I haven't written much about baseball this year, for the simple fact that both my teams have been awful. The Mets have been beset by injuries to their stars, and the prospects they have called up have been hopeless. After two straight years of late-season collapses, the Mets have followed it up with one of their most inept seasons in years. It's time to start all over again, blow the whole thing up. Get rid of Omar Minaya, Jerry Manuel, and all their henchman, and start the re-building process. Again.
As for the Diamondbacks, their demise is much more perplexing. It's hard to comprehend, watching their total ineptness this season, but this is basically the same team that got to the NLCS two years ago. Of course, Brandon Webb, their Cy Young-winning ace has been out all season, but the rest of the team is intact. Mark Reynolds has had a great season, Justin Upton has been great at times, and not so great at others, and Dan Haren deserves the Cy Young award, but obviously won't win it. The rest of the team has stunk. Chris Young has turned into a major head case, and there are too many guys who have played without any desire or emotion. It's been sad to watch, or not watch, as the case may be.
So, without any team to root for, and seeing that teams I despise (i.e., the Yankees, the Cardinals, etc.) are cruising along with major leads in their respective divisions, I have pretty much ignored baseball, something I don't think I've ever done before. I have, however, managed to read Pete Rose's book, "My Prison Without Bars." Now, before I get on my soapbox, let me say that I have never liked Pete Rose, not since that October afternoon when he upended Buddy Harrelson and then proceeded to beat the crap out of him (at least that's how I choose to remember it). The sprinting to first base on a walk, the barreling into Ray Fosse at home plate in the All Star game (which pretty much ended Fosse's career), and all the other Rose crap always seemed like so much BS to me. Oh, I've always admired him for his baseball skills, you can't be a true fan of the game and not appreciate his accomplishments. But I never liked the guy.
So when Rose got caught for betting on baseball, and cheating on his income taxes, and was banned from baseball, denied admission to the Hall of Fame, and did some time in a Federal prison, I shed nary a tear. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. He got what he deserved. And all these years of being banned from baseball were deserved, in my humble opinion. Why in the world should I feel sorry for Pete Rose?
The truth is, I don't feel sorry for Rose, reading his book has not changed that. But reading the book has solidified one thought I've always had about Rose, and that is that he belongs in the Hall of Fame. In my opinion, the Baseball Hall of Fame is about accomplishments on the baseball field. If you're going to bring character up as a consideration, then you better start talking about kicking Ty Cobb out of the hall. Not to mention every player who ever used drugs, whether it's steroids, greenies, cocaine, or what have you. And let's not forget the wife-beaters, and the criminals (yes, drunk driving is a crime). The truth is that character has never had anything to do with being worthy of Hall of Fame enshrinement, and should have nothing to do with it.
Pete Rose is the all-time leader in hits. He won three championship rings, and an MVP. He was a fixture in the All-Star game, and he was one of the main cogs on one of the greatest teams of all time, the Big Red Machine of the 1970's. He has the pedigree, and the intangibles. So, why is he not in?
Well, Pete Rose bet on baseball games, and that is the cardinal no-no of baseball, the one rule that, if broken, will get a player banned from the game. It's all about the integrity of the game, and the direct result of the Black Sox scandal, wherein members of the Chicago White Sox conspired to throw the 1919 World Series with some degenerate gamblers and criminals. It's why Shoeless Joe Jackson, who also has the pedigree for the Hall, will never get in.
For the longest time, Rose denied betting on baseball, but he has since come clean. If there was any doubt, all you have to do is read "My Prison Without Bars." He is forthright and honest about his betting activities. But he never bet against his team, and he never did anything to influence the outcome of a game he had bet on. The rule is iron-clad, and Rose's agreement with then-Commissioner Bart Giamatti was that he would accept a lifetime ban from the game. It would seem the case is closed, as far as that is concerned.
But the Hall of Fame question is different. The Hall of Fame is not really part of Major League Baseball, it is a museum in Cooperstown, New York. It celebrates the game and honors its greatest players. It is filled with tremendous players of questionable character, and it is incomplete without Pete Rose.
