So I've been away for a while, but after watching the Sunday night NFL game this evening, and the Dallas Cowboys over the past several seasons, I had to vent about a point I have made to friends for a few years now - Jason Garrett is not only a bad coach but one of the worst I've seen. To wit, he has had two really talented quarterbacks and excellent supporting casts at his disposal for much of his 10 seasons in charge, but compiled a record of 82-63 (made worse by the mediocre level of most of the NFC East over the period), with two excellent seasons padding those numbers. He has had only four winning records over those 10 years, finishing 8-8 on three separate occasions, winning only two playoff games (and losing three) in that decade in charge. And, though I could not find specific statistics to support this, has a long history of losing close games - both in the regular season and playoffs, often through bad decision-making and clock management.
Tonight epitomized all that is wrong with him as a coach in close games. The Cowboys were down 4 and driving toward what could well have been a winning TD. At second and 3 with less than 1:30 left, and inside the 15-yard line he elected to run Ezekiel Elliott, one of the best running backs in the league, but a player who had been stuffed all night (his yards per carry for the night was 2.4 yards), not once but twice. I understand trying to run some time off the clock, but do it on first or second down (the first run was thus okay, though not great). But on third down? What in the hell was he thinking?
Not only did Elliott not get the first down, he lost yards on third down and then put incredible pressure on Dak, who had a spectacular night, to get the first down on fourth down. A great play from a Vikings cornerback stopped the Cowboys quarterback from doing so and the Cowboys ultimately lost the game by four points. At 5-4 and with a much tougher schedule over the last seven games than an Eagles side they are now tied with at the top of the NFC East, there is a strong chance they will miss the playoffs yet again.
Please, Jerry Jones, finally do the right thing and get rid of Garrett now. And while you're at it, please hand a pink slip to yourself. You've been trying to prove you could win without Jimmy Jones for 25 years now and though you've made yourself and the league boatloads of money, let's admit you have failed miserably at putting a winner on the field every Sunday. Garrett has to go if we are not to waste the incredible talent and thus opportunity to win that is now at our disposal. Jason, if Jerry won't do it, axe yourself ...
Monday, November 11, 2019
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
Rebecca (1938) Aims of Lecture Consideration of Rebecca as an adaptation of Jane Eyre, to be itself adapted by women writers Introduction to Du Maurier. - ppt download
Rebecca (1938) Aims of Lecture Consideration of Rebecca as an adaptation of Jane Eyre, to be itself adapted by women writers Introduction to Du Maurier. - ppt download: Rebecca’s impact Has one of the most famous opening lines in English Literature Was adapted as a stage play in 1939 In 1938 Neville Chamberlain was said to have a copy of the novel in his briefcase as he flew to Munich in the hope of ‘peace in our time’ Hitchcock directed a film version in 1940 Novel accused of plagiarism by two authors and is said to bear a strong similarity to A Successora (a Brazilian novel by Caroline Nabuco – the similarity explained away by their resemblance to Jane Eyre As the model for romantic fiction ever since
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
There's Just No Accounting for Taste
So I've been gone for a while, but I'm off the sports beat for the summer and thought I would start occasionally posting my thoughts on politics and popular culture again here. To get us back in the swing of things, I thought I would start, in my usual curmudgeonly manner, with another head scratcher regarding human tastes in the popular culture landscape of today.
We do know that some of the biggest franchises and stars are essentially immune to bad reviews these days, particularly by the now paramount measure of opening weekend box office. In fact, one could well argue that the critics and average moviegoers have diverged more and more over the years as the quality of Hollywood mainstream films has arguably declined while dedicated franchise audiences have proliferated (and really kept the business profitable). There has always been a tension between critics and moviegoers on this point, with the former more likely to want beauty and a message in their films and the latter more likely to want to be entertained and empowered by what they watch. Critics understand that film is about desire, at least some of them, but it is audiences that often unknowingly are going to the movies to have that desire sated in the formulas that have now worked for almost a century. So that divergence is understandable, though moments still arise when the distance becomes hard to reckon with.
One such space is the Adam Sandler universe, where a "comic" personality like Laurel and Hardy before him, leaves the critics cold while continuing to bring in huge audiences. His latest foray into the critically panned but successful film is Murder Mystery for Netflix. According to the streaming site, an incredible 30 million people watched the film over the weekend, which, at $9 a ticket, would have brought in the third biggest opening weekend ever ($556 million).
