Last week (yeah, I know, I should have written sooner) we watched one of my favorite movies, El Espinazo del Diablo, a ghost story set in a Spanish orphanage during the Spanish Civil War. For those of you who don't habla Espanol, El Espinazo del Diablo is Spanish for The Devil's Backbone. It was directed by Guillermo del Toro, probably best known in the U.S. for Mimic, Blade II, and Hellboy. He also wrote and directed a film called Cronos, a fascinating reworking of the vampire mythos.
If you haven't seen any of del Toro's films, I would highly recommend all of them, with the unfortunate caveat, however, that they may be classified as horror movies. I say unfortunate because I think the horror genre is one that many people simply dismiss out of hand.
So I'd like to begin discussion with a few questions:
1. If you avoid horror, why?
2. If you enjoy horror, why?
3. What horror movies/stories do you enjoy, and have you watched any that you wish you hadn't?
Del Toror's next film, Pan's Labyrinth, comes out in December. I've only seen the trailer, but I think it's my favorite movie ever.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Door County Trip
Mandy and I were in Door County WI for the last 5 days, staying at a place called the Birchwood Lodge. We had a fantastic trip and I am here to recount what I can so that you all can vicariously have a vacation as well. enjoy!
First off, I made a mix CD (of course) for this trip and we listened to it quite often while we were there. So to kind of 'take you there' in your mind, I will show you the track list of the mix.
1. Everybody's Talkin' -Harry Nillson
2. Golden - My Morning Jacket
3. She Just Wants to Be - R.E.M.
4. Up shit creek again - Tom Waits
5. I Guess Things Happen that Way - Johnny Cash
6. Girl - Beck
7. Pillar of Davidson - Live
8. Us and Them - Pink Floyd
9. Black Swan - Thom Yorke
10. City of Delusion - Muse
11. Gong - Sigur Ros
12. Alice Childress - Ben Folds
13. Wasted - Martin Sexton
14. To Be Alone With You - Sufjan Stevens
15. Within You - Ray Lamontagne
We arrived Thursday afternoon, unloaded the car into our 2nd floor grand suite which includes: King Size Bed, full kitchen, whirlpool, TV/DVD, HUGE walk-in shower with 3 heads, dining room table and living room area.
The first thing we wanted to do after getting unpacked was to take a long walk along the water and soak in the scenery:
We took our time, walking through backroads with paths laden with leaves and small doogies with their owners (that sounds like the dogs were dead, but they weren't). The smells of Wisconsin were filling our noses in the perfect way. And so the vacation was underway.
Well, after about an hour of walking around, we decided (of course) that we needed to get a great cup of coffee and play some chess. So we walked down the road to a great local shop called "Leroy's Water Street Cafe"
While we were playing chess, a group of folks came in and I overheard one of them telling the barista that he was from Pennsylvania. Well, being from PA, my ears perked up a little. When they were walking by our table I thought of asking where in PA they were from, but then for some reason I changed my mind and didn't say anything. As they walked by, one of the guys asked Mandy who was winning the chess match. Well, with the conversation already started I went ahead and asked the man where in PA he was from. "Clarion," he said. This is only 30 minutes from my hometown, Grove City, so we chatted for a bit about that area and what not. I thought it was a cool enough connection, my mind is starting to go back to the chess game. Then two of them, a husband and wife, say that they're not from Clarion, they're from Michigan and are living in Wheaton, IL. I tell them "I work in Wheaton!" It turns out that not only have they been to my Caribou several times, they are close friends with one of my employees, Christina. This is a pretty wild connection from the seemingly unrelated (non PA) couple that was on the sidelines of the conversation until now.
So through chatting with them, we discovered a great place to go and watch the sunset that evening:
They also told us of a great restaurant called Mr. Helsinki's, which was in the upstairs portion of a store in one of the villages there. Delcious food! Here is Mandy enjoying her fondue and tomato/cheese crepe we had for dinner:
After that, Mandy soaked in the whirlpool tub and I watched the Tigers beat the Yankees. A great end to our first evening there.
The next morning, we went to breakfast at a Swedish restaurant called "Al Johnson's." This place is famous for its roof being covered in grass and for having goats graze on it all day. It's quite amusing:
We ate lunch at the top of the mountain, then rode down the rest of the way. After that, we (of course) went and checked out a different coffee shop nearby called "Drink Coffee"
This shop was nice, it had a computer with free internet access for customers with which I sent my 2 emails while I was away. Mandy and I tried out a total of 4 coffee shops, Leroy's being our favorite by far. One day we were exploring different villages looking for their coffee shops (of course) when I decided to ask the owner of an ice cream shop where a great coffee shop in that town might be. This merchant told me that she sold coffee there. I said "No, I'm looking for a sit down, coffee shop type atmosphere where we can read and stuff." She pointed to her one table in the corner next to a big gumball machine. "You're lookin' at it." Mandy said later that I didn't do a very good job at hiding my disgust.
That night we went to a fantastic restaurant on the water called "The Shoreline." It opens at 5 PM and when we got there at 4:45 there was already a line 20 people deep, shivering and waiting to get inside. Here's why... (our view while we ate)
Back at the hotel, we watched 3 movies during the trip (Thank you for Smoking, Tristram Shandy, and Psycho) all of which were good. We swam in the pool downstairs (which we had all to ourselves) and soaked in the hot tub. We watched the Yankees, Padres, Twins and Dodgers get eliminated from the playoffs (I especially enjoyed watching the Yankees go down).
The morning we left, we went to have brunch at the "White Gull" inn. Mandy had Blueberry pancakes and I had Cherry Stuffed French Toast (unbelievable). As we were leaving, I overheard (I eavesdrop) these 2 little boys talking to each other. The first boy said "I bet you I'm gonna be in the Book of World Records." "Why?" asked the 2nd child. "Well, in a couple of years I will... (he puts his fingers up representing a headline) for being The First Man To Not Have Chicken Pox.... EVER."
Mandy and I believe that this has been our best trip we've ever taken, from start to finish. On the drive home she discovered her dream candle shop (in which I spent an hour pretending to be the most patient husband known to man). If any of you feel that this trip is something you'd ever like to do, the website for the lodge we stayed in is: www.birchwoodlodge.com and now you have the names of some pretty awesome places to go while you're there. If you're not interested, well hopefully this was entertaining enough for you.
I needed this trip. Here's a before and after picture so you get the idea how badly I needed a short vacation:
First off, I made a mix CD (of course) for this trip and we listened to it quite often while we were there. So to kind of 'take you there' in your mind, I will show you the track list of the mix.
1. Everybody's Talkin' -Harry Nillson
2. Golden - My Morning Jacket
3. She Just Wants to Be - R.E.M.
4. Up shit creek again - Tom Waits
5. I Guess Things Happen that Way - Johnny Cash
6. Girl - Beck
7. Pillar of Davidson - Live
8. Us and Them - Pink Floyd
9. Black Swan - Thom Yorke
10. City of Delusion - Muse
11. Gong - Sigur Ros
12. Alice Childress - Ben Folds
13. Wasted - Martin Sexton
14. To Be Alone With You - Sufjan Stevens
15. Within You - Ray Lamontagne
We arrived Thursday afternoon, unloaded the car into our 2nd floor grand suite which includes: King Size Bed, full kitchen, whirlpool, TV/DVD, HUGE walk-in shower with 3 heads, dining room table and living room area.
The first thing we wanted to do after getting unpacked was to take a long walk along the water and soak in the scenery:
We took our time, walking through backroads with paths laden with leaves and small doogies with their owners (that sounds like the dogs were dead, but they weren't). The smells of Wisconsin were filling our noses in the perfect way. And so the vacation was underway.
