246 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(07/14/04 4:00am)
Before entering the rather menial, low-paying field of professional writing, I worked in the rather menial, low-paying field of movie theaters. It was a memorable experience, not one I'm particularly anxious to forget -- three years of free movies, sometimes previewed two nights before they opened; all the stolen popcorn I could shove my down my gullet; unofficial contests for the title of weirdest employee; my boss' old stories that were still pleasing the third or fourth time he told them. And it taught me one of the most valuable lessons I've ever learned: how to properly watch a movie.\nI love movies. I love the thrill that zings through my body when the lights begin to dim. I love the action sequences, the suspense, the sex appeal, the laughs, the tears and the mysticism surrounding movies. I love going to the movies for a date. There is almost nothing I actually dislike about the whole movie-watching experience -- except for one small thing: people that don't know how to watch a movie.\nLike there is with nearly everything, there's a right way and a wrong way to watch a movie. Here are The Rules, designed to help you get by.\n• Nobody wants your baby or child to come to an R-rated movie with you. And judging from its crying and its fussing, it doesn't want to be there either. Instead of buying a large popcorn and two large sodas, why not hire a babysitter for a couple hours?\n• Addendum: The late show of an animated or children's movie is reserved exclusively for adults who want to watch an animated or children's movie without children.\n• Sick people, i.e. people who need to clear their throat loudly or cough every few minutes, should go to the doctor's office, not to a movie. The film will be still playing in a few days.\n• You may not talk about anything during the actual movie. Nobody wants to hear your best "Mystery Science Theater 3000" one-liner. (For practicality purposes, we have exempted actual whispers. We have also exempted legitimately horrible movies; you are allowed to mock a horrible movie, but ease into it and see if the people around you are receptive.)\n• You should keep the conversation during the previews reserved to small, simple things which pertain directly to the previews, such as, "I'd like to see that," "That looks good," "I bet that will be a piece of crap" or "Halle Barry has an Oscar, why in the hell is she doing 'Catwoman'?" Do not talk about personal things like your marriage, your children or your recent surgeries during the previews. \n• You may talk all you'd like during the commercials.\n• Because it's the 21st century, the movie theater is actually nice enough to print, publish and post the time the movie starts. This is why everyone else is already in the theater when you arrive late.\n• The movie theater is kind enough to provide special seats for people who insist on refills, who have weak or small bladders which require frequent use of the restroom or who can't last two hours without smoking a cigarette. These seats are called "the aisles."\n• Laugh as much as you want during a comedy. Try to stifle your laughter for a drama -- but if you can't, it's okay. We know some dramas suck.\n• There comes a time when you have to stop shaking your popcorn, rattling candy boxes and slurping the last one-eighth of an ounce of soda out of your cup. That time is your ninth birthday.\n• Popcorn bags, empty candy boxes and finished cups of soda are to go in the trash can. No one expects you to pick up every kernel of popcorn you drop, but, seriously: this cuts down on the time ushers must spend to clean the theater, and conversely cuts down on the time some of us have to wait in the lobby for the theater to be cleaned if the film is popular.\n• Please consider the number of people in the theater before you make out. If you exercise bad judgment and we find your make-out session more interesting than the movie, that's simply not our fault.\n• For God's sake, turn off your cell phone, your pager and/or your personal digital assistant, you pretentious freak. \n• Nobody thinks two men sitting -- just sitting -- next to each other are gay. However, we do think that two men who make a conscious effort to sit with one seat between them are trying to avoid that appearance, and therefore we simply must assume that they are trying to hide something. \n• There are three times and three times only when you are allowed to applaud at the end of a movie: 1) you may applaud at a film festival; 2) you may applaud at a movie's premiere; or 3) you may applaud if the director is in the theater with you. Otherwise, it's not a play. Nobody cares.\n• Please don't block the aisles, the doorways or the lobby after the movie is over if you and your friends absolutely must act out your own version of "Ebert & Roeper." Take it to the parking lot if you can't wait three minutes to talk about the movie.\n• The aforementioned Rules are generally null and void at second-run dollar theaters or drive-ins, but are subject to audience approval.\n• Any further complaints and grievances which may become amendments to The Rules are subject to two-thirds of the audience's approval.
(07/12/04 1:25am)
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."\nFifty-three potent words comprise the Federal Marriage Amendment, a punitive, unnecessary, mean-spirited concept which this week aims to become the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.\nIt's not just marriage that it aims to keep from homosexuals, either. It's "the legal incidents thereof." That crosses out civil unions and domestic partnerships, those friendly everything-but-the-M-word contracts that still remain popular alternatives among those opposed to actual gay marriage. \nBut it's also an attempt to circumvent the court system, which apparently can no longer be trusted with interpreting the Constitution. And it's an attempt to deny homosexuals dignity and legal protection. It's an annulment of federalism. It's a smack in the face of the 14th Amendment's promise of due process and of equal protection.\nAnd yet aiming, it seems, is all the FMA hopes to do. Supporters of the amendment in the Senate, where it's currently being debated, would love to pull off an upset win, but don't think they have the two-thirds -- 67 votes out of 100 -- needed to pass it. \nSo realism is not the issue. Why pursue something they know they have no chance to achieve? Because of politics. The vote on the FMA comes conveniently in an election year. It'll serve as an acrimonious scorecard for a social issue some see as a political wedge -- or at the very least, a political distraction.\n After all, the debate over the FMA and gay marriage in general has turned into a vile advocacy of exclusion, oblivious to any kindness, with culprits on the right and left.\n "Social conservatives are looking at this issue so we know who needs to be educated on this issue or removed if that is possible," said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative organization Family Research Council, to The New York Times last week.\nEducate, he says. Remove, he says. If you do not follow our edict, you must go. If you're a gay Republican, you're not welcome here. If you're a straight Republican and support gay rights, you're also not welcome here. You're not our style. Bye-bye. \nMeanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, people are just as crazy. The Washington-based newspaper Roll Call reported last week that gay rights activists are threatening to out closeted gay and lesbian members of Congress and congressional staffers as part of their condemnation of the FMA. \nThey claim they want to expose the hypocrisy of anti-gay rights Congress members who are themselves gay. Instead of campaigning on conscience and common sense, they'd rather toss out a threat tantamount to the same despicable campaign of fear that closets many homosexuals.\nAfter they're outed, then what? Do you think they'll thank you for doing something for your crass political reasons they've always been afraid to do for their own personal reasons? \nThis is the wrong way to debate. This is what turns people off to the idea that government can be used as a tool for good. This is where moderates and independents have to reclaim their voices in this debate and stand firm on principles of pragmatism.\nPutting every senator on record isn't merely partisan politics. It's as much about pinning Democrats against the floor as it is about pushing wayward Republicans out of the tent. It's ultimately a dangerous crusade for exclusion.\nA general apathy surrounds the FMA. Many think that since it affects only a fraction of the population, and has little chance of passing, what's the big deal? \nThe big deal is that, for everyone, the FMA will be only the first of many lines drawn in the sand. This is where the unclimbable walls of partisanship are built. This time it's exclusion from the Republican Party. Next time it may be the Democratic Party. And sooner or later, if you don't believe what your party tells you, they'll casually elbow you out and not give you a second glance.
