Thursday, July 29, 2010

Inception

Welcome back me, thanks you. I am back on the blog train because I was recently struck by a piece of entertainment journalism that I found a tad self serving regarding the current number one movie in America, Inception. I was intrigued to the point where I wanted to flesh out an argument I had with myself and thought this the best place to do so.

Here is my review of Inception: It is a beautifully crafted film that that fully realizes the potential power of the moving image. That's it. I will only discuss more if I know you have seen the movie and therefore would not be stealing the wonder that the film brings upon its first unspoiled viewing.

Now to my point. Entertainment Weekly ran a cover story on Inception in issue #1113 dated July 30th of this year. Crazy you say? Not quite yet, but since the film was released the week before and Salt starring Angelina Jolie was the big film review in this issue the timing seemed a bit strange. Entertainment Weekly's general purpose (as I see it) is as a buzz generator. I await the spring, summer, fall and winter movie preview issues with great anticipation to know for sure that the seasons are about to change.

If EW were to run a cover story it would usually run the week of a film's release, so I thought, why a week after? The weeks previous cover had Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern & a review of Comic Con (good reason) but as I read the article I came away with the feeling that the article was mostly fluff. I am aware that EW is not known for its in depth exposes, but this was six pages without a real sense of purpose. The article even contains several insert antic-dotes whose purpose seems mostly to fill pages (one of them is titled: The Essential Christopher Nolan, which goes on to list every film he has directed except his first, the 1998 film The Following)

The article goes on to discuss how personal this project was for Nolan and how the emotion of the film was so important to him. Which didn't feel too out of place until its juxtaposition with the film review the week before. Where in her B+ review critic Lisa Schwarzbaum comments how "Only repeated exposure can clarify for each spectator not only what"s going on but also whether the emotional payoff deepens enough to warrant the arbitrary complexity of the game." and then reiterates that sentiment toward the end of the review, "the heart is far less engaged than the head for most of the show."

Another insert article was titled Seeing the Movie Again by Lisa Schwarzbaum. Where at the request of the director "...Nolan encouraged me to rereview it..." she gives a second shortened review of the film in which she maintains her original grade but offers several shifted opinions (my favorite of which was that the film was even less emotionally impact-full upon second viewing).

What does all of this mean? Maybe nothing, but I ask you to consider this, Entertainment Weekly is owned by Time Warner who is a parent company to Warner Bros, who produced and released Inception. So what are the chances of a billion dollar company using one of its most recognized brands to cross promote their hit film against its first big competition (Salt) who will be going after many of the same viewers that Inception will be chasing down in its second week. Pretty good I'm sure, especially considering that after this showdown the next two weekends have big comedies opening and whoever gets ahead this week will last longer and make more money attacking the same adult demographic until mid August.

Final weekend result, in its second week Inception outlasts Salt by almost seven million dollars. Inception $42,725,012 & Salt $36,011,243. I don't know what people expected after Inception's big opening weekend, but I doubt that many saw this coming a month ago.

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Oregon Duck Football
The saddest part of college athletics is the amount of people who get an opportunity to play sports and have their college tuition completely paid for, who absolutely do not deserve it. Tonight the Ducks lost the first game of the season, no big deal, but sadly after the game the price of producing a consistent college football winner reared its ugly head.
LeGarrette Blount got sort of a shove to the shoulder pad on his way off the field at the end of the game Thursday night when he decided to take the gesture as a cue to lose his mind. As the other player's attention is pulled away by a disciplining coach he is sucker punched in the jaw by Blount. Blount is then corralled off the field only to initiate another altercation with heckling fans in the crowd. At this point four security guards two players and an assistant coach take turns putting Blount into various wrestling moves in an effort to get him off the field before embarrassing himself and the team further.
To me, this is a reality the Ducks have to face. To win every year in college football a program must continue to recruit talent at any cost. For an emerging school like Oregon the path to national power will be littered with junior college transfers who have off the field problems which sometimes become on the field problems. While USC can recruit anyone in the nation, the ducks proved tonight that they might be limited to athletes that major schools just aren't willing to take a chance because of their character.

To LeGarrette Blount,
I hope you went to class during your free ride at Oregon, and maybe if the Ducks are smart and kick you out, you will get a chance to play for another school whose recruiting the athletes that even Oregon can't tolerate.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Official Blog Endorsement #1
In the blogging world the idea is that what you care about translates said noun (person, place, thing or idea) to being important enough to make people read your thoughts about it.

When celebrities get paid enough to use their image to promote an something whose maker has a large advertising budget it is referred to endorsing.

So I am making my first official blog endorsement, The Oregon Zoo. Don't think of them as a bunch of wild animals locked in boxes and cages slowly going insane. Think of the opportunity you have to witness majestic creatures of the wild in their realistic, albeit miniature, habitats. Maybe most importantly in todays cash-strapped times, admission to the zoo is $10.50, and $9.00 if you ride MAX and show your ticket. Beautiful walk, fun environment, & a cheap price is the reason I officially blog endorse The Oregon Zoo.

Friday, August 14, 2009



Tonight I was holding Patrick when he grabbed my finger and slowly pulled it into his mouth where he began teething it. If his knowledge of the world keeps growing at this pace he will be smarter than me by the age of three.
Went on the perfect run Wednesday. Not enough running lately and too much of it on a track when I can lead to a beautiful morning through the neighborhoods of Parkrose in a slightly coastal drizzle. More time should be spent at such peace with the world.

Thursday, August 06, 2009

How cute is this kid?Paddy is getting huge. He can head butt, spit bubbles, and laugh, at his father of course, as his mother is not quite as funny.

Sunday, August 02, 2009

I golfed today
It was hot, I played okay, but I never hit my bag or buried a club head in the ground. See Tiger, it can be done, even as I shot a ninety from the white tees.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Are we over Tiger?
First of all, I am not. I think he is the story every week in a sport that needs a dominate story to be relevant beyond hard core golfers and old people. Well this week Tiger did not make the cut in a major for only the second time in his career and that was okay because The Open had Tom Watson. The 59 year old golfer had the Claret Jug snatched from his grasp at the last moment by Stewart Cink in a four hole playoff. Cink seemed to have mixed emotions about winning his first major at the cost of Watson losing a tournament that he was in contention for from day one. After it was decided and the trophy presentation was readying columnist Rick Reilly gave a video retrospect of the four day event. In which he stated that Tom Watson plays the game the way it should be played, like a gentleman, then cutting to a shot of Tiger slamming a club into his bag he references how we may have forgotten that golf is a gentleman's game. This seemed like a dig on the temperamental face of the sport. I thought to myself how impressive it is that Tiger has been golf's greatest ambassador without backlash for over a decade now. Lots of people respected but hated Joe Montana and Michael Jordan, Tom Brady is in now in that boat of champions, but Tiger has remained dominate and unconditionally loved from moment one. That is until he missed a cut at a major championship. The main story this weekend over at Yahoo Sports was how relieved one writer was that if Tiger wasn't in contention that it was better that he miss the cut. This sentiment seems to acknowledge that Tiger is the main story whether he is winning or losing, and that the only time he is not the main attraction seems to be when he is not there. I find it interesting that there seemed to be a sigh of relief that Tiger was not there on Sunday. We are accustomed to his constant presence that people seemed to be welcoming the opportunity for it not to inevitable. Something that seemed impossible even one year ago. Tom Watson was the story this week and Tiger seemed to be getting out of the way. Sharing the spotlight has not been something he has done much of in his professional life.