199 posts from 2008

I'll admit it: I've been wearing the same clothes for the last...three? Four days? But I promise they don't in any way smell...despite being on vacation, I've been showering regularly and haven't exactly been exerting myself (except when I work out, but I change into actual workout clothes for that). It hasn't even been a conscious decision...the clothes are just warm and comfortable and there hasn't been any occasion for me to wear anything different. The ensemble consists of basically sweatpants and a Syracuse Orangemen Football sweatshirt over a t-shirt.

However, when I have ventured out into the real world this past week, I'm reminded why I don't usually wear clothes with writing on them outside my apartment. It's weird how many people you can notice reading your shirt (even if it's the height of simplicity: "Syracuse Football") and it's unpleasant when people start referring to you by or making conversation based on your "statement":

- While waiting for my brakes to be evaluated the other day, some guy who was paying his bill started talking to me: "Did you see their game?" Baffled and unsure of what he said because he kind of mumbled, I took a fifty-fifty chance and said "Yeah...." Then he followed up with something like, "You know if they're playing again soon?" It was then that I finally realized that he was referring to the Orangemen (I wear texted shirts so rarely that I wasn't even thinking about it that way), and I had to say, "Oh...no, I just have the sweatshirt." Our conversation ended pretty quickly after that.

- While waiting for coffee before my movie yesterday, two girls in front of me turned around and were very clearly looking at my sweatshirt. One of them even said something to other wherein I plainly heard the words "Syracuse, New York." It was odd.

- Last night, as I walked to pick up dinner, a homeless man called to me for spare change and referred to me as "Syracuse."

Of course, the highlight of all of this actually didn't even have to do with my attire: as I finished picking up my dinner last night and left the restaurant, I opened the door to encounter some woman with a beer can (the door didn't come close to hitting her, but I guess we almost walked into each other). We stopped for a moment and had an awkward meeting of glances, followed by her proclamation that "you look weird to me." Then she kept on walking. Good times.

Anyway, now that all of that is out of the way, let me quickly discuss a few more movies. I haven't quite hit the wall in terms of seeing movies yet, but I feel that it's coming and I won't want to go to a theater until around March after all of this...though God help me, I feel like I might actually go see He's Just Not That Into You in February, as I found myself relating to the parade of dating foibles and rejection that gets strewn throughout the recent trailer.

First, I went to go see The Wrestler yesterday. Aside from some loud douchebag who would occasionally make asinine asides to his wife ("Where is he now? Oh, he's in a kid's room!"), it was a pretty good experience for a pretty good movie. Here's the thing about The Wrestler: the story itself has been done to death. Broken-down person yearns for redemption, has family member who can't stand him/her, finds new love, ultimately succeeds/fails. The Wrestler doesn't do anything new, story-wise, except filter it through the world of wrestling. Everything you think is going to happen pretty much happens.

So how does a movie like this work while something like Revolutionary Road fails? Frankly, it's through the stellar direction by Darren Aronofsky (of whom I'm not a huge fan) and the amazing performance by Mickey Rourke (and everyone else). That's not to say that Revolutionary Road was badly acted or directed, but its direction and performances couldn't rise above the pedestrian (and just plain weak) script. The Wrestler has a solid script, but it's just riddled with cliches. Aronofsky and Rourke then take that solid script and elevate it to something more.

But The Wrestler still isn't a great film. Again, you know pretty much what's going to happen from the first twenty minutes, so it's all painfully inevitable. The film as a whole is certainly way better than it should be, but it's still not "a great film." But Aronofsky injects enough tension into the proceedings and Mickey Rourke makes you genuinely care about the character so as to make the whole film work. But I will warn you: the movie is a bit of a downer. Or at least, it was for me. It took a while to shake the sadness that I felt at the conclusion (not that it's necessarily a sad ending, but I think it was the hour and forty five minutes of bleakness that preceded it that did it). The Wrestler is worth seeing...it's definitely not as harrowing as Requiem for a Dream, but it'll still stay with you for a bit. I predict an obvious Best Actor nomination (deserved), but if the Academy finds that it's hard up for Best Director nominees this year, I would also suggest Aronofsky, for making a should-be-trite movie like this work so well.

Between The Wrestler and today's theater-going experience, I also saw Towelhead, now on DVD. I really haven't talked much about the movies I've been watching at home (aside from Spaced) if only because it's either stuff I've already discussed (Wall-E, Step Brothers, Pineapple Express and Prince Caspian Blu-rays) or it's just not worth getting into here (I love Lost: Season 4 [especially on Blu-ray], but to discuss Lost would be to invite a much larger conversation). But Towelhead is worth briefly discussing, if only to say that this movie should be avoided at all costs. It's awful, and I've actually liked a lot of what writer/director Alan Ball has done in the past (the screenplay for American Beauty, creation of Six Feet Under...haven't seen True Blood). But Towelhead is repugnant and amateurish.

I'm not against getting into taboo subjects on film, but if you're going to broach the topics of racism, pedophiles, statuatory rape and menstruation, at least know what you're doing and trying to say and don't just splatter it all up on screen. As it stands, Towelhead is just like its title suggests: inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory. It's not even a good story...it commits the sin of being boring, even with everything mentioned above. I wasn't offended by the movie, but I did hate the fact that it was just scene after scene of this girl going through ridiculously awful things without any real point. Imagine Six Feet Under with stuff like necrophilia and child rape scattered throughout every episode, but without any relatable characters or interesting points about life and death. It would just be a depressing mess, right? There you have Towelhead. Avoid it at all costs.

But at least I can end 2008 on a high note, movie-wise. Slumdog Millionaire is just as good as everyone's saying it is, and this is coming from someone who had absolutely no interest in seeing it. The plot of the movie seems silly (a kid from the wrong side of the tracks goes on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, then has to explain to the police that he wasn't cheating on the show by telling his life story, which subsequently explains how he knew the answers to the questions), but it actually works surprisingly well. In fact, the whole movie works surprisingly well. Unfortunately, the print I saw looked like a fourth generation dupe print (and it wasn't just the movie...I've seen that fucking Gran Torino trailer enough times to know how it's supposed to look, and it's not supposed to look like a faded VHS), but even that didn't keep me from enjoying the movie.

Again, I don't want to go on and on about why a movie is good (perhaps because I'd rather just encourage people to go see the good movies while simultaneously picking apart the bad ones enough to discourage interest), but just go see Slumdog Millionaire...especially since it's picking up just about every critics award and will likely be a frontrunner for Best Picture. As long as Doubt and Slumdog Millionaire are in the final five for Best Picture, I'll be satisfied (I'd also be okay with seeing Milk in there, too...but again, fuck Benjamin Button). It was a great way to end 2008, movie-wise...let's hope that tomorrow's experience of Gran Torino allows for a graceful entry into 2009.

Speaking of which, it's New Year's Eve...one of my favorite holidays. Well...it is and it isn't. I may have discussed this before, but New Year's Eve is a tricky holiday: when it's good, it's very good, but when it's bad, it's very bad. Last year in New York was very good...the year before in my apartment in Van Nuys was very bad (nothing actually happened, but I fell asleep at 10, alone). I always have such high hopes for New Year's Eve, which, unfortunately, rarely get met. This year, due in large part to my decision not to go to New York, will likely not be very good (though I hope to find that rarefied middle ground...). My plans? I might walk to the beach around 11 and just sit out there and listen to music until midnight. I considered trying to contact local friends, but I feel like if I can't be with real "forever friends" tonight, I'd rather be alone. I think the closest thing I have to a "forever friend" out here is Jamie, but she'll be off at some hoity-toity invitation-only party with her boyfriend.

So...2008. I actually have been meaning to write up a Best/Worst Movies list for the year and some Academy Award predictions (along with my long-planned Favorite Songs list), but those will have to wait...until tomorrow at least. This post is already long enough and I'm starting to run out of steam, but tonight should be some semblance of reflection on 2008 on a personal level. I might try and break it all down at some point in the near future (a Top 10 Moments list...?), but for now, I'll just have a little reflection....

I guess I'll look back on 2008 as a year of transition, in a way. I feel like 2008 was all about laying the foundation for what's coming next, whether it was at work or at home or in my social life. At work, I got my promotion earlier this year, and since then, I've been given a very large amount of responsibility and my own projects. If I could go back and talk to myself on New Year's Day 2008 and tell myself what I'll be doing by December, past-me wouldn't believe it (I would also have to wait until after past-me sobered up). I mean, it's hardly the level of responsibility that my boss or my co-worker have, but it's daunting at times. So it may be interesting to see how I can use that experience in 2009...if I survive CES next week (holy fuck, it's next week).

But "work" doesn't start and stop with the office...there's also my movie to consider. The downturn in the economy has not done me any favors with regards to fundraising, but the economy will turn around and people will want to invest. Plus, this has given me time to do a third draft of the script, which it needs. This year has provided some great experience and great contacts, all of which will ultimately help me reach my goal.

