I’ve had a good amount of all of the above recently, so I wanted to share some media to capture it.

Upper deck at Wrigley Field. Not a bad seat in the house.

I also got to see my first set of Chicago fireworks tonight. Apparently they weren’t quite up to the standard of past years (according to my girlfriend the Chicago fireworks aficionado), but I still loved every second of it. I have a somewhat irrational love of fireworks. If I ever have kids, I hope the appreciate them as much as I do. Every family has one holiday that is THE holiday at their house. It’ll be a tough call for me between the 4th of July and Thanksgiving (I’m an even bigger football fan than baseball fan), but really, can you beat this?:

And the finale…

No related posts.

“Chicago Next GINeration Cocktail Challenge”

So this is terribly belated, but I figure it’s better late than never, right? A couple weeks ago, I had the opportunity to attend and compete against several other local bloggers in New Amsterdam Gin’s Next GINeration Cocktail Challenge at Old Town Social (hat tip to Stephanie Miller for passing the invite my way).

Although I’m admittedly not much of a gin drinker (I blame it on a few bad experiences in college with large quantities of the plastic bottle variety), I was excited for the opportunity to expand my limited cocktail repertoire.

After a brief introduction to the product (which is definitely the best, smoothest gin I’ve had the opportunity to try), New Amsterdam’s Master Mixologist Alex Ott explained the rules of the challenge. We would be given 10 minutes to create and prepare a cocktail, name it, and come up with a story behind it that explained how our concoction was inspired by the stories of both the brand and the city of Chicago.

In the days leading up to the challenge I solicited advice from just about everyone I know, including my stepmother (a long time bartender), my roommate (a former bartender himself), and all of my Twitter followers (because there’s got to be a few great mixologists out of 900+ people, right?). I picked up a few great ideas, but unfortunately they all included multiple types of liquor, and we learned after arriving that the folks at New Amsterdam had decided to not make any other liquors available to keep the attention on the featured product.

Clockwise from left: Alex Ott, David "The Food Dude" Lissner, Martha Kidd, and yours truly

Back at square one, my ladyfriend and I stormed the ingredient table and grabbed a little bit of everything. As we began mixing our ingredients, we learned quickly that 10 minutes goes by incredibly fast when you have no idea what you’re doing. All wasn’t lost, however, as Alex circulated amongst the contestants, providing us with tips when we were obviously doing something the wrong way. When the buzzer sounded, we had successfully poured and presented our drink but hadn’t yet had an opportunity to taste it. We did get a chance to take a quick sip of it before the judges got around to our station, and I’ve sadly got to say that I wasn’t very confident we had much chance to win. But hey, I’ll steal a poker phrase here; as long as you’ve got a chip and a chair, you’ve got a chance.

While our cocktail composition was a bit rushed, the development of our drink’s name and story was essentially invented as we went along. Because our beverage featured a pinch of cayenne, Martha thought we should give the drink a name that referenced its Latin flair. We ended up going with the Pilsen Picnic as an homage to the area’s large Mexican population, as well as our desire to make a drink that would be great to serve  at a cookout on a hot summer day. Here’s the final recipe: 1.5 oz gin, 1.5 oz pineapple juice, .5 oz liquefied honey, the juice of one whole live, a bit of muddled cucumber, a pinch of sugar, and a hint of cayenne. Shake, strain and enjoy.

Alex Ott (middle) and two New Amsterdam brand reps sample one of the contestant's cocktails

Surprisingly, the judges had nothing but good things to say about the Pilsen Picnic, calling it “well balanced” and “refreshing,” but I had a sneaking suspicion that they may just have been attempting to let us down gently. After making their rounds, the judges retired to their judging chamber to make their final decision. When they returned, they announced the winner and …. unfortunately we didn’t win. That honor went to Jennifer Contraveos of Crafted Cocktail and her North Shore Sour. If you ask me, I think she had an unfair advantage of legitimate experience and skill. I think we should have been given at least a 5 minute head start to even things out ( ;-), sour grapes, I know). Even though we didn’t win the big prize (a catered dinner featuring New Amsterdam cocktails), nobody went home empty handed, as we all received some pretty nice swag bags and were able to keep the bartending tools we used. Not a bad consolation prize.

