Well hi there, imaginarium!
I'm going to blog extensively later today about Avatar, but first I thought I'd give you a warmup post, mostly about something entirely unrelated to cinema: boxing.
Before I begin, let me say that I kind of wish I were a boxing fan. It has such a rich heritage of dedicated fanship (no, I'm not kidding--boxing is one of the oldest sports in the world) that in today's environment of shrinking sponsorships and lamesauce promoting, I wish I could be a fan before it dies out completely. Alas, I have more and better things to waste my time on, like this blog.
Anyhow: here's a link. Pacquiao and Mayweather, Jr., are arguably the best two fighters in the world right now--definitely the most well-known--and while I wasn't planning to watch it live, I was looking forward to reading analysis and breakdown of the fight.
And now, apparently, Pacquiao is getting all angry because he thinks that the Mayweathers are trying to accuse him of HGH. Whatever. Pacquiao should realize that this could be the biggest fight of his life, and he should do whatever it takes to make it happen. Personally, I think he's a better fighter than Mayweather, Jr., and were I a betting man, I'd put my money on Pacquiao.
I'm no one to talk about boxing, because I am a boxing n00b, but there's my uninformed opinion: Pacquiao should suck it up, do what Mayweather, Jr., asks, go in there, and win the fight. End of story.
Long live boxing!
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
The Theologically Subversive Message of Invictus
I went to see Clint Eastwood's latest movie, Invictus, and the more I think about it the more puzzled I am.
What is it?
See it. You should. If you don't want to, here's some rundown: the official site (which really only has trailers. It's not a worthwhile source of information about the film), the imdb entry, and the rottentomatoes page. See what a nice guy I am? I spoon-feed you all the information you need, so you don't have to find it for yourself. I'm so cool.
I've told you to watch the movie, so if you don't want to get it spoiled, go away now. Because I want to talk about the movie, and the first thing I'm going to end up saying is related to a spoliative finish.
While you're leaving, here's the poem that the film centers around. It's called Invictus, believe it or not, and it was written by a dude named Ernest William Henley. Here it is:
What is it?
See it. You should. If you don't want to, here's some rundown: the official site (which really only has trailers. It's not a worthwhile source of information about the film), the imdb entry, and the rottentomatoes page. See what a nice guy I am? I spoon-feed you all the information you need, so you don't have to find it for yourself. I'm so cool.
I've told you to watch the movie, so if you don't want to get it spoiled, go away now. Because I want to talk about the movie, and the first thing I'm going to end up saying is related to a spoliative finish.
While you're leaving, here's the poem that the film centers around. It's called Invictus, believe it or not, and it was written by a dude named Ernest William Henley. Here it is:
Invictus
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbow'd.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
I could have linked to the poem, but I wanted to give some of you, my imaginary readership, the chance to leave before I spoiled the ending. Anyway, here's the spoiler: South Africa wins the Rugby World Cup, and Nelson Mandela survives to the end and is triumphant.
Now, my first problem is this: the film is too predictable. I mean, it doesn't even really try to be unpredictable. Even possible threats of violence, like the newspaper dude in the beginning and the airplane pilot about two thirds of the way through, become opportunities for the scriptwriter to stick it to the audience. And the win at the end? I could see it coming a mile away.
Second, Invictus is not self-aware: the movie doesn't know what it itself is. Is it a sports movie? If so, why the puffing of Mandela? Is it a biopic? If so, why is the film so rugby-centered? Is it a cultural statement? If that's the case, why is racism such an obvious plot device instead of being center-stage?
Finally--and most important to this still provincially-minded blogger--Invictus is a statement (whether conscious or not, I can't tell) against the sovereignty of God. See, the "moral" of the film is that you are in complete control of your ultimate destiny--read the poem if you want to know more about this particular mindset. My problem with this is that it's stupid. If we just have to want something enough in order to get it...well, why was Mandela in prison for 27 years or however long he was there? Why did the Springboks suck at rugby? Was it because that was their chosen destiny? Did Mandela say to himself, "I will myself to stay in prison for 27 years"? Did the Bokkes get together at a team meeting and say, "We hereby choose to continue failing for years and years to come"? Of course not! Yet this is what happened to them. For the last time, humanity: YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL! Free-will is involved, of course, but fundamentally, humans can NOT choose their destiny. I won't even say that God is in control, though I believe that; before even that statement may be made, humanity as a whole needs to get it through its collective skull that humans are NOT the masters of their fate--they are NOT the masters of their own souls.
