Analyze this

With the kids back at school, I have been able to return to the world of sports radio and television. I don't sit there all day and watch a never ending stream of ESPN shows, mind you. I abandoned the Worldwide Leader years ago when it was apparent that what they considered sports coverage was some combination of loud-mouthed ignorant hosts arguing with each other. Instead, I usually have the Dan Patrick Show running on the radio or NBC Sports network while I am working. No matter where you get your sports coverage, one thing that is startlingly clear within a matter of days is just how much critical analysis has become the dominant source of content. This isn't analysis like Trent Dilfer may offer on ESPN, where he is breaking down plays and coverages. This is just plain criticism passing as journalism. It isn't limited to sports, either. I would wager that more words of criticism are written across the interwebs each day than any other tone. 

You see it in entertainment coverage, sports coverage, news coverage, food coverage, fashion, celebrity, travel - even religion.  Gone are the days of the simple reporting of facts or investigative journalism. Everything now has to have an editorial attached. One of the biggest examples of this was when CNN switched their sports provider from Sports Illustrated to Bleacher Report. SI is a (somewhat) respectable old school sports journalistic entity. Bleacher Report is basically a sports blog. Every article they write ends with some kind of editorial statement. Some of them are wildly out of place and unnecessary. But there they are. It is almost like the news outlets are worried we won't know what to do with the information they are providing us. So they also have give us the stance we should take now that we have the news. 

Look at political speeches. Some political entity will get on television and give a fifteen minute speech. Then the networks will run two hours of commentary breaking down and criticizing what that person said. And with the rise of Twitter, we don't even have to wait until the speech is over. We can start sending out our analysis as soon as the person hits the stage. "What a weasel." "What is that tie supposed to mean?" "How can this guy get elected when he mispronounces mujaheddin?"  

Slip back into the sports world for a moment. After last college football season, it was the unanimous opinion among sports people that Jadaveon Clowney would be the first pick in last year's draft. There was even spirited discussions about if he should sit out this season to make sure he didn't get injured like his old teammate Marcus Lattimore. He was the best player in college football, we were told. He is unstoppable, they said. It was like every college football expert was tripping over each other to join some insane Clowney posse. (No groaning, you should expect that by now people.) Living in Columbia, we have gotten more than enough coverage of Clowney. My twelve year old son, who could care less about football, wanted to watch the first game and came home telling jokes involving Clowney. (Why is six afraid of seven? Clowney) Two games into the season? USA Today had a headline this week asking if Clowney had already slipped in the draft. Sports outlets have already switched to debating just how overrated this out of shape wannabe is. The Gamecocks still have 10-12 games remaining this year. And he's washed up after just two?

Think about the news of Ben Affleck's casting as Batman. How much ink and web space was devoted to criticizing that choice? I clearly remember this uproar over Michael Keaton being cast. And Christian Bale being cast. And Heath Ledger being cast as Joker. In fact, the person who was the least criticized for being cast as Batman was George Clooney, who was so bad he has apologized for his role. Affleck is an Oscar winner for screenwriting and producing. He has been nominated as an actor. This isn't Zac Efron or Ashton Kutcher being cast here. We don't have any footage, any pictures, any script yet. But people have eviscerated the choice.  

So what, you may wonder. In fact, you may be waiting for me to be done to criticize me. I think there are several problems. First, being so critical all the time is a horrible way to live. It poisons your thought processes to where you start to find the worst in everything instead of the best. Think about if you go to a restaurant with a positive outlook. Let's say you know the owner or you're on a date. You will praise the things you like and overlook the things you dislike, unless the whole experience is a complete disaster. Maybe the chicken was a little dry. But the appetizers were great and the dessert rocked. You will probably walk out happy and see the experience as positive. If you go in angry and wondering if this dump will be any good, well, it will more than likely bring you down - no matter how good it is. 

