May 12, 2008
Because I'm the best mom ever, I spent Mother's Day at the movies with my older two watching Speed Racer. I have to admit that I only vaguely remember the original cartoon (which actually began as Japanese manga), but I think the main characters and the basic plot remains intact. In a nutshell, my kids loved it. (I guess they didn't read the NYT review first.) The movie is very long (over two hours), but my six-year-old never squirmed. In fact, he stood up much of the last hour, as if to get closer to the action.
And action there was. There are frequent car racing sequences, which are a blur of color and light. There are also several martial arts sequences. As someone who wanders through our living room now and then, I have had the opportunity to observe video games from afar, and several scenes in the movie seemed to have been created for the primary purpose of a Speed Racer video game. So what's not to love? Three of the things that my son loves best, car racing (a la Cars), martial arts (a la Power Rangers), and video games were rolled up into one movie. So, it seems like a movie made for kids. Except its confusing. Much of the back story of Speed's brother, Rex, is told in flashbacks superimposed on the present. I had to explain to my kids that the movie was flipping back and forth, because they were not following. To make it even more confusing, during the large "flashback montage," Speed Racer is in a race in which Rex held the track record. A hologram of Rex's car is racing right in front of Speed Racer's real car. So, the movie flips from Rex racing a decade earlier to Speed racing now to Rex's hologram racing now. And of course, Rex and Speed look very similar. I'm still not sure if Luke understood what the true identity of Racer X is, but I think I explained it to him.
The movie is a good Mother's Day movie. The mother is Susan Sarandon, which is automatically a good thing. But the movie has a lot of good family-as-team stuff. My only regret about the movie is that my colleague Larry Ribstein wasn't there. The movie has a lot of what Larry hates -- evil corporations stamping out the heart of the artist-driver. Plus, it has outsider trading! What kid's movie has as its core plot a scheme to use car racing victories as ways to manipulate stock prices for the purpose of mergers and acquisitions?
March 25, 2008
I haven't family-movie blogged in awhile, but over the break I did take three law professor daughters (only one mine) to see Penelope. My overall reaction was that the movie was pretty cute, and my fellow movie-goers agreed.
Penelope is the latest in a pretty short line of feminist fairy tales that put a twist on the prince charming saves damsel in distress plot device. I liked all three Shrek endings: In the first movie, Fiona's "true form" is revealed to be her ogre form, in the second, Fiona chooses to return to her ogre form rather than become conventionally beautiful with Shrek, and in the third, Fiona leads several fairy tale princesses in an effort to rescue themselves and stop the evil Prince Charming. Recently, in Enchanted, the damsel in distress ends up rescuing her true love. In Penelope, Christina Ricci is a 25-year-old "blue blood" woman who bears a family curse of a pig's snout; this curse will only be reversed when someone of "of her own kind" loves her. Her mother, the wonderful Catherine O'Hara, engages in a plan to find a suitable aristocratic love interest, but there are no takers.
So, how can the ending of Penelope compete with the other feminist fairy tales? Are there only so many feminist fairy tale endings? I won't spoil it for you, but I will say that in some ways the ending is more satisfying than the Shrek endings, although not in other ways. All in all, I was glad my daughter saw it.
December 19, 2007
Last week, I took all three kids to see Enchanted. (One thing I've learned -- you can easily take infants to the movies. Toddlers are a whole different story.) I wholeheartedly recommend it. Although many animated movies lately appeal to both kids and adults at the same time by having in-jokes that allude to adult pop culture, this movie has in-jokes that allude to kid pop culture -- Disney! That device makes watching the movie even more fun for kids, who for once know where "this is all going."
But of course the best part of the movie is that it makes a small move in a feminist direction -- turning around the stereotypical damsel-in-distress ending and persuading a certain princess to rethink marrying a prince she just met in the forest. This twist was not lost on my 8-year-old daughter, and I'm glad. However, the movie doesn't assume that one must be feminist and cynical at the same time -- characters are encouraged to believe in happy endings and in love, but these wonderful goods come as a result of reason, discernment, and self-confidence. Very nice!
