Thirty years ago, the eager pork-swordsmen of Angel Beach High
were burdened by a singular obstacle: they needed to score. The same
could be said for this years' class of fantasy runningbacks. As the NFL
has shifted to a pass-first league, the measuring stick for RBs is less about finding holes
and racking up yardage and more about the propensity of touches
relative to the penetration of endzones. Increasingly, teams are
employing the "backfield by committee" approach to their ground game,
diluting the potency of its most profitable position. In theory, the
very notion of an elite 'Back has become somewhat of an anomaly; and since
reliability and durability are so difficult to predict, we must defer to
the probability of volume and, of course, the lessons of Porky's.
1. Aaron Rodgers
Had the Packers not run into a Giant buzzsaw at the end of last season,
the buzz on Rodgers might be reaching feverish proportions. Nonetheless,
if there was ever a Quarterback poised to duplicate Tom Brady's 2007
campaign, it would be A-Rod now. With an overemphasis on drafting
runningbacks, he is still is relatively below the radar for a QB with
more weapons than Stark Industries,
in an offense that will literally pass on every down. And, when things
fall apart, Rodgers is nimble-footed in the pocket and can scramble like
Skyler White prepping breakfast. On the ground, he's good for at least 250 yards and 3 TDs. In the air, sky's the limit.
Scoring prediction: 52 TDs
2. Arian Foster
Playing alongside a healthy Andre Johnson
should help his yards-per-carry, but this blade has two edges.
Quarterback Matt Schaub can be partial to the red-zone fade and the
sure-footed "Natural" is an acrobat on a jump ball. Still, Foster will
be the primary option inside the 20 and his prowess as a backfield
receiver, combined with a forceful slipperiness running downhill, make
him a legitimate candidate to amass 2500 yards-from-scrimmage.
Scoring prediction: 16 TDs
3. Calvin Johnson
Madden curses are for mere mortals. The Megatron Don (who catches
megaton bombs more faster than you blink) somehow reported to Lions
camp in better shape than ever. Presumably, he spent the off-season
training with Treadstone (minus the chems) and, for relaxation, blasting home runs at Comerica.
As far as receivers are concerned, we are looking at a shark in a fish
tank. Expert consensus pegs his battery-mate Mathew Stafford a top-5
fantasy QB, which can only indicate this will be a monster year for the
Mega-monster.
Scoring prediction: 18 TDs
4. Ray Rice
"With speed, he's agile plus he's worth your while." All deference to the Five Foot Assassin,
this may be the year we learn which direction Ray Rice is headed. At
25, he has been the snapshot of consistency since 2009, but his numbers
hover more towards solid than gaudy. Now that he is clearly the Raven's
best offensive player and their primary (and likely secondary) option,
he may be due for some bonkers mathematics. If he can break off a few
long runs and improve his receiving YACs, he will be
the closest we get to a predictably elite 'Back.
Scoring prediction: 15 TDs
5. LeSean McCoy
If the Eagles are going to be less of a
mess, the offensive production will be more evenly distributed. McCoy is
fresh off a breakout season (1624 all-purpose yards, 20 TDs.) However,
according to Andy Reid, he shouldered too much of the workload in 2011. A
reduction of touches may result in a slight reversion to the mean, but
McCoy will still be the focal point of a potentially dangerous offense
and he is one of a handful of players whose value is secure even if his
scoring takes a dip.
Scoring prediction: 13 TDs
Sleeper. Willis McGahee
It's gotta be the altitude. From Mike
Williams to Tatum Bell to Willis McGahee, mining late-round gems from
that Mile High turf is not always an exact geology, but with Manning
minding the huddle, at least we can expect some offensive fluidity.
McGahee's performance last season (1250 all-purpose yards, 5 TDs) ranked
him in the upper echelon of his peer group, and that was with Tim Tebow
bogarting his red-zone carriers. While age and health is a
precaution, Peyton's passing proclivity is not. John Fox likes to ground
and pound and if the Broncos are firing on their respective
hydraulics, Willis may be a diamond in the rough.
Scoring prediction: 9 TDs
@HebrewRational
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
SUMMER MOVIE ROUNDUP: Ted, Spidey, Magic Mike & mollies
2012 SUMMER MOVIES - Sponsored by Sour Patch Kids
We sent our resident celluloid analyst to the air conditioned multiplexes and dimly lit art-houses to take in this summer's crop of films. Here are his findings:
Written by: James Vanderbilt, Alan Sargent, Steve Kloves
Directed by: Marc Webb
If we've learned anything from movies over the last 15 years, the culture war between jocks and geeks has been decided... and it was about as close as Super Bowl XX. Wait, that was a jock reference. (Shows you which side of the divide I find myself on.) Let's try this: It was about as close as the gym class tiff between jock-bully Flash Thompson and the newly Spiderized Peter Parker in THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN. Geeks rule!
Comic book adaptations are so popular, apparently so relevant, they can be remade -- entire sagas rebooted -- within the whip-snap of a decade. In that same time period, war movies, sports pics and Rambo-style action flicks have been stomped on by science nerds with superpowers. Andrew Garfield's emo-mensa geek shows just how easy it is when he embarrasses Flash at his own game (basketball), by dunking on him and shattering the backboard "with no regard for human life." Extrapolate the metaphor and you might feel like a studio exec wondering if Arnold Schwarzenegger really was the Last Action Hero.
Surname aside, sophomore director Marc Webb was handed the keys to the lucrative franchise knowing "with great power comes great responsibility." He was tasked with retelling the same origin story that was told quite well by Sam Raimi and Tobey Macguire in 2002.
From the outset, Webb weaves a tight thread, tracing Parker's mysterious fleeing parents and subsequent upbringing with his aunt and uncle (played with veteran gravitas by Sally Field and Martin Sheen.) For fleeting moments, it feels like the simple tale of a high-born Manhattan child who becomes an introverted orphan teen living in blue collar Queens. Parker's undying curiosity about his father leads him to an R&D megalith corporation where he is inevitably bit by a radioactive lab spider. Although the plot mechanics are clunky, Webb has a knack for taking us through an experience and the deliberate transformation of Peter Parker to Spiderman (in a world without comic book heroes) is rather exhilarating. Garfield, always impeccably disheveled, finds an abandoned warehouse -- that also conveniently doubles as an X-Games training facility -- and he uses the skate ramps as a jump-off for teaching himself his newly acquired superpowers... all set to the melodic tones of Coldplay's 'Till Kingdom Come.
For all its big-budget effects and high-flying stunts, THE AMAZING SPIDERMAN has the DNA strands of an adolescent Indie drama. As he demonstrated in the brilliant and quirky 500 Days of Summer (his only other feature), Webb makes a concerted effort to capture the intricacies of romance, and the heart of SPIDEY pulsates from the relationship between Parker and Gwen Stacy (the radiant Emma Stone.) Clearly, Garfield and Stone are lovestruck (in real life) and their dazzling, in-the-zone chemistry on-camera gives us the impression the swooning continues long after "cut."
Tonally, the film is neither dark and gritty nor fluffy and frivolous. Webb humanizes both his protagonists and antagonists and the action is driven by character motivations rather than expensive explosions or over-the-top villains.
Bottom line: The comic book geek consensus seems to be this version of SPIDERMAN is overly saccharine and it veers too far from Marvel's original vision. To which I reply, "it was enormously entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable..." but what do I know? I'm just a simple-minded jock.
Box office as of 7/23: $228,611,425
TED
Written by: Seth Macfarlane
Directed by: Seth Macfarlane
In Hollywood, the sweet spot for a director is having the credibility to push established actors into bold choices.
Seth MacFarlane, overlord of animated television, accomplishes this with giddy gusto in his directorial debut. TED is full of raunchy sight gags, juvenile poddy humor and jokes he couldn't get away with on Family Guy, but the core comedy resonates from his sweet, well-engineered script. Voiced by Macfarlane, the CGI stuffed bear is a classic male character in an Aptow-ian universe: a kind-hearted stoner who clings to "the good old days" well beyond their reasonable twilight. And as we've seen in Aptow's comedies, the role of the periphery pothead is to resist a transition to responsible adulthood but ultimately assist his more competent best buddy in bridging that divide.
Mark Walhberg, to his credit, has reached a point in his career where he seems genuinely comfortable making bold choices. He plays John, who at age 8, wished for a BFF and lo! ended up with a talking Teddy. The context is almost believable: Ted was tabloid celebrity in the early 90s, pre-reality TV, but society grew bored and moved on... and, like so many child stars before him, Ted settled into a life of drugs, booze and self-deprecating mediocrity. John and Ted grew old together and it should not be understated how this process is easier for stuffed animal. Now 35, John's bridge to responsible adulthood is (slowly) being paved by his four-year relationship with Lori (the ravishing Mila Kunis), who is, of course, a serious and successful woman. Lori is loving and supportive but...(there's usually a but) she's growing ever-weary of her in-limbo boyfriend who still lives and parties with a Teddy Bear. Kunis plays an archetype earnestly but it certainly helps John that his inability to motivate is balanced by being "the hottest guy in Boston."
TED is the movie Adam Sandler should have made 10 years ago, while he still had credibility in this genre. Now he's relegated to playing irresponsible Dads, which is a biting image for our culture in that his characters helped raise a generation of Aptowian slackers like John and Ted. The plot peters along swiftly enough and with the exception of a self-indulgent and totally unnecessary scene staged at the Green Monstah, the story connects on most of its punchlines and pivot points. (Presumably, Macfarlane flexed his Family Guy clout to get to shoot at Fenway, but why bother? Ben Affleck already knocked that one out of the park.)
The remarkable achievement of TED is that Macfarlane was able to cram all of his scathing showbiz jabs, envelope-pushing set-pieces and uncanny impressions into a long-form narrative that actually works. He gives you some yucks and a few belly laughs but also manages to thread the needle.
Bottom line: Macfarlane is one of the few people in Hollywood who basically gets to do whatever he wants, and judging from his first movie, that's a good thing.
3.5 SPKs
Box office as of 7/23: $180,421,425
MAGIC MIKE
Written by: Reid Carolin
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Other than being a "volume shooter," it's hard to find a flaw in Steven Soderbergh's game. He doesn't always connect, in fact he frequently misses badly, but he's never afraid to shoot, or play with digital media, or challenge the conventionality of content delivery. He'll cast porn stars and MMA vixens in lead roles, he'll take you on an odd excursion with a hand-held camera, and the stories he tells range from sprawling Oscar fodder like Traffic to off-beat micro-budget experiments like Bubble.
With MAGIC MIKE, Soderbergh found a script in his wheelhouse and churned out his best film since Ocean's Eleven. What began as Channing Tatum's autobiographical passion-project, meta-morphed into a topical narrative about the trending emasculation of the American man. Tatum's Mike is "good with his hands," which is actually not a sexual innuendo. He builds custom furniture. "Quality, unique designs at an affordable price." He also runs an auto detailing business and occasionally works non-union roofing jobs during the waking hours. Unlike his 19 year-old, molly-popping protege Adam, aka "The Kid," Mike is 30 and has long-sobered on the thrill of whipping his clothes off and gyrating his pelvis to an onslaught of screaming sorority girls. But, like so many men of his generation, he's caught in a vortex of doing what he can to pay the bills, while simultaneously attempting to overcome a discernible lack of opportunity. He has the ambition and work ethic of an entrepreneur, and yet, by night, he is literally reduced to his bare-bones pathos, which will ultimately (hopefully) fund his greater purpose. (Countless women who take to pole-dancing to pay for law school, for example, can certainly relate.) Nevertheless, Mike is a consummate professional, an industry veteran who is both humorously self-deprecating and confidently self-aware. The depth and likability of this character speaks to seamless collaboration between Tatum, Soderbergh and screenwriter Reid Carlton.