(07/08/04 1:58am)
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry chose former presidential rival Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as his vice presidential running mate Tuesday morning.\n"I am pleased to announce that, with your help, the next vice president of the United States of America will be Sen. John Edwards from North Carolina," the Massachusetts Democrat told the cheering crowd Tuesday in Pittsburgh.\nEdwards, 51, is a former trial lawyer and first-term senator.\nLee Jones, the vice-chair of the Monroe County Democratic Party, said she believes Edwards has "lived the American dream," rising from humble origins to become a national candidate. She said she believes Edwards' place on the ticket will balance well with Kerry.\n"I personally think he's an excellent selection," she said. "He's the one I would have most preferred."\nBut John Shean, chair of the Monroe County Republican Party, suggested differently. \n"Sure Edwards' story will resonate with voters, but does it mean he's qualified to be vice president? No," he said.\nShean said Edwards is not the political moderate many perceive him as, but rather a liberal closer in step politically with Kerry rather than the average American.\n"I would have thought that the more prudent choice would have been someone who would have balanced out Kerry's liberal views, someone with more moderate viewpoints," Shean said.\nJames Andrews, a professor of communications and culture who focuses on presidential rhetoric, said he was not surprised by Kerry's choice, mainly because Edwards remains popular with Democrats. \n"I think if anything Kerry -- like all the other Democrats -- is really determined to win this one, and I'm sure that must have played into this," he said.\nAndrews said one of the things that strikes him the most about Edwards' entrance to the presidential field is the difference in rhetorical style between Edwards and the three other top-of-the-ticket candidates. \n"Bush has a folksy, down-to-earth quality. But Edwards has this ability to identify with people and still be articulate," Andrews said. "Bush sometimes has a forcefulness when he speaks that sounds sort of belligerent. Edwards can be folksy and down-home and still articulate very clearly."\nSophomore Nick Clifton, who supported Edwards' presidential run in the Democratic primary, said he thinks Edwards will outshine Kerry, and people will ultimately like Edwards more.\n"Personally I think the ticket would be better switched around, and I think America will think that, too," he said.\n"I think it shows that Kerry is not worried about looking presidential, he's just worried about winning," Clifton added. "But George W. Bush has already shown you don't need to look presidential to win."\nSenior Glen Coats said while he describes himself as more conservative, he thinks Edwards is probably the best choice Kerry could have made, and the choice may help Kerry in the South and Midwest.\n"I think Edwards relates to people," Coats said. "Kerry is a wealthy guy that not a lot of people can relate to." \nSenior Angel Rivera, president of the IU College Republicans, was more forward and said Kerry's selection of Edwards looks like a political appointment, hoping that he would help Kerry in the South. Rivera saw an instant contrast to the Bush campaign.\n"I think it speaks to the differences between John Kerry and George W. Bush," Rivera said. "John Kerry goes out and looks for someone who will help him get votes. George W. Bush looked for someone who is the most qualified to help in his administration."\nJunior Matt Brunner, the political vice president of the IU College Democrats, was more optimistic, saying he believed Kerry made a good choice for his running mate. \n"I am from North Carolina and have gotten to meet and see John Edwards on a couple occasions," Brunner said. "He is a very charismatic person, he is intelligent and he seems to have a very good grasp on the critical issues that are facing this country, such as health care, prescription drugs and the economy."\nAndrews said there will certainly be a contrast between Edwards and Vice President Dick Cheney in the vice presidential debate this fall.\n"So much hinges on image that Cheney is going to look older and more tired instead of a grave statesman," he said. "Edwards is going to look like the future."\n"Conventional wisdom says the vice president doesn't really make that much of a difference in elections -- and everybody points to Dan Quayle," Andrews said. "But this is such a close election and the country is so polarized, if Edwards appeals to a few people, helps tilt the balance among independents, it could make the difference."\n-- Contact Opinion Editor Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu.
(07/08/04 1:08am)
Richard Yoakam, a long-time professor of journalism and broadcasting at IU for 32 years, died June 30. \nHe was 80.\nYoakam, who accepted a faculty position at IU in 1957 and retired from the University in 1989, died at his home in Bloomington.\nYoakam was born in Pittsburgh, and graduated from the University of Iowa Department of Journalism.\nTrevor Brown, dean of the IU School of Journalism, said Yoakam was an important mentor for him and other faculty members. Brown described Yoakam as "particularly charismatic" and "one of the great story-tellers of all time."\nBrown cited Yoakam as a major figure in the shift in the way the University handled journalism. \n"He had participated in some of the growth under (former IU President) Herman B Wells, and was a major figure in helping to shift the School of Journalism from a mainly professional training school to one that developed a set of courses, particularly for undergraduates, that enriched personal skills," Brown said.\nBrown also said Yoakam helped shift to a core curriculum with opportunities to specialize in other areas. \n"He was a wonderful teacher," said Dan Drew, a journalism professor who taught broadcast courses with Yoakam. "I see some of his students at conferences and other places, and they have great things to say about him and how he influenced and guided them."\nDavid Weaver, a journalism professor, said Yoakam was an inspiring, helpful and positive mentor. \n"He never complained about himself. He just thought about others and students and how they were doing," Weaver said. \nWeaver said in spite of Yoakam's own disability, he was one of the most positive, upbeat people on the faculty.\nOne of Yoakam's most influential contributions was committee recommendations to make the campus handicap accessible.\n"They don't make too many people like Dick anymore," Weaver said. "They really don't."\nYoakam is survived by his three sons and four grandchildren.\nAn open house was held for Yoakam Saturday, July 3 at his home.\n-- Contact Opinion Editor Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu.
(06/28/04 1:21am)
With "Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim," wry humorist David Sedaris has hammered in the fourth and final nail into the coffin of the debate over whether he is one of the finest personal essayists around.\nAnd clearly, he is.\nHe's been likened to the good company of Mark Twain and Oscar Wilde. He's been called the love child of Dorothy Parker and James Thurber. Sedaris is a fine writer, extremely witty yet morbidly compulsive and shameless. But he's strong enough to stand on his own. The compliments and comparisons are applicable and nice, but the strongest thing you can say about Sedaris is that he's a pure original.\nSedaris first hit it big was "The Santa Land Diaries," a spoken piece broadcast on National Public Radio about his time working as a Macy's elf during the busy holiday season. He's since been standing in the spotlight for his writing, which typically recounts the details from his personal, professional and -- most of all -- his family life.\nHe's had successful books since then, including his 1997 memoir "Naked" and 2000's best-seller "Me Talk Pretty One Day," his best anthology to date.\n"Dress Your Family" doesn't dare deviate from his successful formula: the book consists of about 20 short pieces, all autobiographical, and most of which were previously published in magazines like Esquire, GQ and The New Yorker, but are still pleasures to read again. \nAs the odd title suggests, the bulk of the essays in "Dress Your Family" are about Sedaris' family. I've always thought Sedaris' sharpest, wittiest stories are the ones about his family. And their personalities are enough to provide him with tons of material: his stern, Greek father, his relaxed and cynical mother (which, for my money, comes off the page as one of the most vivid literary personas in the past decade), his four sisters (including comedic actress Amy Sedaris) and his over-the-top brother Paul, nicknamed "the Rooster," whose experiences as a new father are documented in the story "Baby Einstein" and provide the biggest laughs in the new collection.\nWhat is so captivating about Sedaris' work is that his life story has been so seemingly typical. He grew up in Raleigh, N.C., with an endless supply of writing material from his childhood. One of the best essays is "Us and Them," a story about a neighboring family who didn't have a TV and went trick-or-treating on the wrong night. Sedaris landed low on the workforce ladder after he moved to New York. It is true, without a doubt, that his family is excessively colorful; but whose isn't? He may be a fiercely successful writer, but his stories feel no different than a friend telling you an anecdote. \nWith all of Sedaris' self-obsessions, it's hard to believe he can write about them so openly. With the brutal honesty he uses to dissect his family and his boyfriend, painter Hugh Hamrick, you have to wonder how they can still muster the will to talk to him. Fortunately for us -- and Sedaris, I suppose -- everything seems to work itself out in the end, and he can go on writing and we can go on laughing.\nWhen he comes to the IU Auditorium next year, as part of the 2004-05 lineup, I'll be one of the first in line.\n"Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim" is available on www.amazon.com for $14.97.
