Bring On The Commercials

Note: This article was originally drafted over a year ago. So, why bring it out now? Well, the 2nd best thing about the Super Bowl (and it is a DISTANT second) are the commercials that air during the game. Companies spend millions of dollars for a few seconds of air time, and there is always a big competition to have the best Super Bowl commercial. So, in light of all the great commercials that we will hopefully be seeing soon, I thought I would take a look back at one of my favorite commercials of all-time. I hope you enjoy it.


The Greatest Short Film of All-Time (or at least this week).

Those of you that actually interact with me on a daily basis know how obsessed I can get thinking that some new (or even old) song, movie, or book is currently the greatest thing in the world. This phase with the song/movie/book will probably last anywhere from two days to three weeks before I burn out and move on to something else. Hopefully, it is because I have just found the next greatest thing. Anyways, this entry is about the current greatest thing.

Before you read the rest of my entry, please do yourself a tremendous favor and go to this site. It should only take 1 minute of your time, and then just click back on your browser to return to this site. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you. What follows will make a lot more sense if you go to this page: Dr. Pepper.

Now, I know that everyone has seen this commercial many times. Some of you may even be sick of seeing it on TV at least a couple of times a day (if you are actually lucky enough to be able to watch TV). If you feel this way, I am asking that you please bear with me for a few minutes while I explain why this commercial is the greatest short film of all time (this week). Unfortunately for us, Television often only shows the shorter version of this masterpiece (probably due to Dr. Pepper’s desire to have more opportunities of showing the commercial for the same amount of money since advertising time is billed by the second). In fact, I hadn’t even realized that there was a longer version of the commercial until I searched for it on the internet today. Without further ado, I am going to walking you through the commercial in hopes of explaining why it is the greatest of all time.

Convenient Store Scene:
The first thing that strikes you is the piano. I can think of few better (or more widely recognized) songs for a commercial than Meat Loaf’s “I Would Do Anything For Love…” It sets the tone for the direction that the commercial is going to take. You know instantly that the commercial is going to be about sacrifices and choices that one makes for the sake of love. The great thing is that you are able to glean all of this information before anything happens. As far as you can tell, a man is simply walking along the Convenient Store aisles looking for something in particular (we’ve all been there).

Next the director chooses to zoom in on the object that is the purpose behind this man’s search. We are stunned to see that it is a box of tampons. At this moment, it is almost as if the actor feels our hesitation/uneasiness with the situation – he reaches for a box and then pulls his hand back. He cringes, looks around, and hesitates as the camera pans to a shot of his girlfriend in the car. At this moment, it is as if a light bulb goes off in our heads - this must be one of the choices our hero must make for the sake of love. Clearly this girl is the girl whose love he is willing to make sacrifices for. Reaffirmed by a sweet (yet manipulative) smile from his girlfriend in the car, our hero removes the box of tampons and heads towards the cashiers station. It is important to notice that our hero is very aware of the sacrifice he is currently making and that he is still very uncomfortable with the situation. He is carrying the box to the register using what I like to term the “open palm” method. This method, while allowing everyone to see what the hero is carrying (good for the commercial), allows the box to be held in such a way that all of the customers of the store (not pictured) will know that he doesn’t want to be holding it. He makes his away towards the cashier with eyes darting back and forth across the store and a nod to the clerk. The clerk has an incredible smirk on his face that just screams, “You are a whipped!”
After the shot of the clerk’s smirk, the director immediately cuts to the hero standing at the register while the clerk calls for a price check over the speaker system in the convenient store – a despicable move that adds to the burden of sacrifice for our hero. Appalled at his now more precarious position, our hero turns around to face the others in the store. Mercifully, the next scene shows him carrying the box of tampons out of the store while also carrying a few cans of Dr. Pepper; sacrifice number one complete.

