Esquire last month exceeded TV Guide by exploring in detail how one contestant gamed the mother lode of game shows - "The Price is Right" - and became that very rare species: the Double-Showcase Winner. We'd heard something about this when it happened, but we didn't understand the drama involved behind the scenes. The producers were sure the contestant had somehow cheated when in fact he'd done something perhaps far more pathetic: he'd learned the prices of every prize put up for bid.
8.27.2010
"And the actual retail price is..."
The Cheese Fry remembers well as a boy watching one contestant rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars from CBS' weekday game show "Press Your Luck." (We miss you, Peter Tomarken.) The guy's incredible, unending, no-Whammy spins chewed up so much time that CBS had to stop the show and pick it up again the next day. Our elementary-school mind was effectively blown. Only later, thanks to the hard-hitting journalism of 1980s TV Guide, did we learn that the contestant had found a mechanical glitch in the "Press Your Luck" big board that allowed him to avoid the Whammy.
7.31.2010
Knee-jerk review: "The Kids Are All Right"
1. It's been a while since we've seen an independent movie in a theater. When they're good, they're very, very good.
2. This one falls squarely into the Silver Lake/Westside subgenre of indie dramas, the ones that feature upper middle-class Los Angeles characters (there's also a subgenre featuring affluent, navel-gazing East Coasters) who live in amazing houses, discuss trendy topics like locavore foods, own their own hip little restaurants, and spend a lot of time agonizing over problems that are only problems for those who don't have to worry about paying the bills.
3. Bonus points for one character's rant against that very same hollow, smug, save-the-world vibe that makes liberals feel so good about themselves.
4. It's essentially a five-person drama. And each of the five characters get some very strong moments - funny lines, emotional breakdowns, etc. This is what they mean when they say you need to create a part that will attract an actor. Who wouldn't want to play all five of these parts?
5. We're proud of Annette Bening for allowing herself to look her age without resorting to botox or surgery. You go, girl.
6. You don't often see movies that examine this closely the mundane everyday joys, tensions, and grudges of a marriage. We can't even think of the last one we saw. The closest thing is probably the Taylors on NBC's "Friday Night Lights." Usually marriage is a backdrop for a string of jokes and one-liners (usually about how horrible marriage is) or a device used to increase the stakes and give the hero (usually a man) Something to Lose.
7. We knew something bad was going to happen when Nic decided to use the bathroom. We just didn't know how it was going to play out.
8. "No lines."
9. We don't think Julianne Moore has ever been this cute.
10. There are no easy answers here regarding how a sperm donor might or might not get involved in his the lives of his biological "children." Yes, he helps change these two kids for the better . But he also causes a lot of problems. And as well-intentioned as he might be, you agree with Annette Bening when she tells him off towards the end of the movie.
11. Most refreshing of all, that the parents here are a lesbian couple is barely a factor.
12. It'll surely be in 2010's top ten lists come December.
7.25.2010
"You can get with this or you can get with that"
Another memorable commercial that was in heavy rotation during the NBA playoffs. The Cheese Fry is likely far outside the 20-something demo for the Kia Soul, but that doesn't mean we didn't like the spot.
We're not sure what's more disturbing - the hamsters driving a washing machine or the hamsters trying and failing to drive a cardboard box. What were these ad guys smoking? And where can we get some?
We're not sure what's more disturbing - the hamsters driving a washing machine or the hamsters trying and failing to drive a cardboard box. What were these ad guys smoking? And where can we get some?
7.18.2010
Knee-jerk review: "Inception"
1. The Cheese Fry hasn't seen a movie since December, and this is the one we pick?
2. The way Warner Bros. - and most critics, who are collectively in love with filmmaker Christopher Nolan - has been positioning the movie, only smart and sophisticated audiences will appreciate it. Which seems to us a rather ingenious way to defuse any negative reaction. If you don't like, you must be dumb.
3. I guess we're dumb. Because we didn't like it.
4. We were growing restless and dissatisfied towards the end (those repeated shots of the van falling were starting to get unintentionally funny to us) when it inexplicably became a James Bond movie. Random and pointless, existing solely, it seems, to be able to blow stuff up.
5. But then that final ambiguous shot was the last straw. You'll know the one. We suffer through all of this confusion, double-talk, and mind-games for more than two hours and you can't even give us a simple resolution? Screw you, too, Nolan.
6. We loved Memento and The Prestige, but Nolan undeniably became a cinematic "genius" darling based on The Dark Knight, a cleverly plotted and visually striking movie but also too long, too jammed full of needless plot, and suffering from a clunky ending. You'll find the same problems here. (The Dark Knight was also a movie that people loved to love, imagining that appreciating the film made them sophisticated and discerning.)
7. We don't get Ellen Page. Sorry. (And why is she pitch-person for Cisco. There has to be a good reason, right?)
8. There's a lot to be explained here about the "rules" of the dream thieving. And this movie does about as well it can in setting everything up in the first 30 minutes. Exposition is never easy, but it goes down fairly smooth here.
9. You know who we do get? Tom Hardy. He plays a fairly minor character but steals every scene he's in. This guy needs more parts, immediately.
10. We hear DiCaprio's the one who insisted on more of backstory for his character. And we have to admit, certain elements of this worked quite well for us. Wanting to see your kids' faces again? We can understand that.
11. Begrudging bonus points for the twist involving DiCaprio's previous experience with "inception." We liked that.
12. What's with not putting up a title card until after the movie's over? We recall first seeing that with Danny DeVito's terrible, unwatchable Hoffa back in the 1990s. Here you get the Warner Bros. sheild, the Legendary Pictures logo, then the movie just starts... and after the final fade out (see #5 above), then we finally get "INCEPTION." What's that all about? LIke so much of this movie, it feels arrogant.
13. Really, what is the point aside from playing with the audience?
14. We're told going into limbo will scramble your brain, but several people emerge from limbo with brains intact. That kind of nagging plot confusion bugs us.
15. The whole thing just feels smug and condescending. It didn't at first. It starts strong and we thought we were going to like it. But then... it just gets so tedious.
16. The hallway fight you see on the TV spots where everyone crawling on the walls - that is pretty cool.
17. We're still not sure if we get Joseph Gordon-Levitt. But we did love 500 Days of Summer.
18. It'll make a lot of money. And only encourage Nolan.
Top seven quotes: "Hell's Kitchen"
1. "Yes, chef." - The ubiquitous, reflex reply to any and all statements, questions, insults, accusations, recriminations, and attacks directed to the exhausted contestants by Chef Ramsay. We say this all the time in the Cheese Fry's kitchen - it makes us feel like the few lame dishes we make are actually something special. If you were going to turn this show into a drinking game, "yes, chef" would be the phrase to use to do a shot. You'd be buzzed before the first commercial.
2. "It's raw!" - Usually preceded by Chef Ramsay asking one of the contestants to examine the raw meat in question up close ("C'mon, touch it!") and followed by the hurling of the raw meat in question into the nearest trash can, plate and all. One of the more curious aspects of "Hell's Kitchen" is the way seemingly experienced, competent, confident cooks can shrivel so utterly and completely during the infamous "dinner service" segment of each show. This particularly odd since it seems that only a cursory examination of the meat would tell the cook it needs more time on the stove. The Cheese Fry has long been interested in finding out exactly what make the show's "dinner service" so seemingly impossible. Is it that the diners all sit down at once en masse? Is it that the kitchens are understaffed? Is it that the menus are complicated? Is it that it's hard to have total strangers work together as a team? Are real kitchens this chaotic and stressed-out?
3. "You donkey!" - Chef Ramsay certainly isn't afraid of letting loose a horrific insult right to a contestant's face. "You cow!" would be a close second, always reserved for the women contestants. Calling someone a "donkey" ranks among his more memorable choices. It seems on one hand so quaint and harmless (it's one of the few words Fox doesn't have to bleep), yet on the other hand so unusual and specific. We've been called many things... but never a donkey.
4. "And now the continuation of 'Hell's Kitchen'" - So says the announcer at the top of each show. We love the way each episode picks up exactly where the last one left off (Chef Ramsay dismissing the remaining contestants moments after kicking one of off the show), giving the show a distinctive vibe. These are all just seamless chapters in one long book.
5. "Oh dear." - When you're dealing with a volcanic personality and expect shouts and screams, sometimes it's all the more chilling when instead you get a muted, muttered statement. That's what the quiet "oh dear" is for Chef Ramsay. Part disappointment, part bewilderment, part disgust, he usually utters this moments after receiving a poorly prepared entree from a confident contestant who's sure it's perfect.
6. "Why should you stay in 'Hell's Kitchen'?" - The question Chef Ramsay asks each contestant up for elimination, which invariably leads to pathetic begging and shameless pleading that rarely offers anything more useful that "I want this" or "I know I can do better."
7. "Gimme your jacket." - This show's version of "The tribe has spoken." Goodbye and so long.
8. "It's cooked perfectly." - This Ramsay fake-out happens in every show, so it can be something of a sport to try and predict when it will happen and to whom. Here's how it works: Ramsay will receive an entree, look it over, then shout out in apparent anger the contestant's name. The contestant snaps their head around, "Yes, chef?" (see #1 above). Expecting to hear news of nuclear armageddon or the murder of a litter of puppies. Ramsay instead says, "These scallops... are cooked perfectly!" The contestant smiles and we see a quick confessional cutaway that shows the contestant puffing up in pride at, well, doing his/her job the way it was intended.
6.26.2010
To letterbox or not to letterbox
Trying to see a movie on television in the same format as it appeared in theaters has always been a challenge. Do not say the words "pan and scan" to us. But with the advent of widescreen HDTVs the problem seems to have gotten worse. The Cheese Fry's newest pet peeve is to tune into to some B-level cable channel (we're looking at you, Lifetime and FX) and see what is clearly a square image (and decidedly not in HD) purposely stretched horizontally to fill the rectangular widescreen TV frame. It's insulting. Do they think all us simpletons with our fancy Costco TV sets care about is that our whole TV is filled? Do they not think we can see that things on the edge of the frame of stretched and pulled?
When trying to explain this dilemma to newbies, it's not always easy. Full disclosure: we're not always 100% clear on how it all works, either.
Thankfully, a site called AspectRatioPolice has put together a nice primer on the problem with fitting rectangular movie frames into squarish TV boxes.
When trying to explain this dilemma to newbies, it's not always easy. Full disclosure: we're not always 100% clear on how it all works, either.
Thankfully, a site called AspectRatioPolice has put together a nice primer on the problem with fitting rectangular movie frames into squarish TV boxes.
6.18.2010
Wizard of Westwood
The Cheese Fry has worked at UCLA for quite some time now. UCLA loves them some John Wooden (who died earlier this month at age 99). His name and face are plastered all over campus. We could pretend to know all about his legendary coaching exploits, but the truth is that despite his amazing accomplishments, he's mostly just a name to us from the dusty pages of NCAA history.
That said, the guy was something of a poet when it came to pithy self-help quotes. He wasn't a bestselling author for no reason.
Consider:
* I'd rather have a lot of talent and a little experience than a lot of experience and a little talent.
* You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you.
* Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out.
* It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
* The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team.
* Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.
* Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
* You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one.
* Never mistake activity for achievement.
* It isn't what you do, but how you do it.
* If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?
* Failure is not fatal, but failure to change may be.
And our personal favorite:
* Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
Genius.
That said, the guy was something of a poet when it came to pithy self-help quotes. He wasn't a bestselling author for no reason.
Consider:
* I'd rather have a lot of talent and a little experience than a lot of experience and a little talent.
* You can't live a perfect day without doing something for someone who will never be able to repay you.
* Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out.
* It's what you learn after you know it all that counts.
* The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team.
* Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are.
* Do not let what you cannot do interfere with what you can do.
* You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one.
* Never mistake activity for achievement.
* It isn't what you do, but how you do it.
* If you don't have time to do it right, when will you have time to do it over?
* Failure is not fatal, but failure to change may be.
