Movie Review - "The Woodsman"

As part of the Talk Cinema last week, we saw the movie The Woodsman. Starring Kevin Bacon in a role probably designed for him to run for Oscar contention, this movie is a dark and startling portrayal of pedophilia. The interesting thing was that this movie sparked more conversation afterwards than any other movie I have seen in the Talk Cinema series. Predictably some people liked it and some people didn’t. I thought it was a very sensitive portrayal that offers some insight into the struggles that sex offenders most likely go through. You want to root for Bacon because he is after all, Kevin Bacon and he is a decent hard working fellow in this movie. For the most part, the other characters in this movie are fairly lifeless and underdeveloped with motives that are hard to really understand.

The good thing about Talk Cinema is that because you don’t know what the movie is before you get to the theatre, you see movies that you wouldn’t normally go to. It’s hard, for example, to get excited about seeing a dark movie concerning pedophilia. But, it’s a worthwhile if a bit controversial movie and Kevin Bacon does a great job of acting.

Movie Review - "The Incredibles"

I saw this much talked about movie last week as well. In a word, the Incredibles is incredible. I’ve seen most of the recent animated features including Shark Tale, Shrek I and II, Finding Nemo, etc. While the genre has been a very good one for movie making (and money making) they do tend to get a bit tired and cliche. For example, every movie seems to have the Eddie Murphy ‘donkey’ type character – rough around the edges, comic relief, with a big heart. In fact most of the characters of these animated pictures could be mapped directly between films. The Incredibles steps up the playing field by offering new characters, new plot vehicles and incredible (geez, did I just say that again?) suspense and action. It is certainly cliché to say – but this movie does appeal to adults and children and is one of the finest motion pictures in recent years made for that cross demographic.

Thanksgiving Day (the song)

I recently completed a new song called 'Thanksgiving Day'. This is a rock and roll song that I would describe as a combination of early Beatles and Green Day. It's a very simple song from an arrangement and chord standpoint but I ended up remixing it three times. In general I find that mixing distorted guitars really takes some talent. You (usually) want distorted guitars to be loud and in your face but because they take up so much of the mid-range, they literally compete with just about everything else in your mix. I ended up backing a lot out of the bass and upper frequencies on the guitar tracks and compressed the heck out of the lowend. It's better that what I started with but still not quite where it should be. I have so much more respect for the professionals that really get this right (and I have much to learn!). I find that mixing clean guitars are usually much easier. One trick that I have learned (by reading and mostly trial and error) is that distorted guitar patterns usually benefit greatly by multi-tracking with variation in pick-ups, eq, guitars, amp gain, mic placement, etc...

Thanksgiving Day

Trying My Patience

Oh my. A juror must come off the Scott Peterson trial. What to do? Geesh.. I guess I’m just not mainstream because I totally don’t get why we care about this trial. When it all began I couldn’t help but wonder why this particular case was so vital and important. I mean there are about 43 homicides per day in the United States and I would guess among those numbers, there are quite a few domestic cases with pregnant women. And it’s not like there are any celebrities involved. Yesterday I overhead a commentator on the TV in our work break room become emotionally upset about the loss of a juror. Can you imagine? He lost it – he was so upset. There are web sites that describe the jurors in detail, transcribe every last dialogue in the trial. I haven’t looked, but I’m sure there are daily TV shows dedicated to it. What gives? Certainly I don’t diminish the crime and I would certainly hope that a fair trial is served and justice is done. But is it possible to have a fair trial when so much media attention is on it?

I’m thinking that we are destined to have one ‘big’ trial going on all the time in the media. I guess the appeal is the same appeal as reality shows - unscripted real people in real situations. It’s that voyeuristic part of us that draws us to these trials like flies to, well, you know.

Oh well, I’m off to go take a boat out to the lake and see if I can stay afloat while throwing a 130 pound lumpy bag off the side...

A Busy Month

Wow - this month is turning into a busy one for me. Not only is it my birthday month, but I have tickets to many shows in town as well. I am seeing three operas (Carmen, Salome, and Jenufa), one play (The Importance of Being Earnest), Cirque du Soleil's Varekai, and the political comedy of Bill Maher (who is appearing in a restored 30’s movie theatre a few blocks from my house). So there you have it – opera, circus, social parady, and politics. Wait a minute - that sounds like the 2004 political campaign... oh no!!!

Movie Review - "Kinsey"

As part of the Talk Cinema series that I talked about two weeks ago, I saw the movie, “Kinsey” this morning. Alfred Kinsey was the biologist who created a storm by working on sex research in the 50s. I’m a sucker for ‘period’ pieces and this one is extremely well made down the Corn Flakes cereal boxes. The period of time covered includes the ‘20s through the ‘50s. Even though this movie runs a bit long, I thought this movie was fantastic. Liam Neeson plays Kinsey with amazing sensitivity. Though not a particularly outgoing character, every emotion that he has is aptly displayed in Neeson’s subtle fashion. One truly understands his various motivations and character development throughout because of the thorough screenplay and direction.

