Lakers-Celtics Finals Preview

Well, we got what we wanted. After the first stop on the Kobe Bryant revenge tour, we’re shipping out to Boston and getting a rematch of that 2008 slugfest most of us Lakers fans want to forget. I know people are going to whine about Boston-LA dominance, but this match-up is truly epic and has a lot of bad blood from two years ago. Before we get into the Lakers-Celtics encore, we should spend a little time on the Western Conference Finals.

Lakers-Suns: Hating on Hollinger the Nihilistic Basketball Robot

Before I make fun of Mr. Hollinger, I’d like to truly congratulate the Phoenix Suns organization. Just last year, Steve Kerr had gutted this team of Seven Seconds or Less and had the Big Cactus in tow, dominating the ball and snuffing out the magic that had driven Phoenix for years. This year, the team came together admirably, reinstalling the things that had worked so well under D’Antoni while actually doing things like playing some defense from time to time. Alvin Gentry is a great coach, better than the Pringles Man if you ask me, and actually took the time to develop a bench, who not only relieved Nash’s aching back but also become one of their greatest strengths.

This time truly showed resilience in a way that previous Phoenix teams hadn’t. They had real chemistry and battled, persevering against a business-like Lakers team that many would have folded much earlier against. They had a real shot to win a series against a peaking Lakers team with too much talent and length for them to handle. Think about shot after shot after shot that Kobe had to take/make in Game 6. This array of circus shots was perfectly defended and the only thing the suddenly stingy man-to-man defense was giving up. Even with Kobe’s all-around brilliance while having his best statistical playoff series ever, the Suns hung in there.

Now, it’s time for the Hollinger bashing. Hollinger, who’s beloved Jazz, Magic, and Suns all failed to maintain their regular season magic, is a master at extrapolation but tends to overlook the obvious quite a bit. Instead of associating positive point differential with great teams as a correlation for winning championships, it becomes his only framework. Here are his thoughts before the series:

“For starters, you'd have a tough time proving that L.A. is the better team. The Suns had a better scoring margin in the regular season (a superior predictor of future success).”

Silver Screen and Roll, a premier Lakers blog, summarizes the issue with Hollinger far better than I could:

“Hollinger has a system which relies on stats to predict outcomes. His predictions are not made out of hatred of the Lakers. His picks are made because statistics hate the Lakers. The Lakers don't perform with the consistency required by a statistical model. Let's take a quick review of all the talking points going into this series. The Suns, coming off an impressive sweep of the San Antonio Spurs, were winning games in ways we never really thought possible. They were still the running, gunning team, but their bench went 10 deep, and brought grittiness and tenacity. Most important of all, the Suns could now play some defense. They had been playing better basketball than the Lakers for a long stretch of time. The Lakers talking points? They're big, they're the champs, they've got Kobe. Well, guess what? Every single one of those talking points bore themselves out over the course of this series.”

The Lakers dominated the glass, used their length to their advantage, and didn’t lose sight of the fact that they have the best closer in the game on their side. The Lakers won in 6. Sorry Johnny.

Lakers-Celtics match-ups

Since the 2008 NBA finals, the last time the Lakers have lost a playoff series, a lot has changed. I don’t know a Lakers fan that doesn’t still have a bitter taste in their mouth from that series, with so many points of contention to focus on. There are plenty of bad memories from that series: Paul Pierce’s wheelchair moment, the 23-point collapse, the 39-point blow-out, Leon Powe getting more FT’s than our whole team, and the endless accusations of the Lakers being softer than a Euro League All-Star Team.

After Kobe’s reaction to a Phoenix series (who has beaten us in as many playoff series as the Spurs in the last decade BTW), you can only imagine what kind of anger and determination he’s saved up for KG and company. I’ve seen enough interviews with this crew to know the Lakers remember every minute it, but, more importantly, they are holding on to the feeling they had when they lost in 2008. Rematches are fairly rare in the modern history of the L, but this one has seemed inevitable since the Celtics showed LeBron James that the regular season is just that. This time, a lot has changed for both teams.

The Lakers have home court advantage and have the confidence that comes with being the defending champs. They’ve also become a defensive juggernaut of a team who’s just recently showing signs that it remembers how to play the triangle with beautiful ball movement and gaudy points-per-possession statistics. They no longer have Ariza or a lot of their former bench, but they’ve added ball-hawker Ron Artest and Shannon Brown to the mix. And Bynum is kind of healthy, but at least playing this time around.

The Celtics have gotten 2 years older, but they’ve picked up a new supporting cast around the 2008 core. Their identity is still around team defense that chokes off your air supply like a python. They’ve lost Powe and Posey, but they’ve added Rasheed Wallace, Nate Robinson, and Marquis Daniels to the mix. Oh, and that Rondo character who was a liability as much as he was a strength? He’s turned into one of the top 3 point guards alive.