In a role he was born to play, Mathew McConaughey channels an ego-centric, hairband-era nitwit named Dallas. As the middling proprietor/patriarch of "The Cock Rocking Kings of Tampa," he keeps himself in incredible shape, and occasionally takes to the stage, but mostly he serves as a subtle reminder on how frustrating it must be for someone like Mike to be dependent on someone like Dallas. Adam's up-tight but open-minded sister Brooke (played with affection by Cody Horn), becomes, in equal parts, a romantic interest and a reality check for Mike, who has been masking his depression with a winners disposition, as opposed to liquor and mollies.
The true magic of MIKE is the way Soderbergh stages his scenes. The wide-angle, full-length burlesque performances give the film an almost musical quality, while the tightly shot improvisational banter feels reminiscent of a reality show. And the uniqueness of this movie is that he uses his lens to portray things so earnestly it never once feels like he's preaching.
Bottom line: Come for the abs, stay for a sub-textual tale about the state of the American dream.
4 SPKs
Box office as of 7/23: $101,496,886
**Editors note** The analysis of pop culture is a subjective discipline. Often times, culturally relevant entertainment is not all popular and conversely, things that become wildly popular often have no cultural relevance. The goal here is balancing the two.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
The Majesty of a Crownless King
At the time, The Decision felt like a cruel and unforgivable twist in the trajectory of an otherwise impervious public figure. The free-agency backstory was packed with subterfuge. The public relations were mercilessly bludgeoned by both the man and his marionettes. All the players and beneficiaries remained stubbornly indignant, celebrating as if they welcomed the backlash. That made things worse. It was, arguably, one of the most infamous and indelible acts in modern sports. All of a sudden, he was not who we wanted him to be. So we became stubbornly indignant. The "hometown hero" narrative tumbled from its axis while his iconic Cavs jersey burned in the streets. His appeal, his image and roughly half of his fans, turned 180 degrees. Now, he was counter-culture's franchise player, instantly polarizing but no less popular. The avalanche of vitriol that surrounded #6 made him even more compelling to follow and root against; but after the dust settled, only Lebron James was left to answer for Lebron James... and then live with the consequences knowing that microscope would continue to intensify its focus.
I suspect if James could take back one thing from the last twenty-three months, it would be his audacious declaration of Titles, which ironically bookended his 48-hours of infamy. Yes, the moment was full of whimsical levity and perhaps we should not digest the sentiments so literally, but for a man who would later scour the country seeking tidbits of wisdom from former-NBA champions, the subject is no laughing matter. NBA rings are illusive, even for the all-time greats, even when the best players circumnavigate the system to form a potentially dynastic super-team.
Lebron James is, by now, the best player in NBA history who has yet to hoist that Trophy. He knows this. But let us consider some of the essential ingredients that make a champion: Circumstance. Hard work. Clutch play. Coaching. Luck. James spent seven seasons in Cleveland, quick, name the second best player on the Cavs in his tenure... This is his ninth year in the league, name his elite coach... Part of the problem with James' circumstances is that he is just too damn good. His teams have averaged 52 wins a season. That's enough success to perennially draft in the bottom quadrant and certainly enough for his coaches to keep their jobs. Compare that to Kevin Durant. His Seattle/OKC teams won 20 and 23 games, respectively, his first two seasons. Enter Russell Westbrook (4th overall pick, 2008) and James Harden (3rd overall pick, 2009). While we loath Miami for their insider collusion and "artificial" formation, we love OKC for congealing organically. But no where in the KD vs LBJ discussion do we hear how KD's teams had to lose roughly 60 games twice in order to become the team they are now. Lebron would have never been afforded such a margin for error.
Bitterness from The Decision still lingers and his scores of critics still take aim. I have been a guilty gunman in that firing squad.There is, however, one particular aspect of criticism that Lebron has yet to reconcile: the 4th quarter. This is both a literal and figurative hurdle. If an NBA schedule is divided into two acts -- the regular season and the playoffs -- the Finals are the denouement of Act Two. A credible case could be made that Lebron has been both the MVP and the Defensive Player of the Year in each of his nine seasons. At 27 years, he is a physical freak who can effectively guard all five positions and rain holy hell fire down on anyone foolish enough to stand in his way. He can get to the spaghetti strainer at will and when his jump shot is falling, he is impossible to contain. Forget injuries, the man is impervious to the common cold and he seemingly never tires. He has single-handledly carried his teams on his back, as a facilitator, as a scorer, as a defensive stopper and as a leader. He has demonstrated a superlative ability to close games...big games. He has dominated the Eastern Conference Finals on at least three separate occasions. His performance against Detroit in 2007, his shot against Orlando in 2009 and his Game 6 in Boston last Thursday night are some of the most memorable moments of the post-Jordan era. His career playoff numbers are staggering. And still, Lebron James is widely known as a "choke artist." Considering the breadth of his talent and his limitless potential to take over any game at any time, this label is harsh but not unfair. In reality, only Lebron James can stop Lebron James. And therein lies the most beguiling anomaly in all of basketball. Too many times have we Witnessed LBJ deferring to a lesser player late in the 4th quarter. Too many times have watched him play hot potato on the perimeter. Too many times have we seen a disconnect from mind and body and purpose. When you are considered part of that ultra-elite pantheon of greatness, when your gifts are so flagrant and bottomless, our expectations are elevated... and rightfully so.
I never rooted for Michael Jordan. I also never missed a Bulls playoff game. Throughout his incomparable career, it is difficult to recall any of the times Jordan came up short. What we remember is that the ball was always in his hands and the Bulls always won. So far, after nine seasons and seven playoff appearances, the same cannot be said for King James. Nothing will change that narrative until he wins a title, and considering the health and productivity of Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh, that illusive championship, whenever it comes, will be well-earned. Undoubtedly, as a Knicks fan, I will cringe at the sight of it, but somewhere within me, a basketball fan will appreciate a man reaching the summit and fully deserving the glory.
@HebrewRational
Sunday, February 26, 2012
OSCAR PICKS: It's A Parisian Invasion!
Happy Oscar day world! Reminding all my of east-of-Sepulveda friends not to venture north of Melrose between La Cienga and Vine, unless you're prone to masochism. Today in Hollywood we celebrate...the French? Between Woody Allen's mystical Parisian escapade, Scorsese's love letter to George Méliès, and the cast and crew of The Artist, it's time put away the Freedom Fries and break out a beret, a baguette and your fruitiest Bordeaux. Off we go...
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Glenn Close, Albert NobbsViola Davis, The Help
Rooney Mara, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Michelle Williams, My Week With Marilyn
Who will win: VIOLA DAVIS
Superb actor, wish she didn't have to get her statue playing a maid.
Who should win: GLENN CLOSE
Meryl's performance as Maggie Thatcher was flawless but I rather spread the wealth. Close deserves this as much as anyone.
Best Actor in a Leading Role
Demian Bichir, A Better LifeGeorge Clooney, The Descendants
Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Gary Oldman, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Brad Pitt, Moneyball
Who Will Win: JEAN DUJARDIN
In arguably the tightest race, I'm gonna go Jean over George and Brad. All these movies were charmingly solid, and the leading men did the heavy lifting. It's a jump ball, but this feels like the year of The Artist.
Who Should Win: DEMIAN BICHIR
Like Leo DiCaprio, Pitt has amassed an impressive breadth of work and has never won an Oscar, but I'm going to go with Bichir. I realize the nomination was his "award' but this was a brilliantly understated performance in a movie that's as much of an LA story as LA Story.
Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
The ArtistBridesmaids
Margin Call
Midnight in Paris
A Separation
Who will win: THE ARTIST
Bridesmaids or Midnight in Paris could pull off an upset, but I won't bet against the tide.
Who should win: MARGIN CALL
Not only was the script watertight, it was devastatingly relevant social and economic commentary.
Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
The DescendantsHugo
The Ides of March
Moneyball
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Who will win: THE DESCENDANTS
Thanks for playing, here's your consolation prize.
Who should win: TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY
A confounding and beguiling film driven by a beautiful and intricate screenplay.
Best Actress in a Supporting Role
Berenice Bejo, The ArtistJessica Chastain, The Help
Melissa McCarthy, Bridesmaids
Janet McTeer, Albert Nobbs
Octavia Spencer, The Help
Who will win: OCTAVIA SPENCER
A break out role for sure; hopefully this will secure more and more...
Who should win: MELISSA MCCARTHY
Hey, I'm a sucker for Chris Farley humor.
Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Kenneth Branagh, My Week With MarilynJonah Hill, Moneyball
Nick Nolte, Warrior
Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Max von Sydow, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Who will win: CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER
This will be well-deserved. No qualms.
Who should win: NICK NOLTE
A sentimental choice. He was fantastic in Warrior but his acceptance speech has the chance of becoming even more memorable.
Directing
Michel Hazanavicius, The ArtistAlexander Payne, The Descendants
Martin Scorsese, Hugo
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris
Terrence Malick, The Tree of Life
Who will win: MICHEL HAZANAVICIUS
Year of The Artist.
Who should win: MICHEL HAZANAVICIUS
*but really Nicolas Winding-Refn for Drive.
Sorry, I had to.
Best Picture
The HelpThe Descendants
The Artist
Moneyball
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
The Tree of Life
War Horse
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Who will win: THE ARTIST
Last year, I claimed I'd be "shocked" if The Artist didn't win Best Picture. In Hollywood, the Academy Awards are an annual celebration of Hollywood. So, when a black and white movie backed by Harvey Weinstein celebrates the history and majesty of cinema, that's as close to a shoe-in as we can get.
Who should win: THE ARTIST
As far as celluloid love letters to Tinseltown go, I slightly prefer Hugo but will cede
The Artist may be more timeless. Let's see if in ten years, the silent homage holds up as the definitive film of 2011. My guess is that it will.
But, if I were voting, the nominees would be:
Drive
Margin Call
50/50
Young Adult
A Better Life
Pariah
So what do I know?
Au revoire!
@HebrewRational
Friday, February 24, 2012
THE LIN AND TEBOW EFFECT
Now that Jeremy Lin has graced the cover of TIME magazine, it would
appear that this remarkable story is about ready to jump the shark.
While the subject of Lin's ethnicity is impossible to ignore and has
unquestionably enhanced the spectacle, adding a variety of dimensions
and controversies, it is not something I seek to belabor. As Linsanity
winds its way through the culture and presumably loses momentum, I am
hopeful it will leave us with an overdue discussion ---not about race---
but about talent evaluation.
Recently, a college basketball scout was interviewed on a sports radio show and he tried to explain why Lin's ability was never properly identified. He offered the standard responses about his size and strength, the release of his jumpshot, how he was shooting guard at Harvard who averaged less than 13 points a game, etcetera; but his primary purpose was to assure everyone that although recruiting is an imperfect science, it remains "colorblind" and "transparent." Nonsense...
