2011 in Review

I know "best of" lists are totally ridiculous and subjective, but I still manage to have a fun time compiling them. So, for what it's worth, here are some of the better media I consumed this past year...

BOOKS

I feel guilty. I started off the year voraciously, reading just about anything I could get my hands on. Between January and April, I read fifteen books and also kept up with my Scientific American subscription. Most of those were short in length, I grant you, but they were large in substance and theme.

Then, as it must, life interfered. At the end of April, I started taking classes again in hopes of soon beginning a new career, so my recreational reading was usurped by required reading, which is unfortunately nowhere near as enjoyable or thought-provoking, educational though it may be.

So while it'd be curious to see what the final tally would have been had I continued with my start-of-the-year pace, here are the fifteen I was nonetheless able to make it through: The Sound and the Fury (William Faulkner); Inherent Vice (Thomas Pynchon); The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (L. Frank Baum); Last Words (George Carlin); Slow Man (J.M. Coetzee); Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass (both Lewis Carroll); Heart of Darkness (Joseph Conrad); Notes from the Underground (Fyodor Dostoyevsky); Molloy, Malone Dies, and The Unnameable (all three Samuel Beckett); The Legend of Sleepy Hollow (Washington Irving); Anthem (Ayn Rand); and The Wind in the Willows (Kenneth Grahame).

It's so hard to narrow down my choices, as each book has its own distinct strengths. Pynchon, for instance, is such a gifted wordsmith that while Vice may be a lesser work, it is still an accomplishment of style and technique; Carlin's book gave me an insight and appreciation for his stand-up work, which remained incredible, original, and consistent in spite of (because of?) his troubled life; the Conrad and Dostoyevsky are both dense, layered inquiries into the current and possibly derelict state of Man's soul; Slow Man is a captivating look at the value of life, death, and everything in between... Of all these, however, I would say "the best" would be split between The Sound and the Fury and The Wind in the Willows.

The Sound and the Fury is a masterwork of both style and substance. Written mostly in first-person and always in a stream of conscious let character imagination veracity and impact come first comprehension and plot second and grammar fall where it may, The Sound and the Fury tells the tale of a once wealthy Southern family and their staff. It is not an easy book to read due to the highly stylized technique and non-linear structure, but if you want something which will challenge and reward you, Faulkner's masterpiece is well worth the effort.

Lastly, we have The Wind in the Willows, an enormously underrated and yet almost fully appreciated book of intense imagination. Underrated because it is considered a "children's book," which means that too many either don't take it seriously or dismiss it outright; appreciated simply by those who have read it and thus know how extraordinary it is. Disney popularized some of the characters with their (now) infamous Mr Toad's Wild Ride, but relegating such profound, beautiful prose to an amusement park attraction seems a mockery now that I've read it for myself. The Wind in the Willows follows the adventures of a number of characters as they struggle to find their place in the world, as well as their various relations with each other. The story is of little importance - it's more about the feeling you get while reading, which is wholly charming and absorbing - a feeling of pure adulation and admiration for the characters and their creator. And for what it's worth, "Chapter VII - Piper at the Gates of Dawn" on its own is perhaps the best piece of prose I've ever read. An incredible book.

MUSIC
Though music is perhaps the most important and satisfying form of media I consume, it is also the form about which I am most selective. I won't listen to just anything. Most artists are pre-screened, either coming to me via recommendation or Pandora's brilliant compatibility software. It is rare to add a new artist to my repertoire from year to year....

With that said, this was a very rare year. Not only did I add a new artist into my musical fold, I added two! Chick Corea and Mayer Hawthorne. Corea, of course, I had heard of during all my years of music education, but it wasn't until this past year that I actually started listening to him and deciding my own opinion on his output. In short, he's a genius! A pianist by training, Corea is simply the most talented jazz composer I've had the joy of listening to. That is not hyperbole. Every song is unique - challenging himself, his band, and his listeners in some new, exciting way; that he is so eager to try virtually every genre and style is only the icing on the cake.

Mayer Hawthorne, on the other hand, is a genre man through and through. What makes him so fun is that his work so perfectly captures the spirit and sound of 60s/70s-era soul/funk, but with modern, anachronistic lyrics. You would swear you were listening to "found" songs from decades ago, not fairly recent music from a modern artist. And lyrically, Hawthorne is a hoot. Most of the lyrics I've heard, for instance, seem to invert the very spirit the music invokes: he sings not of being your only man, or loving you till the end, but of being better off without you, and living happily on his own. It's subtle, but it's there.

TELEVISION
Though I've never been much of a TV-watcher, I can happily report that this past year (specifically, since about October) I've started watching some truly great television shows. And all of them exclusively on AMC. I'm actually going to write about this more soon, so I don't want to say too much, but I'll give a few details now...

The Walking Dead
I'm the first to admit that this show can be a bit silly. Some episodes are overly gory, and the downhome Southern attitude can go from earnest to campy in a hurry. When it gets it right, though, The Walking Dead is nothing short of amazing: shocking, provocative, stirring, powerful - everything great television drama should be. And that finale - Wow! A truly amazing episode.

Breaking Bad
I'm not caught up on this show just yet, but I love what I've seen so far. Bryan Cranston has established himself as an amazing character actor, for those who had their doubts. And I must say - I was shocked how funny it is. Given the subject matter - terminally ill cancer patient starts selling drugs to make money - I expected high drama, even borderline melodrama... But actually, I'd say Breaking Bad is mostly a comedy. A very dark comedy - and a dark comedy with extremely bleak, dramatic moments - but for the most part, it's played for laughs.

Mad Men
Lauded for years as a modern must-see drama, I just recently started watching, and I have to admit it's good. I'm not quite sure it's as good as everyone says - I'm just through Season One - but a great show nonetheless.

MOVIES
Theatrical Releases
Midnight in Paris (dir. Woody Allen) - Woody Allen is one of my favorite filmmakers, so I'm a bit biased, but I can also recognize/admit when he doesn't hit the mark. That said, I happily report that Midnight in Paris is one of Allen's best out and out comedies in some time. An intriguing concept is elevated with pitch-perfect performances, especially Corey Stoll in the Ernest Hemingway role. It's Woody-lite, but still rewarding, engaging, and entertaining nonetheless. A delight.

Drive (dir. Nicolas Winding Refn) - A tonal opposite to Midnight in Paris, Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive is all attitude and atmosphere, with a modicum of dialogue and exposition. Ryan Gosling deserves yet another Oscar nomination (if not the win) for his incredible, nuanced performance as the nameless Driver. It's basically a one-man show, yet he's so effortless and subtle his work can almost go unnoticed. Though Drive is not the masterpiece I hoped it would be (it gets bogged down in excessive violence in the second half), it is undoubtedly the most intriguing, interesting, and mysterious action films in ages, and it's good to see an action film succeed with intelligence and atmosphere rather than noise and special effects.

Unfortunately, those were the only titles of note for me this year. This is not a condemnation of the Oscar bait playing currently (these lists are solely the best of what I've seen), but this was a really weak year for movies, and not much caught my eye.

On Disc (or Streaming)
13 Assassins (dir. Takashi Miike) - I'm on the fence with Miike. On the one hand, he's responsible for Audition, which is the scariest and most disturbing movie I have ever seen... on the other hand, though, his most famous film is Ichi: The Killer, a non-stop gore-fest which many a fanboy love and adore simply because it is a non-stop gore-fest. (Despite all the gore and the technique/ingenuity behind it, you simply become numb after a few scenes... That said, there's just nothing all that interesting in the story. At all.) Nevertheless, I had heard great things about 13 Assassins, and after seeing it for myself, this is the best movie I saw in 2011. 13 Assassins does not tread new territory - in many ways, it's a throwback to Kurosawa's masterful Seven Samurai - but it remains unique, interesting, and entertaining nonetheless. This was the most fun I've had watching a movie in a long time. 13 Assassins is so good because it manages to take familiar genre conventions and spin them in new, interesting ways. For instance, the first half of the film is strict melodrama. An hour is spent gathering the titular assassins, giving a little background for each of them, and establishing the villain, a man so sadistic and truculent you could say he's blase. The rest of the film is action. Non-stop, pulse-pounding action. A few breaks here and there to catch your breath, but the whole second half is essentially one long action sequence; and purely in terms of choreography, rhythm, and cinematography, it deserves to be seen. The film is not for everyone - though action-packed, a couple friends were turned off simply because it does not fit the typical Hollywood mould - 13 Assassins is nevertheless essential viewing for anyone who appreciates a good action film... or at least good filmmaking.

