The truth about "Hot Coffee"

Monday night as I lazed on the sofa trying to figure out what to watch on TV, I came across the new HBO documentary "Hot Coffee." The title comes from the now infamous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit, in which a patron who was burned by hot coffee was awarded millions of dollars. This story has been retold, twisted and bastardized so many times by now that it barely resembles the truth, and so this documentary focused on the evils of tort reform and big business tactics in litigation used the story as the introduction to set the stage. As I watched the whole thing, numerous friends mentioned to me on Twitter that I should be watching it, presumably because I do litigate cases of the sort being described in the doc, and on behalf of evil big business to boot.

The McDonald's hot coffee case is a bit of a personal crusade for me precisely because so few people know the real details. The salient points commonly bandied about are correct: the woman spilled hot coffee on herself, was burned, and won millions at trial thanks to a punitive damages award that was calculated on the basis of McDonalds' daily revenues for sales of coffee. What many people don't know is that the woman was burned severely on much of her body, suffered extensively as a result, and was able to develop evidence at trial of numerous other similar injuries that had provided notice to McDonalds that its coffee was being delivered to customers in a dangerously hot condition (and well above the temperature other drive thru restaurants were serving their coffee at.) The punitive damages award occurred because the jury found McDonalds knew this was a problem that was injuring consumers but declined to fix it. It is far from the travesty of justice that proponents of tort reform would have us believe.

The rest of the documentary focused on four other serious problems with the state of personal injury litigation today: 1) tort reform, 2) damages caps, 3) elected judges, and 4) mandatory arbitration clauses. I happen to not be in favor of any of these things (with the exception of certain tort reform that I think does make sense, more on this later.) The dirty little secret that most defense attorneys don't like to say in public is that we don't particularly like tort reform any more than the plaintiffs do. Our livelihoods depend on having lawsuits to defend, and making it harder to sue people doesn't do us any favors. But apart from that basic defense of my job security, I find all four of these methods of controlling "runaway lawsuits" to be ineffective and unfair.

Tort reform often consists of a package of legislative enactments intended to make it harder to sue companies and harder to win a lot of money doing so. In Georgia, for example, it included several provisions that make a lot of sense--requiring defendants to be sued in the county in which they are located, requiring medical malpractice lawsuits to be supported by an affidavit signed by a physician in the same specialty saying that the care provided was deficient, and a mechanism for offers of judgment that are already available in federal court. It also included things that I didn't like, particularly caps on punitive and non-economic damages. More on those later. But the point is, there are parts of tort reform that I think can make sense and be fair. It is when the tort reform becomes focused on capping what a plaintiff can win even in the most extreme of cases, or when it seeks to shorten the time for filing a lawsuit to points that make almost no sense (such as states that now have just a one year statute of limitations for tort lawsuits) that I start to get uncomfortable.

The second part of the documentary focused on the damages caps enacted in most states, and the situations in which they often leave injured persons and their families holding the bag. Generally damages caps apply to so-called "non-economic damages," i.e. everything but lost wages and out of pocket medical costs. Pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of consortium, and such "squishy" things are included in the cap, which may be as low as $250,000. The documentary accurately pointed out that some injuries, such as loss of ability to bear children, blindness, or loss of a limb might be considered excruciating to most people but would not be associated with high medical costs or loss of earning capacity, meaning the only way it could be compensated is with non-economic damages. If I lost my uterus in a car accident and learned that I was only getting $250K for the imposed inability to have children, I'd probably think that was a worth a lot more money to me than $250K. If I lost my eyesight, I'd definitely think it was worth more. The documentary also focused on states where the cap is absolute, on all damages. In those instances, where the money from a verdict or settlement runs out, the costs of future care invariably fall to the state and federal governments. The side effect that the documentary did not really explore (probably because it was made by trial lawyers) is that when such provisions are enacted, lawyers stop taking those cases because they cannot make enough money on them, which makes it even harder for people who have been injured by medical malpractice or someone's negligence to even recover the capped amount in a lawsuit.

The third section of the documentary was one that I feel particularly passionate about: electing judges. I have never been comfortable with the concept of allowing people who know nothing about the legal system to decide who should preside over it. I am even less comfortable with allowing judges to take campaign contributions from people and corporations who have cases before them. Massachusetts, where I began my legal career, had appointed judges with a mandatory retirement age at 65. I was shocked and uncomfortable upon coming to Georgia to learn that lawyers running for judicial slots and sitting judges hoping to hold their seats would be coming to our office and asking us for money. I was even more uncomfortable at the notion that my clients with cases winding their way through the courts system could make donations to judges who might hear those cases, and all of this was 100% legal.

