If any one of the following hurricanes was headed my way, I’d pull up a lawn chair and fly a kite:
Alfie
Babs
Cletus
Dick
Enos
Fredo
Gomer
Hymie
Izzy
Jesus
Kelly
Lily
Mo
Norm
Opie
Prudence
Quigley
Ricky
Sissy
Timmy
Ulva
Vivien
Wally
X – (Sorry, I'm afraid of any hurricane starting with an X.)
Yogi
Zippie
If any one of THESE hurricanes was headed my way, I’d make out a will:
Attila
Barnabus
Constantine
Diablo
Euclid
Fidel
Guido
Hannibal
Ichabod
Judas
Karma
Lucius
Misery
Nero
Oswald
Pandora
Quentin
Rory
Sonny
Trinity
Ulysses
Vlad
Willard
X (See above.)
Yuma
Zachariah
BILL
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Friday, August 1, 2008
NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander
Finding ice I would have predicted; the liquor however surprised me.
BILL
BILL
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
When in doubt..
… use “I would, but I’m too cheap and lazy” as an excuse. Not only does this handily cover a broad number of scenarios, but is thoroughly believable, serving also as the “preemptive strike” of excuses, rendering one invulnerable to nearly all rejoinders.
BILL
BILL
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
ESSAY: Of Torture (Excuse Me, I Meant "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques")
The other day, I asked my six-year old son why he loves America. He responded thusly: "Because we torture." OK, I'm lying. I don't have a son, but I thought it best to start out with a bang.
But if you were to ask a six-year old child why he or she loves America, would you not be taken aback even slightly if the response was: "Because we torture?" Yes, from the mouths of babes, even a fool can discern that torture, and all it represents, rings out as ghastly, barbaric, and an unquestionable violation to the conscience of a civilized people.
To defend this sentiment, I hereby assert the following:
Rule #1: If you have to rename it in order to clean it up a bit, it's wrong. Don't believe me? Try these on for size. "Genocide." Good gosh, it even sounds nasty. What say we use "ethnic cleansing" instead? After all "ethnic" is good, right? Think "multicultural." Better yet "cuisine." And "cleansing?" Who but a slob would object? So "ethnic cleansing" it is!
I'm certain "forced prostitution" conjured up all things sordid in the minds of the Japanese military during World War II. "Let's call them 'comfort women' instead" was their likely reply. Ahhhhh, "comfort." Isn't that so much nicer? Cozy, in fact.
Let's try "final solution" shall we, in honor of the Nazis? "Solutions" are always great, are they not? And a "final" one? Even better! No more being mired in "What to do? What to do?"
Which, of course, leads us to "torture." Why, I get shivers up my spine just thinking about it, smacking as it does of barbarism. Let's call it "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead, shall we? "Enhancements" are always good, right? Whether of the pen*ile variety or what have you. "Interrogation?" Hey, we're just seeking the truth here, are we not? And as for "technique?" Be honest now. Doesn’t the term itself evoke images of the most highly skilled artisan? Who could argue against that? "Enhanced interrogation techniques" it shall be!
Rule #2: Torture is, how shall I put this, not very Christian. File this one under "Duh," unless of course I somehow misheard my childhood Catholic teachings about "turning the other cheek" and "loving one's enemies." Am I wrong here? Was I asleep during catechism, thus missing the part where the flock of wide-eyed innocents nestled at the knee of Jesus were regaled by the Son of God as to the virtues of water-boarding or stripping one's enemies naked and piling them into fleshy photo-op pyramids? Maybe I am wrong about this. Seriously, correct me if I am.
Rule #3: Barbarism begets barbarism. If you care about American soldiers, truly care about them, ask yourself this question. Which scenario imperils U.S. forces more should they be captured by our enemies: one where their captors know THEIR fellow soldiers have not been mistreated by U.S. forces or one where they know they have been? Simplifying it even further: who would you yourself (hypothetically of course...) lean toward torturing: someone who treated you decently while you were held at their absolute mercy or someone who took every opportunity to brutalize you, oftentimes solely to amuse themselves? The answer should be clear.