(06/24/04 4:00am)
Steven Spielberg's "The Terminal" is a filmmaking exercise in the sublime and effortless.\nIn fact, does it even seem like Spielberg has to put real effort into his movies anymore? My mental image of Spielberg has him walking onto the set each day in sneakers and a baseball cap, casually telling people what he wants, filming it and going home -- hey, no big deal. \nI know that Spielberg, however, can't do everything himself, and perhaps one of the reasons his movies are so good is that he consistently works with the same people: film editor Michael Kahn (three Oscars from working with Spielberg); cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (two Oscars with Spielberg); and composer John Williams (three Oscars with Spielberg), all on board this time for "The Terminal."\nTom Hanks plays Viktor Navorski, the kind of sappy, lovable character that Hanks was born to play. Navorski is en route to New York when his homeland, the fictitious Eastern European country of Krakozia, experiences a military coup. The U.S. no longer recognizes his passport and visa, but he's also not considered an illegal. As the local airport security chief Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci) says, "You're … unacceptable." \nNavorski is essentially stuck in limbo at JFK Airport (nearly every shot is filmed on a gigantic set, not actually in an airport -- and it's so detailed that if you didn't know it was a set, you wouldn't guess otherwise). He's innocent and honest; when given chances to escape, he doesn't; when given a chance to lie and leave, he doesn't. He's a nice guy all around, and Hanks makes it damn near impossible to hold an ounce of malice toward Navorski. \nThere's more to it than just the wait. About four or five little subplots surround this prolonged layover, all of which stick except one -- a blooming love interest in Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), a flight attendant who runs into Navorski every time she swings through New York. It's a story line that feels a little wasted as merely a subplot, and it could be a film all on its own. \nI was struck by how comfortable I felt watching this movie. It's a very subtle, reflexive film, and there's no doubt a little bit of patience will be required. The thin plot unravels slowly. We're given a lot of time to absorb our surroundings and get to know the characters. It's a movie that could make you laugh as well as well up with tears, but nothing feels forced.\nSpielberg has done a nice service to his audience: "The Terminal" is a good movie and good break from the hour-to-hour rat race.
(06/24/04 2:42am)
Steven Spielberg's "The Terminal" is a filmmaking exercise in the sublime and effortless.\nIn fact, does it even seem like Spielberg has to put real effort into his movies anymore? My mental image of Spielberg has him walking onto the set each day in sneakers and a baseball cap, casually telling people what he wants, filming it and going home -- hey, no big deal. \nI know that Spielberg, however, can't do everything himself, and perhaps one of the reasons his movies are so good is that he consistently works with the same people: film editor Michael Kahn (three Oscars from working with Spielberg); cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (two Oscars with Spielberg); and composer John Williams (three Oscars with Spielberg), all on board this time for "The Terminal."\nTom Hanks plays Viktor Navorski, the kind of sappy, lovable character that Hanks was born to play. Navorski is en route to New York when his homeland, the fictitious Eastern European country of Krakozia, experiences a military coup. The U.S. no longer recognizes his passport and visa, but he's also not considered an illegal. As the local airport security chief Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci) says, "You're … unacceptable." \nNavorski is essentially stuck in limbo at JFK Airport (nearly every shot is filmed on a gigantic set, not actually in an airport -- and it's so detailed that if you didn't know it was a set, you wouldn't guess otherwise). He's innocent and honest; when given chances to escape, he doesn't; when given a chance to lie and leave, he doesn't. He's a nice guy all around, and Hanks makes it damn near impossible to hold an ounce of malice toward Navorski. \nThere's more to it than just the wait. About four or five little subplots surround this prolonged layover, all of which stick except one -- a blooming love interest in Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), a flight attendant who runs into Navorski every time she swings through New York. It's a story line that feels a little wasted as merely a subplot, and it could be a film all on its own. \nI was struck by how comfortable I felt watching this movie. It's a very subtle, reflexive film, and there's no doubt a little bit of patience will be required. The thin plot unravels slowly. We're given a lot of time to absorb our surroundings and get to know the characters. It's a movie that could make you laugh as well as well up with tears, but nothing feels forced.\nSpielberg has done a nice service to his audience: "The Terminal" is a good movie and good break from the hour-to-hour rat race.
