There Will Be Paul Thomas Anderson

You know, when Paul Thomas Anderson's newest movie was released I couldn't wait to see it. I had downloaded the trailer and played it over and over. There Will Be Blood promised to be what is more and more rare for me: a film experience that transcends the normal movie-going fare. A movie that stays with you for days after you walk back out into the light.

This film proved to be just that. I have been thinking about the movie for almost two weeks now and I'm still not sure how I feel about it.

Of course, Daniel Day Lewis was amazing, but that was almost a given. The movie is incredible in scope, daring, new, and all kinds of other great words that don't come immediately to mind. It is above all "real." As a matter of fact it feels more real than most documentaries. But I'm still not sure I love it.

Everyone else does. Just check out the end of the Wikipedia article for the list of all of the awards and nominations it has received. But that still doesn't help me know how to feel about it.

Maybe I'm not smart enough to get it. The critics aside, I know that this movie is great; I just don't know if I liked it. Am I making sense?

Since I can't seem to coalesce my thoughts on There Will Be Blood let's talk about another P. T. Anderson movie; Magnolia.

Magnolia, for me, was that transcendent gem. Sometimes people ask me what my favorite movie of all time is and I always reply that I don't have one. But I know that this movie is in my top ten. (It's also on my list of films that always make me cry.)

It stars Tom Cruise, Jason Robards, William H. Macy, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Julianne Moore just to name a few.It's a massive story of eight lives interwoven, and, unlike other movies which have tried, this one succeeds at keeping it all together. There are some not-so-nice characters in the mix, but no matter what they have done, they are all united in their pursuit of forgiveness.

Now, I know Tom Cruise the person might not be your cup of tea. But Tom Cruise the actor in Magnolia is truly amazing. I used to say that Tom Cruise deserved an Oscar for his part in Rainman instead of Dustin Hoffman (admit it. It was Cruise that held that film together.) But if he ever deserved a nod, this performance was it. Hell, the scene at his father's bedside is deserving of a national holiday.

And the soundtrack! Did I mention the soundtrack?! Aimee Mann for the songs and Jon Brion's gorgeous score. It's as much a character in the story as the others I mentioned.

Anyway, I stumbled upon the entire movie on YouTube. It's in parts but the quality is really good. So for anyone reading this that hasn't seen the film and still doesn't feel like plopping down $4 for a rental, just click on this link and watch for free. I promise you won't be disappointed.

And see There Will Be Blood. I would love to have someone tell me how I feel about it.

My New Favorite Word

My new favorite word, courtesy of Luke, is: "Lasterday."

Work it into conversations. Impress your friends and associates. Be on the cutting edge of today's vocabulary revolution.

I Love This

No One's Gots To Know But Us

I am not looking to turn this blog into a political debate. The last post wasn't really about politics was it? It was about a picture of a candidate.

But now I am going to go a little political and suggest you visit the website glassbooth.org. It's a website that claims to make an unbiased recommendation as to your similarity to the candidates based on your answers to questions. The issues are linked to Wikipedia articles (again with the bias argument) that explain the issues if you aren't familiar with them enough to answer the question. The site also backs up their conclusions with direct quotations from the candidates on the issues; which have all been attributed to the candidates by other sources that I cross-referenced.

Now, I suppose for some of you whether you agree that the site is unbiased or not will depend on whether the site says that you are similar to the candidate that you already think you like. And it should be noted that the site only rates your similarity to the candidates on the issues; it doesn't rate character or a candidate's "like-ability."

The site gives you the three most similar current candidates and then allows you to see how you stack up against the other candidates, even the ones who are no longer running. You can also sort your results by the issues if you want.

I took the quiz three times with slightly different responses to the questions and found that my top three candidates were the same with slightly different similarity percentages. I also found that none of the candidates scored against me higher than 75% or lower than 54%. But I think that's a result of my centrist views on many of the issues. I have read many other sites that recommended this website that scored some candidates very high and very low.

Anyway, you've got nothing to lose and it only takes about five minutes. I'm not advocating voting according to this site's recommendations alone; it's just another tool to use in making an informed decision.

As I type this, I'm watching the circus that is the Reagan Library Debate (there are four candidates on stage aren't there? Shame on you Anderson Cooper! Moderate!) It would be easy in all of this craziness that is our nomination process to forget what a heavy responsibility voting is.

Edwards: The CANDIDate?

