dexter season 7 finale

tv:  Way back in season one of Dexter certain things about the show were made clear that continued to hold true.  As his character is laid out there was a clear division.  There was the man lead by his dark passenger to kill.  And in killing he followed a code: only kill bad people.  There was also his other life.  Where he had his job as a blood spatter analyst for Miami Metro homicide, his sister Deb, and his girlfriend Rita.  These two lives were separate and never equal.  While Dexter was willing to fight to save Deb or Rita if their lives were ever in danger, he was doing it more because they were good people who didn't deserve to die rather than because he loved them or cared about their actual fate.
The template for how fans would come to describe the show was laid out from the beginning as well.  The show would be described in terms of its villains.  From season to season the descriptions were always in that vain; the ice truck killer, the bay harbor butcher, Jimmy Smitts (sorry I can never remember his characters name), trinity, Jordan Chase, and the doomsday killer.  As these villains were introduced and dispatched of, they all offered Dexter something he could learn about his two separate lives and how he could live within in them on their own separate terms.
In season seven the show broke format.  There were bad guys, but none of them were the central focus of the season.  Ray Stevenson's Russian gangster out for revenge was a bad ass to be sure, but was not the goal of the year.  Instead the show decided, off the heals of their awesome season six cliffhanger where Deb finds out the truth about her brother, to do a lot more examination than they have before.  And in doing that all of the walls around the show and its main character began to crumble.
Now that Deb knows who her step brother really is, the facade of a relationship between the two of them is gone and her promotion to lieutenant at their work means that his killer self will now bleed (sorry I couldn't avoid that pun) into that fake space of his as well.  Then something even more remarkable happens.  Dexter meets Hannah McKay, a femme fetale poisoner with whom he forms a relationship   As time goes by Dexter and Hannah become familiar with what each is capable of.  The honesty and acceptance of that for both of them turns into a genuinely sweet, albeit twisted and untrusting, relationship and even to real love that is born out or that ability to be able to not have to lie and still be cared about.  As these scenarios compound, Dexter is forced out into the open by these two people he truly cares for, we see the division of his two worlds, the killer and the "regular guy" start to begin to crumble.
Then Dexter has an internal revelation.  He tries to describe his dark passenger, the name of his urge to kill we have come to know throughout the years, to Hannah and she literally laughs.  Over the course of time Dexter finds the acceptance within himself that he found in Hannah and Deb.  That there is only one person or thing pulling his strings.  He is one man.  There is no Dexter by day and dark passenger by night, only him.
It is in the season finale that all of this came to a head.  As Dexter is trying to thwart the threat of his past coming back to haunt him, he has a talk with Harry, the final wall yet to crumble between conscience and the father he hopes is still telling him what to do.  Harry advises him to run.  Take his son and Deb and run.  Dexter says he can't.  He can't do that to Deb.  But he also doesn't want to.  He says that his life has come to mean something.  His job, his relationship with his sister, he fell in love.  The lie is no longer a lie.  It is as real as the killer who may have to leave and built all of those other things in order to lie about who he really is.
And in that moment everything changes.  The two lives merge into one.  There is no by day or by night.  No one can be spared, his two selves or those around him.  The damage of his own actions is collateral and not just his own.  The evolution towards this moment may have seemed apparent over the years, but to actually get there is a different story.  The walls are not crumbling.  They have now come down.
And that is what we may have to define this season as.  Not the name of a villain, but Dexter merging all into one.  The relationships closest to him are where that is most on display.  But in the transpiring of the season final, we are given flashbacks of his interactions with Doakes where he allowed too much of his different worlds to bleed into one another, showing why Doakes always thought something was off with Dexter, and that Dexter couldn't hide his two worlds from themselves forever.  Then, after seeing him reject the notion of his dark passenger, we see him kill for survival, leaving his code behind.  Dexter is told by his victim in that moment that he is finally killing for "normal reasons".  Dexter replies that he has never done that.  As the flashbacks represented a past that was a display of the self-evident present, those "normal reasons" were Dexter's acceptance of present in the way he saw himself and his rejecting of the past.  He was in that moment just a killer.  No code, no passenger, nothing but who he really was.  Letting truth knock down more walls.
What we now have to look forward to is summed up in Dexter's final words of the season:  "Is this a new beginning or the beginning of the end?"  The answer is both.  Dexter may be approaching its final season, but it certainly is doing it in a way that is new for the show.  It has stepped outside itself.  Gotten away from the simplicity of its anti-hero allowing his dark passenger to rid the world of worse evils.  Now we are left with Dexter, killer, man, lover and brother all wrapped into one and dealing with the fact that being all of those things at once is very messy.  And that level of messiness almost never leads to a clean answer.  Dexter dies or gets caught and goes to jail.  Those are the clean thoughts of a simpler show that has since succumbed to the show it has become as Deb did making her choice in the shipping yard.  Now we face a messier ending, a new beginning right at the end.  And that end I have no doubt echo the title of this seasons finale:  Surprise Motherfucker!

homeland season 2 finale

tv:  Coming off it's Emmy winning first season, I don't think anyone could have expected what was going to happen to Homeland this year.  As the season wore on it went through some serious ups and downs.  It was like watching a high wire act as it tried to balance the action it had the potential to produce and the intimacy that was ultimately what allowed it the success it gained.  And as those two opposing forces played havoc with viewers and the quality of the show, the debates and conspiracy theories and picking apart of implausibility brought about a level of scrutiny that thanks to the immediacy of the internet was pretty unprecedented.  Homeland pushed the envelope by turning over plots and forcing itself to continue to find what was next.  The show almost became lost within itself in the process.
But they had one last twist both in terms of its plot and its storytelling left for its season finale, The Choice.  Just when it was thought that the show had officially turned into 24, they pulled back.  The Choice began with Carrie and Brody going back to the place where their love affair truly began.  That cabin they got away to in the shows best episode, The Weekend.  From then on the episode was more or less framed as the series most intimate story.  Focusing on what was to come almost purely through the actions of our two main characters.  Having left his family for real this time, Brody follows Carrie to the cabin to try and figure out what the next step is.  We see the two of them open up to each other in a new way, not sexually while in the midst of their agendas but was two people trying to figure out if it is possible to have a future together.  Carrie discusses her parents as she tries to explain the hardships Brody will have to deal with given Carrie's severe bipolar disorder.  But as we saw at the end of their last weekend together, the real world called them back.  And with that call came a sense that nothing could ever be so simple for the two of them as croissants for breakfast.
Carrie returns to the agency before heading off to a memorial for the now deceased V.P. Walden while Brody heads home to get a suit for the same occasion.  Both seem to be given a chance to re-enter their former lives.  And yet their opportunities to so blow up in their faces.  Then the real bomb goes off.
When Carrie comes to her senses she lunges for a gun to point at Brody.  She then decides to trust in her man and help him to run, knowing that all eyes will now be on Brody after it was his car that was the bomb.  Carrie helps him to escape to the Canadian border.
It is at this point that we begin to remember why Homeland was recognized as it was.  While Brody convinces Carrie that he had nothing to do with the explosion at the memorial, it is hard to be convinced as a viewer.  Carrie has not been the brilliant agent she was last year, making mistakes at almost every possible turn.  Her love for Brody beginning to cloud her judgement as much as her lithium regiment.  But after watching their relationship blossom if only in the moment where they could escape everything, it is hard not to wonder if a total escape could be the answer.
Then the suicide tape Brody made in season one gets leaked to the press.  With the nation believing that this was his admission of guilt for what happened in the season two finale, the viewer knows better.  Or do we?  Just because we know the tape and the bombing have nothing to do with each other doesn't prove Brody's innocence just as we know that the tape doesn't actually prove his guilt either.
But for all of the uncertainty surrounding Brody, we saw two moments where he wasn't lying.  When he realized the suicide tape got leaked, there is a long shot of him in Carrie's car.  It is not the look of fear.  But he now knows the ramifications of his actions.  His life, for all intents and purposes, is over. And his family is going to be the most direct casualty of his actions when they see who he really is, or at least was.  I can't say I saw regret on his face, but to watch Damian Lewis portray that "What have I done?" moment was nothing short of heartbreaking as he accepts that there is no going back to his former life.  There was always talk of Brody eventually being killed.  In that moment we saw his death.  Whether or not we see him again in seasons to come, Brody's life as we knew it was over.  His other moment of honesty was when he finally walked away.  He looked at Carrie and said "It really was love."  For all the games and manipulation between the two, that was no lie.
Looking ahead to season three, the show will certainly have a new leaf to turn over.  Saul appears to be in position to take over the CIA directorship, with Carrie presumably getting the promotion the two of them discussed.  There are still a ton of unanswered questions about the events of the season finale though.  Brody's guilt or innocence is up for question.  And no matter what side of lady justice he falls on, the nation believes he is a terrorist, the terrorist.  And Carrie just helped him escape.  I have a feeling the show now intends to turn inwards and look closer at the CIA.  With all these questions needing to be answered and pointing the investigation into those questions right at Saul and Carrie seems as interesting a place to start as any.  Saul's unconditional love and support of Carrie would have to then be called into question.  Testing that would seem a great place to start with so many of the major players taken off the board.  Quinn and his  handler Der Adal will certainly play a role in that.
One thing is for certain though, as we turn a page in the story of Homeland ready to begin a new chapter, it was nice to say goodbye to so many aspects of the show, be it plots or characters, while seeing the show do what it is best at.  They let go of the huge plots that weighed down their season and passed that weight to its most intimate moments of the characters we are most deeply invested in, capped by a smile, justt like we began twelve weeks ago.

