Best To Not Think About it Too Much

Sheesh, Iron Man 2. Really, I should have just watched it and not thought about it afterwords because now I'm pretty sure that you were a very "ehh" movie . . . if not a dumb movie. And I hate to have to say that, but being dumb isn't the same as being bad.

Bullet Points!

• Why did nothing happen in this movie? Why were there only three action sequences? And one of them was a fight over Iron Man being drunk at his birthday party? Come on. Why couldn't Iron Man like, rescue a crashing plane like Superman did or pick up a car and throw it at Whiplash or something?
• That said, it was fun when that Rolls Royce was getting sliced up.
• And, in defense of the movie, I don't get it when critics say "There were too many characters and too many plots in this movie! I got so confused!" Really? Iron Man 2 confused you? And seven characters are too many for you to keep track of? Because that's pretty much how many characters were in this movie (not counting cameos from beyond the grave).
• And while it's neat at the time to have the little Easter Eggs from the other upcoming Marvel movies eventually this could feel kind of like these movies are all just ads for the Avengers. Yes, I was definitely like "Wooo! Look! There's [redacted]'s [redacted.]" and "Awesome! It's [redacted]!" But those were such knee jerk Wooos and Awesomes. Pure geek reflex action, and is this what I've been reduced to? Someone that all he has to see is [redacted] or [redacted] and he feels like he just watched the best movie of the summer?
• I got a kick out of Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer but eventually found myself wondering if this thing was turning into a comedy. And I know what Rockwell is like, but was he doing a Wilson Brother impression?
• And re: Scarlett Johansson, let me just note that, when she first came out in her Black Widow costume, I heard the fellow next to me mumble "Not tight enough." Which was, you know, funny.
  
• And I think we were all supposed to cheer when Tony kissed Pepper but, yeah, the audience was pretty silent in its reaction to that.
• But one time when the audience was not silent was during the Twilight: Eclipse trailer. The mix of genuine moans of grief with sarcastic cheers was nearly deafening.
• And speaking of trailers, I think we saw the trailer for every single non-Sex and the City 2 movie coming out this summer and the bad news is: This summer is going to be boring, except for Inception, which will make us all go bonkers. And A-Team will prove to be sufficiently fun.
• Oh! In that A-Team trailer, remember the part where they blow up the window and toss the guy out the window? Why didn't Iron Man do anything that exciting or clever? I mean, he did break a map into pieces and drive it home in his convertible, that was pretty crazy I guess. And he invented an uninventable element in an afternoon, that was pretty cool I guess.
• Okay, now I'm not being sarcastic: I was down with the back to back Clash songs on the soundtrack, I thought it was going to be all AC/DC.
• And the Stark Blood Toxicity meter seemed awful thick. All those devices, all those see-through iphones and his blood checker is thicker than a deck of cards? Nonsense.
  
• Let's see, what else . . . what else
• Yeah, I just want to say again: This movie just needed more thrills that socked you in the gut, the "Heck Yeah!" moments shouldn't have all been over mini-ads for the next Marvel films. Things are going pretty dull if I find myself smiling to myself "Yeah! I knew it! I knew there'd be a secret message in the old film strip!"
  

I've said so much, I've said so little. So it goes.

Best I Hope Everyone Had the Best Mothers Day

Perfectly good excuse to repost these, I'd say.



This is the first time I realized that that bush is totally dead now. So may subtleties, such a high quality "Spot the Differences" game this would make.

But anyway, here's one final Happy Mother's Day to Mothers everywhere, particularly Oak Park.

Best of the Best

Well, I hope you're all staying home tonight and seeing Iron Man tomorrow, because the Season Four premiere is awful good. It was directed by show creator/FNL movie director Peter Berg, the only episode he's directed since the series premiere. And while the first game of this season doesn't include any life-altering injuries, it'll sock you in the gut just as hard as that Panthers/Chaps match up.

Best Non-Sequential Birthday Weekend Adventure Stories, Story No. 1

I'm not exactly sure how to approach the telling of all my Home for the Weekend with Collin and Jared tales, so I'll just start with something pretty interesting that we did. Something I had been eager to try for over a year. (Holy Smokes! I wrote that post exactly one year before I visited what I'm about to tell you I visited . . .)

Okay, May 1, Chicago Vacation Day 2 or 3, depending on how you look at it. A serious undertaking, an important mission: Let's get to the top of that thing, that Sears Tower. It's been a while and I heard there'd been some changes.