However, it is after trying a case in Texas that I have now seen the true worst judicial election situation in the country: judges run as Democrats or Republicans, and voters usually end up electing a "slate" depending on what party is doing well in their county, with absolutely zero knowledge of whether any of the judges are qualified or doing a good job as judges. I hesitate to talk out of school about our judge for my last case, but let's just say that he was younger than I was, the son of a prominent plaintiffs' attorney, and elected in the 2008 Democratic "wave" election in Houston. And he had the worst ratings of any civil judge in Harris County in the survey of attorneys put out by the local legal newspaper. However, we heard horror stories about other judges elected in that same wave who would actually cajole attorneys appearing before them about not yet having received their "check"--for campaign contributions they expected to receive from all local attorneys. The obvious grift on display in Texas is astounding, and demoralizing as a lawyer. We were able to persuade our judge to rule in our favor when it really mattered, and we put on a good case, but in plenty of situations the judge's rulings will make or break a party's chances, or at minimum cause a defendant to spend millions defending a frivolous lawsuit by refusing to dismiss the case at the outset. And it makes me no more comfortable to know that my clients can give massive contributions to those same judges in an effort to influence their decisions--I want no part of that sort of winning.

The documentary's claims about the inability of plaintiffs' attorneys to compete with the Chamber of Commerce in funding judicial elections was probably the part that felt the most "off" to me. The Plaintiffs' bar is a hugely powerful organization and they can certainly compete in terms of dollars and influence. Also, traditionally plaintiffs' attorneys have been fond of electing judges precisely because in many instances they can get their pro-plaintiff buddies into office. The easiest way to get rid of Chamber money in judicial selection is to take judges off the ballot, but I sincerely doubt we will see the AAJ (formerly ATLA) pushing for that radical notion anytime soon.

The final portion of the documentary about mandatory arbitration clauses was by far the most powerful, due primarily to the story of one Jamie Leigh Jones. Most of us do not realize how many times we have unwittingly agreed to arbitrate any dispute we may have with our creditors, employers, or anyone else we've ever signed a preprinted contract with. But what happened to Jones was far more disturbing: she had signed an employment agreement containing a mandatory arbitration clause, and then shortly thereafter was shipped by Halliburton subsidiary KBR to Iraq, where her coworkers drugged and gang-raped her, then locked her in a shipping container. (The story is actually far worse than what was shown in the documentary--the rape was so brutal that it tore her pectoral muscles and ruptured a breast implant, requiring reconstructive surgery, and left her bruised and bloodied. She was examined by a physician who completed a rape kit, and the contents of that kit, including photographs and DNA samples, mysteriously disappeared soon thereafter when the kit was turned over to KBR security.)

When Jones went to sue her employer KBR and the one man who had admitted to her that he had participated, they sought to enforce the arbitration clause and have the lawsuit thrown out of court. Years later, the 5th Circuit court of appeals disagreed and ruled that Jones' suit could go to trial in the court system instead of a secret arbitration. In fact, Jones' trial began two weeks ago in Houston, and is currently ongoing. I have been watching the news and the federal court docket in her case with great interest in the outcome. In what should come as a shock to noone, KBR is now calling Jones a liar and claiming her sex was consensual and that there is no evidence to say otherwise (especially with no rape kit contents to worry about.)

Our own Hank Johnson in Georgia's 4th congressional district has been pushing for years to pass legislation prohibiting mandatory arbitration clauses from being included in these sorts of contracts. The legislation has not made it far to date, but hopefully as more people become aware of the abuse of mandatory arbitration clauses, this is an issue that will receive more attention. While it may make sense for some disputes to be arbitrated, certainly the provisions are over-used now and should not cover all types of potential disputes. In the meantime, Al Franken's amendment prohibiting companies doing work for the federal government from having arbitration clauses in their employment contracts that would include claims like Jones' claims did pass, so that at least is good news.

