We start off one of the most important politics Sundays with a quote by Walt Whitman, which I saw in the current Vonnegut essay collection that I’m reading, Fates Worse Than Death. Though the book itself has many good nuggets of brilliance, it’s not as good as Palm Sunday, Vonnegut’s other autobiographical essay collection (which is gold, Jerry! Gold!). But on an important day like today, this tidbit from Whitman seems particularly apt.
"It is the fashion among dilettantes and fops (perhaps I myself am not guiltless,) to decry the whole formulation of the active politics of America, as beyond redemption, and to be carefully kept away from. See you that you do not fall into this error. America, it may be, is doing very well upon the whole, notwithstanding these antics of the parties and their leaders, these half-brain'd nominees, the many ignorant ballots, and many elected failures and blatherers. It is the dilettantes, and all who shirk their duty, who are not doing well. As for you, I advise you to enter more strongly yet into politics. I advise every young man to do so."
If, indeed, the House votes on and passes health care today, it would give “every young man” a very good reason to have with in the politics of America again. The current bill would be the largest and most important piece of legislation to be passed in the law in the last decade for certain, and possibly in the last thirty years. It will come after a year of debate in which every potential roadblock has been reared its ugly head. The slow economic recovery; the town hall meetings (sponsored by Fox News); the Tea Party movement (sponsored by Fox News); the loss of a special election; the obstruction tactics; the constant threat of a filibuster…
I could just go on and on and on.
And, if you’re like me, you probably feel like this whole Health Care thing has just dragged on and on and on. It’s literally been a damn year that we’ve had to hear about all the tedium of this very unsexy bill. Is the public option in or out? What’s the latest CBO estimate? Which Democrats are wavering? Oh, my God!
Any rational person would want to gouge their eyes out whenever the words Health Care are uttered. Of course, I’m a political junkie; this stuff’s like porn for me.
As we speak, I’m watching This Week (sadly, no longer with George Stephanopoulus) and the Democrats are saying that they officially have the votes. I’ll believe him when I see it. First, we thought it was going to be done in August; then by November; then by December; then by the end of February. Now, it’s March. If the Democrats don’t have the votes now, they will never have the votes. Ever. (Or at least for the next decade)
And it will prove that the party has no real ability to govern whatsoever.
There will be much more on this later, but I have a busy day and someone challenged me to put up a posting by noon, so I'll leave you with this fun little nugget that says something about how crazy this whole issue (and the opposition in particular) has become:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-KGukuety0
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Friday, March 19, 2010
Sports Saturday—Welcome to the Dance
We missed theatre Thursday and film review Friday, but maybe we can have make-up columns for those early next week. Don’t hold your breaths, though. The next few weeks are going to be incredibly hectic for your humble (a lie) narrator. I am still committed to getting a Chumscrubber review up soon, though, so look for that. And it looks like we’re headed to a House vote on Health Care perhaps as soon as Sunday, so of course I’ll have something to say about that.
But today is Sports Saturday. Huzzah!
Gosh, am I the only person who picked Ohio to beat Georgetown? Day 1 was chock full of thrillers that I sadly didn’t get to watch. I was too busy trying to make money and, you know, not starve. Day 2 was not nearly as exciting, but all told, this year's early round upsets have been numerous and epic. Awesome. That’s what the tournament is all about — too bad I didn’t get to fill out a bracket.
Quick article from the onion. Is anybody going to win their office pool? http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/entire_nation_picks_same
And I saw this on Paul Daugherty's blog (another HHB favorite) and couldn't agree more.
http://tourney.si.com/?eref=sihp
To the powers-that-be at the NCAA who are considering a 96-team bracket: Consider this day a powerful message that the current format must be preserved. You don’t want to be responsible for preventing something like this from happening again, do you? Tacking on an extra round would make matchups like Georgetown-Ohio and Vandy-Murray State less likely to happen. Please, please don’t ruin this.
I have to say that this year, I’ve felt very little attachment to college ball – no real star presence in the likes of J.J. Redick or Tyler Hansbrough. This one-and-out rule, or “the Lebron Rule” is really ruining the sport. If someone is talented enough to play in the pros right out of high school, he should be able to just go, instead of risking injury playing as a man amongst boys in college for a single year. Plus, college sports is all about getting to know the stars and watching them contribute over a few years’ period of time. Tyler Hansbrough
may never amount to anything in pro ball, but he was legendary during his four years at UNC. Guys like Greg Oden (Or Greg Wotan if you like the Norse pronunciation – he looks Nordic, right?), who are around for a single year and then take off for the pros, are completely forgettable to fans and don’t help in the building of a team. 
The thrill of college sports is getting to see kids mature and the team finally start clicking as they grow over time. This one and out thing is ridiculous—it doesn’t help the colleges (who need time to have the team grow around a star player), it doesn’t help the pros (who want the best players available as soon as possible, even if it’s right out of school), and it doesn’t help the players (who risk career-ending injury while playing for none of the millions of dollars that they should rightfully be earning).
But, that said, college basketball in March is still very cool. The tournament is definitely the best postseason of any sport. The thrill of the upset; the Cinderella sleepers; the complexity of the seeding system; and it all happens within about three weeks. If the whole basketball season meant as much as all the games in February and March, college basketball might be my favorite sport. But, sadly, most of the season feels like it matters very little, and it’s still hard to justify tuning into a basketball game before the second half.
Still, college basketball absolutely crushes pro basketball in terms of the quality of the game itself. I don’t even count pro ball as a sport anymore. They’ve officially allowed you to take two-and-a-half steps between dribbles. Really?! We all knew that refs were looking the other way on the two-step rule before (so as to allow those big-hops stars to get more chances to do a ridiculous jam), but to officially sanction it seems like quite a step. Soon we won’t have to dribble at all — games will be decided by a dunk-off, similar to the shootouts of hockey. Kobe and Lebron take turns doing their most creative slam and the game is decided by the loudness of audience applause.
By the by, my Dad and I have always bonded over watching the Dream Teams of the 90’s play against the Latvians or some other country consisting of small, pasty Europeans. It’s hilarious. Hakeem Olajuwon would intercept a pass and then run down the court and do a monster slam home, screaming in ecstasy as the ball punched through the rim while the Latvians would just stare in wonder. They looked like Foghorn Leghorn in Space Jam after getting trounced by the Monstars, “Would you like original recipe or extra crispy?”
Oh, and here’s one more thing that annoys me. Have you ever seen a college basketball team fail to get the ball across half court in the ten allotted seconds? I’ve seen them stupidly give away the ball, I’ve seen them call a timeout when they get into trouble (one of the twenty timeouts that they are given), but I think I might have seen an actual violation only once or twice in my life. Why don’t they just give you 8 seconds to get across half court instead of 10? At the very least it would make teams use more timeouts so that they can’t save all of them for the final two minutes of the game (which currently take 40 minutes to play out).
Ok, that’s about all I have to say about basketball.
Two and a half weeks until Opening Day! It should be a national holiday. I’m so busy right now, I’m not sure if I’ll have time to continue my yearly tradition of watching Ken Burns’s “Baseball” documentary to get in the mood for the season – although I guess that will save me having to hear any more about Merkel’s Boner...
As a Cincinnati boy whose conscious awareness of sports doesn’t go back further than the year 1991, I’ve gotten used to disappointment and have learned not to get my hopes up. But I have to say, I’m pretty excited for this season. Pitching looks like it could be sweet. We have hard-throwing Cueto, who continues to grow, hard-throwing Bailey who finally seemed to turn a corner after learning a sinker (in a small ballpark like GABP, why don’t all the Reds pitchers know a sinker?), and the harder-throwing Chapman who has been astounding this Spring. Chapman has to make the team, if for no other reason than to let us have a lefty in the rotation. The problem is, all of the starting pitching have big questions surrounding them – none moreso than Harang, but last week’s column was about him so…
And I have to say, I’ve been up and down and up and down on Bronson Arroyo (mostly because he’s been just as inconsistent as well), but he’s always been able to give the Reds the innings they need from him and the amount of wins they need from him. He may not be the Ace that he looked like during the all-star first year when he came to the team, but at least he’s always proven steady over the course of the season. Those 10-run first innings don’t look good, but maybe it’s better to know you’re out of a game early than to have a pitcher melt down in the sixth.
The bullpen looks solid. Let’s hope Coco can stay strong, and Rhodes, who's already over the hill, doesn't start tumbling down it.
By the way, it’s just come to my attention that David Weathers is still a free agent. What gives? Couldn’t we pick him up dirt cheap right now for a one-year contract? The guy has been consistently good for this team for most of the last decade. Again, there are occasional meltdowns, but his ERA has hovered around 3.0-3.5 for a long, long time. And didn’t he break some awesome record or something last year, like most games pitched in relief, or something like that?
Ok, ok. It probably wouldn’t be a good idea to sign him again, but, damn it, I’ve come to like David Weathers. I like those guys who quietly perform. Here’s to you Stormy
But today is Sports Saturday. Huzzah!
Gosh, am I the only person who picked Ohio to beat Georgetown? Day 1 was chock full of thrillers that I sadly didn’t get to watch. I was too busy trying to make money and, you know, not starve. Day 2 was not nearly as exciting, but all told, this year's early round upsets have been numerous and epic. Awesome. That’s what the tournament is all about — too bad I didn’t get to fill out a bracket.
Quick article from the onion. Is anybody going to win their office pool? http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/entire_nation_picks_same
And I saw this on Paul Daugherty's blog (another HHB favorite) and couldn't agree more.
http://tourney.si.com/?eref=sihp
To the powers-that-be at the NCAA who are considering a 96-team bracket: Consider this day a powerful message that the current format must be preserved. You don’t want to be responsible for preventing something like this from happening again, do you? Tacking on an extra round would make matchups like Georgetown-Ohio and Vandy-Murray State less likely to happen. Please, please don’t ruin this.
I have to say that this year, I’ve felt very little attachment to college ball – no real star presence in the likes of J.J. Redick or Tyler Hansbrough. This one-and-out rule, or “the Lebron Rule” is really ruining the sport. If someone is talented enough to play in the pros right out of high school, he should be able to just go, instead of risking injury playing as a man amongst boys in college for a single year. Plus, college sports is all about getting to know the stars and watching them contribute over a few years’ period of time. Tyler Hansbrough
may never amount to anything in pro ball, but he was legendary during his four years at UNC. Guys like Greg Oden (Or Greg Wotan if you like the Norse pronunciation – he looks Nordic, right?), who are around for a single year and then take off for the pros, are completely forgettable to fans and don’t help in the building of a team. 
The thrill of college sports is getting to see kids mature and the team finally start clicking as they grow over time. This one and out thing is ridiculous—it doesn’t help the colleges (who need time to have the team grow around a star player), it doesn’t help the pros (who want the best players available as soon as possible, even if it’s right out of school), and it doesn’t help the players (who risk career-ending injury while playing for none of the millions of dollars that they should rightfully be earning).
But, that said, college basketball in March is still very cool. The tournament is definitely the best postseason of any sport. The thrill of the upset; the Cinderella sleepers; the complexity of the seeding system; and it all happens within about three weeks. If the whole basketball season meant as much as all the games in February and March, college basketball might be my favorite sport. But, sadly, most of the season feels like it matters very little, and it’s still hard to justify tuning into a basketball game before the second half.
Still, college basketball absolutely crushes pro basketball in terms of the quality of the game itself. I don’t even count pro ball as a sport anymore. They’ve officially allowed you to take two-and-a-half steps between dribbles. Really?! We all knew that refs were looking the other way on the two-step rule before (so as to allow those big-hops stars to get more chances to do a ridiculous jam), but to officially sanction it seems like quite a step. Soon we won’t have to dribble at all — games will be decided by a dunk-off, similar to the shootouts of hockey. Kobe and Lebron take turns doing their most creative slam and the game is decided by the loudness of audience applause.
