Vic Sage

Ivan Putski. Chief Jay Strongbow. Haystacks Calhoun. Bruno Sammartino. Stan Hansen. Sgt Slaughter. Jimmy Snuka. Rick Martel. yup, i remember those guys. the early days of the WWF. Before Hulk Hogan showed up and everybody went "hollywood".

i don't like the AAAA designation as a predictor or label for a young player. I see it as more of an after-the-fact assessment of a career. A guy tears up AA and AAA, and then gets a chance in the majors, but doesn't hit enough. He gets sent down, hits well, comes back up, and doesn't hit again. He gets cut and picked up by another club, enticed by strong minor league numbers. He's 26-27, still young enough to take a chance on. Maybe he finally hangs on to play (usually a corner slot) for a year or 2, as a platoon player or semi-starter on a bad team. But he puts up replacement-level numbers and is traded/released/sent down/benched when the team improves. Maybe he bounces around for a few years, with some AAA seasons in between stints as a backup OF/1b/PHer with various clubs. He's now in his early 30s and gets an offer from a Japanese club as one of their designated gaijin hitters. He becomes a slugger again, for a few years, but hates sushi so comes back when another major league team offers him a spring training invite. But at this point, he's too old and, though he outhits some of the rookie prospects in March, he rips his hammy and starts looking for coaching work. Now that's a AAAA player. But to look at some kid in AA or AAA, who may have had a cup of coffee but has never yet gotten a serious look at the major league level, and bypass him despite solid production because some scout says "he's a AAAA player" is alot of hoo ha. Too often, scouts get seduced by tools over production and are suspicious of guys (especially older guys) with less obvious talents who nevertheless put up solid numbers. If Billy Beane has done anything for baseball, i think it is in legitimizing an approach that attempts to correct for this kind of scouting bias.

your statements are here and my statements are here. Others can assess them however they want. But my points were about the topic under discussion, for which i tried to provide rationales. Yours were primarily dismissive blanket statements without support, and then degenerated into direct attacks against me personally (until they were moved to the red light forum). And i owe YOU an apology? wow. Everybody is a hero in their own story, i guess.

It was neither wrong nor "deliberately provocative". I interpreted your public statements. You don't like or agree with my interpretation? Tough.

AG/DC wrote: You know, if time suggests you over-rate a current movie, or under-rate one, so what? You're wrong. You'll be wrong about plenty anyhow. Betting on a new stock is a high-risk, high-reward venture. What real meaningful authority do these lists have, anyway? They're just recommendations of what you should see. These folks think you should see There Will Be Blood. Maybe I should, but, based on the other films they frontload the list with, I'm leery. lists can have little value, or more value, depending on the criteria and methodologies used to create them. If you're collecting data for a scientific study, its all about methodology, in terms of assessing the validity of a study. So, too, with "lists" or any other attempts at scholarship in a field of study. the issue here, i think, is that since its just movies, and everybody is an expert, and everybody's opinion is of equal value, then therefore scholarship is meaningless. But i don't think it is meaningless. I just think that, like with any field of study, there is good scholarship and bad scholarship. Now, i don't think a bunch of newspaper guys were trying to create scholarship, but there list becomes data in the field for further scholarship on the history and aesthetics of cinema, and as such has greater impact (for good or ill) than a list of movies you might want to give a try (or ignore entirely).

I still think 10-15 years is arbitrary. Weigh a film on its merits as a film not on when it was made. the number of years is arbitrary, but not the concept that the passage of time factors into the analysis. A "cooling off" period allows an assessment independent of media saturation, hype and emotional responses that have more to do with cultural phenomena than they do with the movie istelf. That's why, to more accurately a assess or "weigh a film on its merits as a film" (as opposed to a cultural event) takes some time and distance. Take for example the movies from your list in this thread. If you made a list of the best movies in say 1976 would The Producers be unworthy of inclusion but in say 1981 it's magically acrued greatness? first of all, those are lists of "favorites", not an attempt at a "best of". As i said before, those are 2 entirely different exercises. And the fact is that movies do accrue "greatness" over time, or at least there greatness becomes less or more apparent over time. Of course, if trying to assess "greatness" is not the point, go ahead and list movies from yesterday, if you liked them. But if you're trying to create a tool to evaluate the history of an artform with an eye toward greater, not lesser, objectivity, than standards and methodologies are important to consider. I think there are more intelligent ways to determine a film's value than that. there are lots of ways... but surely its best to consider such determining factors, than to simply say "whatever you liked best today is good enough for the ages". Why is that a MORE intelligent way to determine value? Why is having no objective standards or criteria more intelligent?

