Or rather, "Ladies and Gentleman, The Bronx is Burning," the full title of Jonathan Mahler's excellent 2005 book detailing 1977 in New York, spotlighting the Yankees, but also covering the Son of Sam murder spree, the blackout, the race for mayor, and the general malaise affecting the city at that time.
Yesterday, I wrote about the ESPN adaptation, but this is the real deal, and apart from the excellent archival footage ESPN dug from the ABC vaults, the original is definitely better here. Here's what I wrote, with minor modifications, two years ago:
The premise of "TBIB" is that 1977 was a really wild year for New Yorkers, and that in fact New York was a pretty crappy place to live in during the 1970s.
Mahler is a reporter who provides plenty of atmosphere in his enthralling account. It's an ambitious attempt to link the Yankees' championship with the urban miseries of New York City.
In fact, it may be a little too ambitious. Mahler goes back and forth between the political and baseball stories as he goes through the year, while inserting sections on events like the blackout and David Berkowitz in their place in the narrative. The result is that while it's a lively story, you do get jumbled a bit, and there are places where you are left wanting more detail. That's not necessarily a fatal flaw--the book covers a lot of ground as it is, and it does whet the appetite for more. As Charlie Brown might say on one of those old CBS specials, "If you'd like to learn more about New York City in the 1970s, consult your local library..."
Really this isn't a pure baseball book, but that Yankee team, as well as all of the late 70s Bronx Zoo-era ones, was fascinating. This was Billy Martin, Reggie's arrival, and...well, that's the focus in the Yankees' part: Reggie and Billy. They do make a great story, and it rightly is the focus, but Mahler's attempt to make their success a metaphor for the rise from the ashes of New York isn't entirely convincing.
The mayor race had the incumbent, Abe Beame; Bella Abzug; Mario Cuomo, and Ed "How am I doin'?" Koch. It's a colorful field, and the race is pretty interesting. Mahler offers numerous behind-the-scenes details and seems to have supplemented his research with insightful new interviews for the book. I learned a lot from the political passages.
The blackout is explained comprehensively, though given a relatively sparse number of pages, and the failure of power, and the looting and riots that accompanied it, sum up the urban blight quite "nicely," if that word can be affixed to such an ugly event.
One gripe: The organization of the book is more or less chronological, in several large, numbered sections with numerous short untitled chapters. This makes it a bit difficult to refer back to info or earlier mentions of events and people. The problem is compounded by--here's a bit of a pet peeve of mine for a nonfiction book like this--no index.
Overall, the book almost reads too quickly, feeling a tad slight despite its ambitious scope. It is really entertaining, though, and tough to set aside. I don't know first-hand what the scene was like in NY in 1977, but I find Mahler does a great job of recreating that atmosphere of tension, fear, and excitement, all in the confines of the Big Apple.
In fact, he does such a good job of conveying what a mess NY was that, as I alluded to, the apparent "phoenix rising" he is going for at the end isn't convincing, and the end is a bit rushed. Some more analysis tying all of this together would have improved this, but as an account of a specific time and place and what happened there, it's vivid and compelling.
It's a must-read for fans of the miniseries.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
ESPN's The Bronx Is Burning
As this ESPN miniseries spotlighting the 1977 New York Yankees and that tumultuous summer in the Big Apple concludes this week, we may ask, is this brilliant TV?
And we may answer, "No." In fact, I'll do that right now.
"TBIB" is not exactly good TV, but it's entertaining. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near as good as Jonathan Mahler's book on which it is based (and I'll talk about that soon). Mahler was able to synthesize Son of Sam, the Yankees, the blackout, and the NYC mayoral campaign and tie it all in. The TV miniseries can't quite handle that ambitious task.
It's a commendable effort, but throughout TBIB, the main baseball storyline is constantly interrupted by weak Son of Sam scenes that add little to the overall picture. Similarly, the political scenes come off as stock footage Filler Theater. While all this was blended so well on the printed page, on ESPN, we just want to get back to the baseball.
Even in the sports realm, the series often suffers, though, as TBIB is a classic example of that trademark ESPN Original Entertainment cheapo production. The attempts at recreating game action are laughable, and the integration of REAL footage only emphasizes how silly the fake stuff looks.
Furthermore, this miniseries should really be called "My Ears Are Burning," not just because the Yankees spend so much time worrying about what they're saying about each other, but because of the star of the show: Billy Martin's ears. John Turturro is saddled with a Dumbo-sized pair of prosthetic ears that dominate all their scenes.
