COMPLETE Thoughts On AMC's "The Killing"

It's been quite a Danish week for me.  I've spent the majority of it in Copenhagen, ate my first danish, in years, at the airport, and watched the finale of the Danish turned American television series, The Killing, that aired last Sunday on AMC. 

All spring my Sunday nights revolved around three questions: 1) What should I order for dinner? (usually Japanese) 2) How cool is Game Of Thrones? (really fucking cool) and 3) Who killed Rosie Larson?  (WOULDN'T I LIKE TO KNOW.)

Admittedly, I probably have too many pet peeves.  But my biggest one, without question, is when someone informs me that they have juicy information and then, in the same breath, withholds it with some BS excuse about being sworn to secrecy.  Seriously, if you want a quick punch in the face, just say "OMG I HAVE TO TELLZ YOU ABOUT SOMETHING, BUT I'S CAN'T!"   Well, thank you AMC for greenlighting a show that was a thirteen week long version of that annoying pet peeve.  So don't hold it against me when I say I'd like to throttle the entire production team behind this show with Mirielle Enos's entire enormous sweater collection. 

The Killing was essentially a 13 week long procedural show (think a reallllllly long version of CSI) that used the extra time to provide an intimate look into the lives of the cops, victim's family, and suspects so we can further empathize (or hate) the characters once the show has ended, and the killer revealed.  I can't say this enough...THE KILLER REVEALED. 

The Killing, though compelling at times, was not the strongest show on television (unless you like pointless ancillary characters and dead ends) and featured a fundamental flaw within its concept.  When designing a murder mystery, the creative team obviously tries to throw the audience for loops and curveballs by goading us into believing innocent characters may have committed the crime.  But since this is a 13 week mystery, we already know that suspects in episodes 1-3 (Rosie's classmates) didn't do it, and we even are fairly certain later suspects (like Bennett Ahmed) were also innocent because, if they were guilty, what would the show do for the final five episodes? But we, as viewers, roll with the punches because, even though we are aware those characters won't factor into the conclusion, we are invested enough in the story to find out who did.  And AMC's marketing plan fully catered itself to this desire.  After all, their entire campaign centered around the question: WHO KILLED ROSIE LARSON? They even featured a "suspect tracker" on their website that encouraged guessing.  When discussing the show with friends, the first question I always was asked was "who do you think did it?"  And I generally answered, "I don't even really care, I just want to know already." Why?  Well, because, the entire fucking show was designed to scratch that itch.

Which is why its 100 percent, wholly unacceptable (not to mention annoying) that they DIDN'T REVEAL THE MURDERER IN THEIR MURDER MYSTERY.  Seriously, after episode 4 or 5, there was only one reason to even watch this show: I was invested enough where I wanted to know the killer and really didn't care much about the main character's love life, or the fact that it never stops raining in Seattle.  The Danish version (kudos to them) did reveal the killer in their final episode (it was the Belko character I believe), so I can confidently call the masterminds behind the American version a bunch of a-holes for toying with the formula. 

Now, I'll safely assume they will reveal the killer next season, but if I have to honestly wait another 13 weeks to figure out the murder in the already convoluted mystery, I'd rather not bother.  

What the Hell Happened to LeBron James?

It’s not often that public perception of a person can completely change in one simple moment. But on July, 8^th 2010, when the once revered LeBron James publically told the world he’d be “taking his talents to South Beach,” he subsequently (and immediately) became public enemy number one.  And if skyrocketing NBA ratings are any indication, the public came out in full force hoping to see both he and then new superstar teammate, Dwayne Wade, fail.  And not only fail, but fail epically.  The role of villain was not one either Wade or LeBron were accustomed to, but one they grew to accept as a tradeoff in their quest for an NBA championship.  LeBron was tired of carrying a mediocre Cleveland team on his back, and after seeing the success of the Boston Celtics, and probably the Bulls of the 90’s, he felt he needed a superstar teammate to lead him to the elusive championship.  It all made sense, really, who would stop a team with arguably 2 of the 3 top players in the NBA?  Well, after watching LeBron’s horrendous collapse in the NBA finals, I assume they never thought their biggest enemy would be themselves. 

