One week ago, i was in the middle of worship at InterVarsity, enjoying myself, praising like i do. And then we sang a song that made me sit down and totally lose my vibe.
No way? Yah-weh.
It wasn't until we got to the chorus of Chris Tomlin's latest big hit, "Our God," that i realized which song we were singing. i thought, "oh, this is that song i heard on the radio that made me really uncomfortable," and then of course i was uncomfortable at IV as well.
For those of you who haven't heard it, the chorus and bridge read:
"Our God, Our God
Our God is greater, our God is stronger
God You are higher than any other
Our God is Healer, awesome in power
Our God, Our God
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
And if Our God is for us, then who could ever stop us
And if our God is with us, then what can stand against?
What can stand against?"
And as is typical of praise&worship music, these mantras are repeated over and over and over again.
i wonder just what Tomlin could have been thinking when he requests that the Body of Christ sing about itself as an unstoppable force. When he took a verse from Paul and completely adapts the meaning and context of it for the purpose of a catchy tune, did he mean to create a dangerous, almost aggressive subtext? Surely not, but i fear he may have done just that.
Let's just start by taking a look at the shoddy song-writing. "Our God is greater, our God is stronger." Tomlin here describes God with comparative adjectives. He then fails to draw any comparison. Greater than what? Stronger than who? Tomlin does not complete the thought implied by comparative adjectives, which essentially leaves the task up to us, the worshipers, sometimes more aptly described as the audience. This is an exceptionally dangerous open end. One member of the congregation might be thinking, "Our God is greater than the sin and temptation i experience." Totally valid, right? But what if someone is thinking, "Our God is stronger than Allah and all the Muslims?" i don't claim i think that is a particularly rampant notion in our humble IV chapter, but the ambiguity of this chorus cannot possibly be 100% healthy for various congregations to be singing, especially considering that racism and anti-Muslim ideologies can be prominent among conservative Christian communities. And who knows what other words people might be using to fill in the blanks left by Tomlin?
i do not mean to indicate that i personally don't think that factually, yes, our god is stronger and greater than just about anything you put after Him, but this song is less a testament to his greatness and strength than it seems to be an emphasis on the fact that he is ours and not yours or theirs. The follow-though seems to indicate that because our God is greater than x, y, or z, that we are greater by association. In case you disagree with that idea, let us continue to the next set of lyrics.
Next is the part that some people might refer to as the bridge. What a tremendous irony that is, for something called a "bridge" to involve such dialog-halting sentiments. "Who can ever stop us?...Who can stand against?" (Yes, of course, we might also consider this a "Chorus II" but work with me.) Here Tomlin is paraphrasing Paul's line in Romans 8:31, "If God is for us, who can be against us?" (ESV). But by lifting this half of a verse, he fails to consider the fuller context of what Paul is saying.
Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans probably around the mid to late 50s CE, when Christianity in it's fullest form was hardly 20 years old. The Roman Empire almost didn't even notice it, but when it did, it wasn't friendly about it. Christianity, for 300 years, was the subject of persecution - not necessarily the violence and martyrdom that we emphasize at times, but at the very least a sense of condescension and nonacceptance was directed by the pagan (or Jewish, depending) majorities. He writes of the Christians' sufferings compared to the glory of Christ's return. He writes of dedication and perseverance in the face of persecution. It is to embolden when he asks rhetorically, "Who can be against us?"
But this context is enormously different from the situation of American Christianity today. Perhaps there is not quite the same conservative political force present as there once was with institutions like the Moral Majority, but surely no one would claim that Christianity is under any systemic attack in our nation. To sing a song declaring that no one can stop us because God is with us rings with an almost aggressive subtext. (This is supported by the music swelling to its forte climax, drums banging loudly in simple eighth-note marching rhythm.) It is not a message of perseverance in the face of persecution; instead it becomes a song celebrating our own correctness and validating our own efforts against other people. Everyone believes God is on their side - it's the best way to add strength to their argument. Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed Gott mit uns - "God with us." Both armies in the American Civil War believed the causes they fought for were justified by God. Modern Ugandan politicians believe God is on their side when they argue for a death penalty for homosexuals. White people as recently as one hundred fifty years (and, sadly, more recently) continued to believe that God supported their oppression and enslavement of black people - policies which bled over in spirit into British imperialism in Asia and other regions less than one hundred years ago!
Another problem with Tomlin's lyrics is his adaptation of the text from Romans. Romans asks, "who can be against us?" Essentially, this creates a passive form of an other. To "be against" something is not an active state, it could be a simple as disagreeing or objecting to a position, being unfamiliar with it, or not understanding it (as was certainly the case for the majority of the Roman Empire given the newness of Christianity). But by changing this question to, "who could ever stop us?...what can stand against?" we have assigned our others with actions like stopping and standing against which have very different connotations from the basic passive differences established by Paul. We are now in a mindset of an enemy who is actively opposing us which allows us to believe ourselves victims, when this is not the case.
To use Romans 8:31 in modern settings is almost a cop-out from seeking true, logical reasoning to support one's arguments and positions on matters of great importance. The most important word in the verse is that big fat "IF" right at the beginning. We claim God is for us because we want him to be, but that claim may many times be false - not intentionally perhaps, but false nonetheless. We project our own sense of righteousness onto God's identity and use this verse to rationalize it. Sometimes God is for us, and no one can stand against, but in those instances we get it wrong, we might never know because songs like Tomlin's pervade our Christian atmospheres with a sentiment that tells us to charge forth regardless.
Now i know that many people might read this incredulously, claim that i am overreacting and reading too far into the matter. This might be true. But i object to the notion that we should be above taking a critical eye to the music we sing when praising our great, strong God because it's easier to gloss over the nuances, and i absolutely object to the notion that we should be singing music in our worship services that are too simple to even merit that analysis. We must challenge ourselves and other members in our community to do better, to constantly be pursuing the best ways in which we can observe God's wishes and praise Him with the honor he deserves, instead of lazily repeating a single verse or two repeatedly for five minutes when that verse may not even apply well to our circumstances.
Perhaps best of all, Chris Tomlin's upcoming CD is entitled, "And If Our God Is For Us..."
i take it that the ellipsis means the possibilities for us when we are with God are endless. Let's hope it does not also imply that the potential for our distortion of His message for us is endless as well.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
some notes
Why, hello there! Let me just change sweaters real quick before we sit down and have a chat.
Okay, that's better. It's been a long time since i was here, and there are a few reasons for that. One is that i've been in the process of moving back to college for my senior year. But i'm all moved in now so i have no real excuses. Except this other one, that i've been wanting to write something deep and profound and epic about several loose ends that have been in my brain lately - among them, Paul's idea that "if God is for us, who can be against us," Chris Tomlin's recent song celebrating that idea, the danger that idea presents to Christians in a nation where patriotism and faith so frequently collide, and tying a lot of it up through the perspective of the Civil War. i'm sorry, i just haven't gotten around to it yet.
But here's another thing that happened - the Creative Arts Emmys! Overall, pretty good stuff, good shows represented well. However, we need to talk about the guest actor/actress awards for a moment. Okay, go:
Best Guest Actor in a Drama - John Lithgow, for Dexter. You know what? This was a freaking awesome performance. You know what else? It was also a supporting performance, not a guest spot. Which means Lithgow kind of probably took this award (since he was all but guaranteed to win it) from someone equally deserving in an actual guest role capactiy. Not totally his fault maybe? Since also, if he won supporting actor for his single season on the show, he could have taken that award from someone who's put in more time into their show. So i love him and his performance and i'm glad he won something, but i can't help feel that someone else got gypped someway or another by the process.
Best Guest Actress in a Drama - Ann Margaret for L&O:SVU - i didn't see this, i'm sure she was wonderful (i hear she got the only standing ovation of the evening), i just wanted to say that i was partial to Lily Tomlin in Damages, and i'm sad she didn't win.
Best Guest Actor in a Comedy - Neil Patrick Harris for Glee. i'm sorry, but are you freaking kidding me? He did nothing special...nothing really at all in his episode. He played a slightly more musical version of Barney Stinson. Which probably means he won't win in Best Supp. Actor in a Comedy yet again this year, and i think everyone just really wanted him to have an Emmy. And i know that's how this works sometimes....but seriously, why can't we award the more deserving acts? Like, oh, i dunno, Will Arnett for 30 Rock where he is consistently amazing? Or even Eli Wallach, who is still better at what he does at AGE 94 (that's even older than Betty White) than most of the other guys doing this!! (i admit that Jon Hamm probably did not deserve his 30 Rock nomination for the 4 minutes or so he was on the air this season - he got the nomination the same way NPH did - by not winning for his other show.)
Best Guest Actress in a Comedy - Okay, here's one that i know i would take some heat for if anyone read this and cared. Betty White did not deserve this award. She was absolutely hysterical on SNL, i'm not denying that, but here's two things to consider: SNL hosts are not guest actors, no matter what the Emmy categories say. They are hosts - they are individual performances in a variety show (note that all of SNL's other merits are acknowledged in a variety show category, yet their performers are in the Comedy Series sections - that's not fair or right to the other shows and actors). Because they are hosts, doing sketches, i do not believe it's fair to think of them as guest actors in the same fashion as the other nominees - the other nominee's bear the responsibility of creating a fully realized character in their limited time and episode arc, whereas on SNL, they have only to do caricatures and read funny cue-cards. And let's please also note that Betty White, well-versed as she is in live tv, still wasn't spot on the entire night. The Muffin sketch was pure gold, but the Scared Straight sketch was...well, awkward. And no one can say, Oh but how impressive that she did it at age 89! because as i've just pointed out, Eli Wallach is 94, and no one felt like awarding him for that.
SO, in conclusion, Betty White is wonderful, but did not deserve this award - because Kristin Chenoweth did, for Glee. She did the best job of creating a comic character while on a comedy series (as compared to the guy who played Kurt's dad, who was also nominated for Glee, who was wonderful, but was essentially a dramatic character in the comedy series, which i personally feel contributes to his not winning - just as that will contribute to Chris Colfer not winning in his category next week as well).
And that's what i have to say about that. If i have time this week, i hope to also get on here and lay out some opinions on most of the main nominations before the awards next Sunday.
Now, i'll go to church.
Okay, that's better. It's been a long time since i was here, and there are a few reasons for that. One is that i've been in the process of moving back to college for my senior year. But i'm all moved in now so i have no real excuses. Except this other one, that i've been wanting to write something deep and profound and epic about several loose ends that have been in my brain lately - among them, Paul's idea that "if God is for us, who can be against us," Chris Tomlin's recent song celebrating that idea, the danger that idea presents to Christians in a nation where patriotism and faith so frequently collide, and tying a lot of it up through the perspective of the Civil War. i'm sorry, i just haven't gotten around to it yet.
But here's another thing that happened - the Creative Arts Emmys! Overall, pretty good stuff, good shows represented well. However, we need to talk about the guest actor/actress awards for a moment. Okay, go:
Best Guest Actor in a Drama - John Lithgow, for Dexter. You know what? This was a freaking awesome performance. You know what else? It was also a supporting performance, not a guest spot. Which means Lithgow kind of probably took this award (since he was all but guaranteed to win it) from someone equally deserving in an actual guest role capactiy. Not totally his fault maybe? Since also, if he won supporting actor for his single season on the show, he could have taken that award from someone who's put in more time into their show. So i love him and his performance and i'm glad he won something, but i can't help feel that someone else got gypped someway or another by the process.
Best Guest Actress in a Drama - Ann Margaret for L&O:SVU - i didn't see this, i'm sure she was wonderful (i hear she got the only standing ovation of the evening), i just wanted to say that i was partial to Lily Tomlin in Damages, and i'm sad she didn't win.
Best Guest Actor in a Comedy - Neil Patrick Harris for Glee. i'm sorry, but are you freaking kidding me? He did nothing special...nothing really at all in his episode. He played a slightly more musical version of Barney Stinson. Which probably means he won't win in Best Supp. Actor in a Comedy yet again this year, and i think everyone just really wanted him to have an Emmy. And i know that's how this works sometimes....but seriously, why can't we award the more deserving acts? Like, oh, i dunno, Will Arnett for 30 Rock where he is consistently amazing? Or even Eli Wallach, who is still better at what he does at AGE 94 (that's even older than Betty White) than most of the other guys doing this!! (i admit that Jon Hamm probably did not deserve his 30 Rock nomination for the 4 minutes or so he was on the air this season - he got the nomination the same way NPH did - by not winning for his other show.)
