Tag Archives: Lee

Lee Continues Reg Season Giants Ownage, Phils Win 6-2

07 Tuesday May 2013

Posted by in Post Game Blasts

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I didn’t watch or listen to much of this one because it was on at the same time as the Warriors vs. Spurs Game One of NBA Playoffs second round.

Cliff Lee was workmanlike and manhandled our line up – except for Hunter Pence, who had a homer, double and a single and scored the Giants’ only two runs.

Was pleased to see Hunter Pence getting hits – it’s important to have at least one guy who can reliably rattle the cage of a pitcher who is successful against us. We need a guy like that versus Kershaw, Latos, others.

Bumgarner pitched well and left with three too many earned runs. If you didn’t see it or haven’t heard, there was an early-season Marco Scutaro brain-seize-type error that was recorded by the scorer as a hit. The Giants have petitioned to have it scored an error which would remove the runs from MadBum’s ERA.

From what I understand, Scutaro scooped up a potential double-play ball, thought about flipping it to Brandon Crawford for one, then, before he could change his mind and throw out the runner at first, dropped the ball to the infield, so everybody was safe. That’s an error, not a single.

Well, I’ll have more next time.

Go Giants!

My Thousandth Tweet

31 Friday Aug 2012

Posted by in S.F., social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recently I posted my 1000th Tweet:

“1000th Tweet: Twitter’s useful but cluttered. You have to tweet a lot to get good at it unless you’ve a weird knack. Reading others is best.”

As a critique thus far, I think those 140 characters do it. I won’t recommend Twitter, but I do find some value in it. I will continue to read and post there, which is a huge surprise to me given how I began:

A little less than a year and a half ago, amidst the San Francisco Mayor’s Race, but before Interim Mayor Ed Lee was allowed to run, SF Board of Supervisors Chair David Chiu (himself a Candidate for Mayor) led the Board and the Interim Mayor to The Great Twitter Giveaway of 2011, which ended the strictest controls on corporate investment in public space in the country: SF’s city tax on companies wanting to do business here.

They shattered our City’s progressive history functionally to create a tax-break to entice Twitter to make its base in San Francisco. That was when I started my first and only Twitter account @mtksf and posted my first tweet:

“Twitter doesn’t deserve the tax break on stock options. They stand to make tens of millions at IPO!”

I stand by that first tweet, there was no reason to give Twitter the taxbreak, which is being extended now to other social media and tech companies. They all want to be in SF.

The Board and Interim Mayor Lee failed to represent our city’s values and changed our city fundamentally.

Those Mayoral candidates used the tax-break to gain money and support for their campaigns from corporate interests, railroaded the Board and City into giving up millions of dollars that could have gone in the General Fund and, far worse, shat on long time businesses that have stayed in SF choosing to contribute to our bottom line when it would’ve been cheaper to leave.

I started using Twitter as a part of my Campaign for Mayor in an attempt to bring  light to these and other issues I have with contemporary SF politicians – a wholly bought-out crew of pawns for special interests.

But I continue even now to use, read and post to Twitter, which has grown on me. I use it primarily to read others and to find important links sent by intellectuals, writers, news and sports reporters,actors, producers, comedians and athletes.

Ed Lee is No More the Mayor than Emperor Norton Was

12 Monday Dec 2011

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evidence of the claims I have been making that the Bay-Guardian, The Chron and The Bay Citizen are not only out of touch, but the worst sort of insider-journalists can be found in their ratification of the results of this year’s election over the reality: only a handful of people decided the political fate of the City.

By contrast, in the blogosphere, SF Appeal, The League of Pissed off Voters (via tweet), and SFist all noted the pathetic voter turnout in the election within minutes of polls closing, which is the story of the election of 2011 – a handful of very wealthy people decided this.

Chris Roberts at SFAppeal notes: “In other words, 112,275 voters — or less than 25 percent of the electorate — decided who became mayor of San Francisco. And of them, 68,721 — or about 14 percent of the electorate, and about eight percent of the citizenry — actually voted for Mayor Ed Lee.”

