I’ve wanted to review INCEPTION since I first saw it, but I didn’t want to give anything away. But every time I start writing, I start giving things away.
Until I figured out a way to tell you how the movie made me feel without spoilers.
Here goes:
Remember experiencing breathless joy during a movie, like in watching the sword fight on the rolling wheel in the first PIRATES flick?
INCEPTION’s got that.
Or the “whoa!” factor, like watching Neo dodge bullets?
INCEPTION’s got that.
A movie that engages your mind, that you have to keep thinking throughout, like MEMENTO?
Got that.
Or one with intricate themes, that you can keep digging at and coming up with more, like ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND?
Got that.
Or a movie that builds with edge of the seat action, like THE LORD OF THE RINGS?
It’s there.
Or a genre flick with dramatic depth, ala THE DARK KNIGHT?
Yep.
Or the heart that really, really moves you despite yourself, like the opening sequence of UP?
Eh, not so much. (There are passing moments of emotional depth – but really, what is passing depth? It hits the heart, but leaves no mark.)
For me the positives outweigh the negatives. Among my favorites of the past decade.
Those of you who aren't into heavy reading, this is for you: The entire history is given in 13 words -- words introduced from the French into the English language by year of appearance.
It might be a mute point to show the error of one's whey's when it comes to grammar and sin tax and the like, but How to Write Badly Well does it with phony results. Head over and Chex it out.
In the meantime, enjoy the delightful re-union of two guys that can insult with compliments like nobody else:
My friend Cheryl posted this intriguing quote the other day,
"Thereason you close your eyes when you dream, when you kiss, and when youpray is because the best things in life are not seen with your eyes,but felt with your heart."
The quote is traveling around out there without a source credit, although it appears to be a variation on a Helen Keller quote.
"The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart."
Of course she didn’t mention the “closing the eyes” bit, for obvious reasons.
(For those of you not hip to the obvious, it was so she wouldn’t have to explain sneezing.)
Being a sentimentalist, I really like this quote, and can see deeper meaning than just the pithy nature.
Being a “safety first” kind of guy, I suggest wearing a pithy helmet before exploring that further.
Being a man in love, I see the direct connection between dream, kiss, love and the most beautiful thing in the world.
(Boy, I just earned me some at home brownie points!)
And being a capitalist, I see that quote as a direct advertisement for Inception, opening this Friday.
(“Inception” equaling “dreams” equaling “best things in life”; not as a suggestion to see the movie with your eyes closed. Although that would be trippy too…)
And this is what happens when I share my actual thoughts on a “just my thoughts” blog. Guess this one gets filed under “random.”
Over at Stuff Christians Like, Jon suggests that maybe, maybe, juuuuust maybe one might want to verify a wild rumor before e-mailing it out one's entire friend's list.
He also gives a few hints on when you should be suspicious of a "I heard it from a friend so you must send it on" forwarded e-mail.
May I add:
-After claiming that you must get word out about how Obama is conspiring with China to ensure that all Gerber's products contain lead paint and hemlock, it concludes with, "Send this on to fifteen friends, and you are guaranteed to come across found money within seven days!"
-It claims "urgent action must be taken!" and "if we don't get enough e-mails in five days," but there is no date on the e-mail. (Chances are it has been circulating for over a decade.)
-It assumes limited scope and ability of mega-corporations. As in the notion that Apple would be unable to find people to test the I-pad -- unless you help! Or that Facebook has no access to technology that will let them know if a user's account is inactive -- unless you forward this e-mail!
-In the body of the e-mail, in contains the phrase "insert name of current celebrity here."
-I would also suggest that if it too readily confirms something outrageous that you really want to believe, you need to garner the self-discipline to check before forwarding. For example, if you are an ultra-libbie war dissenter, and you get that conspiracy e-mail showing a picture of Bin Laden living in the guest house of a certain Crawford, TX rancher, you might want to check your sources before sending it on.
Not saying it isn't true, just saying you might want to check.
June 9, 1954, a pivotal turn in the Senate Investigations Committee meetings when Army counsel Joseph N. Welch confronts Senator Joseph R. McCarthy with this stirring exchange (transcribed from memory):
Welch:“Have you no sense of decency, sir?At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
McCarthy:[long uncomfortable pause, as McCarthy looks to his Senate colleagues, who only shrug] “Uh, you do know that I work in Washington, right?”