(06/24/04 1:59am)
Republican gubernatorial candidate Mitch Daniels stopped in Bloomington Tuesday to promote his "Roadmap to an Indiana comeback" and to talk with locals.\n"We're hoping to get citizens involved, to strengthen the economy and to build on the quality of life," Daniels said to a crowd of about 20 people in Dunn Meadow. "We need to concentrate on things that unite us all."\nDaniels, who left his post as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget in the summer of 2003, defeated conservative activist Eric Miller in May for the Republican nomination. He faces Gov. Joe Kernan, the Democratic candidate, in the November election.\nAndy Gigax, a junior who had never heard Daniels speak, said he liked seeing the candidate in action.\n"He does a great job working the crowd," Gigax said. "He's definitely a people person, very down-to-earth."\nBloomington resident Amy Bernitt said she is a long-time supporter of Daniels and has seen him speak seven or eight times. Her young daughter wore a "My Man Mitch" T-shirt that Daniels signed.\n"I support him, number one, because of his Christian values," Bernitt said.\nDaniels shook hands, chatted with residents and commented on a number of issues affecting the state.\nHe lamented about the "Indiana brain drain," or the exportation of young Indiana graduates to different states. \n"The environment works for us, and if we can get the economy to work for us, we can change the brain drain," he said.\n"(Traveling) is not a bad idea. Go see the world. And don't stop at California -- go see China," Daniels joked. "But when people want to be here (in Indiana), who want to come home and then they can't do it, that's a problem."\nPaul Hager, a GOP candidate running for the seat for Indiana state House District 60, echoed Daniels' brain drain sentiments.\n"I went to school here in Indiana, and I think the real tragedy is that there are so little opportunities to do something with your degree in Indiana," Hager said. "Indiana needs to be more business friendly, and we really need to cut the bloat."\nDaniels playfully acknowledged he has "cheerfully plagiarized" some his comeback ideas from neighboring states and businesses he is familiar with. He cited John Engler, a former Republican governor of Michigan, as " an innovative governor," and said some of his ethics proposals for restoring trust in government come from Illinois. \nDaniels also spoke about the divided government in Indiana. Currently Democrats hold a one-vote margin in the state house while Republicans control the state senate 32 to 18. \n"If I get hired, I'll go to the Democrats in the legislature and say that the public knows they wanted to give some of my ideas a chance," he said.\nAlthough a traditionally Republican state, Indiana has sent Democrats to the governor's mansion for the last four gubernatorial elections.\nDaniels dismissed the idea that a split ballot between two politicians from different parties who are popular in Indiana -- Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh and President Bush -- would have much of an affect on the outcome of the governor's race.\n"I've worked with President Bush, but I don't ask anyone to vote for me because of that," he said.\nDaniels also responded to a recent television ad he has been running on local networks. \n"The people who have been in power now for so long aren't bad people," he says in the ad. "I just think they have been in Indianapolis so long that they have lost touch with the severity of our problems." \n"I guarantee that some of our fellow citizens feel isolated and estranged," he told the crowd.\n"Some of them feel closer to places like Chicago and Illinois, or to Ohio, or Michigan or Kentucky.\n"But it does matter in Indianapolis if Gosport succeeds or fails, and it does matter in Bloomington if Lake County succeeds or fails. We're all in this together."\n-- Contact opinion editor Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu.
(06/24/04 1:11am)
The minute-by-minute recount of the events that transpired on Sept. 11, 2001, was publicly presented last week by the 9-11 Commission in a 29-page report entitled "Improvising a Homeland Defense" -- much more aptly named, it turns out, than we had previously thought.\nYou see, on Sept. 11, our government was apparently Gilligan.\nGilligan, the lead character on the popular 1960s television sitcom "Gilligan's Island," was a bumbling fool. He and six fellow castaways tried to escape their blue lagoon each week and get back to society. Somehow Gilligan always spoiled the plan. (He did have an extremely innocent quality to him, which in hindsight is why I think they probably just didn't kill him and move on.) \nOur government had that same bumbling problem the morning of the attacks. Three of the four hijackings were a success -- and on United Flight 93, the fourth plane heading toward Washington for possible targets like the Capitol or the White House, citizens saved the government, not the other way around. (The overall system may have failed on 9-11, but the citizens who took charge in planes, on the ground and in the towers seemed to be steadfast and effective.)\nBut until now, we never knew just how enormous the upper-level failings were. We now see in clear evidence that no one really knew what the hell was going on.\nThe commission's report shows civilian air traffic controllers and air defense officials ad libbing a defense for a disaster for which they had never been trained. Senior officials were in a state of intense confusion. At times they learned more from television news accounts than from classified intelligence reports.\nAmong them:\n-- Military workers were unable to tell if Federal Aviation Administration warnings were "real-world or exercise."\n-- American Airlines Flight 11 was a "phantom aircraft," which the military was chasing -- even after it had crashed into the World Trade Center.\n-- For 36 minutes, the FAA center in Indianapolis, in charge of watching American Airlines Flight 77, lost track of the plane entirely, which was then able to turn around and fly east toward its target, the Pentagon, undetected by radar.\n-- Fighter jets dispatched from Langely Air Force Base in southeastern Virginia originally were sent in the wrong direction, out over the Atlantic Ocean.\n-- Once it became clear what was going on, and before hijackers had taken over, the FAA office in Boston recommended to FAA headquarters that cockpit security measures be implemented, but their suggestion was not taken.\n-- And the following conversation, which is only done true justice when heard as an audio recording:\nCommand Center: Uh, do we want to think about, uh, scrambling aircraft?\nFAA Headquarters: Uh, God, I don't know.\nCommand Center: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna' have to make probably in the next 10 minutes.\nFAA Headquarters: Uh, you know, everybody just left the room.\n The commission said the government was drastically underprepared and firmly contended the military's assertion that the hijacked planes could have been shot down if the FAA had told the military as soon as it knew. ("We're not so sure," the commission reported.)\n It might seem hard to condemn the government for an inability to respond to a hectic 149 minutes unlike anything ever seen in America before. The government succeeded in parts (they orchestrated the landings of 4,500 airborne flights that day) but failed unconscionably amidst chaos.\n I'll be the first to admit I didn't have enough faith in the 9-11 Commission. A few months ago in this newspaper I wrote that the commission "was a good idea, but it's likely now to travel down an unfortunate path to insignificance" ("Commission impossible" staff editorial, April 12). I was clearly wrong. The commission has done quite an effective job of breaking down the 9-11 attacks, and by exposing the government's pratfalls, it is helping ensure that something like this never happens again. \nAnd if it does, we might just have to rely on average Americans again instead of the military.
(06/17/04 4:00am)
Attention, Hollywood: Do you see what you've done by not giving Bill Murray the Best Actor Oscar for "Lost in Translation?" You've reduced him to "Garfield: The Movie," a completely miserable, humorless and dumbed-down cinematic version of the famous comic strip fat cat who feuds with dogs, makes fun of his owner and chows down on lasagna.\nAs a general rule, I'm weary of any film that advertises itself as "The Movie." It indicates there is typically another version of the same thing in an alternative media that's also typically better. \n"Garfield: The Movie" is no exception. The comic strip, drawn and syndicated by Indiana's own Jim Davis since 1978, was never brilliantly funny; but at least it is nostalgic and simple. I remember eating bowls of cereal for breakfast over my hometown newspaper's comics section when I was younger, reading "Garfield," "The Far Side" and "Calvin & Hobbes." \nTurning this movie into a flashy, overblown marketing tool isn't just bad filmmaking … it's personal.\nI can imagine Murray rolling his eyes between reading lines. He provides the voice of a CGI Garfield, who is the only CGI animal in the movie. The other animals are for some unknown reason actual animals who have been given voiceovers -- including the lovable dog Odie, much to my chagrin. I kept wondering why in the hell they decided to do something asinine like that, and I think either they just wanted to show off their skills of weaving CGI with reality or they blew their budget.\nJon Arbuckle, Garfield's owner, who for years has been depicted in the comic strip as a perpetually pathetic bachelor, has been given a makeover in the form of the attractive Breckin Meyer, who lives in an attractive home in an attractive neighborhood and is the romantic interest of the attractive Jennifer Love Hewitt. \nHewitt plays Liz, Garfield's veterinarian, and Jon brings him into her office at an apparently abnormal rate just to pine for her. Everyone I know would find that borderline stalking, but that's neither here nor there. \nThe plot is dumb: a local ascot-wearing TV personality (Stephen Tobolowsky) steals the talented Odie. Jon, Liz and Garfield must save the day. Truth to be told, I gave up on the plot and kept my sanity by counting gratuitous product placements (16, but please don't go and try to count yourself).\nWhile there's at least a plot, there is no enjoyment to be found anywhere in "Garfield." It's flat, it's very uninspiring and it should be exclusively reserved for the elementary school crowd -- assuming even they would be interested.
