No Feist!?!

These are for all you Starbucksheads.

The Oscars — ‘Once’ wins!

So I got two of my Oscar picks wrong – not bad. I don’t remember why I didn’t pick Diablo Cody to win, but I’m glad she did.

Yay for ONCE! It was pretty lame that Marketa Irglova got cut off, but pretty awesome that Jon Stewart gave her time later.

The only reason why the ceremony keeps going so long every year is because of the pointless montages. Besides the standard In Memoriam and a fun one thrown in just for kicks, every one of them should have been cut. Though I did enjoy the “Salute to Binoculars and Waking Up from a Bad Dream” mini montages.

I love Jon Stewart, so I loved him tonight. If you don’t get or enjoy his humor, you probably thought he did poorly. But every one of his wisecracks were great.

I’m glad No Country won. Much has been said about There Will Be Blood, but that movie was Daniel Day-Lewis, and he was properly awarded for it. I think the right choice was made so that in 50 years, when they show another montage of past Best Picture winners, people will still actually like and remember No Country, as opposed to Crash, Around the World in Eighty Days, Million Dollar Baby, etc.

I love movies.

“Chad picks classic flicks: ‘12 Angry Men’”

Originally published in the North Central Chronicle – Feb. 22, 2008

I was about 7 years old when O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder. I’ve seen the highlights—the slow-speed chase, O.J. struggling with the glove—but I don’t remember the sensational media coverage or the racial debates regarding the verdict. I can only assume the jury felt tremendous pressure to get it right; a guilty verdict would have sent Simpson to death row, while ruling him not guilty would set him free.

            The question of guilty versus innocent and right versus wrong has captivated rational minds for centuries. In our justice system, the final judgment of wrongdoers is laid on the conscience and common sense of their peers. But when fallible and differing human beings must unite under one clear, unanimous decision, there is bound to be conflict. And conflict is exactly what happens in Sidney Lumet’s “12 Angry Men” (1957).

            A young ruffian has been accused of premeditated murder. The judge sends the jury into deliberation of what appears to be an open-and-shut case. The twelve jurors file into a cramped back room to debate the case, but 11 of them have already assumed the defendant’s guilt. The twelfth one, however, is not so sure. He, juror number 8 (Henry Fonda) is the only one who leaves room for reasonable doubt.

            So they are forced to endure the stifling heat and convince Juror Number 8 to change his vote. As the tension builds with the humidity, the jurors sweat the details of the case and each man’s faults and prejudices surface. One man sees the defendant as a stereotypical child of the slums and makes his judgments accordingly. Another cares more about making it to a baseball game that night than deciding the fate of a man.

We learn of the case piece by piece through the jury’s deliberation, and slowly we see our own perceptions of the defendant’s alleged crime, and of the jurors themselves, change. Juror Number 8 is meant to be the hero of the film, but he represents more; he is willing to stand up for an unpopular belief amidst heavy and vocal opposition, and his voice of reason and empathy starts to convince other jurors to take change their vote. But I could see a part of myself in each one of the jurors; the reasonable, the indifferent, the stubborn, and the intolerant.

“12 Angry Men” is similar to “Rear Window” in that all but about three minutes of the film takes place in one room, creating a heightened sense of claustrophobia for the viewer and for the jurors. In a pressure-filled situation like that, the worst in a person spills out, resulting in ad hominem attacks and irrational behavior. It’s like “The Real World,” except well-made.

This film should not have worked. Watching twelve men sit in a room and just talk for an hour and a half does not sound very fun, but the actors inhabit their characters and make us believe we’re in that stuffy room with them. We are drawn into solving the murder mystery with the jurors, and we soon start to make our own conclusions, however unsubstantiated or unfair they are.

“12 Angry Men” succeeds were a good dramatic film should: it entertains us, with colorful characters waging a war of words in a stress-filled environment; and it also makes us think, about the concept of right and wrong and about our own prejudices. With a one-two punch like that, “12 Angry Men” deserves no less than top billing on your Netflix queue.

