The Office

I was admittedly a bit opposed to the U.S. version of The Office simply because of how many people were obsessed with it. I was honestly a bit reticent about watching a show that seemed to have such a broad appeal. Also, several people I knew became, once they found out I didn't watch it, almost militant in their attempts to get me to tune in. I’m happy to say, though, that I was totally wrong. I love the show, and, like the rest of America, am eagerly awaiting the sixth season. I wouldn't say that it's one of my favorite shows of all time just yet, but it’s definitely getting there.

Another reason I was a little hesitant about this show was that I am admittedly not a big Steve Carrell fan. Other than Little Miss Sunshine, I have roundly hated him in every film I’ve seen or even just seen commercials for (Dan in Real Life, for example, looked atrocious). He seems to me to be a disciple of Will Ferrel's brand of acting, which consistently churns out characters that are socially, sexually, or mentally incompetent but are generally good guys. Anchorman, 40 Year Old Virgin, Get Smart, etc. do nothing to dispel this notion. And I’ve never really warmed up to his wildly awkward shtick as Michael Scott. I am perpetually annoyed that someone (Toby or Stanley, most likely) doesn’t simple beat the bag out of this guy for his outrageous conduct.

However, the show is peppered with these little moments where you really like/feel for the guy, like when he shows up at Pam’s art show or that absurdly depressing scene from “Take Your Daughter to Work Day” where Michael (as a ten-year-old) says his dream is to have thousands of kids so he’ll never be lonely. On the whole though, the guy annoys the crap out of me, but I do recognize how important he is to the show. Without him, it’s just a bunch of people begrudgingly trying to get through the day, which is not funny. Toby once casually summed up Michael's appeal by saying that he’s like “an in-flight movie. It’s not great but it’s something to watch. Then it’s over, and it’s like, ‘how much time is left on this flight. Now what?’”

I did not like the first season. With the exception of a few episodes ("Diversity Day" and "Basketball") I thought it was pretty weak, especially when looked at in comparison to the later seasons. I’ve never seen the British version, but from what I understand a lot of the plot-lines and jokes were mined from that show, which might explain why things feel a little forced. The show really hits it stride in the second season; the last episode of that season ("Casino Night") is one of my favorite episodes. Overall, seasons 2 and 3 of this show are awesome. The Jim/Pam story was really the driving force behind the show during this stretch, almost like the Laura Palmer investigation in Twin Peaks. It's not always the most important plot-point in a particular episode, but it's there to keep the viewer intrigued and wanting to come back for more.

(SEASON 5 SPOILER ALERT) I am a little worried now that things seem to be perfect for everyone’s favorite television couple that the show will stagnate. I felt the beginning of season five was a bit directionless. The episodes were funny, don’t get me wrong, but it just seemed like the show didn’t know where it was going. The second half of the season did a nice job rectifying this with the Charles Miner/Michael Scott Paper Company plotline, but I don’t know how long the show can last without a story arc on the level of the Jim/Pam courtship.
What is odd to me about The Office is that, for a show that seems to have such a broad appeal, it is so outside the mainstream of your typical American comedy in just about every conceivable way. The mockumentary style thankfully ensures that there is no laugh track, which to me is a blessing. I can’t tell you how much I despise laugh tracks. There’s nothing worse than watching a formulaic, Everybody Loves Raymond-type show and watching the actors waiting for the laughter to die down so they can make their next by-the-numbers joke. I think the biggest thing that separates The Office is the ensemble cast element of it. It’s very rare for a comedy to use such a large group of characters. Even really good shows like Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, or 30 Rock don’t have a ton of characters. It’s a pretty risky move, if you think about it, to (for instance) base an entire storyline around an Oscar or a Phyllis. It completely pays off though, because slowly learning about the characters over the seasons is a lot of fun. It's fun to pick up on these random tidbits about Creed or Stanley and slowly crafting an idea of their characters over the seasons.
It’s tough to pick out a favorite character from a show that is so rich in character development, but Andy “Nard Dog” Bernard might be my favorite. I know he's a new addition to the cast, but the guy is simply hilarious (check out The Hangover for further proof), with his love of a cappella music, the way he tries to slip the fact that he went to Cornell into every conversation, and his general kick-assness. I love Andy’s line about how he’s going to rise to the top through “personality-mirroring, name repetition, and never breaking off a handshake.”
I’m also a big fan of Kevin Malone. I wish we got to see more of Scrantonicity. One of my favorite scenes with him is when he’s talking to the cameras about his band and the possibility of playing Pam and Roy’s wedding and he says something along the lines of “We actually don’t play in public a lot. (Pause) This could be a turning point for the band.”
I find the interplay between Dwight and Jim to be another one of the show's biggest strenghts. The two play off each other beautifully when they're enemies and even more so in those rare cases where they're forced to work together, like the sales call they make together or when they begrudgingly plan Kelly's birthday party. However, I do think Jim needs to do a little less of his trademark "I can't believe these shenanigans" eye-brow raise, which gets annoying when he does it five times per episode. Dwight, though, is consistently the funniest character on the show. He's got such a unique personality and worldview that I enjoy just listening to him talk, even though he's a complete dick most of the time. Like this story about his insanely detailed "perfect crime":

One criticism I have is that the show can oftentimes stretch the boundaries of authenticity. This was a bit of a big problem in the fifth season, but may be an even bigger one looking to the future of the show. One of my few complaints with Seinfeld is that, in the later seasons, the characters had become caricatures of themselves. Instead of being relatable, flawed human beings they became cartoon characters. I think this is a big problem The Office could face, especially when you have the already cartoonish Michael Scott as the fulcrum of your show. There were several times during the fifth season where he did things that seemed completely out of step with his character, seemingly placed in just to garner some laughs. The best example (SPOILER ALERT) is when he attempted to get Toby fired by planting weed on him. This was funny enough I guess, but it seems like something out of a sitcom.

