I Found Joe Pickett Inauthentic

Posted on by
Joe Picket Inauthentic

I just finished watching the penultimate episode of the first season of Joe Pickett and I’ve just about had enough. I found the show to be almost completely inauthentic. The premise is incredibly interesting, and it’s based on a popular book series by C. J. Box.

The titular character is a game warden in Wyoming fulfilling a childhood dream between he and his brother. Joe’s wife, Marybeth is pregnant with a son; and they already have two daughters. Joe seems resolved to be a good father, throwing off the genetic heritage of an alcoholic and abusive father. Sound interesting? I thought so also.

My Wyoming Bona Fides

Let me preface my thoughts with the fact I’m a City Slicker. Born and raised in St. Louis, Missouri. What do I know about authentic Wyoming you can rightly ask. It’s a fair question.

I can only tell you I went to college in Idaho and I have a number of friends from rural Missourah. Does this make me an expert in what is authentic Wyoming? No, it does not. If you disagree with my assessment, go ahead and let me know.

What’s Inauthentic about Joe Pickett

My background now divulged, let me tell you I found almost every character in Joe Pickett to be completely inauthentic. I didn’t believe they lived in Wyoming, that they grew up in Wyoming, that they were in any way related to Wyoming.

The town of Saddlestring didn’t seem like a small, northwestern town. The people in town had lots of unusual names. The men I know from rural areas tend to be named Bob, Dick, Tom, Glen, Brian, and Mike.

I just didn’t believe any of it. The sheriff didn’t act like a rural sheriff, at least to my eyes. The wealthy family seemed egregiously not Montana. All the gun toting seemed like someone’s fantasy of what it’s like to live in the west.

Don’t even get me started on the southern accents.

Northern Exposure

I want to spend a moment making a comparison to another show, Northern Exposure. It’s not exact but I think it largely illustrates my problem with the authenticity of Joe Pickett. In Northern Exposure the characters are varied, interesting, multi-dimensional and all of them, with the exception of Joel of course, came across to me as Alaskan, authentic.

The interior and exterior of the town of Cicely seemed authentic. I really believed this was Alaska and the actors were Alaskan. When I believe the people and places, I’m much more likely to become immersed in the show, to forget I’m watching and just experience.

The Experience of Joe Pickett

I never felt that Wyoming experience in Joe Pickett. Some of the cinematography was really beautiful but whenever we weren’t looking at vistas, I just wasn’t buying it.

Other Stuff

The plot went completely off the rails and a lot of stuff happened that made no logical sense but I don’t want to get heavily into all of that, although it certainly effected my enjoyment, or lack thereof, of the show.

Conclusion

Sadly, by the end of Joe Pickett I found myself shaking my head and almost every scene, completely out of immersion and into finding everything wrong. There were a lot of problems with the first season of the show but I thought its inauthenticity was an underlying issue that hurt everything else.

I won’t be watching season two.

Tom Liberman

Who is the Protagonist of Pretty Woman?

Posted on by
Pretty Woman

Whilst clicking my way through channels the other day I flicked past Pretty Woman and it got me thinking about the movie. Who is the protagonist is the question I ask myself as a Boomer. I am no longer the thirty-something year old infatuated with Laura San Giacomo.

I think it’s an interesting question because the obvious answer is Vivian, played by Julia Roberts. It is, after all, her story. She has the arc. Doesn’t she?

Edward has the Character Arc

The thing is, Vivian doesn’t really change much or at all. She’s the hooker with a heart of gold. She’s a little rough around the edges perhaps but she is clearly educated, intelligent, and capable. She starts that way and she finishes that way.

Edward, on the other hand, changes dramatically. He starts the movie as a corporate raider with no qualms about staging a leveraged buyout of Morse Industries, a shipbuilding company run by Jim Morse along with his grandson, David.

Early Edward is the villain of the movie. The corporate raider. The dismantler of capitalism. His interactions with Jim, David, and Vivian change him. That’s his arc. By the end of the movie, he is joining Morse Industries as a partner. He will build ships with the company rather than dismantling it and selling it off for profit.

We like the finished Edward. He’s the hero. He’s changed. He has an arc.

Edward, Jim, and Capitalism

In thinking about Edward and his arc in Pretty Woman, my thoughts turned to leveraged buyouts, private equity, and capitalism.

It seems to me that, generally, we now admire beginning Edward far more than finished Edward. Make as much money as possible for yourself and your shareholders.

Edward contrasts dramatically with old-school Jim Morse. Jim owns a company but isn’t interested in squeezing the maximum profit from it. He wants to build big, beautiful ships. Ships that serve our country, yards that employ people. His goal is to create, employ, and, of course make money. He’s a wealthy industrialist. His company is successful but not as profitable as it could be and thus a target for Edward and his leveraged buyout.

A Moment about Private Equity

I’m no naïve do-gooder who thinks Private Equity firms and leveraged buyouts have no place in capitalism. They are valuable tools to keep companies in line. They play a useful role in ending bloated companies with dozens of board members and executives earning enormous salaries, siphoning off all the profits. Such companies deserve their fate.

The problem is when the Edwards of the world can leverage a buyout of a largely successful company that isn’t squeezing maximum profits. We instinctively admire Jim Morse and his grandson. They are embodiment of the best parts of capitalism.

Build a great product, provide a useful service, employ hard-working people at a fair wage. That’s the end-result of healthy capitalism. We hate early Edward in Pretty Woman.

Conclusion

It’s a complicated problem and not easily solved. I do think the ability to borrow enormous sums and immediately declare bankruptcy and not pay them back if things go wrong is a big part of the problem. These days, the darling of the capitalistic world is early Edward. We should know better.

Tom Liberman

The Porter is Ultimately Disappointing

Posted on by
The Porter

I recently finished watching the BET+ series The Porter and came away fairly disappointed. The show tells the story of a group of porters working the railroad lines between Canada and the United States in the 1920s.

The porters face various obstacles in their quest to live their lives. These obstacles include racism and general unbridled capitalistic abuses. Why was I disappointed? Let me tell you.

Lost Story

The central story of the porter revolves around their desire to join the railroad union and improve their working conditions. The show itself highlights the problem in almost the opening scene when a young porter falls to his death off the top of a train car doing a job requiring more people than were allocated.

In addition, we see racism between the other employees of the railroad and the black porters. These are the two main stories, and they are both compelling, interesting, and historically accurate. There are also hints of the main character’s service in combat during World War I.

Sadly, these stories take a backseat for most of the show. Instead, we focus mainly on a porter working a gambling ring with a powerful black mobster in Chicago. A young woman trying to advance her career as an entertainer and examining her interracial relationship with the dissolute son of the railroad owner. And a nurse working in the black community to bring healthcare to the minority working class who are denied such at the white hospitals.

All three of these stories are moderately interesting at best and take a huge amount of time away from the more compelling stories.

I want to know about the union. I want to see the porters performing their jobs. There are a number of scenes with this focus but they are largely relegated to the back carriage of the show. This was the big problem for me. The compelling story, the reason for the show, the title of the show even, is just not developed well enough.

Acting in the Porter

The acting is fairly good with some standout performances from Mouna Traoré as Nurse Marlene Massey and Ronnie Rowe Jr. as Zeke Garrett the union agitator. The rest of the cast is fairly good to mediocre.

Sets and Cinematography

The sets are largely great with the interior carriage scenes meticulous and beautiful. The homes the porters live in are believable and well-done. The scenes themselves are largely framed nicely with a variety of angles.

The show does heavily rely on CGI for the exterior train shots and it’s not so great.

