Florida State and Miami

The college football season is right around the corner and I'm dreading it. I live in Nebraska, attend the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and have had to negotiate the fact that I'm a die-hard fan of the Florida State Seminoles in a state where football is a religion. I remember going to a Nebraska game about 10 years ago with my grandma and I wore my Seminoles cap. Some dipshit sitting behind me constantly annoyed and mocked me. Of course, I have a mouth on me. So I just brought up 1993. After some "you guys paid the refs!" talk, he left me alone. It's been a tough go to be a Seminoles fan the last 5 or 6 years. When you are used to your football team kicking the crap out of everyone (except Miami...damn you Miami!), losing 5 ACC games is a realization that you've entered the dreaded "rebuilding" phase. This year sees an impossibly tough schedule. 3 out of the last 4 games are on the road @ Boston College, Virginia Tech, and Florida, not to mention the first game of the year, the Bowden Bowl, is @ Clemson. Add home games against Alabama and Miami, and you're looking at possibly a losing season. Maybe Xavier Lee can turn into Charlie Ward and save the program from impending doom. Mediocrity is one thing, sucking is another. If only we had a cream puff schedule like Nebraska....

Basketball season is also on the horizon. The big news of the past month was the ref scandal. If you were to ask me what my favorite sport is, basketball would the answer...by a mile. I used to live in Southern California and basketball is huge down there. Football doesn't hold a candle to the Lakers (which might explain why there is no NFL team in LA anymore). Once again, I was the odd fan out, as my favorite team was the Chicago Bulls (see Jeff, I've been contrarian from the get go!). I was in attendance at the Great Western Forum when Mike, Scottie, and the boys beat the mighty Lakers for their first championship. There's nothing quite like seeing your favorite team, as a kid no less, win a championship in person. The excitement and energy is amazing.

There was a comment made, possibly on the deadlantern forum,a couple years ago when we were following Miami-Dallas series. I was a huge supporter of Miami and still am as of today. Someone said something like "I can see how you can root for a college team and follow them, but how do you feel that connection with a pro team?". For me at least, basketball has never been about the "team". Basketball, more than any other sport, can hinge on one great player. Michael Jordan was so far better than anyone else, that he elevated his entire team. Sure, you need the 4 other guys to score and keep the game in reach, but in basketball, one guy can take on 5 and win. Basketball is a game of stars. For me, I've always followed my favorite player, not the team. In the 90's it was Jordan and Pippen. Those were my guys. When Jordan retired, he was replaced by Shaq. Currently, Dwyane Wade is the guy I follow on a day-to-day basis. Shaq and Wade are on the Heat, so naturally I'm just going to root that team.

Critics will call me a "fair weather" fan and that I'm just going where the championships are. I don't see it like that. I can't help it that I became a fan of Michael Jordan at a young age (along with millions of other people). I can't help that I really dug Shaq's personality and performance (I didn't know he was going to win 3 championships in a row). I also didn't know that Dwyane Wade was going to turn into the second coming of Jordan for 4 consecutive games (I had picked Dallas to crush the Heat). The Heat probably won't do anything of consequence in the next few years, but I'm still going to support them just cuz my favorite players are on that team.

With college football, it's different. I will be a Seminoles fan till the end of my days...but only football. For example, I could care less about how well the Seminoles basketball team is doing. But I'm a fanatic for the Tar Heels. Duke-North Carolina is pretty much the highlight of my sports year. I think the main reason for this is that college teams have a constant turnover of new faces and players. It's harder to get attached to players who only stick around 1 or 2 years, so the team becomes the loyalty and allegiance rather than the individual player. Plus, there are so many more college teams and so many more players around, the team just comes to the forefront more than in professional sports. I like college sports a lot more than professional, but the pros can be just as good when the situation calls for it. Those Miami-Dallas games were freakin' amazing. Those moments are just fewer and far between in the pros than in college.

So this year, I'll be closely following the 'Noles with my eyes closed, and I'll be hoping D-Wade can recover fully from his shoulder and knee surgeries (it would be a shame to see such a talent fade out so early in his career due to injuries) and Shaq can contribute more than just 14 and 6 every night. The Celtics made a big splash by acquiring Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. I don't think they'll be all that great, though. Garnett, Allen, and Paul Pierce are all in their 30's and prone to injury. The Celtics will be improved, but no Finals contender. My pick for the finals this year is: Bulls vs. Suns, Suns winning in 5.

Trying to pick the finalists in college is so much more difficult. Every game is important in college football and with all those computer systems and their equations and formulas, it's a crapshoot. Anybody can be upset on any given day. But, I'll throw caution to the wind and say Texas vs. California in the championship, with Cal coming out on top.

As for my Seminoles..I'll sadly predict 6-6. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a losing record though.

Gambling, Catholics, and Obama's win-win situation

Ah yes, gambling. I don't consider myself a gambler. If the Powerball jackpot gets up over $100 million, I'll purchase a ticket or two. I'll usually bet my girlfriend a dollar on something I think I'm right about...only to find out that I'm wrong and have to pay out. I've been to the casinos once for my birthday a couple years back and I remember being in Las Vegas as a kid and watching a guy ride around on a 3" bicycle at Circus Circus. That's about the extent of my gambling experience. However, tomorrow I'll be heading up to Iowa and will be hittin' the nickel slots (gotta make that money last!) hard. Hopefully, I'll come back with a few hundred thousand dollars to build a studio for Dead Lantern. Good thing we're not doing the Splattercast on Monday because I'll probably be losing my pants at the black jack tables.

I did an interesting survey this evening where I asked Catholics and former Catholics how they felt about their faith. It wasn't pretty. Out of the all the surveys I did this weekend, practicing Catholics are pretty jaded by the whole church sex abuse/cover up stuff. At least half of the Catholics I spoke to either left the Church entirely, stopped going to Mass, or have distanced themselves from the Church. Word to the wise: When you find out a zillion Priests are molesting your followers, expose and kick their asses out.

I'm writing my second film paper right now. I've got about two pages left to write. I feel a burning desire to watch Demons right after I'm finished...

This Obama/Hillary "feud" that the press is playing up is pretty hilarious. The election cycle has started so early that the press is desperate to find something, anything, to try and make a story out of. I had the idea the other day that Obama has no intention of winning the primary. I'm sure that isn't true, but here's something to wonder about: Obama is obviously a political star on the rise. Unlike John Edwards in 2004, he's not facing a tough re-election for Senate next year in the event he doesn't win the primary. It's pretty much understood that unless Hillary makes some black hole-esque mistake, Obama just isn't going to be able to beat her in the primary. It's a massive upset that just doesn't have any chance of occurring (I'd love to be wrong though) so why is Obama running?

It's one of two reasons: either he wants to be vice president, or he wants to introduce himself to the American public.

If Clinton picked Obama as her running mate, you'd have a trillion dollars flowing into the presidential campaign. They'd probably have to store all those donations in Fort Knox. Assuming a Hillary win, Obama gets the "experience" his detractors claim is his weak spot by getting all that great foreign relations/national defense stuff for the next 4-8 years with Hillary in the White House.

However, If Obama refuses a VP role (if Hillary even offers), he goes right back to the Senate where he can spend more time orating, drafting bills, and getting his name on legislation to quell those "just 2 years in the Senate!" screams. Not only does he have a safe place to land, but he's gotten something more important. He's introduced himself to the American public. By the time the ads start heating up and he's toured the country over and over, the name "Barack Obama" will be well ingrained on the American consciousness. He'll be a name politician, which means he'd be well positioned for a future, Non-Clinton presidential primary (maybe running against me and Jeb in 2016?).

So really, this is all a win-win scenario for Obama. If he doesn't get president this time around, he'll be set up well for a future run. Personally, I'm hoping with every ounce of the fiber from the apple I just ate that he pulls off some miraculous defeat of Hillary. The country needs to move on from Clinton/Bush. We'll see what happens, I guess.

The Issues: Immigration

So what's the deal with this immigration issue everyone seems so up in arms about? Nobody can agree on what to do. Here's the solution:

1) Lock down the borders temporarily

In a fair world, we'd be doing the same thing to the northern border as we will do to the southern, but the reality of the situation is...we don't have 20 million French-Canadians running around illegally in our country. Instead, it seems our Canuck's to the north love their liberal utopia a little too much to want to abandon all those keen social programs (more on this in a minute). Mexicans (they are from Mexico, by and large, therefore they are Mexicans. This is not a racist word when describing people from Mexico no matter how many ACLU lawyers tell you it is) are abandoning their home country like teens to a cornfield during a M.I.P bust. I saw a statistic that said 10% of Mexico's population now lives in the U.S. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. If Mexicans want to immigrate to America, by all means, let them come.

