Thursday, October 18, 2012

5 things about Taken 2


1. All I really wanted them to do was recreate Taken. If they had made the same movie, but with new fights, I would have been happy. What made Taken: The First Take is the Deepest so great was the straightforward premise, Liam Neeson coming out of nowhere (as far as I knew) as a late-life action star badass, and the gritty feel to the movie. This time around, they sacrificed a lot of the things that made the first one great. The premise undercut the effectiveness of the first film (more on this later) and Neeson was showing his age (still strong for 60!). Rather than keeping the look of the film grounded and gritty, the director opted for quick cuts and flashy camera tricks that only served to take me out of the film.

2. One of the things that made Taken 1: the Takening so effective was the randomness of the abduction. The feeling that this could literally happen to anyone, that we're all one bad event away from exiting middle class comfort and entering a nightmare world, is terrifying. The second film abandons this in favor of a revenge plot driven by the father of one of the human traffickers that Liam Neeson (I will not learn his character's name) killed in the first film. I've never savagely tortured or killed anyone, and I'm pretty sure no one in my immediate family has either. I will never be in a foreign country and, through no fault of my own, find myself in this situation. While this type of escalation made sense for a franchise like The Transporter (also produced by Luc Besson), which delights in its own ridiculousness and indulges in the necessity of a plot only to move the audience from one action set-piece to the next, it is clear that Taken wants us to care about its characters on some level. I suppose the upside of not being able to put myself in any of the character's shoes is that I no longer have to feel that the ability to savagely end lives with my bare hands is a prerequisite for starting a family.


3. Everything that wasn't Liam Neeson wrecking dudes was terrible. I don't expect great dialogue from a mindless action film, or even great acting, but when DREDD 3D has more believable characters than your film, you are fucking up. The characters might as well have stared into the camera and given testimonials, "This is my name. This is my one dimension showing I am good/bad. This is my relationship with Liam Neeson." Then they could have gotten right to Liam Neeson being Wolverine with no superpowers and cut 45 minutes out of the film that I could give a shit about.

4. Jesus Christ, the car chase scene. I can imagine the conversation in the editing room:

"I refuse to edit this scene to under 10 minutes. I love that it feels 2 hours long."
"But, we need to do something to make it more exciting. At least cut it down to feeling like 90 minutes."
"Fine... Oh, I've got it! In video games they sometimes have voice-overs of characters saying the same exact sound bite over and over again. What if..."
"I see where you're going! Let's have Liam Neeson say 'Go' and 'Faster' one million goddamn times to draw a stark contrast to how fucking slow this scene moves."
"Perfect!! If we pull this off, we'll have done the impossible: make the audience sick of Neeson's silky Irish voice!"
"Do you want to have them crash the car into the US Embassy at the end for literally no fucking reason?"
"You are a goddamn genius."



 



Please just pull the trigger, both of you.


5. If this movie is on FX, feel free to leave it in the background as you multitask. This will not be the movie you and your bros geek out about, the way you did for Taken. There is no awesome threatening monologue, though the speech from the first film is referenced often. But don't worry, it made its budget back in the first weekend and explicitly laid out the premise for a third film in the last ten minutes. See you in 1-3 years for Tak3n.


Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Artists Formerly Known as NFL

NFL SuperProdigy


Celine Deion Sanders

Aaron Rodgers and Hammerstein

Killa Cam Newton

Emmit The Smiths

Arian Foster the People

Jason Peters, Paul and Mary

Tony Ramones

Willis McgaHEEMS

KOOL ADrian Peterson

Calvin Mumford and Johnsons

Carly Ray Lewis Jepsen

AnamanaNdamukonguchi Suh

Kendrick Lamarr Woodley

Peyton Portugal, The Manning

Eli Gucci Manning

Archie Red Manning

D'Antwoord Jackson

Ryan KaLil Wayne

Roger G'Adele

RGM83

Dan MariNotwist

Mike DitKaskade

Charles FleetWoodson Mac

Kansas City Chief Keefs


New York They Might Be Giants

Jacksonville JaGWARs


I thought I was doing alright at this, but then Ashley put me to shame. She knows football way better than I do. Here are hers:


