insert your co-opted counter-cultural idea here…

Ok, a couple of days ago I posted “you say you want a revolution” which featured this quote from a former teacher of the columnist (I was reading a sports article):

“I had a teacher who used to say revolution is impossible in a capitalistic society because any countercultural idea will quickly get bought up and mass-marketed and next thing you know Che Guevara T-shirts are going for $8.99.”

I thought it was funny and true and thought you’d enjoy it. Then today Russell added this in the comments:

…and the next thing I knew they were selling wwjd bracelets at wal-mart.

Which I thought was funny too. So then I thought, hey–maybe there are more out there and thought I’d pitch it out to you, the reader(s?). Finish this sentence:

“Revolution is impossible in a capitalistic society becuase any countercultural idea will quickly get bought up and mass-marketed and the next thing you know…”

you say you want a revolution…

So I’m reading an article on the Shaq/Shawn Marion trade between the NBA’s Miami Heat and Phoenix Suns. Don’t worry about the context for this; the quote was interesting enough on its own:

“I had a teacher who used to say revolution is impossible in a capitalistic society because any countercultural idea will quickly get bought up and mass-marketed and next thing you know Che Guevara T-shirts are going for $8.99.”

Hmm…

facsinating friendship

This fall Abby and I have gotten into the Tuesday night show Boston Legal on ABC. It’s the show that came out of the ashes of The Practice. Two of the show’s stars are James Spader and William Shatner. They are both interesting characters, but Shatner’s “Denny Crane” is completely eccentric. Folks at the firm generally aren’t sure what to think of Denny, but Spader’s “Alan Shore” doesn’t mind, and actually enjoys that about him. The curious thing is that this is one of the best friendships on TV. First, it is a genuine male friendship (not found often on TV or otherwise) with oddities and vulnerability and man talk. The two guys really do care about each other. And the way their characters and their friendship is written is simply brilliant in its ability to inject the profound into the absurd.

2 Samples:
(Alan is upset about his girlfriend’s relationship with a former boyfriend of hers and is talking about it with Denny on the balcony over brandy and cigars)
Alan: “Well Denny, it’s over. I caught Tara laughing with another man.”
Denny: “Are you sure they weren’t just kissing or something?”
Alan: “No. They were laughing.”

- Interesting commentary on intimacy, and intriguing vulnerability between friends.

(Denny is dejected because he’s afraid he’s lost his immense talent as a lawyer and is fishing in a Boston gutter outside his office when Alan approaches him and sits down on the sidewalk)
Denny: “I wish I’d never been great [Alan responds]…if he had to strip me of my talent, the least God could do is take my memory of it too.”

- Insight on the struggles of living beyond the peak of one’s abilities.

Absurdity is the context in which these two are able to share vulnerable moments and touching companionship. Boston Legal certainly has a flare for the melodramtic and wierd, and is not everyone’s idea of entertainment. But this fascinating friendship is a gem.

movie review: the longest yard

The Longest Yard is about a man named Paul Crewe (Adam Sandler) who lands in prison for violation of his probation (intentionally throwing a pro football game, thereby participating in fraud) after taking his girlfriend’s Bently for a spin while intoxicated, accompanied by another 6-pack. A former NFL MVP quarterback, he is recruited by the warden to get the prisoners together for a warm-up game against the guards, who have a prison-sponsored semi-pro league team that once dominated their conference but have fallen out of championship form of late. In prison, Crewe is befriended by “Caretaker” (Chris Rock), a wisecracking inmate with enough connections to get anything to the inside that a person might like (McDonald’s cheeseburgers are better currency than cigarettes in this jailhouse). The prison is in Texas (where else?) and the game attracts enough attention that ESPN signs on to carry it, providing a national stage on which the drama of the game, and the climax of the movie, will unfold.

