Pinbal Wizard

I'm a huge pinball fan, even though I can't remember the last time I played. When I went to Vegas last year, one of the places I really wanted to go was the Pinball Hall of Fame & Museum, which at the time was essentially a shack a mile or two off the strip that someone was using to store their collection of pinball machines old and... less old. Unfortunately, because of the distance from the strip and the fact that the Nevada desert is really freakin' hot, we never got over there. Apparently the Hall of Fame has recently moved to a much larger location a lot more convenient to the strip, and is now operated by the Las Vegas Pinball Collector's Club - probably a little more equipped than one guy, but I'm sure that one guy is still very much involved.

Anyway, I've always been a little sad that pinball machines have disappeared from convenience arcades and a lot of standalone arcades. For a long time, if you went into a bar, restaurant or anywhere else that had a small arcade section for customers, there had to be a pinball machine there. That's not really the case anymore - you're more likely to find a Big Buck Hunter or Golden Tee. Not that there's anything wrong with those games, but I miss being able to easily find pinball. I've always said that when (yes... when) I'm rich and famous and am building my dream house, one staple of my amazing game room will be multiple pinball machines. Apparently it's now getting harder and harder to find them in working condition, so if I'm going to have them in my fantastic abode, I'd better get to the rich and famous part.

Someone's posted a very interesting read on what exactly changed in the amusement industry that ultimately contributed to the decline of pinball. It's a good read, you should check it out. And then you should get a roll of quarters and go find a pinball machine. Just for old time's sake.

Beer blog!

Not really worth posting, but may I direct your attention to the Boston Beer Garden, my new blog documenting my new foray into the world of home beer brewing. The first batch is in the fermenting bucket as of an hour ago, and we're on our way! Go check it out!

For the benefit of the Facebook readers, it's at http://beerboston.blogspot.com

Sleep No More, Take II

Doing something I don’t think I’ve ever done with a limited-run piece of theater (thus excluding my 5 or 6 trips to see Blue Man Group), the girl and I took a second shot at ART and Punchdrunk’s Sleep No More on Tuesday. Again, I’ll try not to give anything away…

Second time around was definitely different from the first, and that’s both good and… less good, though I wouldn’t go so far as to say bad. We had heard that there had been some changes since we saw it the first time (which was during previews), not the least of which were some cast changes. Some of the original British cast members were moving onto other things, so they were being replaced by new recruits. It’s always interesting to see the differences in a role when played by different people, especially something like this that is so interpretive and subjective to begin with.

But we’d also heard that some scenes had been reworked, so we were interested – not that we’d know, since there was no way we had seen everything the first time around. So we picked up some tickets and headed over for the earliest entry time, to give ourselves as much time to explore as possible.

By now, it’s well known that the experience starts in the Manderlay, a reconstructed speakeasy in the middle of the school. This is still the best possible intro, because even in what can sort of be considered a “lobby,” the experience is immersive and totally convincing. We headed in, and this time the two of us purposefully split up the minute we donned our masks, also parting ways with a couple of friends that we had run into on the way to the school. I ended up taking a different entry point to the show than I had last time. And away we went!

The first thing I noticed was that the anticipation I had felt last time was still there, but this time around I wasn’t tentative at all. I dove in head first, and I think I inadvertently set the tone for some of the other people in the room with me. Like I was the first time, they seemed reluctant to touch anything, and kept a pretty safe distance from the lone actor in the room. Meanwhile, I was flipping through books, searching through letters on the counter, and watching the performer from a much shorter distance than the rest of the group. I noticed a lot of people doing the same shortly after I had, so in my own small way I hope I encouraged people to involve themselves as much as they could from the very beginning.

I definitely felt more free to go wherever I pleased, in part because of all the emotions the scenes still send through you, fear wasn’t one of them this time (safe, horror-movie fear, not actual fear). I felt comfortable from the outset this time, and I was much more ready for anything and everything. It let me seek out the dark corners, and be much more willing to meet the actors and the mood halfway. I got there last time, but I think I got a full 3 hours of experience this time, where last time it might have been closer to two.

And experience I did. In all, I think I saw three or four scenes that I had seen before, but even those I was able to explore from a new perspective, and see how the new additions to the cast handled the events. I also took many different turns in order to see as much new as I could, and it was well worth it. I’m shocked that a piece of theater can have this much replay value, but I definitely can see myself going back again. I’ve got a friend who would love it, so I want to go and see her reactions first-hand. It was also interesting to meet back up with my friends in the bar after, one of whom was there for her first time. It’s always cool to be reminded of those more visceral, first-exposure reactions when you’ve been removed from them for a month or so.

