This week has been the most horrendous mixture of work, stress, more work and more stress, culiminating in a really thoroughly miserable Friday (barring the two interviews I did – one with James Purefoy, who amused me greatly – and a screening of Where The Wild Things Are, which delighted me greatly).

But then THIS HAPPENED, and the universe is forgiven:

I’ve been obsessed with the Starsky & Hutch Gran Torino since I had a toy version of it as a four year old. I have models all over my house. I own a Starsky cardigan and a pair of his SL76 Adidas shoes. I love Starsky & Hutch madly and finally getting to meet the car was a (slightly weird) dream come true.

I even resisted the urge to throw myself over the bonnet. Go me!

After this picture was taken I bought a very large cuddly toy Totoro, watched Supernatural’s Misha Collins and Julie McNiven give a bloody hilarious talk and was chased around by two men dressed as the Xenomorph from the Alien movies.

It was a very weird day.

After four days of zero views, and many more of zero updates I thought I’d FINALLY do something about it.

So, Here we are.

Happy Turkey Day, unless you aren’t eating turkey– I understand that a lot of people are weirdo vegetarians or happen to like meats besides gobble-gobbles.  I get that.  I love veggies, but I feel that becoming a vegetarian would be awfully mean to all of those veggies out there.  I read an icon, once, it said:

“I’m not a vegetarian because I love animals, I’m a vegetarian because I hate vegetables.”

Ah ha.  That’s hilarious, I love it.  I wish I was a vegetarian so that I could wear a pin that says that.

Speaking, though, of icons.  I think they’re the bumper stickers of our generation.  I mean, you used to look for bumper stickers to get your fill of witty quotes, but now you go to icons.  Truthfully, I like the change– because icons are easier to find a cheaper to use, while you actually have to buy bumper stickers.

I think everyone thanks whatever for the same stuff, generally.  Food, a job, money, a house, and especially friends and family.  But we stood around the table, held hands, and said: “over the lips, past the gums, look out stomach, here it comes.”  That was our blessing, told by my grandfather it was absolutely beautiful.

Reminds me of a scene in Gran Torino, in fact, the first scene.  ”Spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch.”  I don’t know about you guys, but I thought that was a fabulous movie.  I also should’ve been thankful for all of the fantastic movies out there, I don’t know what the world would be like without people like Chuck Palahniuk and Will Smith.

By the way, has anyone seen the movie Choke?  I read the book, but I have heard next to nothing about the movie, and yet if it was written by Chuck Palahniuk (author of Fight Club) it has to be good, no?  I heard it won something, or something, but I’m not entirely sure what.  Gimme a second, I’ll look it up.

Well, it got a 6.7/10 on IMBD, but is that good?  Truthfully, I don’t really know. D=  I thought it came out a while ago, but it actually came out last year (2008), which is kind of shocking.  That I can see, it didn’t win anything too notable.

“A sex-addicted con-man pays for his mother’s hospital bills by playing on the sympathies of those who rescue him from choking to death.” That about sums it up, doesn’t it?  Great book thought, if you have a chance– read it, before you watch the movie.

I’ll check out the movie and write up one of those lame little reviews I like so much.

Oh, lemme do what I came here to do: Happy Thanksgiving.

Pues la vi hace una semana, en el sofá de casa. Una historia de transformación humana a partir del contacto con lo diferente. Clint Eatswood es ese americano duro, que toma cervezas en el porche de la casa, ve el baseball y va a bares de americanos duros como él. Ya anciano se encuentra “invadido” por cientos  de asiáticos que se mudan a su barrio. La convivencia obligada crea conflictos, lazos y transforma. Y es ese Gran Torino, el viejo coche de los 70, el que sirve para intercambiar odio, lealtades y afecto. No creo que sea lo mejo de Clint Eastwood, con tantas películas a sus espaladas sería osado decir tal cosa, pero sin duda hace reflexionar sobre lo que nos pasa cuando nos damos cuenta que tenemos más en común con los que consideramos diferentes de lo que creíamos inicialmente.

Indicação do Marquinhos:

Gran Torino (2008) conta a história de Walt Kowalski. Walt é, conforme nos conta a sinopse, “um veterano da guerra da Coreia inflexível e com determinação inabalável, vivendo num mundo em transformação, que se vê forçado pelos vizinhos imigrantes a confrontar seus próprios preconceitos”. Quem interpreta Walt é Clint Eastwood (também diretor do filme), que não atuava desde Menina de Ouro (2004).

Depois de perder a esposa, Walt está só, cercado de estranhos. Sua relação com os filhos é de distanciamento e ele espera o tempo passar, com algum ressentimento do passado. A rotina de seus dias é abalada depois da chegada de novos vizinhos, imigrantes vindos do Laos, país asiático, próximo da China. Certa noite, Walt é acordado com um barulho na garagem. Tentavam roubar o Ford Gran Torino, ano 1972.

As gangues, que tanto revoltavam o velho entraram em ação. Uma delas, formada por Hmongs, força o novo vizinho de Walt, o adolescente Thao (Bee Vang), a roubar o Gran Torino. Para se desculpar, a mãe de Thao e sua irmã, Sue (Ahney Her), convencem o vizinho de poucas palavras a aceitar que Thao trabalhe para ele. Contrariado, Walt aceita. Esse envolvimento ganha significado de proteção e logo se torna amizade. O velho durão percebe que tem mais coisas em comum com os vizinhos do que com os próprios filhos.