The absence of coverage of this single most important issue of the election by The Chronicle, The SF Bay Guardian and the newly minted Bay Citizen until now, suddenly this week – when they use it to attack Ranked Choice or Instant Runoff Voting – are exactly what I have been talking about this year.

The reporters and editors of these papers are participating in a cliquish civic theater instead of reporting on the needs, thoughts and desires of residents of our City.

They are engaged in stroking a few candidates and ridiculing anyone who thinks outside the box. They lack courage, conviction and objectivity and cover elections so they can be near the winners and get invited to the party.

The Chron and Bay Citizen and SFBG not only avoided discussing the absurdly low numbers of voters who decided matters until this week, they chose to make their election coverage about defining these very few voters as an aggregate image of the “voters of San Francisco” and to attribute this ridiculously small number of citizens in our town with the general opinion of San Franciscans.

In the Bay Guardian, the political novice Steven T. Jones spent a long column discussing the makeup of “SF voters” – with no mention of the fact that they were not even a third of those eligible to vote! He dares to title the piece San Francisco’s Political Spectrum: a primer – What balls!

The Bay Citizen, however, is the worst and with the furthest reach. The Bay Citizen made an arrangement whereby select pieces appear in print in the New York Times’ Bay Area editions.

So readers of the NYT here in the Bay are informed by a blog started less than a year ago with $5million from the Hellmans (hover over the link to the bay citizen at right).

And the Hellman family’s editors chose to publish a piece by two of their writers that claim that this election “Signals Shift to the Right” in San Francisco! With no mention of the lowest turnout ever!

Again, what balls! Is this so New Yorkers living here can feel that Manhattanization is happening on schedule?! Is that what this is about? Argh. You are killing our City!

These aren’t journalists, they’re mediators.

This was a horrible election because wealthy vested interests manipulated millions of dollars to ensure a handful of viable choices would appear to wrestle for power, while Ed Lee was basically ratified in a confirmation election.

The Chron and The Bay Citizen and The SF Bay Guardian show their true colors even as the Occupy Movement tells the real story of the disenfranchised.

Blame the media – do it. We’d never have such pathetic candidates if instead of gravy-training reporters at the Chron, SFBG and Bay Citizen, we had real reporters and caring journalists.

Twitter Giveaway’s First Big Blow: POOF! Goes the Zynga IPO

02 Friday Dec 2011

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Zynga, Incorporated, one of the two large tech companies (with Twitter) who railroaded Mayor Ed Lee and the SF Board of Supervisors to pass the Twitter Giveaway, will be making its Initial Public Offering in the next two weeks.

Zynga’s IPO price is settling in at about $9 billion and the company hopes to raise as much as $925 million.

If the tax-break given to Twitter extends to Zynga, it nullifies the long-standing SF law that would have given 1.5% of the sale to the City.

We will be losing nearly $14 million. That’s nothing to Zynga. They could negotiate it into the offer.

14 million dollars. <poof> just like that …. because of the political aspirations of Lee and Chiu…

Thanks Mayor Lee, and Supervisors Chiu, Farrell, Kim, Weine, Elsbernd, Cohen and Mar. You’re morons on this one.

That’s our new Mayor and Board President at work in the new SF.

Twitter Giveaway's First Big Blow: POOF! Goes the Zynga IPO

02 Friday Dec 2011

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Zynga, Incorporated, one of the two large tech companies (with Twitter) who railroaded Mayor Ed Lee and the SF Board of Supervisors to pass the Twitter Giveaway, will be making its Initial Public Offering in the next two weeks.

Zynga’s IPO price is settling in at about $9 billion and the company hopes to raise as much as $925 million.

If the tax-break given to Twitter extends to Zynga, it nullifies the long-standing SF law that would have given 1.5% of the sale to the City.

We will be losing nearly $14 million. That’s nothing to Zynga. They could negotiate it into the offer.

14 million dollars. <poof> just like that …. because of the political aspirations of Lee and Chiu…

Thanks Mayor Lee, and Supervisors Chiu, Farrell, Kim, Weine, Elsbernd, Cohen and Mar. You’re morons on this one.

That’s our new Mayor and Board President at work in the new SF.

