-named Boss (voiced by Peter Giles, the best supporting character introduced thus far) for typically bizarre favors, as he does in the following two clips:





Tim reacts to these ridiculous plans with the same kind of shock and disbelief that we might, yet still agrees to them, and we kind of understand it. In his world, in seems to work somehow. Rather than frustrated by his idiocy, we're happy to cringe as Tim and his boss try to carry off this horribly flawed plan. Sometimes, it's his own fault, but often, it isn’t even Tim who shows the worst judgment. It’s those around him -- like, say, the priest friend who buys beer for kids and has sex with hookers -- and Tim’s just hanging on for the ride.

It’s this kind of diversity of humor which appears to give ‘The Life & Times of Tim’ more legs than the typical bull-in-a-china-shop-type shows like, say, CBS’s new sitcom, ‘Worst Week’, which I find enjoyable, but clearly has a one-note tone, which could easily grow old quickly. Staying power is not something one might expect from a show which got its genesis from an animated short, but Dildarian’s voice (his writing “voice”, not the actual voice he uses to give Tim his stuttering, neuroses-laden, Gary Shandling-esque persona) seems to lend itself to the new trend of “uncomfortable comedy” that's made stars out of Steve Carrell, Ricky Gervais, and to some extent, Michael Cera.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’The Life & Times of Tim’:

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

*This segment was originally an animated short by Dildarian, which was bought by HBO, and now serves as the show's introduction.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Hollywood Horror Show: Demented Love Story


This is a series detailing the strange, sometimes traumatic run-ins I've had with celebrities since I moved to LA 11 years ago. The previous installments can be found here.

The life of a freelance Production Assistant in Hollywood is an unpredictable one. When I first started doing it in 1998, I could barely find a job despite the fact I knew several Production Managers and Coordinators from my time at Crash Films, a production company specializing in commercials and music videos. But soon, I established myself as a reliable, hard worker and had plenty of job offers, so many I had to turn several down due to prior commitments.

Before long, however, the work dried up -– it’s a cyclical business -– and by the end of 1999 I felt as if I might never work again. I called all my contacts, begged for work, and was prepared to say “yes” to any offer, no matter how hard it sounded.* So, when I got a call at 11pm one night to ask if I could work a music video for the band Hole the next day, I took the gig without hesitation. That’s when the voice on the other end of the line dropped the bomb on me: “Great. Call time tomorrow is 5am.”

There was no backing out. And there wouldn’t be much sleep. That’s not pleasant news for an insomniac. I quickly downed a bunch of melatonin to start the process, and made two pots of coffee which I shoved them in the fridge for maximum chug-ability the next morning. Five-plus hours later, that iced coffee was the only thing that got me out of bed on that frigid morn (One of the huge unknown things is how cold the nights/early mornings can be in the winter).

The shoot was thankfully on a lot in Hollywood, so I was able to get there in five minutes with the early morning roads clear (about the only time in LA the roads are clear). Upon my arrival, however, I was told I’d have to stand watch in one of the satellite parking lots a block or two away. Knowing the weather would warm up eventually, I was wearing the typical PA uniform -– t-shirts and cargo shorts –- and froze my ass off for two or three hours, until I was called back inside. And I thought the most trying part of the shoot was over. Yeah, right.

Working inside, I quickly realized what kind of scene this would be. The band was already there, but their lead singer -– the infamous Courtney Love -- was not. She would arrive three hours late, and looking like she’d survived a rough night. Hours later, after Ms. Love had only completed a couple of shots, she would suddenly leave the set unexpectedly to entertain a visitor who'd just arrived on set and was scoping out the craft service table: Ed Norton -- then her boyfriend (as difficult as that is to believe now). And when I say, “entertain”, what I mean is “have very loud sex in her trailer with”. Everybody was ready to shoot and had to wait as PA’s and Courtney's assistant breathlessly reported her status (“It sounds like they’re done. Should I knock?”). Norton wasn’t the only movie star/significant other to visit the set that day. Drew Barrymore, who was dating the band’s guitarist and Nordic giant Eric Erlandson, also stopped by.

Barely any footage was shot before nightfall. As dinner time approached, I was asked to go around to all the band members with a menu to ask what they’d like. This went surprisingly smoothly until I reached the dressing room of Melissa Auf der Maur, the band’s bassist. Upon looking at the menu, she decided she didn’t have enough information to make a decision. To remedy this, she called her astrologer (Of course, I mean, who wouldn’t?), who had to be told the exact date before she informed Melissa what choices might be appropriate, astrologically speaking.