Actually, "prosthetic" is an inadequate word here. How about "prosthemongous" ears or "prosthetacular" ears? While I was watching an early episode, my wife entered the room, and within 10 seconds, she was asking, "What's the deal with those ears?"
SO, yes, TBIB is cheesy. But it is entertaining in its own way. The 1977 Yankees had a lot of interesting stories, and while this version doesn't mesh their stories with those of the city so well, they're still here. The old game footage is great, and so is the news footage, for that matter.
Turturro almost overcomes those gigantic flaps by turning in an intriguing version. Oliver Platt as George Steinbrenner is about 75% as hilarious as you would hope it to be. Franco from Rescue Me is fun as Reggie Jackson.
Those are enough reasons to watch The Bronx is Burning if you're a baseball fan, but there are enough negative aspects to make you doubt that ESPN will ever get it together to make that great sports movie or TV show you wish they could (or maybe not, if you're tired of seeing scripted programming on the network). After all, the next one likely won't have a subject as interesting as the 1977 Yankees.
And we may answer, "No." In fact, I'll do that right now.
"TBIB" is not exactly good TV, but it's entertaining. Unfortunately, it's nowhere near as good as Jonathan Mahler's book on which it is based (and I'll talk about that soon). Mahler was able to synthesize Son of Sam, the Yankees, the blackout, and the NYC mayoral campaign and tie it all in. The TV miniseries can't quite handle that ambitious task.
It's a commendable effort, but throughout TBIB, the main baseball storyline is constantly interrupted by weak Son of Sam scenes that add little to the overall picture. Similarly, the political scenes come off as stock footage Filler Theater. While all this was blended so well on the printed page, on ESPN, we just want to get back to the baseball.
Even in the sports realm, the series often suffers, though, as TBIB is a classic example of that trademark ESPN Original Entertainment cheapo production. The attempts at recreating game action are laughable, and the integration of REAL footage only emphasizes how silly the fake stuff looks.
Furthermore, this miniseries should really be called "My Ears Are Burning," not just because the Yankees spend so much time worrying about what they're saying about each other, but because of the star of the show: Billy Martin's ears. John Turturro is saddled with a Dumbo-sized pair of prosthetic ears that dominate all their scenes.
Actually, "prosthetic" is an inadequate word here. How about "prosthemongous" ears or "prosthetacular" ears? While I was watching an early episode, my wife entered the room, and within 10 seconds, she was asking, "What's the deal with those ears?"
SO, yes, TBIB is cheesy. But it is entertaining in its own way. The 1977 Yankees had a lot of interesting stories, and while this version doesn't mesh their stories with those of the city so well, they're still here. The old game footage is great, and so is the news footage, for that matter.
Turturro almost overcomes those gigantic flaps by turning in an intriguing version. Oliver Platt as George Steinbrenner is about 75% as hilarious as you would hope it to be. Franco from Rescue Me is fun as Reggie Jackson.
Those are enough reasons to watch The Bronx is Burning if you're a baseball fan, but there are enough negative aspects to make you doubt that ESPN will ever get it together to make that great sports movie or TV show you wish they could (or maybe not, if you're tired of seeing scripted programming on the network). After all, the next one likely won't have a subject as interesting as the 1977 Yankees.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Should You Watch? GSN's Grand Slam
You can't assume Game Show Network--excuse me, GSN--is going to deliver a decent new program. You can't even assume they'll keep delivering decent old new programs anymore, as there's always the threat that something cool like "Match Game" will be yanked for "Dog Eat Dog."
What a pleasant surprise, then, to find a quality original GAME SHOW game show on there. Grand Slam is a multi-episode single-elimination tournament featuring 16 of the biggest money winners in game show history in a series of head-to-head contests. The game play is fast and exciting, combining trivia, logic, wordplay, and math in a dramatic setting in which players try to avoid letting their personal clocks run out. It's mostly answering questions, but there is just enough strategy, like a "switch" option that lets players pass a question to their opponent, to vary it up a bit.
It's a solid game, and the entertainment value goes way up if you recognize the competitors. Yes, Ken Jennings is here, along with Brad Rutter (who cleaned Ken's clock in the Ultimate Jeopardy Tournament of Champions) and that obnoxious guy who was the first big winner on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Game show junkies should love seeing familiar faces like Thom McKee of 'Tic Tac Dough" one more time.