And our personal favorite:
* Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.
Genius.
6.12.2010
Comedy out of certain, you know, situations
We hold these comedic truths to be self-evident:
* "Better Off Ted" would be a huge hit in a fairer, more just world. We saw it once and was really impressed. Never tuned in again, though. See our point?
* "How I Met Your Mother" is amusing mostly for its often clever non-linear storytelling that often doubles back on itself or cuts away for asides, flashbacks, and fantasies. Despite his unending accolades, Neil Patrick Harris is not the MVP of this show. It's Jason Segel and Alyson Hannigan.
* "Two and Half Men" is hilarious, but so consumed with raunch and sleaze that we want to take a shower after watching it.
* "The Middle," with its lower-middle-class, "Roseanne"-style, just-scraping-by sensibility, was refreshing the first couple of times we saw it. But then it just became glum and depressing. If we want to worry about money problems, we'll open up our checkbook.
* "Community" is apparently really hitting its creative stride. So says the buzz. We'll take its word for it. But we do love us some Joel McHale (plug: watch "The Soup" on E!).
* "The Big Bang Theory" does the stale three-camera, live-before-a-studio-audience structure of set-up, punchline, bigger-punchline better than anyone. When it's good, it's very good. When it's not, it's very stale.
* "The New Adventures of Old Christine" was just canceled and it's not hard to see why. It was very solid, but just not particularly new. No pun intended.
* "Parks and Recreation" is one we haven't seen and, frankly, don't plan to. What are we, paid TV critics? We have a life, people. But we do love us some Amy Poehler.
* "30 Rock" is like medicine. It's so very very good for you. But we can't seem to look forward to it. Maybe it's that smug, you-probably-won't-get-this-joke attitude?
* "The Office" is now something of an elder statesmen, which is just strange. It's not as good as it used to be, but it can still be brilliant. What an ensemble of weirdo characters. That includes you, too, Jim and Pam. Normal people would have quit that insane job long ago.
* "Modern Family" is often hilarious, but what makes it satisfying is its pro-family sweetness. It's a feel-good comedy for the whole family. Yes, ABC, you can use that quote in your ads. There's a little Phil in the Cheese Fry. So says Mrs. Cheese Fry.
* "Cougartown" is the best sitcom on the air today. Period. Take it to the bank. Fade to black. The gags come so fast, we can't always keep up. Thank you, DVR "rewind" button. Surreal and sublime. Will you marry us, Busy Phillips?
* "Better Off Ted" would be a huge hit in a fairer, more just world. We saw it once and was really impressed. Never tuned in again, though. See our point?
* "How I Met Your Mother" is amusing mostly for its often clever non-linear storytelling that often doubles back on itself or cuts away for asides, flashbacks, and fantasies. Despite his unending accolades, Neil Patrick Harris is not the MVP of this show. It's Jason Segel and Alyson Hannigan.
* "Two and Half Men" is hilarious, but so consumed with raunch and sleaze that we want to take a shower after watching it.
* "The Middle," with its lower-middle-class, "Roseanne"-style, just-scraping-by sensibility, was refreshing the first couple of times we saw it. But then it just became glum and depressing. If we want to worry about money problems, we'll open up our checkbook.
* "Community" is apparently really hitting its creative stride. So says the buzz. We'll take its word for it. But we do love us some Joel McHale (plug: watch "The Soup" on E!).
* "The Big Bang Theory" does the stale three-camera, live-before-a-studio-audience structure of set-up, punchline, bigger-punchline better than anyone. When it's good, it's very good. When it's not, it's very stale.
* "The New Adventures of Old Christine" was just canceled and it's not hard to see why. It was very solid, but just not particularly new. No pun intended.
* "Parks and Recreation" is one we haven't seen and, frankly, don't plan to. What are we, paid TV critics? We have a life, people. But we do love us some Amy Poehler.
* "30 Rock" is like medicine. It's so very very good for you. But we can't seem to look forward to it. Maybe it's that smug, you-probably-won't-get-this-joke attitude?
* "The Office" is now something of an elder statesmen, which is just strange. It's not as good as it used to be, but it can still be brilliant. What an ensemble of weirdo characters. That includes you, too, Jim and Pam. Normal people would have quit that insane job long ago.
* "Modern Family" is often hilarious, but what makes it satisfying is its pro-family sweetness. It's a feel-good comedy for the whole family. Yes, ABC, you can use that quote in your ads. There's a little Phil in the Cheese Fry. So says Mrs. Cheese Fry.
* "Cougartown" is the best sitcom on the air today. Period. Take it to the bank. Fade to black. The gags come so fast, we can't always keep up. Thank you, DVR "rewind" button. Surreal and sublime. Will you marry us, Busy Phillips?
Play it again, iTunes
Twenty songs we never get tired of hearing.
1 Bananarama, "I Heard a Rumor"
2 Mazzy Star, "Fade into You"
3 Jade, "Don't Walk Away"
4 Neneh Cherry, "Buffalo Stance"
5 Pink, "U + Ur Hand"
6 The Cars, "Drive"
7 Glass Tiger, "Don't Forget Me (When I'm Gone)"
8 Sly Fox, "Let's Go All the Way"
9 Lady Antebellum, "Need You Now"
10 Van Halen, "Panama"
11 Beyonce, "Crazy in Love"
12 Maroon 5, "Wake Up Call"
13 Jay-Z, "Show Me What You Got"
14 Carolina Liar, "Show Me What I'm Looking For"
15 Nickelback, "Photograph"
16 Trick Pony, "On a Night Like This"
17 Kelly Clarkson, "I Do Not Hook Up"
18 Dido, "Thank You"
19 Carolyn Dawn Johnson, "I Don't Want You to Go"
20 O.A.R., "Shattered (Turn the Car Around)"
1 Bananarama, "I Heard a Rumor"
2 Mazzy Star, "Fade into You"
3 Jade, "Don't Walk Away"
4 Neneh Cherry, "Buffalo Stance"
5 Pink, "U + Ur Hand"
6 The Cars, "Drive"
7 Glass Tiger, "Don't Forget Me (When I'm Gone)"
8 Sly Fox, "Let's Go All the Way"
9 Lady Antebellum, "Need You Now"
10 Van Halen, "Panama"
11 Beyonce, "Crazy in Love"
12 Maroon 5, "Wake Up Call"
13 Jay-Z, "Show Me What You Got"
14 Carolina Liar, "Show Me What I'm Looking For"
15 Nickelback, "Photograph"
16 Trick Pony, "On a Night Like This"
17 Kelly Clarkson, "I Do Not Hook Up"
18 Dido, "Thank You"
19 Carolyn Dawn Johnson, "I Don't Want You to Go"
20 O.A.R., "Shattered (Turn the Car Around)"
Fade in on: main titles
Christian Annyas, whoever she/he may be, is our kind of obsessive-compulsive collector. Christian's website meticulously catalogs screenshots of feature film main and end titles. It's a fascinating nostalgic trip not only through film history, but also through design/typographic history. This is just the kind of pointless hobby the Cheese Fry would have likely undertaken when he was in elementary school.
Shredding is fun
Courtesy a Wired magazine shout-out, SSI makes industrial-sized shredders. You know how your home shredder doesn't like staples? Not much of a problem for SSI. They post videos demonstrating the titanic horsepower of their machines, which includes shredding a car and a dozen or so bowling balls. Grrr.
6.05.2010
"You lie!"
We're not political pundits (though the job sure does look easy enough) here at the Cheese Fry offices in beautiful downtown North Hollywood. But it seems to us that Washington has gotten a lot more rancorous in its petty partisanship. We certainly hope this isn't a case of some lame, crotchety "things were better in the old days" sensibility, but it could be.
From where we see it, this whole things seems to have gotten it's start with the Republican witch hunt of Bill Clinton. For a variety of reasons that far smarter people have filled books with, the right-wing hated Clinton and everything he stood for. But it wasn't enough to hate him. Clinton was vilified. And so we got a years-long investigation by Ken Starr that changed focus and direction as needed to find a scandal, any scandal, to stick to Clinton. The president is certainly a man of many errors and omissions - all Lewinsky-related decisions made by him are shocking at best and shameful at worst - as most presidents are. But few presidents ever had to contend with so rabid and relentless an attack from the opposition. That he was ultimately impeached for lying in a deposition, to us, hardly counts as a "high crime or misdemeanor." That he was accused of this Congress made for some very thick irony. You needed hip waders to get through the river of moral hypocrisy and phony sanctimony flowing down the Capitol hallways.
And then George W. Bush got elected. Which put the shoe on the other foot. You won't get any argument from us about the criminal, reprehensible decision Bush made to invade Iraq on the basis of lies and double-speak. But just as Clinton was demonized by the right, so too was Bush demonized by the left (although with a lot less fervor and organization - there simply is no Rush Limbaugh for the Democratic side of things, try as Al Franken did). Bush's simple-minded ways and aw-shucks personality were a particular source of ridicule, which in some ways proved the right's point - if you're not an Ivy League grad with a string of fancy degrees, then you're beneath contempt. The idea of treating the office of the president with respect and dignity was but a distant memory of some golden era that ended with the 1992 victory of Clinton.
Now we're come full circle with Barack Obama replacing Bush. The Republicans, sore losers in so many ways, have predictably brought out the knives to slice and dice the president as often as possible. Add to this parisan mix the powderkeg racial issue and you've got some real open hatred. It's not enough to oppose Obama's policies. No, you need to claim he's not even a U.S. citizen or spread rumors that he's a Muslim sleeper agent or suggest that he's a communist in a world where there's really only two countries left that are truly Communist-run. (Most of these folks wouldn't know communist doctrine if you gave them a copy of Das Capital.)
The Cheese Fry was particularly appalled by Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie" during the president's first State of the Union, treating a solemn event as some kind of South Carolina pep rally. Was Wilson shamed or sanctioned? Nope. He was a hero of the Republican party for daring to speak out. (We experienced a shocking moment of self-awareness when we realized that we probably wouldn't have been so outraged had someone shouted "You lie!" to Bush from the floor of Congress. Might we be just as hypocritical? Might we be part of the problem? In a word, yep.)
In other words, things seem to be getting worse.
It seems clear that national politics has become a zero-sum game. I can't win if you win. Also know as, the only way I win is to be sure you lose. Compromise is now a dirty word and merrily blocking bills and votes has become a part of the Congressional job description. What's called a "dirty trick" by the minority is a "reasonable procedure" by the majority. The names and parties may change, but the offending behavior remains the same.
We place some of the blame on the economy. When people lose jobs and worry about their future, they're quick to get riled up and look for someone to blame. An aloof, African-American president who talks in flowery sentences and is so unlike the vast majority of Americans (which we think is, like, a good thing) is one place to start.
But we think the real culprit is the partisan media.
In the days of Kennedy and Carter and Reagan, you were stuck with the local newspaper and the three networks. You didn't hear the fringe criticisms and the conspiracy theories and the wack jobs and the rumors. You got the dry facts and maybe a few clips of protesters in the streets. When Walter Cronkite dared to speak out against Vietnam, it was a watershed moment that even LBJ could see.
My how things have changed in a world full of websites and radio stations and cable networks. If you have an opinion, we have a forum just for you. Objective journalists need not apply.
The big bully is, of course, the right-wing loudmouths. Rush Limbaugh often seems to have a stranglehold on his listeners, every opinion taken as fact, every misstatement and exagerration assumed to be gospel. Glenn Beck is a new member of this movement, hooting and hollering from his Fox News soap box, but becoming a force to be reckoned with. But let's not just cast aspersions on Fox News and right-wing AM talk radio. The media partisanship works both ways. The Cheese Fry loves to hate Fox News which so shamelessly slants every single story, but then one day we watched some MSNBC programming with a critical eye. One could argue that Keith Olbermann is just as much a bully as Beck or Limbaugh, mixing opinion with news, making no effort to conceal his agenda. There's a smug arrogance to Olbermann that is identical to Limbaugh: "If you don't know I'm right, you're stupid." At least Jon Stewart is up-front about his show being comedy first, news second.
