San Francisco 49ers/Kansas City Chiefs: I have to admit, that even though I'd rather not see San Francisco win the Super Bowl again, this is a cool matchup of two impressive versatile teams. They've never played in the Super Bowl before, it's been a long time since Kansas City's made the Super Bowl, and they've only played each other 13 times over the years, the 49ers holding the edge 7 to 6. Jimmy Garoppolo didn't even have to find his rhythm versus the Pack in the NFC Finals, since the 49ers ran the ball with incredible efficiently, only throwing 8 passes and still scoring 37 points in fact, I kept hoping Green Bay would come back, but that's a tale for another season. Kansas City picked up 35 against a strong Titans defence too, relying much more heavily on the pass. If Patrick Mahomes can outmanoeuvre the 49ers like he did Houston and Tennessee, this should be a remarkable game. But I thought last year's Super Bowl would be high scoring too and it was a bit of a dud offensively, so really, who's to say what'll happen in this one, my grocery bill was $58.55 today . . . 😜 But it'll be cool to see one of the league's best passers taking on an incredible running game, duelling stalwart toe-to-toe, on each and every integral possession. So many AFC champions defeated by the 49ers when I was a kid, Miami, San Diego, Cincinnati twice, and Denver, but this year they're being coached by Mike Shanahan's son Kyle, and, again, have a truly amazing running game. It's tough to find reasons not to pick or like them, imagine this style of football in 2020? But at the end of the day Québec's represented on Kansas City, I can't overlook that compelling fact. Will San Francisco become the first NFC team to win 6 Super Bowls, tying the American Football Conference's Steelers and Patriots resolutely, or will K.C pick up its first Super Bowl win in 50 years, leading the AFC to its second straight Lombardi Trophy? That's a long time and I'm glad they're back and it would be cool to see Andy Reid finally win one. I hope this game's more exciting than last year's. Picking the Chiefs. Picking the Chiefs at home.
Friday, January 31, 2020
Just Mercy
It's clear enough that justice is a matter of guilt or innocence, the guilty party convicted for their crimes, the innocent individual eventually set free.
It's also clear that determining someone's guilt or innocence is a lengthy complex procedure, which takes multiple factors into account in order to assert the highest degree of reasonability.
These factors are subject to various interpretive procedures, presented by prosecutors and defence attorneys according to alternative plausible perspectives, each perspective like a contradictory ingredient in an opaque conflicting recipe, which is hopefully judged without bias, within the spirit of daring independence.
Different narratives emerge.
But which one is in fact correct?
Some cases are more complex than others, however, and Walter McMillian's (Jamie Foxx) conviction for murder in Just Mercy is presented as a serious perversion of justice, the evidence supporting his innocence both reasonable and overwhelming, as brave civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson (Michael B. Jordan) has to go to great lengths to prove.
The world needs more lawyers like him.
He's harassed and humiliated for doing his job to the best of his abilities, because local law enforcement was more interested in locking someone up for the crime than actually finding the guilty individual.
Since they were unable to find the guilty individual, they arrested a prosperous African American, who had been bold enough to do his job well and earn a respectable living, by working hard and honestly persevering.
Serious roadblocks prevent his retrial from moving forward, but his lawyers are determined to see he has another day in court.
Their interactions add interpersonal integrity to the story which abounds with emotionally charged dialogue, dispassionately conveyed, to reflect bitter rational despondency.
Hope and hopelessness creatively converse within to highlight gross jurisprudent indecency, but the resilient lawyers care about truth, and won't back down in the face of disillusion.
Tim Blake Nelson (Ralph Myers) puts in a noteworthy performance as a felon who gave false testimony which led to McMillian's conviction, emanating a compelling presence on screen which complements that of Foxx, Jordan, and Brie Larson (Eva Ansley).
I haven't seen everything Foxx has done since Ray but his performance in Just Mercy reminded me why he once won an Oscar.
I hope films like Just Mercy and Dark Waters inspire practising and potential lawyers to keep fighting the honourable fight.
I know it's hard to remain hopeful sometimes.
But without hope there's just the abyss.
Tweeting relentlessly.
Calling the bravest most intelligent American service people dopes and babies.
It really is reminiscent of various depictions of Caligula.
Reckless callous abuses of power.
Blind unilateral engagement.
It's also clear that determining someone's guilt or innocence is a lengthy complex procedure, which takes multiple factors into account in order to assert the highest degree of reasonability.
These factors are subject to various interpretive procedures, presented by prosecutors and defence attorneys according to alternative plausible perspectives, each perspective like a contradictory ingredient in an opaque conflicting recipe, which is hopefully judged without bias, within the spirit of daring independence.
Different narratives emerge.
But which one is in fact correct?
Some cases are more complex than others, however, and Walter McMillian's (Jamie Foxx) conviction for murder in Just Mercy is presented as a serious perversion of justice, the evidence supporting his innocence both reasonable and overwhelming, as brave civil rights attorney Bryan Stevenson (Michael B. Jordan) has to go to great lengths to prove.
The world needs more lawyers like him.
He's harassed and humiliated for doing his job to the best of his abilities, because local law enforcement was more interested in locking someone up for the crime than actually finding the guilty individual.
Since they were unable to find the guilty individual, they arrested a prosperous African American, who had been bold enough to do his job well and earn a respectable living, by working hard and honestly persevering.
Serious roadblocks prevent his retrial from moving forward, but his lawyers are determined to see he has another day in court.
Their interactions add interpersonal integrity to the story which abounds with emotionally charged dialogue, dispassionately conveyed, to reflect bitter rational despondency.
Hope and hopelessness creatively converse within to highlight gross jurisprudent indecency, but the resilient lawyers care about truth, and won't back down in the face of disillusion.
Tim Blake Nelson (Ralph Myers) puts in a noteworthy performance as a felon who gave false testimony which led to McMillian's conviction, emanating a compelling presence on screen which complements that of Foxx, Jordan, and Brie Larson (Eva Ansley).
I haven't seen everything Foxx has done since Ray but his performance in Just Mercy reminded me why he once won an Oscar.
I hope films like Just Mercy and Dark Waters inspire practising and potential lawyers to keep fighting the honourable fight.
I know it's hard to remain hopeful sometimes.
But without hope there's just the abyss.
Tweeting relentlessly.
Calling the bravest most intelligent American service people dopes and babies.
It really is reminiscent of various depictions of Caligula.
Reckless callous abuses of power.
Blind unilateral engagement.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
1917
I like 1917's title.
It's blunt and non-specific, refrains from attaching nuance or particular, as if it chronicles events that took place during an extended incredibly bleak period, wherein which there was no end in sight to World War I, it must have seemed neverending, interminable, no matter how many battles were won or lost, with no choice if you were fighting but to endure, and make the most of the intrinsic chaos.
Both sides dug in, in command of vast stretches of ground, neither able to advance much further, yet still attacking with fierce resolve.
One battle transformed into hundreds, a colossal mass of composite correspondence, broken down into tens of thousands of crucial messages, their import daunting and ephemeral, so much unravelling with unpredictable fortitude.
Cool heads necessitated nevertheless, hold the line, maintain chains of command, proceed stalwart and unerring, as the unprecedented slaughter horrendously escalates, it's estimated that 40 million people died in the war, from 1914 to 1918, like unleashed menace meticulously terrorizing, survival, a precious miracle.
1917 unreels in the thick of it, and doesn't romanticize the horror, camaraderie thrilling against a background of shock, a lifetime of trauma in little over a day.
An hour.
Two soldiers head out with a message intended to save over a thousand people, but their destination lies across enemy lines, even if they're theoretically deserted, different message, different day, as the film states, best foot forward notwithstanding, into the forbidding treacherous rage.
It's a bold endeavour courageously undertaken, but what they encounter's by no means light, the film doesn't present something easy or relatable, its distraught bedlam grotesquely abhorrent.
With a touch of reason shining through, a noble purpose, heroic deeds, the knowledge that if the mission fails things will be even worse, even if the colonel's far from hopeful in the end.
I won't say there must have been thousands of missions like this one, because the brave soldiers who undertook them were unique, and the grave risks they took at extreme peril shouldn't be compromised through comparison, courageous acts truly like none other.
1917 assigns dignity to millions of lost lives, bold soldiers following orders handed down the line, speculative commanders rationally assailing the unknown, in fierce combat, nothing certain or stable.
War isn't something to be romanticized and you can learn this without having fought in one.
I was glad to see 1917's generally grim.
I'm more into scripts but the camera work in 1917's incredible, it pulls you in and epitomizes the helplessness.
The pressure.
I can't recall many films with better cinematography (Roger Deakins).
Reminded me of The Player, Touch of Evil, La nuit américaine, and Birdman.
It's blunt and non-specific, refrains from attaching nuance or particular, as if it chronicles events that took place during an extended incredibly bleak period, wherein which there was no end in sight to World War I, it must have seemed neverending, interminable, no matter how many battles were won or lost, with no choice if you were fighting but to endure, and make the most of the intrinsic chaos.
Both sides dug in, in command of vast stretches of ground, neither able to advance much further, yet still attacking with fierce resolve.
One battle transformed into hundreds, a colossal mass of composite correspondence, broken down into tens of thousands of crucial messages, their import daunting and ephemeral, so much unravelling with unpredictable fortitude.
Cool heads necessitated nevertheless, hold the line, maintain chains of command, proceed stalwart and unerring, as the unprecedented slaughter horrendously escalates, it's estimated that 40 million people died in the war, from 1914 to 1918, like unleashed menace meticulously terrorizing, survival, a precious miracle.
1917 unreels in the thick of it, and doesn't romanticize the horror, camaraderie thrilling against a background of shock, a lifetime of trauma in little over a day.
An hour.
Two soldiers head out with a message intended to save over a thousand people, but their destination lies across enemy lines, even if they're theoretically deserted, different message, different day, as the film states, best foot forward notwithstanding, into the forbidding treacherous rage.
It's a bold endeavour courageously undertaken, but what they encounter's by no means light, the film doesn't present something easy or relatable, its distraught bedlam grotesquely abhorrent.
With a touch of reason shining through, a noble purpose, heroic deeds, the knowledge that if the mission fails things will be even worse, even if the colonel's far from hopeful in the end.
I won't say there must have been thousands of missions like this one, because the brave soldiers who undertook them were unique, and the grave risks they took at extreme peril shouldn't be compromised through comparison, courageous acts truly like none other.
