I recently viewed Defiance. It was good cinema.
The story was amazing, the movie was well done (if a bit long) and Daniel Craig was superb...all together it was somewhere between Casino Royale and Goldfinger. HAHAHA! Oh goodness. But moving on - it was a solid movie, but it is probably the 100th movie about the Holocaust in the last 10 years. For example, just this winter there is - in addition to Defiance - Valkyrie, The Reader, Adam Resurrected, Good and Boy In Striped Pajamas...all in major theaters, all about or directly relating to the Holocaust.
Page Six indicated that there may be a "demand" for this sort of movie reflected in Academy Awards. However, I'm not going to get into why so many of these movies are made - studios can pump out whatever movies they want....my question is - why is the public not more taken aback? Of all the things that have ever happened in the history of the world, why are we picking among 6 movies all related to the same event? Can you imagine if there were six movies coming out at one time all related to Stalin's Russia and the gulags? No one would know what was going on. Stunned movie-goers would be asking "Wait - Is this based on a true story?" "Kevin Connolly was SUPER as Trotsky!" and "What was Rosie Perez doing?"
On a serious note, do yourself a favor and read an excellent book - Koba The Dread by Martin Amis about that period in Russian history. I guarantee that you'll be shocked and, less importantly, it will further underscore the impetus for this post.
Moving on again, after I thought -- why so many Holocaust movies?...I thought to myself - what hasn't there been a movie about? Below are five intriguing true events you've never heard of - of all different types - and about which there should definitely be a movie. Note to Readers: If, upon reading the below list, you happen to think to yourself "My, The World's Ombudsman is truly a brilliant and fascinating fellow," please know that, while true, any inference drawn was from your own reading and was not implied in any way by TWO. I can also do 50 push ups without stopping.
1) The Great Northern War. It lasted 21 years, involved a lot of interesting personalities and was almost single-handedly started by a man who had been forced from his country and, in revenge, allied its enemies together to attack it. Steve Buscemi stars as Peter the Great, Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Johann Patkul and Nicole Kidman as Charles XII.
2) North Sentinel Island. Did you know there is an island full of people who have NEVER been touched by civilization? Aside from some brief 1970s attempts to contact them ending with someone getting shot with an arrow and their stabbing to death of some Indian fisherman who accidentally drifted onto their shores in 2007, there have been virtually no sightings of them, let alone contact. Sigourney Weaver is a rogue anthropolgist and is accompanied to the island by her reluctant and wise cracking assistant, Chris Tucker. There is an uncomfortable love scene.
3) Read this! One time this happened. A beautiful, mysterious woman checked into a hotel, danced her heart out, and then died in the arms of her last dance partner. Who was she? Where did she come from? What was she doing? No one knows. Beyonce Knowles and Channing Tatum heat up the screen.
4) Gangster Disciples. Everyone's heard of the Bloods and the Crips, but have you heard of GD? Started by a guy named Larry Hoover and another guy named David Barksdale, what began as a normal street gang now has over 60,000 members and its own political and military branches. Sidney Potier and Harry Belafonte are perhaps miscast as David Barksdale and Larry Hoover. Perhaps racistly miscast.
5) Anne Bonny, Mary Read and Calico Jack. Anne Bonny was a girl from Charleston, South Carolina in the 18th Century who fell in love with and married a pirate. She then had an affair with another pirate, named John "Calico Jack" Rackham. To get onto his boat, she posed as a man, her true identity known only by Calico. Later, he accused her of cheating on him with another pirate named Read with whom Anne had become close. It turned out this Read was actually ANOTHER woman who had disguised herself as a man. What sultry mischief and dangerous hi-jinx! Brianna Banks, Rachel Starr and Mr. Marcus as Anne Bonny, Mary Read and Calico Jack, respectively. This is a different type of movie.
Little humors aside, my point here is - so many interesting and intriguing things have happened. There are so many incredible and important stories to tell. While it is proposterous that Hollywood would come up with six movies at the same time related to the same topic, it is perhaps more alarming that this barely raised an eyebrow amongst audiences and reviewers.
In conclusion, I was an extra in Step Up 2: The Streets.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
ESPN Ombudsman: And the ESPY goes to Bill Simmons!
ESPN.com has no control over Bill Simmons - can it get worse?
Roughly 5 years ago, Bill Simmons, a man with literally no sports background, started writing ESPN columns from the "fan's point of view." Basically, his early columns were just his own humorous reactions and opinions on sports and related pop-culture. As these were well received, we got longer columns where Bill propounded inane theories and unburdened himself of various private musings and thoughts. Further validated by his growing readership and inferring that the public was fascinated with the minutia of his life, readers were introduced to his father, his wife and his college buddies, who would be quoted, at times extensively, in his columns. By 2006, a very self-confident Bill, who I will say again is a man with no sports background, got into public feuds with various NBA general managers. When, in 2008, he held out against ESPN's editing -essentially refusing to write - ESPN must have realized they'd created a monster. A guy who writes about himself (something that can't really be replicated) and who has the power to call the shots over the editors and higher-ups.
So what do you get when you combine a bizarre fascination with one's self, a validating group of readers, and the self-confidence that no one will edit what you write? You get the following - an article by Bill Simmons entirely about his dead dog. Now look, I had a dog that died, and I loved that dog. But if someone asked...IF someone asked...I would probably briefly mention his name, what kind of dog, when I had it and maybe one funny thing he used to do. One paragraph max. Bill Simmons, apropos of nothing, gives us 25 paragraphs about his dead dog. On a sports website. What could be more hubristic? What were the editors doing? And most importantly - what comes next? I have 5 column titles & ideas:
1) Good Night Neosporin. Wearing a McHale jersey, Bill bloodies his hand trying to dunk on an 8 and a half foot rim and must treat it with neosporin in order to avoid infection and scarring. Bill tells the story of being bullied in middle school and how he would eat some of the neosporin used to treat cuts and scrapes from these little tussles. 10,000 words later, Bill brings the story full circle and eats a little neosporin as he treats his hand
2) How 'Bout Them Apples? Bill podcasts from the grocery store and opens up to listeners about some problems he's had selecting fresh produce, his lactose intolerance and something he used to do with heated up banana peels in college.