This is apparently a growing problem in our fractured, niche media marketplace, where everyone can tune into someone who talks and thinks just like they do. This "echo chamber" effect keeps opposing views out and serves to reinforce partisan thinking. It's practically a form of brainwashing, cementing extreme opinion and casting every political question in an us-versus-them frame. It's why CNN, which continues to so quaintly cling to impartial, objective reporting, is struggling in the ratings. No one's interested in that. They want to get riled up and hear what dirty deeds the other side has done today. This unending inflaming of the people isn't helping. It's hurting.
And we'e not sure we can all change the channel.
From where we see it, this whole things seems to have gotten it's start with the Republican witch hunt of Bill Clinton. For a variety of reasons that far smarter people have filled books with, the right-wing hated Clinton and everything he stood for. But it wasn't enough to hate him. Clinton was vilified. And so we got a years-long investigation by Ken Starr that changed focus and direction as needed to find a scandal, any scandal, to stick to Clinton. The president is certainly a man of many errors and omissions - all Lewinsky-related decisions made by him are shocking at best and shameful at worst - as most presidents are. But few presidents ever had to contend with so rabid and relentless an attack from the opposition. That he was ultimately impeached for lying in a deposition, to us, hardly counts as a "high crime or misdemeanor." That he was accused of this Congress made for some very thick irony. You needed hip waders to get through the river of moral hypocrisy and phony sanctimony flowing down the Capitol hallways.
And then George W. Bush got elected. Which put the shoe on the other foot. You won't get any argument from us about the criminal, reprehensible decision Bush made to invade Iraq on the basis of lies and double-speak. But just as Clinton was demonized by the right, so too was Bush demonized by the left (although with a lot less fervor and organization - there simply is no Rush Limbaugh for the Democratic side of things, try as Al Franken did). Bush's simple-minded ways and aw-shucks personality were a particular source of ridicule, which in some ways proved the right's point - if you're not an Ivy League grad with a string of fancy degrees, then you're beneath contempt. The idea of treating the office of the president with respect and dignity was but a distant memory of some golden era that ended with the 1992 victory of Clinton.
Now we're come full circle with Barack Obama replacing Bush. The Republicans, sore losers in so many ways, have predictably brought out the knives to slice and dice the president as often as possible. Add to this parisan mix the powderkeg racial issue and you've got some real open hatred. It's not enough to oppose Obama's policies. No, you need to claim he's not even a U.S. citizen or spread rumors that he's a Muslim sleeper agent or suggest that he's a communist in a world where there's really only two countries left that are truly Communist-run. (Most of these folks wouldn't know communist doctrine if you gave them a copy of Das Capital.)
The Cheese Fry was particularly appalled by Joe Wilson's shout of "You lie" during the president's first State of the Union, treating a solemn event as some kind of South Carolina pep rally. Was Wilson shamed or sanctioned? Nope. He was a hero of the Republican party for daring to speak out. (We experienced a shocking moment of self-awareness when we realized that we probably wouldn't have been so outraged had someone shouted "You lie!" to Bush from the floor of Congress. Might we be just as hypocritical? Might we be part of the problem? In a word, yep.)
In other words, things seem to be getting worse.
It seems clear that national politics has become a zero-sum game. I can't win if you win. Also know as, the only way I win is to be sure you lose. Compromise is now a dirty word and merrily blocking bills and votes has become a part of the Congressional job description. What's called a "dirty trick" by the minority is a "reasonable procedure" by the majority. The names and parties may change, but the offending behavior remains the same.
We place some of the blame on the economy. When people lose jobs and worry about their future, they're quick to get riled up and look for someone to blame. An aloof, African-American president who talks in flowery sentences and is so unlike the vast majority of Americans (which we think is, like, a good thing) is one place to start.
But we think the real culprit is the partisan media.
In the days of Kennedy and Carter and Reagan, you were stuck with the local newspaper and the three networks. You didn't hear the fringe criticisms and the conspiracy theories and the wack jobs and the rumors. You got the dry facts and maybe a few clips of protesters in the streets. When Walter Cronkite dared to speak out against Vietnam, it was a watershed moment that even LBJ could see.
My how things have changed in a world full of websites and radio stations and cable networks. If you have an opinion, we have a forum just for you. Objective journalists need not apply.
The big bully is, of course, the right-wing loudmouths. Rush Limbaugh often seems to have a stranglehold on his listeners, every opinion taken as fact, every misstatement and exagerration assumed to be gospel. Glenn Beck is a new member of this movement, hooting and hollering from his Fox News soap box, but becoming a force to be reckoned with. But let's not just cast aspersions on Fox News and right-wing AM talk radio. The media partisanship works both ways. The Cheese Fry loves to hate Fox News which so shamelessly slants every single story, but then one day we watched some MSNBC programming with a critical eye. One could argue that Keith Olbermann is just as much a bully as Beck or Limbaugh, mixing opinion with news, making no effort to conceal his agenda. There's a smug arrogance to Olbermann that is identical to Limbaugh: "If you don't know I'm right, you're stupid." At least Jon Stewart is up-front about his show being comedy first, news second.
This is apparently a growing problem in our fractured, niche media marketplace, where everyone can tune into someone who talks and thinks just like they do. This "echo chamber" effect keeps opposing views out and serves to reinforce partisan thinking. It's practically a form of brainwashing, cementing extreme opinion and casting every political question in an us-versus-them frame. It's why CNN, which continues to so quaintly cling to impartial, objective reporting, is struggling in the ratings. No one's interested in that. They want to get riled up and hear what dirty deeds the other side has done today. This unending inflaming of the people isn't helping. It's hurting.
And we'e not sure we can all change the channel.
The Cheese Fry Hot 8 (Lost edition)
1. Dr. Juliet Burke
2. Penny Widmore
3. Sun Kwon
4. Kate Austen
5. Nikki Fernandez
6. Charlotte Lewis
7. Alex Rousseau
8. Ilana
No, we're not Claire Littleton fans. Sorry.
2. Penny Widmore
3. Sun Kwon
4. Kate Austen
5. Nikki Fernandez
6. Charlotte Lewis
7. Alex Rousseau
8. Ilana
No, we're not Claire Littleton fans. Sorry.
"Surf dudes with attitude... kinda groovy..."
We're way behind in posting odds and ends we consider blog-worthy. This clip is a prime example. It's several months old, but still oh-so-sweet.
"Saved by the Bell" may have been the bigger hit, but true TNBC connoisseurs like us know that its Saturday morning companion "California Dreams" was the far better show. (Editor's note: the truly best show that ever graced TNBC? The late great "Running the Halls.") Both "Saved" and "Dreams" were equally implausible, white-bread corny, and punctuated by those mindless cheers and whoops from the teeny-bopper studio audience. And both clearly offered a ridiculously tame, G-rated take on the realities of high school, surely formed by soulless focus groups and 40-year-old executive millionaires. But there was something edgy about "California Dreams." Maybe it was the ethnically-diverse cast. Maybe it was the somewhat realistic depiction of a struggling garage band. Maybe it was the supercute Heidi Lenhart. Maybe it was just the fact that the show didn't stoop so low as to offer a cartoon character as grating and insulting as Screech. Whatever the reason, lounging around on a Saturday morning in the haclyon early 90s, sometimes nursing a hangover, sometimes just trying to plan out the weekend... this was television manna.
Thank you, Jimmy Fallon. You get us.
"Saved by the Bell" may have been the bigger hit, but true TNBC connoisseurs like us know that its Saturday morning companion "California Dreams" was the far better show. (Editor's note: the truly best show that ever graced TNBC? The late great "Running the Halls.") Both "Saved" and "Dreams" were equally implausible, white-bread corny, and punctuated by those mindless cheers and whoops from the teeny-bopper studio audience. And both clearly offered a ridiculously tame, G-rated take on the realities of high school, surely formed by soulless focus groups and 40-year-old executive millionaires. But there was something edgy about "California Dreams." Maybe it was the ethnically-diverse cast. Maybe it was the somewhat realistic depiction of a struggling garage band. Maybe it was the supercute Heidi Lenhart. Maybe it was just the fact that the show didn't stoop so low as to offer a cartoon character as grating and insulting as Screech. Whatever the reason, lounging around on a Saturday morning in the haclyon early 90s, sometimes nursing a hangover, sometimes just trying to plan out the weekend... this was television manna.
Thank you, Jimmy Fallon. You get us.
5.22.2010
12 people we hate at the grocery store
1. The person wearing a bluetooth headset. (Full disclosure: we pretty much hate this person wherever we see them.)
2. The deli counter worker who refuses to stop slicing meat and come over to help us, even though we know she sees us. Can that meat really not wait 2 minutes, honey?
3. The old lady who parks her cart in the middle of the aisle, creating gridlock in the bread aisle as she tried to price compare the wheat and the honey-wheat.
4. The hippie-looking dude out front with a clipboard asking us if we're registered to vote.
5. The group of workers on their break who sit on the curb out front and smoke. Can't they do that in the back of the store in the alley? Why do we have to look at them look at us as we walk up to the door?
6. The smelly homeless guy in line behind you who's buying granola bars and beer.
7. Whoever's in charge of the decision to not open more check-out lines despite the throng of people jamming the front of the store in that confusing jumble of carts that makes it impossible for you to find the end of any one line.
8. Anyone who's oblivious to your need to get past them.
9. Self-involved, small-minded people having a conversation on their cell phone while the poor cashier is trying to conduct with them pertinent check-out business. He's trying to get her to sign the receipt or find out what kind of bag she wants, but she can't hear him because she's too busy talking to someone about her loser weekend plans or what her poor, hapless boyfriend's up to. Meanwhile, you're there staring at the clock wondering when this level of hell will come to an end. Have you ever fantasized about taking that phone and hurling it across the store? No? Just us? Try it sometime.
10. Kids running up and down the aisles. Where are your parents?
11. People who claim that they left their reward card at home. Do they really expect us to believe that crap? Have you ever left your rewards card at home? Put it in your wallet or on your key ring, genius. Either that or stop the lying.
12. The worker who has no idea where to find what is it you're seeking. Better yet, doesn't even know what it is you're talking about when you describe what it is you're seeking.
2. The deli counter worker who refuses to stop slicing meat and come over to help us, even though we know she sees us. Can that meat really not wait 2 minutes, honey?
3. The old lady who parks her cart in the middle of the aisle, creating gridlock in the bread aisle as she tried to price compare the wheat and the honey-wheat.
4. The hippie-looking dude out front with a clipboard asking us if we're registered to vote.
5. The group of workers on their break who sit on the curb out front and smoke. Can't they do that in the back of the store in the alley? Why do we have to look at them look at us as we walk up to the door?
6. The smelly homeless guy in line behind you who's buying granola bars and beer.
7. Whoever's in charge of the decision to not open more check-out lines despite the throng of people jamming the front of the store in that confusing jumble of carts that makes it impossible for you to find the end of any one line.
8. Anyone who's oblivious to your need to get past them.
9. Self-involved, small-minded people having a conversation on their cell phone while the poor cashier is trying to conduct with them pertinent check-out business. He's trying to get her to sign the receipt or find out what kind of bag she wants, but she can't hear him because she's too busy talking to someone about her loser weekend plans or what her poor, hapless boyfriend's up to. Meanwhile, you're there staring at the clock wondering when this level of hell will come to an end. Have you ever fantasized about taking that phone and hurling it across the store? No? Just us? Try it sometime.
10. Kids running up and down the aisles. Where are your parents?
11. People who claim that they left their reward card at home. Do they really expect us to believe that crap? Have you ever left your rewards card at home? Put it in your wallet or on your key ring, genius. Either that or stop the lying.
12. The worker who has no idea where to find what is it you're seeking. Better yet, doesn't even know what it is you're talking about when you describe what it is you're seeking.
