Ever watch GalaxyQuest? It's a bit of a parody of Star Trek, with Tim Allen taking the role of the William Shatner. The basic idea is that the crew of GalaxyQuest, a Star Trek like show, a show which has been canceled, while the members of the show mostly make a living attending SF fan conferences, when they encounter real aliens who have modeled their existence on the television show (by intercepting TV signals).
In the film, there's a teen fanboy who eventually helps out.
You know who that fanboy is?
Justin Long.
You know. Justin Long?
He's the "Mac" guy in "I'm a PC, I'm a Mac" commercial.
Yeah, that Justin Long.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Lesson in Love
I haven't taken tennis lessons since I first began playing.
Which isn't entirely true. I did take a tennis class a few years back. At the time, I could only sign up for a beginner's class, and the teacher didn't really know tennis all that well. It was as if she had "trained" to be a phys. ed. teacher and took tennis as part of that, but never cared that much about tennis. I'm sure I knew more about tennis than her and played better.
I decided to sign up for some lessons when a coworker did the same. It was at Rock Creek Tennis Center, and even though it's a bit of a hike from here, the nice thing is that they have a tournament held there, and so if I have to drive to there, I know how to get there.
The first lesson was a bit unusual. When I arrived, there were already three other people there and the instructor, an older gentleman who seemed pretty eager. The other three seemed to already know each other. That made four, even though the group should have been six.
It turns out the guys had been taking lessons earlier and they signed up for more. One guy in particular seemed to have signed up for lessons perpetually, having played their for years.
The instructor mainly spent time running through drills.
One thing about drills, and the thing I don't particularly like about it is that it's both speedy and slow. When you're hitting, the guy feeds you balls faster than you'd probably get them in a game. But once you're done, you wait.
That in itself is really not so bad because I was running around quite a bit and needed the time to rest.
I did notice that some of the other players lacked some footspeed, so I was able to move a little quicker in that respect.
Later on, I went to hit with Ravi, whose going to take some beginner's lessons with his wife, and this allowed me to both hit and think about hitting.
One thought that occurred to me was that I needed to think about my shoulders, in particular, my upper torso. I tend to arm the ball a fair bit, and that makes my shot weaker and harder to control. I also find the ball flies up on my, partly because the face of the racquet is a bit open.
Anyway, things to think about until the next lesson.
Which isn't entirely true. I did take a tennis class a few years back. At the time, I could only sign up for a beginner's class, and the teacher didn't really know tennis all that well. It was as if she had "trained" to be a phys. ed. teacher and took tennis as part of that, but never cared that much about tennis. I'm sure I knew more about tennis than her and played better.
I decided to sign up for some lessons when a coworker did the same. It was at Rock Creek Tennis Center, and even though it's a bit of a hike from here, the nice thing is that they have a tournament held there, and so if I have to drive to there, I know how to get there.
The first lesson was a bit unusual. When I arrived, there were already three other people there and the instructor, an older gentleman who seemed pretty eager. The other three seemed to already know each other. That made four, even though the group should have been six.
It turns out the guys had been taking lessons earlier and they signed up for more. One guy in particular seemed to have signed up for lessons perpetually, having played their for years.
The instructor mainly spent time running through drills.
One thing about drills, and the thing I don't particularly like about it is that it's both speedy and slow. When you're hitting, the guy feeds you balls faster than you'd probably get them in a game. But once you're done, you wait.
That in itself is really not so bad because I was running around quite a bit and needed the time to rest.
I did notice that some of the other players lacked some footspeed, so I was able to move a little quicker in that respect.
Later on, I went to hit with Ravi, whose going to take some beginner's lessons with his wife, and this allowed me to both hit and think about hitting.
One thought that occurred to me was that I needed to think about my shoulders, in particular, my upper torso. I tend to arm the ball a fair bit, and that makes my shot weaker and harder to control. I also find the ball flies up on my, partly because the face of the racquet is a bit open.
Anyway, things to think about until the next lesson.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Unsmooth Smoothie
I want to make smoothies, and you do so with a blender. But here's the issue, and you'd think someone would have figured it out. The blades are meant to chop the ice up, but this creates an air pocket, and then it's useless. You would think that there would be some mechanism, like the fins of a washer, that would stick up and draw the stuff downward. Nope. You would think this would solve the problem. And yet, you don't see it. Why not? I don't know. The blade design for blenders seem unchanged.
Yet, it would solve so many problems, and yet, surprisingly, the design remains virtually unchanged.
Put a little brainpower into it guys. Maybe you'll inadvertently solve the problem.
Yet, it would solve so many problems, and yet, surprisingly, the design remains virtually unchanged.
Put a little brainpower into it guys. Maybe you'll inadvertently solve the problem.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Learning Cricket
I can't say I'm much of a fan of baseball. I find it too slow to watch. On occasion, say, when the Red Sox face the Yankees and they are playing a tight game, then I might enjoy it some. Otherwise, I don't care for it.
So it would make sense that I don't care much about cricket, which, outside of Indian grad students, isn't played that much in the US. But I figured I knew a little about baseball, so I should read up on the rules of cricket.
I'll explain it in terms of baseball figuring you will know baseball. I'm sure I'll have it partly wrong, but that's fine. This is why I write it.
In baseball, there are nine innings. Each team comes up to bat once per inning. For sake of example, the Red Sox bat, then the Yankees bat.
When the Red Sox are batting, a pitcher will pitch a ball (called bowling in cricket). If the batter does not swing, then the ball either falls within a range called the strike zone and thus is a considered a strike, or the ball misses this zone and it is called a ball.
If the batter swings, several things can happen. If the batter misses completely, it's called a strike. If the batter hits the ball and it falls outside the legal range, then it is called a foul. A foul is counted as a strike, except you can not foul out. I'll explain striking out in a moment.
If the ball is hit in the legal area, then the batter must run to first base. If the ball is caught before it hits the ground, the player is considered out. If the ball bounces, and an outfielder throws the ball to another player in the outfield, and they tag the player (touch the player) before they reach the base, they are also out. If the players hits beyond a certain distance (a wall defines this distance) in a valid zone, then the player has hit a home run. All players including the batter have each earned a run.
Three strikes and a player is out. Four balls and a player is automatically allowed to go to first base (if a player is already on first, he moves to second). Players are moved a base forward if there's no choice (two players are not allowed to be on the same base).
Three outs, and the batting team goes to the outfield, and the outfield becomes the batting team. When they finish three outs, it's considered an inning.
If players can continue to reach base, a pitcher may pitch many times. A pitcher continues pitching until there are three outs, or until they decide to replace a pitcher with another. If a pitcher is replaced, they can not return to the game.
In cricket, rather than have 9 innings, there is essentially one inning. One side bats completely, then the other.
Instead of four bases, there are two (it isn't exactly a base). A bowler in cricket bowls 6 times. After six times, the bowler has completed an "over". Someone else must then bowl.
During the bowl, the batter must protect the wickets, which are three sticks. There's no such thing as a foul, a ball, or a strike. The cricket player need not even swing at the ball, though if they fail to protect the wickets, they may become out. Even if they swing and hit the ball, they don't have to run.
If they choose to run, they have another person situated at the other "base", and they run back and forth alternating places. Each time they reach the other "base", a run is scored.
In cricket, it's quite difficult to get someone "out". In baseball, if a player is out, it is temporary. They can come back when it's their turn to bat again (9 players play, from 1 to 9, and when the ninth is done, the first one bats again). In cricket, if a player is out, they are out. They don't come back to bat again.
Since you need two players to run back and forth, when there is only one player left, the team is done, and the other team bats. However, that's rare. Usually, 50 overs are completed first (six pitches to the over).
There is an equivalent of a home-run (worth 6 points), but since cricket is very high scoring (100 runs is not uncommon), and since it's hard to hit, few people try to hit them. Unlike home runs in baseball, where players must run the bases, the 6 points are automatically awarded without any running required of the batters.
A baseball pitcher likely throws about 90-100 pitches a game. In cricket, the maximum number of throws is 300 (50 overs, at 6 pitches each). However, there are multiple bowlers, and no one would ever bowl all 50 overs.
Hopefully, I have that right so far. I'm sure someone will correct me if I've made a mistake.
So it would make sense that I don't care much about cricket, which, outside of Indian grad students, isn't played that much in the US. But I figured I knew a little about baseball, so I should read up on the rules of cricket.
I'll explain it in terms of baseball figuring you will know baseball. I'm sure I'll have it partly wrong, but that's fine. This is why I write it.
In baseball, there are nine innings. Each team comes up to bat once per inning. For sake of example, the Red Sox bat, then the Yankees bat.
When the Red Sox are batting, a pitcher will pitch a ball (called bowling in cricket). If the batter does not swing, then the ball either falls within a range called the strike zone and thus is a considered a strike, or the ball misses this zone and it is called a ball.
If the batter swings, several things can happen. If the batter misses completely, it's called a strike. If the batter hits the ball and it falls outside the legal range, then it is called a foul. A foul is counted as a strike, except you can not foul out. I'll explain striking out in a moment.
If the ball is hit in the legal area, then the batter must run to first base. If the ball is caught before it hits the ground, the player is considered out. If the ball bounces, and an outfielder throws the ball to another player in the outfield, and they tag the player (touch the player) before they reach the base, they are also out. If the players hits beyond a certain distance (a wall defines this distance) in a valid zone, then the player has hit a home run. All players including the batter have each earned a run.
Three strikes and a player is out. Four balls and a player is automatically allowed to go to first base (if a player is already on first, he moves to second). Players are moved a base forward if there's no choice (two players are not allowed to be on the same base).
Three outs, and the batting team goes to the outfield, and the outfield becomes the batting team. When they finish three outs, it's considered an inning.
If players can continue to reach base, a pitcher may pitch many times. A pitcher continues pitching until there are three outs, or until they decide to replace a pitcher with another. If a pitcher is replaced, they can not return to the game.
In cricket, rather than have 9 innings, there is essentially one inning. One side bats completely, then the other.
Instead of four bases, there are two (it isn't exactly a base). A bowler in cricket bowls 6 times. After six times, the bowler has completed an "over". Someone else must then bowl.
During the bowl, the batter must protect the wickets, which are three sticks. There's no such thing as a foul, a ball, or a strike. The cricket player need not even swing at the ball, though if they fail to protect the wickets, they may become out. Even if they swing and hit the ball, they don't have to run.
If they choose to run, they have another person situated at the other "base", and they run back and forth alternating places. Each time they reach the other "base", a run is scored.
In cricket, it's quite difficult to get someone "out". In baseball, if a player is out, it is temporary. They can come back when it's their turn to bat again (9 players play, from 1 to 9, and when the ninth is done, the first one bats again). In cricket, if a player is out, they are out. They don't come back to bat again.
Since you need two players to run back and forth, when there is only one player left, the team is done, and the other team bats. However, that's rare. Usually, 50 overs are completed first (six pitches to the over).
There is an equivalent of a home-run (worth 6 points), but since cricket is very high scoring (100 runs is not uncommon), and since it's hard to hit, few people try to hit them. Unlike home runs in baseball, where players must run the bases, the 6 points are automatically awarded without any running required of the batters.
