I was woken up this morning by the sound of snowplow blades scraping against asphalt, and looked out the window to see 5 inches of snow on my car. While mildly annoying, it is really nothing new or extraordinary to anyone who has lived in New England for any extended period of time. However, this being the first significantly-accumulating snowfall of the year, tonight I will be partaking in a long-standing tradition of watching The Shining when I get home from work.
Years ago, my friend Craig suggested this as the perfect movie for when it's snowing, and my friends and I made a yearly ritual out of it. The idea was such a good one that it has stayed with me in the 10 or so years since it was conceived. But the real connection between the film and the conditions is obviously just the snow, not anything to do with Christmas or the holiday season in general.
For some reason, this got me thinking on a tangent as I was driving to work this morning at 15 MPH. Sure, there are plenty of bona fide Christmas movies out there, such as Bob Clark's ubiquitous A Christmas Story, or my personal favorite, Brian Desmond Hurst's 1951 version of Scrooge, starring the perfectly-cast Alastair Sim. But for some reason, I have always loved movies that are sort of about Christmas, but not really. Movies in which Christmas is featured, but in a more tangential or incidental sense. So, without further ado, here is my short personal list of favorite "Sort-Of Christmas Movies":
Die Hard - NYPD Detective John McClane (Bruce Willis) is invited to LA by his estranged wife (Bonnie Bedelia) to attend her office Christmas party. It just so happens that at the same time, a group of German terrorists (led by the incomparable Alan Rickman) has infiltrated and beseiged the entire building. In a series of physics-defying Christmas miracles, McClane manages to slip away, assess the situation, and pretty much singlehandedly kill the shit out of all the bad guys, while also managing to piss off the FBI and befriend the dad from Family Matters, who seems to always play a cop in everything he's ever been in. (Cracked's Robert Brockway weighs in on this one here.)
Gremlins - Steven Spielberg and Joe Dante bring us the story of a young bank teller who is given a bizarre and exotic Christmas gift by his eccentric inventor dad, Hoyt Axton. It is an impossibly adorable little furry thing called a mogwai, which, through the violation of some logically arbitrary "rules" and Corey Feldman being an idiot, manages to reproduce and spawn an army of evil, obnoxious reptiles. Chaos ensues, of course. I love this movie mostly because it manages to combine the elements of small-town politics from It's A Wonderful Life with the campy "Monsters are invading the town and the authorities don't believe me!" premise from virtually every monster and sci-fi movie of the 1950's.
Edward Scissorhands - In this highly stylized modern-day fairy tale about a hopelessly deformed misfit adopted by a suburban family, Tim Burton manages to maintain a charming tone while teaching us satirical lessons on morality, love, tolerance, gossip, and the origin of snow. Another bizarre cross-genre film that mixes the gothic feel of Frankenstein with the small-town sensibilities of Anytown, USA. Also notable for being Vincent Price's final film appearance, and I must say that for what amounts to little more than an extended cameo, he really added a beautiful dimension to the film as Edward's creepy-cute mad scientist "father".
Love Actually - A sprawling, sappy manifesto on the many facets of love, which I happen to think is completely adorable. This movie tells the 653 intertwining stories of 1,022 characters who all know each other or are related or fall in love or whatever. The brilliant Bill Nighy totally steals the show as the burned-out former rock star hilariously attempting to use Christmas to resurrect his fame and fortune. Also features some dated and awkwardly shoehorned-in UK vs. USA political commentary between altruistic Prime Minister Hugh Grant, and sleazy US President Billy Bob Thornton, when a momentary love triangle between them and Martine McCutcheon somehow translates into a pissy foreign relations incident. (??)
Brazil - Set during the Holiday Season in some unspecified, dystopian year in the near future, Terry Gilliam's masterpiece is a sort of tongue-in-cheek version of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four. In my opinion, this is not only an incredibly great movie and a chilling vision of a totalitarian and beaurocratic future, it is also the single most re-watchable movie I have ever seen (like, 50 times). If you haven't seen this movie, you haven't lived. Features top-notch performances by Jonathan Pryce, Ian Holm, Katherine Helmond, Robert DeNiro, Jim Broadbent, and Michael Palin. (Note: Also available in the despicably mangled studio edit, scornfully referred to as the "Love Conquers All" version. Do NOT watch this under any circumstances.)
