10 Big Stars That You Forgot (or never knew) Played Soldiers in 1980s Vietnam War Movies

Forest Whitaker (Platoon)

Kevin Dillon (Platoon)

John C. Reilly (Casualties of War)

John Leguizamo (Casualties of War)

Dylan McDermott (Hamburger Hill)

Johnny Depp (Platoon)

Vincent D'Onofrio (Full Metal Jacket)

Don Cheadle (Hamburger Hill)

John McGinley (Platoon)

 

 

Ving Rhames (Casualties of War)

Honorable Mention: David Caruso (Officer and a Gentleman)

WSOP: Lessons Learned

I participated in my first World Series of Poker this year. It was a great experience, and one I hope to repeat. I didn’t cash, unfortunately. I survived about five hours in Event #32, $1500 NL Hold’em, and I came tantalizingly close to winning a Main Event seat, finishing 8th in a 100 player Super Satellite that gave away 3 seats.  I also learned a few lessons which I will take with me if I’m fortunate enough to go again next year.

Lesson 1: Don’t Play Hold’em

Well, I wouldn’t ignore hold’em entirely, but if I can only play one bracelet even next year, I’ll probably opt for seven card stud or Omaha. Unlike about 95% of today’s poker playing community, I can play all the major poker games. Given that at my buy in level, I can face 3,000 people in a no limit hold’em event or 300 in a stud event where half the people probably don’t know what they are doing, I think the choice is clear. Also, the structure of the low buy in events, short chips – long rounds, probably favors a limit game, as opposed to typical tournament structures, where blinds rise so rapidly that it’s extremely difficult to amass enough chips to stay ahead of them and cash with fixed betting limits (although I’ve done this in limit hold'em too.)

Lesson 2: Don’t Play Cash Games

While many cash game specialists salivate at the idea of all the juicy cash action that happens during the WSOP, I can play cash games at home (well, not at HOME, thanks DOJ, but in Los Angeles). The WSOP is a poker tournament Mecca, and there’s just no time to waste playing cash games, especially since the juiciest games are no limit hold’em, and NLHE cash games are not really my specialty.

Lesson 3: Don’t Leave the Rio

After busting out of my bracelet event, I raced over to Caesars to see if I could get into a tournament. I ended up playing a $100 buy in with a deep stack, short rounds, and not many players, and my head was not really in it. There was no need for this. Events are running constantly and every day at the Rio. At any time, I was at most a few hours away from a super satellite, a bracelet event, a single table satellite, a deep stack tournament or some other type of daily non-bracelet tournament. These tournaments were all stocked with players, many of whom were not particularly gifted. There’s no reason to leave the Rio. No reason at all.

Lesson 4: Stay at the Rio

A corollary to this idea is to be sure to get a room at the Rio. I naturally assumed that the Rio would be all booked up, and that rooms would be at a premium. The truth was just the opposite. If you could present a registration ticket to a WSOP event, the rooms were probably the cheapest casino hotel rooms in Vegas. Considering the Rio is a bit off the strip, being able to stay there is a big advantage. You can bet I’ll be doing that next year.

Although the series is still going on as I write this, I think I’ve taken my shot for this year. My next poker adventure will probably be at the Legends of Poker at the Bicycle Casino in August. With any luck, I’ll generate lots of blog material there.

Marvel Super Heroes Poker Party!

I see that my last few posts may not have been the most entertaining pieces I have ever posted, so I thought I’d liven things up a bit with something more fun. Here then, is my assessment of your favorite Marvel superheroes and how they would be likely to perform at your Thursday night poker game.

For those unfamiliar with poker, poker players are classically analyzed on two dimensions, tight vs. loose and passive vs. aggressive, where tighter players tend to play fewer hands and give up on them more quickly than loose players, and aggressive players tend towards betting and raising rather than just checking and calling. 

Extremely tight-passive players are called rocks. They rarely win much but rarely lose much either. Loose passive players are called calling stations. They play too many hands and can spew a ton of money in an evening. Tight aggressive players have good hand selection and play the hands they do play very well. This has long been considered the most effective style, although a good loose aggressive style, involving playing a wide range of hands very well, has also proven highly effective in recent years, especially in no limit hold’em. A player who is too loose aggressive is called a maniac. So, without further ado:

Marvel Super Heroes Poker Party!

Captain America: Rock

Steve Rogers would be your classic tight passive player. He probably prefers not to gamble and is mostly there for the camaraderie. He knows which cards are sensible to play and he’s going to stick to that plan. You probably won’t get him off the best hand too often, but you’ll always know when he has it, so you don’t have too much to fear from him.

