As I understand it, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame band Van Halen had a rule for their concerts: in the dressing rooms, there were to be bowls of M&M's with the brown ones removed.
When I first heard of this, I thought it was petty to the extreme. But then I heard the reasoning: it was about the host's attention to detail. If they can't get something so simple as removing brown M&M's right, could they screw up details like lighting, sound, and stage construction?
I think of the "Brown M&M Standard" frequently. For instance...
George Will writes of a court case in which three airlines are defending their right to tell their customers how much their ticket prices are consumed by taxes (hat tip: Cafe Hayek).
Is this censorship destroying the country? No.
Is it bankrupting us? No.
Are babies dying because of this? No.
In the grand scheme, it seems like a stupid, but relatively insignificant, regulation.
On the other hand, it seems to me to have enormous implications.
Because it is clearly immoral and unconstitutional. Someone who thinks a "government" has the right to censor "commercial speech" is like a concert promoter who doesn't accommodate Van Halen's brown M&M request.
While it doesn't seem like a big deal on the surface, it comes down to this: If you really think the government can censor an airline's attempt to tell customers how much they're paying in taxes, you have a mentality that is destroying the country. If you can't think clearly about this simple issue, what does it say about your judgement on larger, more "significant" public policy matters?
Monday, May 06, 2013
Thursday, May 02, 2013
The Dust Bowl
I didn't see Part 1, but I did see Part 2 of Ken Burns' The Dust Bowl on PBS.
Burns made it all too clear that it was a man-made ecological disaster, as farmers implemented eastern farming methods to a grassland to which it is not easily adapted.
But he also kind of makes FDR and the Works Progress Administration somewhat "heroes" for not abandoning the Dust Bowl area, whose epicenter was in the Oklahoma panhandle. Those who got WPA jobs got some income and were better off.
And yet, FDR's Treasury Secretary, Harold Ickes, recommended abandoning the area and its people altogether. I'm inclined to agree that this should have been the course to take. The whole system - conquest (or purchase) of land, the homestead guarantee, exterminating Indians, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the boom-bust cycle - all were predicated on the federal "government" trying to "do something."
West of the Missouri River, much of America really is a "desert" in which the prospect of bountiful crops is unreliable at best. Only modern machinery and irrigation, that depletes the Ogallala Aquifer, supports grain farming.
Perhaps we would have been better off if "the government" that Ken Burns worships got out of the way. Instead of bailing out Dust Bowl farmers, FDR should have abandoned them entirely.
The area naturally belongs to ranchers, not farmers. It's for cattle grazing, not commodity crops. The Nebraska Sandhills should've been an example. It's a fairly pristine ecosystem. It's great for cattle grazing, but little else.
Instead of depleting fresh underground water, free trade is the best way for the world to feed its people. Where there's drought in one place, there may be bountiful crops across the ocean. No one needs to go hungry if trade barriers were eliminated.
Burns made it all too clear that it was a man-made ecological disaster, as farmers implemented eastern farming methods to a grassland to which it is not easily adapted.
But he also kind of makes FDR and the Works Progress Administration somewhat "heroes" for not abandoning the Dust Bowl area, whose epicenter was in the Oklahoma panhandle. Those who got WPA jobs got some income and were better off.
And yet, FDR's Treasury Secretary, Harold Ickes, recommended abandoning the area and its people altogether. I'm inclined to agree that this should have been the course to take. The whole system - conquest (or purchase) of land, the homestead guarantee, exterminating Indians, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the boom-bust cycle - all were predicated on the federal "government" trying to "do something."
West of the Missouri River, much of America really is a "desert" in which the prospect of bountiful crops is unreliable at best. Only modern machinery and irrigation, that depletes the Ogallala Aquifer, supports grain farming.
Perhaps we would have been better off if "the government" that Ken Burns worships got out of the way. Instead of bailing out Dust Bowl farmers, FDR should have abandoned them entirely.
The area naturally belongs to ranchers, not farmers. It's for cattle grazing, not commodity crops. The Nebraska Sandhills should've been an example. It's a fairly pristine ecosystem. It's great for cattle grazing, but little else.
