CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

The producers of the short film clip “Broken” were nice enough to send me a review copy on DVD. There’s an interesting story behind this short film, as it was produced by independent film makers on a shoestring to serve as a demonstration of their film making skills, a sort of artistic audition, if you will. The difficulty on judging this piece stems from trying to figure out if it should be judged in the realm of Hollywood films (to which it aspires) or in the realm of shoestring, independent films (which it is). My only choice is to rate it both ways, so here goes.

Shoestring Film Rating (***½, grading on a curve)

If I had been shown this short film without having previous knowledge I would have assumed that it was from some schlocky new UPN/WB television series about spies. It’s got sort of an Alias-meets-Consipiracy-Theory-meets-Xena-meets-Seven kind of feel to it, but with cornier writing and acting. For a network television show or a Hollywood film, that would be faint praise. However, for something done in the manner of this short film, it’s actually very good. So, from the perspective of a couple of normal folks spending their own money to put something together, this film rocks.

Absolute Film Rating (*½, no curve)

However, if we ignore the origins of this piece, it comes in at a bit below average for Hollywood/network TV fare. The dialog and acting are sometimes okay, usually corny. The artistic direction is a bit trite with all the characters affecting the most obvious trappings of their stereotype. For example, the main bad guy’s schtick is he plays a harmonica, and the various henchpeople are tattooed, muscled, pleather-wearing, and/or cartoonishly menacing depending on the particular well-known caricature being attempted.

Overall Rating (**, combined rating)

So, if I put that all together I say that this is overall an average piece, but with flashes of talent, imagination, and drive that clearly demonstrate that the people behind it could probably step up to the major leagues. I think that was the purpose the producers had for this film, and in that I think they have succeeded. Consider that they went out of their way to locate this website, contact us, send us the DVD gratis, and continue to communicate to elicit feedback. They clearly want people to see and review their work.
They’ve even gotten a mention from Roger Ebert. They have also put a lot of work into their web site, where you can read more about their production of this film and its effects, and even buy a copy of you’re interested. In particular, if you have an interest in the making of film, the information on this site and on their DVD is incredibly interesting and entertaining.

For me, as a film aficianado, seeing people creating works like this is like a breath of fresh air. Yes, the film aspires to a lot of Hollywood cliches that I don’t find particularly compelling, but what it does it does well. It also shows that “cinema” is coming into the reach of the masses and it gives me hope that we’re moving to break the stranglehold that the big studios have on this type of entertainment. I urge Alex Ferrari and Jorge Rodriguez (the makers of Broken) to use this film as a Trojan Horse, allowing them to enter the gates of Hollywood film making, while allowing them to secretly bring their artistic sensibilities along for the ride and not be assimilated. Resistance is NOT futile!

• Leave a comment... (0)

From the perspective of science, evolution is a fact, in the same way that gravity is a fact. It can be observed through the fossil record, and the scientific community has no doubts that life on Earth has evolved over time. This again matches gravity, as scientists can readily observe that objects with mass do not float away from the earth and into space unless acted upon by an outside force.

The “theory” part of evolution has to do with the exact explanation of how and why organisms evolve over time. Nobody knows for certain the precise combination of factors that result in evolution over time. This again precisely matches gravity, where nobody really knows exactly and precisely how and why gravity works.

So, scientifically speaking, both gravity and evolution are described by “theories”, which are logical frameworks describing the behaviors, while also presenting possible or probable explanations for the phenomenon. However, the fact that the exact mechanisms behind gravity and evolution are unknown does not mean that they do not exist.

Also, science in no way excludes the possibility that evolution is guided by an unseen force or intelligence, any more so than it excludes the possibility that gravity is caused by individual angels assigned to hold every single person, animal, and grain of sand against the earth. However, while science does not exclude these possible explanations, it is not the realm of science to search for spiritual or supernatural explanations for phenomena. It is the realm of science to search for natural explanations to describe the world around us.

From my perspective, the following are true:

Evolution = Science

Creationism = Faith

Intelligent Design = Philosophy (or faith disguised as philosophy masquerading as science)

And here are some definitions used in the further discussion below:

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method.

Faith: (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (3) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Philosophy: a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means.

There should be no debate about any of the above being taught in the appropriate venue. However, Creationism and Intelligent Design have as much place in a Science class as Evolution does in a Religion class. They don’t have anything to do with each other.

However, there is a constant hue and cry, mostly by conservative Christians, to either suppress the teaching of evolution in science class, or to include creationism and/or intelligent design in the same venue. One presumes that this is because many Christians reject evolution outright and so do not want it taught to their children. I fully understand the desire not to have one’s children indoctrinated with teachings that do not agree with one’s personal viewpoints, however it happens all the time, to everyone.

For example, I might think that all animal life is sacred. And yet in my child’s biology class, frogs are anesthetized and dissected for the study of life functions. It falls to me to explain to my child that although these procedures and teachings are condoned by the school and taught by their (authoritarian) teacher, they do not represent ultimate truths, philosophies, or behaviors that are condoned, accepted, or embraced in our family.

Similarly:

I might believe that our fates are controlled by the month of our birth and the position of the planets and stars.

I might not believe that the Holocaust happened.

I might believe that man never walked on the moon and that the whole thing was staged.

I might not believe that Oswald acted alone.