The problem is the whole "illegal alien" thingamabob. Let's all agree that these people are breaking the law. Nobody in their right mind can deny that fact. Instead, the argument becomes "well they are breaking the law but we can make an exception because of x,y,z" We'll deal with these reasons later on. But if we truly want to put a sudden halt on illegal immigration while we get our shit in order, we're going to need to lock down the borders immediately.

I recommend doing this by posting the National Guard (after all, the name says it all) along the border with Mexico and creating a temporary suspension of all new immigrants from Mexico. Is this racist? No, I don't think so. As I've said, I think any Mexican who wants to come to this country is more than happy to do so, but the only way to control illegal immigration is to freeze everything we're doing and take some "drastic" measures for a short period of time (could we do this in 2 years?) in order to revamp our immigration system. Understandably, the National Guard won't be able to cover every mile of the border, but imagine having 160,000 troops along the border instead of in Iraq. What Bush sent was ridiculous and laughable. Take our National Guard troops and give them this mission: protect the border from any incoming Mexicans and search and destroy all the tunnels you can find that are used for smuggling, drug running, etc. Any illegal immigrant caught by the Guard has their picture taken, fingerprints recorded, and interrogated before beings sent back. This is not denying any Mexican their "rights" either. This is simple, basic information that will be needed the next time they come back...and they will come back. We're not setting up a new Guantanamo here, just getting some prints and photos. This information will be used to put these immigrants to the back of the line. They'll still be able to get in eventually, but their penalty will be a long wait.

Imagine the drop in illegal immigration just by having troops on the border. They won't be able to catch them all, but they'll make someone think twice about crossing. Now, temporarily, we've put a band aid on the bleeding, allowing us to get some breathing room to think out some more things...

2) Come to the sober realization that we can't deport 20 million (or more) people

This is the hardest thing for people to accept. Yes we have millions of people living here illegally. Yes it's against the law and we are a "Nation of Laws" (just ask Scooter Libby), therefore we should have no sympathy for these obvious miscreants. This is where American sympathy should come into full force.

I propose to use President Bush and Scooter Libby as an example: We should commute the sentence of the 20 million illegal immigrants.

I am not advocating a full amnesty/pardon. They have broken the law, and for that they need to do a penance. The biggest problem right now is that each side wants to have it their own way with no concept of compromise. Illegal immigrants refuse to concede they did anything wrong, citizens refuse to think of them in terms of actual people. So here's what we shall do:

Once the borders have been sealed, initiate a nationwide volunteer registration for illegal immigrants with the assurance that they will not be deported nor will their families (the exception to this is anyone found to be a criminal in anything other than simply wanting to make some money to live). The volunteer registration will involve background checks, a history of employers, photos, fingerprinting, etc. Some civil rights activists will claim that this is not legal. It's perfectly fair. It's called compromise! I'm not advocating we deport masses of people. They will still be able to live and work in this country if they voluntarily register their info. They are, after all, criminals in the legal sense. The ACLU will make a fuss about every illegal immigrant needs the representation of a lawyer. Fine, if they can afford one, and if the ACLU has enough kooks to go around, then give them one. But remember, this is voluntary. The government is not putting a gun to anyone's head saying you have to do this.

Businesses need to be involved in this because the days of them hiring known illegal immigrants is just about over. Encourage the businesses to have the immigrants register (registration does not involve citizenship, by the way, and even legal citizens in this country are registered in some way shape or form, so don't give me any of this "persecution" bullshit for a few fingerprints). Offer a one time tax credit to any businesses who get immigrants to register. The more immigrants that register, the more tax credit the businesses get. Any illegal immigrant that voluntarily registers will be allowed to continue at their job (with no penalty to the employer) and be allowed to stay in this country. They will then be required to reach some benchmarks that I will elaborate more on later.

Now, we've got the majority of illegal immigrants (at the very least, a huge amount of them) registered, on file, and content that they aren't going to be deported by our government. So now that the borders are secure and a big chunk of workers are now identified, we can get on with the next phases...

3) Levy humongous fines on businesses caught hiring illegal aliens

This will occur after the registration period is over and the businesses have had their tax credits. This is why it is in the best interest of the businesses to get their immigrants to register, because if they don't, and they are caught, then an insane fine will be levied against them. Let's just throw out an arbitrary $500,000, with the possibility of more depending on the amount of illegals caught working for them. A business is not going to hire someone if it knows the government is ready to make it go the way of the dinosaur. Big companies can probably absorb some major fines before they'll get serious. Wendy's can probably take a few million dollars in losses. Some rinky dink orange grove pickers can't. The moral of the story: don't hire illegal immigrants.

If there are no jobs, there will far less illegal immigration. That's why they are here, after all. This will piss businesses off, and there will be a lot of uproar about this. Then again, the business owners are breaking the law just as much as the illegal immigrants, and in my view, are an even more insidious type of criminal. They exploit for profit. They need a cold hard punch to the balls to make them get serious. If you want the government to leave you alone, don't hire "criminals".

4) Standardize federal laws for illegal immigrants.

We've "commuted" the sentence of deportation for millions of illegal immigrants. Now we must deal with those who did not voluntarily register. We opened our arms and said "let's be friends. Do this for us and we'll do this for you" but you decided to hide behind the ACLU. That's fine. By this time, the American people will be more forgiving. Once they've seen that the government is actually doing something by securing the border and getting millions of illegals to register who they are, public sentiment will then turn on those who have refused.

Instead of manually hunting all of these people down, make it impossible for them to maneuver within society. Federally mandate that non-citizens cannot get credit cards, cannot get government services , cannot be allowed driver's licenses, cannot get bank accounts, and will be instantly deported for any type of transgression, no matter how minor. If an illegal immigrant hits your car and isn't registered, he's deported. If an illegal immigrant is not allowed access to the financial system, coupled with the fact that huge fines and taxes will be levied against any companies found to be harboring illegals in any way, he or she will find no reason to be in this country.

Most importantly, if illegal immigrants are not allowed into the public school system unless they are registered as such, then you eliminate the second main reason illegals come here in the first place. If businesses can't hire illegals, they won't bring their families. These families come for a better education for their children. Eliminate the concept of "free education" for them, and they really won't come.

Once again, this is not racism. This goes for any illegal immigrant. I doesn't matter if it's a bunch of Europeans fleeing socialist utopia, or someone coming over from Mexico. Everyone has the opportunity to stay in this country and continue to work as long as you concede that you have to let the government know who the hell you are. Maybe you're really against giving up your fingerprints. You're more than welcome to head back to Mexico if that's such an inconvenience. If you don't take the generosity we give, then you're saying "come get me and deport me". And sadly, that's what we'll be forced to do.

Hopefully it won't come to that. Hopefully, the incentives that "yeah, you can keep your job, keep your residence, and keep your kids in school" will be enough that most immigrants will comply with little resistance from the ACLU.

5) Create some rules and benchmarks for those who have registered

You have 3 years to get your act together. We've allowed you to stay. Your employer is keeping you at minimum wage. Your kids are in school. You don't need to worry about INS agents raiding your home in the middle of the night. But you are not a citizen.

Neither are your children, for that matter. Personally, I think at least one parent needs to be a legalized American citizen before your child can be considered a citizen. If we enact that law, then that will eliminate illegal immigrants running across the border to have kids and therefore use them as a tool in which to bilk the American taxpayer. Your kids aren't citizens and neither are you. However, you will have ample opportunity to become a legalized citizen. 3 years is plenty of time.

During that time period, you must not be found guilty of any crime. You must show the ability to have maintained a consistent job (tax breaks for the companies who register their illegals, and keep them employed for the full 3 years) for all 3 years. Obviously, stuff will happen, so I'm not advocating you have to work all 1095 days. Maybe a benchmark of averaging 35 hours a week or something will do. Anyway, during this time you will be forced to pay taxes just like any other legal citizen now that you are registered. On the other hand, you will not be required to pay back taxes for however long you lived in this country before registration (which, consequently, will also be an incentive to register in the first place). Again, this is compromise. It might make the average citizen bitter as all hell, but remember, we're trying to give you guys all the opportunity in the world to become full fledged citizens. Besides, you weren't paying taxes before registration, and if it hadn't gone into effect, you wouldn't be paying taxes now. So, I think the average citizen may grind their teeth a little, but the tradeoff is that we at least have a large portion of the population paying taxes where they weren't before. Welcome to America.

