What’s the Deal with Imus?

Well, since the whole friggin’ country is talking about this, so why not jump onto the bandwagon? So, everyone say it with me in your best Jerry Seinfeld impression… What’s the Deal with Don Imus?

You know what the situation surrounding this whole brouhaha is, so I’m not going to repeat it. Seems like everyone is clamoring to have Don Imus removed from the airwaves. But I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate here and ask one question that many people are answering, but I’m not sure if they’re thinking about it: What’s the big fucking deal?

I understand that he used racial epithets against a group of black WNBA players, whom he called “nappy-headed hos”. I’ve listened to the clip in the context of the show, and I’m still perplexed as to why people have an axe to grind against this old fart. Sure, I can see that the phrase can be offensive to some people, and it’s certainly racially and even sexually motivated. But if you listen to the clip in the context of the show, he says it with no malice whatsoever. The phrase originated when Imus compared the two teams, calling one group the dreaded phrase, and the other girls “cute.” He’s making an attempt at a joke. Granted, the joke failed on every count, but honestly, just because he says something that is racially motivated doesn’t mean he’s a Klansman! What he said was, by all accounts, mild. And people with an agenda are trying to use this for their own benefit.

I’ve heard a lot of people try to compare this to what Mel Gibson did a while ago, but they are worlds apart, I believe. What Mel did was to the face of an officer that was arresting him; what Imus did was in the context of a 4 hour entertainment show. I’m sure that none of us have done a 4-hour talk radio show, where you have to turn on the mic and speak off the top of your head and be entertaining all at the same time 5 days out of the week. Does that excuse what Imus did? No. He goofed up, he apologized for it, and that’s all he can do. It’s inevitable in a situation like this that someone’s going to want blood; we just have to chalk that up to human nature. When we’re offended, we want to attack the person who attacked us. However, I fail to see why this is deserving of the nationwide coverage it’s getting. Why are people treating a senile disk jockey who was long past irrelevance saying something racially motivated during the course of his show as the worst thing to happen in broadcasting since Oswald was shot on live TV? I’m going to throw this one out to the jury. Please try and educate me as to why this is such a big deal. I promise to read every single comment made and try to understand the argument, and deal with it in a respectful manner if I don’t happen to agree with it, but I can’t think my way through this one anymore.

One final thought before the games begin: I was listening to the Radio Chick today and their funnyman Chuck Nice made a brilliant point that I want to reiterate here. It’s the perfect litmus test for a racist, especially in the broadcasting field. If, for example, you are talking about rap music or young men involved in crime, and you wind up mentioning black people during the course of your discussion, you are not necessarily a racist because the race is germane to the subject matter! However, if you’re like Mel Gibson and you are talking to an officer of the law, and mention how the Jews are ruining the world right out of the clear blue sky, then it is much harder to defend yourself because the racial material you are bringing to the table is not relevant to the subject, and thus much more hurtful. Based on that idea, what Don Imus did was sexually and racially motivated. He was talking about female basketball players, and the fact that they may or may not be “nappy headed hos” has little to do with them being female basketball players, yet in the context of comparing the two teams, some of the sting comes out.  So he was racist, and he was offensive, and he does deserve some sort of retribution, but is it really worth going after a fly with a SCUD missile?

Addendum: Well, this is all a moot point, isn’t it? While I was trying to get my act together and put this blog post up, CBS and MSNBC canned Imus’ wrinkly old ass. While I’m glad that the bigwigs had the guts to make a decision and not leave him twisting in the wind, I’ve got the feeling that this was a very “cut-and-run” decision. Imus became a distraction so they decided to just drop him and get away from this negative spotlight as soon as possible. If you’re one of the people who wanted Imus’ head on a platter, congratulations, that’s what you got. I don’t have a dog in this fight, so I don’t care. But I will ask this: do you think there will be any progress now that the scapegoat has been terminated? Sure, the world can now move on, but what about the next time? All this little incident has done is stirred up the country and scared the living hell out of the broadcasting community to the point where anyone mentioning race for the next month will be suspended or fired. But there is no real progress, no lesson learned, no feelings understood. And a few years from now, it’ll happen again. Mark my words…

P.S. The real hero in this whole ordeal is a small town DJ (I forget from where) that thought that it’d be a funny idea to make “nappy headed ho” the Phrase That Pays for that day, fully aware of the hubbub it caused Imus. He was immediately fired. I think I can speak for everyone when i say “Bravo, dude. Bra-vo.”

Addiction

I hate to get serious on all your asses, but this is the second in a trilogy of “Serious Subject” blogs. The third should be coming out shortly. While the first one (the previous blog about sex in movies) aimed at dissecting a phenomenon to see what the roots are and how it operates, this one is aimed at trying to educate. So put your feet up and prepare for a lecture; I promise I’ll try to make it interesting.

One of my biggest pet peeves in the world is when people misuse a word, either degrading the meaning or perverting it to fit their own agenda. These words are often called “buzzwords”, and they lose their true meaning rather quickly due to mass use and misuse. One of the biggest buzzwords being thrown around by today’s P.C. (politically correct, not personal computer) society is “addiction.” Let’s all be honest here and say that we’ve used this term in our own lives to describe a behavior. My parents have called me addicted to television or video games at times. Some people have been “addicted to Law & Order” or “addicted to Mountain Dew”, or even “addicted to jogging.”

Now that that’s done and out of the way, let’s get down to business.

