Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Problem with American Comedy Films
We got into a discussion this week at my job about the state of American film comedy. Some of my co-workers were insisting I see the new Will Farrell movie The Campaign and honestly I don't think I've got to gumption to sit through it. Per their requests I had seen Seth MacFarlane's randy plush toy comedy Ted a few weeks prior and while I didn't find Ted to be an awful movie by any stretch I have to admit I didn't find much of it very funny at all.
So we were talking about American film comedy and I started to ruminate on this question: what was the last great American comedy? Was it Bridesmaids? That was almost a year and a half ago. Was it The Hangover? That was nearly two and a half years ago.
Here's a list of comedies that have been released this year: 21 Jump Street, That's My Boy, Ted, The Campaign, Men in Black 3, American Reunion, Wanderlust, The Three Stooges, Mirror Mirror, The Dictator, Project X, This Means War, The Five-Year Engagement, What to Expect When You're Expecting, Dark Shadows, The Watch, Think Like a Man. That's a sad little list.
So what's gone wrong? Why are American film comedies so mediocre?
I have a theory:
It's kind of obtuse, but essentially I think most people making comedic films today don't understand they are making a feature film. And making a feature film has some basic needs that are part of the process. First of all, a feature film needs to tell a story. More specifically, a feature film needs to tell a story that can sustain a running time of at least 90 minutes. Most comedies today feel like a series of sketches that are loosely strung together. Second, a feature film needs interesting characters. More specifically, a feature film needs characters that have arcs. These are characters who are dynamic, who are changed by the events in the movie. Most film comedies today can't be bothered to have that kind of depth of character. They have personas, not characters. Third, a feature film needs to have a subtext. A great film has a point of view, it's about something. There is symbolism in play. There are ideas at work. The filmmakers have something bigger than the plot they want to communicate to the audience. Most comedies don't have any satirical edge, no bigger thoughts in them at all. I would even argue that in our current social/political climate most filmmakers aren't at all interested in providing any subtext.
It's interesting that while most people look at comedy as something inferior to drama comedy filmmakers seem to be affirming that point by making films that are void of any story or interesting subtext as if a good comedy doesn't need these things.
Most comedians today are coming up through schools that teach improvisational comedy. If you assemble a who's who of American comedians they are people who came up through Second City or The Groundlings or ImprovOlympic or Upright Citizens Brigade. I don't dislike improv comedy. Far from it. Well executed improvisation is the coolest kind of magic trick there is. Steve Carrell, Tina Fey, Paul Shafer, Stephen Colbert, Paul Ruebens, Phil Hartman, Bill Murray, Kathy Griffin, Alan Arkin, Harold Ramis, George Wendt, Joan Rivers, Peter Boyle, John Belushi, Jeff Garlin, Melissa McCarthy, Cheryl Hines, Bob Odenkirk (Better Call Saul!), Jane Lynch, Jennifer Coolidge, Chris Farley. That's just a small list of vital artists who've trained in this art form.
But improv does create a couple of things that have really harmed feature film comedy.
First of all, the end game for most improvisors is to be cast on Saturday Night Live. In fact many improv schools use improv as a means of creating characters suitable for sketch comedy. In other words, most of our comedy minds are being taught to think of things as an 8 minute sketch. This goes a long way to explain why feature comedies can't tell a coherent story that sustains its run time.
Second, improv training has created a situation in which actors are expected to make a weak script funny by riffing on set each day. Who needs a good, polished screenplay? We'll just make it work on set by hiring actors who can be funny on the day. This would explain why so many film comedies today have such a lack of character depth. In some cases all this mad ad libbing results in characters with no consistent behavior. They're just trying desperately to be funny. And desperate is rarely funny.
I think that's why many of these films play better on television than they do in movie theaters. I remember seeing Will Farrell's movie Step Brothers in a theater and just despising it only to kind of warm to it a little bit when I saw it later on TV. Seeing it in little 15 minute increments takes away how badly it didn't work as an 85 minute movie. Seeing it on TV helped to zero in on some of the more subtle bits of improv that populate the film.
Correspondingly, it turns out we're kind of in a golden age for TV comedies. Parks and Recreation, The Office (both versions, focusing on the US early seasons), Curb Your Enthusiasm, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Archer, Louie, 30 Rock, Arrested Development, Modern Family, South Park, the Stewart/Colbert tandem. Hell, I really like The Big Bang Theory and I haven't liked a multi-camera sitcom in a long time. And I would argue that any of these shows offers more laughs than any screen comedy released this year. I think it's not that much of a stretch for people trained in writing 8 minute sketches to come up with 22 minute stories to tell. Curb Your Enthusiasm is largely improvised but it's also intricately plotted.
I am a huge fan of Albert Brooks' work as both a stand-up comedian, an actor and a filmmaker. One of my favorite comedies of all time is his 1984 film Lost in America. The great thing about that film is not only is it gut-bustingly funny with many now classic scenes, it's actually about something -- the selfishness and greed of the Reagan 1980s.
Another great film comedy example is the Dustin Hoffman comedy Tootsie from 1981. Famously, Hoffman plays an unemployed actor who dresses in drag in order to be cast as an actress on a TV soap opera. Is it funny? Yup. Does it tell an interesting story? Yup. Does it have something to say about the way women are treated in society? Yup. I remember seeing an interview with Hoffman where he broke down and wept talking about the impact making that film had on him personally. It turns out he didn't make a very attractive woman and in the interview he laments all the interesting women he might have met but didn't give them the time of day because they weren't conventionally attractive. It's a pretty powerful movie and it's also funny as hell. Bonus: Bill Murray is in it!
What we need today are comedy writers who understand film. Woody Allen has written many classic comedies and despite his beginnings as a stand-up comedian, Woody went to film school and NYU and understood story structure.
I'd love to see a guy like Patton Oswalt try his hand at screenwriting. Patton if you're reading this (yeah, right) it's time to get to work!
Thursday, April 12, 2012
The Cabin in the Woods is fantastic
I’ve always been fascinated by horror movies but for some reason never really been much of a fan. I remember being intrigued by Fangoria magazine when I was young and I loves me some monsters. As a kid I had a ton of books about movie monsters, but for some reason that’s never translated into an enjoyment of the genre for me as an adult.
There’s a couple of reasons for this, I think:
First of all, horror films tend to wallow in human suffering. It’s sort of the point. You can’t really make a horror film without something horrible happening to the characters. A nubile 16 year old blonde getting disemboweled with a machete? Horrifying! A nubile 16 year old blonde getting asked to the prom by the perfect boy? Not horrifying! Horror content doesn’t play nice.
But it seems like in recent years horrible circumstances are largely all horror movies have to offer. For instance, I get what Eli Roth is onto with the Hostel films, that there are fates worse than the fast and usually immediate death most horror film characters receive. But what’s supposed to be fun or entertaining about watching people be tortured to death? Isn’t that what the Final Destination series is all about? Watching attractive young people meet their elaborately choreographed ends, like some Busby Berkley splatter move? Like the Friday the 13th series that came before them the whole point of these movies are just elaborate kills and nothing else and where is the fun in that? I don’t mind extreme violence at the service of a story but when extreme violence is supposed to the main entertainment attraction I tend of check out.
Secondly, horror films are almost always poorly made. Let’s face it, when your audience is made up primarily of teenagers with questionable taste to begin with why would anybody really try all that hard making a movie? Yes there are artists like Carpenter and Romero who make good films and have something to say, but generally speaking horror movies usually suck. It seems like in recent years there’s be an increase in my friends inviting me to see some new horror movie only for them to tell me later on how bad it turned out to be. And they almost always seem surprised by this.
The Cabin in the Woods doesn’t suck. In fact, The Cabin in the Woods a tremendous amount of fun. And when was the last time a horror film had a sense of humor and wasn’t some dour, overly serious Saw knockoff?
I have to admit to being a bit of a mark for anything Joss Whedon does. I even sort of liked Dollhouse. Anybody familiar with Joss’ body of work will recognize his love of horror. And like the aforementioned Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Romero, Mr. Whedon is using horror tropes for commentary. What was Buffy if not a show using those tropes to comment on the horrors of high school and young adulthood.
Co-written by Joss and the film’s director Drew Goddard, Cabin will likely remind people of what the Scream films did years ago – it takes a horror sub-genre (in this case the college kids in an evil isolate cabin deal), takes it apart and the re-shuffles all the pieces. Unlike Scream, however, the college coeds being tormented in Cabin are not aware that they’re characters in a horror film. No, it turns out there’s an entirely other set of characters who are aware of the genre strings being pulled and why. It’s inspired storytelling.
