The Butterfly Effect:
The Butterfly Effect:
The Butterfly Effect:
The Butterfly Effect:
The Butterfly Effect:
The Butterfly Effect:
Uh...let's see, which one of these do I want to comment on? Ok, I'm joking. This was an ok movie, movie-wise, but I really don't want to do the Ebert thing and talk about the film conventions here. I want to get to the chase.
My summary:
Chaos theory has probably to date not been illustrated as well as this. But it is a Godless theory. It's roots are still highly existential. The resulting ethos is lonely and ultimately lives up to it's name, leading to dispair. Only a short leap away is Theology of Choice, that being that multiple miriads of millions of possible futures exist according to our choices, yet all intertwine connectively to assemble themselves in the end in the fabric that God weaves into a most perfect tapestry. The difference in these two, again, and risking redundancy, is that one is Godless, and the later is not.
On wishful thinking this movie gets an A+. It is our utmost desire to get through life without hurting anyone, and without being hurt. "If only I had..." begins a thousand sentences through life. The ability to go back and fix those things would seem marvelous. In the end our hero, played by Krutcher, sacrifices his own desires for the good of many it would seem. That's very selfless of him. In the end, though unrealistic, I think most would identify with this desire, and yet we still live with the nagging "what ifs" of normalcy until something utterly "out of the ordinary happens" to us.
The story devices of time travel and the conveniently inherited trick of "the butterfly effect" certainly highlights for us many moments that we may relate to in the icons of the bully, a moment of decision that causes pain, or destruction. Words said that either heal or destroy, and especially impotency in the reality that what we could have done but did not in the face of something bad gets played over and over in our heads. Guilt is a strong force. It can be destructive by making us inward, depressed, jaded, and bitter, or it can motivate us to see justice, become sensitive, or break through the pain of what we have done and heal it many times over by proactively making sure it does not happen to others.
While this story may be based on a Godless theory, it is not Godless in it's morality, and at least makes us think strongly about our decisions, and how important others should be to us. It does not trivialize relationships, but indeed shows us how close-knit they are, and how interrelated everything is. My own personal saying regarding reactive synthesis is, "When you throw a rock, it comes back down". Another closely related saying of my own is, "When you throw a rock into a pond, the ripples actually never DO stop". I would say that is as close to "The Butterfly Efffect" as you will get. However, I'm firmly in the God-initiated camp.
Chaos theory in and of itself cannot give us an ultimate answer. It is only one very good way of observing interatctions, not an end in itself.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Everwood - Mon. Nov. 22, 2004
I'm stealing this review from "The Watercooler" from TV Guide, because I didn't see the show, but I'm sure this is accurate and it's funny.
Everwood
I normally don't watch this every week, but I'm tuning in tonight 'cause Amy and Ephram are supposed to do it! Or, as Harold told Andy, "My daughter is about to be deflowered by your son's super-sperm!" Whose father talks like that? And how many, armed with that knowledge, would actually allow their children to spend the night together? At least we see a nervous Amy reading the hilariously titled "Guide to Getting It On" and trying to justify her decision to her best friend (who wants to wait until marriage, natch). "Call it horizontal jogging," Amy tells Hannah, "and suddenly it's no big whoop." Well, not exactly, since she chickens out when she and Ephram are finally alone in the cabin. But when he wipes away her tears and holds her close, something tells me she'll change her mind. Which, of course, she does, surrounded by flowers, candles and a flickering fire. And fathers across America vow to lock up their teenage daughters until they're 30.
I'm stealing this review from "The Watercooler" from TV Guide, because I didn't see the show, but I'm sure this is accurate and it's funny.
Everwood
I normally don't watch this every week, but I'm tuning in tonight 'cause Amy and Ephram are supposed to do it! Or, as Harold told Andy, "My daughter is about to be deflowered by your son's super-sperm!" Whose father talks like that? And how many, armed with that knowledge, would actually allow their children to spend the night together? At least we see a nervous Amy reading the hilariously titled "Guide to Getting It On" and trying to justify her decision to her best friend (who wants to wait until marriage, natch). "Call it horizontal jogging," Amy tells Hannah, "and suddenly it's no big whoop." Well, not exactly, since she chickens out when she and Ephram are finally alone in the cabin. But when he wipes away her tears and holds her close, something tells me she'll change her mind. Which, of course, she does, surrounded by flowers, candles and a flickering fire. And fathers across America vow to lock up their teenage daughters until they're 30.
Monday, November 15, 2004
The INCREDIBLES. Saw them Sat. 11/13/04.
The Incredibles were just THAT! A friend said the word funny, but I found them to be far more than just funny, no offense to my friend. And I KNOW that I've seen this movie before. Yes, that's correct, I've seen the Incredibles before they ever came onto the big screen. Do I have super powers of premonition?? No, actually, I've just read alot of comics, seen a million movies, read a truck load of science fiction novels and short stories, and am a cartoon-a-holic from the time of the 60's. That's where I've seen them before! The Incredibles combined the high art of 3D, and superlative perspective animation with the lower-grade and flatter simple animations of other types of cartoon works and cell animation to create a very rich media experience, not to mention the rockin' sound of Dolby jets, splashes, footsteps, grunts, and yells. One of the best soundtrack mixes I've ever heard. What I found most amazing about the animation was the depth of the work, as when we plunged deep into the enemy stronghold on the island, through a waterfall, and a volcanic wall of fire. The realism of the surrealism just about killed me. 3D and 2D art's marriage has not found it's equal to date! Pixar has truly come into it's own as far as the bridging of the gap between realism and animation. Awesome!