Best Guest Actress in a Comedy - Okay, here's one that i know i would take some heat for if anyone read this and cared. Betty White did not deserve this award. She was absolutely hysterical on SNL, i'm not denying that, but here's two things to consider: SNL hosts are not guest actors, no matter what the Emmy categories say. They are hosts - they are individual performances in a variety show (note that all of SNL's other merits are acknowledged in a variety show category, yet their performers are in the Comedy Series sections - that's not fair or right to the other shows and actors). Because they are hosts, doing sketches, i do not believe it's fair to think of them as guest actors in the same fashion as the other nominees - the other nominee's bear the responsibility of creating a fully realized character in their limited time and episode arc, whereas on SNL, they have only to do caricatures and read funny cue-cards. And let's please also note that Betty White, well-versed as she is in live tv, still wasn't spot on the entire night. The Muffin sketch was pure gold, but the Scared Straight sketch was...well, awkward. And no one can say, Oh but how impressive that she did it at age 89! because as i've just pointed out, Eli Wallach is 94, and no one felt like awarding him for that.
SO, in conclusion, Betty White is wonderful, but did not deserve this award - because Kristin Chenoweth did, for Glee. She did the best job of creating a comic character while on a comedy series (as compared to the guy who played Kurt's dad, who was also nominated for Glee, who was wonderful, but was essentially a dramatic character in the comedy series, which i personally feel contributes to his not winning - just as that will contribute to Chris Colfer not winning in his category next week as well).
And that's what i have to say about that. If i have time this week, i hope to also get on here and lay out some opinions on most of the main nominations before the awards next Sunday.
Now, i'll go to church.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Strangers on a train
Whew, i'm back. i've kept on thinking about things that might be worth blogging about...but i've been a little busy lately, and certainly a little tired...so i've just never managed to get my thoughts together with my time until right now, this moment.
First off, for the past 2 weeks i've been going to bartending school, learning about making drinks and stuff - definitely been having a blast, but i've had to wake up around 6AM, a lot earlier than i am used to, so it's wiped me out a lot when i get back home in the afternoon.
But now i'm here.
So which thoughts should i begin with for my first post in a while? Let's start with the Metro. i love the metro. i love riding it. i love going in a tunnel and coming out the other end in a totally new place. i love the people on it, they're the best! Last week i saw a guy reading Thomas Hardy start surreptitiously, but totally checking out this one girl who got on reading Henry James. i saw a girl reading The Irresistible Revolution, which was just nice to see. Also nice to see was the guy going through Deuteronomy - i'm not sure if he was trying to do the whole bible cover to cover or what, but it was cool no matter what.
but here's what i really like about being on the metro: that feeling of knowing just exactly where i'm going. When you're a tourist, you have to carry around a book and a map with you so you know which attractions to see and where they are. There's plenty of hurry-up-and-wait involved while you figure your surroundings out. But i'm not a tourist here - i don't know the city like the back of my hand or anything, but i'm definitely not a tourist. i'm familiar with the metro lines, where they go, what's at the major stops - so when i get on, i sit down take out my book, and keep a tally in my head of the numbers of stops we've gone through. And when i reach my stop, i get off, quickly find the escalator to my next train if i'm transferring (sometimes running to catch it if i'm lucky enough to have it waiting for me), and i'm good. i'm confidant, comfortable. i know where i'm going.
Of course, we very seldom get that opportunity in life, knowing where we're going and how to get there. But here's this one chance to make sure you've got it figured out. And it isn't hard to look around and see who's ridden that line a thousand times, and who's just trying to get in to see the monuments. i like to imagine the tourists seeing me and thinking, "Oh, we could ask him, he probably knows what to do."
On my more profound days, this is the part where i might try to find some interesting sermon-esque way of tying this all up with Christianity or something. Maaaybe that we have confidence in living with Christ, so it's okay if we don't know where we're going? Or we can take comfort in Christ the same way we take comfort in the things that help us know where we're going? i'm not sure...i had a few more in the back of my head, but i'm not gonna do any of that. i'd just be forcing it, it doesn't come naturally to me this time. So i'm just gonna let it stay as is - i enjoy the comfort that comes from being one of those guys on the metro who knows what's up. Feels good. Nothing more complicated than that.
First off, for the past 2 weeks i've been going to bartending school, learning about making drinks and stuff - definitely been having a blast, but i've had to wake up around 6AM, a lot earlier than i am used to, so it's wiped me out a lot when i get back home in the afternoon.
But now i'm here.
So which thoughts should i begin with for my first post in a while? Let's start with the Metro. i love the metro. i love riding it. i love going in a tunnel and coming out the other end in a totally new place. i love the people on it, they're the best! Last week i saw a guy reading Thomas Hardy start surreptitiously, but totally checking out this one girl who got on reading Henry James. i saw a girl reading The Irresistible Revolution, which was just nice to see. Also nice to see was the guy going through Deuteronomy - i'm not sure if he was trying to do the whole bible cover to cover or what, but it was cool no matter what.
but here's what i really like about being on the metro: that feeling of knowing just exactly where i'm going. When you're a tourist, you have to carry around a book and a map with you so you know which attractions to see and where they are. There's plenty of hurry-up-and-wait involved while you figure your surroundings out. But i'm not a tourist here - i don't know the city like the back of my hand or anything, but i'm definitely not a tourist. i'm familiar with the metro lines, where they go, what's at the major stops - so when i get on, i sit down take out my book, and keep a tally in my head of the numbers of stops we've gone through. And when i reach my stop, i get off, quickly find the escalator to my next train if i'm transferring (sometimes running to catch it if i'm lucky enough to have it waiting for me), and i'm good. i'm confidant, comfortable. i know where i'm going.
Of course, we very seldom get that opportunity in life, knowing where we're going and how to get there. But here's this one chance to make sure you've got it figured out. And it isn't hard to look around and see who's ridden that line a thousand times, and who's just trying to get in to see the monuments. i like to imagine the tourists seeing me and thinking, "Oh, we could ask him, he probably knows what to do."
On my more profound days, this is the part where i might try to find some interesting sermon-esque way of tying this all up with Christianity or something. Maaaybe that we have confidence in living with Christ, so it's okay if we don't know where we're going? Or we can take comfort in Christ the same way we take comfort in the things that help us know where we're going? i'm not sure...i had a few more in the back of my head, but i'm not gonna do any of that. i'd just be forcing it, it doesn't come naturally to me this time. So i'm just gonna let it stay as is - i enjoy the comfort that comes from being one of those guys on the metro who knows what's up. Feels good. Nothing more complicated than that.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
I just thought that ice tongs was the way to do it.
Wow, i did not realize it had been more than a week since my last post.
i haven't been on here because, although i've watched several movies in the past week or two, none of them have completely totally knocked me off my feet (the way, say, Titus did), so i was waiting for a collection. Also, i've spent some time watching some TV shows, in light of the Emmy nominations announcement. namely, catching up on Nurse Jackie and watching the first season of The Good Wife. My parents told me that show was good, but i didn't have time this past year to keep up with it, but now i have, and it is indeed good. i enjoy a good legal procedural, and this one manages to keep the characters in focus and interesting (similar to one of my favorites, Boston Legal, but on the serious side).
As for movies:
i finally rewatched Shutter Island, a movie that has now blown me away not once, but twice. Its mixed and negative reviews must surely be from people who are stupid.
The African Queen, with Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn. A really fun adventure movie (i would assume one of the first of the "adventure" genre as we know it today). i was watching with an interesting perspective though, thinking, "In today's Hollywood, i don't think anyone could make a movie about a riverboat escaping Germans in WWI occupied Africa...and still manage to make it a bit of a romantic comedy, without it being lambasted as political incorrect and insulting in tremendous ways." Yet we look back and view this film as a classic. Interesting how situations reverse and flip and turn oh all sorts of ways.
Poltergeist - really exciting horror movie from the early eighties. Written and produced by Steven Spielberg, though not officially directed by him. However, many have come to believe Spielberg to be the de facto man behind the curtain, and those familiar with the look and feel of Spielberg's movies (especially the earlier ones), can easily see his thumbprint all over this movie - with the possible exception of the final sequence where suspense and supernatural thrills turns to all out horror (coffins popping up out of the ground and skeletons falling out, all in the mud and rain, etc etc). Really well worth the time for an example of how a movie doesn't have to be a scare-a-minute kind of scary to still work.
A Passage to India - David Lean's final movie, another epic. This time set in India (obviously), it is, as Lean's work always is, incredible to look at. As with Doctor Zhivago, it's difficult to avoid getting sucked in and immersed in all the sights and sounds...but then again, why would you want to avoid it? That's the experience! This movie is benefited by a better story than Doctor Zhivago, focusing its energies on the class system of British Imperial India, and the friendships and relationships therein, rather than on a romance. i can't think of much to say specifically, except that it has held up really well over almost 30 years, is fascinating and enjoyable.
Finally, i've been continuing in my viewings of Woody Allen movies, still enjoying them immensely. Of particular note is Zelig, a faux documentary about a man in the 20s and 30s who had a particular chameleon-like genetic trait, allowing him to develop the features of those around him, and therefore, blend in. (For instance, when standing next to Orthodox Jews, he grew a beard almost instantly. His skin color would even change around African and Native Americans.) it sounds absurd when i simplify it as such, but it was really amusing and interesting. A psychiatrist (or psychologist...) played by Mia Farrow is determined to help figure out his condition and help him control it. Between the lines, it's a movie about learning to be comfortable with ourselves as we are and not feel the need to conform to whatever seems to be the easiest way for us to get by. Taken on that level...well, it was a really great film.
That's it for now, i guess.
shalom, y'all!
i haven't been on here because, although i've watched several movies in the past week or two, none of them have completely totally knocked me off my feet (the way, say, Titus did), so i was waiting for a collection. Also, i've spent some time watching some TV shows, in light of the Emmy nominations announcement. namely, catching up on Nurse Jackie and watching the first season of The Good Wife. My parents told me that show was good, but i didn't have time this past year to keep up with it, but now i have, and it is indeed good. i enjoy a good legal procedural, and this one manages to keep the characters in focus and interesting (similar to one of my favorites, Boston Legal, but on the serious side).
As for movies:
i finally rewatched Shutter Island, a movie that has now blown me away not once, but twice. Its mixed and negative reviews must surely be from people who are stupid.
The African Queen, with Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn. A really fun adventure movie (i would assume one of the first of the "adventure" genre as we know it today). i was watching with an interesting perspective though, thinking, "In today's Hollywood, i don't think anyone could make a movie about a riverboat escaping Germans in WWI occupied Africa...and still manage to make it a bit of a romantic comedy, without it being lambasted as political incorrect and insulting in tremendous ways." Yet we look back and view this film as a classic. Interesting how situations reverse and flip and turn oh all sorts of ways.
Poltergeist - really exciting horror movie from the early eighties. Written and produced by Steven Spielberg, though not officially directed by him. However, many have come to believe Spielberg to be the de facto man behind the curtain, and those familiar with the look and feel of Spielberg's movies (especially the earlier ones), can easily see his thumbprint all over this movie - with the possible exception of the final sequence where suspense and supernatural thrills turns to all out horror (coffins popping up out of the ground and skeletons falling out, all in the mud and rain, etc etc). Really well worth the time for an example of how a movie doesn't have to be a scare-a-minute kind of scary to still work.
A Passage to India - David Lean's final movie, another epic. This time set in India (obviously), it is, as Lean's work always is, incredible to look at. As with Doctor Zhivago, it's difficult to avoid getting sucked in and immersed in all the sights and sounds...but then again, why would you want to avoid it? That's the experience! This movie is benefited by a better story than Doctor Zhivago, focusing its energies on the class system of British Imperial India, and the friendships and relationships therein, rather than on a romance. i can't think of much to say specifically, except that it has held up really well over almost 30 years, is fascinating and enjoyable.
Finally, i've been continuing in my viewings of Woody Allen movies, still enjoying them immensely. Of particular note is Zelig, a faux documentary about a man in the 20s and 30s who had a particular chameleon-like genetic trait, allowing him to develop the features of those around him, and therefore, blend in. (For instance, when standing next to Orthodox Jews, he grew a beard almost instantly. His skin color would even change around African and Native Americans.) it sounds absurd when i simplify it as such, but it was really amusing and interesting. A psychiatrist (or psychologist...) played by Mia Farrow is determined to help figure out his condition and help him control it. Between the lines, it's a movie about learning to be comfortable with ourselves as we are and not feel the need to conform to whatever seems to be the easiest way for us to get by. Taken on that level...well, it was a really great film.
That's it for now, i guess.
shalom, y'all!