Well, after about an hour of walking around, we decided (of course) that we needed to get a great cup of coffee and play some chess. So we walked down the road to a great local shop called "Leroy's Water Street Cafe"
While we were playing chess, a group of folks came in and I overheard one of them telling the barista that he was from Pennsylvania. Well, being from PA, my ears perked up a little. When they were walking by our table I thought of asking where in PA they were from, but then for some reason I changed my mind and didn't say anything. As they walked by, one of the guys asked Mandy who was winning the chess match. Well, with the conversation already started I went ahead and asked the man where in PA he was from. "Clarion," he said. This is only 30 minutes from my hometown, Grove City, so we chatted for a bit about that area and what not. I thought it was a cool enough connection, my mind is starting to go back to the chess game. Then two of them, a husband and wife, say that they're not from Clarion, they're from Michigan and are living in Wheaton, IL. I tell them "I work in Wheaton!" It turns out that not only have they been to my Caribou several times, they are close friends with one of my employees, Christina. This is a pretty wild connection from the seemingly unrelated (non PA) couple that was on the sidelines of the conversation until now.So through chatting with them, we discovered a great place to go and watch the sunset that evening:
They also told us of a great restaurant called Mr. Helsinki's, which was in the upstairs portion of a store in one of the villages there. Delcious food! Here is Mandy enjoying her fondue and tomato/cheese crepe we had for dinner:
After that, Mandy soaked in the whirlpool tub and I watched the Tigers beat the Yankees. A great end to our first evening there.
The next morning, we went to breakfast at a Swedish restaurant called "Al Johnson's." This place is famous for its roof being covered in grass and for having goats graze on it all day. It's quite amusing:
Then, upon the suggestion of a barista at Leroy's, we immediately hauled out to the Peninsula State Park, which is about 5 minutes from our hotel. When we arrived we rented bikes (wish we had our own!) to ride through the park. It was completely awesome. Not only were the smells of the forest wonderful, but the scenery was breath taking. The pictures don't do it justice, but here's what we captured just during the ride:
Then at the pinnacle of this 12 mile ride we took, we came upon Eagle's Tower (and when I say "came upon" I mean more that we "huffed and puffed up massive hills and sweated our tushes off upon it")
From the top of this tower, we were able to see a LONG ways off. It was amazing. Incidentally, the tower was wavering a little the whole time we were on it with 50 million kids who wanted to get to the top first. That, compiled with my natural distaste (that means I pee myself) for heights, means that Eagle Tower had it's pro's and it's con's.
Here's what the top of the tower held for our eyes:
We ate lunch at the top of the mountain, then rode down the rest of the way. After that, we (of course) went and checked out a different coffee shop nearby called "Drink Coffee"
This shop was nice, it had a computer with free internet access for customers with which I sent my 2 emails while I was away. Mandy and I tried out a total of 4 coffee shops, Leroy's being our favorite by far. One day we were exploring different villages looking for their coffee shops (of course) when I decided to ask the owner of an ice cream shop where a great coffee shop in that town might be. This merchant told me that she sold coffee there. I said "No, I'm looking for a sit down, coffee shop type atmosphere where we can read and stuff." She pointed to her one table in the corner next to a big gumball machine. "You're lookin' at it." Mandy said later that I didn't do a very good job at hiding my disgust.That night we went to a fantastic restaurant on the water called "The Shoreline." It opens at 5 PM and when we got there at 4:45 there was already a line 20 people deep, shivering and waiting to get inside. Here's why... (our view while we ate)
Back at the hotel, we watched 3 movies during the trip (Thank you for Smoking, Tristram Shandy, and Psycho) all of which were good. We swam in the pool downstairs (which we had all to ourselves) and soaked in the hot tub. We watched the Yankees, Padres, Twins and Dodgers get eliminated from the playoffs (I especially enjoyed watching the Yankees go down).
The morning we left, we went to have brunch at the "White Gull" inn. Mandy had Blueberry pancakes and I had Cherry Stuffed French Toast (unbelievable). As we were leaving, I overheard (I eavesdrop) these 2 little boys talking to each other. The first boy said "I bet you I'm gonna be in the Book of World Records." "Why?" asked the 2nd child. "Well, in a couple of years I will... (he puts his fingers up representing a headline) for being The First Man To Not Have Chicken Pox.... EVER."
Mandy and I believe that this has been our best trip we've ever taken, from start to finish. On the drive home she discovered her dream candle shop (in which I spent an hour pretending to be the most patient husband known to man). If any of you feel that this trip is something you'd ever like to do, the website for the lodge we stayed in is: www.birchwoodlodge.com and now you have the names of some pretty awesome places to go while you're there. If you're not interested, well hopefully this was entertaining enough for you.
I needed this trip. Here's a before and after picture so you get the idea how badly I needed a short vacation:
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Dark Side of the Rainbow
Last night we combined 2 forms of media into one experience by watching the Wizard of Oz on Mute while listening to the Dark Side of the Moon turned up loud. I personally have done this many times before, but half of the people there had never done it, and one had no idea why we were.
Here's why we did it:
There is a widespread rumor that when Pink Floyd made Dark Side (1974) they wrote it as an alternate soundtrack to the Wizard of Oz (1939). Some Pink Floyd members refuse to comment on the rumor, and some have denied its validity. Either way, there is mystery surrounding it, and we wanted to see it for ourselves.
How we did it:
At the very beginning of the film, the MGM lion comes on and roars three times before the start of the film. right after the 3rd roar, you press play on the album. then mute the TV. So it begins. But the album is only 42 minutes long, while the film is an hour and 40 minutes. So you play the album on a loop and watch it 2.5 times through, all the way to the end of the film.
What we discovered:
We discovered several connections between the album and the film sporadically throughout the film. The main meat of the connections is found the first time through the record. I'm not going to go into detail as to the connections themselves; you'll have to come up with your own. We didn't have any conclusive evidence to support the rumor. At the same time, we found enough to make denying it difficult.
We also discovered that the album changes the mood of the movie dramatically. Compared to what we typically took from the movie, the new soundtrack gave us new impressions. Likewise, the album takes on new life when heard in conjunction with the film. But if our minds are in a duel as to how we're to feel while we're experiencing these 2 medias at once, the audio tends to beat the visual. Meaning that we tend to interpret what our eyes see by understanding what our ears are hearing rather than the other way around. Very fascinating. Especially since we are familiar with the film enough to KNOW what is going on and our minds are still pulled into interpreting it differently because of the change in sountrack.
Who all has tried doing this?
If so, what did you discover?
Jillmarie, thank you for bringing the coffee from Greenleaf, always a big hit!
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Thus Far...
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
The Sexy Leading Lady
What does it mean to be a beautiful woman? I'm sure we've all been told how young girls feel pressure from the media (pop culture) to look a certain way, to have a certain kind of body, that sort of thing. What effect do the women on big screens and magazines have on men? Does it effect a guy's decision to watch a movie if there is a "sexy leading lady" involved? You bet your bottom booty that it does. Which is why they're being featured more and more. Marilyn Monroe might have been the first sex icon, but she's nowhere near the last. There are really too many to count these days- we do need to appeal to all viewers.
First, let's talk about guys. One of them will say to me "So what if I think she's attractive and want to watch her movie? It's not an insult to them if I think they're sexy." Even if it turns them on to turn you on, it's still abusing them. Pretend for a minute that you fully agree with me. Not only do we need to protect these women from being misused, we need to protect ourselves from falling victim to it. It shouldn't take having a little girl of your own being oggled at the strip bar to make us realize that somewhere along the lines, our thought patterns concerning women might be a bit bad.