But as for the depth of the story, I usually take a note down here on most films and begin to explain how it lacked emotional complexity, or it had hyper-realistic characters whose imaginations went way too far, or, and this is the worst to me, it falls short of having any redeeming value so far as the characters' morals and ethical lives are concerned. But I cannot say that about The Incredibles. Mr. truly stuggles with being "normal", but does it in such a way that integrity shines through. His office scene with the old woman is truly touching in a very funny kind of way, and even though it's high comedy, it's also something that we totally agree with and support. We cannot help but hate the boss and his bottom line. Corporate greed, while not the center stage for the whole of the story, comes through loud and clear as needing to be changed. It makes you believe there really are good people inside every organization, and that whistle blowing is a fine upstanding characteristic. Just the very idea that the Incredibles are brought down altogether by lawsuits is enough to put me both in stiches and head-nodding at the same time. I guess that means I could pull something in my neck if I'm not careful.
But what is the "big story" here? There's always the bad guy, yes, but if we go back to where the bad guy came from we can see it is from a type of envy, and a type of false worship. He was Mr. Incredible's "biggest fan" if you recall... oops, am I giving it away? His bitterness over rejection brings his struggle full circle to absolute hatred of all that is superior. He is filled with none other than self-loathing and self-centeredness at the same time. He sums up his entire philosophy in the speech he gives to the Incredibles in their captivity. He states, "Soon I'll make my machines and inventions available to EVERYONE! Then everyone can be super! Then 'no one' will be." His plan is to bring all the super people down, put himself in their place, not really being super himself, and attaining all that power,attention, and glory by way of his own intellect use it to put everyone on the same playing field as himself, which is to say, not super at all. What a great insight into the nature of evil itself. Someone at Pixar has been doing their character homework! Not to mention philosohical archeology.
Every character had complexity. What a great job with Violet, the teanager! Wow, she was perfect. So filled with trepidation over her identity, and doubt. So sweet in her coming-of-age in the need to be recognized by boys, and yet her inability to face them. Then her turning around and changing into a confident girl who can hold her own in a conversation. Very nicely done. They did the whole thing about Mr. Incredible getting ivolved with "the other woman" in a very subtle and kindly manner, so that the end result was that we can see trust overcome the doubt of what would normally be a very hard-to-accept set of circumstances. And all of that in the midst of the hilarity of the moments, and the non-stop action and story. It had to have been a tight team to pull this movie off.
Oh, and I wanted to mention that I could tell right away who Elastigirl was. I love Holly Hunter's voice. She is so sweet.
Good stuff. Go see.
The Incredibles were just THAT! A friend said the word funny, but I found them to be far more than just funny, no offense to my friend. And I KNOW that I've seen this movie before. Yes, that's correct, I've seen the Incredibles before they ever came onto the big screen. Do I have super powers of premonition?? No, actually, I've just read alot of comics, seen a million movies, read a truck load of science fiction novels and short stories, and am a cartoon-a-holic from the time of the 60's. That's where I've seen them before! The Incredibles combined the high art of 3D, and superlative perspective animation with the lower-grade and flatter simple animations of other types of cartoon works and cell animation to create a very rich media experience, not to mention the rockin' sound of Dolby jets, splashes, footsteps, grunts, and yells. One of the best soundtrack mixes I've ever heard. What I found most amazing about the animation was the depth of the work, as when we plunged deep into the enemy stronghold on the island, through a waterfall, and a volcanic wall of fire. The realism of the surrealism just about killed me. 3D and 2D art's marriage has not found it's equal to date! Pixar has truly come into it's own as far as the bridging of the gap between realism and animation. Awesome!
But as for the depth of the story, I usually take a note down here on most films and begin to explain how it lacked emotional complexity, or it had hyper-realistic characters whose imaginations went way too far, or, and this is the worst to me, it falls short of having any redeeming value so far as the characters' morals and ethical lives are concerned. But I cannot say that about The Incredibles. Mr. truly stuggles with being "normal", but does it in such a way that integrity shines through. His office scene with the old woman is truly touching in a very funny kind of way, and even though it's high comedy, it's also something that we totally agree with and support. We cannot help but hate the boss and his bottom line. Corporate greed, while not the center stage for the whole of the story, comes through loud and clear as needing to be changed. It makes you believe there really are good people inside every organization, and that whistle blowing is a fine upstanding characteristic. Just the very idea that the Incredibles are brought down altogether by lawsuits is enough to put me both in stiches and head-nodding at the same time. I guess that means I could pull something in my neck if I'm not careful.
But what is the "big story" here? There's always the bad guy, yes, but if we go back to where the bad guy came from we can see it is from a type of envy, and a type of false worship. He was Mr. Incredible's "biggest fan" if you recall... oops, am I giving it away? His bitterness over rejection brings his struggle full circle to absolute hatred of all that is superior. He is filled with none other than self-loathing and self-centeredness at the same time. He sums up his entire philosophy in the speech he gives to the Incredibles in their captivity. He states, "Soon I'll make my machines and inventions available to EVERYONE! Then everyone can be super! Then 'no one' will be." His plan is to bring all the super people down, put himself in their place, not really being super himself, and attaining all that power,attention, and glory by way of his own intellect use it to put everyone on the same playing field as himself, which is to say, not super at all. What a great insight into the nature of evil itself. Someone at Pixar has been doing their character homework! Not to mention philosohical archeology.
Every character had complexity. What a great job with Violet, the teanager! Wow, she was perfect. So filled with trepidation over her identity, and doubt. So sweet in her coming-of-age in the need to be recognized by boys, and yet her inability to face them. Then her turning around and changing into a confident girl who can hold her own in a conversation. Very nicely done. They did the whole thing about Mr. Incredible getting ivolved with "the other woman" in a very subtle and kindly manner, so that the end result was that we can see trust overcome the doubt of what would normally be a very hard-to-accept set of circumstances. And all of that in the midst of the hilarity of the moments, and the non-stop action and story. It had to have been a tight team to pull this movie off.