By the by, my Dad and I have always bonded over watching the Dream Teams of the 90’s play against the Latvians or some other country consisting of small, pasty Europeans. It’s hilarious. Hakeem Olajuwon would intercept a pass and then run down the court and do a monster slam home, screaming in ecstasy as the ball punched through the rim while the Latvians would just stare in wonder. They looked like Foghorn Leghorn in Space Jam after getting trounced by the Monstars, “Would you like original recipe or extra crispy?”
Oh, and here’s one more thing that annoys me. Have you ever seen a college basketball team fail to get the ball across half court in the ten allotted seconds? I’ve seen them stupidly give away the ball, I’ve seen them call a timeout when they get into trouble (one of the twenty timeouts that they are given), but I think I might have seen an actual violation only once or twice in my life. Why don’t they just give you 8 seconds to get across half court instead of 10? At the very least it would make teams use more timeouts so that they can’t save all of them for the final two minutes of the game (which currently take 40 minutes to play out).
Ok, that’s about all I have to say about basketball.
Two and a half weeks until Opening Day! It should be a national holiday. I’m so busy right now, I’m not sure if I’ll have time to continue my yearly tradition of watching Ken Burns’s “Baseball” documentary to get in the mood for the season – although I guess that will save me having to hear any more about Merkel’s Boner...
As a Cincinnati boy whose conscious awareness of sports doesn’t go back further than the year 1991, I’ve gotten used to disappointment and have learned not to get my hopes up. But I have to say, I’m pretty excited for this season. Pitching looks like it could be sweet. We have hard-throwing Cueto, who continues to grow, hard-throwing Bailey who finally seemed to turn a corner after learning a sinker (in a small ballpark like GABP, why don’t all the Reds pitchers know a sinker?), and the harder-throwing Chapman who has been astounding this Spring. Chapman has to make the team, if for no other reason than to let us have a lefty in the rotation. The problem is, all of the starting pitching have big questions surrounding them – none moreso than Harang, but last week’s column was about him so…
And I have to say, I’ve been up and down and up and down on Bronson Arroyo (mostly because he’s been just as inconsistent as well), but he’s always been able to give the Reds the innings they need from him and the amount of wins they need from him. He may not be the Ace that he looked like during the all-star first year when he came to the team, but at least he’s always proven steady over the course of the season. Those 10-run first innings don’t look good, but maybe it’s better to know you’re out of a game early than to have a pitcher melt down in the sixth.
The bullpen looks solid. Let’s hope Coco can stay strong, and Rhodes, who's already over the hill, doesn't start tumbling down it.
By the way, it’s just come to my attention that David Weathers is still a free agent. What gives? Couldn’t we pick him up dirt cheap right now for a one-year contract? The guy has been consistently good for this team for most of the last decade. Again, there are occasional meltdowns, but his ERA has hovered around 3.0-3.5 for a long, long time. And didn’t he break some awesome record or something last year, like most games pitched in relief, or something like that?
Ok, ok. It probably wouldn’t be a good idea to sign him again, but, damn it, I’ve come to like David Weathers. I like those guys who quietly perform. Here’s to you Stormy
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Final Fantasy Nation, Part 2 of 2 (Get ready, it's long)
A movie that I recently saw, Chumscrubber(watch for the review later this week), is framed at both the beginning and end with sequences involving the building of a suburban neighborhood through the cell-shading technology of a video game world. The main character of this digitized suburbia is a headless man who totes his own noggin as he walks aimlessly about.
“Who am I?” he asks in the movie’s final line, “I am the Chumscrubber.”
Though the movie is decently complex enough for that line to carry several meanings, one of them must be a suggestion that gentrified America is a fake land, as unsubstantial as the walls that hold up a home in The Sims. To take the suggestion even further, we are as video game characters, walking through a 2-D world that we’ve somehow convinced ourselves is reality.
This got me thinking about the importance of video games and digital culture in defining who we are as a people. And that, of course led me to Avatar– a piece of digital media that has unified nearly everyone in the country in the last several months.
That’s not to say that everyone has unanimously liked the movie. Many, myself included, thought it was a piece of shit (if the most beautiful piece of shit ever put on screen). But the fact that we’ve all seen it brings us together, giving almost everyone in the country a conversation piece that they can use when speaking even with a perfect stranger.
Though, of course, the incredible visuals and gazillion-dollar marketing campaign must be most responsible for creating the global Avatarphenomenon, there must be something about the story itself that also makes the film at least watchable to everyone in the country (or the world for that matter). It’s my belief that that something is what famed scholar and story collector Joseph Campbell calls the monomyth. In his book, Hero of a Thousand Faces, Campbell analyzes every culture throughout history and comes up with a unifying “hero’s journey” that informs the heroic myths of each and every culture in the world. Though Campbell breaks down the hero’s journey into various distinct steps (which, if we wanted, we could certainly apply to Avatar), it basically boils down to this: Every great heroic story in human mythology is a reaffirmation of the contiguous circle of life: Life, Death, Rebirth. A character destroys his old self only to be reborn wiser and stronger than before.
Odysseus creating the Trojan Horse is Life; him being lost at sea is Death; him returning to his wife, wiser and more noble, was Rebirth.
Or take Tommy Boy. Chris Farley destroys his old selfish, slacker, alcohol-addled self and becomes a mature, street smart CEO.
It doesn’t take much to see how Avatar follows the same path. A disabled soldier starts off as a grunt for an evil world-killing military; he loses his old self as he bonds with the nature-oriented Na’vi (which I think is Spanish for Lanky Blue Person); he ends up a noble, courageous leader. And, he can walk again.
Ok, so I get why everyone can identify with Avatar. There’s just one problem. We’ve heard this same story told before (Fern Gully), and told better (Dances With Wolves). James Cameron (and many critics) would say, “Well, sure, but nobody has ever really let you become a part of this monomyth like Avatardoes. When you put on those 3-D glasses, you enter into the story in a way that has never happened before.”
But is that really true?
I call your attention to the great Final Fantasy VII – as I’ve said before, perhaps the best RPG ever made. Though Avatar was the culmination of a decade of work, FFVII (and, really, the rest of the Final Fantasy series) was treading the same waters a few years before production on Avatar even began (it came out in 1998). It would take too long to go into the intricacies of the game’s plot, but here’s a general overview:
You play as Cloud Strife, an ex-soldier with a troubled past, who teams up with a band of rebels trying to stop the evil Shinra Corporation from mining Mako energy, the precious lifeblood of the planet (Hmm… this Mako energy sounds a lot like Unobtainium. Which do you think is the better name?). Over the course of the game, Cloud moves from a Han Solo-like rogue to a rebellion-leading environmentalist. There’s a climactic battle at the end in which the naturalist good guys beat the technologically superior baddies, and (get this) the final fight takes place mano-a-mano between Cloud and Shinra’s hired gun, the legendary Sephiroth.
Oooh, what an intimidating name! Sephiroth. Gives me shivers just saying it. Much more frightening than Avatar arch-boss Colonel Miles Quaritch, who serves literally the exact same function.
So you can probably see it: Avataris just like the skeleton of the story of FFVII. And all that stuff about “Seeing through the eyes of another” or “Becoming part of the monomyth” by putting on those ridiculous-looking glasses? Well, what could bring you into the myth more than actually playing as the lead character? And, of course, the word "avatar" is itself a gaming term referring to the character that you become.
In fact, FFVII has it over Avatar in nearly every aspect. Its story is much longer and richer – like watching a whole season of The Wire over the movie Training Day. It avoids falling into the trap of painting the naturalistic denizens of the planet as primitive beasts (Ha ha, look at those stupid Blue People shooting bows and arrows at the metal spaceship), thereby watering down the power of a nature-oriented lifestyle. And it’s far less predictable too – don’t bother leveling up Cloud’s love interest, Aeris, she won’t last long. Can you imagine James Cameron being ballsy enough to kill off Neytiri halfway through?
But most important: Final Fantasy VII allows far more room for the human imagination to take hold. Unlike modern FF games, the characters of FFVII were still unvoiced, communicating through dialogue boxes that you had to internally put sound to. As I said earlier, its cinematic sequences were state-of-the-art at the time, but they still lasted for only thirty to forty-five seconds at their longest. Only a few key plot points were actually communicated through movie sequences, and since these sequences featured no talking, all back story had to be gleaned from read dialogue between characters which ranged from major and to eminently dismissible.
This is one of the most incredible elements of the storytelling of Final Fantasy VII, again trouncing Avatar in terms of technique. If you wanted to know why the Na’vi are so attached to their land, you had to rely on a few blatantly expository lines to tell you. “Those trees hold all of the memories of the Na’vi ancestors and if they’re destroyed, then the memories disappear.” That’s not a direct quote, but the actual line was no less straightforward. Compare that to the journey you get to take in FFVII, coming to understand the Mako energy of the planet through stories told to Cloud by elders, through missions you go on that launch you directly into the planet’s core, even through random nuggets of information gleaned by optionally talking to random people on the street.
That’s what makes Final Fantasy so fun. You have the option of following the story laid out for you, or you can go even deeper down the rabbit hole, talking to every single person you see, taking on every side mission available, even choosing to find all of the optional characters (yes, you heard me right. The makers of FFVII created two playable characters [each complete with their own in-depth back story] that you don’t even need to find to complete the game). And since it is a video game, you are in control of everything that happens. Saving the planet is a conscious choice you must make, not just a passive action that you get to watch unfold without lifting a finger.
Why is allowing for imagination so important in the first place? Because no matter how powerful computers become, no matter how realistic Pandora can be made to look, our minds can always create something more realistic and impressive all on its own. Think that the Na’vi’s giant treehouse was huge? You can always make it bigger in your head. (Whoa! I just did. Would you look at that?)
And furthermore, we are all different in the way that we consume information. Some people like to concentrate on the big picture, and some enjoy the little details. Having the option to customize – if not the general story, then at least the level of depth you look into individual aspects of that story – makes it easier to connect to the monomyth overall.
Ok, ok. Sure. But what does this have to do with America?
Well, America is a nation that was never really connected to its land. Unlike Native Americans, the vast majority of U.S. citizens have no roots that link back to a time when we depended on the generosity of the planet itself for survival. By the time we arrived here, we had already sufficiently learned how to tame the wild and thereby assured our superiority as the Master Species on the planet. And as the masters, we had no need to connect to the land.
But perhaps this isn’t such a good thing. Perhaps this has left us out of touch with the circle of life on which Joseph Campbell’s monomyth is based. In The Hero of a Thousand Faces, he conjectures that perhaps the reason that we are so dependent on drugs and psychotherapy for balance is because we no longer have the assurance of our connection to the ever-flowing cycle of life, death, and rebirth that was provided by the shamans and storytellers of ancient days. Instead of living on an endless sphere, as the natural world exists, like the Chumscrubber we walk about on a constructed plane. 2-D instead of 3-D. The societal rules that we’ve set up are like the walls of the computer screen… flat and concrete, rather than rounded and never-ending. And when we die in this world, where do we go? Our disconnection with the earth makes imagining our return to it, and subsequently, our discovery of eternal existence through the perpetual circle of life, nearly impossible.
Does taking a trip to Pandora cure us of the alienation we feel for a primal connection to the land? Or does digitizing the most idyllic imagining of a life-bearing planet only weaken our link to the one that we live on right now? If we can make an even more beautiful Earth out of zeros and ones, what incentive do we have to harmonize with our current terra firma (Version 1.0 if you will)?