And I’ll stop with any other plot descriptions there. I don’t want to spoil the experience for people. The last act is nutty is a great way and I wonder how many Buffy fans will notice some similarities to that series’ Season Four?
The Cabin in the Woods is a movie that really should be seen cold, with as little prior knowledge as possible. I think the trailers give away way too much of the film, but which trailers in modern Hollywood don’t?
Fans of horror films are likely to love this but I think non-genre fans will dig it too. I don’t think it’s too “inside baseball” for people who don’t know Freddy Krueger from Jason Vorhees. Whedon and Godard are making a very meta film here, but it doesn’t trip over its own references.
Also Richard Jenkins is in it and I love Richard Jenkins.
The Cabin in the Woods is stupendous fun. But unlike a lot of modern horror films it’s not just about the killings. It’s smart, funny and exceedingly well constructed.
There’s a couple of reasons for this, I think:
First of all, horror films tend to wallow in human suffering. It’s sort of the point. You can’t really make a horror film without something horrible happening to the characters. A nubile 16 year old blonde getting disemboweled with a machete? Horrifying! A nubile 16 year old blonde getting asked to the prom by the perfect boy? Not horrifying! Horror content doesn’t play nice.
But it seems like in recent years horrible circumstances are largely all horror movies have to offer. For instance, I get what Eli Roth is onto with the Hostel films, that there are fates worse than the fast and usually immediate death most horror film characters receive. But what’s supposed to be fun or entertaining about watching people be tortured to death? Isn’t that what the Final Destination series is all about? Watching attractive young people meet their elaborately choreographed ends, like some Busby Berkley splatter move? Like the Friday the 13th series that came before them the whole point of these movies are just elaborate kills and nothing else and where is the fun in that? I don’t mind extreme violence at the service of a story but when extreme violence is supposed to the main entertainment attraction I tend of check out.
Secondly, horror films are almost always poorly made. Let’s face it, when your audience is made up primarily of teenagers with questionable taste to begin with why would anybody really try all that hard making a movie? Yes there are artists like Carpenter and Romero who make good films and have something to say, but generally speaking horror movies usually suck. It seems like in recent years there’s be an increase in my friends inviting me to see some new horror movie only for them to tell me later on how bad it turned out to be. And they almost always seem surprised by this.
The Cabin in the Woods doesn’t suck. In fact, The Cabin in the Woods a tremendous amount of fun. And when was the last time a horror film had a sense of humor and wasn’t some dour, overly serious Saw knockoff?
I have to admit to being a bit of a mark for anything Joss Whedon does. I even sort of liked Dollhouse. Anybody familiar with Joss’ body of work will recognize his love of horror. And like the aforementioned Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Romero, Mr. Whedon is using horror tropes for commentary. What was Buffy if not a show using those tropes to comment on the horrors of high school and young adulthood.
Co-written by Joss and the film’s director Drew Goddard, Cabin will likely remind people of what the Scream films did years ago – it takes a horror sub-genre (in this case the college kids in an evil isolate cabin deal), takes it apart and the re-shuffles all the pieces. Unlike Scream, however, the college coeds being tormented in Cabin are not aware that they’re characters in a horror film. No, it turns out there’s an entirely other set of characters who are aware of the genre strings being pulled and why. It’s inspired storytelling.
And I’ll stop with any other plot descriptions there. I don’t want to spoil the experience for people. The last act is nutty is a great way and I wonder how many Buffy fans will notice some similarities to that series’ Season Four?
The Cabin in the Woods is a movie that really should be seen cold, with as little prior knowledge as possible. I think the trailers give away way too much of the film, but which trailers in modern Hollywood don’t?
Fans of horror films are likely to love this but I think non-genre fans will dig it too. I don’t think it’s too “inside baseball” for people who don’t know Freddy Krueger from Jason Vorhees. Whedon and Godard are making a very meta film here, but it doesn’t trip over its own references.
Also Richard Jenkins is in it and I love Richard Jenkins.
The Cabin in the Woods is stupendous fun. But unlike a lot of modern horror films it’s not just about the killings. It’s smart, funny and exceedingly well constructed.
Thursday, April 5, 2012
Why didn't somebody tell me about Don Winslow?
I'm a huge nerd and part of being a huge nerd is taking pleasure in reading books. I was a communications and English major in college and as such I tend to gravitate more to fiction a lot more than non-fiction. As I've gotten further away from completing college I notice that I'm reading a lot less literary fiction. I love crime fiction. I love Michael Connely's Harry Bosch series. I even more love Dennis Lehanes Patrick/Angela series.
So a couple of weeks ago I finally got around to reading Savages by Don Winslow. I'd seen the paperback at the store and had been meaning to read it but never gotten around to it. Two words: Holy shit! Savages is pretty spectacular. And I am totally all in on the Don Winslow train.
I devoured Savages in two days (to be fair it's not a long book, only about 300 pages) I bought The Power of the Dog.
I'm in the middle of that one right now and it's certainly a kindred cousin to Savages but more of an epic, sprawling thing with a bunch of seemingly unrelated characters who are going to intersect in unexpected ways. It's a lot like the film Traffic. And it's awesome.
So a couple of weeks ago I finally got around to reading Savages by Don Winslow. I'd seen the paperback at the store and had been meaning to read it but never gotten around to it. Two words: Holy shit! Savages is pretty spectacular. And I am totally all in on the Don Winslow train.
I devoured Savages in two days (to be fair it's not a long book, only about 300 pages) I bought The Power of the Dog.
I'm in the middle of that one right now and it's certainly a kindred cousin to Savages but more of an epic, sprawling thing with a bunch of seemingly unrelated characters who are going to intersect in unexpected ways. It's a lot like the film Traffic. And it's awesome.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Real Snobbery and the Problem With American Education
Recently Rick Santorum called President Obabma a snob for suggesting all Americans should attend college. To be accurate the President has never said this and reiterated this point after Santorum's attack, that what he wants is for all Americans to get an education that extends after high school. That could be a four year college or university, a two year program or a trade school of some kind. And the President is dead-on about this: the days of a high school education being all a person needs to have a successful career are long, long gone. I know Santorum loves the way things used to be (dude should get in a time machine and run for president in 1952) but facts are facts. And nobody is going to be able to get a decent job in the 21st century with only a high school education.
The other thing that bugs me about what Santorum had to say was the idea that wanting people to further their education is snobbish. I would think the opposite of that is true, that suggesting some people don't need to be educated because they're "only" going to be a blue collar worker. Why wouldn't an auto mechanic benefit from a bachelors degree in business? Why shouldn't people of all walks of life benefit from knowing about art, poetry, science and history? Isn't it really snobbery of the highest order to say (as Santorum does) that people like him should be educated but others really shouldn't be?
And in a nutshell this is why we have such a subpar educational system in the United States of America.
While I don't think you'll find many Americans, liberal or conservative, who will declare education irrelevant and unimportant there are hordes of people who see education simply as Mr. Santorum does: something you need in order to get the job you want. If you want to be a doctor you should get a higher education. If you want to be a construction worker you don't really need to be all that educated. After all, you don't NEED a college degree in order to work with your hands for a living. So why waste your time filling your head with information about sociology and psychology and literature when it's not the base requirements for your job?
In other words, Americans see education as not much more than a dodge or a hustle. This makes perfect sense since our true love is money. If you want a better paying job then you have to go to school. Enlightenment doesn't enter the picture at all. Being a more intelligent, thoughtful and well rounded person has no relevance whatsoever. An education = more money. Is it any wonder, then, that our education system is in the plight that it's in?
If knowledge for knowledge sake isn't really important or necessary at all, then why the hell should anybody care about school?
I taught high school English for ten years and the thing that frustrated me the most about it (besides the pay) was this same question being asked over and over and over again: "Are we going to need to know this for the test?"
See what we've done? We've programmed our kids to only care about knowledge insofar as it helps them pass a test. They don't see a lot of value in learning for the sake of knowing something or being edified by it. That's what the system has created: test takers. Not artists. Or free thinkers.
