The Inside Job: The Hidden Danger of the NBA Betting Scandal

1.
Ever since the O.J. Simpson murder trial the spectacle of scandal has permeated every corner of our 24-hour news, blogosphere, supermarket tabloid world as millions of Americans thirst for the latest infotainment about the personal problems of public figures. Even your honorable Cap'n finds it hard to avoid the distasteful stuff, since sensationalist pseudo-reporting has permeated the noosphere to the point of nigh-ubiquity. (Normally though, I limit myself to making sure that Lindsay Lohan is still possesed by the devil and that Robert Downey Jr. hasn't resorted to taking hostages and staging a standoff with police in a sleazy hotel in Bed-Stuy.) All of this constant scandal has made damage control into a cottage industry, a cottage industry that has seen a healthy amount of business coming from the world of professional sports of late. What with suspected steroid users breaking cherished records, star quarterbacks drawing the wrath of P.E.T.A., and celebrity soccer imports failing to meet expectations by y'know playing soccer it seems like lots of people are paying lots of money to publicists, spin-doctors, and worst of all lawyers, to keep all the nasty secrets tightly under wraps. Yes, if you are a cunning, ambitious and deceitful enough person you can turn a healthy profit by ingratiating yourself with the right people at the worst moments of their lives, and charging them handsomely for the kind of advice good friends would give them free of charge. Since I only meet two of the three criteria listed above, I will offer up some advice gratis to the professional sport possibly facing the worst crisis right now, my beloved National Basketball Association.

2.
If anyone hasn't heard, I'll try to simply summarize the truly disturbing scandal that currently threatens to do permanent harm to the NBA. It was recently reported that the FBI had been investigating veteran NBA referee Tim Donaghy of both gambling on games he was officiating and using his position as a referee to manipulate the games. The NBA then made an announcement that they are doing everything they can to assist federal investigators and assured the public that this was an isolated event. More information came out indicating that Donaghy had a gambling problem, leading to substatial debt with bookies connected to organized crime. Reports indicated that Donaghy may have been manipulating games for the mob for almost two whole seasons. People began to make lists of controversial games that Donaghy had reffed over his career including the Pistons-Pacers game that devolved into a brawl between players and fans at the Palace of Auburn Hills, a game where the New York Knicks where given 39 free throw attempts to the Miami Heat's 8, and perhaps most damagingly Game 3 of the Suns-Spurs Playoff series this spring that many felt had been decided largely because of the officials. It was all topped off by a press conference from NBA commissioner David Stern calling the situation the worst he had ever experienced. Commissioner Stern, you don't realize the half of it.

While no one from the FBI or NBA has actually accused Donaghy of altering games to the degree that he determined who won and who lost, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that he used his whistle to affect the outcome in other more subtle ways. If you aren't very familiar with gambling you may not know that betting on sporting events generally involves more than just determining who will win. Most gamblers wager on individual games by betting on whether or not a favored team will win by a certain amount of points, called the spread. Thus in a basketball game where the Chicago Bulls are favored to beat the Los Angeles Lakers by 5 points and the final score is Chicago 107, L.A. 103, you could have won money betting on the Lakers. Even though L.A. lost they "beat the spread" and kept Chicago from winning by the predicted number of points. These situations are much easier to meddle with for an official than trying to outright rig the game so one team wins and the other loses. If Donaghy was officiating a game where the spread was 12 points he could easily call a few extra fouls late in the game to keep the underdog within 10 points of the favored team. This way the game isn't altered in a blatant way, the outcome looks to most eyes exactly as they would have excepted, except Donaghy's mob connection in the know can make off with a ton of money.

Actually Donaghy and his associates were probably even more subtle than that. Most of the reputable journalism I've read on the topic seems pretty certain that Donaghy's usual target was the over/under. Like betting on the number of points by which a team will win a game, casinos and bookies will give their patrons a number estimating how may points total will be scored by both teams in the game giving people the chance to bet whether the actual total will be over or under the one the bookmaker has put out. Here a basketball referee can cause some real damage. Not only can he easily push the game in favor of the over by giving free throws (and thus likely points) away like candy during the game, but he can also establish the increase in scoring early on when people won't be watching, as the would be for more obvious rigging or point-shaving during the fourth quarter. Plus his whistle blows don't even have to favor one team or the other so the final outcome of the game is even closer to what everyone was expecting.

Gambling analysts have already scoured Las Vegas records and found a trend for Donaghy's games going over the designated number at a rate that's 99.9% likely to be because of manipulation. Statistical studies, like those done by Dean Oliver, have shown that refs can have a tremendous influence on the outcome of a game with only the slightest leaning for or against a given team. Additionally, there was a string of ten games this year where Vegas casinos saw a lot of money bet on Donaghy's games to go over and the big money won every time. Streaks like that are nearly impossible in modern Las Vegas without the bettors having inside information on the game. There may have been even more games Donaghy influenced for profit, but we would never tell since so much gambling in America happens illegally either through back alley bookies, online or through oversees casinos. After complaints about officiating in the NBA Finals of 2006, many media members began pointing to all of the games, involving far more officials than just Donaghy had some hint of suspect behavior about them. All of this evidence has been put together by many to reach the conclusion that Donaghy was definitely in it deep and that possibly there might have been other referees involved as well.

3.
On those suspicions many media pundits have begun advising Commissioner Stern to make major overhauls to the system by which NBA referees are hired and monitored. They seem to think that the problem is at worst one of officiating. They don't truly understand how deep the problem goes. The fact of the matter is David Stern is going to have to look much higher up the later to find who's truly to blame for the crisis he now faces and he's going to have to take much more drastic action to resolve it. The NBA Commissioner has to realize he has caused this problem and for the good of the Association he will have to resign and let someone else take over if he truly wishes to see the situation resolved.

I don't mean to imply that Stern permitted Donaghy's illegal activities in any way or that he runs a corrupt commissioner's office. I am simply stating the plain fact that an accumulation of Stern's actions over the years to try and control and market the NBA lead directly to the Donaghy situation. It starts almost with the beginning of Stern's tenure, when he took an aggressive position against any association between gambling and the NBA. This may be counterintuitive, but I believe the connection is clear. Stern has penalized NBA coaches and players for mentioning the point spread on games when talking to the media. He's fined players who make casual bets on things like free throws. He has insisted that states and Canadian province with teams should not permit casinos to allow gambling on the NBA (possibly the main reason why the NBA will never put a team in Las Vegas though many think it would work well). All of this has made it harder for the average fan to gamble on the NBA legitimately. This meant an increase on illegal bookies, like the kind who preyed on Donaghy. It also caused a shift in betting from legitimate casinos (where law enforcement officials and bookmakers alike keep a careful eye out for illegal activity) to online gambling sites and other illegal forums which probably made the money trail feeding off Donaghy's crooked calls harder to detect.

The other major cause goes back to at least 1997 when it became public knowledge that an NBA ref was traded in his first class airline tickets the Association buys for coach tickets and cash in order to supplement his income. This drew attention to two crucial facts. First that NBA refs were badly underpaid. This is truly stunning information when you consider their work is extremely difficult and stressful, often not very rewarding, but absolutely vital to the continued existence of professional basketball. Second that even though NBA refs are likely some of the brightest people who have their ethics and backgrounds carefully scrutinized before landing the gig, they like any other human, will break the rules if they incentives are right. I took two classes in economics and I figured that out. The fact that it seems to have escaped the commissioner and his underlings is stupefying.

After giving Donaghy the oppurtunity and motivation to commit fraud on the consumers of pro-basketball, Stern then went ahead and handed him the means. Stern has been criticized with increasing frequency for being a control freak. His desire to shape the NBA and brand it as something respectable for Middle America, led him to give officials expanded powers. Referees were given increased leverage to call technicals in an attempt to adjust the behavior of players and coaches. This meant a ref looking to put more points on the scoreboard had the chance to hand out free throws like candy with the Association's blessing. Even if someone noticed, as analysts have been able to after the fact, that Donaghy handed out technical fouls at the highest rate of any NBA official over the two years under investigation, it wouldn't necissarily strike them as odd. After all the NBA was encouraging quick whistles, and someone has to had out the most. It may not be the same as putting a gun in the hands of a sociopath, but maybe its like letting the sociopath know where he can find gun shows, what their hours are, and then giving him a rousing speech about his second amendment rights.

The final straw though was revealed just this spring when it became clear that David Stern had not been altogether open about how the NBA monitors and handles officials. After mounting complaints about the quality of officiating the commissioner had long ago established a standard response that all refs were carefully watched, all games were thoroughly reviewed and that the NBA was happy with the level of consistency they were achieving. All right some of that was PR boilerplate but it sounded like their was some kind of apparatus in place that we could understand. After games some association official back in East Rutherford, New Jersey goes over the video and makes sure that the referees in that game are generally calling fouls like all the other referees generally call fouls. Basically he was saying that the NBA stood behind their referees. This is a great sentiment, until you realize he was probably motivated by the desire to brand the NBA as an orderly and respectable league where the proper authorities are in control.