Overall, Hot Coffee was an interesting and thought-provoking piece, but with an obvious slant. I've seen the other side and I know there are no documentary film-makers itching to make movies about stupid, bogus lawsuits but if there were I would have BOATLOADS of material. It is a problem, in that my clients often end up paying northwards of $2 million from inception of the case through trial in order to prove their products didn't injure anyone. That may seem like highway robbery, but it's a necessary cost to retain the right experts, take the right depositions, get and review ALL the medical records, produce the necessary company documents, draft and file the right motions, and get ready for and complete a successful trial. That's just for one case, but big companies that make products like drugs, medical devices, cars, or tractors might get sued hundreds of times a year. And it's not like they can just offer to pay every plaintiff a quarter of what they'd spend to defend the case, because as soon as they did that they'd get 3 times as many cases as news spread of their willingness to open the checkbook in order to avoid litigation costs. So, not that I am suggesting you should feel bad for big business, but consider the alternatives that a big company has--pay millions to defend each case and clear their name every time, or pay millions in settlements and verdicts, or stop making products that could ever potentially be involved in any injury. These are not good options. Defending the cases vigorously and sending the message that our products are good products that never hurt anyone, and that we're going to fight back if we ever get sued, is the best of the flawed options. And it's precisely what makes everything in this country cost more than it needs to.

The other concept that I think got lost somewhere along the way is that people can get hurt without it being anyone's fault. I had an argument awhile back about vaccine litigation, and someone told the story of how they had a cousin who was severely disabled following a bad reaction to a vaccine. She assumed that was the vaccine manufacturer's fault and that they should pay for the lifetime care of that child. But people can have a "bad reaction" to almost anything--I could drink a glass of milk tomorrow and go into anaphylactic shock, through no fault of the cow or dairy. It could even kill me. Vaccines are no different than any other chemical compound ingested into the human body, be it medication, food, vitamin supplements, or beauty products. All of it can really hurt us for no particular reason. So often in my cases I see a situation where a person is severely injured and it was around the same time as they were taking this drug, or using this device, and so they assume it must be the result of that drug or device and that the manufacturer must be responsible. But they seem to have forgotten the notion that SHIT HAPPENS--people get sick, people have allergic reactions, people develop medical conditions and people have bad outcomes in surgeries or hospitalizations. None of these things necessarily mean that anyone did anything wrong.

The challenge for us defense attorneys is to remind judges and jurors that shit happens. It's not always the role that we want to be in, and it can be a tough argument. The plaintiff's attorney is essentially trying to argue that the shit wasn't there before the drug or the device, and suddenly it was there, and we have no other obvious cause, so clearly the shit is the fault of the drug or device. There is a simplicity to their argument, which is their greatest weapon. Plenty of jurors can be convinced that temporal relationship is sufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard. So before everyone goes worrying that we've made it impossible to win a lawsuit in this country because Hot Coffee told you so, I'd advise you to start reading the legal newspapers in your city for a month. Think critically about what the producers of the documentary (trial attorneys, by the way) have to gain from it. Recognize there are two sides to every story. Yes, there are many tales of abuse of the legal system on both sides, and many tales of people who have been negatively impacted by tort reform, big business tactics, and defense attorneys like me. But as with almost any story, the facts depend on who's telling it. Hot Coffee got a lot right, but it got a lot wrong and left a lot out. Dig deeper.

Friday Video Clip

Learn it. Know it. Love it.

Oscar catchup time

Feeling guilty that you still haven't made it to a theater to see any of the movies nominated for Best Picture in this year's Oscars? Worried you will not know who to root for on Sunday night?(Yes, the Oscars are Sunday...I know, that totally snuck up on me too.) Well, if you can dedicate this Saturday to the cause, you can see all 5 best picture nominees in one sitting for $30 at either Buckhead Fork & Screen (formerly Backlot) or Phipps, among other places. AMC is running a promotion called the Best Picture Showcase that starts at 10:30am and finishes at midnight, showing Milk, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Slumdog Millionaire, and Frost/Nixon. If you go to Fork & Screen, you can even be served food and adult beverages in your seats throughout the day...but be careful because something tells me Frost/Nixon should not be seen while heavily inebriated.

I would totally go do this on Saturday if I hadn't already seen Benjamin Button which falls smack in the middle (and is really long), which kind of fouls up the plan for me. But if you need to get your Oscar fix, give it a shot.

Mood Music

Shawshank Redemption is one of my absolute favorite movies, and this is my absolute favorite scene. The transformative power of the music, the human voice and the amazing things the right composer can make it do.

If you watch the clip all the way through, here's to hope. Even when it's dangerous, it keeps you alive. We all need something to hope for in 2009.

Freaky

New Bond girl Gemma Arterton was born with six fingers on each hand. If that wasn't strange enough, the extra fingers were "tied" when she was a baby and eventually fell off. So don't worry guys, you won't have to see her freaky-deaky hands in the movie and have it ruin your lust.

I just don't understand why she wants to talk about her childhood deformities, especially if nobody would ever have known if she hadn't mentioned it. (But I may have a somewhat unique perspective on that subject...)

