Your Daily Joe

Finding the perfect video on YouTube

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:02:00 +0000

The quest to find the perfect video to accompany your story.

There was a short period of time in the late '90s when a few small groups of people had an idea for the future of cinema. With ever-advancing computer technology, the advent of digital moviemaking, and this newfangled internet thingy that had only recently risen to prominence, they thought the future of cinema was 360º photography - videocameras with lenses that could capture data from a complete 360º, leaving the viewer to decide what to watch, and when, by controlling the framing from a computer while the movie unfolded.

This was a very stupid idea. I remember downloading a 360º movie from either ifilm.com or atomfilms.com -- two pioneering websites for independent short film distribution, neither of which exists anymore -- and confirming what I'd already expected: this was not a good way to watch a movie. The camera just sits immersed in a scene, completely static, while things happen all around it. And somehow you, as the audience member, are supposed to know where the interesting thing is taking place. It was difficult to control and, in those days of ultraslow internet, took way too long to download.

Filmmakers are always looking for a way to draw the audience into a story, and get them to engage with what they're seeing. This was not the way to do it.

But every good technology has its place. For example, Google uses 360º cameras for their Street View app. But the first time I ever saw a smart use of a 360º camera was back in 2001, when Three Rivers Stadium was imploded. Now there's a situation where having the option to look in any direction at any time is going to be useful and interesting.

When I was writing about the Three Rivers Stadium implosion, the first video I thought to include with it was the 360º camera as covered by the local news at the time. But since I was writing from a very specific first-person perspective, I figured it made more sense to use a video from outside the stadium - the way everybody saw it happen.

There was plenty of video to choose from on YouTube. Every news channel, of course, had an aerial view of the implosion. There were also long views. Here's a really good angle from Station Square with absolutely no interference.

But most of the footage you find of the implosion is from far away, and either slightly or greatly elevated. I got it in my head that I should really find video with the on-the-ground perspective that I was writing from. Video from right there in Point State Park would be ideal. That's where most people, including myself, were standing when it happened. And I'm told (though I strongly question) that 20,000 people were there that day. There ought to be a ton of video from Point State Park.
Nope. I ran search after search after search on YouTube, trying all sorts of word combinations to find a video that someone shot from the ground, inside the crowd, at Point State Park. There was a pretty good in-the-crowd angle that I found easily, but it was shot from the North Shore, the complete opposite position from where I was that day.
Then there were these dipshits, really doing a great job of representing Pittsburgh to the rest of the world:

Yeah, thanks, guys. Confirming every negative stereotype of Pittsburgh that the outside world has. *sigh* I'd like to think that's not what my friends and I were like back in college; but if I saw some vintage video of us, who knows? I might be disappointed.
It took a very long time and a lot of YouTube searching, but I finally found exactly the video I was looking for. It was at ground level, from Point State Park, had a clear view of the proceedings, wasn't too shaky, and even did a little bit of panning over the crowd. It was perfect! Given the fact that I didn't shoot any video myself that day, I couldn't have asked for anything better. So that's the video I included with my story.

And, as of the moment I'm writing this, this video has less than 100 views?! Come on, people! This is the single best look at the Three Rivers implosion. Let's get that view count up!
(20,000 people witnessed the stadium implosion, and this is the only video from Point State Park? I really question that number.)
A very special thanks to cocotut23, whoever you are, for providing this excellent video. It really made my story complete.

The Facts of the Three Rivers Implosion

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:48:00 +0000

It's so easy to look up information these days. Yesterday, I recounted my first-person perspective of the demolition of Three Rivers Stadium. Today, after looking up some facts of the event, it seems memory isn't the most reliable historical record.

For one thing, history records that the stadium implosion happened at 8:03 AM. That seems WAY too late. My memory had it happening not too long after dawn. If the stadium didn't come down until 8:03, then I must have been awake for a long time. Pretty close to 24 hours, especially after I'd taken the time to eat breakfast before going to bed. Wouldn't be the only time in college I was awake for over 24 consecutive hours, but it's still rare enough to comment on.

They say it was 21 degrees Fahrenheit that morning. That sounds about right. Score one for Joe. And the exact date was February 11, 2001, so I'd narrowed it down pretty close.

Now, according to Wikipedia, over 20,000 people viewed the implosion from Point State Park. I do not believe this. Can someone check those numbers? I think you may have meant to say 2000, and even that is pushing it. Dude. There could not have been 20,000 people in the park. I'll never believe that. I don't think there's enough landspace for 20,000 people to fit in Point State Park. That place is small! And there are things inside the park that take up additional space, like a big ol' fountain that I doubt people were allowed to stand inside of that morning.

Here's the thing: I don't remember being squeezed shoulder-to-shoulder, chest-to-back with strangers that morning. I remember having space to move around. If you say the implosion happened at 8 AM, fine. That seems late to me, but fine, that's what happened. But there were not 20,000 people standing in that park with me. No way.

Show me 20,000 people fitting in there.
Here's a fun fact: apparently Cincinnati had a ballpark called Riverfront Stadium, which not only shares two thirds of its name with Three Rivers Stadium, but also happened to look exactly the goddamn same, and also happened to be imploded less than two years after Three Rivers. In fact, if one were to search YouTube for footage of Three Rivers Stadium being imploded, YouTube might return a few results from Riverfront Stadium, and one might think he or she were watching the Three Rivers implosion when, in fact, one happens to be watching the Riverfront implosion. I'm not saying that happened to me. I'm just saying it's possible that it could happen to you. But definitely not to me.

(According to Wikipedia, Three Rivers was one of many stadiums built in the '60s and '70s that all basically followed the same design. They were known as "cookie-cutter ballparks" because of this. So I'm going to let myself off the hook with the whole Cincinnati thing.)

Speaking of watching footage of the implosion, here's another fun fact: I was a film major in college! Remember when I mentioned that yesterday? So obviously I saw the implosion for what it was - a unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to utilize my training, take advantage of the professional-grade equipment at my disposal, and create a one-of-a-kind record of a historical event. So I bought a roll of 16mm Kodak film especially for the event, signed a Frezzolini out of the equipment office, and took the most beautiful footage that my family and friends have been enjoying ever since.

Hm? What's that? Oh, I didn't do any of those things? No kidding. Didn't even plan on showing up to witness the implosion in the first place? Gotcha. Take that, posterity!

But you know if the iPhone had existed at the time, I would've been all over that.

Thankfully, many people had the forethought to shoot some video that day. And it's all up on YouTube, from just about every possible angle... even from Cincinnati! I've combed through every clip I could find, and the one below (the same as yesterday's) is the closest to the way I saw it. In fact, this person must have been standing very close to me. Who knows, maybe I'm actually visibile when he pans over the crowd.

And speaking of him panning over the crowd... take a careful look. Does that look like 20,000 people to you?

The Day They Brought Three Rivers Down

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 07 May 2012 14:34:00 +0000

Paul was my best friend during college, and remains so ten years later now, even though I don't get to see him nearly enough these days. He's the one who discovered Point Park College in the first place, and attended it for a year himself before convincing me to transfer there, which I did at the beginning of my sophomore year. Paul and I were both night owls, and spent many, many long nights at his off-campus apartment watching countless movies, playing countless hours of video games, and drinking countless liters of Bacardi. We'd get into endless conversations, often about movies (we were both film majors), but really just about life in general. Politics, religion, philosophy; the kind of things college students talk about that make them feel really deep and intelligent. (Which we were, of course.)

Toward the end of 2000 -- right in the middle of my college experience -- Pittsburgh was abuzz with the impending demolition of Three Rivers Stadium. I had only been inside the stadium a couple of times in my life; but the Steelers had always been my family's team, so I felt a connection with the place. And, though I hadn't planned it this way, my choice of college placed me just across the river from the stadium. It was a very short walk from campus to Point State Park, where the stadium was always in clear view.

So as the calendar flipped to 2001, and January gave way to February, everyone at PPC was discussing their plans for watching the implosion of Three Rivers. We Point Park students had every advantage; we were the only people who actually resided in downtown Pittsburgh (aside from what I believe was a halfway house, but never mind that). For us, it was just a short walk up the street -- three, four blocks -- and then right back to our warm, comfortable beds when it was over. Everyone else would have to drive downtown, pay for parking, fight with the crowd, and then deal with event traffic when it was over.

Despite the ease and simplicity of it all, I had come to the conclusion that I would not be attending. It was happening early. On a weekend. As I already mentioned, I was a night owl. By the second semester of my junior year (which was when the implosion was happening), I had successfully transitioned myself away from any morning classes; I never scheduled a class before noon. That meant that my full-time schedule -- weekdays as well as weekends -- I could keep a night person's schedule. I was one taxicab away from becoming Travis Bickle. So waking up early on a Sunday, dragging my ass out of bed and stepping into the bitter cold dawn of a dead winter's morning to watch 20 seconds' worth of explosions sounded like the absolute last thing I'd want to do.

So firm was my decision to skip the stadium implosion that I never bothered to find out the exact date or time it would be happening. I was confident that once it had happened I'd hear plenty about it, and that would be that.

