Since my knowledge of football circulates primarily around the NCAA, I'll let my good buddy Tyler Norris break down the start of the 2009-2010 NFL season. For those of you who think this site is just about college football, let me throw out a simple quote from Howard Dean:
Byahhh!
(His on-point title also makes for a good follow up to the (500) Days of Summer review. I even thought of the unbearably corny title "After 500 Days of Summer comes 150 Days of American Bliss;" but as you will soon see, Tyler can actually write, whereas I can only ramble and come up with stupid titles.)
So now let's get to the goods...
150 Days of American Bliss
Tyler Norris
Today starts the greatest 5 months of the year. Yes, the 2009-2010 NFL season has commenced. And yes, that is 5 MONTHS of professional football. For those of you who think that that is too much, you must be a Yankee's fan or simply, Un-American. Super Bowl XLIV (or 43 for our non-Roman friends) is exactly 150 days away, which means that the NFL season is almost into the second week of February and that the Super-Duper-Extra-Special-Early-Bird Rate on hotels in South Florida is in effect.
American sports today has all become about the future. It ranges from betting on who will win the World Series to NFL Draft hype (where players will be effective in 3-5 years) or my personal favorite those tricky little March Madness brackets. The NFL is no different, we have football predictions or as we say in the industry, 'Pick 'Em's. This constitutes going through and picking each and every game each and every week. The winner of course being the person who correctly picks the most games out of the year (or usually who remembers to keep up with it each week).
The start of the NFL season is an exciting time for most sports fans. It is the start of spending over 8 hours in a bar in one day and not considered to “have a problem.” No, it is dozens of people wearing the jerseys of teams they love and worship. This is the greatest time in sports for most of the fans in this country, from the ASTRONOMICAL number of people who play Fantasy Football (I have 4 teams this year) to people who make amusing T-shirts to celebrate opening day... (i.e. “My Other Shirt is a Puffy Jacket, or “Back-up QB Hall of Fame”) for the Titans vs. Steelers. Which all brings me back around to my point – the beginning of the season and my predictions.
There are some obvious predictions such as that the Patriots and Chargers will make the playoffs and subsequently the Lions and Browns will not. But this is all part of the system, the system that no one agrees on and people over analyze and over think, I am one of those people. Still, there are some things that cannot be avoided in considering the outcome of how good teams will be this year. For starters, Strength of Schedule (SOS) is one of the greatest factors in sports today, this is how Tom Brady threw for 76 yards and the Patriots still go 11-5. After that it is simply a mix of weighing home field advantage, program coaching stability, skill position talent, and simply who is a better team (the Saints will most likely beat the 0-16 Lions).
But as the leaves start to think about falling, Rudy starts to do sprints in the Notre Dame Stadium concourse, and Christmas decorations start to fill the shelves, the pigskin is picked up by some of the greatest athletes in the world not named Phelps or Bolt. Coincidently, has there ever been a better name for an athlete than Bolt? I think not, I'm talking to you Chad Ochocinco! So me and my fellow fans clad in respective jerseys, pints of beer in our hands will cheer once more for our teams remembering that everyone is even in Week 1. And if not, we put our sights in the future, after all, the 2010 NFL Draft starts in 224 days.
Final Bullets:
-This is the 50th Anniversary of the AFL, look for the throwback uniforms from the original 8 franchises. This all coincides with the UFL opening its inaugural season in a few weeks, lets see if this future Triple A league can survive or be absorbed.
-The Detroit Lions have a current losing streak of 17 games, the NFL record is the 1976-77 Steve Spurrier-led Tampa Bay Buccaneers (26 games). The Lions do not play a sub-.550 team until week 8; which, if things go according to plan (or not according to plan, if you're actually a Lions fan), their streak could reach 25 games without much problem. Will this team make history with a failure of epic proportions? Wait and see.
-You can follow along and play against me in ESPN's Pigskin Pick 'Em. Just search for “Sully's World” group in the public leagues and sign up.
-Opening Day Pick : Steelers over the Titans covering the spread to win by a touchdown.
Other picks and yearly predictions to follow soon...
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
(500) Days of Summer - Review
This is a call-Sam-Gooley-after-it's-over (CSGAIO) movie, and by CSGAIO, I mean it's really stinkin' good. Like classic romantic comedy good. And if you want to know why - well, read along with me...
First off, (500) Days of Summer is a fresh new take on romantic comedies. By experimenting with new ways of filmmaking and storytelling, (500) Days doesn't fit the cookie-cutter image of your run-of-the-mill, "starring Kate Hudson" romantic comedy. Here are 3 reasons why:
1. It starts with the cast. Does anyone remember Joseph Gordon Lovett as anyone except the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun? Even when I saw 10 Things I Hate About You, I thought, "Dude, that's the kid from 3rd Rock, ain't it?" And Zooey Deschanel, does anyone remember her as anyone othern than William Miller's sister in Almost Famous, or as an elf lover in ... well ... Elf? Because these actors aren't superstars, I believe the audience will watch the movie without any pre-conceived notions of how they're supposed to act; thus putting more faith in the story itself and the characters within it.
(If anyone even thinks about Failure to Launch during any part of this review, I will somehow find out; and I will laugh at you. Has anyone seen that episode of Family Guy when Peter talks about sitting through that movie? If not, watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BtFScDdki0 Classic. It's all I think about whenever anyone mentions that God-awful movie.)
2. It "Tarantino's" the plot. Much like the the work of Inglourious Basterds director Quentin Tarantino, (500) Days jumps around in time so that we don't get bored with the same plotlines of every relationship movie ever. Tom and Summer go through all the same challenges couples go through -- that part doesn't (and really can't, if you think about it) change -- but by putting a number on each day, we look forward to which part comes next.
3. It utilizes old tools in new, innovative ways.
3a. Keen Narration. Our narrator sounds like a guy who does voiceovers for National Geographic specials. "There are two types of people in this world. There are men; and there are women," he says. While he sounds boring, the narrator only comes in at key points in the story (as opposed to parts in other films where narration is told in first person, and only summarizes the weaker parts of the storyline), and provides in-your-face commentary on how to react to what's going on. For example, we're quickly reminded that (500) Days of Summer isn't a love story; rather, it's a story about love. After we find out that Summer is not a season, but a character in the film, we should know that the relationship has a timeline.