What truly amazed me this time around was that there were still so many scenes that are so well-played, so perfectly executed, that they still really got under my skin. There’s an ending to the last cycle that I had missed the first time – it’s either new, or we missed it in previews because the fire alarm went off halfway through the night – that is so perfectly done that it elicited a gasp from the entire crowd – and most of that night’s guests were gathered in the room at the time. Also intriguing looking back is what I didn’t see – there were rooms I remembered from the first trip that I never happened upon this time, through no choice of my own… my journey just didn’t lead there this time.

If you haven’t seen it yet, go. If you have seen it, go back, especially now that you’ve got an idea what you’re in for. The show and the cast will still find new ways to surprise you.

You need to see this.

Last night, my mind was blown.

I've got a degree in theater, and I think by most standards for the industry, I'm a bad theater student. Frankly, I don't like weird stuff. Most of the time, it's not because I don't get it. Very often, I get the point that is trying to be conveyed through unconventional means of presentation, but very seldom do I ever feel that the point is made more effectively than it could have been made in a more straightforward production. Being weird for the sake of weirdness has always annoyed me, because it seems selfish. It doesn't seem to me to be done for the benefit of the audience. It's done for the benefit of the performers or the artists who are putting the show together. And that's fine, but if that's the case... why are you making me pay to see it?

What I saw last night completely redefined what I thought of as theater. It's not something that will ever replace conventional theater, but I think it could do more for the idea of the theatrical experience than anything else I've ever seen.

It's called Sleep No More. It's been brought to Boston (Brookline, actually) by the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge, but the project belongs to Punchdrunk, a theater group out of London. They first performed the show in London in 2003, and the run in Brookline marks Punchdrunk's American debut. And they certainly have me interested.

Sleep No More is a reimagining of Macbeth as a Hitchcockian thriller. For this production, they've taken over the old Lincoln School on Boylston Street in Brookline, and transformed it into... something else. I want to be very careful how I phrase things, because the best way to walk into that building is knowing nothing at all. Their new setting is reminiscent of the '20s or '30s. You start your experience in a small but beautifully appointed speakeasy that was dropped in the middle of the building. From there, you don a mask (which I think is for the comfort of both the performers and the audience), and are let loose to explore the hallways and nearly fifty transformed rooms over four levels of the school.

Some of the rooms are appointed in a pretty standard theatrical fashion - sitting rooms, dining rooms, offices - while others are much more imaginative - on one floor, there's a dune of black sand that makes its way through three or four rooms. In some rooms, there's little done to hide the fact that this used to be a school, even if that room's design doesn't fit a school at all. Other rooms, especially in the basement, are fully transformed into something else... anything else.

As you wander through the rooms, you'll encounter characters who are at the very least reminiscent of the characters from Macbeth, if not the characters by name. They'll go about their days, usually completely unaware of you and your fellow audience members, interacting with each other as if you didn't exist. My girlfriend described the feeling as being ghosts, with free reign to travel wherever you see fit and observe anything (and I do mean anything) and everything these characters do. One really cool way to experience the show is to pick a character and follow them. Everywhere. At no point did anyone go where the audience couldn't follow, so you really get a complete, unbroken experience. And if you pass a room or another character that looks more interesting, just break off and explore that room, or follow that new character. The actors are on a cycle that repeats at least once over the course of the night, so if you think you missed something after you stopped following someone, you can always try to pick it back up again later.

There's very minimal dialogue in the show, and that's for the better, I think. The actions, movements and relationships might become a little too defined if the characters were allowed to speak out loud, and the show would lose a very surreal, ethereal quality that helps make it so fascinating. It also means that when characters do talk, it's that much more important, and you need to pay close attention.

The one thing that I was worried about for this format was how well I would be able to follow the plot. You really have no restrictions on where you can go - if you can open a door in the school, its part of the show and you're welcome to explore. It does make for a very disjointed connection with the plot, but in the end I found that really didn't matter. There's a quote from a review in the Guardian newspaper of the London production: "... although you will need more than a passing knowledge of the play to make the connections, I suspect that the experience is sufficiently novel that, even if you had never heard of the play, you would take a puzzled pleasure in the evening." The performers are strong enough that you'll feel the full intensity of emotion just by watching and, if you're lucky, interacting with them. And those emotions will run the full gamut of possibility. The venue and scenes are constructed in such a way that you will see and feel everything. You'll find humor, you'll find sadness and joy, you'll be attracted and repulsed, and you'll definitely feel every hair on the back of your neck stand at attention more than once.

It's really a surreal experience. Very shortly after it began, I found myself standing in a hallway, completely alone. It very easily could have been a scene from The Shining, but sustained for the nearly three hours we wandered through the place. My girlfriend and I got separated right at the beginning, and despite crossing paths a couple more times during the course of the evening, we always opted to part ways again and explore on our own. It's a compliment to the atmosphere that they have created in there that even if you came with someone (and you should, so you can talk about it after), you really want to experience this by yourself.

