Expectations

In anticipation of this weekend’s Oscar telecast, I thought I might talk a little more about movies. Well, this topic isn’t actually ABOUT movies, but it does pertain to movies (as well as other things in life). The topic is expectations.

I have high expectations for many things in my life. I expect my kids to grow up to be astronauts. I expect to receive a large raise every year. I expect every trip to Atlantic City to end with me driving home in a limousine. Ok, only one of those things is a real expectation (and I’m not saying which one).  What I have stopped doing is having unusually high expectations with regards to art (specifically, performance art such as music and movies).

I have come to the conclusion that having high expectations does nothing for me. If you think about it, in most cases it is detrimental. There are basically 3 outcomes after seeing a movie. It exceeds, meets, or doesn’t meet your expectations.  When you have high expectations for a movie, it lessens the probability that it will even meet your expectations. Think about the last movie for which you had high expectations prior to seeing it. If you expected that movie to be a 5 (out of 5) star movie, but it only got 4 stars in your eyes, then you are essentially disappointed. Now, if you had gone into seeing that movie expecting a 2.5 star movie, you would have been pleasantly surprised at the 4 stars you eventually gave it.

Since it’s not a good idea to have unusually LOW expectations, the best way to avoid being disappointed is to have no expectations whatsoever. It sounds like an easy concept, but it is tougher than you think. I mean, if you think about it, when you go to a movie, you are going into it expecting to be entertained in some way. But by clearing your mind of any expectations you may have, you will most certainly be entertained. And even if you don’t like the movie, you will have some kind of positive reaction to the art on the screen.

This technique (of having no expectations) has worked well for me, but I must admit that it is not for everybody. And in today’s world, it is very difficult to accomplish. With all of the information that is available to us, such as movie websites and comprehensive movie review sites, we are made aware of movies well before they are even made. Plus, it’s nice to know whether a movie is getting preliminary good or bad reviews so that we can avoid going to a stinker. Maybe it is time we trust our own judgments. Don’t worry about what Rotten Tomatoes is giving the flick. Don’t read up on the latest movie in anticipation of seeing it. Maybe even try going into a movie completely blind (just show up to a movie theater and pick a movie you never heard of). OK, that might be silly, but give this “no expectations” thing a try. I think you will find that you will actually enjoy the experience – even if you don’t enjoy the movie.

Go Inception!

cartoons - an incomplete post

Someone I know once said that Sid and Marty Croft (of cartoon fame) were talentless hacks. This person has ranted on the crappiness of shows such as HR Pufnstuf, Sigmund and the Sea Monsters, and Land of the Lost – all of which are S&MC originals. I, for one, don’t know much about Sid and Marty or any their shows - although I vaguely remember seeing a few episodes of Land of the Lost as a child.  There is nothing really memorable about Land of the Lost (other than possibly the theme song – which I can’t recall at this time and the fact that they made a miserable failure of a movie based on that show).

The fact of the matter is that most children’s programming (we are talking TV here, not movies) is simply not good. Now, of course I realize this is a blanket statement and that it doesn’t apply to all children’s programming, but, for the most part, cartoons (and other kid’s shows) simply suck. But they suck for a reason. They suck, BECAUSE they are intended for kids. Think about that. Kid’s shows stink because they are intended for kids. If it was any good, they wouldn’t waste it on kids.

Now, just because a program is animated does not mean it is intended for children. Generally speaking, if the cartoon is funny to an adult, it is not meant for kid’s eyes. Take, for example, the Warner Brothers cartoons of yesteryear (Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig, etc). Many of those cartoons had references that would completely be lost on most kids. Sure, kids could get into a coyote chasing around a road runner and falling off cliffs holding a ‘help me’ sign, but a lot of those cartoons had all kinds of things kids didn’t (or shouldn’t) understand. War references, operas, senseless violence, gunplay were all mainstays is these WB cartoons.  I can recall many scenes of gunplay that would have many people (mostly parents) in an uproar if it were shown today (Rabbit Season/Duck Season anyone?).

Many of the cartoons of today are masking themselves as children’s programs while in actuality, they are made for adults (or at least young adults). My own kids watch cartoons on a daily basis. Spongebob, Tuff Puppy, Penguins of Madagascar, Planet Sheen, and Fanboy and Chum Chum (yes that is a real cartoon) are all kids’ shows - but they put things in there to make them accessible to adults. My kids love them because there are all kinds of physical type comedy (hitting, splatting, shooting, falling, slipping, flipping, tripping, etc), but these shows are written with adults in mind. My kids don’t get half of the jokes, but then laugh hysterically when Spongebob slips on his butt while walking to work at the Krusty Krab. I think my point is that cartoons aren’t necessarily for kids anymore. In fact, I may argue that most animated programming is NOT intended for kids. But, it’s hard to see the line when the creators make it so transparent.

I started this article intending to blast current TV shows; specifically the ones I put on for my kids. When I sit and watch cartoons with my kids, I feel like I am losing brain cells because the shows are just crap. But they are crap because they aren’t intended for me. They like the slop on TV just as I liked the slop on TV when I was a kid. But having 38 years under my belt has given me perspective. I just gotta live with the fact that kids will watch pretty much anything – even crappy TV shows (or should I say - ESPECIALLY crappy TV shows).