Rule #4: The "ticking bomb scenario" is born of fear and fear alone, shaming the "home of the brave." Far too often, this limp hypothetical is tossed out as if somehow it represents reality as we know it when it should be readily recognized for what it truly is: the frightened conjurings of someone watching far too many episodes of "24." For starters, has the ticking bomb scenario ever once occurred in our nation's history? Have we ever once been faced with a situation wherein we know we have only so much time before the ticking (dirty? nuclear?) bomb explodes, thus requiring us to torture the apprehended scoundrel who (and here's the really laughable part) has, in true Snidely Whiplash fashion, readily acknowledged a bomb plot already underway, thus inviting himself to be tortured in order so that we might learn both when the bomb is set to explode in addition to its location? The entire situation is too ludicrous to even warrant serious discussion.
Rule #5: If anything qualifies as unforgivable, torture might well be it. I have seen footage of sailors who survived the bombing of Pearl Harbor making peace with the former Japanese pilots who dropped the very bombs upon them, killing their shipmates. Why do they do it, you ask? Because they know that the very nature of war is to kill your enemy. It is, dare I say, a soldier's duty? They understand that they, too, would have dropped bombs on the Japanese if given the chance. (I can recall two rather large ones offhand.…) Yet, I have seen December 7th anniversary programs wherein survivors of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (granted, not all of them and probably not the majority) have made peace with their onetime enemy. Now ask yourself this: do you think the poor fellow who has been tortured is, assuming he survives, going to be in a "forgiving mood?" I think not. In fact, his GRANDchildren won't be in a forgiving mood! And on this one you can bet the proverbial farm, if you're not sure an "enemy combatant" is a terrorist and you torture him to find out, guess what? If he wasn't a terrorist bent on America's destruction before you started, I assure you he is now. Congratulations! In your "war on terror" you've just created that which you fear most: a terrorist!
Rule #6: It is fallacious reasoning to assert that torture is warranted when done "to protect America." Why? The answer is found in the premise itself. "To protect America." And what exactly is America? It is, I assure you, much more than a land mass between Maine and California. It is a set of ideals -- one of them not being the most inhuman of acts, i.e. torturing another person -- fought and died for by generations past, all of whom have their memory urinated upon every time one claims that torture is in the best interest of a presumably civilized nation.
In the end, the argument by certain powers-that-be that they are engaging in torture -- excuse me, "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- to protect Americans should be met with the following reply by anyone clinging to even the most jaded sense of decency: "Stop. As a brave American, I'll take my chances."
BILL
But if you were to ask a six-year old child why he or she loves America, would you not be taken aback even slightly if the response was: "Because we torture?" Yes, from the mouths of babes, even a fool can discern that torture, and all it represents, rings out as ghastly, barbaric, and an unquestionable violation to the conscience of a civilized people.
To defend this sentiment, I hereby assert the following:
Rule #1: If you have to rename it in order to clean it up a bit, it's wrong. Don't believe me? Try these on for size. "Genocide." Good gosh, it even sounds nasty. What say we use "ethnic cleansing" instead? After all "ethnic" is good, right? Think "multicultural." Better yet "cuisine." And "cleansing?" Who but a slob would object? So "ethnic cleansing" it is!
I'm certain "forced prostitution" conjured up all things sordid in the minds of the Japanese military during World War II. "Let's call them 'comfort women' instead" was their likely reply. Ahhhhh, "comfort." Isn't that so much nicer? Cozy, in fact.
Let's try "final solution" shall we, in honor of the Nazis? "Solutions" are always great, are they not? And a "final" one? Even better! No more being mired in "What to do? What to do?"