the hobbits unexpected journey

movies:  The first installment of The Hobbit that was released on Friday has come under much scrutiny from hardcore fans of the story (like me).  The story has been turned into a trilogy.  The question of how that was possible was up for debate.  Unlike the The Lord Of The Rings, which was tailor made for a trilogy given its in book format, The Hobbit not only is one, book but a simple streamlined story that is often classified in the children's section of your local book store.  Word began to get out that the story was going to be flushed out to fill in that time by adding in sections of the appendices at the end of Lord Of The Rings in order to represent The Hobbit as more of a prequel than what it truly is; the simple story of one hobbit's adventures.
It was hard not to give Peter Jackson a level of unconditional trust going into the movie based on his track record when visiting Middle Earth.  But questions still were out there.  While at least in this first movie, The Unexpected Journey, he certainly did use the appendices to fill in holes in the story to create a more coherent binding of the worlds between the one he had previously in inhabited and the one in which he was now telling a story, there was much more to what he had in mind than simply to fill in some gaps between the two worlds.
When one looks at the the two different stories on their own merits, The Hobbit is a rather simple adventure story without much context as it is told by Tolkien.  It is simply the story of Bilbo Baggins leaving his home despite himself to see what the larger world has to offer.  The Lord Of The Rings is Tolkien's complete flushing out of that world as he created a dense landscape and history so complete that it could only be matched by that of our own, as we learn the specific geography and history of different lands and people we encountered.
In the movies this concept has almost been flipped.  In order to keep the Lord Of The Rings Trilogy succinct and from getting totally out of control (the extended editions still come in at just under twelve total hours), he streamlined the story by making about two concepts.  The destruction of the ring by Frodo and the rise Aragorn as the king, leaving much of the very dense history that made up the books.
In the Hobbit Jackson chose to go the opposite way.  He has filled the movie with a rich and often dense history of the members involved.  He gets into the history of the dwarves under the mountain, found in Tolkien's various writings on Middle Earth.  He even begins the story with what is actually the opening scene of Lord Of The Rings, where Bilbo and Frodo are talking about the various relations that will be coming to his party, ending with Frodo saying he is going to the hill at East Farthing, where we find him meeting Gandolf at the beginning of the Fellowship movie.
The other thing that maybe even more so lead to the movies being a trilogy though was its astounding detail.  Jackson was at times taking scenes that were simple one paragraph descriptions and turning them into epic sequences.  The scene of the giants on the side of the Misty Mountains in the books is a one paragraph description of something seen off in the distance that in the movie is turned in to a spectacular visual moment and immediate threat to our heroes.  The scene other scene of note in what I call the epicizing of the story is the dwarves escape from the goblins under that vary mountain.   Because it is not something that happens directly to our Mr. Baggins, it is told in brief flash back in the book.  Jackson tells it in a gigantic battle scene.
His detail is also found in his faithfulness too though.  The telling of the unexpected party at Bilbo's home where he first meets the dwarves is basically a word for word retelling.  Also the moment when he discovers the ring in his game of riddles with Gollum could not have held more true to the text from which it is derived   Also as we saw the more intimate "battle" between Bilbo and Gollum that was set up to mirror the insane battle between the dwarves and goblins, we saw that the movie did operate at its best in that more intimate moment that the point of view of the book was centered on.
I know I have spent a lot of time talking about what made this movie so long.  But it is worth saying given its origins.  But let me say that it was totally worth it.  All of the history and detail gave The Hobbit a level or richness worthy or it being a true prequel to The Lord Of The Rings.
The movie also saw Middle Earth's best acting performance.  Martin Freeman assumed the role of Bilbo in a way one could have only hoped.  He was bashful and silly and unassuming as a possible hero.  He didn't believe in himself.  I didn't believe in him either.  But yet he still found ways to survive his adventure and even prove himself worthy of it.  He showed the hobbit we were expecting to see, one who was capable of great things while genuinely not knowing either that he was or that those great things were happening around him.
In the end though it was Peter Jackson that made this movie most enjoyable.  His innate understanding of that universe is without match.  While going back to the world he captured en-route to Oscar dominance, he was able to change it to reflect that he is not filming as history but an adventure.  It was brighter and funner.  Even the campy looking makeup gave the majestic world a more childlike sense tha t was actually worthy of the story he was telling.  He made it the kids story it was supposed to be while giving it the gravity it needed as a prequel to his previous epic.
But what it really was about Jackson's The Hobbit that touched me was that I found myself feeling the contentment our main character longs for throughout the tail.  In the end our hero is out of his depth as he fights trolls and goblins and dragons and even Gollum.  But in the end he just wants to go home to the life he left behind.  And with Jackson being able to create what the minds eye of so many readers has seen in the world of Middle Earth, it really did feel like home.  The comfortable place of my bravest imagination.

rush is in the rock and roll hall of fame

music:  I have to admit that this is a post that may be filled with a bit of irrational love.  I have been a Rush fan, well not since the beginning since I wasn't alive, but for about as long as I have been interested in music.  Certainly since the moment I first heard of them.  Their induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has been well overdue.  With bands only needing to be twenty-five years old to be eligible and Rush about to enter their thirty-ninth year, this is a nomination that has been a long time coming for fans and I can't help but allow myself to revel in this moment.
I also have to say that I am hoping that this post will truly display why this is such a deserving band.  I have no interest in talking about songwriting or the quality of specific songs.  I have no interest as well in discussing the power rankings of musicians at their specific crafts.  Rush has proven their worth in a different way (although in my opinion you could talk about those things as they apply to Rush and their worthiness in the highest regard).
Rush deserves nomination based on what they represent to the musical community.  OK, feel free to cue all the jokes about their representing dorkiness and helium ingesting vocalists and sci-fi conventions.   But they really do represent a lot of what is the best of music.  The easiest place to begin is longevity.  This is a band that has been around since 1974 and has been the same three guys since 1975, when Neil Peart replaced John Rutsey as their drummer.  Being that there are only three members of the band I suppose you could make the argument that with less people in the band there are less opportunities for things to happen to members of the band because there are less of them.  But still, they have been the same three guys for nearly forty years with only one substantial break in their work that was cause for uncertainty.  And even that uncertainty was a far greater source of empathy than your typical "Behind the Music" story.  When Peart lost his daughter and wife in the span of less than a year the future of the band was put on hold.  But that level of tragedy has got to be understood.  Otherwise they have been out there working together without a break all that time.  That kind of commitment and bond has to be worth recognizing, especially in an industry so over-wrought with vice filled drama based on pure temptation that is excused because it is "part of the lifestyle".
Artistic integrity is another thing Rush epitomizes in the music industry.  I truly hate that term.  But when you look at the way their career unfolded, it actually is an apt phrase.  On the brink of extinction back in the 70's, they decided that they would rather go down making the music they wanted than give in and be miserable for the rest of their lives pumping out singles they could not have any interest in playing for the rest of their lives.  Thanks to the word of mouth success of 2112 (lets face it, that 20 minute song was not getting radio play), they won the battle and were from then on free to do as they pleased.  And they took advantage of it.  Rush has evolved over time, changing their sound from album to album and era to era, always being the band they wanted to be at the time.  Sometimes those evolutions, see the oft dismayed keyboard era at the end of the 80's as a great example, would go too far.  But then they would correct and try something new again.  The kind of musical freedom with which Rush has operated is something most bands fight their whole careers for, Rush was given that freedom early on and decided to take full advantage of it, never giving into the glittering prizes and endless compromises that Peart talked about in Spirit of Radio and thus giving the state of integrity that surely has always helped music along.
The third thing that Rush has cultivated that is as important to their legacy as their music is their fan base.  The Rush fan base is a very different breed.  Being a part of that breed I feel I can expertly talk about it.  Rush fans are more or less insanely devoted(and generally just insane).  As was said on the documentary made about them, Beyond The Lighted Stage, "Rush has brand loyalty, its like NASCAR,  those fans are going nowhere."  And its 100% true.  But what is it that makes it that way?  Sure people talk about how they are a musicians band and that because they are "Prog" only musicians love Rush.  While I have not done an extensive study, I am sure that there are a lot of musicians in the crowd at a Rush concert.  But it goes further than that.  And the place it goes is into Peart's lyric writing.  Peart is a rather unique writer.  His being so literate, combined with his interest in tackling very specific themes through their albums and songs has made him both revered and criticized.  Those who criticize him call him pretentious.  They claim he is trying too hard to appear smart. But really is he pretending to be anything other than who he is?  Fans of his however find the universality in his writing that he sought to achieve.  And in that universality they find music that has a much more direct relation to their lives than a simple pop love song, whether it be in Peart's description of life in the suburbs, his description of that first car and ones nearly romantic love of it, or an intimate look at personal loss.  In an interview Peart once said, "Lyrically it's always been a reflection of my times and the times I observe.  But everyone is a reflection of me."  As much as that may be the way he views his writing, I would argue that almost the opposite ends up occurring.  We are not a reflection of him.  We instead find that his words are a reflection of our own lives and times and not just his.  And that connection, beyond the music, but into the words that is so deeply personal, is why the fans stick around.  It doesn't matter what song from what era, all Rush fans have a song that they feel deeply connected to.
And it is that very connection that is why they are hall of fame worthy.  Not because of hit singles or Grammys.  The radio largely rejected them and the critics hated them.  But their fans always stuck around.  And as a result Rush stuck around.  Cult band yes.  Prog band yes.  Nerds yes.  But also the ultimate peoples band.  Let's face it.  Without people, relating to them as far back as the debut of Working Man in then factory town Cleveland, they would have not been able to carry on.  And for us all they continue to.