Instead of depleting fresh underground water, free trade is the best way for the world to feed its people. Where there's drought in one place, there may be bountiful crops across the ocean. No one needs to go hungry if trade barriers were eliminated.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Comments Ethics
I just published this on Rod Dreher's blog (though awaiting moderation as I write this):
Here's the thing: there were 51 comments before I commented. I didn't read any of them. And, I'm unlikely to read more of them.
Nor do I feel the need to read follow-up comments.
If a dozen other people made the same point that I made in their comments, great. If I added another, that's a further signal to Rod that he's missing the point. The more the better.
I figure, if people want to debate things, there are still forum boards and even email lists. My comment to a blog post, however, should be regarded as having the same function as a "letter to the editor" (or in this case, the blogger). It's not to engage other commenters, but only to provide feedback to the writer of the post.
Rod Dreher and The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/12/why-is-the-media-apologizing-about-kermit-gosnell-coverage.html) make the same mistake. The controversy isn’t over the alleged horrible crimes, which people on all sides seem to recognize, it’s about a black doctor giving white patients preferential treatment. What progressive, liberal, or conservative wants to address THAT?
Here's the thing: there were 51 comments before I commented. I didn't read any of them. And, I'm unlikely to read more of them.
Nor do I feel the need to read follow-up comments.
If a dozen other people made the same point that I made in their comments, great. If I added another, that's a further signal to Rod that he's missing the point. The more the better.
I figure, if people want to debate things, there are still forum boards and even email lists. My comment to a blog post, however, should be regarded as having the same function as a "letter to the editor" (or in this case, the blogger). It's not to engage other commenters, but only to provide feedback to the writer of the post.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
Thursday, March 07, 2013
The Greatness of the Beach Boys
While running an errand, I heard the Beach Boys' "Don't Worry Baby" on the car radio.
I've heard it dozens of times, probably. It's a nice song, but I wouldn't call it a great song.
But it's a great record. The sound exploded off the radio. It had that touch reminiscent of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who. For them, even when the song itself isn't great, the record is great. Somebody in the recording studio wasn't going to rest until everything was just right.
I don't know if the Beach Boys got the respect due them until the Pet Sounds album.
But it seems to me that they brought a level of professionalism and quality to pop music recording that is unsurpassed.
This lip-synced version may be underwhelming, but it has the sound I'm talking about:
I've heard it dozens of times, probably. It's a nice song, but I wouldn't call it a great song.
But it's a great record. The sound exploded off the radio. It had that touch reminiscent of the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, and The Who. For them, even when the song itself isn't great, the record is great. Somebody in the recording studio wasn't going to rest until everything was just right.
I don't know if the Beach Boys got the respect due them until the Pet Sounds album.
But it seems to me that they brought a level of professionalism and quality to pop music recording that is unsurpassed.
This lip-synced version may be underwhelming, but it has the sound I'm talking about:
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Meryl Streep, The River Wild, Office Space and Rating Movies
The other night, The River Wild came on tv. It's one of the few movies in which Meryl Streep was not nominated for an Oscar.
I didn't re-watch the movie because of other plans, but I easily could have.
As I recall, the movie was judged to be about about 2 1/2 stars by critics when it came out.
When I saw it come across this past week, the Dish Network rated it 3 1/2 stars.
I'd go one bit further: this is the only Meryl Streep movie that anyone would want to see twice.
To the extent The River Wild was panned at the time, it was because it was formulaic. Also, I believe, it had to do with the oddity of Kevin Bacon playing a creep and the, well, odd screen presence of David Straithairn as Streep's husband. The performances were too odd to be believed at the time.
Over time, however, the movie has seemed to age well. The public is accustomed to Bacon in a variety of roles, including villains. They're more familiar with Straithairn.
What was once seemingly odd casting is now a case of classic casting. Those three actors made the movie.
And this thriller is a repeatedly-watchable movie. Unlike most of the period dramas Streep is known for.
I believe, those who are honest with themselves , would say The River Wild is their favorite Streep movie.
The 3.5 stars as opposed to 2.5 stars reflects this. Over time, critics and the public realized The River Wild was a better movie than previously acknowledged.
So imagine the shock and dismay when I went through channels today and saw that the Dish Network still rates Office Space at 2.5 stars.
At minimum, it's one of the ten most important movies of the 1990's.
I didn't re-watch the movie because of other plans, but I easily could have.
As I recall, the movie was judged to be about about 2 1/2 stars by critics when it came out.