At least initially, The Office was about the mundane occurrences that happen at a typical 9-to-5 job. One of the best examples I can think of is the scene where Michael is holding a meeting in the conference room, and everyone is watching the DVD logo, desperately hoping to see it go into the corner. With absurd, sit-comy things like the Dwight/Andy/Angela love triangle, it has slowly been losing some of its authentic nature that makes it consistently good. Let's hope the writes never get to a point where they're trading authenticity for laughs.

Well, that’s pretty much it. As you can probably tell, I’ve kind of been obsessed with this show over the last month or so. I even bought the fifth season on Itunes because for some reason it does not come out on DVD until September. I want to leave you with a few YouTube videos people made compiling different clips from show to make faux movie trailers. They're pretty funny. Enjoy.

Random Thoughts July 7th

-What a devastating loss for Andy Roddick the other day. I really felt like he outplayed Federer and deserved to win that one, but he just didn't capitalize on opportunities. In Bill Simmons' terminology this was a guillotine game: "Your team's hanging tough (hell, they might even be winning), but you can feel the inevitable breakdown coming, and you keep waiting for the guillotine to drop." That's exactly how I felt during this match.

-Obviously, Sarah Palin's resignation has been a pretty big news item over the past few weeks. I read her resignation letter, and it was about as incompetent and poorly written as a fourteen year old's book report. Her entire political career reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld where Kramer somehow starts working at a business. I can see the GOP leaders sitting her down and saying "These speeches are incomprehensible. It's almost like you don't have any political experience at all."
-They Might Be Giants is a very underrated band. I just listened to their CD "The Spine" and was very impressed. Just throwing that out there.

-This has been the worst summer for movies in recent memory. Granted, the summer isn't usually known for high-quality fare, but this year seems like a huge let-down in contrast to last year (Iron Man, Dark Knight, Tropic Thunder, etc). Other than The Hangover and Star Trek, the movies haven't been good. I'm putting my hopes on two movies: Public Enemies and Inglorious Basterds. The reviews for Public Enemies have been good but not great (61% at Rotten Tomatoes last time I checked) but it's got great source material, a good director in Michael Mann, and a solid cast. Inglorious Basterds also looks entertaining from the trailers I've seen. I also like the fact that Samm Levine (Neil Schweiber from Freaks and Geeks) and B.J. Novak (Ryan from The Office) are in the cast. If neither of these are good, I might as well book my ticket for I Love You Beth Cooper.
-I'm generally a fan of Geico commercials. However, this one seems to defy logic:

Caveman, how could you possibly believe you're winning this game? You haven't gotten a serve in! I don't know what's more ridiculous, the fact that this Neanderthal thinks he's winning, or the fact that it's taken him three sets to realize the event is being sponsored by Geico.

-The Fourth of July is not America's "birthday". I'm not sure where people got this notion, but the colonies voted to succeed from Britain on July 2nd. In fact, John Adams predicted that people would celebrate July 2nd as a national holiday for years to come, but it ended up being July 4th because that was the date written on the Declaration of Independence.

-This Michael Jackson thing is bizarre. Is it just me, or was this guy absolutely despised by virtually everyone for the past six years? If Michael Jackson was brought up in conversation, you were guaranteed to hear some inappropriate jokes about pedophilia. After his death, people seem to have forgotten all about this part of him. I'm not saying that his eccentric personality should be the focus of all this news coverage, but where were these people five years ago, when he was the subject of ridicule and scorn? I think the guy's a good musician, but I just find it weird that the media and news coverage, as well as the average person you talk to about him, is lionizing him to the degree that they oftentimes don't even mention his personal life.

Review: Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

You'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
-P.T. Barnum


Transformers 2 just broke some kind of opening day box-office record, despite terrible reviews and a questionable director at the helm. Sadly, I contributed to this box-office juggernaut, slapping down 9 bucks to see the premier of it last Wednesday. Not the best decision I've made as it turns out, but in a summer where the best thing to hit theaters is an animated film about a cranky old guy and his boy-scout companion, there aren't a lot of options.

Background: Transformers are possibly the coolest toy ever created. The great thing about the Transformers as toys was their complexity. Most toys are pretty simple. It's usually up to the person playing with them to create the action. The Transformers, however, were complex in and of themselves. Figuring out how to turn a robot into a tank is a fairly difficult task for your average eight year old. They even had stuff like the Constructicons, which you were able to put together to make one giant robot called Devastator (a watered down version was in this movie).

There was also a Transformers animated movie that came out in 1986 which I adored as a child. Definitely not the best movie to bring a ten year old to, but a classic in my book nonetheless. Ostensibly as a way to create a new line toys, the film was tasked with killing off most of the old characters to make room for newer, cooler Transformers. This included (spoiler warning) the death of Optimus Prime and the kind-of death of Megatron. Needless to say, having a beloved television character murdered by his greatest enemy was pretty controversial, and I can only imagining it being traumatizing to many a youngster.

Anyway, getting back to the movie at hand, I enjoyed the first live-action Transformers film when I first saw it. I didn't think it was epic, but that one did a fairly good job with a pretty fantastical premise. I was pretty skeptical going into this one. So, at the risk of rambling on, suffice it to say that I am a huge Transformers fan, and I plan on keeping my toys and my VHS copy of the 86' film until the day I die.

What Worked: The fight scenes are pretty solid. There's a lot of stuff blowing up, at any rate. I mean, there's really an absurd amount of damage dealt out: cities are ruined, entire aircraft carriers are taken out, etc. The CGI is pretty effective. Seeing the robots transform, complete with bad-ass sound effects, is always cool. Oh yeah and this worked pretty well:

Michael Bay may not have made a good movie,but he at least gave us a bevy of opportunities to ogle Megan Fox.