It’s all very disconcerting. But I think that we should remind ourselves that the natural power of our imaginations far outweighs even the most powerful supercomputers. We don’t need Pandora in order to imagine nature at its most pristine. Though this may be real life, our minds are always aglow with fantastic new possibilities. We are always living in a final fantasy.
“Who am I?” he asks in the movie’s final line, “I am the Chumscrubber.”
Though the movie is decently complex enough for that line to carry several meanings, one of them must be a suggestion that gentrified America is a fake land, as unsubstantial as the walls that hold up a home in The Sims. To take the suggestion even further, we are as video game characters, walking through a 2-D world that we’ve somehow convinced ourselves is reality.
This got me thinking about the importance of video games and digital culture in defining who we are as a people. And that, of course led me to Avatar– a piece of digital media that has unified nearly everyone in the country in the last several months.
That’s not to say that everyone has unanimously liked the movie. Many, myself included, thought it was a piece of shit (if the most beautiful piece of shit ever put on screen). But the fact that we’ve all seen it brings us together, giving almost everyone in the country a conversation piece that they can use when speaking even with a perfect stranger.
Though, of course, the incredible visuals and gazillion-dollar marketing campaign must be most responsible for creating the global Avatarphenomenon, there must be something about the story itself that also makes the film at least watchable to everyone in the country (or the world for that matter). It’s my belief that that something is what famed scholar and story collector Joseph Campbell calls the monomyth. In his book, Hero of a Thousand Faces, Campbell analyzes every culture throughout history and comes up with a unifying “hero’s journey” that informs the heroic myths of each and every culture in the world. Though Campbell breaks down the hero’s journey into various distinct steps (which, if we wanted, we could certainly apply to Avatar), it basically boils down to this: Every great heroic story in human mythology is a reaffirmation of the contiguous circle of life: Life, Death, Rebirth. A character destroys his old self only to be reborn wiser and stronger than before.
Odysseus creating the Trojan Horse is Life; him being lost at sea is Death; him returning to his wife, wiser and more noble, was Rebirth.
Or take Tommy Boy. Chris Farley destroys his old selfish, slacker, alcohol-addled self and becomes a mature, street smart CEO.
It doesn’t take much to see how Avatar follows the same path. A disabled soldier starts off as a grunt for an evil world-killing military; he loses his old self as he bonds with the nature-oriented Na’vi (which I think is Spanish for Lanky Blue Person); he ends up a noble, courageous leader. And, he can walk again.
Ok, so I get why everyone can identify with Avatar. There’s just one problem. We’ve heard this same story told before (Fern Gully), and told better (Dances With Wolves). James Cameron (and many critics) would say, “Well, sure, but nobody has ever really let you become a part of this monomyth like Avatardoes. When you put on those 3-D glasses, you enter into the story in a way that has never happened before.”
But is that really true?
I call your attention to the great Final Fantasy VII – as I’ve said before, perhaps the best RPG ever made. Though Avatar was the culmination of a decade of work, FFVII (and, really, the rest of the Final Fantasy series) was treading the same waters a few years before production on Avatar even began (it came out in 1998). It would take too long to go into the intricacies of the game’s plot, but here’s a general overview:
You play as Cloud Strife, an ex-soldier with a troubled past, who teams up with a band of rebels trying to stop the evil Shinra Corporation from mining Mako energy, the precious lifeblood of the planet (Hmm… this Mako energy sounds a lot like Unobtainium. Which do you think is the better name?). Over the course of the game, Cloud moves from a Han Solo-like rogue to a rebellion-leading environmentalist. There’s a climactic battle at the end in which the naturalist good guys beat the technologically superior baddies, and (get this) the final fight takes place mano-a-mano between Cloud and Shinra’s hired gun, the legendary Sephiroth.
Oooh, what an intimidating name! Sephiroth. Gives me shivers just saying it. Much more frightening than Avatar arch-boss Colonel Miles Quaritch, who serves literally the exact same function.
So you can probably see it: Avataris just like the skeleton of the story of FFVII. And all that stuff about “Seeing through the eyes of another” or “Becoming part of the monomyth” by putting on those ridiculous-looking glasses? Well, what could bring you into the myth more than actually playing as the lead character? And, of course, the word "avatar" is itself a gaming term referring to the character that you become.
In fact, FFVII has it over Avatar in nearly every aspect. Its story is much longer and richer – like watching a whole season of The Wire over the movie Training Day. It avoids falling into the trap of painting the naturalistic denizens of the planet as primitive beasts (Ha ha, look at those stupid Blue People shooting bows and arrows at the metal spaceship), thereby watering down the power of a nature-oriented lifestyle. And it’s far less predictable too – don’t bother leveling up Cloud’s love interest, Aeris, she won’t last long. Can you imagine James Cameron being ballsy enough to kill off Neytiri halfway through?
But most important: Final Fantasy VII allows far more room for the human imagination to take hold. Unlike modern FF games, the characters of FFVII were still unvoiced, communicating through dialogue boxes that you had to internally put sound to. As I said earlier, its cinematic sequences were state-of-the-art at the time, but they still lasted for only thirty to forty-five seconds at their longest. Only a few key plot points were actually communicated through movie sequences, and since these sequences featured no talking, all back story had to be gleaned from read dialogue between characters which ranged from major and to eminently dismissible.
This is one of the most incredible elements of the storytelling of Final Fantasy VII, again trouncing Avatar in terms of technique. If you wanted to know why the Na’vi are so attached to their land, you had to rely on a few blatantly expository lines to tell you. “Those trees hold all of the memories of the Na’vi ancestors and if they’re destroyed, then the memories disappear.” That’s not a direct quote, but the actual line was no less straightforward. Compare that to the journey you get to take in FFVII, coming to understand the Mako energy of the planet through stories told to Cloud by elders, through missions you go on that launch you directly into the planet’s core, even through random nuggets of information gleaned by optionally talking to random people on the street.
That’s what makes Final Fantasy so fun. You have the option of following the story laid out for you, or you can go even deeper down the rabbit hole, talking to every single person you see, taking on every side mission available, even choosing to find all of the optional characters (yes, you heard me right. The makers of FFVII created two playable characters [each complete with their own in-depth back story] that you don’t even need to find to complete the game). And since it is a video game, you are in control of everything that happens. Saving the planet is a conscious choice you must make, not just a passive action that you get to watch unfold without lifting a finger.
Why is allowing for imagination so important in the first place? Because no matter how powerful computers become, no matter how realistic Pandora can be made to look, our minds can always create something more realistic and impressive all on its own. Think that the Na’vi’s giant treehouse was huge? You can always make it bigger in your head. (Whoa! I just did. Would you look at that?)
And furthermore, we are all different in the way that we consume information. Some people like to concentrate on the big picture, and some enjoy the little details. Having the option to customize – if not the general story, then at least the level of depth you look into individual aspects of that story – makes it easier to connect to the monomyth overall.
Ok, ok. Sure. But what does this have to do with America?
Well, America is a nation that was never really connected to its land. Unlike Native Americans, the vast majority of U.S. citizens have no roots that link back to a time when we depended on the generosity of the planet itself for survival. By the time we arrived here, we had already sufficiently learned how to tame the wild and thereby assured our superiority as the Master Species on the planet. And as the masters, we had no need to connect to the land.
But perhaps this isn’t such a good thing. Perhaps this has left us out of touch with the circle of life on which Joseph Campbell’s monomyth is based. In The Hero of a Thousand Faces, he conjectures that perhaps the reason that we are so dependent on drugs and psychotherapy for balance is because we no longer have the assurance of our connection to the ever-flowing cycle of life, death, and rebirth that was provided by the shamans and storytellers of ancient days. Instead of living on an endless sphere, as the natural world exists, like the Chumscrubber we walk about on a constructed plane. 2-D instead of 3-D. The societal rules that we’ve set up are like the walls of the computer screen… flat and concrete, rather than rounded and never-ending. And when we die in this world, where do we go? Our disconnection with the earth makes imagining our return to it, and subsequently, our discovery of eternal existence through the perpetual circle of life, nearly impossible.
Does taking a trip to Pandora cure us of the alienation we feel for a primal connection to the land? Or does digitizing the most idyllic imagining of a life-bearing planet only weaken our link to the one that we live on right now? If we can make an even more beautiful Earth out of zeros and ones, what incentive do we have to harmonize with our current terra firma (Version 1.0 if you will)?
It’s all very disconcerting. But I think that we should remind ourselves that the natural power of our imaginations far outweighs even the most powerful supercomputers. We don’t need Pandora in order to imagine nature at its most pristine. Though this may be real life, our minds are always aglow with fantastic new possibilities. We are always living in a final fantasy.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Final Fantasy Nation, part 1 of 2
Happy Tuesday HHB nation! (Well, not so much a nation as a tribe… or maybe a collective…) We sure loved Dear Deidre yesterday and are excited for more and more. Mail any life question you may have to deardeidrehighhorse@gmail.com. Today, the worlds of politics, movies, and video games collide in part 1 of a two part series. Today is all about reviewing Final Fantasy so people can get context and tomorrow we’ll get to the meat of what I really want to say. We start with a brief discussion about – (happy band! That’s it. We’re a happy band. The High Horse Blog Happy Band. I like the ring of that)
Sorry. Back to business. We start with a brief discussion about Final Fantasy XIII, the blockbuster game that came out last week and which I have experienced for about two hours. Experience is certainly the correct word to use. The series distinguished itself from other RPG’s back when cinematic sequences were first introduced in Final Fantasy VII (quite possibly the greatest RPG of all time) for the original Playstation. Twelve years and two system generations later, FFXIII (which I played on the Xbox 360) sets a new standard for the opening cinematic. Lasting about six minutes and featuring a battle sequence that looks like it could come straight out of episodes I-III of Star Wars, the prologue heralds a new era in video game visuals ready to challenge those of any motion picture short of Avatar.
The New York Times agrees:
I’ll just put it this way: I recently invited several friends to compare the visual spectacle of the opening sequence of Final Fantasy XIII with the opening sequence of “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,” a frantic spaceship battle and chase that has been one of my personal animation benchmarks. Sorry, George Lucas, but it was a unanimous wipeout among my jury. For the moment the only animation that compares with Final Fantasy XIII is in “Avatar.” (And Final Fantasy XIII has better writing and voice acting than that film, though that’s not saying much.)
Hold onto that thought about Avatar for tomorrow, and if you want the whole NY Times review: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/arts/television/15fantasy.html
Now, I’ve only seen about two hours of FFXIII, and my preliminary judgment is that it’s come together pretty damn well. It has wisely returned to a more turn-based approach to fighting (with an emphasis on strategic choices [as in FFVII] rather than controller dexterity), but has found a way to seamlessly integrate battle sequences into your characters’ exploration of the world (which was the goal of FFXII’s battle system that was played out in semi-real time, but that any FF addict will tell you was a travesty to the integrity of the franchise). The leveling system – which, in order to explore, required me to stay up far later than I would have cared to – is similar to that of FFX’s sphere system, where players can choose different paths for characters to go down in order to customize your party to whatever your preferences may be.
So, in essence, the gameplay mixes elements of FFVII and FFX, which were certainly the two best games in the series’ modern era (strictly in terms of gameplay).
And in addition to those gorgeous cinematics, it appears that the story itself has a great deal of depth and originality. Of course, there are certainly some corny lines (New catch phrase: “Moms are tough”), and an African American character named Sazh Katzroy seems to be riding the line between racially problematic and racially troubling.
