I’m currently working on two different posts right now, and I’m nowhere near done with either of them and don’t want to rush them. So, to ensure I have a post for today, I’m going to give you a rant on a pet peeve that didn’t make my top five on Wednesday.
There is a certain act of bus courtesy that I think all bus riders would do well to remain conscious of. I’m talking about moving to an empty seat when it opens up so you’re not crowding the person you’re next to. To be more specific, I’m talking about any 2-person seat on the bus that the two of you have to share due to a crowded bus. If you’re both still next to each other when the bus clears up a bit (as it’s nearing the end of its route), and you’re the one on the outside, you should move to an open 2-seater. I’m going to be nice and not demand that you move to an inward facing seat–only move when a forward facing seat opens up. That’s fair, right?
I’ve been shocked the number of times this rule has gone unheeded, though. Like the girl on the 358 who sat next to me through four stops on Aurora Avenue when we were the only two people on the back half of the bus. I did the classic “do something with my left hand” move to show off my wedding ring, just in case she was still there for a reason other than bad manners. Don’t scoff–she sounded rather sad when my stop approached and I moved to get up and she asked, “Is this your stop?” Sorry to break your heart, lady, butIgotmeaDona.
A couple of days ago, a seemingly intelligent, business-type guy sat next to me as we all crowded on the 41 at the Northgate Park & Ride. The bus started significantly clearing off after two stops, but he stayed put all the way to the International District, where we both got off. Look man, your inattention has made this escalator ride a lot more awkward, I hope you know.
You know what? I’ll give even more leeway–if you’ve got headphones in or your face buried in a book or magazine, I’ll cut you some slack. I caught myself doing this one day when I was deeply into a game of Angry Birds. Understand this doesn’t make it OKAY, but there’s at least an argument to be made that you would have moved had you noticed no one was left on the bus.
And don’t try to use the excuse, “Oh, I was afraid you might have taken offense to me moving.” Let me clarify this–only the person MOVING is uncomfortable because of the seat-switch. The person staying put is just fine with it.
One more thing: this works in reverse, too. If there are open 2-seaters, you take the open 2-seater. Again, I won’t insist on taking an inward-facing seat–that’s your choice–but if there is no one in the seat two rows back, take that. I was the first person on a bus a couple of weeks ago and took the first forward-facing seat there was (because if you get off at Northgate on the 41, standing in the back is like deboarding an airplane), and two other people got on. An older woman sat two rows back from me, and this early-20’s looking dude plopped down right next to me. It was two more VERY busy stops before such a move could be justified.
Okay, I have a meeting in six minutes . . . so in conclusion–We sit arm-to-arm on the bus only when we HAVE to, and we spread out when we get the chance. Other countries may not have such a wide bubble of personal space as we do in America, but we’re not in those countries. So pay attention.
5. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King 4. The Brothers Bloom 3. Rounders 2. Inception 1. The Shawshank Redemption
. . . biggest pet peeves are:
5. Drivers who yield on on-ramps
4. Noisy neighbors–home, office, or otherwise
3. People who adhere to generic opinions
2. Stupid TV commercials
1. Bad grammar, spelling, text speak, etc.
. . . dream guitars are:
5. Rickenbacker 320
4. Any Paul Reed Smith
3. Ibanez JS1200
2. Fender 69 Thinline Telecaster
1. Gibson ES-335
I saw Inception on its opening weekend, and I have to say that everything good everyone’s saying about it is true. But among the praise for the writing, the acting, and the action, is the ending. It was one of the best movie endings I’ve ever seen in my life. I was going to do a Top Ten Movie Endings post, but couldn’t come up with enough movies. I then tried the Top Five Movie Endings list, but got a much better idea instead: a post on ways to end a movie well.
Okay, before we get started–SERIOUS SPOILER ALERT! I claim no responsibility for ruining movies for anybody that reads this (and I WILL be talking about the end of Inception, so you’ve been warned).
THE TWIST ENDING
This is the easiest way to make a “s’okay” movie great. It worked most famously for The Sixth Sense. That was a good movie on its own, kinda scary, we felt bad and cared for the kid, but if Brucey-boy hadn’t been dead all along, I seriously doubt we’d remember it the way we do, if at all (and this is coming from a guy whose heart is broken over the crumbling of M. Night’s credibility as a decent director). The most important part of a Twist Ending is that it has to be obvious after the reveal. The audience needs to be able to look back over the whole movie, either by memory or a second viewing, and realize that it had been there all along. You can see that no one talked to Dr. Crowe at all throughout The Sixth Sense. In The Prestige, you put together that Borden was never cheating on his wife with Olivia, but that it was his brother all along, and THAT’S what was going on on the days he said “I love you” to her and she knew he didn’t mean it. But if you throw in a twist that just doesn’t line up with what we’ve seen, it’s crap. Have you seen Basic? It has Sam Jackson and John Travolta in a very not-Pulp Fiction movie. To explain to you what happened, let me just ask you to imagine watching the last episode of Lost, but instead of the whole purgatory thing, it just gets revealed that Jack and John and Hurley and Ben and Libby and Boon and Bernard and Rose and Tom Friendly were all okay and they explained to Kate that they were all old buddies all along and planned everything to happen exactly like it did so they could con some money out of Charles Whidmore. That was essentially the ending to Basic. It made that much sense. There are others like that, where at every corner at the end, there’s ONE MORE person that was in it the whole time, or SOMEONE ELSE was pulling the strings all along, instead of the person we were just told was pulling them. That’s bad writing, and I hate that.
