The inevitable Slumdog formula

So Slumdog won, as expected, and as I mentioned in my previous post, I couldn't help but feel like a downer for being so down on it. From Danny Boyle's smile that seemed to be damaging his face to the cute little kids, no one could have been more appreciative of the awards, and it was nice to be spared the false humility (see Penn, Sean*).

Although, as the butterflies in my stomach subsided, the realization kicked in that we could be in for a slew of Slumdogs as Hollywood hit-makers try to make the film into a formula. It's what they do.

So don't be surprised if movies about slums - from Africa to Asia and beyond - are suddenly the next big thing. And be as equally unsurprised if none of them live up to even the low standards of its standard-bearer.

I've since read a few more reviews of Slumdog, many of which praise it for being a Dickensian fable.** They point to the Bollywood-style ending, and say, "Well that didn't make much sense, so who says the film itself has to be completely plausible? The film's magic lies in its implausibility."

Maybe so. But good movies are supposed to make you think. And what I could not help thinking about is, while the new president has to go on TV and make a commitment to not torture, and while Mumbai, India was just attacked in a vicious and unthinkable way by Muslim terrorists, why would you have a scene in which Indian policemen torture a game show contestant?

And not just allude to it, but show it? In detail? Is this supposed to get us thinking about torture in any meaningful way? Or is it just the "larger-than-life" Bollywood style to throw in stuff like that?

And the other scene I mentioned before, the one where the kid jumps into a small pond of shit to get an autograph from the guy who hosts the game show. Where does this ridiculous celebrity-worship fit in a film like Slumdog? What does it mean? What is it saying? The answer is disappointing: Almost nothing.

Everyone crows about the film because it's "entertaining," as if that justifies its complete lack of control over the vignettes that make up the film. I've seen nothing that proves to me this film resembles anything close to intelligence. The only thing offered is that you gain a certain intelligence by growing up poor. That is probably true, and an interesting observation, but it is lost in all the running, running, chasing, dodging and quick cutting. And it is lost in the muddled handling of torture and celebrity-worship and ... just about everything else.

Let's be honest. This movie got a break because it's set in an exotic location, with a Brit director, and a cast full of unknown Indian stars.

Uh...I was going to have more, I think, but I'm running out of time here.


*Although I did enjoy Penn's well-done call to those who voted for the same-sex marriage ban to consider their "shame." It was a solid moment, and a necessary one.
**In fact, Dickens is mentioned by so many separate reviewers, I can't help but think the reference was included in a media packet. If you ever read a handful of reviews about the same movie, and almost all of them include some inside reference (i.e. this was shot entirely in Chicago! The filmmakers used cotton balls and Vaseline to make him look old!) you can assume it was in a media packet somewhere, handed out to reviewer, probably accompanied by merchandise or something.

Oscars 2009

I had considered writing a little something about this years' Oscar crop, but I had neither the time nor finances to see all the nominated films, and felt underqualified. (Of the nominated films, I've seen only WALL-E, The Dark Knight, and Slumdog Millionaire).

So I sat down to watch, thinking this thing would start at 8 p.m. with best supporting actress or some such award, but no, they have a red carpet special on ABC, this despite the fact that red carpet specials had been airing on at least two other channels (CNN, E!) prior to that.

For shits, let me discuss a few nagging issues.

The Oscars are to movie buffs - I consider myself to be a marginal one - what the Super Bowl is to hardcore NFL fans. Mainly: over-hyped, glitzy, and often wrong on the question of who is No. 1. And the sudden national attention that the Super Bowl brings is no different than Oscar season buzz - suddenly Slumdog and Mickey Rourke are on the tips of everyone's tongues. And (please excuse my hypocrisy) just as suddenly, every jackass who got high and watched Tropic Thunder thinks their opinion on who should win matters. (I haven't seen Tropic Thunder).

Despite all this, you'd be a fool to miss the Super Bowl if you love football, and the same goes for the Oscars and movie buffs, even if you don't like the teams that are playing. (For those interested, the red carpet special is the halftime show in my analogy, which is to say completely beside the point.)