During your stay, you will be given an ID card which you'll be able to use for government services etc. This card is only valid for the 3 years from which you were registered and is basically the equivalent to a driver's license but can also be used to gain access to certain government services. Use this to prove who you are. Don't lose it.

During your 3 year period, you will be required to do all the things that a legal immigrant is required to do in order to obtain citizenship in this country and more. Those people trying to become citizens legally are waiting 2 years because of the temporary lock down, and they aren't too happy. Registered illegals will be required to learn at least an ability to understand and speak the English language. This will also be a part of the schooling of children. Nobody is advocating that you must switch languages, but an ability to at least converse in the basics is a necessity. Conversely, public schools will begin to initiate mandatory grade-school spanish classes in the future (first things first). Also, registered illegals will be required to do a set number of community service hours. Community volunteering is important in helping adjust to the new country and more importantly, is a "penalty" with benefits for everyone. Not only will you become more aware of society, but you'll learn things faster, and earn the respect of honest Americans who might otherwise not trust your intentions for being in this country. Community service will be a requirement for all registered illegals.

The consequences for not meeting the above requirements can be no less than deportation unless their are specific and justifiable causes as to why you could not meet the requirements. 3 years is plenty of time to learn a bit of English, get your community service in, and meet any other criteria that is settled upon. If we're letting you off the hook for back taxes, allowing you to use our government services, and helping you in the transition to citizenship, then that's the least you can do for us. If all requirements are met by each family member, full citizenship will be granted, and with it the right to vote.


6) Stop handling the Mexican government with kid gloves

The Mexican government encourages illegal immigration. That cannot be allowed to happen. The government must do everything within its power to put pressure on Mexico. If that involves a temporary embargo on all Mexican goods imported into this country, then so be it. Will that hurt the economy? Yeah, temporarily it would. But America is more than able to compensate with goods from other countries (Asia, I'm looking at you) as a short term solution. Mexico on the other hand would probably face a complete bankruptcy if we pulled out financial support and backing for their economy. Perhaps a temporary suspension of tourism would get their attention. Could we forbid people to travel to Mexico like we do with Cuba? Who is the bigger threat to our country right now, the incompetent Mexican government, or a near dead Fidel Castro? I'm guessing Mexico might cry a little bit when they realize all those thousands of college kids won't be hitting up Cancun over spring break. If that still doesn't get their attention, the fact that they can no longer pawn off their unemployed on our country sure will. With troops on the border, Mexican citizens will be forced to either take a long hard look at their own government, or go somewhere else. I have a feeling it would be the former.

-----

dang, I could keep going on and on with this, but this post is turning into a novella. I need to sum it up:

Secure the border for real with the National Guard. A mass illegal immigrant registration initiative that allows them to stay in this country for 3 years without threat of deportation, meet benchmarks such as community service, and become citizens. Fine and tax the fuck out of businesses who hire illegal immigrants. Standardize federal laws to disallow any non-registered illegal access to government and financial services. Confront Mexico head on economically and politically and force their hand.

There's your answer to the immigration problem. I'm sure many of you out there will have examples of things that can go wrong with my plan. Understand that illegal immigration can never be completely stamped out. There will always be a segment of the population running around illegally and there will always be businesses willing to take a chance. But to stop the arterial gushing that is currently going on, it's going to take concessions from both sides, citizens and non-citizens. This plan will be labeled "amnesty" by most conservatives, but in all reality, it's not really amnesty. American citizens need to show their tolerance and their ability to care in this situation. Are they here "illegally"? You bet. But most of them are hard-working people just looking for the mythological "American Dream". I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say "Okay, if you voluntarily register, we'll give you some leeway and allow you 3 years to prove to us you mean what you say".

Not everyone will register. But what's the alternative? Right now we have 20+ million not registered. Hell, if you got that total down to a still large 5 million, that would be one hell of a success. I firmly believe that if you show these people you are willing to come to a middle ground, they'll be more than willing to do what it takes to be citizens. A lot of people will be pissed. The people waiting legally in line to be citizens will have to wait a little longer. Life sucks sometimes. Then again, they won't be required to do things like community service when they get into this country.

In a 3 year period, we can drastically cut down illegal immigration. And I'll do that as your president in 2016 :)

Securing the borders and registering illegal immigrants is a necessity if we are to implement social programs such as universal healthcare, which I'll talk about in my next entry on the issues.

Random tidbits: mini-reviews and news

Made it through the first season of Deadwood. I was slightly disappointed. I really dug the characters and all the actors are perfect. But the story lines given to those characters were pretty lame. Maybe the subsequent seasons will improve the narrative, as I can understand that this first season is an introduction, but meh. The only character I'm not sold on is Timothy Olyphant as Seth Bullock and I didn't particularly like how Wild Bill Hickock was portrayed. Regardless, I liked it enough to want to watch season 2.

B-

I also watched the first episode of David Duchovny's new Showtime series Californication. Have you ever wondered what would have happened if Mulder and Scully had hooked up, had a kid, and then Scully had left him for a regular guy? That's pretty much this show. Duchovny plays a writer with an eternal case of writer's block whose "wife" has left him. In the meantime, he replaces writing by banging hot women, being a sarcastic bastard (imagine Mulder's humor and add in extreme nihilism), and banging more hot women. He's also trying to deal with his 12 year old daughter who is maturing a little faster than he thinks she should. I thought the show was pretty cool. You can tell that the creators stuck as many tits in it as humanly possible. No less then four girls are banged by Duchovny in the 30 minute episode. I laughed multiple times throughout and with a little refinement (dialog could be a little better), I can see this being a really good show. Plus, the "twist" at the end of the first episode will definitely make you want to watch the rest of the series. A good solid start.

B

Earlier today in my film class, another point was revealed as to why going to the movies is better than watching them on TV. We watched Babyface and although my professor had seen the film a dozen times, had written an entire article about the film, she had never seen it on the big screen. When it was over, she got incredibly excited and was telling us all of the unique things that she had never seen before that doesn't come across on a television. So, you have somebody who has spent years of their life watching a film, dissecting it in every way...and by seeing it on the big screen they see things in the film they've never seen before. Chalk it up to another reason movies are better on the big screen.

There are now allegations floating around that Pat Tillman was murdered. The White House and Pentagon won't release some documents about the case due to executive privilege. Hypothetically, if it turns out that friendly fire was not the cause of death, does that mean that the Bush administration has been covering up a murder? If they did cover up a murder...what the hell happens then? Now, I'm not going to jump off that ledge yet, but there's some weird information coming out about Tillman that makes you sort of stand back and say "um...this doesn't feel quite right..."

Tomorrow, I begin my candidacy for the 2016 presidency. Don't miss it!

Goofy can't smoke?

The big movie news today is the fact that Disney has banned smoking in its "family" films. I fully expect Disney to go back and digitally remove the cigarettes from Cruella DeVille's fingers.

Disney is calling this a historical and groundbreaking edict. Is it, though? Do kids watch cartoon characters smoke and say "Damn, Goofy is badass cuz he's puffin' a stogie!" The implication is that seeing characters smoke on screen causes people to smoke. Disney is making a concerted effort to keep its cartoon personalities from promoting a truly despicable habit. That's admirable, in a way.

But here's where the problem comes in: Where does Disney stop and how does it justify the other "bad" things in its films? Let me first say that this isn't going to affect films by Touchstone and Miramax. Disney's statement is that it will strongly "discourage" smoking in films put out by these companies. That's code for "We're not going to do a damn thing if Tarantino wants to make Smoking Bastards of Hellcat Highway".

So for now, it's just relegated to Disney flicks starring the pre-cokehead Lindsay Lohan's of the world...and their cartoons. I wonder why this is being treated as so revolutionary by the press? This is self-censorship. It is a company telling its artists "sorry, you can't do that". But you know what, I'll bet Disney will have no qualms about bringing 101 Dalmatians out of their vault in a few years for an HD release. Their commercials will say something like "The TIMELESS Disney classic that you will want to share with your children again and again". One of the most famous villians in animation history is Cruella DeVille. Her trademark, besides her hair, is the fact that she is a chain smoking bitch. In a film like Dalmatians, the smoking is made to look bad. The puppies regularly cough and wheeze. The cigarettes are portrayed as disgusting, yet they become an integral part of Cruella's character. I wonder how many children start hitting 8 packs a day after watching the film? My guess is zero.