I'm sure you can see where this is heading. I wouldn't be telling you all of this if I didn't end up going to see the implosion. So here's how it happened.

I went to Paul's one Saturday evening; one of many. I don't remember the specifics of what we did that night. It was just the usual -- probably watched a movie or two, played some video games, perhaps listened to some Bill Hicks, definitely did some drinking, and did a whole lot of talking - one of our classic marathon conversations that went to three in the morning. And then four. And then five. Eventually the sun came up, and we were still going strong. But when it started to get full-on-daylight bright, we forced ourselves to wrap up the conversation, and Paul drove me back downtown so I could sleep in my dorm room.

As Paul drove off and I headed inside, I noticed all these people headed out. This early? On a Sunday? Ah, so this was the day of the stadium implosion. I'd nearly crossed the threshold into the dorm building, but I hadn't yet, realizing I could just... stay out at this point. I mean, I was already awake and outside. And it was right there, just a short walk.

So I went.

It was freezing, but it was a nice, clear day, which is abnormal for a Pittsburgh winter. I found some people I knew (though not too well) from school to stand and bitch about the temperature with.

The wait was longer than I had anticipated. Long enough to make me consider calling it quits and running back to my warm dorm room. But, come on, I had to stick it out at that point. Besides, I had a really good vantage point. I'm tall enough to see over most people's heads, and I had a clear, straight view of the stadium across the river.

My only relief from the cold was a Zippo lighter Paul had given me a month or so ago after he'd gotten a better one. I'd strike the lighter and let the flame lick the metal cap for a few seconds, then close it up and stick it inside my gloves to give my hands some extra warmth. It worked great! If only I could have done that for my whole body.

We waited. The park gradually became more crowded. And we all kept waiting. Longer. Too long. Anticipation grew to the point that, finally, a group of people a distance off started counting down from ten. I was skeptical. Who had prompted these people to start a countdown? Did it come from someone official? I didn't see anyone who looked official. Folks, just because you arbitrarily decided to start a countdown doesn't mean the demolition crew will press The Big Button when you get down to zero.

Sure enough, the countdown ended and nothing happened.

Then I started to hear people clapping in unison. Sort of like the stomp-stomp-clap of a stadium full of fans doing "We Will Rock You" during a game.

Now that really irritated me. It was too cold, and too early for this kind of crap. Didn't these people realize how long I'd been awake? How tired I was? I'm glad you're excited, but enough with the countdowns and the clapping. Could you please just settle down and be patient and let everyone experience this moment in their--

Oh, the stadium was collapsing! When did that start?

It turned out that the "unison clapping" I heard was actually the series of explosions going off inside the stadium.

And that was it. In less than a minute, the whole thing came down. And in the next minute, everyone standing in Point State Park started to realize that the air current was bringing all the dust and debris directly toward us. I'm sure the people running security were thrilled. This would be an easy way to convince the crowd to disperse.

And disperse we did. And as I'd known all along, the greatest part for me and my fellow students was that we were already home. I stopped for some food at the cafeteria so that hunger wouldn't interrupt my sleep and then, at long last, I fell into bed.

Anyway, that's how I remember it happening. Tomorrow, we fact-check this story.

Additional reading:

Steelers Fever

Anatomy of a Critical Darling

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 03 May 2012 21:31:00 +0000

I am a TV snob.

I sometimes like to pretend that's a joke. "I don't actually care what other people are watching," I tell myself. "It's just funny to act like I'm judging them based on what they watch."

But it's no joke. I'm judging you based on what you watch.

Now the thing about snobbiness is that it doesn't necessarily equal independent thinking. Snobs, like other groupings of people, tend to latch onto what other snobs are snobbing about. If there's a critical majority saying a movie or TV show is good, the insecure snob is going to trend along with that, lest they lose their snob credibility. Unless, of course, there's a snobbish dissenting camp, in which case you can safely join the opposition while retaining your snob credentials. (Titanic is perhaps the paragon of this.)

In the case of "Girls," the new(ish) HBO series from Tiny Furniture's Lena Dunham, there was no dissenting critical camp. In the months leading up to the show's debut, every critic and cultural commentator was extreme in praising the show. Not a single newspaper, magazine, talkshow, or website deviated from the narrative: "Girls" was awesome, incredible, the best thing to happen to TV in a long time. Every single critic, from the top on down, made it a point to be vehemently outspoken about "Girls." Everybody cool was going to be watching this show, and it was going to knock our socks off. How could a snob like me pass up an opportunity like this?

The phenomenon of the "critical darling" is nothing new. Critics, to the extent of their power, have always championed the shows they love. Of course, that's their job. But they've always reserved that extra bit of zeal for shows that needed a helping hand. Such was the case with "The Wire," a show that ran on HBO concurrently with "The Sopranos." When "The Sopranos" assumed the mantle of "best show on TV" in audiences' minds (thanks largely to the championing of critics), "The Wire" got brushed aside and was largely ignored. So, late in the game, the critical community shifted gears and started directing as much attention as they could to the final two seasons of "The Wire." It was too little too late, as "Wire" creator David Simon has lamented.

But in the case of "The Wire," critics were championing a show with a track record and a history of being ignored by audiences. When "Girls" debuted, the advance critical buzz was at -- or possibly even beyond -- the level of those final two seasons of "The Wire." This for a show that hadn't yet had a single week to establish its initial audience. Obviously critics were impressed by this show, and wanted people to know that it was something special. But why were they going at it with a fervor usually set aside for a show in danger of being cancelled? It hadn't even begun yet.

Which is what led to the inevitable internet backlash. Now, the internet was going to hate on this show no matter what. That's what the internet does. (Haters gonna hate.) But the extreme proselytizing of the professional critics led to an equal and opposite carpet-bombing by the internet. If the critics were working so hard to shove this show down our throats, then the internet was going to work extra hard to swat this show away from our faces. And all of this hate was coming from people who hadn't seen advance previews the show.

At long last, on April 15, "Girls" began its HBO run.

And...

I didn't like it.

How could this happen? How could it not be good? I wanted to love it! I wanted to join my snobful brethren in lauding a beautiful gem of a show that the wretched plebs would never be able to appreciate (the fools!). But it wasn't happening. I was one of the wretched plebs! The critics had outsnobbed me.

And since I had no single piece of cogent criticism to back me up (internet backlash is nothing I wanted to ally myself with), I was on my own to answer the question: Why didn't I like this show?

Why? Well, it didn't pull me into its world, and I wasn't interested in what was going on. I didn't find the characters to be consistent with reality (which the show is definitely trying to achieve) or even with themselves. I didn't find the show's worldview to be insightful or amusing. And neither in my mid-20s nor at any time in my life did I know anyone (including women!) who acted remotely like these people. I simply didn't buy it.

But the critics and cultural commentators had different ideas about why I didn't like "Girls." First of all, I was sexist and I just couldn't handle a woman's point-of-view. Second, I was jealous of Lena Dunham's success, which I despised because of the nepotism involved, and also because I'm sexist. Third, I've simply forgotten what it's like to be in my mid-20s, and certainly couldn't comprehend what it's like for a woman in her mid-20s, because I'm sexist. Fourth, I have bad taste and wouldn't know quality if it were tying me down and castrating me, which it should, because I'm sexist. And fifth, that I'm sexist.

Yes, that's it. It's not that the show has actual flaws worth discussing; it's that I'm a terrible person.

But it is a flawed show. And that's fine, by the way! Lots of shows are flawed. In fact, can't we pretty much agree that every show is flawed? That there's no such thing as "perfection" when it comes to a TV show?

Because the fact of the matter is, "Girls" is not a bad show. It has a lot going for it. But it's flawed, and that ought to be acknowledged. There are things about it that are not good. There's room for improvement. But the passion that this show has inspired in critics has forced people like me into a corner; I either have to agree with the majority that this show is the most amazing and perfect creation of the past decade, or else I'm just another jealous, sexist, misogynist, tasteless slob spewing venom and bile in the comments section of unsavory websites.

But...

There are two recent developments that give me hope. One is that I'm finally starting to see some -- though not much -- rational, level-headed criticisms of the show. After the first episode aired, veteran TV writer Ken Levine, citing the disproportionate critical love "Girls" is receiving, assessed the show as good but not great. Then, after the second episode aired, Hillary Busis, writing for Entertainment Weekly, cited several of the same issues I had with that episode. So I'm not crazy! You don't have to be a hater to take issue with the show. Now we're getting somewhere.

But even better is the second development. The third episode of "Girls" was good. Objectively good! It was true to its own reality. The humor was spot-on. It was interesting. It was insightful. The characters felt like real people I knew in my mid-20s. Finally, I was seeing something close to the show critics had geared me up to expect all along. I wasn't drooling all over myself the way they led me to expect I would. But still. What I saw in the third episode was a show I want to watch. Hopefully it will continue in that direction for a long time to come. I now have a reason to be optimistic.

And that's what I wanted all along, frankly. A show that is enjoyable, and promises to become more enjoyable. That "Girls" took three episodes to get to that point is no sin at all. Many shows -- most shows -- take a while to find their rhythm. "Parks and Recreation," one of my current favorite sitcoms, took at least three times that number of episodes to get to that point. This is normal.

