What's Next for NASA?

Earlier today, Atlantis lifted off in what is NASA's final shuttle flight of its thirty year program. The general scientific consensus seems to be a begrudging admission that the shuttle program achieved mixed results overall. I'm no scientist, so I can't chime in one way or the other intelligibly, but the idea of humans journeying into space was always cool and admirable to me, regardless of the mission.

I wonder where NASA goes from here? It seems like the wise money will be spent on unmanned probes and satellites and on things like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which looks like it's going to replace The Hubble.

I'd like to see the government spend more on research into interstellar space flight. I know that we theoretically can't travel faster than light, but it'd be good to be able to reach some of these potentially habitable exoplanets in a reasonable, and practical, amount of time. Call it manifest destiny if you want, but I think it's imperative the human race colonize other, already habitable worlds. Because the odds are long we'll be able to effectively terraform any of the other bodies in our solar system, and as a species we don't want to keep all our eggs in one basket. If you've read The Road, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Local Author Interview and Short Story

My buddy Nate Green has got an author interview up here at Apiary Magazine. Check out the great interview, where yours truly gets mentioned, and also take note: Nate's short story, "The Slut Buck" will appear in Apiary online soon.

Promote Whatever You Want

It's been awhile since I last did this, but it's never too late to bring a good thing back is it?

(Put your proverbial hands down. That was a rhetorical question.)

The one rule is that there are no rules. Promote whatever you want by leaving a comment below. In the past, we've gotten mostly authors pimping their books but the random promoters, like the clothing line person and the potentially copyright infringing podcaster, are always welcome too.

Oh wait, there is one rule I forgot about: you can't promote anything for me. Don't worry, I still get plenty out of this just from the traffic alone. Thanks in advance.

And there are no prizes for guessing the identity of the man in this picture. If you want prizes, you must go to my friend Nate Green's blog.

Local Author Appearing in Doylestown Bookshop This Saturday

Fellow local author Jim Kristofic will be at the Doylestown Bookshop on Saturday to do a reading and signing for his memoir, Navajos Wear Nikes. I've recently had the opportunity to meet Jim in a YA workshop and look forward to reading his book myself. Here's the info:

LIFE ON AN INDIAN RESERVATION… WHAT'S THAT LIKE?
An Evening of Storytelling and Booksigning with Navajos Wear Nikes author Jim Kristofic
WHERE: Doylestown Bookshop
WHEN: May 21st, 6-8 p.m.

Navajos Wear Nikes: A Reservation Life

When Jim Kristofic's family moved across the country to Ganado, Arizona, his life changed forever. Ganado was a "Rez-town" on a reservation the size of West Virginia. More Indians lived on the Rez than anywhere else on earth. White people called them Navajo. They called themselves Diné—The People. For Jim's mother, living among the Navajo was a childhood dream come true. For Jim—who'd just barely learned to tie his own shoelaces—it was the end of the world and the beginning of something new and unforgettable.

In this memoir Jim Kristofic introduces readers to the complex world of the modern Navajo Nation, where Anglo and Navajo coexist in a tenuous truce. It is a place of spirits, where witches haunt the valley at night and the supernatural is part of everyday life. But his friendships with local boys lead Jim to understand the wit of the Navajo language, how to make fry bread, how to find hózhó, a beautiful harmony. He shares tales of rescued "Rez-dogs," a captive hawk, a gang-style murder, an Indian Boy Scout troop, a fanatical Sunday school teacher, a sheep butchering in the middle of the school day, and his friendship with the Navajo bull rider and artist who becomes his stepfather. After the births of his Navajo sister and brother, Jim's family moves off the Rez to an Arizona border town, where he and his family struggle to adapt to the Anglo society that no longer feels like the home he left behind.

With compelling honesty, Navajos Wear Nikes tracks a modern life on the Navajo Reservation, from childhood to manhood. Kristofic recounts the painful, fascinating history of Ganado, Arizona and tells the story of a boy trying to understand the truth of a people and the truth about himself.

Jim Kristofic has worked on and off the "Rez" for more than ten years as a river guide, journalist, and oral historian. He has written for The Navajo Times, Arizona Highways, and High Country News. He and his wife currently live in eastern Pennsylvania with—of course—a rescued dog.