Record Low Voter Turnout, but Chron, SFBG and Bay Citizen Report Right-Wing Shift

11 Friday Nov 2011

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Evidence of the claims I have been making that the Bay-Guardian, The Chron and The Bay Citizen are not only out of touch, but the worst sort of insider-journalists can be found in their ratification of the results of Tuesday’s election over the reality: only a handful of people decided the political fate of the City.

By contrast, in the blogosphere, The League of Pissed off Voters (via tweet), SF Appeal, and SFist all noted the pathetic voter turnout in Tuesday’s election – which is the story of the election of 2011.

Chris Roberts at SFAppeal notes: “In other words, 112,275 voters — or less than 25 percent of the electorate — decided who became mayor of San Francisco. And of them, 68,721 — or about 14 percent of the electorate, and about eight percent of the citizenry — actually voted for Mayor Ed Lee.”

The absence of coverage of this single most important issue of the election by The Chronicle, The SF Bay Guardian and the newly minted Bay Citizen are exactly what I have been talking about this year. The reporters and editors of these papers are participating in a cliquish civic theater instead of reporting on the needs, thoughts and desires of residents of our City.

They are engaged in stroking a few candidates and ridiculing anyone who thinks outside the box. They lack courage, conviction and objectivity and cover elections so they can be near the winners and get invited to the  party.

The Chron and Bay Citizen and SFBG not only avoided discussing the absurdly low numbers of voters who decided matters, they are even now proceeding to define them as an aggregate image of the “voters of San Francisco” and to attribute this ridiculously small number of citizens in our town with the general opinion of San Franciscans.

In the Bay Guardian, Steven T. Jones spends a long column discussing the makeup of “SF voters” – with no mention of the fact that they were not even a third of those eligible to vote! He dares to title the piece San Francisco’s Political Spectrum: a primer – What balls!

The Bay Citizen, however, is the worst and with the furthest reach. The Bay Citizen made an arrangement whereby select pieces appear in print in the New York Times’ Bay Area editions. So readers of the NYT here in the Bay thus becomes informed by a blog started less than a year ago with $5million from the Hellmans (hover over the link to the bay citizen at right).

And the Hellman family’s editors chose to publish a piece by two of their writers that claim that this election “Signals Shift to the Right” in San Francisco! With no mention of the lowest turnout ever! Again, what balls!

These aren’t journalists, they’re mediators.

This was a horrible election because wealthy vested interests manipulated millions of dollars to ensure a handful of viable choices would appear to wrestle for power, while Ed Lee was basically ratified in a confirmation election.

The Chron and The Bay Citizen and The SF Bay Guardian show their true colors even as the Occupy Movement tells the real story of the disenfranchised.

Blame the media – do it. We’d never have such pathetic candidates if instead of gravy-training reporters at the Chron, SFBG and Bay Citizen, we had real reporters and caring journalists.

Lee Wins, Avalos Gets SFBG Clip-n-Voters and We Lose (Again)

09 Wednesday Nov 2011

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hardly anyone has voted.

That remains the story. Can a city official even be considered elected if a minority of the voting age population participates in the election? How is this democracy? We should pass a mandatory voting law for the City.

We must also protect Instant Runoff Voting, which did in fact force greater coalition building and less rancor amongst candidates. It did.

The need to be chosen as someone’s Number Two or Three kept these candidates honest and the results reflect it. Ed Lee’s silent treatment worked beautifully, and everybody who didn’t have a second or third choice in mind selected the Interim Mayor by default.

What a way to back into the job. Sound familiar? It’s what they accused Jean Quan of in Oakland. But guess what? it isn’t RCV, it’s voter turnout that’s the problem.

I am most disappointed in Melissa Griffin and her unfounded assault on Instant Runoff Voting or Ranked Choice Voting. This new system is good for democracy and proves useful at the aforementioned coalition-building and in encouraging more candidates (like myself, Joanna Rees, Green Terry Baum and many others) to participate. Ed Lee supporters should vociferously defend Instant Runoff, or Ranked Choice Voting.

Here’s a repost of my IRV PSA from several months back.

That said, everything has happened exactly as I expected since the Ethics Commission agreed Ed Lee could run – the main reason I dropped out.