Which brings me back to my original point. There was never a problem with "Girls" itself, or with Lena Dunham, or with HBO, or with my own personal gender biases. It was the skull-crushing enthusiasm of the critics. They said far too much far too soon about this show, effectively overwatering their favorite new plant, nearly killing it in the process. They were the problem all along.

So. Would I recommend "Girls" to you? Yeah. It's a pretty good show. But be aware that you might find yourself annoyed with it at first. And that's all right! I give you permission to be annoyed with it, which is more than the vast majority of critics were willing to allow. Just stick with it through the third episode, and I think you'll start to enjoy it.

But if you don't end up enjoying it at all... well... I give you permission for that too! You don't have to like it if you don't want to. And it's nice to hear that you're not required to like every single critically acclaimed TV show, isn't it?

Especially coming from a snob!

Nepotism and 'Girls'

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:21:00 +0000

A few weeks ago, accompanying the debut of the new HBO series "Girls" was this Photoshopped parody poster critical of the show's casting:

(Click for a larger version.)
There's a lot -- a LOT -- to be said about "Girls," as the internet has been proving for months now. Opinions run passionate about this show and, as we all know, people who have opinions are assholes. Or something like that.

The thing about this parody poster is that it's wrong. Just plain incorrect. Someone put what I have to assume is a significant amount of time into making this poster, and he or she did so without knowing the definition of "nepotism."

It's true that the four lead actresses in "Girls" are all somebody's daughters. But I did some research, and it turns out that every girl is somebody's daughter!

Here's what nepotism means, as defined by the very-difficult-to-find-and-use website dictionary.com:

nep·o·tism [nep-uh-tiz-uhm]
noun
patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics: She was accused of nepotism when she made her nephew an officer of the firm.

Now, this poster does accurately track the family relationships of the girls in "Girls." What it does not do is explain how being the daughter of the drummer of a band that nobody's cared about since 1982 caused HBO executives to pull Jennifer Euston, the casting director, into a quiet, dimly lit room where they proceeded to make vaguely threatening comments about her loved ones, and then casually "recommend" that she take a serious look at the acting chops of Bad Company's dummer's daughter.

(I like how the maker of the poster didn't even bother to look up the name of Bad Company's drummer. I also like how I'm not doing it either.)

Folks, this is not nepotism. Judd Apatow is a producer on "Girls." If Apatow's daughters, who have been known to make appearances in his films, were cast in lead roles on "Girls," THAT would be nepotism. Adorable, precocious nepotism.

(By the way, Judd Apatow putting his daughters in his movies is also not nepotism. It's more of an extended cameo, or like an expensive family photo album.)

See, the way nepotism works is, a family relation in a position of power gets someone a job. In order for Brian Williams to get his daughter cast on "Girls," he would have to have some sort of sway over at HBO, or with the production itself. He doesn't. (Or does he? If you know something I don't about Brian Williams, please tell me. Come to think of it, I have no idea what he does with himself outside of 6:30-7 PM eastern time.)

And folks, please walk me through the logic on this: how does Lena Dunham being the daughter of artist Laurie Simmons get her a show on HBO? Connect those dots for me. What scenario are you imagining where Laurie Simmons' "fame" leads to her daughter landing a deal with HBO? Now if Laurie Simmons had arranged her daughter a show at an art gallery owned by a friend or partner, that would be nepotism. But until my DVR is bursting with shows created by the children of prominent New York artists, I'm not seeing how being an artist's daughter gets you a leg up in the television business.

And speaking of Laurie Simmons' fame... who the fuck is Laurie Simmons?! Really? Truly? Honestly? What you're trying to tell me is that you've known who Laurie Simmons is, you've been following her work for decades? No you haven't! You know who Laurie Simmons is now, after her daughter made a movie and a TV show, not the other way around. Moving forward, if Laurie Simmons gets a TV show because of her daughter's success... that is nepotism. Hey, you know what? Lena Dunham casting Laurie Simmons in her movie Tiny Furniture, which is something that actually happened... that was nepotism!

The word you're looking for is "privilege." This cast makes you mad because it goes against the American Dream narrative that we all want so desperately to believe in - that a person can come from nothing and, based on hard work and talent, achieve ultimate success. The cast of "Girls" forces us to face a cold reality: while the American Dream can happen from time to time, it is, in fact, easier to operate in America if you already have money or fame to begin with. That's privilege, not nepotism.

Or maybe the word you're looking for is "favoritism." But it's a lot more difficult to be critical of favoritism, isn't it? Every single one of us practices favoritism. This time last year, I was working a job that was easy for me to get because I already knew half the people at the company. I was a known quantity to them, so they hired me. Likewise, when I'm in a position to hire, the first thing I do is check in with friends to see if they need a job or know somebody who does. Furthermore, the most recent TV I bought was a Samsung, because I have a history of loving that company's products. And no matter where I go, I know I can always rely on Starbucks coffee to taste the way I want it to. Favoritism!

But the word you probably should have landed on is "jealousy." Lena Dunham gets to make a show, and you don't. Lena Dunham's show airs on one of the most prestigious networks in existence, and you can't even get on TruTV. Critics do backflips for her. Come Emmy time, she's likely to win every single category. ("Outstanding Host for a Reality or Competition Program goes to... Lena Dunham for 'Girls!'") And all you've managed to accomplish is getting people to recognize your mad Photoshop skills.

Now here's the kicker: I don't like "Girls." I've watched all three episodes so far, and I'm just not into it at all. And the fact that EVERY single critic and cultural commentator loves the show -- 100% across the board, without fail, not one dissenting opinion -- is as obnoxious to me as it is to everyone else who doesn't get the show. So I understand the backlash. I do. But when you make a bad argument -- when the crux of your argument is a word you can't even define correctly -- you're ruining things for those of us who have legitimate negative criticisms about the show.

So, stop it! Learn what "nepotism" means, and then go away. And while you're at it, search your soul and ask yourself: if I were making a TV show, wouldn't I try to hire all my friends to work on it too?

Podcast Rollcall: Bullseye with Jesse Thorn

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:41:00 +0000

About a year and a half ago, I profiled the Sound of Young America podcast. Recently, the Maximum Fun network has revamped and rebranded the show, so I figured it was time to revisit it here.
Genre: Interview and Culture

What It's About: Bullseye, like The Sound of Young America before it, is a lifestyle show which concerns itself with nothing less than the very best of American (and world) culture. More tightly formatted that its predecessor, each edition of Bullseye begins with recommendations from various pop culture critics, followed by the feature interview, which is either in two parts or followed by a secondary interview. Then a few minutes are devoted to a comedy routine of some sort, and the show ends with a few words about something the host is currently obsessed with. It's a strong format that holds the listener's attention and packs a lot into one hour.

Why You Should Care: The primary draw of host Jesse Thorn is that he has good taste. On Bullseye, you'll hear interviews with actors, comedians, musicians, filmmakers, authors and more, all of whom are doing interesting, innovative and high-quality work well worth of your attention. You'll hear from some of your favorites, but, more importantly, you'll be introduced to new artists and performers that you'll wish you'd heard about sooner.

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: Approximately one hour

iTunes Link: http://itunes.apple.com/podcast/bullseye-with-jesse-thorn/id73331298

Website: http://www.maximumfun.org/shows/bullseye

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

Movies Will Change Forever - This Year!

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:31:00 +0000

Last year, I commented on an exciting report that James Cameron was planning on using a higher frame rate for his still-in-the-planning-stages sequel to Avatar. Well, while Mr. Cameron has been busy with deep sea diving, Peter Jackson has beaten him to the punch by shooting this December's Hobbit movies at 48 frames per second.

Why will this matter to you? When more visual information is put in front of your eyes, the brain is more convinced that what it's seeing is real, is present in the room with you. After all, life has no frame rate at all; the closer movies can get to "faster-then-the-eye" frame rates, the more movies will look like life. This, in most people's opinions, is more effective than stereoscopic "3-D" movies. The effect is that there is no screen with images being projected onto it; it appears as though you're watching fully-dimensional objects behind a proscenium.

Many filmmakers have been pushing for higher frame rates for years; decades, even. But the goal was a financial burden that no studio was ever willing to carry. It would have meant not only doubling (or even tripling) the amount of money spent on film stock while shooting, but also doing the same for every single print of the movie sent to the thousands of theaters it would be exhibited in. Also consider the double or triple weight of the physical film, effectively doubling or tripling the shipping costs. And, of course, it would have meant that movie theaters themselves would have been responsible for buying new projectors that could handle higher projection speeds. Increasing the frame rate would mean a complete systemic overhaul, and an expensive one at that.

So why is it finally happening? Once again, it's digital to the rescue!

The Hobbit films are being shot digitally. And while it's a bit of a burden to handle so much data (reportedly up to 12 terabytes are being shot for The Hobbit every day, with 265 shooting days scheduled; for those of you who don't understand computers very well, that's what's known as a "shit ton" of data), the cost of shooting, storing and distributing the movie digitally keeps the total cost down to manageable levels. And since theaters have by and large converted to digital projectors, it's only a minor software and hardware-component upgrade for theaters to exhibit at the higher frame rate.