THE HAPPY ENDING
Arguably, the Happy Ending is really the best way to end a movie. What is honestly better than watching our heroes succeed? I guess most movies go with this, but it takes something special to have a Happy Ending and be a GOOD ending. Sure, the end to Independence Day was a happy one, but it wasn’t special. They won, and we knew they would win; not that I would have preferred they lose (no matter what you think of Jeff Goldblum), but I didn’t walk out of the theater on July 2, 1995 thinking, “And what an ending!” No, a GOOD Happy Ending is something like Rounders. The thing with the end of Rounders is it could have gone so many different directions, and any one of them would have been more than adequate. Mike could have walked when he had his $20,000 victory; it would have been a big moment for him to essentially tell KGB where to shove it and take the safe bet and leave the life behind that had cost him his career and his girlfriend. But instead he sticks around, just to show that he’s better at the game than KGB is. Then we see him losing that hand, and he could have lost that one and the movie could have taken us out on a down note, but no–Mike wins. And what’s so great about it is that we WATCH him flop the nut-straight. The turn and the river are meaningless to Mike’s inevitable victory, but we get to be in “the know” and watch KGB gloat himself broke, thus putting Mike far ahead of where he would have been before, and proving that he’s as good as he knows he is.
THE TRAGIC ENDING
Chances are, if you see a movie with a Tragic Ending, it’s going to stick with you. It’s generally a bad move to have your heroes not succeed in some fashion, so to do such an ending you really have to lay the groundwork for it. I would hold that Se7en is the best reference for a tragic ending, where you realize that John Doe was going to win all along, and as much as we’d love to either stop Mills from shooting him at all, or (in my own, admittedly sick, preference) let him suffer a little longer, the fact is that Mills’s wife is still dead, as is his unborn child. That’s heavy stuff. The Tragic Ending can also make you take more home than just depression. Have you seen American History X? Danny’s death is a pretty strong way to say “you reap what you sow.” Derek and Danny seeing the light didn’t change the world around them, and now we wonder if Derek will continue on with his new ways, or let the anger of his brother’s murder put him back where he was. And speaking of movies with “American” in the title with tragic endings, there’s also American Beauty. I loved that movie when it was relatively new, but I really don’t think I could handle it now. I think this is an example of a pointless Tragic Ending. Not only is it a profile of very sick, broken people, its ending is pointless. Why does Lester need to die? I guess it brings everything to a place of “people realizing what’s most important when its too late,” but I still don’t like it. And do you know what the original, full ending was going to be? It was going to be the kids on trial for his murder, with the tape they made at the beginning of the movie as the nail in their coffin. “Thanks for seeing our movie, try not to drive your car off the road on the way home!”
THE EPIC ENDING
The word “epic” means both “pertaining to a long poem usually centering around a hero,” and “unusually great size.” So when I say “Epic Ending,” of what do you think? I think of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. A lot of people complained that the ending was way to long for that movie, but take a closer look at those who say that–they’re probably idiots. It’s essentially the ending to a 12 hour movie, so why in the world should it end in two minutes? Granted, the constant fades-to-black were a bit deceptive, but I think that was intended to add to the slow, peaceful feel the ending took on. Another good Epic Ending would be that of The Godfather. I refer to the Baptism of Blood scene on to the last shot of Kay’s face disappearing behind Michael’s closing office door. There is so much atmosphere and so much emotion through those final scenes, as we see Michael fully plunge himself into evil. This is the kind of ending, though, that can really only work on huge movies like these. I tried to watch Lawrence of Arabia a few weeks ago but couldn’t get past the 45 minutes of desert trekking, even with the hope of seeing Obi-Wan Kenobi in a headdress, but I’m willing to bet that had a huge ending, too; and if so, it would have worked and been appropriate. The only “small” movie I can think of that I would argue has an Epic Ending would be Wayne’s World. But that’s probably stretching the meaning of “epic” a bit.
THE SURPRISE ENDING
I’ve had a difficult time locating many movies that I would say have a “Surprise Ending,” and not something else, like a Twist Ending. The line is very thin, but I hold that there is a definite difference. The Surprise Ending sweeps the rug out from under you by dropping something in your path in a way you didn’t expect it, but it doesn’t mean you were fooled like you are in a Twist Ending. The best example of a Surprise Ending (and the only one I can think of at this moment) is The Shawshank Redemption. It didn’t turn out that Shawshank Prison was hell all along, or that it was all a dream, or something worse; no, it just turns out that Andy really was unbreakable and had an ace up his sleeve the whole time. Due to my poor variety of examples of these endings, I can’t say this definitively, but I would think that a Surprise Ending works best on a movie that is the story of one character. But what do I know? Oh! The Brothers Bloom! Would that be Surprise or Twist? It’s kind of a twist because we’re fooled into thinking Stephen was okay, but turns out he wasn’t, but we didn’t spend the whole movie thinking one thing when another was true–all that took place in the ending was confined to the ending. I dunno. Let’s debate it in the comments.