“Addiction” is a medically diagnosable condition where your brain has deteriorated to the point where you cannot function anymore without a particular substance. Also, it is characterized by the presence of withdrawal symptoms once use of said substance is discontinued. Let’s take, for example, everyone’s favorite example of alcohol use. There are three types of people who use alcohol:

    1) Casual Drinkers: People who can drink alcohol on a sporadic basis (i.e. once on the weekends), and experience no negative side effects. They enjoy healthy relationships with friends and family, steady employment, and don’t let their drinking impair their judgement (no drinking and driving).
2) Alcoholics: People who drink on a frequent basis and, for the most part, are able to function, but experience negative side effects from time to time as a result of their drinking. They may experience a major setback (i.e. divorce, loss of job, DUI/DWI charge, etc.), but still maintain some control over their lives.
3) Addicts: These are the people who cannot live without being intoxicated. They have little or no employment or relationships and live reclusive lives built around when they can drink.

Now, everyone will say that the people who fall into category three clearly have a problem. He or she should seek help immediately. You’d be right, because that person has developed a chemical dependancy (i.e. an addiction) on the alcohol, or to be more specific, on the dopamine that the alcohol activates. For the layperson, dopamine is a “pleasure chemical” activated naturally in the brain when we experience something pleasurable, such as good food or sex. Consuming alcohol also activates dopamine, which explains the “buzz” that is commonly associated with alcohol. Technically, alcohol is a depressant, so it slows down the receptors in the brain that absorb dopamine, meaning that the receptors stay open for longer periods of time. Now, the body always tries to maintain an equilibrium, and the brain is no different. Over time, and repeated use of alcohol, your brain will realize that you have too much dopamine in your system and will start slowing your production down when it receives conditioned memory cues that you are about to start drinking heavily. This is how people become addicted to alcohol (or any substance for that matter): your body starts underperforming and you need the substance to maintain your status quo. This is also responsible for the withdrawal symptoms characterized by suddenly stopping drinking. Your body is all of a sudden without the substance that was keeping it balanced and it struggles to get back to working at full capacity under its own power.

That, in a nutshell, is addiction in its purest definition. Your body has become so dependent on the substance that it can’t function without it. Then, you have to go to a rehabilitation center (preferably a hospital) and detox under medical supervision.

But today, the words “addiction” and “rehab” have grown beyond their definitions and encompassed more of the grey areas. Technically, people who total their cars after driving home from the pub are still called “alcoholics”, but we have been conditioned to believe that these people have an uncontrollable problem and they don’t. Their problem is that they have put the substance first and have forgotten what is important in life. Their problem is controllable, but they have to stand up, look their problem in the face, and consciously decide to fix it. And contrary to what the press tells us, rehab is not always the answer. As I stated before, rehab is for people who’s brains can’t physiologically work properly without the help of a particular substance. Those people need the intense care of a doctor to bring them back up to speed. If your problem is that you come home on a Friday night and beat the crap out of your wife, I’m sorry, but it doesn’t fit the criteria. In that case, you don’t need rehab. You need to get yourself into a support program like Alcoholics Anonymous or Secular Organizations for Sobriety and start the long, hard road of changing your behavior.

Nowadays, people are quick to throw out the PR-concocted line, “Addiction/Alcoholism is a disease.” This is another example of a misuse of terms. We’ve all had diseases, waking up with a sore throat or the flu, or god-forbid even coming down with more serious examples like pneumonia or leukemia or even cancer. Now, what do all of those things have in common? You contract or develop them, usually without your knowledge. People may do things that cause them to get the flu (like inadequately shielding yourself from it or going out in cold weather without a jacket), but the actions that lead to the disease and the disease itself are two separate entities. And a disease is something that can only be dealt with through altered behaviors (staying in bed, drinking fluids, etc.) and medicine, and usually under a professional’s care. While Alcoholism is can meet some of those requirements, it falls short on the major ones. It’s true that you can develop a drinking problem without your knowledge, but the end result and the starting behavior are exactly the same! Let’s face it people, every time you take a drink, you are making a conscious choice to drink and as tough as it is, it is possible to put the bottle down and turn your life around. By contrast, a cancer patient has zero choice.

The reason rehab has gained the position it has today is A) because of misuse of the term, and B) because rehab has the same reputation as diet pills: it offers to help your problem with the least amount of effort. You go in, and in a few weeks, you’ll come out all better, as opposed to the months or even years of therapy that support groups will be prescribing to you. The reason is that drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, and other similar behaviors are compulsions. Every time you do them, you are making a conscious choice to do them. Sure, as you get deeper and deeper, the decision gets tougher, but the fact remains that those acts are a behavior, and no amount of rehab will change a behavior. Instead, you must slowly condition your brain to disregard that compulsion and replace it with something else.

I blame this whole situation on road rage. As soon as road rage became a diagnosable condition, personal responsibility took a huge leap out the window. Now, there was something you could fall back on. It wasn’t my fault! I had road rage! (as opposed to just being an asshole.) Yeah, maybe you had road rage, but if you rear-end a 90 year old woman’s car when she cuts you off, I’d give serious consideration to taking the bus. It’s the same thing with alcohol and drugs. A lot of people are quick to cry “disease” at the first sign of trouble. Granted, true addiction does meet the clarifications of a disease, where something is physically wrong with you and has to be fixed. But drinking too much or smoking so much dope that you wind up missing school/work because of it is not a disease. It’s a compulsion, a conscious action that you are participating in because you want to do it, not because you need to do it.