December 07, 2007
Matt Bodie has tagged me in the blogospheric Bad Movie Tag game, and I seize the opportunity! I believe that I'm supposed to name the worst movie that I paid money to see, and that one is easy. This is also the only movie that ever caused me to walk out of the theater in the middle of it. The winner?
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. I was a big Twin Peaks fan. I even muddled through the increasingly surreal second season, even though I was supposed to be a first-year law student at the time. I really looked forward to the movie. And then it was horrible. I don't think TV shows should be turned into movies. Putting aside movies from TV shows that are more about a character than a weekly plot (Batman, SpiderMan, most cartoons) or even movies from "classic" TV shows (Brady Bunch, Bewitched, The Fugitive, etc.), movies made to try to squeeze some more fan dollars out of popular TV show don't seem to work. I'm very skeptical of the Sex and the City movie. Surely Charlotte's ex Trey (Kyle MacLachlan, aka Special Agent Cooper) could have reminded them about Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me. Here is a list of TV shows turned into movies.
Making a TV series out of movie is also risky, but there have been some successes (M*A*S*H, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dead Zone, Friday Night Lights). Here is a list of movies turned into TV shows.
I tag fellow film buff Larry Ribstein.
November 12, 2007
My blogging has definitely been light the last few months, what with giving birth and all, and I'm sure many people have missed my sporadic reviews of children's movies. Well, wait no more!
The two older kids and I went to the movies on Friday and took in Jerry Seinfeld's new vehicle, Bee Movie. I had read an interview with Seinfeld where he said that he didn't think of the movie as a kid's movie -- he just wrote an animated movie, which happens not to have bad words in it, like his comedy act for the most part. Well, he was right! I noticed half way through the movie that I was the only person in my crew laughing. The humor is pure Seinfeld, so if you liked the show, you'll like the movie. (For example, the dumb human who tries to swat the bee hero, Barry, has just invented the "resume brochure." That character is even voiced by Patrick Warburton, who was a recurring guest star on Seinfeld before becoming the Disney's voice of Buzz Lightyear of Star Command and Cronk from Emperor's New Groove. Barry is also depicted in scenes similar to Benjamin in The Graduate. My kids haven't seen The Graduate. There is also a running gag that Barry's mom wants his girlfriend to be "Bee-ish" and would throw a fit if she were a wasp. I didn't even get that for about 30 seconds.)
This is not to say that my kids didn't like the movie. They did like it. They just didn't think it was a comedy. They were very interested to see how the plot ended and really liked the "pollen jocks" the best. Oh, and they did laugh at the lawyer jokes.
August 17, 2007
If you are lucky enough to be spared daily doses of the Disney Channel, you may be completely unaware of the fact that today is the worldwide premiere of High School Musical 2, the sequel to High School Musical! The original made-for-TV movie was the most successful Disney original movie ever, and the soundtrack was the best-selling album of 2006, selling 3.7 million copies between March and December of that year. (I have to admit, the soundtrack is quite catchy.) Our eight-year-old daughter has been invited to not one, but two premiere parties tonight.
I think in 7th grade English we were told that there a a handful of basic plots that are used over and over: man v. man; man v. himself; man v. the environment, etc. I think my teacher left out the most popular recurring plot ever: High school clique v. high school clique. High School Musical is basically a G-rated Grease update with less tension and more personal growth. (Wikipedia seems to think that both HSM and Grease are updates of Romeo and Juliet. That seems wrong; West Side Story was an update of Romeo and Juliet.)
May 19, 2007
Yes, we went to see Shrek the Third on opening day last night! After the 90-something minutes, Paul and I looked at each other and said, "Was that the whole movie?" The movie is thin on plot and story, but thick on songs from our generation and jokes only the parents will get. Shrek the Third, which brings to the cast Justin Timberlake, is more like a 90-minute music video -- an assemblage if visually interesting scenes, driving music, and twists on conventional wisdom. I liked the part with the three "Disney Princesses" -- Cindrella, Sleeping Beauty and Snow White -- rescuing themselves, for example. Amazingly, the animation continues to get better every year. The wrinkled sadness on the Queen's face at her husband's lily pond funeral made her seem incredibly lifelike.
