Original Idea Fund Launches Today!

Big excitement in the world of Talented Earthquake Productions today - I am starting a mutual fund on the Hollywood Stock Exchange, and the IPO is today! The Original Idea Fund will invest in movies that are based on an original idea. No sequels, prequels, remakes, or sequels to remakes. Nothing based on a book, play, comic book, musical, news story, or theme park ride. No biopics. No documentaries. Just original ideas.

So no Pirates of the Caribbean, no Ocean's Eleven, no Twilight or Harry Potter. But I will be investing in movies made by people like Kathryn Bigelow, Woody Allen, and Quentin Tarantino. I might be investing in the next Avatar or The Hangover. I will also be investing in StarBonds of actors and actresses who star in these movies, although initially I am planning to limit those to one or two StarBonds per movie.

The Fund will IPO at H$20, as all mutual funds do on HSX, and will delist, or cash out, when it reaches H$100. Looking forward, there is a question that I haven't answered yet. Many mutual funds cash out, and then have another IPO. So there have been six iterations of the New York, New York fund, for example. But, given the nature of this fund, I don't think I could do a sequel!

Trivial question of the Day

President Obama stopped by a bookstore in Iowa today, and bought some books.
This line caught my eye:

Obama pulled out five $20 bills to pay for the two books.

This made me wonder: how does the president get cash? Does the White House have an ATM? Does he call up Tim Geithner and have him send some over? Does he call Ben Bernanke and have him bring some by the next time he's in the neighborhood? Does the Secret Service get it for him? How? Do they go to the bank for him? Wouldn't that mean he would have to give them his ATM card and his PIN?

Just couldn't stop thinking about that.

Health Care Reform passes

The Democrats finally did it, passing health care reform. Props to Nancy Pelosi for bringing it through the House. Props to all the Dems in the House who voted the right way, which was most of them, and enough of them. There are some other procedural votes in the Senate, and then Obama has to sign it. But it's done.

The details of what this bill covers have been examined in excruciating detail in many, many places. Andrew Sullivan rounds up the usual suspects and their reactions. I'm just thrilled that we finally have something - anything - different from the status quo. I don't know whether or not this bill will solve the problems we hope it will. I hope it will. I have a certain amount of faith. For various reasons, I haven't followed the ins and outs of this debate as closely as I could have. I understand the basic outline, the amount of detail has been mind-numbing. I started following politics seriously when all you had to do was read The New York Times and a couple of other sources, and you knew all you had to know. I still haven't learned how to drink from the firehose that is the Internet.

What I do know, or at least what I feel comfortable theorizing about, is that this isn't just about healthcare, as broad as that topic may be. This may be the last great victory in the culture wars that started almost 50 years ago. Liberals have won on almost every issue in those wars: they have won on feminism, civil rights, the environment, abortion, and separation of church and state. They're winning on gay rights. They've essentially lost on gun control, but they're starting to win on crime, after losing for decades. Some would argue that they lost on the very broad issue of capitalism, but I don't think that was really up for debate. As frustrated as liberals are by corporations, only the wackiest have really seriously contemplated any kind of alternative to capitalism.

This is not just a political, legislative, or even cultural victory. This is a philosophical victory, an ideological one. What won tonight was the idea that government can improve the lives of its citizens. That's an idea that has been around for a long time, and there have been many victories on that front along the way. But this may be the ultimate victory for that idea. Which may be one reason Republicans fought this legislation so hard: they knew what was at stake, and they knew how badly they were losing. And now they have lost. Take it away, Mr. President:

Oscars!

It's that time of year! Time for the Oscars! The ceremony is this Sunday (as if you didn't already know). The one bummer this year is that there isn't a lot of drama. Some of the categories are pretty much a lock - Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor for Inglorious Basterds, Mo'nique for Best Supporting Actress for Precious, Jeff Bridges for Best Actor for Crazy Heart. But the two big ones are a fascinating race, particularly since it involves an ex-husband and wife. Will Kathryn Bigelow be the first woman to win Best Director? Or will it be her husband, master craftsman James Cameron? Will they split the big prizes, with her winning Best Director and his movie winning Best Picture? That's my bet, because Avatar is one heck of a movie, and, even if the story is a tad cliched, the movie itself is an incredible visual spectacle, and Cameron does deserve recognition for that. I think he deserves recognition as a producer first, and director second, because I think he pulled off a small miracle producing this movie. I also think he did a very good job directing it, but I do take away a couple of points for the lack of imagination in the script.

