Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Money Train (1995): A Look into the Construction of the Buddy Cop Genre

     
 By 1995, the Buddy Cop subgenre of action films had been pushed and twisted to its creative edge. From humble beginnings exploring different personality types in classic cop shows like Dragnet or in westerns where a white cowboy must work with a Native American or Mexican in order to complete a mission, the genre has expanded to pair up as many conflicting combinations one could imagine. These combinations range from actor and cop (The Hard Way, Showtime), mom and cop (Stop or My Mom Will Shoot), kid and cop (Cop and a Half), to even the ridiculous (but predictable) alien and cop (Alien Nation).
      By far the most popular Hollywood buddy cop construction combines a white cop and a black cop. When looking at this construction two iconic films easily come to mind. The first film, 1982's 48 Hours, combines a gruff, Eastwood-esque policeman (Nick Nolte) with a wisecracking, street savvy criminal (Eddie Murphy). While Eddie Murphy's character is not technically a cop, he assumes that role as the film progresses. 48 Hours, unlike many of its successors, takes advantage of its racial diversity by exploring racial dynamics. Not afraid to show some of the preconceived animosity between people of different races, 48 Hours features believable uses of racial slurs, although most of the exploring of race ends up being portrayed with a comedic tone. Eventually, the two characters find common ground and use their combined skills to defeat the bad guys, since neither of the characters could have achieved their goals with only their individual contacts and skill sets. One interesting observation about 48 Hours involves the characterization of Nick Nolte's character. Instead of representing some sort of normalcy by espousing characteristics normally given to white policeman in popular culture (following the law by the book, straight-laced), Nick Nolte's character is just as much a rebel as Eddie Murphy's character. He doesn't drive a traditional police cruiser. He is quick to violence, and he ultimately trusts a criminal enough to let him use a gun. Sure, 48 Hours defines its black character as the Other, but at least the Other is not portrayed as being any more animalistic or brutish as his white counterpart.
     While 48 Hours did not invent the wheel of the buddy cop genre, it probably defined the expected dynamic between the cops in popular culture, especially in films that pair a black cop and a white cop. Black comedians have found a wellspring of roles requiring comedic skills to balance out the action chops of their white co-stars. Martin Lawrence (Blue Streak and National Security), Tracy Morgan (Cop Out), Chris Tucker (Rush Hour), and Damon Wayans (The Last Boy Scout) have all found relative success in playing this specific role. Even archetype originator Eddie Murphy has replayed the role in films like Metro and Showtime.
      In contrast to 48 Hours and its progeny, 1987's Lethal Weapon, the second iconic buddy cop film, subverted much of the stereotypical racial dynamics played out in films before it. Danny Glover's Murtaugh is the established cop in this film. He has achieved a middle class dream in a large city. He is surrounded by a loving wife and kids and carries a clean reputation as a cop that does his job the right way. Reluctantly, he has to join up with Mel Gibson's Riggs, who is reckless, on the edge of suicide, and quick to violence. Neither Danny Glover nor Mel Gibson would ever be characterized as comedians, but the majority of funny moments are given to Mel Gibson's character, including an odd love of eating dog biscuits. Unlike 48 Hours, Lethal Weapon never spends time exploring racial dynamics by viewing the relationship between the two officers with an almost post-racial perspective. Some may view this as a positive of the film because it was and still is rare to see a black character in a film lack at least some stereotypical urban or ghetto qualities. Others may view this as a negative of the film since the opportunity to address ever-present racial issues was squandered. I tend to view it as a positive because it's rare that a white character in a film envies the life of a black character that is not in a position of extreme fame or wealth. Riggs becomes a fixture in the Murtaugh household to the point where Murtaugh's wife becomes his de facto mother, doing his laundry, fixing him food, and expressing continual worry about his safety and his love life. Riggs sees the life he hopes to have, and as the film series continues, he slowly builds his life based off of the pattern set by Murtaugh. He eventually meets Rene Russo's character, marries her, and states his wishes to start a family. A good example of the extremes portrayed by these two movies can be seen in the fates of the black characters at the end of the films. In 48 Hours, Eddie Murphy's character is back in jail, with a little taste of freedom and adventure granted by Nick Nolte's need for an inside source. In Lethal Weapon, Danny Glover is reunited with his family in their nice, middle class home.
