Goin’ to California (and back)

Here are some pictoral highlights from a weeklong sojourn in California, the sunniest blue state there is:

The San Diego zoo is amazing, I spent almost a full day there. The big cats are my favorite, they’re actually aware of crowds and come right up to the cage. I’m sure they just want to play.

Meekrats and their ilk are just the cutest of all animals. This guy is acting as a sentry, though what could possibly threaten their idyllic existence (tunnels, tunnels galore!) is beyond me.

Sunset at beautiful Coronado Beach.

The first of many photos I took along a six-hour drive on the Pacific Coast Highway. Absolutely incredible scenery that I cannot do justice here.

Another beautiful Pacific coast vista.

The road is long and winding, with majestic mountains rising straight up from the curbside opposite precipitous drops to the blue waves. I tried to convey a sense of that scope with this photo.

While parking next to the solitary Big Sur trail open to the public, I was amused to see this license plate. Apparently this Suburu owner thinks his car is as swift as Shadowfax.

A pretty typical Golden Gate Bridge photo, but I do like how the colors came out, big reds and greens and blues.

The Three Necessary Characteristics of a President (and VP!)

I think people should be looking at three main characteristics when choosing a president and his/her vice president. Here I will describe these characteristics, why I think they’re important, and how they relate to the current election.

1. Intelligence – I think fundamental qualities dominate; if you are intelligent, you will tend to do more things intelligently. In a president the benefits of intelligence are obvious…being more experienced with critical thinking will better prepare the candidate to make major decisions. A good education will also grant a better understanding of a broader range of issues, enabling him/her to understand situations quicker and make more effective choices.

Unfortunately, a significant portion of America does not regard intelligence as a necessary presidential characteristic. I suspect the uneducated rationalize that since they’ve done just fine in the game of life, education is an overrated attribute. But voting for an unintelligent president is analogous to allowing your local mechanic to perform your triple-bypass surgery. For tough jobs, education and intelligence is very, very important, and the president of the United States is the toughest job around.

Considering the current candidates, Barack Obama graduated from an Ivy League school consistently rated among the best in America, and pursued his law degree at Harvard. John McCain graduated from Annapolis Naval Academy at the bottom of his class. Now while intelligence and education are not interchangeable, as I have insinuated here at points, a person who has done worse in the education system typically needs a demonstrable edge to pull ahead of his/her more educated colleagues. I don’t see McCain as having that edge, so this contest is at best a push for him.

2. Integrity – Or at least, what passes for integrity in the mire of politics. As a citizen in a democratic nation, I want to believe that the president will not abuse his powers at the expense of the nation’s best interests. I’d also want to more or less believe he is representing his/her character and policies faithfully.

Integrity is always a focus of elections, yet it is one of the hardest attributes to measure. It is easy to cite voting records or the qualities of individual bills out of context. It is also often hard to trace the motivations for “flip flopping,” which could range from the abjectly political to more benign evolutions of opinion. I personally feel that while we can nibble at this issue, often through rather subjective means such as behavioral analysis, it is difficult to get a good understanding of the candidate’s integrity without a comprehensive look at their voting record, including the context and complete understanding of each bill voted on. I would even go so far as to say that only insiders, people who are intimately close with the workings of the legislative branch, can ever truly understand who has the best interests of the nation at heart.

For what it’s worth, I felt McCain had a great deal of integrity before his campaign for president began this year. I know Al Franken, for example, has written approvingly of McCain’s sense of honor. I also appreciated McCain’s voting against the Bush tax cuts, which indicated his willingness to do what he believed was best in spite of party pressure. However, in part due to his reversal on this particular issue, I now question how much of his “maverick” voting was designed to separate himself from the rest of his party and therefore secure his nomination. Lately, his campaign’s attempts to defame Obama have placed another black feather in the once proud senator’s cap. As for Obama, the main reason I would support him more than any other political creature is his early rallies against the Iraq war. Though he was not a Senator at the time, there’s little doubt that anti-war sentiment was a politically unpopular stance, and thus reflects positively on his integrity.

