So, what do I mean by "Benchmark Films"? Pretty easy, really. These are movies that I use to help me gauge a person's taste in movies. Based on a person's reaction to these ten movies, I feel like I can get a pretty good understanding of what types of films they enjoy. If you agree with my viewpoints on these films, then we're likely to enjoy most of the same films. If you disagree... then you're wrong. OK, not really. Only partially...
First off, the conditions. Actually, there are none - any movie is fair game. Keep in mind the following things though:
Without further ado, let's see the list:
Well, this is a pretty dumb entry, right? I mean, everyone loves these films, right?
Not so fast. This is a surprisingly good set of benchmark films. For example, I often hear the following types of comments regarding the LOTR films:
Statements like these help me determine if someone is capable of enjoying a good film, not just watching an entertaining movie. If a film's length, genre, or style of adaptation is enough (on its own) to prevent one from watching or enjoying it, then that is a shame indeed.
This gem by Paul Thomas Andersen embodies just about everything I love in a movie. A fantastic cast. Stellar performances from each character. A wonderful soundtrack. A mesmerizing script which intricately weaves a story that ties together the lives of complete strangers. And just a touch of absurdity to leave you wondering what is really going on. It's the kind of movie I crave. Yet some people give this movie a hard time because it has no "plot". I guess I could see how someone might say that - there is no central event, central character (though this is debatable), or any overriding theme. It merely follows the life of several people through the course of one bizarre day.
To me, a movie doesn't have to be about something or someone. If it is written and acted well, it can be extremely enjoyable.
This film is without a doubt the weirdest thing I've ever seen in my life. I have seen it multiple times, and I can still say with certainty that I don't know for sure what it's about. But the real appeal of this movie is exactly that - deciding for yourself what's going on. After watching it I spent several hours reading about it online, perusing discussions about what others have thought about it, and reconciling those viewpoints against my own impressions of the film. Some people would consider this a waste of time - what good is a movie if you don't know anything about it after you've watched it? I look at it as an opportunity to go explore it further using other mediums, such as the Internet. The film is a good measure of whether or not you can enjoy a movie that makes you think, as well as one's ability to appreciate something they might not understand at all.
This is a "negative-benchmark" entry: one of the films on this list that I absolutely detest. Why? Well, where do I start? How about a stupid, completely unrealistic plot? How about Vin Diesel and a shotty cast doing a horrible acting job? How about a complete lack of creative writing, opting instead to rip-off decades of James Bond-esque plot devices? I could go on and on. People who like this kind of film typically like to see dazzling special effects and a film in which they can turn off their brain, leave the real world at the theater door, and just watch stuff happen. That's not my ideal movie experience.
This movie makes the list primarily for one reason: it's my favorite movie. I think the most notable thing about it is that it does many things, and does them all well. Unbelievable martial-arts choreography. Breathtaking cinematography and set design. A touching story about honor, duty, and redemption. A timeless love story. It is a joy to watch from beginning to end.
This is really the only comedy on the list, but it is a great benchmark comedy film - probably because it isn't full of cookie-cutter humor. It breaks the mold of the traditional comedy, and is probably as sentimental and nostalgic as it is funny. The humor is subtle, yet ever-present; understated and absolutely clever. There's a world of difference between a film like this and something like "Airplane!", and when I meet a person who loves this film I can usually count on them having a pretty good sense of humor.
Tarantino's best film is a great benchmark movie, simply because it shows off the best of his work, which often embodies so many things that make movies great. He has a knack for dialogue - while his movies often have a pretty high-octane plot, it usually serves as filler for the character development and the dialogue, which is always top-notch. He is also the master of movie music. Chances are, if you like Tarantino films, we're going to get along just fine.
Here is another movie with a wonderful script and excellent acting, but I use it as a benchmark for open-mindedness. Many people have criticized it for excessive violence, as well as for its focus on a specific portion of Jesus' life (the crucifixion) rather than his whole life. It is undoubtedly a difficult movie to watch, and will likely have a powerful emotional effect on the viewer. To me, this is what movies are all about - to elicit emotion and feeling, whether pleasant or not. Some people seem to watch movies for the sheer entertainment value, in which case this would definitely not be a movie for them.