Vicious Lies and Dangerous Rumors

music:  Today Big Boi dropped his second solo album, Vicious Lies And Dangerous Rumors.  He has an awful lot to live up to after Sir Lucious Left Foot... The Son Of Chico Dusty.  That album was nothing short of a tour de force.  Every song felt like a revelation, realizing that I was not only hearing something thoroughly enjoyable but something I was pretty sure I had never heard before.  That ambition, while amazing, lent itself to a certain amount of inaccessibility   On Vicious Lies, Big Boi instead seems to have turned his innovation from the completely new to the very familiar.
Most of the album sounds like exactly the opposite of the one it follows.  Instead of being overwhelmed by the new, I found myself feeling very at homes in the sounds of Vicioius Lies.  The two most accessible songs, CPU and the single Mama Told Me, are songs that have synth heavy eighties dance groves that are reminiscent of Prince and Morris Day and the Time.  With a fast beat to rap over, Big Boi keeps that vibe alive while his female counterparts, Phontogram in CPU and Kelly Rowland in Mama Told Me, act as pop princesses making everyone just want to dance while taking a break from marveling at the lead artists mastery of his craft.
The song In The A is a traditional anthem.  With an aggressive beat pounding, three of Atlanta's best, Big Boi TI and Ludacris, spit four plus minutes of love for the city from which they all came.  Despite the fun of the two previous songs mentioned, this one may be the best of the album.  The beat, the aggression, the quality of the artists all lend themselves to an instant classic.
I couldn't help but be amazed throughout the album how well the other rappers worked with Big Boi and how well they fit into his style.  In The A was probably the one exception to that.  While listening to TI and Big Boi was a perfect blending of styles, Ludacris was the one who decided to stand out.  I was truly amazed that a guy with the skill and speed to keep up with Big Boi, one of our quickest rappers, chose instead to with just pure unadulterated aggression as he just screamed his love of his hometown into the mic.  And wow was that scream powerful.  With Ludacris focusing more on acting these days it was just a breath of fresh air to hear him, and to hear him stake his claim along side two of the best in the game, with that aggression no less, is exactly what is to be expected and exactly the reason to love it.
The album ends with a handful of slow jams, showing Big Boi not only can rip through a blazing beat but can also make some of the best R&B in the game.  The highlight of that was the albums finale She Said Ok.  It was slick and smooth and sexy and contains a chorus that should be the theme of all men who have ever lusted after a pretty girl.  No, I am not going to quote it hear.  Just listen and marvel and love him saying all the things we are really thinking.
I had an interesting thought when trying to describe Vicious Lies and the music of Big Boi in general.  I have a tendency to get lost in his music; listening to it over and over again until I have to drag myself kicking and screaming on to something else.  While I could say that that is a testament to how great an artist he is, I think it goes further than that.  Listening to him, whether now or when he was with Outkast, is a truly singular experience that you cannot get from anything else.  And in realizing that I compared him to System Of A Down, another band that I can't find my way out of once I am in the middle of their music.  There just is no good transition.  You find what you were looking for and then realize there is no one else that can give you the same thing.
While Big Boi didn't step nearly as far outside the box on his current record as he did on his last, his individuality still stands out as much as anybody's.  His perfect mixture of old school hyper-percussive delivery and innovate tones in his music are a combination that provides a nearly unmatched quality.  And while I can't necessarily listen to Vicious Lies and feel my life changing the way it did listening to Sir Lucious Left Foot, I can't help but wonder if that is the point.  Maybe Vicious Lies is just meant to be enjoyed.  Its like he said, "I showed you everything I have, now I just want you to kick back and have fun."  And that will be all too easy.

killing them softly

movies:  Killing Them Softly is the new movie collaboration between director Andrew Dominik and Brad Pitt.  They had previously worked together on The Assassination Of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford, a sweeping three hour western epic whose length was only matched by the beauty of its scenery.  This is a much different story.  It is the concise tale (under two hours) of a group of men from a nondescript rundown American town who have turned to crime at the height of the recession in 2008 as a way to make ends meet.  Some are more professional criminals and some are more just average down on their luck guys who got in over their heads.
In the movie Brad Pitt plays a hit man named Jackie who is brought into town to clean up a mess after a poker game run by the mob has been robbed.  His job is to kill the four people involved in the robbery of the game. Two of them are the robbers, Frankie (played by Scoot McNairy who is having a sneaking good year between this and his fantastic role in Argo) and Russel, Ben Mendelsohn's goofy Austrailian sidekick.  These are two down on their luck guys.  Frankie is an out of work ex-con in need of a dollar and willing to take on illegal work to make it.  Russel seems like he may just be too dumb to get a real job since his other criminal enterprise is smuggling pure bread dogs to Florida in a station wagon twenty at a time.  Their boss, Johnny, is another man on Pitt's list.  Johnny is one of the more odd characters I've ever watched.  He is played by Vincent Curatola, most famously known for his role as Johnny Sacrimone on the Sopranos.  Watching the movie I almost couldn't help but wonder if the two Johnnys were the same character given the similarities in Curatola's acting of the two combined with the fact that at one point in the movie to being thrown in prison seven years ago.  If you line that up with the timeline of the Sopranos given when it went off the air, that is frighteningly close in real time to when we saw Johnny Sac get picked up by the Feds.  But I digress.  Killing Them Softly's Johnny forces a change in Jackie's plans when Jackie realizes that they have met, forcing him to call in some help.  But we'll get back to the help later.  The final man on the hit list is the guy who runs the poker game, Markie Trattman.  After Trattman's involvement in the robbery of the game comes under suspicion by the mob, Jackie decides he has to go.  This is done furthering the theme of the movie when Jackie explains to his employer that Markie has to go to get people back to the game.  For if the game stops, the ability to make money will stop.  And in these tough times that is just an unacceptable state of living.
The greatest moments of the movies portrayal of the recession came not in its moments of criminal activity, but in the quiet moments spent between Jackie and the help he calls in to take care of Johnny. His help is Mickey, played by James Ganodlfini, an older hit man who seems like he is not getting the work he once might have thanks to younger more able men like Jackie.  When Mickey arrives, the two go out to lunch to talk about the job they are there to do.  While catching up Mickey explains that his life isn't exactly roses these days, facing a nasty divorce while not getting the steady work he once did, and now needs given the alimony he knows he is facing.  With multiple men in need of killing, Mickey is saddened to here that he is only brought in to kill one, thus limiting his income.  As if he is a manager looking sympathetically at an assembly line worker, Jackie says to Mickey, hey you can have a double(shift/hit) if you want.  If you need the money, that's fine.  Mickey pridefully declines.  Later Jackie shows up at Mickey's hotel room so they can go to work only to find him drunk and having not slept for days, not to mention with a hooker in his room.  As Mickey woefully talks of a brighter time in his life, Jackie realizes that his friend is just not up to doing the job required of him and does the only thing he can, step and do the whole job because in times like these he can't leave work undone and unpaid for, in times like these it would be un-American.
By the time the movie ended I felt thoroughly satisfied.  The come thriller moments of the movie were fantastic.  The heists were fun.  The violence was quite artfully shot at times.  There was some great dialogue that hearkened back to Tarentino's Like A Virgin monologue in Reservior Dogs.  The acting was fantastic.  Pitt was able to straddle the line between menacing hit man and counselor to an old friend fallen on hard times.  McNairy and Gandolfini turned in two of the better supporting performances of the year.  I even enjoyed the allegory.  The world of criminal enterprise and the greed that is inherent in it mirroring a time in our country where most people were willing to just say yes to jobs to keep paychecks coming to pay the bills rather than chasing things that made them happy because we were finding that the most American thing we could do in those times was go to work.
If there is one major criticism though it would have to be Dominik's lack of subtlety in portraying this image.  While the scene's between Pitt and Gandolfini were perfectly executed, the movie was also littered with moments where it felt like the recession was being shoved a little too much to the forefront.  As I stated earlier the movie takes place during the election of 2008, at the height of the recession, and the movie is littered with speeches and news clips of McCain, Obama, and Bush talking about the difficult times we were in and how they were going to get better.  The movie also ends with Pitt making a cynical speech about the state of America that can only be compared to some of his moments in Fight Club and Ed Norton's big "New York" speech in 25th Hour.  While Pitt delivers it stirringly, it is the final moment of the movie.  The point has already been made, and very clearly at that.  Being that I am admittedly a fan of the more subtle portrayals of ideas in film, I can't help but feel that a summation isn't always necessary.
In summation, the movie was absolutely satisfying and nothing more.  It was fun and entertaining and even had something interesting to say despite the fact that I had occasional problems with how it was said.  Pitt, McNairy, and Gandolfini were excellent.  See what I mean.