At the end, they reopen the speakeasy to you so you can have a drink (which you'll probably need) and swap stories with other spectators. After talking to my girlfriend and about half a dozen other people, it became very clear that despite technically attending the same show for nearly three hours, we all had wildly different experiences. My girlfriend saw a character I didn't know existed. I saw rooms she never came across. It's remarkable to build something like this and have it really allow for that much repeat attendance. I just went last night, and already I'm dying to go back and find other routes, other rooms and other experiences. I hope I've given you an idea of the show without giving much of anything away, because there's really no replacing going in completely blind and seeing where the show takes you.

Here's the warning - this is very much a show for adults, definitely an R rating. Only adults. Nudity abounds, and there's a number of things that happen that are unquestionably too intense and mature for kids. The Shining reference holds, but you need to add in a little Session 9 or Eyes Wide Shut - and of course some Hitchcock - to really get the idea. It's eerie, it's unnerving, and I'm sure it's a better experience when you don't have to worry about what sort of trauma you might be inflicting on your child.

Right now, it's scheduled to run through the end of the year, but I wouldn't be shocked if it gets extended - it's not like the school will be used for anything else, and I really hope this becomes insanely popular. If you're interested, I've got three pieces of advice: 1) Abandon any preconceived notions you have about the play, the characters, or theater in general; 2) Be ready to go along with anything - the show and the experience will be better for it; and 3) GO.

For tickets, click here. Or go find out more about ART and Punchdrunk.

A side note: I'm completely shocked that I ended up writing this. I've been consistently unimpressed with ART for years. For a long time, they've been the closest thing Boston had to professional avant garde theater, but I've always got the impression they were doing what I said I hate: being weird for the sake of being weird. It was almost like they were expected to do it, so they did it without a legitimate reason. That's not to deride anyone who has worked there in the past, I just... it always felt stuffy, and full of "importance" and "purpose," and none of that appeals to me. This show is full of "feeling" and "emotion," and it's incredible. In my mind, ART is back on the proper road. Their production of David Mamet's Marriage was fantastic, Sleep No More is hands down one of my favorite productions of anything ever, they've got a really cool-sounding version of The Great Gatsby coming next year... I can't remember the last time I was excited about ART. It's cool. Now let's just hope they don't screw it up with Red Sox Nation...

Forgot one!

Can't imagine how I forgot this one, since it probably prompted some of the deeper TV-fuelled discussions this season...

Lie to Me: ... is really, really good. It's probably great. Over the course of the
season it became a show that I watched pretty quickly after airing, though that had a lot to do with the girl liking it a little more than I did. There's a lot of little details and touches that make the show and the cast work really well, and Tim Roth is the ultimate glue that has to hold the show together, and he pulls it off easily. The show's only sticking point is the "science," and not even the conceit of the science - that actually comes off pretty believably, especially in Roth's hands. The show is shot well enough that it accentuates the "micro-expressions" that Roth and his crew are supposedly experts at detecting, to the point that you can easily jump right on top of them and play along, like any good procedural should let you. It's actually in the hands of the cast that the science falters, as though they don't quite believe it themselves. Talking about work gets everyone just a little too stiff, and it doesn't come out quite right in conversation. Maybe it's a lost in translation thing... the rest of the time, the cast is great, and the premise allows a lot of room for expansion, even away from the typical legal procedural fare. I get the impression it was a big success for Fox, so expect them to pour some more money on it over the next couple years. B+

TV On the Brain, Part I

So we're safely through this past TV season, we're safely past upfront presentations, so let's take a little look in both directions to see where we're going and where we've been.

PART I - The Past

FAIR WARNING - I figure enough time has passed that I can talk about the ends of these seasons without fear. If you're waiting on watching something, be aware.

24

Tony "Soulpatch" Almeida's much hyped return - very much hyped, considering ads were running for it when the season was supposed to premiere in early
2008 - played out... OK, I guess. For the show, I'm not entirely sure I like having his whole triple-agent turn be entirely motivated by revenge, though I can see how it makes sense for the character. But they've now left a character alive who serves very little original purpose. To put Tony back into government service is ludicrous. But they've already played the recurring villain card (Nina Myers), and it lasted FAR too long. I was fully expecting Soulpatch's double-agent run, but I sort of thought they'd be keeping him on the favorable side, in case audience reaction demanded an extended, multi-season return - and let's be honest... it wasn't like Carlos Bernard has other plans.