3b. Split Screens. Quite possibly my favorite scene (other than the one I'm about to mention) is when we see that Tom's expectations of an upcoming event are greatly different than the reality that unfolds. Instead of playing his expectations, followed by the reality - director Marc Webb opts to use a split screen to give a side-by-side comparison of "Expectations" (left side of screen) versus "Reality" (right side of screen). It's a sad scene, but nonetheless brilliantly constructed.
3c. Soundtrack. My favorite scene is the musical number. Seriously, how can you not love a spontaneous dance sequence filmed to Hall & Oates' "You Make My Dreams Come True?" What better way to describe a feeling than that! Also, (500) Days does for Regina Spektor's heartwrenching voice what When Harry Met Sally did for Harry Connick Jr.'s laid-back jazz. I could go on for hours about this soundtrack, but only if a really desperate reader of this blog puts in a request.
What also makes it a near-classic is the chemistry between the characters, combined with the situations they are confronted with. As our narrator so eloquantly points out, Tom Hanson is a hopeless romantic who believes he will know the moment he finds "the one;" and Summer is the girl who doesn't share in his belief. How it all plays out is something for you to find out when you see it. (I mean, I can't explain it all for you. I gotta leave something for you to take with you to the theatre. Go see it. Seriously.)Yea, it's still a story of boy-meets-girl; and yea, it tells all the up's and down's of a modern-day relationship. What makes (500) Days of Summer one of the summer's greatest movies is the story itself, how how it's told unlike any other romantic comedy. And if you appreciate that, you will not leave disappointed.
The only reason why I deem this film to be a near-classic, and not a total classic, is because time plays a roll in the quality of romantic comedies. If you don't believe me, take Say Anything. It was a classic! ...when it came out. Who couldn't deny John Cusak pouring his heart out through the voice of Peter Gabriel. Seriously. I still can't wait to do that for a girl - it's pure ballsy. Now that it's been 20 years, people turn to When Harry Met Sally as the classic from the late 80's, and many times forget to mention Say Anything until someone (like me, who still loves it) brings it up. Another example: Love, Actually. We're quickly seeing this film dip into romantic comedy mediocrity, and why? Because there isn't a tag line that makes it stand the test of time. That sucks, because this film is awesome. Let's hope the Christmas motif allows it to at least be a turn-to during the holiday season.
(500) Days of Summer will be a film I remember forever. It got me. Now will it be remembered by everyone else - thus making it a classic? Only time will tell.
Grade: A
First off, (500) Days of Summer is a fresh new take on romantic comedies. By experimenting with new ways of filmmaking and storytelling, (500) Days doesn't fit the cookie-cutter image of your run-of-the-mill, "starring Kate Hudson" romantic comedy. Here are 3 reasons why:
1. It starts with the cast. Does anyone remember Joseph Gordon Lovett as anyone except the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun? Even when I saw 10 Things I Hate About You, I thought, "Dude, that's the kid from 3rd Rock, ain't it?" And Zooey Deschanel, does anyone remember her as anyone othern than William Miller's sister in Almost Famous, or as an elf lover in ... well ... Elf? Because these actors aren't superstars, I believe the audience will watch the movie without any pre-conceived notions of how they're supposed to act; thus putting more faith in the story itself and the characters within it.
(If anyone even thinks about Failure to Launch during any part of this review, I will somehow find out; and I will laugh at you. Has anyone seen that episode of Family Guy when Peter talks about sitting through that movie? If not, watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BtFScDdki0 Classic. It's all I think about whenever anyone mentions that God-awful movie.)
2. It "Tarantino's" the plot. Much like the the work of Inglourious Basterds director Quentin Tarantino, (500) Days jumps around in time so that we don't get bored with the same plotlines of every relationship movie ever. Tom and Summer go through all the same challenges couples go through -- that part doesn't (and really can't, if you think about it) change -- but by putting a number on each day, we look forward to which part comes next.
3. It utilizes old tools in new, innovative ways.
3a. Keen Narration. Our narrator sounds like a guy who does voiceovers for National Geographic specials. "There are two types of people in this world. There are men; and there are women," he says. While he sounds boring, the narrator only comes in at key points in the story (as opposed to parts in other films where narration is told in first person, and only summarizes the weaker parts of the storyline), and provides in-your-face commentary on how to react to what's going on. For example, we're quickly reminded that (500) Days of Summer isn't a love story; rather, it's a story about love. After we find out that Summer is not a season, but a character in the film, we should know that the relationship has a timeline.
3b. Split Screens. Quite possibly my favorite scene (other than the one I'm about to mention) is when we see that Tom's expectations of an upcoming event are greatly different than the reality that unfolds. Instead of playing his expectations, followed by the reality - director Marc Webb opts to use a split screen to give a side-by-side comparison of "Expectations" (left side of screen) versus "Reality" (right side of screen). It's a sad scene, but nonetheless brilliantly constructed.
3c. Soundtrack. My favorite scene is the musical number. Seriously, how can you not love a spontaneous dance sequence filmed to Hall & Oates' "You Make My Dreams Come True?" What better way to describe a feeling than that! Also, (500) Days does for Regina Spektor's heartwrenching voice what When Harry Met Sally did for Harry Connick Jr.'s laid-back jazz. I could go on for hours about this soundtrack, but only if a really desperate reader of this blog puts in a request.
What also makes it a near-classic is the chemistry between the characters, combined with the situations they are confronted with. As our narrator so eloquantly points out, Tom Hanson is a hopeless romantic who believes he will know the moment he finds "the one;" and Summer is the girl who doesn't share in his belief. How it all plays out is something for you to find out when you see it. (I mean, I can't explain it all for you. I gotta leave something for you to take with you to the theatre. Go see it. Seriously.)Yea, it's still a story of boy-meets-girl; and yea, it tells all the up's and down's of a modern-day relationship. What makes (500) Days of Summer one of the summer's greatest movies is the story itself, how how it's told unlike any other romantic comedy. And if you appreciate that, you will not leave disappointed.