Never was a player more appropriately prepared to, and ultimately successful at, digging his own grave in NY.

A list is an artifact of the time it is made. Compare a list from today to one from 20 years ago and you can see which films were overvalued and undervalued at that time. that's one of the things a list is. Another thing it is, or could be, is a rigorous and scholarly attempt to put things in a historical and/or aesthetic context, using a methodology that minimizes "noise" so as to arrive at conclusions that are as objecively determined as possible, given that the subject is art. So some lists are better this than others. Not to mention that a list is just one person - or at best a small group of editors - idea of the "best of all time." Or its the consequence of serious-minded people really trying to do some critically valuable work. Clearly, THIS list is not THAT. A movie is good or isn't, a person likes it or doesn't. Setting arbitrarily time limits just stifles intellectualism and discussion. To sum up, you're wrong. LIKING or NOT LIKING is an entirely different matter than GOOD or NOT GOOD. If you're going to make a list of 100 of your favorite movies, everybody's list is as useful (or useless) as anybody else's list. I don't care about such lists, unless the opinions are expressed by people with a track record of critical analysis that i find interesting. But if your making a "top 100 of all time", that's an attempt to create not just a subjective list of favorites but an objective list of "best", and such an effort should be suject to scrutiny, especially in terms of the methodology. I proposed a methodology (time limits, for one) in an attempt to reduce the amount of "noise" created by the logical phenonomenon known as the "fallacy of the new", wherein more recent events take on larger significance than older events. Certainly you could consider that there is also "noise" when considering older works that have entered the cultural canon as "classics", and knocking CITIZEN KANE off its perch may have its merits. Of course, the burden of proof is on you when you do that, but I'd be delighted to read or discuss a methodology for reconsidering the classics, too. So, rather than "stifling intellectualism and discussion", discussions of methodologies (as they do in scientific inquiry) actually expand the discussion. But NOTHING stifles discussion like a statement such as: To sum up, you're wrong

it's good to know that my writing is of value to your career, at least... as for me, i've yet to figure out a way to make it pay.

how about the best movies on a friday afternoon, at 3pm? and the purposes of the "discussion" are obscured if you're asked to debate the worthiness of films released yesterday as compared to ones that have survived as cultural touchstones for 65 years. a "cooling off period" is necessary to let the temporal distortion fade, so the films can be assessed and discussed more rationally. And anybody that puts "point break" on its top 100 list isn't interested in discussion. They're just being purposefully contradictory. It's like the Monty Python sketch: "I came here for an argument" "no you didn't..."

i was there last night, and he was so totally dominant in his 2 innings that it was inspiring. that being said, i'd like to see a few weeks of excellence before his appearances elicit anything more than nervous dread

yet more proof that "best ever" lists should not include films from the last 10-15 years; otherwise, the fallacy of the new rears its ugly head and pics like CITIZEN KANE get knocked off their perch by THERE WILL BE BLOOD, or some other flavor of the month.

]We have 12th-Inning Tatis! that sounds like a venereal disease.

i was at the game with my daughter and a group of 200 of her classmates from Ward Elementary School (New Rochelle, NY), up in the Mezz, Sec.26. She spend alot of the time running around, screaming, with her friends. At first, i was feeling a little abandoned, but then i saw a bunch of other dads sitting in our section, all similarly forgotten. As I watched her laughing and clapping and shouting, I realized that she was making memories for herself, independently of me, that would vest her into a lifelong passion (albeit, a life of heartbreak). Most of her friends came on the school's buses, which left after the 9th inning. She was proud that she got to stay later, since we drove, and she got to be the last Wardian there to represent. We stayed through the 11th inning, but had to get going, so missed the exciting 12th. Damn.

***avi***

Sydney Pollack was a solid, if unspectacular, Hollywood filmmaker for 40+ years. His background as an actor and acting teacher in the 1950s provided the basis for his excellent relationships and collaboration with a handful of Hollywood's biggest stars, resulting in films that were noted more for their great performances than for any ideosyncratic themes or cinematic style that could be described as "Pollackian". His own work as an actor made him a better known personality than his limited directorial career would otherwise have warranted, though he did have a few big hits over the years. But his films were often successful, and he was more prolific as a producer than director, not only producing 10 of his own movies but 20+ other theatrical features, as well as some TV movies and documentaries. Early Career Pollack was an acting student of the legendary Sandford "Sandy" Meisner in the 1950s, and later was a stage actor and acting teacher. He began directing in TV in the early 1960s before breaking through with a few features in the mid 60s. The Slender Thread (1965) - his first feature, it starred Sydney Poitier and Anne Bankroft, about a suicide hotline. It got 2 Oscar noms for art direction and costumes. This Property Is Condemned (1966) - Pollack here begins his big screen collaboration with Robert Redford, co-starring Natalie Wood, with a script by FFCoppola, based on Tennessee Williams play. The Scalphunters (1968) - This mediocre western comedy starred Burt Lancaster, with Shelley Winters and Ossie Davis. Unmemorable, except for the relationship between Pollack and Lancaster. At some point before this film (or during it?), Lancaster got Pollack hired to finish some scenes on Lancaster's other film that year, The Swimmer , which had been delayed when director Frank Perry was fired. Castle Keep (1969) - Lancaster worked with Pollack again on their third consecutive film, this WWII actioner. Its a strange, not particularly successful anti-war film. * They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) - Pollack broke through with this fascinating, tragic look of Depression-era dance marathons and the desperation of the participants. He got DGA and Oscar nominations for his direction, with great performances by Jane Fonda and Gig Young. Sydney had arrived. Mid-Career Pollack was now an established director de estime', an "actor's director". He worked with his favorite collaborator, Robert Redford, on 5 more films over the next 13 years, as well as with Al Pacino, Dustin Hoffmon, Paul Newman and Meryl Streep. * Jeremiah Johnson (1972) - this character study of a mountain man is one of Redford's best performances, and a compelling film. The Way We Were (1973) - this Redford/Streisand tearjerker is one of the most beloved hits of Pollack's career. Personally, I'd rather have a sharp stick jammed into my eye than sit thru this movie ever again. The Yakuza (1974) -Pollack got a producing credit on this one, his first, as payment for agreeing to come in late on this project, scripted by Paul Schrader ("Taxi Driver"). Originally, it was going to be a Lee Marvin / Robert Aldrich pic (now THAT would've been cool!), but when warhorse Robert Mitchum was dragged out of a potsmoking haze to star, he forced out Aldrich to get Pollack. The result is a strangely lethargic tough-guy noir in Japan's criminal underworld. * Three Days of the Condor (1975) - Back with Redford, Pollack makes the best thriller of his career. You can really see the Hitchcockian influence on Pollack, after years of directing "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" on TV, with lots more cinematic razzle-dazzle than he customarily employed. Bobby Deerfield (1977) - Pollack produced and directed this lame Pacino movie, ostensibly a love story. Better forgotten. * The Electric Horseman (1979) - like he did with CONDOR after YAKUZA, Pollack returned to Redford after DEERFIELD fiasco. Now THIS is a solid love story. Fonda & Redford are middle-aged mismatched lovers in the story of a cowboy on the run with a stolen horse, and the newswoman chasing the story who gets caught up in the nobility of the cowboy's last grab at redemption. One of Pollack's best. Absence of Malice (1981) - He produced & directed this solidly mediocre story of libel, with Newman getting an Oscar nom. *Tootsie (1982) - Pollack's first fullout comedy was not a "drag" by any means. Hoffman is great, but so is Pollack himself, as Hoffman's put upon agent. The picture got 10 Oscar noms, including 2 for Pollack (for direction & production). The feminist concept that the Hoffman character has to pretend to be a woman to learn how to be a better man is somewhat muddled by the less politically correct notion that it took a man to teach the female characters how to be better women. Regardless, it still is a funny, funny movie. Out of Africa (1985) - Oscar always loves big romantic epic films, and they love movie stars, and so here Pollack gives them Redford and Streep, and African plains, and the Academy finally gave him 2 Oscars (direction and best film) for this bloated, dull, totally overrated turd. It's a shame that this is the main one that keeps getting referenced in all Sydney's obituaries. Late career After his laurels for AFRICA, Pollack spent more time producing other people's films than making his own. Most of the films he directed in the last 20 years were unsucessful and uninteresting. Havana (1990/I) - The Redford collaboration ended sadly with this misfire. The Firm (1993) - Pollack produced and directed this Grisham legal thriller with "the new Redford", Tom Cruise. A solid entertainment, better than most of the Grisham adaptations that followed. Sabrina (1995) - Remaking Hollywood classics is always tricky (and usually pointless), but I always thought Bogart was terribly miscast in the original, and I thought Harrision Ford was a much better choice by Pollack for this remake. And Julia Ormond, while no Audrey Hepburn, held her own. Still, as with many Pollack movies, the pacing is turgid, giving far too much attention to performances than to narrative pacing. Random Hearts(1999) - Working with Harrison Ford again, this tearjerker makes most romance novels seem like MOBY DICK. The Interpreter (2005) - Pollack went out with a whimper with this hackneyed political thriller in the U.N., with Nichole Kidman and Sean Penn. The film is sabotaged by a bad script. ------------- Pollack's legacy is a handful of excellent films, and a greater number of great performances, both by his actors and by himself (in an ocasional supporting role). To the extent you could find any thematic threads to his work, it could be seen as depicting a vaguely liberal worldview, with environmentalism and feminism cropping up here and there. But in the end, he may have been more craftsman than artist, more producer than director, and more acting teacher than anything else. However, his movies were succesful and he had an impact on the film culture of the 70s-80s. He didn't have the lightest touch, nor the deepest insights, but he was a pro's pro and, by all reports, a solid citizen. So long, Sydney... and thanks for all the fish.

I had written that review for my old college paper, so i was talking to a college-age audience. I should have cut that line out when i reprinted it here.

full circle? I thought all threads lead to my ass.

The Mets can kiss it.

1b) Delgado - if you think a .280-.300/35-40hr hitter, well into another season of .250/20hr productiivity at the age of 36, whose OPS+ last season was 103 and is even worse right now, isn't "washed up", then we have different definitions of that cliche. 2b) Castillo - not just gimpy, but pop-less and old, and signed to long term deal. Ugh. SS) Reyes - other than a tremendous early season last year, basically a .275 hitter, with flashes of power, who strikes out too much and gets on not enough for a leadoff hitter. Has also shown a growing tendency toward showboating and lacksadaisical play. 3b) Wright- the golden boy is not carrying the team this year. But he shouldn't have to. LF) Alou- the hitting machine has broken down yet again. He's 42, folks. This isn't going to get better. CF) Beltran - for a "superstar", he's awfully streaky. Right now he just looks lost. RF) Church - great so far, and effective against LHP, but 2 concussions in a few months could indicate his reckless, all-out style will render him injury-prone. C) Schneider i - like his Washingtonian fellow expatriate, he's hit well so far, but has had injuries, and is now cooling off. His defense is as advertised, but he's 31+ and isn't getting any younger. Who is our catcher of the future? Bench: Easley,Anderson,Chavez, Castro - all not hitting; no pop off of the bench P1) Santana - as advertised. P2) Maine - very good P3) Perez - wildly inconsistent P4) Pelfrey - wildly inconsistent P5a) Vargas - a castoff holding the seat till Pedro comes back. P5b) Pedro - at his age and physical condition, you simply cannot count on him Bullpen: (CL) Wagner - unhittable this year, but 36+ and has a big mouth - Smith, Shoenweise - good in limited roles - Sanchez, Feliciano - inconsistent - Heilman, Sosa - awful - Wise - old and injured

When FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH came out, it was 1982 and I was in the first of my consecutive senior years at SUNY Stony Brook. I was running the film committee and writing film reviews for the school paper, and saw for myself a future of poverty, but one full of intellectual and artistic fulfillment. 26 years later and I�m a lawyer. Some dreams die hard. But back to 1982. FAST TIMES was a revelation. Like ANIMAL HOUSE, which came out just before my freshman year, TIMES was a touchstone for a generation. Aside from the fact that a lot of talented actors got their starts in that film (Forest Whitaker, Nicolas Cage, Anthony Edwards, Judge Reinhold and Eric Stoltz), it featured Phoebe Cates and Jennifer Jason Leigh (both baring a lot of skin, god bless `em) and Sean Penn�s star-making turn as the stoner-surfer dude Spicoli. It was one of the first honest movies I�d ever seen about high school. Having been raised on Godard, Andrew Sarris and the auteur theory, I credited first time director Amy Heckerling for the film�s wonders. Time has not borne out that gross conclusion, as her career has included JOHNNY DANGEROUSLY, EUROPEAN VACATION and LOOK WHO�S TALKING (1 and TOO) and LOSER. I paid little attention to the fact that someone actually wrote the movie (not only wrote it, but based it on his own book). A kid named Cameron Crowe (was that his REAL name?) went under cover in a Southern California high school, wrote a book about what he saw, then adapted it as a screenplay. It still stands up as a brilliant, journalistic insight into the early 80s and adolescence. Of course, Crowe went on to do a few more quite excellent movies, as both writer and director. SAY ANYTHING, with Jon Cusack, is a tragi-comic tale of young love that has developed a cult audience. When asked by the girl�s father what he wants to do for a living, with a nod to THE GRADUATE, Cusack says: �I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that.� After FAST TIMES at High School, SAY ANYTHING said everything about that scary time right after graduation. Crowe�s next picture, SINGLES, talks about relationships amongst 20-somethings, during and after college, in the era of Seattle grunge garage bands. It�s a flawed movie, but he obtained one of the handful of great Matt Dillon performances ever recorded on film. The use of music in FAST TIMES, SAY ANYTHING and SINGLES is integral to the characters, not just an excuse to release a soundtrack album. When Cusack stands outside his girl�s apartment in SAY ANYTHING, he holds a boom box over his head blasting Peter Gabriel while standing in the rain. He�s using music to communicate from his soul and it�s one of the most moving moments from any movie in the last 20 years. Then, writer-director-producer Crowe created JERRY MAGUIRE, his first breakout-commercial Hollywood mega-hit. Despite that reputation, the movie is really about a young guy finding some personal commitment and professional redemption. Or is it vice versa? Doesn�t matter� it works both ways. The movie is actually a small, personal film at heart. Except, you know, with Tom Cruise. And it made a star of Renee Zellweger. If you look closely, you can see the arc of Mr. Crowe�s films as they mirror his own journey from precocious adolescent to successful professional, with an in-depth analysis of the painful and necessary growth endured at each stage of his life, with music always seeming to mark the trail he has taken. Now a successful 40-something, Crowe does what we all do at that stage. He looks backwards, with longing. And so, in ALMOST FAMOUS, he offers us a loving reflection on his youth and the music that lit the way. With this picture, Crowe does the impossible� he made me nostalgic for the 70s. Now, at this point, �let me make something perfectly clear.� The 70s sucked. I don�t mean for me, personally. Well, yeah, I mean for me personally, but not JUST for me. I�ll say it again. THE 70s SUCKED. You weren�t there. I was. Trust me on this, if nothing else. The clothes, the TV, the music, the politics, the national zeitgeist. It all sucked. Everything but the movies. This was the era of Coppola, Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas. The auteur-inmates were running the studio-asylums and brilliant, personal pictures were being made by big studios for big money. Of course, Cimino�s HEAVEN�S GATE sunk UA and Hollywood has never been that way again. But I digress. Back to my point. THE 70s SUCKED. And yet� somehow, thanks to Crowe, they�ve taken on that burnished glow that only memory can endow. Before we praise him, or damn him, further for this accomplishment, let�s take a closer look at how he did it. Crowe starts his film with credits... not an unusual technique. Except these credits are being written in pencil on a yellow note pad by a disembodied hand. The hand writes out each name, even misspelling �Frances McDormand� then erasing the error and fixing it. The credits have not even finished and I already love this movie. Why? It has a point of view. This in not some generic, Hollywood story, measured and sliced with a cookie-cutter called �market research.� This is a personal story being told by somebody. And a young somebody, to boot� inexperienced, but gamely writing as fast as he can, fixing his mistakes along the way. If the credits are this good, what will the movie be like, I wonder. Now I knew that Crowe was a rock critic writing for Rolling Stone in the 70s, before his FAST TIMES adventure. I didn�t read Rolling Stone then, other than the occasional Hunter S. Thompson article, but my older brothers sure did. The magazine stopped being cool because the music stopped being cool. But I knew Crowe was this teenage Rock n Roll savante, and that is ostensibly what ALMOST FAMOUS is about. Crowe cast as his adolescent self the young Patrick Fugit, an unknown kid with a couple of episodes of TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL under his belt. He is Crowe as a decent, nerdy, talented boy (William), who is barely surviving his loving, overbearing mother. As the mom, Francis, um, I mean, Frances McDormand is unnerving and endearing at the same time. The boy�s loving but irritating big sister clashes with mom and takes off with a boyfriend to become a stewardess. In an effort to save him from mom�s influence, William�s sister leaves behind her record collection. William is an �un-cool� high school kid, isolated and in pain, father-less, sister-less� but Rock n Roll becomes his world and his salvation. He is a talented writer, penning rock criticism for local papers. He is befriended by the burned-out editor of Creem Magazine, Lester Bangs, brilliantly played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman has been a ubiquitous presence in films since BOOGIE NIGHTS, and his dual/dueling Broadway performances in Sam Shepard�s TRUE WEST last year was an electrifying experience. Now he creates a curmudgeonly mentor for William, a sort of ghost of Christmas-yet-to-be, telling him �Rock is dead� and providing other such heartening insights, while also giving him a willing ear and an encouraging word. Though based on a real person, Hoffman�s Les Bangs is an original film creation� a Rock prophet-guru-nerd who, seeing his end in sight as he slouches toward Bethlehem, can�t help but try to pass the torch. William is offered the chance to cover a touring band on the rise (�Stillwater�) for Rolling Stone by an unsuspecting editor that doesn�t know William is only 15. The kid travels with the band while his worried mother, who lets him go because she knows how much he needs this adventure yet afraid of losing her last child, screams �musicians have kidnapped my son!� Upon boarding the tour bus (bearing the sign �ALMOST FAMOUS�), young William/Cameron journeys like Dante into the inferno, chased by worried messages from his mother (�Don�t take drugs!�) and accompanied only by his yellow note pad, his long-distance calls to mentor Bangs, and the �Stillwater� family that teaches him about who he is and who he can become. Still waters run deep, indeed. One of his Virgils is the band�s enigmatic guitarist, Russell, brought to vivid life in stage actor Billy Crudup�s breakthrough film performance as the Rock n Roll hero with feet of clay. The other is the siren Penny Lane, the beautiful free spirit who, as a �band-aid�, acts as both muse and sex toy for Crudup. She is an ephemeral but damaged girl, leading other girls into a romanticized life of low self-esteem and self-delusion, living in devotion to the music, or so they claim, and not just the musicians they service. Of course, Kate-Russell-William form an eternal triangle, resulting in pain and growth for all concerned. Kate Hudson�s Penny Lane is a magical character, and Hudson fills out her genes (Goldie Hawn is her mom) quite nicely. It�s a star-making debut performance. There is a moment in the movie when everyone is on the bus, and it has been a long, bad night. Emotions are frayed. The mood is fragile. Elton John�s song �Tiny Dancer� is heard and, one at a time, everyone starts to sing along. Music heals. Families hurt each other, but they can heal, too. As in Crowe�s earlier films, music is the heart and soul of this film, both in the dramatic moments and concert scenes, dramatizing the effect on both the players and the audience as together they create, for a moment, a surrogate family for all who need one. It seems at first a small story to build a movie on. Nothing blows up. The sex is mostly off-screen. Like all of Crowe�s other pictures, it�s a coming-of-age picture. But, when seen through the context of his career to date, you realize it�s about Crowe coming of age, as much as the characters in the film. Crowe is unlike his contemporaries, like writer-director Kevin Smith who tells us interesting things in a cinematically uninteresting way, or the Coen brothers, who say nearly nothing, but with a delightful visual style, or Spike Lee, who is wildly inconsistent and political rather than personal. Crowe is a both a writer and a filmmaker, and he makes movies about himself and about human relationships. Unlike film-school filmmakers, he doesn�t make films about films, but about life. And so, he tells stories about us. They are stories worth telling. ALMOST FAMOUS made me reconsider the 70s (damn him!), and the person I was and am. That�s the power of a great storyteller and, make no mistake, Crowe is perhaps the foremost auteur of his generation.

="Centerfield":ru456v70]I don't see why you would be so indifferent to a managerial change. If you think he lacks game management skills, such can have an effect on the outcome of a season. I agree that it may not be a 15 game swing, but after falling 1 game short last year, isn't it important to take every advantage you can? I realize that making the post-season is like gambling, where the odds are against you. I just wish we didn't have a manager who insisted on doubling down on hard 12's.[/quote:ru456v70] I think managers have markedly less impact than they are given credit (or blame) for. And while i don't often agree with Willie, and criticized his hiring from the outset, i just don't think it would make much of a difference. If Wright and Reyes were repeating their MVP seasons, and Ollie Perez was repeating his success from last year, We'd be a few games up instead of a few games back, and few would be calling for Willie's head on a pike. Joe Torre was the same manager with the Mets in the late 1970s as he was with the Braves, the Cards and the Yanks, and now with L.A. His sucesses and failures were driven by his rosters, not the otherway around. I just think a mid-season managerial firing is the hallmark of a troubled franchise making a panicky move, and i don't want us to do that. If the Mets fail to make the post-season again, the Wilpons should fire Minaya AND Willie, then conduct an exhaustive search for the best up-and-coming GM in the business (hopefully one that worked for Billy Beane, or at least one that doesn't need SABRmetrics explained to him), and let him hire who he wants to hire. soupcan May 21 2008 08:46 AM I sit at my desk all day, fielding phone calls, making phone calls, doing paperworkand tooling around a bit on the 'net during and in between. I always have the radio on, tuned to WFAN. Its just to have some background buzz but of course I hear what they're saying. This entire Willie Randolph thing has just gotten completely out of hand. This initial comment: ]"Is it racial?" Randolph asked. "Huh? It smells a little bit." Asked directly if he believes black managers are held to different standards than their white counterparts, Randolph said: "I don't know how to put my finger on it, but I think there's something there. Herman Edwards did pretty well here and he won a couple of playoff [games], and they were pretty hard on Herm. Isiah [Thomas] didn't do a great job, but they beat up Isiah pretty good. ... I don't know if people are used to a certain figurehead. There's something weird about it. Has become 'Willie's invoking the race card!'. Every one who calls in wants to talk about it. The program hosts are constantly bringing it up and coming down on one side or the other. Mostly they 'don't agree'. I realize that they need to stir up controversy, that's their job but this is bordering on, if it isn't already and completely irresponsible journalism. Where in that paragraph does Randolph say he is being discriminated against in any fashion whatsoever? And let's say that Willie did say something like that. How do caucasian radio hosts have the audacity to 'disagree' with him?! How could they possibly have any idea what a black man in a high profile position experiences in terms of racism? 'Well, I don't think Met fans are racist. I've never seen it." Amazing. Truly. And then, when asked to clarify his comments, Willie basically says, "hey, that's not really what I meant or was trying to say." These guys don't back off. They don't accept it. Because, well they know better. They know what Willie meant. He's playing the race card to deflect criticsm of his poor record. I was hoping that Randolph was trying to invoke an old Torre tactic of trying to deflect criticism of the team towards him when he gave that interview to O'Connor and maybe he was. Even so though, Willie does not in any way deserve the the skewering his getting on the radio these days. Its embarassing. AG/DC May 21 2008 08:51 AM They don't back off because scavengers don't back off an injured animal. They won't back off anymore than boobirds will back off when it becomes possible that they are actually damaging a player's work environment. They prey on the weak, and Willie appeared to have shown a weakness, whether he actually has or not. Grote15 May 21 2008 11:55 AM Media feeds on fear and the consumption of it. They prey on the weak and don't stop until that days' or weeks lunch is done. Willie Randolph is todays lunch. As manager I would prefer someone else..Today... As an employee, human being and man..Leave Randolph alone whether he be white,black,latino or purple...It's his job..If his boss feels his services are no longer required he will be fired. I feel the season can be summed up by Hernandez sitting in the bleachers. One big fucking joke. And if I were the owner I would politely dismiss Willie Randolph and hire the best available candidate. Its' late May and the season has denigrated into a bullshitfest..Good Lord.. Ted G. metirish May 21 2008 08:43 PM I dunno but I think the end is near. ] Randolph apologizes to Mets management, SNY BY DAVID LENNON | david.lennon@newsday.com - Three days after making inflammatory comments to the Bergen Record, Willie Randolph issued an apology before Wednesday night's game against the Braves. When reporters entered the visiting manager's office here at Turner Field for his daily briefing, Randolph was sitting at his desk, an 8x11 sheet of white loose-leaf paper in front of him. The page was filled with notes carefully written in black ink. When the first question was asked about the health of Ryan Church, who was hospitalized Tuesday with a mild concussion, Randolph politely steered the conversation in another direction. "Before I start guys, I need to say a few things real quick," Randolph said. "First of all I want to apologize to Met ownership, SNY and my team for the unnecessary distraction that I created the last couple of days. I shouldn't have said what I said. It was a mistake -- simple as that. It was a mistake. There's no excuses for that. I'm owning up to it. "The fact of life is that we haven't been playing very well as a team. We've been very inconsistent. When that happens, you're going to be criticized for that. I understand that. It's been a tough couple of months. I expect a lot from my team, from myself, and I understand that goes along with it. I've been in this town for a long time. "I take full responsibility for what I said in my frustration and I hope that we can put a close to this matter and focus on winning a lot of baseball games. That's what we're here to do -- win a championship. I just wanted to publicly apologize and I take full responsibility for what happened a couple of days ago." Randolph later said during his weekly appearance on WFAN that his comments were meant to be off the record, a claim the Record's Ian O'Connor vehemently denies. But apparently it took him almost 72 hours to fully realize how much of a mess he had made. Randolph suggested that racial bias may be part of the reason for the media criticism. He also angered SNY officials by saying the network's coverage was slanted against him. That also did not go over well with the upper management of the Mets, who also own the majority stake in SNY, and apparently Randolph's handling of the fallout on Tuesday did not suffice. The Mets manager said he already had reached out to the Wilpons to apologize directly, but was not instructed by team ownership to issue the statement. COO Jeff Wilpon did not return a telephone call seeking comment. Randolph also told WFAN that he was so troubled by the controversy that he talked with his pastor and family about how to make amends. "I just felt like it was something I wanted to do," Ran.dolph said. "I feel bad about how this has come about because I don't want to be a distraction or for anyone to think this is really how I feel. When you're in the heat of battle sometimes, when you're frustrated, sometimes you open up a little bit or elaborate a little too much, and that's probably what I did." More articles Nymr83 May 21 2008 08:56 PM ]Its' late May and the season has denigrated into a bullshitfest..Good Lord.. The Mets are 22-22, 3.5 out of a Marlin team that likely won't be there in september and 2 behind the phillies and braves, i'm not happy with how the mets are playing but its hardly as bad as you make it out to be. DocTee May 21 2008 09:16 PM Considering that several of last year's playoff teams (DET, COL, MFY) and one with championship hopes (CLE) are playing worse than the Mets, you'd think we are better than some suggest. metirish May 22 2008 06:59 AM I tuned into the radio for a few innings last night , Howie and Wayne were talking about the Randolph controversy , Howie maintained that it was causing a distraction to the team and has created " tension" among the team he didn't elaborate . Edgy DC Dec 29 2008 07:18 PM Before Willie was a victim of cruel mistreatment by stupid assholes, he was a stupid asshole playing the race card. All it took for his public rehabilitation was his termination. This incident turned out, according to Willie, to be his one regret (or main regret) upon leaving the Mets. And I offer this thread as a second nominee for the Craney --- even though I have too much to say in it. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 29 2008 08:43 PM I think given some perspective this was all about Willie's paranoia careening further and further off course. That said I still think everyone reacted way too harshly, and a public apology must have been murder on Willie's dignity. Again, the Mets being the "bad guy" in his firing a month later did him a big favor.

I think i started WWSB when Willie got hired, based on quotes about his managerial philosophy. But i don't remember exactly when.

managers get too much credit when they win, and too much blame when they lose. As the person who coined the term "wee willie small balls", i've been on record as having little regard for Willie's managerial philosophy and game management. That being said, i happen to like Willie as a person (to the extent anyone can actually know him thru the media), and i wish him all good things. I think his presence or absence as Mets manager will make little difference, by the end of the season. Minaya has had, and will continue to have, much greater impact on this team's success or lack thereof. In my mind, the team is too reliant on Delgado, Castillo, Alou and Martinez for this year's success, and those were problems that concerned many of us before the season started. That the elder players are aging fast, and the younger ones are not yet having the same MVP type years as they did last season, places us squarely behind the 8-ball. So far, we're being held aloft by Church & Schneider hitting out of their minds, and Santana, Maine and Wagner holding up their ends. No amount of managerial temperment is going to get Beltran, Ollie Perez, Pelfrey, Reyes and Wright more consistent, or turn back the clock for the other guys. As much as i don't like Willie as a manager, it's getting to the point now that I'd just as soon keep him as a "fuck you" to all those calling for his head. Frankly, I'd just as soon have them fire Minaya first.

="batmagadanleadoff"]="Vic Sage"]This issue is so NOT bullshit, that calling it bullshit is bullshit. Thank you. Plus I owe you for Wee Willie Small Balls, which I've been using ever since. That's "WWSB ®", thank you very much.