The Mannly Life of Wade

New Blog

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 22:00:00 +0000

I no longer use this blog space. I have switched over to a new location: http://wademann.blogspot.com/

Please fill free to sign up as a reader on the new site.

35th Year

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Tue, 05 Jun 2012 19:24:00 +0000

I turned 35 this last year. This is an admittedly depressing concept. I remember when I was a kid, looking at adults who hated getting older and I thought it was a little pathetic. “What’s wrong with getting older,” I’d think?

I loved getting older when I was a kid. When I was eight I got to start cub scouts. I actually wore my scout uniform to school because I was so proud of myself. When I was twelve I got to pass the sacrament at church. At the end of that year I entered middle school, an exciting and dangerous place. At 15 I started high school and learned to drive. At 16 I got my drivers license. At 18 I started college and at 19 I went on a mission. At 21 I got to legally choose not to drink. Every few years there was some new and exciting stage of life to look forward to. Every birthday was a moment of maturity and growth. Growing up was great.

But something odd happened somewhere in my twenties. I found that it was actually hard to remember how old I was. Was I twenty-four or twenty-five? Nothing exciting happened when I turned 27. Even my 30^th birthday was surprisingly uneventful, besides being my first genuine opportunity to feel depressed about my age.

Although exciting and eventful things have happened in my 30’s, marriage and becoming a father, the time has flown by. It was only a hop skip and a jump since I was depressed about turning 30. Now I’m almost halfway to 40, which might just be the end.

I remember when my Dad turned 40 and everyone really made a big deal about it. My little brother Colin would refer to the number 40 whenever he was trying to describe a number that was infinitely large. For example, he’d say, “How many stars are in the sky? Are their 40?” 40 was the largest number in the universe. You couldn’t get any older than 40.

I had a similar attitude about it. I couldn’t conceive of life after 40. It seemed like the most important things in my life were going to happen before that, and after that you were retired or something.

It has been a funny realization to me recently, to suddenly recognize that l will still have lots to do and experience after I turn 40. And I won’t be completely old and decrepit. After all, there are probably men and women in their 40’s and 50’s who stop decades of physical neglect and get thin and muscular, and attain a state that could be described as the best shape of their lives. Most people have more money in the later part of their life than they have in the first part of their life. This of course provides opportunity for travel and self-discovery, experiences that just aren’t possible for most of us young adults stressed, exhausted, and poor from raising a family.

But there is a sense that something will never be the same. There was a time when I could, as my father would say, burn the candle at both ends. It’s not good for me now when I don’t get enough sleep at night. Now I need lots of sleep. Now I need lots of recovery time from physical exertion. I just don’t have the stamina that I used to have. And to add insult to injury, my hair is but a passing dream of a time gone by.

I also miss the unbridled optimism of my youth. There used to be so much time ahead to screw up and fix things, that one felt comfortable taking risks, and dreaming of wonderful things that were sure to come along. But one’s dreams must now be tempered by the physical responsibility of children and spouse. I just don’t have the time that I used to be able to dedicate to my screenwriting. I just don’t have as much hope that I will someday make it big, in whatever it is that I am pursuing. In fact, being modestly okay seems somewhat reasonable, and preferable to out and out destitution.

I love that I’m married and no longer have the stress of dating to worry about. I save so much time not thinking about that issue. Not to mention the fact that life just isn’t as lonely as it used to be when I was single. But there is a small part of me that almost misses that anticipation of love. There was something genuinely romantic about wondering what my wife was going to look like. I am genuinely happy about the fact that I do know exactly just how beautiful my wife turned out to be. But there is something to be said for that long lost state of wonder.

Maybe that’s why we get depressed about getting older. There are less surprises to wonder about. Less anticipation. I heard it said once that anticipation is always greater than the actual event. As anticipation slides away from us, and we are faced with the somewhat perfunctory facts of our happy and contented, albeit more practical lives, there is a sense that we are missing something fundamental about life. But there is also a sense of peace knowing how things are going to turn out and the fact that we’re okay. So all in all, the good out ways the bad about aging.

But then again, I’m only in my 35^th year. We’ll have to see how I feel about this whole thing when I’m 75, or 85. Maybe I’ll hate that I can’t climb stares anymore because my knees have given out. Maybe I’ll miss those years when I could hear perfectly fine. Maybe I’ll be one of those grumpy old people muttering that youth is wasted on the young.

Or maybe the opposite will happen. Maybe I will have stepped through the darkness of aging and found something genuinely magical on the other side. You know those old people who just seem so excited about life? They just act like there isn’t enough time to get everything done that they want to do. I hope I’m like that. Maybe there is anticipation on the other end, but it won’t be anticipation of standard life events. Maybe I’ll start a new company in my 40’s that really excites me. Maybe I’ll finally get around to visiting Hong Kong when I’m in my 50’s and find it really invigorating. Maybe I’ll write a screenplay in my 60’s that somehow captures life in a way that only 60 years of life can inform. There really is so much more to do and experience. I’m slowly coming around to believing this.

Post Script: It was a strange realization when I had the speed of life explained to me. The reason that life seems to be happening faster than it used to is that we see time as a fraction. Right now one year is 1/35^th of my life. When I was 8 one year was 1/8^th of my life, a seemingly larger portion of time.

Loose Limbs

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 16:16:00 +0000

“If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?”

– 1 Corinthians 12: 15

I am not a little girl. Society wants to say that just because I’m seventeen that I don’t have the same rights as an adult, and that’s crap. I know who I am and I know what I want, and I have every right to get what I want.

I call him Marcus even though I’m supposed to call him Mr. Schooner. Why do I have to speak to him that way when he can call me Jennica? The funny thing is that as soon as I started calling him Marcus, he started calling me Miss Ferris. To everyone else in the class I’m sure that it seems like he is correcting me, but I know that he is just playing. It’s like he knows that these are silly conventions that we follow in our society, and that if he can call me by my first name, why can’t I? It doesn’t really matter what we call one another, now does it? It matters what we want and whether we’re mature enough to go get it.

The fact of the matter is that I’m a lot more mature than my friends, even though I pretend not to be. I think about things in ways that my friends don’t. They’re all excited about going out with guys who drive SUV’s and that’s just so shallow. I want a guy that can understand me and the fact of the matter is that anyone under twenty-five isn’t really mature enough to do that. I need a man like Marcus because I’m an older soul. That’s what my mom has told me as long as I can remember and I think she’s right. I’ve been reading about reincarnation and I’m pretty sure that I’ve lived a lot of lives. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is the last life that I live before reaching Nirvana. I told my friend Sofia about this the other day and she thought I was talking about that old rock group. She’s so clueless.

* * * * *

Jennica is a beautifully maturing young woman. She started calling me Marcus and I knew that she was attracted to me. To blame me for being emotionally flattered by such possibilities, when any man wouldn’t think twice about such feelings if she was just one year older, shows the limited moral scope of society on the whole.

I know, I know. I’m twelve years older than her. But society’s attitudes about adolescent young women have changed dramatically over the decades based on, well, somewhat arbitrary conventions. It used to be that women entered into sexual relationships with much older men, sometimes before they hit puberty. From our point of view we see that as enslavement of a vulnerable gender, which no doubt was the case in many events; however, it was not enslavement in all situations. Some young women entered these relationships ready and willing. To make an all-encompassing moral determination based on blanket assumptions shows the biases that we function under in our society.

Our so-called enlightened perspective expects young women to go to college and have careers and supposedly maintain their virginal status until they are a decade and a half into their sexual development, all the time forgetting that they are real human beings with natural needs and urges. This unrealistic moral attitude assumes that childbirth must always follow sexuality. But any mature understanding of sex understands that teenagers are prone to explore these urges just as responsibly and irresponsibly as adults. In my mind, it really depends on each individual experience to determine the moral rightness or wrongness of each unique situation. For some reason I had no moral qualms flirting with the possibilities surrounding Jennica Ferris.

* * * * *

Marcus is really quite good at his job. He doesn’t see things in the simplistic and, in my opinion, narrow-minded way that all of my other history teachers have been brainwashing us to believe. I mean, we like to think that the fact that we live in this place gives us some inherent right to be here, when we completely overlook the fact that once upon a time, white people decided that they had the right to take this land from people with darker skin.

In the same way, I’ve never been able to figure out why we just pretend that Israelis have the right to take land away from the Muslims, just because we’re allies with them. How stupid is that? I compared these two situations in an essay question Marcus gave us a few months ago and he awarded me a 98% score. That was the highest grade in the class according to me informal pole of everyone. Marcus does a great job of comparing historical occurrences with current events. I picked up on this fact, and so I make extensive notes on all of the topics we explore in his class, and them compare them with modern events. I was the most prepared for the test.

See, this is what I’m talking about when I say that I just get things that everyone else my age doesn’t see. Marcus recognizes this. He understands me and I understand him. There’s nothing more attractive than being understood. It has nothing to do with how hot a guy is physically. It’s all about the mind to me. Marcus has a hot mind. That isn’t to say that his body isn’t great too. Can’t a girl want to have it all? Ha ha. I’m such a hypocrite. But everyone is to a certain degree. At least I understand this.

* * * * *

I had to be very careful in dealing with Jennica. Just because I understand the complexity of moral behavior doesn’t mean that I wanted to get fired over the affair. So I made sure that everything was above board in public.

“Marcus,” she said to me after class, using my first name. It kills me when she does that. This girl really gets it. “Can I have your home phone number? I may have some last minute questions before next week’s test.”

I could have met her request and had a reasonably innocent excuse for doing so if ever questioned about it. Besides no other students were in the room at the time when she asked. But I’d rather be beyond reproach in any setting where someone could unexpectedly overhear.

“Miss Ferris. I think I’m going to have a last minute study session the night before the test at my house. Everyone in the class is invited. If you can be there, I’ll make sure that I’m available to answer any last minute questions that you have.”

“I get to see your house?” she asked excitedly.

“Sure. Everyone can.”

“I’ve never been invited to a teachers house before?”

“Well, I’m an ordinary guy. I have a house like most everyone else in the world.”

“You are not ordinary Marcus.”

“I’ll take that as a compliment.”

“You should,” she responded with that twinkle in her eye and a touch of her thigh. If there’s anything I’ve learned in my years of dating it’s that body language never lies. This girl was gorgeous—I’m telling you. Her body was womanly, more so than most twenty-somethings. And her very clever mind was just as mature. Her beauty was made only the more attractive by the fact that she was fascinated with me.

* * * * *

That morning was ridiculous. My mom is so pathetic. Her self-esteem is all about what guy she’s with. Ever since my dad left her she just goes from one loser to the next. And when they leave her she drinks herself to sleep on the front room sofa. That morning I woke up, walked into the living room and saw her fat back lying on the couch.

I’m never going to be so lame. I’m not going to be one of those girls who defines her self by the man she’s with. I’m going to either become a powerful court litigator, a high level political advisor, or a really rich movie producer. I can’t really decide, but whatever I do, I’m going to be in charge. If I want a man, I’ll take him, and I’ll decide when it’s over.

I know what you’re thinking. How can I control that? Let me explain. I’m really good with guys. I’m like a kissing prodigy. Every boyfriend I’ve ever had I’ve broken up with, and every one of them, to this day, continues to beg me to make out with them. Once they’ve had a taste they can’t stop. Guys are so easy. If every woman knew what I understand about men, this would be our world. We’d run the show. Ha ha!

* * * * *

I announced to everyone three days before the test that I was having a special study session at my house. Other teachers find out about the extra stuff like this that I do to help my students and it only makes me look good. I have a commitment to my profession.

As an incentive to attend, I told the students that I would share information at this meeting about the test that would no doubt help them get a higher grade. As I made the announcement I could see a sly smile on Jennica’s face. She’s a quick girl. I figure that if she’s clever enough to navigate these adult-like interactions she’s old enough to have a mature relationship.

Now, by relationship, I don’t mean that I planned anything more than a fling with this young woman. I’m not some pathetic guy that longs for falling in love. These things are dictated more by biology than anything else. Let’s be honest about this.

My dad is one of those romantic guys that puts up with so much crap from my mom because he supposedly loves her. Life is too short to live with that kind of abuse. Everyone else might think he’s noble, living up to his obligations, but he’s been bamboozled by the notion of romantic love.

I’ve refused to allow myself to fall into the trap of what others expect of me. Sure, you have to present yourself in a certain light in order to get what you want in this life. I’d never allow others to know about my flirtation with Jennica for obvious reasons, but that doesn’t mean that I’m embarrassed or ashamed of it. My behavior is more natural and more mature than someone who lives their life enslaved by the expectations of others.

* * * * *

“Alright, now I want you guys to take a look at the section in your text book about African Americans fighting in W.W.II on page 812.” Marcus warned us with a smile on his face. We had all been sitting there on the floor in his living room for an hour, waiting for this moment.

“If I was you in your position studying for this test,” he continued, “I’d probably spend some time tonight before going to bed re-reading this section. I’m not telling you what to do. I’m just saying that it might be wise to re-read that part. Does everyone understand what I’m saying?”

Everyone smiled. Marcus is so straightforward. I love it! I hate it when teachers expect you to understand everything there is to know for the test. You’ll ask, “What should I study?” and they’ll say, “Everything.” Who can study everything? It’s so egocentric for teachers to act that way, as if their class is somehow the center of the universe, that all rises and falls on knowing everything there is to know about their particular subject. Teachers have made these huge life-long commitments to teaching a particular course of study because it’s the most important subject in the world to them. But in reality, it’s really up to each of us to determine what we want to fill our minds with. I don’t mind learning a little about everything, but why do I really need to study chemistry as if I’m going to become a professional chemist or something?

This is what I like about Marcus. He doesn’t treat his class like it’s some holy writ that must be understood to become a whole human being. He loves what he teaches. That’s cool. But he realizes that we have lives.

“Anymore questions about tomorrow?” he asked. No one said anything. “Alright, I made some cookies and I’ve got some milk. Be sure to help yourself before you go.” He walked back into the kitchen area and came back out carrying refreshments. It was adorable. He placed the food on the glass coffee table. His house was so not family friendly. Glass tabletops, crafted vases, and abstract art. I loved it. It was the house of a mature person who had no intention of dragging himself down by the responsibility of having babies.

Ten minutes later there were only five of us left in his living room chatting it up.

“Can I use your bathroom?” I asked.

“Sure,” he replied. “It’s down the hall and to the left.”

I walked down the hallway and entered the bathroom and closed the door, locking the door behind me. I sat on the toilet lid and pulled out my phone. I set the stopwatch. I was curious to see how long it would take for everyone to leave. It happened faster than I expected. Three minutes and fourteen seconds. I waited five. There was no talking—just the sound of dishes being washed in the kitchen. It was time for me to make my entrance to Marcus, this time as a person without pretention. I was equal to him in his mind. I wanted to give myself to him for that.

* * * * *

There’s nothing more exciting than knowing that a young woman has chosen to be with you for a time. I never get tired of it. I mean, yeah, you figure it out through the body language and the hints, which it doesn’t take long for an experienced man to figure out. But it’s that moment where it all is clear and out in the open that is the most exciting.

I’m not going to share with you the details of what happened that night when Jennica came walking out of the bathroom, because I’m sure everyone’s smart enough to understand how things go. What I will say is that it was unexpectedly thrilling. Miss Ferris is quite the young woman.

After she left I walked into the kitchen with the intention of making a snack and watching a little late night TV. I like to watch late night trash on evenings such as this. Sensual experiences tend to numb the mind, which I think in part is why they’re so addicting. Our brains can’t be turned on at all times. Our bodies need to be activated sometimes while our brains rest. It’s only in a state of mindlessness that I can watch late night drivel. It was because of this hypnotic brainlessness that I found myself making a grilled cheese sandwich and watching the musical guest, I forget which one, on one of that evening’s variety shows.

* * * * *

I felt very alive after leaving Marcus’s house. I sensed that this was a world where I could do what I wished when I wanted. It’s a very mature feeling to understand such things.

As I passed the mall on my left, just past Hornsby Rd., I noticed that I was driving sixty miles an hour. Now, I have occasionally tried to see how fast I can go on a long straight country road, but I would never drive that fast in the middle of town.

I remember making a very conscious decision to slow down, but for some reason my right foot didn’t respond.

* * * * *

As I stood there at the kitchen counter slicing cheese, my right hand unexpectedly lifted the knife up above the cutting board and then plunging the blade into my left hand holding the sharp cheddar. It embedded into my thumb, just below the knuckle. I must admit that I don’t sharpen my knives as diligently as I should, and it was that lack of honed quality that caused the blade to stop at the bone.

Now, you can imagine my surprise at such an occurrence. This happened in such a quick moment. I had yet to fully assess my circumstances when I noticed that the natural instinct to lift my right hand had not occurred. It would have been as simple as lifting the knife, releasing it from my flesh. But for some reason all neural connections between my brain and right arm seemed cut off. My limb seemed to be on the loose, acting independently of my conscious mind.

* * * * *

By the time I passed Becket Drive I was driving seventy-five miles an hour. The light was red but my leg wasn’t paying attention to the law. As you no doubt have figured out, I’m prone to living in the fast lane, but randomly running red stoplights is a bit extreme, wouldn’t you say?

Why my leg was not doing what I was telling it confused me, but I had no time to really figure this out. As I passed ninety I realized that I would need to do something drastic to stop my right leg. I tried using my left hand to push my leg away, but in case you haven’t noticed, legs tend to be stronger than arms?

* * * * *

I tried lifting my left hand up against the force of the blade. The pain intensified. I let out a monstrous cry. Even if my left hand had been strong enough to push my right hand up, the pain would have been incomprehensible. That strategy was clearly not going to solve this dilemma.

My right hand, suddenly by it’s own will lifted the knife from my thumb. For a half a moment I thought the terror of the situation was ending, when just as quickly the right hand swung it’s weapon down again into my left hand—this time hitting the bones extending out from the wrist. The pain was more than I had ever experienced in my life.

