Media watch

So, the spouse and I are about to break our media fast, and we're kinda bummed out. There are so many movies we've missed lately, and it's so hard to know whether a given movie is any good. By "good", I mean "yes" answers to little questions: "Does the film fulfill the dramatic unities?" And to big questions: "Does the movie score high on the Patty-meter?"

To rate high on the Patty-meter, a film has to have lots of things that are cool (fights, frights, and explosions; wonder and joy; stuff that's shiny). It must present them in an interesting and original way (to avoid the classic Onion headline "Movie Praised For Not Being As Bad As It Could Have Been"). And it must have a minimum of stuff that sucks (You know: stuff that isn't cool.).

It's a simple idea, but nobody's doing it quite the way we'd like. Joe Bob Briggs does some of it — noting body counts, breast counts, quarts of blood, and varieties of fu —, but not all, and anyway, he doesn't seem to be very active lately.

There's lots of other quantitative film criticism. The helpful reviewers at Family Media Guide count all the profanities in a film and list the highlights. The censorial bible-thumpers at capalert.com are even more systematic. They rate every movie from 0 to 100. CAP's quantitative, "objective" methodology is so scientifical that it has its own acronym:

• Wanton Violence/Crime
• Impudence/Hate
• Sex/Homosexuality
• Drugs/Alcohol
• Offense to God
• Murder/Suicide

It looks like a great idea, although giving lower scores to better movies makes their scale seem backwards (like Anders Celsius' original centigrade system). But CAP isn't measuring the amount of neat stuff in a movie; really, they're measuring how hot and bothered it gets them. A funny, heartfelt movie whose theology they dislike bothers them a lot more than a pious snuff film. When a good movie pushes their buttons, it's a hoot: check out their "analysis" of Sin City. Unfortunately, they sometimes like good movies and hate bad ones — so they're not a reliable contrary indicator — rendering their exegeses more entertaining than useful.

Talking about metrics in film criticism reminded me of Wikipedia's List of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". Which linked to a handy category, Lists of films, which in turn included such useful compendia as List of films by gory death scene and List of films about independent body parts. So there's still hope for the Patty-meter.

Riding shotgun

By now everybody knows that Dick Cheney accidentally shot a fellow hunter Saturday. Harry Whittington was shot at fairly close range — he took over 200 pellets to the face, neck, and torso. And Whittington contributed to both Bush/Cheney campaigns!

The initial spin (from the ranch owner, a big-time Republican fundraiser) tried to blame Whittington, saying he snuck up on Cheney from behind. That explanation doesn't wash for two reasons. First, you're supposed to approach shooters from behind because you certainly don't want to approach from the direction they'll be shooting in. Second, the hunter has an absolute responsibility to know where he's pointing his gun (hint: not at other hunters).

This incident isn't really a big deal. Cheney won't even have to pay a fine, unlike Bush did when he shot a killdeer in 1994 (That's because lawyers aren't a protected species.). Mostly, it's an excuse for good, mean jokes: Steve Gilliard reports on Cheney's other hunts; and The Angry Sicilian points out ten ways Dick Cheney can kill you without a gun.

The shooting incident isn't a big deal, but a couple of things around it are. First, it reinforces the Bush administration's "ready, fire, aim" approach to problem-solving. More importantly, it underlines the Bushies' penchant for secrecy. Michael Froomkin points out that Cheney took much longer to talk to the law than Teddy Kennedy did after the the Chappaquiddick accident. Steve Benen says

I'm hardly the type to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, but I wasn't the least bit suspicious about the incident until the White House started dissembling. Leave it to the Bush gang to take a story in which the Vice President shot a guy and make it look worse.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

With corruption poster-child Tom DeLay under indictment, House Republicans had to pick a new majority leader. Showing their deep and abiding commitment to reform, they chose John Boehner (R-OH). Boehner — whose name, unfortunately, isn't pronounced the way it looks (instead, it rhymes with "complainer") — has demonstrated his belief in responsive government by handing out tobacco lobbyists' checks on the House floor. He is also one the leading recipients of luxury travel from lobbyists.

Bonus corruption: Josh Marshall points out that the Republicans had to re-vote because, "the first count showed more votes cast than Republicans present at the Conference meeting." One of his readers comments, "That's right, the Repubs are so corrupt they can't even hold an honest INTERNAL election." This tidbit isn't in the most of the news coverage because it isn't really news, since it's such an old, dog-bites-man kind of story by now. For example, it's how Karl Rove got his start.

Realism

I didn't watch President Bush's State of the Union speech yesterday. I wanted to see a realistic assessment of America's problems and plausible approaches to solving them. And I knew I wouldn't get any of that from Chimpy.

Instead, I watched a DVD from season 4 of Alias, a much better choice. Alias makes a lot more sense than anything from the Bush administration, and this was an especially choice episode. Marshall, the tech wizard, is the main character in "Tuesday" because everybody else is either under biohazard quarantine or buried alive. The episode features a novel use for a spork (even better than fomenting revolution). And it has the best lullaby EVAR:

Hush, little Mitchell, don't you cry.
Daddy's gonna teach you about lanthanides.
Cerium is first, yes it leads the way.
Hexagonal structure and it's iron gray.
Praseodymium is next and it looks like brass...