I'm conflicted about the inevitable dominance of digital cinema. Don't get me wrong, I love the digital revolution; it's done more for our society than any individual person can account for. But digital imagery looks different from film; many people don't notice or care, but that doesn't mean it's not the case. I will miss film.

At the same time, there are many aspects of digital cinema worth championing. The actualization of increased frame rates is one of them. In an age when movie theaters are desperate to distinguish themselves from the increasing quality of the home video experience, movies with increased frame rates are, in this viewer's opinion, going to be a far superior value-add to cinematic history than stereoscopy.

This December, with the release of the first Hobbit movie, a new standard will be set, and movies will be changed forever.

(Note: Some initial reactions to advanced footage of The Hobbit from CinemaCon are very negative. Click here for more.)

Stand Strong, Daily Show

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 00:27:00 +0000

I suppose it speaks to my complete lack of sensitivity that when, while watching Monday night's "The Daily Show," I gave a quick laugh to an on-screen graphic of a naked woman with a Nativity scene between her legs and then promptly forgot it. Either that, or it speaks to the oversensitivity of certain other people that it's still an issue on Wednesday. How did I not see this coming? Of course it's an issue. Of course certain people are "outraged" and demanding an apology. And of course I don't think "The Daily Show" should apologize.

This article on The Hollywood Reporter website elaborates on the issue well, and includes video of the "Daily Show" segment in question. In short, as The Hollywood Reporter puts it, "Stewart’s intent during the segment in question was to ridicule the Fox News Channel for not covering the GOP’s alleged 'war on women' with the sort of zeal that it annually covers the 'war on Christmas.'"

This has led some guy named Brent Bozell of something called the Media Research Center to call out "The Daily Show." "We dare Jon Stewart to be equally disgusting & desecrate the Koran & Torah to prove they are equal opportunity bigots," says Bozell. He goes on, "If [Stewart is] such a daring political comedian, he should demonstrate his boldness by performing the same routine, but this time with a Koran and the Torah. Otherwise he is not only a bigot, but also an outright coward."

Bozell is being disingenuous. He'd have us believe he's being hyperbolic, but he clearly intends to rile his base over a fabricated "controversy" and a challenge that doesn't make any sense. (Until Fox News starts reporting on a "War On Hanukkah," "The Daily Show" will have no opportunity to put a menorah between a naked woman's legs.) But my hat's off to him for accomplishing his cynical mission of raising his own profile - this morning, I didn't know what a Brent Bozell was. Tonight, I spent a good hour writing about him, and will probably have his name stuck in my head for a long time to come. Well played, sir.

Podcast Rollcall: Nerdist Writers Panel

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:50:00 +0000

Genre: Interview/Panel Discussion

What It's About: Writers talking writing, as the theme song says. In each edition, a group of two or more writers (mostly TV writers) sits with moderator Ben Blacker to talk about the process of writing from both a creative and a business perspective.

Why You Should Care: For people interested in the process of writing for TV, this series offers a great overview. But for people who simply enjoy watching TV, these are informative and funny discussions about how some of your favorite shows came to be - what inspired the original concept, how it changed during development, and how the showrunners navigate the daily process of keeping a show going... and going well. Most editions of this podcast are recorded in front of an audience, which keeps things lively and entertaining.

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: An hour and a half

iTunes Link: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/nerdist-writers-panel/id455020248

Website: http://www.nerdist.com/podcast/nerdist-writers-panel/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

"Frankenhole" spec

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:12:00 +0000

The Cartoon Network/Adult Swim stop-motion animated series "Mary Shelley's Frankenhole" aired its second season finale yesterday. Here is an ORIGINAL SPEC SCRIPT I wrote based on the show. NOTE: This is NOT a produced episode. While I did work on seasons one and two of the show, it was not as a writer. This script is provided here for entertainment purposes and as a writing sample. Please enjoy.

Click here to read.

Art In Video Games

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:53:00 +0000

I'm apparently an 80-year-old man.

When I was looking through pictures of the video games the Smithsonian American Art Museum is honoring in an exhibit, the first few pictures made me smile.

The bright colors and charmingly archaic visuals...

Wonderful childhood memories of hours upon hours spent with a controller in hand...

But mostly, I was just amazed at how good they looked. The graphics were basic, but all these years later they still look sharp and crystal clear. They make me want to dust off my old Nintendo and see if I can get it working again.

Then I saw this mess...

...and it happened. Get...

...off...

...my...

...LAWN!!!

For those of you who don't recognize it, that's the original "Tomb Raider." And when that game came out, it was huge. It helped make the original PlayStation the biggest videogame consol on the market. And the buzzword on everybody's lips was, "graphics." 32-bit graphics! Which made gameplay more dynamic and the visuals more realistic than ever before.

But look at those visuals now. They're just an ugly smattering of greyscale cubes, blocky and unappealing.

Now go back up and look at "Super Mario Bros. 3" again. And "Pitfall" - that's an Atari game, and it looks great! It's when videogames started going for realism that they started to look bad. Back in my day, we didn't need video games to look realistic. If they were fun to play, that was all that mattered.

I know. I'm an old man. I already said that.

Look, I'm no luddite. My entertainment center is up-to-date with the PS3. Videogame technology keeps advancing, and I'm enjoying keeping up pace with it.

The point is that fads go away, and they look silly in retrospect. Chasing realism in videogames is faddish. They have yet to make a game that looks photorealistic during gameplay. And the games that have tried to look photorealistic end up aging faster. Meanwhile, the cartoony stuff from the old days still looks appropriately cartoony. And fun.

So, to all the videogame makers out there: we're not there yet with realism in videogames. If you want your game to have a longer shelf life, program to the consol's strengths, not what you wish it could do. Because right now, looking at the visuals on "Doom 64" versus "Marble Madness," I'd rather play me some "Marble Madness."

Now where's my Sega Master System?...

Ninjas at the Beach

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 14:34:00 +0000

Last Friday through Sunday, G4 set up their annual taping of "American Ninja Warrior" in my neck of the woods, Venice Beach. Helby and I have been watching "Ninja Warrior" for a few years now, and thought we'd head over this year to check it out in person.

If you're not familiar with "Ninja Warrior," it's a competition gameshow where contestants have to complete an almost military-level obstacle/training course.

While it's not really difficult to get into any TV show taping around town, this one is particularly easy, being out in the open along the highly foot-trafficked Ocean Front Walk.

The show plays out in person almost exactly as it does on TV, minus the commentators. I was especially impressed with how quickly they kept the contestants moving, one right after the other. I always assumed there'd be a lot of down time between contestants in order to reset the course and take care of any technical issues. But no, they keep things moving.

Unlike just about any other show taping, crowd control is not a concern. For any talk show or sitcom, the audience has to stay locked in their seats while the show is going on. At "Ninja Warrior," people were allowed to move around freely.

The episodes they shot are due to air sometime in May. So if you find yourself watching the next batch of new episodes of "American Ninja Warrior," keep an eye on the crowd; you might see me there.

2012 Oscar Wrap Up

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:10:00 +0000

Loose Thoughts

Well, folks, the lesson learned this year is that you should not, under any circumstances, ever, ever pay attention to my Oscar predictions. Man, did I bomb this year! Just terrible. I shouldn't even be allowed to think about awards again, let alone try to predict them. Just sit back and watch the show like everyone else. Any claim I've ever laid to recognizing quality in film or having a feel for the thought process of Academy voters is apparently wrong, and I should be ashamed to have presumed otherwise. The end.

But wait. No. Maybe I'm being too hard on myself. I mean, my reasoning was sound, wasn't it? My guesses made a lot more sense than the Academy's votes. Yeah, that's it. It wasn't I who was wrong, but them! Nice try, Academy, but I'm not taking the fall for your mistakes. You're the problem, not me. Why am I running myself through the ringer when it's you who ought to be ringed?

Here are some things that I did right and the Academy did wrong...

Technical awards. Oh, silly me! I thought Dragon Tattoo and Planet of the Apes deserved an award or two. Little did I realize that the Academy was so ashamed about not giving Martin Scorsese the director or picture awards, that they would backload Hugo with as much as they could. My mistake.

Short films. You know, I first started attending screenings of the short films three years ago. I thought it would make me better at predicting Oscar winners. Instead, it's made me worse. (Go ahead, check my record.) Whose fault is this, mine or the Academy's? I remind you, I've actually seen the short film nominees. Do you think everyone in the Academy saw all the short film contenders? Or do you think they just dashed off a few checkmarks so that they could get their ballots in the mail?

Original screenplay. This award came down to no dialogue versus all the dialogue. I erred on the side of no dialogue (The Artist), thinking the Academy would pat themselves on the back for acknowledging that there's more to screenwriting than just telling actors what to say. I should have known that they'd rather pat themselves on the back for liking Woody Allen. (In fairness, I truly did love Midnight In Paris.)