(06/16/04 11:16pm)
Attention, Hollywood: Do you see what you've done by not giving Bill Murray the Best Actor Oscar for "Lost in Translation?" You've reduced him to "Garfield: The Movie," a completely miserable, humorless and dumbed-down cinematic version of the famous comic strip fat cat who feuds with dogs, makes fun of his owner and chows down on lasagna.\nAs a general rule, I'm weary of any film that advertises itself as "The Movie." It indicates there is typically another version of the same thing in an alternative media that's also typically better. \n"Garfield: The Movie" is no exception. The comic strip, drawn and syndicated by Indiana's own Jim Davis since 1978, was never brilliantly funny; but at least it is nostalgic and simple. I remember eating bowls of cereal for breakfast over my hometown newspaper's comics section when I was younger, reading "Garfield," "The Far Side" and "Calvin & Hobbes." \nTurning this movie into a flashy, overblown marketing tool isn't just bad filmmaking … it's personal.\nI can imagine Murray rolling his eyes between reading lines. He provides the voice of a CGI Garfield, who is the only CGI animal in the movie. The other animals are for some unknown reason actual animals who have been given voiceovers -- including the lovable dog Odie, much to my chagrin. I kept wondering why in the hell they decided to do something asinine like that, and I think either they just wanted to show off their skills of weaving CGI with reality or they blew their budget.\nJon Arbuckle, Garfield's owner, who for years has been depicted in the comic strip as a perpetually pathetic bachelor, has been given a makeover in the form of the attractive Breckin Meyer, who lives in an attractive home in an attractive neighborhood and is the romantic interest of the attractive Jennifer Love Hewitt. \nHewitt plays Liz, Garfield's veterinarian, and Jon brings him into her office at an apparently abnormal rate just to pine for her. Everyone I know would find that borderline stalking, but that's neither here nor there. \nThe plot is dumb: a local ascot-wearing TV personality (Stephen Tobolowsky) steals the talented Odie. Jon, Liz and Garfield must save the day. Truth to be told, I gave up on the plot and kept my sanity by counting gratuitous product placements (16, but please don't go and try to count yourself).\nWhile there's at least a plot, there is no enjoyment to be found anywhere in "Garfield." It's flat, it's very uninspiring and it should be exclusively reserved for the elementary school crowd -- assuming even they would be interested.
(06/14/04 1:37am)
The investigation into a house fire that killed three IU students in May is no longer with the Bloomington Fire Department but is now in the hands of independent investigators and insurance investigators, said Jennifer Lloyd, an attorney at the Bloomington Risk Management Division.\nNo major developments have been unearthed in the investigation of the May 22 fire so far, which killed juniors Jacob Surface and Joseph Alexander, both 21, and sophomore Nicolas Habicht, 20.\nJunior Paul Dayment, 21, was sent to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis and released.\nAs part of their contributions to the investigation, the BFD has noted the locations of windows and examined the access paths.\nLloyd said the investigation is not near completion.\n"Typically with a larger fire like this, the investigations take more time," she said.\nLloyd said independent labs are inspecting audio and video components, which are believed to be the source of the fire, but no conclusive cause has been determined yet. Their inspections of the equipment could take "a significant amount of time," Lloyd said.\nInvestigators also do not know who placed the 911 call, which came from inside the house from Habicht's cell phone. Investigators determined that the house's fire alarms were functional and operating because they were sounding in the background during the call.\nHorn Properties, which owns the house, 719 N. Indiana Ave., said they do not have access to the house at this time. They are waiting for word from the insurance agents and the city before they make any decision about the house's future.\nHorn Properties said the house was within Bloomington City Code and had been inspected by the city. A permit of compliance was set to expire in 2006.\nThe house has paperwork on file at the Bloomington Department of House and Neighborhood Development office, which has shown it was in compliance with Bloomington property maintenance code.\nA report released by the BFD in late May ruled the fire as "most likely accidental."\n-- Contact Opinion editor Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu.
(06/10/04 2:06am)
On a normal day -- that is, when nothing too big is in the news -- Randy DeCleene walks into his office around 7 a.m. When he looks out the window behind his desk, he sees the White House. \n"It's a constant reminder of where I am," he said.\nHis office television is on the background, with the screen split into fourths, each quarter-screen playing one of the major cable news networks. \nHe's amused by it.\n"It's a wonderful invention if you're a news junkie," he added.\nHe recently finished The Clinton Wars, a senior aide's inside account of the Clinton presidency, and declares, "I find I gain more about myself when I read someone I don't necessarily agree with."\nReading is a large part of his job. The majority of his morning is spent reading, he said, typically six or seven newspapers a day and the press clips of his boss, the vice president of the United States. \nDeCleene, an IU alumnus who graduated in 2000, currently serves as the Deputy Press Secretary for Vice President Dick Cheney after many years of bouncing back and forth between participating in school and participating in politics.\n"It's slightly deceiving," he said coyly, referring to his graduation date. "Because I stopped attending in August 1997 with only five credits left."\nDeCleene left IU temporarily then to work on the campaign of Sue Anne Gilroy, a former Indiana secretary of state, who said she still clearly remembers the first day she met him.\n"Randy made the trip up to the state GOP convention from IU, and he said, 'I'll do whatever it takes, I want to be part of this campaign,'" Gilroy said.\nDeCleene said he believes he did just enough school work to get by, but at the time he wasn't interested in classes. \n"School was something I had to do in order to work on these campaigns," he said. "The best education I could get was working on campaigns."\nHe was an early journalism major who ended up waitlisted for his first required class, but changed his major to political science shortly after arriving at IU. Then he changed again to social and behavioral sciences after learning the political science requirements. \n"I told my adviser, 'I need to know what I can major in where I don't have to take a foreign language,'" he laughed.\nPolitics, though, have always been his passion. He was raised in a house where the television was always on and people were always discussing the issues of the day. He characterized his perfect day as a cup of coffee, a comfortable place to sit and a collection of newspapers from around the country. \nDeCleene flirted with campus politics as an undergraduate, running for IU Student Association vice president and then losing. He served as the president of the IU College Democrats before switching parties in 1994.\n"I grew up in South Bend, which is a very Democratic area," he said. "Back then, my dad was an elected Democrat, and everyone I knew was a Democrat. I just thought I was a Democrat."\nAfterward he joined with the College Republicans and became involved with Monroe County politics.\n"He's one of those alums that the University will be particularly proud of," said Kirk White, whose 1995 Bloomington mayoral campaign DeCleene worked for $200 a week.\nWhite said he and DeCleene have become good friends and still see each other, but when DeCleene first came to volunteer for the campaign after his party switch, White described it as a gamble.\n"You always wonder one way or another if someone from the other side plants someone in your campaign," White remembered. "So we took a little bit of a gamble, but Randy is a very sincere person and someone that I trusted."