Don’t Like: The New York Post’s Decision To Post Erin Andrews Spy Video Pictures and Including A Distasteful Cartoon As Well

July 23, 2009

(note: this is not page with the picture… I’m not going to do that)

Ragging on a rag like The New York Post (eh, get it?) seems like a waste of time. It’s a nonsense paper, with a nonsense agenda, designed to make money, and it does. Fine.

I’m also not here to get political. That would be pointless. Dismissing a sensationalist paper for it’s politics completely misses the point as they are inherently designed to piss people off or go the extra step out of bounds on a given angle (politically speaking of course). Does it potentially have a negative effect? Sure. Do I like that so many people read it? No. It’s just doesn’t make sense to rail against this because it’s an inherent reality of the mud slinging business. And most of their gossip rag stuff is completely trashy, but appropriately trashy in the larger sense. In other words it’s exactly the kind of nonsense you’d expect to find in any magazine like that.

So then The Post went along the other day and ran a story on page 1 referencing the now unfolding and infamous Erin Andrews story. If you have not heard, the ESPN sideline reporter was recently filmed with a peephole camera as she was changing in her hotel room. It is a significant offense. Highly illegal. And rotten to the core. Honestly, I did not find that it happened that surprising. Erin Andrews has a vehement, vocal, and often juvenile fan base, stemming from the fact that she is an attractive, capable woman and is a member of the sports world, particularly college sports. That lends itself to a certain kind of attention. She is also a decent sideline reporter (my qualms are more with actually sideline reporting and not her performance itself). The problem with having this kind of celebrity-like admiration is that she also a sideline reporter and NOT a giant celebrity with security and protection and all the like. Honestly, I’ve worried for her safety in a variety of situations.  Sure, she seems tough and no nonsense and all that good stuff; she’s probably perfectly capable of taking care of her self… but still. I worried about, I dunno, something like this.

Most of the major papers have and simply abstained from referencing the story all together… but The Post? They ran an article about her outrage… including a screenshot from the video (a barely censored one).

This is absolutely deplorable.

More than than that it is actually illegal. They are posting a pic which was from an illegally shot video. Admittedly, I do not know the finer points of the law concerning this issue, but I know that that kind of act is illegal and grounds for legal action. The Post have since taken it down on the website version of their paper. But probably more because people are pissed (even within their regular readers). This sentiment is also not to imply that I, or some of the people who complained, are some kind of prude or believe that sexuality has no place in modern media. Who can’t understand why a lot of people would want to see a naked video of someone famous? Particularly an attractive famous person.  It’s just that I recognize the inherent difference of a video obtained through such incredibly dishonest and violating means. Not helping matters is that some people are confusing the release of this video with the “release” of some other famous celebrity videos; they don’t understand what the big deal or difference is and why this video can’t legally be posted.

There isn’t even a comparison. Those videos were released with pre-made deals and financial compensation. It was planned. This video was not.

Which leads to something else The Post happened to do in that edition of the paper. They printed this cartoon.

07222009

There are three possible meanings you can take from this cartoon. The first is that modern corporate/celebrity culture uses sex and personal stuff to sell sell sell. Which would be valid. But that would be giving a lot of credit. See the problem is those 5 blatant ESPN signs, which means the second possible meaning and perhaps most obvious is that ESPN planned or wanted this video to come out. Or is somehow glad. Which is malicious and implies they are a morally bankrupt organization… which I find to be anything but the case for the company. It also completely discounts the fact they’ve been running around like crazy suing websites and LEGITIMATELY trying to shut it down. If anything ESPN has been the one major sports coverage unit that has really, and truly tried to abstain from sexualizing sports. They consider themselves a family network. They really do and seperates themselves from Fox Sports, which has no qualms about doing so (the great irony of this being that Fox sports is 1000 times more likely to have the kind of behavior/viewpoint shown in this cartoon). The third meaning, and most offensive, is that Erin Andrews was in on it. Which if that is the intent, is probably the most heinous, sexist, cynical, violating tone I can think of for a situation like this.

Once again… this is absolutely deplorable.

Yes the cartoon probably falls under free speech and probably has the legal standards to run… but then I have the right under free speech to say this probably should never have seen publication and if I ran a paper it wouldn’t… ever.

This sounds like I’m getting all high and mighty and holier than thou… I know… I’m sorry. True, should I expect anything less from society? Is this really THAT big a deal? I’m not sure. But sometimes I get tired of being cynical. I get tired of just ignoring shitty behavior just because humans are inclined to be shitty sometimes. But every once and awhile it’s okay to call a duck a duck. Their actions are egregious. It deserves to be called out.

In response to the whole affair, ESPN has blacklisted any Post reporters from their coverage and removed their access to any ESPN broadcast. This will have an immediate effect on their coverage and will hopefully hurt them financially.