RG Three Six Mafia

Joe French Montana or Joe Hannah Montana

O.J. Jessica Simpson

Tim TeBow Wow or Tim TeBowling for Soup

Joe Flacco Seagulls or Joe Waka Flacco

Randall Cobbra Starship

Sugar Ray Lewis

Jars of Clay Matthew

Jerry Damien Rice

Randy Moss Def

Marshall Newhouse of Pain

Fat Tony Romo

A.J. Green Day

Miles Gene Austin or Miles Davis Austin

Bart Cobra Starship or Bart Black Star

Arian Foster the People

Cam'ron Newton

Russell Wilson Phillips or Leon Russell Wilson

Steely Dan Marino

Donald Driver-By-Truckers

Greg Waylon Jennings

Reggie Barry White or Reggie White Stripes or Reggie White Rabbits or Reggie Plain White T's

JJ Muddy Watters

Desmond BisHopsin

Casey Veggies Hayward

Matt HasselBeck

Troy AikMannheim Steamroller

Ben RoethlesberGershwin

Buffalo Springfield Bills

Whitney Houston Texans 

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

5 Things about Arbitrage


1. Arbitrage is a referendum on a transactional view of relationships. Robert Miller can only relate to people if he can buy them. His wife only stays with him because of the lifestyle it affords her. He can only relate to his children through his business- he reminds his daughter "you work for me," and his son, who has no business acumen, is referred to as an idiot and given minimal screen time. His daughter wonders what they would even talk about if they spent time together outside the office. His mistress is with him because he funds her art and provides her with a place to live. In each case, he gets what he wants by spending the massive amounts of money he has earned through his hedge fund, rather than through sincere interest or care for another human being. People are assets to be manipulated for gain. I know people, far less successful than Miller, that view the world this way and I could see their personalities reflected in Miller's relationship. 

What makes this movie cynical, and I think accurate, is that (*SPOILER ALERT*) Miller wins. Though it is at the cost of the relationships with his wife and daughter, the life of his mistress, and any integrity he might have once had; these things are secondary to the successful sale of his company and avoiding any direct personal harm.

2. Because Miller is purely objective-oriented at the expense of all else, he rarely exhibits sincere concern for another human being or regret. In fact he is often called out on it by the people closest to him. When he enters his birthday party at the beginning of the film he is handed gifts to give to his grandkids by his servants, missing the point that what matters is remembering the person and putting thought into their gifts, not the act of spending money. After giving a speech to his family about how they are "what's really important" his daughter observes that last time he gave a speech like that the company lost a huge deal and questions him about what is really going on. Whenever Miller says the word "sorry" it is always with the intent of getting something from the person he is talking to and often is followed by the promise of money or gifts to allay the anger being thrown at him.

He also uses the damage his actions would inflict on others as a way of avoiding responsibility for them. Whenever he is attacked for his illegal business practices he hides behind the damage that would be done to his shareholders, "real people would be hurt!!" Whenever he is taken to task for the way he is neglecting or mistreating his family for the sake of his business he claims that "everything I do is for this family!!" It is clear from the way that he sacrifices that his relationship with them that this is not a sincere sentiment. Concern and regret are nothing more than bargaining tactic to him.

3. That being said there are moments of sincerity for Miller. After the car crash that kills his mistress, Miller expresses sincere anger and frustration. None of this is in concern over the dead woman in his car, but rather over how this affects him and the pending sale of his business. In fact, he never expresses sincere regret over her death beyond how it affects his bottom line.

