The Billiken's Bluff

Aggressive Critiquing. I’m patenting this term. Alert the authorities. Aggressive critiquing of media, in all its forms, is prevalent. This term came to me this past weekend while I watched Friday Night Lights with a friend. My friend wasn’t really enjoying the movie and kept yelling at the television:

-"That tackle looked so unrealistic!!! It looked like that linebacker was fired out of a fuckin' cannon or something."

-"Boobie Miles relies too heavily on natural talent. He won’t put in extra time at the weight room. That’s definitely going to come back and haunt him later in the film. Mark my words- he is headed for a career ending injury."

-"The running back's over-zealous father has a sinister look in his eye. Yea you see that look? That will definitely come into play at some point."

-"How old is that player on Dallas Carter? Isn't he supposed to be in high school? The dude looks like he's about 45 years old or something."

And so on... I sat quietly through this standard sports movie. Yes, all of the above are true. But no reason to get so worked about it. Relax, brother. Of course, a football film will have unrealistic tackles. Of course, in any sports movie there will be the father who failed to live up to his athletic potential and replays the games vicariously through his son. Of course, they will use adult actors to play teenagers.

Films, TV sitcoms, reality shows, crossfire debates are filled with stock characters and scenarios. All very familiar. I know this, but whenever I am watching TV show, a political program, or a film; I find this compulsion to add my two cents.

And that’s all blogs are in actuality; someone like yours truly shouting their two cents of commentary over the competition of a thousand comparable blogs. The facts being argued are taken for granted. How aggressively and cleverly someone yells their critique of the facts is what has become central.

Gone are the days of mild, soft-spoken sarcasm circa Mystery Science Theater 3000.



Now we have Hannity & Colmes. The Daily Show. VH1's Best Week Ever. ESPN's Around the Horn. Blogs like Atrios, or The Billiken’s Bluff (tried to slip that in there). Haloscan. Screaming. Interupting. Streaming commentary. Endlessly.

So last night I watched 24 with my friends Mike and The Senator.



As we watched Jack Bauer save the State of our Union from terrorists, Mike and The Senator set in with the usual: Is this really realistic? I mean wouldn’t the gun be in his left hand? I mean he writes with his left hand right? Right Gotim?

I said fine, if you want to shout out allegedly insightful comments over the show, then I’ll keep score. Turn this into our own little reality show of our own.
So here’s my idea for a pilot show. A kind of Director’s Cut of 24 (only without the Director, Brilliant!!) where some amateurs like you or me sit around the couch and critique the plausibility, and entertainment value of 24 as it’s playing. It'll be great. Talking over the action about talking points. Someone keeps score, noting the most astute comments based on their foresightedness, wit, and timing. It would function much like ESPN’s roundtable sports commentary show Around the Horn. The host adds and subtracts points based on the sports pundit’s insights, or lack thereof. So I performed a test run of this potential pilot during last night’s episode of 24. I played scorekeeper and let my two friends go at it.

-Mike correctly guessed that CTU director Erin Driscoll’s schizophrenic daughter would kill herself. (Good call +1 point for Mike.)

-The Senator correctly pointed out that Paul Raines, son-in-law of the Secretary of Defense, and head of Galaxy Financial was not in fact part of a terrorist cell, rather his character’s function was to serve as a cautionary tale of the pitfalls of corporate irresponsibility. Paul had so many shell corporations registered in his name that he had no idea that the terrorists were working out of a building that had his name on the lease. (Jack Bauer ended up using using electro-shock torture to make Paul pay for his corporate negligence). (Insightful +2 points for the Senator.)

-Mike commented that Marianne functioned much like Amarosa did in The Apprentice. A thorn in everyone’s side, and an all-around bitch. An astute observation but he lost points for timeliness, since Marianne had been murked last episode. (-1 point for Mike).

-The Senator says the actor who plays the President in 24 is the same guy who played the Al Bundy role in Unhappily Ever After.



He adds that it would be a lot more entertaining if the stuffed toy rabbit Mr. Floppy that he used to consult in his basement made an appearance aboard Air Force One. Or it would be a lot hotter if Nikki Cox made an appearance as the president’s daughter. (+2 point for The Senator because that it would and that it would).

-Mike questioned whether Dina Araz actually spoke with that faux-Turkish accent in real life (+/- 0 points), but then commented that her nose job reminded him an awful lot of Michael Jackson's nose. (Verily +1 point for Mike).

-The Senator commented that the terrorist mastermind Marwan (played by Arnold Vosloo) also starred as The Mummy.



This was correct and I was about to give him a +1, but he followed it up with... Marwan sure has some strong cheek bones, real chiseled features. (While technically a true observation, it was completely uncalled for. – 4 points for The Senator.)

Final Score: Mike 1, The Senator 0.