Ode to an Anonymous Commenter

I never post anonymous comments. I'm also not alone. Many other websites have recently opted for allowing comments only from people with Facebook accounts as a way of cutting down unnecessary/misinformed/racist or otherwise offensive posts. These posts are drastically more infrequent when posters are forced to provide their identity because it's very easy to be a trolling malcontent when you can hide behind a wall of secrecy and decidedly more difficult when your blindingly ignorant comments are available to family, friends and co-workers. I posted a blog recently expressing my views on foodies. Outlining my views on the subject of foodies and whether or not they actually exist. That was the sole focus of the blog that was nearly 650 words. I am posting this anonymous comment verbatim so we may all learn from it, and thus better ourselves.

"Hey, self-righteous d-bag! In your last sentence it should be the contraction 'they're' not the possessive 'their.' Maybe a rant about how Americans can't speak their (see what I did there?) own language? Dumbass." 

Let's examine this comment shall we? First, it upholds the first rule of anonymous commenting by opening with an insult. The warm embrace of anonymity allows any spineless idiot to feel ten feet tall and bullet-proof because "they'll never know it's me! ha ha ha!" It also ends with an insult because the commenter clearly doesn't feel confident they made their point. Of course, being an anonymous commenter means you're not really confident about anything other than your inner sexual desires towards your family members.

Removing the insults reveals the point of the readers comment. "In your last sentence it should be the contraction 'they're' not the possessive 'their.' Maybe a rant on how Americans can't speak their (see what I did there?) own language?" That would have been a relevant, reasonable and to-the-point comment to make, if say, my original post was about people with bad grammar/spelling ruining society or the internet. As I mentioned earlier, my original post was about foodies. 

I also used some form of they/they're/their/there/themselves a total of 26 times in my post all correctly save one time. That's a 96.2% correct grasp of the words. If you see a Facebook status that's a sentence or paragraph long, or a 140-character tweet and all the uses of their/they're/there are wrong, it would be clear the person was ignorant to the different meanings of the words. However, when the very last usage of the word in a 649 total word document that was 96.2% accurate overall and was posted around 2:00 am PST is wrong, I think it's safe to say it was a typo.

The bright side of moronic anonymous commenters is that when they take the time to post something completely irrelevant to the topic in such an abusive and juvenile manner, it ends up completely validating the point of the original article. After all, after reading my blog the only problem they could find was a simple grammatical error. That means they completely agree with me! Wahoo! Call me a self-righteous d-bag and a dumb ass (which is two words, see what I did there?) all you want but without providing any evidence to the contrary, you agree with me. Welcome to the fold, anonymous self-righteous d-bag!

It takes time and effort to write a post of any significant length and send it out for the world to survey and judge. I don't care whether people agree with what is said or not and I love when people have strong opinions because it means they actually believe in something. I also love arguing with people who can defend their beliefs because it means they've actually put some thought into their position instead of just agreeing with whatever they've been told. It also provides an opportunity for the most important part of an argument, listening to the other side and understanding where they're coming from.

The point I'm making is that I fully support comment sections as well as dialogue and debate in general because ideas and information should never be a one-way street. I also believe you sell yourself short by hiding from the world. Step out, be confident, believe what you want to believe but let the world know the real you. Otherwise, how will we ever appreciate you or your input? Imagine if the signers of the Declaration of Independence had all signed with an X?

So I fixed the error. The page is now 100%. Now there's nothing left to do but wait for the next anonymous reader to post an expletive laced comment on how pig-headed I am to insinuate my blog is anything close to the Declaration of Independence.

III,

The Myth of the Foodie

Foodies don't exist. Let's get that straight up front. Instead, there exists a certain group of people who have decided that they have nothing better to do with their spare time than convince other people that they "appreciate food." By "appreciate" of course, they mean "can afford" and by "food" they mean "expensive food." That's the point all foodies want you to realize right away. The fact that they're affluent enough to afford gourmet food. You never see foodies taking pictures or writing blogs about their experiences with mass-produced food, fast food or savoring the latest soup-kitchen fare. Even though the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines foodie or foody or foo-gives-a-shit as "a person having an avid interest in the latest food fads." The latest food fads, if you've been paying attention, include turning everything that isn't food into food! (I think my favorite part of that last link is the fact that the McDonald's spokesman was named 'Todd Bacon') Where are the foodies lining up to compare and contrast the multitude of fast food offerings that contain various amounts of industrial food stuff? It is after all, a hot topic. One that will certainly affect the outlook of food industries from top-tier to third world countries.