Iron Man: Loose Aggressive

Tony Stark, on the other hand, is a guy you’re going to have to watch. He’s got plenty of money and he hates to lose. Get into a pot with him and you’re going to have to grab the table and hold on for dear life. Don’t call his raise unless you’re prepared to play for all your chips.

 Thor: Maniac

The God of Thunder is just at the game for a good time. He’s happy to throw chips around with reckless abandon, and is definitely going to hang around to the river to see who wins. Don’t be afraid to call him down with only a moderately strong hand; its 50-50 he’ll give your money back at the end of the night anyway.

 Spider Man: Tight Aggressive

You know how the best players can read their opponents and pick up subtle signals that tell them when their opponents are strong and when they are weak? This guy has a freaking SPIDER SENSE. No way you’re fooling Webhead into thinking you’re sitting on a busted flush when you’re holding quads.

The Hulk: Are You Kidding?

Getting into a poker game with the Hulk is not advisable. You can probably bluff Bruce Banner without a problem, but don’t show the bluff. You don’t want to make him angry.

Stay tuned for DC Super Heroes Poker Party!

Whatever happened to the U.S. Mail?

When I was a kid, if there was one thing you could rely on, it was the U.S. Postal Service. It was commonly understood that you could basically tape a nickel into a gum wrapper, write a mailing address on it in crayon, and it would arrive at its intended destination in a few days. There were still services such as Certified Mail and Return Receipt (although fewer of such services than there are today) but you didn't really need them, because there was simply no doubt that your letter or package would get to its destination.

Those days, sadly, seem to be long gone. It could be a California thing, since I didn't start experiencing this problem until I moved out here in the 2000s, but I remember being shocked the first time I delivered something through the Post Office that mysteriously failed to arrive at its destination. By the third time, I wasn't shocked anymore, just sad. Keep in mind that these were items that I opted to purchase delivery tracking for. Who knows how many items that I just dropped in the mailbox never made it where they were supposed to go?

What's the explanation? Is the Post Office really just less careful with items that have been marked with some kind of delivery confirmation, relying on the fact that customers will assume their packages are safer and not bother to check? After all, you don't really have any recourse once the Postal Service screws up (although you do have some. EHow has some ideas on what to do when your stuff is lost in the mail). Is it just a West Coast thing, and East Coast mail is as reliable as ever? Is it the fact that so many people use email and other forms of digital transmission that the Postal Service just figures no one is paying attention anymore? Is it that people are buying fewer stamps?

If anyone has any ideas, I'd love to hear them. In the meantime, I have a letter to reprint and resend.

The War on Teachers

Ok, I’ve tried to kind of hold my blogging tongue on this for awhile, but I can do it no longer. The war on teachers that is happening in this country right now is unconscionable, and people need to speak out. In Wisconsin, teachers were stripped of their collecting bargaining rights in a complete subversion of the democratic process. In New York (more on the war on NY teachers here), Florida and elsewhere, merit-based systems are in place or are being proposed which use convoluted formulas that have a tenuous connection to teacher effectiveness to determine which teachers are “good” or “bad.” Right wing media are proudly announcing at every opportunity how teachers are overpaid and have a part time job. In a tradition going back to right wing icon Ronald Reagan, when the country needs money, the first place they take it from is education. It has to stop.

Let's look at some of the prongs of the attacks on teachers and why they are happening:

Union Busting

Why do conservatives love union busting? Because unions favor Democrats. That’s the only reason, and don’t kid yourself that Governor Walker or any other front line union busters are concerned about corrupt union bosses or anything else. Democrats fight for workers and Republicans fight for their corporate masters, so naturally, unions support Democrats, and it’s public record that this attack on workers and their rights is an attempt by the Republican party to cut Democratic election funding. There may be some corruption among union organizers, but the days of Jimmy Hoffa are over, and collective bargaining is certainly not the villain here regardless.

Merit Systems

Merit based systems don’t work because they are created and administered by people who are not really teachers. What inevitably happens in these systems is that teachers “teach to the test,” providing only the information the kids need to get a qualifying score. Schools whose funding is merit based cut art and enrichment programs because they don’t show up on these tests. As a result, you get poorly-rounded students who forget all the information they’ve memorized as soon as they get to the next level. Here is a concept that those looking to revamp the education system should endeavor to understand. If kids LIKE their teacher and that teacher is motivated by a system that SUPPORTS him or her, THOSE KIDS WILL LEARN. That is all there is to it. If there is anything axiomatic about education, it’s this. If a teacher is clearly invested in helping a kid learn, it shows, and if that teacher is likable and compassionate, most students will want to learn from them, and they will. The current systems drain all the joy out of teaching, even from good, determined, likable teachers, and the kids can tell. With all the methods proposed to reform education, this idea, the one that’s the most obviously and clearly true, is always completely ignored.