3) Go To Hell, Dillan Moskowitz. Bill rips into one Dillan Moskowitz, a fat, slow, disgusting, racist third baseman on his son's tee ball team. Dillan, who incidentally starts over Simmons' son, probably takes creatine and is constantly peeing in his pants (Dillan's not Simmons').
4) Marcia & Tom & Something Else. Take an erotic and troubling journey with Bill as he talks about the two Bradys he thinks about in quiet moments as well as a story about a chance 1993 encounter with Oil Can Boyd in a Dunkin Donuts that begins with excitement and admiration but ends in prurience and shame.
5) Simmons - THE ONIONS! Bill spends 112 paragraphs spread over three weeks to detail his favorite sports daydreams about himself. Included in his opus is a daydream where Bill is the 7 foot tall Celtics center in Game 7 of the NBA Championship, and wins the title at the buzzer by dunking on Kobe Bryant so viciously that everyone in the arena suffers from dizziness and dry mouth, Kobe flies into the 3rd row of seats where several people are seriously hurt and the NBA cancels its 2009-10 season.
In conclusion, LeRoy Jenkins was the backup 3rd basemen on my tee ball team.
Roughly 5 years ago, Bill Simmons, a man with literally no sports background, started writing ESPN columns from the "fan's point of view." Basically, his early columns were just his own humorous reactions and opinions on sports and related pop-culture. As these were well received, we got longer columns where Bill propounded inane theories and unburdened himself of various private musings and thoughts. Further validated by his growing readership and inferring that the public was fascinated with the minutia of his life, readers were introduced to his father, his wife and his college buddies, who would be quoted, at times extensively, in his columns. By 2006, a very self-confident Bill, who I will say again is a man with no sports background, got into public feuds with various NBA general managers. When, in 2008, he held out against ESPN's editing -essentially refusing to write - ESPN must have realized they'd created a monster. A guy who writes about himself (something that can't really be replicated) and who has the power to call the shots over the editors and higher-ups.
So what do you get when you combine a bizarre fascination with one's self, a validating group of readers, and the self-confidence that no one will edit what you write? You get the following - an article by Bill Simmons entirely about his dead dog. Now look, I had a dog that died, and I loved that dog. But if someone asked...IF someone asked...I would probably briefly mention his name, what kind of dog, when I had it and maybe one funny thing he used to do. One paragraph max. Bill Simmons, apropos of nothing, gives us 25 paragraphs about his dead dog. On a sports website. What could be more hubristic? What were the editors doing? And most importantly - what comes next? I have 5 column titles & ideas:
1) Good Night Neosporin. Wearing a McHale jersey, Bill bloodies his hand trying to dunk on an 8 and a half foot rim and must treat it with neosporin in order to avoid infection and scarring. Bill tells the story of being bullied in middle school and how he would eat some of the neosporin used to treat cuts and scrapes from these little tussles. 10,000 words later, Bill brings the story full circle and eats a little neosporin as he treats his hand
2) How 'Bout Them Apples? Bill podcasts from the grocery store and opens up to listeners about some problems he's had selecting fresh produce, his lactose intolerance and something he used to do with heated up banana peels in college.
3) Go To Hell, Dillan Moskowitz. Bill rips into one Dillan Moskowitz, a fat, slow, disgusting, racist third baseman on his son's tee ball team. Dillan, who incidentally starts over Simmons' son, probably takes creatine and is constantly peeing in his pants (Dillan's not Simmons').
4) Marcia & Tom & Something Else. Take an erotic and troubling journey with Bill as he talks about the two Bradys he thinks about in quiet moments as well as a story about a chance 1993 encounter with Oil Can Boyd in a Dunkin Donuts that begins with excitement and admiration but ends in prurience and shame.
5) Simmons - THE ONIONS! Bill spends 112 paragraphs spread over three weeks to detail his favorite sports daydreams about himself. Included in his opus is a daydream where Bill is the 7 foot tall Celtics center in Game 7 of the NBA Championship, and wins the title at the buzzer by dunking on Kobe Bryant so viciously that everyone in the arena suffers from dizziness and dry mouth, Kobe flies into the 3rd row of seats where several people are seriously hurt and the NBA cancels its 2009-10 season.
In conclusion, LeRoy Jenkins was the backup 3rd basemen on my tee ball team.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Page 2 Ombudsman: The New Orlando Steelers
The Ombudsman has an important Super Bowl message for all of you. I'm already tired of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
First, anytime a team with some history of success like the Steelers reaches a Super Bowl, journalists, like, say David Flemming from ESPN, are roused from their torpor long enough to muster the energy to ask "Is this the greatest team ever?" The same article would have been written had the Cowboys, 49ers, Raiders or Dolphins made the Super Bowl. Had the Patriots made the Super Bowl, the article would be titled "Greatest Dynasty Ever?" and it would be written by Bill Simmons and he would say "Definitely, because they're totally unstoppable something something Manny Ramirez something something Bird's Celtics something something Dave Robert's stolen base." Anyway, Flemming's Bill Simmon's-esque opening salvo is "Since 1970, no one has been better [than the Steelers]. No one." In other words, in order to prove my assertion, I will repeat it...and then just to really remove any doubt, I will add a confident sounding "No one."
As a starting point, if you are making an argument that a team is the best of all time, why arbitrarily choose 1970 as your cut off for stats? Since 1945 (my arbitrary cut off for stats) the Steelers all-time winning percentage is 4th best among NFL teams. While it would not be a tenuous argument that the Steelers, with 5 Super Bowl titles, are the best NFL franchise, it would still be a debatable point.
But Flemming, against all odds, is going to try to prove that the Steelers are actually the best franchise ever..in ALL of sports. Flemming's argument is not actually made with facts. Am I making jokes here? About arguments made with no facts? Here are sentences that appear in this column: "Yes, of course I know the Montreal Canadians have won 24 Stanley Cups...Boston, of course [has] collected 17 titles...The stats definitely favor the Yankees, I know....the truth is math gives me a headache." Stating that facts "definitely" favor a conclusion other than the one currently being advanced is a rhetorical technique that has heretofore never been seen in recorded history.