This was a statistical inevitability. It’s a confirmation election – made from negotiations between Gavin Newsom’s crowd, Willie Brown’s and Rose Pak’s – to ensure that Ed Lee, the beloved Chief Administrator and Interim Mayor has no blemish on his record on the road to being the first Asian-American Mayor of San Francisco.

I am very happy for both the Chinese-American community and the Asian-American community at large, for the “breakthrough” that will be attributed here. But, the decision-making was done far away from most regular people, again, by power brokers who know we won’t bother to turnout, to look things up, to seek better representation.

I hope that instead of being threatened by what I am saying, Ed Lee supporters and the Mayor himself understand that my issue is with the Ethics Commission’s decision to allow Mr. Lee to run, not with him as a Mayor. He was a competent Chief Administrator and will be capable.

My issues on policy with Ed Lee are opposition to his Twitter Giveaway, the Treasure Island Boondoggle, the Park Merced “housing scheme that divides,” and his absurd idea for five-year budgets – given the huge number of interests to which he seems beholden. He lacks a progressiveness that I associate with our city. You can read specifics throughout this blog. I would have had him be allowed to run in 2015, against a real coalition-built Mayor.

I wish I could have been more active in this year’s election, but expected everything we are seeing today, months ago.

The promising numbers for John Avalos are a pleasant surprise from the standpoint of measuring the election against the power of the media to motivate. He was a non-entity before it began, Chris Daly stayed out of the way, and his absence helped Tim Redmond make Avalos run.

So Redmond pushed with his staid, old method and the numbers today are bigger. Pointless, but bigger. Redmond created the candidate and got him votes. Then had the SFBG report on the pretense of a Progressive Movement. Wow.

John Avalos’ numbers are largely due to the clip-and-vote effect observed for decades now, a method by which the Bay Guardian has become a shepherd for apathetic progressives-in-name, many very recent transplants here, who can’t be bothered to look into it, haven’t better resources or a competitive view of scale. These voters consider matters only in the last week of the cycle and do as Tim Redmond and the Bay Guardian tell them to do on election day by ripping out the page and following through.

This has been sustained because of a lack of competition for the Bay Guardian. But I restate my problem with Tim Redmond in this election: he wakes up everyday with all that power, and in recent years has seriously decayed in terms of courage or creativity. More often than not, he whines, laments and defines progressive space with his opinion of what is progressive. There is little or no collectivity and Redmond takes the centrist road nowadays leaving him as cliquish as the mainstream candidates.

That‘s the problem: the cliques at the Chron, SFBG and City Hall are the problem. That, and money … oh and the fact that nobody even cares to vote … (sigh)

The system needs a severe overhaul and I’d like to be a candidate again, but only if called upon. It isn’t real democracy – these aren’t real elections. It’s a sad decaying of SF political history.

The rulers are really stooges for the 1%, and the 1% themselves. They are out of touch and callous as so many of us suffer this terrible economy. They lack creative solutions, fear socialist ones and govern to protect themselves, their property and their right to party hard in our beautiful city.

Please stay in touch with comments. Hoping for a Sheriff Mirkarimi, I will be writing up an analysis of this election after the fact and posting it here. Thanks for your support and kind words.

Karthik

A Fake Election to Confirm Ed Lee as First Elected Chinese Mayor

22 Saturday Oct 2011

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Recent traffic to this site as the election cycle comes to a close inspires me to write a brief entry for new visitors to this campaign.

I ran for Mayor from November 18, 2010 until July 3rd, 2011, when it became clear that Interim Mayor Ed Lee would be allowed to run for Mayor in this election.

This was my concluding statement and will direct you to a chronology of the campaign.

I believe it is illegal for Ed Lee to run in this election, having promised not to run in order to be appointed to succeed Gavin Newsom, and because it has given Interim Mayor Lee’s campaign tremendous advantages of pseudo-incumbency. He has gained traction illegally throughout. In fact, despotic interests of the past thirty years have joined together – in fear of Instant Runoff Voting – to ensure the “safe” choice for them, a person they can move easily, will become Mayor.

