W.I.L.I. - THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING

The first few entries on the W.I.L.I. list will be THE LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy. I don't know if I am notorious for this thought, but this trilogy - taken as on cinematic narrative - is my favorite of all time. In the future, this series of movies will be viewed in a similar context as the original STAR WARS trilogy.

While FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING (FOTR) was in theaters, it probably received about $80 dollars of my own money. I even made a special trip to a midnight showing further in its run only to see a preview of second installment: THE TWO TOWERS. I've been maybe about 8 or 9 times in theaters and the over-under on how many times I've seen it since?. At least triple that amount. To make a bet that I like these movies, is a safe one.

A running theme throughout this post is the trilogy's ability to convey the immense sense of history within this world (created by author J.R.R. Tolkien). THE LORD OF THE RINGS is by no means the beginning of this story. There are many histories - elf, dwarf, hobbit, and others - that stretch back many years. For the purposes the movies, a history of the ring itself is necessary. Thus, director Peter Jackson and fellow screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philipa Boyens use a prologue to orient those not familiar with the novels.

And it begins creepily with a blank screen and an ominous voice-over delivered by Cate Blanchett (or is it Galadriel? a fair question I think!). Both elvish and english languages are used immersing even the uninitiated. Even though this is just a prologue and we know that a bigger more urgent story follows, this 8-minute opening builds tremendous tension and anxiety. This is quite possibly my favorite sequence in the entire trilogy.

Related to the prologue, is how the filmmakers convey a sense of the history of this world. Production designer Grant Major and costumers Ngila Dickson and Richard Taylor assist in channeling the history. Take the hobbits homeland, The Shire. The production team began building about a year before shooting so as to allow the environment to exert its influence and make the environment look more natural. Compare this with the synthetic, yet geometrically pleasing city ruins of the dwarves. Not only do we understand something about the history of each race, but about their personalities as well.

Some of the details are hardly noticeable, but when you do recognize them it only helps the trilogies believability. Notice the White Tree of Gondor on Boromir's (Sean Bean) gauntlets. Notice the intricate threading patterns on Arwen's (and many of the elves) cloak. While these design choices on their own may not mean anything, the attention to even minute details lets audiences know that these filmmakers mean business. In the extended version of FOTR, there are explicit mentions of history through dialogue, but its interesting to find these trinkets of the past in the architecture and costumes.

While music plays a big role in the entire series, the music - composed by Howard Shore - is at its best in this first film. Three themes are established in this film: The Ring Theme, The Fellowship Theme, and The Isengard Theme. In college my friends and I developed this tradition that whenever you hear the Isengard theme, you must pound your fist in the air in sync with the melody. A little geeky, but it speaks to the power of the theme. I remember thinking that the music on the whole was especially energetic. There is so much choral in this scoring and as the film progresses, it seems to only get bigger (adrenaline inertia?).

However, in the final battle against Saruman's Uruk-Hai the music settles nicely, but not without loss. For me, Boromir's death is one of the most emotional moments in the entire trilogy and the music only helps this moment. Perhaps its because what directly preceded this battle: a confrontation with Frodo about a selfish strategy regarding The Ring. As far as the trilogy has played out so far, Boromir's represents the first casualty that has succumbed to the power of The Ring, trying violently to wrestle The Ring from Frodo. Boromir's role for the rest of the fellowship is to show just how dangerous this little thing can be. He showed his vulnerability and not too long after, he shows his courage in protecting the halflings. The arrows that pierce his body appear to have a diameter of quarter. We feel for him because we know that perhaps we would fall to the power of The Ring too.

More importantly in the music department is the use of new age artist Enya as the feature musical act. Not only is her presence invaluable, but Enya - perhaps best known for "Orinoco Flow - knows and appreciates the Tolkien creation herself. On her album SHEPHERD MOONS, there is a track titled "Lothlorien," a forested haven for the elves and Galadriel. In watching the touching moment between Arwen and Aragorn, there is a sense that Enya's voice so belongs in Middle Earth which might make you wonder if Enya comes this world organically.

So, just some thoughts on why I like FOTR. There'll be an update on THE TWO TOWERS coming.

Why I Like It or W.I.L.I.