Best Actress. All right, Academy, I know I've got The People on my side with this one. Everybody knows this was supposed to go to Viola Davis. Yes, we love Meryl Streep. Clearly. And I know that Ms. Streep had -- what was the number? -- 11 losses in a row? But you know you're going to regret not giving this to Viola Davis, right? 20 years from now, you're going to give Ms. Davis an Oscar for Scent of a Woman 2: Sniffing Out a Man, and everybody's going to be thinking, "Wait, this is her first Oscar? How did she not win for The Help or Doubt?"

Best Actor. Sigh. Okay, I'll take the blame for this one. If I had gone with my heart, I would have picked eventual winner Jean Dujardin. Instead, I let other analysts convince me that the Academy really wanted to give this one to Clooney. That's on me, okay? But this is the only loss I'll take the blame for. You done me wrong, Academy. My reputation for awards predicting has taken a major hit after last Sunday.

All right, what else happened?

Angelina Jolie's leg. Deserving of all the ridicule it got. The well-rehearsed pose that she was doing on the red carpet was silly, but that's what red carpets are for, so who cares? But when she walked out on stage to present awards and struck the exact same pose? Come on! To recap: she walks over to the microphone, pauses, then methodically juts out the leg and puts her left hand on her hip. The audience reacts in a way that's not completely clear through our TVs, but sounds an awful lot like derisive laughter. This causes Angelina to chuckle too, but not in a self aware or self deprecating way; more in a self satisfied way. You know, Angelina of ten years ago would have cut each and every audience member who laughed at her. And that's why we loved her. But then again, Angelina of ten years ago wouldn't have preoccupied herself with all that posturing in the first place.

And finally, Billy Crystal. Did a nice job. It wasn't mind-blowingly great, but it was good. Some jokes were clunkers, but some were out of the park. Isn't that the way it always is? He leaned on some old schtick and some of his jokes were old man-ish, but a lot were surprisingly fresh and biting. Unfortunately, the press seems to be focusing on the negative. I think they're all forgetting how absolutely dismal James Franco and Anne Hathaway were last year. Crystal was funny, and he kept the show moving along - it went at a pretty brisk pace, and ended only a few minutes late! If you disagree, then tell me who's been better in the last ten years.

My Score Sheet

Of the 24 categories I placed guesses in this year, I only got 10 right. 10! Obviously, I'm not happy. I'll give myself a week to rest up, then I need to start training hard for next season.

In Summary

If there was a problem with the Oscars this year, it was because of the nominees. I remember, the day the nominations were announced, looking over the Best Picture list and thinking, "Oh..." That's it. Just... oh. Kinda boring. No Avatars or Inglourious Basterds or Hurt Lockers to shake things up.

That being the case, I think the awards ceremony itself actually came through pretty strong. This year's Oscarcast was a nice middle-of-the-road endeavor which, again, was a welcome change after last year. I enjoyed the show. And I watched it with a good crowd of funny people, which always makes things better. I give this year's Oscars a B+

The Official YDJ 2012 Oscar Ballot

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:03:00 +0000

Want to keep track of the nominees and winners during the Oscar ceremony? Want to see how your guesses stack up against mine? Here's the official Your Daily Joe Oscar 2012 ballot!

Click below to view and download (PDF format). And don't forget to print out your copy for Sunday night.

Click here to download

*Special thanks to Helby for creating the ballot document.

2012 Short Films Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:07:00 +0000

Continuing my Oscar predictions, now that I've seen the live-action and animated shorts nominees...

LIVE-ACTION SHORT

Pentecost, Peter McDonald and Eimear O'Kane
Raju, Max Zähle and Stefan Gieren
The Shore, Terry George and Oorlagh George
Time Freak, Andrew Bowler and Gigi Causey
Tuba Atlantic, Hallvar Witzø

The opinion was unanimous in my group of friends: Tuba Atlantic should win this one. When I tell you it's the story of an elderly man who's told by his doctor that he'll only live six more days, you might assume it's a heavy-handed or sentimental examination of life and death. It's actually a biting comedy about a grumpy old man who wants to spend his final days finishing one last project, forced to deal with the interruptions of a teenage girl who claims to be his angel of death. Funny, and just the right amount of pathos.

ANIMATED SHORT

Dimanche / Sunday, Patrick Doyon
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore, William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg
La Luna, Enrico Casarosa
A Morning Stroll, Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe
Wild Life, Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby

It's more difficult to predict the winner from this year's animated shorts. As usual, Pixar stands out from the crowd with La Luna, full of whimsy and magic. And while siding with Pixar seems like the easy and obvious way to win an Oscar pool, that was not the case last year... although La Luna is sweeter and more awe-inspiring than last year's more cerebral and clever Day & Night. So Pixar might get the win this year.

Helby thinks Fantastic Flying Books has a good chance, while I found its message so thick you could choke on it. Instead, I'm looking at Wild Life to win. This was the second time I'd seen it, and it's the type of movie that reveals more layers on repeat viewings. Based on true incidents, it's the story of a rich, young Englishman who finds himself in over his head while living off family money in Canada.

The short film nominees may be available On Demand through your cable provider or through iTunes if you're interested in watching them and making your own guesses about who will win.

Read the rest of my 2012 Oscar predictions here. And while you're there, vote in the poll!

POLL: Your 2012 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 13:44:00 +0000

You've read my take on this year's Oscars. Now it's time to tell me yours. Take the Your Daily Joe Oscar poll below.

&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;Loading...&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;
Special thanks to Helby for creating this poll.

2012 Oscar Predictions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:18:00 +0000

And here we are again. Is it just me, or did Awards Season sneak up on us this year? I'd barely begun to process my thoughts on 2011 in movies when the smaller organizations started handing out their prizes. But the Big Show quickly approaches, so it's time to get my thoughts organized. Here are my predictions for this year's Oscars...

SOUND EDITING

Drive
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

SOUND MIXING

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
Moneyball
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
War Horse

I always feel obligated to describe the difference between these two categories as, let's face it, they're not exactly the most glamorous, so nobody ever remembers what distinguishes them. But hey, these wins could give you the edge in your Oscar pool, so pay attention. Sound editing is the process of creating the aural aesthetic of a movie; kind of the audio equivalent of the cinematography and production design. Sound mixing is the recording and blending of all the sound elements, creating the final results that you hear when watching a movie.

These categories usually go to the flashiest contenders - war movies, action movies, superhero stuff. For example, both went to Inception last year. This year, however, I anticipate a split. Sound editing will go the flashy route with Transformers. Sound mixing will go the high-minded route: Dragon Tattoo.

VISUAL EFFECTS

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Real Steel
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Transformers: Dark of the Moon

The effect that stood out from the crowd in 2011 was Planet of the Apes. Bonus points for actually being a thoughtful scifi movie as well. The Academy will be happy to reward this.

COSTUME DESIGN

Anonymous
The Artist
Hugo
Jane Eyre
W.E.

Well, this is always a tough category for me to predict. The smart money is usually on the period piece, but... they're all period pieces this year. Since The Artist is likely the big winner this year, I think it will take this award as part of its sweep.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT / ANIMATED SHORT / LIVE-ACTION SHORT

I'll be seeing the animated and live-action shorts in a couple weeks, and will post my picks shortly after that. Be sure to check back. I won't have access to the documentary shorts, so you're on your own with those. If there's one about World War II, bet on that.

[ *Updated Feb. 21, 2012 - click HERE for my short film predictions. ]

FILM EDITING

Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Kevin Tent, The Descendants
Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Thelma Schoonmaker, Hugo
Christopher Tellefsen, Moneyball

This will probably end up another win for The Artist, although I'm concerned Dragon Tattoo could come in and grab it. But no, The Artist's momentum should carry this along with it.

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE)

John Williams, The Adventures of Tintin
Ludovic Bource, The Artist
Howard Shore, Hugo
Alberto Iglesias, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
John Williams, War Horse

I was really into the Tintin score (as well as everything else about Tintin), but the Academy has pretty much rejected the movie outright, so I wouldn't expect it to perform here. I'd like to say that this will be another win for The Artist, but there was that bit of controversy specific to the score a while back. Then again, that was kind of a controversy of one. I do think The Artist will win here.

MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG)

"Man or Muppet" from The Muppets, Bret McKenzie
"Real in Rio" from Rio, Sergio Mendes, Carlinhos Brown and Siedah Garrett

Wow, two whole songs were nominated. Two! Screw you, everyone else who wrote a song for a movie! Anyway, I personally liked the song from Rio better, but I think there's just too much goodwill surrounding The Muppets. "Man or Muppet" will most likely win.

ART DIRECTION

The Artist
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
War Horse

This is another category where flashy and obvious seems to win, so I'd expect Harry Potter to take this one.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

The Artist
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Tree of Life has a good shot here; Malick is nothing if not a painstaking photographer. But as part of the overall package, the cinematography in The Artist was critical to its successful execution. The Academy will surely recognize that achievement.

ANIMATED FEATURE

A Cat in Paris
Chico & Rita
Kung Fu Panda 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

My horse was left out of this race. I'm an enthusiastic fan of Tintin, and I don't understand why it hasn't caught on better with audiences and critics in the U.S. I found Puss in Boots remarkably charming and rewatchable, if not especially funny. The two foreign films in this category are strong, but the Academy will probably end up keeping things safely American here. The Annie Award went to Rango, and I'm thinking the Academy Award is likely to follow suit.

