The economy of Panem was a bit simple, given the luxury and wealth of the Capital but I accept that this was a teenage film, not a study in nation-building. The makers got the decadence over well enough and conversely showed the poverty of district 12.

Perhaps it was all explained in the book, but looking at the movie — which is all I can do as I am unlikely to put down one of my other novels to read Hunger Games — it was solidly good. Given that I have a weakness for female archers too, it at least ticked some boxes for me.

For me the problem with Studio 60 was that it was about brilliance that could never shine: the people who wrote and produced the fictional show were heart-warmingly brilliant (flawed people, maybe, but merely with quirks) but it wasn’t something we — “lobotomized by this country’s most influential industry” — ever really got to see on TV in other shows. Sorkin was saying, in effect, this is how genius works but you won’t actually see such quality in your real life. He made a TV show about cleverness when there is often little apparent in the schedule.

In West Wing the brilliance was that genius has to work with the nasty world we all know is out there. It’s a world of shifting situations and mercurial allegiances that has to be dealt with as best possible, and the brilliance was that the people at the top worked together on the best solution which sometimes was less than ideal. But it remains a secret world so for all we know that is what goes on every single day behind closed doors. We may be aware the end result of this activity is some vague treaty or a compromise, but we are neither party to the angst behind the scenes or even see the long-term outcome. History will judge the effectiveness of the decisions, not us here and now.

So West Wing was perfect for Sorkin’s approach (which incidentally relied heavily on people being in tune with each other’s thoughts where a hint or single word was understood by all) but the entertainment business has a visible, and hopefully entertaining, output. What you get is what you see.

Studio 60 deserved a longer run, but I can see why it couldn’t be. You cannot ultimately hold a mirror up to the mirror, unless you want to sink into an infinity of ever diminishing images and returns.

Good luck with his podcast contest.

Do I think Tony Bennett has the right to carry a tune? Yes, and I wish to fuck he could.

I agree that Oliver Wendell Homles was eloquent on free speech. But he was very active against it, too. http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2009/08/hl_mencken_on_j.php

I haven’t seen this show, but the line, “Look, I hate Los Angeles just like everybody else, but I have to work here because in any other part of the country I’m unemployable.” could also mean that he’s such a great artist, he couldn’t make money doing work that *gag* ORDINARY PEOPLE can do.

Matthew Perry AND Judd Hirsch? And it only lasted one season? Huh.

Anyway, I agree with everything you said. I’ll defend your right to say it - but not to the death. I’m not a fanatic.

(”The characters entered do not match image. Please try again.” I won’t defend the right to that stupidity at all. I’m moderated and ineptly CAPTCHAed! Where’s Voltaire when I need him?)

“Scarlett Johansson is set to take on the role of Janet Leigh in new Hitchcock biopic ‘Making of Psycho’. Scarlett Johansson will be appearing as the actress who played the original and famous ’shower’ victim in horror film ‘Psycho’.

“The film will be directed by Sacha Gervasi and it focuses on the ups and downs of director Alfred Hitchcock, who will be played by Anthony Hopkins.”

I hope to hell it’s called “The Ups and Downs of Alfred.”

Thanks for playing that audio - it took a lot of editing!

Just saw The Artist tonight for the first time. Wonderful to see a story told like that. I didn’t know that many cars of the period still existed. Valentin’s dream was fantastic.

One thing I thought was a missed opportunity — though the movie is fine without it — would be to someway show why Valentin (and later Peppy) mean so much to people. Reminds me of what you said about Sullivan’s Travels, that entertainment that takes you away from your shitty life is very important. It would have been great to convey that, somehow.

10. SINGIN’ IN THE RAIN, 1952

Haven’t seen it. I have seen Gene Kelly in “An American in Paris,” and I don’t care for him much. I know you guys aren’t into musicals, but you get yourself a good Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movie, and try not to enjoy it. What’s not to love?: http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/461998/Top-Hat-Movie-Clip-No-Strings.html

9. SCHINDLER’S LIST, 1993

This has got some interesting scenes, but — I don’t buy Schindler. I don’t. I don’t see this greedy opportunist watching a red coat disappearing, and suddendly becoming a saint. There are a lot of interesting stories to tell about the Holocaust, and this wasn’t one of them.