In terms of my home life, it was definitely a year of transition, as I finally moved out of the wretched San Fernando Valley and to the West Side of Los Angeles...much better. I still love my apartment and it's definitely rejuvenated my lifestyle, even if I need to expand further in 2009. But again: the foundation has been laid.

And as for my personal life...one can look at it from two different perspectives. From one perspective, this year was a painful mess: after months of trying, I couldn't get a single nibble of interest from anyone on JDate, I had an awkward and difficult few months with Alexandra (topped off by a pseudo-breakup), I went on two blind dates with one being an outright embarrassment and the other being a frustrating question mark, things with Jamie finally came to an end after a month of not being friends and eventually learning that she basically chose her current boyfriend after he was so persistent (which still stings, I have to say), my mom left on a year-long trip around the world, my best friend moved across the country, and I'm ending the year with my "forever friends" in New York possibly cursing my name tonight for not going on my trip. Yeah, it's been a rough year.

But then there's the other perspective, and this is where I got the concept of a transition year: there were bad things, but there were good things, too, and both combined will set the stage for a more adult lifestyle (in a positive way: serious relationship, getting out into the world [socially speaking], making new friends, etc.). From the other perspective, it was actually a pretty successful year in terms of girls: my physical dalliance with the Belgian girl in January (which didn't end with a shattered friendship, but with a friendship that has turned out just fine), the experience with Alexandra (yes, it created problems, but one can't overlook the fact that I totally hooked up with the maid of honor/Jacquelyn's sister after the reception...that memory is a keeper...plus, I genuinely did like her, so I even had a sort-of girlfriend this year), and the fact that my "embarrassing" blind date ended up with me being suggested to another girl (and that situation has yet to resolve itself...maybe things will be good).

And friend-wise, yes, Jim and Jennie moved across the country, but we still keep in touch (it's been surprisingly consistent, actually) and I'll see them in March. Plus, I've expanded my friend-circle this year, even if only a little bit. With my new apartment, I'm able to have guests and parties, so I was able to reconnect with some G4 friends (whom I should call...). I also became closer with some people from work (Heather, Kai), and while I still feel the cold blast of loneliness regularly, I at least feel like that's a foundation (hey!) to build on in 2009.

Then there's Jamie, and I feel she deserves a paragraph to herself because I'm somewhat proud that I was able to a) get over her, romantically, and b) actually become much closer with her over the last four months by opening up about our personal lives. I don't know if I ever reported back on how that worked out, but by providing Jamie with the comfort to talk about her boyfriend, it really made us much better friends. She's given me advice with these blind dates (and helped set the first one up) and I've helped her wherever I can. So thumbs up for all of that.

2008 seemed to go by so quickly, but it was actually a pretty eventful year. Again, I may delve into all of this some more after tonight, but for now, I'll just tie 2008 up with a bow and file it away. On to 2009....

As something else to place in the category of "good reasons that I didn't go on my trip," I'm currently waiting for my car to be serviced. During my trip to San Diego a few weeks ago (which, as an aside, feels like it was months ago), my car's brake light came on...but I was confused, as it's the same light that comes on when I put on the emergency brake. So being the total car expert that I am, I assumed that the then-sudden cold front was somehow shorting the connection between the emergency brake and the dashboard...or something. It made sense at the time.

Cut to this weekend: the brake light has been going on and off randomly since my trip, but there haven't been any other signs of wear and/or tear (and it has continued to be very cold...), until the squeaking started. I think it started on Friday as a small "did I hear something?" noise and has grown into a "yes, that's a squeaking noise, and I think everyone else can hear it, too" noise. Given these occurrences, I decided to take the car to Midas this afternoon and get it evaluated.

Nearly $500 later, I've learned that that squeaking noise is actually a sensor letting me know that my brake pads are about to disintegrate, and that if I don't address the problem, the sensor will start cutting into my rotors. Luckily, I addressed the problem before that happened, so now I'm just waiting for them to replace the brake pads and fix a few other things that went over my head (damn my effete lack of automobile knowledge!). So while it thankfully wasn't as devastating as I had feared it would be (while doing the inspection, the main guy came running in with a shocked and confused look on his face, checked something on the computer, and went back to my car...that's never a good sign), it's still good that a) I'm having it taken care of now, and b) I didn't go off to New York, spend a ton of money, and return to require this necessary bit of automotive surgery done.

Oh, but before I continue with more movie reviews, let me just say this: I kind of can't stand people who have recently moved to New York City and who proceed to remind everyone of how "cool" they are and/or how knowledgeable or allegedly savvy they are about the city. For instance, there's an old friend of mine (someone I haven't seen in years and years) who must have recently moved to New York, as virtually every Facebook status update has been something like "So-and-so wants to get back to New York!" "So-and-so can't imagine people living in small towns instead of New York!" "So-and-so loves Sarasota, but needs to return to New York!" "So-and-so envies people who own brownstones...in New York!" And so on. Annoying.

Also still annoying: married couples continuing to profess their love for one another via Facebook status updates. Stop it, stop it, stop it.

Speaking of married couples, I ventured to the one theater in all of Los Angeles (because I live in Los Angeles!) that's currently playing Revolutionary Road and saw it today. As I've said before, it wasn't a movie that I was excited to see...it was more of an obligation, given the stars (I like Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet), the director (I generally like Sam Mendes...more on that in a bit), and the intriguing trailer. Top it all off with the fact that the movie simply oozes Academy Award aspirations, and I'm basically sold. The only issue: I just wasn't interested in the story. Married couple grows to hate each other in the suburbs? It's been done...many times. And while I love American Beauty (though I'll be interested to re-watch it when it finally comes to Blu-ray...will it hold up?), that sort of "family hates each other" story usually makes me sad and doesn't scream "entertainment."

But I dutifully shuffled off to the theater and sat through its two hours. And for my effort, what did I get? Kind of a mess. Or at least, something messy and half-formed. At best, it's a good acting showcase with some memorable scenes and moments. At worst, it's stilted (probably by design, but it just feels stagy and fake amidst the real emotions that are happening), boring and pointless (there's that word again...). I guess the best way I can sum it up would be to say that my big question at the end was: "So?"

I guess my primary issue with the film was that it really didn't delve into much of anything. Marriage sucks sometimes and suburbia was/is a trap...shocking! And it wasn't a basic story peppered with amazingly detailed and lifelike characters...everyone was basically a cliche, and all of these cliches went about doing their cliched things. And finally, something bad happens that wraps up all the misery with a bow of tragedy. The end.

Yes, I realize that this is based off the influential book of the same name, so perhaps a lot of the "suburban angst" movies of the last forty years have been influenced by this particular tome...maybe that explains things. And I understand that this was all very shocking and, well, revolutionary in the early 1960s. But maybe someone should have made the movie in the sixties...if they had, it might be up there with Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf as a subversive and acidic classic. But as it stands now, there's nothing new or interesting in this screenplay, so one simply waits patiently until the movie ends.

I also get that one of the ideas of the movie is that these characters are trapped in these roles, which can help account for the stilted quality of some scenes and the use of cliches. I get that this may have been a very conscious choice (especially the stilted aspect), but as a movie, it just doesn't congeal. It comes off as all over the place, messy and overly familiar.

The actors do a very good job with their roles. I could sit here and make a thousand jokes relating this movie to Titanic, but I'll spare everyone. But I will be amused if some twenty-something year old girls see this movie to see their teenage idols on screen together again (there were some of those in the theater today). Plus, it is a little funny to imagine that this movie is actually a sequel to Titanic wherein Jack survived and Rose and Jack actually got married. It helps make the slower moments a little more bearable. Really, if Billy Zane had played the "he's crazy, but he's the one truly sane character in the whole movie!" character in this movie, I would have probably given the movie five stars for its comedic value.

So is the movie good? Eh...no. Not really. I hate to say it, but it's not really worth seeing. It's interesting: Sam Mendes tends to make what I call "four star movies": movies that have all the elements needed to be amazing, they look stunning, they're so well acted, and every piece seems to be in place...and yet, they just don't get over that four-star hump to be a true five star movie. Usually, a four star movie leaves me feeling neutral at the end, a void where some emotion should be. Sam Mendes seems to be the reigning king of the four star movie, as I felt precisely the same way at the end of Road to Perdition and Jarhead (American Beauty, I would argue, is a five star movie, and is still his best). I think if it hadn't been so pointless, Revolutionary Road would be yet another ideal four star movie: everything is in place, but it just doesn't hit home. But given that the movie is maddeningly pointless and so convinced of its own heft that it ends up capsizing itself, it's just not very good.

Oh, but I will say that the final scene/shot in the movie is absolutely hilarious, kind of heartbreaking, and more incisive about what marriage seems to be than any scene that came prior.