Pronounced "Wee-Lee," this is a new section coming to your favorite drive-thru station. Not so long ago in my undergraduate career, one from up north told that there are no guilty pleasures. Be proud of what you like and don't apologize. You've heard this before. Additionally, I have heard from mentors that as a critic, one needs to know their likes and dislikes. If you've read this blog recently, you know that PULP FICTION is on the severe dislike side.

However, there is a list of movies that sit on the other side of the line. In short, it's the W.I.L.I. list. Look for future entries under this umbrella.

(500) DAYS OF SUMMER: A Second Look

My friends in LA (specifically those that are not my movie friends) don't understand why I go see movies more than once.

"Isn't your money better spent elsewhere?" - Why would my money be better spent elsewhere?
"Because you've already seen it." - True. But you buy movies don't you?
"Sure." -But you've already seen it, right.

Now, my friends (and family) have slacked off on this complaint and/or criticism since attending and returning from NYU. Is it that my five repeat visits to THE DARK KNIGHT, two visits to ADVENTURELAND, and my now two visits to (500) DAYS OF SUMMER are now legit given my extensive study of visual media? I guess.

"This is what he does. Okay, now there must be a valid reason to see something twice. He knows what he is doing. He has a Master's degree."

After seeing (500) DOS once, I knew that I needed to see it again in order to give it a fuller analysis. It is especially this kind of movie that paralyzes my analytical brain and therefore jumpstarting my analytical heart. I loved (500) DOS! Just loved it! It's about relatively young people succeeding and struggling with relationships (I probably should not use the word love when talking about this movie). It's about the relationship honeymoon when one might have an extra spring in their step. I am predisposed, betrothed to this movie. My liking of this movie is completely out of my hands - it's in my genes.

I realized about halfway through my second viewing of (500) DOS that I can use this movie to counterbalance my argument about PULP FICTION's lack - consistent coherent narrative. Many counterarguments come my way about my severe dislike for PULP FICTION which is generally regarded as Quentin Tarantino's pinnacle. Yes, I do enjoy the vignettes and specific portions of dialogue. The flaw is in the narrative hijinx. There appears to be no reason why Tarantino is playing with the narrative structure, other than to just play with it. It's as if he shot the whole thing in order and then told his editing crew to just chop it up and that'll be that.

My friend V (no, not you Veronica Mars, unfortunately) and I had a long discussion about PULP FICTION. V helped me come to the conclusion that I strongly prefer my movies to have their style motivated by the narrative and NOT the other way 'round. PULP FICTION allows the style to motivate the movie and its narrative. Some people may see this as a good thing, but I do not. The filmmakers need to make promises to me, about where they are taking me.

Don't misunderstand this. I am not saying that the filmmakers need to telegraph things. I just need to prepared for the events unfolding in front of me. Both PULP FICTION and (500) DOS are narratives that feature disjointed narratives. The difference is in narrative promise. PULP FICTION does not provide me with an expectation - only scenes loosely tied together. But with (500) DOS, I know where I am going and to some extent I know where I am coming from.

(500) DOS begins in the middle with the break-up. I know what the story is - it's the telling of the rise and fall of the relationship. I know that the relationship has to end. And yet, the narrative jumps around. (500) DOS's narrative disjunction has motivation. I understand why director Marc Webb pushes me forward and why he pulls me back to particular instances. It is either to explain what has come before, or to facilitate a smooth transition to the next scene.

But I needed a second screening to make the connection from (500) DOS to PULP FICTION. Is it a difficult pairing to make? No, and that only speaks to why multiple viewing are critical for me, and perhaps others. I am reminded of a line from the terrific Gus Van Sant film, FINDING FORRESTER: "You write your first draft with your heart. You rewrite with your head."

It's the same thing with analyzing a movie. The first watch is an emotional experience (the aforementioned analytical heart). Did I enjoy the film? On a very rudimentary level. Subsequent viewings are an inquisitive experience (the aforementioned analytical brain). As always with me, the question remains: to which organ do I listen?

MAD MEN Titles: If some is good, more is better!

In a recent post, I discussed the female significance in MAD MEN using the pilot episode ("Smoke Gets In Your Eyes"). I'd like to take another look at the opening title sequence, examining it for additional grist for my MAD MEN mill. It is entrancing, perhaps too much so in that I find myself staring at the falling 2D man instead what he falls from, around, and into.