CURRENT PRAISE FOR NAVAJOS WEAR NIKES

"Jim Kristofic combines the spirit of Joseph Campbell and J.D. Salinger to give readers an intimate look at the complexity of life in Navajo country. I rarely have tears when I read the last chapter of a book… with this book I did."
Martha Blue, former Indian country attorney and award-winning author of Indian Trader: The Life and Times of J.L. Hubbell

"This is a story told on many levels. It can be brutally frank, irreverent in places, and funny in others. But it is so serious that it will hold the reader's attention from beginning to end. It brings to Native life a strongly personal and emotional aspect seldom seen, and it will persist in memory long after a first reading."
David Brugge, historian, anthropologist, author of The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute: An American Tragedy

"Few regionally tied autobiographies have shown as much wit and keen observation as Navajos Wear Nikes by Jim Kristofic." -- Arizona Daily Sun

"Many years ago, a coworker and I thought about preparing a `primer' for non-Navajo newcomers needing to learn the rights and wrongs about living on the Navajo Nation. This book could be used as such a primer."
Ed Chamberlin, National Park Service curator of Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site

"The story of how a minority overcame prejudice and made lifelong friends in the process will resonate with many teens." – Booklist

You Tough Mudder

I've endured two marathons, the bar exam, Greek family reunions, Bergman films, Kurt Vonnegut, and the disappearance of Vanilla Coke. (Seriously, why'd they get rid of that again?) But nothing, not even the loss of my beloved soft drink, could prepare me for the masochistic insanity that was the Tough Mudder.

I ran the course in New Jersey back in November, 2010 with my buddy Joe, and in case you're wondering why I'm just getting around to blogging about it now, it's because I've finally gotten over my post-traumatic stress disorder. My therapist has urged me over the past several months to post about the race as a way to purge the soul of the horrifying memories of this particular race. No amount of writing could do that, but I figured I might as well share my exploits because they might be good for a chuckle.

The Tough Mudder is a lengthy obstacle course designed by British Special Forces. Our course stretched 12 miles, and by my estimate, 6 or 7 of those miles were through ankle-deep mud. So challenging are the individual obstacles and the course overall that, before you run it, they require you to sign a Death Waiver.

(Mom, sorry for not telling you about the Death Waiver in advance. I figured you'd just worry.)

Every possible fear you might have is exposed and exploited by the 20 or so obstacles waiting for you. Obstacle number 3 on our course was called Walk the Plank, which required a 20 foot plunge into the muddy, freezing waters of late November in New Jersey. It was a balmy 35 degrees when we ran the course, so that should give you some idea of how frakking cold the water was. The shock of it makes it difficult to breathe, so you're doubly spooked about drowning.

One of my favorite obstacles was the Firewalker, where - you guessed it - you get to run through fire. The presence of the Fire Department at the obstacle was reassuring at least. Aside from Walk the Plank, my two least favorite obstacles were the Mystery Obstacle (more on that below) and the Cliffhanger. The Cliffhanger wasn't particularly difficult, as it only involved scaling a slick, dangerously muddy slope, but I ended up losing my footing, flipping in the air, and landing on the side of my head. Not my most graceful moment and not that big a deal really, right?

Unless you've got another EIGHT EFFING MILES TO GO.

As for the Mystery Obstacle. You can tell by its name we didn't know what it was going in to the race. At the starting line, the man on the squawk box directed our attention to an open wooden structure about half a mile away. From that distance, we couldn't really see it. It looked like people were running under it and through tangles of hanging yellow string.

Except it wasn't string. More like wires. Live wires. As in, there was electrical current coursing through them. Around mile 11, after everything else we'd endured, they made us run through LIVE wires. The website has some of the more nasty video of this, and plenty of candids have been posted on Facebook to memorialize the torture.

There was no way to avoid the wires really. I figured the current wouldn't be too bad so I just charged through. I mean, how bad could it really be? I knew we'd signed a Death Waiver and everything, but financially or legally it wouldn't make sense for them to kill any of their runners. They'd get no repeat customers, right?

I don't know how much juice was in those things, but the first jolt made the heart flutter and all my muscles tighten up like Zeus had hurled a thunderbolt from Olympus at me.

And that was only the first jolt.

The second jolt nearly floored me, which wouldn't have been good, because then I would have fallen into the tangle of wires, repeatedly shocked till some brave soul dragged my sorry ass outta there. Later, I heard that happened to a few people, but I was fortunate enough to escape relatively unscathed.

On the whole, I think me and my buddy acquitted ourselves well. We made it around the course in 2.5 hours with minimal complaint, even when there was a legally actionable shortage of water at the rest stations. (Not cool, guys.) After being electrocuted, I said to Joe, "I'll bet we look like the effing hobbits when they were scaling Mount Doom right now." Not my best material but pretty good considering the circumstances.

Joe laughed politely at my joke, paused, and then cackled at something else. I asked him what was so funny, and he turned to me and said in a thin voice, "Why did we do this? Why would we ever do this?"