Overall, it appears that FFXIII will certainly continue the dominance of the franchise and could turn out to be one of the strongest overall games of the entire series. Bottom line is that if you have the system (sadly, I don’t) you should get it.
Now, how does that link in to movies and politics? Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion tomorrow where we will try to mix in discussion of Manifest Destiny, global monomyths, and those little blue people that we’ve become, oh, so fond of.
And in the meantime, see if you can answer the question of why someone I know thought that this person:
Looked like this person:
Sorry. Back to business. We start with a brief discussion about Final Fantasy XIII, the blockbuster game that came out last week and which I have experienced for about two hours. Experience is certainly the correct word to use. The series distinguished itself from other RPG’s back when cinematic sequences were first introduced in Final Fantasy VII (quite possibly the greatest RPG of all time) for the original Playstation. Twelve years and two system generations later, FFXIII (which I played on the Xbox 360) sets a new standard for the opening cinematic. Lasting about six minutes and featuring a battle sequence that looks like it could come straight out of episodes I-III of Star Wars, the prologue heralds a new era in video game visuals ready to challenge those of any motion picture short of Avatar.
The New York Times agrees:
I’ll just put it this way: I recently invited several friends to compare the visual spectacle of the opening sequence of Final Fantasy XIII with the opening sequence of “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith,” a frantic spaceship battle and chase that has been one of my personal animation benchmarks. Sorry, George Lucas, but it was a unanimous wipeout among my jury. For the moment the only animation that compares with Final Fantasy XIII is in “Avatar.” (And Final Fantasy XIII has better writing and voice acting than that film, though that’s not saying much.)
Hold onto that thought about Avatar for tomorrow, and if you want the whole NY Times review: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/arts/television/15fantasy.html
Now, I’ve only seen about two hours of FFXIII, and my preliminary judgment is that it’s come together pretty damn well. It has wisely returned to a more turn-based approach to fighting (with an emphasis on strategic choices [as in FFVII] rather than controller dexterity), but has found a way to seamlessly integrate battle sequences into your characters’ exploration of the world (which was the goal of FFXII’s battle system that was played out in semi-real time, but that any FF addict will tell you was a travesty to the integrity of the franchise). The leveling system – which, in order to explore, required me to stay up far later than I would have cared to – is similar to that of FFX’s sphere system, where players can choose different paths for characters to go down in order to customize your party to whatever your preferences may be.
So, in essence, the gameplay mixes elements of FFVII and FFX, which were certainly the two best games in the series’ modern era (strictly in terms of gameplay).
And in addition to those gorgeous cinematics, it appears that the story itself has a great deal of depth and originality. Of course, there are certainly some corny lines (New catch phrase: “Moms are tough”), and an African American character named Sazh Katzroy seems to be riding the line between racially problematic and racially troubling.
Overall, it appears that FFXIII will certainly continue the dominance of the franchise and could turn out to be one of the strongest overall games of the entire series. Bottom line is that if you have the system (sadly, I don’t) you should get it.
Now, how does that link in to movies and politics? Stay tuned for the exciting conclusion tomorrow where we will try to mix in discussion of Manifest Destiny, global monomyths, and those little blue people that we’ve become, oh, so fond of.
And in the meantime, see if you can answer the question of why someone I know thought that this person:
Looked like this person:
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Dear Deidre
We are expanding.
The High Horse Blog would like to officially welcome contributing column Dear Deidre. We'll hope for a weekly. This will give us a nice break from my political rants and condescending movie reviews. If you have a question for Deidre on any pressing life issue, please e-mail it to deardeidrehighhorse@gmail.com
Stay tuned. A review for Chumscrubber is coming up soon (and spoiler alert: this movie is directly responsible for me losing consciousness).
Enjoy.
Dear Deidre,
I am a 25 year old woman and have been dating the same guy for about a year. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to have an orgasm during sex… I have been close, but can never get there. Is there something wrong with me? Or something wrong with the guy?
Sincerely,
Getting frustrated, not off.
Dear Getting Frustrated, Not Off,
This is a totally normal and common issue among young women. According to WebMD's sexpert Louanne Cole Weston, PhD*, 10% of women had never had any type of orgasm – either by flying solo or with a partner. (And I suspect that number would be higher if women were not so afraid of acknowledging their inability to ‘get off’). So, you’re certainly not alone in your concern.
But, don’t let that number discourage you; there is hope! As a perfectly healthy young woman, you are completely capable of experiencing an orgasm during sexual intercourse with your partner.
First things first, make sure that you are comfortable with your bedmate. He should be a person you feel 100% confident with even when you’re sweaty and naked. And trust me, if you’re sweaty and naked, he’ll like you no matter what you look like.
Second, don’t try so hard – don’t focus so much on trying to get the orgasm. Enjoy the feelings while they happen. Revel in the kisses and really feel each touch. When you’re truly living in the moment and can feel how sensual sex really is, it is much easier to get turned on.
Last but not least, it may just take a little time. Practice makes perfect! Go buy yourself a nice, little (well, maybe not little) dildo and explore yourself. Try different things and see what gets you going. Then, when you’re with your guy, try and position yourself so that you can get that same feeling you did with your new toy. Or ask your partner to try a different position – guys are pleasantly surprised when their girl wants to be adventurous in bed. Sometimes a new position puts pressure on a different area and can get the senses going.
So, bottom line – there is NOTHING wrong with you and nothing wrong with your guy (unless he’s having some sort of physical malfunction which is a whole different issue). It has nothing to do with your attraction for each other; it’s just one of those things that happens when it happens. And it will.
*check out this article, it may be of some help to you
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/cant-orgasm-heres-help-for-women
Best of luck,
Deidre
The High Horse Blog would like to officially welcome contributing column Dear Deidre. We'll hope for a weekly. This will give us a nice break from my political rants and condescending movie reviews. If you have a question for Deidre on any pressing life issue, please e-mail it to deardeidrehighhorse@gmail.com
Stay tuned. A review for Chumscrubber is coming up soon (and spoiler alert: this movie is directly responsible for me losing consciousness).
Enjoy.
Dear Deidre,
I am a 25 year old woman and have been dating the same guy for about a year. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to have an orgasm during sex… I have been close, but can never get there. Is there something wrong with me? Or something wrong with the guy?
Sincerely,
Getting frustrated, not off.
Dear Getting Frustrated, Not Off,
This is a totally normal and common issue among young women. According to WebMD's sexpert Louanne Cole Weston, PhD*, 10% of women had never had any type of orgasm – either by flying solo or with a partner. (And I suspect that number would be higher if women were not so afraid of acknowledging their inability to ‘get off’). So, you’re certainly not alone in your concern.
But, don’t let that number discourage you; there is hope! As a perfectly healthy young woman, you are completely capable of experiencing an orgasm during sexual intercourse with your partner.
First things first, make sure that you are comfortable with your bedmate. He should be a person you feel 100% confident with even when you’re sweaty and naked. And trust me, if you’re sweaty and naked, he’ll like you no matter what you look like.
Second, don’t try so hard – don’t focus so much on trying to get the orgasm. Enjoy the feelings while they happen. Revel in the kisses and really feel each touch. When you’re truly living in the moment and can feel how sensual sex really is, it is much easier to get turned on.
Last but not least, it may just take a little time. Practice makes perfect! Go buy yourself a nice, little (well, maybe not little) dildo and explore yourself. Try different things and see what gets you going. Then, when you’re with your guy, try and position yourself so that you can get that same feeling you did with your new toy. Or ask your partner to try a different position – guys are pleasantly surprised when their girl wants to be adventurous in bed. Sometimes a new position puts pressure on a different area and can get the senses going.
So, bottom line – there is NOTHING wrong with you and nothing wrong with your guy (unless he’s having some sort of physical malfunction which is a whole different issue). It has nothing to do with your attraction for each other; it’s just one of those things that happens when it happens. And it will.
*check out this article, it may be of some help to you
http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/cant-orgasm-heres-help-for-women
Best of luck,
Deidre
Politics Sunday
We missed out on Sports Saturday yesterday, but I didn't have too much to say. Basketball hasn't been particularly exciting this year (no real standout stars it seems to me), and we're still in the doldrums of spring training in baseball land. I will say this though: If everything goes right for the Cincinnati Reds, they have the chance to develop into a pretty fearsome team this year. Jay Bruce could start hitting again, Homer Bailey might have finally gotten his act together, Aaron Harang probably will win more than six games. And then, of course, there's the biggest unanswered question of all, which concerns what to do with Aroldis Chapman. If the power arm continues to pitch like he's been doing, I think he has to start the year in the majors. He can always be sent down later, which I know can be deflating, but something needs to be done to jump start the team, and what better to do it than a 100 mph fastball?
Comments?
Ok. Now onto the politics.
To follow up my diatribe from last week (Liz Cheney is a... something), look at this from uber-liberal and ex-theatre critic Frank Rich.
"For that matter, [Marc] Thiessen was challenged more thoroughly in an interview by Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” on Tuesday than he has been by any representative of non-fake television news."
See. I told you Jon Stewart is a great American. Read the whole article (but beware. Frank likes to talk). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14rich.html?th&emc=th
Now onto something that's really got me burning right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?th&emc=th
So Texas schools want to rewrite the curriculum to highlight Republican accomplishments? Oh, no - sorry. I mean they want equal emphasis on Republican accomplishments in the textbooks that are supposedly written by the Liberal academia. Apparently, the idea that History will be the ultimate judge is just as quaint a notion as the tooth fairy or Jackelope.
Republicans are right that Academia leans to the left, but shouldn't that be expected in the same way that businessmen lean slightly to the right?
And when you think of great American accomplishments, what comes to mind? Civil Rights. The New Deal. Suffrage. The Emancipation Proclamation. Now, the fact these were all done under Democratic presidents (except the Emancipation Proclamation, which was done by Republican Abe Lincoln back when the parties were essentially reversed) is not what should be highlighted here, but rather the quality of the accomplishment. To me, the most important act in the history of America was the Civil Rights Act (many attempts at which were stymied by Republican filibusters [Boy, isn't it great to see what important causes the filibuster has protected? Extending health insurance for millions and ending segregation. Thank God we have that protection built into the Constitution.]), and there's no comparison between that and anything by any President (Democratic or Republican) that can be put on equal footing with it.
There is no accomplishment by Ronald Reagan that has equal weight when compared to the Civil Rights Act, so how can we possibly give equal emphasis to both parties?
And when you were in high school, did you really pay attention to which political party seemed to be the most accomplished in the history books? This whole "Fair and balanced" push is a product of the 24-hour news era. We like to think that since both Republicans and Democrats are equally intelligent people, their ideas must be equally worthwhile. History says otherwise, and it cuts both ways. The whole idea of Indoctrination in our schools is ludicrous, and is really meant as a way of demonizing a certain side of the political debate.
Though there is, of course, room for familiarization with both sides of the political spectrum, rewriting history is not the way to do it. An understanding of current issues and the debates within those issues is probably the better way to go.
I feel like that one kid from youtube. LEAVE HISTORY ALONE!!!
Ok. One more article. (Not from the NY Times. Who knew I read other things?)
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/lesbian-air-force-sergeant-jene-newsome-discharged-after-police-out-her/19397963?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flesbian-air-force-sergeant-jene-newsome-discharged-after-police-out-her%2F19397963
This is painful to read. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a senseless policy in itself, and it's absurd that someone who plays by the rules can still be outed by a third party. And who were these cops that narc'd on this woman because they saw a marriage certificate. Is homosexuality really that abhorrent to you? These guys strike me like those kids who tattled on you at recess.