What Didn't Work: The movie is a sequel to the first movie, but it almost feels like a remake in the sense that there's so little that differentiates the two from each other. I don't have a great recollection of the specif plot points from Transformers 1, but I just had the nagging sense while watching that I had seen this movie before.

The Skids and Mudflaps characters have taken a beating for being racially insensitive caricatures of black people. I didn't catch this during the movie, but looking back on it I can totally see that. From Wikipedia: "The characters have been given ape-like appearance, speak in street-slang dialogue, and confess and inability to read." In response, Michael Bay said they were "good clean fun". Not much of a defense.

I mentioned Megan Fox in the "what worked" section solely for her looks. Her acting leaves a lot to be desired. I watched the Big Lebowski the other day, and her acting skills are reminiscent of Tara Reid's Bunny Lebowski in the scene where Maude shows the Dude the porn film with Uri(man that took a lot of explaining, but you know what I'm talking about).

The thing that bothered me the most was the overall tone of the film. A no point in the movie did I feel like there was any real danger. Even in the scene where Sam Whitwicky is on the verge of death , I was thinking "there's no way they're gonna let him die." Even when Optimus Prime died, I knew they'd somehow bring him back to life, I was just waiting to see how it happened. Last summer's big blockbuster, The Dark Knight, was the complete opposite. I had no idea what to expect. I wouldn't have been shocked if Batman had died, or if it was revealed that Alfred and the Joker had been in cahoots the whole time and were plotting to take over the world.

Best Scene: Probably the fight between Optimus Prime and the Decepticons where Optimus gets killed.

Worst Scene: Hmm, I guess I'll go with the entire sequence of events when Sam is at college. Really brutal stuff to sit through, especially at 1 in the morning. Starting with the Sam's dorm was being populated exclusively by models, then the episode with the mom smoking pot, leading up to the ridiculous exchange with the Decepticon disguised as a college student. Just a terrible sequence of events. I'm not expecting a movie about robots that can turn into cars to be picture-perfect representations of reality, but make an effort, man. Also, Transformers cannot turn into humans.

Best Lines: "This is top secret: do not tell my mother" was the only line that I truly laughed at. "Autobots roll out" was a nice throwback to the cheesy lines that dominated the television show.

Worst Lines: Pretty much anything that comes out of Sam's parents' mouths is terrible. These two were moderately funny in the first film, but incredibly annoying in this one.
I don't actually remember hearing this during the film, but in the trailers there's a part where Lennox, the head soldier guy, says, with apparent sincerity "We got a lot of fight coming up" or something along those lines. Terrible.

Unsung Hero: John Turturro is much better in this film than in the previous one. He provides some comic relief that is actually funny, unlike Sam's roomate, his parents, Skids and Mudflap, the annoying dog, etc.

Final Anaylsis: The problem with both of these Transformer movies is that they just do not work in live-action. Transformers 1 got by, I think, because of the novelty of the action sequences. By necessity, the brunt of the story has to fall on the humans in a live-action film, something which was not even close to being the case in the cartoons or the 86' movie. I wouldn't necessarily blame the actors either. Shia LaBeouf does an adequate job, John Turturro is good as usual, Fox is terrible, the army guys are alright. A word about Shia LaBeouf: I think he's a good actor. However, for the past two summers I have seen him in two atrocious movies (this one and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). He was also in Eagle Eye, which was awful.

What's really infuriating about this film is that the one storyline that could have saved the film was destroyed before it ever got off the ground. The Watchmen-esque story featuring the guy who wants to ban the Autobots because they are bringing the Decepticons to Earth was the one part of the plot with any ambiguity to it, but Michael Bay dissolved that one in the bluntest, stupidest way possible: he literally had the guy thrown out of a plane. That about sums up Michael Bay as a director. Rather than letting a nuanced, morally ambiguous plotline develop, Bay chucks it out of a plane.
Grade:3/10

Defining Yourself Through Pop Culture

Ordinarily, I think Facebook applications are fine. With things like Jetman, Scrabble (aka Lexulous), that March Madness Challenge thing, and Risk on the market, what's not to love? In the past few months, though, seemingly every time I log onto Facebook I get hit with a barrage of "which ______ are you quizzes." For example, my newsfeed right now is displaying "which Happy Days character are you", "which Friends character are you?", "which Seinfeld Character are you?" and "Which Wes Anderson character are you?" quizzes. In and of themselves, these quizzes are kind of fun I suppose. You answer some rudimentary questions which clearly correspond to how certain characters from these shows or movies would react, your results show up on your profile and the Facebook community gets a good laugh out of your similarity to Jack Bauer.


These quizzes are wildly popular. The primary "Which Friends character are you?" application has an astonishing 7,378 monthly users. The Seinfeld one has about 4,000. I think the number of people who sign onto these types of applications is indicative of a larger trend. The influence of pop culture has created a situation in which, for most people, it's not enough to be you. Everything about you-your persona, situation, life events,dating history etc.-has to be akin to someone else. It's not enough to be a drug-addicted history teacher in inner-city Brooklyn. You have to consciously model your behavior after Dan Dunne, Ryan Gosling's character in Half Nelson. You can't be any nerdy, anachronostic-looking high schooler: you have to be McLovin from Superbad. It's not enough to be a middle-aged, neurotic Jewish guy with a penchant for getting into absurd arguments: you have to be Larry David.

I remember reading a Chuck Klosterman article a few years ago about The Real World. In it, Klosterman wrote that people were initially intrigued by the show due to the uniqueness of the characters on it. After a few seasons, though, characters on the show started to group themselves into highly specific personality types, like "the angry, militant black guy" or "the extremely gay guy." I don't actively watch this show, but it makes sense: candidates for the show look at what has been popular in the past and try to play up these specific parts of their personality. I see the quizzes as an extension of this.