When I saw it come across this past week, the Dish Network rated it 3 1/2 stars.
I'd go one bit further: this is the only Meryl Streep movie that anyone would want to see twice.
To the extent The River Wild was panned at the time, it was because it was formulaic. Also, I believe, it had to do with the oddity of Kevin Bacon playing a creep and the, well, odd screen presence of David Straithairn as Streep's husband. The performances were too odd to be believed at the time.
Over time, however, the movie has seemed to age well. The public is accustomed to Bacon in a variety of roles, including villains. They're more familiar with Straithairn.
What was once seemingly odd casting is now a case of classic casting. Those three actors made the movie.
And this thriller is a repeatedly-watchable movie. Unlike most of the period dramas Streep is known for.
I believe, those who are honest with themselves , would say The River Wild is their favorite Streep movie.
The 3.5 stars as opposed to 2.5 stars reflects this. Over time, critics and the public realized The River Wild was a better movie than previously acknowledged.
So imagine the shock and dismay when I went through channels today and saw that the Dish Network still rates Office Space at 2.5 stars.
At minimum, it's one of the ten most important movies of the 1990's.
Friday, March 01, 2013
Kowloon, Squalor, and Liberty
Not until yesterday did I find out about the Walled City of Kowloon, in Hong Kong.
After WWII, squatters set up homes in the abandoned Chinese military fort of Kowloon. The population exploded over the mere 6.5 acres, peaking at some 50,000 residents.
The place, as H.L. Mencken might have put it, barely escaped having no government at all. Aside from police raids against organized crime, and water and mail delivery from Hong Kong, it virtually didn't. No regular police force. No building codes. No regulations.
Was this, therefore, some sort of libertarian utopia?
Well, no. Utopia doesn't exist and can't exist.
But was it otherwise good?
Hard to tell.
Peter C. Earle makes a case that Kowloon functioned quite well. Others, such as the Wikipedia entry and a beautiful 2012 Daily Mail photo essay, suggest it was overridden by crime, particularly until the early 1970's.
The problem is, I don't know what they mean by "crime." Did they mean gambling and prostitution? Opium dealing? Those aren't crimes at all.
And if violent crime is meant, why did people flock to the area? Was violence rampant, or mainly confined to mobsters warring against each other?
Eventually, the city was demolished. Relative to the rest of Hong Kong, Kowloon's residents lived in squalor. They were "paid" to leave, though many had very little choice. "Eminent domain" led to a mass population removal. Their betters knew what was best for them.
But in the (admittedly few) stories I've read about Kowloon, it appears that the people lived in relative safety, had a close-knit community, and were contented despite what we might consider environmental hazards. But just because it might be uncomfortable to 21st century Americans raised on air conditioning, was it really so bad for them?
Although the food was unregulated, how many died from food poisoning? How many doctors and dentists committed fraud or malpractice? Did the lack of codes lead to building collapses or other disasters?
Was relative poverty and squalor the price Kowloon residents were willing to pay to live in freedom and peace, without police and bureaucrats breathing down your neck?
If so, I'm sympathetic. Wealth may purchase flexibility and options, but not freedom: the wealthier you are, the more lawyers and tax accountants you need. And fame makes you even less free.
So when I saw Reason's Nanny of the Month for February 2013, I began to yearn for Kowloon. No arbitrary "law," and no cop or bureaucrat, will tell me how to live!
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Fog of War, Nine Years Later
About nine years ago I saw Errol Morriss's The Fog of War, the Oscar-winning documentary featuring Robert McNamara, LBJ's Defense Secretary during the Vietnam War.
Most striking when I first watched, and now, was McNamara's 1995 encounter with North Vietnam's foreign secretary during the war. He told McNamara something like, "Don't understand? We were fighting for our independence. We weren't puppets of China; we've been fighting China for a thousand years."
What struck, and offended, Vietnamese officials was how little Americans knew about their country and its history, yet presumed to know how to "liberate" it.
That's the most upsetting thing about the crusades of the past 20-odd years in the Balkans, Central Asia, the Middle East, and now Africa. Those who advocate a "bomb first" policy have no idea who they're dealing with; and the President is the most ignorant of all.
Those are probably all the additional comments I'd want to make. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with what I wrote about The Fog of War nine years ago at The Partial Observer.