Point Guard: Derek "I'm Still Here!" Fisher vs. Rajon "Do You Feel Lucky?" Rondo
Derek Fisher has been incredible during these playoffs, providing shot after shot in the clutch and holding his own against some elite company. He’s had to play Russell Westbrook, Deron Williams, Steve Nash, and now Rondo, 4 of the best PG’s in the game today. Rondo has had the decided advantage is every series thus far, chewing up his competition. While I fully expect Fish to make some excellent plays and big shots, Rondo could fully well be the one Celtic we let go off (see: dare to make 15 foot jumpers) to shut down the rest of the team. Rondo is the best defensive/rebounding PG in the league already and is incredible playmaker to boot. If he ever figures out that jump shot, we’re all screwed. I would not be surprised if we put Kobe on Rondo or switched up coverage as much as possible to mess with him. Ron Artest can't guard him like Ariza used to, but Brown could provide a little muscle there. Rondo, at the end of the day, is going to get his against the Lakers.

Advantage: Celtics (huge)

Shooting Guard: Kobe "Black Mamba" Bryant vs. Ray "I Can't Stop Sneering" Allen

This match-up will probably see the least actual matching-up of all the prospective combinations. I think that D-Fish will see extended Ray Allen duty and Ray Allen will probably be replaced by a combination of Tony Allen/Paul Pierce for most of the duties on Kobe Bryant. Ray Allen is still spry and has plenty of juice left, but he’s also become erratic and inconsistent. Even so, he still has huge games from time to time and, when he does, Boston doesn’t often lose them. The Lakers can’t afford to leave him open or let Kobe do his roving defense on one of the greatest shooters of all time. On the other hand, Ray Allen doesn’t have the size or the quickness to guard Kobe and his perfect footwork.

Remember folks: the C’s do not have James Posey to put on Kobe like they did in 2008 (he was BY far their most effective defender on Bryant). By putting Posey/Pierce on him and swarming, Kobe couldn’t see over the defense and turned the ball over a lot when doubled. Pierce has also lost a step and may struggle keeping up with Kobe, but should do a decent job. Anyone who thinks that Tony Allen can check Kobe over the course of a series needs to get their head checked. You also can bet that Kobe still remembers this quote from Pierce: “I don't think Kobe is the best player. I'm the best player. There's a line that separates having confidence and being conceited. I don't cross that line but I have a lot of confidence in myself.”

Advantage: Lakers (duh)


Small Forward: Ron "Queensbridge, Yeah." Artest vs. Paul "I'm the Best Player Alive When I'm Not Faking An Injury" Pierce

While I don’t think that this is THE match-up that determines this series, it is certainly a big one. We brought Crazy Pills onto the Lakers for a few reasons: Carmelo Anthony, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Paul Pierce. Ron is going to prolong Kobe’s career by guarding these bigger threes that Ariza simply didn’t have the muscle to push around. Although we got a pass on Carmelo, Ron Artest on Pierce is going to be delight. Expect tantrums, expect whining, and expect Pierce to have to earn his points against someone who won’t fall for all his tricks, can’t be outmuscled by him, and plays perfect position defense. Pierce will still have a good game or two, but after what Ron-Ron did to Durant I’m expecting some fireworks and frustration here. If Ron can play Pierce tightly and leave Kobe to work on the backcourt, this could be a huge game-changer for the Lakers. For my money, Artest has already earned his salary with the series on Durant and the last few games against the Suns, but I would love to see him continue to make the Lakers front office look smart against Pierce. That said, Pierce has been playing better as of late. The Magic lacked Ron Artest, but I think Pierce will be tough to shut down completely.

Advantage: Slightly Boston

Power Forward: Pau "Damn Good and Looks Like an Ostrich" Gasol vs. Kevin "I'm Still a Giant Ass" Garnett

This match-up is the X-Factor, the one that matters, and the one that has become the most intriguing. So many things have changed in the last two years for these players. Pau Gasol has largely shed the “soft Euro” label he wore before outplaying Howard offensively AND guarding him as well as anyone in the Finals last year. He has made two straight All-NBA Third Teams and looks slated to stay a perennial All-Star for a while. He’s gotten more comfortable with the triangle offense and has gotten better and better since coming to LA. Seriously though, Gasol needs to have his way offensively for the Lakers to win. Like 21/12. Gasol will also benefit immensely from having Bynum occupy Kendrick Perkins, who was able to push him around two years ago.

Garnett, on the other hand, is impossible to figure out entirely. He’s been showing his age the most among the Big Three and dropped his rebounding to just over 7 a game as he’s struggled to overcome knee injuries that knocked him out of last year’s playoffs and limited most of the season. His declining effectiveness had been making his tough-guy act just look pathetic, but he recovered to look great against Cleveland and Miami. That said, he returned to look limited again against Orlando. Two years ago, he was arguably the Celltics best player and he just abused Gasol while still sliding around and dominating on defense. He was their general, their rock. This year? He’s lost more than a step and a good amount of his freakish recovery ability. The Lakers should be able to neutralize him defensively with Gasol and Odom, but they need to abuse him on the offensive end if we want to win this series. This is THE key match-up for the series. We have outrebound, outdefend, and outplay their frontcourt and this is where we need to do it by the widest margin.

Advantage: Lakers

Center: Andrew “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” Bynum vs. Kendrick “Gargoyle Face" Perkins

This match-up is pretty straightforward, who wants it more? Bynum wasn't there two years ago, which is a pretty huge addition, but this match-up isn't rocket science. It’s pretty clear that Perkins is going to bring the intensity and do his thing, but what will we get from Bynum? If AB is able to use his significant advantages in length and athleticism, this one could be a big one for the Lake Show. More likely, he will show flashes but neither side will dominate this match-up consistently. For the Lakers to win, AB needs to hold his own blocking shots on defense and on the boards. If he does that, the scoring would just be a bonus.