But for Erin Andrews, in a perfect world, she would sue for posting the picture and defamation of character for the cartoon. She has a legit claim with the picture, but the cartoon claim would be thrown out under free speech. And since the post is part of the News Corp empire the history of two mega corporations suing each other tells us that it would be so bogged down in various stalls and litigation as to be a complete waste of time.

So in the end, ESPN made the right call.

For me, the whole thing has no effect, really.

I will continue to never read The Post.


Like: Arrested Devlopment, Revisited (Part 1)

July 22, 2009

So me and the stuff-I-like gal have been going back and revisiting Arrested Development.

This is a good thing.

The show holds up absurdly well, not only terms of repeat viewings, but not feeling stale (yeah it’s only been like 5-6 years, but you’d be amazed how sensitive to that a lot of people can be).

And there’s nothing really to say about the show that hasn’t already been said, but who cares? I love it.

The writing is just so tight and focused. I can’t tell you enough how uncommon that is in a comedy. I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of something AD was similar to; sure The Simpsons works only because that show was infinitely witty and can be compared favorably to just about anything. But the best direct comparison I can think of is old Preston Sturges movies. There’s the same cyclical focus, repetition, and interests in absurdist, selfish human behavior. Sometimes they even have the same run-on joke style. I’ve been really happy since I thought of this and am suddenly interested in digging out my old Sturges movies too.

More conclusions and stuff to come in a part 2.

But I just think everybody should keep revisiting Arrested Development if they have a chance. It may seem redundant, or not exactly cutting edge proclamation or anything. But it’s one of those truly great things. Maybe I feel bad cause I was letting it slip out of my consciousness a bit.

I mean COME ON.


Don’t Understand: That somehow STAR TREK is now cooler than STAR WARS

May 8, 2009

If you told that to me in pre-may 1999, I would have laughed in your face. Star Wars was awesome. I was playing top of the line lucas arts video games. The first prequel was coming out. There was nothing shameful about being supportive fan of the series, mostly because it was/is an absolute giant fan base. All was good. Meanwhile, Star Trek had, and prior to this year, been languishing in the murks of boredom. The movies flamed out. Everything post Original Series was overtly serious and amazingly dull. The casual fans had been sidled off because of grave disinterest. Being a big “trekkie” was not exactly a badge of honor.

Then The Phantom Menace Came out. The rest of the prequels. You could convince yourself they were entertaining, but the truth is they were mostly shite. And having some sort of allegiance and love of those prequels was asinine. The non-rational part of me believes that George Lucas was really trying to make a generation get over their Star Wars hangups. The rational part, of course dismisses that. Star Wars is a relative joke now. I still have some affinity for the original triology of course, but the whole universe is no longer sacred stuff.

So I saw Star Trek (2009) last night. It was a long gestating reboot and supposed to be something that was alluring to mass audiences and still satifactory to the fan base who remained loyal through over a decade of crap. And truth be told, the film is great. Tons of fun. Big. Bombastic. The cast was fantastic. JJ Abrams directs the hell out of this thing. The script is trash, but might be the real first ever case of successfully polishing a turd to the point of alchemy.

By the time the credits roll I couldn’t help but be anxious, as I wanted to see their next adventure.

There is no better compliment.


Like: Generation Kill

April 8, 2009

gk13

So I went back and finally finished/re-watched all of Generation Kill.

… Amazing.

For those unaware, Generation Kill (GK)is an HBO miniseries about the invasion of Iraq from the perspective of the 1st marine recon unit (which for the purposes of that war, was basically a marine battalion in Humvees). It was made by David Simon and Ed Burns, the geniuses responsible for the greatest television show of all-time: The Wire. For those who tire of the ham-fisted Iraq politicization  and fictions, GK is about as far from that as you can get. Yes, GK is very much of The Wire formula/sensibility, but the wonderful thing about The Wire formula/sensibility is that is it is inherently designed to mimic the truths and forms of the subject itself. GK does not approach the war and Iraq from an ideological and didactic standpoint, it approaches truths through character. Look, I’m not going to say that Generation Kill is definitive truth or anything that grandiose, but it might be as close as you can get because it approaches its subject from a journalistic standpoint. There is no true intention of GK except to supplement the experience for those who were not there. It simply tries to deal openly and honestly about the condition of singular moments and not to make something accessible, but to make something of the experience that rang true to the marines on the ground. And to be sure what they did was authentic, they had an actual marine in the writing room at all times, as well as original writer original Evan Wright.

Getting to the matter of character: Generation Kill was originally a book written by Evan Wright who was doing an article for Rolling Stone. He ended up riding point Humvee in 1st recon and writing about his experiences. He is represented as a character in the miniseries too (which sort of makes GK is a basically a factual recreation if you will).  And Evan really makes no attempts to prognosticate, but rather to assimilate into the population. He is not really a character in the singular sense, but our observer, like Ishmael in Moby Dick.