Lest you think that I'm just being hard on movies lately, I went and saw Doubt yesterday and kind of loved it. Again, it's hard to discuss what's so great about a movie without a) ruining them and b) sounding like a twat, so I'll just say that Doubt is absolutely worth seeing. It's just damned compelling and so well written and acted. In a way, it's very lightweight, as the story is barely there and the movie is practically over in an instant, but the ideas stay with you. Excellent movie and one that I would happily see nominated for Best Picture.

I also saw the entirety of Spaced on DVD over the last few days. For those who aren't familiar with the show, Spaced aired on Channel 4 in the UK between 2000 and 2001 and was about two twenty-somethings who pretend to be a couple to get a flat and end up having crazy, pop culture-laden adventures with their group of friends. It's kind of more than that, story-wise, but that's it in a nutshell. It's also a major geek touchstone, with many people proclaiming that it's "just like hanging out with my friends!" Additionally, it's also the part-brainchild of Simon Pegg, of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame (also soon-to-be of Star Trek fame), and was where he got his start (along with Edgar Wright, the show's director, who is directing the Scott Pilgrim movie). I had seen a few episodes thanks to Netflix and worked my industry magic to get a free copy of the DVDs.

On its own, the show is really funny and winning, and I would highly recommend it to others. But after I started going through the commentaries and special features, I began to get a little bit...annoyed. It just seemed like these guys knew exactly how great Spaced was and how wonderful they were to have done it. I don't know...it all just rubbed me the wrong way. Also, Simon Pegg seems like a funny guy, but a bit of a stuck-up douche (again, based solely on my opinion from the special features). I'm not even sure why I'm mentioning this here, but just so everyone knows: Spaced = great. The talent behind Spaced = some seem nice, some seem like giant assholes.

Okay, I've gone and retrieved my car, so now I shall settle in for the night. Tomorrow's movie will be The Wrestler, followed by Slumdog Millionaire on Wednesday (and Gran Torino on Thursday, if I'm up for it). Hopefully once I've seen all of these Academy Award hopefuls, I can have a better opinion about what/who will and/or should be nominated, and I may even be able to compile a "best movies of the year" list. How exciting.

One last thing: it may not be on the level of the Israel/Palestine war going on at the moment, but it seems that Twentieth Century Fox may actually be trying to stop the release of Watchmen. I don't believe the movie will actually not get released, but this is becoming quite a foul fight indeed. Of course, no one benefits if the movie doesn't get released, and despite the legal posturing from both sides, it more than likely will come down to a settlement. But if the unthinkable happens and Fox actually keeps Watchmen from being released...it won't be pretty. Sure, I'll be incredibly pissed off, but I think the overall geek backlash would be unprecedented....

In the spirit of tidying up loose ends before the new year, I wanted to once again quickly pop my head up to talk about today's Movie of the Day (TM) and a few other things that I've been meaning to mention but haven't had the proper context to do so. Here goes:

- Today I took an excursion to the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica (a destination that's only about five minutes from my apartment, but given that there's always traffic, pedestrian and vehicular, it usually takes about twenty minutes to get there and costs me several blood vessels to find a parking spot). I'd like to say that I went to this "unfamiliar" locale to really get out and see different parts of Los Angeles, but really, I only went because the movie I wanted to see was playing there at the best time (and it was early enough that traffic and parking weren't issues).

That movie was Milk, which I finally saw after weeks of procrastination. Yes, the trailer intrigued me and, much like Valkyrie, it was a moment in modern history with which I was generally unfamiliar (the assassination attempts on Hitler and the gay rights movement, respectively). Plus, after two days of mediocre movies, I was looking forward to something that had been well-reviewed and had a solid team behind and in front of the camera.

Happily, I was rewarded for my choice with a solid movie that did basically what Valkyrie should have done: presented a story wherein the ending was already known, but gave us characters with genuine depth and emotion and made you care about their inevitable fates. In Valkyrie, the characters were cyphers, just huffy British actors going through the motions and turning the gears of the pedestrian screenplay. In Milk, the characters are flesh and blood, understandable and real. Sean Penn should easily get an Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, and he would deserve it, too.

It's not as easy to write about why I liked a movie as it is to write about why I didn't like a movie, so I'll basically just say that Milk is absolutely worth seeing. Is it perfect? No, but it's pretty damn good. Is it Best Picture worthy? Eh...hard to say. Unfortunately, for all of the strides made in popcorn entertainment this year (Dark Knight, Iron Man, Wall-E, Tropic Thunder, etc.), there has been a definite lack of great dramas. I mean, Dark Knight was great and all, but if it's already December 27th and we're still talking about it as a Best Picture possibility, then there's something wrong with the year (that's not to say that big summer movies or superhero movies shouldn't be considered for Best Picture, and certainly Dark Knight comes close to that level, but it still not Best Picture caliber, in my opinion).

So could Milk squeak in as one of the five nominees? Like I said, in a stronger year, maybe not, but this year, it's definitely got a shot. And really, if it gets nominated, I'd be perfectly happy. And if some bullshit like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button gets in instead of Milk, I'd be perfectly unhappy. But the bottom line is that Milk is great and worth seeing...the end.

(As a side note, what do I think will be nominated for Best Picture this year [I think the ballots went out yesterday or will go out Monday]? Realistically and based on reviews and not necessarily personal opinion: Doubt, Slumdog Millionaire, possibly Milk...uh...Revolutionary Road...? See, it's hard. I also haven't seen some of these movies yet, so it's hard to say. The Wrestler? Fucking Benjamin Button? Frost/Nixon? Wall-E [which should be, but it will get Best Animated Feature instead...the Academy didn't go through all the trouble of creating that category only to nominate an animated film for Best Picture]? Gran Torino? The Dark Knight? I'm seeing Doubt tomorrow and then a double feature of Revolutionary Road [which, thank God, is only two hours long] and Slumdog Millionaire on Monday, so perhaps I'll be better equipped to discuss this then.)

- Two notes from my trip to Sarasota in November that I've forgotten to mention: 1) I learned of a very disturbing and random booty call that took (takes?) place between two people from high school. I don't know who reads my blog so I won't name names, but I'll just throw that out there so I don't forget again.

2) Speaking of high school, Pine View apparently has a drama club! For those who didn't attend our school (coughnumber11inthecountrycough), I was in the Pine View Drama League (the drama club) throughout high school, as were the majority of my friends. It was really the centerpiece of my high school experience and I even got to serve as President during my senior year (with varying degrees of success...). Tragically, two years or so after my class graduated, the school shut the League down...I wasn't there and don't remember exactly why, but it was probably because they didn't like our plays disrupting the orchestra's auditorium (our school greatly favored the orchestra, going so far as to build an auditorium to their specifications, which hindered our theatrical productions) and the increasingly adult content of the shows themselves. Also, I seem to recall some sort of vandalism issue, but whatever...the point is, they shut it down.

But during my visit to Pine View in November, I saw a sign on the Media Center door that beckoned students to attend the meetings of the "Pine View Drama Club" (no "League"). Weird...and makes me wonder what it's like. I always felt that, when I make a name for myself and become rich and famous, I would donate a chunk of money to Pine View (as I had a great high school experience and believe in the school's mission statement), but dictate that a portion of it would have to be dedicated to re-forming the League (or a basic drama club) and renovating the auditorium. I'll likely still do that, but I'd be pretty disappointed to find that this new club is doing shows of Our Town or South Pacific or other such generic tripe. I can't say I loved every show we did (I still have serious issues with Death of the Smiley Face and Lizzie Loves Joe Loves Sharon), but at least it was always interesting (except maybe Sorry, Wrong Number and The Hitchhiker...). Anyone up to see a Pine View Drama Club show?

- I'm glad that this writer wrote his editorial on the matter, as he basically sums up my exact feelings about the whole "Twentieth Century Fox has the right to distribute Watchmen" case that saw a ruling in Fox's favor on Christmas Eve. I highly doubt that this is going to actually keep the film itself from being released, but it sure is a shitty move on Fox's part. But then, some sources have said that Fox actually approached Warner Bros. with this fact before production started and Warner chose to proceed anyway. Either way, it's quite the clusterfuck. But as the blog writer points out, while Fox may be right about this issue, legally speaking, they still suck. Maybe it's because they haven't put out a decent movie since The Simpsons Movie (2007) or The Devil Wears Prada (2006) and the rest of their recent output has been pretty execrable.