FOREIGN FEATURE

Bullhead
Footnote
In Darkness
Monsieur Lazhar
A Separation

Full disclosure: I've seen exactly zero of these movies. I know, I know... I should be ashamed. Regardless, I've heard the buzz on all of these movies, and none has been more buzzed about than A Separation. Everyone who's seen this movie has been blown away by it. No dissenting opinions. This is the one to bet on.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

Hell and Back Again
If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory
Pina
Undefeated

The strongest contenders here are Pina and Paradise Lost 3. Pina's smart use of 3-D -- in a documentary, no less -- could give it the edge. But Paradise Lost 3 will be remembered as the movie that got innocent people released from jail. That's a pretty strong recommendation. My gut tells me this one will go to Paradise.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Michel Hazanivicius, The Artist
Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo, Bridesmaids
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
J.C. Chandor, Margin Call
Asghar Farhadi, A Separation

Strong category here. There's A Separation which, again, has been a huge critical hit. But it will win Best Foreign Film, and the Academy won't feel the need to reward the script separately. Midnight in Paris is well-reputed as a return-to-form for Woody Allen, and is a movie I particularly enjoyed. But I think the Academy will be satisfied that they merely nominated this film; they won't feel the need to actually give it the win. There's a possibility that Bridesmaids could win this one, as a de facto "best comedy picture" award. But ultimately, I'd expect The Artist to win this one in its lead-up to winning the grand prize.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon and Jim Rash, The Descendants
John Logan, Hugo
George Clooney, Beau Willimon and Grant Heslov, The Ides of March
Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin and Stan Chervin, Moneyball
Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

There's no clear frontrunner here, at least in this observer's humble opinion. I don't think Ides of March or Moneyball have the critical or commercial oomph to land a victory here, despite the big names attached to those scripts. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has that British edge, but also not a great deal of breakout attention. The two top contenders are Hugo and The Descendants. Hugo is a movie about movies, which gives it a strong edge (Hollywood likes nothing more than its own reflection). But I think The Descendants is slightly better loved overall, and won't be winning much else on Oscar night (although this is also true for Hugo). I'd expect to see Dean Pelton take the stage.

( This guy co-wrote The Descendants )

SUPPORTING ACTOR

Kenneth Branagh, My Week With Marilyn
Jonah Hill, Moneyball
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

The elder statesmen are definitely the better bets this year; all three gave highly-regarded performances, and all three have yet to win Oscars. But Christopher Plummer's role as a cancer-stricken father who comes out to his son late in life has been one of the most talked about of the year. This is pretty close to a sure thing.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Berenice Bejo, The Artist
Jessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer, The Help

This, on the other hand, is a sure thing. Octavia Spencer will win.

ACTOR

Demian Bichir, A Better Life
George Clooney, The Descendants
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt, Moneyball

Although the momentum of The Artist could tip the scales in Jean Dujardin's favor, what really delights people is the cleverness of the concept and the execution of it by the director. This is most likely a win for Clooney.

ACTRESS

Glenn Close, Albert Nobbs
Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Viola Davis, The Help
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn

If it's possible to have a more sure thing than the Supporting Actress category's sure thing, it's this. I know that everyone automatically assumes Meryl Streep will always win everything, but that's not historically true, and it won't be true here. Viola Davis will easily walk away with the win.

DIRECTOR

Michel Hazanivicius, The Artist
Alexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life

Look, I like all of these guys. Eight years later and Payne's Sideways still cracks me up. Hugo was charming and, as noted above, a great opportunity for a film lover like me to reflect on the act of loving film. Midnight in Paris was extremely entertaining and may actually end up being a movie I need to own... which, in the age of digital streaming content, is really saying something. And Terrence Malick's movies are always well-constructed meditations. But The Artist was a smart gimmick that managed to transcend its gimmickry and stand on its own as an entertaining movie. In short, it was an interesting premise that was successfully executed. The person who gets credit for that is the director.

PICTURE

War Horse
The Artist
Moneyball
The Descendants
The Tree of Life
Midnight in Paris
The Help
Hugo
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

I remember when I first started hearing about The Artist. It was supposed to have this cute little conceit of a concept, made by a ragtag group of French people with a tiny budget and a bit of ingenuity. The Weinsteins had picked it up, and if you lived in one of the larger cities it might play in an arthouse theater near you. Maybe it would get enough notice to pick up a Best Foreign Film nomination.

I should have known. Harvey had other plans.

While The Artist reminded me of Cinema Paradiso, it must have reminded Harvey Weinstein of Shakespeare in Love - a lofty, intelligent love story that he could take all the way to the top. And this year, there's no Saving Private Ryan to threaten his victory.

It's funny... about this time last year, I was talking about how Kevin Smith's move to self-distribute his latest movie, Red State, was reminding me of "the good old days" of Sundance - a time when some of the most exciting things in the world of filmmaking were coming out of that festival every January. Now the Weinsteins -- who stumbled a bit after being kicked out of their original company, Miramax -- are finding their footing again and are up to their old tricks of taking small, quality movies further than anyone expected them to go - all the way to top. (The King's Speech, last year's Best Picture winner, was one of theirs.) My '90s nostalgia is tripping all over again.

There's a chance that The Help could swoop in and take a populist victory. It's easily the most audience-pleasing movie on the list. But amongst Academy voters, it's The Artist all the way.

Well, that's my take on this year's Oscar race. What do you think? Agree? Disagree? Let me know in the comments below.

On Oscar night, I'll be live tweeting during the ceremony. Click here to follow me. The 84th Academy Awards will air on February 26, 2012 at 8 eastern/5 pacific on ABC.

Podcast Rollcall: Scriptnotes

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:09:00 +0000

Genre: TV & Film Info

What It's About: The feature and television industries (but mostly feature) from the point of view of the working screenwriter. In each edition, hosts John August and Craig Mazin address issues relevant to movie writers, from interacting with your collaborators to understanding residuals. Not a "how to write well" seminar, this podcast is centered on the day-to-day business issues commonly encountered by screenwriters.

Why You Should Care: Because the hosts have years of knowledge and experience to share. August and Mazin each have over a decade of professional work under their belts, as well as a variety of experience working with the union and other writers' organizations. Their collective knowledge is a fantastic resource for anyone interested in the business operations of professional screenwriting. Plus, they're interesting and amusing guys to listen to.

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: 40 minutes

iTunes Link: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/scriptnotes-podcast/id462495496

Website: http://johnaugust.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

The Men Who Would Be King by Nicole LaPorte

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 14:52:00 +0000

[ This week, Joe reviews books that are on the older side, but still relevant. On Monday, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood" by Peter Biskind. Today, "The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks" by Nicole LaPorte. ]

I remember when DreamWorks was founded. It happened right around the moment in time when it would matter the most to me: my mid-teens. This is the period in most people's lives when they develop their individual tastes and identities. For me, both my taste and identity were centered around movies and TV. I watched as much as I could. And when I wasn't watching, I was reading about the stuff I wasn't watching. The people, the places, the technology, the methods, the money; I wanted to know about all of it.

So it completely blew my mind when I pulled that certain issue of Entertainment Weekly from my mailbox -- I had put my allowance toward buying a subscription -- and learned that Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen were starting a brand new studio of their own. I didn't know it was possible to start a new multimedia studio in modern times. It seemed to me that, like religions, movie studios were things that had to be started long before any of us were born. But if anybody was going to start a new studio, of course it would need to be these powerhouse producers. What a monumental thing to happen in my lifetime! I couldn't wait to see what would come of it.

Nicole LaPorte's "The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks" begins with everyone in Hollywood feeling pretty much the same way I did. Anticipation was high. DreamWorks was the first new American studio in 60 years and promised to be a haven for artists (commerce was to have second priority). But questions abounded. What exactly would DreamWorks provide that other studios didn't? Could a new studio sustain itself financially without a back catalogue of properties providing a steady money stream? And why would Spielberg -- with the ultimate sweetheart deal at Universal Studios -- and Geffen -- already a billionaire from his years as an agent and record label founder -- even want to participate in such a thing? (Katzenberg was the only one who needed a fresh start, after falling out with Disney.)

DreamWorks had a fascinating roller coaster of history, and LaPorte details every step of the process from its bumpy start to its rapid ascent. (Remember, this studio won three consecutive Best Picture Oscars with American Beauty, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind before it was even 10 years old.) But how did such a successful independent venture get bought out by another studio only 12 years after its founding? And how did it buy back its independence two years later?

LaPorte's descriptions of the people, the places, and especially the meetings are snappy and colorful. (So many of DreamWorks' key press conferences seemed to occur on those rare, rainy Los Angeles days.) Even something as simple as the brainstorming session that led to the company's name is told in just the right amount of detail to capture your imagination.

