I had planned on doing for music, TV, books, and video games what I had done for films, but I can't seem to find a hook or way to parse my impressions of the past ten years in those fields in the same way I could with films.
I think the reason comes down to volume. There are far fewer films than there are other forms of media. I can feel a bit more comfortable being definitive with my impressions of what films had to offer in each year, cause I see a good chunk of what seems interesting.
With those other medias, I know I'm missing vast swathes of entertaining and worthy choices, simply because there's not enough time in the day, and I don't have the resources to sample everything I would hope to sample.
So instead, broad impressions about the 00s in each of those medias.
MUSIC
I think the 00s can be defined as both the decade the industry collapsed, and solidified its position at the same time. It collapsed in the sense that no artist gets broadly listened to, anymore. All artists are niche artists, and the niches are ever narrowing. An album with broad appeal in the USA might appeal at most to 10,000,000 folks, while being purchased by 2,000,000. Great as those numbers are, that means even the most popular musicians are liked by at best 1 in 30 Americans, and except for the rarest of cases, less than 1 in 100 bother to actually spend money on their product, and more often than not, all those buzzworthy artists that get inches of ink (and pixels) at your various cooler than thou magazines and websites, they're liked by less than 1 in 10,000 folks in America.
Yet against that backdrop of less and less commonality of tastes, big label corporate managed pop has made a dramatic comeback in the 00s compared to where it had been in the 90s. Disney leads the way with all the teenyboppers they've foisted on tweens. That's one of the few demographics where you could say that popular acts penetrates a large segment of a given population (I'm just gonna let that sentence hang and marinate a bit, I blame Southpark, profanity, and hilarity at link).
All this is just an excuse for not plowing through the releases from each year of the 00s and figuring out which ones have been stickiest (as in moving from computer to computer and MP3 player to MP3 player, or which songs have managed to keep get putting on playlists). Great music continues to get made, though it all feels a bit iterative rather than innovative, lately. Regina Spektor is great, but she's the latest iteration of pissed off feminine singer songwriter. MGMT is great, but they're the latest iteration of hip underground band with solid musical chops. Neko Case is great, but she's the latest iteration of rootsy with a twist. OutKast were great (I assume they're done), but they were the latest iteration of smartly done hip hop with mass appeal. Nikka Costa is great, but she's the latest iteration of well done blue eyed soul and funk. I think you'd be hard pressed to name an innovative or defining sound that came about in the 00s. MIA might be the closest thing to an innovator that the 00s have seen, but she's just a more exotic mélange of influences than what came before, and in that sense she also was an iteration of pop performer bringing 'world' music sensibilities to a genre that hadn't been infused with that kind of sound before.
My biggest complaint with the 00s musically is that, as good as some of the stuff has been, rarely does it rise to the level that it makes me want to not spin 50s bop, or 60s garage, or 70s prog, or 70s afrobeat, 70s female folksy stuff, or 80s new wave, or 90s grunge, or 90s electronica, or 70s PFunk, or Prince. Could just be me, could just be that the music you listen to from about the ages of 13 to 30 is the music that stays with you your whole life, and music that comes after it pales in comparison in your personal estimation. It's either that, or the 00s have really been derivative musically, I can't step far enough outside myself to determine which is truer.
TV
Plenty of great TV in the 00s. TV has supplanted film as the go to media for complex drama. Listing, ordering, and trying to figure out which season of which show belongs where in relation to the entire output of what was available, that's a task I'm not up for. The good stuff breaks down into a few broad categories, though. You have the premium cable goodness, of the good Sopranos season, all of Deadwood and Rome, for some The Wire (not for me, though). You have the brilliant commercial failures of Freaks and Geeks (ran in 99-00, so just makes it, I guess), Firefly, and Andy Richter Controls the Universe. You have BBC/UK goodness with The Office (original recipe), Extras, Doctor Who relaunch, Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures, Being Human, the aforementioned Rome (joint BBC/Rai/HBO production), and Misfits (not yet shown in the USA, but basically what Heroes should have been). The final category is reality shows, which provided some of the best TV moments of the past ten years, even as the glut of these kind of shows has devalued both the experience of watching television, and the meaning of celebrity. Amazing Race deserves the accolades it gets, it's a fine show, though could be better, So You Think You Can Dance gets a lot of things right, and you've got attractive young people doing amazing things in skimpy costumes which never hurts. American Idol is a cultural touchstone, one of the few things that breaks generational barriers in this increasingly atomized culture of ours. Survivor kicked the whole thing off, even though I can't watch as I find the structure of the show unfair and unwatchable. MTV deserves both kudos and a kick in their collective gonads for some of the crap they've unleashed (Jersey Shore, Room Raiders, NEXT, I'm 16 and Pregnant but I'm on TV so Woohoo!, Sweet 16, Cribs, Road Rules/Real World let's all get drunk, use steroids, or large breast implants Challenge).