Laundry Mat Scene:
This second scene (or sacrifice) begins with a shot inside a laundry mat. Our hero is seen next to the girl from the car folding laundry. Initially, we cannot see the particular garment that is being folded because of the large white T-shirt being folded by the girlfriend. As soon as we have the setting, the film cuts to a close-up shot of the “happy couple” that has the girlfriend folding a sports T-shirt (number 35 on the back) and the hero folding a pair of see-through women’s underwear. The hero looks perplexed as he tries to fold them. We are then shown the reactions of other people in the laundry mat, and things do not look good for our hero. He is getting questioning looks from the other people. Our hero looks up from folding the underwear in time to make nervous, uncomfortable eye-contact with these fellow laundry mat patrons.
As if sensing he is uncomfortable and to demonstrate her level of appreciativeness for the sacrifice, the girlfriend leans in to kiss our hero as he still struggles to properly fold the see-through underwear. The smile on our hero’s face after the kiss suggests to us that he feels the sacrifice is well worth any embarrassment he may feel. We are left to assume it is for the love of the girlfriend. For some reason, there is also a Dr. Pepper bottle visible in this last shot. It appears with the cap off and a sizeable portion of the sugary sweetness missing. End of scene.

Yoga Lesson:
(Disclaimer: I think this is yoga, but seeing as how I’ve never done yoga or any group exercise thing, I could be wrong. It might be Pilates. Regardless, it is irrelevant because our hero shouldn’t be doing it – this much is clear). This is a quick scene where we are able to see our hero perform two moves that look extremely uncomfortable and unnatural. He exchanges a forced smile and waves at his lady while lying on his back with his legs extended over his head. Curiously, there is also a Dr. Pepper can sitting on the floor beside him.
One more side note, it should be pointed out that our hero is dressed in what I would term as “traditional women’s workout attire.” He is wearing a purple shirt, which could be ok with the right bottom piece (just kidding, pair of shorts). He’s also wearing what appear to be cut-off sweat pants. Definitely not kosher, and our hero appears to be making some tremendous sacrifices for love.

Dressing Room (new scene found in the extended version – previously unreleased):
This scene opens with our hero holding a few dresses for his girlfriend in addition to her pink purse and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. I’m beginning to pick up on the fact that Dr. Pepper maybe a theme throughout this commercial, but I could be wrong. A quick look at his face tells you that he’s in a difficult position. In fact, I can imagine that he is in the classic boyfriend/husband situation where the significant other asks you how she looks in a dress. We’ve all been there, and unfortunately we all know that we’ll be there again. The other key point in this scene is the manner with which our hero holds the pink purse. It may confuse some of you at first, but let me clarify it as I see it. First of all, he’s holding the purse by the very tip of its handles. He is also contracting his biceps so that the purse is in front of his chest. Now it may seem counter intuitive to hold the clearly embarrassing object in such a prominent position, but it is actually brilliant. First of all, it’s Murphy’s Law that if you are holding something you don’t want others to see, they will invariably see it regardless of your efforts to hide it. Secondly, our hero is holding the purse in such way (contracted biceps, in front of his chest) like you would hold something you thought was disgusting. I’m envisioning a new father holding a dirty diaper as he goes to throw it away. Regardless, it is clear that our hero has made another sacrifice (or has done “anything thing for love” as Meatloaf would sing).

Running In The Rain:

As the short film progresses to this scene, we are starting to notice that the music is rising to its climax. Our hero is seen running in the rain in a soaked pink shirt (is anyone else reminded of Ross from Friends?) and holding an open umbrella over his girlfriend. Curiously, he’s also holding a Dr. Pepper in his left hand. His girlfriend gets in the car, closes the umbrella, leaving our hero “uncovered” in the rain. It is important to note that it is a common theme in the history of literature and film to have key scenes take place in the rain. While our hero’s final decision ultimately is made in the next scene, it is important to note the manner in which he drinks the Dr. Pepper in the rain. He tilts his head way back in an act of defiance. Of course, we are not sure if his act is aimed at his girlfriend (whom appears to be walking all over him as the commercial goes on and on) or to the gods for causing the downpour. Regardless, we know that there will be resolution to our hero’s conflict in the next scene.