Which, of course, leads us to "torture." Why, I get shivers up my spine just thinking about it, smacking as it does of barbarism. Let's call it "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead, shall we? "Enhancements" are always good, right? Whether of the pen*ile variety or what have you. "Interrogation?" Hey, we're just seeking the truth here, are we not? And as for "technique?" Be honest now. Doesn’t the term itself evoke images of the most highly skilled artisan? Who could argue against that? "Enhanced interrogation techniques" it shall be!
Rule #2: Torture is, how shall I put this, not very Christian. File this one under "Duh," unless of course I somehow misheard my childhood Catholic teachings about "turning the other cheek" and "loving one's enemies." Am I wrong here? Was I asleep during catechism, thus missing the part where the flock of wide-eyed innocents nestled at the knee of Jesus were regaled by the Son of God as to the virtues of water-boarding or stripping one's enemies naked and piling them into fleshy photo-op pyramids? Maybe I am wrong about this. Seriously, correct me if I am.
Rule #3: Barbarism begets barbarism. If you care about American soldiers, truly care about them, ask yourself this question. Which scenario imperils U.S. forces more should they be captured by our enemies: one where their captors know THEIR fellow soldiers have not been mistreated by U.S. forces or one where they know they have been? Simplifying it even further: who would you yourself (hypothetically of course...) lean toward torturing: someone who treated you decently while you were held at their absolute mercy or someone who took every opportunity to brutalize you, oftentimes solely to amuse themselves? The answer should be clear.
Rule #4: The "ticking bomb scenario" is born of fear and fear alone, shaming the "home of the brave." Far too often, this limp hypothetical is tossed out as if somehow it represents reality as we know it when it should be readily recognized for what it truly is: the frightened conjurings of someone watching far too many episodes of "24." For starters, has the ticking bomb scenario ever once occurred in our nation's history? Have we ever once been faced with a situation wherein we know we have only so much time before the ticking (dirty? nuclear?) bomb explodes, thus requiring us to torture the apprehended scoundrel who (and here's the really laughable part) has, in true Snidely Whiplash fashion, readily acknowledged a bomb plot already underway, thus inviting himself to be tortured in order so that we might learn both when the bomb is set to explode in addition to its location? The entire situation is too ludicrous to even warrant serious discussion.
Rule #5: If anything qualifies as unforgivable, torture might well be it. I have seen footage of sailors who survived the bombing of Pearl Harbor making peace with the former Japanese pilots who dropped the very bombs upon them, killing their shipmates. Why do they do it, you ask? Because they know that the very nature of war is to kill your enemy. It is, dare I say, a soldier's duty? They understand that they, too, would have dropped bombs on the Japanese if given the chance. (I can recall two rather large ones offhand.…) Yet, I have seen December 7th anniversary programs wherein survivors of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (granted, not all of them and probably not the majority) have made peace with their onetime enemy. Now ask yourself this: do you think the poor fellow who has been tortured is, assuming he survives, going to be in a "forgiving mood?" I think not. In fact, his GRANDchildren won't be in a forgiving mood! And on this one you can bet the proverbial farm, if you're not sure an "enemy combatant" is a terrorist and you torture him to find out, guess what? If he wasn't a terrorist bent on America's destruction before you started, I assure you he is now. Congratulations! In your "war on terror" you've just created that which you fear most: a terrorist!
Rule #6: It is fallacious reasoning to assert that torture is warranted when done "to protect America." Why? The answer is found in the premise itself. "To protect America." And what exactly is America? It is, I assure you, much more than a land mass between Maine and California. It is a set of ideals -- one of them not being the most inhuman of acts, i.e. torturing another person -- fought and died for by generations past, all of whom have their memory urinated upon every time one claims that torture is in the best interest of a presumably civilized nation.
In the end, the argument by certain powers-that-be that they are engaging in torture -- excuse me, "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- to protect Americans should be met with the following reply by anyone clinging to even the most jaded sense of decency: "Stop. As a brave American, I'll take my chances."
