mind & madness

Enough is Enough.

I was watching the Superbowl with some friends here in Boston and none of them had ever been to Detroit before, yet Detroit’s reputation certainly preceded it.  When the Chrysler/Eminem commercial aired, I knew right away Detroit was featured.  Several of my friends asked me about it and then remarked that the city “looks better than expected.”  Of course it did.  The commercial promoted Chrysler and Eminem – 2 Detroit exports  - and thus the commercial promoted Detroit itself.  The advertising gurus aren’t exactly going to use negative images and, in turn, expect to keep their jobs.  However, my Facebook, Twitter, and Google Talk statuses have blown up with an influx of comments like “That commercial was amazing for the city.”

I want to say that I have no issue with Chrysler or Eminem or the ad.  It was great.  It was artistic.  It succeeded in its catchiness and promoted the American auto industry.  But for some reason I am uncomfortably irked by all of the love the ad is getting.  I’ve always had issues with people living out of Detroit claiming they live in Detroit, but the outpouring of support for the city via this ad is too much…Stop, please! 

1.     The shots of Detroit-City all occurred within about 2 city blocks.  That is a fact.  The proponents of this commercial will say it showcased the highlights of Detroit.  I agree.  And then I would point out to those proponents that it’s kind of sad that they just about maxed out on filmable landmarks in the entire city.  Honestly I don’t know where else they could have filmed that would have been widely viewed as “positive”.  So congratulations, you used all positive areas of Detroit in a 30 second commercial.  And the factories of course were shown too, but what about all of the people that have lost their jobs and factories that have closed because of Detroit’s reliance and dependence on the auto industry?  Were they featured?

2.     Chrysler had no choice but to show Detroit in an incredibly censored light.  I realize they could have used any number of ad ideas and they chose to run with this one, but in doing so what other images of Detroit were they supposed to use?  The crumbling buildings that populate the blocks bordering those shown in the ad?  The political corruption that has hindered the city since the 1960s?  The raging violent crime rate?  The abandoned streets?  The lack of diversity in industry and business?   The failing school system?  No.  Back to the previous point, this ad promoted Detroit as much as it promoted Chrysler and Eminem; and apparently made many Michiganders forget why they don’t live in or even regularly visit Detroit.  Props to the Mad Men and Women behind this ad.  You definitely succeeded.

3.     The people who “love” this commercial, as I mentioned, do not live in Detroit.  They live in Livonia, Novi, Royal Oak, and Ferndale; and many people have even left the state but still posted how great the ad was for the city.  If Detroit is so great and this commercial, as one writer puts it, “ Shows all the greatness that Detroit doesn’t get credit for,” then why does no one posting about the greatness of this ad live in the city?  This is the problem with Detroit - nobody lives there.  You know why?  Because it is a dangerous, decrepit, down trodden city.  Nobody wants to live there.  The Facebook comments about how great the commercial is for the city don’t help matters either.  If you want to help the city: move there, live there, raise your kids there, and get involved there.  There is a reason that most cities provide a central population for an area and the population disperses the further one travels from the city center.  Most cities have vibrant, exciting neighborhoods, economy, and nightlife with a few rough patches and then beyond the city lay the less densely populated suburbs.  Detroit is the exact opposite.  The city is sparsely populated and the suburbs are densely populated.  Why?  Because the city is as good as the Chrysler commercial makes it seem?  No.  It’s worse.  A lot worse.  And no one who stayed in Michigan or left Michigan still do not want to live in Detroit despite this commercial.  Stop pretending that you love Detroit, if you did the housing prices are reasonable and you can move there.  But you won’t.  That is a fact.

4.     What about this ad was actually “good” for Detroit?  The ad consisted of a Chrylser – a car Eminem would not likely drive, by the way – rolling through a few blocks of the city.  Essentially that was it.  I’ll admit the imagery and song worked well together and were both gripping; but what was good for Detroit?  The only plausible answer I’ve conjured is that it wasn’t negative.  Unfortunately this is the point Detroit has reached – any non-negative image is a positive image.  I think that if this commercial were filmed in any other city there would be an absence of, or certainly a lot less, vigor in pointing out how great the commercial is for the city.  Detroit is so used to its negativity grabbing headlines that a non-negative image is being confused with an overtly positive image.   I’m not trying to get into a philosophical debate about what isn’t negative must be positive, but I will say that it is sad that Metro-Detroiters confuse non-negative with positive.

I really hope this post does not come off as me bashing Detroit.  I loved the city.  I worked there for awhile, was born and lived in Dearborn (Detroit’s westward neighbor) , and frequented the city often – i.e not just for sporting events, concerts, or casino nights.  But like a helpless swimmer in the ocean’s vicious rip tide, Detroit cannot seem to make up ground in the vicious cycle and history that lie beneath it.  That is the reality of the city’s situation.  Although I think Detroit gets a lot of negative press and attention that it doesn’t deserve, it is indeed a troubled city with a laundry list of issues several decades old.  My point in this post is only that people have to stop with the ridiculously phony comments about how amazing this Chrysler ad was for the city and how it highlighted the true Detroit, the good Detroit, the real Detroit.  We all know the real Detroit does not make for good advertising, so please stop kidding yourselves.  I hope one day it does, but 2.6.11 was not that day.

