Day: March 28, 2011

Pisser

Well, that certainly sucked. I should have done what I threatened to do midway through the first half: turn off the TV, get in the car, and drive until the game was over. It worked against Davidson three years ago. Perhaps it would have worked yesterday.

Instead, I just turned the volume down when the second half began, pulled out the MacBook Air, and dove into some media file organization projects I had been putting off for awhile. I looked up at the TV from time-to-time, but didn’t get terribly excited when KU cut it to two. That game was over the moment that VCU kid drilled the three that put them up 18 in the first half. Too many things would have to turn around completely for KU to come back and win. They got a few of them to turn for about ten minutes, but the shots still weren’t dropping, the offense was still too rushed, too many missed free throws, not enough stops on defense, and too many close calls going the other way. KU could have won the game if four or even three of those changed, but when all five stayed the same, there was no hope.

And thus ends another season of KU basketball. I’m working through the normal grieving process. Actually, I think the grieving process for sports is much different than the standard grieving process. I keep cycling through anger, disbelief, and apathy. At some point I’ll look back on a team that won 35 games, conference and conference tournament championships, and made the Elite 8 and realize it was a fantastic year that all but a handful of schools would take in a minute.

But I’m not there yet.

There have been two fantastic coaching jobs in this year’s tournament which deserve praise.

Brad Stevens got a Butler team that isn’t nearly as good as last year’s back to the Final Four. He’s done it through his mental preparation of the Bulldogs and fantastic in-game adjustments. It’s interesting that he told Billy Donovan that Donovan out-coached him. I’m not sure what he meant by that, perhaps it was a polite way of saying “Your coaching blunders helped me win.” That game was over and all Florida had to do was keep throwing the ball inside on every possession. Instead they abandoned their big men and tried to match Butler from the outside. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

And now Butler is not only in the Final Four, but playing a #11 seed for a second-straight championship game appearance. When you look back on the history of the Final Four, there are times when smaller schools have appeared in multiple Final Fours. Often it was because they lucked into some seven-footer or NBA talent who blossomed late and powered their run. Butler had Gordon Hayward last year, and despite being a first round draft, I don’t think he qualifies as a big difference maker. Besides, he didn’t have a great tournament last year. It’s been entirely a team effort effort for Butler these two years, and Stevens deserves the bulk of the credit.

The other, of course, is VCU’s Shaka Smart. He took a team that was ridiculed on national TV when the brackets came out, focused them, relaxed them, and now has them in the Final Four. He’s managed the tricky balance between intense effort and playing loose beautifully. They now have five wins over teams from power conferences. They hammered Georgetown and Purdue. They hammered KU in the first half, survived the comeback, and closed out the game comfortably. They’ve done it all on the back of unconscious outside shooting, something that is tough to sustain over a tournament run. Whether it was “Us against the World” or “We’re playing with house money” or some other motivational technique, Shaka has pushed the right button for the past two weeks.

I would expect both Stevens and Smart can name their price when it comes time to talk contract, either with their current school or another that offers them a job.

Bond

There are times in every man’s life when he must undertake a specific challenge: watch all the Bond movies. Some men are even more ambitious, endeavoring to read all the Bond novels as well.

Friends, it is time for me to climb this mountain.

This is not my first attempt at Mt. Bond. I believe it was the summer of 1986, the summer in which I turned 15 and still relied on my parents for transportation, that I acquired a stack of Bond books at a used bookstore and spent hours on our deck reading them in the Midwestern heat and humidity. The movies were tougher to catch back then, but I would scan the TV section of the paper each Sunday to see if ABC or TBS would be showing any over the coming week.

But, like most summer plans, this one fell apart in the dog days of August and when school began in the fall, i was off to other things.

A couple years later, when we had more movie channels and you could expect to grab a few Bonds movies a month with your VCR, I built a small stack of VHS tapes with several of the movies. But, again, it was not a project I could complete.

In time, my interest in Bond waned. I caught a couple of the new movies in theaters, but when I ran across the old ones on cable, I would watch for a minute or two, chuckle at their primitiveness, and move on.

Still, it was like a childhood scar that sometimes itched, and when I scratched it the memories of those past immersions poured forth.

What caused this latest flareup of the old itch? Partially it was completing >The Wire and wanting to move on to another viewing project. Also, the hosts of a technology podcast I listen to have been watching and reviewing a Bond movie each week. Listening to them discuss the details of the classic early films set me on my path.

The big dilemma, as I began, was how to handle the books/films split. The movies were not produced in the same order as Ian Fleming’s novels. Should I read the novels in order, to get the proper exposure to Bond’s backstory? Or should I read them in concert with the films? I chose the latter path, mostly because it seems like if you’re going to undertake a Bond project, you really need to begin with “Dr. No” and not “Casino Royale” since it was the movies that made Bond a world phenomenon.

That long-winded intro leads us to what I did last week: read “Dr. No” Monday through Wednesday, then watched the movie Wednesday night.

I thoroughly enjoyed both. I’ve read the book before, and who knows how many times I’ve seen the movie, so everything was familiar. Yet there were enough details that had faded over time that it was still enjoyable to rediscover them.

I won’t write detailed reviews of the series as I go through it, but I do want to offer a few observations of each movie and each Bond girl.1

When you watch the oldest of the Bond movies, the production value is easy to laugh at. The sets look cheap and basic. The car chases cheesy, with the projection of the trailing vehicle on a screen behind an image of Bond filmed in a studio. The overdubbed voices of many characters. Night scenes clearly shot during the day with heavy filters over the camera lens.

The sexism and racism I write off to very different times. These movies were never trying to make social statements, but rather reflective of how much of the world operated at the time. Thank goodness we have evolved a little since then.

That said, few things in movie history have been cooler than Sean Connery as Agent 007, of course. He was a baaaaaaad man. The cinema Bond was a far more confident man than the one of the books. In the novels, there are always moments of self-doubt, when Bond questions whether he’s made the right choice and if he can extricate himself from his predicament. Not of that doubt is present in the movies.

As for the Bond girls, Ursula Andress, as Honey Ryder, emerging from the sea is the enduring image of the movie and perhaps the most iconic image of the series. She was a baaaaaaaad woman, setting a difficult bar for later Bond girls to reach. Somewhat lost in Andress’ glow are two other impressive Bond women. Zena Marshall plays the exotic Miss Taro. And Eunice Gayson plays the glamorous and aggressive Sylvia Trench, who after battling Bond at the baccarat table, seeks more games. We’ll hear from her again. A promising start for horndogs everywhere.

Dr. No is a fine kickoff for the Bond franchise. The story lags a bit at points, and there is some era-based silliness in the writing and production. But all-in-all, it’s an entertaining flick.


  1. Seems kind of silly to do this and not give the Bond girls their due respect, no? 

© 2024 D's Notebook

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