To my horror my right elbow lifted up, shifting the direction of the blade, pointing the tip of the instrument down, suddenly entrenching itself in between two bones, digging itself completely through the hand, extending itself out through the palm into the cutting board.

* * * * *

As I passed through another intersection, my Ford Escort now exceeded one hundred miles an hour. I didn’t know this tiny car could go so fast. The fact that I wasn’t completely freaking out amazes me to this moment. It all happened so fast, I don’t think my mind really had time to process just how much danger I was in. At this speed, my total concentration was focused on steering the car in a straight line. I realized, however, that I needed to stop my right leg ASAP, or I was soon going to be dead.

In a moment of desperation I kicked my left leg sideways into my right leg. The momentum of the small kick caused me to lose control slightly of the steering wheel, swiveling it slightly to the left. A small swerve at over one hundred miles an hour is pretty near impossible to save yourself from. My car veered off of the road into a parking lot. The left corner of the car side-swiped a parked car, slowing my velocity and throwing the car into a spin. The rear of the car slammed into some building.

If I had hit the building head on I would likely have been killed. But since the rear of the car absorbed the majority of the impact my body was left relatively free of major harm. There was a lot of shattered glass and my body felt like it had just been trampled by a heard of horses, but I was alive.

* * * * *

I was stuck. I tried awkwardly to position my head under my arm to push it out of its position, but that didn’t work out so well. Nothing was stronger than the will of my right arm. Eventually I resigned myself to the situation. I stood at the counter for an hour before losing consciousness from loss of blood. My last remaining thought was very distinct:

“I have lived my life on my own terms until now.”

* * * * *

As I sat in the car in shock over the crash I noticed that my leg was still pressing down on the accelerator, even though the car could no longer drive. I then looked down and noticed the emergency brake. Why hadn’t I thought to pull it? It’s funny, isn’t it? In the terror of the moment I had never really thought it through. I can’t wait to tell Marcus about this. He’s going to die.

A Few Thoughts on “Friday Night Lights”

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 23:54:00 +0000

The last episode of five seasons of the acclaimed television drama, “Friday Night Lights” was just aired on NBC. For those of you who have experienced this show, you will know what I mean when I say that this was a very special piece of television. I have never seen a show dig to the heart of human character as deeply as this show has. It has been funny and serious, warm and smart, tender and tough. I have never felt waves of emotion from any TV show, movie, or novel like I have from this wonderful series.

“FNL” never found strong ratings. Like the characters of the show itself, it has been the ultimate television underdog, surviving near cancelation since the very beginning. But the television gods found it in their benevolent wisdom to allow this show to continue for five seasons, yielding a cumulative emotional product that cannot be matched in entertainment.

Many people avoided the show, thinking it was about football. But football is only in the periphery of the narrative. It’s really a story about people living in small town America, seeking their dreams against enormous adversity. “FNL” drives to uncover deeper truths about America and what it means to live in challenging times.

To often in sports related shows there is the expectation that the main characters are going to win the big game. But in “Friday Night Lights” it shows that good guys don’t always win first place. Meaning is not derived from winning, but from the relationships of love and commitment that we make in this world, giving us the drive to continue trying, even after losing.

We live in a troubled world. We live in a time where the opportunity to succeed and grow wealth of very large sums has never been more available. But we also live in a time where the very poor find it ever harder to break out of their difficult circumstances. We live in a time where it seems like the government can not muster the patriotism needed to set aside political ideology and balance it’s own budget. And we live in a time where we are failing to educate our children in a way that prepares them for the challenges of the future.

“FNL” is about these great challenges, and it makes me feel optimistic in spite of the troubles that we see ever present. When you see a few Hollywood writers and producers come together in a media environment that cancels shows before they have a chance to prove themselves, and create something this special, and survive cancelation for five seasons, it makes me think that the American dream is not dead, that we still have some fight in us yet.

Before going into games, Coach Taylor says to his team: “Clear Eyes, Big Hearts.” His team responds: “Can’t Lose.” That is the central theme of the show and I think that’s a message that we in America need right now. Regardless of our political or religious persuasion, if we have clear eyes and big hearts, we can work together to solve our nation’s biggest problems. If you’re in need of a little hope, try watching “Friday Night Lights.” It will not let you down.

The Top 25 Spaceship Designs from Science Fiction

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 07:15:00 +0000

There have been a lot of great designs in Science Fiction movies and television. But these are my absolute favorite. I love these ships, not just for the way they look, but the way they function.

25. Klaatu’s ship – The Day the Earth Stood Still

On the surface this may look like your ordinary flying saucer. But one of the neatest aspects of this ship is that after a door has opened and closed, there is no seem. There’s no evidence, anywhere, that there’s a door. I like it when sci-fi movies show advanced cultures having technology that is totally foreign to us. Unfortunately, too many seem to use the same basic technology as us, like the way they use cell phones on Star Trek.

24. Discovery – 2001: A Space Odyssey

Kubrick did a lot of research with NASA, envisioning a space vehicle that was not only beautiful, but practical and logical. There’s a wonderful scene where an astronaut runs along the spinning walkway that creats artificial gravity.

23. Veritec Fighter – Robotech

It may look like a futuristic fighter plane, but it’s also capable of flying in space, and can convert into a battle droid, making it one of my favorite fighter designs. I drew this ship constantly in Elementary School.

22. Klingon Ship – Star Trek

In Star Trek III, the traditional ship was replaced by the Bird of Prey, but I still love the original Klingon ship design. The opening scene of Star Trek: The Motion Picture is one of my favorites in all Star Trek, where a fleet of these Klingon cruisers get destroyed by V-ger.

21. Icarus II – Sunshine

Sunshine was a real surprise to me. It’s a great thriller sci-fi movie, which aspires to be taken seriously and realistically. And the design of the ship is a key element to the movie’s success. The ship’s most prominent feature is an enormous radiation shield on the front of the ship, protecting the ship’s entire structure from the intense heat as it gets closer and closer to the sun. There’s a magnificent scene, where a navigation miscalculation exposes part of the ship to the sunlight, destroying key functionality of the ship, and raising the danger level on a mission that literally could not afford to fail.

20. SDF-1 – Robotech

This is an alien space craft that crash lands on earth. Humans rebuild it, learning from the technology, which comes in handy when they are suddenly invaded by hostile alien invaders. They use this ship to defend earth, finding out that when you push a few important buttons, the entire ship can convert into a giant robot ready to blast a hole in any invading fleet. Oh, and the ship can jump fourth dimensionally to other locales in the universe if it needs to as well. All in all, pretty awesome ship. And did I mention that it has aircraft carriers on the side?

19. Bird of Prey – Star Trek

This became the go to Klingon warship in the Star Trek movies through the Next Generation. Beyond it’s beautiful design, the ship also had a cloaking device, making it a tough bird to fight. Admiral Kirk even commands the ship in Star Trek IV on their trip to 1980’s San Francisco.

18. Romulan Warbird – Star Trek: The Next Generation

This is a fascinating design, primarily due to the fact that you can see through the middle of it. The designers do a wonderful job of evoking a bird-like motif, while creating something truly futuristic. I also like the dark green color, making it one of the more unique designs in the Star Trek canon.

17. Starship Odyssey – Ulysses 31

I loved the cartoon as a kid, a futuristic reimagining of the Odyssey. And I’ve never forgotten the ship, which looks like a great big eye.

16. Narcissus – Alien

My favorite design in all of the Alien universe, and the only one that I think stands up against the other great star ship designs is the Narcissus, the small shuttle that Ripley escapes in at the end of the movie. I love the combination of the four thrusters on the back, combined with the two lights on the front, which sort of flare upwards. It’s a gorgeous design.

15. GR-75 medium Tranport – Empire Strikes Back

It’s really a testament to the quality of the design in Star Wars, that a simple transport ship would be designed in such a unique and memorable way. I can’t even describe what’s going on in the front of the ship, except to say that it’s awesome, almost bug like in concept.

14. Mothership – Close Encounters of the Third Kind

One of the real joys in Close Encounters is the fact that the special effects still hold up after more than thirty years. When you think back to the majestic UFO’s in Spielberg’s masterpiece, you think about lights—lots of lights. And when the mother ship pulls out from behind the mountain and makes the mountain look small, you know that you’re watching a movie that has really been crafted. The ship’s design pays homage to the classic flying saucers of movie history, while giving you something totally unexpected, giving the film an almost reverential tone.

13. Tantive IV – Star Wars

The massive Star Destroyer at the opening of Star Wars upstages this little blockade-runner. It’s easy to not notice how well this little ship was designed. I love the way the front section is a circular, going the opposite direction to the curve of the rest of the ship, it almost looks like a wheel. Added on the back a bunch of massive thrusters, we can believe that the rebel alliance would entrust top-secret stolen material to this ship.

12. Serenity – Firefly

Firefly has become the most famously great TV show to be prematurely canceled. One of the great joys of the show is the ship. Part Millenium Falcon, part Star Trek, Serentiy is a beautiful creation.

11. X-Wing – Star Wars

Who will ever forget those wide x designs descending on the death star. If it weren’t for the X-Wing design, the entire ending to Star Wars just wouldn’t have been nearly as compelling.

10. Anakin’s Starfighter – Star Wars Episode III

Definitely the best design of the newer trilogy, this fighter ship descends into one of the biggest space battles ever depicted on the movie screen in the opening of the Episode III. Part of it’s success is the way that it pays homage to the Tie Fighter. You sense that the Tie Fighter came out of the design of the Jedi’s fighter ships.

9. Gunstar – The Last Star Fighter

Perhaps the most appropriately named ship in all Sci-Fi, this little ship can open up it’s canon bays, and spin a million miles a second, unleashing a shower of destruction to destroy an entire fleet of attacking ships. I love the way the ships requires both a navigator and a star fighter, who mans the guns.

8. Thunderfighter – Buck Rogers in the 25^th Century

Probably not one of the greatest TV shows in science fiction history, but it’s central ship design is one of the best. Apparently, this was the runner up for the design of the Colonial Viper in Batllestar Galactica. This design, however, has proven way cooler, with it’s double nosed guns, and it’s elegant rear, featuring thrusters and small complementing wing design.

7. EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate – Return of the Jedi

This design didn’t initially excite me as a child, primarily because of it’s foreign concept, but over time, I’ve come to admire the ever inventive designs of Star Wars. Take the way the vessel seems to get too narrow than it should in the middle. It’s like some great floating sea creature from a world we’ve never imagined.

6. Tie Fighter – Star Wars

I’m not entirely sure how these fighters propel themselves through space, given the fact that they have no thrusters, making these fighters seem all the more frightening. It’s as if they are moving by the sheer force of evil. And the sound they make is even more frightening.

5. Alien spacecraft – Flight of the Navigator

One of the great inventions of this great Disney contribution to the 80’s is the generically titled alien spacecraft. This ship really pushes the boundaries of what we imagine technology looking like. This windowless vessel has the ability to organically change it’s shape into a more aerodynamic version of itself when it want to fly fast through the atmosphere of Earth.

4. Slave 1 – Empire Strikes Back

Bobo Fett has taken on a cult status all of his own, within and out of the Star Wars universe. Fett’s coolness is due in no small part to his ship, the Slave 1. The best part about this ship is the fact that when the ship takes off of the landing pad, it changes it’s vertical axis to horizontal, and vice versa. The ship is tall, far taller than most space vehicles in science fiction, making this one of the most unique and cool designs in the history of the movies.

3. Star Destroyer – Star Wars

The vast size of this powerful warship is captured brilliantly in the magnificent opening to Star Wars. But the beauty of this deadly ship gets better with time. It evokes classic images of naval battle ships, with a decidedly futuristic slant, through it’s sharp triangular design.

2. Millennium Falcon – Star Wars

This ship is a real paradox. When Luke Skywalker first sees it he proclaims, “What a piece of junk.” The design bears this out. The Falcon looks like it’s been thrown together through the salvage pieces of other ships. Yet somehow the Falcon came together in such a magical mess, that it is in fact, the fastest ship in the galaxy, having done the Kessle run in less than 12 parsecs. But this piece of junk manages to look as cool as it’s captain, Han Solo. It takes a saucer and then adds two triangular sections on the front, giving the design a sense of forward movement. From behind, it’s large thruster looks like a fast moving line, in a sea of spherical thrusters. And then there’s the cockpit, brilliantly placed on the side rather than the center. It’s so stupid that it works.

1. Enterprise – Star Trek

The original design for the Enterprise in the 1960’s was so good, that it could be re-imagined time and time again through multiple variations in the Star Trek universe, while always staying true it’s basic tenants, being a saucer section, a central cylindrical section, and two thrusters. In fact, it’s surprising that in the most recent depiction of NCA-1701, more than 40 years after the TV show, the Enterprise design would stay remarkably close to the original.

The qualities of the other interpretations of Federation design are also remarkably wonderful, from the Reliant, to the Next Generation Enterprise, to the Voyager. These ships, smaller in scale than the giant star destroyers of Star Wars, are not for galactic domination, but for humble exploration, and occasional strategic naval warfare. These ships embody elegance and beauty in a way that all other ships aspire to. All in all, the Enterprise is the greatest Star Ship design ever. Period.

The Morality of Revolution

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 06:13:00 +0000

“A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history.”

-Mohandas Gandhi

With the recent political conflicts going on in Egypt, Tunis, and now Libya, I’ve been thinking about the moral implications of revolution.

When is revolution morally justified, and when is it criminal? For example, if the American Revolution had been unsuccessful, the founding fathers would have been executed on the grounds of treason. Today, however, we hail George Washington as one of the greatest heroes in the history of the world. Is his reputation simply a product of the fact that he won, or was there something bigger to his cause? Was he morally justified to fight the war that he won?

I believe in the words of Thomas Jefferson when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In other words, when a leader fails to live up the expectations of the people who are governed, they have a right to change their government.

It’s easy to look at what’s going on in the Middle East with unease. When dictators are thrown out, it’s hard to know exactly what kind of government will take its place. World history is filled with revolutions that ended with a dictator replacing the dictator from before. But it appears from the reports that we’re hearing on the news that the populations in the Middle East are demanding democracy. This gives one reason to hope that those revolutions could end with the governments reflecting the voice of the people.

The citizens in the Middle Eastern nations have every right to call for the resignation of their tyrannical leaders. In a democratic nation, where elections are fair and binding, the populace would have a legitimate vehicle to demand change. But when dictators run governments, the populace has a right to protest, and even fight for their freedom. They have no other legitimate vehicle to fight their cause but through force.

I don’t subscribe to Thomas Jefferson’s musings on violent revolt when he said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." If democracy does its job, the need for violent revolution diminishes. Democratic governments allow for the peaceful resolution of conflicts, and by their very nature support the progress of freedom. Slavery could not exist forever in a democratic nation. It’s very existence in America stood in stark contrast to the values established through the Constitution. The resolution of that issue occurred through the democratic debate over the course of decades. The war that ensued was a result of the southern states rebelling against that democratic process, having found themselves eventually in the minority of opinion. The war brought the reunification of the state, but it was the peaceful war of words that changed the opinion of the people to the point where slavery could no longer be justified.

The civil rights movement is another wonderful example of how to enact change through democracy. In the 50’s and 60’s there were many black Americans who felt that America would always be an enemy to their race, and in so believing this they felt justified to fight for their rights through violent means. Their anger, in the context of the injustice they experienced is certainly understandable, but I think history bears out that social movements within a democratic state have more success when they are peaceful. We celebrate Martin Luther King Day, not Malcolm X Day.

Another great example of peaceful reformation occurred in India, where Mohandas Gandhi unified his nation to peacefully resist British colonial rule. This movement may not have been successful 150 years earlier, when Great Britain was more of a monarchy than a democracy. In the 18^th century, war was the only language that King George could understand. But in the 20^th century, Mohandas Gandhi’s peaceful revolt inspired the hearts of the world, and gave his cause legitimacy in a way that the democratically elected parliament in Great Britain could not oppose.

Violent movements like the struggle in Ireland probably never found longstanding success because their citizens were willing to take up arms against oppression. The wrongs committed by the British against the Irish may have been just as terrible as the horrors that occurred in India, but it was the violent response in the democratically elected state which destroyed the IRA’s legitimate position to negotiate with its government, and gave justification for Great Britain to retain its rule. It is entirely possible, that if the Irish had universally protested peacefully, they would have stirred the type of international outrage necessary to force Great Britain’s hand. But since so many protestors resorted to violence they lost their moral position.

When the government that you’re opposing is a democracy, peaceful protest is the most effective means of change, because democracy, by it’s very nature, allows for the free flow of information and fosters fairness. But when there is a dictatorship, violence is often the only option. And so that’s why Gandhi and Washington are considered international heroes, even though their means of opposing Great Britain were drastically different.

Some political protests employ terrorism to combat powerful enemies. But again, history does not bode well for this method of international persuasion. Some Arabs in the Middle East may have a legitimate beef with the United States and their allies. But when they attempt to kill innocent citizens of our nation through terrorist actions their moral position is compromised and they lose their legitimacy.

They mistakenly assume that because the United States has supreme military power, terrorism against our citizens is their only option. But that assumes that war is the only way to solve political conflicts. They fail to recognize that within the context of an increasingly democratic world, peaceful persuasion is the only legitimate means of resolving international conflict. Afterall, Gandhi fought against a military power equally dominant as the United States is today. But rather than facing his opponent head on through violent force, he declared:

“There is a higher court than courts of justice and that is the court of conscience. It supersedes all other courts.”

Gandhi appealed to the court of world opinion, and in that sense, he won his case, putting pressure on Great Britain to bend its will to his nation’s advantage. Imagine if other conflicts we see in the world were conducted in the way that Gandhi executed his objective. Imagine how the Israeli/Palestinian conflict would change if the Arabs used peaceful means to prove their position?

