Last night's game reminded me of my one time in Fenway Park. Neither game changed the outcome of the season (both teams were leading the playoff race each year), but both were wins the Yankees perhaps needed more than the Sox.
There were some familiar faces last night. Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, Mike Timlin, Johnny Damon (in the home dugout), David Ortiz, Jason Varitek, Jason Giambi and Hideki Matsui all played July 25, 2003 and last night.
But David Wells and Pedro Martinez were the starters, Jesse Orosco and Armando Benitez came in briefly in relief for the Yanks, and Byung-Hyun Kim took the loss for Boston. Wells had six walks on the season entering the game; he walked five. Pedro walked four, too, and it was obvious no one was happy with the umpiring. Manny Ramirez forgot how many outs there were on a fly ball and was doubled up, and though Rivera blew the save (coming in mid-inning and giving up his traditional broken-bat blooper), he closed the door in the ninth when given a second chance.
Fenway's an amazing ballpark, if so tiny that it's easy to forget it houses a major-league team. But still, it was nice to see this when we got up to leave at game's end.
Labels: Baseball, classic-review, Yankees
They say rare is the sequel that is better than its predecessor. While "The Bourne Identity" remains the crown jewel for its plotting -- superb, slow and subtle for a spy thriller -- that strength makes it the least exhilarating of the three.
"The Bourne Supremacy" kept the more sinister and complicated bad guy of the first film (the original Hannibal Lecter, Brian Cox) and added more gadgets, a bigger (studio and CIA) budget, and a conflicted Joan Allen. Most importantly, it added the whiplash-inducing frenetic ride that is watching a Paul Greengrass film. Yes, he can't keep the camera still. But no, it's not a bad thing. It puts you into the scenes. It's IMAX without the special setups.
"The Bourne Ultimatum" wraps up storylines. Unlike some negative aspects of reviews, I don't believe it's simply a rehash. As far as Bourne knew, as far as we knew, most of the answers had been provided by the end of the second film. In fact, that's not the case, and the third film is really a continuation -- an amazing feat for an action film. The latter two pics are essentially one four-hour film.
My major fault-finding with "Ultimatum" was in the dialogue. While the broader story never forgets its past, in plotting, details, imagery (the number of scenes that mirror, in minute detail, previous benchmarks is beautiful), and secondary characters, the actual script can be tedious.
If I had to hear "Where the hell is he?" or "We have a situation" or the word "asset," one more time...
But the film works, and it works as a story of a conflicted man who's just finding out, in complete, what he is, was and the tragic choices he made along the way.
There's no boredom, no let-up, and while I can't remember going to a movie in years with this high of expectations, I also can't remember leaving a movie more satisfied in years.
EDIT (08/26/07): Just an odd thought, but I wonder if Jason Bourne is in some ways a non-mutant version of Wolverine. I say this only because I was flipping the channels, saw "X2" on, and saw Brian Cox, the wickedly good upper-level CIA villain from "Bourne" 1 and 2, playing the man who, in a secret military program that Logan volunteered for, engineered through brutal, dehumanizing and memory-altering and -erasing methods a super-soldier. Just having Brian Cox in both seemed an interesting choice on somebody's part.
Labels: classic-review
Read more...
Season/Episode: Season 1, Episode 1 (with uncut DVD version w/commentary)
Airdate: 11/02/03
Writer: Mitchell Hurwitz
Director: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo
Famous guest starts/recurring characters: Stacey Grenrock-Woods, John Beard
Awards: Won, Outstanding Writing (Comedy), Outstanding Directing (Comedy, Outstanding Single-Camera Editing (Comedy), 2004 Emmy Awards; Nominated, Outstanding Art Direction (Comedy), 2004 Emmy Awards
Quotes: "Illusion, Michael. A trick is something a whore does for money. (Notices children) Or cocaine."
"Arrested Development" starts off with perhaps the best single episode on television during the 2003-04 year. Why? Well, it won Emmys for best direction, single-picture camera editing and writing. It was also one of the submitted episodes that garnered the Emmy for Best Comedy Series and undoubtedly played a part in the best casting honor. The pilot was also nominated for best art direction in a comedy.
Given all that, it's also an episode that is glaringly different from future ones. Gob's hair is different (and longer), the houses are not at all similar (the model home, the commentary reveals, was actually a real home), among other things.
