Cops: A Bad Influence 20 Years and Counting

I come from a law enforcement family. I am currently related to a myriad of law enforcement officers from detectives to probation officers to correctional officers to prison maintenance men. My great grandfather was even the chief of the state police during the late 50s (although that apparently didn’t end too well). But even with the influence of the criminal justice system in my family life, I have always known one simple truth: The show “Cops” is terrible.

Now, I don’t mean terrible in the sense that it is of poor quality, such as how “Castle” is a terrible show (returning to ABC September 21!). No, I mean it is bad for the people who watch it. It affects the viewers on a subconscious level and after prolonged exposure makes them into inferior human beings.

For those of you who aren’t in the know, “Cops” is a reality television show that began airing on FOX in 1989. The premise of the show is that a camera crew follows around police officers from different cities and films what their shift is like. Now, the important aspect of the show is that a good portion of it is filmed from a first-person view of the camera operator.

This point of view is important because it allows for an extra depth of submersion. After all, first-person view is how we all see the world, so when we see a show like “Cops” or films like “The Blair Witch Project” and “Cloverfield,” it helps us feel as though we are there. And since the camera operator is working with the police, we feel as though we are there and on the same side as the cops. This means that when the cops to catch a meth head or some other public nuisance, we feel as though we helped in some way. I mean, if your football team wins, then you won, too, right? And how do we feel after we did something good like help arrest some villain? That’s right, we feel good.

But, really, we didn’t do anything to feel good. We sat on a sofa chomping away on snack food while our empty eyes reflected flashes of light from the TV screen. But still, due largely to the camera subjective camera, but also to the entire premise of the show, we have that good, prideful feeling. And that feeling, when unearned, is dangerous.

Let’s shift gears here for a second. Say you reward a child for doing something bad. What happens? You just taught that child that when he or she does something bad, they will get a treat. So, in order to get treats, the child will continue doing bad deeds and eventually turn into a small, impish cretin. That’s behaviorism 101. The same logic goes for John Doe watching “Cops” at home. He sits at home watching “Cops,” which while certainly not evil isn’t exactly a venerable deed, and gets rewarded when the police make their arrest. Mr. Doe likes the feeling of being rewarded (of course, this reward is on a subconscious level) and watches more “Cops.” Before you know it, Mr. Doe has gone from a mediocre individual to an obnoxious, arrogant man whose highest point of the day is watching some guy named Jethro get tackled while running down the mean streets of Maynardville, Tennessee.

In short, “Cops” does nothing but enact a feedback loop to cause elitist people to feel more elitist. It is nothing but sensationalist drivel that is as good for the mind as fast-food is for the arteries. However, since it is also as addictive as fast-food, it’s been around for 20 years and will probably be around for 20 more. And all the while it’ll be working its magic on the public, turning semi-decent folks into pretentious parasites.

Oh well, at least we got a catchy theme song out of the deal.

Top Five Favorite Bill Murray Movies

Let’s face facts: Bill Murray is the man. It doesn’t matter if you were born in 1959 or 1999, you have to admit this one universal truth. Maybe you’re a fan of his comedic roles such as in “What About Bob?” or “Caddyshack.” Or perhaps you enjoy his dives into the dramatic arena such as in “Lost in Translation” or “Broken Flowers.” Whether lighthearted or serious, Bill Murray has played at least one role that has touched you. And beyond his stellar acting career that seems to gain depth and complexity as it ages (much like a fine wine or cheese), Bill Murray seems like a kickass person in real life. I mean, he’s in his late 50s and he's crashing college parties. Need I supply more evidence?

Well, this month’s list is my Top Five Favorite Bill Murray Movies in honor of Bill Murray. His birthday is September 21 (he’ll be turning 59), and this seems like an opportune time to give him an early gift.

My only rule for this list is that Bill Murray must be one of the main characters. This means movies like “Caddyshack” will not be making an appearance on this list. As much as I appreciate the character Carl Spackler, it’d be hard to argue he was the film’s protagonist, or even a secondary one at that. But beyond that one rule, any of Mr. Murray’s films are up for grabs. So, without further adieu….

