Derek Jeter = Rated X?

I’m a midwesterner, not an east coaster, but as a baseball fan, I’ve often enjoyed the rivalry between the New York Yankees and Boston Red Sox. I think the national sports media sometimes pays too much attention to these two teams, but it’s hard to argue its significance on Major League Baseball over the years (especially the last 2-3 seasons).

And I’ve witnessed the passion of this rivalry first-hand. Last year, I caught a game at Yankee Stadium and watched a guy who was brave (or dumb) enough to wear a Red Sox shirt get mercilessly taunted by Yankee fans in his section. (The game was against the Chicago White Sox, by the way.) On the way to the subway afterwards, I passed an older gentleman waiting outside a bar, wearing a Red Sox cap, who had a Yankee fan scream “1918!” (the last year the Red Sox won the World Series before winning last year) at him.

It can be ugly. But the latest example of Yankees-Red Sox feuding is hilarious. Or it could’ve been, had it not been nipped in the bud. The basketball/hockey arena in Boston, previously named the FleetCenter, is undergoing a name change due to Bank of America acquiring Fleet. (Corporate blah-de-blah, I know.) While a new name is being negotiated, the owners of the arena decided to auction off one-day naming rights through eBay, with proceeds going to charity.

So Kerry Konrad, a New York attorney, thought it would be funny to tweak his Harvard classmates (and Red Sox fans) by ponying up $2,325 to name the arena “DerekJeterCenter,” after the Yankees shortstop. Hey, he put up the money. And it was going to a good cause, so Boston fans would have to deal with it for one day, right?

Not so fast, my friend.

“We decided that all the names had to be rated G, and this name was determined to be obscene and vulgar,” said the president and chief executive of the FleetCenter, Richard A. Krezwick (hopefully, with tongue-in-cheek). “We were afraid of the volume of phone calls bogging down our switchboard, the number of e-mails clogging our portal and the potential graffiti on the side of our building.”

But there’s a happy ending to the story. Konrad enlisted his ex-college roommate (and Red Sox fan) to contribute an additional $6,275 toward a 8,600 bid (86 years since the Red Sox had won the World Series – get it?) and the name JimmyFundCenter, for a Boston cancer charity.

The Red Sox and Yankees open the 2005 baseball season at Yankee Stadium on April 3, kids.

This also gives me an opportunity to plug a fun blog I recently discovered, Blue Cats & Red Sox, written by “a Bostonian at the University of Michigan.” Check it out – she has some really funny rants on baseball. (How many friggin’ Red Sox blogs exist, by the way? Tigers fans, let’s unite and get our voices out there. Geez.)

Looking askance at ‘Sideways’

As much as I enjoyed ‘Sideways,’ I’m willing to admit that it may be a bit of a male fantasy. Sally Quinn of the Washington Post definitely thinks so:

“Imagine, if you can, a movie about two unattractive, gross women slobs going on a week-long spree and ending up with Brad Pitt and Ben Affleck. Imagine that becoming a hit, nominated for five Academy Awards, acclaimed by critics.”

Line this up next to A.O. Scott’s contention that ‘Sideways’ is overrated and critics loved it because they saw themselves in Paul Giamatti’s character.

Straight guys watch the Oscars, don’t they?

Chris Rock apparently ruffled some feathers by supposedly saying to The Drudge Report that straight men don’t watch the Oscars. You can click on the link and judge for yourself (and I think you should consider the source), but I’m not sure that’s exactly what the man said. In his remarks, Rock did ask, “What straight black man sits there and watches the Oscars?” I’d love to conduct a survey on that, but there aren’t that many black people in Iowa.

Rock also said, “Nothing against people who aren’t straight, but what straight guy that you know cares?” However, that was in response to the question, “What will you be wearing to the show?” I actually don’t care what Chris Rock will be wearing on Sunday night, so I guess I can remain secure in my masculinity.

But I’m glad he’s hosting the Oscars; he’s an exceptional comedian who will make what can be a boring telecast funny and worthy of next-day discussion. He’ll probably make a few people squirm in their seats at the Kodak Theater, and I can’t wait to see that.