The only reason why I deem this film to be a near-classic, and not a total classic, is because time plays a roll in the quality of romantic comedies. If you don't believe me, take Say Anything. It was a classic! ...when it came out. Who couldn't deny John Cusak pouring his heart out through the voice of Peter Gabriel. Seriously. I still can't wait to do that for a girl - it's pure ballsy. Now that it's been 20 years, people turn to When Harry Met Sally as the classic from the late 80's, and many times forget to mention Say Anything until someone (like me, who still loves it) brings it up. Another example: Love, Actually. We're quickly seeing this film dip into romantic comedy mediocrity, and why? Because there isn't a tag line that makes it stand the test of time. That sucks, because this film is awesome. Let's hope the Christmas motif allows it to at least be a turn-to during the holiday season.
(500) Days of Summer will be a film I remember forever. It got me. Now will it be remembered by everyone else - thus making it a classic? Only time will tell.
Grade: A
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Evaluating the BCS Era - Chris Miller's Take
For those of you starting to get sick of me taking 2 weeks to count down the Top Ten Films of the 2000s, here's a little something to get you thinking about next week.
What's coming next week, you ask?
GREAT question!
After the release of the #1 Film of the 2000s, we will be ringing in the new college football season by counting down the Top 10 Teams of the BCS Era.
Why did you just say, "we," Mike?
ANOTHER. GREAT. Question!
For those of you tired of Mike Sullivan rambling about movies all the time, I'll be having a few point-counterpoint evaluations with two of my best friends from high school who can carry their weight with college football knowledge: Chris Miller and Tyler Norris.
As mentioned in my article previewing the Best of the 2000s, Chris and I always catch up every August to preview the upcoming season; talk about how the SEC should break apart from the NCAA to start the Division 1-Alpha class; and predict which Big Ten team we get to toy with in January. He's a Georgia fan and alum; and I'm a Tar Heel whose heart rests in Florida. While we may not be the best of friends around Halloween (about the time of the Florida/Georgia game in Jacksonville, aka the World's Largest Cocktail Party), we're pretty tight for the other 11 weeks and bowl season. I'll be the first to admit that he knows more about college football than anyone else I know; and his opinion far out-weighs the fact that he pulls for Georgia.
Case-in-point, when I told him I was about to count down the Top Ten Teams of the BCS Era, he had his Top 10 sent to me the following morning, complete with director's-cut-worthy commentary for each pick. (If you think "director's-cut-worthy" is a complement, you are absolutely right.) Listed below is his word-for-word analysis of his Top Ten Individual Teams of the BCS Era, and your official preview to our next segment on Sully's World:
1. Miami Hurricanes (2001)
Incredible depth that the Detroit Lions would drool over. Starting NFL running backs on the BENCH for this team. Just obliterated people. #1 no doubt.
(Those NFL starting running backs - Clinton Portis, Willis McGahee, and Frank Gore - went to 4 Pro Bowls between them. Miami Hurricanes: 21 ... Detroit Lions: 17)
2. Texas Longhorns (2005)
This might actually be the best TEAM on the list, vs. the amazing collection of talent that Butch Davis put together in South Beach. Vince Young, regardless of his meltdown in Nashville, just could not be stopped in college; and this defense did just enough to stop the All-World Offense of the 2005 USC Trojans.
3. USC Trojans (2004)
The improved version of the 2003 team that split the title. Tons of NFL players on offense and a great defense (that the 2005 squad lacked) helped these Trojans make Bob Stoops and Oklahoma wish they never took the field.
(38 points in 20 minutes ... all in the first half.)
4. Florida State Seminoles (1999)
An offensive machine as usual with the Mark Richt Seminole offense of the 1990s. Throw in an undefeated season with wins over Miami, #3 Florida, and Michael Vick's Hokies, and the fact that this was the first wire-to-wire #1 in NCAA history, and you'll get a feel for how good this team really was.
(Peter Warrick, I hate you. These comments in parentheses are Mike, by the way.)
5. Florida Gators (2008)
The first non-undefeated team on the list could easily compete with the top teams. After an early season loss to an under-rated Ole Miss team, Tim Tebow personally saw to it that his team wouldn't lose again. With an offense with more weapons than Plaxico Burress at a night club, Coach Urban Meyer utilized his scheme to make this team very tough to stop. Stay tuned for the 2009 version.
(woo!)
6. Auburn Tigers (2004)
Think about it now, if an SEC team goes through the season undefeated and wins the SEC Championship, they have to go to the BCS Championship Game, right? Well, not so fast... Just as Oklahoma pulled off an "Ohio State vs. the SEC" performance in the title game, Auburn's four first-round draft picks did their usual work as Cadillac, Ronnie Brown, and friends did work to finish off the undefeated season in New Orleans.
7. LSU Tigers (2003)
Saban's only championship so far, this defense suffocated teams. Just ask "Heisman winner" Jason White. Justin Vincent and the running game was unstoppable and the other NFL talent on offense made this a great, great football team.
8. USC Trojans (2005)
An undefeated regular season with an other-worldly offense led ESPN to pit this team against the other great teams of all eras to decide if this was the greatest team ever. Then something happened. They played in the Rose Bowl. Against non-Pac 10 team who actually had something called a defense. Whose offense scored more points. Which means they won. Oops.
9. Tennessee Volunteers (1998)
The year after Archie's son graduates (without beating Florida, cough, cough), Coach Fulmer produces an undefeated season. A great stable of NFL running backs (Travis Henry, Travis Stephens, and Jamal Lewis), Peerless Price, and Al Wilson, and with a defense that shut down the younger-version-of-the-Seminoles-of-above with relative ease, this UT team captured the first BCS Championship.
10. Miami Hurricanes (2002)
Only Larry Coker could find a way to lose with this team. A VERY questionable pass interference call in the title game allowed Ohio State to stay alive and eventually "win" in overtime. This Hurricanes team had very similar talent to the 2001 version, and was nearly as dominant. It would've been scary to see what Butch Davis could have done with this team.