Blue Valentine (dir. Derek Cianfrance) - Kate turned me on to this gem, as it has become one her favorite recent movies. What a beautiful, heart-breaking film to watch, and yet an amazing experience. Gosling is just as good as he's always been, but the real standout is Michelle Williams, who shows with this (and her small role in Brokeback Mountain) that she is perhaps the best actress of her generation. Blue Valentine is not an easy film to watch - the emotional intensity runs high, and most scenes go for raw, unadulterated impact - but it is well worth it for anyone who has ever fallen in love, fallen out of love, or basically been in any serious relationship.

Conversations with Other Women (dir. Hans Canosa) - So good and effortless it's almost annoying, Conversations could have been a play (what with basically two characters talking the whole time), but director Hans Canosa manages to craft a wholly unique, engaging, and watchable cinematic experience. These fractured souls have been thrown together in a messy heap; and while it seems as though they could have made it work, life got in the way and now they're stuck without one another.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (dir. Guillermo del Toro) - How Guillermo del Toro has managed to elude mainstream success is beyond me. He's run the gamut from small, character-driven films like Pan's Labyrinth to big-budget Hollywood actioners... yet he is still largely unknown and behind the scenes. Such a shame. I was none too impressed with the first installment, but Hellboy II is some kind of mad, absurd, popcorn masterpiece. The craftsmanship is top-notch, the film has a great sense of humor, and the story and characters are believable and empathetic, as unbelievable and alienating as the characters themselves are. It really is a rare accomplishment - a big-budget, effects-driven film as good as this one - and I just hope one day general audiences will wise up to give del Toro the respect he deserves.

The House of the Devil (dir. Ti West) - The best horror film since... The Descent? I don't even know what. The House of the Devil is so good because of all the things it's not: it's not overstated, gory, frenzied, or manic; the villains are not despicable, incomprehensible monsters; the script is not overly complicated or purely a means for increasing the body count... What it is is unique, engaging, minimalistic, suspenseful, and patient. That's the key word. The House of the Devil achieves greatness by taking it's time and building up to an exciting conclusion, rather than running out of steam through repetitive violence, as is so often the case.

The Tree of Life (dir. Terrence Malick) - Such an enigmatic paradox of a picture. Undoubtedly the most ambiguous film of the year, and also one of the most confounding. At times, the film is pure cinematic poetry, exploring territory never before attempted. The cinematography is among the best color photography ever captured, if not the best. The story, unfortunately, leaves something to be desired, and at times the film is so minimal and puzzling it borders on pretension. Worth watching, but that doesn't mean you'll like it.

Honorable Mention
Enter the Void (dir. Gaspar Noe) - Aside from the collective works of Alejandro Jodorowsky, Enter the Void is undoubtedly the most ambitious and unusual viewing experience I've ever had. And that's what it is - an experience. Because Enter the Void is not about the story (which is, put simply: a boy dies and wanders through past and present seeking reincarnation) - it is about sheer ambition and storytelling. Told entirely through first-person perspective in one, unending shot (though, admittedly, with the help of extensive visual effects, some of which are more convincing than others), director Gaspar Noe shows once again that he is perhaps the boldest filmmaker working right now, and there is nothing he will not attempt... and judging from his output thus far, there is nothing he cannot attain. NOTE: I highly recommend viewers start with Noe's previous film, Irreversible. A disturbing, sometimes nasty film to sit through, Irreversible nonetheless perfectly captures Noe's filmmaking skills and interests, and more importantly his black sense of humor, and serves as an essential introduction to his tone and candid nature.

Tell Me All Your Thoughts on God

Disclaimer: I want you to know this is sincere. I'm not trying to be provocative or offensive, and I don't mean for this to be confrontational or anything. Oftentimes my posts are trivial or informational, but this is purely confessional.

I'm not sure I believe in God any more.

Ask me that same question twenty years ago, it would have been a stupefied "Of course I do!" Ten years ago, "Yes," but with a caveat. And now... "Meh."

I wouldn't call myself an atheist, however. To me that term has too militant a connotation. "Atheist" calls to mind Richard Dawkins, Ayn Rand - these absolutely certain thinkers, absolutely convinced they are absolutely right; trying just as hard as evangelicals to convert others to their way of thinking. The evangelicals, of course, absolutely know without a doubt that which by its very nature cannot be known. Then there's little old me - the guy who knows absolutely nothing.

What happened?

I grew up in a pretty religious household. We went to church just about every Sunday. I was in a Bible camp almost every summer. I've read the entire Bible, some passages several times. It was a common practice for a public prayer before any major family gathering or meal. The question of God's existence was so easy to answer it wasn't even worth asking. Like I said, it was a pretty religious home.

But we weren't an evangelical family. My mother, for instance, did not have real stringent ties to a particular denomination. She admits that her family changed churches with some frequency when she was young to try and keep it "fun." Neither of my parents saw the need for mission trips ("Why do you need to go on a vacation when there are plenty of people to help right here?"). Similarly, they both agreed that while it was important to have God in your life, it was fruitless to try and force it on somebody. So when I started working every Sunday as a teenager, they did not mind, nor did they think it automatically would impact my spiritual life. (Not to say that it did - my working on Sundays was more a matter of convenience and cooperation than personal spiritual issues.)

The thing is, I have always been a skeptical person by nature. I want answers. Real answers. So as I got older, I went looking. I sought out new and different perspectives; my friends and I had a weekly "philosophy club" where we would listen to music and debate the "Big Questions." I started questioning everything, even things that seemed obvious - even things I took for granted.

After a great deal of reading, studying, and self-exploration, I found that I really have a kind of scientific view of the world. That is, I don't want to just take things as they are - I want to know how they came to be that way. I find it much more satisfying, mystical, and "spiritual" to look at something and know how/why it is the way it is than to simply marvel at its beauty. I'm studying health science and medicine right now. A lot of people look at something like the human eye and marvel at its complexity as though it were a gift from God (one of Paley's "watches," right?); I see it as an incredible feat of biological machinery, tested and improved over eons. (Also, for those who cite the eye as proof against evolution - "The eye is too complex for middling versions," they say - please read up on the flaws of the eyeball. It is not a paragon of design.)

The obvious question, then, is how do we look at God in a scientific context? And that's the funny thing. You can't. By his very nature, God is metaphysical - he cannot be measured, observed, quantified, even in an indirect way. He is outside of science. So I find it both amusing and infuriating when so many people (from both sides of the issue) try so hard to shoehorn God into a scientific context. Deepak Chopra has duped millions of people for millions of dollars, but he's no scientist. He's a charlatan using scientific terminology to confuse and confound readers into thinking, "Well, he must be right, who else would use such funny words?" Compare any credible view on physics with his particular brand of physics, and there is no other conclusion you can come to. But I am getting off course...