A brief word on the movies I have seen, considering Slumdog is a heavy favorite to win Best Picture, and I've seen it, and didn't like it any better than, say, a colorful version of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition (or is that EM: Slum Edition?).

First though, The Dark Knight. I won't go into detail as to why this is a mediocre film with great moments. But if you rewatch it and don't find yourself wanting to fast forward to the parts with Heath Ledger's Joker, than I think your fanboy dues are fully paid.

I mean, really, that part where Gordon fakes his death? Completely unnecessary, needlessly confusing, and shockingly dumb. That part where the convict throws the detonator off the boat? I have to ask: Are you serious? What hurts is that The Dark Knight was so disconcertingly bad that I called into question director Christopher Nolan's skills. I started to think that maybe Memento actually sucked, and he just confused me into thinking it was good. And yet I still love Batman Begins. It stands on its own as an excellent film.

But Ledger still deserves the award for Best Supporting Actor, and would even if he were attending the ceremonies today. He made the movie worth seeing two or three times, even if you had to whip out your iPhone and play games during the boring, meaningless parts. That's why it made so much box office dinero.

Anyway, I've said too much already. What irks me is this backlash against the Academy for not nominating the damn thing. On CNN, they let morons with computers send in e-mails commenting on the nominations, and some fool said something to the effect of: Why do they overlook movies that are popular and make lots of money like TDK?

While able to operate a computer, this person must not have been alive for the 1998 awards, when the little art film Titanic (worldwide BO: $1.8 billion) took home 11 trophies. It beat out L.A. Confidential and Good Will Hunting for Best Picture, both of which were better films.

Moving on.

Slumdog Millionaire is everything that is wrong with movies and gets almost nothing right - until the very, very end.

For starters, it's a carbon copy of City of God, which didn't win an Oscar when it came out, presumably, because it's in Portuguese and the director was unknown at the time. The people behind Slumdog were smart enough to include English so that high-minded Westerners could "fall in love" with it.

And I'm not even all that mad that Slumdog, like City of God, makes poverty-stricken slums of the worst kind seem a little too beautiful and a little too much fun. Others have been critical for this reason, but I think because I liked City of God so much and I don't mind looking at beautifully shot film that I'll give it a pass.

City of God and Slumdog are set on opposite sides of the world, but they both take a look at slums in an episodic, time-jumping way, from the point-of-view of a good-natured guy from the bad part of town. But Slumdog is held back by an off-the-wall premise (or should I say, plot device). Seems the main character somehow gets on the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire as a young man, and knows every answer because each question just so happens to correspond to a tragic/meaningful part of his life in the slums. That's highly convenient, but it could have been forgiven. But then it is revealed (SPOILER I think) that the host of the show has the boy tortured when they suspect him of cheating. They hook him up to a damn car battery!

What the fuck? I don't think that even in the worst of the worst areas that you can get away with fucking torturing contestants of syndicated game shows.

And to make matters worse, the whole movie isn't about winning the money, but about getting this boy back together with a girl he met in the slums. Two things ruin this hokey reunion. One: the relationship was never developed. There is not a scene in this movie where it is evident why these two love each other, other than that they found and lost each other a couple times when they were young, and both went through horrible tragedies. They don't hold one conversation as young adults that make these characters feel real and true. They are merely placeholders. This movie has been called romantic, but it only contains signifiers of romance: lusty staring, longing for one another, sparkles-in-the-eye. It has no actually romance, and shows no progress of love. Only this: Young, poor, together. Separated. Older, apart, incomplete. Reunited. And, I might add, (this is No. Two): They are both drop-dead gorgeous.

Now I'm not going to start discussing the merits of only including beautiful people in movies, because if you exclude beautiful people movies you've excluded just about all of them. But could these two stars, supposedly raised without parents in the slums in this film, be any hotter? He's a bit goofy, but you can tell it's only because he's young. She may be the hottest girl on the planet.