There is an unsettling side to democracy. And that is the fact that sometimes the will of the people chooses leaders that are not in their nations best interest. The western world gets uncomfortable when groups like Palestine get free elections and choose Hamas, a political faction with a history of terrorist behavior, as their elected government. There are also fears that as Middle East countries get the right to vote their leaders into power that they’ll also choose leaders that hold radical Islamic sympathies. In the short term, democracy in these nations could mean that we must now negotiate with governments that hold positions that we disagree with. But I think that the long-term effect of democracy is greater freedom, equality, and tolerance. We’ve seen this occur in our own experiment with democracy and I think it’s logical to expect the same to occur in the Middle East.

The United States was not the secure, consistent, and civilized nation-state in the first decades of its existence. Democratic principles had to become ingrained in our cultural expectations. Years of fair democratic precedence were needed to make our state stable.

Take the constitutional crisis that occurred in the year 2000 during the election of George Bush. If that situation had occurred in the first hundred years of the United States, it is highly possible that it would not have been resolved without blood shed. But Al Gore knew that the unity of the state was more important that him becoming president. He also knew that the will of the people would turn against him if he attempted to negate the Bush presidency by any means non-peaceful. He knew these facts because every American understands these principles through years of democratic precedence.

Democracy brings peace to the world. Let’s not ever think otherwise. Let’s hope that the people of the Middle East see that fact and demand a government that supports their freedom. Time will tell. Let’s pray that time is on their side.

Manhood

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:33:00 +0000

Today, while trying to find the restroom at a Mexican restaurant I couldn’t help but notice the word “MEN” on the door. This word flooded into my mind. Suddenly I was asking myself the great existential question—am I man?

To answer this question, I further queried—If my home was assaulted by a group of ninjas, would I be prepared to defend my home? The answer—I’d be defeated quickly.

I then asked myself—If I were standing on the edge of a cliff overlooking the ocean, could I muster the courage to dive in? The answer—Not a chance. I’ve forced myself off of high diving boards at public swimming pools and I’ve never liked it. I don’t think I’d enjoy jumping off a cliff.

I then asked myself—Would I ever consider an Antarctic expedition. The answer—I don’t think I’d cope well with the extreme cold. I grew up in Arizona and have a high tolerance for heat. But I’ve never done well in cold weather. My manliness fails me again.

In the end, I have to concede that I’m not very manly. But then again, in this day and age, a man who stays married, has a job, and doesn’t look at pornography is about as manly as it gets. On all of those fronts I think I’m doing okay. I just need to get around to learning ninjutsu and I’ll be on my way.

A Better Price Club in Three Easy Steps

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:35:00 +0000

Costco is cool and all, but I have a few complaints:

Number One: I wish they would do a better job of checking my Costco card when I walk in. Half the time the door guard is asleep and I have to actually make them see the card. Of course this little piece of plastic could easily be forged in today’s day-and-age of digital technology. So I want them to scan the card and look at my mug shot to make sure that I am who I say I am. I want them to then say, “Welcome back Mr. Mann.” I want to feel like I’ve truly entered an exclusive club, where special prices are my privilege. And I want to feel like I’m entering a world free of riffraff. We’re all special and better than the rest in our own mind. Yet in this democratic land of equality that we live in it’s so hard to find institutions that really help us feel this way anymore. I want my Costco-experience reinforcing my elitism.

Number Two: I don’t want them to scan my card when I make my purchase. If I’m in the store, why are they second-guessing my right to be there? If they did a better job addressing complaint number one, they wouldn’t need to worry about improper abuse of their price savings at the check-out stand.

Number Three: I don’t want them checking my receipt when I walk out. The obvious reason for this is that it’s annoying having to wait in line just to get out of the store. But the less obvious reason is that they’re treating me like an assumed felon. I’ve gone from feeling exclusive to feeling offensive. Again, the proper repair of complaint number one could solve complaint number three.

One Last Suggestion: It would be cool if they served free samples of drinks in wine glasses, but that’s just a suggestion and certainly negotiable.

Do Movie Stars Matter?

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 03:30:00 +0000

A recent article online outlined the supposed downfall of one of the world’s biggest A-list actors, Russell Crowe. It draws out the list of recent financial flops that the Oscar winning actors has starred in. Most recently he starred in the underwhelming, “Robin Hood,” and “The Next Three Days.”

But Russell Crowe is not alone. Recent movies by such box office heavy weights, Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, and George Clooney have failed to spark big bucks at the box-office. So deafening has been the losses, it has raised the question—do movie stars matter anymore?

After all, take the biggest film extravaganzas descending on the Cineplex over the holiday season—"Tron: Legacy," "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader," and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1." All of these movies, besides having really long titles, are expecting huge numbers, due in no small part to recognizable brands. Not one of them stars a big name movie star. They’re about big concepts and big special effects. They aren’t about highlighting an A-list superstar.

For years, the movie industry has relied on movie stars to help market their films. The biggest, most expensive movies required big A-list stars to anchor their films to an audience and ensure success at the box office. But this is no longer the case. Studios discovered the sequel, remake, reboot, and TV adaptation. With special effect advances, famous comic books and novels that were once unfilmable are able to get the “Lord of the Rings” treatment.

These movies have proven to be phenomenally successful. Their appeal has little do with the movie star. And with big name actors angling for big paychecks and a percentage of the gross, why pay for someone who isn’t really necessary? After all, “Superman,” “Harry Potter,” and “Star Wars” don’t need big names to draw an audience. The characters and brands are more iconic than any big name actor.

Of course, sometimes these movie franchises turn unknown actors into big stars. Christian Bale and Natalie Portman entered the A-list with not a little help from “Batman” and “Star Wars” respectively. So the upside to this trend is that we are being introduced to some talented young artists, giving them the biggest breaks of their lives.

Part of the equation to consider is the fact that it takes a lot of years to become an iconic A-list actor. Most of the stars that we think about in this top tier are in their 40’s. So if you’re casting for “Superman: Man of Steel”, the newest reboot of a famous brand, you’d rather have an actor with some youth that can star in at least two potential sequels before he’s a senior citizen. That is not likely to be an A-list movie icon.

Big movies cast young actors that are not household names.

At the same time, big movie franchises typically need to market themselves to kids and teenagers, the most profitable movie niche markets. But I don’t think actors like Russell Crowe and Julia Roberts are that interested in making movies for kids. Actors make movies that they want to see. They’re far more likely to make movies that appeal to intelligent adults over 30. We’re not as profitable of a niche.

Then there’s George Clooney, who has said publically that he thinks his time in the sun as a popular movie star is of a limited duration. He says that if you look at the trends, even the biggest movie stars lose their ability to attract an audience at some point—Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone to name a few. So Clooney decided to use his time with star-clout to make the most artful pieces of cinema possible, rather than pandering to his audience. Looking at his filmography, it’s kind of astounding to realize the lack of commercial successes in there. In fact, I’m surprised that he still manages to find financing for his projects at this point in his career, although I should mention that I tend to really enjoy the movies he makes. I’m definitely in his niche market.

Movie stars are interested in making movies for adults.

So is the movie star system dead? I don’t think so. I may not be interested in seeing “The Next Three Days,” if it stars a nobody. The fact that Russell Crowe read the script and liked it is reason enough to persuade me to at least put it on my Netflix Queue. Having an actor who has shown good taste in his or her film roles does inspire me to see the movie and I don’t think I’m alone. If Tom Cruise, Scarlet Johansson, Ethan Hawke, Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie are in the movie, chances are that I’d like it. Having a movie star in a film can add clout to a film that may otherwise go unnoticed.

But it must be recognized that when it comes to big concept, highly recognized brands, using an unknown actor can bring down the price tag and make the movie more likely to get produced. And if that’s what it takes, so be it.

In my mind, the loss of a movie star’s power is a side effect of a bigger issue. Every year, thousands of movies get made. There’s really only a market for a couple of hundred. So when a big movie by Russell Crowe is released the same weekend as the latest Harry Potter film, is it any wonder that it will perform disappointingly? There just aren’t enough big weekends in a year. The market has become so crowded that big budget event films are no longer just released in the summer or holiday season. Seth Rogan’s releasing “The Green Hornet” an action packed, superhero story, with a PG-13 rating in January, a few weeks after the big season ends. Ten years ago, this movie would have been released the day before Thanksgiving or in July. It would not be sliding into the theaters at the only available time slot that could guarantee a number one ranking at the box office.

Another factor to consider is the failure of movie theaters to stay relevant. Of course, we’re going to see 3-D movies like “Avatar” and “Tron: Legacy” in the big theater because these films are selling more than an interesting story. These movies are selling unique visual experiences that we want to see in a big crowded room in the dark. But nowadays, do we really feel a need to run out to see “The Next Three Days,” or “Eat Pray Love” in the theater? When HD TV’s and Surround Sound systems only cost a few hundred dollars, many of us have entertainment systems that aren’t noticeably different than the movie theater experience.

So movie stars are having a hard time staying relevant when they insist on making movies that aren’t essential to the movie theater experience. They also hurt their careers when they don’t make movies that appeal to the entire family. One of the reasons that Will Smith has managed to keep his career on high octane at the box office is his desire to make movies that are event films, movies that appeal to the whole family, and movies that incorporate big special effects. He also chooses occasional movies like “The Pursuit of Happyness” that show off his dramatic acting skills while also appealing to audiences. That isn’t to say that Smith has made films of any greater quality than other stars. He just knows how to pick movies that contribute to his brand as the most bankable movie star in the world, and it’s worked. Maybe stars like Julia Roberts don’t care anymore about being bankable.

So what’s a guy like Russell Crowe to do after several flops? Number one—He should be looking for a film that is going to really show off just how good of an actor he is, perhaps a biopic or low budget indie film, one that re-establishes his clout as an actor’s actor—with an unabashed art director like Paul Thomas Anderson, Darren Aronofsky, or David O. Russell. And next, he should follow that up producing and starring in a Disney movie (taking a smaller paycheck upfront but taking extra money with a producer’s credit). This movie should have a premise of universal appeal, with a promising younger co-actor like Zach Effron to appeal to younger audiences. He should not make any more movies with Ridley Scott for a while. He should quit trying to reinvent his "Gladiator" days.

But Russell Crowe may not care at this point either. And that’s certainly his prerogative. But he may find it becoming increasingly difficult to make the movies that he wants to make if the trends continue. But that may be okay. In a few years Zach Effron will be remaking Gladiator.

Return of the Scarecrow

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Sat, 30 Oct 2010 19:35:00 +0000

PARENTAL ADVISORY: The following is a nasty Halloween story, containing abusive language, bathroom humor, and deadly violence. Read on only if you dare.

There once was a time when little boys and girls were allowed to walk home from school alone. On one such Halloween afternoon, a strong heavyset girl named Suzy Plimpton, meandered home. Suzy was not a pleasant child. She liked to torment and bully her schoolmates for the simple fact that she was bigger than all of them.

Crossing the street ahead of her was a little boy by the name of Terrence Young. Terrence was not like Suzy. He had a quiet and peaceful demeanor. He wouldn’t dream of hurting anyone.

Suzy approached young Terrence, without any real objective except to make his life miserable.

“Hey you constipated butt hole!” she screamed as she grabbed his coat by the collar. She stood half a foot taller than him, and her broad shoulders and vicious attitude made her the stronger sex that day.

Terrence whimpered in fear, “Please let me go?”

Suzy responded to his plea by grabbing a strand of his hair and pulling as hard as she could tug. It came out at the root. Terrence’s eyes filled with tears. Suzy pushed him to the ground. He immediately stood up and ran home to safety.

Later that night Suzy dressed into a biker costume. She was going to be a member of Hell’s Angels that Halloween evening. She had a leather vest, fake tattoos on her arm, and a switchblade in her chubby hand.

Upon receiving this knife from her sister, she immediately began stabbing everything she could find. First she stuck the worn wood banister. Then she slashed her bedpost. She cut the tree on the way to the Halloween Party. And finally, she pierced the fence outside of Sally Rutherford’s home, where throngs of classmates entered for holiday fun.

Earlier that same evening, Terrence’s mother was attempting to help her son into his Halloween costume.

“I don’t wanna’ go!” cried Terrence.

“You need to learn to be nice and accept invitations to parties,” his mother explained. “Sally will be so sad if you don’t go.”

“Sally doesn’t give a crap!” replied Terrence in frustration.

“Hey!” his mother scolded. “We don’t use dirty language like that in this house.”

She put his scarecrow mask over his unhappy little head. There were no holes in the burlap bag for him to see. Just sewn buttons for eyes.

“I can’t see anything,” he complained.

“But it looks so much more realistic without big eye holes,” she argued. “You’ll be fine. Just lift it up and peek out any time you need to see where you’re going.”

Zigzagging along the sidewalk, a blind Terrence Young approached Sally Rutherford’s house. Terrence wasn’t a social young man. Going to a party with his peers didn’t seem like a fun evening. He would have much preferred to stay home with his parents, watching a special showing of “Arsenic and Old Lace” on the television set.

As Terrence entered the party, he pulled his scarecrow mask up, just enough to see his surroundings. His schoolmates seemed to be having fun listening to music, bobbing for apples, and admiring each other’s costumes. But it didn’t look amusing to him. Suddenly, he realized this costume was a blessing in disguise.

Walking over to the side of the room, he planted his body against the wall, with his hands stretched to the side. He rested one hand on the back of a chair and the other hand on the top of a sideboard to keep them from falling down. Standing as still as possible, no one would know that he was in the costume. Everyone would assume that he was a part of the Halloween decorations.

Suzy Plimpton walked into the party. Suzy was outspoken, but not in a social way. In fact, it was fair to say that most of her classmates disliked her, and she disliked most of them back. Suzy would have been very bored at this party, except for the fact that she had a switchblade to play with.

She prowled the room, like a real member of a biker gang, looking for something or someone to hurt. To the side of the room, between a chair and a sideboard, stood a stuffed scarecrow. She approached the lifeless decoration. She stared into its sown on button eyes.

Seeing it stare blankly back, she decided that this would be her switchblade’s next victim of the evening. She pulled the blade out, letting it fly open all-cool-like.

Then, speaking to the scarecrow, as if it was real, she exclaimed: “Take this you sack of crap!”

Suzy then stabbed the knife into the scarecrow’s gut. Pulling the knife out she notices the blade was red with blood. And then, to her sudden surprise, the lifeless scarecrow began to shake. Suzy stepped back in alarm. She notices a trickle of blood streaming out of the knife wound.

Francine Wilkinson was standing close by and noticed the bully stabbing what at first appeared to be a decoration and now appeared to be inhabited by a real person.

Suzy turned to Francine and replied in terrified fear: “I didn’t know someone was in there.”

Realizing that the once lifeless scarecrow had now come to life for one last moment, Francine let out a blood-curdling scream.

Twenty years later, in a lonely farmhouse, Suzy sat lazily in the kitchen. Her daughter, Melissa, reluctantly avoided eating her meal sitting coldly on the kitchen table. Suzy had given up heating the food for her daughter, figuring it wasn’t worth the effort.

Melissa decided to make a run for it. Getting out of her chair, she tried to exit the kitchen.

Her mother responded fiercely: “Get over here you anorexic little pig!”

Melissa, knowing she was caught, hesitantly turned around and returned to her seat.

“If you can’t eat your dinner,” Suzy warned, “you can go to bed with an empty stomach. In fact, I’ve had it. I can’t stand to look at your bony little face anymore.”

Melissa quietly moaned.

“You heard me. Get your skinny butt to bed.”

Melissa did as she was told. She knew that it was not wise to cross her violent mother.

As the sun set that evening on the field adjoining Suzy’s home, a lone scarecrow stood attached to two lashed polls. From the darkness consuming the landscape came a power, unseen, but real, that enveloped the lifeless prop. Abruptly, the scarecrow began to shake. An arm pulled itself from the cross. Then the next arm released. Soon the entire scarecrow had excised itself from its lookout stand and was walking across the field toward the farmhouse.

In the front room Suzy watched television. In the hallway outside, Melissa’s feet crept across the wood floor, hoping to catch a snack in the kitchen without her mother noticing. Her stomach was growling violently.

Hearing the quiet footprints, Suzy’s mouth opened with a common threat: “If you don’t get back in bed I’m going to spank your bare butt until it bleeds.”

The little girl stopped immediately and reluctantly walked back to her bedroom.

As Suzy continues to enjoy her TV show, she failed to notice a dark silhouette moving behind her shaded windows. Silently, the back door opened and the scarecrow entered the house. Walking without sound, the straw apparition moved into Suzy’s bedroom and then into her bathroom.

Opening a drawer next to the toilet, the scarecrow found a sea of medication, tools, make-up, and toiletries. Searching through the items, the gloved hand pulled out a large tube of Preparation H and a smaller tube of superglue.

Moments later, Suzy did not hear the scarecrow glide out of the house and into the foggy night. Suzy did not once realize that she had been the beneficiary of a silent visitor from beyond.

Around Midnight, after hours of gluttonous snacking on Cheetos and generic brand chocolate ice cream, Suzie decided that it was time to visit the toilet. Plopping her obese backside onto the small porcelain chair, Suzy proceeded to relieve herself heartily. Upon completion, she opened up the drawer to the side of the commode and pulled out her oft-used tube of Preparation H. The wand on the end of the tube contained small holes from which the gel would emanate when squeezed. Suzy did so and liquid relief squirted out onto the wand. She inserted and applied the ointment.

The next day, in the afternoon, while doing the dishes, Suzy felt a sudden pain in her stomach. Given the fact that she practically survived on chips and value brand desserts, this pain was a regular occurrence. She immediately ran to the bathroom.

Sitting on the paint-chipped toilet seat, she pushed and groaned. No relief came. It was as if her entire large intestine had been re-routed back into her body.

Several hours later, evening came. Suzie rolled in her bed, grunting with grief and discomfort.

“Why hadn’t the laxative worked?” she asked herself. All efforts to extricate the poisonous contents in her bowls had been to no avail.

The pain suddenly came upon her so profoundly that she could not bear it. She screamed with the terror of realizing that she was now deathly ill.

