Secure Immaturity

When I was finished reading this book, my initial feelings were of anger, but not towards the material but to the author. I felt like I was being manipulated by author Jeff Benedict because he had such an odd, somewhat general view on the NBA. While, with time to think, I realize the man is smart and armed with references, his oppressive subjectivity makes Out of Bounds one of the most heavily researched opinion pieces in history. . .and the opinions, while well written, seem to exist in a small world inhabited by no other human being.

Out of Bounds focuses on the NBA’s culture: in Benedict’s case, how the NBA fosters the existence of giant misogynistic rape machines and wife beaters with the occasional need for a joint. I have to admit, when I picked up the book at a used book store, I was intrigued by the title and the content it promised to give. The NBA has been an odd creature for decades. One problem (not the author’s fault) is the book came out before Kobe Bryant’s rape trial was completed and the ‘Malice at the Palace’ took place. Since that fateful night when Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson seemingly broke the fourth wall of sports and life and entered the stands with an intent to hurt fans, the NBA has gone through some immense changes.

It is a shame that Benedict couldn’t view this and add it to his book but, once again, not his fault. What is his fault is ASSUMING (and I’ll come back to this word in a minute) that a)the NBA used to be all flowers and sunshine and  b)ALL, not some, but ALL NBA players exist in the same universe, socially and ethically. While Benedict is prolific in his research, it is shockingly incomplete: he uses his assumption and his personal feelings to make a point which is WRONG, just plain wrong, if you are presenting a case and trying to support it with evidence. What Benedict does, instead, is present, in many cases, circumstantial evidence that, again, in most cases, can’t be totally proven. But he uses the prose of his book to claim them as fact and that a deeper issue exists and NBA players are getting away with ‘murder’ (I mean the phrase. . .but murder is pretty close).

Continue Reading »

4-0! GOODBYE CHARLOTTE! GOODBYE CAPTAIN JACK! CHARLOTTE, YOU PLAYED HARD AND I RESPECT YOU IMMENSELY! BRING ON THE HAWKS/BUCKS!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED IN T-MINUS 12 WINS!

AND NOW A CAMEO FROM YOUR EDITOR:

Based on it’s description, Moneyball should be a horribly boring book meant for, at it’s most wide-ranging, baseball elitists. But I’ve heard so much about the book for the last five or six years, be it Sportscenter, NPR, CSPAN, what have you, that I had to give it a shot. And I was shocked to discover that Moneyball is not just informative and interesting but quirky and universal as well.

Moneyball has been one of the best reads I’ve had in years and that it’s a baseball book made that revelation quite surprising. But Moneyball goes beyond baseball and delves into one of my all-time favorite subjects: statistics. Let me provide a little background here: I’m math-retarded. For whatever reason the subject of math does not come regularly to me EXCEPT statistics. I became obsessed with stats when I got into basketball and baseball in the early 90s. I used to sit down at home, watch random and unimportant basketball games, and keep stats. . .just for kicks.

I kept my own stats throughout any sporting type and league and the fact that I didn’t embrace fantasy sports until this year seems like quite the stretch considering my need to crunch sports statistics for everyday fun. Moneyball takes the fan perspective of keeping stats and applying it to the actual professional field of baseball management. . .with success. And what Moneyball tries to prove, in the face of baseball traditionalists, is that the worth of a player can be derived simply by stats and nothing else. The player’s looks, habits, and, surprisingly, his most valued traditional stats, can be ignored in favor of little used stats that actually lead a team to wins.

The case study would be the Oakland Athletics and it’s general manager Billy Beane, a former player who embraced the statistical analysis of baseball. Surrounded by Ivy League yuppies and nerds, Beane ran an A’s franchise to multiple 90+/100 win seasons using a computer as opposed to tradition. What he got were eccentric teams filled with budget players and while no World Series rings came his way (likely the critics, and in some cases MY, objection to the stat approach), large and consistent success did.