"Mrs. Finster, Mrs. Finster! Johnny just told me to go to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks."
"Mrs. Finster, Mrs. Finster! I Jimmy's a queer."
Didn't everybody hate that kid?
Obama can end Don't Ask Don't Tell with a simple executive order. He should, and he will... just as soon as the midterms are over is my guess. By then, the only power he may have will be through executive orders. Sad sad sad.
And quickly.
HEALTH CARE WATCH
Looks like the Democrats are scrambling to find the votes in the House now. If it's not one thing it's the other. My guess is that they'll find the votes and trudge through a bunch of Republican roadblocks as they move to pass it... my guess is mid-April.
Here's hoping.
Comments?
Ok. Now onto the politics.
To follow up my diatribe from last week (Liz Cheney is a... something), look at this from uber-liberal and ex-theatre critic Frank Rich.
"For that matter, [Marc] Thiessen was challenged more thoroughly in an interview by Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show” on Tuesday than he has been by any representative of non-fake television news."
See. I told you Jon Stewart is a great American. Read the whole article (but beware. Frank likes to talk). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/opinion/14rich.html?th&emc=th
Now onto something that's really got me burning right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.html?th&emc=th
So Texas schools want to rewrite the curriculum to highlight Republican accomplishments? Oh, no - sorry. I mean they want equal emphasis on Republican accomplishments in the textbooks that are supposedly written by the Liberal academia. Apparently, the idea that History will be the ultimate judge is just as quaint a notion as the tooth fairy or Jackelope.
Republicans are right that Academia leans to the left, but shouldn't that be expected in the same way that businessmen lean slightly to the right?
And when you think of great American accomplishments, what comes to mind? Civil Rights. The New Deal. Suffrage. The Emancipation Proclamation. Now, the fact these were all done under Democratic presidents (except the Emancipation Proclamation, which was done by Republican Abe Lincoln back when the parties were essentially reversed) is not what should be highlighted here, but rather the quality of the accomplishment. To me, the most important act in the history of America was the Civil Rights Act (many attempts at which were stymied by Republican filibusters [Boy, isn't it great to see what important causes the filibuster has protected? Extending health insurance for millions and ending segregation. Thank God we have that protection built into the Constitution.]), and there's no comparison between that and anything by any President (Democratic or Republican) that can be put on equal footing with it.
There is no accomplishment by Ronald Reagan that has equal weight when compared to the Civil Rights Act, so how can we possibly give equal emphasis to both parties?
And when you were in high school, did you really pay attention to which political party seemed to be the most accomplished in the history books? This whole "Fair and balanced" push is a product of the 24-hour news era. We like to think that since both Republicans and Democrats are equally intelligent people, their ideas must be equally worthwhile. History says otherwise, and it cuts both ways. The whole idea of Indoctrination in our schools is ludicrous, and is really meant as a way of demonizing a certain side of the political debate.
Though there is, of course, room for familiarization with both sides of the political spectrum, rewriting history is not the way to do it. An understanding of current issues and the debates within those issues is probably the better way to go.
I feel like that one kid from youtube. LEAVE HISTORY ALONE!!!
Ok. One more article. (Not from the NY Times. Who knew I read other things?)
http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/lesbian-air-force-sergeant-jene-newsome-discharged-after-police-out-her/19397963?icid=main|main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aolnews.com%2Fnation%2Farticle%2Flesbian-air-force-sergeant-jene-newsome-discharged-after-police-out-her%2F19397963
This is painful to read. Don't Ask Don't Tell is a senseless policy in itself, and it's absurd that someone who plays by the rules can still be outed by a third party. And who were these cops that narc'd on this woman because they saw a marriage certificate. Is homosexuality really that abhorrent to you? These guys strike me like those kids who tattled on you at recess.
"Mrs. Finster, Mrs. Finster! Johnny just told me to go to H-E-Double-Hockey-Sticks."
"Mrs. Finster, Mrs. Finster! I Jimmy's a queer."
Didn't everybody hate that kid?
Obama can end Don't Ask Don't Tell with a simple executive order. He should, and he will... just as soon as the midterms are over is my guess. By then, the only power he may have will be through executive orders. Sad sad sad.
And quickly.
HEALTH CARE WATCH
Looks like the Democrats are scrambling to find the votes in the House now. If it's not one thing it's the other. My guess is that they'll find the votes and trudge through a bunch of Republican roadblocks as they move to pass it... my guess is mid-April.
Here's hoping.
Friday, March 12, 2010
The Crazies
Can one call The Crazies a zombie flick?
While I knew very little about this movie going in, my seeing it was preempted by a spirited debate between myself and my horror-loving friends on the various incarnations that zombies have taken in film. It seemed to boil down to two main types: The Undead – that is, those that have already died but somehow manage to be reincarnated into moaning, mindless, slow-moving, flesh-eating beasts (a la Dawn of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Shaun of the Dead, etc.) – and the “Infected” – mortal, living people that have some kind of virus or disease or were raised near Chernobyl or, you know, whatever (does it really matter how they became zombies in the first place?), and can be killed in the same way as a normal person (as opposed to The Undead which usually can only die by, in the immortal words of Shaun of the Dead, “…removing the head or destroying the brain.”) To me, the “Infected” are best represented by the speedy, raging, teeth gnashers of 28 Days Later.
So in which camp does The Crazies fall into? Going in, I could literally see no difference between the crazies of the The Crazies and the crazies of 28 Days Later. The premise of The Crazies is that a maniacal, Big-Brother type of corporation accidentally releases a toxin into the water system of a quaint, hapless Iowa town, turning the ever-pleasant citizens into psycho-killers who want to kill kill kill all their friends and loved ones.
(It’s sort of the opposite of The Music Man, where a sour, stubborn, Iowa town is infected by the musical showmanship of Harold Hill, turning the nose-thumbers into a tight-knit citizenry who rally behind Beethoven’s Minuet in G)
In 28 Days Later, the setting is London, and the responsibility for the outbreak stems from a test monkey biting a researcher, but the end result is much the same: lots of death.
But there are some subtle disparities between the zombies in the two movies. Number one is that the Crazies are high-functioning. They can still open doors, use weapons (including wonderfully macabre items like pitchforks), and operate heavy machinery, just like normal people. This allows for some creativity in the way that the Crazies murder everyone they’ve ever known or loved. Unlike 28 Days Later, the bad guys are not relegated to simply biting or bludgeoning someone to death. Oh no. How about locking your wife and child in a closet and setting the whole house ablaze!
That’s really the best thing that The Crazies has going for it, in what is otherwise a pretty typical run-away-from-the-baddies movie. We follow the town Sheriff (the always solid Timothy Olyphant), his wife (Radha Mitchell), the Deputy (Russell Clank), and an inexplicably present Becca Darling (Danielle Panabaker) – who serves no function and has about ten lines throughout the entire movie – as they attempt to escape the possessed populace as well as the military soldiers sent in to contain the outbreak. For our purposes, we can forget about Becca, who, though darling, amounts to nothing. But the other characters are pretty well-written if inexplicably stupid at times. They walk on the open road even as they know that containment forces are trying to eliminate them. They hang out in front of a big glass window pane as they relax in a diner (remember, both Crazies and the military are after them).
There is some minor development of a few themes. Namely, the seduction and corruption caused by violence (if you thought shooting deer was fun, try shooting a zombie), and the disregard for human life in a major catastrophe (You say there are still some uninfected in the town? Screw it, take out the whole area). But mostly, the film is a hodgepodge of zombie movie tropes. Sacrifices are made, love is chosen over safety, loyalties are tested, the weak are eaten, the strong survive. With the exception of about four inventive death sequences, this is all previously mined territory.
Ok. So are the Crazies zombies?
Have they lost control of themselves? Yes.
Do they turn on the ones they love? Yes.
Are they contagious? Yes.
But…
Do they moan and groan? No.
Do they bite? No.
Are they Undead? No.
It’s a tough choice.
I think the fact that the Crazies retain their creative impulses is indeed significant. The basic point of the zombie is that it’s a human reduced to a beast. And what possibly separates man from animal more than higher brain function? The Crazies may not be writing symphonies or painting masterpieces (Unless you count their blood spattering as an homage to Jackson Pollack), but there is something artistic going on inside their minds that allows them to kill with such élan.
It may be only barely so, but they’re still human.
And here’s your special treat for getting to the end of my schpeel. The first line from the NY Times review of Robert Pattinson’s new movie! Thanks Manohla Dargis.
“In “Remember Me” love means never having to say you’re sorry, particularly to the audience.”
Boy, I really want to see this movie. Read the whole review.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/movies/12remember.html?scp=1&sq=remember%20me%20review&st=cse
While I knew very little about this movie going in, my seeing it was preempted by a spirited debate between myself and my horror-loving friends on the various incarnations that zombies have taken in film. It seemed to boil down to two main types: The Undead – that is, those that have already died but somehow manage to be reincarnated into moaning, mindless, slow-moving, flesh-eating beasts (a la Dawn of the Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Shaun of the Dead, etc.) – and the “Infected” – mortal, living people that have some kind of virus or disease or were raised near Chernobyl or, you know, whatever (does it really matter how they became zombies in the first place?), and can be killed in the same way as a normal person (as opposed to The Undead which usually can only die by, in the immortal words of Shaun of the Dead, “…removing the head or destroying the brain.”) To me, the “Infected” are best represented by the speedy, raging, teeth gnashers of 28 Days Later.
So in which camp does The Crazies fall into? Going in, I could literally see no difference between the crazies of the The Crazies and the crazies of 28 Days Later. The premise of The Crazies is that a maniacal, Big-Brother type of corporation accidentally releases a toxin into the water system of a quaint, hapless Iowa town, turning the ever-pleasant citizens into psycho-killers who want to kill kill kill all their friends and loved ones.
(It’s sort of the opposite of The Music Man, where a sour, stubborn, Iowa town is infected by the musical showmanship of Harold Hill, turning the nose-thumbers into a tight-knit citizenry who rally behind Beethoven’s Minuet in G)
In 28 Days Later, the setting is London, and the responsibility for the outbreak stems from a test monkey biting a researcher, but the end result is much the same: lots of death.
But there are some subtle disparities between the zombies in the two movies. Number one is that the Crazies are high-functioning. They can still open doors, use weapons (including wonderfully macabre items like pitchforks), and operate heavy machinery, just like normal people. This allows for some creativity in the way that the Crazies murder everyone they’ve ever known or loved. Unlike 28 Days Later, the bad guys are not relegated to simply biting or bludgeoning someone to death. Oh no. How about locking your wife and child in a closet and setting the whole house ablaze!
That’s really the best thing that The Crazies has going for it, in what is otherwise a pretty typical run-away-from-the-baddies movie. We follow the town Sheriff (the always solid Timothy Olyphant), his wife (Radha Mitchell), the Deputy (Russell Clank), and an inexplicably present Becca Darling (Danielle Panabaker) – who serves no function and has about ten lines throughout the entire movie – as they attempt to escape the possessed populace as well as the military soldiers sent in to contain the outbreak. For our purposes, we can forget about Becca, who, though darling, amounts to nothing. But the other characters are pretty well-written if inexplicably stupid at times. They walk on the open road even as they know that containment forces are trying to eliminate them. They hang out in front of a big glass window pane as they relax in a diner (remember, both Crazies and the military are after them).
There is some minor development of a few themes. Namely, the seduction and corruption caused by violence (if you thought shooting deer was fun, try shooting a zombie), and the disregard for human life in a major catastrophe (You say there are still some uninfected in the town? Screw it, take out the whole area). But mostly, the film is a hodgepodge of zombie movie tropes. Sacrifices are made, love is chosen over safety, loyalties are tested, the weak are eaten, the strong survive. With the exception of about four inventive death sequences, this is all previously mined territory.