A baseball pitcher likely throws about 90-100 pitches a game. In cricket, the maximum number of throws is 300 (50 overs, at 6 pitches each). However, there are multiple bowlers, and no one would ever bowl all 50 overs.
Hopefully, I have that right so far. I'm sure someone will correct me if I've made a mistake.
Silicon Implants
In the last, oh, say two or three years, you can't avoid silicon. This ain't silicon chips that made Silicon Valley famous (well, I suppose it is). Silicon's first appearance in kitchen items occurred in silicon oven mitts. They looked like rubber, but apparently could prevent heat from getting through.
Once you saw them in mitts, they've shown up everywhere. Knife handles and pots and pan handles in particular. But I see them for collapsible colanders (a recent innovation) and even a drain cover for the sink (I bought one).
Most of these companies tout how comfortable these silicon handles are. But I find them slightly creepy feeling, like some kind of odd latex. I kinda like the feel of metal. I think I saw one for an ice cube tray which looks all rubbery and I wonder how easy it is to pry out.
Look for it the next time you explore the kitchen section of a store.
Once you saw them in mitts, they've shown up everywhere. Knife handles and pots and pan handles in particular. But I see them for collapsible colanders (a recent innovation) and even a drain cover for the sink (I bought one).
Most of these companies tout how comfortable these silicon handles are. But I find them slightly creepy feeling, like some kind of odd latex. I kinda like the feel of metal. I think I saw one for an ice cube tray which looks all rubbery and I wonder how easy it is to pry out.
Look for it the next time you explore the kitchen section of a store.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Speed of Internet
"Don't tase me bro"
On Monday, September 17, John Kerry was giving a speech at the University of Florida. A student, one Andrew Meyer, was heckling Kerry, when police started dragging him away. Meyer asked, rather loudly, why he was being taken away, that he had done nothing wrong, all the while his friend was videotaping the scene.
At one key moment, prior to the police attempting to subdue him (he was already on the ground), he yells out, rather infamously:
"Don't tase me bro"
After which, they proceed to tase him.
Any regular reader of Reddit will know that police like to tase rowdy people, even as some have complained they enjoy it too much, that the amount of pain inflicted doesn't justify the frequency that it's used. Indeed, sometimes police, with little provocation, certainly none like Andrew's heckling, still insist on using a taser. It's been suggested that each time the police use the taser, a device meant to send high currents of electricity to incapacitate an alleged perpetrator, they should have it used on themselves, so as better to understand what they are doing to others.
But the key is this. In a time before the Internet, before YouTube, this incident would have had little ripple in the news. Now, you can buy t-shirts and other memorabilia less than a week after it happened.
Literally, this phrase was popular days afterwards, with people seeking to cash in literally Wednesday, two days after the speech. Columns have already sprouted about how to handle the police if caught in a similar situation (advice: don't say "Don't tase me bro").
Heck, I'm writing a blog entry about this.
But mostly to remind myself about the incident.
And who uses bro anyway?
So seventies.
Bro.
On Monday, September 17, John Kerry was giving a speech at the University of Florida. A student, one Andrew Meyer, was heckling Kerry, when police started dragging him away. Meyer asked, rather loudly, why he was being taken away, that he had done nothing wrong, all the while his friend was videotaping the scene.
At one key moment, prior to the police attempting to subdue him (he was already on the ground), he yells out, rather infamously:
"Don't tase me bro"
After which, they proceed to tase him.
Any regular reader of Reddit will know that police like to tase rowdy people, even as some have complained they enjoy it too much, that the amount of pain inflicted doesn't justify the frequency that it's used. Indeed, sometimes police, with little provocation, certainly none like Andrew's heckling, still insist on using a taser. It's been suggested that each time the police use the taser, a device meant to send high currents of electricity to incapacitate an alleged perpetrator, they should have it used on themselves, so as better to understand what they are doing to others.
But the key is this. In a time before the Internet, before YouTube, this incident would have had little ripple in the news. Now, you can buy t-shirts and other memorabilia less than a week after it happened.
Literally, this phrase was popular days afterwards, with people seeking to cash in literally Wednesday, two days after the speech. Columns have already sprouted about how to handle the police if caught in a similar situation (advice: don't say "Don't tase me bro").
Heck, I'm writing a blog entry about this.
But mostly to remind myself about the incident.
And who uses bro anyway?
So seventies.
Bro.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Stuff
George Carlin, the comedian, had a routine where he'd talk about people and stuff. We have stuff. We have stuff to store our stuff. We have stuff to carry stuff.
I recently read about an interesting exercise, except, of course, it's not an exercise. This guy moved from one apartment that was plenty spacious to one about two thirds the size. The exercise, such as it is, is to get rid of 1/3 of your possession.
Now imagine you are asked to do this. Get rid of 1/3 of what you have. Could you do it? Could you part with 1/3? Would you have made the decision this guy made? Or would you have insisted there's no way you can live with less than what you have. This furniture means too much. It belonged to a beloved relative. How much does your stuff define you?
I recently read about an interesting exercise, except, of course, it's not an exercise. This guy moved from one apartment that was plenty spacious to one about two thirds the size. The exercise, such as it is, is to get rid of 1/3 of your possession.
Now imagine you are asked to do this. Get rid of 1/3 of what you have. Could you do it? Could you part with 1/3? Would you have made the decision this guy made? Or would you have insisted there's no way you can live with less than what you have. This furniture means too much. It belonged to a beloved relative. How much does your stuff define you?
Sunday, September 16, 2007
George Lucas Meets Star Trek
I was watching an episode of Star Trek (the original) that I hadn't seen in years. I've seen every episode of the original Star Trek (from the late 60s) several times over.
So imagine, to my surprise, watching something that I didn't recognize. In particular, additional CG effects of the shuttlecraft. For those whose memories are a bit rusty, the shuttlecraft Galileo has crash-landed on a planet. The Enterprise is called away for a rescue mission.
On the planet, there are oversize ape-like creatures bent on, well, harassing the crew. One of the character dies, and they must try to escape the planet or be killed by these creatures. As they use the boosters to escape, they realize they will burn up on re-entry. They realize they can only go one orbit before the ship goes back down and burns up.
Spock decides to jettison and ignite the fuel, to use that as a distress signal.
It's here where you see the shuttle from the back, as it burns fuel up, and where I was thinking "um, that wasn't in the original".
I checked out the SciFi channel. They've digitally redone some of the episodes, and this is the first weekend they are televising it, though I see it on DC20 which is not the SF channel.
So apparently, there's some effort to modernize the effects. The odd part of the effects is that they don't look that realistic. Indeed, it kinda looks like the illustrations that you might see in an SF book. It makes it look even more 60s, which I suppose, is not such an awful artistic direction to take.
I don't know what I think of the effect, but it is a bit different. I suppose it's not as awful as it could be. I wonder if Adam's more of a purist when it comes to these changes.
So imagine, to my surprise, watching something that I didn't recognize. In particular, additional CG effects of the shuttlecraft. For those whose memories are a bit rusty, the shuttlecraft Galileo has crash-landed on a planet. The Enterprise is called away for a rescue mission.
On the planet, there are oversize ape-like creatures bent on, well, harassing the crew. One of the character dies, and they must try to escape the planet or be killed by these creatures. As they use the boosters to escape, they realize they will burn up on re-entry. They realize they can only go one orbit before the ship goes back down and burns up.
Spock decides to jettison and ignite the fuel, to use that as a distress signal.
It's here where you see the shuttle from the back, as it burns fuel up, and where I was thinking "um, that wasn't in the original".
I checked out the SciFi channel. They've digitally redone some of the episodes, and this is the first weekend they are televising it, though I see it on DC20 which is not the SF channel.
So apparently, there's some effort to modernize the effects. The odd part of the effects is that they don't look that realistic. Indeed, it kinda looks like the illustrations that you might see in an SF book. It makes it look even more 60s, which I suppose, is not such an awful artistic direction to take.
I don't know what I think of the effect, but it is a bit different. I suppose it's not as awful as it could be. I wonder if Adam's more of a purist when it comes to these changes.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Lethal Weapon
Here's a film that had one good idea. The crazy white guy paired with the sane black guy. After a bunch of films where Eddie Murphy played the street smart cop, here was one that flipped the conventions.
But, honestly, how can you watch this film? It's so painful how much underlining this film does. Basically, the first hour or so of the film is basically showing how nuts Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is. I mean, scene after scene after scene, is devoted to telling. How. Crazy. Martin. Riggs. Is!
He's crazy! He wants to kill himself. He's willing to grab a guy who's about to commit suicide and jump down with him. The resident doctor says he's crazy (but he's a good cop, so who needs to listen to what she says?).
In that respect, Die Hard is (sadly) far more intelligent.
But, honestly, how can you watch this film? It's so painful how much underlining this film does. Basically, the first hour or so of the film is basically showing how nuts Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) is. I mean, scene after scene after scene, is devoted to telling. How. Crazy. Martin. Riggs. Is!
He's crazy! He wants to kill himself. He's willing to grab a guy who's about to commit suicide and jump down with him. The resident doctor says he's crazy (but he's a good cop, so who needs to listen to what she says?).
In that respect, Die Hard is (sadly) far more intelligent.
Navel Gazing
Sex is Comedy is a film by Catherine Breillat, which is a somewhat fictionalized account of her making a previous film.
In this film, the female director wants to film a crucial sex scene, that's particularly difficult. She sleeps with the male lead. The female lead isn't getting the scene right.
Next time you watch a film that has nudity, watch when it happens. Almost always, it's in the middle, or possibly early on. Rarely does it happen in the last 10-20 minutes of the film. Boogie Nights was famous for a scene where fallen porn star, Dirk Diggler, shows off the reason he had a career in porn movies. It's considered a pathetic display of a guy who used to have it all.
Sex is Comedy which is hardly a comedy breaks many of the conventions of films, placing a nude scene at the last parts of the film. It, like Boogie Nights, features a guy with a prosthetic, though in this case, the purpose is for him to maintain an erection.
Yeah, that's right. Indeed, perhaps the only way to have something resembling an "R" rated move with a guy that has an erection is for it to be a prosthetic and the guy to joke around about his prosthetic, er, penis.
But as silly as that is, this film, which had mixed reviews, really seems to expect a lot from its actors. What's harder to film? A sex scene? Or acting in a scene that's about acting in a sex scene?
All I can say is that the twenty or so minutes I watched the film, I thought that it was incredibly difficult to achieve this scene about a film scene, and how the actors really had to do a lot of work to pull off the scene. That, and how such a scene is rarely the climax (pardon the pun) of the film.
In this film, the female director wants to film a crucial sex scene, that's particularly difficult. She sleeps with the male lead. The female lead isn't getting the scene right.
Next time you watch a film that has nudity, watch when it happens. Almost always, it's in the middle, or possibly early on. Rarely does it happen in the last 10-20 minutes of the film. Boogie Nights was famous for a scene where fallen porn star, Dirk Diggler, shows off the reason he had a career in porn movies. It's considered a pathetic display of a guy who used to have it all.
Sex is Comedy which is hardly a comedy breaks many of the conventions of films, placing a nude scene at the last parts of the film. It, like Boogie Nights, features a guy with a prosthetic, though in this case, the purpose is for him to maintain an erection.