The problem is when either field tries to step out of its frame of reference. You can't quantify the soul (in other words, use science religiously), and it's senseless to use scripture as a textbook (or, use religion scientifically). Religious texts are fables: they're morality tales meant to help you live your life in a positive way. They are not literal accounts. The point of Genesis, for instance, is not to give facts about the early universe, but to offer an explanation for the faulty, self-destructive nature of man. Think of it as a plot device: you ultimately want to tell readers that there is a way out of the negativity that plagues humanity, so you need to come up with a story that explains that we are faulty by nature. What better way than to suggest we've been like this since the beginning of the species? I don't mean for it to sound as though early church founders completely fabricated the story, just that it's a moral tale which fits into a much larger context. Genesis was written to define the origin of humanity, not the origin of species.

Numerous other examples abound, but that is not the point of this entry. No, I'm probing the very issue of God himself. And one thing which seemed so obvious to me but apparently was a point of contention for some is the notion of God's gender.

Not exactly what I wanted - but a nice sentiment nonetheless.

My thought was always that God had no gender because God had no body. He existed, but not in a corporeal sense. Gender terms were used so that we could relate on some level (how much harder would it be to have a relationship with God if the Bible used "it" instead of "him"?); and "he" was used to reflect the partriarchal leanings of society. Kevin Smith took a lot of flak for Dogma when his film suggested (among other things) that God was a woman. The key dialogue, though, was at the end of the film: the thirteenth apostle said, "You know, she's not really a woman. She's not really anything." To which the protagonist responds, "She's something all right." The idea was that God was not bound to a physical form, even in heaven, but chose one for our sake, so we might understand.

A couple other minor things: (1) The claim that the Bible does not contradict itself. Um, yes it does. And in very obvious ways, at times; which is no surprise considering the inordinant number of authors, languages, and years which span the writing (and subsequent compiling, followed by the subsequent editing, followed by the subsequent confirmation/canonization, and so on). That the Bible contradicts itself is not really an issue in and of itself, but it becomes a big deal when believers use such a claim to authenticate it. (2) The notion that the Bible is literal. I would hope this would have been put to bed simply through cursory scientific knowledge, or even through everyday experience, but it's hard to read the Bible in anything other than a figurative/metaphorical context. (Please check this out - it breaks things down very nicely.) That's how it is intended. I don't want to get into this too much because it's so obvious (and I don't want to seem combative), so I'll leave it at that.

The biggest issue, though, and one that's brought up constantly, is of course the Problem of Evil. Which is a legitimate question, in my view. Why do bad things happen to good people? According to Biblical text, we brought it on our selves through freedom of choice. If there were no choice, we could not choose to do bad, and thus we would not suffer punishment. That's pretty bleak and cold, but I can buy that line of reasoning. So I'm not arguing that. No, what I argue, and what ultimately drove me to my current opinion of God, is senseless suffering - ie, I did not choose to do wrong, so why should I suffer the consequences? Or as one of my philosophy professors once said, "I get that there has to be evil, but why does there have to be so much evil? Or senseless evil? I stubbed my toe the other day walking to the bathroom - that's unnecessary suffering!" A joke of course, but he makes a good point: if the ultimate purpose of evil is to make us appreciate and/or choose good, then why would evil exist outside of a teaching context? Say for example you want to teach that stealing is wrong. You could cite the guilt, or the legal consequences, or the moral consequences. You can't exactly cite consequences or lessons when the event is completely random, or happens without purpose. I heard a story once about a kid who suffocated and died when a hockey puck somehow managed to hit him in the neck just between his helmet and his padding... Talk about a freak accident... What possible lesson is there to be learned? He wore the padding, he took the necessary precautions, and yet he was an unfortunate victim. Some have argued that such seemingly unnecessary deaths ultimately have a positive impact on society because they bring families or communities together with a common purpose... Great, but that doesn't exactly help the kid, does it? What lesson does he learn? And if the ultimate purpose is to teach a sense of purpose and community to a multitude, did a child have to die for such a lesson? There are countless apologetics dealing with this issue, but it's truly something I cannot get past. There are just some things that I cannot abide or fathom in a moralistic universe.

I know, I know, the mind of God cannot be understood by the mind of man, the Lord works in mysterious ways, and all that... but if man were created in the image of God and endowed with reason and intelligence, you would think we could understand it in some way... or at least somebody could. But too many things happen which truly have no greater purpose; and that I cannot believe - not when God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good.

What, then? If there is no God, what is the alternative? Most people say that a godless universe is a meaningless universe; that if you don't believe in God, you might as well kill yourself because life has no value. That, frankly, is ridiculous. God or no God, doesn't life intrinsically have value? Isn't it simply better to be than to not? I reject the notion that life loses meaning in a material universe. In fact, it seems just the opposite: if God exists and there is a heaven, then after death your existence may actually get better! And if God does not exist, then this world is all we have, and from that we can extrapolate the joy that comes from everyday pleasures.

Based on my experience - even in my youth, before witnessing true horror - if there is a God, he is strictly a creator. He is not involved in our lives in any sort of day-to-day capacity; he created everything, set things in motion, and that was that. This is the only God I can conceive of. That solves the Problem of Evil, indeed of all God-related issues. Because if he simply created everything and nothing more, then we truly are accountable for all of our own problems and successes. On the other hand, though, such a view makes prayer, praise - indeed just about all forms of ritual - essentially useless, except for the value they give to the participant. After all, if God is strictly a creator and not involved in daily life, what good does it do to seek his counsel... other than helping you psychologically? Just a thought.

One last issue I have - and this is related more to religion as a whole than to Christianity specifically - is the notion that without religion, there would be no morality. Without God, it is impossible to be a decent person, or something to that effect. That's rather presumptuous, don't you think? Never mind the idea that you have to be Christian to be a good person (that is a horribly arrogant assumption), but to say that you cannot be moral without religion? That just flies in the face of reason. Such a statement implies that nothing is inherently evil, but rather things are only evil if they are dogmatically so. Theft in and of itself is not wrong; it is wrong only because religion commands it so. I find it extremely problematic to believe that good and evil are relative. Is there no such thing as being good for goodness' sake? If consequences dictate a course of action, it doesn't matter what's right - it's only wrong if you get caught.

"You have knowledge, but you lack wisdom."

These were the pet words of one of my favorite pastors - a very gifted public speaker who simultaneously stalled and exacerbated my waning enthusiasm for religion. Such a paradox. He truly was a great speaker: genuinely excited to share his view and understanding of the Christian faith, a great sense of humor, and he was good at what he did. The problem, though, was that he eventually started getting political. And not in a faith-building sort of way - in a didactic, (frankly) combative sort of way. He literally told the congregation that they were not Christian if they voted for Al Gore. Years ago when a gay marriage bill was making its way through Missouri, he told the congregation it was their Christian duty to strike it down. (He trotted out that oft-heard line, "If men start marrying men, what's to stop men from marrying animals?") Such blatant polemic effectively ended my attendance. I can stomach a lot of things, but a pastor using his position to openly manipulate people is too much.

Since that sermon, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've been to church, and that happened in 2004. I realize of course that a simpler solution would have been to just attend a different church, or maybe even seek out a new religion altogether, but that just seemed dishonest somehow. Patronizing. I don't want to go unless I actually want to be there. And right now, the only conclusion I've come to is that God might exist. If he does, then he is not involved in my life; if he doesn't, I wouldn't do anything differently. I refer to this as "apathetic agnosticism" - if he's there or not, my life would be the same. No better, no worse.


Additional disclaimer: Again, please realize that I am not decrying religion or Christianity in any way. Almost everyone I've ever known is very religious and genuine, and God plays a very important part in their lives. That's wonderful. Sincerely, it is.

This is not meant in any way to be an attack. They say "Write what you know," and this is something that's always been a big part of my life and weighed heavily on my mind. All I can do with this blog is create an open dialogue for whatever is going on with me and how I see the world. If you disagree with that viewpoint, you are more than welcome to disagree; I welcome it. But I cannot be dishonest about something like this, so I felt I had to share.