Ok. So are the Crazies zombies?
Have they lost control of themselves? Yes.
Do they turn on the ones they love? Yes.
Are they contagious? Yes.
But…
Do they moan and groan? No.
Do they bite? No.
Are they Undead? No.
It’s a tough choice.
I think the fact that the Crazies retain their creative impulses is indeed significant. The basic point of the zombie is that it’s a human reduced to a beast. And what possibly separates man from animal more than higher brain function? The Crazies may not be writing symphonies or painting masterpieces (Unless you count their blood spattering as an homage to Jackson Pollack), but there is something artistic going on inside their minds that allows them to kill with such élan.
It may be only barely so, but they’re still human.
And here’s your special treat for getting to the end of my schpeel. The first line from the NY Times review of Robert Pattinson’s new movie! Thanks Manohla Dargis.
“In “Remember Me” love means never having to say you’re sorry, particularly to the audience.”
Boy, I really want to see this movie. Read the whole review.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/movies/12remember.html?scp=1&sq=remember%20me%20review&st=cse
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Theatre Thursday
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/theater/10love.html?scp=1&sq=phantom%20of%20the%20opera&st=cse
http://theater.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/theater/reviews/26cher.html
http://theater.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/theater/reviews/23after.html
Ok, here we have the reviews for three sequels to perennial classic plays (although, to be fair, "After Miss Julie" is more of an adaptation than a sequel), and my only question is Why??
Neither "After Miss Julie" nor "The Cherry Orchard Sequel" were written by the original author, and "Love Never Dies" was written by Webber decades after the original was performed. In fact, when I thought about it I could only think of a very slim few who write follow-ups to their original work. The most prominent examples are Tony Kushner (who wrote "Perestroika," the sequel to "Angels in America," only after being begged by producers to do so), and August Wilson (whose plays progress throughout the 20th century decade by decade, but only rarely have some overlap in actual characters).
This, to me, is one of the most interesting differences between film and theatre, and obviously it comes down to money. In film, where the bottom line is always number one, a movie with any kind of financial success always gets a sequel, often announced before the original has finished its movie theatre run.
By the way, apparently there is going to be an Avatar sequel. Number one, God help us all. Number two, was there any plotline left open that could be used in the sequel? Was there any question that we had unanswered at the end of those three hours we spent on Pandora?
To solve the latter problem, many Hollywood movies are just writing in cliffhangers to every movie so that if it does get picked up for a sequel, they're ready to go.
But I digress. It's Theatre Thursday. I think that we can unanimously agree that in movies, sequels are almost unanimously worse than the original (though there are notable exceptions like Godfather II), but does it work the same way in plays? My guess is yes. For one thing, for a play to receive a sequel it has to have a very strong following, and you can only get that through extremely popular initial runs, or years and years of popular syndication. This usually means that the authors who receive sequels are extremely well-established (like Chekhov or Strindberg or Webber), and it's almost impossible to live up to expectations laid down by the initial works themselves.
GTG... More later.
http://theater.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/theater/reviews/26cher.html
http://theater.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/theater/reviews/23after.html
Ok, here we have the reviews for three sequels to perennial classic plays (although, to be fair, "After Miss Julie" is more of an adaptation than a sequel), and my only question is Why??
Neither "After Miss Julie" nor "The Cherry Orchard Sequel" were written by the original author, and "Love Never Dies" was written by Webber decades after the original was performed. In fact, when I thought about it I could only think of a very slim few who write follow-ups to their original work. The most prominent examples are Tony Kushner (who wrote "Perestroika," the sequel to "Angels in America," only after being begged by producers to do so), and August Wilson (whose plays progress throughout the 20th century decade by decade, but only rarely have some overlap in actual characters).
This, to me, is one of the most interesting differences between film and theatre, and obviously it comes down to money. In film, where the bottom line is always number one, a movie with any kind of financial success always gets a sequel, often announced before the original has finished its movie theatre run.
By the way, apparently there is going to be an Avatar sequel. Number one, God help us all. Number two, was there any plotline left open that could be used in the sequel? Was there any question that we had unanswered at the end of those three hours we spent on Pandora?
To solve the latter problem, many Hollywood movies are just writing in cliffhangers to every movie so that if it does get picked up for a sequel, they're ready to go.
But I digress. It's Theatre Thursday. I think that we can unanimously agree that in movies, sequels are almost unanimously worse than the original (though there are notable exceptions like Godfather II), but does it work the same way in plays? My guess is yes. For one thing, for a play to receive a sequel it has to have a very strong following, and you can only get that through extremely popular initial runs, or years and years of popular syndication. This usually means that the authors who receive sequels are extremely well-established (like Chekhov or Strindberg or Webber), and it's almost impossible to live up to expectations laid down by the initial works themselves.
GTG... More later.
The New Order
It's become clear to me that writing whenever I see fit about whatever I see fit is going to make this blog seem haphazard and droning. So, I'm going to try to organize it a bit.
Let's say this: Sunday is politics day. Thursday is Theatre. Friday is movies. Saturday is sports. Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday will be wild cards.
This does not include little fun things I want to post, but just long rants, reviews, and musings.
Let's say this: Sunday is politics day. Thursday is Theatre. Friday is movies. Saturday is sports. Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday will be wild cards.
This does not include little fun things I want to post, but just long rants, reviews, and musings.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Liz Cheney is a Dirty Dirty tramp
When I first read about Liz Cheney's campaign against lawyers working (pro bono) for terror suspects being held at Guantanamo, I wanted to throw my computer through the window. But instead I just let out a Chekhovian sigh and went on with my day more than just a little sadder than I was before. I wish I'd had my blog at the time- I might have beat Jon Stewart to talking about the issue. But luckily, we have great Americans like Mr. Stewart who can speak eloquently to raise awareness on important, weighty questions (and often the baselessness, and ignorance behind accusations) like this.
Here's an article to bring you up to speed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/us/politics/10lawyers.html
You know that when the Republicans are split on something, it must be monstrously controversial.
And here are links to Jon Stewart's interview with Marc Thiessen. Beware, it's long (about 30 minutes). Part 3 is particularly infuriating. But what I love about these interviews is that you actually can really get into the meat of a debate when you go on for over about 20 minutes. That doesn't make it any less maddening.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/exclusive---marc-thiessen-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/exclusive---marc-thiessen-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/exclusive---marc-thiessen-extended-interview-pt--3
Did anyone think that Jon Stewart was in the wrong for "steamrolling" Marc Thiessen? I think his point was basically made, and anyway, it was ridiculous and (as Jon so pointedly repeated) hypothetical. Other opinions?
The title of this post is "Liz Cheney is a Dirty Dirty Tramp," and I have no problem saying that because it is just as well-reasoned and logical a deduction as her accusation that being a lawyer for a terrorist equates you to being a terrorist supporter. By that logic, anyone who defends anyone accused of a crime should be read as a supporter of the crime itself.
Jon Stewart posed the question to Marc Thiessen, "If someone spends their time defending accused pedophiles, should they then be read as a supporter of pedophilia in general?" The response was, "If someone spends all their free time defending pedophiles then, yes, I think questions are raised." (Or something thereabouts)
Madness. Marc Thiessen and Liz Cheney have no right to question the motives of someone defending the accused. Maybe he or she truly believes that the person they are defending is innocent. Perhaps the lawyer simply has a natural propensity towards defending those that have no other means of support. Isn't that the entire allure of being a public defender- the nobility of aiding those who have no other source of help available to them?
And by the way, the careers of these lawyers cannot help but be harmed when they take on these almost certainly losing cases. They are, in essence, sacrificing themselves for a principal on which our legal rights are based.
But I am glad for one thing in this, and that is that Liz Cheney has finally found a way to make herself prominent enough for decent, sane people to realize that she is full of crap. Not to toot my own horn, but I had already endured some minor bleeding from the ears whenever she came onto This Week with George Stephanopoulos to spout whatever Republican talking point the situation demanded.
By now, you've figured out that I'm a Democrat, but, frankly, I have quite a bit of respect for many elements of the Republican platform. I think there is a place for honest debate and disagreement between the two parties, but what I have no patience for is someone (like Liz Cheney) whose mission is to promote a party rather than work for the betterment of the country. To Liz Cheney, the Republicans will be better than the Democrats No Matter What. But guess what, nobody can be right 100% of the time, not even Ronald Reagan.
To simplify:
Calling these lawyers the Al Qaeda 7: Wrong
Liz Cheney: Dirty Tramp (I've removed one of the dirties since I just ate and am feeling better about the world)
Marc Thiessen: Get over it, you lost to Jon Stewart
Republicans: Right some of the time.
Democrats: Right some of the time.
Talking points: Boring and wrong (or at least not fully true) almost all of the time.
Honest Debate: Rare except on Charlie Rose and the Daily Show
Here's an article to bring you up to speed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/us/politics/10lawyers.html
You know that when the Republicans are split on something, it must be monstrously controversial.
And here are links to Jon Stewart's interview with Marc Thiessen. Beware, it's long (about 30 minutes). Part 3 is particularly infuriating. But what I love about these interviews is that you actually can really get into the meat of a debate when you go on for over about 20 minutes. That doesn't make it any less maddening.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/exclusive---marc-thiessen-extended-interview-pt--1
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/exclusive---marc-thiessen-extended-interview-pt--2
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-9-2010/exclusive---marc-thiessen-extended-interview-pt--3
Did anyone think that Jon Stewart was in the wrong for "steamrolling" Marc Thiessen? I think his point was basically made, and anyway, it was ridiculous and (as Jon so pointedly repeated) hypothetical. Other opinions?
The title of this post is "Liz Cheney is a Dirty Dirty Tramp," and I have no problem saying that because it is just as well-reasoned and logical a deduction as her accusation that being a lawyer for a terrorist equates you to being a terrorist supporter. By that logic, anyone who defends anyone accused of a crime should be read as a supporter of the crime itself.
Jon Stewart posed the question to Marc Thiessen, "If someone spends their time defending accused pedophiles, should they then be read as a supporter of pedophilia in general?" The response was, "If someone spends all their free time defending pedophiles then, yes, I think questions are raised." (Or something thereabouts)
Madness. Marc Thiessen and Liz Cheney have no right to question the motives of someone defending the accused. Maybe he or she truly believes that the person they are defending is innocent. Perhaps the lawyer simply has a natural propensity towards defending those that have no other means of support. Isn't that the entire allure of being a public defender- the nobility of aiding those who have no other source of help available to them?
And by the way, the careers of these lawyers cannot help but be harmed when they take on these almost certainly losing cases. They are, in essence, sacrificing themselves for a principal on which our legal rights are based.
But I am glad for one thing in this, and that is that Liz Cheney has finally found a way to make herself prominent enough for decent, sane people to realize that she is full of crap. Not to toot my own horn, but I had already endured some minor bleeding from the ears whenever she came onto This Week with George Stephanopoulos to spout whatever Republican talking point the situation demanded.
By now, you've figured out that I'm a Democrat, but, frankly, I have quite a bit of respect for many elements of the Republican platform. I think there is a place for honest debate and disagreement between the two parties, but what I have no patience for is someone (like Liz Cheney) whose mission is to promote a party rather than work for the betterment of the country. To Liz Cheney, the Republicans will be better than the Democrats No Matter What. But guess what, nobody can be right 100% of the time, not even Ronald Reagan.