Now, for the girls. It's amazing how many times women try to take steps forward, and it turns out to be more of a step to the side, or just slightly backward even. First, I don't think you need me to tell you that you don't need to reveal more of your physical body to be more physically beautiful. By conducting yourself in a way that reveals more and more, it teaches men to think of you as something that they can attain at no cost. Have more respect for yourself and your fellow women- men should treat you better as a result.
One point on the whole "women's lib" movement. It seems that the goal from women has been to establish that they can do things every bit as good as men can, and therefore should be honored and celebrated just as much. While it may be true that women can do everything men can and vice versa, what if it's not? Does that mean that women shouldn't be honored and celebrated just as much? Or if it turns out that they can do everything better than men, should men not be celebrated for who they are? What if we were to say that women need to be honored and celebrated and appreciated no matter what they can or can't do? If you try to establish respect on the basis of being equal in all things, what happens if a guy is stronger than you? Should your respect take a dive?
Honestly, I'm embarrassed to be a guy sometimes because I know the way that we think. I'm not up here preaching- I know that I'm guilty of it, which is how I understand it so well. And even if I was preaching, establishing that I don't practice what I preach is no reason to disregard the message. Guys need to learn who women are and how they're to be treated. But women need to learn who women are and how they're to be treated, too.
First, let's talk about guys. One of them will say to me "So what if I think she's attractive and want to watch her movie? It's not an insult to them if I think they're sexy." Even if it turns them on to turn you on, it's still abusing them. Pretend for a minute that you fully agree with me. Not only do we need to protect these women from being misused, we need to protect ourselves from falling victim to it. It shouldn't take having a little girl of your own being oggled at the strip bar to make us realize that somewhere along the lines, our thought patterns concerning women might be a bit bad.
Now, for the girls. It's amazing how many times women try to take steps forward, and it turns out to be more of a step to the side, or just slightly backward even. First, I don't think you need me to tell you that you don't need to reveal more of your physical body to be more physically beautiful. By conducting yourself in a way that reveals more and more, it teaches men to think of you as something that they can attain at no cost. Have more respect for yourself and your fellow women- men should treat you better as a result.
One point on the whole "women's lib" movement. It seems that the goal from women has been to establish that they can do things every bit as good as men can, and therefore should be honored and celebrated just as much. While it may be true that women can do everything men can and vice versa, what if it's not? Does that mean that women shouldn't be honored and celebrated just as much? Or if it turns out that they can do everything better than men, should men not be celebrated for who they are? What if we were to say that women need to be honored and celebrated and appreciated no matter what they can or can't do? If you try to establish respect on the basis of being equal in all things, what happens if a guy is stronger than you? Should your respect take a dive?
Honestly, I'm embarrassed to be a guy sometimes because I know the way that we think. I'm not up here preaching- I know that I'm guilty of it, which is how I understand it so well. And even if I was preaching, establishing that I don't practice what I preach is no reason to disregard the message. Guys need to learn who women are and how they're to be treated. But women need to learn who women are and how they're to be treated, too.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Coldcall Coldplay
Hey everybody, how have you all been? We've been traveling a lot, which is why we didn't get to meet in July. But we're back and ready to roll again with some exciting ideas to take us through the rest of this first year of M.O.M.
Our next meeting time is Friday, August 18th at 7 PM at Backthird Audio. Bring anything that's tasty to eat, or bring a friend (who may or may not be tasty to eat. actually, they probably taste of chicken).
So what has been happening this summer? The media is having a field day with Mel Gibson. Hollywood is making its fair share of terrible summer smash blockbuster hits (Superman Returns tops my list that I've seen). All is well in the world. There is a new film coming out (The Fountain) by Requiem director Darren Aronofsky. I'm curious.
I got a call yesterday from a charity asking me to donate. I told them that I was sorry but to please not call back. The man told me that he would call back. I said "No, I'm serious, do not call me back." He said, "I'm calling back."
"No do not call me back, I mean it." (my voice is rising)
"I'm calling back."
"No, don't." (stern business voice)
"Is your wife there?"
"No, she's not and don't call back for her either." (slight tone of amusement showing through)
"Fine, I won't call back."
"Thank you. Goodbye."
"Bye...... (right before I hang up I hear) but i'm calling back."
I'm at a loss. Does this kind of behavior convince anyone to actually give them money? I'm currently on hold as I write this with SBC (have been for over 23 minutes) trying to get a 50 dollar gift card that was supposed to be sent to me 4 months ago. I'm actually conference calling with 2 different departments (you can imagine the type of mood this is putting me in).
Our next meeting time is Friday, August 18th at 7 PM at Backthird Audio. Bring anything that's tasty to eat, or bring a friend (who may or may not be tasty to eat. actually, they probably taste of chicken).
So what has been happening this summer? The media is having a field day with Mel Gibson. Hollywood is making its fair share of terrible summer smash blockbuster hits (Superman Returns tops my list that I've seen). All is well in the world. There is a new film coming out (The Fountain) by Requiem director Darren Aronofsky. I'm curious.
I got a call yesterday from a charity asking me to donate. I told them that I was sorry but to please not call back. The man told me that he would call back. I said "No, I'm serious, do not call me back." He said, "I'm calling back."
"No do not call me back, I mean it." (my voice is rising)
"I'm calling back."
"No, don't." (stern business voice)
"Is your wife there?"
"No, she's not and don't call back for her either." (slight tone of amusement showing through)
"Fine, I won't call back."
"Thank you. Goodbye."
"Bye...... (right before I hang up I hear) but i'm calling back."
I'm at a loss. Does this kind of behavior convince anyone to actually give them money? I'm currently on hold as I write this with SBC (have been for over 23 minutes) trying to get a 50 dollar gift card that was supposed to be sent to me 4 months ago. I'm actually conference calling with 2 different departments (you can imagine the type of mood this is putting me in).
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Put that in your Pipe
Mandy and I just got back from a 4 day music festival called Bonnaroo down in Tennessee last night. We saw so many great bands in such a short period of time it was almost too much to fully take in. The list of bands that we saw are as follows (in order)
The Motet
Cat Empire
Andrew Bird
Ben Folds
Mike Gordon
Oysterhead
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
My Morning Jacket
Buddy Guy
Elvis Costello
Beck
Radiohead
Bela Fleck and the Flecktones
Matisyahu
There were tons more to choose from, but those were all of the bands that we got to see. There were over 80,000 people there, it was outdoors and extremely hot.
During Tom Petty my friend Sean got a big bug in his eye which caused him irritation. So he reached for a nearby bottle of water to wash it out, only to realize that what he had grabbed was a bottle that contained vodka, not water. He discovered this AFTER he had poured it down his eye socket. Several times during the festival I was just handed drugs out of the blue. I didn't know the person offering, I didn't ask for any, they just went out of their way to try to bring the drugs my way. Turning them down was also funny b/c you could tell they weren't used to that response. I'd say about 90% of the people in there were using on some level during the shows. it might heighten their experience, but it doesn't have the same effect on people with clear heads. It's another case of etiquitte, but this time it's watching a concert. and guess what, I don't like distractions. I came there to see Radiohead, not the stoned guy behind me yelling "Go Kanes!" randomly at the top of his lungs during quiet parts of their songs.
How will these kinds of problems ever go away? First, we need to be the ones who aren't the offenders of these crimes. Once that is taken care of, we need to keep all of our friends in check. If it was one of my friends yelling out, it would be my job to either spank him or escort him out of the facility like a crying baby in church. They do these kinds of things b/c most people laugh at their shout outs, instead of clubbing them between the buttocks which should be standard practice for this sort of behavior. It's just like in kindergarden, we don't want to encourage the bully to pick on the dweeb, well we are the dweeb. So let's stand up for art and not let it be ravaged and plundered by people who will take everything wonderful out of it and try to roll it up in their doobie.