However, the music, the key ingredient of Michael and Lindsay's distant-yet-close relationship, the Enron angle (and in part, the Haliburton/Iraq angle) and the camera direction are already fully established.
Watching the pilot -- and indeed, much of the series -- you're watching something that still may be ahead of its time: a wicked satire of the excesses, arrogance and ignorance of both sides in the post-9/11 world, but done in such a dark, yet hilarious, almost slapstick way that there's no sign of a political, polarizing rant. It's also a comedy that emphasizes the importance of family more so than any show of its time, yet that stress on family is pathological and results in family being treated worse than everyone else.
What else stands out in the pilot?
First would have to be the sheer number of characters and the layers developed in the first episode. Eight characters get full-fledged intros and at least two major traits that carry through the series. The pseudo-incest angle, while hardly a ratings winner, is introduced immediately with the kissing cousins, Maebe and George Michael. A hint of sentimentality is seen when George Michael hugs his aunt, thinking her gone from his life after losing his mom, but is immediately erased by her not being able to fake-cry after her and Michael discuss the pathetic state of the family.
What should have been more of a winner in viewer palatability, and was for critics, at least, was the sense of family, however twisted the message was, that runs throughout the show. The sweetness, but most often, the overindulgence of "family first" is a constant. Michael tries to break away from that but can't. His spidery family traps him its web, so to speak.
Almost all the relationships are those where both need each other, but neither wants to admit it. They spend more time trying to pull away and end up failing miserably. This "Seinfeld"-esque trait is such that the rare relationships that don't exude this quality get excluded from the show. Michael and Maebe, for instance, have relatively few scenes involving them directly ("Take Your Daughter To Work Day" being a major exception) that don't relate to Michael's relationship with his son. Lindsay and Buster, whose worlds largely revolve in separate orbits, have but one scene alone in the entire 53-episode run (and it's late in Season 3, where they make "hot ham water" together).
This is what makes G.O.B. such a classic character, even in the pilot. He's so full of bravado yet so devoid of internal pride and confidence that his love/hate relationship with himself is magnified and shone, with hilarious results, onto others in almost every interaction. He's the jack of all trades, much like Phil Hartman was in his work, and that his mannerisms sometimes compare only tightens that connection. Despite obvious talents for both (Hartman's Bill McNeill's radio hosting, Will Arnett's G.O.B.'s con-man disguised as magic), they both are masters of self-promotion and sabotage -- two traits that even in bad actors/writing can get laughs.
As for the rest, Ron Howard's narration is as sparse and unforced as it'll get, and guides you rather than being part of the joke. Portia de Rossi's Lindsay gets more emotional range and depth, without being unintentionally melodramatic, than she ever got in years on "Ally McBeal," while David Cross and Jeffrey Tambor got themselves full-time gigs through stealing scenes (Tambor's cowboy phase, "having the time of my life" in prison; Cross's "how are you" lines and obliviousness to well, everything about himself). But neither actor takes all the credit -- each leaves plenty of material for the other actors to work with. The kids do a fine job, even if George Michael's shyness and Maebe's ill-conceived daring are a bit overblown.
Jason Bateman doesn't seem in over his head as the leading man, and had the FOX marketing people focused on him, they might have found success. Yes, Michael Bluth did bad things (more and more as the show went on), but he was sympathetic, usually came around to the right thing, and did truly believe in family, even if he succumbed frequently to selfish interests that went against the Bluths.
The one down note, surprisingly, is Tony Hale's Buster. Not the acting, but the writing. He comes across as mentally disabled, not simply emotionally stunted and naive. The show fixed this quickly and gave him room to grow (if only one step forward, two back), making him the most-underrated but most-creative character in seasons two and three. But in the pilot, you wonder if you're supposed to laugh or feel sorry for him. And there will be none of that, no matter how pathetic the characters' lives or actions become.
One down note, and a minor one at that. A show good enough to dominate the Emmys, yet one that arguably was one of the least-funny of the season, suggesting that the pilot's greatest achievement was in creating a prototype to enable future greatness.
Labels: Arrested-Development, classic-review
Read more...
Release Date: 07/02/80
Studio: Paramount Pictures
Directors: Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker
Writers: Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, Jerry Zucker
Stars: Robert Hays, Julie Hagerty, Leslie Nielsen, Robert Stack, Lloyd Bridges, Peter Graves, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Lorna Patterson.
Awards: Nominated, Best Motion Picture -- Comedy/Musical, 1981 Golden Globes
Quotes: Too many to list; look here.