The only time he is truly happy in this movie is after negotiating the sale of his company at a table with a contract written on the back of a menu. After all the frustrations with the audit not being cleared, his car crash creating legal trouble, and his family falling apart; he has won what really matters to him- $525MM. He even tries to win the conversation afterwards: "What would you have paid?"
"$600. What would you have taken?"
"$475"
"Then we made a good deal"
"Yeah.... actually I would have taken $400"

4. Though Miller cynically treats his personal relationships as transactions where he can maximize his return for minimal effort, he is successful because everyone around him has a similar worldview. He is just far better at the "game" than they are. The policeman spearheading the investigation of the car crash was willing to falsify evidence and send an innocent man to jail in order to nail a "rich bastard to the wall." Miller wins because he is smarter, used to being lied to, and has the resources to expose the falsehood. Miller's wife tries to manipulate their daughter when she is most vulnerable in order to strip Miller of everything he has and reassert agency in her own life. She is outmaneuvered by Miller and ultimately her will is broken. Mayfield is just as skilled as Miller in manipulating events to drive down the price of Miller's company before making an offer. Once Miller convinces Mayfield that their objectives align, Mayfield is more than willing to overlook a $400MM hole in the books for the "greater good" of his stock price.

Miller's daughter, Brooke, is presented as a contrast to this philsophy. She realizes the books are being cooked and confronts her father about the $400MM hole in their accounting. Miller asserts his power over his daughter as an employer and a father and frames her exposing the lie as a choice between her integrity/career and her family. Their contrast in worldviews is displayed in the contrasted between his dark suit and her light dress. As she mulls over this information she is shown wearing black. Ultimately she succumbs to his worldview, accepting it even if she does not believe it, and we see her in a white dress that no longer means anything.

5. Jimmy is an important counterpoint to Miller in the film, because he is the one character that is defined by his integrity and cannot be bought. Jimmy's father had been Miller's driver. Miller calls on Jimmy for help after the car crash after years of being out of contact because, as the detective points out later in the movie, Jimmy is expendable to Miller. Jimmy repeatedly turns down offers of money as he sees doing the right thing as it's own end and will not take payment for it or take money to compromise his integrity.

The screen-writer manipulates the audience into rooting for Miller when his interests align with Jimmy's. When Miller is trying to prove Jimmy's innocence the audience wants him to get Jimmy off the hook for obstruction of justice because Jimmy is a shining beacon of morality. The sinking realization after he succeeds is that this was not done for Jimmy's benefit, but for Miller's. The good guy benefited, but the bad guy won.

At the end of the film Miller offers Jimmy money in order to assuage his guilt for nearly ruining his life. Jimmy is the one character who is able to take money from Miller without compromising his integrity, in fact he swears to do something good with it (open an Applebee's). Because of this Jimmy is the one character able to end this movie with a positive ledger, both financially and morally.


Arbytrage

Audit report says: See this film immediately.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

2012 Summer Olympics TV Shows

I'm good at photoshop


Mad About Usain Bolt

Party of 500 Meter Dash

It's Always Runny in Philadelphia

Everybody 40-Love Raymond

Say Yes to the Dressage

Breaking Badminton

Mountain BiKing of the Hill

Gilmore Girls Gymnastics

Sein-track and Feld

Malcolm in the Middleweight Boxing

The Odd Double Sculls

CSI: Canoeing Slalom International

Battlestar Galacticanoeing

TaekwonDon't Lie to Me

Missy Franklin & Bash

Ryan SherLochte

The Opening Ceremonies were S#*! My Dad Says

Monday, October 8, 2012

Virgin Mobile CatastroFree Fest 2012





Virgin Free Fest!! An all day music festival where the only barrier to entry was whether you could click "Purchase: $0.00" on Ticketfly during the 30 second window that tickets were available. I was really excited to see Future Islands, The Dismemberment Plan, Skrillex, M83, and, above all, Das Racist (with Lakutis and Le1f).

Das Racist was playing right as the festival started, so we would have to be there at 12:00 Noon. My girlfriend, Ashley, and I were catching a ride with my friend, rather than driving ourselves, so that we could get Drunkasaurus Rex. Little did we know *ominous lightning flash* things were not to go as planned.

Problem #1: No Tickets

Before taking the metro out of DC to meet my friend in Bethesda, I stopped by Fedex/Kinkos to print out our tickets because I was too absent minded to print them out at work and who the fuck has a printer anymore? Except, as I was scrolling down the confirmation email I noticed the fine print:

"Available for pickup starting 9/28. No charge. General admission tickets not picked up by close of business on 10/4 will be released to the general public on 10/5. Paid Freemium tickets may be picked up through show day."