Teacher Pay and Benefits

This argument is the most ludicrous, this idea that teachers get lavish pay and benefits for a part time job. Understand this. Anyone who gets into teaching for the benefits gets out of it very fast. The struggles of trying to be both a babysitter, a parent and an educator for over 30 kids for six hours a day with the bare minimum of tools at your disposal far outweighs the bonuses of an extra month of vacation, a three o clock dismissal time and a decent dental plan. In addition, the amount of “free time” a teacher gets is overblown. Teachers usually show up at around 7:30 and leave around 3:30 at best. That seems like a full day to me. The reality is many show up early and/or leave late to either help kids or prepare lesson plans. Then of course, there’s homework grading and any other responsibilities that they may need to take home with them.

It seems to me that conservatives who think that teachers are in it for the good pay/low hours think that way because they are incapable of attributing noble motives for anything to anyone. They only do things for the money, so they assume everyone else is the same. Furthermore, some of these politicians and pundits bashing teachers for their perks make five to ten times as much money as many teachers and work fewer hours! I’ve spent many hours in the New York City public school system, as a counselor and as a teacher of the chess program (paid for not by the city, but by donations), and I’ve had the opportunity to see my father teach in the system for over 30 years. Trust me when I tell you that most of these politicians and pundits would not last two weeks in the public school system.

Education “Reform”

A little education for you: In politics, reform is a synonym for “cut.” Whenever a politician talks about reforming something, they mean taking money away. Why is education always the first victim? Again, a few reasons. First, an undereducated populace favors Republicans. Less educated populations vote in fewer numbers, and low turnout historically favors the Republican party (watch how excited Republicans get when they forecast rain on election day). It makes sense. Republicans are clearly the party of the rich, and most of us are not rich, so voting Republican is against most people’s interests (unless you are so firmly dedicated to the maintenance of certain moral values you share with conservatives that nothing else matters).

Also, politicians are disconnected from the value of a good education. They went to private schools, or they went to public schools in nice areas where everyone chipped in, or they went to school at a time when schools were better funded and teachers better treated than they are now. The consequences of a bad education system are often not felt for decades, and long term consequences are not the kind of sexy results that voters respond to.

The Solution

So what can be done? Well, you can vote for more Democrats, of course, but that’s probably not going to happen. You can support teachers when they do protest or petition for better treatment. From the government side, probably the best thing to do is put real teachers, the ones on the front lines, in charge of overhauling the educational system. How many years did the current Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, spend teaching in American public schools before his appointment? 20? 10? 5? How about none? He was a PROFESSIONAL BASKETBALL PLAYER in AUSTRALIA. His predecessor, Margaret Spellings, was a CAREER REPUBLICAN POLITICAL OPERATIVE.


No one’s saying you have to insist on higher taxes for the rich to fix what’s wrong with this country, but let’s stop picking on the teachers, okay? We need them.

Subjects I Have Written About as an SEO Copywriter

Eye Surgery
Grandparents Rights
Online Pull Tab Games
Online Bingo
Roofing
Acne Cream
General Skin Care
Diet Foods
Dental Schools
Orchids
Selling Gold
Detoxifying Foot Baths
Ball Bearings
Credit Cards
Identity Theft
Valentines Day Gift Ideas
Sports Cars
Luxury Hotels
Exotic Travel
Criminal Record Expungement
Baby Gifts
Eco Friendly Homes
State Driving Laws
Background Checks
Colors (Yes, colors)
Corporate Branding
Malpractice Law
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
The Osama Bin Laden Virus
Plastic Surgery
Funeral Arrangements
Finding Apartments
Website Hosting
Dog Accessories
Class Reunions

This is not even close to an exhaustive list. I'm estimating that one out of ten grammatically correct articles on the Internet at this point are probably mine.

Gettin Creative

I have the third best of the Top 100 new Movie and TV Loglines according to Creative Screenwriting Magazine. Sadly, I have been a contest finalist many times, and unless you come in first, no one of import really seems to take an interest, but hope springs eternal. In any event, the script is still up for bids, so get yours in now!

Mind Your Business!

There are two kinds of books about screenwriting. One kind tells you how to write a screenplay. Of these, there are probably about five that are worth anything (Start with Blake Snyder’s “Save the Cat” and Christopher Vogler’s “The Writer’s Journey”). The rest may give you some of the basics of screenwriting, but nothing you can’t get in much better and clearer detail from these core books.