The best film by filmmaking genius Stanley Kubrick. There is a lot of obvious stuff here that could scare away the delicate viewer. Plenty of language. Plenty of sex (or at least nudity). Plenty of violence. Scary british accents with plenty of bizarre jargon. And ultimately, a story about a raping and murderering protagonist, and how he becomes transformed.
So why is it so great? I don't know - how do you put Kubrick's work into words? Just see it for yourself and see what you think. I think you'll find that you'll either love it or hate it, which pretty much makes it a great benchmark film to me.
Here is the other movie on this list that I just don't like. I think many people agree with me here. This is a very polarizing film - take a person who loves this film, and a person who detests it, and I would assert that they probably won't agree on many movies. It's such a sappy film. They basically bet the farm on the romance between the main characters, and sell out on everything else. It is utterly inaccurate in its depiction of history. Despite the amount of dialogue, the characters suck and their lines are cheesy. The filmmakers insult the audience with the simplicity of the story, expecting that you'll buy into the love story and forget everything else. Well I for one didn't buy into it. I guess what I'm really getting at here is that my movie tastes are slightly different from those of a 14-year-old girl...
Now, one last thing. You might be thinking "Lighten up Shaun, not every movie is intended to be an Oscar-caliber film." That's certainly true, and I understand the need for all types of different movies. But the one thing I expect from any movie I watch is quality. Name any genre of film, and I'll name you some quality films - good writing, good acting, good story all-around. Even "stupid comedies" (like "Tommy Boy", "Bring It On", and "Can't Hardly Wait") or "popcorn blockbusters" (like "Ocean's Eleven", "Training Day", and "Kill Bill") are held to this standard - they may not be epic dramas, but they are all good movies. No movie gets a free pass for crappiness in my book.
So, any comments on these films? What films do you use as your benchmarks?
Well, the hammer has fallen and Tech's basketball season has come to an abrupt end. After a thrilling first-round victory over the fastest basketball team I've ever seen (George Washington), it looked like Tech was poised for another deep tournament run. But they ran into an unstoppable force called Louisville, who was not to be denied. Here's a recipe for disaster: Add a liberal amount of poor shooting by Tech, sprinkle in a majority of rebounds for Louisville, and top it off with the Cardinals shooting lights-out all night... it adds up to a beatdown, which is exactly what we got. One thing's for sure: we could have played our very best that night and still not won. Anyways, the most important thing is not the game, or even the fact that we didn't win it all (not like I ever really expected that) - but that the loss marked a major turning point for our team. With the graduation of Elder, Bynum, McHenry, Schenscher, and the probable departure of Jack, Tech's team will look completely different next year.
I've never really been a big enough basketball fan to really get attached to a team or a group of players (with the exception of David Robinson - see previous blog entry), but this team was different. There was something about them - they just had so much heart. I didn't realize how sad it would be to say goodbye to them until I realized it was coming to a close, that they'd never play in the white-and-gold again, that a major chapter in Tech sporting history was over. I think they meant so much to me because they really re-introduced me to basketball. Two years ago, I was so removed from the sport that I never watched any basketball, NBA or college, and didn't even bother with the tournament. But this team has accomplished so much, and represented our school so well, that it is virtually impossible to not love this group of fighters. I thank them for choosing Tech, for their dedication to the game, for being superb role models and true student-athletes, and most of all for their storybook run to the NCAA Championship game that I will never forget. Best of luck boys...
Now, onto more "serious" matters. There are a couple of big national news stories that are generating intense controversy, but their solutions seem so simple to me, that I can't help but share where I'm coming from. Mainly, I just want to vent about people and how they completely miss the point. Here are two case studies for your perusal - you be the judge:
Terry Schiavo
If you haven't heard this story, you must be hiding in a hole. Here are the basics: Mrs. Schiavo suffered a rare disease in 1990 that caused her brain damage and has relegated her to a permanently vegetative state. Her husband, who says that she told him (before she became ill) she would not want to be kept alive artificially, desires to have her feeding tube removed so that she can die peacefully, according to her wishes. Her parents and family, however, contest this, stating that Terry did not have any such stipulations and would want to live. They contest that she shows signs of cognizance and that she could potentially come out of her state and recover.
