Pinch me.

Rare is the chance I get to talk sports on BHG, mostly because the Cowboys, Mavericks, Stars and Rangers are annual disappointments in one way or another. But on this beautiful spring day, the last one in the month of May, I find myself somewhat astonished to find the Texas Rangers all alone in first place in the American League West. True, I could talk about how the Texas Longhorns won a 25-inning game in the College World Series last night, the longest in the history of college baseball, but I haven't been a fan of college baseball since the early 80s when the Longhorns had Roger Clemens and Spike Owen on the team. No, the early accomplishments of the Rangers this season is far more exciting to me. A few facts...

* The Rangers have a record of 30-19, second best in ALL of baseball.

* They've been in sole possession of first place for 25 straight days now, the longest they've done that since 1999---a division-winning year. With a 5.5 game lead over Anaheim, they seem destined to hold on to first for at least a good chunk of June.

* They've won 20 games in May, best ever for the team. The only other 20-plus winning month was September, 1978 (21-10). They could tie that with a win today.

* They're 13-2 against their division rivals in the West.

It's always been said that if the Rangers could just get "mediocre" pitching they could win 100 games on the strength of their offense alone. Well, with an ERA currently a full run lower than last season's, they now find themselves with the 6th best pitching in the AL...something that most definitely qualifies as mediocre or better.

Is it for real? Tim Brown at Yahoo Sports, a columnist who prepares a weekly MLB "power rankings" doesn't think so. He's been consistently ranking the Rangers well below what their record would dictate. His latest rankings have them 11th out of baseball's 30 teams, the second such week they've held that position despite having baseball's second best record for both weeks. His snarky comment for the week was, "A-a-a-nd, Rangers’ pitching collapses in 3 … 2 … 1 …". Given the Rangers' history with pitching and wilting in the summer heat, Brown's cynicism is well deserved. Still, this team is quite a bit different than in years past.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2009 is in team defense, one of the more underappreciated factors in the success of a pitching staff. The decision to promote 20-year-old phenom Elvis Andrus to the role of starting shortstop this year is proving to be nothing short of brilliant. Forgetting for the moment that he's actually contributing at the plate, something which was rather unexpected, Andrus has done exactly what the Rangers hoped he would do...get to balls. This kid is amazing and is going to put together a string of about 15 consecutive Gold Glove seasons before his career his over. His promotion forced All-Star Michael Young over to third base which has also proven to be another defensive boost. Statistically speaking, the Rangers have basically gone from worst to first in terms of their team ability to "get" to balls. That's the sort of thing which gives pitchers confidence, but it's also the sort of thing which will help the Rangers avoid any catastrophic streaks come summer. Yes, their pitching will likely weaken as the season continues, but with such a nimble defense it should keep 3-run innings from turning into 5-run disasters, and that's the sort of thing which should help the Rangers win more games than they usually do.

One other reason for a bright outlook is that their offense, traditionally one of the best in baseball, is hardly firing on all cylinders. While they do lead all of baseball in HRs, and while they are 6th in runs scored, they're largely doing it without significant contributions from two of their best hitters---Josh Hamilton and Chris Davis. Davis has 12 HRs, but he's hitting .194 and is on a record-shattering pace for strikeouts. Hamilton, who has already missed time due to a DL stint, is only hitting .234 with 6 HRs. Both players seem like prime candidates to heat up with the weather. And sure, other players can be expected to slow down offensively, but most would agree this is an underachieving offense at the moment...and that should scare everyone.

It's a cliche, but this is a looooong season and we're not even 1/3 of the way through. Nonetheless, this team looks and feels like a winner. They may not make the playoffs this year, but if you're looking for a team with the potential to be a perennial monster in the next decade, this is it. The fact they were voted as the team with the best farm system, too, should give other teams nightmares.

Breaking: The GOP Hates Romance

President Obama is in NYC tonight along with the First Lady. Why? Because it's date night, and because he promised Michelle he'd take her to a Broadway show once the campaign was finally over. Following a lovely dinner at Blue Hill in the West Village, they headed over to see "Joe Turner's Come and Gone," a play by August Wilson. Ah, nothing like dinner and a show in spring in New York, America's premiere cultural and culinary destination. Very romantic...and, apparently, according to the RNC, a perfect opportunity to lambaste the first couple.

The RNC issued a news release that chastised Obama for saying he understands American's troubles, but then hopping up to New York for "a night on the town." Noting that General Motors is expected to file for Chapter 11 protection on Monday, the news release said: "Putting on a show: Obamas wing into the city for an evening out while another iconic American company prepares for bankruptcy."

I could point out that George W. Bush spent 487 days at Camp David and 490 days at his Texas ranch during his two terms and, in fact, I will. Trying to conflate a married couple's "night on the town" with the country's economic woes is plain stupid. Is the President not allowed to maintain a relationship with his wife? I realize it costs the taxpayer's money when the President jets around on Air Force One, but isn't that just part of the whole deal of being a President? Is he supposed to go Greyhound? Besides, traveling off to New York City for such activities likely generates a lot of good will for the city which in turn translates to tourism dollars. Obama is, after all, a celebrity...and people who love celebrities like to imitate them. Isn't that right, Michael Steele? More to the point, the RNC keeps looking in all the wrong places to poke holes into Obama's armor. Their idiotic press release on this probably appeals to an extreme minority, whereas a husband keeping a promise to his wife and fanning the romantic flames of a marriage will appeal to far, FAR more people.

Friday Night Video

Tonight we're still stuck in the 80's, but at least we're off of Rick Springfield (for now) and on to something different.

My first ever rock concert was back in 1984, courtesy of my sister and loyal blog reader, Susan. Hi, Sue! She managed to score seventh row, dead center tickets to see Foreigner at Reunion Arena in Dallas, Texas, somewhere close to my 11th birthday. I remember three things about that show. First, I remember when the opening act, Robin Trower, came on stage and played his opening notes. The sound was deafening. My virginal ears had never been exposed to anything quite so loud---including my mother's voice---and I felt as though my ears were literally about to bleed. It took me most of the show before I adjusted to the pain, and several days more to regain normal hearing. I'm pretty sure I suffered some minor hearing loss that night, and I'm pretty sure I blame my sister and Robin Trower in equal measure.

