I can remain silent no longer. This will no doubt cost me whatever street cred I now have as a film aficionado and general person of taste. More and more people are shunning the Movie Theater to watch films on there ever more powerful home theater systems.
And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Patrick Goldstein’s article in today’s LA Times is only the latest to prophesy the end of the Movie Theater. For his part, Goldstein focuses on the impact on the business side of the equation, which I don’t doubt will be revolutionary. The Talent (writers, actors, etc.) get a ridiculously small cut of DVD revenue, so the move toward home exhibition will no doubt lead to some bloody contract negotiations.
But leave the business models to the suits. What I’m interested in is if going from the multiplex to the home theater is a bad thing for we the filmgoers.
Your local cinephile would have you believe this is catastrophic. They’re fond of pointing out that movie going has historically been a collective experience, something that can only truly be experienced in that idyllic darkened room where a hundred other people hold their breaths at the same moment. It’s a beautiful ideal, but I’m not so sure that it’s true, or that it has much to do with the experience of watching a movie.
First, the obvious: A lot of things about going to the movie theater suck. Cell phones, commercials, $7 popcorn – you know the litany of complaints. I think a lot of this gets overblown, and I’m not so sure that going to a movie is any more annoying than it ever was. But the point is that the ideal world of the darkened cinema rarely manifests itself.
Beyond quibbles over the moviegoing experience, I question the whole notion that the big dark roomful of strangers is essential to enjoying a film. I’ve been moved by films I saw in a theater, absolutely. But I’ve been moved at least as often by films I watched on a television set. The first time I saw Taxi Driver was on a 13" TV with the sound turned down low so as not to wake my friend’s parents. And it was amazing. To this day it’s one of the most powerful, striking films I’ve ever seen. And I’ve never watched it in a movie theater.
So if a film retains its impact outside a cinema, what’s the importance of that roomful of strangers? A movie may be more fun with a big group of people, but that’s true of most things – sports, drinking, sex. The cinephile’s love for the Movie Theater is as much about liking to hang out in crowds as it is about the experience of watching a film.
The one thing the theater has going for it is immersion. The whole thing about the darkness, a really big screen (if you can find one) – that is a great way to experience the film as intensely as possible. And that’s where home exhibition can fall short. Watching a movie with all the lights on, talking on the phone and balancing your checkbook. That’s a sub-par experience if ever there was one. And what’s this business of watching TV (and maybe movies) on an IPod? I’m not sure it’s possible to immerse yourself in a screen the size of my Visa card.
But the Home Theater Movement, if that’s what you want to call it, is actually working to correct many of the problems with watching a film NOT in a theater. A big screen television with a solid surround sound system can create an experience at least as intense as the AMC 16.
I don’t want to see theatrical exhibition disappear. There is something unique about that experience. But is it superior? Is it the ultimate, definitive way to enjoy a film? I don’t think so. I prefer to focus more on the film than on the room I watch it in.
Inside the NFL
I've known for quite a while how good Inside the NFL is, but until I re-subscribed to HBO a few months ago, I didn't really know how good Inside the NFL is.
I've been trying to get back into the NFL for a few years now. Back in the days before jobs, wives and other complications, I was your typical kid who knows everything that's going on in the NFL (and MLB, NBA, Big-10...). Over the years I've scaled back on everything except baseball, the Lord's game. But I have missed that kinship with the NFL. I tried Fantasy Football. I tried watching Fox NFL Sunday every week. Nothing really forged that connection - until I started watching Inside the NFL.
The main thing is the highlights. Inside the NFL puts together each highlight package with the cinematic gusto of NFL films. The segments are expertly edited, favoring cameras on the field and sidelines to the bland, "best plays via Tivo" approach of other networks. It gives the games an epic feel.
But as stirring as the visuals on Inside the NFL are, where the show really separates itself is on the audio side. Unlike every other NFL program on television, HBO's analyst desk isn't populated by ridiculous former players and their legion of drooling wannabes. Whether it's Chris Berman's banal pop culture references, Terry Bradshaw's "aw shucks" redundancies, or Michael Irvin's painful "I know what it's like to be a player" schtick, there's a lot being said but not much worth saying. Most of the commentators on the other networks are guys I wouldn't listen to at the bar, much less on my television.
