I'm not sure what to make of this story.
It's not so much of a story as a "thing that makes you go, hmm," kind of thing, but it's piqued my curiosity, to say the least.
In the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal at Penn State, reports came out last week of former District Attorney Ray Gricar, who had investigated and considered prosecuting Sandusky in 1998. He ultimately chose not to prosecute Sandusky for reasons unknown (which is also curious, but I'll talk more about that in a little bit), but Gricar's story as a whole is a peculiar twist to this entire scandal.
Before I talk about Gricar himself, there's a small backstory involving his brother Roy. In 1996, Roy Gricar disappeared. His car was found, and several days later his body was found by a river, roughly a mile away from where his car was found. His cause of death was ultimately ruled suicide.
Two years later, Ray Gricar was working on the Jerry Sandusky case, and he helped the local police set up a sting operation where they had brought in a mother of one of Sandusky's alleged victims. The mother had a phone conversation with Sandusky, with the police and Gricar listening in on the conversation, unbeknownst to Sandusky. During the phone call, the mother essentially got Sandusky to confess to having molested her son, which would normally form a rock-solid foundation of a case against Sandusky.
Except Gricar didn't press charges. He dropped the case instead for reasons known only to him.
In 2005, Ray Gricar's story came to a mysterious head. He called his girlfriend one day in April, saying he was going out shopping for the day and that he'd be home later.
Ray Gricar never came home.
Police found his Mini Cooper near an antique store with cigarette ashes inside the car. Gricar never smoked, so the source of the ashes remained a mystery to this day. Gricar's laptop was also missing, and two months later it was discovered under a bridge in the river, but the hard drive was missing from the computer. Then in September the hard drive was also found in the river, roughly a half mile from where Gricar's Mini Cooper was parked. Water damage had ruined the hard drive, so any information stored on there was long destroyed.
Later on, investigators had the chance to look at Gricar's home computer, and what was found on there was even more intriguing: Gricar had been Googling methods on how to destroy a computer's hard drive.
Let's review what we've got here: We've got a district attorney who had previously investigated Jerry Sandusky, and nearly built a case against him whose body was never found after he had disappeared. We've got a DA's brother with a long history of mental illness who turned up dead in a river in Ohio. We've got a DA who disappeared in a similar method to his own brother, and his belongings were mysteriously found in a river as well (though not the same river as where his brother was found). We've also got this DA researching ways to destroy whatever contents were on his laptop's hard drive, though there's nothing to suggest that the hard drive had contained anything related to Sandusky.
I'm not one who normally subscribes to conspiracy theories, but I am fascinated by them nonetheless. Connect the dots on Ray Gricar to Jerry Sandusky, and you've got a great start to a conspiracy theory for sure. And the amazing thing is, Gricar isn't the only strange case surrounding Sandusky. There's also a janitor who had been working the grounds on Penn State in 2000 - two years before Mike McQueary had spotted Sandusky in the shower with a boy - and had seen Sandusky with a young boy in a shower together. The janitor immediately reported what he had seen to his manager, and other coworkers as well.
Why wasn't this case followed up by the police? Because the witness went nuts and ultimately was diagnosed with dementia. He's now in a mental institution and under medical care 24 hours a day.
Like I said at the beginning, I'm not sure what to make of all this. But the peculiar occurrences surrounding witnesses and people investigating Jerry Sandusky sound like what happens to informants in movie thrillers. None of these details pass the smell test, but this entire scandal has me thinking of a minor line in a movie I had seen, after he had counted up the number of suspects in a case: "Five people make a conspiracy, right?"
So far, we've got Sandusky, Graham Spanier, Tim Curley, Gary Schultz, and Mike McQueary. That's five people right there, and I didn't even bother counting McQueary's father, Ray Gricar, the janitor who had spotted Sandusky in 2000, or Joe Paterno.
I'll still bet money that there are more details to discover as this case eventually goes to trial.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
The Sum of All Evils
Every now and then, I come across a story that involves a prominent public figure being accused of and/or charged with sexual misconduct. They can range from the amusing (e.g. Larry Craig or Anthony Weiner), to the embarrassing (Rick Pitino or Marv Albert), to the disturbing (John Edwards). The latest public case that came out over the weekend somehow managed to transcend all three categories and went right to angering.
Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was indicted by a local grand jury for a long history of sexual abuse of children. As sickening as that was, there was so much more that made me furious. For starters, all the children abused were young boys, typically between 8 and 12 years old. Sandusky allegedly took showers with at least some of the boys, molesting them in the process (Sandusky is 71 years old now).
But wait; it gets worse.
Sandusky met these children from his charity called The Second Mile, which provides aid to underprivileged children through interaction, athletics, and academics. Sandusky had helped found the charity in 1977, and it's a great cause in the local community. So it only further sickens the idea that he would use his own charity as a venue to undermine the entire purpose of the organization.
Oh, but that's not even the half of it.
Sandusky's allegations go as far back as 1996. That's not a misprint; they go as far back as 15 years ago. There are over 40 counts of various misconducts on his part during that time.
But there's even more to this story.
In 2002, a Penn State grad student found Sandusky in a shower room with a young boy. The grad student reported the incident to Joe Paterno, who then informed the athletic director. From there the details are a bit hazy, but a grand jury was formed to investigate the matter. Allegedly, the athletic director and vice president for business and finance for the university both ordered Sandusky to keep his business off the Penn State campus. In essence, they chose to cover up the story instead of contacting the police.
Now the athletic director has taken a leave of absence, and the VP of business and finance has retired. Both men are facing perjury charges for denying the story to the police in 2002, and the entire university's reputation has been tarnished, to say the least (not to mention Second Mile's).
My God, I don't know where to start with this.
It's amazing that grown adults will abuse their positions and connections to serve their own perverse desires. I'm disgusted at the irony of a non-profit organization like Second Mile being a feeding ground for Sandusky. It's really no different than Catholic priests who have abused altar boys behind closed doors.
Then there's the fact that this behavior had been going on for a full fifteen years before any actions were taken on the law's part. There are other reports that showed Sandusky was allegedly caught in the act as far back as 1998. How in the world did anyone in the police department take so long to finally make a move on this guy? Predators like him manage to ruin life after life while running around freely.
Perhaps what's worse of all was the actions (or rather, inactions) taken by Penn State's administration. The choice to cover up the case made everyone look guilty, even parties such as Paterno who likely had done no wrong at all. Their lack of condemnation was essentially a pass given to Sandusky to continue his actions, as long as they weren't conducted on Penn State grounds.
This was one of those cases where a wrong was committed, and another wrong was done to cover up that wrong, and a third wrong was done to cover up the previous one. It's the worst of all worlds. Individually, each sin by itself was reprehensible, but piling each crime on top of one another brought the sum to be greater than the individual parts.
There's another tragic irony to this story. The media tends to protect the identities of the victims here, out of respect to their dignity. It's a generally accepted tactic on their part, and I understand why they do that. However, by not putting names or faces to the victims, all the general public gets to see is the damage done to Penn State and The Second Mile as organizations. We don't get to see the real fruits of the hurt and pain caused by Sandusky over such a long period of time. The true evil nature of these crimes isn't ever fully realized by the public because we don't get to see the actual victims. Maybe it's better that way though, because otherwise we as a society would become desensitized to truly evil people like Jerry Sandusky.
Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was indicted by a local grand jury for a long history of sexual abuse of children. As sickening as that was, there was so much more that made me furious. For starters, all the children abused were young boys, typically between 8 and 12 years old. Sandusky allegedly took showers with at least some of the boys, molesting them in the process (Sandusky is 71 years old now).
But wait; it gets worse.
Sandusky met these children from his charity called The Second Mile, which provides aid to underprivileged children through interaction, athletics, and academics. Sandusky had helped found the charity in 1977, and it's a great cause in the local community. So it only further sickens the idea that he would use his own charity as a venue to undermine the entire purpose of the organization.
Oh, but that's not even the half of it.
Sandusky's allegations go as far back as 1996. That's not a misprint; they go as far back as 15 years ago. There are over 40 counts of various misconducts on his part during that time.
But there's even more to this story.
In 2002, a Penn State grad student found Sandusky in a shower room with a young boy. The grad student reported the incident to Joe Paterno, who then informed the athletic director. From there the details are a bit hazy, but a grand jury was formed to investigate the matter. Allegedly, the athletic director and vice president for business and finance for the university both ordered Sandusky to keep his business off the Penn State campus. In essence, they chose to cover up the story instead of contacting the police.