For Rose Pak and the Chinese community it represents that the first Chinese Mayor, our current Interim Mayor, is never seen in the future as having failed at the job. If anything, this election, with Ed Lee allowed to run, represents a confirmation election. It’s a fake election to confirm that we all like Ed Lee. But it isn’t good democracy. It’s factions finding each other.

Leaving Ed Lee out of your three choices for Mayor is the only real way to ensure an ethical result from the succession process, and ensure a democratic outcome. Please do not include Interim Mayor Lee among your three choices for Mayor.

I am not endorsing any candidate for Mayor because I feel strongly that I am a better choice for Mayor than any of them. My policy ideas (Campaign Promises) are unique, and the best for our City right now. I am truly sorry my name is not on the ballot.

I encourage and welcome the use of write-in to include my name in the final tally.

Thanks to all of you who were so supportive.

In solidarity,

Karthik Rajan

RePost of some Campaign Promises

13 Tuesday Sep 2011

Posted by in politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve grown to know and love the unique and special character of our city’s quiet pockets – what’s best defies definition, it’s called our spirit.

I pledge to stand with our neighborhoods and communities to retain their culture; to seek out input from communities into which predominantly private external interests attempt to intervene; to create jobs for people already living here, rather than imaginary future employees or residents.

We have plenty of people here who could use our support to create lives for themselves in neighborhood microeconomies. These would be of obvious service to our many residents and those who are soon to arrive.

3. To resist Manhattanization and HongKongification of San Francisco, in favor of saner development

Why does SF have to grow to a city of a million before we address the transit and infrastructural issues?

Why do we have to urgently build more residences for people who do not live here yet when so many who already do live here are suffering homelessness, job loss and an inability to keep up with the cost of living in San Francisco?

Why do we have to build housing for people who do not yet live here before working on cleaning up the Bay, preserving our heritage, adding better, smarter transportation and sustainable energy resources?

Why do we have to appease the nouveau-riche of our times: twenty- and thirty-something-year-olds from elsewhere who want to live and work in our beautiful city for companies that make money for investors who live elsewhere which – thanks to the board and the Twitter Giveaway – will contribute little to our economy?

In reality, we don’t.

Some Thoughts On Film in the Last Five Days of 2007

01 Tuesday Jan 2008

Posted by in journal entries

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 21-26, 2007
some thoughts on film after seeing:

Chris Marker’s Sans Soleil [1983] and La Jetee [1963]
Agnes Varda’s The Gleaners and I, and after two years [2000/2002]
John Cassavetes’ Shadows [1959]
Jean-Luc Godard’s masculin feminin [1966]
Todd Haynes’ Far From Heaven [2002]
Abbas Kiarostami’s Five [2004]

and late on the 26th adding – la double vie de Veronique by Kieslowski

– all for the first time.
and enjoying Jarmusch’s Dead Man [1995?] for the first time in a dozen years.

also earlier this year, in June, marks my first viewing of:

Godard’s Vivre sa vie and Bande a part [early 60’s: ’63, ’64 …breathless is ‘60]
Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood, Sanshiro Sugata and I Live in Fear [mid,late 50’s bxw] Fellini’s City of Women [early seventies]

Marker’s two works separated by 20 years and varda’s doc have uncommonly sharp and fluid writing, that merges seamlessly and profoundly with the audio and film – I find it confident.

Marker
Christian Francois Bouche-Villeneuve

Krasna is the author of the texts and the images (separately), Marker the editor, conceptualist. and choosing the woman to voice the thing is great third layer (nonlinear). she delivering: “he wrote” is mechanical-vox. AWESOME. [Kubrick’s HAL is a male, but tenor]

Sandor Krasna, Hungarian cameraman, b. 1932 in Kolozsvar, Budapest Film Academy made Erdelyi Tancok (Transylvanian Dances), and assisted in another film, left Hungary in 1956 (returned in 1966 does travel diary piece) chances to join with a volcanologist Haroun Tazieff (footage), travels, shoots Cabo Verde, Guinnea Bissau and Japan, where he stays longest and has a deep affinity for culture.

THE FELLING OF A GIRAFFE, the volcano claiming a town and images of his long years in Japan and visits to Africa, specifically Guinea-bissau and Cabo Verde? are the visually intense gems of sans soleil.