People tend to define themselves through pop culture. Anytime you see a popular or critically acclaimed film, chances are someone will comment on how relatable the characters were. On some level, this is why people go to the movies in the first place. Sure, entertainment is a big part of it, but it's also because we see ourselves on the screen. Who hasn't imagined himself swinging through the streets and battling criminals like Spiderman? What girl hasn't imagined themselves falling in love like Rachel McAdams in The Notebook? Who hasn't compared their group of friends to the gang on Seinfeld? The Facebook quizzes are popular because they provide confirmation (albeit artificial confirmation) that we are similar to our favorite characters. People would rather be analogous to Richie Tenenbaum or Chandler Bing instead of just being another random person.

Failblog, Spider Solitaire, and the Perils of Procrastination

We're enjoying sluggish times, and not enjoying them very much.
-George Herbert Walker Bush

Hello all...sorry I haven't posted in a few weeks, but I've had an absurd amount of work. Right now, I've got a paper on the Cultural Revolution in China due at midnight tonight. It's supposed to be 8 to 12 pages, which should have been no problem given that I had all day to do it. But rather than diligently working I have been procrastinating for hours. I've been doing two things: playing spider solitaire and laughing hysterically at failblog.org in the middle of the library as people look at me like I'm a lunatic.

First off, let me say that spider solitaire on the difficult level might be the hardest fucking game I've ever played. Has any human ever beat this thing? I played for a solid hour, and didn't come close. For some reason, I feel a bizarre correlation between my ability to conquer this beast and my ability to finish my paper. I'm convinced that once I win, the words will come flowing out of me and I'll bang out the paper in 20 minutes. Consequently, if anyone has any strategic advice, I'm all ears.

The second thing that has been taking up my time is failblog. This is a great site, but I wouldn't recommend going on it unless you have a good half-hour to kill. I actually put together my own, modeled after this girl in one of my classes who tried to pass off Wikipedia as a legitimate source. Pretty embarrassing, really. Check it out:
Alright, time to buckle down. I hear Mao Zedong calling my name. Peace...

Nostalgia Machine

I'm nostalgic for conversations I had yesterday. I've begun reminiscing events before they even occur. I'm reminiscing this right now. I can't go to the bar because I've already looked back on it in my memory... and I didn't have a good time.
-Kicking and Screaming

Americans are obsessed with the past. Let me qualify that statement. We're not obsessed so much with history, but with cultural aspects of the extremely recent past. I'm hesitant to make such a sweeping generalization, but no matter where you look you can see some form of entertainment set, for no reasons other than nostalgia, ten to twenty years ago. Whether it's 80's day during school spirit week, some crappy VH1 show where third rate comedians discuss cultural relics from the years gone by, or a "Punk Goes 90's" compilation CD, at times it seems like we want to move backwards in time, not forwards.

Those who point this out (and by "those" I mean the Chuck Klosterman article I read which talked about this) often point to a number of forums that illustrate this phenomenom. Whether it's television shows like "The Wonder Years," "Freaks and Geeks," and “I Love the 80's"-like shows, films such as Napoleon Dynamite, Donnie Darko, and The Wedding Singer, or new music that deliberately tries to sound like old music (The Killers, Shiny Toy Guns, etc.), this stuff plays on an imagined, supposedly shared vision that we're all supposed to intrinsically identify with as part of our cultural heritage. It caters specifically to the apparent need people have to be nostalgic about the past. However, this kind of thing is marketed towards an impersonal, culture-specific past. A new phenomenon has sprung up that is doing something similar, yet operating on a far more personal level. In fact, it brings people's own pasts right onto their computer screen on a daily basis.

compare with:

Do you have a facebook?

Facebook is a form of instant nostalgia that can be accessed at any time. It is essentially a journal that documents your development via wall posts, photos, and a shit-load of applications. It allows you to view your own past as it is happening. What's more interesting, and creepier, is that anyone you happen to be friends with, or anyone within your network, has access to this information as well. Never before have we been able to reminisce so vividly about events that took place just a few hours ago. Not only that, but the constant stream of new photos, applications, and groups lets us experience nostalgia for our friends (or complete strangers) just as easily. It's a fascinating, post-modern phenomenon.

I think that Facebook is one of the better innovations of the internet era. Its ability to connect people across the world is astounding. However, FB creates an unusual situation: it allows people who no longer have a "normal" or "traditional" relationship to have a quasi-real one that is ultimately unfullfilling for both parties.

Let me use an example to illustrate . It’s 1986. Boston native Bill decides to attend MIT. Freshmen year, he meets Amy from California. They fall in love at orientation and are inseparable thereafter. Until disaster strikes; Amy has been spending so much time with Bill that she's failed three of her classes and kicked out of school. They are both crushed, as their relationship is effectively over unless one of them decides to pull some romantic comedy-esque shenanigans. During the next year, they exchange phone calls or send letters on an increasingly irregular basis. By the end of college, the two have, for all practical purposes, forgotten about each other.

Push the clock ahead twenty-three years. It’s 2009. The same situation occurs, yet something is drastically different in terms of their relationship post-Amy’s move. The advent of Facebook allows them to get a constant reminder of what they’ve lost. They regularly check each other’s pages, send each other messages, look at new pictures.

You might think that this situation is actually preferable to the original one. After all, these two people were so close at one point in their lives; it must be a positive that they now have an easy way to stay in touch. It could be argued, though, that Facebook is making things much worse. Unless Bill attempts some harebrained, Lloyd Dobbler-like move to California, their relationship is over. Sometimes, the best thing to do to get over someone is just to forget about them. I'm not suggesting that either one should pull an Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind type procedure and literally erase all memory of each other. But in this kind of situation it's very possible that Bill and Amy should, in the words of Third Eye Blind frontman Stephan Jenkins, put the past away.

