Today's been something of an annoying day. I had to wake up at a reasonable hour as if I have a real job. Then I found out that my move to another apartment is being bumped back to a much more inconvenient date. And all day I have been working on an assignment and it ain't going well.
Long story short, I am in a ranting move. So here goes ...
A few days ago, Keith Law mentioned that when he was with the Blue Jays, JP Ricciardi turned down a trade of Jose Cruz Jr. (retired centre-fielder) for David Wright (current perennial all-star and MVP candidate). Now, in hindsight this was an abysmal decision, but it was at least kind of defensible at the time when Jose Cruz was viewed as being a strong defensive player who might develop his plethora of tools.
I'm not here to apologize or pile on JP; I'll leave that to others. But I do want to know why Keith Law had to confirm this rumour. Does he just hate Jays fans? I mean, the rational side of me (small as it may be) is trying to argue that these non-trades happen all the time, and prospects are always a bit of a gamble.
Unfortunately, the sports fan in me wants to go on table-flipping rampage (which has been shown by science to be the second best kind of rampage after the Rambo-like rampage). DAVID WRIGHT!? REALLY?! Keith Law, why must you taunt me? It's bad enough that the team this year was terrible, but you just had to poor the salt that is David Wright on those wounds? Next, you'll remind me about the Lincecum for Rios non-trade and that Roy Halladay is probably leaving. Or that the Leafs are 1-7-1, Toronto FC just got embarassed in a do-or-die game, the Argos are a disaster, and the Raptors may go games without getting a single rebound. I really don't need this right now, Keith Law, I really don't.
I also don't want to kick Steve Phillips while he is down, but this is just more evidence that he was a terrible GM. At least JP can say he wasn't familiar with Wright --- Phillips doesn't have that luxury. And yet, when he goes on television as a baseball analyst, I'm supposed to take his opinion seriously?
But let this be a lesson for new Blue Jays GM Alex Anthopoulos. Alex, do yourself a favour. Determine who are the worst GM's in the game (I suggest starting with that fella in San Francisco), and get on their good side. Then call them weekly with ridiculous trade offers. Particularly, offer aging players whose skills are degrading for shiny young prospects. Somehow these trades happen far more often than they should, and its about time the Blue Jays benefitted from the stupidity of other teams.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
In this episode of "The Good, the Bad, and the Rick," our intrepid hero admits to being thoroughly confused by Michael Haneke
I apologize to all of my readers who were anxiously waiting with baited breath for the next word to burst forth from the deep recesses of my cold and forgotten heart. Fear no more, for I have returned from whence I came!
By which I mean the last few weeks have been quite eventful and I have not had the opportunity to write anything. Not that I have any real excuse. I was only defending my thesis, and then celebrating the successful defense of my thesis, and then concurrently looking for an apartment. And in the midst of all this, I also managed to watch 5 movies in the last two weeks. I'm not sure if I will have a post on each, but I will certainly address a few of them. Today, I thought I'd tackle "The White Ribbon" and my opinion of the three Michael Haneke films that I've seen over the last year.
I am not sure where I first heard of the film "Funny Games" (specifically "Funny Games US"), but however that was, something about the description stuck with me. So when I stumbled across a copy of it in the used bin at the local Rogers Video about 8-12 months ago, I decided it was worth a purchase.
And I was right. The basic story of the film follows the home invasion of an upper-middle class family's cabin. But instead of hitting your regular horror movie plot points, this film basically subverts all your expectations about the genre and points out the viewers sadism for even wanting to watch such a film.
"Funny Games" also represents one of the most uncomfortable viewing experiences of my life. Not because it is overly violent --- there is little actual on-screen violence --- but because Haneke builds the tension to levels that I am not used to. My stomach was essentially squirming the entire time, and even when there is a brief respite, Haneke quickly pulls it away. It is a beautifully filmed movie, but it is a painful experience, particularly considering what Haneke suggests my interest in watching such a film says about me.