5. “Ghostbusters” (1984) - This film speaks for itself. This Ivan Reitman film helped shape the 80s. Not only was the film written chock full of humor, but it starred two of the funniest actors at the time (Dan Aykroyd and, of course, Bill Murray). Rounding out the other two members of the team were Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson, both of who were perfectly cast. And beyond the people element of the movie, the special effects were stunning at the time and made the film an ocular orgasm. The librarian ghost at the beginning and the proton pack beams are proof enough of that (not to mentioned our beloved Slimer). And, more than anything else, what proves that this movie is great is the fact that 10-year-olds who have no right to know who the Ghostbusters are do. Children are still wearing the T-shirts, playing with the action figures and popping in the video games after 25 years. That's proof of quality. Trailer!

4. “Groundhog Day” (1993) – When I first watched this movie, I wasn’t used to the idea of Bill Murray outside of straight comedies. I was used to my Bill Murray in films like "Stripes" and "Quick Change." But much like Jim Carrey would do five years later with “The Truman Show,” Bill Murray successfully showed us that there was more to him than a clown. Certainly, this Harold Ramis film had its fair share of laughs, but it went deeper than that. It showed the downward spiral Murray’s character took into madness from having to repeat the same day over and over again. Watching Murray kill himself repeatedly just to try to find an escape from his endless cycle of hell was heart-wrenching. And, again, much like Carrey would prove years later, this was just the tip of Murray’s dramatic capabilities. Trailer!

3. “Scrooged” (1988) – I love the story of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol.” It’s a hopeful and stirring story about a man whose life has gone off track and is given a chance to change his ways after a detailed look at what his past, present and future hold for him. In reality, people aren’t given that kind of opportunity, and I think our want for that chance has helped spawn the continuous remakes of the story. Richard Donner’s “Scrooged” is yet another one of these interpretations. What separates this film from the others, though, is that this is set in present day and the Scrooge character is a greedy TV exec (Murray) who is in process of creating a made-for-TV production of “A Christmas Carol.” The movie is touching and funny, and considering that it made my favorite Christmas movie list, it was probably a no-brainer that it’d make this list as well. Trailer!

2. “Lost in Translation” (2003) – This film marks Murray’s greatest, and probably most successful, leap into the field of drama. Sophia Coppola’s film stars Murray as a movie star who is in Japan filming commercials and creates a friendship with a neglected newlywed (Scarlett Johansson). The film was beautifully shot and aptly caught the loneliness that both Murray and Johansson felt as well as their need to create a bond with somebody. I especially love how this film didn’t have the two main characters get together at the end. They both had their own lives, but they were there for each other when they both needed somebody. They’ll always share that time in Tokyo. Trailer!

1. “Coffee and Cigarettes” (2003) – OK, I admit. I cheated. Kind of. See, this film (directed by Jim Jarmusch) is a series of vignettes with no direct continuity to each other but similar themes and conversations. And, as the name somewhat implies, each scene is centered on people drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes. Well, one scene of the film, “Delirium,” stars Bill Murray along with GZA aka the Genius and RZA aka Bobby Digital of the Wu-Tang Clan. The entire scene is less than eight minutes long, but Murray’s role is priceless. He plays himself except he’s in disguise as a waiter trying to hide out from somebody (I swear that portions of this are probably biographical). His role in the scene is underplayed, and I think that’s what makes it so good. The entire thing is so realistic and quirky that it burrowed its way into my heart. Side note: I bet it would be a fun drinking game to take a drink (or a shot) each time they say “Bill Murray” in the scene. Find out here.

Mario is Getting Soft in his Old Age

Beating a video game used to mean something. In the old days, it may have caused agonizing frustration and a treasure trove of quarters or broken controllers, but it meant something. When you beat Donkey Kong and saved the Princess, you felt as though you actually accomplished something. Beating the eight robot masters in Mega Man 2 and then moving on to the insurmountable obstacle course that is Dr. Wily’s castle and blasting the old man to smithereens was a testament to true talent and hard work. But now video games as a whole are softening. Beating a game doesn’t leave one feeling as though they did anything worthwhile anymore. Instead it feels more like a chore, and last I checked video games were supposed to be fun.

To show my argument let’s take a look at one particular franchise: Super Mario Bros. The Italian plumber has been around since the days of Donkey Kong and is likely the most recognizable video game icon today. Donkey Kong was a difficult game, but really, that’s not a Super Maro Bros. game. For the plumbers first real games let’s look at first three self-titled sidescrollers (in this writing I will be referring to Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels as Super Mario Bros. 2 as opposed to the watered down version of Doki Doki Panic that was shipped to the U.S.).