Earlier this year though, a group of academics released a paper claiming that the race of NBA players affects how many fouls will be called on them. Stern immediately rebukes the findings by stating that the NBA keeps careful track of the calls made by individuals and looks out for any sign of bias. This floored me when I realized the implications. First of all how could the NBA hide the existence of such and important body of data from the public for so long. Sure they could claim it's proprietary information, but wouldn't this be the ideal time to make at least a little of it available to the public. Later on it struck me that if they were actually doing as thorough a job as they claimed they should have caught on to Donaghy without needing a federal criminal investigation to point it out to them. But you can't get to mad at them. As I said earlier manipulating things like the point spread and the over/under can be done through simple and subtle acts. However that only goes to reinforce how important it is to keep sports gambling a legitimate above the table affair. If the general public, or research inclined academics, or legal bookmakers could see these data the NBA claims to have, they would apply more eyes and quite possibly more rigorous tests to it to catch trends like the one Donaghy left. Commissioner Stern adamantly defended his refs against any accuations of wrong doing but then refused to offer the evidence, possibly for reasons of pride, when sharing that information would have greatly benefited the NBA in the long run. By refusing to be as open with the public about the performance of referees as he could have been Stern essentially covered up Donaghy's tracks for him.

4.
So there you have my case against NBA Commissioner David Stern. I am clearly deeply upset that the integrity of one of my favorite sports has been called into question. However I believe that objective study and the plain and simple facts show that the commissioner pushed circumstance in the NBA to a point where some officials somewhere was bound to abuse his power somehow. I feel that Stern's policies made him an accessory to Donaghy's wrong doing. So I lay this scandal at his feet. I know most damage control is about saving face and trying to hold on to what you have, but I feel this is a time when Stern should think of the greater good. I hope he realizes that his work as the NBA commissioner has earned him a spot in sports history already, and that if he resigns soon and allows a new commissioner to clean up this mess it will ultimately reflect well on him. He can fight it if he wants but eventually some one with a bigger audience and more influence than me will put together this same evidence and it won't just be the NBA with a reputation on the line. If Stern steps aside for the good of professional basketball then he will leave a legacy of sacrifice, wisdom, and leadership instead of corruption, incompetence and scandal.

DCI Classic Countdown 2007- Running Diary

* NOTE: As a special feature I am doing a little cross blogging, bringing you something I wrote up for my drum corps blog, because I decided I hadn't done enough to promote drum corps love on this particular piece of Internet real estate. Hopefully you can enjoy it even if you aren't familiar with drum corps.

As I so rarely get a chance to actually take part in a drum corps related activity, I like to make a big deal of it when it happens. So when I managed to finagle my schedule enough so I could make it to this year’s Classic Countdown from Drum Corps International –where fans of drum and bugle corps get to relive classic performances through archive footage shown for one night only in movie theaters across the county- I had to do something related to it to add into the blogosphere. After explaining to my wife that I would be abandoning her for the evening to do about the dorkiest thing she’s ever seen me do (though she seemed neither surprised nor upset that I would rather spend my evening chest deep no dorkdom than with here), I purchased my tickets and rushed to get a good seat. The event itself went down on April 26, 2007 at 7:30pm Eastern Time. Sorry if you missed it. What follows is my running log of my observations and impressions as they occurred.

7:15- I have made a conscious effort to arrive at the theater early to ensure I could get my choice of seats. In 2004 I went to DCI’s first “cine-cast” of their World Championship Quarterfinals and that theater was pretty packed. So if I want to find a place where I can comfortably stretch out and get enough ambient light to take notes, I figure I should be sure to beat the crowd.

7:18- Okay the crowds were not actually a problem. You probably could have guessed that. I’d thank you to stop you snickering.

7:20- I’m watching this show from the luxurious facilities of the Regal Cinemas at Brier Creek in Raleigh, NC (just in case anyone wanted to offer me some sponsorship dollars). Representatives from the local corps, Carolina Crown, sent some representatives to pass out post card sized advertisements for discounts on Crown tickets if we order early. Heck, if I knew there would be deals this sweet, I would have started coming to these Classic Countdowns sooner.

7:29- Instead of the traditional preshow entertainment you get at the cinema like movie trailers or even commercials, we are stuck watching a little animation loop with a grating light jazz ditty playing in the background. It may have already driven me insane.

7:30- Thank God the show started just before I tore off my own ears. We first get a pre-mini-countdown-rundown-thingy of those corps considered for this countdown. I don’t know if this pre-mini-countdown-rundown-thingy was assembled in any real order because it doesn’t seem to be chronological or alphabetical. Maybe it was done by how the shows did in the online poll that determined what I’ll be watching tonight. I’m starting to think I maybe should have voted in that.

7:33- As the pre-mini-countdown-rundown-thingy continues I wonder if the new DCI slogan “marching music’s major league” is going to do anyone any good. No outsider knows what they mean by “marching music”, and the comparison to baseball’s major league is completely off the mark. I’m sure Bands of America would love to be considered some second-rate puppet organization to Drum Corps International.

7:35- Seeing a clip of this show reminds me, does it bother anyone else that the Cavalier’s 2003 World Championship show is best known for a moment that includes no real marching and almost no music?

7:39- Through the miracle of prerecording, Steve Rondinaro is welcoming us to the show from Pasadena and pimping the DCI Championships that coincidently will be held at the Rose Bowl this August.

7:40- We get our first full show of the night which means this is the show that placed eighth in the online poll

The Garfield Cadets, 1987- Selections from Appalachian Spring

7:40- Could we make Michael Cesario the drum corps version of John Madden complete with the rotund physique, the jovial attitude, and the tendency to ramble about obvious points. I think with the write marketing package we could make it happen.

7:41- The Cadets have “boisterous”, ballet-style male dancer which you just don’t see much for some bizarre reason.

7:45- I may not know all the history of every drum corps, but I have the unshakeable impression that we could put every Cadets show of the last 25 years into a figurative bag pull one out at random and have no idea which year it came from. I know there is something to be said for consistency and tradition, but come on.

7:48- This was the performance where the Cadets famously earned a perfect percussion score. The really interesting thing is that they seem to have done it not so much through flair or brilliance from the battery drums out on the field, but through precision and grace from the pit percussion sitting on the sidelines.

7:49- These may well be the worst color guard uniforms ever. They have big baggy dresses in garish colors and just a bit of a resemblance to bloody facial tissue.

7:50- What?! Did that company front just disappear than reappear? OMG!!1! It’s like magic! I am so glad Cesario told us to watch out for that moment.

The Bridgemen, 1980

7:51- Wait if the Bridgemen are the “clown princes” of drum corps, what does that make the Velvet Knights?

7:52- Not only could you not get away with a Bridgemem style show with all the zany stunts and gags, no way could you get away with their bright yellow rain slicker uniforms. Those things are hard on the eyes.

7:56- Never have I seen any man handle a costumed chicken with as much care as I saw that Bridgeman set down their mascot.

7:58- I catch myself tapping actually tapping my toes to “In the Stone”. I would never do that in real life. Curse you Bridgemen!

8:00- I am not nearly as shocked with the guy in the bright red clown wig as I am that all the featured horn players look like rejects from the Electric Light Orchestra.(At this point you’re probably starting to wonder if we were passing around psychotropic substances in the theater. No, I assure you this is just what the Bridgemen are always like.)

8:02- In my day job I’m teaching middle schoolers about the Civil War. I think I might be able to use the last section of this show, titled “War Between the States” as a teaching tool if I can get it past the school board.

Star of Indiana, 1993- The Music of Barber and Bartok

8:06- When Cesario mentioned that this show was controversial in its time, it made me proud that drum corps in some small way shared in the proud artistic tradition of stirring public debate and discomfort, like Elvis Presley, Catcher in the Rye, and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

8:07- Of course they talk about how odd it was that this show went from being polemic when it first appeard to becoming a cult favorite of drum corps fans today. Ummm, didn’t they want to note that Blast! incorporated huge chunks of this show into their drum corps based Broadway show. So now drum corps fans pretty much have to accept it into the mainstream since it has been offered up for mass consumption.

8:09- The plain and simple black tights the color guard are wearing prove that this show was designed by either a true minimalist or a true cheapskate.

8:12- The guard whips out the brightest most festive flags of the whole show during a passage of extremely subtle and muted music. Yeah, okay, now I’m starting to get why this was a controversial show. Plus the guard’s props and equipment have been weird all show. They’ve already used dowel rods and what looked like partial frames to IKEA furniture.