Though she had ordered with rest of the band, Courtney did not touch her dinner, and decided just after midnight that she wanted oysters. This was not negotiable. So I was quickly dispatched to Pinot Bistro, an upscale Hollywood eatery, where they had re-opened their kitchen after closing just to satisfy Ms. Love’s cravings (at a very hefty price). Later, a PA in a position to know informed me that she ate just “two or three” of the two dozen oysters ordered for her.

After a 20 hour day, I was finally told I could leave at about 1am. I’d be given 10 hours to go home and sleep before reporting back at the set at 11am. I don’t know how much sleep I actually got that night, but it seemed like about five minutes when that alarm sounded later that morning.

The second day began with a shot which required a chandelier to be raised or lowered a few inches after each take. To do this, several of us PA’s had to stand just off the stage tugging on a rope. Courtney didn’t like have so many crew members so close to her, and asked that all “non-essential” people be asked to leave the set. After each take, a few more people were asked to leave, until it was a skeleton crew, but Courtney still wasn’t pleased: “I mean everybody!”

Within moments the Assistant Director was ushering everybody out. This included Ms. Love’s entourage. “No, I didn’t mean you guys,” she explained. When told she had to be more specific, Courtney replied, “Anybody who’s seen me pee can stay.” Not wanting to be included in that group, all the PA’s streamed to the exit. But because we were still needed between each take, we had to literally run 100 feet into the stage, lift or lower the incredibly heavy chandelier, then run out again so they could shoot. Fun!

The shoot went on like that all day and into the night. Finally, as we approached the end of yet another 20 hour day, there were just a precious few shots left to get. One required Courtney to walk down a catwalk as four PA’s (myself included) held strings connected to her dress, which we were instructed to whip up and down to make her dress billow as if on fire (the CGI flames would be added later in post-production). Since I was the one positioned in front of her, it gave Courtney the opportunity to accuse me of staring at her exposed crotch –- an opportunity she apparently could not pass up. Needless to say, after almost 40 hours of work in a 50 hour period, I wasn’t amused.

As the sun appeared on the horizon, there was only shot left – in production parlance, this is called “The Martini Shot” (because after it's completed, you get to drink). The problem was that it was one of the most important shots in the video –- at least if you’re Courtney Love. See, just about every video shoot has what is called “The Beauty Shot” -– an extreme close-up of the band’s frontman/woman which is meant to very complementary to their appearance. Think about your favorite video, it's in there somewhere -- usually the singer belting out the song while looking right into the camera. This is the singer's chance to show the world just how awesomely sexy they are. Problem was, that shot is not meant to executed at the end of two long shoot days when said singer probably looks like crap.

“Beauty shot!” Courtney kept screaming as the sun came up, questioning if it was ever going to get done. It was like a kid screaming for their favorite toy. “Beauty shot!” Although this was annoying as hell, I didn’t blame Ms. Love for her concern –- she looked like absolute hell by then. But it’s amazing what Hollywood makeup people can do, and the shot was achieved without making Courtney look too un-dead.

So the shoot was over, and suddenly the sullen, uber-difficult, high maintenance rock star we had dealt with for two days suddenly became a sweetheart. She went around hugging each and every PA (even me, the perv who was supposedly staring at her cooter a couple hours earlier), thanking us for our hard work, and pleading with us not to tell our friends she was “a Faye Dunaway, diva bitch”.

We’d worked so long and so hard as a crew, the Production Manager actually gave us a bump ($25 extra dollars added to our daily rate) and let us go without clearing the set or returning the equipment –- a whole other crew of PA’s had been hired to do this for us because they knew we’d be too fatigued to do it well. The producers even gave as some beers which we drank in the parking lot (along with the half-finished bottles of liquor we took from Ms. Love’s trailer after she left) as we traded war stories from the shoot.