1917 assigns dignity to millions of lost lives, bold soldiers following orders handed down the line, speculative commanders rationally assailing the unknown, in fierce combat, nothing certain or stable.
War isn't something to be romanticized and you can learn this without having fought in one.
I was glad to see 1917's generally grim.
I'm more into scripts but the camera work in 1917's incredible, it pulls you in and epitomizes the helplessness.
The pressure.
I can't recall many films with better cinematography (Roger Deakins).
Reminded me of The Player, Touch of Evil, La nuit américaine, and Birdman.
Monday, January 27, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Galore
A cappella glitzy bruncheon
gossamer flat foot compunction
sharp inquisitive appealing
arched abridged inductive seething
swerving down the splintered lane
expostulated grip engrained
surveyed hypnotic escalation
striking sparing crests mutations
gin and tonic tonal impasse
hooked on phonic metronome
alas the pendulum vibrating
calisthenic torc elating
banquets bordure portly puns
invigorating spirals spun
the roti blanket shades of pumpkin
drenched in jalapeñoed gumption
polka.
gossamer flat foot compunction
sharp inquisitive appealing
arched abridged inductive seething
swerving down the splintered lane
expostulated grip engrained
surveyed hypnotic escalation
striking sparing crests mutations
gin and tonic tonal impasse
hooked on phonic metronome
alas the pendulum vibrating
calisthenic torc elating
banquets bordure portly puns
invigorating spirals spun
the roti blanket shades of pumpkin
drenched in jalapeñoed gumption
polka.
Friday, January 24, 2020
Tenki no ko (Weathering with You)
Alone in Tokyo after having made a run for it, Hodaka Morishima (Kotaro Daigo) makes the most of unsettling circumstances.
But good fortune shines upon him, and he soon finds digs and a steady job, searching for different people to converse with, then writing about their random tales.
While he was struggling he sought daily sustenance, and at times it was hard to come by, and one evening while embracing hunger, a fast food serviceperson came to his aid (Nana Mori as Amano Hina).
Later, as fate would have it, she finds herself unaware in villainous clutches, with those who seek to exploit her, when he arrives with earnest daring.
Soon they're dearest friends, thoughtfully navigating the cold world around them, applying logic innocently improvised, perhaps inclined to amorous ascension.
As it rains and rains without pause everyday, Hina possesses a miraculous secret, which becomes a full-time job, a luminous pastime enriching alight.
Yet they both should technically be in school, and authorities are aware that Hodaka has run away, and as freedom becomes less unattainably disposed, the police move in to assert jurisprudence.
But before pressing realities come bluntly crashing down, Tenki no ko (Weathering with You) comments on life on the road, on the non-traditional fluidic path, its characters deep as they envision comprehension.
How first love beyond distress and despair can illuminate so much steadfast life, how the forgotten vivaciously remonstrating can evoke prosperity and happiness.
It's not as cheerful as this perhaps sounds, they do encounter pressure and danger, none of their lives void of hardships, which their friendships soothe and mitigate.
I imagine the film's appealing for youthful and aged audiences alike, for its style is sharp yet light and its content free yet fiercely embroiled.
Its diverse multifaceted script examines difficulties associated with never having time off, the necessity of full-time employment, how hard it can be to find a hotel room, compassionate animal care, conjugal misperception, emotional conflicts embraced as children are raised by others, thriving commerce, an unorthodox feisty existence, as if every scene's integral to the narrative yet still has something to say about non-fictional working life, the pros and cons of picking things up on the fly, strong bonds forged as people innovate together.
The film can be so many things for so many different people, its premise built on controversy, its action elevating resolve.
It's first rate magical realism, which rationalizes impossibility as it critiques the real, abounding with incredible depth, Makoto Shinkai is a brilliant storyteller.
I loved how the animation captures the rain and the story highlights the joys of sharing meals.
A film composed to keep you thinking.
Without abandoning soulful yields.
But good fortune shines upon him, and he soon finds digs and a steady job, searching for different people to converse with, then writing about their random tales.
While he was struggling he sought daily sustenance, and at times it was hard to come by, and one evening while embracing hunger, a fast food serviceperson came to his aid (Nana Mori as Amano Hina).
Later, as fate would have it, she finds herself unaware in villainous clutches, with those who seek to exploit her, when he arrives with earnest daring.
Soon they're dearest friends, thoughtfully navigating the cold world around them, applying logic innocently improvised, perhaps inclined to amorous ascension.
As it rains and rains without pause everyday, Hina possesses a miraculous secret, which becomes a full-time job, a luminous pastime enriching alight.
Yet they both should technically be in school, and authorities are aware that Hodaka has run away, and as freedom becomes less unattainably disposed, the police move in to assert jurisprudence.
But before pressing realities come bluntly crashing down, Tenki no ko (Weathering with You) comments on life on the road, on the non-traditional fluidic path, its characters deep as they envision comprehension.
How first love beyond distress and despair can illuminate so much steadfast life, how the forgotten vivaciously remonstrating can evoke prosperity and happiness.
It's not as cheerful as this perhaps sounds, they do encounter pressure and danger, none of their lives void of hardships, which their friendships soothe and mitigate.
I imagine the film's appealing for youthful and aged audiences alike, for its style is sharp yet light and its content free yet fiercely embroiled.
Its diverse multifaceted script examines difficulties associated with never having time off, the necessity of full-time employment, how hard it can be to find a hotel room, compassionate animal care, conjugal misperception, emotional conflicts embraced as children are raised by others, thriving commerce, an unorthodox feisty existence, as if every scene's integral to the narrative yet still has something to say about non-fictional working life, the pros and cons of picking things up on the fly, strong bonds forged as people innovate together.
The film can be so many things for so many different people, its premise built on controversy, its action elevating resolve.
It's first rate magical realism, which rationalizes impossibility as it critiques the real, abounding with incredible depth, Makoto Shinkai is a brilliant storyteller.
I loved how the animation captures the rain and the story highlights the joys of sharing meals.
A film composed to keep you thinking.
Without abandoning soulful yields.
Thursday, January 23, 2020
Compostable Straws
It's great to see so many restaurants and cinemas using compostable straws these days.
If we can suddenly switch to compostable straws, it made me think we really can move away from single-use plastics in the not too distant future.
Thanks so much to the individuals who shared the video depicting a turtle with a straw stuck in its nose on YouTube and elsewhere. I believe that's where a lot of the momentum for the compostable straw initiative came from. Amazing work.
You helped change the world.
I imagine hemp can be used to make containers that can replace single-use plastics, but I'm by no means an expert in the field (I believe I heard about the superpowers of hemp in the documentary film Grass).
All I know is that if plastic straws can be replaced so easily, so can many other single-use plastics.
Super happy to see progress on this issue.
Hope the momentum continues to build.
If we can suddenly switch to compostable straws, it made me think we really can move away from single-use plastics in the not too distant future.
Thanks so much to the individuals who shared the video depicting a turtle with a straw stuck in its nose on YouTube and elsewhere. I believe that's where a lot of the momentum for the compostable straw initiative came from. Amazing work.
You helped change the world.
I imagine hemp can be used to make containers that can replace single-use plastics, but I'm by no means an expert in the field (I believe I heard about the superpowers of hemp in the documentary film Grass).
All I know is that if plastic straws can be replaced so easily, so can many other single-use plastics.
Super happy to see progress on this issue.
Hope the momentum continues to build.
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
A Vida Invisível (Invisible Life)
Tumultuous times await a romantic spirit after she's left behind with child and her family brusquely disowns her.
Or refuses to allow her to come home after she returns from her amorous adventure, alone with nowhere to go, having fallen prey to dishonest advances.
Made when she was ready to sacrifice everything.
Her sister's left unawares, has no idea what's transpired, and marries as the months and years pass, settling into domestic life.
But she never gives up her dream of playing the piano in Vienna, nor stops thinking about her missing sister, who communicates regularly in writing, her messages intercepted by a disapproving husband.
The oft irreconcilable relationship between emotion and principle forges an ethical current within, the husbands obsessed with how things appear, the wives sympathetic to concrete reality.
I can't understand how a parent could care more about a principle or social standing than the happiness of their child, or how they could disown him or her absolutely for doing something they may have once considered.
Themselves.
Some things lack prestige or appeal until you've reached a certain age, and it's difficult to imagine that one mistake made in the grips of youthful passion could ever prevent them from luminously radiating, for if principle isn't able to take what once seemed irrefutably endearing into aged spiritual account, are the thoughts and feelings of younger generations to perennially persist in ill-defined obscurity?
How could you know that your grandchild is being raised in a neighbourhood close by and that you've given his or her parents no assistance whatsoever to ease their emotional and financial distress?
How could you suddenly dismiss all the wonderful times cherished with your children as they grew, because they didn't follow a rigid rule to its stifling incapacitating letter?
Is it possible to love rules and regulations more than flourishing life?, to abide by stern codes and customs when surrounded by contemporary endeavour?
There's no doubt youth seeks to uphold what they've been taught to behold as rational, but to make sense of rational traditions when you're young overlooks the exuberance of life.
A Vida Invisível (Invisible Life) demonstrates how a young adult cast aside by her family digs in deep and vigorously strives.
And how that family suffers in her absence, how it would have prospered with her vital strength.
A sorrowful tale crafting knowledge woebegone, which contrasts domesticity with independence to challenge stubborn points of view, it exhales tragedy with forlorn breaths while encouraging compassion and understanding, as siblings long for the abandoned innocence that once so thoughtfully bloomed.
Is it not more shameful to abandon your child?
To leave them alone to dismally struggle?
I'm not encouraging reckless behaviour.
But mistakes require sympathy, not severe punishments.
Or refuses to allow her to come home after she returns from her amorous adventure, alone with nowhere to go, having fallen prey to dishonest advances.
Made when she was ready to sacrifice everything.
Her sister's left unawares, has no idea what's transpired, and marries as the months and years pass, settling into domestic life.
But she never gives up her dream of playing the piano in Vienna, nor stops thinking about her missing sister, who communicates regularly in writing, her messages intercepted by a disapproving husband.
The oft irreconcilable relationship between emotion and principle forges an ethical current within, the husbands obsessed with how things appear, the wives sympathetic to concrete reality.
I can't understand how a parent could care more about a principle or social standing than the happiness of their child, or how they could disown him or her absolutely for doing something they may have once considered.