Well . . . first this change. Errr. Does anyone call it this? And does anyone say "Cloud Gate" either?


The line area was very different from the last time I went, probably at least 20 minutes. Fortunately there was nearly no line at all, so we could just cruise by all the fake museumy stuff there to placate the anxious and irritated.



But we did pause here and there to admire certain things. One thing they really like to make clear to you when you're waiting to go up is that you'll be 103 stories above the ground. Here's what it's like to shoot 103 stories above homeplate at Wrigley Field.


And then, one optional movie (we opted in) and a minute-long elevator ride (again: reminding you you're up 103 stories, again) and there you are, 103 stories above sweet home Chicago.



And that's all well and good, but the really important thins is that the Sears Tower has these clear balconies to go out on so that you can see straight down 103 stories to the ground below. That's why I was there, trapped in Chicago's ultimate tourist trap.

Seated photos were very popular.


I'm not particularly afraid of heights or anything, looking down at the ground didn't make my legs very wobbly or anything. But what did trigger a subconscious fear in me was looking up and seeing how close I was to the top of the Sears Tower . . . that's when my brain alerted my body that I was not where I was supposed to be at all.

Jared, however, was a known non-fan of being up high. We had to pull him onto the balcony with his eyes closed.

See! Compare the contrasting enthusiasm and comfort.

I don't know what he was nervous about.

Collin was down with the ledge but claimed to experience a sensation like he was sinking through the floor.




Returning to a secure position, Jared observed us invent a great new game: Sky Ledge Trustfall! Perhaps just as scary as doing a trust fall into a normal wall as you can't see the apparently certain doom behind you, but there's something to it.



And that's just about it for the Sears Skydeck. Goodbye, Skydeck! I'll visit again someday, maybe, for the right guest or if you make the ledges scarier (like if they were programed to drop an inch at random times--that would produce some screams or involuntary evacuations [of ledges]).

Okay, tune in again soon for another Chicago trip post from who knows what day having who knows what adventure.

Best Today Is Mostly a Holiday for Tecate and Corona

Yesterday I was in a Duane Reade by work. I overheard a boss-looking person in the Greeting Cards section asking if they had any Cinco de Mayo cards. Nope. I wonder if he had already tried the Hallmark Store next door?

Best Unresistable Force

I bring my lunch to work as often as possibly possible—but still, a few days a week I have to venture out of the office in search of something to eat. Usually I have a meal in mind (at times, something in mind that I've been craving [Chipotle, street meat, Chinese buffet] other times it's something in mind to be resigned to (Subway, the lousy soup at the deli next door, Chinese buffet) and other times I'm walking along and my lunch finds me.

For example:

I'm a fool for specialty, limited-time burgers—a foolishness much more frequently satisfied by Burger King than McDonald's—and this delicious-looking Whiplash Whopper was something I was born to be a fool for. (It was even more intriguing for the brief moment before I realized it was an Iron Man 2 tie-in burger . . . seriously, if there was no Iron Man 2, what could a Whiplash Whopper be? For some reason I imagine there being barbed wire on it.)

I assumed the crispies in the poster were onion petals of some sort, like from last year's wonder Angry Whoppers, but turns out they were fried peppers. Combine those with a peppery mayo and you've got a pleasantly zingy sandwich on your hand (or all over your hands, as it were). A review I later found at A Hamburger Today recommended discarding the Whopper's flavor-challenged tomato for a fully above average lunchtime burger—a tip I anticipate following soon, quite possibly as early as this Saturday in a post-Tony Stark Returns Celebration. (10:45 @ 34th Street Loews, don't sleep.)

Also of note over at AHT: Lengthy praise for the Smashburger smashburger—a little too positive a review for me to agree with wholeheartedly (I thought the Smashburger smashburger was fine, but in need of bun and toppings related improvements). This reviewer at the hamburger blog, has he had many hamburgers? (I just checked the review in hopes that it wasn't by Nick Solares, AHT's usual reviewer, oops, it was)

Best Now It Is Later and There Is More

Click to Visit my awesome NYC Birthday Party Photo Supplement!



a.k.a. Attack of the Beanie Bros

Best There Will Be More Later

But for now, I present you with the warm glow . . .


. . . of the death candle.

Best In Case You Didn't Get the Email

You (yes, YOU!) are totally invited to tacos tonight.


