Djokovic v. McEnroe: How can you not love this?

I almost feel bad about all those times I called him Quitter or Chokovic.

Double Feature Sunday: Woody Allen and Food Politics

Is "Food Inc." a movie for the average person?

"Food Inc." is the new documentary* about the way we produce and eat food in America and the latest attack on Nutritional-Industrial Complex. It basically takes Michael Pollan's and Eric Schlosser's writings and reduces them to an easily consumable 90-minute documentary.

Being familiar with just about all the stories in the film, I found it easy to follow and still found myself outraged at the actions of the government and the corporations who are most responsible for our Western diet and all the diseases that come along with it: cancer, obesity, and whathaveyou.

Towards the end, I started wondering if they weren't trying to present too much information or spending too little time on certain aspects. I found myself wanting to hear more about the court cases Monsanto brought against farmers, more from Joel Salatin, or more about what people can do to get involved. I was a little surprised the letters C-S-A weren't mentioned even once.

So I was left wondering if it's a movie that is perfect for elucidating the average viewer who eats at McDonald's and buys groceries at Wal-Mart or if it was simply another sermon to the converted to make us high-fallutin' liberals feel better about spending half our income on fancy food. I honestly don't have a good feel for what the answer to that question is.

And maybe I don't have a great answer to that because so far it has made barely more than a million dollars at a mere 83 theaters** (compare that with 4300 for Michael Bay's latest defecation on celluloid). It still has yet to hit one major outpost in the Corn Belt that I know of, Kansas City. I suspect, though, that the movie is probably intentionally enjoying a slow release so word of mouth buzz can spread. Its $2,900 average per theater puts it way ahead of mainstream movies like "My Sister's Keeper" and "Year One."

So it's proably going to take more time to see if this movie will have any crossover appeal or if it will get lumped in with all the other indie documentaries like "King Corn." I do know that some farmers near where I grew up weren't that impressed. I feel like farmers are the real heroes of the film, but I can see how my grandparents, who grow commodity crops in Pratt, KS, would get upset that Big City-types think that they know what's best for folks on the farm.

So if you've seen the movie, now would be a good time to tell me what you think. And please see if you can't get a somebody who isn't converted to go see the movie and report back.

*Follow link for trailer.
**http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whatever Works"[insert pun about how well or not well you think the movie works]

Discolure: I am complete Woody Allen apologist. I may recognize the occasional fault in some of his films but I have enjoyed every single one of them on one level or another.



After seeing the man himself in the stands at the marathon Wimbledon final on Sunday, it was a no-brainer to see "Whatever Works" last night.

There are so many things I love about Woody Allen but almost above all, I love that he continues to work no matter what. Even if he were to acknowledge the existence of writer's block, you wouldn't be able to tell because he would still release one or two movies that year.

I love that no matter what else is going on in the world, I can count on that familiar smile coming to my face as a black screen with plain white type appears, old-timey jazz starts playing and I am informed that Jack Rollins and Charles Joffe were executive producers of the movie I'm about to see (even though Charles Joffe is dead), and I'm about to find out some more universal truths about love, death, and the human condition.

I love that though so many themes and plotlines tend to show up again and again, each film seems to be a different statement from the director about himself. Is the initial tone of this film so much more angry because Woody is pissed about what's going in the world? Is he getting cranky in his old age or is it just because he wanted to write a character who would be easier for Larry David to play? Is there any way his overall theme of telling everyone to stop being so damn judgmental is not influenced by everyone in the world judging him for choosing to ignore society and fall in love with the most unlikely of brides?

I suspect many will deride the movie for not being funny enough, for the characters being a little too caricatured, or for the narration direct to the audience just not working. I don't think Larry David is going to ever be successful at not playing himself, but he definitely excelled in the role as Boris. All of the characters were well cast as well and by the closing credits, they had somehow gone from caricatures to dynamic characters.

For a Woody Allen apologist, this was classic latter-day Woody. In the end, I laughed; I learned something; I didn't feel like I wasted $11.

Updating Previous Stories

ABC Drops the Hammer on Buckshot

I came across this article in the Guardian last week. The ABC, which had already been threatening to pull the liquor licenses of some of the city's finest music venues (Café du Nord, Slim's, Swedish Music Hall, Great American Music Hall, Rickshaw Stop, Bottom of the Hill, etc.) over some arcane Puritanical Blue law bullshit, has claimed its newest victims in The Campaign Against Fun.

When I first wrote about the evil ABC, I wasn't sure whether there really would fire accompanying the smoke (see e.g. any pre-smoking ban hysteria from bar owners), but according to the article, ABC has already body slammed two local bars over similar food sale-related issues. From the Guardian:

Most recently, Revolution Café in the Mission District had to stop selling beer and wine for 20 days after ABC cited them for patrons drinking on the sidewalk adjacent to its front patio. Inner Richmond's Buckshot's liquor license was pulled because of technical violations of alcohol and food regulations, forcing owners to close their doors for a few weeks.