Here’s who I think will win the “big awards” on Sunday. Let me look into my crystal ball… actually, it’s an empty jar of peanut butter. I should get to the grocery store so I don’t go through withdrawal this weekend…

BEST PICTURE
Million Dollar Baby

● It might not be as flashy as The Aviator, but it’s the most compelling story with the best performances. And it makes you feel something, which is something a good movie should do. It’s not a perfect film (a few story details are sketchy and some of the characters are one-dimensional), but I think it’s the best of the five Best Picture nominees. I also think it’s a film that people will still be talking about 20 years from now. It could’ve been made in any decade and mattered.

BEST DIRECTOR
Martin Scorcese – The Aviator

● So if I think Million Dollar Baby is the best film, why don’t I think Clint Eastwood will win this award? Because Martin Scorsese will win this as a de facto lifetime achievement award, making up for awards he probably should’ve won for Raging Bull or Goodfellas. He’s a brilliant filmmaker who deserves to be recognized for his work. This sort of tactic is what leads some to think the Oscars are bull$#!%, but it’s not like Scorsese isn’t a worthy winner – especially when he made a really good movie.

BEST ACTOR
Don Cheadle – Hotel Rwanda

● This is my go-out-on-a-limb pick. Jamie Foxx will probably win for playing Ray Charles, and I’m not saying he shouldn’t because he did a great job. But I just can’t shake a hunch that Cheadle might win. Hotel Rwanda was a powerful movie, with a story that echoes current events, and Cheadle pushes it all right into your chest with his performance. (But I might be a little biased, since this movie is really fresh in my mind right now.)

BEST ACTRESS
Hilary Swank – Million Dollar Baby

● I’ve only seen two of the five nominees, so I’m a little shaky on this category. But if Million Dollar Baby is the best movie, it’s because of Swank. If you don’t care what happens to her character, if you don’t identify with her struggle to make something of her life and rise above her upbringing and social standing, then this movie doesn’t matter. But it does matter.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Jamie Foxx – Collateral

● Here’s where Jamie Foxx gets his Oscar. Collateral could’ve been a bad movie, with Tom Cruise chewing up scenery as he plays the bad guy. But Foxx makes it a good movie because he makes you care what happens to his character. Like many of us, he’s a guy who has dreams, but is stuck in the grind of his daily life. Foxx makes you wonder what you’d do if you found yourself in the same situation as his character. And he makes it believable.

(Having said that, Morgan Freeman will probably win for his part in Million Dollar Baby and receive some long overdue recognition for his career.)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett – The Aviator

● In playing Katherine Hepburn, Blanchett veers dangerously close to caricature, but she doesn’t take it too far. You can see how Howard Hughes was intoxicated by Hepburn’s personality and presence when Blanchett comes into the movie and takes it over. To me, the scenes between those two are the best part of The Aviator. Underneath all the drama, Blanchett shows Hepburn as someone who cares deeply for a man, yet knows he’s tortured by something he won’t ever be able to conquer. I would’ve watched a two-hour movie about that relationship alone.

And in the categories that only I and a handful of fellow writing nerds care about, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind will win the BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY award and Sideways will get BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY. Those movies deserve more than one trophy, but I guess you take what you can get.

Okay, no more Oscar talk for at least a year. We’ll return to your regularly scheduled blog Monday. (Or maybe tomorrow.)

EDIT (4:15 pm): Wait a minute, I reserve the right to make fun of the Oscars while I’m watching them and comment on them Monday. So maybe one more Oscar post.

Chasing Oscar, part 2

I’ve been meaning to write more about the Academy Award nominations since they were announced, but other topics rose to the top of the blogging list. So with the Oscars show coming up this Sunday, I’d better get to it. (Hopefully, you enjoyed posts about chic toilets rather than my trip to see Finding Neverland and my intentions to see Hotel Rwanda.)

But something that’s really been bugging me is the belly-aching over a couple of the Best Picture nominees. For instance, an article in last Sunday’s New York Times focused on the criticism Sideways has been receiving from alcohol treatment therapists and counselors. Yes, really. Apparently, some of these professionals think the film glosses over the fact that Paul Giamatti’s character (Miles) is an alcoholic and casts his subsequent behavior in an acceptable (and comedic) light.

