Are We Watching the Same Movie?

Last Sunday was the Oscars, and again I really had no interest in watching. Not because Steve Martin was hosting, mind you, but because I just don't like the way these things are done. Now I'm a big fan of movies, I try to see as many as I can. However, it's long been a contention of mine (and I'm not alone here) that the awards and most of the nominations go to movies that NOBODY goes to see. If you see a trailer that includes the words, "the first Oscar-worthy movie of the year", you tune out and wait for the next one. It's a simple fact that people go to movies mostly for the escape from reality, hence the popularity of comedy and big-budget special effects-laden action flicks. Then of course, there's the obligatory "chick flicks" that draw big audiences as well. You'll notice, though, that NONE of these ever even get a sniff from the Academy come nomination time. No wonder all these character actors wind up wanting to become "serious actors", because it's the only way they'll ever win awards, and it's unfortunate that in some circles, that's the only true measure of cinematic brilliance.

Take Tom Hanks, for example. He's the best example of someone who started as a comic actor, was in several cult classics ("Splash", "The Burbs", "The Money Pit", just to name a few), but he has totally shied away from anything like that in recent years. It is now obvious to anyone that ever since he got the Oscars for "Philadelphia" and "Forrest Gump", he will now only appear in a movie if it will give him a chance at another statue. Hence, "Saving Private Ryan", "Apollo 13", and this year, "Cast Away". I have no interest in seeing a movie of that type for that very reason, although I did see "Apollo 13" one time on a bus trip; I could take it or leave it. In fact, some hint that the reason Hanks didn't win Best Actor for "Cast Away" was because they feared people were getting sick of him winning it. Naw, really? Just wish someone would give HIM that memo.

As it is, this year's winner of course was Russell Crowe for "Gladiator", a movie I have no interest in seeing, ever. Actually, didn't we already see that movie before? I believe it was called "Ben Hur". Anyway, this guy is the model of pissiness. Didn't laugh at all when Steve Martin zinged him (more on him later), and his acceptance speech was rather lacking of well, being happy. You just won a friggin' OSCAR, SMILE!!! I'm sorry, but I see stuff like that and it makes me almost wish that guy who tried to kidnap him was a little more successful.

Then you look at the nominees themselves. Take Best Picture for example: "Chocolat" (which nobody saw), "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (OK, so big special effects are all right if the whole movie's in Chinese?), "Erin Brockovich" (people saw that, so it's immediately not going to win), "Gladiator" (see comments above), and "Traffic" (which my housemate saw and STILL doesn't understand). Among the other films nominated for big awards were "Billy Elliot", "Before Night Falls", "Pollock", "Quills", and "Malena". Now I know nobody saw "The English Patient" or "Shine" either, but I guarantee you that unlike those two, NONE of these are going to be household names a few years down the line. The two that I liked that got big nominations were "Wonder Boys" and "Almost Famous", but my attraction to those two were Katie Holmes and Cameron Crowe's fantastic story, respectively. It wasn't exactly because critics were salivating over both films (as for salivating over Katie Holmes, well, that's another column...)

As for the ceremony itself, I know people are writing rave reviews about the performance Steve Martin turned in as host, but I still do not equate Steve Martin to Oscars, period. Not nominations, not hosting, nothing like that. Billy Crystal's the best Oscar host of my generation, but what are you going to do when he takes a year off? It's been tried before, Whoopi Goldberg, and regrettably David "Oprah...Uma" Letterman. They've gotta keep looking, though; I still can't see the same guy who sang "King Tut" warming up for the usual Best Picture medley. I would have suggested Jon Stewart, but after he bombed at the Grammys, I would go with Bill Maher. Failing that, how about Jay Leno? After all, Carson did it for so many years, and just because Letterman ranks as one of the biggest TV disasters since Al Capone's vault, I wouldn't discount all of the late night hosts (except Conan O'Brien, of course, and probably Craig Kilborn...)