Now the athletic director has taken a leave of absence, and the VP of business and finance has retired. Both men are facing perjury charges for denying the story to the police in 2002, and the entire university's reputation has been tarnished, to say the least (not to mention Second Mile's).
My God, I don't know where to start with this.
It's amazing that grown adults will abuse their positions and connections to serve their own perverse desires. I'm disgusted at the irony of a non-profit organization like Second Mile being a feeding ground for Sandusky. It's really no different than Catholic priests who have abused altar boys behind closed doors.
Then there's the fact that this behavior had been going on for a full fifteen years before any actions were taken on the law's part. There are other reports that showed Sandusky was allegedly caught in the act as far back as 1998. How in the world did anyone in the police department take so long to finally make a move on this guy? Predators like him manage to ruin life after life while running around freely.
Perhaps what's worse of all was the actions (or rather, inactions) taken by Penn State's administration. The choice to cover up the case made everyone look guilty, even parties such as Paterno who likely had done no wrong at all. Their lack of condemnation was essentially a pass given to Sandusky to continue his actions, as long as they weren't conducted on Penn State grounds.
This was one of those cases where a wrong was committed, and another wrong was done to cover up that wrong, and a third wrong was done to cover up the previous one. It's the worst of all worlds. Individually, each sin by itself was reprehensible, but piling each crime on top of one another brought the sum to be greater than the individual parts.
There's another tragic irony to this story. The media tends to protect the identities of the victims here, out of respect to their dignity. It's a generally accepted tactic on their part, and I understand why they do that. However, by not putting names or faces to the victims, all the general public gets to see is the damage done to Penn State and The Second Mile as organizations. We don't get to see the real fruits of the hurt and pain caused by Sandusky over such a long period of time. The true evil nature of these crimes isn't ever fully realized by the public because we don't get to see the actual victims. Maybe it's better that way though, because otherwise we as a society would become desensitized to truly evil people like Jerry Sandusky.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Unplugged
One of my tasks on my list was to be unplugged for an entire weekend. When I had come up with the idea, it sounded refreshing. I could turn off the world for a couple days and relax. I'd go off somewhere for a getaway, leave my phone at home, and not concern myself with news updates, phone calls, or - GASP! - sports scores.
Then came last night.
I was in my room, minding my own business, completely content. My cell phone was charging on my nightstand next to my bed. I looked over and noticed the screen was completely black, so I pressed the unlock button to mess around with the Facebook application.
And nothing happened.
I pressed it a couple more times, figuring it was being stubborn. Still nothing. I couldn't even turn it off. I unplugged the phone from the charge cord and plugged it back in. I was getting annoyed. Finally I opened up the back piece of the phone to remove the battery. I placed it back in and turned the phone on. The screen lit up for a moment, but it was still black.
My phone had become a paperweight.
The best part was that because it was still turned on, it would beep when someone would text or call me. I just couldn't read any texts or answer any calls. My phone sat there, laughing at me every time the text beep sounded off.
I went to Verizon during lunch today, hoping they'd be able to fix the problem. The best option was to replace the phone, so I'm getting a new phone Monday. I'll be unplugged all weekend, unable to send or receive any texts or phone calls. I updated my Facebook status to let my close friends and family know I'll be incognito for a couple days, but there are always some people who don't get those messages.
This was not my idea when I thought about unplugging myself for a weekend.
I have to say I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about how dependent I am on staying plugged in. I'm so used to being able to check Facebook, run my fantasy teams, IM, text, and - oh yeah - call people at will. I feel lost right now, not being able to call any friends up just to set up plans for the weekend or anything. If I'm running late, how will I be able to let anyone know?
Before you say, "This is only for three days, you knucklehead. Build yourself a bridge and get over it," I am fully aware this is a really short period of time. I'm sure others have been able to survive much longer periods without such advantages. Hell, society as a whole did okay without cell phones until about 15 years ago (which kinda makes me wonder just how on earth we got by before cell phones became commonplace).