Yeah, that's right. Indeed, perhaps the only way to have something resembling an "R" rated move with a guy that has an erection is for it to be a prosthetic and the guy to joke around about his prosthetic, er, penis.
But as silly as that is, this film, which had mixed reviews, really seems to expect a lot from its actors. What's harder to film? A sex scene? Or acting in a scene that's about acting in a sex scene?
All I can say is that the twenty or so minutes I watched the film, I thought that it was incredibly difficult to achieve this scene about a film scene, and how the actors really had to do a lot of work to pull off the scene. That, and how such a scene is rarely the climax (pardon the pun) of the film.
Poker Nights
During vacations, when I'm at my parents, I typically find myself watching TV, and lots of it. A while back, I watched the 2005 World Series of Poker. About ten years ago, poker, specifically, Texas Hold 'Em Poker went stratospheric.
Normally, card games were of the spades/hearts variety, the kind college kids played, but the kind you didn't see in real casinos. Those card games were considered, well, a for people who couldn't control themselves. But for some reason, Texas Hold 'Em captured the imagination-and addiction-of many who would never have thought of it anyway. They had a taste of why gambling compels people like a form of drug addiction.
Perhaps it was the film Rounders, which was about a law student who used to play poker, but has now gone away from it to lead a straight life, until he meets up with a former buddy of his who needs his help. Maybe it was The Travel Channel showing these matches on television that sparked the interest.
The World Series of Poker has to be the most open of open tournaments. Anyone can play provided they put up the entrance fee. Six thousand players started off the tournament in 2005. This means players, even great players, have a difficult time making the final table. While there's skill, there's a great deal of luck.
And skill? Many can pick up skill by playing online, or against a computer. When you play online, you can play several games at once. Games are played at a rapid pace. You learn to play the cards more than play the person.
One unlikely guy to make the final table, who wasn't so unlikely after all, was a guy named Brad Kondracki. Kondracki, announcers would tell us, was a law student at Penn (presumably, University of Pennsylvania).
It's less well known that Kondracki did his undergraduate degree at Cornell, and even less well known that he majored in computer science. Apparently, Kondracki spent a year after graduation playing poker all the time, getting good, good enough to place eighth overall.
But as I said, it's tough to do consistently well. A player may do well one year, then you never see them again. Do a Google on Kondracki and you don't much see him, except references to his 2005 success. I suppose it's odd to think that the guy knew something about NP completeness as much as betting on the river.
There's perhaps some irony that this thought, which hasn't crossed my mind much since that vacation day, would come on a sleepless evening, when ESPN would rerun the 2005 event.
One wonders what Kondracki does these days, after a brief, shining moment, where he was at a final table with a chance to win it all.
Normally, card games were of the spades/hearts variety, the kind college kids played, but the kind you didn't see in real casinos. Those card games were considered, well, a for people who couldn't control themselves. But for some reason, Texas Hold 'Em captured the imagination-and addiction-of many who would never have thought of it anyway. They had a taste of why gambling compels people like a form of drug addiction.
Perhaps it was the film Rounders, which was about a law student who used to play poker, but has now gone away from it to lead a straight life, until he meets up with a former buddy of his who needs his help. Maybe it was The Travel Channel showing these matches on television that sparked the interest.
The World Series of Poker has to be the most open of open tournaments. Anyone can play provided they put up the entrance fee. Six thousand players started off the tournament in 2005. This means players, even great players, have a difficult time making the final table. While there's skill, there's a great deal of luck.
And skill? Many can pick up skill by playing online, or against a computer. When you play online, you can play several games at once. Games are played at a rapid pace. You learn to play the cards more than play the person.
One unlikely guy to make the final table, who wasn't so unlikely after all, was a guy named Brad Kondracki. Kondracki, announcers would tell us, was a law student at Penn (presumably, University of Pennsylvania).
It's less well known that Kondracki did his undergraduate degree at Cornell, and even less well known that he majored in computer science. Apparently, Kondracki spent a year after graduation playing poker all the time, getting good, good enough to place eighth overall.
But as I said, it's tough to do consistently well. A player may do well one year, then you never see them again. Do a Google on Kondracki and you don't much see him, except references to his 2005 success. I suppose it's odd to think that the guy knew something about NP completeness as much as betting on the river.
There's perhaps some irony that this thought, which hasn't crossed my mind much since that vacation day, would come on a sleepless evening, when ESPN would rerun the 2005 event.
One wonders what Kondracki does these days, after a brief, shining moment, where he was at a final table with a chance to win it all.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Impressed
OK, Tennis Channel, you may not be perfect, but you did one thing that was almost amazing.
You covered the boys US Open. Given how rare it is for any junior events to be covered this is impressive, especially since it was one day after the US Open finals (tape delayed).
Ricardis Barankis, who had been asked by Roger Federer to practice with him in Dubai, won the tournament despite being something like the 15th seed. He reminds me a bit of Chang. They had shown a picture with Barankis with Federer, and Federer seemed at least a head taller.
Turns out Barankis (he's from Lithuania) is only 5'6". Why, Justine Henin, who's considered short, it about that height. It'll be interesting to see whether Barankis can go to the next level and play in the pros. Height is still a big advantage in tennis, and to be this short means a lot of work.
In any case, I was impressed they showed this almost live.
You covered the boys US Open. Given how rare it is for any junior events to be covered this is impressive, especially since it was one day after the US Open finals (tape delayed).
Ricardis Barankis, who had been asked by Roger Federer to practice with him in Dubai, won the tournament despite being something like the 15th seed. He reminds me a bit of Chang. They had shown a picture with Barankis with Federer, and Federer seemed at least a head taller.
Turns out Barankis (he's from Lithuania) is only 5'6". Why, Justine Henin, who's considered short, it about that height. It'll be interesting to see whether Barankis can go to the next level and play in the pros. Height is still a big advantage in tennis, and to be this short means a lot of work.
In any case, I was impressed they showed this almost live.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Indian Chinese
Chinese food is undoubtedly flavored by where it's cooked. The Chinese food in the US is said to be Americanized--that is cooked to American tastes. Similarly, the Chinese food in India has an Indian taste. It's a bit spicier to be sure.
The most common way to have Chinese food is "Manchurian", thus you can have mushroom Manchurian or chicken Manchurian. So distinctive is this style of Chinese food that Indians who have visited the US craving this kind of accented Chinese dish have been sorely disappointed.
I only had a chance to have Indian Chinese once in India. Funny enough, however, is that you can, at some select Indian restaurants, get Indian Chinese food. It's not so common, but with enough searching you might find one nearby. There's one near where I live called Madras Palace, which, as the name might suggest, is South Indian food, decidedly of the vegetarian variety.
There's two words I can use to describe Indian Chinese food. Spicy ketchup. Yes, it's slightly red, slight tangy, and quite spicy. It's a bit unlike any Chinese food I'm used to eating. The closest might be sweet and sour, but it would need the extra kick of spiciness.
Here's an example of an Indian Chinese dish. Another aspect I forgot to mention is that the food is often deep fried, then the sauce added on top. This recipe certainly falls in that mold.
So next time you're at an Indian restaurant, look out for Indian Chinese dishes. And make sure to ask for it spicy.
The most common way to have Chinese food is "Manchurian", thus you can have mushroom Manchurian or chicken Manchurian. So distinctive is this style of Chinese food that Indians who have visited the US craving this kind of accented Chinese dish have been sorely disappointed.
I only had a chance to have Indian Chinese once in India. Funny enough, however, is that you can, at some select Indian restaurants, get Indian Chinese food. It's not so common, but with enough searching you might find one nearby. There's one near where I live called Madras Palace, which, as the name might suggest, is South Indian food, decidedly of the vegetarian variety.
There's two words I can use to describe Indian Chinese food. Spicy ketchup. Yes, it's slightly red, slight tangy, and quite spicy. It's a bit unlike any Chinese food I'm used to eating. The closest might be sweet and sour, but it would need the extra kick of spiciness.
Here's an example of an Indian Chinese dish. Another aspect I forgot to mention is that the food is often deep fried, then the sauce added on top. This recipe certainly falls in that mold.
So next time you're at an Indian restaurant, look out for Indian Chinese dishes. And make sure to ask for it spicy.
Choke-a-vic
Roger Federer's average play is usually so high that even when he's not playing his best, he can win comfortably.
And boy, did Novak Djokovic have his chances. In the first two sets, Novak had chances to break Federer or broke him only to be broken back, and win the set. He could easily have been up two sets to none and making Roger sweat. In the first set, Djokovic hardly struggled with his serve. When he finally broke Roger, Roger promptly broke back. Not without struggle, but even so.
Instead, Federer calmly won the points he needed to win, and once it headed into the tiebreak, he took comfortable leads in both. Even the third set, which Djokovic was not outclassed, one game where his concentration loses focus, and Federer has the match.
Adam noted that it isn't so much that Federer plays so much better than everyone (though I think that is partly it), it's that most players can't focus 100% the entire match. They play sloppy games here or there. Federer doesn't lose focus, so his play his generally high throughout (even if he makes lots of errors, he still seems very much in the match).
I suppose this bodes well for Djokovic. He had set points to win, and pushed Federer, and one can only imagine that a guy who's only 20, and whose made progress by leaps and bounds, can start to challenge Federer. This doesn't bode well for American tennis as Djokovic looks like a solid number 3.
And Federer. Does it go without saying that what he does is amazing? This is his tenth consecutive Grand Slam title. He's catching up to Sampras quickly. Adam points out that Federer wasn't as far in his title hunt as say Nadal. Federer started winning when he was 23, while Nadal and Djokovic were more successful at 20 or before.
And boy, did Novak Djokovic have his chances. In the first two sets, Novak had chances to break Federer or broke him only to be broken back, and win the set. He could easily have been up two sets to none and making Roger sweat. In the first set, Djokovic hardly struggled with his serve. When he finally broke Roger, Roger promptly broke back. Not without struggle, but even so.
Instead, Federer calmly won the points he needed to win, and once it headed into the tiebreak, he took comfortable leads in both. Even the third set, which Djokovic was not outclassed, one game where his concentration loses focus, and Federer has the match.
Adam noted that it isn't so much that Federer plays so much better than everyone (though I think that is partly it), it's that most players can't focus 100% the entire match. They play sloppy games here or there. Federer doesn't lose focus, so his play his generally high throughout (even if he makes lots of errors, he still seems very much in the match).
I suppose this bodes well for Djokovic. He had set points to win, and pushed Federer, and one can only imagine that a guy who's only 20, and whose made progress by leaps and bounds, can start to challenge Federer. This doesn't bode well for American tennis as Djokovic looks like a solid number 3.
And Federer. Does it go without saying that what he does is amazing? This is his tenth consecutive Grand Slam title. He's catching up to Sampras quickly. Adam points out that Federer wasn't as far in his title hunt as say Nadal. Federer started winning when he was 23, while Nadal and Djokovic were more successful at 20 or before.
Sunday, September 09, 2007
Plain Pull
Dulles Airport has been sponsoring a plane pull for around 15 years. This sounds cool, and it sorta is, and it sorta isn't.
