As The Griddle notes, Maury Brown of The Biz of Baseball has rounded up a hefty bunch of commentators - 30 in all - to discuss what's right and wrong with baseball. Here is my contribution:
To a certain extent, my love for baseball is irrational – it is love, after all. But while other passions in my life have come and gone, my relationship with baseball has been steadfast. Over the years, I've become invested in the characters of the game the way, I suppose, someone watching three decades of "All My Children" has. Baseball is one grand story to me – one of the grandest – and I cannot weed myself from the storyline that has brought us both Babe Ruth and Hiram Bocachica. The entrances and exits, the highs and lows, form an epic tapestry. I know that sounds full of itself, but that's how the game makes me feel.
Other sports offer the same potential to surprise, to offer the fantastic amid the quotidian – so what makes baseball special? My family had Los Angeles Rams season tickets when I was a kid, and I was a diehard fan of the Showtime Lakers – so why does baseball retain a greater hold on me? One of the great attractions of the game, I feel, is that it offers so many intermediate achievements besides winning. Just as one example, there is that satisfaction when your pitcher gets a first-pitch strike – followed by them opportunity to pause and savor (or conversely, to agonize when it goes against you). And then, another pitch, on which anything can happen. I'm not sure any sport does this as well. Basketball moves too fast to celebrate a simple pass, golf gives you too much time to ponder a shot. Other sports have their merits, and surely, some offer more pure
excitement, but baseball remains the ultimate game for me. The main thing that is right with baseball today is that it is baseball.
The game is not perfect, of course, nor is it the most popular in the United States anymore, and I do believe that the desire to solve these problems off the field actually leads to most people's dissatisfaction with it. It's a vicious circle of making the game worse while trying to make it better. That doesn't mean that the game shouldn't evolve – but that evolution for the sake of evolution is problematic.
I believe in players getting all the money they can, in getting paid what the market can bear. At the same time, my initial reaction to Juan Pierre's $44 million contract with the Dodgers was that surely, surely some of that money would be better spent on our local public school system. That contract, and others this offseason, were signs to me that baseball has more financial resources than it knows what to do with.
While I don't expect baseball owners to start donating more of their profits to support the nation's infrastructure, I think baseball can and should make different choices, and invest its top layer of profits back into the game. Baseball has sold much of its control of the game to the broadcasters that cover it. I would suggest, perhaps naively, that baseball buy back some of that control, in the form of taking lower network rights fees in exchange for earlier start times for postseason games, shorter commercial breaks and other fan-friendly adjustments. Doing so, in my mind, would feed the future of baseball more profitably than the current situation, which discourages people of all generations from investing in a game, a playoff, a season that will end past their bedtimes. (It's not just kids, mind you – people of all ages have trouble staying up for the final pitch in October, even on the West Coast, let alone the East.)
There are other things right and wrong with baseball, but I think they're mostly secondary in importance to baseball's underlying motivation – instead of chasing dollars as a means to draw more fans, it should take the more profitable and digestible strategy of chasing fans as a means to earn dollars. The sport doesn't need to jazz up the game between the lines – it just needs to take a deep breath outside the lines.
In some ways, baseball has a self-esteem problem. Ever since it stopped being the definitive national pastime, it keeps trying to regain that status. Baseball needs to be prouder of what it is. That doesn't mean MLB shouldn't market the game, but better to do so with a new baseball field in the inner city and a 7 p.m. start time for Game 7 than another ivory backscratcher for the owners and the players. Because if baseball can stand tall, in the end, there will be ivory backscratchers for everyone.
There are a great many good ideas offered, so take a look. By the way, I know ivory is bad.
* * *
I really enjoyed Thursday's chat in the "A Strikeout's as Good as a Hit?" thread. Among the interesting comments:
39. Ken Arneson
I don't think (Are there good pitches to swing at that are not strikes?) is the crux of it at all. Of course, you don't want your batter to swing at balls. The crux is whether you want the batter to swing at the first hittable strike, or the first drivable strike. And the answer to that question depends on the game context.
And ...
165. John Siv
Say Drew's normal approach nets him a hit 28% of the time and a walk 11% of the time. He's got some pop, too, while striking out about 22% of the time. Good bat. Sweet, sweet swing.
Flash to the game: Runner's on third, just stole third, in fact, with less than two out. Game's close. Pitcher's shaken. I'm telling you, he's shaken here. Crowd's up, they sense it. Drew knows it, and sets for the pitch.