I might believe that the sun and stars revolve around the Earth.

I might not believe in the randomness of quantum physics.

I might believe in the Zionist Occupation Government.

I might not believe in capital punishment.

I might believe in gun control.

I might not believe that fractions will some day be important to me.

I might believe that we are “One nation under…Buddha…or under Elvis…or under Allah…or under L. Ron Hubbard…or under Yahweh…or under Vishnu…or under Zeus…or under Bikram…or under Jim Jones…or under Dogbert…or under David Koresh…or under Charles Manson…or under Beelzebub…”

Some of the above list will seem crazy to some of you, and some of it will make sense to some of you, and only some of it represents things that I actually believe. Nonetheless, every single child that goes through public school in America today will be taught about the above lists, and they will almost always be taught only one viewpoint.

So, what is a parent to do? Well, a parent should do what all parents do about such things, which is reinforce the beliefs and tenets of their family to their child, and to show through example that the teachings of the family are a good and strong set of beliefs.

Either that, or work to show that what is being taught in the public schools is somehow invalid or so controversial that it should not be taught. And, unfortunately, this can’t be done with evolution because evolution is sound science. Rock solid, in fact. Sure, there are knowledge gaps and conflicting viewpoints and controversial facets to evolution within the scientific community, just as there are with ANY OTHER AREA OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. However, this doesn’t invalidate evolution just as it does not invalidate any other science, as long as the brutal filter of the scientific method is applied, which it is.

For example, astronomers recently discovered what they say is most likely to become the 10th planet of our solar system, nicknamed Xena. And the new planet also has a moon. Xena is larger than Pluto, and since Pluto is designated as a planet then it is assumed that this new planet will be, too. However, there are some who call for a reevaluation of what constitutes a “planet”, and that Pluto shouldn’t be designated as one because it is so small and should more accurately be referred to as a planetoid or even a large asteroid.

So, “scientists” can’t even agree on how many planets are in our solar system, and can’t even agree on what a planet is? This must mean that we must reject the sciences of astronomy and cosmology. Right?

Wrong. What this means is that as humanity gathers new facts and applies the scientific method to those facts we end up expanding and refining the realms of scientific knowledge. See these pages for a more thorough explanation of the scientific method:

WikiPedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

University of Rochester: http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

So, lacking any valid reason for banning the teaching of evolution, some are now calling for the introduction of faith (creationism) and/or pure philosophy (intelligent design) into Science class. However, doing this would be a grave injustice to science, faith, and philosophy, because all would be diluted and diminished by this course of action. Faith and philosophy have no place in science class. Science class is for science. And evolution is good, solid science. Now, if a parent chooses to they can certainly sit down and talk with their child and explain how evolution does not match their beliefs, just as another parent can tell their child that just because their school makes them say the words “under god” that does not necessarily match their beliefs, either.

Now, I offer no argument against the validity of creationism or intelligent design, because none can be offered. Both are, at heart, matters of faith, and one cannot prove or disprove faith, one either has it or does not. One can also acquire faith as part of ones quest for understanding. I freely and humbly admit that I, as a puny inhabitant of a puny planet in a puny galaxy in a vast and unknowable universe, have absolutely no knowledge about the ultimate truths of reality. It is entirely possible that everything was created by an omnipotent being over seven days. It is also possible that the incredible beauty and diversity of the natural world was crafted by a guiding hand of unknown origin.

However, the pondering of these possibilities, while deeply valid, are not scientific pursuits, and so have no place in science class. I also find it noteworthy and compelling that while the teachings of the science of medicine state that the dead cannot return to life after three days, no one is calling for the banning of medical science classes, or for the teaching of alternate theories. Those who believe in the Resurrection of Christ accept it as a matter of faith and a miracle of God and do not quibble with the fact that it violates scientific knowledge.

Why is that? And why is medical science different from evolution? I could hypothesize that it is because medical science provides a very real, measurable, provable benefit to the lives of believers, and so they hypocritically choose not the challenge the science of medical theories out of selfishness, even though it is in absolute conflict with one of the core events of their belief system. But that would be an unprovable hypothesis, and my saying it, and even that fact that I might deeply believe it, would not make it true.

Update 11/8/2005 – The Kansas Board of Education voted to make it a standard that evolution be treated skeptically in their public school science classes. The Board also voted to rewrite the definition of “science” so that it is “no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.” I weep for our future, and hope that many brave colleges and universities opt not to recognize the diplomas generated by such a primitive, backwards, superstitious tribe of charlatans.

Update 11/9/2005 – Reaffirming my faith in America, voters in Dover, PA yesterday ousted eight school board members who had previously backed the reading of a statement in Science classes stating that evolution was “not a fact” and had “inexplicable gaps”. Huzzah, voters of Dover, PA, well done!

• Leave a comment... (0)

The NFL has blackout rules that impact what games can be televised in which areas. If your TV provider does not broadcast within 75 miles of a city with an NFL team, these rules do not apply and your local affiliates can show any of the games available from their parent network.

However, if your TV provider broadcasts within 75 miles of an NFL city, you are definitely impacted by these rules, which are shown in complete detail at the bottom of this article. Functionally, the blackout rules work as follows:

Rule Number One: If the home team is playing at home, and does not sell out by 72 hours prior to game time, then the local affiliates cannot show this game. The purpose of this rule is to get more people to the stadium to watch the game, which benefits the team owner. You see, the NFL divides up TV revenues among the teams, but the individual team owners get to keep all their stadium/ticket/concession revenues.

