cinema history class: cyclone (1978)

The session: "April is the Cruelest Month -- Cardona's Catastrophes"
Four movies by the two Rene Cardonas -- father and son

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 2: Cyclone (1978)
Directed by Rene Cardona, Jr.

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A freak cyclone in the Caribbean sinks boats and planes alike, leaving a sightseeing boat full of people adrift at sea with its occupants struggling to survive.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
In some very obvious ways, Cyclone seems like a reworking of Survive!, which we saw a week earlier. In both, a bunch of passengers are stuck in the middle of nowhere, presumed dead, with dwindling food, no way of communicating with or getting back to civilization. The obvious difference, of course, is that in Survive! the cast are stuck in the snow in the Andes. In Cyclone, they're stuck in a boat on the open ocean. In both movies, some of the lost passengers go off on their own in search of help. And both movies pander to the baser senses by featuring cannibalism.

That said, there are some very important differences. Survive! was a very tight movie with a very straightforward simple plot and very little inn the way of character development or what I'll call sidetrips. By contrast, Cyclone is a complex mess. The barely-surviving passengers aren't all from one boat. Some had been on an airplane that crashed in the ocean, and some had been on a fishing boat. Somehow they all managed to find their way together onto the sightseeing boat, which was only supposed to be on a three-hour tour. And, unsatisfied with the basic premise, the movie seems to throw the kitchen sink at the victims. All those run-ins with sharks were like butter upon bacon. And the movie tries its darnedest to develop the characters. And yet I couldn't be moved to give a crap about any of them. The woman giving birth on the boat (and the baby)? Whatever. The idiot who thought her dog was as important as the human passengers? Fuck her. And her little dog too.

The attempts at character development and the unneeded extra hardships added extra time to the movie that it could have done without.

Ratings
Me: 6
Bob-O: 7.5
Christina: 8.3
Dave: 9
Ethan: 7
Kursat: 8.5

cinema history class: survive! (1976)

The session: "April is the Cruelest Month -- Cardona's Catastrophes"
Four movies by the two Rene Cardonas -- father and son

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Survive! (1976)
Directed by Rene Cardona

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I hadn't heard of this.

Plot:
A charter flight crashes in the Andes, and the survivors have to resort to cannibalism to stay alive.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Survive! is brutal in its simplicity. I've seen a bunch of disaster movies -- Earthquake was one of my earliest experiences at a movie theater. And they all manage to work relationships into the narrative. They tell the stories of people dealing with, well, disasters. But they include character development, so we care about the people and experience the pathos. But that's just not so with Survive!. It's not character driven at all -- unless the situation itself is the star (an astute observation that Dave made). At the end of the film, I couldn't have even given the names of any of the characters.

Having said that, I should acknowledge that Keith showed us the English language version of this film. The Spanish language version, which was a half hour longer, probably did include character development. And we did get the faintest hint of that, as we saw the father of one of the airplane passengers pleading with local officials to keep searching. And there was a tiny bit at the end as he waited patiently to see if his son would emerge from the helicopter that was carrying survivors. I don't know if I would have enjoyed the longer version with more character development. In a sense, it wasn't needed. This was the version without the gristle.

A lot of the film was done very well. Watching the plane crash, I almost felt as if I was there with them. The miserable cold feel of the film was captivating.

Ratings
Me: 8
Bob-O: 8.8
Christina: 9.4
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 9

stoopidstats: another move!

It's been known for a while that the Athletics (baseball team) is going to be moving to Las Vegas for the 2027 season (if not sooner). That gives me something to look forward to -- StoopidStatularly thinking. The move doesn't mean a new franchise, and probably won't mean a new team nickname (the franchise has already moved twice and kept the nickname "Athletics" both times. But the move to Las Vegas promises to make them the first team there, and the first team in the state of Nevada. So that will add a level of interest (for me, anyway) to my annual process.

But this past week, baseball announced that the A's are leaving Oakland after this season. They're not moving to Las Vegas right away, since their stadium won't be ready for 2025. Instead, they'll play three years in Sacramento -- or West Sacramento, depending on which article I believe. This, of course, teases me with a variety of possibilities.

Specifically, how will the team be branded for the three interim years? Assuming they keep the nickname "Athletics," there are a few possible names for the team starting next year. As a disclaimer, let me note that I'm just a guy pulling thoughts out of his ass. I have no insider information.

Oakland Athletics: The team could, of course, keep the "Oakland" branding, which will disappoint me, since it means that nothing will be new until the move to Las Vegas. Which is where we were before last week. I think it's unlikely they'll keep this name. For starters, the Oakland fan will be feeling burned already, and keeping the Oakland branding is unlikely to assuage the bitter feelings and will make Sacramentonians will feel unappreciated and less likely to buy tickets.

Sacramento Athletics or West Sacramento Athletics: These possibilities would probably be the coolest since either one would represent a new location in the team's name. And the location would only be in use for three years (probably between 180 and 270 wins) before being abandoned for Las Vegas. These would have the advantage of creating extra merchandising opportunities as fans could gobble up the short-duration uniforms, caps and other merchandise.

California Athletics or Northern California Athletics: The franchise could go for a broader regional appeal. This would give them the same merchandising opportunities as "Sacramento" or "West Sacramento." If they use "Northern California," it would also represent a new location for my list.

Las Vegas Athletics: This would interest me to some degree, though practically speaking it would simply accelerate the "Las Vegas" moniker by three years. It wouldn't make sense to me, unless the franchise is trying to get started early on building fan loyalty. It would also annoy me because I'd be left in a quandary. If a team is labelled as Las Vegas but plays in California, I'd have to decide whether to have my statistics reflect them as being in California or Las Vegas.

As a side note, they'll be playing for three seasons in a stadium with only 14,000 seats, which is tiny by current Major League baseball standards. Of course, it's well more than enough to hold their current fan base, so I guess it should be fine.