What is Invictus? Sports movie? Puff piece? Biopic? Drama? Romantic comedy? What? See it, and let me know.
Ps. I did like the rugby. Now there's a man's game; no pads, helmets, or skin-tight pants. Just a fight to the finish. And some pretty complicated rules, too.
Long live cinematic confusion!
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbow'd.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
I could have linked to the poem, but I wanted to give some of you, my imaginary readership, the chance to leave before I spoiled the ending. Anyway, here's the spoiler: South Africa wins the Rugby World Cup, and Nelson Mandela survives to the end and is triumphant.
Now, my first problem is this: the film is too predictable. I mean, it doesn't even really try to be unpredictable. Even possible threats of violence, like the newspaper dude in the beginning and the airplane pilot about two thirds of the way through, become opportunities for the scriptwriter to stick it to the audience. And the win at the end? I could see it coming a mile away.
Second, Invictus is not self-aware: the movie doesn't know what it itself is. Is it a sports movie? If so, why the puffing of Mandela? Is it a biopic? If so, why is the film so rugby-centered? Is it a cultural statement? If that's the case, why is racism such an obvious plot device instead of being center-stage?
Finally--and most important to this still provincially-minded blogger--Invictus is a statement (whether conscious or not, I can't tell) against the sovereignty of God. See, the "moral" of the film is that you are in complete control of your ultimate destiny--read the poem if you want to know more about this particular mindset. My problem with this is that it's stupid. If we just have to want something enough in order to get it...well, why was Mandela in prison for 27 years or however long he was there? Why did the Springboks suck at rugby? Was it because that was their chosen destiny? Did Mandela say to himself, "I will myself to stay in prison for 27 years"? Did the Bokkes get together at a team meeting and say, "We hereby choose to continue failing for years and years to come"? Of course not! Yet this is what happened to them. For the last time, humanity: YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL! Free-will is involved, of course, but fundamentally, humans can NOT choose their destiny. I won't even say that God is in control, though I believe that; before even that statement may be made, humanity as a whole needs to get it through its collective skull that humans are NOT the masters of their fate--they are NOT the masters of their own souls.
What is Invictus? Sports movie? Puff piece? Biopic? Drama? Romantic comedy? What? See it, and let me know.
Ps. I did like the rugby. Now there's a man's game; no pads, helmets, or skin-tight pants. Just a fight to the finish. And some pretty complicated rules, too.
Long live cinematic confusion!
Monday, December 14, 2009
A New Short Story Of Win. w00t.
Well hi there people!
Some preliminary notes: this is an exercise for my German Lit class; we're supposed to write a personal interpretation/reboot/whatever of Aysel Ozakin's short story Die dunkelhaarigen Kinder von Berlin, which is all about two dark-haired (non-German) children who really don't fit in in Berlin. So I wrote the following.
Now, it's in German, because I wrote it in German, and some of the emotional power relies on the connotations of the German words I chose. But for all of you who don't read German, or who don't want to bother translating it, I include my own translation at the bottom of the page.
Finally, I plan to begin blogging again with more regularity after finals conclude this week.
With no further ado, then:
Die human KinderSome preliminary notes: this is an exercise for my German Lit class; we're supposed to write a personal interpretation/reboot/whatever of Aysel Ozakin's short story Die dunkelhaarigen Kinder von Berlin, which is all about two dark-haired (non-German) children who really don't fit in in Berlin. So I wrote the following.
Now, it's in German, because I wrote it in German, and some of the emotional power relies on the connotations of the German words I chose. But for all of you who don't read German, or who don't want to bother translating it, I include my own translation at the bottom of the page.
Finally, I plan to begin blogging again with more regularity after finals conclude this week.
With no further ado, then:
Meine Geschichte ist leider klischee, aber ist es trotzdem die Wahrheit. Die zwei Kinder über wem ich spreche hat mir stark beeinflusst, wann sie in die Nachbarschaft hat gewohnen. Niemand kann sie vergessen; sie war human, und Humanität ist selten, diese Tage.
Die Kinder war beide jung; sie hatten keine Eltern, soviel wir (die Nachbarschaft) wussten. Ein Tag in Januar kamen sie, plötzlich, ruhig; es war eigentlich der Mitten von Februar bevor wir hat sie gesehen. Sie wohnten in einem kleinen Wohnen an die Ecke, der war kalt, dunkel, und sehr billig.
