A look back in mild interest: Top Chef, Idol, Michael Haneke

The Tribune review for Funny Games came out this morning, and it was less than complimentary. Apparently, something is lost in the translation. This is kind of sad to me, since for most of the American audience that turns up at the theaters for this movie, it will be their first exposure to Michael Haneke's films. If it's not any good, it will also be their last, which is pretty unfortunate. So don't let that happen to you, occasional reader! This guy's movies are not exactly audience-friendly, but they're very good, and very thought provoking. I've had better conversations about them (usually trying to figure out what the point was) than about any other movie I can think of. If you think Funny Games is crap, check out Cache instead on DVD.

Cache = Hidden in French.

Another week, another contestant forcibly removed. Mercifully, David Hernandez did indeed get the boot, reaffirming my faith in America--for now. I fully expect America to completely blow it in the later rounds, and expose our collective consciousness to the stomach-turning tragedy of a David Archuleta solo album.

Are you watching Top Chef? You should be. It was already a good show, but now we get treated periodically to some awesome shots of Chicago. In the first episode the producers did a nice job of showing how beautiful the city is, and I hope that continues. Several of the contestants described Chicago as being a cutting edge dining city, so it's nice to see our restaurants get some props. Also, two of the contestants are from Chicago. One of them, Valerie something, grew up in Glenview and was a year older than me. I'm pretty sure I sang in choir with her, only back then she was just called Val (...something). And the other Chicagoan is Stephanie Izard, who opened Scylla in Wicker Park a few years ago, then sold it (I think it's closed now). If I remember correctly, the menu was heavily seafood-oriented, and I think the Trib gave her three stars. You should root for her.

Musing: Horror Movies Blow

The other night, Marissa and I were out for dinner with Harold. As often happens these days, I was pretty much ready for my "comfy pants" by about 9:30. The fact that it was Saturday night didn't make much of a difference, but Harold did come by for a while to watch a movie, so I suppose it was more active than the average week night.

Anyway, one thing that came up in conversation was that horror movies completely suck. Why is that the case? It seems that in every other genre, there's an adherence to a certain yardstick for quality. If a drama features poor performances, a crap script, and generally poor filmmaking, everyone decides it's bad, and no one wants to see it.

The yardstick seems to be totally different in the horror genre though. Most horror films feature raspberry-worthy performances by B-grade actors; cringe-inducing, tin-ear writing (by D-grade writers); and a total disregard for artistic filmmaking. And yet, tons of people enjoy the films anyway, and put good money down to see them. They're getting worse too. The original Halloween or Friday the 13th were not nearly as tragic as the garbage being slung today, like Hostel or the Saw sequels.

I know that a lot of people enjoy horror films because they like being scared, but why the double standard? Is the "jump factor" that important and desirable that the normal standards for movie-making are out the window when assessing a horror film's value? If that's the case, doesn't it mean that horror films are not really the same art form as films of other genres? Maybe they're something more like porn movies, where things like performances, writing, etc., are not the point and nothing more than window dressing. You see a porn movie for the sex, you see a horror movie for the jump factor.

Still that doesn't explain why they can't be held to a higher standard. There are movies out there every now and then that are very scary, but because they're good movies, nobody really thinks of them as "horror." Silence of the Lambs is a good example. Harold and I talked about how we both liked that Nicole Kidman movie The Others that was out six or seven years ago. And I really liked Steven Speilberg's War of the Worlds, which is definitely not considered "horror," but I found to be pretty horrifying in places.

The movie that Harold, Marissa and I watched was called Benny's Video, by German-born director Michael Haneke. Most Americans aren't familiar with Haneke's work. He studied psychology and philosophy before becoming a filmmaker, and his films usually feature short bursts of extreme violence, and long pensive static takes. They often explore the darker psychological undercurrents that are repressed in middle class life... not your typical horror fare, but very terrifying in a completely different way. I first discovered Haneke late at night a few years ago when I couldn't sleep and was flipping through the channels. I stopped on Funny Games, just a few minutes into the movie. My reaction was something like, "Wha...?!!!" and I was riveted. Now I own a DVD set of his earlier stuff, and I'm working my way through it.

The reason I bring this up is that Haneke is remaking the film Funny Games, in English, for an American audience, and it opens tomorrow (Friday, March 14th). From what I can tell in the previews, the film is almost exactly the same only instead of two weird German people playing the married couple at the center of the story, it now features Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, so that's an improvement.