     So where does Money Train fall within the canon of buddy cop movies? Squarely in the center.
Money Train follows the story of two adopted brothers (Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson) and their jobs as transit cops in New York City. Once Jennifer Lopez's Santiago joins their unit, a love triangle emerges, and the three cops join forces to take down a ruthless arsonist, tolerate a horrible boss, and try to save Woody's character from the consequences of his gambling debt. From the get-go, Money Train seems to follow the Lethal Weapon model of the black-white buddy cop dynamic. Wesley Snipes portrays the more stable character that has the more attractive life. He gets the girl, and he's got the looks. According to dialogue in the film, he may have also been the two brothers' adopted mother's favorite since she was also black. Woody Harrelson fits the Riggs archetype pretty well. Instead of flirting with suicide, he expresses his self destruction through a gambling addiction and a nasty temper. He knows others see him as a "fuck up", which motivates his gambling because he's always looking for that big score to prove everybody wrong. It's this inferiority complex that motivates the main plot line, the theft of the money train that carries all the earnings of the NYC subway system.
    Unlike Lethal Weapon, Money Train does explore racial dynamics. The relationship between the white cop and the black cop is especially interesting because they are brothers. When characters are introduced to the pair, they immediately question their familial connection. In these scenes, a sort of racial empathy is revealed by the two leads because they both feel attacked by the lack of understanding exhibited by these other characters, especially their nasty boss played to greasy perfection by the notorious Robert Blake. This racial empathy is displayed by other characters in the film both onscreen and offscreen. The two cops frequent a bar with a white owner who acts as a paternal figure for the pair, and the oft-mentioned mother clearly displayed a love for both of the characters regardless of their races. When a character questions the two cops about their races or insults them for it, that character has clearly been pegged as a "villain" by the film. Of course, these villains get their comeuppance later in the film when the other transit cops are embarrassed, and Robert Black gets punched in the face by two guys at the same exact time.
    One of the stronger qualities of Money Train is its integration of a buddy cop movie with a heist film. It's interesting that the films resolves its buddy cop storyline with about 45 minutes of run time left. Plus, it's that resolution that leads to the impetus to go through with the heist. The film teases the heist from the beginning, but it does not go through the rote planning montages that most heist films feature. The foundation of the heist is detailed through observation in the film and from dialogue between the two male leads. Compared to other heist films, the plan to steal the money train is relatively simple: enter through the grate at the bottom while the officers are out of the train, bag up the money, stop the train on the tracks, and exit through a manhole in Central Park. Of course, the heist doesn't go as planned, but it's more fun that way, right?
    Another strong quality of the film is the chemistry between Snipes and Harrelson. The actors work well as foils and friends equally. The producers of the film were smart to capitalize on the chemistry the two actors developed on the set of White Men Can't Jump. Both actors are believable as men of action and men of humor.
   Overall, Money Train employs an interesting twist on the Buddy Cop genre by making the racial empathy shared between the two leads a point of emphasis in the film. While any buddy cop movie lives up to the form by focusing on the differences between the two main characters, Money Train does a good job providing a balance without becoming overtly preachy, kitschy, or bitter.
 