The second thing I remember is some guy in front of me getting stoned and drunk out of his mind...and then throwing up on the floor inches from my feet. I was getting the full-on rock concert experience, whether I was ready for it or not. The third thing I remember is just how awesome Foreigner was. True, this was Foreigner's "Agent Provocateur" tour, meaning I had to endure the insufferable and never-ending version of "I Want to Know What Love Is," complete with a local choir who chimed in for the gospel parts, but despite that lyrical abomination, Foreigner's canon is a deep one, and they rolled out all of their many, many hits that night. One of my favorite Foreigner songs is Urgent...right from the opening notes. These were the good old days when you could get away with a sax-heavy rock song.

Here's a 1985 version of Urgent. I'm almost getting a contact high just by watching...

Movies #56 - #58: Taken, Righteous Kill, The Wrestler

I was recently asked something to the effect of, "What's with the counting movies thing on your blog? I thought the whole point was to do 30 movies in 30 days with 30-word reviews. And that was like six months ago." Indeed, the original premise was to do a 30/30/30 gimmick back in the month of November---for which I only managed to complete 24 films. The ongoing count, however, is now just a continual reference point for all new (to me) movies I've seen since November 1, 2008. I shudder to think what the 12-month total will come to, but something tells me that on October 31, 2009, the biggest scare of Halloween will be the realization of how much of my life over the past year had been wasted...wasted on films as godawful as Taken.

#56 - Taken (2008)

Released here in the states back in February, this actioner starring Liam Neeson was a surprise box office smash---raking in almost $145 million in domestic ticket sales (7th best on the year so far). Why so many people chose to pay to see a straight-to-DVD sort of movie is beyond me, but so they did...in droves, apparently. Liam Neeson, perhaps the world's most overrated actor, turns in his usual dull, wooden performance. It's almost a dead heat now between Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson in the race for least interesting "star" in Hollywood. At least Ford can still be mildly charming once in a blue moon. Neeson...not so much. I have serious doubts he'll be able to play Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's next film...unless they start the film after Lincoln's been shot. But fine. This is an action film, not an emotionally complex drama. One need not be able to act in order to look good killing people in stunt-laden ways. It's just too bad, then, that the action is only slightly less dull than Neeson. While it's not entirely the sound designer's fault, nothing seems to crackle. Gunshots sound hollow and empty. Explosions seem muted and artificial. Peeling tires squeal like someone parallel parking. Those things matter more than we care to admit. The fight scenes are sloppy and poorly edited, and the villians, Albanians, are so generic as to not care whether they live or die. (money quote warning) If you paid money for this film, you were the one who was Taken.

#57 - Righteous Kill (2008)

Oh, dear god. Why do I do this to myself? I coulda had a life. I coulda been somebody. I coulda been a screenwriting Oscar contenda. But now I'm just a bum. A bum who wasted his life on shit-tastic crap like Righteous Kill. I was easily seduced by the trailer which had the Rolling Stones' Gimme Shelter and the promise of Robert DeNiro playing opposite Al Pacino, a pairing which generated a lot of heat in the movie Heat. Since then, however, both DeNiro and Pacino have continued to spiral downward into predictable roles which play off of their well-known on-screen personas. Christopher Walken does the same thing in his films, but he stopped taking himself seriously a decade and a half ago...which is why his schtick still works. The thrill of seeing these two screen legends together quickly fades once the paint-by-numbers story gets going. Someone is going around killing bad guys, and the suspect is likely a badly-acted-cop. That means we have several red herring scenes where suspicion is cast on everyone and anyone who's billed in the cast. If you've never seen a movie before, you might somehow be held in suspense as to who the killer is. You might also be a recently thawed caveman. (money quote warning) The only Righteous Kill here would be the one that puts a bullet in your brain before you're forced to watch this.

#58 - The Wrestler (2008)

Here's a good example of why it's sometimes better to see a movie before you see or hear too much about it. It's not that I didn't like The Wrestler---I did---but because it was exactly what I was expecting, it didn't seem to move me as much I thought it would. Mickey Rourke is, as we all now know, sensational in a role that I think only Rourke could play. He IS a wrestler, for all intent and purposes, and that's astonishing. He looks like his body has been abused---because it has. He looks like he's used steroids---because he has. He seems kind of crazy---because he is. The story is, however, entirely predictable. Whether because I've seen too many movies, or whether because of my screenwriting background, following the opening scene or two I could have predicted with alarming accuracy how every future scene would unfold. And that's mostly fine, I suppose. The Wrestler is ultimately about one thing...and that's the performance of Mickey Rourke. (money quote warning) Although it's not quite up to the heavy buzz which surrounded it, you'd be well served to let The Wrestler pin you for more than three seconds.

Taken 2/10

Righteous Kill 2/10

The Wrestler 7/10

The New GOP Playbook: Atlantic City-style

Yesterday morning, sometime around 4:15am, just after the Caesar's Palace bar stopped serving drinks (is that even legal in a gambling environment?), myself and my two Atlantic City companions were approached by a man who had been asleep in the chair next to us. He'd been repeatedly woken by security since sleeping is, obviously, not permitted. He then decided to maintain his awake state by starting up a conversation. This 44-year-old man---let's call him Jerk-off (too on the nose?)---quickly announced to us that he was from Pennsylvania and was in marketing and sales. Within seconds of talking with him I already knew my next addition to the new GOP Playbook.

Rule #2: Get rid of this guy.

Now I realize it's perilous to make broad statements about the GOP based on anecdotal evidence. And I realize it's even more perilous to do so if that anecdotal evidence was obtained at an Atlantic City casino bar at 4am. Fine. Even so, there was something about this guy which I found oddly representative of many Republicans I meet. In a nutshell, Jerk-off was adept at essentially one thing: regurgitating sound bytes from conservative talk radio. To his credit, his manner of speaking was not venomous like the Limbaughs and Savages of talk radio. He did make an unintentionally racist remark about one of my friends, but he meant no harm by it. He was absurdly ignorant, but he was perfectly amiable. And the key word there is "ignorant." This man was not stupid. Like many voters who we sometimes like to broadly paint as "stupid," Jerk-off knew stuff...and has, I believe, the capacity to learn even more stuff. What Jerk-off did not possess, however, was the desire or ability to make rational connections between the stuff he knew and the stuff he simply believed.

At first, my group was entirely disinterested in engaging with him. We were more interested in finding a place to get another round, so we dispatched one of our crew to scout for a possible source. Jerk-off started with a boilerplate rant about how nobody in Congress gives a damn. Okay. Congress is an easy target and generalized anti-Congress statements are always fashionable no matter what party you belong to. He also spoke about the government being unfair when it came to his family's business. Again, even without knowing the facts behind his grievance, complaining about governmental interference in business is pretty standard fare---even if perhaps more of a GOP issue. He tipped his hand, however, when he began to single out Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania senator who recently switched parties from Republican to Democrat. It wasn't long before two memes, one old and one new, began to penetrate the conversation.

