Posts categorized under ‘R&R News & Notes’

A world of Hurt

I know the Academy Awards isn’t a popularity contest, but I hated seeing The Hurt Locker win best picture. Hated it with a seething hatred that kept me up all night, and sleeplessness hasn’t done much to improve my mood today.

Advertising award shows are to blame.

You see, no matter what the Academy says, Avatar was this year’s best picture. Think what you will about Avatar’s story being cliché, its dialogue hackneyed and its acting wooden. You’re probably right, but you know what, who cares? Avatar isn’t about nuanced plotlines and performances. It’s a special-effects spectacular – almost three hours of digital 3-D wizardry that created a world unlike anything seen on the big screen before and that let audiences tromp through that world in ways they never imagined.

Avatar worked. Worked until it became the highest grossing film of all time, effectively rewriting the rulebook on 3-D and digital animation. That’s got to be worth something.
In contrast, The Hurt Locker is the lowest grossing Best Picture winner in history, with worldwide theater earnings of around $20 million, compared to Avatar’s $2.5 billion.
Of course, ticket sales don’t matter to the Academy. They’re judging “theatrical art,” and billings aren’t a barometer of Best Picture merit.

Advertising award show judges critique in pretty much the same way. They’re judging “advertising creativity,” so the most unique, shocking and entertaining ads usually take the top prizes, irrespective of the money those ads earned or lost for the companies that ran them.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Often, the most creative advertising is also the most effective, especially in this new age of social media. The ads that creatively capture the public’s attention get seen more, passed along more, and deliver more of a return on an advertiser’s investment.

However, open almost any award show-winner’s book, and you’ll find it chockablock with creative-but-ineffective (or creative-but-fictitious) advertising. Because of this fact, a growing number of advertising agencies are refusing to enter creative award shows. Granted, many of these agencies are refusing to enter for the same reason that the ugly kids in high school “refused” to go to the prom, but it’s still a trend.

There’s a popular, and utterly incorrect, saying in the ad industry that “It isn’t creative if it doesn’t sell.” Lots of creative ads don’t sell. A more accurate adage might be, “If it doesn’t sell, it isn’t advertising.”

Advertising is commercial. The purpose of advertising is to sell products, sell opinions and sell behaviors. If an ad doesn’t sell, it’s flawed at a fundamental level.

This year, I was behind the scenes at a local advertising awards show and watched a panel of judges debate the merits of two different advertising campaigns being considered for “Best of Show” honors. Both campaigns displayed excellent craftsmanship and creativity. Both captivated audiences in their own way, one with humor and the other with emotionally engaging stories. As the debate raged on, one judge mentioned how the emotionally engaging campaign meshed so well with the company’s Web site, which he visited earlier in his hotel room. Another judge agreed with him, having visited the Web site too. Then the judges all had an epiphany: If the one campaign was so compelling that the judges visited the company’s Web site after seeing the ads, maybe it should be the Best of Show. Faced with two “creative” advertising campaigns, maybe the one that sold its product better should win. Go figure.

Both Avatar and The Hurt Locker were commercial films. (The Hurt Locker isn’t art house). Both were artistically brilliant in their own way. However, one film’s “art” captivated the world, while the other’s art captivated critics.

I’m siding with the world on this one.

Golf Bag for Sale

I’ll begin with an admission. I was wrong. Last December, I posted an entry in this space predicting that most of Tiger Woods’ sponsors would stick with him through his troubles. The departures of AT&T, Accenture and Gatorade from Team Tiger prove that Nostradamus and the Amazing Kreskin have nothing to worry about from me.

Granted, I did say that the sponsors would hang in there if there weren’t a large number of further revelations. As we all know, there were. Still, color me wrong.

Which brings us to today. Tiger is back home in Orlando, working on his game. The extremely uncomfortable televised apology is behind him and whatever therapy he was involved in seems to be finished, at least for the time being. I have no idea what shape his marriage is in. It’s none of my business anyway. For me, and for golf fans everywhere, the question now is…when? When will he return to the PGA Tour? Jack Nicklaus says he’d be surprised if Tiger doesn’t play in the Masters, but that looks like speculation on his part. He doesn’t seem to have any inside information.

I hope he’s back for Augusta. But even if he isn’t, he has said that he will be back eventually. When that day comes, I believe some brands will have an opportunity – and a big decision to make. Tiger’s bag used to carry the AT&T logo. If you’re the CMO for Sprint or Verizon, do you make a deal to put your logo there in its place? Gatorade’s gone away. If you control Powerade’s marketing, do you approach the world’s No. 1 golfer about a relationship that will utilize him to stick it to your larger rival? Accenture’s ads now feature real wild animals instead of Tiger. Lots of people age 35-64 with financial portfolios that need managing still watch golf. Do you tie your brand to Tiger?

Before you say no, think about it for a minute. Chances are good you can get a deal for less than the previous guys were paying. And you can’t deny that Tiger’s return will draw some of the biggest audiences in televised golf history – at least for the first few events. Granted, the man’s star has lost a lot of its luster. He will probably never be revered in quite the same way he was before that November night.