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

In Memoriam: Harold Ramis




Of all the different genres of film to create, I believe that comedies are the hardest to create. Humor has an ethereal quality that ebbs and flows as society changes. With that said, it's an amazing accomplishment to make a comedy film that is actually able to stand the test of time. Most comedians are lucky if they can perpetuate one joke, so no one could possibly mistake Harold Ramis's career as anything but pure skill and talent. Since the mid-1970s, Ramis had an immediate impact on popular culture. He was a member of the Second City comedy improv group that featured contemporaries like John Belushi, Bill Murray, and Gilda Radnor. Moving from the stages of Chicago, to the radio with National Lampoon's Radio Hour, to the small screen with the pre-SNL sketch show SCTV, Ramis's unique combination of subversive social class commentary and blue, dorm room sensibilities could not be contained. Ramis's talents belonged on the big screen, and his first screenplay credit, National Lampoon's Animal House proved it with flying colors (or food).

Whether he was acting on screen, wielding a pen, or behind the camera, his charm permeated the movies he made. I wouldn't be surprised to still here people quoting Caddyshack 30 years from now. Every new generation will be treated to Ghostbusters. It will continue to be hard to not visualize the Griswold family's ridiculous adventures when driving in the car 8 hours to your long-awaited or dreaded destination. One of the most amazing qualities of the 4 films I've mentioned so far is their ability to make people laugh of different ages, genders, and cultures. Humor is fleeting, and audiences are fickle. When the zany humor of the 80's gave way to the cynical, snark of the 90's, Ramis was right on the cusp with the coffee-black film Groundhog Day. He even tried to transition into the current generation of comedians with the lackluster Year One, which ultimately just dreamed too big.

It's unfortunate that Ramis had to die of a disease that was so debilitating. He had to learn how to walk again but was yet again forced back into a chair. Autoimmune inflammatory vasculitis kills your blood vessels through chronic inflammation, so it slowly took away his legs. One thing that disease could never take away was his ability to laugh and to make others laugh, which are equally important in the comedy business. For an example of how amazing of a career he had, I haven't even mentioned his roles in making Meatballs, Stripes, Analyze This, and Multiplicity. Even his lesser films like Bedazzled, The Ice Harvest, and Year One have good qualities that just couldn't make an great whole. Harold Ramis, you will be missed.


Monday, February 24, 2014

Hidden Gems: Michael Mann's Thief (1981)

Since I have some newly available time on my hands, I wanted to blow the dust off of this blog because I clearly can't get enough of my own voice. My plan is to break the blog down into several columns that feature different media within the realm of my favorite topic: popular culture.

Hidden Gems is a column that highlights films featuring famous directors, writers, or actors that may have fallen to the wayside by time or by unfavorable situations. That's not to say that any of the films in this column are masterpieces. No film is perfect. What would be the fun of that? Anyways, the first film featured in this column is Michael Mann's first studio feature film Thief.



Michael Mann's influence on American film is pervasive. From the minute Miami Vice hit network airwaves in 1984, many shows and films would copy its trademark, sun-soaked sheen, and its workman-like blend of action sequences with steamy locales all bolstered by a soundtrack pulsating with some of the most popular songs of the decade. However, Michael Mann really developed much of his signature style with 1981's Thief.

Right off the bat, the movie seems defined by its simplicity. The opening robbery sequence is vividly shot with only the slightest utterance of dialogue. There is a slight tension building as the robbery progresses through its blueprint-drawn stages, which almost work with the efficiency of a Rube Goldberg device. This 5 or so minute sequence sets the tone. These men care about their business, and they only truly feel comfortable in the heat of a heist.



The film follows Frank (James Caan) as he looks for a new life that will take him away from the inherent loneliness of being a career criminal. He wants everyone else's American Dream. That yearning leads him to develop a slapdash relationship with a waitress (Tuesday Weld), and in one of the movie's most telling sequences, Frank shares with her something he hasn't ever told a woman: his past and his career, both littered with violence and emotional distance. In fact, the only two people that Frank seems to care about are Okla, his criminal mentor, played by a sad, desperate Willie Nelson, and his mentee, a fresh-looking James Belushi.

Frank's ambition for the perfect life leads him to accept a job from a new employer. He needs the money to get Okla out of jail before he dies of angina and to buy the perfect house with the white picket fence. As Frank gradually gains all the things he's always dreamed of, he finds himself in a new position: having something real to lose.

There's nothing amazingly clever about the plot in Thief. It follows a pretty standard heist movie plot line. The crew scouts a location, develops a plan, gain some rapport, and then put the plan into action. One of Michael Mann's talents is elevating standard genre narratives with breathtaking visuals and slice-of-life dialogue. Mann is notorious for doing extensive research into the lives of the characters he is portraying. This film is no different with the addition of a recently paroled thief as the film's technical adviser and on screen as one of the dirty cops ruining Frank's day. The film also features the first performance from veteran character actor Dennis Farina, who was a cop before becoming an actor. The inclusion of these men help the film seem even more realistic.



Besides James Caan's silent but deadly lead performance, the character with the most screen time is the city of Chicago. Much like Scorcese's positioning of New York as a setting that's just as alive as its citizens, Chicago teems with neon lights, seedy alleyways, and looming skyscrapers. One scene in particular on the rooftop of one of the aforementioned skyscrapers is particularly reminiscent of the opening heist sequence in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight, for which he has credited Mann as an influence. As events turn bad, Chicago reflects this transition. Neon lights get eclipsed by flames and smoke. The grit of the city gets washed away by the sterile suburbs, the setting of the film's finale.