I remember having to attend a seminar several years ago in which the presenter talked about how we as teachers shouldn't teach a concept if we couldn't directly relate it to a real-life application for the kids. I said it then and I believe it just as strongly now: this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. As an English teacher, how was I supposed to show how Shakespeare could be applicable to real-life? It can't! Does that make it a bad thing? For people's lives to be enriched by things that can't be applied to real life? If we strip our lives of the things that enrich us and give us meaning then we have moved right back into the cave again.
We started as cavemen and then discovered fire and then invented the wheel. Over time we have created many things (music, science, sports, art, fashion, etc) that add beauty to the world. Our lives are the better for it. The world is a better place because of it. Life is worth living as a result of it.
So I guess I'm a snob, too. I think everybody should be well educated. I think everybody should live lives that are not just about getting by or making ends meet but of real value and consequence. A full life enhanced by a good education. I know it's a crazy idea but I think a ditch digger should enjoy the opera as much as brain surgeon.
The other thing that bugs me about what Santorum had to say was the idea that wanting people to further their education is snobbish. I would think the opposite of that is true, that suggesting some people don't need to be educated because they're "only" going to be a blue collar worker. Why wouldn't an auto mechanic benefit from a bachelors degree in business? Why shouldn't people of all walks of life benefit from knowing about art, poetry, science and history? Isn't it really snobbery of the highest order to say (as Santorum does) that people like him should be educated but others really shouldn't be?
And in a nutshell this is why we have such a subpar educational system in the United States of America.
While I don't think you'll find many Americans, liberal or conservative, who will declare education irrelevant and unimportant there are hordes of people who see education simply as Mr. Santorum does: something you need in order to get the job you want. If you want to be a doctor you should get a higher education. If you want to be a construction worker you don't really need to be all that educated. After all, you don't NEED a college degree in order to work with your hands for a living. So why waste your time filling your head with information about sociology and psychology and literature when it's not the base requirements for your job?
In other words, Americans see education as not much more than a dodge or a hustle. This makes perfect sense since our true love is money. If you want a better paying job then you have to go to school. Enlightenment doesn't enter the picture at all. Being a more intelligent, thoughtful and well rounded person has no relevance whatsoever. An education = more money. Is it any wonder, then, that our education system is in the plight that it's in?
If knowledge for knowledge sake isn't really important or necessary at all, then why the hell should anybody care about school?
I taught high school English for ten years and the thing that frustrated me the most about it (besides the pay) was this same question being asked over and over and over again: "Are we going to need to know this for the test?"
See what we've done? We've programmed our kids to only care about knowledge insofar as it helps them pass a test. They don't see a lot of value in learning for the sake of knowing something or being edified by it. That's what the system has created: test takers. Not artists. Or free thinkers.
I remember having to attend a seminar several years ago in which the presenter talked about how we as teachers shouldn't teach a concept if we couldn't directly relate it to a real-life application for the kids. I said it then and I believe it just as strongly now: this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. As an English teacher, how was I supposed to show how Shakespeare could be applicable to real-life? It can't! Does that make it a bad thing? For people's lives to be enriched by things that can't be applied to real life? If we strip our lives of the things that enrich us and give us meaning then we have moved right back into the cave again.
We started as cavemen and then discovered fire and then invented the wheel. Over time we have created many things (music, science, sports, art, fashion, etc) that add beauty to the world. Our lives are the better for it. The world is a better place because of it. Life is worth living as a result of it.
So I guess I'm a snob, too. I think everybody should be well educated. I think everybody should live lives that are not just about getting by or making ends meet but of real value and consequence. A full life enhanced by a good education. I know it's a crazy idea but I think a ditch digger should enjoy the opera as much as brain surgeon.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Hollyworse
So earlier this week, it seems Catwoman peppersprayed Jack Sparrow. Allow me a moment to digress and explain.
If you don't live in Los Angeles you may be unaware of the comings and goings on Hollywood Boulevard. Due to a lack of any kind of institutional control the stretch of the Boulevard that passes in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater and the (soon to be re-named) Kodak Theater/Hollywood and Highland complex is a nightmare. Due to a large influx of tourists that part of Hollywood is overrun with people trying to hustle a buck from the out of towners. The worst offenders are people dressed as movie characters who pose for photos with tourists for tips. Legally they aren't allowed to ask for money but that protocol has long fallen to the wayside. I've seen them yell at people who wouldn't give them money. To be fair, some of the costumed characters have spent some real time on their look and they are harmless and do give the area a little bit of atmosphere. The majority of them are creeps who buy a $25 Halloween costume and wear it around. Many of them are lascivious in their behavior. A guy who dresses as SpongeBob got arrested recently for groping women. So there's them.
There are also amateur rappers trying to hock their basement made CDs and DVDs. Then there are the tour companies who send out employees to act as carnival barkers trying to entice tourists to take a bus ride to see the gated homes of famous people. Add on to this the homeless who are begging for change. And then there are the people who are varying degrees of mentally ill. A couple of weeks ago a guy went nuts and had to be taken away by police after assaulting people in a bank.
This time of year it isn't as bad as it will be in the summer months at the height of the tourist season. The bigger the crowds of guests, the more people will be out on the street trying to fleece money of the tourists. For people who actually live in or work in the area it's horrendous. It's also dirty and badly maintained.
Which brings us back to Catwoman. This week a woman who dresses up (sort of) like Catwoman maced a guy dressed up as Jack Sparrow and a guy dressed up as Ozzy Osbourne. What a delightful vacation moment that must have been as horrified families looked on to see beloved Captain Jack get sprayed in the eyes!
Which raises the question from me, why in the hell do the people in charge allow this part of Hollywood to be such a shithole? With the exception of possibly Disneyland, the section of Hollywood Boulevard between Orange and Vine is very likely the most popular tourist destination in the city. The area boasts the Walk of Fame, both Grauman's Chinese and Egyptian theaters, the Disney El Capitan theater, both the W and Roosevelt Hotels, the new Cirque show Iris, Madame Tussads, the Guiness and Ripley museums and the Hollywood and Highland mall. Why on earth would you let a tourist destination with this much to offer be this level of sketchy?
It's bad for business to be sure but it also shows a sharp lack of concern for history and city culture. People want to see the Chinese Theater with it's world famous hand and footprints because they want to see the history of the motion picture industry. And that industry has been extremely vital to the economic and cultural development of Los Angeles. Why would anybody let that be disrespected so much?
If you don't live in Los Angeles you may be unaware of the comings and goings on Hollywood Boulevard. Due to a lack of any kind of institutional control the stretch of the Boulevard that passes in front of Grauman's Chinese Theater and the (soon to be re-named) Kodak Theater/Hollywood and Highland complex is a nightmare. Due to a large influx of tourists that part of Hollywood is overrun with people trying to hustle a buck from the out of towners. The worst offenders are people dressed as movie characters who pose for photos with tourists for tips. Legally they aren't allowed to ask for money but that protocol has long fallen to the wayside. I've seen them yell at people who wouldn't give them money. To be fair, some of the costumed characters have spent some real time on their look and they are harmless and do give the area a little bit of atmosphere. The majority of them are creeps who buy a $25 Halloween costume and wear it around. Many of them are lascivious in their behavior. A guy who dresses as SpongeBob got arrested recently for groping women. So there's them.
There are also amateur rappers trying to hock their basement made CDs and DVDs. Then there are the tour companies who send out employees to act as carnival barkers trying to entice tourists to take a bus ride to see the gated homes of famous people. Add on to this the homeless who are begging for change. And then there are the people who are varying degrees of mentally ill. A couple of weeks ago a guy went nuts and had to be taken away by police after assaulting people in a bank.
This time of year it isn't as bad as it will be in the summer months at the height of the tourist season. The bigger the crowds of guests, the more people will be out on the street trying to fleece money of the tourists. For people who actually live in or work in the area it's horrendous. It's also dirty and badly maintained.
Which brings us back to Catwoman. This week a woman who dresses up (sort of) like Catwoman maced a guy dressed up as Jack Sparrow and a guy dressed up as Ozzy Osbourne. What a delightful vacation moment that must have been as horrified families looked on to see beloved Captain Jack get sprayed in the eyes!
Which raises the question from me, why in the hell do the people in charge allow this part of Hollywood to be such a shithole? With the exception of possibly Disneyland, the section of Hollywood Boulevard between Orange and Vine is very likely the most popular tourist destination in the city. The area boasts the Walk of Fame, both Grauman's Chinese and Egyptian theaters, the Disney El Capitan theater, both the W and Roosevelt Hotels, the new Cirque show Iris, Madame Tussads, the Guiness and Ripley museums and the Hollywood and Highland mall. Why on earth would you let a tourist destination with this much to offer be this level of sketchy?
