Moneyball - A Conversation With Clink

HOM caught up with our newly signed baseball correspondent, Nathan Clinkenbeard. We talked baseball and movies. Clink has watched a lot of both.

HOM: Brad Pitt has never played baseball. I'm not even sure he knows how to play baseball. It was most obvious to me that this is the case when he stormed into the locker room and smashed the cooler with a bat. He then braced himself on his waist with the bat in his right hand. I almost felt bad for him for a second. It was the way he was holding the bat. The thinner handle part was in between his fingers, I think. The angle at which he was holding it, the way that it made him feel he had to do something with it. In another way, he just noticed that he was holding a bat. It was just all wrong. A baseball player, especially one as experienced as Billy Beane, would never notice a bat in their hands. And they would never split their middle and pointer finger with the handle. I'm pretty sure such a thing has never been done within 100 yards of a baseball field ever before. In the face of all that he did not know about baseball, Brad Pitt took on this role as GM extraordinaire, Billy Beane. Dude, Clink, tell me what you think about Billy Beane. Is his and the Oakland A's story worth a movie? Was it their story that attracted Brad Pitt to this movie? I ask because here's the thing with me: I'm not sure this story is that exceptional on any level. I mean, as a baseball fan, the A's and their use of "moneyball" is worth a few conversations. But here is what I want to know: is the book/movie just a mere semblance of an anti-establishment, come from behind, David & Goliath story? Has the story been enhanced for Hollywood-Michael-Lewis book/movie sale purposes? Or is this legit? How much attention should the casual (or devout) baseball fan give this story and this movie? To make this question even more wordy, is this movie even about baseball?

CLINK: First of all, thanks for having me on HOM. Been a big fan of the writings on here, and I'm glad I finally get the chance to contribute. Thanks for starting me out with about 10 questions in one. Moneyball is half baseball and half David & Goliath, anti-establishment. It's a decent story but overblown in several ways. What makes the story worth a movie is the persona of Billy Beane. Baseball players are the quirkiest of all professional athletes, and Beane's character definitely makes the movie. Would the movie be the same if Theo Epstein had been the A's GM? Absolutely not. It would probably be more like an episode of Doogie Howser, MD.

Baseball fans should not take Moneyball as the gospel. There's some merit to the story, but I'd say there's a lot left out as to why the A's were so successful from 2001-03.

Oh, and that Pitt scene you referenced was definitely hilarious. The guy wasn't an athlete, and he doesn't even like sports, which drops him down a few notches in my book. I also wondered what he had in place of his dip/chew. As an amateur in that field, I can't really grade him on his tobacco skills. 

HOM: What do you know about the history of Billy Beane's scheme? Was he the first one to use it? 

CLINK: I'm not sure you can say Beane was the first one to use it. Sabermetrics picked up steam in the mid 1990s, but Beane was really the first to make it and Moneyball "popular" in today's culture. He embraced the philosophy once his 2001 team was picked apart by other big market clubs. In essence, he needed to find a way to remain competitive with a small budget. What's loss in Moneyball is Beane lucked into having a few young studs that didn't have to be paid huge salaries. Looking at more recent A's teams, they have not been very successful at all. 

HOM:Similarly, let's talk about how freaking good that A's team was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Oakland_Athletics_season I mean, Zito, Tejada, Byrnes, one Aaaron Harang, Tim Hudson, Chad Bradford. It's not like they won 103 games with a high school JV team, is it? What about these players?

CLINK: The middle of that lineup with Tejada, Chavez and Jermaine Dye was legit that year. The biggest misconception about "Moneyball" is the starting pitching for the Oakland A's that year. Michael Lewis didn't mention it in the book, and you only see a glimpse of Tim Hudson in the movie. Hell, in the movie you only see Tim Hudson getting shelled, so the uneducated baseball fan is probably thinking, "Man, that Hudson guy sucked, and they won despite him." Wrong. This team had the Big Three in Hudson, Zito and Mulder. These guys won 57 games between them, and Zito won the AL Cy Young in 2002. Does this team win 100+ games with the Cincinnati Reds pitching staff in 2002? No. The A's were lucky that these three stud arms were all young, and they only had to pay the three of them COMBINED just under $2 million. Zito himself only made $295K as the best pitcher in the AL that year! In my opinion, the Big Three should get significantly more credit than Moneyball for the success of that team. 