Most striking when I first watched, and now, was McNamara's 1995 encounter with North Vietnam's foreign secretary during the war. He told McNamara something like, "Don't understand? We were fighting for our independence. We weren't puppets of China; we've been fighting China for a thousand years."
What struck, and offended, Vietnamese officials was how little Americans knew about their country and its history, yet presumed to know how to "liberate" it.
That's the most upsetting thing about the crusades of the past 20-odd years in the Balkans, Central Asia, the Middle East, and now Africa. Those who advocate a "bomb first" policy have no idea who they're dealing with; and the President is the most ignorant of all.
Those are probably all the additional comments I'd want to make. Otherwise, I'm satisfied with what I wrote about The Fog of War nine years ago at The Partial Observer.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
The Presidency as Theater
I posted on Twitter Sunday night: Totally classless move to have someone who hasn't done anything announce the Best Picture Award. #Oscars
That person, of course, was Michelle Obama, who's only claim to fame is that her husband is the chief executive of the United States government.
The Independent Institute's Mary Theroux was similarly unimpressed:
That person, of course, was Michelle Obama, who's only claim to fame is that her husband is the chief executive of the United States government.
The Independent Institute's Mary Theroux was similarly unimpressed:
The culmination of last night’s Oscars broadcast with a Live! feed from the White House with Mrs. Obama (hangin’ with her military BFs) marks the official recognition of the Presidency as theater: like the old Western sets, no substance required.Read the whole thing.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
My Oscar Tweets
Follow me @Twitter: https://twitter.com/JamesLWilson
Didn't start right away with the opening, which was about as good as I expected. After the awards started, I started tweeting things like this...
Cinephotography [sic] winner reminds me of Chris Farley. #Oscars
Question: where does one get to see animated and live action shorts? I have 100's of channels, don't know where to see them. #Oscars
I never watched #AmericanIdol. Who beat Jennifer Hudson? #Oscars
How self-indulgent can the entertainment industry be? The #Oscars paying tribute to the #Tonys.
Best Film Editor MUST count as a Major #Oscar.
#Oscars totally catered to women and gays. I watch for jokes and clips of movies I overlooked. They watch for the production numbers.
10 Best Picture nominees instead of 5. #WorstIdeaEver #TotallyUnnecessary I'll gripe about this the rest of my life.
Someone's already pissed off about someone left off the In Memorium list. #Oscars.
Even still, John Williams is the best ever! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7T98bF0O60 … #Oscars
F U, Zero Dark 30, for relying on illegal leaks to make your movie. #FREEBRADLEYMANNING #Oscars
Daniel Day Lewis forever scarred with "I will find you" in Last of the Mohicans 20 years ago. Worst movie ad ever made. #Oscars
Totally classless move to have someone who hasn't done anything announce the Best Picture Award. #Oscars
2 films I saw in theater 2012: Argo, #Oscar winner, and Avengers, box office winner. #fingeronthepulse Follow me @Twitter: https://twitter.com/JamesLWilson
'
Didn't start right away with the opening, which was about as good as I expected. After the awards started, I started tweeting things like this...
Cinephotography [sic] winner reminds me of Chris Farley. #Oscars
Question: where does one get to see animated and live action shorts? I have 100's of channels, don't know where to see them. #Oscars
I never watched #AmericanIdol. Who beat Jennifer Hudson? #Oscars
How self-indulgent can the entertainment industry be? The #Oscars paying tribute to the #Tonys.
Best Film Editor MUST count as a Major #Oscar.
#Oscars totally catered to women and gays. I watch for jokes and clips of movies I overlooked. They watch for the production numbers.
10 Best Picture nominees instead of 5. #WorstIdeaEver #TotallyUnnecessary I'll gripe about this the rest of my life.
Someone's already pissed off about someone left off the In Memorium list. #Oscars.
Even still, John Williams is the best ever! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7T98bF0O60 … #Oscars
F U, Zero Dark 30, for relying on illegal leaks to make your movie. #FREEBRADLEYMANNING #Oscars
Daniel Day Lewis forever scarred with "I will find you" in Last of the Mohicans 20 years ago. Worst movie ad ever made. #Oscars
Totally classless move to have someone who hasn't done anything announce the Best Picture Award. #Oscars
2 films I saw in theater 2012: Argo, #Oscar winner, and Avengers, box office winner. #fingeronthepulse Follow me @Twitter: https://twitter.com/JamesLWilson
'
Do you need to get the mail more than twice a week?