Music

The music is largely good and maintains a background presence rather than dominating the scenes although it does get obtrusive now and again.

Conclusion

I think the show had a great deal of potential and thus my disappointed. If it didn’t have such a high bar then its ultimate disappointment wouldn’t bother me as much. It could have great but they really just lost track of the compelling stories and focused on things that held little interest for me. Others may think differently.

Tom Liberman

All Four Seasons of True Detective (to date)

Posted on by
True detective

I finally finished watching Season Three of True Detective, the last one I watched, and now it’s time for the big recap. What I hope to do with this review is compare and contrast the seasons to one another, pointing out the good and the bad. What went right and what went wrong.

I already compared Season One to Season Four of True Detective if you want to read about that. I’ll be making some of the same points here though. On with it.

Believable Detectives

In a detective show it is clear to me the detectives themselves must be believable. I’m not saying they have to be great detectives. If they are terrible at their job, that can be believable under certain circumstances. It’s vitally important the audience believes.

Season One

Utterly believable. I believe Kohl and Marty are seasoned, capable detectives. They go about their business with professionalism. We see them doing their work on many occasions and not just getting key information fed to them.

Season Two

Largely unbelievable. It’s a given in this season that Ray, Ani, and Paul are not the cream of the crop. Ray is chosen for the case because he’s compromised. That being said, none of them manage to do any sort of real detective work. Everything either falls into their laps or happens to be the first thing they investigate. I did not believe.

Season Three

Pretty much a mirror image of Season One. I absolutely believe Wayne and Roland are detectives, good ones.

Season Four

Utterly unbelievable. I just cannot believe that either Liz or Evangeline holds the position and rank they do. Both do little to no detective work in the series. Both rely on third parties to get all the pertinent information.

Likeable Protagonists

It’s useful if the audience likes the protagonists. I’m certainly not saying they have to be kind, nice, generous, thoughtful, and everything else that gets wrapped up into likeable; but I shouldn’t despise them. I shouldn’t find them repugnant and hate every moment they are on the screen.

Season One

Marty and Kohl are complicated characters and in many ways, not particularly likeable. They have big old flaws. But, in the end, I like both of them greatly while recognizing their flaws.

Season Two

I hate Ray and Ani. Hate. Paul is more a figure of pity than anything else but he’s certainly not likeable. Ray is an awful, despicable person and Ani isn’t any better.

Season Three

Again, we have two flawed characters. Both with problems but both likeable in the end. Roland and Wayne want to solve the case, they care about the missing girl. They are decent human beings although hardly perfect.

Season Four

It’s hard to even describe how much I despised Liz and Evangeline. They are terrible people. Just awful. Horrible to everyone they meet. I can’t remember hating protagonists this much in any other show.

Sundried Film Making Features

I’m not going with a season breakdown here. The music, sets, camera work, and everything else is almost always fantastic. One exception is the mumbling of Wayne in Season Two. He’s not always understandable. Other than that, all four seasons are superb.

Comprehensible Story

Season One

I followed the plot all the way through with little or no confusion. It all made sense. Events happened in good sequence and I was rarely, if ever confused.

Season Two

A jumble. The case was far too convoluted and wasn’t even really about what it was apparently about. I was totally lost on several occasions and by the end just didn’t care anymore.

Season Three

It was largely understandable but the three separate timelines were one too many. The two timelines in Season One worked very nicely. Mainly because they were sequential. In Season Three we are constantly transported back and forth in time and it became too much. Particularly when it came to the final episode. More on that in a minute.

Season Four

This one wasn’t even really a detective story, it was a macabre horror story. It didn’t make any sense at all for the most part. The entire supernatural element was jammed at us the entire series run and yet turned out to be a giant red-herring. I understood events to some degree but it was generally a bit of a mess.

Stick the Landing

The ending must be right or everything before it loses its luster.

Season One

Perfection. Marty’s final gift to Kohl wrapped it up with a pretty bow and sent me away completely satisfied.

Season Two

The story itself ended incomprehensibly as mentioned earlier but if anyone didn’t see the final twist with Ray and his son coming, they must have fallen asleep and stopped paying attention. Dull, contrived, sappy.

Season Three

I’m not even sure they knew how to end this season and just threw everything at us in a mess of a final episode. I was quite satisfied with Julie’s final fate but everything else just seemed tacked on. All the relationship things just did not land.

Season Four

I actually really liked the resolution to the case here but it flew in the face of everything they gave us before. I imagine it angered many who were invested in the supernatural events preceding.

Conclusion

Season One is fantastic. Season Two is poor. Season Three was almost as good as Season One except the mumbling and failed finale. Season Four was fine if you like supernatural horror but was otherwise not even really a True Detective show.

Season Five? I’ll be waiting.

Tom Liberman

The Ballad of Dr Disrespect

Posted on by
Dr Disrespect

The gaming world is buzzing over recent events surrounding Dr Disrespect. The details of the story allow me an opportunity to discuss the difficulties related to rational as opposed to emotional thinking.

First off, most of you probably don’t know anything about Dr Disrespect. He’s a streamer who became very popular on YouTube and Twitch playing battle royale games. At the height of his career, more than four million people followed him on Twitch and You Tube both.

On June 26, 2020, just months after signing a multi-year contract with Twitch, the platform banned him for violating their community standards. At the time he protested the ban and told his audience Twitch never informed him what standard he violated.

Cody Conners Tells us Why Dr Disrespect was Banned

Now we fast forward to June 21, 2024 when a former Twitch employee named Cody Conners released information that Twitch banned Dr Disrespect because he inappropriately messaged a minor. As you can imagine, the game world erupted.

Three schools of thought filled the charged comment sections.

  1. Dr Disrespect did it, he’s scum, his past behavior, namely cheating on his wife and general douche-bag behavior on his channel, is all the evidence necessary.
  2. He didn’t do it and Conners is a lying, wannabe scumbag who is just trying to drum up publicity for his own endeavors. Dr Disrespect would never do something like that and jeopardize his career, it makes no sense.
  3. I don’t know if Dr Disrespect did it or not. He certainly got fired for some reason back in 2020 and this could be it. On the other hand, it might have been something else. I just don’t know.

Emotional Thinking

What I want to discuss today is the first two opinions are emotional in nature. I get it. People are emotional. We sometimes think with our hearts not our heads. Ask me about a few of the women I’ve dated.

There are a lot of people who don’t like Dr Disrespect because the personality he displayed on his former channels was extremely abrasive. I’m a jerk and I don’t care. There are also a lot of people who love that attitude.

Those two groups came to opposite conclusions but used the same methodology. Both were wrong, despite the fact one turned out to be right.

Rational Thinking

It’s not easy to think rationally in emotional moments. To control yourself and make the best possible decision despite raging emotions. In this case, the third choice is clearly correct. The evidence is clear that he did something wrong back in 2020. Twitch is unlikely to have fired one of their primary revenue sources without good reason.

But we just don’t know. Conners allegations were just that, allegations.

Guilty

He did it. After more information came out, Dr Disrespect himself admitted he spoke inappropriately to a minor and it led to his firing from Twitch.

It’s important to understand just because those who convicted Dr Disrespect without evidence ended up being correct, doesn’t mean their thinking on the subject was rational.

Naturally, many of those who defended Dr Disrespect continue to do so. Making whatever apologist argument they can find. It’s highly likely those who attacked him to begin with would behave similiarly even if it was discovered he didn’t do it.