The good thing about TV now, there's something for everyone, the bad thing about TV, there's something for everyone, and some people have no taste.
BOOKS
Don't read broadly enough to make any recommendations. I read what I read, and I don't read what I don't read. Loved what Peter Hamilton has done this decade, same with Neal Stephenson. Joe Abercrombie's done some interesting things to the fantasy genre, and George RR Martin's big messy, probably never going to see the final few books of The Song of Ice and Fire cycle provided some entertainment. Can't stand the serious books I'm supposed to like, got my fill of that kind of literature in college, and I think authors of 'serious' books are too self consciously writing 'serious' books to actually write books that are entertaining or thought provoking. I could be wrong, there might be some great stuff out there, but everything I've tried sampling has left me unable to care enough about the characters to bother finishing the story.
The other big trend has been the rise of conservative books. Mostly, they're pamphlet lengthed polemics stretched and padded into a length where publishers can feel justified in charging $20. Doesn't mean that it's not a welcome and worthwhile change in reading habits. Don't think it reflects a more conservative nation, I do think these books get bought to be used as totems. Bookshelves aren't about having access to a good book whenever you want, in a lot of homes, what books are in your living room act as a marker as to the tribal affiliations of the people within. I suspect, that for a lot of consumers, hardcover books are bought to be conversation pieces, as they are for something to read. Books to read are bought on a kindle, or in paperback.
VIDEO GAMES
Video games are a mature medium now, with an aging demographic of players. The kinds of games getting released reflect that it's not just 15 year old boys 'wasting' their time on video games. Add on top of that the success of Nintendo's 'blue ocean' strategy, as well as the explosion of 'casual gaming', and you have a broad swath of the population enjoying various kinds of video games, but not thinking of themselves as 'gamers'. Some of my favorite games of the decade have been made by PixelJunk, who have three hits, and one clunker (avoid Racers, if you have a PS3, Monsters, Eden, and Shooter are a must download) amongst the four games they've released for PS3. Rhythm games with their living room clogging proliferation of controllers were a big trend in the 00s, but that seems to waning. First person shooters have matured and improved in the 00s, with the latest Call of Duty: Modern Warfare2 being one of the best selling bits of media of all time (over $700M in sales its first week out). Rockstar games defined and refined the 'sandbox' genre with its Grand Theft Auto games. EA dominates sports games, mainly through aggressively pursuing exclusive licenses, but they've also improved their games as they release a new version each year. The Wii brought waggle to the masses, and showed that a successful marketing strategy for gaming wasn't in better graphics, or a deeper and more challenging experience, but in providing an easier to understand, and a more intuitive interface for non-gamers to learn, way in which to interact.
DECADE IN REVIEW
The 00s were a time of increased choice, and increased cultural atomization. There have been a few standouts that managed to cross boundaries and appeal broadly (in music Taylor Swift, sort of, actually in music there aren't any really strong candidates for a cross-cultural standout, in TV American Idol, in books, Dan 'Freakin' Brown for god sakes, in videogames Wii Sports), but for the most part, each consumer has been able to pick and choose from a variety of sources and define their cultural experience of the past decade in a hugely individualistic way.
Vive la différence
2009 isn't over, and I haven't seen all I want to see given I wait for the home releases on a lot of pictures, lately. But I've seen enough to know what I've liked so far.
2009 Films
Films I liked;
Adventureland, Coraline, I Love You, Man, Observe and Report, Crank: High Voltage, Star Trek, Drag Me to Hell, The Hangover, Cold Souls, Inglorious Basterds, Broken Embraces.