To simplify:
Calling these lawyers the Al Qaeda 7: Wrong
Liz Cheney: Dirty Tramp (I've removed one of the dirties since I just ate and am feeling better about the world)
Marc Thiessen: Get over it, you lost to Jon Stewart
Republicans: Right some of the time.
Democrats: Right some of the time.
Talking points: Boring and wrong (or at least not fully true) almost all of the time.
Honest Debate: Rare except on Charlie Rose and the Daily Show
Oscar Madness
Ok, I have to say a piece about the Oscars before it is forgotten by all of America until late January of next year (rightfully so).
This year's ceremony was much better than last year when the Oscars were trying to be the Tony's. Though I really didn't like the co-host thing, Steve Martin can do no wrong in my book and there were some great comic moments. "It's that Damn Helen Mirren" - "No, that's dame Helen Mirren." Ok, that's pretty funny, but it doesn't require two people to deliver. The Paranormal Activity video scene was brilliant, but the highlight of the night for me was the Ben Stiller Na'vi getup when he presented best makeup- perhaps the only good thing that I can say about Avatar is that it is one of those infinitely parody-able things like Star Wars. Best Oscar moment thoughts anyone?
And the Oscar goes to...
Though I still thought the blue people were going to take best picture, I did get a sense that Hurt Locker was building up momentum. I think it was virtually a lock that Kathryn Bigalow (I hope that's the right spelling because I'm too rushed to check it today) was going to win best director- there's no way the Academy could have gone another year without having a female director win without many cries at them being blatantly sexist (which has always been true but which didn't have a storyline to highlight it so vividly until this year). I think it was deserved too, certainly more so than Avatar (and apparently James Cameron threw a little hissy fit when he didn't win either of the two biggies... puh-lease), but my personal vote would have been for Inglorious Bastards as I think it takes a lot of imagination to coax out those comical, ridiculous, cartoony performances from actors.
Ok some thoughts on to whom the Oscars went to in acting- and I'd welcome yours as well:
Christoph Waltz, Supporting Actor, Inglorious Bastards- Absolutely. This is by far the best performance of the year. Original, entertaining, frightening, and still charming. How did he do it?
Monique, Supporting Actress, Precious- From what I've seen, this looks like a pretty riveting performance. Plus I'm so glad the Up in the Air ladies missed out- there was definitely not enough there for an Oscar.
Jeff Bridges, Actor, Crazy Heart- I've heard nothing but good things.
Sandra Bullock, Actress, The Blind Side- ...
...
...
...
... In the words of Forrest Gump, "And that's all I have to say about that."
And finally, just a little bit on each of the Best Pictures that I saw:
District 9- Not a bad movie by any means, but just because it gets critical success doesn't mean that it's Oscar-worthy. This film sashays towards thematic exploration for the first half, but by the second it's just about blowing shit up. The aliens looked like shrimp and I CHATE (Hebrew pronunciation for emphasis) when CGI is used for important characters. It never looks as good as costumes and makeup. Great performance by Sharlto Copley though.
The Blind Side- ...cricket...
Hurt Locker- The only thing that I took away from this movie is that war is intense. Kathryn Bigalow does do a good job capturing the pressure facing bomb defusers on a daily basis, but there isn't too much in the way of a story. It just seems to move from one high-pressure situation to another. This sort of reminded me of Jarhead, but was much better done. Also, I've heard so much talk that this film does not play up the politics of the war in Iraq and how that's a good thing. First off, it's not inherently good to make an unpolitical movie, and second it's impossible to make an unpolitical movie about the War in Iraq. Any sensible person would come away from this film with a heightened sense of realization that it is ridiculous that we have put our troops and the Iraqi people in such a dangerous and ludicrous situation from which there is no easy escape.
Not to mention that the film is framed by the idea that "War is a drug." Are you telling me that's not a political statement?
Inglorious Bastards- I loved this movie. I thought it was such a fun fantasy on World War II that found a way to do an original take on one of the most often-tread genres. I loved the mixing of classic and new film techniques and the clever script which highlighted the inherent creativity of the film medium itself. Plus, how could any self-loving Jew not love to watch what happens to Hitler and Goebbels at the end?
Up in the Air- You've gotta be fucking me. I'm sorry, but again, this film cozies up to important thematic elements, but for me just fell into the trap of cliche after cliche. Oh look, the old, grumpy guy is going to show the young wide-eyed hotshot that she doesn't know jack about the realities of the business. Isn't that the premise for every partner cop movie ever? Vera Farmiga did a good job, and I always think Clooney does solid work. But who is this Anna Kendrick, and why is everybody so enamored with her? Her performance struck me like a first-year theatre movement class exercise. "Ok dear, now imagine that your character is very rigid and by-the-book about everything. Always be angular and precise." But this is just an exercise- a performance is about integrating those ideas into realistic human actions. I think she was stuck in phase one. Plus, would such a strong businesswoman just go to pieces when her boyfriend leaves her? Or would she maybe try to hold back tears and appear to be strong? I guess I'm really upset because rarely in film is there a performance that I vehemently don't like, and this was one of them, and it got an Oscar nod.
Avatar- We've all heard it before, but it's true: Fern Gully meets Dances With Wolves. Set aside the fact that the screenplay follows the same sort of melodramatic arc that was prominent in the almost unanimously racist plays of the 19th century, the writing in this movie just wasn't any good. I mean, the stuff the bad guys are after is called Unobtainium... for real. That's like naming your main character John Everyman. Yes, Pandora was orgasmically good to look at, but don't we want more out of a movie than nice visuals? Forget all that crap about seeing through another person's eyes- there was absolutely nothing deep in this movie. But I must admit that I did have a good time in the theatre, and thought that for the most part the directing and acting were solid. For me, though, it has to start with writing and this just didn't cut it. It is nice, though, to have a movie that almost everyone in the world as seen. There's something very communal and uniting about it- and I'm sure the Na'vi will be parodied forever for just that reason.
*Sidebar: Another Kurt Vonnegut essay I read talked about an anthropologist who theorized that every major civilization once went through the phase of a Folk Society, where people shared a signficant connection to the land. Perhaps this is why Avatar resonates so well.
And to end on a high note, Up- This was just a really sweet movie. If you don't find at least some joy in seeing it, then it is possible you have no heart. Since it's animated, the screenplay was simple and clear and the movie kept you entertained throughout. And I couldn't stop cracking up at the dog with the malfunctioning collar. If you haven't seen this movie, you should.
Though I didn't see Precious, An Education, or A Serious Man, I've heard nothing but great things about all and would welcome more opinions. I have heard that Precious sort of bludgeons you with its depiction of the underpriveleged and abused, which from looking at the previews I can definitely see. As for A Serious Man, to me, the Coen Brothers can very rarely go wrong, so I'm sure I will hightail to Blockbuster at some point to check it out- Ok, I'll get it on Netflix. Nobody uses Blockbuster anymore.
And if you've made it to the end of this, you'll realize that I still haven't discussed the crazy lady who did her best Kanye impression (I think we'll start to see these moments more and more as people crave subjects for twitter posts and the style of these ceremonies begins to further trump their substance), but I think that John Stewart said it best, so I'll link you to him.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-8-2010/the-oscars-big-moment
Phew! And now I can forget all about the Oscars for another year. Maybe next year's best picture nominees will be better overall, but I'm not holding my breath. It's been all downhill since 1994: Forrest Gump (winner), Pulp Fiction, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Shawshank Redemption, and Quiz Show all in one year. Can you imagine such a strong showing nowadays?
Ok, we'll be reviewing the Crazies soon. Get ready.
This year's ceremony was much better than last year when the Oscars were trying to be the Tony's. Though I really didn't like the co-host thing, Steve Martin can do no wrong in my book and there were some great comic moments. "It's that Damn Helen Mirren" - "No, that's dame Helen Mirren." Ok, that's pretty funny, but it doesn't require two people to deliver. The Paranormal Activity video scene was brilliant, but the highlight of the night for me was the Ben Stiller Na'vi getup when he presented best makeup- perhaps the only good thing that I can say about Avatar is that it is one of those infinitely parody-able things like Star Wars. Best Oscar moment thoughts anyone?
And the Oscar goes to...
Though I still thought the blue people were going to take best picture, I did get a sense that Hurt Locker was building up momentum. I think it was virtually a lock that Kathryn Bigalow (I hope that's the right spelling because I'm too rushed to check it today) was going to win best director- there's no way the Academy could have gone another year without having a female director win without many cries at them being blatantly sexist (which has always been true but which didn't have a storyline to highlight it so vividly until this year). I think it was deserved too, certainly more so than Avatar (and apparently James Cameron threw a little hissy fit when he didn't win either of the two biggies... puh-lease), but my personal vote would have been for Inglorious Bastards as I think it takes a lot of imagination to coax out those comical, ridiculous, cartoony performances from actors.
Ok some thoughts on to whom the Oscars went to in acting- and I'd welcome yours as well:
Christoph Waltz, Supporting Actor, Inglorious Bastards- Absolutely. This is by far the best performance of the year. Original, entertaining, frightening, and still charming. How did he do it?
Monique, Supporting Actress, Precious- From what I've seen, this looks like a pretty riveting performance. Plus I'm so glad the Up in the Air ladies missed out- there was definitely not enough there for an Oscar.
Jeff Bridges, Actor, Crazy Heart- I've heard nothing but good things.
Sandra Bullock, Actress, The Blind Side- ...
...
...
...
... In the words of Forrest Gump, "And that's all I have to say about that."
And finally, just a little bit on each of the Best Pictures that I saw:
District 9- Not a bad movie by any means, but just because it gets critical success doesn't mean that it's Oscar-worthy. This film sashays towards thematic exploration for the first half, but by the second it's just about blowing shit up. The aliens looked like shrimp and I CHATE (Hebrew pronunciation for emphasis) when CGI is used for important characters. It never looks as good as costumes and makeup. Great performance by Sharlto Copley though.
The Blind Side- ...cricket...
Hurt Locker- The only thing that I took away from this movie is that war is intense. Kathryn Bigalow does do a good job capturing the pressure facing bomb defusers on a daily basis, but there isn't too much in the way of a story. It just seems to move from one high-pressure situation to another. This sort of reminded me of Jarhead, but was much better done. Also, I've heard so much talk that this film does not play up the politics of the war in Iraq and how that's a good thing. First off, it's not inherently good to make an unpolitical movie, and second it's impossible to make an unpolitical movie about the War in Iraq. Any sensible person would come away from this film with a heightened sense of realization that it is ridiculous that we have put our troops and the Iraqi people in such a dangerous and ludicrous situation from which there is no easy escape.
Not to mention that the film is framed by the idea that "War is a drug." Are you telling me that's not a political statement?
Inglorious Bastards- I loved this movie. I thought it was such a fun fantasy on World War II that found a way to do an original take on one of the most often-tread genres. I loved the mixing of classic and new film techniques and the clever script which highlighted the inherent creativity of the film medium itself. Plus, how could any self-loving Jew not love to watch what happens to Hitler and Goebbels at the end?
Up in the Air- You've gotta be fucking me. I'm sorry, but again, this film cozies up to important thematic elements, but for me just fell into the trap of cliche after cliche. Oh look, the old, grumpy guy is going to show the young wide-eyed hotshot that she doesn't know jack about the realities of the business. Isn't that the premise for every partner cop movie ever? Vera Farmiga did a good job, and I always think Clooney does solid work. But who is this Anna Kendrick, and why is everybody so enamored with her? Her performance struck me like a first-year theatre movement class exercise. "Ok dear, now imagine that your character is very rigid and by-the-book about everything. Always be angular and precise." But this is just an exercise- a performance is about integrating those ideas into realistic human actions. I think she was stuck in phase one. Plus, would such a strong businesswoman just go to pieces when her boyfriend leaves her? Or would she maybe try to hold back tears and appear to be strong? I guess I'm really upset because rarely in film is there a performance that I vehemently don't like, and this was one of them, and it got an Oscar nod.