Why indeed, Joe? Why indeed?

So I'm thinking about signing up for the next one...

Ghostwriter Publications

For anyone interested in the often seedy underbelly of publishing, check out this terrible story here. I had very similar experiences with the publisher in question.

Ego Spartacus Sum!

Starz's relatively new series, Spartacus, is quickly becoming one of my favorite shows. I wasn't sold on the pilot, but once our quasi-eponymous hero (Spartacus isn't his real name) lands in the Ludus of Batiatus, the story really takes off. After having been dealt a crippling blow by the gods, Spartacus finds himself face-to-face with the most lethal, savage, and adept gladiators in Capua, as he struggles to find his place and ultimately assume the title of champion. From there, the show is a combination of brutal, gory, and very stylized fights in the arena mixed in with back-stabbing political and social intrigues.

I'm mostly through the first season, so I haven't watched the prequel season yet, but this show is more addictive than crack. As they say. (I don't plan on finding out how addictive crack is any time in the near future.) Grizzly action sequences are set against the backdrop of a decadent Roman world, where sex is nothing to be ashamed of and grandiose political ambitions are harbored by all.

The dialogue takes some getting used to, as the characters are prone to orate and offer philosophical discourse, but it is rewarding once you get used to it. For you Latin buffs out there, I did read that the writers try to mimic Roman speech patterns as much as English will allow. The writers even try to avoid using the word "Yes" as much as possible because that word did not exist in Classical Latin.

(It's true, look it up.)

I really enjoy the lead actors: John Hannah is positively devious as the owner of the Ludus, Batiatus; Manu Bennett, who is testosterone incarnate; Peter Mensah, who has a presence to rival any actor's, living or dead; Lucy You-Know-Her-as-Xena Lawless; and Andy Whitfield. It's a damned shame what happened to Whitfield: during the first season, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and ultimately gave his blessing to the producers to keep the series going with someone else. He made for an excellent Spartacus, and I hope he recovers quickly and somehow finds his way back on to the show.

The series has inspired many, myself included, to adopt the Spartacus workout as their training regimen. And if you haven't heard, there's now a second routine available as well. It's also rekindled my interest in attempting the ridiculous 300 workout as well. These three workouts will kick your ass and they're perfect for someone with limited free time to exercise: you only need to do them 3 to 4 times per week, and the routines are only 20 to 30 minutes. It might sound too good to be true, but they really are effective and provide the most bang for your buck, because they're can do it all: add lean muscle, improve both your aerobic and anaerobic capacities, and shred fat. You're not going to get big doing these workouts, but you are going to get ripped, lean, and more athletic overall.

And if you haven't seen the original movie with Kirk Douglas, get out there and rent it. It's a classic, despite what Kubrick thought of it, and it's aged pretty well.

My only gripe with the show is this: why haven't they hired me as a writer yet? My Latin's pretty good, I also took two years of ancient Greek in high school, and I'm fit enough to do the Spartacus workout. And most importantly, I'd work for peanuts to write for a kick-ass show like this.

A Blockbuster Summer

There's a debate amongst geeks online about whether 2011 or 2012 is going to offer the best blockbuster summer ever. In this geek's opinion, 2012 edges out 2011. But that's next year. Let's talk about some of the major tentpole events lined up for this summer:

Sucker Punch - Zack Synder gives us another visual feast in the style of 300. This one is right up a geek's alley: guns, gals, and explosions.

Scream 4 - Wes Craven is bringing this series back from the dead. Ha ha.

Fast Five - I could point to the impossibility of reconciling the idea that god is all-powerful and good with the idea that evil exists in this world to posit that the Judeo-Christian god as he is understood cannot exist. That argument has fallen on many deaf ears over the years, so I'll offer this instead: they've now made FIVE Fast and Furious movies.

Thor - An adaption of the comic book that pulls our mythological hero out of Valhalla and sucks him into the real world. Sounds kind of cheesy until you look at who's directing: Kenneth Branagh. I like that the studios are starting to make some creative decisions with their hiring of directors for blockbusters. (Along similar lines, Shane Black has been hired to direct Iron Man 3.)

Pirates 4 - Johnny Depp plays Johnny Depp in a pirate costume.

The Hangover 2 - Probably a bad idea, but the first flick is so hysterical I'll see it regardless. Mel Gibson was slated to have a cameo until one of the cast members raised his objections. Which is kind of strange, because if Iron Mike Tyson should get a second chance, why not Mad Max?

Kung Fu Panda 2 - Jack Black is back as Po....alright, I'll own up: the first one was pretty good.

The Tree of Life - Just kidding. The word blockbuster and Terence Malick should never appear in the same sentence. Except, er, that sentence.