Rose deserves to be in, there is simply no question about that. His punishment for his crimes should be his continued banishment from being part of the game and earning a living in the game. That punishment should not extend to enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose's plaque should be there, along with Johnny Bench, Tony Perez, and Joe Morgan. His continued absence is a travesty.
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Monday, September 7, 2009
Ted Kennedy
I have always been conflicted about Ted Kennedy. He's not the mythical, god-like figure that his martyred brother, Jack, has become in our hearts and minds. He's not the intellectual equivalent of his other murdered brother, Bobby. His presidential aspirations were destroyed one tragic night when he either deliberately allowed his passenger to die or was negligent in not being able to save her. He has had problems with alcohol and womanizing, and he played a role in the events that led to his nephew, William Kennedy Smith, being accused and put on trial for sexual assault. His shortcomings have been on display for the whole nation to see over the last four decades.
On the other hand, he spent 47 years in the United States Senate, became the voice of the Democratic Party, and was responsible for much legislation that has positively affected American's lives over the years. He wasn't afraid to wear the liberal mantle, and he wasn't ashamed to proudly work for liberal causes and issues.
He devoted his life to public service, and he paid a high price for it. He watched his beloved two older brothers be murdered, and he was forced to assume the role of family leader and patriarch. He walked his niece down the aisle at her wedding, and provided comfort and support to his widowed sisters-in-law. At times, he behaved in public like an alcoholic and he apparently overcame that over the past few years. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he spent the last decade or so in recovery. He went through a bitter divorce, and tragic medical issues with his son. Seemingly, he got through and overcame all of that.
He never could escape the legacy of Chappaquidick. I don't believe the public has ever known the true facts of what happened. The worst that can be said is that Ted was drunk, was driving Mary Jo Kopechnie somewhere to have sex with her, had an accident and drove off the bridge (perhaps due to his alleged intoxication), saved himself from drowning, and when he couldn't save her, waited for hours until he sobered up to call the police. We don't know if that is what truly occurred, but that is the version that the Kennedy-haters have put forth ever since. Whether true or not, there were enough disturbing questions and issues left from that event to haunt Kennedy for the rest of his life. Many people believe he bought himself out of having to suffer serious consequences for his actions. Many people have never forgiven him for that. It cost him a serious run at the presidency and will forever stain his legacy.
In death, what has been most talked about are his accomplishments and leadership in the Senate, and his ability to overcome his private demons. Unlike his brothers, who in death have become larger than life, Ted Kennedy has remained a human being, flawed like everyone else, but able to withstand and overcome those personal flaws, and have a significant impact on this nation. When you look at it that way, perhaps he really was the greatest of the Kennedy's. In any event, his passing was truly significant, the end of an era. His influence will be felt for decades to come, and he will be missed.
On the other hand, he spent 47 years in the United States Senate, became the voice of the Democratic Party, and was responsible for much legislation that has positively affected American's lives over the years. He wasn't afraid to wear the liberal mantle, and he wasn't ashamed to proudly work for liberal causes and issues.
He devoted his life to public service, and he paid a high price for it. He watched his beloved two older brothers be murdered, and he was forced to assume the role of family leader and patriarch. He walked his niece down the aisle at her wedding, and provided comfort and support to his widowed sisters-in-law. At times, he behaved in public like an alcoholic and he apparently overcame that over the past few years. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that he spent the last decade or so in recovery. He went through a bitter divorce, and tragic medical issues with his son. Seemingly, he got through and overcame all of that.
He never could escape the legacy of Chappaquidick. I don't believe the public has ever known the true facts of what happened. The worst that can be said is that Ted was drunk, was driving Mary Jo Kopechnie somewhere to have sex with her, had an accident and drove off the bridge (perhaps due to his alleged intoxication), saved himself from drowning, and when he couldn't save her, waited for hours until he sobered up to call the police. We don't know if that is what truly occurred, but that is the version that the Kennedy-haters have put forth ever since. Whether true or not, there were enough disturbing questions and issues left from that event to haunt Kennedy for the rest of his life. Many people believe he bought himself out of having to suffer serious consequences for his actions. Many people have never forgiven him for that. It cost him a serious run at the presidency and will forever stain his legacy.