Welch:[breaking out into laughter] “I know, I was only yanking your chain!”
[entire chamber shares a good laugh]
McCarthy:“You had me going there for a second.Good one.”
Welch:“Just trying to lighten things up a bit.Now where were we?”
I think we’re all meant to dabble – in fact, built to dabble.
To sing in the shower. To paint pictures for funsies. To make up stories for our kids at night.
But some feel a need to make more of it – to make art their profession, their vocation.
In other words, some not only feel the need to create, but feel led to the combination of devoting themselves to creating AND seeking to find an audience for that creation.
At times, a paying audience even.
So how does one know that they should make the jump from the shower to the stage? (Please, dry off and get dressed first.)
Over at Resurgence, they did a little article on how to tell if you are called into the ministry, and there were a few points that seemed to fit the bill of “artist” as much as “pastor.”
Mostly from John Newton. He has three indicators that one is meant to be in ministry. I’ll think of these as three indicators that one is meant to devote their life energy to writing things like “Amazing Grace.”
One: “a warm and earnest desire to be employed in this service.”
‘Cuz it is a service folks. Those cats at the American Idol audition who want to be famous – yeah, they aren’t called to be artists.
Two: “some competent sufficiency as to gifts, knowledge, and utterance.”
If you weren’t given the gift, you weren’t given the call.
Okay, that’s only sort of true. Let me modify: if you weren’t given the gift, then you are likely misinterpreting the call.
Can’t tell you how many people meant to be working behind the scenes thought they were meant to be on the stage. Most happily get it eventually, and find the place where their gifts meet their passion.
Others still struggle to be in the costume, when they were gifted to make the costume.
Third: an “opening in Providence, by a gradual train of circumstances pointing out the means, the time, the place, of actually entering upon the work.”
Are the doors opening?
Or the windows?
Or the transom?
If not, again, maybe the interpretation of the calling needs another look see.
You feel like you passed the test? Well, not done yet.
Martin Luther also had a few criteria for the calling to ministry; and two seem oh-so designed for the fool wanting to go into the arts:
“Willing to venture body and blood, wealth and honor in the work”
And
“Suffers himself to be mocked and jeered by everyone.”
For anyone delusional enough to think their work will be above derision, just remember that Sandra Bullock won the Best Actress Oscar and the Razzie in the same year.
A common question that comes up in my line of work: after watching a movie, someone will ask, "How in the world did that script get made into a movie?"
There are many answers, in many colorful varieties. Sometimes it is the writer, or the re-writers, or the development process.
Sometimes it's hiring a bad director, or a bad cast.
And sometimes, sadly, it's because a good director or good actor got hired.
Here's a case study of how the script Nottingham went from being the hottest script in town to the drab movie called Robin Hood:
A lot can happen after a production starts moving. Puts me in mind of another recent movie.
Script got greenlit -- everyone very excited.
Big star hired to play the lead (a very good actor), everyone more excited.
Big star decides he wants to play a side character instead of lead. Been done - think Arnold turning down the lead in Terminator so he could play the villain. Everyone still excited.
Big star decides the side character's part is too small. Rewrites commence, making the side character into a co-lead character. Everyone starts to worry a little bit.
Big star's part overshadows the original lead part, everyone starts to wonder what the movie is about.
Movie is made, as is the decision to put all emphasis on big star, making original lead more or less a subplot. Sorta. Everyone wondering why they were so excited at the start of the project.
Movie comes out, critics bash it in part because the main story was kinda boring compared to the subplot (the original main plot) which, according to the critics, should have been its own movie. Everyone blames the writer.
First off, Jane Espenson's blog -- specifically Sunday, May 16th: The Dangling Kitten (how Glee correctly told a joke); Monday, May 3rd, Not Loving It (how McDonald's ruined a joke); and Sunday April18th, Go With the Flow (how Progressive saved an old joke).
Smart lady, smart advice on humor. (She also worked on Battlestar Galactica, Firefly, Buffy, Angel and Gilmore Girls -- I think I may have seen one of those shows...)
Then wander over to Jon Acuff's article at Relevant, where he talks about the difference between satire and mockery. (As a side benefit that Relevant may never have imagined, you get insight as to why the Daily Show really works when it works, and why when it doesn't, it really doesn't.)