Now there are alternative award shows to the Oscars, most notably the MTV Movie Awards. I don't include the Golden Globes, because those usually go to films that are just as obscure if not more so than the Oscars. These people have got it right, they actually give awards to movies that people go to watch. And awards like Best Kiss and Best Fight are a nice touch for the younger audience, but something like Best On-Screen Duo may be something the Academy Awards might want to consider. Then again, probably not, as the Academy is about as likely to change as the Grammy folks are. A side note, however: I was rather amused at Steely Dan's "Two Against Nature" getting album of the year as that was the only one of the nominees that I actually own.

The simple fact of the matter is that lame nominees plus not-so-good host plus stiff acceptance speeches is what got ABC these lowest-ever ratings for the Oscars this year. Perhaps some changes are in order, and they might want to start with a good host and nominating movies that bring people together. I mean movies that cut across all sorts of lines and have huge sweeping mass appeal. Although, considering this is coming from someone who saw "Godzilla" a few years back and LIKED it, that may not be saying much...

Enough of Spring Break

Well, the commercials have started on MTV, hyping it up like it's the biggest thing that happens all year. It's almost time for debauchery, crudeness, and excess the likes of which you've never seen and may never see again. No, I don't mean the movie "Tomcats". I am of course referring to Spring Break, that week-long period when college students across the country take hundreds of dollars of Mom and Dad's money, go down to Cancun, Myrtle Beach, or Panama City and wind up spending it all on either a helluva lot of alcohol, prostitutes, or just stuffing it in the underwear of random strippers (or are those fellow co-eds?)

I still have no idea what the purpose of hyping and televising this mess is every year. If it's to remind people that summer is not far away and that all those beautiful sun-splashed beach scenes will be your town soon, I'm sorry but that's not going to get it done for me. As I am writing this, it's snowing (again), thick and heavy stuff, as we close in on a record snowfall of over 190 inches, and we've had snow on the ground for over 110 days in a row. Sorry, this time of year, I see young people dancing around on the beach, I change the channel. Actually I do that all year round, but this time of year, I do it quicker.

Now MTV's been doing this for some 15 years and they have successfully changed the middle of March from a restful week off from school into a reason to do things that you will NEVER tell your kids (unless they happen upon the videotapes you shot to document the occasion). The problem is now every year you've got kids who grew up watching MTV Spring Break and have been waiting all their young lives for that first Spring Break when they hit college, so they can bolt for wherever Carson Daly and Co. have parked their cameras and set new lows for depravity. They actually WANT to try to see if they'll be the bunch that scrapes through the bottom of the barrel. Incidentally, it should be noted that all of these "shows" that are nothing more than excuses to show stuff on TV that is totally unsuitable for anyone under, well, 30, are taped ahead of time. Therefore, don't go planning that big trip to Mey-hi-co for next week, cuz there ain't gonna be anybody there.

It takes a certain breed of collegian to make that trip to Hedonism, er, Spring Break. The big thing that separates them from the rest is that they are usually LOADED. Not with alcohol (that comes later), I mean money, their parents' to be specific. Anyone who went to your typical four-year college knows who I'm talking about (if you're that person, I apologize... no wait, I don't). At Susquehanna, they were mostly business majors, at Syracuse, they're usually your typical "Newhouse brat", getting a free ride through college not on scholarship, but on Mommy and Daddy's college fund, and their parents also paid for that new convertible they drive around campus. Also, they have to be hardcore partying types. The ones who go to the frats where they only let you in if you're either a brother or female (I'm not naming names here, but my fellow Susquehannans know who I'm referring to). The male population of this bunch are probably the type of people who would go see the aforementioned "Tomcats", a ridiculously awful movie if there ever was one, or worse yet that even dumber "Joe Dirt" movie. By the way, a quick aside: Is it just me or can I now tell David Spade movies from just hearing that familiar "AAAAAAHHHHAAAAHHHAAHH" whine of his? It was funny in "PCU", but it's now just getting tiresome. The females, I believe, must have flunked the audition for "Temptation Island", and I mean the ones for the temptors, not the committed couples.

Anyhoo, we will now be treated to a week of days filled with pathetic contests and appearances by even more pathetic acts (more on that in a sec), and nights of "Spring Break Undercover". You remember this show, the one that stars super-horny guys and girls who have uncontrollable urges to give their breasts as much air time as possible. The point where you know it's gone too far has long since been crossed when Jerry Springer doesn't get invited back this year, not because his material is way too edgy, but because he's so "been there, done that" to this crowd.