Even non-addicts can take pleasure in it, though. It's quite easy to play along at home, though these sharp customers might beat most people to the draw. It's still fun watching them get it done, though. Plus there is that great equalizer known as "math," which humbles quite a few trivia geniuses.
The production values are decent, the show is well paced, and--oh, yes, there are hosts. An unseen voice reads the questions without frills, but throughout the game, we are treated to the banter between co-hosts Dennis Miller and Amanda Byram. Miller has some things going on now, but he spews out the obscure references as if he's been out of a steady gig for a lot longer than he actually has. Hey, I stuck up for the guy when he did Monday Night Football, but here he's trying a bit too hard. Byram reacts with good humor, although even she just said, "Huh?" at one point in the first episode.
As for Amanda Byram, she is a real find here. She's classy (maybe it's just the Irish accent), attractive, and full of insight about the matches. Amazingly, Byram treats this contest as a legitimate competition--an attitude seldom seen in game shows anymore. She breaks down the match-ups with intelligence but never goes overboard. You mean to tell me SHE was the one who hosted The Swan?
Miller contributes with a few good lines and with his candor in describing the action, letting Byram sum up the stats while he points out if a player is bombing out there. Thankfully, they stay out of the way during the actual game play.
Grand Slam is just that for GSN. It's an exciting game show that has fun while still taking itself seriously. I'll be watching this when I can, though since it's that rare GSN original that isn't on 80 times a week, I think I already missed a few episodes.
You should watch “Grand Slam” if:
*You just transferred your deteriorating VHS copies of the 1988 Jeopardy Tournament of Champions to DVD.
*You still boycott CNBC because they gave Dennis Miller “a raw deal” on his last talk show.
*You like watching contestants actually think in order to earn their winnings.
*You enjoy seeing Jeopardy braniacs sweat a little at the prospect of solving equations on national TV.
*You knew Thom McKee was on Tic Tac Dough before I mentioned it.
What a pleasant surprise, then, to find a quality original GAME SHOW game show on there. Grand Slam is a multi-episode single-elimination tournament featuring 16 of the biggest money winners in game show history in a series of head-to-head contests. The game play is fast and exciting, combining trivia, logic, wordplay, and math in a dramatic setting in which players try to avoid letting their personal clocks run out. It's mostly answering questions, but there is just enough strategy, like a "switch" option that lets players pass a question to their opponent, to vary it up a bit.
It's a solid game, and the entertainment value goes way up if you recognize the competitors. Yes, Ken Jennings is here, along with Brad Rutter (who cleaned Ken's clock in the Ultimate Jeopardy Tournament of Champions) and that obnoxious guy who was the first big winner on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" Game show junkies should love seeing familiar faces like Thom McKee of 'Tic Tac Dough" one more time.
Even non-addicts can take pleasure in it, though. It's quite easy to play along at home, though these sharp customers might beat most people to the draw. It's still fun watching them get it done, though. Plus there is that great equalizer known as "math," which humbles quite a few trivia geniuses.
The production values are decent, the show is well paced, and--oh, yes, there are hosts. An unseen voice reads the questions without frills, but throughout the game, we are treated to the banter between co-hosts Dennis Miller and Amanda Byram. Miller has some things going on now, but he spews out the obscure references as if he's been out of a steady gig for a lot longer than he actually has. Hey, I stuck up for the guy when he did Monday Night Football, but here he's trying a bit too hard. Byram reacts with good humor, although even she just said, "Huh?" at one point in the first episode.
As for Amanda Byram, she is a real find here. She's classy (maybe it's just the Irish accent), attractive, and full of insight about the matches. Amazingly, Byram treats this contest as a legitimate competition--an attitude seldom seen in game shows anymore. She breaks down the match-ups with intelligence but never goes overboard. You mean to tell me SHE was the one who hosted The Swan?
Miller contributes with a few good lines and with his candor in describing the action, letting Byram sum up the stats while he points out if a player is bombing out there. Thankfully, they stay out of the way during the actual game play.
Grand Slam is just that for GSN. It's an exciting game show that has fun while still taking itself seriously. I'll be watching this when I can, though since it's that rare GSN original that isn't on 80 times a week, I think I already missed a few episodes.
You should watch “Grand Slam” if:
*You just transferred your deteriorating VHS copies of the 1988 Jeopardy Tournament of Champions to DVD.