The Motet
Cat Empire
Andrew Bird
Ben Folds
Mike Gordon
Oysterhead
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
My Morning Jacket
Buddy Guy
Elvis Costello
Beck
Radiohead
Bela Fleck and the Flecktones
Matisyahu
There were tons more to choose from, but those were all of the bands that we got to see. There were over 80,000 people there, it was outdoors and extremely hot.
During Tom Petty my friend Sean got a big bug in his eye which caused him irritation. So he reached for a nearby bottle of water to wash it out, only to realize that what he had grabbed was a bottle that contained vodka, not water. He discovered this AFTER he had poured it down his eye socket. Several times during the festival I was just handed drugs out of the blue. I didn't know the person offering, I didn't ask for any, they just went out of their way to try to bring the drugs my way. Turning them down was also funny b/c you could tell they weren't used to that response. I'd say about 90% of the people in there were using on some level during the shows. it might heighten their experience, but it doesn't have the same effect on people with clear heads. It's another case of etiquitte, but this time it's watching a concert. and guess what, I don't like distractions. I came there to see Radiohead, not the stoned guy behind me yelling "Go Kanes!" randomly at the top of his lungs during quiet parts of their songs.
How will these kinds of problems ever go away? First, we need to be the ones who aren't the offenders of these crimes. Once that is taken care of, we need to keep all of our friends in check. If it was one of my friends yelling out, it would be my job to either spank him or escort him out of the facility like a crying baby in church. They do these kinds of things b/c most people laugh at their shout outs, instead of clubbing them between the buttocks which should be standard practice for this sort of behavior. It's just like in kindergarden, we don't want to encourage the bully to pick on the dweeb, well we are the dweeb. So let's stand up for art and not let it be ravaged and plundered by people who will take everything wonderful out of it and try to roll it up in their doobie.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
I'm the best there is at what I do (or in this case, the only one)
This weekend I went to see X-Men: The Last Stand. I thought it was great, but that's not the subject of this post. What I wish to discuss is movie etiquette and etiquette in general.
As the film started, someone in one of the front rows opened a cell phone that blinked blue lights that could probably be seen from Asteroid M and definitely distracted me and those I was sitting with. The last time I went to the movies, a group of pre-teens in front of me sent each other text messages throughout the entire movie. So I had to make a choice: do I try to ignore it and end up annoyed throughout the whole movie? or do I do something about it?
I chose the latter. "Turn of your phone!" I yelled. He did. And immediately, I could feel the tension in the theater. My wife whispered, "I can't believe you just did that."
Why is it that those who confront rudeness are made to feel uncomfortable while the feelings of rude people are protected? A computer-animated car had just told us to turn off our phones (and if the word of an anthropomorphic automobile isn't authoritative, I don't know what is). Did this guy think that it meant everyone but him?
Let's make this a two-fold discussion:
1. What is acceptable movie etiquette? Feel free to include theater, home theater, and discussions with people who may or may not have seen the movie.
2. What should our response be when someone trespasses the boundaries?
And just for fun, what sort of movie rituals do you have? If I like a movie a lot, I'll stay in the theater until the blue ratings screen comes up.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
"What's up, Doc"umentaries?
Pardon the silly title, I think I'm missing my father and my friend Josh so every pun in the world seems to bring them closer.
So last night we watched "Born into Brothels" which was our first Documentary style film. We talked some about this form of media last night, but I'd like to push into it a little further (surprised?) on here. By the way, I want to thank you all for making last night so much fun and so interesting. It was great to have some new people there as well as some familiar faces.
Regardless of the content, the Documentary format changes whatever you're watching compared with a normal fiction story. We established last night that there is no such thing as an unbiased presentation, whether it's a movie or a documentary or the evening news. If a human is involved there is bias. But what about ourselves? We're quick to judge the motives of the person deliverying the story, but what about our motives in our reception? If Michael Moore is using his bias to push information our way, we might be using our bias in rejecting it. I agree 100% that he abuses the word documentary and twists facts at times so that people cannot swallow his stuff as non-fiction. BUT, to toss aside the information presented would probably also be a mistake, and in my opinion would be driven by our desire to not be confronted by some of the things in his films. That's where our bias can effect the transfer of information.
The fact that some people who hear about slave labor in other countries say "well if it's really that bad they don't have to work there" or something along those lines is a perfect example. We don't want to be convicted, so we try to change the information so that it's more pallatable to us. So while we need to discern through what the film maker is trying to get us to believe, we need to figure out what we are actually TRYING to believe and fight through that for truth. Truth changes us. why? Because we're believing lies!!!
One other thought i had about something that was said last night was about the difference between watching a movie about depravity vs. watching it on the news. the newsabout depravity is trying to tell us what is going on out there. the movies about depravity are capable of showing us how to deal with what is going on out there, and giving us new insight. at least in my experience. people don't want to believe that's true b/c movies are just for entertainment, right? both are told with a bias, whether clear or unclear... but both still have something concrete to offer if we're willing to dig.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Good old Fashioned Love Story
My wife considers me to be a romantic guy. I always remember birthdays, anniversaries, special songs we've listened to, things like that. I tell you this so that you don't write off my thoughts further down the page as ramblings from an insensitive git. The main reason that I don't like most romantic movies is not because I don't find romance exciting, it's because I feel like they fail to deliver true romance.
There is a theme that runs through these movies which I feel people buy into pretty wholeheartedly. It glorifies your desires above all else. Any person who has had their desires infringed upon in any way is now an incomplete person, and it would be better for everybody if they found somebody who would make them complete. Or, it would be better for that person and not everybody, but that person is ultimately all that matters since that's who the star of the movie is. In fact, most of these movies involve the star being incomplete WITH somebody, not just simply incomplete all by themselves. It involves a choice between one person or another, one life or another is the way they sell it usually.
Think of some American romance movies... Casablanca, The Notebook, The Wedding Planner, Sleepless in Seattle, Brokeback Mountain... These types of movies tell the tales of people who either became complete by leaving their relationships with another, OR the tragic ones where they would've had they only but they never did so look how sad it is.
We worship ourselves and our desires naturally. Which is why this notion appeals to us above all others, that my needs are ultimately the most important. But when we give into this kind of thinking, we never will be complete no matter what choice we make or how many soul mates we find. Hollywood wants you to feel that getting everything your heart desires is what you should do, b/c they want you to buy the popcorn and soda that your heart desires.
The story is in the telling, and any of these romance stories could be told as horribly sad dramas if the other perspective was taken. We could watch Sleepless in Seattle from Bill Pullman's side of things, which is that he's a terribly nice fellow who's found his dream girl in Meg Ryan. He loves her with his whole heart and she leaves him all alone. Then he spirals down into a deep depression always blaming himself for the loss of his one true love, and the movie ends when he jumps off the empire state building to his death. Then the camera pans over and sees Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks holding hands for the first time. We would hate them. But we don't. We love them because their story is our story. Bill Pullman doesn't exist in our minds because he got in the way of the completion of Meg Ryan.
The things that you sacrifice for are the only things worth living for. It's through sacrifice that true romance is born.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
How did we learn to stop worrying?