The tribe has spoken, and they're all too bitter to be honest
The Cheese Fry loves him some "Survivor," having breathlessly witnessed just about every episode since its debut in the halcyon summer days of 2000. Past Cheese Fry posts have been devoted to the arcane details of the show. We maintain that much of its appeal lies in the way the show's premise so cleverly sets up an impossible social situation. The people you vote out on your march to the million-dollar prize are the same people who in the end decide whether you will get that million-dollar prize. That is, the people you stabbed in the back must now be convinced to award you the money. If there's not dozens of sociology and psychology dissertations on the ever-shifting relationships and moral dilemmas of this pressure-cooker situation, there sure ought to be.
We're always amused by the inability for the contestants on the show to grasp the simple fact that the only way to advance in the game is to, you know, lie and cheat and wheedle. Everyone does it. Surely these people are familiar with how the show works. Right? If you try and pull an Honest Abe and never tell a lie, you'll likely find yourself unable to open your mouth. Even those contestants who like to pretend they won with honor and integrity, in fact, did no such thing. They lied and cheated and wheedled. But they did it with charm and charisma. The other folks never even felt that knife going into their back. And that really is the key. More on that later.
It never fails that when the "jury" (the so-called group of outcast contestants who stand in final judgment of the last two or three players to determine who gets the money) gets a chance to speak in the show's last tribal council, invariably several of them suffer from an extreme case of poor-loser-itis with a side dish of shameless hypocrisy. They're shocked (shocked!) at the deceit and treachery that surrounded them, disgusted (disgusted!) by the collective decision that so heartlessly voted them out, and insulted (insulted!) at how cavalierly they were double-crossed and blindsided. The outrage is laughable. Someone has to lose, after all. They just can't believe that the someone is them.
What isn't so laughable, however, is a recent trend of jurors voting with emotion rather than reason. Twice now, the player to completely dominate the game - Russell Hanz - failed to get a single jury vote. Russell is undoubtedly a polarizing figure. Some viewers love him, others loathe him. The Cheese Fry is 100% on Team Hanz. No one has played "Survivor" with this kind of unapologetic scorched-earth strategy and gotten away with it. If you dare to cross Russell or even suggest you're not in complete and total agreement with his plan, chances are good he will conspire to get you voted off immediately if not sooner. That the other players didn't recognize this remains a mystery. Those who saw what a threat he truly was often came to that conclusion too late.
And yet the two juries looked over at Russell and were so hurt and bitter by the way he used and abused them, even though he so clearly manipulated and controlled every aspect of the game "from day one" (such an overused phrase in the world of "Survivor"), they chose to give the final grand prize to someone whose only game strategy was just to sort of hang around (including the insufferably smug and proudly lazy Sandra - blech). Both times Russell lost, the jury got it wrong. They know how the game is played. They just refuse to acknowledge it with their votes.
That said, the Cheese Fry is willing to stipulate that there is indeed a "social game" aspect to "Survivor." There's a right way and a wrong way to backstab. You do it, as we mentioned earlier, with charm and a smile. You let the other players save face where possible. You pretend to like them. Russell seems incapable of this sort of play. He likes to bully and growl and humiliate. As much as viewers seem to like Russell thanks no doubt to clever editing, it seems clear now that the people who actually lived with Russell found him to be utterly loathsome.
But he had his chance. At the final tribal council, some past winners have used that forum to beg for forgiveness for their game-play sins. That's the perfect time to apologize for the deceit, to remind the jury they only did what they had to do to win the game, to insist they hate themselves for the choices they made, to express regret and uncertainty. In other words, it's where you tell your biggest lie of all. But Russell in the "Heroes vs. Villains" finale remained stubbornly defiant and surprisingly clueless. Unable to read the jury or grasp the social element of the game, he apologized for nothing. We think he could have maybe swayed them with just a spoonful of humility, even if we would argue that even without humility he deserved to win the money. But the jurors are people and people get things wrong. So instead of a million dollars, Russell instead got from the jury a collective middle finger.
We're always amused by the inability for the contestants on the show to grasp the simple fact that the only way to advance in the game is to, you know, lie and cheat and wheedle. Everyone does it. Surely these people are familiar with how the show works. Right? If you try and pull an Honest Abe and never tell a lie, you'll likely find yourself unable to open your mouth. Even those contestants who like to pretend they won with honor and integrity, in fact, did no such thing. They lied and cheated and wheedled. But they did it with charm and charisma. The other folks never even felt that knife going into their back. And that really is the key. More on that later.
It never fails that when the "jury" (the so-called group of outcast contestants who stand in final judgment of the last two or three players to determine who gets the money) gets a chance to speak in the show's last tribal council, invariably several of them suffer from an extreme case of poor-loser-itis with a side dish of shameless hypocrisy. They're shocked (shocked!) at the deceit and treachery that surrounded them, disgusted (disgusted!) by the collective decision that so heartlessly voted them out, and insulted (insulted!) at how cavalierly they were double-crossed and blindsided. The outrage is laughable. Someone has to lose, after all. They just can't believe that the someone is them.
What isn't so laughable, however, is a recent trend of jurors voting with emotion rather than reason. Twice now, the player to completely dominate the game - Russell Hanz - failed to get a single jury vote. Russell is undoubtedly a polarizing figure. Some viewers love him, others loathe him. The Cheese Fry is 100% on Team Hanz. No one has played "Survivor" with this kind of unapologetic scorched-earth strategy and gotten away with it. If you dare to cross Russell or even suggest you're not in complete and total agreement with his plan, chances are good he will conspire to get you voted off immediately if not sooner. That the other players didn't recognize this remains a mystery. Those who saw what a threat he truly was often came to that conclusion too late.
And yet the two juries looked over at Russell and were so hurt and bitter by the way he used and abused them, even though he so clearly manipulated and controlled every aspect of the game "from day one" (such an overused phrase in the world of "Survivor"), they chose to give the final grand prize to someone whose only game strategy was just to sort of hang around (including the insufferably smug and proudly lazy Sandra - blech). Both times Russell lost, the jury got it wrong. They know how the game is played. They just refuse to acknowledge it with their votes.
That said, the Cheese Fry is willing to stipulate that there is indeed a "social game" aspect to "Survivor." There's a right way and a wrong way to backstab. You do it, as we mentioned earlier, with charm and a smile. You let the other players save face where possible. You pretend to like them. Russell seems incapable of this sort of play. He likes to bully and growl and humiliate. As much as viewers seem to like Russell thanks no doubt to clever editing, it seems clear now that the people who actually lived with Russell found him to be utterly loathsome.
But he had his chance. At the final tribal council, some past winners have used that forum to beg for forgiveness for their game-play sins. That's the perfect time to apologize for the deceit, to remind the jury they only did what they had to do to win the game, to insist they hate themselves for the choices they made, to express regret and uncertainty. In other words, it's where you tell your biggest lie of all. But Russell in the "Heroes vs. Villains" finale remained stubbornly defiant and surprisingly clueless. Unable to read the jury or grasp the social element of the game, he apologized for nothing. We think he could have maybe swayed them with just a spoonful of humility, even if we would argue that even without humility he deserved to win the money. But the jurors are people and people get things wrong. So instead of a million dollars, Russell instead got from the jury a collective middle finger.
R-rated movie scenes... you know, for kids.
Whoever this Cooley person is, he is a genius. We hate it when someone has one of those oh-so-clever ideas that should have occurred to us.
5.14.2010
Brackets of women
Last month, Esquire magazine kindly put together a 64-team bracket for its readers' pleasure. Instead of college basketball teams, however, this bracket was comprised of "Sexiest Women" in four "regions": Music/Fashion, Sports, Movies, and Television.
We may not be college basketball fans here at the Cheese Fry, but the same cannot be said of "sexiest women." An interesting exercise. If you're forced to choose between only two things, the choice can sometimes be rather surprising. Also interesting: many of the names Esquire put into the running are women we'd never heard of.
The results:
Sweet Sixteen
* Music/Fashion
Beyonce def. Gisele Bunchen
Brooklyn Decker def. Carrie Underwood
* Sports
Serena Williams def. Erin Andrews
Anna Kournikova def. Daniela Hantuchova, whoever she is
* Movies
Rachel McAdams def. Jennifer Aniston
Eva Longoria def. Paula Patton
* Television
Christina Hendricks def. Minka Kelly
Olivia Munn def. Ginnifer Goodwin
Elite Eight
* Music/Fashion
Beyonce def. Brooklyn Decker
* Sports
Serena Williams def. Anna Kournikova
* Movies
Eva Longoria def. Rachel McAdams
* Television
Christina Hendricks def. Olivia Munn
Final Four
Eva Longoria def. Beyonce
Christina Hendricks def. Serena Williams
Title Match
Christina Hendricks def. Eva Longoria
What does this tell us? That the Cheese Fry should be enjoying a lucrative job working as an editor at Esquire. One month after conducting this pointless exercise, Esquire named Christina Hendricks sexiest woman alive. We've already mailed them an invoice for our consulting services.
We may not be college basketball fans here at the Cheese Fry, but the same cannot be said of "sexiest women." An interesting exercise. If you're forced to choose between only two things, the choice can sometimes be rather surprising. Also interesting: many of the names Esquire put into the running are women we'd never heard of.
The results:
Sweet Sixteen
* Music/Fashion
Beyonce def. Gisele Bunchen
Brooklyn Decker def. Carrie Underwood
* Sports
Serena Williams def. Erin Andrews
Anna Kournikova def. Daniela Hantuchova, whoever she is
* Movies
Rachel McAdams def. Jennifer Aniston
Eva Longoria def. Paula Patton
* Television
Christina Hendricks def. Minka Kelly
Olivia Munn def. Ginnifer Goodwin
Elite Eight
* Music/Fashion
Beyonce def. Brooklyn Decker
* Sports
Serena Williams def. Anna Kournikova
* Movies
Eva Longoria def. Rachel McAdams
* Television
Christina Hendricks def. Olivia Munn
Final Four
Eva Longoria def. Beyonce
Christina Hendricks def. Serena Williams
Title Match
Christina Hendricks def. Eva Longoria
What does this tell us? That the Cheese Fry should be enjoying a lucrative job working as an editor at Esquire. One month after conducting this pointless exercise, Esquire named Christina Hendricks sexiest woman alive. We've already mailed them an invoice for our consulting services.
"Guys, where are we?"
The Cheese Fry remains cautiously optimistic that the six years we've invested in ABC's "Lost" won't turn out to be a colossal waste of time. Even so, as the show rolls into it's final two episodes and the writers continue to show no sense of urgency in untangling the plot or creating any sort of real endgame momentum (seriously, what are they been waiting for?), our expectations continue to drop. At this point, we're not even looking for moderate satisfaction in the show's finale. We just want to avoid feeling like a fool for watching this long.
As a fellow Lostie put it so aptly, watching "Lost" is like struggling with an annoying girlfriend in the final days of a bad relationship. You fight all the time, you know it's not working and isn't worth your time, but you hang in there hoping to recapture some of that old passion. The more time you invest, the more stubbornly you hang on. And every so often, the two of you have a great time and you remember why you're together. But then the next day you hate yourself for not breaking it off.
"Lost" has always been a frustrating endeavor. Artful, poetic episodes about science and reason, love and grief scheduled back-to-back with cryptic, dense episodes that raise more questions than they answer or, even worse, do-nothing place-holder episodes that seem to exist solely to mark time and continue to drag everything out. No regular viewer of the show could ever make a convincing case to us that the writers knew what they were doing when they first started. We're not even sure they know what they're doing now, though it seems they may have started figuring it out a few years ago when they introduced the clever flash-forward element. Unfortunately, by then too many plots and characters and problems and twists had stacked up in such a way that no one could have ever devised a storyline to plausibly tie it all together. In short, the show is cool, but also a big narrative mess. And we probably just have to accept that.