But unlike the first Shrek movie, I can't imagine that if we buy the DVD that it will become a household favorite. The original Shrek was the first movie that my oldest child sat through, and we sat through it three times that summer (I was pregnant, had very low energy, and we lived within walking distance of a movie theater). We watched it again the other night for a Friday movie night at home. The kids still loved it, six years later. The new Shrek just isn't in that category.
April 13, 2007
Over the past month or so, our family has sampled the new Spring movies (if only it were Spring here!). I know that I have fallen down on the job of reviewing family movies on this blog, so here is my round-up of the last three movies we have seen: The Last Mimzy, Meet the Robinsons and TMNT (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles).
More after the break:
The Last Mimzy. We saw this movie several weeks before it was released at a "sneak preview." I took both kids (5 and 7 1/2), and was a little worried that it would hold there interest. I should not have worried. Both kids followed the plot, which basically centers around a scientist in the future sending a doll with artificial intelligence to the past to gather some evidence or hope of human kindness in order to save the future. Although we are only given glimpses of the future, we get the impression that it is a cold, horrible place were everyone is isolated from each other and even wear "boy in the plastic bubble"-type suits that represents the barriers between humans. (I could never get exactly what the doll (a bunny rabbit named Mimzy) was supposed to gather or how our protagonists were actually supposed to help in the quest, but I guess it all works out. I tried not to think too hard about it.) We also glimpse that modern humans are headed that way, with each member of a family focused on a different electronic device much of the time, even during family vacations at the beach.
The movie is basically E.T., but the government isn't as evil and the parents aren't quite as detached and clueless. Mimzy is found by a brother/sister combination, but this time the little sister is the one singled out, with the brother her "engineer." The parents are initially freaked out by the changes in their household once Mimzy arrives, but of course they all join together in the end to save mankind. The ending was a little tense, which my youngest found unsettling, but all in all, it was pretty tame family fare.
Meet the Robinsons. We had our hopes up for this one, but we were disappointed. Forty-five minutes into it, both Paul and I would have been just as happy to hear a fire alarm telling us to exit the building. I think the problem with the movie is that you don't "meet the Robinsons" until the movie is half way over, and then you only see them for about 15-20 minutes. They are definitely the most interesting part of the movie, but you really don't get to know this quirky, eccentric family very well. (I predict a Disney Channel series based on the family.) The bulk of the movie focuses on Lewis, a child inventor who (of course) is an orphan and wants to create a machine so that he can remember the day his mother left him at the orphanage so he can find her. However, a mysterious man in a bowler hat comes from the future to sabotage his invention, which is about to win a large, life-changing prize. Wilbur Robinson, son of the greatest inventor, Cornelius Robinson, follows the man back in time to save Lewis and his invention. The rest of the movie is spent figuring out excatly why Wilbur and the man are interested in Lewis -- who does Lewis grow up to be and what does he do? Unfortunately, this is made very complicated and really isn't resolved until very quickly in the last part of the movie, the best part. So, you leave happy because you really liked the way everything got tied up at the end, but you had to suffer to get there.
I'll have to get my colleague Larry Ribstein the DVD when it comes out so he can analyze the role of the corporation in the movie. Mr. Robinson is the founder of Robinson Industries, which is presented as a great corporation where innovation is rewarded and failure applauded as a necessary precursor to success. Characters say things like "From failure, you learn. From success, not so much. . ." (This seems ironic coming from Disney, which has seen more animation failures than successes lately.) Mr. Robinson's worst invention has the potential for destroying the world, which could be seen as an anti-technology motif, although inconsistent with the rest of the movie. However, because Mr. Robinson is able to invent time travel to go back and fix that, I guess the overall theme is pro-technology!