It's October 6th. Fuck.

Luckily, my incredibly gracious and generous friend offered us her tickets and decided to spend the day with her family instead. Unfortunately she had been our ride which meant:

Problem #2: No ride

Well, I could drive myself but then I wouldn't be able to get "Music Festival Drunk." A condition that is necessary when dealing with smug high schoolers who remind you of your wasted potential and receding hairline even though you're not that old. Mid-twenties is still young goddamnit!!

Unfortunately, at this point everyone else's plans were solidified and I would have to face the (illegally) drunk youth totally sober. Well, more sober than I'd like. We bought a six pack for the parking lot before the Das Racist show and hit the road. Which is when we realized...

Problem #3: No bottle opener

We went for that fancyish Oktübierfæst beer, which unfortunately meant it was not a twist top. I had recently lost my keys, which meant I lost my bottle opener and Ashley could not find hers.

Oh well, we'd pick one up when we get food. Except...

Problem #4: Finding food on the way was impossible

At a certain point I realized I was going to have to settle for McDonald's (the second worst of the prolific fast food chains, behind Subway). But when we followed a sign that said Fast Food right off this exit, what it meant was 5-7 miles off the exit. And even then it wasn't on the main road, but off of side roads where there was no signage. Multiple exits led to driving in circles and lost time.

We finally did find a McDonald's (blegh) but then...

Problem #5: McDonald's doesn't serve Breakfast past 10:30 AM

I know this is a comedy clichè that has been pounded into the ground ever since Big Daddy came out, but it is still some bullshit. The only things that are any good at McDonald's are on the Breakfast Menu. Serving it all day would be like printing money.

After eating our shitty high-calorie, low-taste food we were able to get a kitchen-style bottle/can opener at the nearby gas station. But then...

Problem #6: Dropped the bottle opener, revealing uncomfortable truths about my car

When we got to the parking lot, we picked up our shiny old-timey utensil and promptly dropped it under my car seat. Digging around for it really drove home the extent to which I've treated my car as a trash can. Found items included:

A Dozen Water Bottles
A Dozen Taco Bell Sauce Packeys
9 Parking Tickets (paid)
1 Parking Ticket (unpaid)
40+ Receipts
∞ Gum Wrappers
A Tangerine that felt like a styrofoam ball but was just very aged fruit

But, we got those beers opened. After downing our first drinks we realized a group of our friends was parked right near us and went to engage in the pre-show ritual of front-loaded drinking for 30 minutes until Das Racist was scheduled to go on.

Then Ashley received a text message that said...

Problem #7: Das Racist cancelled their set

The light at the end of the tunnel had been extinguished. Beauty no longer had meaning. Hope was no longer a relevant concept. 

They had gotten sick and would not be able to play the show. Meaning we'd gone through all of this, ALL OF THIS, to ONLY see a half a dozen other bands I was really excited about!! Truly, we are living in the worst of all possible worlds.

....

Well, except that Future Islands was great.

And Dismemberment Plan was amazing.
And Santigold had a horse onstage with her.

And it was kind of funny that NAS only knew half the lyrics to his new songs.

And the beer was pretty reasonably priced, even if the food was expensive and shitty.

And I had an awesome time with some of my closest friends.

....

So, we'll call it a wash.

Friday, October 5, 2012

5 things about Looper






This is true for every review, but for this one especially: **SPOILERS ON**

1. Based on the trailers and general critical reaction I was pretty sure I would love this film. I was surprised by the reasons I loved it, though. I thought it would be hard sci-fi that left me thinking myself in circles, à la Primer. I was not expecting to feel so many things, so strongly. Bruce Willis has several scenes that got me emotional, but nothing comes close to the climactic scene of the film. When Syd is losing his temper and about to destroy everything and Sara calms him down telling him, "It's okay, I love you." Ripped my heart out. And then when they raised the stakes in that scene ever higher... my god. 