The story is a remake of a 70′s movie by the same title in which Burt Reynolds played the lead. I’ve haven’t seen the original, so I don’t know how much the characters and the details of the plot are similar (or not). Burt Reynolds appears in this one, with a prominant role: an inmate who was a Heisman trophy winner at Oklahoma who becomes the coach for the inmate team. Reynolds’ real life connection is that he played football at Florida State during his college days. Several others with a connection to the world of sport show up too: Brian Bosworth, Michael Irvin and a few other former players, Jim Rome, Chris Berman and Dan Patrick (though Patrick is in a non-sports related cameo) are in there, as are “Stone Cold” Steve Austin and Goldberg of Pro Wrestling fame. The appearances range from cameo to significant role. And, rapper Nelly stars as well.

Chris Rock and Adam Sandler have good chemistry and are funny. If you like the brand of humor that your used to associating with these two, you’ll enjoy their relationship as well. At times, Rock is a steady stream of humorous and irreverent jokes. In one conversation, he trys to cheer up Sandler who’s feeling down by encouraging him about what he’s got going for him after all, adding, “Smile, you’re white!” Rock also speaks for the other inmates and the audience when he asserts, “You can kill people, rob people–you can beat up your own grandmother for her pension check and no one will think anything about it in here, but why did you throw that game?” The question mark of the thown game haunts Sandler’s character Crewe throughout the film.

For what it is, in the movie that it’s in (that enough qualification for you?), their relationship is touching, as is Crewe’s inner struggle with his past and what that means for his present and future. This allows the movie to remain within the vein of “feel-good” movies that Sandler has been in lately. If you’re willing to go where the movie wants to take you emotionally and connect with the prisoners (the guards are abusive and the warden is corrupt), then you’ll be able to experience the movie in this way. If you just can’t, you will be frustrated and probably have a hard time enjoying The Longest Yard, even if you want to. The plot’s inherent choice of the prisoners as the protangonists is too strong.

I’m reasonably certain that anyone who sees the previews for this movie and thinks it looks like something they would enjoy will. The Longest Yard seemed to always have this audience in mind and played every bit to them (I’m one, by the way), from the humor to the “softer” moments. This is to say that I didn’t think it tried to do too much and over-reach in that regard. It wasn’t trying to be something that it wasn’t. At the same time as I say that, however, I will stand slightly in tension with myself by saying that the acting perfomances by several key figures and in various scenes was simply weak and unbelievable. The professional actors were all fine–if you like them in general, you’ll like them here. The extras are the issue. Nelly was alright, though kind of cheesy. Michael Irvin (former Dallas Cowboy WR) was actually not bad in most places, his first appearance notwithstanding. A couple of the other former football players and pro-wrestlers were absolutly wooden in their delivery but not as bad as Shaq and Penny Hardaway in Blue Chips, if you saw that (Nick Nolte plays a college basketball coach who gives into the pressure to pay players in order to get top recruits). There is a cheese-meter running on and off, but most of the time, that’s on purpose.

The bottom line is that part of the movie is not at all interested in taking itself seriously, but another part does want to take itself just a little bit seriously, if you’re willing to let it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but I was successfully entertained just the same. If The Longest Yard did everything that I think it was trying and could reasonably be expected to do, I would give it 3 out of 4 stars for a film of its caliber. Often you pay a little price for the acting and chemistry that comes with some celebrity cameos and roles, which it does, but it still accomplished most of what it was going for.

2 1/2 out of 4 stars.

movie review: mr & mrs smith

If you enjoy watching two attractive people fire off loads of weapons, this is the movie for you. Brad Pitt (Mr. John Smith) and Angelina Jolie (Mrs. Jane Smith) play a (financially) successful couple with beautiful house, expensive cars, good careers and dinner always served at 7:00pm. They have been married for about 5 or 6 years and their life together, for all its outward appearances of success, has grown dull and unfulfilling. They are just beginning to seek professional help as the movie begins. What they’ve never revealed to one another is that they are each highly skilled assassins for hire. As the movie’s writer would have it, they accidentally cross paths when a hit is double-booked and thus discover what they’ve got most in common. But this town has only so much room for rival assassination firms, so the conflict in their relationship escalates as the movie works towards a resolution.