In the beginning, he has arrived at his office, set down his briefcase, and then his office crumbles around him, until he finally begins his descent. Descent into what? Into advertising of course (wait, isn't that what his office is anyway? talk about spinning your wheels.). But what are these advertisements?

They look like advertisements, but mostly they look like smiling women and butterscotch pudding legs. Certainly, there is the occasional image of a lowball glass containing the contents of (hopefully) an Old Fashioned (a cocktail which this blog vehemently endorses). The unknown man falls around and ultimately straight into advertisements until the final image of the man sitting comfortably in a chair or on a couch.

Let's begin in the office a place that for the moment appears stable - and why not? The office is man's escape from his wife where he fantasizes about his secretary and drinks with the boys. But as history showed us, this is not to last for women are hiding in the weeds, or at least lurking around their secretary desks. Let's not take for granted the timing of the credit sequence. Jon Hamm's name appears when everything is stable. Elizabeth Moss is next and if you pay close attention, you might notice that the office begins to crumble with the display of her name. This is not so surprising given her character's progression through the series at this point.

Then the man begins to fall into a seemingly bottomless pit of female advertisements with a few speckles of male-centric delights. I can only see this section as a comment on advertising in general and who and where it is best aimed (perhaps only in the MAD MEN period, but perhaps not). As MAD MEN tells it, men run the advertising world. As the MAD MEN title tells it, men run the advertising world, selling things to women. Graphically speaking, the man falls all the way down one woman's leg, into the lowball glass, and it appears that the a woman crossing her legs might kick the falling man.

A quick moment just before the shot of the man on the couch reveals what he has fallen into: female advertising. Seemingly, these are the people who read the advertising and for whom advertising is targeted and most successful. Does advertising play on women's emotional tendencies or is it something else? Do these mad men think that women only exist within these advertisement photos and thus subject to their linguistic and artistic manipulation?

Let's look at a simple narrative example. "Babylon" (from the first season) chronicles an account dealing with lipstick marketing. The men on the account have trouble and they enlist the female sector of the office to help. And this is their (the men) first mistake. Don't allow women a sliver of hope into thinking they can intrude on men's arena and this is exactly what they did. Sooner or later a woman was going to come along and figure out that she CAN do this job. What a thought, a woman knows how to better market a product to women? These are the consequences. The women were already lurking at their secretarial desks and now they have been let in to their world. Or is it even their world...anymore.

But at the end of this title sequence narrative - and it is indeed a narrative - where does this man end up? I think we have to assume it is the same man. We see him sitting comfortably with cigarette. So, in the end, if he has landed comfortably, what are the consequences, if any?

Defining Great Movie of the Decade?

None of this post is original. This all comes from a podcast from ESPN's The Sports Guy (Bill Simmons). He generally writes about sports, but incorporates select pop culture into his articles.

During a podcast with Chris Connelly (yea, the MTV guy!), Simmons brought up that this year - 2009 - is the last year of the decade. Think about it! Where is the 2000s retrospective! Is this the lost decade?

Anyway, Simmons asked Connelly what he thought might be the best movie of the decade with 3 helpers - excellence, watchability, and originality. I think there might be a fourth signifier: pop influence. At first, Simmons went with ALMOST FAMOUS, then began to think about THE DARK KNIGHT as a possibility. Basically, they couldn't come to an answer.

But Connelly brought up an interesting point. What if the conversations' defining media is actually television? An interesting point. THE SOPRANOS (I don't like it), THE WEST WING (I love it!), THE WIRE (never seen it), and maybe MAD MEN (I love it, but are we too close?).

Anybody have any thoughts of either? Movies or television, or if you care to weigh in on the TV versus MOVIE debate.

Review: (500) Days of Summer

!

:)

MAD MEN: What You Already Know

What I'm about to tell you, you already know...if you watch MAD MEN. Women are the crux of this show. How do I know this? I just re-watched the very first episode.

In the first ten minutes here's what we know: Don Draper (Jon Hamm) is an ad man and must come up with a pitch for Lucky Strike. After his night at the bar, he knocks on the door of his friend Midge (Rosemarie DeWitt, RACHEL GETTING MARRIED). They chat about his day and her day and he spends the night. Relationship? Check!