Rule Number Two: If the home team is playing at home and manages to sell out prior to 72 hours prior to game time, and the local affiliate shows the game, no other NFL games can be shown on other channels while the home team game is on. I guess that this rule is designed to drive more viewers to the affiliate/network showing the home team?

The stated purpose of these rules is to preserve/enhance the revenues for the home team (Rule Number One) and home network affiliate (Rule Number Two). However, this is extraordinarily flawed logic. I’ll give you an example of similarly flawed logic – my mother used to work for the County Tax Assessor/Collector Office, which also handled license plates for the State of Texas. At one time vanity plates were available for about $25, and the state sold a whole lot of them. Some brainiac in the state government said, hey, if we charged $75 each, we’d make three times more money! So they raised the price to $75, and ended up with vanity plate revenues that were half of what they were at $25, because so many people stopped buying the plates at the new, higher price. This is exactly what the NFL is doing…driving away lifelong fans (customers) in pursuit of short-term revenue (instead of long-term profit).

MTVFL?

The NFL does not seem to understand that their short-sighted blackout rules, while perhaps improving revenue for a weekend, or maybe even a season, has the long-term effect of driving fans away from the NFL. You see, today the American consumer is inundated with entertainment options. Movies, TV, music, DVD, TiVo, Pay Per View, Movies on Demand, etc. And television now has 100’s of channels with thousands of programs, and although most are unwatchable (in my opinion), one man’s dreck is another man’s favorite show.

In the midst of this cacophony, the National Football League struggles to maintain viewership and relevance. However, all the mic’ed players and overhead cameras in the world will not change the one simple fact that people want to turn on the television and watch the team that they like. If the NFL would simply allow this to happen, things would be much better for them from a ratings and relevance perspective.

However, the NFL does not allow this to happen. I am a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, and I have been since I was a boy. I live in Houston, which once again has an NFL team (the Texans). There is absolutely no legal way for me to watch all of the Cowboy games on my television at home. I could buy a DirecTV Sunday Pass, but DirecTV still enforces the NFL blackout rules (described above). My local FOX affiliate has most of the Cowboy games on their broadcast schedule, however over the last two weeks, as the Cowboys have fought to make the playoffs, the blackout rules have forced FOX to not show the games here in Houston. This is because the home team (the Texans) have sold out 72 hours prior to kickoff, so the local CBS affiliate showed the Texans game, which meant the local FOX affiliate could not show the Cowboys game that was scheduled to be on at the same time.

Fan Apathy? Who Cares

There are two direct results of this. One is that I do not feel involved in the Cowboys playoff quest, because I didn’t see it. This means that I have had one more layer of my NFL-Fan tendency eroded away, making me a slightly less interested viewer, the same as has happened every single year for the last decade or so. The second is that my wife, who this season was on her way to becoming a football fan for the first time, has been “baited and switched” by being duped into caring about the outcome of Cowboys games, and then suddenly, as the Cowboys fought to make the playoffs and the games really mattered, been denied the ability to see the games.

These blackout rules do nothing but hurt the NFL and I do not understand why they cling to these outdated strategies. For instance, there is no way that I would ever buy a ticket to see the Texans play. This is solely because the cost of attending an NFL game is outrageous. If ticket prices were even close to reasonable (about ¼ of what they are now) I might think about it. But the Texans have been selling out nicely, so the NFL doesn’t need to worry about me buying tickets. I think I fit the mold of the average fan, in that not seeing my team on TV will never cause me to buy a ticket. The way the NFL will make money on me is through my value as a member of a desirable TV ratings demographic and through the few licensed products (caps, jerseys, etc) that I may buy. I can only presume that stadium game tickets are bought by either the very rich or the very rabid, and those people will go to the game regardless of if it’s televised. So there goes Rule #1.

Also, although I will certainly be a homer when it comes to the Texans, it is highly unlikely that I will ever become a die-hard fan. Maybe, but probably not. I get kind of insulted that the NFL thinks (seemingly) that if they force me to watch the home team, and deny me the ability to watch my preferred team, I will somehow become a revenue-producing fan-bot of the Texans. Not gonna happen. And denying me access to the Cowboys games on TV is certainly not going to make me watch and pay attention to a Texans game. So there goes Rule #2.

So why do these rules persist? Well, it’s possible that I have completely misinterpreted the whole situation, and severely underestimated the marketing savvy of the NFL while also severely underestimating the sheep-like tendencies of NFL fans. But I don’t think this is the case. What I think is that the NFL has been backed into a corner, squeezed between increasing costs (salaries, stadiums, etc.) and declining revenues (shooting themselves in the foot), and they are trying desperately to wring out every single penny of possible revenue in the short-term, while mortgaging their future by creating a passive, fair-weather fan base.

Winning Strategy: First Sow, Then Reap

It also seems that they have long-term contracts and agreements in place, with TV networks, players, unions, concessionaires, owners, etc, and these contracts do not give the NFL the ability to gracefully scale back their operations in the face of declining interest/revenues. It would be heartwarming to see the NFL lift the blackout rules and accept the resulting (temporarily) lower TV revenues, and to see the NFL owners agree to putting butts in the seats by offering true entertainment value, rather than by blackmailing the locals, and to see players agree to normalizing their salaries to match the new financial realities.