8:15- You can clearly hear someone from the audience scream “Go finish it!” as the show approaches its closing moments. Now that he mentions it with a nebulous show like this I can’t help but wonder how they end it with anything that looks or sounds like a grand finale.

Blue Devils, 1994- My Spanish Heart

8:19- I could listen to Michael Cesario describe things as “sensual” and “animalistic” all day. Really, just listen to that voice and tell me you wouldn’t love to hear a heavy set guy from New York describe the way you eat donuts as “sensual” and “animalistic”.

8:20- Just from watching the mist filled footage of this show I got the actual physical sensation of being in Foxboro stadium on that cool summer night. That’s what makes these Classic Countdowns such a great experience.

8:22- As the Blue Devils perform I could feel all the people in the theatre pick’em apart. As soon as they came on screen I could see everyone shift in their sheet to take a more aggressive posture. I keep hearing them make little comments and take digs about the show. I just can sense how much drum corps fans love to hate the Blue Devils. No doubt about it they are the Yankees of DCI, which just leaves the question of whether the Santa Clara Vanguard are the Red Sox or the Mets.

8:25- Not much to say about this show. It’s a classic show and a typical Blue Devils performance. What do you want from me? The Blue Devils are what we thought they were. They're what we thought they were. We watched them in prelims. I mean, who the hell takes the three rounds of the prelims like it's b.s.? We watched them the whole season, everybody played their show... the Blue Devils are who we thought they were! That’s why we let them take the damn field! Now, if you want to crown them, then crown their ass! But, they are who we thought they were, and we let them off the hook!

8:30- Okay we get it BD the show’s title is “My Spanish Heart”. You’ve got like three different heart formations in your marching patterns and you have that constant heart beat in the background. It’s clearly a very heart themed show. We get it.

8:32- Now we have the mandatory pimping of Pasadena to appease the shows sponsors from the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce, because apparently its very difficult to get people to visit Southern California in the summer.

8:33- Hmmm, all the tourist attractions featured would fall under the Trivial Pursuit category of “Arts & Leisure” (Trivial Pursuit being the definitive guide for all questions of knowledge categorization). Apparently the sponsors from the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce don’t think drum corps fans would be interested in their vibrant lucha libre community.

The Cavalier, 2006- Machine

8:35- I’m pretty sure I heard people groan when this show was announced. Listen when you can get sick of watching recent shows after just a few viewing, I say that’s a good sign you need to retire to some old school mix tapes from Drum Corps World.

8:38- I complained that the Blue Devils 1994 show beat their motif into the ground, but they’ve got nothing on the 2006 Cavies. They incorporate machine like elements into every facet of the show including driving the symbolism into our skulls like a ruthlessly efficient industrial device.

8:40- Someone please tell me that I wasn’t the only one who saw those guard uniforms and thought of Captain Power. Come on, help me out Children of the Eighties.

8:44- I guess one advantage of an all male corps is that you can have all the members of your color guard do some pretty athletic stuff, like lifting each other off the field. I can’t help but wonder if the creator of Blades of Glory got their idea from DCI.

8:47- That show was like Return of the King it had about nine different places it could have stopped before its actual ending and been just as good.

The Phantom Regiment 2006- Faust

8:49- Well the fans voted the 2006 runner-up over the 2006 champion. Maybe this is why it is so hard to persuade fans of traditional sports that subjectively scored events like this, synchronized swimming, and ice dancing uphold the same pure competitive ideals of other sports with their Super Bowls and winner take all tournaments. Hear that college football. Subjectivity is bad.

8:53- With all the satanic imagery I’m surprised the people who protest the Harry Potter books weren’t all up in arms about a corps named after ghosts doing a show about a deal with the devil.

8:55- I don’t know if any corps has given us many pure brilliant brass moments through the years as Phantom.

8:56- One of those ultimate questions if you’re a drum corps fan is whether you prefer your Regiment in white or black uniforms. I’m for the all black look myself, though I don’t mind if you prefer the white. If you genuinely like their short lived khaki look though, don’t ever talk to me.

9:00- I guess that big guard outfit at the end was supposed to be an angel of some kind, but I thought it look more like a drag queen getup from Brazilian Carnival.

Madison Scouts, 1995- A Drum Corps Fan's Dream: A Day in the Life of a Bull Fighter

9:01- I remember this show as the definition of everything that’s great and flawed about the Madison Scouts. First they pick a show that’s meant to be raw masculinity and power, terrific choice for one of the few all male corps. However they played their biggest and best song “Bolero” by Ravel as their on-field warm-up before they can earn any points for their performance. Just to show how big, loud and manly they are they spend most of that year performing their show half-spent from the preshow. The ultimate example of blowing your wad to soon.

9:05- The sheer amount of testosterone dripping out of the Scouts as they blaze away on the field makes me think that for every upside of an all male corps the Cavs have shown us, we’ve seen a downside from the Scouts.

9:11- Watching the guard in their glittery matador outfits, I’m surprised they didn’t try to reenact a bloody bullfight somehow. I’m absolutely sure they tried.

Santa Clara Vanguard, 1989- Phantom of The Opera

9:15- Y’know I don’t think I’ll be able to enjoy our top corps’ performance as much now that Cesario has told us that its pretty much an edited repeat of their previous show. Didn’t anyone call shenanigans on this? How can you do okay one year then come back the next year with a director’s cut of the same show and be allowed to win the championship?

9:17- Boy if there has ever been a corps in need of a classic and definitive uniform it’s the Santa Clara Vanguard. Frankly, I’ve never liked any of their costumes, and I can’t help but think that that affected their general effect scores.

9:18- O.K. The eye patches to mimic the famous Phantom half-mask I get, but making the kids with glasses wear one is pretty bloody funny whether they wanted it to be or not.

9:20- DCI’s experiments in frame-in-frame set ups that show both the whole ensemble and the soloists were on display in his footage as the total train wrecks that they were.

9:24- “Music of the Night” has to put chills down your spine. I don’t care who you are. It is the only Andrew Lloyd Webber song I can stand, because it’s just that damn brilliant.

Overall Impressions- Not a bad evening out. I thought they were eight good performances, but not the all time greats they would have gone through at the earlier Classic Countdowns (which meant they couldn’t be used this year). I think getting another look at recent greats like the 2006 Phantom and Cavs were good, plus I think 1994 BD and 1989 SCV belong among the all-time Top 12 even if the vox populi disagrees.

Another Serving of Bite Sized Movie Reviews

Once again it is my burdensome task to try and take the many hours of movies I have watched over the last several weeks, combine it with my years of training in cinematic studies (well at least a couple of quarters worth of classes in undergrad) and boil it all down to a few bullet points. I want to provide the blogosphere with those interesting insights and observations that only the Cap'n can provide. This time I will try something even more daring than my previous bite sized reviews by reviewing movies that are actually still in theaters. I know it may seem audacious, but I realized that continuing to rehash movies from months ago wasn't going to get me many dings on Technocrati. So let's hit up those movies I have seen so far in 2007.

300-

• Watching the battle sequences in this film in all their brutal beauty, I noticed that I found something deep and familiar resonating within me as the Spartans skillfully slashed their way through the Persian armies. It is the same vicarious thrill I get when watching Hustle, the brilliant BBC series about con artists, and when I watch Jason Kidd make a no-look cross- court pass for an easy dunk by a teammate and when I see Ricky Jay perform sleight-of-hand. I thoroughly enjoy watching an expert perform their craft with all of the mastery and talent they have developed over the years. It doesn't matter much if I'm presented with an actual expert in a real life situation (as in my basketball and magic examples) or an artistic representation of fictional scene (as in this film). I find myself engrossed by any presentation of a clearly difficult act given the appearance of ease by a skilled individual. Sufficed to say, I loved the fight sequences. I was nearly hypnotized by the elegant movements and machine like precision with which the titular 300 Spartans and their opponents fought and killed each other. These were the highlights of the film when the director gave us the most inspired visuals and the most skilled pacing. It's when the movie leaves behind the battle that it starts to suffer.
  
• Hollywood directors must really, really, REALLY love Frank Miller's stuff. First Rich Rodriguez credited Miller as a co-director for the Sin City movie, because the film so closely followed the visual presentation laid out in the comic. Now Zack Snyder has decided to crib directly from the comics to the degree that I was recognizing individual panels as the film freeze framed on certain images. I would say this copy and paste film making made the film slightly weaker, but after seeing how shaky the camera work, pacing, and even plotting got once the movie started to go outside Miller's comic, I've decided Snyder probably made the best choice to stay tenaciously faithful to the source whenever possible.
  