Oh, and I wanted to mention that I could tell right away who Elastigirl was. I love Holly Hunter's voice. She is so sweet.
Good stuff. Go see.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
BIAS: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News. sic by Bernard Goldberg, 2002, Perennial
That's MEDIA plural. What an awesome book. It's about time someone with authenticity and believability took the plate for team Truth. Just got the paperback from Amazon and I'm loving it. For years I've been staring, mouth wide open almost every night between 6:30 and 7 at the idiot tube, aghast at what passes for "news". I have just not been able to believe that "no one but me" can see the glaring discrepancies, fallacies, portrayals, and overtly, even commercially biased material that they call reporting. And it's not just the words. The camera angles, the lights, the color, the backgrounds...
Like tonight I decided to watch a whole hour of McLerher Report. I did not make it through the whole hour, but I got my jolly anti-entertainment anyhow. (You know I guess I really like this stuff now, to be honest, because it's like a sport, but a negative sport like golf, you know, the more points that you get the worse your score. So I sit there and add up points for every time there is even a slightly notable bias twinge, one way or the other to be fair, and believe me it's usually one way, and then compare that with other shows I've watched. There have been some doosies.) So here is a long comparative analysis between Senator Tom Daschle and wannbe Thune going on, and then breaks in between shots of this panel of discussion folks all sitting around pontificating. But what struck me, as usual, as I'm a visual person first and foremost, was the choice of where the interviews took place, and the lighting, and the situation. Daschle was in a nursing home, he was seated at an old upright piano with the old wood showing over his left shoulder and flowers and a nice picture over his right. The lights were up brightly. Thune, however, was in a restaurant, and just over his left shoulder was a cash register; an old one with the big funky buttons that have black metal curves under them and over the other shoulder there were rows of ice cream glasses on shelves upside down and waiting to be used for customers. There's one guy resonating with the people and caring about old folks, and another guy with cash and ice cream. Here was another case as well of a media piece that was clearly backing Daschle, and gave Daschle a much more highlighted version of what he had to say about Thune's tax legislation that he pushed and help pass.
What's eerie for me is that I just read in BIAS the quickie version of the whole "Forbes’s Flat Tax" fiasco and "Bold"berg's first attempt at tackling the BIAS issue, and it sounded VERY MUCH LIKE the same story, and Daschle taking the offense and saying that such legislation was "not good for this part of South Dakota". Anyhow, about the book:
There are plenty of great laughs and pointed jabs and just plain-speaking great truth exploding out of every page. It's readable and does not pander to the intellectual; reads fast like a short and intense novel, and confirms every notion I've ever had about the whole news business. It's like he is saying, in my words as interpreting, "It's what you always suspected but no one credible has ever been able to actually say without being put in witness protection or an asylum".
This is also perfect timing for me personally. I'm co-teaching a class this spring on the methodologies in film and TV that they use to create sympathetic synthesis and disarm disbelief. It's called "Wag the Dog: Media and Methodology". We will be viewing the title film of course, but other tasty morsels include:
Network
Broadcast News
Nashville
Ed TV
The Truman Show
takes from Westwing and
various News shows
And then we will be treading on less traveled territory for most college students in the area of study of Semiotics and Mise en'Scene, psychological constructs of screen space and the theatre, and Cinematography. Sound like science? You bet. Well that's all for today. Tired. Gotta write some other stuff about other places and other things. Thanks for tuning in. READ BIAS! Great book.
That's MEDIA plural. What an awesome book. It's about time someone with authenticity and believability took the plate for team Truth. Just got the paperback from Amazon and I'm loving it. For years I've been staring, mouth wide open almost every night between 6:30 and 7 at the idiot tube, aghast at what passes for "news". I have just not been able to believe that "no one but me" can see the glaring discrepancies, fallacies, portrayals, and overtly, even commercially biased material that they call reporting. And it's not just the words. The camera angles, the lights, the color, the backgrounds...
Like tonight I decided to watch a whole hour of McLerher Report. I did not make it through the whole hour, but I got my jolly anti-entertainment anyhow. (You know I guess I really like this stuff now, to be honest, because it's like a sport, but a negative sport like golf, you know, the more points that you get the worse your score. So I sit there and add up points for every time there is even a slightly notable bias twinge, one way or the other to be fair, and believe me it's usually one way, and then compare that with other shows I've watched. There have been some doosies.) So here is a long comparative analysis between Senator Tom Daschle and wannbe Thune going on, and then breaks in between shots of this panel of discussion folks all sitting around pontificating. But what struck me, as usual, as I'm a visual person first and foremost, was the choice of where the interviews took place, and the lighting, and the situation. Daschle was in a nursing home, he was seated at an old upright piano with the old wood showing over his left shoulder and flowers and a nice picture over his right. The lights were up brightly. Thune, however, was in a restaurant, and just over his left shoulder was a cash register; an old one with the big funky buttons that have black metal curves under them and over the other shoulder there were rows of ice cream glasses on shelves upside down and waiting to be used for customers. There's one guy resonating with the people and caring about old folks, and another guy with cash and ice cream. Here was another case as well of a media piece that was clearly backing Daschle, and gave Daschle a much more highlighted version of what he had to say about Thune's tax legislation that he pushed and help pass.
What's eerie for me is that I just read in BIAS the quickie version of the whole "Forbes’s Flat Tax" fiasco and "Bold"berg's first attempt at tackling the BIAS issue, and it sounded VERY MUCH LIKE the same story, and Daschle taking the offense and saying that such legislation was "not good for this part of South Dakota". Anyhow, about the book:
There are plenty of great laughs and pointed jabs and just plain-speaking great truth exploding out of every page. It's readable and does not pander to the intellectual; reads fast like a short and intense novel, and confirms every notion I've ever had about the whole news business. It's like he is saying, in my words as interpreting, "It's what you always suspected but no one credible has ever been able to actually say without being put in witness protection or an asylum".