Watching the episode this past week, "Across the Sea," we were struck by how improbable it is that it's running on a major broadcast network like ABC. If we could take that episode and go back in time to 2004 when "Lost" first debuted and show it to the network executives, we might have inspired a mass panic. No cops, no crimes, no laugh track, no dancing, no footraces? What the hell is this thing? This episode, which seems to have been set around 100 BC (!), told the backstory of two god-like men who live on the magical island and who - it seems - have all along been secretly pulling the strings of the regular cast members in some mythic struggle between good and evil with the fate of mankind hanging in the balance. Look at that last sentence again, people.
To illustrate the insane tapestry this show has woven, Wired magazine commissioned a diagram showing the connection between the cast of characters.
Goodbye, "Lost." Thanks for giving us so much to talk about.
As a fellow Lostie put it so aptly, watching "Lost" is like struggling with an annoying girlfriend in the final days of a bad relationship. You fight all the time, you know it's not working and isn't worth your time, but you hang in there hoping to recapture some of that old passion. The more time you invest, the more stubbornly you hang on. And every so often, the two of you have a great time and you remember why you're together. But then the next day you hate yourself for not breaking it off.
"Lost" has always been a frustrating endeavor. Artful, poetic episodes about science and reason, love and grief scheduled back-to-back with cryptic, dense episodes that raise more questions than they answer or, even worse, do-nothing place-holder episodes that seem to exist solely to mark time and continue to drag everything out. No regular viewer of the show could ever make a convincing case to us that the writers knew what they were doing when they first started. We're not even sure they know what they're doing now, though it seems they may have started figuring it out a few years ago when they introduced the clever flash-forward element. Unfortunately, by then too many plots and characters and problems and twists had stacked up in such a way that no one could have ever devised a storyline to plausibly tie it all together. In short, the show is cool, but also a big narrative mess. And we probably just have to accept that.
Watching the episode this past week, "Across the Sea," we were struck by how improbable it is that it's running on a major broadcast network like ABC. If we could take that episode and go back in time to 2004 when "Lost" first debuted and show it to the network executives, we might have inspired a mass panic. No cops, no crimes, no laugh track, no dancing, no footraces? What the hell is this thing? This episode, which seems to have been set around 100 BC (!), told the backstory of two god-like men who live on the magical island and who - it seems - have all along been secretly pulling the strings of the regular cast members in some mythic struggle between good and evil with the fate of mankind hanging in the balance. Look at that last sentence again, people.
To illustrate the insane tapestry this show has woven, Wired magazine commissioned a diagram showing the connection between the cast of characters.
Goodbye, "Lost." Thanks for giving us so much to talk about.
4.11.2010
Attack of the 80s video games!
You've probably already seen this. It's the sort of clever video that one simply must forward to as many people as possible. If you haven't seen it, however, you're in for a treat: imagine the crudely-rendered characters of Atari 2600s and Nintendo NESs invading New York City. Funny and amusing... but also scary.
PIXELS by PATRICK JEAN.
Uploaded by onemoreprod. - Arts and animation videos.
PIXELS by PATRICK JEAN.
Uploaded by onemoreprod. - Arts and animation videos.
Is this thing still on?
Yes, it is. We've been very negligent in blogging duties. (We missed the entire frickin' month of March!) We will try to do better.
2.16.2010
Knee-Jerk Review “Up in the Air”
1. Smart and clever we expected. But we were surprised by how genuinely moving it is.
2. We wouldn’t mind being George Clooney for a day.
3. “It’s just someone who’s lost.” Best line of the movie. Powerful.
4. Brought to you by American Airlines, Hertz, and Hilton. It takes product placement to a whole new level when the products actually form integral parts of a film’s plot.
5. What’s in your backpack?
6. Subtext and theme are what separate good movies from great movies. This one is chock full of both. Case in point are the many mentions of how American Airlines values the loyalty of frequent-flyer George Clooney, which runs completely counter to the abject lack of loyalty shown to the longtime employees his company fires. Capitalism at it worst or best, depending on where you sit.
7. It’s genius to force a character who hates marriage have to try and convince someone to get married.
8. Typically, you’d expect the love interest (Vera Farmiga) to be the one to help our hero change and evolve, but that really comes more from his snotty sidekick (Anna Kendrick).
9. All three lead roles are so meaty, it’s hard to tell which is the most engaging, complex character. It’s no surprise that all three got Oscar nods.
10. Screenwriting 101: just when the hero at last gets everything he thought he wanted, he realizes he no longer wants it.
11. Jason Bateman is a revelation here, all dead-eyed smarm.
12. So many great, sharp observations here about life as a full-time business traveler. (“I’m like my mother. I stereotype.”)
13. Some may disagree, but we loved the slightly ambiguous ending.
2. We wouldn’t mind being George Clooney for a day.
3. “It’s just someone who’s lost.” Best line of the movie. Powerful.
4. Brought to you by American Airlines, Hertz, and Hilton. It takes product placement to a whole new level when the products actually form integral parts of a film’s plot.
5. What’s in your backpack?
6. Subtext and theme are what separate good movies from great movies. This one is chock full of both. Case in point are the many mentions of how American Airlines values the loyalty of frequent-flyer George Clooney, which runs completely counter to the abject lack of loyalty shown to the longtime employees his company fires. Capitalism at it worst or best, depending on where you sit.
7. It’s genius to force a character who hates marriage have to try and convince someone to get married.
8. Typically, you’d expect the love interest (Vera Farmiga) to be the one to help our hero change and evolve, but that really comes more from his snotty sidekick (Anna Kendrick).
9. All three lead roles are so meaty, it’s hard to tell which is the most engaging, complex character. It’s no surprise that all three got Oscar nods.
10. Screenwriting 101: just when the hero at last gets everything he thought he wanted, he realizes he no longer wants it.
11. Jason Bateman is a revelation here, all dead-eyed smarm.
12. So many great, sharp observations here about life as a full-time business traveler. (“I’m like my mother. I stereotype.”)
13. Some may disagree, but we loved the slightly ambiguous ending.
Oscar handicapping
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
>>The kind of lifetime achievement award Oscar loves to bestow. Bridges has already been sweeping other award shows. Consider this a lock.
George Clooney, Up in the Air
>>Already won one for Syriana a couple of years ago. He probably won’t get another until he provides a showstopper performance that’s impossible to ignore.
Colin Firth, A Single Man
>>Should be happy to be here since no one saw his movie.
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
>>Ditto.
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
>>A good performance, but the star of that movie is really the directing.
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
>>We’ll have to see the movie to offer an informed opinion on the groundswell of support for Bullock. As of now, we remain dubious. Oscar loves rewarding movie stars, but we can’t believe that this is Bullock's Erin Brockovich. From the outside, it looks like a Lifetime movie, too small, too fluffy.
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
>>She rather recently won for The Queen. It seems doubtful she’ll ever win again. Oscar loves to spread the wealth.
Carey Mulligan, An Education
>>No way. Oscar gives Best Actress awards to name actors, not ingénues.
Gabourney Sidibe, Precious
>>Ditto.
Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia
>>The Oscar love affair with Streep has become something of a joke to the Cheese Fry. She’s amazing, yes. But this is getting silly. Streep racks up nomination after nomination but hasn’t won in over 25 years. It’s practically an automatic nomination, like Kelsey Grammer at the Emmys in the 1990s. We think her problem is that she won two Oscars very early in her career (Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie's Choice) and now the Academy isn’t sure what to do with her. We think they’re waiting for a huge, career-defining performance to give her a third Oscar (to join the rarefied ranks of three-peats Ingrid Bergman and Jack Nicholson). This ain’t it.
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
>>No one saw the movie.
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
>>Ditto.
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
>>Double ditto.
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
>>He was good and it’s his first nomination, so it could be a make-good on past slights, but…
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
>>..everyone seems to agree that he’s the best thing in the movie. A lock.
Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Nine
>>No way. No one saw it.
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
>>Very strong, but may split votes with her co-star. If Oscar wants to follow tradition and use this award to anoint a glamorous newcomer (see also: Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Jennifer Hudson, Penelope Cruz, Renee Zellweger), this is the best chance to do so.
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
>>We think the Bridges win will be all that Oscar chooses to offer for that movie.
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
>>See above, though we give the glamour nod to the more seasoned Farmiga.
Mo’Nique, Precious
>>She’s riding a wave of buzz and liberal Hollywood likely can’t pass up a chance to congratulate themselves on being color blind and supporting such an Important Film. Very close to a lock.
Director
Avatar
>>As groundbreaking as the film may be, Hollywood considers Jim Cameron a jackass. A win here would be a surprise.
The Hurt Locker
>>Oscar likely can’t pass up the chance to bestow its first directing award to a woman. Bonus points because Kathryn Bigelow actually, like, deserves it.
Inglourious Basterds
>>We honestly can’t ever imagine Tarantino winning this category. Flashforward to 2040 when he wins a lifetime achievement Oscar. That's what seems more likely.
Precious
>>No way. An honor to be here.
Up in the Air
>>Ditto, though Jason Reitman has an incredible track record (Thank You for Smoking, Juno). He’ll be back. His films so far have gotten exponentially better each time.
Best Original Screenplay
The Hurt Locker
>>The directing award may be enough, though this one is deserving. It's the odds-on-favorite since it's also in the running for the Writers Guild award, always a strong indicator of who wins the Oscar. Only this and A Serious Man were also nominated for the WGA award.
Inglourious Basterds
>>The supporting actor award may be enough, though this one is deserving.
The Messenger
>>No one’s seen it.
A Serious Man
>>Ditto.
Up
>>This is intriguing. Could this be a way to honor Pixar? If so, it’d leave a bad taste in our mouths. Up isn’t nearly as well-written as The Incredibles or Ratatouille.
Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9
>>We’d love a world where Oscar rewards science fiction, but we can’t see it.
An Education
>>No one saw this movie.
In the Loop
>>Ditto.
Precious
>>It would seem to be a run-off between Precious and Up in the Air. Both are the only ones from this list also nominated for a WGA award.
Up in the Air
>>We loved this script and hope it wins.
Best Picture
>>For the record, consider us among those who hate this new format that allows ten nominees rather than five. It's clearly a decision based solely on Oscar’s craven need to pander to the TV audiences and do everything it can to get in “popular” movies as possible – history tells us that in the years that populist movies win Best Picture (Titanic in 1998, Lord of the Rings in 2004), the TV ratings go up. The real problem, perhaps, is the disconnect between high-minded, slightly snobby Oscar voters and the moviegoing masses who can actually enjoy a big popcorn spectacle without feeling guilty in the morning (see: The Dark Knight or Star Trek).
Avatar
>>The likely winner, if only because the Academy may want to avoid repeating past mistakes that embarrassingly gave the win to the lesser of two frontrunners, like Gandhi over ET or Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Avatar changed filmmaking and has broken all box office records. That may be tough to ignore.
The Blind Side
>>No way, people.
District 9
>>Science fiction doesn’t win... unless it changes filmmaking and breaks all box office records.
An Education
>>We didn’t see it, either.
The Hurt Locker
>>The supposed other frontrunner is peaking at just the right time in terms of buzz and popularity, but we’re figuring the Bigelow win for director will be all that Oscar allows. Without Avatar, would have been a probable lock.
Inglorious Basterds
>>In the old days, this would have been the classic “fifth slot” surprise, the unexpected nomination that fills out the list. The nomination is reward enough.
Precious
>>Worthy, respectable, deserved. Won’t win.
A Serious Man
>>The esoteric, British-themed, stoic drama. There’s one every year. Won’t win.
Up
>>Kudos to Pixar for getting its first Best Picture nomination. Only the second animated film to ever get nominated. Won’t win.
Up in the Air
>>The kind of finely-crafted, smart drama that Oscar loves, though it’s been suffering a strange sort of backlash (“It’s not that great”) at the wrong time. This is the dark horse.
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
>>The kind of lifetime achievement award Oscar loves to bestow. Bridges has already been sweeping other award shows. Consider this a lock.