Advantage: Even

Bench: The Lakers “We Used to Be the Bench Mob…” Bench vs. The Celtics “Hate Me Now” Bench

With a healthy-ish Andrew Bynum, the Lakers bench has Odom consistently and benefits immensely. Since 2008, Odom has had some big playoff moments, but the rest of the bench has largely declined. Luke Walton has been hurt and Jordan Farmar has been awful until he's started to turn it on in the playoffs. The Lakers have lost some bench depth, losing Ariza and some other key contributors and replacing them with Shannon Brown’s freak athleticism. The Lakers starters are healthier though and they’ll take that trade-off for more limited depth.

The Celtics have also lost a lot of depth and weapons that previously hurt the Lakers. Posey was a key cog against the Lakers, hitting big threes and playing clutch D on Kobe, who has headed on to greener pastures. PJ Brown and Leon Powe, who came out of nowhere to destroy the Laker frontcourt and make the difference in several games, have also left. Those three subtractions alone make a world of difference in this series. While Sam Cassell didn’t add much, Eddie House consistently killed the Lakers. In their place, they’ve brought in Rasheed Wallace (a tri-fecta of the Blazers, Pistons, and Celtics makes him one of my most hated players ever), Nate Robinson, and developed Big Baby Davis into a rotation player. They are as limited in depth as the Lakers, but all three bench players have demonstrated their ability to shoot the Celtics in and out of games in this post-season. Luckily for us, they have been even more inconsistent than our bench.

With Odom and the gang playing a bit more consistently, this will seem like a much easier assignment than playing the Suns reserves. As long as they continue shoot the three-ball well, this should favor the Lakers a bit.

Advantage: Lakers


Prediction: Lakers in 6.
This shouldn't be a surprise, I'm obviously a big Lakers fan. That said, I do believe that the Lakers are the better team this time and am absolutely intrigued by the fact that both teams are peaking at the same time. I think that the addition of Ron Artest and the experience of winning the championship last year have battle-tested the Lakers and make our defense/toughness remarkably different than they were two years ago. Kobe has been absolutely incredible and his team finally looks capable of giving him the support he needs to win this epic battle.

At the same time, Boston has largely declined in the last two years as they've aged, but they have become healthy at the right time. Garnett (biggest drop-off), Allen, and Pierce are not quite the same, but Rondo has gotten much much better and the biggest addition this season has been chemistry. The Celtics have finally admitted that their world does revolve around Rondo and the reestablishment of the pecking order is a big reason for their subsequent success. This team all too often looked disinterested and self-absorbed during the season this year, but now they look determined and purposeful. Even so, I just don't think they have it this year.

The Lakers have the gritty defense to throw back at them this time around and should have at least as much offensive success against these Celtics. I just can't believe that Rasheed/Nate/Big Baby are going to have the HUGE impact off the bench that Posey/Powe/Brown had two years ago and I don't think they have the advantages in the starting match-ups they had either. The Lakers start off strong defending their home-court (undefeated there these playoffs) and Kobe ties Magic Johnson in ring-count as he gets the Celtics monkey off his back.

Reflecting on "Lost"

I wish just once in the last 2-3 years I’d been willing to think about “Lost” as anything but a puzzle to be solved. Assuming I was like everyone else, I was tantalized by the rabbit hole we dove deeper and deeper into each week. At some point, you would have thought I’d at least have chuckled to myself that there was no way they could answer all of it in one season, or even one finale as it inched closer. Instead, my criteria for judging the show and my enjoyment were all wrapped up in how well it answered questions. I assumed I’d be somewhat disappointed that not all of them would be resolved and some of my favorites would be left out. I guess I just never considered that they would end a show like that without bothering to answer the vast majority of them.

I’m still pissed I don’t know what that number was all about and answers to around 300 other very specific “mysteries,” but I’m equally pissed at myself for being such an irrational viewer. I’m usually very good at setting expectations for something like this. A part of me had such high hopes for this show after the strength of its first three seasons, but I was down on the show for much of seasons 4-6, especially the last 25 or so episodes. I didn’t even watch last year’s season finale until this season started, having basically given up hope and begrudgingly resuming because I had already invested 100’s of hours and I had to see it end. I’m glad I did.

At some point, it should have occurred to me that this show is about the journey more than the ending. When viewed as an adventure show that was great at building characters and emotional connections without necessarily making a ton of sense, “Lost” is successful beyond belief. It maintained a delicate balance of incredible cliffhangers, adventure, and mystery with genuine human drama and character development. The production value, writing, and acting were unprecedented for a show like this and it played successfully in every genre it attempted.

In retrospect, it’s amazing it stayed believably cohesive as long as it did. I’m not sure if watching it again would make me angry at the plot holes or cause me to enjoy the ride because I’d be freed of those daunting and perhaps unreachable expectations we all had. As I reflect on the ending, I think viewers fall into two camps:

Camp #1: That Ending Sucked!
These folks, probably my camp, cared about solving the mysteries and wanted the comprehensive solution. They were NOT happy with the level of ambiguity and were blindsided by the sudden ending. They want to know how Camp #2 doesn’t feel like their trust as a viewer was betrayed. They want their willing suspension of disbelief back and think they are suckers. Unfortunately, the mystery did not close with a cackling villain revealing everything in one big speech. Most of Camp #1 would probably prefer that to what actually happened.