lincoln

movies:  Lincoln, the new movie directed by Steven Spielberg, is the story of how President Abraham Lincoln passed the thirteenth amendment based on the book Team Of Rivals.  Given that I have not read the book, going into it, it was hard to imagine little more than a retelling of the end of the Civil War only more enjoyable given Spielberg's directing, Daniel Day-Lewis playing Lincoln, and Tommy Lee Jones's awesome wig, based in the trailers.  It proved, however, to be much more enjoyable than I had expected.  And maybe more importantly different than I had expected.
Lincoln is not simply a Civil War story.  It tells specifically the story of Lincoln's obsession with the belief that passing the thirteenth amendment, which abolished slavery, was the the key to ending the war, and more importantly reuniting the North and South.  With that, it brought a different look to a story we are all too familiar with.  Instead of seeing Lincoln the speech maker standing over bloody battlefields, we see Lincoln the politician and the man.  The man is arguably the most entertaining part of the movie as he weaves long-winded tales to emphasize points he is trying to make (that after a few too many that even the audience begins to groan, Lincoln himself gets called out on for doing to often).  He is also presented as a rather uneducated and simple man, unable to make decisions objectively since he lacks the higher education of the advisers and adversaries around him.
The more important side of Lincoln to the film itself though is the politician.  As he struggles to get the amendment passed, we see a world frighteningly similar to the one around us.  The times 160 years ago are shown as no less corrupt or treacherous in the world of politics than they are today.  Lincoln - needing to secure votes to pass the amendment through the House Of Representatives, which was by no means a slam dunk, hires a group of men to go in search of Representatives that are on the fence that he can sway to his side.  These men are not swayed by speeches about morality and right and wrong.  They are not swayed by justice.  They are swayed by deals.  And as we see positions offered to these potentially deal breaking voters as Lincoln's next term is about to start, we are faced with reality.  The reality being that things just don't seem to change.  As much as we chastise our current political officials for being handled by lobbyists at every turn and romanticize times gone by, we see in this movie that things have maybe not changed that much at all.  Beyond even the buying of votes for the passing of the amendment we hear Lincoln talk about the manipulation of the law that allowed for the Emancipation Proclamation.
Lincoln cannot be talked about without also acknowledging its acting.  There is almost an overabundance of great actors in this movie (I am not going to list them all, that would take 10000 words itself, just check it on IMDB if you want.  Its seriously astonishing.).  But there really are two that stand out.  Tommy Lee Jones plays Thaddeus Stevens.  He is a House Representative who has been pushing for total equality between races since before Lincoln was even in office.  As it is with men of such radical passion, he is met with hatred and jokes while being able to do little for his own case since he can be goated into overly emotional arguments.  Jones plays this fervor with pure ecstasy   He is funny and exciting and in the end plays the difficulty of the times he is facing as well as anyone, not because he is succumbing to something he doesn't believe in, but because, as he is forced to accept this baby step to equality, he realizes that reigning in himself and his beliefs is the first step to getting what he wants.  For his true hope of equality, as he finds, cannot be realized with the first step of ending slavery, which he believes is to small a step in to the world he envisions.
But, as I am sure is no surprise, the actor that deserves the most praise is Daniel Day-Lewis.  Like how the version of Lincoln seen in this movie is new, his portrayal of him is also new.  He portrays Lincoln not as the giant of a man imposing his will upon a country that we are used to seeing.  Instead he is in all likelihood closer to what a man dealing with years of civil war would be.  Day-Lewis's Lincoln is a tired man walking around hunched at the shoulders as if the weight he is feeling from his nation tearing apart were actually falling down around him.  He is weary of his struggles, both in politics and in his family.  He is trying to remain hopeful that the war will end, and that as he seeks its end the decisions he is making will be what brings that end, although there is a shadow of doubt in him at every turn.  Despite these troubles and now doubts, however, he also shows that that same giant of a man with all his intimidation and charisma can still come out when there is no other way to accomplish his goals.
Daniel Day-Lewis may be the best living actor.  There is isn't more than one movie
(Nine) in which he seems to portray otherworldly skill.  He is an actors actor, taking on challenging rolls that force him to morph his physical appearance and voice.  I am fairly certain that I would not recognize him if I saw him walking down the street despite the fact that I have seen almost all of his movies.  But the care with which he treats the characters he plays is unmatched.   And watching him play Lincoln it is on full display again.  He plays the strength of a leader knowing he has no choice but to get what he needs combined with the fragility of a man worn down by war hitting all the beats as if he were a classical musician performing a grand opus.
The movie itself is also with very few comparisons   As a look into the political underbelly of the Civil War, Lincoln is as much fascinating and thrilling as it is a frightening mirror.  Rarely can one look into the events of the past and see their world reflected back at them in a way that is both resonant and true to its own time.  I can't help but say that the only time I have seen that done so well was in the Mad Men episode The Grown Ups, watching people glued to their televisions as tragedy, then in the form of Kennedy's assassination, gripped the nation and the media ruled all.  And in being that mirror, even beyond its all time great actor, Lincoln did credit to the man and the times it wanted to portray.

update

update:  I really don't want to post business.  I'd rather just keep writing my posts.  But here it goes, I am now on twitter.  I am @robpoppost9.  Follow me there as well.

tonight in the nba

sports:  There were a couple of things that happened tonight in the NBA that needed to be considered seriously.  I know its only about eight or nine games in to the season for most teams, so the notion of having meaningful games is kind of insane.  A lot can change over the course of 82 games and people get injured and healthy and the course of a long season evens out to show who the best teams are (which is something that always happens.  over time we get a more true sense of what is real.), but tonight we saw two games that may have given us a glimpse of what the season has to offer.
The first was the Lakers vs. Suns game in L.A. tonight.  It has to be noted that the two big offensive games for the Lakers this season have been against two teams expected to be at or near the bottom of their conferences this year, the Pistons and the Suns.  But with Mike D'Antoni taking over as head coach of the Lakers this past weekend, watching the Lakers put up 114 points (with D'Antoni at practice but not yet on the sideline) must have Steve Nash licking his lips to get back in their and run the offense he was leading during the prime of his career with better starters around him.  Once again, I know its Phoenix, but with Nash in the system he has played most of his career and with Kobe and Howard and Gasol as an upgrade from Staudemire, Barbosa, and Diaw, one can only fantasize about that 114 turning into 140 and the fun that will be had over the rest of the season.  And don't forget that D'Antoni's teams weren't that bad on defense.  His Suns teams allowed more points than almost any team in the league per game, but were at or above average in defensive efficiancy (points allowed per 100 possessions) .  And with Dwight Howard roaming the paint instead of Amare Staudemire, the four blocks we saw tonight could become common place.
The other game of note tonight was the game between the Knicks and Grizzlies.  The Knicks were a surprise as the last undefeated team in the NBA, but the real story is Memphis.  In the past six days Memphis has beaten the Miami Heat - a team most people have already anointed as repeat champions, and the Knicks - who may not end up being quite as good as their early record, but hey, 7-0 is what it is, oh and they also handed the Thunder a double digit loss in Oklahoma City.  Memphis has done it by flying in the face of the current trend of NBA teams, thus exposing weaknesses.  That trend is going small.  Miami has no traditional bigs, starting Lebron at power forward and Chris Bosh at center and going with a small lineup that dots the perimeter with spot up shooters, and Dwayne Wade as a slasher.  While New York doesn't have the plethora of shooters that Miami has, they have done the same this year by starting Carmello Anthony at power forward (granted Anthony seems to be doing well there, his offensive effeciancy is up early this season and he seems to be committed defensively).  The Grizzlies, bucking the trend, have stuck with their rather enormous starting lineup, with both Marc Gasol and Zach Randolph starting.  In doing so they have been able to exploit smaller teams by pounding the ball inside and playing super physical defense against smaller opponents.  Keep in mind, this is not just a match-up issue.  Gasol and Randolph are two of the best big men in the league when healthy (Randolph, particularly, has missed games in recent years), Rudy Gay has been as consistent a small forward as there is in the league at both ends of the court, Mike Conley has turned into a very effective point guard, and Tony Allen is as good a defensive two guard as there is.  The match-ups with Gasol and Randolph are going to be viewed as the reason teams have trouble with them.  But make no mistake, this team can play.  And as long as they can have someone, even if it is a different person every night, come off the bench and provide a spark, they can beat anybody, which they have proven over the past week.  And with those two legit wins, a true contender may have been over looked.  Maybe this is the Grizzlies team everyone expected last year.

crazy last weekend for a sports fan

sports:  Along with having to wait to write my Skyfall post because I had a friend in from out of town (i Would take that weekend every weekend, really not complaining), I also was not writing anything else.  But as the news came in I realized that there was enough sports news to fill a weeks worth of posts.  Instead of trying to write what is already out dated long posts on every single thing that happened, it is time for a weekend recap.  Here we go.

Pro Football:  In a weekend in the NFL where I finally started to feel like I had everything under control in terms of looking at the match-ups and knowing what I was going to get, things went a little haywire.  I know the Giants are the Giants and they do this every year and will be back come January to winning games, but oh my god did they look bad getting shellacked by the Bengals 31-13.  It wasn't even the loss that was so bad but the fact that the one thing that has never been questioned with the Giants, Eli Manning, looked terrible for the third straight week.  Then there was Atlanta losing its first game of the season.  I feel like that was easy to see coming but no less noteworthy since it has been about four weeks since the Falcons have looked really great (their beat down of the sad sack Eagles notwithstanding) and the heater that the Saints are on.  Seriously, they may be a playoff team now.  Speaking of the Eagles, can we say hello to the sure to be shortlived Nick Foles era?  With Michael Vick out with a "significant cuncussion" the changes we were all expecting in Philly may be coming sooner rather than later.  Holy crap did the Houston defense look great in Chicago.  And a quick shout out to the Chiefs for holding their first lead of the season in the first half of their game against the Steelers that they still were not able to pull out after Ben Roethlisberger left the game in the second half with a shoulder injury.