Game Time: Batman: Arkham City

I'm not a big gamer, but since getting a PS3 two years ago, I've amassed a pretty respectable collection of titles. So while this will by no means be a regular feature, it seems like a fun idea to throw in the occasional game review, considering how much of my time they take.

Cinematic Smackdown: Halloween Candy - FIVE Movies in One Blog!

It's a bit of a tradition in our house to watch scary movies each October. The first couple years we genuinely watched a horror movie every night. Since then, the number has dwindled - somewhat from decreased interest, somewhat from lack of viable options, but mostly because we simply are too busy. That said, though, I was able to watch a fair number of titles this past year, most of them of only middling quality, unfortunately. For sake of space (and because, frankly, there is not much to say about some of these), I am including the bulk of them here in one huge post... albeit two months late. Sue us - it took a while before we could both sit down for The House of the Devil.


Dementia 13 - 1.5/5
(dir. Francis Ford Coppola)

Let's just be honest here: the only reason you would watch this movie is for trivia, just as the only reason someone would seek out All in the Family (1975) is because of the infamous Jackie Chan sex scene. If Francis Ford Coppola hadn't gone on to become one of the best American filmmakers in history, this failing little trifle of a film would have disappeared into anonymity, perhaps where it belongs.

It's not that Dementia 13 is a particularly bad film per se, it's just that it's so exceptionally mediocre. Made on a shoe-string with money left over from a different low-budget film, Dementia 13 tries to piggyback on the success of Psycho and other psychological, "family issues" thrillers. There are a few interesting scenes and shots - Coppola clearly trying to inject his film with some sense of vitality - but the whole thing is just so bland, low-key, and simplistic that it actually feels like what it is: a student film made by someone with big ambitions, but quite simply in over his head.

The Invisible Man - 2/5

(dir. James Whale)

I'm sorry... I wanted to like this movie. I really did, especially considering all the great work I've seen from James Whale (Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, etc)... but I just couldn't do it. No matter how much I tried to get into the story and go with the idea of "Okay, an invisible man really could be a serial killer monster rather than a novelty," I just couldn't get past the novelty. Because when you get right down to it, that's all being invisible really is. No one wants to be invisible so they can kill people; they want to be invisible so they can rob banks, or see women naked, depending on their priorities.

So while The Invisible Man does have some genuinely good moments (indeed, a few great sequences) and a great performance by the largely unseen Claude Rains, it's just too naive and goofy to work as the thrilling adventure film it's trying to be. The primitive effects are impressive for the time, but frankly don't cut it today. I realize that's an unfair way to judge the film, but when special effects are the main focus of the story, it's hard not to judge the film in such a way. Maybe worth watching out of sheer curiosity, but if you're looking for "classic" horror, go through the other James Whale greats before bothering with this one.

Coraline - 3/5
(dir. Henry Selick)

If I were to make a list of the top ten movies I've seen where I would be willing to turn the sound off and simply let the filmic imagery wash over me, Coraline would be right near the top of that list. This is, quite simply, spectacle at its finest; if ever there was better stop-motion animation, I've never seen it. Such rich, vivid colors, such lush imagination, such exquisite craftsmanship: literally every frame of the film is sheer bliss to behold.

The film is so good to watch, in fact, it's a shame the story kind of gets in the way. A number of scenes, plot details, even full sequences simply feel half-baked, or worse, thrown in for visual flair. Don't get me wrong - everything in the film is simply magnificent to behold, it's just that it leaves the script feeling a little lackluster, and thus the overall emotional arc and response a bit thin. With some nice bits of quirky humor, good voice acting, and a truly astonishing visual style, Coraline is a great movie to watch, but comes up a bit short nevertheless.


The House of the Devil - 4/5
(dir. Ti West)

After only a few years, Ti West has managed to do what Robert Rodriguez has been trying to do for decades: create a throwback which captures the feel and attitude of classic genre films, while still making something unique and fresh for a modern audience. Taking place in the '80s but made in just 2009, The House of the Devil will surely bring a smile to the face of any child of the era. The feathery hair, cassette players, big headphones - all the period details are right. More impressive, though, is West's faithfulness to the filmmaking of the time. He uses 16mm, he has the occasional goofy zoom, the pop music interlude, the opening title cards - few films have been able to capture the '80s spirit so perfectly without dipping into condescension or outright parody. Even lead actress Jocelin Donahue bears a striking resemblance to Jessica Harper of Suspiria fame.

The House of the Devil builds on a popular plot device of '80s horror: devil worship. Right from the start, you know a Satanic cult comes into play somehow, but West's brilliance is in the way he is able to delay the big reveal for so long. The film starts with a title card about Satanism over some ominous music, and there are a number of creepy characters and occurrences throughout, but at times you'd forget you're watching a horror film. It just moves so effortlessly between comedy, drama, suspense, character study... all the while, though, West is dropping little clues that things aren't quite right. The most subtle is superb work by Tom Noonan, who elevates creepy to a passive-aggressive art form.

The film does what few modern horror films do: it takes its time. West's script is in no hurry. There is no typical opening murder followed by clumsy exposition followed by a more gruesome murder followed by even clumsier exposition... perhaps the most shocking thing about The House of the Devil, actually, is how little violence is in it. I imagine this may actually upset some people, but anyone with any semblance of movie-watching chops can appreciate what is going on. This isn't some splatter film trying to shock you with gory special effects; this is actually a character-driven tragedy which is eventually taken over by the macabre. It builds to a thrilling, fantastic conclusion, and it has the patience to earn the payoff. A great, modern horror film - a rare treat.

The Innocents - 4/5
(dir. Jack Clayton)

How's this for a little personal history? I first saw a screen capture from The Innocents four years ago, some two years after its DVD release. That simple image - a woman in a black dress standing by a lake - so unnerved me that I simply had to see the full film. After all those years, I've yet to find a hard copy for myself, but thankfully TCM was kind enough to air the film this past October. Cue the DVR, and here I am - satisfied with one of the best haunted house movies I've ever seen.

The story has the classic set-up of many a ghost story: a naive governess is charged by a wealthy, brusque socialite to care for his extravagant estate and his heirs. She comes to suspect, however, that former staff members have not exactly left the premises. Cue the spooky sound effects... Kidding.

The power of The Innocents lies not so much in the script or the acting (which are both quite good), but in the technique. Cinematographer Freddie Francis's minimalist, deep-focus photography simply drips with atmosphere, milking every scene for all its creepy possibilities. His work is so good you wish all haunted house movies were in black and white. And the "scares" themselves are so effectively unnerving and understated that even though the "ghosts" (for lack of a better term) are fairly non-threatening, you nevertheless find yourself with hairs standing on end. One of my favorite things was the unpredictability of this spooky presence. Oftentimes horror filmmakers telegraph what is coming from a mile away, but here in The Innocents a number of scares take place in broad daylight, or in other non-threatening circumstances.

For all its greatness, though, The Innocents does make a few missteps. According to my research, the script is largely unchanged from a stage adaptation by the same name, and at times this is a little too apparent. Also, toward the start of the third act, certain nightmarish sequences are just a little too overdone. The intention is clear, but the effect is a little overwhelming. As a result, the third act just kind of rushes by in what seems like two or three scenes, resulting in a rather abrupt ending instead of a satisfying conclusion. Don't let this last paragraph dissuade you, though: next to The Haunting (1961), The Innocents remains near the zenith of haunted house storytelling.

Finals... aka, My Brain Hurts!

Okay, I know no one else cares about this right now, and everybody reading this has gone through the same pain, but good God am I done with school. I have earned this winter break. I just got out of my last final - so I am done until January 18. And it couldn't come to soon; I was starting to get burned out.