So, there you have it. Something a little different for this year's Christmas movie-watching festivities, if you're in the mood. All of these movies are great on their own merits, but they are especially fun to watch during the holidays. Enjoy!
Lots to watch. Good thing the Christmas season lasts more than one night! Thanks for sharing your faves.
— By Pat McDermott, on
December 9, 2009 7:25 PM
...And I don't even really know what it's about, exactly.
Mostly-genius filmmaker Terry Gilliam has a new movie coming out soon. Watch this trailer and tell me if your mind just completely explodes at the speed of light:
FINALLY, a movie in which Tom Waits plays the Devil. It's pretty much the role he was born to play, a thought that was cemented in my mind after listening to The Black Rider for the first time.
I could write about sixteen thousand paragraphs here about Terry Gilliam's body of work, which is pretty much hit-or-miss: in his case, "hit" equals mind-blowing film genius, and "miss" means it's just not his best work, but still pretty great. "Dr. Parnassus" looks to me like it's getting filed in the "hit" column for sure.
The trailer is done! It's posted on YouTube, and the customer, Pat McDermott, seems to be very satisfied with the results.
Upon uploading this video initially, I was faced with a major disappointment. For some reason, the video appeared blurry and pixellated, until I clicked on the little "HQ" toggle on the lower right side of the movie player frame. I was scrambling to find out what had gone wrong, and apologizing profusely to my customer for delivering a sub-excellent product.
It all made a little more sense after finding this blurb in the YouTube Help forums:
We made improvements to standard quality for video uploads! Unless there is a large difference between standard quality and HQ , the upload will produce standard quality by default (and not HQ as before).
In other words, the bar has been raised and you're going to find it hard to get HQ encoding at present, with the "upgrade" to "standard (normal) quality." It can be done but you may need to search the forum to find out possible ways that could work for you. Most of us are too tired to repeat ourselves on this, and no one I know is convinced they have a foolproof method forrendering that will ALWAYS give you HQ encoding.
In other words, the resolution and quality of my uploaded video was TOO GOOD. So good that YouTube split it up into high-quality and low-quality versions for the benefit of people with slower connection speeds. I will have to keep this in mind for future projects, as I think the whole HQ toggle thing is obnoxious, and frankly, unnecessary. If anything, the HQ display should be the default setting, allowing people to lower the quality if needed for streaming speed, etc.
Regardless, this is a very exciting milestone for me. I have been interested in working with video for many years, and have never really had the opportunity. Now I am dying for my recent purchase of Adobe Master Collection CS4 to arrive so I can do even cooler stuff from here on out.
Ms. McDermott is currently on a rampage (in a good way), posting this link on her site, her Facebook page, and sending it out to a staggering number of colleagues, web loops, discussion groups, and a company called Blazing Trailers that specializes in showcasing exactly this kind of media.
I am proud of my work on this project. If it generates some more work of this nature in the future, even better. I look forward to creating more trailers for Pat when she rolls out the remaining books in her series!
I seem to be satisfied? I'm ecstatic! You did a fabulous job, Rick! I'm glad you've extended your considerable talents into video. Thank you so much!
— By Pat McDermott, on
May 21, 2009 12:22 PM
You're very welcome! I've already got a few fragments of ideas bubbling for the next one.
— By Shag, on
May 27, 2009 9:49 AM
I have spent the last month or so working in a completely new medium: video. Author Pat McDermott is shouldering a huge amount of the responsibility of promoting the re-release of her novel A Band of Roses, and as her graphic/web designer and marketing consultant, I have offered to try my hand at the trend of creating a video "trailer". Apparently it is a hugely popular marketing tool in the independent publishing world, typically a series of still images panning across the screen or zooming in/out, with accompanying captions to give the gist of the story.