But…

What if he comes back playing better than ever, with a renewed purpose and a fierce determination to show the world he’s still the boss inside the ropes? I think the chances are good given his competitive drive, laser focus and limitless skill. Remember, this is the guy who won the U.S. Open playing basically on one leg.

What if all the stuff he said he was going to do actually comes to pass? He straightens out his personal situation and approaches life – and golf – with a greater level of respect?

What if he wins two or three majors in the next 18 months, getting ever closer to Jack’s career record? Do you think he will be a pariah in most peoples’ eyes? I don’t. I’m not sure he is now, but that’s beside the point.

The point is, America, and American sports fans, love a comeback story. The fact that Kobe Bryant and Alex Rodriguez are now being cheered unconditionally by their fans illustrate our willingness to forgive and move on, especially when the biggest stars are involved.

If Tiger comes back in a big way, and manages to stay out of the National Enquirer while he’s doing it, then I believe he can again be a massive marketing force. Maybe not as strong as he once was, but still on a very short list of the world’s biggest. And those brands that stuck with him through the darks days – Nike, EA Sports – will not only receive a big bump but will also be seen as having been loyal to their guy in his time of need. They didn’t cut and run. A lot of sports fans will be impressed.

And if you’re Verizon or Powerade or any other brand willing to take the chance, you’ll be along for the ride too. Say he’s back on top in 2012. How many people will even remember that, back in 2009, he was a spokesman for AT&T and Gatorade? What was Kobe promoting in 2007 or A-Rod in 2008? I don’t remember either.

I think there’s a huge potential upside in taking a chance on Tiger now. Is there a downside? Of course there is. This thing could end up taking away his drive and turning him into just another Tour pro. His personal life could take another strange detour. He could give up the sport and enter a Buddhist monastery. All kinds of stuff could happen. Just look at the last four months. Who could have predicted any of that? But if it doesn’t and he does come back big, in two or three years you and your brand could be seen as the visionaries who took a risk back in 2010.

In marketing circles, you could be what Tiger once was in golf. A hero.

Too many beavers and briefs mean not-so-super ad blitz

“Men in tighty whities are disgusting.” – Mary Ann Mele, R&R Partners President and Chief Strategic Officer

Google won by simply being themselves. The eTrade babies’ “milkaholic” ad was a winner. Punxsutawney Polamalu is not only difficult to spell – it was also fairly creepy, but effective. Coke, while easy to spell, was painfully irrelevant. The GoDaddy ads should just go away.

That’s the general consensus from a solid hour of R&R Partners’ Monday morning quarterbacking of the advertising blitz surrounding that roman numeral-suffixed game played the day before. Our panel of critics included people from all disciplines within the agency.

In case you used commercial breaks for something other than awaiting the unveiling of new advertisements, every spot is easily viewable online. Check out YouTube’s channel, where you can vote for your favorite, or Fox/MSN’s site, which organizes them by quarter.

Overall, our panel thought the 2010 ads were mediocre, with a few bright spots. Absent were the emotional tearjerkers and ads with brand engagement through the Internet. Plentiful were ads bashing white, out-of-shape men – and other concepts we felt like we’d seen many times before.

“I just don’t like the tired formulas,” Associate Creative Director Tony Marin said. “People getting hit, underwear jokes – all of that just makes me cringe.”

“It’s a reflection of the times, but everybody is very, very afraid of doing anything that isn’t pretty safe,” Executive Vice President/Creative Director Randy Snow added. “Even the stuff that was ‘edgy’ was pretty safe. As much as I loved the Google ad, it was just a product demo. There was really no risk in that ad. … It’s because of the economy. Nobody wants to take a shot with $3 million. They’d rather animate animals or pull Troy Polamalu out of a hole.”

That fear kept some normally ad-friendly brands, such as Fed Ex, out of the game entirely.

“They said it was because of cost and because of scrutiny. They laid off employees,” Executive Vice President Rob Dondero said. “And the official NFL beer, Coors, wasn’t even in it.”

Public Relations Group Account Director Clinton Pope asked about the propensity of allowing people to preview the ads prior to the game through YouTube, etc.

Executive Creative Director Arnie DiGeorge had firsthand knowledge. “I did that; I went on the night before and watched all the ones that I could actually see before the game and they all seemed to be bad ones, for the most part. I think those are the ones people are previewing – the ones that really don’t have confidence,” he said. “Your best choice is to have a teaser for the ad that isn’t the ad. But it still has to be great.”

That’s what it boils down to, of course – having a great ad. Some brands, like Doritos and Bud Light, chose quantity over quality, each using a bunch of completely unrelated spots hoping for one or two that “stuck.” Some chose to stick to one message.

“If you’ve got a good campaign and you’ve got multiple pieces of the same thing telling the story, that’s cool, and if you’ve got a brim of broad audiences and you’ve got one against different passion points, that’s cool, too,” Associate Media Director Jeremy Thompson said.