The One that I Want

The Plaza Theater on Ponce (formerly the LeFont Plaza) is hosting singalong showings of Grease this Friday and Saturday at 8pm. How fun is that? I might have to go to one of these.

Sex and the City review

Today, our female attorneys on my team (and, not so surprisingly, our one gay male associate) went to the 4pm screening of Sex and the City. Earlier today there was some Twitter traffic about whether SATC has lost its charm or its social relevance in the four years since the show went off the air. To those sorts of critiques, I quote you this:

Much has been made, and said, in recent weeks about the appeal of "Sex and the City." Social critics are wringing their hands on the sidelines, fretting. They can't understand why so many women are so captivated by the SATC world, which is, after all, a totally fantastical place in which women have financial autonomy and healthy sex drives. It's a materialistic, completely unrealistic world, the scolds tell us. Yes, of course it is. That's kind of the point. It's escapist fun.

I don't wear $600 pairs of shoes or carry $10,000 handbags. I wouldn't even if I could safely afford to do so, honestly. Nor do I give blowjobs to the UPS guy on a whim when he delivers me a package. (Though sometimes I wish I could!) But, when you strip away the obvious hyperbole of it all, there is something empowering and wonderful to be taken away from Sex and the City. If you don't get it, I can't help you figure it out. But I, and many other women, we get it. And we need, after four years, to go watch this movie with our friends and remember it.

So, the short version of the review is this: I loved this movie so much that I don't think I can adequately convey my joy. The longer version: I am blown away by Michael Patrick King's truly heartfelt, funny, and meaningful script. Each of the 4 main characters experiences her own difficult and powerful journey, but none more profound than Carrie's dealing with the ultimate nightmare scenario of her life. Sarah Jessica Parker was a revelation not only during the good times, but also in her portrayal of complete and total heartbreak. In a way, this was the story that had to be told about her and Big, with whom nothing has ever worked out as planned.

The clothes are spectacular, the jokes are hilarious, and Jennifer Hudson does a very good job playing Carrie's assistant. Some of the dialogue is a little trite, some of the plot turns are predictable, but in the end the movie is like a fantastic orgasm: it leaves you not only spent, but satisfied. It is exactly what you didn't even know ahead of time that you wanted. And you can't wait to do it again. That may be the hardest part of this movie...the knowledge that at some point, it's just over. No room was left for a second movie, no loose plot points that need to be tied up in a sequel. This is it. But I could not imagine it ending any other way.

We drank margaritas during the movie and I cried so hard I had to work not to sob. When I walked out of the theater, the first thing I wanted to do was call my friend Samantha, who I have known for going on 17 years now. In the end, it is a celebration of the wonder of lifelong best girlfriends, the people who will take a bullet for you and do whatever it takes to see you happy.

If you were ever a fan of the series, go see the movie. You will not be disappointed. This movie is going to do HUGE business.

What Friends Are For

ATLMalcontent posted a clip earlier from the Jungle Book, a movie that I think is perhaps the most underrated Disney cartoon. Great story, great music, and I'm just a little bit partial to it because I was in the musical in 5th grade playing Bagheera, the panther. (I even had to sing. On stage! This was in the days before I became irretrievably shy about such things. Ah, to be 10 again and not care if I made an ass of myself.)

Anyhow, it reminded me of my favorite part of Jungle Book. It's the vultures, and in particular this little exchange among the vultures. My now former best friend Samantha and I, back in high school, used to make the "what you wanna do"/"I dunno what you wanna do" joke all the time, and when we were 15 we found it hilarious for some reason. It's always been my favorite part of the movie, though I do love the whole thing.

Samantha and I "broke up" yesterday as friends, so I suppose that's why this clip holds such poignancy for me today. It had been a long time coming, in fact we'd barely been in each other's lives for almost exactly a year after a particularly nasty incident that reinforced some old bad blood between us. But that doesn't make it hurt any less, much like a divorce that everyone knows is for the best but still involves extricating someone from your life who you at one point thought you'd be with forever.

At her best, Samantha was unwaveringly a true confidante/partner in crime--when I did something stupid like slept with the wrong person (again), or took home someone significantly younger than me, or got drunk and said something horrifyingly embarassing to a guy I liked, she was the first one to be supportive no matter what and to put a positive spin on even the worst heartbreak or embarassing blunder. When I needed to escape from my life and drink cheap wine and eat pizza and cannoli at 3am on the sidewalk outside Bova's bakery, it was always Sam who was there with me. It was so nice to know that no matter what I did, there'd be someone I could call up and spill my guts to and never have to fear the fallout. But, of course, she hadn't filled that role for quite some time as we grew farther apart. I'll have to find a new confidante, and hopefully someone with whom I will have new inside jokes. But I'll still always think of her every time I see the Jungle Book. And the events of the last few days have made this song particularly bittersweet.