Final Scene: In the House
As we head to the final scene, there is only one question that is unanswered – “What is the thing that our hero won’t do for love?” It is with this frame-of-mind, that we come across our hero seated on the couch with his girlfriend lying across his lap. His face has a very troubled appearance on it as if he is mulling over some great question in his mind. Then, as if he has come to a final decision, he begins to smell her hair. As he smells her hair, she slyly reaches back with her hand and grabs his Dr. Pepper in order to steal a sip. Suddenly our hero is on the move right as we come to the part in the Meatloaf song where he emphasizes the line, “But I Won’t Do That.” He immediately heads to the front door, glances back at her with a defiant look (almost as if realizing he is now free from the many consequences/abuses that he has faced over the course of the film). He then exits the house and begins running down the road holding his Dr. Pepper. Our hero is happier than we have ever seen him throughout the commercial. He takes a sip as he glances back at his (now ex-)girlfriend before running off into the night.

The End.

Thank you for reading along with me as I explored this great advertising film. I hope that you enjoyed yourself as much as I did. Now, if you will excuse me, I think I’m going to go have a Dr. Pepper.

Shaken, when Stirred

I went to the movies last Friday night for, I think, the third time in the past 12 months. Is it just me or are there just not as many good movies coming out anymore that make me want to pony up the $8-10 bucks it takes to be entertained (or not) for 2 hours?

Although I did miss about half of the previews, I did manage to see a preview for the new Bond flick, ‘Casino Royale’, I think it’s called. New movie, new Bond, and, of course, a new Bond chick. Is there any more reliable thing in the universe of movie sequels than a different Bond babe in every movie? I mean, how many movies have there been in this marathon-series? We’re easily into the twenties, aren’t we? There have been like eight or nine ‘007’s’, but there has always been a different chick in each installment.

While seeing the James Bond preview started me on that little tangent, it wasn’t the reason I went to the movies, and it isn’t the reason I’m writing this article (though it did, obviously, inspire the title). I went to see the film rendition of the popular bestseller “The DaVinci Code”. It’s a pretty good movie based on a controversial but very thought-provoking book.

The basic premise of the book, as everyone should know by now, is that Jesus Christ not only was a mere man who performed miracles (not the divine son of God), but was also married to Mary Magdalene. While the plot involves Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu’s attempts to solve the cryptic message left by her dying grandfather on the historic parquet floors of the Louvre art museum, the implications of the pretext reach much farther; especially for Christians.

So why should Christians care that a Hollywood story is depicting Christ in a very poor light? This is, after all, not terribly uncommon, is it? If ‘The Passion’ taught us anything about film making, it has to be that film has a loud, far-reaching voice. And whether we like it or not, people are influenced on some level by what they watch on Hollywood’s silver screens. While Christians generally poured into the theatres to support Mel Gibson’s controversial piece, we will probably take the opposite approach with “The DaVinci Code”. By not going to see it, we’ll say, we’re using our money to make a statement.

Boycotting a movie like “The Da Vinci Code” can definitely send a message, but it can also have more negative affects. While the Christian call is to be “in the world, but not of it”, we have to be careful to not to repeat the mistake of the Anabaptists by emphasizing one half of that statement over the other. Yes, we have a descript calling to set ourselves apart by our actions, but if we step out of the world altogether (as the Anabaptists did), how then can we influence it? We can’t expect the world to always come to our homes and churches when they want our perspectives on Jesus Christ. We have to be ready to take our beliefs to the workplace, and be ready, willing, and able to discuss tough topics.

Part of being “able”, involves a continuing education not only on the doctrines of Christianity, but also on the constitution of the non-Christian population towards Christianity. After all it is the degree of receptiveness to a message, as much (if not more) than the words we use to purvey that message, which will determine its reception. And pop-culture influences from music, to art, to literature will all have an effect on someone’s receptiveness, whether we like it or not. And we can’t celebrate the arrival of “The Passion” and then try to pretend that movies like “The DaVinci Code” never happened, or that we don’t support Hollywood with our money (that’s what’s commonly called wanting to “have you cake and eat it too”).