The other sort-of controversy, which turned out to not be that much of a controversy, is the fact that there are 10 Best Picture nominees. There was quite the hullabaloo over this when it was announced, with strong opinions on both sides. Some thot it was a brilliant move, others thot it was the height of folly. I was in the middle. Yes, it could dilute the prestige, but it is not unprecedented - there were 10 nominees for several years at the beginning of the awarding of the Oscars, until 1943 - and it could be fun.

The answer turned out to be that it was a good move, largely because there are 10 movies worthy of the distinction of being a "Best Picture" nominee. Some people have issues with various nominations - a friend thinks The Blind Side stole a nomination from another, more worthy picture - but for the most part, each Best Picture nominee has received accolades as a very good movie.

Here's the list:

Avatar

The Blind Side

District 9

An Education

The Hurt Locker

Inglorious Basterds

Precious

A Serious Man

Up

Up in the Air

What's particularly impressive about this list is the diversity. There's something here for everyone, and for just about every demographic. There are two war movies, Inglorious Basterds and The Hurt Locker, but they couldn't be more different. One is a very gritty, realistic movie about Iraq, with a small cast, no stars, and not much plot. The other is a fantasy about WWII, starring Brad Pitt, with a very complicated story and lush cinematography. There are two science fiction movies - Avatar and District 9, but, again, they couldn't be more different. District 9 takes place in a filthy, disgusting ghetto/landfill near Johannesburg, while Avatar takes on the exquisitely beautiful planet of Pandora. There are two adult dramas set in contemporary America, The Blind Side and Up in the Air. One is a sentimental story about a white Christian woman in the South, her family, and her community. The other is a dark comedy about guy who has as few commitments and connections in his life as possible. An Education is about a cute British girl coming of age in the 1960's. A Serious Man is about a Jewish man coming undone in the 1960's. And then, of course, there's Precious, which is yet again different from all the others, and Up, one of the only animated movies ever to be nominated for Best Picture.

What a great crop of movies. Most of these aren't just different from each other - they are different from just about any other movie ever made. How many movies have been made about WWII that rewrote the ending? How many movie stars have made movies while at the peak of their stardom in which they played corporate hatchetmen who specialized in firing people? How many movies have been made about a guy who flies his house to another continent with balloons? And, of course, there's Avatar.

The Oscars this year also demonstrate all kinds of diversity in Hollywood, particularly geographic. There isn't much American about these Oscars. There are only three that take place completely in contemporary America - Precious, The Blind Side and Up in the Air. The Hurt Locker features Americans, but has all of about 5 scenes here, and was shot in Jordan. There are only three that feature American movie stars - Inglorious Basterds, Up in the Air, and The Blind Side. Of those, Brad Pitt was not in very much of Basterds, The Blind Side represents Sandra Bullock's first Oscar nom, and Up in the Air was that rare movie that scored two nominations for Best Supporting Actress. Meryl Streep, quintessential Hollywood royalty, scored a nomination for Best Actress for playing a famous American - Julia Child - who spends the entire movie in France. Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon scored nominations for playing South Africans, in Freeman's case Nelson Mandela. Colin Firth, an Englishman, scored a nomination for playing a gay Englishman, in a movie directed by a gay man, Tom Ford, who made his name working for an Italian fashion house (Gucci). Christopher Plummer, born in Toronto, scored a nomination for playing a Russian, Tolstoy, while Helen Mirren, a Brit, scored a nom for playing his wife. Carey Mulligan, also English, scored a nomination for playing an Englishwoman. Penelope Cruz, who is Spanish, scored a nomination for a movie (Nine) that is sort of a remake of a movie by an Italian (8 1/2). The man who will probably win Best Supporting Actor, Christoph Waltz, is Austrian. Among Best Supporting Actor nominees, Stanley Tucci is American, but he stared in a movie directed by a Kiwi, Peter Jackson, who also produced one of the movies set in South Africa, District 9.

