I'm Going Crackers!

I have to disagree a little there, dtro. The Giants season was not quite Metsian in that they actually made kind of an effort, and for a while deserved to be called one of the better teams in the league (shit, in Week Five [do we capitalize the weeks now? Is the NFL that important? I say yes] I would have told you they were the undisputed #1). Also, the Giants front office managed to get to work every morning without accidentally slitting their throats shaving. But looking closely, the parallels are obvious. Both teams seemed to expect success and then had absolutely no idea what to do when it didn't come. At the first sign of real resistance, both teams decided that they weren't at fault, but it was the cruel whims of fate that were punishing them and they simply needed the skies to open up and provide them with the winning performance they deserved. Now, I look at both teams from the point of their last great success. The Mets making the NLCS in 06, and the Giants' run in late 07 leading up to their Super Bowl win. These events were where this sense of "this is a winning team" came from. There is generally a consensus of who the better teams are, and thanks to ESPN's power rankings we can see this quantified every week. And for those moments, we saw our team at or near the top of the heap. All the time we saw the Patriots, Steelers or Yankees (teams we hate because we have hearts and brains) at the top makes it all the more sweet to see our team heading the list. It makes us happy, makes us more enthusiastic fans, and redeems the stress and frustration we put ourselves through watching millionaires play kid's games. The effects of this on the team themselves seem to manifest itself in catching breaks, getting lucky, and winning through sheer determination. Our guys are the best, ignore anybody who says otherwise. And why shouldn't we feel this way? It's a diversion, after all. Our lives are not so invested in this thing that we should worry about the pressure we put on them when we say theyre the best. They'll never hear us, anyway. That's the way it's always been, at least. But really, these guys don't work in a vacuum anymore. The interaction with the public goes much deeper than signing autographs before the game. Now Twitter and Facebook and such means we can stalk athletes better than ever before, and they can tweet funny pictures or recommend shitty comedians directly to their fans, but that's not really anything that'll effect their performance. The big effect of the media I would have to say is the nonstop analysis, and observation of their work, through the wonderful efforts of that Pravda of sports hegemony, ESPN. We are at the point where ESPN has almost become sports. It's the channel we instantly turn to when we even think of sports. Television, internet, even that terrible magazine, ESPN's dominance in sports media means what ESPN says, goes. Now, there are other forms of sports media, sure. Sports Illustrated was once the paragon of sports information, but we are now at the point where a weekly magazine cannot possibly cover everything we deem to be important, or at least worthy of our attention. And it's in the pages of SI, which manages to maintain some charm by simply being the printed word, that we see the most obvious sign of how these athletes are effected by media. In every issue, SI features a little info box with athletes sharing their favorite foods, music, what they think of trivial current events, and such. In these little nuggets of semi-information, we really get somewhat of an insight into how these athletes really think. Unshockingly, their tastes in music and movies gravitate toward what's popular at the time. Whatever. We don't expect them to be men of high culture, they play games for a living (except Adonal Foyle, a sports outlier to end all sports outliers). But whenever they are asked their favorite TV show, with the exception of the odd soccer or tennis player, every answer, down the line, is Sportscenter. The implications of this are big, and depressing. Sportscenter, as we all know, is the propaganda arm of ESPN, and by extension, the whole sports media. Stories' importance is decided literally by how much coverage they get on SC. And when they lump an inordinate amount of coverage on an issue, like Terrell Owens or Brett Favre, then that very saturation becomes the story. We're more self-aware as people right now than we ever were in history. We get nostalgic for things that happened less than a decade ago. Every minor event seems to require some kind of recognition. Now, pro athletes have a daily TV show that is completely about them and the little world they inhabit. SC has made fans out of the athletes themselves. Read any player's survey of who, say, they think will win the NBA title this year. They invariably will say Lakers or Celtics. Can we really pretend that this is trenchant insight, shared by the men who understand the game far deeper than we ever will? Or are they just parroting the hype of the media? When athletes become ESPN fans, their opinions are as worthless as that of the idiot at the end of any bar, parroting whatever Mark Schlereth said as statement of unvarnished fact. Which brings me back to the Giants and Mets. The Hawthorne Effect tells us that the act of observation by itself changes performance. These men are continually observing themselves, watching highlights of their games, seeing appraisals of their performance. When they are playing at their apex, they are lionized as the gold standard of the sport. When they begin to fail, to make mistakes, they are just as dumbfounded as we are! There's barely any gap between our assessment of their performance and their own (though we are of course much harsher). The Giants are the best team in the NFL, the media says, and the worst thing the Giants can do is begin to believe it. This goes for coaches, too. I had the pleasure of listening to Jerry Manuel repeat himself on WFAN after every single loss, every team failure. It was the same thing we were used to hearing from Willie Randolph as his team trended downward. "We need to get hot." "We need to start playing winning baseball." What the fuck kind of thing to say is that??? How does that even begin to address the problem? Now, I don't doubt that they were giving this line to the media as they attempted to really fix problems within the team. But what was the end result? They never "got hot," as they did in 06. The Giants of 09 sure "cut down on mistakes" but that didn't mean they could do a goddamn thing to stop DeSean Jackson. ESPN makes us treat these rote responses as the actual issue at hand, since that's all they have to work with. But when the line between athlete and fan as observer of the sport is blurred, they're just as ignorant as we are.