Themselves.
Some things lack prestige or appeal until you've reached a certain age, and it's difficult to imagine that one mistake made in the grips of youthful passion could ever prevent them from luminously radiating, for if principle isn't able to take what once seemed irrefutably endearing into aged spiritual account, are the thoughts and feelings of younger generations to perennially persist in ill-defined obscurity?
How could you know that your grandchild is being raised in a neighbourhood close by and that you've given his or her parents no assistance whatsoever to ease their emotional and financial distress?
How could you suddenly dismiss all the wonderful times cherished with your children as they grew, because they didn't follow a rigid rule to its stifling incapacitating letter?
Is it possible to love rules and regulations more than flourishing life?, to abide by stern codes and customs when surrounded by contemporary endeavour?
There's no doubt youth seeks to uphold what they've been taught to behold as rational, but to make sense of rational traditions when you're young overlooks the exuberance of life.
A Vida Invisível (Invisible Life) demonstrates how a young adult cast aside by her family digs in deep and vigorously strives.
And how that family suffers in her absence, how it would have prospered with her vital strength.
A sorrowful tale crafting knowledge woebegone, which contrasts domesticity with independence to challenge stubborn points of view, it exhales tragedy with forlorn breaths while encouraging compassion and understanding, as siblings long for the abandoned innocence that once so thoughtfully bloomed.
Is it not more shameful to abandon your child?
To leave them alone to dismally struggle?
I'm not encouraging reckless behaviour.
But mistakes require sympathy, not severe punishments.
Monday, January 20, 2020
Sunday, January 19, 2020
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Denim
Leaflet lolling lexicon
unrattled saunter strolling spawn
an eye for inefficient cozy
spectacled renditioned mosey
caterwauling incidental
patent shawling instrumental
solo silence syncopated
shoreline shift regurgitated
infinitesimal surmise
prognostic salient paradise
bewitching twitchin' erudition
seismic meaningless 'hibition
schism sight unmodified
anachronistic raw divide
synthetically the malty medic
metamorphosizes genic
aphorism.
unrattled saunter strolling spawn
an eye for inefficient cozy
spectacled renditioned mosey
caterwauling incidental
patent shawling instrumental
solo silence syncopated
shoreline shift regurgitated
infinitesimal surmise
prognostic salient paradise
bewitching twitchin' erudition
seismic meaningless 'hibition
schism sight unmodified
anachronistic raw divide
synthetically the malty medic
metamorphosizes genic
aphorism.
Friday, January 17, 2020
NFL Playoffs, Conference Championships Picks
Tennessee Titans/Kansas City Chiefs: the Titans defied astronomical odds last Saturday to overwhelm the heralded Ravens, and earn a spot in the AFC Conference Championship, for which they'll no doubt ferociously compete. They frustrated Baltimore throughout and prevented its NFL leading offence from ever finding a rhythm, capitalizing on multiple unexpected turnovers on their way to an historic win. I have to admit, that since the Ravens defeated Denver in a similar fashion in 2012, I'm not that upset that Baltimore came up short, it was indeed wonderful to see the underdog pull it off, especially since Wild Card teams haven't fared well of late. Tennessee took on the Chiefs in Week 10 and pulled off a 35 to 32 victory, scoring 15 points in the fourth, Patrick Mahomes throwing for 446 yards. I doubt those stats will have any bearing on this Sunday's matchup, which seems like it exists beyond history since the Patriots aren't competing, nor will the improbable Titans win versus the Chiefs in the 2017 postseason, which saw them come back from a perilous deficit. But if Kansas City plays anywhere close to how well they played last Sunday, I don't think anyone can beat them, 28 points in the second quarter alone, I've never heard of or read about anything like it. Sometimes a team has a big week and then struggles during their next big game however. But Tennessee has to bring it. Picking the Chiefs at home.
Green Bay Packers/San Francisco 49ers: the Pack, back at it, competing for another Conference Championship, abounding with leadership, ingenuity, strength, and innovation, glad to see them still flourishing this late in January, bound and determined to settle the score. The 49ers impressed last weekend however, and suppressed a fierce Vikings team, why can't New Orleans play like that in the playoffs?, it doesn't make sense, time to leave it alone. Both of these teams have had their share of playoff success, and they hold 9 Super Bowl titles between them, not that that matters once they take the field, each and every new game redefines contention. Perhaps. Green Bay holds the all-time edge 36 to 31 and 1, but San Francisco's won 5 of the last 7, after the Pack defeated them 8 times in a row. The 49ers rocked Green Bay in Week 12 in a lopsided 37 to 8 win, but a lot's changed since then, and the Packers must have adjusted meanwhile. They defeated the Seahawks last Sunday who almost beat the 49ers twice, and Rodgers is no stranger to postseason pressure, nor odds that aren't in his favour. The Pack's overcome San Francisco 4 times in the playoffs including one NFC Championship win, but the 49ers won their two most recent matchups, dating back to 2013. This would be a huge win for Jimmy Garoppolo who left New England to start in San Fran, and his team runs the ball efficiently, which may give him time to settle down. I hope that both teams come to play either way and the game's decided in the final seconds. It'd be cool to see Rodgers win another. While leading the Pack of Green Bay. Picking the Packers to pull it off. Digging in deep on the road.
Green Bay Packers/San Francisco 49ers: the Pack, back at it, competing for another Conference Championship, abounding with leadership, ingenuity, strength, and innovation, glad to see them still flourishing this late in January, bound and determined to settle the score. The 49ers impressed last weekend however, and suppressed a fierce Vikings team, why can't New Orleans play like that in the playoffs?, it doesn't make sense, time to leave it alone. Both of these teams have had their share of playoff success, and they hold 9 Super Bowl titles between them, not that that matters once they take the field, each and every new game redefines contention. Perhaps. Green Bay holds the all-time edge 36 to 31 and 1, but San Francisco's won 5 of the last 7, after the Pack defeated them 8 times in a row. The 49ers rocked Green Bay in Week 12 in a lopsided 37 to 8 win, but a lot's changed since then, and the Packers must have adjusted meanwhile. They defeated the Seahawks last Sunday who almost beat the 49ers twice, and Rodgers is no stranger to postseason pressure, nor odds that aren't in his favour. The Pack's overcome San Francisco 4 times in the playoffs including one NFC Championship win, but the 49ers won their two most recent matchups, dating back to 2013. This would be a huge win for Jimmy Garoppolo who left New England to start in San Fran, and his team runs the ball efficiently, which may give him time to settle down. I hope that both teams come to play either way and the game's decided in the final seconds. It'd be cool to see Rodgers win another. While leading the Pack of Green Bay. Picking the Packers to pull it off. Digging in deep on the road.
Ford v Ferrari
I could never get into car racing.
No matter what the track.
I watched a car race once one afternoon when I was 10 years old or so, while two brothers started brawling for some reason, and after 5 minutes or so it generally lost its appeal, I'm afraid I never had the desire to watch one again, cold storage, dusted away.
I like films however, so if a film about car racing is nominated for best picture at the Oscars I figured there must be something to it, something that transcends the actual racing itself, and perhaps highlights a point or two I never would have taken into account if I hadn't seen it, although I did respect car racing meanwhile, it's just something I could never get into.
Into watching.
It sounds fun, like it'd be something fun to do, not watch.
The film does a great job of demonstrating how much thought goes into winning such races, the coveted expertise possessed by precious few aficionados, who take the time to actively pursue their passion without thinking much about reward, the love of the game drives them, and it's impressive how much they know.
Honestly, seeing a company that was as big as Ford at the time take on a much smaller company that was going out of business (Ferrari) didn't appeal to me much, it's like the company that already has everything backed up by unlimited resources competing against a devout artist, who's passionately spent everything in the pursuit of something breathtaking and unique.
It's super American.
I didn't care for that aspect of the story much, but since Ford had the reputation for making less specialized cars and wanted to prove they could do something unique, I appreciated the improbability of the challenge, which would have seemed more profound without the wealth.
The incredible wealth.
But the team Ford assembles isn't rich, it's composed of hands on struggling independent artists who thoroughly understand their craft, and the film excels as they bat heads with bland executives, whose knowledge is much more concerned with spectacle (they think more about what to do if they've won as opposed to how to actually go about winning).
For some domains, a large bureaucracy functions well, ensuring the delivery of various services for vastly different markets, the inherent intricacies and size of which require multiple levels of thought, positions occupied by workers familiar with the terrain, and the flexibility to calmly deal with manifold contingencies.
If you're trying to win a race, however, if you're doing something highly specific for an individualistic set of circumstances, and there aren't multiple levels of thought, there are just a couple of highly skilled professionals who have the knowledge to get the job done, who in fact know what they're doing, and are making the most relevant observations, like Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and Ken Miles (Christian Bale) in Ford v Ferrari, then, as Carroll and Ken mention in the film, the bureaucracy can get in the way, and make simple decisions that need to be made absurdly complex, the absurd complexities making the practical goal unachievable, keep it simple, keep it practical and hands on.
If you want to do something bureaucracy can be frustrating because you have to wait so long for approval to do the simplest things.
Not so much in politics where it's important to think about the impacts of what you're doing.
But if you like the bureaucratic ebb and flow, I suppose the argument itself is somewhat compelling.
The film is somewhat direct and easy to follow, no nonsense is the phrase writers employ in writing such a narrative I imagine, everything has a traditional relevant point, and it presents a thoughtful situation full of risk, trial, error, reward.
It's the kind of light film pretending to be tough that makes a positive impact, if you don't think about it too much, if you just sit back and take it in.
It would have been cool if the impact the experimental nature of race car driving makes on domestic automobile manufacture had been briefly explored.
And it hadn't been so massive, so Goliath.
A generalized examination of a complex phenomenon.
Nice to see Jon Bernthal (Lee Iacocca) with a larger role.
No matter what the track.
I watched a car race once one afternoon when I was 10 years old or so, while two brothers started brawling for some reason, and after 5 minutes or so it generally lost its appeal, I'm afraid I never had the desire to watch one again, cold storage, dusted away.
I like films however, so if a film about car racing is nominated for best picture at the Oscars I figured there must be something to it, something that transcends the actual racing itself, and perhaps highlights a point or two I never would have taken into account if I hadn't seen it, although I did respect car racing meanwhile, it's just something I could never get into.
