Category Archives: Quick Review

Quick Review: The Damned United

Posted on by

With the World Cup taking place, I picked up The Damned United which chronicles a short period in the life of enigmatic British soccer manager Brian Clough. Troubles ensue when Clough becomes manager of Leeds United, the dominant team at the time. The 2009 film features Michael Sheen (of playing Tony Blair fame) who plays Brian Clough.

Quick thoughts:

1. I enjoyed the film. I thought the story was compelling and sufficiently deviated from the typical sports film where a misfit coach joins a misfit team and they magically come together to win a championship.The story involves a number of flashbacks that reveal how Clough came to be Leeds’ manager.

2. Clough and his managing partner, Peter Taylor, have a well-played “buddy” relationship.

3. After watching, I went online to find more information about Clough. According to the Wikipedia entry for the film, the movie plays fast and loose with Clough’s real story. This may be due to the fact that the film is based on a fictionalized novel of the same name written about Clough. Clough’s family apparently boycotted the film and others in England were not pleased.

4. Since I liked the film yet found out the real story was not quite what the movie portrayed, I feel somewhat cheated. I know films (and other media) often take “artistic license” but this film, in my opinion, went too far. In this case, real life was interesting enough without changing certain dimensions of the story.

(The film was well-received by critics: 114 reviews, 107 fresh/94% at Rotten Tomatoes.)

Quick Review: One Day

Posted on by

Over this past weekend, I read One Day by David Nicholls. This book is a love story told over a 20 year span. The twist: the author checks in with each member of the couple one day each year (the anniversary of their first meeting). The book has garnered a number of positive reviews.

My quick thoughts:

1. It is a story that would translate easily into a movie.

2. I don’t know if the characters are likable. They are young and idealistic when they first meet, not so much so later on after more life experiences. They are generally self-indulgent. Lots of drinking among both characters – a sign of their troubled lives or a reflection of contemporary life in the United Kingdom?

3. I like the idea of checking in once a year. Their lives gradually change and the story doesn’t get bogged down in extended scenes.

4. My wife and I disagreed about whether we enjoyed the book. She did not enjoy it, as “90% of the book involved the protagonists being miserable and/or drunk.” I think this book is like much adult fiction: it is more “realistic” or at least presents a strong contrast between miserable life alone and wonderful life together. Therefore, my wife finds reading a book like this unpleasant – she doesn’t want to spend that much time dwelling on the worse parts of life. Additionally, she felt that the author betrayed the reader at the end.  I, on the other hand, think misery is a common part of life and therefore should be explored in books, movies, music, etc. However, I do think much adult fiction today is melodramatic in its presentation of tough times.

5. *SPOILER ALERT*

Though it has the twist of checking in once a year, it seems like a fairly common story line. Two people meet and then experience difficulties over the years before meeting up again (though it is more complicated than this). This seems to be a kind of story our culture enjoys: love overcoming obstacles, even if these obstacles are self-imposed by the participants.

Overall: a good choice for light (not really fun but not exactly addressing deeper issues in life) yet engaging weekend-away reading. A modern classic? No.

Quick Review: Toy Story 3

Posted on by

Toy Story 3 is in its second week in theaters. Featuring the same band of characters, Woody, Buzz Lightyear, and friends, plus some new toys and humans, Pixar has served up another successful film. My thoughts:

1. Andy is off to college. An interesting plot device as the toys have to switch gears – but also seems connected to a Pixar interest in chronicling life changes. Up contrasted an old man and young boy. Cars looked at changes in a small town. These films are not just about a moment of time but they involve complicated contexts for the current story. These transitional periods, such as a move from childhood to college or from mourning and grumpiness to meaning and joy after the loss of a spouse, have much potential for exploration.

2. There does seem something a little strange about watching a movie about a kid playing with toys. Andy is depicted in his youth running around his house with his cast of toys – no shots of him sitting at a computer, in a movie theater, texting. Older Andy is tied more to his computer. Yet we are paying money to see a sentimental movie about a kid playing with his toys. Does a movie like this inspire kids to be more imaginative with their toys or simply encourage them to watch more movies?

3. Pixar is really good at invoking sentimentalism without being mawkish. Andy eventually reflects on what the toys mean to him – and it is a touching moment. The typical sweeping Hollywood soundtrack is not present (thankfully) and the characters are not overdramatic. Even though Pixar makes animated stories, the key to their success are engaging stories.