The news that U.S. postal delivery will end on Saturdays, accompaned by the news that thousands of Post Offices are closing, got me thinking: is that all they can do?
But then I thought, are these the things they should do?
Short of the best (and only moral) option of de-monopolizing second-class letter delivery and selling off the Post Office, it seems to make sense to explore more creative options.
For instance, my county is very sparsely populated. Also, I don't need mail delivery every day. Actually, I don't need it more than twice a week.
Furthermore, the mail doesn't come to my home. I have a free mailbox at my village's Post Office.
If that Post Office closes, I'll still be getting mail, but it will be at a box in my home. Every day, people in my village will still get their mail through a house to house carrier than through the Post Office. There are also drivers who deliver daily to farms and other country houses.
Why waste the gas on home delivery, when the Postal Service already owns a building right in town?
Instead of closing the building, why not keep it open two days a week instead of six? Why not have delivery in the countryside twice a week, instead of daily?
The same staff could work three nearby villages at once:
This won't amount to savings of two-thirds. But it savings may be half, considering the reduced staff, gas, and heat/electricity for the buildings.
What about the major cities, with house-to-house deliveries?
Do you need mail delivery twice a week?
Why can't the same postal carrier work three neighborhoods on the same principle: Neighborhood A gets delivery Monday and Thursday, etc.
I suppose one problem, based on my experience as an urban apartment dweller, is that the mailbox in the apartment "lobby" may not be big enough for all the junk mail if it's only delivered twice weekly.
But as for real mail - correspondence from people you know, bills, and other important documents, do you really need to get it more than twice a week?
But then I thought, are these the things they should do?
Short of the best (and only moral) option of de-monopolizing second-class letter delivery and selling off the Post Office, it seems to make sense to explore more creative options.
For instance, my county is very sparsely populated. Also, I don't need mail delivery every day. Actually, I don't need it more than twice a week.
Furthermore, the mail doesn't come to my home. I have a free mailbox at my village's Post Office.
If that Post Office closes, I'll still be getting mail, but it will be at a box in my home. Every day, people in my village will still get their mail through a house to house carrier than through the Post Office. There are also drivers who deliver daily to farms and other country houses.
Why waste the gas on home delivery, when the Postal Service already owns a building right in town?
Instead of closing the building, why not keep it open two days a week instead of six? Why not have delivery in the countryside twice a week, instead of daily?
The same staff could work three nearby villages at once:
- Village A's Post Office is open, and rural delivery in the nearby area, is on Monday and Thursday. .
- Village B: Tuesday and Friday.
- Village C: Wednesday and Saturday.
This won't amount to savings of two-thirds. But it savings may be half, considering the reduced staff, gas, and heat/electricity for the buildings.
What about the major cities, with house-to-house deliveries?
Do you need mail delivery twice a week?
Why can't the same postal carrier work three neighborhoods on the same principle: Neighborhood A gets delivery Monday and Thursday, etc.
I suppose one problem, based on my experience as an urban apartment dweller, is that the mailbox in the apartment "lobby" may not be big enough for all the junk mail if it's only delivered twice weekly.
But as for real mail - correspondence from people you know, bills, and other important documents, do you really need to get it more than twice a week?
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
What's with the obsession with statues?
The Lakers' Jerry Buss may have been the best sports franchise owner in America over the past 30-plus years.
Now that he's passed away, there's talk of building a statue of him in front of the Lakers' arena.
Why do people always want to build statues, especially of sports heroes?
I always go back to Firefly's Mal Reynolds: "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another."
There are plenty of ways sports heroes are honored. Halls of Fame. Record books. Incredible wealth.
And we know most of these people are, well, one kind of sommbitch or another.
I think the level of idolatry in which one becomes "immortal" via a statue is kind of creepy.
I just don't get it.
Now that he's passed away, there's talk of building a statue of him in front of the Lakers' arena.
Why do people always want to build statues, especially of sports heroes?
I always go back to Firefly's Mal Reynolds: "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another."
There are plenty of ways sports heroes are honored. Halls of Fame. Record books. Incredible wealth.