My Anatomy/Physiology professor saved muscles and nerves for the final day; and anyone who knows anything about muscles and nerves knows that there are tons of them. So after stuffing my head for days with all this terminology, coming up with ridiculous acronyms and phrases to remember them (What are the muscles that operate movements of the mouth, you ask? Why, that would be LORDDZ - Levator labii superioris, Orbicularis oris, Risorius, Depressor anguli oris, Depressor labii inferioris, and Zygomaticus) - it's finally all been expelled, and I'm fairly certain I was able to squeeze an A out of that class. At least, I better get an A - I worked harder in that class than I ever have.

The Organic Chemistry, however, is another story. I did the best I could, but chemistry and I are not the best of friends in the first place, and my instructor this year wasn't worth much. An incredibly nice guy - I really like him as a person - but just a bad, bad teacher. Here was the daily "lecture": you know the pictures in the book? He would use those as power point slides, and that's it. He would just get up there, identify the structure, say a couple things about its use in industry (he got his PhD researching plastics and their many applications), and then move on to the next one. Several pictures he would literally say, "Oh, don't worry about this - this is too complicated." So naturally what does he test on? All of the stuff he said not to worry about! So frustrating. There were whole sections of the final which literally were not mentioned anywhere in his lecture, or in the book! There was even one section which he specifically said we would not need to know at all!

I drew the line today, though. He encourages students to work out problems on the test, so I wrote a brief letter which basically said, "It is not fair to test us on material we have no way of knowing. It's one thing to pull questions from the book, or to even ask about a topic we only discussed in a cursory way, but to give ten to fifteen questions which we do not know, were never mentioned in any way, and discuss concepts which we have never dealt with before is just too much. Please let me know my final grade as soon as possible - because I have a feeling I would like to talk to you in person and dispute it."

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but there are just some things a teacher shouldn't do. Trust me - I'm not trying to say I'm a genius and he should give me special treatment, but he should at least know for future classes that his test material is beyond anything we've discussed.

Statistics, thank God, was an online class, and thus was finished a couple weeks ago. I hate the subject matter  (I call it the "mathematics of trivia"), but at least it's done and I never have to see it again.

And that's it. What's done is done. Time to move on and prepare for the GRE next month. And then, right after that, we move on to the next semester - Microbiology, A/P II, Biochemistry, and Medical Terminology. Wish me luck!

A Little to the Left

Most of my family is very conservative. Actually, that's not true. Most of my family is simply apolitical; the more outspoken ones are very conservative. I am not. I'm really not sure what I am. I don't particularly identify with any major political party; I see flaws in all of them.

Conservatism, by and large, doesn't work for me. And truthfully, it has very little to do with the politics of conservatism; my distaste is largely due to an inordinate number of ignorant individuals, their inconsistencies with their own ideology, and crass, blowhard politicians. Really, conservative values aren't all that troublesome - it's largely the conservatives themselves.

The main thing I cannot stand are the so-called "values voters." These are the people who know next to nothing about candidate issues, platforms, opinions; they vote almost solely based on issues like gay marriage, abortion rights, and so on. The extremists, if they had their way, would even want prayer in school, English as our official language, an even heavier emphasis on Christian theology... basically a huge upheaval of church-state separation. Maybe not a theocracy, but I'd be willing to bet a healthy number would support that too. (Also, this is only tangentially related, but can people please stop trying to defend the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance? It is not part of our heritage, it is not any sort of ringing government endorsement of the Judeo-Christian God - it was a political middle finger to the USSR, implemented in the Cold War to demonize our "godless" enemy. If it means a lot to you, fine, but please stop pretending it's some hundreds-years-old tradition that "godless" liberals want to take away. It's been around since 1954 - my parents are older than that phrase.)

This makes no sense to me. First of all, one of the central pillars of conservatism is the presence of a limited government. "Get government off our backs," "As regulations rise, freedom dies"... that sort of stuff. Explain to me how forcing school prayer, or barring gay marriage, or any other "value" vote is not a gross overreach of government power. Before any conservative readers disagree, just ask yourself how you'd feel if these were a little different: ie, what if straight marriage was being banned, or Muslim prayers were required, or if our national religion were Pastafarianism?  That you support the cause does not justify its presence in government.

This is why I can respect libertarianism. (For a while I even identified myself as libertarian, but then I found it too self-serving/-aggrandizing.) Libertarians have a kind of extreme view of what we consider "limited" government - they believe that the government should have basically no involvement - but they are at least consistent about it, and such a system does not infringe upon individual rights. Popular "values voter" conservatism, however, would mostly prefer to marginalize those who disagree and unfairly exalt certain individuals over others. I believe first and foremost in the values of fairness and equality; and when certain groups or certain individuals legally can't do things I can, or I can't do things they can, something is amiss. This is the whole problem with anti-gay sentiment: it's discrimination. No two ways about it, no other way to slice it - if one person is legally forbidden from doing something another person is allowed to do, for some arbitrary reason that has nothing to do with law itself (such as being a criminal, or mentally unfit, or for some legit reason cannot exercise certain rights), that is discrimination.

That's the main thing. And trust me, I know there are plenty of conservatives out there who are perfectly reasonable, accepting, and fair with all types of people. I don't mean to paint them all in such nasty color - I just want to isolate that particular group as a completely unacceptable political option for me.

Another big issue for me is that conservatism at its core also seems to be extraordinarily xenophobic. Anyone who could be labeled an "outsider," or at least outside the norm, seems to be of "lower stock," if not completely disregarded. Again, this is not true of everybody, but that "It's Us v Them, and They are Perverts!" attitude seems a little too prevalent for my taste. It's too isolationist.

The other two issues I have with conservatism can be categorized under "economy" and "nationalism." The whole nationalism thing really ties into my equality issue: there is no reason to think we are better than anybody else. We are all equal and deserving of care and respect. (Fine, I'll admit that certain people - sometimes huge groups of people, even - do or say things which tarnish that opinion, but it is a good ideal nonetheless.) Being born in one particular country does not make you a better person.

Now, the economy... remember that whole "I used to identify myself as libertarian" thing a few graphs back? This is pretty much what undid it. I am all for fiscal responsibility. I hate wasteful spending and I get annoyed by taxes as much as anyone else... but I understand the need for it (except the wasteful spending part, obviously - that's just ignorance - but you know what I mean). And if there's a choice between cutting funds on military spending and cutting funds on education (of any sort), you better believe I'm going after the military. Libertarianism in this regard would be a beautiful thing... in an ideal world. Libertarians believe that many things could be funded with the generosity of successful people, that we would essentially financially provide for and regulate ourselves. A nice thought, no doubt, but that's a pipe dream. In the real world, people lie, they cheat, they extort; in the real world, we need government regulation, we need taxes. If politicians were honest and straightforward, if the public was thoughtful and engaged, if we had a cultural moral compass which guided all of us, there would be no problem... but we don't live in that world. So we need rules, we need strict regulation. We need these things, otherwise we would all suffer.

I'll put you an example. One of my jobs is an entry-level position at a hospital. Management was freaking out almost all year because at any moment there could be a surprise health and safety review from a federally mandated commission. Do you think this hospital would be a better place without that regulation? Do you honestly believe that on their own most employees would follow such stringent rules? Some maybe. Personally, I don't give people that much credit; they need someone to come in every once in a while and peek over their shoulder. Not all the time, but it's important nonetheless. And could you imagine a lack of regulation in health care? We have a deeply flawed system, but stripping down government regulation isn't going to fix things.

The thing that irks me most about conservative economic views is really a philosophical objection: I just don't think things should be valued over people. When you get right down to it, when you boil conservatism down to its basic tenets, the biggest values are the rights of property and property owners. That's just so skewed to me. Corporations as people, unstructured free markets - these things are just so different from how I see life, and they place such an emphasis on things that just don't add up to much in the end. I'm not saying this is wrong, it's just not right for me.