Facebook doesn’t allow for this though. When either Amy or Bill signs on it’s a virtual guarantee they’re checking out their former lover’s page. And this extends beyond the boyfriend/girlfriend paradigm. Say you used to be close with a group of people, but things fizzled out once college started. With Facebook, you can see your former best friends yucking it up without you on a daily basis. Or imagine an unrequited love interest from high school that you were friends with, but never had the balls to ask out. What about people who move to different states or countries? They are not allowed to forget about their prior life. Facebook is like the ghosts that visited Ebenezer Scrooge in a Christmas Carol, effortlessly taking us back to points in our life in an easy and often depressing way. It gives us a daily update of what we no longer have, or what we never had in the first place.

Clapping Man Thinks He's Some Kind of Hero

Get a load of this guy...


Nobody likes a braggart, and Mr. Kent "Toast" French is the epitome of a braggart. What makes it worse is that he's bragging about his ability to applaud. He's out there waving around some bullshit certificate like it's an Olympic medal. Give me a break, Toast. Being the fastest clapper in the world is nice, I guess. But how much of an accomplishment is it really? From what I've seen, the world of competitive clapping is a small one. Given a few weeks training time, I'm sure there are some pro baseball players who could out-clap the shit out of this fool. Also, he clearly hasn't been able to translate this into any discernible skill, unless you consider making terrible YouTube videos a skill. Next time I need to start a clap-gang, Toast will be the first guy I grab. Until then, keep clapping, friendo.

Final Four/Championship Game

I think it's safe to say that the Final Four and the championship game were a huge disappointment, at least from an entertainment perspective. The only drama in the last game was seeing how much UNC would win by.

-Kudos to the Tar Heels for putting the kibosh on a tough Michigan State team. Even though I hate them, especially Tyler "get me some tissues I'm crying again" Hansbrough, I have to admit they deserved it.

Not what I wanted to see...

-Danny Green is one of my most feared players in basketball. If I'm rooting against UNC, every time this guy so much as glances at the rim I get a little hot under the collar. I swear, I've seen him miss maybe 10 threes over the course of his career.

-The Villanova-UNC game brought up a debate I find myself having each time I watch a game where a team that normally makes threes is struggling. If you're Jay Wright,and your team can't make a shot, do you encourage the guys to keep shooting or do you try to figure out something else? There are solid arguments on both sides. On one hand, if you've advanced to the Final Four because of great shooting, it seems antithetical to go away from what has worked in the past. At the same time though, sometimes the shots you normally make just don't fall. I tend to side with the latter argument, depending on the situation. In that particular game, Nova would have given themselves a better chance if they started taking it to the bucket more. Lawson, Hansbrough, and Green were all in foul trouble. There comes a point in the game where you have to say, "We're not making threes. The seasons on the line. Let's try something different."

-Clark Kellog was atrocious throughout the tourney, especially in the Nova/UNC game (I missed the other game due to a tennis match). He seemed to be pulling phrases out of thin air. During one stretch, he referred to Ty Lawson's "rush hour handle." Umm, what? I'm guessing he's talking about the perturbing traffic situation and not the Jackie Chan/Chris Tucker series of films, but no one is sure at this point. During the same stretch, Kellog called Lawson a "high level custodian." I've conducted a number of informal polls and have scoured the internet, and no one has been able to explain to me how being a "high level custodian" is a positive characteristic of a basketball player. Also, in the championship game, he claimed that a player can't back up while boxing out. From my admittedly rudimentary understanding of the concept of boxing out, backing up is the prime component. Granted, my forays into boxing out are few and far between, so I could be dead wrong here.
-Bobby Frasor inexplicably pulled down an absurd amount of offensive rebounds in these two games. Actually, check that it's not inexplicable at all. The teams focus so much on keeping guys like Hansbrough and Deon Thompson that it's easy to forget about the squirrely little white guy.

-Good job by MSU to get to the title game, but what a poor showing in the championship. The Spartans turned the ball over on 21 of 89 possessions and were never in any position to win the game. I can't figure out if they just played that badly or if UNC is just much, much better.

-This year's One Shining Moment was sub-par. They showed the Scotty Reynolds shot against Pitt too early, for one thing. It also seemed like there was an excessive amount of Blake Griffin as well. To be fair, it's tough to work a Final Four that was essentially devoid of drama into a quality One Shining Moment.

Nothing could live up to the greatness of the 2002 One Shining Moment. I don't know why, but I love this one...


-I've had some horrible brackets before, but this year my level of incompetence reached an all time high. I'm in dead last in both of the brackets I had on Facebook, despite picking a completely different Final Four in each one. Ditto for the two brackets I actually put money on. Not one of my better efforts, but I feel confident about next year.

Anyway, I'm taking a break from writing about sports for a while, probably until the NBA playoffs start. Coming soon: a bunch of random shit and possibly a review of Watchmen if I get around to seeing it again. Speaking of film, very excited about Adventureland. I'm not going in hoping for the Citizen Kane of comedies, but for a spring release it looks solid. Ok, bye.

Sweet 16/Elite 8: Well, that sucked...

This wasn't a great weekend for college basketball or for my bracket. Most of the games were snoozefests, the average margin of victory was (by my own calculations) 55.7, and every game except Pitt-Villanova seemed to lack any kind of flow or rhythm. On a personal level, seemingly every team I was rooting for/had in my bracket lost. I guess the "glass half-full" way to look at this would be that 1) it looks like a collision course of the two teams (UNC and UConn) that have been the best all year and 2) the better team has more or less won each game. I don't see it like that, though. I long for the days when the George Masons and Wichita States of the world made it to the Elite 8. A few thoughts...