Introduced next is rookie secretary Peggy Olson (Fred Armisen's wife, Elisabeth Moss). Joan Holloway (Christina Hendricks) shows her how to play the office game, with considerable attention paid to Peggy's attire and how she can better herself so as to be more attractive for the office's men.

This pilot episode chronicles two accounts for the ad firm Sterling Cooper. One, the aforementioned Lucky Strike, and another for a department store headed by Rachel Menken (Maggie Siff). The Lucky Strike account is settled, not without some drama, but ultimately settled. The Menken department store account is most certainly not, with confusion over how to market the brand in an already-saturated department store market. The two have obvious chemistry and its not out of the question to see a relationship brew over a cocktail meeting. While the Lucky Strike account settled relatively easily (with men only), the Menken account is anything but.

Peggy is the object of attention in the new office, purely by being "the new girl." Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser) apparently likes what he sees and is evidently interested in Peggy sexually, as per his 1950s acceptable language toward her in the office. Oh by the way, Pete has his own wedding to attend this weekend. He knocks on her door (ALL THE WAY IN BROOKLYN!) and invites himself in. And she lets him. (Is this normal for a woman in the 50s?)

Finally, at the end of the episode we see Don arriving at him home in the suburbs. He kisses his wife Betty (January Jones) and says goodnight to his kids. Up until this point there has been no mention of him having a family, especially with his already-established relationship with Midge, and his on-deck relationship with Rachel. The final shot shows Betty standing at the doorway to the kids room watching her husband say goodnight. And in typical MAD MEN fashion, the episode ends with temporally appropriate music.

This final shot could have ended without Betty appearing at the door, but it does. And let's not take this for granted. Men at work is taken for granted. But as the series progresses, it becomes (sometimes painfully) clear that women rule the roost. The men just happen to be living in it.

If PLEASANTVILLE turns out to be nice, why leave?

I had a pleasant evening. Watched the compendium of Pixar Short Films - awesome! Then watched PLEASANTVILLE.

Why doesn't this film get more love? The shots are beautiful. Dialogue is good. Story is good. The acting, especially Joan Allen and Jeff Daniels, is good.

My grammar aside, I wonder if the story is too heavy-handed.

Change is good. Embrace difference. Race relations (in a movie populated by 99.9% whites). And color. Does this movie just hit you over the head with it's message? Are the stylistic choices too predictable? Cinematography too formulaic? Perhaps, but what ever is the problem with a well-crafted movie?

At any rate, I do have one question for any PLEASANTVILLE people out there. Why does Bud/David (Tobey Maguire) leave Pleasantville after he has helped change it, for the better? Why wouldn't he want to stay there? Mary Sue/Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) decides to stay. She likes this new Pleasantville better. Obviously, something calls Bud back to the current world, but what and why? He finally has a girlfriend Margaret (MarleyShelton), something he obviously wants as per the first color scene of the movie; he pretends to be asking out a girl at school. And he wants to leave Margaret and go back to reality?

When Bud does go back to reality as David, he comforts his divorced mother who has relationship problems of her own. This is the last scene before a short montage sequence of Pleasantville. This has to be the reason right? He returns for his mother. Bud was perhaps closest with his mother (Joan Allen) in Pleasantville or maybe they formed a bond throughout his time there and he wanted to share that with his real mother? I don't know.

Anybody have any thoughts on PLEASANTVILLE in general?

Harry Potter and the Raging Hormones

I liked this recent film very much. My Potter-obsessed friends were quick to point out what the movie omitted and how it only cheapened the experience. I get excited about adaptations recisely for this reason. It's interesting to see how filmmakers trim the original narrative into something that works at the cineplex.

I'll start with the two biggest departures. The first is the climactic battle at Hogwarts. I remember a bigger battle from the books. Students equipping wands against the more powerful Death Eaters (Voldemort's minions) with Harry (Radcliffe) concentrated on Snape (Rickman). Dispensing with the skirmish, director David Yates only gives us Harry vs. Snape. I'm okay with this. The movie's already long enough (although, I can always have more) and for the sake of trimming, it's perhaps a good move.

The other omission is a little tricky as it concerns the film's subtitle, "the half-blood prince." In the book, Rowling hardly goes a chapter without mentioning it. The film hardly addresses the topic. Yes, it is introduced and the prince is revealed, but with very little in between. In the book, the young trio scavenge and research the prince to death. For a film whose title purports such a large narrative tipping point, very little is made of it.