Conclusion

This is what emotional and irrational thinking does to you. You become chained to the truth of your ideology. Because you didn’t use logic to come to a conclusion, you aren’t bound by a logical refutation of it.

If you consider a problem logically and attempt to minimize your emotional attachment, you can change your opinion when new evidence arises. When you are emotionally attached to an argument, you find yourself stuck defending the indefensible. It’s a bad look.

Tom Liberman

Joey Chestnut Banned from Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Spectacle

Posted on by
Joey Chestnut

** Update **

I’ve read several comments suggestion that Chestnut insisted on his new brand of hot dog being used for the contest. If this is the case; then he is to blame. It’s Nathan’s contest and they should use whatever dog they want. However, the updated articles I’m reading still state he was “banned” and therefore what I’ve written stands.

** End Update**

Well, color me jaded. Joey Chestnut banned from Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating spectacle not for performance enhancing drugs, not for cheating, not for criminal activity; but because he now sponsors a different company.

Crazy me, I thought it was a competition open to everyone. Apparently, you’re only allowed to compete if you shill for Nathan’s. Welcome to the sad state of America.

Not a Competition at All

I am triggered. You heard it here first; Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest is not a contest. It’s just an advertising campaign. Who knows how many competitors weren’t allowed to take part in the past because they chose not to hawk Nathan’s wares? The entire thing is a sham. A sham!

Every single “winner” is tainted. The entire spectacle is invalid. I refuse to call it a contest anymore. It’s not. For it to be a true competition you must allow everyone to play. When you ban your most famous competitor you void the entire thing.

Shame on Nathan’s! Shame! I point my finger at you! Shame! We want Joey Chestnut!

Competitions are Open

Do they ask the spicy competitors at the county fair if they sponsor one of the hot sauces? No, they do not. Do they ask the apple pie eating heroes if they sponsor one apple producer? No, they do not. Are professional athletes forbidden to have contracts with sports apparel companies that compete with league apparel sponsorships? No! No! No and no again!

What happened to the spirit of competition in this country? Are we so afraid of competition that we ban anyone who represents a rival brand? I guess so if you’re Nathan’s.

Conclusion

Rise up! Take to the streets. Take to Social Media. Rouse your neighbors, set your dogs barking. Get it, dogs?

Get Joey Chestnut back in the contest and let him sponsor whomever he wants.

Tom Liberman

True Detective Season Two a Horrific Tragedy

Posted on by
True Detective Season Two

I finally managed to choke down the last episode of True Detective Season Two and I’m glad. I’m glad it’s finally over. Have you ever repeatedly hit yourself in the face with a hammer? What a slog. Season One is some of the finest television I’ve ever seen. Season Four has moments but was ultimately a letdown, perhaps as I watched it directly after True Detective Season One that is to be expected.

Season Two. What to say? I’ll give it a firm do not recommend. It has a fine cast including Colin Farrell, Rachel McAdams, Taylor Kitsch, and Vince Vaugn but they just can’t overcome the morose writing and directing.

What is True Detective Season Two About?

Darned good question. I’ve seen it and I’m pretty much in the dark. A financier guy who has a bunch of mob money meant to be invested in the high-speed rail project in California gets killed. From there, you’ll need a flow chart.

There are some blue diamonds from a robbery years ago with corrupt cops, vengeful orphans, Russian mobsters, Mexican Mobsters, Arabic Mobsters, corrupt politicians, a new age touchy feely dad, a homosexual war hero with a girlfriend, a corrupt cop, other corrupt cops, corrupt land evaluators, a singer in a nightclub who is a Venezuelan human trafficker, a psychiatrist is also a human trafficker but the bad kind, not the nice kind, sex workers, a black guy who is in charge but I don’t have any idea who he is, a white guy who is friends with the homosexual guy but isn’t. Hell, I have no idea. I lost track of it somewhere around episode three and never got it back.

Relief. Any Relief. Please.

About two thousand years ago some playwrights came up with the idea of comic relief. Shakespeare knew about it. It’s generally considered useful. The people who wrote this mess figured, nah, over-rated. What they figure we want to see are scenes where two people talk to each other in gravelly voices, enunciating each word slowly with the pretentious vocabulary of a dandy Harvard English Professor.

To spice things up between these interminable conversations they throw in an implausible shootout. I use the word implausible generously.

The show is absolutely relentless in its humorless, overly dramatic tone. It never stops. It’s like the Terminator. It will not stop until you are bored and looking at funny cat videos on TikTok, and even then, it will keep going.

Please, you’ll beg, just one joke. A funny line. A prat. I mishap. Anything. Please. For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I just want to smile once, I don’t even need to laugh, something, anything. A dad joke. A knock-knock joke. Denied! Or, in the language of the show; A predilection for humorous anecdotes is not my natural inclination.

Acting

I can’t blame the actors, it’s clearly the directing. I’ve read the producer of True Detective Season One was given total control of Season Two. Absolute power doesn’t end well. Poor Vince Vaugn has to deliver those awful lines in one slowly spoken conversation after the next. He’s been labeled as miscast but I don’t think it’s his fault. He does the best he can with what he’s got.

Colin Farrell’s son is clearly cast for a single purpose and they think it’s subverting expectations when it turns out to be false in the end. I saw that one coming from episode one and anyone who didn’t just wasn’t watching closely.

Stylish

The show is stylish to a fault. Every camera shot is perfectly diagrammed. Every background meticulously crafted. We get wide-angle shots, close-ups, deserts, cityscapes, redwoods. It’s all beautiful and gritty but it doesn’t seem real. It seems like a student film made by someone who worshipped Alfred Hitchcock but skipped all the other classes.

The Music

Overbearing. Even if a scene doesn’t seem tense, the music tells us it will be soon. The music doesn’t enhance here, it leads the mood. You know exactly what is going to happen when the music starts playing in almost every scene.

Conclusion

I could go on. I won’t. Avoid this. A confusing, overbearing, mess.

Tom Liberman

The Regime is a Maddening Ride

Posted on by
The Regime

The Regime on HBO. What to say? Indeed, what to say? It’s a show. It’s difficult to watch. It’s maddening to watch. It’s enraging to watch. Comedic, horrific, painful, touching even. Drama? Satire? Comedy? Historical Retelling? Dystopian? I’m not sure, all of them?

The Regime tells the story of Elena Vernham, the chancellor of a Central European autocratic state. She is insane, crafty schemer, delusional maniac, abused daughter, hapless pawn of the Super Powers? Pick your poison.

For Whom are we Rooting?

If you’re looking for something to cheer you up, I’d suggest looking elsewhere. If there is one decent person in this show it’s Agnes whose misguided loyalty to Elena is her ultimate demise.

Everyone else? No, thank you. Elena? Self-serving monster. Herbert? Abusive, violent psycho. The rational cabinet? Greedy pigs stealing from the workers at every opportunity. The husband? Simp. The opposition leader? Manipulative, arrogant prick.

A show has to have someone to like? Bah, we don’t play by those rules.

The Moral Lesson?

Good luck finding anything here. The show isn’t about lifting you up. It’s about despair. Elena, in one of her rare moments of lucidity, confesses she always ends up as back as a scared child. Well, that’s a happy thought.

The Regime Quality

Superb. The acting is top-notch from Kate Winslet’s Elena all the way down. Nobody fails here. I believe them, in all their wretchedness. The sets are superb. The music is a delight, enhancing and not leading. The cinematography is beautiful, well framed shots. The sound is clear and crisp. This is a quality show in every respect. It’s just not easy to watch.

Conclusion

I’m not sure I can come up with a clear conclusion here. The show is wonderful and horrible.