So what's missing? If you're thinking Boise St. or Utah, I intentionally left them off. Why? Less scholarships, less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule. Sure they had great years, but Air Bud was a nice movie. Just doesn't measure up. And think about this: with Boise State and Utah's wins, is there any chance that the teams they beat were disappointed to be playing Boise State and Utah in those particular bowl games? Is it also possible that the underdogs played for respect while the big boys showed up expecting to win?
(I'd put the 2002 Ohio State team in that category: Less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule, less points than pretty much every opponent they faced in January ever since... this team played a very cocky - and probably hungover - Miami team, whose coach was quickly proving himself to be the downfall of a dynasty. I would also say THE Ohio State University had less scholarships, but I think they recruited a couple pinstripe-wearing exchange students to play for them in the Championship Game, especially for that interference call. I want my 3rd OT, darnit!)
Agree with Chris' rational? Not like it? Feel free to post a comment or tell me how you feel. If you're a Big Ten fan, I BEG you to argue why your team should make this list. More on NCAA Football next week!
What's coming next week, you ask?
GREAT question!
After the release of the #1 Film of the 2000s, we will be ringing in the new college football season by counting down the Top 10 Teams of the BCS Era.
Why did you just say, "we," Mike?
ANOTHER. GREAT. Question!
For those of you tired of Mike Sullivan rambling about movies all the time, I'll be having a few point-counterpoint evaluations with two of my best friends from high school who can carry their weight with college football knowledge: Chris Miller and Tyler Norris.
As mentioned in my article previewing the Best of the 2000s, Chris and I always catch up every August to preview the upcoming season; talk about how the SEC should break apart from the NCAA to start the Division 1-Alpha class; and predict which Big Ten team we get to toy with in January. He's a Georgia fan and alum; and I'm a Tar Heel whose heart rests in Florida. While we may not be the best of friends around Halloween (about the time of the Florida/Georgia game in Jacksonville, aka the World's Largest Cocktail Party), we're pretty tight for the other 11 weeks and bowl season. I'll be the first to admit that he knows more about college football than anyone else I know; and his opinion far out-weighs the fact that he pulls for Georgia.
Case-in-point, when I told him I was about to count down the Top Ten Teams of the BCS Era, he had his Top 10 sent to me the following morning, complete with director's-cut-worthy commentary for each pick. (If you think "director's-cut-worthy" is a complement, you are absolutely right.) Listed below is his word-for-word analysis of his Top Ten Individual Teams of the BCS Era, and your official preview to our next segment on Sully's World:
1. Miami Hurricanes (2001)
Incredible depth that the Detroit Lions would drool over. Starting NFL running backs on the BENCH for this team. Just obliterated people. #1 no doubt.
(Those NFL starting running backs - Clinton Portis, Willis McGahee, and Frank Gore - went to 4 Pro Bowls between them. Miami Hurricanes: 21 ... Detroit Lions: 17)
2. Texas Longhorns (2005)
This might actually be the best TEAM on the list, vs. the amazing collection of talent that Butch Davis put together in South Beach. Vince Young, regardless of his meltdown in Nashville, just could not be stopped in college; and this defense did just enough to stop the All-World Offense of the 2005 USC Trojans.
3. USC Trojans (2004)
The improved version of the 2003 team that split the title. Tons of NFL players on offense and a great defense (that the 2005 squad lacked) helped these Trojans make Bob Stoops and Oklahoma wish they never took the field.
(38 points in 20 minutes ... all in the first half.)
4. Florida State Seminoles (1999)
An offensive machine as usual with the Mark Richt Seminole offense of the 1990s. Throw in an undefeated season with wins over Miami, #3 Florida, and Michael Vick's Hokies, and the fact that this was the first wire-to-wire #1 in NCAA history, and you'll get a feel for how good this team really was.
(Peter Warrick, I hate you. These comments in parentheses are Mike, by the way.)
5. Florida Gators (2008)
The first non-undefeated team on the list could easily compete with the top teams. After an early season loss to an under-rated Ole Miss team, Tim Tebow personally saw to it that his team wouldn't lose again. With an offense with more weapons than Plaxico Burress at a night club, Coach Urban Meyer utilized his scheme to make this team very tough to stop. Stay tuned for the 2009 version.
(woo!)
6. Auburn Tigers (2004)
Think about it now, if an SEC team goes through the season undefeated and wins the SEC Championship, they have to go to the BCS Championship Game, right? Well, not so fast... Just as Oklahoma pulled off an "Ohio State vs. the SEC" performance in the title game, Auburn's four first-round draft picks did their usual work as Cadillac, Ronnie Brown, and friends did work to finish off the undefeated season in New Orleans.
7. LSU Tigers (2003)
Saban's only championship so far, this defense suffocated teams. Just ask "Heisman winner" Jason White. Justin Vincent and the running game was unstoppable and the other NFL talent on offense made this a great, great football team.
8. USC Trojans (2005)
An undefeated regular season with an other-worldly offense led ESPN to pit this team against the other great teams of all eras to decide if this was the greatest team ever. Then something happened. They played in the Rose Bowl. Against non-Pac 10 team who actually had something called a defense. Whose offense scored more points. Which means they won. Oops.
9. Tennessee Volunteers (1998)
The year after Archie's son graduates (without beating Florida, cough, cough), Coach Fulmer produces an undefeated season. A great stable of NFL running backs (Travis Henry, Travis Stephens, and Jamal Lewis), Peerless Price, and Al Wilson, and with a defense that shut down the younger-version-of-the-Seminoles-of-above with relative ease, this UT team captured the first BCS Championship.
10. Miami Hurricanes (2002)
Only Larry Coker could find a way to lose with this team. A VERY questionable pass interference call in the title game allowed Ohio State to stay alive and eventually "win" in overtime. This Hurricanes team had very similar talent to the 2001 version, and was nearly as dominant. It would've been scary to see what Butch Davis could have done with this team.