THE UNEXPECTED LAST SHOT
This, like the Tragic Ending, has to be done exactly right to be effective and not frustrating, and, like the Twist Ending, has to make sense in the context of the movie. I differentiate this from the other endings (because there is certainly lots of room for overlap with my ending types) because it’s really the last shot of the film that leaves you questioning everything (or leaves you excited for the next movie). Of course, my first example of this is Inception, when we don’t get to see if Dom’s top stops spinning or not, so we don’t know if he’s still dreaming. Another decent example of this is the Bill Murray movie Broken Flowers, where he’s spent the whole film looking for his illigitimate son and thinks he finds him, but as the boy runs away and Bill’s character gives chase, Bill just stops at an intersection, looks around, and the screen goes black. I wouldn’t say that’s one of the best uses of “last shot,” but it’s definitely unexpected and it gives the filmgoers something to discuss.
Thanks for reading. Are there any examples I’m not thinking of? Are there other kinds I didn’t bring up?
The last two posts have been pretty heavy, so let’s lighten things up.
I love a good GIF. The amount of humor that can be portrayed in only a couple seconds of looping, crudely edited film clips is astounding. Let’s look at some of my favorites (that are, as you’ll see, mostly from the awesome site “Señor Gif” because (1) there’s very slim chance of running into one I’d rather not see, if you get my meaning, and (2) they’re all quality). Are you ready for this journey? . . .
[click on the image if it’s not animating]
I've always really liked the ones that defy explanation.
Genius.
What can I say that this doesn't?
This is my wife's favorite, and with good reason; it's endless happy.
Proof that mustaches are manly.
Tell me that's not amazing.
Some say "gross;" I say "awesome."
I have a theory that sometimes, the less you understand something, the funnier it is.
Is this the banana guy again? If so he's double cool.
Speaking of bananas, still . . . Also, I love how Cid is supposed to be an old man, but he looks 27.
The first time I saw this I probably laughed at it for ten minutes.
. . . and the first time I saw this I laughed for like an hour and probably freaked out my officemate. By far, this one's my favorite.
Here on WordPress, the main page of the site produces several blog posts that are published on that particular day, and it’s great to skim what others write and even find some really fun blogs and/or interesting discussions. The latter was the case last Friday when I read a post that was a call for society to practice tolerance across the board; that we should recognize, as people, we are all different and will have different likes, preferences, beliefs, desires, etc., and we should respect and accept the fact that those differences do and will exist, and accepting this is important above all else (and of course, it is most important in the areas of sexuality, religion, and culture). You can read the whole thing here.
Now I, like many Christians, have an immediate clash with this kind of approach. However, while many who share my uneasiness tended to take the “if you tolerate everything, you have to tolerate intolerance, which contradicts the purpose of tolerance in the first place” angle (some did so eloquently, others no so much), I opted for more of the “such a call to action is as much a ‘do things my way’ demand as anything else” angle. Yet I’m not writing this to reiterate my comment. The author did reply, clarified (I assume) her own meaning a little more, and thanked me for adding to the discussion. On such a forum I could not ask for a more mature response.
Instead, what I’m writing about today is about many of the other comments that were left by the hundreds of readers of this post. The following is a very clear example of what happens when you get a bunch of people into the same place that have all opened up their hearts and turned off their brains. Sometimes they claim to agree with the author but add their own two cents, thus contradicting the original post, then the author would thank them for reading and say that she agreed–neither one of them noticing that their ideas are incompatible. Other times they contradict themselves in the same sentence. Even the author is so bent on mushy feelings that it seems she won’t even stand up for what she has said. As I said before, I think she’s mature in the way she’s handled the comments, and I have no intention of belittling her, but that doesn’t mean I think she knows what she’s talking about.
Here are some excerpts from some comments and my responses to them. (All comments are copied and pasted, so . . . you know . . . [sic]).
(the Author, in response to my comment) I respect you opinion and that you disagree with my approach, but I am not trying to say that it is the way I think it should be, therefore it is the gospel truth. All I tried to do is put into words what i feel, which is what most people tried to, is what you tried to do with your comments. . . .
Except that she DID say that it was the way she thought it should be. That was the very nature of her post. It’s right there in the title: “The World Would be a Better Place If . . .” Maybe she’s new to the “game” when it comes to expressing these kinds of opinions, but honestly if you aren’t prepared to commit to what you say you shouldn’t get in the ring.
If people give up identifying themselves as separate to each other, then and only then, we will witness a shift in the consciousness of the world.
How about some Sociology 101? There are essentially two different, overarching, cultural structures: collectivism and individualism. Collectivism is a society like China or North Korea where the individual’s desires are irrelevant, and the desires and expectations of family and society trump all. Individualism is the opposite, meaning each individual person is allowed and expected to define themselves. “Tolerance” is an individualist point of view in that each person is expected and encouraged to find their own truths and respect those that others make for themselves. This comment, though presented as being in line with the post (and even agreed upon by the author), is a collectivistic idea, in that our lives are all intertwined and we need to understand that the things we decide for ourselves effect others. The two are contradictory, but neither the author nor the commenter noticed.