College Football:  Alabama goes down!  It appears that there will be a non-SEC champion this year with three remaining undefeated teams after the Tides loss to Texas A&M after a brilliant performance from "Johnny Football", Johnny Manziel. who handled to stifling 'Bama defense as well as anyone since Nick Saban rolled into town.  The Tide do still have a shot a the title game with the three remaining undefeateds (Kansas State, Oregon, and Notre Dame) having tough games down the stretch.  Kansas State still has to face Baylor, Texas, and probably Oklahoma for the second time in the Big 12 championship.  Oregon still has Stanford, Oregon State, and a shootout rematch with USC in the Pac 12 championship   Notre Dame has the easiest path with only USC as a difficult team to beat on their schedule.  If the top three teams go down, the Tide can still get back to the National Championship, but regardless, their loss is huge.  And even bigger may be the win by A&M in their first year in the SEC, proving they belong.

Racing:  I am not going to claim to be a racing expert, but watching Jeff Gordon try to kill someone on the track followed by a bar room brawl on pit road has to be one of the craziest things I've seen in a while.  If you don't believe me just watch the post-race rant by points leader and accused dirty driver Brad Kaslewski.

NCAA Basketball:  With a slate of top ten match-ups wrapping up as I type this, I have no doubt that college basketball will be off and running with a bang.  But dealing with the debacle of humidity condensation delaying and ruining the aircraft carrier games because they were held in the southeast this year (a place where humidity is about as common as breathing) instead of San Diego was a tough way to open the season.

NBA:  The NBA had quite a weekend.  The Grizzlies convincingly beat the Heat and now appear to be contenders if the display they put on is the team they really are.  The Clippers are playing defense, also a contender proposition.  But, of course, the scene stealing news was the Lakers firing of Mike Brown and hiring of Mike D'Antoni.  Phil Jackson was in negotiations to come back as head coach when, out of the blue, the Lakers hired D'Antoni.  It was a bizarre move that is filled with intrigue considering the conflicts coming from the Lakers and Jackson camps.  The Lakers are claiming that Jackson made insane demands about not travelling and missing shootarounds and getting control of the front office.  Jackson denies all of this of course.  No one seems to be able to sort it all out though.  Then there is the question of what kind of a fit the coach they have is.  While it is hard to argue with Jackson's history, he is the greatest coach in NBA history.  There is no doubt that Mike D'Antoni is a good coach.  He also is good fit for this team.  Being the architect of the "seven seconds or less offense" in Phoenix which featured Steve Nash running the point and Amare Staudemire running pick and rolls, this team seems like a great fit.  He still has Nash, Dwight Howard is a clear upgrade from Staudemire, Gasol should be effective in pick and pop situations, and Kobe, in his short time in the Princeton offense, has shown he is great slashing for easy baskets.  Now all the Lakers need is a couple of spot up shooters, their health to hold up, and their age not to show in the fastest offense ever and you may have something fun to watch that could work.  Oh and the front office needs to stop making rash decisions every five games.

Of course a crazy fun weekend in sports had to come when I was shut down for the weekend and just having fun.  But hey, that's always the way it works.

skyfall

movies:  While I have begun to get into the habit of posting on movies within one day of when I saw them, I think this time I am actually glad that this time I was not able to.  I was able to go see Skyfall, the new James Bond movie, over the weekend.  The word leading up to its release was that it was going to be the best bond movie ever.  As a huge fan of the franchise and of the Sean Connery era, I was intrigued by these assertions.  I honestly, no matter how good the movie could be, could not wrap my mind around the best Bond movie not being one Connery was in(I do enjoy movies from the other Bond actors, but to me he was just the best.).  After having seen it, I have to concede that this may have been, at very least, among the best.  But I think the thing that separates this particular Bond film from the rest is not its quality.  It may be the most unique of all the the movies in the franchise.
Skyfall continued the story of the James Bond that has been inhabited by Daniel Craig.  This is Bond before we met him in Dr. No so many years ago.  In Casino Royale he wasn't even a 00 yet when the movie began.  While something as simple as that set the time frame for Casino Royale, in Skyfall it was a little more vague.  Most of the movie could have, like all of the old Bond movies, taken place any time.  But as the pieces elegantly fell into place we begin to see the continued drive towards the Bond-verse we have known for fifty years.
The first of those pieces was James's beautiful sidekick that doesn't seem to quite have what it takes in the field.  She is also clearly infatuated with our favorite secret agent and yet is never taken advantage of as Bond always recommends she get a desk job instead of working in the field right when it seems that something steamy could happen.
The second of those pieces is a high ranking Parlaiment official, named Gareth Mallory, who comes to the aid of MI-6 after an attack on their offices in London.  With the espionage program under fire for being outdated and insignificant in the modern world, Mallory supports MI-6 in their time of crisis.  This notion of the antiquated spy was something that was brilliantly handled throughout the movie.  MI-6 was under attack from its own government for having out lived its usefulness and moving to a more technological approach to the spy game where computers would be the eyes on the ground and the military the muscle instead of a single man providing both capabilities.  The villain Silva, played to perfection by Javier Bardem, managed to do most of his damage with obscenely sophisticated technology while James was armed with nothing but a gun and a radio.  But most importantly in this notion of the obsolete spy was commentary on the Bond franchise itself.  With interest dwindling over more recent films, talk of the financial trouble at MGM was threatening to kill the fanchise, and the simple notion that after fifty years it was time to let our favorite spy go, in such a great movie it was the writers way of saying directly to its audience and its detractors that if you just make good movies, just like putting the right man in the field, that there is no need to get rid of something that has worked so well for so long.
As we weave our way through this revelation we are met with another startling revelation.  The main relationship in this movie is not that of James and his token Bond-girl, but that of he and M.  Played by Judi Dench for the past three films, she has been allowed to build a relationship with Bond in a way that no character in the history of the franchise has as he grows from just another agent to the 007 we know from older movies.  She acts his supporter, boss, mentor, and even at times friends as she helps him to become the super-spy we all know and love.  With Silva (a former MI-6 agent) out to kill her, M looks to Bond for help.  They go on the run, finding exile at a place that illuminates Bond's past in a way that is only comparable to the effect that the Vesper's death has on him in Casino Royale.  The strength of their relationship, as they plot and scheme and banter while fighting for survival (M's fight being for her life and Bond's being for his life, the only life he has ever loved in his role in MI-6), then carries the movie to a remarkably emotional climax that forces us to realize that the Bond girl of this movie is not the typically seduced beauty from the casino in Macao, who by the way is hardly on screen more than five minutes, but that it is none other than M.  It is their love and relationship and respect that is the companionship for James that drives the film.
There truly never has been a Bond movie quite like Skyfall.  There was a woman James didn't sleep with (maybe a first).  There were side characters to invest in, such as Mallory and Bond's old friend from their hideout in Scotland.  There was a developed relationship that allowed for the franchise to step outside what it usually is thanks to serializing the movies that have starred Daniel Craig.  Rather than being a jolly romp of violence and one off storytelling that leaves you entertained but not moved emotionally as James misogynistically degrades every woman he comes in contact with enroute to taking down typical and untextured villains  we see him in a movie where the one thing that will keep him and his profession alive is his genuine love and respect of a woman, a woman who we have come to know within the context of his job and the taking down of those bad guys.
Whether or not Skyfall proves to be the best Bond movie ever is hard to say.  It had one of the best villains  plots, and songs.  It had one of the worst traditional Bond girls, but its only non-traditional one.  It was also the most moving film of the franchise by far (one could say that the fact that it carried any emotional weight was a first).  It was certainly one of the best if not the best.  But it was definitely its most unique.  We will probably never see a Bond movie like it ever again.  And what made it unique made it great.