It's bad for business to be sure but it also shows a sharp lack of concern for history and city culture. People want to see the Chinese Theater with it's world famous hand and footprints because they want to see the history of the motion picture industry. And that industry has been extremely vital to the economic and cultural development of Los Angeles. Why would anybody let that be disrespected so much?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
London Calling*
So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week. This comes after the league has mounted various pre-season games in cities all over the world for years. I distinctly remember the Chiefs playing the Vikings in Tokyo back in the mid 90s. There has been talk about the NLF staging the Superbowl in London. The aim of all this is, of course, to expand the NFL's appeal outside of North America. And Goodell has stated he has one ultimate goal with these regular season games in the UK: he wants a permanent NFL franchise based in London.
As the Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell's title could just as easily be CEO -- part of his job description is to make the NFL as profitable as is humanly possible. The proposed 18 game schedule is certainly a part of that. It makes logical sense for a successful US business to try and make more money by franchising itself in Europe and beyond. McDonadls. Starbucks. The NFL would like to be a big brand in Europe.
So is it a good idea? From a fiscal standpoint it most certainly is. If the NFL wants to keep making more money, the most logical way to do that is expanding the brand overseas. Did anybody see a little movie last year called Avatar? It's the highest grossing movie both here in the States and internationally as well. Avatar made about $750 million in North American. But it made almost $2 billion in overseas markets. In other words, it made nearly 3 times as much money overseas as it did here. That's not an uncommon occurrence with American entertainment exports, that they make at least as much money overseas as they do here. For most American movies, about 60% of their total gross comes from overseas markets. If the league wants to increase revenues, an obvious means for this is to expand the game outside the US.
Are there complications with this? Oh yeah, there are some complications. The biggest one is the issue of travel. I was reading this week about the Donkeys' and 49ers' travel plans for dealing with the jet lag and how they organized their travel to play the game. I know this sound pretty fundamental, but they will also have to travel back after their game tomorrow. So traveling to the UK will affect a visiting team's play this week and also next week as they recover from jet lag. But that's just the visiting team. If you base a team in London, they will have to deal with kind of travel EIGHT TIMES a season. Nine if they adopt an 18 game schedule. Then you would have to travel for two pre-season games. And if you make the playoffs you would have to travel for non-home games as well. You're looking at a team making potentially 12 or 13 jaunts across the pond, 14 or 15 if the expand the schedule. A flight from New York to London is only a couple of hours longer than a flight from New York to L.A. But if a team in the UK had to travel from London to play in San Diego? Those guys will be logging more frequent flyer miles than George Clooney did in Up in the Air.
Would there be a fan base? So far all the games they've staged at Wembley have sold out. So there is at least some interest in it. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't go forward with a UK team if they hadn't studied its chances for success. Plus, London is a huge city, with a population of 7.5 million people. However, you have a situation in the UK where nobody plays youth football. I'm sure the NFL would be more than happy to help fund equipment for youth leagues if that would help expand the popularity. But like the rest of the known world, soccer is king in England. Could an American football team succeed in a city like London? The NFL has already failed at trying to start a league in Europe, but that is partially because the World League was a self-admitted bush league of developmental players -- the fans in Europe weren't getting the best possible NFL product.
Who would they move? Goodell has stated he doesn't want to expand the league from 32 teams, so somebody would have to get relocated to London. Who goes? What division do they play in (I would assume the London team would have to be in either of the Easts)? I know the NFL wants to move at least one team to Los Angeles (there are two different stadium plans underway, one headed up by AEG to build a stadium next to Staples downtown). Jacksonville is usually the first team people mention as a possible LA team. Who goes to London? Buffalo? If London were in the US it would be the second biggest city, nearly as populated as New York. Buffalo has a population of 270,000. One team would have to be relocated. The team owner would have to go along with it. Who moves?
Would players want to live in London? I wouldn't mind it, but you never know if a London team would be able to sign free agents. This is just me, but I would much rather live in London over the following NFL cities: Green Bay, St. Louis, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Nashville, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Indy, or Oakland. But that's just me. Would a team in the UK be able to attract talent like a team in the States? London is a great city, with as much to do and see and as much culture (maybe more) than New York. But would a player want to live there? Would a GM and coaches want to move their families there?
I don't live in KC any more, so I don't know what the atmosphere was like there for the World Cup. In LA it was pretty insane. The sports bar across the street from my apartment was serving breakfast at 6 am so fans could come in and watch the games. Most sports bars were open that early. The company I work for is based in the UK and my boss is from England. All the games were on here at work. People had their flags out, wearing their teams' jerseys around. Honestly, it reminded me of Arrowhead. And that's not even close compared to what the atmosphere was like overseas. The thing the NFL might be pushing towards down the road would be a World Cup of American football, where countries sent all star teams to compete against each other once every four years. If American football can be grown outside the US, this kind of event is possible in the future -- remember the World Cup is by far the most successful sporting event in the world.
So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week. Do you think American football can thrive outside the United States?
*I know the title is a little obvious, but I'm a fan of The Clash. So sue me.
As the Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell's title could just as easily be CEO -- part of his job description is to make the NFL as profitable as is humanly possible. The proposed 18 game schedule is certainly a part of that. It makes logical sense for a successful US business to try and make more money by franchising itself in Europe and beyond. McDonadls. Starbucks. The NFL would like to be a big brand in Europe.
So is it a good idea? From a fiscal standpoint it most certainly is. If the NFL wants to keep making more money, the most logical way to do that is expanding the brand overseas. Did anybody see a little movie last year called Avatar? It's the highest grossing movie both here in the States and internationally as well. Avatar made about $750 million in North American. But it made almost $2 billion in overseas markets. In other words, it made nearly 3 times as much money overseas as it did here. That's not an uncommon occurrence with American entertainment exports, that they make at least as much money overseas as they do here. For most American movies, about 60% of their total gross comes from overseas markets. If the league wants to increase revenues, an obvious means for this is to expand the game outside the US.
Are there complications with this? Oh yeah, there are some complications. The biggest one is the issue of travel. I was reading this week about the Donkeys' and 49ers' travel plans for dealing with the jet lag and how they organized their travel to play the game. I know this sound pretty fundamental, but they will also have to travel back after their game tomorrow. So traveling to the UK will affect a visiting team's play this week and also next week as they recover from jet lag. But that's just the visiting team. If you base a team in London, they will have to deal with kind of travel EIGHT TIMES a season. Nine if they adopt an 18 game schedule. Then you would have to travel for two pre-season games. And if you make the playoffs you would have to travel for non-home games as well. You're looking at a team making potentially 12 or 13 jaunts across the pond, 14 or 15 if the expand the schedule. A flight from New York to London is only a couple of hours longer than a flight from New York to L.A. But if a team in the UK had to travel from London to play in San Diego? Those guys will be logging more frequent flyer miles than George Clooney did in Up in the Air.
Would there be a fan base? So far all the games they've staged at Wembley have sold out. So there is at least some interest in it. I'm sure the NFL wouldn't go forward with a UK team if they hadn't studied its chances for success. Plus, London is a huge city, with a population of 7.5 million people. However, you have a situation in the UK where nobody plays youth football. I'm sure the NFL would be more than happy to help fund equipment for youth leagues if that would help expand the popularity. But like the rest of the known world, soccer is king in England. Could an American football team succeed in a city like London? The NFL has already failed at trying to start a league in Europe, but that is partially because the World League was a self-admitted bush league of developmental players -- the fans in Europe weren't getting the best possible NFL product.
Who would they move? Goodell has stated he doesn't want to expand the league from 32 teams, so somebody would have to get relocated to London. Who goes? What division do they play in (I would assume the London team would have to be in either of the Easts)? I know the NFL wants to move at least one team to Los Angeles (there are two different stadium plans underway, one headed up by AEG to build a stadium next to Staples downtown). Jacksonville is usually the first team people mention as a possible LA team. Who goes to London? Buffalo? If London were in the US it would be the second biggest city, nearly as populated as New York. Buffalo has a population of 270,000. One team would have to be relocated. The team owner would have to go along with it. Who moves?
