Hm, let's see...
I saw Road to Perdition the other day. It looked great, was well acted, and held me rapt in my seat. However, it was pretty predictable -- maybe not so much as American Beauty, in which the protagonist announced in the first minutes of the movie that he would die, but one generally still could figure out what was going to happen to ol' Tom Hanks.
Also, it was definitely in the same vein as American Beauty, in that it was a predictable chronicle of a family's decline, due to the sins of generations past. It's like "OK, Sam, we know families are screwed up, and they often disintegrate over the years. We've all read a Faulkner book or two." In fact, I said to my friend as we were leaving, "If that were a Faulkner book, it would have been called "As I Stood Shooting."
Get it? Haw!
Anyway, it was good and looked great. I recommend it, but you won't be surprised how it all turns out.

God, reading a Mareen Dowd column is painful. Especially this one (link requires registration).
I don't even know where to begin on dissecting this piece of drivel. I guess first and foremost would be to examine her motivations for this column. I'm guessing she's laying in bed, watching FX last night (like I was), and she saw a commercial for the new RFK movie. Then, she remembered "that thing about that study that says women are emotional."
Then I'm sure it was a simple matter of tracking down some jerk who has a stupid idea about women in politics ("I probably deep down believe that women are the superior sex," Mr. Kelley told TV critics gathered here for a fall preview. "And when I see all that's going on in the world, in the Middle East . . . if the United Nations just said that women had to run countries, I don't think this would be going on in any of them."), mix and stir, and VOILA! A New York Times Op-Ed is born!
Seriously though, an FX biopic is probably a pretty poor basis for a theory that claims to explain "modern American history."
Maureen Dowd is a "biscuit" writer in my opinion (biscuit=bad). This column cements it for me.

Whoo-hoo! Back in the game!
Has anyone been following the Joel Mowbray/State Department saga? Boy, I have, and I'll tell you why. It's because I wish I were Joel Mowbray. Look at that cat, in there, mixing it up with the bigwig spinmeisters in State. That's the kind of reputation I want as a journalist -- a troublemaker for bigwigs. It's tough to get that rep covering school board meetings and village council meetings, though. Oh well -- maybe a bit further down the pike, no?

Well, it doesn't appear that Blogger is allowing me to post to my site, so by the time these posts make it on I'll have given up, like the quitter that I am.

One question for Zed -- why, sir, do you like Mark Ruffalo so much?
I'll admit, I don't think I've seen any movies he's been in. Haven't seen The Last Castle, nor have I seen You Can Count on Me. Guess I might have to see those, if for no other reason than to have something to discuss.

Something's going on with Blogger today, so I'm not sure if these posts will show up on the site. I've got some things to say, though, and I'm forging ahead anyway.

Going back to the so-called "Star Wars controversy" we were discussing a while back, a friend of mine writes this gem:
" But the nature of cult film-making is found in its specific emotional (usually) attachment to a particular social demographic within the context of an even more specific film genre. Lucas struck the proverbial gold when he embarked on the successive Star Wars counterparts precisely because they are a genre that flirt with the latest movie 'magic.' The draw for people our age is not the fact that those movies refused to give in to the most advanced form of special effects; it is precisely that they did. And they did it in a "Schoolhouse Rock" type of way which made it socially preferrable to hail what is vintage and disregard and villify that which is cutting edge. It is selfish to expect the new trilogy to cater to our generation. For that to be the case, Lucas would actually be forced to prostrate and undermine his advanced special effects mechanisms. So. The reason the new trilogy will ultimately lack the meaning and pervasiveness of the first is that we are no longer the demographic. Isn't it strange that we (yes, you and me) appreciate The Matrix for its cutting edge special effects, but not Attack of the Clones? Both are just about equal in terms of meaning, durability, and import. Our mindset is different towards each. There is our failure, not Lucas'. One more thing. Lucas actually once addressed this very issue, saying, that the entire field of film is one large special effect. It is true. The Brothers Lumiere were the original special effects artists. If you agree, the Star Wars controversy becomes nothing more than a search for nostalgia...."