X-Men: First Class - James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender as Professor X and Magneto, respectively? Sign me the hell up.

The Green Lantern - Just when you thought there were no more superheroes left to pilfer from comic books. Martin Campbell is directing, the same man who gave us Casino Royale and Goldeneye, so this could be good.

Cars 2 - Yeah, this'll make a crap ton of money.

Transformers 3 - Okay, still not convinced that an all-powerful, benevolent God is incompatible with the fact that evil exists in this world? Michael Bay brings us Transformers 3.

Harry Potter - How long until Warner Brothers decides to reboot this series and make billions more dollars? I give it three years, tops.

Captain America - Along with Thor and Iron Man, another origin story that's also setting us up for 2012's The Avengers.

Cowboys & Aliens - A ridiculous premise that is intriguing beyond all reason. Daniel Craig as a mysterious gunslinger, Harrison Ford as a crotchety sheriff, and menacing aliens.

The Smurfs - One word: Gargamel.

Conan the Barbarian - Jason Momoa has some pretty big shoes to fill here. It's slated for an August release, which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence.

Spy Kids 4 - Like Cars 2, this'll make some serious coin.

***

And the one I'm most looking forward to? Super 8. For a lesson in how to make an awesome trailer and perfectly capture a mood, watch this. Directed by JJ Abrams, this one's supposed to be a throwback to early Spielberg, who is involved himself. If this is anywhere near as good as Close Encounters of the Third Kind, it'll be awesome.

My Reviews of the Best Pic Nominees

I was going to post this before Oscar night. I swear. Really. Anyway, here are my reviews of the 2010 Best Pic Noms I saw.

SPOILERS THERE BE

INCEPTION - I'm an admitted, unabashed, fawning Nolan fanboy, so take my review with a 50 pound bag of rock salt, the kind that could eat a whole through your kitchen floor, poison your dog, and actually destroy Carthage. So with that out of the way, here goes: Inception is the most original film I've seen in years. It's by no means a perfect film, or even Nolan's best film. But enough disclaiming. This movie is a lot of fun. Always entertaining, never dull, and different. Remember the last time the Hollywood machine produced something ORIGINAL? Yeah, I can't either. Inception should have failed at the box office: it's a sci-fi movie, you've got to pay attention or you'll be lost, and it's not based on a comic book, video game, graphic novel, or previous movie. And no, don't tell me it's just like The Matrix, or Solaris, or whatever. Inception is without the pseudo-intellectual philosophy of The Matrix series, and Solaris...my god don't even get me started on that one. If a doctor performed a physical on Solaris, he'd have to declare that film clinically dead because it has no pulse. The same cannot be said for Inception - just the opposite. My main problem with the film is that it cheats a teeny, tiny little bit halfway through by changing its own internal rules, but I'll forgive this misstep because the game-changer ups the ante and imperils the characters in a very real way. And, the rotating hallway fight scene is so good the Academy should have created a category called Best Rotating Hallway Fight Scene because that sequence alone was Oscar worthy.

TRUE GRIT - It's as if Charles Portis, reclusive author extraordinaire, had a crystal ball and gazed some forty years into his future before writing True Grit and his vision fell on the Coen brothers and he decided he could write a book that they would one day read and realize was the answer to all their box office prayers. Like Peter Jackson was put on this earth to direct the Lord of the Rings movies, so too were the Coens put on this earth to direct True Grit. It's a western, it's a religious parable, it's a glorious piece of decidedly American fiction. Call it whatever the hell you want, just don't try and Hooraw it. (If you haven't read the book, you should. Portis is one of the best under-read American authors.) It's a very simple story about justice, revenge, character, and life not so long ago in America. Every year people say the western is dead. This film proves otherwise.

THE SOCIAL NETWORK - David Fincher brings his immense and considerable talents to a film about...Facebook. At first blush, you have to wonder why the man who directed Seven and Zodiac would be interested in the subject matter, but it turned out alright. Aaron Sorkin penned a great screenplay full of snappy dialogue and populated it with unsympathetic, but fascinating characters. Emotionally, the film is a little hollow but that's probably the intention: these characters, with a few exceptions, geniuses they may be, all seem pretty hollow. I thought it was a good movie but not quite Best Picture material.

THE FIGHTER - Story-telling at its best and most basic: raw performances, no sentiment, no bullshit. You know how this one's going to end going in, even if you're unfamiliar with boxer Mickey Ward's story. But that doesn't stop you from cheering Mickey on as he slugs his way to the top. Bale is a force of nature, Wahlberg is understated but effective, and Melissa Leo is the mom you love to hate. You feel every punch, you cringe during every family argument, you feel bruised and battered, but ultimately, triumphant by the end. If Rocky and Raging Bull produced a child, this would be it.