Here's the idea. A company sends twenty people to pull a plane. The plane, this year, is a FedEx plane. Now, you wonder, if you're pulling a plane, how does it get back to its original spot? After all, many, many teams will try to move it? Perhaps each team moves it alternately forward and then backward? Perhaps they slowly move it down a runway?
Ah, the answer is that a machine pulls the plane back to its original spot.
Now I had expected the plane pull to actually be pulled some distance, say, 50 feet or 100 feet. Something that would take at least a minute to accomplish. But with 30 companies, many sporting half a dozen teams, something that long would not only be tiring and time-consuming, it would probably create some logistical issues.
So you only pull the plane for about 10 seconds, which is maybe twenty feet or less, maybe even ten feet.
Why pull a plane? Other than the obvious--to raise money for charity, it's because you can. You can tell folks that you pulled a plane.
Of course, any time there's a competition, there's people trying to win the competition. The key to winning is typically sheer weight. When you get a bunch of folks that's two hundred pounds or more, well, that probably has some advantage. Last year, the top three winners where sheriff's offices.
They don't apparently try to take weight into account. After all, that would involve formulas, and sheriff's offices would be unhappy. The formula could be tweaked in a way that anyone could win. You could, for example, divide time by total weight. This would favor light, strong teams. But would it be fair? So ultimately, they stay with something that is patently unfair, because they can't think of anything else.
Oh did I mention that yesterday was freaking hot?
The good news, and I have to credit the plane pull folks for this, is that they did have food and water and did not inflate the prices like crazy. Water was a dollar, which is about what you'd get in a vending machine. Food was around two dollars to three dollars. Overall, pretty nice.
The parking was a small pain.
And the directions to and from Dulles? Horrid. Just horrid.
There are ramps with no obvious signs right on the ramp. There are so many ways directions could be improved, and yet, people don't even bother.
So when someone asked what I did this weekend?
I pulled a plane.
For ten seconds.
Here's the idea. A company sends twenty people to pull a plane. The plane, this year, is a FedEx plane. Now, you wonder, if you're pulling a plane, how does it get back to its original spot? After all, many, many teams will try to move it? Perhaps each team moves it alternately forward and then backward? Perhaps they slowly move it down a runway?
Ah, the answer is that a machine pulls the plane back to its original spot.
Now I had expected the plane pull to actually be pulled some distance, say, 50 feet or 100 feet. Something that would take at least a minute to accomplish. But with 30 companies, many sporting half a dozen teams, something that long would not only be tiring and time-consuming, it would probably create some logistical issues.
So you only pull the plane for about 10 seconds, which is maybe twenty feet or less, maybe even ten feet.
Why pull a plane? Other than the obvious--to raise money for charity, it's because you can. You can tell folks that you pulled a plane.
Of course, any time there's a competition, there's people trying to win the competition. The key to winning is typically sheer weight. When you get a bunch of folks that's two hundred pounds or more, well, that probably has some advantage. Last year, the top three winners where sheriff's offices.
They don't apparently try to take weight into account. After all, that would involve formulas, and sheriff's offices would be unhappy. The formula could be tweaked in a way that anyone could win. You could, for example, divide time by total weight. This would favor light, strong teams. But would it be fair? So ultimately, they stay with something that is patently unfair, because they can't think of anything else.
Oh did I mention that yesterday was freaking hot?
The good news, and I have to credit the plane pull folks for this, is that they did have food and water and did not inflate the prices like crazy. Water was a dollar, which is about what you'd get in a vending machine. Food was around two dollars to three dollars. Overall, pretty nice.
The parking was a small pain.
And the directions to and from Dulles? Horrid. Just horrid.
There are ramps with no obvious signs right on the ramp. There are so many ways directions could be improved, and yet, people don't even bother.
So when someone asked what I did this weekend?
I pulled a plane.
For ten seconds.
Tennis Review: Henin vs. Kuznetsova
Justine Henin is unusual in women's tennis. She's about 5'6" which used to be more typical in tennis. Nowadays, you have Serena, who's like 5'10" and Venus, who's over 6 feet. Big, tall women now play tennis.
Justine, however, hits pretty hard, is very tough mentally, and is number one in the world. The problem with modern women's tennis today is that there's no Seles-Graf.
Back when Graf was number one, she became the dominant power much like Martina was dominant. Martina used to win matches in under an hour. No one could hit past her. She had a big serve. She volleyed amazingly. Chris Evert, who wasn't the same kind of athlete, found it hard to keep up. She tried to get in better shape, and could only match up against her at the French.
Graf then stormed on. She hit her forehand a ton, and would go for the lines. She hit so much harder than any woman that few could keep up. It took a while for other players to heat up their groundstrokes to even compete against Steffi. And the first real person to compete was Monica Seles.
Seles wasn't the same kind of athlete that Graf was. However, she moved well enough, and with two hands on both sides, she could hit the ball hard on both sides. One time, during the middle of a tough French Open final against Graf, Seles broke her strings. Usually, you lose complete control at that point, and a player will cut the point short and get a new racquet.
Seles managed to play another ten shots, and while she (I think) lost the rally, she still played amazing shots afterwards.
And the matches these two played were amazing that one really despises and out-of-work Graf fanatic that stabbed Seles, and let her out of action for nearly two years. Seles was never the same after that. She got to the finals of the US Open nearly right away, and lost to Graf. It wasn't quite the same after that.
But the matches were built on great shot after great shot, and women's tennis has often struggled to get to that stage. As much as Federer dominates the players he plays, there's a sense that they are trying, that they aren't just making errors, but that Federer is hitting great shots.
So that lead to last night's match. You generally know what you're going to get with Justine. She hits hard, both forehand and backhand. Indeed, her power off the backhand makes it tough to beat her, because you try to power it to her backhand, and she does it back to you. And for a woman her height, she serves pretty hard.
Indeed, it's amazing to see the women hitting 115 mph serves. At his best, McEnroe only flirted with that kind of speed usually hitting just under 110 mph. Not that speed is everything. McEnroe used his lefty spin and accuracy and that made it challenging for his opponents. Even so, women during that era served under 100 mph. Martina routinely served in the mid 90s.
And that was hard for a woman.
Kutznetsova, on the other hand, is this completely streaky player. She managed to play a semis where she played awful in the first set, and her opponent, Chakvetadze also imploded. And Kutznetsova is like number 4 in the world.
But she struggled plenty in the final. Even when she had chances to break, Henin would hit another good shot, or Svetlana would dump another shot into the net or out wide and shriek with every miss.
There was an odd moment during the match. Billie Jean King is asked about Svetlana, and she says she's a great gal, someone who is likable, who speaks Spanish (in addition to presumably Russian), wants to learn new things. Indeed, these are all great for women that spend their life thinking about tennis. It's one thing you don't think about though. There are likely many great individuals who play great tennis, but they aren't necessarily the top players.
In any case, Svetlana lost the match just as much as Henin won it. Henin played steady, solid, superior tennis.
Oh yeah. For some reason, probably due to a taped pronunciation, everyone pronounces Henin's name as "Enna". The second "n" is not pronounced. The "i" is pronounced like an "a". Given that "fin" (meaning "end") is pronounced like "fan", I can see that, but it is grating not to here the second "n". So for some reason, accurate or not, hearing her name pronounced like "Enna" sounds like nails on chalkboard.
Well, I expect the Federer-Djokovic match to be far more entertaining. Hopefully, it lives up.
Justine, however, hits pretty hard, is very tough mentally, and is number one in the world. The problem with modern women's tennis today is that there's no Seles-Graf.
Back when Graf was number one, she became the dominant power much like Martina was dominant. Martina used to win matches in under an hour. No one could hit past her. She had a big serve. She volleyed amazingly. Chris Evert, who wasn't the same kind of athlete, found it hard to keep up. She tried to get in better shape, and could only match up against her at the French.
Graf then stormed on. She hit her forehand a ton, and would go for the lines. She hit so much harder than any woman that few could keep up. It took a while for other players to heat up their groundstrokes to even compete against Steffi. And the first real person to compete was Monica Seles.
Seles wasn't the same kind of athlete that Graf was. However, she moved well enough, and with two hands on both sides, she could hit the ball hard on both sides. One time, during the middle of a tough French Open final against Graf, Seles broke her strings. Usually, you lose complete control at that point, and a player will cut the point short and get a new racquet.
Seles managed to play another ten shots, and while she (I think) lost the rally, she still played amazing shots afterwards.
And the matches these two played were amazing that one really despises and out-of-work Graf fanatic that stabbed Seles, and let her out of action for nearly two years. Seles was never the same after that. She got to the finals of the US Open nearly right away, and lost to Graf. It wasn't quite the same after that.
But the matches were built on great shot after great shot, and women's tennis has often struggled to get to that stage. As much as Federer dominates the players he plays, there's a sense that they are trying, that they aren't just making errors, but that Federer is hitting great shots.
So that lead to last night's match. You generally know what you're going to get with Justine. She hits hard, both forehand and backhand. Indeed, her power off the backhand makes it tough to beat her, because you try to power it to her backhand, and she does it back to you. And for a woman her height, she serves pretty hard.
Indeed, it's amazing to see the women hitting 115 mph serves. At his best, McEnroe only flirted with that kind of speed usually hitting just under 110 mph. Not that speed is everything. McEnroe used his lefty spin and accuracy and that made it challenging for his opponents. Even so, women during that era served under 100 mph. Martina routinely served in the mid 90s.
And that was hard for a woman.
Kutznetsova, on the other hand, is this completely streaky player. She managed to play a semis where she played awful in the first set, and her opponent, Chakvetadze also imploded. And Kutznetsova is like number 4 in the world.
But she struggled plenty in the final. Even when she had chances to break, Henin would hit another good shot, or Svetlana would dump another shot into the net or out wide and shriek with every miss.
There was an odd moment during the match. Billie Jean King is asked about Svetlana, and she says she's a great gal, someone who is likable, who speaks Spanish (in addition to presumably Russian), wants to learn new things. Indeed, these are all great for women that spend their life thinking about tennis. It's one thing you don't think about though. There are likely many great individuals who play great tennis, but they aren't necessarily the top players.
In any case, Svetlana lost the match just as much as Henin won it. Henin played steady, solid, superior tennis.
Oh yeah. For some reason, probably due to a taped pronunciation, everyone pronounces Henin's name as "Enna". The second "n" is not pronounced. The "i" is pronounced like an "a". Given that "fin" (meaning "end") is pronounced like "fan", I can see that, but it is grating not to here the second "n". So for some reason, accurate or not, hearing her name pronounced like "Enna" sounds like nails on chalkboard.
Well, I expect the Federer-Djokovic match to be far more entertaining. Hopefully, it lives up.
Tennis Channel Second Thoughts
Now that I've watched The Tennis Channel a bit more, there are a few things that it does all right.
Unlike Tennis magazine, which used to have problems covering the stars, and so devoted its time covering places to go vacation and tennis instruction, which appeals to some, but not all tennis fans, TTC (The Tennis Channel) focuses more on tennis's stars, admittedly, leaning a bit to number 1's and the American stars of yesteryear (meaning, ten years ago).