First, the term "colorblind" is one of the more insidious expressions of political correctness. No one is colorblind. It is ludicrous to even suggest that we can instinctively disassociate the context of someones appearance, whether in judgement, prejudgement or simple observation. Even by its literal definition, colorblindness refers to the lack of an accepted perspective. (My blue may be your purple so whose blue is blue?) Stephen Colbert will occasionally mock this absurdity when he reminds his audience that he "doesn't see gender." Professional scouts are even less "colorblind." The most common practice in talent evaluation is drawing athletic comparisons between similar athletes, which is almost never done across racial lines. Although I am not suggesting scouts use a conscious bias, I will argue that someone like Jeremy Lin alluded comparisons, and thus attention, not because of his game, but because of his physiognomy. Without another Asian point guard to compare him to, he went largely unrecruited by Division 1 schools, despite leading a very visible program in Palo Alto, CA to a state championship.
Close your eyes and imagine Yao Ming as a 6'6" all-star point guard, instead of a 7'6" evolutionary anomaly, imported from a nation of one billion. Would this have changed the perception of Lin's game? With an obvious visual analogy, perhaps Lin is heavily recruited out of high school; maybe he chooses Duke, leaves after his junior year and becomes a lottery pick because a dozen teams are fighting over the chance to draft the next Yao Ming.
Perception becomes reality.
The average sports fan pays attention to scouting only as it pertains to the NFL and NBA drafts. Michael Lewis wrote a best selling book about the battle between old baseball orthodoxy and new world Sabermetrics. In Moneyball, the charming Oscar-nominated movie, Brad Pitt's portrayal of the A's general manager would lead you to believe Roy Hobbs was now running Oakland's front office. Make no mistake, Moneyball is a rigid numerical philosophy and Billy Beane is a statistical ideologue with a hair-trigger temper. We need to be more skeptical of the so-called "experts," particularly "draft experts." Not because they are incompetent or unqualified, but because their track record is about as reliable as yours or mine. I want to be clear, measuring the athletic merits of a pre-professional is an extremely difficult discipline. Overvaluing talent is as common as undervaluing potential and the experts are often wrong in both directions. Therefore, dogma must constantly be questioned. This was one area where I appreciate and recommend Moneyball. Beane and Paul DiPodesta challenged orthodoxy and succeeded by adding another dimension to the discussion but... (spoiler alert!) they ultimately lost, and the A's haven't been relevant in a decade. In my estimation, experts rely too heavily on methods like statistical analysis and game film, all of which are inherently wrought with subjective context.
Over the last few years, we've grown accustomed to the term "eyeball test," referring to 'what we see' as opposed to 'what we know.' This strikes me as counter-intuitive. Why do we put 'see' and 'know' on opposite corners of the evaluation meter? Since only a tiny percentage of professional athletes emerge as outliers amongst the elite, and an even tinier percentage of those outliers are accurately projected by the experts, professional sports (not to mention the Halls of Fame) is chock-full of overachievers; athletes that either defied their projections or were so underrated, they were never even given any. Once in a great while, an overachiever outlier like Jeremy Lin gives us all the opportunity to re-examine our belief structure.
As we know, our 'round-the-clock sports media suffers from a paralysis of analysis, but it is through this tortured process, this echo-chamber of consensus, perception becomes reality. The problem is, when it comes to evaluating talent, we place virtually 100% of our perception on player's current set of skills. What are his strengths? What are his weaknesses? Who does he remind us of? This method has grown increasingly superficial. But, there's an exception to the rule: In rare cases (think: Serge Ibaka or Jason Pierre Paul), we'll consider a learning curve when a player is astoundingly athletic but does not have the repetition of his peers. In this, we assume players with raw talent and underdeveloped skill will peak at some point in the future. To borrow a phrase from Wall Street traders, "it's like buying green bananas." Physiologically, this is a more reasonable approach. Instead of breaking down a player based on strengths, weaknesses and resemblance, we adjust his time horizon and then project his ability once his peaks. Years ago, a study in Men's Journal concluded that men can reach their athletic prime anywhere between the ages of 17 and 28. Professional athletes, of all races and nationalities, are no exception. Could it be possible that some, if not all, of the countless first round draft picks (in every sport) that quickly flame out in the pros, had already peaked athletically? And could it be possible that the athletes that flew under the radar (think: Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Mike Piazza) came into their athletic prime after their scouting reports were set in stone. With worldclass science and technology and information available to us, why do we keep deferring to Mel Kiper Jr. and Jay Bilas year after year? Setting skill-set aside, it seems prudent to at least try and measure when an athlete might hit his physical peak, as this may prove to be a more accurate barometer of his potential. In fairness to scouts, there is no logical or scientific explanation for Jeremy Lin. Clearly he can play, absolutely he was undervalued, but he does defy every natural and statistical law.
This past Wednesday, the sports world's most visible scouting event kicked-off its annual expo in Indianapolis. The NFL Combine blends elements of a high school track meet with the Westminster Dog Show; and scouts, coaches, agents and analysts swarm to the stadium with their checklists and scorecards. ESPN and the NFL Network provide live footage and the football punditry gushes with analysis that borders on homo-eroticism. This event might be more useful if we were casting for the Summer Olympics, as there has been little correlation between a superlative 40-time, a vertical leap and a breakout rookie season. Without question, the best overall football player in last year's draft was Cameron Jerrell Newton, whose performance in Indy placed him 4th amongst Quarterbacks, behind Tyrod Taylor, Jake Locker and Colin Kaepernick. Leading up to Draft night (now broadcast in Primetime), a loud majority of the football braintrust was adamantly against the Carolina Panthers selecting Newton first overall, in part due to a mediocre performance at the Combine. Comparisons to Akili Smith and JaMarcus Russell ran rampant, as if no other visual analogies were available. At Auburn, competing against the juggernauts of the SEC, Cam won a Heisman Trophy, a National Championship and put up, arguably, one of the best individual seasons in the history of college football, and somehow this was overlooked by the many of the experts. Fortunately, for Panther fans, the organization tuned out the noise, drafted Newton with their #1 pick and then watched him shock the NFL with a Pro-Bowl season. It also is noteworthy that of the nineteen quarterbacks that were showcased in Indianapolis last year, Andy Dalton, who led the Cincinnati Bengals to the playoffs in his rookie season, finished 10th.This year, everyone will be drooling over "sure-shot" QB prospect Andrew Luck, who's already been compared to Peyton Manning, John Elway and Dan Marino. And yet, scouts are concerned that Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III may be the next Vince Young. Again, I'm not claiming a conscious bias, but it is noticeable that somehow RGIII alludes comparisons to, say Drew Brees, while no one uses an example like Warren Moon to describe Andrew Luck.
What was fascinating about the Tim Tebow phenomenon, despite the demographics of his fanbase, was that Tebow was marginalized in a way that is typically reserved for black quarterbacks. His style of play literally infuriated the football braintrust, and his win/loss record baffled experts to the point of exhaustion. Obviously his deficiencies are transparent in the "eyeball test," so perhaps it was simply a matter of circumstance and luck, but it cannot be argued that Tebow created a movement that expanded well beyond the Mile High City. Why? Speaking of Luck, Andrew would be lucky if he had a rookie season that compared to Cam Newton's.
Certainly, the NFL Combine, and all the traditional methods, have a valuable place in the process. What I am advocating for is less orthodoxy in evaluating talent and more skepticism in the corresponding analysis. The reality is that our perception is often inaccurate because we are overly dependent, if not utterly obsessed, with the accessible, digestible narrative created by those who we've empowered to tell us who will flourish and who will fail. Chuck Klosterman brilliantly made the observation that perhaps all of the recent passion and excitement surrounding Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin, has less to do with their overt displays of religion or our infatuation with an underdog story, and much more to do with a refreshing departure from hard data. So much of our society is now controlled by specific statistical metrics, watching Tebow and Lin has allowed us to exhale and unconsciously tell all of the experts they were wrong.
@HebrewRational
Recently, a college basketball scout was interviewed on a sports radio show and he tried to explain why Lin's ability was never properly identified. He offered the standard responses about his size and strength, the release of his jumpshot, how he was shooting guard at Harvard who averaged less than 13 points a game, etcetera; but his primary purpose was to assure everyone that although recruiting is an imperfect science, it remains "colorblind" and "transparent." Nonsense...
First, the term "colorblind" is one of the more insidious expressions of political correctness. No one is colorblind. It is ludicrous to even suggest that we can instinctively disassociate the context of someones appearance, whether in judgement, prejudgement or simple observation. Even by its literal definition, colorblindness refers to the lack of an accepted perspective. (My blue may be your purple so whose blue is blue?) Stephen Colbert will occasionally mock this absurdity when he reminds his audience that he "doesn't see gender." Professional scouts are even less "colorblind." The most common practice in talent evaluation is drawing athletic comparisons between similar athletes, which is almost never done across racial lines. Although I am not suggesting scouts use a conscious bias, I will argue that someone like Jeremy Lin alluded comparisons, and thus attention, not because of his game, but because of his physiognomy. Without another Asian point guard to compare him to, he went largely unrecruited by Division 1 schools, despite leading a very visible program in Palo Alto, CA to a state championship.
Close your eyes and imagine Yao Ming as a 6'6" all-star point guard, instead of a 7'6" evolutionary anomaly, imported from a nation of one billion. Would this have changed the perception of Lin's game? With an obvious visual analogy, perhaps Lin is heavily recruited out of high school; maybe he chooses Duke, leaves after his junior year and becomes a lottery pick because a dozen teams are fighting over the chance to draft the next Yao Ming.
Perception becomes reality.
The average sports fan pays attention to scouting only as it pertains to the NFL and NBA drafts. Michael Lewis wrote a best selling book about the battle between old baseball orthodoxy and new world Sabermetrics. In Moneyball, the charming Oscar-nominated movie, Brad Pitt's portrayal of the A's general manager would lead you to believe Roy Hobbs was now running Oakland's front office. Make no mistake, Moneyball is a rigid numerical philosophy and Billy Beane is a statistical ideologue with a hair-trigger temper. We need to be more skeptical of the so-called "experts," particularly "draft experts." Not because they are incompetent or unqualified, but because their track record is about as reliable as yours or mine. I want to be clear, measuring the athletic merits of a pre-professional is an extremely difficult discipline. Overvaluing talent is as common as undervaluing potential and the experts are often wrong in both directions. Therefore, dogma must constantly be questioned. This was one area where I appreciate and recommend Moneyball. Beane and Paul DiPodesta challenged orthodoxy and succeeded by adding another dimension to the discussion but... (spoiler alert!) they ultimately lost, and the A's haven't been relevant in a decade. In my estimation, experts rely too heavily on methods like statistical analysis and game film, all of which are inherently wrought with subjective context.
Over the last few years, we've grown accustomed to the term "eyeball test," referring to 'what we see' as opposed to 'what we know.' This strikes me as counter-intuitive. Why do we put 'see' and 'know' on opposite corners of the evaluation meter? Since only a tiny percentage of professional athletes emerge as outliers amongst the elite, and an even tinier percentage of those outliers are accurately projected by the experts, professional sports (not to mention the Halls of Fame) is chock-full of overachievers; athletes that either defied their projections or were so underrated, they were never even given any. Once in a great while, an overachiever outlier like Jeremy Lin gives us all the opportunity to re-examine our belief structure.