• As a historian I should probably say something about the historical accuracy of a film depicting one of the great events of ancient Western history, the Battle of Thermopylae. I think the film makes an honest effort to present the people and events as well as they were recorded by some ancient historians (who of course romanticized certain elements and created some misleading impressions of the circumstances). At the same time I believe nothing really looked the way the film presents it. That is to say the film took the words from one version of history and painted the most outrageous picture it could based on them. So it has to be appreciated for making some effort to present some historical accuracy even if it cannot really be taken seriously as a historical work. Of course, it should go without saying that anyone who goes to this movie expecting a realistic presentation of the past is as naive as the person who watches Star Trek expecting a realistic presentation of the future.

Blades of Glory-

• While the movie was plenty entertaining and even has strong hints of re-watchability, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was still a few scenes away from being an all-time comedy classic. Then it dawned on me that there were probably a few scenes cut from the theatrical release that will be on the DVD, which might have made the difference between a pretty funny movie and a truly great comedy. This may be the dark side of the DVD Era, with so many extras and special features included for the booming home market, we might start seeing more films holding off on the version for cinemas to keep costs down -or just figuring they can always fix it on the two disk director's cut special edition. It steals some of the power from the art when the creators aren't putting their all into front-loading a truly great big screen motion picture. I may be a traditionalist hold out, but I still believe movies should be defined by what is projected in a movie theater not what you can rent at Blockbuster.
• One of the great mysteries of current American entertainment may be why Will Ferrell has not yet made a top level R-rated comedy. I don't know if Eddie Murphey, Bill Murray, or Chevy Chase would have made it to where they are today without reaching for that career defining R-rated romp (well maybe Chevy Chase would be where he is today). It would have been so easy to take Anchorman or Talladega Nights to that next level. I kept expecting them to just go that extra-step in this movie with Chazz Michael Michaels sex addiction and give us that raunchy scene that's a gut buster to watch the first time and a guilty pleasure to watch over and over again. It just baffles me how we haven't see Will Ferrell, who may be the most fearless actor in Hollywood, put in one top level movie aimed at adults. I really hope Slate has somebody looking into this, because I really feel I may go crazy(okay crazier) if I don't find an explanation for this bizarre situation.

Zodiac-

• I will admit that I am a huge David Fincher fan, and that I like many men of my generation was drawn in by his early work from the late 1990's. There was a stretch between my freshman and sophomore years at college when I may not have gone two weeks without watching some portion of either Se7en or Fight Club. These movies are on all the time and they absolutely deserve to be. My favorite part of Fincher's style is how he creates very dark and gritty worlds then finds space within those worlds for wild visual excess. In Zodiac though he plays it much closer to the vest. I think he may have been aiming at subtlety to contrast this story of a mysterious serial killer with what he did in Se7en, but much of it felt restrained to me. I don't like seeing artists hold back even if it is to try and improve some other aspect of their craft. I am hoping Fincher finds a place where he's comfortable tapping into those crazed corners of his minds, because watching those helps stir the crazed corners of my own mind.
• I have a theory that the quality of an actor can be measured by how easily they can be replaced. For instance if I tried taking Will Ferrell out of Blades of Glory and putting in any other male comedy actor working today, that movie takes about five steps backwards. If I replace Matthew McConaughey in just about any role he's ever played, the movie he was in gets better. I thought Zodiac was a nice demonstration of how usefull this rule can be. I think the movie would have been exactly as good if any other generic young leading man had played the cartoonist come sleuth of Jake Gyllenhaal. He didn't bring anything to the role you would miss if he left, but I don't think there was much room for improvement given the limits of the character. You'd only hurt the movie if you tried to replace Mark Ruffalo as the seasoned detective, because he brought out the soft touches and lighter moments of the character that I think any other actor would have rushed right over in their efforts to be gruff and cynical. Robert Downey Junior is absolutely dazzling as the drunken journalist assigned to the Zodiac killings and could not be replaced without catastrophic consequences. The best performance of the film though belongs to Anthony Edwards who turns Ruffalo's partner into a captivating character that I wish I had as a professional partner and friend. You may be able to replace him without ruining the movie, but you could never get another actor to add as much to the film as he did.
  

SBAT: The Standardized Bracket Aptitude Test

We are a nation increasingly obsessed with gambling. From the rising profile of Las Vegas as a tourist destination, to the appearance of shows like Tilt, Las Vegas, and the original CSI on prime time TV, to the ever expanding field at the World Series of Poker. Everyone in America seems convinced that they have either the talent, the system, or the luck to make it big, staking their fortunes on a game of chance. As I have demonstrated numerous times in this space I am contributing to the increase in casual gambling as well. For my part I have always been drawn to gambling as an intellectual curiosity rather than a feasible source of income. I puzzle over the psychology that convinces someone they have control over a definitively arbitrary and random process. I marvel at the myriad of decisions that set the betting lines put out by casinos. More than anything though I am astounded by all the different ways you could try to predict the outcome of some game of chance and still come out wrong.

The NCAA Men's Basketball tournament is always the biggest amateur gambling event of the year. For all of the dollars legitimately bet by people on the Super Bowl, I am sure the thousands of March Madness pools around the country put even more money on the line. Since there are something like 9,223 trillion possible outcomes and only one right answer each year, no one can truly hope to get them all right. We're all just trying to do a little better than the guy in the next cubicle. This drive for relative superiority leads people to cling desperately to any potential insight to help make their prognostications seemly a little more plausible. To give my audience some method of filling out their brackets, I will take yet another crack at predicting the outcome of 63 games spread over eighteen days.

(LEGALISH LOOKING DISCLAIMER THING-Y: Keep in mind my predictions are meant for entertainment purposes only. I only provide projections to demonstrate that all methods of predicting sporting events are equally arbitrary and that the only smart way to gamble is to have fun coming up with your bets, kiss all the money you wager goodbye, and treat anything you get right as the dumb luck it is. I suggest no one put serious money on these predictions. I certainly won't.)

Most fill out their brackets in a few minutes simply guessing on limited information. Those who treat it more seriously will consider each game as a basketball contest with certain quantifiable factors you can study and rely on deciding the outcome. I propose you treat your bracket as a 21 question standardized test. We have generations of Americans who got very good at taking standardized tests because they knew their chances of getting into a good college/law school/medical school/career/secret society/swingers club would depend on their ability to look at four possible answers they knew nothing about and spot the inherent nugget of truth in one of them. Some people I know are phenomenal test takers simply for their ability to sniff out the b.s. hidden behind the three incorrect options. I am stunned that no one else has tried applying this skill to the tournament. So let's see who well it goes as I attempt to complete the first ever Standardized Bracket Aptitude Test (SBAT).

Section 1- Saint Louis Region
1. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Florida
b. Jackson State
c. Arizona
d. Purdue
Answer: The national media has never stopped promoting the "Can Florida repeat?" story since Joakim Noah and his compatriots decided to return. I have always taken umbrage with the specious reasoning that any defendin champion is the presumptive favorite to win the next championship. Every year so much of the tournament is decided by luck and the unique match-ups you get that differ from bracket to bracket. Last year people were a little stunned we wound up with the Final Four we had including Florida. Now simply because they managed to get past an overmatched George Mason and a undertalented UCLA team, I'm supposed to believe they are the best team in the country by far. Please. Still they are the only team with a decent record in this pool of four, so I have to move them to the second weekend. I'll say Arizona gets to the second round since they have a decent road record.
Florida over Arizona

2. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Butler
b. Old Dominion
c. Maryland
d. Davidson
Answer: Butler is a very tough mid-major team that could definitely advance given the right circumstances. I've heard reports that they were very impressive when playing against their conference. Still I like Maryland more, since they have really pulled together at the end of the season to go on an impressive run. When you put together the hot streak they did in the Atlantic Coast Conference (a.k.a. the premier college basketball conference), you have to get more consideration than a team that couldn't even win the Horizon League.
Maryland over Butler

3. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Notre Dame
b. Winthrop
c. Oregon
d. Miami University
Answer: Notre Dame can play well and has the firepower to do well, but they have been awful outside of South Bend. Give me Winthrop with an impressive 13-4 record in road/neutral games to pull that upset. The Miami Red Hawks (who deserve better than to be constantly confused with "Da U") don't have much of a prayer against Oregon, who have finally started playing defense to support their offense. They may finally be playing the kind of complete basketball needed to go far in the NCAA tournament.
Oregon over Winthrop

Section 2- San Jose Region
4. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. UNLV
b. Georgia Tech
c. Wisconsin
d. Texas A&M- Corpus Christie
Answer: Georgia Tech hasn't been consistent at any point this season, and they have way too many headcases on their roster. Wisconsin lost one of their key players at the end of the regular season, and they have way too many white guys on their roster. T A&M-C.C. has only been playing top level college basketball for a few years, and they have way too many letters in their name. The University of Nevada Las Vegas is the only team I'd be willing to bet on to win to games. (Though I actually can't bet on them because a Nevada state laws prohibit the state casinos -the only place you can legally wager on sports already- aren't allowed to take action on games involving UNLV. Go figure.)
UNLV over Wisconsin

5. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Kansas
b. Florida A&M Niagara
c. Kentucky
d. Villanova
Answer: You have to feel bad for the play-in teams. The selection committee basically tells them their record is not only so mediocre that they earn an instant crushing by a No. 1 seed, but that they may not even be worth a seat in the tournament at all. So you know Niagra is out. Neither Kentucky, under Tubby "Mr. Hot Seat" Smith, nor Villanova, from the doughy middle of the Big East seems likely to topple a one seed. I'll go chalk once more.
Kansas over Villanova

6. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Virginia Tech
b. Illinois
c. Southern Illinois
d. Holy Cross
Answer: Watch out for Illinois. They have comparable tournament credentials to Virginia Tech, plus they are playing in Columbus, Ohio, which is a familiar road trip for them since it is also home of conference rival Ohio State. I like Illinois to upset, but the best team in this particular foursome is actually Southern Illinois. They've beaten more high quality teams than any of the other options, and they're bound to have a chip on their shoulder if they play the Illini as the bitter little siblings of the in-state power.
Southern Illinois over Illinois

7. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Duke
b. Virgina Commonwealth
c. Pittsburgh
d. Wright State
Answer: I'm one of those rare people who actually supports Duke. I have friends who went there and their back-to-back championships are one of my first significant sports memories. So I have been displeased by both Duke's recent on-the-court difficulties and the celebratory attitude many have taken to the apparent demise of Coach K's once untouchable program. Yet, I cannot let that get in the way of the fact that VCU is much better prepared to win tournament games. I also want to root for Wright State since they are from my home town of Dayton, but I know Pitt is the better basketball team. I guess I'll say that any team that can defeat Duke has to be good enough to make the Sweet Sixteen.
Virginia Commonwealth over Pittsburgh

8. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Indiana
b. Gonzaga
c. UCLA
d. Weber State
Answer: Gonzaga has built up enough of an aura of dominance within their own conference, and an expectation of greatness across the country that you may spot them for an upset. Especially if you've seen how well they played to get win the WCC tournament, and if you saw how bad UCLA looked in the Pac-10 tourney. Yet I am still much more impressed by the Bruin's 10-1 record against the RPI Top 50 than anything else I've seen from any of the other teams in the big dance.
UCLA over Gonzaga

Section 3- East Rutherford Region
9. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. North Carolina
b. Eastern Kentucky
c. Marquette
d. Michigan State
Answer: March Madness provides a terrific platform to showcase those special players who have the skill, energy, and intelligence to make a huge impact on the college game, but who have no hope of making it in the NBA. These players are often too small, too old, too one-dimensional, or lack that bizarre trait known as "upside" to truly hope to make it in the pros. Yet they can tear apart at least one higher seed before a powerhouse team forces them into early basketball retirement. In my eyes MSU's Drew Neitzel looks like just that kind of player, and UNC looks like just that kind of powerhouse.
North Carolina over Michigan State

10. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Southern California
b. Arkansas
c. Texas
d. New Mexico State
Answer: We all know that when Kevin Durant hits his shots and plays up to his natural potential Texas is too good to bet against, so I'll advance them. Still I can't imagine Durant putting together two straight great games in pressure filled games against competitive teams. So deciding the team that will advance comes down to Southern Cal versus Arkansas. I have serious doubts in USC's tournament credentials, so I'm calling for the Razorbacks to make it to the Sweet Sixteen. Yes I have called for Notre Dame and USC to lose in upsets. Brendon Loy can bite me.
Arkansas over Texas

11. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Vanderbilt
b. George Washington
c. Washington State
d. Oral Roberts
Answer: Washington State has been playing well above their talent, which means everyone will call for their downfall and ignore their actual accomplishments. I believe their record means something and will push them through. Vanderbilt however has had a few wins over better teams which will make everyone put too much faith in their ability to "win when it counts". So, I have to point to their weak record on the road and call for the upset.
Washington State over George Washington

12. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Boston College
b. Texas Tech
c. Georgetown
d. Belmont
Answer: Boston College and Texas Tech both look too weak to pose any serious threat. I'll just go with the chalk because Georgetown has been playing well lately.
Georgetown over Boston College

Section 4- San Antonio Region
13. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Ohio State
b. Central Connecticut State
c. Brigham Young
d. Xavier
Answer: I have to take the top seed. Ohio State has just been too good for too long to call for their much predicted exposure as a sham quite yet. Though I totally can see Xavier making it a close game in the second round. They match up well and are deceptively tough.
Ohio State over Xavier

14. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Tennessee
b. Long Beach State
c. Virginia
d. Albany
Answer: I find Tennessee and its terrible road record are priming for an upset. The problem with that is that none of the other three teams seem likely to pull it off. Virginia has been even worse in away games than UT. Albany hasn't played in any really big games. Long Beach State can't beat a RPI Top 50 team. I guess I'll go with the unknown over the proven loser because at least they've won road games.
Albany over Long Beach State

15. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Louisville
b. Stanford
c. Texas A&M
d. Pennsylvania
Answer: I am so sick of seeing people pick Texas A&M to make the Final Four. Mostly I suspect they are doing this because no one knows who to pick other than the top seeds. So a lot of people are taking Texas A&M to win the San Antonio Region just so they don't have all four No. 1's advance (because they all know that never happens). I guess they're justifying it by figuring Ohio State looks soft and A&M gets to play the Sweet Sixteen games in Texas. Well, I've got a big bucket of water to toss on their hope, because I say the Aggies don't even get past Louisville who gets to play the first two games in the commonwealth of Kentucky. See, two can play at that game you uninspired little punks.
Louisville over Texas A&M

16. Which of the following four teams will advance to the Sweet Sixteen?
a. Nevada
b. Creighton
c. Memphis
d. North Texas
Answer: Memphis may be the biggest unknown in this whole tournament. While they show all the usual indicators of being a strong team they haven't really proven anything. The Tigers have only played against three Top 50 teams and lost to two of them. I feel much more comfortable backing a team with winning winning records against quality teams and playing on the road. Say doesn't Creighton have a winning record against the Top 50 and away from home? Hmmmm.
Creighton over Memphis

Section 5- Sweet Sixteen
17. Of your answers to questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 which of those teams will advance to the Final Four?
a. Florida
b. Maryland
c. Oregon
d. UNLV
Answer: Given the shakiness Florida has shown lately, I fear that Maryland is just the kind of team that can get hot and make lots of buckets quickly at the exact moment the Gators let their guard down. Oregon on the other hand has been playing very well and demonstrated a solid process for winning games. In a fairly surprising move, I'll trust the Ducks to make it to Atlanta.
Oregon over Maryland

18. Of your answers to questions 5, 6, 7, and 8 which of those teams will advance to the Final Four?
a. Kansas
b. Southern Illinois
c. Virginia Commonwealth
d. UCLA
Answer: The answer here is fairly obvious. UCLA has played at a high level all season long. They have some of the best indicators of any team in the tournament. They'll have chip on their shoulder for being put at a two seed just for stumbling in their conference tourney. Take them to topple the weakest No. 1 seed in this field.
UCLA over Kansas

19. Of your answers to questions 9, 10, 11, and 12 which of those teams will advance to the Final Four?
a. North Carolina
b. Arkansas
c. Washington State
d. Georgetown
Answer: North Carolina has the talent advantage, but the players have had consistency and focus problems and the coach hasn't been able to pick one line-up to close out a game. They are too vulnerable to a gritty, physical team like Georgetown. Look for Georgetown's combination of talent and toughness to carry them through.
Georgetown over North Carolina

20. Of your answers to questions 13, 14, 15, and 16 which of those teams will advance to the Final Four?
a. Ohio State
b. Albany
c. Louisville
d. Creighton
Answer: You may wonder how I managed to predict Ohio State only needing to defeat three straight upset teams to make the Final Four. Don't blame me. All the experts agree that the San Antonio Regional was the softest and the one most likely to fall for the top seed. Wins over teams like Albany and Creighton still count for something, even if its not much.
Ohio State over Creighton

Section 6- Final Four
21. Of your answers to questions 17, 18, 19, and 20 which of those teams will win the National Championship?
a. Oregon
b. UCLA
c. Georgetown
d. Ohio State
Answer: Having placed two Pac-10 teams in the Final Four, I now have to put at least one of them in the title game. I guess I will take Oregon for their ability to get points whenever they need them, a trait that will let them stay close to UCLA and pass them in the closing moments. Georgetown can match-up well with Ohio State at all positions, plus they have more experience. For the second straight year it looks like the Hoyas will punch the Buckeyes ticket for their unceremonious return to Columbus. That leaves Oregon -who will have to play at their absolute peak to make both baskets and stops after five tough games- against Georgetown -who can bring more physical strength, athleticism, and intensity into the game. The result seems pretty self-apparent to me.
Georgetown over Oregon

Wait, did I just predict a team that barely won the Big East would win the national championship over a team that has only started playing defense since President's Day? Well, that's the fun of March Madness it's all arbitrary so you might as well come up with an interesting method. I'm off to burn my bracket and prepare for next year. In the mean time amuse yourself with your special-edition Rounders DVD and scratch-off lottery tickets.

