I saw "The 40-Year-Old Virgin" last week, and the movie was a pleasant surprise as it was consistently funny and fairly raunchy.
Much like "The Wedding Crashers," Steve Carrell and company reveled in their R rating and didn't pull punches when it came to describing sexual acts or situations.
But it was also one of these descriptions, however, that disturbed me after leaving the theater.
About half-way through the movie, a character of Middle Easter origin discusses a variety of sexual activities with Steve Carrell. The exchange begins with some common sexual banter, but then takes a turn for the gutter.
Somewhere in the middle of this sequence, the term "Dirty Sanchez" was thrown out. I found myself laughing because the idea of a "Dirty Sanchez" is always good for a chuckle or two due to its extremely revolting visual nature.
After I finished laughing, however, I looked around and noticed that a large majority of the theater was also in stitches.
I didn't think much of it at the time, but afterwards it started to disturb me that not only did a large percentage of the general public seem to understand what a "Dirty Sanchez" entailed, but that they also appeared to condone its usuage by their gales of hearty laughter.
For those people who have no idea about the filthiness of a "Dirty Sanchez" let me just say that you never want to be on the receiving end of one. The term describes a deviant sexual act that involves doggy-style lovemaking, feces, and hand-drawn mustaches.
The "Dirty Sanchez" originated as part of an email laundry list of strange sexual pleasures, but since its humble beginnings the act has now leapt into the mainstream.
Howard Stern talks frequently about it, a team in last years movie "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story" adopted it for its tournament name, and most recently a full description could be found in the new release "The Aristocrats."
So what does this all mean?
And what will this onslaught of "Dirty Sanchez" talk add up to in the near future?
Personally, I think it is only a matter of time before a "Dirty Sanchez" is actually performed in a theatrical release. Or at the very least the conclusion of one will soon be out there for public consumption.
You can only talk about something for so long before the urge to actually perform the act becomes too overwhelming to resist.
Call me a prude, but I can do without watching actresses running around with brown mustaches unless that actress happens to be Paris Hilton - in which case I hope she boasts a huge brown handlebar on her upper lip that would put any long-haul trucker to shame.
-BDS
Names are important.
First names, last names, nicknames, product names and especially movie names are of vital importance to the long-term success of the person or the product.
Most of us have little input with our given names, but one of the earliest ways we can influence the direction of our lives is the choice or cultivation of a nickname. A superior nickname craftsman can help themselves in nearly all social situations or at the very least can increase their chances of getting laid.
For instance, Owen Wilson, known as the "Butterscotch Stallion," is brilliant. His self-appointed monikor is funny yet regal and appeals to men and women alike.
Personally, I spent my high schools years yearning to be known as the "Conquistador," but alas it was not to be.
Many factors held me back including the utter lack of any Spanish blood coursing through my veins as well as the fact that I rarely if ever roamed the halls of Plano Senior High School with a long sword swinging menancingly behind me.
While a good nickname can raise your social status, a good product or movie name can ensure monetary success or leave the endeavor doomed to utter and complete failure.
A recent example of a movie that bombed thanks to a bad title can be found in "Layer Cake." This entertaining British gangster film was stylish and boasted a sharp cast, but it bombed at box office after getting no help from a title that conjured up images of Julia Childs or at the very least of the sugary sweet film "Chocolat."
A good title should be easy to remember as well as invoke an image that fits with some aspect of the film.
"Sin City" was a good title for a movie filled with hookers and hoods and sluts and perverts. However, "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain" flat-out sucked even if it was appropriate for Hugh Grant.
I was reminded of this problem as I read the recent Fall Movie Preview in Entertainment Weekly. Most of the titles were solid ("Lord of War" or "Into the Blue") and some were even better ("Guys and Balls" or "Walk the Line.")
The problem is that anyone associated with upcoming releases such as "The Squid and the Whale," "Breakfast on Pluto" and "The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio" need to run for the hills because these titles will get them nowhere near box-office glory.
These films face an uphill battle thanks to someone or many someones who failed to recognize the importance of names. It will all become clear, however, when these films languish at the bottom of the box office and studio execs realize their mistakes.
Take it from the "Conquistador" - you only get one chance to find a name that really makes a difference.
-BDS
It's been awhile, but it's been hard to blog when you're living out of boxes thanks to a just completed re-location to Austin, TX.
Moving is just another of life's trials that reminds you that some things are out of your control - much like taxes and the career of Freddie Prinze Jr.
So, for the past several weeks I had been locked in a constant battle with new and old landlords over such trivial matters as rent, security deposits, holes in the walls, and a bathtub that had turned a truly hideous shade of grayish-black due to unknown causes (i.e. my failure to clean it since the start of 2005).
My days had been utterly bleak due to these moving-related factors, but then salvation came through the U.S. Post Office when we received our critique from the International Screenwriting Awards.
We had already discovered that we didn't make the quarterfinals of the ISA contest, and for all we knew our first script had been a complete waste of time, effort and paper.
Could it be that our humor didn't transcend to the outside world?
Of course not.
The critique was extensive and effusive in its praise for our "unique and imaginative" script. It went on to say that the writers "have obvious talent" and that our ability to handle "a large cast of characters and still give them each a distinct voice displayed outstanding character development."
The two problems that kept us from the quarterfinals was the lack of a strong main character to drive the plot as well as a story that was a little scattershot due to its large cast of characters.
On the plus side, these were both problems that my brother and I discussed while writing the script and should be fixable without a sizable re-write.
When the reviewer got down to our score we had a 58, which placed us in the top 26 percent of applicants. We kept reading and found that a score of 60 would have advanced us into the next round of the competition.
I suppose it's appropriate since our company is titled 2 Dollar Productions that we missed out on placing in the ISA Awards because of two lousy points, but I'm no fan of irony when I'm on the receiving end of it.
As far as I'm concerned you can keep your praise for "Last Train to Amsterdam" - I want my two points.
-BDS