His normal approach will score the guy some percentage of the time, call it 38%. I'm just making this up. It's not critical. It's not the drama.
What if Drew, keyed into the game situation, cognizant of his team standing in the dugout, eyeing his mate who just swiped that bag in a close, close play in which bone crushed and flesh tore and heart was laid bare, changed his approach? Not his swing—oh that sweet, sweet song of a swing—no, no, just his approach. What if he risks it all to score the runner? Forget the lure of power, don't even worry about getting a hit, and just try to advance one man ninety feet? Is it at all possible that he can change his profile to get a hit, say, 20% of the time, a walk 7% of the time, but score the runner, oh I don't know, 46% of the time? Sure his K-rate will likely rise as well to 28% perhaps, but is this at all possible?
This seems to be the heart of the point made in Jon's piece.
If Drew can make this alteration, then isn't it worth it? Doesn't he owe it to the crowd, his team, his craft? The game's close, remember—if that were not the case then the whole calculus may shift. But if the situation calls for it, if the real percentages prescribe a beneficial expectation, then shouldn't he do that? Shouldn't any ballplayer take that shot?
Remember, if he does this, then he will strike out more often and walk less. Probably hit more weak outs, too. That's just part of the deal, part of the life of this game. Can't have it all, even with a swing favored by an angel.
So, is a strikeout better than a walk or a hit? Of course not. May a strikeout be an indication he is changing his approach optimally, however? And, if such a change is both possible and desireable, then may a strikeout be a sign of Drew making the proper play? And may a walk be an indication he is not changing his approach, and thus making the improper play?
May that be what folks mean when they intuit that a K is better than a BB in that situation?
I agree with Ken's assessment, because I believe such a change is possible. I have no evidence for this, of course. Just feeling. Just hope, frankly. If I'm completely off base, then I'd love to learn why.
But what a swing. My my. What a sweet, sweet swing.
I think these are among the best arguments against settling, so to speak, for a walk, though I still find a walk to be a satisfactory outcome. In John Siv's situation, for example, a walk will only increase the drama for the next batter.
But the comments from Thursday still have me thinking. It might seem an esoteric topic, but I really enjoyed it.
After reading the other comments over there, I have only one question: Is there any baseball person more out of touch than Buzzie Bavasi? (And I say this not in a mean way, but as someone who has a fondness for him. He just seems like the grandfather who likes nothing better than to gripe about how the world has all gone to hell in a handbasket.)
Big pic of Russell Martin on the front page of BaseballAmerica.com right now, BTW. Nice article on Logan & Co. too.
The current column is also why I read DT.
I think Jon has earned his Christmas bonus this year.
Capitalism ruins everything.
How did Joel Zumaya hurt his wrist during the playoffs? The Tigers concluded "Zumaya's injury resulted from playing a video game, not from his powerful throwing motion."
Mahalo.
Even during long dry spells, there always seems to be reasons for interest, amusement and even pride.
Even when the overall team has been weak, there is something to excite, like the infield of Beltre, Cora and Izzy. Wild one of a kind games are always possible: The four cons. HRs, Multiple homers by a stumpy outfielder who isn't in the long plan, an outfielder with an amazing arm throwing a guy out at the plate or throwing over the backstop on the rise.
And the good times watching Sandy, Maury or Kurt, or Bulldog assuring victory. I hope there is high time coming for the D's, but wether or not,I know i'll be watching.
As the season wore on, and the losses piled up, the passivity became so bad that it became apparent that the main way the team would score runs would be if they got a walk with the bases loaded. The other teams, meanwhile, would get hits, driving in even more runs than a series of walks could possibly plate.
The coaches started telling the kids to be more aggressive, and I found myself giving the same advice to my son, while trying to balance that with the perspective that a good eye and a patient approach are good skills to have.
Part of the idea with encouraging an aggressive approach at the plate was that these were kids. It really didn't matter if they won or lost. More important, they needed to learn how to hit, and it was likewise important that they gained confidence from finding that they really could hit if they tried.
To bring this back to MLB, as a fan I find it very frustrating when a player known for his patient approach takes a pitch that looks right down the plate and easy to hit. I find myself wanting that player to swing, to try to get on base. I find myself telling that player to take a more aggressive approach, the same as I counseled my son.