One of the subplots of the book is the on going argument that money=success in Major League Baseball and while it seems a lot of teams with LARGE payrolls (Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, etc) are winning the World Series titles, Beane went out to prove that winning, on a consistent basis, could be had with no money (the A’s had very little) and mathematical analysis. Yes, the A’s could never quite finish the job and go all the way under the system but that isn’t the point: Beane proves that winning can be accomplished with this system so imagine if every team utilized it. Gone would be the days of nine figure contracts and bloated budgets that lead the general public to believe that money=success.

Author Michael Lewis approaches the book with passion for the material and his enthusiasm makes the book, which could have been an oppressive bore if in the wrong hands, witty and fun. Instead of tackling the project like a history book, Lewis focuses on many eccentric and odd characters and goofy situations to make what’s going on engaging. While we learn all about statistical analysis and the new age thinkers fight with old baseball traditions, we also learn about the people who created or lived the ideas and they are as or more interesting then the material itself. This, in the end, becomes a brilliant human story.

From what I’ve heard, Lewis is good at this type of writing. He wrote the enormously popular The Blind Side, which many a housewife, kid, and NFL nut has read. Moneyball is no different in it’s appeal: it applies to baseball fans and mathematicians but also the random reader as well.

Hey everyone,

Orlando Magic center Dwight Howard donated $100,000 dollars recently for Haiti relief. He has offered a challenge to his fans to give $2.99 to help out those kids. Besides giving to charity, there is, of course, a fan incentive. Dwight is giving away a $500 shopping spree (and the chance to meet Dwight) to the person who recruits the most people to donate.

I am asking all of you to follow the links below (do your research) and contribute so you can help the children of Haiti get some aid!

Here is info about the program: http://www.pinkdingo.com/dhf More here: http://www.dwighthowardfund.org/

I’ve already donated four payments of $2.99 and when more funds become available, I will contribute more. This is for a good cause and I am excited! For those suspicious of pro athletes, Dwight Howard is a great man. . .humble, kind, honest, and very caring. Adonal Foyle, another Magic center, is also involved and also gives often to communities lacking in proper housing and income, especially in other countries. Please help out and follow the link below and be added to my donor list!

Follow the link below to be added to my recruiting team: http://www.pinkdingo.com/challenges/view/16/1vtqo

It’s funny that I read Identity Crisis and ended up liking it since back when this humble website was a podcast, co-host Brian would take the piss out of this book. . .and I would laugh along with him because when it came to comics, I listened to the master. And while the master is usually right. . .I’m afraid he and I will differ on our opinions of this book, a pseudo-Elseworlds DC graphic novel depicting a side of superheroes we hardly ever see in three dimensions: the family.

Identity Crisis is a little sensational (as sensational as a book can get when it stars a man in light blue tights that flies and shoots lasers out of his eyes) since it likely drew attention for many of it’s NON comic conventions. It’s actually kind of sad because Identity Crisis almost has an old comic book feel to it. . .something you’d hand down to the kids. But much like the ‘curse word’ chapter skip on the Transformers: The Movie DVD, you’d have to hand your children a CIAesque blacked out version of Identity Crisis since there are such horrifying things in the book like mutilation, conflagration, and rape. Yes. . .you heard me. . .RAPE! IN A COMIC BOOK! WITH BATMAN IN IT!

And while the rape scene I mentioned was done as tasteful as a rape scene can be (I guess. . .I’m a little stuck on how to phrase that properly), Identity Crisis is not simply the name of the book but the psychosis the plot goes through. At times Identity Crisis is very touching, at others goofy (see: footprints on brain). But then it gets downright demented and dark at times and it throws your equilibrium off. ‘Hey’, your brain goes, ‘there’s Superman and Batman. Hey, Flash is here too! Yeah! Is that Dr. Light? Did he just. . .did he just whip his junk out and rape a dude’s wife. . .um. . .’