“I thought the Budweiser ads fell short. You go into it with people really expecting a lot from them, and I don’t think they got there,” LVCVA Group Account Director Kim Downing said.     “I really liked the (Volkswagen) ‘slugbug’ ad. It was nostalgic; it showed the product. I just thought it was really good.”

Corporate Director of Digital Marketing Sean Corbett was enamored with the reaction from perhaps the world’s largest focus group – the instantaneous opinions offered up on Twitter.

“The minute a spot ran, you’d start seeing the opinions flow through the Twitter stream. It was really cool to watch. A lot of ad folks, obviously, every agency in the country, seemed to be online last night – and then general people catching on and talking about the ads was really cool,” he said.

WINNERS

  • Google’s spot, essentially a product demo, was lauded by the entire group. “It did everything it needed to do. It showed you how much Google is part of our life, it told a story. It was simple. It used their user interface. … It was a great spot,” DiGeorge said.

“It reminded me of why I choose to use it every day over Bing. They are about simplicity; they are about ease-of-use. It was a really great change-up from everything we had seen,” Corbett added.

“I think they accomplished in one ad what Bing has been trying to accomplish with tons of ads,” Marin said.

  • The T-Pain ad, even though it was basically a different vision of the “Wassup” ads of a few years so, still worked.
  • The eTrade babies, specifically the “milkaholic” spot, was solid.

“I liked the eTrade babies but I’d like to see them go in a different direction now. This should be the end of that type of campaign,” Pope said.

LOSERS

“The fact that a bunch of people from an ad agency sat in a room just to talk about the commercials, and for an hour Coke never entered the discussion – for a brand that big to go that unnoticed says a lot,” said yours truly, Web Content Developer Sal DeFilippo.

  • The Who, and more so, the people who were stuck watching them.

“The Twitter backlash on The Who was vicious. One of the better comments was, “can somebody please hurry up and wrap up The Who show because they have to get home and watch Matlock.”

  • GoDaddy.com – most disappointing “by far,” according to Pope.
  • Taco Bell – the commercials that aired in advance leading up to a very dull “Green Eggs and Ham” spot featuring Charles Barkley. (Note: In fairness, not too many words rhyme with “gordita.”)

Trust and Reputation – Celebrities and Corporate Leaders

There’s a reason Visa chose Morgan Freeman to voice over its TV commercials: He’s one of the most trusted celebrities in America.  

 

A new survey out from e-poll research  lists the top-10 most trusted celebrities. And there’s more detail about it on Forbes.com

 The list includes James Earl Jones, Tom Hanks, Bill Cosby and even Mike Rowe, the host of Dirty Jobs (which is why he’s probably seen hawking Ford products

 America’s largest companies pay those celebs handsomely, hoping the trust they’ve earned in America will rub off and validate their brand too. Most of the actors on the list have spent decades in the public eye, often advocating for causes as well as their movies, while also avoiding public transgressions. Meaning, they earned it from a skeptical America.

 So much of what we do in advertising, public relations and more importantly – in life – is about earning a reputation built on trust and credibility.

 For these spokespeople and the companies it’s a business deal, but in your personal business, where do you stand on trust and credibility?

It’s certainluy an issue Toyota is wrestling with today and so many are watching them closely.

 It’s my firm belief that organizations and their leaders earn reputations every day through their actions, by how they respond to critics, take care of their customers, and how they respond to both opportunity and failure.

 For those companies who can’t afford a celebrity on the A-list (which is most companies) start by making sure your corporate behavior and leaders are worthy of being on your customer’s a-list of trust and admiration.

The Big Apple (it’s in NorCal)…

Last week, I sent an email out about the upcoming announcement for what Steve Jobs would soon confirm as Apple’s iPad. Rumors abounded and be sure that there are countless articles describing Apple’s brilliance for creating buzz by staying silent. But now that I’ve combed through the available information, I’m not decided if the iPad will be as transformative as the iPod or iPhone. But I do see something else.

If you missed the announcment, you can check out videos on Apple’s website or YouTube.

Imagine a bigger, more expensive iPhone that doesn’t make calls (but can do web calls), support Flash (yet), or cater to games like most analysts predicted…and you’ll have a fair understanding of this new product.

Much remains to be seen about how it will shape ebooks (Washington Post), handle games, revolutionize apps, et cetera.

But I’m pretty sure that we’re seeing the capabilities we can expect in a host of other devices. Touchscreen interfaces, web connectivity, and social connectedness…

On the next round of televisions
At public kiosks
In home security systems

We’ve been hearing about convergence for a decade. And true, some computers have TV tuners and DVR capabilities (Windows Media Center anyone?), and every concert goer is accustomed to LCD displays from cell phones replacing Zippos. But here, with the iPad, most every functionality is built into a tiny display that is easily transportable. Soon, HP will release its own version, Slate, and we can anticipate expanded capabilities and compatibilities with the Microsoft operating system (especially with games) that will likely broaden the appeal of a presumably niche product.