Interessante reparar na presença do Padre Janovich (Christopher Carley). Nas conversas entre os dois surge algo que vai fazer com que entendamos melhor Walt Kowalski. Ele sabe sobre a morte, já matou, viu amigos morrerem e quase morreu em combate. Mas, e sobre a vida? A vida de Walt é a lucidez, a coragem que lhe resta e um Gran Torino.

Veja o trailer:

Arrête ton cinoche !

La Vidéo à la Demande est désormais disponible sur PlayStation3 et PSP. Avec un catalogue de 390 films au lancement, les mecs, vous allez laisser tomber Youporn et vous concentrer sur des titres extrêmement pointues, tels que Transporteur 3, Da Vinci Code, Harry Potter, mais aussi sur des gros navets comme Slum Dog Millionnaire, The Dark Knight ou Gran Torino…

Outre les promos de lancement pour se faire plaisir sans fissurer le cochon, comptez 2,99€ à 9,99€ la projo maison. Bueno !

Adieu sublime Dolce Elektra, bonjour Harry Potter

Just saw Harry Brown at the cinema which is a British crime thriller which was directed by Daniel Barber. The film stars Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, Jack O’Connell and Liam Cunningham.

Michael Caine plays the main character Harry Brown. The story is about how he seeks revenge after his friend is killed by the group of thugs.

The film puts across very serious and relevant messages to the audience about gang crime.

I really enjoyed this film- it felt very genuine and realistic because of its ‘gritty/raw’ style. The film is very violent, has a lot of bad language and hard drug use but it does make the film more realistic.Michael Caine was very good in this role and i think that this is one of his best performances in most of his recent films.

This film is worth seeing in you like British thrillers or films such as Gran Torino, Kidulthood and Adulthood.

Film Rating: 8/10

Assisti ao novo filme de Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino, nessa sexta-feira. Não gostei.

Quando vou ao cinema com os amigos, ou sozinho, quero assistir a uma boa história. Me envolver. Ver que o diretor trabalhou de forma árdua para que seus atores transmitissem a verdade da história contada através de seus olhos. Mesmo que essa verdade seja o maior clichê do cinema. Mas Clint não consegue a resposta dos atores. O filme chegou a me incomodar e quase sai da sala.

A história: Um senhor de idade, patriota, que lutou na guerra contra a china, vive em um bairro do subúrbio dominado por gangues de negros e chineses excluídos da sociedade com sua cadela após o falecimento de sua esposa. Sua rabugencia cria um abismo entre ele e os dois filhos, sendo que um deles é dominado pela esposa materialista que quer tirar a casa dele e o levar para um asilo.  O detalhe  é que ele tem dois filhos, sendo que um deles só aparece nos velórios.

Clint está ótimo, como sempre, porém o roteiro do filme e os atores ao seu redor não. Isso o enfraquece. Até o carro, o Gran Torino, que entitula o filme, é pouco explorado.

Fica visível no meio do filme a falta de direção. A história perde o rumo. A melhor parte dela é que o personagem de Clint não é amargurado por ter matado diversas pessoas, ou ter feito coisa pior na guerra. Ele o é por não ter se aproximado de seus filhos. O detalhe é que essa revelação é feita no confessionário da igreja que ele dizia não servir para nada! Clint, você traiu o movimento dos ateístas!

O filme traz a mensagem do aprendizado bilateral entre um idoso preconceituoso ex-soldado da guerra entre EUA e Coréia, e um j0vem Hmung que é um pau-mandado da família e não sabe ser homem. Clichê. Mais clichê ainda é o final, quando o velho morre em prol daqueles que odiava e aprendeu a amar. Nem a trilha sonora ajuda! Toda feita para forçar um sentimentalismo que não está em nenhum dos atores. Fotografia? Se não existe não há o quê comentar.

Uma pena. Clint Eastwood com certeza viu que esse filme não ia dar em nada, por isso da metade do filme em diante atua no mesmo nível dos outros atores. Porcamente. Uma mancada, pois como diretor deveria ter pego mais pesado com os atores. A única que correspondeu foi a jovem atriz Ahney Her (Sue), que consegue pegar o timing de Clint. Não posso dizer o mesmo do ator Bee Vang (Thao)…

Babelor,

Acum multă vreme, una dintre voi mi-a recomandat un film: Gran Torino, de şi cu Clint Eastwood. Aseară am avut în sfârşit cele 116 minute necesare şi l-am văzut.
Mulţumesc mult babei care mi-a zis de el, şi îi recomand ceva la schimb: babo, dacă ieşi din casă pe la miezul zilei, vei vedea pe cer un disc alb-gălbui şi luminos. Acesta este soarele. Soarele este foarte bun să te uiţi la el, cam vreo 20 de minute. Dacă ţi se pare că încep să te dor ochii, nu-ţi fă griji, doar ţi se pare. Dacă ţi se pare că încep să ţi se dilate pupilele, nu-ţi fă griji, doar ţi se pare. Dacă ţi se pare că ai orbit, nu-ţi fă griji. Nu ţi se pare, dar şi Ray Charles şi Stevie Wonder sunt orbi, şi cel puţin Ray Charles a făcut muzică mişto la viaţa lui.