I used to love Fox as a studio: this was the studio of the Die Hard Trilogy (there was no fourth movie), the Alien films, Moulin Rouge, Edward Scissorhands, Broadcast News, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, True Lies, The Abyss, Raising Arizona, the Star Wars Trilogy (and to a much lesser degree, the prequels), X-Men 1 & 2 (what third movie?), The French Connection, half of Titanic...etc. But in the last eight years, under the leadership of Fox executive Tom Rothman, Fox has lost its way (there are many discussions online about this topic and the lobotomy Rothman gave the studio...oh, look, here's one...and here's another), so it basically gives this perfectly legitimate move an air of desperation and poises Fox as the creativity-sucking studio about to deliver its death kiss unto Warner Bros., a studio that has taken some definite chances with this property. But still, like I said, I'd estimate that there's a ninety-nine percent chance that we'll still be seeing Watchmen in theaters in March. Will it be distributed by Fox or Warner Bros, though...that's the real question.

Allow me to come out of hibernation for just a moment to quickly offer some judgment on two new theatrical releases: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Valkyrie. First of all, let me extend a salute to studios and filmmakers for keeping the number of two-and-a-half-hour (or longer) epics to a bare minimum this year...bravo on your restraint. I can't remember if there was a specific year where it got out of control, but this is generally the time of year for butt-numbing epic dramas: the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gangs of New York, The Aviator, The Good Shepherd, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, several Harry Potter films, There Will Be Blood, The Green Mile...etc. Of course, as you can tell from that very partial list, some lengthy epics are good and some are bad, so it's not about quality...it's about the disproportionate number of long movies that hit theaters in November and December. Lately, though, long films seem to be migrating to the summer (Dark Knight, Prince Caspian, Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End), and this holiday season, there are but two monster-sized epics that are of interest. One of those was the wretched Australia, which thankfully bombed.

The other clock-buster (in more ways than one) this holiday season is The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which I saw yesterday in a surprisingly packed theater. Having worked in movie theaters before, I shouldn't be surprised that a national holiday brings large audiences to the movies, but I guess I figured that most people would still be opening presents and whatnot (or whatever it is you people do). Apparently, I was wrong, and presents were rushed through to get to the latest David Fincher film.

But enough prelude...how was the movie? Oh wait, some more prelude: I had actually been looking forward to this movie for some time now, and yet when I would think of the must-see films of the holiday season, I would always forget this one. And in all fairness, I don't think I ever saw the trailer for this movie in theatres (every theater was too busy playing that motherfucking Gran Torino trailer...seriously, if I see that trailer one more time, I'm going to demand a damn refund...didn't the movie already open?!?). But nonetheless, I'm a general Fincher fan (sort of like Alien 3, love Seven, used to like but now dislike The Game, have complicated feelings about Fight Club [but basically like it], kinda like Panic Room in a way, and wholly embrace Zodiac) and the story did sound sort of interesting enough to overcome the "oh God, it's two hours and forty five minutes long?" feelings. So I went.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is clearly going to be one of those movies that people either love with their whole hearts or dislike, possibly with venom. And it's going to be one of those movies wherein the detractors scorn those who embrace it. I say that because I fall squarely in the latter camp and I can't possibly understand how moviegoers and critics (especially critics) can like this movie. That's not to say it's awful or unwatchable or "bad"...it's just wholly pointless, misguided and is simply an all-around poorly told story.

First of all, it's from the screenwriter of Forrest Gump, and I say this to head off the inevitable "it was just like Forrest Gump!" comments. Yes, it is a hell of a lot like Forrest Gump, and while society has seen fit to turn its back on Forrest Gump (the movie) in the last decade and a half, I still have a big soft spot for it. Yes, I understand how it's actually a condemnation of the sixties and seventies instead of a celebration of them (probably unintentionally), but it's a fine, moving film nonetheless. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is basically Forrest Gump as seen through the eyes of David Fincher. But unlike Gump, Button (forgive the abbreviations, but I'm not typing the full title every time) has no real soul...Gump is the story of a real character being blown through history like a feather in the wind, while Button is about some guy who ages weird sort of going along and doing stuff while not really ever being interesting.

I think that's my main problem with the movie: Benjamin Button is a wholly passive character. He sits there and reacts to everyone else around him, and we never know much of anything about him. In fact, the whole premise of the movie is stupid, in a way, as it's never used as more than an effects hook...the fact that he ages backwards never seems to fully affect him as a character. He's shown as looking like he's 70 when he's 17 (or whatever, it's rarely clear as to the exact ages), but he might as well look 17 because his 70-year-old qualities are non-existent beyond his physical form. If you take away the backwards-aging, he's just some guy who does some stuff and falls in love and goes to war and just lives his life. The end. It's not that interesting, really. And given that the characters are paper-thin, the whole movie is like one big effects reel...for two hours and forty five minutes.

It's just plain pointless. And when "drama" happens, Button is so vastly unexpressive (specifically "Button," not Brad Pitt...I know Pitt is a good actor [see Twelve Monkeys], but he has nothing to do in this movie, really) and closed-off that it renders him boring. There's only one time in the whole movie--one time!--that anyone even asks Button what it's like to age backwards. His answer? Something like "I don't know." I get that the whole thing is supposed to be some big meditation on life and how nothing is forever and all of that, but the fact that Button ages backwards provides absolutely no insight into the human condition. He might as well have been aging normally, given all of the depth we receive. So there is literally no point to the movie and it's vastly frustrating and manipulative.

As for the "great love story," it's basically pointless, as well. It also ebbs and flows depending on what the filmmakers need from the story at any given point. For instance: after loving her (I guess) since they were "kids," Button finally meets up with Cate Blanchett's character Daisy when he looks 60/is maybe 26 and she's, like, 23. They go out on a date, and at the end of it, she literally throws herself at him. And he rejects her. Why? He doesn't really say. There are no contextual clues, either. The only answer is that the filmmakers needed to have yet another obstacle between them for a while. Could it have been because he felt weird about looking the way he did? Maybe...he never really talks about how he feels about his condition. It's all a massive waste of time.

Ironically, the best part of the movie is the very beginning. Cate Blanchett's dying character tells a story about a clockmaker whose son died in World War I and how he made a clock for the local train station that ran backwards, so that perhaps lost relatives and loves can come back to life. It's actually really moving and emotional...and it's over in the first ten minutes. Nothing else in the movie lives up to that story. You might as well walk out after that part is over. The bottom line is that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has some amazing effects, some nice moments, and it appears to have all of the pieces for a big, weepy epic...and yet, it's painfully hollow. What a shame.

Today's movie was Valkyrie...interestingly enough, a friend of mine actually has a vested interest in the performance of this film. So for his sake, go see it and take some friends. But don't go expecting a great, tense "men on a mission" World War II movie. Valkyrie is decidedly average in every respect. The sets are handsome enough, the cinematography is fine (Bryan Singer's first 1.85:1 film, I believe), the acting is professional, the direction is workmanlike...it's all fine. Nice. Cute. Other words that have a neutral, average connotation.

Basically, the film isn't that gripping or tense. There are some suspenseful moments, but you'd think that a film about the attempted assassination of Hitler would have some fucking tension to it (yes, we know that they didn't succeed, but there's still tension in how things went wrong). The film is very matter-of-fact about its story...it doesn't get terribly emotional (except when it sort of tries to, but fails), it just shows what happened and that's it. It's yet another weird case wherein the movie feels like it should have been longer and more in-depth...it all sort of blows by pretty quickly (it's two hours long) and then it's done. Plus, the last twenty or thirty minutes are interesting, but the movie assumes that we want to see more of this part, when we really wanted more of the planning. The last part details what happened during the attempted coup of Berlin by the conspirators as they pushed Operation Valkyrie into effect...the problem is, we know that they ultimately fail, so it just becomes a waiting game of people on the phone, people giving orders, people running around.... Yes, we knew they would fail when they were planning, but at least there's the aforementioned tension in the actual actions rather than in the aftermath as we wait for the inevitable.

Maybe that didn't make much sense, but the point is that the movie is just average in every possible way. There's no flair to it, no standout moments, no emotional truths, nothing really worth remembering after it's over. It's not even fun. It just...is.

It's also somewhat insulting that the studio felt the need to slap on some "action" at the beginning (you know, the shots they show in the trailer, where it looks like they're in the middle of a battle). This action was the result of a poor test screening wherein I believe the audience claimed that they expected action, or something. Thus, this vaguely pointless scene was shot. I didn't care where Tom Cruise's character got his eyepatch and I resent the idea that, instead of finessing the slack and uninteresting "plotting" or "assassination attempt" scenes that are the heart of this movie, they took this opportunity to put in some bullets and planes to satisfy action junkies. If they had done a better job with the story itself, they wouldn't have needed to add pointless action. If you had shown a test audience a taut, gripping, nuanced story about these "good Germans" and the lengths they went to to protect their country's name, it would have gotten great scores.

But don't get me wrong: the movie isn't bad...it's just average. If you want a history lesson on the final plot to assassinate Hitler, go see Valkyrie. If you like Tom Cruise, support his floundering United Artists and see Valkyrie. If you want to see a bunch of awesome actors chewing on hard-boiled lines and tense scenes that practically make you want to scream at the screen...don't see Valkyrie. If you want to see a bunch of awesome actors who are vastly under-used (Kenneth Branagh, why did you leave the film for most of its running time? I missed you), go see Valkyrie.