HOM: Once and for all, what's the impact of this movie/book on managers, GM's, and baseball?

CLINK: It hasn't had as big of an impact as the movie will lead people to believe. But then again, it's a movie, and there's always going to be a pinch of fiction and dramatization to spice up a true story. They flashed up on the screen that the Boston Red Sox won the World Series using Beane's philosophy, but what they don't tell you is the Red Sox still had a payroll beyond $100 million. Teams are applying some Moneyball philosophies, but they're not diving head first into the theory. It's like when you dip your toes into a pool to feel the temperature before you jump in.

The biggest impact has been the use of sabermetrics and most importantly, on-base percentage and on-base plus slugging throughout baseball. More and more experts use it now to determine a player's value as opposed to batting average. Most GMs, managers and scouts, though, have not bought fully into the Moneyball concept. These guys have all been in the game a long time, and most are too stubborn to accept a new philosophy. If Moneyball were to truly change the game, it would take an entire generational rollover to get it going. Maybe it will happen when we're using walkers and wearing adult diapers.

HOM: What about the Pitt - Jonah Hill combo? I mean Pitt was obviously the man in this movie but I don't think any of it works without Jonah Hill. He was pretty good, huh?

CLINK: I enjoyed seeing Jonah Hill step out of the comedy genre and deliver a believable performance as Beane's assistant Peter Brand. There were a couple times though where it looked like Hill was trying to be serious, and he was coming off as comical. Pitt and Hill seemed to have a chemistry throughout the film that made it work.

The guy I think is vastly underrated is Philip Seymour Hoffman. That guy can act. As a huge baseball fan, his performance as boring, monotone A's manager Art Howe was my favorite. He nailed it big time. 

HOM: I want to start a campaign to make a sequel to this movie. It will start out really melodramatic as Billy Beane takes on all this symbolism as a Christ figure, bound to suffer for what he believes in. But then, we find out that Ron Washington is being made manager of the Texas Rangers and the cameras decide to follow him to Texas where he meets the Bush family, Nolan Ryan, and Josh Hamilton - I mean could you get a better character driven plot? It'd be like Major League, but real. Your thoughts? I love Ron Washington is what I'm saying.

CLINK: It already sounds like a better plot than most of the crap Hollywood puts out most of the time. If you get the budget, I'll help write the screenplay. Any time you have GW, Nolan Ryan, Hamilton, Washington and Beane in a movie you're automatically set up for success. Ron Washington is definitely a character, and I wish we could have had a little more of him in Moneyball. 

HOM: As a baseball guy, where do you put this in the genre of baseball movies? Better than ________ but not as good as __________? Final thoughts?

CLINK: I know this flick received a Best Picture nominee, but there's no way I could put it up there with the all-time greats like Field of Dreams, Bull Durham, A League of Their Own, Major League I and II and The Sandlot. I'd have to put it somewhere in the middle tier, better than Mr. Baseball but not as good as For The Love of the Game.

HOM: Do the Reds make the playoffs this year?

CLINK: Let's just say I think it's going to be a lot harder than I originally thought at the beginning of the season. The bullpen has really taken a hit, but luckily they still have some very solid arms. My biggest concern is 3B and the production behind Votto in the lineup. That's what is going to make or break this team. If we don't get much from 3B and LF I think we'll be a .500 team. I believe they will get it done and make the playoffs.

Screenshot Review - 50/50, Footloose, UK Basketball News

Winter's Bone & Hunger Games

Jennifer Lawrence makes this movie more worth watching than it already is. Her ability to make you forget that you're watching a movie is what does the trick. The unceasingly gray sky, cold wind, and cold-hearted people push you into the swell. The strident chasing of fate and "doing what a woman's got to do" is cumbersome to watch. But Lawrence as the catalyst of hopeful determination sees you through the hard times. At one point I thought I could smell bacon that she was cooking in my kitchen--I was looking forward to getting out of bed and having her walk me to school. Motherhood was forced on her, as it is a lot of young people in mountain culture. Most don't make it to the other side. I never doubted her for a second. She was pure in her fulfilling of Mel Gibson era drama and I appreciated how much she wanted to save the trees. She pursued the sense of place and home that so many in that part of the country really do. She did it with integrity and respect.