Foodies are also under the impression that they have a special talent for liking food. That they, in secret, have discovered food that has been expertly prepared is "like ya know, good, man." Like they possess sommelier-like powers of taste that can, after biting into a $100 lamb chop, deduce the exact place, date and time a young sheep was put to death. Also, if any lamb relatives were present at the funeral and if they are also currently being served at a nearby table.

So what does it take to become a foodie you ask? Absolutely nothing. How many years must one train themselves before one can pass the foodie test and earn their Michelin stars? (don't bother reading that wiki review, you won't find foodie anywhere) None. Being a foodie is not a skill. Despite what lies they like to tell you, and more importantly themselves, anyone can call themselves a foodie and be just as qualified as any idiot walking down the street. That's right, The Burger King Kids Club has more restrictions than being a foodie has ever had.

All foodies suffer from the delusion that the reason they enjoy gourmet food and the huddled masses enjoy fast food is out of pure choice. They are completely blind to the fact that given the option of a free meal consisting of either their favorite cheap fast food or a four course meal of their choosing prepared by a four-star chef in a five-star restaurant, everyone chooses the fine dining and you don't have to be a food genius to figure it out. They completely ignore the only discernable requirement of being a so-called foodie, price, and spit in the faces of everyone forced to eat below their standards because they believe the ability to buy more expensive food somehow makes you appreciate it more.

You know who truly appreciates food? Homeless people and starving children.They appreciate food so much they beg for it, pray for it and even shed tears over being offered some soup and bread. That's food appreciation. That's putting your heart and soul into enjoying every meal like it's your last.

So go ahead foodies. Waste some people's weekly salary on food that's photogenic and takes an hour to prepare by blind monks flown in from parts unknown. Really, I mean that. Don't stop. I'd hate for all that time and effort and money to go to waste instead of being used to properly inflate the ego of a self-possessed egomaniac who's chosen to add to their own self worth the mundane ability to "appreciate" the one thing most Americans already take for granted because they've realized they're not special.

III,

Lincoln: A Review

Multiple : USA : Rated - PG13 : Running Time - 150 mins

This film, much like the eponymous main character, needs no introduction. It follows arguably the greatest American President, through his greatest achievements, during the last months of his life. One of the great American directors, assembled a cast of brilliant actors and made a film that was well...great.

The film takes a very close examination of the process surrounding the passage of the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution. We as an audience are the better for it, as we are introduced to a band of lesser known historical figures, all of which play important roles in their own right. The film truly triumphs by showcasing the political climate of the time and presenting arguments just as valid today as they were back then. Where many other films based on true events fail, (I'm looking at you Argo) by not creating enough tension for an outcome the audience is already aware of, Lincoln thrives by focusing on the impact the ultimate decision will have on the country as a whole as well as on a personal level with the individuals involved. Thus raising the stakes and providing more depth to the story.

The brilliance of the cast begins and ends with one man, Daniel Day-Lewis. He brings incredible humanity to a man who most of us have only experienced as a marble statue or quite possibly through Henry Fonda's performance in "Young Mr. Lincoln" (1939). In my opinion, Lewis should secure his third Oscar, placing him above all other males in history. Sally Field is a tenacious Mary Todd Lincoln and Tommy Lee Jones is a true force as Thaddeus Stevens, a fiery representative pushing for the abolition of slavery. David Strathairn makes yet another solid case for being the best supporting character actor of all time as Secretary of State William Seward. The backbone of the political gamesmanship comes from three characters played expertly by James Spader, John Hawkes and Tim Blake Nelson.

Lincoln is an entertaining history lesson, that showcases professional film making as well as acting.

Snobby Art House Rating - A

Les Miserables: A Review

Multiple : United Kingdom : Rated - PG13 : Running Time - 158 mins

Les Miserables is in the pantheon of most beloved musicals of all time. Adapted from Victor Hugo's epic 1862 novel of the same name, Les Miserables is as grand in scale on film as it is in volume of literature. The story is set in post-revolutionary France and centers around ex-prisoner Jean Valjean who, after serving his time and breaking parole, decides to reinvent himself and begin a new life while being obsessively pursued by Javert, a policeman determined to put him away for life. Valjean agrees to become caretaker to Cosette, the daughter of Fantine, a seamstress once under the employ of Valjean and subsequently forced onto the streets. Cosette grows up and falls in love with Marius, a young man deeply involved in the anti-monarchist movement currently gaining strength in the Parisian underground. Valjean must decide between protecting Cosette as he has sworn to do and allowing her to live her own life.