The other kind tells you how to sell your screenplay. There are some tips on how to write one as well, of course, since Rule One for selling a screenplay is: Have a great screenplay. Rule Two is: Have several more great screenplays. Writing one of these books seems easy, right? Just compile a bunch of these rules: Have a compelling story that comes from your heart. Have an interesting protagonist that we care about. Give the executives something familiar, but with an all-new twist. And yet, despite books full of these simple to understand rules, many writers, talented ones even, are unable to crack the Hollywood system. What’s the problem?

What’s great about Michele Wallerstein’s “Mind Your Business” is that she doesn’t just tell you what to do, she tells you what NOT to do, and that may be much more important. Michele has compiled twenty-five years as a literary agent watching the rise and fall of countless screenwriters, and she has given you, the budding screenwriter, the chance to not make the mistakes that those other screenwriters made, mistakes that ended careers, many before they even began.

I wish I had Michele’s book ten years ago, when I started on this journey to Hollywood screenwriting glory. I would have known to watch out for “fringe” players. I would have known that you need to scrutinize any potential agent to make sure they are right for you, and that once you get one, you have to work just as hard as they do (if not harder) to get your career going. I would have known the eleven rules to live by when writing spec scripts. And a lot more.

Fortunately, since I’m confident my career skyrocket is just around the corner, there’s still a lot of great information I’ll be able to use. Stuff like what to do in a meeting. Yes, it’s the common sense things that you would think of for any interview, like proper grooming and hygiene, but it’s also crucial information like who to address in the room and how long to stick around.

Most importantly, it’s clear this book is a labor of love. Rather than reading like a “get famous quick, I’ll show you how” scheme, you can tell that you are reading a work by someone who truly cares for all her clients, and for every gifted writer out there struggling to navigate the fierce winds of Hollywood. If you’re still trying to get a grip on the business side of this screenwriting game (and I know few writers who aren’t), I definitely recommend “Mind Your Business.”

Super Bowl Recap

No need for anxious hand wringing, here’s my annual Super Bowl recap, right on schedule. Looking back through the archives, it looks like I somehow failed to recap last year’s historic New Orleans Saints victory over the Indianapolis Colts. Was it that I was still suffering a letdown after my Jets faltered, one game away from their first Super Bowl in 40 years? Well if so, I have a chance to redeem myself this year. The Jets again came tantalizingly close, and I think their failure this year hit me harder because expectations were higher. Will the Jets be second best in the AFC every year? Will they even be back? Well, at least they thumped the Patriots.

But, today was not about my beloved Jets, it was about the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers, and the greatest spectacle of all of sport, the Super Bowl. So here it is, my recap of Super Bowl XLV.

The Pre-Game Show

I’m sure not too many people watch the 6 hours of Fox Pregame entertainment, and with good reason. It was mostly a concert intermingled with ads for current Fox properties like the latest Adam Sandler movie, and of course, some appearances from the increasingly creepy E-Trade Baby and Frank Calliendo (Calliendo’s not creepy, but his shtick is getting a little tired, isn’t it?). However, if you suffered through it, you did get presented with a fairly interesting interview with Obama by Bill O'Reilly, with Obama gamely smiling through O'Reilly's digs and editorializing to give thoughtful answers to relevant issues of the day.

The Commercials

It’s all about the commercials, right? I think this is getting to be less and less the case, for two reasons. First, I think people are getting more knowledgeable about football. It’s been a long standing joke that the guys come to the Super Bowl party for the game, and the ladies come for the commercials. But where I saw the game, everyone was focused on the action on the field, male and female, football newbies and veterans alike. The other reason is the Internet. All those people who used to show up for the commercials can now just dial them up on YouTube after the game (or even before the game!) That being said, I think the real winners in the commercials department were the promos. As a sci fi enthusiast, I was geeking out much more over trailers for Captain America, Thor, and Cowboys and Aliens than for the various animals getting the better of humans in corn chip and car ads. But the top promo and hence winner for me was this gem from FOX and Hugh Laurie, paying homage to perhaps the most iconic Super Bowl commercial of all:



Here’s the original, for you newer fans:

The Game

Yet another good one! While Green Bay jumped out to what looked like it could be a rout, the Steelers dug deep and made a game of it, and the outcome was in doubt up until the final minute. You can’t ask for much more from a Super Bowl game.

The Winners

Sorry Steeler fans, but I think this year The Pack was the sentimental favorite, this year’s Saints. They’ve got a humble quarterback who stood patiently in Brett Favre’s shadow for years waiting for his turn, they’ve got “Lombardi” playing on Broadway, and they’ve got a team owned by the fans. The Steelers have cemented themselves as probably the best football team of all time with their 8 Super Bowl appearances, but this year belonged to the Green Bay Packers.