And so, if we can’t ignore the impact of the movie, we must prepare for it (even embrace it, in a sense). In order to do that, we have to be prepared to discuss the questions the movie will raise in a calm, educated manor while displaying that we care deeply about our faith, but without letting our emotional connection to the material affect our ability to use logical arguments. And so, after reading the book and watching the movie, I’ll present a few areas of contention, which Christians need to be prepared to confront as a response to Dan Brown’s bestseller. These are a few areas brought up by the book/movie that raised question marks for me (and the answers that I either knew off-hand or by revisiting things I had previously known). I’m sure there are many more, but here they are:

The council of Nicea
In Dan Brown’s portrayal of the story, the Council of Nicea was used by Constantine as a merely way to solidify power. And while the council was taking place the Bible was molded to fit the powers of the church. While it is probably true that Constantine’s conversion was embarked upon as a largely political scheme, he did not hand pick the Church Canon (the books that became the Bible).

All Bishops of the church were invited (about 300 attended) and they decided which texts about life of Christ were inspired, and which were either mere historical texts written by onlookers or, worse, by denouncers of Jesus. Church doctrine was also laid out and debated, which is where the conspiracy theorists have their field day.

There was indeed a debate about the nature of Christ’s existence, but it was not as simplistic or deceptive as “The DaVinci Code” makes it seem (on the left, believed to be a Priory picture of Mary Magdeline's heir). Never in the debate was Jesus considered a mere man. The debate had three factions: the Arians, Homoosians, and the Homoiosians (notice the ‘i’ or ‘iota’ in the middle). Those lead by Arius (Arians), who believed Jesus was God’s finest, most pure creation (but a creation), were put up against the intellectual powers of Athanasius, who adamantly defended the Homoosians. The very small Arian faction was eventually put down (and forced to recant or be excommunicated), and a debate between the Homoosians and Homoiosians continued.

The Homoosians contended that Christ, being the Son of God was of the SAME substance with the Father. The Homoiosians contended he was of SIMILAR substance, which would blatantly contradicted Jesus’ own statements that “The Father and I are one”. Eventually the Homoosians led by Athanasius of Alexandria won the day, and correct doctrine was maintained. Only a very small minority ever considered Christ to be a man, and even then, never MERELY a man, but rather a special creation by God for the defined purpose of doing miracles.

It is also unlikely that a religious group (the Catholic Church) that up to this point in History had been persecuted and scattered would have the foresight to carry out “the greatest cover up in history”, even if one was needed (which it wasn’t).

If he wasn’t God, why is he so important?
The story never explains this, even continually referring to him as Jesus ‘Christ’, rather than merely Jesus, or Jesus of Nazareth. What would life altering about a man who was merely a man? How could he be sacrificed in the place of man’s sin on the cross, which is the most important part of the Incarnation. Why such reverence to “the mother of the offspring of Jesus Christ”, when Jesus Christ is supposedly some mere man?

The Knights Templar have the Grail:
It should be noted that the Knights Templar were originally a band of criminals and rapist that were basically hired (“recruited”) for the First Crusade. Not exactly moral protectors whose sole goal was to protect “The Sacred Feminine”. It is more likely they found great treasures in the Holy Lands, which they kept for their wealth, than that they indeed found “the Holy Grail”.

Also much of the political, mystical, and supposed religious power assigned to the Knights Templar runs into a big problem later in History. The idea that they were nearly unbeatable in battle hits a serious roadblock when the Mongolians begin invading Europe and are left completely unchecked until the death of the Great Khan puts a halt to their advances. This concept comes to an even more abrupt end when they are routed on the final crusade they take part in, which opens the door for King Philip of France (NOT the Catholic church) to get rid of a political group that had come to have much sway.

Just because most Christian organizations never mention the Holy Grail, doesn’t mean they are trying to hide something: There’s not historical or biblical context for its importance, that’s why it’s ignored. Just how the government never mentioning an Area 51 leads to conspiracy theories claiming its existence. Silence breeds conspiracy.