Though they may have used those Celtics or Bulls teams as models, they failed to investigate (or just ignored) the concept of “player roles,” and how much effect that had on both a player’s individual performance, as well as team success. 

For the most part, with the exception of the Houston Rockets in the mid-90’s (and maybe even Dallas this year), champions are built on the backs of two (or more) stars.  Jordan had Pippen, Magic had Kareem and Worthy, Kobe had Shaq and later Gasol, but in each of those instances, roles were predetermined before they even got on the court.  Even though Pippen became a top five player in the mid 90’s, he was raised to be Jordan’s sidekick, accepted the role, and always deferred to Michael in just about every situation.  This formula not only enabled team success, but it allowed Michael to continue to be great.  Because not only was Scottie’s presence there to support Michael’s game first and foremost, but Scottie’s inferior role on the team allowed Michael to always be in control.  During days when Michael didn’t bring his A-game, he could shoot and figure his way out of it with no criticism or questioning.  Because he was the one true star, the one true leader of the team, he was given infinite opportunity to succeed behind 100 percent support.  At no point did he ever think he shouldn’t be the number one option because that’s not the role of a team leader.  And this worked perfectly for the Bulls because Jordan had that ability and confidence to always find a way to succeed.

So, why did LeBron James, who I believe to be the most talented player in the game (and who lead the league in PER the past four seasons) completely shrink in this past final?  Look no further than the concept of roles, and in this instance, his teammate, Dwayne Wade.  The difference between LeBron and Wade, as opposed to Scottie and Michael, is the fact that both had been alpha dogs virtually their entire careers.  Both were used to getting the superstar leeway, both were used to shooting themselves out of slumps, and both were used to being the unquestioned leader of their respective teams.  But on this 2011 Heat team, if LeBron struggled out of the gate (which happened in virtually every game of the Finals), he never tried to feel his way out of it, and instead deferred to Wade during most big moments, limiting his ability to relax and figure out the stingy Dallas defense through trial and error, volume, and sheer will (a trademark of any superstar).  Simply put, this option never allowed him to find rhythm.  As any kid who isn’t even the 8^th best player on a playground court can tell you, the less opportunity you have, the more you press during said opportunity, and the more this shatters your confidence.  In your quest for perfection, you aim your jump shot too much, you think more than you should, and as a result, your confidence wanes and your play suffers.  And before you give me that crap about “killer instinct,” no human is immune to this. 

And this is exactly what happened to James.  Now, one can argue that James just doesn’t have that kind of demeanor on the court that a Jordan had, but I’m not sure the evidence suggests that.  After all, this is the guy who once scored 25 straight points against Detroit in the Eastern Conference Finals to lead an otherwise crappy Cavs team to the final round.  Even if LeBron was red hot during this past Final against Dallas, do you think the presence of Dwayne Wade would allow for LeBron to score and dominate in that kind of volume? 

He understands that if he tries to play his way out of a slump and continues to struggle, the world may wonder why he didn’t use his superstar teammate more often.  When he was on Cleveland, he was afforded the superstar leeway and the perpetual confidence that comes along with it. On Cleveland, since he was the only superstar, he didn’t have a choice but to force the issue.  He had a completely different type of mindset that suggested if he couldn't do it, no one could.  And it worked.  On Miami?  If he doesn’t bring his A-game, he has an option that he never had on his past teams: the ability to sit back and defer.  And that option is the biggest detriment to both him as a player and Miami as a team.

All the above aside, I’m sure this isn’t the last we’ve heard from the Miami Heat, but as I said many times back in July, this was the wrong decision and the wrong fit.   I wonder if he realizes that now. 

Should We Raise Children Without Gender Norms?

Yahoo news featured an interesting article the other day that challenged society’s views regarding gender roles and how the world around us shapes our totality as a human through the understanding of gender norms.  The article concentrates on a newborn baby named “Storm” whose parents refuse to tell friends/family/the world what gender the child is, as they would like for the child to decide it’s own path of self-understanding.  (Apparently there is no ambiguity regarding the child’s actual sex.)