Camp #2: It WAS All About the Characters
These guys may have a little bit of disappointment in how things were resolved, but were focused on the journey and character enough to find the ending emotionally satisfying anyway. They’re happy and may even ultimately see the ambiguity as a plus. Let’s interpret for ourselves, they say. Camp #2 thinks Camp#1 needs to chill out and should have had the epiphany long ago that “Lost” never really had a high probability of making a ton of sense. Camp #2 really felt attached to the characters and is also probably more willing to focus on the other things the show did extremely well than its disappointments. These guys will also have a better chance of enjoying the replay value of another run through.

So where do I lie? Who knows where I’ll be tomorrow or the day after that, but an hour after finishing the finale, I’m smiling at “Lost” a hell of a light more than I thought I would. I am jealous of those all the way in Camp #2, they are the lucky ones, but I can appreciate “Lost” and its success on that level in retrospect a lot more than I could along the way. The show was a hell of a ride and it may not have been perfect, but almost everyone flubs the ending.

That’s the difference with most movies and TV shows with incredible concepts and vision behind them: how do you sustain that success when introducing an artificial plot or storyline into the ecosystem? That’s what separates the good ones from the truly greats, especially in genres like science fiction. Even comedies are subjected to the “last 20 minutes sucked” treatment despite being it incredibly hard to resolve a laugh vehicle. “Lost” did a better job than most and I have to give credit where credit is due, but it’s just impossible for me to call it an all-time great.

I think it’s telling in and of itself that during the course of this review, not once have I had the urge to divulge details and dive into that ambiguity searching for clarity. I don't really feel the need to discuss the ending beyond the emotional imprint. Ultimately, I don’t think the details seem that important anymore.

Finale: B

Series: B+

Professional? Personal? Both? The tension of having one online identity

The email dropped into my inbox innocently enough. It was another invitation to join someone’s LinkedIn network, something I usually accept without a second thought. What harm could it possibly have to add another “connection?” I've come to terms with the fact that I’m a heavy internet user and an extreme extrovert; I like the instantly accessible accumulation of digital contacts that I have at my fingertips. A generation ago, no one would ever have dreamed of keeping in touch with a thousand people. Nowadays? Lots of people have more than a thousand Facebook friends. It’s incredible.

Before clicking the big yellow “Accept” box, I pulled up Facebook. Soon after, I realized they had defriended me on Facebook. Not only that, but they asked me to join their professional network afterwards?! I was incensed (not really) and looking for answers (OK, that part may be true). I had never encountered this situation before and was uncertain about what to do.

Honestly, I don’t take the defriending thing personally. I notice from time to time when I lose someone as a friend, but by accident rather than detective work. There are friends I met long ago that will never hear from me again and should be purged from my list. We lose touch, it’s natural. Furthermore, I totally respect people who want to only keep their best friends on Facebook or are looking out for their privacy. It’s a valid concern, trim away. I also understand why someone would take heavy posting as an irritation and want to be done with it. Me? I hide their feed and ignore them, but to each their own. I’ve only defriended a few people in my time and the act itself was kind of liberating. But I digress.

This isn’t about Facebook friend counts or my ego; it’s about the tension of having one online identity that has to comprise all the parts of you. We all have the boss, the relative, the little sister, or ex-girlfriend that we don’t want seeing our Facebook posts, our party photos, and our friends list. We’ve all agonized for hours about whether or not to list that relationship and how to handle these delicate situations without committing a faux pas. But LinkedIn can help you get a job, it has real utility. Unfortunately, sometimes that person you don’t want to see you doing a keg stand last Saturday night is the very person who can get your foot in the door at Google and God, you’d kill for that job. Even if they are that asshole who “likes” every inappropriate photo, they’re useful.

Like it or not, Google searches still turn up your LinkedIn, Facebook, and your headshots from band camp in 7th grade. You don’t get to hide that part. Your digital paper trail is forever and you can’t hide from the big bad interwebs. Which brings me to this guy: what was he thinking? If you’re asking to be my friend one place, you clearly know who I am-pleading ignorance is not an option. Was I a mass cleanse? Where does that leave us? Am I supposed to accept the request with a shit-eating grin? Was I irritating on Facebook but useful as a professional reference? Was it a careless oversight? How am I supposed to feel here? Am I even allowed to be offended?

Obviously, I’m over thinking this (as usual). As I’m preparing to uproot myself and head to business school, there’s a lot to contemplate. Who am I going to be able to keep in touch with? How do you turn the bonds of a convenient friendship into a lifelong one? Once I leave Los Angeles, I’m concerned about what will happen to my network here, even as I’m off building another one. I love the people in my life and I genuinely distress over the bonds of friendships I’ve lost over the years.