She is good at hunting squirrels and as is true with many American youth that have to hunt for their food, it's always in the back of her mind that if things get real tough then she can join the Army and be all she can be. In the first run of Winter's Bone the Army recruiter turns Jennifer Lawrence away because she is too young and not prepared to kill people. In the second run of the movie the producers released an alternate ending. She does not find her father in the alternate ending. In this alternate ending times are even tougher and the Army recruiter forces all of the young girls and boys to converge on Main Street. There he decides that he needs two young people to kill other less-well-to-do youth. If she kills all of the youth that the recruiters tell her to kill then she'll get a new house for her family.

This alternate ending is a little more gut wrenching. Lawrence's sister is drafted by the Army recruiter - he seemed so helpful in his disguise in the original ending but here he seems more selfish and cold. In this one, Lawrence appropriately takes the place of her drafted little sister. She will go to war as a volunteer. No sign up bonus, only her cunning spirit and survival instincts will help her. She's rushed away to a lavish city (LA, NYC? It's never stated outright, it's just the Capitol) to begin her training. All the contractors and former killers were there to watch and train a new batch of underprivileged youth from ghettos and Appalachia. This alternate ending is a full two hours of additional footage so hold on to your hats and settle in, this ending takes you for a ride to a land no less bleak than Missouri hill country. This ending takes you to the land of tax breaks for the wealthy, reality TV obsessed cultures, and an arena smaller in scale than Afghanistan and Iraq but no less depressed.

The producers made so much money off this second release and alternate ending that they renamed the movie. They called it The Hunger Games. Winter's Bone is a synonymous title but with so much of the focus in this second version on killing in the face of hunger the new name seems appropriate. At one point I thought this new ending was a little far fetched. I kept asking myself if it was just an allegory or parable for the present or if this was really happening? I guess I just didn't want to believe that our nation would really condone the killing of teenagers by other teenagers. I'm told there are a bunch of books on the subject. My friends were just telling me about a documentary called Restrepo that they just saw. My friends and I often watch war movies and documentaries. We get all caught up in the love stories, manifest destiny and come from behind montages that wrap around the killing. I suppose we're not the only ones that love watching and reading about teenagers killing other teenagers. But still, this is so far fetched. I mean, really? There are rich white men sitting around campaigning for the killing youth to be given Oakley sunglasses and survival gear? These Hunger games must make as much money for the rich guys as a real war makes for other rich guys.

Both movies are worth seeing. Jennifer Lawrence has secured her place in our future of movie watching. We'll see her many times in the next 40 years. The original, Winter's Bone is hard to watch at times because you hate to see a young girl take such a beating. It all seems too real and unnecessary. In the second version of Winter's Bone with the extended/alternate ending, renamed The Hunger Games, Lawrence still steals the show and takes quite a beating. You may think each is far fetched if you've had no personal experience with poverty and war--they must always be mentioned together--but as far as I know, both The Hunger Games and Winter's Bone are as accurate as can be. Now, what do we do with it all? Are we cool with Appalachian youth having to grow up so quickly? Are we cool with watching Appalachian youth kill other youth on our TV and movie screens? The box office receipts from The Hunger Games and our willingness to engage in conflict in other parts of the world seems to point to an answer. From the safety of our blogs and webcams it's easier to point in another direction. We'll see if movies are overt enough to dictate future pointing, I guess.

Shutter Island, Gustav Mahler and Music + Film

I can't believe I missed this movie while it was in theaters. I purchased my Dell A215 PC Multimedia speakers and subwoofer in 2001. I'm thankful for them. They've done their best to enhance several hundred movies that have played on my computer and they've done a pretty darn good job. But, man, they were the wrong choice for Shutter Island. I needed some Cypress Hill concert speakers.