Here's the wrap-up of a LA Times review of two television shows -- I'm re-posting here since it seems to be a good goal for all writers.
"Both shows are smart without being snarky, realistic about the limitations of the human soul without being jaded, carefully plotted without being overly clever. Sex is present but not exploited, marriage is respected but not revered and love, though in the end binding, is never reduced to syrup."
Extra points if you can guess what shows she is talking about... (I just started watching one, have not seen the other.)
Thanks to Chris for pointing me toward the review.
Bollywood Superman and Spider(wo)man fly, dance, smooch and beat down the bad guys. Video quality is poor -- maybe that's to match the special effects.
Part of my job is to deal with the archives. Today I had a special assignment that had a lot of scripts passing through my hands.
A sampling of some of the titles:
Absence of Malice
Adventures of Robin Hood
My Fair Lady
Fugitive
Public Enemy
The Matrix
Risky Business
The Right Stuff
Rebel Without a Cause
Shawshank Redemption
Forrest Gump
Casablanca
Dirty Harry
Driving Miss Daisy
Harry Potter
Chariots of Fire
Collateral Damage
Streetcar Named Desire
Searchers
Magnolia
The Usual Suspects
Unforgiven
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Exorcist
Maltese Falcon
The Syfy Channel just made a deal to increase its wrestling programming by making Friday nights Smack Down night.
Yep. Dr. Who. Stargate Atlantis. Eureka. Caprica. And Sweaty Men In Tights.
What gives these days?
I understood when a channel would branch out in a related way – like the History Channel making a historically-based movie; or Cartoon Network making a live action episodes of Ben Ten – a cartoon.
But they’re not even trying anymore.
Cartoon Network is making random live actions; good luck finding a music video at Video Hits One; and not only has AMC officially renounced the “C” in their name, the “M” doesn’t fit with their programming either.
(Hey, I’m all for Breaking Bad, Mad Men and The Prisoner – but what do they have to do with American Movie Classics?)
And now the science-fiction network adds wrestling to its identity.
You know what’s around the corner.
Lifetime partners with World Extreme Cage Fighting.
Hannah Montana does a cross-over episode with Dexter.
Nickelodeon puts a Sex and the City block between Spongebob and iCarly.
BET gears their prime-time programming to celebrate Confederate History Month.
Jason tried to calm me down when I saw the news about Syfy (pronounced “siffy” “s” plus “iffy”).
He suggested that maybe the wrestlers will be monsters versus mad scientists.
My fav: 2. We’re already at page 30 and you haven’t set up the sequel yet.
And Mashable is reminding us of some of the best trailers re-cut for a different meaning. The most enjoyable for me are the first - Scary Mary (Mary Poppins as a horror movie ), and the last, The Shining as a feel good comedy.
"My wife’s ringtone sounds like mine. I sometimes can’t tell which phone is ringing; she told me to stop bugging her by asking, cuz it’s usually for me."
“Black-and-white thinking is attractive because it’s reductionistic, it simplifies everything so we don’t really have to comprehend. It allows us to feel intelligent without understanding, and once we are intelligent, we feel superior. People who don’t agree with us are just dumb.”
“A few days ago a prominent woman in my church posted a note on the internet for her friends to see. She stated that her 4 year old son liked to listen to Rush Limbaugh with her, and he had just told her “I hate liberals.” This excited her and she boasted of how proud she was of her little 4 year old.”
Spoiler alert: plot points will be revealed during this blog post. On the plus side, it isn’t the plot that is going to make you like/love this movie anyway. Oh, and keep in mind that this isn’t a review of the movie as a whole, just a discussion of one of its themes.
Last week I talked about how INGLOURIOUS had a negative “we’re just like them!” message. Today I’m going to talk about the other Oscar nominee that also had a negative twist on this popular theme.
However, where it is debatable whether Tarantino meant to say what he did, it’s a fair certainty that James Cameron had no clue as to what he was saying.
AVATAR sets up two diverse people groups: the money-grubbing, corporate greed-mongers who will destroy anything for personal gain (the bad guys); and the “others” – the land-loving, respect your environment, take-only-what-you-need blue people (the good guys).