This is also perfect timing for me personally. I'm co-teaching a class this spring on the methodologies in film and TV that they use to create sympathetic synthesis and disarm disbelief. It's called "Wag the Dog: Media and Methodology". We will be viewing the title film of course, but other tasty morsels include:
Network
Broadcast News
Nashville
Ed TV
The Truman Show
takes from Westwing and
various News shows
And then we will be treading on less traveled territory for most college students in the area of study of Semiotics and Mise en'Scene, psychological constructs of screen space and the theatre, and Cinematography. Sound like science? You bet. Well that's all for today. Tired. Gotta write some other stuff about other places and other things. Thanks for tuning in. READ BIAS! Great book.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Michael Moore has a rub bud. Better believe that he’s on a path to destruction; Bush destruction. He’s said it plain and simple. I take no offense at the idea that someone can be out to oust a regime, and I have no problem seeing that there can be differences that drive people to campaign one way or the other. That’s us; America. That’s good. What I take offense to is someone actually believing, or pretending to believe that they can take pictures, add sound, edit, overlap the pictures in the order that they want to, cut out what they don’t want, publish it and call it a documentary. In truth we all do it to some degree; there is really no such thing as a documentary. When I put the pen to this page or fingers to the keyboard as it were (pen to page? wow, I really am dating myself aren’t I?) I am essentially telling my version of the truth, just like every blogger we know.
There is a certain amount of rhetorical juggling we all do to create an atmosphere that is both believable and sellable at the same time, and the balance of those elements eventually makes us a commodity that others buy into. Therefore integrity has a lot to do with the end results of our efforts as writers, photographers, painters, musicians, columnists, and documentary film makers. However, no matter how close to reality we can get in a media form, there is always an edge of ourselves involved, and therefore if we have a following it only follows that our followers will have a like-minded position and will gravitate towards our work and nod their heads with us. That is life.
My mother, among many pseudo-culturally literate positions that she took, had a saying about churches. As a child I asked her once why there were black churches and white churches. She answered simply that, “most people gather up with those who are like themselves because they are comfortable with that.” Years later when struggling with racial issues in my own life I came to resent that and it seemed to me an excuse for segregation or bigotry. However, I have come to see now that this was not an excuse for anything, but rather simply a truthful observation. People gravitate toward what they are comfortable with.
There seem to be many who are comfortable with Michael Moore’s version of the truth and applaud it. It won the Cannes film festival and received a standing ovation there of 45 minutes in length. Please note that this is France. It seems rather odd that the country that stood for liberty and democratic values so much so that they gave us one of our greatest memorials to liberty in the statue that stands in NY harbor now stands for 45 minutes applauding a work that in “my church’s” definition is downright manipulation and distortion.
Just having seen the 7/1/04 rerun of Michael on Charlie Rose for a full hour of confrontation on the Fahrenheit film (which by the way brings up so many other images for us who lived in the time when Fahrenheit 451 was a big deal and meant so much about governmental subterfuge and loss of freedom by the individual, etc, I’ll talk about the old film in a moment as that is an important comparison – but the link is certainly not lost on us) and Charlie was certainly not soft on him about the issues, Charlie raised the specters of the details of the film and most certainly brought out the fact that the film is not based on anything more than Michael Moore’s opinions. Mike’s “church” is large, yes, and he has a large following, but it was confirmed by Charlie that he was indeed “preaching to the choir”. In response to that, Michael said that yes he was but, “my purpose in the film is for the film not to be finished by me, but by having a reaction take place whereby people who are not normally involved at all in the process of government would leave the theatre deciding to become involved.” CR: “So you mean go out and vote?” MM: “Yes”. CR: You mean go out and vote for John Kerry. MM: No, I mean go out and vote, period. CR: Against George Bush is what you mean. MM: No no, I mean just go out and get involved and vote period.
My best intuition tells me, after seeing that interview, that MM has got his foot in two different worlds and is only deceiving his self into thinking that he is truly telling all there is to tell. He actually believes that he has made a documentary and has been as close to actual truth as possible. But when cornered with his own strongly opinionated bias he tries to make out as some egalitarian with the saintly purpose of giving people enough doubt as to make their own decisions concerning the matter of Iraq and George W. I seemed to think after awhile of watching him that I could see another mouth appear, and he was speaking from two distinct different mouths, both saying very different-sounding things.
Other people can see this as well. It’s political posturing. A reviewer of a Minneapolis paper (and this is a heavily democratic town where they like things anti-Bush in general) said that the film was heavily biased. Anyone can see it. He is unabashedly anti-Bush, yet he says he’s not skewing his material to reflect that, “only relating the facts”. Please. Can’t Michael Moore simply say with great tact and flair, “Bush is horrible for the country and I don’t like him so I made this film in hopes of helping the democrats, or anyone else for that matter, win the next election so he will not be in office”? Why can’t he just say that? Why is it that what is so painfully obvious to the rest of us is so lost on one who is supposedly so well-informed?
There is a certain amount of rhetorical juggling we all do to create an atmosphere that is both believable and sellable at the same time, and the balance of those elements eventually makes us a commodity that others buy into. Therefore integrity has a lot to do with the end results of our efforts as writers, photographers, painters, musicians, columnists, and documentary film makers. However, no matter how close to reality we can get in a media form, there is always an edge of ourselves involved, and therefore if we have a following it only follows that our followers will have a like-minded position and will gravitate towards our work and nod their heads with us. That is life.