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
a father's love
So this weird thing happened at the gym the other day. i saw a guy, a dad, working with some free weights, and this guy looks like he takes his weightlifting seriously. i could tell because of his special weightlifting gloves and belt. he was with a kid, i assume his son, who looks...let's say 10th grade? And the dad is teaching the son the ropes - basic lifts and lifting technique. i know the son is new at this because there's about a 30-40 lb. difference between his weights and his dad's (and even i'm using about 10-15 lbs. more than him, so that's really saying something).
But the funny thing wasn't that a dad was teaching his son about lifting weights. It's that he just seemed so stinkin' happy about it. It was all acted out like a scene from a movie, but a cheesy movie where the facial expressions are so transparent that i feel somewhat confident in the story i created to go with them. The dad looked to me as if he was thinking how proud he was of his son for choosing to do this thing that he loved - happy that his son was following in his footsteps. He even pointed out some other (totally ripped) guys at the bench press as if to say, "Look at them, son. You could have muscles like that some day. You could life that much weight some day. Just stick with me and I'll show you how." But...as wonderful as that sounds, there was something off about the whole thing. Because behind that happiness and pride, i felt that i almost detected a certain gratefulness. Grateful that his son was choosing to lift weights like his old man, instead of, oh i dunno, join the chess team? take ballet classes? go to cooking school? be a member of whatever the opposite political party is? or what have you...
i'm sure the son wanted to be there, or else he wouldn't have been there (because in 10th grade, we don't do things we don't want to do, or at least not without being a jerk about it in the process). but i couldn't help wondering, what if he didn't want to be there? would that father still have been as proud and jovial?
Now i add the extra layer to this. Curiously, at the same time i was observing all of this and creating the little backstories (which again, i feel confident in, because the scene really was awfully cliched), a song by Jason Upton came on my ipod called "Come Up Here," in which there are very few actual written lyrics (as Upton has a tendency to improvise in his worship songs...like, a lot), but among them are, "Come up here, come up now/ My beloved, my beloved," which i took be a reference to God's proclamation at Jesus' baptism that that was his beloved son, with whom he was well pleased. And, without trying too hard to judge the father in my story, who i am certain loves his son very much, i could not help but see the juxtaposition and contemplate on unconditional love and wonder if the portrait i saw of fathers and sons in the gym actually displayed it. Or were those weights actually strings attached to the father's heart? Was it a conditional love? i have no reason to believe it was anything but unconditional, and i certainly hope that's exactly what it was. i have beenlucky fortunate blessed to have a father who loves me all the time because of/in spite of all the things i am and love, as well as a Father who loves me even more than that! i guess when i was at the gym, i was reminded of that...and i hope that kid has the same blessing in his life, even if he puts the weights down.
But the funny thing wasn't that a dad was teaching his son about lifting weights. It's that he just seemed so stinkin' happy about it. It was all acted out like a scene from a movie, but a cheesy movie where the facial expressions are so transparent that i feel somewhat confident in the story i created to go with them. The dad looked to me as if he was thinking how proud he was of his son for choosing to do this thing that he loved - happy that his son was following in his footsteps. He even pointed out some other (totally ripped) guys at the bench press as if to say, "Look at them, son. You could have muscles like that some day. You could life that much weight some day. Just stick with me and I'll show you how." But...as wonderful as that sounds, there was something off about the whole thing. Because behind that happiness and pride, i felt that i almost detected a certain gratefulness. Grateful that his son was choosing to lift weights like his old man, instead of, oh i dunno, join the chess team? take ballet classes? go to cooking school? be a member of whatever the opposite political party is? or what have you...
i'm sure the son wanted to be there, or else he wouldn't have been there (because in 10th grade, we don't do things we don't want to do, or at least not without being a jerk about it in the process). but i couldn't help wondering, what if he didn't want to be there? would that father still have been as proud and jovial?
Now i add the extra layer to this. Curiously, at the same time i was observing all of this and creating the little backstories (which again, i feel confident in, because the scene really was awfully cliched), a song by Jason Upton came on my ipod called "Come Up Here," in which there are very few actual written lyrics (as Upton has a tendency to improvise in his worship songs...like, a lot), but among them are, "Come up here, come up now/ My beloved, my beloved," which i took be a reference to God's proclamation at Jesus' baptism that that was his beloved son, with whom he was well pleased. And, without trying too hard to judge the father in my story, who i am certain loves his son very much, i could not help but see the juxtaposition and contemplate on unconditional love and wonder if the portrait i saw of fathers and sons in the gym actually displayed it. Or were those weights actually strings attached to the father's heart? Was it a conditional love? i have no reason to believe it was anything but unconditional, and i certainly hope that's exactly what it was. i have been
Sunday, June 27, 2010
What i've been up to
Right. Okay. Movies. Let's go.
i've watched many more movies over the last couple of weeks than i will mention here. the ones i do choose to bring up are because of the director, others because they have a classic status i should at least acknowledge, and still a couple more that i mention because i loved them, because they had some effect, because they were meaningful on some level.
to begin with: Alfred Hitchcock. i cannot say it enough. go watch his movies. they are wonderful. i've just recently seen several from his...i think "British period" is what some people might call it. from the silent period up until about the movie Rebecca, which won the best picture oscar, and after which he got into his more famous style, with more distinct "Hitchcockian" elements, either in camerawork or other visual production values. Blackmail, The 39 Steps, Sabotage, Strangers on a Train, and Marnie are the ones i've seen most recently. they're all good, but the best are probably The 39 Steps and Strangers on a Train. To save time, i'll just tell you again to go watch them, and let the joy of them speak for themselves.
i've also continued watching several more Woody Allen movies -- i'm understanding more and more what all the fuss is about, and he's quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. it's fascinating to see him go from his earliest films, which are completely absurd (his very first, What's Up, Tiger Lily?, is nothing more than a japanese spy movie with dubbed over voices creating a new story, not unlike Mystery Science Theater 3000), to his more mature, serious works in the late 70s and 80s, taking his comedy to existential levels. i've not seen anything from the 90s, and the most recent decade saw a back and forth, hit and miss sort of thing happen (Match Point and Vicky Christina Barcelona among the successes). one of his best movies, Crimes and Misdemeanors, manages to somehow be a comedy while very seriously dealing with questions of adultery and murder and making something meaningful out of our lives, all with an underlying question of just what God has to do with it.
This all says something awesome about comedy, that one of its fundamental elements essentially is tragedy. comedy is about pain, but with a different perspective on it. either a schadenfreude thing, or perhaps just a more hopeful look at it, but it finds light in bad situations. there's something here that i haven't quite tapped into just yet, but i'll be sure to write something incredibly profound and publication-worthy when i do.
Let's see, what else? The original 1932 Scarface, a pretty awesome film noir gangster movie. it's one of those things that laid groundwork that allows us to subsequently have other things like, well, large chucks of the film noir period, The Godfather, The Sopranos, Martin Scorsese, and more.
Doctor Zhivago - 1965, directed by David Lean, who's easily one of my favorite directors. i read somewhere that he puts internal characters and internal stories onto a large scale in the midst of very externally driven circumstances. This movie's greatest strength is easily its visuals -- the movie just looks so breathtaking at times. the story, though, is essentially a bit of a soap opera about finding true love (outside of preexisting marriages, of course) during Russia's Bolshevik Revolution. so the story, while essentially trite, is fine given the feast for the eyes that Lean manages to make of it (it helps that is also acted well, with enough passion from Omar Sharif to make the soap opera elements digestible). definitely worth the 3 1/2 hours if you're looking for a movie that'll absorb your attention and lose you in its world.
Catch-22 - one of the best books ever (and definitely one of my favorites), is unfortunately just a little too immense, and takes up too much of its story inside the characters than outside them, to work well as a movie. that said, Mike Nichols does about as good a job as someone can do with it. definitely gets some of the comedy, and some of the travesty of war, and almost captures the frenetic chronology of the book, but somehow just can't pull it all together just right. i think a big part of the problem lies in the portrayal of Yossarian by Alan Arkin (a very good actor). something about the character is just too...weak, i suspect. Yossarian is by his own admission, a coward, but he stands by the sanity of his cowardliness so steadfastly and with such conviction, that one cannot help but believe him to be both a coward, but also deeply principled, and also quite the badass. in the movie...he was just kind of pathetic. so, all in all, the movie is a noble, worthwhile failure.
Finally, Titus, directed by Julie Taymor, easily one of the few true visionaries in the film and theatre world today. Aside from the fact that it is an original and exciting interpretation of Shakespeare's play, Titus Andronicus, it is visually one of the most awesome things i've seen in a very long time (except, in different ways, Doctor Zhivago). by blending Ancient Rome with Mussolini's Italy with various other historical elements, Taymor creates an entirely independent other-world, both tangible to us and distant from our own reality. She then take Shakespeare's most violent work, and puts it over the top so as to be both affecting and alienating. i am already head over heels in love with Taymor's work in Frida and Across the Universe, not to mention the stage version of The Lion King (which i believe to be one of the absolute best creative achievements in film or theater in the last several decades), and with Titus (her first film) Taymor demonstrates again that she is a creative powerhouse. We lament so frequently nowadays that we are losing originality in our creations. Adaptations of adaptations of adaptations are all we see, not to mention the sequels and franchieses. And then there's Julie Taymor, who, even when she has source material in an animated film, or a Shakespeare play, or the paintings of Frida Kahlo, or the music of The Beatles, never stoops to the level of imitation or re-presentation - she uses this preexisting works as muses for her own creative juices, not ripping them off or cheapening the value of the originals, but reworking them into something new and visceral and phenomenal. (NOTE: Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet with Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes did something of similar newness and originality, but with comparatively less gravity than this film. Where R&J made me go, "man, that's cool...i like what they did there...interesting take on that!...etc etc," this one made me go, "hey wow that's....i mean, it's just....gah, that's so...!!! ...jeez, that's freaking awesome...what the WHAT?!")
Check out the trailer (with awkward Polish subtitles) HERE.
i'm not sure if that part about the "ultimate sacrifice of love" is really accurate...
but anyway, that's where i've been lately. i know, Titus could have had it's own post, keeping this one more trimmed, but whatever. If you've read this far, way to go! you get a gold star :)
peace.
i've watched many more movies over the last couple of weeks than i will mention here. the ones i do choose to bring up are because of the director, others because they have a classic status i should at least acknowledge, and still a couple more that i mention because i loved them, because they had some effect, because they were meaningful on some level.
to begin with: Alfred Hitchcock. i cannot say it enough. go watch his movies. they are wonderful. i've just recently seen several from his...i think "British period" is what some people might call it. from the silent period up until about the movie Rebecca, which won the best picture oscar, and after which he got into his more famous style, with more distinct "Hitchcockian" elements, either in camerawork or other visual production values. Blackmail, The 39 Steps, Sabotage, Strangers on a Train, and Marnie are the ones i've seen most recently. they're all good, but the best are probably The 39 Steps and Strangers on a Train. To save time, i'll just tell you again to go watch them, and let the joy of them speak for themselves.
i've also continued watching several more Woody Allen movies -- i'm understanding more and more what all the fuss is about, and he's quickly becoming one of my favorite directors. it's fascinating to see him go from his earliest films, which are completely absurd (his very first, What's Up, Tiger Lily?, is nothing more than a japanese spy movie with dubbed over voices creating a new story, not unlike Mystery Science Theater 3000), to his more mature, serious works in the late 70s and 80s, taking his comedy to existential levels. i've not seen anything from the 90s, and the most recent decade saw a back and forth, hit and miss sort of thing happen (Match Point and Vicky Christina Barcelona among the successes). one of his best movies, Crimes and Misdemeanors, manages to somehow be a comedy while very seriously dealing with questions of adultery and murder and making something meaningful out of our lives, all with an underlying question of just what God has to do with it.
This all says something awesome about comedy, that one of its fundamental elements essentially is tragedy. comedy is about pain, but with a different perspective on it. either a schadenfreude thing, or perhaps just a more hopeful look at it, but it finds light in bad situations. there's something here that i haven't quite tapped into just yet, but i'll be sure to write something incredibly profound and publication-worthy when i do.
Let's see, what else? The original 1932 Scarface, a pretty awesome film noir gangster movie. it's one of those things that laid groundwork that allows us to subsequently have other things like, well, large chucks of the film noir period, The Godfather, The Sopranos, Martin Scorsese, and more.