Lifting the blackout rules would certainly result in reduced revenues in the near-term, but it would, in my humble opinion, allow the NFL to preserve and expand their fan base, which would also preserve and expand their long-term financial success. Unfortunately all I expect from the NFL are higher ticket prices, another division realignment, more expansion teams, an 18 game season, the Super Bowl in March, and a butt-cam for the center.

All my rowdy friends are doing something else tonight.

Official NFL Blackout Rules

Glossary of Terms

• Franchised Market – television market (ADI or DMA) that has an NFL franchise (i.e. Buffalo, NY or Phoenix, AZ).
• Secondary Blackout Market – television market in the home territory (with station(s) having signal penetration to within 75 miles of the game site) of an NFL franchise that is subject to blackout restrictions.
• Early Game – Game with kickoff at 1:05 p.m. (Eastern Time).
• Late Game – Game with kickoff at 4:05 or 4:15 p.m. (Eastern Time).

Blackout Policy

To ensure an NFL club’s ability to sell all of its game tickets, and to make televised games more attractive to viewers through the presence of sellout crowds, the following policy is observed by the NFL:

For a home game to be aired locally in the franchised market and in any secondary blackout market(s), the game must be sold out 72 hours in advance of kickoff. If the game is not a sellout by the 72 hour cutoff, both the home franchised market and the secondary markets of the carrying network will air an alternate game.

Number of Games in a Market

With regard to the number of NFL games seen in a particular market on a Sunday afternoon, there are three different situations.

1. An NFL franchised market (i.e. New York, Chicago, Dallas, etc.).

On a week when the NFL team (or teams) in a market is on the ROAD Sunday, Monday or Thursday night or Saturday afternoon, the market will receive three Sunday afternoon games… two telecasts by the network with the doubleheader week and one game by the network with the single game week. When an NFL team in the market is playing at HOME on Sunday afternoon, the market will receive two games… one game on FOX and one game on CBS, regardless of which network has the doubleheader week. Unless 1) the home team’s assigned telecaster that day (CBS or FOX) is also on the doubleheader network and 2) the game is sold out 72 hours in advance. Then the three games would be the home team’s and two other games in the remaining early or late window.

All other television markets (including secondary blackout markets). Network affiliates in these markets will receive three games on Sunday afternoon, two on the doubleheader network (one early and one late) and one game on the single game network (either early or late).

Selection of Games to be Telecast Regionally

By network contract, all team road games must be telecast back to that team’s home territory (franchised market and secondary blackout markets).

Other than the above requirement, the televising network is the sole selector of which game(s) will be aired in all markets.

• Leave a comment... (6)

So, Steve Carell has just burst onto the scene as a new major Hollywood film star. We knew him from The Daily Show, where we found him to be…enh. He was okay, but when he left we didn’t miss him. We heard that he was starring in the US version of the British TV show “The Office”, but never saw an episode.

Then one day a couple of weeks ago while watching another movie we saw a trailer for “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”. It looked pretty funny and so it was on our radar as a possibility, but we’ve seen thousands of funny trailers for movies that sucked, so I wasn’t too sure we’d go see it. But over time we kept hearing good buzz about the film, and the trailers kept getting funnier. So today we decided to go see it, and, boy, am I glad we did.

The movie is hysterically funny, and also a bit touching and heartwarming. Carell plays Andy Stitzer, who is, well, a 40-year-old virgin whose workmates find out about his…intactfulness…and decide to “help” him lose it. One of the best characteristics of the film is that it doesn’t mock or deride Andy’s virginity, and actually shows it to be kind of noble. Oh, it sure pokes fun at him, but in a natural way that seems to fit the oddness of an actual 40 year old virgin male.
Carell plays the part with perfect pitch, and walks a fine line between disturbed, lonely electronics store worker and lonely, inexperienced yet still nice and normal electronics store worker. As his “friends” give him advice and try to get him hooked up with an assortment of…um…”available” young ladies, Andy instead becomes enamored of Trish, who runs a store near his workplace. Trish is played with refreshing reality by Catherine Keener. In a wonderfully un-Hollywood move, Keener and Carell actually appear to be about the same age, and the character of Trish has three kids (and one of those kids has a one year old of their own, making Trish a “hot grandma” in the opinion of all of the male characters). I’m sure somewhere there’s a Hollywood exec who is sure that the role should have gone to Lindsey Lohan (who is 20) instead, to grab that key (and imaginary) Won’t-Plop-Down-$10-To-See-Anyone-Over-30 demographic.