History-making aside, what really happened here? Most likely, Flemming started writing this article, researched as he went, and when he found, to his horror, that wikipedia didn't back up his findings, had a moment where he pondered scrapping the article entirely. Then he thought to himself "The hell with it - I've written too much to start over now and I'm totally exhausted...I'm just gonna keep writing." Flemming makes a couple of lazy attempts to bring up social responsibility, lists 23 (23?) random things he likes about the Steelers and then falls asleep in his bathrobe. The reader is left thinking - What was the point of this article? Why would Flemming take a position that can't possibly be backed up and of which he has no hope of persuading anyone?
What's reason number 2 I'm already annoyed? The incessant talk (and notice the other team mentioned in the opening line of that link) of how great the Steelers fans are. I'm sure they're fine, but there are factors involved that should be considered. First, their teams are good. Second, a higher percentage of people living in Pittsburgh also grew up there -- so there is less dilution of fan loyalty than more transitory cities like Los Angeles, New York and Washington DC. Third, and maybe most importantly, there is nothing to do in Pittsburgh -- so obviously football games are a draw. To put things in perspective, Paulie Spadafora (at one time Pittsburgh's Oscar De La Hoya and its Mike Tyson) once drew 10,000 people to a Tuesday afternoon slap fight with a homeless guy in a Morningside alley. True story.
Can we talk about the fans specifically for one moment? Look, if New Jersey is the capital of the world for most guys with hair gel and wearing terrible ice, and Florida is the New Jersey of the south, then Pittsburgh is like a satellite New Jersey outpost founded by 17th century pioneers with wispy mustaches who were chased out of New Jersey for not tweezing their eyebrows. Pittsburgh's original name was New Orlando, a related but much rougher version of regular Orlando. You can question my history, but I ask - if thats not true, how did the Steelers' kicker wind up like this?
Prediction: Pittsburgh 30 - Cardinals 13. Kurt Warner is sacked a Super Bowl record 29 times, including twice by the guy pictured above. I will be rooting for the Cardinals upset, however.
In conclusion, Bam Morris sends me facebook messages.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Social Networking Ombudsman: Were you at Senor Frogs in 1998?
Readers,
Please add "World's Ombudsman" as a friend or become a fan of TWO on Facebook.
I can't promise daily, witty status updates but I can promise nightly, glenfiddich fueled, ill advised friend-requests of spring break inamoratas from schools like Eastern Michigan University. Or whatever.
Enjoy the internets.
Love,
The World's Ombudsman
Please add "World's Ombudsman" as a friend or become a fan of TWO on Facebook.
I can't promise daily, witty status updates but I can promise nightly, glenfiddich fueled, ill advised friend-requests of spring break inamoratas from schools like Eastern Michigan University. Or whatever.
Enjoy the internets.
Love,
The World's Ombudsman
Friday, January 16, 2009
Cinema Ombudsman: Gran Torino = Pink Cadillac?
I watched Gran Torino recently. It is not good cinema.
In terms of acting and natural sounding dialogue, I would say it is the worst movie I've seen in a theater since I took an unsuspecting sophomore to see Eraser on an ill-fated 1996 date. The runner-up for best moment in Eraser comes when Arnold Schwarzenegger shoots an alligator that has, through a truly unforeseeable sequence of events, wound up in the middle of a broader shoot out between Arnold and the bad guys, and Arnold says "You're luggage!" It was as if the writers came up with "You're luggage!" first and thought "YAHTZEE! - but now we just need to somehow work an alligator into an action scene..." But the best/worst moment in Eraser, and arguably all of cinematic history, comes when Arnold gets into a shoot out on a plane. Somehow the plane door flies open and Arnold is holding on to the outside of the plane. The outside of the plane! Chairs, bolted to the aircraft's floor, are being sucked out of the plane but Arnold holds on and is dodging bullets. He grasps for a parachute but it is sucked out and flies out of the plane towards earth. What does Arnold do? He makes himself very aerodynamic and, like a human missile, catches up to the parachute in midair and puts it on. What a scene! BUT WAIT....the airplane turns around and hits Arnold! I say again, a fullsize, 747 airplane traveling at speeds that must be presumed to be around 500 mph, hits Arnold Schwarzenegger in midair. Contradicting intuition, Arnold is not immediately killed, but does become annoyingly entangled in his chute. He plummets thousands of feet to earth, where he lands on a car. He is largely unharmed. Don't believe me? Here it is.
Gran Torino was not as ridiculous, but it was close. The plot is unbelievable as it centers around a marauding gang of Asians in Detroit. Please note that Asians account for less than 2% of the population in Detroit. This Asian gang, that Gran Torino would have you believe stalks the Motor City's streets, listens to "gangsta" rap and speaks in "gangsta" lingo. Essentially, they serve as an absurd, thinly-veiled proxy for a black gang. Look, after Eastwood's recent dustup with Spike Lee, I can understand why Eastwood wouldn't want to make a movie reflecting poorly on African Americans. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous to the viewer. If you don't want to worry about offending black people, then don't set your movie in the ghetto of Detroit and have gangs involved - just write about something else. Its like the domestic equivalent of Air Force One or The Peacemaker with terrorist villains who hail from terrorism hotbeds like Moscow and Sarajevo. Don't want to offend Muslims? No problem, but don't forcefeed your audience nonsense. I have Italian relatives who are offended by mob movies, but that doesn't mean I want to see the story of the Gevogelte crime family's reign of dominance over Belgian neighborhoods in Queens. ("Its a Flemish message...it means Pieter Klaus sleeps with the vises"). Alright... let me calm down after all of the humor I just delivered.
There are other problems with the movie. Eastwood's acting is great, but his character is cantankerous to the point of being unintentionally hilarious. The young neighbors he befriends have uneven characters and awkward, unbelievable dialogue. Finally, the preposterously miscast priest provides an uninspired performance and adds little to the movie: If the audience hadn't already picked up on the Christian theme, they certainly did when Eastwood died with his arms spread and feet perfectly together as if he were on a crucifix. With all of the needless talking outloud to himself Eastwood did throughout the movie, I was surprised that he didn't just sit up and say "This is religious symbolism" as the movie ended.