This is government idiocy at its finest, and I pray to the god I don't believe in that they don't touch any of the city's music venues. I would say they need to go find something better to do, but they're already a pretty stupid bureaucracy to begin with, so I doubt there is anything else.

taxdollarsatwork'd

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucero* Makes Me Look Stupid

After gushing about Lucero's dedication to being a professional bar band, I came across the trailer for a show called "$5 Cover" that recently premiered on MTV. Craig Brewer of "Hustle and Flow" fame apparently put his name on this, but from the acting and cinematography, I would guess the people behind "Undressed" may have had more to do with it than anyone else.

Check out Ben Nichols on the motorcycle and then the whole band playing "San Francisco" on stage near the end.

MTV five dollar cover Trailer (HD)


Normally I would be pumped that a band I like is doing a series about struggling bands and the Memphis music scene. But this series happens to be by MTV, and paraphrasing Broke-Ass Stewart, the "M" in MTV stands for "Making me hate humanity."

Furthermore, I learned via wikipedia that Lucero recently signed with Universal, so maybe they'll make it to the big show after all. If so, just go ahead and completely disregard my last Lucero post.

*And by Lucero, I'm really referring to myself here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Media Gives Nadal a Pass

I'm not sure if I should be surprised at this or not. Nadal is a media darling, but we're also living in the age of gotcha journalism.

So far I have yet to see anyone in the mainstream media** call out Nadal for being a spineless coward. Shortly after I questioned the seriousness of Nadal's injuries, there was an article on espn.com/tennis about Nadal's parents getting divorced. called "Personal Woes Affecting Rafa?" The writer, Greg Garber says that his parents' divorce, and not his kness, may be behind Nadal's withdrawal, but he never takes Nadal to task for being the first champion ever to not defend because of dubious ailments.

The article was never was on the front page and was archived off the tennis page in a matter of minutes, hours at the most. Nowhere on the New York Times tennis blog did they mention the personal issues, nor have I heard any espn or NBC commentators mention it. I guess we're all just supposed to accept Uncle Toni's version of things.

I definitely find this free pass more than a little unpalatable, and I still say Nadal should be out there unless he honestly cannot move without risking serious injury. Looks like even in the gotcha age, some people are still above the law.


Oh, and I think Wimbledon has been pretty great so far. I like the Murray and Hewitt story lines.
Federer and Roddick both look great. What a compelling final it would be if either Murray or Roddick faces Federer. Roddick beating Roger would be an incredible moment for American tennis, and this could be the year it finally happens. Sucks that Oudin lost today, but the Williams sisters are looking awesome. Why, oh why, must I be working the one week when I could be watching tennis all day?

**I don't count.

Nadal withdraws from Wimbledon? Really?

You've got to be kidding me. Nadal just held a press conference after he lost a tune-up match to announce that he won't defend his title at Wimbledon.

He says throughout the presser that he feels good but is not 100 percent. Basically his logic is that he knows he's not going to win, so why even try? This amounts to nothing less than an act of cowardice.

You're the goddamn defending champion. If you can walk, you should be out there on the grass. This is Djokovic-esque quitting before you lose, and it's despicable.

Now, I'm not saying that Nadal should be out there if there's a chance that he could injure himself and jeopardize his tennis future. But that's simply not what he's saying. Check out the quotes:

"When I start a tournament like Wimbledon, it is to try to win, and my feeling right now is I'm not ready to play to win."

[in regards to his knees]: "It's not chronic. I can recover, for sure."

He's not saying he's worried about permanent injuries. He just knows that he'll lose to Lleyton "I have no friends" Hewitt in the second round.

A true champion knows how to lose with dignity as well as win. A true champion would be willing to face defeat and would try to defend his title even if he wasn't 100 percent.

I hope Nadal takes a beating on this from the press. He deserves it. Just like Federer deserves to have his number one ranking back, which he will get if he wins Wimbledon this year.

SBS blog commenter Mark Nemtsov had it right when he said several weeks ago that Nadal lacks the mental fortitude of Federer.

MORE THOUGHTS:

Aside from Ivanisevic who had shoulder surgery and a couple guys who back in the old days turned pro and weren't allowed to return, every single other champion in the history of the tournament has returned to defend the title. I'm sure at least one of them was hurting or injured going into the title defense. They probably knew they were going to lose and felt like hanging out by the beach instead of losing in the early rounds.

But did these former champions wait until they saw whom they were going to face and then quit? No, they sucked it up and went out there and took their lumps.

If Nadal can run, which he can and did in these exhibition matches, then he should go stand out there and lose with dignity, rather than quitting right after the draw is announced.

From the fertile soil of Roland Garros....