Late to the party

Last night I finally saw "No Country for Old Men," months after I intially expressed interest in the film. I don't think it had actually sunk in yet that Oscar nominations were coming out today, but I just knew that if I didn't see this movie in a theater I would kick myself. I'm so glad I listened to my inner crazy voice.

Rarely do I see a movie where I think that every single image, every item in the set, everything about the performance and the lighting and the story was perfectly planned. There is literally nothing in this movie that I would change, nothing that I think it would even be OK to alter. Everything about it is put together meticulously and perfectly. From the opening scene's tremendous violence resulting in an artistic splaying of scuff marks on a the floor to the final scene's surprisingly quiet and unexpected end, there is not a word, not an object, not an image out of place.

It is surprising now in 2008 to think that the world depicted in this film not only existed in 1980 when the story is set, but still exists in the sense that the Coen brothers found these preserved relics of small town Texas life in which to film the movie. The vast expanses of dusty barren wilderness seem almost alien to anyone who hasn't driven through the empty parts of southern Texas. But everyone in the movie seems to fit there--including most of all Tommy Lee Jones, who was really the unsung hero of this film and turned in a revelatory performance as the sherriff who isn't sure he's ready for the evil that modernity has brought to his barren county. His apprehension is summed up perfectly in a conversation he has with another sherriff who says, over coffee, "if you'd a told me twenty years ago I'd see children walkin the streets of our Texas towns with green hair and bones in their noses, I just flat out wouldn't have believed you."

While the film received 8 Oscar noms today, I'm disappointed that the only acting nomination was for Javier Bardem as the film's psychopathic killer. Everyone turned in tremendous performances, including not only Jones, but also Kelly Macdonald as protagonist Llewelyn Moss's young wife Carla Jean, and also Woody Harrelson in a brief role as a detective. Bardem is certainly deserving and his portrayal of Anton Chigurh is bonechillingly incredible. But his was hardly the only great performance in the movie, even if it was the flashiest.

I have long considered the Coen brothers to be overrated, and have never really understood the love that many hold for Fargo, Raising Arizona, or the Big Lebowski. But this movie is the Coens' masterpiece, and they deserve every accolade in the world for it. No Country for Old Men may be the best movie I've seen in the last 5 years and I'm having a hard time imagining one that I think tops it. I have only seen this and Juno out of the Best Picture nominees, but I cannot imagine that any of the others are more deserving of the win. If you haven't seen this movie, go and do so now.

Ultimate "get" or Ultimate prank on the public?

Morgan Spurlock of "Supersize Me" fame has sold the rights to his film "Where in the World Is Osama Bin Laden" after showing 15 minutes of footage to the Weinstein Co. at the Berlin Film Festival and a bidding war ensued. Now the question becomes--was it snapped up so quick because he actually found Bin Laden and managed to sit down and interview the man, or because everyone's gonna go see the movie to find out?

Quote of the Day

"God I wish I'd said that" edition:

[I]t's not just Iraq that has women falling all over themselves to forgive/forget Bill's lascivious ways these days. It's the fact that most of us would willingly endure a little uninvited Oval Office groping just to return to the days before femiladyism knew the likes of Joe Francis and Sam Alito.

From Jezebel's story about whether Thelma & Louise has held up through the years as a revolutionary feminist movie and if not, whether it is all the fault of Bill Clinton's love of blowjobs.

Blah Humbug pt II

I just can't muster the enthusiasm today. I think it's PMS but honestly it could just be that none of the current stories interest me all that much. But here's what's running through my head today:

* I had to get my annual gyno exam today and the questionnaire had some very strange things on it. For example, there was a line with checkboxes for number of lifetime sexual partners. They choices were Husband, Less than 5, and More than 5. No "none," not that it would have been applicable to me but presumably some teenage girls who seek gynecological treatment are still virgins. And why is the line drawn at 5? It just seemed so arbitrary. You know how as you are getting older it starts to feel like being bumped from the 18-24 demographic and into the 25-34 demographic feels like a huge life shift that you were totally unprepared for? Well, similarly, choosing between the less than 5 category and more than 5 category feels a little, I don't know, like I'm being judged. And I mean let's be honest, it's only 5. That's hardly an earth-shattering number. Meanwhile, why do they need to know this, exactly? I would understand if they wanted to know about frequency of sexual activity or number of different partners since your last exam, but "lifetime partners" is a little...nosy. It was weird. Of course they also wanted to know all sorts of other nosy details like age of first sexual activity, number of pregnancies, all methods of birth control and STD control used, whether any sexual relationships were monogamous or not, etc. The whole thing left me a little shell-shocked and my sex life isn't even all that interesting compared to some.