But anyway, this is not a movie review. This is a movie review review. One Peter Travers, a reviewer for Rolling Stone, gave Gran Torino, essentially a Diet Eraser, 3 and one half out of 4 stars. Nearly perfect! And look at the nominations: incredibly, AFI named it one of the best 10 films of 2008. Look, everyone has different opinions, but people in the theater I was in were ready to walk out. How can there be this disconnect?
I believe there are three possibile, non-mutually exclusive, reasons. First, the movie industry is filthy and reviewing films for major publications is a shady business. Studios regularly throw money and gifts at well known reviewers, and this is generally considered acceptable! Only the most overt bribery is frowned upon - for example, actually hiring the film critics on the side and creating an imaginary movie reviewer...apparently those crossed the line. Second, reviewers tend to reward actors they admire or want to succeed, even if the movie they are in is sub-par. A third, less nefarious option, is that even knowledgable reviewers occasionally swing and miss.
Here, I would be shocked if the studio wasn't pushing this movie heavily on critics: without any real say over what Eastwood directs (the link also leads to an accurate, well-written review), the only hope the studios have to make a profit off a terrible movie is to promote it as much as possible. Further, most people - studios, reviewers and movie-goers - like Clint Eastwood, and would like to see him end his career with a good movie. To be clear, am I saying that Peter Travers or AFI are involved in any impropriety? No. However the only other option remaining is that they are just terribly, horribly wrong about Gran Torino.
In conclusion, I was paid $4 an hour to herd pigeons for scenes in In the Line of Fire.
In terms of acting and natural sounding dialogue, I would say it is the worst movie I've seen in a theater since I took an unsuspecting sophomore to see Eraser on an ill-fated 1996 date. The runner-up for best moment in Eraser comes when Arnold Schwarzenegger shoots an alligator that has, through a truly unforeseeable sequence of events, wound up in the middle of a broader shoot out between Arnold and the bad guys, and Arnold says "You're luggage!" It was as if the writers came up with "You're luggage!" first and thought "YAHTZEE! - but now we just need to somehow work an alligator into an action scene..." But the best/worst moment in Eraser, and arguably all of cinematic history, comes when Arnold gets into a shoot out on a plane. Somehow the plane door flies open and Arnold is holding on to the outside of the plane. The outside of the plane! Chairs, bolted to the aircraft's floor, are being sucked out of the plane but Arnold holds on and is dodging bullets. He grasps for a parachute but it is sucked out and flies out of the plane towards earth. What does Arnold do? He makes himself very aerodynamic and, like a human missile, catches up to the parachute in midair and puts it on. What a scene! BUT WAIT....the airplane turns around and hits Arnold! I say again, a fullsize, 747 airplane traveling at speeds that must be presumed to be around 500 mph, hits Arnold Schwarzenegger in midair. Contradicting intuition, Arnold is not immediately killed, but does become annoyingly entangled in his chute. He plummets thousands of feet to earth, where he lands on a car. He is largely unharmed. Don't believe me? Here it is.
Gran Torino was not as ridiculous, but it was close. The plot is unbelievable as it centers around a marauding gang of Asians in Detroit. Please note that Asians account for less than 2% of the population in Detroit. This Asian gang, that Gran Torino would have you believe stalks the Motor City's streets, listens to "gangsta" rap and speaks in "gangsta" lingo. Essentially, they serve as an absurd, thinly-veiled proxy for a black gang. Look, after Eastwood's recent dustup with Spike Lee, I can understand why Eastwood wouldn't want to make a movie reflecting poorly on African Americans. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous to the viewer. If you don't want to worry about offending black people, then don't set your movie in the ghetto of Detroit and have gangs involved - just write about something else. Its like the domestic equivalent of Air Force One or The Peacemaker with terrorist villains who hail from terrorism hotbeds like Moscow and Sarajevo. Don't want to offend Muslims? No problem, but don't forcefeed your audience nonsense. I have Italian relatives who are offended by mob movies, but that doesn't mean I want to see the story of the Gevogelte crime family's reign of dominance over Belgian neighborhoods in Queens. ("Its a Flemish message...it means Pieter Klaus sleeps with the vises"). Alright... let me calm down after all of the humor I just delivered.
There are other problems with the movie. Eastwood's acting is great, but his character is cantankerous to the point of being unintentionally hilarious. The young neighbors he befriends have uneven characters and awkward, unbelievable dialogue. Finally, the preposterously miscast priest provides an uninspired performance and adds little to the movie: If the audience hadn't already picked up on the Christian theme, they certainly did when Eastwood died with his arms spread and feet perfectly together as if he were on a crucifix. With all of the needless talking outloud to himself Eastwood did throughout the movie, I was surprised that he didn't just sit up and say "This is religious symbolism" as the movie ended.
But anyway, this is not a movie review. This is a movie review review. One Peter Travers, a reviewer for Rolling Stone, gave Gran Torino, essentially a Diet Eraser, 3 and one half out of 4 stars. Nearly perfect! And look at the nominations: incredibly, AFI named it one of the best 10 films of 2008. Look, everyone has different opinions, but people in the theater I was in were ready to walk out. How can there be this disconnect?
I believe there are three possibile, non-mutually exclusive, reasons. First, the movie industry is filthy and reviewing films for major publications is a shady business. Studios regularly throw money and gifts at well known reviewers, and this is generally considered acceptable! Only the most overt bribery is frowned upon - for example, actually hiring the film critics on the side and creating an imaginary movie reviewer...apparently those crossed the line. Second, reviewers tend to reward actors they admire or want to succeed, even if the movie they are in is sub-par. A third, less nefarious option, is that even knowledgable reviewers occasionally swing and miss.
Here, I would be shocked if the studio wasn't pushing this movie heavily on critics: without any real say over what Eastwood directs (the link also leads to an accurate, well-written review), the only hope the studios have to make a profit off a terrible movie is to promote it as much as possible. Further, most people - studios, reviewers and movie-goers - like Clint Eastwood, and would like to see him end his career with a good movie. To be clear, am I saying that Peter Travers or AFI are involved in any impropriety? No. However the only other option remaining is that they are just terribly, horribly wrong about Gran Torino.
