The Film Thugs Movie Show

During our recording session last night I decided to get a video of Clarkson's reaction to one of the most inane quotes I have ever heard. Here it is. What do you think?

I love and hate the idea of doing a Top 10 of the year. After an absolute favorite it's kind of hard to quantify. Really, how do you really differentiate between 7 and 8? Also, writing 10 reviews at once is kind of a pain, so I tend to gloss over some things, but what the hell? This is why I write for my own site. The idea is a bit absurd if you think about it, but it's also kind of fun, so...

The list...

Special Mention: Tree of Life

I am putting this here because as much as I enjoyed (?) it, I don't really care if I ever see it again. This is sort of like reading James Joyce. I understand the importance, I understand the artistry and all that and I completely agree that this is a brilliant film. But, that's about it.

If you see it and love it, I totally understand. If you see it and hate it, I get that too. But it is a remarkable film in that it's completely original and completely true to the intent of the filmmaker and that is far too important to overlook. Read my full review here.

10) Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

I have seen part of all of every Harry Potter films. They are, for the most part, solid and enjoyable films that capture the spirit of the books and, by and large, achieve what they set out to achieve. A lot of the films consist of first act set up, there is a lot of pandering with characters and magic-ey things, and a lot of unnecessary scenes that go on far too long. But they are what they mean to be.

Deathly Hallows part 2, though, really hits something spectacular. In particular, the pensive scene. Oh, man that pensive scene. There is more style, heart, and sophistication in that sequence than in all 7 previous films combined.. It is solidly paced, well acted, the moments that need to hit do, and in the end it is a solidly fitting end to an unprecedented cultural phenomenon.

9) Mission: Impossible- Ghost Protocol

Spy movies are fun. They just are. I mean, they are complete B.S., but they are fun B.S. There is a reason spy museums aren't more popular. There are only so many hidden cameras you can see before you've seen every hidden camera .

This is why I love the show Mission: Impossible and some of the movies. At their best they are pure fantasy escapism. Our heroes get to do cool stuff with cool stuff all for the sake of our safety. Ghost Protocol hits it dead on the screws. It's basically a multi phase heist film, but a damned good one. There are some truly stunning action scenes and a solid story. The ending was a bit... much, but all in this stands as one of the best of the series. Well worth it if you are willing to completely abandon disbelief and just go with it.

8) The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

This is a rough one. Really rough. Like, you aren't ready for how rough this is. I have always been fascinated by what goes on out of view. Closed doors, covered windows, even the secret back areas of businesses you go to every day have always represented the unknowable to me. That guy who lives down the street that you never talk to, whose name you don't know, well he has a life as long and as rich as yours, you just don't know that story. Thing is, not all of these are good stories. That is what "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" is about. It's dirty laundry, and what people will do to keep that laundry unaired.

Fincher does what Fincher does best here. Every shot is beautiful, every performance is dead on. Trent Renzor and Atticus Ross deliver another stunning score, Steve Zallian nails it with the script, and the acting... just damn. Don't think of this as a remake of the original film, but as a different adaptation of the book. It is a different film, but just as effective. That being said, it is assuredly not for everyone.

7) X-Men First Class

It was physically impossible for me to care less about this film than I did when it was announced. Then the previews came out... nothing changed. Then the reviews that were... really good. I still didn't care. Between X-Men 3 and Origins I had been so thoroughly burned that I just didn't have it in me to care anymore.

Well, then New Year's Eve hit and I found myself couch bound with food poisoning. I figured to give it a go as, worst case, it would take my mind off my delicate condition.

I was very surprised. This thing has a solid story and direction, great direction, and really sets up what will/has come quite well. Fassbinder nails it, Bacon was terrifying, even the surprise cameo worked. Not the best of the series, but very solid and a film I would watch again.

6) Six Month Rule

You haven't seen this, but hopefully you will. This movie did not make my list because the director and star did a show with us, more the opposite. I wanted him on the show because of how much I enjoyed this film. Very few movies tell honest relationship stories from an authentic male perspective. This is an authentic love story that you will be able to relate to. It's honest and refreshing and well worth your time. Read my full review here.

5) Hugo

I paid to see a 3D movie. Yes, I did. And I stand firmly behind my previous statements. It is a cute gimmick, but it doesn't really add anything.

This is a movie made with people like me in mind. It is a loving tribute to the power and history of film, what it means and can mean to us. This Scorsese kid pulls off something spectacular here. He made a touching family film that isn't trite or saccharine.

4) Moneyball

I am a fundamentally logical person. The idea of doing something one way because "that's how it's done" has always felt absolutely ridiculous to me, especially in our current world. 15 years ago people scoffed at the idea of renting movies online, or the idea of stores without physical locations. 6 years ago the idea of a phone without buttons was unheard of.

Before that, Billy Beane came up with an idea that was even more insane. Challenge 100+ years of baseball tradition. Stop trusting scout's instincts and start looking at numbers. The idea of doing something new or different in baseball is... well, it's easier to change the US Constitution. But he did it. This is how. Even if you don't care for baseball, this is a hell of a movie. If you are a baseball fan, regardless of if you remember this time period or not, you will love it. It is a fascinating and riveting story of someone who saw a new way of doing things. Well worth it.

3) The Descendants

Alexander Payne does three things well.

1) He gets great performances out of great actors.

2) He tells personal stories about people growing.

3) He makes good movies.