It’s true that a lot of us struggle to take in ideas and concepts which are different from ours, once we grasp the idea of respecting another individual for who he/she is, the world would definitely be a better place. I think we do not need to harness hatred for others, but it is not necessary to preach the love for all humans. Acceptance will do It is very neutral.
I find this one fascinating because this person is insisting that “loving one another” is unnecessary–just accepting is fine. Well, I could argue all day about how demanding the minimal “acceptance” is not nearly enough to make any place better, but instead let me ask a different question, since this is the perfect opportunity to pull out an old debate: isn’t “hatred” an idea or concept that is different from your own, and therefore should be taken in or respected? If that strikes you as a silly or tired argument, then let me ask who draws the line, and where?
(In response to another comment that stated such things as “rapists should rape other rapists,” etc., seemingly facetiously) If a person kills another, that is clearly wrong and the LAW should deal with them. If a man loves another man, who has been harmed? I think you are confusing ‘harming people’ (which is wrong) with ‘offending people’s sensibilities’, which is due to their own beliefs. Lifestyle choices should not even come into the realm of law and punishment, unless that lifestyle choice ends in somebody being harmed. . . .
There is an assumption made here that this commenter thinks is basic, human understanding, but is actually based out of beliefs: harming someone, anyone, ever, is wrong. Not every society ever (and currently) has agreed that harming anyone is inherently wrong. In fact, the “do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anybody” philosophy is not only one point of view among thousands, but is also fairly recent. This also flies in the face of the relativism of “tolerance” because that is an absolute statement. There is this ignorance among the “tolerant” in that they don’t always realize that many of the truths to which they cling are dependent upon a system of absolute truth. More of this on its way . . .
Thank you for this post and your thoughts. It’s disappointing how some people go to that slippery slope when thinking of acceptance of difference. Certain things are true: abuse of power, or acceptance of what happens within the context of any power imbalance is wrong: that means certain things should never be accepted: acceptance; hate, hypocrisy and abuse.
On what is this person basing their belief that “certain things are true?” Who determines this imbalance of power? Based on my own beliefs, demanding that every religion be accepted as equally valid is an imbalance, because those other religions are not truth. Giving equal precedence to (what I believe are) lies and deceptions is not balanced, so you can begin to see how the phrase “power imbalance” is cripplingly ambiguous. More coming still . . .
We all just want to be accepted as we are. Who knows why God made some people Gay? Who knows why God made my eyes blue? But they are and that cannot be changed Being Gay is not a choice and being Gay is NOT A SIN. Best response is simply to give thanks and accept yourself first.
I have gotten into discussions before where I suggested that homosexuality is not genetic but could be a result of genetic predisposition and certain environmental factors that would vary from person to person. I’ve made the “mistake” of suggesting this to be similar to how someone could be predisposed to be an aloholic or have a violent personality, and the person on the other side of the argument almost always hits back with, “are you suggesting that being gay is like being an alcoholic or abusive?” The hole in the logic of that rebuttal is a mile wide, but there’s no strong way to respond without saying, “Yes, I do.” In a nutshell: I hate that rebuttal. So I want to say that if I can’t use that comparisson to support my view, you cannot compare homosexuality to being born with blue eyes. But alas, back to the other issues in this comment. Note the lack of reference here. ” . . . being Gay is NOT A SIN.” Why isn’t it? And why is accepting yourself first the best response? I believe the opposite of those things and my reference is the Bible. Agree or disagree, I have a reference; this person’s reference appears to be how they feel.
What’s with people taking tolerance into the deep end?? Is racism tolerant of people with different cultures or ethnicities? Is murder tolerant of the desire for someone to live a full life? Tolerance is a slipperly slope apparently! One day we accept homosexuals as normal, next we’ll accepting the pedofile down the street to watch the kids! A loving, tolerant community wouldn’t allow sex trafficing, pedofilia, rape, or anything that harms the community. (and no, having homosexuals around doesn’t harm the community.) It’s not intolerance, it’s just true human nature.
. . . No God of mine would support such lack of compassion.
Interpreted: “My ‘God’ agrees with me.” One of the more serious problems I see in all of this is those who aren’t atheists or agnostics seem to think that their self- and culturally-determined beliefs are also what God deems good or bad. That’s rather egocentric, don’t you think? I certainly believe God loves us and that God is infinitely more compassionate than we could imagine, but I’m not basing that idea off of my list of preferences.
. . . It seems that some people are really caught up in believing their thoughts. If everyone paid a little less attention to their thoughts and a little bit more to the present moment, we’d be on our way to a happier place.
What’s so funny to me about this last one is that I completely agree with the first sentence, albeit with an entirely different focus. But the rest of the comment, not so much. What dictates that “the present moment” is superior to other moments? I should just give up my beliefs and opinions and go the way that society is going? Call me crazy, but I’m pretty sure that the direction of the present moment is a direct result of someone’s thoughts. I think what this person means is “people need to pay less attention to the thoughts they have that don’t agree with what I think is right.”