Into watching.
It sounds fun, like it'd be something fun to do, not watch.
The film does a great job of demonstrating how much thought goes into winning such races, the coveted expertise possessed by precious few aficionados, who take the time to actively pursue their passion without thinking much about reward, the love of the game drives them, and it's impressive how much they know.
Honestly, seeing a company that was as big as Ford at the time take on a much smaller company that was going out of business (Ferrari) didn't appeal to me much, it's like the company that already has everything backed up by unlimited resources competing against a devout artist, who's passionately spent everything in the pursuit of something breathtaking and unique.
It's super American.
I didn't care for that aspect of the story much, but since Ford had the reputation for making less specialized cars and wanted to prove they could do something unique, I appreciated the improbability of the challenge, which would have seemed more profound without the wealth.
The incredible wealth.
But the team Ford assembles isn't rich, it's composed of hands on struggling independent artists who thoroughly understand their craft, and the film excels as they bat heads with bland executives, whose knowledge is much more concerned with spectacle (they think more about what to do if they've won as opposed to how to actually go about winning).
For some domains, a large bureaucracy functions well, ensuring the delivery of various services for vastly different markets, the inherent intricacies and size of which require multiple levels of thought, positions occupied by workers familiar with the terrain, and the flexibility to calmly deal with manifold contingencies.
If you're trying to win a race, however, if you're doing something highly specific for an individualistic set of circumstances, and there aren't multiple levels of thought, there are just a couple of highly skilled professionals who have the knowledge to get the job done, who in fact know what they're doing, and are making the most relevant observations, like Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and Ken Miles (Christian Bale) in Ford v Ferrari, then, as Carroll and Ken mention in the film, the bureaucracy can get in the way, and make simple decisions that need to be made absurdly complex, the absurd complexities making the practical goal unachievable, keep it simple, keep it practical and hands on.
If you want to do something bureaucracy can be frustrating because you have to wait so long for approval to do the simplest things.
Not so much in politics where it's important to think about the impacts of what you're doing.
But if you like the bureaucratic ebb and flow, I suppose the argument itself is somewhat compelling.
The film is somewhat direct and easy to follow, no nonsense is the phrase writers employ in writing such a narrative I imagine, everything has a traditional relevant point, and it presents a thoughtful situation full of risk, trial, error, reward.
It's the kind of light film pretending to be tough that makes a positive impact, if you don't think about it too much, if you just sit back and take it in.
It would have been cool if the impact the experimental nature of race car driving makes on domestic automobile manufacture had been briefly explored.
And it hadn't been so massive, so Goliath.
A generalized examination of a complex phenomenon.
Nice to see Jon Bernthal (Lee Iacocca) with a larger role.
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Tuesday, January 14, 2020
Cats
I hesitate to suggest that Tom Hooper's Cats produced its desired affects upon its audience, insofar as laughter was consistently generated within the theatre where I recently saw it, but that's not necessarily a bad thing if entertainment value is taken into account, for that very same audience no doubt foolhardily enjoyed themselves, even if their applause was critically attuned to camp as opposed to melodrama.
Is there a difference?
That would be a fun essay to write (in detail).
I would argue that Cats sets out to romantically investigate life on a thriving fringe, within a talented artistic community, independently predisposed.
It's a wonderful idea.
It introduces a variety of vigorous individuals who have taken the time to melodiously compose themselves, in preparation for a carnivalesque soirée, abounding with life and perhaps reincarnation.
A wicked cat who jealously seeks to live again nefariously disrupts the proceedings with cruel and covetous intent.
The historical social interactions of the innovative neighbourhood are observed by a fascinated newcomer who's introduced after emerging astray.
The songs are sung very well, there's no denying the musical talent, the robust sincere efficacious concerned camaraderie erupting with ecstatic charm.
But they rarely stop, there isn't much intermittent dialogue, and I'm afraid they're somewhat abstruse, or lack helpful points of clarification.
It's not that you can't figure out what's going on or find yourself lost within a byzantine delirium, but if you're not familiar with the story beforehand, you may find it somewhat obscured in the opening numbers, which are rather wordy if not longwinded, and lack sturdy lucid foundations.
Even if they are cats.
But they are cats, and there are a bunch of cool animated felines singing and dancing with paramount glamour, so if you aren't worried about what's actually going on, you have recourse to the wild absurdity.
Even though it's just a bit garrulous, I still wondered if it was primarily made for children, because the cat expressions employed fall flat throughout, but may appeal to the more innocently minded, if they're seeing a musical for the very first time.
The constant close-ups too, which seem like they're trying to generate wonder, but often cause people to burst out laughing, don't worry, the same thing happens to me.
So the melodrama's there, Cats at least approaches serious subjects with a touch that's light of heart, and leaves room for scandal and intrigue as it proceeds with the best intentions.
But if it's meant to be taken seriously, and I can't really see that happening, even if it improves as Ian McKellen (Gus the Theatre Cat) begins to sing, and there's a wonderful break where's there's no singing at all, just dancing, it may not universally succeed, although my hypothesis could be way off.
Nevertheless, films that are meant to be taken seriously which create serious comic appeal can be transformed into cherished camp, if the audience is there and willing.
The audience whom I watched Cats with was overflowing with playful cheer.
Is it always that way with melodrama?
To tell you the truth, I'm far from certain.
But people get angry if you don't take what they're taking seriously sometimes.
A matter of perspective, I try to keep quiet.
Is there a difference?
That would be a fun essay to write (in detail).
I would argue that Cats sets out to romantically investigate life on a thriving fringe, within a talented artistic community, independently predisposed.
It's a wonderful idea.
It introduces a variety of vigorous individuals who have taken the time to melodiously compose themselves, in preparation for a carnivalesque soirée, abounding with life and perhaps reincarnation.
A wicked cat who jealously seeks to live again nefariously disrupts the proceedings with cruel and covetous intent.
The historical social interactions of the innovative neighbourhood are observed by a fascinated newcomer who's introduced after emerging astray.
The songs are sung very well, there's no denying the musical talent, the robust sincere efficacious concerned camaraderie erupting with ecstatic charm.
But they rarely stop, there isn't much intermittent dialogue, and I'm afraid they're somewhat abstruse, or lack helpful points of clarification.
It's not that you can't figure out what's going on or find yourself lost within a byzantine delirium, but if you're not familiar with the story beforehand, you may find it somewhat obscured in the opening numbers, which are rather wordy if not longwinded, and lack sturdy lucid foundations.
Even if they are cats.
But they are cats, and there are a bunch of cool animated felines singing and dancing with paramount glamour, so if you aren't worried about what's actually going on, you have recourse to the wild absurdity.
Even though it's just a bit garrulous, I still wondered if it was primarily made for children, because the cat expressions employed fall flat throughout, but may appeal to the more innocently minded, if they're seeing a musical for the very first time.
The constant close-ups too, which seem like they're trying to generate wonder, but often cause people to burst out laughing, don't worry, the same thing happens to me.
So the melodrama's there, Cats at least approaches serious subjects with a touch that's light of heart, and leaves room for scandal and intrigue as it proceeds with the best intentions.
But if it's meant to be taken seriously, and I can't really see that happening, even if it improves as Ian McKellen (Gus the Theatre Cat) begins to sing, and there's a wonderful break where's there's no singing at all, just dancing, it may not universally succeed, although my hypothesis could be way off.
Nevertheless, films that are meant to be taken seriously which create serious comic appeal can be transformed into cherished camp, if the audience is there and willing.
The audience whom I watched Cats with was overflowing with playful cheer.
Is it always that way with melodrama?
To tell you the truth, I'm far from certain.
But people get angry if you don't take what they're taking seriously sometimes.
A matter of perspective, I try to keep quiet.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Top Ten Films of 2019
My picks for the 10 best films of 2019, the vast majority of which were released in theatres in Montréal in 2019, with a list of notable runners up following.
1. The Peanut Butter Falcon
2. Marriage Story
3. Shadow (Ying)
4. The Biggest Little Farm
5. Antigone
6. Honeyland
7. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
8. Vox Lux
9. Matthias & Maxime
10. 1917
Of Note:
Dark Waters
On the Basis of Sex
Little Women
Captive State
Midsommar
Late Night
Aquarela
The Last Black Man in San Francisco
Joker
The Irishman
Waves
1. The Peanut Butter Falcon
2. Marriage Story
3. Shadow (Ying)
4. The Biggest Little Farm
5. Antigone
6. Honeyland
7. A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
8. Vox Lux
9. Matthias & Maxime
10. 1917
Of Note:
Dark Waters
On the Basis of Sex
Little Women
Captive State
Midsommar
Late Night
Aquarela
The Last Black Man in San Francisco
Joker
The Irishman
Waves
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Willoughby
Aqua alkaline envisioned
saturated preconditioned
bubbly disputatious wizened
slippery submerged environs
float bodacious sanctuary
soaked tenacious cocoa berry
multivaried seasoned swells
inaugurating virtuel
McKenzie mystic modulations
altruistic inundation
leapt then plunged then slowly surfaced
out of breath availed immersive
rhizomes stitched interconnected
laidback chillin' wild and hectic
oceanic fathoms capsules
shades organic salty satchels
roam.
saturated preconditioned
bubbly disputatious wizened
slippery submerged environs
float bodacious sanctuary
soaked tenacious cocoa berry
multivaried seasoned swells
inaugurating virtuel
McKenzie mystic modulations
altruistic inundation
leapt then plunged then slowly surfaced
out of breath availed immersive
rhizomes stitched interconnected
laidback chillin' wild and hectic
oceanic fathoms capsules
shades organic salty satchels
roam.