Would players want to live in London? I wouldn't mind it, but you never know if a London team would be able to sign free agents. This is just me, but I would much rather live in London over the following NFL cities: Green Bay, St. Louis, Buffalo, Jacksonville, Charlotte, Nashville, Minneapolis, Dallas, Houston, Detroit, Indy, or Oakland. But that's just me. Would a team in the UK be able to attract talent like a team in the States? London is a great city, with as much to do and see and as much culture (maybe more) than New York. But would a player want to live there? Would a GM and coaches want to move their families there?
I don't live in KC any more, so I don't know what the atmosphere was like there for the World Cup. In LA it was pretty insane. The sports bar across the street from my apartment was serving breakfast at 6 am so fans could come in and watch the games. Most sports bars were open that early. The company I work for is based in the UK and my boss is from England. All the games were on here at work. People had their flags out, wearing their teams' jerseys around. Honestly, it reminded me of Arrowhead. And that's not even close compared to what the atmosphere was like overseas. The thing the NFL might be pushing towards down the road would be a World Cup of American football, where countries sent all star teams to compete against each other once every four years. If American football can be grown outside the US, this kind of event is possible in the future -- remember the World Cup is by far the most successful sporting event in the world.
So the NFL plays its fourth regular season game in London this week. Do you think American football can thrive outside the United States?
*I know the title is a little obvious, but I'm a fan of The Clash. So sue me.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Why is 3D an extra charge?
I went to see Toy Story 3 last week at the Grove here in Los Angeles and it cost me $16.50 to see the movie. This was, of course, due to the additional fee the theater chains are charging for this Avatar-led glut of 3D movies coming out. I've paid the fee before and never really thought anything about it until last week while I was waiting for the movie to start. Why was I being charged an extra $3.50 premium for the 3D?
One of the things that's interesting about the movie industry is tickets are the same price regardless of what you're seeing. A couple of weeks ago I caught the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work at the Arclight. The movie's pretty good but it couldn't have cost very much money to produce. It's just people following Rivers around for a year. However, I paid the same money to see that as I paid to see Iron Man, a movie with an exponentially bigger budget and marketing costs. This would never happen in, say, the world of live theater. Seeing Denzel Washington in Fences on Broadway will cost you more money than seeing an Off-Off Broadway show.
So as I was waiting for TS3 to begin I started to think: what exactly and I being charged for when I pay the 3D premium? It can't be to compensate a bigger budgeted film since something like the Final Destination series' 3D movie would have had a much lower budget than something like Prince of Persia. Is it to pay for the glasses? If Pacific Theaters is charging $3.50 a person for 3D and they are able to use a single pair of 3D glasses for at least 5 screenings a day then they are making $17.50 a day off a pair of 3D glasses. How much can the glasses cost to produce? And why can't I just buy my own pair and bring them to the cinema with me and avoid the upcharge altogether?
I'd never really thought of this before, I'd just played along. But why should there be a premium charge for 3D?
One of the things that's interesting about the movie industry is tickets are the same price regardless of what you're seeing. A couple of weeks ago I caught the documentary Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work at the Arclight. The movie's pretty good but it couldn't have cost very much money to produce. It's just people following Rivers around for a year. However, I paid the same money to see that as I paid to see Iron Man, a movie with an exponentially bigger budget and marketing costs. This would never happen in, say, the world of live theater. Seeing Denzel Washington in Fences on Broadway will cost you more money than seeing an Off-Off Broadway show.
So as I was waiting for TS3 to begin I started to think: what exactly and I being charged for when I pay the 3D premium? It can't be to compensate a bigger budgeted film since something like the Final Destination series' 3D movie would have had a much lower budget than something like Prince of Persia. Is it to pay for the glasses? If Pacific Theaters is charging $3.50 a person for 3D and they are able to use a single pair of 3D glasses for at least 5 screenings a day then they are making $17.50 a day off a pair of 3D glasses. How much can the glasses cost to produce? And why can't I just buy my own pair and bring them to the cinema with me and avoid the upcharge altogether?
I'd never really thought of this before, I'd just played along. But why should there be a premium charge for 3D?
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
$35 Dollars a Ticket???
I didn't major in business when I was in college, but there are times when I look at the way some companies are run and I just shake my head. How can the people who run them, who get paid mind boggling sums of to make good business decisions do things that are so stupid?
Case and point for me is the music business. The people running the music industry had to see the problems that the internet and digital file sharing was going to cause them. If they didn't see it coming they are even stupider than I thought they were. They had to know that people would be able to share music on the internet. Instead of using it to their advantage and providing a service with that technology (and being proactive) the industry did nothing until they started losing vast sums of money. Their solution? This is the brilliant part: Their solution was to sue their customers. Finally Steve Jobs entered the picture to stop the insanity with a really smart (and simple) idea that became iTunes. Apple offered an online store where people could pay $.99 for a song and (usually) about $9.99 for the whole album. iTunes is cheaper than buying the hard copy CD in a store like Best Buy. As I am writing this, iTunes has sold well over 1 billion songs and is on their way to selling 2 billion. Of course the pinheads that run the music biz are wanting to start charging more money per song. Apple bails them out and their greed makes them blind to the good thing they have.
The movie theater companies are doing things that are just as stupid. Overall film grosses this year were up over last year, but ticket sales are down. Again, I didn't go to business school, but I am clever enough to see that increased ticket prices are making it look like more people are going. The fact of the matter is moviegoing (in the traditional sense of going to see a first run feature in a theater) has been on the decline for years. There are a lot of factors for this. Home theaters are more sophisticated and create a theater-like experience at home. The window of time between a film's theatrical run and its home video release is still shrinking. It used to be about a 6 month gap between the theatrical run and the home vid release. Now it's dwindled to about 3 months. People don't have to wait as long, it makes them more likely to wait and see the film at home. As I mentioned, high ticket prices are also keeping people away. Concessions are ridiculously high as well. In LA it would cost upwards of $75 to take a family of 4 to the movies, if you also got popcorn and soda.
But the real culprit in all this is that the theater owners have allowed the moviegoing experience to just flat out suck. Theaters are manned mostly be teenagers earning minimum wage -- you get what you pay for. In our litigious society I am sure these businesses don't want to deal with getting sued if they throw disruptive people out. So essentially they are creating a situation in which a few idiots can ruin the fun for everybody else. Theater chains are trying to squeeze every last penny they can, that' why you have to sit through 30 minutes of commercials before you sit through 15 minutes of trailers.
Worst of all are your fellow patrons. The people are rude and insensitive to the concept that there are other people watching the movie besides them. Cell phones are a huge problem, both people taking calls during a movie or text messaging. Idiotic people take small children to the movie, often to movies that are inappropriate for their kid. The worst I ever saw was 2 white trash morons take a kid that looked 3 or 4 to see Natural Born Killers. Message to parents: having kids means you don't get to do the things you used to. If you can't get a babysitter, STAY HOME. Teenagers ruin movies as well. Suburban parents drop their kids off at movie theaters and malls as if they were some sort of babysitting service. Judging from their kids' behavior, I wouldn't want them in the house either, but I didn't choose to have them. Again, you had kids now deal with the consequences.
These are mild problems by comparison. Violence is not uncommon these days with fist fights, knifings and actual shootings taking place at the movies.
Like the music biz, the big theater chains have been very, very slow to adapt. They have dug in their heels and avoided making the theater going experience superior to waiting 3 months and watching the movie at home. They have been slow to change over to digital and 3D projection and also been slow to utilize formats like IMAX, which simply can't be replicated in a home theater. Of course while improving the presentation of the film costs money, controlling audience behavior is free of charge.
Today Variety reports that the Village Road Show company will start to build some lavish, premium theaters in the US. They will offer valet parking, restaurants and waiter service to your seat in the theater. Theses theaters will also be equipped with state of the art digital projection and sound. And the tickets will cost $35.
What????
$35? To see a movie I can buy on DVD in 3 months for half that? What these guys are failing to see is it doesn't matter if the projection is in pristine digital or if the waiter serves you great sushi. None of it matters if the asshole behind you won't shut up or stop kicking your seat.
In LA we have a theater called the Arclight. It's in Hollywood on Sunset and Vine. It costs $14 to see a movie there, $12 for matinees. It is essentially the same concept, minus the waiters. And wouldn't having waiters coming in and out of a movie be a huge distraction anyway?
The Arclight totally gets it right and I go out of my way to see movies there. They rock.
