I knew every little detail of Treme was going to be dissected by local viewers. Apparently, David Simon also realized this and published a preemptive letter in the Times Picayune about the "Magic Hubig's" before the first episode aired.
Sunday saw the debut of David Simon's latest oeuvre, Tremé on HBO. The following is a collection of my thoughts on the pilot episode and the project overall so far:
- Given the amount of press coverage the show received prior to its debut, I am curious to see the reaction to Tremé from the general public. While I think The Wire was one of the finest shows to ever grace television, it was by no means a ratings success while it was on the air. Critics hailed it; those who watched it regularly extolled its virtues to anyone who would listen; yet The Wire never came close to the ratings of other HBO shows like The Sopranos. With all of the attention Tremé attracted before one episode aired, will those who are not already fans of David Simon's intricate work be enthralled by the pilot and be left wanting more or will they just shrug their shoulders and say, "eh, it's all right, maybe a little talky for me, at least the parts I could understand"?1
- I am going to admit that I have a bias towards New Orleans. I lived there for several years and am in the process of moving back, so I get a little excited to see it represented in popular culture. I also get a little critical of how it is being portrayed.2 From Dennis Quaid's accent in The Big Easy to the gumbo parties in K-Ville, there is just as much fiction out there as there is fact. So far, I have faith in David Simon and Eric Overmyer (co-creator). Just the fact that they have including a Mardi Gras Indian as a character tells me they get it.
- Speaking of Mardi Gras Indians, I will never forget the first time I saw one. I had never heard such a thing existed until I unexpectedly was overrun by a parade one Spring. It is hard to describe the sight, especially to the uninitiated. Well, the scene in the pilot when Albert Lambreaux (played by Clarke Peters) emerges from the darkness in full regalia to recruit a neighbor just about describes it. Simon and Overmyer must have had the same experience I did because they nailed it. They get it.3
- I noticed little references scattered throughout the pilot which I assume only those who have lived in New Orleans will get. I mean, how many people will know what a Hubig's pie is if they haven't spent some time in the city. The look on Creighton Bernette's (played by John Goodman) face when offered one for dessert was so magical.
- Ever since the cast was announced I had been thinking, "Really, Steve Zahn?" I have to say after watching the pilot a couple times, he was very well cast in his role and delivered a good performance. My biggest surprise was how awkward Wendell Pierce felt in the first half of the pilot given he is a New Orleans native. By the end of the episode though it felt like he had found his groove.
- Is it just me or is hard to divorce the actors from The Wire from their characters? Maybe that has something to do with the above.
- I'm starting to think John Goodman could read a phone book and I would enjoy it. In fact, put that on a double bill with Clarke Peters reading the instructions to my microwave and I'd buy a ticket.
- I have to commend HBO for supporting The Wire for five seasons and am overjoyed to hear they have already ordered a second season just two days after the pilot aired. Thank you for supporting good things.
Maybe I am not seeing the forest for the trees, but I do not see how requiring every citizen to buy a product is change. Well, at least positive change. I am speaking of the healthcare reform bill which narrowly passed the House last night. I do see the advantage of not allowing insurers to deny persons based on pre-existing conditions, but it doesn't prevent the insurers from charging them exorbitant premiums. In fact, I don't see anything about trying to bring down healthcare costs or lowering insurance premiums. Isn't the reason so many go without insurance is because they cannot afford it?
This is just my initial take on the subject, but I am getting frustrated that the media coverage of this subject is more about the politics and the infighting and not what the bill actually covers. I hear that so many people are for and against this bill, but I'm not sure how many actually know what the bill is. If someone has seen a decent article concerning this, please email me.
Update: Apparently, I am not the only one thinking about these things.
A good essay concerning the growing reliance on technology to remember items we used to commit to memory. I will admit that the number of current phone numbers I can recall at this moment are about five, three of which are mine. I do comfort in the fact that all of my stored numbers are backed up in several locations, so the possibility of total loss is small, but what if I did not have any access to technology outside a traditional land line phone? With all of this instant access to information, is technology making us stupid?
It is surprising how many people think only their friends can see their Facebook page. The majority would probably say otherwise when asked directly, but their actions say otherwise. No, this isn't going to be another rant against Facebook, but a rant against the perception of anonymity on the internet.
Few individuals realize the amount of personal information available on the internet. Even fewer realize how sophisticated data mining has become. Even when companies try to anonymize their usage data, people figure out a way to de-anonymize it. Basically, when you get down to it, the data is usually too fine grained for there to be enough of us for someone not to figure out who that data was from.
So imagine what kind of damage a motivated person can do with information you openly assign your name to, but which you think is behind lock and key. Back in the day, I was a member of a Linux mailing list -- yes, I am a geek -- and I am amazed how many mirrors of messages I posted in 2003 about squirrelmail still come up when I search for my name on my search engine of choice -- yes, I am a geek. Now, I didn't think that mailing list was private -- in fact, I knew that there was a public archive which was freely searchable by the public -- but I guess I thought it was a bit more obscure. If Google has taught you anything, it should be that nothing is obscure on the internet now. Thankfully, I don't think I have said anything which I would truly regret, but I haven't combed through every message. Now imagine if every web search you had made was leaked.