If there were a network that presented every sporting event with commentary from Bob Costas, I would watch it. The man is intelligent, articulate and not afraid that being so will lose him any street cred. Cris Collinsworth is a formidible intellect himself, and it's great to see him liberated from the Bradshaw/Howie Long circus on Fox. As for Dan Marino and Chris Carter ... well ... let's just say they don't take anything away from Costas and Collinsworth.
There's a lot of good programming on HBO. But as great as Curb Your Enthusiasm, Extras, Real Sports and the rest are, Inside the NFL is worth the price of admission.
I've been trying to get back into the NFL for a few years now. Back in the days before jobs, wives and other complications, I was your typical kid who knows everything that's going on in the NFL (and MLB, NBA, Big-10...). Over the years I've scaled back on everything except baseball, the Lord's game. But I have missed that kinship with the NFL. I tried Fantasy Football. I tried watching Fox NFL Sunday every week. Nothing really forged that connection - until I started watching Inside the NFL.
The main thing is the highlights. Inside the NFL puts together each highlight package with the cinematic gusto of NFL films. The segments are expertly edited, favoring cameras on the field and sidelines to the bland, "best plays via Tivo" approach of other networks. It gives the games an epic feel.
But as stirring as the visuals on Inside the NFL are, where the show really separates itself is on the audio side. Unlike every other NFL program on television, HBO's analyst desk isn't populated by ridiculous former players and their legion of drooling wannabes. Whether it's Chris Berman's banal pop culture references, Terry Bradshaw's "aw shucks" redundancies, or Michael Irvin's painful "I know what it's like to be a player" schtick, there's a lot being said but not much worth saying. Most of the commentators on the other networks are guys I wouldn't listen to at the bar, much less on my television.
If there were a network that presented every sporting event with commentary from Bob Costas, I would watch it. The man is intelligent, articulate and not afraid that being so will lose him any street cred. Cris Collinsworth is a formidible intellect himself, and it's great to see him liberated from the Bradshaw/Howie Long circus on Fox. As for Dan Marino and Chris Carter ... well ... let's just say they don't take anything away from Costas and Collinsworth.
There's a lot of good programming on HBO. But as great as Curb Your Enthusiasm, Extras, Real Sports and the rest are, Inside the NFL is worth the price of admission.
Don't criticize what you can't understand
If, as I did this morning, you hear the plaintive warble of Bob Dylan's "The Times They are a Changin'" coming from your television set - turn it off. Unless you happen to be watching Martin Scorcese's recent documentary, you are about to be treated to a commercial for Kaiser Permanente, and a musical mortal sin.
I'm not one of these puritanical music snobs who believes simply using the song in a commercial is an afront. If the man's got something to sell, he may as well play me some good music while he's doing it. But twisting Mr. Dylan's words, in possibly the most iconic rock song EVER, that's inexcusable.
If you haven't seen the atrocity, the commercial features some old bastard going about his daily routine. Eventually, we see him jogging and doing other healthy stuff, and the commercial ends with the words "Be Your Own Cause." You've got to be f***ing kidding me.
Be Your Own Cause? The message is clearly "wasn't it quaint when we used to have ideals? Now, let's just take care of ourselves." Who wrote this garbage, the Republican National Committee? Oh wait, they never had ideals. But I guess it's not enough that our defining national trait is egocentrism, now we have to elevate it to the level of idealism.
"What's that, you're an advocate for social change? Well, I'm an activist myself. I'm trying to drop 13 pounds from my ass."
Of course, it's exactly the same contradiction Tim Robbins spoofed in his brilliant film Bob Roberts, where a Republican politician/folk singer sings "The Times are Changin' Back." All Kaiser Permanente has done is remove irony.
Whether you're a college freshman standing on a street corner with an anti-war sign or just someone who occasionally questions the status quo, "The Times They are a Changin'" is a song that resonates with a sense of better days ahead. It's a song that thumbs its nose at cynicism and wears its heart on its sleeve. To poke fun at the song's earnestness for no better reason than to promote healthcare management, whatever that evil shit is, makes me sick.