The American version

I'm really excited about seeing this movie, but I may not get the chance for a while. Next week I'll be skiing in Colorado. I expect to write a nice blog post about the trip, from my hospital bed in traction. Probably it will feature some action photos of me destroying a knee. Maybe if someone takes pity on me, they'll wheelchair me into a movie theater and I can watch the movie while I convalesce.

Opinion: Idol, Week of 3.10

I should have another blog post coming tonight or tomorrow morning, but it's about an hour before the Idol results show, so I need to get this in under the gun. The man-on-man stripper, David Hernandez, has got to go. I also won't miss Syesha if she gets the old heave-ho. Chikezie's stock, however, has risen dramatically since he showed last night that he can sing a song that doesn't bore you to death. I was thrilled to see everyone else's favorite, David Archuleta, crash and burn. My own favorites, Brooke and David Cook, haven't changed.

David Hernandez, your table is waiting.

As if Idol wasn't enough to keep me busy, Top Chef's new season starts tonight, and from Chicago no less. I LOVE Top Chef, and I've missed it so since last season ended. To think, it's been months since I've seen a nice, tasty plate of foam.

A look back in mild interest: Idol and Republicanism

I'm a little late revisiting some of last weeks topics, but I have a new, not-so-exciting blog feature to unveil. Check out the picture I've put in below, and you'll see that through the magic of digital manipulation, I've managed to put people from TOTALLY DIFFERENT PICTURES into the SAME PICTURE! In my spare time, I often like to play around with images and create "wag the dog" pictures. Once, I amused myself for an entire evening taking a vacation photo of my friends Eric and Christine and pasting them into every location we visited on our Mediterranean cruise. I use Paint Shop Pro during these hours of giddy ecstasy. You can too! Sadly though, I can't think of anything to use my boredom-sharpened skills on besides my Idol recap for this week.

So it turns out Eric was right, and America just wasn't ready to see Chikezie go, but I'm sad to see Danny Noriega go in his place. Danny was pretty bad, but he made for some comic relief. The other three of my four picks last week did hit the skids:

Kady, Danny, Luke and Asia'h (WTF?) burning in the eternal fires of obscurity and the viewing public's complete lack of interest.

My two favorites are still David Cook and Brooke White:

George's favorites, surrounded by a saintly blue glow.

In other news, my last post (about our inability to fix things like we used to) pulled in a couple of interesting responses. Here's one that has not been chosen at random:

Michael: "[Sentimental value] should not be a factor. If it is cheaper to buy a new than fix the old one, than it is inefficient to fix it. If everyone acted on inefficiency, wealth would be lost (or at the minimum not created) and new technology would not be developed. Companies would stop (mostly due to lack of funds) research and development. Static advancement is never good! Also, Marissa is correct. Americans live fast paced lives. Therefore, if you want to add another variable to your equation (besides a & c), you should add b. b should equal time spent fixing the piece of shit. In other words, time cost and not sentimental cost should be the factor!"

Bravo! Spoken like a true Republican! This is a well thought-out, articulate point that takes into account all kinds of interesting economic concepts like "time costs" and "inefficiency" and "static advancement." However, as a liberal, I completely zone out when I hear anything that doesn't have to do with myself and my feelings. After all, what good are concepts like "time costs" when I'm trying to work out my Oedipal issues with my therapist? And so in my world, the sentimental issues rule! Why wouldn't I sew another rip in my torn up woobie? I wuv my woobie, and I don't want another one!

Seriously though, the point I'm not quite making is that the whole crux of the issue is that our consumerist instincts are overriding our sentimental instincts, and maybe that's not such a good thing. The little tidbit I mentioned about wanting to fix the light bulbs in my car when they burn out is a good example. I've seen the guy at the car place do it. It takes him about one minute to change a taillight, and he doesn't charge me a dime. It takes me closer to twenty minutes to do it myself, and that's not including the time it took to drive to Napa Auto Parts or whereever to buy a bulb, which costs a couple bucks at least. But I still want to do it myself, because I like feeling like I fixed something. So it's good for my emotional well-being. If I could fix more of my stuff, wouldn't it follow that I'd have something like that "I just built a computer" feeling more often... and wouldn't that be great for my mental health? To put it in Michael's terms, there's a value to the fixing that can't be measured in terms of costs, whether time or monetary. Or maybe it can... fixing stuff adds value to your life that you're willing to spend a significant time cost and a little bit of money on.