TNMT. I have to admit complete ignorance of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Not my generation. So, I did not know the backstory of this new movie. Fortunately, you really don't need to know much about the backstory. My 7 1/2 year-old daughter was bored out of her mind at this movie. If you don't really like constant animated martial arts, then it may not be the movie for you, even though there is a Kim Possible-like female sidekick for the girls in the audience. My 5 year-old son loved it. Interestingly, he was more scared during Meet the Robinsons than during TNMT. I have this theory that (at least my) kids are frightened more by tense moments, suspense, and scary music than actual physical violence. In Meet the Robinsons, the man and his robotic bowler hat are very frighteningly drawn, and scenes of the potential horrible future have scary music and are drawn in shades of black and gray. This is more frightening to my son than green turtles high-kicking rival ninjas.
There you go -- have a good weekend!
February 19, 2007
I haven't blogged about a kids' movie lately, so here are some thoughts about the new release Bridge to Terabithia. I took my third-grader (age 7) to see it yesterday, and she was probably at the young end of the movie's demographic. I never read the book as a child (couldn't get into it), but my daughter has the book in her 3rd/4th grade classroom.
First of all, know that the movie breaks the cardinal rule of children's movies: a main character dies. I prepared Carter for this eventuality. I spend most of my time watching movies with my kids saying, "Don't worry [x] can't die because [x] is the star!" (I've also been telling myself this all week because I'm worried about Meredith Grey!) Well, that doesn't work here. When the death happens, both Carter and I cried for a very long time.
The movie is probably worth the pain, though. It's a good depiction of a platonic girl-boy friendship. The girl is good at "boy" things, and the boy is good at "girl" things, and the two have a discussion about this. Both kids are unpopular at school, but for different reasons, but they are (of course) very easy for the audience to love. The book is also a good PR campaign for the imagination: the kids create a magical world that has its stage behind their houses but really exists in their minds. Their friendship exists not on IM or on MySpace but in those hours between school letting out and dinner when they are physically present for each other outside. Remember outside? Remember your best friend in 7th grade? I do.
January 23, 2007
Last Friday, Paul and I were blown away by Dreamgirls. Not only did we enjoy the film more than any other in recent memory, but the movie theater was completely full. When was the last time you went to see a movie (weeks after its initial release) and the theater was full? We confidently predicted that it would win Best Picture -- it was much better than Chicago. I even bought the soundrack (on this thing called a "CD") the next day. When was the last time you bought a soundtrack? Grease? Saturday Night Fever? Well, Oscar nominations were released this morning, and there was no Best Picture nomination for Dreamgirls. (Here's one explanation for why at Concurring Opinions.) The musical did not go home empty-handed. The firm received eight nominations, three for songs. Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson both earned nominations for supporting roles.
I have not seen any of the other Best Picture nominees, so I can't say for sure that Dreamgirls was unfairly treated. We do have LIttle MIss Sunshine, a surprise Best Picture nominee, at home from Netflix, so I guess we have to watch it now. Full list here.
October 09, 2006
Yesterday, before watching Open Season, we saw a preview for The Nativity Story, which presents the birth of Christ, but with much detail about the trials and tribulations pre-birth of Mary and Joseph. (Mary seems to fear that she will be stoned to death, etc.) The movie looked really interesting, particularly because the characters don't seem blond-haired and fair-skinned, with British accents. We made a mental note of going to see it later, but maybe not with the kids (there seemed to be much detail about King Herod and the killing of first-born children).
So last night, I'm catching up on my People magazine reading, and I see that the actress, Keisha Castle-Hughes, who plays Mary in the movie is pregnant. The actress also appeared in Whale Rider and was the youngest actress nominated for an Academy Award at thirteen. The actress is now sixteen. In the tradition of People magazine, the blurb said that she and her boyfriend, Bradley Hull, have been dating for three years. When thinking of someone who is thirteen, that sentence seems a little odd. It does seem a little ironic that she is now an unwed teenaged mother after playing the most famous unwed teenaged mother. I guess her parents can't yell at her -- she'll just say that they would have judged Mary, too! (As a side note, I can't imagine that the producers are very happy about this development -- this may throw a wrench into the marketing plan.)