The old meme was "John Murtha wants to hug the terrorists." He actually said this. The new meme is "Nancy Pelosi should not be third in line for the presidency." These are, evidently, the main concerns of the day. The Murtha comment was really just an awkward segue into discussing the war on terror---specifically the closing of Guantanamo and the possible relocation of the 240 detainees to American soil. His argument, such as it was, was that moving the detainees here to US prisons would make us less safe by giving terrorist cells the "gumption" to carry out domestic suicide bombings. When pressed to explain the connection, he simply repeated his argument and said I was too young to understand. After I then explained that, logically, terrorists would be less likely to bomb if our country begins to treat the detainees with the basic human rights we'd previously denied them, he tried to wiggle away by claiming it's not necessarily what he believes.

The fear mongering the GOP has engaged in with respect to moving detainees to US prisons is abhorrent. It's one thing to insist on having a clear plan in place first---something that Obama, admittedly, has yet to unfurl---but it's quite another to cynically manipulate people's passions and fears for political gain. This man truly believes that moving the terrorists here will make us less safe, yet not one credible argument can be made that supports that conclusion...nor can he elucidate why he believes what he believes. But it works. The fear mongering, at least on this non-issue issue, has most definitely worked. Even the Democrats crumbled last week and joined the Republicans en masse in rejecting President Obama's request for a paltry $80 million to close Guantanamo.

His second main point, one which I largely conceded, is that Nancy Pelosi pretty much sucks. I hate Nancy Pelosi, but I mostly despise her because she gives people like Jerk-off an opportunity to focus on yet another non-issue. Pelosi has not been charged with any crime and chances are slim she committed anything worse than a nuanced massaging of the facts. I don't approve of it in the least---if in fact that's what she did---but isn't it a bit desperate to call for her head? To worry about her being the third person in the line of succession? As I recall, Tom DeLay was also once third in the line of succession. And, unlike Pelosi, DeLay did commit crimes. But whatever. It's all moot...except that I had to take 20 minutes to explain why it's all moot. I had to explain that if the Republicans showed 1/10 the passion for solving our economic woes as they do in trying to crucify Pelosi, there'd be a lot more people interested in what the GOP has to say.

In the end, I felt somewhat sad by the whole exchange. This guy wasn't a bad guy. He was polite. He loves his country. I suppose I'm more angry with the talk radio hosts and TV pundits who hammer home basic, overly generalized memes without the appropriate explanation. I have no problem with people who believe something opposite of what I believe. I do have a problem, however, with people not being able to explain why they believe what they believe. This guy was clearly in that category. Quite frankly, I'd like to think my logical and calm approach to fisking his arguments might've turned him a bit. Probably not, but given that I don't think he's actually a right-wing ideologue, I think it's possible.

So, what's the real thrust of this new rule? Get rid of people in the GOP who can't explain why they believe what they believe. If you're a Republican, challenge one another. Make your internal ideas stronger before your run out into the real world and oppose the party in power. Michael Steele's ready to fight, but I think the GOP should fight amongst themselves some more to root out the people who just don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Get them to believe ideas without the fear mongering. Get them to believe ideas without focusing on irrelevant, albeit easy-win issues. Talk it out. Use logic. Use facts. Make your voters passionate about ideas, not about things they can fear or hate. This guy is giving your party a bad name. Fix him or rebuke him.

The New GOP Playbook: Brian Speaks

Over at Posthip, Brian finally gets his shit together long enough to chime in on our "joint" blogging project to save the GOP from eternal damnation. Like me, he chose to focus in on Michael Steele's rally-the-troops speech, specifically the continued invocation by the GOP of Ronald Reagan as the end-all and be-all of both past and future Republicanism.

Here's the key portion:

Really, their constant name dropping of Reagan comes down to one thing: Reagan was, and remains, popular. They want to be popular, not because they want to be liked, but because they want Power. They don’t care why he was popular, they don’t care that the things that made him popular are the same things that make our current president popular, they are just hoping that some of his shine will rub off on them while they chant “Terrorism!”, “Enhanced Interrogation!” and “Socialism!” But it won’t.

The Republicans have no Ronald Reagan, and learned nothing from Reagan, and that is their problem. If they had a Reagan, he would have been written off as a moderate RINO by now anyway. And Reagan would be embarrassed by the blowhards and louts who say they are his heirs today.

There is something a little depressing about a party whose big idea is to look forward...by looking back. As Steele said in his speech, the GOP needs to learn from their past...but then he also said the time to fix the mistakes of the past is over. Nope, no mixed message there. Granted, there's nothing especially troubling about a struggling political party looking back to an icon of their movement for inspiration. The Democrats have always done this with JFK. It's a natural thing to do. The main point that Brian makes, however, which I fundamentally agree with, is that the GOP is failing to live up to the very principals that made Reagan so popular. Calling on a return to Reaganism is empty if not matched with actual Reagan-like actions. As Brian says, they don't want Reagan...they want Reagan's power.

As Brian points out, the things that made Reagan so popular across all walks of life are some of the very things that make Obama popular. Reagan was a handsome film star who was good with words, civil, and who exerted a calm and steadying influence as this nation's leader. He was intelligent, articulate and quick on his feet. Obama, who most people would agree shares these likable traits, instead gets reviled as a celebrity for possessing these qualities. Here's Michael Steele on Obama again:

"Folks like him. He’s got an easy demeanor. He’s a great orator. His campaign was based on change and hope. He’s young. He’s cool. He’s hip. He’s got a good looking family. What’s not to like? He’s got all the qualities America likes in a celebrity, so, of course he is popular."

If he wasn't using the word "celebrity" as a flip insult in the same way McCain did during the campaign, you'd almost think Steele was complimenting Obama. He's not. In fact, he's really insulting the American people for being stupid and vapid enough to be suckered in by such shallowness. If Steele really thinks that 2/3 of America has simply been hoodwinked by a charismatic phony with lousy ideas, I'm not sure that insulting their intelligence is the best way to bring them around.

Movies #53 - #55: Blindness, Nick & Norah, Eagle Eye

#53 - Blindness (2008)

Based on the novel by Jose Saramago, which I read and immensely enjoyed (as much as one can enjoy a novel where rape and feces are recurring elements), the movie adaptation by The Constant Gardener's Fernando Meirelles falls decidedly short of capturing the book's realistic account of a world struck by sudden blindness. It's a brilliant premise/allegory which seems almost plausible, but the movie is so severely hampered by weak acting that it never seems quite real. Unlike in the book, where genuine empathy is built for the characters enduring this waking nightmare, I pretty much didn't give a damn about their screen portrayals. It also doesn't help that Meirelles washes out most of the color in the film---a choice which would seem to make sense given the nature of the affliction, but it backfires miserably. There's nothing to be learned or enjoyed here.

#54 - Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008)

My cynical side was really looking forward to trashing Nick and Norah, but in the end my better angels prevailed. There's nothing remarkable about it, but N&N is one of the more enjoyable, sweet-natured films I've seen in awhile. It's solidly in the "teens having a crazy night out where they fall in love" genre, but it has a simple earnestness to it which I defy you to scoff at. Michael Cera plays the same role he's played his entire life, but this may be his best version of it yet. He's perhaps the most likable actor today, which is why I fear the day he turns up on TMZ.com for having beaten his girlfriend in the midst of a cocaine-fueled rage. Kat Dennings plays opposite Cera and she's a real find. I might be in love---especially after watching her hand-made puppet show on the DVD extras. N&N is also a fine tribute to New York City and really captures some of the wonder that is the city at night. I feel like a true New Yorker now that I can identify almost every location they filmed at. I'm a happier person for having seen this.

#55 - Eagle Eye (2008)

Stupid DVD-queue-skipping. (sigh) Okay, so the Pentagon has built this massive super computer, voiced by Julianne Moore, and she's so smart and principled that she decides a Bush-like administration should be executed for their overly aggressive war on terrorism...so she/it proceeds to roll out a massive plot to bomb the State of the Union address by manipulating innocent people to do her bidding. She's basically the Hal 2000, but more pissed and more powerful. D.J. Caruso, who directed the surprisingly taut Disturbia, takes the helm here and displays once again a gift for well-paced action. But did I mention that the film is about a Julianne Moore-voiced super computer who's out to bomb the State of the Union Address? That's a deal breaker, ladies! I suspect Caruso's career will end up not unlike Peter Hyams', a director who made many mediocre, but well-paced movies. More entertaining than the movie, however, is a DVD extra called "A Conversation with John Badham." Badham directed the movie War Games, from which Caruso liberally borrows for Eagle Eye. What's funny is that this 8-minute "conversation" is mostly Caruso talking at Badham. Badham occasionally nods and says, "thanks for ripping me off." Awkward.

Blindness 3/10

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist 7/10

Eagle Eye 4/10

Friday Night Video

Confession time---

Lately, especially in the wee hours of the morning when I'm anxious and can't fall asleep, I've found myself drifting back to a certain musician via YouTube whom I know isn't "cool" to listen to according to all the hip kids these days. He's no MGMT or Andrew Bird or whatever the hell I'm supposed to be listening to. He's not even cool in an ironic sort of way. He's just a 59-year-old has-been pop star/soap star. Except the dude still knows how to put together a catchy hook and I'm not ashamed to admit that I like it.

Okay. I'm ashamed.

But here, share the shame. Feel dirty in the morning, but enjoy the sugary goodness of a 2008 badly lip-synched pop song which recaptures some of the sugary goodness of a 1984-type pop song...unless you're "too good" for it, you elitist snob, you.

Special Edition: The new New GOP Playbook

Great news, everyone! Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele announced today that, "The two-party system is making a comeback, and that comeback starts today!" Thank God, because I really wasn't relishing having to explain to the GOP why they were failing and what they needed to do to right the course. It felt sort of icky. I was fortunate enough to interview him earlier in the day about specific things in his speech.

So, Michael, what's the plan?

"We are going to take the president head-on. The honeymoon is over."

Oh. The President. Wait--of the United States? That one? The one with amazingly high approval ratings?

"The president is personally popular. Pity the fool who paid for a poll to figure that out."

Holy shit---did you just quote Mister T. from Rocky III? You know he's the bad guy in that one, right? Are you sure you didn't mean to quote Mickey, or maybe Apollo Creed about getting back the "eye of the tiger?" That makes more sense. Plus, the retro-80's reference might play well in a sort of ironic fashion.

"What’s the loyal opposition to do with this popular president? We are going to speak truth to power. We are going to speak directly, and we are going to take him on."

Well, okay, sure. Truth to power is a good thing. Fine. And yeah, it's certainly possible to be loyal and a member of the opposition so long as you remember that your loyalty is to the betterment of the country and not to your party. But even so, Obama's not exactly fucking things up right now---at least not in the view of 2/3 of Americans. "Taking him on" sounds a bit unnecessarily hostile, no?

"We are going to take this president on with dignity. This will be a very sharp and marked contrast to the shabby and classless way that the Democrats and the far left spoke of President Bush."

Great! Except your need to demonize "the Democrats" by lopping the whole lot of us in with "the far left" is, of course, an ad hominem attack. Oh, and you forgot to mention how most of those shabby and classless people have turned out to be correct in their hateful remarks about Bush. Okay, not all of them...but more than even I had thought would be the case. Calling our former president a "war criminal", for example, is now actually a legitimate topic of discussion. But hey, let's not quibble. I agree with your premise, if not your delivery. Still, going after Obama? Why not try to pick off one of the stray calves first?

"They suggest that instead we should go after Nancy Pelosi, whom nobody likes. Or Harry Reid, whom nobody knows. Or this Tim Geithner fellow, whom nobody believes. Or maybe even Barney Frank, whom nobody understands."

Wait---when does the "dignity" thing start? I missed your time-frame.

"The time for trying to fix or focus on the past has ended."

But Obama's only had like 120 days to fix the eight years of mistakes you guys enabled Bush to do!!! Don't you think it's a little unseemly to just want to wipe the slate entirely clean and call an eight-year mulligan?

"The era of apologizing for Republican mistakes of the past is now officially over. It is done. We have turned the corner on regret, recrimination, self-pity and self-doubt."

Seriously, I want the name of your therapist. I've been trying to move on from my own mistakes of the past eight years and I can't quite seem to turn the corner. I mean, I'm better...but shit, if your guy can wash away two wars, torture, recession and insane amounts of debt in just 120 days, shit, I'll be fixed in just one session. My problems aint nothing compared to that.

"The Republican Party is again going to emerge as the party of new ideas. It will take some time, for sure, but it is beginning now."

How will this change come?

"This change comes in a tea bag!"

Nooooooooooooooo! Don't you realize that the Democrats successfully out maneuvered you on the whole tea bagging thing? Look. Michael. It's balls. In your mouth. There. I said it. I didn't want to have to be so explicit, but I'm starting to feel like I had to...like I need to keep on writing my playbook. Wait---where are you going?