Anyway...tomorrow I think I'll finally see Milk. Other than that, I've watched a few movies at home, too: Planet Terror (not as bad as I thought it would be, particularly since I dislike Robert Rodriguez most of the time), Death Proof (speaking of bad movies...wow, this movie was painful. I had actually made a degree of peace with Quentin Tarantino after the Kill Bill movies, but holy shit, Death Proof is one of the worst movies ever), and Dumb & Dumber (I had never seen it and now I have...my life is unchanged).

All right, back to my hidey-hole for a bit. I hope everyone had a good Christmas and is gearing up for New Year's Eve. I'll probably post again after a few more movies...or if I have something else to say. But for now, I'm going to get my laundry.

I've reached the bottom of the barrel, scraped it, and now there's just a scratched-out barrel sitting here in front of me. In other words, I have nothing to do here at work today. Not "eh, I could do that one thing, but only if I'm desperate." No. Nothing. I don't even have personal e-mails to write. I'm spent...dry...out. Luckily, everyone else apparently feels the same way, as there's virtually no one here today (well, except the consultant who sits next to me...out of everyone, he's here, so I don't feel comfortable calling family and friends from my desk). While I'm certainly nowhere near ungrateful to my studio for giving us an unprecedented seven and a half working days off in a row (not counting weekends), the scheduling of it is kind of weird, given that they're making us work up until 3 PM on Christmas Eve. Personally, I have no problem with it, but given that most people have taken at least some time off this week to get where they're going for Christmas, it seems like they should have skewed our time off to favor this week...but given the layout of the two federal holidays (both on Thursdays), it would have been difficult to do that without just granting us more time off.

And frankly, I'm not looking for more time off. Now that I've rescheduled my trip to Syracuse/New York City (late March/early April), I find myself with eleven and a half days (counting the weekends) of free time ahead of me. In a way, this is exciting: hopefully I can get a lot of things done, like finishing the third and final draft of my screenplay (and maybe even starting the long-gestating third draft of my "heist script"), thoroughly cleaning my apartment (which includes getting my comforter dry cleaned), seeing a bunch of movies in the theater (Milk, Gran Torino, Doubt, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Valkyrie, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, Revolutionary Road, and possibly Che)...etc. No, I can't quite claim that it's enough for a week and a half of time to myself, but it's a start.

As for rescheduling the trip, I guess it went okay...only one friend got actively mad. Everyone else either agreed with my postponement, expressed disappointment without anger, or just kept their irritation to themselves. Yeah, I still feel like a jerk for doing this, but I maintain that it was the right decision for the time being. One of my friends did say that I should stop waiting for things to be ideal and just "make them ideal," but I can't really agree with that in this situation. Traveling to New York is a large expense of money and effort, so you'll forgive me if I try to get the absolute most out of every visit. Not everyone feels the way I do...I'm sure the friend who suggested that alternate way of viewing things would have gone and just let the trip be whatever it is. I, on the other hand, can certainly deal with "whatever the trip becomes" when I'm there, but I still prefer to go into it knowing that certain basics are in place.

Whatever...I've clearly overthought this way too much and am now just pushing my head up my ass. It's done and that's all there is to it. I'll get over it and they'll (hopefully) be okay with it. If any of you are reading, though, I am sorry for the postponement, but I do greatly look forward to seeing you all in March/April....

Anyway...while I don't celebrate Christmas, I do enjoy this time of year, and this is a particularly gloomy post for such a cheerful time. Allow me, therefore, to transcribe a letter we received here at the office that I found particularly amusing (emphasis and punctuation theirs):

Dear [Studio]:
I purchased the enclosed DVD, Cops & Robbersons, because it is rated PG. I thought PG meant that it was for the family and without nudity and improper language. As you can see on the back-cover it states, "A knock-'em-dead family comedy."

I was greatly disappointed. I am an adult who would like to see clean movies for myself, and much more for the children/family. I would like to sit down with the family and know that the movie is clean and will not embarrass those of us watching it. We are a respectable class of people, with high morals, and a respect for God.

Can you guys not produce a clean, good, entertaining movie? If not maybe you need to purchase a dictionary to find some clean words, and ideas.

Thank you for allowing me to express the thoughts of many who would like to see clean, family, entertainment.

Sincerely,
[Name]

I am also enclosing "A River Runs Through It." We could not even watch the first 10 minutes of this movie. What is the matter with people who would produce such trash and put on it PG?

I thought I would just post this for a chuckle, but actually, I'd rather discuss why I find this chuckle-worthy. It's hardly a crime to want to watch inoffensive films with one's family...to this day, I refuse to watch movies I know to have sex or nudity in them with my parents (I made this guideline after seeing The People vs. Larry Flynt with my dad in theaters...a great movie, but still a little awkward [coincidentally, also one of our movies]). But it's the holier-than-thou tone of the letter-writer that gets to me. "A respect for God"? Who's to say that I don't have a respect for God (my belief is sketchy at best, but that's another issue...but I don't disrespect the idea of God) just because I enjoy movies such as The Exorcist or--heaven forfend--Cops and Robbersons?

I'll try not to dwell on the film-school-snobbery aspect of this letter, but I will say that I believe this family's view of the ratings system is completely out of sync with the actual system's guidelines. It's been a long time since I've seen Cops and Robbersons, but if I'm not mistaken, it was made in 1994...long after the creation of the PG-13 rating. I would almost understand if this family wrote in about Gremlins or Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (two movies that helped push the MPAA to create the PG-13 rating...they're pretty strong PG movies) or many other movies that escaped with PG ratings prior to 1984. But if Cops and Robbersons had warranted a PG-13, it would have received a PG-13. I have my issues with the MPAA and the ratings system in this country, but if they're good at one thing, it's being puritanical. My guess: Cops and Robbersons whipped out a "goddamn" (Jack Palance is in it, after all) and this family flinched in unison. As for nudity...I don't remember any nudity. Maybe Chevy Chase showed his ass or something? Because truly, God hates the human body....

And A River Runs Through It?! I saw that only about a year ago, but I don't remember a single second of offensive content. Maybe some fighting? Another "goddamn"? The violence of fish being caught? Has this person never heard of the Hostel movies, the Saw movies, Beverly Hills Chihuahua or Disaster Movie? The real question is, what is the matter with the people who make those movies...A River Runs Through It is practically what Hollywood points to when people take them to task for not making any "nice" movies!

It's these kinds of people who give "families" a bad name. I'm not saying that "a real family" cuddles up on a couch and watches Predator or Indecent Proposal together, but come on...to go through the effort of writing to a studio and sending back your DVDs because a PG movie has too much ass for you is, in my opinion, silly. And you know what? The MPAA agrees...that's why they started putting the reasons for their ratings underneath the rating bug on all releases since around 1993. Oh, wait, here we go: the MPAA stated that Cops and Robbersons received a PG rating for "mild violence, language and some comic nudity." A River Runs Through It: "Rated PG for momentary nudity, and some language in a family drama."

If you're going to be so incredibly uptight about what you or your family watches, then it's not the MPAA's or Hollywood's responsibility to censor the content...it's your responsibility to do your own policing. The internet is an amazingly helpful resource, with sites like Kids-in-Mind or Parent Previews that break down thousands of movies to detail what sort of "momentary nudity" a movie has or what exactly "mild violence" means in respect to a specific film. There are even sites that look at films from a religious point of view, if that's your cup of tea (I don't feel like Googling for those). So don't come crying to Hollywood if your kid sees some "comic nudity" and starts doing heroin and butchering old people. Try being a parent and don't lazily assume that something like South Park is okay to watch because it's a cartoon or that Chevy Chase is funny.

And on that note, I think I'm going to get going. It's almost 10:30 and I've received precisely three e-mails this morning (two of which were a followup to the response I wrote to the first one) and no calls. No one is here (I don't even hear any phones ringing down the empty hallways), it's going to start raining any minute, and my Best Buy gift card won't spend itself.

So to those who celebrate it, have a merry Christmas. I'll be having a happy Hanukkah for the next five nights as I hibernate in my apartment. I'm sure I'll end up posting tomorrow, anyway, but in case I don't: happy holidays to all, and to all a good night.

So knock on wood and all, but I think I may have gotten the majority of my work done a little bit too soon. All that stress about CES content and preparation led to three weeks of pretty intense work and labor...but apparently, all that effort has left me without much to do during these last two and a half days of work prior to our holiday break. I reviewed the last major reel of content for CES an hour ago (there's one more to go, but it's just a single trailer that's being subtitled), I have most of the externally-created content in hand, the majority of requests from our sister companies have been fulfilled...sure, there are a few loose ends, but nothing dire (knock on an extremely large piece of wood).