There are interview shows where guys like Chris Meyers talks to Pete Sampras and tributes to Andre Agassi, so at least, it takes care of one segment of the tennis population, which are tennis fans that like to watch tennis stars, and learn something more about them. They recently had a special about Federer that was decent.
One thing that's sorely missing, and you know money has something to do with it, is a regular "this week in tennis" show. Right now, there's a one minute summary covering the US Open, which is crucial, if a kind of week substitute. Honestly, what's really needed is a SportsCenter just for tennis. The problem?
The biggest problem with a tennis channel, and it hurt the magazine as well, is that tennis is expensive. Players who run across the world have to spend a lot of money flying to and fro. The second problem is too many matches. Let's say, for example, there's a first round match at a typical tournament. There are 32 players, so maybe 16 opening round matches.
Now, is anyone going to assign 16, well, even 5-6 people to watch all the matches, take notes, and report on it? Probably not. Many of these are matches between two people no one's heard of. And that's no one from the perspective of those who watch tennis regularly. These are people that have heard of Davydenko, Djokovic, Kuznetsova, and so forth.
Even so, a regular show talking about the game now is important. You want to spot new players coming up. You want to see how the best players have done the last few weeks. You want people to understand who they are good against and bad against. Why does Davydenko have a zero for record against Federer even as Davydenko is like fourth in the world?
So while there are several shows that are pretty good, having something that's truly timely is also key.
There should be shows about tennis equipment (a touch subject to be sure, as it's commercial). There should be shows about how to improve your tennis, how to stay in shape. There should be a commentary show each morning about the matches played the previous day, which means there needs to be access to the world's tennis matches, somehow, or a world roving reporter at the very least.
Given all its shortcomings, what the channel has done does show glimmers of being watchable, at the very least.
Unlike Tennis magazine, which used to have problems covering the stars, and so devoted its time covering places to go vacation and tennis instruction, which appeals to some, but not all tennis fans, TTC (The Tennis Channel) focuses more on tennis's stars, admittedly, leaning a bit to number 1's and the American stars of yesteryear (meaning, ten years ago).
There are interview shows where guys like Chris Meyers talks to Pete Sampras and tributes to Andre Agassi, so at least, it takes care of one segment of the tennis population, which are tennis fans that like to watch tennis stars, and learn something more about them. They recently had a special about Federer that was decent.
One thing that's sorely missing, and you know money has something to do with it, is a regular "this week in tennis" show. Right now, there's a one minute summary covering the US Open, which is crucial, if a kind of week substitute. Honestly, what's really needed is a SportsCenter just for tennis. The problem?
The biggest problem with a tennis channel, and it hurt the magazine as well, is that tennis is expensive. Players who run across the world have to spend a lot of money flying to and fro. The second problem is too many matches. Let's say, for example, there's a first round match at a typical tournament. There are 32 players, so maybe 16 opening round matches.
Now, is anyone going to assign 16, well, even 5-6 people to watch all the matches, take notes, and report on it? Probably not. Many of these are matches between two people no one's heard of. And that's no one from the perspective of those who watch tennis regularly. These are people that have heard of Davydenko, Djokovic, Kuznetsova, and so forth.
Even so, a regular show talking about the game now is important. You want to spot new players coming up. You want to see how the best players have done the last few weeks. You want people to understand who they are good against and bad against. Why does Davydenko have a zero for record against Federer even as Davydenko is like fourth in the world?
So while there are several shows that are pretty good, having something that's truly timely is also key.
There should be shows about tennis equipment (a touch subject to be sure, as it's commercial). There should be shows about how to improve your tennis, how to stay in shape. There should be a commentary show each morning about the matches played the previous day, which means there needs to be access to the world's tennis matches, somehow, or a world roving reporter at the very least.
Given all its shortcomings, what the channel has done does show glimmers of being watchable, at the very least.
Saturday, September 08, 2007
Signature Wins
It seems, at least among the best male tennis players, that there is an early win that shows that they are going to be very, very good.
For Boris Becker, he won Queen's and Wimbledon in his first and second tournament. For Wilander, he wins the French Open the year after Borg won. For Sampras, when he won the US Open, he knocks out Lendl and McEnroe, when Lendl was still playing pretty well, and McEnroe was on a bit of an upsurge.
For Roger Federer, a key win was beating Sampras at Wimbledon. Although he would lose in the next round and then lose early the next year, this showed that he would eventually win big tournaments over and again.
Will this be Djokovic's signature win? He's come out of nowhere to skyrocket to the top of the ranks?
We'll see.
For Boris Becker, he won Queen's and Wimbledon in his first and second tournament. For Wilander, he wins the French Open the year after Borg won. For Sampras, when he won the US Open, he knocks out Lendl and McEnroe, when Lendl was still playing pretty well, and McEnroe was on a bit of an upsurge.
For Roger Federer, a key win was beating Sampras at Wimbledon. Although he would lose in the next round and then lose early the next year, this showed that he would eventually win big tournaments over and again.
Will this be Djokovic's signature win? He's come out of nowhere to skyrocket to the top of the ranks?
We'll see.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Joker-vich
Over the years, you've seen a few Croatians, most notably, Goran Ivanesevic. But the most famous Serbian was someone who preferred to call herself American, and that was Monica Seles.
Now, out of nowhere, comes the remarkable Novak Djokovic. Often left unsaid during the Rafa-Roger matches where the two guys met each other in the French finals then the Wimbledon finals was Novak Djokovic was in the semifinals. Had Rafa managed to win, he might have meet Djokovic for the third time in three consecutive Slams. But now Djokovic gets a chance to move forward to meet Ferrer, who gave fits to Nadal, running shots down.
And, much like Andy Roddick, one way to endear yourself to the crowd is to impersonate the ticks and mannerisms of other players.
It's rare for post-match interviews to go beyond the basic questions about how the match went, what turning points there were. But Michael Barkann is a bit of a goof, and asked Novak to do his impersonations, first of Sharapova (I wonder if Roddick has women in his impersonation), followed by Rafael Nadal, including his famous butt picking wedgie that everyone seems to know, with Djokovic playing it up to big effect.
Indeed, it's pretty heady for a 20 year old to do this, and not get too embarassed.
And the guy plays good tennis, too.
Now, out of nowhere, comes the remarkable Novak Djokovic. Often left unsaid during the Rafa-Roger matches where the two guys met each other in the French finals then the Wimbledon finals was Novak Djokovic was in the semifinals. Had Rafa managed to win, he might have meet Djokovic for the third time in three consecutive Slams. But now Djokovic gets a chance to move forward to meet Ferrer, who gave fits to Nadal, running shots down.
And, much like Andy Roddick, one way to endear yourself to the crowd is to impersonate the ticks and mannerisms of other players.
It's rare for post-match interviews to go beyond the basic questions about how the match went, what turning points there were. But Michael Barkann is a bit of a goof, and asked Novak to do his impersonations, first of Sharapova (I wonder if Roddick has women in his impersonation), followed by Rafael Nadal, including his famous butt picking wedgie that everyone seems to know, with Djokovic playing it up to big effect.
Indeed, it's pretty heady for a 20 year old to do this, and not get too embarassed.
And the guy plays good tennis, too.
Automation Frustration
Raise your hands if you like talking to an automated system? I'm sure you didn't raise your hand. Because, of course, you don't talk to one. Its voice recognition sucks. It never has the options you really want. You just want to talk to a person.
And yet, still, companies don't like expending human effort to customer support. Yet, without fail, each time I want to call customer service, I'm forced to jump through hoops, which ought to upset me, except every frickin' company does it too.
Companies must know their customers hate it. And yet, they've invested so much, and want to pinch pennies so much, that they are willing to put up with the ire of customers, who can't navigate the system to talk to someone.
The funny thing is they'd never put up with you putting them on hold, because, yeah, there's so few of them, and so many customers. Just like the repair folks who can't tell you they will be there at a specific time, but will leave in five minutes if you aren't there in this huge gap of time they want you to be there.
And yet, still, companies don't like expending human effort to customer support. Yet, without fail, each time I want to call customer service, I'm forced to jump through hoops, which ought to upset me, except every frickin' company does it too.
Companies must know their customers hate it. And yet, they've invested so much, and want to pinch pennies so much, that they are willing to put up with the ire of customers, who can't navigate the system to talk to someone.
The funny thing is they'd never put up with you putting them on hold, because, yeah, there's so few of them, and so many customers. Just like the repair folks who can't tell you they will be there at a specific time, but will leave in five minutes if you aren't there in this huge gap of time they want you to be there.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Larry Craig Reenactment
This is not only funny, but the song is James Bond, 1960s, tawdry great, and it teaches a valuable lesson about cruising.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Why Star Wars Worked
They're showing a pretty silly show on Star Wars technology. It's about whether the technology used in Star Wars could exist today.
It had me thinking about why Star Wars was so successful. It's hard to believe, but it had lots of good ideas. Let's run through them.
Lightsabers. After science fiction movies had blasters and deathrays, it was pretty amazing to have a laser sword. This alone was ultra cool. But there's more.
Darth Vader. Looks cool and evil and billowy.
Death Star. Planet destroyer.
The Force. A pseudo-religion that made kids believe in it too.
The Millenium Falcon. Looked great!
Landspeeders. Floating above the ground. How did they do it?
Robots (or droids). C3PO and R2-D2. Weren't they cute?
All these things were put together in one film that had a quest story, a coming of age story, and a decent bad guy to boot.
None of the sequels (even Empire, which is generally acknowledged as the best of the series) has so many new ideas.
And that's why it worked.
It had me thinking about why Star Wars was so successful. It's hard to believe, but it had lots of good ideas. Let's run through them.
Lightsabers. After science fiction movies had blasters and deathrays, it was pretty amazing to have a laser sword. This alone was ultra cool. But there's more.
Darth Vader. Looks cool and evil and billowy.
Death Star. Planet destroyer.
The Force. A pseudo-religion that made kids believe in it too.
The Millenium Falcon. Looked great!
Landspeeders. Floating above the ground. How did they do it?
Robots (or droids). C3PO and R2-D2. Weren't they cute?
All these things were put together in one film that had a quest story, a coming of age story, and a decent bad guy to boot.
None of the sequels (even Empire, which is generally acknowledged as the best of the series) has so many new ideas.
And that's why it worked.
Monday, September 03, 2007
Haas Has Last Laugh
You have to give it to James Blake. He makes all his matches interesting.
James Blake had taken a two sets to one lead, and it seemed that Blake would take the fourth. Except it didn't happen this way. Haas went on win a 6-0 set, and especially at 4-0, it seemed Blake wanted to skip the fourth and run to a fifth set.
And when Blake fell back one break, the strategy seemed in doubt. However, Blake tried to go for his shots more, and it took a while, but he eventually got the break back. More than that, Blake had a chance to break for the match, but Haas stayed in the game, and managed to push it to a tiebreak.
If anything, Blake's aggressiveness lead to errors. Had he not made a few errors, he'd be the one going to the quarters. Instead, Haas took a lead in the tiebreak, then eventually stretched it to a 6-3 lead. Blake then returned a shot on the line, and despite the review, it was point to Blake, 6-4. Still, with two more points to win the match, and one more point on his serve, Haas's chances still looked good.