Now, who wants a cocktail?! I’ve got three bottles of this stuff and could use some help drinking it.

(Disclaimer: New Amsterdam gave us lots of free gin and some tasty appetizers at the event, as well as the bartender’s tools mentioned above. None of this affected my opinion of the product. It’s definitely a solid choice if you’re in the market for gin)

No related posts.

This next video is from the completely mindblowing encore. If you have the chance to see Jonsi live, you owe it to yourself to do it.

No related posts.

Although I’d never been to Vosges, I knew good things were in store shortly after I walked in and noticed some of the unique flavors which populated the shop’s shelves, including bacon, curry, wasabi and cardamom.

The evening started with a light, refreshing cocktail which Rob, the Corzo “brand attache” referred dubbed a Corzo White Sand. This was the type of drink that could easily get you in trouble on a hot summer day, as the deceptively high alcohol content went down maybe a bit too smoothly. For those of you interested in mixing one of these up at home: combine 1 1/2 oz. Corzo Silver, 1 1/2 oz. white grape juice, 3/4 oz St. Germain, and 3/4 oz. sweet and sour.

The tasting portion of the event began with a how-to on the best practices for tasting tequila and chocolate. While the instructions for chocolate won’t surprise you (rub your fingers over it to release the aroma; take a moment to smell it; once you bite into it, rub it on the roof of your mouth and let it slowly melt on your tongue), the “right” way to taste tequila is less obvious. The key is to swallow the liquid quickly and immediately exhale. Doing this reduces the amount of oxygen that hits your palate, eliminates the burn that you normally feel while ripping shots of Cuervo at the bar, and allows you to really pick up on the aromatic notes of the spirit.

From there, we moved on to the pairings. The first round offered Corzo silver, a light tequila with strong peppery note, with one of Vosges Naga truffles (Indian curry, coconut, milk chocolate). It seems like I’ve encountered Indian curry in a variety of unusual places recently, but this was definitely one of my favorites - especially while enjoyed simultaneously with the tequila.

The second pairing brought Corzo’s Reposado, a slightly darker tequila that has been barrel aged for four to six months. The provided tasting notes indicated that I should have been picking up “warm hints of white oak (leading) to a custard finish comprised of lemon, coconut, baked banana, and brown spice,” but call me unsophisticated when it comes to spirits, because I couldn’t pick up much beyond the spice and a slight hint of banana.

While I may not have developed a full appreciation for the nuances of tequila, I am pleased to say that I enjoyed every last note of the accompaniments. The star here was the Seven Year Old Quebec cheese, which easily ranks among the best cheeses I’ve ever eaten. Sharp and creamy, with just the right amount of salt, I would gladly put my arteries in harm’s way for a pound of this and a plate of grapes. The chocolate offerings here were also top notch: a buttermilk banana truffle with a silky smooth center and a wonderful vanilla aroma, and a piece of Vosges fantastic Mo’s Milk Bacon Bar which was infinitely more enjoyable than my unfortunate run in with a maple-bacon lollipop.

Like with any tasting, the boldest flavors were saved for last. Corzo’s Anejo is aged the longest of any of the distillery’s varieties, spending 14 to 18 months in oak barrels. This warm, full-bodied tequila had distinct notes of caramel and toffee, and would be - in my opinion - the best to enjoy on its own. The cheese chosen for the Anejo was tasty, but more notable for its description which included the note that this particular cow’s milk Gouda had been aged for five years IN A CAVE. That’s pretty cool in my book. Ok, back on track. The chocolate pairing here, owner/chocolatier Katrina Markoff’s Red Fire truffle, which expertly combined Ceylon cinnamon and Mexican ancho chillies with 65 percent dark chocolate to provide just the right amount of heat. If I was to go back to Vosges, this would definitely be one of the first things I’d buy.

However, that brings me to an important note. While I was thrilled to be invited to this event and certainly enjoyed all the pairings, I’m sorry to say that I don’t see myself repeating the experience at home. Although I’m no longer on an intern’s budget, it’s tough for me to justify dropping $50 to $70 on a 750ml bottle of unnecessarily high end tequila. Similarly, while I could eat Katrina’s chocolates all day, every day, the $7.50 price tag on one of Vosges 3 oz. bars will make them a rare luxury.