"In the best spirit of President Reagan, it’s time to saddle up and ride!"

By "best" I assume you don't mean the one that ignored the AIDS crisis when his leadership was most needed. Yeah, probably.

Well, look, Michael...I appreciate what you're trying to do here. This tough talk approach sounds very aggressive and combative. You've shown me a lot here. You've shown me you absolutely know what to say in order to not lose your job. That's the kind of resiliency your party needs and it's, quite frankly, more than anyone thought you were capable of. However, it's the other stuff that I think isn't going to help your party too much. You know. The words. But don't worry. I'm going to help you. I'll make sure this works out well for you in the end. I am, after all, a shabby and classless Democrat. It's what we do.

Movie #52 - JCVD

#52 - JCVD (2008)

JCVD, an awful title whose initials stand for its lead actor, Jean Claude Van Damme---playing himself, is a strange and sometimes compelling attempt to playfully humanize the loony public persona of the Muscles from Brussels.

While there are some action scenes, and while the plot does surround a bank robbery gone awry, JCVD is really more of an art house meditation on the misunderstood B-movie action star, complete with more than a few passing nods to Jean Luc Godard and Charlie Kaufman. If that sounds a bit pretentious, that's because it is...but in a completely sweet sort of way. The film's premise of Van Damme wandering into a real life bank robbery is played for fewer laughs than one might expect and leads to one extraordinary scene which I've embedded below. In it, JCVD literally floats from the floor of the bank where he's being held captive, breaks the fourth wall and embarks on an emotional, six-minute monologue which was done in one take and which was largely improvised.

Another compelling scene is the extended tracking shot which opens the film. It's a ridiculously long action sequence with all of the usual Van Damme moves, but as the scene gets deeper and deeper, the absurdity of Van Damme's life and his career is drawn into sharp focus. If you've seen Tropic Thunder's opening, this is that...except done down to JCVD's scale...which is B-level mediocrity.

The fact that this film exists at all is just sort of strange.

I'm glad it does.

JCVD 6/10

Breaking: tangential Rick Springfield news

This just in, FOX has green-lighted the new series Human Target...a remake of the 1992 show starring, yes, Rick Springfield. The original show, based on a comic book character who assumes the identity of his clients in order to save them from whatever evil lurks in the hearts of men, lasted only seven episodes. Tisk, tisk. Taking over for Rick is Mark Valley, most recently seen on every so-so television show ever.

Check out the clip from the 1992 version below. Rick totally out kung-fu's David Carradine and then shows off his acting chops by out-intensifying everyone else. He can act, he can sing, he knows martial arts, and he's not a doctor but he's played one on TV. What else is left for him to accomplish???



And yeah. I totally saw all seven episodes.

Top TV Pilots of All-Time, #4

#4 South Park (1997)

Looking back at the first episode of South Park is a lot like looking back at the first episode of The Simpsons. The animation is cruder than in later seasons, the voices are less refined than the ultimate product, and the humor is tilted less towards satire and more toward shock value. Even so, the pilot of South Park is a hilarious introduction to what has become one of the best, most important and most enduring examples of contemporary comedy. In an animated landscape which includes Family Guy, not to mention countless other shows of a similar nature, it can be hard to remember just how groundbreaking South Park really was. It's also a testament to the show that it began as one thing (shock-value hilarity) and was able to evolve into another (satirical hilarity mixed with bar-raising shock-value). I remember watching this pilot at least a half dozen times and trying to get my friends to watch, too. I just couldn't believe what these little kids were saying and doing. I still can't.

Here's part 1 of the pilot commentary from Trey Parker and Matt Stone (on YouTube). I suggest synching it up to the full episode at South Park Studios---link below.



Full Episode Here

#4) South Park
#5) The Shield
#6) Hill Street Blues
#7) Mad Men
#8) Boomtown
#9) Battlestar Galactica
#10) Police Squad

There's no counter play for that.

After watching President Obama give the commencement address at Notre Dame University just now, it's hard to fathom how this man would not be reelected in three years. He's imperfect and he's perhaps overly ambitious, but I don't think I've seen a better speech in my lifetime. Given the audience, given the "controversy", and given the state of the Union, this was mindblowingly perfect. There's a reason his approval rating is still so high and it's not just because he's a smooth talker. Consider me deeply moved and proud.

A Call to Action.

Reposting from Andrew Sullivan's blog:

As you know, marriage equality is on the verge of being passed in New York State. There are around 26 votes in the Senate now in favor, and 32 are needed for passage. After the jump is a list of state senators, with phone numbers and email addresses. Contacting them soon - before they take a public stand - and urging them to back equality could make a real difference. Imagine if New York state is added to the roster of states granting civil equality. And you're really going to lag behind Connecticut?

John Sampson (D-Brooklyn)
(718) 649-7653
(518) 455-2788
sampson@senate.state.ny.us

Brian Foley (D-Suffolk County)
518-455-2303
631-360-3356

bfoley@senate.state.ny.us

Ruth Hassell-Thompson (D-Bronx)
(718) 547-8854
(518) 455-2061

hassellt@senate.state.ny.us

George Onorato (D-Astoria)
(718) 545-9706
(518) 455-3486
onorato@senate.state.ny.us

William Stachowski (D-Buffalo)
(518)-455-2426
(716)-826-3344
stachows@senate.state.ny.us

David Valesky (D-Oneida)
518-455-2838
315-478-8745
valesky@senate.state.ny.us

Shirley Huntley (D-Jamaica)
(718) 523-3069 Office
(518) 455-3531 Office
shuntley@senate.state.ny.us

Kemp Hannon (R-Nassau County)
516-739-1700
518-455-2200
hannon@senate.state.ny.us

Thomas Morahan (R-Rockland County)
(518) 455-3261
(845) 425-1818
morahan@senate.state.ny.us

Vincent Leibell (R-Putnam and Westchester Counties)
(518) 455-3111
(845) 279-3773
leibell@senate.state.ny.us

James Alesi (R-Rochester)
(518) 455-2015
(585) 223-1800
alesi@senate.state.ny.us

Friday "Night" Video

Joss Whedon's Dollhouse had its season (series?) finale last week and, while the show is still a terrible mess of interesting ideas combined with mediocre actors and dull storylines, it did get significantly better as the show wore on. I can't quite give it my stamp of approval, nor will I shed a tear if FOX goes ahead and cancels it, but television is a better landscape with a Whedon-made show on the air...so here's hoping they bring it back. In the finale, Whedon makes great use of Beck's cover of Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometimes...originally put to use in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Given that the premise of Dollhouse revolves around the technological ability to wipe one's mind, it's an apt homage...and a haunting song.