The Year in Sports. Or how the Jets temporarily made me less depressed, part 1?

Well, Mr. Boyce did a bang-up job giving us a rundown of the best and worst of the best movies of the past year yesterday. I think he deserves a round of applause.../waits for applause/.../waits/...is anyone even here? Oh well. Anyway, he has inspired me to make one of my bi-seasonal posts and to break up the cinematic rote we seem to have fallen into here, I'll make it about sports. I suppose I could write about another topic: like maybe TV...but all I watch on TV are sporting events and movies.

To recap, I root for the Mets, Jets, Michigan football, and Georgetown basketball and probably in that order although I can't really say for sure. So what has been going on with these teams and where do they stand right now? I'm glad you asked.

Jason Bay dying inside

The Mets of New York Town

The 2009 New York Mets were cursed by the goddamn devil, who struck them down with a ridiculous number of injuries. This was not to prevent their winning baseball games but rather to mask the utter incompetence of the front office and allow Omar Minaya to keep his job as L'il Freddy Wilpon's trained monkey/fall guy for another offseason. And what did Señor Minaya do with his borrowed time to fix this roster? He signed poor Jason Bay in a thin attempt to hide the Wilpons' cynical contempt for Mets fans, who they consider so stupid as to believe that they are actually trying to field a championship-caliber baseball team. Here is the Wilpons' true goal: enough "meaningful" late-season games and a "big name" signing or two to trick us into packing into their beautiful little publicly-funded, TARP-sponsored restaurant emporium Dodger museum ballpark and lining their pockets (which incidentally were actually deepened by Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme, the fucking schmucks). Oh I can out-cynical you all day Fred and Jeff, so don't even try me.

Going into the offseason the Mets had as I see it: no MLB-caliber 1B, no MLB-caliber starting catcher, no MLB-caliber RF or LF, 2 reliable MLB-caliber starting pitchers--one of whom was recovering from surgery, while the other continued his life-long battle with the Yips--followed by a bunch of question marks (does anyone realize that the Mets' 3rd and 4th best starters right now are Jon Niese and Nelson Figueroa?!! And they won't even make the team out of Spring Training! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!), a 2B with no knees, a bullpen that lost "star reliever" JJ Putz, and a continuing lack of MLB-ready depth behind key players. What were Omar's solutions to these numerous and variegated problems?

Alex Cora--$2 Mil with a vest. Had to lock him up before the bidding war ensued I guess.