It’s been edifying and horrifying for me to realize that the big difference between lifelong friend and “Oh my god I haven’t seen you in a decade” at the reunion is 99% effort. It’s about returning phone calls and checking in every once in awhile. It’s about reaching out when you’re in town, even if you don’t manage to meet up. There are some folks I would have called among my best friends in college, when all that it took was a few steps down the hall, who have completely dropped off the face of the planet. Similarly, there are folks who were casual acquaintances in college who have put in the effort and become good friends. I used to hate the phone, now I rely on it as my only lifeline for a network of people I’d never stay in touch with otherwise. It all comes down to effort.

I guess what this all boils down to (other than an excessive, self-indulgent rant) is that we have a lot of say in the relationships that we want to maintain, but technology is creating new ways to connect to and offend people faster than we can handle. We can’t control the internet or how our friends behave online. But it’s starting to look like we’re wedded to this whole mess. I’m still figuring out how to keep in touch while being a professional. We all have to draw boundaries, but it’s interesting when the personal and the professional overlap so seamlessly. What do you do? As for me and this LinkedIn fellow, I haven’t decided what to do with him yet, but how do you turn your back on another connection? I guess there’s a first time for everything…

The Biggest Risk

I should be writing business school apps, I really should. Unfortunately, my mind has been as prone to wandering as it has been to focus lately. As a result, I find myself writing again, but nothing even remotely practical.

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about life, about what it means to be successful, and ultimately what makes us happy. If you’ve been around me long enough, you’ve probably heard me ramble about eternal recurrence-a theory of individual life postulated by Nietzsche. An unattainable ideal, eternal recurrence is the idea that we should be prepared to be reincarnated in perpetuity, but living the exact same life for all eternity. You’d relive every heart-warming success and agonizing defeat on repeat for infinity.

I asked myself: what would make me comfortable with that scenario? What makes people successful on their own terms, regardless of background or creed? In the simplest terms, I guess this question could be asked another way: what do people regret at the end of their life?

As I reflected, I came to the conclusion that the things we live to regret are rarely the things that we do, but are almost always the things we don’t. The one that got away. Man I wish I’d told her how I’d felt when I had the chance. Or just kissed her, been a man. The career that we never tried. I always knew I’d make a great lawyer, always. Monuments they skipped, countries they never visited, and events they’d found some lame excuse to miss. Even when we take a big risk, we are rarely more disappointed than we would have been with ourselves for not trying. At the very least, pushing ourselves outside of our comfort zone makes us feel alive, even if it’s not for us. No one has ever been exhilarated from their living room couch.

Sure, we can live to regret the way we treated people, the marriages that didn’t work, and the opportunities we tried to take hold of, but squandered. I’d just rather live with that regret ninety nine times out of a hundred over seeing a coward looking back at me in the mirror.

Now, I’m not saying that I’m going to go base jumping or some equally foolhardy attempt to get myself killed; I’m still a risk averse person deep down and venturing outside my comfort zone is a skill that I’m learning in a lot of capacities despite what my forays into sky diving and bungee jumping might lead you to believe. All I’m saying is that I’ve taken the leap a few times over the past few years, gambling on myself, and it’s been an incredible experience. I’ve taken risks in love, my friendships, and my professional career that have required a bravado and honesty, both to myself and others, that I was previously unable to summon from within.

Taking a broader view, it’s clear that those deserving of our respect, from professional athletes to entrepreneurs to presidents, have taken calculated risks in the face of others calling them crazy or, worse, hopeless dreamers. No one has ever changed anything by playing it safe; the trick is knowing when to take a calculated risk and when to give up. Sure, it means more failure, but what does the inability to take these risks and gamble on ourselves say about who we are? The most successful entrepreneurs, for instance, are prepared to fail 10 or 11 times before hitting it big. A venture capital firm only needs to hit a few home runs in its entire portfolio to be a tremendous success, meaning that it must become extremely comfortable with repeated failure.

Examining myself, I know that I don’t need to found the next Google, but my own personal hell would be a world where I’ve stopped growing as a person and settled into a comfortable bureaucratic role somewhere, rubber stamping forms for eternity. Where my journey will lead me, I’m not sure, but I do know that I need to continue to push myself towards taking the kinds of risks that will ultimately enrich my life, scary or not.

Call me an unrepentant existentialist (and I am), but I want to be able to lie on my deathbed comfortable with the choices that I’ve made, the man I’ve become, and the lives that I’ve touched. I want to be prepared to relive this life on repeat, as absurd as that may sound. I could throw a million clichés out there about what that means: fortune favors the bold. You can never burn a bridge without looking back. Etc, etc, etc. In the end, I think we just need to admit ourselves that sometimes the biggest risk is not taking one at all.

Best Thought Provoking Movies

A few weeks ago, a friend sent around a thoughtful review of “Inglourious Basterds” that triggered something. Another friend commented that he passes up almost all Hollywood films because they lack depth beyond superficial plot summary and sunshine/puppies, but he was inspired to go watch Tarantino’s latest. I challenged his presumption, arguing that the democratization of technology has led to an incredible amount of quality independent films, while acknowledging the sorry philosophical state of the mainstream film. He asked me to recommend five intellectual films.

I’d like to discuss my recommendation to him and then get into a more comprehensive discussion of intellectual cinema. Lots of films have philosophical inklings in them without being considered intellectual films. Even Indiana Jones flirts with Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith “as he leaps onto an invisible bridge, armed only with the presumption that he will be saved.