*You still boycott CNBC because they gave Dennis Miller “a raw deal” on his last talk show.
*You like watching contestants actually think in order to earn their winnings.
*You enjoy seeing Jeopardy braniacs sweat a little at the prospect of solving equations on national TV.
*You knew Thom McKee was on Tic Tac Dough before I mentioned it.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
5 Question Movie Review: The Simpsons
Q: Is it worth the wait?
A: It's very funny, and I walked out feeling I got my money's worth. I'm somewhat of a lapsed fan, though, not having followed the show regularly for years, and I had been skeptical of the need for a big-screen adaptation. So the wait wasn't so tough for me.
Q: What makes the movie different from the TV show?
A: You know, not a whole lot. Fox obviously sunk more money into the animation, and you have nearly an hour and a half of material rather than 23 minutes, but ultimately The Simpsons Movie just feels like a very good episode of the show.
But that's fine. The Simpsons in its prime was one of the best television shows in history, and I'll gladly pay to see anything that approaches that level. The story here is not groundbreaking. In fact, there are many plot elements that have popped up before in the show (not surprising given the hundreds of previous episodes). However, it is well constructed and paced, never feeling padded to fill the movie length. It isn't just a collection of gags, but a compelling tale with useful subplots and plenty of the heart the cartoon had in its best days.
Q: You don't watch the show anymore? What are you, some kind of hater?
A: I drifted apart from The Simpsons for two basic reasons: 1) Fox's NFL overruns made it difficult to keep up with their Sunday night schedule, and 2) More importantly, the episodes I did see disappointed me too often. Many supporters will say it's still better than most of what's out there, but to me it's like watching Willie Mays when he hosted "Jackpot Bowling" or Milton Berle when he played for the New York Mets. I may have that mixed up, but basically, the magic was gone if you remembered the golden daysy
So it's a delight to see a funny, solid Simpsons episode, even if it's a film. Actually, I think my distance from the series improved my experience, as the classic Simpsons-style gags felt nearly as fresh as ever.
Q: Are all the great supporting characters in it?
A: Well, "all" covers a whole lot of territory with the Simpsonverse, but there are a bunch of them. They don't all have speaking lines, but sharp fans will spot most of their favorites. The story focuses on the core, though, which is of course Homer and his family. Characters like Flanders and Moe get plenty of screen time. Luminaries like Krusty, Lenny and Carl get probably just the right amounts.
If I had to pick one supporting player who was underused, I'd say Mr. Burns, who is reduced to a mere cameo. The writers created a new foil, an EPA director voiced by Albert Brooks, and he's OK but not nearly as fun as ol' Monty.
Q: If it's so much like the TV show, why is it worth 10 bucks?
A: Well, I paid matinee price, for the record, but let me say I laughed consistently and was entertained throughout. The Simpsons Movie won't transform the way anyone feels about the show, unlike the South Park movie, which both transcended its origins and made me more appreciate those origins. No, his feature film adaptation is just a really funny movie. It feels like The Simpsons I knew and loved, and that's an accomplishment in itself. If it's not a transcedant experience, if it doesn't make you jump up and say, "Ah! We DID need a Simpsons movie," well, it's still a great time at the multiplex.
A: It's very funny, and I walked out feeling I got my money's worth. I'm somewhat of a lapsed fan, though, not having followed the show regularly for years, and I had been skeptical of the need for a big-screen adaptation. So the wait wasn't so tough for me.
Q: What makes the movie different from the TV show?
A: You know, not a whole lot. Fox obviously sunk more money into the animation, and you have nearly an hour and a half of material rather than 23 minutes, but ultimately The Simpsons Movie just feels like a very good episode of the show.
But that's fine. The Simpsons in its prime was one of the best television shows in history, and I'll gladly pay to see anything that approaches that level. The story here is not groundbreaking. In fact, there are many plot elements that have popped up before in the show (not surprising given the hundreds of previous episodes). However, it is well constructed and paced, never feeling padded to fill the movie length. It isn't just a collection of gags, but a compelling tale with useful subplots and plenty of the heart the cartoon had in its best days.
Q: You don't watch the show anymore? What are you, some kind of hater?