Marker’s contextualization of the letters of his cameraman is a masterpiece of editing but all of it is still less to me, now, today, 24 years later, than the wordless entirety of the felling of the giraffe. there’s IMAGE (seule) and TEXT (seule) … and then there’s crossing over into the merge and all the “infinity” that comes with it. But still there is this solitude right now, that exists – you can get people there … with footage, nearly raw, of the felling of a giraffe by rifle – for how many years more, we don’t know, maybe few.

Marker comments: “I write this in 2002, as a new wave is rising, of which my young comrades of Kourtrajme (french collective of actors, directors, writers, filmmakers) offer a heartwarming example, and which perhaps has already found its Breathless in Isild Le Besco’s Demi-tarif.” [[half price] made in 2002, young actress, maybe her only film, definitely her first. film about/involving youth.-helen]

and from the notes on Marker himself, comes this gem:
“… and quietly lending a hand to fellow committed filmmakers like Patricio Guzman, whose landmark film on the downfall of the Allende government, The Battle of Chile [1975], reputedly owed to Marker an indispensable gift of film stock.”

Kurosawa/Kiarostami
The intensely slow, long takes in Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood with a single move in the middle of the take (i.e. the wife moving slightly forward on the tatami mat and then stillness again), return with the stick on the beach in ONE of FIVE, Kiarostami for Ozu

Haynes
the period music in Haynes’ film isn’t from the period of the film. the male-male kiss here and her reaction is amazing. she is a genius. she is so good. how old is she?

Godard
by the time we get to masculin feminin, (hindsightedly) Godard’s conceit is played out: (fashionista, too chic) also, it’s all quite hetero-sexy and even the toilet kiss is played with such outsider

anti-vietnam punk, text blams all great. close-ups of cute girls (bo-ring). straight guys chasing cute girls (boring). sudden-gun-blam has become his trademark. by ’66.

Truffaut
December 30, 2007, sunday
just finished Shoot The Piano Player [1960]
Truffaut/Moussy [Goodis]/Aznavour

brill.
excellent passage when Saroyan’s wife lays into him for his “fame” and arrogance.
‘you repeat yourself ten times’

the flash to the fight poster just before the fight.

the too-slow before entering the impresario’s office to the wordless exchange of violin for piano music by the two musicians at audition

the flashback to his previous life as transition, fullness of this flashback (Pulp Fiction)

the “day that changes everything” starts with them deciding to quit. but it was the day that ended, the day before – when they escaped the bandits – that keys this.

a crime movie. an emotionless and sympathetic central figure (Bogart’s Rick).

and last night, December 29

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind [2004]
Gondry/Kaufmann/Jim Carrey
[Alexander Pope as delivered by “Mary”]
hammer to kid thing is a moment. weird running though the psyche stuff.
the magicality of it ends up linearizing a mental territory that has multiple dimensions – I don’t like this. even in science of sleep I find it sorta lame … too linear a dimensionality even with all its magical elements is still too linear a dimension to describe the mind – the psyche. point. and it smacks of creative dearth. an engine running out of steam.

Last Day of 2007
a list of my contemporary favorite feature length
films/movies/directors of the last 50 years

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey [Kubrick]
2. Singin in the Rain [Kelly]
3. Dead Man [Jarmusch]
4. Throne of Blood/The Bad Sleep Well [Kurosawa]
5. The Nights of Cabiria [Fellini]
6. Vivre sa Vie/Weekend [Godard]
7. Jackie Brown [Tarantino]
8. Bladerunner [Scott]
9. Shoot the Piano Player/Small Change [Truffaut]
10. Do The Right Thing/He Got Game/She Hate Me [Lee]
11. Crimes and Misdemeanors [Allen]
12. Blood Simple/Barton Fink/No Country for Old Men [Coen Brothers]
13. Gandhi [Attenborough]
14. The Gleaners and I [Varda]
15. As Tears Go By/Days of Being Wild/Chung-King Express [Wong Kar Wai]
16. Sans Soleil/La Jetee [Marker]
17. Brazil/Time Bandits [Gilliam]
18. Putney Swope [Downey]
19. Bowling for Columbine [Moore]
20. Minority Report [Spielberg]