As we know, our 'round-the-clock sports media suffers from a paralysis of analysis, but it is through this tortured process, this echo-chamber of consensus, perception becomes reality. The problem is, when it comes to evaluating talent, we place virtually 100% of our perception on player's current set of skills. What are his strengths? What are his weaknesses? Who does he remind us of? This method has grown increasingly superficial. But, there's an exception to the rule: In rare cases (think: Serge Ibaka or Jason Pierre Paul), we'll consider a learning curve when a player is astoundingly athletic but does not have the repetition of his peers. In this, we assume players with raw talent and underdeveloped skill will peak at some point in the future. To borrow a phrase from Wall Street traders, "it's like buying green bananas." Physiologically, this is a more reasonable approach. Instead of breaking down a player based on strengths, weaknesses and resemblance, we adjust his time horizon and then project his ability once his peaks. Years ago, a study in Men's Journal concluded that men can reach their athletic prime anywhere between the ages of 17 and 28. Professional athletes, of all races and nationalities, are no exception. Could it be possible that some, if not all, of the countless first round draft picks (in every sport) that quickly flame out in the pros, had already peaked athletically? And could it be possible that the athletes that flew under the radar (think: Kobe Bryant, Tom Brady, Mike Piazza) came into their athletic prime after their scouting reports were set in stone. With worldclass science and technology and information available to us, why do we keep deferring to Mel Kiper Jr. and Jay Bilas year after year? Setting skill-set aside, it seems prudent to at least try and measure when an athlete might hit his physical peak, as this may prove to be a more accurate barometer of his potential. In fairness to scouts, there is no logical or scientific explanation for Jeremy Lin. Clearly he can play, absolutely he was undervalued, but he does defy every natural and statistical law.
This past Wednesday, the sports world's most visible scouting event kicked-off its annual expo in Indianapolis. The NFL Combine blends elements of a high school track meet with the Westminster Dog Show; and scouts, coaches, agents and analysts swarm to the stadium with their checklists and scorecards. ESPN and the NFL Network provide live footage and the football punditry gushes with analysis that borders on homo-eroticism. This event might be more useful if we were casting for the Summer Olympics, as there has been little correlation between a superlative 40-time, a vertical leap and a breakout rookie season. Without question, the best overall football player in last year's draft was Cameron Jerrell Newton, whose performance in Indy placed him 4th amongst Quarterbacks, behind Tyrod Taylor, Jake Locker and Colin Kaepernick. Leading up to Draft night (now broadcast in Primetime), a loud majority of the football braintrust was adamantly against the Carolina Panthers selecting Newton first overall, in part due to a mediocre performance at the Combine. Comparisons to Akili Smith and JaMarcus Russell ran rampant, as if no other visual analogies were available. At Auburn, competing against the juggernauts of the SEC, Cam won a Heisman Trophy, a National Championship and put up, arguably, one of the best individual seasons in the history of college football, and somehow this was overlooked by the many of the experts. Fortunately, for Panther fans, the organization tuned out the noise, drafted Newton with their #1 pick and then watched him shock the NFL with a Pro-Bowl season. It also is noteworthy that of the nineteen quarterbacks that were showcased in Indianapolis last year, Andy Dalton, who led the Cincinnati Bengals to the playoffs in his rookie season, finished 10th.This year, everyone will be drooling over "sure-shot" QB prospect Andrew Luck, who's already been compared to Peyton Manning, John Elway and Dan Marino. And yet, scouts are concerned that Heisman Trophy winner Robert Griffin III may be the next Vince Young. Again, I'm not claiming a conscious bias, but it is noticeable that somehow RGIII alludes comparisons to, say Drew Brees, while no one uses an example like Warren Moon to describe Andrew Luck.
What was fascinating about the Tim Tebow phenomenon, despite the demographics of his fanbase, was that Tebow was marginalized in a way that is typically reserved for black quarterbacks. His style of play literally infuriated the football braintrust, and his win/loss record baffled experts to the point of exhaustion. Obviously his deficiencies are transparent in the "eyeball test," so perhaps it was simply a matter of circumstance and luck, but it cannot be argued that Tebow created a movement that expanded well beyond the Mile High City. Why? Speaking of Luck, Andrew would be lucky if he had a rookie season that compared to Cam Newton's.
Certainly, the NFL Combine, and all the traditional methods, have a valuable place in the process. What I am advocating for is less orthodoxy in evaluating talent and more skepticism in the corresponding analysis. The reality is that our perception is often inaccurate because we are overly dependent, if not utterly obsessed, with the accessible, digestible narrative created by those who we've empowered to tell us who will flourish and who will fail. Chuck Klosterman brilliantly made the observation that perhaps all of the recent passion and excitement surrounding Tim Tebow and Jeremy Lin, has less to do with their overt displays of religion or our infatuation with an underdog story, and much more to do with a refreshing departure from hard data. So much of our society is now controlled by specific statistical metrics, watching Tebow and Lin has allowed us to exhale and unconsciously tell all of the experts they were wrong.
@HebrewRational
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
THE MIGHTY LIN (A KNICKS RETROSPECTIVE)
Writing about Jeremy Lin is a vigorous exercise in objectivity. When it comes to the New York Knicks, I am about as subtle and unbiased as Spike Lee waiving an orange towel from his courtside chair. Intellectually, however, it is necessary to separate partisan passion from sober analysis.
At the risk of sounding overly hyperbolic, the meteoric rise of Jeremy Lin is perhaps thee most incredible story I have ever witnessed in professional athletics. By now, even non-sports fans know his name and have some idea of why the world is all abuzz. And still, to further its improbable uniqueness, the more you know about this story, the more incredible it becomes...
For over two weeks, the name Lin has dominated our collective attention and lexicon. Everyone from the White House down to Kardashian was asked to weigh-in. Our adolescent media and the social wildfire that is Twitter, made Lin synonymous with buzz words, trending topics and an overflowing faucet of adjective derivatives.(#Linsanity.)
What often goes overlooked in the frenzy, are the specific sequence of events, the perfect storm of circumstances, that brought us to where we are now. To put this in proper context from a Knicks perspective (and as a long-time fan, I feel reasonably qualified to do so), this story really begins in April of 2008, when the franchise mercifully demoted team President Isiah Thomas and hired player-personnel guru Donnie Walsh. The Knicks had been in free fall since 1999, when as an 8th seed in a strike-shortened season, they won the Eastern Conference and lost to the Spurs in the NBA Finals. This was the finale of a bittersweet Patrick Ewing era, and the franchise hadn't planned for the future. (Any adoring Knicks fan will tell you Ewing's legacy in New York was the most significant casualty of the Jordan-Bulls-dynasty. Each time the Knicks played for a Championship, MJ was in his first year of retirement.) Isiah Thomas inherited the Scott Layden-built Knicks in December of 2003, hamstrung by bad contracts, a personnel mishmash and boring, mediocre play. Indeed, Isiah entered in a ditch and over the next 4 years, he broke out a forklift and tortuously dug deeper, burying the organization with horrendous signings, mismanaged drafts and a variety of Page 6 scandals. The Knicks were a punchline to a bad joke, and the prospect of a savior --or any form of resurrection-- seemed inconceivable. However, (gasp!) looming on the horizon, was the great free-agency class of 2010. This represented the potential for an unprecedented shift of power amongst cities and teams. Preemptively, GMs started stockpiling expiring contracts, draft picks and salary cap space.
A year before Donnie Walsh took over the Knicks, Boston Celtics GM Danny Ainge decided to roll the dice. It was the summer of 2007. The Celtics had just gone 24-58. They finished dead last in the East and his job was on the line. (Although Mormons forbid gambling, I've seen Danny Ainge play awfully fast and loose and Mitt Romney bet $10,000 like it was chocolate milk.) Ainge whipped out his checkbook and paid Paul Pierce. Despite never even getting to the Eastern Conference Finals, Pierce was rewarded with a substantial raise and a few more years. Most experts saw this as a "bad contract." From afar, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett saw this as loyalty. In spite of their record, the Celtics became an easy sell to the veteran all-stars. (Often times, Championship level players respect the loyalty more than the money, and often times the two are intertwined.) Having finished at the bottom, they leveraged their lottery pick, revamped their roster and less than a year later Kevin Garnett was screaming, "aaaaannnything is posssssibuuuuuuuuuul!!!" And yet, it was still Paul Pierce's team.
Knicks fans watched this historic turnaround, and we became inclined to believe what KG proclaimed. Walsh (or as I call him, "Donnie Basketball"), grew up in New York City rooting for the organization he was now puppeteering. Astutely, he began by giving the Knicks the Heimlich...then CPR. With virtually no assets to work with, he took pennies on the dollar to unload "bad contracts" in exchange for expiring contracts. (In the bizzaro economics of the NBA, an expiring contract is a bad contract in its last year, which paradoxically becomes an asset. This was only partially rectified by the lockout.) Slowly and miraculously he gave Knicks fans some light at the end of the Lincoln Tunnel. By the middle of 2010, the Knicks had cleared enough cap space to sign not one, but two max contract players, igniting intense speculation that Lebron James would descend upon Madison Square Garden and, like Moses in Egypt, lead the beleaguered franchise and its fans to the promise land. I wrote about this subject early and often, not only buying into the narrative, but attempting to shape it. The Knicks initial move in July 2010, was signing Amar'e Stoudemire to a max deal, partially as bait for Lebron. However, a few days later, King James took his talents to...you know where.
Say what you will about Lebron (and I have), but do not underestimate the importance of loyalty and organizational stability. Pat Riley has been associated with the Miami Heat for almost half of Lebron's life. He can picture him hoisting the Trophy (or five.) In contrast, Donnie Walsh was a glorified wrecking ball, who was barely involved by the time the Lebron meetings took place. Knicks owner James Dolan had Isiah running the show by proxy, and Walsh, who worked tirelessly at the expense of his health, showed up in a wheelchair wondering if he'd be allowed into the room. (I'm exaggerating here but you get the point. No stability. No loyalty.) At that meeting, the Knicks couldn't sell Lebron on the magic of Madison Square Garden because there hadn't been any for a decade, so they tried selling him on the magic of Madison Avenue, with a bean-counter PowerPoint presentation about his path to becoming a billionaire. It was a microcosm of everything that was wrong with the Knicks...and society...at once.
In addition to roster demolition and revitalization, Donnie Basketball put his stamp on the organization by hiring Mike D'Antoni, a savant of the high-octane offense. In press conferences and interviews, Coach D'Antoni seems like a pretty mellow guy, but his basketball philosophy is hyper-frenetic. His system relies heavily on a point guard, who can push the ball, pick 'n' pop, slash to the saucepan and draw 'n' dish. Steve Nash was his muse in Phoenix during multiple 50-win seasons. Knicks fans immediately felt a disconnect with this choice. D'Antoni just wasn't the right fit for New York. Personally, I always felt Walsh deserved the benefit of doubt, but the overall sentiment was that the D'Antoni's style was more "warm weather ball" (he honed his philosophy coaching in Italy) and this was the Eastern Conference (like the old Big East); gritty, physical, defensive-minded; a grinding halfcourt set that couldn't survive without a prominent post-presence. (If you think about it, all the great "cold weather" teams are defensive-minded, mentally tough and reliably clutch. These are the characteristics New Yorkers respect. The football Giants are the epitome of this example.) In 2009, my shoe connect at the Harlem House of Hoops had this insightful take: "The Knicks are M.O.P. and D'Antoni 'tryin' to make them The Pharcyde. Shit won't work. Plain and simple." I countered with how the Knicks hadn't been "M.O.P." since Anthony Mason was throwing elbows, but I overstood his point.