Films I might like once I've seen them;
The Hurt Locker, Sunshine Cleaning, Bright Star, Funny People, Sherlock Holmes
Films that I could have liked a lot more if they weren't terribly flawed in some way;
Watchmen, District 9, Year One, The Brothers Bloom
Films that I have strong opinions about both positive and negative, yet don't feel like articulating;
Avatar
The tentative top three of 2009
Up
An amazing opening, a full life and decades' worth of loving and heartbreak unfold before your eyes. That alone makes it one of the movies of the year. Add to that remarkable images, solid use of 3D, talking dogs (and Doug), and great vocal performances from Ed Asner and Christopher Plummer, and you have yourself one fine picture.
Zombieland
I wanted to like this picture, and luckily the filmmakers delivered. It's really a typical indie sensitive boy becoming a man coming of age story, with zombies and gore splatter thrown in for good measure. Doesn't seem like two genres that would meld successfully, yet there it is up on the screen, being entertaining as hell. It's funny in smart ways, and smart in funny ways, so long as gore doesn't put you out, this is a must see film. Jesse Eisenberg might be playing the exact same character he did in Adventureland, but he's still excellent in both films. Emma Stone is her usual solid self, and Abigail Breslin seems like a kid actor who might be able to keep acting as she gets older. Woody Harrelson gives a strong and endearing comic performance as a sort of reluctant patriarch/Obi Wan Kenobi type character. Woody Harrelson!
Up in the Air
Clooney, playing Clooney, a less glamorous, more nakedly cynical Clooney than we are used to, but Clooney nevertheless. Jason Reitman delivers again. His third feature, and all three have made the top three in their given year according to me. I have a mancrush on his directing prowess, and I don't care who knows it. Less light than his other two pictures, and does get a bit heavy handed in spots, but the characters are so well conceived, their interactions so honest, and the way the story is spun out, so skillful, that it's easy to forgive the moments when Reitman chooses to hammer home a few points too forcefully. He even makes Vera Farmiga compelling. Vera Farmiga!
Another year, another year's worth of films to consider
2008 Films
A lot of almost films that year, Cadillac Records is almost great, but too much Adrien Brody. The Spirit almost has something, but lacks some a compelling center to drive the wild visuals. Burn After Reading is almost a solid farce, but the tone veers too much to be good. Hellboy II almost is a solid sequel, but is generally unsatisfying. Hancock is almost a strong superhero pic while also being a superhero parody, but instead gets muddled at the end. Wall-E has one of the greatest opening thirty minutes of any picture, but really doesn't hold together once it gets to the spaceship. The fine pictures, but not fine enough to top the list are, Dark Knight, which is solid, but over praised in my opinion. The Visitor which contains great performances, but is bogged down by the usual liberal preachiness on immigration matters. Forgetting Sarah Marshall, is smart, funny, painful, and has both puppets and penises (though no puppetry of the penis). The Fall is one of the most beautiful travelogues you'll ever see, but there's no there there (still worth seeing). Kung Fu Panda is one of the best non-PIXAR computer animated kid flicks. You Don't Mess with the Zohan is good silly fun, one of the few Sandler pics that I actually like. Pineapple Express is a great stoner comedy, it's not such a great action picture, and it relies a bit too much on the action and not enough on the comedy. Tropic Thunder is another extremely funny film that spends a bit too much time rehashing action picture tropes rather than exploring and expanding on the funny. Slumdog Millionaire was what it was, entertaining, engrossing even, but ultimately a slight and melodramatic film that nevertheless has a great energy to it.
The Bank Job
A period (the period being 1971) crime drama/heist film that hits all the right notes. A genre that's often screwed up, this has the right pacing, cast, and direction to make it one of the best examples of this kind of picture made. Really surprising given that the director (Roger Donaldson) is bit of a hack.
Iron Man
Comic book/superhero action done right. Robert Downey, Jr. turns in a perfect performance as the boozy, talented, arrogant, yet charming Tony Stark. No preaching, no angst, no sturm, no drang, just a straightforward good guys battle bad guys while blowing a bunch of crap up picture. Just enough dramatic details to give you a reason to care, but not to the point where anybody involved takes it all too seriously. Could have tripped up in a dozen different places, but manages to avoid all the pitfalls these kind of films often find themselves trapped(both from being too heavy, and being too cartoonish). Light, without being insubstantial, kinetic without being frenetic, and manages to spin the creation myth organically from the story, rather than halting the action with endless exposition as is often in the case when Hollywood tries to launch a superhero franchise.
Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
A perfect and sweet little couple meets cute but hate each other at first while they endure an adventure together picture. It also serves as a nice little love letter to NYC night life in the 00s (think of this version of NYC as the fluffy bunny cousin of the terrifying rat version found in After Hours). Kat Dennings and Michael Cera hold this together, while the rest of the cast brings plenty of the funny. These kind of films usually have a false ring to them, and while the situations are exaggerated, and the plot feels slight to non-existent at times, the leads give this film a weight that keeps this floating into nothingness.
There were plenty of solid films released in 2008, and one horrible, childhood raping excuse of a film (Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull of Nightmarishly Bad Script Choices), but the films I think most worthy of remember are genre pictures that manage to transcend the genres that birthed them, while maintaining a fidelity to the form. It's easy to make a serious film with genre tropes (like Dark Knight), it's harder to make a genre picture and keep it light while at the same time taking it seriously (as in Iron Man).
A few more years to get out of the way, and then we are done with the 00s (I know that technically 2000 was part of the 90s, and 2010 is still part of the 00s, but since everyone treats decades as lasting from the 0-9 year rather than the 1-0 year like they should, I'm going with the flow)
2007 Films
I personally didn't like the two films from that year that you are supposed to like (There Will Be Blood, No Country For Old Men), I found both of them ultimately pointless and overwrought. As far as the almost making the list films, Smokin' Aces is surprisingly good for a film with Jeremy Piven in it, Zodiac wastes a lot of solid performances with a story that is spun out way too slowly, Spider-Man 3 deserves mention for strangely and inexplicably being half a musical (especially the bar scene with partially 'venomized' Peter Parker is secretly hilarious). Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End has a few brilliantly surreal sequences while Cap't Jack is alone, but the overall picture is a failure. Knocked Up has a lot of good moments, but the whole is less satisfying than the parts. Superbad is one of the best teen comedies to come along in some time, but that's not saying much as it's a pretty crappy genre. Ratatouille is solid, but not great PIXAR-ness, so long as you can get over the whole rats in the kitchen angle. Rescue Dawn is a solid picture, that avoids a lot of the clichés you'd expect this kind of flick to contain. 3:10 to Yuma is solid as far as those kinds of pictures go. The Death Proof half of Grindhouse has some of the best car related stunt choreography on film, and since it's a Tarantino picture, strong women, and plenty of shots of bare lady feet.
Shoot 'Em Up
There's nothing not to love about this picture. Monica Bellucci as a lactating hooker, check, Clive Owen as a carrot chomping super assassin, double check, and Paul Giamatti as a shockingly menacing bad guy, triple check, and mate. A smartly put together dumb action picture that explodes every genre trope even as they milk them for all their worth. A really entertaining westernized version of the old Lone Wolf and Cub Samurai pictures
The Bourne Ultimatum
A rarity, an action film sequence that gets better as it goes along. Also, it's probably the only film to use the dreaded shakycam camera technique to good effect. So long as this film doesn't make you vomit, it's a great ride of a film.
Juno
Which one of these things is not like the other? Not quite the over the top action pictures like the other two best of 07 pics. Probably the most surprising film to gross in excess of $200M of the decade (this, and that Greek Wedding film). I guess I'm a sucker for Jason Reitman films, cause he manages to hit another homerun with this picture. Forget the backlash against it, this film really did deserve the positive regard that it received. The performances are great throughout, the characters are well conceived, and Ellen Page holds this together with an amazing lead turn. Another example of Jason Reitman tackling a scenario that Hollywood would usually ruin with polemics and posturing. He lets the characters tell their tale, and leaves the politics out of it (from both the left and the right perspective, which is probably why there was criticism, and praise, from both sides). Even Jennifer Garner is made to be warm and sympathetic in this one. Jennifer Garner!
Another post, another year of movies to discuss.