Rant Directed At Hollywood Execs:

We know you think that 15-25 year olds are your key demographic. However, what you are missing is the fact that the reason this is your key demographic is because, as a general rule, younger people are not discriminating movie-goers and so you can still count on them for a big opening weekend as long as you have the right “names” and a big marketing budget. To put it another way, you can sucker teens into watching a crappy movie as long as you “spin” it the right way, and that can be done purely with dollars. Making something of quality, however, requires talent and inspiration, two things which you seem to no longer value. However, I predict that this film will do great at the box office, even though it’s Rated R, even though the two characters are 40+ and one is a grandparent, even thought it’s actually sweet and not stupidly shocking for shock value, even though it stars a no-name (by Hollywood standards), even though it’s directed by a TV guy, even though nothing explodes, even though there are no rappers in it, even though the denoument is…well, I won’t spoil it. This movie breaks all the apparent “rules” of Hollywood execs, so much so that I’m surprised it got made. But, oh baby, am I waiting for the attitude change that this film (along with Wedding Crashers and other films like it) will bring to Hollywood. I know you’re in the business to make money. But I think you’ll find that while it is hard work to find and nurture talent, it’s even harder work polishing turds, which is what you’ve been doing lately.
Anyway, back to Virgin. The supporting cast is also great, with virtually no false notes anywhere in the film. There are a couple of things I could have done without, but to highlight any of them would be to give them more weight than they deserve. But overall the film manages to be hilarious, touching, raunchy, and sweet in just the right proportions. I urge you to run out and see this movie and show Hollywood that making this film was a risk worth taking.

• Leave a comment... (0)

The March of the Penguins is an astonishing documentary that follows one reproductive cycle in the lives of the Emperor Penguins. As the long Antarctic night falls, the penguins jump out of the ocean and onto the ice, and proceed to walk, waddle, and belly slide to their ancient breeding ground, sometimes covering over 70 miles. Once there, the penguins then find a suitable mate and and proceed to remain monogamous, at least for the current season.
After several weeks their relationship produces, at most, one egg. During the entire gestation period the mother and father both remain in the breeding ground, which means they have nothing to eat the entire time, and the only liquid they get is the snow they eat. Once the egg is produced it is handed from mother to the father (they keep it on their feet with an insulating flap of fat to protect it from the cold). The mother then proceeds to walk/waddle/belly slide the ~70 miles back to open ocean to have her first meal in weeks. Meanwhile the fathers all huddle together cheeck by jowl, belly by belly, heads tucked, eggs protected, against the unrelentingly harsh winter storms, with winds of 100 MPH and temperatures of 30 below. All while having had nothing to eat since leaving the ocean.

The mothers eventually return, the couple spend a little time snuggling, and the fathers immediately had off the ~70 miles to get their first meal in months.

The couples continue this tag team for several rotations until the chicks are born. As the season progresses the weather warms, so the open ocean gets closer and the roundtrips get shorter. Once the chicks are born, the mothers return, the fathers spend a little time exchanging chirps with their offspring (imprinting both with each others distinctive voice), and head off to the ocean one last time. Before they return the mothers will also leave, leaving the maturing chicks behind on their own and dependent on the return of their fathers for sustenance and survival.

The documentary follows the entire cycle, and clearly shows the beauty and the harshness of life in Antarctica for the penguins. Be warned, however, that contrary to the trailers and the marketing of the film, and also contrary to what one might presume about the nature of this nature film (heartwarming chicks! crazy antics on the ice!, etc), this film is an unblinking recorder of both the successes and the failures of the cycle of life. And the failures are heartbreaking, harsh, cruel, and explicit.
If you are an animal lover you may find yourself unable to watch some of the more disturbing scenes. However, unlike the gratuitous violence of a Hollywood film, the psychotic violence of “sport hunters”, or the staged violence of a sporting event, this violence is totally natural and unsullied by outside interference. That makes it slightly less disturbing to watch, but not much.

I don’t think I’m spoiling anything by saying that in the end, the great circle of life continues as expected. And virtually every aspect of the penguin’s reproductive cycle was new information for me, and it was fascinating, humbling, and awe-inspiring. If you can handle the mercilessness of reality and have an interest in seeing one of nature’s most challenging alternative lifestyles, go and see The March of the Penguins.

• Leave a comment... (0)

So the CleverDonkey family got to meet the man, the myth, the legend, Mr. Bruce Campbell. Yes, Ash, the legendary ghoul ass-kicker of Evil Dead fame himself. Mr. Boomstick. Mr. Workshed. The Man.

It was our good fortune to attend his book signing here in Houston for his new tome Make Love the Bruce Campbell Way (which I have not yet read, so no spoilers here), which was also his film tour for his new movie The Man With the Screaming Brain, directed and co-written by BC himself. Mr. Campbell was nice enough to sign one item of your choice with the purchase of the book, so in the photos below you will see us getting two copies of the book signed, plus our now-even-more-treasured Bubba Ho-Tep poster.

Mr. Campbell was very personable when he signed our things, but we were in the first 60 signees. We came back several hours later for the film and talk and happened to pass by the signing area where he was still just as jovial and accommodating as he had been hours before. They even had staff standing by to use your own camera to take pictures. It was a very low-stress, exciting, and fun event.

After the signing Mr. Campbell spent 20-30 minutes talking to the crowd in the theater before the screening, and he was relaxed, engaging, witty, and apparently unrehearsed. He tolerated the fan-boy questions with aplomb and was quite entertaining.

The movie was better than I was expecting. The film was financed by the SciFi Channel and some German investment company and is playing in selected theaters as part of the book tour. The film will then air on the SciFi Channel and then shortly after be released on DVD. Not the most auspicious characteristics for a film, and usually those stats indicate that the film is complete crap that someone is trying to milk a few dollars more from.

Well, The Man With the Screaming Brain is certainly no Evil Dead II, but neither is it Alien Apocalypse (to pick two films at opposite ends of BC’s bell oeuvre). Screaming is an entertaining trifle, just funny enough and of just high-enough quality to allow you to relax and enjoy it. The acting is surprisingly good (for the most part), as is the casting.