The movie is not for the easily offended or squeamish. This movie is about sex and science with a lot of emphasis on both. Kinsey was a controversial figure at the time and, in fact, would be today. His two published books were the first ever attempt at understanding people’s sexual behavior and the results were surprising to a population who had been taught that masturbation could lead to blindness or frigidness.

There is a bit of sentimentality (especially towards the end) in the movie but I thought it was well placed and not too over the top. In a post-election period where religious groups are getting a lot of focus, this movie is particular timely as it treads upon the ageless question of science vs. religion. I give it a major thumb’s up but wouldn’t recommend you take the children. This movie is Oscar worthy.

Statistics Win!

Results from Election Analysis I, II, and III. Ok... it took a little while until Iowa was official but it looks like the final count is

Kerry: 252 Bush: 286

That means that Method B (all leads in the poll counted as wins) was closer than the 95% rule. The final results were off by 21 electoral votes which is 8.3% off. I should have tried to forecast a confidence interval on the results to see if this was indeed accurate.

BUT - What do we really make of the conclusion? I would say that the lesson is that statistics never lie as long we listen to what they are telling us. Ultimately what statistics told us was that there were 17 states that were within the margin of error. Statistics could count the other states as wins for the candidates (and indeed, those predications were 100% accurate). For those 17 states within the margin of error, statistics projects that there was not enough information in the polls to make any accurate assessments of preference. Bingo. All the other analysis that we did turned out to be just, as we thought it might be, guesses....

Election Exercise Part III

Election Eve! Here are the final poll numbers for comparison with how the actual count turns out. As in my previous two postings in this series, the estimates are based on the LA Times numbers. Tonight's numbers are in red. Blue numbers are previous numbers.

Method A: States where leads within the margin of error are called ties
Kerry: 153 Bush: 192 Tie: 193
Kerry: 153 Bush: 168 Tie: 217

Method B: All leads are counted as wins (despite margin of error)
Kerry: 269 Bush: 265 Tie: 4
Kerry: 285 Bush: 219 Tie: 34

Method C: Method B with reasonable guesses based on conventional wisdom/history for tied states (Kerry: HI)
Kerry: 273 Bush: 265 Tie: 0
Kerry: 304 Bush: 234 Tie: 0

Method D: 49% rule
Kerry: 280 Bush: 247 Tie: 11
Kerry: 330 Bush: 191 Tie: 17
Kerry: 310 Bush: 182 Tie: 46

Note: This is just for fun. Technically the only method that is statistically significant is Method A. Though not as interesting.

All right - let's see how they do!

BTW - just to be a complete nerd, I also did an analysis that leads me to this prediction of the outcome:

Kerry: 282 Bush: 256

To do this prediction I used a somewhat complicated model where I took the results from the LA Times for states within the margin of error and weighted each state's results by a function of the amount of the lead. The function I used mapped the lead into a cumulative normal distribution based on a margin of error of +-3.5%. Thus even though the states are all within a 95% confidence interval showing no results, my method gives weight based on the theory that the closer you get to the edge of the 95% confidence interval boundaries, the smaller chance that that would occur by chance. Simply put, states with larger leads (even though within the margin of error) get more importance on the final tally based on a somewhat statistically correct hypothesus. Ok - I know most of you don't follow... but lets see how it does.

Below is today's electoral map applied with the 49% rule.

Movie Review - "Ray"

I saw the movie Ray over the weekend. Needless to say if you liked Ray Charles’ music, you’ll like this movie. The musical soundtrack reads like a musical journey through the early and more interesting parts of his career. Jamie Foxx does a superb job all around. Not only does he play a convincing Ray (from what I remember personally of his walk and his concerts) but it is so nice watching a gifted actor at work. He puts Ray through a range of emotions without flinching an eye or casting any doubts of believability.

Ray Charles’ life was music - pure and simple. He dabbled in heroine and womanizing in earlier years but ultimately prioritized music. This movie does the same thing with an emphasis on numerous scenes in the studio and in concert. And boy, theses scenes are wonderful! The director (Taylor Hackford) really put a lot of attention into capturing the energy and improvisation of the master. Some will find this movie too long (running time about 2 ½ hours) and I could agree that some parts could be edited out. But if you love music and you love Ray you’ll stay through the end credits to get as much in as possible as I did. This isn’t the ‘best’ movie of the year – but it’s compelling and insightful and will make you appreciate some of the music innovations from the 50’s and 60s.