My mother, among many pseudo-culturally literate positions that she took, had a saying about churches. As a child I asked her once why there were black churches and white churches. She answered simply that, “most people gather up with those who are like themselves because they are comfortable with that.” Years later when struggling with racial issues in my own life I came to resent that and it seemed to me an excuse for segregation or bigotry. However, I have come to see now that this was not an excuse for anything, but rather simply a truthful observation. People gravitate toward what they are comfortable with.
There seem to be many who are comfortable with Michael Moore’s version of the truth and applaud it. It won the Cannes film festival and received a standing ovation there of 45 minutes in length. Please note that this is France. It seems rather odd that the country that stood for liberty and democratic values so much so that they gave us one of our greatest memorials to liberty in the statue that stands in NY harbor now stands for 45 minutes applauding a work that in “my church’s” definition is downright manipulation and distortion.
Just having seen the 7/1/04 rerun of Michael on Charlie Rose for a full hour of confrontation on the Fahrenheit film (which by the way brings up so many other images for us who lived in the time when Fahrenheit 451 was a big deal and meant so much about governmental subterfuge and loss of freedom by the individual, etc, I’ll talk about the old film in a moment as that is an important comparison – but the link is certainly not lost on us) and Charlie was certainly not soft on him about the issues, Charlie raised the specters of the details of the film and most certainly brought out the fact that the film is not based on anything more than Michael Moore’s opinions. Mike’s “church” is large, yes, and he has a large following, but it was confirmed by Charlie that he was indeed “preaching to the choir”. In response to that, Michael said that yes he was but, “my purpose in the film is for the film not to be finished by me, but by having a reaction take place whereby people who are not normally involved at all in the process of government would leave the theatre deciding to become involved.” CR: “So you mean go out and vote?” MM: “Yes”. CR: You mean go out and vote for John Kerry. MM: No, I mean go out and vote, period. CR: Against George Bush is what you mean. MM: No no, I mean just go out and get involved and vote period.
My best intuition tells me, after seeing that interview, that MM has got his foot in two different worlds and is only deceiving his self into thinking that he is truly telling all there is to tell. He actually believes that he has made a documentary and has been as close to actual truth as possible. But when cornered with his own strongly opinionated bias he tries to make out as some egalitarian with the saintly purpose of giving people enough doubt as to make their own decisions concerning the matter of Iraq and George W. I seemed to think after awhile of watching him that I could see another mouth appear, and he was speaking from two distinct different mouths, both saying very different-sounding things.
Other people can see this as well. It’s political posturing. A reviewer of a Minneapolis paper (and this is a heavily democratic town where they like things anti-Bush in general) said that the film was heavily biased. Anyone can see it. He is unabashedly anti-Bush, yet he says he’s not skewing his material to reflect that, “only relating the facts”. Please. Can’t Michael Moore simply say with great tact and flair, “Bush is horrible for the country and I don’t like him so I made this film in hopes of helping the democrats, or anyone else for that matter, win the next election so he will not be in office”? Why can’t he just say that? Why is it that what is so painfully obvious to the rest of us is so lost on one who is supposedly so well-informed?
Thursday, August 12, 2004
The Notebook was a good film. No, it really was. It was a “chick flick” with good cinematography and plot structure and special effects and, well, as a man I know I can say this word…romance. There I said it. It was romantic.
But it was also fickle, much like the leading lady of the film.
Now for the hard stuff: It was formulaic because the same story of poor guy from a small town with nothing except great genuine relationships and one parent that extremely loves him for real meets rich girl who desires same but never says so out of fear of at least one dominating parental piranha who will kick her out of the family and mentally and physically and emotionally disown and destroy her if she does creates immense psychological and social tension because theirs is a true love that must be decided over between great physical odds that involves time or distance or racial difference and a pile of money has been done to death. But you know, you can do a formula film over and over again if it’s done well. This one was done fairly well. It was funny, and beautiful, and the sidekick supporting roles were great, and the people were interesting, and it was told in a novel way via retrospect from the end of their lives and contained a slight bit of mystery for awhile which we eventually figure out. It was very good acting. James Garner was his usual cool self, and his own age and physique was perfect for the failing old man, I kind of hate to say.
As for other acting moments I cannot agree it was all there. There were too many “set up” moments like when she returns in a car to see him again and the car doesn’t start and they spend the day getting reacquainted. It was just too surreal and I didn’t believe it. I WANTED to because somehow the unfinished sexual moment from earlier in their youth there in the old mansion never did quite get worked out and I would think it safe to say that we were all still emotionally and somewhat glandularly on edge waiting for a release. See, those subterranean threads of sexuality and emotional pressure really do pay off for a filmmaker who needs to string us along through the story and get us to “wait” expectantly through a whole war and a house-building-from-scratch and a false romance by a big-wig and a not-quite-as-attractive-war-widow and, well, EVERYTHING, just to get there and see them EXPLPODE in a sex scene that lasts for many many time-compressed cinema hours, and then we feel spent just like they do. Woo, that was fun I suppose. Ok, this is a review, and I hope I’m not spoiling it for you. Of course I’m not. Seeing is believing. However, I did notice that this was PG13, and I did see a young miss of about that age in the audience, and after seeing its complexity and strong content I would not take my daughter to see it. Come on people, this is an adult movie.