So, after all that, the one thing we can say for certain is I'm not conservative. So what do I call myself? Honestly, I think I fall pretty close to the center of the political spectrum. I'm liberal, but mostly because I'm not conservative. For instance, I'm not looking to nationalize banks or other institutions; I think socialism, communism, and other far left systems are just as lofty and unrealistic as libertarianism and other far right systems; and for the most part, I think capitalism is responsible for the prosperity our country has achieved. On the other hand, though, I would prefer a social market to a free market; I fully support equal rights for all people; and I place a higher value on education and globalism than militarism or nationalism. Also, I know this is a stereotype, but I seriously get annoyed by conservatives' general disregard and/or disdain for scientific facts and theories. (Tip: Trying to discredit something because "it's just a theory" only reveals how little you know about the gravitas of the term "theory.") That has nothing to do with liberal or conservative politics, it's just another tally mark in the "con" column for my opinion of most conservatives.

Of all the terms out there, the one that fits me best is social liberal. As if I've not yet made it clear, let me just enumerate my core ideals and beliefs even further: (1) A social market. The model has been largely successful in Europe, especially post-war Germany, and seems to emphasize steady growth, low unemployment, and low inflation in a setting of allocative efficiency. Nice, fancy words, yes, but in a nutshell: the economy grows, people keep their jobs, and the rate of expense does not outpace the rate of earning. Sounds kind of nice, huh? Sounds preferable to the boom-bust cycle of capitalism. (2) Equal rights for all. To me this is self-evident, but if all people don't have the same rights, obviously something is not fair. (To the nit-pickers: let's please not get into extraordinary circumstances. Just apply this to the average person. We don't need to get into special cases right now.) Legalize gay marriage, get rid of the pay discrepancy, etc. (3) Complete separation of church and state. For me, religion is a personal matter. I don't want other people to tell me what to believe, and it is not my business to tell other people what to believe. I don't want to see any sort of favoritism among religions; in fact, I frankly don't care and would rather not know a candidate's religious beliefs. A lot of people use this as a short-cut, but I do not understand how religion has any bearing on the ability or inability to govern or lead effectively. And in case it wasn't clear: if I was in charge, I would get rid of the phrase "under God." Completely unnecessary. (4) A public health care option. Key word: option. I don't see the harm in this. Conservatives decried this, saying it would drive too many insurance companies out of business... It's an option. About 50% of the country identify themselves as conservative; if that many people claim to be conservative, wouldn't they not choose the option? That's a pretty significant number of people who would decline purely for ideological purposes... or do political leaders worry they would be abandoned by their base simply because of lower prices? (5) A progressive tax system. In short: if you earn more, you pay more. Because you can afford to. Plain and simple.

These stances sound much more extreme than they actually are. These are all reasonable, rational views. I'm not calling for anyone to be marginalized, exploited, or left out. Maybe I'm being naive or idealistic, but each of these seems pretty tried and true, and I don't think I'm making any unreasonable requests. If I am, let me know. And if you disagree, fire away.

Considering where I grew up and what my family is like, my outlook is kind of unusual... but at the same time it feels inevitable. When I was growing up, my mother really emphasized fairness, equality, playing by the rules, including everyone, etc. "Live and let live," "To each his own," "Just because it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it can't work for somebody else" - these are just a few of the pearls of wisdom which remain with me to this day, and which I hope to pass along to my children. Now, you might look at those and say, "Wait a second - those don't really support or refute any political ideology." Exactly! That's what makes it such invaluable advice: my mother wasn't trying to brainwash me or inundate me into her way of thinking; she wanted me to find my own way, ask my own questions, and seek my own answers. Advice like that, coupled with a penchant for questions that demanded real information and disregarded xenophobic attitudes - it's no wonder I see things the way I do. I may not agree with some of those closest to me, and a number of people may think me something of an idiot, but considering my hometown, my upbringing, and my environment, it's really no surprise that I turned out to be just a little to the left.

Hamish - 911

In case I haven't mentioned it before: my fiancee and I have a puppy. A little schnoodle (schnauzer/poodle) named Hamish. (Fun fact: though Kate found the name in a Scottish mystery series, it is also a Yiddish word which means "cozy, warm," etc. Very suiting to his personality.) Hilarious little guy - he's become a member of the family.

Anyway... Hamish got sick a few days ago. I came home from class and (as I always do) assessed the apartment to see if he had caused any damage. (This is the first thing I do when I come home. He's just over a year old, and as such loves to chew/destroy anything he can get ahold of.) Normally, if anything, he's found a tissue, or chewed on a rug... Monday, though, he had gotten into Kate's backpack, which was last used on a weekend trip to Saint Louis. Kate keeps that backpack very organized, and what did he happen to get into that fateful day? The medicine pocket.

I found the backpack largely untouched, surrounded by a mess of tampons and a sandwich bag of headache/allergy medication. It looked as though he had chewed on some of the packaging and plastics, but nothing major. Thank God. I threw everything away and scolded him for digging through something he shouldn't dig through, and I thought that was that.

Oh, how naive...

A few hours later, after his dinner, Hamish was emetic. Then again later that night. I thought to myself, "Okay, he obviously ate something that didn't agree with him. Just give him time, and he'll naturally pass whatever it is."

Again, how naive...

Through the night Hamish seemed okay, but the following day he was lethargic and without much appetite. He would play, but not very enthusiastically. Then when he finally ate some food, he vomited again. Then again while Kate and I were gone for a few hours. I hung in there, though. Surely there couldn't be much left in his stomach. And I knew enough from the hospital to know we should limit his food/water until his stomach could settle itself.

Then when Kate came back from doing laundry, he had apparently been emetic several times. I had to face facts: this did not seem to be resolving itself. We called an emergency veterinary office, and after listing everything in the medicine pocket, it seemed most likely that he had eaten a headache pill... which apparently is toxic to dogs. That explains a lot. So Kate immediately rushed him over, and I soon followed straight from work. After a blood test and X-rays, it still remained unclear whether he had eaten anything toxic, and if he did, how much. The main problem was severe dehydration because of all the vomiting.

The solution, then, was for him to stay overnight with intravenous fluids, which would flush whatever toxin was in his system and hopefully settle his stomach more than water by mouth would. I called throughout the following day to check on him, and gradually he stabilized, but they wanted to keep him just in case anything unexpected happened. Thankfully for him (and our finances - the bill was already around $1100 and would only go up if they needed to do another treatment), the day went without incident, and he was able to come home with me after my evening chemistry class. Since being home, he seems much better. You can tell he's not feeling 100% - he has a lot less energy than usual - but hopefully he'll be back to his old self in a couple days.

So everything worked out... but the question now is: how to prevent it from happening again? Kate and I were always opposed to crates or pens, but that seems the only guaranteed way to keep him safe. Hamish is unusual in that the more freedom he has, the better behaved he is. For instance, when he was really young, we kept him in the kitchen with a baby gate. After he chewed through two speaker wires, a number of pantry boxes, and even put a hole in the wall itself, we decided to experiment a little bit. We kept the gate open, and then found that he actually caused less damage. In time, though, he went after pillows, rugs, and anything with threads. So we took those up and locked them away while we were gone; and we found that he caused less damage. For the most part, he was well behaved. He would greet you when you came home, and spend most of the day napping or at least being fairly tame. Monday was one of those days where the boredom just apparently became too much for him, and he decided to look for something new.

I'm glad Hamish is okay, but I think we have to go with a crate. I'm not happy about the idea - it just seems so sad and depressing - but it's for the best. It will keep him from discovering any other potential toxins, and it will protect our stuff from further chewing damage. What's funny is I just ordered a dog pen to keep Hamish from messing with our Christmas tree, and now it seems I can exchange that for a much simpler solution. Cheers to the little things!

Recent Happenings

This is turning into much more of a movie blog than I had intended. Not that there's anything wrong with that - movies are a big part of my life, and a much more inclusive and far-reaching topic than my current areas of study - but I want to take a little break from movies. A few reasons: (1) My fiancee and I just realized our wedding is less than six months away! Coming so quickly. We've got most things decided - but I'm starting to feel unprepared. (2) A lot of interesting things have happened recently - time to talk about those things instead of more rants and critiques.