The more experienced PA’s talked about what 40 hours of drinking Diet Cokes and eating fast food can do to the human body, and how they were anticipating “spraying mud” upon getting home. I didn’t know what they were talking about… Until about 10 minutes after I got home. That’s when the damage I’d done to my digestive system finally hit, and I had to sprint to my bathroom. After a half-hour on the toilet, I knew quite well what “spraying mud” meant, and how horrific it truly was. But I’ll still take that half-hour over any I spent working with the lovely and talented Miss Courtney Love.** (Although, in the interest of full disclosure, I should admit that I found the experience memorable enough to want a keepsake -- I scooped up the slippers Ms. Love wore during the shoot off the floor of her trailer and kept them for some time as a memento).

The fruit of all of our labors on the set, Hole’s video for “Celebrity Skin”:***


* Commercials were usually a better deal than music videos. Videos were typically 15-18 hour days (and crazy days at that) for $150, while commercials were typically around 10-15 hours for $175. I think this is due to the fact, advertising budgets are usually swelled with money (at least enough for the execs to enjoy lots of yummy catering, I noticed), while music companies had to watch their budgets due to the fact music videos are more of a vanity project and don’t actually make anybody any money.

** Not lovely.

*** As is par for the course on music video shoots, I had the song stuck in my head for about a week after then shoot (and veterans think Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is tough).

Monday, October 20, 2008

BREAKING NEWS: MIKE NOLAN NOW THE MOST COCKY UNEMPLOYED GUY IN THE WORLD


Gone. Gone are suits. Gone are the denial-ridden press conferences. The stubborn refusal to admit any mistake in strategy or personnel. The gameday decisions so dumb it made your brain hurt just to think about how dumb they were. And, thank you sweet heavens, gone is one of the worst replay challengers ever seen on the playing fields of the NFL (never mind his misleading percentage -- it doesn't count the plays he should've challenged). Gone is Mike Nolan. Not dead, mind you -- though his head coaching career may well be -- just fired from the 49ers.

There's no way to know if interim (or is he?) head coach Mike Singletary will be any better than Nolan, but as a longtime Niner fan I can tell you I'm almost certain he won't be any worse on Sundays. Nolan deserves due credit for helping to assemble a tremendously more talented roster than the one he inherited from the Terry Donahue Holocaust Administration. But where he failed -- as "The Face of The Franchise" as he was so fond of calling himself, and as a gameday coach -- he failed miserably. And while we don't know how Singletary will fare on Sundays, I think he's already got me more inspired knowing I'll be hearing him answer the tough questions after games the rest of the year.

There's talk the Niners may simply name Singletary head coach (no "interim") and are at present negotiating a long-term contract with him. While I like Singletary, and think he has the leadership qualities needed to maximize the Niners talent, this would be a mistake. The reason I'm so in favor of this move -- besides not having to listen to Nolan talk anymore -- is that it gives Singletary a more than half-season trial run as H.C. to show what he brings to the table, and gives the Niners brass a chance to see if they like what they see. The brass may think they already know what they've got in Singletary -- he's been there three and a half years -- but people change when they become the man in charge. Nolan did.

Nolan was inspiring right out of the gate. Those questionable quirks, like the "WIN THE WEST" banner his first year, were kind of endearing. But, like in most relationships, that wears off fast. And if you can't win 1/3 of your games, you could look like a Chinese baby and people still won't think you're cute. Especially when you spend most of your time talking down to them like they don't understand how well you're really doing.

Week 7 Postmortem: Random Interval Power Rankings


We’ve reached the 1/2.42857-way point of the NFL regular season, so it seems appropriate to do a power ranking.
But seriously, why now? While most TV shows, newspaper columns, and blogs like to do weekly or quarterly rankings, I find they’re worthless. I don’t dig the weekly thing because it’s hard to tell how much any game is good play by one team or bade play by the other. Besides, you shouldn’t judge very much based any one game. And so my teams would not change much from week to week.

As for the quarterly thing, that’s cool, but it seems so rigid. What if the teams are really making a switch before—do you have to wait until the next week to show it? And how well do you know the teams after Week 4. Some teams have only played 3 games, how can you really gauge where they’re headed. Most people had Dallas and Philly at the top of their rankings after four weeks (I know, I would’ve –- maybe that’s why I’m already out of my survivor pool), and where are they now? That’s how crazy the NFL has been this year.

I guess that’s why I believe that in the NFL -- like in college football, where expectations have a lot to do with rankings -- you should wait until you know the teams a little bit before you go ranking them, since any movement after will be based off that. Or maybe I’m just too lazy to rank the teams all the time, and I’m only do it now because I can’t think of another topic. Nah, that can’t be it.