Then, he served an ace out wide. At that point, Blake might as well review, because the match is over if that doesn't happen. The review held up, and Blake was out.
If anything, Blake's game resembles more Michael Chang than, say, Pete Sampras. Blake is very quick, and relies on a pretty decent backhand to get him out of tight spots. Blake doesn't overpower people, though he can play aggressive returns. He just does a few things a little better than other folks, and that's essentially what happened with Chang.
Blake, for instance, doesn't ace his opponents very much. He doesn't overpower his opponents very much. But he can retrieve really well, and hit decent shots when under pressure. I'd have to imagine most opponents feel they can keep up with Blake, but find it hard to put him away.
This was the kind of match that eventually fell to mental toughness. Haas really did almost choke it away, losing the break, and nearly losing the match. Were Blake a bit mentally tougher, hitting a few shots better, he'd be victor. As it is, the heir apparent to the Becker legacy is off to the next round.
James Blake had taken a two sets to one lead, and it seemed that Blake would take the fourth. Except it didn't happen this way. Haas went on win a 6-0 set, and especially at 4-0, it seemed Blake wanted to skip the fourth and run to a fifth set.
And when Blake fell back one break, the strategy seemed in doubt. However, Blake tried to go for his shots more, and it took a while, but he eventually got the break back. More than that, Blake had a chance to break for the match, but Haas stayed in the game, and managed to push it to a tiebreak.
If anything, Blake's aggressiveness lead to errors. Had he not made a few errors, he'd be the one going to the quarters. Instead, Haas took a lead in the tiebreak, then eventually stretched it to a 6-3 lead. Blake then returned a shot on the line, and despite the review, it was point to Blake, 6-4. Still, with two more points to win the match, and one more point on his serve, Haas's chances still looked good.
Then, he served an ace out wide. At that point, Blake might as well review, because the match is over if that doesn't happen. The review held up, and Blake was out.
If anything, Blake's game resembles more Michael Chang than, say, Pete Sampras. Blake is very quick, and relies on a pretty decent backhand to get him out of tight spots. Blake doesn't overpower people, though he can play aggressive returns. He just does a few things a little better than other folks, and that's essentially what happened with Chang.
Blake, for instance, doesn't ace his opponents very much. He doesn't overpower his opponents very much. But he can retrieve really well, and hit decent shots when under pressure. I'd have to imagine most opponents feel they can keep up with Blake, but find it hard to put him away.
This was the kind of match that eventually fell to mental toughness. Haas really did almost choke it away, losing the break, and nearly losing the match. Were Blake a bit mentally tougher, hitting a few shots better, he'd be victor. As it is, the heir apparent to the Becker legacy is off to the next round.
Simple Man
I bought my first simplehuman product. This company, I have to admit, is pretty clever. Its name is interesting. People who get stuff want to be organized, lead a simple life. Thus, simplehuman in its lowercase lettering has an inviting name, that suggests simplicity.
At a price.
The first product it's noted for is a metallic step wastebasket for a whopping hundred--even nearly two hundred dollars. It looks nice. It works well. It's the Dyson of wastebaskets. But is it worth 10 times the cost of a cheap plastic trash can?
simplehuman encouraged a bunch of other companies, from Oxo to Polder to iTouchless, selling expensive trash cans has become the new expensive vacuum cleaners (which had prices upwards of five hundred dollars).
I wanted to get a "nice" dish rack. I got one, and it was moderately cheap, looked nice, but didn't hold dishes up very well. I realized that it's mostly an exception. I brought my Crate and Barrel squarish dish and tried it out on several dish racks at The Container Store and at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I hadn't planned on spending forty bucks on something that normally costs 15 bucks.
What made it easier was that my previous purchase wasn't so good (and I returned it), and so I was willing to spend more to get something nicer. I should have decided on size. My kitchen isn't all that big. This dishrack is huge. And I don't have that many dishes. Having said that, it is nice. And what made it nicer was the prodigious coupons that Bed, Bath, and Beyond sends like every week. It gives 20% off any single product. That's pretty good if you have a big item purchase.
And I put a 40 dollar dishrack in a big item purchase.
In any case, I've succumbed to the allure of this company. It's still plastic and metal made at a bargain. It's not meant to last through a sledgehammer or even a hot car. But for now, it's giving me a modest amount of happiness. Next time, I'd get something smaller.
At a price.
The first product it's noted for is a metallic step wastebasket for a whopping hundred--even nearly two hundred dollars. It looks nice. It works well. It's the Dyson of wastebaskets. But is it worth 10 times the cost of a cheap plastic trash can?
simplehuman encouraged a bunch of other companies, from Oxo to Polder to iTouchless, selling expensive trash cans has become the new expensive vacuum cleaners (which had prices upwards of five hundred dollars).
I wanted to get a "nice" dish rack. I got one, and it was moderately cheap, looked nice, but didn't hold dishes up very well. I realized that it's mostly an exception. I brought my Crate and Barrel squarish dish and tried it out on several dish racks at The Container Store and at Bed, Bath, and Beyond. I hadn't planned on spending forty bucks on something that normally costs 15 bucks.
What made it easier was that my previous purchase wasn't so good (and I returned it), and so I was willing to spend more to get something nicer. I should have decided on size. My kitchen isn't all that big. This dishrack is huge. And I don't have that many dishes. Having said that, it is nice. And what made it nicer was the prodigious coupons that Bed, Bath, and Beyond sends like every week. It gives 20% off any single product. That's pretty good if you have a big item purchase.
And I put a 40 dollar dishrack in a big item purchase.
In any case, I've succumbed to the allure of this company. It's still plastic and metal made at a bargain. It's not meant to last through a sledgehammer or even a hot car. But for now, it's giving me a modest amount of happiness. Next time, I'd get something smaller.
Gentleman James
There's one facet of James Blake that doesn't get a lot of mention. He's a pretty sporting guy. He gives credit to his opponents. He's very polite. It's almost the kind of thing that gets a person unnoticed.
Recently, after a match with Fabrice Santoro (who's French, despite his likely Italian heritage), he complimented him afterwards on Fabrice's hustle, that he comes to play each time, and he really respected it.
Sports commentators love praising guys who win "the right way". Occasionally, you get people like Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, Venus Williams, and such, who weren't particularly nice, even had a rough edge to them, and people defend them, nevertheless. Why?
Because they win. If they were middle of the pack players, they may get no press attention at all, or they'd be derided for bad behavior. Surprising how winning forgives all that. Michael Wilbon is usually pretty guilty of this. But then, he tends to cling to winners, and they give him access. It's not surprising that sportswriters gravitate to star athletes. Many sportswriters were failed athletes, who, like Salieri, recognize genius, but lack the skills to be genius.
They often do the next best thing, and try to hang out with star athletes, and are willing to defend their excesses because they win. And, it goes without saying that many of the athletes Wilbon has a strong fondness for are African American, and that he sees these athletes as breaking their way into public consciousness, possibly ridding the world, or the US (which is the world to most Americans) of bias against African Americans. Perhaps rid is too strong. But like prideful Italians post famous Italians in their restaurants, prideful African Americans look to their athletes.
James Blake, a bit like Tiger Woods, is of mixed parentage. His father is African American (he passed away a few years ago). His mother, who's white, was an athlete in England, came to the US as a teen. Perhaps that's one reason that he's not perceived so well, despite his slow rise up the rankings. He's not had the kind of press that Andy Roddick has had, nor quite the success.
But James Blake, like Barack Obama, may increasingly become the face of African Americans. In a way, a very odd way, this can be seen as a form of equality. For years, many would find the thought of African Americans marrying white or Asian or anything outside of African Americans unthinkable. Now, it raises far fewer eyebrows, and it's likely to continue (much as Asians intermarrying outside of Asians is likely to increase too).
Hmm, well, this entry, which was going to be about Blake's sportsmanship has turned into a stream of consciousness writing about race, and the evolution of African Americans in the US.
Strange.
Recently, after a match with Fabrice Santoro (who's French, despite his likely Italian heritage), he complimented him afterwards on Fabrice's hustle, that he comes to play each time, and he really respected it.
Sports commentators love praising guys who win "the right way". Occasionally, you get people like Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, Venus Williams, and such, who weren't particularly nice, even had a rough edge to them, and people defend them, nevertheless. Why?
Because they win. If they were middle of the pack players, they may get no press attention at all, or they'd be derided for bad behavior. Surprising how winning forgives all that. Michael Wilbon is usually pretty guilty of this. But then, he tends to cling to winners, and they give him access. It's not surprising that sportswriters gravitate to star athletes. Many sportswriters were failed athletes, who, like Salieri, recognize genius, but lack the skills to be genius.
They often do the next best thing, and try to hang out with star athletes, and are willing to defend their excesses because they win. And, it goes without saying that many of the athletes Wilbon has a strong fondness for are African American, and that he sees these athletes as breaking their way into public consciousness, possibly ridding the world, or the US (which is the world to most Americans) of bias against African Americans. Perhaps rid is too strong. But like prideful Italians post famous Italians in their restaurants, prideful African Americans look to their athletes.
James Blake, a bit like Tiger Woods, is of mixed parentage. His father is African American (he passed away a few years ago). His mother, who's white, was an athlete in England, came to the US as a teen. Perhaps that's one reason that he's not perceived so well, despite his slow rise up the rankings. He's not had the kind of press that Andy Roddick has had, nor quite the success.
But James Blake, like Barack Obama, may increasingly become the face of African Americans. In a way, a very odd way, this can be seen as a form of equality. For years, many would find the thought of African Americans marrying white or Asian or anything outside of African Americans unthinkable. Now, it raises far fewer eyebrows, and it's likely to continue (much as Asians intermarrying outside of Asians is likely to increase too).
Hmm, well, this entry, which was going to be about Blake's sportsmanship has turned into a stream of consciousness writing about race, and the evolution of African Americans in the US.
Strange.
Before Famous
Back before Russell Crowe came to the US, and began acting in films like Virtuosity (a Denzel Washington virtual reality thriller), LA Confidential and eventually Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind, Crowe began his career with two films that made a little buzz in the US.
One was Romper Stomper, a film about skinheads. On the flip side was The Sum of Us, a light drama about a father who tries to get along with his gay son. That was on TV this morning. I've seen bits and pieces when it's been on TV, so I know basically what it's about.
When I read about it, I had heard that it was the kind of film you didn't see in the US, and in many respects that's true. For one, although it's often branded as a comedy, it's not. It's more of a slice of life film, and eventually tells the story of the father's own mother, who had a female lover, back in the times when people chose to ignore it, and due to her old age, they separated the women, sending the mother's lover to a home, while the mother joined the family, and eventually died, days later, despondent.
In a way, it's a bit cheap to introduce that bit at the end, even as it provides motivation for why the dad tries to do right by his son.
Even so, it's quite a varied career by Russell Crowe prior to what he did in the US. He underplays the role, playing it rather matter-of-factly. The rest of the cast does more "acting", and he comes out (so to speak) as just himself. The topic is also matter of fact, and really, it's mostly (at the end) about taking care of an infirmed father.