Jeff Francoeur--$5 Mil. He might swing the bat so hard he hits himself in the back of the head, so there's that. What I'm saying is: his potential comedy value far exceeds his baseball value.

Jason Bay--4 years/$66 Mil with a goddmanmotherfucking vest. Just a wee bit of an overpay there, Omar.

Henry Blanco/Chris Coste/Omir Santos--Gotta catch 'em all! Crappy backups!

Kelvim Escobar/Ryota Igarashi/some other guys--I actually like the Escobar signing and it's always nice to have a Japanese guy on the team. I guess we'll see how the bullpen shakes out.

Fernando Tatis--whatever. He's a perfectly cromulent bench player.

Gary Matthews Jr.--fuck my life.

Nothing else. That's freakin' it! They might sign John Smoltz (or as Ron Darling would say, "John Schmoltz)for some pitching insurance, but he is, as you may recall, 73 years old. Seriously, the guy is six degrees of separation from Old Hoss Radbourn, who threw 678 innings(!) for the 1884 Providence Grays.

I could also get into the Beltran surgery fiasco (guess whose side I'm on) or the fact that JJ Putz was never given a physical last year and then allowed to pitch in the WBC, despite the fact that he had been injured the year before and the Mets had just traded a bazillion prospects for him, but that would just be piling on to my own misery. Suffice it to say, I am not very happy with the current state of the Mets nor am I particularly sanguine about their chances in 2010.

I was going to break down the other teams, but I clearly get long-winded when it comes to complaining about the Mets. We'll save the Jets, Wolverines, and Hoyas for a part 2. And perhaps Boyce will chime in with some thoughts on the Giants and their rather Metsian season.

OSCAR NOMS TWO THOUSAND AND THEN TEN: A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE DISTRACTIONS

A Serious Man. Inglorious Basterds. The Hurt Locker. District 9. Up. An Education. Up In The Air. Precious. The Blind Side. Avatar. These are the Academy Award nominees for Best Picture, listed in the order in which their nomination makes me least want to kill myself. Keep in mind, these are what have been determined by the Academy, "a professional honorary organization dedicated to the advancement of the arts and sciences of motion pictures," to be the best of the 256 movies released in the US in 2009. Fair enough.

{FULL DISCLOSURE: I have only seen five of these movies. All opinions are based on my own prejudices and laser-sharp ability to understand movies based on their public perception, critical response, and how they are marketed. Following the rules of this blog, everything I say here is to be regarded as the unvarnished truth and is to be understood by the reader as the correct opinion. OK?} OK. Each year we learn the consensus of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as to what the "best" (most relevant? most resonant with audiences? most brilliantly adept at advancing the art and science of motion pictures? ok, that last one was a joke) movie released at the end of 2009 was. Pretty much just the end. Only Hurt Locker, District 9, Basterds, and the cartoon were released before the start of "awards season," where the movies that have been decided we as moviegoers will like the most are released. The fact that such a "season" exists tells you all you need to know about the Oscars. The "big" "shock" of this years Best Picture nominations was that Grandpa Clint's "Invictus" didn't get one. ||Now, there's another movie I didnt see, but i did hear it briefly summarized by a trusted fellow cineaste (he also works here, in this website) and wouldn't you know it, it sounded exactly like the commercials promised. But I digress. Boy, do I digress.|| If the point of these awards is to reward the best of American cinema, why do the movies that end up winning these awards all get released around the same time, by the same studios, with the same promotional campaigns? Miramax recently went under, minus Weinsteins, and every retrospective article had to make mention of all the oscars they managed to collect. Like seriously, fucking Shakespeare in Love? SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE?!??!??? These stupid statues lose their meaning when being the biggest, meanest Jews in LA means your company wins all of them. And wouldn't you know, the newly minted Weinstein Company's offerings lead the pack with 13 nods this year.