Still, I credit Donnie Basketball for sticking to the discipline. Amar'e was the right big man for the system. He flourished in Phoenix catching alley-oops from Nash on the break. Continuing in this vein, Walsh signed the best available pick 'n' roll point guard, Raymond Felton. He drafted Danillo Gallinari and Landry Fields and all of a sudden the Knicks were on the right side of mediocre. I had the opportunity to see this team live. The Garden was The Garden again. It was loud every moment of the game. The booming chants of "DEEE-FENSE" "DEEE-FENSE" pulsated the way they did back when John Starks was tapping the hardwood to let His Airness know he was not about to be Craig Ehlo'd. It was a fun team. I liked all the players. The city did too. But if Knicks fans are honest, we must acknowledged this team's peak was probably around 46 wins and a second round exit. And the Miami Heat looked to contend for the next decade. In a five-on-five sport, where just one player can dramatically change the trajectory of a franchise, teams can remake themselves quickly, via free agency and/or the draft. So, it could be argued that winning 6 games is actually better than winning 46.
Almost a year ago to the day, Walsh completed the demolition by trading most of his accumulated assets for Carmelo Anthony and Chauncey Billups. Without question, this was the best deal available for an organization that desperately needed to close the talent gap set by the formidable "Miami Thrice." Anthony's game, however, just happens to run in direct conflict with D'Antoni's offense. He's a volume shooter, who holds the ball for nearly half the shot clock and contributes best in isolation. Without naming him specifically, detractors of today's NBA cite Melo's style of play as the reason they no longer watch basketball. He also carries the reputation of a temperamental superstar, who has a preeminent ability to put the ball in the basket, but do little else to help his team win. Yet considering the circumstances; it was late February, the Knicks were a .500 team and the fan base was teething, I supported the acquisition of Carmelo by any means. Devotees of Big East basketball remember him lighting up The Garden when he was a freshman at Syracuse, and any college basketball fan knows that he single-handedly carried Orangemen to an NCAA Championship in 2003. Billups was both an expiring contract and a nodding wink to D'Antoni, who lost Ray Felton in the deal. While I have enormous respect for Chauncey's career, it was transparent that age and injuries would prevent any sort of meaningful contribution in New York. When they took the floor, the new-look Knicks were, at best, a discombobulation featuring two of the NBA's top 15 players; and at worst, an irreparable disaster that had just fired all of its bullets.
It was a fairly quiet spring in the City That Never Sleeps. The veteran Celtics dismantled the Knicks in the first round, rather easily after Game 2, and then Walsh went right back to work. Well, for a few months at least. One of his last moves was picking up the $14.2 million option on Chauncey Billups. This gave the team the ability to control him, and the money they paid him simply reflected his value as a bargaining chip. Pointing to health concerns, Donnie Basketball stepped down as General Manager in June of 2011 and was succeeded by Glen Grunwald on an interim basis. With Walsh gone, D'Antoni lost a crucial ally heading into the fourth year on a five-year contract. With no job security, the FIRE D'ANTONI movement gained momentum and fueled the NY tabloids with constant speculation.
A significant development of the lockout and new Collective Bargaining Agreement was that now teams could rid themselves of a bad contract through what's known as the "amnesty clause." The Knicks used this on Billups and promptly turned him into free agents Tyson Chandler and Baron Davis. Certainly, this seemed like an improvement, but not necessarily something that would work with the head coach. Chandler had just helped the Mavs win a Championship, and brought the Knicks a frontcourt toughness they had sorely been missing. Davis was the wild card. If healthy and motivated, he might thrive in New York and reinvigorate his career. It was a big IF... Nevertheless, the 2011-2012 Knicks appeared to be headed in the right direction after years and years of embarrassment and hopelessness. The pundit consensus pegged them as the equivalent of a 48-win team and, if everything broke right, perhaps a three or four seed in the East.
Things did not break right. On January 4th, New York gave up 118 points at home to the woeful Charlotte Bobcats and lost by 8. In the stands, a fan decked out in blue and orange, sporting a Carmelo Anthony #7 jersey, was captured on MSG TV repeatedly yawning. It was an indelible metaphor. Things got worse. After 23 games, the Knicks had just 8 wins. The once nervous chatter about how Melo was not the right player or personality to lead the franchise, grew louder and louder. With every loss, D'Antoni took another step towards the guillotine, and more weight was piled upon the fragile back of Baron Davis, who was still in street clothes nursing his nagging injuries. A major problem with the team was that D'Antoni is (and will always be) a system coach: meaning, he does not try to adapt his style to fit his roster, instead he coaches his roster to adapt his style. The Knicks backcourt of Toney Douglas, Mike Bibby and Iman Shumpert were simply square pegs in round holes and D'Antoni was figuratively Claude Monet, asked to deliver an Impressionist masterpiece using only grey pigments. The results were horrible. Restlessness and despair set in. The Knicks had moved mountains to get here, yet their record was no better than it had been under Scott Layden or Isiah Thomas. Essentially, nothing had changed.
December 27, 2011, a day that will live in infamy... With a glaring need for any backcourt player with a pulse, the Knicks scooped up an unknown Taiwanese-American guard off the scrap heap. Only hoop junkies had ever heard the name Jeremy Lin. He was a four-year letterman at Harvard (not exactly a Division 1 juggernaut) and his scouting report read something like: high basketball IQ, raw agility, reckless abandon. An undrafted free agent recently cut by the Warriors and Rockets, he was like hundreds of marginal players fighting for a roster spot, bouncing between teams and 10-day contracts, moonlighting for minutes in the D-League, constantly contemplating whether basketball would ultimately be a career path worthy of pursuit. While on temporary assignment with the Knicks, Jeremy couch-surfed at his older brother's apartment on the Lower East Side. With a grueling game schedule and limited practice time, this season has been especially difficult for the unestablished player to showcase his skills. For Lin, the alignment of the stars was more than happenstance. It was almost mystical. First, Iman Shumpert went down with an injury and Baron Davis suffered a set back in his recovery. Amar'e Stoudamire's older brother was tragically killed in an auto accident in Florida and Carmelo Anthony strained his groin and was expected to miss a month. The Knicks were exhausted, utterly depleted and visibly in crisis mode. During a game against the Nets on February 4th, Mike D'Antoni looked down at the end of his bench and saw Lin, essentially a warm body who could handle the ball for a few minutes. What's the worst that could happen?
It would be foolish to heap aimless praise on Coach D'Antoni (or Glen Grunwald) for "discovering" a phenom. Lin sat on that Knicks bench for over a month before anyone even noticed he was there. However, we cannot overlook how the system became the magic elixir for #17. Everyone who called for D'Antoni's head, anyone who claimed his approach will never win a Championship, might want to consider how it is virtually inconceivable Lin would have ever been given an opportunity, as the 12th man on a roster, to play with reckless abandon, turn the ball over, take 25 shots a game and somehow emerge as the most popular athlete on the planet. Simply, if you enjoy watching Jeremy Lin, you are inadvertently endorsing the philosophy of Mike D'Antoni. He deserves a lions share of credit and Lin himself has not been shy about this, calling his coach "an offensive genius." Beyond his physiognomy, Lin has infused the NBA with much-needed enthusiasm. Casual basketball fans are gravitating back to the game, which is particularly unusual following a prolonged labor dispute. His presence is refreshing and exciting. He plays with an organic passion and energy that is infectious, and he redistributes the praise throughout his locker room, constantly reminding us that basketball, in its finest form, is team sport.
The Knicks have a long way to go, which can be difficult for a rabid, impatient (some say self-entitled) fanbase. We've seen our chief rivals, the Heat and Celtics quickly remake themselves into perennial Title contenders. Perhaps unrealistically, we expect the same. Plenty of questions remain: Can Lin continue to perform at this level? Can Melo play effectively within this offense? Can Amar'e stay healthy throughout a playoff run? Can the Knicks get enough 4th quarter defense to win games when they score in the 80s? Can the New York fan embrace a high-scoring, offensive-minded, "warm weather" style? (That last question was a lob pass to myself.) Of course. The aesthetics are far less important than the results. But for a team that plays a few blocks from Broadway and shares the building with the Big Apple Circus, we obviously love a good show.
Now that this is Jeremy Lin's team -- in style if not in spirit -- he has the unenviable task of proving D'Antoni's system can win in May and June. Certainly the Knicks are a work in progress, but this actually feels like the beginning. Donnie Basketball cleared the path. For the first time in over a decade, they have a complete squad. Stoudemire and Chandler provide versatility and depth in the front-court. Anthony is one of best swingmen in the game. Fields is a nice counter. They have dead-eye, spot-up snipers like Steve Novak and JR Smith. Shumpert, Jared Jeffries and Bill Walker add a little defense off the bench. Baron Davis may be far more effective as a back-up point guard; and Jeremy Lin is the floor general who knows how and when to get everyone involved. He can also go out and get you 30 points if you need it. As of February 20th, the Knicks are finally whole. Sure, they lack cohesiveness, rhythm and familiarity but (fortunately) our expectations are only slightly over par while their record is only slightly under. The roster jambalaya still needs to gel and settle, and since it seems to be the right mix of ingredients, they'll have plenty of time to heat up before the playoffs.
Inevitably, Knick-haters will tell me that I am a delusional kool-aid guzzler, so I'll leave y'all with this little morsel for thought: It was far more improbable for Jeremy Lin to get to where he is right now, than it would be if he led the Knicks to a Title... I'm just sayin'...
@HebrewRational
At the risk of sounding overly hyperbolic, the meteoric rise of Jeremy Lin is perhaps thee most incredible story I have ever witnessed in professional athletics. By now, even non-sports fans know his name and have some idea of why the world is all abuzz. And still, to further its improbable uniqueness, the more you know about this story, the more incredible it becomes...
For over two weeks, the name Lin has dominated our collective attention and lexicon. Everyone from the White House down to Kardashian was asked to weigh-in. Our adolescent media and the social wildfire that is Twitter, made Lin synonymous with buzz words, trending topics and an overflowing faucet of adjective derivatives.(#Linsanity.)
What often goes overlooked in the frenzy, are the specific sequence of events, the perfect storm of circumstances, that brought us to where we are now. To put this in proper context from a Knicks perspective (and as a long-time fan, I feel reasonably qualified to do so), this story really begins in April of 2008, when the franchise mercifully demoted team President Isiah Thomas and hired player-personnel guru Donnie Walsh. The Knicks had been in free fall since 1999, when as an 8th seed in a strike-shortened season, they won the Eastern Conference and lost to the Spurs in the NBA Finals. This was the finale of a bittersweet Patrick Ewing era, and the franchise hadn't planned for the future. (Any adoring Knicks fan will tell you Ewing's legacy in New York was the most significant casualty of the Jordan-Bulls-dynasty. Each time the Knicks played for a Championship, MJ was in his first year of retirement.) Isiah Thomas inherited the Scott Layden-built Knicks in December of 2003, hamstrung by bad contracts, a personnel mishmash and boring, mediocre play. Indeed, Isiah entered in a ditch and over the next 4 years, he broke out a forklift and tortuously dug deeper, burying the organization with horrendous signings, mismanaged drafts and a variety of Page 6 scandals. The Knicks were a punchline to a bad joke, and the prospect of a savior --or any form of resurrection-- seemed inconceivable. However, (gasp!) looming on the horizon, was the great free-agency class of 2010. This represented the potential for an unprecedented shift of power amongst cities and teams. Preemptively, GMs started stockpiling expiring contracts, draft picks and salary cap space.