But where does Disney stop? Do they tell their animators "You know what? Cut out all the fight sequences in Hercules because we don't want kids to start fighting each other. While you're at it, better cover Ariel with a little more than a seashell bikini because we don't want kids to get any unnatural ideas." I don't doubt that Disney's intentions may be partially honorable (though I do think this is a marketing ploy for some good PR), but I think it makes Disney out to be a complete hypocrite.

Groups have been lobbying forever to get smoking out of Hollywood movies. Those voices now have a much larger sound due to Disney's PR tactic. The chants of "ban smoking in the movies" is going to get much louder. Hypothetically, if in 20 years the anti-smoking lobbyists pressure into effect an actual ban on smoking in movies, what happens to the first 120 years of cinema? Do we ban every movie that ever had a character who smokes in it? Will Turner Classic Movies be forced to shove all those Film Noir's into a vault? Will John Wayne become an American anti-hero?

I firmly believe that movies have a tangible effect on people. I don't discount the possibility that someone might see David Strathairn in Good Night and Good Luck and decide to turn their lungs black in a week. But "banning" what can and can't be shown in movies is censorship, plain and simple. Disney comes out safe in this. I'd venture to guess that if you asked most parents whether or not smoking should be in cartoons, they'd say "no". Then again, if you asked those same parents if they like Elmer Fudd shooting Daffy Duck in the face with a shotgun, they'd say "yeah!". So Disney gets some good "common sense" PR and the rest of Hollywood is left to fight the dogs that have now been set upon it. Could this seemingly innocent Disney smoking ban lead to a new Production Code? I don't think so, but I wouldn't be surprised to see slow steps moving in that direction.

The end of Netflix?

I haven't been able to get into my Netflix account since Sunday night when I logged in and was greeted with the message that the price of my account was dropping by a $1. As this article explains, the systems have been down, the customer base is eroding, and the stock price is plunging.

This is mostly because of the direct competition from Blockbuster, a company I try to avoid at all costs. Technically, Blockbuster's online plan is "better" than Netflix. Not only can you get all the DVD's you want, but you can drop them off at your local Blockbuster store instead of mailing them back, giving you an extra day or two to receive an extra movie. When I signed up for Netflix, I thought it was great...until I started being "throttled" early on. Often times I've sent all the movies back, only to have to wait while Netflix holds off on sending me the next flicks in my queue. Couple that with the scores of films that I've wanted to rent only to be forced to "save" when, though released commercially already, Netflix gives a "release date unknown" flag.

I'm not planning on dumping Netflix for Blockbuster any time soon, but I think they've got some giant problems. It's obvious that Netflix has some business related problems right now. The fact that customers are leaving the service in droves is telling. It's one of two things: either people just want to pay less to go to Blockbuster, or the people leaving Netflix are people like me who watch a movie immediately and then toss it back in the mailbox. Netflix loses money on people like me. I've read that Blockbuster is much more forgiving about this group of customers and doesn't "throttle" like Netflix, but I can't be sure of that unless I actually tried out the service.

One thing Netflix could do to immediately satisfy its customers is to include the extra bonus discs on DVD's without having to use an extra slot to get them. It's annoying to have to use 2 of my 3 slots in order to get the extra disc of Street Trash for a few extras. It's like Netflix is charging me full-price and making me waste time for another movie in order to watch a couple featurettes. It's retarded. Shipping the bonus discs with the film would be a nice gesture to customers.

Netflix also has a program setup where you can view movies online without using up your queue slots. I was going to try this, until I realized that you have to download a program from the site (which doesn't work with Firefox, for me at least). I looked over the terms of agreement and it said something about how the program will take personal information off your computer and send it back to netflix. Eh, I'm just not in to doing something like that. I realize Netflix already has personal information and probably gathers even more based on the films I rent, but they don't need to have a program installed onto my computer to get more information. If they could set up something where a limited amount of movies each month could be viewed in a streaming fashion when you log in to the site, rather than have a program be installed on your pc, I think that would go a long way to making customers such as myself happy.

I'll stick with Netflix for now, but I do have misgivings. Hopefully they can figure out why they're getting pummeled by the evil empire that is Blockbuster before they go down in flames.

Obama's problem(s)

Update: Just found this interesting piece of footage from the Fox News focus group. Seriously, get Obama against Hillary one-on-one. I want to see what happens...



I just watched the "historical" (according to CNN) youtube presidential debate. Before I get to Obama, I just want to say a few questions about the debate itself. I thought the format was great. Stooge Cooper served as moderator but rather than direct the questions to the candidates himself (other than a few follow-up questions when candidates evaded answering), the questions were asked by "regular" Americans in 30 second self-recorded youtube videos. It was fun to watch and a pleasant change of pace from the usual monotonous (i.e. boring) debates put on by the media. I hope this format sticks because I'd definitely tune in. In fact, I'm planning on submitting my own video for the Republican youtube debate. I'll have to craft a good question...

Now, to Obama and his performance. Contrary to what the media is spinning at this very minute, there was no big smackdown (Drudge is mocking the debate with the soon to be infamous "snowman video" and a pic of Obama and Hillary labeled "clash", and the first thing CNN did when the debate was over was try to frame the entire thing as a war between the two top contenders). If you watched the entire debate in context a couple things stood out. First is that Obama got the biggest applause on almost everything he spoke to any length on. In fact, immediately after the debate, CNN's pundits were clearly saying Hillary "won" the debate, only to switch to a focus group that "surprisingly!" gave the nod to Obama. Who "wins" a primary debate, especially one with such a large amount of contenders in it, is meaningless at this stage of the game. The only time you can really judge whether or not somebody "wins" a debate is when they square off against each other and have adequate time to respond to each other. But what is important in these debates is how the candidate comes off to the viewers, how they respond to the questions, and whether or not they distinguish themselves as "presidential material".

This was the first "officially sanctioned" democratic debate, which is retarded when you think about it (what, I'm just supposed to ignore the non-sanctioned debates?). I'm a big supporter of Barack Obama, and his previous debate performances left much to be desired. He has a bad tendency to pause a lot, stumble over some of his words, and use the dreaded "Ummm...." which is a killer in public speaking. I don't necessarily think this is a negative attribute. It seems to me that Obama can't quite get that "populist" language down pat. It's almost like he's trying to hard to think of how to phrase his answer while he's giving it, and that makes him look, frankly, unprepared. There's no denying the guy has massive chops when he has a prepared script in front of him and can fully articulate his message in order to deliver it in the best way possible. It's just those "on the spot, need an answer now!" questions that debates are formatted for that really hurt him. The guy speaks articulately, but it takes him a looooonnggg time to get his words out (which, to be fair, he has admitted). With this debate, you can tell he's been coached up quite a bit. You can tell he's been honestly striving to be better. That's not to say that the same problems didn't crop up in this debate, only that this time he was more focused with his delivery.

Obama's main problem is Hillary Clinton. We all know Hillary is dominating in the polls, but people forget that Hillary is being coached by one of the best political speakers of the 20th century, Bill Clinton. This was evident during a montage of health care questions submitted to the candidates and Hillary addressed each of submitters by name and their respective disease before answering the question. This is textbook Bill Clinton. Address the voter as an individual, make them feel an immediate rapport by using their name and problem. In other words, talk directly to them and show pathos. It's not that Obama doesn't do this, it's that he can't do it like Bill Clinton. Arguably, that's how Bill won his election. Elections are won on speech and how you present it. Obama needs to compete with Hillary on this.

The other problem is that Obama has shown very little inclination to actually attack Hillary on issues. A couple weeks back, there was a big uproar about John Edwards and Hillary discussing paring down the debates to include fewer candidates. I am completely for that. Everybody knows, the democratic primary is going to be decided between Hillary and Barack. Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel have no shot to win this thing. Do I think they should be banned from the debates? Of course not. I love when the both of them rile up the top contenders. It's good to have people like that in the process. However, there comes a point when the democratic primary voters have to say "um, ok, it's getting down to crunch time now, we need to see Barack and Hillary and find out how the do against each other". If Kucinich and the others can show they have the popular support in polls and money to really compete with Barack and Hillary, then by all means, put them in the later debates. But when it becomes clear that Chris Dodd is at 1% in the polls, and the primaries begin in a month, I want that question on health care or Iraq to go to the front runners who will actually be the nominee. So, let the contenders get in on the early debates, then start trimming it until you've got the front runners (by the way, Edwards is not a front runner. There is no chance in hell of him getting the nomination).