Thinking about it another way, a walk is usually due to a pitcher making a mistake. Many hits are also due to a pitcher's mistake, leaving a pitch out over the plate, for example. If you need to take advantage of a pitcher's mistake to get on base, then use the mistakes over the plate as much as you use mistakes outside the strike zone. It takes only one mistake in the zone to get a hit, but you must rely on four mistakes outside the zone to get a walk.
ESPN and Fox have modernized broadcasts in some good ways: pitch tracker, pitch sequence replays, x-slo-mo is neat. But they're still force-feeding us 1980's quality analysis. And no, just giving Gammons and Olney a blog doesn't cut it. I want to see Neyer arguing with Steve Phillips in the BB Tonight studio!
For those who are too young to know Roger Angell, Google him, go to Amazon.com and buy one of his collections. You will not be disappointed.
Around this time of year, his annual baseball piece appears in the New Yorker.
You might want to see Neyer arguing with Phillips, but I've met Rob several times and talked to him frequently and he wouldn't be nearly as persuasive on TV as Phillips.
In print, Neyer destroys him. Phillips is more TV-friendly.
Baseball is a game of adjustments. Take all that was in that piece and its comments and add the spirit of 10, that is even at the MLB levels guys can still learn to take an at bat in a new way. If you take the first pitches too many times or in a predictable pattern, it gets figured out quickly, the same way people figure out when a guy like Penny is really apt to throw his "out" pitch and then they can gain an edge by looking for it. Add to the situation the way the opposing battery might respond just adds to the complexity.
I love the game's complexity and unpredictability.
His chats with Sheehan are always fun. But Sheehan never seems to smile. Like, ever.
How much...?
About the same amount you pay Jon to read his stuff.
What are you trying to say...?
Jon, I think I have a bone to pick with you...
Come January, you may be able to diversify this segment of the contribution...
I already asked and was turned down.
It's an idea that can't fail!
ROFL ....
I can just picture Jon in the Dodger Stadium stands for a commercial pimping the Dodger Thoughts Mobile ... :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBPEJPQKshU
(warning... definitely NSFW)
Clearly Bob has way too much time on his hands.
I find my court overwhelming to me.
http://www.backstreets.com/Assets/Images/newsHoliday06b.jpg
I think Colletti proposed trading Toby Hall to the Phillies for that. The gall bladder was a sticking point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVUgd8ot6BE
41 - Thanks for taking Lieberthal though!
... you apparently stopped at the Whizzo Chocolate Company factory ...
I just made a small donation to the site. But for some reason I'm filled with the holiday spirit (not spirits), and want to do something more.
So, to encourage DT posters to contribute to the site, I'm willing to match up to $200 (hey, I'm not made out of money) of other donations.
This doesn't mean you can't contribute more but it's a little incentive.
Just drop me an email at mleadman@charter.net when you make a contribution. I'll track the responses and match the amounts up to $200 total.
Please don't think there is any pressure to contribute if you don't want to/can't afford to. It's perfectly fine.
We have those pieces (as long as Tomko or Hendy are considered "quality" arms)
Please put DodgerThoughts in the subject of the email. That way I can find it amongst all the spam I get. Thanks.
Every year our local baseball league has a coaches clinic with the kids and coaching staff from UC Riverside.
One of the things the head coach encourages for the younger kids is that they have an aggressive approach at the plate. His idea is that they still aren't old enough to have developed really good plate discipline. He says that through trial and error, the kids develop an idea of what a hittable pitch is.
I'm sure he's just about the exact opposite with his college kids, but I think it is an interesting theory. Kids in your sons age group just haven't seen enough pitches yet to really know their zone and all that other jazz.
Forgive me if this is too obvious to have posted.
http://tinyurl.com/y8wh73
http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/150
7 Biggio and Bagwell might not be inducted in the same vote anyway; might not both be first-ballot HOFers.
46 Marty, that is generous of you. I'll consider, but I am still determining DT's VORB.
2004: 57.9 VORB
2005: 79.3 VORB
2006: 81.2 VORB
Everyone knows that those are hall of fame VORB's, assuming that DT that can keep it up for the next couple of years.
They both played for Houston.
I didn't say these arguments made sense, or that I agree with them, but I'm willing to bet that Bagwell's HR total gets held against him.
I'm going to see what Ruth would do at Coors field of the 90's.
Then I'm gonna put Bob Gibson at Petco. This is too much fun.