A year before Donnie Walsh took over the Knicks, Boston Celtics GM Danny Ainge decided to roll the dice. It was the summer of 2007. The Celtics had just gone 24-58. They finished dead last in the East and his job was on the line. (Although Mormons forbid gambling, I've seen Danny Ainge play awfully fast and loose and Mitt Romney bet $10,000 like it was chocolate milk.) Ainge whipped out his checkbook and paid Paul Pierce. Despite never even getting to the Eastern Conference Finals, Pierce was rewarded with a substantial raise and a few more years. Most experts saw this as a "bad contract." From afar, Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett saw this as loyalty. In spite of their record, the Celtics became an easy sell to the veteran all-stars. (Often times, Championship level players respect the loyalty more than the money, and often times the two are intertwined.) Having finished at the bottom, they leveraged their lottery pick, revamped their roster and less than a year later Kevin Garnett was screaming, "aaaaannnything is posssssibuuuuuuuuuul!!!" And yet, it was still Paul Pierce's team.
Knicks fans watched this historic turnaround, and we became inclined to believe what KG proclaimed. Walsh (or as I call him, "Donnie Basketball"), grew up in New York City rooting for the organization he was now puppeteering. Astutely, he began by giving the Knicks the Heimlich...then CPR. With virtually no assets to work with, he took pennies on the dollar to unload "bad contracts" in exchange for expiring contracts. (In the bizzaro economics of the NBA, an expiring contract is a bad contract in its last year, which paradoxically becomes an asset. This was only partially rectified by the lockout.) Slowly and miraculously he gave Knicks fans some light at the end of the Lincoln Tunnel. By the middle of 2010, the Knicks had cleared enough cap space to sign not one, but two max contract players, igniting intense speculation that Lebron James would descend upon Madison Square Garden and, like Moses in Egypt, lead the beleaguered franchise and its fans to the promise land. I wrote about this subject early and often, not only buying into the narrative, but attempting to shape it. The Knicks initial move in July 2010, was signing Amar'e Stoudemire to a max deal, partially as bait for Lebron. However, a few days later, King James took his talents to...you know where.
Say what you will about Lebron (and I have), but do not underestimate the importance of loyalty and organizational stability. Pat Riley has been associated with the Miami Heat for almost half of Lebron's life. He can picture him hoisting the Trophy (or five.) In contrast, Donnie Walsh was a glorified wrecking ball, who was barely involved by the time the Lebron meetings took place. Knicks owner James Dolan had Isiah running the show by proxy, and Walsh, who worked tirelessly at the expense of his health, showed up in a wheelchair wondering if he'd be allowed into the room. (I'm exaggerating here but you get the point. No stability. No loyalty.) At that meeting, the Knicks couldn't sell Lebron on the magic of Madison Square Garden because there hadn't been any for a decade, so they tried selling him on the magic of Madison Avenue, with a bean-counter PowerPoint presentation about his path to becoming a billionaire. It was a microcosm of everything that was wrong with the Knicks...and society...at once.
In addition to roster demolition and revitalization, Donnie Basketball put his stamp on the organization by hiring Mike D'Antoni, a savant of the high-octane offense. In press conferences and interviews, Coach D'Antoni seems like a pretty mellow guy, but his basketball philosophy is hyper-frenetic. His system relies heavily on a point guard, who can push the ball, pick 'n' pop, slash to the saucepan and draw 'n' dish. Steve Nash was his muse in Phoenix during multiple 50-win seasons. Knicks fans immediately felt a disconnect with this choice. D'Antoni just wasn't the right fit for New York. Personally, I always felt Walsh deserved the benefit of doubt, but the overall sentiment was that the D'Antoni's style was more "warm weather ball" (he honed his philosophy coaching in Italy) and this was the Eastern Conference (like the old Big East); gritty, physical, defensive-minded; a grinding halfcourt set that couldn't survive without a prominent post-presence. (If you think about it, all the great "cold weather" teams are defensive-minded, mentally tough and reliably clutch. These are the characteristics New Yorkers respect. The football Giants are the epitome of this example.) In 2009, my shoe connect at the Harlem House of Hoops had this insightful take: "The Knicks are M.O.P. and D'Antoni 'tryin' to make them The Pharcyde. Shit won't work. Plain and simple." I countered with how the Knicks hadn't been "M.O.P." since Anthony Mason was throwing elbows, but I overstood his point.
Still, I credit Donnie Basketball for sticking to the discipline. Amar'e was the right big man for the system. He flourished in Phoenix catching alley-oops from Nash on the break. Continuing in this vein, Walsh signed the best available pick 'n' roll point guard, Raymond Felton. He drafted Danillo Gallinari and Landry Fields and all of a sudden the Knicks were on the right side of mediocre. I had the opportunity to see this team live. The Garden was The Garden again. It was loud every moment of the game. The booming chants of "DEEE-FENSE" "DEEE-FENSE" pulsated the way they did back when John Starks was tapping the hardwood to let His Airness know he was not about to be Craig Ehlo'd. It was a fun team. I liked all the players. The city did too. But if Knicks fans are honest, we must acknowledged this team's peak was probably around 46 wins and a second round exit. And the Miami Heat looked to contend for the next decade. In a five-on-five sport, where just one player can dramatically change the trajectory of a franchise, teams can remake themselves quickly, via free agency and/or the draft. So, it could be argued that winning 6 games is actually better than winning 46.
Almost a year ago to the day, Walsh completed the demolition by trading most of his accumulated assets for Carmelo Anthony and Chauncey Billups. Without question, this was the best deal available for an organization that desperately needed to close the talent gap set by the formidable "Miami Thrice." Anthony's game, however, just happens to run in direct conflict with D'Antoni's offense. He's a volume shooter, who holds the ball for nearly half the shot clock and contributes best in isolation. Without naming him specifically, detractors of today's NBA cite Melo's style of play as the reason they no longer watch basketball. He also carries the reputation of a temperamental superstar, who has a preeminent ability to put the ball in the basket, but do little else to help his team win. Yet considering the circumstances; it was late February, the Knicks were a .500 team and the fan base was teething, I supported the acquisition of Carmelo by any means. Devotees of Big East basketball remember him lighting up The Garden when he was a freshman at Syracuse, and any college basketball fan knows that he single-handedly carried Orangemen to an NCAA Championship in 2003. Billups was both an expiring contract and a nodding wink to D'Antoni, who lost Ray Felton in the deal. While I have enormous respect for Chauncey's career, it was transparent that age and injuries would prevent any sort of meaningful contribution in New York. When they took the floor, the new-look Knicks were, at best, a discombobulation featuring two of the NBA's top 15 players; and at worst, an irreparable disaster that had just fired all of its bullets.
It was a fairly quiet spring in the City That Never Sleeps. The veteran Celtics dismantled the Knicks in the first round, rather easily after Game 2, and then Walsh went right back to work. Well, for a few months at least. One of his last moves was picking up the $14.2 million option on Chauncey Billups. This gave the team the ability to control him, and the money they paid him simply reflected his value as a bargaining chip. Pointing to health concerns, Donnie Basketball stepped down as General Manager in June of 2011 and was succeeded by Glen Grunwald on an interim basis. With Walsh gone, D'Antoni lost a crucial ally heading into the fourth year on a five-year contract. With no job security, the FIRE D'ANTONI movement gained momentum and fueled the NY tabloids with constant speculation.
A significant development of the lockout and new Collective Bargaining Agreement was that now teams could rid themselves of a bad contract through what's known as the "amnesty clause." The Knicks used this on Billups and promptly turned him into free agents Tyson Chandler and Baron Davis. Certainly, this seemed like an improvement, but not necessarily something that would work with the head coach. Chandler had just helped the Mavs win a Championship, and brought the Knicks a frontcourt toughness they had sorely been missing. Davis was the wild card. If healthy and motivated, he might thrive in New York and reinvigorate his career. It was a big IF... Nevertheless, the 2011-2012 Knicks appeared to be headed in the right direction after years and years of embarrassment and hopelessness. The pundit consensus pegged them as the equivalent of a 48-win team and, if everything broke right, perhaps a three or four seed in the East.
Things did not break right. On January 4th, New York gave up 118 points at home to the woeful Charlotte Bobcats and lost by 8. In the stands, a fan decked out in blue and orange, sporting a Carmelo Anthony #7 jersey, was captured on MSG TV repeatedly yawning. It was an indelible metaphor. Things got worse. After 23 games, the Knicks had just 8 wins. The once nervous chatter about how Melo was not the right player or personality to lead the franchise, grew louder and louder. With every loss, D'Antoni took another step towards the guillotine, and more weight was piled upon the fragile back of Baron Davis, who was still in street clothes nursing his nagging injuries. A major problem with the team was that D'Antoni is (and will always be) a system coach: meaning, he does not try to adapt his style to fit his roster, instead he coaches his roster to adapt his style. The Knicks backcourt of Toney Douglas, Mike Bibby and Iman Shumpert were simply square pegs in round holes and D'Antoni was figuratively Claude Monet, asked to deliver an Impressionist masterpiece using only grey pigments. The results were horrible. Restlessness and despair set in. The Knicks had moved mountains to get here, yet their record was no better than it had been under Scott Layden or Isiah Thomas. Essentially, nothing had changed.
December 27, 2011, a day that will live in infamy... With a glaring need for any backcourt player with a pulse, the Knicks scooped up an unknown Taiwanese-American guard off the scrap heap. Only hoop junkies had ever heard the name Jeremy Lin. He was a four-year letterman at Harvard (not exactly a Division 1 juggernaut) and his scouting report read something like: high basketball IQ, raw agility, reckless abandon. An undrafted free agent recently cut by the Warriors and Rockets, he was like hundreds of marginal players fighting for a roster spot, bouncing between teams and 10-day contracts, moonlighting for minutes in the D-League, constantly contemplating whether basketball would ultimately be a career path worthy of pursuit. While on temporary assignment with the Knicks, Jeremy couch-surfed at his older brother's apartment on the Lower East Side. With a grueling game schedule and limited practice time, this season has been especially difficult for the unestablished player to showcase his skills. For Lin, the alignment of the stars was more than happenstance. It was almost mystical. First, Iman Shumpert went down with an injury and Baron Davis suffered a set back in his recovery. Amar'e Stoudamire's older brother was tragically killed in an auto accident in Florida and Carmelo Anthony strained his groin and was expected to miss a month. The Knicks were exhausted, utterly depleted and visibly in crisis mode. During a game against the Nets on February 4th, Mike D'Antoni looked down at the end of his bench and saw Lin, essentially a warm body who could handle the ball for a few minutes. What's the worst that could happen?