And this is directly Obama's problem. It's established that he's a guy that needs the extra 60 seconds to really get his message out. You can't really engage Hillary when questions are so random and going to so many different candidates. By its very nature, these debates don't give response time to the candidates. I want to see Obama vs. Hillary one on one.

Gotta go, time for a Splattercast

If only I were finished

I'm getting ready to write the first paper for my Pre-Code Cinema class which is due tomorrow morning (why do I procrastinate?) and I realize that I've gotten to the point in my college life where I've hit a wall. Actually, I've scaled the wall only to find there's another one waiting for me. A needless one...

Technically, I'm still a Junior. I've finished my minor (History) and after this upcoming semester, I'll be completely finished with my major (Film Studies) with the exception of one goddamn class that I can't seem to get registered for. You would think that I'd be ready to move out into the "real world". Not so. I'm going to have to take about 8 more classes just to get my degree. These classes will have absolutely nothing to do with anything, other than line the pockets of UNL . Sure, I suppose I could minor in something else, but I don't want to. So after this fall semester, I'm staring at two more semesters of mindless garbage just so I can get hooked up with some swell decent paying government job. Before, it didn't really matter. I was taking enough classes to keep me interested, but now that I've essentially finished my major and dried up the pool of elective classes that interest me, I'm going to be going through the motions rather than be engaged in learning, which is what college is supposedly all about, right?

This fall, I'm taking Aesthetics, Gender & Communication, Understanding World Politics, and Women & Gender in the USA. The first two are required as part of my Major and the last two are leftover classes I had to take because nothing else was available. I'm holding out hope somebody drops the Ancient Greek Religion course and the Women in Popular Culture class that I need to complete my major. This next couple semesters are going to be incredibly frustrating.

Anyways, enough bitching. This week I plan on starting my 2016 Presidential candidacy platform. First up will be my solution to immigration with other issues to follow. I'm looking for a vice-presidential candidate. If you know of anyone, let me know. In all seriousness, I'm hoping this will eventually lead into the new podcast I'm going to try and start up (again, if time and laziness don't interfere).

I've been hammering away at the details for Outpost Doom, the potential next film for Dead Lantern Pictures. I say "potential" because nothing seems to ever happen with all of our other projects. I've decided to take this one slow and make sure the script is great before we jump into filming. It's going to be filled to the brim with obscure horror movie references that directly relate to the character types in the film. These are all going to be incredibly subtle. I'm talking about only die-hard horror nerds will pick up on any of them, if at all. The main character's name is Jack Glendon. At some point, after watching the movie, somebody's going to go "duh!", slap their head, and hopefully think "well that was kinda cool. Why didn't I catch that obvious hint?". I'm still waiting for the rest of the cast to post their character stuff and back stories (we'll see if it actually happens). It's going to be interesting to see what they come up with.

Anyways, I better go write my damn paper now. But first, I think I'll cut myself an apple...

The Horror of Wheelchairs

The importance of wheelchairs in horror films is often overlooked. Off the top of my head, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Homicidal, Friday the 13th Part 2, What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?, and Misery all contain characters who are confined to wheelchairs. And there's probably a lot more that I'm just not thinking of at the moment.

Wheelchairs are important because I think it gets to one of the main fears that everybody, regardless of class, age, or ethnicity, is fundamentally afraid of: being paralyzed. Short of death, I can't think of something that would be worse for day-to-day life than not being able to use your legs. With paralyzation (is that a word?) comes the sense of hopelessness, one of the greatest emotions that the horror genre feeds on. When you take that and manifest it into a single character, the audience becomes immediately sympathetic to that character. Everybody knows how much it would suck to have to rely on someone else to be with you and help you constantly, and I think that notion of a certain lack of freedom really gets to viewers. More than other disabilities such as being blind, deaf, or mute, the idea that you are essentially stuck in one place is deeply unsettling to many viewers.

In horror, this is used with great effect. Wheelchairs are clunky and tough to maneuver unless you are on a level surface, and even then, you aren't going to wheel yourself away from a killer on two legs no matter how ripped your upper body is. Things get even dicier when steps are involved. Horror movies love to exploit surfaces and terrain. When Joan Crawford looks down the stairs to the waiting phone, and possible salvation, the roadblock is her wheelchair being unable to go down the stairs. The threat that Davis could come home before she could drag her legs down the stairs is what initially keeps her from attempting to get to the phone.

Other than maybe blindness, I think being confined to a wheelchair would easily be the one disability most people would not prefer. When Annie takes the sledgehammer to Paul's feet, we cringe not only because the physical idea is nasty, but we know that Paul will now be completely hampered in any attempts to escape. Not only is Annie's house now a prison, but Paul's own body becomes a prison. Instead of escaping one, he must now escape two.

I'm not sure if anyone has ever really looked into the psychology of this and how characters in wheelchairs affect audiences toward the genre, but I think it would be fascinating to really delve into it.

Museum of the Damned

A couple years back, I had the pleasure of viewing Wolf Rilla's Village of the Damned on film. The print I watched had the distinction of being the only one known in existence. The last known celluloid copy of Damned was as you'd expect: after 45 years, the print was hanging on for dear life. The frames were scratched badly and many of them had shrunk. Three times during the screening the film had to be stopped in order for the reels to be reloaded because many of the perforations were shredded. The quality was abysmal. I didn't find out until after the film screened that I had just seen the last original print in existence. MGM decided not to spend the money to restore and make copies for future audiences.

Over the fourth of July holiday, I overheard my mother having a conversation with a family member about Shawn Levy's Night at the Museum. I had taken my mom, grandma, and sister to the film when it was released in theaters. It's one of those perfect "family films" that is safe enough for your grandma while still being entertaining for your little sister. Everybody loved it. In fact, it was quite disturbing to me just how much my mother loved it. She instantly declared it as one of her favorite film ever, and was laughing hysterically and repeating the jokes and gags all the way home. So of course, she eagerly purchased the DVD upon its release and the subject was never mentioned again until this past fourth of July.

That's when I overheard my mother and grandma (she loved it as well, just not to the psychotic extremes of ma') complaining about the film. My ears perked up and I began eavesdropping on the conversation. Unfortunately, their talk ended with the frenzy to cook hamburgers and pie. On the way back to Lincoln, I asked my mom about what I'd overheard her say. She went into a big rant about how, though she still thought the movie was "good", that it just "wasn't the same" as when we'd seen it in the theater. I had just had a "debate" (which I firmly believe is an impossibility on the internet) with some buddies about this very topic, so I was interested in getting an outside person's viewpoint. It was a typical response from people trying to explain why the theatrical viewing experience is better than the home viewing experiece: "I don't know..it just is"

Film Scholars talk about the "warmth" of watching a film in its original format. They argue that there is a tangible effect that impacts the senses of the viewer differently than the "coldness" of the digital format, such as a DVD. My mom tried as best she could to explain it. She thought the jokes just didn't work as well on the small screen. She thought the facial expressions of the actors, especially the close-ups, just weren't as funny as they were when they were 30 feet tall. The film's sense of scope was smaller. The T-Rex just didn't seem very imposing, and so on. Basically, she was dismayed that a film that had been one of her favorites had suddenly been merely "ok" when she watched it on DVD. My mom's television is 27"; not huge, but not overly small either (although, according to some people, the theatrical experience suddenly begins at 32"). In other words, Night at the Museum was not the same movie on DVD as it was in the Theatre.

When I got back, I spent a few days at my girlfriends' parents house. They have a 52" big screen TV. I watched Running Scared, The Pursuit of Happyness, The Illusionist, and The Hitcher. Not once was I ever being affected the same way as watching a movie theatrically. It was a bigger screen, so therefore it should have been an "equal" viewing experience, right?

No. The theatre is superior to TV.