-So apparently Hasheem Thabeet is a big Scrabble player. Like Luke Wilson in Anchorman, I did not see that coming. He looks more like a Battleship guy to me. There is some precedence to this Scrabble/basketball connection, though. Back in high school, a bunch of guys from my team would play Scrabble before practices and games. It was a good time. Anyway, according to the article, Thabeet has trouble finding competition, which doesn't surprise me at all. Somehow I don't think that Stanley Roberts and Jeff Adrien are looking to break a pre-game mental sweat.

Hasheem Thabeet: immigrant, shot blocker, humanitarian, wordsmith

-What the hell happened to Memphis? 102 points? Really? For the season, the Tigers gave up about 57 points a game. Granted, that's against a hodgepodge of Conference USA teams that would struggle to make the playoffs in the Fidelity House men's league, but it''s still an impressive number. I know Missouri was good, but they average about 81 points a game. For a team that supposedly takes pride in it's defense, what a dismal effort.

-Missouri has the second most wins in the tourney without a trip to the Final Four. The number one team? Sadly, the Eagles of Boston College.

-The Zags loss to UNC was brutal. Like I said before, I wouldn't have bet my life savings on a Zaga win, but I thought they'd put up a better fight than they did. I didn't get to see most of the second half because CBS switched to MSU-Kansas, but it seemed like every time Gonzaga got into any kind of rhythm the Tar Heels would come back with a score. UNC is great at that. One of the announcers mentioned it during the UNC-Oklahomah game: the Heels do a great job of getting the ball out and attacking after the other team scores. So while your team is celebrating, they're knocking down a three on the other end. They also shot a blistering 57.9% from three (11 of 19) and 52.9% from the field.

-Since I have no team left to support, I guess I'll just root for a MSU-Villanova final. Speaking of Nova, Jay Wright wins the award for best-dressed coach of the tournament. The man looks like he's attending a wedding reception night in and night out. You've got to respect that.

-Bill Raftery on Scotty Reynolds: "The thing about Reynolds is that even if he misses a couple, he's still gonna jack em up. He plays very positively." Translation: He's a chucker. Still, that last second shot is one of the best end-of game plays I've ever seen. A ton of credit should go to Dante Cunningham, who made the hook and ladder-esque pass to Reynolds. To have the state of mind and wherewithal to make a play like that under those conditions was extraordinarily clutch. It's reminiscent of the Bryce Drew shot, though obviously not as good.




-I wish Gus Johnson was announcing the Final Four. Clark Kellog is alright, but he really doesn't bring much to the table. He's knowledgeable, yeah, but he's about as interesting as a lecture on Keynesian economic theory. Anyway, check out some of Gus Johnson's memorable calls. The video is really grainy, but otherwise it's pretty sick.


-It was too bad to see Oklahoma go out the way they did. In my experience, whenever a team has a great year but gets blown out in their last game people tend to dwell on that one game. Look at the '85 Patriots. They had a solid season(ending the year at 14-6) which ended in the franchises' first Superbowl trip. No one remembers that, though. All anyone remembers is the 46-10 drubbing they took in their last game.

-Anyone who thinks Tyler Hansbrough is better than Blake Griffin is either a lunatic or doesn't understand the game of basketball. Griffin is a better rebounder. He's stronger, and he's much more dominant. The guy gets it done despite being the focus of every teams defense. Golden Boy is on a better team, clearly. He's a very good college player. But let's be honest, a good chunk of his points come from bullying guys in the post and using his size and physicality to just out muscle or outwork people. The man has the finesse of a field ox. There's no way in hell he'll be doing that in the NBA. For further proof of Hansbrough's sucktitude, see below.

-CORRECTION: In last week's post, I haphazardly mentioned that Eric Devendorf was the most annoying player in recent memory. Well, I was obviously a little loopy when I wrote that, because Joakim Noah outranks Devendorf in virtually every category on the aggravation scale. Ridicolously bad haircut? Check. Aggravating parent/sibling/wife/fan following at every game? Check. Elitist attitude and sense of entitlement? Check. General douchebaggery on and off the court? Check. I guess his obscure NBA career made me forget about him. My bad.

Noah is unsurpassed in his ability to infuriate fans, players, opposing coaches, infants, kittens, etc.

March Madness Opening Rounds

The first two rounds of this years NCAA tourney have been disappointing to say the least. Despite a few first round upsets (Cleveland State pounding Wake, Wisconsin getting a miraculous layup to beat FSU, Arizona beating Utah) there are no Cinderellas left. There were some good games, like Siena-Ohio State and Gonzaga Western Kentucky, but it seems like most of them have wallowed in that 10 point, not-a-blowout-but-not-a close-game-either territory. A few observations:

-UConn and Villanova have looked the sharpest so far. UConn put the wood to the Mocs of Chattanooga in their first game, then embarrassed Texas A&M in the second. I honestly didn't think the Huskies were great without Jerome Dyson, but they've been impressive so far. Nova struggled a bit against a gritty American, but throttled UCLA in the Round of 32. That was an embarrassing loss for the Bruins. It's one thing to lose in your last game, but they looked like they didn't want to be out there.

-Pitt has looked shaky. They avoided becoming the first 1 seed to be upset, mainly due to East Tennessee State's abysmal performance from the free throw line. If you're trying to beat a team much better than you, it's a must that you make at least 80% of your freebies. The Buccaneers shot a ghastly 12 for 24. Ouch. Anyway, against OK State, Pitts vaunted defense gave up a whopping 49 points in the first half. I don't think Xavier is unbelievable, but look for a potential upset Saturday and the close of Levance Fields seemingly never-ending career.

-My beloved Zags dodged a bullet against a red-hot Western Kentucky team. The Hilltoppers played out of their minds, seemingly hitting every open three and getting big play after big play down the stretch. Gonzaga plays North Carolina Friday. By no means would I guarantee a victory, but I think the Zags have as good a chance as anyone to upend the Tar Heels. The two teams met a few years ago in the pre-season NIT, with Gonzaga coming away with an 82-74 victory. In that game, Josh Heytvelt dominated Golden Boy Tyler Hansborough. They've certainly got the the skill to play with the Tar Heels, but it remains to be seen if they have the toughness. Jeremy Pargo is going to be the X-factor. He's as athletic and skilled as anyone on UNC. If he scores 15+, Gonzaga will be in a good position to win.