You know, this picture was on the cover of Newsweek magazine two weeks ago. They have been doing each of the candidates for the past few months. Now, this picture seemed kind of candid when I first looked at the magazine. You know, a private moment with the candidate as he really is. But the more I noticed about it the more I realized just how carefully crafted this picture was.

Let's start with the tie. Now any man knows that what he's doing in this picture is pulling his tie up, not loose. You don't loosen a tie with two hands. Nope, the tie means he's getting ready. You put your tie back on when something important is about to happen and you need to look your best. Maybe, let's say presidential.

Now let's look at the sleeves. That's right, they're rolled up in seeming contradiction to the tie. The rolled up sleeves imply that he's a working man willing to...well, roll up his sleeves. He's ready to get dirty to get the job done. You know, the common man. Someone that might work in a mill, for instance.

"But what about the watch?" you say. Well, hold your horses I'm about to get to that. What kind of watch is it? An athlete's watch. No Omega or Rolex. Nothing fancy or elitist about that watch at all. Probably came from Wal-Mart. But it speaks volumes. It says that he's healthy and taking care of himself. Ready for a fight.

Or maybe he really is a man of contradictions.

The Press

I was recently having dinner with friends and our conversation turned (don't ask me how, I don't remember) to a spirited debate about the relationship between firefighters and the press. Now I will readily agree that most firefighters approach the press with an "adversarial" attitude...because I do.

Now don't get me wrong, I love the First Amendment and I fully believe in a free press. Journalism has accomplished some amazing things (I'm watching All The President's Men as I type.) Freedom of Speech is a sacred thing in this country and for good reason. However, the protection of the First Amendment does not protect anyone from being disliked for what they say and I think this is something that people forget from time to time. As they say, "I'll fight to the death to protect your right to say whatever you want and my right to retort by calling you an a**hole." (Maybe I took a little liberty with that last part. But it's my right, right?"

I digress. And that's not how the conversation at dinner went. And this blog entry is not meant as a one sided continuation of that debate. It's merely offered as an expansion of my thoughts on the subject.

The argument was made that the press have a job to do and they will get it done. If an entity, such as a Fire Department, doesn't supply the press with information when they need it they will fill it somehow; the old "Nature abhors a vacuum". My friend argued further that the relationship would be much improved if the Fire Department would be more accommodating to the press.

I totally agree with my friend's points and I hope my demeanor during our discussion didn't belie that fact. But Cool Hand Luke said, "Callin' it your job don't make it right." And I must argue that the antagonistic relationship that exists is based in past experience. I personally have witnessed cameramen coming into active scenes, past tape that reads "Fire Scene Do Not Cross" to get pictures of what is going on. The immediate problem with this is that it puts the cameraman in an area deemed "hazardous" by the Incident Commander where they potentially could become "part of the story." The greater concern is that it is distracting to those who are trying to do a job in a very dangerous and chaotic environment. As an Incident Commander I can tell you that I take the safety of those working under my supervision very seriously, whether they are 3 or 100. I take a very aggressive and vindictive attitude toward anyone who would jeopardize their safety directly or indirectly.

As I said before, I understand the role of the press and their right to a story. But the press, specifically the television news programs, seem more interested in presenting images before they know what to caption the picture with. I can recall at least ten times in the last year when a local news program has gotten video of a house fire or automobile accident and presented it immediately (often breaking into other programming) while admitting, "we have no details on this incident at this time but have a team en route." I ask: Why is a house on fire a news story? I mean, really! It's a story to the people who own the house, their friends, and family. But is it news for the rest of us? And how horrible would it be to find out you lost everything on the television in McDonalds?

I think a good litmus test for the media to ask of every story is this: How probable is it that this will still be news tomorrow?

You know, I think that my antagonistic attitude to the press comes from my belief that many of them will forego the common ethics of decency for the sake of "getting a scoop." I wonder if they had total access to some of the things I've seen, would they show it on the news just to be the first? Now, I could list some pretty horrible things here that no one would ever want to see on their television during supper to prove my point. But I would be no better than those that I criticize here. I would be using those terrible things to further this article and it's not respectful to the victims' memories or families.

Firefighters can be a**holes. God knows I know that we're not all as good as we could be. There are plenty of us who fall far short of the "sacred" image of the firefighter. Take for instance the allegations of a prostitution ring being run out of Washington D.C. firehouses. And the idea of the press is a noble one. The press protect our society as much as soldiers, firefighters, police, or anyone else standing a watch.

What I hope for is that everyone entrusted takes that trust as seriously as I do. That's all.