As the night turned to morning, Suzy still lay in her bed in agony. Enough was enough. Grabbing her keys on the nightstand, she attempted to walk out to her truck. Her movement was slow, for with every step of her legs her stomach erupted with greater pain. Never before had she been so powerfully plugged up.

Melissa met her at the back door.

“Mommy, where are you going?” asked the young girl.

“Out of my way!” Suzy exclaimed. “Can’t you see that I’m dying? I’m going to the hospital.”

Exiting the house, she attempted to walk the short distance between her house and her parked pickup truck. The pain was now unbearable. Her entire body seized up; She fell to the dirt ground with a thud.

In her last few moments of consciousness, Suzy's mind began to hallucinate. Images of cruelty and hatred filled her thoughts. Before completely passing out, she saw the face of little Terrance Young. His mouth opened and a phrase came out, a phrase that she herself had commonly used as a child. This phrase seemed to be reverberating through her entire body. It was as if Terrance was speaking a message from the grave:

“Hey you constipated butt hole!”

Whole Wheat Feather Pancakes

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:54:00 +0000

The problem with whole wheat pancakes is that they tend to be heavier than white flour versions. This recipe is surprisingly light and fluffy. It calls for slightly more expensive ingredients than what people typically buy, but the fact that you can purchase them in bulk makes this a far less expensive meal than a bowl of cereal or fancy mixes. Make sure that you use real maple syrup as cheaper versions have high fructose corn syrup and pale in comparison with taste. Only add syrup as needed so as not to waste any.

Makes about 10 small pancakes

1 cup sifted whole wheat pastry flour

2 Tbls baking powder

2 Tbls raw sugar

½ tsp kosher salt

1 pinch nutmeg

1 egg

1 cup milk

¼ tsp real vanilla extract

2 Tbls melted butter

nuts (optional)

dried or fresh fruit—berries or raisins or dried cranberries (optional)

cooking spray

butter

real maple syrup

Preparation:

In a medium sized measuring container with a pour spout add all of the dry ingredients and stir together.

In a medium mixing bowl beat one egg. Add the milk and vanilla and mix together well with a metal whisk.

Heat a flat griddle and add cooking spray.

Add the wet ingredients to the dry ingredients and stir together. Add melted butter. Continue stirring until very smooth.

Feel free to mix in nuts or your choice into the mix at this point or lay them on top of pancakes when they’re cooking.

Heat up maple syrup in microwave. Be careful not to cook it too long or it will explode all over your microwave. A ¼ of a cup only takes about 10 to 15 seconds.

Pour small pancakes onto pan. Add fruit or nuts on top. Flip when large bubbles they’re golden brown underneath. Cooking time for the second side will be about twice as fast. Remove from griddle and add butter and warm syrup.

Income Inequality and the Dangers of the New Libertarian Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:57:00 +0000

“It would be better for people at the top to have a smaller share of a rapidly growing economy . . . than to have a large share, as they do now, of an economy that cannot get out of the gravitational pull of this great recession.”

- Robert Reich (Charlie Rose, 10/21/2010)

There is this great national debate going on in the United States about how to change our current economic situation. With the Tea Party’s voice growing in intensity, it has become a force to be reckoned with in both the Republican Party and the national political dialog.

When the Tea Party first came on the scene, I immediately dismissed it as a bunch of extremist loonies. But as the party has gained traction, and as more and more people that I respect have jumped into this movement, I’ve felt a responsibility to really consider their positions, and to truly give them their due. Even if I disagree, it’s important to understand and respect what they’re saying.

The growth of the Tea Party is interesting. It’s a rebranding of Libertarianism with a new name, similar to the rebranding of the Environmental Movement into the Green Movement. With a new name and very powerful leaders financing and communicating their philosophies, most notably Sarah Palin and Glen Beck, the Tea Party has developed a lot of media power. Libertarianism has become a revitalized political doctrine. It has more influence and popularity than it ever had. But what exactly is Libertarianism?

In essence, Libertarianism is an extreme opponent to government intervention. Economically speaking, Libertarians are very fearful that the end result of progressivism or liberalism, however you might call it, is that we will end up with an entire class of people who are reliant on the government for their basic needs. Some would argue that we already have this social class. They feel like this is unsustainable, that over-reliance on the government will leave the government bankrupt, and its benefactors in abject poverty. They think that our current economic problems can be fixed by balancing the Federal budget through dramatic reduction in government spending and reducing taxes for everyone.

Libertarianism makes instinctive sense. Everyone fears institutional control. But before assessing how Libertarianism might help or hinder our nation, let’s first consider our nation’s most pressing concern—the economy.

One of our nation’s biggest issues is median income stagnation. For the last four decades the middle class in America has steadily lost buying power. Edward Luce’s recent article in the Financial Times points out that “annual incomes of the bottom 90 percent of the US families have been essentially flat since 1973.” He adds, “In 1973, chief executives were on average paid 26 times the median income. Now the multiple is above 300.”

In his comprehensive, ten-part piece at Slate.com on the subject, Timothy Noah points out that “today, the richest 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation's income.” He says, “from 1980 to 2005, more than 80 percent of total increase in Americans’ income went to the top 1 percent.” He sites a CIA report that states: “income distribution in the United States is more unequal than in Guyana, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and roughly on par with Uruguay, Argentina, and Ecuador. Income inequality is actually declining in Latin America even as it continues to increase in the United States.” Noah further points out that currently “incomes in the U.S. are more unequal than in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom.”

Robert Reich, professor of public policy and former labor secretary, said in a recent interview on NPR that “the last time income was so concentrated at the top was before the Great Depression.” This he concludes is not a coincidence. He worries that until income becomes more evenly distributed, “the middle class will lack the buying power to restart America's economic engine.”

The Great Depression was so disastrous, and seemed so without end that it gave progressives the power to make dramatic innovations in public policy. The thirties ushered in a new era of government economic intervention. Labor unions were legalized. Minimum wage was put in place. And the government grew precipitously in size and power.

What was the result? Economists describe the decades following the War as the great compression. The middle class grew in size and wealth. Income became more equal. The vast increases in prosperity went primarily to the middle class. The whole concept of the suburbs, a sprawling sea of middle-income prosperity was a wholly new concept to the developing world, a bi-product of income equality.

But everything started to change in the 70’s. For four decades trends have reversed dramatically. Reich points out that the middle class had several coping mechanisms over the past few decades to hide this issue and keep it from boiling over into the broad economic discussion. The first coping mechanism was that more women entered the work force, bringing two incomes to most families. The second was that the value of our homes increased so quickly that it enabled the average family to hide credit card debt in their mortgage.

That was all fine and good, until the housing bubble burst, creating a financial crisis. But as the economy has slowly recovered from the Great Recession, the overall speed of recovery has been far slower than in past recessions. More and more, Americans are coming to realize that the financial crisis was the tipping point of an economic situation that has been in creation for a long time.

Reich says:

"[The middle class] can't go deeper and deeper into debt. They can't work longer hours. They've exhausted all of their coping mechanisms. And people at the top are taking home so much that they are almost inevitably going to speculate in stocks or commodities or whatever the speculative vehicles are going to be. ... Unless we understand the relationship between the extraordinary concentration of income and wealth we have this in country and the failure of the economy to rebound, we are going to be destined for many, many years of high unemployment, anemic job recoveries and then periods of booms and busts that may even dwarf what we just had."

Let me admit that the causes of median income stagnation are in dispute. But economists are starting to find common ground. Initially, it was supposed that computerization made American companies more efficient, requiring less low skilled workers. But Noah points to two economists, Lawrence Katz and Claudia Golden who have reminded us that “lots of other technological advances throughout the 20^th century created comparable (sometimes greater) demand for a better-educated labor force.” The difference between those situations and the one we now find ourselves in is that “the education system has not been able to increase the supply of better-educated workers, and so the price of those workers (i.e., their incomes) has risen faster relative to the general population.”

It’s been widely accepted that America’s education system, K-12, has declined in strength and effectiveness in recent decades. It can’t be a coincidence that this decline has coincided with median income stagnation. The solution, of course, is greater investment and innovation in education. But this cannot come cheap. Years of ignoring this issue, pushing it off to later generations, have created a very challenging problem, one that won’t be inexpensive to fix.

It’s been widely believed that globalization is causing income disparity. Indeed, more and more, companies are outsourcing their low skill manufacturing jobs oversees. This is certainly a big part of the equation. But let’s discuss this issue in political terms. For many years it’s been believed that manufacturing needed to be able to compete with the rest of the world on cost. And so it became politically unpopular for government officials to support labor and trade unions, that by their very nature, increase the cost of American manufacturing. But this belief wasn’t always accepted.

Noah reminds us that in 1945, with World War II over, President Truman was fearful that there would be a huge labor uprising and civil unrest. He organized a summit in Detroit and coaxed the Chamber of Commerce President to issue the following statement:

"Labor unions are woven into our economic pattern of American life, and collective bargaining is part of the democratic process. I say we recognize this fact not only with our lips but with our hearts."

For the next few decades, the Federal Government supported organized labor, increasing the average pay and benefits going to the various groups of manufacturing employees. Government created an environment that made it possible for those working in manufacturing to make a comfortable living. And the consequence was a booming manufacturing industry in America.

But in recent decades, it has no longer seemed politically appropriate for American Presidents to support manufacturing or organized labor. And America has lost it’s footing as the world’s leader in this industry. Noah cites a book by Geoghegan that states that the U.S. and the U.K. smashed unions “in the belief that they had to compete on cost. The result? They quickly ended up wrecking their industrial base.”

You compare this trend with Germany, a country that has supported higher wages for their citizens working in manufacturing. The result is a country that has maintained it’s manufacturing infrastructure. Noah elucidates the reality that “Germany is now experiencing [an economic] recovery that’s leaving the United States in the dust.”

In order for America to turn the trends on income stagnation, our nation must reform its manufacturing base. There is a belief, and I agree with it, that clean energy is the new horizon for American manufacturing. We need an Executive Branch that can actually execute this dramatic shift in resources, investing heavily in new technologies and support trade organizations that need to be re-educated on the new technologies.

Although increasing costs of health care have not necessarily caused the great divergence, the situation has exacerbated the problem. And so any discussion of solutions to income equality has to factor in the cost of health care. This has been a particularly contentious issue, I think, because it hasn’t been discussed in the context of median income stagnation. Consider the fact that “More than half of household bankruptcies in the US are caused by a serious illness or accident.” Changing our health insurance industry is scary to so many Americans. We’re fearful of losing the coverage that they have. But we have to realize that if trends continue, it will become harder and harder for the average American household to afford basic health coverage, period. And so we must come to terms with the fact that the Federal government has to be part of the solution to health care. We’ve been allowing the free market to dictate the terms, and the consequence has been a system that is not sustainable. There has to be reform, even if the process is difficult and causes challenges for families to find coverage short term. It may well require a public health insurance option for families that cannot afford coverage on the open market. This idea is not popular. But again, I must remind you that we have to take into consideration the bigger issue at hand—that the lower and middle class are totally and completely strapped for cash. They cannot afford the kinds of increases in health care costs that are a part of our economic reality. The Federal Government is the only entity capable of providing relief.

So where do these innovations in public policy stand in the context of Libertarian principles? I recently heard a Tea Party candidate interviewed on the radio. The host asked him where he’d cut government spending. He said that he’d cut education and social programs (i.e. health care). He’s basically proposing that we cut funding to the two areas that have the greatest ability to stimulate long term economic growth in the coming decades. These are the two areas that we’ve seen under-investment, not over-investment. Yet these are the very areas that Libertarians view as excessive government spending.

Libertarians are very worried about deficit spending. I don’t mean to minimize the long term significance of this issue. But the federal deficit can only be reduced by full-scale economic prosperity. This isn’t going to occur as long as the lower and middle class are strapped for cash. We’ve got to get the large majority of the American workforce working again. We’ve got to increase their buying power. We’ve got to reduce the effects of income stagnation. We’ve got to reduce the amount of wealth that goes automatically to the very rich, who are not likely to spend their money.

Ironically, the sentiment that I think has been fueling the Tea Party movement is the sense that America has lost the qualities that used to make it great. They want to return our nation to the values that brought prosperity and growth. Where I think the misunderstanding is, though, is they assume that it was Libertarian ideals that made America prosperous, and I think that’s a huge misunderstanding of history.

David Brooks, moderate conservative columnist for the New York Times said recently on Charlie Rose:

“The story that has arisen especially in the Republican Party and in the Tea Party movement is that we were sort of a Barry Goldwater country until these liberals, Barrack Obama came on the scene, and they want to turn our country into France. The reality is. . . George Washington, the first president, used Industrial policy to create a manufacturing economy, and that was pretty heavy government involvement. Thomas Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase. Abraham Lincoln did the Land Grant College Act . . . this was government activism. That doesn’t mean its socialism. But this is part of the American tradition. Using government to create growth. And sort of a false story has been told about some Barry Goldwater Libertarianism ideal in American history which never existed, and this is a false story that I think Republicans are telling themselves . . . Reagan never wanted to go back before the New Deal. Sometimes, and not all, but some Republicans want to . . . go back to John Calhoun . . to some Constitutional order, and that’s not wear America has been for a century and half . . .”

Libertarians fear reliance on government. But I would say this—we have always relied on the government. It is an essential element to any successful nation. America’s strength did not occur because it was a place controlled by the very wealthy. It did not grow in economic strength because the market was allowed to run free and clear. America became a great nation because its government supported policies that gave opportunity for the poor to become wealthy. It was the place where poor immigrants could come and find true prosperity within a generation. But if class mobility becomes a thing of the past in the United States, the American dream will follow suit.

The fact of the matter is that America was built on the idea that smart, appropriate government involvement can stimulate growth and prosperity. The colonists tried to make a weak central government work through the Articles of Confederation and that was clearly not viable. They knew that our nation needed a strong executive branch to fix the problems that could only be secured by such an authority.

I think sometimes we forget that the Great Depression wasn’t the first depression to hit our nation. In fact, depressions were quite regular prior to the 1930’s. In the way that we see the cyclical nature of recessions in the current era, depressions were the norm. The U.S. government allowed the economy to boom and bust every ten to twenty years or so. The Great Depression, however, was so severe, so destructive, and showed no signs of righting itself, that the citizens of the United States gave Franklin Roosevelt a unique mandate—to reform the entire system into a socially progressive Federal Government that controlled the economy.

The New Deal created a government engine that produced massive growth, innovation, and economic strength for decades after its inception. Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, did not change New Deal policies. The thirties through the sixties is an example of Government strength being used to promote growth. Yet ever since the 70’s, we as a society have been shying away from progressive ideals, pretending that they didn’t work in the first place, when the proof is clearly in the pudding.

If Libertarians continue to grow in power, the U.S. Government will be castrated, unable to solve these monumental problems. Depressions will no longer be a thing of the past. That’s the price you pay for deregulation. That’s the price you pay for less government power and involvement. That’s the price you pay for a totally free market. It becomes free to boom and bust every few decades.

The issue of the great divergence has only become part of the cultural discussion for a very short period of time. I remember a couple of years ago, looking up this issue on the Internet and only finding a few scholarly articles. They pointed to globalization and computerization as the causes. They didn’t address this issue in a political context.

As the economic problems have lingered post-recession, we’re seeing a new interest in this topic. Now it’s almost every other day that I hear or see news reports on the topic. This is encouraging. Hopefully it will become a prominent part of our national lexicon, helping to invigorate constructive debate that will result in Federal reform.

Although I agree with a great number of things that the Obama administration has done, I concur with Reich’s assessment that they have done a poor job of “connecting the dots” for Americans. They’ve done a poor job of communicating health care reform in the context of long standing economic trends. They’ve failed to explain that our nation has lost its vitality through years of government de-regulation, not over involvement. They’ve failed to explain how increased investment and innovation in education and energy technology could literally change our entire long-term economic outlook.

Until they do, I fear that the new Libertarian movement will slow our nation’s ability to really face-up to this very big issue. The government’s continued dis-involvement could allow the rich to become wealthier, the middle class to become more strapped, and the poor to remain ever the more impoverished. This is not the America that our forefather’s envisioned.

Let’s Try Superman One More Time

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:16:00 +0000

In 2006, “Superman Returns” landed in theaters with a thud! That was the sound of people nodding off in the middle of the movie and landing on their head. In comparison to all of the other sequels to classic film franchises from our childhood, “Superman Returns” made “Phantom Menace” look like the greatest movie ever made.

“Superman” had gone through years of legal battles, failed scripts, and A-list directors, before falling into the hands of Bryan Singer. In retrospect, Singer has proven to be a middling director, and “Superman Returns” is by far his ultimate flop.

His approach seemed perfect at the time. Treat this like a sequel to “Superman II.” Pretend like “III,” and “IV” didn’t happen. Everyone that was alive in the late 70’s and early 80’s knows that first two movies in the franchise are about as cool as you could expect from a movie inspired by a comic book. They turned the small page into epic scenes worthy of David Lean. Patterning Singer’s movie after those two films seemed just about right. They even found Brandon Routhe, the closest thing to a Christopher Reeve look-a-like that is possible.

But in all of Singer’s homages to the classic original, Singer forgot one vital element—a good story. Like, I can’t even really remember an actual story. I remember Superman coming back after having been gone for a long time. Lex Luther does something with the crystals from the fortress of solitude. Louis Lane has a son. Bottom line—it sucked bad!

The movie did about $200 million domestically, which might sound like a lot of money, but in the current economy of movies, and given the cost, this was a big disappointment. It seemed unlikely that Singer was going to be given the opportunity to do a sequel.

Why was this film such a colossal failure? After all, there are a lot of bad movies made every year. But Superman isn’t just any franchise. In fact, Superman may be the most valuable film property next to “Star Wars.” In the world of sci-fi, Superman stands supreme as the ultimate superhero mythos. If any character deserves to be treated with brilliance on the big screen it is Superman.