The main plot of the book is that someone has murdered Elongated Man’s wife and Batman and other groups must seek out who did it. Elongated Man’s wife was simply human. . .she had no superpowers or any agenda. . .so her murder is quite horrific considering it was done, possibly, out of spite by a villain. During the investigation, multiple non-super family members are targeted by this mysterious murderer and while every villain is a suspect, a select few superheroes uncover secrets almost as hellacious about the heroes working to stop the killer.

The book works okay as a mystery and it’s attempts at shock value are ill conceived but Identity Crisis’ strength is the ideas of morality. Unlike Marvel characters, who tend to be a little bland at times, DC characters have a lot of darkness and Identity Crisis manages to take the darkness out of each character’s lives and play with them: Superman worries he can’t protect Lois Lane, Batman had lost his own family members and watched those he takes care of lose theirs, Green Arrow had to be part of a decision that changed a man’s life, etc. etc. Identity Crisis uses the murder as a means of making the superheroes we know and love become three dimensional, damaged, and perhaps a bit ethically ambiguous. I’m not saying that a character needs to be grey leaning on evil to be three dimensional but, for all we know, Superman is a hero with a big smile. What happens when the ‘camera’ is not on them?

I personally really liked the idea of the non-powered family members given a role in this. With some characters, like Spider-Man (from Marvel) you get some stories about Mary Jane, or with Superman you have his Smallville back story, but for the most part the average wife or husband (or dad or mom) might be a bit boring since they can’t shoot things out of their fists. In Identity Crisis you rely on the averageness of the husband/wife/mom/dad character since the stakes, their survival, are so high. I wish more books were like this.

For those wondering if this has anything to do with the ‘Crisis’ trilogy that, for two thirds of the time, shat on my face (Crisis on Infinite Earths, Infinite Crisis, and Final Crisis), it doesn’t. This is a separate story and uses Crisis only because it completes the phrase ‘Identity Crisis’. It is not a ‘Crisis’ in the DC-Event sense. I often wonder if I liked Identity Crisis so much because it was so competent compared to the mess that was Final Crisis. I guess I’ll never really know unless I read it again. . .and while Identity Crisis is good, I think there might be too much rape-kill-burning in it to read again.

One of the biggest debates is whether sports is truly just a game or not. There are those confusing NBA commercials where they say ‘basketball is just a game. But sometimes it isn’t.’ Pro athletes, who clearly represent the majority of basketball players in people’s households (due to the exposure, etc), seem to embody this debate mainly because of their large contracts and the seemingly simple nature of their jobs (shoot a ball into a net and go home to a mansion). People forget the endless travel, time away from family, and the intense scrutiny of success/failure.

But even when taking into account all those things, the question still needs to be asked: is basketball, and sports in general, just a game? I’ve read a trilogy of sorts now, starting with Darcy Frey’s The Last Shot, continuing with it’s unofficial sequel The Jump, and now with the sidequel of sorts, The Miracle of St. Anthony. A lot of what happens in The Miracle of St. Anthony happens at the same exact time as The Jump and some of the events are even referenced. . .but there couldn’t be a completely different world between the Coney Island setting and Sebastian Telfair’s life in the Jump only miles away from the boys in The Miracle of St. Anthony in Jersey City, New Jersey.

The question asked in all three of these books is whether sports, and more importantly, the game of basketball, is just a game. In my view, people need to look at the NBA as an elite job (which it is really). People work hard to get that job (just like a business major in college gets their degree and moves up in the world). The time and dedication comes easy for some and not for others but, most importantly, in some areas of the United States, basketball is the ONLY job prospect. Remember, the NBA, and even the college game, is an elite job and only a select few get in. Imagine it as your only option? Your chances in life get smaller and smaller.