The only problem is, many of these trailers aren't really very well done. I have watched several, and been disappointed (and occasionally embarrassed) by the lack of finesse, subtlety, pacing, and dramatic formula they tend to exhibit, making some of them seem more like PowerPoint presentations than marketing pieces. There are a few I've seen that are outright embarassing, and seem to have been composed with a sledgehammer and a shoehorn.
One in particular tells the story of a psychic of some kind who is on vacation. Slow, lilting music, scenes of stucco neighborhoods slowly panning by... and then, at about 1:00, scenes of lightning, zombies (using images from Resident Evil and other video games) and demons flash by on the screen accompanied by terrifying loud music. This goes on for maybe 5 seconds, and then abruptly returns to the previous music and pacing. No transition or even editing of the soundtrack. It was as if the zombie scene came from another trailer completely and was ham-fistedly pasted over the original piece.
I mean no disrespect to the creator of said trailer, but I do feel justified in offering some very frank and objective criticism when I see something like this. I suppose it's a side-effect of having the no-holds-barred Murray Tinkelman as my college professor, a guy who would just as soon throw a chair or tell you to get the hell out of his class than explain to you why what you did was wrong. Man, I miss that guy.
In any case, yes, there are elements of these trailers that are well-done, and I do like some of the photo choices that are vague and archetypal enough in nature to intrigue the viewer. Others are oddly out of place, too specific, and seem to completely kill the atmosphere of the overall piece. It's a book, after all. You can't show the viewer what the character is supposed to look like based on some available stock photography. I consider it far better to leave things as vague as possible and let the reader's imagination paint in the details.
The general problem with many of these efforts is one of presentation, and craftsmanship. It's entirely possible that the book the trailer advertises is a great one. But that will never matter if the marketing is no good. I consider myself lucky to have a formal education in art, design, and illustration, as I feel the concepts I learned over the years apply to this type of project just as they would a painting. I try to be conscious of the importance of the work as a whole, not just a string of "cool ideas" laid end to end, but a complete composition.
With that in mind, I took this project on, my goal from the start being to attempt to use the conventions of existing book trailer "culture", but present the finished piece in a way that was more dramatically relevant to a trailer you'd see for a big-budget film. I dusted off a 2-year-old copy of Adobe AfterEffects that I had been meaning to immerse myself in for some time, and a couple of textbooks I had bought when I planned on learning AfterEffects a while back (that never really materialized). I dove in, learned the basics, and progressed from a bumbling hack to a fairly competent craftsman within a week or so.
The trailer project is still in the draft stage, although not much remains before it's completed. I'm very excited to add this piece to my portfolio, and the skills of video compositing and animation to my general repetoire. You can see the current work-in-progress here.
More on this as I near completion. I have already added some live-action video and filled in the missing 15-second gap towards the end with the remainder of the captions, which Ms. McDermott and I ironed out to perfection over the weekend. I'm currently having a teeny bit of trouble getting a render of the most recent version completed (something wrong with the way AE is processing the soundtrack source file), but I'll continue to update the WIP link as changes are made.
Oh, and I forgot to mention... working on these may be a bit tedious, but it's fun.
Just need to flame off here about a commercial I just saw for a "new" movie starring apparently desperate actor Matthew Perry and "doesn't-yet-realize-he's-just-a-fad" Zac Efron. Are you wondering why I put the word "new" in quotation marks? Here's why:
Oops, I'm sorry... I meant:
Screw you, Hollywood.
UPDATE: Apparently Gladstone over at CRACKED either had the exact same idea as me for this week's "Hate By Numbers", or he read my blog and totally copied me. Either way, it's an honor to have the same idea as one of the CRACKED Staff.
I just took a peek at my Netflix queue to see what was headed my way once I return the movies I have at home. I was a little disturbed to find out what was destined to arrive in my mailbox in the very near future.
THIS:
In case you were wondering, yes that is Sean Connery. The movie, which I had until yesterday completely forgotten that I had ordered, is called Zardoz, a post-apocalyptic commentary on caste systems, organized religion, and apparently, fashion dos and don'ts.