Whether the iPad becomes a niche product or blows up like the iPod remains to be seen. But we can be sure, as advertisers we will be reaching people on the go with control over their content in most any situation that they are in. Even on an international flight locked on the relatively small confined space known as a jumbo jet, they may watch the movie (or choose from many channels depending on the carrier), take out their laptop to do some work, browse the inflight magazine, read a book or magazine they brought along or (GASP!) talk to the person next to them.

As these technologies mature, we can expect our access to consumer data to become greater. Greater. As in more of it. How we analyze that data and create insights will be fundamentally the same, except we’ll be able to apply it to just about every advertising initiative we place. Optimization, reporting, and the anayltics we are mastering online today will converge with the delivery of other mediums (broadcast, radio, newspaper/magazines, and even out of home).

Whether the iPad blows up and becomes a cultural phenomenon will play out this spring. But looking back in 5 or 10 years, I think that we’ll be able to say that the iPad was the first glimpse of the way we will interact with and access content in our living rooms and on the road. Unless you’ve seen Total Recall or Minority Report.

What Color is Your Brand?

The use of color to denote and reinforce brand is not new but a recent Sprint TV commercial reminds me that this tactic is still strong. Recently, Sprint has been featuring TV spots that obviously play on its yellow and black brand colors. As you’ll see in this TV spot, and other new ones, the actors’ clothes and products are highlighted in yellow and black. Same as the Sprint logo.

Getting consumers to connect your brand through color is one simple way to cut through the clutter and be more visibly identifiable.  With the thousands of messages consumers receive every week, using color is one way to help your brand stick and to get your product, logo, packaging, advertisement to connect in the consumer’s mind.

Not that color alone makes a brand effective. Smarter folks than I have long said that brand is the emotional connection between your product and the consumer.

But the history of strong brands is full of strong color connections.

Coke is arguably the most famous, with the use of what has long been called Coke Red. And UPS took brown (what some may have seen as a negative) and leveraged the color in its “What can Brown do for you?” campaign to signify a long list of positive service attributes.

 Naturally, brand color needs to be carried consistently through every touch-point and this Smashing magazine article  looks at who’s doing it well online.

 Folks who study color and even music have long discussed how those attributes make long-lasting emotional connections in our minds. And no matter how sophisticated our technology gets, those attributes should never be discarded or underestimated in advertising.

Friday Inspiration on Tuesday

Here are some of the things we talk about at the Friday creative meeting. Sadly, you get them on Tuesday.

The Coke happiness machine comes to life. Very much like an idea we gave to Zappos. Maybe they will do it someday. Click here to view

This shocked me for Yale. I thought they were smarter than this. Click here to view

Speaking of smart, maybe it’s overrated. Click here to view

Incredible packaging of the Star Wars Adidas. I might have to buy a pair for the shelf. Click here to view

The host of this show is the guy from our first Chinchilli Day spot. He keeps getting jobs with Chinchillas now. Weird. Click here to view

Creep for candy. Click here to view

Interesting movie involving nothing but logos and brand identities. Click here to view

A great idea I wish was mine. Books are back, sort of. Click here to view

Taking out the trash is the toughest part of Christmas Day. Click here to view

The films are the same but the posters are much better. Click here to view

We used to have a moustache contest at work. But we can’t compete with these guys. Click here to view

I love modern art. I also love modern art that makes fun of modern art. It’s a vicious cycle. Click here to view

As a good friend of mine says, for the rummys. Click here to view this one and click here to view the other one

When you are ready to throw it all away and become real again. I dare you. Click here to view

For an extra $20 you get to make a drug deal. Click here to view

Best use of outdoor by a scorned woman. Click here to view

And lastly, our new What Happens Here ad. Check it out. Click here to view

That’s all for this week. Keep your eyes out for the next inspiration but not on Friday. At least not this upcoming one.

Friday Inspiration

Here are just a few of the things we discussed at today’s Creative Meeting. Enjoy.

This is one of the best interactive shows I’ve seen. I wish I was out there with those folks. Because I’m big like that. Big as a building. Bigger than life.

That crazy duck. They better not lose him. Although it would be pretty funny if he was hit by a golf ball or something.

I must say I am a fan of this KFC idea. Helping the community and doing some great non-traditional in the process.

This is one pair of Adidas I don’t have and the latest in Augmented Reality.

Pepsi is seeking great ideas to help communities with their Super Bowl money. This is very much like the idea we pitched a certain client.

FYI, you will still get arrested for taking one through security. But man they look tasty.

This is one great blog, Creepy Santas. And the kids are a little off too.

Old dirty mattresses prove that anything can be art.

Great way to make a point about public transportation or lack of.

This is simple and wonderful. Love it.

That new pizza better be good.

No, we didn’t do it. Yes, we do think there is a Vegas Obama.

That’s all for this week. Watch for my post on CES over the weekend. If you’re lucky you will be able to see me in 3D.

My Twitter Dilemma

I have been at 1,560 to 1,570 followers for at least a year. I waver back and forth between the two numbers. My popularity is measured from one to 10 on any given day. I can’t seem to attract any new followers. I feel like Clark Griswold circling Big Ben in European Vacation where I can’t get out of the circle.