August 19, 2006
Unless you are a 15-year-old boy, referring to "balls" or "butt crack" is not clever repartee, and mocking adult men in jumpsuits who think that it is does not qualify as "dead-on satire." Talking with a fake Southern accent is not inherently funny, either. Nor are gay men, even when they are French Nascar drivers. I love goofy films as much as the next guy, but Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby is a car wreck, regardless of what the critics say. It makes Nacho Libre look like an all-time classic.
August 09, 2006
Just in case anyone has been waiting to get my corporate-law flavored take on Barnyard, I guess I'll have to disappoint you this time. I was no Ag major, but I know enough to know that male cows have no udders! Therefore, I'm staying away from this movie because even the previews disturb me. Now that we have moved away from Texas, I'm very sensitive to the potential for my kids to grow up as city kids, ignorant of the world of nature; I don't want them to think that bulls or steers have udders. I realize that in letting them watch any animated film they might mistakenly think that animals can speak, but I think that living with an appropriately nonverbal dog and cat prepares them for the real world in that regard.
Briefly, we did see Monster House, which is scarier than the previews. I have a selfish interest in preventing nightmares, and some scenes were particularly nightmare-worthy. Interestingly, those scenes revolved mostly around the helplessness of the main character when faced with clueless parents and a realistically evil babysitter and her realistically evil (and drunk) boyfriend. I have found that realistic life tension can have more negative impact than unrealistic violence or magic on my children. That being said, the plot is interesting and the movie is well-done. Note that if you stay through the credits, some of the evilness of the house is diminished by having the "eaten" characters emerge unscathed.
July 20, 2006
Last night we went (sans kids) to see Dead Man's Chest. As we were leaving, Paul said, "That was a lot like Empire Strikes Back." And it was -- in two ways. (Some spoilers.)
Structurally, the two films are similar. DMC is the second in a trilogy, filmed with the knowledge that there will be a third film. Although the first Pirates movie is a stand-alone movie (like Star Wars) with a beginning, middle and end, DMC (like Empire) is all middle. DMC (like Empire) is full of cliffhangers, double crosses, parallel plots, and unresolved revelations and crises. You want the third movie to be released right now. DMC, being the middle of the story, is all about action and crisis.
The two films are almost identical in character, theme and plot. You have two guys and a girl involved in various quests, although each character has their own sub-quest. You're not sure if feisty Elizabeth/Leia will end up with honorable Will/Luke or with rebellious, self-centered Jack/Han Solo. Jack/Han Solo keeps leaving or threatening to leave, but keeps coming back to save them. During their adventures, they meet up with an old friend, the ex-commodore/Lando who double-crosses them. He may redeem himself in the next episode, however. In this episode, we meet Will/Luke's father, who left the boy to become a pirate/darth bad guy. The father may have second thoughts now, but his soul is owned by Davy Jones/Emperor. We'll have to see if tfather and son can join forces to defeat Davy Jones/Emperor in the next episode. Poor Elizabeth/Leia's world, which was ruled by her governor father (no seeming analogue), is now under the rule of the evil East India Company arm of the British government/ evil Empire, and she must save Port Royal. We also have the same ensemble cast: First Mate/Chewbacca and two bumbling Black Pearl PIrates/R2D2 and C3PO. Jack/Han has a ship with a checkered past, the Black Pearl/Millennium Falcon, that is not much to look at, but gets the job done. And the big finish: at the end of the movie, we think Jack/Han is a goner, but we're concocting a plan to bring him back to life.
And, if you've already seen the movie, you know that the whole "We're on an island inhabited by savage Ewoks who think one of us is a God but are going to carry us around on poles and roast us" plot was thrown into the DMC one episode too early. So who knows what the third movie holds in store for us now!
June 13, 2006
I love to go to the movies, but because of the demographics of our household, I see more kids' movies than grown-up movies. So, in the past two years, we have seen many, many previews for the last movie created under the Pixar-Disney agreement, Cars. This movie became something of a bargaining chip in the contract renewal negotiations, which of course resulted in the Disney-Pixar acquisition. However, during negotiations, the release of Cars was postponed until this summer. So, my kids had a lot of built-up anticipation about this movie, and I had a built-up sense of dread. The end result? I loved it! My kids, however, did not follow much of the movie, but did seem to love the characters, which is really what the movie is about, right? Merchandising.