Like those wacky Europeans, it looks like I involuntarily took the month of August off from my duties here. I thoroughly apologize and look to remedy this situation soon.
Thx, the Mgmt.
Please compare and contrast these two articles which appeared today in the Chicago Tribune:
Group Says Hot Dogs Should Carry A Warning Label
Lettuce Recalled Due To Salmonella
As a footnote, I would like to mention that many vegetables, such as celery, spinach, and kale, contain a significant amount of nitrates, which is converted by bacteria in our mouths to nitrites. This is why many organic hot dogs contain celery juice extract and bacterial cultures to convert the nitrate in the celery juice to nitrite. This allows them to be packaged "nitrite free" despite the fact that they do contain nitrite, just not as an explicit additive. Yes, this annoys me to no end.
In many urban areas, there unfortunately exist entire neighborhoods without any access to fresh produce. These areas are usually only served by fast food establishments and convenience stores. Citing this inequity, WalMart has decided to hold a "farmers" market in Chicago's Chatham neighborhood -- which just happens to be the exact site of where they would like to put their second store in Chicago. According to the article, WalMart will "feature" the produce vendors they use for their stores. I know that even Sysco has started using local vendors as an option for their customers, but I somewhat doubt we will see Nichols Farm rolling into Chatham for this. More likely than not, it will look more like the stacks and stacks of random flats one can see at the Maxwell Street Market on Sundays. I think that may be stretching the definition of "farmers market" a bit far.
While I do support access to fresh produce and think providing that access would be good, would WalMart moving into the neighborhood improve the neighborhood overall? Would it displace local businesses and jobs, whatever they may be, as the men from Bentonville have a tendency to do? I can't really say. I've never been to Chatham, nor will I probably ever be. All I know is it feels weird when Wal-Mart tries to portray themselves as the good guy.
John Gruber at Daring Fireball points out that his website is not free. It is free to read the website, but he charges advertisers and sponsors to be associated with the site. So the question is not whether to charge, but who.
This is something the traditional news media has had a hard time figuring out. Traditionally, the newspapers would charge both the advertiser and the reader -- although there are also a number of newspapers which are free to the reader and completely supported by the advertisers, such as the Chicago Reader. Many traditional publications have struggled to make their online presence profitable and some are probably getting further from the black. Case in point, Financial Times editor, Lionel Barber, predicts "that 'almost all' new organizations will be charging for online content within a year." Again, Gruber has an interesting exposition concerning this pricing model of publishing online. It is like this guy does this for a living. Oh wait...
In any event, it will take time to persuade users to pay for something as massless as news online. At least with a physical newspaper the user feels they receive something of inherent worth -- it has a physical presence, a physical weight. Online news just does not have the gravity, in many ways.
Or how Google can offer so many products for "free".
There has been much published about Google in the recent weeks, particularly concerning its supposed "death blow" to Microsoft with their press release (actually a blog post, because this is Google after all) stating they are developing an operating system for netbooks which may be released as soon as the second half of 2010. I'll probably expound upon why I don't think this is a real game changer in a later post (preview: come on, it is just linux with a browser running on a small, underpowered notebook), but the announcement did make me think more about how Google funds all of these seemingly free projects.
Google states that 97% of their revenue in 2008 was generated from selling advertising. On the surface, this is where the dollars are coming in to keep the lights on, keep the servers running, and fund all of the new research. These ads appear on screen in many Google products and on many other websites which subscribe to Google's ad network. Now, do not get me wrong, I am not saying these ads are a bad thing. With the exception of The Deck ad network, Google's ads are probably the most innocuous ads on the web, usually just encompassing a list of text ads on the side of the screen. These tiny ads support many online services by generating money for the site whenever someone clicks on them, but there is also a reason they are so effective.
Google is able to target what ads are being displayed on a page by the content of the page. For instance, if I search for "how to make my lawn green", I'll probably get a an ad for a lawn care company. Or I may get an ad for environmentally friendly fertilizer. Now here is where it gets interesting, not only is Google looking at what I am searching, but they can also draw a profile on me from searches I have previously done or sites I have visited to better target the ads. I may get different ads if I had previously searched for "green projects" versus if I had searched for "home services". Now, let's add on top of this data that Google also has at its disposal from my gmail account, calendar, and RSS feeds. We voluntarily give Google (virtual) mountains of data in exchange for free services.
This isn't a new concept and isn't entirely the domain of Google. Facebook and MySpace also exchange services for personal data and trends. Your local grocery chain probably has a loyalty program -- that little swipe card -- that allows them to track what you buy in exchange for some discounted items. In and of themselves, these are not necessarily bad things (assuming these companies keep this data securely and confidentially). I am not trying to be a privacy nut here, but I think people should be aware of what they are giving up in exchange for these "free" services. You may not be paying out of your wallet for these services, but you are paying with your personal information and attention to some advertising.