Well said, Michael. Well said...

I also wanted to give a shout-out to Zed, if he is indeed reading this. You see folks, Zed lambasted me via email, and I appreciate that. In fact, he was one of the first people I don't know to comment on the site.
Prickly tone aside, his email was right on in a couple of respects. First, I have been going at this site rather half-heartedly for the past few months, Don't know why, just have. Actually, I do know why -- it's because I now have a writing job, and that PAID writing is taking up more of my time and creative energy. When I started the site, I was working in inside sales, and needed to get something down to feel like I was still a writer. Now that I have the job with a paper...well, I don't need to draw my smart readers a map, do I?
I know, Andrew Sullivan has many paid writing gigs and still posts to his site daily. Well folks, hate to say it, but I'm not Andrew Sullivan. There's a reason he makes the big bucks and I don't. He's got a work ethic!

I just had to write today. Wanted to let everyone know that Toledo made it unscathed through the holiday, even though the rumor swirling around town was that small cities such as ours were being targeted. You know what I say to that? Pshaw!
That being said, I'm awfully glad nothing happened, although I wasn't exactly holding my breath.

At the suggestion of my friend Pedro del Owen, I have to put this up (with his dialogue, of course).
"Looking for a good, cheap fock?"

I was e-chatting with a friend this morning, and I asked him if he had seen any good movies lately. He answered, "Well, Star Wars, but I lower my standards for movies in the Star Wars franchise."
Don't we all?
But should we? Does the nostalgia of all us Gen Xers (and those slightly younger than us) give George Lucas a free pass to make movies replete with cheesy one-liners, undeveloped characters, and virtually no heart? I mean, the original three were something completely different from the latest two -- they were live action more than CGI, they had great characters (granted, with some wince-inducing dialogue), and they were a bit overwrought, but who honestly could say that The Phantom Menace is better than The Empire Strikes Back?
Well, I suppose they could say it, but they'd better not say it front of me. I might actually lose it. But see, it's that kind of slavish dedication to the original three that gives Lucas his green light. And Lucas has no problem cashing in on subpar work. It's almost like he's a college student who got one really good grade on a paper in a class, and turns in crap the rest of the semester, hoping to coast through. The prof shouldn't let a student get away with that, and we, the true Star Wars fans, shouldn't let Lucas get away with making movies like Episodes 1 & 2.
Moreover, the magic is missing from the latest Lucas fare. Magic, heart, soul, whatever you want to call it -- I don't think I'm the only person suggesting that Lucas is phoning it in.
Then again, maybe just Han Solo and Chewie are missing...

Want to talk some more about movies? OK, you've convinced me!

Anyway, back to The Bourne Identity...
There are several parts of the Times article that I don't like, but for the most it accurately points out what I liked in the movie. I liked the lack of corny one-liners (Minority Report had lots), I liked the expressions on the actors' faces (confusion, horror, disgust), and I liked the movie's unflashy style. There didn't seem to be much CGI; instead, much of the work seemed to be on location. What? A movie not shot in front of a blue screen? Amazing in this day and age...

A pretty decent article in Sunday's New York Times (link requires registration) makes some good points about a pretty cool movie, The Bourne Identity. I saw it and certainly liked it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on what made it better than Minority Report, which I also recently saw.
Well, that's not entirely true. I knew that Minority Report was a Spielberg movie, and that with it would come some sort of heroic resolution -- that is, a resolution towards the good, happy way. You know, the kind of ending where Things Just Work Out. However, if 20 minutes or so had been lopped off that movie, it would have been GREAT film noir.
I don't know how much I should give away, in case any HeadsHeads haven't seen it yet. After all, it did only just come out.
Tell you what: go see it, and email me to tell me what you thought. I'll give my (and Mike J.'s) theory later.