There’s a lot more comments in there, but I think I’m done. It does frustrate me to hold to my point of view on these things because people assume that playing “devil’s advocate” with their philosophies means that one supports hatred. Well of course I don’t. Yet I don’t think, either, that hatred is our world’s number one problem. . . . that’s a post for another time, though.
I had to share this. I was fishing through Netflix last week, cleaning my queue of stuff I can’t imagine what I was thinking when I added them (“The Fisher King”? Seriously?), and also looked around at some suggested stuff. I’m a sucker for documentaries, even if they do piss me off sometimes, so I always check those. One that was recommended (or maybe popular for Seattle; I can’t remember) was Friends of God: A Roadtrip with Alexandra Pelosi. In a nutshell, the movie is supposed to take a look at Evangelical Christians. Now, when the term “Evangelical Christians” is used, it is usually meant as the hyper-conservative, politically driven, “all-American” Christians, such as the late Jerry Falwell and the disgusting Joel Olsteen. Before anything else, I do want to say that I’m irritated by that use of “Evangelical Christian” because I know dedicated, serious, and level-headed believers that would describe themselves as Evangelical. Here’s some education: “Evangelical” is a theological approach to the Gospel, not necessarily a sweaty guy in a suit complaining about the idea of gay marriage.
So you’ve probably guessed I’m not going to watch this movie; I know where it’s going and can offer no insight to me. The filmmakers aren’t setting out to understand Christianity, they’re setting out to understand (and possibly ridicule) conservatives and Republicans, labels which they likely see as synonymous with “Christian.” But I was still mildly curious so I took a skim over some of the first reviews that showed up, and found this 1-star review that works so well as not only a review but as a summary of my feelings on this topic that I had to show it to my (seven) readers.
I am a Christian. I found this documentary sad and frustrating. Whenever there is a documentary or talk show etc they find people who are hopped up on fake cultural Christianity. They never interview real Christians like Mellissa Scott or Richard Foster etc. These cultural “Christians” like from the documentary, spend so much time talking about what they are against and never say what they are for. You do not believe in Evolution OK great, but that is your soul purpose in gathering these kids together is to tell them when you think Dinosaurs were really around? That is the most important thing to focus on? Really? That is so sad. They are not taking that prime time when they had all those kids there to tell them they were loved and wanted. No, they want to be hateful about what they are against. When I see things like this it makes me want to apologize for their behavior and tell people that it is not Jesus in any way shape or form. They make a mockery out of Jesus with their American flags and preaching politics from the pulpit. It makes me wonder if they ever read the New Testament. It is Christians giving Christ a bad name and that is beyond a tragedy. There is so much good that could be done about the shape the world is in if they could just focus their time and energy on that. There also, was never a golden time in America. Our forefathers stole the land from the Native Americans and then killed most of them. Slavery and segregation is also our history along with the lack of women’s rights. Those are not Christian values. Love, forgiveness, and helping those who can not help themselves are the values of Christianity not hate.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you Netlfix User jxq 94959.
Let me propose a movie to you. I’m going to do an exposé on how horrible Shell gas is for your car. Here’s how I’ll do it. I’ll go out and buy a used 1998 Taurus, put Shell gas in it and drive it from Seattle to Orlando and back and then back again, on and on for a month, only refueling at Shell. I won’t talk or answer questions about the car’s history; I won’t check or ever change the oil; I won’t check tire pressure; I’ll never replace belts or filters; I’ll drive hundreds of miles on the freeway at a time in 2nd gear . . . and when the car finally breaks down, I’ll stand proudly and say, “See? Shell’s gas will ruin your car!”
Ridiculous you say? Well then let me ask you–what was your reaction when you saw this movie?
Morgan Spurlock shook the world when he set out and ate nothing but McDonald’s three times a day for 30 days, and his weight skyrocketed as his health plummeted. Those that have hated McDonald’s all along rejoiced in unison, “We told you so!” Many of those on the fence backed away from the golden arches, citing the movie as some kind of proof of the panic. Others accepted that the movie was somehow true, but didn’t care. Then there were those of us who cried foul. Yet even of those who have cried foul, there’s some important things in this movie they’re missing. Most often, someone who finds this movie to be stupid will say, “Of COURSE McDonald’s will make you fat! He didn’t show us anything that we didn’t already know!”
But hold on a second! Did he? Did he honestly demonstrate to us that a diet comprised entirely of food from McDonald’s is a fast track to obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and early death? Or did he inadvertently do something else?
There are so many problems with this movie, from numbers that don’t add up to questionable “experts” to shaky nutritional science, that I won’t be able to touch them all here. Instead I think I’ll spend most of my time with what I think is its single biggest problem, which is its inability to be a reliable experiment.
So we know he’s going to eat nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner. He’s changing what he eats, even though we don’t know what his normal diet was like, exactly. He insists he’s not a vegan or vegetarian, but since his co-habitating girlfriend is not only a vegan but a vegan CHEF, one can make a fairly strong case that Spurlock’s diet probably didn’t consist of tons of animal protien, sugar, and fat before he started filming the movie. So that’s ONE variable: his diet changesdramatically. Please note that this is just diet change in general, and not the fact that it’s just McDonald’s; we’ll get to that later.