The Black Mamba & Black Ops

  Kobe Bryant is catching a lot of criticism for being in a commercial for the new videogame, Call of Duty: Black Ops.  I understand why people are criticizing Kobe, but the logic is completely flawed.  It’s worth noting here that I am far from a Kobe Bryant fan.  Nor am I a fan of the popular first-person shooter style video games like COD.  But I am much less a fan of people misplacing blame and responsibility and/or needlessly stirring up controversy.

The main beef with this commercial, and specifically with Kobe’s appearance in it, is that he sends the wrong message about guns and violence to kids.  What is this “wrong message?”  (A) That guns are toys?  (B) That shooting a gun at someone is cool? (C) That death is neither real nor final?  (D) All of the above?  I’ll agree with D.

I’ll concede that all of those are important, very serious, and absolutely wrong messages to send; but I cannot place the responsibility, or resulting blame, for these messages on Kobe Bryant, Jimmy Kimmel (appearing in the same ad), Activision - the makers of COD, or anyone else involved with the making of the commercial.  I will blame parents, teachers, and political and other community leaders for not teaching children these concepts.  Perhaps more directly to the parents, if your child cannot distinguish that Kobe, Kimmel, or the spectacled 13 year old girl are pretending to shoot fake guns at fake people to promote a game centered around virtual combat…well, you may want to take stronger censorship over your child’s TV viewing.

Was there a lack of judgment on the COD franchise to portray war in such a no-nonsense kind of light – especially when we are engaged in combat in the Middle East?  Perhaps.  Was it a poor decision for Kobe Bryant’s agents to advise, allow, or encourage him to be in this commercial?  Sure.  Anyone in or outside of PR could have seen this drumming up some controversy - maybe that is why Kobe decided to do this ad.  But the real question is why should they shoulder the responsibility or blame for teaching kids about the casualties of war, the reality and finality of death, or the difference between video games and real life?  It seems to me that a slightly educated individual could ascertain that this is a staged commercial.  That same slightly educated individual should understand that Kobe is promoting playing a video game and not promoting shooting real guns in a real demilitarized zone.  It is not up to Kobe or Kimmel or any other pop culture icon to educate, even slightly, children on these issues and as such it is unfair to blame them for this commercial and this misconstrued controversy.

When I first saw the commercial my thought progression went something like this:

1. This is a damn clever commercial.

2. Wow! I’m surprised these kids’ parents let them partake in this ad.

3. Was that Kobe Bryant?  Nah.

4.  Was that Jimmy Kimmel?  Grab the remote and play it back. 

5.  Yep, it sure was.  Wow!

6.  That butcher/delicatessen guy is sort of creepy.

7.  What a damn clever ad.

8.  Kimmel and Kobe are going to catch a lot of s*&% for this.

And now here we are.   About a week after the ad first aired and the controversy is still gaining steam.  My personal opinion is that media personalities are harping on this simply to harp on something.  There is a mega-celeb involved so it’s going to grab attention and unfortunately that is what the news has become – attention grabbing rather than information sharing.  I’m not dismissing the issues presented in the ad as unimportant, but Kobe Bryant’s involvement seems very unimportant in the scope of issues the commercial presents.  Among those issues are: corporate responsibility on Activision’s behalf; teaching kids the difference between video games and reality; the responsibilities of using a gun/weapon; the seriousness of death and war; etc.  Maybe the Kobe controversy is a catalyst for discussions about these issues, but the main debate always starts with, centers around, and returns to Kobe’s appearance in the commercial.  In fact I have heard no one reference the ad without bringing up Kobe within the first 10 seconds.  It seems we, as a public, are too concerned with pointing fingers and, in turn, end up missing the real point.

Ultimately, if parents don’t like this or any other video game or advertisement centering around military combat, don’t buy the game or product for your kids.  I could not even venture a guess as to how many video games use a military/combat theme, let alone how many violent video games there are in existence.  Since their inception video games have used guns, violence, shooting and killing as themes to attract buyers.  Oh, not to mention Hollywood and the music industry cashing in on violence.  The ship on using violence to promote video games, music, and movies sailed long before Kobe was even a household name.  And like it or not we the consumers are to blame for this and not Kobe Bryant for making a 4 second cameo in a commercial.  On a positive note, I’d venture a guess that if parents don’t spend the $60 on COD: Black Ops this Christmas we won’t be seeing an ad campaign like this one for quite a while.  Though I would bet more on the game breaking records in sales rather than not selling.

The Horror!!!

