And now for something entirely Friday!

In honor of Friday afternoons, I present this photo:



It's like they're all going to five different events. Those purple tights would rock anywhere else except next to Daniel Radcliffe.

Those girls crack me up.

Greatest Movie Moments NOT by AFI

AFI really annoys me. As they released their ten-year update on the "100 Best American Movies of all Time", they hopelessly confuse the artistry of film making with popular buzz around Hollywood. Well you can't really say confuse, I'm sure they know exactly what they're doing. I just have to keep repeating the mantra: it's a business, not a museum. You will have your Brittney Spears hype living long after some unknown Indie band because she sells and they are forgettable.

All we know about the list is that 'expert' judges were surveyed. But seriously. What expert would place "Titanic" on a list when the most memorable things about the movie were the Celene Dion theme song and a sweaty hand slapping a fogged window?

Because everyone loves a good movie argument, here are my own opinions about the list which many of you might disagree about:

The Big Jumpers
Most surprising was the gigantic leaps some of these movies made around the list. "Raging Bull" moved up 20 spots to #4, "City Lights" up 65 to #11. I haven't seen either, so I will reserve criticism, even though I don't understand how a past entry can move into the top five when a masterpiece like "The Graduate" drops out. (Okay, I'll admit it, I'd definitely take Dustin Hoffman's young performance over any Robert DeNiro one any day, but maybe that's because I'm a girl.)

One jump I did approve of was "The Searchers" moving up 84 spots to #12. I think this and "High Noon" are possibly the best Westerns of all time, so I was happy to see it get some recognition.

Absentees
Here's where I start getting upset. Looking at the ballot, there are a lot of movies one could argue should have been on the list. I'll keep my rant to the ones removed, notably "Rebel without a cause" (#59 in 1997) "Amadeus" (#54) "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" (#64) "Giant" (#82) and "My Fair Lady" (#91). I'll remove the last two on account that I'm a Texan and a fan of musicals, but the other three are all classics. James Dean's teenage rebellion may seem hopelessly bland by today's standards and perhaps musical aliens isn't as exciting as skin eating ones, but can you seriously say either one was worse than "Titanic" or "The Sixth Sense"?

A much better list we can all agree on
I have to stop before I throw a silent fit in my cubicle. I've accepted this tenth anniversary list much sooner than I did the last one because one thing struck me about ranking top movies. You have to consider all the elements of the movie in the process, not just the acting or directing. The script, the special effects, the statement it makes on society, the box office draw--these all relate to the lasting impact of a film. As much as I hate Titanic, it did have good special effects and the soundtrack managed to connect to the audience more than any other. As much as we all hate M. Night Shyamalan, you have to admit his first movie had a really good twist there at the end.

The problem with this list is that no one really judges movies based on all their elements. Who cares about sound editing? We want to be entertained. All we care about--all we talk about--are those scenes we can recreate with our friends. The Guardian released its own list awhile ago that I like better. They just singled out the top 100 best movie moments and I think it's funny how different this list is from the AFI one. Some movies who barely made it on AFI, more than probably didn't make the ballot, are on this list because they entertain, if only for a single scene.

Also, notice that this list removes from the discussion the eternal movie debate that is Citizen Kane. Sure it's the best movie of all time, but where is that jaw dropping scene we all remember? (And no, a child's sleigh does not count).

The top 10:
10. "Some Like it Hot" final reveal scene with Jack Lemmon
9. "Planet of the Apes" Finding the statue of liberty in the sand
8. "Casablanca" Airport goodbye scene
7. "The Great Escape" McQueen jumping the barbed wire on a motorcycle
6. "Blade Runner" Batty's Dying scene in the rain
5. "Apocalypse Now" Dawn Helicopter Scene
4. "2001" Bone into Space station transformation
3. "The Third Man" Harry Lime appears
2. "Psycho" Shower scene
1. "The Usual Suspects", when Kujan realizes he's been duped.

So with that, I'll leave it to you to argue with me. But admittedly the greatest thing Hollywood ever did was convince the world they knew what they were talking about. Ciao.

Simplicity is in...

So I first read about 2x4's Generation Praktikum exhibition on UnBeige and was intrigued.