2006 Films
Not a terrible year for films, not great, but not terrible. There were some decent films
Thank You for Smoking
An entertaining dark comedy about lobbyist, doesn't seem possible, yet it exists. Most filmmakers would have turned these characters into cartoon villains, but Jason Reitman makes a much subtler, deeper, and more interesting film than the usual anti-corporate screed that you'd expect out of Hollywood. Aaron Eckhart is brilliant in the lead, Rob Lowe has a great supporting role, and even Katie Holmes is compelling in this picture. Katie Holmes!
Crank
A kinetic, crazed, insane action picture that was everything Snakes on a Plane should have been. Jason Statham nails the lead role, offering the right mix of menace, charm and physical presence. This rushes along from one crazed situation to another. Basically, it's a video game without the controller, but in a good way.
Pan's Labyrinth
A child's dream, and nightmare, filled with inventive images, and strong emotions. It's a powerfully told tale of once upon a time, with the real world action set during the aftermath of the Spanish Civil War. The intricate way the horror of the real world informs the terrors of the fantasy world is expertly done, and everything, from writing, to directing, to acting, to set design, to costume, are top notch.
UPDATE:
How could I have missed one of the greatest films of the decade? I guess this year will have to go up to four, since I don't feel like deleting what I wrote about the other three films, or figuring out which to knock out.
Idiocracy
It's the thinking man's stupid comedy of our times. Mike Judge has unleashed two of the best comedies of the last fifteen years (this one, and Office Space), yet both were massive flops on initial release. Funny as it is likely to be sadly prophetic.
Time to knock out the rest of these lists
2005 Films
2005 was a bad year for movies that appealed to me. The big prestige movies were all not my kind of films (Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Syriana, Walk the Line), the popcorn pictures were middling to Bewitched (that's synonymous with awful, see also; Herbie: Fully Loaded). It might make sense to not mention any films this year, and distribute those extra honorable mentions and top three films in the other years of the decade, but for consistency sake, there's got to be something here worthy of some recognition. Luckily there are three films that do matter to some degree, so the year isn't a complete loss. Flawed but interesting films that came out that year include, King Kong, which almost was brilliant, but just piled on the special effects sauce a bit too high, for too long, on to little of story.
A special dishonorable mention goes out to Crash, however. Easily the worst film to ever win Best Picture. Horrible film, filled with arch characters and every ridiculous liberal white guilt trope that Hollywood likes to shove down our throats. This film inhabits a cartoon version of Los Angeles that in no way resembles reality. Would be easy to turn that script into a knowing farce playing against all those ridiculous stereotypes, but unfortunately this film was played straight. The Brothers Grimm was almost up there with Terry Gilliam's best, but there's just a certain spark missing that makes the whole less satisfying than all the parts would lead you to expect that film to be. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy managed to lose all sense of what made the source material great, and tried to turn it into a standard comedic sci-fi pic, and it's a shame they so missed the mark. Wedding Crashers and 40 Year Old Virgin are both well done, but not great comedies. The Great Raid was a solid, old fashioned war picture, entertaining, but not essential viewing. Match Point was Woody Allen's best dramatic picture of the 00s, but it's not a great film. The Matador just misses the cut, it's a very satisfyingly put together comedy drama featuring an outstanding performance from Pierce Brosnan.
Now, the three most essential films of 2005 (not in order of merit)
Serenity
It's a brilliantly put together action sci-fi film that works on its own merits, even if you haven't immersed yourself in the TV series (Firefly) from which it came. I guess folks were put off by the "Space Western" aspect of the film (and series), but within the universe created for the show, it makes sense, and gives them opportunity to create fascinating visual, social and character juxtapositions.
Special bonus mention of the excellent commentary provided by Joss Whedon on the DVD/BluRay for this film. He engages fully (which in a lot of commentaries, isn't the case, you can hear the, 'I'm contractually obligated to sit in this both and say a few words, but I'm not going to like it' attitude of some directors/performers on those audio tracks) and pulls out details relating to both story and production that are worth hearing.
Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit
All the Wallace-y and Gromit-y hijinx you had come to know and love from Nick Park and Aardman Animations, upsized to feature length. Luckily, these characters upsized well, and the charms of the shorts are maintained over the 85 minute runtime. Fun for the whole family, and not in the crappy way that phrase usually suggests.