BLACK SWAN - In keeping with the movie's duality, here are my two takes:

White Swan: Lurid, melodramatic, heavy-handed, ham-fisted, non-sensical, pornographic, nauseating, pretentious tripe. Why did they bother spending millions of dollars on a story the show runners of General Hospital would have rejected? When the film's not playing to your baser instincts, it's cheating you. Over and over and over. It keeps on cheating till the climax where it REALLY cheats you. Yes, it's possible for (SPOILER ALERT) Portman to stab herself and yet continue giving the greatest ballet performance anyone has ever seen. (END SPOILER ALERT) This is all things ugly rolled into one film as some sort of twisted attempt by Aronofsky to shock you into submission. I wanted to tap out, UFC style, at about the hour mark. The performances are loud, the music is loud, the story is loud, everything is loud, loud, loud. It's about as subtle as a tsunami. Don't let the critics fool you - this is nothing more than a soft-core horror movie with outstanding production values, tantamount to something you'd find on Cinemax (a.k.a. Skinemax) around 2:30 in the morning. Or so I'm told.

Black Swan: Unrelenting, unremitting, tour-de-force, roller-coaster of a ride that knocks you on your ass and keeps kicking you while you're down. This movie is supposed to be a ballet: it doesn't have to make literal sense because it's going to bypass that snooty, rational part of your brain and tap right in to that collective unconscious and make you feel something. Remember the last time you just FELT a movie? You'll be uncomfortable, grossed-out, frustrated, and, if you let it, the film will devastate you the way it should. Why does everyone pine for gritty realism in movies and art? If you want realism, go watch an effing documentary (but not a Michael Moore one, we're talking realism here). Art is supposed to shock. It's supposed to be challenging. If you want something transformative, sublime, and visceral, watch this movie. And yes, it IS a horror movie. Of course it is, you prude, White Swan. It's a damned good - maybe even a great - horror movie, and how often do those come along?

THE KING'S SPEECH - I find the UK's fascination with and rationalizations of the continued financial support of the royal family baffling. I find America's fascination with the royal family even more puzzling. I have trouble sympathizing with a bunch of wealthy, pampered people who are treated like celebrities because of their birthright. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying they're bad people, in fact, some of them have done some great things. I'm just saying I don't get it. Non-royal philanthropists aren't treated the same way, which means that yes, birthright has something to do with it. And yes, The King's Speech is stereotypical Oscar bait: literate British period piece about the royal family combined with a story of one man's perseverance in overcoming a handicap. And yet...it's simply brilliant. Firth and Rush are excellent, Firth especially, the camerawork is interesting, the dialogue is smart but never cute, and the underdog story IS compelling. You'll be on the edge of your seat during the climax of the movie, which is nothing more than a man giving a speech. Yes, the story-telling's that good. The English are often accused unfairly of being shut-off and bottled up emotionally, but that trope is used here to great effect, resulting in a very poignant moment of personal triumph.

Where did all the money go? Not to the screenwriter, I hope

As a relatively new parent, I've been subjected to all kinds of new experiences (horrors) and have picked up quite a few interesting habits along the way: co-workers have caught me singing "C Is For Cookie" in the kitchen, I get cranky around 9 AM and again at 1 PM (the same times Fee takes a nap), and my ever-suffering wife constantly walks in on me...you know, when I'm practicing my Elmo voice.

But enough about me. All you Dads know exactly what I'm talking about, and all you non-Dads are preparing to go Oedipus and stab your own eyeballs out due to the overwhelming sentimentality of that opening. What I really want to talk about is film. One film in particular. It goes by the name of The Adventures of Elmo in Grouchland.

Let me start by saying that the film sucks.

Before you all you Elmo band-wagoners get your muppety fur in a bunch, just hear me out.

When will they ever learn that story is key? The plot centers around this Johnny-Come-Lately, a.k.a. Elmo, trying to recover his lost/misplaced/stolen blanket. Our hero, for lack of a better word, must have grown up listening to Bob Dole, because he (is it a he?) continually refers to himself in the third person. Elmo this, Elmo that.