Don’t get me wrong; I love each and every one of my current followers. Of course, if some of them were to show up at my home I would probably have to go all Samuel Jackson on them. Of course I would be going all @samueljackson on them since I am not verified and neither is he. But I digress.

I decided to ask the one guy on Twitter who could immediately diagnose my problem, @guykawasaki. He is always sitting there staring at me with that wonderful smile, ready to help those in need.

@GuyKawasaki, I have been at just below 1,600 followers for more than a year. What is wrong with me? Be honest. I can take it.

No answer from Guy. I should have addressed him as Oh Great Twitter Lord Kawasaki since he has over 203,000 followers. I must have sounded like a tiny squeal from a microorganism riding a rodent to the Great Kawasaki. Or the Great Kawasakis, since I have heard he isn’t the only one writing his pieces. He is verified by the way.

What can I learn from Lord Kawasaki? Well, he tweets a lot, 39,779 and counting. He is the firehouse that answers the question, What’s Interesting? That’s straight from his Twitter page. This is not a lie by the way. A little mind could bloat from the large supply of knowledge launched from the giant beak of Kawasaki and Alltop. If Guy did answer, he would probably say – @guykawasaki, the answer you seek is in the tweets, my son.

I don’t need 200,000 followers. That’s when it gets really scary. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them are outside Guy’s house right now with high-powered binoculars in a nondescript van. But I should have more than 1,570. It’s getting embarrassing.

So what do I have to offer? Well, I often tweet some pretty interesting stuff. I think I have a pretty good sense of humor. I’m an executive creative director at a successful advertising firm. I’m told that is a good job. I’m an early adopter. I think I have my finger on the pulse of the new and exciting. So what’s wrong with me? Maybe it’s the number of tweets.

Using a highly complicated mathematical formula called “division,” I was able to deduct that the number of tweets really shouldn’t matter since Guy has over 200,000 followers and only 39,779 tweets. Still, it couldn’t hurt to tweet more.

Maybe it’s my profile. Guy is the authority on what’s interesting. My profile says, “I left the iron on.” And there is a picture of a man standing in front of a burning house as my background. I tend to tweet on great pop culture stuff I find: art, advertising, etc. However, my bio and background picture would never alert you to that fact.

Also, I’ve never used any of the services that claim to find you followers. That always seemed like cheating. Plus, they probably wouldn’t be the “right” followers. And who wants a bunch of unqualified followers? Not me. Blocking the twitter hookers is hard enough.

It could be that what I find interesting, only slightly less than 1,600 other Twitter folk find interesting. No, I can’t accept that. I won’t. That’s failure talking.

Another little birdie told me she didn’t like my picture. Guy is looking down from the heavens at his brethren. I am on a boat (not my boat) looking away, detached, nonplussed, unconnected. Guy is saying, “Hey, wonderful little humanites out there, I am thinking for you. Don’t worry, I have you covered.” I am saying, “Hey, I’m on a boat. You are not on a boat.” She also told me that there isn’t enough of you in your voice, people don’t know what to expect from you, use your position and become the authority you are. Wow, I have a hard enough time doing that at work.

The bottom line is that Twitter is a strange bird. And way more goes into it than meets the eye. It isn’t enough to just be interesting. You need a voice, a purpose, a personality, a strong profile, a meaningful picture, the ability to interact with others and a ton of energy to gain more followers. And even then there are no guarantees.

I don’t know if I will ever get past the 1,600 mark. I’d have to change my picture, tweet way more, be more interesting, interact more, be more me, and just plain be more special. And I think I might have reached my “special” ceiling. But I won’t quit Twitter. I like being a part of the collective whole – the giant twitter brain. And every once in a while, when I get a nice retweet or a #followfriday, it makes me feel like I am just that much closer to – GUY.

One Guy’s Top 10 Films

This has actually been an annual event for the past six or seven years. I put together my own, completely arbitrary, list of the 10 best films I saw in the past year and send it out to a few friends. This year, the R&R Blog allows me to regale thousands more with my opinions about the year’s films. Nice.

First, some thoughts about 2009. A pretty solid year. Any time I can compile a list with films by the Coen Brothers, Quentin Tarantino, Werner Herzog and Pixar Studios, it’s been a good year. In fact, I had a hard time narrowing the list to 10.

But since it’s my list, I also give myself the opportunity to present an Honorable Mention list, for films that were really good, but not quite Top 10. There is no limit to the number of films on that list. Like I said, it’s my list.

Now, a disclaimer. As you read on and say, “But what about…?” or “How could he leave out…?” remember that I see a lot of films, but I don’t see them all. So, before you get upset, here’s a brief list of the films that received positive buzz this year that I just haven’t seen yet. I’m sure they’re all very good: Sin Nombre, Sugar, Tyson, Somers Town, In the Loop, The Cove, An Education, The Messenger, Me and Orson Welles, A Single Man, Crazy Heart, The Young Victoria and The Last Station.

One last note (I promise): I don’t present the list in any order. I don’t have a No. 1 and a No. 6. I find it almost impossible to rate a small documentary against a big-budget special effects extravaganza, for instance. So, a film makes the Top 10, or it doesn’t. That’s it.