The two central figures Wright observes are the two men in the front of said point Humvee: the first is the driver, Cpl. Josh Ray Person,  played by James Ransone (Ziggy from The Wire season 2!). Much like Ziggy, Ray’s entire existence is a force of nature; he is 100% pure black humor. As a recon marine, Ray frequently stares into void of potential death and the reality of killing other human beings, but he only finds inherent irony and silliness. It’s one part coping mechanism and one part destiny: Ray’s predisposition makes him a Marine through and through, it is almost as if it was the only thing he can do. He wants combat. He wants action. He’s also somehow endearing as hell (being funny often helps in that regard), despite completely typifying the titular “Generation Kill.” But that’s the real rub of the title, much like Ray, it is laced with irony. But in truth it is  Sgt. Brad “Iceman” Colbert, played by Alexander Skarsgaard (son of stellan!), who is the most amazing part of GK and the proverbial anchor of the series. Brad brings a deeply parental nature to his team; he leads by example with a serious demeanor, but so much boils under his surface: reservations, contempt at inept officers, rage, fear, and happiness.  It is such an introspective performance; a man who’s has all the reason in the world to be grandiose (considering the grandiose setting and events) and thus has to be muted in order to cope. Alexander/brad is a compassionately brooding figure; also a massive figure, towering above most others (notably: Alexander was a former Swedish marine). To use my favorite saying: he is just stupid good in the role. Really, make no mistake, this is the stuff leading men are made of.  It’s no surprise Kenneth Branaugh is basically going nuts trying to get marvel to sign off his casting of Alexander as motherfucking THOR (it’s perfect).

The two characters of Ray and Brad are somewhat antithetical, yet both are excellent examples of good marines. They are responsible and knowledgeable. They care about their fellow marines. They are great in combat and subvert any of their fears. Truly, they seem to have no fear of death. But there is another member of their point Humvee team and his name is Lance Cpl. Harold James Trombly. He is rather easy right off, because he contains so many qualities that define a scumbag, yet every bit of that is mixed with an oozing innocence. His actions infantile and child-like, but not in an insufferable way, but a vulnerable way. He could be grumbling about wanting to kill dogs, but there is an odd, daft sweetness to his manner. Really Trombly is the kind of guy who’s situation in life never really gave him a shot at being “normal.” But Ray and Brad in thier relative maturity, seem to give him guidence. It’s a very interesting relationship.

Meanwhile, there is also Lt. Nathaniel Fick. He is Superior officer to Brad and the great example of a wonderful leader who tries to serve his men and make the best of his middle management position. Taking orders which put your men in danger are exceptionally difficult choices and most of the time Fick was admirable, and sometimes he let the pressure from above get to him and made mistakes (the “petting a burning dog” moment). But what was most respectable about Fick was that he was always honest with is men and never seemed to think of his career first. But as GK takes the wonderful time to show clearly, Fick’s greatest problem is that when he questions orders (often in the absolute critical interest of his men and their safety) he is regarded as a malcontent who undermines his (incompetent) officers. The best example being the time he was penalized for providing a superior officer from killing himself and everyone in their platoon. How dare he! (Forgive the sarcasm)

All of this makes Fick the shining example of leadership against the bevy of dumbass officers that seemed to populate this marine battalion. To GK’s credit (or sense of earnest), none of these officers seem to be bad people, but are instead good/delicate/well-intentioned men who simply have no competency or leadership abilities.  It happens all the time in all lines of work; people can be promoted for being good at what they do, but often end up being terrible managers.   One officer was so woefully incompetent that if I ever saw the man Captain America was based on (I don’t care if the actor who played him might have been a little over the top), I would punch that motherfucker in the face. As Captain America was represented in GK, he was an officer who’s absolutely fearfulness of warfare itself, complete over-willingness to fire, lack of regard for prisoners, willingness put others in jeopardy, and constant terror of his superiors officers, made him a perfect storm of recklessness and ineptitude. According to Evan’s account of the battalion, Captain America was directly responsible for more of the Battalion’s  injuries than the enemy (the official Marine account would be very different). It’s just unspeakably disgust.  Slightly more forgivable, however, was Cpt. Craig “Encino Man/Hitman” Schwetje. Yes he was incompetent, often putting his men also in jeopardy (a ridiculously decided danger-close bombing scenario which Fick attempted to subvert was solved purely by Encino Man giving the wrong coordinates), but most of his problems stemmed from his juvenile demeanor and alpha-male boyishness. He’s in a middle-school mindset: stupid and eager to please his officers, but at least he seems somewhat well-intentioned.You get the feeling that while unlikely, he could grow into a better leader. Captain America, however, never belonged in a uniform. And unfortunately the structure of the marines officer system all but ensures he’d stay in one for the remainder of the war.