And then there are those in between, who must choose which side to be on.
I wasn’t bothered, as many were, by the first two thirds of the movie as these worlds were set up.
Sure, the Navi live in a hippy-skippy dream world with no dark underbelly, and toy with a religion that can’t decide whether it has a personal deity (that can choose sides – which they say she can’t, but she does) or just a “force” made up of all living things and microchloridians or somesuch.
Like I said, hippy-skippy, but, for the record, not satanic.
[And, as long as I’ve digressed there, let me also say for the record, “That any individual who claims to understand story could watch that movie seeing the conclusions that Driscoll comes to about cultural mandate is beyond me.” Cameron is neutral on the idea of progress and technology – he is neither praising nor razing the notion. Jake does not give up his gun when he becomes Navi, nor does he dis the technology that allows him to be Navi to begin with. Cameron is not concerned in this film with whether technology is good or bad, but rather how it is used.]
All that to say – for the thinking mind, within all the hippy-skippy set up (I just love saying hippy-skippy), there are some clearly positive takeaways and some negative takeaways. And for those who don’t like their intellectual diet to be over-simplification, a whole lot that can just be ignored.
No, it’s not the two hours of set up where I think Cameron missed the boat; it’s in the third act of payoff.
Two thirds of this movie is used to set up how different these two cultural mindsets are; but when push comes to shove, are the Navi any different than the greed mongers?
According to Cameron: nope.
If anything, the Navi choose to become just like their enemy. When not under pressure, they are role models or peace and love. But when under pressure:
They fight just like their enemy – charge straight ahead in a slash and burn manner (they inexplicably choose not to use any of that “we know the terrain” wisdom to their advantage).
They revel in the same level of “rah rah” excitement before, during and after the battle.
And they have the same respect for human life as the human’s have for Navi life.
When Neytiri kills the wild beasts – to protect another – she mourns the need to kill, and prays over the bodies of the dead.
When Jake and the Navi kill humans – to protect themselves – they do not mourn the need to kill, and there is no scene of them praying over the fallen bodies of their enemy.
(Ezekial’s God says, “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked…)
The Navi, in essence, say, “Because we are in tune with god and/or nature, therefore, when tested, we are no different than those who are not in tune with god and/or nature.”
Saint Paul suggests that the pressure of suffering could lead to character, which leads to hope.
With a little creativity from their makers, the Navi’s suffering could have lead to greater character, to a higher exemplar, to an ideal that would match their idealistic setting.
I'm still just monumentally not okay with this film. I wish I could believe that Tarantino meant all this - and I wish I could stomach watching it (already not my kind of movie + way too much time spent reading primary sources from the Holocaust). I just look at the history of Holocaust film, and still can't get over how much of a misfire this one seems to be - cathartic violence. I know thoughtful people can analyze it and find great truth like you did here, but most I've talked to have just become convinced that it's okay to turn Jews into Nazis on screen because it's revenge, not an unprovoked attack.
Or maybe I just really shouldn't have spent two years writing on the topic of how Germany uses film to reconcile with its own history. Am I too hopeless an egghead to be able to value this movie, dear professor?
Sean says:
I’ll be honest: I went back and forth as to whether I think that Tarantino knew what he was saying.
But, come on, he can’t be that clueless, right?
There are so many one-to-one matches, so many moments of mirroring, the movie clearly puts the Nazis and the Allies into the same camp.
And yet, he does so with such glee, and without introspection – while I have no problem arguing that the movie says we are the same, I would not have much evidence to suggest that the movie thinks there is anything wrong with that.
Tell me that Tarantino thinks that revenge for revenge’s sake is a noble end, and I’d just nod and say, “I guess that makes sense.”
But I want him/it to mean more (see David’s comments on the blog). I don’t want all that potential talent to be just so… sad.
Were I to critique the film itself, rather than limit myself to this one sub-theme, I would say it is a movie of some amazing scenes and performances, but a patchwork that never quite gels for me into first-rate whole.
And mayhap this is the problem with the themes – the intellect says one thing, the visceral says another.
Dazzling pieces that don’t gel into a first-rate whole?
(Spoiler alert – I will be discussing plot points to Tarantino’s latest war flick in this blog entry. Just so as you know.)