Still, I dare anyone who reads this to actually consider just how much you use your phone. I'm sure there are at least a few readers who are nodding while reading this, thinking, "Oh yeah - I would be royally pooch screwed if I didn't have my phone for an entire weekend!" If you can honestly say you would be just dandy without your phone for a couple days, I commend you.
I guess this could count as being unplugged for a weekend, but it sure isn't how I planned on doing it.
Then came last night.
I was in my room, minding my own business, completely content. My cell phone was charging on my nightstand next to my bed. I looked over and noticed the screen was completely black, so I pressed the unlock button to mess around with the Facebook application.
And nothing happened.
I pressed it a couple more times, figuring it was being stubborn. Still nothing. I couldn't even turn it off. I unplugged the phone from the charge cord and plugged it back in. I was getting annoyed. Finally I opened up the back piece of the phone to remove the battery. I placed it back in and turned the phone on. The screen lit up for a moment, but it was still black.
My phone had become a paperweight.
The best part was that because it was still turned on, it would beep when someone would text or call me. I just couldn't read any texts or answer any calls. My phone sat there, laughing at me every time the text beep sounded off.
I went to Verizon during lunch today, hoping they'd be able to fix the problem. The best option was to replace the phone, so I'm getting a new phone Monday. I'll be unplugged all weekend, unable to send or receive any texts or phone calls. I updated my Facebook status to let my close friends and family know I'll be incognito for a couple days, but there are always some people who don't get those messages.
This was not my idea when I thought about unplugging myself for a weekend.
I have to say I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about how dependent I am on staying plugged in. I'm so used to being able to check Facebook, run my fantasy teams, IM, text, and - oh yeah - call people at will. I feel lost right now, not being able to call any friends up just to set up plans for the weekend or anything. If I'm running late, how will I be able to let anyone know?
Before you say, "This is only for three days, you knucklehead. Build yourself a bridge and get over it," I am fully aware this is a really short period of time. I'm sure others have been able to survive much longer periods without such advantages. Hell, society as a whole did okay without cell phones until about 15 years ago (which kinda makes me wonder just how on earth we got by before cell phones became commonplace).
Still, I dare anyone who reads this to actually consider just how much you use your phone. I'm sure there are at least a few readers who are nodding while reading this, thinking, "Oh yeah - I would be royally pooch screwed if I didn't have my phone for an entire weekend!" If you can honestly say you would be just dandy without your phone for a couple days, I commend you.
I guess this could count as being unplugged for a weekend, but it sure isn't how I planned on doing it.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
I Was Better Off Leaving My Car Being Registered in Virginia
I'd forgotten how much Maryland loooooooooves to tax the feces out of its residents. I went to the DMV yesterday to transfer my car's registration from Virginia to Maryland (and yesterday was the last day of my current registration), and about the only compliment that I can pay was that my situation was handled very quickly. I'm used to having to wait an hour or more in line for my matters to be resolved there, but I only had to wait about 10 minutes before my number was called.
So far, so good.
The teller typed my info to register my car in Maryland, and I had all the necessary documents to register it. She did her thing, and then told me my total: $730 and change.
I nearly fainted.
Somehow I managed to ask how in the world my total was that high, and she explained there's some kind of excise tax from Virginia for leaving the state, as well as taxes to pay for my car to register it in Maryland. Nothing like paying sales tax twice for the same car. I handed over my Visa card to pay for everything, and then she hit me with another zinger: My registration is only good for 30 days, so I have to get my car's emissions tested and come back to fork over another $180 to pay for my full registration in my car.
Remind me again why I switched my registration over?
So far, so good.
The teller typed my info to register my car in Maryland, and I had all the necessary documents to register it. She did her thing, and then told me my total: $730 and change.
I nearly fainted.
Somehow I managed to ask how in the world my total was that high, and she explained there's some kind of excise tax from Virginia for leaving the state, as well as taxes to pay for my car to register it in Maryland. Nothing like paying sales tax twice for the same car. I handed over my Visa card to pay for everything, and then she hit me with another zinger: My registration is only good for 30 days, so I have to get my car's emissions tested and come back to fork over another $180 to pay for my full registration in my car.
Remind me again why I switched my registration over?