"Airplane!" has had so many impersonators, both deliberate (including the sequel) and inadvertent, that sometimes it's tough to remember that this one came before all of them. It can be tough to remember the originality in this flick, even as a spoof that rips off almost everything. The greatest point of originality, actually, is the casting of Leslie Nielsen, who did not have much of a comedic past before this picture, but of course, has changed that.
Conversely, one can say that the film is only funnier because it came first. But it holds up today, even with the passing of time on many cultural references (such as the admittedly silly "Jaws"-in-the-clouds spoof to open the film) and the waves of airplane fear (the 1980s and its hijackings and explosions and, of course, post-9/11 fears). It's just as funny now; how many films, even great ones, can say that 27 years after their release.
The secret is in two things: while it's jam-packed, never sparing a moment to have one, two, three or more gags happening at once, at least one part of the scene moves the movie forward. There's no wasted film. And most importantly, the movie is actually pretty damn good. It's silly, yes, but the plot keeps you interested beyond fast-forwarding to the best gags. Even the banter that has jokes sets up what's happening and what's going to happen -- at the least, say, with the two kids talking like grownups ("I take my coffee black, like my men"), you sure as hell won't forget who they are.
And the attention to detail on exposition and gags is something many directors today could take something from when working in comedy or drama. The actors take things just seriously enough, and the music and direction is ironic without being unaware of the parody.
The film also stands on its own despite its heavy debts to the 1957 picture "Zero Hour" and the "Airport" films. Even if you haven't seen those films, you're likely to enjoy this.
With many of the situations, you'll laugh, most likely, at the joke in the context of the film, but if not, you'll recognize the film, show, or situation it's spoofing (the man waving to his girlfriend from the plane rather than train is a good example). Compare this with "Scary Movie" and its sequels, where, even at it's best, it's almost entirely about getting the references and not anything inherently funny in the content.
Another aspect that always strikes me is how many characters get enough screen time to develop, even in a ridiculous way. Most Oscar-winning dramas can't pack a dozen or more characters in without neglecting most of them. Even the stereotypes still retain something unique that identifies them as "Airplane!" characters. And no Oscar-winning film has the brilliance of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. That casting and writing alone marks this film as a must-see.
What's a little odd to see? Everybody just hanging out on the runway in this age of hypersecurity, and while the girl fight in the bar is funny, the girl crashing into the jukebox is staged terribly, and not even "Airplane!" can overcome having "Stayin' Alive" in it. On the other hand, the whole arrival and check-in scene at airports hasn't changed, and even "Airplane II" mined some humor out of that. The jive-talkers is much more of a 1970s thing, but there's enough similarities with rap, etc., to draw in viewers now. Besides, the actors sell it so well.
It's also odd to see how no romantic comedies have learned from all the people killing themselves when Striker tells those sob stories. In fact, without that running joke and the absurd music that many films use seriously, those stories might drag down this film.
Basically, when you watch "Airplane!" you watch what is at once a classic of its time and of all time. But mostly, you watch a movie that is funny without insulting your intelligence.
Labels: classic-review
Well, I hope it's not a waste of time.
But beyond that, it's the smallest of efforts to fill the void (very selectively) left by TV Squad when it ditched its version. It's also because for all the good stuff that's happening now, there's plenty being forgotten. And a lot of that serves, deliberately or not, covertly or not, as the inspiration for the things you're enjoying at this moment.
What I'm looking to get out of this is an exploration of particular episodes and why, beyond their here-and-now greatness, they were important in a show's development, history, canon, etc., and possibly to the genre itself. For any classic sports moments we cover here, it's similarly, why this game, contest, etc., is much more than just one day, one event.
We start, for no particular reason, with the Season Five opener of "Seinfeld." A show, if not at its peak, then certainly close to it, and one that seamlessly could develop characters without exposition, meld storylines without making any obvious attempts, and use potential weaknesses (Jerry's acting, Elaine's awful hair, Kramer's too-weirdness, George's dislikeability) as strengths.
This episode, I think, moves forward on a lot of those fronts. If you've a suggestion, I'll do my best to fulfill it. And if I'm wasting words, let me know, too.
Labels: classic-review
Read more...