I thought that the movie would be disappointing because even Disney can't anthropomorphize metal into cuddly characters (think Robots -- shiver), but that did not prove to be the case. Each car is distinct in personality, appearance, movement, and speech, and you forget after awhile that the characters are cars. But, the movie jumps the Shrek divide in some ways. The big belly laughs erupting in the theater were from parents, not the kids. To really appreciate the movie you need some background knowledge in popular culture, including (1) who Paul Newman is; (2) what NASCAR is; (3) what Route 66 is; (4) urban planning issues that arise from the interstate highway system; and (5) how to drive. And to me, the funniest moment was when a Hummer2 wouldn't get it's tires muddy, which of course was a gag my children did not get.
All in all, I'm sure we'll buy the DVD, if only because I enjoyed sitting through the movie much more than any other children's movie this year. I hear that the box office opening was disappointing compared to The Incredibles and Finding Nemo and that Disney stock fell yesterday, but my little boy rode his bike last night to his own tune of "I'm Lightning McQueen!"
January 31, 2006
I love the Academy Awards, so I could not let today go by without commenting on the slate of nominees. Here are some preliminary thoughts:
1. Best Picture. I've seen three out the five, which is about average for me A.K. ("After Kids"): Brokeback Mountain, Capote, and Crash. I actually blogged about all three here, here and here. I personally would vote for Crash, but I can see Brokeback Mountain getting the prize. Both have a political message and both were very daring. Crash, however, actually had a story that was interesting and not just a premise.
2. Best Male Actor/Female Actor. I've heard before that the winner in the male actor category will be the person who portrayed the weakest, or most flawed, character. The winner in the female actor category will be the person who portrayed the strongest character. (Last year's winners were Jamie Foxx, for portraying a musician who was blind, and Hillary Swank, for portraying a female boxer.) For the female actor category, that rule of thumb would result in Felicity Huffman winning for Transamerica, just as it did for Hillary Swank in Boys Don't Cry. I have not yet seen Walk the Line yet due to its short duration here in Milwaukee, but I have liked Reese Witherspoon in other things, so I would like to see her win here for playing a strong female character as well.
For the male actor category, that rule of thumb just poses more questions. Who is more flawed, an out-of-the closet gay man who is in love with a death row inmate, a closeted gay man who lives a life of quiet desperation in Wyoming, or a brilliant musician with a substance abuse problem? I would have nominated Matt Dillon as the racist policeman in Crash. Or at least his eyebrows.
3. Best Animated Feature Film. The category that was created for Disney includes no Disney films this year. I liked the Wallace & Gromit movie.
January 23, 2006
While at the movies this weekend, I saw the preview for Bubble, the newest movie by Steven Soderbergh, due out on Friday, January 27. This film release is notable because on the same day, the movie will air on HDNet Movies, a high definition cable channel. In addition, on Tuesday, January 31, the movie will be released on DVD. (The promos say that these three releases are "simultaneous" because films are traditionally released on DVD on Tuesdays.) This film may be something of an experiment. For example, the film uses "non-professional" actors. I assume they are cheaper than "professional" actors. So, Mr. Soderbergh doesn't seem to be using the simultaneous release on films with Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt, but it's a fun experiment as long as the opportunity cost is low.
But, I may be being too hard on this experiment. Soderbergh has committed to making six films for HDNet, so we'll have to see how this works. Larry Ribstein has said that the future of film is in the home, and he may be right. I for one love to go the movies. I love the previews; I love the popcorn. If the future of film is in the home, I'll have to buy one of those $1,999.99 popcorn machines they sell in the airplane magazines.