denzel flies high

moives:  Flight is the first live action movie by Robert Zemeckis since he directed Cast Away.  And what a return it was.  Zemeckis has spent the past twelve years since Cast Away making family friendly computer animated movies like Polar Express, intent on pushing the boundaries of the visual aspect of film making.  With Flight he not only came back to live actors but to the world of adults.
Flight is the story of William "Whip" Whitaker, played by Denzel Washington.  He is a pilot who is faced with an investigation after he lands a plane that breaks down mid flight that he manages to land more or less successfully, saving the lives of 96 of the 102 crew and passengers on board.  He does so in a daring way that makes his case even more compelling.  In order to level out the plane, which was in a nose dive, he inverts it to take away some of the downward force of the plane.  I have no idea whether or not this is remotely plausible or makes sense physically, but man oh man was that something to see on the screen.  Whitaker's story is complicated by the fact that he is an alcoholic   As the pressure of the investigation into the state of his well being during the events leading up to the crash mounts we see that the story is not that of a plane crash but that of a man in the throes of a serious problem, and needing for the sake of his life even more so than the sake of justice for those who died in the crash to get help.
Flight is littered with great supporting actors.  Bruce Greenwood plays Whitaker's union rep and old friend trying to help and advise him through the investigation.  Don Cheadle plays his high powered attorney from Chicago torn between watching his client be both self destructive and be destructive to those around him and winning his case.  John Goodman is the comic relief as Whip's old buddy and drug dealer who shows up to steal scenes and lend an immoral helping hand whenever it is needed (let us just stop and marvel at how great a year Goodman is having.  First he is in Best Picture winner The Artist, then he plays the role of ultimate scene stealer in two of the years best movies:  Flight and Argo).  And probably the best of the supporting cast is Kelly Reilly.  She plays Whitaker's fresh out of rehab girlfriend.  Clearly sought by Whitaker out to be brought back to her vices after they meet in the hospital which she is at for rehab, she plays the role of a former addict beautifully   This is not because of the addiction but because of the balancing act of her life.  She cares about Whip and is worried for him and wants to help.  She is afraid of who she once was and what being around him could do.  And she wants to give in, not only because of her addiction but because of the man she cares about asking her to.
But all of those brilliant performances pale in comparison to Washington.  He begins the movie basically as the coolest man alive.  He wakes up in bed with a bottle of beer next to him and line of coke ready with a remarkably beautiful and naked woman in his hotel room that one can't help but think about in the context of what the previous night had been.  He then takes that last swig and line and then goes off to pilot a plane in distress where he saves people by inverting the plane, a stunt that Cheadle's character says that when tried in simulation the pilots killed everyone else on the plane.  As we watch Washington throughout the movie, his portrayal of his drinking problem his remarkable.  His futile lies are frightening and evident to all of the characters around him and the audience.  His total lack of self control is unsettling as he stumbles around and slurs romantic notions about his life as a pilot.  But the most amazing thing is the way he handles the moments in the movie when he isn't drinking.  As a result of his hero status for saving so many peoples lives and the ongoing investigation about the crash he is faced with tension and stress everywhere he goes.  The elegance of Washington's performance as he navigates these situations is unmatched.  The subtle movements, the tonguing of the inside of his lip, the tapping of his cane as stress mounts in situations is always evident.  But they are not evident in the way we typically see them.  They are not the ticks and twitches of a man fighting an urge.  They are the ticks and twitches of a man just wanting to give in and knowing that he needs to escape into his demons.  He is never fighting.  He is always looking for a way to give in.  Though the movie is ultimately the story of Whitaker's decent to rock bottom, Washington never gives us a moment where we don't feel like he is even in control.  Rock bottom is his inevitability.  He is probably already there, he just has always been able to get by and make good enough and lie to those who love him enough to never stand up to him.
Flight was by all accounts a good movie.  It had a trademark Zemeckis visual moment that I have both never seen before and will never forget.  It had a great, fun cast.  It had a soundtrack filled with such great classic rock it was cheesy and predictable from scene to scene.  It even had some great morality at the end as its main character found a reason to try and right all his wrongs.  But the thing that really did make the movie great was Denzel.  Not only was his performance so great for the reasons stated above, but because he was exactly what he has been for the past 25 years:  a movie star.  He owns the screen with his authority and presence in a way that only about five other actors can(Hanks, Cruise, Pitt, Clooney, OK he is one of five).  He blows all of the other great actors out of all of their scenes and makes them seem almost weak and small in his commanding presence.  And he was blowing great actors like Cheadle and Greenwood off the stage, not an easy feat.  Flight may sneak into my top fifteen films of the year, but Denzel may be number one when it is all said and done in February.

The Association is back

sports:  The NBA is officially under way as of two days ago.  The Miami Heat are looking to defend the championship against a field led by many of the teams that were the top contenders last year.  Most of the teams that were top contenders last year, including the defending champs, are coming back with significant alterations to their rosters and thus potentially to the style in which they play.
As the Heat begin their title defense, they are showing that the look of their team will strongly resemble what we saw from them in the NBA finals last spring.  Lebron James will be starting at power forward this season and playing out of the post unless the team finds themselves in transition situations where James can handle the ball.  Dwayne Wade will be the teams slasher.  Chris Bosh will primarily play out of the weak post and flash for mid-range jumpers.  The other roles will be filled by shooters.  Along with Mario Chalmers, Shane Battier, and Mike Miller coming back from last years team, the Heat have also added Rashard Lewis and former Celtic Ray Allen.  With this look, like in last years Finals, the plan will be to run the offense through James in the post and let him distribute to shooters or a slashing Wade if the double team comes.  If it doesn't then he will be allowed to go to work and score one on one.  While this offensive game plan dominated against the Oklahoma City Thunder in the Finals, the question has to be how this will work during a full eighty-two game season, especially with James playing full times against players who are more physically comparable to the himself rather than the guards and small forwards the has been matched up against in the past.
The Boston Celtics are probably the biggest threat to the Heat in the Eastern Conference.  They are the second most talented team in the conference as well as having a wealth of experience to bring into big games.  The Celtics return stars Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, and Rajon Rondo.  These three form a strong nucleus with the two veterans and Rondo, who should assume alpha dog status on this team and possibly put himself in the running for MVP.  The Celtics should also be bolstered on defense with the return from injury of Avery Bradley, who when healthy last year proved to be one of the best one on one guard defenders in the league (look up his shutdown performance against Dwayne Wade towards the end of the regular season last year.)  Also coming back from health issues is Jeff Green.  Green had high expectations coming over from Oklahoma City in the Kendrick Perkins trade before being sidelined with heart issues.  Green may never be a star but he certainly can be a fine complementary piece to Boston's big three as a scorer and rebounder.  Probably the biggest addition to the Celtics roster is Jason Terry.  Terry was brought in as a free agent from Dallas to replace Ray Allen.  Terry could prove to even be an upgrade from Allen.  Terry will be OK with coming off the bench, a thing Allen was unhappy about after the emergence of Avery Bradley.  Terry is also better with the ball in his hands.  Terry has experience running a second unit from his time in Dallas and is more than capable of creating his own shot.  And as far as crunch time goes, Terry was an integral part of the Dallas fourth quarter offense and should prove to be in Boston as well.  His more than adequate range and ability to play with the ball in his hands combined with his total fearlessness (the words for him are "irrational confidence") should be a fine replacement for Allen.  The biggest question for the Celtics, given the age of the stars as well as concerns about Green, is health.  If the core of this team can be on the court together they have a chance to beat anybody.
Their are two other main contenders in the east.  The Indiana Pacers showed last year that they are capable of challenging the best teams in their conference.  They seem to have some things working against them though.  They traded their starting point guard, Darren Collison, who while not an all star, fit well into what that team did.  Like many teams this year losing key players, that could create a getting to know you process that can slow Indiana down.  The Pacers also still lack a go to player that can take over at key moments late in games.  Probably the biggest problem is that Indiana won't surprise anyone this year, and any athlete will tell you that life is harder when you have a target on your back.
 The other team could be the Chicago Bulls.  The Bulls will be face with a similar task as last year of having to survive until the return of superstar point guard Derrick Rose.  While the Bulls were 18-9 without Rose last year, things should not be so easy this year.  The Bulls failed to re-sign key bench players from last year: Ronnie Brewer, Kyle Korver, Amir Asik, and C.J. Watson.  These players, especially Watson who started in Rose's absence, were key contributors on last years deepest team.  Without them the Bulls will be looking much more to tread water rather than win while awaiting Rose's return.  Then they have to hope that after a torn ACL Rose will still be the same.  If he is though, even as a middling playoff team they could threaten anyone they play.
Out west things look about as different as they do atop the east.  The defending west champs, the Oklahoma City Thunder, are returning with a major change to their team.  Just two days before the start of the season they traded sixth man of the year James Harden to the Rockets for Kevin Martin and Jeremy Lamb.  While Martin has been a fine scorer throughout his career, averaging about 18 points per game, and the rookie Lamb is a good outside shooter, shooting 37% from three in college, there is a big gap that the two of them won't be able to fill.  Harden was the leader of the second unit, being able to create and run the offense with the ball in his hands.  Martin and Lamb will be better off the ball and in pick and roll situations.  The Thunder are hoping that the return of backup point guard Eric Maynor, who missed all of last season with a torn ACL, will be able to run the second unit offense in place of Harden while Lamb and Martin roam without the ball and make up the scoring void of Harden.  The Thunder should be one of the best teams in the entire league again regardless of losing Harden given that they still have Durant and Westbrook who might be two of the best twelve players in the league.  Also, if the Thunder can adjust their style of play to accommodate the two new players, which could be a good thing to learn for the Thunder since their biggest flaw in the finals (besides going big) was their ineffectiveness in half court sets and having two off the ball scorers will force that to improve, this could even prove to be a very nice trade for them.
The most drastically different team, maybe in the NBA, is the Los Angeles Lakers.  In the off season they acquired superstars Dwight Howard and Steve Nash to compliment Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol while in the process losing all-star center Andrew Bynum.  The Lakers will also be sporting a new offense in order to allow these players to work together.  The Princeton offense, as it is called, emphasizes pick and rolls and off the ball movement to free up shooters and maximize touches in the post.  This sounds great for all involved in theory.  The thought of Howard and Nash running the pick and roll should make any basketball fan salivate.  Also, the thought of Gasol passing out of the post to a slashing Bryant is a recipe for excitement, showing more than the stagnant version of Bryant we saw last year when he would hold the ball too much along with the passing skills of Gasol, who might be the best passing big in the league.  Their are problems with this notion though.  Bryant has not had to play off the ball since his first couple of years when he was still very young and playing along side Shaq at a time when he was the at his most dominant.  The other problem is that Nash has spent his entire career in the ultra fast paced offenses of Don Nelson in Dallas and Mike D'Antoni (and his replacements/assistants) in Phoenix.  This is the first time he will run an offense built around playing in a half court set.  Needless to say it will be all about adjusting in L.A.  But as this team learns how to play together, the talent and experience of these stars should allow them to gel and be a power come playoff time.  The one thing that will need to be addressed as the season moves forward is that the Lakers lack depth.  But if they can pick up a good shooter and ball handler during the season, which shouldn't be too hard, those holes can be filled.
The San Antonio Spurs are the only team that comes back looking like the same team we saw last year.  They return thirteen players including their stalwarts:  Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli.  The young players that shone last year also now have that much more experience under their belts and will be expected to take on larger roles.  This should not only help the Spurs in terms of player improvement, but as the season wears on coach Greg Popovich will be able to trust the team even more to players such as Danny Green and Kawaii Leonard while resting his aging stars.  Much like the Celtics, health will be the biggest issue for this team.  And also like the Celtics, if the Spurs have their stars on the floor, they are a championship caliber team.
I can't remember a season where so many top level teams came back for a season looking so different.  The trades and free agent pickups, as well as adjustments in styles of play, will certainly make the season as interesting to watch closely as any in recent memory.  But as the Heat begin their title defense, those adjustments and new fits will affect their ability to defend the title as much as it will affect other teams ability to take it from them.