So what's missing? If you're thinking Boise St. or Utah, I intentionally left them off. Why? Less scholarships, less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule. Sure they had great years, but Air Bud was a nice movie. Just doesn't measure up. And think about this: with Boise State and Utah's wins, is there any chance that the teams they beat were disappointed to be playing Boise State and Utah in those particular bowl games? Is it also possible that the underdogs played for respect while the big boys showed up expecting to win?
(I'd put the 2002 Ohio State team in that category: Less talent, less competition on a 12 game schedule, less points than pretty much every opponent they faced in January ever since... this team played a very cocky - and probably hungover - Miami team, whose coach was quickly proving himself to be the downfall of a dynasty. I would also say THE Ohio State University had less scholarships, but I think they recruited a couple pinstripe-wearing exchange students to play for them in the Championship Game, especially for that interference call. I want my 3rd OT, darnit!)
Agree with Chris' rational? Not like it? Feel free to post a comment or tell me how you feel. If you're a Big Ten fan, I BEG you to argue why your team should make this list. More on NCAA Football next week!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
#8 Film of the 2000s: Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
Just before getting off the phone with partner-in-crime movie critic Sam Gooley, I wanted to create a pull for him to read this write-up for Good Night, and Good Luck. When he asked me about the #8 Film of the 2000s, I told him, "it's a movie we both love and admire, yet it is a movie that none of our friends have seen or even heard of." He immdediately told me to shut up, hang up, and write this piece so he could find out as soon as possible what it was. Honestly, I thought it would be obvious; however, I realized 2 things:
1. We've seen a lot of good movies that none of our friends have never heard of, and
2. My "teaser trailer" for this article proved to be a success.
For those of you -- which will probably be most of you -- who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, let me provide a basic overview before delving into my criticism and reasoning behind the film's excellence.
What's not to like?
First, its stellar cast includes George Clooney (who wrote and directed the film), Robert Downey Jr., Frank Langella (the guy who played President Nixon in Frost/Nixon), and Jeff Daniels (best known as Harry from Dumb & Dumber). It also stars David Strathairn, who you may know as Meryl Streep's husband in The River Wild, the guy who oversees the women's baseball league in A League of their Own, or 50's pimp and Fleur-de-Lis owner Pierce Patchett in LA Confidential. If you enjoy good films with big stars, you'll get no shortage of them here.
Second, it's a history lesson covering one of the biggest moments in journalism history. It takes place during the Red Scare when Senator Joseph McCarthy was accusing everyone of being a Communist. While a small handful of writers spoke out against McCarthy's witchhunt, no broadcast journalist had the courage to stand up against him until CBS anchor Edward R. Murrow dedicated an entire episode of his nightly news program "See it Now" to McCarthy's outlandish behavior. Good Night, and Good Luck covers the preparation, airing, and impact of that episode.
Third, it's critically acclaimed. On top of winning the SG Award for Best Picture of 2005, Good Night, and Good Luck was nominated for 6 Academy Awards - including Best Picture, Best Actor (Strathairn), and Best Director (Clooney) - and received a positive review from 94% of critics across the country (Rotten Tomatoes).
So why have you not seen it?
Why does a film with all these big stars ... a film that covers a major topic in US History ... and a film that receives accolades from critics across the country ... why does a film like Good Night, and Good Luck go unnoticed by the almost everyone?
The answer - and bare with me as I explain this - is that Good Night, and Good Luck is a symbol in of itself. The film works as an essay; and its thesis claims that nothing of true importance or objectivity can be found in the world of television anymore. The American viewer no longer cares about "just-the-facts" reporting; rather, the American viewer wants to be entertained by corporations who create news - not report it - in order to earn higher ratings and charge more for advertising.
Take the following quote from Murrow in 1958, and tell me if you can relate any of it to what you currently see on television:
We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent ... Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
- Edward R. Murrow, 1958
Do those words seem like a prophecy to anyone other than me? How could Murrow successfully predict the television paradox of the 21st century? How could he have known that the same programs we turn to for mindless entertainment and uselessness be at the same time the programs we rely on to provide an honest interpretation of the realities of the world, its politics, and current events? Unfortunately, I cannot answer these questions with any sense of certainty or confidence; rather, a mere speculation that Murrow himself would call libel and editorializing.
Another reason why you haven't seen this movie? Well, it's a movie about journalism. No movie about journalism has really taken over at the box office. If you check out boxofficemojo.com, you'll see Bruce Almighty and Marley and Me as the only News/Broadcasting films to top $100 million. Good Night and Good Luck earned $31 million, and ranks behind Fletch Lives as the 15th highest grossing film under the News/Broadcasting umbrella. Just to name a few other #15's: the #15 Christmas film (This Christmas) earned $49 million; the #15 Comic Book adaptation (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) earned $180 million; and the #15 Slacker/Stoner film (yes, there's a category called Slacker/Stoner, and #15 is Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay) earned $38 million.
A third reason you haven't seen Good Night and Good Luck, is due to its lack of popcorn entertainment. Such films lack promotability from their respective marketing companies. Because the thesis of Good Night, and Good Luck highlights the true values of "just-the-facts" reporting, the film itself is a short, concise, "just-the-facts" piece that lasts 89 minutes. You won't hear a sweeping score by John Williams; you won't hear a theme song by Randy Newman; you won't see any needless subplots that provide thorough backdrops of every character; and you surely won't see action scenes with slow-motion crashes or stunts. Nope, this film is edited down to the very core of its storyline ... which, in my opinion, is exactly why it is so effective. It isn't a drama, or even a docu-drama for that matter. It's a period piece and an essay; and it never strays from its thesis.