Doctor Zhivago - 1965, directed by David Lean, who's easily one of my favorite directors. i read somewhere that he puts internal characters and internal stories onto a large scale in the midst of very externally driven circumstances. This movie's greatest strength is easily its visuals -- the movie just looks so breathtaking at times. the story, though, is essentially a bit of a soap opera about finding true love (outside of preexisting marriages, of course) during Russia's Bolshevik Revolution. so the story, while essentially trite, is fine given the feast for the eyes that Lean manages to make of it (it helps that is also acted well, with enough passion from Omar Sharif to make the soap opera elements digestible). definitely worth the 3 1/2 hours if you're looking for a movie that'll absorb your attention and lose you in its world.
Catch-22 - one of the best books ever (and definitely one of my favorites), is unfortunately just a little too immense, and takes up too much of its story inside the characters than outside them, to work well as a movie. that said, Mike Nichols does about as good a job as someone can do with it. definitely gets some of the comedy, and some of the travesty of war, and almost captures the frenetic chronology of the book, but somehow just can't pull it all together just right. i think a big part of the problem lies in the portrayal of Yossarian by Alan Arkin (a very good actor). something about the character is just too...weak, i suspect. Yossarian is by his own admission, a coward, but he stands by the sanity of his cowardliness so steadfastly and with such conviction, that one cannot help but believe him to be both a coward, but also deeply principled, and also quite the badass. in the movie...he was just kind of pathetic. so, all in all, the movie is a noble, worthwhile failure.
Finally, Titus, directed by Julie Taymor, easily one of the few true visionaries in the film and theatre world today. Aside from the fact that it is an original and exciting interpretation of Shakespeare's play, Titus Andronicus, it is visually one of the most awesome things i've seen in a very long time (except, in different ways, Doctor Zhivago). by blending Ancient Rome with Mussolini's Italy with various other historical elements, Taymor creates an entirely independent other-world, both tangible to us and distant from our own reality. She then take Shakespeare's most violent work, and puts it over the top so as to be both affecting and alienating. i am already head over heels in love with Taymor's work in Frida and Across the Universe, not to mention the stage version of The Lion King (which i believe to be one of the absolute best creative achievements in film or theater in the last several decades), and with Titus (her first film) Taymor demonstrates again that she is a creative powerhouse. We lament so frequently nowadays that we are losing originality in our creations. Adaptations of adaptations of adaptations are all we see, not to mention the sequels and franchieses. And then there's Julie Taymor, who, even when she has source material in an animated film, or a Shakespeare play, or the paintings of Frida Kahlo, or the music of The Beatles, never stoops to the level of imitation or re-presentation - she uses this preexisting works as muses for her own creative juices, not ripping them off or cheapening the value of the originals, but reworking them into something new and visceral and phenomenal. (NOTE: Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet with Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Danes did something of similar newness and originality, but with comparatively less gravity than this film. Where R&J made me go, "man, that's cool...i like what they did there...interesting take on that!...etc etc," this one made me go, "hey wow that's....i mean, it's just....gah, that's so...!!! ...jeez, that's freaking awesome...what the WHAT?!")
Check out the trailer (with awkward Polish subtitles) HERE.
i'm not sure if that part about the "ultimate sacrifice of love" is really accurate...
but anyway, that's where i've been lately. i know, Titus could have had it's own post, keeping this one more trimmed, but whatever. If you've read this far, way to go! you get a gold star :)
peace.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Something Worth Saying
it's been nearly two weeks since i last updated, i know.
i have, of course, continued to watch some good movies, too many now, in fact, to give them all mention here. i've also finished another book. i won't get into any of it right now - but i will look over the movies i've watched and determine which most deserve something on here - i just want to make sure if i say something, it's because i have something worth saying.
in the meantime, i'm considering a new name for this blog (have i already mentioned that?) and presumably along with it a new URL (for continuity's sake), and i might want a new background/template design. i feel the blog, while experiencing it's recent rebirth, did not go the full distance.
back soon.
i have, of course, continued to watch some good movies, too many now, in fact, to give them all mention here. i've also finished another book. i won't get into any of it right now - but i will look over the movies i've watched and determine which most deserve something on here - i just want to make sure if i say something, it's because i have something worth saying.
in the meantime, i'm considering a new name for this blog (have i already mentioned that?) and presumably along with it a new URL (for continuity's sake), and i might want a new background/template design. i feel the blog, while experiencing it's recent rebirth, did not go the full distance.
back soon.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Je ne sais quoi.
i cannot explain adequately just what it is about Woody Allen movies that i find so wonderful. of course, he is well-respected (21 Oscar nominations, with 3 wins) and i'm sure plenty of critics have described why his films work so well. i, however, cannot put a finger on it. i just watch them and discover i am...well, delighted is the word that comes to mind.
A little while ago i watched one of his earliest movies, Bananas, about a youngish man whose girlfriend dumps him because there's "something missing" and in order to win her back, he joins the cause of revolution in Venezuela, a cause his ex-girlfriend strongly supports. It's already a far-fetched notion, but add to it elements like ordering 1,000 tuna sandwiches from a small diner for the rebels, Allen's character becoming the president of Venezuela after a coup, and Howard Cosell literally commentating on the events of the coup as though it were a sporting event, and suddenly the balance tips from being obscure and odd to being so bizarre one cannot help but just sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness.
Next was 1979's Manhattan, a more serio-comic movie where Allen is torn between his 17-year-old girlfriend and the mistress of his best friend. Again, a seemingly absurd premise, but this time made somehow very human in the telling of the story. Allen's tendency is to take what should be comic supporting characters, and turn them into protagonists. Imagine Dwight Schrute, strip away some of the inanity, and give him a story of his own. Allen makes these stories work. i think it wise not to get too much into my own analysis of Manhattan, in part because i wouldn't know where to start, but mostly because i think far superior writings could be found from real critics.
very soon i'll write another post on some things i've watched more recently.
A little while ago i watched one of his earliest movies, Bananas, about a youngish man whose girlfriend dumps him because there's "something missing" and in order to win her back, he joins the cause of revolution in Venezuela, a cause his ex-girlfriend strongly supports. It's already a far-fetched notion, but add to it elements like ordering 1,000 tuna sandwiches from a small diner for the rebels, Allen's character becoming the president of Venezuela after a coup, and Howard Cosell literally commentating on the events of the coup as though it were a sporting event, and suddenly the balance tips from being obscure and odd to being so bizarre one cannot help but just sit back and laugh at the ridiculousness.
Next was 1979's Manhattan, a more serio-comic movie where Allen is torn between his 17-year-old girlfriend and the mistress of his best friend. Again, a seemingly absurd premise, but this time made somehow very human in the telling of the story. Allen's tendency is to take what should be comic supporting characters, and turn them into protagonists. Imagine Dwight Schrute, strip away some of the inanity, and give him a story of his own. Allen makes these stories work. i think it wise not to get too much into my own analysis of Manhattan, in part because i wouldn't know where to start, but mostly because i think far superior writings could be found from real critics.
very soon i'll write another post on some things i've watched more recently.
(Kind of a) Book Review: Reconciling All Things
i recently finished a book called Reconciling All Things. it's written by Emmanuel Katangole and Chris Rice of the Duke Center for Reconciliation. i'm not sure i have the energy or even the full comprehension to adequately summarize and explain the book right now, but i'll give you a few highlights.
First, reconciliation is not necessarily the work of vast sweeping movements and intensely organized efforts. it is not merely celebrating diversity (or ignoring it), and it is not a way to put a band-aid on problems that require more intensive work.
I was struck particularly by a chapter on lament, and the necessity of it as a discipline in the hopes of reconciliation down the road. We must recognize problems and lament their existence, finding a true desire for improvement. In order to pursue these solutions, according to Katangole and Rice, we must keep in mind certain things: we must move slowly, we must be close to the problem, and we must recognize that we are seldom (or perhaps never) truly innocent or removed from the situation. We might not be complicit, exactly, but we are not innocent.
Finally, reconciliation is the work of smaller things than we sometimes think. It is a lifestyle, not an event. i'm not sure exactly how to say it better than that. Reconciliation is in the many things we do continuously, not the one thing we all get together to do at once (though of course, these things can be good, too!).
If any of these thoughts or ideas seem interesting, i recommend getting the book to pursue it further (the authors do a better job than me) - it's a pretty short read, but it's something i know i'll be returning to eventually so that i can continue to find the implications of its message.
After reading it, i thought back to the movie Invictus. When i first saw it, i thought, "okay, that was pretty good." i also remember a lot of remarks on the subject matter - not criticism, exactly, but a certain underwhelmed reaction. A lot of people seemed to think that if there was a movie about Nelson Mandela, it would be be about his imprisonment, or his release, or his campaign for president, or his presidency.
Instead, we got a movie about rugby. But after reading this book, i look back on the movie and see it differently - yes, of course there could have been a more Mandela-based movie about Mandela, but this movie was, at its core, about reconciliation - about bringing hostile peoples together with a common cause. And really, isn't that movie much more in the spirit of Nelson Mandela than just another hollywood biopic? Surely, that is the greater testament to the man's life.
First, reconciliation is not necessarily the work of vast sweeping movements and intensely organized efforts. it is not merely celebrating diversity (or ignoring it), and it is not a way to put a band-aid on problems that require more intensive work.
I was struck particularly by a chapter on lament, and the necessity of it as a discipline in the hopes of reconciliation down the road. We must recognize problems and lament their existence, finding a true desire for improvement. In order to pursue these solutions, according to Katangole and Rice, we must keep in mind certain things: we must move slowly, we must be close to the problem, and we must recognize that we are seldom (or perhaps never) truly innocent or removed from the situation. We might not be complicit, exactly, but we are not innocent.
Finally, reconciliation is the work of smaller things than we sometimes think. It is a lifestyle, not an event. i'm not sure exactly how to say it better than that. Reconciliation is in the many things we do continuously, not the one thing we all get together to do at once (though of course, these things can be good, too!).
If any of these thoughts or ideas seem interesting, i recommend getting the book to pursue it further (the authors do a better job than me) - it's a pretty short read, but it's something i know i'll be returning to eventually so that i can continue to find the implications of its message.
After reading it, i thought back to the movie Invictus. When i first saw it, i thought, "okay, that was pretty good." i also remember a lot of remarks on the subject matter - not criticism, exactly, but a certain underwhelmed reaction. A lot of people seemed to think that if there was a movie about Nelson Mandela, it would be be about his imprisonment, or his release, or his campaign for president, or his presidency.
Instead, we got a movie about rugby. But after reading this book, i look back on the movie and see it differently - yes, of course there could have been a more Mandela-based movie about Mandela, but this movie was, at its core, about reconciliation - about bringing hostile peoples together with a common cause. And really, isn't that movie much more in the spirit of Nelson Mandela than just another hollywood biopic? Surely, that is the greater testament to the man's life.
Friday, June 4, 2010
A long time ago, in a galaxy far away...
Okay okay, so it's been a while since I updated this. Get over it.
Since the last post i've watched a whole bunch of movies, so let's get started.
i went through the entire Star Wars Series, in order, Episode I to Episode VI. It was really awesome. Here's what i realized: the new movies aren't that bad! Really, truly, they're actually pretty good movies. Do they have weaknesses? Of course. Especially Episode II has some pretty bad writing and an particularly annoying performance from Hayden Christiansen. But the differences between the original and new trilogies isn't a matter of quality. (The originals had some awkward writing and bad performance moments as well.) The new movies are more complicated movies. They're political, and actually a kind of smart political - they're complex and intricate. Senates and chancellors, trade agreements and armies, allegiances and betrayals. The original trilogy had a rebellion and an empire. It was one versus the other, and we were supposed to root for the good guys. End of story. Now, the new movies don't always handle their complexity well, but they frequently do. It's a different kind of story in the same kind of environment our responsibility as viewers is to adapt our expectations. Otherwise, we'll always be disappointed.
i also think i picked up on some interesting Old Testament elements to the prequel trilogy. The originals, what with their fulfillment of prophecies and tame sort of messiah figure, have some mild New Testament themes we can see if we really want them. But there was something interesting, I thought, in the way the Jedi once felt they had everything figured out with Anakin and the prophecy, only to find out they were wrong - the Republic and the Jedi were forced into a sort of exile, a decades long suffering under the evil of the Empire. It's really a pretty loose sort of Biblical parallel, i know - i'm not saying it's profound or deep or anything. But there was an overall "things get worse before they get better" thing going on over the course of the entire series and i couldn't help noticing a bit of the Christian worldview kind of thing happening.
Okay, other movies, briefly:
The Invention of Lying - cute, maybe worth a redbox rental, some really good laughs, but not exactly mindblowing.