And that is the Miracle, indeed, of The Miracle of St. Anthony, because in a world where the options are limited for children, and basketball is MORE then a game and a ticket to success or failure, there is a coach named Bob Hurley Sr who takes the lowest of the low (low income, low values, low options, low environment. . .the list could go on) and propels them forward into areas they couldn’t imagine being in. The neighborhood of Jersey City is surrounded by negative energy and while Coach Hurley may scream his eyes out at his boys, he also makes basketball more than a game but a choice and lifestyle that leads to success.

St. Anthony, the legendary high school basketball school, is the focus of this book that manages to chronicle more then just the school and it’s quest for a perfect 30-0 season, but the lives of a misfit group of kids who, unlike former St. Anthony alumni, seem to be going nowhere and are failing to grasp Hurley’s philosophy. The author, Adrian Wojnarowski, does a marvelous job of depicting Coach Hurley through the eyes of the students who fail to understand him. You will read this book’s first few chapters and simply say, ‘this dude is an asshole’. But as you slowly buy into his philosophy and learn what he’s done for all the other kids at St. Anthony over the years, you start to like the guy and realize that a few angry tirades about making a bad pass or missing a free throw is just one tiny part of making the kids, who excel at almost nothing BUT basketball, use their on court success as segways into real life.

The one problem with the book is it’s complete failure to grasp time. Sometimes you are not sure what year or day or even game the book is talking about and, through not fault of the author, so many people have the same frickin’ name that it gets confusing when a dialogue box goes ‘Bob said, Bobby said, Bob said, Rick said, Rick said’, etc etc. I was also a little disappointed the book didn’t pack a dramatic punch. I felt for the boys in the book, especially the book’s saddest case, Lamar Alston, but never really felt compelled to find out what happened to them. The main point of interest is, in the end, Hurley.

Hurley is a weird figure. Even though I warmed to him, I didn’t necessarily like his approach to coaching (the fiery kind) though I did realize the amazing things he did for kids in a crappy town with no options. I appreciate the man and SOME if not all of his methods. A reader may be conflicted with how they look at the main focus of the book. If you end up hating him. . .this book will be a long haul. If you are intrigued, like I am, the book is a fun adventure. If you love the guy, then you are in heaven.

The Last Shot is the perfect inner-city Is-Basketball-Just-A-Game? book and it is unfortunate I have to compare books of its ilk to The Last Shot because it really isn’t fair. The Jump was a bit passionless but tapped into the professional aspects of basketball and the price of fame while this book tends to focus on the aspects of risk/reward and the idea of role models. The three books together manage to give you a complete perspective, even if it is within a small radius, of life from the streets, to the gym, to even the NBA (complete with success and failure in all areas).

If you’d like to torture yourself and read part 1, click here. Otherwise, enjoy the continued analysis of the 2010 NBA Playoffs!

WESTERN CONFERENCE (The one with the Lakers and some other guys)

Defending Champs: Los Angeles Lakers

#1 Los Angeles Lakers vs. #8 Oklahoma City Thunder

Regular Season Record: 57-25

Star Player: Kobe Bryant or Black Mamba.

Player to Watch Out For: Lamar Odom. The dude can play center, forward, or guard and, if needed, provides triple tower duty alongside Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum.

Watch for Breakdown: Ron Artest. He’s never really been this far. . .and he is prone to going nuts by either shutting down or going into the stands and killing people. Artest may fall victim to his own crazy mind.

What to Like: Defending champs always have a swagger so if you are a betting person the Lakers are always a good pick because they are so talented. They slipped a bit this year in terms of record (last year they had the second best record in the league, this year third) but even when coasting they are pretty dominant.

What to Hate: The coasting I mentioned. The Lakers should have been a 65+ win team this year but it seems they just kinda waited for this whole playoff thing to start. Plus they have a weak ass bench (and Odom doesn’t really count).

Chances of Getting Out of First Round: If in end-of-regular-season mode: none at all. If in defending champ mode: duh.