All three of these are on full display here. Fantastic script, beautifully shot, and Clooney absolutely kills it. Read my full review here.

2) Warrior

This thing was poised to be number 1 on my list, but more on that later. If you want to know my full opinion, check out the show we did on this. This is a movie about heart, forgiveness, loyalty, anger, redemption, love, passion, what it means to be a man, family and how much they can let you down, and so much more. The fights are AMAZING because each one means something. It's not about the punch, it's about what the punch is about. If you want my full opinion on this, listen to the show we did about it. I kind of go off.

It is easy to discount this as a Rocky knock off, it is also wildly incorrect. That would be like calling Moneyball a Bad News Bears knock off because they are about underdog baseball teams. There is so much more going on here. From the first frame you know how the final fight is going to line up, but that doesn't matter because you don't know how it's going to turn out. The anticipation, the wondering, the BUILD is what it's about. It's about caring how it turns out. It's about not wanting to choose sides, but finding yourself doing so anyway. Warrior is an absolutely inspiring and powerful film.

1) The Artist

A while back I'd started to hear about this silent, black and white movie that was making all kinds of waves on the festival circuit. I heard people gushing about how inspiring and wonderful it was. It was one of those things that I though would flash in the pan and then be forgotten until it hit DVD. Then it made the Austin Film Festival where I was lucky enough to see it. I cannot think of another film that I stood to cheer out loud and applaud.

I could go on and on, but I've already done that here, so yeah, check that out.

Christmas has come early folks!!! That’s right, the day you have been waiting for has finally arrived!!!!

The Golden Globe Nominations were announced to the wonderment of all.

Anyone?

Ok, so even for those who care about the major awards, The Globes are the junior varsity. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like we’re talking People’s Choice Awards or anything, but it’s still not an Oscar.

My Probable Winner is who I think will win, my choice is who I would vote for. Sometimes they will be the same, other times they will differ. I have done no research at this point, so my probables are basically blind guesses based off my instinct.

So, let’s look at my VERY early predictions.

Best Motion Picture - Drama

Nominees:

The Descendants (2011)

The Help (2011)

Hugo (2011/II)

The Ides of March (2011)

Moneyball (2011)

War Horse (2011)

I have only seen three of these (The Descendants, Hugo, and Moneyball), but I have loved each of them. All the buzz so far points to “The Descendants,” and I have to agree. Much as I love the others I honestly feel that is the best choice.

Probable Winner- The Descendants

Jim’s Choice- The Descendants

Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

The Artist (2011)

Bridesmaids (2011)

50/50 (2011)

Midnight in Paris (2011)

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

I love that they split this one in two. I really do. There is no competition in this category though, at least for me. Also, there is a ton of buzz on this one. Unless something stupid happens The Artist walks with this.

Probable Winner- The Artist

Jim’s Choice- The Artist

That also represents the battle for Best Picture at the Oscars. Of the two, my choice is The Artist. Hands down.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama

Nominees:

George Clooney for The Descendants (2011)

Leonardo DiCaprio for J. Edgar (2011)

Michael Fassbender for Shame (2011)

Ryan Gosling for The Ides of March (2011)

Brad Pitt for Moneyball (2011)

I think Clooney will and should get this. Yeah, there is a lot of buzz on Fassbender, Gosling is always solid, Pitt is outstanding, Leo has been due for a while (but the feedback on Jedgar is way too devisive for this to be the one), but Clooney is so damned moving and impressive in this.

Probable Winner- Clooney

Jim’s Choice- Clooney

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama

Nominees:

Glenn Close for Albert Nobbs (2011)

Viola Davis for The Help (2011)

Rooney Mara for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady (2011)

Tilda Swinton for We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

This is a street fight between Close and Streep. I know there is a lot of hype around Iron Lady, but Albert Nobbs is the type of story and performance that garners a lot of attention. Plus Close is a criminally under appreciated actress (yeah, I said it). To me this one is too close to call, but who am I kidding? Streep will take this.

Probable Winner- Streep

Jim’s Choice- Toss Up- Streep and Close

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Jean Dujardin for The Artist (2011)

Brendan Gleeson for The Guard (2011)

Joseph Gordon-Levitt for 50/50 (2011)

Ryan Gosling for Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011)

Owen Wilson for Midnight in Paris (2011)

Gordon Levitt has some weight here, but I am really pulling for Dujardin.

Probable Winner- Dujardin

Jim’s Choice- Dujardin

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Jodie Foster for Carnage (2011)

Charlize Theron for Young Adult (2011)

Kristen Wiig for Bridesmaids (2011)

Michelle Williams for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Kate Winslet for Carnage (2011)

I love Jodie Foster and it’s nice to see her in something were terrible things don’t happen to her. But I think this is the year of Kristen Wiig, and we will see that come through here. There are few people in Hollywood who are as solid and reliable as Wiig, so I am all for this one even though I haven’t seen Bridesmaids.

Probable Winner- Wiig

Jim’s Choice- Wiig

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Nominees:

Kenneth Branagh for My Week with Marilyn (2011)

Albert Brooks for Drive (2011)

Jonah Hill for Moneyball (2011)

Viggo Mortensen for A Dangerous Method (2011)

Christopher Plummer for Beginners (2010)

I am not familiar enough to make an educated guess, but I think Plummer will win it because he is Chris Plummer. I have no issue with this.