3. Perspective – Perspective, or judgement, is the ability of the candidate to allocate finite attention and resources appropriately. The president is one man or woman, and has four to eight years to significantly influence the nation’s path. A candidate with good perspective will purport to address the nation’s greatest weaknesses in sensible ways. After all, what good is intelligence and integrity if you’re dead set on fighting the wrong battles?

I think we can all agree that President Bush has demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement during his time in office. Whatever good may come out of the protracted Iraq War, it’s doubtful the exorbitant resources committed could not have been used for more pressing domestic (or foreign) issues. I have personally long maintained that reducing the national debt and improving the public education system are the two highest priorities for the U.S., and I continue to look for those qualities in a president.

The Iraq War of course continues to be an important issue, and candidates should intelligently weigh the value of committing $10 billion a month to our new Middle Eastern “ally.” Not surprisingly, I think Obama’s aggressive desire to end the war is merited and demonstrates good perspective, especially in light of America’s reeling domestic state. As for McCain, I question his judgement in appointing Sarah Palin as his running mate, who demonstrates on a daily basis her gross unfitness for the office.

There can be many factors that go into supporting a presidential candidate, but I think important that we as a nation do not lose our way. The voting population needs to remember the high standards required for such an important position, and the very real consequences brought about by supporting the unfit. Though I sincerely hope we never see another George W. Bush in our lifetimes, the results of the upcoming election will go a long way towards making me believe it can happen.

Superman: The Movie

1978, United States
Director: Richard Donner
Screenplay: Robert Benton, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Mario Puzo
Story: Puzo (Really? Puzo? I had no idea.)

As far as big Hollywood movies go, Superman does a number of things right. The opening scenes are effective at portraying a mystical world, with Marlon Brando’s Jor-El injecting the right amount of gravity. The special effects, both on Krypton and throughout the movie, are obviously far less impressive now…but they deserve credit for being outstanding in their day, as well as having an enduring sense of style about them. (If we aren’t all wearing hyper-reflective suits in pitch black rooms at some point in my lifetime, I’ll have to consider humanity a fine idea that sadly came up short when it really mattered.)

The movie is also elevated due to Christopher Reeve’s performance. He looks the part more than any comic book movie star, with the possible exceptions of Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine and Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne, both coming 20 years later. Like Brando, Reeve’s presence is perfect in his role – he’s easygoing, confident, somehow warm and slightly aloof at the same time. If Superman’s tagline is to be believed, Reeve deserves most of the credit. The script, too, does a good job with the character, poking fun at the comic book clichés and having fun with his powers.

What is more questionable to my modern tastes is the portrayal of Lex Luthor. I can’t say what Luthor was like in the comic books back in the 70s, but today the character is pretty well established as a bald, extremely intelligent multi-billionaire. In this film, Luthor instead carries on the tradition of the 1950s Batman villains – he’s a self-absorbed, slightly zany madman that surrounds himself with incompetents. In this more cynical age, it’s hard to buy into such a cartoony antagonist. We also lack the naïvité to believe that a nuclear warhead could be hijacked by simply blocking the road it was being transported on. I know, I know, it was never meant to be taken seriously, but what might have been amusing in 1978 is just lame in 2008. Finally, maybe I’m being unduly influenced by Gene Hackman’s French Connection role, but I just don’t understand the decision to cast him as Lex Luthor. Isn’t he a little too blue-collar to be a supervillain?

Style: 9
Then-cutting-edge special effects, a couple fine performances, and the magnificent Superman theme all add up to a classic comic book experience. Christopher Reeve really was Superman, even more than Sean Connery was James Bond.

Substance: 6
I love the opening scenes, and how Superman is handled in this movie…the writers clearly had a lot of fun with the character. Unfortunately there are extended sequences that have aged pretty poorly: most of the scenes with Clark Kent, Superman and Lois Lane flying through space (seriously, that’s just bizarre, right?) and all the bumbling done by Luthor and his cronies.