Tom Hooper, known previously for earning his Oscar for directing with 2010's "The King's Speech," should be commended for engineering a very bold attempt at capturing everything Les Miserables has to offer. Hooper's vision for revamping Les Mis was to have the actors sing live while acting, as opposed to traditional practices of having actors lip sync to music previously recorded in the studio. A change that would try and break down the wall between film and live stage performance. A change that also has a lot to do with the flaws of the film. In solo instances the performances can be very moving but in ensemble numbers the mix between live singing and recorded background becomes very muddled causing many of the lyrics to be missed. Secondly, the point of allowing the actors freedom to sing live provides them the advantage of having their acting influence the music not the other way around. This should make for a more captivating experience, however it is very rarely capitalized on and most scenes are so sweeping in scale, that the personal, stage-performance feel is lost.

The cast of Les Miserables truly define ensemble as the film is so evenly balanced with incredible talent. Hugh Jackman was born to play Jean Valjean and doesn't disappoint. Russell Crowe (Javert), despite harsh criticisms of his performance is not all that bad. It seems the role is more out of his vocal range and suffers more for that than his acting performance. Award show darling Anne Hathaway (Fantine), does an amazing job in this film, albeit for five minutes. If you are expecting a gripping, two hour, career defining performance, you will be disappointed. Amanda Seyfried (Cosette) and Eddie Redmayne (Marius) are quietly impressive and provide hope for the future of the acting landscape. While young Daniel Huttlestone is very entertaining as Gavroche, a rebellious little boy.

This brings me to my favorite parts of the film. Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter and Samantha Barks. Cohen and Carter, dressed as though they just stepped out from a Tim Burton movie (God knows they probably were) and as if they were performing these roles in their spare time, absolutely steal this film. As Monsieur and Madame Thenardier, their "Master of the House" number is the highlight of the entire film. Samantha Barks making her motion picture debut, was astounding as Eponine, a role she played for the Les Miserable 25th Anniversary Concert. Her role provides incredible heart to a film that can be so overwhelming at times it glosses over its emotional core. In my opinion she gives the best singular performance of the film.

Les Miserables is an experience that can be captivating at times and very convoluted at others. In my opinion it will always be best enjoyed live on stage where the emotion can be felt more effectively and performances appreciated more accurately.

Snobby Art House Rating - B

Amour: A Review

Multiple : France/Germany/Austria : Rated - PG13 : Running Time - 127 mins

In 2009 director Michael Haneke won the Palme d'Or, the top prize given at the Cannes International Film Festival, for his film "The White Ribbon." He enjoyed the experience so much he won it again in 2012 becoming the first director in the history of the competition to claim two top prizes. His 2012 masterpiece is "Amour," a bare bones, examination of marital vows that is both beautiful and excruciating. The story surrounds Georges and his wife Anne, a retired couple living in France. After Anne suffers a physical malady, Georges is forced to care for her and the bond of husband and wife is truly tested.

This film sits like a weight on your chest from beginning to end. Haneke proves once again, to be a master of the foreboding atmosphere. You feel the confinement in every scene and all the aches and groans of physical agony seem to be personified in the creaks and moans of the apartment. In the film as in life, the release is a hurricane of emotions and only silence remains as the credits roll and we are free from Haneke's grip. 

Jean-Louis Trintignant plays Georges, the ever watchful and dutiful husband, who must tread a fine line between the wishes of his family, the concerns of the physicians and the dignity of his wife. He delivers a truly heartbreaking performance. Emmanuelle Riva's turn as Anne, is a masterwork of acting ability. Her journey from able-bodied partner to disabled patient is incredible.

Amour triumphs in its abilty to reach out to everyone who views it and touch them in some way. It inspires any number of reactions and stirs many more emotions. The pain it inflicts is not to be ignored, it is only the recognition of the overwhelming and universal power of love.

Snobby Art House Rating - A+

Django Unchained: A Review

The Weinstein Company : USA : Rated - R : Running Time - 165 mins

Django Unchained is the latest blood-soaked vengeance tale from writer/director Quentin Tarantino. It follows Django, a slave who sets out on a mission to free his wife Broomhilda after being liberated by the aptly named bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz. Schultz needs Django to identify a band of outlaw brothers that he has been unable to track down. In exchange for his help, Schultz promises to aid Django in his quest to find his wife. Django earns his freedom, receives training in the art of death, a new set of clothes and the two set off to free Broomhilda from the evil plantation owner Calvin Candie, dispatching their own brand of justice along the way.