Ok, I’ll go off on the ratings here for just a moment. Ratings are really a poor and narrow way to judge films. Our rating system needs to be overhauled somehow. But R would have been more appropriate for this film. This is one of those cases where the only thing a PG13 means is that certain body parts are not displayed graphically, so it’s “ok”. But what are not taken account of in a story of this type are the certain parts of the “soul” that are overexposed. A thirteen year old is not going to relate to or understand the complexity and difficulty of choosing between two lives and loves, or of the need for a temporary relationship with a woman, for instance, as a means of tempering a deeper inner need, and then it becomes a “disposable” relationship because all along the war widow is proven to be a “placeholder”. I think all of us who’ve had loves and lost them have had that feeling at one time or another, wondering if the current love we have is really only there because of something we “lost” way back when, and then we wonder “what if”. I truly felt sorry for the rich guy in the end. It really wasn’t fair after all. He was not a bad guy. But a thirteen year old may misconstrue many of the deep and heavy relationships in a story like this and walk away slightly, if not drastically, disillusioned, disaffected, disappointed, or simply demoralized and jaded by the idea that maybe nothing is very certain and there is no one that can be depended on in this world. Ok, in the end true love triumphs, yes, but too much reality too early in life in a strong visual context like this in my opinion is too much for a young teen. Something simpler like “just getting to know people and be honest with them” is a great theme for the teen mind, or dependence on someone in a giving relationship, or heroism. The theme of substance verses flash can be covered in a million different ways other than this for teens. And does sleeping together prior to the true commitment of marriage ALWAYS need to stand out as an act of testing the waters? I thought maybe the true love they had was deeper than that. In fact I’m sure it was, because of the way they died.
I have to admit, the last scene was awesome and a great way to end their story together, and made up for some other more bland and not too serious movie mistakes. Altogether, it was a good film that married couples and those contemplating marriage should see. A nice “date” film, it was a good story. And I am not a chick!
But it was also fickle, much like the leading lady of the film.
Now for the hard stuff: It was formulaic because the same story of poor guy from a small town with nothing except great genuine relationships and one parent that extremely loves him for real meets rich girl who desires same but never says so out of fear of at least one dominating parental piranha who will kick her out of the family and mentally and physically and emotionally disown and destroy her if she does creates immense psychological and social tension because theirs is a true love that must be decided over between great physical odds that involves time or distance or racial difference and a pile of money has been done to death. But you know, you can do a formula film over and over again if it’s done well. This one was done fairly well. It was funny, and beautiful, and the sidekick supporting roles were great, and the people were interesting, and it was told in a novel way via retrospect from the end of their lives and contained a slight bit of mystery for awhile which we eventually figure out. It was very good acting. James Garner was his usual cool self, and his own age and physique was perfect for the failing old man, I kind of hate to say.
As for other acting moments I cannot agree it was all there. There were too many “set up” moments like when she returns in a car to see him again and the car doesn’t start and they spend the day getting reacquainted. It was just too surreal and I didn’t believe it. I WANTED to because somehow the unfinished sexual moment from earlier in their youth there in the old mansion never did quite get worked out and I would think it safe to say that we were all still emotionally and somewhat glandularly on edge waiting for a release. See, those subterranean threads of sexuality and emotional pressure really do pay off for a filmmaker who needs to string us along through the story and get us to “wait” expectantly through a whole war and a house-building-from-scratch and a false romance by a big-wig and a not-quite-as-attractive-war-widow and, well, EVERYTHING, just to get there and see them EXPLPODE in a sex scene that lasts for many many time-compressed cinema hours, and then we feel spent just like they do. Woo, that was fun I suppose. Ok, this is a review, and I hope I’m not spoiling it for you. Of course I’m not. Seeing is believing. However, I did notice that this was PG13, and I did see a young miss of about that age in the audience, and after seeing its complexity and strong content I would not take my daughter to see it. Come on people, this is an adult movie.
Ok, I’ll go off on the ratings here for just a moment. Ratings are really a poor and narrow way to judge films. Our rating system needs to be overhauled somehow. But R would have been more appropriate for this film. This is one of those cases where the only thing a PG13 means is that certain body parts are not displayed graphically, so it’s “ok”. But what are not taken account of in a story of this type are the certain parts of the “soul” that are overexposed. A thirteen year old is not going to relate to or understand the complexity and difficulty of choosing between two lives and loves, or of the need for a temporary relationship with a woman, for instance, as a means of tempering a deeper inner need, and then it becomes a “disposable” relationship because all along the war widow is proven to be a “placeholder”. I think all of us who’ve had loves and lost them have had that feeling at one time or another, wondering if the current love we have is really only there because of something we “lost” way back when, and then we wonder “what if”. I truly felt sorry for the rich guy in the end. It really wasn’t fair after all. He was not a bad guy. But a thirteen year old may misconstrue many of the deep and heavy relationships in a story like this and walk away slightly, if not drastically, disillusioned, disaffected, disappointed, or simply demoralized and jaded by the idea that maybe nothing is very certain and there is no one that can be depended on in this world. Ok, in the end true love triumphs, yes, but too much reality too early in life in a strong visual context like this in my opinion is too much for a young teen. Something simpler like “just getting to know people and be honest with them” is a great theme for the teen mind, or dependence on someone in a giving relationship, or heroism. The theme of substance verses flash can be covered in a million different ways other than this for teens. And does sleeping together prior to the true commitment of marriage ALWAYS need to stand out as an act of testing the waters? I thought maybe the true love they had was deeper than that. In fact I’m sure it was, because of the way they died.
I have to admit, the last scene was awesome and a great way to end their story together, and made up for some other more bland and not too serious movie mistakes. Altogether, it was a good film that married couples and those contemplating marriage should see. A nice “date” film, it was a good story. And I am not a chick!
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
DNA evidence, crime, and on being falsely accused.
From the latest today in CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/10/dna.testing.crime.ap/index.html
Concerning the article on DNA evidence increasing the statute of limitations on rape crimes:
We are headed for Minority Report faster than we think (people used to say Big Brother or 1984. Now we have more updated futures in film to look at for comparisons). The "advancement" of DNA profiling has caused a huge swing in what is allowed in courts and how people are "brought to the scene of a crime" even years after the crime, all through DNA testing.