Interesting things done with Jack's character, though, clearly designed to pull him back from some of the over-the-top torture they've put on him in the past. They didn't go quite so far as to condemn the character, but he did an OK job of letting the world know that's how he felt about himself. Kim Bauer's return was good enough, though not great enough to make me want to keep her and the family around (sounds like I'll have to get used to that idea, though). The addition of Renee Walker, though, is the best thing this season had going for it, and apparenlty Renee will factor into the the newly-revitalized CTU that will be protecting NYC next time around.

A good season, not the best (2 or 3), and certainly not the worst (6, and a damn waste of James Cromwell). It's biggest sin is probably being a transition season as they try to rework the show into something new without losing the elements of the show and of Jack Bauer that keep people tuning in. B-

Battlestar Galactica

It took me WEEKS after it aired to watch the final three episodes. They had a lot of questions to answer in the last half of the final season, and most questions they knocked out of the park. The ending could very well have come half an hour earlier, after that kickass space battle. Instead, they dragged the show along for a bit longer, and muddled a lot of the
pleasant finality they had delivered. I understand why - lots of people, and I've no doubt the cast and crew were among them, wanted some closure for these characters. I didn't necessarily need it, and I think it weakened their finale a bit. But holding that up against the rest of the season doesn't do the show justice. The fact is the last ten episodes were held off for longer than was comfortable for a lot of people, and more often than not they gave the payoff that we all needed. A

Big Bang Theory

One of my favorites this year, and probably the only sitcom on TV right now
that can get away with a laugh track. The rhythm works well enough that while the laugh track is going (and cueing those who need it that a funny just happened), the characters get a nice awkward silence that they've really come to play really well in. Most notably this season were Penny and Sheldon, who both got a little more fleshed out as independent characters. Where the first season sort of looked like Leonard's show - so much of it revolved around him pining for Penny, and never really gave anyone else (including her) room for much depth - this season spent time focusing on the other characters, Sheldon specifically. He really came into his own as a driving force for the comedy on the show, and in doing so made an even more important change - he became likable. That'll be a huge boon to the longevity of the show. And I hope it has those legs, because I enjoy the heck out of it. It also has the distinction of the theme being one of the last new original songs put out by the 5-member version of Barenaked Ladies. *sniff* That wins points with me, anyway... A

Burn Notice

I can't really write a full review of this one because I feel like I watched it so long ago... and honestly, I can't remember a ton of what happened. I do remember it was fun, though, and there's definitely a place on TV for that. Jeffrey Donovan annoyed me much less this time around, Bruce Campbell was just as awesome, Gabrielle Anwar was still wonderfully insane, and Tricia Helfer was a fun addition. Season 3 just started, and all I can say is I'm looking forward to more of the same... even if I don't entirely remember what that same is... B

Castle

I dislike police procedurals.
They've all come to look the same to me, and this one is really no different. But I like it. Nathan Fillion is a huge part of that, for what he brings, but what Rich Castle brings to the show (his family) is another big part of my enjoyment. The personal touches with his daughter and mother are always fun, and it adds some depth to the character to show that despite dealing with the gruesome all day long, he goes home and plays laser tag in his apartment with his daughter (meaning: he's a giant kid to compensate). The rest of the cast is really fun too. The cases are not overly unique, but there's gotta be somewhere where these shows run out of steam, right? Nathan Fillion handling cases makes them much more interesting to me anyway. B+

Chuck

Somewhere along the line, Chuck became the show I most enjoyed this season. I enjoyed it a lot last season too, but somewhere in the middle this year it hit a stride that it never quite found in #1. It helps that the
principal cast became as reliable as any team on TV. A huge portion of the show's success (and a huge reason there was such a push to get the show renewed) lies in the hands of Zachary Levy, Adam Baldwin and Yvonne Strahovski. Honorable mentions go to the supporting cast, especially in the second half of the season to Sarah Lancaster and Ryan "Awesome" McPartlin, and to very clever and appropriate guest star casting. What got the show into just the right spot was the ability to balance the big season-wide plot arc with the episode-to-episode stuff that gives the rest of Chuck's world something to do. Without Ellie Bartowski freaking out about her wedding and harassing Chuck about it, the show becomes a pretty standard fish out of water show with a spy coat of paint. His friends and family make it special, and that's what makes it worth watching. I can't wait for next year, but NBC's making me. Jerks. A