8. ON THE WATERFRONT, 1954

Saw it once and liked it, but I can’t do better than that without another viewing.

7. THE GRADUATE, 1967

I couldn’t stand this one either. Not one likeable person in the movie. I did like one exchange (”Would you mind telling me then what those four years of college were for? What was the point of all that hard work?” “You got me.”) but that’s all.

6. THE WIZARD OF OZ, 1939

Agreed, if only for Buddy Epsen’s sake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddy_Ebsen#The_Wizard_of_Oz). But couldn’t they get a girl who could act?!

5. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, 1962

Haven’t seen it. I know, I know, and I will…hell I have to watch High Noon first!

4. GONE WITH THE WIND, 1939

I don’t disagree, but I’ve never watched all of it. I mean, it opened up the gates of foul language, and that’s been well worth it. Hell, it is a great achievement, I guess, just not the stuff I want in my teabag.

3. THE GODFATHER, 1972

I’m sorry guys — I’m not big on the Godfather movies. And this slot should go to “Groundhog Day”.

2. CASABLANCA, 1942

Can I substitute “To Have and Have Not”? A better story, and Walter Brennan as a bonus. In Casablanca, Bogart didn’t seem to like or love Bergman.

1. CITIZEN KANE, 1941

A bit lacking in subtlety, but I can’t deny its importance and its greatness.

I suppose any lists or awards put together by a committee is bound to be crap. I like the Oscars as a workplace. The only thing the Oscars ceremony is missing from a “quarterly department meeting” is the long silence after the fool talking asks if there are any questions.

Good heavens, my voice heard on the show. Let me think about that!: I type better than I talk. I just rewatched Lost in Translation; I might try recording something about that.

I recently finished the Pixar show and just loved it. Interesting technique about the first ten minutes of all their movies.

You MIGHT enjoy “The Retroist” podcast. http://www.retroist.com/ Lengthy rambles of 80’s yesteryear.

My toddler got up, and we’re going back to bed. Later, sir.

I totally get what you’re saying about the politics of the lists and voting. That’s what makes the lists and awards so infuriating. You have these vague criteria and completely subjective voting and end up with… well, the oddness of it all. I am amazed at how often “Working Girl” turns up on them. It’s shocking.

I’ve more started to look at The Oscars as a workplace, end of the year awards ceremony. It’s just a dressed up version of “The Dundees” that we all really care about for some reason.

You got some great points man. If you ever want to have your voice heard on the show, just let us know.

P.S. We are almost done with the AFI thing.

On a not-too-aside note, in your talks about the AFI lists, you often wonder what the hell they’re thinking. I don’t think it’s because they give a damn about the insane criteria they’re given. Often here, as in the Oscars, people are voting for their friends or voting their politics. John Wayne’s down on the men’s list because he shot injuns and made a pro-Vietnam war movie - people IN HOLLYWOOD don’t like the Duke. “Thelma and Louise” is on these lists for probably both reasons.

Love your stuff - I have all your albums.

Titanic - poor is GOOD, rich is EVIL, so please stay poor and be happy about it too, thanks so much!

Star Wars - accents - brits mostly eeeee-villle, USA good!

Star Wars = 1776 again, please, PLEASE ignore assassination spree of the 60s, Vietnam, Watergate! USA USA USA….!

Brainwashing is the more difficult thing to see in the movies, T2 is Black guys are the smartest, the most like Christ, the #1 programmer with the crucial codes, he is self-sacrificing owing to the story told by people claiming to be ‘time-travelers’ with a bad-ass robot. Not judging, pointing out the faint but present strings on the puppet that is the movie.

Keep it up !

My main problem with the movie, besides what you have pointed out, was all about motivation of the characters.