There is, apparently, a tinge of Agatha Christie (once the best selling author in human history) in the story, which mostly revolves around "clever" dialogue between Sanders and Aniston, but that is not enough to explain that sort of an "opening weekend." Instead it might be that the familiar is becoming more and more appealing as we work our way through the most abnormal political moment in American history. Or that a fan base once solidified, will keep buying your popcorn, even if they know there are better brands one or two shelves down. But maybe, most of all, it just reminds us of H. L. Mencken's point that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
We do know that some of the biggest franchises and stars are essentially immune to bad reviews these days, particularly by the now paramount measure of opening weekend box office. In fact, one could well argue that the critics and average moviegoers have diverged more and more over the years as the quality of Hollywood mainstream films has arguably declined while dedicated franchise audiences have proliferated (and really kept the business profitable). There has always been a tension between critics and moviegoers on this point, with the former more likely to want beauty and a message in their films and the latter more likely to want to be entertained and empowered by what they watch. Critics understand that film is about desire, at least some of them, but it is audiences that often unknowingly are going to the movies to have that desire sated in the formulas that have now worked for almost a century. So that divergence is understandable, though moments still arise when the distance becomes hard to reckon with.
One such space is the Adam Sandler universe, where a "comic" personality like Laurel and Hardy before him, leaves the critics cold while continuing to bring in huge audiences. His latest foray into the critically panned but successful film is Murder Mystery for Netflix. According to the streaming site, an incredible 30 million people watched the film over the weekend, which, at $9 a ticket, would have brought in the third biggest opening weekend ever ($556 million).
There is, apparently, a tinge of Agatha Christie (once the best selling author in human history) in the story, which mostly revolves around "clever" dialogue between Sanders and Aniston, but that is not enough to explain that sort of an "opening weekend." Instead it might be that the familiar is becoming more and more appealing as we work our way through the most abnormal political moment in American history. Or that a fan base once solidified, will keep buying your popcorn, even if they know there are better brands one or two shelves down. But maybe, most of all, it just reminds us of H. L. Mencken's point that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."
Sunday, January 06, 2019
Romney Deification Just Slightly Overblown?
Not too long ago it was the posthumous encomiums to George Bush, who one shouldn't forget gave us his son, that spread across far too much of the mainstream media. Earlier it was the son who found renewed respect after what was, arguably, the worst presidency in history. Now the love affair for conservatives not quite as bad as Trump has spread to Mitt Romney for an op ed that stated the obvious with some pretty serious caveats segments of the media seem to be ignoring. So let's, as George Michael used to say, go to the "video tape."
“It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided,” he wrote. “He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.”
Then the critique so many loved began. But lest us forget that this is the guy who is essentially part of the same cabal. Maybe a little more seasoned and polished, but still someone who took 1000s of jobs to feed the Wall Street machine, who pushes the same pro-corporate agenda that has squeezed the middle class and increased poverty. The same one who continues to try to stuff the courts with conservative ideologies who no longer even pretend to not be "activist" judges litigating our private and public lives. And who ramped up the anti-immigrant rhetoric that had largely disappeared from the mainstream of the party with the turn of the new century (at least his omission of a critique of this component of Trump made sense).
So let's respect that someone is willing to stand up to Trump who happens to be a Republican not retiring from the Senate or dying, but forgo the overly exuberant veneration of that conservative, particularly when we disagree with almost everything he stands for ... just a thought.
“It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided,” he wrote. “He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.”
Then the critique so many loved began. But lest us forget that this is the guy who is essentially part of the same cabal. Maybe a little more seasoned and polished, but still someone who took 1000s of jobs to feed the Wall Street machine, who pushes the same pro-corporate agenda that has squeezed the middle class and increased poverty. The same one who continues to try to stuff the courts with conservative ideologies who no longer even pretend to not be "activist" judges litigating our private and public lives. And who ramped up the anti-immigrant rhetoric that had largely disappeared from the mainstream of the party with the turn of the new century (at least his omission of a critique of this component of Trump made sense).
So let's respect that someone is willing to stand up to Trump who happens to be a Republican not retiring from the Senate or dying, but forgo the overly exuberant veneration of that conservative, particularly when we disagree with almost everything he stands for ... just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
