haha, the mannings are pricks.

"God, I just want to shoot myself if my idiot teammates blow another game!!!!"

The Reviews have arrived!

Dialysis by Analysis: The Film Review Spectrum. By Chaney.

This film review hobby of mine that I am undertaking is meant to discuss the formats of filmmaking, as well as the messages and methods behind the films that we all see and love.

It is meant to be a revolutionary in terms of its film theory and reviews. (I've been reading alot of Black Panthers literature lately, and my Socialist-meter is running sky-high at the moment)

It will not, however, indulge in pop culture, satire, or other counter-revolutionary forces.

The first piece that will be brought before discussion is the film, "Ice Age 2", by the 20th Century Fox filmmakers. Where this film draws interest in a revolutionary discussion of filmmaking is in its usage of characterization. Mainly, that the film posits the personalities that the filmmakers assume to be human values, onto the animals.

This is quite common, you say, and I agree. Where this discussion draws merit is in the way that the filmmakers make assumptions about OUR lives. The theory operates in the same manner as a geometric proof. Mainly that, the animals = us, not animals. If the viewer therefore gets past viewing the film as a Wooly Mammoth, Slough, and Saber Tooth tiger going through the plot motions, and instead views it from the angle of class, gender, and racial conciousness, the values that the filmmakers force on us are revealed.

Again, this is a common practice in most film theory. (see = marxist interpretations of films such as Titantic, where only the sexual energies of a proletarian Leonardo DiCaprio can sastify the bosoms of Kate Winslet, where the bourgeosie sexuality of Billy Zane falls far short. In the end, the proletariat proves itself worthy of honor, while the capitalist bourgeosie sneaks aboard a sinking raft, but anyway, enough James Cameron! And don't get me started on postmodernism.)

Pictures and screen shots will follow this post in greater defense of my points, and will illustrate the symbolic nature of many characterization points of this film. But first, let's view the main caveats of this theory, character by character.

One) Manny, the Wooly Mammoth, voiced by "Everybody Loves Raymond".
character values = white, middle class, skeptical capitalist, who has hang ups about the afterlife (extinction). Obviously supports the traditional male-female family set up, as he takes a mate in the female Ellie, during the course of the film, and the general baseness of his personality reflects the non-threatening political and emotional values that the filmmakers assume that many Americans have. He also has contentious, but, and I must emphasize this, SAFE arguments with his wife. They all really love each other in the end, you dig? The idea that Manny would have an argument that would cause him to lose control and do something crazy like, say, kill Ellie, is beyond the character here. That simply does not happen in white, suburban America. On the other hand, compare that to Diego, who, in the first movie, was attempting to kill babies and eat Sid. Ken Lay, anyone?
meanings = This is your prototypical American consumer. Obviously White. Obviously with safe, middle-class and moderate values. Manny never offers any other value or idea that is not of the general idea of "lets keep things under control, and traditional animal life (i.e. traditional American Life) is safe and we must keep the minorities (the predators, one can only assume they represent black people) out. This character is also designed to represent the alpha male in society. The savior, much in the same way firefighters and police officers are idealized in films such as World Trade Center, or other common propaganda. Manny functions as voice of sanity in this film, as surely the most rational members of society must certainly be the whites, and are most skeptical about hucksters (Fast Eddie, appropiately voiced by Jay Leno) and moochers on society (such as the vultures). The American values of hard work, sacrifice, and determination shine through this furry and extinct creature. Note the herd of Wooly Mammoth at the end. If that's not a marine military march, I don't know what the fuck is.

Two) Sid, the slough, voiced by John Leguizamo.
values = Sid is lazy, impetous, and oftentimes endangers the community around him. Clearly a minority, although, as we see in many John Leguizamo films, he is not entirely a threatening minority, more liek a safe, Jennifer Lopez-style minority, that has somewhat bought into American values in terms of language and beliefs. Sid does not do anything to rock the fabric of the animal society, much like the ways that the vultures, predators, or hucksters do. In fact, his skpeticism about Ellie attempting to break racial barriers (in trying to be a possum instead of mammoth) is more white than anything else in the film.
meanings = Again, Sid is clearly representative of minorities here. In which they generally contribute nothing to the overall success of the trek (Diego is the fierce defender, and Manny the brute strength and fierce, American willpower - note the geyser scene in the end. Total John Wayne bravado, whereas Sid is well, Sid) Sid is simply, there, and must be tolerated by the two contributors to society. Sid does nothing but antagonize the other two and does not offer any noble and endearing physical characteristics.

