Author: Reid

2017 NFL Playoffs: Conference Championship

I can’t remember a time when I was more annoyed at the results of a game when the games didn’t involve my favorite teams.  I wasn’t just annoyed, but I was angry. Right now, I’m seriously thinking of not watching the Super Bowl. What’s different is that, in one case, I was annoyed because a team (Pats) won, more than the team (Jags) I rooted for lost, and in the other, the team I rooted for (Vikings) seemed to self-destruct. (I say “seems” because I stopped watching the game after Keenum’s INT, and I just fast-forwarded the game and saw the blowout score.)

Putting aside these bad feelings, let me say a provide, more rational comments:

  1. What can you say? Belichick is  the a great coach–maybe the best coach of all time, in any sport. I don’t think the Jaguars have a great defense, but they’re very good, and the Patriots dismantled them without Gronk for most of the game. (What the heck was with the Jaguar penalties? By the way, for a good defense, they sure seem to have trouble defending deep passes–either giving up completions or getting penalties. Also, as good as the four four is, both the Patriots and Steelers were able to stymie them and consistently give their QBs good pass protection–especially from the interior. The contrast with the Seahawks OL is quite stark for me.)
  2. I’m giving credit to Doug Pederson. Mike Lombardi mocked and ridiculed him (He recently admitted he was wrong), and I sort of bought into this. I think Pederson, for the way he’s using Foles, is unbelievable. Foles looked utterly terrible against the Raiders–I thought the Eagles had zero chance. But RPO plays and whatever else seems to have totally transformed Foles. Give credit to Foles as well.

Certified Copy (2010)

Certified Copy (2010)

Dir. Abbas Kiarostami

Starring: Juliette Binoche, William Shimell, etc.

75/100

I’d recommend this to Penny, Grace and Kevin. I’d probably recommend this to Chris, Mitchell and Tony as well. I’m not sure if the last three would really like this, but I’m pretty sure they would find this interesting. Jill has a decent chance of being interested in this. No to Don. Larri has a very slim chance of liking this. Not sure about Marc.

**

The film begins with a writer (Shimell) talking about his recent book about art forgery. His book deals with the differences between the originals and copies–namely, why and if the originals are superior. Later he meets one an art collector (Binoche). They go for a drive, and thus begins a long conversation about art, which reminded me of films like My Dinner with Andre, Mindwalk or even Before Sunrise/Before Sunset films–especially when the conversation turns towards husbands and wives.

Having said all this, the film isn’t as straightforward as I’m making it sound. There is an element of mystery, and I don’t really want to say much more. I will say that there is a kind of mystical poetry in the film–the layers of ideas and the way ideas are expressed and overlap in different ways.

There is a lot to process in the film, and, unfortunately, I haven’t finished processing the film, so I don’t really have too much more to say.

***

While I don’t have much to say, I want to leave some questions, as well as do my best to respond to them. The first, and probabably most obvious question, is whether the James Miller, the writer, is the woman’s (Binoche; called Elle in the credits) real husband. I understand that critics have debated this point (which reminds me of Last Year at Marienbad–there are similarities with that film), and I’m not sure it’s really crucial. I tend to think that he’s not the husband, but sort of becomes the husband while remaining himself at the same time. (This is the poetic mysticism that I referred to earlier.) Being both isn’t possible, but there’s a sense that that could be the case.

This raises another question: how does their relationship/situation relate to the earlier question about original art versus copies of them? One person I knew interpreted the second half of the film to be a sort of test case for the question of the first part. Is the Miller–a copy of the husband–just as valid as the real husband? I’m not sure I agree with this reading, but it is interesting, and there might be something to this. (I still haven’t worked this out.)

I really should see this again and spend time thinking about it.