#009 - The Girlfriend Experience (2009)

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Writer: David Levien & Brian Koppelman

Runtime: 78 min

I'd like to preface this review by stating that a huge part of my basis for seeing this film was another film I have seen recently, called 9 to 5: Days In Porn (link) at the Philadelphia Film Festival. It was a documentary on the rather seedy side of porn, not the more stereotypical platinum-blonde-and-implant side. And when I saw Soderbergh was making a feature starring one of the major players in that doc, the up-and-coming superstar Sasha Grey, I guess I fell right into the trap that was set for everyone, and I had to see the movie myself.

For a guy who has made such thin, formulaic studio vehicles like the Ocean's movies, Soderbergh definitely has a knack for putting together some of the most starkly objective narratives of his generation. Sex, Lies and Videotape, Full Frontal, Bubble, and now The Girlfriend Experience sort of have this way of shouting, "I'm going to make movies that are as far removed from Hollywood stereotypes, that I might even sacrifice story to do so." Okay, that might be an overstatement, and a denigration to Soderbergh's talents. Bubble was actually a terrific movie, one that I enjoyed far more than The Girlfriend Experience. The primary reason I think was story. Nothing really happens in GFE, which sadly is starting to become a trend in movies I've seen. Sasha plays "Chelsea"/Christine, an upscale call girl who provides the full "girlfriend experience" to her clients, which means spending hours/days together, sleeping together (actual sleeping), kissing on the mouth (take that Julia), talking, the works. She's got a bunch of obscenely wealthy clients, but at her age (what, 21?) she's starting to get concerned about competition from newer, more exotic girls, so she's expanding her options to try and increase revenue. Oh, and she also has a real boyfriend. He's a personal trainer, and intentionally or not, their stories mirror each other. They both are paid hourly. They both are paid very WELL hourly. They both receive advances from their clients (solicited or not). And they're both trying to increase their exposure, increase their income, find more stable footing in a treacherous economic landscape--with one catch: neither of them seems willing to do anything to achieve it. They just expect it. Unfortunately as a viewer this causes a lot of problems, because there is no compass to center yourself with. Initially I felt sympathy for Chris (the boyfriend) because he was allowing "Chelsea" to live her life and he still cared for her deeply. But in a couple of scenes towards the middle, most notably when he propositions the manager at his gym, he comes off as a complete ass, and personally I feel the movie spirals downwards after that.

Sasha's acting is decent. In truth, her character is kind of cold and lifeless, with a belief in astrology as her only quirk (and it is only skimmed over in dialogue). The caveat here is that the other characters in the film SAY that she is cold and lifeless, meaning she either nailed the role, or it was a cover-up for the fact that she's a pretty girl with no charisma.

I don't know. I was sort of reeled in by the intrigue surrounding this movie (and the trailer's kickin' soundtrack) but in the end it was only a little more than sparse narrative and flat character development. What does that mean? It means I don't regret watching it, and certainly if you're a Soderbergh fan you should check it out, but even at a little over an hour I have no intentions on checking it out again.

#008 - LG: A Sign of the Apocalypse?

I just found out my cell phone (the Verizon LG Dare) lets me type the word "suprise" using the T9 feature. It doesn't put up any resistance as it usually does when it can't find any matching words for the sequence of buttons pushed. When you punch those keys, "suprise" is the first word given.

This made me think what other words might be in there, just to see how little credit the manufacturers were willing to give today's cell phone spellers.

Of course, one of these words is "definately".

Unfortunately, I wasn't really able to find any others.

This has turned into a pretty useless blog post.

Edit: "recieve"

#007 - Land of the Free, Home of the Straight

I'm not gay (insert your "Really? Are you sure?" joke here) but I can't for the life of me understand why so many people have this alarming hate towards gay people. I mean, yeah, I don't think I'd really want to share a bed with a gay dude, but walk down the street with him? Sit next to him on a bus? Vote in favor of his right to be happy? Any of these things would do.

The California State Supreme Court upheld the ban on same-sex marriage. You already know this. But why? I mean, really, why? I kind of want to have a discourse on this matter, and while I'm sure there are plenty of websites out there that explain the conservative reasoning on it, I just don't feel like searching for them right now. But it kind of boggles my mind.