Between 7pm (so you can roll up straight from work if that's more convenient for you) and 8'ish at the truck on Amsterdam between 96th and 97th (this is the same truck that used to park at 96th and Broadway).

After 8 we're going back to my place for the after party.

(but I don't know if there will be cake)

This event is more or less my east coast birthday party this year. Individually engraved invites to my midwest birthday party are in the mail.

Best Epitaph

Lunching one afternoon in the cemetary at Trinity Church (I wasn't the only one) I admired the headstones for a bit. Back in the 18th Century, they could really write you an epitaph. Consider this one, for starters:
Here lies the Body of Mr. William Bradford

Printer, who departed this life May 23, 1752, aged 92 Years: He was born in Leicestershire, in Old England, in 1660 and came over to America in 1682, before the City of Philadelphia was liad out. He was Printer to this Government for upwards of 50 Years and being quite worn out with Old age and labour he left this mortal state in the lively Hopes of a blessed Immortality.

Reader, reflect how soon you'll quit this Stage. You'll find but few atain such an Age. Life's full of Pain. Lo here's a Place of Rest. Prepare to meet your GOD then you are blest.

Age: 90. Cause of Death: Quite worn out with Old age and labour.

Best You Cannot Call Me a Liar

Just like I told you I would, I read "Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself: A Road Trip with David Foster Wallace" last week.


Not always as fascinating or as insightful as I had hoped it would be(*to be explained thoroughly soon) yet still a book no one with a strong curiosity about DFW could possibly pass up, AOCYEUBY consists of three parts (in this order): an introduction, a preface, an afterword, the interview, and an appendix re:the Cultural Products Mentioned in the book—not a bibliography of DFW works that come up during the interview, but a bit more color on every movie, book, and TV show mentioned during the interview.

The interview itself is the part that was sometimes not as insightful as I had hoped . . . but that goes without saying when basically what you have is a transcript of several days of conversation. So there's flavor throughout, but occasional lulls in the revelationpalooza one might hope for. But there's definitely some good stuff in there, especially re: DFW's own views of Infinite Jest, very handy information to have on hand if you're planning on rereading that monster soon (that's me I'm talking about).

The best part of the book proved to be the afterword, placed at the beginning of the book right after the preface, the reader is invited to read it whenever they see fit. I saw fit after I finished the book, it was the right time for me. In the afterward the author attempts to reconcile his DFW experience with Wallace's suicide and here the book is at its best, finally the author seems interesting (in the interview, eh, not so much) and, yeah, it all gets weightier and meatier . . . especially if you've read the whole interview already, I suppose.

Probably my favorite thing from this whole book was this reference in the Cultural Products Mentioned section regarding A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again (the essay I'm always plugging):

. . . when David turned it in to Harper's in 1995, his editor Colin Harrison remembers, "It was very clear to us that we had pure cocaine on our hands."

I've never read such a fine compliment, nor such an accurate description of what something was, in my entire life.

Best Important Photo Supplement

Just posted pictures from my new lens on the photo supplement blog, check them out!

Please?

Best Scholarly Text in Ages

Last week I finished this book, The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida: Religion without Religion by John D. Caputo. Okay . . . this one . . .was a little tricky. I feel it is best described by the copy on the back of the book:

The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida takes its point of departure from Derrida's more recent, sometimes autobiographical writings and closely examines the religious motifs that have emerged in his later works. John D. Caputo's provocative interpretation of Derrida's thinking also makes an original contribution to the question of the relevance of deconstruction for religion. Caputo's Derrida is a man of faith who bridges Jewish and Christian traditions. The deep messianic, apocalyptic, and prophetic tones in Derrida's writings, Caputo argues, bespeak his broken covenant with Judaism. Through its startling exploration of Derrida's impossible religion, the book sheds light on the implications of deconstruction for an understanding of religion and faith today.

Got that? Let us continue . . .

Why'd I read this book? Because it was enthusiastically recommended to me and because I've got a soft spot for poststructural criticism in me left over from college.