It would be foolish to heap aimless praise on Coach D'Antoni (or Glen Grunwald) for "discovering" a phenom. Lin sat on that Knicks bench for over a month before anyone even noticed he was there. However, we cannot overlook how the system became the magic elixir for #17. Everyone who called for D'Antoni's head, anyone who claimed his approach will never win a Championship, might want to consider how it is virtually inconceivable Lin would have ever been given an opportunity, as the 12th man on a roster, to play with reckless abandon, turn the ball over, take 25 shots a game and somehow emerge as the most popular athlete on the planet. Simply, if you enjoy watching Jeremy Lin, you are inadvertently endorsing the philosophy of Mike D'Antoni. He deserves a lions share of credit and Lin himself has not been shy about this, calling his coach "an offensive genius." Beyond his physiognomy, Lin has infused the NBA with much-needed enthusiasm. Casual basketball fans are gravitating back to the game, which is particularly unusual following a prolonged labor dispute. His presence is refreshing and exciting. He plays with an organic passion and energy that is infectious, and he redistributes the praise throughout his locker room, constantly reminding us that basketball, in its finest form, is team sport.
The Knicks have a long way to go, which can be difficult for a rabid, impatient (some say self-entitled) fanbase. We've seen our chief rivals, the Heat and Celtics quickly remake themselves into perennial Title contenders. Perhaps unrealistically, we expect the same. Plenty of questions remain: Can Lin continue to perform at this level? Can Melo play effectively within this offense? Can Amar'e stay healthy throughout a playoff run? Can the Knicks get enough 4th quarter defense to win games when they score in the 80s? Can the New York fan embrace a high-scoring, offensive-minded, "warm weather" style? (That last question was a lob pass to myself.) Of course. The aesthetics are far less important than the results. But for a team that plays a few blocks from Broadway and shares the building with the Big Apple Circus, we obviously love a good show.
Now that this is Jeremy Lin's team -- in style if not in spirit -- he has the unenviable task of proving D'Antoni's system can win in May and June. Certainly the Knicks are a work in progress, but this actually feels like the beginning. Donnie Basketball cleared the path. For the first time in over a decade, they have a complete squad. Stoudemire and Chandler provide versatility and depth in the front-court. Anthony is one of best swingmen in the game. Fields is a nice counter. They have dead-eye, spot-up snipers like Steve Novak and JR Smith. Shumpert, Jared Jeffries and Bill Walker add a little defense off the bench. Baron Davis may be far more effective as a back-up point guard; and Jeremy Lin is the floor general who knows how and when to get everyone involved. He can also go out and get you 30 points if you need it. As of February 20th, the Knicks are finally whole. Sure, they lack cohesiveness, rhythm and familiarity but (fortunately) our expectations are only slightly over par while their record is only slightly under. The roster jambalaya still needs to gel and settle, and since it seems to be the right mix of ingredients, they'll have plenty of time to heat up before the playoffs.
Inevitably, Knick-haters will tell me that I am a delusional kool-aid guzzler, so I'll leave y'all with this little morsel for thought: It was far more improbable for Jeremy Lin to get to where he is right now, than it would be if he led the Knicks to a Title... I'm just sayin'...
@HebrewRational
Monday, January 30, 2012
RED TAILS and the Diaspora of Black Cinema
In the new popcorn flyboy flick Red
Tails, Colonel A.J. Bullard (Terence Howard) lobbies the Pentagon for more
meaningful work for his platoon of World War II fighter pilots. At present,
they have been regulated (segregated) to patrolling unused airspace above Italy, the
US Army Air Corps equivalent of cleaning the slop buckets in the mess house.
"Give us this mission," Bullard pleads, "and we'll light up the
board." In many ways, the Tuskegee Airmen Project and Anthony Hemmingway,
John Ridley and Aaron McGrudder's Red Tails share an inter-lapping storyline:
The mission was green-lit.
Battling power structures for opportunity, for dignity, for the chance to carry the cause of many upon the shoulders of few, is natural fodder for dramatic narrative. The triumph of the underdog has always been a popular cinematic genre, and yet we sometimes fail to connect how and why "underdogs" are systematically subjugated by the very establishment we root against. In most of these stories, someone from inside the power structure must "stick his neck out" (to borrow a line from the film) on behalf of the faction that has not gotten its proper due. In the case of Red Tails, this person is executive producer George Lucas.
Never before has Hollywood opened its checkbook to finance and promote a film that could be classified as -- for lack of a better term-- Black Cinema. (Crudely defined, "Black Cinema" is a film production that features a black writer OR director AND a modestly diverse cast.) With a production budget of $58 million, well above the median for any film that isn't a sequel or prequel or based off a comic book, or best selling novel, or 80s TV show, or Greek myth; Red Tails may be the litmus test for the next wave of black American filmmaking. It is also important to note that this movie does not feature anyone, on either side of the camera, with an established pedigree in studio tentpoles. Just Lucas, who is one of the few names in Tinseltown with enough box office clout to push this "experiment" through. And even though he financed it himself, it still took him nearly two decades. This got me thinking: If George Lucas started developing Red Tails around 1993 and it didn't hit theaters until 2012, how many fantastic projects are littered throughout this city, sitting on a dusty shelf at a studio lot? Or worse, the dusty shelf in the former office of an aspiring agent.
If the 1990s were the Golden Age of hip-hop, we witnessed a direct correlation between the quality and diversity of "black films" of the same era. It was as if the zany empowerment of Blacksploitation evolved and matured, blazing pathways for sub-genres like "hood films," "black biopics" and "urban satires." Brilliant young auteurs like John Singleton, Spike Lee, Reginald Hudlin, Ernest Dickerson and the Hughes brothers changed the landscape of Hollywood with astonishing directorial debuts. Not only were their films critically lauded, they were extremely profitable, which kept the pipeline full of content. From Do The Right Thing (1989) and House Party (1990) to Boyz in the Hood (1991), NewJack City (1991) and Juice (1992) to Malcolm X (1992), MenaceII Society (1993) and Poetic Justice (1993); stories about the black American experience were being told by black Americans and, for the first time, seen by broader audience.
This had a rippling effect. Suddenly, voices from deep within the margins were given a small spotlight and a faint megaphone. Renegade filmmakers like Matty Rich, who wrote the screenplay for Straight Out of Brooklyn (1991) when he was 17 years old, directed the film at 19 on a budget of $450,000; and it found a distributor. 'Brooklyn's overall gross quadrupled its cost.
F. Gary Gray was barely old enough to drink when he started directing music videos like Ice Cube's "It Was A Good Day." At 24, he helmed Friday (1995) on a budget of $3.5 million. Friday raked in $28 million at the box office, plus endless streams of ancillary revenue as a DVD cult classic. Reginald Hudlin wrote and directed a short film called "House Party" as his thesis project at Harvard and later remade it as a feature starring rap duo Kid 'n' Play. The movie earned ten times its budget, spawned two sequels and first paired Martin Lawrence and Tisha Campbell, who parlayed their on screen chemistry into the Fox sitcom Martin, which ran from 1992-1997. Relative to the historical precedent, opportunity abounded. It was a mini-renaissance.
Black Cinema of the 1990s helped launch the careers of countless actors, comedians, writers, directors, producers, cinematographers, production coordinators, PA's, gaffers, and music supervisors. But, by the end of the decade, tastes had changed, the culture changed, priorities shifted and the pipeline of content (and opportunity) dried up. The parallels in rap music are not insignificant. When "the industry" (a predominately hegemonic power structure controlled from the top down) took over who-what-how black entertainment was disseminated, it created an enormous void in the market. Following the formula of the urban music business, Hollywood kept pandering to that same demographic that bought up 2000-era rap CDs; but movies could not find a similar niche... until Tyler Perry finally broke through with his unique brand faith-oriented, family-friendly fare. Hollywood execs were stunned. A renegade filmmaker in his own right, Perry not only made it rain, but led the industry to the water and forced it to drink from his well. This was ultimately not such a good thing.
I have never been one to vilify Tyler Perry. I admire his passion and
persistence and I have enormous respect for his ability to toe the line between
mogul and artist. I enjoy his movies for what they are and they certainly have
place in our culture. What I dislike about Perry has more to do with the
industry itself, in that his one-note portrayals of the "black
experience" have come to define Black Cinema as we now know it. Aside from cross-dressing
grandmas, "dance movies" like Step It Up (2004), You Got
Served (2006) and Stomp the Yard (2007) have been the only
consistently identifiable sub-genre. Whimsical "party flicks" were
replaced by intelligent romance comedies like The Wood (1999), The
Best Man (1999) and Brown Sugar (2002) but have since faded.
"Hood films" have turned into B-movies starring C-list rappers that
go straight to DVD. This leaves "Tyler Perry Presents..." as one
monolithic brand; and since Hollywood generally lingers a few long paces
behind the curve of creativity
--replicating and re-replicating box office "hits"-- we get a
constant drip of mindless, soul-less schlock. (Imagine if Hollywood only
allowed white people to make movies about vampires, car chases and
corporate
crooks.)
Interestingly, as Black Cinema faded, we've seen a
juxtaposition in storytelling. Hustle & Flow (2005) for instance,
was an extraordinary, 90s-style "hood film" written and directed by
Craig Brewer (produced by John Singleton.) Prominent "black biopics" like Ray (2004), Get
Rich or Die Tryin' (2005) and American Gangster (2007) and even
Oscar fodder with black ensemble casts like Dreamgirls (2006) and The
Help (2011), have been made by white filmmakers. Conversely, black auteurs
from yesteryear have successfully "crossed-over" (to borrow a phrase
from EPMD) and now routinely churn out four-quadrant blockbusters. Babershop's
Tim Story went on to helm the Fantastic Four franchise. Inside Man
(2006) is Spike Lee's most successful film. John Singleton's last three movies
have been 2 Fast 2 Furious (2003), Four Brothers (2004) and Abduction
(2011). F. Gary Gray's reel includes The Italian Job (2003), Be Cool
(2005) and Law Abiding Citizen (2009). I do not mean to present this as
something that is so (hiccup) black or white. All of the aforementioned titles
are American films made by Americans filmmakers. Nothing is inherently wrong
with white directors telling stories about black people (for Godsake, David
Simon created The Wire) or black directors helming bigger-budget action
flicks. The problem is still the void in the market. Other than Tyler Perry,
dance movies and the occasional slapstick comedy about a wedding, a funeral or
a family reunion, there is a gaping.........
I also have a healthy respect for Lee Daniels. Monster's Ball was an import film. I thought he was ambitious to take on "Push." I applaud Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry for getting this movie made. But let's be honest, Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Saffire (2010), was an overwrought melodrama. There, I said it. And while Mo'nique's performance was superb (she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress), her portrayal of Mary could certainly be characterized as inflammatory imagery in a world with Fox News. Yet Precious has been the recent standard bearer for Black Cinema.
It is easier today to be a "renegade filmmaker" than at any other point in history. Technology is accessible and relatively inexpensive, with plenty of platforms to bring original content to an audience. For years I've been asking my liberal friends about inequalities in Hollywood. I pose the same questions to panelists at industry workshops. And it's as if the "lack of opportunity" default reflex kicks in for everyone. It seems to be the only answer. But that is too simplistic. Sure, Hollywood is generally disinterested in almost ALL original content, particularly when it comes from under-represented minorities; but, as previously discussed, this does not mean stories about black people go entirely untold.