I was extremely pleased this morning to read that my hombre, Victor Davis Hanson (VDH, to his homies) has been announced as the winner of the 2002 Eric Breindel Award for Excellence in Journalism! Thanks to Kathryn Lopez at National Review for pointing me in the right direction.
Man, is there anything VDH can't do? Let me answer that question: no. He's a professor of classics, so he's obviously proficient in Greek and Latin; he's a military historian (seems to focus on Ancient Greece); and yet, he's unbelieveably adept at applying lessons from ancient Greek battles to current situations. Kind of reminds me of my late mentor, Dr. Alex Shtromas, who somehow managed to explain the Peloponnesian War to all us boneheads by comparing it with Indepependence Day. Now that's a teacher!
Think about it: here's a guy (Shtromas, not VDH) who's in his sixties, lived under Hitler and Stalin, studied and practiced law in Moscow, expelled from the U.S.S.R. for dissent, relocates first to Britain then to the U.S., teching at Hillsdale...and still has time, while watching the bright-lights/oooh-ahhh of Independence Day, to draw parallels with one of the first recorded major conflicts.
No wonder I want to be a professor.

I'm the kind of guy who has difficulty finding a happy medium. For example, I'm sitting at my computer, knowing I have to write an article for the paper. But, as I sit here, I think to myself "Must...get...back..into...habit..of writing...on site...daily!" So I can either a) post to my site, or b) write my article....maybe I'll try to do both simultaneously.
Don't laugh, because I've done more difficult things in my day.

The accidentally inimitable Toledo Blade -- self-described as "One of America's finest newspapers" -- printed this gem of a headline Tuesday: "Gun Victim Described As Fun-Loving, Outgoing."
What's wrong with that, you may ask? Well, the kicker comes in the seventh paragraph:


A Columbus police spokesman said Mr. Slater was shot while a passenger in a vehicle near 22 East 16th Ave., less than a block from the OSU campus.
Witnesses told police some type of disagreement occurred between Mr. Slater and at least one other person before the shooting.


Whoa. Turns out that said guy was more like a "murder victim" than a "gun victim." That's like saying a guy who was pushed out of a window is a "gravity victim."

Let's talk for a moment about what I've been up to...
After leaving Chicago for Toledo (long story, folks, but maybe we'll get into it someday), I foundered for a bit. Couldn't find a job as rapidly as I wanted to, but all's well now. I'm working again -- bartending, reporting -- and I feel the need to write for myself again. Plus, my father has somehow managed to sound disappointed -- via email, no less -- that I haven't been posting, so I figured I wouldn't let the Old Man down.
I got a pretty cool job a few weeks back, and it's just now kicking into high gear. I'm writing for a small-town weekly called The Mirror, and I gotta admit that I like it. Sure, I occassionally have to cover zoning meetings and local festivals, but I get to take photos and the pay is decent. So I'm not complaining, you know?
I think, however, my photos would turn out a lot better if I had one of those cool photographer's vests. Just a thought...

My work ethic has obviously taken a turn for the worse. Here I am, living in a place with a super-speedy internet connection and cable TV, and I can't put together a single coherent thought to send out to the masses. Hmmm....I've let you down. I'll go now.
Whoa! Kidding! Gonna try to start posting to this mother again. So, thanks to all those who are bearing with me, and many thanks to those who have commented on the site.

Geez, what's kept me from posting to the site? Am I busy? No, I'm not working currently. Is there no news? Again, not really. So what's the deal, my faithful may ask?
Guess it's a combination of a few things. First, I'm back in my hometown, where all my longtime friends are, and I've been hanging about with them. Secondly, the job search -- frustrating under the best of circumstances -- keeps me quasi-busy and fully depressed. And finally, I guess I've just had very little to say that I feel others should take note of. Maybe I've been selfishly saving all my bons mots for people I'm trying to impress.
Anyway, here I am, back with the program (Green Eggs and Ham? Yosemite Sam!). I'll try to keep things more regular from this point on, but Lord knows I'm not about to make any promises. Still looking for that job, by the way. The DC thing didn't pan out (Promoting from within? Why make me fly out there, then?), and funds are quickly drying up.
But I...I will survive. As long as I know how to write, I know I'm still alive. I've got all my words to give and...ah, you know the rest.