Fans of Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive will find a spiritual brother in this film. Many of the sequences show instead of tell, and tension always seems to boil a little hotter when no one's speaking. Viewers looking for romance, wittiness, or elaborate, effects-driven action sequences should look elsewhere. James Caan's performance is surprisingly impressive with such little dialogue. His emoting is so subtle, but he's able to express a gamut of emotions from blind optimism to utter nihilism by the film's end.

I included this film in my hidden gems segment because it seems to take a backseat to some of Mann's more recent work like Heat and Collateral, which are both awesome films. Criterion recently released the film as part of its blu-ray collection, and critics have slowly started to revisit the film, pointing to its influence on the hyper-realistic films of the early 90's like King of New York and Reservoir Dogs. I highly recommend this film for a night where you can really pay attention to all its pieces. It's not the kind of movie that reaches out and grabs you from the beginning, so I wouldn't recommend it for social showings. If anything, fans of amazing cinematography will love it.

For Fans of: Drive, The Dark Knight, Bad Lieutenant, Taxi Driver, and the French Connection

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Underdog Rock

In a brilliant article on Pitchfork, Nitsuh Abebe compares the release of the Rock of Ages soundtrack with blog favorite Japandroids' Celebration Rock. The article poses the idea that Rock of Ages represents an era when rock and roll and pop music were symbiotic. Rock music was so epic and was the dominant sound of that period. It was important to the mainstream culture. People's voices were filtered through the distorted, rebellious sound. Unfortunately, the Rock of Ages soundtrack features those songs being butchered by the likes of Tom Cruise, Malin Akerman and Alec Baldwin. The Rock of Ages soundtrack acts as a piece of nostalgia to a period that has (let's face it) vanished.

Cut to Celebration Rock. The article points out that many of the same themes and postures are featured in both albums. Its drunk and dumb and laughingly shooting you a bird. It feels young and reckless. The weirdest thing of all: It feels foreign now. This is a rock and roll that almost seems too much, some sort of maximalism. A Frankenstein made up of pieces of Keith Moon, Richard Hell and the parts that Axl Rose had left over after plastic surgery. It also gives Japandroids credit in creating the feeling that rock and roll really means something.

Where did this change happen? When did the king lose its crown, presumably to hip-hop?

It's easy to look to the 80's. Most of the heavyweights of the blues rock blowout were either dead, too deep into new age or rocking synths. Rock had turned into Styx, REO Speedwagon and Foreigner. Power ballads became the craze of the decade, and that even creeped its head into metal, only to breed the true nadir of mainstream rock and roll: hair metal. With most of the memorable rock from that decade brewing in the underground no-wave and punk scenes or in leather clad metal bars, the mainstream was left with few choices that could break out of their niche. For every Guns and Roses, there were 5 Wingers.

In the 60s and 70s, rock and roll had an important social position. By the 80s, there wasn't much left for mainstream music to fight. Ages of excess normally produce art that follows. Sure Bruce Springsteen and the Clash are some of the exceptions to the rule, but their record sales were dwarfed by Poison and Motley Crue. Hip Hop was hungry, and rock and roll had grown fat and lame.

With one listen to any 80s Public Enemy album, the fire is apparent. This music was fighting back. The spirit that had been smoked away during the seventies had somehow found its way to the streets of New York's inner city. For the next decade, hip hop would continue to exponentially grow in popularity thanks to the feeling of danger and rebellion it gave to mainstream (ahem, white) America. That same feeling freaked parents the fuck out when it came in the form of tye dye, pot brownies and peace symbols.

Rock and roll's next stage, Grunge, didnt care about anything. That was kinda the point. While it sold many albums and created a blueprint for mainstream rock to come, the genre really stripped rock and roll of any social consciousness. It's an introverted style of music that shruggs off any notion that rock and roll could change anything. I guess there's no better way to strip a genre of its importance than to deny its existence.

You know the story now. Rock and Roll has continued to flounder throughout the late 90s into the 2000's. Occasionally a White Stripes or a Black Keys comes along and bucks the trend, but mainstream rock is now a shell off what it once was. Radio stations formatted for it are quickly turning to adding classic rock to buffer the shittiness. Nickleback is perhaps the most successful progeny of the current state of rock, but they are considered the butt of a national joke.