BILL
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
New Rule (with apologies to Bill Maher)
New Rule: Let’s finally admit it. Man has no clue how to build a safe and reliable crane. Just today, in Miami another came tumbling down as if it’s metal were a junkie clamoring for its Viagra fix. The end result? Killing two and maiming four, the “center of gravity” concept proving ever elusive to the cabal of geniuses bent on designing these things that should now officially be renamed “Lohans.”
Why, if cranes keep crashing down upon us I’m going to start confusing them with my 401(k).
Perhaps it’s all semantics and those who design these things have evidently confused the old phrase “bend not break” with “bend then break.”
Now I attended a technological university and while I gained no diploma there I did do my fair share of vomiting. And even then, awash in liquor-addled befuddlement, I remained keenly aware that you just don’t test the strength of metal beanpoles by asking them to lift something like, oh I don’t know, five ton steel bars. It’s like asking Paris Hilton to remove a manhole cover. Sorry, bad example.
I would wager money that if you pointed out a crane to a six-year old and said, “Now Tommy, see what they’re going to do there? They’re going to lift those thirty sheets of ten by ten exterior glass alllllllllllll the way up to the tenth floor.” Little Tommy would respond “It’ll break Daddy.” To which I would respond “I’m not your Daddy. Your mother and I are just friends.”
I know what you’re thinking. “You’re good at pointing out a problem, Bill, but do you have solution?” Three words that never seem to have troubled the Amish: “rope and pulley.”
BILL
Why, if cranes keep crashing down upon us I’m going to start confusing them with my 401(k).
Perhaps it’s all semantics and those who design these things have evidently confused the old phrase “bend not break” with “bend then break.”
Now I attended a technological university and while I gained no diploma there I did do my fair share of vomiting. And even then, awash in liquor-addled befuddlement, I remained keenly aware that you just don’t test the strength of metal beanpoles by asking them to lift something like, oh I don’t know, five ton steel bars. It’s like asking Paris Hilton to remove a manhole cover. Sorry, bad example.
I would wager money that if you pointed out a crane to a six-year old and said, “Now Tommy, see what they’re going to do there? They’re going to lift those thirty sheets of ten by ten exterior glass alllllllllllll the way up to the tenth floor.” Little Tommy would respond “It’ll break Daddy.” To which I would respond “I’m not your Daddy. Your mother and I are just friends.”
I know what you’re thinking. “You’re good at pointing out a problem, Bill, but do you have solution?” Three words that never seem to have troubled the Amish: “rope and pulley.”
BILL
Friday, June 30, 2006
ESSAY: You Don't Know Jack
At what point does trend become infestation? This I ask because by now I've seen and heard enough. I cannot take any more movies with characters named John or, even worse, Jack. It's become a god-awful plague and, like Howard Beale -- "Jack" Beale if the screenplay were written today -- in "Network" I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! OK, maybe I'm not mad, but by now my Jack/John bubble is about to burst.
I don't know when this began for me. Perhaps with the first "Die Hard" movie back in 1988. Bruce Willis' character being named John McClane. I didn't set out to notice it. It reared its head and hollered and I just happened to have ears and eyes. I've whined about it for years now and a good friend -- a screenwriter who, by the way, has never named any of his characters "Jack" -- has been prodding me to vent my frustrations to my heart's content. Honestly, I'd been putting it off until a few months back when, while inside the AMC Theatre lobby here in Los Angeles, I found myself standing next to the cardboard cut out ad for "Four Brothers." The ad ran more-or-less as follows:
"Tyrese Gibson is Angel Mercer. Andre Benjamin is Jeremiah Mercer." OK, by now, I'm already thinking to myself "Well, there's gotta be a Jack in here somewhere." And sure enough: the print ad didn't let me down… "Mark Wahlberg is Bobby Mercer. Garrett Hedland is Jack Mercer." Yes!!! The pattern holds. Pattern you ask? Using the Internet Movie Database as my guide, I surfed around to back up what had merely been years of anecdotal memories, and the results were staggering.