Thursday, October 13, 2011
The Blind Leading the Blind Leaves Everyone in the Dark
Earlier today, one of my former co-workers posted a picture on Facebook declaring her support for Obama's re-election next year. The picture is of the back of Obama's head, with the caption "I've got his back" across the top. My former co-worker also added her own caption under it, saying, "It takes MORE than 4 years to CLEAN UP what someone messed up over 8 [years]!"
I don't normally like involving myself in political debates, mostly because both sides get so heated about their respective viewpoints. In this case, I had to jump in, and below are direct copies of my comment, followed by my former co-worker's response:
Me: "I humbly disagree. This country is, in my opinion, in worse shape than when Obama first took office. The deficit is worse, unemployment is higher, and the housing market is still in the toilet (if not worse as well). Mitt Romney is my guy next year, but if Herman Cain gets the nomination I would happily vote for him too."
Her: "Not to pull the race card, cause I NEVER do, but he was NEVER given a fair chance, by the House or Senate...yet they let Bush run this country into the ground!!!
I don't follow politics enough to argue much, but from what I've taken notice of....its a race game, and in America "we" never win:)"
Her response flat-out angered me for several reasons. In the interests of not turning things into an ugly argument via Facebook comments, I chose not to post anything else, so instead I'm going to talk about it here. First, I was dismayed at how she completely ignored the facts that I had laid out in my comment. She had nothing to say about the overall state of the economy, including unemployment, the federal debt, or Obama's politics. She even openly admitted she's fairly ignorant of politics, so I don't understand how she could arbitrarily support Obama when she doesn't even know what he's trying to do (actually, I do have a theory about why she supports him, but that's for later). Still, if she was going to post something on Facebook openly showing her support for Obama, how could she not be prepared for someone to disagree with her and/or Obama, if not openly challenge her? If I were to put something on Facebook showing which presidential candidate I supported, I'd definitely be prepared for some blowback from the other side.
Second, it's completely inaccurate to simply state Obama wasn't given a "fair chance." He's a Democratic President, and for the first two years of his term Congress was controlled by the Democrats on both sides. It's downright idiotic to make a claim like that given the reality of the situation. In fact, such a failure shows a real lack of organization among the Democrats as a party if they couldn't get together collectively and follow a single direction. If a Democratic President working with a Democratic-controlled Congress for two years isn't a "fair chance," then I don't know what is.
Third - and this really encompasses the previous two issues I took with her comment - such a comment reflects what is the lowest common denominator among Democratic voters. She made no secret that the fact that Obama was black was the deciding factor for her to support him. Let me also reiterate that she had openly admitted she didn't know much about politics or the political machine as a whole, but she still chose to support him because he's black. Friends, there's a word for that kind of behavior, and that word is racism. Choosing to vote for a candidate because he's black is no different - and no better - than choosing to vote against a candidate because he's black. How is such a view going to improve our country?
I like to keep an open mind, especially about something like politics. I've long considered myself a moderate conservative, and I have several close friends who are hard liberals. We discuss our different views and more often than not disagree on them. And that's fine. We raise our beer glasses, say cheers, and take a drink afterwards. I think it's healthy to be able to debate in a friendly manner like that. What angers me is people like my former co-worker who blindly follow a candidate without really knowing what the candidate's views and values are. People like that actually do a disservice to the rest of the country by not being informed and actually knowing what they're getting themselves into.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to use this post as an anti-Obama opportunity. I may not agree with him, and I certainly won't be voting for him next year. If anyone reads this post and can comment with an educated, well-constructed argument, I'd love to hear from you (and that's a genuine offer). But if all you have to say is Obama needs a "fair chance" and that it was racism that kept him from achieving his goals during his first term in office, I'm going to shake my head in disgust.
I don't normally like involving myself in political debates, mostly because both sides get so heated about their respective viewpoints. In this case, I had to jump in, and below are direct copies of my comment, followed by my former co-worker's response:
Me: "I humbly disagree. This country is, in my opinion, in worse shape than when Obama first took office. The deficit is worse, unemployment is higher, and the housing market is still in the toilet (if not worse as well). Mitt Romney is my guy next year, but if Herman Cain gets the nomination I would happily vote for him too."
Her: "Not to pull the race card, cause I NEVER do, but he was NEVER given a fair chance, by the House or Senate...yet they let Bush run this country into the ground!!!