In death, what has been most talked about are his accomplishments and leadership in the Senate, and his ability to overcome his private demons. Unlike his brothers, who in death have become larger than life, Ted Kennedy has remained a human being, flawed like everyone else, but able to withstand and overcome those personal flaws, and have a significant impact on this nation. When you look at it that way, perhaps he really was the greatest of the Kennedy's. In any event, his passing was truly significant, the end of an era. His influence will be felt for decades to come, and he will be missed.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Tarantino
When I was in high school and college, my world revolved around film. It was never referred to as movies, it was always "film" or "cinema." I worshipped directors like Kubrick, Truffaut, and Bergman. I wrote film reviews for my college newspaper and I served on the student programming board, on the film committee, of course. Nothing was more important to me.
As time went on, other things, such as making a living, getting married, and having a family slowly took over. I became less obsessed. I still enjoyed movies and reading film reviews, but had long since given up the fantasy of becoming a film critic. And every now and then, I would discover some new director who would so inflame my film passions that I became a total fanboy. In the 70's, it was Scorcese. In the late 80's/early 90's, it was Oliver Stone. And since the first time I saw "Pulp Fiction", it's been Quentin Tarantino.
There is really no director making films these days like Tarantino. People either worship him or despise him, but there is no denying his influence on modern-day cinema. A new Tarantino film is a cause for celebration, and each new film breaks different ground for the director. I don't believe I'm being a fanboy by saying he's the most exciting director out there these days.
The first real Tarantino film (despite the fact that he did not actually direct it) was "True Romance." A quirky, off-beat, brazen mix of romance, comedy, action and violence, "True Romance" boasted a then-unknown cast that reads like a Hollywood who's who: Brad Pitt, Val Kilmer, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, James Gandolfini, Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman and others valiantly support Christian Slater and Rosanna Arquette in the lead roles. The brilliant dialogue, never more incisive than in the classic scene between Hopper and Walken, bursts out like street poetry. Maybe Tarantino only wrote the screenplay, but his mark is all over this film.
Next came "Reservoir Dogs", a caper film unlike any other. It was Tarantino's first turn as director, and we never actually see the botched robbery, only the events leading up to it, and immediately after it. Such Tarantino staples as graphic violence and constant use of profanity were seamlessly woven into the fascinating story. And I shouldn't forget Tarantino's use of popular music, and not just on the soundtrack. No one who has ever seen this film can listen to the Steelers Wheel song "Stuck in the middle with You", and not think of this picture.
But it was his next film which really cemented Tarantino's position as an auteur and artist. That film, of course, was "Pulp Fiction". If "Citizen Kane" created the glossary of film-making, paving the way for everything that came after it, "Pulp Fiction" took it to a whole new level. I won't go into a description of the film itself, by this time, you've either seen it or not; you either love it or not. Suffice to say, it was the most exciting, original film to come out of Hollywood in many years.
Tarantino's next films, "Jackie Brown", the "Kill Bill" films, and "Grindhouse" were all fascinating, well-made films that towered above most of the other crap you could see at the multiplex. But as good as they were, they felt like "lesser Tarantino." They were certainly entertaining and a joy to watch, but they did not get the adrenaline flowing like his first three movies.
That all changed with the release of "Inglourious Basterds." Part war film, part ode to cinema, part revisionist history, the film is Tarantino's fantasy of how he would have ended World War II if he had been made God for a day. Like most Tarantino, the film is funny, engrossing, tense, absorbing, frightening, and violent. The acting is superb, especially the unknown German television actor, Christoph Waltz as the Jew-hunting Nazi, Hans Landa. The dialogue is superb, the tension in some of the scenes is unbearable. And the climax, in what is clearly an homage to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" contains images which have stuck with me ever since I saw the film. This is probably Tarantino's most personal film, containing the themes and values which he undoubtedly holds dear. And it is simply unforgettable.