cloud atlas

movies:  Cloud Atlas is the new movie made by the Wachowskis, creators of the Matrix trilogy.  It is a very bold story, much like The Matrix (I swear I will only mention those one more time at most.).  It tells a story of life's connectivity, spanning untold centuries and six different stories.  The story follows actors more than it does characters.
Cloud Atlas is six stories beginning in the middle of the nineteenth century on a ship, that begin(chronologically) out on the seas for slave trade or something to do with Darwin - it is at times hard to tell, and end in some unknown future (106 years after the fall).  It also dabbles in times in between.  The life on the the ship in 1849 is those of aristocrats invaded by a man posing as a doctor and a slave freed by the son of the family who runs the ship.  The next is the story taking place near the turn of the century about a young man who goes to study with a composer in his later years who used to be considered one of the worlds greats looking to create the greatest song every composed.  The next is in England in the middle of the century about a man who is a publisher who was committed to a home, by his brother unbeknownst to him, plotting his escape.  Then we follow a woman in the 1970s uncovering corporate espionage.  The final two are the most closely related in plot.  Those are the story of Neo Seoul in 2144.  A world where people are manufactured for work and unceremonially disposed of(killed when they are no longer useful), while a revolution is building against this ploy of the government.  The other is the story after the fall where they people now live as savages and pray to the woman who was the focal point of that attempted overthrow in Neo Seoul, which leads us to believe that these two times are not too far apart although they could be.
With all of these stories going on at once, Cloud Atlas starts as something of a mess.  The inter-cutting of stories and timelines is just confusing and poorly put together.  It may have been necessary though.  The book upon which it is based, by David Mitchell, it told one story at a time.  This would have been almost impossible to convey as a narrative on film considering the scope of the story and the abstract message it looks to convey.  Once the viewer gets oriented to each story, the film seems to find its way.  Each particular story begins to flow better within itself as you see the pieces of each fall into place.  The greater concept of the story also becomes visible as well.  That concept is that life is always connected.  Whether it be in terms of the life we are living in the moment and the way we connect to what is going on around us or that as time passes and life and death comes and goes those connections carry through time from one life into the next.  That someone else will find in the connections in their lives that we have found in our own.  And that those connections are always human.  For it is certainly not the plots that bind this film together but the characters that throughout time find themselves and each other and are willing because of their interactions to be compelled to fight for what they believe in, whether it is survival from sickness on a shipping vessel or the composition of the greatest song ever written or the uncovering of corruption or freedom from captivity or the discovery of love and purpose or just the ability to keep on living when all hope seems lost.
The thing, as I stated before, that holds this movie together is the actors.  What the actors bring to this movie is both remarkable and unique.  Most of the actors in this movie are forced to play as many as six roles.  In doing so we see stars such as Tom Hanks and Halle Berry, as well as somewhat less known actors like Jim Sturgess (most known Across The Universe and 21) and Jim Broadbent (most known for playing Horace Slughorn in the Harry Potter movies) and Keith David (who has been in just about everything ever made, seriously look it up) show off the maximum amount of range in one movie by literally changing character from scene to scene.  The change in their emotions, from hero to villain  in accent, and most noticeably in makeup are just astounding.  Without a cast of actors capable of doing so, the movie would have never worked.  I couldn't help but also notice that these actors were, despite their ability to adapt, still noticeably themselves.  That quality was also essential to the movie.  Tom Hanks has never been doubted as a great actor, but if he were not recognizable as himself from scene to scene as himself then continuity and message of the movie would have been lost.
In the end I found the movie hard to put my finger on.  The acting was impressive while the actors themselves were at times distracting.  The movie was visually compelling while the structure of it was at times a total mess.  I guess if I had to put my finger on it I would call Cloud Atlas so ambitious that it was impossible to get totally right.  The message of life carrying on beyond mortality was very eloquently presented, but like in the Matrix (see I told you only one more time) did not at all emotionally resonate.  And while the movie was character driven, the message overpowered the relationships that could have provided that emotion.  I think if I had to lodge my biggest complaint it was that, when presented with six fully developed worlds with full developed characters, I found myself wanting two hour movies centered around a few individual settings rather than the hodgepodge that was presented to us. A messy movie no doubt, but certainly with enough to keep me  happy.  Now I just want those three individual movies instead of the Cloud Atlas sextet.

the world series

sports:  The World Series begins tonight between the San Fransisco Giants and the Detroit Tigers.  It looks to be a classic battle between two teams, one filled with star power, and power - the Tigers' Justin Verlander, Miguel Cabrera, and Prince Fielder, and one being a host of players willing to step up in big moments thanks to depth and consistency.  What this series is also about is resiliency   This is something I have talked about throughout the postseason.  With underdog teams like the Athletics and Orioles, who spent their seasons constantly battling back from the brink of many defeats to get into the playoffs, and the Cardinals, after their run in last years playoffs (the multiple World Series game six comebacks) and the divisional series this year(being down 6-0 early and coming back to win 9-7 down 7-5 in the ninth inning of that game), being considered the best clutch team in baseball, capable of overcoming any deficit, this is a series between what may have been the two most resilient teams of the year.
The Tigers may have never been too far behind the White Sox, but were clearly the second best team in their division for most of the season.  But they managed to get hot and win most of their games down the stretch (7-3 in the final ten games) while their division rivals, the White Sox couldn't do the same (going 4-8 in that same calendar time).
The Giants resiliency has been found during the playoffs.  There is't much to say.  They are 6-0 in elimination games, most recently outscoring the Cardinals (supposedly the best clutch team in baseball) 20-1 in the three elimination games of their season.
This series presents a very interesting match-up.  Much like the Giants last series against the Cardinals, it is a series between the Giants, a team with remarkable depth both in their lineup (but no true stars or go-to power hitters) and in their pitching staff (this may be the best group of pitchers in baseball at holding a lead), against a team with great power in the middle of their lineup and a great ace heading their otherwise decent staff (I know the Tigers starters posted  a sub-1.00 era against the Yankees, but the way those two teams looked during that series, you have to put as much of the on the Yankees hitters as the Tigers pitchers).  The difference in this series is that the Tigers are like a bigger and badder version of the Cardinals.  Instead of Holliday and Friese, you have Fielder and Cabrera.  Instead of Kyle Losche, you have the best pitcher in baseball, Justin Verlander.  The keys for the Giants will be to keep the Tigers role players off the bases and not allow to the brutal middle of the Detroit lineup to drive them in.  The key for the Tigers will be to keep the Giants from spraying the ball around the field and building early leads that their fantastic bullpen are adept at holding.
The other key, and arguably the biggest of this series, is how the pitching rotations are set up.  With a sweep and four days of rest the Tigers have Verlander ready to go for games one and five, while in game one the Giants will be sending out Berry Zito.  Zito has rebounded in recent years to be a solid starter, maintaining that huge looping curve ball that is tough on hitters, but he still is not the ace he used to be, and facing the best ace in baseball could put the Giants behind the eight ball early.  Verlander will also be available for game five.  And knowing the Giants' propensity in these playoffs to dig a hole, if they get down 3-1, there maybe no coming back having to face him even once in an elimination game.  On the other hand, with the pitching rotations being off set by the League Championship Series, in the other games the Giants with being running their best pitchers, Ryan Vogelsong (1.42 era through three post season games) and Matt Cain (the Giants' undisputed ace and star of a shutout performance from the pitching staff in game 7 against the Cardinals.), against the bottom of the Tigers rotation.  And if the series would go long they would both be available for starts later in the series against the non-Verlander part of the Tigers rotation  The only detraction to this will be that those games, three and four, will be in Detroit and Vogelsong and Cain have actually hit well during their plate appearances in the playoffs, knocking in crucial runs in all of their outings.
All in all it should be a great series.  If I were going to Vegas I sure wouldn't want to have to pick a winner.  My heart says its got to be the never say die Giants and all the fun that they showed two years ago when they won.  My head is saying that Verlander and Cabrera just too tough.  I honestly don't think I know who's going to win this one (Not that predictions have been great this post season).  But I'll at least say this, if it is short series (five or less) the Tigers will take it.  If it goes long (six or seven and the San Fransisco withstanding two Verlander outings) the Giants will win.  It should be fun either way.