First things first: we're getting married! We've been engaged almost a year now, but it's finally starting to feel "real." That kind of sounds a little insensitive, considering all the planning we've done, but under six months... we're almost on one hand, month-wise. The sense of immediacy is growing. There are so many things to do still... I need to talk to my groomsmen in more detail, we need to figure out a bachelor party, what sort of music will play when, what tie am I going to where... so many questions!

City mouse/country mouse - that's us to a T.

The most important component is also the most nebulous: our ceremony. My fiancee didn't come from a real strict religious upbringing, and I've grown increasingly non-religious with age, so the ceremony isn't as simple or straight-forward as your regular Christian, Catholic, Hindu, whatever wedding. Our officiant is not a clergyman, he's a friend. What do we do? We can do virtually anything we want, so long as it's in good taste, but that much freedom is actually a little overwhelming. One thing I know I don't want is sappy music. In fact, probably no music at all during the ceremony itself. Whenever I attend weddings, I always find it a bit awkward to sit through a song; and I imagine it feels even more bizarre to be watched and fawned over during those few minutes when you're actually standing up there. To be honest, neither one of us want anything about the ceremony to be overly sappy or sentimental. We're independent adults in a loving relationship: we don't want any of that "you're my whole life"/"I'm nothing without you" kind of stuff. We love each other, but I don't think either one of us defines that sense of obsession as love. We've toyed with the idea of having a few readings as we're both book-lovers, but what to read? Poetry? Prose? My fiancee has mentioned maybe a few verses from a variety of religious texts, which I kind of like. No decisions yet, but it's time to start deciding.

I rarely make demands, but the one thing I said right at the start of the planning was that I refused to wear a bow tie. I just can't stand them. I used to wear them all the time as part of school functions, but it was never by choice, and I always think people just look silly wearing them. Like Tucker Carlson - I can't take him seriously. So once that was decided, the suit v. tux question came up, and we actually went with suit. A few reasons - more comfortable, more unique, multiple uses - but it really came down to Kate's vision and "theme." She refers to it as "soft focus" - very ethereal, soft, light. Grays, muted pinks - classic, clean, and elegant. The hard lines of a traditional black tux just didn't fit that idea. So then we started talking about the Old Hollywood look (her being an admirer of Cary Grant, me of Elizabeth Taylor), and that pretty much settled it: a charcoal suit inspired by that vintage feel. Double vents, three pieces, pocket square - the whole thing.

We actually bought the suit a few days ago. Very exciting. I love it. So comfortable, so well made. Needs a little tailoring since I lost some muscle mass, but not much; and I love the color. Seriously. My fiancee talked about maybe buying a couple to compare colors and then returning all but one, but once I saw the color my mind was made up. It's perfect. The picture goes a little too dark - it doesn't quite capture the shine or shade just right. It's very Mad Men-esque. My future father-in-law (a big Mad Men fan) has pointed out that the suit is definitely more '60s than '40s/'50s, but I'm okay with that. It's a classic look as opposed to a contemporary one, and that's what matters to me. After buying it, Kate jokingly asked if I would get a pocket watch to go with it... I didn't see what was so funny - I actually might! Maybe a little hokey, but a pocket watch totally fits the look, and I would kind of like having one. I'm very old-fashioned when it comes to certain things. So now we need to find a good tie/pocket square, and the wedding attire is all set.

The same day, I also got an official hair cut and shave. The "official" part simply means I paid for it. Basically, since I've known her, Kate has generously and graciously offered to cut my hair for free every once in a while. The hair was getting a little out of control, though, and we couldn't find any time to do it - so, a barber shop! I decided to try out the Art of Shaving store at the local mall. Overpriced certainly, but I had always been curious and thought the shave would be interesting considering the old-fashioned technique. Overall, it was a very nice experience. This is the shortest my hair has been in a long, long time (it's a very "professional" look, for lack of a better word), and the shave was very relaxing. Hot towel, brush/foam, straight blade - the whole routine. The barber actually discouraged me from using a straight blade on my own (she felt I was too thin and could risk cutting myself pretty badly), but she made it work regardless. I like that. I feel like I've entered a new stage of hair-life: as a kid, it was strictly the bowl cut; as a teen, I experimented with gel/spiking it/dying it/etc; in college, it became long, curly, and very "shaggy"... and it's been pretty similar to that since. I would trim it for interviews (speaking of which, my fiancee once gave an amazing short cut that we've never been able to replicate) but it always returned to the shaggy form. Mostly out of laziness, but also because I didn't know what to do with it, and I didn't want to pay money every few weeks for something so simple. The facial hair has been around in some form or other for a decade: the full beard won't be going away any time soon.

Next thing up: the Walnut Room. A bit of a big deal in the Chicago area, apparently, along with the giant window displays in the downtown Macy's (formerly Marshall Fields... everyone seems to agree that it's gone downhill since being run by Macy's - I wouldn't know). The Walnut Room is a restaurant which balances an upscale setting with down home comfort food. My fiancee suggested this on a whim a little over a week ago, and after shifting around the schedule a bit and balancing things as best as possible, we finally found an afternoon to do it. And that's the thing to understand - to actually get into the Walnut Room, you need time. A lot of time. They don't take reservations, and you can't just show up. The recommended method: come in around opening time and put in your name for a lunch request, which is what we did. Supposedly, if you try to just show up and eat right away, you'll wind up waiting for over three hours. No thank you.

So we went down early, put in a name, and then wandered the streets like vagabonds for a few hours. Seriously, we did a little Christmas browsing. No one seems real sure what they want this year, if anything, so the only things bought were a few work clothes for Kate. The weather was nice, thankfully (for November); and though you wouldn't think it, Macy's is over a mile from the "shops" on Michigan Avenue, so we actually walked a little over three miles by the end of the day. When we finally went back, it didn't take long for the pager to go off, and then we had a lovely meal. I tried the traditional favorite (and a personal favorite of mine) - chicken pot pie; Kate opted for the lighter option - a bit of chicken salad with string potatoes and various fruits. Overall, I was very pleased. I had read mediocre reviews of the restaurant online, but my guess is most of those came from people who actually waited for hours and were disappointed... and I guess if you were grumbling in line half the day, anything would probably be disappointing. For us, though, it was a lovely way to spend an afternoon. We also went to the German Market - a tiny square of Christmas/German-themed shops in Daley Plaza - but as we were both stuffed and the main attraction seemed to be huge crowds, that wasn't so much fun. I prefer to think the day ended after the lovely meal. Just need to rewrite the memory a bit.

Lastly, on a completely unrelated subject... Herman Cain has withdrawn his candidacy! Hallelujah! I'm sorry, but in a field of goofy candidates, he was perhaps the goofiest. And I know he, his camp, and his fans are going to spin this somehow to blame the media and the Democrats, but seriously, Herman - if you can't survive wild accusations or allegations of any kind, you'll never be a successful politician. Part of being a politician is being disliked, and part of being a politician means people rooting through your past. Sometimes they're grasping at straws (see: the entire "birther" debate, Obama's middle name, etc), and sometimes they have legit concerns. In any case, if you can't handle it, you are definitely in the wrong field.

Cinematic Smackdown: The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life - 3.5/5
(dir. Terrence Malick)

love hate life death creation destruction visual poem dichotomy singularity joy sorrow courage fear father son god devil whispers in the night chaos of the cosmos meditation masturbation wealth poverty silence clamor lethargy vitality beauty deformity celebration celebrity abomination anybody nobody everybody heaven hell apocalypse paradise deny accept beginning end begin again

This is a film fit for James Joyce, or Samuel Beckett even: all of the most important events, ideas, and emotions of the whole universe on display, yet shown with such simplicity, such quietude... such anonymity. I don't even know if any of the characters have names - they just simply are. It's not a film that was made so much as guided; it's not something we watch so much as observe. The Tree of Life washes over the viewer, conjuring up images of our collective past, present, and future - some archetypical and rote, some unbelievable and fantastic. The film tries to do no less than capture the whole of experience - the whole of existence - in its omniscient eye.