Therefore, I'm bored...and with my boss already on his holiday trip and most of the other executives out this week, it's been a quiet day. It may even be a quiet half-week (we get out at 3 PM on Wednesday). It's been a day filled with errant e-mail answering and gossiping with co-workers and long lunches and pecan-pie-cookie eating (I've been bad with all this damn holiday food sitting around...). But mostly, I've been bored as I stare listlessly at the clock...bored, bored, bored.

And all of this free time has given me plenty of room to ponder my potential trip to Syracuse/NYC this week. In the interest of keeping things fresh and different, allow me to break this issue of travel to the northeast at such a tricky time of year down via Pros and Cons:

Pro - I want to see my friends and family
Even after living in LA for over four years, it still seems that the majority of my friends live on the east coast...and now, even some of my Los Angeles friends live on the east coast. So traveling back east (specifically the northeast) allows me to see a large group of close high school and college friends all in one fell swoop. This particular trip also would allow me the opportunity to see some family, with my aunt and uncle in Syracuse and my stepmom and sister visiting my stepmom's father in New York City. Socially, this trip is pretty important, especially since I haven't been to the northeast since last December.

Con - It's not an ideal time to see friends and family
My primary reason for taking a side-trip to Syracuse is to see Jim and Jennie, both of whom I miss very much. The thing is, Jennie is actually pregnant...like, about nine months pregnant. She's basically due to give birth anytime between Christmas and January 3rd, and with my visit coming precisely during that window, it's a possibility that she may not be available to hang out because she'll be delivering her child. And even if she doesn't actually give birth during that time, she's not exactly going to be in the mood to host an out-of-town guest (though to her credit, she is willing to do so).

Additionally, one of my friends in New York is sick, my sister and stepmom are only in town for an evening, and several of my friends may either be accidentally or purposefully delayed returning from their Christmas trips due to the bad weather and airport troubles. I don't even know where I'm staying one of the nights I'm there, nor do I know of any New Year's plans, nor have I even heard back from some friends as to whether or not they'll be around...it all just feels rushed and weird.

Pro - It doesn't sound like the weather in LA will be that great over the next week or two
With rains on the horizon and more cold coming, it's not like I'm choosing an icy winter wonderland over paradise. It sounds like Los Angeles will be hit with more storms soon and I'll just end up sitting indoors if I stay. So instead of crappy rain and unexpected cold, why not go see some snow and expected cold?

Con - The weather in the northeast will be a little bit more drastic than just "some snow and expected cold"
With more snowstorms expected to hit the northeast and airports going crazy with canceled and delayed flights, it's not like stepping into some pretty snowfall against a bright, sunny winter sky. The weather issues are a major reason not to go...every day since this came to my attention (Thursday? Friday?), I've been hearing story after story about relatives, friends and co-workers who have been stranded and/or delayed at airports across the country. Sure, it may get a little rainy and cold here in Los Angeles, but at least I'd be secure in my apartment and not stranded at some airport or driving on some icy Thruway.

Pro - Who cares about getting stranded or delayed? Where's your sense of adventure?
That kind of sums up my feelings on this subject. I mean, so what if I get stranded in Syracuse for a day or so? So what if I can't catch my connecting flight in Cleveland on the way to Syracuse? So what? Be a little adventurous...would I rather sit in my apartment for the next week and a half, watching as the world doesn't end because of a little snow?

Con - Getting stranded in Cleveland isn't my idea of an adventure
Yeah, airports aren't exactly crazy fun places. They're boring, stressful, crowded, cold, annoying places and I hate spending any more time in them than I have to. Fine, if I get stuck in Syracuse, I can stay with my aunt and uncle indefinitely, but I don't know anyone in Cleveland, and staying with friends in New York would get old for both parties. Really, if I had a choice between being stranded in an airport or being bored in my apartment, I'd choose my apartment every time.

Pro - When you look back on this time, would you rather have taken a chance and gone or stayed in your apartment and been "safe"?
This is probably the one major point that's keeping my plans alive right now (well, that and seeing my friends). I hate myself whenever I choose being boring and safe over doing something potentially fun, whether it's going to dinner with a friend or embarking on a trip that will likely have hiccups. And in this instance, as I said when I initally booked the trip, I'd rather wander the streets of New York for New Year's Eve than sit in my apartment and fall asleep at 10 PM. I can't help but escalate this quandary to becoming an issue that speaks to my overall current lifestyle: safe or risky? Every part of me is leaning towards being safe in this instance, but that just makes me feel like it would be harder (and possibly more rewarding) to be risky....

Con - It's not about safe versus risky, it's about taking a trip at a bad time of year and having a less-than-great trip because people are sick or not available or snowed in/out
Is it about some greater lifestyle question or is it about common freaking sense? New York isn't Brigadoon...it'll be there in April. Sunshine and spring weather will also be there in April. Jennie won't be pregnant anymore and may be well-rested enough to accept guests, my friends won't be scattered thanks to Christmas plans or weather setbacks, and all will be well (knock on wood). It could even be March or February (I would say January, but that's probably getting me into the same problems that I'm facing now). Why push myself to do this now, especially when I'm already tired and cranky from work and personal issues? Why not give myself some much-needed rest? I feel decidedly ragged already....

Pro - Cosi
I do love Cosi....

Con - There's a Cosi in Orange County
I could take a quick hour-long trip down there and get my fix (and take a sandwich home with me for future consumption). Plus, Chipotle, which I know they have in New York, but it's just not the same thing, in a way.

Con - It sure would be nice to not spend a lot of money right now
Like I've said before, it's been an expensive couple of months, and I fear that a trip to New York right now will wipe me out entirely. I could use the controlled environment of home to stem the tide of spending, rather than the free-for-all of a vacation. It's not financially impossible for me to go on the trip, but it's bordering on irresponsible....

Con - Back-to-back trips
While it's not quite as back-to-back as last year (I got back from my trip to New York on January 1st and went back to work for last minute prep on the 2nd), I do have to go to Las Vegas on Tuesday January 6th for CES. Unfortunately, as I've said before, I'm supervising and working at our booth all day during the whole event (with a half hour in the morning and the afternoon for breaks and an hour for lunch), as opposed to last year when we had a large staff there and two people from the electronics division helping out. It's pretty exhausting and I wouldn't mind resting up prior to the event. If I go to New York, I'll practically be leaping from one trip into another, which sucks.

So...I still don't know. As you can see, I'm basically leaning towards not going (though to be fair, two of the Pros are weighted heavier, as they are of great import: seeing friends/family and safety vs. risk). And indeed, I've already done the research and could reschedule my trip to Syracuse and New York City for March or April with a minimum of cost. Of course, that does leave me without any plans for New Year's Eve...but here's another con: am I just trying to recreate last year? As I've said, New Year's Eve last year was the most fun I've had since our high school Drama League party on December 31, 1999. Is it tempting fate to go back and try to have a crazy fun time in New York again? Maybe I should try harder to find something to do here in Los Angeles: see what my friends are doing, go to a bar, go to the beach...something.

Anyway, that's my quandary, but the more I think about it, the more I suspect that I'll spend the reasonable amount of money and just change my flight to March (do it now, while flights are cheap and while it's on my mind). I miss my friends a great deal, but this trip just doesn't seem right (I forgot to mention that one of my best college friends won't even be in town...she gets back, like, the day I leave). I have to make my decision by tomorrow, but I think I may have made it already...thanks, Pros and Cons!

Blah...I hate getting my car's oil changed. It's never just an oil change, there's always rear differentials and transmission flushes to do...blah. This is not a great time of year to endure the extra expense, either, especially with my trip to New York coming up. But given that my car is already over a month late for its scheduled oil change (but not yet at the mileage limit, as I drive my car less than ten miles on any average day), I'd rather get it done sooner rather than later. But my wallet certainly doesn't agree....

It's been a vaguely eventful week, I suppose...or more precisely, it's been the lack of potential events that has driven the interest this week. I guess the biggest issue was the fact that the blind date girl either rejected me or put the brakes on things (which seems odd, since the "car" was only going, like, 5 miles per hour...it was like we were driving past a playground and a retirement home combined). On Tuesday, I wrote to her (yes, wrote to her) to ask her on a date date for Saturday night (dinner and a movie in her area, so she wouldn't have to drive back to LA this time). On Thursday, I got a response that said that it was nice to meet me, but that things are crazy right now with grad school applications and that we should reconnect in January so she can focus on school-related materials.