I know I sound like your mother when I say this, but the magic word in this conundrum is responsibility. I’m not trying to weave a moral tale here, but the simple fact is that when you’ve got a problem, pushing blame aside or trying to put a Band-Aid over it will not work. Instead of repeating the PC mantra of “Alcoholism/Addiction is a disease.”, take a page out of AA’s manual (after cutting out all the God stuff first) and say “the first step is admitting you have a problem.” Therapy works when you want it to work, not when you try to take the easy way out to please your spouse, your boss, or your judge. And finally, have the sense and the guts to call it like it is. If you’ve got a drinking problem, you’ve got a drinking problem. You’re not addicted, and more importantly, you’re not powerless to change your situation.

REVIEW: Daredevil: Guardian Devil

As a member of the movie community, I think I’m required to regard comic books as the redheaded cousin nobody likes to talk about. But I think everyone could benefit from a reading of Guardian Devil, as it’s one of the best story arches I’ve read in a long time.

For those uninitiated, I’ll briefly summarize. The story is about Matt Murdock, a blind lawyer in New York City’s Hell’s Kitchen, who’s senses are super-humanly heightened as a result of his handicap and spends his nights as vigilante Daredevil. At the start of the book, Murdock is paid a visit by a woman who asks him to tend for her (immaculately conceived) baby, as she’s being pursued by bad people, and she believes her child to be the Savior of mankind.  As difficult as this is to accept, another person visits the following day to tell Matt that the child is in fact the Antichrist, and will bring pain and death to whomever comes in contact with it. As Murdock tries to solve the mystery of who this child really is, his world is systematically decimated, nearly driving him to insanity, suicide, but only increasing his resolve to get to the bottom of the case.

The above paragraph certainly didn’t do the story justice. Penned by lifetime comic book fan Kevin Smith (yes, that Kevin Smith), the story balances enough insider comic-trivia to keep fans like me in an aroused state throughout its duration. I polished the whole thing off within two hours, and never stopped once, despite a bus ride, and elevator trip, and a nagging amount of homework. While Smith is more known for writing about convenience store clerks and a lovable duo of drug dealers, he shows that he can get by without using four letter words or lengthy discussions on the proper way to perform oral sex. And the story is fabulous, escalating like a great episode of 24, and (in terms of plot) tighter than a Buddy Rich drum solo. The only gripe I had about it was the final step in the plot, where, since the plot is so complex and multi-layered, once the big reveal is given, you have to re-explain the entire plot in order to show how the villain accomplished it. It’s a very James Bond-ish plot device, and somewhat dangerous to your enjoyment. I know that Smith has to tie up all the loose ends and such, but a lengthy monologue may not have been the best way to go.

The artwork is very modern cartoon artwork. When I read Daredevil issues today, the style of the current artist is very gothic anime. But Joe Quesada (current Editor in Chief at Marvel) has a style that reminds me of the old time Marvel artists, like Jack Kirby or John Romita. The muscles aren’t too accentuated and everything feels realistic. Karen Page’s breasts seemed to have a lot of attention paid to them, but I think that was Smith’s influence more than anything (just kidding.) Quesada also has a great way of panelling the page, lots of times with the background of the page being one frame and lots of little frames put on top of it. It’s cool, but at times it gets confusing and you don’t know which  panel to read next.

Final Judgment: 4 Fanboys out of 5

Guardian Devil is a great book, and a must read for any comic book fan. Stories like this are the kind that get me excited about reading comics again. Do yourself a favor and pick this one up right now. I mean right now. Don’t worry about the website; It’ll still be here tomorrow. Go!

Let’s Talk About Sex (in movies)

This is a topic that has been tossed about willy-nilly by critics, audiences, and moral entrepreneurs in both private and public arenas. Are modern films too filthy?

While the artist (and the dirty pervert) in me says “No Way,” I’m tempted now to see the other side of the argument. I may not agree with it totally, but at least I can understand it.

What happened with me was that I saw a Studio Project created by an NYU student (names will be withheld both to protect the innocent and because I can’t remember them). The concept of this short was a therapy session surrounding Walt Disney characters. The basic premise of the story isn’t bad (it’s kind of amateur, since skits involving known characters in a new light have been around since the early days of Saturday Night Live.) and some parts of it were genuinely funny. However, the film was marred by its overuse of sex and dirty words. Now, I’m not saying I’m a crystal clean human being myself, and (insert deity of choice here) knows that I enjoy watching/listening to discussions about sex in the movies I watch, but there is such a thing as too much sex. (People like Steven Tyler, Gene Simmons, and Hugh Hefner may disagree with me, but they didn’t see this movie.)

I’ll admit that I’ve written a four-letter word or two (or three or four or five) when in the course of composing a script. I use it for one of two reasons: 1) To reveal character, which is the proper way to use anything in a script, or 2) to make the dialogue sound more realistic. Let’s face it. People curse, people fight, and people fuck. It’s an unavoidable facet of life. In this instance, however, the film was harmed by all the sex and profanity it used. I’m sure that there are people in this world who are as frank as some of the people in that short. But come on, all of the characters?!  That just smacks of bad writing to me. The whole time, I wanted to scream out, “There are other reasons people go to therapy!” Repeating the “sex, sex, sex” note over and over again was like eating a salad loaded down with ranch dressing. Sure, it’s great for some added flavor, but when you soak the fucking thing in it, you mask all the other flavors the salad has to offer. That’s all this film needed: a little dash of creativity.