The film was shot on location in Bulgaria, and they worked it into the plot and set the story in Bulgaria. I think this was because there was no way to make Bulgaria look like anywhere else but Bulgaria, so why not roll with it.

The story is…not really important here. What is important is that if you are a fan of Bruce Campbell you should see this film, preferably as part of his tour. Check his site to find out when it’s coming to a town near you. And buy his book and get it signed and get the chance to meet a certified B-movie star and all-around nice guy. Groovy.

• Leave a comment... (0)

There is a class of people whom I’ve come to refer to as “Socialopaths”. These people appear to have no empathy, compassion, or sense of right or wrong when it comes to dealing with others. The male Socialopath is more commonly known as a “prick”, while the female is more commonly known as a “selfish bitch”. These people go through life with an apparent sole focus on their own selfish needs and near complete disregard for everyone else. The Socialopath differs from the true sociopath merely as a matter of degree. Whereas a sociopath may see no distinction between disliking someone and killing them, a Socialopath usually stops short of killing or injuring someone, not because they don’t want to but because they know that the potential repercussions are too large.

A Socialopath:

• Rarely uses blinker when turning or changing lanes.
• Blathers loudly on cell phone regardless of surroundings (elevator, airplane cabin, movie theater, restaurant, public transportation, grocery store, etc.).
• Wants to know the price of everything.
• Blames others when things don’t go their way.
• Drives a BMW.
• Steps in front of others if there is any question who was in line first.
• Takes two parking spaces.
• Lets breast size impact love life (him).
• Lets diamond size impact love life (her).
• Smokes cigars (him AND her).
• Takes the handicapped spot (because nobody uses it and/or they’ll just be a couple of minutes).
• Never thinks twice about making others wait.
• Is bothered by children and pets.
• Isn’t bothered by cruelty to children and pets.
• Is only happy with the latest and greatest, even if they don’t really know the difference.
• Has zero sense of humor about themselves.
• Undertips when nobody will know, overtips when everybody will know.
• Eats sushi because it’s cool, but secretly despises it.
• Insinuates themselves onto the side that is winning.
• Grabs credit for things they really had nothing to do with.
• Passes blame for things they really had everything to do with.
• Respects lawyers (from an income and personality perspective).
• Sees spending time with family as an annoying chore.
• Does the right thing only out of fear of consequences.
• Collects (art-watches-baseball cards-wine-comic books-etc) not out of love but as an investment and/or as an affectation.
• Regularly plans and throws their own birthday party.
• Litters.
• Puts others in danger for their own selfish reasons (drives like a maniac, leaves kids in the car to run into the store, shoots off firecrackers, etc).

Driving Us Crazy

The key element in most of these is a complete lack of thought paid to other people. A more complex example involves a pharmacy that we regularly frequent that is in a free-standing building with its own parking lot. There are plenty of spaces all around for everyone. However, there is a certain class of person who presumes to pull up to the curb right by the door, hop out, and run in to do their shopping. Their car is obviously not in a parking space, and it has obviously reduced the available driving space from two lanes down to one, meaning that all the through traffic must now alternate and creep around this creep’s vehicle. It’s not necessarily causing a total blockage, but it is quite an annoying impediment.

I can only presume that these Socialopath drivers thinks that since people can manage to get by them then there’s nothing wrong with it. However, the problem with that “logic” is two-fold. First, the sheer ego of thinking that it’s okay to inconvenience all other shoppers for one’s own convenience demonstrates a complete lack of social morality. Secondly, if all shoppers decided to park for their own convenience then we would have anarchy. So this Socialopath presumes to flaunt the conventions of a workable society because they know that the rest of us will not follow suit, allowing them to take advantage of our more mature social skills.

This scenario is played out over and over again. At the pharmacy, at the grocery store, dropping off or picking up riders downtown (stopping in moving traffic lanes to let people in or out, oblivious to their outrageous impertinence and selfishness!), all so they don’t have to be inconvenienced to find a parking space or garage.
In fact, I think that driving is one of the primary areas where Socialopathy manifests itself. The participants are fairly anonymous, most of the players follow the rules, and nobody wants to crash their car even if they have the right of way. This is the perfect milieu for a Socialopath to demonstrate their complete selfishness and lack of empathy. Cutting people off, gunning through red lights, not letting people out of parking lots, pulling up past slow traffic in a different lane only to cut into the head of line (a Sneaky Pete, described more fully here), yapping on cell phones, ignoring school zones, etc, etc, etc, etc. Maddening.

Particularly maddening because there is little that can be done, and the Socialopaths know it. If someone cuts in front of the head of a line of traffic, most of us will not hunt them down and confront them. If we see a car taking two spots (usually some over-priced, Euro-trash car that they don’t want “dinged” by the hoi polloi), most of us will not “key” the car (although even I, who attempts to always be a gentleman, have been sorely tempted).