Season/Episode: Season Five, Episode One
Airdate: 09/16/93
Writer: Larry David, Lawrence H. Levy
Director: Tom Cherones
Famous guest stars/recurring characters: Lisa Edelstein (also in "The Masseuse," now on "House")
Awards: Nominated, Outstanding Writing (comedy), Outstanding Directing (comedy), 1994 Emmy Awards
Quotes: "We have to have sex to save the friendship!"
Every great comedy needs an occasional counterbalance, something to ground its characters and make them not contemptible, or at least contemptible in a funny way.
Also, as comedies are based around people who spent an inordinate amount of time together, there has to be something that shows you why this is the case.
Too much of it, and you get maudlin or "very special." Too little, and you get mean-spirited or pointless.
"Seinfeld" was always about doing too little -- its unofficial motto was "No hugging, no learning," after all -- but even this show cracked a few times to demonstrate why these four bizarre people would tolerate each other. The references to old times growing up was enough to solidify George and Jerry. Kramer was the next-door neighbor, which could just about settle it.
But his using of all Jerry's stuff and his constant, taking, intrusive presence? The answer to why Jerry might tolerate that was handled well, if a bit directly, in the three-part arc "The Keys" and "The Trip" part 1 and 2.
It went too far in the Season 2 finale, "The Deal," when the show was still finding its angle. Elaine and Jerry either have to date or disappear. The show wisely dropped the plot immediately for the next year.
But "The Deal" did provide opportunities for episodes such as the Season Five opener, "The Mango," that tackled their unique relationship while not straying from the "no lessons" mantra -- in other words, it's still wickedly funny and nothing overshadows the laughs.
First, though, let's talk about the word, which, along with the move to the "Cheers" timeslot, was what people were REALLY talking about the next day. The show was nominated for an Emmy in part, I would think, because it's the closest Jerry and Elaine came to "breaking up," but it was mostly because of the whole liberal use of orgasm in speaking and plotting. Elaine doesn't have them but fakes them, Jerry misdiagnoses them, George can't give them (or, in the end, believe he can) and Kramer can fake them, too, though his vitality in all aspects of life is explained by his expansive fruit palate bought from what seems like an entirely ordinary neighborhood market. The episode is like an orgasm of the use of the word orgasm.
Little notes: I want to know if Kramer and Jerry ever got un-banned from Joe's, though. Kramer does mention the place in the following episode, so it's possible. Given Kramer's love of food, you'd think the show could have found a way back there. It was the only episode Lawrence H. Levy wrote, so maybe that had something to do with it.
Who calls up anybody, much less an ex, and says, "Did you have orgasms with me?" Fantastic.
Kramer lights his cigar on the stove, and then says he can give pointers on "pressing those buttons." Jerry calls it "sexual perjury" and compares Elaine's acting to Meryl Streep. Thankfully, we haven't seen Streep doing lots of those type of scenes in recent years.
Sadly, I think this episode might be overlooked by the later, Puddy-era episode where Jerry shares his "move" he used with Elaine, which would seem to completely nullify ... actually, why are we thinking too much about this?
George's girlfriend, Karen, doesn't get much to do in this episode, but she plays the part well. The risotto thing seems to confuse George more than help, and it isn't the best image to put in someone's mind. Maybe that's the point, though. As for the actress, she was also Sam Seaborn's call-girl girlfriend on "West Wing."
As for Jerry and Elaine, she's treated like one of his girlfriends -- you know, where they're great except for one little thing that he blows up into something huge, and then they find out, get disgusted and storm out forever. It's even more pronounced because she wickedly one-upped him, both in lying to him and in her reveal at the diner. George was never so happy (or willing to order cake) as when he saw Jerry's jaw drop.
The difference between Elaine and the other 124 or so girlfriends is that instead of walking out the door, she says, "I'll give you 30 minutes, let's go."
Seems too direct and not funny, but it works. If you're just watching for the humor, it's there. If you're looking for an affirmation of their relationship, whatever the hell it is, it's there too.
The payoff is even better. What other show would have, through a piece of mango, George's woes magically transfer themselves to Jerry, with the result that Elaine's busy reading a magazine? Until she wants some mango. End scene.
I think it's episodes like this that make critics and fans wonder, "Why the hell doesn't Elaine free herself from this bunch of losers? She's better than them." And Jerry's willingness to let her leave proves that. But she doesn't want to be any better -- having them around allows her to sink to that level without shame -- and thankfully so. Judging from the pilot (the real one), a show without her wouldn't be nearly as good.
Labels: classic-review, seinfeld