The immediate thought that scares me is, "What if someone got hold of some of my DNA, easy enough to do, and placed it at the scene of a crime (present tense that is, not a past crime of course unless they found a way to sneak my cells into the evidence box)? I could be anywhere, virtually. All you need to do is have a willing victim follow me around, unknown to me, give enough time for a crime to happen apart from someone seeing me, put a little sample of me on a victim's clothes, and Voila!, instant rapist. Or for that matter, if you got a sample of some of me (and I'd like to address the issue of WHICH tissues we are talking about here)and actually committed some sort of crime yourself and purposefully put some of my cells at the scene, then it would be a matter of a tipoff and the coppers would be on to me! This all involves DNA and crime, and does not mention which bodily cells necessarily are used for the DNA evidence. I'm assuming in a rape case they would need to be semen, but that was not mentioned in the article.
Looking to the future, though, it would not be a big leap to assume that we will be innundated with DNA profiling. We've got Craig Venter, the man who cracked the genome before the government did trying to create life now, along with a few hundred others. We've got insurance costs out the wazoo, along with medical costs. We've got terrorism and global tracking problems. Why not a universal gene bank that will take care of all that? Why not a way to "tag" everyone? If we could just keep the information from hurting someone who wanted a particular job, say, or into a part of the military, or from being used in experiments...you see the escalation that manipulation of genetics will do to us if you follow it to it's logical conclusions. Can we keep that from happening? I have no idea. I do know that eye scanning can still be fooled to some degree, and you don't have to replace your eyes to do that. So DNA match is still the most solid evidence on the planet of the individuality of a human being. It's inevitable that it will not be left alone.
I'm not frightened really. I'm not being an alarmist and saying, "call out the inquisition and get rid of all this science!" In fact, I don't think there is a thing we can do about it, to be honest with you. Nothing.
From the latest today in CNN.com:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/08/10/dna.testing.crime.ap/index.html
Concerning the article on DNA evidence increasing the statute of limitations on rape crimes:
We are headed for Minority Report faster than we think (people used to say Big Brother or 1984. Now we have more updated futures in film to look at for comparisons). The "advancement" of DNA profiling has caused a huge swing in what is allowed in courts and how people are "brought to the scene of a crime" even years after the crime, all through DNA testing.
The immediate thought that scares me is, "What if someone got hold of some of my DNA, easy enough to do, and placed it at the scene of a crime (present tense that is, not a past crime of course unless they found a way to sneak my cells into the evidence box)? I could be anywhere, virtually. All you need to do is have a willing victim follow me around, unknown to me, give enough time for a crime to happen apart from someone seeing me, put a little sample of me on a victim's clothes, and Voila!, instant rapist. Or for that matter, if you got a sample of some of me (and I'd like to address the issue of WHICH tissues we are talking about here)and actually committed some sort of crime yourself and purposefully put some of my cells at the scene, then it would be a matter of a tipoff and the coppers would be on to me! This all involves DNA and crime, and does not mention which bodily cells necessarily are used for the DNA evidence. I'm assuming in a rape case they would need to be semen, but that was not mentioned in the article.
Looking to the future, though, it would not be a big leap to assume that we will be innundated with DNA profiling. We've got Craig Venter, the man who cracked the genome before the government did trying to create life now, along with a few hundred others. We've got insurance costs out the wazoo, along with medical costs. We've got terrorism and global tracking problems. Why not a universal gene bank that will take care of all that? Why not a way to "tag" everyone? If we could just keep the information from hurting someone who wanted a particular job, say, or into a part of the military, or from being used in experiments...you see the escalation that manipulation of genetics will do to us if you follow it to it's logical conclusions. Can we keep that from happening? I have no idea. I do know that eye scanning can still be fooled to some degree, and you don't have to replace your eyes to do that. So DNA match is still the most solid evidence on the planet of the individuality of a human being. It's inevitable that it will not be left alone.
I'm not frightened really. I'm not being an alarmist and saying, "call out the inquisition and get rid of all this science!" In fact, I don't think there is a thing we can do about it, to be honest with you. Nothing.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Ok, so after thinking it over I have a fairly concrete explanation of what the movie "The Cell" is really all about. It comes down to this: There really is no evil. All evil and evil behavior comes from maladjusted physical phenomena in the human brain and body; is physiological in nature. If we could just "get in there and fix it", or "crossbow it to the floor" in this case, then we could wipe out psychosis, phsychotics, neurotics, and there would be no more cause for gorgeous females to carry stun guns with them to their cars in the parking garage. All it takes is the science and the time to get into the human mind and "map" it's inerworkings. That would also include, of course, the gifted ability of millions of skilled professional "internal psychologists". Ok, I'm kidding of course. The science is practically impossible, or far off at best. What I'm really focusing on here is the reality that evil exists outside the parameters of science. Someone will inevitably tell me that I can't prove it and that gas and neurons are responsible for everything. It goes something like this: With time and knowledge we will tap the genetic code and alter the course of mankind by rearranging it and weeding out all that reeks of imperfection. Sounds danergerously close to a thought process some Germans made up in the 40s. Of course I'm reading into the screenplay stuff that isn't really there, but....hey, isn't that what I'm not being paid yet to do? Alas...someday. No more on this movie. Like I said, nice effects and great showmanship on the mise' en scene, but you can put really nice makeup on a corpse.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
The Cell - 2000
Written and co-produced by my Film Tech I instructor in film school: Mark Protosevich
Saw "The Cell" tonight. Not strange at all, although described that way by our local veteran movie rental queen. (She just must not have seen all of Clive Barker's trilogy, the Hellraiser series). Simply put, this was a gallant attempt at creating a sympathetic look at the psychopathological reasons why serial killers do what they do, and the ever-popular suspicion that there is always some deep reason for what they do, and it might be curable.