A year before Singer’s stinker was release, Warner Brothers had scored big with a reboot of Batman, under the reins of a talented young director named Christopher Nolan. “Batman Begins,” successfully reinvented the entire Dark Knight mythos with the same energy and excitement that made the first two Superman movies adventure classics. And then, in 2008, Nolan startled everyone with a sequel which actually improved on the first.

Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan

“This film, and to a lesser degree “Iron Man,” redefine the possibilities of the “comic-book movie,” opined Roger Ebert. It told a complex story where it’s characters were forced to make difficult decisions where there weren’t easy moral answers. It was made with superior craft and with flawless special effects. It made a gazillion dollars at the box office, not bad for a smart film.

Batman hasn’t been Nolan’s only success as a filmmaker. He has a filmography of very ambitious films, redefining what we think of in terms of classic film narrative. Take “Insomnia," one of his first films, which tells its entire story backwards. Take “The Prestige” which deconstructs the magician's craft and then performs a trick of its own for the audience. And then there is the unbelievably clever “Inception” which knocked audiences off their seats this summer with epic fight sequences occurring in dreams within dreams. Needless to say, Nolan has made Warner Brothers a lot of money. Nolan is their new best friend. On top of that power, Nolan is the best movie director in the world.

One day earlier this year, Nolan and David S. Goyer, one of his screenwriters, were sitting in their office working on the third Batman script, when Goyer pitched Nolan his script idea for a Superman reboot. Nolan was convinced that Goyer had the right approach, so he called up his studio pals. Before they knew it, Nolan was given the authority to oversee the entire project as Executive Producer.

This week, after a month of long discussions with multiple directors, Nolan picked Zach Snyder to direct the film. Snyder jumped into the big time with his direction of “300,” a bloody adaptation of Frank Miller’s graphic novel of the Battle of Thermopile. He then ambitiously attempted a film version of “Watchmen” which proved that staying close to your source material isn’t always the best decision, although you had to be impressed with his effort. He recently directed an animated children’s film, "Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole" to strong critical reviews. And in a few months his film “Suckerpunch” comes out with much anticipation.

Zach Snyder

Snyder was really the perfect choice. With master storyteller, Nolan, shepherding the script development, what they really needed was a director with great cinematic sensibilities. Snyder’s has proven himself a world class visual artist. It used to be that actual scenes in movies never looked as good as the concept art. But nowadays, the end product is dangerously close to what can be drawn with oil and canvas. Snyder leads this trend. For example, take a look at the trailer to “Suckerpunch.” This is not your father’s CGI.

Nolan needs someone who is great with CGI, something that Nolan typically tries to avoid, preferring special effects to look as natural as possible. But Superman requires far more CGI than a normal film, and so I think Snyder’s work shows the best green screen work being done today.

The name of the new film is going be “Superman: Man of Steel.” Little has been revealed about the plot. We just know that Nolan originally questioned how a modern world that prefers dark heroes, and morally complex story-telling, would accept Superman, a hero who seems to represent an almost perfect ideal. But apparently Goyer has cracked this issue and presented a series of ideas that should resonate with a modern audience.

It’s been revealed that the villain in the new movie will be General Zodd, a wonderful choice. Zodd and his evil minions are the best elements of the original “Superman” films. I’m so excited to see a modern take on that rivalry.

Nothing has been announced or suggested concerning casting, although it’s clearly going to be a topic of much speculation in the coming months. My suspicion is that it will be a big name actor. Nolan only works with the best actors in the world. He made Christian Bale a movie star. His choice of Heath Ledger as the Joker seemed odd at the time it was announced, and then proved inspired when we saw the end result. Nolan tends to cast against type, but with talent, and then helps the actor create an original character.

So I’m guessing that the lead will not be an unknown like Routh. It will be an actor that has the ability to embody the character. And given Snyder’s history of working with really buffed up and manly actors, I’m expecting that the final choice will be a more masculine version of the Man of Steel than we’ve ever seen. The new choice will likely train in Salt Lake City at Gym Jones, where suffering is one of their corporate values. The training of the cast of “300” at this hardcore gym is legendary.

The challenge with casting for this part is that most movie stars are older than you think. Brad Pitt is almost 47. Tom Cruise is 48. George Clooney is 49. Superman is supposed to be in his early 30’s. My suspicion is that we’ll be looking at an actor in his mid to late 30’s, someone old enough to bring the needed gravitas to the role, but young enough that they could do sequels through the next ten years.

Here’s my estimated A-list of contenders. All of these actors have the physical size, classic good looks, and acting skills to make this a truly unique performance:

· Leonardo DiCaprio—He used be too skinny and youthful in appearance to even be considered for this kind of part, but ever since he bulked up for “Blood Diamond,” he’s shown the kind of manly maturity you’d expect for Superman. The fact that he’s one of the best character actors in the world means that if he wanted to become Superman, he could.

· Hugh Jackman— In his early 40’s, he may be too old for the role, but his appearance, skill as an actor, and experience with Christopher Nolan, make him a real possibility.

· Jerard Butler—He’d have to smooth out his accent. Superman is an American. But I think he could pull it off. He may also be considered for General Zodd.

· Jon Hamm—His appearance is almost spot on, but he would have to bulk up, which may be a deterrent for an actor cast in one of the best TV shows ever made, one requiring him to maintain his current image.

· Ben Affleck—He was actually being considered as a director for the project, but I think he should be considered for the lead. His career is enjoying a nice rebound from a period of over-exposure and poor movie choices. Given his baggage, it’s easy to forget just how talented the guy is. Being cast in a part like this would be the quintessential come-back role.

· Ed Norton—At 41, he may be too old at this point for the role, but given his extreme talent and the physicality that he demonstrated in “American History X”, I think he should at least be considered. Besides, he just lost his role as the Hulk at Marvel. It would be sweet revenge if he could land this.

· Patrick Wilson—Admittedly, not an A-list movie star, Wilson has worked with Snyder before in “Watchmen” and he’s got a solid filmography of unique roles, making him a strong contender in my opinion.

· Matt Damon—At 5’10”, he’s almost too short for the role, but he’s got a square jaw and the physicality to make the part work. And a ton of talent. They’d just have to use the camera carefully to make him look taller than the rest of his fellow actors.

· Dwayne Johnson—The Rock would be a unique choice in that he doesn’t share the ethnicity that we are used to in the traditional sense of Superman, but he’s certainly got the build and the charisma to pull of the role, so I thought to throw him into the mix.

There is a possibility that Nolan and Snyder will go with a second tier actor, one that is either starting their movie career or working in television. This would be similar to the Christian Bale decision, where Nolan found an actor that had been working since childhood in the business, and seemed to be on the cusp of stardom. Here’s my B-list of actors that could be considered:

· Eric Dane

· Josh Duhamel

· James Franco

· Bradley Cooper

· Cole Hauser

· Jerry O’Connell

· Mark Paul Gosselaar

· Ioan Gruffudd

· Karl Urban

Whoever is chosen, it will be exciting to see this movie come about. Nolan’s on the clock to begin production this coming year; So it won’t be long until we see the fruit of his labor. Given Nolan’s history of strong story telling, and given Snyder’s immense visual talents, I think that the end product is all but certain to be a huge hit. More importantly, it’s likely to be pretty entertaining. I can’t wait, in case you couldn’t guess.

Art Reflects Reality: Ruminations on “Inception”

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 05:00:00 +0000

(Spoiler Alert: If you haven’t seen “Inception,” go see it soon. Then come back and read my thoughts on the film)

For many film buffs, “Inception” was the most anticipated movie of the year. Needless to say, I went in with some big expectations. After all, it is written and directed by the same guy who imagined “Memento,” “The Prestige,” “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight.” How could I not expect a really, really good movie? I feared that those expectations would be so unrealistically high that the actual experience wouldn’t match up. But to my astonishment, “Inception” managed to surpass my greatest hopes. Watching it for the first time was one of the most profound movie experiences of my life.

Action movies are supposed to enthrall us. As the cliché says, they’re supposed to take us on a roller-coaster ride. They tend to try to do so with fantastic, fast-paced, visual exercises in energy and excitement. When done with some heart, we see great films like “Casino Royal,” “Star Trek,” and “Iron Man.” They involve us and we have a great time. But rarely does a film take us on an intellectual roller-coaster ride. Rarely does the plot captivate us so thoroughly that we feel as if we are a young child experiencing the joy of movies for the first time. That’s what Christopher Nolan attempts with “Inception”, and in my opinion, he’s achieved his goal. It is a genuine mind trip.

I cannot remember being drawn into a story as completely as “Inception”. It has raised the standard far beyond what anyone could ever expect from what is essentially a heist film. On one level it is popcorn entertainment. On another level, it is an art film of deep implications. It’s like 007 meets Fellini.

Nolan has become the most unique filmmaker in the world, able to basically make two different types of movies in one. Most filmmakers tend to stay in one of two camps: commercial or artistic. That isn’t to say that commercial films can’t be astoundingly good pieces of art, or that art films can’t be wonderfully entertaining. But commercial films tend to embrace certain conventions and stick to classic story structures. They tend to appeal to larger numbers of people and therefore have larger budgets. Art films tend to be more ambitious intellectually. They tend to experiment with new forms of structure and narrative. They take risks. Nolan’s films manage to be both types of film at the same time. How he does it is a mystery.

“Inception” is a big movie. It was shot in six countries. It boasts big special effects, including a gun battle in an avalanche, and a fight sequence in a hallway that has lost gravity. It cost $160 million to make. And structurally, it’s like no movie you’ve ever seen. The fact that Nolan was ambitious enough to attempt such a risky business venture shows immense bravery. It’s an even bigger surprise that Warner Brothers chose to fund such an uncompromising film. And even more impressive than all of that is the fact that it’s been the number one movie at the box office for the last few weeks. It makes one wonder if movie audiences on the whole are willing to be as smart as we ask them to be.

“Inception” creates a science fiction universe where people can share dreams. A young husband by the name of Dom Cobb is a dream-maneuvering expert. He is joined by his wife in the dream world, where they reside for long periods of time, re-inventing everything that comes to their imagination. They retreat so deeply into this dream world, that they have forgotten what it means to be human beings. The husband, sensing that his wife is losing her grip on reality, manipulates her into returning to their life as husband and wife, with two young children that they parent. When they return to their real world, the wife cannot accept that they have truly entered reality, insisting that they are still in a dream state. This compulsion ends in tragedy.

Blamed for her death, Cobb is forced into exile, engaging in international corporate espionage for “very powerful people.” He finds his version of “one last job.” He is asked to do the same thing that he did to his wife, insert an idea into someone’s mind through a dream, an idea that is so powerful that it changes the course of that individual’s life. In this case, the implanted idea will change the course of the company that the targeted individual owns, and in so doing give advantage to his competitor. Cobb’s price for doing this impossible job is his freedom to return to America and be reunited with his children.

The plot follows the standard conventions of a heist film--The assembling of a team--The creation of a brilliant plan--And the heist itself. Of course, when the heist begins they discover a terrible truth. Their goal is going to be much harder to achieve than they expected. What’s different about “Inception” is that the stakes that get raised are all metaphorical and subconscious. These characters are navigating the deepest recesses of a person’s desires, fears, and beliefs. And through a bit of clever sci-fi logic and exposition, suddenly the stakes are deadly.

One of the great inventions of the film is the idea that one can enter different levels of dream state. If one falls asleep in a dream, you go into a deeper level of the subconscious. If you fall asleep in a dream within a dream, you’re in a really scary territory. If you fall into the fourth level of a dream, you are lost, and will find it nearly impossible to get out.

The story explains that each level has a different perspective on time. So a few minutes of sleep equates to several hours of dreaming at the first level. At the fourth level, a few minutes becomes endless years. This makes for an amazing set of action sequences, all happening at the same time, but at different speeds of time. At the first level the action takes place in seconds. At the second level it takes place over several minutes. And at the third level it takes a quarter of an hour. This is an ingenious devise for elevating the level of excitement and suspense for the viewer, as you see three sets of conflict enacted at the same time, at different speeds of time, and all affecting the other dream states. As the characters begin to fall off of a bridge in the first level, the second level becomes weightless—the illusion created by falling in slow motion. As one level hears the intonation of a song, it echoes into the other dreamscapes. This is tough stuff, handled expertly, carefully following a very clear logic, leaving the audience slightly dazed and totally amazed.

One of the my favorite aspects of the film is the way the editing creates the aesthetic of a dream. Cobb explains that dreams don’t have a beginning or end. You just find yourself in the middle of a moment. Nolan mimics this effect, always bringing his characters into various moments, and then pulling them out suddenly without resolution. The final sequence of the movie ends unresolved, like a dream that ends just barely premature. This gives the audience the feeling of wanting more, a clever ploy to get us to see the movie again. It also allows the viewer to supplant their own expectation of meaning. The audience that expects a happy ending sees it as such. The audience that wants the world to be meaningless will see that. I have my own opinion on the matter, but I don’t think that it really matters to you what it is, since no one is right. Some people think that Nolan is just toying with us. I believe he’s trying to communicate something that only our own subconscious can suggest. That’s pretty darned clever when you think about it.

When I watch a movie with a fantastical plot, my big question is always, how does this unrealistic story connect me with my world? What is this movie really saying about life? What is it all about? This is where audiences seem to be the most confused when it comes to "Inception."

What is this film really about? Well, in a nutshell, here it goes: “Inception” is a meditation on the modern society where wealth and technology enables us to create our own dream worlds, escaping from reality. Every one of us lives in a world of the Internet. We play endless hours in make believe virtual worlds through video games. We have almost unlimited access to movies and television that take us constantly into fiction. We interact with friends in virtual social networks. We have blogs which act as a sort of avatar, a representation of ourselves. We wear clothes that make us into a made up character. We play and watch sports that simulate the drama and thrill of warfare. And we have created companies that are pseudo kingdoms, where business leaders act as modern day royalty.

Nolan supposes that our guilt and subconscious insecurities distract us from reality, pushing us into deeper levels of dream and unreality. To exit the dream world is to reside wholly in a state of truth. For many of us, our children are a constant reality check. But in the case of Cobb’s wife, she has become so deeply deceived by her own imagination that she is unable to accept the reality of her children when they are presented to her, thinking that the actual iterations are just one level of dream away. Nolan supposes that when we lose our sense of reality, we cannot dream, and we therefore cannot recognize truth.

Why as a society are we fascinated with stories about multiple levels of reality? It’s been twelve years since “The Matrix” was released. That’s long enough that it’s easy to take for granted what that film did in terms of storytelling. It told a narrative that existed in two levels of reality. I think film historians will see that as the great jump in story telling. “Inception” might be the perfect summation of that philosophical jump.

If “Inception” had been made before “The Matrix,” audiences wouldn’t have been able to handle it. But we’ve gradually become more capable of following complex science fiction stories that take us into alternate realities. Why? Because we’ve become more accustomed as a society to living in multiple levels of reality. And we’ve become accustomed to clever story telling that explores these relationships.

My hope is that “Inception” will become the new gold standard for high-end summer blockbusters. I sincerely hope that movie studios will empower filmmakers to challenge us intellectually while entertaining us at the same time. That’s a dream world I can accept as reality.

I’d Rather Just Stay Sick

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:00:00 +0000

I hate going to the pharmacist. I can’t for the life of me figure out why it takes them SO LONG!

“Yeah, that will be about 30 minutes.”

What’s going to take 30 minutes? I don’t see anyone actually making medicine back there.

“Well, we’re going to have to consult the periodic table on this one. It might take a couple of batches before we can find the right acidity. We have to test it on a monkey and make sure it doesn’t die first before we can give it to you. Then we have to call the FDA and get approval. It’s a complicated process.”

No. They’re not doing any of that. They’re just going over to a shelf and taking the bottle off the shelf, putting a label on it and giving it to you.

Of course convincing them to actually give it to you is a war in itself. They don’t ever actually tell you when it’s ready. You have to sort of guess.

When you think it’s been about 30 minutes you reluctantly get into a line, behind a specially marked zone. Apparently it’s a privacy issue. This is a sensitive transaction, as if anyone would know what lavictracine or debaniacin is for. It’s not like they announce your condition:

“Here’s your Chlamydia medicine Racy Stacy.”

Or –

“We just want everyone in line to know that Mr. Alito here has a rash on his scrotum so give him plenty of space.”

They don’t do that. So here we are waiting in this line behind this pointless privacy zone for another 10 minutes. When we finally get up to the counter they act as if they’ve never heard of us before.

“Wade Mann. I’m not sure. Let me see.” So they go back and see if your order is ready, and of course, as expected, “Sorry sir. It’s not quite ready yet. Check back in five minutes.”

“Okay. Can I stand here and wait for it?”

“No sir, you’re going to have to step back BEHIND THE LINE.” So you exit the military guarded green zone and get back in line. And of course at this point the line is really long. So you wait another 15 minutes. Now you’re pushing an hour at the place.

When you finally get to the front of the line again, you approach the counter, they check again, and bingo. Your medicine is finally ready. So they scan it and show you the price. You owe $85.33. That’s with insurance.

At this point you proclaim, “You know what, I’d rather just stay sick. Keep your chloramendadine.”

Why Political Parties Are Destroying America

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 16:05:00 +0000

Recently, in the confirmation process for Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, only two Republicans broke rank. Both Lindsey Graham and Dick Lugar voted to confirm her. I really admire both of these guys. Remember, the whole point of Senate confirmation isn’t to decide whether the person adheres to your political viewpoint. The whole point of the vetting process is to make sure that the person is qualified to act in the role for which they’ve already been chosen.

Graham said, “At the end of the day, after the hearing, it was not a hard decision for me to make. I thought she did a very good job and she will serve this nation honorably. And it would not have been someone I would have chosen, but the person who did choose, President Obama, I think chose wisely."

Graham understands how the Constitution works. But I’m sure he also knows that senators lose a bit of their political currency every time they break from their party. This is the world that we live in. Politicians must belong to a political party in order to raise the funds needed to compete on the national stage. And to be part of a political party, one must adhere to its philosophical positions, even if it goes against their better judgment. This forces politicians to behave in a way that may not reflect their true beliefs. And the worst part is that it makes for bad government.