De ce mi-a plăcut filmul la nebunie, întrebaţi? Păi, motivele sunt numeroase:
În primul rând, m-au impresionat ingeniozitatea poveştii şi lipsa totală a stereotipurilor: moşul dur, dar bun la suflet; asiatica isteaţă şi haioasă; preotul tânăr şi naiv; gaşca de asiatici violenţi, fricoşi şi cretini; baba care nu vorbeşte engleză; învăţătura cu care ne alegem la sfârşit, că rasismul nu e bun deloc.
Altă chestie mişto în filmul ăsta: momentele când Clint Eastwood începe să murmure ceva, de obicei nişte înjurături la adresa cuiva, sau o părere nu tocmai apreciativă despre cineva. Foarte tare; adică în loc să îi arunce cuiva o privire din care noi să-nţelegem că nu-i place de persoana respectivă, el nu numai că îi aruncă privirea, dar mai şi spune sotto voce “tare nu-mi place de tine, chinez împuţit”. Genial.
A, şi ce mi-a mai plăcut e că avea un câine. Ditamai găselniţa ca să ne fie clar că el de fapt nu este un tip rău, pentru că oamenii răi n-au câini – şi dacă totuşi au, atunci cu siguranţă nu un labrador alb sau auriu. Mişto!

Mda, aşa că… Nu mă uita cu privitul în soare, babo oarecare. Şi mersi mult.

So, over the weekend I saw Gran Torino with my dad.  Amazing, really memorable.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, and he also played the leading part (Walt Kowalski).

IMDB gave it this summary:

“Disgruntled Korean War vet Walt Kowalski sets out to reform his neighbor, a young Hmong teenager, who tried to steal Kowalski’s prized possession: his 1972 Gran Torino.”

Truthfully, it felt a lot more like that.  It felt more like: “Walt Kowalski sets out to accept himself and the things he has done in the Korean War in looking to reform his Hmong neighbor, after the death of his own wife”.

It was so amazing.  I will admit that I haven’t seen any other Clint Eastwood movies, but he made a fantastic grumpy, bitter old man.  This is a movie you need to see.

Though I’m sure that a lot of people don’t, if you do have a problem with cursing be warned that Clint Eastwood curses excessively.  Though, I think it adds to his grumpy old man charm.

Trailer please?  Your welcome.

It’s been suggested over here that Mystic River employs a sort of narrative “cheat” not unlike the oft-repeated one in The Sixth Sense. It’s often true that movie watchers don’t like being fooled, but it should be acknowledged that some of the greats (e.g. Hitchcock) were masters at doing this in just the right way – a way that didn’t seem as offensive. Most of Hitchcock’s films work so well because the viewer is so well sutured to a particular character or characters that the narrative feels like one’s own. This effects an attachment to not only the narrative but to the film itself; the spectator feels part and parcel of the movie, something Hitchcock well knew and so exploited it through humor and adventure, making the audience feel like they were along for the ride and not simply watching someone else’s ride.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be said that the narrative twist in The Sixth Sense is a “cheat,” at least not like it is in Mystic River. The main problem with the shock in The Sixth Sense is that it’s all the film is standing on. Whatever other notions might be suggested in the film are given the back seat (as in, the very back seat of a twelve-passenger van) to the not-so-little detail that changes everything in the film. However, it is not a cheat because the viewer is usually connected with Bruce Willis’ character Malcolm and is only privy to what he knows. Alternately, it can be said that the spectator’s point of view is Cole’s view of how Malcolm sees himself. We see what Cole sees, and what he sees Malcolm see. The viewer is only let in on the film’s big secret at the moment Willis realizes it. Shallow? Empty? A shameless conceit? It may be all of those things, but it’s probably not really a cheat.

Enter Mystic River. In what is ironically an actor’s movie (it was even directed by one), it’s slightly trickier to determine just which character the viewer is supposed to identify with most. Maybe it’s not ironic; maybe the thespian ensemble functions precisely to confuse the viewer as to which character the film itself wants to see come out in front. This is doubtful. The characters are all types, caricatures, and oddities, personalities overly determined by their pasts or inconsistent in attitude and motivation. In fact, the film does choose its “main” character, the one whose point of view is given priority to the viewing audience: Dave. The opening scene functions as a flashback, giving the three main male characters a background that connects them and one that sets Dave apart from Jimmy and Sean in a certain, horrible way. Following the opening scene and periodically throughout the film we see flashbacks from Dave, a Rashomon-like forest view as he escapes his captors after four days of abusive captivity.

What is the point of all of these flashbacks? It seems fair to assume that they are for either one or both of the following reasons: to give narrative background to the main story that will fill in important information, or, to paint a fuller picture of the character of Dave in order to create viewer attachment and all the accompanying emotions, etc. As with most either-ors, this one turns out to be both. And herein lies the real cheat of Mystic River. More than any other technical element, Dave’s forest flashbacks suture the viewer to the character of Dave. No other character has POV shots like these. Over the course of the main story, exceedingly important information about Dave, of which he is fully aware, is withheld not only from the other characters, but also from the viewing audience. The only reason to withhold this information is to create suspense, but unfortunately it’s at the expense of a consistent connection between viewer and “main” character. This makes the suspense artificial, a “cheat.”

This is something that, again, The Sixth Sense did not do and something that Hitchcock didn’t do. These two counter-examples were chosen – one a film and one a corpus of films – because they represent the other two options: either let the audience in on what’s happening à la Hitchcock, or withhold information to the same degree that the main character is ignorant of it. One of the great twists in North By Northwest occurs after Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) escapes narrowly from the United Nations building after being framed for a murder. The camera makes a transition from the U.N. building (a bird’s-eye or God’s-eye view of the reflective façade) to the exterior of the Central Intelligence Agency (a man’s eye view), the sign of which mirrors the Washington, D.C. Capitol building across the street from it. Hitchcock makes it clear to his audience that they have a privileged outlook by removing them from the restricted and confusing point of view of Roger Thornhill to the much more omniscient CIA. This move doesn’t so much cater to the audience as respect it, understanding that Thornhill’s situation is too intense for the audience to experience it with him past a certain point.