The Captain's Compulsive Oscar Watching Disorder

I rarely measure my age by birthdays anymore. In fact I think few adults do. Instead most grown-ups mark the years by the passage of their perennial obsessions. Be it shopping for Christmas, filling out brackets for March Madness, making a yearly visit to a favorite vacation, or blowing a large percentage of your income on the annual lawsuits you face as one of the nation's top manufacturers of fireworks, we all have activities that we use to mark the passage of our lives. For me one of the select items that I anticipate every year is the Oscar ceremony. When we reach that time when a small group of Hollywood will decree what is and is not worthy cinematic art, I feel forced time and time again by my many mental disorders to make my own predictions. I put hours of consideration and calculation as I attempt to prove that I have some level of prescience and not just guesswork. In the past you’ve seen me layout my many thoughts on these matters. I consider the favorites, the potential upset, and my own preferences, trying to find the compromise between them all that will produce the winner. As evidenced in my archives you can find many many ways to breakdown every Oscar race and spend a lot of words and column inches discussing everything AMPAS from the obvious to the trivial. Fortunately for you, I was not organized enough to use this web page to share my assessment of who I believed should and could have won the Academy Awards in the major categories. Plus most of the major races where pretty well locked up with little to discuss. Granted there were upsets (just none I would have predicted) and no one knew who would win the top prize of Best Picture, but there the uncertainty was so extreme any predictions on my part would have been proverbial shots in the dark. (Please note the film A Shot in the Dark never got close to the Academy Awards.)So I won't share with you all of my musings on the matter like I had last year. I'm still in the middle of reviewing most of the films nominated in my Bite-Sized movie reviews anyways, so I'm sure any thoughts I had on the movies themselves will come out through those. (This provides even more incentive for my minuscule band of readers to keep checking this space.)

Besides one of my main goals with this blog was to set my one agenda. I would not needlessly link to other's articles on recent events. I would write about things I cared about, that I could truly make a statement about. This would not be a webspace for second-hand analysis, but for my first hand thoughts. If I write about anything because I feel forced to or obligated to, just because it's "that time of year" I worry that I will start to become dull and predictable. I really can't be expected to offer new thoughts on a topic just because it occurs annually. Eventually my writing will become predictable and my posts tedious to the readers. Why would anyone want to see me trot out the same tired insights about events year-in and year-out? That's how you get clichés. I want my content to remain fresh which means I need to find fresh items to write about. I may define myself by the perennial events I follow, but there's no reason to define this blog that way.

All that having been said there are the twelve observations and notes I thought were worth mentioning about both the choices the Academy made in giving out their awards and the Oscar telecast itself.

12. I was slightly disappointed by Ellen DeGeneres's performance as host. The great Oscar hosts always brand the evening with their own style of wit and humor to give the ceremony a definitive mood. John Stewart did this well with his apologetic liberal bit last year. Steve Martin was absolutely phenomenal by showing how he is like so many of us holding Hollywood at arm's-length intellectually but fully embracing it emotionally. Even David Letterman made the Oscars his own with his Oprah-Uma bit. It's just a pity Dave's humor and the Academy's tastes are too divergent. Billy Crystal is a passable host because he doesn't have any real defining characteristics to bring to the ceremony, so it's okay every Oscars he's hosted has been a sort-of funny not-really-memorable affair. Chris Rock could be great but didn't go for it when he hosted. Whoopi Golberg doesn't do it for me. Any hosting arrangement with more than one person MC-ing is set up to fail because then no one leaves an impression. I had high hopes for Ellen. I've been a fan of her sticom, her stand-up, her writing, and her talk show. However she just never took over the show and left you you with a moment where you thought "Now THAT is why you let Ellen host the Oscars!"

11. Was it a little disorienting for anyone else to hear the lullaby from Pan's Labyrinth over and over even though it wasn't nominated for best picture or director? The telecast's producers kept using the song, especially early in the evening, and it just seemed odd to me. It seemed even more odd when it didn't win the biggest awards it was up for (Best Foreign Language Film and Best Original Screenplay). When the film lost for Best Original Score, essentially an award for coming up with such a memorable song, it seemed sickly ironic.

10. I cannot remember a single Oscar night that did not involve Jack Nicholson in some way. The Academy always squeezes him in some how, almost as if they are required to by some secret by law in the AMPAS charter. I'm a little worried that when he dies they won't be able to have the Oscars anymore. We better start grooming someone to be the next Jack. My vote goes to Mark Wahlberg. Who's with me?

9. I was a little upset that they cut so many of the winners off mid-speech. Most people tune in to the telecast with the expressed purpose of watching those speeches. Be they emotional (Jennifer Hudson), goofy (almost anyone who won a short film award), or simply spontaneous (Alan Arkin who looked genuinely surprised to have won) they are usually the most enjoyable part of the evening. You know they could have found a few extra minutes to play with if they cut all of the fluff they loaded in like dance groups, foley artists, and Celine Dion. Let us watch the speeches, it's what we want to see for Pete's sake! Also, we should have a special channel we can turn to just to watch the losers squirm in their seats as the winner gives her speech.

8. I was not at all upset that they cut of William Monahan, who pretty much said he was on medication as he took the stage. I know he just won a major award, but come on. You don't give the biggest speech of your life in a chemical haze. If I want to hear the ramblings of a stoner with a writing gig and aspirations of intellectualism I'll just visit my local campus coffee house.

7. You have to believe me when I say I'm not out to rag on Ellen, but I wish she had just picked one outfit and stuck with it the whole evening. I thought her all white ensemble toward the end of the evening was very fetching, and felt like she could have just worn that all night long. When I first caught sight of her in her burgundy velor pantsuit I was almost convinced there had been a last minute switch and Hugh Hefner was our master of ceremonies. I think Ellen fell victim to a nefarious trend that has claimed many female award show hosts before her. The producers of these shows are convinced that viewers want females to put on mini fashion shows. Apparently you have to repeatedly come out in a new outfit if you're a woman and you'll be on TV for more than three consecutive hours or else no one will pay attention to you or care about what you have to say. If there was any woman out there who I thought could buck the system and get away with it, it was Ellen. Now sadly we seem to be doomed to an endless series of fashion show oddities when we're supposed to be celebrating film.

6. I enjoy Will Ferrel. I enjoy Jack Black. I even enjoy John C. Reilly. I wish we could have more comedians involved with the Oscars. Ask any actor and they will tell you its harder to sell the audience jokes then it is melodrama, yet dramatic films and performances have a near stranglehold on the Academy awards. Even knowing all that I still found the song and dance number too hokey and predictable to be really funny and too light and silly to be really memorable. Overall I felt it was a waste of a few quality minutes of airtime that could have been spent watching Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio awkwardly banter.

5. I couldn't help but notice that the Academy nominated both Abigail Breslin, a very capable child actor who played the utterly adorable beauty pageant hopeful in Little Miss Sunshine, and Jackie Earl Haley, the former child actor who played the utterly creepy neighborhood pedophile in Little Children. I wonder if the Academy did that on purpose to send a message to little Abby. If so, I wonder whether Haley's example was supposed to give her hope that she can continue to work as an actor into adulthood, or scare out of show business by letting her know people are only interested in former stars as career train wrecks reduced to playing despicable characters to get a part.

4. I'll admit I took a little pleasure in seeing Eddie Murphy lose. It's not that he hasn't been incredibly entertaining throughout his career. Nor is it because I dislike him as a person for things he has done in his private life (though there were a few who wanted to deny him the award on those grounds as if that has the least bit of relevance to his quality as a performer). Simply I hated those Norbit ads and I wanted to see someone suffer for cramming that stuff into my eyes and ears everywhere I turned this winter. I would have much rather seen either Michael Sheen or Paul Dano win, but you can't expect to get everything you want. I don't know if Eddie will ever get a chance to win another Oscar, but I do know he doesn't need a little golden statue to justify his career. Maybe, just maybe this will convince him to go back to making movie that don't offend my senses and intelligence.