Most all of the big name male actors, box office champs among them, have on many occasions played characters named John or Jack. Not to bore you with numbers, but here we go. The following actors have played Johns (Johnny in some instances) or Jacks this number of times (and for the record I am excluding sequels):
Ethan Hawke 2, Sean Connery 7, Arnold Schwarzenegger 4, Johnny Depp 2, Robin Williams 5, Michael Douglas 1, Patrick Swayze 4, Richard Gere 4, Robert DeNiro 4, Sylvester Stallone 4, John Travolta 3, Russell Crowe 5, Andy Garcia 3, Bruce Willis 3, Nicolas Cage 5, Jack Nicholson 4, Al Pacino 4, Dustin Hoffman 2, Nick Nolte 2, Jon Voight 3, Robert Redford 4, Burt Reynolds 5, Paul Newman 3, William Hurt 3, Samuel L. Jackson 3, Benicio Del Toro 2, Denzel Washington 2, Daniel Day-Lewis 5, Gene Hackman 5, Jeff Goldblum 3, Bill Murray 3, Anthony Hopkins 7, Kevin Spacey 3, John Cusack 5, and Clint Eastwood 4. Heck, even John Malkovich played someone named John in, well, you know the movie.
Here's my personal favorite, however, and let me state right off that Jeff Bridges is one of my favorite actors so I am not picking on him. Who am I blaming? Well, we'll get to that… Ready? Here we go with the year, the movie, and Jeff Bridges' character 's name:
1960 "Silent Night," Lonely Night" - Young John
1973 "Rancho Deluxe" - Jack McKee
1976 "King Kong" - Jack Prescott
1980 "Heaven's Gate" - John L. Bridges
1985 "Jagged Edge" - Jack Forrester
1989 "The Fabulous Baker Boys" - Jack Baker
1991 "The Fisher King" - Jack
1992 "American Heart" - Jack Kelson
1999 "The Muse" - Jack Warrick
2000 "The Contender" - President Jackson Evans
Seriously, this John/Jack trend is as dangerous as a Dove Bar coupon and has only gotten worse over time. For example, Jack Lemmon spent thirty years acting without ever once playing a John or Jack before he, too, jumped on the bandwagon with:
1979 "The China Syndrome" - Jack Godell
1988 "The Murder of Mary Phagan" - Gov. John Slagan
1989 "Dad" - Jack Tremont
1991 "JFK" - Jack Martin
1993 "Grumpy Old Men" - John Gustafson
1995 "Grumpier Old Men" - John Gustafson
In the last decade alone, George Clooney has played a character named Jack three times. Impressed? Don't be, Ben Affleck pulled it off in only six.
Prefer statistics? Since the millennium began, Adrien Brody has played a character named Jack three separate times. Put another way, in his last eight movies, Adrien has been Jack three times. This is a "Jack Batting Average" -- a JBA if you will -- of .375. Truly Hall of Fame numbers. Try doing this with a relatively common name like Jeff and see how well you do.
In a fourteen year span, Dennis Quaid played a Jack four times. As did Kevin Bacon. Gabriel Byrne did it in only ten years. I could go on but you get the point.
How about Harrison Ford? Three times he has played a character named Jack. Four, if you include the sequel to "Patriot Games." And let's face it, I'd bet money that a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Han" was the "Jack" of his day.
Play this with any actor, see how it comes out. Let's try Keanu Reeves:
1991 "Point Break" - Johnny Utah
1992 "Dracula" - Jonathan Harker
1993 "Much Ado About Nothing" - Don John
1994 "Speed" - Jack Traven
1995 "Johnny Mnemonic" - Johnny Mnemonic
1996 "Feeling Minnesota" - Jack Clayton
2005 "Constantine" - John Constantine
2007 "Stompanato" - Johnny Stompanato
Steven Seagal, in only sixteen years, hit the "Jackpot" three times:
1990 "Marked for Death" - John Hatcher
1996 "The Glimmer Man" - Jack Cole
1997 "Fire Down Below" - Jack Taggart
2004 "Clementine" - Jack Miller
2005 "Black Dawn" - Jonathan Cold
2006 "Mercenary for Justice" - John Seeger
So what's up with this? Are we talking lazy, unimaginative screenwriters? Or "creative" studio execs sending notes saying that they're lukewarm to the idea of the character Matt Keller, the plays-by-his-own-rules homicide detective. But somehow "Jack" Keller, seems to strike their fancy. Seriously, why do we have so many movie characters named John or Jack?