So, check out the list, criticize me if you must, but remember one thing: This is a snap-shot. I don't really believe some of the teams at the top of these rankings belong there, and there are quite a few teams in the middle of the pack -- even some toward the back of the middle of the pack -- who could be at the top by season's end. With that said, let’s take a look at the first ever ‘The Examined Life’s Random Interval Power Rankings, presented by Cialis’:

1. Tennessee Titans -- That’s right, the best team in the NFL right now has Kerry Collins as their starting QB.
2. New York Giants -- The defending world champs have put up back-to-back lackluster performances, but I still think they can turn it on when they need to.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers -- The Steelers are down to their 3rd string running back… And he’s looking great.
4. Carolina Panthers -- They are always capable of delivering a real stinker when you least expect it (see: Week 6 vs. Tampa), but they also look a little scary when Delhomme and Smith are hooking up.
5. Tampa Bay Buccaneers -- I like to think of the Bucs as “Titans Lite”.
6. Arizona Cardinals -- No, your eyes don’t deceive you, I have the Arizona Cardinals as a Top 5 NFL team right now. But I think that says more about the consistency of the NFL than anything else.
7. Buffalo Bills -- This year’s Jags? They have the inexperienced QB making like a good game manager, the two-headed monster at RB, and a stingy D.
8. Washington Redskins -- They’re down, they’re up, they’re down again. The Washington Redskins: The 2008 NFL Poster Team.
9. Dallas Cowboys -- This ranking would be higher for the Tony Romo Cowboys, and lower if it was the Brad Johnson edition. Instead, think of this as a combination: The Tony Johnson Cowboys.
10. Denver Broncos -- I don’t think they can stop anybody, and they’re in my Top 10. Did I mention it’s been a crazy year?
11. Philadelphia Eagles -- They aren’t the same without Westbrook, and it’s no guarantee they’ll have him consistently the rest of the way (he’s been known to get dinged up). Still, I see them moving up from this spot.
12. Indianapolis Colts -- See directly above, only substitute “Addai” for “Westbrook”.
13. San Diego Chargers -- LT is not the LT of old. Until that changes, they’re not that scary.
14. New England Patriots -- This is probably too high, but I can’t help but keep thinking that if the Pats can somehow turn Cassel into a decent game manager they could still come back like those pesky Red Sox.
15. Green Bay Packers -- Aaron Rodgers can look really good or really bad. Sound like any other Green Bay QB's you can think of?
16. Chicago Bears -- Kyle Orton: Better than you thought.
17. Atlanta Falcons -- Better than anybody thought. Way better.
18. Jacksonville Jaguars -- Not as good as anybody thought.
19. Baltimore Ravens They’re probably lower than they deserve to be, but I don’t trust Flacco. If he plays solidly, they can be “Bucs Lite”, which I guess would make them “Titans Lite Lite”
20. New York Jets -- They are the classic “Any given Sunday” team – they could beat or lose to just about anybody at any time.
21. New Orleans Saints -- Consistently inconsistent.
22. Houston Texans -- They’re dangerous. Not necessarily all that good. But dangerous.
23. Miami Dolphins -- He might not be the coach, and it’s still early is the process, but this looks like a Parcells team.
24. Minnesota Vikings -- Not nearly as good on the field as they are on paper. Probably because on paper the QB is just one of 22 positions, and on the field it’s a lot more.
25. Cleveland Browns -- They can’t score. Like, at all.
26. St. Louis Rams -- Higher than the Niners despite just firing their coach. Awesome.
27. San Francisco 49ers -- I don’t wanna talk about it.
28. Seattle Seahawks -- Wow, they went from perennial division winner to bad really fast, didn’t they?
29. Oakland Raiders -- Oakland may have won on Sunday, and they do have some young talent (especially at RB), but they still have a puppet coach and a decaying corpse calling all the shots.
30. Kansas City Chiefs -- They’re a one star team who’s star is petulant, suspended, and past his prime. And that’s the good news.
31. Cincinnati Bengals -- Marvin Lewis is so fired, he can’t even feign interest in his press conferences anymore.
32. Detroit Lions -- No talent, no direction, no hope.