You were almost guaranteed Oscars if Miramax released your movie.
Unless you were MARTIN FUCKING SCORSESE

RESOLVED: The Oscar nominations are a result of pr campaigns in trade papers and machinations we will never see (unlike the ACTUAL GODDAMN MOVIES WHICH WE WILL PAY MUCH LOOT TO SEE).
I can hear you now: "Duh, Boyce! These studios are the ones who finance the movies, even the smaller ones! Obviously they hold all the power in the movie world! Just fuckin deal with it, you pussy!" First off, low blow. Second, if you're going to cede something so subjective as "Best Picture of the Year" to the economic engineering of giant conglomerates then why even try to make such a distinction? Just give a trophy to whoever makes the most money and call it a year!
Which brings me to Avatar. I don't think it's worth anyone's time for me to discuss the movie itself, we've all heard the talking points: it's simplistic, too much emphasis on special effects, the girl alien gave me a boner, blah, blah, blah. What's important about Avatar for my purposes is that this movie is going to win (yes it is going to win, this isn't a prediction piece, remember, I am just telling you the facts) Best Picture because it A) Had awesome special effects and B) cashed in bigger than the Red Cross. The fact that it made so much dolo is not the sole reason it's going to win, oh, no, it's a little more than that. Think back to the word we kept hearing on top of all the Avatar hype. That this movie was going to be "revolutionary." Yes, the revolution is here. Was it the plot? Anybody who's seen more than two movies can tell you it was a hackneyed concept, even before Costner won Best Picture (He did! Look it up!) for making it about Indians. Performances? LOLS! Was it the special effects? Yes, but not completely. Every year movies comes out that have amazing, jaw-dropping CGI. There are tons of people who will choose their viewing experience because it's some kind of special effects extravaganza. Shit, those Transformers movies made a shit-ton of moneys and they didn't even have actors or a script! Avatar was revolutionary for this one reason: It made movies more expensive. Not to make, to see. Avatar didn't break all the box office records because it caught the zeitgeist of this era and captivated audiences, or even wowed them with spectacular effects. Avatar broke those records because You Paid More To See It! That's your revolution! Those stupid fucking glasses! Yes, the 3D effects were cool but can you really see any filmmaker taking it beyond that? Is there another level of comprehension of films unknown to us in two dimensions? Of fucking course not! Now we can witness the revolution in full. Take a gander at any list of upcoming action movies for 2010-11. Realize that they are all in "3D." Take a second to consider whether these movies would have come out in 2D (or "regular D"). Then commit suicide. Or just don't see them. Whatevs.

"DUHHHHHH"

Now that I've gotten that out of my system, I don't really know what to say. None of those other movies are going to win. Sure, Hurt Locker has the next-best chance. But remember in the first place why there are ten nominees. The concern here is ratings for the Oscar telecast. Since the Dark Knight got completely fucking robbed of a nomination last year, and that probably cost ABC a good chunk of viewers, the Academy figured that their only key to continued legitimacy is TV ratings. And don't nobody wanna see some war movie with guys what they never heard of, where they kill Ralph Fiennes (SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE?!?!?!??) as soon as he gets on screen and there ain't no big battle at the end, win Best Picture. Sorry, Kathryn Bigelow. Cameron took your heart and stomped on it, and now he's taking your Oscar chances and doing the same. I really liked the Hurt Locker, too. Saw it twice, wasn't as good the second time. I won't watch Avatar again.
As a courtesy, here are the rest of your nominees with a little bitching about each. Except An Education. I don't even think the actors in that movie have heard of it.


Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire
I'm not joking. Thats the whole name of the fucking movie. Good to see Dusty Rhodes' Saweeeeeeet Sapphire finally getting the recognition she deserves. Seriously though, this is one of the ones i didn't see. Saw the shit out of the trailer, though. And read most all the reviews. This whole movie smacks of poverty porn. I first heard that term in a review of "Born Into Brothels" and the same concept is at work here. Look at how shitty her life is! Isn't it terrible? Feel bad! Now watch worse things happen! Wasn't that terrible? Aren't your heartstrings getting worn out from all that tugging? Also, getting Mo'Nique to act as an angry bitch, I'm sorry, doesn't seem like a huge stretch. mmmmHM.