I feel my thoughts on this book are best summarized in a bullet-pointed list:

• First of all, Caputo writes his book in a very writerly manner. There is a lot of flourish and art to this scholarly text, not too different from reading Derrida himself—so some might say it can be a tad convoluted or obscure at times, let's just be straight about that. I like my philosophers to be very upfront and clear as they explain things so that I (in my limited capacity) can follow it as closely as possible . . . unfortunately, I think there's only one contemporary philospher who writes this way. So this book was a bit of work, I had to make sure I caught the concepts and I then I had to make sure I understood the concepts. This lead to my underlining quite a bit and coming away with a few ideas and soundbites well captured but not a certainty that I got the big picture down just right.
• Continuing from above, this is not a beginner's text. The reader is counted on to bring in a lot of knowledge of the background material and a lot of other material in general. For example, Caputo writes about the teachings of Johannes de Silencio . . . if you didn't know that was Kierkegaard's pseudonymous author of Fear and Trembling, well, you weren't going to find that out from Caputo.
• But, continuing from that, I was happy to find so many traces of Kierkegaard in the book. A lot of Caputo's thoughts on Derrida's ideas fit in nicely with things I picked up from Training in Chrisianity (my favorite Kierkegaard text). Kierkegaard's writings on the offensive nature of Christ or Christ as the symbol of offense seem particularly in harmony with Caputo's ideas. Also, a decent amount of the later portion of Prayers and Tears has to do with the story of Abraham and Isaac and Fear and Trembling, so that's cool.
• On the major-league plus side, I was just happy to be reading this book and having my Subway brain (and sometimes-wandering work brain) thinking about Derrida, critical theory, and deconstruction--all interests of mine that I don't typically visit daily. I feel I have a, like, solid B understanding of deconstruction but even still, reading this book made me wonder if a B understanding might as well be a D understanding. Reading the book it became clear to me that having an A++ understanding of deconstruction (the point where you'd readily proclaim there is no understanding of deconstruction at all . . . I don't understand deconstruction well enough to say that, myself) is something that will really consume your life.
• I started this book with the hopes of gaining a little knowledge and being able to mingle a little more of the philosophies of men with my scripture. I don't know that I grasped enough to accomplish much of that (not that I felt like a clueless dunce the whole time I read the book! there were just definitely stretches of paragraphs . . . or pages . . . where I had to say to myself "Okay, what was that?") BUT I was in Sunday School several weeks ago talking about Lehi's vision of the Tree of Life and the teacher said ". . . the iron rod is the word of God . . ." and my Caputo-addled brain thought "The iron rod is the word of God . . . or is the word of God the iron rod? Oh my gosh! Exemplarism!" And then we were making a list on the board of symbols from the vision and the teacher asked us "Okay, what isn't the word of God?" And I thought "Oh my gosh! Negative theology!"
• I guess you had to be there.
• And have read the book?
• Or known was exemplarism or negative theology are.
• Okay. Examplarism is a problem with meaning and identity, sort of like the chicken and egg question applied to sign and signifier. Negative Theology is theology where you define God by delineating what He isn't. Much of the book seemed, it seemed to me, to alternate between arguing that deconstruction is negative theology and that deconstruction isn't negative theology.
  
• More than anything, I wish I read this book in a class. I wish I read it with people I could discuss it with and with a teacher who could explain what a few things meant, even if that defies the very nature of deconstruction.

A question! (if you read this far) Should we talk more about deconstruction around here? Should I say what I think it's about? Should I have said that at the beginning of this post? I know some people showed up today just hoping for pictures of hamburgers or maybe a youtube of something.

Best speeches.byu.edu Surprise!

When I was at NYU, our most hotshot of the hotshot professors was this fellow Noah Feldman (now a Harvard hotshot). A while ago I had a post about an article he wrote in NY Times called "What is it About Mormonism?" and the keynote address he gave at the Princeton University conference on Mormonism and Politics.

Now it turns out he gave a devotional (or forum?) address at BYU late last year entitled "Few Are Chosen: Comparative Religion in the Public Sphere". In his talk, Feldman marches us through the history of presidential candidates from his home state of Massachusetts for whom their religious affiliation or standing was in issue in their candidacy. I found it to be more informative than insightful, but definitely interesting to listen to and I recommend it to you.

(Also cool: Feldman is introduced by John Tanner, one of my favorite professors from my undergraduate experience)

Bonus Devotional Discovery: My Grandma's cousin, Elder Spence J Condie, just gave a devotional there, too.

Best Goes Around, Comes Around

Well, as you probably noticed, last week I had a rare case of the "Don't Wanna Blog"s, not that I was without content.