Friday, January 10, 2020
NFL Playoffs, Divisional Round Picks
Minnesota Vikings/San Francisco 49ers: the 49ers came out of nowhere to take control of the NFC this season, moving the ball well on the ground, only losing three games by a combined total of 13 points. They were 5 and 1 versus their division, even though the Rams and Cardinals put up a fight, and almost lost twice to the Seahawks, it'd be cool to see them play again in the Conference Finals. But they'll have to get through Minnesota first (it'd be cool to see Minnesota play Green Bay in the Conference Finals too), whose defence showed up last Sunday, holding the high flying Saints to a paltry 20, their offence scoring 26 in defiance. The Vikings and 49ers are pretty even all-time, Minnesota holding a 21-19-1 edge during the regular season, San Francisco up 4-1 in the playoffs. It might be close, if the Divisional Round's anything like Wild Card Weekend, the 49ers picking up 13 wins during the season, because they won many close games. Against strong teams like the Vikings (they didn't play unfortunately). If Minnesota held New Orleans to twenty points and beat them in overtime, it's possible their defence could do the same to San Francisco, who didn't score much more often than New Orleans, and haven't seen playoff action for 6 years. Cousins came to play last week and it was great to see (during World Junior Hockey Championship commercials and intermissions, plus the fourth quarter), but can he hang in there for another slugfest, and come closer to bringing Minnesota's first Super Bowl home? I'm hoping he can, but I'm pretty unlucky in close games this year, so if it's close, I imagine that if I've picked you, you're going to lose. Which doesn't change the fact that the 49ers were too good not to pick versus Minnesota this year. Picking San Francisco. Hoping the Vikings come back for the win.
Tennessee Titans/Baltimore Ravens: Tennessee impressed last Saturday night with a big upset win versus the Patriots. The biggest win for the Titans since 1999, with a most impressive goal line stand. They ran the ball quite well, and had one crazy 75 yard or so drive for a touchdown where they didn't even throw a pass, if I remember correctly, which is what I believe is referred to as old school football, although my knowledge of football history is by no means exhaustive. If they can run the ball like they did versus New England and keep the Ravens out of the end zone like Minnesota versus New Orleans, there's a chance they could pull off the upset, imagine Tennessee versus Houston in the Conference Finals?, a viable distinct improbability. Baltimore was really freakin' good this year. They've won 12 in a row and crushed Houston and the L.A Rams in Weeks 11 and 12 respectively (L.A was fighting for the playoffs). They also held on to beat San Francisco and Buffalo, picked up two divisional wins versus Pittsburgh, defeated Seattle by 14, and New England 37 to 20. Their defence let in the third fewest points in the AFC, but their schedule was much tougher than Buffalo or New England's, and they scored the most points in the American Football Conference, racking up 80 more than second place Kansas City (who beat them). I'm not familiar with what their games were like this season, but sometimes if a team wins a bunch of games in a row, and never trails or has to come from behind to win, you can spook them if you go up by 14 or so, and make them make mistakes as they struggle with unfamiliar circumstances. It would be cool if the Titans could pull it off, but Baltimore is playing exceptionally well, and I didn't like how Tennessee wasted time versus the Patriots in the fourth last Saturday, I think if you're going to beat someone, you should beat them on the field, not with cheesy delay of game penalties. Hoping it's a close game. Picking the AFC leading Ravens.
Houston Texans/Kansas City Chiefs: Houston caught fire last Saturday during the third and dug out of 16 to 0 hole to win by a field goal in overtime. Buffalo was ready to kick one too but picked up a penalty that drove them out of range. I tend to think Buffalo lost that game as opposed to Houston won it. I've never seen a team self-destruct like that. Huge bummer for Bills fans. Not so bad if you're rooting for Houston. Sometimes teams who struggle and pull out an unexpected win late in the game (unexpected because they were losing by so much, not because they weren't expected to win) show up for four complete quarters the following week, driven by the exceptional breathless reprieve, and are rather difficult to defeat consequently. Houston's been looking for an extended playoff run for quite some time, having made the playoffs four of the last five seasons and never competed for the Conference Championship. Kansas City's freakin' good though and have won 6 in a row, defeating Baltimore, New England, Minnesota, and Denver twice (😡) along the way, although they did lose to the Texans by 7 in Week 6, and Indianapolis and Tennessee beat them too. They did not play well against the AFC South. Plus they have a terrible home playoff record that I imagine Patrick Mahomes wants to rectify, they did finally win at Arrowhead last year, but came up short the following week versus the Patriots (in overtime). Andy Reid has had plenty of Divisional Round success in days of yore (and last season) and it would be cool to see him finally win the Super Bowl, assuming the Broncos don't knock Kansas City out of the playoffs, next season perhaps, if he doesn't win this year, and the Texans have never won in that same round, so it seems like the Chiefs could certainly win, even if the Texans consider them ill-fated. But I think Houston's due and am therefore picking the Texans. Note that I think it'll be close. And I'm terrible at picking close games.
Seattle Seahawks/Green Bay Packers: both of these teams have had serious playoff success in recent years, and have kept things generally competitive, and even if they haven't made it back to the Super Bowl for a while, since 2010 they've got 19 playoff wins between them. They faced off in the Conference Championship in 2014, which saw the Packers blow a huge fourth quarter lead without much time left to eventually fall to Seattle in overtime. That comeback was a huge surprise. And likely hasn't been forgotten. While watching Green Bay play this season, I noticed that announcers were rather critical of the team, quick to point out the various ways in which they had struggled throughout the year, even though they were in the process of picking up 13 wins. They played some strong teams (and some not so great teams) and apart from blowing it versus San Francisco generally came out on top, picking up notable wins versus Denver, Minnesota (twice), Kansas City, and Dallas, falling to the Eagles earlier on 34-27. I don't know what the weather will be like at Lambeau this Sunday, but it's been a mild Winter so far in Central and Eastern Canada, although recent days have been freezing, and the forecast is rough for this weekend. I used to think Green Bay held a huge advantage playing at home in January until Atlanta beat them in 2002, and the Giants came out on top in 2011, but I still imagine there are other stadiums where the Seahawks would rather play, even if they're ready to play anywhere at a moment's notice. They handled Philadelphia last weekend but didn't blow them away, and backup quarterback Josh McCown led drives deep into their territory with ease, although the Eagles struggled when they were within range. Both of these teams are solid, both of them know how to win, both of them blow it at times, and both of them are fourth quarter threats. I'm glad one of them will play again next week and am sad to know one of their postseasons will end, maybe I won't pick the wrong team every time a game's close this year, picking the Pack, picking Green Bay by 7. It would still be cool to see Seattle play San Francisco next week. Or to watch Green Bay and Minnesota take the field once more. Love divisional Conference Championship matchups. Probably a sign there's no way that'll happen.
Tennessee Titans/Baltimore Ravens: Tennessee impressed last Saturday night with a big upset win versus the Patriots. The biggest win for the Titans since 1999, with a most impressive goal line stand. They ran the ball quite well, and had one crazy 75 yard or so drive for a touchdown where they didn't even throw a pass, if I remember correctly, which is what I believe is referred to as old school football, although my knowledge of football history is by no means exhaustive. If they can run the ball like they did versus New England and keep the Ravens out of the end zone like Minnesota versus New Orleans, there's a chance they could pull off the upset, imagine Tennessee versus Houston in the Conference Finals?, a viable distinct improbability. Baltimore was really freakin' good this year. They've won 12 in a row and crushed Houston and the L.A Rams in Weeks 11 and 12 respectively (L.A was fighting for the playoffs). They also held on to beat San Francisco and Buffalo, picked up two divisional wins versus Pittsburgh, defeated Seattle by 14, and New England 37 to 20. Their defence let in the third fewest points in the AFC, but their schedule was much tougher than Buffalo or New England's, and they scored the most points in the American Football Conference, racking up 80 more than second place Kansas City (who beat them). I'm not familiar with what their games were like this season, but sometimes if a team wins a bunch of games in a row, and never trails or has to come from behind to win, you can spook them if you go up by 14 or so, and make them make mistakes as they struggle with unfamiliar circumstances. It would be cool if the Titans could pull it off, but Baltimore is playing exceptionally well, and I didn't like how Tennessee wasted time versus the Patriots in the fourth last Saturday, I think if you're going to beat someone, you should beat them on the field, not with cheesy delay of game penalties. Hoping it's a close game. Picking the AFC leading Ravens.
Houston Texans/Kansas City Chiefs: Houston caught fire last Saturday during the third and dug out of 16 to 0 hole to win by a field goal in overtime. Buffalo was ready to kick one too but picked up a penalty that drove them out of range. I tend to think Buffalo lost that game as opposed to Houston won it. I've never seen a team self-destruct like that. Huge bummer for Bills fans. Not so bad if you're rooting for Houston. Sometimes teams who struggle and pull out an unexpected win late in the game (unexpected because they were losing by so much, not because they weren't expected to win) show up for four complete quarters the following week, driven by the exceptional breathless reprieve, and are rather difficult to defeat consequently. Houston's been looking for an extended playoff run for quite some time, having made the playoffs four of the last five seasons and never competed for the Conference Championship. Kansas City's freakin' good though and have won 6 in a row, defeating Baltimore, New England, Minnesota, and Denver twice (😡) along the way, although they did lose to the Texans by 7 in Week 6, and Indianapolis and Tennessee beat them too. They did not play well against the AFC South. Plus they have a terrible home playoff record that I imagine Patrick Mahomes wants to rectify, they did finally win at Arrowhead last year, but came up short the following week versus the Patriots (in overtime). Andy Reid has had plenty of Divisional Round success in days of yore (and last season) and it would be cool to see him finally win the Super Bowl, assuming the Broncos don't knock Kansas City out of the playoffs, next season perhaps, if he doesn't win this year, and the Texans have never won in that same round, so it seems like the Chiefs could certainly win, even if the Texans consider them ill-fated. But I think Houston's due and am therefore picking the Texans. Note that I think it'll be close. And I'm terrible at picking close games.
Seattle Seahawks/Green Bay Packers: both of these teams have had serious playoff success in recent years, and have kept things generally competitive, and even if they haven't made it back to the Super Bowl for a while, since 2010 they've got 19 playoff wins between them. They faced off in the Conference Championship in 2014, which saw the Packers blow a huge fourth quarter lead without much time left to eventually fall to Seattle in overtime. That comeback was a huge surprise. And likely hasn't been forgotten. While watching Green Bay play this season, I noticed that announcers were rather critical of the team, quick to point out the various ways in which they had struggled throughout the year, even though they were in the process of picking up 13 wins. They played some strong teams (and some not so great teams) and apart from blowing it versus San Francisco generally came out on top, picking up notable wins versus Denver, Minnesota (twice), Kansas City, and Dallas, falling to the Eagles earlier on 34-27. I don't know what the weather will be like at Lambeau this Sunday, but it's been a mild Winter so far in Central and Eastern Canada, although recent days have been freezing, and the forecast is rough for this weekend. I used to think Green Bay held a huge advantage playing at home in January until Atlanta beat them in 2002, and the Giants came out on top in 2011, but I still imagine there are other stadiums where the Seahawks would rather play, even if they're ready to play anywhere at a moment's notice. They handled Philadelphia last weekend but didn't blow them away, and backup quarterback Josh McCown led drives deep into their territory with ease, although the Eagles struggled when they were within range. Both of these teams are solid, both of them know how to win, both of them blow it at times, and both of them are fourth quarter threats. I'm glad one of them will play again next week and am sad to know one of their postseasons will end, maybe I won't pick the wrong team every time a game's close this year, picking the Pack, picking Green Bay by 7. It would still be cool to see Seattle play San Francisco next week. Or to watch Green Bay and Minnesota take the field once more. Love divisional Conference Championship matchups. Probably a sign there's no way that'll happen.