The New GOP Playbook: Rule 1

Rule #1: We all die, but old people die sooner.

There are many troubling problems facing the GOP these days, but none is greater than the ever-widening age gap. Now more than ever before, the GOP is a party of the old people, by the old people and for the old people. It's not to say that old people are unimportant, but catering to this base is the equivalent in professional sports of giving a long-term, multi-million dollar contract to a past-their-prime athlete. It may be a classy move, but it ultimately causes a team to collapse under the weight of its good intentions. So therein lies the challenge---how to expand your party's reach without alienating your current base. The simple answer is you can't...at least not without some casualties.

There will certainly be some fraction of the fringe right that will be so disgusted by the modernization of the GOP that they choose to not vote, or choose to place protest votes with third party lunatics. So be it. It's always better to take two steps forward and one step back than to take one step forward and two steps back. But more importantly, the so-called base of the GOP isn't going anywhere with their vote. This is the thing that none of the GOP leaders seem to realize. The base, typically white, Christian, pro-life voters who place extra emphasis on values issues, are never going to vote Democrat. They might bemoan how the GOP has lost its way and lost whatever backbone it once had, but in the end they'll still vote for the red side of the ticket even if the candidate is moderate on certain social issues. Trust me on this.

This, in fact, was the major tactical mistake made by John McCain in the last election. History books will make it seem as though Obama's victory was an easy one, but let's not forget that this was basically a dead heat until the conventions---and temporarily closer after the inane pick of Sarah Palin for VP. Obama was slightly ahead, but McCain was well within the margin of error in most polls. Still, everyone said the Palin pick was made because he needed a "Hail Mary," something I couldn't disagree with more. What he needed was an efficient two-minute offense, something a veteran politician like McCain is capable of doing. Some may disagree, but I believe McCain would have won in November had he remained closer to the McCain that at one point had me somewhat ambivalent about who would win the election. Instead, McCain's sprint to the right, his dash to embrace the most fanatical and distasteful elements of his party, and his willingness to play Rovian politics all made him popular with one and only one group...old Republicans...the same people who were going to vote for him anyway. Way to go, smart guy.

Much is always made in each election year about the youth vote and, historically, the impact of the youth vote ends up being more talk than substance. But no longer. Generation-Y, aka the "millennials", are children who were born between 1982 and 2003. This group, of which only 41% were eligible to vote in 2008, currently identify themselves as Democrats by a ratio of 2:1 versus Republicans, and they're the first in four generations to contain more self-perceived liberals than conservatives. A tracking poll by Daily Kos, an admittedly liberal blog, showed that 65% of millennials had a favorable opinion of the Democrats whereas just 9% held a favorable opinion of the Republican party. Even allowing for the possibility of biased results, the overall message of the poll rings true---the GOP is not the party of young, idealistic minds...and, on its present course, stands very little chance of narrowing that gap significantly. In 2010, for the midterm elections, about 50% of the millennials will be eligible to vote, 60% in 2012...at which point they are expected to make up about 25% of the voting electorate...or roughly the percentage of Americans who consider themselves Republicans right now. Even more important, however, is that millennials vote. Unlike the jaded Generation-X crowd, voter participation amongst the millennials has been consistently rising, and they're also more inclined toward volunteerism and community service. Much of this is explained in a fascinating article in the Los Angeles Times. You can question the numbers, but dismissing the conclusions would be a mistake.

So why are so many young voters more liberal than past young voters? That's a question that could take hours to answer, but I'll simply say that the GOP doesn't do a good job of trying to understand who these young voters are and why they believe what they believe. Anecdotally speaking, Michael Steele's embarrassing attempts to be the cool, black guy of the GOP pretty much explains it all. Young voters are smart enough and savvy enough (thank you, pop culture) to recognize a fraud when they see it. I don't dislike Michael Steele, but pretending to be ghetto when he's obviously the whitest black man on the planet is so inauthentic as to be seen for exactly what it is...a feigned attempt at appearing like something that the GOP is not. You can put some lipstick and bling on the GOP, but it's still the party of Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck.

If the statistics about millennial voters are to be believed, and if the GOP continues on its present course, the Democrats will be in power for the rest of my lifetime. Ergo, the GOP must change course immediately and realize that they are dead in the water without shaving into the party gap in the youth vote. In the next chapter, I'll tell them how.

Chickens, here is where you shall roost.

I'm not going to name names---you know who you are---but I think it's safe to say beyond a shadow of a doubt that those who ridiculed my claims years ago that "space junk" was a growing threat to space missions can pretty well suck it. Oh, sure, it's all fun and games to make fun of the space geek...right up until a microscopic piece of space shit rips a pin-sized hole in your ship's hull that causes an instantaneous implosion of all five of your astronautic senses.

Some of that science might be wrong.

But you still know who you are, so suck it, anti-space junk doubters.

Space junk raises risks for Hubble repair mission

WASHINGTON – Space shuttle Atlantis is now in a rough orbital neighborhood — a place littered with thousands of pieces of space junk zipping around the Earth at nearly 20,000 mph. There are more pieces of shattered satellites and used-up rockets in this region than astronauts have ever encountered. And the crew must be there for more than a week to repair the Hubble Space Telescope. As soon as the job is complete, the shuttle will scamper to safety.

The telescope orbits about 350 miles above Earth, a far dirtier place than where shuttles normally fly. And all those tiny projectiles raise the constant threat of a potentially fatal collision.

Physicists Prove That Vampires Could Not Exist

Two physicists have published an academic paper where they demonstrate, by virtue of geometric progression, that vampires could not exist, since they would almost immediately deplete their entire food supply (a.k.a, all of us)...

But they failed to explain the existence of Rick Ocasec.

Movie #51 Redbelt

Been awhile since I had a chance to update the "crappy movies I have recently viewed" segment of Boy Hates Girl, but it's back...for your soul-killing displeasure.

#51 -Redbelt (2008)



David Mamet and Ultimate Fighting mixed martial arts? Yup. It goes a little something like this...

Guy 1: "You should go to the fight?"

Guy 2: "The fight?"

Guy 1: "Yeah, the fight."

Guy 2: "I don't fight."

Guy 1: "You don't fight?"

Guy 2: "I don't fight."

Guy 1: "You should."

Guy 2: "I should what?"

Guy 1: "You should fight."

Guy 1: "I don't fight."

And then Rebecca Pidgeon comes in and fucks it up while a magician pulls dice out of his ass. I'm only half kidding. No, less than half kidding.