2. Joseph Gordon Levitt's performance was different than what I was expecting- in a good way. I've come to expect high profile actors to be the same character in every movie, but in different contexts. While Tom Cruise is sometimes a secret agent and sometimes a sports agent, he's always Tom Cruise. JGL was not himself in this movie, he was Bruce Willis; and his Bruce Willis impression was excellent. He either had prosthetics/makeup, CGI, or both altering his face but it worked. He was able to fully inhabit his character without me thinking on some level, "Hey, that's the guy from 10 Things I Hate About You."



3. Someone on Twitter made the point that Looper's portrayal of the future feels genuine- the future wouldn't come all at once, but in fits and starts. Huge futuristic glowing skyscrapers are juxtaposed against abject poverty and the same dingy brick strip clubs that we have now. Hoverbikes are available for purchase to those who can afford it, but people are still driving the aged versions of the cars we have today, retrofitted with pipes leading from solar panels on their roof into their gas tank. 30 years is too short a time span to completely obliterate our culture and aesthetics as we know them. The juxtaposition between old and new also seems to serve as a commentary on today's widening inequality. Aesthetically, it is what Dredd  3D attempted to be, but with far better execution.



4. Given that this movie seems to explicitly reject the idea of alternate time-streams (as evidenced by how Jeff Daniels deals with Seth not closing his loop), I struggle to make sense of the time loop that this movies plot rests on. The film addresses this confusion in the scene where Young Joe and Old Joe meet in the diner. Young Joe is trying to make sense of how he could affect the future of the man sitting across from him and Old Joe yells something to the effect of, "SHUT UP, IT DOESN'T MATTER!!" If this movie was any less entertaining I would call bullshit, but given how well done the film is I am willing to accept that as an explanation.



5. Looper is full of moments and revelations that re-contextualize what has come before. When you first hear Syd say that his mom died because he wasn't strong enough, you hear the common sentiment of a child who has experienced tragedy and can also see the groundwork being laid for his eventual life as a crime lord. Later when his powers are revealed, it seems as if what he is saying is that his powers were not yet strong enough to stop whoever harmed killed his "mother." In the scene where Syd kills the Gat and Sara tackles Young Joe out of the way to save him, we learn that what he really meant is he wasn't strong enough to stop himself, he lacked self-control. This completely re-contextualizes his earlier comments which gets to the heart of the nature vs. nurture and "would you kill Hitler as a baby if you could" debates presented in this film (along wiht many thers). In this same way, Old Joe is re-contextualized from hero to sympathetic villain. The way the plot is structured forces the audience to interact non-linearly with the events of the film, mirroring the time travel elements of the story. That my be a stretch, but I'm sticking with it.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

5 things about Dredd 3D



"DREDD IS ANGRY"
1. A movie where lawmen are trapped in a building and have to fight their way to the boss on the top level while also dealing with corruption on the force? I liked this movie a lot more when it had martial arts in it and was called The Raid. ZING!!


2. I loved the look of the city and the general aesthetic of the film. It was clear that this was the future, but it did look as if it was "built on the ruins of the old world," a phrase Dredd repeated (seemingly) endlessly. Slums with giant towers the size of several city blocks dotting the landscape with people crammed into them to the point of bursting. The aesthetic was basically Blade Runner but dirtier and more worn down. I could imagine this aesthetic coming to pass, which is what made it effective for me. The visual effects when people were on the drug "Slo-Mo" were also really cool (especially in 3-D), but I would argue that anything shown in slow motions is visually appealing.

"THIS IS MY ANGRY FACE"
3. The hook of this movie was a dystopian future with over the top violence and awesome action scenes, but they completely bungled the tone of this film. What I wanted was something ridiculous and fun-The sensibilities of "From Dusk Til Dawn" and "Total Recall" in a "Blade Runner" setting with an action movie pastiche. But... this movie just isn't fun. It is very violent, but never so over the top that it's funny (see: Dead Alive), or so awesome that it has you leaning forward in your seat (See: The Raid, even The Transporter films). It is a ridiculous movie that asks you to take it VERY SERIOUSLY but never gives you a reason why. I realize the same can be said for superhero movies but at least those characters represent a higher ideal. If Dredd represents anything it's the right-wing reaction to paranoia about inner-city crime.