Little Women
Sisters living together in old school bucolic surroundings, lively animate reckonings overshadowing speechless gloom.
A cross-section of formative events congenially pitched and harmonized, love and care guiding inquisitive actions, a mother providing lucid instruction.
Not necessarily gloomy, it just seems like it must have been that way, so locked down in one specific set of circumstances, without the internet lying in wait.
But Little Women emphasizes grassroots creativity, or wholesome bonds forged through familial endeavour, the theatre as tantalizing as postmodern film, perhaps predating phrases like the art of conversation.
If people had no technological distractions to prevent them from directly interacting with one another (I'm reinterpreting the phrase), and dialogue flourished throughout the course of the day, conversation may have seemed less like an art form, and more like something freeflowing and natural.
Discussing topics at length may not have been reserved just for soirées and seminars, and sundry nuances may have been eagerly explored, by loquacious lackadaisical candlelight.
Perhaps with less of an emphasis on making weak arguments appear strong, and more of a desire to encourage prosperous articulation, people actually making their own nightly narratives, and debating while casually observing.
I was monitoring the activity of a relative the other day, who overflowed with tenacious curiosity, and I was somewhat relieved when The Last Jedi caught his attention, and I could then worry less about inspired destruction.
But I checked myself for having such thoughts, and took to heart accusations of entropy, for I should have been eagerly engaged, and ready for every distinct counteraction.
As parents prior to television no doubt must have rigorously been, how much tighter family bonds perhaps were back then, how much more available people were to please, how much more time there might have been for tasks at hand.
I'd like to read essays and/or books comparing 21st and 19th century pastimes, and Little Women as well, to learn more from its compelling story.
Greta Gerwig's film's exciting to watch, and kept me captivated from beginning to end.
It focuses on goodwill and charity at times which pleasantly caught my attention, not just because I saw it during the Holiday Season, but also since I rarely encounter self-sacrifice in contemporary film.
Or conversation.
Good things happen when people commit to reducing poverty and make healthier green alternatives more accessible.
It seems like the cast had a lot of fun while making it, but still worked hard to create a good film, the kind of vigorous reliable teamwork that can be facilitated by an emphasis on cool.
Having fun off screen while sincerely delivering when it's time to work, Little Women's most impressive, like working in Montréal.
And I've found a fictional companion for Ethan Hawke in my personal filmic pantheon (in my head), the one and only Laura Dern (Marmee March), they both keep showing up in so many cool films.
They've been around a while too.
Sort of like Harry Dean Stanton but not the same.
Not that the rest of Gerwig's cast didn't impress.
Left the cinema feeling happy.
A cross-section of formative events congenially pitched and harmonized, love and care guiding inquisitive actions, a mother providing lucid instruction.
Not necessarily gloomy, it just seems like it must have been that way, so locked down in one specific set of circumstances, without the internet lying in wait.
But Little Women emphasizes grassroots creativity, or wholesome bonds forged through familial endeavour, the theatre as tantalizing as postmodern film, perhaps predating phrases like the art of conversation.
If people had no technological distractions to prevent them from directly interacting with one another (I'm reinterpreting the phrase), and dialogue flourished throughout the course of the day, conversation may have seemed less like an art form, and more like something freeflowing and natural.
Discussing topics at length may not have been reserved just for soirées and seminars, and sundry nuances may have been eagerly explored, by loquacious lackadaisical candlelight.
Perhaps with less of an emphasis on making weak arguments appear strong, and more of a desire to encourage prosperous articulation, people actually making their own nightly narratives, and debating while casually observing.
I was monitoring the activity of a relative the other day, who overflowed with tenacious curiosity, and I was somewhat relieved when The Last Jedi caught his attention, and I could then worry less about inspired destruction.
But I checked myself for having such thoughts, and took to heart accusations of entropy, for I should have been eagerly engaged, and ready for every distinct counteraction.
As parents prior to television no doubt must have rigorously been, how much tighter family bonds perhaps were back then, how much more available people were to please, how much more time there might have been for tasks at hand.
I'd like to read essays and/or books comparing 21st and 19th century pastimes, and Little Women as well, to learn more from its compelling story.
Greta Gerwig's film's exciting to watch, and kept me captivated from beginning to end.
It focuses on goodwill and charity at times which pleasantly caught my attention, not just because I saw it during the Holiday Season, but also since I rarely encounter self-sacrifice in contemporary film.
Or conversation.
Good things happen when people commit to reducing poverty and make healthier green alternatives more accessible.
It seems like the cast had a lot of fun while making it, but still worked hard to create a good film, the kind of vigorous reliable teamwork that can be facilitated by an emphasis on cool.
Having fun off screen while sincerely delivering when it's time to work, Little Women's most impressive, like working in Montréal.
And I've found a fictional companion for Ethan Hawke in my personal filmic pantheon (in my head), the one and only Laura Dern (Marmee March), they both keep showing up in so many cool films.
They've been around a while too.
Sort of like Harry Dean Stanton but not the same.
Not that the rest of Gerwig's cast didn't impress.
Left the cinema feeling happy.
Thursday, January 9, 2020
Wednesday, January 8, 2020
I suppose if driverless cars become fashionable, it doesn't matter if they're electric or not.
*Just realized this could be misinterpreted. Here, I mean that if driverless cars become the norm, people won't care if they are propelled by fuel or electricity, because they won't be doing the driving, and therefore won't have to worry so much about the differences between the two types of automobiles, and won't be prejudiced against driving electric cars. Therefore, electric cars will be able to flourish and vehicles fuelled by gas may disappear. As long as the car can drive 110 km/h, why does it matter if it's propelled by gas or electricity?
*Just realized this could be misinterpreted. Here, I mean that if driverless cars become the norm, people won't care if they are propelled by fuel or electricity, because they won't be doing the driving, and therefore won't have to worry so much about the differences between the two types of automobiles, and won't be prejudiced against driving electric cars. Therefore, electric cars will be able to flourish and vehicles fuelled by gas may disappear. As long as the car can drive 110 km/h, why does it matter if it's propelled by gas or electricity?
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
Bombshell
You should always be wary when a film about Fox News comes out shining forth as a champion of the Me Too Movement.
It certainly is full-on Me Too, but what else does it have to critically say about Fox?
Within, female journalists are harassed as they assert themselves, but they're still sternly dedicated to Fox's opinion based sensational broadcasting, as opposed to the evidence or fact based reporting you find on CNN or in The New York Times, and except for one behind the scenes worker (Kate McKinnon as Jess Carr), who can't find work elsewhere, the journalists seem happy enough with Fox, just not some of the men who work there.
The men who work there whom they're upset with are total pigs who have transferred private adolescent locker room shenanigans to the grownup public sphere, wherein which they still behave as if they've never met a woman, or have never once even considering respecting one.
As seems to be the case in many American businesses, hence the rise of Me Too, women persevering in toxic environments till they accumulate enough evidence to prove they've been sexually harassed in court.
They're worried about their careers and futures as they proceed.
Such actions take an enormous amount of courage.
Total respect.
Bombshell (I get the double entendre, but still, that's the title you give to a film about Me Too?) excels at presenting strong courageous women who take huge risks to stick it to their perverted manager, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), and highlights their struggles as they do so, as many of their fellow workers line up to defend him, and their own support staff voice apprehensions.
Inasmuch as Bombshell sets out to champion the Me Too Movement and sincerely critique sexual harassment in the workplace, it succeeds, that aspect's well done, and it isn't preachy or sentimental, it's rather a comprehensive factual account.
It's shocking to read about how much sexual harassment persists in the workplace, and the ridiculous "boys will be boys" mentality that assaults daring brave professional women, as chronicled in various news media at length for what seems like freakin' ever.
In the '90s it seemed like 2000-2020 would be much much much much different.
A world free from sexism, racism, ethnocentricity, and homophobia.
But unfortunately things seem to have become much worse.
Or haven't changed much and there's currently more exposure.
The number of unions have also decreased in the last twenty years, if I'm not mistaken.
And job losses and low wages have ignited tensions.
A strong mix of gender, sexuality, culture, and point of view can lead to dynamic working environments, as long as there's mutual respect, and a willingness to work together as a team.
The best working environments I've been fortunate enough to work within have been composed along such lines.
Doesn't sound much like Fox News does it?
When I think of Fox News, I think of sexist, bigoted, privileged caucasian men.
Bombshell critiques the sexist men who work there but doesn't sincerely critique Fox News itself, the style of overly opinionated news Fox delivers.
Some of the women who have been sexually harassed still want to work there.
Just not with Roger Ailes.
McKinnon does sum it up in a clever frightening nutshell, but I think the people who like Fox, upon hearing her summary, will probably just think, "totally".
Instead of, "damn, that sucks!"
I'd argue Bombshell is another attempt by the right to make it appear as if it cares about women's rights by severely critiquing its own.
But the characters within are still loyal to Fox's sensational opinion based misleading ludicrous brand of news.
And that brand of news itself isn't sincerely critiqued, only the sexist men who work there.
Which makes Bombshell like an advertisement for a new fresher Fox News that cares about women's rights (come on!).
There's no emphasis on changing its style.
And that, I'm afraid, is a fact.
It certainly is full-on Me Too, but what else does it have to critically say about Fox?
Within, female journalists are harassed as they assert themselves, but they're still sternly dedicated to Fox's opinion based sensational broadcasting, as opposed to the evidence or fact based reporting you find on CNN or in The New York Times, and except for one behind the scenes worker (Kate McKinnon as Jess Carr), who can't find work elsewhere, the journalists seem happy enough with Fox, just not some of the men who work there.