NY Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, said recently on Charlie Rose:

“What worries me about America today, Charlie, is that we are producing suboptimal solutions to all our big problems now . . . So when I look to the future today, I say yeah, we’ve still got that creative thing, we’re still the world’s greatest dream machine, but when it comes to governance, what really worries me today Charlie, is that our system isn’t working. We are paralyzed today.” (www.CharlieRose.com, Thomas Friedman, Friday 20, 2009)

Take the current Democratic Party run Legislature. They have pushed through some major bills—Economic Stimulus. Health Reform. Financial Reform. But will these programs work? I worry that there was so little cooperation from the GOP during this legislative process that it forced the Democrats to write bills that would pass, rather than be truly effective. I worry that these are suboptimal solutions to our greatest problems.

Much has been said and written about the polarization of America. There are many factors that have contributed to the way that our current system promotes political divisiveness rather than cooperation. Money has infiltrated government in a corrosive way. Cable news has segmentized viewership and sown the seeds of divisiveness. But in my opinion, the single greatest enemy to democracy is the political party itself.

The American Constitution was one of the most significant documents in the history of governance. One subject that was left out of the Constitution was the issue of political parties. Many of the founding fathers never intended for political parties to be as powerful as they immediately became. Jefferson said, “If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” John Adams said, "There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures into opposition to each other." He also said that parties are, "dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." So in a sense, you could say that the greatest failure of the American Constitution is that it failed to limit the power of political organizations. In our current system, the power of political parties, the power of big companies, and the power of special interests are greater than the power of the citizen vote.

In order for any candidate to become a major player, he or she must get major donations from the corporate sector. And he or she must also get the endorsement of one of two political parties. This forces candidates to conform themselves into one of two very extreme sets of philosophies.

Take Mitt Romney. If he hadn’t had to brand himself as the quintessential Republican, he may have been a front-runner in the last election. He had the leadership experience and a history of independent wisdom to make him a very viable candidate. But before he could run in a General Election, he had to win a Primary Election. A lot of conservative voters just couldn’t buy that he was as conservative as he now said he was. The irony is that he lost to a candidate known for his independent streak, one wily enough at political maneuvering to bend his positions just enough to get the nomination. But when McCain faced off against a very strong candidate in the General Election, he had already lost credibility with independent voters, a segment that could have helped him win the General Election.

I don’t believe that decision-making on a government level can fit neatly into a set of philosophies that must always be upheld. For example, going to war isn’t always the right decision. Stimulating the economy isn’t always the right decision. Lowering or raising taxes isn’t always the right decision. A leader can’t be restrained by a set of all encompassing values. He or she must be able to use very sound judgment. Let’s look at history.

It was the right decision for America to declare independence from Great Britain. It was the right decision for America to resist war with England several years later under John Adams. It was the right decision for John F. Kennedy to resist war with the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was the right decision by Ronald Reagan to escalate the arms race with Russia a few decades later, putting a financial strain on their economy and helping end the Cold War.

To quote Kenny Rogers, you gotta’ know when to hold ‘em. You gotta know when to fold em. After all, when’s the right time to kiss the girl? When she wants you to. When’s the wrong time? When she doesn’t want you to. International politics, global economic policy, and the progression of social freedoms require leaders to understand subtle motivations, timing, and delivery.

If our government is going to start working again, it needs leaders who understand the nuances of International poltics. We also need leaders who understand that sometimes you gotta’ break with your party when it’s not in the best interest of the nation. But our current political system destroys leaders who think for themselves. Our current system requires that politicians fall into certain boxes, that they be branded to appeal to a certain marketing segment, so that they can get positive coverage by the appropriate Cable News Station.

Really successful leaders that aren’t easily categorized don’t have a place in our current Federal political system. Take Mayor Bloomberg. This guy is a self-made billionaire. He’s a brilliant leader. He would make an excellent President. But he doesn’t fall easily into the Republican or Democrat camp. This has made him a very successful mayor. But on the national scene, there isn’t really a place for him.

This is why we rarely get the opportunity to vote for real political contenders. When was the last time that the best leader in the nation was running for president? This never happens. Great leaders could never make the political compromises needed to get elected.

Now, I realize that hoping for a better tomorrow is pretty unrealistic. I’m not expecting a Constitutional amendment on this topic. Since it wasn’t initially addressed in the Constitution, there may not ever be a reformation possible to our broken system.

So why do I even bring this up? Charlie Rose asked Thomas Freidman what the solution is. He said that although we could wish for better leaders, what he really wishes for is better citizens. Do we have citizens willing to take up the challenges of this Millennium? Do we have citizens who care about our nation more than themselves? Do we have citizens who are able to think freely for themselves, instead of being manipulated by shabby media grubbers? (Not everything you read on the Internet is true!)

Not everything I may say is true. It’s just my opinion. But what is yours? Do you have a set of political beliefs? Are you politically involved? Are you willing to get into the great political debate?

I’ve worried about blogging about politics. People take politics so personally. I worry that my political views will taint my reputation. I worry that people will become so offended by my opinions that we will cease to be able to communicate on any topic. But my purpose for blogging about political topics is to do my small part as an American. It’s my effort to be a better citizen.

Obviously, politics has a huge effect on our lives. We should take it seriously. But I don’t think we should take it so personally that we are unable to hear ideas that might differ from ours. We should never get to the point where our mind is so made up that there isn’t room for being persuaded to something different, to something revolutionary, to something better. The founding fathers were open to the possibility that a better nation under God could be created. Why can’t we be open-minded enough to push for that ideal now? If the founding fathers had been cynical they would never have attempted the impossible—to form a new great republic, one where every man and woman is truly free.

I realize that in many ways this movement never fully met their expectations. But history is not fully written. It all starts with people like you and me being able to discuss different ideas in a civil way. Political parties do the opposite.

What are you? Are you a Republican? Are you a Democrat? Are you a Tea Party activist? Are you a member of the Green Party? Are you a Libertarian?

Or are you an American?

Mamie at Year One

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 07:08:00 +0000

Mamie just turned one-year-old a couple of weeks ago. It’s caused me to reflect on the ordeal that has been the last twelve months, a period of time that seems to have swished by at the speed of a guillotine. We almost lost our heads.

But we’ve survived and we now have a little girl that is absolutely amazing. There’s really no other way to say it. You hear about kids with disabilities having really special personalities and you think it’s a cliché. But Mamie is really, really special.

I have never met a person, let alone a baby that is as committed to being friendly. Every time someone familiar or unfamiliar comes into view she flashes them a huge smile. This isn’t an exaggeration. Everywhere we go we hear the gasp and sighs of onlookers who catch her look. They melt. They smile back. Mamie has a lot of friends.

Obviously this is a part of her natural personality. But we suspect that her disability has helped her develop this tendency. She can’t walk and her crawling is limited at this point. She can’t really go and get someone’s attention. She needs them to come to her. She needs them to stay and play with her. So everywhere she goes, she is trying to get people to give her attention, to stay, to smile, and to be her company.

As I mentioned, Mamie is not able to walk. For those of you who aren’t aware, Mamie was born with Spina Bifida, a birth defect that has left her without a lot of feeling or movement from the waist down. She has braces that have corrected the position of her feet. She has learned how to crawl military style across the room, a task that is very tiring and so it must be highly motivated. She can sit up by herself and has just shown signs that she can get from her tummy to a sitting position by herself.

Mamie enjoys her toys, but we could see from early on that that she was far more interested in people. A toy can come and go, but a friendship is forever. We took her to the eye doctor for a check-up and he flashed a toy in front of her to get her eyes to move. As he moved the toy in front of her face, Mamie’s eyes stayed transfixed on the doctor. So he had to move his head to get her to move her eyes.

Mamie is talking Ewok right now. She certainly understands what she’s saying, but we haven’t quite figured out the translation. Her specialist told us that people with Spina Bifida tend to be very verbal. And since she’s inherited my family’s genes, she is showing sure signs of being a real gabber.

In general, her cognitive development seems to be on pace. The one comment that everyone has made about her since she was very young is that she seems very aware. She is fascinated with everything that is going on around her. She is always looking for ways to interact. This gives us a lot of hope that she may have a fairly normal life, outside of her physical limitations.

Miriam and I are proud parents, in case you didn’t notice. But I think that we’ve earned it. Raising her the last year has been the single greatest accomplishment of our lives. And this will no doubt continue to be the case. We’re so proud of her incredible efforts. Developmental milestones are a big deal with every baby, but Mamie’s achievements are a really big deal. Nothing has been easy for her, but she doesn’t know this. To her, it’s normal to be amazing.

Why “FlashForward” Bombed!

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Mon, 31 May 2010 20:20:00 +0000

It’s a testament to how good television is these days that “FlashForward” was cancelled. Almost imperceptibly, this show transitioned from a great show to just a good show, and as if it was predestined, the audience retreated. Being a good show just isn't good enough in the current television climate. Shows, like "Mad Men" and "Breaking Bad" have set the bar so high, if you cannot be truly excellent, why would we waste our time watching? In fact, it’s interesting to me that the show’s audience left before many critics and television fans, including myself, even realized that the show was starting to diminish in quality. Since hindsight is 20/20, we can now look back at the show and see that the seeds of mediocrity were sown early.

The premise of “FlashForward” was brilliant. On October 6, 2009, at a precise time of day, everyone blacks out for a minute and thirty seconds. During this universal blackout, everyone has a vision of what they’ll be doing 6 months later on April 26, 2010. The show chronicles a host of characters trying to collectively uncover the mystery of the blackout and to prevent a second one.

“FlashForward” boasted big ratings and great reviews. But slowly and surely the show lost steam and lost viewership. There was no clear jumping the shark moment. But the show just never lived up to the hype, or it’s apparent potential.

Why did this show fail? I’ve contemplated this issue the last few months. I stuck with the show, more out of principle than anything. But I have to admit that my own excitement for the show waned, even while watching it. It got to the point where I felt that I had to watch the show, like I had committed myself to this thing and didn’t want to give up on it. It would have been an easier show to watch on DVD, where one episode blends into the next, where the story stays at a constant pace. But the lapse of even a week seemed too much to keep viewership excited, including my own.

It didn’t help that ABC put the show on hiatus for four months, right in the middle of the whole thing. They hired a new show runner, all in an effort to supposedly try to fix problems and get the show back on pace. But the hope for a revitalized show never materialized.

The first problem that FlashForward suffered from was that the fact that the premise was so wildly interesting, it set the bar really high. You expected that a show that starts so wonderfully will continue that same energy. But it never quite lived up to it’s own cleverness. If you start with a brilliant premise you must have an equally if not more brilliant series of twists and turns leading into the climactic ending. You need lots of huge reveals that really throw your audience on their head. “FlashForward’s” ending was interesting. The last episode was probably one of my favorite episodes. It was great to see how these seemingly impossible outcomes come to pass, but a very mediocre middle of the season just didn’t prepare us for this ending. On top of that frustration, they destroyed it all by then ending the show on a cliffhanger. Couldn’t they have just adjusted the ending knowing that the show was cancelled?

The second problem was one of pace. One of the benefits of the plot was that you had a deadline that everyone was working towards—April 26th. But the show never capitalized on this fact. There should have been a stopwatch running throughout the show, telling us how long we had until April 26th. And as the climax approached, the show should have really increased it’s pace. The number of big revelations should have increased. There should have been this frenzy in the characters as the pressure increased. The number of high excitement shootouts should have increased. It should have been action packed. But you never sensed the increased pressure as the show progressed. It all seemed to go by in a blur of plot, without clarity and dramatic weight.

The third problem was the characters, in that there were too many of them. It’s okay to have a lot of side characters, as long as you have well defined central ones. But I got a sense that they were trying to treat each character as an equal. As a consequence, you’d have whole episodes or even series of episodes where you wouldn’t see much of a certain character. And then they’d all of a sudden appear again, and we were supposed to care about them and their plot line. The show should have focused on two or three main characters functioning as the anchors to the drama.

One of the saddest criticisms that I’ve read online is the fact that many people didn’t care about the Mark Benford, played by British thespian, Joseph Fiennes. He’s a wonderful actor and his character could have been one of those Jack Bauer kinds iconic characters. But they spent so much time focused on all of the other characters, they forgot to really beef up the most important one.

Because there were so many characters, it seemed like huge parts of their stories weren’t told. We never got a strong sense of their motivations, and so when they made certain choices, it almost seemed idiotic. The best example of this is Olivia’s choice to leave Mark and fall in love with Lloyd. When it happened, we obviously saw it coming, but they didn’t really prove to us that this was what she wanted. Another example: When Bryce leaves Nichole for Keiko, we never understand this decision. Supposedly he’s fallen in love with Nichole, which we can understand, given the fact that she supported him through chemo, and then he runs off to meet some girl that he never met but supposedly really loves. I just don’t imagine that someone would really do that.

When all is said and done, the show wasn’t as disciplined in it’s writing as it should have been. On paper, the show looked like a hit. It’s easy to see the problems now that the show has aired. I can understand how ABC could have thought they had a real winner on their hands. But in the end, there wasn’t the foresight to control the pace and focus of the show, and what resulted was a show that should have been.

The Bathroom Mystery

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:01:00 +0000

Every once in a while this happens to me, and I'm sure that it happens to you. I will walk into a bathroom, choose an appropriate stall, open the door to that stall, and have laying there before my eyes the most grotesque sight conceivable to man. I'm talking about gross. I'm talking about worse than a crime scene level of disgustingness.

And whenever I witness such a thing, I have to ask myself the deepest of philosophical questions. This question is as big as "where do babies come from?" and, "why do bad things happen to good people?" This is the question that has haunted the biggest of thinkers: HOW DO THESE TOILETS END UP THIS WAY?

The reason that this is such a mystery to me is that I have had extensive experience in bathrooms. I am not a genius or a bathroom prodigy. But I have, like many of you, had the afforded benefit of using a facility, if not once, but several times a day, for almost every day of my life. Given the cumulative hours that I have clocked in bathroom time, I would have to admit, with some humility, that I am in fact, a bathroom using expert. And I have never, ever, in any of my times in the bathroom created a toilet that looks like that.

Not even in my darkest moments with a toilet, not in my hairiest of experiences, have I allowed that much bodily waste to land on the outside of the commode. Toilets, after all, are built with a fairly large receptacle, meaning that you'd have to have some sort of brain damage to miss the target under most circumstances.

In fact, if I was in a creative streak, wanting to do something interesting with my time, and found myself in a bathroom, I still don't think I'd even know how to make a toilet look like that if tried. First of all, I would have to extricate myself from the confines of the seat. I'd surely have to stick my hand in there and smear and do a whole slew of other activities that just doesn't remotely seem appealing.

It makes me wonder if there is some sort of perverse bathroom terrorist that manages to attack unassuming locations without notice or mercy. And there would have to be a team at work here, because I can't see one person having enough bodily waste to produce the messes that I have seen.

It is truly a perplexing mystery, one that I must apologize for reminding you of. But it's a serious issue that needs to be addressed. If you are in fact, someone guilty of this heinous crime against humanity, please repent. Please change your ways. If you feel that this is caused by some sort of mental disorder, please seek help. There are no doubt loving counselors out there who would be willing to assist you in curbing your compulsions. If anything, do it for the eyes of the young and innocent. They are impressionable, and you're doing them a disservice making them think that the human body is capable of such atrocity.

Evolving Perspective on Self Sufficiency

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:45:00 +0000

As many of you know, my wife and I have been through a tremendously challenging period the last couple of years. My wife is going to laugh when she reads this, because she knows that "challenge" is probably one of my most commonly used words. Using this word, with its positive connotation, is my little way of conditioning myself to keep going in the face of tremendous struggle. The reality is that we've had a pretty crappy go of it.

The economic downturn did a rather brutal number on my career. We gave birth to a daughter with Spina Bifida, a significant disability. We have undergone seven moves since being married. The stress has given me a new definition of the word, "tired." Adulthood has proven to be a wearisome road.

These experiences have been instrumental in my development of more liberal perspectives. A year and a half ago Miriam and I found ourselves basically homeless. Fortunately, we had parents who were in a position to give us free housing and free food. And we had government programs available to us to help our family get by without employment. But if we weren't so fortunate, I can't imagine how we would have survived the past months.

My parents raised me to be extremely independent. When I was in 5th grade I acquired my first job as a paperboy for the Phoenix Gazette. For the most part, I've been employed one way or another ever since. This early work experience gave me a fairly conservative viewpoint on self sufficiency. In my mind, there's opportunity out there for everyone to be independent. I remember as early as junior high age being very opposed to welfare programs, government spending, and reverse discrimination. I remember writing an essay in high school opposing affirmative action. In high school I regularly watched Rush Limbaugh on television. In college I voted for George Bush and was an adamant supporter of the invasion of Iraq. I remember first discovering Fox News and finding myself drawn to the channel, without realizing that they were purposely trying to attract viewers with my world view.

Shortly before the invasion, I remember reading in Brigham Young University's newspaper that a forum on the issue was held and that the majority of the professors in the forum were against the invasion. I was really surprised by this. I knew that it wasn't expressly forbidden for a Mormon to be Liberal, but I also thought that it was highly unlikely. I was dating a girl at the time that had grave reservations about the war, and I was shocked. Didn't she know that George Bush had prayed about this decision? One night, while eating dinner at my LDS Bishop's house, a young LDS man from Spain began to voice his opposition to the invasion. A handful of us got into a near shouting match over the issue. I chocked his doubt up to European naivete. Jump to a few months later, standing in the locker room at the gym, seeing Fox News release the shocking revelation: No WMD's!

This began a gradual shift in my political leaning. I stopped watching Fox News and began listening to NPR. Although this station is criticized for being liberally slanted, I've found that by being publicly funded, their independence from big corporations provides extremely fair and informative reporting. And i have to admit that listening to NPR has contributed to my paradigm shift. A few years ago I decided that I couldn't be a part of the Republican Party anymore, and have remained independent ever since.