I just have a very fundamental problem with how the kids got in the situation they were in. I get that the church was murdering homosexuals, but why did they entrap a bunch of straight boys?

I mean, if they were trying to murder homosexuals, wouldn’t they post a gay ad featuring a supposed gay man? Instead of some boys who “MIGHT” indulge in sloppy seconds? Boys that didn’t even do the gay things they were going to be killed for what they might have done?

The motivations of the ATF, “murder children so I don’t get demoted”, makes no sense to me. I get the danger of “just following orders,” but I don’t believe that any federal agent would murder children just because he might have to move in to a smaller house. I can imagine some instances in which they might murder children, but not for the reasons stated in the film.

It was just too unrealistic without feeling unrealistic enough. It was like the film was trying to say “Look out! This could happen!” while the events in the film would never actually happen.

As you know, I loved this film. I’m an outsider, but not a complete one. My sister just started her first year of teaching, and I have a good friend who is a teacher (you).

I understand your feelings on documentaries, and the issue with documentaries having a thesis that they are trying to get across, but I have no issue with a film of this sort, as long as it is not masquerading as something it’s not. I agree with you that the most powerful, moving documentaries I have seen are ones that ended miles from where they started, that followed the natural drama of the internal players. However, that, in my mind, does not mean that film makers are either incapable or should not be allowed to present a cogent, logical argument in film.

I do not really make any distinction between the written work and film work. The world has a long history of written works making strong arguments highlighting injustice, social wrongs, and ideas for advancement. Some of the documents have changed the world for the better. I see no reason why a filmmaker should not follow in this tradition.

Of course, these films should be be viewed as critically as their written counterparts.

Perhaps this genre requires a different name. Perhaps it should be called “Discourcinema” or “Argu-Doc” or something much less lame.

I viewed the film from the viewpoint that the film was making an argument, and it was on that basis that I raved about the film. I thought it did an excellent job of explaining many of the problems with education, and making strong, supported arguments on how the system could be improved.

I agree that a film that focused on the other struggles of being a teacher, primarily the emotional toll it has, would make for an excellent documentary. However, I think that for the purpose of the film it would have muddled the argument.

I judge the film on what it set out to be and how well it met those objectives.

One benefit of paying the wages of teachers more that wasn’t explored at all, but that I think would be an effect of higher teachers salary is that educators would end up with more of a say in education policy in government. It’s a sad fact that the side with the most money usually gets their way in politics. If teachers had more money with which to lobby, or could afford to travel, by themselves, to Washington or the state capital, education laws could be improved and mandatory testing could be dropped or reformed.

/Rant over Matt

“Back to the Future Part 1 has always been the favorite of the three movies by mostly all who have ever watched them all, and the basis for this opinion can be clearly pointed out and articulated in just a few paragraphs; which is, pretty much, the primary reason for my creating this blog.

I will leave out the more obvious explanations as to why that might be true. Explanations such as those that point out reasons concerning the matter that the two subsequent films’ plot circles on the almost the same exact theme and concept as the first. In other words, the telling of the same story - in the same town, same characters and so on, make the movie less exciting, and therefore a real bore. Though that may be partially true, i have reason to believe otherwise; the movies might had been more successful if only they possessed the same degree of “sexiness” and rock influence as the first original movie did - while keeping the plot as it was -then my guess is that the later two films would had also been as successful - if not more successful - as the first. That said, I’ll now start by jotting down the general things that were good points in the first film

