Playoff Blues: What would happen if I owned a sports team.

re: emotions joke - Just clarifying that I had this conversation with my father, who isn't a female, and who made all these points before I even thought about them. He's basically the basketball guru, his perspective is always the perspective I never realized I had. Coaching for 20 years will do that to you.

Also, had this exact same conversation with one of my sportsfan dude friends, so... yeah.

Men have emotions. It was an ironic joke and I laughed, but I had to clarify that.

And I get why Mark would do this. Basically I really think we could have repeated this year with the team we DID have and I wanted THAT.

I don't want to, nor am I willing to, think of a future without Dirk.

So that has a lot to do with my perspective on this...

But also... I am not a business person, and Mark is. So I would probably drive the Mavs into bankruptcy trying to keep as many of our best players for as long as possible without thinking of the future.

Then one day they would all be 41 years old, retire, and I'd own a franchise with no players. 

Or all noobs who will play for free.

Titanic Reflection: Why Does it Work?

So, Titanic has just been rereleased into theaters after fifteen years. It was one of the most successful movies in history and began the careers of what we can now say are two of the most accomplished and talented actors of our time. Yet, despite all of that, plus the enormous fan base this film still has, there are tons of detractors who claim this movie is terrible. Are they right? Actually, they're onto something. Despite its success and the big name actors that are involved, there is a lot wrong with this movie. Which begs the question, then: why does it work? 

Why I Love It 


I watched Titanic for the first time as an 11-year-old, was deeply affected by the tragedy/story, became fascinated with the history, and fell in love with Leonoardo Dicaprio and Kate Winslet. I think a huge amount of the people my age (mostly the girls) probably had similar experiences with this movie, and so it played a huge part in our adolescence. Nostalgia is most likely the reason why 99.8% of people are paying $14 to wear stupid 3D glasses and sit for three hours to see a movie they probably own on DVD. I know when the movie began in my theater, I clapped my hand over my heart and I was in 6th grade again. Same heart pangs and everything.

The movie gets me every time, even when I start out completely convinced I'm not in the right mind-set to cry. It's no use. The following is a glimpse into my mind as I relive watching the movie: Basically from beginning to the middle of Titanic my heart is exploding with rainbows because I love Jack and Rose SO much, and there is all this sexual and romantic tension and … LEO’S BEAUTIFUL PERFECT FACE BEING ALL IN LOVE AND STUFF...

HIS FAAAACE

..but THEN they hit the iceberg and immediately I’m all, “I REGRET THIS DECISION. MISTAKE MISTAKE. ABORT MISSION.” And by the end…I'm weeping for the remainder of the week day. 


Obviously, I adore Titanic. However, while I adore this movie and have no resistance to it's inexplicable charms, there is no way you'll ever hear me describe it as "genius" or "masterful" or "spectacular" in terms of film making.


What's Wrong With It?

James Cameron loves to plaster his name all over this film and make sure to remind everyone that he invented the Titanic -er, that he made the movie Titanic. As the credits began to roll, the first thing that flashed across the screen is "Written and Directed by James Cameron." He's really proud of what he's accomplished, and I guess he's earned it because, as I said, it's ridiculously successful. But I am under the impression that Cameron thinks it's because of him and his writing, which I have to proclaim to be false. 


He writes in circular symbolism and irony that is about as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not hard to get it upon first viewing, let alone multiple viewings. It’s not “genius” or deep in any way. It’s just… obvious. The characters are all flat, two-dimensional beings and only a fraction of them are dynamic.  It's nothing that another writer couldn't produce with his/her eyes closed. It's not earth-shattering by any means.


I love this movie in spite of how shallow the characters and dialogue are. The love story is done well, but I think it has a lot to do with the arrangement of events created and how they’re acted, not how the events and dialogue are written. 

The dialogue can sometimes be so self-indulgent and cheesy that, if it weren’t Kate and Leo saying the words, I’d roll my eyes. But then there are moments that are meant to pander to the audience, yet they still work for me and make me smile. Blast James Cameron, because some of his cheap tricks still work on me, even though I acknowledge that a trick is what it is. But, again, that doesn't mean it's good film making. It just means Cameron knows the tricks to manipulate.

I had this poster hanging in my room when I was 11. Srsly.

Why It Works

The reasons Titanic works, in my opinion, are these things:


Firstly, the history it’s based on is tragic, fascinating, and unique; naturally people are going to be drawn in by it. If I refuse to give James Cameron credit for most of the things he did with this film, one credit I cannot withhold is how much research he did to make it as real as possible. He immersed himself in the history, studied picture after picture of life on Titanic, even recreated some of the most iconic images in the movie. The sinking of the ship was well-thought out and wonderfully executed. When it comes to film making, Cameron excels in special effects and details. 