But nothing could have prepared me for the shock to my philosophical core than the last two years. I've realized just how fragile our economic position really is. Every benefit that we have in America could so easily go away. And when times are good, how easily we take it all for granted. This land of promise is held in existence by such fragile threads. One could undertake the most stringent precautions to be self sufficient, and lose everything ruthlessly by war, the weather, or Wall Street. We're not in the Garden of Eden anymore. Fruit doesn't spring forth naturally. Each of us are only a few steps away from Job.

I'll never forget about a year ago, sitting in the doctor's office, watching Miriam get her ultrasound. I got up to use the bathroom. Upon my return, the gentleman performing the ultrasound stopped me in the hall and gave me the news independent of Miriam. In a second my perception of the universe shifted. Our daughter was not going to be able to walk.

Suddenly my perspective shifted from one of unbridled optimism to forced realism. Not everything was possible in this life. Our daughter could live an exceptional life, one of deep moral excellence and diligent work ethic. But no impressive efforts were going to change the fact that there were certain hopes that we had for her that were just not going to be.

Recently I read Malcolm Gladwell's book, "Outliers." In this book he relates the stories of people who have accomplished tremendous things in their lives. He tells the story of Bill Gates, who defines the reason for his success in one shocking word: "Luck." Bill Gates, was clearly a product of unique opportunity. As a high school student in an upscale neighborhood in Seattle, his school happened to have a high-end computer, something that most Universities didn't have at that time. Having unlimited access to this computer gave him the opportunity to program for hours upon hours, so that by the time he got to college, he knew more about computer programming than his professors. it only made sense for him to drop out and start a little company called Microsoft. Indeed, he was a lucky kid.

This story flies in the face of that common optimistic narrative of America as a land of unlimited promise for all. The reality is that there is in fact great diversity of opportunity in this nation. I used to believe that being rich made one spoiled and lazy. But the reality is that having the financial opportunity to become educated allows a person the opportunity to choose what they do with their life. And it helps to have adult associations that allow us to meet the right people, to be hired by the right people, and to be promoted to the right position in life. Unfortunately, there are millions of people in this world who don't really get to choose what their profession is going to be. And sadly, with the current recession, many surprised Americans have found themselves in the same position, working in jobs that they would never choose in other circumstances, but now absolutely need.

I've seen, first hand, how easily one can fall into a cycle of ruin. Bad luck is like quick sand. It only takes a few bad breaks before you're sinking, uncontrollably into a situation that cannot be recovered from. First you lose your job. Then you lose your home. Then you get sick. How does one get out of that cycle without significant help from others?

Beyond the physical challenges, what's going on psychologically during this cycle is ever more difficult to break out of. When you see one darned thing after another go wrong in your life, it's enormously difficult to believe that things can be better. Imagine those trying to endure wars, or the Great Depression, or slavery. I just don't know how people in those extreme circumstances could stay sane.

Fortunately for us, Miriam and I have had support systems to turn to during our difficult period, which have helped us slow the backward slide. We've managed to stay housed and un-hungry during this time of super stress. These physical and emotional supports have helped us hope for a better tomorrow. I don't know how others, without the same advantages we have, could manage under the weight of similar difficulties.

It is possible, even in America, to find yourself in a bad situation that is not your fault. We like to believe that homelessness or poverty or crime are the results of people making bad decisions. But more and more, I've come to understand that these situations are caused by circumstances outside of the individual's control. These circumstances destroy lives and societies.

Because of this, my heart just can't help but go out to the millions of people in America who literally cannot get health coverage, who can't find a job, and who can't provide the essential needs for their family. Recent events have made me very cognizant of the fact that I have had it way too good. Growing up in middle-class American suburbs has been a benefit too few people in this world could imagine enjoying. At this very moment, I write my blog on my MacBook, I have a beautiful house over my head, and an iPhone in my pocket. I'm relatively rich.

Yet in spite of my advantages, I've still had to make use of Unemployment Insurance, and extended Cobra coverage, and Medicaid, all programs I once opposed. We've had to rely on family and friends in ways we never thought would be needed as adults. And we've had to rely on the belief in the afterlife as we raise our daughter with mortal limitation. But this is the truth about our existence. We are imperfect. We need others. Our accomplishments in life are dramatically affected by the opportunities afforded. No longer do I hold to my American naivete.

Best Movies I Saw This Past Decade

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:22:00 +0000

There were a lot of good movies this past decade. But out of all of them, a few stand a part as more than just really good movies. You get a sense that you're watching something truly special. I'm sure that I've forgotten some. But as best as I can recollect, these are my favorite movies of the decade:

Before Sunset (2004)

Never before have I wanted to see a sequel more than this one. Rather than being a sequel to a big budget action movie, this was a sequel to an obscure, cult classic--1995's "Before Sunrise." That movie tells the story of Jesse and Celine, two college-aged, intelligent, and abnormally attractive individuals who meet on a train and spend the night together touring Vienna. The movie leaves it open as to whether these two ever see each other again. Although you had to admire the open ending, you also very much want to see what happens. And so director, Richard Linklater, and his two main actors returned to this story nine years later. It answers the question, but more importantly, it expands two of my favorite movie characters. The result is one of the most magical and heartbreaking films I've ever seen. Shot in long intense takes, the two main characters take a very meaningful walk through Paris. The result is the most romantic film of all time, and my most favorite movie ever made.

Waking Life (2001)

I'll never forget the first time I saw this movie. It was more than just a unique movie. It was a truly unique experience. The film was first shot on video and then animated on top of each frame. The film ends up creating an animation style that is wholly unique. The story, which more than wanders, tells of a young man who goes from one dream to the next, unable to wake up. This allows much creative license, never being held by plot, but always fascinating. The film's story provided a unique opportunity for director, Richard Linklater, to use scenes written for previous films that never quite fit into those, but do fit in this. I may not be making this sound particularly interesting, but I promise you that it always is. But more importantly, the animation style creates a visual experience like no other. Because it's shot with a hand held camera, and then animated, the images seem to be constantly fluctuating within the frame, creating a highly psychedelic experience.

Children of Men (2006)

Although being released to stellar reviews, this movie kind of got lost in the end of the year shuffle for Oscars. Upon reflection, it's one of the most memorable films of its year and one of the best of the decade. It perfectly fits the description of a classic. The plot tells of a not too distant future where men and women no longer are able to have babies. All of humanity is descending into a morose hell hole of destruction when a single miracle occurs--a woman gets pregnant. The hero of the story, once a man of some sort of importance, but now a wanderer, finds his quest. He attempts to protect this woman on a journey to a rumored safe haven where she will be free to have the child and perhaps create a new future for the world. Director, Alfonso Cuarón, has that unique ability to place and move a camera, putting him within comparison of Spielberg and Scorsese. There are scenes of superior cinematic intensity that I would surely fail to describe. Needless to say, this is a movie to experience. it will be taught in film schools for years to come.

Minority Report (2002)

It was only a matter of time before Steven Spielberg wowed us with another science fiction masterpiece. And he did just that in 2002, with one of the most exciting and frightening visions of the future. Spielberg creates a world that is both familiar and completely foreign, mind tripping yet accessible, intellectual and entertaining. This film may also be his greatest cinematic achievement, making perfect use of his cinematographer's chops. The screenplay, by Scott Frank functions as a wonderful thriller and film noir, while being so much more.

Munich (2005)

It's amazing to me that I never really knew of the tragic terrorist attack at the Munich Olympic games. But Spielberg depicts this horrific event, along with the subsequent Israeli response with the deft hand of an action director, while also remembering that he directed Schindler's List (1993). On one hand, the terrorist attack is so violent and so terrifying, you can't help but root for the Jews' vengeance. But as the trail of blood extends endlessly, you begin to see the reality--This conflict can never come to a satisfactory conclusion.

The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004)

Film critics are funny. At first they embraced Wes Anderson. Then they shunned him. They're such snobs. This film got the shaft from the collective movie reviewing community, claiming it wasn't funny. What they forgot to do was watch the movie two more times--the perfect amount of viewings for a Wes Anderson film. It's on the third viewing that his jokes manage to sink in and one realizes how deeply funny it all is. Anderson never goes for the easy joke. He goes for the smart one. This particular film is one of my favorites. It's his quirky take on the action/adventure genre. You don't quite realize this at first, but as the film progresses, the story's genre is slowly revealed. Of course, Anderson's version of an adventurer is going to be a pseudo Jacque Custeau, played by Bill Murray, with an affinity for designer shoes. But I promise you--when Zissou decides to do battle with pirates, it is an adventure, and you're gonna' hear Iggy Pop on the soundtrack.

Ocean's Twelve (2004)

Yes, you read that right. I believe that Steven Soderbergh's sequel to his highly successful Ocean's Eleven (2001) is one of the best movies of the decade. I realize that this is not a common belief. But from a film lover's point of view, I think that "Twelve" has far more fun to offer. The film itself is of course rather pointless. It's lack of substance, however, is made up for by an excess of style. In my particular point of view, Soderbergh's sense of style happens to push all of my particular buttons. From the opening shot, I felt as if I was watching a film from 1969, which in my book is not a bad thing. It's as if he takes every grain of cinematic sugar and throws it into the cake. The result is It's the ultimate interpretation of the french new wave, my favorite of all the waves. And when all is said and done, it's really the funniest of the films. There's a wonderful cameo by Bruce Willis. There's an unforgettable bit with Julie Roberts playing Tess Ocean who pretends to be Julie Roberts. Every member of the team, including Matt Damon, Don Cheadle, and Casey Affleck manages to find new hilariousness in their quirky characterization. The uberfunky score by David Holmes surpasses all other films of the franchise. And the choice to film in Europe rather than Las Vegas adds a level of visual richness that can't be beat. Oh, and Catherine Zeta Jones manages to be really really hot (big surprise).

Traffic (2000)

Soderberg wanted to make a film like Z (1969)--A run and gun political thriller If you've never seen "Z", do so immediately. And of course, the same goes for "Traffic." While being visually exciting, choosing a different color scheme for each story in its intersecting structure, the film also manages to make up for all of "Ocean's Twelve's" lack of substance. It's both fun and meaningful. It's both heartbreaking and hopeful. it may go down as his greatest masterpiece.

Almost Famous (2000)

"Rock stars have kidnapped my son!" cries Young William's mother. This is basically the plot of Cameron Crows autobiographical love song to rock and roll. At the sweet age of 16, Crowe was hired as a writer for Rolling Stone magazine and went on tour with Led Zeppelin. You gotta' believe that his experiences would make quite the movie, and it does. But his take isn't all sex and drugs. Crowe has a way of looking at life through a hazy sort of optimism. Afterall, we may have been semi-miserable as teenagers, but when we think back, we mostly remember magical times of self discovery and the excitement of newly acquired independence. This film figures out how to capture that unique glow of growing up.

(500) Days of Summer (2009)

One day, while standing in the elevator at work, listening to The Smith's on his headphones, a young man is spoken to by a lovely young lady. She admits to overhearing the favorite band and tells the young man how much she loves his taste in music. And so begins approximately (500) days of a romantic relationship between Tom and Summer. Never before has a movie so precisely depicted my first romantic experiences in the early part of this decade. Indeed, I did date Summer, or similar versions of her character, about 5 or 6 times. And I came to the same realization that Tom comes to at the end of this film. So it's no wonder that I had to add it to my list of favorite films for the decade. But beyond the personal connection I have with this film, it's a really top notch flick that I think everyone will enjoy and find familiar. It's the perfect combination of quirky and understandable. First time director, Marc Webb isn't interested in creating some high brow independent film that effuses subtlety. He wants us to understand everything. And he achieves this both intelligently and entertainingly. You're going to love it! Go rent it now.

Adaptation. (2002)

Charlie Kaufman has become the screenwriter of the decade by managing to both break and embrace all of the rules of screenwriting. Setting out to write an adaptation of Susan Orlean's non-fiction novel "The Orchid Thief" he ends up writing a screenplay about himself struggling to write the adaptation. This might seem totally weird, and it is, but it's also strangely engaging. It also manages to be a philosophical exploration of one of the fundamental tenants of story telling--at the end of every story the character has to have changed. In the case of Charlie Kaufman, he first scoffs at this belief and then comes to accept change as a fundamental element of his own life. This movie is strange. But it's also strangely uplifting.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

You know how is at the end of a painful relationship when you just wish you could erase it all? But you don't because it was also quite beautiful while it lasted. Charlie Kaufman manages to express this idea through the ingenious story of doomed lovers, Joel and Clementine. A doctor has invented a process by which he can erase unpleasant memories from our minds. Clementine chooses this course of action. Joel is crushed by her decision and therefore chooses the same for himself. The movie then chronicles the systematic erasure of every memory that Joel has of Clementine, a process implemented while Joel sleeps. In his dream state, Joel finds himself running from lost memories, trying to hang onto the briefest of tender moments. This brilliant screenplay is perfectly matched by the directorship of Michel Gondry, who has a knack for non digital special effects. His old-fashioned trick photography creates a truly unique visual experience, while also relaying an insightful love story.

Batman Begins (2005) and The Dark Knight (2008)

When I was a young teenager I heard that they were making a new Batman movie. I imagined a highly realistic story, where the fantastic was rationalized. I imagined logical reasons for a man to wear a costume and fight crime. I never experienced that imagined movie until 2005 when Christopher Nolan released the first of a line of films that are sure to be considered the ultimate film adapations of a comic book. The first film is excellent. But the second movie features the Academy Award winning performance by Heath Ledger as The Joker. He recreates this iconic character as the embodiment of evil. He plays anarchy. These films manage to be both good old-fashioned adventures, while being so much more. They seem to capture the pessimism of our time, asking the big questions that we face, with the constant threat of terrorism and economic disaster looming precariously over our existence.

The Departed (2006)

It's fun to see Martin Scorsese acquire a script that he can really sink his teeth into. This is by far his most entertaining film. It tells the story of two moles, one deep undercover within the Boston mob, and the other deeply entrenched within the Boston police department. Both Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon are equal to their parts, and Jack Nicholson is cast in what is surprisingly his first Scorsese film.

Kill Bill (2003) (2004)

Although this film comes in two volumes, it's really one movie and should be considered such. Tarantino had finished filming the movie and realized it was way-out-of-control long. And so they came up with the smart marketing decisiion to release it in two volumes--two movies for the price of one. Bingo! Of course it helps that it's also Quentin Tarantino's most entertaining story. He shows that he's got the directorial ability to direct a no holds barred martial arts/action movie. This knack, combined with his uncanny ability to concoct extra long, highly engrossing scenes of hilarious dialogue makes this my favorite of his filmography.

Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)

Paris has been filmed many times. But never have we seen Montmartre quite like this. Director, Jean-Pierre Jeunet, turns Paris into a sort of color saturated fantasy world. The screenplay creates a wonderful little modern fairy tail about a precocious little girl that doesn't get hugged enough by her father. She then turns into a reclusive but equally mischievous adult. And so when she meets the man of her dreams, she has to turn their courtship into a remarkable game of mystery and contrivance. If I'm not making this movie sound interesting, just trust me and you'll see what I'm talking about. It's a cinematic delight. Oh, and Audrey Tautou is a young actress that feels like an icon.

The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001) (2002) (2003)

George Lucas said that it couldn't be done. That was the common belief before 2001. J.R.R. Tolkein's laborious masterwork was considered by everyone as an un-film-able work of genius. But an obscure director by the name of Peter Jackson knew how to do it. By employing multiple special effect techniques, along with a year-plus film shoot in the fantastical New Zealand countryside, Jackson produced a staggering trilogy. This series of masterpieces deserve comparison to the greatest films of all time. A logistical achievement perhaps beyond all comparison, these films will stand the test of time, along with the books, as the ultimate medieval fantasy tale.

The Incredibles (2004)

Pixar is a force to be reconed with. But it's a tribute to their ambition that they would seek out Brad Bird, the ultra-talented animator that had never quite found his home. By bringing him into their fold, they produced what is in my opinion, the best Pixar film to date. The movie acts as a spoof of the superhero genre, while also functioning as a great adventure in and of itself.

Cidade de Deus (2002)

You know how you see a movie and realize that you've experienced something timeless? That was the case when I saw this highly acclaimed film from Brazillian director, Fernando Meirelles. It has a story that is part Tarantino and part Scorsese. It follows the life of several young man growing up in the slums of Rio de Janeiro. We see many of them get caught in the web of insidious invents, forcing upon them horrific actions and consequences. While being a sad indightment of Rio's law enforcement, the film also functions as a high quality entertainment, both thrilling and emotional.

Pride and Prejudice (2005)

Jane Austin has been filmed numerous times. Almost every adapation is great--a testament to her story writing talent. But this film manages to surpass them all. Director,

Joe Wright, manages to find a poetry in his images that are both moving and stirring. This combines with a stunning musical score by Dario Marianelli. In the end, when Mr. Darcy walks across the foggy meadow and proclaims to Elizabeth, "You have bewitched me body and soul," it doesn't come across as cheesy. We believe it.

Star Trek (2009)

It seemed to me that the Star Trek franchise was dead. The whole world seemed a bit dated--an imagined future from the 60's. But it just goes to show you how solid story-telling can make the ridiculous wondrous again. This is by far the most entertaining sci-fi action movie in a very long time--maybe since the first Star Wars. J.J. Abrams has proved himself a force to be reckoned with. Can anyone wait for the sequel?

Bah Humbug!

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:15:00 +0000

I know that I’m really going to upset a lot of you out there, but I have to be honest. I’m sick of Christmas. The sad thing is that I used to love this holiday. But the last few years it has seemed like it just keeps coming sooner and sooner, and lasts longer and longer. It no longer seems special to me.

When you’re six years old you’ve only experienced Christmas a few times that you can remember. It’s no wonder that Christmas seems like a mysterious and magical time. But when you’re thirty-three, you can remember about thirty Christmases. You can understand me when I say that this holiday is a little over-done.

