Oh, kay. This is why Survivor can sometimes drive me crazy (racist?). While marching to tribal council, Steve makes a very reasonable appeal to Natalie and Ashley. Basically, it goes like this: Rob is the strongest player in the game. Ralph and I are voting for him. As soon as we're gone, he's going to turn on you guys, and you're all going to be played. Vote with Ralphmeister and I, flip the game around, and head into the last ten days from a position of strength, instead of heading for the homestretch as Rob's puppets.
And do the girls even consider it? Of course not. 'CAUSE HARDLY ANYONE PLAYS THE GAME! No one takes any initiative. Which is why, I think, last season was pretty intriguing--Sash and Brenda going strong, til Holly made her move and flipped the tribe on Brenda. Then Jane going bonkers and calling out everyone. For heavens sakes, even Dan (Dan!) was scheming there for awhile, and during the entire episode you had characters like Marty making plays and shaking things up. Lots of initiative.
This season? Forget about it. Rob's calling the shots, and no one has any perspective. In the end, only one person wins--but for some reason Natalie and Ashley are under the impression that six people will win, and no one will have to do anything to save themselves once all the ex-Zap's are gone.
So the question remains: Who'll make a move? Given what we've seen so far, it seems like no one. Maybe Grant might, but he's actually in position to do really well if he just stays quiet. Same with Phillip. So Andrea, Ashley, Natalie, this one's on you. Is there going to be any intrigue this season? Let's all hope so.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Who You Callin' Crazy?
Last week's Survivor, though full of heated discussion, lacked any real drama. Sure, Phillip went bananas and accused Steve of being a racist. But Rob's lean, mean, Zapatera eliminating machine is still in top form.
In fact, there's nothing much to recap here--Rob wins a puzzle challenge (shocking, isn't it?), and another former Zap--Julie--was sent to Redemption Island (mind blown yet?). I just have to say one thing before not saying it drives me insane: Steve is not a racist!
What bugged me so much about that tribal council, as Jeff was trying to sort through the touchy situation, was that it was being recounted all wrong! Phillip told Jeff that Steve called him crazy after he suggested they combine rice rations. That's not how it happened! Watch the episode over again. Here's what actually happened:
Phillip (bothered by how much rice there is to go around the depleted former Zapatera tribe) suggests they combine rice. Steve says no, a totally justifiable move on multiple accounts that we won't bother getting into here. At no point, however does Steve call Phillip crazy. Not yet at least. Because what happens next is Phillip tells Steve that he had better be prepared to take his rice bucket with him everywhere he went for the rest of his time in the game, or else Phillip was going to steal it from him, and guard the rice, and Steve would have to come begging to Phillip, the rice master, for a portion of rice, and unless Steve planned on taking the rice with him everywhere, this was an absolute certainty. Then Steve called Phillip crazy.
And by the way, that is a fairly crazy thing for him (Phillip) to say. So yes, Steve was okay in calling Phillip--the samurai code wielding, feather wearing, pink bikini brief sporting, lion/gorilla tattoo owning, crispy rice wanting former federal agent (?)--kind of crazy. And no, race had nothing to do with it. So there.
Steve, you and Ralph are in a pickle. But don't worry. No one thinks you're racist. Not anyone in their right mind, anyway.
In fact, there's nothing much to recap here--Rob wins a puzzle challenge (shocking, isn't it?), and another former Zap--Julie--was sent to Redemption Island (mind blown yet?). I just have to say one thing before not saying it drives me insane: Steve is not a racist!
What bugged me so much about that tribal council, as Jeff was trying to sort through the touchy situation, was that it was being recounted all wrong! Phillip told Jeff that Steve called him crazy after he suggested they combine rice rations. That's not how it happened! Watch the episode over again. Here's what actually happened:
Phillip (bothered by how much rice there is to go around the depleted former Zapatera tribe) suggests they combine rice. Steve says no, a totally justifiable move on multiple accounts that we won't bother getting into here. At no point, however does Steve call Phillip crazy. Not yet at least. Because what happens next is Phillip tells Steve that he had better be prepared to take his rice bucket with him everywhere he went for the rest of his time in the game, or else Phillip was going to steal it from him, and guard the rice, and Steve would have to come begging to Phillip, the rice master, for a portion of rice, and unless Steve planned on taking the rice with him everywhere, this was an absolute certainty. Then Steve called Phillip crazy.