George Clooney, Up in the Air
>>Already won one for Syriana a couple of years ago. He probably won’t get another until he provides a showstopper performance that’s impossible to ignore.
Colin Firth, A Single Man
>>Should be happy to be here since no one saw his movie.
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
>>Ditto.
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
>>A good performance, but the star of that movie is really the directing.
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
>>We’ll have to see the movie to offer an informed opinion on the groundswell of support for Bullock. As of now, we remain dubious. Oscar loves rewarding movie stars, but we can’t believe that this is Bullock's Erin Brockovich. From the outside, it looks like a Lifetime movie, too small, too fluffy.
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
>>She rather recently won for The Queen. It seems doubtful she’ll ever win again. Oscar loves to spread the wealth.
Carey Mulligan, An Education
>>No way. Oscar gives Best Actress awards to name actors, not ingénues.
Gabourney Sidibe, Precious
>>Ditto.
Meryl Streep, Julie and Julia
>>The Oscar love affair with Streep has become something of a joke to the Cheese Fry. She’s amazing, yes. But this is getting silly. Streep racks up nomination after nomination but hasn’t won in over 25 years. It’s practically an automatic nomination, like Kelsey Grammer at the Emmys in the 1990s. We think her problem is that she won two Oscars very early in her career (Kramer vs. Kramer and Sophie's Choice) and now the Academy isn’t sure what to do with her. We think they’re waiting for a huge, career-defining performance to give her a third Oscar (to join the rarefied ranks of three-peats Ingrid Bergman and Jack Nicholson). This ain’t it.
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
>>No one saw the movie.
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
>>Ditto.
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
>>Double ditto.
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
>>He was good and it’s his first nomination, so it could be a make-good on past slights, but…
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
>>..everyone seems to agree that he’s the best thing in the movie. A lock.
Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Nine
>>No way. No one saw it.
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
>>Very strong, but may split votes with her co-star. If Oscar wants to follow tradition and use this award to anoint a glamorous newcomer (see also: Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Jennifer Hudson, Penelope Cruz, Renee Zellweger), this is the best chance to do so.
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
>>We think the Bridges win will be all that Oscar chooses to offer for that movie.
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
>>See above, though we give the glamour nod to the more seasoned Farmiga.
Mo’Nique, Precious
>>She’s riding a wave of buzz and liberal Hollywood likely can’t pass up a chance to congratulate themselves on being color blind and supporting such an Important Film. Very close to a lock.
Director
Avatar
>>As groundbreaking as the film may be, Hollywood considers Jim Cameron a jackass. A win here would be a surprise.
The Hurt Locker
>>Oscar likely can’t pass up the chance to bestow its first directing award to a woman. Bonus points because Kathryn Bigelow actually, like, deserves it.
Inglourious Basterds
>>We honestly can’t ever imagine Tarantino winning this category. Flashforward to 2040 when he wins a lifetime achievement Oscar. That's what seems more likely.
Precious
>>No way. An honor to be here.
Up in the Air
>>Ditto, though Jason Reitman has an incredible track record (Thank You for Smoking, Juno). He’ll be back. His films so far have gotten exponentially better each time.
Best Original Screenplay
The Hurt Locker
>>The directing award may be enough, though this one is deserving. It's the odds-on-favorite since it's also in the running for the Writers Guild award, always a strong indicator of who wins the Oscar. Only this and A Serious Man were also nominated for the WGA award.
Inglourious Basterds
>>The supporting actor award may be enough, though this one is deserving.
The Messenger
>>No one’s seen it.
A Serious Man
>>Ditto.
Up
>>This is intriguing. Could this be a way to honor Pixar? If so, it’d leave a bad taste in our mouths. Up isn’t nearly as well-written as The Incredibles or Ratatouille.
Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9
>>We’d love a world where Oscar rewards science fiction, but we can’t see it.
An Education
>>No one saw this movie.
In the Loop
>>Ditto.
Precious
>>It would seem to be a run-off between Precious and Up in the Air. Both are the only ones from this list also nominated for a WGA award.
Up in the Air
>>We loved this script and hope it wins.
Best Picture
>>For the record, consider us among those who hate this new format that allows ten nominees rather than five. It's clearly a decision based solely on Oscar’s craven need to pander to the TV audiences and do everything it can to get in “popular” movies as possible – history tells us that in the years that populist movies win Best Picture (Titanic in 1998, Lord of the Rings in 2004), the TV ratings go up. The real problem, perhaps, is the disconnect between high-minded, slightly snobby Oscar voters and the moviegoing masses who can actually enjoy a big popcorn spectacle without feeling guilty in the morning (see: The Dark Knight or Star Trek).
Avatar
>>The likely winner, if only because the Academy may want to avoid repeating past mistakes that embarrassingly gave the win to the lesser of two frontrunners, like Gandhi over ET or Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. Avatar changed filmmaking and has broken all box office records. That may be tough to ignore.
The Blind Side
>>No way, people.
District 9
>>Science fiction doesn’t win... unless it changes filmmaking and breaks all box office records.
An Education
>>We didn’t see it, either.
The Hurt Locker
>>The supposed other frontrunner is peaking at just the right time in terms of buzz and popularity, but we’re figuring the Bigelow win for director will be all that Oscar allows. Without Avatar, would have been a probable lock.
Inglorious Basterds
>>In the old days, this would have been the classic “fifth slot” surprise, the unexpected nomination that fills out the list. The nomination is reward enough.
Precious
>>Worthy, respectable, deserved. Won’t win.
A Serious Man
>>The esoteric, British-themed, stoic drama. There’s one every year. Won’t win.
Up
>>Kudos to Pixar for getting its first Best Picture nomination. Only the second animated film to ever get nominated. Won’t win.
Up in the Air
>>The kind of finely-crafted, smart drama that Oscar loves, though it’s been suffering a strange sort of backlash (“It’s not that great”) at the wrong time. This is the dark horse.
A word about "Fringe"
Last season, when “Fringe” premiered, we weren’t interested. Not only did it look like a rip-off of the late, great “X-Files” (or at least the first few seasons before Duchovny and Anderson lost interest), but we were neck-deep in a seemingly unending commitment to the serialized mystery of “Lost.” As one fellow “Lost”-ie so aptly puts it, watching “Lost” is like dealing with a bad relationship: you hang in there hoping the good times outnumber the bad times, praying for a satisfying resolution deep down you know will never come. In short, the Cheese Fry was not willing to invest in another TV show from J.J. Abrams (is he a hack or a genius? we can't decide) that would spend five years teasing us with little reveals that raised more questions than they answered, slowly revealing a byzantine backstory that could not possibly be answered in a satisfying way because the writers were making it up as they went along.
But then we learned that last season’s "Fringe" finale involved the series’ big twist: parallel universes. As in, another universe – full of strange alien technology including shapeshifters – is plotting an invasion of our universe.
Hmm.
We tentatively sampled “Fringe” this season. If we’re not exactly hooked, we do look forward to the episodes. Our fears about the show being an “X-Files” rip-off were indeed well founded. The show alternates between stand-alone supernatural-mystery-of-the-week episodes and serialized parallel-universe mythology episodes. And a lot of the supernatural science stuff seems lifted wholesale from “The X-Files.”
But “Fringe” has a secret weapon and that is John Noble as Dr. Walter Bishop, the brilliant, slightly agoraphobic scientist with a nebulous past involving black-book government projects in what the show calls “fringe science.” Today, he’s a consultant for the FBI unit charged with investigating paranormal activities (sound familiar?).
Part of Walter’s charm is surely his eccentric genius. He knows a lot about a great many subjects... but he also insists on keeping a live dairy cow in his lab so he can enjoy fresh milk... and he makes frequent mention of the many enjoyable psychotropic drugs he’s tried over the years. We stipulate that he’s the kind of quirky character, full of amusing idiosyncrasies, that exists more in TV shows than in real life. Doesn’t make him any less fun to watch.
More important, perhaps, is Walter’s vulnerability. He’s oftentimes like a helpless 8-year-old or, read another way, a senior citizen in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Walter is still grappling with the fallout of a recent mental breakdown (we think – that stuff was probably explained more clearly in season 1 but we get the gist) that’s turned him into a kind of child prodigy: all intellect, no common sense. Walter can suss out the inner workings of the human brain’s natural ability to receive psychic signals, but gets hopelessly lost after a bus ride and can't remember how to call for help. Walter deduces the natural cause of a seemingly unnatural spontaneous combustion death, but displays a petulant tendency to pout if he doesn’t get his way.
What this means is that Walter needs a guardian, someone to act as his parent. And that person, of course, is his estranged son Peter (Joshua Jackson), who as a boy Walter essentially abandoned as Walter threw himself into his work. The heart of the show is Walter and Peter’s rocky reconciliation as they draw boundaries, forgive past sins, and develop a familial bond that they never before shared (e.g. Peter calls his father by his first name). Those family moments form the heart of the show, just as the sexual tension of Mulder and Scully gave “The X-Files” its emotional center. Clever plotting may be fun, but it’s always the characters that make a show resonate with viewers.
“Fringe,” we’re sorry we didn’t watch you sooner. But that’s why they make DVD box sets.
But then we learned that last season’s "Fringe" finale involved the series’ big twist: parallel universes. As in, another universe – full of strange alien technology including shapeshifters – is plotting an invasion of our universe.
Hmm.
We tentatively sampled “Fringe” this season. If we’re not exactly hooked, we do look forward to the episodes. Our fears about the show being an “X-Files” rip-off were indeed well founded. The show alternates between stand-alone supernatural-mystery-of-the-week episodes and serialized parallel-universe mythology episodes. And a lot of the supernatural science stuff seems lifted wholesale from “The X-Files.”
But “Fringe” has a secret weapon and that is John Noble as Dr. Walter Bishop, the brilliant, slightly agoraphobic scientist with a nebulous past involving black-book government projects in what the show calls “fringe science.” Today, he’s a consultant for the FBI unit charged with investigating paranormal activities (sound familiar?).
Part of Walter’s charm is surely his eccentric genius. He knows a lot about a great many subjects... but he also insists on keeping a live dairy cow in his lab so he can enjoy fresh milk... and he makes frequent mention of the many enjoyable psychotropic drugs he’s tried over the years. We stipulate that he’s the kind of quirky character, full of amusing idiosyncrasies, that exists more in TV shows than in real life. Doesn’t make him any less fun to watch.
More important, perhaps, is Walter’s vulnerability. He’s oftentimes like a helpless 8-year-old or, read another way, a senior citizen in the early stages of Alzheimer’s. Walter is still grappling with the fallout of a recent mental breakdown (we think – that stuff was probably explained more clearly in season 1 but we get the gist) that’s turned him into a kind of child prodigy: all intellect, no common sense. Walter can suss out the inner workings of the human brain’s natural ability to receive psychic signals, but gets hopelessly lost after a bus ride and can't remember how to call for help. Walter deduces the natural cause of a seemingly unnatural spontaneous combustion death, but displays a petulant tendency to pout if he doesn’t get his way.
What this means is that Walter needs a guardian, someone to act as his parent. And that person, of course, is his estranged son Peter (Joshua Jackson), who as a boy Walter essentially abandoned as Walter threw himself into his work. The heart of the show is Walter and Peter’s rocky reconciliation as they draw boundaries, forgive past sins, and develop a familial bond that they never before shared (e.g. Peter calls his father by his first name). Those family moments form the heart of the show, just as the sexual tension of Mulder and Scully gave “The X-Files” its emotional center. Clever plotting may be fun, but it’s always the characters that make a show resonate with viewers.
“Fringe,” we’re sorry we didn’t watch you sooner. But that’s why they make DVD box sets.
Non-knee-jerk review: "The Lovely Bones"
1. We can’t be sure (because we read the novel so long ago), but it seems like the filmmakers changed quite a bit of the story.
2. Sorry, Rachel Weisz. We cared not a whit about your annoying character. We're not even completely convinced you didn't have an affair with the detective.