Interestingly, there is a later point in North By Northwest when Hitchcock does trick the audience. At Mount Rushmore, Eva Marie Saint’s character Even Kendall appears to shoot Thornhill point blank in front of a large crowd. The audience is briefly left reeling as much as the crowd within the scene, which believes that the two characters are on opposite sides, if one wants to murder the other. A few moments later, the viewer meets the characters in a secluded forest where Thornhill emerges unscathed from a car, along with Kendall, showing that the scene was a hoax. The main reason why this conceit is not exactly a deceit is that Thornhill is not in on the hoax until shortly after the shot is fired, when he realizes that it was a blank. The amount of screen time that elapses between the firing of the shot and the revelation to the audience that Thornhill is alive is no doubt not much longer than how long it took Thornhill to realize he wasn’t hurt. Sutured to Thornhill, Hitchcock plays the same trick on the audience that SHE plays on him, briefly (and only briefly!) letting the audience/Thornhill think that something dreadful has happened when it hasn’t. The event was not the crux of the plot and was not drawn out as an artificial suspense element.

The point may be done to death, but it amply illustrates how a film like Mystic River relies on an artificial and inconsistent plot device to distract the audience from some truly uninteresting characters and get the audience to focus on the only thing the film has going for it: the narrative. The aforementioned blog did well to note this point, as well. Granted, a film like North By Northwest loves and needs its plot. The plot, like in many of Hitchcock’s films, is larger than life, so the great director does what needs to be done to ground the film: give it a main character (or main characters) who appeal completely to the viewing audience. If the film isn’t “realistic,” at least let its characters appeal to those watching. The lack of realism in Mystic River’s story (Dave’s wife’s knee-jerk assumption that he killed the girl??) is piled on top of larger than life characters, rendered so by a kind of acting that draws more attention to the performances than to the characters. The characters in Mystic River repel the audience. The acting may appeal to viewers, but the characters themselves are generally unappealing, evoking sympathy at points but rarely if ever empathy rooted in a real connection with lived experience and a personable disposition. Some may say this is the nature of tragedy, but a quick look at Shakespeare disproves that idea. An effective tragedy does the same fundamental thing Hitchcock does, connecting the audience with the character for whatever effect best suits the genre or the work itself.

Good thing it's a closeup

PS: Having not seen many films directed by Clint Eastwood, what’s with the finger-gun motif here and in Gran Torino?

“Nothing propinks like propinquity.” - Ian Fleming

“Gran Torino” begins with the funeral service for the late wife of retired auto-worker Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood).  We see at once that Walt is a man at odds with the world around him.  Instead of the show of affection and mutual support we might expect at a funeral, we see clear signs of his estrangement from his family.  Instead of taking some comfort from the Catholic ritual, he must work to hide his disdain for his parish’s baby-faced priest.

The reception at Walt’s home following the service reinforces this impression.  With the sole exception of his dog Daisy, Walt is at odds with everyone, especially the Hmong family that lives next door.  He is visibly angry about the influx of immigrants into his neighborhood, and his sotto voce mutterings reveal a deeply prejudiced man.  Of Polish descent himself, it never occurs to Walt that his own ancestors were once in the same position that his neighbors are in now.  A veteran of the Korean War, he still carries a full complement of wartime prejudices.

His experiences during that war are never far from Walt’s mind; in fact, they live with him constantly.  In a sense, he is still fighting the Korean War, and still seeking absolution for deeds he committed then.  He tells the priest, “The thing that haunts a man the most is what he isn’t ordered to do.”

Despite his wish to be left alone, circumstances soon force Walt to interact with his neighbors.  He rescues the older sister Sue (Ahney Her) from the attentions of three young toughs, and works to keep the younger brother Thao (Bee Vang) out of the clutches of a neighborhood gang.  As he spends time with Sue and Thao, he develops a genuine affection for them.  He defends Thao like he would his own son, and finds in him an opportunity to make amends for having kept his own two sons at arm’s length all their lives.  Ultimately, he begins to take pride in Thao, to respect him, and at the movie’s end, tells him, “I’m proud to say that you’re my friend.”

Simply put, “Gran Torino” is about atonement.  Walt is given a chance to atone for his mistakes in raising his sons, and for the needless killing of a young Chinese soldier in Korea.  His willingness to change and to set aside the prejudices of a lifetime is a testa-ment to his underlying humanity.  Through Walt’s acceptance of his Hmong neighbors, the movie makes a strong case that you can only hate what you don’t know, and reminds me forcefully of a proverb from Ian Fleming’s Diamonds Are Forever: “Nothing propinks like propinquity.”

Special mention must be made of the sure hand shown by screen-writer Nick Schenk.  It is his dialog that gives “Gran Torino” much of its punch, not to mention its moments of comic relief, without which it would seem unrelievedly grim.

Clint Eastwood, who turned 79 last May, has lost none of the acting and directing savvy that has marked so much of his recent work, including “Unforgiven” (1992) and “Million Dollar Baby” (2004).  “Gran Torino” marks his first acting role since his Oscar-winning turn in “Million Dollar Baby”.  As Walt Kowalski, he is unforget-table, and as director, he elicits excellent performances from the entire supporting cast.  Though you should bear in mind the language and violence of the streets in which the story takes place, this is a Clint Eastwood movie with heart, and I would unhesita-tingly recommend “Gran Torino” to anyone old enough to drive.