Sadly, most movies suffer the same fault. The reasons are many. Either a writer wants his or her work to be noticed, or because he or she admires the style of a certain screenwriter/director and wants to “be like them”, or because that person simply scraping the bottom of the creativity barrel (in which case, they should stop by and say “Hi.” I love company.) Think about how many films started putting in pop culture references after Quentin Tarantino hit it big. On a similar note, think of how many horror films started putting in self-referential gags after Scream. These imitators are confusing the forrest for the tree, latching onto a gimmick in the hopes of recreating the success of another. Where I come from, this is referred to as “trying to catch lightning in a bottle”. And it filters down to the student level, too. I can’t tell you how many scripts I read or short films I watch that sound like “fuck this, fuck that, you motherfucking cocksucker.” Granted, I can put up with a “cocksucker” every now and then, but there comes a point where you start to wonder, “Isn’t he aware of the fact that he sucks cock?”

There are exceptions. The aforementioned Tarantino wrote and directed Reservoir Dogs, one of the most profane movies I’ve ever seen. However, it’s also one of my favorites. In a similar vein, Kevin Smith, while displaying little on-screen nudity, has some of the frankest discussions of sex you’ve ever heard. Also, films like Porky’s, and it’s Gen-X counterpart American Pie are about sex, so skirting (get it?) the issue would be cowardly. Other films get close, like About Last Night, which has one of the hottest sex scenes I’ve ever seen in a mainstream movie, but they get away with it because it’s a point that is not stressed. However, the best use of sex and profanity I’ve seen yet came not from a movie, but from a book. Mario Puzo’s Omerta is peppered with dirty words. They don’t shock when you hear them, but they don’t make you groan in boredom either. And, unlike many authors, he uses the sex lives of his characters as a way of characterization, or revealing more information about them. I’d like to see this used more often, but let’s not take the easy way out. Every gay man is not necessarily a mama’s boy or a victim of forced sodomy, just as every girl who likes to be tied up isn’t traumatized from an earlier incident. Some people are just gay or freaky (or both!)

My point is that if you watch movies like The Godfather, The Terminator, Pretty Woman, or even Boogie Nights, there is sex in there because sex is a part of life (or in the case of the latter two films, business). Sex was present in this Studio Project, and many other works like it, because the writers were after shock value or needed a crutch to get them through the rest of the script. This is what really sticks in my craw about sex, violence, or even profanity in films. Sure, it’s all there to be used, but because it’s there doesn’t mean you have to use it (or misuse it). I love gratuitous T&A as much as the next person, but there comes a point when I do the unthinkable and mumble to myself “Enough with the tits; what’s going on with the movie?”

REVIEW: F for Fake

This is perhaps the smartest movie you will never see.

F for Fake, the last feature film completed by Orson Welles before his death, intends to expose the world of fakery and trickery inherent in our own lives through three main examples (one of them fake itself): the story of Elmyr de Hoy, perhaps the 20th Century’s greatest art forger, Clifford Irving, the man who wrote a biography of Elmyr and then supposedly ghost-wrote an autobiography of Howard Hughes, and Oja Kodar, a young woman who seduced Pablo Picasso into painting 22 full works of art for her, and then selling them herself. Throughout the film, short pieces of Welles’ own life and career as well as shorter examples of fakery in everyday life are interspersed. The result is not a documentary, or even a total expose. What F for Fake is defies general terms, becoming an “essay” film.

If any of this sounds boring or uninteresting to you, it probably is. I sat through F for Fake all the way through, and dozed off more times than I can count. As a result, the film felt disjointed and confusing. The beginning especially is enough to leave any casual cinema-goer in its wake. It reminded me of the earlier, more recognizable, work of the director, Citizen Kane. It was long and uninteresting, like a novel with a great concept that fails to hook a reader. The thing to remember is that Welles is an auteur, and is unconcerned with the general comfort of the audience, as long as he can get his point across.

You see, I judge cinema by two criteria: 1) Is it entertaining? 2) Does it inform?

A lot of really good films are able to do both at the same time, but F for Fake only informs. And, as I said earlier, it’s like reading a really thought-out and subtle essay. It requires a lot, and I mean a lot of thought. So if you were to ever see this movie, don’t go into it expecting to turn your brain off and be entertained. Of course, this film wasn’t even made for the masses, who want to be entertained. Unless you’re a film aficionado, or someone with a pompous sense of intelligence, F for Fake won’t even appear as the tiniest blip on your radar. Instead, I’d recommend watching V for Vendetta again (which is a really great film, mind you).

Welles is probably the most engaging person in this film, as it is his thoughts that we are riding like a surfer on the wave. While the film did bounce right off me, it was nice to see a film with a documentary style that defied expectations and didn’t have to present both sides of an argument. The film is him, speaking directly onto the celluloid, and as the stories tell, Welles took some commercial jobs and acting roles he loathed to create films like this. (Does anyone remember him in Transformers: The Movie? Didn’t think so.) But seeing as this is Welles’ last film, I couldn’t help feel that a part of F for Fake was him trying to explain, summarize, or even apologize for his own career. He points to the infamous “War of the Worlds” broadcast as an example of how persuasive a good liar can be. While he certainly didn’t intend it, I found this film to be his epitaph. That notion gave it some emotionality, but it also didn’t hook me into truly understanding what was going on.