Crazy Heart - fantastic performance from Jeff Bridges in a really good movie. Worth checking out.
Also, I re-watched Cinderella Man. I saw it in theaters, I've seen it once or twice on DVD since, but it had been a while, so I went back to it. Guys, seriously, this is such a good movie. Aside from one of Russell Crowe's best performances, and the turn from Paul Giamatti (who deserved the Oscar that George Clooney didn't), it's just so emotionally driven you can't help but be pulled in to the story. By the end, when Braddock is fighting in that last boxing match, you know what has to happen. You know who has to win, but you won't let yourself be sure. I remember watching it in the theater and being so tense, cheering so hard for Braddock to win, and I just couldn't loosen up until after the winner is announced. Then again, the same feelings, the same tenseness, even on my 4th or 5th viewing. It takes a really special movie to stir up the same strong emotions time after time. If you haven't seen it, go rent it right now. If you have, go watch it again. It'll be worth it.
As for awards and stuff - I'm still not sure how Crowe didn't get an Oscar nomination for this. It also deserved a cinematography nod, and maybe art direction as well. It might should have won the film editing and makeup awards it was nominated for as well. For some reason, the Oscar for makeup tends to acknowledge wounds and more subtle makeup for nominations, but always goes with the more over the top mask-type work for the win. Which isn't fair. 2004-2006 should have gone to The Passion of the Christ, Cinderella Man, and Apocalypto, in my opinion, but instead went to (the also impressive and deserving) Lemony Snickett, The Chronicles of Narnia, and Pan's Labyrinth. Those are just a matter of personal preference though.
Okay, all for now, be back later with some classic Woody Allen movies, and maybe a book review.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Holding out for a hero
A couple days ago i watched Marty, the 1955 Best Picture winner. In case you haven't noticed, a careful blend of Turner Classic Movies and DVR have been really helping this blog out this summer.
The movie is about a 34-year-old bachelor whose younger siblings are all married, and who is getting a lot of pressure from older people (like his mother, and customers at the butcher shop where he works) to settle down, or on the other hand, pressure from his peers to continue a lifestyle of bar-hopping, or perhaps finding certain streets to see just what kind of action they could find (for a cost, surely). Well, he gives into the bar-hopping one night, but inadvertently finds a girl who had been ditched by her date. They hit it off and spend several hours just talking and getting to know each other. The next day, the same people pressuring him to find a girl have changed their minds (for instance, his mother realizes she doesn't want to lose her last child to marriage because she'd be left all alone), and his friends urge him to not waste his time on a girl they deem less than attractive enough. In the end, Marty decides that what he wants and what makes him happy are the things he should be focusing on, and calls her up. i suppose the rest of the story is the material for a different movie.
All in all, i really enjoyed this film. It taps into fears that i think a lot of college students have - that we'll end up 34 years old working a mediocre job, having still not found the one we want to spend the rest of our lives with. frankly, it's an outcome that scares me sometimes when i let it. However, there's something to be said for patience. There's also something to be said for pursuing things the right way in the first place, and another thing to be said for knowing what we are capable of and having reasonable expectations. If we stay grounded and patient, then anything exceeding expectations gets to come as a wonderful surprise! and if we stay on an appropriate path from the beginning, those disappointments are more likely to fall few and far between. The right things fall in to place as long as we push just enough and not too much in the right directions. So here's hoping that after college i can seek after jobs and a career that are right for me and make me happy, never settling for something less-than, and never taking something more-than simply because of the attraction of a pay check or a reputation. Sometimes patience, reason, and (dare i say it) righteousness can actually pay off.
The movie is about a 34-year-old bachelor whose younger siblings are all married, and who is getting a lot of pressure from older people (like his mother, and customers at the butcher shop where he works) to settle down, or on the other hand, pressure from his peers to continue a lifestyle of bar-hopping, or perhaps finding certain streets to see just what kind of action they could find (for a cost, surely). Well, he gives into the bar-hopping one night, but inadvertently finds a girl who had been ditched by her date. They hit it off and spend several hours just talking and getting to know each other. The next day, the same people pressuring him to find a girl have changed their minds (for instance, his mother realizes she doesn't want to lose her last child to marriage because she'd be left all alone), and his friends urge him to not waste his time on a girl they deem less than attractive enough. In the end, Marty decides that what he wants and what makes him happy are the things he should be focusing on, and calls her up. i suppose the rest of the story is the material for a different movie.
All in all, i really enjoyed this film. It taps into fears that i think a lot of college students have - that we'll end up 34 years old working a mediocre job, having still not found the one we want to spend the rest of our lives with. frankly, it's an outcome that scares me sometimes when i let it. However, there's something to be said for patience. There's also something to be said for pursuing things the right way in the first place, and another thing to be said for knowing what we are capable of and having reasonable expectations. If we stay grounded and patient, then anything exceeding expectations gets to come as a wonderful surprise! and if we stay on an appropriate path from the beginning, those disappointments are more likely to fall few and far between. The right things fall in to place as long as we push just enough and not too much in the right directions. So here's hoping that after college i can seek after jobs and a career that are right for me and make me happy, never settling for something less-than, and never taking something more-than simply because of the attraction of a pay check or a reputation. Sometimes patience, reason, and (dare i say it) righteousness can actually pay off.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
We have no way of knowing where the heart is. See, every human is different.
okay, i have FOUR more! but i'm going to keep it brief.
The New World - this movie's mainly about Pocahontas, a bit about John Smith, and a bit about John Rolfe later on. overall, i enjoyed it. it's a bit slow, and relies heavily on voice-over for character insight, and consider the movie is a little bit heavier on character than plot, that makes it pretty important. like with Terence Malick's earlier film (he's only made 4 in the past 40 years, with a 5th coming out this year) The Thin Red Line, i found the voice over a tad distracting because it's all quite deep and profound in its insights and i'm not sure if that is somehow pretentious, or simply true to the characters. i've seen each film only once, and feel they both deserve a repeat viewing eventually to see if they just require more effort than perhaps i put in.
All of that aside, very good performances all around, and really, truly, remarkably beautiful to look at. it was filmed (entirely?) on location in America, predominantly in Virginia, i believe, and frankly, it was a wonderful reminder that there really is a lot of beauty remaining in North American nature. we tend to forget the power of that particular kind of creation as we celebrate our cities and skyscrapers and roads, etc. i found it even a little ironic that the recent Avatar, which many felt simply ripped off the story of Pocahontas for the sake of an environmentalist nature was actually less a celebration of native cultures and the creation of nature than it is a celebration of man's ability to create those environments in computers. this movie is the real deal - several actual breathtaking images just about make this movie worth the viewing regardless of the other elements and slow pace.
Whatever Works - Woody Allen's most recent, from last year, starring Larry David (who i absolutely love with Curb Your Enthusiasm). i've only seen about 6 Woody Allen movies, but i've generally enjoyed all of them, and while he's bit a little hit or miss the past decade, and this movie in particular got mixed-to-negative reviews, i actually really enjoyed it. a little too slow paced to pull off its own quirkiness, but i felt like it was a good sort of homage from Allen to some of his own earlier works. random character reversals (the bourbon-drinking conservative Christian southern belle mother becomes a hip NYC photographer/artist), unlikely relationships, and the main character breaking the fourth wall to provide commentary to the audience that no one else can see, etc. it was fun, is what i'm saying, and sometimes there's nothing wrong with that.
While cleaning my room yesterday, i popped in a DVD i have with about 18 early Alfred Hitchcock movies, none of which i'd watched yet, and selected The Lady Vanishes. All of these movies are prior to 1940 Best Picture winner Rebecca, and therefore prior to the period when Hitchcock really started making the "Hitchcock movies" that we're more familiar with. However, while he might not yet have been an auteur as we use the word, he was still quite a talented director. The Lady Vanishes was a fun, exciting thriller with a little bit of Nazi related paranoia and espionage, all taking place in the confines of a train. It was a good time. As per usual, it's nice to see older movies that can still resonate and be a good thrilling thriller. In fact, several elements of this film were recycled a few years ago in Flight Plan, starring Jodie Foster, which just goes to show that sometimes good film making is just that, and it never ages.
Finally, this morning i watched Vera Drake. Set in 1950, it's about a mother and cleaning lady who performs abortions in her spare time. she does it for free, primarily for working class (or lower) girls who are "in trouble and need help." regardless of anyone's opinions on the issue, there's no doubt that she is doing it simply out of the kindness of her heart and a sincere desire to help people in need. Wonderful performance from Imelda Staunton (who most people would recognize as Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). It was a very sad transition to see between the first half, where Vera is such a happy bubbly person, trying to do good, and the second half after she has been caught by the police where she is quite simply a bit of a crying mess. (She was arrested due to a report after a girl gets sick from the operation, the first instance of this Vera has ever experienced, and information she is sincerely troubled by, and surely feels responsible and guilty for). Regardless of one's opinions on the issue, it was really a good film, and worth checking out for the sake of placing a human face on the issue that we don't frequently focus on.
that's all for now - maybe soon i'll have gotten through a book and i can tell you about that instead of movies. peace.
The New World - this movie's mainly about Pocahontas, a bit about John Smith, and a bit about John Rolfe later on. overall, i enjoyed it. it's a bit slow, and relies heavily on voice-over for character insight, and consider the movie is a little bit heavier on character than plot, that makes it pretty important. like with Terence Malick's earlier film (he's only made 4 in the past 40 years, with a 5th coming out this year) The Thin Red Line, i found the voice over a tad distracting because it's all quite deep and profound in its insights and i'm not sure if that is somehow pretentious, or simply true to the characters. i've seen each film only once, and feel they both deserve a repeat viewing eventually to see if they just require more effort than perhaps i put in.
All of that aside, very good performances all around, and really, truly, remarkably beautiful to look at. it was filmed (entirely?) on location in America, predominantly in Virginia, i believe, and frankly, it was a wonderful reminder that there really is a lot of beauty remaining in North American nature. we tend to forget the power of that particular kind of creation as we celebrate our cities and skyscrapers and roads, etc. i found it even a little ironic that the recent Avatar, which many felt simply ripped off the story of Pocahontas for the sake of an environmentalist nature was actually less a celebration of native cultures and the creation of nature than it is a celebration of man's ability to create those environments in computers. this movie is the real deal - several actual breathtaking images just about make this movie worth the viewing regardless of the other elements and slow pace.
Whatever Works - Woody Allen's most recent, from last year, starring Larry David (who i absolutely love with Curb Your Enthusiasm). i've only seen about 6 Woody Allen movies, but i've generally enjoyed all of them, and while he's bit a little hit or miss the past decade, and this movie in particular got mixed-to-negative reviews, i actually really enjoyed it. a little too slow paced to pull off its own quirkiness, but i felt like it was a good sort of homage from Allen to some of his own earlier works. random character reversals (the bourbon-drinking conservative Christian southern belle mother becomes a hip NYC photographer/artist), unlikely relationships, and the main character breaking the fourth wall to provide commentary to the audience that no one else can see, etc. it was fun, is what i'm saying, and sometimes there's nothing wrong with that.
While cleaning my room yesterday, i popped in a DVD i have with about 18 early Alfred Hitchcock movies, none of which i'd watched yet, and selected The Lady Vanishes. All of these movies are prior to 1940 Best Picture winner Rebecca, and therefore prior to the period when Hitchcock really started making the "Hitchcock movies" that we're more familiar with. However, while he might not yet have been an auteur as we use the word, he was still quite a talented director. The Lady Vanishes was a fun, exciting thriller with a little bit of Nazi related paranoia and espionage, all taking place in the confines of a train. It was a good time. As per usual, it's nice to see older movies that can still resonate and be a good thrilling thriller. In fact, several elements of this film were recycled a few years ago in Flight Plan, starring Jodie Foster, which just goes to show that sometimes good film making is just that, and it never ages.
Finally, this morning i watched Vera Drake. Set in 1950, it's about a mother and cleaning lady who performs abortions in her spare time. she does it for free, primarily for working class (or lower) girls who are "in trouble and need help." regardless of anyone's opinions on the issue, there's no doubt that she is doing it simply out of the kindness of her heart and a sincere desire to help people in need. Wonderful performance from Imelda Staunton (who most people would recognize as Professor Umbridge in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). It was a very sad transition to see between the first half, where Vera is such a happy bubbly person, trying to do good, and the second half after she has been caught by the police where she is quite simply a bit of a crying mess. (She was arrested due to a report after a girl gets sick from the operation, the first instance of this Vera has ever experienced, and information she is sincerely troubled by, and surely feels responsible and guilty for). Regardless of one's opinions on the issue, it was really a good film, and worth checking out for the sake of placing a human face on the issue that we don't frequently focus on.
that's all for now - maybe soon i'll have gotten through a book and i can tell you about that instead of movies. peace.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Pterodactyls Are Pterrifying!