My first problem with the story is that it's horribly contrived. Early on, Elmo bares his selfish teeth in not sharing (i.e. giving away) his blanket to his best friend, Zoe. And then the blanket just so happens to be magically transported to Grouchland, where everybody's favorite Oscar originally hails from. Grouchland just so happens to be ruled and terrorized by an evil selfish man, Huxley, who's played by pre-Criminal Minds, post-The Princess Bride Mandy Potankin. (Yes, his first name is really Mandy.) Elmo, with the help of his sidekicks (i.e. the rest of Sesame Street anymore), must reclaim what is rightfully his and thus defeat Huxley...by out-selfishing him, of course. But my main beef is this: what are the chances that Elmo would have a problem with selfishness and that his blanket would be accidentally transported to Grouchland, which just so happens to be ruled by a selfish man and which just so happens to be the perfect venue for Elmo to learn his life lesson?

I mean, come on.

Problem number two: Since when did Sesame Street start feeling the need to have a moral to every story? Seriously. Did Steven Spielberg secretly wrest control of this property from Jim Henson?

My third issue is with the moral of the story itself. Basically, Elmo is evil because he believes in private property. And his enemy is the ultimate straw-man, as one-dimensional as they come: a tyrant who steals from everybody else and has no friends. It's like they made this movie for kids or something. WTF, right?

Apparently, in the universe of Sesame Street, you can either be selfless and good or you can be an evil, sadistic, self-loathing man whose only pleasure in life comes from taking what is everybody else's. Elmo's victory in reclaiming his lost blanket from the clutches of Huxley - what we've been waiting for a whole 73 minutes and what should be so satisfying! - rings hollow. That is, it's hollow until Elmo offers his most prized possession up to his best friend Zoe. He's only allowed to be happy when he's denying himself - Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave. They might as well rename it Communist Street.

Finally, Elmo breaks the effing fourth wall repeatedly. How annoying is that?! I don't want to be reminded that I'm watching a movie. Stop turning to the audience and asking us questions, because you're just calling attention to the artifice. I want to maintain the illusion. I don't care that it's a bunch of puppets and stop-motion and ridiculous sets and actors playing parts...I just don't want to be pulled out of the story!

All of this would be forgivable of course if it weren't for the fact that the rest of the gang gets such short shrift in the story. Grover/Super Grover is relegated to a slapsticky cameo, reminiscent of Jerry Lewis way past his prime. Cookie Monster, the fucking king of the one-liner, gets to speak twice. You can tell this career-turn is having an effect on Cookie too, because his performance just ain't up to snuff. And everybody's favorite enormous yellow bird - he's gone from centerpiece in Follow That Bird to the punchline. All of our favorite characters are being nudged off the stage, because it just isn't big enough for them and Elmo's enormous ego.

I want to know where they spent all the money on this movie. According to wiki, the budget was a whopping $26,000,000! With $26,000,000, we could take over Cuba for God's sake, and that way, none of us would have to sneak these cigars past airport security anymore. IMDb lists the film's budget as a more modest 17 mill. They had to shell out some scratch for Vanessa Williams's five minute turn as the Queen of Trash (type-casting, much?), and of course some serious dough went to Mandy "You Killed My Father You Sick Serial Killer" Potankin, who does a lot with a little...but where did the rest of it go? And, if box office and reviews and Internet gossip are any indication, I am not alone in my opinion about this movie: it only made back 11 mill at the box office and enjoys a generous 5.5 rating on IMDb.

How the mighty have fallen....

***

Of course I'm taking the piss with this post. Fiona adores this movie, which means I do too. All you non-Dads can now proceed to stab your eyeballs out.

Louie Louie Louie LOUIE

Louis CK's new show on FX is called Louie. I don't know why it's not spelled Louis. Maybe the reasoning behind the orthography is so that people properly pronounce the guy's name.

On the show, Louie - I mean, Louis - plays Louie...okay this is getting silly and confusing. What I'm saying is that the stand-up comedian plays an enhanced version of himself, warts and all. Though he's a comedian, and though there are some laugh-out-loud moments on the show, you'd have to put a gun to my head for me to call it a comedy.

Please put the revolver away.

What I'm saying is the show's is more a drama. A very dark, unrelentingly bleak drama that comes up for comedic air sporadically, mostly when the show cuts to Louie doing one of his routines. Sometimes, though, it's downright uncomfortable to watch. In one episode, we're treated to a scene where Louie tells his mother how much he can't stand her and doesn't love her. It was an excruciating moment, a little too much to bear for me.

On the whole though, the show is a gem. The comparisons to Seinfeld are inevitable, and in some instances justified: antihero comedian walks the overpopulated yet lonely streets of New York, surrounded by neurotics and weirdos and absurdity. We even cut away to his stand-up routine at various times during every episode.

But. Whereas Seinfeld was about "nothing," Louie is about "everything." Divorce, middle-age, single parenthood, sex, love, and ultimately, meaning in life, or the lack thereof. The show has a way of blind-siding you with how serious it can be. At times, it's even a foray into the surreal, like when a girl Louie is poorly attempting to woo flees to a nearby helicopter and is spirited away.