Ferris Bueller and the Fourth Wall

Oh, Abe Froman. I had almost forgotten what a cool little Chicago Sausage King you are. In case you have been living in a cave for the last 25 years, the Mr. Froman mentioned above actually refers to the one and only Ferris Bueller. The movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off came out in 1986 and has been a favorite of mine for almost as long. I have seen it countless times over the past 25 years (although it’s probably been a couple years since my last viewing) and I have as much love for it today as I did when I first saw it. Sure, some parts of it don’t really hold up over time (like Ferris’ clunky 80’s style phone modem), but the flick still has the same effect on me today as it did when it first came out. Guys want to be Ferris; girls want to be WITH Ferris.

I recently read an article on the Baseball Prospectus site which referenced the movie; specifically the baseball game that Ferris and Cameron attended in the movie (if interested here is the link to that BP article http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12877). It reminded me how much I love all the little things contained in the movie. The acting, the direction (John Hughes – one of my favorites), and the tremendous heart at the core of the movie are really what people seem to gravitate towards (all of which are great). My favorite thing about the movie, however, is Ferris’ relationship with the fourth wall. If you are unaware of this term, the fourth wall is the imaginary “wall” which separates the actors from the audience.  If you think of acting as being done in a box with walls, the fourth wall of the box is the imaginary wall between the audience and the actors. When an actor breaks the fourth wall, he or she is essentially addressing the audience in some way.

What makes Ferris Bueller’s relationship with the fourth wall so interesting is that not only does he break the fourth wall, but he shatters it - in a way I had never seen before (or have seen since).  I can think of a couple of movies that have broken the fourth wall that came before Ferris. Animal House featured several John Belushi moments where he looked into the camera as to say ‘look what I am about to do’.  The movie Airplane! also broke the fourth wall several times as did Trading Places.  But Bueller completely demolishes the fourth wall. Within the first 5 minutes of the movie, Ferris is telling the audience his secrets on how to get out of school (complete with an outlined list).  But the fourth wall breaking does not end with that. In fact, the whole movie is littered with instances where Ferris addresses the audience – culminating with Ferris telling us at the end to stop and smell the roses every once in a while. And in a very rare post-credits announcement, Ferris breaks the fourth wall one last time by telling the audience that the movie is over and to go home. His relationship with the fourth wall (and the audience, in particular) is what makes this movie so great.

Every once in a while, a movie comes out that breaks the fourth wall (sometimes with success, sometimes not so much). It never fails that when I see this happen, I think back to Abe Froman. I think back to the master of the audience manipulation. I think back to Ferris Bueller’s epic day off.

Danke Schön

Cobain vs Grohl

Would you rather be a flash in the pan or have a long and steady career?  On the surface, this seems like a very easy question. Most people would rather have a long, steady career with some ups and downs along the way. A long steady career in any field sounds like a good way to live life. Steady income leads to being able to do the things you want to do. But imagine for a second that you are a real flash in the pan. You are one of the most popular and recognizable people in the world. You are ultra-super-mega-famous. You are the voice of a generation.  You are Kurt Cobain.

Ok. So, you are not actually Kurt Cobain, but hopefully you see my point. Back in 1992, Cobain was one of the most recognizable people in the world. The songs he created with the band Nirvana dominated the airwaves. Nirvana’s songs ended a whole decade of hair metal and began the (albeit short) grunge era. He was a bright flash in the pan because of the music he brought to the world. He was a reluctant super duper music icon. His mega-star status lasted only as long as he wanted it to last. Unfortunately, it did not last long because, as you may be aware, he put a shotgun in his mouth in April, 1994 and ended it all.  You could say that had he not ended it all, his star may have eventually withered and he might not be regarded as the icon he is today.

When their band was disbanded following the death of its front man Cobain, Nirvana’s drummer Dave Grohl came out from behind his drum set to lead his own band called Foo Fighters. Now, Grohl’s Foo Fighters are a very good band. They have a bunch of good albums and a bunch of good songs (of course, in my own humble opinion). What is interesting here is that by ending his career and his life, Kurt Cobain simultaneously helped create this other band. In many ways, the band he helped create is the exact opposite of the band he left behind.  

Nirvana, for all intents and purposes, is (was) the proverbial flash in the pan. Whether you like their music or not, the fact is that they were one of the biggest bands in the world during the three years between 1991 and 1994. The Foo Fighters, however, have been (and still are) a steady working band and have been since the death of Nirvana and Cobain. They are not the super-mega stars like Nirvana was, but they have sold a lot of albums (5 platinum) and played in front of millions of fans (including Yours Truly).

Obviously, most people would rather be alive than dead so the Cobain vs Grohl argument is rendered nonexistent. So, a better question would be, would you rather be in one of the biggest bands (possibly THE biggest) in the world for 3 years or be in a steady working band for years and years to come? Would you rather be regarded as an artist who changed the world with a single 4 bar riff or would you rather have a steady career but never be considered transcendent?

It must be great to be Dave Grohl, because he can say he was part of both.