What is then interesting is seeing the man on top, Lt. Colonel A.K.A. “Godfather” (he has a raspy voice), and his leadership of the battalion.  Godfather does not seem like a particularly unreasonable person, but rather a good motivator who will communicates his intent with clarity and serves his superiors rather well. The problem seems to his structural detachment to both the action and his men. He is far enough removed from what is happening that conflicting accounts of Captain America’s incompetence gives him pause, but not enough to demote or discharge him (which again, should happen). This same dynamic works in an opposite capacity when he hears similar grumblings about Lt. Fick from the incompetent officers that he questioned. Now of course to the audience, the two soldiers are night and day when it comes to serving their country and the Marines, but to Godfather, the breakdown of truth in the military ranks renders the two mutually equal in terms of problems. It seems to be a sin to even suggest that, but that’s the problem: the structure of marine command creates difficulties for both the effectual and ineffectual alike. The problems with emotional detachment are played out in a wonderfully in a  scene when an injured Iraqi child (shot by Trombly) is brought by the unit’s doctor and other morally inclined officers to Godfather’s camp so he can get shipped back to a hospital for medical treatment. Godfather proceeds to give them a long list of reasons why that is implausible and exceptionally difficult from their current position, all of which are surprisingly sound reasons… and then, he gives the OK order anyway. It’s a great moment, but one that highlights the problems of detachment. It’s easy to say “no” when you’re on the phone, not watching a child die when you had the power to do something about it… no matter how problematic that something might be.

There is a larger problem still with Godfather’s detachment, one which has political ramifications. Much of his battle plan is designated from politically inclined generals; many of which he is  eager to impress. The recon marines battle plan for the war instantly becomes haphazard, roaming, and purposeless. They hit political targets yet skim around Iraq barely addressing problems, bombing before investigating, and ignoring problems they themselves create. It is incompetence in its purest form, a basic ignorance of the facts on the field in the pursuit of successes determined in Washington. The war in Iraq was a mad dash to Baghdad and everything since has been a matter of picking up the pieces from that destruction. The Marines regularly lament the cluster-fuck of what is occurring when compared to the skillfully executed missions they performed in Afghanistan. This isn’t a political reality. This is a reality of warfare. We see it time and time again in the trials of these recon marines. Were they to stay and handle a situation at hand, the situation could be solved and they could move on in good tactical conscience and good conscience at large. Which is exactly what the tactic became during the surge, you know, the moment where the war turned around and genuinely started to be rebuilt… it just took 4 years for the top brass to figure it out.  Meanwhile, these guys knew it the moment they got into the cities.

Look, the problems of the officer/soldier dynamic is nothing new. TS Elliot perhaps illustrated it best in The Hollowmen as had Coppola in the Apocalypse Now, as had Kubrick in Paths of Glory. But those were, well, artistic representations of a larger truth. They were inherently constructed. Not to get all non-fiction-vs.-fictiony, but what I liked about GK was that the examples of the officer/soldier dynamic are soundly concrete. The examples are factual, yet provide complete metaphorical representation of the larger political problems of the war. We rushed into a Iraq for perhaps unsound reasons, and then then competent, tactical soldiers had to deal with the consequences on the ground.  But of course things are never that cut and dry. Much like The Wire, Simon and Burns always let reality get in the way of any point they may try to make. The best example I can think of and most beautiful moment of the entire series deals with an officer whose name I can’t find (d’oh!) but he was the one complete and total asshole who always gave people crap about the marine dress code. He’s the complete stereotype of the hard-ass how harps on completely unimportant things and chews his men out. He’s in the mold of Lee Emory, almost acting as if that man was his hero. But near the end of the series, after a few marine injuries and some static development leave the Battalion’s morale rather low, the Asshole Dress Code Officer guy goes up to his fellow officer and has the following exchange:

(Paraphrased…)

Asshole Officer: Morale seems pretty low.

Other Officer: Yeah things look rough.

Asshole Officer: Well if things get any worse I can start harping on the dress code again.

[They share a wry smile]

… honestly it made me a bit teary.  It’s a kind of ego-sacrifice that you rarely see in real life. The Asshole Officer was willing to be “the asshole officer” for the greater sake of the men. The character is fully conscious of his effect and it’s wonderful to see, especially when many of the other officers (like Encino Man) are defined by their ego-centrism.   Ultimately, that’s what Simon and Burns have an amazing ability to do. They take some one who would either be a cut and dry asshole and they humanize him without ever dipping into forceful schmaltz (which the moment could have easily been and even slightly reads like in my summary. It wasn’t. It was great).