-I don't remember who was announcing the game, but he was all over Maryland's somewhat portly Sean Neal, calling him a "church league all-star." Later in the Gonzaga-Western Kentucky game, the announcer(I wish I could remember who it was) made the same charge against WKU's Orlando Mendez-Valdez (who had a game-high 25 points). This raised the question: who would be a better men's league or rec player? On the one hand, Mendz-Valdez can shoot lights out from pretty much anywhere. Neal, though, would be a force on the inside. I'd have to give the edge to OMV I think, just because guards tend to dominate those leagues. Also, Neal looks like the type of guy who gets wildly out of shape during the offseason.

Orlando Mendez-Valdez, coming to a men's' league near you...

-Expect Syracuse to give Oklahoma a run for their money. If you look around the college basketball landscape this year, the good teams are all relatively "starless." Even guys like Dejuan Blair of Pitt and Ty Lawson of UNC aren't exactly of the Kevin Durant/Carmello Anthony mold. Oklahomah is not like that at all. I think leaning so much on one player, especially a big guy, means they have a good chance of being upset. Syracuse has been playing well as of late and they have a balanced team; their starters average 17,16, 12, 10, and 10. Oklahoma's average 23, 14, 10, 9 and 8 but more importantly, Blake Griffin is virtually their only rebounder. If he gets some early foul trouble or pulls a hammy, the Orange will have a shot. Speaking of Syracuse, my brother brought up a good point the other day: Arinze Onuaku looks like Jonny Flynn's father.

Onuaku congratulates his son on a job well done.

-Another thing about Syracuse, I can't think of any player in recent memory more annoying than Eric Devendorf. Everything from his "ghetto" tattoos, to his ridiculous on-court posturing and trash talking, to his abuse of women screams "I am an ignorant tool." But it's not so much his classless behavior that bothers me. I mean, Jason Williams (the former Kings pg, not the announcer turned murderer or the motorcycle enthusiast) had the same "trailer park thug" vibe as Devendorf , but he was at least fun to watch. Devendorf is a chucker extraordinaire who thinks he's God's gift to the game of basketball. Pat Forde recently wrote an article for ESPN where he interviewed Devendorf. "I'm a good dude, man. I'm a down-to-Earth dude" he says. Give me a break. Remember his celebration after his supposed game winner against UConn? Not exactly the actions of a "down-to-Earth dude." As Frank Costanza once said: This guy, this is not my kind of guy. End of rant.

-I couldn't have been more disappointed with Arizona's success this weekend. Why? Because it validates the idea of putting "name" schools who had mediocre seasons into the tourney. Are the Wildcats one of the best 65 teams in the country? Probably, yeah. But their resume did not merit them getting in. They only won 6 more games than they lost, for Christ's sake. You're telling me if, for instance, Oregon State had the same resume they would have been tourney-bound? Now, the next time some bum on the selection committee is arguing for an average school from a power conference to get in over a mid-major team that had the best season in school in school history but bowed out in the conference championship game, he can just say "Look at Arizona in '09."

-One trend I've noticed is that not many guys are rocking the high socks these days. The fashion statement that has made a huge impact has been, regrettably, the arm band/sleeve thing first popularized by Allen Iverson. For the life of me I can't figure out what possible purpose, medical or otherwise, this could serve, other than maybe covering up obscene tattoos. I'm assuming it's a "this looks cool" type thing, in which case I'm fine with it. I just wish they would admit that it's a fashion statement, instead of hiding behind the "my doctor told me I had to wear this because it keeps my arm warm" excuse. They should implement a rule that you have to be one of the top two players on your team to wear a sleeve. If you come off the bench or average less than 10 points a game and are wearing a sleeve, you're probably a jackass.

-Finally, the commercials this weekend are getting stale like you wouldn't believe. I watched most of the games, and every game used more or less the same rotation. This consisted of the Axe commercial with the sweatiest man in the world, three or four Sonic commercials with the two guys in the drive-thru, the "alright class, let's button it" for that phone company, the Jordan Legendary ones, and a car commercial or two here and there. Some of these are moderately funny, but seeing them twenty to thirty times in a day tends to ruin the humor.

Review: The Dark Knight

I saw the Dark Knight a whopping three times in the theaters, which ties it with The Lion King for films I've seen the most times on the big screen. I saw it once more on DVD and during finals I would sporadically watch clips of it on Youtube. I was convinced it was the greatest movie of all time after my first viewing. Now that it's been a few months and "Dark Knight" mania is over, I've had some time to reflect and think a bit more critically. Without further ado (adue?), my thoughts.

Background: I was one of those weird little kids who rooted for the bad guys. Obviously this made me a huge Joker fan. In fact, my pillow case right now is a green-haired, red-lipped, maniacal Joker laughing his ass off with word HA! littered across the pillow. Growing up, I remember being less than impressed by the Cesar Romero Joker in the ridiculous yet comical 1960's Batman television series. I wasn't crazy about Jack Nicholson's Joker either. He didn't look like the Joker; he was too fat. In 2005, Batman Begins came out, and I thought it was very good, but not great. I was a little disappointed after learning that Heath Ledger was going to be playing the Joker, but this was obviously unfounded.