I don't follow politics enough to argue much, but from what I've taken notice of....its a race game, and in America "we" never win:)"
Her response flat-out angered me for several reasons. In the interests of not turning things into an ugly argument via Facebook comments, I chose not to post anything else, so instead I'm going to talk about it here. First, I was dismayed at how she completely ignored the facts that I had laid out in my comment. She had nothing to say about the overall state of the economy, including unemployment, the federal debt, or Obama's politics. She even openly admitted she's fairly ignorant of politics, so I don't understand how she could arbitrarily support Obama when she doesn't even know what he's trying to do (actually, I do have a theory about why she supports him, but that's for later). Still, if she was going to post something on Facebook openly showing her support for Obama, how could she not be prepared for someone to disagree with her and/or Obama, if not openly challenge her? If I were to put something on Facebook showing which presidential candidate I supported, I'd definitely be prepared for some blowback from the other side.
Second, it's completely inaccurate to simply state Obama wasn't given a "fair chance." He's a Democratic President, and for the first two years of his term Congress was controlled by the Democrats on both sides. It's downright idiotic to make a claim like that given the reality of the situation. In fact, such a failure shows a real lack of organization among the Democrats as a party if they couldn't get together collectively and follow a single direction. If a Democratic President working with a Democratic-controlled Congress for two years isn't a "fair chance," then I don't know what is.
Third - and this really encompasses the previous two issues I took with her comment - such a comment reflects what is the lowest common denominator among Democratic voters. She made no secret that the fact that Obama was black was the deciding factor for her to support him. Let me also reiterate that she had openly admitted she didn't know much about politics or the political machine as a whole, but she still chose to support him because he's black. Friends, there's a word for that kind of behavior, and that word is racism. Choosing to vote for a candidate because he's black is no different - and no better - than choosing to vote against a candidate because he's black. How is such a view going to improve our country?
I like to keep an open mind, especially about something like politics. I've long considered myself a moderate conservative, and I have several close friends who are hard liberals. We discuss our different views and more often than not disagree on them. And that's fine. We raise our beer glasses, say cheers, and take a drink afterwards. I think it's healthy to be able to debate in a friendly manner like that. What angers me is people like my former co-worker who blindly follow a candidate without really knowing what the candidate's views and values are. People like that actually do a disservice to the rest of the country by not being informed and actually knowing what they're getting themselves into.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to use this post as an anti-Obama opportunity. I may not agree with him, and I certainly won't be voting for him next year. If anyone reads this post and can comment with an educated, well-constructed argument, I'd love to hear from you (and that's a genuine offer). But if all you have to say is Obama needs a "fair chance" and that it was racism that kept him from achieving his goals during his first term in office, I'm going to shake my head in disgust.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Review: American Horror Story
I've been thinking of using my blog as a venue for posting reviews of movies and TV series for a while now. The main reason I haven't done it is because I haven't seen a film worth posting a review about in a while - honestly, what kinds of thoughts could I say about Transformers: Dark of the Moon that could either encourage or discourage anyone from seeing it? And what sort of debate could come from that? Now if I see The Ides of March in the next couple weeks that could change things, but that's a different story for another time.
Back to my point: Here is my review for the premiere episode of the new series American Horror Story. It's from Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, the team behind Nip/Tuck and Glee. Having those three series compiled on a resume is like combining Frosted Flakes, steak, and asparagus all into one meal. Talk about radically different genres.
The series opens in 1978, where adolescent twin boys in Los Angeles take their Louisville sluggers into an old mansion for a game of wrecking ball. A young girl with Down syndrome watches them, ominously warning them if they enter the house they'll die in there. I won't give away much else of what happens in the teaser, except to say they ignore her warning and things don't end pretty for them.
Fast forward to present day. Vivien Harmon (Connie Britton) is dealing with a miscarriage of her baby and also discusses her husband Ben (Dylan McDermott) having an affair in the aftermath of everything with her doctor. This is the entire setup for the series, since Ben and Vivien take their teenage daughter Violet across country to start things over as a family. They hunt for a new house in Los Angeles, and wouldn't you know the very same mansion from the opening teaser is the same house they purchase for themselves?