The Halftime Show

The halftime show may have taken the place of the commercials with respect to water cooler talk and controversy. This year the Black Eyed Peas had purists up in arms, and other fans cheering for more. You’ve got to keep in mind that any halftime show needs to be sanitized for your protection and accessible to a wide audience (wardrobe malfunctions notwithstanding). Given that, I think they did a pretty good job. I mean, the halftime formula is to pair a contemporary artist with an aging rocker. The Black Eyed Peas are still kind of hip, and when your aging rocker is Slash, I think you’re doing okay. I couldn’t complain.

OK, that’s what I got for this year. Coming up, probably some stuff about writing for a change.

J-E-T-S Rex! Rex! Rex!

I can hardly believe it. The Jets, for the first time I can remember, are going to the AFC championship game for the second straight year, having taken out their hated rivals, the New England Patriots, in the process. No need to crow about the Patriots defeat; I’ll just say it’s extremely satisfying. I would, however, like to address the controversy surrounding the architect of this magical new Jet atmosphere, one Rex Ryan.

The line on Rex Ryan is that he’s boastful, shameless, classless. The Jets talk too much, people say. They think too much of themselves. I say, they have to, because if they don’t, who will?

The Jets have been disrespected for their entire 50+ year history. Before Joe Namath’s team stepped up, Super Bowl III was predicted to be a joke. The Jets were a 19 point underdog. They were barely considered a professional team.

We all know how that turned out.

Since then, the Jets have always been second class citizens to the older, more prominent, more successful New York Giants. Anyone will tell you, New York is a Giants town. And with good reason. Except for the Namath flare and a few good Sack Exchange years in the 80s, the Jets have given their fans little reason to get excited. Then along comes Rex Ryan.

Ryan had a big job ahead of him. Get rid of that “Same Old Jets” philosophy. Dispel an atmosphere of losing that has clouded this team for decades. Get rid of that “snakebit” attitude and trade it in for a winning one.

And he’s done just that. Sure, he’s done it by being a little louder than other coaches, but he’s had to be loud to be heard over the din of nonbelievers. Last year, NFL pundits and fans alike joked that teams were throwing games to get to face the Jets in the playoffs. Rex said “It doesn’t matter how we get there, just let us in, and we’ll prove we deserve to be here.” They let him in, and he responded by taking the team one game from the Super Bowl. This year, Patriot fans couldn’t wait to get on message boards and gloat about their 45-3 shellacking of the Jets in the regular season. Rex said “We’ll go back there and play them tomorrow, if they’ll let us.” It wasn’t the next day, but they let them come back, and we know how that turned out.

All of Rex’s supposedly classless boasting is in the service of his team. Sure, Rex has said he believes his team is the best and they’re going to win the Super Bowl. Good! If you don’t think that about your team, why bother coaching? Sure, Rex has said “its personal.” That’s because he wants his team to take it personally, because you need heart to win in the NFL, especially if you’re a team that no one thinks has a chance to win, going into hostile territory against the class of the league, week after week after week.

But what’s ignored is that Rex is in fact, pretty humble. The way his eyes light up when he realizes the Jets have made the playoffs, the joy he takes in winning these games that no one believes he can win, that is earnest, that's real. And Rex takes those moments, not to tout his own impressive record, but to brag about his players and how they have stepped up and made it happen. When Rex talks about games being "personal" it's always with clear respect for the opponent. It's personal because they're the best, and he wants to beat the best.

Here are the “boasts” he had to offer before the Colts game:

"You're never going to stop Peyton Manning, but you have to contain him enough to where he doesn't beat you by himself or light the scoreboard up, which he is capable of doing."

And some boasting about the Patriots and Bill Belichick:

"I recognize that I'm never going to be a better coach than him, My job is to be a better coach than him this week."

And after both games: “That’s a great team.” “That’s a great quarterback.” There’s no “they suck, we’re going to crush them,” from Rex. There’s no “they don’t deserve to be on the field with us.” The trash talk directed by Ryan towards Tom Brady (he who “hates” the Jets, he who points towards the sideline after a touchdown) is that he’s a pretty good quarterback (for the record, Rex also describes his defense as “pretty good”) who probably doesn’t study as much as Peyton Manning. Which he probably doesn’t.

You can complain all you want about Rex Ryan and his mouth, but the fact is the Jets need Rex Ryan, and I wonder if people are more upset about someone who refuses to accept the status quo, who isn’t afraid to upset the natural order of things in the NFL, than about Rex himself. Frankly, I wouldn’t have possibly the best coach in Jets history be any other way.