* Apparently I'm going to a Falcons pre-season game tomorrow. I was supposed to have other plans but I get the distinct impression those are no longer happening, at least for me. I find it hard enough to muster enthusiasm for the Falcons generally even without their recent troubles, and certainly during the preseason when it doesn't even matter it seems like a non-event. But hey, it's a people watching opportunity and a good excuse to drink. What more do you need.

* I am having a bigger and bigger problem with the calls for Sen. Larry Craig to resign. I mean we've had people stay in office not only after they have been accused but after they have been convicted of much more serious crimes than disorderly conduct. Why aren't more people bothered that the only reason people want him to resign is because they are worried that the thought he might be gay will hurt his reelection chances in conservative Idaho? Nobody can come out and say it of those who have called for his resignation, but it's all right there in their screwed up faces as they use words like "disgusting," "repulsive" and "shameful" to describe...disorderly conduct that consisted of some hand and foot movements in a public restroom stall. I mean, REALLY. Have the balls to stand up and say that you want him to resign because he might be gay and don't pussyfoot around by pretending that it's because he has defiled the office of Senator with this bogus trumped-up bullshit charge. Come on.

* I can't muster any enthusiasm to care about the whole Grady fiasco. I have a friend who works there and I know that despite the horror stories, the doctors and nurses who work there are more committed than anyone to saving as many lives as possible even against what often seem to be insurmountable odds. In addition to what everyone else says about how many counties rely on Grady to serve as their only level I trauma center in the area, we have to also consider how many residents would be deprived of the opportunity to learn cutting edge trauma medicine that they will simply not get the chance to see anywhere else in Georgia. It's just frustrating but I can't wade into all the racial and political drama. I leave that for others with more stomach for it.

* This has been a particularly juicy week at Ye Olde Law Firm, and sadly I can't blog about any of it. But there are times when gossip is fun, and then there are times when it turns ugly. And when it approaches ugly, it's downright disappointing that some people don't know where the line is anymore. That's all I can say about that.

* I watched Zodiac last night and it was really very good, but not for the faint of heart. The methodical and unvarnished way in which it portrays grisly murders was definitely shocking to even me. And actually the most upsetting part of the movie is not violent at all, it is watching a woman who is in a car with the killer and he tells her that he is going to do something shockingly horrible to her baby. It was so incredibly upsetting that I actually nearly hyperventilated. It was such a strange reaction, particularly since I do not have children, but the best evidence I can think of that the movie conveyed that complete horror perfectly. Just imagining the horrible terror of that moment for that woman hit me right in the gut.

* It's so cool to see people that I know here in the Atlanta blogosphere branch out and do great things with their talents. In particular, Shelby and Grayson have been blazing trails with video this week that leave me proud to know such talented folks. I also enjoy seeing this little faction of the local blogosphere become the sort of "troupe" that I can remember comedian friends of mine in Boston having several years ago. They urged each other on, provided fodder for one another, booked each other on shows in various clubs that they were producing, and eventually pushed each other out of the Boston nest and on to New York or LA. Now many of them have gone on to fantastic development deals, cable specials, television roles, and even a book deal for one. I'm loving the spirit of collaboration that I'm seeing, even though I haven't been as much of a participant as others. It's very positive and will only lead to bigger and better things.

* Drive By Truckers return to Atlanta and the Variety Playhouse, Jason Isbell-less, on Sept. 28th. I can't decide if I want to go or not. Also don't know if I will be able to muster up a gang this time willing to come along. If you're interested and want to try talking me into it, do so in comments or by email.

Saint Bobby on the big screen

A documentary filmmaker (George Butler, director of Pumping Iron) chronicled FSU's 2006 season as part of a movie about Bobby Bowden, and apparently was granted unprecedented access both to the team and to the Bowden family. He was there not only for the 7-6 season that led fans to start demanding Bowden's retirement, but also during the tumultuous secret negotiations to extract Jeff Bowden as Offensive Coordinator. Should be an interesting film to say the least. I fear it will also be disheartening to see Bobby's decline, but I hope I'm wrong. It's due out this winter.