73 HR
227 RBI
179 Walks
1.480 OPS
Walter Johnson--2.46
Pedro Martinez--2.71
Whip
Johnson--1.154
Pedro--1.001
22-3, 0.98 ERA, 230.7 IP, 98 H, 301 K
In fact, if Pedro Martinez had spent his career at Dodger Stadium during the 1960s, we would all pretty much be saying "Sandy who?"
.458
GOOD LORD
1992 0-0 W-L, 2.35 ERA
1993 9-3, 1.74
1994 15-9, 2.17
1995 16-10, 2.22
1996 15-10, 2.28
1997 23-5, 1.28
1998 20-7, 1.72
1999 21-4, 1.14
2000 22-3, 0.98
2001 10-3, 1.44
2002 18-5, 1.40
2003 18-4, 1.30
2004 16-10, 2.17
2005 17-8, 1.94
2006 7-8, 2.92
+-------+----+---+---+---
Totals 227-89, 1.75
+-------+----+---+---+---
Sell the house
Sell the car
Sell the kids.
I'm never coming home.
I may have to quit my job and just do this forever.
Larry Walker- 337/.420/.663 43 HRs
Mike Piazza- .374/.444/.660 42 HRs
Piazza is Shawshank.
How neutral...?
8-1, .96 ERA, .605 WHIP
84 IP, 146 strikeouts
Then who was "Pulp Fiction"?
Why is Mike Piazza being compared to sentimental piffle?
I love Pulp Fiction, but come on. Shawshank, man. Shawshank.
318 wins
228 losses
3727 strikeouts
3.58 ERA
.167/.183/.209
Robust .392 OPS.
Please share this news with the BBWAA HOF voters
Pulp Fiction was great, and I may even concede "most important" tag. Not the best.
ERA 4.46 (neutral) 4.65 (actual)
WHIP 1.397 (neutral) 1.439 (actual)
Still not worth $55 million ....
1. Se7en
2. JFK
3. Lone Star
4. Pulp Fiction
5. Hmm... Fargo? L.A. Confidential? Silence of the Lambs? As much as I like those, I'm gonna go with Before Sunrise.
Best is pointless to argue.
Some people think Kirsten Dunst is super hot. The chemicals in my brain disagree, but what argument can really made for or against her?
Why can't it just be fun?
With you, it's always fun.
{waits for Steve}
1. Miller's Crossing
2. Unforgiven
3. Boogie Nights
4. Big Night
5. Fargo
I'm glad you appreciate Boogie Nights.
http://tinyurl.com/ybdlca
Dodgers, As, Phillies, Oakland all the same.
Nationals are, um, last, and 10 x less likely than those four.
Seems Vidro had plane trouble or something.
Nats nation really hoping Bavasi doesn't use this opportunity to start reading the blogs.
And on a sideways note, Dan Evans had a decent reputation as Dodgers GM,no? He hasn't had much luck saving Bavasi from himself of late.
I think Evans was fine. No complaints.
1. Big Lebowski
2. Once Were Warriors
3. Kids
4. eXistenZ
5. Dead Alive
(Of course, that was a good trade for LA)
1. The Big Lebowski
2. Pulp Fiction
3. Dazed and Confused
4. Swingers
5. Goodfellas
Just missing the cut: Office Space, There's Something About Mary, Wayne's World, Shawshank Redemption, Boogie Nights
Dances With Wolves
Unforgiven
Rushmore
The Big Lebowski
LA Confidential
The Shawshank Redemption
The Usual Suspects
Silence of the Lambs
JFK
Heat
Nope. Big fan of Peter Jackson's early work and Once Were Warriors is just great.
1. Shawshank redemption
2. Braveheart
3. That thing you do.
4. Nacho Libre
5. Hotel Rwanda
Not that anybody asked me.
Oh Lord, this is 1,000 times worse than anything you can say about Mark Hendrickson.
Rudy
I guess maybe you have to be from Indiana?
1. 301/302
2. Mo' Better Blues
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Groundhog Day
5. Magnolia
That's sort of how I feel. I see Rushmore up there and think, "Hey, a kindred spirit." Then I see Dances With Wolves and Unforgiven and think, "Oh, just another boring old man."
And then he leaves Pulp Fiction out of the top ten just to spite me.
Bump Usual Suspects, add Magnolia.
It's Korean.