Overall: 7
If I was born 20 years earlier, I would probably be swearing to this day that Superman is the greatest movie ever made. I could just kinda see that happening. But while I’ll tip my cap to that unrealized possibility, I have to discount all the fun of Superman for its many campy moments.

L’Espalier

Anne and I went to one of Boston’s best restaurants last weekend. Our visit to L’Espalier marks the third “nice French restaurant” we’ve been to in the area. The first, No. 9 Park, is perhaps my favorite restaurant ever; the second, Aujourd’hui, I found to be a touch disappointing (for the price). L’Espalier fits somewhere in between.

When I had the opportunity to have dinner at Daniel in New York a couple months ago, I was surprised to walk away from a gourmet establishment with my stomach stretched to its limit, having been used to more wanting portions. Well, my coat buttons were again endangered at L’Espalier, and I discovered the common thread to be prix fixe meals. Between the chef’s complimentary dish, appetizer, main course, optional cheese tray, and desert, you may find your wallet a little lighter, but you sure aren’t going to go home hungry. Overall it’s probably slightly more economical, but it’s really not my preference.

The decor was very, very good at L’Espalier – bright and modern, offering a three-story overlook of bustling Boylston street. I prefer this modern look over Aujourd’hui’s more traditional ambience (though neither exceeds the cozy dining room on the commons at No. 9). The service was polite and unobtrusive, overall equal to expectations.

And the food? Undeniably outstanding, though I couldn’t help but notice that the quality marginally decreased as the evening went on. The appetizers were both truly phenomenal. Anne had a potato and leek soup, delightfully flavored with mango, while I had a tomato-mushroom-sausage omelet with a honey dijon sauce – the best omelet I’ve ever tasted. After that tour de force, it followed that the main course would be a bit of a step down. Anne had a relatively straightforward dish, free-range chicken and veggies, while I had lamb with almonds and a salsa sauce. Though tasty, these dishes didn’t have quite the delectable synergy of their predecessors. I was too stuffed to fully enjoy the deserts (a soufflé and pavlova), but they were also pretty good.

All in all it was a very nice experience, befitting a restaurant that vies for the title of Boston’s best.

A new “official” photo

Anne and I actually had a few nice pictures taken of us over the weekend.  Lately I’ve been aging like mad in the face, and there haven’t been many pictures I can approve of, but I look halfway decent in this one.  Anne, of course, is a vision.

La Battaglia di Algeri (The Battle of Algiers)

Italy, 1966
Director: Gillo Pontecorvo
Writers: Pontecorvo and Franco Solinas

The Battle of Algiers portrays urban guerrilla warfare so effectively it was screened at the Pentagon in 2003, just months after First Moron President Bush declared the Iraq War to be over. It turned out to be a prescient screening, though sadly not prescient enough to prevent the war from taking place. You can keep hoping history won’t repeat itself, but 9 times out of 10 you’re going to be crushed by the weight of a thousand yesterdays.

Algiers featured fantastic production for its time, shooting everything on location and with local actors. Sometimes you need to strain to see that sort of praise while watching an older film, viewing it through the lens of the present day. Not so with Algiers; the back-and-forth chases in the narrow streets of the city, the visual contrasts between the rebels and paratroopers, the desperate closeups and sweeping city shots all add up to a convincing visual experience, even today.  This is a movie that looks and feels just right.

The film is, notationally at least, about guerrilla fighter Ali La Pointe, who has perhaps the perfect guerrilla fighter name. In practice the film meanders quite a bit, going extended sequences without any La Pointe screen time. This is a curious decision, especially in light of several opening scenes that set up his character. The second half sees La Pointe largely supplanted in focus by Colonel Mathieu, played by the only trained actor in the film (Jean Martin).  Mathieu is the best-developed character in the film…he’s quotable and likable and is the only one to impose logical reasoning on the unfolding events.