Derrick Robinson

When I first started watching this movie, I was worried it was going to be awful. The sons speaking at the funeral was a little too obvious of a character fill-in-the-audience set-up. But Eastwood quickly drew me in with his rough, non-compromising Walt. The relationship between his neighbours grows pretty naturally, naturally enough that we can believe that this racist old man would end up befriending these kids. atrocious

Eastwood is very good in this film, despite not having much help. The kid who plays Tao was just atrocious, yet it didn’t actually affect the movie that bad.

I have to say that I loved the ending. It really gave the movie a lot of meaning. I was wondering along with the characters what he was planning to do about the gang, and I think that the direction they went with the ending was brilliant.
8/10

Pabst Blue Ribbon has undergone a catastrophically successful rebranding over the last decade. What was once a heartland, working-class beer, brewed in Wisconsin and enjoyed by the Walt Kowalskis and Frank Booths of the world, has now become the beer of choice among hipster 20-somethings. In fact, the change has been so successful that the charitable organization that owns the Pabst Brewing Company is looking to sell it (since a charity cannot own a for-profit company and retain nonprofit status) for $300 million, despite the fact that the brewing company doesn’t actually brew anything. The Pabst Brewing Company mainly operates as a marketing company for the beers it sells, specifically PBR, which has significantly upped its sales figures recently.

Now, I suppose the company deserves credit for PBR’s recent success, but I’m reluctant to credit people for simply knowing how irrational American consumers are, particularly the brand of consumers commonly known as “hipsters.”

I’m reluctant to criticize hipsters because they are an ill-defined, much-maligned breed; like “racists” and “partisans,” “hipsters” are almost universally condemned, even though nobody can agree on what exactly makes one a hipster (although it probably involves skinny jeans).

With that said, we all know who drinks PBR, and it’s not people who like how it tastes. These are people who are trying to send one of the following cool, but factually incorrect signals to those seeing them drinking it (and the fact that PBR is rarely on tap means people generally will know what you are drinking):

1) I don’t care about mainstream tastes. Except that PBR is more popular than it’s been in decades. It’s sales and market share are up more than any other beer, and the only beers that outperform it are the corporate “monsters” put out by MillerCoors and Anheuser-Busch.

2) I don’t like spending a lot of money. Except that PBR’s prices have actually gone up during its recent success. PBR now costs more than other crappy beers, like Keystone, Natural Light, and Miller High Life. And yet, its sales continue to rise. People are drinking it, then, not because it’s cheap, but because it is perceived to be cheap.

3) I’m not responding to advertising. It’s true that PBR doesn’t spend nearly as much on advertising as its competitors; in fact, I’m not sure it spends any money at all on national advertising. But this doesn’t mean PBR isn’t marketed. In fact, the Pabst Brewing Company has been working on a word-of-mouth campaign since 2004 that has tried to brand the beer as “ironic downscale chic.”

4) I like the way this beer tastes. HA! 

5) I don’t drink corporate beer. PBR only qualifies as a non-corporate beer if your only definition of corporate beers are those produced by MillerCoors and Anheuser Busch. As I said before, the Pabst Brewing Company isn’t actually a “brewing company,” but a holding company for over two dozen brands that subcontracts the actual process of brewing. This shouldn’t necessarily factor into your beer selection, but Pabst certainly isn’t an “independent” or “family-owned” brewery.

Basically, all the signals that drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon is supposed to send are inaccurate and inauthentic, and yet people persist in drinking it for these reasons. So the next time you’re faced with a choice of beers, remember this: There is no good reason to drink PBR.

Don, who hails from Dyersville, has been with us at Runde’s for about three-and-a-half years. Read on to find out why he may not be as jolly for Christmas as most people would be…

What, would you say, is the best part of your job?
I’d say the attitude of the company and the people in it. It’s laid back and honest. You can do things the way you want as long as you are fair and honest with the customer.

What do customers have to look forward to when working with you?
I will be right up front with them. I’m not going to pull wool over your eyes. This is the way we operate: we are going to let you know about our vehicles, good or bad, the truth. 

Why should customers come to Runde’s instead of any other dealership?
Because they will never be forced to do anything and our laid-back attitude creates no pressure.

What do you like to do around the area?
We usually end up in Dubuque. It’s where we do most of our shopping.

Are you married?
Yeah. I’ve been married for 10 years.

Do you remember your first date with your wife?
I’d say the first time was when we went golfing in Wisconsin.

Kids?
Oh yes. Four boys and a girl. And between the two of us we have 22 grand children with one on the way. Christmas is interesting… and expensive.

This will cover about half of the presents Don needs to get for his family.

Oh wow… you’d probably have to work a couple months just to pay off all the presents!
You have no idea…

What’s your favorite holiday?
Probably Thanksgiving. You get a great dinner and you don’t have to pay for presents. Christmas is great but it costs a fortune!

Is there any vehicle that you would recommend someone to check out?
I’d say take a look at the new Fusion, they are a tremendous vehicle, everyone I’ve sold one to absolutely loves it.

What’s your favorite movie?
Gran Torino – great movie.

What do you like to do on vacation?
I love going out. I love going out west. Our idea of an ideal vacation is to get into a car and just go west without knowing exactly where we’re going.  One trip we went on, we put over 6,000 miles on our vehicle.

Anything you like to do with the family?
We like to get together a lot. Every year we usually go out with my family and they plan a weekend somewhere to get together (last time it was in Wisconsin Dells).

Do you have a favorite sports team?
I’m a Dodgers fan. I’ve been a Dodger fan ever since I was a kid.

What is one invention you can’t live without?
Probably a car - I don’t like to walk very far (laughs).

Do you have a favorite car?
My old ‘67 Caddie convertible.