There's a reason Village of the Damned was screened in its original format rather than the DVD. The DVD wouldn't have stalled three times into the film. It would have looked a lot cleaner. The audio would have been much better. On the face of it, there should be no reason to ever watch a print in such poor quality when there is something so obviously "superior". But therein lies the greatness of the theatre. Whatever the home viewing experience can claim to do, the theatre can do it, but not vice versa.

Let me say first up that whether or not an individual likes or prefers one way of watching a movie over the other is irrelevant. Maybe you just hate going to the theatre. That's fine. But don't kid yourself by trying to argue the point that watching a movie on your TV is the equivalent of seeing it on a movie screen. Here's the reasons why:

1. The most obvious is the size of the screen. You're never going to be able to replicate the immersion a huge theatre screen can give you in your home. If a 52" television screen is not big enough to give you the exact same viewing experience as a theatre, then it's never going to happen for you. Most sane home viewing loyalists cede this point. And you can forget that line of vision bullshit. If I watch Evil Dead on my pc screen while sitting two feet away from it, that's not the same thing. Just like it's not if I watch a 52" TV sitting 8' away.

2. Less distractions. This is one of two major points that TV adherents latch on too. The theory goes that when you get to a theatre, you have to deal with cell phones, people talking, kicking seats, etc. etc. What isn't ever talked about are the distractions at home.

Here's a few: Cell phones ring at home. Sometimes you get hungry, pause the movie, go grab a sandwich, then come back. It becomes much easier, when watching a film with a friend or spouse, to make comments and talk during it. Your eyes (and this is actually a scientifically verified fact) tend to wander around the room. Maybe the flick you're watching is sorta boring, so you're more apt to look over at that Death Proof poster on your wall that seems a little off-center. There's the definite aspect of having to stop/pause and rewind something, causing an unnatural break in the movie viewing experience. Personally, I refuse to piss when I go to the theatre. At home, I'll pause the movie.

The point is that there are at the very least an equal, if not more, distractions at home than at a theatre. At best, you can call it a wash, at worst, you can call TV the distraction center of the universe.

3. The Theatre "Experience". Yes, you can have surround sound at home. Have me over sometime when you blast it at the levels of a theatre. "But it's all relative!", you say. No, it isn't. Again, maybe you like your home surround system, but that isn't replicating what a theatre can do. The sound in a theatre has a physical effect on your body that can't be replicated by the average home theatre experience. The only way this is possible is if you have your own home and neighbors that won't call the cops when they hear explosions across the picket fence. If you live in an apartment...forget about it.

Another aspect of the theatre is the "strangers" effect. When you're in a theatre with a bunch of people you don't know, you become influenced (sometimes minutely, sometimes largely) by their reactions, either by gasps and screams in a horror film, or crying and weeping during a melodrama. You can't control this variable. You may hate every single person around you, and you may do your very best to place yourself in your own personal vacuum, but it isn't possible not to be affected somehow by the strangers around you. The argument now will become "But I can bring a bunch of friends over and get the same feelings". No, you can't. This is because human beings are affected differently by people they don't know. Your friends are "safe", you can anticipate how they will react to something, and most importantly you can interact with them at any time during the viewing experience. You can't do that with a bunch of strangers in a theater.

4. The price of going to the theatre is outrageous! Is it really? It's pretty trendy to slam on the price of a theatre ticket. It's also trendy to use New York and L.A. as examples of how crazy ticket prices are. It's true. Ticket prices have gone up over the years. But according to the National Association of Theatre Owners, the average price of a ticket last year was $6.55 If you look at the stats since 1990, that's only a $2.33 increase. That may sound pricey, but considering the demand for blockbuster movies with insane special fx costs and twenty million dollar actors, it's surprising ticket prices are as low as they are. Here in Lincoln, a saturday matinee for two people, two waters, and an order of nachos is $16.50. Reasonable, considering most new DVD's cost $15 or more and if you include the high price of the HD DVD's, then that's something else entirely.

The argument against this is "I can wait until it comes out on DVD and then just rent it for $4.00". Sure, you could definitely do that. But then you aren't watching the movies, you're watching television...

5. You're not watching the movies, you're watching television. Any movie that is in a theatre is designed to be seen in a theatre. That's the whole point. You don't shoot a movie on 35mm and then say "gee whiz, I'm sure glad this isn't being shown in a retarded movie theatre!" The very medium demands that it is projected onto a big screen. The DVD medium is designed for a television. The TV screen and the Theatre screen are two different mediums that are projected differently and thus, need to be treated as such. Now, is one "superior" over the other?

What's the difference between watching Treasure of the Sierra Madre on TCM uncut commercial free, and popping in the DVD? The answer is that there is no difference. Now take Treasure and put it on the big screen. Now what's the difference? Everything. As mentioned earlier, a television cannot replicate what the theatre does, but the theatre CAN replicate what the television does.

Hi-def is the newest arrow in the home theatre quiver. Rather than get into the nuances of hi-def as it effects the cinema experience, let's just give the home theatre enthusiasts this one. Of course, theatres can be equipped with any of the same hi-def equipment that a home theatre has. You wanna watch that overrated Wes Anderson flick in hi-def at home? Think of how great it looks on the big screen of a theatre, with all the extra bells and whistles that can't be replicated in your living room. Hell, just think of how awesome The Sopranos would be on a theatre screen. The excuse that "my TV image can look BETTER than a theatre screen" is moot when one realizes that a hi-def capable theatre can do the same thing.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that on a technical level, your television is equal to the theatre. The image quality is the same. Your "line of vision" counteracts the 30 foot cinema screen. Your surround sound is on par with a theatre, relatively speaking. You still can't get the other intangibles that a theatre offers in your living room. There is only one thing that home viewing can use to try and offset the extra stuff the theatre can provide...

6. Convenience. This is what it ultimately comes down to and this is where personal preference muddies the debate. Convenience has nothing to do with a comparison of the mediums. I'm a die-hard supporter of the theatre experience (can you tell?). If I had the means, I would watch every movie in a theatre rather than on a TV. Unfortunately, I just can't do that. Nobody can. I get plenty of enjoyment from throwing Creepshow into my DVD player and kicking back with some snacks. There is nothing wrong with that in any way shape or form. In fact, I find nothing even remotely wrong with anyone who says they like or prefer that way of viewing movies. It's personal preference, not an objective perspective of the pros and cons between the theatre and TV.

From a pure convenience standpoint, home viewing has the edge. Pretty much all mainstream movies from the past 50 years can be found on Netflix (though if you try to find anything even remotely obscure, I've found Netflix to be incredibly lacking) and delivered to your mailbox. There are thousands of films that will never be on DVD, but the only demand for them is by film geeks like myself; a niche market. But watching Village of the Damned the way it was intended, with a projector and film reels, is just not the same as putting a DVD in your player and seeing it on your hi-def 32" TV screen.

Is it "warmth"? I find that term to be insufficient. The reality is that even Film Scholars have a hard time putting the difference into words. The point is that the effects can be measured. Give nearly all filmmakers a choice, and they are going to want their films shown in a theatre. The reason is because of people like my mom, who have such a different reaction to a film simply because of the way it's shown. Studios pay a lot of money to get their films shown in theatres. If the home theatre experience is so great, I've gotta wonder why they even bother with the expense of prints, advertising, etc.? There's a reason why people go back to the theatres over and over again, and it isn't just to watch the movie. It's because its an experience they can't get in their living rooms.

In closing, the theatrical experience is superior to the home viewing experience. It doesn't matter how big your TV is. It doesn't matter how clear the image is. It doesn't matter how grand your sound system is. Convenience is irrelevant. A movie on a TV is still nothing more than a movie on TV, whether it's a cable line or a DVD.

The theatre, however, can do everything your living room can do...and things it can't.

My Springfield Alter-Ego

If you head over to the official website for the Simpson's movie (which looks great, by the way), you can find a cool program where they allow you to customize yourself to look like a Simpson's character. That's supposed to look like me if I lived in Springfield. The Mii's for the Wii are pretty lame. This is much more impressive. I'm such a geek.

The Splattercast tonight went fairly well. Episode 35 should be posted in the next day or so. We definitely need more sound fx from Spooky. More foul mouthed Schwarzenegger one-liners are always a good thing.

The first day of my film class, Pre-Code cinema, was great. We watched a documentary about pre-code women and how they riled up the Catholics with their portrayals of guilt-free sex, criminal behavior, abortions, and power in the workplace. Things never change, I suppose. Next time you're wondering why Jean Harlow always has hard nipples, it's because she'd put ice cubes on them before each shot. And you know how those Catholics hate erect nipples!