Looking down the list of nominated movies, in Art Direction, we find two 19th century English icons - Sherlock Holmes and Queen Victoria - another movie set in London, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, and Avatar and Nine again. Among the Cinematography nominees, there is one movie with any scenes at all in America - and that's The Hurt Locker, with about 5 minutes in this country. The others are Avatar (another planet), Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Britain), The Hurt Locker (shot in Jordan, takes place in Iraq), Basterds again, and The White Ribbon (Germany). Costume Design nominees include Bright Star, about John Keats (there's that 19th century England again), Coco Before Chanel (French), and Parnassus, Nine, and Young Victoria again.

Hollywood both is and is not quintessentially American. It is American because it is physically located here, but it is and is not American because it embodies the great American qualities of freedom, adventure, and embracing the new, without limiting who can experience those to just Americans.

Quote of the Day

"Never."

-Martha Stewart, responding to the question, "When do you turn off your BlackBerry?"

Toyota and Obama

Remember when Toyota was the best car company on the planet? They made great cars, stylish automobiles that worked well, didn't have many problems, and got great gas mileage. It was just a better company than any American car company. When was that? Oh, yeah, a couple of months ago. How long had that idea been firmly planted in America's cultural consciousness? 25, 30 years? Something like that.

Amazing how a narrative can change overnight, isn't it? In a month or so, Toyota has gone from being a great company, one of those uniquely special companies that do almost everything right, to just another company, with its share of dysfunctionality, arrogance, and just plain stupidity.

Remember when Obama's presidency was in trouble? A Republican won a special election in Massachusetts, after a couple of Republicans won gubernatorial races in 2009, and suddenly Republicans had the momentum, and Democrats, particularly Obama, were in trouble.

I am so not worried about Obama. Really, really, really not worried about Obama. Tomorrow is the start of the health care summit. I don't know what's going to happen, but I am starting to get the sense that Obama and the Democrats are going to take advantage of the fact that, you know, they have massive majorities in Congress to pass legislation that they want. Great idea.

Obama is also taking advantage of the fact that, you know, he's president and all, and he has a lot of power to get what he wants through a Congress with both houses held by his party by those massive majorities.

But a couple of the reasons for my optimism about Obama stem from Toyota's current trials and tribulations. First, Toyota's fall from the pedestal reminds us of how fickle media/cultural narratives can be. Toyota isn't a very different company from what it was 3, 4, 5, or even 10 years ago. Most of the problems that have been cropping up have been happening for years. But something clicked, and suddenly the narrative changed. There were some stories about problems with Toyotas and sudden acceleration (the LA Times, to its great credit, was working on this story for months before it hit the rest of the national media). The suddenly there were stories about other problems with Toyotas. Then suddenly there were stories about how Toyota has serious structural problems, or how the management team has its share of incompetence and arrogance. All of those things were true for years. But something changed, and now people are willing to listen to those stories. Comedians crack jokes about Toyota, and politicians call them on the carpet. Someday the narrative will change again, and Toyota will have recovered from these episodes, and come out swinging, or they will be back on top again, or something.

The same thing has happened, and will happen, to Obama. His campaign, election, and inauguration were historical, and very hyped. The letdown was inevitable. The narrative has changed, but it will change again, just like it has for Toyota. The Democrats lost two governor's races, in Virginia and New Jersey. But neither of these were surprising, and neither really points to a national trend for or away from Dems. Virginia is a fairly conservative place, and, in New Jersey, the Democrat incumbent, Jon Corzine, was a former chairman of Goldman Sachs, rather substantial baggage right now. Scott Brown won a special election, but my impression is that Martha Coakley didn't run a great campaign, and Democrats took victory for granted.