And by the way, that is a fairly crazy thing for him (Phillip) to say. So yes, Steve was okay in calling Phillip--the samurai code wielding, feather wearing, pink bikini brief sporting, lion/gorilla tattoo owning, crispy rice wanting former federal agent (?)--kind of crazy. And no, race had nothing to do with it. So there.
Steve, you and Ralph are in a pickle. But don't worry. No one thinks you're racist. Not anyone in their right mind, anyway.
Walk Softly, Carry a Big(ger) Stick
The situation looks bleak indeed for Roger Federer fans. The Swiss has yet to notch a victory against a top ten opponent this year, and last's weeks flame out against Jurgen Melzer in Monte Carlo was particularly alarming. It wasn't his footwork that seemed off, or his quickness--he was ghosting around the court as effortlessly as ever. The glaring, can't-stand-to-watch quality of Fed's tennis these days is his unforced errors to winners ratio. Not only are his unforced errors high, but they're ugly. Like Smeagol ugly. Like routine backhands landing somewhere in general admission ugly.
He can still conceive the impossible angles, and get in position to hit them, but the execution is lacking (again, even on the routine stuff). So what do you do? Well, it's almost unfathomable that someone like Roger would swallow his pride long enough to even consider it, but one solution would be to use a larger racket. At 90 sq inches, Fed's Wilson Six.One Tour BLX is the smallest racket of anyone on tour. In the past, Rog's swing was so crisp, the motion so fluid that he didn't need the extra size to generate pace. And his hand-eye coordination was so otherwordly that he could keep the errors contained enough to win (a LOT) of matches.
Imagine what, say, an extra 10 sq inches (giving him 100 sq inches in total--the same size as Rafael Nadal's Babolat Aero Pro Drive) would do for his consistency. Heck, it might even add a little oomph to help hit past the Novak Djokovic's of the world. Either way, something's got to give. If he wants a real shot at winning majors, an adjustment of this kind is necessary. Pete Sampras was too stubborn to make the adjustment, and missed out on some late-career titles and any shot at the French Open. Let's hope Federer doesn't make the same mistake.
He can still conceive the impossible angles, and get in position to hit them, but the execution is lacking (again, even on the routine stuff). So what do you do? Well, it's almost unfathomable that someone like Roger would swallow his pride long enough to even consider it, but one solution would be to use a larger racket. At 90 sq inches, Fed's Wilson Six.One Tour BLX is the smallest racket of anyone on tour. In the past, Rog's swing was so crisp, the motion so fluid that he didn't need the extra size to generate pace. And his hand-eye coordination was so otherwordly that he could keep the errors contained enough to win (a LOT) of matches.
Imagine what, say, an extra 10 sq inches (giving him 100 sq inches in total--the same size as Rafael Nadal's Babolat Aero Pro Drive) would do for his consistency. Heck, it might even add a little oomph to help hit past the Novak Djokovic's of the world. Either way, something's got to give. If he wants a real shot at winning majors, an adjustment of this kind is necessary. Pete Sampras was too stubborn to make the adjustment, and missed out on some late-career titles and any shot at the French Open. Let's hope Federer doesn't make the same mistake.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Regulators, Mount Up
Well, get ready for the "Mariano Crime Syndicate" to stop, drop, shut 'em down and open up shop. If they haven't been already. David's nickname for the ex-Omatepe (pronounced Om-topp-ay by Phillip) is priceless and fitting--they run quite the operation. The machine is working so perfectly, in fact, that Survivor is lucky they have Redemption Island, or else they'd be faced with the most predictable show in recent memory. (Side note: I have no idea why the show isn't doing more to mix it up a little bit, and give the former Zaps a bit of an advantage: Placing another hidden idol, a reward challenge that splits up the tribes for a few hours, etc. But at least they have Redemption Island, and they also could be counting on the fireworks getting big once it's nothing but the Syndicate left, which they probably will be.)