Even if it was a difficult film to watch, its brilliance made me eager check out Haneke's other work. So when a local theatre was showing Haneke films for an entire week, I rounded up some friends --- Zee German, Minnesota, The Greatest TA of All Time (you sir, are a brilliant and talented man, and I don't only say so because you might be marking my assignment at this very moment), and Soul-Patch* --- and we headed over to watch "The Seventh Continent." As we left the theatre, Zee German and Minnesota claimed it was the worst movie they had ever seen. I tried playing the contrarian (I'm a bit of a jerk that way), but I have to admit, I also hated it.
The film follows a middle-class family living a regular, and what Haneke suggests is a boring and unfulfilling life. So they, well let us say, change their situation.
"The Seventh Continent" is also difficult to watch, but that is mostly because ever scene goes on about 10 times longer than it should. It's one thing to have long scenes that build tension --- and to be fair, there are some tense/heart-breaking scenes. But is is another to show 5 straight minutes of someone literally flushing money down the toilet from a single camera angle
And so it was with trepidation that I went to watch Haneke's "The White Ribbon" during the Edmonton Film Festival last week. The movie had won the Palme D'Or at Cannes and so a bunch of us were interested. But I was so disappointed in "The Seventh Continent" that I expected the worst.
"The White Ribbon" follows some weird and tragic events that happen in a small village in Germany in 1913.
But in the end, I didn't connect with film at all. I found the story to not be particularly interesting, and I came out not having any idea what Haneke was trying to say.
I did enjoy his stark black-and-white cinematography. In particular, Haneke seems to love to allow the camera to linger on shot in which all characters have left, only to allow them to re-enter the frame from where they came. I also appreciate that all characters are given heaps of depth. But I really have no idea know what it was all building to.
I suspect a European audience will get much more out of it than I did, just because of the cultural background and history that the film assumes. I had no idea until about halfway through the movie that the year was 1913 (my guess was about 15 years off), and I wonder if this would have been immediately obvious to someone from that continent.
I do appreciate that Haneke doesn't spoon-feed his audience with this film, but it feels like he goes too far the other way. It is almost like the film is deliberately frustrating. For that reason, I am less than impressed. It is certainly hard for me to recommend a movie that I did not get, or even really enjoy.
In the end, I am left with an odd opinion of Haneke. I remain staunchly in favour of "Funny Games" and staunchly in opposition to "The Seventh Continent." "The White Ribbon" simply left me cold (perhaps by flying right over my head). But after seeing all three films, I can't say I have nearly as much interest in seeking out any further Haneke films as I once did.
Note: Some internet chatter I have seen suggests "The White Ribbon" is about how the seeds of fascism and Nazism were sown in the young generation. I suppose I can kind of see that if I cross my eyes and squint. However, I maintain that even if this is indeed Haneke's message, he has obfuscated it far too much. Again, maybe this was all obvious for a European audience, but I completely missed it when I saw the film, and I would be lying if I didn't admit that I am having a hard time seeing it now.
* Soul-Patch is a pretty cool nickname (it makes him sound like a cop in a 70's blaxpoitation film), but it isn't accurate, and I'm pretty sure I can do better. Next time, I promise will.
By which I mean the last few weeks have been quite eventful and I have not had the opportunity to write anything. Not that I have any real excuse. I was only defending my thesis, and then celebrating the successful defense of my thesis, and then concurrently looking for an apartment. And in the midst of all this, I also managed to watch 5 movies in the last two weeks. I'm not sure if I will have a post on each, but I will certainly address a few of them. Today, I thought I'd tackle "The White Ribbon" and my opinion of the three Michael Haneke films that I've seen over the last year.
I am not sure where I first heard of the film "Funny Games" (specifically "Funny Games US"), but however that was, something about the description stuck with me. So when I stumbled across a copy of it in the used bin at the local Rogers Video about 8-12 months ago, I decided it was worth a purchase.