Wir lernten die Namen der Kinder nie; wir bezeichneten sie als “die kalte Kinder”. Ich entsinn mich, wann ich sie traf; es war Mittel-Februar, nach Abendglocke, und durch Zufall sah ich die Kinder sein klein Ecke-Wohnen hinausgehen. Natürlich lief ich sie hinterher, und zum Glück fing ich sie bevor sie zu weit gingen. Ich kann mich noch an seine kleine Gesichte, blaue-gelippt und hohlwangig, mit dünn Watte Halstuch gerahmt, denken. Sie blickten zu mir auf, besorgt, während ich dringend sein Gefahr erklärte. Ich weiss nicht, wenn sie mir verstanden; trotzdem gingen sie wieder im Haus.
Ich sah die kalte Kinder nächst in März; ein Outsider hatte irgendwie die Grenzlinie durchgebrochen und an die Kinders Ecke zerfallen. Er war offensichtlich infiziert; die Symptome war alle da. Aber die Kinder entweder sahen nicht, wussten nicht, oder machten sich nichts aus die Symptome. Sie brachte der Outsider Wasser.
Natürlich, niemand hilft ihnen. Die Krankheit allein war genug, und niemand wilkommt die behördlich Beachtung das kommt wenn man hilft einen Outsider. Aber die kalte Kinder hatten nicht von diese Dinge gehört; sie sahen ein Mann, der Hilfe brauchte, und sie halfen ihm. Das war alle, für sie.
Auch natürlich, erstarb der Outsider. Wasser hilft die Ansteckung nicht; nicht hilft. In einer Stunde war der Outsider tot.
Drei Woche später kam ein weiterer Outsider. Wieder brachte die kalte Kinder ihm Wasser. Wieder hat die Nachbarschaft seltsamerweise zugeschaut. Wieder erstarb der Outsider schnell.
April beginnt die jährlich Filterung; im Normal, unser gesetzestrue Nachbarschaft war ruhig, und die Einsammeln-Vans kamen durch unsre Strassen nicht. Dieses April kamen die Vans, mit Leuchte und Martinshorns. Sie haltet an der Ecke.
Wir haben die kalte Kinder nie wiedergesehen.
TRANSLATION
The Human Children
My tale is regrettably cliche, but it is nevertheless the truth. The two children about whom I speak left their mark on me, while they lived in our neighborhood. Nobody can forget them; they were human, and humanity is rare, these days.
The children were young; they had no parents, so far as we (the neighborhood) knew. One day in January they came, abruptly, quietly; in fact, it was the middle of February before we saw them. They lived in a little dwelling on the corner; it was cold, dark, and very cheap.
The Human Children
My tale is regrettably cliche, but it is nevertheless the truth. The two children about whom I speak left their mark on me, while they lived in our neighborhood. Nobody can forget them; they were human, and humanity is rare, these days.
The children were young; they had no parents, so far as we (the neighborhood) knew. One day in January they came, abruptly, quietly; in fact, it was the middle of February before we saw them. They lived in a little dwelling on the corner; it was cold, dark, and very cheap.
We never learned the names of the children; we referred to them the Cold Children. I still remember when I met them; it was mid-February, after curfew, and by chance I noticed the children leave their little corner-room. Naturally, I chased after them, and luckily caught them before they went too far. I can still remember their little faces, blue-lipped and sunken-cheeked, framed by thin cotton scarves. They looked up at me, puzzled, as I urgently explained the danger they were in. I don't know if they understood me, but they went back inside.
I saw the Cold Children next in March; somehow, an Outsider had penetrated the boundaries, and had collapsed on the children's corner. He was obviously infected; the symptoms were all there. But the children either didn't notice, didn't understand, or didn't care about the symptoms. They brought the Outsider water.
Naturally, nobody helped them. The infection itself was enough, and nobody welcomed the official attention which inevitably came when one helped an Outsider. But the Cold Children knew nothing of these things; they saw a man who needed help, and they helped him. That was all that concerned them.
Also naturally, the Outsider died. Water didn't alleviate any part of the infection; nothing alleviated it. In an hour, the Outsider was dead.
Three weeks later, another Outsider came through. Again, the Cold Children brought him water. Again, the neighborhood looked on, curiously. Again, the Outsider died quickly.
April signaled the beginning of the yearly "filtering"; normally, our law-abiding neighborhood was quiet, and the collection-vans didn't come down our streets. This year, the vans did come, with lights and sirens. They stopped at the corner.
We never saw the Cold Children again.
Long live the Dour!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Arbitrary Stuff About Various Actors
I know I haven't posted in a while.
Shut up. Just...shut up.
So I discovered the "celebrity tomatometer" on RottenTomatoes (what an unique gimmick, by the way. Rotten? Fresh? Awesome.) The Celebrity Tomatometer works just like you'd expect it to: it calculates the percentage of the actor's films which are rated "fresh" by RT. So, naturally, I began goofing off, checking on various peeps, and found some interesting stats. At least, they were interesting to me. I like stats. Maybe you don't, invisible reader; but this is MY blog, not yours. Which means I do what I want, not what YOU want.
Customer service? A moot point.
Anyhow.
Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have the same CT: 62%. That means that for the both of them, about 3 out of 5 films are critically acclaimed.
Samuel L. Jackson (one of my all-time favorite actors) is at 53%. For every good movie he makes, he makes a terrible one. Interesting point: his highest-rated film, The Incredibles, is an incredible 97%, and he didn't appear on-screen for it.
De Niro is another one at 62%. Tom Hanks, who's had his share of huge commercial and critical successes, is one percent higher at 63%.
Here's a shocker: George Clooney (yes, that George Clooney, the Batman with the...realistic suit) is at 66%. I honestly didn't expect that.
Al Pacino, whose name sounds like a gangster's (I'm sorry; it's just me...), is just behind him, at 65%.
Christian "Batman Smokes Four Packs A Day" Bale is at a respectable 68%...which was quite surprising indeed to me. I suppose he's been in one or two goodish flicks.
Charlton Heston's CT is 59%. The lower rating is not quite surprising, given some of the pulp the man starred in. In contrast, another tough-guy actor, Clint Eastwood, whose CT is at an impressive 78%.
Compare Eastwood, who apparently knew how to pick his movies, to folks like Bruce Willis (38%), Arnie (42%), and Val Kilmer (38%).
Among directors/producers, Martin Scorcese is understandably near the top, with a CT of 86%. George Lucas isn't far behind (83%), and James Cameron, known for his work on Aliens, The Terminator, and Rambo II, is at a respectable 75%.
However, the most stellar--almost unbelievable--score I found was John Ford's: his CT is at 97%. 97%! His lowest-rated film on RT is Donovan's Reef, which is at 56%. It's his only non-fresh rating.
Now, I know that RT is not in the least the ultimate in movie criticism, but I love stats, and these stats were cool, sometimes surprising, and inevitably awesome.
Long live pointless ramblings!
Shut up. Just...shut up.
So I discovered the "celebrity tomatometer" on RottenTomatoes (what an unique gimmick, by the way. Rotten? Fresh? Awesome.) The Celebrity Tomatometer works just like you'd expect it to: it calculates the percentage of the actor's films which are rated "fresh" by RT. So, naturally, I began goofing off, checking on various peeps, and found some interesting stats. At least, they were interesting to me. I like stats. Maybe you don't, invisible reader; but this is MY blog, not yours. Which means I do what I want, not what YOU want.
Customer service? A moot point.
Anyhow.
Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have the same CT: 62%. That means that for the both of them, about 3 out of 5 films are critically acclaimed.
Samuel L. Jackson (one of my all-time favorite actors) is at 53%. For every good movie he makes, he makes a terrible one. Interesting point: his highest-rated film, The Incredibles, is an incredible 97%, and he didn't appear on-screen for it.
De Niro is another one at 62%. Tom Hanks, who's had his share of huge commercial and critical successes, is one percent higher at 63%.
Here's a shocker: George Clooney (yes, that George Clooney, the Batman with the...realistic suit) is at 66%. I honestly didn't expect that.
Al Pacino, whose name sounds like a gangster's (I'm sorry; it's just me...), is just behind him, at 65%.
Christian "Batman Smokes Four Packs A Day" Bale is at a respectable 68%...which was quite surprising indeed to me. I suppose he's been in one or two goodish flicks.
Charlton Heston's CT is 59%. The lower rating is not quite surprising, given some of the pulp the man starred in. In contrast, another tough-guy actor, Clint Eastwood, whose CT is at an impressive 78%.
Compare Eastwood, who apparently knew how to pick his movies, to folks like Bruce Willis (38%), Arnie (42%), and Val Kilmer (38%).
Among directors/producers, Martin Scorcese is understandably near the top, with a CT of 86%. George Lucas isn't far behind (83%), and James Cameron, known for his work on Aliens, The Terminator, and Rambo II, is at a respectable 75%.
However, the most stellar--almost unbelievable--score I found was John Ford's: his CT is at 97%. 97%! His lowest-rated film on RT is Donovan's Reef, which is at 56%. It's his only non-fresh rating.
Now, I know that RT is not in the least the ultimate in movie criticism, but I love stats, and these stats were cool, sometimes surprising, and inevitably awesome.
Long live pointless ramblings!
Monday, August 10, 2009
flag@whitehouse.gov
So I just found out about this so-called "snitch" program, whitehouse.gov's "flag@whitehouse.gov" initiative, from WorldNetDaily's unsurprisingly biased article about it. Of course, since it's impossible for humans to be unbiased about anything, WorldNetDaily's bias is understandable, if evident.
Apparently the "snitch" program has attracted a lot of attention out here in the blogosphere, a community of which Ian the Pontificator is a reluctant member. The more I think about this program, the more I think that perhaps the outrage, if florid, is at least somewhat merited. Of course, a percentage of the outragers are morons who want to believe a certain way, but there's some reason for indignation/concern.
So what's the commotion about? Well, apparently the White House is concerned about the negative press that ObamaCare (what a stupid nickname, btw) is receiving. So they've launched a PR campaign to give the public the real facts about ObamaCare, and to answer popular myths about ObamaCare. It's called Reality Check, and it looks very slick.
However, the part of Reality Check that's receiving all the attention is...well, here's what whitehouse.gov says about it:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Now, I'm willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that they want to just keep tabs on this "disinformation", and no more. In support of this hypothesis, note that they don't ask people for information about the propagators of the disinformation; they just want citizens to forward "fishy" stuff. They could be just trying to keep tabs on the "disinformation" out there.
For the record, I'm NOT going to enter the debate about the validity/invasiveness of ObamaCare. By extrapolation, I won't give an opinion on whether or not the "disinformation" is actually true or not.
But that's a minor point. I'm willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt, because it's possible that it's all PR-related; they just want to know what's being said out there about their plan. The danger, of course, is that they'll stop asking "What's being said?" and start asking "Who's saying it?" And then...well, that's what some of my fellow bloggers are concerned about.
As long as they're still saying "What's being said?" I'll trust them. But...this is a terrible, loaded comparison, but remember what the Inquisition asked people to do...
I hope we're not headed in that direction.
Also, Joel Schoeneck wants me to say that Hulu sold out to the man. I think he sold out to the Youtube. And is working for them. And spreading disinformation. So...take his words with a grain of salt.
Long live free speech!
Apparently the "snitch" program has attracted a lot of attention out here in the blogosphere, a community of which Ian the Pontificator is a reluctant member. The more I think about this program, the more I think that perhaps the outrage, if florid, is at least somewhat merited. Of course, a percentage of the outragers are morons who want to believe a certain way, but there's some reason for indignation/concern.
So what's the commotion about? Well, apparently the White House is concerned about the negative press that ObamaCare (what a stupid nickname, btw) is receiving. So they've launched a PR campaign to give the public the real facts about ObamaCare, and to answer popular myths about ObamaCare. It's called Reality Check, and it looks very slick.
However, the part of Reality Check that's receiving all the attention is...well, here's what whitehouse.gov says about it:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Now, I'm willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt. It's possible that they want to just keep tabs on this "disinformation", and no more. In support of this hypothesis, note that they don't ask people for information about the propagators of the disinformation; they just want citizens to forward "fishy" stuff. They could be just trying to keep tabs on the "disinformation" out there.
For the record, I'm NOT going to enter the debate about the validity/invasiveness of ObamaCare. By extrapolation, I won't give an opinion on whether or not the "disinformation" is actually true or not.
But that's a minor point. I'm willing to give the White House the benefit of the doubt, because it's possible that it's all PR-related; they just want to know what's being said out there about their plan. The danger, of course, is that they'll stop asking "What's being said?" and start asking "Who's saying it?" And then...well, that's what some of my fellow bloggers are concerned about.