Probable Winner- Plummer

Jim’s Choice- Plummer

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Nominees:

Bérénice Bejo for The Artist (2011)

Jessica Chastain for The Help (2011)

Janet McTeer for Albert Nobbs (2011)

Octavia Spencer for The Help (2011)

Shailene Woodley for The Descendants (2011)

This has been the year of Jessica Chastain. Between The Help, The Debt, Tree of Life, and Coriolanus she has been racking up the award bait. So I think she takes it, although my vote is for Bejo.

Probable Winner- Chastain

Jim’s Choice- Bejo

Best Director - Motion Picture

Nominees:

Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris (2011)

George Clooney for The Ides of March (2011)

Michel Hazanavicius for The Artist (2011)

Alexander Payne for The Descendants (2011)

Martin Scorsese for Hugo (2011/II)

Wow! So… apparently Malik can go straight to hell. Surprising. This is a tough one. As good as Allen and Clooney are, this is between Scorsese, Payne, Hazanavicius. I don’t think Scorsese will take it, and it is an absolute toss up between the others. I’m going with a split on this. I really want The Artist to win, but I think that Payne is about to get his.

Probable Winner- Payne

Jim’s Choice- Hazanavicius

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Michel Hazanavicius

The Descendants (2011): Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash

The Ides of March (2011): George Clooney, Grant Heslov, Beau Willimon

Midnight in Paris (2011): Woody Allen

Moneyball (2011): Steven Zaillian, Aaron Sorkin, Stan Chervin

This is an odd one. All very different, all very good, one very gutsy. You can never rule out Allen or Sorkin, but I don’t think this is the year for either. The Ides of March, while probably very good, is up against too much. This could go either way, but I am going with my gut.

Probable Winner- The Descendants

Jim’s Choice- The Artist

Best Original Song - Motion Picture

Nominees:

Albert Nobbs (2011): Brian Byrne, Glenn Close("Lay Your Head Down")

Gnomeo & Juliet (2011): Elton John, Bernie Taupin("Hello Hello")

The Help (2011): Mary J. Blige, Thomas Newman, Harvey Mason Jr., Damon Thomas("The Living Proof")

Machine Gun Preacher (2011): Chris Cornell("The Keeper")

W.E. (2011): Madonna, Julie Frost, Jimmy Harry("Masterpiece")

I do not give a crap on this one. So… Elton John and Bernie Taupin?

Probable Winner- Hello, Hello- Elton John and Bernie Taupin

Jim’s Choice- Sure, same thing.

Best Original Score - Motion Picture

Nominees:

The Artist (2011): Ludovic Bource

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011): Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross

Hugo (2011/II): Howard Shore

War Horse (2011): John Williams

W.E. (2011): Abel Korzeniowski

I would go with Dragon Tattoo, but Trent won last year and the music in The Artist is too necessary.

Probable Winner- The Artist

Jim’s Choice- The Artist

Best Animated Film

Nominees:

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)

Arthur Christmas (2011)

Cars 2 (2011)

Puss in Boots (2011)

Rango (2011)

Apparently Peter Jackson has discovered a real up and comer in this Spielberg kid. I think the foreign press will go nuts for his radical cinematic stylings.

Probable Winner- Tintin

Jim’s Choice- I don’t really care, so Tintin.

Best Foreign Language Film

Nominees:

The Flowers of War (2011)(China)

In the Land of Blood and Honey (2011)(USA)

The Kid with a Bike (2011)(Belgium)

A Separation (2011)(Iran)

The Skin I Live In (2011)(Spain)

Have not seen any. But there is an Aldomovar up, so…

Probable Winner- The Skin I Live In

Jim’s Choice- Yeah, that.

Best Television Series - Drama

Nominees:

"American Horror Story" (2011)

"Boardwalk Empire" (2010)

"Boss" (2011)

"Game of Thrones" (2011)

"Homeland" (2011)

Between Boardwalk and Thrones. I can’t make a call for either.

Best Television Series - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

"Enlightened" (2011)

"Episodes" (2011)

"Glee" (2009)

"Modern Family" (2009)

"New Girl" (2011)

I think Modern Family continues its dominance.

Probable Winner- Modern Family

Jim’s Choice- Modern Family

Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Cinema Verite (2011) (TV)

"Downton Abbey" (2010)

"The Hour" (2005)

"Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Too Big to Fail (2011) (TV)

Not familiar with any of these, but I’ve heard good things about Mildred Pierce.

Probable Winner- Mildred Pierce

Jim’s Choice- Sure, why not.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Drama

Nominees:

Steve Buscemi for "Boardwalk Empire" (2010)

Bryan Cranston for "Breaking Bad" (2008)

Kelsey Grammer for "Boss" (2011)

Jeremy Irons for "The Borgias" (2011)

Damian Lewis for "Homeland" (2011)

Tough one, but Cranston is such a beast that I see him taking it.

Probable Winner- Cranston

Jim’s Choice- Cranston

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Drama

Nominees:

Claire Danes for "Homeland" (2011)

Mireille Enos for "The Killing" (2011)

Julianna Margulies for "The Good Wife" (2009)

Madeleine Stowe for "Revenge" (2011)

Callie Thorne for "Necessary Roughness" (2011)

I’ve only seen the killing, and would love to see it win here, but it probably won’t. Gotta go with Miss Grandin on this.