Wherefore Art Thou Sci Fi?

I was recently talking to a fellow writer about our TV preferences, and he asked me the pointed question: “Do you watch a lot of sci fi?” It was a reasonable question, since much of my dramatic writing has a sci fi/fantasy/supernatural element of some sort. After thinking about it for a moment, I was forced to admit the answer was no.

It’s not that I’ve never watched sci fi, it’s just that I don’t watch much now, because, while there may be a handful of good sci fi shows that I’ve just missed, I don’t feel that the current T.V. landscape produces anything as appealing in the sci fi world as shows from the ‘80s like Quantum Leap, or Star Trek The Next Generation, or even the short lived War of the Worlds.
Why? I don’t think it’s due to any lack of talent among today’s TV writers. I just think it’s really hard to do sci fi well, and there’s very little payoff.

That is to say, it’s very easy for a sci fi world to appear unreal, farcical, or a parody, and even if you nail it, you have a limited audience.

I also think that it may be that our technology has become a little bit TOO advanced. There is a real way in which the 21st century is the future. Technology is advancing exponentially, and wild, fantastic science fiction ideas like electronic books (Isaac Asimov), wireless, handheld communication devices (Star Trek) and cyberspace (William Gibson) are now commonplace. Combine that with movies that provide digital effects that boggle the mind, and it just takes a lot to wow us anymore.

Finally, what I think people forget is that like all stories, science fiction stories are about relationships. About people and how we can relate to them. It’s possible to work so hard to make the science fiction world seem “real” that you forget that.

There’s a lot of great television being made today, and I hope that good sci fi can be a part of it. The critical success of a show like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica seems to indicate that it can. And of course, I myself have plenty of great ideas to contribute ; )

Inktip Pitch Summit Report

This is the middle portion of the Craig Berger 2010 Pitchfest tour, which started with the Great American Pitchfest (which I didn’t write a report about, so don’t bother looking) and ends with the Creative Screenwriting Expo next month. I didn’t know what to expect, since this was Inktip’s first Pitchfest (“Pitch Summit”) but hopes were high.

Day 1:

I decided to attend the first day, which consists simply of classes designed to help you either pitch, or learn how to get an agent, or some other aspect of the business. The two classes I attended were “How to Impress Your Agent or Manager” and “How to Get Your Screenplay out of the House and into an Agent’s Hands.” The first class I attended because the teacher was my Writers Boot Camp Fellowship instructor Cameron Graham, and I wanted to show my support.

A good mood was set for me right away when I realized that most of the people surrounding me were old men. Not old like me old, but gray hair, reading glasses and endearing crankiness old. It made me feel like I’m not that far behind after all. This feeling was reinforced when, after some delay and confusion because the room was labeled as a “Writers Boot Camp” class and there was no mention of WBC in the schedule or literature, the old man sitting next to me muttered to me “Feels like Mutt and Jeff in here.” I can’t remember the last time I was too young to get a reference, so I was quite delighted. This guy beautifully continued the old man stereotype when he looked at the young woman in front of us on texting on her cell phone and muttered with contempt: “Probably checking her ‘e-mails.’”

Couple of other entertaining moments: First, at one point another WBC staffer pointed out that agents are worse than pimps because “at least pimps are able to recognize talent.” I found that amusing. Even better was when Cameron decided to do an exercise where he asked someone to come up and pitch an existing movie to him (like “Die Hard” or “Star Wars.”) In a room full of people who were planning to pitch their scripts to a bunch of strangers the next day, no one volunteered. Well, except for one person. Pavo. Pavo came all the way from Poland to pitch his script. It was not until he got up and began to attempt the exercise that we learned that Pavo did not actually speak English. It appeared that he had memorized the pitch for his own project and come to this country with little or no other English. It was unclear whether he knew today was not the pitching day, or how he planned to answer any follow up questions about his project.

The second class was led by Michelle Wallerstein, an agent with 20 years in the business. She did seem to be pretty knowledgeable about Hollywood and gave some positive encouragement (“you think this is bad, the music business would destroy you”). She was selling her book “Mind Your Business” which I probably would have bought but I didn’t bring any cash with me.

Day 2:

Was the actual Pitch day, and there were some hitches. The first, and probably worst, was that the event was two hours late in getting started. Since people usually show up early and stand on one of a number of lines in a crowded ballroom antechamber in these things, and are then expected to project exuberance and enthusiasm to a bunch of producers, this is not a good thing.



Also, I think it’s better to have the numbers designating the lines hanging from the ceiling, rather than on the floor.