He also showed forensic details as well as emotional details of the disaster. What would it look like from a technical standpoint when "A" happens to the ship? What would it feel like from a victim's standpoint? etc... We see horrifying images of the lights blinking on and off, strange groaning as the ship is bent by the pressure of the water. We see haunting images of unused China shattering in piles, an old couple holding one another in bed, knowing they can't make it to a life boat. In that way, Cameron didn't miss a beat. Watching the the last 45 minutes of this movie is enthralling because Cameron has recreated something only the actual people on that ship had seen up until this movie was released, and however morbid that might be, it is also fascinating.


Another reason it works is because the characters are archetypal so it makes them easy to relate to. There are no characters in the movie that are multi-dimensional (unless you want to argue in favor of Rose which would be a skimpy argument, overall). They are mostly vague versions of people and therefore it's easy for many viewers (rather than a small specific group) to latch onto the good guys and abhor the bad guys. 

And lastly, it works because the love story is something many, many people root for. They want to believe a love like that of Jack and Rose can really exist. I was reading some movie responses for Titanic and many said they don't believe that a love like this can exist anymore, which was rather sad to me. One in particular spoke about how materialistic and selfish current day culture is and that it doesn't foster this kind of devotion, claiming that the time in which a love like this maybe could have occurred is gone forever. 


That perspective just drives my point home further that people really want to believe in this kind of love, and if they don't believe they can find it in real life, then where will they go? Maybe... to a movie, where they can cling to the hope they feel when they watch a girl give up her millions to be with a penniless artist who wants nothing more than to make sure she's going to be okay, because nothing is more important to either of them than the other person.   

Movie Review: The Hunger Games

I almost don't know what to say within this review because I'm afraid it will just be redundant praise, things many other reviews have already addressed. The quality of this movie was awesome, not just from a book adaptation stand point (which is what I usually pay most attention to), but as a film: the camera work, the use of the score, the score itself, the acting, etc. It is a great movie, even if you haven't read and loved the books. Therefore, what I think I'll do is explore all the things that originally I was skeptical about and how the movie sold me on those things. Basically, the next few paragraphs will be me admitting how wrong I was to doubt that this movie would be good. Enjoy!

What made me skeptical of this film in the last year were the following:

• Marketing ("Twilight-afying" it)
• Brutality
• Casting

Let's break it all down. 

TWILIGHT-AFYING IT

One huge red flag I had about this movie was how they seemed to be marketing it. Nothing is more laughable than the Twilight series, in my opinion (I literally burst out laughing when Breaking Dawn 2 trailer came on before The Hunger Games; it was real bad). The books are awful, the movies are just as bad, and it could not be anything farther from what The Hunger Games is. So why in God's name would they want to market it like Twilight?

It beats me, but it certainly was the main reason I was not looking forward to seeing it for a long time. I couldn't bear the thought of them dumbing down something as profound as The Hunger Games and funneling it into something as shallow and cheap as "Team Peeta" & "Team Gale." Yet, it had already begun. The headlines read "Hunger Games: The Next Twilight!" or "Look out Vampires: There's a New Teen Sensation!" Vanity Fair even did the EXACT same photoshoot for The Hunger Games cast as they did for the Twilight cast. See exhibit A and B:

Twilight:

"We are all bffs!"

Hunger Games:

"So are we, but not as snugly!"

Twilight: 

"Look how there are 3 of us!"

 Hunger Games:

"Yeah 1, 2, 3! Only we get trees."

Seriously? I was horrified by this, not because the photos were bad (they're all adorable, to be honest) but because of the associations people would make. How many people would be turned off by the comparison of Twilight to The Hunger Games? And how many people would reduce it to something it's not because of that comparison? AND how completely unfair to make this comparison since The Hunger Games is actually a fantastic deep commentary while Twilight is basically shallow teen smut! Collins doesn't deserve to be cut down like that and Meyer doesn't deserve to be complimented like that. IT'S ALL WRONG. And yet... they kept pitching it for the "Twilight" audience. The only good thing they took from Twilight is how they released and compiled the soundtracks.

Because of all of this, I didn't even buy a midnight showing ticket. That's right, I, the queen of midnight premieres, did not go to a midnight showing of a book adaptation that I really love because I was too afraid it would be such a horrible disappointment based on this marketing. Not that the franchise was hurt by missing out on my one ticket, but I just couldn't bear the thought of going and being massively let down. So when the great reviews that gave me hope started to pour in nearing the home stretch right before the movie opened, it was already too late to get tickets.