3. Some truly amazing, beautiful imagery in Susie’s limbo afterlife. Example: the tree whose leaves turn into birds that fly away. Like, wow.
4. We liked it, but we can’t say that we loved it. Every beat felt so… very... drawn… out. Didn’t need be so long. As David Spade once famously joked about Malcolm X: “It’s called an editor. Hire one.”
5. Susan Sarandon sure looked like she was having fun. How old is she now, anyway?
6. No way Susie’s classmate crush was anywhere near her in age. Dude looked 25 at least. That’s the kind of poor casting choice that drives us crazy.
7. We think the killer got off kind of easy, too.
8. What was the purpose of the fake-looking contacts for Stanley Tucci? Distracting.
9. Remember the days of having to go get your film developed?
10. Without question, a movie about the rape and murder of a teen girl isn’t as escapist as it might have been a year ago, before we had a daughter of our own.
2. Sorry, Rachel Weisz. We cared not a whit about your annoying character. We're not even completely convinced you didn't have an affair with the detective.
3. Some truly amazing, beautiful imagery in Susie’s limbo afterlife. Example: the tree whose leaves turn into birds that fly away. Like, wow.
4. We liked it, but we can’t say that we loved it. Every beat felt so… very... drawn… out. Didn’t need be so long. As David Spade once famously joked about Malcolm X: “It’s called an editor. Hire one.”
5. Susan Sarandon sure looked like she was having fun. How old is she now, anyway?
6. No way Susie’s classmate crush was anywhere near her in age. Dude looked 25 at least. That’s the kind of poor casting choice that drives us crazy.
7. We think the killer got off kind of easy, too.
8. What was the purpose of the fake-looking contacts for Stanley Tucci? Distracting.
9. Remember the days of having to go get your film developed?
10. Without question, a movie about the rape and murder of a teen girl isn’t as escapist as it might have been a year ago, before we had a daughter of our own.
Magazine subscription evolution
Starlog (c. 1980-1983)
Rolling Stone (c. 1986-1993)
GQ (c. 1989-1993)
Harper’s (c. 1994-1996)
Maxim (c. 1999-2002)
Sporting News (c. 2000-2002)
Consumer Reports (c. 2004-2006)
Rolling Stone (c. 1986-1993)
GQ (c. 1989-1993)
Harper’s (c. 1994-1996)
Maxim (c. 1999-2002)
Sporting News (c. 2000-2002)
Consumer Reports (c. 2004-2006)
1.23.2010
The NBC charlie-foxtrot
In the wake of Conan O'Brien's sad goodbye last night from NBC's airwaves as host of "The Tonight Show," let's take a moment to review the huge, and - we'll admit it - hugely amusing, mess NBC executives created these last few weeks. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of television could see that the clumsy handling and piss-poor strategizing of last summer's Jay Leno/Conan O'Brien shuffling would end badly. "The Tonight Show" is a cash cow and keeping it humming is of paramount importance to the network. Yet the only people who perhaps didn't know this whole plan was a disaster waiting to happen were the ones smugly sitting in NBC's executive offices in Burbank patting each other on the back for a job well done.
Where did it all go wrong?
1. Giving Jay Leno an end date. Several years ago, NBC was so worried about losing Conan O'Brien to a rival network that they promised Conan the "Tonight Show" desk and told Jay he'd have to retire to make way. At the time, it made sense in a weird sort of way. 2009 seemed so far into the future. The network had been badly burned by the fumbled transition from Johnny Carson to Jay Leno (interested parties should read Bill Carter's book The Late Shift) and clearly were trying to avoid a similar skirmish in installing the next host. But five years in television is an eternity. Anything can happen. Audiences change. Stars rise. Networks stumble. NBC was clearly banking on Leno's popularity fading and O'Brien's strengthening by the time 2009 rolled around. Neither happened and so NBC wound up having to kick out late-night's number one host and replace him with a well-liked, but niche host. The obvious lesson here: networks should ride the gravy train as long as possible. Can you imagine Fox giving the producers of "American Idol" an end date? Or CBS telling the "CSI" folks they have to pack it in to make room for a new show? It was a ridiculous move.
2. Keeping Jay Leno around. NBC made a bad decision back in 2004, then made it worse in 2009 by scrambling to find a place on their schedule for Jay Leno. You could practically smell the panic. Once they realized Leno was still number one, they crapped their collective pants. They couldn't let Leno go. But the guy isn't exactly the most versatile performer. He can host a talk show... and that's about it. So NBC gave him... another talk show. Which meant that NBC started running three hours of talk shows each night: Leno, O'Brien, and the poor forgotten stepchild Jimmy Fallon. If you ever watched Leno and O'Brien (and okay, Fallon) in the same night, you could quickly see the folly of this move: these shows are all essentially the same. Same punchlines about the same current events, the same wacky comedy bits, the same dull banter of celebrity interviews. If variety is the spice of life, NBC's schedule threw the spice rack right into the garbage.
3. Thinking audiences craved a talk show at 10pm, 9pm central. NBC made a big deal about how Jay would be fresh each and every night, especially during those long months when the other networks were airing dramas. Looks good on paper. Why watch a rerun of "The Mentalist" if you could see a new Jay Leno monologue? But audiences are creatures of habit. Sixty years of television viewing told us that talk shows come on after the local news, not before. NBC also seemed to misunderstand the purpose of those late-night shows. It's not completely about the talent of the host or the star power of the guests. It's about watching a show from your bed and falling asleep to its flickering blue glow. If you have any experience watching Jay Leno or Johnny Carson or David Letterman, chances are you were probably asleep midway through the first guest. It's a sleep aid, not appointment television. NBC made a big misstep in expecting audiences to show any interst in watching an entire talk show while still wide awake.
4. Proudly announcing that ratings didn't matter. Before everything crumbled, NBC was gloating in a way that suggested they had invented a new way of doing business. The new Jay Leno show, evocatively called "The Jay Leno Show," was developed with the full knowledge that Leno would not pull big numbers (so maybe they did sort of understand #3 above). Executives actually said this. Out loud. On the record. But since the show was so cheap to produce - in comparison to something like the late, great "ER" - they could still turn a nice little profit. Small ratings were acceptable. Unfortunately for NBC, one group of people who had a higher standard were local NBC stations around the country who rely on network lead-ins for their local evening news. NBC may have been okay with small audiences, but the Oklahoma Citys and Richmond, Virginias of the world - whose nightly news numbers were dropping like a rock - were sure as hell not okay with it. It was that local affiliate revolt that ultimately led to the cancellation of "The Jay Leno Show."
5. Refusing to give Conan a chance. Whether you like Conan's humor or not, you have to admit that NBC showed zero patience with him. Seven months in and they shut him down. We stipulate that his ratings were not good. But even the great Jay Leno had many many months to polish his show and develop a following. Back in the day, before his legendary post-hooker-arrest interview with Hugh Grant, Leno lost to David Letterman time and again. But Conan would get no such allowance to fine-tune his quirkiness and figure out what worked best. In fact, NBC gave Conan a big middle finger by sticking his predecessor 90 minutes before him. Why would old Jay Leno fans ever sample Conan if Jay Leno was, like, still on the air? Rather than directing "Tonight Show" fans to a single host, now those fans had their attention divided between the old host and the new host. What a mess. [By the way, we give some of the blame to Jay Leno. He loves to portray himself as a good-natured, likable guy, but he had to understand that he was undercutting Conan by airing 90 minutes before Conan. Worse, he says now he knew "The Jay Leno Show" would fail. So why would be agree to do it? If we indulge our cynical side, the answer is easy: we believe Leno was hanging around NBC in the hopes that Conan would stumble, his show would suck, and NBC would give him "The Tonight Show" back. Dick move. ]
6. Sabotaging prime time. The collateral damage in all of this is the NBC prime time schedule. Now that "The Jay Leno Show" is history, NBC has five hours of prime-time real estate to fill. And they have nothing to put on the air, people. This is a network in freefall, whose only hits are NFL football, "The Biggest Loser," two critically-acclaimed but low-rated comedies ("The Office" and "30 Rock"), and the very creaky, very old "Law & Order" franchise. Years of mismanagement and penny-pinching (i.e. the collapse of "Heroes" or the lame retreads like "Knight Rider" and "Bionic Woman") have led to a creative and economic wasteland. Ironically enough, it's those dire straits that partially led to "The Jay Leno Show" experiment - NBC was losing so much money on bad shows that it figured it might as well try and change the game by airing a show too cheap to lose money on.
We would argue that Conan is the victim in all of this, but how horrible can the crime be if you walk away with a $35 million check? He's a funny guy. Pointy and odd where Leno is so smooth and fake.
We're very curious to see how Jay Leno fares when he goes back to "The Tonight Show" next month. Will audiences welcome him back? Or will there be some backlash? He's suffered some big PR hits these last few days. Indeed, this week he's shuffling off to do some image rehabbing on Oprah's couch, where he'll surely plead innocence and befuddled confusion.
The funny part, of course, is that the drama behind all of these show moves is far more entertaining than the shows themselves. As more than one critic has noted, if everyone who's so fixated (us included) on the Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien machinations actually watched their shows, none of this probably would have happened.
Where did it all go wrong?
1. Giving Jay Leno an end date. Several years ago, NBC was so worried about losing Conan O'Brien to a rival network that they promised Conan the "Tonight Show" desk and told Jay he'd have to retire to make way. At the time, it made sense in a weird sort of way. 2009 seemed so far into the future. The network had been badly burned by the fumbled transition from Johnny Carson to Jay Leno (interested parties should read Bill Carter's book The Late Shift) and clearly were trying to avoid a similar skirmish in installing the next host. But five years in television is an eternity. Anything can happen. Audiences change. Stars rise. Networks stumble. NBC was clearly banking on Leno's popularity fading and O'Brien's strengthening by the time 2009 rolled around. Neither happened and so NBC wound up having to kick out late-night's number one host and replace him with a well-liked, but niche host. The obvious lesson here: networks should ride the gravy train as long as possible. Can you imagine Fox giving the producers of "American Idol" an end date? Or CBS telling the "CSI" folks they have to pack it in to make room for a new show? It was a ridiculous move.
2. Keeping Jay Leno around. NBC made a bad decision back in 2004, then made it worse in 2009 by scrambling to find a place on their schedule for Jay Leno. You could practically smell the panic. Once they realized Leno was still number one, they crapped their collective pants. They couldn't let Leno go. But the guy isn't exactly the most versatile performer. He can host a talk show... and that's about it. So NBC gave him... another talk show. Which meant that NBC started running three hours of talk shows each night: Leno, O'Brien, and the poor forgotten stepchild Jimmy Fallon. If you ever watched Leno and O'Brien (and okay, Fallon) in the same night, you could quickly see the folly of this move: these shows are all essentially the same. Same punchlines about the same current events, the same wacky comedy bits, the same dull banter of celebrity interviews. If variety is the spice of life, NBC's schedule threw the spice rack right into the garbage.
3. Thinking audiences craved a talk show at 10pm, 9pm central. NBC made a big deal about how Jay would be fresh each and every night, especially during those long months when the other networks were airing dramas. Looks good on paper. Why watch a rerun of "The Mentalist" if you could see a new Jay Leno monologue? But audiences are creatures of habit. Sixty years of television viewing told us that talk shows come on after the local news, not before. NBC also seemed to misunderstand the purpose of those late-night shows. It's not completely about the talent of the host or the star power of the guests. It's about watching a show from your bed and falling asleep to its flickering blue glow. If you have any experience watching Jay Leno or Johnny Carson or David Letterman, chances are you were probably asleep midway through the first guest. It's a sleep aid, not appointment television. NBC made a big misstep in expecting audiences to show any interst in watching an entire talk show while still wide awake.