Last night we watched the film "Dr. Strangelove OR How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." It was directed by Stanley Kubrick, who I believe to be one of the greatest filmakers ever. The discussion afterwards ranged all over the place, covering several topics briefly. I'd like you all to feel free now to explore things more in depth.There were so many good topics that came up last night (Nazi's. Communists, whether Evan is anti-American or not, whether human beings can be perfected, passifism, fear, security, paranoia, American History) that it's hard to pick one to start with. But my favorite thing about last night is that we sat there and watched a movie that is 43 years old which accomplished its purpose in us still today. That happened because of 2 reasons. 1. The art itself was great 2. We were willing to access it Now, a notion exists within all of us young people that this movie is the exception to the rule. That most older films don't actually have that number 1 quality to them, and therefore we don't have the 2nd quality when approaching them.
This kind of thinking puts us into a downward spiral that never fully appreciates the past, always just wants the latest and greatest thing. Learning from yesterday seems boring and almost impossible at times. Let's think about it. They were trying to do very similar things, which is to get their thoughts/ideas/stories across through a motion picture. Most of us believe that we do it much better now, so we'd rather browse the new release wall than to scan the older sections. Frankly (sorry Dan) I don't agree that we always do it better now. Especially since most films I see are simply re-creations of older ones who had a lot more original ideas.
Once again, we see that great art requires discipline on our part in order to engage with it. If it's spoon fed, it's nothing great.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
If Uncle Walter was President
I want to talk for a bit about Presidential elections. Especially since there isn't one currently happening, we can talk about it a little differently (hopefully). Two candidates run, and the American people all have the power to choose one or the other. How do we decide who to cast a vote for? Or how do we decide if we're even to vote at all?We don't know the candidates personally (most likely). We don't know anybody who does know them personally (most likely). So the information that we have about them is directly (or indirectly) passed to us from different forms of media. There are also certain issues which seem more important to the average American, so debates and interviews seem geared on prying into a candidates views on certain issues. The thinking is, "If we can't know them, we want to know what they think about what I think is important." Is there a better way to make our decisions? If not, then what's important to us?
Ever since I was a kid, most of the people that I've known who voted were very drawn to the issue of abortion. I've seen many people cast their vote almost purely based on this issue, or certainly it was heavily weighted. I would like to understand this kind of thinking a little bit better. I am in no way trying to say that abortion is an issue that doesn't matter, or that it's not important. But I've never seen a President actually play a major role in this issue. No President has single-handedly made abortion legal, and no President has ever over-turned legalized abortion. I know that they could somehow be connected in a loose way by electing a Supreme Court Justices who shares their views on this issue. But, since Pro-Life people are still holding their breath on that miracle snowball effect to take place... maybe the issues that are dealt with most directly by our Presidents during their terms should be the ones that we care the most about when placing our votes.
Then for those who don't vote at all... nobody needs to defend themselves, but since all we hear all our life is how people died to give you the right to do it and all that jazz, what are some reasons not to?
Abortion is something that people (on both sides) are extremely passionate about, and I'd say for good reason. But is the President the best avenue for getting your side of that issue upheld? At times it seems like we're voting on which plumber we want working on our pipes based on which of the 2 local dentists he supports. It might be important for a plumber to pick which dentist he wants to go to, but it has very little outcome on how your pipes are going to work after he leaves your house.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Soggy Conservatives
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/books_entertainment/be_columns/ErikLokkesmoe/2006/02/07/185351.html
Please read this short article and give me any comments you have. Thanks for pointing me to it Benjie!
Please read this short article and give me any comments you have. Thanks for pointing me to it Benjie!
Friday, March 24, 2006
Action... Reaction. Causality?
Well, was it the best movie of 2005? If not, what was better? I have not seen every movie made during the year, but I saw a lot. I'm personally glad that it won the award, but I'd be interested in hearing some different opinions if they exist.
My main critique of this film is that it was not original enough. To me, the movie combines the style of Magnolia (intertwined storylines) with the message of American History X (Racial prejudice and baggage) to build the end result. So, although there was nothing I had never seen in this film, I still loved everything that I did see.
Although there were similarities which prevented Crash from being superb in its own right, there were enough differences to make it interesting and extremely powerful. A lot of movies that deal with race tend to lean towards the triumphant overcoming of these racial differences in a feel good, "Remember the Titans" sort of way. Crash acknowledged the differences and stereotypes in people, but didn't give people the easy way out. A few people commented that this left them feeling hopeless because we weren't given the answer in the end. I felt that this was the strongest part of the movie in the sense that they didn't give an incredibly difficult problem an over-simplified pallatable solution.
I want to thank everybody who came to Mind Over Media on Friday, it was great to see you all and I was encouraged by the discussion and interactions that went on. Thank you Jill for bringing the coffee, thank you Sprinkles for bringing the fudge oat bars, thank you mandy for bringing the snickerdoodle cookies, thank you benjie for providing the cherry covered cheesecake. So, what are some thoughts? Think with your fingers everybody, fingers on the keys and think. let's do it.
Are we in control of our reactions or do they happen automatically? Are they effected by our previous thoughts/experiences? Can we harness anger that is justified? Are we slaves to our emotions?
Sunday, March 19, 2006
Ticking of Clocks
We've talked some about the concept of convenience over the past couple of months. I have mentioned that there is always a cost to something being convenient. I would like to dig a little deeper with you all on this, and see where it takes us.
So, is quality of the product the only thing that suffers when you make convenience a top priority? I'm sure we'd all agree that the "good things" that come to those who wait are the products themselves. So we pretty much understand the concept that something is most likely not as good if I get it faster and easier.
What else could suffer, other than the product itself? Is it possible that our character might take a blow? I would argue that there are certain virtues that run counter to things being convenient and easy. Patience is a pretty obvious one. If I never have to wait for the things that I want, do I develop a lot of patience? In my experience, the people who are the most impatient are the people who live a fast-paced, convenience driven lifestyle. They come into the coffee shop on their cell phone (of course attached to their ear, how convenient!!), sending emails with one hand and paying for the drink with the other. If something goes wrong and that person has to wait, you better believe they're not the most patient.
The people who live the most convenience driven lifestyles are often more bitter, and more stressed. This could be in part b/c all of their experiences are not as full as they could be, since they want to cram more in, so they end up feeling more empty.
So convenience stands in opposition to qualities that can grow your character into a person who will actually enjoy life and the people around you much more.
Mandy and I just got a puppy dog last week, and we're starting to train her. Of course puppies are patient naturally, right?? Obviously not, Mandy and I always have to hold her (Ivy) back until it's the right time, before we finally let her get what she wants. We try to teach her things b/c we know it's important for her to not feel she can always get her way, right away. The problem is, our culture doesn't keep this teaching going, it usually fosters the opposite mindset in us. If I have a coffee shop and you tell me that I could make tons more money by adding a drive-thru, b/c people want that convenience... would I say "No, make the public learn to be patient, that's better in the long run." I would of course take every advantage in getting more money without thought one for how this effects people's character.
Who's job is it to train us? It's certainly not McDonalds (or if it was, they're fired). Please share what you all are thinking when you read this stuff, I need to grow from your thoughts.
Monday, March 13, 2006
New Marlboro Man?
Most of you would be embarrassed to go into a respectable restaurant wearing a hat like this. My friends and I award prizes for stuff like this. This is my friend Bret at this past year's Crazy Hat Night, which happened to be the 10th year in a row that we've done this. Bret is not ashamed. He embraces the fact that most people will laugh at him and mock him. A lot of people spend their lives paralyzed by what others may or may not think.
How can we change the world when the world is forever changing us?
Here is a picture of my friend Sean, trying his hardest to change the world.
Total loser, right? Spent hours hot glueing plasticwear together to form a Crazy Hat, so he could look like an idiot in front of a bunch of normal people. Normal people who most likely will wonder to themselves... why would he do this?