Probable Winner- Danes

Jim’s Choice- Danes

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Alec Baldwin for "30 Rock" (2006)

David Duchovny for "Californication" (2007)

Johnny Galecki for "The Big Bang Theory" (2007)

Thomas Jane for "Hung" (2009)

Matt LeBlanc for "Episodes" (2011)

Galecki but not Parsons. Wow. Look at the stones on the globes! Way to buck trend, sir. I only watch 30 Rock and Californication. I honestly have no idea or choice on this one.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series - Musical or Comedy

Nominees:

Laura Dern for "Enlightened" (2011)

Zooey Deschanel for "New Girl" (2011)

Tina Fey for "30 Rock" (2006)

Laura Linney for "The Big C" (2010)

Amy Poehler for "Parks and Recreation" (2009)

Again, only watch 30 Rock and Parks and Rec. However, Poehler has been so great this year that I think she takes it.

Probable Winner- Poehler

Jim’s Choice- Poehler

Best Performance by an Actor in a Mini-Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Hugh Bonneville for "Downton Abbey" (2010)

Idris Elba for "Luther" (2010)

William Hurt for Too Big to Fail (2011) (TV)

Bill Nighy for Page Eight (2011) (TV)

Dominic West for "The Hour" (2011)

I don’t know. William Hurt?

Best Performance by an Actress in a Mini-Series or a Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Romola Garai for "The Hour" (2011)

Diane Lane for Cinema Verite (2011) (TV)

Elizabeth McGovern for "Downton Abbey" (2010)

Emily Watson for "Appropriate Adult" (2011)

Kate Winslet for "Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Ummmmm…. Kate Winslet?

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Peter Dinklage for "Game of Thrones" (2011)

Paul Giamatti for Too Big to Fail (2011) (TV)

Guy Pearce for "Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Tim Robbins for Cinema Verite (2011) (TV)

Eric Stonestreet for "Modern Family" (2009)

Some great people here, but Dinklage won the Emmy, and he is an absolute beast. You have to give the man his due, and I haven’t even seen the show yet.

Probable Winner- Dinklage

Jim’s Choice- Dinklage

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Nominees:

Jessica Lange for "American Horror Story" (2011)

Kelly Macdonald for "Boardwalk Empire" (2010)

Maggie Smith for "Downton Abbey" (2010)

Sofía Vergara for "Modern Family" (2009)

Evan Rachel Wood for "Mildred Pierce" (2011)

Wow! Sofia Veraga! That would be amazing. She has been killing it on Modern Family lately. But, Kelly Macdonald has such a strong and complex character that I think she takes it. Oh, and she’s Scottish, so… yeah.

Probable Winner- MacDonald

Jim’s Choice- MacDonald

There it is, my off the cuff response.

Lets get some feedback going here, ey?

Part 2

Education is in a bit of a crisis in this country. For years reformers have come and gone, each one promising an absolute solution to the problem. Sadly, few of them deliver. Let me be clear up front. I am not here to place blame on anyone. There are WAY too many factors that go into this mess to point at any one thing. More importantly, the why is largely irrelevant. Some people will scream and yell that "George Bush's 'No Child Left Behind' has RUINED education." Others will say, "Yeah, but Ted Kennedy wrote it, so it's HIS fault." For those who need that boogie man to point to, let me make the following statement to appease you.

"You are so right. I mean really. Can you believe how horrible and evil the people in the other political party are? Honestly! I am so glad that you are a member of the other political party, the one that would never do anything to screw anything up ever."

Does that make you feel better? Good.

What I am trying to get across is that it doesn't matter whose fault it is, we are in this situation and we have to do something about it.

Now that I have that out of the way, let's move on.

Given the fact that we live in the 21st century the odds are you have probably been on an airplane more than once. I've flown many, many times. Have you ever gotten onto a plane and said, "You know, I've flown many times. Hell, I've even watched 'Top Gun' and the 'Airport' movies a few times. What say we tell the captain that I'll be handling this flight."

This probably sounds very stupid to you. Just because you've flown and seen people fly doesn't mean that you have the technical expertise or the experience to pilot the thing. Well, believe it or not, I hear something very similar to this every day.

A quick story. At this year Austin Film Festival I was lucky enough to be in the audience for a panel featuring David Simon, creator of "The Wire," which is arguably the best show in the history of television. During the Q&A I seized the opportunity to ask a question that has been on my mind for the past 4 years.

In the 4th season of the show, a former police officer experiences his first year as a public school teacher after completing an alternative certification program. The season occurred, coincidentally, during my first year as a public school teacher after completing an alternative certification program.

"How did you get it right? How did you that experience so accurate?" I asked.

He responded, "That's all Ed Burns (his writing partner). He was a teacher in the Baltimore Public School System for several years. He didn't do alternative certification, but he taught. Actually, he said that teaching was the hardest job in the world. This is a guy who was a homicide detective for 20 years and did 2 tours as combat infantry in Vietnam. He said that teaching was the hardest job he'd ever had."

That hits the heart of it. You see, you could not do my job. Oh, you might think you can, but odds are that you can't. Unless, of course, you already do or already have done it, there is a very good chance that you couldn't do it. Most people go on about vacation time and things like that, to which I respond, "Yes, I do get more vacation time, but I also work with around 140 14 year olds every day. Want to trade?"

Nothing personal. It's hard. I know because, well, I teach. Specifically I teach 9th graders. There are several teachers I work with who look at me like I'm special forces. As I've said before many times, teaching 9th grade is like being left handed. Sure, you can work really hard and force yourself to do it, but you still aren't really left handed.