I don’t know about you guys, but in the movie I saw, Miles is indeed portrayed as having a drinking problem, someone who drowns his sorrows – sometimes subtly, sometimes obviously – in pinot noir. If audiences choose not to acknowledge that part of the story, it’s not the filmmakers’ fault. And to say they had a responsibility to show the consequences of alcoholism not only implies an agenda where one doesn’t exist, but also completely misunderstands how storytelling works. Alexander Payne didn’t set out to make that movie. If people like Polly McCall, a therapist quoted in the Times article, want to see that kind of film, that kind of story, they should make one themselves.

The same applies to the disapproval recently thrown at Million Dollar Baby because of choices made by the two main characters toward the end of the film. I hesitate to say exactly what the debate is about, since it gives away a key story point that I think people should see for themselves and I don’t want to ruin the movie for anyone. (Go see it, for #@$%’s sake!)

Part of the complaint, by the way, is directed at film critics. Some people think they should tell audiences what happens in the story so that audiences know what to expect and can choose whether or not to see it. I would think anyone who loves and respects film – and I assume that includes most film reviewers – would prefer not to spoil a movie for audiences and ruin the effect that a filmmaker was trying to accomplish. The job of a film critic is to review a film on its artistic merits, not make moral judgments for audiences. If a critic chooses to reveal what happens in a film to warn people who might be offended, then that’s a decision he or she can make. But a critic isn’t under an obligation to pass along such information.

Here’s what Roger Ebert has to say on the subject. Tim Rutten feels differently in the Los Angeles Times.

But back to the debate over the film’s morality: Certain advocacy groups and right-wing commentators say that the decision made by Clint Eastwood’s character amounts to an endorsement of that action by the filmmakers. Does a political agenda have to be attached to everything?

If a story depicts a character doing something that people might disagree with, it doesn’t mean the storyteller supports that particular action or philosophy. The story involves what that character would do, not necessarily what the reader or viewer would do. Writers and filmmakers (the good ones, anyway) try to create believable characters and build narratives around them that make sense. And I’ll argue that a good story might compel audiences to disagree with what they’re seeing or reading. It should put a question in your mind after you’re done with the experience.

I’m going to make a shameless plea for comments today. If you’ve made it through this whole rant (and thank you for reading, if you did), I’d really like to know what you think – even if this is something you don’t really care about. (If you do, here’s another essay by Jim Emerson.) You don’t need a Blogger account to leave a comment, and though I’d prefer you do, you don’t have to leave your name either. Thank you.

Okay – Oscar predictions tomorrow! Who’s having an Oscar party?

Death and disappointment in Colorado

Of all the obituaries and appreciations I’ve seen of Hunter S. Thompson over the past two days – and you could spend an entire day reading through all of them – this one from writer Warren Ellis seems the most heartfelt to me. It’s not necessarily a flattering portrayal, but Ellis obviously admired Thompson and is disappointed in one of his writing heroes. Here’s a clip:

“But how you leave the stage is at least as important as how you enter it. And he left it alone in a kitchen with a .45, dying in – and wouldn’t it be nice if it were the last time these words were typed together? – dying in fear, and loathing.”

Henry Allen also seemed to get inside Thompson’s head pretty well (if such a thing is possible) in his piece for the Washington Post. For a more conventional tribute, check out what Sean has to say over at Security!

Help for the Army?

Yesterday, I noted that the Army was having trouble attracting recruits. Maybe those wacky British have come up with a solution. According to today’s New York Times, the Royal Navy is actively recruiting gays. That could work, right? Hey, don’t go getting married here, but go ahead and join the military. (Maybe “Jeff Gannon” could lead the charge.)

Better yet, I think Top Gun could still be used as an effective recruiting tool. As we all know, but some are reluctant to admit, that movie is swimming in homosexual subtext.