Martin Scorsesee was honored this year at the Critic's Choice Awards with the Music + Film tribute, replete with Bob Dylan and Leo himself. Robbie Robertson has composed for Scorsese since they worked together in 1981. Robbie Robertson, I've learned from this article, has been listening to avant garde composers since the late 60s. Other movies have used bits and pieces from the avant garde, other directors and movie makers have been honored with the Music + Film tribute, but no movie and no movie director or movie maker has achieved what Robertson and Scorsese did with Shutter Island. Gosh, I love my speakers, but they were outmatched by the score-script combo of a tuned-in Robertson and the cultivated Scorsese.


There are two reasons to watch Shutter Island again. (Spoiler Alert) Shutter Island is a testament to the need for theater re-runs. This movie is like one of those pictures where there is more than one image to be seen. You know, the ones that show a rabbit and an old woman. It depends on your point of view which you see. Finishing the movie and then thinking back through it you'll recognize that everyone was in on the role play: the nurses laughing when Teddy is questioning them, the guard being nervous about one patient physically harming another, the frustration of the board of directors when Teddy barges in their meetings, and more. This is a cool way to make movies and Scorsese is all about making cool movies, of the noir-thriller-throw-back sort. The second reason to watch this movie again and maybe again, is to notice and really appreciate how the works of less famous composers are filtered in, layered and used in such a novel way, adding texture and not just CSI-X-files foreboding--"But the real brilliance of this score is that the music doesn’t cue the action or explain anything. It adds emotional texture, serving as an alternate universe for a film that has at its essence an alternate universe." 


Watch it again and notice where John Adam's "Christian Zeal and Activity" shows up. Pay attention to the use of Brian Eno and Lou Harrison. This will take some leg work as you'll have to listen to and read up on these folks. But then you'll start to realize how cool it is what Robertson has done with this score. You'll gain a whole new appreciation for how music can sit in a film or push a film or change a film or take over a film. Then you'll realize that Scorsese and Robertson don't use music for any  smoke and mirror reasons. It's used here to accompany, foster, and grow an idea - more honorable traits if you ask me. 


Lastly, Gustav Mahler. Composers have been featured many times in other movies. Most recently, without overt mention, though, in Melancholia. Implied but never stated was the line of dialogue: "Oh, you're listening to Wagner as the world is about to end in a fiery explosion of planets colliding?" Mentioning a composer is a way for movie makers to tip their hat to greatness. It's a way for movie makers to say, "Hey, this piece is so necessary for this movie that we are going to have the actors actually engage with the soundtrack." In other words, it's not a soundtrack, the characters hear and sense the mood changing for themselves. We, the actors, and the composers are on the stage together. Scorsese has seen bunches of movies where this has been the case. Before Tarantino and after Bergman, Scorsese makes use of what others have done well in movies that he likes. Robbie Robertson and Martin need the viewer to recognize what Gustav Mahler has meant for music, film and our culture. If anything, I hope you can appreciate this as much as I try to. Mahler was Austrian and was banned during the Nazi era. His work is known for being robust, novel, and unpredictable. He makes use of foreshadowing and in moments of dissonance he'll often do something completely absurd. The fact that Teddy recognized Mahler playing as he met the doctors in the throes of an elaborate role play is significant. For him, and for millions that lived with the atrocities of WWII, Mahler was a lynchpin in narratives constructed by sufferers who attempted to synthesize dissonance, atrocity, absurdity and beauty. Mahler's own tragic life can be heard in the piano quartet even having written it as a young student. Indeed, Mahler deserves a leading role in a high quality movie like this one.


Sometimes a thriller-horror movie strikes a chord on a personal level thereby placating the uneasy viewer. I was embarrassingly jacked about this soundtrack. I was able to stomach the creepy and embrace the broad strokes of Robertson's and Scorsese's awesomeness because of a score that did more than try and creep me out. It helped that the score featured a whole bunch of composers that I really enjoy listening to. I bet Joel Davis would have some cool stuff to say about this movie. We'll do our best to get him to weigh in on it all. 