Dollhouse

How this survives another year, I'll never know. Dollhouse had a premise much bigger and more promising than they were ever able to deliver. There's no one person or department to blame... the writing was clumsy sometimes (most of the season, most noticeably episode #3, "Stage Fright"), at times a lot of fun (episode #2, "The Target"); the acting was unbearable at times (Eliza Dushku, Tahmon Penikett), but then it sometimes hit its stride (Eliza Dushku, a couple moments with Tahmon Penikett, Harry Lennix, Olivia Williams), espiecally with the supporting cast. It was like they told us the concept and how high it would allow them to go... and then were too afraid to aim that high. I'll admit that I have my doubts about Eliza Dushku being able to carry a show like this on her back, but there were sparks of ability that won't let me write her off. She CAN do it... she just HAS to do it consistently. The ending seemed a little off; it was always clear things were going to circle back around to a confrontation with Alpha, so the twist with Dr. Amy Acker seemed like a band-aid to lend an aha moment. That's not to say it didn't work, just to say that it could have been executed better. In fact, moments that worked but could have been done better is sort of the running theme of the first season... maybe if Joss Whedon gets his hands a little dirtier and guides the show more he can get it into Firefly shape... though those hopes might be a little high. C-

House

Full of all KINDS of fun, all of which congealed into a hard-hitting conclusion that I have to imagine kicked all fans in
the gut. The return Amber, in the form of House's subconscious, certainly made for some interesting moments. The payoff on the House-Cuddy tension was fantastically evil, and drove home the final dramatic moments of the season really well. And then there was Kutner... clearly the story of the season, and played in such a way that has to make you wonder how much time Kal Penn gave them to do some rewrites (if any were necessary). In the episode, Kal Penn's conspicuous absence would lead you to believe that he had sort of pulled this on the writers out of nowhere, but the way it factored into the rest of the season made it clear this was not a quick edit. It will definitely be interesting to see how they handle the first couple episodes of the new season. Now if only we can get rid of Jesse Spencer and Jennifer Morrison. And for god's sake, give Olivia Wild and Peter Jacobson their due with some face time in the credit sequence. A-

The Office

This was the year I finally
broke down and started watching it, and it was at least worth it. It's probably the only show I view as filler at the moment - I typically watch it when I get up some morning, because I don't have a huge need to watch it the day it airs. I also typically save it to watch when I'm by myself, because my girlfriend doesn't like it. It is one of the few shows that is perfectly contained in 22-24 minutes - long enough to string together a coherent plot, but not long enough for the batshot-insane characters to get on your nerves (unless they are supposed to). I tried watching this when it first premiered, and I couldn't stand it. I'm glad it hit its stride, and I'll be keeping it around as a nice during-breakfast time waster. B

Parks and Recreation

Didn't quite get there for me. The Office-style humor was certainly there (on a level of awkwardness that made my girlfriend cringe and refuse to watch it), the characters camea from a similar place, but... the payoff wasn't on
the same level. For one, I found it really, really hard to find Leslie Knope likable. I see the sincerity, and I can appreciate that, but she's got too many quirks built-in to bring out the awkward comedy that I can't quite get past. You can like Michael Scott on The Office and laugh at him in the same moment... Leslie erred too often on the side of pathetic for her to garner the same affection. P&R is also lacking the guy who's in on the joke - it's the reason Jim has become the center of The Office, because he's the man on the inside for the audience. I think that's supposed to be Ann here, but she's a little too sweet and a little too naive to really see through the haze and be able to laugh at the bullshit with us. The supporting cast is fun, but I feel like in trying to find characters who came from the same place as the Dunder-Mifflin crew but aren't copies of them, they lost some human elements that would have made the people more real. I can't say for sure that I'll keep this one on the DVR schedule next year. D

Prison Break

There's nothing like a 5-month hiatus to really kill the flow of a TV show. What ended up being the final season had developed a nice little pattern, and a nice
new format to counteract the trainwreck of ridiculousness that plagued season 3. I've heard more than one person refer to it as some sort of weird A-Team/Dirty Dozen combination, and I was down with that. But when it was put on hiatus after Christmas and then... not taken off hiatus for a couple months, it seemed pretty clear that it was done. When the axe finally came down, it gave a good opportunity for the writers to tie up loose ends that have been hanging for years. And they did well, for the most part. The one I have an issue with is THEODORE BAGWELL NOT BEING DEAD. Seriously, I have no real emotional attachment to many of these characters, so they can kill off all they want to send the series out with a bang, but I thought it was understood that T-Bag had to be at the top of that list. Ah well. The big twist at the end was so obvious that I was pretty sure they would avoid it, but I guess I gave them too much credit. Regardless, it made for a fun watch this year, and was probably the only show other than Chuck that I took care to watch within a day or so of it airing, because crazy and out there though it was, I actually wanted to know what happened next. A-

There's one show missing from this that I watched on a very regular basis: Fringe. I actually haven't finished it yet... I missed recording the first two episodes after the mid-season hiatus, and I haven't sat down to watch them just yet. I'll get to it. I swear.

Next up, I'll take a look at the summer shows (Present), and try to figure out why exactly they got dumped there, and then a look ahead to next season (Future) to see where all this stuff is going, and to see what in the new crop of pilots might claw out an existence on the airwaves. So keep an eye out for those.