Being a fan of the whole dystopia genre, my curiosity (which later deteriorated into morbid curiosity) was piqued when I heard about this supposed cult-classic by the guy who directed Deliverance, featuring former James Bond and future Juan Sanchez Villalobos Ramirez clad in a red diaper and suspenders. Um... apparently there's also a lot of stuff about penises in the movie too. At least, that's what I've heard. Based on that picture up there, I can hardly say I'm surprised.
In the last few years, I've been quite an avid fan of movies predicting bleak futures for humanity, mostly because of how plausible some of them seem. Before I continue with the real reason for this post, allow me to list a few of my favorite films depicting utterly insane, and largely believable, scenarios concerning the future of mankind:
The whole Mad Max trilogy: An Australian highway cop in a really awesome car goes nuts and exacts gruesome revenge after a biker gang kills his family. Later he becomes a legendary messiah figure, pisses off Tina Turner, and battles a retarded giant in a steel cage.
Logan's Run: The entire population of the US lives in a huge domed city controlled by computers. To stifle population growth, people celebrate their 30th birthdays with a mandatory mass-suicide ritual.
A Boy and His Dog: Don Johnson and a talking (?) dog named "Blood" try to survive as scavengers in a nuclear wasteland, and end up discovering an underground community of bible-thumping nutcases wearing clown makeup and overalls.
Equilibrium: To put an end to man's predisposition to violence and war, people are forced to take drugs that suppress all emotions. Christian Bale is a lawman who arrests/kills anyone who goes off their meds.
Wizards: Millions of years after humankind is wiped out by nuclear war, the forces of good (magic) and evil (technology) battle for dominance of the world.
THX 1138: Robert Duvall is a bald drone in a society of bald drones who is tricked into going off his mandatory mood-suppressing drugs and gets caught, sentenced, and imprisoned for his crime of having feelings and falling in love with his roommate.
Minority Report: Tom Cruise yells his way through this adaptation of Philip K. Dick's story of a future police department that can accurately predict the future and pre-emptively arrest criminals before they've even done anything wrong, opening up a whole messy philosophical and moral can of worms.
Demolition Man: Basically a re-telling of Huxley's Brave New World with guns, explosions, and Denis Leary. 'Nuff said.
And the list goes on and on, some examples being, of course, infinitely better than others.
So to all my friends, family, and loved ones: In case my mind does not survive the journey of Zardoz, know that I love you all and will see you on the other side.
Apologies for no posts in several months, life has been a little rough on me lately. perhaps I'll elaborate on this in a future post, but I kinda doubt it.
So, I saw "Cloverfield" this weekend. When it comes to movies, I know myself pretty well. I have a fairly good radar for knowing which movies I'll like, and which ones look just plain idiotic. In the case of "Cloverfield", the intentional shroud of mystery and almost complete lack of description did exactly what it was supposed to: intrigue me into wanting to see it.
As I explained to my friend Becky, I tend to go for more artsy or dramatic movies, the occasional smart comedy, or maybe a surrealist mind-bender like "The Fountain". Honestly, I don't have a favorite genre, as long as the movie is good. In the case of big-deal blockbusters like "Transformers" or "Terminator 2", I also have moments of weakness, when something looks just so god damn cool that the possibility of not seeing it on the big screen is unthinkable. "Cloverfield" struck me as one of these. I did not have very high hopes, as these larger-than-life (in this case, literally) flicks are almost always a bunch of awesome eye-candy sprinkled over a plot that is so weak and full of holes that I have to groan aloud.
Well, the movie exceeded all of my expectations. Plus, it scared the living bejesus out of me, which is not easy to do with celluloid.
I can't really say much more about the movie itself, that's kind of the whole gimmick. The plot is really too simple and straightforward to elaborate on, but basically think "Blair Witch Project" meets "Godzilla". However, there is one thing that really bothers me about the whole concept, which has little or nothing to do with the movie itself. Apparently, some critics out there have accused "Cloverfield" of being "opportunistic" and insensitive to the memories of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, and intentionally recalling images of dazed, bleeding people wandering around in a cloud of debris and dust to invoke those horrific attacks.