Plus, what is really funny about this is the movie was so far from being like Twilight. I'm still baffled as to why they felt the need to go that route for so long, but I am SO GLAD that the film itself wasn't "Twilight-afied," which was seriously my worst fear.

BRUTALITY

Anyone who loves the book series will tell you that one of the most important things about the story is the violence because it portrays how backwards and corrupt the society had become. For the longest time my friends and I would sit and wonder about ways they could make this movie correctly without an "R" rating for violence. It's children killing children, after all, an idea that is not something many movies tend to touch on, and especially won't market for kids. However, this is a YA Fiction series, so it had to be able to fly under the PG-13 line. But how?!

Or was the question actually would they even try to show the violence or would it be overshadowed by the miniscule love triangle that isn't even important to the main theme of the story...? Since they were pitching this as a movie tweens could go to and swoon, I had my doubts that they would portray the story as gritty and horrifying as it needed to be.

Thankfully, the film-makers were able to handle the violence with a perfect balance. It was brutal and upsetting, but not so overwhelming that it was off-putting (which sounds weird... children killing children is, of course, off-putting, but you know what I mean). I felt like most kids could see this without being traumatized, but could also appreciate and understand how sickening the world Collins created had become and the message that lies within that.

CASTING

When the hype started to surround this movie, I tried to keep my distance. However, it is nearly impossible to not have SOME expectations of a series you love so much, so when the casting was announced I had mixed feelings (none of which were about Jennifer Lawrence because I knew she was top-notch-talented, AND loved the book series).

Josh Hutcherson was cast as Peeta and I didn't know what to think of that. I liked him okay but he didn't look anything like what I pictured the character to be when I read the books. Then I read that Woody Harrelson would play Haymitch. That was a decision I wasn't really on board with, either. I pictured him shorter, fatter, and much greasier. More like a tubby Robert Downey Jr. Finally, the casting decision for Cinna as Lenny Kravitz upset me the most. For some reason, I really couldn't get past it and I refused to even try.

"Walk. Walk. Fashion baby."

Naturally I became skeptical of the film immediately.  If so many of the characters I love were cast as people that I was not sure of, I didn't know if I could ever come around. I started doing some research and heard about why they decided on Josh Hutcherson. I knew that I had to get on board with this kid if I was going to be able to make it through the entire series. One of the articles my friend read said that they would've cast Josh Hutcherson "even if he were purple and had wings." Apparently his audition tape really knocked it out of the park and he convinced the writers, director, and Suzanne Collins that he was the right guy no matter what. After that I felt a few of my worries were dispelled but, still, I couldn't picture him as my Peeta. The physicality was just too off. Especially compared to Liam Hemsworth, who they cast as Gale.

The only way I knew that I could be completely sold is if Josh nailed it for me on screen, so I entered the theater not knowing what I was going to feel for him. As unfair as it seems for poor Josh, he had a lot to prove to me; a lot was riding on his performance.

As I watched the movie, the first time we saw Haymitch, I just kept thinking "He's not greasy enough! He's not loud and angry enough!!" However, by the middle of the movie I started warming up to him. Even though it wasn't my choice for the character, Woody Harrelson's portrayal did the job and did it well.  What was really important was to see a connection between him and Katniss, which was very present and grew throughout.

Which brings me to Cinna. Like I said, I was not on board with him in the slightest, however from the first moment Lenny Kravitz was on screen, he had me. He was genuine and seemed to understand the character very well. He was soft-spoken, portrayed his character tenderly, and oozed kindness. The chemistry he had with Jennifer Lawrence was incredible. I was stunned. Humbly do I admit that I was horribly wrong to doubt him! He has made me eat my words.

MY FEELINGS

As for Peeta, an interesting thing happened. The growth of my admiration for Josh sort of mirrored that of his character. In the books we're not sure what to think of Peeta because Suzanne Collins introduces us to Gale first. We feel a connection between the Katniss and Gale and don't know where this other random boy will fit into this puzzle. But Peeta is surprising, and so is Josh. As Katniss and her team's attention is drawn into who Peeta  is, so was I drawn into Josh's performance. Josh did things that I didn't expect, that surprised me and won me over bit by bit. By the middle of the movie he had me, completely. Not to mention, the chemistry he had with Jenn made him even more compelling. Josh owned a role that I never could have pictured him to be in. That's a testament to his portrayal and to the confidence the film makers had in casting him. They hit it spot on by sticking to their guns with him.

OVERALL

I absolutely ADORED this movie. Everything I was worried about was for nothing because it all turned out great. If I am disappointed about anything, it is only that I have to wait over a year and half before I see the next installment. Though, what a wonderful pain, as I never thought I could love again after the end of the Harry Potter series.