One of Hollywood’s favorite themes is the notion that we’re all really more alike than you might think. Usually this comes in the “Hey, the guy that looks different that you fear? Well he’s just like us!” variety.
But every once in a while, that gets turned on its head with a “Hey, that guy that’s totally immoral? Well, we’re just like him!”
Two of this year’s Oscar Best Picture nominees carry such a sub-theme; one very much intentionally, the second one not so much.
Let’s start with the intentional one.
As you have heard or seen by now, Tarantino’s INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS takes a revisionist look at World War II – one where the war is brought to an early end with a plot to kill off Hitler.
But Tarantino not only revises historical events, he also subverts an historical sense: the idea that the Allies were morally superior in that conflict.
Subversive indeed, as this is the one bi-partisan touch-point that nobody argues without being called a loon. Hitler was a monster of incomprehensible evil; the good guys weren’t just morally justified to fight this war, they were morally obligated.
As it so happens, I side with the majority on this one – Hitler bad, Allies good.
Tarantino, though, says “not so fast.” Not by arguing that Hitler was good (the Gnatzeeze of this film are Oscar Award Winning evil), but rather that “we” are just as evil.
Tarantino uses several scenes and images to show us just how bad the bad guys are; and each one is mirrored with the “good” guys. To wit:
1) They are dispassionate. Colonel Landa casually drinks his milk as he small talks his way toward a horrific betrayal and shooting (in a brilliant scene that by itself guaranteed a statuette for Waltz); Lieutenant Raine chit chats with the soldier who is about to have his brains batted in; Shosanna unemotionally discusses the details of the revenge killing of a theater full of Germans.
2) They see killing as entertainment. The Nazis cheer and laugh through a movie of sniper Zoller picking off American soldiers; Raine joyfully accepts a Nazi’s refusal to co-operate, announcing that watching German heads being bashed in is the closest thing his team has to a cinema; Taratino’s audience (us) gets our revenge fantasy kicks as we sit in a theater watching a theater full of Nazi’s go from cheering the deaths of American soldiers to dying themselves – as we cheer along.
3) The more death, the better. Zoller is lauded not because he defended a town, but because of the number of bodies he took with him, just as Landa is proud not just of finding specific Jews, but the number of Jews he has hunted and killed; Raine demands 100 scalps from each of his men; the venue for the final revenge is a theater with just over 300 seats – a tad more than the number of those killed by sniper Zoller.
Lest we think that we aren’t really meant to see our own face in the nasty light of the enemy, Raine states it point blank:
“Members of the National Socialist Party conquered Europe through murder, torture, intimidation and terror. That’s exactly what we’re going to do to them.”
And the final image of the movie (which will soon get its own blog treatment): Raine stares straight at the audience, at our foreheads more specifically, as he remarks that the identifying mark he sees there may be the best work he’s ever done.
INGLOURIOUS is the anti- ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, where we were shown that the Germans were good people, just like us. Here, we are shown that the Allies are evil people, just like “them.”
This is an interesting theme to toy with. If the movie came out two years ago, it would have been heavily accused (and possibly outright dismissed) as being an overt political statement.
But it didn’t come out two years ago; it sits there today, daring us to take joy in revenge at the small cost of admitting that we are the enemy. It’s a twisty thing to wrap one’s head around – Tarantino presents the theme with unmitigated glee; no somber music or mood lighting to reinforce a “you see what I’m doing, right?” moment of introspection.
He just gives it to us, assuming most will joyously follow along –“yep, the Nazi is punished, I’m evil, all is right in the world!”
Can’t say as if I like this, Quentin coming in and messing with my preconceived notions of my own superiority. Let me reiterate, this revisionist movie hasn’t revised my notions of history – I still say if ever just war existed, this was it.
But it does give me uncomfortable pause.
I suppose (awkwardly comparing Quentin to Jesus) that this is akin to the feelings the audience had to the parable of the Good Samaritan.
It wasn’t enough that the Nazarene had to tell us that the Samaritans were good, like us; he had to go and put in the three dudes that ignored the beaten man, the three dudes that represent us, that point out we’re just as bad as we perceive our enemy to be.
So far, all but a few of my March Madness picks are winning their bracket. What do you mean, “what colleges did I pick?” I did all my learning on the Street.