Final Judgment: Uh…

F for Fake is one of those films that’s brilliant after you’ve watched it and hated it. It’s a one of a kind experience, which I think is a testament to Orson Welles’ style. Few, if any, have attempted an essay film (and probably for good reason) which makes this one even more unique. I obviously can’t recommend it for the average viewer, but if you feel like something different (way different) and would like a DVD you’ll probably wind up going back to in order to figure it out, then you can definitely do worse than F for Fake.

The Most Depressing News of the Week

We live in a world where atrocities are commonplace. Just turn on the news to see soldiers having their heads blown off in Iraq, horrible acts of deviance and depravity being performed on young children, and tragic events like the recent bus disaster that lead to many passengers losing their lives. However, ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come across something that has made me lose faith in humanity altogether…

The Geico Cavemen are getting their own sitcom.

I’m going to repeat that, because it bears repeating. The Geico Cavemen (an ad from the company with the worst marketing department in the world. You know, “So Easy a Caveman Could Do It”?) are getting their own sitcom.

This is it, folks! The Apocalypse is here! Start maxing out your credit cards and having unprotected sex with your neighbor’s spouse; we’re not going to last much longer.

This is one of those things that makes me do a cartoon-like double take. My eyes bug out of my head and my jaw unhinges and drops to the floor. (yes, my tongue rolls out like a red carpet, too.) It’s the fucking Geico Cavemen! What in the name of Xenu have they done to deserve this? Even more, what have we done to deserve this?! Whatever it is, I’m sorry, but please don’t hurt me like this.

The show will, as the ads do, focus on the erudite cavemen (and supposedly, cavewomen) leading normal lives and encountering prejudice. Good natured, yes. But, a good natured bad idea is still a bad idea. This show is going to be like 3rd Rock from the Sun, but worse, because there’s no room to go after the first episode. How will the producers and writers keep finding something fresh to come back to? It is, like the commercials are, a one-note horn. But at least hearing one note for 30 seconds is better (in it’s own weird way) than hearing that same note for a full half hour. You’d pray for commercials after the first 5 minutes. At least there, there’d be some variety!

And who’s responsible for this amniotic-fluid-covered, screeching abomination of a television program? ABC. The American Broadcasting Corporation. The same people who won our hearts (for a few moments, at least) with Who Wants to Be A Millionaire? have now taken what goodwill they have left and pissed all over it. To be honest, I only watched ABC for Saturday Morning Cartoons when I was younger and The Drew Carey Show when I was older. Now that both of them are gone, I could care less about ABC. They are filling space on my channel roster, since I guess it’s not cost-efficient to put a test pattern in its place.

I’ve bitched loudly and openly that Geico have the worst commercials out there on the television today. The Gecko is slightly bearable, like a pet that doesn’t demand too much attention. But everything else that Geico does is pure horseshit. I’m glad I live in New York City and don’t have to drive a car, so I don’t have to give any of my money to those mind-numbing criminals, stealing my life 30 seconds at a time. So I urge anyone who is just as perplexed and distraught about these proceedings as I am to take action. Sure, the military quagmire that is Iraq is important, as are such riveting reports like “Anna Nicole: Still Dead”, but this is an issue that demands immediate and widespread coverage. Let’s send Geico a message that we won’t stand for their unfunny crap anymore. And let’s let ABC know that this is a bad move. ABC needs to be told these things; after all, this was the network that canceled Clerks: The Animated Series.

But ultimately, I whine and complain, but this really doesn’t affect me or anyone else too much. The Cavemen (as I’m sure it’ll be called) will suck, but I won’t watch it. Neither will with vast majority of the American public. The only ones being affected are the poor suckers that are investing their time and money into making it. Eventually, it will wither away and die a quiet death, like most other bad ideas made by important people. By that point, something bigger will occupy our attention, and The Cavemen can pass gracefully into the Big Programming Office in the Sky.

P.S. Many of you are also aware that Burger King has just announced a development deal for a feature film starring their mascot, The Burger King. Frankly, I’m tired, so I’ll leave this one up to anyone reading. Please post a comment (it doesn’t hurt, honest!) below and debate which one is the worse idea. I may join in if this gets heated.

Xbox vs iTunes: Battle of the Media Download Services

Almost everyone has an iPod now, and as a result, almost everyone uses iTunes for some reason or another. As a music download service, it’s beyond compare. When it comes to music, podcasts, or audiobooks, iTunes is just about always my go-to service (unless the song is over 6 minutes long, and then I’d probably have to buy the whole album in order to get it. I thought iTunes was supposed to rid us of that, huh?!). But with the addition of video capabilities, and more recently a wider selection of feature films, Apple has been branching out far beyond its established “comfort zone.” Have they gone too far?

Well, there are plenty of video download services, and most of them suck. Amazon’s “Unbox” service needed the help of TiVo in order to save it from premature extinction. So, with Apple’s dominance over the MP3 player market, you’d think that the video component would be just as successful, but one new player’s been in the game since last November that just might give Apple a run for their money. And worst of all, it comes from their biggest competitor.

Microsoft may have dropped the ball on Vista (my guess is that Bill Gates is retiring and becoming a philanthropist in order to clear his conscience of Vista) but the Xbox 360 division of the Big M has been going strong. I’ve had an Xbox 360 for almost a year, and I love that sucker. When I heard that Xbox was beginning to offer movies and television shows for download (some of them in High Definition), it was a huge boost in the 360’s credibility for me. I’ve tried both services, and I’ll try to list the pros and cons here.