And I was right. The basic story of the film follows the home invasion of an upper-middle class family's cabin. But instead of hitting your regular horror movie plot points, this film basically subverts all your expectations about the genre and points out the viewers sadism for even wanting to watch such a film.
"Funny Games" also represents one of the most uncomfortable viewing experiences of my life. Not because it is overly violent --- there is little actual on-screen violence --- but because Haneke builds the tension to levels that I am not used to. My stomach was essentially squirming the entire time, and even when there is a brief respite, Haneke quickly pulls it away. It is a beautifully filmed movie, but it is a painful experience, particularly considering what Haneke suggests my interest in watching such a film says about me.
Even if it was a difficult film to watch, its brilliance made me eager check out Haneke's other work. So when a local theatre was showing Haneke films for an entire week, I rounded up some friends --- Zee German, Minnesota, The Greatest TA of All Time (you sir, are a brilliant and talented man, and I don't only say so because you might be marking my assignment at this very moment), and Soul-Patch* --- and we headed over to watch "The Seventh Continent." As we left the theatre, Zee German and Minnesota claimed it was the worst movie they had ever seen. I tried playing the contrarian (I'm a bit of a jerk that way), but I have to admit, I also hated it.
The film follows a middle-class family living a regular, and what Haneke suggests is a boring and unfulfilling life. So they, well let us say, change their situation.
"The Seventh Continent" is also difficult to watch, but that is mostly because ever scene goes on about 10 times longer than it should. It's one thing to have long scenes that build tension --- and to be fair, there are some tense/heart-breaking scenes. But is is another to show 5 straight minutes of someone literally flushing money down the toilet from a single camera angle
And so it was with trepidation that I went to watch Haneke's "The White Ribbon" during the Edmonton Film Festival last week. The movie had won the Palme D'Or at Cannes and so a bunch of us were interested. But I was so disappointed in "The Seventh Continent" that I expected the worst.
"The White Ribbon" follows some weird and tragic events that happen in a small village in Germany in 1913.
But in the end, I didn't connect with film at all. I found the story to not be particularly interesting, and I came out not having any idea what Haneke was trying to say.
I did enjoy his stark black-and-white cinematography. In particular, Haneke seems to love to allow the camera to linger on shot in which all characters have left, only to allow them to re-enter the frame from where they came. I also appreciate that all characters are given heaps of depth. But I really have no idea know what it was all building to.
I suspect a European audience will get much more out of it than I did, just because of the cultural background and history that the film assumes. I had no idea until about halfway through the movie that the year was 1913 (my guess was about 15 years off), and I wonder if this would have been immediately obvious to someone from that continent.
I do appreciate that Haneke doesn't spoon-feed his audience with this film, but it feels like he goes too far the other way. It is almost like the film is deliberately frustrating. For that reason, I am less than impressed. It is certainly hard for me to recommend a movie that I did not get, or even really enjoy.
In the end, I am left with an odd opinion of Haneke. I remain staunchly in favour of "Funny Games" and staunchly in opposition to "The Seventh Continent." "The White Ribbon" simply left me cold (perhaps by flying right over my head). But after seeing all three films, I can't say I have nearly as much interest in seeking out any further Haneke films as I once did.
Note: Some internet chatter I have seen suggests "The White Ribbon" is about how the seeds of fascism and Nazism were sown in the young generation. I suppose I can kind of see that if I cross my eyes and squint. However, I maintain that even if this is indeed Haneke's message, he has obfuscated it far too much. Again, maybe this was all obvious for a European audience, but I completely missed it when I saw the film, and I would be lying if I didn't admit that I am having a hard time seeing it now.
* Soul-Patch is a pretty cool nickname (it makes him sound like a cop in a 70's blaxpoitation film), but it isn't accurate, and I'm pretty sure I can do better. Next time, I promise will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