The former Omatepe's are clinical in their efficiency. During a potentially scary (for Rob) double elimination episode, the MCS didn't even break a sweat. And they've closed off any inroads for the Zaps by utilizing a (admittedly brilliant) buddy system. No one speaks to the other tribe by themselves.
It's during this episode that the MCS's unity crosses a line into what could easily be classified as uncomfortable. Rob is on his game, yes. But it's also very much creepy. Wondering what instances I'm referring to? Well, there were four. I'll list them:
1) Rob, describing Phillip, says that he's a "loyal soldier" and that "he'll be rewarded for his behavior."
2) Ralph, desperate to mix things up, tries talking to Natalie and Ashley, and promises to vote for Ashley if a) she's in the final three and b) he's on the jury. Natalie tattles to Rob, who then tells the camera Ashley will be "punished for her insubordination."
3) The former Zaps caught a ton of fish, and offered some to the Syndicate. Rob doesn't want his troops forming any sort of relationship with the other tribe, and orders them not to have any. (This despite 22+ days of subsisting on basically rice).
4) When weighing his options for tribal council, Rob deliberates over sending Steve home, and mentions that he's capable every once and awhile of a "mercy killing."
Raise your hand if you have the chills.
Still, this presents the Zapatera's with one of their only hopes in the game. Actually they have three. First, the immunity challenges. Second is playing mind games with Phillip (more on this later). And third is highlighting Rob's unsettling control over his alliance. And this third option just might work. Julie uses language like "Rob's cult" at tribal council, and points out their blind obedience. We saw Grant bristle a little bit when the camera asked him if he was nervous about crossing Rob's leadership by eating the fish. (And while he maintained that he does what he wants, and doesn't answer to anyone, you just get the feeling that he wasn't even convincing himself. I'm telling you, Rob is the Godfather.) If Julie, David, et. al can continue to make Rob's underlings aware of their subjugation (and on top of that, cause them to be bugged by it), then they just might have a chance.
Now back to Phillip. (Oh, Phillip. When are you gonna find whatever it is you're looking for?) Lest we forget, Phillip is the architect behind the most absurd tribal council of the season (maybe ever--in week one). Anyone who thinks that they can predict Phillip's behavior probably needs to brush up on that Samurai Code that he keeps ranting about. All we're talking about is one teeny, tiny idea to be planted in Phillip's head, from any source, and we're dealing with mayhem. (And by the way, while we're [kind of] on the topic, would there ever be an easier target on this planet for Leo DiCaprio and his team to Incept than Phillip? I'm not even sure they'd need to put him under one dream, let alone three. The man considers falling feathers (from the sky, where birds fly around) to be signs from higher powers, for crying out loud. Literally, whatever thought they wanted to plant, it's theirs).
Anyway, this last episode bears witness to the genius of the previous week's tribal council. With no threat from a flip-flopping Matt, the MCS is free to beat up on Zapatera like Kramer did with those eleven year old kids in his karate class.
Comment below with any thoughts or if you think I've missed anything. And stay tuned for this next episodes big (racially charged?) clash in camp.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Audio Rewind: "Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not"
Maybe it's because Natalie and I can never remember to put new music in our car, but I've been listening to the Arctic Monkeys' first album nonstop. Which to anyone who knew me five years ago, this is no surprise.
What is at the root of my fascination with this band? Well, it's complicated. To begin with, Whatever People Say I Am debuted to out of this world reviews. Follow the link for a very terse summary. And try and make it through the second paragraph of this NYT feature without your jaw hitting the floor. As much as I'd like to say my preferences are a product of my own abstract thought, reading stuff like this as an 18 year biased me. At least, it got me to take the Sheffield rockers for a test drive.
If you've never listened to the band before, start with this album--it'll give you a general flavor and help you understand the band's thesis. They are (at the time of recording) young twenty somethings, dabbling in a sort of reflexivity where the music they perform at night clubs is, in fact, about adventures associated with hanging out at night clubs. But the AM's give nightlife in Yorkshire an educated voice that no other similarly minded music has been able to even remotely come close to duplicating [see Ke$ha, "Tik Toc" for a less inspiring example].