Stewart v. Cramer: Jim Cramer gets Crossfire'd

I’m sure that the interspheres, blogoverseses and twitternets have been exploding since Jim Cramer’s Daily Show interview aired 10 hours or so ago. I haven’t looked at any of the responses, because I wanted to put up one of my own.

First off, the interview. Really, if you have any thoughts or concerns about the economic crisis this country is in, you ought to watch this. It’s three parts, and below is the first.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

First things first – Jon Stewart is absolutely right on a great many things here, not the least of which is that it is unfortunate that Cramer is the one taking the brunt of this assault. It – Stewart’s contention that CNBC essentially failed to inform its viewers of an impending economic collapse, thus exacerbating the problem – is not Jim Cramer’s fault. He shares some blame, because he is a commentator on the network – arguably the highest in profile – but the failure rests with everyone at the network. And not just that network. Bloomberg News, Fox Business Channel, the business and economic departments of every major news outlet – they all can take a chunk of the blame. But Cramer is the one who spoke out and engaged Stewart. On the Today show this past Tuesday, March 10th, in response to Meredith Vieira’s question about Stewart’s criticism of CNBC, Cramer said, “A comedian’s attacking me! Wow! He runs a variety show!”

Belittlement like that doesn’t work to discredit Stewart in this case. It actually elevates Stewart to a much more credible level, because the unspoken response from Stewart really ought to be (and was): “Yeah, I’m a comedian. So why the hell am I the only one calling you out on this?” The exchange had already gotten quite a bit of media coverage, and not all of it was sympathetic to CNBC or Cramer himself. Ridiculing the guy calling your spade a spade is never a good idea when that guy is a master of ridicule himself. And now, Cramer had motivated Jon Stewart. And somehow, they convinced Cramer to come on the show.

Seemingly unbeknownst to Cramer, Stewart had found an interview Cramer did with TheStreet.com in 2006. In it, Cramer talks pretty openly about things he did when he managed a hedge fund that bent ethical and legal limits, including stock short selling, where you bet on certain stocks to fail, and how he would manipulate the market in order to manufacture the results he wanted. All this is alarmingly similar to the practices that got us into the current banking mess, and it all begs a simple question, which Stewart pointedly and repeatedly asks… if Jim Cramer knew full well this stuff happens, and that it bends the law to the point of breaking it, why wouldn’t he tell people? More than that, because Cramer makes the point that he does try to expose short selling (which is true), why does he tell people on Mad Money to invest in stocks that are prime targets for this sort of shorting?

Again, this is a lot against Cramer, and that’s not fair. He became the face of this because he was the one who took offense. The issue is that being offended by an accusation is a really hard position to defend if the accuser is correct. Cramer comes up with all kinds of egg on his face for that one. But the larger issue that Stewart keeps trying to get to, with Cramer as Exhibit A, is the culpability of CNBC and other financial news agencies in the financial crisis. The most pressing question, and one that all of these new outlets really need to ask themselves, is who is the intended audience of these shows? It’s a more difficult question than it was five or ten years ago. When CNBC took on its current financial news format in 1989, or even when Bloomberg TV launched in 1994, I would guess that the viewing audience consisted mostly of economic professionals. Now, I don’t think that’s the case. I have friends who got stock portfolios as graduation gifts. Playing the market is becoming a much more common thing, aided in part by mainstream integration – most high school economics classes play a stock market game. Cramer openly said that the format of his show was designed to appeal to a younger audience. The question is if the content of these networks changed from catering to the professionally connected set to helping the broader audience. Stewart criticizes the ads that CNBC runs for Mad Money, calling into question the tagline “In Cramer We Trust.”

And he’s right. If the financial experts (I’d throw that in sarcastic quotes, but they are certainly more qualified for that title than I am) couldn’t catch the warning signs and predict the economic collapse, should we trust them? Even worse if those guys know full well that the positive market situation prior to the collapse wasn’t going to last, but went on TV and told people to play along with it anyway. If they are telling people to invest money in the types of funds and options that allow investment bankers to make this high risk, high reward bets – and a lot of them are former Wall Street-ers, themselves, so they KNOW this is what is going to happen – doesn’t that make them as guilty as the people making the bad gambles?

Cramer doesn’t really have a good answer for anything in the interview. I’d chalk part of it up to being caught off-guard and unprepared – did he really think he was going to go on the show, after everything Stewart said about him and his network, and laugh it all off with Stewart? Doesn’t he ever run into Tucker Carlson at a NBC Nation party and remember what happened on Crossfire in 2004? – but the real problem is that there really are no answers Cramer can give Stewart, especially after clips from the TheStreet.com interview are aired, and Cramer knows it. The guy looks like he’s on the verge of tears about 6 minutes into a 20 minute interview. He keeps trying to bring it back to being goofy and funny and entertaining, something both he and Stewart usually bank on, but Stewart’s not having it. He really takes Cramer to task, and time will tell how and for how long that will hang over Cramer.