Most Depressing Movie Ever

I think it's gotta be Requiem for a Dream. I just watched it tonight and now I basically want to kill myself. Good god.

Hit me with your technogeekiness

While I have a little downtime here in document review land, I figure I'll throw another tech question out there to let the blogosphere help me out.

So, I bought that bigass plasma TV around New Year's, and I love it and all, but after watching part of King Kong on HBO in Hi Def I decided I need an HD DVD player. Or, a Blu-Ray. For those uninitiated in this sort of thing, there are 2 competing formats for Hi Def DVDs similar to what we all experienced back in the early 80s with VHS and Beta. I really, really don't want to buy the equivalent of a Beta (my uncle had one and we mocked him mercilessly for it for years afterwards.) But, after reading about the 2 formats a little it sure sounds like there is no obvious format leader at this point. Particular movie studios support one format or the other, with some supporting both. Microsoft has thrown its weight behind the HD DVD format, while there are slightly more studios on the side of Blu-Ray.

And there's one other wrinkle: I don't have a 1080p format TV. That's the super-expensive over the top fantastic image quality, and I wasn't paying $5000 for a damned TV. So, I have 1080i even though it looks phenomenal. I'm a little worried that if I go with a format that is really best for 1080p that it will not be as great on a lesser quality TV.

What to do? Well, one option that I won't be taking is buying a player that supports both formats. LG makes one, but its $1200! Who the hell would spend $1200 on a DVD player?! It also apparently has a few kinks because the folks who are pushing the HD DVD format didn't give their approval to the project, so they lack support for certain features available in "official" HD DVD format players.

I'm more confused than ever about whether I should even bother to try and get a good DVD player at this point. But hopefully some of you techie types who follow this stuff more closely than I do (and understand it) can help me out.

What kind of Hi Def DVD player do I buy, or do I sit this out for awhile?

It's the crazy hormonal bitch in me talking

Tonight I saw Knocked Up, and I thought it was hilarious. I was a little concerned because I did not entirely love the 40 Year Old Virgin--I found it only funny in parts, while other parts just made no sense to me. But this movie was pretty consistently hilarious, if a little long. However, I know the PMS is at its crescendo when I start crying in a movie like this during the big birthing scene. I want to kick myself for being such an emotional sap, but I can't help it. Don't fight the hormones.

Katherine Heigl has seriously out of whack incisor teeth, however. They just totally stick out and it's quite distracting. You'd think someone would have told her that by now. But otherwise she was excellent--very good comedic timing and she didn't detract from the other characters who are really the star of the movie.

Recently when I was passing out and experiencing vertigo and such some folks began to wonder if I was pregnant, and while I was about 99.9% percent sure I wasn't...it was at least *theoretically* possible. For the couple of days between when someone first raised the notion and when a blood test ruled it out for good, I pushed the nightmare scenario thoughts out of my head. So now with the benefit of knowing that my uterus is critter-free, I could really laugh my ass off at the horror of facing a pregnancy completely unprepared and with someone else who was also completely unprepared. May I never really know how accurate this depiction is. *Knocks on wood*

In other news, the Atlantic Station movie theater is run by morons.

Talk about dark

I decided I needed a dark quiet room and laying on the couch to deal with the vertigo issue, and 4 hours later it appears to have worked. I watched the movie "Little Children," which really fit the dark, quiet and sick mood. It's an incredibly well-made and well-acted film, but the subject matter is beyond disturbing and the final few minutes' tension was close to that of the Sopranos finale's final few minutes.

A friend who watched the movie back during Oscar season mentioned that one problem she had was the notion that Jennifer Connelly's character is supposed to be a knockout while Kate Winslet's is not particularly pretty. I happen to think Kate Winslet is gorgeous, so even if they did kind of schlub her down her I had trouble buying that part. That may also have had something to do with her being named Sarah, which perhaps made me own her insecurities more than I otherwise would have.

I definitely saw where the Oscar nominations for Winslet and Jackie Earle Haley came from. Both were phenomenal. And I think Todd Field is really establishing himself as a tremendous director with the ability to make interesting choices and set a tone better than almost anyone. Normally I would have found the documentary-esque narration annoying, but here it fit and really gave life to the original words from the novel.

(And for those who are into that sort of thing, there is some nudity during the sex scenes and one prominent display of Jennifer Connelly's ass in panties.)

Despite the disturbing ending, I enjoyed the movie and feel all better now.