We don’t know how much he ate before, either. Did he eat three square meals a day? How much did he usually eat for each meal? Since he does end up eating a LOT of food for each meal, it’s probably safe to bet that he ate less on a daily basis before the movie than he does during the movie. Do any of you regularly have multiple deserts in a single setting, or a milkshake instead of a soda? Or a regular soda for every meal, for that matter? That’s another variable: he drastically increases his daily portions.
Spurlock starts the movie by showing us that he’s in good health and gets more exercise than the average person in his age group. He also tells us that the average American takes less than 2000 steps in a day, whereas a typical New Yorker will take 4-5 times that, at least. So that he can “better replicate the average American,” he limits the number of steps he takes and will not exercise. That’s a third variable: he reduces his physical activity to almost nothing.
Let’s not forget that he’s dropping his own money (something like $60,000) on making this movie. Plus he’s on the road a lot, organizing interviews with various people, all while trying to have a girlfriend and have a normal job. Keep in mind that during production of a film, he doesn’t know how successful or not his movie will be. That’s stress–something he wouldn’t have if he WEREN’T making the movie. That’s a fourth changed variable: he takes on a considerable amount of stress.
And finally, there’s the “McDonald’s only” part. People that are considered “super heavy users” of McDonald’s eat there only three to five times a week. Spurlock makes 21 visits a week. That’s a fifth variable: he eats four to five times more than the average HEAVY McDonald’s patron.
I could add in a sixth variable: time. He makes all of these changes, which causes a severe shock to his system, and his body would need time to adjust. It would need MORE than 30 days. I’ve seen it suggested that several months to a year would be the minimum for reliable results. At the end of the movie, he even mentioned that some of his numbers (cholesterol etc.) were starting to drop! But we’ve already got five, so let’s not count this one and give him a break.
Five variables. He’s already set up for failure. Or success, depending on how you look at it, since he is setting out to answer the question, “Will McDonald’s make you fat?” You know what my guess is, based on what we have so far? I’m willing to bet “Yes!”
Let’s not forget the fact that his results will be based on the effects on ONE participant, the numbers will come from three doctors in three specific professions and single dietician, so their measurements don’t necessarily overlap. One each. For a movie that’s just a movie, I guess that’s fine, but for the kind of hardcore proof of the dangers of fast food that people cite this documentary as, that’s a problem. He even says in his movie that doctors vary on their opinions of how much fast food is okay to eat in a given amount of time, which makes it stand to reason that you find different doctors to have different approaches. But you know what? Let’s give him a break on that, too. Why? Because I’m so nice.
So all of that only illustrates how Spurlock, at best, doesn’t understand how to structure a real scientific experiment. But at worst, he’s as smart as I think he is and has stacked the deck in his favor, guaranteeing dramatic results. And it keeps going.
What were his “rules” for the 30 days? I’ll list them.
1. He can only SuperSize if asked.
2. He can only eat food from McDonald’s . . . water included.
3. He has to eat everything on the menu at least once.
4. Must eat three meals a day.
What are the problems with these rules? I’ll list them, too.
1. Meh.
2. “Water included?” I’m surprised fewer people have jumped on this one. What does he drink with most of his meals? Regular sodas.
3. He has to have everything only ONCE. First–why? What will that prove? But regardless, he has multiple Double Quarter Pounders. He adds in the cookies and pies at the end, rather than swapping them out for fries. And as I pointed out in #2, he can have WATER for most of the meals after he’s had each soda once. But he doesn’t.
4. He has to eat three meals a day, but take a close look at his meals. They’re all HUGE. Could you comfortably eat that much each day? Even if you didn’t have to?
The biggest problem his rules have is that they’re just ambiguous enough to make you think he’s forced to eat a certain way, but in reality (as in real life) he has the option to be smart or to overdo it. He does the latter.
So let’s bring all this together, because this is already a classically-long Braden post, and I could go on for a LOT longer. If you’re interested, take the time to watch the last part of this movie, keeping in mind that he’s altered five variables that have nothing to do with the quality and nutrition of McDonald’s food, yet the only culprit he lists is McDonald’s. My sincerest apologies for the red, white, and blue speedo.
“In only 30 days of eating nothing but McDonald’s, I gained 24 and a half pounds . . .”
I think he meant to say, “Only 30 days into dramatically changing my diet and exercise habits amidst great amounts of stress, and doubling the amount of food I consumed in a normal day, every day, for a month, I gained 24 and a half pounds.”
None of this is to mention that the bottom line of his entire movie is to push an anti-corporate message. Agree or disagree–it’s a pre-determined agenda. And that arguably makes this movie propaganda.
In the years following this movie, McHaters still hold this movie aloft as their Passion . . ., and seem to refuse to acknowledge a few simple issues.
One, Spurlock DID keep a food journal during those 30 days, but he refuses to publish it. That matters because some have called into question his numbers at the end of the movie, such as a pound of sugar or 5000+ calories a day. I guess that’s his choice, but it doesn’t add to your credibility if someone wants to verify the results of your experiment and you refuse to let them look. If this movie is truly all about exposing McDonald’s to be as unhealthy as it is, what is there to hide?