The men who work there whom they're upset with are total pigs who have transferred private adolescent locker room shenanigans to the grownup public sphere, wherein which they still behave as if they've never met a woman, or have never once even considering respecting one.
As seems to be the case in many American businesses, hence the rise of Me Too, women persevering in toxic environments till they accumulate enough evidence to prove they've been sexually harassed in court.
They're worried about their careers and futures as they proceed.
Such actions take an enormous amount of courage.
Total respect.
Bombshell (I get the double entendre, but still, that's the title you give to a film about Me Too?) excels at presenting strong courageous women who take huge risks to stick it to their perverted manager, Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), and highlights their struggles as they do so, as many of their fellow workers line up to defend him, and their own support staff voice apprehensions.
Inasmuch as Bombshell sets out to champion the Me Too Movement and sincerely critique sexual harassment in the workplace, it succeeds, that aspect's well done, and it isn't preachy or sentimental, it's rather a comprehensive factual account.
It's shocking to read about how much sexual harassment persists in the workplace, and the ridiculous "boys will be boys" mentality that assaults daring brave professional women, as chronicled in various news media at length for what seems like freakin' ever.
In the '90s it seemed like 2000-2020 would be much much much much different.
A world free from sexism, racism, ethnocentricity, and homophobia.
But unfortunately things seem to have become much worse.
Or haven't changed much and there's currently more exposure.
The number of unions have also decreased in the last twenty years, if I'm not mistaken.
And job losses and low wages have ignited tensions.
A strong mix of gender, sexuality, culture, and point of view can lead to dynamic working environments, as long as there's mutual respect, and a willingness to work together as a team.
The best working environments I've been fortunate enough to work within have been composed along such lines.
Doesn't sound much like Fox News does it?
When I think of Fox News, I think of sexist, bigoted, privileged caucasian men.
Bombshell critiques the sexist men who work there but doesn't sincerely critique Fox News itself, the style of overly opinionated news Fox delivers.
Some of the women who have been sexually harassed still want to work there.
Just not with Roger Ailes.
McKinnon does sum it up in a clever frightening nutshell, but I think the people who like Fox, upon hearing her summary, will probably just think, "totally".
Instead of, "damn, that sucks!"
I'd argue Bombshell is another attempt by the right to make it appear as if it cares about women's rights by severely critiquing its own.
But the characters within are still loyal to Fox's sensational opinion based misleading ludicrous brand of news.
And that brand of news itself isn't sincerely critiqued, only the sexist men who work there.
Which makes Bombshell like an advertisement for a new fresher Fox News that cares about women's rights (come on!).
There's no emphasis on changing its style.
And that, I'm afraid, is a fact.
Monday, January 6, 2020
Looks like the curse is still on in New Orleans.
Why can't that team win in the playoffs?
No curse for the AFC South so far this season though.
Wow.
What a Wild Card weekend.
No blowouts, every game was close and two went to overtime.
Journeyperson backup quarterback Josh McCown even stepped up and made some big plays for Philadelphia.
I would have kicked the field goal.
But then again, I can be boring.
Why can't that team win in the playoffs?
No curse for the AFC South so far this season though.
Wow.
What a Wild Card weekend.
No blowouts, every game was close and two went to overtime.
Journeyperson backup quarterback Josh McCown even stepped up and made some big plays for Philadelphia.
I would have kicked the field goal.
But then again, I can be boring.
Sunday, January 5, 2020
Saturday, January 4, 2020
Knackered
The roost reverberating clocked
atemporal pulsating stock
the beat atoned the screech kerfluffled
wings so indiscreetly ruffled
fissures elongated bristles
lanes indoctrinated gristle
charismatic chords restruck
to strum and serenade then pluck
as luck would have it rang the bell
an interactive schmaltzy swell
the melody so sweet and flowing
saccharine surfeit bestowing
jingle jangle caramel
enticed precipitate seashell
the beach alight so dipsy-doodle
festive cadences perusalled
siesta.
atemporal pulsating stock
the beat atoned the screech kerfluffled
wings so indiscreetly ruffled
fissures elongated bristles
lanes indoctrinated gristle
charismatic chords restruck
to strum and serenade then pluck
as luck would have it rang the bell
an interactive schmaltzy swell
the melody so sweet and flowing
saccharine surfeit bestowing
jingle jangle caramel
enticed precipitate seashell
the beach alight so dipsy-doodle
festive cadences perusalled
siesta.
Friday, January 3, 2020
NFL Playoff Picks, Wild Card Round
Buffalo Bills/Houston Texans: I was hoping these teams wouldn't play each other in the Wild Card round because I'd like to see them both win, even if the fact that they're playing each other means one of them will win at some point this coming Saturday. Houston had a light schedule although their division was competitive, and they picked up wins versus Tennessee, Kansas City and New England, and only lost to New Orleans by two (they played their backups in their second game versus Tennessee). They played in a competitive division meaning it was tough to come out on top, although at times during the year they were adventitiously outclassed, notably 41-7 and 38-24 losses to Baltimore and Denver. The Bills had a light schedule too and played many of the worst teams in the league, but they also beat Tennessee, Dallas, Pittsburgh and Denver, and challenged New England (twice) and Baltimore for wins late in three stunning fourth quarters. I think if Buffalo's defence plays as well as they did during the regular season, and their offence scores more regularly than it did this year, they'll be playing again in the Divisional Round for sure, but Houston's playing at home and they're due for a breakthrough playoff run, which it looked like they'd make at times this year when they played their best. But Buffalo's defence did let in the fewest points in the league next to New England, even if they did play several of the NFL's worst teams. They came close to beating Baltimore. Picking the Bills by 3.
Tennessee Titans/New England Patriots: based on how well New England played this year, I'd say Tennessee has a shot at winning this game. Against any other team I'd say they have a great shot, but that's crazy talk versus New England at home in the playoffs. Like Buffalo, New England's defensive stats are somewhat misleading inasmuch as they played many of the worst teams in the NFL this season, but that doesn't mean they let up when they played them, or played any worse than was to be expected. They did lose to Miami in Week 17 but the Dolphins are the only team in the AFC East who beats the Patriots from time to time, and even though Miami looked like they were the worst team ever in Week 1, they did improve as the season went on, and finished with 5 hard fought wins. When New England faced stiff competition this year they generally kept it close, holding off Buffalo twice as mentioned previously, defeating Dallas, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, while falling to Kansas City, Houston, and Baltimore. I doubt the Titans will let up in this game, but I actually got to watch the end of the Patriots/Texans game, and Houston was up by a bunch in the fourth. And they let up. They let up with around 9 minutes to play and lo and behold New England was kicking onside for the potential win with under a minute left, never let up on Tom Brady. If there's 10 seconds left and you're winning by 14, don't let up on Tom Brady. If you're winning 35 to 3 in the fourth quarter, don't let up on Tom Brady. If the Titans let up for a fraction of a second, rack up another postseason home victory for the Patriots. I'm hoping Tennessee shows up to challenge. But am picking Tom Brady and New England.
Minnesota Vikings/New Orleans Saints: another game where I'd like to see both teams win. It bugs me that Minnesota's never won the Super Bowl and I'm hoping they win one day soon. Unless the Broncos make the playoffs that year. But I freakin' love Drew Brees and he's one of the best ever and I'd love to see him win the Super Bowl one more time. Both teams seem to be cursed, the entire NFC South seems to be cursed come to think of it, but look at how the Saints were knocked out of the playoffs in the last two years: the Vikings fluked a win with less than a minute left on an incredibly improbable touchdown play two years ago, and last year the Rams took advantage of a botched pass interference call that forced New Orleans to kick a field goal, instead of keeping the drive alive for another touchdown. Bad luck for the Saints. Minnesota hasn't fared much better. The cooler story is Kirk Cousins shows up and outguns Drew Brees to pick up an improbable playoff victory, and I won't be upset if he pulls it off. The Broncos were crushing the Vikings in Week 11 and Minnesota stormed back in the second half for the win. Note: Drew Lock wasn't playing. They lost twice to Green Bay, and Seattle and Kansas City as well, but three of those games were close, and Minnesota gave 'er till the bitter end. The Saints beat Houston, Tennessee, Seattle, and the LA Rams, and only lost by a last second field goal to San Francisco (48 to 46), after taking the lead late in the fourth. New Orleans may be cursed. But I still think they can take Minnesota. Hoping it's a close game. Picking the Saints by 17.
Seattle Seahawks/Philadelphia Eagles: Seattle may find themselves in a bit of a predicament this Sunday. They're certainly the better team and seem like a strong Super Bowl contender, but in 2010 New Orleans had the much better team, yet was forced to play on the road against the 7 and 9 Seahawks, and they did not win that game, falling to Seattle 41-36. However, the last time Baltimore won the Super Bowl, they lost their last four games of the season, if I remember correctly, and didn't seem like they'd compete for the Super Bowl, and Seattle lost three of their last four in 2019, although they were inches away from defeating San Francisco in Week 17's dying seconds. Nevertheless, the two top teams competing in the playoffs this year are San Francisco and Baltimore and would seem destined to face each other again, if there weren't so many other strong teams contending. I don't know if any of that improves the Eagles's chances of winning this Sunday, but they won their last four games of the season, and only lost to Seattle by 8 in Week 12. I think it'd be crazy to pick Philadelphia, but they could show up for one more big game, and stranger things have happened, although not for many a year. Being boring and picking Seattle. But won't be surprised if the Eagles come out on top. Neither team seems to go away when you take the lead. And they've never played each other before in the playoffs. When the 7 and 9 Seahawks beat the Saints it was their first playoff meeting too. I don't know what that means. Just sharing stats that seem appropriate.
Tennessee Titans/New England Patriots: based on how well New England played this year, I'd say Tennessee has a shot at winning this game. Against any other team I'd say they have a great shot, but that's crazy talk versus New England at home in the playoffs. Like Buffalo, New England's defensive stats are somewhat misleading inasmuch as they played many of the worst teams in the NFL this season, but that doesn't mean they let up when they played them, or played any worse than was to be expected. They did lose to Miami in Week 17 but the Dolphins are the only team in the AFC East who beats the Patriots from time to time, and even though Miami looked like they were the worst team ever in Week 1, they did improve as the season went on, and finished with 5 hard fought wins. When New England faced stiff competition this year they generally kept it close, holding off Buffalo twice as mentioned previously, defeating Dallas, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, while falling to Kansas City, Houston, and Baltimore. I doubt the Titans will let up in this game, but I actually got to watch the end of the Patriots/Texans game, and Houston was up by a bunch in the fourth. And they let up. They let up with around 9 minutes to play and lo and behold New England was kicking onside for the potential win with under a minute left, never let up on Tom Brady. If there's 10 seconds left and you're winning by 14, don't let up on Tom Brady. If you're winning 35 to 3 in the fourth quarter, don't let up on Tom Brady. If the Titans let up for a fraction of a second, rack up another postseason home victory for the Patriots. I'm hoping Tennessee shows up to challenge. But am picking Tom Brady and New England.