I think that’s all I have to say…

Generation Kill is amazing.

Endnotes:
-I may be mixing up my use of the word battalion, so anyone please correct me if I’m wrong.


Like: The Geek Heirarchy

March 5, 2009

Warning. Do not try to read this. Click on link below.

geekchartbig

THE GEEK HEIRARCHY CLICK HERE FOR BIG VERSION YOU CAN ACTUALLY READ

What is the most wonderful thing about the Geek heirarchy? It’s unflagging accuracy. There isn’t a single thing I can find wrong with it in the way of discourse. It’s a wonderful achievement in the annals of fanboy and geek semantics. It also belittles your potential interests! Either way. Just great stuff.

It’s also completely hilarious.

Props go to K. for alerting me to this many moons ago.

and remember, we’re official: www.stuffilikeandstuffidontlike.com YAY!


Don’t Like: How The Office Sucks This Season

February 27, 2009

The Office totally sucks this season.

A lot of people say this type of thing about a show at some point and often their reasons aren’t wholly sound. They are often unfounded, unexplained, and instead based on some weird vague feeling they have. This is understandable, but here, I will attempt to explain just why The Office has sucked this season.

The show started off in its early seasons with an excellent format (and proven in the UK). Michael was the ridiculous jerk with an air of being pathetic. Dwight was too just in a more survivalist bent. Jim/Pam had the emotional resonance. Then at the start of season 4, in an effort to keep from getting stale Jim/Pam got together and the emotional conflicts transferred over to Michael and (better yet) Dwight.  It was all done rather well too. Michael’s relationship deteriorated hilariously with Jan, followed by the arrival of Holly and their unspoken perfectly suited love. Dwight’s relationship with Angela came to a crashing halt and as a result, there we were wholly empathizing with a broken-hearted Dwight (even at his most bullish times, the sign of great writing). Meanwhile, Jim and Pam were the constants; together and happy and immediately ready to play off others at a moments notice. Jim and Dwight had this nice little building arc where they were acting like (fighting) brothers. Pam was becoming more confident. To top it off the entire season finale was one of the best episodes of the show(1) that set up so many great dynamics for the season to come. It was great.

Then came this season. It was full of constant false starts, pre-mature endings, misleading development, backtracking, erroneous details, and over the top behavior (even by office standards).

Michael – rather than have a nice slow burn and build-up Michael just decides he doesn’t want anything to do with Jan’s baby (she disappears) and then pretty much gets  Holly immediately (and they start doing it). There really isn’t much to the relationship. Worse, like three episodes later, Holly is transferred to Nashua because the relationship was undeclared and rather than have any kind of leniency in this, it’s just thrown at it so quickly. It’s like she had to go to do some other show.  It rendered everything completely meaningless. Since that moment Michael has been languishing without purpose or interest. In the last two-part episode we are finally promised a reunion, only to be hit with another false start. She’s not there and only a crappy device leaves things up in the air. It was a waste of time.

Toby – after leaving the show, Toby shows up like 4 episodes later. The moment of his return was pretty amusing, but again, the whole arc is rendered pointless.

Ryan – Ryan comes back for a few episodes. It is also pointless(2).

Dwight/Angela/Andy – so Dwight and Angela start doing it pretty much at the start of the season. we go from empathizing with Dwight to pretty much recognizing him and Angela as be straight up dicks. only Andy remains interesting. What’s more is the cheating just goes on for half a season with nothing brewing. It’s static and Andy just comes off as pathetic.

Jim/Pam – this is the real offender. In an effort to have some kind of plot for them(3), week after week they are thrown into some kind of episodic complication: Them being apart. Her being at school. Her parents divorce. Jim secretly spending all their money on a house. The list goes on and on. And while they could use this to build and texture their relationship, every single episode ends with a “Nope! They’re perfect together!” moment that almost serves to undermine the very drama they attempted to create(4). It’s wholly inane. People liked Jim and Pam because they identified with their longing. Now, who identifies with two people being perfect for each other. Forgive the personalizing, but I’ve found the love of my life and never do we have the “oh well, we’re perfect for each other!” resolution to our problems. That’s because it’s not a relate-able phenomenon. That’s not how human beings work. It’s a how a bunch of writers approach a situation where they don’t want to mess up their two main characters, they don’t want to overly dramatize it, and they don’t want to do anything brave  It’s a complete and total freaking cop out. Their drama is nothing but red herrings.