Of course rock music continued to mutate during this time, but all of those mutations strayed away from the bombastic flair that had come to define the rock and roll sound. Some went electronic. Some went abstract. Few wrote songs about the next girl you have sex with saving your life. Now we float in a sea of a million genres and subgenres of rock. To pin down, however, the most basic definition of rock and roll as we've known it for decades, we dont find it in the strip club of mainstream rock nor in the libraries of art rock. So when Japandroids makes me and Nitsuh feel like rock and roll, loud, screaming, drunken in the middle of the night, rock and roll is still alive, it feels foreign, but strangely innate. It feels like a passed down memory of a guitar burning past. If you concentrate, you can feel your blood alcohol rise just a bit. It's a cocktail of old emotions.

Face it. Rock and Roll is an underdog now. It claws for relevance. It craves attention. When bands like Japandroids can spark a little bit of belief in a jaded listener, a fire is sure to follow. Thanks for helping me believe that rock and roll can feel imporant and authentic again. Thanks for believing in the underdog.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Back from Bonnaroo

The rain had started to fall as Kenny Rogers belched "The Gambler" over the patchouli-scented jam of Trey Anastasio and his merry band of Vermountaineers(?). By the first day, the campgrounds already resemble a combination of post-apocalyptic stronghold circa Escape from New York and an immense trash dump. So on Sunday, the smell and sight of the numerous garbage had started to make itself known to even the highest concertgoer. I know that this introduction reads like its going to be an expose into the nastier side of Bonnaroo, but trust me, it isn't. The most interesting thing about the whole experience is how every single person that I encountered on the last day of Bonnaroo was content or even elated. This was after the music had ended, and persumably, most of the drugs.

Is it possible that Bonnaroo elicits such a happy and complete experience because we create joy in the epitome of grime, sweltering heat and bad trips?

When people tell their stories, they usually don't talk about how they threw up on the person in front of them at Snoop Dogg or how they had to miss Kings of Leon because they freaked out in a crowd. Those stories exist for almost everyone that goes, but they line the cupboard, only to be brought out if a contest of hardcore-ness breaks out. The stories you hear are always the same. It was a religious experience. It's paradise. You should have been there. YOU HAD TO BE THERE.

I want to make a case for the negative aspects of Bonnaroo. The sun that makes a home right over your skull is daunting. When it rains, everyone is happy for about ten minutes, until they realize they camped in a tent. Beers cost more than a six-pack. Using the bathroom is the roughest chore because I've constantly seen the world record broken of how much human waste can be piled up in one place. All of these factors are magnified by the fact that I am voluntarily paying to be there. But we persevere, and we thrive like Romans.

Only in the face of so much negativity can pleasure be so fulfilling and refreshing. Now I'm not saying that some of this pleasure isnt chemically enduced/enhanced, but to the temporary residents of Bonnaroo, that doesn't matter. The rush of endorphins one can get by drinking with friends and watching a great band is only amplified by the fact that only two hours ago, that person was hunched over in a chair running off of a cigarette and 2 hours of sleep. It's this drastic transition that allows for the high to take on a higher meaning. Surviving the inferno of daytime Bonnaroo presents a conflict that pushes our boundaries of comfort, so when we rise to occasion, our victory becomes memorable and in our microcosms, epic.

Most people never let the high stop. Whether they drink it away, let guitars sing it away or blast it to the moon with psychs, the negative only serve as small obstacles to a greater goal. With their power being dampened, the struggles of living outdoors merely serve as catalyst to reaching the summit of life experience.

So when everyone is smiling at the end of Bonnaroo, it's not just because we danced and tripped to the soundtracks of our lives; it's also because we survived the Everest of music festivals.

Sunday, March 11, 2012

5 Questions about the 2012 Men's NCAA Tournament

With only two days before the First Four, even the most casual sports fan will scramble to learn all the names of schools they never knew existed in any attempt to have an edge in the bracket. It doesn't matter if you've been glued to the tube ever since the ball first hit the ground at the Carrier Classic, the 63-year-old lady that works in accounting is going to whip you (and she just now learned that Duke wasn't in England). But Hey!, winners aren't afraid to lose, right? So here are 5 questions (and their answers, you lucky dog) that might be putting the full court press on your bracket picks.