Review: Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

With the exception of the inconceivably awful Halloween: Resurrection, no film in the Halloween franchise is as reviled as Curse amongst fans. It had been a long time since I'd watched it so I popped it in this evening (along with Resurrection) to give it a fresh look. While it definitely deserves its reputation for sucking, I found there to be quite a bit of stuff I liked about the film. The problem was the story the filmmakers decided to frame the film with.

A lot of things go into why this film is despised by Halloween fans. The main reason is the "explanation" of Mike's origin. If you haven't been keeping tabs, it turns out he's the chosen child possessed by some ancient Celtic god named Thorn. A group of modern day Druids uses Myers as a tool in which to experiment with pure evil and kill off his family in order for theirs to be safe...or something like that. It gets pretty convoluted and once Tommy Doyle shows up to explain that Shatner goes on a murder spree every time a constellation appears in the sky, the film becomes the equivalent of the Pope blaspheming God. There's no way to defend any of this "origin". It's just shit, plain and simple. The story is a continuation of stuff that was hinted at in Revenge, such as the weird rune symbol on Mike's wrist. Whatever. After watching Curse, you'll understand why H20 pretended that 4,5, and 6 never existed (although to be fair, 4 is a pretty good flick).

What I did appreciate in Curse was the attempt to bring some familiarity back to the franchise. I loved that they brought back Tommy Doyle, one of the surviving kids from the first flick. I didn't particularly care for how the actor played the part, but it seemed like an understandable continuation. It was great to see a character from the original other than Loomis try to get involved. I absolutely hated the idea that the "Man in Black" (don't get me started...) somehow kidnapping and impregnating Jamie, but I did like the concept of the baby needing protection from Michael. Not only does the baby continue the family bloodline (thus giving Myers continued reason to kill), but it makes for a great character completely helpless on one side and a burden to the others in the film that have to protect it. All the filmmakers needed to do was trash the entire Druid/demon/constellation storyline and this could have been a really decent flick.

A couple other things. I thought there were some great shots of Myers hiding/coming out of the shadows. The film has a definite cinematic polish to it and some of the death scenes and cinematography with Mike are top-notch. Donald Pleasence is just sad here. It's not that he acts bad (he's only in a handful of short scenes), but with each subsequent film in the series, his health gets noticeably worse and worse. It's almost like you're watching someone die on film, literally, before your eyes. This was his last film, and although he classes it up, you just can't help but feel awkward. It just feels like Moustapha Akkad grabbed him off his deathbed by gunpoint and said "be in this movie".

The one last thing that ruins this movie is the incredibly lame "death" of Myers. Tommy Doyle just beats him over the head repeatedly with a pipe and...that's it. Loomis shows up cryptically to say something about unfinished business and the the movie abruptly ends with Myers' mask lying on the ground. Huh?! When you couple the lame ending with all of the Druid nonsense, the movie becomes unsalvageable. Too bad, because there is a really good skeleton frame of a film here with some interesting characters and a kernel of a great continuation to the series, but there's just too much crap that doesn't make any sense (somebody explain to me how Mike got in the van to kill the deejay).

There is a "Producer's Cut" to this film that I've never been able to get a hold of. It apparently fleshes out the story a lot better than the theatrical release. I've heard it's a lot better but still retains all of the dumb Druid stuff. I'd like to see it sometime.

D+

Pre-Code Cinema and the Gallup Poll

My two month vacation officially comes to an end on Monday. Beginning bright and early, I've got to attend the first day of my summer film class on pre-code cinema. The class is going to have a heavy emphasis on horror flicks, which is always good. From what I've gathered, the class is going to be highlighting a lot of stuff Richard Maltby finds ridiculous. A word to the wise: If you know your professor is going to have a certain view and teach a certain way, prepare yourself ahead of time in order to challenge them on some of their points. This accomplishes a couple things. First, it makes class much more interesting and second, you're more apt to get a high grade because the professor will think you're smarter than the average student. In one of my film classes a couple years back, I had to challenge a film professor who was completely disrespecting John Carpenter and I had to correct, and sort of argue with, a communication professor (who minored in Film, by the way) that Martin Scorsese didn't direct The Godfather movies. Yeesh! Anyways, I'm looking forward to Monday morning. The girl in the picture is Annette Kellermann, in case you didn't know.

Next week also means I've got to go back to work. Right now, you can check out an interesting video on Gallup's site about Michael Moore and Sicko. Basically, Gallup did what it does best: it polled the countries that Moore pimps in Sicko and asks them directly if what he says is true. The results aren't surprising. I'm pretty excited, all things considered, to be going back to work. Everybody loves living in a Democracy (well, most people) but very few people can claim to do work that directly influences how politicians act, companies do business, and get reactions from the president himself.

I watched all of Bush's Iraq appeal (translation: "um...let the generals decide what to do...even though, you know...i fired previous generals...and uh...didn't listen to the others...but yeah...let's wait a couple more months!") to the American people a few days ago and one quote was really hilarious. He came out and said he wasn't going to run the country based on "a Gallup Poll" (there's a reason he named Gallup, by the way). It's widely known by just about everyone in Washington that Gallup is the only poll that really matters. I could tell you some pretty funny stories about George Bush and how much he depends on what I do. You see, I'm one of the people who calls citizens and lets their opinions be heard. What I do is sent directly to President Bush's desk. When the politicians say they don't look at polls to lead, they're lying. They have to look at polls, otherwise they have no idea what the people really want.

Heavy political seasons are always great because you know that every single call you make, every single opinion you record is going to impact how the media shapes issues, how politicians are going to respond, and most importantly, allows democracy to work. So when you're reading the dozens of polls that are sure to come out over the course of the next year and a half, remember that Gallup is the only one that really matters. Why? Because it's the one that makes Georgey run up to Laura exclaiming "They love me again!" when his approval rating goes up...

As well as the one that makes him say he's not going to base any decision on "a Gallup Poll" when he drops to Nixon levels.

Editorial: Revisiting a Supposed Horror "classic", Friday the 13th

In 1996, director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson created Scream, a film that reinvented the slasher film and genre. The film's now famous opening scene involves Ghostface calling Drew Barrymore and forcing her to answer horror trivia in order to save her and her boyfriend's life. The most memorable question is Ghostface asking his victim: "Who was the killer in Friday the 13th?" Barrymore quickly responds with "Jason! It was Jason!!!!". Of course, as we die-hard horror fans know, Jason wasn't the killer in the first movie and Ghostface quickly dispatches of Gertie.

What's interesting about this piece of horror writing is that most common folks would have given Jason as the answer to Ghostface's question. The fact that this minor piece of trivia becomes so clever and powerful is that it first establishes that the audience has no earthly clue as to why Friday the 13th is famous in the first place while simultaneously reinforcing the notion that the film is known not for its quality, but for one character who doesn't appear in it until a 5 second "dream sequence" at the very end.

I'm going to take an unpopular stance within the realm of horror fans and supporters. I'm going to argue that Friday the 13th is no "classic". It's popularity and notoriety are due in large part to the series taken as a whole, 80's pop-culture factors, and an unwarranted reputation (extreme gore, sex, and nudity) that has become the stuff of pop legend. To say that Friday the 13th is a "good" horror movie requires one to suspend disbelief and sense, something horror fans have seemed more than welcome to do the past 25 years.

Let me first state that I like the F13 films. I have no inherent disdain towards the slasher genre. I consider Bob Clark's Black Christmas and John Carpenter's Halloween to be right up there in my top tier of favorite horror films. As far as I'm concerned, the F13 films are all fun in their own way, some way better than others, but I don't begrudge the notion that horror fans prop this series up on a pedestal. Jason Voorhees is an iconic horror figure, no doubt about that. Watching him spear, hack, and slice up one-dimensional characters never gets old. The sheer amount of movies in the series (10, not including Freddy vs. Jason, all released theatrically by major studios Paramount and New Line) is part of the appeal and something most horror franchises (other than that venerable Witchcraft series) can't match. The fun ofthe F13 series is in the idea, not the execution of the movies themselves.