It's not that Redbelt is a bad movie---it's not---but who the fuck cares about mixed martial arts? I know the "sport" is growing in popularity, but it's mostly a bunch of guys who hold each other and roll around on a mat until one of them taps out. I don't deny the skill involved, but I object to the premise that it makes for a good movie (gay porn excluded). Chiwetel Ejiofor is an actor I like, but as the lead in Redbelt his character is so zen and dispassionate that it makes him a little too dull to root for. More interesting is Tim Allen as a boozy Hollywood star whose path crosses with Ejiofor's during a bar brawl. Only one problem...Allen vanishes from the movie just as his character strikes up some curiosity!

It's a little unfair to call this a "Mamet" movie. Although he wrote and directed it, and although it has his usual cast of cronies like Joe Mantegna, Ricky Jay and Rebecca Pidgeon, this is just a fight film. It's a genre piece, pure and simple. Whatever elevated class you want to associate with a Mamet script, it's really not in here.

So, does it work as a "fight" film? Meh.

Grade: 4/10

In a world gone mad... (movie trailer guy voice)

I just stumbled upon semi-old news that Steven Soderbergh is adapting the book Moneyball, a work of non-fiction which describes how Oakland Athletics manager Billy Beane revolutionized the game of baseball through his reliance on sabermetrics. What's sabermetrics, you ask? It's a way to study baseball through the careful analysis of objective evidence, mostly statistics. Yes, Steven Soderbergh is making a movie about baseball...statistics.

And who will take on the lead role of Billy Beane? Brad motherfucking Pitt, that's who. The film also stars alleged comedian Demitri Martin as "Paul De Podesta, a Harvard grad who turned down Wall Street jobs to use his statistical skills to change baseball scouting tactics." But wait. There's more. Bill James, the inventor of sabermetrics and a god to rotisserie baseball geeks everywhere will also be represented in it. Animated. An animated Bill James starring in a Steven Soderburgh directed movie next to Brad motherfucking Pitt as Billy Beane. I am not making this up. Even Darryl Strawberry and Scott Hatteberg are in it. I'll shit myself if Rob Neyer is played by an animatronic version of himself.



Steven Zaillian, whom I love, did the polish for the script, and the book is supposed to be good, so this might end up better than I think. The concept of this being an actual movie, however, is sort of mindblowing. And maybe that's the point? It's also worth pointing out that Soderburgh's latest movie, The Girlfriend Experience, is just now available on Amazon.com's video on demand as a pre-theatrical rental. It stars real life porn star Sasha Grey as a Manhattan escort. From movies about porn stars to movies about baseball stat research. God bless you, Steven Soderburgh.

Top TV Pilots of All-Time, #5

Miss me? Don't worry. I'll never leave you. At least not until this countdown is finally concluded, which, at this rate, will then be an obsolete list (thus necessitating a brand new countdown which will keep this going on in eternal perpetuity).

#5 The Shield (2002)



The last pilot on this list was the "gritty" cop drama Hill Street Blues, a show whose influence can be easily seen on almost every cop drama that has since followed. The Shield, an FX drama starring Michael Chiklis as a rogue cop, is basically Hill Street Blues on steroids. Indeed, the character of Vic Mackey is somewhat of a cross between Blues' Sgt. Mick Belker and Lt. Norman Buntz, all three of whom are tough, conflicted and whose behaviour borders on primal.

I'll just cut to the chase right away (not unlike how The Shield's pilot opens---see below) and say that the single most significant thing about the pilot is its ending. If you don't want to know what happens, stop reading this immediately. While the pilot moves along at a quick and entertaining pace, there's just no good way to discuss the genius of the pilot without revealing a very big plot point...which I will do following the spoiler alert below.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

The character of Vic Mackey is presented as a cop who's willing to break the rules in the name of justice. It's not exactly an original premise, but the intensity with which Chiklis tackles the role is unforgettable. We know he's dirty and under investigation, but as a family man who seems to have the best interests of his community and children at heart, the audience easily accepts him as an anti-hero. He's The Commish, for crissakes. We love that guy, right? In one character-defining scene, a suspect with knowledge about the whereabouts of a child abductee laughingly suggests during an interrogation that Mackey is playing the role of "bad cop". His response? "Good cop and bad cop left for the day. I'm a different kind of cop." Understatement of the year. He then proceeds to beat the suspect with a phone book until the information is revealed...saving a little girl who had been raped and kidnapped. Perhaps Cheney watches this show, too.

By the end of the pilot we've grown to accept Mackey as more good than bad, more helpful than harmful, more likable than not. And then comes the left hook you never see coming. Earlier in the pilot we learn that one of the members of Mackey's strike force team, a newcomer, is actually working for the Feds to try to expose Mackey's tight knit crew as the corrupt force they are. The show is set up to proceed in later episodes with that conflict as the major premise. And then BLAM. Mackey murders him in the final scene. In cold blood. For the purely selfish reason of not wanting to be caught and exposed. It's dizzying. The murder of an innocent police officer goes beyond the realm of acceptable behavior for an anti-hero and, yet, that's the star of the show. Are we supposed to like him? Hate him?

Even more problematic to consider---what if we're better off with people like Mackey? Not to get overly political, but one could easily view parts of The Shield as an allegory for the illegal antics of the Bush administration. People talk about "24" as one reason why torture is shockingly viewed as increasingly acceptable by the American people. More interesting to me, however, is seeing the self-perpetuating downward spiral that such behavior causes---and in that regard, The Shield is invaluable. It's the best dramatic example of the ends vs. means argument.

Chicklis won an Emmy for his performance in Season 1, and the victory was a stunning upset. Not only did it basically "make" the FX network, but it also signaled a change had come in both the quality and in the recognition of original programming for prime-time basic cable programming. The pilot was also nominated for best directing and best writing. The Shield is most definitely not for everyone. It's vulgar, it's crude, it's violent, and it's upsetting. But it is not gratuitous. It's decidedly purposeful and the result was the creation of one of the most memorable characters in television history. The Shield concluded it's seventh and final season this past November, and it somehow managed to remain fresh almost the entire time.

"Close your eyes...this will only hurt for a second."

Golfer Jason Dufner, left, and rules official Tony Wallin, center, survey the situation after Dufner's drive off the first tee ended up in the lap of embarrassed spectator Miranda Cooper, 18, during the third round of the Quail Hollow Championship tournament in Charlotte, N.C., on May 2. A marker was placed under her chair and Dufner played the hole without penalty.