Screenshot Review - The Separation - Rob Culpepper

Melancholia - Responses & Retorts

Ben Franklin believed the most important question for fostering good conversation in his weekly pub gatherings to be:


"Have you met with any thing in the author [director] you last read, remarkable, or suitable to be communicated to the Junto? particularly in history, morality, poetry, physics, travels, mechanic arts, or other parts of knowledge?"


In the spirit of our B.A. Junto, here are some responses to HOM's tweets on Melancholia:

Response One:

This is one of the best HOM reviews yet. The twitter platform really works I think. It works well -- continuity of ideas but with a time-stamped notes -- very helpful, easy to follow.

I still can't decide if there's anything redeeming about this film. All the beautiful things are saturated with meanness, self-loathing, self-ishness. You're right - the sister seems to be the closest thing to a redeeming character.

Also, this review is full of gems, especially that death star reference -- I fucking agree so hard!

Response Two:

OK, some not very well thought-out thoughts:

Maybe it was just the mood I was in at the time but I actually didn’t find it totally depressing, I think people would probably do a lot worse things if they really thought the world was about to end. That aside, what did I like about it...

The first half, as a character study, was awesome – I thought Kirsten Dunst’s character’s depression was incredibly well portrayed, she was insanely frustrating but at the same time you couldn’t really be angry with her. I just felt incredibly sorry for her husband! Also loved her crazy eccentric parents. Granted a wedding was an obvious tool to make a lot of the family issues clear, but I liked that you could tell they had had all the same arguments a million times before – it may have appeared contrived but maybe it was meant to, because sometimes those situation are for real? Having said that, I do agree that some of the ‘rich people issues’ were very in your face.  However, I’m not sure I agree that the emotional scenes needed to become emotional – maybe they were deliberately like that – none of these people could communicate emotionally with each other effectively so the audience was left with the same feeling?

I thought there were a lot of good performances in it – Kirsten Dunst was awesome and should have been recognised in the award season (don’t even get me started on Drive). Charlotte Gainsbourg was equally as good in a part which, in my opinion, was a lot more difficult to shine in. I also loved John Hurst as their father (especially the spoons!).

As for part 2 - the sense of impending doom and claustrophobia were really well achieved - you really felt like there was no way out, that everyone was suppressed by the weight of what was about to happen. I found it more suffocating than depressing, and for that reason probably wouldn’t watch it again for quite some time. Having said that, it was one of the most memorable things I saw last year and here we are still talking about it now.... 

I have to say, there was also a lot I didn’t like – the opening shots and the scenes where Kirsten Dunst had lightning flying out of her hands etc didn’t really do it for me.  I’m also not really a fan of overly ponderous, not-much-happening-but-we-are-being-artistic moments, which may surprise you as this film had quite a lot of those. For some reason it didn’t feel too drawn out and slow to me – but I think that may be because I had bought into the world he created from the start and was wrapped up with their situation. If you stood back from it and tried to unpick it all maybe it didn’t work so well?

I think my personal fav comment of yours was the one about gravel :)

Wow, I hate overanalysing films. I always end up feeling like a pretentious idiot.

Response Three:

Great review!  The twitter works.  I especially like the multiple feeds(?) like the RedBox, and I'm down with the play-by-play style.  

To be honest, I wasn't really into this movie at first but liked it better in retrospect.  Dathalinn loved it, so I know there is redeemable stuff there.

It really shows that Von Trier has never been to America.  That's exactly how I picture some Danish dude to imagine the US of A.  Also, the thing I like best of this movie is it's depiction of the all-consuming nature of depression.  It covers everything and really is like the world's going to end.  So the idea of an utterly subjective, myopic kind of Earth is kind of cool.  But in terms of enjoyment and being pissed off about the "Earth sucks" and "God is nothing" message, I'm right there with Jone Bone.

That being said, it is kind of beautiful and thought-provoking.  So who knows?!

