Jon Irvine

So I’ve stayed away from this movie because I’m guilty of juding a book by its cover, or, in this case, a movie by its misleading poster design.  Yes, it’s my responsibility to stay up on who’s directing who, and what DP is hot or not, but sometimes I let the movie poster guide my interest because it’s what I see on the computer, my iphone, and most importantly, my AppleTV (the source of most of my trailer watching). 

So here’s what’s wrong with it:  The Brothers Bloom is a well-written, beautifully-shot film with a fun yet sophisticated storyline filled with witty charm.  The setting is brilliant—characters with a classic appeal (circa early 1900’s) juxtaposed by modern day surroundings.  The poster says otherwise.  Despite the double Oscar winning all-star cast, the poster says this is the sequel to The Transporter II.  I’m not sure what focus group steered the marketing team of this film, but they were way off. Movie posters should say something about the film.  They shouldn’t just look cinematic, they should be accurate to the genre and the audience they represent.  This poster was anything but classy and unworthy of a quality film such as The Brothers Bloom.  Here are some suggestions:

• I imagine a film like this would have a poster with more of an literary feel, perhaps something utilizing some of the more “classic” elements such as the modes of transportation they use or the historic backdrops they travel to. 
  
• Lose the all caps grunge look and go with a classy, old-world serif typeface.
  
• If you’re going to play off of the explosion thing, make it a subtle design element, not something overpowering.
  

Posted via email from Jon Irvine:  | Comment »

I feel your pain Mike, here’s my technofail: 

A couple months ago I got a PayPal debit card which suddenly put this “rolling reserve” on my account of $50 so in case I used the card beyond my accounts availability, the financial behemoth PayPal would be fine and still able to still feed their children (the equivalent of CEO’s big bonuses and exotic trips to the links).  This is my money they hold for 90 days—not credit, not for a couple days, and that’s not all, it gets worse.  Recently, I had a larger sum of money come in through PayPal.  For some reason, they upped the reserve from $50 to over $280 dollars.  According to PayPal, I should have no worries because all money will be released by Feb 2010.  Ha!  I was on the phone for hours speaking to foreigners who eventually and I’m sure accidentally disconnected me during a transfer to their supervisor.  I have yet to attempt that process again.  But the fact remains that while they hold MY money for 90 days, they get to do whatever they want with it, including making tons and tons of interest.  Doesn’t this seem illegal and, at the very least, the best way to lose half of their user base?  The amazing thing is they can’t lose this angry user for 90 days.  When I asked them to simply close my account and send me a check for the remaining balance, they said they couldn’t because there was still money in the account (the rolling reserve).  Well I said, “Why do you need a rolling reserve if the account is dead and not being used.?”  Of course, no logical answer is returned, just the textbook script customer service is paid to regurgitate. But isn’t that just amazing?  PayPal has figured out a way to connive a fifth of all paypal transactions as a means to “protect” themselves but really they’re just using it as a way to hoard their own money it a time of global financial distress. On top of that, their users can’t close their accounts if they wanted to!

So here’s to you, PayPal, I hope this is the beginning of the end for you.  P.S. I always thought your interface sucked and was confusing and unintuitive to use. So what can we do?

• If someone knows a workaround for this, please let me know.  I think I have one but am afraid to do it.
• Do you have your own horror story with PayPal? Twitter it with the hashtag #paypalsucks
• If enough people complain, the voices will be heard and PayPal will lose the monopoly to Google Checkout (a much better service if you ask me) or the many other services out there.
  

Posted via email from Jon Irvine:  | Comment »

Posted via web from Jon Irvine:  | Comment »

Posted via web from Jon Irvine:  | Comment »

So I just finished Season 1 of Dexter.  And let me start by saying that despite the following critique, I’m lumping myself with the many fans of this show and will surely be adding Season 2 to my queue (now in direct NetFlix competition with Battlestar Gallactica). Nonetheless, as the final credits were rolling after the twelfth and final episode of Season 1, I found myself it a bit of philosophical and ethical dilemma. Let me explain.

On one hand, Dexter is unequivocally the hero, the protagonist, or however one might describe the “good” guy, that also just so happens to be a serial killer.  He lives by what he calls Harry’s “code,” a system of ethics taught to him by his foster father who could see that the only thing that would keep his son out of an electric chair was teaching him to direct his murderous disposition towards the “bad” guys of this world.  On top of his higher ground code, Dexter certainly has a charm and seemingly good heart for those in his personal life.  He also helps bring many “bad” guys to justice in his professional life and spare time.  Did I mention he’s really good looking?  So what’s not to like about Dexter… besides that he chops people into a dozen pieces if they violate his personal view of justice? Well here’s my tension:  beyond the obvious and purposeful irony of this character and plot, there’s something else going on here that I think is vastly more subtle.  I think no matter what side of the spectrum one finds themselves on when it comes to violence, there’s an intuitive sense of what I’ll call “survival” ethics that comes into question here.  Part of what Dexter’s dad, Harry, taught him was that he needed to learn how to kill justly so he wouldn’t simply kill irrationally and recklessly.  Essentially, if he didn’t do this, then Dexter wouldn’t live a long and fruitful life—the wishes of any loving parent right?  For Dexter, it’s a question of survival.  This is much like the situation for Robin Hood or George W. who found themselves asking a similar question, “Can we twist our moral code if it means our people will survive?”  And while I know (and hope) many will jump on this post from either side of this issue, at the end of the day, the show is a huge hit among pacifists and warmongers alike. 

For 54 mins, we can lay aside our own “codes” and empathize with Dexter and engage in his story on a very human level.  Otherwise, the show would not be popular and would not be so widely received.  So what does this say about our view of a survival ethic?  Is there an intuitive sense of justice that we all share on a very ambiguous yet universal level?  Robin Hood is a hero to us all and according to Nielsen, so is Dexter Morgan (unfortunately for this blog post good ole Georgie boy isn’t fitting into the analogy).  But I think it’s bigger than a suspension of disbelief here folks.  Even as one who would call himself a pacifist, I know I might sing a different song if my son and daughter’s lives were at stake.  My idealism is not so strong as to let my children’s fate rest in the hands of mere ideas. And so here is where I find answer to the conundrum within the very life of this fictional life of Dexter.  This so-called code that he lives by is a metaphor and perhaps satire on our modern system of ethics.  We all have our caveats and footnotes to the great stone tablets we’ve decided or have been indoctrinated to carry in our life.  It just so happens that Dexter’s involves a much more provocative and shocking act of violence; one that few could stomach.  But even his own code does not save him.  He still wrestles with his identity and his inability to have a “normal” life, even with people he loves. 

I think this is the place where we find a similar resonance with our own religious and societal codes.  They’re not perfect and they’re never able to bring us the perfect utopia we seek for.  Like the writers of Dexter so brilliantly convey in his character, the most difficult times in our life are when our codes, our identity, or our disciplines fail us and leave us OUT of control.  And so we must fall back on something more universal and perhaps more intuitive.  We must let our idealism be what it is and find freedom in being honest enough with ourselves to know there’s no perfect code out there.  When we reach this place of flexibility, we realize that we can enjoy a show like Dexter and not feel as if this piece of fiction threatens our moral fiber.  Again, not endorsing murder itself but appreciating Dexter as the lovable antihero that he is… and maybe in real life, to find love for those—like him—whose way of life I don’t understand, even G.W.

Posted via email from Jon Irvine:  | Comment »

Posted via email from Jon Irvine:  | Comment »

Posted via web from Jon Irvine:  | Comment »