The first Super Mario Bros. game was difficult. The jumping mechanics took some time to get used to, there weren’t exactly a lot of power-ups or extra lives, and later in the game the levels became pretty gruesome. However, it was conquerable. Each world consisted of three regular stages and then the castle. The pattern became a mental comfort to many due to the fact that if you ran out of lives in world five, you could just begin at the beginning of world five. And with the low amount of total levels in the game even the difficulty didn’t create too much of an obstacle.

Super Mario Bros. 2, however, was a different beast. This game was so tough that it wasn’t even released in the U.S. As a matter of fact, the first time it was sold by itself in the U.S. was in 2007 when it became the first imported title available for purchase via the Wii’s Virtual Console. I am a person who beat the first Super Mario Bros. with moderate difficulty. I can’t lie and say I breezed through it, but I did finish it. I conquered the game. Now, being a champion of that game, I have to admit that this game is impossible. This wasn’t made to be beaten; it was made to break the souls of individuals who would dare challenge it. I have only made it to the castle of world two. After tasting the sour milk that streams from this evil incarnate, I realized why it was never released here and why we got Super Doki Panic Bros. We were being spared. Japan was showing us mercy. Had the game been sold commercially in the U.S., I predict that suicide rates would have spiked for months afterward. Aggravated assault rates, too. But I digress.

Super Mario Bros. 3 was a return to form. It was challenging, fun, had an array of new powers and even more new levels. Not to mention the game had a new design that was more like a board game, allowing the player to select which path they’d like to take to the castle. The first world was a cakewalk and each one after that grew progressively difficult. World eight, the final world, was damn hard to beat. As a matter of fact, I’ve never beaten it. If I make it to the eighth world I feel like I moved a mountain. If I were to ever beat it on my own, I’d be tempted to retire from video games for accomplishing such a lofty goal.

But now everything has changed. The New Super Mario Bros. for the Nintendo DS was a throwback to the original Super Mario Bros. games. It was a sidescrolling platformer and had eight worlds to get through. However, the similarities might as well end there. This newest title was made to be cripplingly easy. First, they made jumps much higher and floatier than in the original games. This means that the player has more time to think about where they are jumping to and where they want to land. And on top of that, they included wall-jumping, which is fun for sure, but takes down the difficultly level a notch or two.

Second, they made it so you don’t have to beat all eight worlds. The worlds are positioned like a hopscotch board with the third and fourth worlds and the sixth and seventh worlds lateral to each other. So, in order to beat the game, you only need to beat six worlds instead of the whole eight. And, as a matter of fact, you have to work damned hard to unlock all eight levels because you need to do something specific to unlock one of the lateral worlds (such as you have to beat a level as mini Mario). So, all in all, there are somewhere between 10 and 20 levels that you don’t need to beat to finish the game.

Those are the two main examples, but there are a myriad of smaller details such as the general level design is a lot more accommodating, even for novice players. But, as much as I criticize this game, I understand why Nintendo did this. Making the game easier made it more accessible to a wider age group and general audience. That, of course means more money for Nintendo. And, honestly, even with the difficulty set at a low bar, I still really enjoyed the game. It was a lot of fun, even if a little hollow feeling. But this weakening of the series apparently wasn’t enough. For the New Super Mario Bros. Wii there will be a demo mode. This mode will allow the player to give up control to the computer when they get to a tricky part that they can’t get through. Shigeru Miyamoto said in an interview at this year's E3, "In New Super Mario Bros. Wii, if a player is experiencing an area of difficulty, this will allow them to clear troubled areas and take over when they're ready. And yes, we're looking into this for future games."

My question is when are video games going to play themselves? When will the player just have to push a single button in order to beat the game? Apparently we don’t value challenging ourselves anymore. We don’t want to force ourselves to learn or adapt to difficult games. Screw growing. I guess all that’s necessary to gamers nowadays is to get immediate gratification, even if they didn’t actually earn it.