Response Four:

Dude, can't stop thinking about that fucking movie. Nytimes review is halfway persuasive, I think ebert generationally misses the point, and a whole lot of other commentaries are all over the place. I liked yours for the most part. Now that I am removed from the two hours where I actually had to watch such loathsome content and characters I am able to think about some of the dynamics. Particularly referring to Justine and Claire's relationship with each other, themselves, and others. I think there is a lot there that is kind of brilliant. I would be willing to unpack that statement if you asked me and I wasn't typing on my phone. At any rate, the female elements of this movie have my brain spinning. That is to say, my wheels are spinning, I am still not convinced that trier depicted these things very well and I still think his movies are too pompous and somewhat of a sideshow, vindictive even. Then again, he might have been bullied by my high school friends. In that case, I might should be a little more forgiving. Then again, I really don't like pomp. Or rich white guys. One love. 


Response Five:


Dude, what made you think I would care about this? Why'd you send me this? Duh. I've never heard of Lars Von whatever. I actually liked the movie though. I'm over it though. Twitter is weird to me anyways. Have you seen that freak ass movie with Bjork, gf just told me that's by the same director as this one was. That movie was sick*.


*This reviewer is from California. Sick, in this context, means that this reviewer thought that "freak ass movie with Bjork" was good. 

Melancholia - A Tweeted Chronicling

@LarsVonT Dude, you're stuff is a bit intense for me but good friends have said I need to tough this one out. Still reeling from Dancer and the one with Defoe. #Scandinaviandirectors

@RedBox Picked up Melancholia at Thorton's new box down in Wilder by the river, appreciated the shade screen. Wonder why Cold Spring Kroger box was out of Melancholia #ColdSpringDeeperThanYouThink

@Melancholia (:03) Three mins in - lots of shots of paintings that tell me we are dealing with the inevitable, depression, and artistic longings. Hanging in there.

@Melancholia (:05) I'm always game for universe shots followed by portraits/close-ups. Kirsten D is good looking but already unnerved by her 'depression' face.

@Melancholia (:11) Ok, got it - rich people, spoiled girl with issues, pansy husband, Kiefer making career shift, big time british actors/thespians, shaky camera = I'm watching an existential 'film'.

@Melancholia (:20) Lars must have worked in service industry at some point, hate these rich idiots.

@Melancholia (:28) After 27 shots of foreshadowing Kirsten finally starts to break down - bout time.

@Melancholia (:39) I'd walk 18 holes here. The golf course and the shadows have the same effect - Lars takes the mundane and makes it eerie.

@Melancholia (:50) I'm over these characters. Part 1 was the most uncomfortable first act of any movie that I have seen in a long time. I'm givin it all I got, still waiting for the emotional scenes to actually be emotional and not so contrived.

@Melancholia (1:03) The sister is the only character redeeming this movie at this point. Her acting, in lieu of the looming planet smashing, is actually convincing. So glad this stupid, never ending party is over.

@Melancholia (1:16) Just checked how much time I have left before the movie ends - my stamina is wavering. HOLY BALLS! are you kidding? an hour left? FML.

@Melancholia (1:22) OK, that scene of walking around in the garden with cool light and decent tunes and then nude moon/melancholia bathing brought me back a little. I see where we are headed for first time in an hour. Snow scene was cool too. Lars is good at filming people just doing normal stuff like googling.

@Melancholia The sound of gravel is really prevalent in this movie. Wonder if that means some deep philosophical thing? Kind of sounds like pills in a pill bottle or something. ha. I want to set the horses loose.

@Melancholia (1:34) Ok, for realz, I need someone that likes this movie to start telling me what to look for. Really starting to get pissed off now. Just spent 12 minutes imagining how cathartic it will be once this planet doesn't exist anymore. This planet that VonT is depicting (earth) does not exist. Life on the Death Star was a more accurate depiction of humanity than this.

@Melancholia Why doesn't someone take her to the psychiatric hospital?

@Melancholia "The Earth is evil. No one will miss it." Really??? She's a soothsayer now?

@Melancholia (1:37) Still really excited to see what it would look like if two planets collided. Of course Kiefer has lanterns and stuff. And wears a tie and vest for the event. Can't stop trying to figure out the physics of this.

@Melancholia (1:43) The SciFi elements are redeeming this movie.

@Melancholia (1:47) Is this movie about happiness? Imagine the worst thing possible and everything is easier?

@Melancholia (1:48) Fake out. Pensiveness sets back in.

@Melancholia (1:49) The circumference tool is a cool prop for repeatedly creating angst. This movie borrows from that old MTV reality show 'Fear'.