Serenity Returns

This weekend, I found myself drawn to the movie Serenity on HBO, and was forced to watch the whole thing to the end. Since I have the DVD at home, there's really no reason for me to watch it on broadcast TV, but I couldn't help myself. The movie is that good.

Last summer, I read and blogged about an event being held around the world on the birthday of Joss Whedon (creator of Buffy/Angel/Firefly/Serenity) to benefit a group called Equality Now. Diehard fans were arranging screenings of Serenity in theaters with proceeds going to the charity that fights for women's equality. I decided I wanted to go, and dragged a friend along with me who had never heard of this movie and had no idea what she was in for. Once she got over her initial surprise at the people who wore costumes and clearly took this thing VERY SERIOUSLY, we settled in to watch a great movie and she loved it every bit as much as I did.

I didn't realize it at the time, but that local event was organized by someone who I'd later on come to know through the Atlanta political/blog scene. Small world, huh?

Anyhow, they're doing it again this year, on Saturday June 23, 2007 presumably at the Lefont Plaza Theater on Ponce where it was held last year. It's for the same good cause, the same great movie, and I urge anyone who's ever enjoyed Serenity and hasn't had the chance to see it on the big screen to check it out. There are screenings in most major cities in the US and you should be able to find one near you.

I'll actually be in a cabin in the woods and will have to miss it, but I hope they make even more money for Equality Now than last year.

SciFi Realities

Ever since I was a little girl, I always watched Star Trek series and movies with my dad. It was sort of our thing, going to the new Star Trek movie whenever it came out and leaving my mom at home since she didn't really care for that sort of movie. I can remember being very young but still hoping that our future would look like the Star Trek future, where humanity came together for the noble goal of scientific betterment and exploration of the galaxy.

As I got older, and as cell phones became more prevalent and smaller, my dad and I often joked about how someday we would see the advent of the little transponder that you just hit on your chest to talk to someone else. That day, with the development of bluetooth and tiny microchips, is nearly here. And now, so too is another hallmark of most futuristic sci-fi shows and movies: the surface computer.

Microsoft is developing a surface computer that looks like a tabletop, with touch controls and a promise to change the way we think about computers in the future. This interface will seem surprisingly familiar to anyone who watched Star Trek or any other futuristic series.

I guess the next question is when will we see tranporters or light speed jump capability in our space shuttles? Will that happen in my lifetime? I don't know, but it's certainly interesting to see these concepts that were just cooked up in some enterprising writer or set director's mind coming to fruition.

All the King's Bad Accents

Being sick calls for movie watching, and so I decided to settle down with All the King's Men, which looked based solely on the cast and material to be an excellent film. Boy was I wrong. Even though I love Anthony Hopkins and Kate Winslet, and think Sean Penn and Jude Law are some of the best actors around, and even though I've always been fascinated by stories of crazy corrupt southern politicians, this movie was terrible on pretty much all levels except for cinematography. The script was crap, the performances were way out of bounds, and strangely what annoyed me the most was the appaling lack of a single credible southern accent in the bunch, save perhaps for Patricia Clarkson.

Whose bright idea was it to cast a movie about old time Louisiana politics with a bunch of Brits, and Tony Soprano? Seriously, you might want to see it just so you can laugh and cry at the same time watching James Gandolfini try to sound southern when the Jersey just keeps flowing out of him. It's hilarious how bad of a job he does trying to play away from type. And Kate Winslet's southern accent is basically no accent at all, while Anthony Hopkins doesn't even try to avoid sounding British. There really aren't any words for Jude Law's effort, except to say that for the first 20 minutes of his narration and Sean Penn's marble-mouthed rambles, I had absolutely no idea what was going on in the movie. It was worse than Trainspotting.

With all of the available talent emanating from the South, it really surprises me that the director didn't even think for a second about using people who could actually pull off the accent. There are actors who grew up in the south like Matthew McConnaughey, Julia Roberts, Robert Duvall, Josh Lucas, and others I can't even think of offhand who could have handled these roles and the accents would have flowed naturally from the start. It's not that complicated if you have been doing it all your life! Even Mystic River's accents weren't this bad, and that movie featured some of the worst attempts at a Boston accent I've ever heard. (Curiously, also with Sean Penn who apparently never met an accent he wouldn't butcher.) And it's so distracting to listen to someone who clearly is just killing their role because they didn't get a good dialect coach, that I think an otherwise excellent movie--not that this was, oh no--can be ruined by a distractingly bad accent.

Anyhow, skip All the King's Men. Unless you want to laugh at James Gandolfini.