Last night was A Single Man. i don't have much to say about it specifically, except to say that it was very good and also quite sad, but not in a particularly depressing way - visually really wonderful, a lot of visual style. Some have considered it "over-stylized" but i disagree, on the basis that, well, i just didn't think so.
Colin Firth was absolutely wonderful. It takes a special performance to not reveal certain things. i found myself seeing some mild similarities to The Reader (in my opinion, the movie that should have beaten Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture), in that both dealt with a certain kind of taboo relationship, and main characters who were trying (and succeeding) to hide elements of their pasts (being a Nazi or being a gay man whose partner had died). It was an awesome performance - restraint is so much more effective in a performance, but so much less celebrated. it brought enough gravity to the movie to balance out the stylization of the visual appearance.
This morning was the 1933 King Kong. and i'll tell you, it was really good! of course, the special effects are now almost 80 years old, so it lacks a certain amount of realism, and the acting style is now almost 80 years old, so it lacks a certain grounding in actual human behavior, but it was still an engrossing story that played out with a lot of excitement. i was especially surprised at how faithful Peter Jackson's 2005 version had been to the original. When watching it, i kept thinking, "Whoa, was that really in the original? Dinosaurs? Island people? King Kong fighting a T-REX?!?!" But sure enough, it was all in the original (even Kong breaking the T-rex's jaw bone!). It makes me want to go back and watch the newer version again now because i think it was a whole lot smarter than i had realized at the time. It essentially takes a story and movie that already works on many levels (seriously, just watch the original version, and you'll see, it still holds up in a lot of ways), kept all of the function elements, and brought the effects into our own century so we could watch it without snickering.
This movie was yet another reminder to me that if an old movie has been deemed a "classic" on one level or another, if it has that kind of reputation, the odds are that it deserves it, so go watch it!
Lemon out.
Colin Firth was absolutely wonderful. It takes a special performance to not reveal certain things. i found myself seeing some mild similarities to The Reader (in my opinion, the movie that should have beaten Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture), in that both dealt with a certain kind of taboo relationship, and main characters who were trying (and succeeding) to hide elements of their pasts (being a Nazi or being a gay man whose partner had died). It was an awesome performance - restraint is so much more effective in a performance, but so much less celebrated. it brought enough gravity to the movie to balance out the stylization of the visual appearance.
This morning was the 1933 King Kong. and i'll tell you, it was really good! of course, the special effects are now almost 80 years old, so it lacks a certain amount of realism, and the acting style is now almost 80 years old, so it lacks a certain grounding in actual human behavior, but it was still an engrossing story that played out with a lot of excitement. i was especially surprised at how faithful Peter Jackson's 2005 version had been to the original. When watching it, i kept thinking, "Whoa, was that really in the original? Dinosaurs? Island people? King Kong fighting a T-REX?!?!" But sure enough, it was all in the original (even Kong breaking the T-rex's jaw bone!). It makes me want to go back and watch the newer version again now because i think it was a whole lot smarter than i had realized at the time. It essentially takes a story and movie that already works on many levels (seriously, just watch the original version, and you'll see, it still holds up in a lot of ways), kept all of the function elements, and brought the effects into our own century so we could watch it without snickering.
This movie was yet another reminder to me that if an old movie has been deemed a "classic" on one level or another, if it has that kind of reputation, the odds are that it deserves it, so go watch it!
Lemon out.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Where the part is used for the whole, the specific for the general.
Okay, i have two movies already.
the first - The French Connection - 1971 Academy Award for Best Picture, i finally got around to it because i could dvr it on AMC. i thoroughly enjoyed it for several reasons. it's a cop/detective movie where Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider try to find some french guys and catch them smuggling heroine into the country. it was complex enough to merit a movie, but simple enough to not be confusing. It's based on a true story, as well, if the epilogue had any merit to it.
It had a great early 70s look and feel to it - a lot of shaky camera work, but in a gritty "we didn't really have a choice, it's a giant camera and we had to run around with it" way, instead of the Paul Greengrass, intentional nausea way (which, for the record, i also enjoy when implemented well). as with most movies made before, say, 1990, i was struck by the pace. it's slower, but never uninteresting. there are several chase sequences that go on for a decent amount of time, but the chases are frequently on foot through NYC, and frequently unaccompanied by music. that's just the kind of thing that most movies cannot get away with nowadays. there was one really great chase where a car is trying to keep up with a subway train, but it wasn't littered with explosions or anything, just a few brief near-misses and small crashes.
for 2-hour movie, a lot happens in a way that feels like not a lot is happening, and still manages to be exciting. who does that anymore? as for awards and status - i think it definitely merits its place as a Best Picture winner in the context of it's day as one of the earlier cop movies moving towards a more realistic approach to the style before the genre got copied and rehashed into attempts at box office success with less narrative integrity. i do question Gene Hackman's Oscar for Best Actor, not because he wasn't good, but because it appeared to be a fairly simple role to play - some good dialogue, a lot of passion for catching the bad guy, but frankly, i didn't see much of a "character" outside of the function of the movie. but oh well, still worth checking out for all the other reasons.
Now, on to the second movie, which i watched this morning - Synecdoche, New York:
i'll be honest, i do not have a clue how to respond to this movie. it was wonderful, fascinating, sad, crazy, a little disturbing, (very) darkly funny, and just all around a really awesome kind of movie-going experience that we don't really get a lot of these days. you have to really work to keep yourself engaged in order to follow parts (that is, without getting frustrated at the oddities), but at the same time, that's not difficult because the movie is so engaging in spite of the occasional frustration. for what it's worth, i'll direct you now to Roger Ebert's review of it. he doesn't quite make more sense of it, but he's at least more eloquent when talking about the movie he would later call the best film of the decade.
Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman (who is responsible for writing some of my favorites - Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - one can immediately expect a weird movie. but it's some how more than that - about a theatre director who wants to create a massive theatre piece with a miniature reproduction of new york, art is constantly imitating life constantly imitating art constantly imitating life constantly imitating... and on and on. it's about the performances we play as ourselves (a phenomenon i once remarked on when mentioning All About Eve), and about remembering to remember that everyone else in the world is playing themselves, and that ours is not the only story, it's just usually the only one we choose to focus on. at it's most depressing themes, it is about the utter hopelessness of our ever finding happiness because we keep delaying smaller happinesses in confidence that something better will come along. however, i simply cannot believe that is truly Kaufman's worldview, so i suspect there is something deeper at play, some irony which i can only glean from repeat viewings (of which i'm sure there will be several down the road).
i am reminded now of Joseph Heller's Catch-22, in which the central theme, as written, was something like, "The spirit gone, man is garbage." but i do not believe that Heller or Yossarian truly believed the spirit to be gone, in the same way that i believe Kaufman does not believe our lives are a truly a waste, but rather that we must work that much harder to be honest with ourselves and appreciate the goodness while it is there. at a sort of climactic scene, a character in the play, a minister at a funeral, goes off with the following (and forgive the profanity, as i am merely quoting):
"Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make; you can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years. And you may never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce. And they say there is no fate, but there is: it's what you create. And even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are only here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain, wasting years, for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right. And it never comes or it seems to but it doesn't really. And so you spend your time in vague regret or vaguer hope that something good will come along. Something to make you feel connected, something to make you feel whole, something to make you feel loved. And the truth is I feel so angry, and the truth is I feel so fucking sad, and the truth is I've felt so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long I've been pretending I'm OK, just to get along, just for, I don't know why, maybe because no one wants to hear about my misery, because they have their own. Well, fuck everybody. Amen."
is the problem here whether what he is saying is true or false? or is the problem that he has devoted so much energy to dwelling on these complexities and uncertainties that he has, perhaps, not only drained life of the joys it does have to offer, but also drained himself of the capacity for recognizing them?
Maybe Synecdoche, New York, is the town where one man is meant to represent us all? i wonder if the Whole has ever been asked how it felt about being represented by just One Part of it? i think, just maybe, Synecdoche, New York is less of a worldview expounded as the narrative of a sad life than it is a cautionary tale. but i'll have to figure it out next time, or the time after that, or the time after that, or the time...
the first - The French Connection - 1971 Academy Award for Best Picture, i finally got around to it because i could dvr it on AMC. i thoroughly enjoyed it for several reasons. it's a cop/detective movie where Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider try to find some french guys and catch them smuggling heroine into the country. it was complex enough to merit a movie, but simple enough to not be confusing. It's based on a true story, as well, if the epilogue had any merit to it.
It had a great early 70s look and feel to it - a lot of shaky camera work, but in a gritty "we didn't really have a choice, it's a giant camera and we had to run around with it" way, instead of the Paul Greengrass, intentional nausea way (which, for the record, i also enjoy when implemented well). as with most movies made before, say, 1990, i was struck by the pace. it's slower, but never uninteresting. there are several chase sequences that go on for a decent amount of time, but the chases are frequently on foot through NYC, and frequently unaccompanied by music. that's just the kind of thing that most movies cannot get away with nowadays. there was one really great chase where a car is trying to keep up with a subway train, but it wasn't littered with explosions or anything, just a few brief near-misses and small crashes.
for 2-hour movie, a lot happens in a way that feels like not a lot is happening, and still manages to be exciting. who does that anymore? as for awards and status - i think it definitely merits its place as a Best Picture winner in the context of it's day as one of the earlier cop movies moving towards a more realistic approach to the style before the genre got copied and rehashed into attempts at box office success with less narrative integrity. i do question Gene Hackman's Oscar for Best Actor, not because he wasn't good, but because it appeared to be a fairly simple role to play - some good dialogue, a lot of passion for catching the bad guy, but frankly, i didn't see much of a "character" outside of the function of the movie. but oh well, still worth checking out for all the other reasons.
Now, on to the second movie, which i watched this morning - Synecdoche, New York:
i'll be honest, i do not have a clue how to respond to this movie. it was wonderful, fascinating, sad, crazy, a little disturbing, (very) darkly funny, and just all around a really awesome kind of movie-going experience that we don't really get a lot of these days. you have to really work to keep yourself engaged in order to follow parts (that is, without getting frustrated at the oddities), but at the same time, that's not difficult because the movie is so engaging in spite of the occasional frustration. for what it's worth, i'll direct you now to Roger Ebert's review of it. he doesn't quite make more sense of it, but he's at least more eloquent when talking about the movie he would later call the best film of the decade.
Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman (who is responsible for writing some of my favorites - Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - one can immediately expect a weird movie. but it's some how more than that - about a theatre director who wants to create a massive theatre piece with a miniature reproduction of new york, art is constantly imitating life constantly imitating art constantly imitating life constantly imitating... and on and on. it's about the performances we play as ourselves (a phenomenon i once remarked on when mentioning All About Eve), and about remembering to remember that everyone else in the world is playing themselves, and that ours is not the only story, it's just usually the only one we choose to focus on. at it's most depressing themes, it is about the utter hopelessness of our ever finding happiness because we keep delaying smaller happinesses in confidence that something better will come along. however, i simply cannot believe that is truly Kaufman's worldview, so i suspect there is something deeper at play, some irony which i can only glean from repeat viewings (of which i'm sure there will be several down the road).
i am reminded now of Joseph Heller's Catch-22, in which the central theme, as written, was something like, "The spirit gone, man is garbage." but i do not believe that Heller or Yossarian truly believed the spirit to be gone, in the same way that i believe Kaufman does not believe our lives are a truly a waste, but rather that we must work that much harder to be honest with ourselves and appreciate the goodness while it is there. at a sort of climactic scene, a character in the play, a minister at a funeral, goes off with the following (and forgive the profanity, as i am merely quoting):
"Everything is more complicated than you think. You only see a tenth of what is true. There are a million little strings attached to every choice you make; you can destroy your life every time you choose. But maybe you won't know for twenty years. And you may never ever trace it to its source. And you only get one chance to play it out. Just try and figure out your own divorce. And they say there is no fate, but there is: it's what you create. And even though the world goes on for eons and eons, you are only here for a fraction of a fraction of a second. Most of your time is spent being dead or not yet born. But while alive, you wait in vain, wasting years, for a phone call or a letter or a look from someone or something to make it all right. And it never comes or it seems to but it doesn't really. And so you spend your time in vague regret or vaguer hope that something good will come along. Something to make you feel connected, something to make you feel whole, something to make you feel loved. And the truth is I feel so angry, and the truth is I feel so fucking sad, and the truth is I've felt so fucking hurt for so fucking long and for just as long I've been pretending I'm OK, just to get along, just for, I don't know why, maybe because no one wants to hear about my misery, because they have their own. Well, fuck everybody. Amen."
is the problem here whether what he is saying is true or false? or is the problem that he has devoted so much energy to dwelling on these complexities and uncertainties that he has, perhaps, not only drained life of the joys it does have to offer, but also drained himself of the capacity for recognizing them?