But aside from the grade level, teaching is a job that everyone thinks they can do, but really can't. Just because you've been on a plane and know where Dallas is on a map doesn't mean you can get the 747 there.

I know what you're wondering. How hard can it be? I know you're wondering this because it is the exact same question that went through my head when I set out on this path. How hard can it be?

Let me answer it with a story (By the way, if you are now or ever have been in my class, you're probably rolling your eyes at the phrase, "I have a story about that," and wondering why I write the same way I teach. If you haven't been in my class, I use stories from my life all the time to illustrate points. Kids remember more this way).

A few years ago a friends boyfriend made the following statement.

-I'm an engineer. I have a genius IQ. I could teach High School Science.

This amused me quite a bit, because a) I had heard such logic before, and b) he could not teach High School Science. So I asked a simple question.

-How?

-What?

- How would you teach it?

- Oh, I'd just go in and say, "Hey, I know this stuff, let's get to work."

I paused for a moment, wondering if I'd just stumbled onto a secret formula for teaching that had been overlooked for years. For a split second, my entire teaching career flashed before my eyes and I felt like a total failure! How could this be? How? Here I was spending all this time coming up with activities, finding ways to adjust curriculum, struggling with kids who just didn't get it. And this guy had just cracked the code. Then I came back to reality.

-Just go up there and tell them a bunch of stuff?

-Yeah.

-Well, what about the kids who don't get it? Or who don't care about the class and refuse to do work?

- What? Oh, they don't want to work they'll just fail.

- Just fail?

- That's right.

- So, you teach the kids who really want to learn physics or whatever, and fail the rest?

- That's right.

- And what do you do when the principal calls you into his office and asks why you have an 80% failure rate?

- What?

- 80% fail. What do you say?

- Well, I just say they didn't try and didn't want to be there.

- Ok, and then he'll say, "You don't get paid to teach the kids who really want to learn, you get paid to teach the kids who show up.

- But they don't try.

- So that means you don't have to? That might fly in college, but not here. What are you getting paid to do? A textbook could do what you're doing. Why aren't you teaching?

I swear that I saw a light go off in his eyes.

Let me illustrate a typical class for you.

This is a typical class of 30 students. 5 are way behind or don't care, 20 want to pass and do well even if some struggle with it, and the other 5 should/could be in an advanced placement course but just aren't. The first five will struggle, the last five will be bored out of their minds because of how far ahead they are from everyone else, and the middle 20 will be (hopefully) with you. There might be some variation from class to class, but this is a good guideline.

Every lesson you design has to hit and engage the 20 while being differentiated (that means tailored in some ways to students at different levels) enough not to lose the other 10.

Sadly, these numbers are me being generous. There are districts out there where the middle and top numbers are much lower. But that doesn't mean you are off the hook.

So, how do we fix things? Well, what we need to do is take a sharp critical look at how we do things and ask why we do them and see if there isn't a better way. I think there is. Right now I am working in a rather radical style that I find more effective and more effective than I could have ever imagined. We are changing the fundamental way we approach education and the results are amazing.

Let's start with some fundamentals before I discuss how to change them.

What are we teaching?

Here is a nice little graph that highlights what I see as the problem with education today.

So, that clears it up, right?

Oh, I forgot.

To be clear, the number of individual items on a course's curriculum has more than doubled while the school year has, in most cases, been shortened by a single day. This isn't a complaint about the amount of work there is to be done, but rather a comment on something that is patently ridiculous. An average high school course curriculum has 582 different objectives on it. Which means that you would have to cover several items every day without any chance to go back and review or re-teach any of them just to cover all the bases. Your students wouldn't learn any of it, but you would have covered it. The way most curriculum is written a student would have to go to school from K-22nd instead of K-12.

Current curriculum allows a social studies teacher about 1 week to cover imperialism, and includes 31 different terms and ideas that are to be taught. Is it possible to cover that volume of material and expect any of it to stick. Now take into account that kids are being asked to do this with 5-8 classes at one time.

Suppose we simplify this a little. Take a single class, let's use 9th grade English as an example, and ask a three simple questions.

1) What do I want students to know at the end of this class?

2) How will I know they know it?

3) What do I do if they don't?

If you were to take the three inch, not three ring but three INCH, binder of state standards and began to dig through it you could find a few dozen that you could individualize. So, let's break it down further. Each year consists, approximately, of six six week marking periods. So, I break out the six core ideas and ask those three questions.

Let's say I am working on a research unit. What do I want kids to be able to do? Well, I want them to be able to identify their position (write a thesis statement), identify sources to back up their claim (research and text evidence), support their claim (body paragraphs), summarize and restate their points (conclusion), and organize their ideas (rough/final draft).

What I just did was take the massive, overwhelming research section of that massive binder and reduced it to 5 items that are both TEACHABLE and MEASURABLE.

Now, there are things that aren't here that go into it, but this wouldn't be a first six weeks plan. You would have several marking periods to cover the information leading up to this (it's called scaffolding).

How is this revolutionary? Well, I would tell my students on the first day of the six weeks, "We are working on research this six weeks. I will be taking the following grades: intro and thesis, research and evidence, body paragraphs, conclusion, and rough/final draft. Those are the only grades I will be taking, but don't worry, you will have multiple chances to show me how well you can do each of these things."That last sentence, "multiple chances to show how well you can do each of these things," is the key.