Much of my personal delight in reading "The Men Who Would Be King" stems from my familiarity with the events it covers. Unlike "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," I was alive when all these things were happening, and I was paying attention to the way they unfolded in real time. It's interesting to revisit these moments now, with new layers of information and context, and compare them to the way things were originally portrayed in the media. For a Hollywood history junkie like me, it's great to not only get more behind-the-scenes information, but to confirm what I'd hoped had been true all along: that I was watching history unfold while it happened.

As with "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls," you'll want to take what you read here with a grain of salt. (Does Steven Spielberg really have an "escape pod" motorcycle always at the ready at his Amblin office?) But while the truths contained in this book may be embellished, you can still count on walking away with a better understanding of how it all played out, and the personalities that made it happen. If you're an entertainment lover of any kind, "The Men Who Would Be King" is essential.

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:08:00 +0000

[ This week, Joe reviews books that are on the older side, but still relevant. Today, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood" by Peter Biskind. On Thursday, "The Men Who Would Be King: An Almost Epic Tale of Moguls, Movies, and a Company Called DreamWorks" by Nicole Laporte. ]

Baby Boomers lived their entire lives convinced they were the best thing that ever happened to American culture. They had the best ideas, they had the best music, they had the best politics, they had the best sex, they had the best drugs. You can try to argue any of these points; but it doesn't matter, because you don't know what's best anyway. They do.

Peter Biskind's 1999 book "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-and-Rock 'N' Roll Generation Saved Hollywood" carries forth the legend that Boomers had the best films.

"Legend" is the right word, as Biskind's book definitely stems from the "print the legend" school of reportage. While Biskind aims for journalistic accuracy, he cops to printing conflicting information and rumors, and allows his readers to entertain different possibilities while acknowledging that his account may not be precisely what happened.

Covering the span of Hollywood history that began approximately with Easy Rider* and ended with Raging Bull, Biskind details the shabby state of America's post-studio system movie industry and the events that allowed, almost accidentally, a bunch of young hippies with unrefined ideas to take creative control of mainstream filmmaking.

Resent the Boomers all you want, but there's no denying that this is a period of American film history well worth exploring. A perfect storm of cultural circumstances -- the crumbling studio system, television threatening to replace theatrical exhibition, a youth culture fighting for civil rights and free love while simultaneously being called to war -- allowed for what was ultimately a brief window of time wherein the decision-makers at the major film studios acknowledged that they had no idea what to do next, and ceded control to pretty much anyone who looked to be "with it" and talked like they knew what they were doing.

Biskind's book is written as a series of anecdotes, one leading to another. I like his style of taking advantage of a natural break point in the middle of one story to introduce people or places that will take the lead in an upcoming story. For example, in the middle of a long chapter about Warren Beatty's travails while making Bonnie and Clyde, Biskind will step away to write a couple paragraphs about Francis Ford Coppola shooting Finian's Rainbow. The only connection between the two events is that Beatty was editing and screening Bonnie and Clyde on the Warner Bros. lot at the same time Coppola was shooting Finian's Rainbow there. But it gives Biskind an opportunity to add a little texture, and to also get some low heat on Coppola and George Lucas before those two go on to dominate later chapters.

Books like this, by their very nature, must augment a certain time or place or person. An unavoidable side effect is the aura of exclusivity it creates. "You weren't there. And it's over now, so you never can be there." Again, it's that kind of Boomer mentality of, "We did it best. Sucks for you that you'll never be as awesome." It's worth noting, however, that Biskind's book was published in 1999, which means he was researching and writing it while the independent film movement of the '90s was in full swing - an era of freedom and creativity in American film history that some would argue rivals the New Hollywood of the '70s. A bit of a blind spot on Biskind's part. (Although it's been a long time since I've read it, I remember John Pierson's "Spike, Mike, Slackers & Dykes" being a good book about '90s indie film.)

"Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is certainly flawed, and the veracity of many of the stories and anecdotes can be called into question. But the historical facts of that period of filmmaking seem to be in line and, well, as for those questionable anecdotes... what can I say? I'm a sucker for them. So I fully recommend this book. It helps if you find film history as fascinating as I do. Although these histories may be peppered with inaccuracies and self-mythologizing -- and really, what history isn't? -- this is an entertaining and informative book, though best taken with a grain of salt.

*The book's history actually begins with Bonnie and Clyde and some mention of Mickey One, which predate Easy Rider. But that clearly would have made for a less catchy book title.

My Favorite New TV Show of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:26:00 +0000

Over the last few years, I've come to dread the month of October. The television networks -- both broadcast and cable -- have settled on October as the month to just pummel us with all their new stuff. Not interested in a slow rollout, they bombard us with all of our returning favorites, and a huge crop of new shows vying for our time and affection. (But mostly time.) On top of that, I'm always trying to squeeze in as many horror movies as I can to celebrate Halloween. This leaves me with a maxed-out DVR and an overstuffed Netflix queue which don't resolve themselves until sometime in the dead of December when, all of a sudden, everything in entertainment just stops.

Nearly lost in the shuffle of all that noise was the show that became my favorite of 2011...

Homeland

The story revolves around Nicholas Brody, a Marine sergeant missing in Iraq and presumed dead for eight years. Discovered during a raid, he is returned home to a family that had attempted to move on without him. Meanwhile, CIA agent Carrie Mathison is convinced that Brody has been turned by the enemy and is planning an attack on the U.S. But Mathison's questionable mental state casts doubts on her suspicions.

"Homeland" is part political thriller, part investigative procedural, and part family drama. While the hook of the show is trying to figure out whether or not Brody plans on staging an attack, episodes spend as much time dealing with issues of post traumatic stress, reintegrating into family life after eight years of captivity, infidelity, politics and more. No aspect of the show is uninteresting. You won't find yourself merely bearing the family scenes in order to get to the investigative scenes. "Homeland" is always gripping and suspenseful.

Every aspect of this show is a home run. The characters are strongly written, and the cast elevates the material further. Damian Lewis, who first got my attention in "Band of Brothers," gives another outstanding performance as Brody. Claire Danes has grown from being America's sweetheart in the early '90s to possibly being one of its best actresses. Her turn as Carrie Mathison -- a performance that balances intelligence with recklessness and a controlled mental disorder that's straining to get out -- comes hot on the heels of her Emmy win for "Temple Grandin." And Mandy Patinkin, who is always great in every role he plays, is -- surprise! -- great as the smart and stern yet fatherly Saul Berenson.

Needless to say the story and plotting are incredibly intricate, with believable twists and turns; a show like this would fall apart otherwise. In fact, the only thing that's a letdown about this show is the opening title sequence. While the broadcast networks have all but eliminated the opening theme song over the last decade, the cable networks have picked up the slack by creating some of the most interesting show openers ever. "Homeland" attempted a somber, evocative newsreel montage, but ended up with something bland. That's a shame, because everything else about the show is just the opposite.

"Homeland" is full of surprises and goes against your expectations at every turn. Whatever's going on, it's never quite what you think. And yet, the resolution is not a cheat. And the conclusion to the season manages a rare feat: it's a satisfying, non-cliffhanger endpoint, but still provides a clear view of how the story will expand and grow in the next season.

This show is a must-see.

Surprisingly, "Homeland" is based on an Israeli TV series that I'd be very interested in checking out. The version I saw is so specific to the politics and the mood of the U.S., I can't imagine what it would look like to see this story played out under a different political system.

My Favorite Movie of 2011

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:24:00 +0000

I feel like I'm stuck in some sort of alternate universe where a Steven Spielberg movie is a little-known underdog that I feel compelled to champion. And yet that's exactly where we find ourselves, with this particular movie underperforming at the box office and inspiring little discussion in the culture at large. Still, I stand behind my choice. My favorite movie of 2011 is...

The Adventures of Tintin

Okay, technically Tintin has not underperformed. Opening first in Europe, it had earned some $250 million before U.S. audiences even had the option of seeing it. And yet, when the time came, Americans mostly chose to not exercise that option. And that's a shame, because Tintin is easily the most fun I had at a movie theater in 2011.

Tintin is an unironically intrepid boyscout of a character who is somehow not obnoxious. The story begins when he buys a model of a ship at a flea market only to discover that there's suddenly quite a bit of interest in this item. As a freelance journalist (although he looks a hair too young to have a full-time job and live on his own), Tintin takes it upon himself to investigate the mystery of the ship. The action takes off from there and never slows down until the end. Some critics have complained about the relentless pace of the movie, but I found it exhilarating.

Also exhilarating was the discovery that Spielberg can still design an action sequence like a director 40 years his junior. Better, actually, since his experience gives him more confidence in his shot compositions and timing. Pay particular attention to the virtuosic chase through Bagghar, which plays out as one long, unbroken shot. Spielberg effortlessly maneuvers his camera around characters, sets, vehicles and explosions, moving all the pieces around precisely without feeling stagy. You're so drawn into the action that you may not even notice this is one continuous shot.

The motion capture computer animation may be a turnoff for some. That was certainly my biggest hesitation about going to see this movie. We all have the same complaints - dead eyes, plasticine skin, the revolting uncanny valley effect. But I actually think they found the right range of realism for the characters in Tintin, leaving them cartoony enough to avoid appearing repellent (with the exception of the Milanese Nightingale, who I found distracting). Hats off to the character designers.