A: I drifted apart from The Simpsons for two basic reasons: 1) Fox's NFL overruns made it difficult to keep up with their Sunday night schedule, and 2) More importantly, the episodes I did see disappointed me too often. Many supporters will say it's still better than most of what's out there, but to me it's like watching Willie Mays when he hosted "Jackpot Bowling" or Milton Berle when he played for the New York Mets. I may have that mixed up, but basically, the magic was gone if you remembered the golden daysy
So it's a delight to see a funny, solid Simpsons episode, even if it's a film. Actually, I think my distance from the series improved my experience, as the classic Simpsons-style gags felt nearly as fresh as ever.
Q: Are all the great supporting characters in it?
A: Well, "all" covers a whole lot of territory with the Simpsonverse, but there are a bunch of them. They don't all have speaking lines, but sharp fans will spot most of their favorites. The story focuses on the core, though, which is of course Homer and his family. Characters like Flanders and Moe get plenty of screen time. Luminaries like Krusty, Lenny and Carl get probably just the right amounts.
If I had to pick one supporting player who was underused, I'd say Mr. Burns, who is reduced to a mere cameo. The writers created a new foil, an EPA director voiced by Albert Brooks, and he's OK but not nearly as fun as ol' Monty.
Q: If it's so much like the TV show, why is it worth 10 bucks?
A: Well, I paid matinee price, for the record, but let me say I laughed consistently and was entertained throughout. The Simpsons Movie won't transform the way anyone feels about the show, unlike the South Park movie, which both transcended its origins and made me more appreciate those origins. No, his feature film adaptation is just a really funny movie. It feels like The Simpsons I knew and loved, and that's an accomplishment in itself. If it's not a transcedant experience, if it doesn't make you jump up and say, "Ah! We DID need a Simpsons movie," well, it's still a great time at the multiplex.
Monday, August 20, 2007
Game Shows for Dummies
I am not a big fan of the new breed of “deliberation” game shows—you know, the ones like "Deal or No Deal" where the contestant is encouraged to “talk it out” and make a public spectacle of herself while deciding whether to advance or not and risk all their money before making some brainless decision. I’m not a big fan at all. Matter of fact, you might even say I hate them. I watch game shows for entertainment and maybe to test my own wits, and seeing someone go all drama queen and crawl on a stage for 10 minutes while agonizing over which numbered box to pick satisfies neither requirement.
However, I have watched two of these deliberation-oriented deals recently, and one of them, Drew Carey’s “The Power of Ten,” really is entertaining, with a nice mix of play-alongability, humor, and fun. The other, Jimmy Kimmel’s “Set for Life,” is one of the worst game shows I have seen.
Let’s dispense with “Set for Life” first—and quickly. It took me about 10 minutes to dispense it from my DVR. ABC, or whoever is responsible for this, apparently figured the complex strategies involved in Deal or No Deal were too much for today's stressed-out Joe Viewer. After all, those boxes contestants choose were numbered, and you know what numbers mean, right? Math.
So "Set for Life" asks its participants merely to pick red or white lights. I'm simplifying the concept, of course, but--hey, no, I'm not. The participants pick red or white lights! It is even duller than it sounds, and watching players fret like they're performing calculus is not fun. This show has lowered the bar for game shows, and it even somehow lowered the bar for Jimmy Kimmel.
"The Power of Ten" is quite watchable, though. The players don't really have to know anything here, either, but they guess what percentage of surveyed Americans said about something or other. To the critics who scoffed that this basically updates "Card Sharks," I say, so what? "Card Sharks" was kind of cool. It's easy to guess along with the contestants, but at least it forces some basic brain function.
The contestants do go through that public deliberation that makes these game shows painful to sit through, but the host here actually brings something to the show. Drew Carey is an adequate enough emcee and conductor of game play, but he really shines in bringing humor to the show, both in his reactions to the surveys and to his interactions with the players. He comes across as a nice guy who really wants to see the contestants win, and seeing him chat with them about their decisions to risk money by going on is less contrived than on other shows.
I won't be watching "The Power of Ten" regularly, but it's a decent way to pass the hour. Perhaps more importantly for CBS is the skill Carey shows as a game show host outside of the "Whose Line" format. If he's this good now on this summer replacement show, he could really develop into a keeper on "The Price is Right."
However, I have watched two of these deliberation-oriented deals recently, and one of them, Drew Carey’s “The Power of Ten,” really is entertaining, with a nice mix of play-alongability, humor, and fun. The other, Jimmy Kimmel’s “Set for Life,” is one of the worst game shows I have seen.