The exhibit had some sort of social question behind it about "what the t-shirt says about the person" but that wasn't interesting me so much as what t-shirts were actually produced. (I know, it's another horrible example of my shallow interest, but you have to give me a break. I just finished grad school and have definitely used up my 'analytical' quota for the next five years.)

T-shirts, it seems, have always been too cool for me. I hear about crazy t-shirts through friends, but have never really been able to find the sites myself. No matter how much 'bad kerning' or 'What wouldn't Jesus Do?' t-shirts make me laugh, I can never muster up to strength to fork over twenty dollars to something 1. I couldn't wear to work and 2. would probably shrink and fade after one washing.

I'm all sad that these shirts aren't being sold online because even though I would never buy one for the above-mentioned reasons, I would still get a kick out of screen shopping. Anyway, I'm not sure if they only posted one photo for each shirt, or if I only had one shirt for each design. It wouldn't surprise me for the latter, it seems to fit the theme of identity. Each shirt, it would seem, was some sort of comparison the reader would be able to identify back to the wearer. So I suppose the question ends up being 'how do people want to be identified'

So enough analysis, it's hurting my head. On with the slideshow of examples: (for the complete slideshow, check out 2x4's flickr page)

First there were the type t-shirts, which gave a very straightforward metaphor for who this person was. Including, but not limited to band comparisons, celebrity couples and a few this/that selections:




Then you had your symbol t-shirts a-la road signs.



Something that first popped into my head during the whole 'Helvetica' craze this spring came to mind again: after thumbing through all 200-odd slides, most of these shirts were very minimalistic. What started with the Real Simple 'white space' has moved over into typography and illustration as well. No more deconstructed collages or crazy typefaces. It's all about simplicity and clean lines. The question now becomes if I use this style do my own designs become a cliche? Would someone hire me when all I can do is what everyone else can?



(and if you wanted to know which shirt I would be, it's definitely this one:

If they expect me to buy more than five of those covers...

Vanity Fair's July issue, with guest editor Bono, will have 20, I repeat, TWENTY, different covers. The issue is Africa, and while I initially like the idea, after viewing the slideshow online of the different covers, I am a little befuddled by the order of some things.

First of all, cheers to Bono for getting President Bush on the cover of a magazine that is known to hate his guts. I really enjoyed Carter's quote in the Washington Post article about the issue: "Bono's choice, not mine, as you might imagine. He gives the commander in chief high marks on his Africa policies." What I would give to hear Carter's initial reaction to the idea.

Second, I like the numbers. I think the idea of twenty covers with people from all over the world 'joining in the conversation about Africa' is a smart way to show our country what a big problem the situation in Africa is. By using Bush and other politicians you get the political struggles, using Oprah and Madonna you get the celebrity cause angles, and using Brad Pitt, you get high magazine sales. The idea of connecting each person to two different covers, creating a chain of responses, is another stellar idea. And, of course, cheers to Annie Lebowitz for again producing fantastic images.

My only problem with the chain is that some people definitely see out of place in their position. I LOVE the image of Maya Angelou, but, I hate to say this, it's ruined by Madonna whispering in her ear. She's been photoshopped into a fantastic portrait, and still manages to steal the spotlight away from a more deserving persona. Also, I'm not sure what kind of joke Bono is trying to make by placing Bush with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, but there is definitely something humorous about that image. Maybe that's only because I've been listening to NPR all day talk about the US torturing prisoners, but placing Bush anywhere near a religious icon seems a tad ironic.

Finally, the photoshopping really annoys me. I understand it's required, you can't expect 22 people to have the same day off in March, but it still bothers me. People are being photoshopped into personal scenes, such as the Archbishop praying, and its an intrusion I don't like, especially when I know it's fake. But again, it is a situation that can hardly be fixed.

QUESTION FOR YOU So the only question I have now is what covers are going where? Because I'm in Texas will I get the Bush cover? Will Calfornians all find Madonna staring back at them later this week when the issue goes to newsstand? All I'm saying is if I get the cover with Chris Rock, I'll be sorely disappointed. Especially when it could have been Brad Pitt. Drop me a line and let me know what cover is being sold in your area. Until next time..