I'd never heard of Tintin before going to see this movie. The comics dating back to the 1920s, the cartoon series in the early '90s, the enduring worldwide fame of the character... I knew nothing about any of it. All I know -- all that matters -- is that I got swept up in this movie pretty much from the first frame, and had a great time the whole way through. A brilliant, globe-trotting action-adventure, Tintin is the movie Indiana Jones 4 should have been. If you haven't already, check it out.

Podcast Rollcall: Story Worthy

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:30:00 +0000

Genre: Storytelling

What It's About: Not unlike The Moth, Story Worthy is a venue for various people (mostly entertainers, and mostly friends of show creator Christine Blackburn) to share interesting true stories from their lives with an audience. Unlike The Moth, guests on Story Worthy can prepare notes or read their stories from the page. The guest brings the subject, and the host usually shares her own story on the same topic. Story time is followed by an interview between the host and the guest.

Why You Should Care: A good story is always welcome. If you like The Moth, you'll like Story Worthy. (In fact, even the name "Story Worthy" seems to be borrowed from The Moth's sign-off, "We hope you have a story-worthy week.")

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: 30 minutes

iTunes Link: http://www.storyworthypodcast.com/Story_Worthy_Podcast/Story_Worthy/rss.xml

Website: http://www.storyworthypodcast.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

Podcast Rollcall: Reasonable Discussions

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:06:00 +0000

The very first podcast I ever profiled under the "podcast rollcall" banner was A.V. Talk, the original podcast from The A.V. Club website. Over the summer, the A.V. Club revamped and re-branded their podcast, so I figured it was time to revisit.

Genre: Pop culture review/analysis

What It's About: Writers from The A.V. Club get together in various combinations for roundtable discussions of current pop culture topics. Each episode includes the "Extracurricular Activities" segment, where the staff gets to address a topic or make a recommendation for something that was not in the episode's agenda.

Why You Should Care: While I enjoyed the previous incarnation of "A.V. Talk" well enough, it was certainly meandering and scattershot. Episodes were posted irregularly, and were of varying length dependent on how many topics they felt like addressing and how long the conversation carried on. In other words, it was underproduced. "Reasonable Discussion" is more reliable. You can expect three topics per episode, each with a sense of purpose and direction. Episodes are posted weekly, and clock in around the 45 minute mark. And, of course, you still get the informative, insightful fun and wit that we've come to expect from the top notch journalists at The A.V. Club.

Frequency: Weekly

Average Length: 45 minutes

iTunes Link: http://feeds.theonion.com/avtalk

Website: http://www.avclub.com/

As always, if you become a regular listener to a podcast that solicits donations, try to find a way to make the occasional contribution.

The Best Comedian of All Time

noreply@blogger.com (Joe Pontillo) — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 14:12:00 +0000

"Don't you think it's weird that Christians wear crosses?" my sister asked me one day after school.

"Why?" I wondered.

"Because that's how Jesus was executed," she responded. "If Jesus lived today, we'd all be wearing electric chair necklaces instead."

I guess I'd never thought of that before; but I was only 10 at the time. My sister was in high school -- high school! -- and told me that this is what they'd been talking about in one of her classes. Is this what I had to look forward to in high school? Philosophical discourse?! Those aren't the words I would have used when I was 10, but it was a concept I grasped and was looking forward to engaging in when, someday, I'd reach the magical age where I too would be a high schooler.

As it turned out, the experience of high school was significantly different than what I'd extrapolated from my sister's anecdote. College, if anything, would more closely resemble what I'd imagined; but even then, not so much. As far as philosophical discourse goes, it was during college -- but outside of the college classroom -- that I met with the single biggest influence on my perception and comprehension of the world around me.

One night after classes were finished, I was hanging out with my friend Paul and his girlfriend (at the time). My memory of how the night began is a bit hazy. I think we'd been at a restaurant, made a stop at a liquor store, and were on our way back to his apartment. I don't remember the CD beginning. I don't remember Paul mentioning he was going to start a CD. And I can't remember the definitive beginning of the standup routine. It just faded slowly into my consciousness, like it had always been there. I gradually became aware that I was listening to a comedian. I really wish I could remember it better. Because, as it turned out, these were my introductory moments to the best comedian of all time. And you only get to have that once.

"Paul, who is this?"

"His name is Bill Hicks."

Bill Hicks. I'd never heard of him before. Granted, I wasn't the closest observer of the standup comedy scene at the time; but someone this good, how had I never heard of him before?

"I guess he's been dead for a long time now," Paul mentioned. That explained why most of his references and premises were a bit dated -- Operation Desert Storm, the Clarence Thomas hearings, the Rodney King riots. But I'd been alive during those events, so I had the background knowledge I needed to get the jokes. And despite the expiration date of the references, I was amazed at how fresh the material felt. It didn't matter that he was talking about events that were almost a decade old (at the time); what I was hearing was a new, original take on those incidents that I'd never heard before.

Which is incredible, if you think about it. When something cultural -- a painting, a movie, a novel, a song -- is so profoundly good, its influence and imitators are so widespread that the original tends to lose its power. (Think of how every single frame of Pulp Fiction has been strip mined of all its originality.) I hadn't been exposed to any watered-down, third-hand dissemination of Hicks' material. It was all so thoroughly new and potent to me.

Until the CD spun to this point...

"You have to admit that beliefs are odd. A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a fuckin' cross?"

On hearing this, my reflex reaction was: "Oh, rip off! That's been done before."

Then I stopped to think about where exactly I'd heard it. From my sister. When she was in high school. That may not have been the point of origin for this thought.

A teacher of hers had said that to her. Granted, he'd tamed it down, and he'd added his own tag to it -- the thing about electric chair necklaces. But Bill Hicks had managed to reach me before I'd "officially" heard of him.

That night began a Bill Hicks obsession in me and Paul that lasted through the remainder of college and beyond. Paul bought up every Hicks album he could find and burned copies for me. We read everything about him. Learned about how he was bigger in England than he'd ever been in his homeland. (Paul first heard of Hicks via a reference in the comic book series "Preacher," written by U.K. author Garth Ennis.) Found the video of his breakthrough London performance, which was paired on a VHS tape with a documentary about him called "Just a Ride." Learned about his beef with Denis Leary. Learned about his final appearance on Letterman getting cut (more on that below). Learned about his tragically early death at the age of 32 from pancreatic cancer. We sought out everything.

What remains so appealing to me about Hicks' comedy is that it seemed to go a step beyond. He wasn't just making points; most standups are out to make points. While there was a solid strain of misanthropy throughout his work, it came from a genuine confidence in humanity's ability to improve itself. With Hicks, there was an implied call to arms, a belief that every single one of us has the power to effect change. He seemed to be able to point the way to change.

"The reason our institutions ... are all crumbling is because they're no longer relevant. So it's time for us to create a new philosophy and perhaps even a new religion, you see? And that's okay cause that's our right cause we're free children of God with minds who can imagine anything."

The fact that this sentiment could be couched in the middle of a standup routine and performed in front of drunken nightclub patrons is astounding. Hicks was a master of balancing heartfelt ideology with perfectly timed self-subversion. "By the way, there are more dick jokes coming. Please relax."

Hicks' early death is sad not only in and of itself, but also because it leaves us with a limited amount of material. One is tempted to imagine what Hicks would say about some of the current issues we're facing. But then again, he pretty much already said it. In his time, Hicks was addressing an economic recession, war in the middle east, blustering talk radio hosts, and a strain of anti-intellectualism that seemed to be creeping into the culture. It's sort of depressing how little has changed in the nearly 20 years since he died.

But occasionally, we get treated to new Hicks material. (Or perhaps I should say new packaging of the old material with a bit of previously unseen footage added in.) The latest is the documentary American: The Bill Hicks Story, which is currently streaming on Netflix and serves as a solid introduction if you don't know much about him. The strength of this particular documentary is that it eschews the obvious route of interviewing other comedians and sticks with interviewing his family and closest friends. If you want to hear other comedians talk about Hicks, there are numerous sources for that. This documentary made a smart move in going a different direction.

The other recent unearthing of "lost" Hicks footage was the fantastic January 30, 2009 episode of "The Late Show" wherein David Letterman took personal responsibility for cutting what would have been Hicks' final television appearance from his show. Letterman invited Hicks' mother onto the show to make a moving in-person apology for his "error of judgment" from 1993.

But for those of you interested in going straight to the source -- the unfiltered works of Bill Hicks -- the trifecta (in my opinion) would be the following comedy albums: Dangerous, Relentless, and Arizona Bay. There are also several videos of his standup, including an HBO special; but it's all variations of the material in those three albums.

If you're a newcomer to Bill Hicks, I envy you. You have ahead of you the opportunity to hear his stuff for the first time. You may not agree that he's the best comedian of all time, but I hope you'll enjoy his work half as much as I do.

And now, I'll close the same way Bill so often did...

"The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it's very brightly colored, and it's very loud, and it's fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, 'Hey, is this real, or is it just a ride?' ... It's just a ride. ... And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love."