But this is mostly a quibble and it could be because I know where the story goes. The point of this whole book is to setup the final one. In the previous books and films, Snape plays a supporting role - a teacher that Harry hates, and the feeling is mutual. We need this build up to establish the potential for Snape. Perhaps leaving many questions unanswered was a conscious decision. In the seventh novel, Snape becomes the fulcrum for the entire series. Indeed, a case could be made that he is the crucial character of the series, even more than the eponymous hero.

One final contentious point concerns the ending. It might seem abrupt. The climax occurs within an instant, not very drawn out and the film ends probably within ten minutes. Again, I am okay with this. This is the penultimate novel. Leave the audience with the greatest suspense and that means holding back as much as you can and what is commonly referred to as "getting out early." Leave the narrative as quickly as you can. Now, don't pull a TRANFORMERS 2 type ending which ends in about 5 minutes with a very tacked-on soliliquoy. HALF-BLOOD PRINCE ends where it should, leaving us just a little bit hanging.

I loved the opening shot of the movie, so perfect for how the movie ends. It begins right where ORDER OF THE PHOENIX ended. Dumbledore (Gambon) with his arm around Harry. Such a sign of things to come and where they have been. First shots that suck you in are invaluable. DARK KNIGHT's opening push in on a skyscraper was great.

Finally, the hormones! This is probably why I liked the movie so much - half of it was all teen romance! Ron and Hermione sexual tension. Harry and Ginny sexual tension. Actually, this is a kid's story, so maybe it should be "sensual" tension. This is a very dark movie, especially when you understand how far we've come. Columbus' first two films were rightfully cheery. Columbus did exactly what was needed, no complaint here. PHOENIX started the darkness and it only gets darker in 6. The hormones are a welcome distraction from the chaos.

Wrap up: everyone wants to rank the films. Well, here is my list in descending order.
#4 GOBLET OF FIRE
#1 SORCERER'S STONE
#2 CHAMBER OF SECRETS
#5 ORDER OF THE PHOENIX
#3 PRISONER OF AZKABAN
#6 HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

4 is clunky. 1 and 2 are just what they needed to be, and I really think 2 is very well-done. I really like 2, just to give you an idea of how much I love this series cinematically. 5 was very controlled. 3 and 6 are touch and go. But 6 wins because of the hormones, and I just saw it. Like my good friend at FilmSchoolRejects, CULTURE WARRIOR, a marathon might be in my future.

Appreciation vs Enjoyment

At dinner tonight, my mother and I had a (it wasn't an argument) a debate about movies and music. We were talking again about a recent movie we watched together as a family: West Side Story (1961). She talked about it as a cultural artifact as much about race as about the dancing or the music. I told her that I could not relate to it as much as she could because she grew up in that time and I didn't and I had seen other things, more current things that meant more to me.

I steered the conversation from there. I told her about SOME of my friends in New York and San Antonio who were unwilling to create an all-time Top 10 List, citing excuses such as "films are created in different time periods," "films are created for different cultures and people," or "how do I reconcile differences in genre" etc. In short, I say, "make a decision!" Decide what you like and CHOOSE! Don't hide behind chronology and what or who came first. PICK!

Just because something came first doesn't necessarily make it better. If it is indeed better, then okay, but not just because of temporal precedence. Part of this comes from my tendency toward an aesthetic film history and generally being able to take a film at face value. Film history books mention a deficiency with this approach's inability to take into account a grander, wider-reaching film history.

To this accusation, I say, take a look at my previous two posts regarding my own personal state of the union. My concern is with contemporary American cinema. But let me say this. Does this mean, I do not like old things. No. I like Hitchcock movies because I think they are the best at what they do. But as I have said, I want to know what is moving the current culture. I'd rather read The Da Vinci Code because its popular now, than engage with THE GODFATHER because it was popular way back when.

Perhaps I need to change the title of this blog yet again - The Barstool Academic. That's what I like, the barstool conversation and maybe this is where my true passion lies. A what-kind-of-movies-do-you-like-conversation. But not without some discussion. Tell me why (just like a Backstreet Boys song!)! Just don't try and tell me why I should like something. Don't try and convince me of the genius of The Beatles. Yes, I know I SHOULD like them because they influenced a lot of things. I say screw that! With the exception of Yellow Submarine (hardly the bastion of Beatles grandeur, I gather), I enjoy every cover of their songs more than the original. Good writers? Maybe. Good performers. Not in my book. Everybody else just sounds better.