UPDATE: I mentioned in my Friday post that I think the new LaDainian Tomlinson/Troy Palomalu Nike commercial is the new record holder for Best NFL Ad Of All Time, so it should come as no surprise that it was directed by one of all-time favorite directors, David Fincher. If you haven't seen it -- in which case you probably don't like football much, since it's always on during games -- or just want to check it out again, here it is (hat tip to FilmDrunk.com for the link):

Friday, October 17, 2008

Theoretical Gambling: Week 7


It's Friday, and you know what that means -- time for imaginary gambling! Another winning week, another pile of fake money acquired by yours truly (now up $1,100 after two weeks). Another couple of weeks like this, and I may actually have to go to Vegas with some real money. I know, that sounds like famous last words, but as "Fast Eddie" Felson said, "Money won is twice as sweet as money earned." In the spirit of that fictional quote from a fictional man in a fictional story, let's get to some fiction wagering:

First, a quick refresher on the rules: The entire "pot" (which started at $5,000 in Week 5) must be wagered, with every game having at least $100, and no more than $1,000, wagered on it.

Week 6 record: 9-4
Season Record: 17-10
Week 6 vs. Spread: 7-6
Season vs. Spread: 14-13
Week 6 Money won/lost: +$300
Season total (gain/loss): $6,100 (+$1,100)

Tennessee (-8) over KANSAS CITY

Tennessee is my pick for “The best team you feel least comfortable about giving away double-digit points with”. You know they’ll win, but will they score enough to cover? With Larry Johnson suspended for this game, Tennessee could easily win by 10 without scoring 20, but that’s a hard thing to bet on happening. Not that I’m going to let that stop me.

PREDICTED SCORE: Titans 17, Chiefs 7
“MONEY” WAGERED: $400

San Diego (-1) over BUFFALO

In a 1 point spread game, you should just pick the team who you think will win. Therefore, I’m picking this one like I used to when I was a kid. San Diego are 3-3, and Buffalo is 4-1, so which records seem more likely after this game: San Diego 3-4 and Buffalo 5-1, or San Diego 4-3 and Buffalo 4-2. I’m going with the latter.

PREDICTION: Bolts 24, Bills 21
WAGER: $700

Pittsburgh (-10) over CINCINNATI

I thought those NFL ads last year featuring Steven Jackson and Shawne Merriman were the best of all time. But the new one this year following Troy Palomalu and LaDainian Tomlinson from birth -- through childhood and college -- to a thundering collision on the field against each other, is even better. That has noting to do with this game, but it’s more interesting than saying “Cincy sucks”.

PREDICTION: Steelers 30, Bengals 17
WAGER: $500

MIAMI (-2.5) over Baltimore

I can’t believe I’m picking the Dolphins and giving points. If you would’ve told me that would happen against any team besides KC or possibly St. Louis, and I’d have laughed, and probably thought you were crazy. Now I’d probably think you’re a witch, and try to burn you.

PREDICTION: ‘Phins 24, Ravens 17
WAGER: $300

Dallas (-7) over ST. LOUIS

Tony Romo probably won’t play. It probably won’t matter.

PREDICTION: ‘Boys 24, Rams 17
WAGER: $400

Minnesota (+3.5) over CHICAGO

Minnesota needs play much better than they did against the Lions last week. I think they will. This game will be a toss-up, so take the points.

PREDICTION: Vikes 17, Bears 16
WAGER: $300

New Orleans (+3) over CAROLINA

Close call, but the Saints need this one worse than Carolina, so I’ll take the points.

PREDICTION: Saints 31, Panthers 27
WAGER: $400

NY GIANTS (-11) over San Francisco

I thought the Niners might be able to sneak up on the red-hot, undefeated Super Bowl champs…until the Giants already pulled their sleep-walk loss the previous week vs. Cleveland. They won’t overlook two games in a row.

PREDICTION: Giants 31, Niners 17
WAGER: $800

HOUSTON (-9.5) over Detroit

I’ll never feel right about taking the Texans by 10 points, but Detroit was bad before losing Roy Williams and Jon Kitna. Hopefully, Houston rid themselves of their bad early-season mojo in their last-second win last week.

PREDICTION: Houston 34, Lions 13
WAGER: $600

NY Jets (-3) over OAKLAND

This spread seems a little small to me. It’s times like these, I wish I still had a bookie.

PREDICTION: Jets 27, Raiders 17
WAGER: $700

WASHINGTON (-1.5) over Cleveland

Washington looked great up until last week, Cleveland looked terrible until last week. Let’s just pretend last week didn’t happen, shall we?