There's also a specific reason why Toyota's stretch of bad news has implications for Obama. What's bad for Toyota is good for GM, Ford, and Chrysler. GM and Ford will pick up sales from disillusioned Toyota customers.

More importantly, but less substantive, GM, Ford, and Chrysler's reputations will start to recover. For years many people made a clear national distinction among car companies: American car companies were arrogant and incompetent; they couldn't make cars the way the Japanese companies could. There was, of course, an element of truth to that myth - the Big Three made most of their money on their big trucks, while the Japanese made solid, if not very exciting, small cars and sedans.

One detail that got lost in that mythologizing is that each of the Big Three has at least one iconic car in its stable. GM has the Corvette, Ford has the Mustang and the Lincoln Town Car, and Chrysler has Jeep. Each of those has been around for decades, and each has many, many hardcore, devoted followers.

I don't think the Japanese have some genetic predisposition for making better cars; I think the Big Three had each reached the point of being so bureaucratic that they were not very capable of being particularly innovative, while the Japanese companies were still smaller, more nimble, and more entrepreneurial.

Note my use of the word "were" referring to the Japanese. Toyota clearly has some problems with arrogance and failing to acknowledge voices of dissent.

All of this is significant for Obama, because Obama made the decision to save GM and Chrysler, and spent billions of dollars on doing so. People in Detroit had known for years about the problems afflicting GM: too many brands, too many models, too many dealerships. The problem was that no one at GM had the power to solve the problems. Even the chairmen couldn't close the brands they needed to get rid of, or close the excess dealerships. It took the power of the President of the United States to make that happen.

But Obama did it. He saved GM, and he saved - for now, at least - Chrysler. As Toyota's sales fall with its reputation, the reputation of the Big Three will start to improve. GM still has a lot of issues to deal with, and a lot of detritus to purge from its system. It will take some time for it to close down Pontiac and Saturn, and to sell Hummer and Saab. Those old dealerships will eventually be transformed into new buildings, but that will take time, as well.

Once all of those things happen, however, GM will be a leaner machine. Same with Chrysler. They will start once again making good cars that customers want to buy, and they will start making money. And many, many people will be working at them. Most of those people will be Americans.

And Barack Obama will be able to claim that he saved General Motors and Chrysler, and, with them, hundreds of thousands of American jobs. To say nothing of pride in American manufacturing.

And he will have done it with virtually no Republican help, and in the face of strong opposition from Republicans.

Really, really, really not worried about Obama.

The Hurt Locker

So I saw The Hurt Locker, directed by Kathryn Bigelow, currently frontrunner for Best Director Oscar (her chief competition being her ex-husband, James Cameron, for Avatar). It's about a bomb disposal unit in the Iraq war. That's it. There isn't much plot. These guys defuse bombs. Mostly IEDs lying on the street. They use robots when they can, but sometimes they have to walk right up to the bomb and disarm them. They have special equipment, like an armored suit, but it's still one of the most dangerous jobs in the armed forces, not to mention the world.


It takes place in 2004. That's about all you know about the world outside of this small group of guys. No mention of weapons of mass destruction, George Bush, or even Saddam Hussein. You're up close and personal with them, like they are with each other. They don't know each other before being assigned to watch each other's backs. They have different ways of seeing the world, different levels of appetite for risk. They don't always agree, which means that they occasionally have to challenge each other. They make mistakes, which, in this environment, can be deadly. For each other as well as themselves.


The movie takes no position on the war, just shows it like it is. But that becomes the best possible antiwar message, because you immediately understand how insane this reality is. This is what should be a normal country, with normal people trying to live normal lives. Even under Saddam Hussein, they managed to get on with their lives. Getting up in the morning, eating, drinking, doing their jobs, falling in love, arguing with friends and families. Playing soccer. Enjoying the sunshine. Then we started a war in the middle of it. And we're still fighting that war. They would like to be able to walk across the street, but there might be an IED there. And we're sending young men, almost none of whom speak the language, to fight this war. While these people have no choice but to try to get on with their lives.