I’m rooting for a final showdown between Kermit and Cookie Monster – the Show takes on the Street! (Thanks to Cory for putting me onto this fun little exercise.)
So many people put me onto this video, it’s time I posted it. Want to see what the trailer looks like for the next Oscar contender?
First, Mark set me straight on my sound issues, so apologies for the flippancy. Still say Trek gets a two-fer, just 'cuz I want it to get a few awards.
Second, I just saw Avatar. Yep, took me awhile to get around to it.
I still think it will win Best Pic, but I can't imagine anyone making a convincing argument as to why. It has great design elements, and is a marvelous technical achievement. But is that how we define what a great movie is? Nothing but tech?
The story and the acting were serviceable, and I don't begrudge the movie its box office.
In fact, some may say it was wise of Cameron to settle for a predictable script that just hit the beats without risking depth (or risk making his actors/animators dig too deep in performance). The guy did give us T2, so its not like he can't do great story if he wanted to. Serviceable is what he thought was right for this film, so that's cool.
But serviceable shouldn't be "best" -- unless we are giving up on the idea that movies are more than just machines.
And maybe we are. The WGA, the alleged protector of the writer, as much as admitted that box office is the ultimate determiner of craft when they gave the film a writing nom. I guess if the writers don't feel story should elevate a script, why should the rest of Hollywood?
I've seen seven of the best pic noms; against them I rate Avatar a no contest seventh.
Here are my predictions for the Oscars. I do this every year so I can brag on Monday about how right I was.
Or so I can ignore that I ever made public my really lame predictions on Monday.
Truth is, like everyone in Hollywood, I don’t know nothing, but I talk like I do.
So here it is:
BEST ACTOR: Clooney is getting better every year, Firth deserves to be in the running, but it is Jeff Bridges’ turn to take home the trophy. And I don’t know many who are complaining about that.
BEST ACTRESS: I’d like to see Bullock get it (she won’t); Mulligan is delightful and shoulda been a serious contender; and Sidibe’s performance was very strong (her supporting players had much to do with that). When all is said and done, Streep is the one giving the acceptance speech.
SUPPORTING ACTOR: Plummer gave a marvelous performance, but couldn’t lift the role above the lame script (same with Mirren, above). Hey, can anyone tell me why Plummer is up for supporting, and Mirren for Leading? Just wondering. Oh, the Oscar goes to Waltz, the only win for Inglourious tonight.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS: It’s all Mo’Nique’s. Can’t think of a better performance in any category in recent years.
CINEMATOGRAPHY: Are animated movies eligible for cinematography? If not, Harry Potter gets it. (Just kidding, Avatar gets it).
COSTUME DESIGN: This is a cool category, because I haven’t seen any of the nominations. Coco Before Chanel – isn’t that about clothes design? Embarrassing for them if they don’t get the statuette. Just saying.
FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM: Avatar.
SOUND EDITING & SOUND MIXING: Star Trek gets a twofer.
ORIGINAL SCORE: Up.
ORIGINAL SONG: Crazy Heart.
ANIMATED FEATURE: Up. Shoulda won Best Picture, but oh well.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Both Up In the Air and An Education kept me talking about the movie for days – should count for something, right? Up In the Air wins the prize.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Should be Up. Not gonna be, but that won’t stop me from saying it: Up takes the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.
Director: The Ex-Mrs. James Cameron; Hurt Locker makes history.
Best Picture: The Ex-Mr. Kathryn Bigelow’s Avatar. Why be king of just one world? Not so unobtainiumable after all.
My friend Jim had a theory that all sins, at their root, are Godly desires perverted.
Lust, in essence, comes from a knowing that we were made to be loved, and trying to coerce a physical substitute of that feeling.
Greed comes from a knowing that we are heirs to a kingdom, and attempting to seize those riches out of time.
Envy would spring from the knowing that we are special, and trying to force that in comparison to others.
And on.
Still playing with what I think about Jim’s grand idea, but I do agree with how it reinforces a basic theorum:any good taken to an extreme can be perverted to a bad.
I suppose that’s why this video resonates with me, as the Mars Hill guy addresses how some religious goods can go sour.
It took the Old Spice guys three days to get it just right. How long do you think this took? And how many takes? (Guess I should count the number of piled up broken television sets...)