And we know most of these people are, well, one kind of sommbitch or another.
I think the level of idolatry in which one becomes "immortal" via a statue is kind of creepy.
I just don't get it.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Royce White's problem is his moral compass, NOT his mental illness
I recently saw a profile of NBA 1st-round draftee, but non-NBA player Royce White, on REAL Sports With Byrant Gumbel.
White had made a 4-page list of demands for the Houston Rockets, the franchise that drafted him, to accommodate his mental health issues, including his own doctor who alone would decide if he could or couldn't play.
Because the Rockets wouldn't agree to these demands, White seems to be making himself out as a martyr because he thinks his mental illness issues gives him the same rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act as anyone else, not to mention that he thinks his mental illness should be treated the same way as a basketball-related injury.
Wrong and wrong.
Whatever White's issues are - and they seem to be both extensive and random - they don't replace one's fundamental moral compass. Someone in my circles has had mental health issues for over 30 years, including suicide attempts. But it never seemed to affect her common sense. For instance, she's accepted that she was unemployable because of unreliability.
She knows that she's not entitled to anything. Even when she does behave erratically, everything she does is against herself, and not about demanding stuff from others
White must know that any basketball prodigy who wrecked a knee before entering the NBA is not entitled to an NBA paycheck.Yet he claims that he does?
Does a basketball player without an arm deserve a chance at the NBA under the Americans With Disabilities Act?
Then how do YOU, Royce, pretend that you're so entitled? There is no moral blame on yourself for your mental illness, but there is, likewise, no reason whatsoever that the Houston Rockets are obliged to accommodate you. Your mental illness isn't you're fault, but it's not their fault either. The basketball season takes a toll on the mind and psyche as much as it does on the body. If you can't handle it, you can't handle it. Most of us can't handle it. You don't have a right to it. Nobody does.
Anyone that doesn't have a sense of entitlement understands this.
After all, Royce, would you go to a Tarzan movie with a one-legged star?
No?
Then why should we pay to see a game where you may or may not show up?
I'm sympathetic to those with mental health issues. I'm NOT sympathetic to hypocrites.
White had made a 4-page list of demands for the Houston Rockets, the franchise that drafted him, to accommodate his mental health issues, including his own doctor who alone would decide if he could or couldn't play.
Because the Rockets wouldn't agree to these demands, White seems to be making himself out as a martyr because he thinks his mental illness issues gives him the same rights under the Americans With Disabilities Act as anyone else, not to mention that he thinks his mental illness should be treated the same way as a basketball-related injury.
Wrong and wrong.
Whatever White's issues are - and they seem to be both extensive and random - they don't replace one's fundamental moral compass. Someone in my circles has had mental health issues for over 30 years, including suicide attempts. But it never seemed to affect her common sense. For instance, she's accepted that she was unemployable because of unreliability.
She knows that she's not entitled to anything. Even when she does behave erratically, everything she does is against herself, and not about demanding stuff from others
White must know that any basketball prodigy who wrecked a knee before entering the NBA is not entitled to an NBA paycheck.Yet he claims that he does?
Does a basketball player without an arm deserve a chance at the NBA under the Americans With Disabilities Act?
Then how do YOU, Royce, pretend that you're so entitled? There is no moral blame on yourself for your mental illness, but there is, likewise, no reason whatsoever that the Houston Rockets are obliged to accommodate you. Your mental illness isn't you're fault, but it's not their fault either. The basketball season takes a toll on the mind and psyche as much as it does on the body. If you can't handle it, you can't handle it. Most of us can't handle it. You don't have a right to it. Nobody does.
Anyone that doesn't have a sense of entitlement understands this.
After all, Royce, would you go to a Tarzan movie with a one-legged star?
No?
Then why should we pay to see a game where you may or may not show up?
I'm sympathetic to those with mental health issues. I'm NOT sympathetic to hypocrites.
An Underrated Criterion For Movie Quality: Length
Two movies I recently watched were Our Idiot Brother and John Carter.
I found both quite enjoyable. And one reason is that neither were overly-long.
Our Idiot Brother is the flipside of a comedy of wild misunderstandings -- it's about what transpires when there's frank, but not malicious, honesty. It's not a classic, but it's well-written and performed. Yet here's the thing...