The Socialopathic Boss

The second most common manifestation of Socialopathy, after driving, is as an authority figure, usually a boss or manager of some kind. Socialopaths gravitate towards positions where they can manage others, as their egos do not allow them to think of themselves as workers, only as bosses. They are usually successful in becoming managers because they are driven by an absolutely compulsive need to be seen as being in charge, so they are willing to do anything and everything to move up the ladder, including sacrificing their personal lives in order to achieve power. For a company that is always trying to become more profitable, a driven Socialopath can appear to be the perfect employee, willing to do anything, no matter how morally questionable or just downright wrong, to prove their worth to the higher-ups and so move into a more powerful position.

The problem with this model, however, is that it is not sustainable. Oh, sure, a Socialopath can sometimes produce amazing results, in the short-term, but over time their entire construct falls apart because it is not based in any way on doing the right thing for the company, the customers, or the employees, and is solely based on doing whatever it takes to please the higher-ups and to move up. The Socialopathic Boss (SB) burns through employees like a marathon runner grabbing Gatorade…snatch it up, drain all the usefulness from it, then crumple the empty cup and cast it aside. At first this purging process can be defended as house-cleaning by the SB, telling the higher ups that he has to clear out the slackers and the deadwood in order to produce results.

But eventually the SB starts cutting into known good people, people who are known and respected in the organization, and this can cause the higher ups to take a second look what is going on. Usually at this same point the results being delivered by the Socialopathic boss start to level off or decline, as the people who work for him start to flee his servitude, and this definitely caused the higher-ups to take a closer look. Also at around this point the SB starts looking for a new job, either in another department or outside the company. The SB is usually smart enough to make the move before the whole house of cards can crumble, and so can trumpet his initial, short-term success and use it as leverage in moving to something new. The SB gets out just in time, then looks back on the mess he left behind and might even convince himself that it is failing simply because he’s gone now, instead of seeing that it was destined to fail from the start and all he did was flee like a rat from a sinking ship (that HE sank).

Some of These Apply to Me, But I’m NOT a Socialopath!

Yes, you are. Trust me. You may not have all the characteristics of a Socialopath, but it’s a sliding scale, and you’re definitely on it. And really, you know that you are, don’t you? All your life you’ve had people tell you all these same things, but you’ve always brushed them off as being the other person’s problem, right? And you never accepted the fact that the one common element in all of the belly-aching by these losers is…you. You and your behaviors. It can’t be that everybody else is wrong and that you’re right. The truth is that you are a Socialopath. And here’s a secret for you…having a distorted and unrealistic (to the positive side) view of one’s self is a key characteristic of a Socialopath.

Here’s an exercise for you to demonstrate in a very literal sense just what we’re talking about. For one week, just one week out of your selfish and self-centered life, obey all the traffic laws and also drive and park with consideration for others. Just one week. Don’t blast through yellow lights. Don’t cut people off. Don’t cut in the front of backed up traffic lanes. Signal for every turn and lane change. Let people out of parking lots and into traffic with a friendly wave. Drive no faster than 20MPH in school zones (not 25 or 27 or 28 or 29 MPH, because staying below 30 is NOT the same as driving 20), slow down to let people merge onto the freeway, don’t race the train to the crossing, always park in a designated parking spot, etc.

And what you will notice after a couple of days is just how infuriating it is to see how the few Socialopaths take advantage of the rest of us good folks to selfishly drive however they effing please with no concern or care for the safety of others or for the fact that we all also have just as much of a need to get where we’re going as quickly as we can, but that we don’t sacrifice the smooth operation of the machinery of society simply for our own selfishness.

And, trust me on this one, these same Socialopaths take this same uncaring, unthinking, unfeeling, unkind attitude into every other aspect of their lives. If you have any doubts about the right and/or friendly thing to do, do the thing that you least want to do, because as a Socialopath, that makes it the right thing. You are unable to assess yourself fairly, just as you are unable to comprehend that as a member of a society you must treat others fairly, too, even if there’s no upside for doing it and no downside if you don’t. Do it because it’s right. Follow the slogan of the name brand that I’m sure is on at least some of your possessions…Just Do It.

• Leave a comment... (0)

So, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson may be turning into the new Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. They play off each other with effortless ease and comedic harmony, and the way they treat each other’s absurdities as normal makes them seem both more normal and therefore more absurd at the same time. Vaughn and Wilson play two mediation attorneys whose main hobby is crashing weddings and receptions and taking advantage of the heightened levels of romanticism and drunkeness of the bridesmaids.

They follow an elaborate set of rules that all support the four primary objectives:

• Bed as many bridesmaids as possible
• Keep your identity secret
• No romantic entanglements
• Make a clean getaway

However, they’re not really young any more and they’re approaching the inevitable end of their youthful hijinks phase, but are in a bit of denial. That is until Wilson’s character falls for the eldest daugher of the Secretary of Commerce, played with menacing fatherliness by Christopher Walken. Vaughn also beds Walken’s nubile and virginal younger daughter, who immediatly gloms onto him as her first and one true love, much to his chagrin.

Hilarity ensues (really). The movie is definitely an “R” rated comedy for adults, and it was refreshing to watch a movie that could be a bit ribald and suggestive without having to bow the the hegemony of the PG-13 ticket buying hordes. Watching this film made me realize just how much spice has been removed from modern Hollywood films in order to make the salable to the multiplex masses. It’s like the viewing public has all been put on a bland diet in order to avoid the flare-up of the bleeding ulcer of “family values”. Not that family fare doesn’t have its place, but sometimes it’s nice to indulge in something a little spicier.