PREDICTION: Skins 27, Browns 17
WAGER: $700

GREEN BAY (+1.5) over Indy

Are the Colts back, or are the ravens just that bad? Probably a combination of both. But on the road, without Addai, giving points -- I’ll hold off another week or two before I start believing again.

PREDICTION: Packers 27, Colts 24
WAGER: $100

Seattle (+11) over TAMPA BAY

Seneca Wallace and Charlie Frye. Those are your Seahawk QB’s. That really makes me want to give those 11 points. Then I remember that Jeff Garcia and Brian Griese are the Buc QB’s. The Bucs win this one, but not by 11.

PREDICTION: Bucs 24, ‘Hawks 16
WAGER: $200

Denver (+3) over NEW ENGLAND

I don’t like what I see in the Pats, so I’m not willing to give points to a good team against them (bad Denver defense notwithstanding). But I do think at home on a Monday night, the pats can probably pull out a nail-biter.

PREDICTION: Pats 24, Broncos 23
WAGER: $200

Want to see which announcers will be calling your team’s game? Want to get an early look at what game will be airing in your area of the country? (If so, what the hell are you doing not having DirecTV?) If you answered "yes" to either of those questions, then just check out this link

Thursday, October 16, 2008

TV Review: 'Fringe'


Two TV reviews in two days? That's just the kind of guy I am -- an unpredictable bad boy who plays by his own rules, and doesn't take shit from anybody, especially The Man. To catch upon any old reviews, you can find a link to the right hand side if you scroll down slightly, or by clicking here.

J.J. Abrams now exists more as a concept than a man. A brand name. After creating/producing smash hits ’Alias’ and ’Lost’ in 2001 and 2004 respectively, he’s produced couple of duds (’Six Degrees’ and ’What About Brian?’) but still seems to have as much juice in the industry as ever -– his producing and directing slates are full of high profile projects. His name carries a weight than can not be diminished by a failure or two. We should all be so fortunate.

Abrams's success with ’Mission: Impossible 3’, written by his former ’Alias’ scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, has opened up the door for more big budget movie franchises -– he’s directing the next ’Star Trek’ installment, due in 2009 (also written by Kurtzman and Orci). But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have time on his schedule to create/produce another TV series, and with ’Lost’ still nabbing high ratings four years into its run, network execs are only too happy to sign him on to deliver another sci-fi series.

Re-enter Orci and Kurtzman, suddenly one of the most prolific writing teams in the industry, and you have what seems to be a match made in heaven. Unfortunately, their new endeavor, ’Fringe’, while entertaining by today’s primetime network standards, is not nearly as original as one might expect given the creative team behind it.

Maybe it’s all the time Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams have put into working on sequels, but ’Fringe’ feels familiar. Specifically, it borrows liberally from the ’X-Files’, mining the same territory (unexplained phenomena), and employing both a similar over-arching storyline (both mysterious conspiracies involving the government, post-modern technology, and possibly aliens*) and dynamic between the male and female leads (a tough, dedicated serious woman and a brilliant but wacky, wise-cracking man). Hell, it’s even on the same network (FOX).

Playing the more central, Dana Scully-esque role, and playing it well, is Anna Torv. While her performance is strong, she’s clearly outshone by Joshua Jackson, of ’Dawson’s Creek’ infamy, playing the Fox Mulder-type. The fact that I can even remember the actual character names after seeing several episodes should tell you how unremarkable their individual characters are. They even have a bald and fierce boss a la Assistant Director Skinner ’X-Files’, played by Lance Reddick (Cedric Daniels on ’The Wire’).

Easing at least a bit away from the mold, ’Fringe’ employs a third lead – Walter (the father of Joshua Jackson’s character), a renowned, if disgraced, scientist with a lifetime of experience working of nefarious government projects researching “Pseudo-Science”. This departure is one of the few elements of the show which feels fresh, so it’s probably no coincidence Walter’s character -- and John Noble’s portrayal of him –- is the highlight of the show. His oddball, absent-minded professor persona adds just enough humor to keep the show light amid its mostly dark subject matter.

Besides the government conspiracy – which includes re-animation, postmortem interrogations, and alike – is supported by week-to-week storylines which allows each episode to play out like a procedural. This is another trait passed on by ’X-Files’, as is the “Monster of the Week” tone the weekly storylines often have (Recent episode ‘Power Hungry’, featuring a man who caused electrical disturbances with his emotional outbursts, felt especially familiar). Not bad, just derivative.