What Worked:The acting performances are top-notch. The characters work off each other perfectly and their interactions never feel forced. The minute exchanges between them, like when Alfred talks briefly to Dent, or Bruce's unrequited love for Rachel that's present throughout the film but rarely mentioned, are a big reason why this movie is successful from a dramatic standpoint.
The cinematography is amazing, especially in IMAX. The scenes in Hong Kong are the most visually stunning I've ever seen. The gritty style of the fight scenes was a nice contrast to a lot of the heavily stylized action films of late(Matrix, 300, V for Vendetta, etc.). In TDK, it's hard to tell who's beating up who.
In a movie this "big", it was the subtle things that pushed it from being a good action movie to being a legitimately great film. The best example for me came in the opening robbery scene. Check it out around 5:51.


On his way out of the bank, the Joker grabs the bank manager's (William Fichtner) shotgun, which he uses later when he crashes Dent's party. That about sums up his character right there.

What Didn't Work: I would have liked to see some of the scenes flushed out a little more, instead of ending with cutaways. For instance, the scene where the Joker pushes Rachel out the window simply ends with Batman and Rachel lying on a car. Did the Joker and his men just leave after that? Did Batman try to chase after them? Another example, the Joker/Dent scene in the hospital. Did Two Face just walk away? How did he get out of the hospital? The most glaring problem, though, was the scene on the ferry. You mean to tell me that no one thought to inspect the boats for dynamite when a psychopathic killer just blew up a hospital?

Best Scene(s): The opening bank heist was the best scene in the movie. It's one of my favorite scenes in a movie, ever. The interrogation scene was brilliant as well and so was the Joker/Dent hospital chat, which gives the viewer more insight into the Joker's character and motivations (or lack thereof). It's also a brilliant depiction of how the Joker can get inside someones head. Harvey is permanently scarred and his potential wife is dead, yet the Joker still manages to turn Harvey's fury onto the corrupt cops and Batman. A scene that flew a bit under the radar was the one immediately following the bank heist, with Scarecrow and the fake Batmen. Juxtaposed with the heist, it smacks you right in the face and sets the tone for the rest of the film.
If I had to rank them, I'd go 1)bank heist 2)interrogation 3)Dent/Joker in the hospital 4)Scarecrow/fake Batmen
The closing dialogue from Gordon is great too. It ends this film, but makes it clear that the story is not over, a lot like the ending of Batman Begins. I'm interested to see where they could go from here, though, especially with Ledger's death.

Worst Scene(s): Tough question. If I could take out one scene/plot line it would probably be the whole Hong Kong adventure, although if that would eliminate the unbelievable background scenery. They could have at least cut this scene up a little bit, and given more time to other, more important sequences. Also, the scene in the jail where the whole place explodes, but the Joker somehow is the only one still standing. How would all the people around him get knocked out, but not him? Finally, the car chase scene (with Gordon driving the armored car with Dent in it) was a little over the top. The scene as a whole was exciting as hell, but the Batmobile jumping in front of the Joker’s rocket was ridiculous. How the hell would Batman know the Joker was firing at that exact moment? I’m picking at nits here, but that was too over the top. Thankfully, that was the only time the action scenes crossed into Live Free or Die Hard territory.

Best Line(s): The Joker's "Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established social order, and everything becomes chaos" was my favorite line. Also thought that Alfred's musings about the bandit in Burma, "Some men aren't interested in anything logical...some men just want to watch the world burn" was awesome.


I liked the nod to the first film here too. Wayne tells Alfred that "criminals aren't complicated" which is exactly what Ra's al Ghoul (Liam Neeson's character in the first film) told him during his training. Nice touch.

Worst Line(s): During the bank robbery "Where'd you learn to count?" seemed kind of trite. "I good with calculation" was pretty lame too, although Dent's retort "How long do you calculate you'd last in there" was funny. Dent's "The night is darkest just before the dawn" line was good, but is that even true?
Unsung Hero: Gary Oldman. Gordon has a quiet strength about him. He's the calming presence in the film. Hard to believe this is the same guy who played Sid Vicious in Sid and Nancy and Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK. By the way, where does the term "unsung" hero come from? Is there such a thing as a "sung" hero?

Final Analysis: The best comic book adaptation of all time. One of the greatest action/crime films of all time. A rare films that is entertaining as hell yet makes you think. Similar to last year's No Country for Old Men, it stayed with me for days afterwards. It's rewatchable time and again despite it's length. That being said, not without its flaws. Nolan gets a little too cute with the editing at times and there's a few over the top action scenes. Still, these flaws are easy to overlook due to the excellence of everything else.
Grade:9.5/10

Title

So I settled on a title: Zeitgeist. I'm not a huge fan of it, but it's far better than "Random Thoughts." According to Wikipeida, Zeitgeist refers to "the intellectual, cultural, ethical and political climate, ambiance and morals of an era or also a trend." From dictionary.com, "the spirit of the time; general trend of thought or feeling characteristic of a particular period of time."

Since I'm planning on writing mostly about pop culture stuff (sports, film, television, music, etc.) it makes sense, though I'm certainly open to suggestions. Zeitgeist is also the name of the latest Smashing Pumpkins album, which was not very good. But the cover is cool...

Intro

I was avoiding work on the internet today when I got this idea to start a blog. Last year my assistant basketball coach was always telling me that I should get one, so Coach Shannon, wherever you are, this is dedicated to you. I'm not sure what the purpose of a blog actually is, and I've always thought of them as slightly self-indulgent, but whatever. I've got some free time this semester, so instead of procrastinating by watching YouTube clips and reading the Onion I can now procrastinate by "blogging.”


After a futile half hour spent trying to come up with a witty/funny title for this thing, I decided to go with "Random Thoughts." My feeling is that a title will emerge when the time is right (that was sarcasm). If anyone has any ideas, you’re welcome to pass them along to me. Speaking of which, I feel somewhat awkward writing this, since I have no idea who the audience is.

Also, I saw a trailer for Watchmen the other day, and even though it gave away what seemed to be a big plot point, it looks sick. Thus the blood stained smiley face. I hope this movie doesn’t suck.