Two, there have been experiments, some movies, and some studies (with proper organizational structure) that don’t come close to replicating his results. In fact, when people eat appropriate portions of McDonald’s and make wiser choices for their meals, they actually LOSE weight. In contrast to that, I once saw results from a study done at a university–which I tried and tried and can’t relocate, unfortunately–where students minimized physical activity consumed 6000 calories a day for 30 days (often having to end their days with high-calorie smoothies) and had similar weight gain but don’t have the same liver issues, which calls into question, what issues with Spurlock’s liver were pre-existing?
Three, and most of all . . . the movie is not accurate, and that invalidates Spurlock’s thesis, thus making anyone who cites this movie as a reason to avoid McDonald’s completely full of crap. You cannot logically hold to a point of view when your primary reference is shown to be false. And that sounds like a problem with some other documentarian . . .
In my recent mourning of the loss of Lala.com, I commented that it was actually nice to only be able to listen to an album through once. I’m finding that I prefer this when I listen to music. In this modern era of mp3 players and CD players standard in cars and online playlists, it seems almost silly to NOT have a “repeat all” of some sort on, but I am proposing you try turning it off.
This is a not-that-often recognized problem that the benefits of our technology allows. Plenty of people these days, especially bloggers, are realizing that the way we enjoy music is changing, and that it’s not necessarily for the best. An easy target on this topic is “shuffle,” but I think “repeat all” is just as guilty. We no longer have to be paying attention to the music to keep it going–eventually this means we tend not to pay attention to the music. Sure, it’s a nice feature when we just want something playing at a party or while we work out, but actively listening to an album is something of a dying skill (and without it we’ve ended up with groups like The Black Eyed Peas winning Grammys).
So again, I recommend turning it off. Put your headphones in, start an album, and make sure the “repeat all” (or even the “continuous play”–going from one album to the next) is off. It’ll be weird–even annoying–at first. You might not realize that you’ve been listening to silence for 20 minutes after an album is done, but give it time. The first purpose of this is to get you to pay attention to what’s playing. The second purpose is to restore an understanding of the finite nature of an album. Good albums have very purposeful starts, engaging middles, and moving endings. When everything’s constantly looping, you don’t notice these things as much, and that damages the experience. Granted, not all musical artists pay attention to the order of their songs and put whatever, wherever, but the good ones do.
A good album opener is so important, and there’s so many ways to do it. Sometimes you have an audio clip from a movie, or maybe a really strong riff, or something unexpected, like an out-of-place instrument or the reciting of a poem. Janelle Monáe’s The ArchAndroid starts with an overture. An overture has a very specific purpose: to get you in the mood for the story that is to come. Jimmy Eat World’s masterpiece, Clarity, starts with slow strings and soft, harmonic vocals. And it’s a rock album! The strength of a good album opener is lost when we aren’t noticing it’s starting in the first place.
And what about how they end? I mentioned in my post about my favorite bands last week that Park knew how to close an album. That’s a good trait! On all three of their albums, the last listed songs were completely epic, with layered vocals or screaming or complex guitar parts. It left you wanting more and wanting to, well, listen to the whole thing again. But with the repeat all off, you have to make the concious decision to do that.
I could ramble on and on about this forever, but I won’t. I just recommend you give yourself a couple days and try it.
So the C-level news story today that caught my eye was this one, about how The YMCA is no longer “The YMCA,” but officially just “The Y.” The reason seems to be that most people call it that, so that’s what it’s name should be.
I’d be shocked if I was the only one that saw this as kind of ridiculous. Does the YMCA need to be “hip?” Do they really need to redefine their image? It seems to me that most of the people I know are pretty opinion-neutral about the YMCA.
That article also addresses how this is a fairly common trend, where an organization adopts its shortened nickname as its official name. And I don’t mean just embracing it on an ad here or there, I mean full-on changing its name. I think only at the age of 9 would I have thought that calling it “KFC” or “The Shack” was cool. Of course that’s assuming that anyone ever actually called it “The Shack,” which I find extremely unlikely. “The Shack (with all the D-Grade Electronics),” maybe. I don’t think anything at any of those places is more trendy because of the name change; if anything I think they’re just stupider because the entire approach is very outdated. It makes me think of the 90’s, when I thought I was cool when I referred to Dr. Pepper as “Mr. Sneeze” and then laughed when people had no idea what I was talking about. DUH! Just think about it for a second!
But then there’s the case of organizations like NPR. Everyone calls it NPR, but we all know it means “National Public Radio.” Yet now they’re wanting to be officially referred to as NPR. What in the world is wrong with being “National Public Radio” and just acknowledging your nickname? “‘In many ways, we are just catching up to our audience,’ said Dana David Rehm, NPR’s senior vice president for marketing and communications.” No, you’re operating out of the misunderstanding that if you don’t call yourself what people call you, then you must be out of touch.
Well I for one will only refer to it as “The Y” because I know that’s short for “YMCA,” not because that’s its name, now.
Gather around, childrens. It’s time for story time with Braden.
If you don’t already know, storms get really bad in the Midwest, where I lived from the beginning to summer 2006. The rain can come down so hard that you sometimes can’t see twenty feet in front of you, and lord forbid you be driving a car when that happens. And when those storms do happen, gather near the windows or under an awning, because they’re AWESOME.