This is the most offensive remarketing of a great song I can remember in a commercial, but it's far from the first. Do you think Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" was a passion for Royal Carribean Cruises? Was "London Calling" the Clash to buy a Jaguar? Did Janis Joplin really want someone to buy her a "Mercedes Benz?" And what's with all these ads using Nick Drake songs? As if I'm not already thinking about suicide while I'm watching commercials.
It's really not that I mind good music in commercials. I'd rather listen to Bob Dylan than Jessica Simpson in any setting. But if advertisers want to handle the goods, they need to show some damned respect.
I'm not one of these puritanical music snobs who believes simply using the song in a commercial is an afront. If the man's got something to sell, he may as well play me some good music while he's doing it. But twisting Mr. Dylan's words, in possibly the most iconic rock song EVER, that's inexcusable.
If you haven't seen the atrocity, the commercial features some old bastard going about his daily routine. Eventually, we see him jogging and doing other healthy stuff, and the commercial ends with the words "Be Your Own Cause." You've got to be f***ing kidding me.
Be Your Own Cause? The message is clearly "wasn't it quaint when we used to have ideals? Now, let's just take care of ourselves." Who wrote this garbage, the Republican National Committee? Oh wait, they never had ideals. But I guess it's not enough that our defining national trait is egocentrism, now we have to elevate it to the level of idealism.
"What's that, you're an advocate for social change? Well, I'm an activist myself. I'm trying to drop 13 pounds from my ass."
Of course, it's exactly the same contradiction Tim Robbins spoofed in his brilliant film Bob Roberts, where a Republican politician/folk singer sings "The Times are Changin' Back." All Kaiser Permanente has done is remove irony.
Whether you're a college freshman standing on a street corner with an anti-war sign or just someone who occasionally questions the status quo, "The Times They are a Changin'" is a song that resonates with a sense of better days ahead. It's a song that thumbs its nose at cynicism and wears its heart on its sleeve. To poke fun at the song's earnestness for no better reason than to promote healthcare management, whatever that evil shit is, makes me sick.
This is the most offensive remarketing of a great song I can remember in a commercial, but it's far from the first. Do you think Iggy Pop's "Lust for Life" was a passion for Royal Carribean Cruises? Was "London Calling" the Clash to buy a Jaguar? Did Janis Joplin really want someone to buy her a "Mercedes Benz?" And what's with all these ads using Nick Drake songs? As if I'm not already thinking about suicide while I'm watching commercials.
It's really not that I mind good music in commercials. I'd rather listen to Bob Dylan than Jessica Simpson in any setting. But if advertisers want to handle the goods, they need to show some damned respect.
Vote No on Everything
As a service to readers living in the State of California, I feel it is my civic duty as a self-published, marginally-informed pundit to offer my endorsements for Tuesday’s special election: Vote No on Everything.
I’m not just suggesting Vote No in order to be rebellious or anarchistic. I’m not suggesting Vote No because it’s "cool." I suggest Vote No because ballot initiatives are lousy policy, giving the power to the people. And have you met the people? The people are morons.
In all seriousness, I understand why people like the idea of ballot initiatives. "Cast your vote and take back control from those pin-heads in (Sacramento, Des Moines, wherever)." But the fact is we live in a representative democracy. Unless we decide we want to head to our local church or elementary school on a weekly basis to vote for every piece of proposed legislation, all these initiatives do is tie the hands of our elected officials and create a mess down the road.
An example?
I was the education beat reporter in Ames, Iowa during a stretch of budget cuts. So I spent countless hours in the back of School Board and other committee meetings with a notepad, pencil and look of sheer boredom. But I did learn a few things.
Each school district’s budget, like the state budget itself, contains many programs that cannot be cut under any circumstances. The reason is often because they were mandated by ballot initiative. I’m sure the people who voted to mandate special education or after school programs felt they were doing a good thing – but there’s a problem. Nobody ever passes an initiative mandating math classes. After all, the school would never cut math classes, right? But when it’s time for budget cuts and all those special programs are untouchable, guess what gets the axe? No new protractors this fiscal year.
These mandatory spending bills are only one type of voter initiative, but they illustrate the larger problem with the system. Voter initiatives create rigid, often arbitrary barriers that are difficult to correct.