Sin City
Not really fun for the whole family (unless you are an Addams, possibly), but a fun, violent, visually inventive, narratively flawed film. It takes the form of the graphic novels it's based on and successfully translates those images and that narrative style to a cinematic feature. No other film of this kind has been as successful in doing so. Episodic, without feeling scattered, the filmmakers managed to create an alive and vital world, that feels very organic, despite the highly stylized nature of the visuals. However, there needs to be a "Jessica Alba" rule established for all future films of this type. Any attractive young actress who signs on to a pulp-y R rated picture to play a stripper/hooker/pornstar must also agree to appear topless where toplessness would be expected for her character. Topful strippers in dive bars just doesn't cut it (even when portrayed by Jessica Alba).
That's the year that was, for films, all the best films had their start in other media, TV, shorts, and graphic novels, and owe their success for the developed nature of the characters as they were honed in those other outlets. The transition from one form to another is often screwed up, just see any video game inspired picture of the last two decades for examples of how horribly wrong these things can go. These three films serve as testaments to how best to adapt existing source material into feature films.
It's the most wonderful time of the year, it's time to recount all the ways you've been disappointed in excruciating detail in the past 364 days since the last Festivus.
My list will be broken into categories: Arts, Politics, Sports, and Random Petty Personal Peeves, as usual, I haven't any real grievances to air against those in my personal life. Unfortunately (from an airing of grievances viewpoint), I'm surrounded by a good family and solid friends, so I have to turn outward to the rest of the world to find my grievances. Luckily, the rest of the world has been working overtime this past year to give me all sorts of great material.
ARTS:
I'm sick to death of death. Not that I don't expect people to die, but it seems the way we as a culture have come to revel in maudlin remembrances of famous folks when they die has gone completely off the rails. Michael Jackson was a freak, whose talent had long left him behind, and more a punch line and afterthought than currently relevant entertainer, yet in death, he suddenly became as vital a force in the public consciousness as he was at his absolute height back in the eighties. The industry that sprang up overnight around his death is just one example of an accelerating trend around what a great career move dying has become. So my grievance is against outsized grieving for famous folks, and the media outlets that feed this stupid behavior.
My next grievance is with ABC and the American viewing public. Better of Ted is a pretty damn fine, and pleasantly surreal, comedy show, yet ABC barely promotes it, and shuffles it around its schedule. Of course I can't direct my grievance solely at ABC, since nobody is watching the show, so how they treat the show is somewhat understandable, but if the support for that show was a little better, maybe audiences would have found it sooner.
Staying with TV grievances, Eliza Dushku, you I'm pointing my Festivus Pole your way (though it pains me to do so). Dollhouse might have been something, but not with you in the lead. Sorry, you have your talents, and in the right role, you are brilliant, but this show asked way too much of you, and was doomed from the start.
Next up, Amazing Race producers, you get a thwacking with my Festivus Pole (I'm pumped up after my Feats of Strength, so swinging that sucker around is no problem) for not figuring out a way to shoot your damn show in HD. The benefits of making a switch will surely outweigh the extra cost, just get it done, the equipment is out there, the selection of HD capable cameras is vast now, and the travelogue aspect of your show would be greatly enhanced (just look at your CBS cousin, Survivor, to see what a difference HD v SD makes, it's easier for them since they're basically on a set, but it's 2010 folks, everything on the broadcast networks should be in crystal clear HD by now).
History Channel, you get a few blows from my Festivus Pole for airing far too much UFO related programming. UFOs aren't historical in any way. Sorry, they're just not. Stick with being the All Hitler All the Time channel if you must, leave the UFO crap for Larry King.
Music, I wave my Festivus Pole in your general direction. Ironically, as we develop more ways to stream, purchase, and access our favorite music, current musical artist seem to be becoming more and more trivial. Music across all genres has become increasingly singles driven, and this mix and match, randomly generate playlist world we live in isn't the musical environment I grew up on. Seems like with the huge variety of choices now available, folks have narrowed rather than broadened how they consume their audio entertainment. Musicians are more known for their ability to attract celebrity press, than their music, I'm not blaming the Lady Gagas, Kanye Wests, Katy Perrys, or Lily Allens of the world for doing what they do, but it would be nice if musicality drove popularity in the music business.