Avatar- We've all heard it before, but it's true: Fern Gully meets Dances With Wolves. Set aside the fact that the screenplay follows the same sort of melodramatic arc that was prominent in the almost unanimously racist plays of the 19th century, the writing in this movie just wasn't any good. I mean, the stuff the bad guys are after is called Unobtainium... for real. That's like naming your main character John Everyman. Yes, Pandora was orgasmically good to look at, but don't we want more out of a movie than nice visuals? Forget all that crap about seeing through another person's eyes- there was absolutely nothing deep in this movie. But I must admit that I did have a good time in the theatre, and thought that for the most part the directing and acting were solid. For me, though, it has to start with writing and this just didn't cut it. It is nice, though, to have a movie that almost everyone in the world as seen. There's something very communal and uniting about it- and I'm sure the Na'vi will be parodied forever for just that reason.
*Sidebar: Another Kurt Vonnegut essay I read talked about an anthropologist who theorized that every major civilization once went through the phase of a Folk Society, where people shared a signficant connection to the land. Perhaps this is why Avatar resonates so well.
And to end on a high note, Up- This was just a really sweet movie. If you don't find at least some joy in seeing it, then it is possible you have no heart. Since it's animated, the screenplay was simple and clear and the movie kept you entertained throughout. And I couldn't stop cracking up at the dog with the malfunctioning collar. If you haven't seen this movie, you should.
Though I didn't see Precious, An Education, or A Serious Man, I've heard nothing but great things about all and would welcome more opinions. I have heard that Precious sort of bludgeons you with its depiction of the underpriveleged and abused, which from looking at the previews I can definitely see. As for A Serious Man, to me, the Coen Brothers can very rarely go wrong, so I'm sure I will hightail to Blockbuster at some point to check it out- Ok, I'll get it on Netflix. Nobody uses Blockbuster anymore.
And if you've made it to the end of this, you'll realize that I still haven't discussed the crazy lady who did her best Kanye impression (I think we'll start to see these moments more and more as people crave subjects for twitter posts and the style of these ceremonies begins to further trump their substance), but I think that John Stewart said it best, so I'll link you to him.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-8-2010/the-oscars-big-moment
Phew! And now I can forget all about the Oscars for another year. Maybe next year's best picture nominees will be better overall, but I'm not holding my breath. It's been all downhill since 1994: Forrest Gump (winner), Pulp Fiction, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Shawshank Redemption, and Quiz Show all in one year. Can you imagine such a strong showing nowadays?
Ok, we'll be reviewing the Crazies soon. Get ready.
deadgirl Review
Get. Out. Of. My. Head.
It’s been three days since I saw deadgirl, the thriller about a zombie-cum-sex slave, and I am still reeling. For a self-professed horror cynic, the film was more than a simple grade A, but also something of a breakthrough that for me confirmed that legitimacy of an entire genre.
As the movie wastes no time bringing you straight into the story, neither will I. deadgirl begins with two lovelorn high school burnouts, Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez) and J.T. (Noah Segan) cutting class to chug beer in the only place they can think of where nobody will catch them: an abandoned insane asylum (probably not the best of decisions). While wandering around, they stumble on what appears to be a somewhat dead, somewhat alive, very naked woman (Jenny Spain) bound up in a basement that obviously hasn’t been visited by another soul in quite some time. Rickie, being the stricter moralist of the two, initially wants to call the police, but he is talked out of it by J.T. who, though he claims he is worried about legal repercussions, we soon find has plans of his own for whoever (or whatever) it is they have found.
It doesn’t take a genius to guess at what might be on a post-pubescent high school boy’s mind. J.T. convinces Rickie to return to the scene, where he shows him that he has discovered that no matter what is done to the deadgirl (the objectifying name by which they refer to her), she cannot, in the literal sense, die. Though neither boy really knows what to make of it, J.T. has at least figured out what to do with her. “I know what I’m thinkin’ about,” he says, “I’m thinkin’ about wet pussy.” There you have it. The deadgirl becomes J.T.’s sex slave, functioning literally as just an orifice through which the high schooler can work out his adolescent urgings.
Just what the deadgirl is – A zombie? An immortal? – is never explained. Though she has the Undead’s bitey sensibilities (and causes similar side effects), she doesn’t appear to have any superhuman strength or speed. Nor, like a zombie, can she be killed by simple head trauma, or any way for that matter. Ms. Spain’s remarkable performance—which for most of the movie can only consist of hollow, hopeless, facial expressions—shows that she appears to see, feel, and understand what is being inflicted on her body, but because she is so thoroughly bound, she lacks any recourse. There is also a seething danger in her eyes that seems to tell you that if and when she does escape, there will be a bloody revenge.
Throughout the movie, Rickie must wrestle with his conscience—though his instinct is to put an end to the whole ordeal, his own sexual curiosity (recently aggravated by rejection from his lifelong crush) urges him to take part. J.T., on the other hand, has no moral qualms whatsoever, and sinks deeper and deeper into sexual perversion with the deadgirl – perhaps most graphically indicated with a suggestion of sex through a bullet hole he has shot into her torso. He even brings his stoner friend Wheeler (Eric Podnar) in on the secret, and it isn’t long before others start to find out. With an irreparable rift growing between himself and J.T., Rickie realizes that he can no longer stay quiet and accept what is happening in the basement of the asylum. But J.T. will not give up his prized possession so easily. He begins to think that he has developed a sort of bond with the deadgirl, and even his best friend is expendable to keep the unbridled sex romp going. If Rickie wants to free the deadgirl (a risky act with unclear consequences) he will have to go through J.T. to do it.
Yes. I know it’s a looooot of plot explanation for a movie review (and there’s a lot more that happens, but I couldn’t in good conscience spoil any more of it!) but that should be considered a testament to the film’s complexity and depth. My general problem with most horror movies is that the story is secondary to the scare tactics used—it doesn’t really matter what the significance of the zombie scourge is, just that we are thrilled enough to want to see it to its conclusion. This is what separates deadgirl from the mundane bulk of the horror genre. It cannot be strictly called a horror film or a thriller, where fright is induced for its own sake and thematic elements are secondary to the fear factor. Rather, it is a film where themes are conveyed and bolstered by the use of frightening elements. Form is matched to function.
Beware. Though the gore level is only minor, deadgirl is definitely not for the feint of heart. Directors Marcel Sarmiento and Gadi Harel keep you on the edge of your seat in almost every scene, building tension not through the use of sudden loud screeches and impromptu gruesome ends, but by ratcheting up the danger and significance behind the moral choices made by the characters. In one of the most intense scenes I’ve ever witnessed—one that had me cowering in a corner of the room as I watched it—involved a character attempting to have the deadgirl perform oral sex on him. Though I’m a general proponent of falatio, I’ve never wanted so badly for someone to just go home and whack off instead.
But that’s the genius of how deadgirl functions. It elevates questions of sexual assault and rape to the level of life and death. The jarring images presented make it impossible to side with anyone but the victim, which is actually remarkable considering that the victim is a zombie.
*On a side note: I just read an article by Kurt Vonnegut in which he pondered if there are any fates worse than death itself. If he’d have known that being an eternal zombie sex slave was an option, he’d have probably mentioned it.
The movie’s politics are fascinating, rejecting any ideas about the wholesome innocence of high school boys’ puppy love, and equating their obsession with girls to that of a serial rapist. Those two best friends who start to fight when they both fall in love with the same girl? They’re not doing it because they want to make her happy, but because they want her to give her body to only their own self. While I generally frown upon movies, books, poems, and songs that have lower-case titles (most of which do it as a way of seeming more profound), this is a case where it actually has a purpose: the deadgirl is not a person, but an object. And it can’t be denied that this is how many a young boy looks at his first love, especially if that love is unrequited.
Though I believe its general themes are eye-opening and morally correct, deadgirl also has several problematic elements that are difficult to get past (and probably have something to do with why it was not given a larger release). Intentionally objectifying a woman will never be and should never be simple, and though I think the movie clearly does it as a way of highlighting larger women’s issues, for many it will be difficult to swallow. As will the bludgeoning image of what amounts to an on-camera rape, which is hideously painful to watch. The film also upholds an antiquated view of women as the weaker sex, completely at men’s mercy and only able to free themselves with their assistance.
But it is nearly impossible to take on such sensitive issues without falling into a few traps as well. There is a definite difference between having problematic elements pop up in a movie that dives into precarious but important subject matter, versus in a popcorn flick where attractive and scantily-clad women serve no purpose but to be the first to die. deadgirl may be a horror movie, but it is just as deep as any of the Best Picture nominees of this year.
And I’ll guarantee that it will make you think differently about teenage sexual attraction. How could you not after spending a night or two seeing Ms.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Welcome All!
Hellllooo!
I would like to welcome you to the High Horse Blog, a place where I get to sit on my pulpit and spout my opinions without any interruption - comments, you see, will always be a lesser font than posts.
This blog is for movies, t.v., sports, theatre, music, politics, and whatever the Hell else I feel like spouting about. I also consider it a sister blog- or I guess I should call it a brother blog...- to lovehatehorror.blogspot.com, which is written by a friend of mine who will likely review many of the same movies. Hope you'll check it out as well.
Before I get on my high horse and start my blabbing (sometimes shooting from the hip, and sometimes with essays I've taken some time to prepare), I should give you a little info about me:
I'm a Cincinnati native exiled to Chicago, where rent is much higher but careers in the theatre arts are supposedly much more numerous. Having been in the arts my whole life in myriad capacities, I've amassed what I like to think is a wealth of knowledge, as well as what most certainly are a wealth of opinions. I'm a theatre actor and director primarily, and so many of the reviews I write will approach shows and movies from this perspective.
I've been told that a critic should approach things with three questions in mind:
Also, though I am often hard on what I critique, I have the utmost respect for artists and would like to think that my writings reflect that. I know it's just a blog, but I want to try my best to uphold some sense of integrity. Please hold me to that as well.
But that shouldn't be a problem for my first review. It is most definitely positive.
Thanks for reading!
I would like to welcome you to the High Horse Blog, a place where I get to sit on my pulpit and spout my opinions without any interruption - comments, you see, will always be a lesser font than posts.
This blog is for movies, t.v., sports, theatre, music, politics, and whatever the Hell else I feel like spouting about. I also consider it a sister blog- or I guess I should call it a brother blog...- to lovehatehorror.blogspot.com, which is written by a friend of mine who will likely review many of the same movies. Hope you'll check it out as well.
Before I get on my high horse and start my blabbing (sometimes shooting from the hip, and sometimes with essays I've taken some time to prepare), I should give you a little info about me:
I'm a Cincinnati native exiled to Chicago, where rent is much higher but careers in the theatre arts are supposedly much more numerous. Having been in the arts my whole life in myriad capacities, I've amassed what I like to think is a wealth of knowledge, as well as what most certainly are a wealth of opinions. I'm a theatre actor and director primarily, and so many of the reviews I write will approach shows and movies from this perspective.
I've been told that a critic should approach things with three questions in mind:
- What am I seeing?
- How well is it being done?
- Was it worth doing?
Also, though I am often hard on what I critique, I have the utmost respect for artists and would like to think that my writings reflect that. I know it's just a blog, but I want to try my best to uphold some sense of integrity. Please hold me to that as well.
But that shouldn't be a problem for my first review. It is most definitely positive.
Thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)