The Newest Installment of Satire

If you have seen the film “The Running Man” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, then you essentially know what MadWorld is about. Of course, the story is different and in essence MadWorld is actually more similar to the movie “Natural Born Killers.” So, with that in mind, MadWorld makes for a pretty entertaining game, but it isn’t amazing.
On the surface, the game glamorizes violence much like “Killers.” You are given points for killing people, and the more gruesome you can make the death the more points you receive. For example, cutting a guy in half with your chainsaw gives you a nice amount of points, but if you shove a tire around him, put a sign post through his head and then throw him in front of a train you’ll be swimming in points like Scrooge McDuck in his pool of gold coins. And the reason for accruing points is just to proceed to the level’s boss and kill him. Then you go on to the next level and perpetuate the vicious cycle.
The women, although there are only a few in the game, are shapely, voluptuous and, well, nothing more than fetish objects. There’s even a vampire woman who is so well endowed she’d put Ivy from the Soul Caliber series to shame. Oh, and there’s some racism, too. One of the two black characters in the game is a pimp fully equipped with a cane, fur coat and a grill. But as bad as that might be the major stereotyping deals with Asian ethnicities. There are a handful of Asian themed levels where you have to save geishas and the enemies range from ninjas, samurais and even a sumo wrestler boss. To be fair, though, the ninjas may not have been Asian. I never got too good of a look at them. I mean, they’re ninjas.
However, to stop analyzing the game here would be a mistake. “Killers” was a satire of how obsessed the public and media are with violence and used numerous brutalities to send the message. MadWorld is attempting to do a similar thing. Like “Killers,” MadWorld criticizes people’s obsession with reality TV shows and violence by creating a show centered on killing other contestants. Also, the extreme stereotypes are exaggerated to such a degree that it comes off as a parody of racist beliefs. When in the game’s China Town, one of the secondary characters (a black female who is probably the only morally acceptable character in the game) actually comments on how the entire place is just a cliché Western view of Eastern culture. Lastly, MadWorld solidifies its true position by killing off the people who created the sadistic game show. This serves as a similar metaphor offered to us at the end of “Killers” when Mickey and Mallory kill the journalist who was responsible for sensationalizing their murders.
MadWorld has already received some criticism in Britain for its violence, and a point should be made clear. This game is not like ManHunt in the way that it is a “murder simulator.” A murder simulator’s job is to give a realistic depiction of murder. Manhunt does this by having the player kill people in believable ways, such as suffocating a person with a plastic bag and etc. MadWorld, however, is ultimately unrealistic. Hitting somebody 50 feet with a spiked baseball bat, grabbing an enemy by the leg with one hand and repeatedly smashing him into the ground like Bam Bam from the Flinstones, and causing a gallon of blood loss just by punching a person is exaggerated to the point of Looney Tunes cartoons. The only difference being that MadWorld offers oceans worth of blood. So, the violence shouldn’t be considered realistic by any means and hence the game is not a true murder simulator. So, while its violence does deserve a mature rating, this should not be a video game that parents rally against in droves.
But there is more to video games than the literary analysis of them. The game play needs some work. The targeting system is fickle, only working when it feels like it. When I am in an alley surrounded by baddies and I can’t hit any of them with my chainsaw even though I am pressing the targeting button, then there is clearly a problem. And the maimed targeting system in turn causes weird camera angles. In the gaming world of 2009 I believe there is no reason for a 3D action/adventure game to not allow the player to control the camera, but MadWorld apparently disagrees. There were more than a couple of incidents where I wanted to jump across platforms, but because I couldn’t look down to prepare for my leap I would have to base the entire action on blind faith. This usually ended up with my falling into a sea of villains waiting to impale me with all sorts of sharp objects. With the exception of the targeting and camera, the game plays ok, but those two problems do cause frustration and take away some enjoyment, especially in the later levels. It’s fun to wave the Wii remote to slice somebody in half with your chainsaw, and the gesture-based quick time events work as well as any button controlled events. However, the game was so simplistic that near the halfway point of the game (and it is a short game) I started losing interest. It came down to the feeling that I wanted to beat it just so I could be done.
The real charm of this game is found in the graphics and sound. The stark black and white style with hints (or sometimes huge volumes) of red is much like the film “Sin City” and doesn’t cause as much confusion as I was expecting. Hands down the best part of the game, though, were the commentators. The commentators, voiced by Greg Proops and John Dimaggio of Whose Line is it Anyway and Futurama fame, respectively, would make small talk and quips based on what you were doing. They were funny, but what made them really stand out were the voice actors who were playing them. The commentators even stuck around for the credits and made MadWorld one of the few games with credits worth watching.
So, MadWorld was not the best game I ever played. It was interesting in theory, but in execution it left me wanting a lot more. I wouldn’t recommend buying it, especially for $50, but it is worth a rent. If you don’t have much else going on, I’m certain you’d be able to knock it out over a weekend. Trailer!