The historical and linguistic roots of the female version Yahweh (who was later “covered up” when monotheism developed) are unfounded:
This is found only in the book, and is not mentioned in the movie, but is an important distinction. Dan Brown mentions a female deity Shekinah as the counterpart to the male Yahweh. Shekinah is in fact a Hebrew word concerning God, but is more of an attribute of God, or a presence than another being. It is similar to the concept of the Holy Spirit. However the root for such speculation comes form the word Shekinah being ‘feminine’ in origin, which is a huge linguistic stretch. It is very common in many languages for even inanimate objects to have a feminine or masculine tense, but it doesn’t mean they have gender. Also, Christian doctrine assigns no gender roles to God in the first place, and clearly has room for the different attributes of God (that whole thing called “the trinity” also discussed at the Nicean Council), so the existence of a term like Shekinah with a “female” root is of little consequence to the educated, and entirely non-threatening.

The mixing of symbols in religion, while intriguing, is not definitive of shared religious roots: The swastika was once a symbol used for loads of stuff, including some Jewish organizations (read the Great Gatsby, they have to add a footnote to make this make sense to the reader), before it became the Nazi symbol we know it as today. Does this mean the Nazi’s were a secretly led by a sect of elite Jews trying to cleanse themselves of untrue Jews? Wait maybe I’m on to something here…

Something Christians must be prepared to answer to:
Most of the stuff going on here was pre-Great Schism (church split, caused by the reformation), so Protestants cannot disregard it as a Catholic problem. Any questions regarding Jesus Christ, Judaism, or the universalist mixing of all religions, are a problem for all of Christianity, no matter what their context. They attack the roots of our beliefs, and cannot be avoided.

The sins of the church, from the Catholic Inquisition, to the mutual atrocities of the 30 years war, to the Great Crusades, Christians must admit that the church, while being the vessel of God, did not inherit his divinity or his perfection (the reason Protestants have a problem with a Pope or ‘Patriarch’). We must be willing to admit the faults of the church when it has mixed with political ambitions, while being prepared to explain that the Bible never claims to make men perfect (even “Holy” men).

MEMphis Belle

This is a first for the Village Tavern. While it may seem to revolve around sports, we have other intersts at the Village Tavern as well. Like movies! And although Ek promised a 'Rambo' review quite some time ago, this is the "VT's" first movie review...

I picked up this little dandy on DVD recently while I was at Best Buy with J-Lew and my boy JoNo. It’s the 1990 Theatrical release, ‘The Memphis Belle’. It’s a movie I remember watching as a kid, and always loving. This was largely because I was so fascinated with World War II history, and also because the B-17 Flying Fortress was one of the sweetest aircraft ever invented (only surpassed by the Lockheed P-58 Chain Lightning). The viewing of this DVD was the first time I had watched the movie in years, so I tried to approach it somewhat objectively, in order to offer a solid review.

What it's about:

A B-17 bomber crew on their 25th and final mission is sent to Bremen, Germany. Surrounded by the likes of ‘Sweet Dreams’, ‘Mother and Country’, ‘Mama’s Boys’, and ‘The Scintillating Virgin’, the crew of ‘The Memphis Belle’ is trying to become the first team to complete a full tour of duty as a bomber unit in the European Theatre. After this, they’re on their way back to the States to be “wined, women-ed and song-ed” as they give speeches and tour the entire country as a moral-raising event. But they have to survive their 25th Mission before they’ll get that chance…

Who’s in it that you should care about:

Billy Zane: Although probably more remembered for his breathtaking performance as ‘The Phantom’, this is definitely a fine performance from the man who Hansel once describe by saying, “he’s a cool dude”.
Harry Connick Jr.: Harry is trying to break the record for most roles with a forced musical performance as he continues to try to have a “slashie” career as an actor/singer. Add this one to the list of movies that help him in his quest.
John Lithgow: What a great name! And let’s be honest, who WOULDN’T want to watch a performance from the dad from ‘Harry and the Hendersons’. And to top it all off, he’s had a successful career with ‘Third Rock from the Sun’, and did a fantastic job of voice acting as Lord Farquaad in ‘Shrek’.
Sean Astin: I place this performance right behind the Oscar-caliber acting in ‘Rudy’ and 'The Goonies', but ahead of Astin’s performances as Samwise Gamgee (in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy) and the steroid using brother (Doug) from ‘50 First Dates’. That’s right, this movie is THAT good.