I loved the imagery and straightforward attempt at realism in the digital work, plus the consistency of the images. The very Catholic images of the Queen of Heaven near the end, the baptism, and all of the very Daliesque scenery was very well done and highly consistent, so A+ for imagery and consistency.
But I give pause for the idea of sympathy for the serial killer. There certainly is no sympathy for the cause behind the behaviour, but we can easily jump the fence from hating the cause to dismissing the actual guilt of the killer based on that hatred. We can draw large puppy eyes around the killer and believe that they are not responsible, really. I believe what the FBI agent says early on in his discussion with Jennifer Lopez, along the lines of: "I've seen people go through so much more torture and abuse than this guy, but come out the other side never wanting to hurt a soul". A contributing factor to a serial killer or abuser or rapist may be an abusive-laden past, but it's not the amount, nor the only contributor. Ted Bundy, for instance, blamed pornography as the major contributor.
The other key element here is not abuse, however, but the neurological reasons for this killer's state of mind. He has some fancy condition that gets "set off" by a traumatic event; schizophrenia comes alive in a brain condition. My position is the same as for other human frailties: we are defective because of this strange and unwelcome condition called SIN. That is a basic and unalterable human condition that is the fault line for every fallibility in the world. It is spiritual, physical, mental, emotional, and hence metaphysical. Just as the physical is linked to the spiritual, so SIN is inherent in the very fabric of all things. It is what is most likely responsible for tilting the world off a straight axis and causing the first ice age. It is what makes a child throw a temper tantrum, or willingly place their foot over the line you've just drawn telling them it is not to be crossed. It is the apple that contained the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It is the contaminant that causes death. Whereas the genome was created pure, the double helix strands became defective.
Sounds like the theory that all these problems are solvable through scientific means has a foothold then, heh? Wrong. The matter of choice is not open to scientific dissection. Before us are always 2 paths, and I believe there is always a will left that can lead us in one or the other. We are not victims of neurological certitude. The Terminal man was fiction. I believe our scenario is more like that of the Manchurian Candidate's. He was just a slight twitch away from going through with a programmed assassination but his free will shone forth and changed to a purposeful ending by destroying the source of the insurrection.
In that same vein of thought, the "bogeyman" that the Queen of Heaven nails to the floor at the end of "The Cell" might not be killable, but by baptism; complete immersion; he is cut off from his victim and can no longer assert power over him. Yes, it is a death. The immersion in water is the separation of the body from all that is livable. It is not an environment that the human body can actually live in, or survive. The symbolic nature of the immersion is the complete acceptance of the need to be relieved of all this waking world contains, and a submission to that which is also beyond ourselves to ascertain; eternal life. More on this later.
Written and co-produced by my Film Tech I instructor in film school: Mark Protosevich
Saw "The Cell" tonight. Not strange at all, although described that way by our local veteran movie rental queen. (She just must not have seen all of Clive Barker's trilogy, the Hellraiser series). Simply put, this was a gallant attempt at creating a sympathetic look at the psychopathological reasons why serial killers do what they do, and the ever-popular suspicion that there is always some deep reason for what they do, and it might be curable.
I loved the imagery and straightforward attempt at realism in the digital work, plus the consistency of the images. The very Catholic images of the Queen of Heaven near the end, the baptism, and all of the very Daliesque scenery was very well done and highly consistent, so A+ for imagery and consistency.
But I give pause for the idea of sympathy for the serial killer. There certainly is no sympathy for the cause behind the behaviour, but we can easily jump the fence from hating the cause to dismissing the actual guilt of the killer based on that hatred. We can draw large puppy eyes around the killer and believe that they are not responsible, really. I believe what the FBI agent says early on in his discussion with Jennifer Lopez, along the lines of: "I've seen people go through so much more torture and abuse than this guy, but come out the other side never wanting to hurt a soul". A contributing factor to a serial killer or abuser or rapist may be an abusive-laden past, but it's not the amount, nor the only contributor. Ted Bundy, for instance, blamed pornography as the major contributor.
The other key element here is not abuse, however, but the neurological reasons for this killer's state of mind. He has some fancy condition that gets "set off" by a traumatic event; schizophrenia comes alive in a brain condition. My position is the same as for other human frailties: we are defective because of this strange and unwelcome condition called SIN. That is a basic and unalterable human condition that is the fault line for every fallibility in the world. It is spiritual, physical, mental, emotional, and hence metaphysical. Just as the physical is linked to the spiritual, so SIN is inherent in the very fabric of all things. It is what is most likely responsible for tilting the world off a straight axis and causing the first ice age. It is what makes a child throw a temper tantrum, or willingly place their foot over the line you've just drawn telling them it is not to be crossed. It is the apple that contained the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. It is the contaminant that causes death. Whereas the genome was created pure, the double helix strands became defective.
Sounds like the theory that all these problems are solvable through scientific means has a foothold then, heh? Wrong. The matter of choice is not open to scientific dissection. Before us are always 2 paths, and I believe there is always a will left that can lead us in one or the other. We are not victims of neurological certitude. The Terminal man was fiction. I believe our scenario is more like that of the Manchurian Candidate's. He was just a slight twitch away from going through with a programmed assassination but his free will shone forth and changed to a purposeful ending by destroying the source of the insurrection.
In that same vein of thought, the "bogeyman" that the Queen of Heaven nails to the floor at the end of "The Cell" might not be killable, but by baptism; complete immersion; he is cut off from his victim and can no longer assert power over him. Yes, it is a death. The immersion in water is the separation of the body from all that is livable. It is not an environment that the human body can actually live in, or survive. The symbolic nature of the immersion is the complete acceptance of the need to be relieved of all this waking world contains, and a submission to that which is also beyond ourselves to ascertain; eternal life. More on this later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)