* Rock > In the first film, the element of Rock music and culture was heavily expressed all throughout the film. However the Rock genre in which I’m referring to wasn’t heavy metal( as what was still predominately popular at that time); instead, it was more so punk rock influenced - but rock music nonetheless. o Examples of how this was expressed. + Theme music: “Power of Love” + Marty(Michael J. Fox) played with a rock band( he was the guitarist) + Giant speaker: he gets “blown away” by a loud ass speaker(beginning scene) + Marty performs at school dance (prom dance) o How’s that important? + It shows that the movie will be embraced by a younger, mature audience; meaning, it signifies that the movie is “hip”(chic) and appealing to a cooler, younger crowd. + Rock is sexy; rebellious; courageous and fun * School scenery & Teenagers > It had that 80s vibe/”Teen-movie” chemistry involved in the films production style. In the future scenes he’s shown in a lot of scenes with him at school; and in the past, also, the presence of school scenery is featured a lot. Lets point out the various “elements” shown in the movie regarding the school/teen element: o Fast Cars o Marty disliked by his Principles o Disliked by school’s music department o Viewed as a rebel by all his authority figures o The new kid at school (past scenes) o Suddenly becomes the cool, new kid(popular) o Marty’s a “chick magnet” o Marty is tough and courageous( Remember Biff the bully) o Hangs out at popular young crowd spots (e.g. Cafe) o Prom scene: Marty’s “the man” who can play a wicked guitar o Marty is a fashion beau o so, in short, Marty sort of reminds you of James Dean in the movie titled ” A Rebel Without A Cause” o Also i forgot - Marty has a “hot” girlfriend + What’s more? # Michael J. Fox played a better role in this movie than he did in the following two. Why you ask? Who knows really - but my guess is that maybe he was more comfortable with the character at the time because the character was more youthful and cool to play the first time around ( as he himself was a still a “kid” at the time of the making of that movie). He was obviously more passionate in the first Back to the Future. # Also, What the other two films failed to have that Back to the Future part 1 had was clever humor. That’s to say the humor style of Back to Future 1&2 were a little too over the top and “animated”; unlike the first movie whose style of humor was less ridiculous and reasonably more clever in content. That in turn caused the appearance of the other films’ Back to the Future trilogy to come off as ,perceptively, corny and attempting too hard to make the film humorous. Back to the Future 1 was “stylish” all the way - whether that had been by having Marty maintain a sense of fashion taste or showing how a move can turn a simple commercial product (e.g. the Delorean) into something that becomes suddenly cool and nationally iconic.

Other Highlights

* Coolness: Marty’s hair was always slicked-back * There was romance: Lorain & Marty, Marty & Jennifer * There was Heart, Loyalty, and Brotherhood(passion) Doc & Marty * Ambition: Marty’s Determination to be someone.

I’ve added links to all your commentaries to Zarban.com, the House of Commentaries.

We had a discussion about The Bridge, and I mentioned the place in Japan that I thought was a more popular place to commit suicide than the Golden Gate. It seems that the place in Japan is the Aokigahara forest. While it seems that most years the Golden Gate has more suicides, there are more recorded suicides in the Japanese forest for all time.

So, we were both right. At this moment in time, the Golden Gate is more popular, but overall the Aokigahara has seen more.

cheers The Reel Rebel

When I saw Speed Racer my friend asked me if it was any good. I said “Well, it was better than Episode I”

Nuff Said.

Why no Tank Girl? Do you guys hate Australia that much that you can’t discuss one of the most awesome comic book movies ever? Seriously, it has ICE-MOTHA-FUCKING-T as a mutated kangaroo monster/pacifist-do-gooder.

I understand how Lori Petty isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but come on! Not even a passing mention…

You guys suck!

Eastwood, on the other hand, keeps growing and improving. He learns from what he’s done before and then adds to it. Look at the breadth of work he’s done lately. From Mystic River to Invictus. This is how an artist is supposed to age.

Not one of the best, THE best - at least as far as US directors are concerned. But, yes, Gran Torino is a great film & it’s reassuring that while the Oscars ignored GT the films mastery was acknowledged by both France & Japan giving it their Best Foreign Film award. Plus of course the movie was a big hit everywhere which has to have pleased Eastwood.

How many other actors have their been who are still playing leading men at 78, much less enjoying the biggest box office hit of their career? I’ve been racking my brain but I can’t think of anyone, not at Clint’s age. They’re usually all either dead, retired or reduced to supporting roles. But Eastwood seems set on some amazing career path the end of which is still I suspect quite some way off.