In fact, six years later, lyricist/singer Alex Turner's versatility in articulating the plight of the weekend warrior is the source of the album's staying power. It is impossible to listen (really listen) to the album and not marvel at Turner's subtle irony, his packed-with-meaning one liners, and the ease with which he operates as the reticent know-it-all. In "Still Take You Home" Turner makes abundantly clear two things: One, he can't stand the snobby girl who's cornered the market on everyone's attention. And two, he hates that he is craving to be noticed by her as well. And Turner is peerless in his description, framing the context with what appears to be just the right amount of complexity for a situation which, on its face, seems routine and very un-complex.
Sometimes, it's hard to keep up with him. Turner moves so effortlessly between conversations with the taxi driver and his friends (who are riding in the taxi) on "Red Lights..." that at first listen, the song seems nonsensical before it's cleverness is revealed. (Another example of this would-be-rambling-if- anyone-else-tried-to-write-it is on "From the Ritz to the Rubble." Somehow, someway, Turner takes the experience of being denied entrance to a club and turns it into poetry. Don't ask me how.) And moments like that abound on the album, each song with a gem or two to uncover.
And no, it is not 2006 anymore. But Whatever People Say I Am's extraordinary shelf life comes from it's ability to frame the experience of young adulthood in a way that is universal. Devoid of synth, or Auto-Tune, or anything else that will so horribly date music of today, the Arctic Monkeys rely on a truer formula--blending high energy rock music with genius for the masses.
When the Going Gets Tough, The Jury Decides to Punt
How, in the world, can this happen? Apparently, in America, people can go to trial, and if the jury can't decide whether someone is guilty or not, they just forget the whole thing ever happened. Excuse me?! What did I miss?
Although Barry Bonds was found guilty for obstruction of justice, (get this) the jury didn't agree on whether he was guilty about all the lying he did under oath, and offered no verdict. No verdict? What do you mean there's no verdict? You can't decide if he's innocent or not? So we're just going to do nothing about it? Forgive me if I come across a little Lewis Blackian here, but um, jury, let's FIGURE IT OUT.
Is this even allowed? Since when? Ever the opportunists, Bonds lawyers tried to get the lone guilty verdict thrown out while they were at it. Why not? Apparently anything goes in this courtroom. Boy, how come this scenario never made it into a John Grisham novel?
I'm telling you, Lt. Danny Kaffee would never let this stand.
Now there's a very real possibility I'm being dense here. Maybe this sort of thing happens all the time. And perhaps John Grisham did write about it (I'm not exactly his biggest fan). But in 24 years, I've never heard of such an occurrence. If anyone has, or is a big John Grisham fan, let me know--the outrage will cease.
The prosecution has to decide if it's worth it to pursue the case over again, and the one guilty verdict will likely turn into some form of house arrest. So it looks like Bonds made it out of this as unscathed as possible. Let this be a lesson to you kids, if you're going to do illegal things and lie about them, make sure you're rich.
Although Barry Bonds was found guilty for obstruction of justice, (get this) the jury didn't agree on whether he was guilty about all the lying he did under oath, and offered no verdict. No verdict? What do you mean there's no verdict? You can't decide if he's innocent or not? So we're just going to do nothing about it? Forgive me if I come across a little Lewis Blackian here, but um, jury, let's FIGURE IT OUT.
Is this even allowed? Since when? Ever the opportunists, Bonds lawyers tried to get the lone guilty verdict thrown out while they were at it. Why not? Apparently anything goes in this courtroom. Boy, how come this scenario never made it into a John Grisham novel?
I'm telling you, Lt. Danny Kaffee would never let this stand.
Now there's a very real possibility I'm being dense here. Maybe this sort of thing happens all the time. And perhaps John Grisham did write about it (I'm not exactly his biggest fan). But in 24 years, I've never heard of such an occurrence. If anyone has, or is a big John Grisham fan, let me know--the outrage will cease.