LA Opera, don't think just cause you are high brow and unloved by the masses that you can avoid my Festivus Pole, cause you'd be wrong. Opera can work in Los Angeles, just not the way you've been doing it. We aren't NYC, don't pretend that we are, if opera is to work here, it needs to recognize that our cultural scene is a bit more laid back and eclectic. If I were running it, I'd do one big guest star driven classic per season, then the rest of the year, I'd do small challenging productions as inexpensively as possible. I'd float around the city, bring the operas where the folks are, don't expect to succeed based solely in Downtown.
LACMA, Renoir? Again?? Really???
POLITICS:
Plenty of political events to swing ole Polly at (I named my Festivus Pole Polly, got a problem with that?). First up, Obama Administration, you get thwacked for not living up to the promise of being 'the most transparent administration, ever'. Not that I was ever stupid enough to believe this to be true, but a few whacks of the Pole also go out to you rubes out there who didn't immediately press the incoming Obama Administration on just how they intended to implement this vaunted new transparency. The press fawned over Obama, but that's partly because they assumed the public was also in a fawning mood. Still, it's impressive how far off the mark the Obama Administration has been, rather than transparency, they've challenged Nixon and Johnson for most opaque White Houses of the modern, post WWII era. Rather than transparency, we've gotten Chicago style politics writ large across the national stage. For that bit of stagecraft and legerdemain, I suppose they've earned a special anti-grievance for getting away with such an obvious and total betrayal of the principles they claimed helped put them in the White House, and for going as long as they have without having to face any real consequences for this betrayal.
The Press, I'd beat you into a bloody pulp (metaphorically speaking) with my Festivus Pole if I thought it would make a difference in how you'd act in the future. This past year has pulled away the curtain, and removed all pretense about an 'objective' press in the United States. In the long run, that's a good thing, if we end up with a few national papers modeled after the British press where the biases and prejudices of the editorial style of each outlet is nakedly apparent and readily acknowledged, I think consumers will be better served and informed. But we still have this ridiculous attempt at feigned impartiality by the likes of the broadcast networks news arms, NYT, Newsweek, and the rest, even while they campaign for every left wing cause that they can shove down the public's throat. The public has gagged on this, and rebelled by tuning them out, but the alternative channels for disseminating information are still dwarfed by the traditional media powerhouses (even as they diminish before our eyes).
GOP, don't think just cause you aren't in power that you can escape the awesome power of a fully operational Festivus Pole. The Grand Old Party has not taken advantage of the historic fall from grace currently being suffered by the Obama Administration and their Democratic Party allies in Congress. The GOP needs to offer a clear and concise alternative to big government liberalism, but their recent history of big government 'conservatism' creates a lack of credibility when attacking their opponents. What's needed is a recognition of lost opportunities during the Bush years, and total repudiation of 'government first' attitudes to politics. Embrace small government, small "l" libertarianism, and advocate for a return to true federalism, and you will see a wave of people disenchanted with the past year of politics come under the GOP tent.
The United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, I'm manufacturing a special coal fired, carbon spewing, Festivus Pole swinging robot to repeatedly thwack you about your collective noggins. My specific grievance with you goes along with Prof. Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds' frequent refrain, I'll believe it's a crisis, when those calling such, act like it. No reason why hundreds of world leaders, with thousands in support staff had to travel to meet face to face. There's this thing, it's called the internet, use it. Seems like this would have been the perfect event to organize as one massive teleconference, with everything streamed live to anyone interested in watching. That's just the tip of the (melting) iceberg, though. Beyond the profligate travel, there was the profligate posturing, the profligate use of limos (local supply couldn't meet demand, limos were driven in from hundreds of miles so that conferees wouldn't have to walk a few blocks from meeting to meeting), the profligate arrogance in avoiding even questions (let alone providing answers) regarding the recently revealed climate data related emails, and just the general 'let them eat cake'-ness of the whole event where all these people were meeting to make rules that will create burdens and costs on other people that they themselves never intend on bearing.
SPORTS:
Tiger Woods, damn, man, my grievance isn't with the repeated and frequent dalliances, it's with the sloppiness, and also the general lack of imagination. You're one of the most famous and richest athletes in the history of the planet, seems like you could have done better, and managed your assignations more skillfully. Better yet, by choosing to marry and have kids, then realize you are also choosing to put away all that other stuff, either do the 'George Clooney' thing, don't have kids, and let your paramours know there's an expiration date on your interest, or commit to commitment honestly, and wholeheartedly. You messed up a lot of lives, and not just in your own home, lots of other athletes are finding increased scrutiny uncomfortable. No Tiger mess, no soon to debut TMZSports.com, and we all know nothing good can come out of that.