Jim – I’ve kind of been saying this for awhile, but this season confirms it: Jim is secretly a dick. Why does he behave the way he does and make the choices he does? He’s a paper salesmen in Scranton and he has a completely ‘holier than thou’ attitude towards everyone in the office. He’s thinking he’s just responding to people’s ridiculousness, but instead he’s just mean. Seriously, watch this season’s episodes again with that perspective. It’s amazing.  His asides are not so much “is this really happening?” and more “can you believe these assholes?” It’s really weird. The best way to legitimize this claim I’m making is to look at the UK Office and just how incredibly Tim used the same kind of character. Tim was a loser and recognized it. He hated his position in life and it just so happened that Dawn was there to brighten up his days (he basically articulates this exact phrase at some point). Sure Tim made fun of Gareth constantly and found David ridiculous. But in some ways he recognized he was one of them. He lived with his parents. He wasn’t particularly handsome or charming. He was just a funny guy. Meanwhile, Jim always had friends and seemed somewhat popular. He was kind of a cool kid. Or at least that’s how he reacts to. Why is Jim there if he dislikes it so? What is preventing him and Pam from going off somewhere else (5). Okay I’m running on too long and I realize a lot of this seems circumstantial. I just want more people to look at Jim with this perspective.

Angela – Yeah I get it. She likes the attention of men fighting over her. The problem is she’s just stone cold biyotch about it all, whereas when she was with Dwight before she was just a straight laced priss who had a secret adventurous side (re: human).

Kevin – even the Kevin being retarded plot line was far too short. they could have got more out of that. and then once it was over there was nothing. he harbored no ill will toward holly.

Michael’s Boss – has show up a lot more this season, but he’s mostly been a heavy and they haven’t gone anywhere with the conflict. Plus he made it seem like dwight should be fired and then nothing happened. Once again. Just weird.

The Writers – This is just complaining specifically about one episode. The characters in The Office always have a certain degree of selfish meanness (Michael/Dwight specifically), heck it’s part of the brand. I’ve tolerated it cause it was sometimes funny and because it never went over the line. There was an episode this year that went over the line. That was the episode where Michael and Dwight investigate another paper company to try and steal all their clients. Sure there was a kind commentary on the Darwinistic nature of businesses, but seriously? First they construct the nicest people you’ve ever met in your life just to have them gutted by Michael and Dwight? It’s wholly manipulative and worse it wasn’t that funny. It was conniving. It was actively mean. It drove me nuts… I realize all this makes it seem I dislike mean comedy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Seinfeld is one of my favorite shows and I like Sunny and Eastbound and Down and all the shows of that ilk. It’s just those were shows built on people doing unlikable things for comedic effect. The Office is built on empathy… so this basically means the show kicks itself in the nuts sometimes by having characters do really Seinfeldian stuff.  Look at how the Office UK handled a lot of David Brent’s behavior. It was less actively mean and more “I’m so awesome and trying to have a laugh” and he just fails.

This season has been nothing more than long list of bad decisions. Sure there’s been funny parts and little moments that have worked, but the entire season has been so disjointed…  lacking focus… somewhat annoying… crappy… not as good.

What’s worked and why they should focus on that:

Jim/Pam -only one episode worked this season and that’s when Jim and Pam had the little war over whether or not they should get a new copier or new chairs. It was perfect. Their conflict/interaction was playful, light, and more importantly real. It’s EXACTLY what they should be doing. We know they’re great together so you don’t need to keep reminding us. Just show how they deal with little relationship stuff by being funny. Not with miraculous Deus Ex Machina revelations at the end of heavy conflict building.

Michael – I feel like this one is already blown. They should have done the slow burn w/ holly, but instead it’s crapped. I say don’t bring her back till the endgame of the show and just let Michael be amusing within office contexts. (like the chair/copier episode).

Andy/Oscar – on the business trip Andy and Oscar had this great little bonding episode. And it was done in the perfect way where they stay true to their characters and we just find ways that they get along (6). Since then, nothing has come of it. Just another false start. They should revisit this kind of thing. Even if it’s just tonally.

Dwight/Angela/Andy – something has to happen here. I have no idea what. But they just have to re-empathize Dwight. Outright make Angela more apologetic (it’s necessary at this point) and then de-patheticize Andy. You don’t have to redifine these charcters, you just have to tone down their extremes and help get them to a kind of stasis.

To the writers of the office… in conclusion, do better.

Endnotes:

1- including the greatest line of the series, when Holly (thinking kevin is retarded) proceeds to help him count out change for the vending machine. As she helps Kevin sort out the coins in his hand she and points to one and clarifies for him “…that’s a button.” I nearly shit my pants.

2- I’m not saying that there has to even be a super-logical point to it. There should be a comidic point to it. And Ryan was used for very little laughs other than getting Kelly out of her relationship. Which, again, went nowhere.

3- Which we establish from the season before, is not wholly necessary. They’re good constants.

4- key word being attempted.

5- besides being on the show. Which writers should never work themselves into.