Maybe Synecdoche, New York, is the town where one man is meant to represent us all? i wonder if the Whole has ever been asked how it felt about being represented by just One Part of it? i think, just maybe, Synecdoche, New York is less of a worldview expounded as the narrative of a sad life than it is a cautionary tale. but i'll have to figure it out next time, or the time after that, or the time after that, or the time...
Monday, May 17, 2010
From the Ashes Again
i will attempt yet again to resurrect my blog this summer. having tried several subjects - general Christianity/faith questions, movies, books, random news and updates - i am going to try to focus this time on one thing: movies. there are several movies i am trying to watch almost all the time. From trying to complete AFI's top 100 list, to watching Academy Award winners for Best Picture, and slowly but surely checking off the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, there's always something for me to rent, DVR, or stream online.
if the opportunity arises to tie in a movie i watched with some Christian ideal, i will of course try to do that. i intend to limit my posts to older movies, those i've watched for the first time, or stuff i've not yet seen from some of my favorite directors, generally avoiding anything i see at the theater unless it was just mind-blowing enough to merit a response.
hopefully, in my movie reviews/analyses/responses, i will feel compelled to write about other things. i have a long list of books i hope to read this summer as well (a list of about 18 so far - i'll be lucky to get around to about 8).
anyway, on the great experiment - i intend to have at least 1 movie watched by the end of the day.
if the opportunity arises to tie in a movie i watched with some Christian ideal, i will of course try to do that. i intend to limit my posts to older movies, those i've watched for the first time, or stuff i've not yet seen from some of my favorite directors, generally avoiding anything i see at the theater unless it was just mind-blowing enough to merit a response.
hopefully, in my movie reviews/analyses/responses, i will feel compelled to write about other things. i have a long list of books i hope to read this summer as well (a list of about 18 so far - i'll be lucky to get around to about 8).
anyway, on the great experiment - i intend to have at least 1 movie watched by the end of the day.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Oscars again
So i didn't do as well as i'd hoped in my task of watching all the nominated films. Some of them i simply couldn't find. Other times my computer had some trouble with the sites i was using to watch them...trouble like getting viruses demanding my computer hard drive be replaced. There are some categories i've not seen all the nominees for, but in most of those cases, the ones i haven't seen aren't terribly likely to win anyway. Below is my list of who i think should win in the categories, and who i think will win. Here we go.
Best Picture - I think Inglourious Basterds is the best of the bunch - i think it had a really awesome commentary on the relationship between cinema and history (i.e. cinema's power to change and influence history), as well as a great genre juxtaposition by placing western style over a WWII setting. My #2 is maybe Up, but i'd need to see it again to be certain. The Hurt Locker is more likely to win, and i'll be okay with that, it is almost as deserving and does great work to place the audience in the action and the tension with the characters. If Avatar wins, as much as i do enjoy it, well that will be sad because it's simply not the best of the best this year. My hope: The Hurt Locker and Avatar split votes, and Inglourious Basterds gets enough #2's and #3's to come up in the middle and win for the upset.
Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow. She's probably most responsible for creating the tension and atmosphere that makes the film work so well. She deserves it, and will probably win.
Best Actor - i haven't seen Crazy Heart (this is the movie most likely responsible for my virus problems), but from what i hear, Jeff Bridges isn't merely getting a lifetime achievement award, he actually gives the best performance of the group. So there. i also haven't seen Colin Firth in A Single Man, though i suspect if i did, i'd be partial to that performance.
Best Actress - i'm gonna say Sandra Bullock has the edge for the actual win, and it's actually a very good performance, in my opinion. However, despite the relative inexperience, i think the best actress was Gabourey Sibide in Precious. She might never make another movie (let's be honest, she's not the easiest actress to cast...), but this one should be enough.
Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds, all the way.
Best Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique's gonna win, and she deserves it. i wondered for a while how much of it was just play acting, pretending to be mean, and then i remember some of the things she had to do for the role. For example, she had to throw a mentally handicapped little girl on the floor and call her a monster. i don't see how you can do that and not have to be giving a tremendous performance without being a monster yourself. That said, my #2 is definitely Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air.
Best Original Screenplay - Inglouious Basterds deserves it, and i think it will win because people will want to reward it in more than one category. There's competition from The Hurt Locker, though, which in my opinion simply doesn't deserve it for two glaring reasons: it's yet another screenplay with biased, limited, and all around insulting portrayals of officers in the military and that whole Jason Bourne-esqu sequence where the guy goes off base with a pistol to find that kid...it was weird. it worked for the character's emotions...but not as a plot point in the movie. totally distracting, doesn't deserve to win.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air. Just the best screenplay here.
now on the to technicals:
Film Editing - The Hurt Locker - again, my point about all the tension building, playing on the audience, a lot of that happened in the editing room. My #2 would be Inglourious Basterds, partly because i want it to win as much as it possible can, and partly because it's a movie that understands how to let shots linger before rushing off to the next one - although that technique did work well for The Hurt Locker because it was used well.
Cinematography - i know i know i know, James Cameron invented a camera to shoot Avatar. But more and more over the past semesters i've been learning to appreciate cinematography as the composition of images and those images' effects on the audience. And i'm sorry, but the majority of the images in Avatar were created in post-production by a visual effects team, probably with the director of photography in the background saying "Oh no, more light there," while pointing at the screen. If there were a category for Best Digital Photography, i'd give Avatar that Oscar, but there isn't yet (i suspect there will have to be eventually). For now, i'm going my preference is Inglourious Basterds, and the likely winner is The Hurt Locker. For me, The Hurt Locker was just a little too shaky, with just a few too many quick zooms to really best the best. It was the best way to do that film, yes, but while it ran as fast as it could, other films ran faster. The White Ribbon was also really awesome camera work...but i think a lot of its effect came from the black and white (it did look an awful lot like a old film, with its framing and all), but that color scheme came in post, not in production...so i'll rule it out on a technicality.
Art Direction - i've heard the The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is possible the deserving winner here, but i've not seen it. i'd give it to Nine (which is a much better movie than critics would have you believe - not a great film, no, but it was good, not terrible like the reviews let on). Again, Avatar has the best chance of winning, but again, i think it's cheating. The designs are tremendous, but they were implement in large part by a visual effects team, and there's a separate category for that.
Costume Design - Again, i liked Nine's stuff best of what i saw, but the Oscar tends to go more period film here, so i think The Young Victoria has the edge over the spoiler Bright Star. The other two aren't likely.
Makeup - anything other than Star Trek is an upset, and pretty much undeserving.
Original Score - Up. gorgeous stuff, and again with Pixar, there are entire sequences that rely on the music alone to accompany the story the images create (the same reason Wall-E deserved to win last year, and was robbed by Slumdog Millionaire's just-like-every-other-Bollywood soundtrack)
Original Song - Crazy Heart - best song here, and sometimes that really is enough to win.
Sound Mixing - The Hurt Locker does some really cool stuff blending together the natural sound and effects to again work towards creating an entire atmosphere for the audience
Sound Editing - Avatar had the most to work with here and put it all together better than the other movies.
Visual Effects - Avatar. obviously.
Animated Feature - Up
Documentary Feature - The Cove
Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon (though really, it's anyone's game, and Un Prophete could easily upset)
Documentary Short - The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant
Animated Short - Logorama (or maybe A Matter of Loaf and Death)
Live Action Short - The Door
So there's that. 24 categories, 24 predictions, plus a few places where i just said what i wanted to happen. We'll see how it goes tomorrow night.
Best Picture - I think Inglourious Basterds is the best of the bunch - i think it had a really awesome commentary on the relationship between cinema and history (i.e. cinema's power to change and influence history), as well as a great genre juxtaposition by placing western style over a WWII setting. My #2 is maybe Up, but i'd need to see it again to be certain. The Hurt Locker is more likely to win, and i'll be okay with that, it is almost as deserving and does great work to place the audience in the action and the tension with the characters. If Avatar wins, as much as i do enjoy it, well that will be sad because it's simply not the best of the best this year. My hope: The Hurt Locker and Avatar split votes, and Inglourious Basterds gets enough #2's and #3's to come up in the middle and win for the upset.
Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow. She's probably most responsible for creating the tension and atmosphere that makes the film work so well. She deserves it, and will probably win.
Best Actor - i haven't seen Crazy Heart (this is the movie most likely responsible for my virus problems), but from what i hear, Jeff Bridges isn't merely getting a lifetime achievement award, he actually gives the best performance of the group. So there. i also haven't seen Colin Firth in A Single Man, though i suspect if i did, i'd be partial to that performance.
Best Actress - i'm gonna say Sandra Bullock has the edge for the actual win, and it's actually a very good performance, in my opinion. However, despite the relative inexperience, i think the best actress was Gabourey Sibide in Precious. She might never make another movie (let's be honest, she's not the easiest actress to cast...), but this one should be enough.
Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds, all the way.
Best Supporting Actress - Mo'Nique's gonna win, and she deserves it. i wondered for a while how much of it was just play acting, pretending to be mean, and then i remember some of the things she had to do for the role. For example, she had to throw a mentally handicapped little girl on the floor and call her a monster. i don't see how you can do that and not have to be giving a tremendous performance without being a monster yourself. That said, my #2 is definitely Anna Kendrick for Up in the Air.
Best Original Screenplay - Inglouious Basterds deserves it, and i think it will win because people will want to reward it in more than one category. There's competition from The Hurt Locker, though, which in my opinion simply doesn't deserve it for two glaring reasons: it's yet another screenplay with biased, limited, and all around insulting portrayals of officers in the military and that whole Jason Bourne-esqu sequence where the guy goes off base with a pistol to find that kid...it was weird. it worked for the character's emotions...but not as a plot point in the movie. totally distracting, doesn't deserve to win.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air. Just the best screenplay here.
now on the to technicals:
Film Editing - The Hurt Locker - again, my point about all the tension building, playing on the audience, a lot of that happened in the editing room. My #2 would be Inglourious Basterds, partly because i want it to win as much as it possible can, and partly because it's a movie that understands how to let shots linger before rushing off to the next one - although that technique did work well for The Hurt Locker because it was used well.
Cinematography - i know i know i know, James Cameron invented a camera to shoot Avatar. But more and more over the past semesters i've been learning to appreciate cinematography as the composition of images and those images' effects on the audience. And i'm sorry, but the majority of the images in Avatar were created in post-production by a visual effects team, probably with the director of photography in the background saying "Oh no, more light there," while pointing at the screen. If there were a category for Best Digital Photography, i'd give Avatar that Oscar, but there isn't yet (i suspect there will have to be eventually). For now, i'm going my preference is Inglourious Basterds, and the likely winner is The Hurt Locker. For me, The Hurt Locker was just a little too shaky, with just a few too many quick zooms to really best the best. It was the best way to do that film, yes, but while it ran as fast as it could, other films ran faster. The White Ribbon was also really awesome camera work...but i think a lot of its effect came from the black and white (it did look an awful lot like a old film, with its framing and all), but that color scheme came in post, not in production...so i'll rule it out on a technicality.
Art Direction - i've heard the The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus is possible the deserving winner here, but i've not seen it. i'd give it to Nine (which is a much better movie than critics would have you believe - not a great film, no, but it was good, not terrible like the reviews let on). Again, Avatar has the best chance of winning, but again, i think it's cheating. The designs are tremendous, but they were implement in large part by a visual effects team, and there's a separate category for that.
Costume Design - Again, i liked Nine's stuff best of what i saw, but the Oscar tends to go more period film here, so i think The Young Victoria has the edge over the spoiler Bright Star. The other two aren't likely.
Makeup - anything other than Star Trek is an upset, and pretty much undeserving.
Original Score - Up. gorgeous stuff, and again with Pixar, there are entire sequences that rely on the music alone to accompany the story the images create (the same reason Wall-E deserved to win last year, and was robbed by Slumdog Millionaire's just-like-every-other-Bollywood soundtrack)
Original Song - Crazy Heart - best song here, and sometimes that really is enough to win.