January 22, 2006
As we had a babysitter last night, we thought we would take in one of the movies that looked so good at the Golden Globes last week. Unfortunately, Walk the Line has already come and gone from Milwaukee, so we wandered over to the "hip" theater (live organ music) to see Brokeback Mountain. We were feeling very hip ourselves, until about two hours into the movie we were still waiting for the story to start. Yes, the movie has gorgeous scenery, and the characters are interesting and novel for a mainstream love story. But the plot was nowhere to be found. I tried to sort of fill in a plot and imagine action and dialogue that took place off-camera just to keep my attention. And could anyone else understand a word Heath Ledger said? I've heard real cowboys will a jaw full of Copenhagen that were more articulate than he was.
So why is the movie so popular? Do we all want to think of ourselves as the kind of people who would appreciate a love story between two men? I do. However, I would appreciate it more if there had been more story.
January 13, 2006
I am a sucker for a good sports movie, and Glory Road tells a story that would be difficult to botch. In 1966 Texas Western (now UTEP) won the NCAA basketball championship with seven black players defeating an all-white Kentucky team that starred Pat Riley and was coached by Adolph Rupp. Although the color barrier in college basketball was broken long before and the NBA was then being dominated by Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlin and Oscar Robertson, this game has assumed mythic importance because Texas Western started an all-black lineup in the NCAA championship. (Contrary to the movie, Texas Western started five black players all year, not just in the championship game. Coach Haskins was fond of saying that he just played his best players, regardless of race.)
The film implies that Texas Western coach Don Haskins went from coaching high school women one year to the national championship in the next, but he actually started at Texas Western in 1961. The official movie site states that in 1962 "Haskins hits the road to recruit black players who would lead TWC to the national championship. He finds talented, intelligent players who often had no other college scholarship offers because of their race." This was an era when college basketball included players like Cazzie Russell, Dave Bing, Elvin Hayes, and Lew Alcindor, but perhaps lesser players were being ignored. In any event, the absence of a true superstar among the Texas Western players emphasizes the greatness of their team.
Roger Ebert observes that this is a film about race, and he is right. Although the movie takes some liberties -- for example, portraying one of the players being assaulted in a bathroom by a group of four "crackers," even though that didn't actually happen -- the reality was pretty horrendous. This is from Harry Flournoy, one of the players:
I remember my sophomore year, we played a game in a tournament in Arkansas at the Arkansas State Holiday Tournament. We got there late and they knew we had one black player, Jim Barnes, who was our star player back then, but they figured that was it. And when you came onto the court back then, you came out under the stands, so the fans couldn't see you. They figured we maybe had two, three black players at most, then we walked out with five. When that guy came into our locker room to tell us to take as much time as we needed, his mouth dropped. He got the word 'coach' out, but that's as far as he got for what seemed like five minutes. When we came out onto the floor, you could hear a pin drop in there. That was the kind of stuff we put up with from then, and we had the same type of situations in 65-66 when we won the championship. I think the worst place we had to play was in Canyon, Texas, right outside Amarillo where we played West Texas State. The fans sit right on top of the basketball floor, there was no space between the players and the fans, so they would trip you, they would spit at you, they would call you names. When you were sitting on the bench, people would throw things at you. It was terrible, but if we were in any place we thought was hostile, we would cover each other's back. If anyone was going to try something, they didn't stand a chance against some of the guys on our team.
This is a feel-good movie, and it follows a formula. But it's a good formula.
If you are interested in finding out more about the real team, try the UTEP site.
UPDATE: In related news, a former graduate assistant to Don Haskins has placed one of the jerseys worn in the championship game against Kentucky up for auction.
November 07, 2005
While at the movie theater this weekend, I picked up a flyer for Wal-Mart: The High Cost of a Low Price. First, I'm intrigued by the marketing plan. Anyone can buy the DVD and a "screening kit" for $30, then show it to as many people as possible. So, during the next week or so, many places across the country are showing it for FREE. Here is a list of venues near you. I can't decide if I want to see it in Milwaukee with my free-market husband or see it in Champaign -- maybe I'll invite Larry Ribstein. Maybe I'll have to see it twice. It's free, after all.