True, it's not an overt rejection, and may not be a rejection at all...but it's sure not what I was hoping to hear. I mean, I'm pretty busy myself until mid-January (what with my trip and CES), but I was going to make some time for her because I really liked her, so it was somewhat distressing that she wasn't going to do the same. I know, it's a selfish point of view wrapped in the artifice of generosity, but it's how I feel. However, as Jamie pointed out, finding some semblance of date/girlfriend is something of a priority for me right now, while it may not be for her right this second, so I shouldn't look at it as a rejection. In a way, it's promising: maybe she wants to wait and give things an actual chance when she's not so distracted. Or maybe it's a polite way of brushing me off and hoping I'll forget about things by January.

Anyway...I hope it's the former but fear it's the latter, and only time will tell, I guess. At Jamie's suggestion, I wrote back and said that I completely understand and that, given my crazy schedule for the next few weeks, I look forward to contacting her in January. Short and sweet...Jamie felt it was important to not seem like it fazed me. And yet, in actuality, it's fazed me quite a bit...I feel a little better at this point, but I was pretty down on myself Thursday and Friday (though luckily, I spared you, my blog-reader[s], from a super-self-pitying post). I know I shouldn't get so worked up about something that's more neutral than bad (or good...), but it's more the cumulative effect of my personal life that gets to me.

Otherwise, it seems that the northeast has experienced some pretty harsh winter storms recently, which led me to consider canceling my upcoming trip. I have a severe aversion to flight delays, and particularly with the horror stories I was hearing from people on Friday (my boss's boss had a five hour delay, a co-worker was trapped on the runway at San Francisco International and may have even had to stay overnight [not sure where he was going, though]), I just felt like saying "fuck it" and staying in non-snowy Los Angeles for my vacation, especially since things have been so stressful lately and the upcoming stress of CES. I'm getting an amazing ten days or so off from work, so why would I want to spend that time stressing out at airports? Plus, I'm a little bit poor at the moment (stupid oil change...and insurance...and traffic ticket...and general expenses...and rent...), so not running away to New York would certainly help that particular worry.

But ultimately, it looks like things have cleared up in the northeast (well, relatively speaking...the airports are allegedly back to normal, at least), so I guess I'll go after all. Well, that is, I'll wait until Tuesday or Wednesday to really see how things are going...if things are basically normal, I'll go. But if there's some crazy blizzard set to hit the northeast next week, well....

Otherwise, things are just...going, I guess. I think I'm prepared for CES (knock on wood) and that I've basically addressed my outstanding loose ends at work in preparation for this time off (again, knock on wood). My boss is out for the break already, so this week looks to be relatively quiet (just keep knocking on wood). I was supposed to see a friend tonight from high school/college (that would be Len), but he's doing something Hanukkah-related with his girlfriend (seriously, he's not even Jewish and he found a Jewish girl?!?), so it looks like that's off. Which is fine, as I'm happy to spend this weekend holed up in my apartment. And speaking of Hanukkah, I'll be lighting my menorah tonight, which I really like doing. Hanukkah may be the only Jewish holiday I actively celebrate these days....

Really? I can't tell if this family is ignorant, stupid, genuinely confused or actually hateful, but whatever they are, they're also ridiculous. I guess it's one thing to name your kid Adolf Hitler (not cool, but free speech and all), but it's another thing entirely to be all like "What? Why are people all freaked out about it? Come on, guys, it's the 21st century, grow up" about it. Can the father actually be serious with a quote like this:

"I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they've been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past."

First of all, shut up...you can't name your kid after one of the worst human beings in history and pretend like it has no context. At least man up to the fact that your kid's name is going to get some raised eyebrows at the very least and don't put it off on society's Puritanical streak. And secondly, by naming your kid Adolf Hitler, that's kind of taking peoples' heads with your hands and forcibly turning their heads to the past, so don't act like it's our fault for bizarrely connecting your child's name with that one German guy who did that stuff that one time.

As for the cake issue, well, I have to admit that that's trickier. While any company has the right to refuse service and all of that, I suppose that, as a strong believer in the First Amendment, I have to argue that this guy should have the right to have whatever he wants written on his cake. But then, like I said, the company has a right to refuse, so maybe it's not a First Amendment issue...I guess it would be more First Amendment-y if he wrote it on the cake himself and someone arrested him or something. Still, given his child's weirdly controversial name, he probably should have made the cake himself.

But I think the most bizarre part of all of this is the family itself...like I said, it's hard to tell if they're ignorant or hateful. I'm pretty much leaning toward the latter opinion, especially since the kid's siblings are named Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell and JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell...yeah, I guess that kind of puts them squarely in the "hateful" category. Still, it's strange that they're so upfront about their prejudices, and yet they make such a point to a) speak warmly about our President-elect, b) talk about the various races that attended their kid's party, and c) feign ignorance about the whole naming issue. One would think that, if they went to the trouble of labeling their kids with obviously inflammatory names, they would at least be some sort of "out of the closet" racists, like the type on those HBO documentaries from the 90s when they visited Ku Klux Klan members who were totally comfortable with their hatred.

But then, there is a potential answer for that: while they apparently don't have an issue with African-Americans, they could still very easily hate the Jews and/or every other minority. Perhaps that's their angle: talk about their absolute lack of prejudice when it comes to black people, but shove their hatred of those cheap Jews under the rug for the interview. Bottom line: I'm exercising my First Amendment rights to tell this family to go fuck themselves.

Anyway...that's about all I have to say today. It's cold, rainy and dark here in Los Angeles today and I'm sleepy. I wrote to the blind date girl last night to ask her out on a second date, so we'll see what happens there. Otherwise, it's just a race to get everything done by the time we break for the holidays. Unfortunately, it looks like my boss and I wore the same shirt to work today...luckily, I have a jacket thanks to the cold, so I won't be taking it off here at work.... 

I feel like so much has happened since my last post, if only because that San Diego trip seems like it took place months ago...I'm not sure if the weird time issues this year (the year seemed to go by so fast) were a result of some broad cultural time-shift or if they were due to the more specific "when you reach 25, life suddenly speeds up, and you're 50 before you know it" issue that our parents warned us about. God, I hope it's the former....

But anyway, I ended up leaving San Diego pretty soon after I finished that last blog post, when I realized that I just couldn't wait around any longer without throwing my coffee in someone's face and crashing through a window to escape. I actually went over to the guys who were making the presentation and asked how it was going, only to discover that, oh, they finished and submitted my part of the presentation hours ago. Armed with that knowledge, I cornered the organizers and got them to review my section so I could leave...which they did. I was back in Los Angeles by 2:30 and ended up coming into the office to catch up on work. All in all, it was a generally useless experience in San Diego, but it did give me a chance to really focus on CES and assess everything that had yet to be done. Knock on wood and all, but I may now be on track with everything I have to do for the event.

Then my mom and her boyfriend came into town on Friday night, as Los Angeles is the departure point for their trip around the world. They got into LA at around 5:30 PM on Friday night and left for Buenos Aires Saturday at 2:25 PM, so it was kind of a whirlwind visit, capped off by the fact that I now won't see my mom for about 7 months to a year...which makes me sad. Although I don't go visit my mom once a month or anything like that (more like once every two or three months), I still like knowing that she's here in this country and not hiking in Patagonia or something of the sort. I'm happy for her and all and it's obviously a fun and exciting experience, but I'll be happy when she's back. 

So it was kind of a weird weekend, with that first 18 hours or so being taken up with the sudden parental visit and departure, and then yesterday (Sunday) was spent fretting about and actually going on my blind date. The date was at 3 PM in Brentwood (Literati Cafe? I hadn't heard of it before, but apparently, everyone else [including the date] goes there all the time...it was very good, though) and I spent all morning carefully scheduling my time so as to be well-rested and prepared: early morning laundry, 11 AM nap, 1 PM workout, leave by 2:15....

But neurotic scheduling details aside, the bottom line is that I think the date went well. She's really nice, really pretty, and we seemed to somewhat hit it off...at least, from my perspective. Even though she's good friends with my last blind date, Monica, this was a virtual 180-degree change from that experience; that date was doomed from the start, because again, I felt like Monica wasn't interested from the very start. But with this girl (I'm holding off on using her name...whatever, I'm neurotic, let's just accept it), she was clearly into the date in the first place and was much more friendly and down-to-earth. Plus, she works for the freaking Olympic Committee...that's damn cool. She also gets major bonus points for the fact that we were in Israel over the same summer (1999) and both went on the Discotheque Boat Ride (on separate occassions over that summer)...and we both drive Subaru station wagons!

But similar cars and disco experiences don't ensure chemistry...still, while I may be a novice dater (again, I've had romantic experience, but I've had very limited experience with the actual "dating process" starting from scratch) and uncertain as to the whole "spark" thing, I feel like the date went well and that we may have clicked...which would be good, because I kinda really liked her. As we were parting ways at the end of the date (after she gave me a ride to my car and I got a hug...which a] is better than the handshake I got at the end of the last blind date, and b] is totally appropriate, as an afternoon coffee date doesn't seem like a great time to go in for a kiss), she did say "Speak to you soon?" But the real question is (prepare for more neuroses...): did she voice the question mark at the end of that sentence or am I wishfully putting it in? That is, was she just saying that as something to say or was she innocuously hinting that she'd be interested in getting together again? In this case, I clearly hope it was the latter.

