Obama has more superdelegates

Reports have been coming out over the last several days that Obama has more superdelegates. I haven't reported or commented on that, because I was waiting for a sign. I finally got it; email from the campaign itself. Woo hoo! So now Obama leads in the popular vote, the number of states won, superdelegates, and total delegates. As of right now, Obama needs 150 delegates, and Hillary needs 328.5. Looking pretty good!

The source that I am using for delegate count is the one that DailyKos uses, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch.

Sarah Jessica Parker and the really ugly hat

I never watched Sex and the City, but I've heard great things about it. I'm sure it's a good show, I just wasn't into it. Also, I didn't have HBO when it was on. Now there is a movie coming out, and I probably won't be watching that, either, on the theory that it will be full of references to the TV show. And, honestly, I just don't find Sarah Jessica Parker that appealing. I'm sure she's very nice, and a good actress, etc., etc., but she doesn't do it for me. Normally I don't talk about this, because, as my grandmother used to say, if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

But HuffPost posted pictures of SJP at the London premiere of the movie, and I have to say that she is wearing what may be the ugliest headpiece I have ever seen on a woman. As a centerpiece on a table, it would probably work really well. On a human being, it ain't working.

There's a poll at the bottom of the article, and I voted. Nice to know that 76% of the people who clicked, agree with me that the "hat" is atrocious. I feel better knowing that at least 8,078 people agree with me.

But I hope it's a good movie, not least because my sister was a huge fan of the TV show.

I should also point out that the other three actresses all look great.

Please note that I am not posting a picture of the hat on my blog because I don't want to have to look at it ever again.

This is a title. What does that mean?

Have you ever been talking to someone and they mention a movie, but they get the title wrong? Does that give you the impression that maybe it isn't the most memorable movie? The LA Times profiles a small company called "Title Doctors," which tries to come up with memorable movie titles. They use as an example a movie called "Pride and Glory." The studio was trying to come up with a better name. Good call - I think that's a terrible name for a movie. One of the suggestions was "One of Our Own," which I think is almost as bad. The problem with both is that they are generic. "Pride" and "glory" are abstractions, and can apply to lots and lots of people or situations. "One of Our Own" is only marginally better. It has a specific object - "One." But who is the group who is defining themselves as "our own?" We don't know.

The best movie titles, at least as I think of them, refer to something very specific. Consider these great titles:

The Godfather
Ocean's Eleven
Erin Brockovich
Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Reservoir Dogs
The Wizard of Oz
A Fish Called Wanda
Thelma & Louise
The Thomas Crown Affair
The Blair Witch Project
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
To Kill A Mockingbird

If you've seen those movies, you can visualize them immediately. But what about "Catch and Release." Any clue? If you haven't seen it, you probably can't guess from the title that it's a Jennifer Garner romantic comedy. Might very well be about fishing, who knows? Two verbs, no noun, nothing specific. "13 Going on 30," another Jennifer Garner romcom, on the other hand, isn't too bad.

There are even memorable titles for movies that may not be that good:

Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
Dude, Where's My Car?
Snakes on a Plane

I am planning on going to see the Harold & Kumar movie just because of the title. Somebody had the guts to make that the title of a movie. I have a lot of respect for that.

What makes the great titles great is that they refer to something that no other movie could possibly be about. There is only one movie about a fish called Wanda. There are lots of movies with dogs in them, but no one ever thot to put canines together with reservoirs until Quentin Tarantino came along. There is only one Wizard of Oz. There is one Forrest Gump.

Names are good. A name in a title refers to a specific individual, and lets the audience know that this person, or persons, is so fascinating that they deserve a movie about them. Lawrence of Arabia.

Interestingly, one actor has played the title character in several Oscar-nominated movies. Matt Damon. Here's the list:

Good Will Hunting
Saving Private Ryan
The Talented Mr. Ripley
And all the Bourne movies

What's even better than a name is a name attached to a verb:

Waking Ned Devine
Saving Private Ryan
The Devil Wears Prada

These automatically generate questions in the audience's mind. Who is Ned Devine, and why does he need to be woken up? Who is Private Ryan, and why does he need saving? The devil does not literally wear Prada, so maybe someone is being compared to the devil.

A somewhat generic title can become a great title if it's the title of a great movie. "Star Wars" is actually somewhat generic - there are lots of stars, and there are lots of wars. But it's a great title because the movie is such a cultural touchstone. Same thing with "Pulp Fiction." Talk about generic - it refers to an entire genre of literature! And it doesn't really have anything to do with the movie - I think the only thing anyone in that movie reads is a menu. But it's still a great title.

Some movies are so good, or so clearly reference what the movie is about, that even a one-word title works brilliantly.

Jaws
Big
Batman
Superman
Titanic
Gladiator

Another approach that works well, if it works, is to play with the language and create multiple meanings from the fewest possible words:

Grosse Pointe Blank
Good Will Hunting

The article uses "The Shawshank Redemption" as an example of a movie that flopped at the box office because of a clunky title. But, even though I've never seen it, I can tell you from memory that it's based on a Stephen King novel, it stars Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman, and it takes place in a prison. It has become a cultural touchstone, in part, I think, because it has a very unusual title. The title almost makes you think - "redemption" means that someone is being redeemed, which means that they committed some grevious sin, and are now seeking to atone for it. There's a chunk of plot just in that one word.