"NO, THIS IS MY ANGRY FACE"

4. The one way this movie did try to be clever was its zingers, but they were terrible. Not in a "so bad, they're good" kind of way either. When Dredd is about to be shot he says "Wait" and then the corrupt judge about to waste him goes off for a good 1:30 about how pathetic it is that the much-lauded Dredd only has that to say as his last words. Dredd replies "No, wait for her to shoot you," as his partner takes the dude out with a shotgun. Except... there's no pun there. There's no way he could have known she was coming (she's the psychic, not him!). It's not clever. There's no real "FUCK YEAH" moment. So, it ends up being much less than the sum of it's parts. And that's just one example! The movie is full of terrible moments like that. Not as bad as Guy Pearce in Lockout, but I wanted Schwarzenegger in Commando. Hell, even Schwarzenegger in Batman & Robin would have been better.


"MY FACE HURTS SO MUCH FROM AGGRESSIVELY FROWNING"

5. I hated, hated, hated the ending. At the beginning of the movie they show us Ma-Ma shoving two guys off of a ledge a mile up after giving them Slo-Mo, so they will experience their deaths in slow motion. This is supposed to show the depths of her depravity. Are we supposed to believe that when Dredd does the exact same thing to her it's somehow OK because he wears a badge? They did not do a good enough job of establishing her as an overwhelming threat or hate-able character (relative to how much I hated every other character, at least) for me to feel that this was justified. It wasn't cathartic, it was unsettling. And the shot where the camera is the floor and we watch her face flatten into it- gross, dude.

"GODDAMMIT, MY MOUTH IS STUCK!! FROWN LINES EVERYWHERE!!"

JUDGEMENT: Do not see this. Especially do not spend $16 to see it in 3D like I did. (disclaimer: I have poor judgement).

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

5 things about Lawless



1. There were so many strong performances in this movie. Tom Hardy continues to be excellent in everything he's in and I even warmed up to Guy Pearce's off putting portrayal of a corrupt Chicago lawman. I would have loved more Gary Oldman. The cast only had one weak link- Shia Labeouf- and unfortunately the script relies on him to serve as the emotional center of the movie. I'm not sure if it's the prejudices I brought into this movie before hand, I've hated all his non-Even Stevens work, or if it was a function of the character he played, but I could tell I was supposed to feel empathy for him, but only felt a mild disgust. Rather than thinking "Jack Bondurant is falling victim to the follies of youth, in fact I can see my own mistakes reflected in his actions." I thought, "Wow, Shia Labeouf really comes off like an asshole." I want to emphasize, this is the best performance I've ever seen him give. Given the central role LaBeouf's character has in the film, this directly undercuts its emotional impact. Because of this I did not like this movie nearly as much as I wanted to, or felt I should have.


2. In the film Jack Bondurant's older brother's challenge him to do whatever it takes to protect his family. At the end of the movie we are supposed to believe he rises to this challenge when he finally takes up a gun and shoots a crazed Guy Pearce to death. The nature of this action, however, is fundamentally different than what his brothers have been pushing him to do. When his brothers act, in a brutal and decisive fashion, it is always to protect their family from harm or limit further harm. What Jack does, does not protect the people he cares about- his best friend has been killed, his boot-legging business dismantled and he has just watched his older brother (and hero) presumably shot to death. He is not acting out of a sense of loyalty nor out of any limiting principle. At this point the actions taken against him are irreversible and Guy Pearce's character has already been rendered incapable of hurting them further within the bounds of the law. Since Jack has waited past the point where he can prevent or limit harm to his family, he is not protecting his family but only acting out of malice and a desire for revenge. While Guy Pearce's death is a moment of emotional catharsis for the audience, Jack Bondurant has fallen short of his brother's test.