I know it's hard to believe, but instead of seeing Chicken Little this weekend, we got a babysitter and saw Capote instead. I really enjoyed the movie, and I think many parallels can be made between an author/journalist and a lawyer -- how much do you treat the subject matter of your representation as ends in themselves or as means to your own ends? Also, how do we distance ourselves from human suffering of those around us in order to muddle through?
Over the weekend, one blogger posed the question of whether Truman Capote wrote To Kill a Mockingbird instead of his lifelong friend, Nelle Harper Lee: "Isn't it statistically remarkable to have such literary talent growing up as neighbors in some southern small town?" Perhaps if they didn't know each other. Obviously, being best friends with someone who became a famous author would tend to encourage someone to write or to send a manuscript to a publisher. I tend to believe that everyone has at least one story inside, but not everyone has the inclination, skill, and opportunity to get the story out.
September 13, 2005
My family and I saw March of the Penguins a few weeks ago, and I meant to blog about it, but forgot. However, according to the NYT today, many conservative blogs are praising the documentary because it affirms such ideals as "monogomy, sacrifice, and child rearing." Now, I'm all for these ideals, but I would prefer the human world to the penguin world. Perhaps these writers didn't see the same movie as I did.
The life of the penguins depicted in the movie is one of extreme efficiency in a harsh environment and of the instict for individual survival and species survival. The mating rituals and childrearing rituals depicted serve one purpose and one purpose only: survival. In these penguins' lives, they mate "monogomistically" for one season. Penguins travel 70 miles to converge in one spot (the spot with the thickest ice) to find a mate and conceive a child. Once the child is conceived and an egg is laid, the mother returns the 140 mile round trip to go eat. If the mother doesn't leave, she'll die. The egg is passed to the father, who keeps it warm until she returns. Many eggs don't make it. While the father keeps watch, the egg hatches. The mothers return just in time to regurgitate some food for the chick. The father then leaves to go to the same eatery 70 miles away. A little later, the mothers all leave their children to fend for themselves (in the land of cold and predators) to go eat. They leave their children alone for their fathers to come back and find. At the end of this commuter relationship, all adult penguins go back to their respective homes and leave their penguins forever. In case I'm not being clear, the movie does not depict altruistic sacrifice. The cycle starts again the next year with different pairings and different babies. I'm not sure what take-away lessons are here except that we like to romanticize the animal kingdom and project our values onto them, even when it's not warranted.
August 03, 2005
Larry's post yesterday on the Aviator, Wall Street, and the need for a narrative of the business hero who is persecuted by regulators has definitely got me thinking.
I would posit that to be a tragic business hero in the vein of Howard Hughes or Citizen Kane/Hearst, one would have to achieve something new, something big. Something that would endure. I think an obvious example would be Bill Gates. A magical combination of nerd and entrepreneur, he almost succeeded in the American dream of becoming the best he could be, until the DOJ decided that "best" was "too good" under the antitrust laws. (And I use WordPerfect, so I'm completely unbiased.) Martha Stewart created an industry. I think that would be a great narrative for a movie if filmmakers could get past the stereotyped caricature of Martha. Herb Kelleher, although he has survived in the current regulatory environment, would also be a great example. (I still cringe when told by www.iflyswa.com that under the Wright Amendment, no Southwest planes can leave Dallas for a state other than Texas. Grrrr.)
Larry and Vic are on different sides about whether Ken Lay is this tragic business hero based on the crimes he's charged with committing. I would say that Lay is not this hero simply because of what he didn't do. I'm not sure that Lay created anything lasting. Lay did completely transform the natural gas market, but some (Peter Huntsman) say not for the better. Most of the magic of Enron seemed to be illusory. Another side note: Lay's defense seems to be that he did not know what was going on at his company. This seems to be a popular defense, but not one that elevates Ph.D. economists and 20-year CEOs into hero status.
I agree with Larry that we don't need any more Milkens. However, as someone mentioned, just because the federal prosecutors are overreaching doesn't mean the defendant is not guilty, and just because hubris brings about your downfall doesn't mean you're a hero. If prosecutors can prove that he knew that Enron was burning and told employees to buy more stock while he was dumping his, then that's illegal and he should receive a proportionate penalty.