So Carson Daly (who is engaged by the way, wonder what his fiance thinks...) enters this mix and who is his bubbly co-host this year? None other than Jessica Simpson. Wasn't it just two columns ago (#32 to be exact) when I was wondering why the hell MTV kept giving her face time when she hasn't had a hit song in two years (and no that "Jack and Diane" ripoff does not count, she oughta be charged with murder for what she did to that song)? Well I have now found out why, she's releasing a new album. Apparently she didn't get the memo I sent out at the end of last year (column #22 for those of you who keep track) that IT'S OVER!!! Go back to that Nick dude from 98 Degrees (who are also OVER, by the way) and just go away. And by the way, just for entertainment or shock value I fear, they had to note Ms. Simpson's religious roots and the fact that she is taking the very noble step of saving herself for her future husband, and here she is in the midst of all of this Mexican mayhem. I truly think she is doing a very good and moral thing to lead a life of abstinence (no joking, I'm serious here), but the contradiction here is blatantly obvious. She'll be up on stage performing her latest single to be ticketed for nowhere, keeping her pledge to not jump in the sack with anyone until she's married, but she'll be playing to a crowd that probably cannot go a whole NIGHT without jumping in the sack with someone.

Now I'm not trying to be the Fun Police here, and I don't want people to go thinking I'm not into having a good time. I prefer, however, that they not include excessive amounts of nudity, alcohol (most of the time), and general immorality. Maybe it's the whole blue-collar vs. white-collar unbringing thing, but if I had money (big IF, by the way), I sure as hell wouldn't blow it on something like this. Not that nightlife in Syracuse is even in the same ballpark as Spring Break in Cancun, but I also know they got laws up here against most of the stuff that happens down there. Now if only television would have the same.

FENCE!!!

I was fortunate enough last Sunday to see the hockey team from my alma mater, West Genesee, win the state championship. The person I was happiest for was Coach Colabufo, because once upon a time, not so long ago, he was my baseball coach, and it all got me thinking about those old salad days in the spring of '96 when I was a high school senior on West Genny's varsity baseball team.

OK, first I need to clear something up. Before you all go thinking I was some sort of small-time high school sports hero, let me note that I was THE MANAGER. Still, I got a uniform and a varsity letter (my only one, cuz it's not like I have any athletic ability), so I was definitely a part of the team. I had given up playing baseball in 8th grade after I got beaned in a Little League game and the coach feared for my safety (true story). I was already writing up the team for the local paper, so I knew the coach and after my junior year, I figured if anyone could be the manager it should certainly be me; hell, I had earned it by that point. So, I put the thought in Coach's head and basically kept needling the point home until practice began and I got the gig.

And I like I said, I got a uniform, which was the best part of it, except for the fact that I'm so damn skinny, they didn't have any uniform pants that fit me so I had to wear generic gray pants from the local sporting goods store. That and the fact that I didn't get the number I wanted. I wanted to be #14, it had been my favorite number since it had been the first uniform number I was given in Little League, but a sophomore got it. I had seniority of course, but since I wasn't actually a player, I wasn't going to win this one. I wound up asking for #7, and everyone started saying, "Oh, Mickey Mantle, right?" to which I replied, "Nope, it's half of 14." That was probably generous, thinking I had even half as much ability at playing baseball as these guys.

Of course, there were times that I tried to prove I had at least some ability at playing baseball. I used to shag fly balls in the outfield during batting practice, and for those of you who think there's some kind of obscene Austin Powers reference there, I mean I would try to make like I could actually catch a fly ball and throw it back to the infield on less than five hops. I wasn't too bad at it, but I wanted to make it look like I was as all-out and aggressive as anyone else on the team. So, one time I'm standing out in right field and Shawn Layo crushes one over my head, but I'm convinced I can run it down, so I turn and with my head up I'm running at full speed: "I GOT IT, I GOT IT, I GOT IT..."

WHAM!!!