There are far too many schlockmeisters in Hollywood today, turning out dreck like "GI Joe." There are only a few true artists, who somehow have figured how to make personal visions in films that are nevertheless popular and successful. Tarantino is that rare film artist who does things his way, is true to his vision, yet never forgets that his primary purpose is to entertain. There is no one out there like him, and nobody makes films like he does. Like Orson Welles so many years before him, Tarantino is a true film genius. Don't miss his latest masterpiece.
As time went on, other things, such as making a living, getting married, and having a family slowly took over. I became less obsessed. I still enjoyed movies and reading film reviews, but had long since given up the fantasy of becoming a film critic. And every now and then, I would discover some new director who would so inflame my film passions that I became a total fanboy. In the 70's, it was Scorcese. In the late 80's/early 90's, it was Oliver Stone. And since the first time I saw "Pulp Fiction", it's been Quentin Tarantino.
There is really no director making films these days like Tarantino. People either worship him or despise him, but there is no denying his influence on modern-day cinema. A new Tarantino film is a cause for celebration, and each new film breaks different ground for the director. I don't believe I'm being a fanboy by saying he's the most exciting director out there these days.
The first real Tarantino film (despite the fact that he did not actually direct it) was "True Romance." A quirky, off-beat, brazen mix of romance, comedy, action and violence, "True Romance" boasted a then-unknown cast that reads like a Hollywood who's who: Brad Pitt, Val Kilmer, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, James Gandolfini, Samuel L. Jackson, Gary Oldman and others valiantly support Christian Slater and Rosanna Arquette in the lead roles. The brilliant dialogue, never more incisive than in the classic scene between Hopper and Walken, bursts out like street poetry. Maybe Tarantino only wrote the screenplay, but his mark is all over this film.
Next came "Reservoir Dogs", a caper film unlike any other. It was Tarantino's first turn as director, and we never actually see the botched robbery, only the events leading up to it, and immediately after it. Such Tarantino staples as graphic violence and constant use of profanity were seamlessly woven into the fascinating story. And I shouldn't forget Tarantino's use of popular music, and not just on the soundtrack. No one who has ever seen this film can listen to the Steelers Wheel song "Stuck in the middle with You", and not think of this picture.
But it was his next film which really cemented Tarantino's position as an auteur and artist. That film, of course, was "Pulp Fiction". If "Citizen Kane" created the glossary of film-making, paving the way for everything that came after it, "Pulp Fiction" took it to a whole new level. I won't go into a description of the film itself, by this time, you've either seen it or not; you either love it or not. Suffice to say, it was the most exciting, original film to come out of Hollywood in many years.
Tarantino's next films, "Jackie Brown", the "Kill Bill" films, and "Grindhouse" were all fascinating, well-made films that towered above most of the other crap you could see at the multiplex. But as good as they were, they felt like "lesser Tarantino." They were certainly entertaining and a joy to watch, but they did not get the adrenaline flowing like his first three movies.
That all changed with the release of "Inglourious Basterds." Part war film, part ode to cinema, part revisionist history, the film is Tarantino's fantasy of how he would have ended World War II if he had been made God for a day. Like most Tarantino, the film is funny, engrossing, tense, absorbing, frightening, and violent. The acting is superb, especially the unknown German television actor, Christoph Waltz as the Jew-hunting Nazi, Hans Landa. The dialogue is superb, the tension in some of the scenes is unbearable. And the climax, in what is clearly an homage to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" contains images which have stuck with me ever since I saw the film. This is probably Tarantino's most personal film, containing the themes and values which he undoubtedly holds dear. And it is simply unforgettable.
There are far too many schlockmeisters in Hollywood today, turning out dreck like "GI Joe." There are only a few true artists, who somehow have figured how to make personal visions in films that are nevertheless popular and successful. Tarantino is that rare film artist who does things his way, is true to his vision, yet never forgets that his primary purpose is to entertain. There is no one out there like him, and nobody makes films like he does. Like Orson Welles so many years before him, Tarantino is a true film genius. Don't miss his latest masterpiece.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)