I could go on and on and on, counting the things wrong with this movie. It shouldn't even have been nominated in my view. (And it has been largely critically acclaimed, until some Oscar-season whisper-wars brought it down a few pegs.)

As stated earlier, they did do one thing right. The Bollywood-style dance number at the end could have lasted another 30 minutes and I would have enjoyed it. It made no sense, but still fit with the emotion of the movie more than the kid jumping in a steamy swamp of shit for an autograph.

I've already said too much, and have likely missed a few awards. No worries. All it means is that you'll be spared a long-winded argument for why WALL-E is the best film of the year, and I don't really want to do that anyway, because I haven't seen 'em all yet. (Although I'm not expecting Frost/Nixon or The Reader to best it, I'm curious about Revolutionary Road, Doubt and a few others.)

Any of you out there want to add your two cents? Did you like Slumdog, WALL-E, The Dark Knight any more or less than I did? Do the Oscars even matter anymore? Are you even watching them?

Bristol Palin and her creepy mother

Either I was completely tone deaf prior to the 2008 primary election, or Hillary Clinton's 18-million-votes/cracks-in-the-glass-ceiling got everyone talking about women's issues. Especially women.

I'm not complaining. The XX blog over at Slate is always a good read. Same with Broadsheet at Salon.

What makes me slightly uncomfortable about all these women commenting on the way things are, and with a clear focus on being women and how that affects their view on the world, and how we live in a macho-dominated world, is that it makes me feel like a dick to be a guy, and I am kind of a dick anyway, and I'm white and middle class, so I already feel bad for all the advantages that gives me, and then plus I have to feel bad for being a guy?

It's like: call me an asshole 'cuz I'm an asshole, not 'cuz I have a penis. Or wait, do I even care why I'm an asshole? Maybe I just need to feel like I can not be an asshole eventually, but still be a guy. So maybe that's it.

Anyway, I do enjoy reading about women's issues: right to choose, equal pay for equal work, breast feeding, maternity leave, the new family structure, working mothers, etc., etc.

And this article on Bristol Palin's recent TV appearance on Fox (with Greta Van Susteren) was a terrific read. In her innocence, and like, um, high-school vernacular that still sounds more coherent than her mother, Bristol makes a great argument for not only waiting to have children, but also for safe and effective birth control, and for having the choice between having the child and aborting the fetus (well, you have to extrapolate a bit for that last one).

Then Mama Palin comes in and twists her words and babbles on likes she's known to do and Bristol looks at her like, "Um, this was my interview you attention-starved bitch."

From the Salon article:

And how poignant that the untrained and unrehearsed and inelegant message of the young woman who actually had the baby, the one who said, "I think everyone should just wait 10 years," made far more sense than the politicized jabbering of her elders.

Agreed. She may still have a nut-job mom, but I thought it took the right kind of guts to do what Bristol did: Go on TV and act like a real fucking person. Too bad the interviewer and interview-interrupter have totally lost sight of what it's like. (It doesn't need to be mentioned, but I'll do it anyway: Greta Van Susteren is a Scientologist, which makes her crazy and incapable of being consulted on anything, save space aliens and E-meters).

Current Events

Could I think of a more boring title? Not likely.

But the only thing I could thing of other than that was: "Dude, seriously? WTF!?"

Because, seriously, what the fuck?

I'm talking, of course, about the economy. I'm ever-so-slowly beginning to understand what happened, why it happened and what the options are to fix it. It's a complicated fucking mess.

It would be like if 800,000 of the richest people in the world broke into, um, a mythical museum that had a 60 trillion dollar piece of crystal glassware or whatever. And they pass it around and toss it up and down and generally make gobs of money off this expensive crystal thing and then the damn thing, being tossed around like it was, it falls to the ground and shatters. And these 800,000 rich guys all look around at each other like: Can we get someone to clean this shit up?

(Cough, cough, let's get a black guy to do it....cough cough the crystal was the "economy" in my metaphor...cough cough cough, man I have a cold).

OK I'm not sure anyone here wants me to give my explanation of what actually happened to fuck everything up so I'll just skip to how to fix it.