Best Line:
“Hey fellas, the target’s clouded over, we’re delayed”
“S-N-A-F-U, Situation-normal, all-fucked-up”
*Does Hollywood make these things up? Don’t get me wrong, it’s funny and it’s catchy, but between SNAFU and FUBAR, you almost have to wonder if anyone from World War II actually said those things.

Best Character:

Jack, the navigator, who is convinced that their mission has been jinxed by all the press and hype that John Lithgow’s character is generating as the Army PR guy assigned to their crew. He’s determined that even if the ‘Belle’ makes it, he’s a dead man. As a result he spends most of the movie drinking, and trying to give away all of his personal belongings. By the time they’re over Germany he’s given away his father's watch, a nice pen ("It's the best pen money can buy!"), and all his best baseball cards. But as the mission continues he'll play a pivotal role in saving the life of one of his fellow crew members.

DVD Features:

Is there anything better than first-generation DVD releases!? The double-sided releases, with widescreen on one side, full-screen on the other. Then you have the cheap card-board cases; clearly they hadn't mastered the format at the time. But I think the best feature of any old-school DVD (this one included) is the "JUMP TO A SCENE!" feature. As if the smaller format, along with the improved visual and audio quality weren't enough, you can jump to any scene you like! It's not that it isn't a great benefit of the format, it's jus the way it's presented. Like on the back, how it will say under "Special Features": Dolby 5.1, Interactive Menus (boo-yah!), Subtitles, and JUMP TO A SCENE!!! Maybe I'm the only one amused by this..

'The Memphis Belle' DVD has one other feature that makes it really worth the purchase. In case you finish the movie, and it's just not enough. Maybe you're looking for another movie to watch. Well imagine that, get a recommendation from the DVD itself! Search by actor, Producer and Genre (of course, it only shows movies on DVD from the same studio, but who needs to know that...). Classic stuff.

Rating: B+

This is overall a well above-average movie. It’s got action aplenty, a good story line, good and mostly believable characters and it’s well acted. It’s even based on a true story to boot (not to mention the loaded extra features). If you like war movies, if you like action, this is definitely worth checking out.

God Help the Wayans Brothers

Just last night I had the misfortune of seeing a preview for the latest installment in the Wayans brothers film catalog. A grouping that can only be described as, "a sociological experiment constructed to test the limits of what our culture will allow to be considered worthy material for a hollywood film." As I watched the preview unfold (for a film entitled, "Little Man," and yes - it is about a little man, and no, it does not look funny), I found myself tearing up with frustration. Frustration, I say, because rarely has so much talent been so needlessly squandered in Hollywood. Anybody who ever saw an episode of "In Living Color" or rented "I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka" or caught Marlon Wayans in "Requiem For A Dream" knows that there is talent running through the veins of the Wayans brothers. But do most people associate these things with the Wayans? Not now. Not after their resume has been consistently tarnished with such god-awful titles as "Scary Movie (1 & 2), "Dungeons & Dragons," "White Chicks," oh, and "Scary Movie 3."

I don't think that so much talent has been squandered right in front of the public eye since Wayne Huizenga refused to buy a decent running game for Dan Marino. What I really want to know is, why there hasn't been any accountablility from the public about all of this? Thanks to publications such as People, US Weekly, Sports Illustrated and The New York Times - not to mention websites too numerous to count - the American people are now empowered to faithfully berate and belittle the slightest faux pas of anyone even associated with someone famous (Nicole Richie is the Spokesperson for this social category. She will be giving a lecture entitled, "How To Embed Yourself In The Public Eye Like A Fork" at 4 o'clock thursday afternoon at the Chicago Hilton. Oh the irony.). Yet somehow, mysteriously, the Wayans brothers (Marlon and Shawn) have apparently been allowed free range in Hollywood to greenlight whatever horrid project they come up with. The lack of attention that has been shown to their deteriorating career by the American public is nothing less than shocking.

