close
close
Cubs BCB After Dark: Is there still hope?

It is another Wednesday evening here at BCB After Dark: the hottest happening for night owls, early risers, young parents and Boys Fans abroad. We’re glad you’re coming tonight. Entry is free. If you need anything, let us know. We have a few tables left. Bring your own drink.

BCB after dark is the place to talk about baseball, music, movies, or anything else you want to get off your chest, as long as it follows the site’s rules. The night owls are encouraged to get the party started, but everyone else is invited to join in the next morning and afternoon.

The Cubs beat the Pirates 14-10 today after trailing 10-3 after six innings. That’s the kind of win that makes you think this team could be special — or maybe could have been special if they hadn’t played so poorly in May and June. I’d put Judy in this game, but I put her in yesterday. I don’t want to overwork her (that’s how MGM got her addicted to pills), so you can just go back to yesterday’s edition if you want to celebrate with Judy.

Last night I asked you what you would think if the Cubs signed free agent outfielder Anthony Santander. The idea didn’t get much support, with 46 percent saying “No!” and 36 percent saying “So-so.” Only 18 percent thought it was a good idea.

Here’s the part where I talk about music and movies. You can skip ahead if you want. You won’t hurt my feelings.


I don’t feature enough of the great jazz vocalists here, so here’s Dianne Reeves from 1994 singing “Afro Blue.” I hope that balances things out a little.


Tonight I’m going to tidy up the film spot a bit and write a short essay about a neo-noir.

First we have to think about what kind of tournament we can do in the off-season. Two winters ago I came up with the idea of ​​organizing a tournament, Film-Noir and it did much better than I expected. So we did it again last winter with Westerns and people seemed to enjoy it just as much. I definitely gained a new appreciation for the genre.

So I should probably do something like that again this offseason. I’m at a loss for what to show in a tournament, though. I generally prefer to write about movies made before 1980, or at least 1990. The reason for this is because I don’t think I need to tell you about newer movies that are constantly on cable. I make exceptions for newer small indie films or foreign films that most of you probably don’t know, but in general I prefer to stick with stuff that’s 40 years old or older. I also think the older films have stood the test of time and can be judged independently of the fashions of their era.

So I’m open to suggestions. Science fiction movies are an idea I had, but most of them before 1970 haven’t aged very well because of the special effects. They have Metropolis – The Day the Earth Stood Still And Alarm in space and a pile of junk until you reach the late sixties and Planet of the Apes, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Omega Man, Soylent Greenetc. (I guess A trip to the moon would count, but that kind of contradicts every criticism.) But I guess we could do a science fiction tournament before Star Wars.

Crime and gangster films would be another option, but there would be a lot of overlap with black in this case.

Comedies would be a possibility, especially if we restrict ourselves to the period before 1970. (When I go later, I know Monty Python and the Holy Grail would win before I even created the brackets.) That’s a pretty broad category though. I could use “screwball comedies” or “romantic comedies” to narrow down the choices.

I will not watch musicals. Although I don’t like musicals as much as I did as a kid, and even really love some of them, I am not going to watch dozens of MGM musicals from the forties and fifties to figure out which should be the last six or eight films in the series. And don’t make me Oklahoma! again.

Then there’s the possibility that I’ll do something like Hitchcock films or Cary Grant films or Jimmy Stewart films or films by some other famous director or actor.

No decisions need to be made today, I probably won’t decide until October. But I want to put it up for discussion well in advance.

Moving on. One of the advantages of writing about movies here is that I can write about any movie I want. The problem this week is that I haven’t seen any movies I really wanted to write about.

A film I saw last week was by director Spike Lee 25th hour (2002), which I liked but don’t have much to say about. Ed Norton plays a guy who is going to prison the next day for drug dealing. The film is his last day before he reports to prison.

Monty (Norton) wants to spend one last night with his friends (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Barry Pepper) and his girlfriend Naturelle (Rosario Dawson), who may have betrayed him. He also has to convince his boss not to betray him or he’ll be dead. But most of all, it’s about how knowing that your life as you know it will be over in 24 hours intensifies everything you experience on that last day.