One thing they did that I’m still not sure about is have three executives at each table. If you had a project that you planned to pitch to a particular executive, you were actually pitching to two others who you may or may not want to pitch to. The pro of this is that you get to pitch to three times as many executives, in theory. In practice, the Producers, who were supposed to have been grouped by common interest, weren’t always that well matched, for example the table with the guy looking for holiday themed material and the woman who hated Christmas movies, or the one with the woman looking for mainstream features and the woman who was only interested in Canadian Writers. Most annoying was late in the day, when you could wait 20 minutes for a table only to find that the two people who were looking for the type of material you are pitching had left, leaving one person who is looking for something totally different.

In the end, however, I think it worked out, and I did get a lot more people to hear about my projects that I would have in a normal, one on one pitch situation. I got the usual distribution of requests for scripts, requests for synopses, and passes, so we’ll see what happens.

One thing that interested me was people’s approach to the experience. Some people seemed to feel it was an adversarial situation: One woman came out with a smile on her face, looking for a friend to talk to. When she found one, she said “The guy asked me a question, and I was totally ready for him! I NAILED him! I totally kicked him in the balls!” Yeah. That can’t be healthy.

Many people seemed to feel it was a competition to see who could pitch to the most people in a given day. One large man came out in the afternoon looking like he was in a marathon. He was sweating heavily and had a GIANT canteen of water in his hand. He told someone, “I’ve done at least 15 already. I’m gonna hit almost everyone! That Lionsgate line that everyone was trying to get on? PFFT! I pitched them at lunch!” I hope he’ll be able to sell his project from his hospital room after the heart attack.

On the whole, it was a positive experience, and I’m looking forward to see how they iron out the kinks for next year. On to the Expo!

Chess in the Schools Goes to Moscow, Chess Life, Dec. 1998

Congress Shall Make No Law...

According to a recent poll, 2/3rds of New Yorkers don’t want a Muslim mosque to be built as planned because it is too close to Ground Zero. Once again, I suppose we have FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the other fake news entities who profit off of hate mongering to thank. Then again, the ignorance of the American people also knows no bounds.

Never did I dream that half a century after the days of Martin Luther King, Jr., our country would be riddled with discrimination against homosexuals, continued bigotry directed against women and African-Americans and religious persecution. The founding fathers would be turning over in their graves. Regarding the mosque: For one, the proposed Mosque is planned as a base of worship for Sufis. Sufi Islam is about as far from Al Qaeda as one could possibly get. Fundamentalist Christianity has more in common with Al Qaeda than the Sufis. The face of Sufism, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is the Timothy Leary of the Muslim faith, preaching true love, peace, understanding, and following the dictates of the heart. You know, all that stuff that the “good Christians” protesting the mosque profess to believe in.

Furthermore, what kind of religion is going to be practiced in the mosque is not an issue. Freedom of religion is our country’s most fundamental right. Not the freedom to practice Christianity. The Founders, being smarter than most people are even today, were deists, refusing to conform to any standardized religion. This country exists as a haven for people wishing to be free of religious persecution. Trying to stand in the way of that mosque is not just morally wrong; it’s un-American.

Another disturbing poll I recently saw said that the people who believe Obama is a Muslim is up 7%, to 18%. That statistic in itself doesn’t disturb me. Half of the knuckle-draggers in this country still think the Theory of Evolution is a tool of the Devil. What bothers me is that it matters. That Obama, and all the Presidents before him, should have to defend their Christianity, that going to Church every Sunday is part of the job. Growing up, I was led to believe that one of the things that makes this country great is that anyone could become President. Clearly, as groundbreaking as Obama’s election was, this is still not the case.

As a Jew, I was also taught at a very early age that bigotry against one group is a danger to us all. Some may say that the violent nature of terrorists who happen to be Muslims changes the nature of the argument. I disagree. I have no love for terrorists, particularly Islamic terrorists who are among the many groups throughout history that have special brands of atrocities set aside for my people. But all Muslims are not terrorists any more than all Jews are money-hoarding puppet-masters, any more than all Christians are drooling, witch-hunting Bible-thumpers.

Let me close by reemphasizing what I just said, because it’s important, and most people don’t realize it until it’s too late.

Bigotry against one group is a danger TO US ALL.

Roger, Redux

So Roger Clemens is finally going to be called on the carpet for his denials in the steroid scandal. I called this guy out nearly three years ago as a lying SOB who needs to get what's coming to him.

Finally, justice is served...

Check.... Checkmate!