Of course, I'm emotionally 12, and my artistic favorites would make me about 60, so, you know, it's cool
http://www.imdb.com/chart/1990s
My picks:
Shawshank Redemption (#1 for the decade)
Schindler's List
The Usual Suspects
The Matrix (mostly for the concept)
Terminator 2 (mostly for the F/X)
The Sixth Sense
Toy Story 1&2 (for the wonder/fun)
Ed Wood (Johnny Depp!!!!)
Sling Blade
Silence of the Lambs
Saving Private Ryan
Ok, I better stop because I will just end up hating my list except for my top two.
Birth of a Nation
White Man's Burden
Passion of the Christ
Anything with John Wayne
Red Dawn
Watch out, Steve. I'm a master with a trident.
1. Good Will Hunting
2. Shawshank Redemption
3. The Matrix
4. Forrest Gump
5. Rudy
I guess I just think different than most Dodger Fans, lol.
Even "The Conqueror"?
That is one diverse group I must say.
Do not usually see Red Dawn with Birth of a Nation.
I knew your age range, and was of course kidding.
And remarkably, you made an inspired last-minute move to save your season with comment 126.
Please do, I'm bored.
Whether it be for good or ill, I think Colletti is going to be the Dodger GM for a long time -- as in Fred Claire long. The farm system that neither Evans nor DePodesta got to benefit from (but which Evans was responsible for, by way of hiring Logan White) can and will cover a multitude of sins by Colletti, and Colletti gets along well with others in the organization and with McCourt.
I told you about seeing it with Sidney (Hard 8) at the Egyptian a couple years ago. John C. Reilly spoke in between films. He was really cool.
Hat Trick Alex Ovechkin tonight, including tying up a 2-1 game with 30 secs left in regulation and then an unassisted gamewinner 6 seconds into OT.
From Russia With Love.
I'd prefer Colletti finish out his contract just in time for Logan White to become Fred Claire.
I'd settle for Kim Ng, as well.
5. Hotel Rwanda
Wonder how many lists have those two sitting side by side?
Yeah, I did not know how to handle your list. I was thinking well at least Birth of a Nation is a revolutionary film, while White Man's Burden not so much. That makes me feel better you made it up.
(Remember what Sam said earlier today...)
Lawrence of Arabia would have 297 RBI's in 2000 Coors Field.
Yeah, but it would play a 225-game season.
I believe she's educated, and she's assisted some good GMs for awhile now. I figure she has to be smart enough to embrace many of the concepts DePodesta likely exposed her to.
I don't know, Colletti and Claire were nothing more than media smooth-talkers. What were their qualifications?
I will not budge, and I will not be intimidated. Mock me if you will*.
*Please don't mock me.
180 I didn't want to over do it with poor Mel. He reminds me a lot of my dad.
Unless you know Mandarin.
Starring Jack Nicholson (and a golf club).
I love Tenacious D. The show was great and I like their music. Apparently, Kyle Gass was the earliest graduate at Juilliard in classical guitar.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Well played.
1. The Da Vinci Code
2. Fahrenheit 911
3. Bob Roberts
4. An inconvinient truth
5. Bowling for Columbine
;)
I wanted to see the movie, but it is hard to get people to go after those reviews.
Yeah, that was hilarious. KG went to my rival high school.
I don't think he's gonna make it. Don't tell me how it ends, though.
Did you get to The Great Silence yet, or is that still waiting in line until 2009?
The most famous person who went to my high school was Jack Handey. Which makes you wonder, why does anybody spell their name with an extra "e"? If you added up all the time they spend writing the extra letter, they'd have an extra year or two to spend on important stuff. Like posting to blogs on Friday nights.
Thanks for making me colossally depressed on a lonely Friday night with the Lakers already down ten until I just wish Flanders was dead.
Time to invite over some drunk chicks.
It may come to that. I miss that rookie pitcher I tripled off of a few months back as well.
1) Fargo
2) Babe
3) L.A. Confidential
4) Lone Star
5) The Last Seduction
Haven't seen the film.
Peter Berg's telling of the chain link fence scene is hilarious. I guess he was really unsure about the scene, and Fiorentino grabbed him, threw him against the fence, and said "Start rolling" to the director. The rest is history.
Also, why was I not informed that Little Children is directed by Todd Field, the same guy who did In The Bedroom (very possibly my favorite movie, ever)? And that the screenplay was written by Field and Perrotta (the guy who wrote Election)? Somebody has failed me for the last time. While I get the feeling that if I'd more closely read the non-The Office parts of screen jam, I might have found some of these things out, I'm still determined to blame some one else for this.