I’ll finish with one observation. Agnes’s son. All but stolen from her by Elena. The last we see; he is laying terrified on the floor as the revolutionaries storm the building. What happened to him? The only thing we know for sure is Elena isn’t wasting any time worrying about it. That’s Elena. That’s the show.

Tom Liberman

Shogun Leaves the Audience in the Dark

Posted on by
Shogun

I just finished watching the critical acclaimed 2024 Shogun miniseries based on the James Clavell novel. It is an updated version of the 1980 miniseries starring Richard Chamberlain.

Shogun tells the story of John Blackthorn who arrives at the island of Japan as an English merchant hoping to break the Portuguese monopoly on trade. Well, at least that’s the supposed premise but more about that later.

Shogun largely received good reviews from the critics and acclaim from the viewers. There is a lot to like here but it falls tragically short in my opinion. The show goes out of its way to leave the audience in the dark and that ruined it.

Immersion

One of the things that makes a show good is immersion. When I’m watching a show, reading a book, or otherwise engaged in consuming entertainment, I want to feel like I’m part of it all. I want to feel fear for the protagonist, lust for the romantic interest, elation at the victories, sadness at the losses, and all the rest.

The way this is achieved is by including the audience. Let us in. Tell us what’s going on. Shogun spends almost the entire miniseries keeping things from us, I’m guessing so as to spring twists and surprises.

How does Shogun keep us in the dark. Below is a list of things that bothered me, it is not all encompassing but my general thoughts.

What is Kashigi Yabushige Doing? 

The first instance we get of being kept in the dark during Shogun involves the possibly loyal servant of Toranaga, Yabushige. He is a schemer. He understands his lord is possibly going to lose the struggle with the counsel and is playing both sides of the divide to assure his survival.

How do we learn about this? Basically, in a series of conversations between Yabushige and his son. We never actually see him carrying out any scheme. We see him all too obviously prevaricating in conversations with Toranaga which a method of exposing his schemes, none of which we actually see.

Near the end he betrays Mariko and Blackthorn by scheming with a rival lord. Do we see him agonizing about this decision, planning it? Basically he’s asked to do a favor for the rival lord, cut to black.

This is a potentially interesting storyline. If we actually got to be in on Yabushige and his plans, to fear for Toranago, Blackthorn, and Mariko. We don’t and I therefore I don’t really care.

Buntaro’s Survival

The finest warrior in the land stays behind to guard the fleeing Toranaga as he escapes Kyoto. We see Buntaro battling off hordes of warrior as he disappears around a corner.

The next time we see Buntaro is when he returns. We are told he joined a band of Ronin who fought there way across the countryside with only he and one other surviving. Wow! I mean, what a fantastic little story. Are there any scenes of it happening? What about the surviving Ronin, is he made a Samurai by Toranaga? He must be a bad ass!

Nope, nada, nothing. Just one line. Why? Probably because the burgeoning romance between Blackthorn and Mariko must come to a shock conclusion with the arrival of her presumed dead husband. What a shame.

The Gardener’s Death

This one was particularly upsetting to me. At Blackthorn’s home there is a gardener. Blackthorn hangs up a pheasant to rot and the smell is so horrible, the gardener takes it down and is executed for disobeying Blackthorn’s directives.

What really happened? We find it out all through exposition. Toranaga has a spy in the village. Yabushige, discussed earlier, is trying to find that spy. Toranaga and the gardener come up with the plan to frame the gardener as the spy and thus stop Yabushige’s investigation.

The gardener is ill and feels he is near the end of his life. He wants to do one last service for his lord and thus takes down the pheasant knowing he will be executive but only after the fake evidence is planted in his home.

Holy moly! What a fantastic little side-story. It tells us everything about loyalty, the culture of Japan, etc. Do we see any of it? Nope, nothing. We just hear about it after it all happened. What a waste. I want to see the planning, the agony of the gardener’s family, the theft, the execution, the reward for loyalty and honor.

Yoshii Nagakado’s Death 

The son of Toranaga, Yoshii Nagakado, decides to kill his uncle because the man betrayed Toranaga earlier in the episode. He plans a daring raid of the brothel where the uncle is staying. He enlists compatriots, he carries out his plan. Again, great stuff. I want the anticipation of the attack, knowing Taranaga is opposed, perhaps it is almost discovered at the last minutes.

Again, nope, nothing. We’re at the brothel, the attack happens, Nagakado slips, falls, dies. Sadness. I don’t care! I just don’t care! You didn’t involve me! I didn’t see it coming. I had no rising tension. No chance to care.

The Final Plan

Toranaga surrenders to his peers but in reality, he has a cunning plan. He schemes with his must trusted advisor who commits suicide to make the plan more convincing.

Do we know this plan? Are we let in on it? No, no, and no. It’s all sprung on us as a big surprise. It’s the final insult. Nothing could be clearer: audience, we don’t care about you. We don’t want you involved, just sit there, trust us, it’s going to be great.

Is Shogun Terrible?

No, it’s not terrible. The acting is hit and miss. Cosmo Jarvis as Blackthorn and Anna Sawai as Mariko are unconvincing, bland, boring. Their romance is milquetoast. Everyone else is pretty good with particular credit to Moeka Hoshi as Usami Fuji who absolutely steals every scene she’s in. She does more with a single expression than Sawai does with her endless philosophical blithering. I felt her pain at the death of her husband and child, her loathing to serve Blackthorn, and her eventual respect for the man. She I believed. This is a woman of her time, of Japan.

The sets are great when they are actually sets but the CGI, mainly cityscapes and ship scenes, is adequate at best.

The story is scattered. Is it about Blackthorn’s merchant mission? Blackthorn and Mariko? Toranaga’s schemes? It’s just all over the place. It meanders from one place to the next like a drunken sailor without stopping to focus anywhere.

Conclusion

I’ve gone on for quite a bit here so I’ll wrap up quickly. Include me, damn you, Shogun. Let me in!

Tom Liberman

Mr. Bates vs the Post Office Review

Posted on by
Mr. Bates

This is a difficult one for me to review objectively because the subject matter triggers me greatly. It tells the story of Alan Bates and hundreds of British subpostmasters fighting a power with limitless resources, the government. The entire story in Mr. Bates is everything Libertarians worry about in a government agency.

Basically, the Post Office installed faulty software in all their branches. The faults resulted in many subpostmasters showing accounting shortfalls. The government, along with the software developer, hid the faults, blamed the subpostmasters and sent them to jail, took their money, and largely ruined their lives.

Eventually one subpostmaster, the titular Mr. Bates, managed to raise enough ruckus to bring the attention to the public. It only took twenty-five years. Yep, this whole mess started in 1999 and isn’t fully resolved to this day.

Sadly, my job today isn’t to lambaste the British Post Office and government, it’s to review a television series, and that is what I will do.

Lots of Characters

Mr. Bates starts at the beginning of the disaster when Alan Bates loses his post office because of accounting shortfalls for which he refuses to accept responsibility. He asks for audits, software checks, and what not but is denied.

We then start to meet some of the other subpostmasters encountering the same difficulties. This leads to the biggest problem with the series, there are a lot of characters. It’s not really anyone’s fault and I think they did an admirable job of consolidating people and keeping the total down to a reasonable number. That being said, there are a lot of stories going on at the same time and the complexity of weaving them together is no easy task.

Acting

I found the acting in Mr. Bates to be largely top-notch with Toby Jones in the lead role particularly strong. He shows his determination to see the truth prevail but also his fatigue over the course of the decades long fight. His wife, played by Julie Hesmondhalgh is also quite strong in her role.