\nTrusted is one of the terms which those who have worked with DeCleene seem to keep repeating -- as well as "a valuable asset," "a great contributor" and "a pleasure to work with." \n"He's a consummate public servant, the kind of guy who puts principles first," said Chris Toth, the former prosecutor for Saint Joseph County in Indiana and current the deputy director of the National Association of Attorneys General in Washington, D.C.\n"I wish I could clone him," Toth added with a chuckle.\nDeCleene worked as Toth's press secretary from 2000 to 2003 where he got his first taste of dealing with the national media.\n"A fascinating job," DeCleene said. "And I had it in conjunction with going to law school, which made it even better."\nDuring his his tenure, he had to manage the national press gaggle on two major stories. There was the case of four Notre Dame football players who were charged with gang rape, and then the case of Madelyne Toogood, who was caught on a department store security camera beating her daughter. \n"It was unlike anything I'd done before," DeCleene said. "You wouldn't normally expect to deal with those things working in a county prosecutor's office in Indiana. It was good training for where I've ended up now."\nAfter briefly working earlier this year in Chicago as press secretary and strategist on a campaign for an open Senate seat in Illinois, he went to work at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C. as deputy press secretary to the vice president.\nEach day is different and unpredictable, he said, because so much of what the office staff does is in response to world events.\nHis job requires him to work with press secretary Kevin Kellems, who he worked with on Gilroy's campaign. DeCleene primarily handles interview requests, speaks on behalf of the vice president and coordinates the traveling press, sometimes tagging along.\n"If I live to be 100, I'll never forget the first time I flew on Air Force Two," he said reflectively. "Flying on a plane with the second most powerful man in the world makes me think of the people who helped me along the way."\nIt is then DeCleene begins to speak as favorably about his former bosses as they do about their former employee. \n"If it wasn't for White, if it wasn't for Gilroy, if it wasn't for people like that giving me a chance as a 22- or 23-year-old, none of this would have been possible," he said as he stood up from his desk chair looking out of that office window again, the one with the particular view of the White House.\nIn typical DeCleene fashion, he has yet to complete law school, which he began at Valparaiso University, "all done except for one semester," he commented playfully.\n"But I don't want to demean my school experience," he quickly added. "I just wasn't interested in it at the time, but now I read books and I wonder, wouldn't it be great if I only had 15 hours of school and a few extracirricular activities?"\n"That's not to say one way of attending school is right or wrong, but certainly I don't think I took the easy way," he laughed.\nHe said he definitely plans to finish law school one way or another, either after he's done working in Washington, D.C. or after November election results are counted -- whichever comes first. When possible future campaigns of his own are mentioned, he responds with a playful, "You never know." \n"I can honestly say that my life has been very unpredictable," he said. "I would not be surprised if public service and working to make Indiana a better place is somehow involved with my future."\n"He'll never forget his Hoosier roots," Gilroy said, almost prophetically.\nBut until then, Decleene said he doesn't want to take anything for granted.\n"I have a picture on my desk from 1972 of my great-grandfather standing in the circle drive of the White House. Through my office window, I can see exactly where he was standing," DeCleene said proudly. \n"It's humbling to know he came over on a boat, passed through Ellis Island, passed the Statue of Liberty, lived a normal life as a barber and now I get the chance to work at the White House. The significance of his great-grandson getting that opportunity is not lost on me."\n-- Contact opinion editor Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu.
(06/10/04 1:19am)
A few weeks ago I was chatting on the telephone with Mickey Carroll, the director of the Polling Institute at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut. The institute had released a national poll that put a rather interesting twist on the presidential race, and it snagged my attention.\n"I'm always worried people will think we're being wiseguys or frivolous or kidding around," Caroll said in a thick New York accent. \n"I had a lady call me and say she thought it was the dumbest thing she had ever read," he said. "But what we try to do is get beyond the straight up-and-down and get a real, personal reaction to these guys. It's not irrelevant at all."\nI agreed and did not find the poll to be the dumbest thing I had ever read. It was, in fact, quite telling. Quinnipiac found that half of the registered voters surveyed said they would prefer to attend a backyard barbecue with President Bush. Thirty-nine percent said they'd have a cookout with John Kerry.\nThis isn't surprising. Personally, I would relish the opportunity to chat with either candidate in any forum. But overall, the president gives the impression that he'd slap you on the back, tell you a good joke and eat whatever you throw on the grill. Kerry gives the impression he'd hover behind you and explain to you exactly how he wants his hamburger cooked -- "not too raw, not too well-done, exquisitely medium" is my guess.\nCarroll says likability is a mystical quality that's hard to measure and hard to define.\n"It's obviously a factor for voters, but we don't know how much. Would voters choose a guy they think is going to be an awful president but is a great guy? Of course not," Carroll told me. "But being a great guy could help a politician."\nPollsters continually say voters see Kerry as cold, distant and aloof, although, much like the perception of Bush's intelligence during the 2000 election, I wonder if it's something voters actually believe or just think because they hear it over and over.\nEveryone says Kerry needs to loosen up. Right now, though, the worst thing Kerry could do is listen to all the people who keep telling him he needs to loosen up. It's an election curse. Whenever a politician is told they need to loosen up, they come off looking sillier and less real than if they were simply themselves. (For example: Which of the five Al Gores did you find the most real in 2000?)\nLikability certainly will be an issue in November, but I don't think it's going to be as important as others believe for five reasons.\nFirst: The incumbent's referendum factor. Elections against a sitting president tend to be a referendum on the incumbent. Likability matters more in open-seat races, like in 2000. The president is basically asking America to rehire him, and he has a record to defend. Even if voters like the man, they may not vote for him if they are upset about the economy, budget, the war or other personal issues. \nSecond: The real person factor. Voters would certainly rather like the person they're stuck with for four years, but they also want someone who isn't pretending to be someone else. That's what gave Bush the edge over Gore in 2000. Kerry is comfortable in his skin and doesn't make an issue out of being someone else.\nThird: The debate factor. Remember, most voters don't really start paying attention to the election until the political conventions and the presidential debates. Voters were lukewarm to Ronald Reagan in 1980 until he sealed up the election with a stellar performance against former President Jimmy Carter. Kerry may still show-up Bush in the debates this fall.\nFourth: The important issues factor. The more important the issues are in a particular year, the more people are likely to ignore the superficial things. Big issues, like jobs and terrorism and national security, may make likability less of a factor.\nAnd lastly: The Kerry win-record factor. He has won all the races he was supposed to lose. He vanquished the affable William Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts, in a tight 1996 Senate race. He vanquished the passionate Gov. Howard Dean and personable Sen. John Edwards in the primaries.\nNow Kerry has his eyes set on the likable President Bush. And a good measure of how worried the Bush campaign is will be how much they keep perpetuating the fact that Kerry is unlikable.