Second, we get an overinflated view of our importance when we become full time critics. "People HAVE TO know what I'm thinking!"  It is like the universe is holding its breath to hear what we think of the new Harry Potter movies or Kate Winslet's dress. Since the Internet allows us to be anonymous in our criticisms. We can write rude things about an athlete who could tear our heads off in real life. We can say things about people we never would say to someone's face. Would you ever walk up to Ben Affleck and tell him he is going to suck as Batman? Would you tell the president to his face you think he is a jerk? Would you look an actress up and down and say she looks like a cow?  Of course not. But online, behind our screen names, we can be as cruel as we want. It makes us feel like we have power over those people, because we can cut them down. They may have the fame, money, and power we wish we had. But, dang it, we can be rotten on Facebook about them. We start to believe we are above the rules of common courtesy. We are superior to all those people who disagree with us. That's hardly a healthy view of things. 

The last reason I have to avoid the cult of criticism is something I realized yesterday in an unusual place. We fail to see the beauty of the "big picture" when we start to pick on and at everything. Last night one of my very favorite shows ended. We have been watching Burn Notice on USA since the end if season two. We caught up on the first two seasons quickly and have been avid viewers for five years. The show is far from perfect. It had had its ups and downs and its share of ludicrous story lines. It suffered from the entertainment trap of "too many layers of bad guys," where each conspiracy unveils another deeper layer. This season was much darker and different from the other ones. Instead of helping someone every week while constantly pursuing the bad guys behind the curtain, the team was kind of out to save their own skins. They were doing one job all season, only to stay out of prison themselves. They had to partner with slimy government agents to take down slimier bad guys. The problem came when the slime line wasn't so clear. Our honorable hero, Michael Westen, went so far under cover it looked like he wouldn't and couldn't come out. It was easy to pick on the season. Some episodes were frustrating. They weren't bad. But they were different. And that was hard. But as they tied all the pieces together, it culminated in one of the best series finales I have ever seen. Michael ended his quest the only way possible for a man like him. There were major sacrifices made - ones that were heartbreaking to see come to pass. But I couldn't have asked for a better ending after so many years invested in the show. 

So often we forget the big picture. We can be so critical of each quarter, half, and game that we miss out on the complete season or career. We get upset about a role being cast and miss out on the overall direction of the movie franchise. Think about the Avengers movie franchise. People griped about Robert Downey Jr being cast as Iron Man. It was originally supposed to be Tom Cruise. How stupid would that be in retrospect?  People were unhappy about just about everyone cast in the Avengers series, except Samuel L Jackson. But the movie itself was brilliant. The complete effort made sense. Imagine if the Internet existed when Michelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel. Would there be constant online whine and cheese fests over each panel?  "I can't believe he painted Jeremiah that way!!!  Omg!"  Would Lincoln or Reagan stood up to the constant news influx and the age of twitter?  Doubtful. Personally, I also think of the Bible and how people get hung up on battles over tiny passages while missing the whole story. It is often quite detrimental to be so obsessed with the parts that we miss the completed project. 

I know that I have battled a critical spirit in my own life. I have been labelled by many people as a negative person, with one minister telling me in junior high that I was "the most negative person he ever met." (That felt good.)  I will admit that I have been negative a lot and I still can easily fall back into that. I also like to analyze movies, restaurants, music, sermons, tv shows, and books more than most people. I like to think about them and critique them (which is not the same thing as criticizing them.) A critic doesn't have to be critical. We can examine a thing and judge it without bringing an acidic attitude into the process. What is our reason for that analysis? Is it to help people or ourselves? Is it to make ourselves feel better and tear others down? Is it to stir up issues and brings readers to our blog or twitter account? Are we being fair and allowing people to present the completed work before we tear it to shreds?  Maybe it would be helpful to turn that highly trained analytical eye inward for a spell to make sure we are doing things right first, and doing them for the right reason. It may give us a richer view of things were we aren't constantly tearing them apart. 

Spy vs Spy

My wife is out of town for the week.  So that means that I'm bored.  Instead of watching the shows stacking up on my DVR (all of which my wife wants to see), I am hitting up the Red Box and catching up on some movies that I have not been able to see yet.  To make this even more fun, I will be blogging my reviews and thoughts about the films.  First up: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.


Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is an old-fashioned spy thriller.  I mean, not just Hunt for Red October old-fashioned.  I mean really old-fashioned.  Set in 1973, it has virtually none of the trapping of a modern spy film.  It was kind of hard for my brain to transition to the different environment.  There were no cell phones, no computers, no surveillance cameras on every corner.  Instead, the spies used pay phones and read paper briefings.  Rather than using high-powered assault rifles, homemade bombs, and specialized training these spies relied on knives, pistols, and hunting rifles.  But their biggest weapon was their words.

I never had really thought about how much spies in older spy movies were so dependent on words.  They were everything.  That was how you transmitted information, organized plans, turned enemies.  Words were the most valuable commodity around.  Sometimes, that was the ultimate goal - to hear just a simple word.  A code, a mission name, an operative's handle, a target location.  Just a single word could have massive, long-term ramifications for hundreds of people.  In Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, one agent was broken through enemy interrogation and he sold out all the operatives in an area.  He asked if they had gotten out okay, only to find that his words had betrayed every one of them.  Words had meaning.  


I had seen in several reviews of the film that the dialogue was critical and was hard to follow.  I understand why people would say that.  I had to have my television's volume about fifty percent higher than normal just to catch everything (which made for a shock when a pistol would go off).  I don't think the movie itself was to blame.  Rather, it is more a commentary on how we, as moviegoers, have become so accustomed to noise.  That is where there is the greatest contrast between Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and modern spy offerings.  When I think of the modern spy genre, immediately I think of the Bourne series.  It also includes the newer Bond movies, shows like Burn Notice and Covert Affairs, and films like Salt or Mr. and Mrs. Smith or Mission: Impossible.  In these stories, the modern spy is still brilliant and deductive.  But they also are like real-life superheroes.

Think about Jason Bourne or Michael Westen.  They know how to use every weapon: knives of all sizes, grenade launchers, rail guns.  They are trained in all sorts of combat - from Asian martial arts to parkour.  They are military geniuses.  In addition, they are all super sexy and use seduction as a common technique.  They also have super spidey senses, able to tell if the smallest item is moved or if a person breathes two rooms away.  Words are not as important as trickery and acting.  Technology is deeply interwoven into the modern spy's repertoire.  He or she must be able to hack into any computer, clone drives, nullify unbelievably intricate security systems, hijack the local network of cameras, and edit videos on the fly.  


Looking at the difference between the Bourne series and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is an interesting exercise.  Both films are very good.  They are well written and executed.  They attract amazing casts.  Think about the names that were in those films.  The Bourne films have Oscar and Golden Globe nominees and winners galore.  Matt Damon, Jeremy Renner, Edward Norton, Chris Cooper, Albert Finney, David Strathairn, Joan Allen, Clive Owen, Scott Glenn, and Brian Cox all have acting hardware on their shelves.  Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy can easily match that roster (as well as show their apparent affinity for grabbing Harry Potter cast members.  Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, John Hurt, and Toby Jones all have been acknowledged by those groups - while other cast members Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hardy, and Mark Strong will almost assuredly be nominated at some point in the near future.  


Interestingly, they both tell the tales of a spy disillusioned by their role and their leaders.  It is pretty common for modern American cinema to wallow in the anti-establishment end of the pond.  Most Americans don't trust their government and believe there are conspiracies afoot.  So it is only natural for the modern brilliant spy to uncover the nefarious plots.  Apparently a few decades back, the British intelligence community was as highly regarded as a circa 1990s American automobile.  So the more alert operatives in that group were hitting the same place that modern US operatives are now.  The themes of betrayal, corruption, misguided methods, and blind ambition run through both works.  For all of their similarities, though, these two examples go about things in a completely different way.