3. The Man of the Evening Award has to go to Clint Eastwood. He charmed me right in with his appearance in the Nominees Montage. He captivated the audience when he presented the honorary Oscar to Ennio Morricone and then translated Morricone's speech. Then when he bantered with Ellen and co-directed a photograph with Steven Spielberg I instantly recognized that we were watching a classic Oscar moment. Everyone wishes they could age as gracefully as Clint. Most of Hollywood hopes to be half the filmmaker he is. Plus he'll always have one of the most memorable acting careers of an American film actor. The runner-up was obviously Al Gore, if only for getting Melissa Etheridge to speak so glowingly of any man.

2. As has happened to us all in year's past I fell for one of the films nominated for Best Picture and had to live with the certainty that it would not win. Returning readers may remember that I declared my loyalty to Capote in a year that was dominated by the choice between Crash and Brokeback Mountain. This year I decided after much deliberation that my favorite film of 2006 was The Queen. It was touching, charming, well-made, well-acted, and showed an incredible degree of craftsmanship. I was touched like everyone was by awards favorite Little Miss Sunshine. I saw the merits of both Babel and The Departed which my finely tuned Oscar sense told me were the only two films that really had a chance. Still I am here to tell you that the best movie of 2006 was The Queen do yourself a favor and watch it if you haven't, or watch it again if you have.

1. Even with everything else I mentioned we all know the 79th Academy Awards were only really about one thing: the coronation of Martin Scorsese as one of the all time greats. Welcome to the Pantheon Marty. You deserve it.

More Bite Sized Movie Reviews

Since I have seen so many movies, and have so much work out there in reality to avoid, I have returned with even more miniaturized movie reviews. Remember these aren't here to summarize the plot or give you some kind of rating, I only aim to share the most original insights I can bring for any and all of the films below.

The Last King of Scotland-

• This film serves as a great example of how to film female nudity (of various degrees and in an assortment of contexts) without ever stooping to exploitation. It has been said that the history of film is the history of men photographing women. In most cases that act of photographing seems to objectify or degrade the women being pictured. The twin engines of cinema as an art film accomplish this through an oddly paradoxical process. First the camera has the strange power to invade their intimate secrets and inner lives by getting closer than most men would dare to capture the woman's essence and trap here essence. Then the projector dehumanizes the woman by inflating her image to stretch across the theater screen and keeping her a safe distance from the leering audience. The process has happened in countless films and every time it reaffirms the traditional power structure between the genders that has made women feel oppressed and abused for so many centuries. This film however treats the women it photographs with respect. The camera keeps its distance the director gives each woman filmed a personality and each shot a meaning deeper than flesh. Those few seconds of the movie offer great insight into the art of filmmaking for any serious aspirant or scholar.
• Conversely I felt the film really mishandled its portrayal of violence. The violence I felt the most emotionally affected by all came either directly or indirectly through the action of our supposed protagonist, a young Scottish doctor who has traveled to Uganda and gets caught up in Idi Amin's rise to power. Though the audience knows Amin to have been a brutal dictator and the film acknowledges as much, Amin's tyranny is never given the same weight on screen as the Scot's blunders and misfortune's. In a strange way I feel the way the film treats the two characters is more responsible for the praise Forest Whitaker has received for this film than the actor himself. The movie honestly makes you feel more sympathetic to the most evil character in the picture than the hero we follow from start to finish.
• Forest Whitaker definitely acts his socks off though. His inspired use of an Ugandan accent makes me wonder if we could dub him the Hefty Black Male Meryl Streep. So long as that title hasn't been taken yet.

Little Miss Sunshine-

• Ensemble pieces must be difficult for the actors involved . Learning to share the screen can be difficult to those used to demanding the spotlight, but the reverse can be even more so. Yet countless actors throw themselves into these crazy little movies every year in the name of art, in the hope of having a good time, and possibly just to steal food from craft services. Usually making the sacrifices involved in an ensemble film have two affects on the actors involved: 1) They clearly demonstrate they can put their egos aside to focus on making the best movie possible; and 2)They give up any hope of being honored with an award. Sorry but awards go to people who chew up the scenery and put on big showy performances, and there's no room for that in a little art house ensemble piece like Little Miss Sunshine. This is a real pity because I believe of the eight best performance I saw in a movie last year six of them were in this film. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or the Oscars, have concurred to a limited extent by granting nominations to child actress Abigail Breslin (because cute kids always get a nod) and to seasoned vet Alan Arkin (almost surely as a way of saying "we care about old actors too"). I think it's a shame they couldn't have acknowledged the far superior performances of Steve Carrell, Greg Kinnear, and my personal favorite, Paul Dano. Sadly that's just one of the difficulties involved in an ensemble picture.
• The yellow Volkswagen minibus that you've seen in the trailers and on the film's poster should win an award for Best Symbol/Metaphor in a Feature Film. Much like the Hoover family it carries it is a dysfunctional oddity. Out of place among traditional cars, it can barely run, it needs to be pushed to do anything at all, it looks and behave abnormally most times and occasionally it screams out for attention. Yet when you step inside you find just enough privacy and stability to develop some peace, happiness and hope.

Pan's Labyrinth-

• Many have referred to this film as a dark or adult fairy tale simply because it contains elements drawn from fantasy and folklore. Trust me when I tell you the bulk of this movie is focused on more earthly affairs of a sad and gruesome nature. The fantasy elements may even be nothing more than a clever coping mechanism by the protagonist. You will leave the theater discussing the complex moral and psychological issues that form the basis of this film and not the visual wonders that make a world of (sometimes morbid) wonders come to life. This is not to diminish the literary merits of some fairy tales, simply to let U.S. audiences know they should expect little of the fell-good buoyancy or simplistic moralizing you may be used to after Disney raised three separate generations of children on watered-down treacly versions of classic fairy tales.
• The original Spanish title translates as "The Labyrinth of the Faun", referring to the mythical creature exemplified by Pan and Mr. Tumnus. The character of Pan is neither seen nor mentioned in the film itself. I normally wouldn't mind that sort of misnomer as occasionally artist's suggest additional layers of meaning in their work through a title that refers to a larger concept or idea (The West Wing writers used to love doing this). However in this case I and my film going companion's spent most of the movie trying to guess when Pan was going to show up. When we realized Pan was not involved just another nameless faun, it left me a little upset. More upsetting was my eventual realization that the only reason the English title refers to Pan at all is because the filmmakers assume Americans are too stupid to understand what a faun is, or that they will assume its a movie about deer hunting.
  

The Da Vinci Code-

• With all of the controversy stirred up by this film for some of the implications it makes about religion, I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to mention how staunchly feminist this movie is. Of all the messages to resonate most from this movie, the idea of women deserving equal treatment and status to men. Given that all the Sturm und Drang has focused on particulars of Jesus' life which one either accepts or rejects on faith alone, I can only assume this means that everyone agrees women have been oppressed by Christianity for centuries and deserve a more prominent place in the religion. It will be good news to many that all of the Catholics who protested the movie's portrayal of Christ have decided to support the ordaining of women from now on.
• Dan Brown author of the Da Vinci Code novel has come under scrutiny for lifitng some of his historical theories from other books about the hidden history of Christianity. I am surprised Kevin Smith hasn't sued over all of the clear thematic and dramatic similarities between this story and Smith's Dogma. Both films mostly focus on ways the Catholic church has hidden the true history of Christianity. Both films feature women in crisis who enter quests involving Jesus' bloodline. Both films claim that Jesus had a close relationship with someone other than the twelve apostles and that relationship reveals a hidden aspect of Christ's life. Both films have killer angels. Both films feature a high ranking Catholic who is out to deliberately deceive the public. Both films feature some truly disgusting greasy mullets. It's downright creepy ow similar the actually are.
• The filmmakers had to realize it would be risking making this movie. After all its best hope is to be the third best movie ever made about the holy grail. Right out of the gate they had to know they could never top Indiana Jone and the Last Crusade or the even more brilliant Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In fact watching The Da Vinci Code movie mostly made me want to go back and watch these movies again. I don't believe it's a good sign when your movie makes people think about movies they would rather spend their time seeing.

We'll cut it off again with that. Stay tuned to this spot for even more Bite Sized Movie Reviews.

My Bite Sized Movie Reviews for 2006

Since I still have many major blog projects on the backburner (by the time I finish the NBA Pay Scale, we'll be lucky if there is any NBA season remaining), I have decided to post some quicker items that require less extensive thought and research by me and may be more immediately useful to you the reader. I also worry that I haven't branched out in the topics my blogs cover lately. My last seven blog entries have all been sports related and even that has been limited to two even simpler topics my NBA Pay Scale rankings and my ludicrous bowl predictions. I've had an entry on why I love drum corps in draft status for months, yet I likely won't post that until I figure out how to adjust all the little kinks of editing the HTML properly. In the mean time I have decided to try writing about something that may actually appeal to, well, you know, other people.