Which brings me to some questions:
Why did the quality and diversity of Black Cinema of the 90s deteriorate? How have the successful filmmakers of the 90s parlayed their limited clout into developing projects for this decade that will help advance the next? If a torch exists, who will be the one to carry it? Does that modicum of opportunity that existed for 17 year-old Matty Rich in 1989, still exist? I would argue emphatically yes. Yet the pipeline has been dry for far too long. Why?
In 2011, it started trickling. Admittedly, Precious' box office receipts were the catalyst.
Rashaad Ernesto Green made an impressive directorial debut with Gun Hill Road, a poignant and meticulously crafted story about family and sexuality in the South Bronx, circa now.
Pariah was Dee Dee Rees' astonishing first film. Dee Dee and Rashaad were classmates at NYU-Tisch. They were mentored by Professor Spike Lee. Pariah is raw... and equally relevant and takes place in contemporary Brooklyn. (And the cast does not feature anyone with a music career to fall back on!)
British visual artist turned filmmaker Steve McQueen has now made two powerful films, Hunger and Shame. On his next project he teams up with John Ridley on Twelve Years a Slave, starring Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt and Chiwetel Ejiofor.
This brings me back to a great story about a family reunion. It takes place on a film set in the Czech Republic. A few of our favorite relatives made the trip. Michael was there, Bubbles, Wallace, Bird... even Cheese showed up late. Anthony Hemmingway was filming his first feature, Red Tails.
Hemmingway originally cut his teeth working as a First Assistant Director for David Simon on The Corner (2000.) He directed episodes of The Wire and Treme amongst a potpourri of American television. On Red Tails, he reunited many of the actors he worked with previously.
John Ridley, who got his start as a staff writer for Martin in 1993, wrote the script. His versatility stands out amongst all current American writers. He has also blessed us with insightful commentary on NPR for years. After Twelve Years a Slave, he's collaborating with Spike Lee on HBO's Brick City as well as a movie about the L.A. Riots.
Aaron McGruder helped polish the script. He's perhaps most known for his criticism of hyper-commodified black culture. A Ralph Nadar supporter in 2000, he often gets South Park on people or organizations he deems regressive. On The Boondocks, for example, he's dedicated entire episodes to lampooning Tyler Perry and Black Entertainment Television. I cannot wait for McGruder to pen the next great "urban satire" or "hood film."
We should give credit to George Lucas for ultimately getting this thing done, but Red Tails is a chiefly a collaboration of Hemmingway, Ridley and McGrudder.
"Give us this mission, and we'll light up the board."
It is crucial we support Red Tails -- at the box office-- with our hard-earned dollars. I saw it twice. (Yes, I paid both times. No, it was not a great movie.) I’ll conclude with a Public Service Announcement:
Please make a point of supporting ALL original work. If something you want to see is not available locally, the least you can do is ask the dude popping your corn if his theater might get it. This is how we, the consumers, wield control in a market-based democracy. It would be nice to start occupying movie theaters with more fresh content, which just might spark another Golden Age of Black Cinema.
@HebrewRational
The mission was green-lit.
Battling power structures for opportunity, for dignity, for the chance to carry the cause of many upon the shoulders of few, is natural fodder for dramatic narrative. The triumph of the underdog has always been a popular cinematic genre, and yet we sometimes fail to connect how and why "underdogs" are systematically subjugated by the very establishment we root against. In most of these stories, someone from inside the power structure must "stick his neck out" (to borrow a line from the film) on behalf of the faction that has not gotten its proper due. In the case of Red Tails, this person is executive producer George Lucas.
Never before has Hollywood opened its checkbook to finance and promote a film that could be classified as -- for lack of a better term-- Black Cinema. (Crudely defined, "Black Cinema" is a film production that features a black writer OR director AND a modestly diverse cast.) With a production budget of $58 million, well above the median for any film that isn't a sequel or prequel or based off a comic book, or best selling novel, or 80s TV show, or Greek myth; Red Tails may be the litmus test for the next wave of black American filmmaking. It is also important to note that this movie does not feature anyone, on either side of the camera, with an established pedigree in studio tentpoles. Just Lucas, who is one of the few names in Tinseltown with enough box office clout to push this "experiment" through. And even though he financed it himself, it still took him nearly two decades. This got me thinking: If George Lucas started developing Red Tails around 1993 and it didn't hit theaters until 2012, how many fantastic projects are littered throughout this city, sitting on a dusty shelf at a studio lot? Or worse, the dusty shelf in the former office of an aspiring agent.
If the 1990s were the Golden Age of hip-hop, we witnessed a direct correlation between the quality and diversity of "black films" of the same era. It was as if the zany empowerment of Blacksploitation evolved and matured, blazing pathways for sub-genres like "hood films," "black biopics" and "urban satires." Brilliant young auteurs like John Singleton, Spike Lee, Reginald Hudlin, Ernest Dickerson and the Hughes brothers changed the landscape of Hollywood with astonishing directorial debuts. Not only were their films critically lauded, they were extremely profitable, which kept the pipeline full of content. From Do The Right Thing (1989) and House Party (1990) to Boyz in the Hood (1991), NewJack City (1991) and Juice (1992) to Malcolm X (1992), MenaceII Society (1993) and Poetic Justice (1993); stories about the black American experience were being told by black Americans and, for the first time, seen by broader audience.
This had a rippling effect. Suddenly, voices from deep within the margins were given a small spotlight and a faint megaphone. Renegade filmmakers like Matty Rich, who wrote the screenplay for Straight Out of Brooklyn (1991) when he was 17 years old, directed the film at 19 on a budget of $450,000; and it found a distributor. 'Brooklyn's overall gross quadrupled its cost.
F. Gary Gray was barely old enough to drink when he started directing music videos like Ice Cube's "It Was A Good Day." At 24, he helmed Friday (1995) on a budget of $3.5 million. Friday raked in $28 million at the box office, plus endless streams of ancillary revenue as a DVD cult classic. Reginald Hudlin wrote and directed a short film called "House Party" as his thesis project at Harvard and later remade it as a feature starring rap duo Kid 'n' Play. The movie earned ten times its budget, spawned two sequels and first paired Martin Lawrence and Tisha Campbell, who parlayed their on screen chemistry into the Fox sitcom Martin, which ran from 1992-1997. Relative to the historical precedent, opportunity abounded. It was a mini-renaissance.
Black Cinema of the 1990s helped launch the careers of countless actors, comedians, writers, directors, producers, cinematographers, production coordinators, PA's, gaffers, and music supervisors. But, by the end of the decade, tastes had changed, the culture changed, priorities shifted and the pipeline of content (and opportunity) dried up. The parallels in rap music are not insignificant. When "the industry" (a predominately hegemonic power structure controlled from the top down) took over who-what-how black entertainment was disseminated, it created an enormous void in the market. Following the formula of the urban music business, Hollywood kept pandering to that same demographic that bought up 2000-era rap CDs; but movies could not find a similar niche... until Tyler Perry finally broke through with his unique brand faith-oriented, family-friendly fare. Hollywood execs were stunned. A renegade filmmaker in his own right, Perry not only made it rain, but led the industry to the water and forced it to drink from his well. This was ultimately not such a good thing.
I also have a healthy respect for Lee Daniels. Monster's Ball was an import film. I thought he was ambitious to take on "Push." I applaud Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry for getting this movie made. But let's be honest, Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Saffire (2010), was an overwrought melodrama. There, I said it. And while Mo'nique's performance was superb (she won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress), her portrayal of Mary could certainly be characterized as inflammatory imagery in a world with Fox News. Yet Precious has been the recent standard bearer for Black Cinema.
It is easier today to be a "renegade filmmaker" than at any other point in history. Technology is accessible and relatively inexpensive, with plenty of platforms to bring original content to an audience. For years I've been asking my liberal friends about inequalities in Hollywood. I pose the same questions to panelists at industry workshops. And it's as if the "lack of opportunity" default reflex kicks in for everyone. It seems to be the only answer. But that is too simplistic. Sure, Hollywood is generally disinterested in almost ALL original content, particularly when it comes from under-represented minorities; but, as previously discussed, this does not mean stories about black people go entirely untold.
Which brings me to some questions:
Why did the quality and diversity of Black Cinema of the 90s deteriorate? How have the successful filmmakers of the 90s parlayed their limited clout into developing projects for this decade that will help advance the next? If a torch exists, who will be the one to carry it? Does that modicum of opportunity that existed for 17 year-old Matty Rich in 1989, still exist? I would argue emphatically yes. Yet the pipeline has been dry for far too long. Why?
In 2011, it started trickling. Admittedly, Precious' box office receipts were the catalyst.
Rashaad Ernesto Green made an impressive directorial debut with Gun Hill Road, a poignant and meticulously crafted story about family and sexuality in the South Bronx, circa now.
Pariah was Dee Dee Rees' astonishing first film. Dee Dee and Rashaad were classmates at NYU-Tisch. They were mentored by Professor Spike Lee. Pariah is raw... and equally relevant and takes place in contemporary Brooklyn. (And the cast does not feature anyone with a music career to fall back on!)
British visual artist turned filmmaker Steve McQueen has now made two powerful films, Hunger and Shame. On his next project he teams up with John Ridley on Twelve Years a Slave, starring Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt and Chiwetel Ejiofor.
This brings me back to a great story about a family reunion. It takes place on a film set in the Czech Republic. A few of our favorite relatives made the trip. Michael was there, Bubbles, Wallace, Bird... even Cheese showed up late. Anthony Hemmingway was filming his first feature, Red Tails.
Hemmingway originally cut his teeth working as a First Assistant Director for David Simon on The Corner (2000.) He directed episodes of The Wire and Treme amongst a potpourri of American television. On Red Tails, he reunited many of the actors he worked with previously.
John Ridley, who got his start as a staff writer for Martin in 1993, wrote the script. His versatility stands out amongst all current American writers. He has also blessed us with insightful commentary on NPR for years. After Twelve Years a Slave, he's collaborating with Spike Lee on HBO's Brick City as well as a movie about the L.A. Riots.
Aaron McGruder helped polish the script. He's perhaps most known for his criticism of hyper-commodified black culture. A Ralph Nadar supporter in 2000, he often gets South Park on people or organizations he deems regressive. On The Boondocks, for example, he's dedicated entire episodes to lampooning Tyler Perry and Black Entertainment Television. I cannot wait for McGruder to pen the next great "urban satire" or "hood film."
We should give credit to George Lucas for ultimately getting this thing done, but Red Tails is a chiefly a collaboration of Hemmingway, Ridley and McGrudder.
"Give us this mission, and we'll light up the board."
It is crucial we support Red Tails -- at the box office-- with our hard-earned dollars. I saw it twice. (Yes, I paid both times. No, it was not a great movie.) I’ll conclude with a Public Service Announcement:
Please make a point of supporting ALL original work. If something you want to see is not available locally, the least you can do is ask the dude popping your corn if his theater might get it. This is how we, the consumers, wield control in a market-based democracy. It would be nice to start occupying movie theaters with more fresh content, which just might spark another Golden Age of Black Cinema.
@HebrewRational
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)