(This is the point of the article where the average viewer would say, "Dang, Mike. It seems like this movie will be pretty boring. Where's all the excitement?" To which I would reply, "Actually, I was on the edge of my seat for the entire movie. Without any useless flashbacks, musical numbers, or slow-motion sequences, Good Night, and Good Luck gets straight to the goods and never allows you to take a break. You probably haven't seen a movie like that before, have you?" The average viewer would answer, "Not really," and I would say, "You should." )
Why you should see Good Night, and Good Luck
1. As mentioned before, it is a symbol in of itself. Two other films you will see later in my Top Ten will fit within this category as well -- they exemplify the very point they're trying to prove. (A hint to those who are actually reading this article, and who actually want to know what lies ahead: they're both about memories, how we create them, and how we choose to remember or forget them). Good Night, and Good Luck is portrayed as true, fact-based journalism, and its plot portrays true, fact-based journalism in action. It's about 1950's television, and very much looks like 1950's television: 1.) it's filmed in black-and-white; 2.) Cinematographer Robert Elswit frames David Strathairn in several scenes just as the television camera frames Murrow while he's on the air. (Several of the camera angles pay direct homage to 1950's ads in Life magazine.); and 3.) the pace of the film is very controlled - quick, necessary, and unemotional. It's unrelenting, matter-of-fact, and doesn't apologize for its presentation or it's delivery.
2. It uses history to provide commentary on what television has become. For those of you who may not be aware of broadcast television: Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are for-profit corporations. Their bottom line depends on the ratings they receive and the ad space they sell - not necessarily the quality of journalism permeating their newsrooms. Do I think there's a problem with news corporations putting out stories in order to make a profit? Absolutely not. Do I think there's a problem with viewers interpreting these news stories as truth, and not bothering to ask why these stories were published in the first place? Absolutely.
With that said, imagine the stories published in the fall of 1953, when McCarthyism reached its peak. News stations were either spreading the fear that Communists were infiltrating our country and government (a fear which gave power to Senator McCarthy); or opting not to confront the famous false-accuser from Wisconsin, (which in turn gave leverage to Senator McCarthy). Either way, Senator McCarthy's rise to power was quick, emotional, and entirely unquestioned; and what fueled it? The constant publication of what America didn't want to happen. Unfortunately, American journalists weren't reporting on what was actually happening.
When Murrow decides to run the story against Senator McCarthy in Good Night, and Good Luck, he faces two immediate set-backs: His show loses its sponsors, and his producers strongly caution him against editorializing the facts. Can you imagine, in today's society, Coke or Pepsi refusing to run an ad on Fox News because Bill O'Reilly bashes democrats on his show? Absolutely not! Half the reason so many people watch his show in the first place is to watch him go off on a left-wing guest speaker. It's true! Along the same lines, do you honestly think Democrats would boycott Coke or Pepsi for running a commercial during an episode of The O'Reilly Factor? Wouldn't that be something.
What makes Good Night, and Good Luck special is the value it places on non-biased reporting. The characters don't make money, but at the same time won't hesitate to reach into their pockets to make sure both sides of a story are covered. While the rest of the country is afraid of being called a Communist, a few men chose to stand up against a tyrant who gains power by spreading fear and accusing all opponents of supporting the enemy.
Writer/director George Clooney's thesis, as so eloquently described by Murrow in the final lines, wants us to believe that men of this unflinching character still exist in the world today. Unfortunately, it will take a man of Murrow's stature and character to stand out from the crowd and reinstill the spirit of informative, educational journalism in our society. Otherwise, television will become "merely wires and lights in a box."
3. It's perfectly made. I mean perfect. There is never a wasted scene, a wasted shot, or a wasted line. Every second of dialogue, music, or silence justifies its inclusion within the film. While only 89 minutes long, Good Night, and Good Luck is so dense with information that I discover new mannerisms, asides, and symbolisms with each viewing. On top of that, each shot is so crisp, so symbolic, it's as if we're witnessing history unfold before our eyes in a smoky, black-and-white world we now know as the 1950s.
(Three hidden treasures I found after multiple viewings:
1. The importance Jazz singer Diana Reeves' character. The first time I saw Good Night, and Good Luck, I thought she was merely a character for CBS who simultaneously provided the score. Somewhere between my second and tenth viewing, I started paying attention to her lyrics and freaked out over how much they reflected the mood of the film. Do you remember the guy who sings the theme from There's Something About Mary, and appears randomly throughout the film to serenade us about what's going on in Ted's mind? That's Diana Reeves, but in this film she doesn't sing to us directly; rather, she plays a recording artist at CBS whose studio work is combined with the action of the characters, thus providing us with a rather insightful score. For example, Reeves sings over the opening credits, and introduces our audience to the ever-growing popularity of television with the song, "TV is the Thing This Year." Also, just after Murrow delivers the "Dear Brutus" speech, Ms. Reeves sings a song that sums up what I believe to be Senator McCarthy's reaction. It's called "I've Got My Eyes on You," and the lyrics are as follows:
I've got my eyes on you, so best beware where you roam..
I've got my eyes on you, so don't stray too far from home.
I've set my spies on you
I'm checking all you do, from A to Z.
So darling, just be wise and keep your eyes on me.
The next time we see Senator McCarthy on screen, he has sent out his spies against Murrow; he attacks Murrow's past; and accuses Murrow of running a smear campaign against him. It's almost as if Diana Reeves knew it was about to happen...
2. Murrow's facial expressions in the Liberace interview. God, that was funny.
3. The shot where Murrow is sitting at the typewriter writing his piece on Senator McCarthy. After saying, "It's Shakespeare," the camera pans out to show Murrow sitting alone in an office amongst several empty typewriters; and the only sounds we hear are the clicks of his typing. Why do I think this shot is cool? It's because Murrow is the only jornalist willing to take a stand; his voice is the only one speaking out; and he is the only one making noise in a sea of silence. His typewriter makes noise, while the other typewriters are not only unoccupied, but deserted.)
I couldn't see Good Night, and Good Luck one time. The rewatchability factor scores a 10 based solely on the fact that it is impossible to absorb the total picture of this film after only one viewing. I remember the first time I saw the film. I called Sam immediately after the credits ended (we always call each other immediately after we watch a great movie -- it's an unwritten rule). His first words: "Yea, it was perfect, wasn't it? I thought so, too. Now you gotta see it again to understand why it's perfect." Now that I think about it, that may be the most simple review/recommendation I ever heard about Good Night, and Good Luck. While it's such a quick, matter-of-fact film, Good Night, and Good Luck has yet to receive a quick, matter-of-fact review; or at least I haven't found one yet.