A) Isn't California supposed to be liberal? What's going on out there? Republican Governator, no gay marriage... I think the state is starting to feel some of the backlash from the art set's decision to spurn the sunshine for the Big Apple. And while the Supreme Court's decision is saddening, you can't really fault them for upholding a decision that the residents already voted on.

B) How much can gay people getting married have an impact on the daily lives of our citizens? Seriously. I live in a city, I'm fresh out of college, I like to act, you would think of all people, I'd be in the prime demographic for interaction with homosexuals. And the reality is, it almost never happens. I'm sure I talk to some gay people, probably unknowingly, but really their lives don't affect my life one bit. Why the hell would I want to go out of my way to affect THEIR lives?

C) How's murder doing? Drug abuse? Have we cut down on those things? How's the economy? I guess since everything else in the country is going so well, we should focus our collective energies on taking away some people's marriage privileges. With all of the negative shit going on in our country, why is it the only thing that's getting banned is marriage? I mean really? You can purchase and carry a handgun whereever the hell you want, including a national park (thank you log rolling), but instead of revoking someone's ability to fire metal projectiles into the body cavities of others, we're revoking someone's ability to profess their love for a person they care deeply about. That's right, that makes perfect sense.

(You totally thought I was going to go with some sort of lewd innuendo after that metal projectile line, didn't you? Get your mind out of the gutter.)

Seriously though. I just throw my arms up. I mean, really people, is this what you want to go down in history as? Generation XY-XX NO SUBSTITUTES. I don't like ranting, I feel this has become a rant, and honestly I'd like to reel it back a little bit. There are people out there who don't like gay people. There are tons of them. But could you imagine what it would be like if there were votes to take away certain privileges from straight people? (I keep wanting to say "rights" but apparently it's been made clear marriage is a privilege, not a right) It would seem ludicrous right? You can't do something just because you're straight? UNBELIEVABLE! My roommate Jon made a great point last night. He proposed the thought that white male college graduates couldn't marry, and how livid he would be if that happened. What's the difference with same-sex couples? Guess what, they're people too. In fact, if you didn't KNOW someone was gay, you wouldn't know they're any different than you are. They just happen to want to spend their time with someone of their same gender.

And with the current state of the marriage institution in this country, let's face it, they might be on to something.

#006 - The Limits of Control (2009)

Director: Jim Jarmusch

Writer: Jim Jarmusch

Runtime: 116 min

I wish I could say more about this movie. I really do. I like Jim Jarmusch, I think Broken Flowers and Coffee & Cigarettes are both terrific movies. They're hilarious, and I think Jarmusch himself even put in a solid comedic turn in the Wayne Wang films Smoke and Blue in the Face. But The Limits of Control is not funny. Not really, at least. It's sparse. The lead (Isaach de Bankole) barely speaks any words and is never named. It's a definite aesthetic, and I feel it somewhat mirrors Mulholland Drive, except there's not as much payoff.  Whereas Mulholland Drive was metaphorical and certainly had as many interpretations as viewers, it didn't seem like there was much of any underlying tale to be inferred from The Limits of Control--a hired assassin travels through Spain to eventually find his target, throughout the course of his journey meeting mysterious cosmopolitans for single-sitting conversations, trading tiny matchboxes and cryptic messages. It's certainly interesting to see the cameos (Gael Garcia Bernal, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt) but their conversations are just as cryptic as the handwritten symbols, about art, science, music. As a vignette-based piece, it's mildly interesting, as a feature narrative, it doesn't really LEAD anywhere. I don't mean to claim that I could do better, but I believe Jarmusch could do better, and has. It's not a horrible movie, just one that I wouldn't necessarily recommend.

#005 - Weird, interesting stat

In Game 1, Lebron was +7 (+/-), Varejao was +8, and Ilgauskas was +12.

And no Magic player had a better +/- than +4 (Pietrus).

Weird, interesting stat #2 -- The Cavs had more steals (8 to 5), more blocks (7 to 1) and far fewer turnovers (5 to 13), while attempting more free throws (17 to 14).  That's not the recipe for a home-court loss, fellas.

#004 - I welcome my second follower...

...his  name is Dwight Howard.