It doesn't take long for Ben and Vivien to meet some of the locals, including Jessica Lange as the eccentric Southern mother of the Down syndrome girl from the teaser. I think the last time I saw an actress chew scenery as much as Lange did in her role as Constance was - oddly enough - Jessica Lange in a terrible, terrible movie from the late 90s called Hush. I'm not sure exactly where the character's eccentric nature ends and Lange's overacting begins, but the line is clearly blurred considering this is Ryan Murphy at work here.
Then weird stuff starts to happen. Ben and Vivien find some bondage outfits belonging to the previous owners (who, by the way, were both killed in a murder-suicide) in the attic; a mysterious man with burn scars covering half his face approaches Ben, warning him about the house; a maid in her 50s who claimed she used to work for the previous owners wants the same position with the Harmons; and Violet befriends a boy who shares her desires to cut herself.
There's plenty more twisted stuff going on, and I haven't even gotten to the apparitions making appearances or the maid's relationship with Ben at all. Suffice to say, even though Ryan Murphy hasn't ever gotten into the horror genre before, his stamp can clearly be seen all over this show. Just like in Nip/Tuck and Glee, there's plenty of marital and teen angst to go around, and music plays an integral part in setting mood in key scenes. I could have lived without crazy cutting and editing, but it's used mostly for setting mood instead of being done for its own sake, so it's a minor quibble I have with the directing.
What I liked most about the pilot was being left wondering just where in hell could they be going with the story. I've always preferred series that aren't procedurals because they're the same damn show every week, e.g. CSI and Law & Order. I have no idea where American Horror Story is going ultimately, especially with one of the characters telling another in the pilot episode, "Don't make me kill you again." I have to believe it won't have a happy ending given the series' title, but it's definitely the perfect series for the Halloween season.
I don't normally like horror that involves lots of gore, or horror that involves haunted houses for that matter. The great thing about American Horror Story is that while there are some ghastly images, it's much more about psychological horror than anything else, and the mansion is simply a setting versus a plot device. There are lots of layers to uncover as the series unfolds, and that's the sign of real storytelling here, something that television as a whole has started moving away from over the last few years.
Don't be misled though - American Horror Story is NOT for the faint of heart. There's a reason why it's on at 10:00 at night. I do recommend it for anyone interested in the horror genre and can handle some really deeply disturbed and twisted stuff in it.
Back to my point: Here is my review for the premiere episode of the new series American Horror Story. It's from Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk, the team behind Nip/Tuck and Glee. Having those three series compiled on a resume is like combining Frosted Flakes, steak, and asparagus all into one meal. Talk about radically different genres.
The series opens in 1978, where adolescent twin boys in Los Angeles take their Louisville sluggers into an old mansion for a game of wrecking ball. A young girl with Down syndrome watches them, ominously warning them if they enter the house they'll die in there. I won't give away much else of what happens in the teaser, except to say they ignore her warning and things don't end pretty for them.
Fast forward to present day. Vivien Harmon (Connie Britton) is dealing with a miscarriage of her baby and also discusses her husband Ben (Dylan McDermott) having an affair in the aftermath of everything with her doctor. This is the entire setup for the series, since Ben and Vivien take their teenage daughter Violet across country to start things over as a family. They hunt for a new house in Los Angeles, and wouldn't you know the very same mansion from the opening teaser is the same house they purchase for themselves?
It doesn't take long for Ben and Vivien to meet some of the locals, including Jessica Lange as the eccentric Southern mother of the Down syndrome girl from the teaser. I think the last time I saw an actress chew scenery as much as Lange did in her role as Constance was - oddly enough - Jessica Lange in a terrible, terrible movie from the late 90s called Hush. I'm not sure exactly where the character's eccentric nature ends and Lange's overacting begins, but the line is clearly blurred considering this is Ryan Murphy at work here.
Then weird stuff starts to happen. Ben and Vivien find some bondage outfits belonging to the previous owners (who, by the way, were both killed in a murder-suicide) in the attic; a mysterious man with burn scars covering half his face approaches Ben, warning him about the house; a maid in her 50s who claimed she used to work for the previous owners wants the same position with the Harmons; and Violet befriends a boy who shares her desires to cut herself.