First, the recommendations. When I was backpacking this weekend, my brother and I discussed this issue for a several hours on the trail, but more in the sense of the five intellectual movies we’d use to get someone going, not necessarily an all-time list. We decided on the following.

Recommended List

1) “I Heart Huckabees” – An entertaining comedy with an all-star cast that showcase a literal battle for souls waged by philosophy’s extremes, a sexy brooding nihilist and existential detectives who believe the universe is brilliantly interconnected. It’s a skillful and beautiful contrast of the philosophies that strikes a nice balance in the end.

2) “Waking Life” – Probably my favorite philosophical film of all-time, it is a loosely-connected set of 5-10 minute philosophical lectures that features Nietzsche scholar Robert Solomon on existentialism, a scathing philosophical indictment of the political system, and Ethan Hawke on dreams, among others. Richard Linklater laboriously shot the film and then animated it frame by frame on his Mac. It’s beautiful and there’s nothing else like it.

3) “The Graduate” – Not as overtly philosophical, but unbelievably sharp satire of the American dream in the 1960’s. The cinematography and clever screenplay accompany the all-time performance by Dustin Hoffman as he searches for meaning in suburbia after graduating from college.

4) “A Clockwork Orange” – Disturbing but unparalleled, like any great Kubrick film. It’s a futuristic nightmare that is also a meditation on crime and punishment, free will, and what society has the right to impose in the name of justice. You droogs won’t forget this film.

5) “Synecdoche, New York” – Perhaps my favorite of the postmodern films in the tradition of Fellini. Kaufman (scribe of “Being John Malkovich” and “Eternal Sunshine”) finally writes and directs the same movie, ensuring complete creative control. The result is his finest, densest work, one that expands on “Adaptation” by diving deeper into the postmodern void and the meaning of an individual life in the face of the new reality. Philip Seymour Hoffman is unbelievable as a genius trying to put on a play that will do justice to the authentic human experience.

That’d be my “starter kit,” so to speak, but now I’ll try to get into a more “all-time” discussion below. Here we go! Also, I haven’t seen some of the serious heavyweights, like “La Dolce Vita,” “Wild Strawberries” or “My Dinner with Andre,” so forgive me if your favorite isn’t on here.

All-Time Classics

“8 ½” –An all-time classic and the greatest postmodern film, Fellini deconstructs cinema as he chronicles the struggles of director Guido, who’s making a movie that falls apart. While the iconic balloon at the beach scene is the most famous, this entire movie is wildly influential. Characterized by a slow descent into self-immolation and complete disorder, by the end the cast and crew are dancing around a giant wooden rocket ship.

“The Seventh Seal” - A man playing chess with the Grim Reaper while pondering existence and God, ‘nuff said.

“A Clockwork Orange”

“Apocalypse Now” –The greatest war movie ever made is based on Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of
Darkness.” It explores the depth of the human soul as Martin Sheen travels deeper and deeper into the darkness of the jungle in search of Brando’s Kurtz. Simply unbelievable.

“2001: A Space Odyssey” –A one-of-a-kind film that discusses the implications of alien life, the ethics and infallibility of robots, and what makes us human.

“Waking Life”

"Straw Dogs" -Peckinpah's ultraviolent film about becoming a man stars Dustin Hoffman and is tough to watch but a truly great movie. It's fascinating to watch Hoffman simmer into a slow boil and stand up for his family.

Still Great

“Synecdoche, New York”

“Being There” –Peter Sellers is set into the world armed only with what he could learn on TV. A classic.

“I Heart Huckabees”

“The Graduate”

“The Believer” –Intellectually superior to “American History X.” Ryan Gosling plays a self-loathing Jew whose philosophical disagreements with his religion lead him to become a neo-Nazi. Very thought provoking and well written.

“American History X” –Edward Norton is eerily convincing as a white supremacist that gives extremely articulate representations of his hateful positions. After he blows his top in the famous curb-stomping scene, his intellectual redemption is satisfying and the film doesn’t shy away some of the harsher realities in race relations.

“Memento” –In addition to the incredible mind-fuck that is the structure of “Memento,” the loss of all memory is a convenient plot device to explore free will, the evil in humanity, and some really painful tattoos. This is why you know Guy Pearce, admit it.

"The Big Lebowski" -Can't believe I left this off initially. Say you will about the tenets of national socialism, at least it's an ethos.

Traumatic Viewing Experiences, But Ultimately Successful Ones

“Deer Hunter” –Did any movie short of “Apocalypse Now” showcase the darkness in Vietnam better than this?

“Pulp Fiction” –So many movies strive to be profound by adding political subtext to the “Pulp Fiction” style. Often imitated, never duplicated, “Pulp Fiction” is the first of to weave of a maze of interconnected plots and lives as they clash into one another.

“Traffic” –Maybe the best of the “Pulp Fiction” imitators, does an incredible job showing the different fronts of the drug war.

“Amores Perros”/“21 Grams”/“City of God” -Shudder to think about these movies.

“Requiem for a Dream” –Hard to watch rise and fall film about three characters who experience the highs and desolate lows of addiction. Really haunting.

"Taxi Driver" -To this day, the only movie I've ever watched, rewound, and watched again in one sitting. You talking to me?!