Sometimes movies have to change their titles because another movie has a similar name, and whoever decides these things decides that one has to be different. Easily the most egregious, and unfortunate, example of this is a movie called "Playing by Heart." About the most generic name for a movie possible. Could refer to just about anything. It's a decent movie with a great cast - Sean Connery, Gena Rowlands, Angelina Jolie, Gillian Anderson, Jon Stewart. It didn't do well and has largely disappeared from our cultural consciousness. What's sad about this is that the original title was brilliant. It was "Dancing About Architecture," based on the idea that talking about love is like dancing about architecture - it's basically impossible. Great title, because it's already a conversation starter - what does it mean? But another movie came out about the same time called "Dancing at Lughnasa," and the powers that be decided that the names were too similar. So a solid movie with a great title was burdened with an absolutely horrible title.

Finally, I'd like to point out that, ideally, the title of this blog raises questions. What exactly is a talented earthquake? You know what? We will never really know.

Top Ten Reasons Obama won

Robert Creamer at HuffPost has a Top Ten List of reason why Obama won. My favorite is #4:

#4. Hope and Inspiration trumped Fear and Anger.

Damn straight!

Amy Poehler channels Hillary

Amy Poehler did one of her Hillary Clinton impersonations last night. Some of those have been favorable to Hillary. Not this time. This is one of the more devastating pieces of political satire that I have seen this campaign season. Or possibly in my entire life. It's heartbreaking how far the Clintons have fallen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/11/saturday-night-lives-mess_n_101177.html

Advice from Thomas Friedman: Call your mother

A great column for Mother's Day from Thomas Friedman.

Review of Iron Man coming soon

Check back in a day or two for my review of Iron Man.

For now, enjoy this trailer:

Quote of the day

This is from the Washington Post:

"When Bush tries to articulate a vision," Davis said, pausing to choose his words carefully, "he will butcher the Gettysburg Address. Obama, he will make an A&P grocery list sing."

What's funny about that quote is that Davis, the man being quoted, is Tom Davis, a member of Congress from Virginia. A Republican member of Congress from Virginia. And not just any Republican member of Congress. He's a former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the group that is supposed to help get Republicans elected to Congress.

He's retiring this year. Along with a lot of other Republicans. 29, at last count. This is called jumping ship. You know your party is in bad shape when one of your top operatives feels free to insult the president and lets himself be quoted by name.

Indiana Jones' hat

The fourth Indiana Jones movie is almost here! I still remember being wildly excited when I saw the first one. My Dad took us, and when we got home, my brother and sister and I ran to tell Mom how great it was.

The world is obsessed with this movie. No detail is going to go undiscussed. The LA Times ran a story today about the man's hat. On the front page of the Calendar section. Haberdashery as iconography. God bless the costume designer, in this case a guy named Bernie Pollack (Sydney's brother).

You're probably thinking, what's the big deal? It's just a hat. Oh no. You don't just go to a hat store and buy one of these off the rack. You make it from scratch. How seriously do these people take this stuff? Pollack describes Spielberg's reaction:

"Steven said, 'Oh, thank God -- I lost sleep wondering if you were going to be able to come up with the look of the hat that I wanted.' "

If Spielberg can sleep easy, I can sleep easy.

And it's not just one hat. There is more than one. What is something happens to it? What if some vicious commie dog chews it up (I assume the bad guys are good old-fashioned communists this time around)? There is a backup. And a backup for the backup. And a backup for the backup for the backup. How far does this backing up go? For this movie, they made:

* 30 identical fedoras
* 30 leather jackets
* 60 pairs of khaki pants
* 72 shirts

And I assume that's just for Harrison Ford. This is just one reason that movies cost many millions of dollars. And it's just one reason costume designers win Oscars.

Bob Herbert nails the Clintons

I've been resisting commenting on Hillary's comment about how her support comes from hard-working white Americans, because I feel like I have been beating up on her, and I would like to be gracious as this comes to a close.

But Bob Herbert puts it perfectly. This is Hillary's original comment, in USA Today:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Charlie Rangel, the man who first suggested to Hillary that she run for Senate in New York and a diehard supporter, was just a little disappointed:

“I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”

The first problem is that she implies that somehow there is something different about how hard-working Americans are white Americans. She doesn't say anything explicit, but it's a strange association. As if Asian Americans aren't hard-working Americans? She's supposed to be ultra-competent and very smart, but this is not a good way to express yourself if you want to be president.

There are two ways to look at the charge that Obama's support among white working class people is weakening: either that is his fault, or their fault. If it's his fault, that means that he's not communicating with them effectively, or at least not as effectively as Hillary is. But if it's their fault, then they are judging him as somehow not their kind of candidate. The injection of race makes it sound as if they are not willing to support an African American candidate.

Here's where Herbert nails it, and writes what I have been thinking:

But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

I've known racist white people, a few scattered here and there. But I know far more white people, of all classes and backgrounds, who are not racist, and understand that racism is wrong. The vast, vast majority of white people that I have known think that. Even, what do you know, working class people without college degrees. Partially because many of the white working class people I have worked with worked with working class black people. And, as colleagues often do, they usually ended up getting along and respecting each other.

What's amazing about this is that at this point, several days later, Hillary has not apologized for this comment, which implies that she has no clue what a faux pas it is. The theme of Herbert's column is that the Clintons have no class, particularly when it comes time to leave. He recounts several incidents at the end of Bill's tenure that I had forgotten about or ignored. Which brings up another problem: by continuing her campaign, Hillary gives the press and her opponents ever more excuses to bring up embarassing moments or inconvenient facts from Bill's Presidency that the rest of us have tried to forget. She keeps saying that she has been vetted. But that implies that she has also been acquitted, that her sins have been forgiven. No, they haven't. Some of us tried to forgive, and we tried to forget. Now I will never do either.

I was one of those people who defended Clinton from his critics on the left. I don't hate the DLC or moderate or centrist Democrats. But I think, in the final analysis, I have to agree with Bob Herbert:

The Clintons should be ashamed of themselves. But they long ago proved to the world that they have no shame.