What fascinates me about this stuff is the position Stewart is in that allows him to do stuff like this, be taken seriously, and then go back to telling jokes the next day. After his appearance on Crossfire, Stewart opened the next episode of The Daily Show with, “So… how was your weekend?” He made a couple allusions to what had happened, but then went back to jabs at the Bush Administration. A couple months later, CNN announced that Carlson’s contract wouldn’t be renewed, and six months after that, the show was dead. Stewart’s appearance is pretty commonly accepted as the final nail in the Crossfire coffin. Will that happen to Mad Money? I doubt it… Cramer has become the celebrity face for CNBC, and has been very open with criticism toward both the former and current administrations. He’s a very capable front man, and where the problems at CNBC stretch far beyond him, any attempt to replace him would probably be met by the same scrutiny, if not more. But Cramer hurt himself significantly by underestimating Jon Stewart.

Stewart has worked The Daily Show into a very unique position. He can easily argue both sides of the coin – yes, his is a comedy show. Yes, he is a comedian. His famed response to attacks on his journalistic integrity on Crossfire was that the lead-in to The Daily Show was “puppets making prank phone calls.” It provides him a very easy out in the face of criticism, and an accurate one. On the other hand, The Daily Show is, for all intents and purposes, a legitimate news program. They get press passes to all major political events, including both major party conventions this past year. They have become a required appearance for anyone of political influence who feels a need to garner support among the 18-35 crop. And an uneducated look at the Nielsen ratings shows The Daily Show outpacing all of the network nightly newscasts, though that’s debatable – on March 4th, the only day I could find ratings for Stewart’s show, he pulled in 2.11 million viewers. The same week, NBC Nightly News averaged 1.86 million viewers a night (9.3 million for the week split over 5 days), ABC averaged 1.69 million, and CBS averaged 1.29 million. Coincidentally, Mad Money on March 4th pulled in 294,000 viewers.

So Stewart has the audience. But that sphere of influence only extends so far, and he knows it. There’s no telling how many of his viewers are watching the show for news and how many are watching for entertainment only. But based on the Cramer interview, and my own personal opinion… if anyone has the mandate to speak for the best interests and thoughts of this generation (Y, Millennium, whatever it is), it’s Jon Stewart. And in situations like this, people better shut the hell up and listen. What makes Stewart’s position work is that he’ll fully admit that he’s not an expert, that he’s not really a journalist… he’s a guy. A lucky guy who has been granted access to people and ideas that most guys don’t get. He’s like Joe the Plumber for the 18-35 set, except he doesn’t suck. He will be the first to ridicule you for the criticism you’re taking from a comedian. But just because he’s a self-deprecating comedian doesn’t mean he’s wrong. He really seems to be calling it like he sees it.

And if that common-man view dictates that on some subject he needs to turn the comedy off, you know something hit a nerve. Jim Cramer could sit down and have a thousand tearful interviews with every news anchor from a “legitimate” news outlet on Earth, and I doubt that anything would have the impact of Jon Stewart ‘s interview last night. If you’re a financial commentator, or a banker, or economic insider of any kind, and Jon Stewart brings you on Comedy Central, looks you in the eye without a hint of a smile, sarcastic or otherwise, and feels the need to tell you that the economy of the United States “isn’t a fucking game,” you know something has gone horribly awry. And it’s upsetting and alarming that Stewart seems to be the only guy saying it. Everyone else reporting the news should be ashamed and embarrassed that the best friend from the fine Adam Sandler masterpiece Big Daddy beat them to the punch on this one.

But at the same time, more power to Stewart. He’s really embraced how his role has evolved, and I suspect that he had a strong hand in deliberately crafting that role after taking over the show from Craig Kilborn in 1999. Indecision 2000 was the real launching point for the show as it currently exists, and his coverage of every major political story since then has only strengthened the show and his legitimate claim as the voice and messenger of this generation.

Taken

Yeah, yeah, it's been a long time. I suck. Get over it.

Taken

* * * * * (out of five)

Assuming that people like some complexity, Taken might be a hard sell. It just doesn’t mess around with any of that. It’s a thriller. It knows it, you know it twenty minutes in, and you never forget it until the very last second. Frankly, there’s not a lot of character here. There’s not a lot of background. There’s not a lot of relationship development. And honestly, there’s not a lot of moral consideration, all of which might turn some people off. But if you walk into this movie looking for a good time without any needless complications, you’ll walk out satisfied. 