My personal response to this: So fucking what?
As we have heard countless times (especially from Rudy Giuliani), 9/11 Changed Everything. Did it also change us into a bunch of self-indulgent, crippled babies who will gladly use 9/11 as a pretense to endless warfare and xenophobia, but express outrage and curl up into a fetal ball when it's even hinted at in a film? Perhaps people of this bent are not familiar with the phrase "art imitates life". 9/11 happened. It's not forbidden to allude to it in a film. Look, "Cloverfield", regardless of the secrecy of the plot, is obviously about some kind of giant thing making a huge mess of New York City. You'd have to be an idiot not to realize this. If it bothers you, don't see the movie. Simple as that.
I understand it's a sensitive issue for many of us, but this should not, and MUST not dictate, what is acceptable or not in the arts. Hell, Adam Sandler and Don Cheadle were in a film last summer that was entirely based on the concept of a guy losing his family in the WTC attacks, and going totally nuts because of it. At least, that's the impression I got from the trailer.
Take a look at Japan. Their culture, especially in the realm of film and animation, has become completely infused with the idea of nuclear war, nuclear apocalypse, and nuclear weapons bringing about catastrophic doom. Ever wonder why? It's because we DROPPED GOD DAMN NUCLEAR BOMBS ON JAPAN, completely vaporizing two of their largest cities in a span of 3 days. Of course it's going to be on their minds! Yes, it changed everything.
We are not the only culture or the only nation that has experienced horrible attacks. In fact, perhaps the reason 9/11 is such an effective bogeyman for us is that it's the first time we can remember that WE weren't the ones blowing some shit up! Firebombing in Dresden, aspirin factories in Sudan, god knows how many hundreds or thousands of buildings in the Middle East, bombings and destruction of villages and mass-murder of civilians in Southeast Asia, two entire CITIES in Japan. The list could go on forever. But when someone attacks the US, we imagine that we're somehow special; exempt and perfectly insulated in this regard. Yes, it was tragic, yes it was horrifying and bloody and unbelievable and BAD, but the idea of editing the Twin Towers out of films that had already been shot at the time, and expressing outrage and pointing a finger of shame at those who would revisit that scenario seems a little ridiculous to me.
Courtesy of my favorite Halloween movie ever, "Halloween III - Season of the Witch":
If you think Halloween III was stupid, you're wrong. It has the greatest ending of any horror movie ever made, compounded by the fact that I met a 60-something Tom Atkins at the "Rock n' Shock" show two years ago. He autographed my t-shirt, and did me the great honor of re-enacting this famous scene right to my face. Watch it here, and oh yeah-- don't forget to watch the big giveaway at 9!
I have decided that the end of the world has officially arrived.
Here are a few indicators that I'd like you to contemplate:
1. ANOTHER REMAKE of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Actually, this one is just called "The Invasion". Maybe Hollywood thought if they left the "Body Snatchers" part out of the title, nobody would notice that this is the THIRD FOURTH TIME in 50 years that the same movie has been made. What makes this even more bizarre is the irony involved.
A soulless replica of a movie based on the concept of soulless replicas.
2. You won't believe what I saw last night (adding to the enormous pile of reasons that I detest television). A GMC Truck commercial, nothing extraordinary in its own right. Now, I think it's safe to assume that most of us have seen, and been at least moderately disappointed by, commercials (especially for cars) that feel the need to adopt classic rock anthems from years past in order to "relate" to the prime car-buying generation. We've heard The Who, Bob Seger, and countless others selling the rights to their songs, apparently along with their very souls, to The Man for a few bucks. It never fails to fill me with sadness and disappointment.
Last night however... my mind was utterly blown. The old Genesis classic, "Turn It On Again" was the theme music in a god damn truck commercial. Now, I ask you: Does this seem as somehow wrong and surreal to you as it did to me? Maybe when you see it for yourself, you'll understand. I am a big fan of Genesis... well, at least in the true prog-rock years (which pretty much just means the years that Peter Gabriel was still in the band), but Abacab-era, Phil Collins Genesis wasn't too bad either. A frigging truck commercial. Wow.