But before that, I'll say this: I wish Obama had come to power with better circumstances, and I'm glad it's him in there and not McCain or Bush (or Romney or Palin or Hillary or Bill Richardson). But I'm still not all that happy with how Obama is handling things.

He seems to be (in cooperation with Timothy Geithner, who looks like a crook, smells like a crook, and cheats on his taxes like a crook....and seriously? Go by Tim, you're old now) desperate to save capitalism from its excesses (a la FDR, who was not a "socialist" despite the far-right's insistence that he was. He was as capitalist as the rest of 'em).

My whole thing is: Is this system worth saving? There is no serious debate on television about this. But is the global system that led to such soaring wealth and success for so many not the same system that led to where we are now? Is it an inconsiderate question to ask if this is not the inevitable result of capitalism? Is it not destined to end in chaos and fear and depression?

Two things:
1) Even before this collapse, in the boom times, were things even really that good? No. They weren't. Many were still poor. Many were still dying needlessly. Gas and food were still too expensive. AIDS and malaria still ravaged Africa. Extremism and violence still raged across the globe. The difference between now and then? Then, a few of the elite were making gobs and gobs of money.
2) In light of that, what's the goal here? To get back to that? Obama C.O.S. Rahm Emanuel is reportedly fond of saying, "Don't ever waste a crisis" or something to that effect. I'll admit some crises are capable of being used to push the country to greater heights (9/11 was one, and it was largely wasted). But really, what the crisis we have here exposed is this: All those supposedly smart guys who ran around making so much money in our system weren't "smart" at all, and were just playing around in an elite system that aimed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. And then they went and had too much of a good time and fucked it up for everyone on the planet. Are we really trying to go back to that?

I'd rather not. But I'm not the HNIC, am I?

So how to fix it? Geithner, whom I don't trust, and who is a crook, still is deluded to think that some sort of public-private bullshit can be worked out to save the banks, which are filled with "toxic assets." As a person who uses words frequently, I'm astonished at this pairing of "toxic" and "assets." It's such a wonky phrase.

Anyway what it means is that, OK, banks have all this money they loaned out, and now they don't expect to get back because they gave it to people who couldn't afford it in good times, and now the good times are gone. But they might be paid back, eventually, so they are still "assets" -- they are just so worthless right now that the losses over these assets are larger than the amount of cash the bank has (making the bank "insolvent" or "fucked" in normalspeak).

So banks still have money, but none of them want to loan any more money out. They want high cash reserves to show investors they can handle the losses over these toxic assets. (Investors are still bailing).

Holy shit this is complicated.

So all these assets, no one knows what they are worth. If you just have the banks sell these assets off on their own, and let the market price them, the banks probably will lose too much money, and they'll fail. So the banks won't sell 'em. But while they aren't selling them, they aren't lending, and the economy needs lending to grow. So, we're stuck, basically.

That's where the government could come in, buy the toxic assets off the banks (using taxpayer money, or a combined public-private thing) and then wait until maybe those fuckers are worth something in five years and sell them then. Then the banks, cleared of these toxic assets, would still probably need some more money to get to lending again.

Good god I hope someone is still reading.

A problem: what do these assets cost, or, how much should one pay for them? Capitalists like Geithner, the crook, want to let the market decide (private pricing). While the market is crazy, it's not an idiot. If a bunch of public money is going to be thrown at the problem, they may jack up the prices, which would fuck the gov't (and the taxpayer) over royally. And this whole public-private thing is short on details about how it would actually work.

At least, that's what I think is going on.

So now, the word creeping its way into the national conversation is nationalization, which even "high priest of laissez-faire capitalism" Alan Greenspan is now supporting. (Along with, it seems, SC Sen. Lindsey Graham).

Here it wouldn't matter, presumably, what these assets are worth. With the banks under the control of the government (rather than just owing the gov't a shit-ton of money), the gov't could just remove the assets at will and put them into a "bad bank." Then they could fix up the banks and eventually give them back over to private investors (But when? After how long? What if the economy never returns to the levels the gov't wants? It's a touchy issue.) Add to this: it worked in Sweden. But Sweden isn't America. There are many, many more banks.