@Melancholia (1:50) The horse are calm and no pills. Shit.

@Melancholia (1:58) A fascist myopic where nothing seems to work? What does that say? What point is being made? If any? Symphony comes in on cue.

@Melancholia (2:00) Two hours in. Um. Does the 19th hole have any significance. I'm wrecked
 with looking for meaning at this point. I can't do it anymore. Acting the end of life is a tall task.

@Melancholia @Lars (2:01) Best dialogue of the movie "I want to do it the right way. A glass of wine." - (Justine, with contempt) "You want me to have a glass of wine on your terrace. Maybe a song? Beethoven's 9th? Something like that? Do you want to know what I think of your plan?" Man, she (Melancholy) is so detestable. Good for Claire (hope).

@Melancholia (2:02) More meaning? Abraham has returned. Hope is a liar. The father of many sons is without a rider... what the crap?

@Melancholia (2:04) Things are coming full circle. Finally something normal, expected. Magic Caves seem right. The paintings coming to fruition. The Ten Plagues? Father Abraham? @Lars Is this an old testament allegory?

@Melancholia (2:07) Building Wigwams? Is it a reference to colonialism? Genocide? I give up. When does Beethoven's 9th come in?

@Melancholia (2:09) At least the child's plan for the end wins out.

@Melancholia (2:10) OK, that was a cool depiction.

@Melancholia (Credits) Actor's names on a black screen. Appropriate. But would have been cooler if there really was no next scene.

So, I watched it. I hated the first 7/8 but the end brought me back a little bit. I have some idea what this movie is about. Trying to resist its urgings to think real deep-like. Pretty sure I disagree with every possible interpretation. Not a world I believe in or want to live in. Ready for someone to tell me what they think.

Hunger Games - Joey Proffitt

The Rant:

I don't say hate a lot.  I don't hate a lot of things and the things I hate are some pretty terrible things.  Exploitation of people (especially children), abuse of political power, electronics breaking, cancer and other diseases, natural disasters, money...

Oh, and people harping about movies that are not as good as the book!

It's awful!  Please name a movie that was better than the book?  Name one. The Wizard of Oz. Ok, name two. (really try and come up with one)

After every movie release I just want to break a little blue wing on the twitter bird.

Of course it's not as good as the book.  I don't care if you read the book and want us to know how special you are that you read it and have secret knowledge that we wouldn't understand because we haven't.  Eat a fart.  Gnosticism is the worst.  Movie gnostics suck, almost as bad as Lake Gnostics.  If that's is your only review of a movie, it is unacceptable.  You MUST have something more.  MUST. GRRRRRRR!

The Rave:

The Hunger Games is WONDERFUL.  Great casting.  Great pacing.  and great job of leaving the right things out.  A movie must make choices, and Hunger Games made the right ones.

1.  Food - the author Suzanne Collins had this incessant need to be overly descriptive of food which I found to be trivial and a waste of description.  She should have used it more on the character development of the numerous "tributes."

2.  Donald Sutherland was a better President Snow than the book's.  He had depth and intrigue.  DS has a great voice.  Have you ever noticed that?

3.  The love story was less cheesy.  I felt the book was trying to go a little "Twilight" but ultimately failed.  The movie however successfully worked in the game vs. reality / shared experience vs. natural attraction aspects of the no win love story.

4.  Closure - The story doesn't have closure. But the movie does.  We'll done.

5.  Soundtrack - wonderful music. T-Bone Burnett produced. read about it here 

If the book didn't exist:

1.  Great Casting - Tucci, Sutherland, J Lawrence, Banksy, Woody, and Kravitz.

2.  Pacing - The movie moved quick.  Didn't lull.  Changed scenery often. Valued movement over scenery.  

3.  2 Things that put me in a mood of forgiveness to minor and all flaws.  Entertainment Value and Character Development. +++!

4. And Great previews: Snow White and the Huntsman, Lincoln Vampire Hunter, 

The Response:

What must a movie do to be a successful counterpart for a book?

What are the limitations of cinema that a movie must overcome?

In what ways can movies surpass books?