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 With the espionage program under fire for being outdated and insignificant in the modern world, Mallory supports MI-6 in their time of crisis.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.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, November 1, 2012
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.
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.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
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.
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.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)