Ian Hart as Bob Rutherford is a particular standout although, as I mentioned, the acting is excellent throughout.

Cinematography, Music, and the Rest

All of the supporting features of the show were well done and believable. I was particularly impressed with the music which didn’t try to overwhelm us with emotions but simply enhanced the sometimes-traumatic story. All good work in my opinion.

The Story is the Thing

Mr. Bates is not a big budget, high-production, action movie. The horribly miscarriage of justice that all those subpostmasters suffered is the main star. It’s such a vile story, such a little guy against the government story, that you don’t really need anything else. I commend them for keeping it fairly simple because it could have gotten overly complex and tried too hard to manipulate the viewers emotional. It just told the story and told it properly.

Aftermath

Since the broadcast of Mr. Bates vs the Post Office, public awareness of the situation rose dramatically and reignited the legal proceedings, which as mentioned, continue on today. In that regard I find it impossible not to consider the show to be a spectacular success regardless of anything else.

Conclusion

I found myself immersed and oft-times riveted to the drama of the story. I was never bored although I suspect an audience looking for high-octane drama might find it slow-moving and somewhat dull.

A fantastic series I think well worth watching and not only because I’m a Libertarian.

Tom Liberman

Taxes and Perrier a Study in Law

Posted on by
Perrier

Do you think of Perrier as water? I do. I’d imagine the vast majority of people reading this do. Do you consider it soda? I don’t and I’d think the vast majority of people agree with me, including Perrier itself.

Sparkling Natural Mineral Water is what it says on the bottle. It is naturally carbonated, whatever that means and sourced and bottled at the site it emerges from the ground. I don’t drink a lot of Perrier, nor do I drink much soda but then again, as the saying goes, I don’t know art, but I know what I like. Perrier is water.

Why am I asking you about the nature of Perrier? Because the United States legal system decided Perrier is soda. Why you ask? Money. Taxes.

The Perrier is Water Lawsuit

Jennifer Montgomery filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania when she paid a tax of twenty-four cents on a 16-ounce bottle of Perrier. She wants a refund because it is illegal to tax water in the United States. It being considered essential to life and all.

Let me pause for a moment to praise Montogomery. Filing this lawsuit required time and money. When the original case was decided against her, she appealed. You go, girl! Sadly, the Pennsylvania Department Board of Revenue Appeals court decided that revenue is the most important factor. We need those tax dollars and nothing is going to stop us from getting them.

Nix v. Hedden

I haven’t put on my Time Travel hat in a while and there was a case back in 1883 involving a similar tax situation and tomatoes. Something about fruits and vegetables. Let’s go back and see what happened then. Now, where is the cap, we did a bit of Spring Cleaning involving the We Got Junk people recently and I hope it didn’t get tossed out along with that hideous lamp.

Hmm, not in the closet. In the fridge? Nope. Here it is, in the Gloomhaven Box, what’s it doing there? Well, never mind, let’s plop it on, spin three times, focus on 1883 and kapow! Here we are. Wowzer, am I poorly dressed, look at all those suits and dresses. I’ll just observe here in back, that constable with the baton looks like he’s ready to use it.

“A tomato is a fruit,” says the lawyer holding the delicious red object in one hand and a large book with the other. “Right here, your Honor, it’s science!”

Bang, down comes the gavel. “It seems obvious, any counter-argument?” says the judge looking at the other lawyer.

“If a tomato is a fruit it’s exempt from the vegetable tariff.”

Bang, down comes the gavel again. “I declare a tomato is legally a vegetable in the United States forevermore.”

“Your Honor …,” says the first lawyer.

“Shut yer yap, contempt of court. Ten days.”

Oops, that constable is giving me the side-eye, spin three times, poof, back home! Remember where I put the hat, I say to myself as I toss it on a shelf.

Well, I guess it’s good to know some things haven’t change. Tax revenue is more important than reality. Yay!

Conclusion

Perrier is soda, the courts have spoken and the courts can’t be wrong.

Tom Liberman

Randall Emmett Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

Posted on by
Randall Emmett and the Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry

I just read a fascinating story from the Los Angeles Times about how states are conned in the Taxpayer funded movie industry. Taxpayer funded movie industry, you rightly ask? I’m afraid so. How is that possible, you ask? Because we live in a free money, crony-capitalism country.

Basically, fly-by-night movie companies come to your state and film low-budget movies with aging name stars and get almost the entire thing paid for with tax dollars. From what I can tell, it’s largely a Ponzi scheme with the next state in line paying the overdue bills from the previous production. Let’s get into it.

Randall Emmett is Running the Show

Who is Randall Emmett? A movie producer who was accused of various sexual transgressions on his movie sets and in his personal life. This did not stop him from producing movies. He just started up a new production company making low-budget movies.

How is this a Taxpayer Funded Movie Industry?

The scheme is relatively simple. Many states are eager to have a movie made in their confines. They use Taxpayer money to “reimburse” film-makers who shoot in their states. The film-maker usually makes various promises about how long the shoot will take, where, and how many jobs it will create. The usual business mantra for fleecing states of Taxpayer money.

In any case, they film the movie on a shoe-string budget paying a high-profile, but usually late in his career actor, seven figure salaries for a day or two of shooting. They then lollygag on payments to the rest of people involved, including the law enforcement teams assigned to the set.

Then it’s off to a new state, with new promises, a few million dollars to pay off the old debts and a new actor. Rinse repeat. The movies themselves are largely trash although they probably generate enough money to make the entire enterprise profitable as long as there is another gullible governor lined up to dish out your money.

Scummy?

You bet. This is the world we live in. It’s easier to make a profit with Taxpayer funds and a bad movie than it is to produce a quality product.

The obvious problem here is that states are willing to dispense money to businesses on the promise of new movies, new factories, new jobs, etc. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The state and the corporations need to be separate for the health of both.

There should be no tax-breaks, no reimbursements, and no incentives of any kind to conduct business in a particular state or municipality. A business should only survive and thrive on the merits of its product or service.

Businesses and politicians are far too chummy, and it is not working for We the People. It’s not.

Tom Liberman

True Detective Season One versus Night Country

Posted on by
True Detective

I just finished watching True Detective: Night Country and I earlier watched True Detective Season One. I think they often have a similar structure and yet where one succeeds almost universally the other largely fails.

The reason I want to go into a deep examination is the superficial reasons for the reception of the two shows, basically the gender of the two leads. This has nothing to do with why one is largely great while the other is more pedestrian.

Or, to speak more plainly, True Detective isn’t better than Night Country simply because two men are the leads in the first and two women in the later. Let’s get to it.

Haunted Leads in True Detective

One of the most striking similarities in the structure of the two seasons is the haunted nature of the leads. Cohle and Danvers, played by Matthew McConaughey and Jodie Foster, both lost children earlier in their lives and are traumatized by this loss.

True Detective shows us this when Cohle arrives for dinner at Marty’s house staggering drunk. Over the course of the dinner Marty’s wife begins to ask Cohle some personal questions in which he reveals the death of his daughter. Marty’s wife, played by Michelle Monaghan, responds with kindness and understanding. Cohle begins to shed some of his trauma at this dinner.

Meanwhile, we are sort of vaguely told Danvers lost a son through some flashbacks of her playing with the boy and a stuffed polar bear missing an eye.

I felt for Cohle, genuinely. The scene where he arrived drunk was inexplicable until we understood, we felt his existential dread at meeting a happy family. I connected with Cohle on a level I never did with Danvers. Danvers was just angry but I never really understood her pain, it wasn’t demonstrated to me.