It's not for breast cancer awareness. It's not for AIDS relief, or Children's Hospital, although those are obviously all great causes for action. This type of behavior is to raise awareness about ourselves. We need to be able to live our lives free from the bondage of hoping everybody will think we are cool.
It's good for us to do things occasionally that remind us that we aren't above being laughed at, or even looked down upon. It will grow our humility.
Do something that will make you look foolish on purpose. It might change the world.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Is it Worth it?
Mandy and I went to Chicago yesterday to see the musical "Wicked." It's based (rather loosely) on Gregory Maguire's book, same title. We really enjoyed ourselves, and we better have because we had to buy those tickets 6 months in advance. But as we sat there in the theatre, we realized a couple of things. First, that this was the first musical we'd been to together as a couple. We've probably been to over 100 concerts, seen several hundred films (some of them were musicals). Why don't we think to go to the theatre? It made us kind of sad, because there's something on the stage that is just so different than what is on the screen. It touches on one of the root issues we have in our society when it comes to engaging art and culture... it seems like too much work. We literally centered our entire day around going. Sat in the car for a total of 3.5 hours, spent 25$ on parking, 160$ total for tickets, 50$ on all meals, 7$ on coffees. So it's hard in a different way than reading subtitles can be hard. It's hard to justify in our minds that this art is going to be worth all of this time and money.
The 2nd thing we realized was looking around this theatre, it is just astounding the kind of work that goes into them, architecturally speaking. You wouldn't have theatres like these popping up all over the place like you would a Starbucks.... because it's harder.
We seem to base so much of our lives around this concept of convenience. From the invention of the drinking straw to the drive-thru fast food to the Home Theatre. In our minds, we don't always question whether or not something being convenient is worth the price we have to pay. Most of us don't realize there's a serious cost.
So, why is convenience the "lord of our lives"? Why have we decided this is the criteria for a movement being positive or negative? If it makes our lives more convenient, why are we willing to look the other way at consequences?
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Rennie's Landing (Aka Stealing Time)
Just thought I would drop this movie title in here to see if anyone has seen it, if not I would check it out.
Stealing Time or Rennie's Landing. Directed by Marc Fusco, he takes you in to the college days of 4 friends who suddenly reunite a year after graduation and then...... well guess you'll have to watch it to find out. Let me know what you thought, be honest. It stars Ethan Embry(Can't Hardly Wait), Peter Facinelli(Also Can't Hardly Wait), Scott Foley(Felicity), Charlotte Ayanna(Training Day).
Stealing Time or Rennie's Landing. Directed by Marc Fusco, he takes you in to the college days of 4 friends who suddenly reunite a year after graduation and then...... well guess you'll have to watch it to find out. Let me know what you thought, be honest. It stars Ethan Embry(Can't Hardly Wait), Peter Facinelli(Also Can't Hardly Wait), Scott Foley(Felicity), Charlotte Ayanna(Training Day).
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Despite all my Rage
It's a million dollar shot, Nicolas Cage with a frosty spilled all over him. It's from the film "Weather Man" which Mandy and I just watched last night. This post isn't about the movie, I don't want to ruin it for anybody. All you need to know from me is that I liked it a lot.
This picture represents the new Nicolas Cage that has been reformed over the past several years. Starting with the film "Leaving Las Vegas," Cage has actually impressed me in lots of films, all characters with one thing in common... he's not cool. Raising Arizona, Matchstick Men and Adaptation are a few that you could look to.
The films in which he loses my respect are ones like Con Air, The Rock, Snake Eyes and Face Off. He's an action hero who women are attracted to, and who guys are supposed to think is cool. Trouble is, I'm just not buying it. And I hated him and his fake movies that tried to sell this image. This picture above is of the Nicolas Cage that is more accurate, more believable.
Another great example of an actor finding their darker side is Bill Murray. Notice the kind of films Murray was in during the 80's and early 90's (Caddyshack, Ghostbusters, Man who Knew Too Little). Then Wes Anderson gets ahold of him, and all of a sudden you've got films like Life Aquatic, Lost in Translation and Broken Flowers. His performances are brilliant.
The point is that in both cases the early movies made them famous, then they branch out and find their true niche with these movies that are more somber. I love to see it, I guess that's my main point here. So if you're a superstar actor reading this, don't make the "National Treasure" films that bring in the dough. Stick to playing washed up has beens b/c that's what I love seeing.
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Red Means Stop, Do Not Go!
Last night, we watched the film "Run Lola Run" and had a great discussion afterwards which helped me understand it better than I ever had (this was my 4th time seeing RLR). We talked a lot last night about Lola seeming to have control over some situations, and definitely how her choices and actions had a domino effect on the world around her. In her discussions with Manni, you get the impression that she's the kind of person who always relies on herself and her ideas to solve all her problems, and has no doubts about the power she possesses. Manni asks her "What would you do if I died?" Lola responds "I wouldn't let you die."The scenario of 20 minutes kept playing until the 2 characters got the desired result. They made a conscious decision (lying on the pavement thinking about prior conversations with each other) to not leave each other. What's interesting to me is that the last scenario is the only time when she (and Manni, with the blind woman) really opens herself up to outside intervention, and renders herself helpless w/out it (running w/ her eyes closed). In the first 2, she relies completely on herself to try to get what she needs, and it doesn't work. But then, after her options are exhausted, she opens herself up for serious help. she gets the message, goes into the Casino (the place of blind luck) to win the 126,000 in 3 minutes. But, did she realize that she needed outside intervention in order to get the ball to fall on 20? No, she screamed louder and longer than ever, once again believing that if she just wanted it badly enough, the world would bow at her feet and give it to her. and in the movie, it did.
This movie maker (Tom Tykwer) touched less on what he thinks actually makes everything happen, and more on how your perceptions on those matters change the way you behave. One could argue that it wasn't true intervention when the bus almost hit her in front of the Casino, that it was actually just another occurrance that had the effect of making her go to the Casino. On the same token, one could argue that it was actually intervention that made the ball fall on the 20, and that Lola just believed it was her power that was making that happen. These things are not the point of the movie, but it's fun to think about.
So how does our perceptions on these matters effect the way we behave? Anybody? This goes to the core of how we perceive actions and decisions, so how does it effect us... and how can we learn if our perceptions are correct? Any examples of times we would make decisions differently if we interpreted the world in a different light? ready... go
.
Sunday, February 19, 2006
Icelandic Beauty
There is such a thing as beauty. It's real, and it exists today. Where does it come from? What causes it?
Last night I attended a Sigur Ros concert in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It made me stop to remember things. They were singing in Icelandic so I couldn't understand any of the words, yet the feeling I had was with perfect clarity. It's not often I can silence myself in order to receive this sort of feeling. Can anybody out there relate to this experience? I don't want to trivialize it with a lot of words, but I knew something real during that concert.
Please, I want to hear about the beauty that we know and experience. It doesn't have to be a concert, just think about it and talk about it. It's good to remember things.
P.S. This Saturday (25th) at 7 PM is the next gathering. If you need directions, get in touch with me. All are welcome
Sunday, February 12, 2006
And the winner is....
I was speaking with Benjie the other day, and he brought up a good point. Why are the grammy's such a joke? Why is it that almost every award winner also happens to be among the leaders in sales for their albums? Is everything that's mainstream better than the bands that are not? And, most importantly to me... why does anybody still care about an awards show based more on popularity than on the art itself? Some ladies tell me that they actually watch it to see what everybody's wearing. This reason seems more legitimate to me than anything else at this point.
Are all awards ceremonies based more on popularity than on celebrating great art? I used to think that the Academy Awards had a lot of integrity, and there was a point in my life where I found out all the Best Picture winners for the last 60 years so I could watch them all. Then something happened. Bjork's performance in "Dancer in the Dark" lost to Julia Roberts in "Erin Brokovich" for best actress. This changed me in a profound way. Honestly.