Pros: iTunes

iTunes’ first big advantage is its cross-platform accessibility. As stated before, the popularity of the iPod is a big stepping-stone for Apple to climb on. The user interface is friendly, but that’s really par for the course. The prices are fair, especially for TV shows. One really sneaky thing that Apple has integrated into iTunes is the ability to just set up a credit card for Apple to suckle off of every time you buy something, so it seems like you’re getting the movie/TV show/song for free. And, Apple has finally gotten past the limited appeal of the Disney catalogue (with the exception of Cars. My dad loves that movie.) and gotten more mature content. Even though I have way too many copies of Reservoir Dogs, I’m still attracted to the notion of having a portable one!

Pros: Xbox 360

Xbox’s prime advantage comes in two letters: HD. The 360 has the built-in capability to handle high definition content, so they offer high definition content, which makes the techno-nerd in me very happy. Also, since the Xbox is catering to the people who have big-screen HDTVs, the content matches that resolution, for the most part. But the biggest feather in Microsoft’s cap that I can think of is something that can’t be measured in numbers: it’s a lot of fun to use the Xbox Live Marketplace. Maybe it’s the bright colors, but the interface is really enjoyable. While shopping on the iTunes store is more formal, like shopping at Sears or Amazon.com, going through the Xbox Live Marketplace is like going to a Chuck E. Cheese, but without all the kids.

Cons: iTunes

iTunes’ biggest flaw comes from its biggest advantage. The portability of the iPod, while fantastic for music, means that watching video on it is similar to trying to watch a neighbor’s TV through a set of binoculars (not that I’ve tried). And the resolution leaves a bit to be desired. The official description from Apple is “near-DVD quality”. I think that a more appropriate description is “slightly better than Laserdisc.” A lot of the cool shows and movies (24, Law & Order, Pirates of the Caribbean) have deep saturated blacks in them, and “black” is not the friend of the iPod. Sometimes it gets so pixilated, it’s embarrassing.

Cons: Xbox

The 360 has a lot of flaws inherent in its design. The first one is in regard to movies. If you have a 360, and have downloaded movies, you know that the download is a “rental”. After 14 days, or 24 hours after you press Play, the license on the movie expires, and if you want to watch it again, you’ll have to download it again. And, while Xbox is working on getting more high definition content available to its subscribers, the majority of the movies and TV shows are full-frame Standard Definition. The sad fact is that, when you’ve got a widescreen TV, you want to watch things in widescreen.

This can be somewhat forgivable, since it isn’t really the standard yet, and in Microsoft’s mind, the filtering of HDTVs down to the base consumer might not be large enough to warrant this. That’s all understandable, but the current incarnation of the 360 has something that can’t be forgiven: the hard drive is only 20 GB large. With all of the content that can be used on the 360 (game demos, music, saved game data, and now video content) that 20 GB can fill up fast. And another hard drive costs 100 dollars! Microsoft is promising a larger hard drive by the end of the year, but if a 20 GB hard drive costs a seanote, then what would an 80 GB hard drive cost?! You could buy another 360 with that cash!

Finally, in contrast to Apple’s “invisible credit”, where you’re being billed, but you don’t feel like it, Microsoft reminds you how much dough you’ve got to spend. The Xbox Live Marketplace utilizes something called “Microsoft Points”, a debit system of points that act like cash in this virtual store. Every time you buy something, the points get deducted, and you’re reminded of how many points you have left. So, if you buy 1000 points, you can slowly watch those 1000 points go down the tube. While it may be realistic, it’s obviously not good business to remind the customer that they’re spending money. And once those points do run out, you buy another block of points. If I were Microsoft, I’d go the route of iTunes and internet porn providers, where they just invisibly and automatically take your money. As a consumer, I appreciate that.

Final Verdict: Draw

I know, it’s kind of the pussy way out, but it’s too close to call. The barometer is that if there’s a video (like South Park) which is available on both services, I’d be probably more likely to purchase it from iTunes, for the express reasons because my Xbox hard drive is almost full, and the episodes usually aren’t in widescreen to begin with on the Xbox. But new technology should be closing the already small gap between the two. As mentioned earlier, Microsoft is planning a larger hard drive for the 360 (hopefully the price is fair), but Apple is also going to be rolling out their $300 AppleTV sometime this month, which caters to HDTVs. I hope that the release of AppleTV is a sign that Apple is embracing high definition content. If they are, then Microsoft’s advantage is severely injured. But, as I close this already long-winded review, I will say that shopping on the Xbox Live Marketplace is a lot of fun, and one of the best features of the Xbox 360 and Xbox Live service. That’s something that Apple can’t take away, yet.

REVIEW: The Number 23

The Number 23 attempts to be a look into paranoia, obsession, and the the inability of a man to live down his wrongdoings. Sadly, this Joel Schumacher-helmed thriller fails on almost all counts.

The film follows Walter Sparrow, a dog-catcher who leads a seemingly normal life, who comes into possession of a beaten up manuscript of a novel called The Number 23. As he reads it, he finds interesting parallels with his own life, and starts to see the number 23 in every facet of his own life. Instead of seeking professional help, he gives it the old college try, and becomes entangled in a web of murder and paranoia in the process.