Case and point for me is the music business. The people running the music industry had to see the problems that the internet and digital file sharing was going to cause them. If they didn't see it coming they are even stupider than I thought they were. They had to know that people would be able to share music on the internet. Instead of using it to their advantage and providing a service with that technology (and being proactive) the industry did nothing until they started losing vast sums of money. Their solution? This is the brilliant part: Their solution was to sue their customers. Finally Steve Jobs entered the picture to stop the insanity with a really smart (and simple) idea that became iTunes. Apple offered an online store where people could pay $.99 for a song and (usually) about $9.99 for the whole album. iTunes is cheaper than buying the hard copy CD in a store like Best Buy. As I am writing this, iTunes has sold well over 1 billion songs and is on their way to selling 2 billion. Of course the pinheads that run the music biz are wanting to start charging more money per song. Apple bails them out and their greed makes them blind to the good thing they have.
The movie theater companies are doing things that are just as stupid. Overall film grosses this year were up over last year, but ticket sales are down. Again, I didn't go to business school, but I am clever enough to see that increased ticket prices are making it look like more people are going. The fact of the matter is moviegoing (in the traditional sense of going to see a first run feature in a theater) has been on the decline for years. There are a lot of factors for this. Home theaters are more sophisticated and create a theater-like experience at home. The window of time between a film's theatrical run and its home video release is still shrinking. It used to be about a 6 month gap between the theatrical run and the home vid release. Now it's dwindled to about 3 months. People don't have to wait as long, it makes them more likely to wait and see the film at home. As I mentioned, high ticket prices are also keeping people away. Concessions are ridiculously high as well. In LA it would cost upwards of $75 to take a family of 4 to the movies, if you also got popcorn and soda.
But the real culprit in all this is that the theater owners have allowed the moviegoing experience to just flat out suck. Theaters are manned mostly be teenagers earning minimum wage -- you get what you pay for. In our litigious society I am sure these businesses don't want to deal with getting sued if they throw disruptive people out. So essentially they are creating a situation in which a few idiots can ruin the fun for everybody else. Theater chains are trying to squeeze every last penny they can, that' why you have to sit through 30 minutes of commercials before you sit through 15 minutes of trailers.
Worst of all are your fellow patrons. The people are rude and insensitive to the concept that there are other people watching the movie besides them. Cell phones are a huge problem, both people taking calls during a movie or text messaging. Idiotic people take small children to the movie, often to movies that are inappropriate for their kid. The worst I ever saw was 2 white trash morons take a kid that looked 3 or 4 to see Natural Born Killers. Message to parents: having kids means you don't get to do the things you used to. If you can't get a babysitter, STAY HOME. Teenagers ruin movies as well. Suburban parents drop their kids off at movie theaters and malls as if they were some sort of babysitting service. Judging from their kids' behavior, I wouldn't want them in the house either, but I didn't choose to have them. Again, you had kids now deal with the consequences.
These are mild problems by comparison. Violence is not uncommon these days with fist fights, knifings and actual shootings taking place at the movies.
Like the music biz, the big theater chains have been very, very slow to adapt. They have dug in their heels and avoided making the theater going experience superior to waiting 3 months and watching the movie at home. They have been slow to change over to digital and 3D projection and also been slow to utilize formats like IMAX, which simply can't be replicated in a home theater. Of course while improving the presentation of the film costs money, controlling audience behavior is free of charge.
Today Variety reports that the Village Road Show company will start to build some lavish, premium theaters in the US. They will offer valet parking, restaurants and waiter service to your seat in the theater. Theses theaters will also be equipped with state of the art digital projection and sound. And the tickets will cost $35.
What????
$35? To see a movie I can buy on DVD in 3 months for half that? What these guys are failing to see is it doesn't matter if the projection is in pristine digital or if the waiter serves you great sushi. None of it matters if the asshole behind you won't shut up or stop kicking your seat.
In LA we have a theater called the Arclight. It's in Hollywood on Sunset and Vine. It costs $14 to see a movie there, $12 for matinees. It is essentially the same concept, minus the waiters. And wouldn't having waiters coming in and out of a movie be a huge distraction anyway?
The Arclight totally gets it right and I go out of my way to see movies there. They rock.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Simon? Or Paula?
I am hanging out at home tonight, watching a little "American Idol." I like it better than I used to. I am not sure if this is a format change for the show, but the Idols are playing instruments this year, which I always thought should have been a part of the competition. If I ran the show I would take it a step further and allow them to perform their own songs, if they have any original compositions. I think it allows the winner to be a well rounded performer and not just a singer.
This brings me to the judges. Simon Cowell gets a lot of flack from people for being the "mean" judge. But if you really watch the show and pay attention to what he says, he never really makes his criticism personal. He is just very direct in telling the contestants what he thinks of their performance. He is also the most qualified person on the stage and you can tell by watching the reaction of the singers that his opinion means more to them. When he praises them, they beam.
His counterpoint is, of course, is Paula Abdul. Paula was a singer in the 80s, but not a particularly memorable one. She got her start as a Laker Girl and she has a dance and choreography background. Some nights on Idol she appears to have pounded a few drinks before the show. Paula babbles and she almost never offers any real criticism or advice. She goes by the monicker of the "nice" judge. Often she goes on about how pretty the girls look. She has no edge and no real point of view.
Between the two of them, I really think Simon offers a great public service: He tells people the truth. If somebody who can't sing wants to be a singer, he will tell them they have no hope. Some people think that's mean. In interviews I have heard Simon say that real cruelty is to let people go around and embarrass themselves when they have no talent for what they are trying to do. I agree. In the acting game, there are people with no talent who are wasting a lot of time and money pursuing something that just isn't going to work out for them. We live in world where most people are like Paula, unwilling or unable to tell people anything other than hollow, polite platitudes. What we need is somebody like Simon, who will cut through all the crap and tell us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear. Sometimes the truth stings.
As a performer, I want honest criticism. I want to know what I can do to make a scene better or to improve my work as an actor. If I am wasting my time as an actor, I want to know so I can move on with my life.
I want to be surrounded by people like Simon, I want people to tell me the truth, to tell me that, yes, those pants do make me look fat. Billy Joel wrote a song about this. It's called "Honesty." In it he says, "If you look for truthfulness you might just as well be blind." I think he is largely right. It is difficult to find somebody who cares enough about you to tell you things that may hurt your feelings but are things that you really need to know.
I lived in South Florida for 2 years and they have this Air and Sea Show in Ft. Lauderdale that is really cool. It's similar to Fleet Week in New York and on that weekend the armed forces put on a really cool show/demonstration, right on the beach in Ft. Lauderdale. We went one year and while we were there I saw a young woman who was not very tall and must have weighed at least 200 pounds. She was wearing a thong. It was appalling. Actually it was worse than that. It made me massively uncomfortable. The sad thing was she had friends with her and they didn't have the decency to tell her friend that she looked worse than bad, she looked delusional. She looked desperate.
I want my friends to stop me from going to the Air and Sea Show in a thong. Is that sort of honesty too much to ask?
This brings me to the judges. Simon Cowell gets a lot of flack from people for being the "mean" judge. But if you really watch the show and pay attention to what he says, he never really makes his criticism personal. He is just very direct in telling the contestants what he thinks of their performance. He is also the most qualified person on the stage and you can tell by watching the reaction of the singers that his opinion means more to them. When he praises them, they beam.
His counterpoint is, of course, is Paula Abdul. Paula was a singer in the 80s, but not a particularly memorable one. She got her start as a Laker Girl and she has a dance and choreography background. Some nights on Idol she appears to have pounded a few drinks before the show. Paula babbles and she almost never offers any real criticism or advice. She goes by the monicker of the "nice" judge. Often she goes on about how pretty the girls look. She has no edge and no real point of view.
Between the two of them, I really think Simon offers a great public service: He tells people the truth. If somebody who can't sing wants to be a singer, he will tell them they have no hope. Some people think that's mean. In interviews I have heard Simon say that real cruelty is to let people go around and embarrass themselves when they have no talent for what they are trying to do. I agree. In the acting game, there are people with no talent who are wasting a lot of time and money pursuing something that just isn't going to work out for them. We live in world where most people are like Paula, unwilling or unable to tell people anything other than hollow, polite platitudes. What we need is somebody like Simon, who will cut through all the crap and tell us what we need to hear, not what we want to hear. Sometimes the truth stings.
As a performer, I want honest criticism. I want to know what I can do to make a scene better or to improve my work as an actor. If I am wasting my time as an actor, I want to know so I can move on with my life.
