There are a lot of bad football teams out there as well as good ones with some problems, but it does make for some interesting and meaningful games to the very end. Week 16 was no different, though there was the usual ... Pats won (scored early, let Miami score once, didn't run up score), Jets lost (another game underlining they have a credible defense ... in a game the Titans had to win, the Jets lost 10-6 ... a blocked extra point and interception on third and goal (they gave up a field goal after a penalty opened up the shot for more) being the difference ... and the Falcons, Oakland an the Rams also showed why they have sucky records.
But, even after losing a key game in part because their veteran coach didn't realize you couldn't call back to back time outs (pushing a game winning field goal much closer), the Redskins beat the Vikings, meaning they in fact have a good shot at the playoffs. SF lost because Tampa Bay, in a game that mattered for positioning, couldn't get a late two point conversion. The Bengals, off nineteen second quarter points (thirteen on turnovers with about a minute left), threatened the Browns playoff shot, gaining some revenge for a game they lost by something like 50-45. The Giants, as noted, won, but were down 14-0 early, blew a shot to score at the goal line, and fumbled at the Bills 10. Rain and snow added to the fun. But, the Bills are suspect too, and gave some early Xmas gifts to the Giants' defense.
All in all, pretty fun, with next week having meaningful games too, including a couple playoff spots, a perfect record, and some positioning. BTW, I also mentioned that I got the audio for The Trial. I have listened to about ninety minutes and do not like early plot developments. It starts well with Joseph K. waking up to find out he is arrested, which the strangers who accost him (taking his breakfast, suggesting they give up his clothes, but later letting him go without incident so it's a good thing he didn't, etc.) and fail to tell him why exactly he is in trouble. Not that he should worry too much about it for now, mind you. Good beginning. But, then he suddenly -- rather too soon -- goes a bit off the edge. He acts strangely to his landlady and a lady tenant at his building.
And then, he rants at his first (apparently) official hearing, after they seem to think he is someone else. In fact, K. acts strangely beforehand. He is sent to a building for a hearing, it looks very strange, but for some reason he doesn't want to ask where to go. So he sets up this subterfuge of looking for some carpenter so that he can get a look inside the various rooms. Why exactly K. does something this stupid is unclear at this point. Likewise, since K. has already acted strangely, it hurts the flow of the plot. If someone ranted like this (and he does rant, including suggesting an official was giving signals to the crowd), it is totally natural for authorities to find him suspicious and not quite take him totally seriously. It is very well possible that there could be a mistake, a possibility they wanted some other guy, and a rational person would -- once at the hearing -- try to determine as much.
Pardon me for criticizing a classic, but it seems to me that it would be better if he was a bit more rational early on, find out that it doesn't really get him anyway, and thus slowly he goes mad at the absurdity of it all. Or, if the idea is that he eventually accepts absurdity as rational or at least the norm that one should just accept the best one can, that too does not require him to lash out in this fashion so early in the proceedings. But, in a 7.5 hour performance, again the narrator is quite good, K. is also almost halfway there by the 1.5 hour mark. It is like someone, before they even set foot in jail, ranting at a preliminary hearing after a somewhat upsetting experience with the police one morning at their apartment ... an experience stressful surely, but over early enough that you can still go to work.
On the DVD front, I checked out the special features for The Notebook. I really enjoyed this movie, even if it the plot is something of a corny "chick flick," but those things can be good if done right. I also enjoyed A Walk To Remember, as well as both books that the movies were based on [I listened to the audiobooks]. I did not listen to the whole commentary, especially since there are in fact two -- the director and the writer of the original book with an editor adding remarks for the "deleted scenes" feature. Both are interesting in their own fashion, the writer somewhat more pleasant of a listen. And, we learn some interesting things, like that the book in fact was sorta based on way the author's wives' grandparents met; the author meeting them when they were old and ailing long time lovers.
The movie is a must see because of the young leads (Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams, the latter having less chance to shine over recent years than the former) -- as my movie review book notes, they show the heat of young love without cynicism or "ironic distance." Hmm ... that sounds nice, but do you quite know what it means? If it means the characters play it direct and from the heart, sure, that works. James Garner and Gena Rowlands (in several of the director's dad's films) are no slouches either, but those two make the movie. As usual, it is important to have some good support, including the woman RG is with after WWII before the love of his life comes back. The actress, who apparently never did a film before, is very good in a small role. Anyway, good film.
Have a happy holiday ... the music for the morning -- Jane Monheit's Christmas album, "The Season."