And Wedding Crashers is definitely that. There’s a bit of brief nudity, which I realized I had come to expect only from art films and films with Harvey Keitel. Also, Vaughn and Wilson are quite mercenary in their pursuits and so seem quite unredeeming, at least initially. The plot takes some turns that are unexpected for a com/rom, but things turn out about as you would expect. However, on the way to the expected ending are a lot of laugh-out-loud funny moments, courtesy of Wilson and especially Vaughn.
If you’re looking for a summer movie to make you laugh, tweak your sensibilities, and not demand much mental energy, this could be a must-see film for you.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Crash is set in current-day Los Angeles and uses a series of entertwined vignettes to illustrate how all of us are driven by our prejudices, preconceptions, misconceptions, and bigotry. The film is not preachy but instead lets us see all sides of each conflict, all viewpoints in each argument, and to understand that each perspective is not only based on emotion and dogma, but is also based, on some degree, on truth. Harsh truths, but truths nonetheless. Car thieves are more likely to be black, modern-day slaves are more likely to be Asian, overt bigots are more likely to be white, and virtually nobody in the US could tell the difference (or even care that there is a difference) between “Arabs” and Iranians.

The film is based on a very strong script, excellent direction, and bravura performances by the ensemble cast. Matt Dillon is first among equals as cop who…well…just see the movie. Also look for strong performances from Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Brendan Fraser, Ludacris, Terrence Howard, Michael Pena, Ryan Phillippe and Thandie Newton. Each of them also gives a strong performance and contributes to the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. There’s even a shockingly good cameo by Tony Danza (yes, *that* Tony Danza).

The character’s lives impact each other in ways that are a bit too closely knit to represent reality, but the quality of the script and story are such that it is easy to suspend one’s disbelief and simply accept that there are some implausible things happening on the screen, but for a good cause.

The story itself is gripping and entertaining, nothwithstanding the message, and the message is also clear and strong. We can’t all really know each other, so we have to judge each other on appearances, and even though those judgements may be rooted in fact, they are not always right nor fair, but neither are they always wrong or unfair. Some message, huh? It actually is a strong message, because in modern day America we’re not longer allowed to discuss racial issues in an open forum, because any acknowledgement that there are any differences between the races is tantamount to pulling a white hood over your head. But the truth is that there are differences, and some of those differences manifest themselves as conflict, while other manifest themselves as savory spices in the American melting pot.

In Crash, writer/director Paul Haggis has dragged raciality and racism out into the light for all of us to see, and seeing things clearly can only help make them understandable. And that’s what we need…more understanding. Understanding enough to acknowledge and tolerate our differences, while also acknowledging that we’re all Americans and we’re all in it together, so we might as well all get along.

• Leave a comment... (0)

So, Michael Jackson has been found innocent of all charges in his most recent court fight. As this drama has unfolded it has all smelled very fishy to me. The family was just a bit too questionable, for example, and had a history of grifting and shady dealings. Witnesses kept flip-flopping on their stories. The mother was quite a freaky subject on the witness stand. It kind of felt like the prosecution was supposed to fail.

Hmmm. That sure has the ring of truth to it, doesn’t it?

I mean, why would the prosecution go after such a high-profile, and hitherto untouchable celebrity like Michael Jackson when they would have to build their case on such a shifty foundation? It seems ludicrous, in retrospect, as if the final outcome was pre-ordained by the very fabric of the prosecutions case, which was the accuser and his family.

Well, bear with me for a moment and open your mind to an alternate theory.

What if Michael Jackson and/or his people staged this entire thing, with the prosecutors being unwitting/unwilling pawns?

Think about it for a minute. Here is Michael Jackson, whom I think we can all say is an indisputable freak. However, he has never been successfully convicted of any kind of freaky crime. Yes, there are rumors that he has paid off past accusers to silence them. But why didn’t he just do that here? I mean, I think we can all stipulate that this family would have loved nothing more than to score a few quick million from MJ and slink off into the night to blow it all raising emus or something, right?

Why did he choose to stand and fight this time? Why did he decide to allow the sordid details of his freaky existence to be dragged out into the light, confirming to most of us just how bizarre he really is? Why not just pay these people off? I find it difficult to believe that they would not have taken a cash payment. Did MJ finally decide to stand up for himself against false accusations? Or did he do something else? Did he choose to damn all his accusers with the faint praise of his current accusers? Think about it for a minute.

Michael Jackson (or his talking heads) can now point to these accusers as unquestionable rip-off artists who brought false claims to the public. They can then easily spin this to defuse any future claimants, and to discharge the built up negative static electricity of previous claims.

“See, Mr. Jackson has been set upon by money-grubbing liars, just like we told you.”

I think that a distinct possibility is that Michael Jackson bided his time and finally picked an opponent he knew he could beat, in the hopes of quelling some of the negative publicity and preventing future accusers from coming forward, based on their fear of suffering the same fate as the current scumbag family.

Think of it as a team of oil rig fighters, who actually blow out the rig fires by exploding dynamite in the middle of the conflagration. Or think of a team fighting a forest fire, who set controlled containment fires to try to subdue and control the out-of-control wildfire. It’s not exactly intuitive to think that something so destructive can have a positive effect, but I think it’s certainly possible that this is exactly what happened in the current Michael Jackson trial.

• Leave a comment... (0)