Elegant Distractions

The Wall Street Journal today ($$) contains an article entitled "Dodge Ball Doesn't Fly in Schools" describing all the reasons why the game is discouraged by crybabies in school districts around the country.

The article refers to a paper by the National Association for Sports and Physical Education:

NASPE believes that dodgeball is not an appropriate activity for K-12 school physical education programs. The purpose of physical education is to provide students with: · The knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to be physically active for a lifetime · A daily dose of physical activity for health benefits · Positive experiences so that kids want to be physically active outside of physical education class and throughout their lifetime

Uh, no. Sorry, but the purpose of sport goes back eons before Politically Constrictive language. Sports originated as life-skills training for boys and men where they learned hunting and fighting so they could survive. The games invented competition to push the males to perform at higher levels to increase survivability.

They specifically did not want to foster a false sense of "worth" in poorly performing individuals. It was important for tribal hunters and warriors to know who they could depend on in a scrape. Equally important, the less-physically-adept males would not have any false expectations and could be put to good use in less dangerous roles, thus increasing the survival rate for everybody.

Why do we think we are so much better today? Presenting a false environment where competition is bad, where nobody wins or loses, where nobody gets their precious feelings hurt is not only undermining the future of our nation it is all so....French. 1930's France, to be exact.

Posted by director at 06:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Categories: Imported Entries

Hey, the Oscars are coming up! I knew they were around here someplace.

I had planned on watching (if I happened to catch the show) until I heard the foul-mouthed Chris Rock was the host. Now, no way. None of the shows up for awards are all that interesting, as Roger L. Simon notes.

Why the decline in show quality? Several reasons.

1. Studio execs live in constant fear for their jobs. As such, they don't dare take risks. This is why you get "Dukes of Hazard" instead of "Atlas Shrugged".
2. Terribly few actors have any character, any personal depth. Colin Ferrell as Alexander (no, I won't like it. Sorry)? Please. He couldn't conquer a hotdog stand. Brad Pitt as Achilles? Sorry, I like Mr. Pitt's acting but the world's greatest warrior? No. Way. It must have been a long, boring search to find Lucilla.
3. Terribly few execs have any character. Arguments, anyone? Anyone?
4. Terribly few directors have any character. You know who they are without being told.
5. It is impossible to put anything up on the screen that you don't have inside of you. A stupid person can't act brilliant. A hollow shell of a person can't show character, whether as a writer, actor, exec or director. People want to see characters with, um, character.
6. Studio execs don't understand, can't comprehend what makes a movie good, much less great. All they see are stars and gimmicks and FX. They have no understanding of story, which is why they make bad copies of each other. When a movie comes along that grabs peoples attention all they are capable of doing is copying the superficial elements.
7. Making a good movie is much harder than making a mediocre movie and the rewards for mediocrity are adequate enough to dissuade most execs from bothering to strive for excellence, even if they knew how. The VHS and DVD markets have provided a way for a box office dud to break even and, with foreign markets, perhaps turn a profit (for the producers, at least).
8. As with #4, writing a great script is longer and harder than writing an average script. And who cares? Many writers who may be capable hold back for fear the studio will ruin their story but most are only interested in writing well enough to get past the readers and into meetings where they can land a job doing rewrites. If they have a story that is OK, maybe it will be optioned, maybe bought in which case they will have plenty of time (and opportunity!) to do rewrites. So why bother toiling?
9. Oh, yeah. Political agendas, activist messages, and PC revisionist history. You already know the movies you've skipped because of this nonesense.

There you go. The Top Nine reasons why Hollywood movies bore me to reading books (how awful!) and blogs (that's better).

There is an alternative on the horizon that could change the way Hollywood does business but I don't want to give it away just yet. Pay attention because a new model will emerge within two years that will help bring the real talent out of obscurity in the way blogs have exposed talented writers.

Posted by director at 08:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Categories: Imported Entries