Pictured: Douchebag
Inset: Douchebag

Up In The Air
If I hadn't shot my load on Avatar hate, this post would be all about George Clooney. How an actor gets so far with what he has I'll never know. He must give a mean blowjob to be able to play his smug, smartassed/sincere charming "self" in every movie he appears in. He's got plenty of charisma, thats for sure. He's great in every Coens movie I've seen him in. Michael Clayton was alright, but definitely didnt break any ground. (Side-bitch: how did Tilda Swinton win Best Supporting for that movie? She was in two scenes! One of them was a shot of her sweating on a toilet!) I just don't want to live in a world where the "biggest" movie "star" we have plays himself as serious or himself as hilariously charming in everything he's in. I said it in my first post and I'll say it again: Go fuck yourself, Clooney.

Up
This movie has almost the same title as that last one, but don't take your kids to this one expecting Ed Asner fucking Vera Farmiga in a balloon! Or something. I don't see the point of nominating this for both Best Picture and Best Animated Picture. They only invented that animated category just so they wouldn't have to waste BP nominations on Pixar movies. It's the same reason The New York Times started a children's bestseller list; so their super-important List wouldn't get that stupid Harry Potter shit all over it. Up is going to win Best animated, thats for sure. Take that, Neil Gaiman!

The face of Jewish vengeance. I'm down.

Inglourious Basterds
I'm gonna put down my hate scepter for a hot second, cause this movie fucking ruled. The opening scene alone could be released on its own and Christoph Waltz would have won Best Actor instead of Best Supporting. It didn't even end up really being about the Basterds themselves and nobody cared. Call it alternative history, or a revenge fantasy, or just say it was a huge kick in the nuts (if getting kicked in the nuts was fun and exciting). Go ahead, I'm waiting. I can't really do this justice, since hatred is my medium, but if there was anything to hate about Inglourious Basterds, you only saw that because youre a stupid asshole who hates fun. Seriously. This movie made me jump when a guy ordered a glass of milk at a restaurant. That's great filmmaking.

It's like, the aliens are nie-blankes. And Humans are the blankes. That seriously how they differentiated the races in South Africa? White and Not White?

District 9
You know, I really liked this movie, too. It had characters we cared about, a coherent yet nuanced plot, and a relevant message about humanity. I just thought it completely blew all the goodwill from that with the third act, in which the protagonist, a timid and bullied bureaucrat, becomes John Rambo. I don't mind them dropping the documentary aspect (that was necessary to advance the plot), but don't transform the entire movie with half an hour to go. That said, this was a good one. 3/5*

Not pictured: Sass, spunk

The Blind Side
Sweet Jesus Lord. The fact that this even got nominated. I can't even finish that sentence. I'm sure Sandra Bullock was great in it, but come on. This is tripe. It was nominated solely because it made so much goddamn money. At least it didn't have blue cat-people. Then they'd rename the fucking awards after it. I'd be madder but it's not going to win. It's here so that people who wear sweatpants to church will watch the Oscars. On ABC!


A Serious Man
The only thing that would have made this movie better was if the tagline was "Let's Get Serious!" In all honesty, this was the best movie of the year. The Coens are just fucking amazing. They managed to make a movie about a miserable guy, who has terrible stuff happen to him nonstop for 100 minutes, one of the funniest of the year. See, this movie had an actual theme: the failure of religion and "understanding" to truly solve problems. At least that's how I saw it. That's the beauty of a movie that's actually good; it can be interpreted, considered. You probably have to see it more than once to fully grasp and appreciate it. What Cameron did took a shitload of talent and balls, I won't deny that. But disposable popcorn fare should not be the gold standard for cinema. And if you want to call it the Best Picture of the year, well, Go fuck yourself.