The Flawed Hero Trying to do Good

Marty, played by Woody Harrelson, is an extremely flawed man as is Navarro, played by Kali Reis. Marty has a weakness for crazy women while Navarro has anger management problems. The difference is Marty is completely self-aware of his flaws. He knows he messes up and wants to be better, he just can’t get there. Navarro seems to have none of this self-awareness. She is angry and proud of it.

A vitally important scene occurs when Marty and Kohle visit a house of ill-repute and Marty spots an underage girl working there. He tries to save her. Later he protects his daughter in his own, inimitable way. We see that fundamentally; Marty wants to be a good person. He is trying.

We never get that from Navarro. She seems perfectly content in her self-destructive life. Her love for her sister is substituted for Marty’s attempts to be a good person. It just didn’t resonate with me.

Despite his serious and obvious flaws, I like Marty. I’m rooting for him. I can’t say the same for Navarro. I don’t like her much and I don’t really care what happens to her.

The Criminal Investigation

Marty and Cohle investigate the gruesome murder of a young, female prostitute. Danvers and Navarro investigate the mysterious death of a group of scientists.

In True Detective we see the investigation. We see Marty and Cohle working the scenes, interviewing witnesses, detecting. Big chunks of the show are dedicated to watching the two professional work their magic. We also see their partnership in which their strengths are combined to make them greater than the sum of their parts. They are good detectives and respect each other immensely, that’s shown through a series of scenes in which they are being interviewed by other detectives about another crime years later.

Danvers and Nararro don’t do a lot of investigating. Most of the useful information about the case comes from Prior, Danver’s young officer, and others associated with the two. They don’t like or respect each other. They are filled with rage and bitterness. There is nothing to like about their relationship.

I believed Marty and Cohle as detectives but I didn’t have that feeling about Danvers and Navarro. I imagined a long history of law enforcement work with Marty and Cohle and believed it absolutely. For the life of me I can’t figure out how Danvers and Navarro advanced in their professions. They just are not believable.

The Supernatural Angle

Both shows have a supernatural feeling to them. There is Carcosa and the Night Country. In True Detective the supernatural theme is lurking in the background but the nature of the crime is clearly human. The opposite is true in Night Country. The supernatural angle is played up from the very first scene when a herd of Caribou stampede off a cliff for no apparent reason.

The supernatural element came along organically and sparsely in True Detective and neither of the leads really paid it much attention to it other than Cohle’s philosophical rambling. It played a front and center role in Night Country. A huge number of scenes showed people having supernatural experiences with the dead.

I felt Night Country just wasted a good chunk of time showing us scenes of the supernatural rather than storytelling, detecting. Every time something supernatural happened, I’d roll my eyes and lose interest. A lot of it seemed to be played for the shock value rather than furthering the story.

A Moment for What the Two Shows didn’t Have in Common

Humor. I can’t tell you how many times I laughed out loud at the antics of Cohle and Marty. Their interactions, their dialog, was often hilarious. Night Country? I don’t recall laughing once. It was grim and unrelenting.

Likeable characters. I liked Marty. I liked Cohle, I liked many of the bit players. I can’t think of a single character in Night Country I truly liked. Young Prior probably comes closest.

Conclusion

True Detective Season One worked on almost every level and I consider it some of the finest entertainment available. True Detective: Night Country largely failed. It’s not a terrible show. The acting, cinematography, sets, and music are terrific. It just failed to make me care, to tell a cohesive narrative, to immerse me.

Tom Liberman

Nolly Brings Home a Winner

Posted on by
Nolly

I’m always happy to report on excellent entertainment and Nolly brings it home with flying colors. Nolly tells the story of Noele Gordon who began a long career with an early color television transmissions test in 1938.

Nolly, played by Helena Bonham Carter, focuses on twilight of Gordon’s career during and after her firing from Crossroads, a long running British daily soap opera.

Nolly isn’t an Exciting Story

The first thing that really struck me about Nolly is that it’s just not a thrilling story. There are few big moments. It’s just the story of a woman in show business who gets fired from her job and must recover.

Even the firing itself isn’t particularly dramatic. There is no storming and screaming. Nolly’s agent goes in to negotiate the new seasonal contract and is simply told she’s being cut from the show. The agent then tells Nolly who is in denial for a little while but eventually accepts the situation with some aplomb.

Story First

The story is the thing with Nolly. Nolly is clearly an overbearing presence on the set of the show and the other actors fear her but also love her. This is shown to us by her actions, not told to us through exposition. We first meet her when a new actor to Crossroads almost sits in Nolly’s seat at the head of the room preparing to read through the daily script. The other actors, in a panic, manage to stop the newcomer.

During the reading, Nolly is demanding about where she will stand, the dialog she will speak, and even goes as far as changing the accent to be used by the newcomer. Soon after this insight into her demanding nature we see her knowing the names of almost everyone on the set, asking about their family, making sure things are done for everyone.

Nolly is a complicated character, tough but caring, and Carter portrays the two sides with absolute believability. I’m immersed in the show.

The story doesn’t try to force us to be sad or to laugh or to do much of anything. The story unfolds and sometimes we laugh, sometimes we’re sad, sometimes we’re angry. It’s rare these days that a television show trusts the audience like this. Mostly we see scenes that are purpose designed, and telling the story isn’t that purpose. Let’s make them laugh. Let’s make them sad. Let’s put in a scene that will accomplish what we need whether or not it fits the story. Nolly has none of that.

Why was Nolly Fired?

A big part of the second half of the three-episode series is trying to figure out why Nolly got the axe. Nolly only finds out herself very near the end and it subverts her expectations and thus ours. I won’t get into details but it is totally believable. There are no real bad guys, just people doing the best they can.

The Ending

The ending of Nolly isn’t a big, ground-breaking, show-stopping scene. It ends like it runs, gently but believably. It seems almost like an anti-climax to us because we’re used to big endings and I think some people will be disappointed. I thought it totally appropriate.

Conclusion

Nolly isn’t the sort of show that most of the producers of modern entertainment think we want to see, at least judging by what’s on television and in the movie theater these days. That’s a shame because a simple story done properly is quite effective, at least in my opinion.

Nolly, give it a shot but don’t expect to be blown out of your chair. Expect to laugh a bit, to be sad a bit, to forget that fifty minutes has passed and the episode is over before you know it. It’s quality entertainment.

Tom Liberman

Tampering in the NFL is Outrageous

Posted on by
Tampering

The NFL has a rule called tampering. Basically, it’s against the rules for any team employee to speak with an agent or player on another team except during a short two-day period. It’s largely against the rules even for players who know each other but are on opposing teams.

Basically, if you play for one team in the league, you cannot discuss moving to another team with anyone from another team except for those two-days during the off-season. Recently two moves involving Saquon Barkley and Kirk Cousins triggered the NFL into an investigation. There are reports both were approached by their new team outside the window. Tampering.

Tampering is totally Outrageous

Outrageous! How dare an employee at one place of work even discuss moving to another place of work outside a forty-eight-hour window? Would we tolerate such behavior in any other walk of life? Obviously, at your job, you cannot even so much as speak to someone in management at another company without severe repercussions.

Even if you’re just shooting the breeze with one of your buddies over at Company X but he may have mentioned you’d be a good fit to management a year earlier, against the rules! Scofflaw! Villain! Criminal! What is this world coming to? How can employees betray their employers with such brazen disloyalty?