Let's analyze it. John is a common name and I'm much more tolerant of its prevalence than I am with Jack. Hell, my own brother is named John, as is the Uncle who he's named after. At my place of work, for example, there are 98 males, eight of whom are named John. There are no Jacks. Nor do any of these Johns GO by the name of "Jack." And while this is by no means a representative sample, ask yourself this: How many men do you know who are actually named John? I'll wager quite a few. Then ask yourself this: how many Jacks do you know? Not that many, right?
If we look to our leaders as a guide, it certainly seems that the influence of John F. "Jack" Kennedy utterly decimated the ranks of the Millards, Calvins, Chesters, and Zacharys, not to mention Rutherfords when it comes to naming characters.
Still don't believe me? As I type these very words, there are three, count 'em, THREE movies playing at a theatre near you with a lead character named Jack: "Brokeback Mountain," "Firewall", "16 Blocks." (Why in every movie playing in America right now, I'll bet there is not a single male character, lead, supporting, or extra named Rutherford.)
Theory two: Jack Nicholson. Let's be blunt: the man is the very paradigm of male cool and nine times out of ten screenwriters are attempting to create a masculine character who, in the end, is "cool." I mean, Jack Nicholson is so cool he can actually play a character named, of all things, Melvin in "As Good As It Gets" and win an Oscar doing it!
Now, why is all this significant? Well, it's not really and to a large extent I'm merely venting, but my gripe has always been that naming your character something as bland as John or ineptly flair-laden as "Jack" is the first tangible proof of lazy writing. And what does lazy writing breed? Certainly not originality and hardly quality. Want proof? Despite a veritable plague of Jacks through the long history of movies, no Best Actor award has ever gone to a character named Jack. Nor has any movie ever won a Best Picture Oscar with a lead character named Jack, "Titanic" being the lone exception, with Leonardo DiCaprio playing Jack Dawson. "Titanic," however -- which I loved by the way -- is the Tiger Woods of movies to which no others can compare and the exception that proves the rule. Besides, I'm sorry, James Cameron could have named Leo's character Adolf and it still would have won Best Picture and raked in millions.
Only one film ("Dances With Wolves") has won a Best Picture Oscar with a lead character named John. (I am excluding "A Beautiful Mind" since this was about a real-life character, John Nash, played by Russell Crowe.)
If you still don't believe me, try this icon on for size. And, by the way, this is not, repeat NOT, a typo: John Wayne, "The Duke" himself, played a character named John forty (40) times! And a Jack twice! But despite all that, he finally won his only Best Actor Oscar playing a character named (drum roll please…) "Rooster."
So what's the bottom line you ask, since that's all that Hollywood really cares about anyway? Succinctly stated: If you want to sell your screenplay, name your lead character Jack. If you want an Oscar, don't.
I don't know when this began for me. Perhaps with the first "Die Hard" movie back in 1988. Bruce Willis' character being named John McClane. I didn't set out to notice it. It reared its head and hollered and I just happened to have ears and eyes. I've whined about it for years now and a good friend -- a screenwriter who, by the way, has never named any of his characters "Jack" -- has been prodding me to vent my frustrations to my heart's content. Honestly, I'd been putting it off until a few months back when, while inside the AMC Theatre lobby here in Los Angeles, I found myself standing next to the cardboard cut out ad for "Four Brothers." The ad ran more-or-less as follows:
"Tyrese Gibson is Angel Mercer. Andre Benjamin is Jeremiah Mercer." OK, by now, I'm already thinking to myself "Well, there's gotta be a Jack in here somewhere." And sure enough: the print ad didn't let me down… "Mark Wahlberg is Bobby Mercer. Garrett Hedland is Jack Mercer." Yes!!! The pattern holds. Pattern you ask? Using the Internet Movie Database as my guide, I surfed around to back up what had merely been years of anecdotal memories, and the results were staggering.