Princess Mononoke
Pulp Fiction
LA Confidential
Lone Star
Jurasic Park - didn't age well but it knocked my socks off when I first saw it.
Special mention to Twelve Monkeys, Saving Private Ryan
There is nobody to blame but yourself. And D4P (why not?).
Of course most of you are watching the Lakers getting pounded by Houston.
Reminds me of when I saw "Punch-Drunk Love" at a matinee with a group from a retirement home. I think I was the only person in the theater who liked it.
I was that person in my group of friends when we saw Punch Drunk Love.
PT Anderson makes good movies.
If you see "Little Children", you will quickly realize how ironic that statement is.
My girlfriend brought the DVD of the Magdalene Sisters over once for us to watch.
Not a good date movie.
Not at all.
In the trivia section for "A Prairie Home Companion" on IMDB there is this line:
For insurance purposes, and in the event that 80-year-old director Robert Altman was unable to finish shooting the film, Paul Thomas Anderson was employed as a standby director.
I've been tempted though when I was at Notre Dame to start screaming at Charlie Weis:
"YOU ARE NOT A MAN OF GOD!"
How was the Last Kiss?
I ask because Rachel Bilson is beautiful.
Wayne's World
Groundhog Day
Babe
Braveheart
Aladdin
90s:
American Beauty
Babe
Fargo
Schindler's List
Crying Game (the perfect story of all that)
some other good foreign
Journey of Hope
House of flying daggers (was 90s, right)
before the rain
and perhaps the Dutch Verison of The Vanishing.
My top 5 (today, without too much thought)
Nuovo Cinema Paradisio
Blade Runner
THe Quiet Man (but then I'd live in Oughterard if I could!)
Blazing Saddles
On any given Day I might pick 5 Ford movies, though. I really like Ridley Scott, too.
2) Babe
as in, the movie with the pig?
......
It is a remake of an Italian movie.
Yes, the movie about a pig.
Do you have a problem with that?
Or did you expect me to pick the movie with John Goodman?
{prepares for impact}
I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Except Frank Robinson.
It's inspirational, actually. Someday there could be a movie of the week about you.
Hudsucker is one of the underrated flicks of the last twenty years. Long live the Hud!
I was thinking you would be more of a Milo and Otis fan. But Babe it is!
Jacob's Ladder? My favorite Tim Robbins movie.
The first three episodes of "St. Elsewhere"
Top Gun
The Sure Thing
Jacob's Ladder
I.Q.
Arlington Road
The Truth About Charlie
Ouch on the M. Sistes as a date movie.
As one of my friend's tells me, it's cheating to become a Cahtolic later in life.
I once had a first date with a girl going to see The Meaning of Life-- not so good, either. I'd recommend bowling instead. Or heavy drinking at the Peppermint Lounge.
Fans of Groundhog day, might like Quick Change, too.
vr, Xei
You do know that "Babe" was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar and probably deserved it a lot more than "Braveheart" did?
It's, uh... kind of a baldy, pinky, whitey thingy.
264, yes, and how could you limit yourself to 5?
I'm not sure how much useful baseball talk will come out of this evening. Unless Steve writes his eagerly anticipated love letter to Mark Hendrickson.
Big "Gigi" fan, are we?
Babe is way better than Braveheart.
Dios Mio.
Someone loves the Dreamers.
No, the greatest film ever made is "The Greatest Show on Earth"! Nothing better than an epic film about the greatest blight on society (other than Frank Robinson):
THE CIRCUS!
The Sweet Life indeed.
have you seen larry clarks other movies? bully, ken park, wassup rockers..
i saw bully for the first time 3 weeks ago. it was pretty interesting.
I always thought it was weird how Joan Cusack always was cast as someone much older than she really was. She was playing frazzled, divorced moms in her 20s. "My Blue Heaven" came out in 1990 when she was 28.
Dude is creepy.
I am late to the party pertaining to that topic but i had to get it out there. big fan of bring it on.../waits for it.....
I bought Bully without seeing it. It is an okay movie. My friend saw Ken Park and pretty much convinced me not to watch it. I have seen Teenage Caveman and that is just B movie garbage.
Larry Clark likes teenage sex too much!
I saw Bring It On in theater because we were not 17 so they would not let us into see another movie. They even had an usher follow us. I have seen the movie countless times since.
except for the fat one that got shot in the head. he never talked.
You can have her.