Chances of Getting to the Finals: Lakers are always favorites in the West no matter what happens so there is a large chance. Plus they’ve been there two years in a row (not to mention six times since 2000).

Chances of Being Champions: They were knocked around silly by the Cavs in the regular season and the Magic split the season series 1-1 and I can’t see those two teams losing to the Lakers in seven games. I’d say low. But getting there gives you somewhat of a chance.

Regular Season Record: 50-32

Star Player: Kevin Durant

Player to Watch Out For: Kevin Durant. He’s the reigning (and youngest) scoring champ and is tasting the playoffs for the first time. It seems like a cheap answer to throw him out but he IS the Thunder.

Watch for Breakdown: The rest of the team. A great bunch of guys who play with a devil may care attitude but all the success seemed to bring them down come the end of the regular season (where they dropped from as high as fifth to eight in the standings) and are given an unfavorable match-up. Still, they’d be  4th or 5th in the East.

What to Like: Young, energetic, exciting. . .the list could go on. Plus, for all the Laker haters out there, they are an underdog to root for.

What to Hate: The youth is a plus and a minus. Phil Jackson, coach of the Lakers, has already fucked with Durant’s dome and a ball hasn’t even touched a court yet.

Chances of Getting Out of First Round: Depends on what Laker team shows up. But mostly none.

Chances of Getting to the Finals: Stranger things have happened.

Chances of Being Champions: I’m going to say no.

SERIES: Lakers are the defending champs and don’t want to become one of the few teams in history to lose to an 8 seed in the first round. Experience and the debatable win switch will win the day. LAKERS 4-2

Continue Reading »

We are the other SI. And I’ve decided to focus on something other than movies and books for a bit and talk about the time of year that simultaneously gives me joy and makes me want to join one of those cults that shoots themselves in the head: the NBA Playoffs. To me, only the World Cup provides more drama and heart wrenching frustration then the NBA Playoffs where literally one mistake can haunt a player for the rest of his days. But if you succeed, even years of mediocrity and fatness (*ahem Rasheed cough*) can never take away the fact that at one point you were a champion. And some people, whether it be one championship, six, or even seventeen, can live off that one/sixth/seventeenth championship season for decades, no matter what happens.

This is my 18th NBA Playoffs I will have the pleasure/torture to watch. Two of those 18 years went pretty good for me. The rest have been a mixture of pain, torment, hair pulling, artery hardening, ulcer inducing, heartache that I salivate for every year! Why???!!! The eternal question: why make myself feel so much pain for something I have no control over whatsoever? Because I’m a fan damn it! And this year (and actually the 13th time of the 18 years I’ve mentioned) my team is in the Playoffs! Woot! So, without further ado, here is a breakdown of all 16 teams in the 2010 NBA Playoffs and the 1st round matchups. I’ll even throw in a little prediction or two (or eight).

EASTERN CONFERENCE (The one with two elite teams and a lot of crap)

Defending Champs: Orlando Magic

#1 Cleveland Cavaliers vs. #8 Chicago Bulls

Regular Season Record: 61-21

Star Player: LeBron James (sometimes known as The King)

Player to Watch Out For: Antawn Jamison. He’s never really had a chance to shine in the playoffs before so now that he is on one of the greatest teams ever assembled (*god I hate saying that*) he will be more then willing to provide to get his first ring. . .while he still has time.

Watch for Breakdown: Mo Williams. The dude is an All-Star during the regular season but the slightest bit of pressure and he starts to lean on LeBron way too much. Him disappearing last year was part of why the Orlando Magic upset them in the ECFs.

What to Like: People who know me know that finding something to say NICE about the Cavaliers makes me want to go punch old blind dudes in the face but for the sake of objectivity: Sebastian Telfair. The poor dude went straight to the NBA from high school and was a bust. Now he find himself on an amazingly good team and COULD contribute (thirteen players would have to get hurt first but he COULD! He COULD. Plus, the completely clueless coach of the Cavs, Mike Brown, is a nice guy. Can’t coach worth shit. . .but a nice guy. He deserves success.