(05/27/04 4:00am)
I like "Shrek 2" for all the same reasons I liked the original "Shrek:" it's smart, savvy, funny, creative and original. These are not compliments any sequel should take lightly. As a general rule of thumb, sequels tend to be worse than their predecessors. "Shrek 2" is among the rare few that can hold its own against the first.\nThe good news is the majority of the original cast is back (one of the signs a sequel might not be doomed). As the film opens, we join our hero Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers) and his new wife Fiona (Cameron Diaz) on their honeymoon. Once they arrive back to their swampy home, they receive an invitation to visit Princess Fiona's parents in the land of Far Far Away.\nThe plot, if there's any to report on, is like a "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" with ogres. Fiona's parents (a king and queen voiced by John Cleese and Julie Andrews) have trouble adjusting to Shrek and Fiona's new ogre-ness, and the two go through a rocky period where they wonder how strong love really is, as Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) and his mom, the Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders), plot to win over Fiona.\nIt's the type of conclusion we reached in the first "Shrek," whose moral of the story was love knows no bounds and it's not who you love but that you actually love. So why the need for a "Shrek 2?" Well, like most sequels, the first one made a boatload of money. DreamWorks, its distributing and producing company, wanted to cash in on a sequel -- and they did. Early box office reports show "Shrek 2" pulled in over $100 million its opening weekend, the largest opening for an animated movie ever and the largest one-day box office gross. \nThe writers and directors must be commended for making a fun and widely entertaining movie. For a project that seems like it was spawned just for more money, "Shrek 2" is full of new satire, parody and rip-offs. It's packed tightly with pop culture references (including a catchy soundtrack full of song covers). It's like a golden overflow of wit that they couldn't fit into the first "Shrek." \nIf "Shrek 2" can be accurately accused of anything, I think one could make a compelling case that it's perhaps too mature to be a kids' movie. To be sure, there's little doubt in my mind that the first "Shrek" was always meant for adults, and kids would like it merely for its flashy, animated characters and its bathroom humor. (I suppose some adults could get their kicks off of that as well.) \nThat said, while I think it's worth the time and money, "Shrek 2" is still not as good as the original. The original literally took me by surprise. During the first "Shrek," I hadn't had so much fun at a movie since "High Fidelity." It grabbed ahold of my imagination and ran with it. \nIt's a fruitless comparison either way. "Shrek 2" can stand on its own legs and is a strong follow-up.
(05/27/04 4:00am)
Come-from-behind, feel-good, larger-than-yourself stories -- at least the kind on display in "Miracle," the story of the "miracle on ice" 1980 U.S. hockey team which is new to DVD -- are something that will never go out of style in movies.\nAnd it's the reason "Miracle" works. It's a sports movie that's really not about the sport. It's about the coach, the team players and what it meant collectively for all those who watched and cheered. It's an ideal cinematic reflection of what the actual 1980 team meant to Americans in one of the rockiest periods of the Cold War.\nYes, it's a little cheesy. Yes, it's a little Disney. Yes, it's probably no coincidence it's out on DVD during the Stanley Cup playoffs. But it's also very enjoyable. It's just hardly memorable -- with the lone exception of Kurt Russell, who is powerful, fascinating and stoic as the unorthodox coach Herb Brooks. \nIt's real, engaging acting; Russell, beefed-up with a square haircut and hideous plaid pants, is at his best here, completely submerged in Brooks. I almost feel that without someone giving a strong performance as Brooks, this movie would have been far less entertaining.\n"Miracle" comes in a shiny two-disc set, with lots of behind-the-scenes featurettes, outtakes and an ESPN roundtable hosted by Linda Cohn with members of the 1980 team and Russell. All told, it's a nice package.
(05/27/04 1:54am)
One of the students who died from a house fire over the weekend was killed because of anoxic encephalopathy, which is a lack of oxygen to the brain, said Monroe County Coroner David Toumey in a press release Monday. \nToumey said that sophomore Nicolas Habicht's accidental death was attributed to the house fire that occurred Saturday morning at 719 N. Indiana Ave.\nJuniors Jacob Surface and Joseph Alexander, both 21, died Saturday. \nToumey said preliminary information suggested Surface and Alexander died from carbon monoxide poisoning, but the final cause of death has not yet been released.\nHabicht, 20, was flown by Lifeline to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis and died Sunday afternoon following continued critical condition status.\nJunior Paul Dayment, 21, survived the fire.\nHe was discharged Tuesday from Methodist Hospital, according to a hospital spokeswoman.\nInformation pertaining to the status of the investigation as a whole was released in a Bloomington Fire Department report by Chief Jeff Barlow late Tuesday night.\nThe report ruled the fire as "most likely accidental." The fire began on the first floor living room near the main entrance to the house. \nThe cause is still under examination, but investigators are focused on "a group of numerous audio/video components" in the first-floor living room. The audio/video equipment is being investigated. \nA similar statement was given to the Indiana Daily Student Monday by Pam Bright, spokeswoman for the State Fire Marshal's office.\nThe report determined the 911 call came from inside the house from Habicht's cell phone. Investigators were able to conclude that the fire alarms were functional and operating because they were sounding in the background during the call.\nWho placed the call, however, is still unclear.\nAccording to the report, firefighters found Habicht and Alexander on the second floor. Surface was found on the first floor in the living room. Dayment was also on the first floor, but was in his bedroom with the door closed.\nDayment's father, Richard, told The Indianapolis Star that his son tried to get out the front door but couldn't find it. He went back to his room to go out of a window, but passed out.\nThe house was part of about 20 such residential rental properties in Bloomington owned by Stasny & Horn, an Indiana General Partnership. \nInformation from the Bloomington Department of Housing and Neighborhood Development office showed the house had a permit in compliance with Bloomington property maintenance code. It was last inspected in March 2001. The permit was to expire in May 2006.\nNo violations were noted in the 2001 inspection. \nThe investigation, headed by the BFD, has been conducted in conjunction with the State Fire Marshal's office and a contracted fire investigation specialist. Shand Forensic Investigators, Inc., was also on the scene Tuesday.\nThe investigation has been ongoing since Saturday morning immediately following the evacuation of the house and the extinguishing of the fire. Barlow said the investigation is moving slowly because the department has had to delay for the "right people" to arrive on the scene. \nAlexander's funeral was Wednesday, with Habicht's and Surface's planned for today.\n-- Contact opinion editor Tony Sams at ajsams@indiana.edu.
(05/26/04 10:18pm)
Come-from-behind, feel-good, larger-than-yourself stories -- at least the kind on display in "Miracle," the story of the "miracle on ice" 1980 U.S. hockey team which is new to DVD -- are something that will never go out of style in movies.\nAnd it's the reason "Miracle" works. It's a sports movie that's really not about the sport. It's about the coach, the team players and what it meant collectively for all those who watched and cheered. It's an ideal cinematic reflection of what the actual 1980 team meant to Americans in one of the rockiest periods of the Cold War.\nYes, it's a little cheesy. Yes, it's a little Disney. Yes, it's probably no coincidence it's out on DVD during the Stanley Cup playoffs. But it's also very enjoyable. It's just hardly memorable -- with the lone exception of Kurt Russell, who is powerful, fascinating and stoic as the unorthodox coach Herb Brooks. \nIt's real, engaging acting; Russell, beefed-up with a square haircut and hideous plaid pants, is at his best here, completely submerged in Brooks. I almost feel that without someone giving a strong performance as Brooks, this movie would have been far less entertaining.\n"Miracle" comes in a shiny two-disc set, with lots of behind-the-scenes featurettes, outtakes and an ESPN roundtable hosted by Linda Cohn with members of the 1980 team and Russell. All told, it's a nice package.