My only problem with the show, hinted above, is that it's a little too uncomfortable to watch at times. The leitmotif for ground-breaking comedy in recent years has been awkwardness. Larry David pushed the envelope with Curb Your Enthusiasm, and The Office (US version, haven't seen the UK version) spends a lot of its time in the "make the audience cringe" category. But Louie, IMHO, sometimes takes it even further.

Does Louie go too far? Does comedy these days go too far? With horror films, we have a relatively new subgenre derisively referred to as torture porn (think the Saw movies)...has comedy gone down the same path with excruciatingly awkward sit-coms?

Okay, Movie Fans

Not that you care in the least, but here are the flicks I'm most looking forward to this summer:

5. The A-Team. The trailer is a mish-mash of tones, being both gritty and fantastical. This film version of what was honestly a campy series has a lot of questions to answer. Can the new team live up to the old team? Is Quinton Rampage Jackson "BA" enough? Can Liam Neeson smoke a cigar as good as George Peppard? Can Sharlto Copley pull off a convincing Southern American accent? And most importantly, will we be lucky enough to see some villains actually die on-screen?

4. Iron Man 2. I enjoyed the first outing, which was light and fun, but never silly. I'm hoping the second is in the same vein. Not every movie has to be dark and not every "superhero" has to be riddled with angst.

3. Robin Hood. This story's been told a million times, but Ridley's directing. That's right, Ridley. Also, the rumors about all the shenanigans on-set, from the constant rewrites to Crowe and Scott butting heads at every turn, could produce a Casablanca like effect, creating a whole greater than the sum of its parts...or it could render the movie complete and utter crap. I have faith in Ridley though, not just because of Alien and Bladerunner but because of the underrated Kingdom of Heaven, a solid period piece that suffered from mismarketing.

2. Inception. Christopher Nolan, two years removed from The Dark Knight, brings us his contemporary sci-fi story set "within the architecture of the mind." And that's about all we know of the story. This flick's plot has been more closely guarded than my Darth Vader toy carrying case. Not even Fiona will be allowed near that. Upon my death, it will be buried with me for my journey into the Underworld. Just kidding...sort of. But back to Inception - the trailer looks impressive as hell. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the man.

1. The Expendables. Watch the trailer now. No really, watch it now. This could be the action film to end all action films. A throwback to the testosteronic 80s, when heroes didn't even know what a feminine side was, and when cheesy one-liners were just as awful but somehow not so cheesy. This flick boasts the best kick-some-ass, take-no-prisoners cast ever: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren (who pulled the stake out of his heart?), Randy effing Couture, Steve Austin, Mickey Fashion Sense Rourke, Terry Crews, and Eric "who-the-hell's-Julia?" Roberts.

Historical Fiction At Its Best

Robert Harris needs to write more novels. The former journalist and BBC reporter has but seven fiction titles to his credit. Considering how well-researched (at least they seem so to me) and how well-written they are, though, maybe that does constitute a lot of books.

But still, I'm greedy and want to read more of his stuff.

I recently read Conspirata, known everywhere outside of the United States as Lustrum, because apparently publishers think we Yanks are too dumb to be interested in a book named after an obscure Roman concept of time. Lustrum - ahem, Conspirata - is the second in a planned trilogy about none other than the greatest orator of all time, Marcus Tullius Cicero. This book, Conspirata, chronicles his year as consul and the following four turbulent years of Cicero's life, while the preceding volume, Imperium, gives a rollicking account of his rise to power. I can only assume the final book will be about Cicero's exile, few remaining years, and (SPOILER ALERT) execution.

Imperium and Conspirata are both wonderful books that bring a fascinating period of history to life, and while one can easily draw parallels between the events in these stories and political happenings of today, Harris does a good job of not forcing any comparisons. Both stories are told through the eyes of Tiro, Cicero's faithful slave, who is credited with, believe it or not, the creation of shorthand. Tiro as a narrator is mostly passive, reminding me of some of Dostoevsky's narrators, who mostly observe and rarely cause any major things to happen in the story. Though Tiro does manage at times to be important to the story and offers Cicero sagely advice from time to time.

I've read some of Harris's other books, including Archangel, The Ghost, and Pompeii, this last one being about Mount Vesuvius's eruption and destruction of the eponymous city. I've enjoyed all these books immensely, but Harris takes him game - to borrow one of the many overused sports' cliches - to the next level in his stories about Cicero.