Why are we so hell bent on only giving kids one chance to do something. Don't feed me that "real world" garbage. Does your boss only give you one chance to do something before firing you? Probably not. So, why should I only give one chance. You see, getting something wrong at first and then improving at it is called learning and the person who facilitates this learning is called a teacher. I'm not there to see what they already know, I'm there to teach them what they need to know.

Assignments and Grading

This brings me to the sticky subject of grading. So, I will ask a question, "What is the purpose of grading?" Most of you will say that we grade to see what a student knows. But I can prove you wrong right now.

Say you were teaching a class and you had a student who never did any of the homework. You give a test and he gets a 95 on it. But, you take grades on the homework and since he hasn't done any of it that pushes his grade down to a 60. Failing.

I'd ask why and you would say, "He didn't turn in the homework," and think that was that. But the real question is, "If he can get a 95 on the test without doing the homework, why should he do the homework?"

Normally homework is given to assist in understand the subject. But he is showing on the test that he understands it quite well. Yet you are failing him.

Why?

Simply put, his grade on subject mastery is an A, but his compliance grade is an F. So, the real question becomes, "Is your class about compliance, or mastery?" I understand the importance of turning in work, but if a student has the information down without doing an assignment, then that assignment becomes busy work and that grade becomes irrelevant.

But I will give an even better example.

I just pulled up an old grade book of mine, and by old I mean 3 years back, and was embarrassed by what I saw. For the six weeks that we read "To Kill A Mockingbird," I had the following grades entered:

Quiz Chapters 1-3

Quiz Chapters 4-8

Character Development Chart

Homework 1

Homework 2

Homework 3

Character paragraph

Seems pretty normal, right? So, why was I embarrassed? Look at the grades again and answer the following; what did my students learn that marking period?

You can't answer it, can you?

Now, suppose my grade book had, instead, looked like this:

Reading Strategy (main idea- theme)

Writing skill (summary)

Reading Skill (characterization)

Conventions of vocabulary (context clues)

Critical/Creative thinking (Character representing theme)

Can you tell me what a student learned this marking period? More to the point, if a student was failing, could I identify exactly what he or she needs to know to gain the skills they need?

You see, it's a lot easier to teach conventions of vocabulary (context clues), than it is to teach Homework 2.

So, why do we still give students grades based on compliance?

The thing is, once you start doing it, it really isn't that hard. My research grade book reads:

Identifying position (thesis statement)

Research

Supporting position (body paragraphs)

Summarize and restate points (conclusion)

Organize ideas (rough/final draft)

This way not only do I know what my students need to know, they know what they need to know, and they know that they can be wrong once and still be able to make it up.

How effective is this? Well, by using this strategy I was able to get a group of 9th graders (not Advanced Placement, just normal 9th graders) to pass an 11th grade, exit level standardized test (it was a released version that had been used by the state 4 years earlier) in one marking period. And it wasn't even difficult.

Why do we need to know degree of failure?

How much is an "A" worth? Really, how much? 100 points? 90? Truth is, it's worth about 10. That's right. There are only 10 ways to get an "A." For that matter, there are only 10 ways to get a "B," or a "C." But do you know how much an "F" is worth? It's actually worth 70 points. Don't agree? Look at this:

You might disagree with how I define "value" here, but I am doing it to prove a larger point. Why is an "F" worth so much? I mean, at a point it's clear that the kid doesn't get it, so why do we need to know that the kid "really, really" doesn't get it?

Here's how I think it should be done:

What this shows me is a level of understanding for the desired skill. Either they know it, or they are at some point of attaining it. This works better for two reasons. One, it removes degree of failure. Does it really matter if a kid got a 50 or a 20? Isn't the important thing that the kid didn't get it and needs additional support? Also, on objective assignments, things like essays and projects, can you honestly tell me that your grading system is so perfect, so flawless, that you can give me an absolute difference between an 89 and a 90?

However with this scale you can honestly say, " You didn't show a high level of mastery. There are some thing you didn't do, so we can go back and work on that."

Example:

You have two students in your class, their grades are as follows:

Student A-

85

85

90

0 (forgot a homework assignment)

80

Average- 68

Student B-

70

65

70

70

75

Average- 70

Now, based on grades alone, which student is more in need of tutoring? Student A is failing, so Student A must need more help. Is that true? No,  he or she just forgot a single assignment. So, instead of focusing attention where it is needed, we are diverted because of one missing assignment.

Let's try this the other way.

Student A-

3

3

4

M

3

Average- 2.6 (between basic and proficient)

Student B-

2

1

2

2

2

Average- 1.8 (between basic and below basic)

Which of those students is more in need of help? Now it's clear that Student A, though missing an assignment, has a basic grasp on the information and Student B is struggling. Now it's easy to identify the areas of need and help the kid learn. That's the difference. In essence, the 100 point scale is about grading, the four point scale is about learning, and I we need to get out of the business of grading and into the business of learning.

So, what does it all mean?

Let me be clear up front; I am not proposing this as a magic fix it for every school. As I’ve said before, there is no such thing as a simple solution to so complex a problem as public education. There are way too many factors that come into play to pretend, even for a moment, that there is a single, one size fits all solution.

All that I am presenting her is something that I have seen immense amounts of research proving its efficacy, and have personal experience that backs that research up. It doesn’t just help high achieving kids achieve more (but it does do that), it doesn’t just help the kids in the middle reach higher levels (which it also does), it also helps the kids who would typically struggle just to pass actually learn the information and move from Cs and Ds to Bs and As.