The plot line basically seems to exist to get Pitt and Jolie from one shootout to the next. Without the action, the story itself is about 10-15 minutes worth of the movie. But the story is enough fun that the action does fit within the storyline, even if it’s a tight fit using a shoe-horn, rather than distract and overwhelm the plot. Wait, didn’t I just say that the plot seems to exist to get Pitt and Jolie from one fight to the next? Well, that’s true, it does seem to be that way. But as the movie progresses and comes to its conclusion, I found that the two elements that usually clash for supremacy in an action flick–the action and the plot–aren’t as conflicted here: not because the plot doesn’t get kicked around by the action, but because the plot knows it’s role and does a reasonable job of being okay with that. It provides an entertaining and enjoyable skeletal structure on which hangs the guns, gadgets, laughs and gasps of the film. The comedic fun of “Mr and Mrs Smith” is juxtaposition of story and context–marital problems within a household of trained killers. I liked Brad Pitt as an actor more than Angelina Jolie in this film. He was more playful and wore the role the way you wear a pairs of shoes that have known your feet for a while. Jolie worked and they did have good chemistry together on screen, but she didn’t inhabit the role the way Pitt did. At times she seemed to be remembering some of her lines whereas he just seemed to be speaking.

3 out of 4 stars.

star wars!

So last night, Abby and I went to see Stars Wars III: Revenge of the Sith at the $5 movie theater in Athens. Brief tangent: ever since we found out that they charge $5 in prime time, I don’t think we’ve been back to Tyler and the $7.50 prices. $5! Plus, there’s an Applebees right there that we hit for dinner before hand and dessert after. We were in a hurry to eat before the movie and we told our waitress we were going to see Star Wars and to just bring our check right when the food got to the table. When we returned for dessert, we had the same waitress. “So, long time no see!” she said.

Back to the movie. In any other movie, dreadful dialogue writing and some awkward acting would damage the experience. But Star Wars isn’t any movie (or series of movies). The plotline and conceptual world is so great, that it really doesn’t matter. We just chuckle or groan to ourselves and move on. Roger Ebert has a great review in which he gives it 3 1/2 out of 4 stars–he trashes lots of the decisions that George Lucas makes as writer/director but acknowledges that it is still very entertaining.

A word on the acting. Yes, there are plenty of very good actors–Natalie Portman, Ewan McGregor, Samuel L. Jackson–but the acting is obviously not the emphasis. I also thought that the Chancellor/Emporer did a good job. Hayden Christenson seemed pretty poor both in this one and the last, but that could be for a couple of reasons: (1) I haven’t seen him with a script or a director that would let him perform well–so I should reserve judgment and give him a pass in Star Wars just as I admittedly do for all the others who I know are good, and (2) His character is obviously the centerpiece of the story throughout the prequel trilogy, so the greater focus on him may bring to light flaws that may not have been as big a deal otherwise. While the story itself did a good job of advancing the inner conflict of Anakin Skywalker, I don’t think that Lucas’s writing of Anakin nor Christenson’s acting necessarily carried it, but neither got in the way.

It was fun connecting the dots with the original movie and the action was great. The story concept is fun, engaging and other-worldly. Other-worldly at least to Westerners, since the characters live in a pantheistic universe akin to some kind of Eastern mysticism with a yin/yang-type concept of an impersonal Ultimate Reality (the Force) that is a part of every living thing and that has both a good and evil side instead of a monotheistic universe with a personal God who is separate from creation and who is only good and not evil. Plus the emphasis on detachment as the goal of the “spiritually enlightened” Jedi (Yoda to Anakin: Attachment provides an opportunity for temptation to the dark side; you must detach yourself from anything that could be used to tempt you). Given this universe, there is a curious relationship between absolutism/objectivity (Obi Wan to Anakin: “The Sith are evil!”) and relativism/subjectivity (Anakin responding to Obi Wan: “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!”). I’m trying to figure out what role personal free will has in such a universe, if any. But I won’t think so hard about it as to ruin the fun.