Jason Bourne is a man of few words.  But he is a man of action.  Gary Oldman's George Smiley is also a man of few words - at first.  I clocked it last night.  Even though he was in virtually every scene in the first part of the movie, Smiley didn't talk until the 18 minute mark.  At that point, he mostly spoke in minor phrases, spending most of his time thinking, analyzing, and plotting.  As the movie progressed, though, Smiley spoke more and more.  Bourne, as the movies progressed, would demonstrate his physical brilliance in fending off increasingly dangerous attacks.  Smiley showed his mental brilliance as he maneuvered through the web of lies all around him.  Instead of breaking out into violence, he wielded his words like a sword - both to inspire loyalty from those close to him and to strike fear into those plotting against him.  He pulled a gun once, but never actually USED a weapon.  A far cry from a modern spy.  


There were no car chases, no explosions.  There were few, if any, fight scenes.  There was violence.  It was crude and awful - which made it all the more shocking.  So many times in modern action movies, people die and property gets destroyed at such a rate that we rarely blink an eye when someone gets offed.  In fact, going into a film like Bourne, we expect that two-thirds of the people will probably end up dead.  I kept waiting for the wholesale clearing house scene in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.  It never happened.  Each death that was shown was brutal and affecting.  It really brings home the fact that taking a life weighs on a person.  You could see that weight etched on the faces of each person.  The younger spies were overwhelmed by the pain of loss as they experienced it for the first time.  The older spies had a weary look of acceptance, but the pain didn't disappear.  


Another example of this genre of film would be The Good Shepherd.  It was a modern film that looked at the beginning of the CIA.  Matt Damon played another word-sparing spy.  But this time it was in a different world.  Gone were the images of Damon beating a man up with a magazine and blowing up an apartment complex with a microwave.  The spy in Shepherd was coldly calculating.  I could actually see that character growing up into Oldman's George Smiley.  They were cut from the same cloth and spies of a similar era.


I think both types of movies have their place.  I love sitting back and watching Michael Westen blow up half of Miami without any consequences.  It is fun.  Westen is brilliant and talented.  So is Jason Bourne.  I am excited about Bourne Legacy.  I loved the first three movies.  They are exciting and riveting.  But Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a different kind of movie.  It is slow and thoughtful.  It requires the viewer and the spy to pay attention to everything.  There is nothing loud and explosive to distract and thrill.  Instead there is just the enjoyment of watching a master at work.  


Part of that mastery is found in Gary Oldman's portrayal of the elder spy.  Personally, I think Oldman is one of the most brilliant actors out there.  He is a complete chameleon.  He makes every role his own to the point that you can't imagine anyone else being cast.  JFK's Lee Harvey Oswald, Dracula's vampire prince, Fifth Element's wacko Zorg, Harry Potter's Sirius Black - even Batman's Commissioner Gordon.  (I am a massive Batman fan and when I heard Oldman was cast as Gordon, I just about wet myself with excitement.)  I have always found it more difficult for actors to portray a quiet character than a loud one.  I am nowhere near as impressed by Al Pacino's Scent of a Woman or Oceans Thirteen performance as a I am by his Godfather or  Insomnia ones.  I think actors love to portray over-the-top characters because they are so showy and noticeable.  It is easy to overlook someone quiet and thoughtful.  But the ability to imbue that person with layers and depth takes work.  You can't rely on a big speech to flesh out your character.  It is in a glance or a sigh.  That actually is also why I think Matt Damon is such a good actor.  His Jason Bourne and Good Shepherd character both carried that ability to say enough by saying nothing at all.  


That all being said, I enjoyed Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.  It was tense and engaging.  I loved the performances by everyone - especially Oldman, Tom Hardy (brilliant in its restraint) and Cumberbatch.  [Side note: Tomorrow's post will deal more with him as I compare the Sherlock Holmes movies with the BBC Sherlock show.  Spoiler alert: I think Cumberbatch is a brilliant megastar on the rise.]  I appreciate a movie that make me think and doesn't rely on action sequences all the time.  It was a throwback, which I appreciate from time to time.  Maybe its because I remember the era the movie was set in, when spies were these mysterious characters in an invisible war instead of superheros fighting nothing in particular.