Pondering over a turkey sandwich

So if deaths happen in threes, who’s next? Arthur Miller died just over a week ago, and Hunter S. Thompson committed suicide this week. Should a lot of older writers be making sure to avoid black cats, not walk over cracks in sidewalks, etc.? Should, say, Norman Mailer lock himself in his house for the next couple of weeks to outlast the jinx?

Paradise for writing nerds

One of my favorite things about living in Iowa City is the number of authors who visit to promote their books and read their work. In my two years here, I’ve been able to meet some of my favorite writers, including Jonathan Lethem, Dave Eggers, Jeffrey Eugenides, James Ellroy, and Denis Johnson. I know if I lived in a big city, I could probably see all of these writers, and probably many more. But in a rather small, midwestern college town, this seems particularly special.

The Writers’ Workshop at the University of Iowa brings in a lot of writers, many of whom studied in the program. (It’s the reason I moved here too. I’d love to come back someday and revel in my glory.) Whenever a graduate comes back to read from a novel he or she was very likely working on while studying here, it’s an exciting moment. Well, at least for us writers.

Last night at Prairie Lights bookstore, Curtis Sittenfeld read from her debut novel, Prep. (Rather than try to describe the novel – of which I’ve only read 10 pages – here’s a description from her website. Okay, it’s about a girl who leaves Indiana to attend prep school in Massachusetts.) Sittenfeld’s a writer I’ve admired for some time, due to her essays in Salon, the Washington Post, and the New York Times. (I wrote an entry about a hilarious essay she wrote for the Times Book Review almost two months ago. Go on, search those archives; I won’t mind.) Prep is currently #11 on the Times Best-Seller List, and it’s been in stores for just over a month. Not bad.

The reading was also part of the “Live from Prairie Lights” series on radio station WSUI, which means Sittenfeld had the pleasure of being interviewed by the bizarre Julie Englander, who asked insightful questions such as what was it like having a name that many perceive as a man’s name. Englander also asked Sittenfeld to compare the prep school experience to public school. But since Sittenfeld attended prep school, not public school, she really couldn’t answer the question. One would think Englander might’ve realized that before asking. But I digress…

Sittenfeld apparently made a lot of friends during her time in Iowa City because I was standing in line behind every single one of them while waiting to get my book signed. Considering everyone else was getting a hug and a 5-10 minute reunion, I was a little disappointed when I only received an autograph. But I got to tell her that she should make her agent shop around a collection of her nonfiction work. She seemed to think I’d be the only one who’d read it, but I doubt it. (Sittenfeld was either too modest to tell me that most of those articles and essays are on her website or she’d forgotten about it.)

How often do you get to chat with someone whose work you really admire? On nights like this, I don’t regret moving to Iowa City at all.

The Comely Commode

With recent bathroom-related posts by fellow bloggers Gary and Heather, I was inspired to throw in my own two cents. I read this in Friday’s USA Today and knew sitting on the can would never be the same again. All the cool, chic people will soon be doing their business in style with this $3,000 hatbox toilet from Kohler.

Just in case you have to go while wearing pumps and a dress

“There’s no reason why a toilet can’t evolve beyond what it’s looked like for the last 100 years,” said Mike Chandler, vice president of marketing for Kohler.

Exactly, Mike. And thanks to you and your company for looking at the same ol’ toilet we’ve all been using for decades and thinking, “Hey, we can do better.” Just look at how stylish that thing is, with no tank. (Where the hell will we now put our magazines or boxes of tissue?)

Even better, the seat is ergonomically designed with “pressure mapping” that conforms to the bottom and back of the legs. No more uncomfortable seats for us, people. Now, it’ll form around your butt just like your favorite armchair. (Wouldn’t that make you less likely to offer your toilet to someone else? “Hey man, don’t ruin my butt mold – I finally got that thing just right!“)

New Yorkers will get all the fun first. So if they like it, I guess the rest of us will get to join in too. Maybe Gary or Mis Hooz will shell out for the new can and let us know how it works. You thought the line to the bathroom was long at parties before – wait’ll you get one of these.

Imagine that

According to this Washington Post article, the Army is having trouble enlisting new recruits. Gee, I wonder why that is? I guess people watch the news, after all. Or maybe the Army needs cooler commercials, like the Marines have.