Musing: We're All Completely Useless

Recently I read an article in WIRED magazine about we've all lost the ability to fix stuff. The writer's point was that back in the day (and by "the day" I suppose I mean sometime around the 50s or 60s), your average run-of-the-mill American male, let's call him "Biff", had the ability to fix a lot of the stuff he owned. If the radio broke, Biff could open it up and do a little soldering. If the car broke down, Biff could pop the hood and do more than pretend he knew what he was looking at. Et cetera. Nowadays, if something breaks we do a simple calculation: suppose a is the amount it would cost to repair and b is the inverse of the amount we give a shit (as in, did I really like that toaster anyway?) and c is the cost of a new one. If a + b > c, we just throw the thing away and get a new one. (I'm completely paraphrasing. I don't remember there being any algebra in the article I read. Actually, now that I read back over the little equation I just described, I'm starting to think I got that all wrong. But you get the point anyway.) So this writer was working away with a soldering iron, bemoaning his complete lack of skills, as he struggled to make a clock out of a couple of voltmeters--one, to denote hours and the other, minutes.

Biff?

It reminded me of a conversation I had with my irritating roommate my freshman year of college. He was all worked up that he didn't know how to fix his computer. (Actually, that was my computer! That bastard didn't have one of his own, and he and his girlfriend were always using mine. What really pissed me off was when his girlfriend used to get frustrated at the game she was playing and bang on the keyboard. So I guess I should have been the one getting worked up that he didn't know how to fix the thing.) His feeling was that the cause of our inabilities was that everyone's job was becoming more and more specialized, so they were less and less likely to be able to perform more general tasks like Biff could. I'm not sure I really agree with that assessment. Or rather, the observation is probably valid, but I'm not sure I agree that it's the cause of my inability to fix my cordless drill.

Maybe the cause is that our stuff itself is getting more complicated, so that it requires too much knowledge to fix. But I don't think that's the case either. A radio is a radio, n'est-ce pas? Is it that our stuff is getting less "fixable"? That probably does have a lot to do with it. I've read a lot in the last few years about how many products are "made to break." Companies have been more accepting of the fact that it costs a lot more to maintain a repair division than it does to just replace their broken merchandise--especially since most consumers don't bother sending it back. Apple is a perfect example of that phenomenon. Remember that whole period when people were getting all worked up about how the batteries on their iPods were breaking? Apple responded that iPods had about a two- or three-year lifespan, so people shouldn't expect that they'll last longer than that. Really, they just realized that trying to fix all the broken ones would cost them more profit than just enduring the small bit of bad publicity and selling people a new iPod. (Because that's what an iPod user is forced to buy if they want a new mp3 player, once they realize they can't play all the music they downloaded from iTunes on anything else... but that's a whole other blog post, and this one is already looking like it's going to go on way too long.)

And if the stuff we buy is actually made to break, our inability to fix it is probably compounded by the fact that it was shitty to begin with. Why does everything have to be made of plastic these days? I'm sure it was much easier for Biff to fix his kid's RC car when the car was made out of metal parts. These days, you're lucky if you can get a damn RC car open without breaking it even more.

The last reason for this phenomenon that I can think of is that, like most of us tend to do, I'm totally idealizing the 50s and 60s. Maybe the whole idea that people were able to fix any of their mechanical stuff is just an idealization of a bygone era. But that would mean there actually is no Biff. And that would be no fun. So let's just forget that one.

I can say this: fixing complicated stuff is awesome. I built a computer last year, and these days that basically means pushing cards into other cards and using a screwdriver very sparingly. But still, the first time I turned it on, and it actually... WORKED!!!... I was so proud of it I nearly did a dance. Honestly, you'd think I was a prehistoric apeman discovering the miracle of fire. And I really get off on replacing the lightbulbs on my car myself when they burn out. Even though they'll do it for free at the shop. And more importantly, even though it's just a stupid lightbulb, not the carburetor. But for one short minute, I feel like Biff.

And I'll say one other thing: I would LOVE to have a double voltmeter clock. And a soldering iron.

Opinion: Idol, Week of 3.03

In my second post in a row inspired by crap television, I'll be kicking off what I hope is a recurring topic in my new blog. The subject can be best described thusly: "THIS... IS AMERICAN IDOL!!!!" Sadly, I've become hopelessly addicted to Idol this season in a way I never have before, which is surprising to me, since there are not very many cute girls, and the few there are aren't very good. But anyway...