With Halloween rapidly approaching, and because I haven’t done a Top 10 in a long while, I thought it fitting to run down some of my favorite horror movies.  The horror genre is tough to rate because it is my favorite genre and there are so many different sub-genres: zombie, vampire, slasher, comedic horror, apocalyptic, alien, etc.; not to mention the foreign, remade, and borderline sci-fi/thrillers/suspense-horror movies.  I also tried to account for longevity, overall quality as film  - not just as a horror film, level of actual scariness, and of my personal memories of watching these films.  Basically it’s tough for me to narrow down to a Top 10, but if you’re looking to get a decent collection together to watch this Halloween these 10 are some of my favorites and will get you in the right direction.

10. Nightmare on Elm Street (1984):  This film and the entire franchise is too popular to not have on the list.  Sure the acting is of the typical, corny, 80s-movie variety, but Freddy still managed to scare an entire generation sleepless. A child predator haunting his victims’ children in their dreams, yeah it’s as creepy as it sounds.  The scene where Johnny Depp explodes into a bloody geyser is a classic in cinematic horror history.  Also, “The Making of..” on the Biography channel is worth watching for any fan.

9.  28 Days Later (2002):  Although the “Infected” are not zombies by traditionalist standards their cannibalistic nature is all the more frightening when placed in abandoned, jolly-old London.  Not to mention these flesh-crazed mutants can run like the wind.  The climactic scene in the military’s “safe zone” is one of my favorite 15 minutes of recent cinema – the score, filming, and setting are all superb.  This is a solid movie that fans of several genres can enjoy.  You can take a pass on the sequel and please don’t confuse this with 28 Days - you’ll be disappointed.

8.  High Tension (2003): The movie has a few flaws, what horror film doesn’t, but it is incredibly suspenseful, psychologically thrilling and most first-time viewers with whom I’ve watched it with are at least a little uneasy throughout the flick.  That is the point of horror films right?  There are some pretty gruesome scenes and you’ll probably not want to take in any houseguests for awhile after watching.  Oh, it’s also subtitled so if that is a deal breaker, sorry.

7.  Shaun of the Dead (2004): This is an underdog pick for one of my favorite movies, period.  It may be more comedy than horror film and could be classified as a romantic comedy at that, but it stays relatively true to the zombie sub-genre. As one IMDB reviewer wrote, “a zom-rom-com”.   Look, it’s still a zombie movie and the additional layers provide some laughs without making the film cheesy.  Zombieland is in the same vein as another great flick to check out if you’re looking for some laughs to break up the gore and horror.

6. Halloween (1977): Michael Meyers is probably my favorite franchised villain in the genre.  Sure his creepy quotient skyrockets with the chilling Carpenter-created theme playing in the background; but does a child, locked away for decades after killing his sister, only to return to his hometown for a murderous rampage really need help with his creepiness?  No.  The movie is bound to make anyone’s Halloween a bit more frightening.  Some of the sequels aren’t too bad, but the original is unbeatable.

5.  The Shining (1980):  I might consider this one of the most overrated movies ever, and maybe it is, but it is still a must see as far as horror films are concerned.   An abandoned Overlook Hotel, a pair of creepy twins wandering around, blood drenched hallways, an imaginary bartender, oh and Jack Torrance losing his damn mind.  A definite and disturbing Kubrick classic.

4.  Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974):  Few movie scenes have stuck with me more vividly than Leatherface maniacally waving around a chainsaw in the closing scenes.  Although very loosely based on serial killer Ed Gein this was one of the first movies I remember watching that purported itself to be a true story.  This really helped the movie become a favorite of mine.  The sequels and remakes aren’t awful, but watch the original first so as to not spoil your appetite…pun very much intended there.

3.  Evil Dead (1981): I first saw this in eighth grade and did not really get it.  Then after each additional viewing I began realizing the awesomeness of this movie and the entire trilogy.  There are some amazingly gruesome scenes and one of the more genuinely frightening movies of all time.  Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness are definitely worth a view too.

2. The Exorcist (1973): Upon its release viewers fled the theatre, but it has stood the test of time and most will  to this day consider it one of the most horrifying films ever.  Linda Blair is chilling as a possessed child and was awarded with an Oscar nomination - not too common in this genre.  The re-released/enhanced edition is worth a view as you get the bonus scene of the crab walk down the stairs.

1.  Dawn of the Dead (1978): George Romero’s sequel to the Night of the Living Dead takes the gore to entirely new level as a group of zombie-apocalypse survivors find refuge in a shopping mall.  It seemed like a good idea until they start with the in-fighting, looting bikers discover the mall, and, of course, the walking dead find their way in.  It all could’ve been avoided if Fran would’ve just let the whole “I want to learn how to fly the helicopter” thing go, but then we wouldn’t have had much of a movie.  Thanks, Fran!  This is a must see for any horror fan.  NOTLD is a classic, but DOTD made the zombie film what it is today. 

Like I mentioned, it was difficult for to narrow down to a Top 10, but these are all a great start for a horror film collection or some Halloween viewing.  Everyone enjoy and Happy Halloween!