But as Truffaut or Goddard once said (I can never keep them straight), “In your country, you say, ‘Steal’. In mine, we say ‘Homage’." Or, more appropriately, “If you’re going to steal, steal from the best.” The creators of ’Fringe’ manage to at least accomplish that.

With all the hype FOX threw behind it, and the talents involved in it, expectations may have been part of the issue with 'Fringe'. That said, it still has room to grow and evolve, and I'm not canceling my Season Pass.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’Fringe’:

CONSIDER


* I don’t know what the hell that bald guy is, but he ain’t human.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

TV Review: ‘True Blood’


Before watching it, my feelings toward the new HBO drama, ’True Blood’, were similar to the last show I reviewed, ’The Mentalist’. That is to say, I had serious reservations. But this prejudice was much more mysterious. After all, the show’s creator is Alan Ball, the mind behind ’American Beauty’ and ‘Six Feet Under’ -- one of the better recent series on TV.

I’m such a huge fan of Ball's work, I actually get a little starstruck when I see him walking on Runyon Canyon (I live a mile or so away, and go five times a week, shine or shine). This is significant because I see many celebrities on the canyon, but the experience is so well-worn by now -- 11+ years after moving to LA, and having been through several moments like these -- that this occurrence rarely gets me excited any more. (Besides, it's usually somebody decidedly unexciting, and often untalented, like, say, Dane Cook.)

The problem I had came not from distrust of Ball’s skill (not to be confused with ball skills), but from genre –- I’m just not a vampire guy. Never have been. They don’t spook me, they don’t intrigue me, they don’t interest me. But neither was I interested in the behind the scenes machinations in a family mortuary –- before I met the Fisher family from Ball’s superb ’Six Feet Under’, that is. But that's what talented writer’s do –- make you care about the lives of people you’ve just met. And since Ball has already proven so adept at bringing life to the dead in his previous HBO Series, it seems poetic that he bring it to the un-dead in his new one.

’True Blood’ has a few of the typical vampire staples – you know, legends, and blood-sucking, and all that plas-ma (sorry) -– and it’s youthful energy is nothing new (’Buffy, The Vampire Slayer’), but it also has a kind of post-modern feel that’s new to the genre. It doesn’t take place in Transylvania, or Everytown, USA, where vampires appear to prey upon humans. It’s set in the not-too-distant-future -- or maybe an alternate present -- in Louisiana, in a world where vampires and humans live together in not quite harmony (it’s a little like racial tension). And though it’s based on a series of books -– The Sookie Stackhouse Novels by Charlaine Harris, now a staff writer on the show -- it still has the trademark Ball dialogue, along with his signature dark humor and sexual adventures.

It also has a bit of a chick-flick angle -- centering around lead Sookie Stackhouse (a blond Anna Paquin) and her will-they-or-won’t-they vampire beau Bill (Stephen Moyer) which would seem to appeal to a broader female audience (my wife, as a focus group of one, would certainly attest*), while not completely alienating the meathead male demo. It’s got blood, sex (mostly involving Sookie’s brother Jason (Ryan Kwanten), and violence, but mixes it with drama, romance, and emotion.

I used to assume any new show on HBO, especially a hour-long drama, would be great. After ’The Wire’, ’The Sopranos’, ’Six Feet Under’, 'Deadwood', et al., they had me at “hello”. But since those shows have ended, and after several recent misfires -- all coinciding with a management shuffle at the top -- I'm much less confident. And I’m not alone. They could really use a success right now. Lucky for them, I think they have one.

'True Blood' isn't 'Six Feet Under'. It has a tendency to go a little crazy with the visual effects at times, and it can border on the overly dramatic as it revels in its own Southern Gothic charm. But that strikes me more as a matter of personal taste than a flaw, especially given its genre, and the writing and performances more than make up for any small missteps.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’True Blood’:

RECOMMEND


* The best modern test for how much you like a show is how long after it arrives on your TiVo do you watch it. The best honor you can give a show is to never have it on your TiVo -- as soon as you're far enough in to avoid watching commercials, you watch. My wife has this reaction to 'True Blood' -- the show airs on Sunday night, and it's rarely still around to see Monday morning.