The main character is a guy who is really, really good at defusing bombs, William James (Jeremy Renner, who deserves his Oscar nomination for Best Actor). But he's also something of a cowboy who takes some bizarre risks. Which means that he gets things done, but his risks don't always work out.

A war is a perfect frame for mixing the real and the surreal, because we, the audience, don't really know what normal is. What is over the top? I have no idea, because I don't know where the top is. A guy snipping the wires to defuse a bomb at the last second is an action movie cliche. Except that here the guy snippping the wires isn't a British spy wearing a tux, trying to save the world and the woman in a beautiful dress that he's been sleeping with. The guy snipping the wires is an American soldier in camo who is trying to save the lives of a few Iraqis and Americans. There are no beautiful women. This is not a fantasy. There is no escapism.

Bill James knows he's good at his job, but he doesn't know why he does it. He's very grounded in reality, completely aware of what he has to do. But he's also strangely detached from his own survival instincts. He's pragmatic, focused, competent, and professional.

And just a little bit insane.

My vote for Best Director goes to Kathryn Bigelow.

Rootin' for the Saints

I am going to be watching the Super Bowl with a couple of friends in a bar in Pasadena. I've watched the Super Bowl with these friends for the last few years. They're pretty clueless about football, but they like watching the Super Bowl. It's a little odd being the sports expert in the crowd, but it's a good feeling.

I am, along with probably 90% of America, rooting for the Saints. Partially because of Reggie Bush, who is a famous USC grad. But also, of course, for the underdog factor. Bill Plaschke of the LA Times explained this country's desperate need for a Cinderella story:

As our country lurches and heaves through the ankle-deep sand of its economic recovery, it has not helped the national psyche that every time we turn to our national pastimes for assurances that the little guy can still survive, we run smack into Goliath.

The New York Yankees won the World Series. Gee, that was fun. The Lakers won the NBA championship. Loved here, hated everywhere else.

North Carolina won the Final Four. Bear Bryant's old team won the Bowl Championship Series. Jimmie Johnson won his fourth consecutive NASCAR championship. The Connecticut women's basketball team has won 61 consecutive games.

And now Peyton Manning is getting ready to win another Super Bowl?

No thanks. Not now. Please. America needs to believe in the impossible again. America needs another dose of revival.

As a Yankees and Lakers fan, I was thrilled with both of those victories, although my otherwise great sports year was tempered by the dismal failure of USC's football team this year (they went 9-4, which was very sad). But I understand his point.

Of course, the greatest Cinderella story in America right now is playing out in the White House, but I suppose as soon he was inaugurated, Obama stopped being the underdog. Of course, the whole point of the Cinderella story is that she is the one who marries the handsome prince.

Save Poetry From The Professors

Andrew Sullivan points to an interesting blog post about the sorry state of modern poetry. I'm requoting what Sully liked:

The best thing that could happen to poetry is to drive it out of the universities with burning pitch forks. Starve the lavish grants. Strangle them all in a barrel of water.

Couldn't agree more. I studied a fair amount of poetry in college, and still own at least a couple of books of poetry. I can quote some Keats, and thoroughly enjoyed Bright Star. I've written a fair amount myself, and once spent three years working on one poem. But I can't stand most current American poetry. Here's how most poetry sounds to me:

I am a poet (pause, deep breath, sigh)
and you (pause) are who I am thinking of (pause, another sigh)
because (pause)
we are both (pause)
depressed.

Most poetry seems to be written by people who are scared of their own shadows, and are creating a space for themselves to be still, and quiet, and mostly alone. It's very inward-directed, and seems to be written by people who are anxious about even going outside. That's probably too harsh, and I'm sure there are thousands of great counterexamples. But that's what a lot of it sounds like to me. The writer of this blog post believes that the source of the problem is that many poets are comfortably ensconced in universities, and that poetry journals end up publishing poetry written by and for these university-bound folks.

Again, couldn't agree more. Except that I don't think this is anywhere nearly radical enough in its definition of poetry. It limits "poetry" to what is being published in books and journals. I think that's absurd. The English-speaking world has a great tradition of poetry called rock and roll. Consider this line:

"The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last-chance power drive."