Weird Successes

“Night of the Living Dead” –I’ll stand by this one. Romero is the king of subversive horror commentary. Zombies can highlight our fears about communism, the consumerist nightmare, our herd mentality, and even what makes human (since those zombies are clearly not, where do we draw the line?). More effective political commentary than you think.

“Natural Born Killers” –Ultraviolent Oliver Stone film about media-fueled violence and our society’s addiction to it. Robert Downey Jr. was perfectly ridiculous.

“Fight Club” –Society has destroyed what’s important, turned us into mindless consumers, and castrated men of their manhood, so they fight each other to get it back. As their fight club descends into anarchistic terrorism, Pitt and Norton get darker and darker.

“eXistenZ” –You’ve probably never even heard of it, but it’s superior to “The Matrix” and just as thought-provoking about reality and the human brain. Jude Law shines in this twisting mind-fuck by Cronenberg where they test a videogame you plug into your brain that gets too real.

“The Matrix” –The first installment of the Wachowski’s disappointing trilogy was still excellent. It challenged our reality and was packed with philosophy. It discussed Plato’s “The Cave,” free will vs. determinism, and was filled with biblical imagery around Keanu (that felt weird to type).

“Being John Malkovich” –Bizarre examination of the human identity as John Cusack finds a way to control John Malkovich’s brain for 10 minutes at a time before being dumped onto the turnpike. Kaufman’s first big movie was quite a trip.

“Mulholland Drive” –The cinematic equivalent of a Dali painting, this Lynch film is a surreal, fever dream that won’t really make sense no matter how many times you watch it. Ebert tried it with 400 film students and the original script. You never stop picking up more details every time you watch it.

The Human Condition

“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” –There’s nothing else like it, go see it. After a stroke leaves him only able to blink one eye, the protagonist manages to write a book with his speech therapist and celebrate life, not wallow in the pity of his condition. This one is not depressing, I promise.

“Good Will Hunting”

“The Pianist” –This was just so hard to watch.

“One Flew Over a Cuckoo’s Nest” –I find Kesey’s philosophical problems with the theatrical version of his book to be fascinating.

“Harold and Maude”

“Easy Rider”

“The Fountain” –The reaches of what we can do for love and man’s inability to accept what we cannot fix.

“Shawshank Redemption” –Beautiful film. Andy Dufruesne knows why the cage bird sings.

“Razor’s Edge” –After coming back from war, Bill Murray searches the globe for the meaning of life. He negotiated getting to make this one in exchange for doing “Ghostbusters.” Wonder which one he’ll be remembered for.

“Adaptation” –With this and “American Beauty,” I’m less impressed by the profundity of my former favorites every time I watch them. Still, pretty solid postmodern cinema that chronicles the adaptation of an impossible book as deconstructs itself and descends into the Hollywood madness Kaufman looks down upon. Nicholas Cage, Chris Cooper, and Meryl Streep are fantastic. "God help you if you find yourself using voiceover, my friend."

“American Beauty” –Still love the movie’s tone as it captures a suburban zombie’s spiritual awakening, but has not aged well. Makes you think about how you’re living your life a bit though.

“Dead Poets Society”

“Life is Beautiful” –Bennini is annoying, but he was amazing here.

Pretty Good

“Revolutionary Road” –Perhaps the darkest film about the destructive power of suburbia. Based on the Yates novel.

“No Country For Old Men” –Some interesting ideas here.

“Groundhog Day” –Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence teaches a spoiled brat how he should behave.

“Pleasantville” –Bonus points for use of Miles Davis, creative use of color.

“Donnie Darko” –Explores death, free will, the physics of wormholes, creation through destruction/chaos, and pretty much everything else in this genre buster that’s still not quite a classic. It’s still a great watch though. RIP Swayze, you were super creepy in this one.

"Magnolia" -I forgot to throw this one in there, but a truly weird and original Paul Thomas Anderson movie that examines the human soul. Some really incredible acting here.

“Matrix Reloaded” –Big drop off from part 1.

Really Out There

“Contact” –Based on a Carl Sagan novel, it was a pretty good film about alien life and the philosophy of the cosmos. Super long though.

“Minority Report” –A futuristic battle over freewill, the crime clairvoyants accuse Tom Cruise of murder and he refuses to turn himself in. Some cool explosions too.

"A Scanner Darkly" -I originally debated putting this in, Adomian convinced me. Really dark movie based on addiction eerily similar to crystal meth that is definitely worth a viewing. Linklater shot this one and had animators go over the footage rather than doing it himself.

“Devils Rejects” –Rob Zombie rebounded from his horrific debut with a tough to stomach chase picture that blurs the line beyond good and bad with outlaws and Johnny Law. There are not a lot of redeeming figures here and maybe that’s the point, but this movie has stuck with me for a long time. And no one has ever used “Freebird” better, seriously.

Not As Deep As The Director Thought

“Crash” –Straight-up derivative of “Pulp Fiction,” it was interesting to think about the alienation of society and how our isolation causes us to violently crash together. There are no role models here; everyone makes good and bad decisions with heavy doses of their prejudices.

“Munich” –This movie didn’t really do that much to show the moral gray zone for as much as it was lauded. As someone who’s studied the Holocaust a fair amount, anything that refers to the show trial of Adolf Eichmann as justice doesn’t pass the sniff test.