I have a definite feeling that someday in the not-too-distant future, we'll be seeing commercials for the new Honda Hovercar 5000, with the melodious strains of Limp Bizkit or Sir Mix-A-Lot or something, preying on our sense of nostalgia to sell us junk we don't really need. Whatever.
3. In better news, I saw "The Fountain" last night for the first time. Darren Aranofsky has yet again outdone himself. Honestly, I can't even tell you anything about the movie, it would just ruin it for you. All I ask is that you go rent or buy it as soon as humanly possible, sit back, press "play" and let your mind go swirling away.
My only problem with the movie is this: Where in the name of God can Aranofsky go from here? The guy's like, in his early 30's and has already made, in my opinion three of the most incredible movies of all time; "Pi", "Requiem For a Dream" and now this. If he continues to improve his craft, I fear it will blow my mind so badly that I shall have to spend the rest of my days in a sanitarium. That, or he'll make a film so amazing, that it will simply destroy the fabric of time and space with it's fabulousness. I'm doomed either way.
Last night Becky and I went to the Roller Derby. If you haven't been to one, you are missing out on one of the most intense and insanely enjoyable ways to spend an evening that I can think of.
It. Kicks. ASS.
I am no sports fan by any means. I enjoy a good hockey game from time to time, but most other sports, professional or otherwise, seem to have fallen prey to the unfortunate syndrome of the modern-day participants having outgrown the rules that were crafted close to a century ago. A sort of athletic inflation, if you will.Roller Derby is quite different than anything you've seen, I guarantee. Two teams of badass women compete for points in a bout with an amazingly simple set of rules.
A bout (the overall match) is made up of three 20-minute periods. Each period is filled with 2-minute "jams" in which one member from each team (known as the "jammer") tries to pass all members of the opposing team at least once without getting blocked or knocked out of bounds. For each opposing player the jammer passes after initially taking the lead, a point is awarded. Although the blocking techniques can result in some brutal collisions and spills, there are formal rules as to how the blocking is done. Elbowing, tripping, or any sort of pushing with the hands is forbidden, and will eventually result in the offender being sent to the Penalty Box. This leaves a wide variety of techniques by which the "blockers" may prevent a jammer from passing by. Collisions with hips, full-body obstruction, and "booty blocking" (named so for obvious reasons) is allowed.
All technical explanations aside, this would be fun to watch even if you had no idea what was going on. But the rules and general gameplay are thoughtfully explained and demonstrated before each bout, for the edification of the entire audience. This is one of the excellent aspects of going to see the Boston Derby Dames play: It is an open and friendly event that can appeal to anyone. There's no inherent rivalry between teams, no anger or outrage from fans, and there's plenty of music, beer, snacks, and helpful banter from the announcers to make it virtually impossible not to have fun.
Anyone who knows me will recall that when it comes to sports, I don't care. At all. In my younger days, I was a big fan of the Boston Celtics, and Larry Bird was and is my greatest all-time sports hero. But as the 80's gave way to the 90's and the domination of the sport by players like Jordan and Shaq, I lost interest. Basketball is still a good game, but the problem is that the players have gotten too good for the rules, and eliminated much of the challenge, teamwork, and fast-paced strategic execution that used to amaze me. I still think the net should be raised one foot in order to keep the evolution of the game congruous with that of the athletes.I played Little League as a kid, and liked baseball a lot. I saw Roger Clemens pitch for the Red Sox in his rookie year, and was amazed at his skill. But in the last decade, I have soured on pro baseball as well. My gripe is that pro baseball players, like most modern-day professional athletes, have been conditioned to think that because they can throw a ball or run fast, that they are better than anyone else. The reason is money. A pro athlete today can expect to make millions of dollars a year, be considered a priveleged celebrity, and, in extreme cases, be the stars of bad films, rap albums, and outrageously high-paying product endorsements. I have never felt that athletes should be comparable with movie stars. Actually, I don't even think movie stars should be treated like movie stars. The word "professional" implies that you do what you do because it's your job, not because it makes you a superstar millionaire. Do I sound bitter and jealous? Think what you want, because I'm not. I will be the first person to encourage people to seek out employment that they will enjoy for the rest of their lives, and if you happen to make millions doing it, more power to you. My issue is that professional sports, along with acting, singing, and other hyper-glorified professions, project standards and aspirations to the average person that are unreasonable, misleading, and loaded with almost certain disappointment.