But hey, next time I win the Powerball, fancy chocolate and tequila all around!

No related posts.

It’s because if they slack off and force humans to do it for them, this is what happens. I’m sorry Murphy.

Before:

After:

Look at that look of dismay.

No related posts.

No related posts.

Each year, the school hosts what it calls the “Life-Raft Debate.” The premise of the debate is that there’s been some sort of global apocalypse, and all the students watching the proceedings in the auditorium are the only survivors, floating in a life-raft with just one seat left. The debate pits six professors, each from a different academic discipline, against each other as they argue why someone with knowledge of their field would be the most valuable as they begin a new civilization, thus deserving the last seat.

Now, depending on your opinion of philosophical debate, this may or may not sound interesting (I think it’s a cool concept), but as the years passed, the debate became less about intellectual arguments, and more about making the students laugh.

I think this is a good example of what’s wrong with our education system today. Teachers have become convinced that they can’t challenge their students to understand an intelligent argument or produce intelligent arguments themselves. I’m not saying this is all on the teachers — certainly parents complaining about teachers being too critical and students feeling entitled to A’s played a part, but it needs to change. It has lead to a generation of students and young professionals that has never been forced to address its flaws.

One of the professors interviewed for the piece offered his perspective on the situation:

“As of the 90s, everybody was so frickin’ concerned with everybody’s self-esteem, that it was very hard to just actually come out and say something that everybody knew was true but it would have been perceived as being impolite. It became very hard or unusual if you actually said ‘This is a bad argument,’ to a student on a paper. And you would think that students who have been brought up being told they’re special all the time, this is everybody who talks about, you know, the Millennials as the generation that were brought up being told they’re special all the time, would be these fragile narcissists who would collapse at the instant that they got some real criticism. But what I’ve found is that they’re quite robust.”

The last two sentences are what’s important here. We Millennials may be guilty of putting in the least amount of effort we could in order to succeed in school (I know I was guilty at times), but we are NOT fragile. The real problem is that the epidemic of grade inflation that has permeated the education system has made the vast majority of students complacent. If a 3.0 is seen as an acceptable GPA for a student and he only has to work 30 minutes per day to earn it, he’s not likely to do anything more. We need teachers to require kids to put in some serious effort to achieve the minimally acceptable levels. The fact of the matter is that, when it comes down to it, students want to be pushed. If you tell us how we can do better and challenge us to do the best we can, we will.

Ask just about any former student who his favorite college professor was. It won’t be the professor who passed out completed study guides before the tests and didn’t have an attendance policy. It WILL be the professor who challenged him intellectually in the most engaging way. My favorite professors were always the ones who returned my papers with the most red ink on them. I didn’t always love the grades they gave me, but I always appreciated that they took the time to actually read my work closely and showed me how I could do better.

No related posts.

MetaCritic Score: 82

Frozen River won 24 awards and was nominated for 16 others (including two Oscars). Still, I can pretty confidently say that even you — someone who has taken the time out of their day to read a completely unadvertised movie blog — didn’t see it in theaters. I can say this because Courtney Hunt’s brilliant film  had a criminally low domestic gross of $2.5 million.

Frozen River centers on part-time dollar store employee Ray Eddy’s seemingly futile efforts to keep her family’s head above water financially, despite being married to a gambling-addict who continually sabotages her plans. Ray and her two sons live on the New York-Quebec border, where the harsh weather and job market are equally unforgiving. The region is also home to a Mohawk Indian reservation, which happens to be the haven of a thriving human-smuggling operation.

When we meet Ray, her husband has just run off with the family car, as well as the down payment on their brand new double-wide. After finding the car in the possession of a Mohawk woman who claims that she found it next to a bus stop, Ray is coerced into carrying two immigrants over the border. Though she has serious moral qualms with the practice, her initial, involuntary run forces Ray to think seriously about how far she is willing to go to provide for her family.