I’ve had many discussions over the years of how gender shapes your personality and lifestyle. I have met many that believe there are no differences between men and women other than genitals, and that society fully forms their self image and forces them (willingly or unwillingly) to conform to gender norms.  I have to admit I’m not one of those people and though I’m not a doctor, scientist, or whatever, I have lived long enough to understand that males and females generally have different thought processes.  I also think this is a beautiful thing that allows us to learn and understand ourselves, through our relationships with the opposite sex, in greater depth. 

But the question the article is asking is whether or not it’s a good idea to raise your child with no understanding of gender norms.  And on this point I feel very conflicted because, in some bizarre way, I admire the parents for taking a stand and testing the theory that society shapes us fully and nature doesn’t play a role.  But because I already stated that I do believe nature takes a prominent role in our differences, I have to admit I believe this kind of parenting is misguided. 

I often criticize libertarians for not understanding that we live in a society, and I’d have to say the same about Storm’s parents.  To believe that you can insulate yourself from society and that it cannot shape you is both naïve and probably confusing for the child.  Obviously, a child is constantly analyzing, learning, and understanding and, even if they cannot fully comprehend the gravity of all it is absorbing, it has to be somewhat overwhelming.  To not guide the child through self understanding while it’s processing information and its environment might actually have the opposite effect on his/her development because he or she may not have any basis to help understand their own identity.  Now, I’m not claiming all little girls should wear pink bows and all boys should wear blue baseball caps.  If a parent wants to help their child challenge gender norms, I think that can lead to positive openmindedness.  But to do that, the child should have a deep understanding of its gender so it feels confident and secure when challenging the norms in a society that generally resists the push and pull. 

To set the child free to understand itself as if it lived in a vacuum is to forget what it’s like being a child.  Children need guidance and then when they are old enough to make their own decisions, they use this foundation to formulate their self image and their originality.  To just set one off to sea seems misguided and potentially harmful to a child’s development. 

Isn't It Ironic? Well, Some Of It, YES

Time to discuss this stupid, now dated argument.

Irony is one of the most misused and misunderstood words in the English language, despite its fairly simple dictionary definition.  Dictionary.com defines it as “the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning.”  Easy, right?  Well anyone with a basic understanding of the English language knows that irony is usually saved for humor (not necessarily a jokey joke!) or exaggerative purposes, thus confusing a person when they are questioning whether to call something ironic or not.

And, of course, this includes Alanis Morrissette.

Thanks for setting the record straight, Brett!

Since the song was released in 1995, the general meme about Morrissette’s “Ironic” is that, well, nothing in it is ironic.  I might be 16 years late on this post, but since it is a claim I STILL hear, I figured it was time to set the record straight, stand on my pedestal, and claim that, though not EVERYTHING in the song is ironic, it does actually contain some ironic situations, with the potential for more.  Sorry, but it’s not simply black and white, even though I know people love it when things are. 

Let’s go through line by line (lyrics in italics, thoughts in bold) and analyze.

An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day

Without knowing background on said old man, it’s really hard to say.  Now, had the old man played the lottery every single day of his life while claiming “I CANNOT LIVE MY LIFE PROPERLY WITHOUT THE COMFORT OF LOTTERY WINNINGS.  UNTIL THEN I WILL BE A SHELL OF MY POTENTIAL.  AND ONCE I WIN THE JACKPOT, I SHALL BE THE GREATEST LIVING HUMAN THIS WORLD HAS SEEN,” and then died the day after he won the prize, then that would be ironic.  But since it’s a three minute song, we cannot go into the history of the old man’s finances, therefore Alanis probably shouldn’t have used this example. 

It's a black fly in your Chardonnay

Is this even a horrible thing?  I assume whatever disease the bug is potentially carrying would probably die in the alcohol.  Plus, the fly may have protein making it a nice accessory.  Regardless, it’s NOT ironic, maybe a tad unpleasant at worst?

It's a death row pardon two minutes too late

In my opinion, this is the first thing in the song that is ironic.  Assuming the criminal was on death row, he probably engaged in years of appeals to clear his name to no avail.  The fact that someone would give him a pardon, proving innocence two minutes after he was actually killed…hmmm, I’d consider this ironic.  Again, it involves assumption, but well, it’s a short song.    

And isn't it ironic... don't you think?   Well, so far one thing is clearly not ironic, one seems to be ironic, and the third has high potential for irony.  So while this is probably not what she was going for when creating the song, at least she’s not the complete idiot some make her out to be.    