Read the Washington Post for some info about it, if I'm being unclear.

But James Surowiecki says this about nationalization. Even if you "stress test" banks and only take over the "insolvent" ones, investors are still going to bail on all banks, which means the banks that were tested to be "good" will suddenly be cash-strapped, and will need more and more money. Which is why all that money we poured in to the banks doesn't seem to have done anything. Because the stock prices have tanked, the banks are just vacuuming up money and nothing positive is happening.

So the gov't would have to nationalize all banks, from the kinda-OK ones to the horrible ones, from Bank of America to BB&T to every last shitty bank around this country. Huge deal. Big undertaking. And there is no guarantee it will work. In fact, it may make things worse before it makes it better. And when has a politician had the will to do what's right, even if it takes time? (See Iraq, Bush? Kidding, kidding).

OK so that's that. No conclusions.

My whole hope is this: Fix it. Get it right. Make it better. And dear God, if you could screw over those rich fuckers who did this in the process, then by all means do it. That's why crooks like Chuck Schumer, who is a sleazy slimeball of a man, oppose nationalization: it would screw over their rich Wall Street friends who've made a killing playing this dangerous game and who've bankrolled political careers of people like fucking Chuck Schumer.*

I was going to do some quick hits, but I'll just make another post. I doubt anyone made it this far. Hey, if you did, leave a comment. And answer me this: Is capitalism worth saving?


*My disappointment in Obama largely results from the fact that he is not immune to the charms of sleazy fucks like Geithner and Schumer, and may in fact be one himself, though I'm holding out all hope that he's not.

Family Guy

I've always felt that it was important to have good taste when it came to television and movies, while still being able to watch The Real World or Independence Day and enjoy the hell out of 'em.

That is to say, I can still have fun watching bad movies, or bad TV, and I can turn my nose up at them later.

I've never been able to figure out where Family Guy landed. Was I a fan because it's a funny postmodern take on the "Honeymooners"-style fat white guy/family sitcoms? Or was it just bad TV that was occasionally funny and I enjoyed it in spite of its badness?

To put it in a slightly weirder way: Is Family Guy more Dane Cook or more George Carlin? (I admit to laughing at Dane Cook's jokes from time to time, but also to staring at him in disbelief the rest of the time).

My hunch had always been that Family Guy good. But it does seem to get shit on by some people. So, uh, anyway, to the point of this post.

I've decided that it's good. And this clip was a big factor, as was Sunday's entire episode. Both are posted below:







Plus, the guy who created this show is from Connecticut, like me. In some weird way, if he is just an over-hyped phony, then I feel like one too.

25 Things About Me

Interesting times in the world, don't ya think?

I had been entertaining the idea of doing a mock 25 things about me on this blog and it seems some commenters have beaten me to the punch.

Truthfully, I don't really mind the 25 things phenomenon. It's an interesting way to get to know the people on facebook whom you may not be all that good of friends with in the first place. And some of the "things" I've read have been revealing, honest and interesting. (Aside: Is it possible to correctly judge someone based on their choices for the 25 things? Is it possible that your 25 things says a lot about who you are?)

Even more interesting is how quickly it spread. And how media, from Slate to Salon to ABC to USA Today, etc., (I'm not going to link; too lazy) have covered it. You'd have to be locked in a dark hole not to have heard of it.

Of course, I'm never going to actually post my 25 on facebook and tag the 25 people. Not my style. Never has been. (And maybe I'm just afraid that it does say a lot about who you are, and maybe I'm too chicken to find out.)

Ah what the fuck. Here it goes.