He must have read my blog earlier, decided he wanted to flush my face down the toilet middle school-style, and came out with the most impressive offensive performance of his career. In Game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals, no less. He made all kinds of bank shots, hooks, baby hooks, runners, dunks, layups, and nifty up and unders, though most of his impressive moves were against Ilgauskas, who I did predict was going to be less than effective.

I'm thoroughly impressed with the Magic's victory, and astonished that they could have done it in a game in which they were trailing by 15 at halftime. The Cavs threw the gauntlet down in the first half, and first quarter especially, but as opposed to the what I imagine the Celtics (whom I was excited to see in this series just for the possibility of a 45-point Cavs Game 1 victory) would have done, the Magic showed resiliency. They got better. Cleveland, also, got worse. But that's besides the point. Having seen Lebron palm the ball and stand isolated with a defender for 8-10 seconds the whole game, Van Gundy decided with 14 seconds left and a 1 point lead to throw caution to the wind, and it paid off. He ran Gortat straight towards Lebron, straight towards a guard standing 5 feet beyond the 3-point line, just begging James to zip it underneath. Of course, he didn't, and by some sheer force of luck or momentary genius, the Magic prevented James from attempting a shot in the last 14 seconds of a 1-point game. 

Don't think that will happen often, Stan. But pat yourself on the back for it and move on to Game 2. Lebron played his ass off, and while he deserves credit for being the entire Cavaliers team in this game, his stall-ball offense in the second half might have contributed to the shakiness of his teammates down the stretch.

Now, I fully expect the Cavaliers to come out in Game 2 and mop the floor with Orlando. This series will probably go 6 games now, instead of the 5 I was imagining earlier, but there is one kind of sickening question that lingers in the back of my head after Game 1:

If Lebron puts up 49, 6, and 8 on 20/30 shooting and the Cavs still lose... how in the hell are they going to survive this series?

#003 - Come on, De-wight, Get Some Rebounds!

In honor of my first "follower", Mr. Dan Tao, I will post something which he probably has very little interest in.

Dwight Howard.

Come on, De-wight. No, actually, rebounding is not the problem. You're getting plenty of rebounds, playing like a beast on defense, and are by all accounts a freak of nature, probably the result of some sort of underhanded government science program. You're charismatic, you got robbed like there's no tomorrow in the dunk contest (which you single handedly have made relevant again) and you're not getting a whole heck of a lot of credit for the fact that your team has Rafer Alston, Hedo Turkoglu, Rashard Lewis, and not a single passable power forward, and yet everyone is playing enough DEFENSE to make it to Eastern Conference Championship. Take a look at those names again. Take a long look. These guys are historical me-first, offensive-minded players. They're great players, don't get me wrong. But they're not the most vicious defenders. And everyone credits KG for the marvelous work he did getting a bunch of has-beens and never-weres to play defense like a pack of rabid mongooses. But not a lot of people credit Dwight or Stan Van Gundy for getting the Disney Drainers to give a crap on the defensive side of the ball. Right now all I'm hearing is "they're playing below their potential, blah blah blah." Maybe they are playing below their potential, and they shouldn't have struggled so much with Philly, but they beat the Celtics in Boston in Game 7. And handly. So take that to the bank and smoke it.

Dwight Howard deservedly won Defensive Player of the Year. I really don't care what anyone else says. It's not really fair for Lebron to win MVP AND Defensive, and in addition, Howard has had a more individual influence on opposing teams' offensive strategy. Lebron affects your game plan because you're just generally shitting your pants that he's on the court with you. Dwight is tenacious when it comes to protecting the rim. As Kendrick Perkins can attest to, it takes superior athletic skill, a cauldron full of good luck, and supremely foul body odor for a big man to score easily on Howard.

Now that I've sufficiently buttered him up, here's what I don't entirely get about the Howard/SVG/Magic/Sportswriters dynamic going on right now--

Why is it that everyone seems to be in on this conspiracy that says Howard needs to have touches in the post?