Three) Diego, the saber-tooth tiger, voiced by Dennis Leary.
values = skeptical, independent, and prone to violence in self-denfense, when justified. Diego can represent your typical rural American, fierce and ready to defend himself with the usage of brute force - Firearms. Or, in this case, claws.
meanings = this is your typical libertarian, conservative type. Diego is clearly independent of the group, but because of his own self-loathing and guilty conscience, patronizes the moderates and minorities that make up the world of "Ice Age 2". Diego also has that distinctly Republican achilles heel, in this case, water. Much like real Republicans, in the sense that they try to hide from the growing problems of society by hiding in an enclaved suburban or rural community, Diego hides from the growing problems of the geological meltdown. As the water (poverty) continues to grow and spread and seep into their sheltered valley community, Diego cringes from it, and even reacts violently to it at times. He also fails to adequetely defend society in the instances that he is relied upon to do so.

Four) Crash. The Squirrel.
values and meanings = drug users. The nut is the fix. And he (Sean William Scott) will stop at nothign to acquire it. Notice the spasms and hyperactivity. This squirrel clearly has either a serious case of withdrawal going, or is hitting the blow (notice all the white "snow" all around him. Hmmmmm?) hard. The fact that this squirrel has absolutely nothign to do with the plot just goes to show how much people in society really disregard drug users are useless. At least these filmmakers do.

Feel free to critique or offer your own takes on the above jive that I've posted. I'd be more than happy to hear it. I wish I could remember more of what I saw from this film, I watched it two days ago, and didn't get a chance to copy the screen shots.

Power to the people.

This blog on ESPN is genius. Says it better than I ever could.

IT'S NOT EASY BEING GREEN (AND RED)

NOV. 7, 2006 -- Introductory columns stink. It's like going to your college's freshman mixer with a "Hello, My Name Is..." tag and trying to pick out someone you think is cool to talk to.

"So, what's your major?"

"English."

"Oh, you like to read."

"I guess..."

It's beyond awkward.

But considering this is Issue I of Vol. I of Central Intelligence, we should probably get to know each other, even if briefly.

Let's get the pleasantries out of the way so we can get to the column, shall we? First, my manifesto should give you a little insight as to who I am as a hoops fan:

Shooters are made, not born; Point guards are born, not made; All big men should be able to hit a 15-footer; Next to reversing the ball with crisp passing, dribble penetration is the second best way to find the open man; If you're that open man, you should be ready to shoot, dribble or pass when you get the ball; If you're 6-10 or taller, and you play 30 minutes per, there's no reason you shouldn't average at least seven boards per game; You should either give or receive one hard pick per game; The complaining about the new ball is stupid; Saying "scoring the ball" or "rebounding the ball" is unnecessary (What else are you going to score or rebound?); Defense can win games, offense can win games, but balance win championships; The best uniforms in NBA history are the Warriors' old "The City" unis; Every NBA game is good, but its that much better when each team scores 100 or more points; Oscar Robertson doesn't nearly get the credit he deserves for averaging a triple-double the first five years of his career; And, finally, you should have a basketball and shoes in the trunk of your car at all times ...

And that's just a start. You'll see more of them the season progresses. At the end of this column, I'll give everyone a chance to respond with their manifesto, but for now, my column, my manifesto, my Central Intelligence.

As for the column itself, well ... here's the last, and possibly most important thing you should know about me: I'm a Bucks fan.

Talk about awkward silences.

And I'll write this column from the perspective of a Bucks fan, a Midwesterner, a citizen raised in flyover country. (Hence, Central Intelligence as in the Central Division). The reason? Well, I have two:

One, there aren't too many of us around here where I live in the greater Big Apple area. It's either Knicks fans or transplanted Sixers fans. (Strangely enough, Nets fans would be the third party in a two party race around here.)

Two, the powers that be here at .com think you should know what it's like to be a Bucks fan.

So, what's it like?

Let me tell you, it started out well. Maybe too well.

The Bucks drafted Lew Alcindor (soon to be Kareem) in 1970. The very next season, only their third in the league, the Bucks won their first, and only, NBA title. Not only did the Bucks set a then-NBA record 20 consecutive wins, not only did they win 66 games, but Kareem and the Big O led Milwaukee to a sweep of the then-Baltimore Bullets in the Finals.