If you were to win the lottery, what would you do with the money?
I’d travel. I’d probably move out west if I had that kind of money.

Thanks for taking some time out to do an interview with me Don! Good luck with Christmas!

Tinha um texto até grandinho para ser publicado aqui, mas ele deveria ter ficado pronto no dia de sua escrita. Como isso não ocorreu, fiquem apenas com notinhas cinematográficas.

“Gran Torino”. Estava meio reticente, afinal o filme anterior do velho Clint tinha sido o pavoroso “A Troca”, e antes dele os medianos “Cartas de Iwo Jima” e “A Conquista da Honra”. Bem possível que ele estivesse fora de forma. Mas tal qual no lindo “Menina de Ouro”, ele usa uma história batida e constrói dela uma fábula complexa, madura. Alguns excessos, especialmente os que pesam para que a história se pareça com uma caricatura – como os rosnados de Kowalski – poderiam ficar de fora, sem prejuízo algum. Mas demodo geral “Gran Torino” é um filme muito equilibrado e bem feito. Recomendadíssimo.

“Bastardos Inglórios”. Surpreendeu positivamente, devo dizer. Mas sabendo que eu esperava algo na linha do péssimo “Kill Bill”, ser surpreendido positivamente não é nada demais. O filme é interessante, e Tarantino, apesar dos pesares, sabe como realizar certas cenas. Certas. Em outras, ele é a maior danação do filme. A escolha de trilhas sonoras bizarras, enquadramentos desnecessários e a estranha mania de não conseguir fazer nada que não seja uma referência, todas essas ‘marcas registradas’ estão lá atrapalhando o filme. Porém, também estão lá os travellings bem planejados e outros enquadramentos precisos. O vilão Hans Landa (Christopher Waltz) rouba o filme, muito mais interessante que o anti-herói Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt, numa interpretação às vezes engraçada, às vezes irritante). (ainda sobre personagens, onde esteve Mélanie Laurent antes? Que moça bonita). Conclusão, filme divertido em parte do tempo, chato em outras. Não vai mudar sua vida (mas qual filme vai, não é?)

Walt Kowalski is a product of his time.

An American born during the Great Depression, his was a generation of men defined by a pure hegemonic masculinity: male, white, heterosexual, independent, and diligent. Walt is a core representation of pure hegemonic masculinity.

Yet, like many men of this period, Walt’s nucleus has been layered with characteristics categorically inherent in the male persona, creating an über-hegemonic masculinity. Stoic, crude, prejudice, patriarchal and violent features are later added as life experiences unfold and multiply.

Theorists and researches recognize the distinction. The concept of “masculinities” is born.

Author and educator Jackson Katz explains masculinities as a means “to more adequately describe the complexities of male social position” adding “gender order (produces) numerous masculinities stratified by socioeconomic class, racial and ethnic difference, and sexual orientation” (350).

Self-awareness can offer invitation to reduce, even eliminate, masculinities. “The central delineation is between the hegemonic, or dominant masculinity, and the subordinated masculinities” (Katz, 350). Such reasoning befits a human given the fluidity and profound changes over the course of a lifetime. Masculinities are malleable. In Walt’s case, the evolutions occurring in his younger life seem permanently bound to his dominant masculinity.

The breadth of Walt Kowalski’s life history is nearly realized. He is Catholic, a Korean War veteran, widowed, and a retired auto factory worker living in a once respectable, middle-class neighborhood, now fallen to crime and populated by lower-income minorities. It is this last detail which frustrates this American patriot of Polish descent to disdain for his neighbors, often peppering them with outward racial slurs.

The curmudgeon Walt holds equal disdain for his family, their unabashed show of entitlement, and for anyone dodging an honest day’s work for instant gratification. He is a man clearly defined by his past, namely, his war history.

This offers some explanation for a combative nature and resolve to control his surroundings. Walt realizes it may be too late to salvage relationships with his sons (and the continuation of the male hegemonic lineage). Instead, he takes interest in young, Hmong neighbor, Thao. By Walt’s standards, Thao desperately needs a certain male intervention—Walt’s—if he is to survive in an American community where violence boils beneath the surface.

Walt accomplishes his task–securing the lineage of male hegemonic masculinity–providing Thao lessons on matters of male importance: the use of hardware tools and working a respectable job earning a respectable wage. He is coached in how to get the girl and talking like a man, complete with the usual swear words and racial insults. Despite some show of resistance, Thao is a receptive learner.

Walt’s actions are a response to what could be a growing counter-hegemonic movement during these modern times. In an extreme representation of counter-hegemony, there is Aileen Wuornos, a real-life figure immortalized in the film “Monster.”

Aileen Wuornos was a product of her time.

Wuornos was abandoned by her parents and later adopted by her grandparents. Following her grandmother’s death, Wuornos’ grandfather removed her from the home. At age 15, Wuornos turned to prostitution.

As a young woman in the 1970’s, Wuornos sought acceptance and affirmation from men. Instead, she found rejection and humiliation.

Married and divorced, Wuornos became involved with a woman. She would continue engaging in prostitution, using the money to support her and her lover. The random, sexual encounters were not without abuse at the hands of her male counterparts.

It was then that Wuornos began a series of killings.

Before her arrest, seven men were dead. She later would be convicted of her crimes and sentenced to death. Vilified, Wuornos became the “monster.”

This writer wonders if a movie directed by a female and told from Wuornos’ point of view improved the cause to diminish male dominance. Author bell hooks writes, “Misogyny wears many guises, reveals itself in different forms…but its chief characteristic is its pervasiveness” (119).