Here we go.

A Serious Man – The Coen Brothers make different types of movies. There are the funny Coens – Raising Arizona, Brother, Where Art Thou? Big Lebowski; the dark Coens – Blood Simple, Barton Fink, No Country for Old Men; the dark and funny Coens – Burn After Reading, Fargo. A Serious Man is dark and funny and great. Put simply, it’s a version of the Book of Job set in mid-’60s Minnesota. This time, Job is Larry Gopnik, a Jewish everyman with a family and a position as an as-yet-untenured professor at a Midwestern university. The fact that the Coens grew up the sons of professors in mid-’60’s Minnesota is, I’m sure, entirely coincidental. Anyway, as poor Larry tries to cope while being visited by every conceivable trial, tribulation and tragedy, we sit and wonder how things can get any worse. And they do, right through the film’s downbeat, and perfect, ending. The funny thing is, it’s funny. A lot of people I know didn’t like A Serious Man. Too dark, too Jewish, no recognizable stars. That’s OK. It’s certainly not everyone’s cup of tea. I don’t think the brothers meant it to be. At this point, they’ve earned the right to make the films they want to make. I’m glad they made this one.

Every Little Step – One of life’s little pleasures is finding a small movie that I didn’t know much about and wind up happily surprised. Every Little Step is one of those. It’s a documentary that follows the nearly yearlong process of auditioning for and casting a Broadway revival of A Chorus Line. The cameras were allowed to record it all: the auditions; the private discussions with the producers, choreographer and others; vintage footage of the original Broadway production; interviews with some of the performers from the original (one of whom is choreographing the revival) and of course, the thoughts, hopes, dreams, fears, aspirations and trepidations of the actors trying to win the roles. I learned a lot. How tough, and long, the process of choosing a cast is. How difficult it is to win a role, because all of the actors competing are so good. I saw the intense pressures of the callbacks, along with the joys of winning and the disappointment in coming close and missing out. I discovered the groundbreaking importance of this particular play to those who make a living on Broadway. I’m not a big Broadway musical guy, but I was fascinated every step of the way. It was easily my favorite documentary of the year.

Up – I don’t think I’ve ever had a year without a Pixar film in my Top 10. No exception in 2009. Up is superb, just like WALL. E, Cars and The Incredibles before it. Cool story, great images, excellent jokes – I still smile when I think of the voice-synthesizers that give us insight into how dogs think (“Squirrel!”). And the still-photo montage that covers more than 50 years of Carl and Ellie Frederickson’s life together in about four amazing minutes is virtually perfect. It should be shown to every student in every film school in America as a lesson in how to use a montage effectively and emotionally while avoiding all the clichés. It is wonderful. Finally, how can I not like an animated film that includes an extended visual homage to Werner Herzog’s Fitzcarraldo? That they would even include homage to Fitzcarraldo is further proof that Pixar exists on a level above the rest of us.

Bad Lieutenant – Port of Call, New Orleans – Speaking of Werner Herzog, in 2009 he blessed us with this delightful descent into madness. The original Bad Lieutenant, released in 1992, was directed by Abel Ferrera and starred Harvey Keitel. It is still one of the grimmest films I’ve even seen, as it chronicles one police lieutenant’s downward spiral into drugs and depravity. Herzog’s film is not really a remake as much as a (to use the current Hollywood cliché) re-imagining. This one is set in New Orleans, right after Hurricane Katrina. The lieutenant is played by Nicolas Cage. Not the silly National Treasure/Ghost Rider Nicholas Cage. He’s no fun. This film features the crazy, unhinged Leaving Las Vegas Nicolas Cage. Much better. As in the original, the lieutenant is really bad. He takes an alarming amount of street and prescription drugs, is not above shaking down young couples outside a nightclub for reasons I won’t go into, and has no qualms about storming into an assisted living facility and cutting off the oxygen of an elderly patient in order to extract information. But he’s also very kind to his girlfriend (who happens to be a prostitute) and is willing to care for his father’s dog. The film takes the original’s premise and renders it with an ironic smile, right up to the ridiculous ending that ties up every loose end in about three jaw-dropping minutes. Herzog is having fun. So is Cage. And so will you, as you try to figure out if the iguanas are really there.

Inglourious Basterds – It’s not perfect. It’s about 40 minutes longer than it needs to be. It has holes in its logic you could drive a truck through. And there are times when Quentin Tarantino indulges his joy for his own dialogue just a bit excessively. But here it is on my Top 10. Because it’s fun! A roving band of Jewish Nazi scalp-hunters under the command of a brash, Southern-accented lieutenant who has no idea how ridiculous he sounds when trying to speak Italian. A beautiful French theater owner with a lifelong grudge she has one great opportunity to settle. Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler and the rest of the Nazi high command, together in one place at one time – to watch a movie! And at the center of it, the evil, brilliant, cunning SS Colonel Hans Landa, who conducts interrogations, uncovers plots and generally messes with the good guys while effortlessly slipping in and out of four different languages. He is one of Tarantino’s most interesting and compelling bad guys – ever. He’s played by Christoph Waltz, a German actor whose performance, in my opinion, towers above all others in the film. Inglourious Basterds has all the great Tarantino stuff: serpentine plotlines that eventually intersect; quick splashes of brutal violence; an esoteric and interesting soundtrack; and, of course, the dialogue. No one but Quentin Tarantino could have made this film. No one else would have even thought of it. I’m glad he did.