1. Who are the safe picks?

Kentucky
- Most talent spread at all positions
- Number one overall seed
- Elite defense, Capable of playing at varied paces, Tallest team in NCAA

- Mostly underclassmen
- Only 7 players deep
- Tendency to disappear offensively for stretches

Syracuse
- Dominated by upperclassmen
- Zone defense can cause teams with weak shooting fits
- Strong bench with depth at all positions

- Won ugly in many Big East games
- No All-American caliber player
- Easily muscled

North Carolina
- Lots of tourney experience
- Excellent transition offense
- Best point guard/big man combo (Marshall/Zeller) in the country

- Weak against the 3
- If Harrison Barnes doesn't show, offense stagnates
- Susceptible to slow pace/half court offense

Michigan State
- Best collection of wins over the season
- Extremely physical and strong (especially in the paint)
- Draymond Green is a natural mismatch for almost any team

- Struggle to score higher than 70
- Perimeter offense can be weak
- Susceptible to foul trouble

2.Which teams are just swimming under the surface ready for attack?

Florida State
- Beat Duke and North Carolina twice
- Physical defense
- Multiple threats on the perimeter

- Lost to Harvard
- Live/Die by the 3
- Guards can be outmatched physically

Missouri
- Most efficient offense in the country
- Won Big 12 tourney
- 4 guards/1 big lineup can cause matchup hell

- Lack of Depth
- Lack of Size
- Depend on the 3

Ohio State
- Veteran team
- Jared Sullinger can dominate offensively
- Strong team defense

- Weaker shooting than last year
- Jared Sullinger can easily turn to "hero mode"
- Can be muscled in the paint

Baylor
- Immense talent in the frontcourt
- Seemed to wake up in Big 12 tournament
- Very strong starting lineup

- Inconsistant during the season
- Big men settle for jumpshots
- Trouble with quick, perimeter-oriented teams

3.Who will be this year's Butler or VCU?

Ultimately, I don't think that this year's tourney will feature a team that blows everyone out of the water. At least not a seed below 10. While these two teams are not from Power 6 conferences, they definitely have the potential to please the basketball gods.
It just so happens that these two teams played in the same conference: Mountain West. This conference was very competitive this year, getting 4 bids (the same as the SEC).

UNLV
- Beat North Carolina
- Historically strong basketball program
- 3rd in assists

- Rough last weeks of the season
- Mike Moser has to play well

New Mexico
- Drew Gordon is a beast, easily capable of 20/20 games
- 5 game win streak
- Frequently limit teams to under 60 points

- Heavily dependant on Gordon
- Lack of strong road wins
- Weak 3 point shooting

4.Oh COME ON! Humor us! Pick a cinderella!

If you're really pushing me, I'll give you two.

Although they are a Power 6 team, I think NC State could cause some havoc in the tourney. Coming in with a late season run, they barely snuck in with an 11 seed. They gave North Carolina a run for their money on Saturday, and they seem balanced on offense. Forward C.J. Leslie can really make a name for himself.

It may seem safe to pick VCU to make a run this year, since they did it last year, but their first round matchup is against a dark horse darling in Wichita State. Thats like the river in Oregon Trail, everyone wants to abandon the stagecoach. They play hectic defense that can kill teams' confidence in their offenses. Many of the players were on the team last year and won't feel like underdogs coming into this game. Wichita State is one of the most balanced teams in the tourney, so a win over that squad will put fear in the hearts of upcoming teams.

5. Who's gonna win it all?

It's very rare that the best team actually wins the championship, especially in the age of the mid-major. Combine that idea with the thrill of not making the safest pick (Kentucky) and I think Missouri will be standing during "One Shining Moment".

Project Productivity: Or How My Blog Came Back From The Beyond

In an attempt to mine some sort of use out of my journalism degree, I've decided that it's definitely for the best that I keep writing in the public sphere. Ultimately, readers decide who is a successful journalist, and to get to that point, I'm going to need plenty of obnoxious commentors and the occasional shower of glowing praise (right,right?).

So the blog will continue in the same fashion. There might be a larger sports presence, but I assure that as soon as basketball is over, this will shrink mightily.

Anyways, It's good to be back.

Drew Daniel