Liam Neeson, who owns the movie every single second he’s in frame (and there are very few Liam-less frames in the whole 90 minutes), plays Bryan Mills. There are really only three things you need to know about Bryan. A) He used to work as some sort of covert ops agent for the US government, a job at which he was very good, B) he is extremely meticulous and detail-oriented, and C) he loves his daughter, Kim, but didn’t get to spend much time with her growing up because of work. All of these points are bluntly established within the first twenty minutes.

After some exposition establishing tension between Bryan and his ex-wife (Famke Janssen), who now lives a much better life with her new, rich and present husband, Kim (Maggie Grace) asks her parents for permission to spend a summer in Paris with a friend. Bryan is skeptical, something that initially reads as overprotective, but it’s sort of understandable – without details, it is established that he has seen much more bad in the world than most people, and wants to shield his daughter from that if possible. But eventually he relents, with a number of seemingly-controlling conditions, and off she goes. Naturally, everything that could go wrong does go wrong within a matter of hours, and Bryan flies to Paris with a presumed 96-hour window to find his daughter before the trail runs cold.

Liam Neeson is not a guy you look at and immediately think “action hero,” but he doesn’t have to be, because this is not that kind of movie. Bryan isn’t a hero. He’s not even trying to be a hero. Bryan is dangerous, and Bryan has a goal. He knows exactly of what he is capable, and as far as we know there is no line he won’t cross in order to attain his goal. Compared to most other lead characters, this could very well come off as a flat character, because he doesn’t demonstrate many of the humanizing qualities we’ve come to need from action heroes in order to justify their actions. Difficult decisions, especially those that might result in violence, pain or death, are typically given heavy consideration. This is not a concern for Bryan Mills. It’s not that he’s sadistic – at no point does he enjoy what is does. It’s not even that he’s immoral. It’s all about priority, and in his case, doing what he needs to do to find his daughter outranks any moral consideration he might otherwise have.

There’s the potential for commentary about Bryan’s life in the times leading up to or following this particular moment – what training made him this way, if he comes to regret his actions, etc. – but while those might be interesting ideas to explore, they aren’t this moment. For that, credit writers Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen. Most of their scripts are action-based, but this sort of stripped-down single serving is relatively new for them (see Banlieue 13). They focus so completely on one situation, they’re able to really perfect the telling of this story, this moment, without other side plots getting in the way. The film is a straight line, from abduction to the end, and it is tense for the entire run. It’s really beautiful in its simplicity – sidetracks would have required more time to explain, and almost certainly would have lost the momentum of the main story.

Neeson’s not going to win any awards for this one, but I doubt there was any intention of that going in. This is a film about a man unleashed, and Neeson handles both extremes flawlessly. His stillness and quiet is often impressive, and nearly as frightening as his very, very violent outbursts, because to this guy, those are both means to the same end, equal tools for the same job. It’s Neeson that makes Bryan Mills dangerous, not his training or ability. But at the same time, it’s Neeson’s early sincerity in his love for Kim that justifies for the audience his actions later on, even though there’s absolutely a vindictive edge to some of the violence. Neeson’s total commitment to the black and white nature of what he’s doing sells that not only is Bryan doing what he must, but the bastards had it coming. There’s a recurring idea of focus that Bryan keeps coming back to – he exhibits it in everything he does, and he reminds everyone with whom he has contact of its importance. That idea really wraps up what Neeson brings to this part – a tunnel vision-esque focus that sets the pace and the mood for everyone else who has the pleasure or misfortune of being in Bryan Mills’s life.

The only issue with the film for me was the directing, car chases in particular. It’s a long-held complaint that didn’t get any better here… the best way to sell action and suspense in fistfights, in car chases and in tense scenes is to show us what the hell is going on. Showing Bryan’s car swerving in and out of oncoming traffic, hearing and feeling near miss after near miss, with the occasional look at Bryan’s reactions, will be much more tense than fraction of a second cuts that just end up being spatially confusing. I understand that the idea is to get a frenetic, stressful blood boil, but it doesn’t work for me. It’s stressful, but only because I get frustrated when I can’t see what’s going on. Anyone who wants to put a car chase in their movie ought to be forced to watch Tarantino’s Death Proof and take notes.

Other than that, Pierre Morel does just as well here as he did in Banlieue 13. He knows the story Besson is trying to tell, and knows the best thing he can do is stay out of the way. Besson and Kamen are working through Neeson to create this guy’s life and Morel is there to put it on film. He does well enough, but no one is exactly making it hard on him.

Neeson and a tight-as-hell script are the reasons to see this one. Why it got dumped in a crap slot like the end of January, I’ll never know. It’s much better than that. But it sure was a nice distraction from the cold. Appreciate it while you can.

Also up on eFilmCritic.