Sound Mixing - The Hurt Locker does some really cool stuff blending together the natural sound and effects to again work towards creating an entire atmosphere for the audience
Sound Editing - Avatar had the most to work with here and put it all together better than the other movies.
Visual Effects - Avatar. obviously.
Animated Feature - Up
Documentary Feature - The Cove
Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon (though really, it's anyone's game, and Un Prophete could easily upset)
Documentary Short - The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant
Animated Short - Logorama (or maybe A Matter of Loaf and Death)
Live Action Short - The Door
So there's that. 24 categories, 24 predictions, plus a few places where i just said what i wanted to happen. We'll see how it goes tomorrow night.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Current Project
Oh no! So i haven't been blogging all that much. i'm having a little bit of trouble with that particular new years' resolution. but just to keep everyone informed, i'm currently working on watching all the movies nominated for Oscars this year. i'm going to try to something for the first time this year, and that is to watch the documentaries, foreign films, and shorts in addition to all the main movies. it's gonna be a good time, and then in a few weeks i'll be able to give my solid honest opinion on what should win what.
though i can tell you now that i've seen all the best picture and director nominees, and i think Kathryn Bigelow was the best director and Inglourious Basterds was the best picture. and i'm not likely to change my mind. reasoning for both of those opinions will follow in the coming weeks.
though i can tell you now that i've seen all the best picture and director nominees, and i think Kathryn Bigelow was the best director and Inglourious Basterds was the best picture. and i'm not likely to change my mind. reasoning for both of those opinions will follow in the coming weeks.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Ken
A little less than a week ago i attended a memorial service for Kenneth P. Strong, who was my beginning acting professor when i was a freshman here at UNC. He had brain cancer. It was in remission when he taught my class and for another year after that. But it came back, and the few times i ran into Ken last semester, the toll it was taking on him was growing more apparent.
When we got the email saying he had died, i wasn't entirely surprised - he had resigned near the end of last semester, so it was really a matter of time. But at the specific moment i opened the email, Ken wasn't what was on my mind, so it still came as a bit of a shock.
And then the memorial service proved, well, more difficult than i had anticipated, given the inevitability of the situation. i was struck particularly by two remarks. the first came from McKay Coble, the drama department chair. she showed a picture of Ken in character as Uncle Vanya, screaming, and explained that it was both like him - in his tremendous talent - and unlike him because the picture looked so mean. Ken wasn't mean. She said he could not comprehend meanness. Why would someone choose that over kinder alternatives? Second, i remember Ray Dooley commenting on his ceaseless sense of humor. Even through the cancer, he found ways to make people smile, seeking out the laughs to be had.
What really got me about these remembrances was when i thought back to my time in class with Ken, really thought about what he was like, and i was reminded of all these things. His enormous kindness and humor. And how he ended ever class by telling us, "I love you!" And as much as i despise cliches, i can't get over the idea that this is precisely the kind of man that i should be trying to live like. So here i am, and i'm going to do my best to understand meanness less than i do, and to always look for the humor around me and share it with whoever is close by.
But don't worry, i'll be careful out there.
When we got the email saying he had died, i wasn't entirely surprised - he had resigned near the end of last semester, so it was really a matter of time. But at the specific moment i opened the email, Ken wasn't what was on my mind, so it still came as a bit of a shock.
And then the memorial service proved, well, more difficult than i had anticipated, given the inevitability of the situation. i was struck particularly by two remarks. the first came from McKay Coble, the drama department chair. she showed a picture of Ken in character as Uncle Vanya, screaming, and explained that it was both like him - in his tremendous talent - and unlike him because the picture looked so mean. Ken wasn't mean. She said he could not comprehend meanness. Why would someone choose that over kinder alternatives? Second, i remember Ray Dooley commenting on his ceaseless sense of humor. Even through the cancer, he found ways to make people smile, seeking out the laughs to be had.
What really got me about these remembrances was when i thought back to my time in class with Ken, really thought about what he was like, and i was reminded of all these things. His enormous kindness and humor. And how he ended ever class by telling us, "I love you!" And as much as i despise cliches, i can't get over the idea that this is precisely the kind of man that i should be trying to live like. So here i am, and i'm going to do my best to understand meanness less than i do, and to always look for the humor around me and share it with whoever is close by.
But don't worry, i'll be careful out there.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Christian Students Today
A few days ago at the first Intervarsity large group of the new semester, Alex Kirk told about this time he was asked to go to some place talk to a bunch of apparently important people (i've lost some of the nuances of the tale in the last few days) on the subject of Christian students today. While i don't remember what Alex had to say about Christian students today, i remember him mentioning something about the "challenges" we face. And that got me thinking. What are some of the biggest challenges to Christian students on college campuses? To the development of our own faith and to our ability to witness to other people. (i continue to be uncomfortable with words like witnessing and ministering.)
It is the second stumbling block that first came to mind - what are the things that keep us from being able to reach non-believers and seekers on our campuses?
And the conclusion i came to, first and foremost, was this:
Conservative Christian leaders on television. From pastors with megachurches on Sunday mornings, to talking heads with political ties on the Sunday news shows. (i'm always particularly struck by the irony that Christians on television come out most on the sabbath, keeping it holy in a delightful blend of the Church and the State, depending on which channel you watch.)
Using television to reach a large audience can be a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong. But there's some sort of flaw in the system. It appears that the people who most want to get the attention of the large audiences are the ones who are most extreme in their beliefs (and in the case of Christianity, that is usually a conservative extreme), and that in turn makes it so that the wider audience's primary view of what all Christians are like is directly influenced and skewed by the appearance of Joel Osteen telling us all how God wants us to be wealthy so that we can be happy (a rather interesting interpretation of the Rich Young Ruler story).
So, when us college students want to share our faith with our fellow students, not only do we have to deal with the issues of suffering, sex, pride, greed, and above all self-centeredness, but we have to do it while also trying to correct the image these fellow students have formed about where we're coming from. It's not always about saving souls from Satan.
We aren't trying to judge them just because the Talking Heads are. We aren't all discriminatory and we aren't all supporting our political opinions with our spiritual beliefs (or if we are, we at least know that they aren't always the same thing). And even if we pledge allegiance to the flag, we know that there are some allegiances that are more important.
Television has almost completely undermined any clean slate we Christian students may have to work with on the campus around us - and given the tarnish of sin, most of those slates are already pretty dirty. We have to take 3 steps back before we can ever take a step forward. And given the fact that Christianity is a religion that at its most basic level demands primarily that we love each other and take care of each other, it shouldn't be such a difficult thing for college kids trying to figure their lives out to be open to hearing about. But it is.
So in the meantime, we'll keep on doing what the apostles did. Looking for opportunities, sharing what we know to be true with the people who care enough to listen, and sharing meals with people as often as possible, because nothing is ever going to beat the impact that having someone sit down and engage with you like a unique and valuable part of God's creation can have on a person. Not blogging or reading books, not hearing sermons from men in expensive suits, and certainly not being talked at by a television screen.
It is the second stumbling block that first came to mind - what are the things that keep us from being able to reach non-believers and seekers on our campuses?
And the conclusion i came to, first and foremost, was this:
Conservative Christian leaders on television. From pastors with megachurches on Sunday mornings, to talking heads with political ties on the Sunday news shows. (i'm always particularly struck by the irony that Christians on television come out most on the sabbath, keeping it holy in a delightful blend of the Church and the State, depending on which channel you watch.)
Using television to reach a large audience can be a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong. But there's some sort of flaw in the system. It appears that the people who most want to get the attention of the large audiences are the ones who are most extreme in their beliefs (and in the case of Christianity, that is usually a conservative extreme), and that in turn makes it so that the wider audience's primary view of what all Christians are like is directly influenced and skewed by the appearance of Joel Osteen telling us all how God wants us to be wealthy so that we can be happy (a rather interesting interpretation of the Rich Young Ruler story).
So, when us college students want to share our faith with our fellow students, not only do we have to deal with the issues of suffering, sex, pride, greed, and above all self-centeredness, but we have to do it while also trying to correct the image these fellow students have formed about where we're coming from. It's not always about saving souls from Satan.
We aren't trying to judge them just because the Talking Heads are. We aren't all discriminatory and we aren't all supporting our political opinions with our spiritual beliefs (or if we are, we at least know that they aren't always the same thing). And even if we pledge allegiance to the flag, we know that there are some allegiances that are more important.
Television has almost completely undermined any clean slate we Christian students may have to work with on the campus around us - and given the tarnish of sin, most of those slates are already pretty dirty. We have to take 3 steps back before we can ever take a step forward. And given the fact that Christianity is a religion that at its most basic level demands primarily that we love each other and take care of each other, it shouldn't be such a difficult thing for college kids trying to figure their lives out to be open to hearing about. But it is.
So in the meantime, we'll keep on doing what the apostles did. Looking for opportunities, sharing what we know to be true with the people who care enough to listen, and sharing meals with people as often as possible, because nothing is ever going to beat the impact that having someone sit down and engage with you like a unique and valuable part of God's creation can have on a person. Not blogging or reading books, not hearing sermons from men in expensive suits, and certainly not being talked at by a television screen.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Cinephilia: The disease that needs no cure
Apparently, the thing that people are supposed to do at the end of the year is make a list. And this being the end of a decade, there are twice the lists out.
Now, i'm a bit of a cinephile.
cin·e·phile [sin-uh-fahyl] n. A film or movie enthusiast.
i really like movies. a lot. i watch a lot of them, a lot of the time. So i'ma give into the trend, and put up a list. here are 30 movies i have selected as my own personal favorite/best movies of the decade, divided into a few categories. it's a subjective list. all of these things are. i'm probably missing some awesome ones because i forgot. i've probably subconsciously left a few off because they're a little too obvious. but either way, if there are movies listed here that you've never seen, you should probably look them up. i own a bunch of them, so if you know me, ask and you shall receive.
The Ones You'll Probably See on a Lot of "Best Movies of the Decade" Lists:
Now, i'm a bit of a cinephile.
cin·e·phile [sin-uh-fahyl] n. A film or movie enthusiast.
i really like movies. a lot. i watch a lot of them, a lot of the time. So i'ma give into the trend, and put up a list. here are 30 movies i have selected as my own personal favorite/best movies of the decade, divided into a few categories. it's a subjective list. all of these things are. i'm probably missing some awesome ones because i forgot. i've probably subconsciously left a few off because they're a little too obvious. but either way, if there are movies listed here that you've never seen, you should probably look them up. i own a bunch of them, so if you know me, ask and you shall receive.
The Ones You'll Probably See on a Lot of "Best Movies of the Decade" Lists:
- Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind*
- The Lord of the Rings Trilogy* (yes, i'm counting it as one movie. because that's what it really is)
- Lost in Translation
- There Will Be Blood*
- Kill Bill (Volumes 1 & 2, because again, it's really one movie)
- Brokeback Mountain
- The Royal Tenenbaums*
- No Country for Old Men
- City of God*
- The Fountain
- The Pianist
- Once*
- The Passion of the Christ
- Moulin Rouge
- The Departed
- Black Hawk Down
- Gladiator
- Almost Famous*
- Gosford Park*
- Finding Nemo*
- Inglourious Basterds
- The Reader (i still believe this would have beaten Slumdog Millionaire for the Oscar if only a few people had actually watched it.)
- Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
- Munich
- Finding Neverland*
- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
- Billy Elliot
- Closer
- A Very Long Engagement
- Cinderella Man
Friday, January 1, 2010
It's Clobberin' Time
My new year's resolution: to get this thing going again.
i don't have a clue what i'll write about.
N.T. Wright is probably correct in his summation of blogging as little more than "intellectual masturbation"** But hey, i suppose there are worse ways to stimulate the organ of one's mind.
further, i'm 94% sure that not a single one of you will ever read this, so why not bother going for it anyway?
okay that's all.
peace in the new year, y'all.
**it is entirely possible that N.T. Wright never said that, and that it was said by someone entirely different, or that it was never said by anyone at all until i said it just now. i'm just giving fair warning, because fair warning is how i roll.
i don't have a clue what i'll write about.
N.T. Wright is probably correct in his summation of blogging as little more than "intellectual masturbation"** But hey, i suppose there are worse ways to stimulate the organ of one's mind.
further, i'm 94% sure that not a single one of you will ever read this, so why not bother going for it anyway?
okay that's all.
peace in the new year, y'all.
**it is entirely possible that N.T. Wright never said that, and that it was said by someone entirely different, or that it was never said by anyone at all until i said it just now. i'm just giving fair warning, because fair warning is how i roll.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)