It's tough to describe perfection. It's pretty much impossible. You can spend hours upon hours of piecing facts together, only to come up with the same two-word conclusion: it's perfect. I dare you to call Citizen Kane, "a basic movie about a kid who loses it all in the process of becoming wealthy." It would be an insult to the film itself. If you were to call Good Night, and Good Luck "a basic movie about Murrow vs. McCarthy," it would be a similar insult.
For all you readers who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, I ask you to see it. Perhaps it'll inspire you to become one of the great people George Clooney believes still exist in America.
For all you readers who have already seen it, I suggest you see it again. I've written over 2,000 words attempting to justify Good Night, and Good Luck's perfection, but all I really needed is Sam's ten-word summary: "It's perfect; see it again to find why it's perfect."
1. We've seen a lot of good movies that none of our friends have never heard of, and
2. My "teaser trailer" for this article proved to be a success.
For those of you -- which will probably be most of you -- who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, let me provide a basic overview before delving into my criticism and reasoning behind the film's excellence.
What's not to like?
First, its stellar cast includes George Clooney (who wrote and directed the film), Robert Downey Jr., Frank Langella (the guy who played President Nixon in Frost/Nixon), and Jeff Daniels (best known as Harry from Dumb & Dumber). It also stars David Strathairn, who you may know as Meryl Streep's husband in The River Wild, the guy who oversees the women's baseball league in A League of their Own, or 50's pimp and Fleur-de-Lis owner Pierce Patchett in LA Confidential. If you enjoy good films with big stars, you'll get no shortage of them here.
Second, it's a history lesson covering one of the biggest moments in journalism history. It takes place during the Red Scare when Senator Joseph McCarthy was accusing everyone of being a Communist. While a small handful of writers spoke out against McCarthy's witchhunt, no broadcast journalist had the courage to stand up against him until CBS anchor Edward R. Murrow dedicated an entire episode of his nightly news program "See it Now" to McCarthy's outlandish behavior. Good Night, and Good Luck covers the preparation, airing, and impact of that episode.
Third, it's critically acclaimed. On top of winning the SG Award for Best Picture of 2005, Good Night, and Good Luck was nominated for 6 Academy Awards - including Best Picture, Best Actor (Strathairn), and Best Director (Clooney) - and received a positive review from 94% of critics across the country (Rotten Tomatoes).
So why have you not seen it?
Why does a film with all these big stars ... a film that covers a major topic in US History ... and a film that receives accolades from critics across the country ... why does a film like Good Night, and Good Luck go unnoticed by the almost everyone?
The answer - and bare with me as I explain this - is that Good Night, and Good Luck is a symbol in of itself. The film works as an essay; and its thesis claims that nothing of true importance or objectivity can be found in the world of television anymore. The American viewer no longer cares about "just-the-facts" reporting; rather, the American viewer wants to be entertained by corporations who create news - not report it - in order to earn higher ratings and charge more for advertising.
Take the following quote from Murrow in 1958, and tell me if you can relate any of it to what you currently see on television:
We are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable, and complacent ... Unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late.
- Edward R. Murrow, 1958
Do those words seem like a prophecy to anyone other than me? How could Murrow successfully predict the television paradox of the 21st century? How could he have known that the same programs we turn to for mindless entertainment and uselessness be at the same time the programs we rely on to provide an honest interpretation of the realities of the world, its politics, and current events? Unfortunately, I cannot answer these questions with any sense of certainty or confidence; rather, a mere speculation that Murrow himself would call libel and editorializing.
Another reason why you haven't seen this movie? Well, it's a movie about journalism. No movie about journalism has really taken over at the box office. If you check out boxofficemojo.com, you'll see Bruce Almighty and Marley and Me as the only News/Broadcasting films to top $100 million. Good Night and Good Luck earned $31 million, and ranks behind Fletch Lives as the 15th highest grossing film under the News/Broadcasting umbrella. Just to name a few other #15's: the #15 Christmas film (This Christmas) earned $49 million; the #15 Comic Book adaptation (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) earned $180 million; and the #15 Slacker/Stoner film (yes, there's a category called Slacker/Stoner, and #15 is Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay) earned $38 million.
A third reason you haven't seen Good Night and Good Luck, is due to its lack of popcorn entertainment. Such films lack promotability from their respective marketing companies. Because the thesis of Good Night, and Good Luck highlights the true values of "just-the-facts" reporting, the film itself is a short, concise, "just-the-facts" piece that lasts 89 minutes. You won't hear a sweeping score by John Williams; you won't hear a theme song by Randy Newman; you won't see any needless subplots that provide thorough backdrops of every character; and you surely won't see action scenes with slow-motion crashes or stunts. Nope, this film is edited down to the very core of its storyline ... which, in my opinion, is exactly why it is so effective. It isn't a drama, or even a docu-drama for that matter. It's a period piece and an essay; and it never strays from its thesis.
(This is the point of the article where the average viewer would say, "Dang, Mike. It seems like this movie will be pretty boring. Where's all the excitement?" To which I would reply, "Actually, I was on the edge of my seat for the entire movie. Without any useless flashbacks, musical numbers, or slow-motion sequences, Good Night, and Good Luck gets straight to the goods and never allows you to take a break. You probably haven't seen a movie like that before, have you?" The average viewer would answer, "Not really," and I would say, "You should." )
Why you should see Good Night, and Good Luck
1. As mentioned before, it is a symbol in of itself. Two other films you will see later in my Top Ten will fit within this category as well -- they exemplify the very point they're trying to prove. (A hint to those who are actually reading this article, and who actually want to know what lies ahead: they're both about memories, how we create them, and how we choose to remember or forget them). Good Night, and Good Luck is portrayed as true, fact-based journalism, and its plot portrays true, fact-based journalism in action. It's about 1950's television, and very much looks like 1950's television: 1.) it's filmed in black-and-white; 2.) Cinematographer Robert Elswit frames David Strathairn in several scenes just as the television camera frames Murrow while he's on the air. (Several of the camera angles pay direct homage to 1950's ads in Life magazine.); and 3.) the pace of the film is very controlled - quick, necessary, and unemotional. It's unrelenting, matter-of-fact, and doesn't apologize for its presentation or it's delivery.