Imagine discussing your salary concerns with a potential employer while you’re still at your old job. What kind of monster are you?

Why do we have Tampering Rules?

That’s a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. To give the current employer an enormous advantage. No one else can negotiate with the player in question before that short window. Players like Barkley and Cousins, or their agents, can’t get a feel for their value in the open market.

Would the judicial system support such a scheme in any other line of business? Another rhetorical question. It’s completely and totally outrageous.

It’s possible a player might be negotiating with another team during the course of the season and it might affect their play although this is highly suspect. Players want to increase their value and are generally playing their best. That’s beside the point. If you’re working a job, you can negotiate for another position with another company at any time. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Madness, I tell you, Madness

Seriously, how can anyone listen to the NFL spout off about tampering rules? Can you imagine getting a job at another company with better pay and working conditions but an industry representative says, “Nope, sorry buddy. Tampering. Go back to your original company at the original salary.”

We’ve got the NFL draft coming up as well. Go read my rant about that. Ranty, rant, rant!

Tom Liberman

Monsieur Spade and the Lost Opportunity

Posted on by
Monsieur Spade

I recently finished watching Monsieur Spade on AMC and I’m sorry to say I didn’t enjoy it all that much. It’s a real lost opportunity because I absolutely love the premise of the show.

As a young man I read Dashiell Hammit and the Maltese Falcon is a happy memory indeed. I’ve enjoyed watching many a movie with a noir theme and who doesn’t love the hardboiled detective Sam Spade and his many imitators?

What went wrong with Monsieur Spade? Let’s discuss.

Premise

The premise is c’est magnifique. Sam Spade is retired and now living in the small town of Bozouls in the south of France. We imagine his peaceful existence won’t stay that way for very long and we are right. He came to the region years ago to deliver the daughter of a client to her reported father. While trying to do so he met and married a wealthy French woman, Gabrielle, who has since died and left Monsieur Spade her vineyards.

The father of the girl, who is now a teenager, is a miscreant of the worst sort and involves Sam and others in the town in an all but impossible to follow plot involving a boy-genius and so many other parties it boggles the old gray matter of your narrator.

Noir Dialog and nothing but Noir Dialog

We certainly expect Monsieur Spade to deliver laconic lines and always with a cool demeanor. But do we expect every single line of dialog to be a battle of noir? I don’t. It’s not only Sam who talks like this but the rest of the cast as well. It’s a figurative battle of pithy utterances, one after the other, batted back and forth like a ball at a Wimbledon tennis match. Boom, bang, smash, crush.

Sam is never perturbed; he always knows exactly what to say and he’s not alone. The entire cast delivers nothing but noir and more noir.

“It’s raining, Sam.”

“Here I thought it was a poodle with a full bladder on the balcony.”

“Poodles are German, not French.”

“How can they tell?”

It never stops. Just one pithy comment after the next and it gets annoying all too quickly. It was great for about half an episode but it loses its charm quickly. We need fully developed characters who behave like real people.

Nonsensical Plot

Paraphrasing a laconic Spartan after a long speech entreating their aid in battle; “We no longer remember the first half of your plot, and thus can make nothing of the remainder.” There is a lot to process. I’m not going to get into it all but give a few examples.

The supposed monk who seemed like he was going to be an important character. He shows up, kills half-a-dozen nuns, one of whom was the most interesting character in the series, and then vanishes until the finale, supposedly taken off by French gendarmes to Paris. When did he get back? Who is he? Where did he come from? None of it is answered.

There are dozens of moments and characters like this. Characters make no sense and act irrationally at best. The entire side plot with the singer and her drunken husband didn’t further the plot in any way and his death seemed so unnecessary. Likewise, the death of the young English spy came out of nowhere and just baffled me.

The young girl suddenly knows details about her life she previously did not but no explanation as to how she learned them. I could go on but I shall cease in the name of brevity.

Sam Spade Torturing a Guy

I honestly don’t like a protagonist who tortures someone, particularly when the character already knows all the information he needs. It’s not a good look. Why the guy was there to kill Monsieur Spade in the first place made no sense.

The Ending

I can’t even really describe the baffling ending to the show. A character shows up from nowhere, never seen before, who knows everything, and solves the problem, I guess, sort of, I’m not really sure? Wow, that was satisfying. I won’t go into detail. It was terrible.

Conclusion

Give us a season two! Let the actors act like people instead of noir caricatures. Give me a simpler plot and let Monsieur Spade solve it, not some random third-party interloper. What a terrible disappointment this show turned out to be.

Tom Liberman

Court Storming is Already Banned the Question is Enforcement

Posted on by
Court Storming

There’s a lot of buzz on all the sports channels about banning Court Storming thanks to a couple of incidents involving high-profile players. Basically, a team wins a game and the fans storm onto the court to celebrate. This often leaves the players on the losing side in a dangerous situation as they attempt to dodge the excited, and often inebriated fans.

The sports pundits are all talking about banning court storming and wagging their fingers at the dangerous situation. It’s bad. It should stop. Golly gee, aren’t they all Dr. Einstein. Thanks for the heads-up on the situation.

Court Storming is Largely Banned

Almost every professional sports league has rules against storming the field or court. Most college conference implement heavy fines on schools where court storming takes place. The ACC is the only exception.

There are generally dividers to keep fans from doing it although these are easily bypassed. Almost every school has security officials stationed at the game to prevent court storming.

It continues to happen on a regular basis all across the country. Let’s not even talk about the celebrations that happen on the streets which are even more dangerous.

How to Stop Court Storming

The question is not if court storming is dangerous, it’s how to stop it. I’ve watched and read the pundits complain about it during almost every sports show and article I’ve read in the last few weeks. Rarely do I find anyone talking about the enforcement issue. How do we stop court storming? If thousands of people want to rush onto the court, it’s not easy stop.

Arresting people is difficult when you’ve got so many storming the court and relatively little security available to do it. You can fine people, ban them from attending, even put them in jail for a few days but that’s a big strain on the system and costs money.

Sure, you can post an army of security people, horses, dogs, and all the rest. That is moderately effective although at a football game with nearly a hundred thousand people in the stands, good luck. The problem is you cannot possibly hire that kind of security for every sports events. Some of these school make a huge amount of money from their athletic programs but many do not.

What’s the Answer?

I’m not sure there is a good answer to this problem. I think extra security, barriers, and penalties for those that do engage in court storming is a good idea. I’d like to see more security in these situations but I’m not sure you can stop a mob of people from doing what they want, often alcohol infused people.

Conclusion

My biggest problem with this entire discussion is that most people aren’t even talking about the solution. They just want to ban court storming without thinking through the process of doing so. We all understand the problem, how about we start talking in a meaningful way about how to implement it.

Tom Liberman

Wrong Scorecard for Jordan Spieth a Problem or Not

Posted on by
Wrong Scorecard

There’s a bit of a contretemps in the golf world over the fact Jordan Spieth was disqualified for signing a wrong scorecard after the second round of the Genesis Invitational. Spieth takes full responsibility for the mistake but the question being raised is should players be required to sign their scorecards at all and is the penalty too harsh?

It’s an interesting question because for a number of reasons and I think there are good arguments for all points of view. Let’s get into it.

Why is it a Rule?

The reason it’s important for a player to sign her or his scorecard stems from a time in golf when only the player herself or himself really knew the total strokes taken in the round. Back then we didn’t have cameras and automatic scoring applications to take care of everything. It came down to a matter of personal integrity. If a player wanted to cheat, the opportunity to do so was readily available. That is not the case anymore.