Most all of the big name male actors, box office champs among them, have on many occasions played characters named John or Jack. Not to bore you with numbers, but here we go. The following actors have played Johns (Johnny in some instances) or Jacks this number of times (and for the record I am excluding sequels):
Ethan Hawke 2, Sean Connery 7, Arnold Schwarzenegger 4, Johnny Depp 2, Robin Williams 5, Michael Douglas 1, Patrick Swayze 4, Richard Gere 4, Robert DeNiro 4, Sylvester Stallone 4, John Travolta 3, Russell Crowe 5, Andy Garcia 3, Bruce Willis 3, Nicolas Cage 5, Jack Nicholson 4, Al Pacino 4, Dustin Hoffman 2, Nick Nolte 2, Jon Voight 3, Robert Redford 4, Burt Reynolds 5, Paul Newman 3, William Hurt 3, Samuel L. Jackson 3, Benicio Del Toro 2, Denzel Washington 2, Daniel Day-Lewis 5, Gene Hackman 5, Jeff Goldblum 3, Bill Murray 3, Anthony Hopkins 7, Kevin Spacey 3, John Cusack 5, and Clint Eastwood 4. Heck, even John Malkovich played someone named John in, well, you know the movie.
Here's my personal favorite, however, and let me state right off that Jeff Bridges is one of my favorite actors so I am not picking on him. Who am I blaming? Well, we'll get to that… Ready? Here we go with the year, the movie, and Jeff Bridges' character 's name:
1960 "Silent Night," Lonely Night" - Young John
1973 "Rancho Deluxe" - Jack McKee
1976 "King Kong" - Jack Prescott
1980 "Heaven's Gate" - John L. Bridges
1985 "Jagged Edge" - Jack Forrester
1989 "The Fabulous Baker Boys" - Jack Baker
1991 "The Fisher King" - Jack
1992 "American Heart" - Jack Kelson
1999 "The Muse" - Jack Warrick
2000 "The Contender" - President Jackson Evans
Seriously, this John/Jack trend is as dangerous as a Dove Bar coupon and has only gotten worse over time. For example, Jack Lemmon spent thirty years acting without ever once playing a John or Jack before he, too, jumped on the bandwagon with:
1979 "The China Syndrome" - Jack Godell
1988 "The Murder of Mary Phagan" - Gov. John Slagan
1989 "Dad" - Jack Tremont
1991 "JFK" - Jack Martin
1993 "Grumpy Old Men" - John Gustafson
1995 "Grumpier Old Men" - John Gustafson
In the last decade alone, George Clooney has played a character named Jack three times. Impressed? Don't be, Ben Affleck pulled it off in only six.
Prefer statistics? Since the millennium began, Adrien Brody has played a character named Jack three separate times. Put another way, in his last eight movies, Adrien has been Jack three times. This is a "Jack Batting Average" -- a JBA if you will -- of .375. Truly Hall of Fame numbers. Try doing this with a relatively common name like Jeff and see how well you do.
In a fourteen year span, Dennis Quaid played a Jack four times. As did Kevin Bacon. Gabriel Byrne did it in only ten years. I could go on but you get the point.
How about Harrison Ford? Three times he has played a character named Jack. Four, if you include the sequel to "Patriot Games." And let's face it, I'd bet money that a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Han" was the "Jack" of his day.