1. I try to live a Godly life and always seem to fall short.
2. In high school, some of my friends liked to go cow tipping. I liked to order my steak rare and throw it on the ground.
3. I attended a concert freshman year and got too close to the speakers. Since then, I hear ringing in my ears. At all times. It's worse the quieter it is. (It's called tinnitus.)
4. I try to run every day. Nine times out of ten it's away from someone, like police officers or over-zealous panhandlers. But every once in awhile, I run toward something. Just the other day I found myself next to an extremely attractive woman on an elevator in an apartment building. I let her out first, then bent down to tie my shoe. I looked up and she was gone. So I ran outside, then darted through the parking lot, and caught her getting into a blue Jetta. She took off and I chased, waving my arms and screaming, "Wait!" She must have seen me because she stopped, and I finally caught up. By this time I was sure I was in love. She rolled her window down, and I leaned on the car, breathing heavily. I barely had time to utter a word when I got a second look at her face. Ehhh. Not as attractive as I thought. I asked her if she wanted to buy a timeshare in Canada. Great deal, I said. She didn't seem interested. I kicked her bumper and told her she was an ungrateful slut who deserved nothing but the worst things in life. She drove off. I'm pretty sure I still miss her.
5. When I was little, I broke my arm when I fell off the monkey bars.
6. I am insatiable, but also require very little to be content.
7. Growing up, I had an imaginary friend named Mr. Henley, who looked just like one of my gym teachers. Oddly enough, they had the same name and a shared fondness for molestation.
8. I've never once had a sip of tap water, or milk that came from a nonhuman.
9. I shouldn't be here today. I should be dead. But luckily, May 4, 2003 was not my day to go. On that fateful morning, I was at the bank, waiting for the next available teller. In front of me was a little old lady who smelled of pecans and old people. She decided to turn and initiate conversation. I don't remember what she said, because all I could think was Jesus! Shut the fuck up lady, I don't care. Just then a pair of armed men in ski masks burst through the door and ordered us all to sit facing the far wall. I figured, hey, maybe I'll be on the news. But the damn old lady kept whimpering. She was really killing my buzz. I sent a text to my buddy Ricky. He quickly called me back, and my phone blew up. Damn 50 Cent ring tone. One of the armed men came over and demanded to know, whose phone was it? I made not a sound, and moved not an inch. I did, however, nod in the direction of the whimpering old lady. I waited out the rest of the robbery in drunken bliss.
10. Twenty-five doesn't seem to be enough! Damnit I just wasted one.
11. I'm offering great deals on time shares in Canada. Inquire within. (I'm not sure what that last part means, but it sounds spiritual.)
12. Since third grade I've been hoarding fool's gold, in hopes that one day it will be as rare as a virgin hooker, and then I will be rich.
13. Skipping this one, like they do with tall buildings.
14. I'm trying to broaden my horizons. I'm learning a new phrase in 80 different languages.
Pode arranhar as minhas costas?
15. I'm understanding if you don't share my sense of humor. I just don't want to talk to you.
16. I feel like I used to each fish sticks a lot more than I do now. Is there a fish stick shortage?
17. Seriously, when I find the person who puked in my closet that night I got really wasted, I'm going to kick his ass.
18. That fateful morning, my text to Rickey read as follows: "getin robbed, call me so I can get old lady killed".
19. I wore a kilt to my prom and everyone laughed. Then I pulled my kilt up to moon them and they laughed even harder. Years later I realized I forgot to take out my anal beads.
20. Cheerios, like most prescription drugs, are good for your heart. That's why I crush them up and snort 'em. I have a terrible habits and a terrible diet! Get to work saving me Cheerios!
21. Some guy, according to the movie Donnie Darko, said that "cellar door" was the most beautiful phrase in the English language. For my 2 cents, I think it's "finger fucking."
22. Sometimes I giggle to myself when I fart.
23. My pin number is 058699. Try to come rob me, I dare you. I'm right here. Come on, motherfucker, show me something!
24. Sweet mother-of-mary-baby-jesus-lord-hallelujah-christ-almighty-satan's-little-helper this has been a complete waste of time.
25. It's all about the B E N J A M I N S.

Also, I find that I'm very, very attracted to soccer boys.

Damn I might do a new one of these every week. What's next facebook!? Bring it on!

Friendly reminder

Always wear your seat belt.