So here we are, revisiting the film that "started it all", the original Friday the 13th directed by Sean S. Cunningham. To take a close and critical look at this movie requires a couple of things. First, you must divorce yourself from all the baggage associated with the rest of the series. There's been 25 years of hype to set aside and since the F13 films are one of the premiere "gateway" franchises for prospective horror fans, you've got to suppress any warm and fuzzy feelings of nostalgia. In effect, you've got to pretend that Friday the 13th is in a vacuum; that it's a stand-alone film and judge it on its own merits. When we do that, what do we get?

The plot of the film is about as simplistic as you can get: a group of teens restarting a summer camp get picked off one-by-one by an unseen killer. From the opening scene (a killer POV shot), it becomes clear that the film is a blatant knock-off of Halloween, a film that was released a couple years earlier and became the highest grossing indie film of all-time. There is no denying that the film is an attempt to cash-in on the sudden demand for slasher films that came with the success of Halloween. Interestingly, I've never heard a supporter of F13 do so because of the film's "quality". If you compare Sean S. Cunningham's direction against that of John Carpenter, you'll find no comparison. I challenge any horror fan to watch the two films back-to-back and find an area where F13 is superior. Understand that one's personal feeling's of preference or whether you "like" one over the other is irrelevant. I'm talking strictly on the cinematic level these two films have no comparison in terms of quality. F13 to Halloween is the equivalent of De Palma to Hitchcock. The divide is immense, measurable, and easy to see. It's just not in the same league.

Now, just because something is a knock-off of something better, doesn't necessarily mean that the movie is bad per se. After all, even De Palma put out some good films by plagiarizing Hitchcock, though to compare De Palma and Cunningham would be an insult to De Palma. So let's de-construct some of the reasons, and myths, as to why F13 works. Maybe then we can get to the heart of why it is considered a "classic".

1) The story is great, the setting is classic.

The story behind Jason Voorhees (drowned in Crystal Lake while the counselors were "making love") is one of the most recognizable in horrordom. It's become a mythology in its own right. But remember, we're just focusing on the first movie here, and pretending as if the ensuing 10 films never existed. The film opens in 1958 and then flashes forward to the present. We find out that the camp has been closed ever since the deaths of the two counselors who are making out at the beginning of the film. Sprinkled throughout the film are characters who show up to offer cryptic insights, but nobody ever explicitly implies that Jason is the character who may or may not be running around. I'd argue strongly that Jason is never made a threat and his presence is not integral to either the characters or the audience themselves. Instead, you have a pseudo-mystery (who's the killer?) involving an unseen killer (who seems to be recognized by a couple characters before they are offed...) hacking up teens in non-gory ways (more on this later). The back story is serviceable, but there is nothing more to it than something like Halloween and in the context of the film, it doesn't really strike fear into the audience. The setting itself is a good one (an isolated camp) but Cunningham never makes full use of the isolated nature of the camp and the visuals become too repetitive over the course of the film. The setting is just a variation on the standard formula, and one that is not supported to its full potential.

2) This film sparked the 80's horror boom!

Sort of untrue depending on how you look at it. The reality is that Friday the 13th was just one of many that were jumping on the Halloween success train. Other slashers released the same year included Tourist Trap, Terror Train, Mother's Day, De Palma's Dressed to Kill, and even Carpenter's ghostly slashers in The Fog. There had already been a strong trend towards these films when Friday the 13th came along. Where F13 gets props is for being the most successful of the bunch, grossing about 40 million dollars. However, grossing that much money doesn't necessarily mean people liked it. The sequel released the following year (and other than the first 15 minutes, a clearly superior film than the original in almost every respect) only grossed half that amount showing that audiences had a decided lack of enthusiasm to the original film. It took word of mouth, the introduction of Jason Voorhees, and the novelty of "the final chapter" for 3 and 4 to make some bank. But the fact that the original film had such a drop-off in audience in comparison to the sequel is very telling in my opinion. I think it shows a direct correlation between the success of the character of Jason Voorhees, rather than the success of the film itself. In other words, the series started getting its love not from the original film, but from the accumulation of all the films together and the character of Jason Voorhees. Did F13 lead to the 80's horror boom? It had an impact on subsequent slashers in that they all wanted to mimic the formula to gain the same amount of success, but to say it began the 80's horror movement is giving it far too much credit. There were many other factors for that, not the least of which was home video.

3) The sex and violence are awesome! Long live Savini!

This is probably the most overrated aspect of F13 and not surprisingly the fall back position for every supporter of the film. F13 is one of those films that seems a lot more violent and racy than it actually is. This is not a new phenomenon. TCM is considered by many to be one of the goriest movies ever made even though it has less than a single bottle of Karo used throughout. Same goes for Halloween, which is incredibly light on gore and T&A (girls frolic around in their underwear a lot, but even the most famous scene, P.J. Soles's "see anything you like?" is no payoff). To illustrate this, I'm going to go through the numerous kills in the film. To be fair, F13 was allegedly butchered by the MPAA, but we can only go based off what we see in the film. Maybe it would have been more impressive without the censorship, we'll never know. So, here's the kills. I'll let you be the judge of how graphic they are:

1. counselor holds bloody stomach. stabbing is not shown.
2. counselor screams, freeze frame, opening credits.
3. counselor's throat slit. Shown for less than 3 seconds before fade to white.
4. counselor shown with throat slit on top bunk, killed off camera
5.Kevin Bacon's famous "throat scene", lasts 6 seconds.
6. counselor gets axe to the head. impact not shown. shot lasts 2 seconds.
7. counselor killed off camera
8. lead counselor killed off camera.
9. counselor killed off camera, later found to have arrow in his head and torso. shot lasts 3 seconds.
10. decapitation of Mrs. Voorhees. less than 2 seconds.

As for the T&A, only one couple actually has sex in the film. During the sex scene, no nudity is shown other than Kevin Bacon's ass. In fact, the only time you see a boob (and it's only one, funny enough) is after the sex has taken place and even then, only briefly. So what you have here is a film that has reached legendary status for how gory it is and for how much nudity is has, when in reality it doesn't have much of either. The funny thing is that this is probably one of the tamest films Tom Savini has ever done. Dawn of the Dead is an example of something far gorier than this.

So what you have is a film that is 95 minutes of plodding, uninteresting buildup and less than 20 seconds of actual violence and nudity. I wonder if anyone has ever stopped to think about that for a second. You've got a film with no characters of any discernible interest, whose only saving grace is supposedly the villian, Mrs. Voorhees...

4) Mrs. Voorhees is the shiznit!

First off, the idea that Jason's mother is the killer and not Jason himself is a great one. The few scenes where Betsy Palmer goes a little off her rocker are awesome. But a couple shots do not make a great villian. In reality, the last 20 minutes of the movie is a plump old woman chasing a young girl around the woods. They slap each other around a bit. They sorta "throw down", but in a "we don't want to get hurt making this low-budget movie" kind of way. It's really a pretty pathetic sequence when you really think about it. The character of Jason's mother has become iconic, but it's noteworthy that the character is more recognizable as a rotten head surrounded by candles .

If you really sit down and watch Friday the 13th you'll realize very quickly that as a film, it's almost nonexistent. It's got a clever title, a reputation that is more myth than reality, and frankly isn't even the most entertaining or well-made film in the series. Over at Deadlantern.com, my friend Jeff posted his top 10 in the series and listed this as #1. One of his reasons was because "it laid the foundation for one of the most enduring franchises in horror history". That's true, but that has nothing to do with the movie itself. If F13 were released today, it would be ridiculed for its terrible pacing, uninspired one-dimensional characters, lack of gore and sex, as well as its lame direction. It's amazing what 25 years can do to a film...

And ultimately, that's all I'm saying. I'm not knocking Friday the 13th so much as I'm trying to show that the credibility it has accumulated over the years is not the result of the film itself, but the entire sum of the series and everything that sprang forth from the series.. Just like Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees became a pop-culture icon in the 80's (I was Jason for Halloween one year, Freddy the next). The horror industry turned its boogeymen into merchandise. An R rated horror movie became a video game for kids to play on their Nintendo. Jason was elevated to something above cult status and became a household name. Tons of sequels were released, each more ridiculous than the last, and I think the original film became lumped into the frenzy that came about because of it. People have a natural inclination to prefer the "original" over what comes after, but a strict reading of the original film shows that the legend doesn't live up to the reality.

If you do not let the other films influence your viewing experience, you'll find that Friday the 13th is an incredibly overrated film. One that does not hold up upon repeat viewings and one that's more notable for what comes after it than for what it itself is.