The prosecution has to decide if it's worth it to pursue the case over again, and the one guilty verdict will likely turn into some form of house arrest. So it looks like Bonds made it out of this as unscathed as possible. Let this be a lesson to you kids, if you're going to do illegal things and lie about them, make sure you're rich.
A Quick Thought on Survivor Before Tonight's Episode
This idea came to me after reading my sister Melanie's comment on last week's episode. Her point was (cue the lightening strike) that Matt's religious convictions were working against him--he was too trusting, and it made him unable to read social cues, both of which are big obstacles to Survivor success. I think, sadly, she may be right.
Perhaps Matt thought Rob would really respect his honesty, or view it as an act of loyalty when he came clean with his master plan. (A plan which, a fried of mine regretfully pointed out--and I absolutely agree with him--would have been one of the most epic hostile take-overs in the show's history. Just too bad.) We all know how Rob actually responded.
The whole situation reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit from 1995 called "Clara Turley's Bible Challenge." I cannot find the video anywhere, but let me see if I can sum it up for you in a way that makes clear the connection between it and Matt's blunder:
The scene is a Bible quiz show, with cash prizes given for each correct answer. The panel of contestants includes a Bible scholar, a nun, and Stan Hooper--a former transient turned biblical genius who is riding a 47 game winning streak (and is played by Norm MacDonald). Stan is introduced while he's smoking and eating a hamburger, and he wears a leather jacket.
How is it that Hooper is so good at this game, since your first impression is that this man has never picked up a Bible in his lifetime? The answer comes on the first question, an obscure reference to the exact number of years the Israelites were in Egypt. Incredibly, Clara Turley (the host) then provides the answer--430. She asks the contestants one by one: "Did you know that?" The scholar did not know the answer, and is given no money. Same with the nun. But Stan? Stan immediately rings his bell, and, with a bite of hamburger in his mouth proclaims, "yeah, I knew that!" He is given twenty dollars.
In some ways, this is the situation Matt is in. Just like Clara Turley and the other contestants, he is unmindful of the fact that players in the game are self-interested and opportunistic. I'm confident that when Matt told Rob about how he was going to join up with the Zapatera's and take him (Rob) down, Rob smiled the same way Stan Hooper did while ringing his little bell.
Only instead of twenty dollar bills, Survivor hands out a great big check for a million bucks.
Perhaps Matt thought Rob would really respect his honesty, or view it as an act of loyalty when he came clean with his master plan. (A plan which, a fried of mine regretfully pointed out--and I absolutely agree with him--would have been one of the most epic hostile take-overs in the show's history. Just too bad.) We all know how Rob actually responded.
The whole situation reminded me of a Saturday Night Live skit from 1995 called "Clara Turley's Bible Challenge." I cannot find the video anywhere, but let me see if I can sum it up for you in a way that makes clear the connection between it and Matt's blunder:
The scene is a Bible quiz show, with cash prizes given for each correct answer. The panel of contestants includes a Bible scholar, a nun, and Stan Hooper--a former transient turned biblical genius who is riding a 47 game winning streak (and is played by Norm MacDonald). Stan is introduced while he's smoking and eating a hamburger, and he wears a leather jacket.
How is it that Hooper is so good at this game, since your first impression is that this man has never picked up a Bible in his lifetime? The answer comes on the first question, an obscure reference to the exact number of years the Israelites were in Egypt. Incredibly, Clara Turley (the host) then provides the answer--430. She asks the contestants one by one: "Did you know that?" The scholar did not know the answer, and is given no money. Same with the nun. But Stan? Stan immediately rings his bell, and, with a bite of hamburger in his mouth proclaims, "yeah, I knew that!" He is given twenty dollars.
In some ways, this is the situation Matt is in. Just like Clara Turley and the other contestants, he is unmindful of the fact that players in the game are self-interested and opportunistic. I'm confident that when Matt told Rob about how he was going to join up with the Zapatera's and take him (Rob) down, Rob smiled the same way Stan Hooper did while ringing his little bell.
Only instead of twenty dollar bills, Survivor hands out a great big check for a million bucks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)