nationals, redskins, injuries, and one crazy weekend

sports:  I started contemplating this article around this time last week.  I decided to hold off on it until the weekend in pro sports played itself out, and I couldn't be more glad that I did.  Last weekend saw one cities sports hopes fall and the rise in such an intense way centered around two different teams in two different sports.  That city was Washington D.C.  Never have I seen such drama centered around teams from different sports in one city that were seemingly so greatly impacted by the young centerpieces of those teams and the injuries they have suffered.  Also seeing them handled by their respective organizations in such diametrically opposed results that were equally puzzling was fascinating.
On Friday night the Nationals played game five of the divisional series at home.  After jumping out to a 6-0 lead early, that lead slowly faded.  Then, down 7-5 in the ninth inning, the Cardinals made that lead disappear and ended up winning the game 9-7.  It was a remarkable comeback by St. Louis.  But the questions after the game surround the Nationals.  They surround their benched ace Stephen Strasburg. It has been well documented now that the Nationals shelved their ace in early September after giving him an innings limit for the year to keep his arm healthy coming off of Tommy John surgery.  They did this in order to ensure that Strasburg would be able to be their ace well into the future on the kind of quality team that Washington had this year.  It was said best in a podcast on the Grantland Network that baseball is "iterate".  Everything is cause and effect.  This is not to say that the Nationals lost because they benched Strasburg, but to say that you can draw a cause and effect line from that decision to the end of their season.  The decision is made back in April to put this innings count the young ace.  He pitches healthily and brilliantly through the first nine months of the season leading the Nats to the best record in baseball only to be shelved.  The team then has to reorder their starting rotation.  Gio Gonzalez, who is one on of the leading Cy Young candidates in the National League is now moved up to the pressured filled scenario of being an ace instead of his cozy lived in home as the best number two starter in baseball.  That pressure is put to the ultimate test in the playoffs where he loses the first game of the series and is off the hook for the second loss as he allowed the team to begin to squander their huge lead to a Cardinals team that has been as resilient as any in all of sports over the past two years(especially in the playoffs; ie: the 2011 World Series game six).   One can argue over the wisdom of benching Strasburg to preserve him for the future, but two things are certain.  One is that the Nationals organization did exactly what people thought they had done, which was to hurt their legitimate opportunity for greatness in the present for an opportunity at greatness in a very uncertain future where they hope to return to this moment many times with Strasburg as their ace - world championships are too hard to project.  The other thing we know is that they mismanaged Strasburg.  Research done for Baseball Prospectus has shown that innings counts have little effect on pitchers.  What they need limited are pitch counts.  Detrimental injuries to starting pitchers have greatly reduced over the past ten years as opposed to the previous ten due to pitch counts being implemented as a standard of managing.  Typically, starting pitchers want to average no more than 110 pitches per game based on the research available.  According to baseball-reference.com, Strasburg only threw more than 110 pitches in a game once.  In that game he threw 112 .  Limiting him was certainly the right idea, but based on the information available, the Nationals organization chose to limit him based on the wrong parameters 
The other D.C. team in the headlines this weekend was the Redskins.  After coming off of a loss in which Robert Griffin III was concussed against the Atlanta Falcons, the Skins were now facing the Minnesota Twins, who much to most peoples surprise seem to be much better than was thought.  Despite the NFL's emphasis on head injuries and the unbelievably huge investment Dan Snyder, the owner of the Redskins made in Griffin (which you can read my feelings about here:  http://robpoppost.blogspot.com/2012/03/rgiii-and-skins.html), he was allowed to play without a single weeks rest.  Griffin played brilliantly   He passed for over 300 years.  He had an eighty yard touchdown run that is being called the best play for the Redskins in the past twenty years.  He never took more than a minor hit, let alone anyone coming near his head.  And he won.  Thanks to Griffin, by the end of the weekend, the city of Washington D.C. and its sports fans went from sorrow to elation.  And in the process no one questioned the reckless nature of this team that won.  Dan Snyder put this young man out there with no time off after being concussed and asked him to win a week six game in early October in his rookie season.  He did this with seemingly no consideration for the player of which this was asked or of the franchise he was asking him to do this for.  After giving up five draft picks in the first two rounds of upcoming drafts plus the swap of this past drafts first round picks with the Rams, giving his team a hard road to build around Griffin, he then asked this coveted player to go out and play in a game that won't be remembered with a head injury that is currently costing the NFL millions in lawsuits.
I don't think could have imagined a more unique weekend for a city in sports; where a cities sporting opportunities seemed to revolve around the injuries of  young star players and the decisions on how to handle them by their owners.  The amazing thing is how they were handled and their results.  The Nationals erred on the side of caution, though in a misguided way, and were rewarded with heartbreaking loss.  The Redskins, on the other hand, acted in a cavalier, if not reckless manor, and were rewarded with a win and performance from their young star that brought the downtrodden hearts of that baseball loss back to joy and hope for their cities sports.
One can only wonder how these decisions will effect the long term plans of these franchises.  The Nationals are young enough and good enough to do good on the promise of having someone as great as Strasburg as their ace for years to come.  The Redskins could continue to see Griffin break tackles for blazing touchdown runs and throw from the pocket with laser accuracy.  But if both teams continue to act in the manner they have, we just may never see that moment.

perks of being a wallflower

movies:  The Perks Of Being A Wallflower is a movie based on the book by Stephen Chbosky.  It is the story of high school freshman named Charlie trying to find his way in high school where he doesn't exactly fit.  It begins with Charlie, played by Logan Lerman, entering high school for the first time while he narrates to the viewer how many days are left; days he is clearly not looking forward to.  From that point the movie becomes the coming of age story of what we find out is very troubled young man.
As Charlie meanders his way through the first few days of school in loneliness and quiet, we find out that despite the fact that he sits all alone in the lunch room and that he refuses to show his intelligence by answering obscure questions in his English class for extra credit, he appears to be more than just a loner.  He possesses a drive and intelligence that makes good on his being alone as he reads his Lit assignments and even endears himself to his teach who pushes him by lending him books to read and write about in what is surely an extra credit arrangement but is presented as pure enjoyment for Charlie.
Then Charlie meets his new friends, stepbrother and sister Patrick and Sam.  They view themselves as outcasts, this being a sentiment that Charlie can understand.  As upperclassmen they take Charlie under their wings and introduce him to the world of high school outcast and show him a world in which he might belong.  And that story of finding oneself is what the movie is about.
Through the course of Charlie's story we find out that he is not just a quiet young man not doing good on his potential, but someone possessing a truly damaging past.  His past being one in which his aunt, who he was very close with died in a car accident that Charlie is carrying around a sense of respsonsiblity for that is so damaging he is prone to act out if not in a controlled situation.  As Charlie loses himself in the Patrick and Sam's world he finds himself more and more out of control and finding it harder to control his uncontrollable emotions.
The story at its core is this coming of age of Charlie as he learns to manage his troubled past, but the story at its strongest is the moments between Sam, Charlie, and Patrick.  Charlie and Patrick develop a wonderful friendship that is heartfelt and genuine as the two ebb and flow in and out of personal problems that force each other to deal with the highs and lows of each others lives.  And the timing is always good with them not being mirrors of each other but opposites, thus making it harder to relate but showing that true friends can do so.  The relationship of Sam and Charlie, though, is what really drives the story.  As the story progresses, Sam and Charlie develop a friendship that turns into love.  And that love for Charlie is his first and thus very powerful, and despite Sam's many past relationships maybe her first feeling of love as well.  Watching those two dance around each other as they uncover each others checkered pasts while not knowing how to manage their feelings is the most exciting and emotional parts of the movie and ultimately what makes the movie enjoyable to watch.
The movie is not without flaws however.  Chbosky, who also chose to write and direct the movie based on his book had trouble inter-cutting the flashbacks of Charlie's aunt's death in a way that really made sense until the end when Charlie himself explains what we were seeing.  The beginning of the movie also suffered from some weird thing where the characters, particularly Sam, Charlie, and Patrick in their first meeting don't speak at all in a conversational way but rather in one lined affirmations of the romanticist notion of outcastdom that were made for movie trailers by having moments where Emma Watson stares right into the camera and says "Welcome to the island of misfit toys" or Charlie stares off into space in his first moment of happiness in the movie and proclaims "I feel infinite."  Not even in the most dramatic of teen universes do kids talk like that.
But in the end the movie hits its beats delivers completely, mostly through the story of Charlie and Sam.  Their relationship is so exciting to watch throughout the movie as these two find a real love between the two of them that never really gets actualized.  Sam being damaged by past relationships is not willing to be with someone she really cares about and Charlie is just so afraid of everything; his past, his instability, being a freshman.  And that notion, even if not in high school, is the one that is most easy to relate to.  Looking into someone's eyes and knowing that you know them better than anyone but lacking the confidence to make the bold move and knowing that they are going to chase love in other places just to fill the void that could best be filled by you.  But that's what happens sometimes.  People don't always get the love they do deserve, they accept the love they think they deserve.  And in the case of our two main characters, they ultimately get the latter.  For Charlie that is a fleeting glimpse and for Sam that is the wrong one all the time, well besides that previously metioned fleeting glimpse.