4. If you were curious, the door is left wide open at the end for another film with a new set of human characters.

Quick review: The History of White People

Posted on by

Just finished reading The History of White People by Nell Irvin Painter and released in March 2010. Some quick thoughts and pieces I took from the book:

1. The book is an overview of defining “white” from the 1700s to the 1960s in the United States. This requires tracking back to a number of European thinkers. The book provides historical background to “whiteness studies.”

2. There is a long-running link between being “Anglo-Saxon” and “white” in the US. Defining who exactly is Anglo-Saxon has been problematic; groups like the Irish and Scots were originally excluded (1700s-1800s) but came to be a part of the group when America experienced more immigration from Southern Europe/Eastern Europe. The Irish and Italians had to fight for decades to eventually be included in the white group.

3. There were a number of thinkers who tried to classify all humans into a small number of races. The most commonly known categories: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid. But others developed more and different categories. Another common set of categories had “Nordic” people (Germans, others) as superior. These differences between categories, often based on geography but also based on the “scientific” study of head shape, were said to result in hereditary differences in intelligence and temperament, among other traits. Of course, these immutable categories could change based on circumstances. Once World War I started, the “Nordic” category lost much of its standing.

4.  Some “great Americans,” such as Henry David Thoreau and Teddy Roosevelt, were quite steeped in white superiority ideology. Both Thoreau and Roosevelt were quite explicit about this in their writings though this is not widely known today.

5. There is a long history of American residents of the Northeast seeing Southern whites as inferior. In the 1800s, Southern whites and the Irish were seen as sitting at the bottom of the racial heap.

6. Intelligence tests, developed by scholars in the early 1900s, were used to “prove” the superiority or inferiority of certain races.

7. As a general background to the ideology of whiteness, this is a decent book. As for explaining how this ideology, particularly among great thinkers or politicians, translated into public policy and general sentiment among the American population, the book is lacking. What is clear is that defining who was white and establishing whites’ superiority over other races was an important area of thought.

Quick Review: The Wire

Posted on by

I finished watching the last season of The Wire over the weekend. Quick observations before I provide some links to academics and sociologists commenting on the show, one that several critics have deemed “the best TV show ever.”

1. The City of Baltimore is truly part of the story. Unlike many shows that use a “bland big city” for the background, this show digs deeper into the place.

2. Multi-faceted view of the situation and complicated stories. Each season attempts a slightly different angle including children and the media (seasons 4 and 5). There are consistent characters through all the seasons but each season keeps adding a little more as a new perspective is developed. Not a fast-moving show.

3. Some fascinating characters. Jimmy McNulty – a detective that perhaps only loves his cases. Stringer Bell – a gang leader who is also taking business classes at night to improve his skills. Officer Daniels (who moves up the ranks during the show) unwilling to “juke the stats” to please his bosses. Many more to name.

4. The police are just as deep into the drugs and violence as the gangs. From consistent violence to “Hamsterdam” to cover-ups to “juking the stats” to impressive detective work, the police are not simply geniuses or people who can shoot better. In fact, the police rarely shoot – a problem with many cop shows since most real-life police rarely or never fire a gun in the line of duty.

4a. The politicians are similarly involved. The goal: get as much positive credit for change while minimizing negatives that happen when you are in charge.

5. Somewhat hopeless ending – new people on both sides, the gangs and police, come in, take the place of those before, and similar battles are fought. Some of the kids get out and many do not. A good number of the police are ruined. The politicians try to use whatever they can to get ahead. Money and power are what people want and just their means of pursuing them are different.

6. Sociologically, a lot of the show seemed similar to Sudhir Venkatesh’s books on life on the South side of Chicago: American Project, Off the Books, Gang Leader for a Day.

Some commentary from other sociologists:

1. Sudhir Venkatesh talking about the show with “real thugs”.

2. A short collection of reviews from Racism Review.

3. The Guardian UK summarizes an academic conference on The Wire.

4. Slate.com writing about academic courses on the TV show, including  noted sociologist William Julius Wilson teaching such a course at Harvard.

5. Two sociologists comment in Dissent in 2008 (and participate in a broader discussion) and then expand on their thoughts in City and Community.

I’m sure there is more out there. It is rare to find any media creation that receives praise from so many in providing a realistic portrayal of city life.