As I have long studied the art and craft of cinema I figured I could offer the service of movie reviews for my audience. After all almost everyone watches movies and most people form some opinions of their quality or at the very least entertainment value. With all of the proliferation of film criticism on the web I hardly figure my readers will be in need of any kind of full bodied write-ups of the movies I've seen. If you want a recommendation on whether or not you should see a film I encourage you to please go read serious critics like A.O. Scott, Elvis Mitchell, Peter Travers, Stephen Hunter, or Roger Ebert whenever he gets well enough to review movies again. I think a forum like the bloggosphere is much better suited to present their audience with more subtle or specific insights. This can be accomplished through detailed analysis, humorous critiques, specialized reviews, insider information, or simply new and exciting perspectives.

Since I lack any of those things I have decided to limit my film reviews to only a few notes about each film that I think no one else has mentioned. I want to provide the little globules of my thoughts and reactions to the film that you can have fun with, take with you into your own conversations, and use at your convenience without having to wrestle with all those bulk paragraphs and multi-star ratings that make other movie reviews too cumbersome for the average film buff. It's all the thoughtful insight someone trained in film can bring to the conversation but in a condensed form. Consider them the bite sized version of a movie review. Much like the bite sized versions of candy bars they give you most of the pleasure of their full sized cousins with less of the empty calories/column inches.

(ed. I have been notified by the fine legal department at M&M Mars that they prefer I use the term fun sized when referring to their smaller candies. Also they would like it if I used the term "livin' large" in stead of obesity and "lazy liar's disease" instead of diabetes.)

I don't know if it's a great idea, but I do think it's something relatively new to the net. After all if I can't be the best film critic, I can at least try to be original.

My Film Reviews for 2006

Borat: Cultural Leanings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan-

• First, how well can you remember the full title of this movie. It might be a fun game to break out at your Oscar parties to see if people can recite the complete title, and make them pay some kind of penalty for every word they screw up (in theory you could make some one do twelve shots on that challenge alone, so be reasonable when assessing penalties). I feel like Oscar parties need more crazy games.
• As part of Sacha Baron Cohen's method for portraying the character of Borat, he reportedly spent almost all of his waking hours acting like the character with the cameras rolling. As my younger brother rightly pointed out, this would mean there are hundreds of hours of footage of him doing tons of things as Borat which we never saw. This lead me to ask two questions. In all of that footage, how many times do you think he broke character because he just couldn't keep a straight face anymore? Then how many times do you think some American he was trying to befuddle recognized him? I'm setting the respective over/unders at 0.5 and 11.
• One of the major debates this film has sparked is where the infamous scene of Borat and his producer fight au naturale ranks on the list of Funniest Scenes of Full Frontal Male Nudity. I would rank it second after Paul Giamatti's harrowing escape near the end of Sideways and above Graham Chapman's unwitting public exposure in The Life of Brian. Harvey Keitel's infamous scene in Bad Lieutenant would rank somewhere around 212th; there wasn't anything funny about that scene. When you include Daniel Auteuil baring it all in Cache, we seem to have reached a golden age for hilarious male nudity.

Casino Royale-

• A long beloved, iconic character was in desperate need of a new direction. The stories had become lazy and the hero had started to verge into self-parody. He had become too tied to his trademarks by decades of overuse, so now they seemed cliché and goofy. By deconstructing the character to his fundamental elements, abandoning all of the retched excess of the past several stories, and resetting the story to a point in history where you could reestablish a more realistic backstory, and start building a new more plausible and understandable set of stories and motivations for the protagonist. A totally brilliant and original move back when it was called Batman: Year One. I just wish some critic had noticed that James Bond was just getting pretty much the same treatment that superheroes were getting in comic books back in the 1980's and '90's. I guess that would have been too hard as it would have required someone to acknowledge that comic books came up with a useful literary idea at some point. We couldn't let funny books get any respect though, could we?
• On the upside this (actually very well done) film gave us the hope that future installments might polish up other aspects of the bond franchise. I would love to see some of the underlying elements that suggest a larger, sinister organization at work to be expanded into a more feasible version of SPECTRE. A character of Jame Bond's caliber merits truly terrifying and fascinating nemeses not just cartoonish super-villains. I sincerely hope that this new and improved bond eventually meets his match in a new and improve Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Blofeld, for those who don't remember was a major recurring villain in the Bond franchise, whose appearance inspired Dr. Evil of the Austin Powers films. However no Bond film to portray him ever truly presents him as a serious or credible threat. Most of the actors to have played him went over the top and turned in hammy performances. Here's hoping we see a very real and very frightening version of Blofeld soon.
  

The Departed-

• There seems to be a new trend in Hollywood to use Boston as the go to city for any kind of gritty drama. This comes after decades of New York being the undisputed capital for gritty drama in America. In the last several years we've had The Practice, Crossing Jordan, Boston Public, Mystic River, Little Children, and now The Departed. Almost all of these movies could have been set in New York with minor rewrites, yet somehow the creators seem to find something more palatable or more compelling about Bean Town. I doubt it can all be attributed to America's brief love affair with the Red Sox, so I've been trying to determine what other reasons there could be. To some degree I think film makers like to play off the common perception of Boston having a more homogeneous Catholic culture for all the white characters and a richer history of racial tension. Largely though I attribute the recent migration of the grim and gritty to Boston to the long term effects of Giuliani's clean up of the city. New York just doesn't work as a dark and depressing city anymore, it's too tourist friendly, too commercial, too corporate. Now if you want to set a movie in an East Coast metropolis with lots of interesting ethnic neighborhoods, organized crime, funny accents and cold weather your pretty much stuck with Boston. What are your alternatives? There are too many fat people in Chicago to ever work as the setting of a Hollywood movie. Baltimore has been forever marked by John Waters (heck, The Wire is supposed to be the best cop drama ever, yet it's still struggling to stay afloat on HBO). The Sopranos only works in New Jersey because of all the tongue-in-cheek jokes they get away with at Jersey's expense. Philly might have worked if the word Philadelphia wasn't permanently tied to Tom Hanks dying of AIDS for two generations of movie-goers and if Rocky Balboa hadn't reminded everyone of how depressing the sports scene in the city has actually been. Really we're pretty much stuck with Boston being the peak of the cultural ziggurat and all the Bill Simmons smugness that entails until Providence can get its act together and start producing better dramas than Brotherhood.
  
• Martin Scorsese has reached an interesting point in his career. Now that he's made so many different movies of so many different genres and so many different settings and worked with so many different themes and styles and actors that now he seems to have mastered every possible storytelling technique and every possible movie making trick. The analogy I've been using is that Scorsese is now like a master chef who has incorporated all the different elements of world cuisine into his oeuvre. Anytime you eat a meal prepared by someone like that it can fill you with the hazy memories of all the most wonderful and most exotic food you've ever had. In the same way it seems like The Departed kept reminded me of other movies from other genres and other times. In the hands of moss directors this would be a confused and muddled mess. It speaks to the artistic brilliance of Scorsese that he not only makes them work together with incredible film craft but he makes all these diverse elements create a single flavor that's rich and satisfying like a well made meal.
  

The Illusionist-

• We all have had this cinematic experience at least once before in our film-going lives: sitting in the theater, seriously digging the movie playing on screen, making generally complimentary comments to those around us when suddenly the film does something strange to totally botch the viewing experience, in the end you're wandering out of the theater having truly enjoyed 80% of the movie and truly despised 20% and trying to decide what your final opinion of the film actually is. I call these "toss-up" movies because whether you ultimately like or dislike the picture is a toss-up on how well you can tolerate the bad 20% for the sake of the good 80%. I always feel like Jerry Seinfeld on a date with these kinds of movies. You know they're overall pretty good. You feel petty for letting something relatively minor bother you so much. Yet you just can't look over such a glaring flaw in forming your overall assessment. Needless to say, The Illusionist was one of those movies to me. I thought the actors, cinematographer, and art direction people all did great jobs. Then near the end the writer and director got too clever for their own good, and my opinion of the whole movie suffered as a result.
• Philip Glass contributed the score for this film. I have become much more familiar with his film work of late and I have to say I'm of two minds.I found his score for absolutely The Fog of War marvelous, and I think it may have been my favorite score since Thomas Newman's work on American Beauty. However I could immediately recognize the music in The Illusionist as Glass's work because it was so similar to his other scores. Individually any of his film scores works very well. Collectively they all seem to similar and derivative of each other. I still haven't settled how I feel about this.

I'm going to cut it off here, because other wise my snack food sized portion of film criticism might become too fattening. I would hate for you gentle readers to gorge your self. Just watch this place for more soon.