He's just not a refined post player right now. The guy is like 23 years old, just starting to come into his fully developed physique, getting a handle on being "The Man" down in Orlando, his post skills are something that have yet to develop. It's not wrong. Big men typically hone their moves over the course of time, very very few come into the game as mature as Olajuwon or Duncan. When Shaq entered the league, his only real move was drop step and dunk. By the time he hit his prime with Kobe in LA, Shaq had an arsenal of low post moves and a ridiculous touch from inside 10 feet (yet still the stone hands from the line). I think somehow everyone is convinced that it would be offensive to Dwight to admit this, but the reality for young players in the NBA is that they can't do EVERYTHING. Teams would let Lebron shoot anything he wanted from the outside two years ago. They would probably let him shoot anything he wants from out there now, but only because it's a better alternative to easy layups and foul trouble. He's worked on that. He has accepted the honest critique throughout his career that he's not a great jumpshooter and if he wants to become Jordan, he should get in the gym and put up 1500 shots a day. So he's done that. Er, he's DOING that. He's on his way.

Howard just doesn't have a refined post game right now. He's got all the power in the world, but it's a lot more difficult for him (and anyone else on the planet) to dropstep and dunk like it was for Shaq coming in. He makes the most of good passes from his teammates, terrific offensive rebounding, and following the break. He's a superior athlete and can run and jump circles around other big men without breaking a sweat. But he doesn't have the most fluid hook shot, and he certainly doesn't have a set shot or jumper that the league's better post players (Gasol, Ilgauskas, Duncan) have. It's not WRONG. It just is what it is. Forcing your offense to get him touches and give him more shots is not the most effective strategy. The Magic have a boatload of excellent perimeter players, good ball handlers with the ability to create off the dribble. They don't even play a power forward, they just play big D in the center and four gunners on the wings. Hedo and Alston, especially, are adept at driving the lane, drawing defenders, and let's be serious for a moment, if you have Rashard Lewis and Courtney Lee and JJ Redick (okay, bad example) out there speckled around the three point line ready to fire away, it's more likely that you're going help off of someone who shoots 50% from the free throw line. The result? Layups, fouls, one-handed dunks, two-handed dunks, tomahawk dunks, reverse dunks, and a whole lot of those plays where Dwight just jumps up and throws the ball through the rim to save his calloused hands. Is this not effective? I'd have to wager that most players around the league are aware of the fact that Howard has a raw post game right now. If I was Mike Brown, I'd be looking over tapes of Howard's missed jump hooks and thinking about how I'd have to match up with either undersized (Delonte, Mo) or overmatched (Szczerbiak, Varejao) defenders out top, and the choice would seem pretty clear. I think Joe Smith could do a fantastic job defending Howard in the paint, though I'm sure there's some game tape out there that proves me wrong. But if Brown can't convince Ilgauskas to just stand motionless and not reach in, he'll probably get the call, and if all else fails they have at least 18-24 fouls to throw at him--to, as they all say, "Make him earn it from the line."

(Of course, half of the game, the announcers like to say, "Now why are you going to foul him and give him free points?" and the other half, they fall back to, "You can't give them baskets, you have to foul and make them earn it from the line." Pick one boys. It's not so tough.)

So that's my rant on Dwight Howard. There's plenty of stuff to like about him, I mean, the list is endless. And I think he's no question one of the first 5 players you'd pick if you had to start a franchise from scratch with today's player pool. I'd also love to have Josh Smith, except, if he started going to the media and saying, "Hey, I don't get enough three-pointers, why can't I get more three-pointers?" and everyone buys into it... well... you get the point.

#002 - Alphadecimals

In considering what might happen when I reach post #1000, I debated the merits of an alphabetic-base numbering system with Tao, or even an alpha-decimal-base.


My initial point: "We could fit so much more data in a smaller space!"
His reponse: "Then why don't you just add a thousand new symbols and create a number format based on those."
Me: "But people would get confused about symbols they don't know."
Him: "If you're worried about people getting confused, DON'T make a number format with alphabetic characters."


Point taken.


This blog ends at #999. NO EXCEPTIONS.

#001 - Layout

Props to Douglas Bowman on his killer blog templates. This one is called No.897. It's probably being used on a million blogs across the globe AS WE SPEAK!


Also, what font best suits this blog? I mean, you're crazy if you use Courier or Times New Roman as your blog font. Get with it. Those fonts are SOOO Windows 95. So who digs Trebuchet?