After watching this weeks performances, here are my unsolicited opinions:

Kady Malloy and Luke Menard have GOT TO GO. And I won't miss Asia'h (WTF?) Epperson and Chikezie Easy.

My current favorites are Brooke White and David Cook.

Kristy Lee Cook would be very cute... if she wasn't so mannish.

On an unrelated note, I've realized now what the whole point of my blog is. I'm hoping to engage my friends (and maybe if I'm lucky, some friends of friends) in conversation about things I find interesting. So to that end, I'll fish around in the comment bag and pull out one lucky winner.... What do you know? It's Eric!... who was the only one who commented on the Prince Harry stuff. Thanks, Eric! Eric says: "I get the Drudge Report is basically a gossip site but I am very upset that they broke the story and have sworn it off for the time being."

I actually have never read the Drudge Report, so I admit to knowing very little about it. My impression of it, though, was that it was more political gossip than the usual celebrity stuff. Am I wrong about that? Either way, it's probably worth mentioning that the NYT reports that the information about Harry was first published by an Australian magazine and a German newspaper. Which would normally net the Drudge Report some sympathy votes in my book, except that Drudge's initial citing of these two sources was "almost immediately reneged and [Drudge] labeled the news a 'world exclusive.'"

Opinion: Prince Harry

After finishing yesterday's inaugural blog post, Marissa and I settled in to watch the episode of 20/20 we'd been DVRing. Just the fact that there was something interesting to watch on TV last night made it something of a banner evening. We even celebrated by ordering in some Thai food. Since I'm sure anyone reading is now green with envy at the thrilling life of glamor, action and international intrigue I lead, I'll quit my bragging.

Anyway, I actually don't like 20/20 very much, and I think Barbara Walters is bordering on insufferable. (Note to self: write a future blog post on the horror that is "The View".) But last night's episode was an "in-depth exclusive" on Britain's Royal Family. Apparently, 20/20's cameras were given "unprecedented access" into the lives of the Family (should this word be capitalized?) for a year. Mostly this was schlock, and my general opinions are as follows: Prince Charles is still a total dweeb, Camilla is even uglier and bears a remarkable resemblance to some of the Royal Family's horses, the queen is amusing when she gets irritated, Helen Mirren is an a fantastic actress who absolutely nailed her performance in last year's The Queen, and the diplomats and heads of state of Ghana are in dire need of some advice on fashion protocol (seriously, this one dude was wearing this traditional African robe thing that was slung over one shoulder, leaving his entire armpit exposed throughout an official state dinner at Buckingham Palace. I don't think I could have eaten.) Also, the fact that the British public keeps the Royals around is pretty unfathomable, considering they cost the taxpayers something in the neighborhood of $70 million a year.

The timing of this show though was interesting, coming just days after the revelation that Prince Harry, Charles's and Diana's son and third in the line of succession to the throne has been serving on the front lines in Afghanistan. If you've not been paying attention to this story, it goes something like this: Prince Harry completed his military training last year, and reportedly, he wanted to go serve in Iraq, but was not allowed to, since he and his fellow soldiers would have undoubtedly become a special target. For the last three months, he's been serving as a battlefield air controller in Afghanistan, with the full knowledge of the British press, who collectively agreed not to report on it at present, in return for getting open updates about his status, some interviews and video footage, etc., to report later on. Amazingly, this all held up until the Drudge Report published the secret last week. Harry has now been sent home, but he's said that he can't wait to get reassigned. If you want to read more about all this, go here.

I suppose this new development came too quickly for 20/20's producers to address it in much detail-- after all, they had a year's worth of "unprecedented access" that had probably already been cut and canned-- but Barbara did mention it near the end of the episode. It reminded me of something I'd been thinking about (actually two things, but the second is just that Prince Harry is obviously NOT Prince Charles's son. On "Real Time" last Friday they showed a picture of him next to Princess Diana's stableboy...). Since I heard about this story, it's struck me as somewhat amazing. I mean, here's a kid who has more money than God and can basically do whatever he wants with his life-- the Royal Family members are free to pursue whatever career they like, or spend their time doing charity work or whatever else a phenomenally wealthy Prince of the Empire might think up. And instead of finishing his military training and becoming some token officer in one of the armed forces, he actually angles to get on the front lines in a hot zone in the world and brokers a deal with a notoriously overeager press corps to ensure that he receives no special treatment at all. Apparently, his unit has come under fire on at least one occasion, and in all other ways is no different from any other serving in the field. When the news broke and the media finally descended on him, Harry admitted that he hadn't showered in four days. This just strikes me as an incredibly honorable and brave thing for a kid in his position to do, and I have a whole newfound respect for him and his stableboy dad.