Speaking of natural vs. artificial, I was just watching a Star Trek: TNG episode, where Wesley is about to go to the Academy. In hindsight, the story's pretty weak to do what it wants to do, which is to get Wesley to save the captain's life, and that, mostly, so he can get a few things off his chest that he's been meaning to say, and that because the writers that be want a dramatic ending.
Here's how it goes. Somehow, Wesley and the captain join a mining captain as they head to a colony. At some point, they lose control of the ship and must crash land, in, surprise, a desert. In the meanwhile, the Enterprise has discovered a garbage scow that is bleeding radiation all over. They plan to send it to the sun, but, surprise, there's an asteroid belt in the way.
There are several things going on. First, they need some excuse to prevent the Enterprise from mounting a rescue mission. Thus, radiation from a barge that threatens a planet, and the Enterprise, and add to that, asteroids. Second, they need to crash the shuttlecraft because well, we need danger. And then there's how Wesley saves Picard's life.
Surprisingly, despite how bad the plot is, the story seems to be passable, partly because the actors have been acting a while with one another, and you forgive such horrible convolutions to make it happen.
Worse than that, there is the famous Trek plot device that's simply awful. At one point, Dr. Crusher says the radiation is going to be lethal (in 30 minutes). Not only is this precise, it's a step function. Everyone, all the races on board, are equally affected. 30 minutes and they're all dead. 29 minutes 59 seconds, and they suffer no problems at all. Convenient. And conveniently stupid.
One was Romper Stomper, a film about skinheads. On the flip side was The Sum of Us, a light drama about a father who tries to get along with his gay son. That was on TV this morning. I've seen bits and pieces when it's been on TV, so I know basically what it's about.
When I read about it, I had heard that it was the kind of film you didn't see in the US, and in many respects that's true. For one, although it's often branded as a comedy, it's not. It's more of a slice of life film, and eventually tells the story of the father's own mother, who had a female lover, back in the times when people chose to ignore it, and due to her old age, they separated the women, sending the mother's lover to a home, while the mother joined the family, and eventually died, days later, despondent.
In a way, it's a bit cheap to introduce that bit at the end, even as it provides motivation for why the dad tries to do right by his son.
Even so, it's quite a varied career by Russell Crowe prior to what he did in the US. He underplays the role, playing it rather matter-of-factly. The rest of the cast does more "acting", and he comes out (so to speak) as just himself. The topic is also matter of fact, and really, it's mostly (at the end) about taking care of an infirmed father.
Speaking of natural vs. artificial, I was just watching a Star Trek: TNG episode, where Wesley is about to go to the Academy. In hindsight, the story's pretty weak to do what it wants to do, which is to get Wesley to save the captain's life, and that, mostly, so he can get a few things off his chest that he's been meaning to say, and that because the writers that be want a dramatic ending.
Here's how it goes. Somehow, Wesley and the captain join a mining captain as they head to a colony. At some point, they lose control of the ship and must crash land, in, surprise, a desert. In the meanwhile, the Enterprise has discovered a garbage scow that is bleeding radiation all over. They plan to send it to the sun, but, surprise, there's an asteroid belt in the way.
There are several things going on. First, they need some excuse to prevent the Enterprise from mounting a rescue mission. Thus, radiation from a barge that threatens a planet, and the Enterprise, and add to that, asteroids. Second, they need to crash the shuttlecraft because well, we need danger. And then there's how Wesley saves Picard's life.
Surprisingly, despite how bad the plot is, the story seems to be passable, partly because the actors have been acting a while with one another, and you forgive such horrible convolutions to make it happen.
Worse than that, there is the famous Trek plot device that's simply awful. At one point, Dr. Crusher says the radiation is going to be lethal (in 30 minutes). Not only is this precise, it's a step function. Everyone, all the races on board, are equally affected. 30 minutes and they're all dead. 29 minutes 59 seconds, and they suffer no problems at all. Convenient. And conveniently stupid.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Review: Rocket Science
Jeffery Blitz directed 2002's documentary, Spellbound, about eight kids trying to win the national spelling bee, held in Washington DC every year. Most people haven't given this competition that much thought. It's not like people think of it as particularly nerdy, even though that is what it is. It's kids put to the test of pure memorization.
I say directed, even though it's a documentary. Perhaps directed isn't quite the right word as much as edited. The director still needs to decide which kids to show, how to portray the kids.
It's easy to tell that for any successful spelling bee kid, there's almost always a parent that's deeply involved. The documentary shows that women are as successful as men, that people living in the country can have as much success as those in the city, and that immigrants, particularly those from India, can be better spellers than white Americans that most non-Americans think of as American.
To be a spelling bee champ, you have to devote effort to what, in hindsight, seems like a silly task. Memorizing words. With hundred of thousands, if not millions, of possible words, this task is daunting, and on the surface, downright silly. One could argue that as silly as sports are, there's some remote possibility of making money. There aren't really professional spellers (well, there are Scrabble competitors), so people are competing just because there's a national championship.
Spelling, like many "nerdy" endeavors (I find it far less nerdy than most since it's basically brute force memorization), attracts its share of people, some less socially well adjusted than others.
You have to imagine that Jeffrey Blitz saw, in the many kids he interviewed, an angle he could write about, tell a story about.
Instead of focusing on spelling, the venue is high school debate. More than like, Blitz participated in debate. At the very least, Rocket Science, a film ostensibly about debate shows solid knowledge of this field. This is no Balls of Fury, where the sport is mocked, and likely little real research was done in this "comedy". Blitz shows he understands how debates are run.
But, like the spellers in Spellbound, this film is not just about those who spend their high school years in the pursuit of debate excellence, it asks why. Although the film does not focus most of its attention on Ginny Reyerson, the determined female debater who is also the object of Hal Hefner's awkward affections, nor with Ben Wekselbaum, who Ginny was trying to win a debate championship with, but ultimately does not when Ben reaches an epiphany about life, and decides life spent in the pursuit of debate excellence is wasted, and thus chooses not to continue the debate at the moment of victory.
Instead, it's the story of Hal Hefner, a shy kid with uncontrollable stuttering, whose parents have split up and whose older brother torments him, even as he advises him to have "agendas". He is spotted by Ginny who thinks she can form him into an expert debater.
If this were a more popular film, rather than the indie film it is, you might see Hal overcome his awkwardness, his stuttering, and reach for success. And yet, indie films learn from their more popular brethren how to build up expectations, but rip the cheap thrill we'd get from a satisfying conclusion away. It's the kind of movie that wouldn't play well in India, because it chooses a (somewhat more) honest way to deal with Hal's personal issues.
Films have the unenviable task of making you understand a story and care about the people in less than two hours. Understandably, characterization often takes a backseat to story, and Rocket Science is no exception. Hal is, by far, the most well-developed character.
Everyone else is a bit of a caricature, even if somewhat unique. Ginny, who is the second most developed character, is something of a cipher. You know she wants to succeed as a debater. Winning awards means a lot to her. It's suggested that she's willing to use her knowledge that she's a good looking gal to her advantage, that in society, ambitious women use whatever resource they have.
She's something of a fantasy character for Hal, a teen who's not only beautiful and smart, but also willing to point to the awkward guy, and feel he has something to offer. Anna Kendrick, who plays Ginny, does an excellent job in what would have to be a difficult role. First, she has to master "spreading", the fast speaking that debaters master to fill in as many points as possible in the limited amount of time given in a debate. She has to make fairly technical points, which often leaves most actors dazed, given their lack of technical background.
Blitz pays attention to the smallest of detail to make her attractive to Hal, from the backwards hand-wave, to the small tug of her rather tight jeans. You know Blitz has done this intentionally, because later, in a flashback, he repeats this scene in slomo and closeup.
Also well-cast is Nicholas D'Agosto, who simply looks the part of the debater, Ben Weckselbaum, down to a Tucker Carlson bowtie. He's smug, self-assured, a guy who has mastered the nuances of debate. He was cast in Election, a film this has been compared to.
Oddly enough, this film has been compared to Napoleon Dynamite. Where Hal Hefner is awkwardness personfied, Napoleon seems vaguely unaware that he's a complete dork. He continues plugging on, making up stories about himself and how he's this stud.
Meanwhile, Hal's life, up until he meets Ginny, is missing. His stuttering has meant he hasn't met anyone, hasn't done much with his life. He's smart, but no one, saves Ginny, sees this. And even then, does Ginny really see it? Ultimately, you feel Ginny wants to help Hal because her "breakup" with Ben has left her vulnerable, and she's a woman who wants control. By finding the worst person to debate, she hopes she can mold a nobody into a champion, and show Ben that she doesn't need the best--she can make the best.
Blitz, at least, tries to play honest. There are many tiny details showing a great master of continuity, from Hal always carrying a carry-on suitcase with him, to Hal sitting in the janitor's closet, to Hal leaving school in the middle of the day to find the locket that his brother stole, and bringing that back to Ginny's mother (and she asks "Aren't you supposed to be in school?"). Furthermore, he doesn't create a miracle with Hal, even as he leads you to think he might.
Blitz doesn't develop many of the characters. Hal's parents are ciphers. Hal's mother's boyfriend, a Korean-American judge is there for comic relief. The judge's gay son, Heston, is hardly addressed, nor is Ginny's cross-dressing neighbor, Lewis, whose parents are working their way through odd sex/marriage therapy given much detail. However, these quirky characters are at least not terribly stereotypical.
And, as many indie movies, this movie is a product of the times, recognizing that there are Koreans and Indians in American society, making references to the Kama Sutra by picture, if not by name.
Ultimately, as hopelessly awkward as Hal is, as implausible as his life is, the film is amusing and fairly honest to itself. Hal personifies many a geek who wants to catch the eye of a beautiful girl, who does crazy things hoping to win her over, and who must learn that life isn't always going be as pleasant as you imagine. Often bright people feel there is a kind of destiny for their talent, and figure the answers to life are complex, and require complex actions to achieve.
If his film works, it's partly because Reece Daniel Thompson plays this role so well, and partly because it takes a topic you never see in a film (debate) and asks questions about what people want out of life, what people are prepared to do, and whether, in the end, it's worth taking part of your childhood to push yourself to a kind of success.
It's funny and touching and well worth watching.
I say directed, even though it's a documentary. Perhaps directed isn't quite the right word as much as edited. The director still needs to decide which kids to show, how to portray the kids.
It's easy to tell that for any successful spelling bee kid, there's almost always a parent that's deeply involved. The documentary shows that women are as successful as men, that people living in the country can have as much success as those in the city, and that immigrants, particularly those from India, can be better spellers than white Americans that most non-Americans think of as American.
To be a spelling bee champ, you have to devote effort to what, in hindsight, seems like a silly task. Memorizing words. With hundred of thousands, if not millions, of possible words, this task is daunting, and on the surface, downright silly. One could argue that as silly as sports are, there's some remote possibility of making money. There aren't really professional spellers (well, there are Scrabble competitors), so people are competing just because there's a national championship.
Spelling, like many "nerdy" endeavors (I find it far less nerdy than most since it's basically brute force memorization), attracts its share of people, some less socially well adjusted than others.
You have to imagine that Jeffrey Blitz saw, in the many kids he interviewed, an angle he could write about, tell a story about.