District 9 – There were two pretty big “aliens vs. humans” films released this year. District 9 is the one that didn’t cost $300 million. The film was produced by Peter Jackson (the Lord of the Rings guy) and directed by a young South African named Neil Blomkamp. The two had originally been signed to do a big-budget production based on the video game Halo. That deal fell through and Jackson suggested that instead they do a feature based on a short film Blomkamp had made about aliens stranded in Johannesburg. District 9 was born. It’s about a group of aliens who landed in Jo-Burg, got stuck due to mechanical issues on their ship and have remained segregated inside a ghetto for 28 years. They look like giant shellfish (the humans call them “prawns”), speak in a language of clicks and pops and are clearly the intellectual equals of their human captors. Any parallels drawn between their situation and the past apartheid policies of the South African government are obvious and highly encouraged. But that’s enough about politics. Let’s get on to the cool stuff. All the aliens really want to do is fix their ship and get outta Dodge, but the humans have a reason to keep them there. They want to learn how to use their weapons. You see, in that other movie, the aliens use their DNA, and some cords in their ponytails, to communicate with animals and plants. How nice. In District 9, the aliens use their DNA to fire their kick-ass weapons. How cool. Anyway, the humans are trying to figure out how to fire the alien guns, a resourceful alien does manage to fix the ship, a human turns into an alien, an unbelievably violent battle ensues and the ship finally flies away, leaving many aliens behind – including the new human/alien hybrid guy – but promising to return. Hello, sequel. I see a bunch of films every year, and rarely do I leave one saying I’d never seen anything like that before. I did after District 9. It’s raw, gritty and – even though it’s about aliens who resemble shrimp – incredibly real. For about a tenth of the cost of a trip to Pandora.

Up in the Air – The press and the critics have been saying that this film is a reflection of the zeitgeist of our time, a seriocomic look into the world of corporate downsizing and the emotional pain of losing one’s job. Well, yeah. The film has all that. And its use of real people who have actually lost their jobs is very poignant and effective. But, ultimately, I think it’s about something else. I think it’s about connections. The main guy, Ryan Bingham, is a road warrior who spends 325 days a year on the road firing people and leading them into “career transition counseling.” He’s really good at making travel connections, airline connections and racking up his frequent flier miles. He’s not so good at human connections. In fact, he has a second career as a motivational speaker, telling people to get rid of their connections – empty their backpacks, he says – and keep moving forward. His world of airports, VIP lounges and Hilton Hotels is where he finds comfort, surrounded by others yet isolated at the same time. Enter a young Ivy League grad – Natalie Keener – with an idea to pull everyone off the road and start firing people via teleconference. Of course, she and Bingham become the ultimate odd couple, thrown together out on the road as he shows her the realities of informing people their world is about to collapse. They both learn a great deal. She concludes that firing people might not be her best career choice. And Ryan, seeing the empty capsule his life has become, begins efforts to actually connect with his family and the woman who has become his sometime hookup. He succeeds, and he doesn’t. The film is emotional, without being overly maudlin. It’s also funnier than I expected, with most of the good lines given to Natalie and her observations on Ryan’s miles-obsessed lifestyle. George Clooney is a bona fide MOVIE STAR. He’s good in bad movies. He’s great in this one. Anna Kendrick is cute, vulnerable and, at the same time, bitingly sarcastic as Natalie. And special props to Danny McBride, who leaves the insanity of his Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express characters behind and brings a nice believability to a small role. There’s also a great cameo from Sam Elliott.
So make a connection with your son, daughter, parent or significant other and see Up in the Air. You can bond over it.

The Hurt Locker – Who are my friends? Who are the enemy? Who wants to see me die, or see me live? Who doesn’t care? In the streets of Bagdad, and in The Hurt Locker, the answer to all of those questions is the same: “Who knows?” For the three-man bomb disposal unit at the center of this film, not knowing those answers could literally kill them. A number of films have tried to capture the stress and madness of the war in Iraq. Most have fallen short. Not this one. To say the film is intense is an understatement. Watching it is physically draining. You learn in the first five minutes that any IED can blow at any time, and you keep that knowledge with you through every run the unit makes. You hold your breath along with Sgt. William James as he surveys each bomb and tries to decide which wire to cut. You scan the crowds that always gather, right along with James’ partners, trying to find the man, woman or child in the group who might be holding the cell phone that will detonate the device before James can disarm it. And just like them, you don’t know. Sgt. James is very good at what he does. He’s also a little bit crazy. Jeremy Renner plays the part in a way that shows us James is as exhilarated as he is stressed by his job. He takes chances that he probably shouldn’t. But he does so with an arrogant belief in his own skills that makes him confident he can pull it off. The rest of us aren’t so sure. This is a tight, simple movie that deals with a big issue by keeping it small. We spend most of the film with James and his unit. The film doesn’t ask us to judge anything. It just shows us what it’s like to do a horrible job under horrible conditions in a horrible place. The script was written by Mark Boal, a journalist who spent time in Iraq embedded with this type of unit, so it’s no surprise that it feels totally real. Kathryn Bigelow directed it in the straightforward, economical style that she showed in films like Point Break, Near Dark and Blue Steel. Some better known – and higher paid – action directors out there could learn some things watching her films. We all learn some things watching The Hurt Locker.