____

I've blogged before about Bernard Cornwell, whom many consider to be the best historical fiction writer working today. Cornwell is a great writer, who really excels at describing combat tactics and bloody battles. And like I said before, I consider the Warlord Trilogy to be one of my two favorite trilogies of all time.

Harris, on the other hand, excels at telling cerebral stories brimming with political intrigue. Is one writer better than the other? It would be unfair to compare the two, since they're trying to do different things with their stories, but needless to say, I recommend both authors to all fans of historical fiction.

(Interesting tidbit: Harris's book, The Ghost, was recently made into the movie, The Ghost Writer, directed by none other than Roman Polanski.)

(Interesting tidbit 2: I share a birthday with Cicero. Now if only I shared his wit, eloquence, and oratorical skills.)

Oscar Picks

Here are my predictions for tonight's Oscars.

Best Picture: The Hurt Locker

Best Director: Kathryn Bigelow

Best Actor: Jeff Bridges

Best Actress: Sandra Bullock

Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Christoph Waltz

Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Mo'Nique

Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds

Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air

Best Editing: The Hurt Locker (I think Avatar might nab this one, but the tight editing of The Hurt Locker was awesome.)

All Other Technical Stuff: Avatar

Best Skit You Won't See Aired: Ben Stiller and Sasha Baren Cohen riffing on Avatar

How about everyone else?

Bizarre Query Response

I've just started sending queries out on one of my projects, so I've got the proverbial fingers crossed. As anyone who's done this knows, it's a tedious yet exciting, hurry-up-and-wait, dancing in the dark process.

As to be expected, the responses have been mostly no's, but there have been a few bites here and there. One positive response was a bit baffling, and I wanted to share it with everyone to get their feedback. The name of the agent has been redacted to protect the (perhaps not-so) innocent, and what follows is the agent's response to my query:

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your query (I ordinarily do NOT look at queries by email). But I actually read your query and thought it very intelligent. If you are not sending this simultaneously to other agents or publishers, then you may send this same query, a one page synopsis and the first three chapters or first 50 pages to me if you like. (Please tell me if you’ve sent this to other agents or publishers previously and if so which ones and what sort of comments or feedback did you get.) Mark the outside of the package “Special Request – per XXXXX.” Then in your cover letter be sure to mention I asked you to send this after reading your electronic query. Include a list of books (with dates and publishers) of books you think are competition. Include an author bio and list of other books you’ve written (with dates of publications and publishers). These are things I must know in order to give your project its best consideration. Finally, how you found my agency and this email address. It is usually unpublished, but I recently changed my email address, so it would help if I understood how you found this email. I always need to know ALL this information. Thank you for your cooperation.

If you have any questions, feel free to call me. I appreciate your thinking of my Agency.

Let me explain why this response is so strange. For starters, this particular agent's website lists the email address I sent the query to and specifically advises writers to send queries to that address. So I was left scratching my head when the agent asked me how I got the email address and stated that he/she does not generally look at e-queries, when the website says otherwise.

The request for a list of competing books is a bit off-putting. I know a few agents ask for this information up front from writers, but at the same time, aren't they supposed to be the experts on the market? The oft-repeated advice from agents is to write what you want to write, the idea being that writers shouldn't chase some market or trend for a dollar. Agents say they'd prefer writers create something personal and thus unique. Also, I get very little time to read anymore, so I know for a fact I'm not as up to speed on the market as an agent would (should) be. I'd be hard-pressed to compile a credible list of competing books, and it would be mostly guesswork on my part.

But, the most troubling aspect of this agent's response is the request for a list of other agents/publishers I've queried, including their feedback on the manuscript. Why should this agent need that information to do their job? I have no idea, but he/she should be able to form their own opinion on the manuscript without having to review what other people have said.

After a little more research, I discovered this agent used to charge a fee for reviewing a manuscript. I don't know if that's still the case, and the agent did not ask me for any money, but that's obviously a big no-no. (To any non-writers out there: money is always supposed to flow TOWARD the writer, never away.)

I'm not going to pursue a professional relationship with this agent based on this response. It seems to me this particular agent wanted me to do his/her job: figure out the market and then supply him/her with an accounting of what other agents and editors have said about the manuscript.

Has anyone else ever gotten this kind of response, one asking for detailed information about other agents/editors and their feedback?

****

By the way, Blogger has gone crazy apparently. It seems that all comments left on posts pre-dating the January 30, 2010 Gene Hackman post have mysteriously vanished. So I'm going to ask you all a favor: if you've ever posted here before, please leave a comment on this post. Reason I ask is, agents and editors might be checking out this blog now and in the near future, so it would be a big help to be able to show them people do read this blog. Thanks!