It's like rain on your wedding day – Probably sucks, but not ironic
It's a free ride when you've already paid – If you’d be searching for the free ride for a while and then finally decided to pay only to find out the free ride just presented itself, it miiiiight be ironic.  But it’s a stretch, it could just be coincidence, but it depends on the situation. 
It's the good advice that you just didn't take – Definitely has the potential for irony.  Though I’d like to know what this good advice that she cannot take is.  The content of said advice probably would help decide whether or not it’s ironic. 
Who would've thought... it figures – I dunno what the fuck this even means.

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly
He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids goodbye
He waited his whole damn life to take that flight
And as the plane crashed down he thought
"Well isn't this nice..."
And isn't it ironic... don't you think

OK, this verse can be completely ironic or not, pending on the tone of the “well, isn’t this nice...”  Here we have old Joe Play It Safe (is that Dutch?), who essentially waited his entire life to take a flight, simply because he was afraid of crashing.  It’s implied that he was so fearful of grim death that he avoided this safe, convenient way of traveling for his entire existence. 

Now, here comes the tricky part.  If Alanis is saying “Well, isn’t this nice” in a SARCASTIC tone, it’s not ironic.  It’s actually the expected outcome considering he always figured he’d crash if he flew.  If the “well, isn’t this nice” is NOT SARCASTIC, and he is actually enjoying the plane’s death spiral towards the Earth, then it’s a very ironic story.  

Anyone know the tone? 

Well life has a funny way of sneaking up on you
When you think everything's okay and everything's going right
And life has a funny way of helping you out when
You think everything's gone wrong and everything blows up
In your face

True, I suppose?  We can swirl irony into this little life theory of hers. 

A traffic jam when you're already late – Nah, this just sucks.  Leave earlier next time.  I live in Los Angeles, I always expect traffic. Not ironic. 
A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break – Not ironic unless said sign is next to a similar sign that states DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA.  More info, Alanis!
It's like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife – I’d say this is pretty f’n ironic considering I’ve never been around 10,000 spoons before. 
It's meeting the man of my dreams
And then meeting his beautiful wife  -- That’s just unfortunate.  Though I question how well she knew this “man of her dreams” if she didn’t even know he was married.  Perhaps Alanis is too much of a romantic, or maybe the “man of her dreams” is a douchbag that hid the fact that he was married for years, therefore questioning Alanis’s moral code when choosing mates if he’s still the man of her dreams.  Perhaps he ceased to be the dream man upon discovering his relationship status.   Never fear, Alanis, Dave Coulier is probably still single.  Either way, not ironic. 
And isn't it ironic...don't you think - Nope
A little too ironic...and, yeah, I really do think...  – In this case, I really don’t.

So, as you can see, yes, much of the song doesn’t involve irony, though a good portion of it actually holds the potential for irony if she’d only elaborate on the proposed situations.  Perhaps for the 20^th anniversary of Jagged Little Pill, Alanis will channel her inner Arlo Guthrie and pound out a 25 minute version of the song filled with detailed stories about her subject’s lives.  Until then, it remains a mystery.

But, regardless, there is SOME irony in the song, so can we quit saying NOTHING in it is ironic? 

(and I look forward to someone writing about how it’s ironic that I’m writing about irony, yet don’t understand what irony truly is.  I’m sure you’re out there, bring it on).   

Is it me....

... Or has DreamWorks animation managed to create the only non-cute panda in the history of pandas? 

E-Readers and Amazon

I don’t have a ton to add to the fact that Amazon is now selling more e-books than print books, but I am surprised by the rapid growth of the medium.  Obviously the ability to easily carry numerous books and magazines in a single tablet is attractive and convenient, but because I always considered the turning of the pages, the smell of the book, dog-earing, bookmarks, etc  to be part of the special experience of reading, I figured there would be a little more resistance to the turnover. 

Then again, I personally questioned whether or not I’d like using an e-reader and quickly adapted to actually reading books off my IPhone.  I still do buy print books from time to time, but I suppose I'm part of the revolution as well.

Will libraries soon be obsolete in favor of vast online databases? 

Does it...

annoy anyone else that Bristol Palin is still garnering media attention?