6- the perfect example is during Pam’s art show in season 3. No one likes her art. She’s seriously sad. Michael shows up and is his usual officing loving self and loves her drawing of the office. Pam is genuinely touched. it was a great moment that was totally in sync with their characters. The ensuing “chunky” line was a perfect example of how to alleviate the emotion too with some humor.


Like: Tina Fey

February 27, 2009

It’s not uncommon to like Tina Fey.

It is to the point where me saying something like “I think Tina Fey is the funniest woman in America” is so utterly redundant as to only reflect my lack innovation or insight. But at the same time, does that mean she does not deserve the praise? Looking at her work, you can start seeing the kind of insight and inflection that makes up the greats.

Her SNL stint, Witness:

“Prostitutes in Lyons, France, sent a fax to the government to complain that they are losing business to Eastern European women who are protected by the Albanian mafia. Okay, first of all, how rough-looking are these French prostitutes that all their customers are running to the Albanians? Secondly, why did they send a fax, and from whence? Do they have a fax machine in the whorehouse, or did they all trundle down to Kinko’s – “You fax these, I’ll let you shave me.” Thirdly, how come French whores know how to work a fax machine, but every time I try to use it, I hit Powersave, or I forget to dial 9? This just proves what my boyfriend always says – that I am dumber than a French whore.”

But Tina Fey has now become synonymous with 30 Rock. And that show is simply hilarious. We’re talking ‘Arrested Development’ hilarious. Heck, a good number of episodes have been been golden age Simpsons or Seinfeld funny.  That’s the highest praise you can give to a comedy. I mean damn, this show didn’t just make Tracy Morgan funny, it made him hilarious. Then it made Alec Baldwin into the funniest guy on TV. Check out some great stuff via Quote.

Jack: Steven’s good, man, he’s on partner track at Dewey and he’s a Black.
Liz: A black!? That’s offensive.
Jack: No, no. That’s his name. Steven Black… good family. Remarkable people, the Blacks, musical, very athletic, not very good swimmers. Again I’m talking about the family. Black is African-American, though.
Liz: Well I don’t care about that.

Liz: Why are you wearing a tux?
Jack: It’s after six Lemon, what am I a farmer?

Or, how wonderfully it uses my favorite comedy device, repetition for enhanced benefit:

[Liz telling Jack about her upcoming date] “I was going to make stew” Jack: “oh for god’s sake Lemon, don’t make stew.” [And later on, opening of said date] Liz’s Date: “this is delicious stew.”

[Liz wearing NOT her wedding dress] Liz: “I don’t need society’s permission to buy a white dress. Who says this is a wedding dress anyway? In Korea they wear white to funerals.” [Later on, Tracy sees her in the dress] Tracy: “Oh, no! Did A Korean Person Die?”

[Liz finds a random pop tart on the ground of her apartment, thinks for a moment, then eats it anyway] [Later Liz stumbles in to find her friend having sex in her bed with his ex-wife. She yells at them, then looks down horrified to see pop tarts in the coital bed and spilled to the floor.] Liz: “why are there Pop Tarts!?!! WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE POP TARTS!?!?!!?!”

GENIUS.


Like: That there is a god, and he likes the same TV I do

February 19, 2009

I had a funny experience a few months ago and wanted to blog about it, but I am just remembering it now.

I was waiting for my mom’s flight to arrive and she would be 9 hours late… and would be arriving at 4 in the morning… and I had work the next morning. Rather than fall asleep and fuck everything up I decided to stay up. But alas, I had no new netflix yet! I was up to date on all my favorite shows! It was late at night! GASP!

Then I found a FUTURAMA marathon on comedy central and problem solved. It was true, there is a god, and he likes the same TV I do.

… and then I remembered I’m pretty much athiest and the chances of me finding something I reasonably like on 500 channels is pretty fuckin’ good.


Don’t Like: #1, Spencer Pratt (on the list people, all of whom I would Punch if I saw them)

February 4, 2009

For a blog where I spend half the time bitching about stuff I don’t like, I do try to avoid careless internet asshatery and needless contrarian bullshit, and instead focus on some kind of minuate, or larger theoretical argument. Let’s be honest, often the internet descends into “I HATE YOU’RE YOUR FAVORITE THING!!!!!!!! RARRRRRRRRR! U R GAY!!!!”. I try to avoid that. But… Occasionally I indulge in my more base tendancies. So for this week:

Here’s a list of 5 people I would punch if I saw them.

#1, Spencer Pratt

This is not a lashing out against the privileged. Nor is this a lashing out at the inanity of reality television, the inanity of these people’s self conception, nor the inanity of continual existential self-promotion. There’s plenty of people who criticize Spencer Pratt for those things (or even the Spencer Pratts of the world)… that’s not what I’m going to do.