Listen up, Academy…

My 2007 ACADEMY AWARD PICKS:

Best Picture
Who will win: No Country for Old Men
Who should win: No Country for Old Men

Best Director
Who will win: The Coen Brothers for No Country for Old Men
Who should win: The Coen Brothers

Best Actor
Who will win: Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood
Who should win: Johnny Depp for Sweeney Todd

Best Actress
Who will win: Julie Christie for Away from Her
Who should win: Laura Linney for The Savages

Best Supporting Actor
Who will win: Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men
Who should win: Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men

Best Supporting Actress
Who will win: Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton
Who should win: Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton

Best Animated Film
Which will win: Ratatouille

Best Original Song
Which will win: “Falling Slowly” from Once
Which should win: “Falling Slowly” from Once

Best Adapted Screenplay
Who will win: Coen Brothers for No Country for Old Men
Who should win: Coen Brothers

Best Original Screenplay
Who will win: Tony Gilroy for Michael Clayton
Who should win: Brad Bird for Ratatouille

I saw Across the Universe today, oh boy…

I just watched Across the Universe with my sister after putting it off for awhile.

It sucked. It sucked real bad.

Admittedly, I had a bad attitude about it before I even saw it. I’m a bit of a Beatles purist, so anytime someone tries to cover their songs or use their lyrics for some crappy project, I’ll already be put off.

I started guessing the plot points correctly, and I never do that. The acting is completely forgettable and the plot is so contrived. Granted, it was formed from a weird amalgam of Beatles lyrics, but that’s the problem. It was just one long expensive music video.

If the covers were good, I might have excused the rest of the movie, but I became so annoyed with the strained, operatic moaning of the leads that this film became unforgivable.

The set design, costumes, and art direction is obviously very radiant and inspired. I give this film major props for its daring and creativity.

But what the hell? STOP INTERPRETING THE BEATLES! Just listen to their original music – on vinyl if possible. It’s way better than having to sit through over two hours of pretentious twentysomethings slaughter brilliant music.

In conclusion, do listen to Abbey Road. Do NOT watch Across the Universe. It sucked. It sucked real bad.

better than the registry

A few thoughts on this here Valentine’s Day…

- I don’t want to go the cynic’s route, but Valentine’s Day has been taken captive by capitalism. Flowers, chocolates, generic greeting cards, and date movies are not prerequisites for love.

-I’m single, anxiously awaiting my bride, and I am happy. But I am taking the initiative on our future love by writing her love letters every year on Valentine’s Day and whenever else I want. I tell her how I love her now and how I will love her when we meet and beyond. I encourage you to do the same thing for your future spouse. It will be a better wedding night gift than anything on the registry.

- I want to second Natalie’s thoughts about the film In America. Its humanity and heartbreak weighed heavily on me. I recommend this film for anyone who has a soul.

- How will you treat your loved ones tomorrow, or six months from now, when there is no pressure to deliver?

forever…

The Turner Classic Movies channel is showing Academy Award winning films all day every day this month in a series called “31 Days of Oscar.” I watched Lord of the Rings: Return of the King last night and realized something.

I would remember that trilogy for the rest of my life.

I hadn’t read the books before I saw the first movie. I remember seeing the trailer and being very intrigued. Then I saw the movie and knew I had seen something incredible. I was in 8th grade when Fellowship came out. After that, my friend Tim and I became obsessive teen fanboys. He had read the trilogy plus the supplemental materials before, but we enjoyed the movies together.

I kept a daily countdown until the release of The Two Towers. Every day in chemistry class I would tell my friend Chris how many days were left; he wouldn’t care, but I couldn’t care enough. We bought our tickets in advance and went opening weekend I believe.

We repeated the same process for Return of the King, except I read all of the books before I saw it. I simply could not wait until December to find out what happened. (I’ve read the trilogy twice through since then.) So seeing Return, I had a different perspective, yet I enjoyed it as much as I did the others.

I remember being picked up from school with Tim by my sister Elise. Tim was just crawling into the back seat when Elise began to accelerate. Tim’s foot was not yet in the door, so it got caught beneath the moving tires for a moment. He was pretty jarred, but he made it, and we made to the theater to enjoy what we knew would be the final run-through of our annual ritual. Though we could extend our ritual further with the release of the extended DVDs. I’ve since watched the entire trilogy straight through with Tim – good times.

Lord of the Rings went on to box office and Oscar glory, but it also won the hearts of many youth. My dad never caught on to it – the weird names and twisting plot makes it hard for the Boomers to latch onto it. But it is essentially the Star Wars of my generation. Filmmakers will try for its revolutionary special effects and cultural impact for years. But above all, I will always associate LOTR with the fondness of my youth.

I will think of the great epic story, the lovable heroes, and the grand magic of cinema that creates a world out of nothing to entertain and enlighten the child in everyone.