The film is also considered the ultimate “post-9/11” film, as Lee includes several shots of Ground Zero and people cleaning up the rubble. Frank (Pepper) owns a condo overlooking Ground Zero that he doesn’t want to move out of because real estate prices for a condo overlooking Ground Zero are pretty crappy.

Lee also includes a sort of patriotic ode to the American dream toward the end of the film that wouldn’t be out of place in a John Ford film. You might think it would be out of place in a Spike Lee film, but 9/11 changed people, man.

Anyway, I liked it and would recommend it. I don’t have to say much about it.

A second film I saw is the 1978 remake by director Michael Winner. The big sleepand I would suggest staying away from this one. Robert Mitchum made a version of Farewell, my beauty played Philip Marlowe in 1975 and this film is generally considered a classic. But despite an all-star cast – or perhaps because of it –The big sleep is boring and joyless.

Mitchum was the only actor to play Marlowe in two different feature films, and he should have left it at one. Much of the appeal of the original film version of The big sleep is the chemistry between Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, and you just can’t expect Mitchum and Sarah Miles to have the same kind of connection. But you might hope that they have some kind of connection. They don’t.

In fact, everyone in this movie seems to be just cashing their paycheck. James Stewart plays General Sternwood and that adds nothing to the movie except to give the audience a chance to say, “There’s Jimmy Stewart!” Candy Clark, Richard Boone, Oliver Reed, Joan Collins – they’re all wasted here.

This version of The big sleep relocates Marlowe and the action to England and has him played by a much older actor, the 60-year-old Mitchum. Other than that, this version sticks more closely to the novel’s plot. That’s a mistake. Raymond Chandler’s plots were notoriously nonsensical, and the appeal of his writing lay in his terrific tough-guy prose and his characterization of Marlowe as a flawed and cynical knight battling the darkness of Los Angeles. But plot wasn’t his thing. Director Howard Hawks famously couldn’t figure out who killed the chauffeur in the novel, so he called Chandler and asked him. Chandler said he didn’t know either. Hawks then said that if Chandler didn’t care about the plot, he shouldn’t have cared either. And this version shouldn’t have bothered, either.

Although the 1978 version is in color and the original 1946 version is in black and white, the Howard Hawks version had more color in it, if you know what I mean. This version is boring and lifeless.

To sum it up: Pay attention 25th hour and skip the 1978 version The big sleep. Just watch the original with Bogart and Bacall again.


Welcome back to all of you who skip music and movies. Oops, sorry. There’s another movie.

Yes, that’s me and the 2024 Cubs.

The Cubs’ record is 68-66 with 28 games remaining. They are nine games behind the Brewers for the NL Central title and 5 12 Play behind the Braves for the third and final Wild Card spot.

So it’s not looking good. But the good news is that the Cubs are playing really well right now. They’re 15-8 in August. And their schedule for the rest of the year doesn’t look too bad.

3 @ Nationals

3 against Pirates

3 against Yankees

3 @ Dodgers

3 @ Rockies

3 against athletics

4 against Nationals

3 @ Phillies

3 against the Reds

So that’s nine games against good teams – Yankees, Dodgers, Phillies and 19 games against some of the worst teams in the league. OK, the Pirates and Reds aren’t bad, but the Cubs get both at Wrigley. And they certainly aren’t good.

So how many games do the Cubs need to win to make the playoffs? If they’re 22-6, they’ll win 90 games and I’m pretty confident they’ll make the playoffs. If they’re 17-11, they’ll only have 85 wins and will almost certainly stay home this year.

When you look at this schedule, 17 wins looks easy. 22 wins seems almost impossible.

But what if they win 86 or 89 games? Will they make the playoffs or not?

Tonight, I’m just asking you how many of the remaining games you think the Cubs need to win to make the playoffs this season, and feel free to share your thoughts on how likely you think that is in the comments. Fangraphs gives them a chance of 3.6 percent.

Opinion poll

How many games do the Cubs have to win to make the playoffs?

  • 13%

    90 or better (22-6)

    (2 votes)


15 votes in total

Vote now

Thank you to everyone who stopped by tonight and all week. Please get home safe. Let us know if you need a ride. Recycle cans and bottles. Tip your servers. And come back next week for more. BCB after dark.

By Bronte

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *