The Bottom Redline

April 4, 2007

Recently, comedian Eddie Griffin wrecked a Ferrari during a charity event. He didn’t wreck it in the politely-exchange-insurance, call-you-at-the-office manner; rather, it was in a full-fledged, grade A class 1 totaling beyond repair manner. He walked away without a scratch, thank goodness. This rather unfortunate even would perhaps only merit a vague mention in two months’ time in the Celebrity Poop inside jacket column in the Sunday supplement, except that this particular make of Ferrari was worth $1.5 million dollars. Perhaps I should have bolded that. $1.5 million dollars. Three things should be apparent at this point:

1) A rich person’s idea of charity is to race cars worth over a million dollars, despite the overwhelming evidence that the only point in racing cars is hoping that at some point someone is going to wreck.
2) The charity was in the form of a car race, since car races are a traditional form of fundraising, oh, and, by the way, Redline, a movie about rich men who race expensive cars for kicks and wagers, starring Eddie Griffin, comes out April 13th.
3) The car was being driven by someone whose sole experience in racing is limited to driving Undercover Brother to the cheap bin at the Wal Mart.

The entire episode is strangely ingratiating. The movie they were promoting was about bored rich billionaires who race their expensive cars around, and there was a wreck because…a bunch of bored billionaires were racing their cars around. It’s life imitating art, though in this case it’s more like staged Hollywood produced media event imitating a staged Hollywood produced media event. Though in real life, I’m assuming Nadia Bjorlin went home alone that night.

Charity or no, there is something fetchingly alarming about rich people pissing their money away. Now, I fancy myself a pretty hardcore off-the-chart free marketeer, one who equates the celestial paradise somewhere along the lines of a rather sadomasochistic Ayn Randian eBaying of commerce and government services. What people do with the money they earn is of no business of mine. But some days, surveying what rich people do with their money makes me want to rally the masses, grab a Spanish double-loaded rifle, and march the proletariat straight to Tiananmen Square, with me in the tank sitting on a crate full of little red books and bread vouchers.

Stories of the nouveau riche’s pecuniary excesses are hardly a new phenomenon. Tales of ancient Rome are rife with decadent Senators, libertines, and future members of Harvard School of Business. And the media absolutely loves to report on these stories because people love to listen to them, and think, “Yeah, I might not make the mortgage payment this month, and I may be doing a criminally negligent job saving for my daughter’s college education, but at least I didn’t spend eight thousand dollars on a Hungarian swan display for my nephew’s bar mitzvah.”

Recent displays of conspicuous consumption aren’t all that hard to find. Probably the most recent tale of excess was that of convicted Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowki. He was convicted, in part, due to his wife’s week-long birthday party, cleverly disguised as a “shareholder meeting.” Among an embarrassingly long list of crimes, one of them was somehow hornswaggling the company into paying for half of what can charitably be called the single greatest depraved orgy even organized by mankind in the last ten centuries. The party itself was an almost picture perfect demonstration of decadence at its best, rife with hired oily gladiators, ice sculptures peeing vodka, cakes formed into the shape of a set of breasts (along with a festive set of strategically placed sparklers!), and a rather cavalier attitude towards the Greek jurisdictional interpretation of adultery. (I got a $20 gift certificate to the Eat ‘N’ Park on my birthday, by the way.)

There doesn’t seem to be a considerable difference in the behavior of businessmen versus celebrities in this particular regard. One might plausibly expect celebrities to acquire money, then find new and creative ways to blow it out their honeyhole. Businessmen, on the other hand, tend to at least pick up some of the financial lessons necessary to get rich in the first place, such as “buying pastries in the shape of barnyard animals may be a fun diversion, but if the markup is 60,000%, perhaps there is a better allocation of funds to be found.” But apparently not necessarily. For every Michael Jackson who buys giraffes like most people buy DVDs, there’s a package on the doorstep of Tyco International with a $6,000 shower curtain in it.

Sometimes, the amount of wealth wasted is subtler. Or, rather, they waste it with “good intentions,” which is code words for “they don’t know what the hell they’re doing.” Donald Trump routinely throws money away every few years in an established money trap known as “marriage.” And George Soros’s own extravagance should not go passed unnoticed, since he contributed around $23 million in the political equivalent of a fantasy sports league.

Griffin’s limited foray into expensive waste seems doubly distressing. His wealth is closer to the Andy Richter There-By-the-Grace-of-God-Go-I end of the scale as opposed to the Warren Buffet end. But one has to think about the super rich in this world. If someone of Griffin’s modest wealth is out wrecking million dollar cars…what exactly are they going to destroy?


And the Winner of Least Watched Movie of the Year is…

February 25, 2007

Welcome…to today, the day of the 79th Academy Awards, Hollywood’s annual presentation of self-fellation. And by “annual” we mean “something that happens pretty much every single day.”

This year, the host is Ellen DeGeneres, breaking with the Academy tradition of having a comedian host the awards. The presenters themselves include a wide variety of individuals, including Jodie Foster, who has arrived after disengaging the cryogenic freezer she’s inhabited since 1997 in accordance with the wishes of her Not My Girlfriend, Honest; the parts of Diane Keaton that aren’t synthetic; and Al Gore, who no doubt is going to be overseeing the counting of the Academy’s votes.

The five nominees for Best Picture, as always, are a perfect and proportional representation of exactly what absolutely no one went to go see in the theaters. Far from being an embarrassingly unprofitable endeavor, most directors are content to allow their baby to be released a few hours before midnight on New Years’ Day to make it eligible, and then let it die a slow and painful death to obscurity until the members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awards it the opportunity to put a gold sticker on the DVD claiming that it was nominated or, if the studio has spent enough money but not in an effort to specifically persuade the members to vote for their entry (cough, cough), won an Academy Award.

The Departed: This dramatic tale, set in Boston, is a movie about good cops gone bad. Or perhaps bad cops gone good. Quite frankly it doesn’t matter because MARTIN SCORSESE directed this film. The Departed has been critically acclaimed due to its gritty and realistic portrayal, provided by MARTIN SCORSESE, of the relationships between police officers and those they must deal with every day, something that MARTIN SCORSESE, who, again, directed the film, has tried to bring to the motion pictures many times before, such as in the following movies that MARTIN SCORSESE has directed but, we should point out, has NOT won an Oscar for: Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, the Aviator, Gangs of New York, Casino, Goodfellas, and Cape Fear. Since many people believe that MARTIN SCORSESE should win an Oscar, The Departed should be a lock for the win for Best Picture, since it is obviously his best work out of all the movies that MARTIN SCORSESE has directed. Ahem.

The Queen: This is the second time in a row this movie has been nominated; last year it was named Capote. (You think this gets any better? It doesn’t.) This remarkably current tale is about the royal family’s reaction (or lack thereof) to Princess Diana’s death. This particular rendition of events, where HRM Queen Elizabeth II takes more than what the media determined was the appropriate amount of time to make a sufficiently public condolence about Diana’s death somehow makes Katrina look about as slow (and as important) as ordering Combo #2 at the Chik-Fil-A.

Babel: Babel takes the attention-span-deficiency of most Western audiences and converts it into a piece of art. Or so I think; the concept appears to have done wonders for Crash. In Babel, there are three interwoven stories about different people in different cultures, using themes so vaguely generic and blandly universal they could have shot the movie with half the budget by having a WASP walk into a Taco Bell.

Little Miss Sunshine: The token comedy of the group, this film follows the trials and tribulations of a dysfunctional family that is forced to take a road trip together. Both Alan Arkin and newcomer Abigail Breslin are nominated for Best Supporting Actor and Best Actress, respectively, a shame since they actually seem to have deserved it.

Letters from Iwo Jima: This rather unusual tale about WWII takes the provocative step of filing it from the Japanese point of view. The film has plenty of merits standing on its own as a dramatic representation of a society that, despite its emphasis on martial superiority, are still conflicted with the same emotions that all individuals at war are. In this case, the contract of the two sides is readily apparent; one side becomes a wealthy superpower, while the other side specializes in insane game shows and creepy, weird-ass cartoons.

The winner should be reasonably easy to pick. Following the standard Hollywood formula, we can determine the following: Half-baked, unfocused tale that thank goodness is at least about the deficiencies of Western Culture > The story of the combatants in a deadly, crypto-fascist, repressively militaristic society who otherwise are sympathetic to the viewer because of Fat Man > A dramatic criticism of an antiquated Royal institution during a short period of questionable importance > Morality tale of justice vs. MARTIN SCORSESE WINNING A FREAKING OSCAR > Dysfunctional family road trip movie even though at least one of the characters is gay.

Outside of the Best Picture, there are still plenty of opportunities of dramatic tension. Will Jack Nicholson be sober? More importantly, will be look sober? Is this finally the year Clint Eastwood actually shoots a man onstage? Will someone let it slip out why Leonardo DiCaprio keeps getting work? Will some viewer, somewhere in America, actually have heard of any of these movies? Tonight…we shall see.


Reign of Terriers

February 15, 2007

This week was the presentation of one of the most highly esteemed dog shows in America. As with most newly commercialized extravaganzas, it has a long and illustrious history. Back in the late 1800’s, there were those in America who decided that what the United States needed most was to organize a confirmation show for canines. They spent countless hours making sure that not only was it going to be a prestigious show, but a uniquely American one as well. This is telling in their decision to name the show, when they chose a uniquely American name, the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.

These competitions are orchestrated beauty pageants for an animal that occasionally warrants a two for one deal. These dogs are trained, groomed, and paraded about by their owners, officially called “handlers,” because “creepy, lonely aunts” is too disturbing a phrase for basic cable. These dogs are then judged by their peers (ahem), and ultimately one of them wins the much-coveted “Best in Show.” This is also the procedure for finding a spouse.

There are seven different categories where dogs compete:

·Working: The poor dogs in this category are the James Brown of the canine world. They are the tax-evading, wife-beating, laying-in-state-for-three-rank-months, Christina Aguilera-inspiring coronary waiting to happen. No, wait. Wrong metaphor. I mean, they’re the hardest working dogs in the species. They are primarily known for dogs that perform normal tasks as part of their breeding, such as taking out the trash, washing the car, or playing the under on the Cavaliers.
·Terrier: The terrier group is the classification of dog that has fallen the furthest from respectability. At one time, they were know for their exceptional hunting abilities against small varmints. Nowadays spend most of their time lounging around, mooching off the government, and waiting for the occasional sitting for pillowcase tartan-pattern crotchetiers.
·Toy: This category includes those dogs that, if they were not dogs, they would be manufactured by Nerf and marketed on Nickelodeon. They are classified as dogs simply by the biological fact that if you were to cut them open there may be a mess involved, though to be fair even if you don’t cut them open there may be a mess involved. Toy dogs lack such normal features that most dogs have, such as a prodigious snout, a tail, prominent ears, or a soul. Batteries not included.
·Sporting: Sporting dogs are dogs that are willing to go to the pub with you and play wingman. Or, perhaps, they are good at retrieving whatever it was that a hunter shot and hit from a field full of cattails. They also laugh at you if you hold the gun an inch away from the screen and still miss.
·Hound: Hounds tend to be the most contemplative of dogs, and by “contemplative” I mean “lazy.” While the mighty bloodhound may have a reputation as a stellar hunting dog, all he does in reality is the same thing all hunters do; namely, tell the wife they’re going hunting, and then spend six days drinking beer and staying away from the wife.
·Herding: Herding dogs are those trained to herd animals, primarily sheep. Most owners of herding dogs are proud of this unique, innate, and fascinating ability, even though the herding dog’s only ability is simply to be smarter than a sheep.
·Non-Sporting: The veritable “none-of-the-above” canines, these poor mutts are the recycle bin of the dog world. Nonclassified and unwanted, they are given a nondescript “Miss Congeniality” equivalent award, and then sent home to work in a shady cubicle while poodles and golden retrievers become prom queens and quarterbacks. The non-sporting dogs are most likely to stay up until midnight to change the will when no one is looking.

It’s kind of fun to watch the show, though, and not only for the dogs. Why these women handlers who I know deep in their heart of hearts love, adore, and cherish their beloved, insist on wearing tight skirts when presenting their dogs is beyond me. I guess it’s kind of amusing but wholly impractical. Especially for those women who have been at the show year after year, then when they are expected to parade their dog around the stadium, have the nerve to act vaguely surprised when they realize exactly what kind of logistical nightmare it is to trot a few paces behind their dog in an outfit that has more compressed tension than Isaiah Washington at a Kenny Chesney concert.

I also find it amusing that dog experts are able to compare two entirely different breeds of dog and find out which one is better, even though the dogs’ only similarities diverged in the gene pool around the time of Noah. They make a show of checking underneath the dogs and prod them gently with an inquisitive stare and, immediately afterwards, the unwavering look of Catholic disapproval as the dog chomps happily on the treat they were undeservedly given for successfully standing still for forty-five seconds.

When it is all said and done, of course, the judges make their decision based on what qualities are truly the “best in show,” a phrase I put in quotes because it’s such a comical concept. What do they use as a qualifier? There’s no swimsuit competition and no chance for the Pekinese to tell us how she wants to end world hunger or the shingles epidemic or anything. Do they base it on their ability to bark incessantly for no reason in the middle of the night, or how fast they can eat their own feces? Whatever private criteria they use, of course, it can’t be any worse than how we pick our real estate agents, Presidents, or crotchetiers.


Project Runway: Lightweight Division

January 22, 2007

There are plenty of empty celebrities in the world. Actors and actresses are paid to look good while they recite memorized lies in an appropriately convincing fashion. Singers are paid to look good while belting out popular songs in key. And models, logically the laziest of the glamorous, are simply paid to look good.

Recent tragic events have swiveled a microscope to this fascinating profession. One model, Ana Carolina Reston, died after weighing only 88 pounds, and another, Luisel Ramos, died after living on lettuce and diet Coke for three months. These deaths prompted the industry to take a sharp look at how to prevent these deaths from occurring in the future, and also how to otherwise replicate their penultimate results.

The world of fashion modeling is a notoriously cutthroat one. Literally, in some instances, since cutting one’s own throat is a known way to lose weight, along with ingesting syrup of ipecac milkshakes and voluntary beheading. Gaining weight is a certain forbidden activity in modeling, one that can be countered with about equal doses of strict dietary discipline, regular exercise, and cocaine.

Spain’s fashion organization, increasingly embarrassed at the obvious unhealthiness of their otherwise famous models, was the first nation to codify the behavior of runway models. Models with a body-mass index of less than 18 are not permitted to participate in shows. (For the record, the World Health Organization, bless their hearts, considers anyone with a body-mass index of 18.5 or less to be clinically underweight. Then again, they are part of the same organization that considers any nation who has defaulted on more than 85% of their yearly GDP to be more than fit for a loan, so take that for what it’s worth.) Italy, always mindful of their Catholic brothers, followed suit with similar crackdowns on rail-thin models. An outraged Harrison Ford, of course, is boycotting these nations.

The glamorized life of the model seems painfully disproportionate to what one might originally think. Models primarily exist, and get paid, to look good, but aside from some walking up and down a runway and perhaps some playful sprinting down the beach while someone replicates it on a reproducible medium, they don’t have too many physical demands. Is there really a need for stimulants and other illegal activity to release this otherwise remarkably stress-free profession? There doesn’t seem to be any logical reason that a photo shoot would be any more dangerous than shopping for groceries or applying for a loan, assuming your photographer isn’t Roman Polanski. Even professional wrestlers, who seem to be under a similar level of stress for the same reasons and pretty much for the same amount of social good, manage to get by with their only vices being anabolic steroids and dying at age 35.

The United States has also plunged into the regulatory abyss, though with one suspects a bit less enthusiasm. Unlike Europe, America has utilized a combination of partially hydrogenated oils and after-school specials to arrest the anorexia epidemic. While the new rules for America seem a little bit stricter, they’re also voluntary—currently, there’s no enforcement policies in place, putting how rules impact the modeling industry roughly on par with employing illegal aliens or campaign finance reform.

The rules, in part, require that all models under the age of 16 are taken off the runway, presumably to simulate fellatio in Abercrombie and Fitch catalogs instead. Those under 18 aren’t to be kept on a photo shoot after midnight, making sure they’re able to get underneath their agent’s desk before they need to get to the closing shift at the Burger King. Those models that have an identified eating disorder are put through therapy and counseling, and their eating habits are monitored to make sure they’re eating enough diet wheat thins and low-fat water. These guidelines are meant to keep models healthy and balanced for at least two years, since once a model turns 20 she’s either relegated to become a mule, a member of an escort service, a cast member for the Dutch version of Big Brother, or starring in local car dealership commercials in exchange for a brick of hash and parking validation.

In a way, it’s important for modeling to clean up its image. Many young girls aspire to be models, much like children crave to be astronauts, rock stars, actresses, or, depending on your various inclinations, fashion designers or actuaries. Making sure that young girls don’t get trapped in a seedy, dangerous profession at a young age is a responsible thing to do, just like encouraging them to devote all of their time and energy into a pursuit with which they have an effectively zero chance of producing any positive impact on society whatsoever, such as being a veterinarian or Speaker of the House.

Still, the pressure for ordinary citizens of the world to watch their figure is pretty high, and for those where it is an occupational necessity one can imagine the lengths they’ll go through to keep things thin and beautiful. Watching what a model looks like to the exact detail is clearly the responsible thing to do. Some of us will be keeping a closer eye than others.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.