I applaud television shows for trying to include chess in some of their stories. I really do. In the past, I couldn't stand it, because the directors took so little care in setting it up. The board would be set up wrong, or what the players were saying wouldn't correspond with the moves on the board. But worst of all was the same horrible trope that appeared in every television show which featured chess. I'm sure you've seen it. One character makes a move, and in as smarmy and satisfied a manner he can muster, announces "Check!" triumphantly, as if putting someone in check was any big deal.

The second player muses, looks over the board, then casually makes a move, smiles and responds "checkmate!" to the stunned surprise of Mr. Smug.

Such a sequence, which probably occurred in every in television show with a chess scene prior to 1990 or so, is almost completely impossible. A player in check is not permitted by the rules of chess to do anything but get out of check. Such a sequence requires a player to make a move which simultaneously gets him out of check and puts the other player in checkmate. A move that blocks the check would not be sufficient, as the player who called check could simply capture that piece to escape. It would have to be a move that simultaneously blocks the check and uncovers an unstoppable check by another piece. This is so unlikely that most amateur chessplayers could not achieve it if they were allowed to put the pieces WHEREVER THEY WANTED. (Go ahead, try it. I'll wait.)


Fortunately, modern audiences and show creators are a little more sophisticated, and now they usually follow the much more intelligent choice of stealing real games from history to allow their characters to wow us with their acumen. Unfortunately, this still does not quite work. Actors and directors may try their hardest, but unless you know chess, it's extremely difficult to get the timing down.
In the Season 3 West Wing episode, "Hartsfield's Landing," President Bartlett and Toby engage in a friendly game of chess. After three moves, Bartlett observes with interest that Toby is playing the Evans Gambit. Unfortunately, it does not become an Evans gambit until five or so moves later. The showrunners clearly found an Evans Gambit game, but any chessplayer watching would know that the actors were following a script.

Last season on the Mentalist, in the Episode "18-5-4," they took a crack at chess, and did a pretty good job of it -- if you're not a player. (I couldn't embed the video, but if you'd like to follow along, someone has captured it for YouTube here:)

Mentalist Chess Game


Simon Baker as Patrick Jane makes a convincing blindfold chess master, but he too, screws up the timing. Early in the game, Jane says, "declining the gambit, interesting." Unfortunately, the game doesn't become a Queens Gambit Declined until d4, the move FOLLOWING Jane's statement. After Be7, Jane smiles knowingly and says "mmm, your funeral," despite the fact that this is an extremely safe move. After his next move, Bg5,he says "mind your queen," despite the fact that his opponent's queen is protected by two pieces. Finally, later on, the opponent says to Jane "Q to e7, taking your bishop." Again, Simon Baker does a great job of looking intrigued by the move. Unfortunately, it's the only move that doesn't lose immediately, and is not very intriguing at all.

Again, Baker cannot be blamed. The producers could have had a chess player screen the episode and he would have found these things instantly. And again, I applaud the effort. But for those producers out there thinking about trying to seamlessly include chess in an episode, be warned: You haven't quite gotten there yet.

FYI, the game that Jane and Bunting play is Fischer Spassky Game 6 from the 1972 World Chess Championship. For chess geeks, I've included the entire game here (The moves in bold are the ones actually played on screen):

1. c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Be7 5.Bg5 O-O 6.e3 h6 7.Bh4 b6 8.cxd5 Nxd5 9.Bxe7 Qxe7 10.Nxd5 exd5 11.Rc1 Be6 12.Qa4 c5 13.Qa3 Rc8 14.Bb5 a6 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.O-O Ra7 17.Be2 Nd7 18.Nd4 Qf8 19.Nxe6 fxe6 20.e4 d4 21.f4 Qe7 22.e5 Rb8 23.Bc4 Kh8 24.Qh3 Nf8 25.b3 a5 26.f5 exf5 27.Rxf5 Nh7 28.Rcf1 Qd8 29.Qg3 Re7 30.h4 Rbb7 31.e6 Rbc7 32.Qe5 Qe8 33.a4 Qd8 34.R1f2 Qe8 35.R2f3 Qd8 36.Bd3 Qe8 37.Qe4 Nf6 38.Rxf6 gxf6 39.Rxf6 Kg8 (for some reason, here the show threw in "...f4," which is impossible and I can only assume they did it so that they could have a more convincing version of the "check...checkmate!" moment, since the game is pretty much lost by black at this point) 40.Bc4 Kh8 41.Qf4 (mate in 3 moves sounds better, but it's actually mate in seven ... 41. Qg8 42. Rf8 Re8 43. Qf6+ Rg7 44. e7 Rb8 45. Bd3 Rxf8 46. exf8(Q) Qxf8 47. Qxf8+ Rg8 48. Qxh6)