In conclusion, I was paid $4 an hour to herd pigeons for scenes in In the Line of Fire.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Pop Culture Ombudsman: The City starring Vanessa Hudgens
The most shameful thing the Ombudsman does is watch The City on MTV. What.
But as the World's Ombudsman, I want to make two things clear.
First, MTV has a responsibility to its viewers to disclose how much is scripted. This is not a true reality show in that some of it (much of it?) seems scripted to push forward certain story lines. Why do I suspect this? One main reason: never has one guy met his buddy specifically to discuss the vague contours of his relationship with a girl. One of my best friends had a girlfriend for a year and I didn't know her name. True story. I also recently learned from some lady friends that the girls' conversations on The City are equally ridiculous. I didn't realize this, as I had always assumed that girls spent most of their time together staring and having stilted conversations about their feelings. Not true, apparently, according to actual girls. But back to the broader point... can a TV station call anything it wants a reality show? Its as if the only burden that must be met is that the characters use their real names. Oh, Mark and Bronson instead of Larry and Balki? Done. Perfect Strangers is now a reality show.
Second, there's far too much Meat Packing District. Since about 1/3 of The City is just panned shots from a helicopter or the occasional stock clip of cabs on the street, and another 1/3 of the City is commercials, that leaves only 10 minutes of actual show. 8 of these 10 minutes occur in the Meat Packing District. Now I understand that DVF (DIANE VON FURSTENBERG!!!!!) is in meat packing...but why do the dates have to be there? why not some east village? lower east side? The Meat Packing District is the capital of faux-luxury and clubbiness. Why would a first date ever take place there? As a guy, what tone are you trying to set? "Girl...I'll take you to 5 9th tonight...and if things go well, in a couple of weeks we could be getting bottle service at Cielo, with me pouring you a too-strong Belvedere red bull, with ice that I scooped up with my hands... or, if we don't get into Cielo, we could be next door at Revel, talking about how we're not into that scene anyway...yeah girl." Hopefully you read that in a Barry White voice. If not, listen to this and go back and read it again while the track plays.
In conclusion, I am keeping my fingers crossed for an eventual fist fight involving the Australian and his iced out roommate, a break up and prurient rebound by Erin, and perhaps a brief kiss between Olivia and Chuck Bass. Is that realistic?
But as the World's Ombudsman, I want to make two things clear.
First, MTV has a responsibility to its viewers to disclose how much is scripted. This is not a true reality show in that some of it (much of it?) seems scripted to push forward certain story lines. Why do I suspect this? One main reason: never has one guy met his buddy specifically to discuss the vague contours of his relationship with a girl. One of my best friends had a girlfriend for a year and I didn't know her name. True story. I also recently learned from some lady friends that the girls' conversations on The City are equally ridiculous. I didn't realize this, as I had always assumed that girls spent most of their time together staring and having stilted conversations about their feelings. Not true, apparently, according to actual girls. But back to the broader point... can a TV station call anything it wants a reality show? Its as if the only burden that must be met is that the characters use their real names. Oh, Mark and Bronson instead of Larry and Balki? Done. Perfect Strangers is now a reality show.
Second, there's far too much Meat Packing District. Since about 1/3 of The City is just panned shots from a helicopter or the occasional stock clip of cabs on the street, and another 1/3 of the City is commercials, that leaves only 10 minutes of actual show. 8 of these 10 minutes occur in the Meat Packing District. Now I understand that DVF (DIANE VON FURSTENBERG!!!!!) is in meat packing...but why do the dates have to be there? why not some east village? lower east side? The Meat Packing District is the capital of faux-luxury and clubbiness. Why would a first date ever take place there? As a guy, what tone are you trying to set? "Girl...I'll take you to 5 9th tonight...and if things go well, in a couple of weeks we could be getting bottle service at Cielo, with me pouring you a too-strong Belvedere red bull, with ice that I scooped up with my hands... or, if we don't get into Cielo, we could be next door at Revel, talking about how we're not into that scene anyway...yeah girl." Hopefully you read that in a Barry White voice. If not, listen to this and go back and read it again while the track plays.
In conclusion, I am keeping my fingers crossed for an eventual fist fight involving the Australian and his iced out roommate, a break up and prurient rebound by Erin, and perhaps a brief kiss between Olivia and Chuck Bass. Is that realistic?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Coaching Ombudsman: Redskins 12 step program
First of all, lets everyone take a moment and appreciate the fact that The World's Ombudsman, who operates out of a NYC apartment while watching cartoon network (hahahaseriously) just broke the Shanahan-Snyder story before any other news service (and by "broke the Shanahan-Snyder news story" I mean "repeated an unsubstantiated but maybe true rumor") . This is journalism.
Lets, for another moment, assume that the rumor is true... what on Earth is Danny Snyder thinking? ANOTHER coach? Look, when two coaches come through the organization and the team is essentially .500 and can't generate a lot of points under either, this would tend to indicate that the coaches aren't the problem. I could get into a detailed analysis of how the Redskins analysis of their needs and talent is terrible, but that is another column.
Can you imagine another debacle of a coaching search? Here's how this might play out, if Danny Snyder is true to form:
1) Snyder approaches Shanahan and Cowher in private, they show no interest.
2) As word of these clandestine meetings is leaked, Zorn becomes increasingly emasculated and embarassed and resigns or is fired.
3) Shanahan and Cowher then publicly go on record as having turned down the Redskins job (one of them is then hired as Cowboys head coach).
4) Snyder makes absurd overtures to Bill Parcells and Pete Carroll that are immediately turned down. Carroll actually slaps Snyder after his meeting.
5) Mike Holmgren calls Snyder to preemptively inform him that he has no interest in the job.
6) Mind boggling names begin surfacing and Redskins fans get really nervous. Swirling about are hushed rumors about a visit to Redskin Park by Mike Tice, secret whisperings of Vinny Cerrato eating Chic Filet waffle fries with John Madden (who drinks the Polynesian sauce), blog posts about a Snyder phone call to Sam Wyche and an unconfirmed Lindy Infante sighting at Cafe Milano in Georgetown.