Problems are relative. I get it. This guy was born in a great scenario to have a lack of interesting problems. He’s rich. He’s entitled. He isn’t all that bright. He’s fake. He’s conniving. He’s gloriously douche-tastic. But that’s all fine to be honest. To lament where we are placed in life is just as uninteresting as those traits we see as vile. Plus, that’s not the kind of thing that even gets me that all worked up these days. If anything, Spencer’s character traits are par for the course in this city, with the fever micro-celebrity culture is emulated early and often.

The real truth of what makes Spencer Pratt the kind of person who gets #1 on this list, is that he features a complete and total lack of any of the qualities that make someone empathetic.

When I look at Paris Hilton, beneath her constructed façade, I see a stunningly sad person. Lindsey Lohan? A stunningly confused, even naive person. Britney Spears? A stunningly damaged person. Often when we make fun of these types of celebrities there is a kind subverted humanity we overlook to make the joke or criticism. Surely, they are sitting ducks for our belittlement, but they are distinctly people. And being people and all, they inherently have value.

Spencer Pratt, however, is none of those things. When I look at him, listen to him, or hear about him, I am struck only by complete and profound vacancy. His machinations are so deliberate, sure, but even with all the sociopaths in the world who have hollow/political mannerisms, his propagation of self is purely sadistic. Look, you can stare in a person’s eyes and see something about who they are. I don’t see something in Spencer Pratt. It’s not anger. It’s cold, compulsiveness. If there was something there, he killed it long ago. I don’t know if anything ever happened to him, but I imagine him growing up in a vacuum.

Unlike other celebrities, there is no amount of jealousy. I wish I could play basketball like Kobe. My various levels of exposure to him usher a sense of outright disgust. I can’t watch his show. I can’t watch him for two minutes. I turn away because I simply can’t stand it. My favorite appearance (and others’ too) was on David Letterman, where the aging god of irony eviscerated him in the interview. What was scary was that Spencer was so unaware of himself in a way that others celebutards often display. It is as if his only happiness (not happiness, let’s use compulsive need) comes from people’s aversion to him. Not to get obtuse, but the only apt figurative comparison I can think for him is that’s a Soul sucker (key word being figurative). I’m not joking in the slightest. I was thinking of comparing him to the Devil at first, but even Damien was a conflicted being who is more or less “doing his job” to reign over the hordes of hell. Spencer Pratt, instead, seems to feed of our disgust of him and perpetuates that image to his own financial and selfish ends. It is Solipsism in its greatest form.

(Note: this completely destroys solipsism. Think about it. No one should ever drive themselves down that philosophical perspective when the best example of its functionality is Spencer Fucking Pratt)

If you notice a trend on this Punching List, it is that these people are not the buffoons of the world. Not The George W Bushes, or the Michael Jacksons, or the Anna Nicole Smiths. They are glaring targets who are simply in over their head. I just feel bad for them and making fun of them I find to be nothing more than bullyism. Instead, what irks me are the people who don’t seem to participate in human frailty: Ayn Rand’s glaring philosophical omission of the basic value partnership, teamwork, or even other people’s importance. Kobe Bryant’s total lack of emotional honesty. Karl Rove’s Karl Roveness. Brett Ratner’s complete disinterest in a medium that outright demands passion for itself. And ultimately Spencer Pratt’s complete lack of humanity. Selecting these people and their commonality was wholly unintentional I assure you. I just noticed it. This is a noticeable pattern of disenfranchised humans.

If the buffoons and easy targets of the world make me feel bad for them, then Spencer Pratt simply makes me feel bad for myself.

Judgement: Not worth being a human being.

Result: PUNCHED IN THE DICK.

Difficulty: The truth is I wouldn’t even recognize him on the street. I think that would hurt him more than anything else.

Look at this asshole.


Don’t Like: That Amazon.com had the GALL to recommend a Full-Screen version of a movie to me

December 22, 2008

Do you even know me Amazon.com?

You’re usually so good, if not prolific and accurate, with your emails. You reminded me when the new season of How I Met Your Mother went on sale. You offer me 50 percent off my favorite awful movies that I have no business buying and usually do. I got my mom that scarf that one time.

But then you ONLY recommend a full-screen edition of movie? I always filter our full-screen editions. I have no time for the stupid BS of Full-screen editions. “Know what would be great? If we took this beautiful movie and cut out half the shit on screen. That’ll be awesome and I’m sure it won’t effect the integrity of what’s on screen, nor the work of hundreds of people that went into the parts that are missing[watches]. Why are two people talking but I only see their hands and a big space between them?”

God.

It’s like they never read this: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30231

So just forget it amazon.com… we had something special. And you ruined it.

And for your information, I HATED the Sex and the City movie.

Endnotes:

1.The TV show was really good though

2. “Gall” has the best webster’s definition ever: “brazen boldness coupled with impudent assurance and insolence”