The argument goes: if scoring is largely automated now, why does the player even have to keep score? Even if there is a mistake, it will be readily fixed almost immediately. In addition, there is the harshness of the penalty for a wrong scorecard, disqualification. Well, it’s disqualification if the player signs for a lower score that actually achieved. If the score is higher then the larger value is entered for the round but that’s another matter and I don’t want to muddy the conversation too much.

What do I think about a Wrong Scorecard?

As a former golfer, I gave up the sport because it caused me way too much anxiety, my kneejerk reaction is the rule is a good one. It’s a tradition, it’s about integrity, but it’s also about the simple process of checking your work. In any sort of a test, you make sure you’ve written down the answer you wanted to and didn’t make some sort of a mistake. If you did so, the wrong answer is your final answer. You can’t take it back.

I cannot deny the other side of the equation has its merits. There is really almost no way for a top-tier professional golfer to cheat by putting in a lower score. Now, it can certainly happen at smaller, local events where nothing is televised or automated. The rule should serve a purpose and at the highest levels of golf, it doesn’t really do anything to ensure a correct score is applied.

On the other hand, bear with me because I’m going back and forth on this one, it’s a toughie. On the other hand, people can cheat at lower levels of the game so you’d have to keep the rule in place there. Then you’d have to decide at what level the rule is waived, what tournaments, etc. That’s an entirely new can of worms.

Still, disqualification for an honest mistake that resulted in no harm seems a bit harsh.

Of course, the professionals should be role-models for everyone else, juniors particularly. The fact that Spieth has to sign his card, and make sure it’s correct does serve some purpose.

Finally, I don’t see that the situation really needs to be fixed. It’s not like players are getting disqualified for signing a wrong scorecard every week. It’s an incredibly rare occurrence, largely because the players are in the lifelong habit of reviewing their card and signing it after doing so.

Conclusion

My final conclusion is the rule still serves as purpose and should remain on the books. I do understand the frustration of those at the Genesis Invitational who are fans of Spieth and wanted to see him play over the weekend. Perhaps the penalty might be changed to two strokes for each instance of under-reporting a score.

What do you think?

What should the penalty be for signing an incorrect scorecard?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Tom Liberman

Funny Woman is Good but not Funny

Posted on by
Funny Woman

I’ve watched the first three episodes of Funny Woman and am really enjoying it. I went out to IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes to read what other people think and I found an interesting range of opinions. A number of people really like the show while others do not find it funny at all. That’s the interesting part, the show is titled Funny Woman but it’s not a comedy. Let’s get into it.

Funny Woman is not a Comedy

I think the fact Funny Woman is actually more of a drama than a comedy is one of two things causing people to dislike the show. I must be clear, if you don’t like it, I’m not saying you’re wrong. You can like or dislike a show all you want. That’s subjective. What’s objective is the show isn’t a comedy. It’s a show about a woman comedian trying to make it in the entertainment world.

Now, the show does have comedic moments, or at least attempts them. The scene in the department store based apparently on an episode of The Monkeys is not particularly humorous although that is clearly the intent.

Gemma Arterton isn’t Trying to Make you Laugh

The second thing is Gemma Arterton, who plays the titular Funny Woman, Barbara Parker/Sophie Straw character, is not trying to make you laugh. She playing a character trying to make a 1960s audience laugh. Her character’s idea of comedy is based on Lucille Ball, not modern standards. Arterton is acting, not telling jokes.

I’m going to mention the part of Parker/Straw being portrayed by Arterton is extremely difficult. Arterton isn’t a comedic actress and it’s not a comedic role. Still, her job is to make us believe the people around her find her hilarious. That’s no easy trick but I think she’s pulling it off remarkably well, not perfectly perhaps but more than good enough. Better than most could manage.

Full Review

I’m going to wait until I’ve watched all six episodes to give a full review but I absolutely like what I’ve seen so far. Stay tuned.

Conclusion

The show is complicated and I think that’s responsible for the majority of the negative opinions. In our minds we think it’s a comedy, that Arterton is supposed to be funny to our eyes. In reality it’s not that. She’s playing a part.

This confusion, at least in my opinion, creates a disconnect between reality and our expectations of reality.

What do you think?

Tom Liberman

Is Rebel Moon Good or Buzzy and which is Better

Posted on by
Rebel Moon

I just read an article about the Netflix movie Rebel Moon: Part One – A Child of Fire and it brings to mind an interesting conundrum when producing entertainment. Is it better for people to like the movie, book, television show, play or other production or is it better for there to be a lot of buzz about it?

It’s a question I, as a writer myself, definitely think about. I imagine a lot of people making things in this modern age of social media think about also.

What’s the Difference Between Good and Buzzy?

Good is difficult to define and there is always the subjective versus objective debate. But, for the purpose of this article, let’s assume good means people in general and professional critics enjoy your work.

I’ll define buzzy as something people are talking about. Not necessarily in a good way. If something is truly terrible but intriguing, people will talk about it.

Rebel Moon is Buzzy

Judging by both audience and professional reviews, Rebel Moon isn’t very good. I’ve seen and read several reviews and also read comments by fans of the genre and they all seem rather disenchanted with it. A few positive reviews focus on the visuals and what not. With that being said, I think it’s safe to say Rebel Moon isn’t a particularly good movie but it is a certainly very buzzy movie.

People are talking about Rebel Moon all over the internet and mostly, although not exclusively in a negative way.

Good and Buzzy

Obviously, I’d love for my novels and short stories to be very good and to have people talking about them. That’s obvious but it’s not my question today. I think my novels and stories are quite good but there is certainly no buzz about them.

Financials

We can fairly safely say Reble Moon isn’t a good movie and it has a lot of buzz around it. It’s difficult to say if the movie is a financial success or not. Netflix is a subscription service and just because Rebel Moon shows hundreds of thousands of views doesn’t mean it is profitable. What makes it profitable for Netflix is if people are convinced to stay with the service or add the service because of Rebel Moon or its seemingly inevitable cavalcade of sequels and director’s cuts.

It does seem buzzy is better than good, from a purely financial point of view. This is not a universal rule though. There is some fatigue at play. If you produce the same sub-standard product again and again, even a huge amount of buzz doesn’t translate to profits, particular if you spend a great deal in production.

Fool me once, the saying goes.

Answer the Question Already

Would I prefer my novels and stories to get a huge amount of buzz on social media or would I prefer them to be good? It’s a fair question because sales for me are quite minimal. A few people have read my work and enjoyed it, or at least that’s what they tell me. If there was huge buzz about my novels and stories, I’d be making a significantly larger amount of money.

I’m never going to write anything I don’t like because there is no guarantee it will get buzz anyway. The question isn’t whether I’d write something bad in the hopes it gets buzz but which one I prefer. Buzz or quality.

To lay it out plainly. I write two novels, doing my level best to write them well. One is really good and one isn’t. The one that is good gets no buzz and the one that is bad gets a tremendous amount of buzz. Which novel makes me happier? The one that got buzz and money but makes people think I’m a crappy writer or the good one that doesn’t make any money but people really enjoy and feel they’ve gotten value from reading?

Conclusion

For me, I’d rather my novel be good than buzzy. That decision is certainly influenced by the fact I’m in a good financial situation even without huge profits from my novels.

The bottom line is my audience. People who read my novels spend a nominal amount of their money so that’s not as big a consideration as their time. It takes time to read a novel, many hours. Me, I want people to close the book, or device, and lean back with a satisfied smile. That was worth my time. I enjoyed that. I got value for my time and money. I’m glad I read that.

Tom Liberman