7) Snyder gives an obligatory interview to Greg Blache. The meeting takes place with Blache sitting in the passenger seat of Snyder's Lexus as Snyder drives to meet with Mike Shula at a TGI Fridays in Herndon. Snyder is on the phone for the first 10 minutes with Cerrato talking about whether or not they should trade draft picks to the Panthers in exchange for Dwayne Jarrett. Snyder actually stops to pick up Shula from his hotel, and makes Blache sit in the backseat for the last part of the interview.
8) Offended, Blache calls a press conference and retires. Danny Smith is named interim defensive coordinator.
9) Meanwhile, despite Snyder ordering him three TGI Fridays Red Bull Berry Blast signature slushies, Shula is not sufficiently excited about the head coaching job and turns it down.
10) Vinny Cerrato's name is floated as a potential head coaching candidate, but a small riot ensues at the press conference during which there's a stabbing. Jason La Canfora is a suspect.
11) In April, Snyder announces that Stump Mitchell has been hired as the 28th head coach of the franchise, ushering in a new chapter in Redskins history.
12) Four days later, Snyder announces that Rod Marinelli will be taking over the defense coordinator role from Smith (who is fired effective immediately), and that Snyder himself and Forrest Gregg will co-coach the special teams.
In conclusion, I once saw Dennis Erickson bench press 300 pounds.
Lets, for another moment, assume that the rumor is true... what on Earth is Danny Snyder thinking? ANOTHER coach? Look, when two coaches come through the organization and the team is essentially .500 and can't generate a lot of points under either, this would tend to indicate that the coaches aren't the problem. I could get into a detailed analysis of how the Redskins analysis of their needs and talent is terrible, but that is another column.
Can you imagine another debacle of a coaching search? Here's how this might play out, if Danny Snyder is true to form:
1) Snyder approaches Shanahan and Cowher in private, they show no interest.
2) As word of these clandestine meetings is leaked, Zorn becomes increasingly emasculated and embarassed and resigns or is fired.
3) Shanahan and Cowher then publicly go on record as having turned down the Redskins job (one of them is then hired as Cowboys head coach).
4) Snyder makes absurd overtures to Bill Parcells and Pete Carroll that are immediately turned down. Carroll actually slaps Snyder after his meeting.
5) Mike Holmgren calls Snyder to preemptively inform him that he has no interest in the job.
6) Mind boggling names begin surfacing and Redskins fans get really nervous. Swirling about are hushed rumors about a visit to Redskin Park by Mike Tice, secret whisperings of Vinny Cerrato eating Chic Filet waffle fries with John Madden (who drinks the Polynesian sauce), blog posts about a Snyder phone call to Sam Wyche and an unconfirmed Lindy Infante sighting at Cafe Milano in Georgetown.
7) Snyder gives an obligatory interview to Greg Blache. The meeting takes place with Blache sitting in the passenger seat of Snyder's Lexus as Snyder drives to meet with Mike Shula at a TGI Fridays in Herndon. Snyder is on the phone for the first 10 minutes with Cerrato talking about whether or not they should trade draft picks to the Panthers in exchange for Dwayne Jarrett. Snyder actually stops to pick up Shula from his hotel, and makes Blache sit in the backseat for the last part of the interview.
8) Offended, Blache calls a press conference and retires. Danny Smith is named interim defensive coordinator.
9) Meanwhile, despite Snyder ordering him three TGI Fridays Red Bull Berry Blast signature slushies, Shula is not sufficiently excited about the head coaching job and turns it down.
10) Vinny Cerrato's name is floated as a potential head coaching candidate, but a small riot ensues at the press conference during which there's a stabbing. Jason La Canfora is a suspect.
11) In April, Snyder announces that Stump Mitchell has been hired as the 28th head coach of the franchise, ushering in a new chapter in Redskins history.
12) Four days later, Snyder announces that Rod Marinelli will be taking over the defense coordinator role from Smith (who is fired effective immediately), and that Snyder himself and Forrest Gregg will co-coach the special teams.
In conclusion, I once saw Dennis Erickson bench press 300 pounds.
Current Events Ombudsman: Breaking News
There are rumors swirling that Redskins owner Dan Snyder flew to Cabo to visit Mike Shanahan.... developing.....
Monday, January 12, 2009
Coaching Ombudsman: Playing the Field Position Game
This New York times article and this ESPN recap give an overview of the Chargers - Steelers playoff game.... however neither touches on what must be the worst coaching decision to never be widely discussed by anyone:
Down 35-17 in the 4th quarter, with two timeouts remaining, the following happened:
Yes. Down three scores in the playoffs, with 3 and a half minutes left and with two timeouts - Norv Turner punted! Somewhere, George McFly was plotting to force Norv to do his homework. Ha!
Thats the humor. But moving on - lets do the math here. From Norv's point of view, the best reasonable scenario is that you stop the Steelers in three downs using two of your time outs, and the clock runs on third down since you can't stop it.
So, Norv is hoping - if the plan he's concocted works PERFECTLY - to have the ball, with no timeouts, down by 3 scores, with about 2 minutes left. From this point, Norv was presumably banking on the following sequence: quick strike touchdown, successful onside kick, quick strike touchdown, successful 2 pt conversion, successful onside kick, field goal.
Precedent? When I was little the Raiders were leading the Redskins 38-9 in the Super Bowl when I stopped watching the actual game and played out the end with my GI Joe guys. An absurd string of Raiders' miscues followed by unlikely touchdowns by RoadBlock and Gung Ho allowed for a shocking Redskins victory. The only comparable comeback (in your world) would be in 2003, when Indianapolis recovered from a 35-14 deficit - but Indy had 5 minutes left and went for it on 4th down every time. I went for it on 4th down every time too, by the way.
Anyway - so how did Norv's scheme play out? The Steelers, for some reason, threw incomplete on their 3rd down, stopping the clock, so the Chargers got the ball back with more than 2 minutes left (better than expected!) and were incredibly able to score at around the 2 minute warning. 35-24, so far so good! Unfortunately, the onside kick failed, and the game ended without the Chargers getting another possession, let alone two.
While a 4th & 17 is hard to convert, it is not impossible....it is significantly closer to impossible to win after punting the ball away w 3 minutes left in the game, down 3 scores, like Norv did. A coach trying to win tries to convert that 4th down. And that leads me to the following possibility...