(05/26/04 10:11pm)
I like "Shrek 2" for all the same reasons I liked the original "Shrek:" it's smart, savvy, funny, creative and original. These are not compliments any sequel should take lightly. As a general rule of thumb, sequels tend to be worse than their predecessors. "Shrek 2" is among the rare few that can hold its own against the first.\nThe good news is the majority of the original cast is back (one of the signs a sequel might not be doomed). As the film opens, we join our hero Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers) and his new wife Fiona (Cameron Diaz) on their honeymoon. Once they arrive back to their swampy home, they receive an invitation to visit Princess Fiona's parents in the land of Far Far Away.\nThe plot, if there's any to report on, is like a "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" with ogres. Fiona's parents (a king and queen voiced by John Cleese and Julie Andrews) have trouble adjusting to Shrek and Fiona's new ogre-ness, and the two go through a rocky period where they wonder how strong love really is, as Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) and his mom, the Fairy Godmother (Jennifer Saunders), plot to win over Fiona.\nIt's the type of conclusion we reached in the first "Shrek," whose moral of the story was love knows no bounds and it's not who you love but that you actually love. So why the need for a "Shrek 2?" Well, like most sequels, the first one made a boatload of money. DreamWorks, its distributing and producing company, wanted to cash in on a sequel -- and they did. Early box office reports show "Shrek 2" pulled in over $100 million its opening weekend, the largest opening for an animated movie ever and the largest one-day box office gross. \nThe writers and directors must be commended for making a fun and widely entertaining movie. For a project that seems like it was spawned just for more money, "Shrek 2" is full of new satire, parody and rip-offs. It's packed tightly with pop culture references (including a catchy soundtrack full of song covers). It's like a golden overflow of wit that they couldn't fit into the first "Shrek." \nIf "Shrek 2" can be accurately accused of anything, I think one could make a compelling case that it's perhaps too mature to be a kids' movie. To be sure, there's little doubt in my mind that the first "Shrek" was always meant for adults, and kids would like it merely for its flashy, animated characters and its bathroom humor. (I suppose some adults could get their kicks off of that as well.) \nThat said, while I think it's worth the time and money, "Shrek 2" is still not as good as the original. The original literally took me by surprise. During the first "Shrek," I hadn't had so much fun at a movie since "High Fidelity." It grabbed ahold of my imagination and ran with it. \nIt's a fruitless comparison either way. "Shrek 2" can stand on its own legs and is a strong follow-up.
(05/25/04 3:23pm)
Did you hear the bad news? The sitcom died -- again.\nOf course it has died a number of times, and each time we mourn like our favorite pet has just been run over by a truck with "long live syndication!" stenciled onto its side. \nIn the past twenty years or so, the sitcom first died when "M*A*S*H" went off the air in 1983. The sitcom kicked the bucket again when "Cheers" and "The Cosby Show" left in 1992 and 1993, respectively. And once again, in 1998 the sitcom bought the farm when "Seinfeld" took an exit at stage left on top of its game. \nThe situation comedy, you could say, is the walking dead of network television.\nNow, with "Frasier," "Friends" and "Sex in the City" leaving this year, and the mind-bogglingly popular "Everybody Loves Raymond" most likely on the way out next season, we once again rue the death of a sacred television institution. \nTo be sure, the media is still awarding all the ratings-driven fanfare to sitcom finales, with the "Friends" meeting up with Jay Leno, being interviewed on "Dateline" in lieu of serious news and popping up on magazine covers for the umpteenth time. \n(Remarkably, not much attention is being paid to "Frasier," a spin-off of "Cheers" which no one thought would succeed -- which won Outstanding Comedy Series at the Emmys five years in a row and which on the whole was consistently smarter, wittier and funnier than any season "Friends.") \nCritics seem to be standoffish this time around, unwilling to declare the sitcom's death, as if they're trapped in some media criticism Skinner box and pulling the wrong lever one more time will deliver a wicked shock. \nI say embrace it. They'd be right this time -- because this time ain't last time. The difference now is there's no plausible sitcom successor to "Friends" or "Frasier." \nWhen each major network sitcom left TV, there was another one right behind it, quietly waiting to replace it. "M*A*S*H" bequeathed "Cosby" and "Cheers," which bequeathed "Seinfeld," "Frasier" and "Friends." Same security, different blanket.\nThis time, as we say goodbye to the Central Perk and the Doctors Crane, we have no other comedies we can rebound on. Don't put all your eggs in the basket for "Will & Grace," which seemed like NBC's heir apparent with its cushy Thursday slot. But it peaked far too early. The writing has been stained with monotony and repetition, and now the characters are stuck in the rinse cycle. ("Oh, you mean Jack is flamboyantly gay and Karen is an elitist bitch? Huh. After five seasons, I still hadn't picked up on that.") \nIf general impressions don't convincingly show the dire situation that sitcoms are in, the numbers surely will. So far this season, only five comedies are among Nielsen Media Research's list of top 25 shows, compared to nine dramas and nine reality shows ("60 Minutes" and sports fill out the list).\nThe number of people who tune into the finales is also dwindling, perhaps a sign indicating the number of people who actually care is less and less each time. Television's most popular series finale ever, "M*A*S*H," was seen by an unprecedented-for-that-time 105 million viewers. The last "Cheers" was seen by 80.4 million people; "Seinfeld" had 76.2 million. \n"Friends" had 51.1 million people tune in. "Frasier" will have less -- much less.\nTrends conquer television, and you don't need a soothsayer to see where TV is going. Mature dramas, especially those involving the tracking down of criminals, and reality shows are pulling in the numbers that matter to execs. \nComedies are being shoved off onto cable and premium-channels, which depending how you look at it could actually be a great thing for the quality of programming. There, in the oasis of television, they are allowed to be edgier and more independent, less accountable to the millions of devotees, and have the ability to retain formats based less on rigidity and more on amusement. Shows like "Monk," "Curb Your Enthusiasm" and "The Office," all of which would have most likely failed on network TV, are given a chance at life on cable and premium.\nBut as for now, cable comedies will never capture the sizable audiences that network television is capable of grabbing. Network TV is still a safe haven for programming and is just more visible than cable can be.\nIf there is any scrap of good news, it's that there is an exciting opportunity buried within the stark reality that there are no sitcom successors. It does provide a chance for the networks to dream up something new, which in TV-land means taking an old formula and putting it in a different location. \nProducers are hoping "Joey," the spin-off of "Friends," will encounter the same success as "Frasier." But it won't -- "Frasier" worked because it was the direct opposite of "Cheers" and was able to stand on its own. "Joey" will have to be entirely dependent on "Friends" life-support if it has any chance to succeed.\nCritics who are expecting audiences to make new friends with a sitcom soon are mistaken. There are no prominent network comedies out there. Soon viewers will migrate toward other genres, which will most likely spawn more awful reality programming.\nThe sitcom as we knew it, it seems, may have really died this time. There will be other comedies. But for right now, anyone unwilling to concede the demise is still stuck in the first stage of grief: denial.