What to Hate: Everything!!!!!!! The Cavs, as my friend Tony and I described, are the most arrogant team to have never won anything. If you add their arrogance to an enormous pressure to win (which upended them last year) the Cavs are both unlikable and self destructive. Everyone assumes they will be in the Finals. . .but that game was played last year and. . .um. . .it didn’t work.

Chances of Getting Out of First Round: They’re already in the second round? Right? They got a bye? Yeah?

Chances of Getting to the Finals: Amazingly Strong.

Chances of Being Champions: Very Strong.

Regular Season Record: 41-41

Star Player: Derrick Rose

Player to Watch Out For: Joakim Noah. He may be a Florida Gator (bastard) but he is also one of the premier hustlers in the league. He works hard and can at times grab upwards of 20 rebounds if he is willing. Add his war of words earlier in the season with LeBron James and the first round match-up is going to be intense. Not close. . .but intense. Honorable Mention goes to Taj Gibson who I have a feeling will make a statement in this series. I dunno why.

Watch for Breakdown: Brad Miller. I only put him here because he is 176 years old and stopped being able to run about six years ago. I’d also add Kirk Hinrich to this list since he’s Kirk Hinrich.

What to Like: Last year’s Bulls, equally outclassed as they are this year, managed to provide viewers with one of the greatest best of seven series in history going seven games, some of which went to TRIPLE! overtime, against the 2 seed Boston Celtics. They are more banged up this year but they should provide some spunk that will throw the Cavs off in a few games. They did split the season series 2-2.

What to Hate: No team in history will ever suffer more because of past history then the Bulls. The Bulls could get to the Finals again but even then it would be compared to the MJ days in the 90s. The Bulls were the greatest franchise in NBA history in the 90s. . .something no team can really live up to. The Bulls will surely disappoint in some way and that makes them frustrating (but not hatable).

Chances of Getting Out of First Round: Hmmm. Tough question. I’d give them a 0.0000045 chance.

Chances of Getting to the Finals: Hahahaha. . .okay. Next.

Chances of Being Champions: Moving on. . .

SERIES: Cleveland will advance after five games, two of which will be hard fought and frustrating for the Cavs. They will easily face the winner of Boston/Miami. CAVS 4-1

Continue Reading »

DENZEL WASHINGTON WEEK: Philadelphia

I didn’t want to end Denzel week on a bad note. . .and I’m not saying Philadelphia is bad. . .but when I debated whether to close Denzel Week with a look at Denzel the supporting actor or Denzel the director, I chose supporting actor, and probably watched one of Denzel’s most uncomfortable performances. His quality, as always, is excellent but. . .jesus, I never thought I’d dislike one of Denzel’s characters. Even Alonzo Harris in Training Day was still cool and suave. . .his character in Philadelphia, Joe Miller, pretty much represents everything I’m against personally. Plus, since Denzel is so damn good at what he does, I started to dislike HIM because he embodied the character so completely.

But let’s not jump ahead of ourselves here. To start, I chose not to look at Denzel the director for two reasons and one of them is simple: 1)Denzel has only directed two films, which I don’t consider a large enough director filmography to examine his skills and 2)one of those films wasn’t available for rental on iTunes so I couldn’t watch the one I hadn’t seen anyways (The Great Debaters which is just a horrible name for a film). Denzel did a fine job in Antwone Fisher but. . .I decided that the final analysis should be on Denzel the supporting actor.