I hadn't always agreed with the Oscar selections in the past, but there was something significant I realized after that moment: Award ceremonies are about making money. From start to finish. All the stars arrive to be scrutinized by the fashion police, making money for fashion designers every time one of their names gets dropped. Don't forget about ratings for the networks an hour before the ceremony has even started, it's a big plus. Then the long drawn out ceremony, putting in more special guest appearances, cameo's (don't forget commercials, we need our sponsors happy!), making you tune in for hours and hours to finally get to the culmination moment that they've been building up to for weeks, with talk on radio stations, newspaper articles speculating on the winners, etc. oh, and the ratings are still going strong.
What I needed to know was this... it's not about popularity necessarily, it's about money first and foremost. What's more popular just happens to help make them more money, b/c people are more interested in the lovely Julia Roberts winning an award than the kind of freakish Bjork stepping up there. People don't care what Bjork is wearing to the Oscars, b/c nobody knew that she would even be there, b/c nobody saw her movie. Therefore, change the channel. Right?
Basically, whatever is going to make them money will be recognized as such. A day may come when a film like Dancer in the Dark can make them money, and then they'll include it. Until then, there's the Sundance Channel and many other organizations that attempt to celebrate art for art, not just for money. But then there is us. The public. What is our role? Thoughts, anyone??
Bjork
Are all awards ceremonies based more on popularity than on celebrating great art? I used to think that the Academy Awards had a lot of integrity, and there was a point in my life where I found out all the Best Picture winners for the last 60 years so I could watch them all. Then something happened. Bjork's performance in "Dancer in the Dark" lost to Julia Roberts in "Erin Brokovich" for best actress. This changed me in a profound way. Honestly.
I hadn't always agreed with the Oscar selections in the past, but there was something significant I realized after that moment: Award ceremonies are about making money. From start to finish. All the stars arrive to be scrutinized by the fashion police, making money for fashion designers every time one of their names gets dropped. Don't forget about ratings for the networks an hour before the ceremony has even started, it's a big plus. Then the long drawn out ceremony, putting in more special guest appearances, cameo's (don't forget commercials, we need our sponsors happy!), making you tune in for hours and hours to finally get to the culmination moment that they've been building up to for weeks, with talk on radio stations, newspaper articles speculating on the winners, etc. oh, and the ratings are still going strong.
What I needed to know was this... it's not about popularity necessarily, it's about money first and foremost. What's more popular just happens to help make them more money, b/c people are more interested in the lovely Julia Roberts winning an award than the kind of freakish Bjork stepping up there. People don't care what Bjork is wearing to the Oscars, b/c nobody knew that she would even be there, b/c nobody saw her movie. Therefore, change the channel. Right?
Basically, whatever is going to make them money will be recognized as such. A day may come when a film like Dancer in the Dark can make them money, and then they'll include it. Until then, there's the Sundance Channel and many other organizations that attempt to celebrate art for art, not just for money. But then there is us. The public. What is our role? Thoughts, anyone??
Bjork
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Question the Questioner
What are the agendas behind films? Are they designed to brainwash us into thinking a certain way? They raise questions, and provide (usually) answers. It can be done through our connecting with a character, or a story line hits close to home, or the visual effects can wow our minds into a state of numb submission. Basically, a lot of hard hard work goes into concealing and revealing the story/messages of each film.
What about a film that is just for entertainment? Certainly there are no messages in there that are deep and disturbing, right? Now, understand right away that I'm not trying to scare people into fleeing from this art form (watching movies) b/c they are afraid of falling victim to its snares. There is a wealth of helpful life lessons that can be learned from the screen in front of you, just like words in a book can speak straight into a person's life and help change them forever. But with such power, there needs to be an awareness of what we're doing. Nothing great in life ever comes easy, and if we want world changing truth to connect in us, we're going to have to be willing to help change the world. If this doesn't make sense to somebody, hopefully it will someday.
I don't think that the approach to films should be so intellectual that we miss the heart level things they are offering. If we're so concerned with the framing and the lighting and the possible symbolism in the background, we can miss things right in front of our noses. Not all films are brilliant. Sometimes we're looking for buried treasure that the film does not offer. But believe me, there is almost always more there for us than what we are taking away.
Here's the hardest part. Once you get your mind open to the fact that they're trying to feed you a worldview, enticing you and even expecting you to swallow it, you'll start to look for things. And once you start to look for it, you'll find it almost everywhere, trust me. The hard part is not identifying what messages you are being sent; they're all over the place waiting to be found. What's hard is questioning the film that is raising these questions within you. They don't have to be right. Their messages don't have to be true, and you don't have to agree. You don't even have to agree in order to like the movie! Think of a movie as a conversation with a person (b/c in a way, it sort of is). I don't always enjoy conversing with people I agree with. At times, they express themselves in a way that puts me off; or any number of things can affect whether or not I enjoy the discussion. But I agree with their views. Other times a person can express their sentiments in a way that is much more compelling, thought provoking and humble... but I end up not agreeing. I love them for making me think about it the way that they did, even though I don't share all the same views. This is true of movies, also.
Wherever you are and whatever your experience is with understanding this part of the world around you, don't be fooled. Don't fool yourself into thinking "I'll never understand, b/c my mind can't look for things." Don't fool yourself into thinking that there is nothing rewarding about watching a film you might not agree with. Is it ever rewarding to hear a fresh opinion outside of your own? Seek them out; they will sharpen your own worldviews, and sometimes, possibly, maybe... change you for the better.
Director Stanley Kubrick
What about a film that is just for entertainment? Certainly there are no messages in there that are deep and disturbing, right? Now, understand right away that I'm not trying to scare people into fleeing from this art form (watching movies) b/c they are afraid of falling victim to its snares. There is a wealth of helpful life lessons that can be learned from the screen in front of you, just like words in a book can speak straight into a person's life and help change them forever. But with such power, there needs to be an awareness of what we're doing. Nothing great in life ever comes easy, and if we want world changing truth to connect in us, we're going to have to be willing to help change the world. If this doesn't make sense to somebody, hopefully it will someday.
I don't think that the approach to films should be so intellectual that we miss the heart level things they are offering. If we're so concerned with the framing and the lighting and the possible symbolism in the background, we can miss things right in front of our noses. Not all films are brilliant. Sometimes we're looking for buried treasure that the film does not offer. But believe me, there is almost always more there for us than what we are taking away.
Here's the hardest part. Once you get your mind open to the fact that they're trying to feed you a worldview, enticing you and even expecting you to swallow it, you'll start to look for things. And once you start to look for it, you'll find it almost everywhere, trust me. The hard part is not identifying what messages you are being sent; they're all over the place waiting to be found. What's hard is questioning the film that is raising these questions within you. They don't have to be right. Their messages don't have to be true, and you don't have to agree. You don't even have to agree in order to like the movie! Think of a movie as a conversation with a person (b/c in a way, it sort of is). I don't always enjoy conversing with people I agree with. At times, they express themselves in a way that puts me off; or any number of things can affect whether or not I enjoy the discussion. But I agree with their views. Other times a person can express their sentiments in a way that is much more compelling, thought provoking and humble... but I end up not agreeing. I love them for making me think about it the way that they did, even though I don't share all the same views. This is true of movies, also.
Wherever you are and whatever your experience is with understanding this part of the world around you, don't be fooled. Don't fool yourself into thinking "I'll never understand, b/c my mind can't look for things." Don't fool yourself into thinking that there is nothing rewarding about watching a film you might not agree with. Is it ever rewarding to hear a fresh opinion outside of your own? Seek them out; they will sharpen your own worldviews, and sometimes, possibly, maybe... change you for the better.