Where would Lance Armstrong be now if his wife (whom the a**hole left - the term "hero" is relative, btw. oh, and sheryl crow is gangly and unattractive - her head is 3 times too big for her emaciated body) hadn't forced him to get on a bike and ride for all he was worth? Where would Michael Jordan have ended up if he hadn't had coaches who criticized him and refused to let him on their squads? Where would Pete Rose have ended up if the public hadn't stepped in with the giant louisville slugger of justice? That's right - he'd be in the Hall Of Fame right now, much to the chagrin of old people everywhere. You see, it is the public's responsibility to provide these "famous" people with critiques and harangues about their failures and foibles. But the Wayans brothers have been ignored for far too long, much to the detriment of society. Would, for instance, the good people of New York allow their NBA team to continue to be run by a man who is generally considered to be the Basketball Antichrist? No way. Would the Minnesota Vikings allow Mike Tice to coach the entire 2005 season? Not a chance. Would the famed Fantasy Football team L.A. Bias allow GM George Edward LeBeau III to continue his reign of mediocrity? No way in hell. This is because the American public does its civic duty and sounds the alarm every time such egregious behaviors are made known. And this is what needs to happen to the Wayans brothers: the public needs to show some concern and let the Wayans know that we the people are not going to take their uninspired garbage any more. We have guys like Bode Miller to fill that gap. People who actually have talent should not be allowed to squander it in front of our collective eye without accountability. So join me - write to the Wayans and let them know that everything they have done in the last decade has sucked. Let them know that you're mad as hell, and you're not going to take it any more. Let them know that the American public cares.



Oh, and Quentin Tarantino is a film god.

A Heaping Plate of Nacho-Rama

Ok, before I start my first “Nacho-rama” article, a brief note of explanation about that name. Nacho-rama is one of the real Village Tavern’s finest entrees, which is basically prepared by taking a plate of Nachos and putting everything in the kitchen on top of them. The result is a fantastic smorgasbord of, well, nacho-rama, a rare appetizer in which all five food groups are well represented. With that in mind, I’m going to include a few brief thoughts about just about everything.

First off, I’d like to apologize to those of you who were expecting a doom-and-gloom column about the White Sox and Chicago baseball in general, I had a few ideas ready, but in the few days I was working on it the Sox won three games, Cleveland’s 45 game winning streak came to an end in horrific fashion, and I found out about the (somewhat poorly named) RIOT standings (an improved version of the magic number in that accounts for remaining schedule), which basically show that Sox are in the playoffs with 2 more wins at this point. That’s assuming the Yankees, Red Sox, and Indians all win out, other than when the Yankees and Red Sox play each other. By the way, the White Sox have four games left against the Tigers – a .500 team at best that has clearly been sending their games DHL for the last three weeks. I’m not too worried. So expect that column after their spectacular playoff loss (and it will happen, this is Chicago).

A few quick thoughts about the White Sox and the rest of the AL, though:

- The heart of their order is not nearly good enough to carry them to a title. That doesn’t mean that they can’t win it, but it does mean that if they do, casual baseball fans are probably going to know who Tadahito Iguchi, Joe Crede, and Juan Uribe are.
- One strange thing about the AL this year is that, while there are a lot of good starters on the five teams left in the race, none of them have a bonafide scary playoff starter. Buehrle, Garland, Chacon, Sabathia, and Cliff Lee have almost no big game experience, Unit, Schilling, Wells and El Duque are clearly past their primes, Clement hasn’t been the same since that really scary injury a few months ago, Garcia, Millwood, and Mussina are established as ‘solid but not automatic’ post-season options, and nobody really knows what to expect from Contreras once the pressure gets dialed up, including Sox fans. It makes things tough, because you can usually figure out who's taking the pennant by asking yourself which team among those that have an ace closer (sorry Boston) has the most scary starting pitchers.
- I’ve intentionally left out the entire Angels rotation and written off Oakland in protest of the general ignorance of good Midwestern pro teams shown by the East coast Sports Promotional Network. In that spirit, I’ve decided to ignore the entire West Coast for rest of this month. (Although if you’re wondering about Colon, I’ve seen him pitch for the White Sox - I'm not sure if he's still in the league now - and he’s very beatable). I’m also going to refer to the White Sox as “the Sox,” indefinitely from here on out. Also, if I feel like a player is about to sign with the White Sox or the Cubs, this will be referred to as “ending up in pinstripes.” Seriously, stop using pinstripes nicknames for the Yankees immediately. Half of the teams in baseball have pinstripes on at least one model of their unis, and the Yanks don’t wear pinstripes all of the time. We might as well refer to them as “the team that has bats” or “the team that wears gloves in the field” (although the first would be more appropriate).

You know how athletes and entertainers like to criticize the President? I don’t have a problem with it, in fact, it’s one of the things that help to make our society unique, but I think it would be fun if the President occasionally shot back by letting us know what he thought of their recent projects. Couldn’t you just imagine W. looking straight into the camera from the Oval Office desk and saying, “To the enemies of freedom in Iraq, I say this: The American will is strong. Freedom is on the march, and its enemies will not prevail. And to the members of Coldplay, I say this: The falsetto piano ballad has been pretty much played out at this point. Please feel free to try something else on your next album. Good night, and God bless America.”

With most umpires granting the hit by pitch when a uniform gets nicked, why is it that we haven’t seen a couple of major leaguers try wearing giant, baggy, MC Hammer style pants and sleeves? If Hammer Time could move around wearing that stuff, I’m sure those guys could too.

It’s an indication of how far Andy Richter has fallen from his “cult comedy icon” status that Mark wrote nearly two and a half pages about a staring contest and didn’t reference him once. I’m willing to bet it didn’t even seem weird to anyone until I pointed it out just now.

As some of you may be aware, Keira Knightley is going to be in the next Jane Austen movie. This is clearly presents a huge dilemma – does this alone make the movie worth seeing? Or even renting down the line? If there’s a select group of actresses who can make anything watchable, she’s in it, but Austen's books and previous movies looked really boring, not to mention painfully long. In fact, when people who loved the films describe them to me, almost all of what they say makes me want to see them even less. I’d appreciate any help that our readers can offer here, I’ve seriously got no idea how to handle this.

By the way, before you say that I’m prejudging a whole subgenre of film, I’d like to mention that I did watch about twenty minutes of Sense and Sensibility. It was horrid, and this is coming from a guy who occasionally enjoys chick flicks and has even watched them in non-dating/mixed company situations. I don’t have anything against Ms. Austen, but people had different standards for entertainment in 1795, which was before the internet, video games, big-time professional sports, television, radio, most board games, widespread literacy in many places, restaurants that had awesome nachos and chicken tenders, and quite possibly anything resembling the modern conceptions of dating or even friendship. So it’s understandable that people thought that things like Pride and Prejudice and Great Expectations were classics. Fortunately we can now look back on things like Quantum Leap.

Anyone else think that TO is sandbagging with the end zone dances because of the contract dispute? It wouldn’t be entirely out of character for him to think that his production is worth his current contract, but if the Eagles want some real entertainment, it’s going to cost them. Although Drew Bledsoe scored a rushing touchdown earlier today, so I supposed just about anything is possible.

Yes, I’m aware that I mentioned Keira Knightley in my post but instead included pictures of Juan Uribe, President Bush, and the cast members of Quantum Leap. This was done intentionally just to piss you off. If you don’t like it, start your own site.

One of the signs at the Chargers-Giants game read “Eli’s So like Peyton…Not.” I loved it. I haven’t seen someone break out that use of “not” since the nineties ended (in case you forgot, it’s from the Wayne's World saga, which is one of the true treasures of our generation. Unlike any of the Jane Austen movies).