Top Five Math Movies

Top Five Math Movies

March is the home of Pi Day (March 14), and because of that I decided to make my top five list math related this month. So, I am unveiling my top five math movies.

Now, finding a movie 100 percent centered on math would be a feat, let alone finding five. So, the criteria are a bit different than one may think. First, the movie must have at least one scene dedicated to math (“math” being anything as simple as counting to as difficult as fractals). The amount of math present in the film will affect my judgment, but more important is how well I feel the film uses the math it contains. Essentially, I believe quality out ranks quantity. Second, I must like the movie. So, if I like one movie more than the other, there will be a bias. These two criteria will be balanced, and the movie will be placed accordingly. So, without further adieu, here are my top five math movies.

5. “Cast Away”(2000)- Imagine being stranded on a deserted island. You have some meager supplies, but not enough to live comfortably. Due to this crash you’ve lost the person you loved, the job you excelled at and your entire life as you knew it. Even though your life has been ripped apart, you know what you still have? Math. That’s what Tom Hanks showed us in “Cast Away.” To get some bearing on his predicament, he worked out on a rock the approximate size of the search area people would be looking. Now, he didn’t come up with very good news, but it goes on show that whether you are a systems analyst or a stranded person on an island, math will always be there. Clip!

4. “Stand and Deliver” (1988)- Maybe it is my father rubbing off on me, but I am a sucker for sentimental movies. This goes especially for inspiring sentimental movies. Films like “Remember the Titans,” “Lean on Me” and “The Dead Poets Society” all pull my strings when I watch them. However, “Stand and Deliver” is unique among these gushy films for the fact it deals with math. In this “based on a true story” film, the teacher took a group of students who started off not even knowing about positive and negative integers and raised them up to compete in and win a nation-wide calculus competition. The film isn’t only motivational in the sense that these kids grew so much, but because it shows that minorities in poor neighborhoods are capable of doing the same things middle-class white kids can. Clip!

3. “A Beautiful Mind” (2001)- When I think of a mathematician, I think of some old guy with glasses and a monotonous voice. Virtually, I imagine Ben Stein. What I do not think of is a man with schizophrenia who thought he was doing clandestine work for a government entity. This was the semi-true story of Nobel Prize winner John Nash. You can’t do much to spice up mathematics, but having the protagonist see and communicate with imaginary people is definitely a way to garner interest in the movie. And while John Nash was a bit more interesting than Ben Stein, he was a bit more realistic than having Samuel L. Jackson play a mathematician. Clip!

2. “Jurassic Park” (1993)- Who wouldn’t want to go to an amusement park with dinosaurs? Even after watching this movie, I’d still go. But in spite of my childlike enthusiasm, I would still consider the consequences as pointed out by Ian Malcolm in the film. Malcolm, the rockstar-like scientist, used chaos theory to explain why the park would fail. He tried to tell them that the behavior of certain dynamical systems that exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions could be dangerous. I mean, duh. However, did anybody listen to him? No, and because of that people were eaten by dinosaurs. That’s chaos, baby. Clip!

1. “Die Hard With a Vengeance” (1995)- What do you expect from action movies? Do you imagine shoot-outs, car chases, fists being thrown and explosions? Well, you know what “Die Hard With a Vengeance” gave you? Math problems. It had all of that other stuff, too, but it was the word problems and brainteasers that stood out. Don’t get me wrong, these weren’t riddles that would make MENSA members scratch their heads, but they were smart enough for most audiences. On the difficulty range they landed past “easy” but before “impossible to figure out,” which allowed the viewers to participate in the problem solving. And, really, that’s what math in a movie should do. Instead of being passive, the audience should be engaged in the moment and try to help the protagonist. Any movie that blatantly encourages the audience to use their gray matter deserves the number one spot on my list. Clip!