Director Stanley Kubrick
Thursday, February 02, 2006
You say you want a resolution
One of the issues brought up in our discussion of Tape was the lack of resolution. Many people have offered their own interpretations/conclusions, which may well be valid, but I think the brilliance of the film is that it doesn't give enough information for viewers to say, "This is what happened." It's like one of those logic story-problems you do in Jr. High where you have to answer "Not enough information provided." While this is what I liked best about the movie, the lack of resolution frustrated some people. And that leads to my question:
Why do we trust the resolution offered in films?
Movies without resolution frustrate viewers because most movies resolve all the issues at the end. Do we ever think to question those resolutions? One of Ryan's goals in Mind over Media seems to be questioning the worldviews presented in the films we watch. If a filmmaker has a worldview that is different from or even opposed to our own, why would we accept their resolution?
This question rises from one of my favorite issues in literary criticism, the omniscient narrator. When we read a novel or watch a movie that has a narrator or a point-of-view character from whose perspective we receive the story, why do we accept their pont of view? When a movie wraps everything up into a neat little ball, why are we satisfied with it?
Viewers of Tape, as well as the characters themselves, have no objective perspective from which to conclude "what happened." While this frustrates us, it should also remind us that no one has an objective perspective. All stories, films, movies, etc., are mediated and told from a certain perspective. Most movies help or even force us to forget that. Tape makes it abundantly clear.
The great thing about blogging is that even after someone posts a new thread, you can still comment on previous topics (the pity is, no one does). Since this is some people's first experience blogging, we can avoid the bad habits prevalent in the blogosphere. Remember, the post at the top is not the only or the most important one. Keep the conversations going.
Why do we trust the resolution offered in films?
Movies without resolution frustrate viewers because most movies resolve all the issues at the end. Do we ever think to question those resolutions? One of Ryan's goals in Mind over Media seems to be questioning the worldviews presented in the films we watch. If a filmmaker has a worldview that is different from or even opposed to our own, why would we accept their resolution?
This question rises from one of my favorite issues in literary criticism, the omniscient narrator. When we read a novel or watch a movie that has a narrator or a point-of-view character from whose perspective we receive the story, why do we accept their pont of view? When a movie wraps everything up into a neat little ball, why are we satisfied with it?
Viewers of Tape, as well as the characters themselves, have no objective perspective from which to conclude "what happened." While this frustrates us, it should also remind us that no one has an objective perspective. All stories, films, movies, etc., are mediated and told from a certain perspective. Most movies help or even force us to forget that. Tape makes it abundantly clear.
The great thing about blogging is that even after someone posts a new thread, you can still comment on previous topics (the pity is, no one does). Since this is some people's first experience blogging, we can avoid the bad habits prevalent in the blogosphere. Remember, the post at the top is not the only or the most important one. Keep the conversations going.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
what exactly happened?
Hello to all,
I'm writing from Tucson, Arizona and have been invited by the Great Ryano to be a part of the Mind over Media discussion. I must say 'Tape' was very powerful indeed. Ryan, I ask of your interpretation of the film, is it true you believe Amy felt there was no crime? The impression I had, even though she talked it off and around it and away from it, was that based on her original reluctance of being in the same room with Jon, her outburst at the end of the movie daming him, and her sarcastic remarks "yea, I let all the guys hold their hand over my mouth," was that she had been savagely raped. It seemed to me she was guarding some very wounded and painful memories and not ready/wanting to confront that incident without warning. I feel the major question is then: could women confront their attackers face to face without the court system and feel vindicated/forgivness regarding a violent crime? Amy was a prosecuting attorny, but would she have known how face Jon and to feel emotional resolution about the incident if she had wanted to? In the movie she did take the upper hand and play tricks on the two men and give them harsh words, but did any of that truely give her satisfaction? Would she/do we even know what to do -- vindication or forgiveness?
-Robert
I'm writing from Tucson, Arizona and have been invited by the Great Ryano to be a part of the Mind over Media discussion. I must say 'Tape' was very powerful indeed. Ryan, I ask of your interpretation of the film, is it true you believe Amy felt there was no crime? The impression I had, even though she talked it off and around it and away from it, was that based on her original reluctance of being in the same room with Jon, her outburst at the end of the movie daming him, and her sarcastic remarks "yea, I let all the guys hold their hand over my mouth," was that she had been savagely raped. It seemed to me she was guarding some very wounded and painful memories and not ready/wanting to confront that incident without warning. I feel the major question is then: could women confront their attackers face to face without the court system and feel vindicated/forgivness regarding a violent crime? Amy was a prosecuting attorny, but would she have known how face Jon and to feel emotional resolution about the incident if she had wanted to? In the movie she did take the upper hand and play tricks on the two men and give them harsh words, but did any of that truely give her satisfaction? Would she/do we even know what to do -- vindication or forgiveness?
-Robert
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Is Repentance Subjective?
When is repentance necessary? That's a question that came to my mind last night as I watched the film "Tape." The character John believed that he had committed a crime against Amy. Amy was asserting (right or wrong) that there had been no crime. When John tried to apologize, Amy wouldn't accept it on the basis that he had not been accused, therefore his apology wasn't necessary.
A big point was made in the dialogue of this movie that the perspective of each character helped to shape the actual event that occurred. "How would she describe it?" "I'm just wondering how you would describe it.." That sort of talk went on the whole movie. Also Amy pointing out that John's confession didn't actually prove that he had done anything wrong. If the crime itself is subject to interpretation, what about the repentance?
Could one say in their mind (rightly) that their crime had not hurt anyone but themselves and God, so they only owe repentance to those parties? Can we rightly believe that our actions only go so far? If Amy had truly forgotten about what had occurred (as John had rationalized) would his apology be truly not needed? Are we ever correct to assume that we know when to dish out repentance, and when to just "not do it next time?" Also, was Amy correct in saying that if John was truly repentant, he'd be willing to fully deal with the consequences?
I'm sure we've all done stuff. Is this movie trying to say that we have to go through our past and apologize to every single person for every single thing we've done, is that the point? I think it forces us to ask ourselves.. what is repentance and when is it necessary? I welcome all thoughts and comments...
by the way, I want to thank everyone who attended last night's showing. It was great to see you all and hear your thoughts. I look forward to the next one, which will definitely be Saturday, February 25th at 7 PM (movie rolls at 7:15)
A big point was made in the dialogue of this movie that the perspective of each character helped to shape the actual event that occurred. "How would she describe it?" "I'm just wondering how you would describe it.." That sort of talk went on the whole movie. Also Amy pointing out that John's confession didn't actually prove that he had done anything wrong. If the crime itself is subject to interpretation, what about the repentance?
Could one say in their mind (rightly) that their crime had not hurt anyone but themselves and God, so they only owe repentance to those parties? Can we rightly believe that our actions only go so far? If Amy had truly forgotten about what had occurred (as John had rationalized) would his apology be truly not needed? Are we ever correct to assume that we know when to dish out repentance, and when to just "not do it next time?" Also, was Amy correct in saying that if John was truly repentant, he'd be willing to fully deal with the consequences?
I'm sure we've all done stuff. Is this movie trying to say that we have to go through our past and apologize to every single person for every single thing we've done, is that the point? I think it forces us to ask ourselves.. what is repentance and when is it necessary? I welcome all thoughts and comments...
by the way, I want to thank everyone who attended last night's showing. It was great to see you all and hear your thoughts. I look forward to the next one, which will definitely be Saturday, February 25th at 7 PM (movie rolls at 7:15)
.JPG)