Millions of people have heard that line hundreds of times each. It's from Bruce Springsteen's "Born To Run." It could easily be one of the most overplayed songs in history. But try to think about that image without the context of FM radio. There's a reason it's overplayed - it's a great line for a rock song.

So I don't think the problem with American poetry is that Americans aren't interested in poetry. I think the problem is that a few people who are decent writers have managed to convince the rest of us that it's worthwhile to subsidize them so they can talk to each other about how special they are. And some of those people have convinved themselves that they are the ones who determine what is and is not considered "art."

What this writer fails to realize is that the disconnect and the concern is mostly one-sided. He's worried that Americans don't connect with contemporary poets. But the concern is not reciprocated. Most Americans don't read poetry because it doesn't speak to them - he's right there. But most of them also don't care that contemporary poetry doesn't speak to them. I'm perfectly capable of reading and understanding contemporary American poetry. I've even bought "Best American Poetry" books before. But I don't read contemporary American poetry not only because it doesn't speak to me, but because I don't care about it. Two sides of the same coin, I suppose.

But I'm falling into the same trap - defining "poetry" as what is published by people who call themselves poets, and is published in poetry journals. It's not that I don't care about contemporary poetry. It's that I don't care about a particular brand of poery.

Marianne Moore said it best:

Poetry

I, too, dislike it: there are things that are important beyond
all this fiddle.
Reading it, however, with a perfect contempt for it, one
discovers in
it after all, a place for the genuine.

Cheer Up, Idiot Democrats!

Just about any competitive athlete, particularly any pro athlete, will tell you that one of the most important things in any competition is to not let your opponents rattle you. Never let 'em see you sweat. Stay calm, stay focused.

Democrats would be well advised to keep this in mind these days. I knew there would be some finger-pointing and blaming going around after the loss in Massachusetts, and that's what I saw today. Some blogger actually blamed Obama. There was the usual sniping that Obama isn't liberal enough, he's alienated his base, etc., from the "progressive" camp, vs. the "liberals don't know how to compromise" argument from the "moderate" camp.

Not only is this tired and cliched, it's stupid and counterproductive. Taking yourself too seriously is an occupational hazard of being a political junkie. I know this, because I have this tendency myself. Taking yourself too seriously is also an occupational hazard of being a philosophy major, and I was one of those, too. One of my antidotes to taking myself too seriously is the motto of this blog (it's right under the masthead).

Democrats lost a seat they had every reason to believe was an easy victory. That was stupid. But Democrats still have large majorities in the House and the Senate. Plus they have the presidency.

Exactly one year ago today, a young African American with a weird name achieved what most thot was impossible, and was inaugurated President of the United States of America.

Guess what, Democrats - he's still President.

I have said this many times before, and I'm sure I will say it many times again: I refuse to be afraid of my political opponents. Unless someone has a gun to my head, I'm not afraid of them.

I am particularly not afraid of my political opponents when my party controls the levers of power.

Apart from the question of just making the decision not to be afraid, I have solid evidence why I shouldn't be afraid of my political opponents: my side is winning. Not just with today's majorities, but over the course of history. We have won decisive victories in terms of feminism, civil rights, and the environment. We are slowly winning the battle for gay rights. I could go on.

Anyone who is angry at or disillusioned with Barack Obama has not been listening to Barack Obama, because a central part of his message has always been this: This is going to be hard.

There are no meaningful victories without setbacks. I keep thinking about Mark Sanchez, the quarterback for the Jets. Last year, he was the quarterback for USC. He had a year of eligibility left, but he went pro. Some questioned his move - his coach, Pete Carroll, was famously upset - but this year, Mark Sanchez is one victory away from playing in the Super Bowl. And he's the quarterback of the Jets!

Never let 'em see you sweat. Never let yourself be afraid of your political opponents. But never underestimate them, either. And never, ever forget that you are an American, and that the arc of history bends towards justice.

Suck it up, Democrats.