Precious – Most films I see because I want to. But every year there are a few that I feel I have to see. They have the critical buzz, I know they’ll be big at awards season and/or they deal with an “important” issue. So I go, approaching it like a school assignment. That was my attitude about Precious. Wrong. This is a great film. Granted, the story of a virtually illiterate, pregnant 300+-pound teenage girl named Precious Jones who is already the mother of a Down Syndrome child and is trying to survive on the mean streets of Harlem in the mid-’80s isn’t necessarily one that’s going to set your heart soaring. Oh yeah, did I mention that both of her kids were fathered by her father, who has now left Precious and her mother living together in their walk-up tenement apartment? Total downer, right? Well, yes … and no. True, things look bad for Precious, but throughout the film we realize that she is resilient, smarter than we originally believed and in possession of a vivid imagination that can literally take her away to beautiful places when the situation in her real world gets too awful. The cool thing is, the audience gets to see Precious’ flights of fancy as she is adored as a movie star or Queen of the Prom. It’s a great way to learn that her mind has not succumbed to the darkness. By the end of the film, Precious has come a long way and seems to have a least a shot at a better future. Will it pan out? Maybe. We don’t find out, but at least she has a chance. In her world, that’s the most one can expect. A young actress named Gaboury Sibide plays Precious. She’s great, letting us see the quiet dignity beneath the sad, silent surface. But the true revelation is comedienne Mo’Nique, who plays Precious’ mother. It has become something of a cliché to call portrayals of negative characters “brave.” But Mo’Nique’s performance is completely fearless. To call her character a monster is an insult to monsters everywhere. She is much worse. And Mo’Nique holds nothing back. It’s a frighteningly good portrayal of a frighteningly bad human being. The rest of the players are solid as well, with a special mention for Mariah Carey, of all people. With almost no makeup and a full-on New York accent, she is almost unrecognizable as a tough but empathetic welfare office counselor. She’s only in the film for about 10 minutes, but she is an integral part of the film’s key scene. She’s surprisingly good. You’ll also see Lenny Kravitz in a role you wouldn’t expect. If you’ve avoided Precious because of the dark subject matter, think again. It can be tough to watch, but the total effect will leave you feeling better for having made it to the end.

(500) Days of Summer – I know I’m going to get raked over the coals for this one, but I can’t help it. I really liked it. Yes, it’s a lighter-than-air romantic comedy that doesn’t deal with any of the big issues a lot of other films on the list take on. Yes, it includes a mid-story song-and-dance number set to a cheesy Hall & Oates song. Yes, it is polarizing. I know as many people who hated it as liked it. Maybe more. And yet, here it is. The thing I liked best was the structure. It’s the story of a 500-day relationship between Tom Hansen and the adorable, and adorably named, Summer Finn. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Tom and the adorable Zooey Deschanel plays the adorable Summer. The twist is, we don’t see the relationship in chronological order. In fact, we learn fairly early that, as a couple, Tom and Summer aren’t going to make it. We then view, somewhat randomly, a number of their 500 days together. We may see Day 56, then Day 348, then Day 12. It’s interesting to see the two of them in the doe-eyed thrall of new love on Day 16 when we know full well that they’ll be totally on the rocks 400 days later. It’s a little too cute in parts, and the ending is a bit pat for my taste. But I left the theater with a smile on my face, having seen a romantic comedy with two thoroughly likable stars presented in a way that I found refreshing and original. I even liked the Hall & Oates dance video. Sorry, but I did.

Close, but no cigar – Beyond the Top 10, but there were a number of other films I enjoyed a lot. Here’s the Honorable Mention list:

Coraline – Great animation and a wonderfully dark story. Scared a lot of six-year-olds in the theater.

Adventureland – Ahhh, the ’80s. Weren’t they great?

State of Play – Came and went quietly. Underrated.

Star Trek – The best of the big-ass summer movies.

The Hangover – For so many reasons.

The September Issue – Fascinating look at the creative process.

Paranormal Activity – Best use of $15,000 in the history of film. Scary, real and real scary.

Zombieland – Give me zombies, and I’m happy.

Drag Me to Hell – Give me a Sam Raimi horror film, and I’m happy.

Fantastic Mr. Fox – A Wes Anderson film through and through. It just happened to be animated.

The Princess and the Frog – Old school 2D Disney animation. Great story. Great songs. Great film.

Food Inc. – Documentary about the dirty secrets of the American food industry. Eat before you see it.