I want to be surrounded by people like Simon, I want people to tell me the truth, to tell me that, yes, those pants do make me look fat. Billy Joel wrote a song about this. It's called "Honesty." In it he says, "If you look for truthfulness you might just as well be blind." I think he is largely right. It is difficult to find somebody who cares enough about you to tell you things that may hurt your feelings but are things that you really need to know.
I lived in South Florida for 2 years and they have this Air and Sea Show in Ft. Lauderdale that is really cool. It's similar to Fleet Week in New York and on that weekend the armed forces put on a really cool show/demonstration, right on the beach in Ft. Lauderdale. We went one year and while we were there I saw a young woman who was not very tall and must have weighed at least 200 pounds. She was wearing a thong. It was appalling. Actually it was worse than that. It made me massively uncomfortable. The sad thing was she had friends with her and they didn't have the decency to tell her friend that she looked worse than bad, she looked delusional. She looked desperate.
I want my friends to stop me from going to the Air and Sea Show in a thong. Is that sort of honesty too much to ask?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Barack's Pastor
Hillary got what she must have been dreaming of this week when scrutiny fell on Barack Obama as it relates to his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Wright's controversial remarks in some of his sermons are causing Obama to get some of the tough media scrutiny Hillary claimed Obama wasn't getting. And of course it led to Barack's incredible speech on race, which may go down historically much the same as JFK's 1960 speech to the ministers in Houston who were concerned about Kennedy being a Catholic.
Rev. Wright's comments about race have been fueling a lot of fodder in the media and it makes me really wonder why it was such a big deal. After all, don't we all have associations with people who have differing points of view than our own? My parents and I have different points of view about policy. God knows I disagreed with how some of the principals I worked under ran schools I worked for. So why is there so much guilt by association in the case involving Rev. Wright and Barack Obama?
I think it comes down to the role pastors play in the lives of the average church-goer. I really believe that the average church-goer pretty much falls in line with whatever their pastor says and never questions it. I think America is loaded with people who are intellectually lazy and the church is no different. In other words, people show up on Sunday and expect to have their pastor tell them what to think. The look to their pastor as their spiritual guide (which they should) but they never question what he has to say (which they should not).
Necessity taught me to question my pastor when I was in high school. When you grow up in a small midwestern town you don't always get the sophistication of the big city. The pastor of the Southern Baptist church my family attended had not attended a seminary. I am not sure if he even was a college graduate at all. But I remember very specifically him saying he did not think attending seminary was very important. This is a lot like saying a doctor doesn't need to got to medical school. But hey, this is America and we certainly don't value intellectualism very much at all.
While I was in high school there were two things our pastor said that really blew my mind. The first one involved the creation story found in Genesis. He told his congregation that when the Bible says God created something in a day's time it meant a 24 hour calendar day , which makes God a lot like Jack Bauer. At the time I thought it was ridiculous and I still do. Just look at the loonies running around today that claim the earth is only 3,000 years old because the Bible only accounts for that much history. I love the way Lewis Black describes these people who are "watch the Flintsones as if it were a documentary."
The second thing (and even crazier still) was his assertion that a woman using artificial insemination to get pregnant was an abomination. To this day I am convinced he didn't really understand how artificial insemination worked. I think he thought that a woman would simply get pregnant by getting nailed by a man who wasn't her husband. And to this day I still have no idea what his Biblical argument was to explain how this procedure that had helped so many couples who couldn't have kids get pregnant was somehow Godless. He also spoke once about Darwin having a deathbed change of heart about his writings on Evolution. I am pretty sure he made that one up.
It's dangerous when people take any information at face value without investigating it for themselves. It's really scary when it's information that will impact the moral choices you make in your lifetime. The sad thing is the average Christian is completely illiterate when it comes to the Bible. Most Christians (like most Americans) are simply intellectually lazy. I am not completely sure why this is. It may be they are scared to uncover things about their beliefs that may challenge what they have always held to be true. There are many Christian denominations who only use the King James translation of the Bible as their guide. It doesn't matter to these people that 400 years of scholarship and research has been done and that modern translations are simply more accurate in terms of what the Bible says. The point is the King James Bible says what they want it to say.
I think that is the fear people have about Barack and Rev. Wright; that Barack attended that church because its pastor said thing Barack wanted him to say.
Rev. Wright's comments about race have been fueling a lot of fodder in the media and it makes me really wonder why it was such a big deal. After all, don't we all have associations with people who have differing points of view than our own? My parents and I have different points of view about policy. God knows I disagreed with how some of the principals I worked under ran schools I worked for. So why is there so much guilt by association in the case involving Rev. Wright and Barack Obama?
I think it comes down to the role pastors play in the lives of the average church-goer. I really believe that the average church-goer pretty much falls in line with whatever their pastor says and never questions it. I think America is loaded with people who are intellectually lazy and the church is no different. In other words, people show up on Sunday and expect to have their pastor tell them what to think. The look to their pastor as their spiritual guide (which they should) but they never question what he has to say (which they should not).
Necessity taught me to question my pastor when I was in high school. When you grow up in a small midwestern town you don't always get the sophistication of the big city. The pastor of the Southern Baptist church my family attended had not attended a seminary. I am not sure if he even was a college graduate at all. But I remember very specifically him saying he did not think attending seminary was very important. This is a lot like saying a doctor doesn't need to got to medical school. But hey, this is America and we certainly don't value intellectualism very much at all.
While I was in high school there were two things our pastor said that really blew my mind. The first one involved the creation story found in Genesis. He told his congregation that when the Bible says God created something in a day's time it meant a 24 hour calendar day , which makes God a lot like Jack Bauer. At the time I thought it was ridiculous and I still do. Just look at the loonies running around today that claim the earth is only 3,000 years old because the Bible only accounts for that much history. I love the way Lewis Black describes these people who are "watch the Flintsones as if it were a documentary."
The second thing (and even crazier still) was his assertion that a woman using artificial insemination to get pregnant was an abomination. To this day I am convinced he didn't really understand how artificial insemination worked. I think he thought that a woman would simply get pregnant by getting nailed by a man who wasn't her husband. And to this day I still have no idea what his Biblical argument was to explain how this procedure that had helped so many couples who couldn't have kids get pregnant was somehow Godless. He also spoke once about Darwin having a deathbed change of heart about his writings on Evolution. I am pretty sure he made that one up.
It's dangerous when people take any information at face value without investigating it for themselves. It's really scary when it's information that will impact the moral choices you make in your lifetime. The sad thing is the average Christian is completely illiterate when it comes to the Bible. Most Christians (like most Americans) are simply intellectually lazy. I am not completely sure why this is. It may be they are scared to uncover things about their beliefs that may challenge what they have always held to be true. There are many Christian denominations who only use the King James translation of the Bible as their guide. It doesn't matter to these people that 400 years of scholarship and research has been done and that modern translations are simply more accurate in terms of what the Bible says. The point is the King James Bible says what they want it to say.
I think that is the fear people have about Barack and Rev. Wright; that Barack attended that church because its pastor said thing Barack wanted him to say.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Public Apologies
I work part-time at Starbucks and we sell both the LA Times and the NY Times. Today's headline of the NY Times went a little something like this: "New York Governor Caught in Sex Scandal, Issue Apology."
He sure does sound sorry, doesn't he?
This is Gov. Spitzer's press conference yesterday:
He sure does sound sorry, doesn't he?
What is the weird obsession we have in America today with public apologies? I am a member of the public, though not a resident of New York, but any apology aimed at the general public includes me. The Governor doesn't need to apologize to me. He didn't do anything to me. He needs to apologize to his wife and his kids -- oddly his wife (I think it was his wife, could've been a hired girl) was standing behind him at the press conference where he issued said apology. Aren't pretty much all Americans sophisticated enough about photo ops at this point to realize that she is only there as a symbol? That she is literally standing by her man? She looked completely pissed off, too, which was pretty cool. There is no need for him to apologize to the public. A simple resignation says it all. As I write this, however, the governor hasn't even had the good taste to resign.
When I was a high school teacher it used to really annoy me how flippant kids were with apologies. The last year I taught I had a particularly obnoxious kid in a class. I would get on him for doing something irritating or stupid and he response was automatic: "Sorry!" He wasn't sorry. He would come into class the next day and do the same thing. I think kids today see these empty apologies and are just following the example
None of this even addressed the stupidity involved his making arrangements with a hooker himself. I am not an expert in these areas, but I would think it's not uncommon in the political world for a staffer to handle this sort of thing so the political leader in question might not get caught in a wiretap sting?