Like most movies, I feel that the problems are mostly contained at the script level. This is a very complicated story that takes more twists and turns than a highway in Switzerland. And, like most movies that attempt this sort of story, by the time you get to the ending, the beginning doesn’t make sense. And I felt that the script was trying to talk about way too many things at once. Great films, like The Matrix or Star Wars have many different layers of thematic material that the audience can peel back and expose for themselves, but those levels are mostly subconscious and aren’t driving the plot unless the audience is consciously searching for them. When watching The Number 23, I saw it starting out as a story of a growing, unhealthy obsession that then morphed into a story about supernatural forces, (as they state in the film, 2 divided by 3 is 1.666) and finally, the story did another chameleon-like transformation into a whodunit murder and a tale of ruin and redemption. You just get the sense that the scriptwriter was grasping for straws and throwing anything in that seemed to fit. The title sequence is a great metaphor for this, as it points out all the seemingly coincidental occurrences of 23 in our history. Anything that fit the base requirements went in, regardless of whether or not it helped the story.

Another death-toll on this film’s conscience is its believability. I know… the movie is about a vast numerical conspiracy that drives people loony, but you’ve got to ground it in some sort of reality. The teenage kid in the film (his name escapes me at the moment) is a pretty good example of this. He starts out as a sort of apathetic teenager who just wants to make out with his girlfriend, but is thoughtful enough to get his dad a birthday present. Later, he becomes his father’s cheerleader, buying every part of his crazy story, contributing to the discussion and even throwing out ideas. I can’t help but think that at some point, the screenwriter thought he needed someone to kick the plot in the ass, and this kid was the best candidate. And also, I don’t want to give away anything, but when one character has another character hold a knife to his or her throat and scream “Kill Me!” in order to prove a point, aren’t they really just asking for it?

Like most “legitimate” reviewers, I feel that Jim Carrey was mis-cast in this role. Not because I only want to see him in movies where he talks with his butt, but because he isn’t the right kind of crazy. He’s “cartoon-crazy” or “eccentric”. His craziness is just weird, not dangerous or terrifying. I think this role would’ve been much better filled by Nick Stahl, someone with an innocent face and can gain your sympathy, but can also be totally bat-shit crazy if he wants to be. Not to say that Carrey does a horrible job; it’s quite interesting to watch him try and do these things that the script requires him to. His Walter Sparrow may not be entirely realistic, but he’s real enough to keep you watching. Virginia Madsen, on the other hand, was very well cast. She was relatively believable, although I thought that, like most characters surrounding Walter, they all went along with this idea a little too easily, she maintained a level of skepticism that helped keep me in the story a little. Again, not enough to keep me from noticing a bunch of plot holes along the way, but enough to keep me from walking out.

I will say that the film has its moments. I thought that the cinematography was beautifully done, especially the fantasy sequences, which reminded me so much of Sin City. And I’d say that the best thing that the movie does is create the mysticism surrounding the number 23. I love a story with a good tone or backdrop, and this one does a pretty good job. You know certain things are going to happen, but at least there is some mystery as to how that’s all going to pan out.

This At-Bat (get it? “Bat”?), Joel Schumacher manages a single, but gets tagged trying to steal second. The Number 23 is the sort of film you may want to wait for DVD to check out, as I don’t think it merits 7-10 dollars per person to go see in the theaters. If you’d like a story about paranoia that is a bit better done than this one, and already out on DVD, I’d take a look at Secret Window. While I love Jim Carrey’s work, Johnny Depp’s performance in that movie can run circles around his. Maybe I’m prejudiced because I’m a Stephen King fan; who knows?

I’m going to end this one with a bit of biting sarcasm, directed at Mr. Schumacher himself. Joel, if this movie really is about the ability of our past sins to come back to haunt us, I’ve got 3 words for you. Actually, it’s 2 words and an ampersand: Batman & Robin.

Final Judgement: 2.3 “23”s out of 5

P.S. By the way, if you look carefully, every 23rd word of this review forms this sentence: “His a reads own paranoia complicated by about the is obsession 6 just a the its some this. To discussion the another just to or someone say to was idea to say much 3 are get you see on circles of back and.” Wow. I suck at this hidden message shit.

P.P.S. Although… if you count the numbers in that sentence, there are 43 of them. Obviously, I didn’t hit the end of the review evenly; I had about 20 words left over. Now, if you subtract those 20 spare words from the 43 of the sentence itself, you get…

Holy shit… I’m a fuckin’ genius.

Confessions of a Shopaholic (No, not related to the movie)

I’ve got total gear-lust. I’m ashamed to admit it, but I have an uncontrollable urge to obtain new stuff constantly. I don’t know what that says about me as a person, but at least in my point-of-view, they’re wrong. I don’t value things more than people, but I will admit that if there was a way that I could fuck my HDTV, I would. It’d probably degrade the overall resolution, though…

Like Pavlov’s Dog, I salivate every time I see some new piece of technology/entertainment that seems even the least bit desirable. I love it all: computers, laptops, DVDs, HD-DVDs (hey, gotta work that HD-DVD player, right?), software, hardware, hardcover, paperback, new edition, special edition, ANY edition.

I will be living in a hole in the ground in the next year or so.