While it isn’t a fix all, it is something that the film “Waiting for Superman” doesn’t present. It is an approach to teaching and learning that can be brought to scale and used widely without all the difficulty of opening a charter school.

We have to deal with most of this because of standardized tests. Let me say two things. First, standardized test are garbage and have nothing whatsoever to do with actual academic achievement. Second, they aren't going anywhere. Not only aren't they going anywhere, but now the federal government is giving out funding that requires new tests to be adopted. Now you can fix your schools budget problems by adding a test that will take time away from learning to see if your child can pass a test that doesn't really show anything other than the fact that they can pass a test.

As hard as it seems, we need to stop thinking of education as a “well, this worked when I was a kid, so it’s fine now” situation. The way we did things in the past is no longer good enough. It just isn’t. We are working to educate children to do jobs that don’t exist yet in a world that will look significantly different than it looks today. We need to teach adaptability and concrete understanding, not just compliance.

But more than that, we have to admit that the world our kids are growing up in is vastly different than the one we had. We didn’t grow up with unlimited access to the adult world. We didn’t have a culture built on ignorance, violence, and short term gain. We didn’t grow up in a time when your average FRESHMAN classroom has at least one parent in a student desk. We have created (and yes, WE created it, THEY didn’t) a world that is increasingly hard on young folks and that has to be respected.

Those problems I cannot offer a solution for. What I can do is promise that as long as I am able I will be in my classroom doing everything I can to help.

Last week there was big news from the world of “The Dark Knight Rises,” and I have absolutely no problem with any of it. First off, Tom Hardy is awesome and Bane is a really interesting villain. Think about it in the context of the Nolan Batman world. Bane is an amazingly strong super genius who is addicted to a military grade steroid. Oh, and he broke Batman’s spine.

I don’t really have an opinion on Catwoman/Selina Kyle. All I know about her is that she is a burglar, she dresses like a cat, and she was a slutty looking dominatrix in the Tim Burton version. It’s a safe bet that Nolan won’t be going in that direction with it, so that reduces my “list of things I know about Catwoman” to two. I’m also fine with Anne Hathaway. She’s a good actress and easy on the eyes, although, the relative attractiveness of actresses aren’t a factor in my movie watching habits. Not to be crass, but you can find nude shots of Hathaway on the internet for free, so why you would drop $10 to see her wearing something tight on screen is a mystery to me.

It was announced today that Joseph Gordon-Levitt was joining the cast. There hasn’t been any announcement about the part he will be playing, but the current speculation leans towards The Riddler. I’m a fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, I think he’s a great actor and would be very interesting in this role, although my choice would have been David Tennant.

Now there are rumors of Robin Williams playing Dr. Hugo Strange. Now, I don’t have a problem with Williams in the part, although it SCREAMS of stunt casting, I am more surprised at the somewhat supportive fan reaction.

While I have ABSOLUTE FAITH in Nolan’s ability, he’s written and directed 9 good movies in a row and while past success does not guarantee future success this is as good an advanced indicator as you could hope for, I fear he may be painting himself into a corner.

Before I go on, let me be clear on one thing. I am glad that he is ignoring the desires of the fanboy set. Nothing against fanboys, but it is wise to avoid advice from that quadrant. Listening to them will either lead to horribly boring and cliche' casting choices or ludicrous plot lines that will only appeal to the most die hard fans who will hate whatever it is anyway. Don't attempt to appease those who cannot be appeased. Just make a good movie and it will be enjoyed by those who enjoy good movies.

I know there is a “third movie” curse in comic book films, and while I am no believer in curses, there is something interesting about the consistency of it. But the question is more complicated than that. Why do comic book franchises, the good ones anyways, always seem to fall apart after starting out strong?

Let’s look at the Burton era “Batman” films. The first one was an interesting take on the well established character. Although I am not a fan of it (Burton’s aesthetic gets on every inch of my last nerve) I can still see why it was so popular. Though it’s not one of my favorite films it is still one that I can find some enjoyment in.

I never saw “Batman Returns,” because in all honesty it looked fucking stupid and I could honestly not give less of a crap about Penguin or Catwoman. They just aren’t interesting. Yes, Pfeiffer was hot, but if I want to look at a hot woman I can buy a magazine. Her character didn’t interest me, so I opted out of seeing it.

Then you get into the “Hot Damned Mess” era of those films. This was such a rapid descent that I’m surprised the films didn’t burn up on re-entry.

Let’s walk through what I think was the problem.

“Batman”- Michael Keaton- Batman

Jack Nicholson- Joker

Kim Bassinger- Vicky Vale

Robert Whul- Someone who sadly didn’t die

“Batman Returns” – Michael Keaton- Batman

Danny DeVito- The Penguin

Michelle Pfeiffer- Catwoman

Chris Walken- Max Shreck

“Batman Forever”- Val Kilmer- Batman

Jim Carrey- Riddler

Tommy Lee Jones- Two Face

Nicole Kidman- Dr. Chase Meridian

Chris O’Donnell- Robin

Drew Barrymore/Debi Mazar- Two chicks who were there for no reason.