This was not a time that I should have forgotten that we have a right field fence at West Genesee High School. They tell me I went down in slow motion. I wouldn't know, all I remember is I'm running after the ball, I hit the fence and the next thing I know, I'm on the ground and my right thumb is killing me cuz I jammed it into fence when I hit it. The ball, by the way, cleared the football bleachers, a good 50 feet beyond the fence. After that, every time I even took a step back to go for a fly ball, the entire team would yell, "FENCE!!!"

Ah, but I would get my comeuppance. We scrimmaged ourselves often in practice, and when the teams weren't even, I got to play. And here I am, one day in practice staring down the barrel of our ace pitcher, who throws a 90mph fastball (I know, I clocked it). Now, considering I hadn't faced much live pitching in four years and even then it wasn't anything like this, that's not too good a situation for me to be in. Well, lo and behold, I smacked the second or third pitch right back up the middle for a base hit. As soon as I got to first base, I exclaimed, "I can now die happy!" Steve maintains to this day it wasn't a fastball; I prefer to think he just doesn't want to feel embarrassed.

I wasn't the only "interesting" type on that team, we had a pitcher who insisted on doing the "Noonan" bit from "Caddyshack" every time someone was up for the other team. And we had a first base coach who was bigger and more imposing than most NFL defensive ends, which was kinda nutty compared to Coach, who to put it nicely isn't the tallest person on the planet. We also were very annoying. For one road game, we had to sit in some old box-ed in dugout that had chicken wire on the front of it. So, we started grabbing at it and hooting and hollering like caged animals. This was also the game where our "Noonan" guy made the mistake of doing his bit against a team whose catcher's last name actually WAS Noonan. Our catcher had to explain it to the guy. Also, our team had the unusual habit of swiping things from every place where we played. One time, we stole home plate (literally); there just happened to be one hanging on the wall of the dugout, so one of our guys (Gabes, had to be Gabes) just dropped it in the bag with the rest of our stuff when it was time to go.

That was pretty much the "Wonder Years" episode in my life, if you will. It was the first time in my life that I felt like I was one of the guys and I'll never forget that. I still have the trainers tape with "DC #7" written on it that went above my locker, it's on the wall in my room back at home, right above my varsity letter and the certificate for being on the 1996 OHSL champs. And considering I never did get that elusive Susquehanna University Co-Ed Softball League championship while I was there, I'm proud of the one title I was a part of. Of course, now Coach has a more important one.

Congrats, Coach.

Waiting For the Next Big Thing

I will probably regret this proclamation, but I believe I have all the necessary evidence to state the following: the 90s hangover into the new decade is over. Every new decade begins with a couple years where the trends of the previous decade have to play themselves out. The beginning of the 70s had the end of the Woodstock era and unfortunately the deaths of many of its principal figures. The beginning of the 80s had the death of disco. The beginning of the 90s had to deal with all the hair bands that had long overstayed their welcome, not to mention a pop scene that featured everything from Bette Midler to MC Hammer to Styx. The beginning of this decade had to deal with the lingering popularity of teen-pop. However, I am proud and confident enough to shout from the rooftops that THE TEEN-POP, "BOY BAND" ERA IS OVER!!!

Proof? Just look at the Billboard charts this week. There are no songs from teen-pop or "boy band" acts on the way up the charts; the few that are still there are dropping, fast. I don't count the Ricky Martin/Christina Aguilera duet, because it's equal success for both artists. Also, I have always thought that Christina was above the throwaway, interchangeable teen-pop singers, and that also goes for Destiny's Child. Britney and 'N Sync are supposedly working on more quick follow-up albums, but in their blind rush to "strike while the iron is hot", they might want to notice that the iron is going stone cold. Oh by the way, why the hell does MTV keep putting Jessica Simpson on the air? She had one hit song, and it was nearly two years ago!

If you're wondering just what pushed all this off the American pop culture landscape, so am I. I mean, I see nothing new out there. Hip-hop, R&B, and rap dominate the charts once again, just as they did before the teen-pop acts arrived, and it's definitely not going anywhere soon, nor should it. It still has the crossover appeal, and is still the most popular form of dance music around, and since the days of "American Bandstand", the popularity of music has depended on whether or not "it has a good beat and you can dance to it." It's not like the early 90s, when grunge swept all the hair bands off the airwaves and into obscurity, or at the very least, VH-1 "Where Are They Now?" specials.