Rafael Nadal just can't stop sticking it to Roger Federer.

Usually it's by winning, but now the obnoxiously talented Spaniard has done both Roger and the rest of the world a disservice by losing his first ever match at Roland Garros. Nadal not only deprived us of yet another electrical final, but if Federer does win the French this year, there will undoubtedly be legions of writers and fans who are ready to throw up an asterisk next to the victory because he didn't have to beat Nadal to do it.


Of course, any even casual tennis fan looks forward to Federer-Nadal finals, but this year and this Slam are of particular interest to me. There are several reasons for this.

1. The French Open is probably my favorite tennis event. I studied in Paris and am an unapolegetic Francophile. As cliched as it is, nothing beats Paris in the spring. I always picture Parisiens eating their bread and coffee in cafes and enduring the familiar yet alien smell of the festering Metro to ride to the stadium to cheer on their favorite players (including Andy Roddick?!). The trees are blooming and they're probably eating a lot better than me*.

There's also something about Roland Garros. Maybe it's because the clay is so bright and red and different from the other surfaces, and it's fun to watch the players get dirt all over themselves when they're sliding around for balls. Maybe it's because there's some connection to the soil that is evoked and that clay--like grass--takes so much care that it's almost like agriculture, that it generates something more visceral in us than watching sports on concrete. Maybe it's the knowledgable and undeniably French crowd that makes the event so fun. I really don't know what it is, but I love the goddamn French Open.

2. Federer is my favorite tennis player. I share David Foster Wallace's obsession with seeing him hit shots that are seemingly impossible, doing so with grace and class and what looks like little effort.

Federer has also never won a French Open.

He certainly is talented enough and has pretty much dominated every other event in tennis. But right when he had tuned his game enough to win one in Paris (and potentially all four Grand Slams in one year), a young, butt-picking Spaniard wearing a tank top and capri pants emerged on the scene and dominated the event with Federer-esque ease. Nadal had not lost even one match at Rolan Garros until now.

So whenever the French Open comes around, I get excited for Roger to get the final feather in his cap and cement his legacy as not just another Pete Sampras, who can dominate on grass and concrete so easily that it's almost to the detriment of the sport but can't get it done on the trickiest surface in the sport. Federer may indeed get it down this year, but his naysayers will always point to the fact that he never had to beat the surface's arguably best player of all time to do it.

3. Ever since I read this article about how Federer owes Nadal a debt, I have become obsessed not only with Federer eventually beating the younger and stronger Nadal, but doing it at the French Open in dramatic fashion. To sum up the article, the writer makes the point that every great individual sport athlete needed a foil. Fans don't like watching coronations and choreography; they prefer struggle and drama.

Without his struggles later in his career, Ali might never have become the beloved champion that he is. Without Frazier, Ali would not be Ali. The same could eventually hold true for Federer if he manages to eventually get the best of Nadal. Rafa will have pushed him to places he never would have gone when he was mowing over opponents without dropping a set, which he did at the 2007 Australian Open. Sure, Roger has beaten Nadal before, but recently it has looked like Rafa was destined to cruelly rip the Slam record from Roger's grasp and brutally relegating him to second banana status. People would say, "Federer was pretty good for a while, but only because it was before Nadal came around."

I openly cried right along with Roger at the Australian Open when it seemed that he might have nothing in the tank and that he might never win another Major. That article made me realize that Nadal's claiming of the number one ranking wasn't the end. It was just the beginning.**

For whatever reason, I just had a feeling about this year. I had the whole thing scripted out in my mind. Roger would dry his tears and hunker down after the Australian Open. He would rethink his strategy and push himself harder than he ever has before, maybe even hire a coach to help him. Nadal--better than ever--would seem unbeatable. Every major writer and expert would say that Federer had no shot at all at beating Nadal. They would point to the beatdown from last year's French Open Final and the Australian Open and say that Federer just couldn't beat Nadal anymore and that he should probably just retire. Federer and Nadal would both oblige and cruise through the tournament to meet in final. Roger would then come out and struggle in the beginning of the final and dig himself into a two-set whole, setting off one of the greatest and most improbable comebacks in tennis history. Federer would finally cement his legacy by tying Sampras's record at the event Sampras could never win, beating the one oponent he couldn't beat, all while finding value in adversity and winning over the last few people who don't love him.

Great story, but alas, Nadal has left us wondering what could have been. Maybe he lost his Samsonian power by taking off his manpris or he got too complacent or he just had a bad day, or...whatever, he blew it and couldn't get past Robin freaking Soderling.

I'm sure there will be lots of speculation about would have happened in the Finals. As for me, if Roger does win it, I'll be thinking a lot about what happened two weeks ago in Madrid, when Federer beat Nadal. On clay. In Rafa's home country.

*The French, not the trees.
**I also just realized from typing that paragraph that I need to turn in my man card for crying at tennis.