Norv, notwithstanding rumors that he splices Smurf scenes into game films (Norv HATES Gargamel), was not envisioning a cartoonish GI Joe style comeback win. Norv was more concerned with not losing 42-17 and embarassing himself than he was with winning. And that is a shame.
In conclusion, Babe Laughenberg is currently on the Chargers practice squad.
Down 35-17 in the 4th quarter, with two timeouts remaining, the following happened:
| 1st and 10 at SD 24 | (4:05) (Shotgun) P.Rivers pass incomplete short right to V.Jackson. Coverage #20 McFadden, #94 Timmons. | ||
| 2nd and 10 at SD 24 | (4:01) (Shotgun) P.Rivers pass incomplete deep left to V.Jackson. | ||
| 3rd and 10 at SD 24 | (3:55) (Shotgun) P.Rivers sacked at SD 17 for -7 yards (J.Harrison). | ||
| 4th and 17 at SD 17 | (3:23) (Punt formation) M.Scifres punts 52 yards to PIT 31, Center-D.Binn, fair catch by M.Moore. |
Yes. Down three scores in the playoffs, with 3 and a half minutes left and with two timeouts - Norv Turner punted! Somewhere, George McFly was plotting to force Norv to do his homework. Ha!
Thats the humor. But moving on - lets do the math here. From Norv's point of view, the best reasonable scenario is that you stop the Steelers in three downs using two of your time outs, and the clock runs on third down since you can't stop it.
So, Norv is hoping - if the plan he's concocted works PERFECTLY - to have the ball, with no timeouts, down by 3 scores, with about 2 minutes left. From this point, Norv was presumably banking on the following sequence: quick strike touchdown, successful onside kick, quick strike touchdown, successful 2 pt conversion, successful onside kick, field goal.
Precedent? When I was little the Raiders were leading the Redskins 38-9 in the Super Bowl when I stopped watching the actual game and played out the end with my GI Joe guys. An absurd string of Raiders' miscues followed by unlikely touchdowns by RoadBlock and Gung Ho allowed for a shocking Redskins victory. The only comparable comeback (in your world) would be in 2003, when Indianapolis recovered from a 35-14 deficit - but Indy had 5 minutes left and went for it on 4th down every time. I went for it on 4th down every time too, by the way.
Anyway - so how did Norv's scheme play out? The Steelers, for some reason, threw incomplete on their 3rd down, stopping the clock, so the Chargers got the ball back with more than 2 minutes left (better than expected!) and were incredibly able to score at around the 2 minute warning. 35-24, so far so good! Unfortunately, the onside kick failed, and the game ended without the Chargers getting another possession, let alone two.
While a 4th & 17 is hard to convert, it is not impossible....it is significantly closer to impossible to win after punting the ball away w 3 minutes left in the game, down 3 scores, like Norv did. A coach trying to win tries to convert that 4th down. And that leads me to the following possibility...
Norv, notwithstanding rumors that he splices Smurf scenes into game films (Norv HATES Gargamel), was not envisioning a cartoonish GI Joe style comeback win. Norv was more concerned with not losing 42-17 and embarassing himself than he was with winning. And that is a shame.
In conclusion, Babe Laughenberg is currently on the Chargers practice squad.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
College Basketball Ombudsman: Intimidating Opponents Succesfully
I was looking forward to watching the announcer swap resulting in Dick Vitale and Dan Schulman announcing the Nuggets - Heat game and Mike Terico, Mark Jackon and Jeff Van Gundy announcing the Davidson - Duke game. However, while reading up on it, I came across this article:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2009/jan/06/four-questions-for-dick-vitale/ .
In it, Dicky V talks about how great the Cameron Crazies are. For some reason, this is the default statement for every announcer or college basketball pundit. It is unthinkable to say otherwise on record. However, outside of people who actually went to Duke, I can’t think of one person who doesn’t actively dislike Duke basketball generally, and the Cameron Crazies specifically. Why?
To understand why the Cameron Crazies are the least liked student cheering section in the country, one must look at three things – the students, their behavior, and the context of that behavior.
The students at Duke are primarily rich kids who grew up in affluent neighborhoods, attended elite high schools and, in many cases, did not have to rely on academic merit to get accepted into the institution. While it casts an unfair light on the students who do have the academics and test scores, the last point is a fact when compared to other institutions: Duke is one of the main (if not the main) culprit of legacy admissions and admissions based on applicant wealth of any college in the country. It adds little to this entry to also mention that the students are generally socially awkward and speak in faux-southern accents, but I’ve gone ahead and noted it anyway. But, moving on, the point is – that should be enough. You’re rich, well-educated, floating along, on your way to being successful...just enjoy your life. Go to basketball games and root for your nationally ranked team and cheer and hope they win.
But that isn’t enough. They can’t just go to basketball games.
The Cameron Crazies are not satiated until they have mocked, derided and harassed the opponents and their fans. Duke could be ahead by 35 points with 4 minutes left and if Greg Paulus hit a three the fans would go absolutely berserk. They would shriek with delight, as if to say – We love winning while being obnoxious, but humiliating people while being obnoxious is even better! Look at my pants with little whales on them!
And who are the people they are mocking and, often times, humiliating? Typically the opposing athletes are poor, urban kids who did not have the same educational opportunities in their past and do not have the same career prospects in their futures.
I will grant that the Cameron Crazies are in college and should be given some room for immaturity. However, even with that mitigating factor, it still shows a lack of judgment to behave that way and not realize (or not care) how you’ll be perceived.
In conclusion, I once slapped Steve Wojohowski at an Arbys in
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Social Ombudsman: Hip Hop & Live Presidents
Lets start with a clear opening: There is nothing inherently bad about hip hop (even this).
But I find it disingenuous when people in the industry try to absolve themselves from responsibility for the content of mainstream hip hop, by saying its just the reality from the streets: When President-Elect Obama voiced concern over some hip-hop lyrics, Russell Simmons urged him to look at the social conditions that gave rise to the lyrics and then later said “"I was just defending hip-hop....It's good for politicians to say they're against hip-hop. But hip-hop's job is to tell the truth, and the truth can be shocking."”