No, the demise of this phenomenon pretty much mirrors the death of disco two decades earlier. It collapsed under its own weight. People got sick of seeing endless carbon copies of teen-girl singers and random collections of four or five cute guys with average singing ability and the inability to either write songs or play them on instruments. That, and the fact that they were all produced by the same producers which inevitably made every song sound the same (just like disco) meant that this was all doomed, it was only a question of when.

Which brings me back to an earlier point of mine. What's next? Does anybody know? This decade has to be defined by something, and as there is less than nine years left, something has to come along. Let's look back again at previous decades. In the early 70s, the "Philadelphia sound" developed, which eventually evolved into disco. MTV arrived in 1981, defining the decade that followed. Nirvana and Pearl Jam broke through in late 1991/early 1992. What this all means is we're due. By the end of the year, the next big trend has to arrive on the scene, or else we face the same vanilla period that marked the beginning of the last decade.

First of all, we gotta figure out what we're going to call this decade. Is it the zeroes, the 2000s, the O's? We've gotta come to a consensus on this, folks, so some of us, most notably me, don't come out sounding stupid. In this new Bush era of civility, I'm sure we can get this done.

Now, whether or not I will latch onto the next trend is of course uncertain; I don't know what it will be, therefore I cannot say whether or not I'll like it. I didn't like grunge at first, especially after Kurt Cobain was so glorified after he killed himself. It took me a while to latch on to "modern rock", and by the time I did take a liking to it, its time had passed. No, this does not mean I will suddenly say in the next couple years that "you know, those boy bands weren't so bad after all..."

So what is the next big thing? It is not rap-metal. I'm sorry, but that crap's even more annoying and the bands even more interchangeable that the boy bands. It's just a bunch of groups that all want to sound like Limp Bizkit. If you're looking for a big time tour to come to your town this summer, I would advise against Ozzfest. Nothing against Ozzy, but his lineup consists of the 86th reunion of Black Sabbath and several bands that all sound the same. Then again, that's what most of the Ozzfest tours have been. Since I can't afford concert tickets (remember, I work in radio), I can't really say who I'd pay to go see this year, cuz I can't pay to see anyone.

Of course, we're still going to have to put up with the fallout of this most recent pop implosion for quite sometime. Just as we had to see "Dance Fever" well into the 80s, and Vanilla Ice STILL won't go away, and every 80s hair band you can think of suddenly are all putting out comeback albums, we're still going to have to deal with the attempt to force the winners of WB's "Pop Stars" competition down our throats, in addition to the second season of ABC's "Making the Band", featuring our favorite boy band that sings about nocturnal emissions: O-Town. Now I know you all know me as a calm, cool, level-headed individual, but if you'll pardon me for a minute, I need to go off on a very deserved tirade...

WHO THE HELL THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO RENEW "MAKING THE BAND"??? NOBODY WATCHED IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND! "MAKING THE BAND" IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ABORTIONS IN TELEVISION HISTORY, AND YET ABC RENEWS IT??? THEY DIDN'T RENEW "SUPERTRAIN" OR "MY MOTHER, THE CAR"! YEAH, A MILLION PEOPLE BOUGHT THEIR ALBUM, BUT A MILLION TV VIEWERS IS ABOUT HALF OF EVEN UPN'S WORST SHOW! IF THE IMPENDING WRITER'S STRIKE MEANS WE'RE GONNA HAVE MORE CRAP LIKE THIS ON TV, I BEG EVERYONE TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE AND STRIKE A DEAL! PLEASE!!!!!

Whew, sorry about that, but it was necessary. I'm sure you all understand.

No Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

I have a very important question to ask you all, so I hope you will all pay attention, because this could one day save your life. The question is this: which is more dangerous, two guns and 16 bombs or a breaded chicken finger?