The sheer volume of the problem in California is staggering. Every ballot is weighed down by a series of often-conflicting initiatives. On last year’s ballot, Propositions 60 and 62 both dealt with whether or not voters should be allowed to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation in a primary election. Rather than one Proposition to which voters could vote yes or no, voters had to vote yes to one and no to the other oppositely worded proposition.
The result? 14 percent of voters voted either yes or no for both. That’s a lot of confused voters dictating state policy.
And let’s not forget the most offensive voter initiative in recent memory – the California recall election. Governor Gray Davis was removed from office by the same voters who elected him just a year before. Was there corruption? Had Gray Davis broken the law? No. Voters just didn’t like him that much and/or wanted to see Arnold f***ing Schwarzenegger in office. So now we’ve got a buffoon muscle man in office while our economy continues to tank. Thanks, voters.
I for one am sick of sorting through the mess of ballot initiatives and even more sick of the horrible legislation they create. So from now on, I’ll Vote No on everything. Measures I support, measures I oppose – it doesn’t matter. I’ll Vote No on the entire, broken process.
I’m not just suggesting Vote No in order to be rebellious or anarchistic. I’m not suggesting Vote No because it’s "cool." I suggest Vote No because ballot initiatives are lousy policy, giving the power to the people. And have you met the people? The people are morons.
In all seriousness, I understand why people like the idea of ballot initiatives. "Cast your vote and take back control from those pin-heads in (Sacramento, Des Moines, wherever)." But the fact is we live in a representative democracy. Unless we decide we want to head to our local church or elementary school on a weekly basis to vote for every piece of proposed legislation, all these initiatives do is tie the hands of our elected officials and create a mess down the road.
An example?
I was the education beat reporter in Ames, Iowa during a stretch of budget cuts. So I spent countless hours in the back of School Board and other committee meetings with a notepad, pencil and look of sheer boredom. But I did learn a few things.
Each school district’s budget, like the state budget itself, contains many programs that cannot be cut under any circumstances. The reason is often because they were mandated by ballot initiative. I’m sure the people who voted to mandate special education or after school programs felt they were doing a good thing – but there’s a problem. Nobody ever passes an initiative mandating math classes. After all, the school would never cut math classes, right? But when it’s time for budget cuts and all those special programs are untouchable, guess what gets the axe? No new protractors this fiscal year.
These mandatory spending bills are only one type of voter initiative, but they illustrate the larger problem with the system. Voter initiatives create rigid, often arbitrary barriers that are difficult to correct.
The sheer volume of the problem in California is staggering. Every ballot is weighed down by a series of often-conflicting initiatives. On last year’s ballot, Propositions 60 and 62 both dealt with whether or not voters should be allowed to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation in a primary election. Rather than one Proposition to which voters could vote yes or no, voters had to vote yes to one and no to the other oppositely worded proposition.
The result? 14 percent of voters voted either yes or no for both. That’s a lot of confused voters dictating state policy.
And let’s not forget the most offensive voter initiative in recent memory – the California recall election. Governor Gray Davis was removed from office by the same voters who elected him just a year before. Was there corruption? Had Gray Davis broken the law? No. Voters just didn’t like him that much and/or wanted to see Arnold f***ing Schwarzenegger in office. So now we’ve got a buffoon muscle man in office while our economy continues to tank. Thanks, voters.
I for one am sick of sorting through the mess of ballot initiatives and even more sick of the horrible legislation they create. So from now on, I’ll Vote No on everything. Measures I support, measures I oppose – it doesn’t matter. I’ll Vote No on the entire, broken process.
Coming Down is the Hardest Thing
I generally don’t buy into the notion that kids these days have it easier than in the old days. Are things different now? Certainly. But when people lament that "things ain’t like they used to be" they tend to employ a pretty selective memory. That said, this business of canceling school the day after Halloween ain’t the way things used to be.
I’m aware of at least a handful of districts in Southern California that cancelled elementary classes on Tuesday because the kids would be too hopped up on sugar to concentrate. Maybe this has gone on in the past, but this is the first I’ve heard of it. My reaction: What a load of bullshit.
