things i think i think

I just finished reading Michael Pollan’s brief (think one-hour read) ‘Food Rules.’ It’s a pretty good collection of general ways to think about what we eat — and then how and where to go about eating better.

Some of my favorite tips:

“#12 Shop the peripheries of the supermarket and stay out of the middle.” Because supermarkets are designed to get you lost in the middle, stick to the outside where the (mostly) fresh produce and meat are located.

“#24 Eating what stands on one leg is better than eating what stands on two legs, which is better than eating what stands on four legs.” So, mushrooms and plant foods > fowl > cows, pigs and other mammals. Interestingly enough, this Chinese proverb ignores one of the healthiest foods on the market — the legless fish.

“#39 Eat all the junk food you want as long as you cook it yourself.” You’d be much less likely to eat french fries or chips if you had to peel and cut and bake or fry the potatoes yourself, right? Same goes for churning your own ice cream.

“#51 Spend as much time enjoying the meal as it took to prepare it.” Fairly self-explanatory.

Above all else:

“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

Treat others with respect and, I’d say almost ninety-five percent of the time, they will return the favor.

If they don’t, punch them in the mouth.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

Maybe is lazy, easy, convenient and boring.

Be decisive, disruptive, and cunning with an unwavering sharpness of focus.

\

Boy, there sure is a lot of dust around here.

I thought I’d take a minute to write about one of the more unique courses I’ve taken during my time as a Radio/Television/Film student here at Northwestern University — that would be Special Effects Cinematography, this past Spring Quarter.

As a class we worked to assemble a full-fledged space craft, decorate it, light it and shoot an approximately ten-minute short film about it and its two passengers (a man and a woman.) In addition to many non-SFX shots, we dealt with a handful of special effects scenarios (e.g. creating a floating hologram using a piece of plexiglass and a projector, double-exposure, etc) without the use of CGI or (hardly) any post-production work or effects. Think ‘Close Encounters of the Third Kind.’

Anyway, I recently re-discovered our classes’ shutterfly page which contains more than a handful of production photos for those interested in how it all went down. It’s hard to believe how much we accomplished in just a matter of ten weeks — and only 6-9 hrs a week!

Let me know if you have any questions about what we did (or how we did it) and hopefully, come September, I will be able to post some scenes from the film for viewing.

As a die-hard Red Sox fan and a sports enthusiast in general, I felt that I had an obligation to chime in on the recent news that David Ortiz (and Manny Ramirez) tested positive for performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in 2003 (developing ESPN story here) according to The Mitchell Report. First of all, is this a surprise? Yes. Anyone who claims that it isn’t is lying. David Ortiz was arguably the Albert Pujols of the American League for several years before his recent decline due to injury — an affable player with remarkable talent and a propensity for late-inning heroics. Except for Yankee fans, you couldn’t not appreciate and admire what Ortiz was doing for the Red Sox and the MLB. The guy was a rags to riches story in the purest sense.

Now this. Apparently, Big Papi was ‘cheating’ as recently as 2003 when testing began in earnest. Is it wrong? Yes. Was Ortiz aware of what he was taking? I’m not sure that he was. Is this a big deal anymore? Not really. I’m reminded of a moment in my childhood when, during a Boy Scout get together, a local forecasters came in to talk about weather-patterns and his career, etc. At some point near the middle of his presentation, a bold classmate of mine stood up and shouted “So, what’s the point?!”

Those are my thoughts exactly. So what? Baseball purists will cry their eyes out about the state of the game today — the cheaters, the lying, the synthetic bio-engineering that these guys inject into their asses — but they need to keep in mind that for all of the theatrics and purported majesty of the sport, it is a business. If I were to offer you the opportunity to increase your productivity by 50, even 75 per cent, with a few supplements — who wouldn’t take that chance? These players are here to get paid, to get the strikeouts, hit the homeruns and cash in while they can. Sorry baseball fans, but everyone is doing it. Period. If not now, then just a few years ago when Bud Selig was seeing dollar signs and preferred to stay blissfully ignorant about the extent of this abuse.

Am I disappointed? Certainly. Does this ‘taint’ the Red Sox championships in 2004 and 2007? Not at all. And you would be kidding yourself if it did. Other fans who are calling for blood from the Red Sox, Yankees et al. because they feel that those teams had an unfair advantage? That’s simply the pot calling the kettle black. Let’s face it, this is a pervasive problem that will never see a true end. Pujols, Thome, Griffey Jr., all users and abusers. You can call me a pessimist, but I’ll be too busy digging my head into the sand — and getting ready to watch the next Red Sox game. Cha-ching.

First of all, let me say that I loved ‘Borat.’ I thought it was an ingenious concept and a real genre-bender (even if some of the scenes were constructed.) So, it stands to reason that I would enjoy ‘Bruno’, right? Well, not exactly.

The formula is basically the same: estranged foreigner comes to America (among other places) to find celebrity or, in the case of Borat, a celebrity. Except here are the distinctions: the studio obviously gave ‘Bruno’ far more financial flexibility as the set pieces are more elaborate, more constructed and, frankly, more fake. Nothing feels real when Bruno is around — there are shades of a documentary feel, but that’s about it. Finally, whereas Borat was genuinely friendly if not naive, Bruno is just an asshole, plain and simple. And, without a likeable protagonist, ‘Bruno’ flounders.

Grade: C+/B- — relying too much on shock value and doing nothing for the LGBT community, Bruno is a disappointment all around.

This is a story of boy meets girl. That’s how ’500 Days of Summer’ starts and with it a fair deal of eye-rolling. Here we go again. But, this time, the formula is different: utilizing a unique narrative medium and stellar performances from guy/girl next door actors/actresses, ’500 Days of Summer’ becomes the most original romantic comedy of its kind since ‘When Harry Met Sally.’ Everything about the film feels well-crafted: the cinematography is spot-on, the soundtrack is (so far) the year’s best and, above all else, it’s a film that is relatable. And, when it comes down to it, isn’t that all you could ask for in a film about a boy and a girl?

Grade: A — heartbreak, awkwardness, love and sex captured through a unique lens. The beloved film of Sundance lives up to the hype. A must-see.

I might have lengthier thoughts on these films at some point, but for now here is a quick rundown of my grades for the films that have been released (and that I’ve seen) so far this year in 2009.

NB: some of these belong to the previous awards season (pre Oscars) but I’m including them anyway.

Gran Torino – B
Revolutionary Road – B+
Watchmen – C-
Adventureland – B+
Sugar – A-
Star Trek – B+
Up – A
The Hangover – B
Public Enemies – B-
The Hurt Locker – A-
The Girlfriend Experience – B-