3. The symbolism in this movie was heavy handed to say the least. Jack and Cricket are about to enter a violent confrontation- cut to two chickens fighting! Jack is taking the girl he likes on a care free ride in his new car- cut to horses galloping through the countryside, directly evoking the conversation he just had about his car's horsepower! A conversation about how the laws and rules in Franklin county are different then other places is wrapping up- cut to the bridge over the river that serves as the county line! Have the lighting darken... ominously. Have the final confrontation on that very bridge! I did not necessarily think it was a bad thing, but it's overbearing nature did sometimes take me out of the reality of the film.

4. This was a movie where terrible things happened to people constantly. After the the rape scene (off camera and implied, but chilling) I started bracing myself for something jarring every time a character had a smile on their face. The fact that these moments were not actually that predictable, and long stretches would go with relatively little hardship, made the moments of inhumanity that much more off-putting. This is not a movie that believes in the intrinsic goodness of man. It was... more than a little uncomfortable (which, of course, was the intent).

5. I don't know if this was intentional, but I think the climactic scene illustrated why gun control is important. The showdown at the bridge was tense but ultimately resolvable, especially as the local police were coming over to Jack's side in taking on Guy Pearce. The addition of the older Bondurants, armed with guns, is what elevated the situation to lethal. When the entire town showed up with shotguns any chance of this being talked through, or casualties being limited to just the villain, were dashed. Guns did not serve as a deterrent because there was no Mutually Assured Destruction. Instead they served only to escalate the conflict. In conclusion- guns are not nuclear weapons.

*Steps off soap box*

I would recommend this movie, but only on Netflix Instant.

LAWLESS!!

Monday, October 1, 2012

30 Day Challenge #1: Write Every Day


Inspired by Morgan Spurlock and my general sense of creative ennui, I've decided to start issuing myself 30 day challenges. Basically I'm going to have to do, or not do, something for 30 days straight in an attempt to force myself to follow through on my creative/fitness/dietary goals. Mostly the first category, since the third is doomed to failure. The idea is that at the end of the 30 days I will carry some of these actions forward as habits, or choose to reject them completely.

My first goal: Write (on the internet, this blog in particular) every day.

Why?
I miss writing, a lot, and I'm only getting worse at it the more I don't do it. I used to get a lot of joy out of articulating a point of view through the written word, or at least writing a dumb joke that I thought was funny. The more time that passes since I've done it, the worse I get at it and the more intimidating writing becomes. I figure the more writing I do, the better I'll get at it and the less fucks I'll give about what anyone else thinks.

I chose to put it out on the internet like this, rather than just doing it, in order to shame myself into actually following through.

Perceived Challenges:
The biggest one is discipline. In college, contrary to the stereotype, I was highly disciplined: up every day at 6:30 AM, started all my papers 2 weeks in advance, juggled 3 or 4 full time responsibilities and still made time for what I wanted to do. As the things I "have" to do have turned into things I only "want" to do, my discipline has atrophied to the point of nonexistence. There's so many more passive ways to occupy my time- alcohol, netflix, comics. Creating something, even something that requires a relatively low amount of effort, may be more fulfilling in the long run but still takes far less mental energy than pressing play on hulu.

Secondly, topics. I used to feel like I had a strong, well articulated point of view on everything. Experience and alcohol have beaten a lot of the self-importance and higher cognitive function out of me. I'm actually looking forward to the daily scramble for inspiration. I may write some stuff that is legit crap, but it will help me get better, right? ... Right?

Hopeful takeaway:
Focus on process over product. In other words, if I write something about a subject, it doesn't have to be THE DEFINITIVE take on it. Hopefully I'll have some insight and the final product wont't be terrible, but really what I'm hoping is to get something out of having written it and to better understand how I think about things. 

Also, to realize that the most important readership is me. No one reads my blog anyway, so it's not like I'm letting some huge audience down or putting sponsorships that put food on my table in jeopardy. I'm not going to get any better at writing, or any more enjoyment out of it, by getting really worked up and worried about it a lot and then not actually acting on it. The only things I've ever created that people like are things that I didn't care if people liked- I did them because I liked them. That may be a trite "insight," but it's still true.

....


This counts as entry #1.