Politicians and conservatives from across the country are protesting the removal of the feeding tube, which has been ordered and enforced by the courts, despite numerous overturned rulings that have resulted in multiple re-insertions of the tube. It looks now that there are no more avenues and that the tube, which was removed earlier this week, won't be going back in. It will likely take two weeks for Terry to die peacefully from dehydration.
Now, usually I agree with the "religious right" - mainly because I identify myself with this group, especially in the area of social issues. I see where they're coming from, attempting to protect the sanctity of life and the rights of a woman who can't fight for herself. But in this case, I'm going to disagree with their position, and here's why. It seems pretty simple to me:
I'm amazed that the public is seeing this as "sanctioned murder". If she hadn't made her wishes clear, then that would be a different matter. If she had any hope for recovery, then that would also be a different matter. But as it stands, it's more an issue of honoring the legal status of the guardian rather than the "murder" of a defenseless woman. That's just propaganda used to galvanize the troops and gather support from those who don't really comprehend the issue. The other thing that drives me crazy is the misinformation here. Many people mistakenly think that when the feeding tube is removed that she will die of starvation, and they equate that with a painful and inhumane death. But 30 seconds of web searching reveals that, according to doctors, her eventual cause of death will be dehydration, and it will actually be extremely peaceful, although not overly rapid. And maybe that's a good thing anyways - it will give the family a (long) chance to say goodbye and make peace. But I really feel that this is a case of a family using the legal system to hold onto something that's already gone, and as such it makes me mad.
Ward Churchill
Shifting gears completely, this is a story (exposed primarily by Bill O'Reilly) of a University of Colorado professor who is distinctly anti-American. We all have a right, as citizens of this country, to voice dissent and disapproval for our nation, but Churchill seems to have gone too far. In an article written for a local newspaper, he talked about how those innocents who died in the 9/11 bombing deserved their fate, and were hardly innocent. Here is an excerpt from his article:
Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.
Now, this is crazy talk. Sure, you can make an argument that much of the antagonism directed at America is due to its capitalistic nature and its view of itself and the rest of the world. But calling the secretaries and stock brokers and businessmen inside the World Trade Center "little Eichmanns" (a reference to the Nazi "Chief Executioner") is over the line. As a result of O'Reilly breaking the story wide open, Churchill is facing a lot of heat, has already resigned his post as head of the ethics department (???), and might lose his job as a professor at Colorado.
Now, not surprisingly, many far-left crazies and members of the academia are rushing to Churchill's aide, citing the noble causes of "free speech" and "academic freedom". In fact, many schools have scheduled Churchill for paid visits to their schools to talk about his ideas! They are also hiding behind the idea of academic freedom, suggesting that they should not limit their choices of speakers because people should be allowed to say what they want. Many have argued that the school should be sued if they fire Churchill for restricting his free speech.
This kind of thinking drives me craaaaaaaaazy. I mean, how stupid are these people? This is NOT an issue of free speech! Free speech means the right to say what you want. Nobody is saying Churchill can't say what he wants. Now, if someone was threatening to lock him up in jail for his comments, then I would come to his aid under the banner of free speech. But his freedom is not in question here. So talking about free speech is a moot point. Now, onto the topic of academic freedom. In general, this is a good idea. A college campus should be a haven for diverse thought, encouraging many viewpoints and teaching students to think critically. However, the idea of academic freedom does not preclude common sense.
Academic freedom does not mean a school has to invite anyone and everyone to speak at their school. Would any school in America invite Adolf Hitler to speak, were he still alive? How about Osama bin Laden? Of course not. Some things are going too far, especially when those things threaten to ruin the reputation of the school. You can invite someone to speak about the dangers and ill-effects of American capitalism without inviting someone to equate dead innocents with Nazis. All he is doing is causing pain and suffering to the families of 9/11 victims, and these schools are perpetuating this by inviting him to their campus and paying him for the trip. What should happen is that Colorado should fire him (despite his tenure) because he has clearly demonstrated incompetence in the workplace in his inability to separate propaganda from rational thought. Will this happen? Probably not, because the ultra-liberal misfit wing of America, led by the completely misguided ACLU, will turn this into a free speech witch-hunt and will threaten the school with so much litigation that they'll have no choice but to back down.