Here’s lookin’ at you, Frodo.

her name is Alotta…

I was at the Union again last night, working the concession stand. The first band played, then they were hanging out by their merch table. A trio of girls, probably my age, sauntered in and started to flirt with the drummer of the first band.

I’ve seen this before. It has happened to me at shows. Generally, I feel awkward in those situations but I can still find a way to survive. But these girls, and this guy with his pants hanging down (what is this, middle school?), tattoos on display, and drumsticks in his hands, put on a show of their own.

One girl had the dark look; slick black hair, black Uggs, tanned face, eyeliner, and fairly prominent cleavage. The second girl I don’t remember. But the third one, the ring leader, is unforgettable. She had brown Uggs, tight jeans and shirts, and effortless blond brown curls (read: hours in front of the mirror). But all of these features were meant to complement her cleavage. Even more so than the first girl.

(Side note: I was not purposely seeking out cleavage; it sort of found me. But there is a point to all of this…)

My friend at the concession stand had seen them as well and was struggling to contain her contempt, especially with the third girl. She looked flustered, then said, “Sorry, I was just having a problem with women for a second.”

I understood what she meant. She resented this girl’s objectification of her own body for means of gaining fleeting attention from a guy who probably didn’t even know her name. So beyond that reason, and this is my question; why do women do that? I suppose I could answer it myself, but I’d rather hear it from them.

Is it about self-esteem? Attention? Or do girls just do it for fun? Maybe it’s all of those.

“War is hell”

Published in the North Central Chronicle – February 8, 2008

John Edwards is out of the race. I think he would have made a fine president. His fight against poverty and corruption did not jive well with mainstream media narratives, though they were well-publicized cornerstones of Edwards’ stump speech. But his other equally important message also failed to catch on. After voting to authorize the Iraq War in 2002, Edwards soon reversed his position on the war, and last year created a movement called “Support the Troops. End the War.”

Today, the country’s attention has become fixed on the state of the economy more than the war in Iraq. Of course, as a capitalist nation we like to know how our dollar is doing (for those less interested in current events: it’s not doing so well), but our collective mammonism has diverted our attention away from the war, where men, women, and children are being killed.

Killed. Every single day.

It is hard to fully grasp this concept. Unlike previous American wars, those holding down the home front don’t have to sacrifice anything to keep the war going. During the Civil War, families lost their only income when men served and died on bloody battlefields. During World War II, Americans rationed food and supplies, worked in munitions factories, and were drafted to topple tyranny.

But for this war, there is no draft or call to service by the president, so all we have to do is watch B-roll of chaotic Iraqi marketplaces and argue broad talking points from the comfort and safety of our computer chairs.

That is why, I would argue, the war has not been ended yet. We remain complacent and unaware of what it means to fight a war. I’ve become so desensitized to war images that it seems like no big deal, like it is a video game. I suppose we should ask the family of Spc. Richard Burress, who died two weeks ago from a roadside bomb, if his death was no big deal.

The truth is that war is hell. Soldiers know this, and politicians know how to prevent us from knowing this. They ban images of Americans being killed from appearing in media because, as we found out after the Abu Ghraib scandal, that would cause the public to realize what is actually happening and demand that something be done to stop it.

Regardless of what pundits say, it is possible to support the troops yet not support their mission. President Bush seems to do the opposite. He sends insufficient and ill-equipped troops into a situation even Vice President Cheney knew would become a “quagmire,” then fails to remedy the horrific conditions at Walter Reed hospital and others like it. Yet he said, and kept saying, that we all should support the troops, and implied that anyone who did not was a terrorist-sympathizer. So much for being the “uniter.”

Still, I support the troops. I don’t support their mission, whatever that is (the president has yet to make it clear), but I absolutely, resolutely will support the troops. I don’t have bumper stickers or American flag lapel pins to prove it, but since when did a flimsy piece of plastic indicate one’s amount of patriotism? These men and women volunteer to serve at the high risk of injury, maimedness, or death. They leave their families for weeks, months, even years, to secure and maintain order in a disorderly country while trying to avoid getting a bullet in the brain or shrapnel in the eye. They inspire me – and relieve me from fighting a war we have no business fighting.

I trust you, the (hopefully) well-informed and sensible voter, have been able to see through the malarkey the candidates have been feeding us and decide who will better determine our future in Iraq. I’m living on a prayer that our next president will at least have the gumption, like Edwards did, to support the troops and end the war.

Who made Mike Huckabee, part II

Witness the grand finale of the O’Brien/Stewart/Colbert tiff in one epic night of late night comedy.