4. Proudly announcing that ratings didn't matter. Before everything crumbled, NBC was gloating in a way that suggested they had invented a new way of doing business. The new Jay Leno show, evocatively called "The Jay Leno Show," was developed with the full knowledge that Leno would not pull big numbers (so maybe they did sort of understand #3 above). Executives actually said this. Out loud. On the record. But since the show was so cheap to produce - in comparison to something like the late, great "ER" - they could still turn a nice little profit. Small ratings were acceptable. Unfortunately for NBC, one group of people who had a higher standard were local NBC stations around the country who rely on network lead-ins for their local evening news. NBC may have been okay with small audiences, but the Oklahoma Citys and Richmond, Virginias of the world - whose nightly news numbers were dropping like a rock - were sure as hell not okay with it. It was that local affiliate revolt that ultimately led to the cancellation of "The Jay Leno Show."
5. Refusing to give Conan a chance. Whether you like Conan's humor or not, you have to admit that NBC showed zero patience with him. Seven months in and they shut him down. We stipulate that his ratings were not good. But even the great Jay Leno had many many months to polish his show and develop a following. Back in the day, before his legendary post-hooker-arrest interview with Hugh Grant, Leno lost to David Letterman time and again. But Conan would get no such allowance to fine-tune his quirkiness and figure out what worked best. In fact, NBC gave Conan a big middle finger by sticking his predecessor 90 minutes before him. Why would old Jay Leno fans ever sample Conan if Jay Leno was, like, still on the air? Rather than directing "Tonight Show" fans to a single host, now those fans had their attention divided between the old host and the new host. What a mess. [By the way, we give some of the blame to Jay Leno. He loves to portray himself as a good-natured, likable guy, but he had to understand that he was undercutting Conan by airing 90 minutes before Conan. Worse, he says now he knew "The Jay Leno Show" would fail. So why would be agree to do it? If we indulge our cynical side, the answer is easy: we believe Leno was hanging around NBC in the hopes that Conan would stumble, his show would suck, and NBC would give him "The Tonight Show" back. Dick move. ]
6. Sabotaging prime time. The collateral damage in all of this is the NBC prime time schedule. Now that "The Jay Leno Show" is history, NBC has five hours of prime-time real estate to fill. And they have nothing to put on the air, people. This is a network in freefall, whose only hits are NFL football, "The Biggest Loser," two critically-acclaimed but low-rated comedies ("The Office" and "30 Rock"), and the very creaky, very old "Law & Order" franchise. Years of mismanagement and penny-pinching (i.e. the collapse of "Heroes" or the lame retreads like "Knight Rider" and "Bionic Woman") have led to a creative and economic wasteland. Ironically enough, it's those dire straits that partially led to "The Jay Leno Show" experiment - NBC was losing so much money on bad shows that it figured it might as well try and change the game by airing a show too cheap to lose money on.
We would argue that Conan is the victim in all of this, but how horrible can the crime be if you walk away with a $35 million check? He's a funny guy. Pointy and odd where Leno is so smooth and fake.
We're very curious to see how Jay Leno fares when he goes back to "The Tonight Show" next month. Will audiences welcome him back? Or will there be some backlash? He's suffered some big PR hits these last few days. Indeed, this week he's shuffling off to do some image rehabbing on Oprah's couch, where he'll surely plead innocence and befuddled confusion.
The funny part, of course, is that the drama behind all of these show moves is far more entertaining than the shows themselves. As more than one critic has noted, if everyone who's so fixated (us included) on the Jay Leno and Conan O'Brien machinations actually watched their shows, none of this probably would have happened.
1.18.2010
"I'm not missing Happy Pony."
Despite its heavy rotation, this AT&T spot makes us laugh every time. A clever idea perfect in its execution. It's a funny riff on hard-boiled cop-dramas Mexican standoffs ("Drop 'em. Both of you."). But it's also a timely commentary on the way DVRs have changed our household interactions - who hasn't had an argument about a show conflict? - in a way that no one could have imagined just five years ago.
Plus there's all of the little details. The fearful look on mom's face as she dares to pull her remote on dad. The assertive way Billy stands up into the frame to get the drop on mom and dad - mom may be scared, but he's not. The way grandma dismisses the whole thing with a disgusted wave of her hand; DVRs are not a part of her generation - she can't possibly understand the dire, urgent showdown she's stumbled onto. The deadpan money line "And I'm not missing Happy Pony" delivered in a slow tracking shot that would be right at home in a cheesy 80s action movie. And for those with, ahem, DVRs, there's the fun of freeze-framing the shot of the TV as it scrolls through the details of the programs our family has presumably been arguing about: "Kung Fu Island," "Wheel of Fun," and - of course - "Happy Pony."
1.12.2010
Please go away and don't ever come back
Wouldn't the sudden and irrevocable disappearance of the following characters make for a more enjoyable 2010? Not to mention 2011.
* The New York Yankees
* lazy post office clerks
* Dick Cheney, obviously
* Jay Leno
* Paula Abdul
* people who talk on their cell phone while in line at the supermarket checkout
* Jon and Kate Gosselin and whatever skanks they have dated or will date or might date
* Brett Favre
* Sarah Palin, obviously
* Paris Hilton, always on lists like these
* the producers and insufferable hosts of "TMZ," "Extra," "Entertainment Tonight," "The Insider," et al
* Raiders owner Al Davis
* people who inexplicably refuse to move their stalled car out of the traffic
* Penelope Cruz (search your feelings - you know it to be true)
* the people who keep renewing the CW's "One Tree Hill"
* Whoopi Goldberg
* The New York Yankees
* lazy post office clerks
* Dick Cheney, obviously
* Jay Leno
* Paula Abdul
* people who talk on their cell phone while in line at the supermarket checkout
* Jon and Kate Gosselin and whatever skanks they have dated or will date or might date
* Brett Favre
* Sarah Palin, obviously
* Paris Hilton, always on lists like these
* the producers and insufferable hosts of "TMZ," "Extra," "Entertainment Tonight," "The Insider," et al
* Raiders owner Al Davis
* people who inexplicably refuse to move their stalled car out of the traffic
* Penelope Cruz (search your feelings - you know it to be true)
* the people who keep renewing the CW's "One Tree Hill"
* Whoopi Goldberg
1.03.2010
Knee-jerk review: “Avatar”
1. Too long, people. Too long.
2. We can’t say we loved it, but we also can’t say we didn’t like it. Reckon that means it falls somewhere in the middle. High expectations surely played a role.
3. One thing’s for sure – the Cheese Fry got a migraine watching it.
4. There’s probably no one better than writer-director James Cameron when it comes to ratcheting up the third-act tension and creating those suspenseful “oh crap!” moments in which it seems like there’s no possible way out for the characters. The last 20 minutes are the film’s best.
5. Some familiar Western archetypes here, cleverly transplanted to the science-fiction genre, whether it’s a hero-breaks-the-wild-bronco scene or the whole Native-American-genocide allegory (which is itself tied to the bullets-versus-longbows battle and the suggestion that superior technology does not always equal guaranteed victory).
6. You really do forget you’re watching giant blue aliens that live only in Weta’s computer servers. The whole movie is essentially one long visual effect. How can this not win a clutch of Oscars?
7. There’s some uncomfortable allusions to terrorism, but here the terrorists are the “good guy” humans. Creepiest moment involves ash falling gently after a 9/11-style surprise attack.
8. Much has been made about lead actor Sam Worthington. We’re not all that impressed, truth be told.
9. It’s by far one of the most imaginative and visually arresting science fiction films. Cameron and his team clearly spent a lot of time designing the indigenous plants and animals of planet Pandora. It’s got the complex level of detail you might expect from Star Wars or Star Trek, but not a one-off title that isn’t part of some larger, pre-established franchise title.
10. “My job is to keep you safe. I will not succeed.”
11. On one hand, we appreciate the environmental, we-are-one-with-the-planet message. On the other hand, it’s all perhaps a bit too sticky sentimental and self-important.
12. No, we didn’t see it in 3D. Or in Imax. We must be old-school traditionalists that way.
13. For the record, the best James Cameron films remains Aliens.
2. We can’t say we loved it, but we also can’t say we didn’t like it. Reckon that means it falls somewhere in the middle. High expectations surely played a role.
3. One thing’s for sure – the Cheese Fry got a migraine watching it.
4. There’s probably no one better than writer-director James Cameron when it comes to ratcheting up the third-act tension and creating those suspenseful “oh crap!” moments in which it seems like there’s no possible way out for the characters. The last 20 minutes are the film’s best.
5. Some familiar Western archetypes here, cleverly transplanted to the science-fiction genre, whether it’s a hero-breaks-the-wild-bronco scene or the whole Native-American-genocide allegory (which is itself tied to the bullets-versus-longbows battle and the suggestion that superior technology does not always equal guaranteed victory).
6. You really do forget you’re watching giant blue aliens that live only in Weta’s computer servers. The whole movie is essentially one long visual effect. How can this not win a clutch of Oscars?
7. There’s some uncomfortable allusions to terrorism, but here the terrorists are the “good guy” humans. Creepiest moment involves ash falling gently after a 9/11-style surprise attack.
8. Much has been made about lead actor Sam Worthington. We’re not all that impressed, truth be told.
9. It’s by far one of the most imaginative and visually arresting science fiction films. Cameron and his team clearly spent a lot of time designing the indigenous plants and animals of planet Pandora. It’s got the complex level of detail you might expect from Star Wars or Star Trek, but not a one-off title that isn’t part of some larger, pre-established franchise title.
10. “My job is to keep you safe. I will not succeed.”
11. On one hand, we appreciate the environmental, we-are-one-with-the-planet message. On the other hand, it’s all perhaps a bit too sticky sentimental and self-important.
12. No, we didn’t see it in 3D. Or in Imax. We must be old-school traditionalists that way.
13. For the record, the best James Cameron films remains Aliens.
The good and the bad of "The Howard Stern Show"
What we like:
* J.D.
* Eric the Midget’s indignant phone calls
* Fred’s sound effects
* Mr. Skin's visits
* “Stump the Booey”
* “Win Fred’s Money”
* Howard yelling at Scott the Engineer
* parody songs about Robin
* “The Wrap Up Show”
* Artie’s Laughing Man character
* the genius of Sourshoes
* Medicated Pete
* Ralph calling in
* the lack of FCC-mandated content rules
* Jeff the Drunk
* Howard hanging up on boring, stupid callers
What we don’t like:
* the mean-spirited “Jack and Rod Show” pranks
* Robin’s insufferable snobbery and know-it-all attitude
* stripper and/or porn star interviews
* the unending drama surrounding Artie’s mental health and addiction struggles
* the “Benji Vortex”
* Ronnie the Limo Driver
* any sort of beauty pageant - interns, strippers, or otherwise
* Scott DePace’s ridiculous right-wing statements
* Crazy Alice
* Steve Langford’s obsession with the legal problems of High Pitch Eric and Captain Jenks
* Maryann from Brooklyn
* appearances by washed-up musicians from Howard’s generation
* J.D.
* Eric the Midget’s indignant phone calls
* Fred’s sound effects
* Mr. Skin's visits
* “Stump the Booey”
* “Win Fred’s Money”
* Howard yelling at Scott the Engineer
* parody songs about Robin
* “The Wrap Up Show”
* Artie’s Laughing Man character
* the genius of Sourshoes
* Medicated Pete
* Ralph calling in
* the lack of FCC-mandated content rules
* Jeff the Drunk
* Howard hanging up on boring, stupid callers
What we don’t like:
* the mean-spirited “Jack and Rod Show” pranks
* Robin’s insufferable snobbery and know-it-all attitude
* stripper and/or porn star interviews
* the unending drama surrounding Artie’s mental health and addiction struggles
* the “Benji Vortex”
* Ronnie the Limo Driver
* any sort of beauty pageant - interns, strippers, or otherwise
* Scott DePace’s ridiculous right-wing statements
* Crazy Alice
* Steve Langford’s obsession with the legal problems of High Pitch Eric and Captain Jenks
* Maryann from Brooklyn
* appearances by washed-up musicians from Howard’s generation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)