[I'm about to get incredibly self-righteous, so you may want to stop reading if you've had a big lunch.]

This is especially true when seen from our point of view as Americans. How refreshing that in England, it's still looked at as honorable to serve your country as a normal soldier. Here in America, it's become a socially accepted fact of life that most children of privilege avoid military service, using any excuse available to them.

[Ugh, I'm starting to make my own skin crawl. I promise not to be so serious in the future.]

Post the first, in which I point some things out.

The thing is, I have no real reason for starting a blog. My friend Marty has been writing one since he left Chicago to pursue his cycling industry dreams in Milwaukee. My friend Tom has one that appears not to have been updated in several months (possibly since Marty left for Milwaukee, in an odd coincidence). And my girlfriend Marissa has one that hasn't been updated in at least the entire time I've known her. In fact, I know so little about Marissa's blog that I can't even link to it... so I suppose it's entirely possible that she's been secretly writing in it all along, perhaps weekly updates about the many challenges of spending serious amounts of time with me, only one of which is that I'm a know-it-all... but I doubt it. So it's not like my whole friend group consists of a bunch of netizens of the blogosphere, tap-tap-tapping their peer pressure so persistently that I just couldn't resist broadcasting my own deepest thoughts and dreams into the digital void.

[I find myself mildly amused by the way I keep qualifying all the names with labels like "my friend" and "my girlfriend" since I fully expect the audience of this rambling to consist of only my friends and my girlfriend who, of course, all know each other. But in the event that a Google search for "total jackass" sends some unwitting web surfer to my blog, and they are suddenly trapped under something heavy during a freak earthquake and can only stare, frustrated, at this ridiculousness, I'd like to give them some context.]

[I just ran a Google search for "total jackass". Sadly there was no link to this page. My favorite among the first page of results was a link to a video in which a group of people try to drive a Jeep up a steep rock. Hilarity ensues.]

My blog beginnings went something more like this: I had a free moment at work. No one had made their plays in my Scrabulous games. I thought, hmm, I think I'll start a blog. I spent the next twenty minutes agonizing over layouts and colors and fonts. Only now, four hours later, have I gotten to the serious business of actually posting anything. But now that I've brought up the layouts and colors and such, let me just point out how attractive my color combination is. Some other notes:

• "A Wintery Mix" is a phase meteorologists in Chicago, and presumably other northern cities, use to describe the phenomenon of precipitation when ground temperatures are near, or moving through, the freezing point. When this happens, it causes a delightful mix of rain, sleet, snow, and general depression to fall from the sky. We were supposed to get a wintery mix at some point today, and Marissa and I were comparing notes this morning about the weather information we'd both acquired in our separate preferred ways. (Note to self: write a future blog post about the total scam that is weather prediction.) As it happens the wintery mix, sadly, never came. We have hopes for tomorrow. Anyway, it sounded like a good name for a band, but I've decided to start a blog instead.
• To the left, you'll notice links to some blogs. Hopefully I'll add some more so I don't seem like such a friendless loser, but at present, there is only: transplanted.chicagoan which is Marty's blog (this qualifier is directed at the poor web surfer trapped under something heavy); tdope, which is Tom's ancient history; and My Old Kentucky Blog, which is my favorite music blog.
• As my need to spew unsolicited opinions at total strangers was reaching a boiling point, I joined Yelp a few weeks ago and started reviewing restaurants and other businesses. Since it makes me feel more self-important to imagine that someone reading this may want to read that, I put that little flash applet on this page. Also, that constantly updating, animated, customizable little window was just too cool to pass up.
• For those of you reading this who don't know (which is exactly none of you) I organize a meetup.com group. We see indie rock bands at local venues. You can click on the link to check it out, and I hope you do. But seeing how the Meetup badge is so phenomenally ugly, especially compared to the sweet Yelp applet above it, I may give it the boot and replace it with an old fashioned link. (Seriously, you can't even customize the background to get rid of those heinous white corners. Dudes at Meetup... get with the program!)

So there you are. It's George's blog. Let the angels rejoice.