As long as they're still saying "What's being said?" I'll trust them. But...this is a terrible, loaded comparison, but remember what the Inquisition asked people to do...
I hope we're not headed in that direction.
Also, Joel Schoeneck wants me to say that Hulu sold out to the man. I think he sold out to the Youtube. And is working for them. And spreading disinformation. So...take his words with a grain of salt.
Long live free speech!
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Unproducable Literature: or, Books You Can't Make Into Movies
So I'm reading Fyodor Dostoevsky's (absolutely wonderful and brilliant) book The Brothers Karamazov right now. Among other things, the novel deals with psychology, guilt, the existence of God, tradition, the meaning of life, and a whole bunch of other amazing and deep philosophical/religious/cultural questions.
Well, being the theatre addict that I am, I began thinking about a stage adaptation...I mean, it would be interesting to see such a simultaneously epic and focused storyline translated to the stage--or, even better, to film. So I did some research, and I discovered that The Brothers Karamazov actually was made into a movie. And it starred Yul Brynner and...wait for it...William Shatner.
Apparently, the movie wasn't that great. Understandable...
And then I began thinking about other classic novels which really would have trouble translating to the screen well. Books like Moby Dick, Bleak House, Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion--okay, that one was a joke--Catcher in the Rye, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy...well, I'm sure there are others. Not just books, either: think about a movie based off of Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Or Milton's Paradise Lost.
The problem is that all of these wonderful excellent classics are great books, and when the movie industry hears "great book" they think "fan following" and then they think "blockbuster" and that's when the dollar signs start dancing before their eyes, if said dance hadn't started previously. Most of the works I mentioned do have captivating stories: just story-wise, think about a movie based from the Rime. Gripping, no?
But the sticking point is that these classics go beyond just a cool story. They touch on Themes, and as a rule Themes don't translate well from the page to the screen. Think, if you will, of Moby Dick, one of my personal favorites. The book deals with questions of identity; it talks about theory of authority; it discusses revenge (of course); evil is symbolized and explored; death, community, friendship, race relations...the book is a veritable wealth of psychological and philosophical discussion. And then there's the detailed--nay, exhaustive--descriptions of how a whaling vessel works, along with whaling history, whaling superstition, and whaling tall tales!
It just wouldn't work. Even theatrical productions of books like The Brothers Karamazov would end up being shallow narrative-centric failures. Which, to some extent, is a good thing...
I do wish, though, the laws of...Whatever...like, the Way Things Are, would take a vacation for a while, because a Rime movie would kick butt. I'd see that.
Long live impenetrability!
Well, being the theatre addict that I am, I began thinking about a stage adaptation...I mean, it would be interesting to see such a simultaneously epic and focused storyline translated to the stage--or, even better, to film. So I did some research, and I discovered that The Brothers Karamazov actually was made into a movie. And it starred Yul Brynner and...wait for it...William Shatner.
Apparently, the movie wasn't that great. Understandable...
And then I began thinking about other classic novels which really would have trouble translating to the screen well. Books like Moby Dick, Bleak House, Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion--okay, that one was a joke--Catcher in the Rye, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy...well, I'm sure there are others. Not just books, either: think about a movie based off of Coleridge's Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Or Milton's Paradise Lost.
The problem is that all of these wonderful excellent classics are great books, and when the movie industry hears "great book" they think "fan following" and then they think "blockbuster" and that's when the dollar signs start dancing before their eyes, if said dance hadn't started previously. Most of the works I mentioned do have captivating stories: just story-wise, think about a movie based from the Rime. Gripping, no?
But the sticking point is that these classics go beyond just a cool story. They touch on Themes, and as a rule Themes don't translate well from the page to the screen. Think, if you will, of Moby Dick, one of my personal favorites. The book deals with questions of identity; it talks about theory of authority; it discusses revenge (of course); evil is symbolized and explored; death, community, friendship, race relations...the book is a veritable wealth of psychological and philosophical discussion. And then there's the detailed--nay, exhaustive--descriptions of how a whaling vessel works, along with whaling history, whaling superstition, and whaling tall tales!
It just wouldn't work. Even theatrical productions of books like The Brothers Karamazov would end up being shallow narrative-centric failures. Which, to some extent, is a good thing...
I do wish, though, the laws of...Whatever...like, the Way Things Are, would take a vacation for a while, because a Rime movie would kick butt. I'd see that.