The dictionary on my Mac defines apology as "regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure." The key word in that definition is "regret." If the Governor really regretted his actions he would have issued the apology before getting caught. There is something inherently disingenuous when people say they are really sorry only when they can no longer be deceptive. Bill Clinton lied to the American people until he no longer could lie about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. His apology was totally phony. If he really regretted his behavior he would have owned up to it before the DNA test made it impossible for him to lie any further.
The dictionary on my Mac defines apology as "regretful acknowledgment of an offense or failure." The key word in that definition is "regret." If the Governor really regretted his actions he would have issued the apology before getting caught. There is something inherently disingenuous when people say they are really sorry only when they can no longer be deceptive. Bill Clinton lied to the American people until he no longer could lie about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. His apology was totally phony. If he really regretted his behavior he would have owned up to it before the DNA test made it impossible for him to lie any further.
In our legal system today defendants are given greater leniency if they show some form of remorse. If a murderer apologizes for killing 13 people it might save him from the needle. A killer who shows no remorse gets the death penalty. If the killer were really sorry, wouldn't he or she have turned themselves in? Or plead guilty and avoided the waste of tax dollars on a trial? Or maybe not have even killed in the first place? What possible difference could it make if Hannibal Lecter says "I am so sorry"?
Sally Kern, a state representative in Oklahoma, was recently "outed" for giving an anti-gay speech to a small group of her constituents. She was not aware that her words were being recorded. In her speech, Kern states that gays are more dangerous than Jihadists. Apparently Kern fears our communications systems being destroyed by too many gays calling in to vote for American Idol. Gay rights groups are outraged and they insist that she issue a public apology. What possible difference could it make if she issues an empty apology? The only way an apology is meaningful is if she denounces her own words, which ain't gonna happen. Any apology she might make would be totally hollow.
Sally Kern, a state representative in Oklahoma, was recently "outed" for giving an anti-gay speech to a small group of her constituents. She was not aware that her words were being recorded. In her speech, Kern states that gays are more dangerous than Jihadists. Apparently Kern fears our communications systems being destroyed by too many gays calling in to vote for American Idol. Gay rights groups are outraged and they insist that she issue a public apology. What possible difference could it make if she issues an empty apology? The only way an apology is meaningful is if she denounces her own words, which ain't gonna happen. Any apology she might make would be totally hollow.
When I was a high school teacher it used to really annoy me how flippant kids were with apologies. The last year I taught I had a particularly obnoxious kid in a class. I would get on him for doing something irritating or stupid and he response was automatic: "Sorry!" He wasn't sorry. He would come into class the next day and do the same thing. I think kids today see these empty apologies and are just following the example
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Real Accomplishments
I am a huge nerd and as such I find myself spending a lot of time in bookstores. I was in Barnes and Noble today and I saw something that really made my head spin, and not in the good way either . What I saw was a new hardcover book called "The Game of My Life: A True Story of Challenge, Triumph and Growing Up Autistic." The writer is a guy named Jason McElwain. In case you don't know or have somehow forgotten who Jason McElwain is, let me give you a little walk down memory lane. Jason was the autistic student who shot those 3 point baskets in that high school basketball game a few years ago. If you don't remember, here, via the magic of videotape, is the story:
Maybe what we have here now is a nation that is so used to mediocrity or worse, this sort of story seems kind of impressive to us. Our pop singers can't really sing. Our actors are just pretty and bland. We elected Bush twice and he can't even say "nuclear." Basketball is a very easy game to understand, essentially any dope can figure it out ("The ball goes in the basket! Yay!!") Maybe that is why so many people seemed so blown away by the Jason McElwain story, it's easy to understand. Jason also is whole-bodied. In other words, he doesn't (and I think this is important) look disabled. Maybe the popularity of his story is really about our shallow nature, that we don't want to look at things that may be troubling for us to see. We can enjoy his success without feeling guilty about what ails him. After all, he looks just like us. He has all his limbs. He doesn't have any obvious signs of disability. He can speak articulately. He isn't in a wheelchair. Either way, we are setting the bar of recognizing true achievement by the disabled very low.
And what do we say to the struggling writer, the artist who can't get his serious novel published when the writings of an autistic kid who once made a bunch of 3 point baskets in a high school game gets a hardcover edition?
OK, now before I move forward with this blog I want to point out a couple of very important things. The first is I am in no way trying to bash Jason MeElwain or attack him personally. My comments are about the way his story was taken in by the public not about him personally. I am sure he is a fine young man. Second, I was a high school wrestling coach for the better part of a decade and it has skewed my vision of the world, particularly as it results to the game of basketball. The wrestling community is at best suspicious of basketball and at worst down right hostile to it. We tend to think basketball is a silly little game invented for the kids who weren't tough enough to be on the wrestling team. Or just the tall, skinny unathletic kids -- they needed a sport, too. A basketball player hitting a bunch of shots is going to be very, very unimpressive to us.
Now that I have gotten all my disclaimers out of the way I shall continue. At the time it happened up until today in which I was involuntarily reminded of it, I never quite understood why this story was such a big deal. That footage of him hitting those baskets was on ESPN constantly and Jason even go invited to the White House to meet Bush, who, it turns out, is not autistic. Seriously, what is the big frigging deal with this story? A coach puts his autistic team manager into the game when it is nearly over and the kid hits some uncontested shots. In some states this wouldn't have even been allowed as a kid who isn't on your roster can't be allowed into a game; it would be like pulling Mr. Fields the AP Chem teacher down from the stands and putting him in the game. But people were fascinated by this footage. They seemed to be amazed at
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to reveal to you the man behind the curtain: This sort of thing happens in youth sports all the time. All. The. Time. Back in the day, when I was coaching junior high football (which was actually pretty fun), one of the teams on our schedule had a player with Downs syndrome. At the end of the game that kid went in as a tailback and our team let him run into the end zone for a touchdown. The kid was ecstatic and it was just a very nice thing to do. Funny, though, I never saw footage of it on SportsCenter. On my beloved TV show "Friday Night Lights" a few weeks ago, Coach Taylor pulled his defensive starters from a football game and essentially instructed his backups to let the other team score to avoid being shut out in a very lopsided game. It's called sportsmanship. I hope I am not being unclear. I am not equating a highly functioning autistic person to a person with Downs syndrome. I am just illustrating that in sports it's not uncommon for kids with special needs to be given special treatment.
The thing that has stuck with me about this story and has bothered me is the world is filled with disabled athletes who actually overcome their handicap and compete against athletes who have no disability on a playing field that isn't at all level or rigged for them to succeed. I would like to submit into evidence as my exhibit A a guy named Nick Ackerman. Nick is a bilateral amputee, so he has no legs from the knee down. Nick did not let this deter him from competing at sports. In fact, a few years back Nick won a national championship in college wrestling at the NCAA Division III level. After taking the national title, Dan Gable sought Nick out for an autograph.
Maybe what we have here now is a nation that is so used to mediocrity or worse, this sort of story seems kind of impressive to us. Our pop singers can't really sing. Our actors are just pretty and bland. We elected Bush twice and he can't even say "nuclear." Basketball is a very easy game to understand, essentially any dope can figure it out ("The ball goes in the basket! Yay!!") Maybe that is why so many people seemed so blown away by the Jason McElwain story, it's easy to understand. Jason also is whole-bodied. In other words, he doesn't (and I think this is important) look disabled. Maybe the popularity of his story is really about our shallow nature, that we don't want to look at things that may be troubling for us to see. We can enjoy his success without feeling guilty about what ails him. After all, he looks just like us. He has all his limbs. He doesn't have any obvious signs of disability. He can speak articulately. He isn't in a wheelchair. Either way, we are setting the bar of recognizing true achievement by the disabled very low.
And what do we say to the struggling writer, the artist who can't get his serious novel published when the writings of an autistic kid who once made a bunch of 3 point baskets in a high school game gets a hardcover edition?
First Blog
This whole blogging thing is kind of weird to me, the assumption I have that anybody in all of cyberspace might actually have a passing interest in anything I have to say. There is definitely some hubris involved. But all the other kids are doing it, too, and that has always been some pretty rewarding logic for me. My mom used to say "If all your friends jumped off a bridge..." like it was a bad thing. Following the herd is the American Way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)