Aileen Wuornos died from lethal injection in October 2002.

What is striking about Wuornos’ story is the layers of masculinities. Beyond her sexual liaison with a female, Wuornos possesses a bravado generally reserved for men and is later convicted of a crime so closely associated with men. Katz writes “…violent behavior is typically gendered male. This doesn’t mean that all men are violent but that violent behavior is considered masculine (not feminine) behavior” (350). Moreover, Wuornos would become only the tenth woman in the United States to be executed following the Supreme Court’s1976 removal of a capital punishment ban.

Walt Kowalski and Aileen Wuornos provide stories of two individuals focused on securing a future, one the counter-insurgent, the other, the counter-hegemonic. In the end, both suffer unfortunate fates. And it stands to reason that, in most cases, overcoming counter-hegemony is a matter best handled by collective reasoning and multiple minds.

Dines, Gail; Humez, Jean M. Gender, Race, and Class in Media. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003.

hooks, bell: Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations. New York: Routledge, 1994.

Quem lê o F(r)ases da Vida sabe que vivo dando minhas cacetadas no campo das críticas cinematográficas. Muitas delas publicadas por esse ‘Brasilsão’ afora. O ano está acabando e resolvi fazer uma daquelas listas dos melhores filmes do primeiro semestre (bem no estilo Alta Fidelidade).

Abaixo está a minha lista (sem ordem definida) dos 10 melhores do semestre. Quer deixar suas contribuições?

Gran Torino, de Clint Eastwood

Simonal – Ninguém Sabe o Duro que Eu Dei, Claudio Manoel, Calvito Leal e Micael Langer

Milk – A Voz da Igualdade, de Gus Van Sant

Frost/Nixon, de Ron Howard

Intrigas de Estado, de Kevin Macdonald

O Curioso Caso de Benjamin Button, de David Fincher

Verônica, de Maurício Farias

Duplicidade, de Tony Gilroy

O Visitante, de Thomas McCarthy

Operação Valquíria, de Bryan Singer

Gran Torino

Clint Eastwood volta, aos 79 anos e depois de uma paragem de quatro sobre o Billion Dollar Baby, a realizar, produzir e interpretar um filme que, do meu ponto de vista pessoal, é uma das suas melhores obras. A coadjuvá-lo tem dois dos seus filhos Scot e Kyle. A história é duma imensa simplicidade e talvez resida aí a sua grande força. Walt Kovalsky é um veterano da guerra da Coreia, de origem polaca, aposentado da Ford, que perdeu recentemente a mulher. Vive sozinho com a sua cadela Daisy – uma Labrador Retriever -, tem mau feitio e os filhos praticamente ignoram-no, porque desejam interná-lo num lar para idosos.
Duro e de difícil relacionamento, vive num bairro onde antes havia uma classe média de trabalhadores brancos, mas que agora é dominado por asiáticos pobres e gangues violentos.
É neste contexto que Walt vai aprender aquilo que a vida, antes, parece não lhe ter ensinado: que todos somos seres humanos que precisamos uns dos outros, independentemente da raça, do credo ou da forma de vida.
É também um filme sobre a solidão, a honra, a fidelidade aos valores em que acreditamos e às marcas que a guerra deixa naqueles que para ela vão. E é, não haja qualquer dúvida, um hino ao amor do próximo!
Helena Sacadura Cabral
Lisboa, 24 de Setembro de 2009

Welcome to another installment of the CarDomain Obscure Muscle Car Parking Lot, a regular feature which aims to expand the definition of what a muscle car is, and to discover that there were indeed Muscle Cars of the 70’s. It has been a little over two weeks sine I last did an Obscure Muscle Car Posting, so I though I would make up for it with a head to head comparison of two rather obscure 70’s Detroit boats from Ford and Chevrolet. Remember, they were both produced after stringent regulations were passed in regards to safety, emissions, fuel economy, and federalized bumper regulations. Let me introduce you to the Ford Gran Torino Sport (with the 351 Cobra Jet), and the Chevrolet Laguna (with the LS5 454).

Continue reading after the jump!

The Chevrolet Laguna was the top range Chevelle for 1973, and GM actually boasted about the European Handling of the entire intermediate lineup. In reality, they did handle better than their predecessors, even with the engines that lost their performance edge. The new “Colonnade” styling did away with the pillar less hardtop because of pending rollover regulations. The distinctive front end covered the new bumper regulations without having to resort to the large bumper overhang other models used. This was achieved by using a flexible plastic called Endura, and was exclusive to the Laguna (and the new Pontiac Grand Am). The size of the 1973 Laguna grew in every dimension over its 1972 counterpart, including wheelbase, length, height, and curb weight, but it was a much more comfortable cruiser, with thicker windshield, double paneled roof, side-guard door beams, full foam padded seats, and a lot of other features that were unavailable only a few years prior. OK, you’re saying, the Laguna was a personal luxobarge, to which I respond absolutely not. That job was left to the Monte Carlo. This car was equipped with the LS5 454 V-8.

The LS5 Big Block is a 454 CID V-8, with a compression ratio of 8.50:1. On top of this massive engine (in today’s measurement, around 8.3L) is a four-barrel Rochester carburetor, backed by a tuned dual exhaust system. Power output was published as 245 Horsepower measured at the SAE net rating. Torque was a massive 375 lbs/ft, at only 2800 RPM. With this power, 0 to 60 MPH took only 9.5 seconds, with quarter mile times at 16.7 seconds. Testing was done with the M40 Turbohydramatic 400 automatic. 1974 Engine power decreased to 235 Horsepower, with a net torque of 360 lbs/ft at 2800 RPM (and power ratings would go further downward through the rest of the 70’s).