Lets be serious, mainstream hip-hop's job isn’t to tell the truth, it's to make money. It's a money making machine. It's Birdman rhyming “champagne” with “bandana” in the same song where Lil Wayne provides detailed instructions as to the correct timing for taking shots, popping bottles, conversing with "hood rats" and finally...only when the preceding has been accomplished...engaging in interactions with models. If hip-hop was all about the truth, Young Buck would be killing people constantly. No, mainstream hip-hop overstates and glorifies this lifestyle, and that sells records.
On the downside, the appeal to young people is similar to that of mob movies, but more nefarious – because the effect is also to validate this sort of behavior to those most susceptible to it – poor, urban kids without fathers but with access to drugs and violence should they choose to go that route. The draw of money and the perceived social acceptance of criminal conduct can be enough to push them towards that lifestyle. If artists were really concerned about “telling the truth” about poverty, drugs and murder, their songs would presumably be geared towards drawing attention to its horror and pushing for social change away from that behavior. Can anyone keep a straight face and argue that that's the purpose of mainstream hip-hop? If it is, it may be the most unsuccessful social campaign in history.
On the bright side, Russell Simmons and Lil Wayne are rich - and I have no problem with that. There's nothing un-American about making money by cashing in on whats popular....and a lot of industries are engaged in legal activities that may have harmful effects.
My issue is with people like Russell Simmons acting as if these guys are merely messengers, reporting the facts and doing society a favor by letting us know about how they're trying to menage before they reach their garage and such.
In conclusion, a multi-multi-millionaire in a repartee with the newly elected President of the United States....now that’s shhtraight hip-hop!
PS - If interested, check out some truly creative hip-hop...Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, Common and so forth.
But I find it disingenuous when people in the industry try to absolve themselves from responsibility for the content of mainstream hip hop, by saying its just the reality from the streets: When President-Elect Obama voiced concern over some hip-hop lyrics, Russell Simmons urged him to look at the social conditions that gave rise to the lyrics and then later said “"I was just defending hip-hop....It's good for politicians to say they're against hip-hop. But hip-hop's job is to tell the truth, and the truth can be shocking."”
Lets be serious, mainstream hip-hop's job isn’t to tell the truth, it's to make money. It's a money making machine. It's Birdman rhyming “champagne” with “bandana” in the same song where Lil Wayne provides detailed instructions as to the correct timing for taking shots, popping bottles, conversing with "hood rats" and finally...only when the preceding has been accomplished...engaging in interactions with models. If hip-hop was all about the truth, Young Buck would be killing people constantly. No, mainstream hip-hop overstates and glorifies this lifestyle, and that sells records.
On the downside, the appeal to young people is similar to that of mob movies, but more nefarious – because the effect is also to validate this sort of behavior to those most susceptible to it – poor, urban kids without fathers but with access to drugs and violence should they choose to go that route. The draw of money and the perceived social acceptance of criminal conduct can be enough to push them towards that lifestyle. If artists were really concerned about “telling the truth” about poverty, drugs and murder, their songs would presumably be geared towards drawing attention to its horror and pushing for social change away from that behavior. Can anyone keep a straight face and argue that that's the purpose of mainstream hip-hop? If it is, it may be the most unsuccessful social campaign in history.
On the bright side, Russell Simmons and Lil Wayne are rich - and I have no problem with that. There's nothing un-American about making money by cashing in on whats popular....and a lot of industries are engaged in legal activities that may have harmful effects.
My issue is with people like Russell Simmons acting as if these guys are merely messengers, reporting the facts and doing society a favor by letting us know about how they're trying to menage before they reach their garage and such.
In conclusion, a multi-multi-millionaire in a repartee with the newly elected President of the United States....now that’s shhtraight hip-hop!
PS - If interested, check out some truly creative hip-hop...Kanye West, Lupe Fiasco, Common and so forth.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sportsguy Ombusdman: Colts All The Way!
Bill Simmons asks is 11-0 in the playoffs possible? The answer is a resounding YES! But not if you don’t understand the sport. The sports guy does not. At least his column isn’t well thought out.
Now, anyone could have gone 2-2 in their picks on wildcard weekend - the issue is not the results. The issue is the process. To avoid the tedious and time-consuming effort needed to watch games, study film and learn about personnel, Bill has devised a set of "rules" he calls the Playoff Manifesto.
We need not go into all of the rules one by one, since they clearly aren’t any more effective than flipping coins. I will mention, as a starting point, that any set of rules – whether they be for investing, for relationships, for sports – whatever...any set of rules that has a built in George-Costanza-Do-The-Opposite-Of-What-You-Initially-Think Rule should be immediately discarded.
What we can get into is – why have these rules? Why say things like “** New rule: If you're taking a warm-weather team in a cold-weather road game, you'd better have a really, REALLY good reason. Like, "Half the guys on the home team are battling mononucleosis."” Really? What about
Why claim, as Bill does, that the last 5 games matter more than the overall body of a team’s work? According to the Manifesto, NFL teams can’t just turn it on. “Doesn’t happen.” Simmons says, like a grizzled old coach. You would never know he’s relying entirely on the experience of several gritty co-ed flag football seasons in
Quite simply – a manifesto replaces the need for actual evaluation of the teams. Bill proudly doesn’t understand coverages, blitzing, linebacker play, blocking schemes, receiver routes, or quarterback reads, so it stands to reason that he wouldn’t have any idea what matchups might be exploited in a given game. There is no insightful football knowledge here, and I think Bill would admit as much.
However, we must take this one step further. I understand that a detailed, technical analysis is not for everyone and some sports fans aren’t interested a Ron Jaworski style breakdown. But the Manifesto rules are either so obvious (Don’t pick the team with the crappy quarterback on the road, which is basically one step removed from advising – “Don’t pick the team most likely to lose!”) or are so ill-conceived that they don’t pass even the lightest due diligence (the warm weather vs cold weather teams, last five games etc etc).
To recap, there’s no in depth evaluation, and the more fan-friendly discourse isn’t well thought out. So what are we left with?
In conclusion, Bill Simmons could never cover me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)