The New GOP Playbook. (Introduction)

As referenced in a previous post, fellow neurotic blogger Brian Patterson and I will be periodically offering genuine and sincere advice on how the Republican party can end their downward spiral into oblivion. This was a bit more timely before Time Magazine put out their cover story today---"Endangered Species: How the Republicans Lost Their Way, and How They Can Come Back," but that just shows how relevant this issue really is. Brian can (and will) speak to his own reasons for doing so, but mine are really quite simple. While I lean heavily toward the values and principles most represented by the Democratic party, I also recognize that every policy, every belief, every idea and every value is best served when there is a legitimate opposition in place who can question and challenge their wisdom. Essentially, my "Democratic" beliefs are made more whole by the presence of a viable Republican party. The Democrats are not always right, and the Republicans are not always wrong.

In a perfect world, one without overly partisan gamesmanship, this clash of ideas would serve to create a more perfect idea...by acknowledging weakness where it exists and working to strengthen it so that it ultimately serves the greater good. That sort of political utopia will never quite come to fruition, but a lesser version, one which has existed in our government before, is not out of reach. But, sadly, we're probably as far from that state as we've ever been before due to the chaos which is, quite clearly, ruining what's left of the GOP. In truth, the Democratic party is deeply flawed and could also stand to have their playbook rewritten...no matter how thrilling their recent successes have been. But for now, in this emergency triage situation, I feel it's more important to help the GOP, lest we end up sticking a toe tag on them once and for all.

If you're a Republican and you find this paternalistic effort condescending, then you're likely part of the problem. Good ideas are good ideas no matter what form they take or from whose mouth they spring. Intellectual rigidity, a contradiction if ever there was one, is a cancerous way of thought which must be eradicated. Intellectual fluidity, however, is the light that can lead us through the darkness. Brian and I are going to try and help flip that switch. Yes, in the end, this is just another form of intellectual masturbation for the benefit of a tiny, disinterested audience (you know who you are), but it's either this or watch Dollhouse...and I'm finding this slightly more worthwhile at the moment.

Keanu Reeves set to play multiple bad roles.

This just in:

Keanu Reeves to star in updated "Jekyll"

What's worse than a character portrayed by Keanu Reeves? Try two characters portrayed by Keanu Reeves. Not only will we get to see him suck as Dr. Jekyll, but we'll also get to see him suck as Mr. Hyde, too. I smell a blockbuster. Next up for Keanu, The Three Faces of Eve.

Friday Night Video

Not exactly Friday night yet, but screw it, this is as close as I can come to being on time.

This week the Met hosted it's annual Costume Institute Gala, a lavish display of beauty and excess capped off with a live performance by Kanye West...the muthafucking voice of our generation. South Park recently parodied West in a hilarious episode in which Kanye is the only person on the planet who can't seem to understand a basic pun/joke about fishsticks v. fishdicks. The episode is a classic, but the musical parody at the end is a perfect take on Kanye's style which further demonstrates the genius of Trey Parker and Matt Stone. They make it look so easy sometimes...

A taste of death.

Here's a short, crudely shot video from Daft in Death. I imagine there will be a full length one at some point, but here's a bit of the bit. It might be helpful to know that Mia is playing God, and Jason is playing a recently deceased douchebag.

And that's a wrap.

Last Tuesday night was the last of seven performances of Daft in Death, the short play I wrote for BritBits 5, a British-themed production of nine short plays produced by the Mind the Gap Theatre Company of Manhattan. The last four shows played to a packed house and the entire run was well attended. The experience, from start to finish, was overwhelmingly positive and informative and was exactly the kick in the pants I needed. Having previously written almost exclusively for the screen, the process of writing a piece for the stage was liberating. Whereas screenwriting is always about "word economy," saying more with less, playwriting seems to be a medium where overly loquacious characters are encouraged. I have to say, not being told to "cut cut cut" is rather freeing and certainly helpful to the creative process. I was told on more than one occasion to "add add add." That's downright refreshing.

I'd also like to extend my thanks and gratitude to the many friends and coworkers who ventured out to see the production, as well as to those who were unable to make it but who shared encouraging words nonetheless. Even though I was cowering in the back of the audience on most nights, there's a certain feeling of nakedness and vulnerability in seeing something one has written performed live. It was downright excruciating the first few times. Nails were bitten, alcoholic libations were consumed. But the last performance---which also happened to be the best---was absolutely enjoyable. The short itself is imperfect. Some jokes work, some jokes don't. Still, I think on balance it was very well received and seemed to garner the biggest, most consistent laughs of the evening. Instant gratification. Kind of fun.

I also need to extend a very special thanks to my friend Mia Moreland, the brilliant actress who asked me to write something for her (repeatedly...for years) and whose continued encouragement (or nudging) finally got me to do it. I'm heavily biased in this matter, but her performance was nothing short of phenomenal. Not to get all Inside the Actor's Studio here, but it was fascinating to see her work through the character and discover elements to it that I had not considered. In terms of the "process," it was a perfect example of maintaining the integrity of the script while making it something more than what was written on the page. Mia, I cannot thank you enough. Nor can I ignore the contributions of Jason Grossman, the actor playing a bastardized version of myself, or Paula D'Alessandris, the Director in whose capable hands Daft in Death was turned over to. Thank you all so much for your hard work and dedication.

Many of you have asked me, "now what?" The short answer is that I've begun work on a full-length play---not content for a mere 12 minutes of limelight, of course. Assuming it turns out decent, I hope to pull together enough financing to stage a production of it sometime within the next year. It's ambitious, so who knows what will happen along the way, but there you have it. Below are some production stills from the play, and in a separate post I'll put up a video or two to give you a taste of what it was like. If anyone is interested in seeing the script, let me know and I'll forward it along to you.

Dirigo

If you haven't already heard, the state of Maine officially legalized gay marriage today...the fifth such state to do so. I was going to try and find out what Maine's state motto was so that I could make some clever pun off of it, but instead I'll just let their odd motto speak for itself. Dirigo. That's the whole motto. Dirigo. It's Latin for "I lead," which is too charming and perfect for me to make fun of today. Maine has led. Others will follow. Forty-five others, to be exact. And soon.

My Red Carpet Photo

I think I did my job at the Met's Costume Institute Gala tonight too well. The goal, apart from the actual responsibilities of the job, is to avoid getting into too many shots...unlike, say, the ubiquitous Sarah Wilson (wretched, Sarah Wilson). But surely, given my location on the carpet, I could have "accidentally" ended up in more shots than what I seem to be finding on the wire services. Alas, here's my Red Carpet Photo for 2009. Behold!