After 90 minutes I was done with these characters. Didn't want to see another scene. Actually, early on (I was watching on a movie channel) I checked to see how long it was, and it was 90 minutes. That's the only reason I kept watching. There's only so much of a family comedy-drama one can take, and 90 minutes is about it for me. One reason I think it's good is that it gets it points across, has enough funny scenes, and resolves everything without extraneous scenes.
John Carter is, in many ways to me, a much more interesting movie. Regrettably, its reputation as a box office flop suggests to people that it sucks, which it doesn't. When I saw it was coming on, I instantly checked to see how long it was going to be. The next program on that channel was going to be in 2:15. That seemed reasonable to me for an epic adventure flick. Over 2:30 would have been a deal-breaker.
That movie, based on an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel that predates most science fiction, is interesting in that one wonders how much everything Hollywood has done is a rip-off of Burroughs's source material, and how much the movie adaptation is itself a rip-off of everything else Hollywood has ever done.As I have some fascination with ideas like stargate portals and their possible role in ancient myths and modern mysteries, this movie was particularly interesting to me. But to everyone else, it should be an entertaining adventure in which one species figures out gunpowder and hallucinogens, and another species figures out flight, and the human has the superhero power. That's outside-the-box for adventure films, and for that alone may be worth watching.
In any case, John Carter doesn't drag. It's efficient in its storytelling. As is Our Idiot Brother.
I think that's an underrated quality for a movie. Had either had gone longer, I'd either think less of them, or may have not watched at all.
Instead, I recommend both.
I found both quite enjoyable. And one reason is that neither were overly-long.
Our Idiot Brother is the flipside of a comedy of wild misunderstandings -- it's about what transpires when there's frank, but not malicious, honesty. It's not a classic, but it's well-written and performed. Yet here's the thing...
After 90 minutes I was done with these characters. Didn't want to see another scene. Actually, early on (I was watching on a movie channel) I checked to see how long it was, and it was 90 minutes. That's the only reason I kept watching. There's only so much of a family comedy-drama one can take, and 90 minutes is about it for me. One reason I think it's good is that it gets it points across, has enough funny scenes, and resolves everything without extraneous scenes.
John Carter is, in many ways to me, a much more interesting movie. Regrettably, its reputation as a box office flop suggests to people that it sucks, which it doesn't. When I saw it was coming on, I instantly checked to see how long it was going to be. The next program on that channel was going to be in 2:15. That seemed reasonable to me for an epic adventure flick. Over 2:30 would have been a deal-breaker.
That movie, based on an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel that predates most science fiction, is interesting in that one wonders how much everything Hollywood has done is a rip-off of Burroughs's source material, and how much the movie adaptation is itself a rip-off of everything else Hollywood has ever done.As I have some fascination with ideas like stargate portals and their possible role in ancient myths and modern mysteries, this movie was particularly interesting to me. But to everyone else, it should be an entertaining adventure in which one species figures out gunpowder and hallucinogens, and another species figures out flight, and the human has the superhero power. That's outside-the-box for adventure films, and for that alone may be worth watching.
In any case, John Carter doesn't drag. It's efficient in its storytelling. As is Our Idiot Brother.
I think that's an underrated quality for a movie. Had either had gone longer, I'd either think less of them, or may have not watched at all.
Instead, I recommend both.
Thursday, February 14, 2013
Defending Rocky
Grantland has a tournament poll on the biggest Oscar travesties.
I skipped the 3 million-word explanation and methodology. I haven't seen all the Oscars or all the movies.
Nevertheless, I went to Facebook and started voting.
I did have to make one comment about Rocky winning Best Picture is a "travesty:"
I skipped the 3 million-word explanation and methodology. I haven't seen all the Oscars or all the movies.
Nevertheless, I went to Facebook and started voting.
I did have to make one comment about Rocky winning Best Picture is a "travesty:"
Rocky, Network, All the Presidents Men, and Taxi Driver might have all won Best Picture if they were made in separate years. That's not Rocky's fault. If the others split the vote for serious/arty movies, and the most crowd-pleasing film won, that's not Rocky's fault. (And it is, itself, a damn serious and dramatic film.) In 75% of the years, no one complains about Rocky winning. It was a fluke that that many movies were made this year that were 4-star.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