Stop laughing, this is serious. Apparently one particular principal in Arkansas thought the chicken was as or more dangerous than the guns and bombs, because he suspended an 8-year old boy for pointing the chicken finger at a teacher and saying, "Pow pow pow." Unfortunately, stories like these are growing more and more commonplace because of people like this particular administrator who have responded to fear of school violence by instituting "zero tolerance" policies in their schools.

You've heard of these policies, these are the types of rules that cause kids to get suspended for bringing aspirin to school for their headaches, because they are seen as equivalent to bringing heroin or crack into school. These are the policies that get little boys thrown out of school for kissing the little girl on the playground, because that is equivalent to "sexual assault". And don't even think about what happens when little boys decided to go play "Cops and Robbers" on the playground, pointing fingers at each other and yelling "bang, you're dead." What this all amounts to really, is outright stupidity.

What do these people really hope to accomplish with these zero tolerance policies? The decision to choose what is and isn't a weapon is very subjective. Let's face it, if you don't want kids to come into school with weapons, then they can't have pens and pencils. Well, hell, they could stab each other with them! And what about the little overweight kid who has a specific diet the doctor has placed him on in an effort to keep his weight down. You know what, that sounds like a prescription to me, guess he can't bring food into school, because that's equivalent to bringing drugs! And since cases of sexual harassment have been filed in the workplace because men have looked at women the wrong way, let's teach our children right. From now on, nobody's allowed to look at anyone, including the teacher, because you don't want to start some sort of illicit teacher-student relationship, after all.

Now do you see how stupid this is? Of course I'm giving out ridiculous and theoretically unlikely situations, but they could all technically be grounds for suspension under zero tolerance policies, and whoever thought a kid would be suspended for pointing a chicken finger at a teacher? The most ridiculous thing of all of this is the principal's quote: "People saw real threats to the safety and security of their students." What do you mean, were you afraid the kid was going to throw the thing at the teacher and leave a stain on his/her clothing? OH THE AGONY!!!

Now I realize the spirit in which these things were enacted. People wanted to find a way to curb the behavior that leads to the number of school shootings that have happened in the last few years. Obviously this was the case in Jonesboro, Arkansas, the site of the "chicken finger incident", which was devastated by a school shooting a couple years back. However, there is a line between stopping certain behaviors and stopping ALL behaviors, and while we may have not quite found that line yet, this is so far over the line, it's not even close. It's in a different zip code from the line. And ultimately, even this madness may not stop a violent incident from happening. Consider Elmira's Southside High School, where last month a kid passed a note to a classmate warning of an impending Columbine-style attack he planned to carry out with two big guns and a collection of homemade explosives. Luckily, the classmate did the right thing and alerted the proper people, so tragedy was averted. How did the kid get his arsenal into school, you ask? In an oversized gym bag, that's how.

Which brings me to another solution that's been put into place in an attempt to stop incidents like Columbine. Many schools have banned backpacks and gym bags from their premise, which is similarly stupid. This now means that kids have to lug all the things they need for school or to take home for homework in, well, their arms, because anything else might be used to bring a gun to school, administrators believe. I like the idea of the see-through backpacks, and that would definitely be a much better way to go about it. Don't make things that much harder on the students in an effort to claim you've made your school safer. I do realize that if a rule like this was in place in Elmira, the kid in question could not have brought the guns and bombs to school, but the kids at Columbine, you'll recall, didn't bring their stuff into school in bags. They just walked in with their oversized trenchcoats and fired away.

I do have a solution, and it's probably not the perfect solution, but maybe the only necessary one in the case of preventing weapons (I mean real weapons, not those of the edible variety) from entering schools. The solution is metal detectors. Yes, it will slow down the process of entering school everyday, but it's a small hassle, as compared to the constant hassle of zero tolerance policies. Run it like when you enter a government building, and when you think about it, public schools are kinda like government buildings, funded by the taxpayers and all. Have a cop there, ask the kids to take their valuables out of their pockets and walk through the metal detector. People worry that it will give the school a "prison" feel to it. Please. As long as there have been schools, kids have felt like they're in a prison. If you put in a metal detector, you can actually let graduates into the school again so they can look around and see their old teachers. Other than for basketball games, I have not been in my old high school since the year after I graduated, because I haven't been allowed to.

I swear, if you let me in, I won't bring chicken.