Monday Night Goofball

As much as I have enjoyed watching Tom Cruise act like the ass everyone knows that he is over the last two years, I never found anything he ever did to be blogworthy because, frankly, nothing he involves himself in is very interesting.

But his recent PR reclamation project, and the extent that some in the media will indulge him, is making me sick, so I have to say something.

On Monday, ESPN did their first real "Monday Night Football" game. Those of you hoping that this might lead to actually devoting more time to football during a football game were disappointed, as ESPN treated it as an excuse to report on Tom and Katie sightings, and as vehicle to show us how not entertaining Jamie Foxx is.

On the pregame broadcast, instead of reporting on the game, we got a shot of Tom and Katie walking across the field. This was followed up during the game by breathtaking reports and shots of Tom and Dan Synder sitting together in the owner's box. And by having Tony Kornheiser references to All The Right Moves and Jerry Maguire and probably every other Tom Cruise movie that contained something relating to football. (As if that wasn't bad enough, Kornheiser riffed on Cruise and Foxx on Tuesday's PTI, and also wrote a column about them on Wednesday. What they hell is Kornheiser thinking? Does he have a man crush?)

Although Suri wasn't on TV (leading some of us to wonder how much a couple that goes on and on about how much they love their kid could bear to be parted from the kid) it was reported in the press that little Suri was there, and a family-friendly happy time was enjoyed by all. (I think they stashed little Suri in the same room where they keep the extra footballs.)

I turn on football to watch football, not Entertainment Tonight. Joe Six-Pack doesn't care about the image problems of Hollywood millionaires, and if ESPN doesn't realize that, I hope that ESPN's run with MNF ends at one season. There is more than enough televised football to go around, we don't need a program that is half football, half Access Hollywood.

On a related note, the sighting of Tom in Dan's box can only lead to bad things. Dan is involved in whatever syndicate is planning to bankroll Tom's next movie, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that Dan will look at this as a chance to promote brand image. So I think in two years we are going to be subjected to a very bad movie that involves Tom Cruise coaching the Redskins, or being some over the hill quaterback (Billy Kilmer?) that gets a long awaited chance to participate in the Super Bowl, and along the way he will spend a lot of time at a Six Flags theme park. Boy, doesn't that sound worth seeing?

The True "Nightmare" on Elm Street

On Sept. 28, infinifilm is going to drop a 2-disc special edition of the original "A Nightmare on Elm Street". Also, the movie is going to be re-released in theaters for a brief time. For any of you that never saw this movie, or are only familiar with the series through the later sequels (with the "jokey" Freddy Krueger), I strongly recommend checking out the original movie in a theater. Although the movie has its flaws, the more I've seen it, the more I've gotten drawn into it because there is a lot more going on in that movie than it originally seems. Once the shock/novelty of waiting for and watching Freddy kill teenagers wears off, and you pay more attention to what is going on between killings, there's a subtex to that movie that highlights a much more real-life fear.

The best horror movies use their set-ups and allegories to examine a society's unspoken fears. Often, these fears exist at certain points in time, and once time moves on and the fear passes, these movies lose their power. Other times the movies can center around a feeling common to most people, even if the feeling passes (or is proven wrong) in time.

I think A Nightmare on Elm Street centers on the latter, which is why I am interested to see if this movie finds an audience among today's teens. I don't think this fear is obvious in the movie, I had to watch it a few times before it made itself clear to me.

The first time you watch the movie, you are going to get caught up in the action, in the things that Nancy Thompson has to do to figure out what's going on, and what she needs to do to stop Freddy. So the first time viewer is going to concentrate on the slice and dice aspects, and be scared by that. Although it is scary, it's not very realistic, in the sense that few of us are ever going to be chased (in our dreams or real life) by a maniac that is trying to kill us.

But after seeing the movie a few times, I found the overall story more interesting. As the story unfolds, it becomes apparent that these kids are being targeted for death because their parents killed Freddy. So he is coming back for his revenge.

Here is where it gets interesting. Because as Nancy is trying to figure this all out, her parents spend their time telling her she is delusional, that she is wasting her time, that she should just get some sleep and forget the whole thing. Yet from the time she is describing Freddy to her parents, they would know exactly what she is describing is based in fact, since they helped to kill Freddy. But rather than help Nancy, they will do their best to thwart her, because they would rather see their daughter die than to face the sins of their past. They will sacrifice their daughter for peace of mind.

To state the fear more directly, the parent's don't really care about their kids, and whenever something in the kid's life threatens to disrupt the parent's life, the parent's will chose themselves over the kid. And it will be up to the kid to look out for herself. That is the central fear/theme of the movie, a fear that is not rooted in just one point in time. I think this gives the movie a more timeless quality than most horror movies. Thinking your parents don't really care about you is a much more real-life issue than being chased by a maniac.