Let’s dispense with “Set for Life” first—and quickly. It took me about 10 minutes to dispense it from my DVR. ABC, or whoever is responsible for this, apparently figured the complex strategies involved in Deal or No Deal were too much for today's stressed-out Joe Viewer. After all, those boxes contestants choose were numbered, and you know what numbers mean, right? Math.
So "Set for Life" asks its participants merely to pick red or white lights. I'm simplifying the concept, of course, but--hey, no, I'm not. The participants pick red or white lights! It is even duller than it sounds, and watching players fret like they're performing calculus is not fun. This show has lowered the bar for game shows, and it even somehow lowered the bar for Jimmy Kimmel.
"The Power of Ten" is quite watchable, though. The players don't really have to know anything here, either, but they guess what percentage of surveyed Americans said about something or other. To the critics who scoffed that this basically updates "Card Sharks," I say, so what? "Card Sharks" was kind of cool. It's easy to guess along with the contestants, but at least it forces some basic brain function.
The contestants do go through that public deliberation that makes these game shows painful to sit through, but the host here actually brings something to the show. Drew Carey is an adequate enough emcee and conductor of game play, but he really shines in bringing humor to the show, both in his reactions to the surveys and to his interactions with the players. He comes across as a nice guy who really wants to see the contestants win, and seeing him chat with them about their decisions to risk money by going on is less contrived than on other shows.
I won't be watching "The Power of Ten" regularly, but it's a decent way to pass the hour. Perhaps more importantly for CBS is the skill Carey shows as a game show host outside of the "Whose Line" format. If he's this good now on this summer replacement show, he could really develop into a keeper on "The Price is Right."
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Sharp Dressed Man
The other day, I went out to shoot some hoops on the neighborhood blacktop. I went through what I considered a rational thought process as I got dressed:
*It's incredibly hot outside, so short sleeves and shorts are musts.
*I'll grab a white or light-colored t-shirt since the sun is so bright and warm.
*I need a comfortable pair of shorts with pockets since I'll be bringing my house keys.
*Again, the heat is such a factor, I have to be prepared. I'll get the slightly-beat up hat I pick when I expect to work up a sweat.
Sounds reasonable, no? I thought so. However, I wound up with this outfit:
A Penn State baseball cap.
A Carolina Panthers t-shirt.
A pair of Pittsburgh Pirates shorts.
I must have looked like a maniac at worst, an idiot at best, wearing articles of clothing of 3 different sports teams. As functional as my costume seemed during assembly, it surely looked like a sign of incompetence to anyone who spotted me on the court. Even if someone does indeed like 3 different sports teams, and even if they are in 3 different games and/or levels of play, who in the world declares their allegiance to all of them at the same time?
Me, I guess.
I don't know if anyone or did not. It's usually nice and quiet on the blacktop, so I can brick jumpers in peace and chase my misses down the slope to the chain-link fence without noticing any derisive laughter.
Yet when I go back there, I will now be wondering if the little tot playground next to the court is empty because the kids are elsewhere...or if the parents decided they didn't want their children hanging near the strange man who dresses funny.
*It's incredibly hot outside, so short sleeves and shorts are musts.
*I'll grab a white or light-colored t-shirt since the sun is so bright and warm.
*I need a comfortable pair of shorts with pockets since I'll be bringing my house keys.
*Again, the heat is such a factor, I have to be prepared. I'll get the slightly-beat up hat I pick when I expect to work up a sweat.
Sounds reasonable, no? I thought so. However, I wound up with this outfit:
A Penn State baseball cap.
A Carolina Panthers t-shirt.
A pair of Pittsburgh Pirates shorts.
I must have looked like a maniac at worst, an idiot at best, wearing articles of clothing of 3 different sports teams. As functional as my costume seemed during assembly, it surely looked like a sign of incompetence to anyone who spotted me on the court. Even if someone does indeed like 3 different sports teams, and even if they are in 3 different games and/or levels of play, who in the world declares their allegiance to all of them at the same time?
Me, I guess.
I don't know if anyone or did not. It's usually nice and quiet on the blacktop, so I can brick jumpers in peace and chase my misses down the slope to the chain-link fence without noticing any derisive laughter.
Yet when I go back there, I will now be wondering if the little tot playground next to the court is empty because the kids are elsewhere...or if the parents decided they didn't want their children hanging near the strange man who dresses funny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