The common thread between the two adversaries, and the real meat of the film, is a non-stop kaleidoscope of violence.   Pontecorvo portrays it with an even keel; with the exception of a couple harrowing mob beatings, there is a methodical quality to each killing.  I thought the characters, and consequently motivations, got a little too buried by the events.  This makes it harder to give the story high marks, but for a documenting, actually-there sort of feel, Algiers strikes gold.

Style: 9
To give Algiers anything lower would be doing a disservice to its place in history. Very authentic from start to finish, making for an engaging and believable viewing experience.

Substance: 6
There is something to be said for being objective, but Algiers is sometimes a little too objective. In journalism you are taught that the most important question is not “who” or “when” but “why,” and that’s the question Algiers takes great pains to ignore. Moreover, the lack of a real story structure is highlighted by a somewhat lame postscript, into which much of the “moral” is crammed. On the plus side, Colonel Mathieu stands out as a developed and interesting character.

Overall: 8
I could go with either a 7 or 8 here, depending on how much I downplay the lack of a real narrative. Ultimately I think Algiers does an exceptional job of bringing the viewer into a time and place, and the narrative is almost secondary to the experience. It is very much left to the viewer to draw any conclusions from the relentless violence, but in this day and age, doesn’t it sort of speak for itself?

Team America: World Police

2004, United States
Director: Trey Parker
Screenplay: Pam Brady, Trey Parker, Matt Stone
Story: Brady, Parker, and Stone

It’s a truism in film that comedy is harder than drama; as Bob Dylan said, “it takes a lot to laugh, it takes a train to cry.” And yet, why do I feel that most people laugh relatively easily? There are certain things in Team America that most people find funny, but I do not. The way Kim Jong Il, the movie’s chief antagonist, pronounces “L’s” as “R’s” I do not find to be funny. The some three-minute song built upon this comedic device, “I’m So Ronely,” doesn’t even force a grin.

Matt Stone and Trey Parker have their original moments, both in Team America and their other creations. But generally their approach to humor is similar to most mainstream comedians (think Will Ferrell), believing that inappropriateness is equivalent to comedy. Look, I like inappropriateness just as much as the next guy, but you have to DO something with it. There is a scene where Team America’s leader demands that a team member perform guy-on-guy sexual favors to earn his trust. This is worth a chuckle, perhaps, but then the team member proceeds to do just what was requested, taking up another minute or two of screen time. Most people think the joke of “seeing” the act stands on its own, but I disagree. The scene ultimately amounts to seeing something inappropriate, and there’s nothing interesting or clever about that. Whether you think that’s a question of personal taste, sophistication, or snobbery I leave up to you.

A lot of Team America relies on the novelty of puppets doing ridiculous or foul things. There is no attempt to hide the strings, for example, which is somewhat comical. There is a scene of puppet sex, which was also done a year previous in the smarter and funnier Broadway play Avenue Q. A few jokes are pretty amusing, such as the recurring reference to “acting” like it’s some sort of special power. But the satirical aspects of the film fall well short of the mark, oftentimes because the parody is so thin as to be imperceptible. For example, I can’t figure out why I’m supposed to laugh at Michael Moore blowing himself up to take out the Team America base. What is the satire here? That Michael Moore is really liberal? This is the kind of scenario I might have thought up in homeroom in Junior High, complete with a sketch in my notebook. Actually, it sounds funnier under those circumstances, but as an adult film-goer I expect a little more.

Style: 4
The puppets are surprisingly uninteresting. You might think the creators were trying to parody Thunderbirds, but instead it comes off as an homage. At least the use of puppets is theoretically fairly fresh, and the film has a look like few others.

Substance: 3
In a similar vein to the comments above, the story of Team America seems like it’s trying to be a satire. But rather than exaggerate Hollywood plot devices, Team America simply follows their beaten path – since when was emulation sufficient for parody? Generally, I found most of the humor to be pretty uninspired, but a few clever bits keep things afloat.

Overall: 4
I think comedy is tough, and Team America has the added disadvantage that it tries to unabashedly do nothing but. There’s a good premise somewhere in this movie, and some genuine humor to be found, but most of it didn’t do much for me.