It’s been a long time since Denzel shared the spotlight with someone. For as long as I can remember he was the main man on all his posters and in all his movies. In 1993, it seemed to be different. Besides his supporting role in Much Ado About Nothing and co-lead with bigger star Julia Roberts in The Pelican Brief (or what my friend Tony calls Dogshit), Denzel played second fiddle (and polarizing ‘hero’) to Tom Hanks, who would receive all the glory and all the prestige from this picture (including the first of two straight Oscar statues). Tom Hanks is probably one of the few stars who, when placed on a screen with Denzel, could still the top billing and snag some of the praise (the other being, probably, Julia Roberts). But, thankfully, Denzel does his job and as much as Philadelphia is about Tom Hanks character Andrew Beckett and his moral fight against those who wronged him, the picture isn’t complete without the yang to his ying, Denzel’s Miller.

Earlier in Denzel week, I mentioned that Denzel often portrays the heroic role. And when he is the leading man that is definitely the case. But I was not prepared to see hero Denzel, even after Training Day, play a homophobic sleazeball. For one, he plays the lawyer who has those cheesy commercials you see on TV all the time (you know, the ones with the people who say ‘I was drunk out of my mind and killed three people but ______ & Associates got me out of it! Thanks _______ & Associates). Second, he is unflinching in both his homophobic remarks and his fear of contracting AIDS with the simplest touch. Even the mere mention of assumption that he could be gay, between two friends or by an innocent stranger, makes him angry.

Issue films, like Philadelphia, are hard to swallow years and years after they were ‘meaningful’. That’s not to say that Philadelphia, or its message of discrimination against homosexuals or AIDS victims is not still meaningful, but many films that capture the moment of controversy tend to embellish the details and add too much drama to the proceedings. Luckily, in regards to AIDS and the physical manifestations of it on its victims, director Jonathan Demme gets the ‘LOOK AT THAT BIG FUCKING SORE ON HIS FOREHEAD AND LOOK AT THE PEOPLE FEARING HIM BECAUSE OF IT’ camera angles out of his system early. The film has a general claustrophobia to it that benefits the picture but the first thirty minutes is bordering on goofy melodrama.

Once the court case gets going (Hanks is suing his former employers for wrongful termination with Denzel, a former adversary, as his lawyer) though, the tone shifts away from AIDS and more towards homosexuality and the film does a better job of preaching without preaching, if you know what I mean. The script, nominated for an Oscar, is full of good will but the characters aren’t drawn out that well. Denzel, outside the court room, is a massive homophobe. . .but in court scenes and in scenes interacting with Hanks, we are supposed to root for him as a hero. In reality, he’s just a lawyer trying to do his job even though he likely hates the person he’s defending, simply because he’s gay.

Denzel ends up representing the side of humanity that, per 1993, didn’t understand the full concept of AIDS and hadn’t really grasped the ideas of homosexuality. Denzel is sleazy and an opportunist BUT he is a decent family man and a hard worker. His homophobia, though rather disgusting, was par for the course in most people during that time. As Denzel explains to Hanks in one scene, he was raised to believe certain things and it is almost impossible not to get that out of that state of mind when seeing a gay man. Though Hanks does end up getting Denzel’s sympathy it is only to a degree. Denzel is not changed over night. . .he is still slightly bigoted but can make some exceptions.

I was impressed with Denzel taking a role so daring. For a man who acknowledges his audience so much (see his infamous non-kiss deal in Virtuosity for more details) he sure didn’t mind putting people off. Even though movies are fake and actors are just acting, sometimes a type is hard to defeat. If Denzel had not started taking heroic roles, perhaps he would be that uncomfortable actor whose role it is to say what we most fear or what should not be said. Just for pleasantries sake, I’m glad Denzel became the hero and not more of a villain because his role in Philadelphia is so believable that it scared me a bit.

You can’t speak about this movie without recognizing Tom Hanks. While I feared the words coming out of Denzel’s mouth at times, I was downright petrified for Hanks’ health in this film. You would swear, thanks to method acting and Oscar nominated makeup, that Hanks was going to frickin’ die on screen. He was well deserving of his Oscar for this. . .and he was going against heavyweights like Daniel-Day Lewis, Liam Neeson, and Anthony Hopkins. But like all great films with great performances (most recently I’m thinking of The Dark Knight and Heath Ledger) a truly remarkable performance gets kind of buried after time (and using The Dark Knight example, I’m thinking Aaron Eckhart) . I think Denzel’s role in Philadelphia is largely forgotten due to Hanks’ popularity and the fact that the role is so against type for him.