Play this with any actor, see how it comes out. Let's try Keanu Reeves:
1991 "Point Break" - Johnny Utah
1992 "Dracula" - Jonathan Harker
1993 "Much Ado About Nothing" - Don John
1994 "Speed" - Jack Traven
1995 "Johnny Mnemonic" - Johnny Mnemonic
1996 "Feeling Minnesota" - Jack Clayton
2005 "Constantine" - John Constantine
2007 "Stompanato" - Johnny Stompanato
Steven Seagal, in only sixteen years, hit the "Jackpot" three times:
1990 "Marked for Death" - John Hatcher
1996 "The Glimmer Man" - Jack Cole
1997 "Fire Down Below" - Jack Taggart
2004 "Clementine" - Jack Miller
2005 "Black Dawn" - Jonathan Cold
2006 "Mercenary for Justice" - John Seeger
So what's up with this? Are we talking lazy, unimaginative screenwriters? Or "creative" studio execs sending notes saying that they're lukewarm to the idea of the character Matt Keller, the plays-by-his-own-rules homicide detective. But somehow "Jack" Keller, seems to strike their fancy. Seriously, why do we have so many movie characters named John or Jack?
Let's analyze it. John is a common name and I'm much more tolerant of its prevalence than I am with Jack. Hell, my own brother is named John, as is the Uncle who he's named after. At my place of work, for example, there are 98 males, eight of whom are named John. There are no Jacks. Nor do any of these Johns GO by the name of "Jack." And while this is by no means a representative sample, ask yourself this: How many men do you know who are actually named John? I'll wager quite a few. Then ask yourself this: how many Jacks do you know? Not that many, right?
If we look to our leaders as a guide, it certainly seems that the influence of John F. "Jack" Kennedy utterly decimated the ranks of the Millards, Calvins, Chesters, and Zacharys, not to mention Rutherfords when it comes to naming characters.
Still don't believe me? As I type these very words, there are three, count 'em, THREE movies playing at a theatre near you with a lead character named Jack: "Brokeback Mountain," "Firewall", "16 Blocks." (Why in every movie playing in America right now, I'll bet there is not a single male character, lead, supporting, or extra named Rutherford.)
Theory two: Jack Nicholson. Let's be blunt: the man is the very paradigm of male cool and nine times out of ten screenwriters are attempting to create a masculine character who, in the end, is "cool." I mean, Jack Nicholson is so cool he can actually play a character named, of all things, Melvin in "As Good As It Gets" and win an Oscar doing it!
Now, why is all this significant? Well, it's not really and to a large extent I'm merely venting, but my gripe has always been that naming your character something as bland as John or ineptly flair-laden as "Jack" is the first tangible proof of lazy writing. And what does lazy writing breed? Certainly not originality and hardly quality. Want proof? Despite a veritable plague of Jacks through the long history of movies, no Best Actor award has ever gone to a character named Jack. Nor has any movie ever won a Best Picture Oscar with a lead character named Jack, "Titanic" being the lone exception, with Leonardo DiCaprio playing Jack Dawson. "Titanic," however -- which I loved by the way -- is the Tiger Woods of movies to which no others can compare and the exception that proves the rule. Besides, I'm sorry, James Cameron could have named Leo's character Adolf and it still would have won Best Picture and raked in millions.
Only one film ("Dances With Wolves") has won a Best Picture Oscar with a lead character named John. (I am excluding "A Beautiful Mind" since this was about a real-life character, John Nash, played by Russell Crowe.)
If you still don't believe me, try this icon on for size. And, by the way, this is not, repeat NOT, a typo: John Wayne, "The Duke" himself, played a character named John forty (40) times! And a Jack twice! But despite all that, he finally won his only Best Actor Oscar playing a character named (drum roll please…) "Rooster."
So what's the bottom line you ask, since that's all that Hollywood really cares about anyway? Succinctly stated: If you want to sell your screenplay, name your lead character Jack. If you want an Oscar, don't.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Bill's New Exercise Program!
I call it "Pontius Pilates." Whenever I feel the urge to exercise, I send a man to his death and it works out all my aggression. Good Christ, it works!!
BILL
BILL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)