But all that is a topic for another day. Back to the point, seeing a Derby bout is fun and family-friendly, in the same sense as going to a minor-league baseball game would be. The tickets are inexpensive, and you can't help but be swept up by the fast-paced action and intensity of each jam. It's a relatively low-to-no-frills event, there are no cheerleaders or celebrities singing the National Anthem. Certainly there are merchandise sales, advertisements, and contests, in a sense. But it's all very down-to-earth; Advertisements come from local sponsors (largely roller-skating rinks), merchandise is reasonably-priced. In my opinion, Roller Derby is to sports what punk rock is to music. Its own existence is a statement in and of itself. It really doesn't matter how great you are, who wins or loses. Stripped down, simplified, and a venue not only to perform, but to simultaneously and expressively be yourself and reinvent your own image and personality. Skaters, referees, and even the announcers sport descriptive aliases that sound like something out of professional wrestling-meets-Mad Max.
Oh, and don't be intimidated by all the Bettie Bangs, tattoos, fishnet stockings, and piercings. You don't have to shop at Hot Topic to enjoy a Roller Derby. It's not a rave or a poetry slam, but a simple and straightforward sport that has evolved into the perfect athletic outlet for the modern young woman (especially the modern young woman with a colorful name like Goldiboxx, Maura Buse, or Wanda Whipya). Flat-track Roller Derby got its start in the 1930's, originally designed as a simple length-based race around a track. Inevitably, collisions and inadvertent injury ensued much to the excitement of the audience (who, I imagine, would otherwise have been bored to tears), and the concept was reimagined as a co-ed contest with the same basic rules as are used today.
Roller Derby never really caught on as a major sport, but enjoyed spikes of popularity in the 1950's, 1970's, and of course, in the 1990's on the now-defunct TNN's "Rollerjam". (TNN is now Spike TV, and is basically a televised version of Maxim Magazine. It's no surprise that sweaty short-skirted roller-chicks crashing into each other was a precursor to what the station is today.)
The national Derby league that includes last night's Boston Derby Dames is called the Women's Flat Track Derby Association. It is primarily owned, operated, regulated, and moderated by the skaters themselves. In a world where corporations pay millions to put their name on a home run or instant replay, this is impressive to me. The whole enterprise is a refreshing and engrossing pastime, and I certainly intend to go to as many bouts as possible as they are announced.
If there's a WFTDA team near you, I demand that you go check it out at once.
Here are some photos from last night's bout between the Boston Massacre and the Philadelphia Liberty Belles, themed "Slaughters of the Revolution!". (Sorry about the quality, it was very dark at the venue.)
Is it "Groundhog" or "Groundhog's" day? I never really knew for sure.
Anyway, this day is kind of a bizarre and pointless tradition, but this year ol' Phil has predicted an early Spring for the first time I can remember. I wonder if this has anything to do with global warming?
Ok well, it may be a silly day and a silly tradition, but the movie of the same name is one of my all-time favorites. Here's a politicized spoof by Tom Tomorrow. Enjoy!
1
comments 
Are you wondering why I put the word "new" in quotation marks? Here's why:
Oops, I'm sorry... I meant:
Screw you, Hollywood.
2. You won't believe what I saw last night (adding to the enormous pile of reasons that I detest television). A GMC Truck commercial, nothing extraordinary in its own right. Now, I think it's safe to assume that most of us have seen, and been at least moderately disappointed by, commercials (especially for cars) that feel the need to adopt classic rock anthems from years past in order to "relate" to the prime car-buying generation. We've heard The Who, Bob Seger, and countless others selling the rights to their songs, apparently along with their very souls, to The Man for a few bucks. It never fails to fill me with sadness and disappointment.