Instead of focusing on spelling, the venue is high school debate. More than like, Blitz participated in debate. At the very least, Rocket Science, a film ostensibly about debate shows solid knowledge of this field. This is no Balls of Fury, where the sport is mocked, and likely little real research was done in this "comedy". Blitz shows he understands how debates are run.
But, like the spellers in Spellbound, this film is not just about those who spend their high school years in the pursuit of debate excellence, it asks why. Although the film does not focus most of its attention on Ginny Reyerson, the determined female debater who is also the object of Hal Hefner's awkward affections, nor with Ben Wekselbaum, who Ginny was trying to win a debate championship with, but ultimately does not when Ben reaches an epiphany about life, and decides life spent in the pursuit of debate excellence is wasted, and thus chooses not to continue the debate at the moment of victory.
Instead, it's the story of Hal Hefner, a shy kid with uncontrollable stuttering, whose parents have split up and whose older brother torments him, even as he advises him to have "agendas". He is spotted by Ginny who thinks she can form him into an expert debater.
If this were a more popular film, rather than the indie film it is, you might see Hal overcome his awkwardness, his stuttering, and reach for success. And yet, indie films learn from their more popular brethren how to build up expectations, but rip the cheap thrill we'd get from a satisfying conclusion away. It's the kind of movie that wouldn't play well in India, because it chooses a (somewhat more) honest way to deal with Hal's personal issues.
Films have the unenviable task of making you understand a story and care about the people in less than two hours. Understandably, characterization often takes a backseat to story, and Rocket Science is no exception. Hal is, by far, the most well-developed character.
Everyone else is a bit of a caricature, even if somewhat unique. Ginny, who is the second most developed character, is something of a cipher. You know she wants to succeed as a debater. Winning awards means a lot to her. It's suggested that she's willing to use her knowledge that she's a good looking gal to her advantage, that in society, ambitious women use whatever resource they have.
She's something of a fantasy character for Hal, a teen who's not only beautiful and smart, but also willing to point to the awkward guy, and feel he has something to offer. Anna Kendrick, who plays Ginny, does an excellent job in what would have to be a difficult role. First, she has to master "spreading", the fast speaking that debaters master to fill in as many points as possible in the limited amount of time given in a debate. She has to make fairly technical points, which often leaves most actors dazed, given their lack of technical background.
Blitz pays attention to the smallest of detail to make her attractive to Hal, from the backwards hand-wave, to the small tug of her rather tight jeans. You know Blitz has done this intentionally, because later, in a flashback, he repeats this scene in slomo and closeup.
Also well-cast is Nicholas D'Agosto, who simply looks the part of the debater, Ben Weckselbaum, down to a Tucker Carlson bowtie. He's smug, self-assured, a guy who has mastered the nuances of debate. He was cast in Election, a film this has been compared to.
Oddly enough, this film has been compared to Napoleon Dynamite. Where Hal Hefner is awkwardness personfied, Napoleon seems vaguely unaware that he's a complete dork. He continues plugging on, making up stories about himself and how he's this stud.
Meanwhile, Hal's life, up until he meets Ginny, is missing. His stuttering has meant he hasn't met anyone, hasn't done much with his life. He's smart, but no one, saves Ginny, sees this. And even then, does Ginny really see it? Ultimately, you feel Ginny wants to help Hal because her "breakup" with Ben has left her vulnerable, and she's a woman who wants control. By finding the worst person to debate, she hopes she can mold a nobody into a champion, and show Ben that she doesn't need the best--she can make the best.
Blitz, at least, tries to play honest. There are many tiny details showing a great master of continuity, from Hal always carrying a carry-on suitcase with him, to Hal sitting in the janitor's closet, to Hal leaving school in the middle of the day to find the locket that his brother stole, and bringing that back to Ginny's mother (and she asks "Aren't you supposed to be in school?"). Furthermore, he doesn't create a miracle with Hal, even as he leads you to think he might.
Blitz doesn't develop many of the characters. Hal's parents are ciphers. Hal's mother's boyfriend, a Korean-American judge is there for comic relief. The judge's gay son, Heston, is hardly addressed, nor is Ginny's cross-dressing neighbor, Lewis, whose parents are working their way through odd sex/marriage therapy given much detail. However, these quirky characters are at least not terribly stereotypical.
And, as many indie movies, this movie is a product of the times, recognizing that there are Koreans and Indians in American society, making references to the Kama Sutra by picture, if not by name.
Ultimately, as hopelessly awkward as Hal is, as implausible as his life is, the film is amusing and fairly honest to itself. Hal personifies many a geek who wants to catch the eye of a beautiful girl, who does crazy things hoping to win her over, and who must learn that life isn't always going be as pleasant as you imagine. Often bright people feel there is a kind of destiny for their talent, and figure the answers to life are complex, and require complex actions to achieve.
If his film works, it's partly because Reece Daniel Thompson plays this role so well, and partly because it takes a topic you never see in a film (debate) and asks questions about what people want out of life, what people are prepared to do, and whether, in the end, it's worth taking part of your childhood to push yourself to a kind of success.
It's funny and touching and well worth watching.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Angels and Demons
There are a few things in our society that seem so offensive or disgusting, that we can't imagine, just utterly can't imagine, why anyone would do this. There's stuff like rape, incest, scatalogical turn ons, dogfighting, and so on.
Just underneath this must be cruising in men's bathrooms. Indeed, if you followed any of the discussion (if you can call it that), nearly everyone, to a person, found the thought totally disgusting.
And yet, it doesn't take much thought to think someone must do it. Of course, if you find it disgusting, you can't even begin to rationalize why people do it. You can't tell yourself that there would be some thrill, some excitement, going to some place where you could get caught, and meet with someone totally random, and being a US senator to boot.
Instead, the people who find it disgusting demonize.
The people who cruise must be sick. They must be complete perverts. There's no sane way any rational person would do this. So disgusting! I can't even relate to it!
But people are into S&M. People are into rough sex. Is anonymous sex really much worse? Is it because we associate bathrooms with scatalogical functions that we don't like thinking of sex (or probably, just a quick peek or feel) in these terms?
While we can point out that Larry Craig was a complete hypocrite (which I agree) and due to his actions, closeted individuals must resort to cruising bathrooms, it does hide any intelligent discussion that some people find this exciting. Most news firms are unwilling to treat this as a serious subject, to find out what people might be interested, just as many people never found people who love to watch dogfights when Vick has dealing with the scorn (and, does PETA get the biggest boost out of this, or what?)
Too often, we demonize, because we are unwilling to believe, unwilling to imagine, that somewhere, somehow people might have a reason for doing things that the rest of us find objectionable.
Just underneath this must be cruising in men's bathrooms. Indeed, if you followed any of the discussion (if you can call it that), nearly everyone, to a person, found the thought totally disgusting.
And yet, it doesn't take much thought to think someone must do it. Of course, if you find it disgusting, you can't even begin to rationalize why people do it. You can't tell yourself that there would be some thrill, some excitement, going to some place where you could get caught, and meet with someone totally random, and being a US senator to boot.
Instead, the people who find it disgusting demonize.
The people who cruise must be sick. They must be complete perverts. There's no sane way any rational person would do this. So disgusting! I can't even relate to it!
But people are into S&M. People are into rough sex. Is anonymous sex really much worse? Is it because we associate bathrooms with scatalogical functions that we don't like thinking of sex (or probably, just a quick peek or feel) in these terms?
While we can point out that Larry Craig was a complete hypocrite (which I agree) and due to his actions, closeted individuals must resort to cruising bathrooms, it does hide any intelligent discussion that some people find this exciting. Most news firms are unwilling to treat this as a serious subject, to find out what people might be interested, just as many people never found people who love to watch dogfights when Vick has dealing with the scorn (and, does PETA get the biggest boost out of this, or what?)
Too often, we demonize, because we are unwilling to believe, unwilling to imagine, that somewhere, somehow people might have a reason for doing things that the rest of us find objectionable.
The Slight Tennis Channel
I thought it would be great (not really) that they would have a Tennis Channel, all tennis, all the time. But what I find more fascinating about this channel is not tennis, but squash.
I'm watching an HBO documentary about Billie Jean King. It's this kind of documentary that should show up on The Tennis Channel. Instead the channel is much like Tennis Magazine, which seemed non-offensive. It would tell you how to get to faraway retreats, assuming you had money.
Sports Illustrated would still cover tennis in better depth than Tennis.
While the channel is nice, it's just that--nice. It could be a substantive channel too, and likely, it won't ever be. With other channels claiming the actual matches, and with no desire to stir the pot, it will be pleasant, and no more.
I'm watching an HBO documentary about Billie Jean King. It's this kind of documentary that should show up on The Tennis Channel. Instead the channel is much like Tennis Magazine, which seemed non-offensive. It would tell you how to get to faraway retreats, assuming you had money.
Sports Illustrated would still cover tennis in better depth than Tennis.
While the channel is nice, it's just that--nice. It could be a substantive channel too, and likely, it won't ever be. With other channels claiming the actual matches, and with no desire to stir the pot, it will be pleasant, and no more.
Larry, Quite Contrary
If you listen to the radio, you hear about Senator Larry Craig and his efforts to pick up an undercover cop in the men's room of an airport. Because of this controversy, he's been pressured to step down as senator.
Many gays have been pretty thrilled as one homophobic closeted gay Republican Congressman or senator has had to step down. They find the hypocrisy beyond belief. How can these closeted individuals vote against gay rights? Perhaps out of some deep seated guilt, they vote against what they feel is wrong, but feel utterly helpless, falling to what they see as their personal failings.
It's not really been mentioned, however, why undercover cops still go to men's rooms looking for such solicitations. While cruising in men's rooms may disgust some, is it really worth the effort of cops to try to trap guys so they can be arrested? No one seems to question this or why the men feel compelled to use this as a means of meeting people. Certainly, the danger and anonymity must provide sufficient thrills to overcome all sorts of issues.
As famous a person as George Michael was caught, and this seems nothing new to Larry Craig, who had been accused of making moves on pages as long ago as 20 years ago.
Republicans, too, show a hypocrisy, often knowing the sordid backgrounds, and yet tolerating it because of the expediousness of another Republican vote.
As they say, truth is sometimes far stranger than reality. You could almost not make this up, and yet, here it is.
Many gays have been pretty thrilled as one homophobic closeted gay Republican Congressman or senator has had to step down. They find the hypocrisy beyond belief. How can these closeted individuals vote against gay rights? Perhaps out of some deep seated guilt, they vote against what they feel is wrong, but feel utterly helpless, falling to what they see as their personal failings.
It's not really been mentioned, however, why undercover cops still go to men's rooms looking for such solicitations. While cruising in men's rooms may disgust some, is it really worth the effort of cops to try to trap guys so they can be arrested? No one seems to question this or why the men feel compelled to use this as a means of meeting people. Certainly, the danger and anonymity must provide sufficient thrills to overcome all sorts of issues.
As famous a person as George Michael was caught, and this seems nothing new to Larry Craig, who had been accused of making moves on pages as long ago as 20 years ago.
Republicans, too, show a hypocrisy, often knowing the sordid backgrounds, and yet tolerating it because of the expediousness of another Republican vote.
As they say, truth is sometimes far stranger than reality. You could almost not make this up, and yet, here it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