Frozen River’s strength lies in the unbelievably honest, Oscar-nominated performance of star Melissa Leo (who has an IMDB resume a mile long, but you’ll likely only remember as Benicio del Toro’s wife in 21 Grams), as well as the directorial prowess of rookie filmmaker Courtney Hunt. Leo gives Eddy a balance and depth that is rarely seen on screen today. She conveys a great deal of emotion without ever crossing the line into caricature. Of course, her work on screen is supported by an exceptionally well written screenplay from Hunt, who does a great job of preventing her characters from feeling static. Each character responds to the crises that are presented in a way that feels very true to life.

I was also impressed with the film’s pacing. Low-budget indie movies have a tendency to drag, but Frozen River manages to avoid that through its taut 98-minute running time. Though this certainly isn’t the first film to discuss illegal immigration, it does present a fresh take on the issue — happily, one that doesn’t push an agenda or place the blame on one particular source.

Though its release was rather small, I do believe that Frozen River will appeal to a wide range of movie goers. If you’re in the mood for a well-acted, socially relevant drama, this film is worth every penny of a rental at Blockbuster.

Related posts:

1. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly - Movie Review
2. Hancock - Movie Review
3. Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead - Movie Review

Related posts:

MetaCritic Score: 80

When Wendy and Lucy showed up on my radar a couple months ago, I was torn over whether or not I should bother renting it. The reviews were solid (80s are few and far between on MetaCritic), but what I had read/heard about the plot lead me to believe that it might be unbearably slow, even by artsy indie movie standards. On the other hand, the film’s star, Michelle Williams, has developed a reputation as one of our generation’s best young actresses over the past few years, so I decided to give it a shot.

Wendy and Lucy is incredibly small in scope. The film captures about a week in the life of Wendy, a seemingly aimless young woman drifting across the country on her way from Indiana to Alaska, with only the vague notion that she wants to spend the summer working in a fish cannery. We meet her as she’s already on her way and leave her before she has much of a chance to get any closer to her destination.  We’re given no real exposition or denouement, but the crazy thing is that it really works wonderfully.

The hosts of one of my favorite podcasts, Filmspotting, are constantly criticizing movies for awkwardly forcing back-story details into places where they don’t fit. One recent - and particularly egregious - example of this took place in Taken, Liam Neeson’s recent ode to badassery. In that film, Neeson sits around a poker table with several of his CIA buddies discussing the highlights of his career and his love for his daughter. Filmspotting’s Adam and Matty were spot on when they said that this sort of spoon feeding shouldn’t be necessary. We don’t need to be told Neeson’s character’s full history in order to understand why he’s so intense in pursuit of his daughter’s captors; we should be able to gather that ourselves through his actions, words, and emotions. This is one of the key reasons why I see Wendy and Lucy as such a success; director Kelly Reichardt doesn’t need to waste any time with flashbacks, because Williams’s incredible acting and Jonathan Raymond’s screenplay give us a deep understanding of the character as we progress through the film.

What’s most impressive about Williams’s performance is how much authentic emotion she is able to convey with such a sparse script. She controls her expressions with incredible skill and reflects a deep sadness, teetering on the edge of hopelessness without overplaying it for a moment. Her stoicism is really beautiful in that regard. The fact that she essentially carries the film by herself, as Wendy is the only character of real significance, is another testament to the quality of her work here.

Reichardt also deserves a lot of credit for shooting this film in a way that reflects the tone of the story and the atmosphere of the setting. The locations chosen couldn’t have been better, and the muted color scheme that permeates every scene reveals the general malaise that sits over the whole town in which the story takes place.

In whole, Wendy and Lucy is an excellent film. It’s worth seeing for Michelle Williams’s performance by itself, but I really think that it succeeds on a number of levels. It’s not fast paced, and the story isn’t grandiose, but, as Film Threat’s Don Lewis said in his review, “Unless you’re an antsy movie-goer or have a cold heart, by the end of Wendy and Lucy, you’ll be engrossed, hoping for the best possible outcome.” So, check it out; I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised.

Related posts:

1. The Visitor - Movie Review
2. The Savages - Movie Review
3. Starting Out in the Evening - Movie Review