"Syriana"/"Babel" -The twin faces of the worst movies made in the tradition of "Pulp Fiction." "Syriana" attempts to chronicle every single potential aspect of terrorism and becomes a bloated, barely connected mess, but "Babel" substituted muted sound and dramatic orchestral music for substance. Both of them needed to lose about an hour.

“Matrix Revolutions” –Wachowski brothers, years later we still wonder how you managed to blow a slam-dunk trilogy like that.

“Garden State” –Years later, it just seems whiny. I do like the notion of our generation searching for a fleeting sense of home, however.

“Hostel” –F* you, Eli Roth. He’s the prime example of why a sophisticated intellectual argument can still leave you with a piece of nauseating drivel.

“Observe and Report”: Deceptively good?

“Observe and Report” is the kind of movie that you are always surprised got made after you finish watching it. “They got THAT in there?” you mutter to yourself as you ponder the nation going to hell in a hand basket. Honestly though, I wouldn’t be surprised if this movie became an absolute cult classic on DVD in five years.

In a lot of ways, “Observe and Report” is one of the more skillful smattering of pop culture and indictment of the American dream we've had in recent years. Ronnie Barnhardt (surprisingly well-played by Rogen, an actor I’ve tired of in recent years) is the 21st century Travis Bickle from “Taxi Driver,” a rent-a-cop who’s a bipolar byproduct of the “Breakfast Club” generation. Ronnie believes he’s special in the way that parents tell their kindergartners and follows his dreams to reckless extremes.
Ronnie is narcissistic, paranoid, and delusional. His reality is totally skewed, from the importance of his job as “head of mall security” to his incessant interference with police investigations. He misses the cute girl at the food court to fake a relationship with Brandi (Anna Faris), a vacuous and nauseating tease from behind the cosmetics counter who is one of the most despicable women I’ve ever seen put to film. She’s truly awful, but Ronnie describes her as “the most beautiful woman in the mall, maybe the world.”

Our protagonist frames his world in grandiose terms, good and evil. He’s a mall cop version of Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity. I envision him blasting either heavy metal or Rush Limbaugh to get psyched in the morning. His speeches sound like they come from a preposterous comic book (“The world needs a fucking hero”). He’s the epitome of the American nightmare, unable to grasp what’s going on but incredibly aggressive in the fact that he’s in control and has the right solution. As a result, his methods are extreme; we see him beating skateboarders over the head and tazing people over parking tickets.

After failing to become a police officer, the mall becomes of otherworldly importance to Ronnie and he’ll do anything to protect it. When there is a flasher running amok in his mall, traumatizing his clientele and his love, Ronnie sees this “case” as his chance for redemption, to do good on his dream. Throughout the film, I never doubted Ronnie’s intentions. He always thought he was doing the right thing, even if he deluded himself when necessary. It was just appalling to see how much damage a well-intentioned human being, or country, can do when it flails about unable to lucidly engage reality.

I’m sure you’re thinking back, how did he possibly like this character? There are some real moments of tenderness with his alcoholic mother, brilliantly played by Celia Weston (“I’m making a change too, son. I’m switching to beer. I can pound that shit all day and keep my shit together”). When she has trouble, Ronnie does a good job taking care of her. He tries to make her proud like he was still six. It’s kind of sweet to watch her help him get ready for his big date.

The movie has a great supporting cast. Ray Liotta is stellar as Ronnie’s nemesis, a real cop who’s trying to solve the case. Michael Pena is phenomenal as Ronnie’s #2, his right hand in the crack team of rent-a-cops. Jesse Plemons (Landry from “Friday Night Lights”), Aziz Ansari (“Parks and Recreation”), and Patton Oswalt make effective cameos as well. This movie is so far outside lines that these actors relish the freedom that comes along with breaking all the rules in a film. “Observe and Report” was highly controversial when it came out because of a quasi-date rape scene and high levels of offensive language towards women and minorities.

In the end, it’s hard for me to tell how much I really liked this movie and how much I was just impressed by its subversive bravery. Additionally, I’ll be the first to admit I had pretty low expectations going in. It’s such homage to the annals of Hollywood that it’s hard to decide if it’s derivative or a Quentin Tarantino-esque film about a loser. I can tell you that I respected the repulsive moments and sickening violence much more than I felt in the half-hearted mess that was “Pineapple Express.” “Pineapple” refused to choose what kind of movie it was and ultimately failed, an uneven and unsatisfying movie with a decidedly superior first half. “Observe and Report” knew all along what it was and went for it without reservations. You have to respect that.

We never know what the filmmaker thought about Ronnie, but his indecision here seems purposeful. Does his success vindicate his insanity? More importantly, did the film work? All I know for sure is that when Ronnie finally triumphs, solving the case and getting the girl, he pumped his fist in the air a la “Breakfast Club” and I wanted to pump mine along with him. I won’t forget about you, Ronnie, and anyone who slams Patton Oswalt’s head into an oven door (hands down my favorite part of the movie) is A-OK with me.

Grade: B+

Great Sentence

"You could chalk it up to the virtuosic navel-gazing of the Facebook generation, whose self-regard for its own passing cultural experiences bests even that of the boomers."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/08/why-is-third-eye-blind-so-popular-again.html