The focus of my obsession varies from time to time. Right now, I’m eyeing one of those new Macintosh computers, like an iMac or a MacBook. My own delusions tell me that my current computer (the one I’m typing on right now) is getting older, and I should probably be thinking about what will take it’s place once this model goes belly-up. Also, I’d love the opportunity to use one of those built-in iSight cameras, even though people rarely IM me, and even then, they don’t have a camera. As it stands right now, I’ve been racking my brain as to how I can stretch my current budget to include another 1,500 dollar weight that didn’t exist beforehand.

But it’s still embarrassing that I can’t turn off my gear-lust, even though my credit cards are pushed to the point of pain. It’s something I’ll have to learn to do, because when I take full control of my gravy train, I don’t want to derail that sucker right away. I’ve got over 5,000 dollars in credit card debt, and I intend to pay off in full before I graduate. I don’t know how I’ll do it, but I will, hopefully without resorting to any illegal methods. (Just in case, does anyone know the exact process for growing your own hydroponic marijuana?)*

In later entries, I’ll post my progress, as well as a God’s-honest-truth as to what I bought that week. Part of it is because I want to brag, but the other part is because I feel that if I have to confess my wrongdoings to the world, then I’ll be less likely to grossly overspend. So, a new world is dawning, one of frugality and a credit card balance that doesn’t have four digits in them. It’ll be glorious, I tell you! Glorious!

…I’ll start tomorrow.

*By the way, if anyone was confused, I don’t actually plan on growing dope for money. That was just a joke. I thought I’d clear that up in case any fine members of the NYPD happened to be reading. If you are, then you must be reeeaallly starved for entertainment.

Fuck the Buzz

It’s Oscar time again, and you know what that means…

You can infer a lot about the Oscars, regardless of what films are up, what the “buzz” is, or who the host is. First of all, on Sunday, E!’s programming will cease to exist, instead they’ll cover the Oscars from 12 Noon to 12 Midnight. They haven’t gone so far as to pull pages out of CBS’ or Fox’s playbook when they host the Super Bowl, but I think they’re pretty damn close. Next year, I expect to see John Madden in the broadcast booth sitting next to Ryan Seacrest, drawing circles on Matt Damon’s head (and maybe Angelina Jolie’s breasts, too). It may not go that far, but I’m almost positive that at the end of the show, when the director and producer go up to accept the Oscar for Best Picture, somebody will dump Gatorade on them.

But here’s the big question I ask myself every year, and maybe we should all ask ourselves this: “Do I really care?”

I love the movies, and I’m not against the notion of the Oscars, but every year I find myself caring less and less. This is probably just me, and I’m a little embarrassed to call myself a film buff in spite of this, but I haven’t seen any of the films nominated for best picture, or any of the films nominated period! (No wait. That’s not true. I saw Apocolypto, but come on! Can that really win anything?!) So I really have no dog in this fight whatsoever.

And the Oscars are becoming more predictable than ever. Remember last year? Anyone nominated of Best Actor who wasn’t Philip Seymour Hoffman wouldn’t even bet you one dollar that they’d win anything. After he won three major awards in a row, it was a no-brainer. I’m sure he even cleared off a spot on his mantle for the statue days before the Oscar ceremony. And, as much as I loved The Lord of the Rings, Return of the King should NOT have won 7 Oscars. No movie is that universally good. I was proud that Peter Jackson won Best Director, because he deserved it. Some of the technical people deserved props as well, but seven separate statues?! Also, my roommate last year succeeded in predicting just about all of the winners for last year’s show. Yet, when we played poker, he was always the first one to bust out.

Thankfully, this year isn’t as predictable. I’m glad that the Academy chose to exclude Dreamgirls from the Best Picture race, because it obviously had “Oscar” written all over it. But that’s not to say I’m not interested in the outcome. I’d like to see Little Miss Sunshine win something major, because having a dark comedy like that being considered for something like the Oscars is a nice sign that the awards aren’t being so pompous and erudite this year. I’d also like to see Martin Scorsese win something for The Departed, but mostly because he’s an NYU alumni. If he won, the school would shut down. I mean, the entire NYU community collectively wet their pants last year when John Canemaker’s The Moon and the Son won an animation award. If Scorsese won, it’d be near anarchy. Think of Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots…

And finally, the issue of who’s hosting always bugs me. Past years have seen Billy Crystal, Whoopi Goldberg (no Robin Williams yet, which is a problem I hope gets corrected soon), Steve Martin, Chris Rock, and Jon Stewart. This year, it’s Ellen DeGeneres, probably the most non-threatening lesbian comic out there, which I say as a term of endearment. I think that’s a good choice, because she’s a nice fit for the Oscars. Her act is more about being wacky than being socially relevant, observant, or mean. Other comics (Chris Rock definitely) rely on being aggressive to be funny, and that can’t happen at the Oscars. They could even hire Lewis Black as the host, and find a way to take the claws out of him. Everybody says the host for the Oscars sucks every  year, but I blame the gig more than the comic. Think about it, you’re playing to a group of Hollywood heavyweights, most of them uptight at being made fun of in such a public atmosphere, and almost everyone in the room just wants the ceremony to move faster so they can find out if they won and then move on to the important part: the after-party. In that aspect, they’re like parents at their kid’s school concert.

So, Mr. Little Gold Statue, you won’t be monopolizing my Sunday this year. I don’t know what I’ll do with myself, now, but I sure won’t be wasting my time watching a near pointless parade of celebrities, numbing my brain to the point of total cerebral failure. I’ll be doing something with my time, damnit!

…Family Guy’s on Sundays, right?