NFL 2009, you get the Pole, this season's been too unpredictable. Of course, had the season been too predictable, you'd also be getting the Pole, but the level of unpredictability this season seems off the chart, and damn annoying. From one week to the next you just don't know which team is good, and which isn't, and even the good teams you don't know if they are going to win by three TDs, or squeak out a last second field goal. Tennessee Titans are the poster child for this season, start with an awful 0-6, culminating in an absolute 59-0 massacre at the hands of New England. At that point, it's easy to dismiss the Titans, write them off, and not worry about them, but no, instead they turn things around, rattle off a 7-1 record over the next eight games, and threaten to be one of the scariest teams in the playoffs if they manage to sneak in. How are we supposed to make sense of a team like that as fans? And don't even get me started on the Raiders. They beat most of the good teams they face, and get thumped by the lousy ones. The AFC playoff picture, even with just two games left, is as muddled as ever, and you could make strong cases for any one of seven teams representing the NFC in the Superbowl with the clear vulnerabilities exhibited by New Orleans and Minnesota. The main problem, though, is that most games are decided by which team screws up least, rather than which team plays best. If a contest is close because both teams are excellent, then it's exciting, but if a contest comes down to the wire because one team only has four turnovers against the other team having seven, then it's an unwatchable mess. There have been a lot of messy games this season.
LA Lakers, don't think just cause you are the current NBA champs, and have the best record to this point in the 2009-10 season that you will be spared from Polly the Festivus Pole. Lakers, you get the silvery aluminum shaft for not winning every game so far this season. Y'all had nothing but home games to start (or at least 17 of the first 21), and should have shattered the old season starting mark of 15-0, but instead you let a few lackluster nights stand between you and the record books. That deserves a few thwacks from Polly.
Kobe's digits, I'll merely point the Pole in your direction, quit breaking on him, please.
USC Football, you deserve a thorough Poling for your performance this season. Key injuries slowed you down, but you still had the top talent in college football and should have been able to overcome losing a few players. You blew it, and performed down to your competition, again and again, and for that, you earned the Pole, and a lousy (non-Rose) Bowl.
RANDOM PETTY PERSONAL PEEVES:
Range Rovers, you get the Pole, first it was Cadillac (pre 70s), then in the 80s and 90s it was Volvo, but in the 00s, the grand prize for cars to be most likely driven by the worst drivers belongs to you Range Rover. So for making cars that appeal to people who can't drive, you get Festivusized.
Random People Passing on the Street Who Give Me the Stink Eye Just Cause They Happen to Be in a Shot I'm Framing, you get both the Festivus Pole, and the gratuitous capitalization treatment.
Battery technology, you get a grievance for not getting better faster. I want some sort of super battery, and I want it now. I'm tired of crap not working for as long as you'd like it too. Seems like everything lasts just about 85% as long as you'd ideally like. I'm not asking for massive improvements, just in the 15-20% range (along with quicker recharge times,).
Coffeehouse outlet campers, you suck (not really a grievance, just a statement).
Gratuitously naked old guys at the gym, I'd swing my Festivus Pole in your direction, but I'm afraid I might touch something gross, so just please, I know where all guys in the guys locker, and we shouldn't be ashamed of our bodies, but there's something to be said about showing a modicum of modesty.
Twitter, you get a quick grievance for your frequent outages. Work, consistently, dammit.
Sunsets, you get a grievance for always managing to be spectacular on the days when I can't get my camera out. Seriously, I've missed a half dozen spectacular sunsets this past month, and it's pissing me off. You can go back to being spectacular when my schedule fits having a camera available to record you, in the meantime, be dull.
Flickr and YouTube commentariat, you get a grievance, say something interesting, or don't say something at all. "Cool", or "Nice", isn't insightful, or particularly helpful, if you take the time to comment, take the time to type more than one word.
So, 2010 approaches, and Festivus 2009 will soon be a memory, though these grievances may linger.
However, its excellent taste and internal color make it desirable for the flesh markets, too.