A whole bunch of toys- as themselves

“Batman and Robin”- George Clooney- Batman

Chris O’Donnell- Robin

Arnold- Mr. Freeze

Uma Thurman- Poison Ivy

Alicia Silverstone- Batgirl

Jeep Swenson- Bane

A whole bunch more toys- as themselves

As this series went on the films got exponentially worse. I’ll even give “Batman Returns” to the fans as being good, but after that they went to shit, and quickly. Why? If you look closely you’ll see a pattern.

Let’s look at the Raimi “Spider-Man” movies.

Spider-Man- Tobey Maguire- Spider Man

Willem Dafoe- Green Goblin

Kristin Dunst- Mary Jane

Spider-Man 2- Tobey Maguire- Spider Man

Alfred Molina- Doc Ock

James Franco- Green Goblin 2

Kristin Dunst- Mary Jane

Spider-Man 3- Tobey Maguire- Spider Man

Kristin Dunst- Mary Jane

Bryce Dallas Howard- Gwen Stacy

Tom Hayden Church- Sandman

James Franco- Green Goblin 2

Roofing Tar- Symbiote

Topher Grace- Venom

On this we had a good, a great, and a terrible film. Why?

Let’s walk through it again.

Spider-Man- Tobey Maguire- Spider Man

Willem Dafoe- Green Goblin

Kristin Dunst- Mary Jane

Spider-Man 2- Tobey Maguire- Spider Man

Alfred Molina- Doc Ock

James Franco- Green Goblin 2

Kristin Dunst- Mary Jane

Spider-Man 3- Tobey Maguire- Spider Man

Kristin Dunst- Mary Jane

Bryce Dallas Howard- Gwen Stacy

Tom Hayden Church- Sandman

James Franco- Green Goblin 2

Roofing Tar- Symbiote

Topher Grace- Venom

Let me summarize all this information.

Batman- 3 main characters (good)

Batman Returns- 3 main characters (good)

Batman Forever- 5 main characters (bad)

Batman and Robin- 6 main characters (a hot damned mess)

Spider-Man- 3 main characters (good)

Spider-Man 2- 4 main characters (great)

Spider-Man 3- 7 main characters (a hot damned mess)

Strange, it seems as if there is some sort of direct correlation between how good the movie is and how many characters you are dealing with!

How can a film be good if it has to spend so much time on exposition and setting characters up? By adding so many characters you end up with a glut of back story that either forces you to make the movie overlong, first act heavy, and boring or you end up not getting enough information about the characters to make them interesting.

In addition to that, if you have 7 main characters in a relatively short film where is the focus? There isn’t any.

Let’s walk through Nolan’s.

Batman Begins- Christian Bale- Bruce Wayne/Batman

Cillian Murphy- Scarecrow

Liam Neeson- Henri Ducard/Ra's Al Ghul

I know that you could add Ken Watanabe and Katie Holmes and Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman and Tom Wilkinson and Rutger Hauer, but those are supporting characters, not central protagonists or antagonists.

The Dark Knight- Christian Bale- Bruce Wayne/Batman

Aaron Eckhart- Harvey Dent/ Two Face

Heath Ledger- Joker

Again, there are a lot of supporting players like Eric Roberts and Michael Jai White and Chin Han and Anthony Michael Hall, but again those are supporting, not central characters.

Now, let’s see the complete speculated cast.

The Dark Knight Rises- Bale- Wayne/Batman

Tom Hardy- Bane

Anne Hathaway- Selina Kyle/Catwoman

Joseph Gordon Levitt- Riddler

Robin Williams- Dr. Hugo Strange

Now, I realize that some of this may not happen, but I’m dealing with the reaction here, so let’s walk through it.

Batman Begins- 3 central characters

The Dark Knight- 3 central characters

The Dark Knight Rises- 5 central characters

If anyone on the planet can pull this off, Christopher Nolan can. But I have some concern now. I’m not even going to discuss the casting. If nothing else Chris has earned our blind faith in his ability to get brilliant performances out of his actors.

What does concern me is, as I’ve said above, how the sheer quantity of significant characters, half of them rather obscure, will impact the strength of the story. Because, face it, unless you are a pretty solid fan of the comics Bane and Dr. Strange are completely unknown quantities. You are going to have to deal with some level of back story, even if it’s just a scene or two of set up like he did with The Scarecrow, and that will slow things down a little. We’re talking about a potential 4^th bad guy here. Two villains works, three is pushing it, four… well that’s just insane.

Unless you’re talking about relegating some of them to supporting status, but given the names we’re banding about here that probably isn’t going to happen. If you’re going to make The Riddler a bench player then why go with Gordon Levitt? What, was Lucas Hass already booked?

Let me be clear, I am not bitching about a movie that hasn’t even begun principal photography. What I am doing is issuing a “Please Calm Down,” statement to the fan community. The casting choices are almost a non issue. Nolan could probably make Pauly Shore passable as The Riddler. Even if he couldn’t he’s earned a pass on at least giving it a try. Bitching about casting is like complaining about the color of the Astin Martin someone just gave you as a gift. Just shut up and drive it man.

My concern is more fundamental. How will stacking a cast like this impact the overall narrative? Because in the end what makes the Nolan Batman films so great is the strength of his story and the interplay between the good and bad both between and within his characters. It is a delicate and subtle balance that takes a masterful touch to maintain and having too many characters risks upsetting that balance no matter how cool the idea may seem. It’s like being given an Astin Martin and then being told that it runs on orphan tears. Yes, it is an interesting idea, but is it something you really want to deal with?