2. It uses history to provide commentary on what television has become. For those of you who may not be aware of broadcast television: Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are for-profit corporations. Their bottom line depends on the ratings they receive and the ad space they sell - not necessarily the quality of journalism permeating their newsrooms. Do I think there's a problem with news corporations putting out stories in order to make a profit? Absolutely not. Do I think there's a problem with viewers interpreting these news stories as truth, and not bothering to ask why these stories were published in the first place? Absolutely.
With that said, imagine the stories published in the fall of 1953, when McCarthyism reached its peak. News stations were either spreading the fear that Communists were infiltrating our country and government (a fear which gave power to Senator McCarthy); or opting not to confront the famous false-accuser from Wisconsin, (which in turn gave leverage to Senator McCarthy). Either way, Senator McCarthy's rise to power was quick, emotional, and entirely unquestioned; and what fueled it? The constant publication of what America didn't want to happen. Unfortunately, American journalists weren't reporting on what was actually happening.
When Murrow decides to run the story against Senator McCarthy in Good Night, and Good Luck, he faces two immediate set-backs: His show loses its sponsors, and his producers strongly caution him against editorializing the facts. Can you imagine, in today's society, Coke or Pepsi refusing to run an ad on Fox News because Bill O'Reilly bashes democrats on his show? Absolutely not! Half the reason so many people watch his show in the first place is to watch him go off on a left-wing guest speaker. It's true! Along the same lines, do you honestly think Democrats would boycott Coke or Pepsi for running a commercial during an episode of The O'Reilly Factor? Wouldn't that be something.
What makes Good Night, and Good Luck special is the value it places on non-biased reporting. The characters don't make money, but at the same time won't hesitate to reach into their pockets to make sure both sides of a story are covered. While the rest of the country is afraid of being called a Communist, a few men chose to stand up against a tyrant who gains power by spreading fear and accusing all opponents of supporting the enemy.
Writer/director George Clooney's thesis, as so eloquently described by Murrow in the final lines, wants us to believe that men of this unflinching character still exist in the world today. Unfortunately, it will take a man of Murrow's stature and character to stand out from the crowd and reinstill the spirit of informative, educational journalism in our society. Otherwise, television will become "merely wires and lights in a box."
3. It's perfectly made. I mean perfect. There is never a wasted scene, a wasted shot, or a wasted line. Every second of dialogue, music, or silence justifies its inclusion within the film. While only 89 minutes long, Good Night, and Good Luck is so dense with information that I discover new mannerisms, asides, and symbolisms with each viewing. On top of that, each shot is so crisp, so symbolic, it's as if we're witnessing history unfold before our eyes in a smoky, black-and-white world we now know as the 1950s.
(Three hidden treasures I found after multiple viewings:
1. The importance Jazz singer Diana Reeves' character. The first time I saw Good Night, and Good Luck, I thought she was merely a character for CBS who simultaneously provided the score. Somewhere between my second and tenth viewing, I started paying attention to her lyrics and freaked out over how much they reflected the mood of the film. Do you remember the guy who sings the theme from There's Something About Mary, and appears randomly throughout the film to serenade us about what's going on in Ted's mind? That's Diana Reeves, but in this film she doesn't sing to us directly; rather, she plays a recording artist at CBS whose studio work is combined with the action of the characters, thus providing us with a rather insightful score. For example, Reeves sings over the opening credits, and introduces our audience to the ever-growing popularity of television with the song, "TV is the Thing This Year." Also, just after Murrow delivers the "Dear Brutus" speech, Ms. Reeves sings a song that sums up what I believe to be Senator McCarthy's reaction. It's called "I've Got My Eyes on You," and the lyrics are as follows:
I've got my eyes on you, so best beware where you roam..
I've got my eyes on you, so don't stray too far from home.
I've set my spies on you
I'm checking all you do, from A to Z.
So darling, just be wise and keep your eyes on me.
The next time we see Senator McCarthy on screen, he has sent out his spies against Murrow; he attacks Murrow's past; and accuses Murrow of running a smear campaign against him. It's almost as if Diana Reeves knew it was about to happen...
2. Murrow's facial expressions in the Liberace interview. God, that was funny.
3. The shot where Murrow is sitting at the typewriter writing his piece on Senator McCarthy. After saying, "It's Shakespeare," the camera pans out to show Murrow sitting alone in an office amongst several empty typewriters; and the only sounds we hear are the clicks of his typing. Why do I think this shot is cool? It's because Murrow is the only jornalist willing to take a stand; his voice is the only one speaking out; and he is the only one making noise in a sea of silence. His typewriter makes noise, while the other typewriters are not only unoccupied, but deserted.)
I couldn't see Good Night, and Good Luck one time. The rewatchability factor scores a 10 based solely on the fact that it is impossible to absorb the total picture of this film after only one viewing. I remember the first time I saw the film. I called Sam immediately after the credits ended (we always call each other immediately after we watch a great movie -- it's an unwritten rule). His first words: "Yea, it was perfect, wasn't it? I thought so, too. Now you gotta see it again to understand why it's perfect." Now that I think about it, that may be the most simple review/recommendation I ever heard about Good Night, and Good Luck. While it's such a quick, matter-of-fact film, Good Night, and Good Luck has yet to receive a quick, matter-of-fact review; or at least I haven't found one yet.
It's tough to describe perfection. It's pretty much impossible. You can spend hours upon hours of piecing facts together, only to come up with the same two-word conclusion: it's perfect. I dare you to call Citizen Kane, "a basic movie about a kid who loses it all in the process of becoming wealthy." It would be an insult to the film itself. If you were to call Good Night, and Good Luck "a basic movie about Murrow vs. McCarthy," it would be a similar insult.
For all you readers who have never seen Good Night, and Good Luck, I ask you to see it. Perhaps it'll inspire you to become one of the great people George Clooney believes still exist in America.
For all you readers who have already seen it, I suggest you see it again. I've written over 2,000 words attempting to justify Good Night, and Good Luck's perfection, but all I really needed is Sam's ten-word summary: "It's perfect; see it again to find why it's perfect."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