For example, last Friday (the 9th, not the 16th) Chateau invited me to join in on a Momofuku Fried Chicken Dinner. This would be my fourth. I'm a lucky guy, when it comes to fried chicken opportunities.

I sat across from Whitney and Nick.

We started off with a plate of the fried potatoes and poached egg, which goes fast, as you can see here:

Once the veggies arrived we started getting silly:


Lettuce beard on Chateau, Hyeku and Casey in the background.

I feel like the baby carrots are a little pickled now? There have definitely been some changes to the veggie basket, it only has mint now (there used to be a lot more herbs in there) and they don't serve shiso peppers with it anymore. Bummer.

And then . . . CHICKEN!

Once the chicken arrives, fingers get sticky and less photos are taken. But what a time. Thanks for the invite, Chateau. Oh, and right there on the side, that's Casey's sister. Uh, Alyssomething.

One more thing worth noting we had an 11:45pm reservation. This was a great midnight meal.

Best I Can't Stop Thinking About You, RUB Burger

Monday night. Time for a celebration, a celebration of Ben's birthday. And also, time for a burger.

What burger? The RUB Burger, available Monday nights only at RUB BBQ in Chelsea. I had heard good, no, great things about this burger and was very excited to try it. Mondays come and Mondays go and finally, I found a Monday night free for burger eating with a side of cause of celebration.

This burger, smashed into the griddle to produce a magnificently greasey crust and topped with grilled onions, American cheese, and lots of pickles (pickles that aren't just there as a token topping but serve a purpose in the grand flavor & texture scheme of the burger) on a wonderfully soft bun, is just magnificent. Dare I say perfect? Yes, I dare say it. One bite into the RUB Burger and I could tell it was the perfect execution of the chef's wishes for this burger.

Don't let the pictures deceive, this isn't a slider but a sizeable (yet thin, but that's the idea) burger. I gobbled mine up in maybe a minute and a half (pausing to take this second picture of all the juiciness oozing out of the backside of this wonderful thing) and said on the spot I'd eat three more. Perhaps this burger is only available once a week for the good of the world, for the good of my health? 24hrs later and I'm feeling absolutely fiendish about it.

Fellow diners, Chris and Jeff. Not pictured: Steve or the Birthday Boy. But he was in that top picture.

Also Great: Refills on rootbeer and onion straw (or strings?) as perfect (for what they are) as the burger. The perfection in everything I tasted leads me to believe that RUB's standard BBQ items must be of the highest quality and deliciousness, as well.

Oh, and because of a minor burger mix up we were given a batch of RUB's chocolate chip and bacon cookies. Can't see any bacon here, but it was in there.

In sum: RUB Burger=My favorite burger in the city right now. I've already made my appointment to go back next Monday, I'm pushing for too much of a good thing as quickly as I possibly can.

Addendum re: Smashed Burgers

I said that the RUB Burger was cooked smash style. Lots of great burgers are cooked this way, and by "this way" I mean: the meat is placed on the griddle in the form of large, loose meatball and then smashed down real hard and real flat on the griddle by the chef. But doesn't this defy two key burger conceptions: 1) That you should handle/press the meat as little as possible for fear of losing juices and 2) Aren't burgers best from the grill? The response: 1 & 2) Yes, but then the burger both develops a tasty (and in the case of the RUB burger, absolutely delicious) crust and gets to cook in its own juices. The results: wonderful.

Other fine burgers cooked after the manner of the smash:

The burgers at Culvers, I assume, from their thinness and crustiness (and it doesn't hurt that a huge pat of butter is added to the process).

The burger at Smash Burger, a little chain popping up in the west. For the product of a fast food system, I found my Smash Burger to be pretty good but not amazing. One major flaw was the bun, way too big, way too thick. More appropriate for a giant grilled patty. Some fine tuning and this would be a great place, but I don't know that chains are places where fine tuning takes place.

The burger at Bill's Bar and Burger in the Meatpacking District (and soon Rockefeller Center): This burger put me into a fit similar to the one I'm having over the RUB Burger when I first had it. One bite and I could only think: "See! This is what a burger should taste like!" And I still love this burger, I still want it again! But the RUB Burger is definitely greasier (a positive) and tastier, so how about I say Bill's is the burger in the city I'm most excited about on every day of the week except Monday?

Also, for the record, the burger at the Shake Shack is a smash burger. But I have no picture handy.

Excellent Additional Reading: A Hamburger Today's Smashed burger of New York Rundown.