True to form, Tarantino delivers another gritty melange of genre defining standards, infused with his own brand of edgy banter and doused in plenty of claret to satisfy even the most jaded of fan boys. An abundance of racial slurs and a Monty Python-esque caveat involving members of the Kyu Klux Klan will undoubtedly cause some viewer's skin to crawl with apprehension but not nearly as much as the scene with the dancing horse. (that is not a joke)

Christoph Waltz plays Dr. King Schultz and his cold-blooded, matter of fact attitude carries the film until Leonardo DiCaprio shows up. Jaime Foxx is serviceable as the leading man but is much better when he doesn't speak. DiCaprio continues to grow stronger with each passing role and turns in a truly menacing performance. Samuel L. Jackson plays "Stephen" a house slave who proves to be much more cunning and devious than he appears. Kerry Washington doesn't get enough screen time to make an impact on the film and serves only as the prize at the end of the journey.

Overall, Django Unchained is another quality addition to the Tarantino cannon.

Snobby Art House Rating - A-

Beasts of the Southern Wild: A Review

Fox Searchlight : USA : Rated - PG13 : Running Time - 93 mins

Beasts of the Southern Wild is the fantasy story of a little girl known as 'Hushpuppy' who is raised by her father 'Wink' in the Gulf of Mexico basin area of the southern United States known as "the bathtub." All seems well in her tiny community until Wink becomes sick and her world literally comes crashing down around her in the form of glaciers melting, sea levels rising and a massive storm. The storm also releases massive prehistoric "beasts" that have been trapped in the ice and they begin a film-long trek towards Hushpuppy and the other storm survivors. With their homes underwater, Wink, Hushpuppy and the small band of characters who call "the bathtub" home, attempt to rebuild their lives while avoiding starvation, disease and attempts from government officials to relocate them. Hushpuppy goes in search of her mother for answers and in the end must draw strength from her friends, neighbors and the sometimes harsh lessons her father used to raise her, in order to face the beasts of an uncertain future.

 Quvenzhane Wallis is spectacular as Hushpuppy, the fearless and curious main character. Most of the film's charm can be traced to Hushpuppy's childish interactions with the world around her. More than just benefiting from being an adorable little girl, Wallis at times delivers a performance that draws emotions from a wisdom well beyond her years.

Dwight Henry plays Wink, Hushpuppy's father, who is a combination of protector and foil. Everything that rings true about Wallis' performance would not be possible without her opposite Henry. Dwight Henry is the hidden gem of this movie. His portrayal of a father determined to raise his daughter with a tough, no-nonsense attitude while at times displaying the demeanor of an overgrown child himself is gripping. The small group of actors cast in the background are an authentic and colorful group who more than capably tie the film together.

Overall this is a great little film. It should be applauded for its simple yet powerful story telling. With very minimal effects and great performances from everyone involved from top to bottom it is very poetic and gives hope to every film maker who champions simple elegance over hollow, grandiose, big-budgeted blockbusters.

Snobby Art House Rating - A

ARGO: A Review

Warner Brothers : USA : Rated - R : Running Time - 120 mins


Argo tells the story of an actual CIA mission to rescue the six members of the U.S. embassy hiding out in Iran, who escaped when the embassy was overrun by Iranian nationalists in 1979. After vetting several options the government decides to send in a lone agent to bring them home, getting them out of the country by posing as a Canadian film crew scouting a location for the fake Hollywood blockbuster film "Argo." The mission is successful, end of story.

Unfortunately that is the feel of this movie, straight forward, no nonsense and also no real drama. The film is based on actual events and I believe it is very difficult to make a movie suspenseful when your audience already knows how the events play out. The best films that are based on true stories and still find a way to be impactful find other aspects of the events or the people involved and bring those to the forefront to parallel the actual events in the film. Argo, unfortunately, stays focused on the mission the entire time and presents it as being pulled off without many hiccups. The two main road blocks in the mission provide no real drama because we ultimately know the mission is a success.

Ben Affleck directs his third feature film and once again proves he is much better behind the camera. The film is quick, it doesn't drag and none of the 2-hours are wasted. Affleck also stars as Tony Mendez, a specialist in extraction, who develops the idea of a fake movie, pitches the plan to his government bosses, puts the plan into action with the help of make-up artist John Chambers (John Goodman) and producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) and flies to Iran to execute the plan, all the while having the emotional range of old wall paper. It's just there, existing in the background, like it's supposed to. He gets no help from the actors playing the roles of the embassy employees, who we never get to really know on any level other than their characters constant complaining about being rescued. Alan Arkin and John Goodman steal this film. They provide the comedy relief with biting criticism of the current Hollywood environment.

Basically, Argo is an interesting story where the actual material might be just as entertaining if not more entertaining than a film based on that material. Alan Arkin deserves any and all recognition he gets, but overall the film underwhelms.

Snobby Art House Rating - B-