Options ranged from the performance enhancing to the downright luxurious. Some examples: The new for 1973 Strato Swivel Bucket Seats, Four-Season Air Conditioning, G80 positraction rearend, floor console with floor-mounted shifter, left and right remote mirrors, power windows and power locks, M21 close-ratio four speed manual, full or half vinyl roof, and three different wheel trim offerings. Remember, this was also the time in which radial tires, power disc brakes, and radios were still optional.

The Ford Motor Company also redesigned their intermediates, only a year earlier in 1972. However, for the 1973 model year, they had to heavily revise the front end to blend in the new bumper regulations, and modify the rear bumper as well. The Gran Torino Sport was available as two differently styled hardtop coupes, the notchback with a more formal roof style, and the Sportsroof fastback, which took advantage of the improved aerodynamics for the NASCAR ovals. However, the Sportsroof was not available in 1974. The Fords were also larger than their immediate predecessors (the 1971 model) but were within 8 pounds of the new GM intermediates (3,670 for the Gran Torino, versus 3,678 for the Laguna). The Gran Torino Sport came standard with all-vinyl interior, hood scoops, color-keyed racing style mirrors, and a unique grill. You could order the 429 CID V-8 this year, but the hot ticket was the 351 Cobra-Jet with the “Cleveland” heads.

The 351 Cobra-Jet Cleveland may have given up some displacement over the GM LS5, but with a compression ratio of 7.9:1 (again so that regular fuel can be used), topped with a 4 barrel Holly carburetor, this engine had a net SAE horsepower rating of 266, or 21 more horses under the hood. The net torque rating is 301 lbs/ft at 3600 RPM, so that meant that this engine is working harder than the comparable GM engine. However, when you take a look at performance numbers, they are neck and neck. Zero – 60 times for the Gran Torino was clocked at 8.8 seconds, with a quarter mile time of 16.3 seconds. This was recorded with the optional C4 Cruise-O-Matic automatic transmission. 1974 there was a substitution of the Holley carburetor with a Motorcraft variant, and this meant a loss of about 11 horsepower, to 255, with a decreased torque rating of 290 lbs/ft. at 3400 RPM.

Optional equipment was just as varied as the ones over at the GM store. Some of the examples include: No Cost optional bucket seats, center console with floor shift, Select-Air Air Conditioning, Finger-Tip speed control, rim blow steering wheel, Traction-Lok differential, Power windows, Power Steering, Power Front Disc Brakes, and Magnum 500 wheels. You could even get opera windows in 1974 if you wanted them. Again, remember that almost anything that we take for granted today as standard equipment was optional (or not available) during the Nixon/Ford/Carter years.

CarDomain Readers Rides

Both of these cars are rather rare, but there are at least a couple of CarDomain Members who have one or the other. Let’s start with Dave’s 1973 Black Laguna, with a 454 under the hood. Dave hails from Troy, IL, and this car is vary sharp. Check out his ride, and leave a comment while you’re there.

While there are a lot of Gran Torinos on the rides page, this one is the one I spotted because it is a true 351 Cobra Jet. Take a look at Mike’s 1973 Gran Torino he calls “Rescue Me”. He spotted it at a junk yard, and knew he had to have it. Lucky fellow, so why not take a look for yourself?

So there you have it, my first Head to Head competition on a pair of Obscure Muscle Cars. So read over the posting, and vote for the one you think is better, and I will do a follow-up posting while I’m at SEMA. Do you think the Laguna with the LS5 454 is the top obscure Muscle Car, with its colonnade styling, and soft front end, or the Ford Gran Torino equipped with the 351 Cobra-Jet, cow catcher bumper, and (at least for 1974) Starsky & Hutch paint jobs that these cars seem to be decked out in? Comment now, and comment often.

Some movies are the essence of manliness like 300 for instance.

Gran Torino is  like a movie that is a guide book on how to be a man by having balls, being respectful and having an awesome car.

Clint Eastwood who did just about everything in this movie from the music, directing, acting and producing plays Korean War vet Walt Kowalski. I wouldn’t be surprised if he cooked for everyone as well.

At the start of the movie, Walt is less than kind towards his Asian neighbours next door making racist remarks left, right and center.

The story heats up though as Walt must defend the family from a local gang who are related to them. Without even harming them he makes those cowards run screaming and they wouldn’t dare pick a fight with him.

After one of the teenagers next door named Thao tries to steal his Gran Torino Walt must let him make up for what he has done by providing him with work to do. This sparks a wonderful relationship between the two characters as Walt constantly insults Thao and trys to turn him into a man.

As the movie progress, you see them bond more, especially when he must learn to talk like a man. You must be respectful to the other man unless you know him well in which case you can swear at him. Otherwise you address them as sir and bitch about your problems and swear as much as you want about people who aren’t in the room.

However, things begin to escalate with the gang and the whole mood becomes much more serious. A series of terrible events take place and as you reach the end of the movie, you have a feeling of how it will end.

While this movie has funny moments, it is a sad story. I haven’t cried at a movie so much since I saw The Green Mile and The Shawshank Redemption. It is a fantastic, touching and leaves you in awe of Clint Eastwood and his amazing talent. This movie is a must see, especially if you are a teenager.

Here’s a great song Clint Eastwood wrote for the movie that really captures what the movie is about in a Bluesy kind of way.

Engines humm and bitter dreams grow, heart locked in a Gran Torino, it beats a lonely rythm… all night long.