Does it still boil down to entertainment value for me? Yea, I think that's it. Entertain me dammit! If you can't keep me watching, then historical, technical or any other value be damned, I can't count you among my favorites.

Come on, come up with a list. There HAVE to be 10 films/artists that you like more than any other. No such thing as a guilty pleasure. In the end, I just want you to make YOUR picks. And I do want you to make them. Make a decision!

How many people have actually seen Citizen Kane?

It's comforting to know that when I write something there are some people who actually read it! Even better that they want to talk about it. It's the most rewarding thing. I don't really care if it's criticism or general agreement with my thoughts - the interaction is the important thing.

And so that is where this specific post begins. After I posted my State of Union, a friend of mine - who I shall call the V Machine - challenged one of my assertions. The gist of my assertion was that I felt marginalized at NYU because of my love for the big movies, the ones the public see, the ones they want to see. V Machine felt the opposite. What little movies we did watch were the canonical texts with no attempt made to broaden the filmic scope.

I am not sure we actually came to common ground because neither of us really wanted to budge from our intellectual bunkers. For a minute, we got stuck on what might almost qualify as a cliche in the halls of academia - "gaps of knowledge." When did we finally get to see the Excorcist? How long before we could actually sit through the Godfather without getting bored? Perhaps it might be helpful is to talk of "gaps of WANTED knowledge." I am perfectly comfortable in my American movie bunker. Yes, it might be most talked about, but certainly not exhausted. V Machine (I think) wanted more international cinema in her schooling. I guess she is the better person because its not like she has no interest in American, just another interest. Me, I have no interest in the international movie scene.

For the most part, I stand by my assertion but I will make one addendum - a qualifier for my knowledge. I am interested in what people in my general social circle (United States) are watching NOW. My one qualifier is the CONTEMPORARY component. Some may see my position as a limiting one and perhaps even an ignorant one, but my two reasons are simple.

The first and most important, I want to talk with people about movies. And I don't mean the cinephile. I want a simple but engaging conversation about a movie. The easiest way to do that is with my family and friends and the movies they see. I want to see the film playing on 6 screens at the local multiplex. It's easier to talk about TRANSFORMERS 2 than say, BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN.

Secondly, to borrow from Bordwell and Thompson title, film is art - ALL OF IT. I care about narrative heterogeneity, cinematography, editing, color, and voice-over. When I say, ALL OF IT, I mean the films. Even the worst films have redeeming moments or something you can learn. I believe this is why I am a forgiving critic - that and I am generally a positive person.

Perhaps if I say it this way: All of the movies I wrote about for final papers were big Hollywood releases within the last 15 years (BRAVEHEART, SYRIANA/BABEL, TOY STORY, SIN CITY, MINORITY REPORT, 300, and THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING). For some reason I feel this to be against the norm. Does this help with my sentiments?

I want to know what is driving the culture. If The Da Vinci Code becomes a worldwide phenomenon, I want to read it because of that reason. Yes, I've read Twilight and plan to read the second one. It's water cooler conversation but I love it! This is not an indictment of my fellow MAs at NYU. We had and still have water cooler conversation. However, it seemed that when it came time to write a paper, the expectation was to jump into the deep end of the cinema pool, because that is where the robust material resides.

Perhaps it boils down to my never-ending quest against the disparaging of something simply because it's popular. "I used to like them, but ever since they started playing them on the radio, I don't like them anymore" makes no sense to me. Either you like or you don't.

The last thing I want to say is very important. My post sounds like I didn't enjoy my time at NYU. Far from the truth, I enjoyed it. It is a place where no idea is too stupid. Nothing is unquestionable. Debate is encouraged. Some cynics may disagree with me, but that's okay. I am a positive person.

A Media Slathered State of the Union Plus Some Michael Mann Musing

It's time for an update on how my media intake changed since moving back to my hometown, Los Angeles.