Also, consider the fact that time is relative. When you’re six years old, a year seems like a long time. A year is 1/6 of your life. But when you’re thirty-three, a year is 1/33 of your life. Life seems to move faster and faster the older you get. So every December, when Christmas lights go up, it seems like it was just yesterday that we were celebrating this darned holiday.

The other problem is that Christmas has become such an essential element to our economy; retailers have tried to expand the Christmas season into early November. That means that we see Christmas commercials two months out of the year. Christmas isn’t special anymore. It’s become a marketing campaign.

And then there’s Christmas music. I’m the kind of person who hates to listen to the exact same music over and over again, even music that I truly love. I need a lot of music so I can have it on a long rotation so I don’t get sick of it all. When it comes to Christmas music, there’s just not enough of it.

I realize that there are is a lot of recorded Christmas songs out there, but when you think about it, you realize that there’s really only about thirty to forty original carols and pop songs that we hear every year. That’s like listening to the same three albums on rotation over and over again. You can understand why I’m a little tired of it. I wish that song writers would write more new Christmas music. Yet when pop singers today decide to release a Christmas album, they usually release mostly traditional songs with new arrangements, because it’s a lot easier and cheaper to arrange old songs than write new ones.

Now, all of this complaining about Christmas would be useless if I didn’t suggest a solution to the problem. Here it goes: We should cut the Christmas holiday down to one week. There’s nothing we can do about retailers choosing to extend the holiday into two months, but we can choose how much we’re going to celebrate it as a family. We shouldn’t put up the tree or decorate until December 18th. And everything should come down the day after Christmas. We shouldn’t play Christmas music until that time. We shouldn’t have parties until that week. We shouldn’t start over-eating until then. It should be one week. No more.

Secondly, we should really seek out original Christmas music wherever we can find it. For example, Sufjan Stevens records a new volume of his ongoing Christmas album every year. Needless to say, it's far from traditional. Volume VIII can be downloaded for free here. Sting has a new winter themed album this year that doesn’t have any obvious song choices. A new interesting album or two every year can really shake things up a little bit and make the holiday seem new again.

And thirdly, we should really make a strong effort to make Christmas a more spiritual time of year rather than a retail time of year. We shouldn’t try to keep up with the Jones’s when it comes to the amount of gifts we give and receive each year. We should put more emphasis on the proverbial “true meaning of Christmas.” We should choose family traditions that bring our attention to the spiritual elements, rather than the worldly.

That’s my opinion. I’m sure that many of you out there may disagree with me. You think that more of a good thing is always a good thing. And to you I say with strong moral justification: “Bah Humbug!”

The Two Moral Questions of Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:51:00 +0000

As many of you know, our little baby has Spina Bifida. If she had been born two-hundred years-ago, she wouldn’t have lived more than a few days. But thanks to modern medical knowledge she has a long life to look forward to.

My wife wouldn’t be alive two-hundred years-ago either. She has epilepsy. Without heavy medication, her life would be ruled by seizures and eventual death.

I too would not be alive two centuries ago. My chronic asthma has put me in the emergency room multiple times throughout my life. Without modern medicine, I’m positive that one of those asthma attacks would have killed me.

We are a modern family. Most family’s today have members who struggle with chronic yet manageable conditions. This trend is likely to continue. Consider the fact that Miriam and I are passing on these genetically linked chronic diseases to our posterity, who are highly likely to survive, procreate, and pass on those genetic disabilities. In the coming generations, we’re looking at a society with a higher chance of chronic disease, being kept alive with a high degree of functionality, thanks to the advances in modern science.

Of course, our current Legislative Branch is wrestling with the costs of this new diseased society. How do we make health coverage affordable for every American, given the fact that modern science has turned deathly conditions into chronic, yet manageable, diseases?

When it comes to the issue of health coverage, we as a society have to face two moral questions:

1. Should we keep alive people with chronic and expensive health conditions?

This question seems silly. The answer that most reasonable-minded human beings come to is—yes!

And then there’s the second question:

2. Do we have a responsibility to provide continued medical care to all of the individuals that we’ve kept alive through modern technology, limiting the amount of pain that they experience with their condition and providing them with the opportunity to live a relatively normal life.

This question is less obvious. But again, I think that most reasonably humane individuals would say: Yes, if we have a moral obligation to keep these people alive, we also have a moral responsibility to minimize their physical suffering caused by their conditions.

Conservatives like to point to the Founding Fathers for answers to all modern questions. But consider the fact that the Founding Fathers never could have imagined a society filled with people with chronic disease. But this is what they did consider:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This document, known as the Declaration of Independence, also states that it’s the government’s role to protect these rights.

And so the question of whether we need healthcare reform is not really a political one, is it? It’s not really an issue between small and large government. It’s not a question of budget deficits. It’s a moral question. The answer to this moral question is as obvious as confronting the tyranny of England in the 18^th century, as clear as opposing slavery in the 19^th, and as true as the war against Hitler in the 20^th. This is an ethical imperative of the 21^st century.

Of course, how we provide healthcare reform is a political question. It’s reasonable to question the necessity of a public option. How we pay for this reform is also a political concern. The speed and method of healthcare reform are also political considerations. All of these issues deserve debate and difference of opinion.

But let’s not get distracted by the political questions, forgetting that there are two non-political, fundamentally moral questions, where most of us can agree on the answers. We need equal health coverage for all Americans. Period.

The New Modern Movement

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 19:16:00 +0000

“Modernism . . . describes both a set of cultural tendencies and an array of associated cultural movements, originally arising from wide-scale and far-reaching changes to Western society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries . . . A salient characteristic of modernism is self-consciousness. This often led to experiments with form, and work that draws attention to the processes and materials used (and to the further tendency of abstraction). The poet Ezra Pound's paradigmatic injunction was to "Make it new!"

- Wikipedia’s definition of Modernism

“Postmodernism was originally a reaction to modernism. Largely influenced by the Western European disillusionment induced by World War II, postmodernism refers to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, interconnectedness or interreferentiality, in a way that is often indistinguishable from a parody of itself.”

- Wikipedia’s definition of Postmodernism

I find the popularity of the show, “Mad Men,” kind of astounding. On one hand, it’s about infantile characters on their way to a very rude awakening. The show hardly holds a punch.

On the other hand, the show very much glamorizes these characters’ sense of style. After all, what man doesn’t want to be Don Draper?—impeccably dapper, classical good looks, always the smartest guy in the room, and relentlessly womanizing. He seems to have it all.

Ultimately we want what these people have, even while the show seems to be navigating their downfall.

Socially, the world that this show depicts is about to go through a counter-culture revolution. Vietnam is looming. The Beatles are just about to descend upon America. All of the high fashion that we love on the show is about to be flushed down the toilet in a cesspool of hippie rebellion.

So what does our current generation want? Do we want rock & roll and burning bras? Or do we want slim lapels and modern furniture?

I recently saw a wonderful little documentary called “Helvetica.” The movie outlines the rise, fall, and resurgence of a font. This topic might seem trivial, but the movie drives at something more far-reaching.

The movie shows how our cultural attitude toward a typeface denotes the artistic and philosophical movements of the last few decades. It shows the height of modernism in the late 50’s, which Helvetica font represents. It then shows the postmodern reaction—a sort of chaotic and highly individualistic style of graphic design that dominated from the seventies into the early nineties. The movie then shows Helvetica’s resurgence in popularity in the late nineties and how it now dominates in our present popular culture.

The movie suggests that we are living in a new modern movement, with a different subtext to it. Graphic designers now see modernism as more subversive than the designers of the 70’s and 80’s believed it to be. New artists are finding interesting and highly creative ways to return to a more simple and clean artistic form.

This movement is so new, I haven’t heard of a generally accepted term for it. But whatever it will be called, it seems to be a more sophisticated approach to modernism.

In a sense, you could call modernism of the early twentieth century our child-like years. Everything became simple and logical. We learned to make our bed and look pretty.

Post-modernism was our teenage years. We learned to grapple with the complexity and absurdity of life. We rebelled against conventional thinking. We let our rooms get messy.

And the new modernism is our adult phase. For some reason, we want to make our bed again. As we have children we find ourselves returning to more principled ways of living. We find a sort of practicality again, making life livable, meaningful, and productive.

Many intellectuals of the postmodern period see the resurgent modernism as a newer and more profane version of the old order, which they worked so hard to discredit. They see texting, email, and Twitter as examples of our world becoming even more and more banal.

Indeed, the modernism of the first half of the twentieth century had some very negative bi-products as well—communism, eugenics, and fascism to name a few. But the modern way of thinking also brought us Picasso, Pollack, and Einstein. It was hardly all bad.

Let’s consider architecture for a moment. For decades now we’ve become more and more consumer driven. Our status was defined by having more. Our homes evolved from roomy ranch style suburbs to overblown McMansion with overwhelming mortgages. Now imagine someone growing up in this oversized, cluttered, and excessive society walking into a clean, organized, and minimalist home design. They find the lack of stuff totally and completely liberating.

It’s not a coincidence that modern architecture is back in style. The modern design approach also fits the surging environmentalism movement—That, and the fact that we now enjoy a reduced need for space thanks to digital technology. The gargantuan entertainment center has been abridged to a simple table with a laptop and a flat screen monitor mounted on the wall.

Modern design focused on the space in-between the objects, and not just the objects. So in the case of Helvetica font, we find it easier to read than older fonts because it maximizes the space around the letters. So to, as we sense a need to be more environmentally friendly, slimmer, and less consumer-driven, we are finding value in the space around our stuff.

This occurs when the avid TLC viewer decides to cut out the clutter in his or her life. After extensive cleaning, reorganizing, and getting rid of every unused item bought in the last three decades, the homeowner suddenly finds their home nice to live in again. One can actually do things at home. Everything that they have gets used because there’s less of it.

And make no mistake. There’s a deeply spiritual context to this new minimalism. By focusing on the space in-between the stuff, one finds new meaning in ideas, values, and living. Don’t think for a second that this new modernism happened “just because.” It happened as a response to the excesses afforded in the postmodern world.

New modern attitudes have also found their way into business philosophy. For years, the corporate world was seen as an extension of “The Man,” a cold mechanistic entity that tried to destroy human expression and individual freedom. But then take a look at recent business books: Jim Collins’s, “Good to Great,” and Jack Welch’s, “Winning.” They outline the new modern philosophy toward business. It turns out that the world’s most successful business institutions exemplify this philosophy.

The corporate world is no longer an old boy’s club. The new modern business world is diverse, energetic, innovative, and empowering. It’s anti-bureaucratic. It’s constantly revolutionary. New business models put an emphasis on people development rather than financial strategy. Welch advocates that the director of human relations should now be more powerful than the CFO.

And unlike postmodernists, new business philosophers condense business philosophy from complex financial strategy to simple over-riding people management principles. The science of doing business isn’t about greed or getting more stuff. It’s about succeeding in the quest for universal truth.

And look at who is considered hip in the business world: Companies like Apple and Pixar are heralded not for their dominating market share, but for their example of business excellence, uncompromising quality, and social responsibility. They are also the ultimate purveyors of modern art. The iPod is considered one of the most important artistic statements of the new century. And Pixar now has more power in Hollywood than Spielberg.

An interesting article titled, "The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond," points out another key difference between the postmodern world and the one we now inhabit:

“Postmodernism conceived of contemporary culture as a spectacle before which the individual sat powerless, and within which questions of the real were problematised. It therefore emphasised the television or the cinema screen. Its successor [new modernism] makes the individual’s action the necessary condition of the cultural product.”

In other words, the postmodernist sat there snobbishly uninvolved in the world. After all, why would anyone try to engage in a nonsensical universe? But the invention of the Internet has changed the way younger generations view things. They now are heavily involved in their own media. A perusal of the Internet takes multiple pieces of intellectual property and recombines them, at the whim of the user, into a unique learning experience. The user, rather than the author, is now king.

This has had a profound effect on politics? For years, the Democratic Party was the victim of its own philosophical base, a predominantly postmodern bunch. For example, It’s very hard to govern when, as a leader, you ultimately have a nonsensical view of the world. It’s also very hard to communicate a populalist message when you view the world in ultra complex definitions. And it’s nearly impossible to rally a disengaged crowd.

Barack Obama is unique in that he’s the first major Democratic leader to come into adulthood after the 1970’s. He’s not defined by the counter-culture movement. He has modeled his presidency after Ronald Reagan rather than Jimmy Carter. He offers practical execution of progressive ideas, rather than intellectually obtuse positions. He knows how to define a complex world in simple advertising terms. He is a truly modern president.

Candidates and presidents before him were either products of or a response to postmodernism. Obama’s liberalism is a philosophy of simple, practical, and transformative innovation. And most importantly, he has come to power through the recruitment of a new and modern generation that was already engaged. Obama out-fundraised a famous name like Hillary Clinton, not because of his political connections, but because his team figured out how to use modern communication media’s to raise capital. Obama had more small donors than any of the other candidates. This created the ultimate modern grass roots movement.

Some see Obama as a re-branding of very old ideas. They characterize him as a new socialist. Or a new fascist. But are we simply in a cultural cycle that is forced to repeat itself? In twenty or thirties years will we see a resurging counter-culture responding to the dominating modernism of the early part of the century? Or is something new going on?

The notion that history repeats itself is an urban myth. This is not a reoccurring cycle back and forth between modern and postmodern ideas. It’s an evolution. Although there may be other periods in history that resemble ours, this time-period is unique.

For example, never before has knowledge and the ability to communicate been so commoditized. A garage band in Waitsburg, Washington can produce music as technically advanced as a big music label in Los Angeles. A young student in a Ugandan village can access unprecedented information through Google. Independent filmmakers in Salt Lake City can make digital movies that look as highly-produced as big budget films in Hollywood. And an Internet surfer in Afghanistan can read what a blogger in New York has to say.

The world’s population continues to grow and get bigger. But all of us seem to be living in a much smaller world, thanks to technology. We understand that life is complex, since we can read and learn about anything we want online. But we are learning how to condense it and organize this information through the creation of our own self-designed blogs.

Big corporations continue to merge and seek market dominance. But at the same time, there’s increased competitiveness from small startups.

Text messaging and Twitter are adding more and more useless clutter. But we’re also able to choose our media more carefully to fit our lifestyle and interests, by watching shows on demand, Tivo-ing out the commercials, or simply viewing all media through the Internet.

We live in a very different modern world. Like other philosophical periods, some of it will be bad and much of it will be good.

Now, coming back to the subject of, “Mad Men.” Do we find the show relatable because the characters are going through a postmodern awakening? Or do we like it more because we associate fondly with their aesthetic tastes? While the culture depicted in “Mad Men” moves toward postmodernism, we as a culture are moving toward a new modernism. This causes a problem for future seasons of “Mad Men.” As the show’s culture moves more and more toward what we are not, we may find it harder and harder to relate to both the themes and the style of the show. And since we as the audience are king, the show will be promptly cancelled. We’ll speak of “Mad Men” as that great show that lost its appeal when everyone’s hair started getting long and they joined nudist communes. By comparison with our current viewpoint, the late sixties may seem awfully immature.

Is The Movie Star System Dead?

noreply@blogger.com (Wade Mann) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 07:28:00 +0000

Film business experts have noticed an interesting new trend. Having a movie star headlining the film is no longer a financial sure-bet. Big movie stars like Julia Roberts, Adam Sandler, and Russell Crowe have had recent box office bombs, suggesting that an era has ended. The only movie star these days who seems to guarantee box office success is Will Smith, but this may be more due to his movie choices rather than his actual star status.

At the same time, Hollywood has been dumbfounded by the recent success of movies without any discernable stars. “District 9” was one of the summer’s biggest hits, without even the notion of a recognizable actor. Studios are investing in big budget extravaganzas like “Star Trek,” without any A-list stars. In fact, with the huge success of two “Transformers” movies, it seems that building a movie on a recognizable toy line is a better indicator of success than the featured stars.

This notion that a Hollywood trend is over is, I think, an exaggeration. Having Brad Pitt in your movie is always going to make you more money than you would without him. It’s just that some actors like Pitt and George Clooney think that they have an obligation to use their star prowess to make movies that may not even get made without them. It’s that grain of salt that has to be considered when a movie like “Michael Clayton” makes $49 million. That is about $48 million more than it would have made if it had starred Campbell Scott.

What has changed in recent years is the number of movies being made in Hollywood. It used to be that a critically acclaimed comedy like “Whip It” would be a sure fire hit. The movie stars Ellen Page, who led “Juno” to box office success when she was a no-namer. And having a very famous actor, Drew Barrymore, as the director couldn’t hurt either. But when it goes up against another big comedy “Couples Retreat,” on the same weekend in October of all months, along with a smattering of other anticipated film comedies like “Zombieland,” “The Invention of Lying,” and a re-release of “Toy Story,” it’s understandable how the film would get forgotten by movie audiences.

To put this situation into perspective, there are thousands of movies being made every year. There’s really only a market for a couple of hundred. And that’s pushing it. When several big movies are being released every weekend, the Cineplex hardly seems as special as it used to be.

This comes with the increased quality of home theater systems that even poor college students seem to be able to afford. Why not wait until it “Whip It” comes out on DVD? In fact, it makes sense that movies like “Transformers” and “G.I. Joe” would do so well, in spite of overwhelming critical drubbing. These movies are event movies, the kind of thing audiences want to see in a big theater.

Certain actors have a talent for being likeable, which is why movie stars will always exist. They may not have the same power that they used to have. They are simply one factor in a myriad of box office elements—high concept premise, current audience temperament, genre trends, and overall competition.

The folks with the real power in Hollywood are the producer/directors like Peter Jackson, J.J. Abrams, John Lasseter, and the veteran Steven Spielberg, who understand how to deliver high concept stories that people seem to want to see on the weekend that they’re released. Filmmakers who can deliver great stories that are easily recognized by audiences as unique will always have the power in Hollywood. When people saw the trailer for a movie about aliens being held in a restricted camp in Johannesburg, they wanted to see it, regardless of who was in it. A clever premise beats a movie star any day.