The night of Saturday, April 24, 2004, I was working at everyone’s favorite, over-hyped diner, enjoying the rain pouring and the thunder clapping outside as I made people their milkshakes. The end of my shift came at around 10 p.m. or so. I got in my car and drove the 1/16th of a mile home to find a bunch of fire trucks and such blocking my entrance into the parking lot. Naturally, I didn’t think it was my apartment that was the trouble, so I got excited about what I might see as I drove around the other way into the lot, dodging the on-lookers. I parked near Melissa Barr’s apartment in building 6 and began to notice that all the attention was focused on building 10. My building. I started to get a little panicked.
The rain still poured down as I tried to find some way around all the commotion to talk to a fireman somehow. All of them seemed to have more important things to do, though, so I waited in front of the building. As I waited, my roommate Adam came home, and it took him a second to realize that the commotion was for our building, too. Our third roommate, whom I will refer to as “Sir Chews-a-lot, maker and sharer of old soda bottles filled up nearly a fourth of the way with chaw, user–but not cleaner–of dishes, and sower of facial hair carpets upon the bathroom sink and counter,” was kind of estranged by then and was home maybe once a week, so he was harder to get a hold of and we didn’t hear from him until the next day. Maybe I’ll call him “Mr. Chewy” for short; that makes it almost a Star Wars reference.
Adam and I finally spoke to a fireman and were given the story. Our apartment (which I have used my always-mad Paint skills to draw out for you below) was struck by lightning and had caught on fire.
More specifically, it was our neighbor’s bedroom that was hit and subsequently burned (A). We told him we lived below him, in apartment #1, and he reassured us that any damage would be mostly from smoke and maybe somewhat from water. I found out later this is what happened. Our neighbor, Kyle, lived in apartment #5 and he was getting ready to go out for the night. Our other neighbor, Donnell, who was awesome, lived in #3 and had a date over watching a movie and said that he heard Kyle’s radio blasting. He said the radio turned off, he heard Kyle head down the stairs, and then less than twenty minutes later, there was a large “boom” and the whole building shook like a bomb went off. Donnell says he looked outside and checked Kyle’s door, and everything seemed fine, so he went back to his place. It was another 10-15 minutes before he and his date smelled smoke.
Note Kyle's new sunroof
Turns out (and I did not know this before), having your radio on during a thunderstorm is a bad idea. At least, with a loud volume. I don’t know all the science behind it, but it has to do with the radio signals heading to the antenna mixed with the increased power used for the volume and blah blah blah basically that attracted the lightning to Kyle’s bedroom, which is where his stereo was.
So it struck, busted a huge hole in the roof, and burned his bedroom to a crisp. This meant the fire department doused it with sweet, sweet water and all of that leaked into the floor. This is where it’s important to bring up that the foundation of our apartment building was not level, but in fact sloped to the east–illustrated in this photo of some jello I made in my first month living there:
Math Friends: I want to know the exact angle by tomorrow. Put your answer in the comments.
Why is that important? Well, that means as the water made its way from Kyle’s floor to our ceiling, it all shifted to the east wall; so nearly all of the damage was on the east side of Adam’s room (B). There was very minor water damage on Mr. Chewy’s east wall (C), and only the smell of musty, stale smoke in my bedroom (D). Adam and I observed our home and made our way to his parents’ house to spend the night on his brother’s floor.
The next day I had to skip church, and the 8th Vine Anniversary Party, so we could move. See, lucky for us, in the summer of 2003, an electrical fire broke out in building one, and they had just finished rebuilding the less-damaged side weeks before we got a visit from Dr. Lightning. Since our complex was a circle of smaller buildings (hence its name, Country Club Circle), we just had to move all our stuff about 100 feet across the parking lot entrance and up some stairs to our new place. Donnell was being moved to a MASSIVE 2-bedroom apartment in building four, and Kyle crashed with a friend, I think. The people in apartments 2, 4, and 6 . . . I don’t know what they did. I know the guys in #2 were from New York and they graduated a couple of weeks later, like me.
I wish there was more interesting things about the fire to share, but that’s really it. The best part of the story, I think, is talking about Mr. Chewy’s reaction the next day. He had no humor in it like we did. Worry is justifiable, but being joyless–come on. And remember when I mentioned how much damage was in his room? All that was on the east wall in his room was a bookshelf (and I’m guessing the equivalent of one gallon of water came down over the entire wall), but he made an insurance claim to 1) do his laundry, 2) get a new mattress (because it smelled like smoke, even though Adam’s mattress was just fine after 2 days), and 3) to cover the cost of a very expensive watch he swears one of the complex maintenance crew stole. I’ve never really bought that. But I’ll give more stories on Mr. Chewy, the worst roommate in history, some other time. Maybe.
The rest of the summer was an adventure before we moved to 409 South Washington that August. We watched the pool inexplicably turn green and mossy. We had some head-butting with Mr. Chewy over security deposit money. We got a new (awesome) roommate, John. We drank lots and lots and lots of Ski. Not long after we moved to Washington Street, the meth lab in the apartment above the complex’s main office blew up and not only did the managers of the property get put under investigation for illegal drug trafficking, but for insurance fraud, too. Good times.
I hope you know what you're doing . . . 