For about three years, I watched movies. That was my intake. I watched them for class and for fun - and if both happened at the same time, I was happy. I graduated with a degree in communication from a wonderful little institution in San Antonio, Texas: Trinity University. Very late in my college career, I found that path of study and been giddy ever since. Wow, I can watch television and movies and get a rather large diploma! This is great!

Against all odds, I got into a grad school, getting a master's degree in Cinema Studies from NYU - the only school that would accept me. And I kept watching movies. I was introduced to avante-garde and films floating in obscure film history purgatory. Most people seem to enjoy these films and want to talk about them and in effect, shine a brighter light on obscure pieces. I run the other way. I want to bring the mainstream movies to the academic circle. Let's float a barstool argument here: in final papers, who wrote about films that grossed the most money? I might be in the running for highest grossing papers (Braveheart, Syriana/Babel, Toy Story, Sin City, Minority Report, 300, and The Fellowship of the Ring).

I don't think I am cut out for the PhD, but maybe. I don't think it would be in film exclusively. It would be in a fuller media discussion, including television, video games, and social networking. I like films and I like them a lot, but I am interested in so many other things. I LOVE teen television. I love watching the progression of video games moving closer to an interactive social networking experience. Oh and by the way, I like sports. And its easy to let it in my life - it happens all the time.

Basically, I need structure. Let me list what I like again. (Movies, Television, Sports, Video Games, and Fiction Lit.) By my count, that's five things, right? How do I take care of all my interests? I think I need a spreadsheet - which sounds a lot like my dad (genes right?).

I feel disconnected right now. I have not watched a TV show that wasn't on DVD for at least a month now. Been to a few movies. TRANSFORMERS 2 was actually pretty funny and then it turns into a large special effect (which last time I checked still wins an Academy Award). No one is better than Michael Bay when delivering a special effect. Incomprehensible, maybe. But I wonder if that's not the point. PUBLIC ENEMIES was great! I loved it. Michael Mann's violence is heavy, intense yet restrained. Women are a problem because as heterosexual men, we love them, but they get us into trouble.

But color is so very important to Mann and completely based on the film's setting. Think of HEAT, everything is blue and grey because that's LA - the streets, the sky, the uniform. COLLATERAL is mostly dark, but filled with many colors because that's what an LA freeway looks like - a cornucopia of visual onslaught. Everything is blue in MIAMI VICE because the water is blue. PUBLIC ENEMIES uses a warmer color pallette, mostly brown. The shootout happens in the woods, the cars are brown and the roads are still dirty, not completely paved.

I have too many interests. As Colin Cowherd, host of The HERD on ESPN radio: simplify your life. "If I haven't worn a shirt in the past three months, I get rid of it." I need to pare down my media life to the important things. But I can't live in a hole either. Geez, Charley, want some cheese with that w(h)ine? I think I might take up running.

Where Have All The Theme Songs Gone? Just one anyway.

At a recent Sound Symposium at NYU, Steven Wurtzler presented a topic on sound design, particularly that of retail locations. Now, I am currently employed at one such retail location and I can tell you that Wurtzler is right. Music is an integral part of the experience. In fact, customers come into to the store and routinely sing along with classic tunes such as "Suspicious Minds" by Elvis Presley or my personal favorite "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey. Besides merely providing some background entertainment and pleasure, it can help in the selling process.

For instance, a lot of the music is danceable and try as I might to resist, I can't help myself from getting my groove on. The music also creates the right environment. Sometimes a simple volume adjustment can make all the difference. Retailers wants positive energy and shoppers want to shop in a fun place. Louder music can help that.

Theme parks understand this as well. There is constant music playing evoking the ouvre of the particular land. Wurtzler adapted the idea of sound design to everyday life. An experience will be more memorable if there is ample sound design.

The same is true for television shows and their theme songs and nowhere is this more noticeable than on the DVD sets for "Dawson's Creek." Part of the enjoyment is Paula Cole's "I Don't' Want To Wait." She really belts it out. However, beginning on the third DVD set and continuing through to the end of the series, something changed. A different song replaced the great one, changing the entire complexion of the fictional town, Capeside. So irked by this change, I began to mute the television and play the song through my computer. It's not the same experience, but as close as I can get.

At times, some consumers grow tired of a theme song when campaigning through episode after episode. This specific example advises those consumers to appreciate a well-done and well-placed theme song. Appreciate the song!