So, any differing viewpoints out there? I'd be curious to hear some of your own thoughts on these things...
The NCAA Tournament starts tomorrow - one of the greatest events in sports, right after Bowl Week, Wimbledon and the US Open. So much is special about the Big Dance. There's the sheer audacity of the whole thing - 64 teams, fighting it out until only one remains (after all, that's the American Way!). Then there's the Cinderella Factor - the fact that many small schools get a berth in the tournament (and earn a right to play for the National Championship) by winning their conference's championship, some for the first time in their school's history. When you put hungry and eager teams like that into a tournament, they're bound to cause some upsets and generate some shocking moments. But for me, the most important thing is that my alma mater Georgia Tech is in the tourney, is peaking at the right time, and has a decent shot to make it to the Final Four again...
I wish I could get some tickets and go see them like last year, but the timing just isn't right. I must admit that it was special getting to see Tech's early-round match last year, if only to say that I got to see them live during their march to the National Championship game. This time, I'll have to be watching from the TV, but rooting just as hard.
If you want to see the answer key for the tournament (ie: my bracket picks), click here. Or, if you'd rather see what the Magic 8 Ball thought about this year's field, have a look. Note that you won't be able to view these until after the Tourney starts on Thursday...
In other news, maybe you saw that our American tennis team lost in the first round of Davis Cup action to Croatia. There are several sad things about this. The first of which is that you probably didn't know this. Why has tennis not caught on in America? I don't get it. In most countries, it's like cocaine. This is why I can sympathize with soccer fans - the rest of the world is crazy for it, but America just doesn't get it. What gives...
The second sad thing is that our team, composed of two of the best singles players in the world (Andy Roddick and Andre Agassi), and arguably the best doubles team in the world (Bob/Mike Bryan), lost essentially to one man. Ivan Ljubicic beat Agassi handily on Thursday, teamed with one of his partners to beat the Bryans on Friday, then beat Roddick on Saturday. I'm not crazy about the fact that you can essentially have one guy represent your "country" and play in every match, but them's the rules. Regardless, there's no excuse for such a poor performance from the American team, especially on our home soil! - the first time America had ever lost a first round match at home. Ever.
The saddest part about the whole thing is that Agassi's loss could conceivably have been his last Davis Cup match ever. This is a segue into a more thorough diatribe, regarding the passing of all of my sports heroes. When I was growing up, there were several athletes that I really looked up to and drew inspiration from - basically one per sport. The teams which they played for became the teams which I still love and support to this day. Here are those athletes, in no particular order:
I was very lucky in that all of my heroes exhibited impeccable character and showed great longevity throughout their careers - meaning that I got to watch them for a very long time. What's interesting is that they all seem to be leaving their respective sports around the same time. Robinson retired two years ago. Lemieux, Rice and Agassi are still competing, but all three are undoubtedly near the end of their careers. If I had to guess, I would say that all of them will be retired within two years.
Rice and Agassi are definitely my two favorites, perhaps because tennis and football are my two favorite sports. It's conceivable that they could both be gone after next year. That would be quite a blow to me. Maybe those who don't identify with sports can't really understand this, but these men have been a part of my life since childhood - I practically feel like I know them, like I've travelled through the highs and lows (and real lows with Agassi) together. Rice is an inspiration in everything he does - his commitment to excellence, his work ethic, his teamwork. With Agassi, I followed him from rebellious youth, to disillusioned adult, to reborn, committed powerhouse. It's been a thrilling ride, and I don't want it to end.
But things happen, life goes on, and I guess it's time for me to move on. They will always remain important to me though, because each had a part in shaping my childhood and adolescence. One thing is for sure - when the time comes for them to step away, each of them will leave impossibly large shoes to fill....