Long live impenetrability!
Monday, August 3, 2009
Narcissism, Misspelling, and Other Evils
So I was at first at a loss, deciding what I should blog about. But some conversations from the weekend (a good time, by the way) renewed themselves to my mind, so now I have some topics to pontificate about.
1. Appeals to human reason should be used wisely and sparingly. People like to argue, people like to debate, people like to think they're being super-rational. But the fact remains that in the Fall, our reason fell. Logic itself didn't fall; the rules that govern how ideas work and how the universe works are the same as they were before the Fall. But human perception of logic fell: therefore, it is impossible for a human to make perfect logical sense. Just like it's philosophically impossible for humans to produce inerrant truth in literature, no fallen human--which means, no human any of us will ever have contact with--can make a logically perfect statement. Thus, any appeal to human reason will be inherently flawed, and such appeals should be used sparingly.
2. Those most like us are the ones we hate the most. I've noticed this before, but it has been reinforced to me strongly, of late. "Opposites attract" for a reason: when we find someone very like us, we dislike what we see of ourselves in the other person.
3. Football is the American pastime. Every year the coverage of the NFL voluntary team stuff/training camps/preseason--it expands, it grows. And that's not even taking into account college football, which is in a golden age right now, as it were. The fact that the UFL, or whatever the latest attempt at a separate pro football league is abbreviating itself as, has gotten as much press as it has...
4. Stemming from this, creating a new franchise in ANY sport has become more and more difficult. Why? It may have something to do with expectations. Also, regulations. Also, the rising cost of publicity. Also...well, that's pretty much it. Even moving an already-established franchise is pretty horrible: I give you the Oklahoma City Thunder. Also, the Florida Marlins.
5. We have it pretty good here at my school. It could be a lot worse.
6. I wish I could do this. It's the definition of a niche skill.
7. Scared? Find out what your fear is called. Also, related to this, I can't wait for the final season of Monk to begin this weekend. RAH Monk!
That's all for now, folks. Tune in next week, or sometime in the future, to catch more of Ian the Pontificator's Uninformed Opinions. You never know what he'll talk about: radishes, movies, constabulary, innovation, philosophy, redaction, fanfics--now THAT sounds like a snappy blog--cheese sticks...the list goes on. You stay classy, San Diego?
Long live linguistic literacy!
Also, long live alliteration!
1. Appeals to human reason should be used wisely and sparingly. People like to argue, people like to debate, people like to think they're being super-rational. But the fact remains that in the Fall, our reason fell. Logic itself didn't fall; the rules that govern how ideas work and how the universe works are the same as they were before the Fall. But human perception of logic fell: therefore, it is impossible for a human to make perfect logical sense. Just like it's philosophically impossible for humans to produce inerrant truth in literature, no fallen human--which means, no human any of us will ever have contact with--can make a logically perfect statement. Thus, any appeal to human reason will be inherently flawed, and such appeals should be used sparingly.
2. Those most like us are the ones we hate the most. I've noticed this before, but it has been reinforced to me strongly, of late. "Opposites attract" for a reason: when we find someone very like us, we dislike what we see of ourselves in the other person.
3. Football is the American pastime. Every year the coverage of the NFL voluntary team stuff/training camps/preseason--it expands, it grows. And that's not even taking into account college football, which is in a golden age right now, as it were. The fact that the UFL, or whatever the latest attempt at a separate pro football league is abbreviating itself as, has gotten as much press as it has...
4. Stemming from this, creating a new franchise in ANY sport has become more and more difficult. Why? It may have something to do with expectations. Also, regulations. Also, the rising cost of publicity. Also...well, that's pretty much it. Even moving an already-established franchise is pretty horrible: I give you the Oklahoma City Thunder. Also, the Florida Marlins.
5. We have it pretty good here at my school. It could be a lot worse.
6. I wish I could do this. It's the definition of a niche skill.
7. Scared? Find out what your fear is called. Also, related to this, I can't wait for the final season of Monk to begin this weekend. RAH Monk!
That's all for now, folks. Tune in next week, or sometime in the future, to catch more of Ian the Pontificator's Uninformed Opinions. You never know what he'll talk about: radishes, movies, constabulary, innovation, philosophy, redaction, fanfics--now THAT sounds like a snappy blog--cheese sticks...the list goes on. You stay classy, San Diego?
Long live linguistic literacy!
Also, long live alliteration!