The plot (as much as there is one) concerns the upbringing of a man apparently named Jack (had to look that up - he's played by Sean Penn as an adult). The opening segment of the film cycles through many of the dichotomies listed above, and then focuses in on how they apply to Jack's family specifically: the joy over the birth of his baby brother, the sorrow at his death. This is given in the context of all of existence: so while it is devastating to the family, it means next to nothing compared to the universe. Eventually the film settles from this truly omniscient view to spend the bulk of its second segment (over half the film) on Jack's childhood, specifically his relationship with his father. Jack's father (Brad Pitt) is a hard man, but he is not evil or especially mean. He has strict, linear views of the world, and he believes passing that on to his children will ensure their success in the future. You play by the rules, you do the things you're supposed to do, and eventually it will pay off.

Their relationship encapsulates just about every emotion you could imagine, and while many reviewers have talked about Pitt's character as an abusive, religious zealot, they're missing the point. First off, he's not really abusive - he's just very strict. There is a line between discipline and abuse, and the closest he comes to abuse is forcing one of his sons into time-out. Second, "religious zealot" conjures up the wrong connotation. He is a very religious man, but he is not fanatical. The realistic fairness with which he is portrayed is admirable. There's a particularly touching scene where he inadvertently admits his tactics may amount to nothing: he played by the rules, he did everything he was supposed to do, and it never paid off.

Sean Penn was apparently quite upset that his character was all but cut out of the film. According to him, the script had no resemblance to the chimeric stream of imagery which now defines The Tree of Life. (According to cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, Malick is assembling a six-hour version of the film - a mammoth "special edition" - which is truer to his original intention.) In my opinion, while I understand Penn's frustration, it sounds like he is focusing too much on his expectation of the film rather than the impressionistic final product itself. Thematically, cutting Penn's material works quite nicely - taking this huge celebrity and reducing him to a near-anonymous everyman, wandering through the world uncertain of just about everything. The real star of the film, anyway, is the masterful Emmanuel Lubezski. This is some of the finest color cinematography I've ever witnessed. Ever. Every shot is immaculately composed and captured, and he does it while breaking the "rules." Textbooks dictate you should maintain a certain distance from your subject in certain scenes, you should give a certain amount of "head room," "leading space," "breathing space," you should use certain lenses only for certain effects; Lubezki violates all of these, going in uncharacteristically close with laissez-faire compositions and atypical lens choices. That the film looks so good with his experimental work is a testament to its quality. In an ideal world, this would turn out to be his third Oscar win in the category; in our world, of course, this will undoubtedly be the third time he is overlooked (he was robbed for his work on Children of Men and The New World).

Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life is a dichotomous film: a visual poem with so much to say, but it speaks so quietly. So gently. Some will love it, some will hate it; I imagine most will feel a little of both. It languors around its narrative, setting up conflict there while showing something wondrous here. Rarely have I seen a film so unconcerned with its narrative while still trying to relay one. With his grand, exquisite, visionary visuals, it seems as though Malick is saying, above all, that all our rage and our noise, our sorrows and our joys, amount to little more than a whisper against the din of the cosmos.

Cinematic Smackdown: The Muppets

The Muppets - 2.5/5
(dir. James Bobin)

I never really thought about the muppets until a couple years ago. It's not that I liked them or disliked them, I just never really gave them a thought past about age six. But then, on a whim, my fiancee and I decided to watch The Muppet Movie one day. What a pleasant surprise! This wasn't simply about nostalgia, or giving a pass to something we knew was bad simply because we were kids when it came out - this was actually a good movie! A really good movie. Charming, funny, well made, intelligent, kid-friendly, wonderfully amusing and catchy songs - everything a great family film should be. The Muppets, unfortunately, does not capture that same spirit. It provides some amusing moments, even some inspired bits of whimsical lunacy, but the film lacks cohesiveness (it feels more like a series of bits than a true narrative) and focuses too much on drama over joy.

You can't fault the film for being ambitious, though. When a "kids' movie" decides to tackle a subject no less than cynicism itself, you know it's at least going to try something unique. In this regard, The Muppets does provide a fairly nice respite from overly childish fare. There are running questions (and musical numbers, naturally) about the state of entertainment (specifically cynicism v. optimism), self-identity, relationships, and the value of laughter in an essentially cruel world. The film does have the guts to go to some fairly dark territory - for a Muppets movie, at least - but it unfortunately does not have the gravitas nor the follow-through to make any profound or powerful statement. More often the material undercuts the tone for a cheap laugh, rather than leave the audience feeling uncomfortable.

The film is shot in a fairly pedestrian manner, occasionally springing to life in the midst of a musical number, but for the most part fails to develop a cohesive style, vision, or direction. Director James Bobin does not impress. The story follows obviously adopted brothers Walter and Gary - one male, one muppet. Gary is in love with the sweet but simple Mary, and their marriage is such a foregone conclusion that even Gary forgets he needs to do the little things, like propose. Their story is serviceable. Walter is the more interesting character, ever trying to find his place. He's spent (apparently) three decades living and playing with Gary in some capacity, and once Gary and Mary decide it's time to get out of Smalltown, Walter joins them for a journey across the country and through his relational identity.

The muppets themselves provide some great bits, but unfortunately they are mostly underutilized or misused. I know this might sound silly, but too often the muppets simply are not true to their established characters. One of the central points of the film is that the muppets have been around for decades, bringing laughter to generations, but they have been left behind by pop culture. The characters have remained remarkably consistent over that time span, yet here some of the them are having a bit of an identity crisis. Kermit, for instance, is completely out of sorts, moping around the whole time, proclaiming defeat at every turn. Fozzie continues with the lame jokes, but moves into flatulent humor, which does not fit his shtick at all. These are little things, but if the purpose behind The Muppets is to introduce the characters to a new generation, then the characters should at least be portrayed as they always have.

The human element largely doesn't work. Jason Segal is not a great dancer, and he doesn't quite look "right" for the archetypal male lead he's trying satirize, but he seems enthusiastic at least. Amy Adams likewise does an admirable job with the vocal performance, but feels a bit miscast... or at least underwritten. But then, to be fair, the film basically grinds to a halt whenever live actors are on screen. I realize Segal and Adams are written as naive, innocent youths of a bygone era, but they should at least have some personality, especially when their whole job throughout the film is to act opposite felt characters with an abundance of personality. Rounding out the human cast is the terribly misused Chris Cooper. He's typecast again as the smarmy, creepy villain, but he never manages to be threatening, or even amusing; he is stuck in the role of tired plot device. And the solo song he's given is without a doubt the low point of the film, maybe even of his career - it's that bad. Not a single person - adult, child, or muppet - laughed after or during his song.

The other songs, thankfully, remain strong, including a brilliant rendition of Cee Lo Green's "Fuck You." The opener is nice, pleasant. Some songs are more pedestrian, one is downright awful (the aforementioned Chris Cooper number), and a few are redundant but nice enough in and of themselves. "Am I a Man, or a Muppet?" for instance belabors the point the whole narrative tries to make, but on its own it's pretty amusing.

After all that has passed, you would think I hated the movie. That's not the case. For all its faults, I still remain a fan, though I'd rank this among their lesser works. The movie does have laughs in ready supply; I do not mean to imply the film isn't funny, only that it lacks the charm and intelligence of other Muppet movies. I would have liked to see a movie which fits nicely into the muppet filmography. I feel like The Muppets, while amusing in some ways and disappointing in others, will ultimately feel out of place and outdated compared to the other titles.