There's plenty more twisted stuff going on, and I haven't even gotten to the apparitions making appearances or the maid's relationship with Ben at all. Suffice to say, even though Ryan Murphy hasn't ever gotten into the horror genre before, his stamp can clearly be seen all over this show. Just like in Nip/Tuck and Glee, there's plenty of marital and teen angst to go around, and music plays an integral part in setting mood in key scenes. I could have lived without crazy cutting and editing, but it's used mostly for setting mood instead of being done for its own sake, so it's a minor quibble I have with the directing.
What I liked most about the pilot was being left wondering just where in hell could they be going with the story. I've always preferred series that aren't procedurals because they're the same damn show every week, e.g. CSI and Law & Order. I have no idea where American Horror Story is going ultimately, especially with one of the characters telling another in the pilot episode, "Don't make me kill you again." I have to believe it won't have a happy ending given the series' title, but it's definitely the perfect series for the Halloween season.
I don't normally like horror that involves lots of gore, or horror that involves haunted houses for that matter. The great thing about American Horror Story is that while there are some ghastly images, it's much more about psychological horror than anything else, and the mansion is simply a setting versus a plot device. There are lots of layers to uncover as the series unfolds, and that's the sign of real storytelling here, something that television as a whole has started moving away from over the last few years.
Don't be misled though - American Horror Story is NOT for the faint of heart. There's a reason why it's on at 10:00 at night. I do recommend it for anyone interested in the horror genre and can handle some really deeply disturbed and twisted stuff in it.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Only Took Me a Little Over Two Years
I had first signed up for Twitter a little over two years ago. I really didn't understand it at the time, and I didn't know what to expect of it, either. Some close friends who lived and died by it said it was similar to Facebook, in that it was all status updates without the possibility of comments. When I finally checked it out, my first thought was, "This is it?"
Obviously, I was anything but impressed.
I would occasionally log in and see what was happening with Twitter, and I followed some friends on there, as well as news-related updates. By "occasionally" I mean every couple months, if that. I was far more interested in Facebook than Twitter with Facebook's interactivity. I just didn't see the value or advantage of posting what amounted to only headlines.
Then about a week and a half ago I was out with some friends watching football. I struck up a conversation with one of the bartenders about Twitter and told her how completely uninterested in it I was. She immediately asked me if I followed any comedians on there (I didn't), and she said that was my problem. She grabbed a napkin and wrote down several comedians she follows on Facebook, a couple of whom were friends of hers. She gave me her own Twitter feed for me to follow too, and once I did, I finally understood what all the fuss was about. I started with her own Twitter and nearly fell off my bar stool from laughing. Oh, her posts were quite racy stuff, and likely would offend some sensitive folks out there. But I loved everything. Her friends' Twitter feeds were also awesome, and as a result I finally got a grasp on what Twitter is supposed to be used for.
Now I'd never claim to be as particularly clever or funny as the bartender or her friends, but I have added several more feeds for sports-related headlines, as well as other random news updates on Twitter as well. I usually check it at least twice a day, and update my own feed as well.
Better late than never.
Obviously, I was anything but impressed.
I would occasionally log in and see what was happening with Twitter, and I followed some friends on there, as well as news-related updates. By "occasionally" I mean every couple months, if that. I was far more interested in Facebook than Twitter with Facebook's interactivity. I just didn't see the value or advantage of posting what amounted to only headlines.
Then about a week and a half ago I was out with some friends watching football. I struck up a conversation with one of the bartenders about Twitter and told her how completely uninterested in it I was. She immediately asked me if I followed any comedians on there (I didn't), and she said that was my problem. She grabbed a napkin and wrote down several comedians she follows on Facebook, a couple of whom were friends of hers. She gave me her own Twitter feed for me to follow too, and once I did, I finally understood what all the fuss was about. I started with her own Twitter and nearly fell off my bar stool from laughing. Oh, her posts were quite racy stuff, and likely would offend some sensitive folks out there. But I loved everything. Her friends' Twitter feeds were also awesome, and as a result I finally got a grasp on what Twitter is supposed to be used for.
Now I'd never claim to be as particularly clever or funny as the bartender or her friends, but I have added several more feeds for sports-related headlines, as well as other random news updates on Twitter as well. I usually check it at least twice a day, and update my own feed as well.
Better late than never.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)