That said, though I was disturbed, I’m glad I got to end Denzel Washington Week with a performance of his that opened my eyes. An actor who has starred in 38 films is wonderful if, after all those films, can still amaze you. Watching all seven of these films, some of which I had never seen, was a great experience. It’s safe to say that I am Denzeled out now. . .but if I was appreciative of his talents before, I am even more so now.

DENZEL WASHINGTON WEEK: The Hurricane

It figures that after I go and make a statement about Denzel’s un-chameleon like acting skills (I mentioned in my review for Fallen that Denzel acts more with his presence rather then by becoming the character) I watch The Hurricane for the first time ever and eat my words.

Because in The Hurricane, Denzel transforms himself into the real life figure Rubin ‘Hurricane’ Carter, a boxer in the 60s who was falsely accused of a murder spree and served up to twenty years in prison before being rightfully released. The details on what really happened is always up for debate but I’m not here to argue history, but acting craft.

I always stood by Training Day as Denzel’s greatest performance. I still feel it is ONE of the greatest performances he’s ever given and it is one of his greatest films but The Hurricane, at least from what I’ve seen, is his magnum opus. . .when he not only molded his body to look like a boxer but, in later scenes, seemed to have aged himself to match the appearance of a fifty year old man. This is method acting to the extreme. At times I feared for the actors fighting Denzel in the boxing scenes (what if they caught an accidental punch. . .Denzel would have done some damage) and I feared for Denzel himself as he seemed to exude prideful pain in every scene. His performance is a cumulative thing: his life (and the movie’s plot) leads up to you wanting to hear the words ‘you are free’. Tension, through Denzel, builds to the breaking point in The Hurricane.

The Hurricane’s biggest problem is the film itself. It is surely anchored by a marvelous performance by Denzel but the movie is all over the place! It isn’t sure what it wants to be: period piece on Carter’s boxing career and incarceration? A father-son like relationship between a young boy and the wise, innocent prisoner? A murder mystery? A look at the frailty of the human psyche? I wish The Hurricane would have stuck to one theme. . .and it tries to implement all of the above ideas well. . .because, in the end, this would have been a classic FILM and not just a classic PERFORMANCE. Due to the film’s tone problems and it’s awful length (two and a half slow hours) the film is denied it’s rightful place in the halls of excellent film.

I tried to stay out of the whole inaccuracy debate with the facts. I live in an age where ‘Based on a True Story’ is anything but. I watch movies to be entertained, sure, and I watch movies to learn, sometimes, but I think as long as the intentions are good. . .which The Hurricane’s are. . .then if the facts are sullied or, perhaps, would have made the message muddled, then so be it. In terms of acting history, however, I entertained the notion of going ‘really?’ when looking at what DID win the Academy Award for Best Actor the year Denzel was nominated for his career defining performance in The Hurricane.

The nominees that year were Sean Penn for Sweet and Lowdown, Russell Crowe for The Insider (in what would be the second of three straight nominations), Denzel for The Hurricane, Richard Farnsworth for The Straight Story, and Kevin Spacey for American Beauty. Spacey ended up winning. . .and it WAS the popular choice at the time. But that role certainly hasn’t aged well while Crowe, who is amazing in everything, was better in The Insider then he was in 2000 when he won after three attempts for Gladiator. But now that I’ve seen Denzel’s performance over 10 years after it was delivered. . .I am amazed at how moving it is. If I were giving the award out again in 2010. . .Denzel would take it home.

Tomorrow is the final day of Denzel Week! Go back and see the other five films I’ve reviewed so far! Tomorrow I’ll be reviewing Philadelphia.