Three seasons! No expansion franchise in any of the major professional sports has ever attained glory as quickly, before or since.

And since then? Well, being a Bucks fan has been a tantalizing experience, to say the least. You bend your head to take a drink, and the water recedes. You extend for a grape to sate your hunger, and the wind blows the branch out of reach. We are a thirsty and hungry bunch, we Bucks fans.

For example:

-- One season after their title, the Bucks drafted Julius Erving with the No. 12 pick in the 1972 Draft. Could you imagine a team with Kareem, Oscar and Dr. J? I can. I still can. Alas, the good doctor chose to practice his medicine in the ABA. Maybe that's why fans at the Milwaukee Arena booed him when he won the All-Star Game MVP in 1977 as a Sixer. And maybe that's why the All-Star Game hasn't been back. If that's the case, on behalf of all Bucks fans, I apologize. We will never boo Dr. J again. Promise.

-- The Bucks had Game 7 of the 1974 Finals on their home floor ... and lost to the Celtics, by 15! My franchise hasn't been back to a Finals.

-- After the 1975 season, they traded Kareem to the ... ugh ... Lakers. And, guess what? Kareem is still the Bucks' all-time leading scorer.

-- Starting with a Game 7 loss to the Denver Nuggets in the 1978 Western Conference semis, the Bucks are 2-5 in Game 7s, including a one-point loss to the Sixers in the East semis in 1981 where the ball ended up in the hands, of all people, a journeyman named Robert Smith. When, with time running out in the game, he passed and didn't shoot, the Milwaukee Journal ran a headline that ran across the broadsheet: "Sixers 99, Bucks 98: Oh shoot, Robert!" How does a team with Bob Lanier, Marques Johnson and Sidney Moncrief have the ball in Robert Smith's hands?

-- The Bucks also lost Game 7 of the Eastern Conference Finals in 2001. Also to the Sixers. Let's not get me started on that series.

-- The Bulls ... double ugh ... won their record 70th game at Bradley Center.

-- Oh, and April 2002, when the Bucks were in first place in the Central, but nose-dived out of the playoffs, capping my most horrifying fan experience ever.

That's not to say there haven't been great times as a Bucks fan. We've had plenty. The Bucks swept Larry Bird's Celtics in 1983. (Of course, as Bucks' luck would have it, they ran into the "Fo, Fi, Fo" Sixers, and bowed out 4-1 in the East Finals.) There were the seven consecutive division titles from 1980-1986. The run to the East Finals in 2001. I was even privileged enough to work for them in the early '90s.

But the '80s proved to be extra frustrating as those seven division titles didn't translate into one Finals experience. The Bucks could never get past the Celtics or Sixers. They never had the horses in the post to compete. Any you really need to wonder about my psyche when I say three of the franchise's top 10 memorable games are losses.

First, in 1982, the Bucks and the Spurs dueled for three OTs, but lost 171-166. The 337 combined points was a league record ... for 21 months, until the Pistons and Nuggets blew it out of the water with their 370-point 3OT thriller. See, the Bucks can't even keep their records for long.

And then there was Game 5 against the Pacers in the First Round of the East playoffs of 2000. The Bucks had a five-point lead late in the fourth quarter and Sam Cassell is killin', and I mean killin' anyone the Pacers put on him. But, alas, Sam has five fouls. As Sam pulls one of his classic step-in, step-back jumpers, Derrick McKey falls back. Whistle. Offensive foul.

Not four minutes later, with the shot clock winding down, Travis Best hits his only shot of the game, a three right in front of the Bucks' bench to give the Pacers a one-point lead, and ultimately, the win.

Then, there was Glenn Robinson's just-short shot in Game 5 against the Sixers in the 2001 East Finals.

So close. Tantalizing.

But that's the nature of us Bucks fans. We can see greatness in our team even if our team does not achieve it. Are we consigned to losing? No, not in the least.

And this year's edition -- with Andrew Bogut, Charlie Villanueva and Michael Redd leading the way -- gives Bucks fans hope, if not for a Playoffs berth this season, but success in the very near future.

But then again, it's been the future for 35 years. Being a Bucks fan is not about being frustrated with the franchise, like Knicks fans. No, it's about rooting for a team that's been close, so close, but hasn't been able to close ... and imagining what that day will feel like when they finally do.

We hope that day comes sooner, rather than later.