I don’t doubt the candy rush makes these schools more like methadone clinics on Nov. 1. But I say that’s all the more reason to get these children to school, where they can get the help they need. If anything, the schools should bring in more drug counselors for all the kids who start crying, fighting or soiling themselves. If an addict is going to turn their life around, we need to keep them off the streets.
What kind of a precedent does it set for teachers to cancel school simply because the students may be less inclined to pay attention? The kids are never inclined to pay attention – that’s why it’s called "school" and not a "water slide park." By this logic, shouldn’t classes be cancelled the day before summer or Christmas break? The kids are bouncing off the walls on those days as well. Of course, if we cancel class the day before break, it actually makes the day before that the day before break, so maybe we should cancel class that day as well...
We need to prepare these kids for what they’ll face when they enter the workplace – a menial job with only a week of paid vacation ... if they’re lucky. If we want to encourage more of these kids to go to college, let’s make them close the school on Christmas Eve – stick around until midnight moping the floors. Welcome to your life without a high school diploma, or with a college degree if you go into the arts.
I’m not one to pile on teachers, who get often blamed for not achieving more with horribly inadequate resources. But isn’t this business of canceling class after Halloween what the self-help community refers to as "enabling"?
But as long as I’m on the subject of teachers, I can’t resist recounting a news item from my homeland.
In the little town of Boone, Iowa, the students have a tradition of TPing teachers’ homes the week of Homecoming. One teacher didn’t want this to happen, so he took matters into his own hands. When a pack of pimply teenagers arrived on his front lawn, he burst out the front door swinging a sword, cutting one student’s hand.
This wasn’t in the published reports, but I have it from a friend whose mother teaches in the district that the teacher was dressed as a ninja while he was wielding the sword. Awesome.
So perhaps today’s youths are more precocious than in the past, be they toilet paper vandals or Three Musketeers junkies. Teachers of America, you have two options. Will you bury your heads in the sand and cancel classes, or come at the problem head-on, dressed as a ninja and wielding a sword? The choice is yours.
I’m aware of at least a handful of districts in Southern California that cancelled elementary classes on Tuesday because the kids would be too hopped up on sugar to concentrate. Maybe this has gone on in the past, but this is the first I’ve heard of it. My reaction: What a load of bullshit.
I don’t doubt the candy rush makes these schools more like methadone clinics on Nov. 1. But I say that’s all the more reason to get these children to school, where they can get the help they need. If anything, the schools should bring in more drug counselors for all the kids who start crying, fighting or soiling themselves. If an addict is going to turn their life around, we need to keep them off the streets.
What kind of a precedent does it set for teachers to cancel school simply because the students may be less inclined to pay attention? The kids are never inclined to pay attention – that’s why it’s called "school" and not a "water slide park." By this logic, shouldn’t classes be cancelled the day before summer or Christmas break? The kids are bouncing off the walls on those days as well. Of course, if we cancel class the day before break, it actually makes the day before that the day before break, so maybe we should cancel class that day as well...
We need to prepare these kids for what they’ll face when they enter the workplace – a menial job with only a week of paid vacation ... if they’re lucky. If we want to encourage more of these kids to go to college, let’s make them close the school on Christmas Eve – stick around until midnight moping the floors. Welcome to your life without a high school diploma, or with a college degree if you go into the arts.
I’m not one to pile on teachers, who get often blamed for not achieving more with horribly inadequate resources. But isn’t this business of canceling class after Halloween what the self-help community refers to as "enabling"?
But as long as I’m on the subject of teachers, I can’t resist recounting a news item from my homeland.
In the little town of Boone, Iowa, the students have a tradition of TPing teachers’ homes the week of Homecoming. One teacher didn’t want this to happen, so he took matters into his own hands. When a pack of pimply teenagers arrived on his front lawn, he burst out the front door swinging a sword, cutting one student’s hand.
This wasn’t in the published reports, but I have it from a friend whose mother teaches in the district that the teacher was dressed as a ninja while he was wielding the sword. Awesome.
So perhaps today’s youths are more precocious than in the past, be they toilet paper vandals or Three Musketeers junkies. Teachers of America, you have two options. Will you bury your heads in the sand and cancel classes, or come at the problem head-on, dressed as a ninja and wielding a sword? The choice is yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)