Which leads me to my current conundrum: what now? With Monica, it was pretty clear that she wasn't interested and I only e-mailed her again because Jamie said it would be a good idea (though I have to admit, there was a twistedly curious part of me that wanted to know what she actually thought of me)...with this girl, I feel like there's a chance for a second date (unless I'm totally off-base with my evaluation of the date yesterday). So...do I e-mail her today and say "hey, I had a good time, want to do something again?" Or do I wait until tomorrow or for a few days? Or...do I call her (I'm not a big fan of calling...)? She does live in Orange County, so I don't even think we could do anything again until this coming weekend, but...? Anyone have any insight?

Amusingly enough, after the date, I went and did something that would have made my 2007-era self very excited: I went and hung out with Jamie. I picked her up and we went to the Santa Monica Promenade to the Barnes & Noble, where we went shopping for our respective Hanukkah presents for one another (his and hers etiquette books...surprisingly useful!). But to be honest, my 2008-era self was happy to be out with a friend and nothing more. So that's good.

I started this post around 11:30 this morning and it's now 5:30 in the evening...it's been a busy day. I know I'm skimping on the reflection here, but it's just about time to go and I still have a few things to do. I had lunch with Jamie and Heather today, both of whom felt that I should call the blind date girl to ask for a followup date (and that I should wait until no earlier than Wednesday). That's certainly one option...or there's the option of e-mailing her to ask for a second date, and doing it tomorrow (Tuesday). That's good, too, right? ...Right? 

Did I mention that I have a Dell laptop? I usually don’t consider the brands of my electronics…until I happen to bring them to work. In Los Angeles, my laptop usually elicits a comment or two (“You have a Dell? What’s up with that?”), but I didn’t even consider this minor faux pas when I came here to our electronics division for this meeting. Suffice it to say, when I took out my Dell laptop and looked around the room and saw the sea of our company’s laptop brand (rhymes with “Pie-oh”), I felt a high-school-esque pang of being a sore thumb. Actually, it was more elementary school-based…I specifically remember one day in particular around second grade when everyone was supposed to make an illustration on a certain-sized poster board. Of course, my dad and I failed to follow the directions, and my poster board was larger and more cumbersome than everyone else’s…I was quite the sore thumb that day.

But it wasn’t quite as scarring yesterday. Rather, it was a simple matter of feigning ignorance and just going with it…I guess it worked, because I only got one dirty look throughout the entire day. Perhaps that elementary school incident--and all the others like it--were ultimately beneficial…yes, that’s it. But beyond that, yesterday was relatively painless. Boring, oh God yes, but generally painless (in retrospect). Of course, I’m back again today and I have no idea when I can leave. Like I said yesterday, it’s nice that I don’t have to do the bulk of the PowerPoint preparation, but on the other hand, I have little to no control over its completion. In fact, I have a feeling that the Blu-ray booth presentation is actually all done, but as the guys who are helping me are working on other parts of the booth, I think they’re waiting to submit them all at once. Dammit.

So here I sit…blogging, checking my work e-mails (again, no full internet access), desperately wondering what I’m going to do after I’m done blogging, pondering the reason why I’m not getting more work e-mails, stretching for things to blog about, wondering if the work e-mails I’ve sent were actually sent…it’s a busy day. I may have to resort to Solitaire soon.

It is kind of cool to be part of this gathering of our company’s divisions…for instance, last night around 5, someone came to me with a question about Digital Copy for Blu-ray. I answered their questions, but then they were wondering if it works with one of our company’s products. Instead of asking the internet (the internet to which we don’t have access…), we just turned to that product’s team leader and asked. Someone had a question about our gaming division (rhymes with “BlayPation”), so we asked that division’s representative…and so on. It’s kind of neat how easy it is to get information about our sister companies in this room, as opposed to the usual e-mails and phone calls.

But on the other hand…I have nothing to do and I really want to go home. If I’m able to get out of here by noon, I’ll probably go into work…if I get out of here by 2, I might just go home…if I get out of here at 4 or later…I’ll be extremely unhappy. There’s just no reason to not get out of here early…even the guys who are assembling the presentation asked me last night why I’m coming back today. The answer: the CES organizers are kind of strict about these things and won’t let me leave until my booth is detailed, even though someone else is handling the presentation and they have all of my details. It’s kind of a bummer, I have to say…I don’t like feeling like I could be more productive elsewhere (ie: at the office) while I’m being held somewhere else (ie: here).

I also had kind of a rough night of sleep…for some reason, I have difficulty sleeping in hotel rooms and/or other beds for the first night of any stay. After that, I sleep fine, but I usually can’t fall asleep for a while during that first night.  Last night was no exception: even though I was tired from getting up at 5:30 in the morning and driving to San Diego and being pummeled by boredom all day, I found that I couldn’t get to sleep for a while. I even got up and did some more CES work on my laptop…although my usual “first night in a different place” habit applied, I found myself obsessing over CES details and worrying about whether or not it will all get done in time. I tried to soothe myself with facts (a lot of the content is already done/ordered, the remainder is daunting, but still perfectly doable, etc.), yet in the dark of night, lying in an unfamiliar (albeit comfortable) bed, it all seemed terrifying. But then I sent some more e-mails and felt a little better. I’m mainly worried about the things that are out of my control, ie: clip reviews from my boss. I’ve been trying to get him to review these four or five clips (two-minute long clips from some of our upcoming titles that showcase the high-def picture quality) for weeks now, and I can’t order our huge centerpiece reel of content until he gives me the okay on those clips. Unfortunately, he’s been kept punishingly busy with his high-level stuff, so it’s been tough to pull him away to look at some clips…yet he still likes to review these clips before they get finished and used. Basically, I have to corner him tomorrow to review (and approve, which isn’t always a slam dunk) these clips or else I’m pulling them off the reel. We’re just running out of time.

But that’s the thing I need to realize: one way or another, we’ll have our reel of content…it just may not have everything that we want to have on it. So it’s the main centerpiece reel that’s literally keeping me up at night, but then there are some errant issues that I need to resolve: we’re using a game demo and trailer from an outside source that I don’t have, we’re demoing a certain technical function that may or may not work in a demo environment, we’re waiting on yet another trailer that I think is just now being created from scratch…ugh. I know these sorts of things usually work out one way or another (knock on wood), but I can not use that reasoning to make myself feel better…without stressing and working hard to get things done, they won’t “just work out.” These reels won’t make themselves, no matter how much I “believe” they will.

I do kind of wonder if a point in time will come (within the next week) wherein I’ll just have to put my foot down and make a decision about some of this content. That is, if I feel an unapproved clip is of high quality and will work well, and if I can’t get my boss to review them, should I just push forward and use the clips? I think if this were Comic-Con, I would take the risk…as much as Comic-Con is one of our key events each year, it’s also lower-profile for Blu-ray. Sure, people come by and look at our wares, but they’re not usually too tech-savvy and we cater our content more to “nerdly delights” rather than high-end tech consumers. A grainer clip from the black and white version of the 1950s Ray Harryhausen film 20 Million Miles to Earth? Great…for Comic-Con. For CES, not so much. For CES, it needs to be shiny and pretty and needs to really “pop” in high-def. Sure, the grainy clip is great and amazing from a film-lover’s perspective, but for excessively critical technical press and industry folks, it’s inappropriate.

Not that any of my clips are grainy or flawed…my boss isn’t really looking at picture quality (he trusts me with that). He’s looking at how the clip works as a clip…and often, what I think works well doesn’t work well from his Marketing-savvy perspective. Both are legitimate points of view, but given that he’s the boss, his opinion is understandably a bit weightier. And I certainly don’t mean to ignore his potential input, but a) I really feel that these clips work well, and b) again, we’re running out of time. But then, with regards to the first point, even though I think something works well, it doesn’t mean that my boss will agree. I remember that I pulled a clip from one of our titles (rhymes with “The Blatriot”…this rhyming thing is great!) that I thought was kind of awesome, and my boss just didn’t like it. I’m not totally sure why he didn’t like it, but it was his gut feeling, and one can’t argue with that. We ultimately never used any clip from that movie…or did we? I don’t remember now, but if we did, it was a different clip from the one I chose.

So anyway…we’ll see. As I’m waiting on, like, four or five clips, maybe I’ll attempt to slip the strongest two by if he can’t review them and go with trailers for the rest. Or maybe I’ll just try harder to get his review/approval tomorrow…that’s probably for the best. Anyway, I guess that’s all I have for now. As I don’t have access to my blog here, anyway, I’ll probably update this if I have more to say later before posting. Otherwise, it’s back to checking my work e-mail….