Minnesota Vikings/New Orleans Saints: another game where I'd like to see both teams win. It bugs me that Minnesota's never won the Super Bowl and I'm hoping they win one day soon. Unless the Broncos make the playoffs that year. But I freakin' love Drew Brees and he's one of the best ever and I'd love to see him win the Super Bowl one more time. Both teams seem to be cursed, the entire NFC South seems to be cursed come to think of it, but look at how the Saints were knocked out of the playoffs in the last two years: the Vikings fluked a win with less than a minute left on an incredibly improbable touchdown play two years ago, and last year the Rams took advantage of a botched pass interference call that forced New Orleans to kick a field goal, instead of keeping the drive alive for another touchdown. Bad luck for the Saints. Minnesota hasn't fared much better. The cooler story is Kirk Cousins shows up and outguns Drew Brees to pick up an improbable playoff victory, and I won't be upset if he pulls it off. The Broncos were crushing the Vikings in Week 11 and Minnesota stormed back in the second half for the win. Note: Drew Lock wasn't playing. They lost twice to Green Bay, and Seattle and Kansas City as well, but three of those games were close, and Minnesota gave 'er till the bitter end. The Saints beat Houston, Tennessee, Seattle, and the LA Rams, and only lost by a last second field goal to San Francisco (48 to 46), after taking the lead late in the fourth. New Orleans may be cursed. But I still think they can take Minnesota. Hoping it's a close game. Picking the Saints by 17.
Seattle Seahawks/Philadelphia Eagles: Seattle may find themselves in a bit of a predicament this Sunday. They're certainly the better team and seem like a strong Super Bowl contender, but in 2010 New Orleans had the much better team, yet was forced to play on the road against the 7 and 9 Seahawks, and they did not win that game, falling to Seattle 41-36. However, the last time Baltimore won the Super Bowl, they lost their last four games of the season, if I remember correctly, and didn't seem like they'd compete for the Super Bowl, and Seattle lost three of their last four in 2019, although they were inches away from defeating San Francisco in Week 17's dying seconds. Nevertheless, the two top teams competing in the playoffs this year are San Francisco and Baltimore and would seem destined to face each other again, if there weren't so many other strong teams contending. I don't know if any of that improves the Eagles's chances of winning this Sunday, but they won their last four games of the season, and only lost to Seattle by 8 in Week 12. I think it'd be crazy to pick Philadelphia, but they could show up for one more big game, and stranger things have happened, although not for many a year. Being boring and picking Seattle. But won't be surprised if the Eagles come out on top. Neither team seems to go away when you take the lead. And they've never played each other before in the playoffs. When the 7 and 9 Seahawks beat the Saints it was their first playoff meeting too. I don't know what that means. Just sharing stats that seem appropriate.
Marriage Story
The slow patient cultivation of specific general roles, patterns emerging as time passes becoming more rigid while still considered ill-defined, dynamic environs creatively encouraging unpredictable professional growth, but within their fluid energetic exciting jazzy continuums lies one person directing, and another following established codes, their lives constantly shifting reimagined as inspiration strikes, but the thought of doing something else never so much as remotely materializes, even though passive hints are presented until years have past and it seems like every decision's made without sincere consultation, even though he thinks he's listening and they're making joint discoveries, as fluctuating intensities eagerly fascinate, and everything's cast anew.
Perhaps a stunning aid for couples who have been married for quite some time, inasmuch as Marriage Story makes so much lucid sense, yet Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) still can't understand one another.
Noting the errors Charlie makes may save similar marriages, I've always thought working together (jobs) is a bad idea, although some couples do seem to work well together (at jobs).
Case by case.
But it's perhaps more probable that in Marriage Story nothing can be done, since one partner's too caught up with too invested in a particular way of life, which can't suddenly change to fit new circumstances, circumstances which demand he abandon everything altogether.
Nicole no longer wishes to live in New York, which leaves Charlie without much room to work with, in a bit of a pickle as divorce proceedings commence, and he has to prove he resides in L.A.
While directing a play in New York.
He was just too immersed in the limelight to notice that something was going wrong, or that the passive suggestions were actually serious, and required full-on responsive note.
I don't know how to sift through the suggestions myself, I've never really had a deep relationship, but in theory I'd try to sift through them by listening for those that were presented more than two or three times, if my partner was passive. If a suggestion popped up that many times I would take note that it was indeed much more than a suggestion, and would adjust my busy schedule accordingly, if forgiven for having taken my sweet time.
Charlie and Nicole get along so maturely you wonder why they're getting a divorce?, until it becomes clear Nicole needs something less ubiquitous, and doesn't like the constant direction.
Even if her husband's brilliant and nice.
I think she grows tired of him always finding a solution.
And perhaps finds her life's become a novel case study.
I'm probably incorrect, as Marriage Story points out in passionate detail with great supporting performances from Laura Dern (Nora Fanshaw), Alan Alda (Bert Spitz), and Ray Liotta (Jay Marotta) (loved the Julie Hagerty [Sandra] and Wallace Shawn [Frank] too!), women really understand what women are going through, and men generally understand all things bro.
It's a wonderful film examining a complicated multivariable couple trying to keep a hectic life simple as things unravel at their marriage's end.
It begins with touching characterizations they've both written about each other (a ruse) that provide in-depth accounts of the time they've spent together, with literal poetic resplendency.
Reasons.
Multiple compelling reasons.
The caring insights written into every observation prepare you for clever thoughtful storytelling that keeps it real the whole way through.
It isn't particularly light nor overwhelmingly dark, but chillin' and anger both expound within, each scene enacting free flowing difference sustained within a modest versatile frame (except for divorce court), as if the characters may actually exist, and have something irresistible to say.
Nice intelligent successful people who for some reason find themselves married, clashing with cold cruel realities with which they'd both rather not contend.
Artists hiring lawyers.
There's so much thought in this film it's like reading a good book, you wait for years to see dramas as good as this one.
The scenes last for much longer than 30 seconds.
Multiple reasons are provided to explain something neither partner wishes to fully comprehend.
Nice to see Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson in something without intergalactic conflict.
Noah Baumbach's made so many great films.
This is his first masterpiece (I never saw The Squid and the Whale).
Even when it slips up it just seems like it's his youthful innocence shining through, like an historical trope, like he hasn't forgotten a randier style, here transformed into something more aged, the present and the past blended like well crafted gritty red wine, that's been maturing for fruitful decades, and's finally ready for bold presentation.
Wish I'd seen it in theatres.
Netflix can no longer be denied (by me).
Perhaps a stunning aid for couples who have been married for quite some time, inasmuch as Marriage Story makes so much lucid sense, yet Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) still can't understand one another.
Noting the errors Charlie makes may save similar marriages, I've always thought working together (jobs) is a bad idea, although some couples do seem to work well together (at jobs).
Case by case.
But it's perhaps more probable that in Marriage Story nothing can be done, since one partner's too caught up with too invested in a particular way of life, which can't suddenly change to fit new circumstances, circumstances which demand he abandon everything altogether.
Nicole no longer wishes to live in New York, which leaves Charlie without much room to work with, in a bit of a pickle as divorce proceedings commence, and he has to prove he resides in L.A.
While directing a play in New York.
He was just too immersed in the limelight to notice that something was going wrong, or that the passive suggestions were actually serious, and required full-on responsive note.
I don't know how to sift through the suggestions myself, I've never really had a deep relationship, but in theory I'd try to sift through them by listening for those that were presented more than two or three times, if my partner was passive. If a suggestion popped up that many times I would take note that it was indeed much more than a suggestion, and would adjust my busy schedule accordingly, if forgiven for having taken my sweet time.
Charlie and Nicole get along so maturely you wonder why they're getting a divorce?, until it becomes clear Nicole needs something less ubiquitous, and doesn't like the constant direction.
Even if her husband's brilliant and nice.
I think she grows tired of him always finding a solution.
And perhaps finds her life's become a novel case study.
I'm probably incorrect, as Marriage Story points out in passionate detail with great supporting performances from Laura Dern (Nora Fanshaw), Alan Alda (Bert Spitz), and Ray Liotta (Jay Marotta) (loved the Julie Hagerty [Sandra] and Wallace Shawn [Frank] too!), women really understand what women are going through, and men generally understand all things bro.
It's a wonderful film examining a complicated multivariable couple trying to keep a hectic life simple as things unravel at their marriage's end.
It begins with touching characterizations they've both written about each other (a ruse) that provide in-depth accounts of the time they've spent together, with literal poetic resplendency.
Reasons.
Multiple compelling reasons.
The caring insights written into every observation prepare you for clever thoughtful storytelling that keeps it real the whole way through.
It isn't particularly light nor overwhelmingly dark, but chillin' and anger both expound within, each scene enacting free flowing difference sustained within a modest versatile frame (except for divorce court), as if the characters may actually exist, and have something irresistible to say.
Nice intelligent successful people who for some reason find themselves married, clashing with cold cruel realities with which they'd both rather not contend.
Artists hiring lawyers.
There's so much thought in this film it's like reading a good book, you wait for years to see dramas as good as this one.
The scenes last for much longer than 30 seconds.
Multiple reasons are provided to explain something neither partner wishes to fully comprehend.
Nice to see Adam Driver and Scarlett Johansson in something without intergalactic conflict.
Noah Baumbach's made so many great films.
This is his first masterpiece (I never saw The Squid and the Whale).
Even when it slips up it just seems like it's his youthful innocence shining through, like an historical trope, like he hasn't forgotten a randier style, here transformed into something more aged, the present and the past blended like well crafted gritty red wine, that's been maturing for fruitful decades, and's finally ready for bold presentation.
Wish I'd seen it in theatres.
Netflix can no longer be denied (by me).
Thursday, January 2, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)