As I've done a number of times on potentially controversial entries, I'll start here with a Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be incendiary or offensive for the sake of being offensive. This entry is not unlike any other - an earnest inquiry from a mind grappling with certain issues. My intention is to have an honest, frank discussion about firearms, their problems and benefits, and the issue of gun control at large.
It's no secret, I'm somewhat of a liberal. Not a bleeding heart, not a tree-hugger, but when it comes to the "big" issues (ie, most social and economic issues), I tend to side more often with the left than the right. Not that the left is not without its own problems, but more often than not, that's where I stand.
That said, I feel I can speak pretty honestly from a more conservative viewpoint. The vast majority of my family is conservative (extremely conservative, in some cases), my parents are fairly middle-line, and the area I grew up in is about as smalltown conservative as they come... Not to generalize, but I can pretty well understand the conservative mindset.
(Also, let me say at the outset: as with most things, I want to keep this fairly intellectual and idealistic; I'm not looking for appeals to emotion, negative or positive. I lost my sister to a terrible gun tragedy, so for reasons I think you can understand, I'd rather not go down that road... not here on the Internet, anyway. Let's keep things civil and on-topic.)
So, without further ado, let's have at it...
Guns: What's the Deal?
Let's start with the basics: I'm not a gun guy. I've never owned one, do not ever plan to own one, and have held one/maybe two actual guns in my whole life, and even then fired only one shot (a pathetic attempt to hit a "skeet")... But do not think I am anti-gun (more on that below) - I simply do not desire one, and no one in my family does either. Just that simple.
Obviously, not everyone feels the same way. Some people take comfort in owning a gun. It provides them a feeling of protection which is sorely lacking from other defensive measures. Some people use them for hunting. Some people collect them. Some people just like them. And there's nothing wrong with that.
No serious solution to gun violence would involve banning guns. As gun owners are wont to say, "Guns don't people; people kill people." An oversimplification (the platitude fails to take into consideration accidental gun deaths), but there's truth to that.
What is the solution, then? Or rather, before we get ahead of ourselves, what's the problem? ...Is there a problem?
Perhaps surprisingly, I (and I suspect a lot of other people) would say that gun violence on the whole is not a big issue, this year's mass shootings notwithstanding. Most gun owners are law-abiding, responsible citizens, and (believe it or not) gun violence and violent crime in general are on the decline... and have been for some time. (Some fascinating statistics here.)
But let's not paint a false picture: though some are perhaps too quick to cry for strict restrictions or even outright banning, even in the best scenario things are not perfect. Guns by their very nature are machines of violence. That's not an attack, it's simply a fact: guns were invented for large scale, efficient killing... This is what irks me about those arguments which draw comparisons between gun control and drunk driving - ie, gun restrictions are akin to punishing sober drivers for the irresponsibility of drunk drivers. There's a world of difference! (First, really look at the analogy: drunk drivers are being compared to murderers. That right there should be evidence enough for you to abandon the analogy. Drunk driving deaths are terrible, but they are not intentional.)
Gun Control: What to Do
People have the right to own firearms. I get that. And I'm perfectly fine with that, but let's be honest - we can do better than this. Right? Isn't the point of any society to strive toward its ideals? And shouldn't we ideally live in a peaceful world? Naive, certainly, maybe unattainable, but it's a goal. Here's a thought exercise: picture your perfect world. Try not to be pessimistic or cynical - your perfect world... Are there guns? Is there death? If so, maybe you should aim a little higher.
I'm no politician, and I fully welcome any gun-owning readers to correct me, but what follows are some ideas/solutions that I think might help... Not solve (I don't know that we'll ever be without gun violence), but help.
(1) Obvious stuff - background checks, keeping guns out of the hands of convicted criminals/mentally ill, waiting periods, etc - should be mandatory.
(2) Graduated licensing... This is my alternative to an assault weapons ban. People cannot even agree on the term "assault weapon" - let's remove the semantics by introducing graduated licensing. Similar to graduated driver's licenses, a graduated gun owner's license would simply mean that the longer you've been a gun owner, the fewer restrictions you would have on future gun purchases. Say, for instance, that for the first two years you can only own a revolver (or some sort of low-capacity, long-reload weapon), then after that you can "graduate" to a rifle, and so on. Like I said, I'm not a gun guy, so the details could be hammered out by people with the proper experience, but I like the idea.
As anyone who's done his homework is fully aware, most mass shootings are done with legally purchased weapons. What a graduated license would help prevent (at least in theory) is the man who plots out a mass killing, and then goes about exacting his plan by legally buying up everything he needs. Is the plan perfect? Of course not - there is the obvious possibility of someone planning a mass killing and then waiting the requisite years rather than months - but the lengthy wait is a deterrant.
(3) Required training classes... Again, this could be similar to drivers' education. If "required" training for everyone is too much to ask, what if we decreased the wait time for those who've taken the training course? The whole idea behind this, again, is to keep guns out of the hands of those who are acting hastily, or at the very least, to slow them down.
(4) Annual certification... Basically, this whole list is modeled after the DMV, haha. I don't know what it takes to get a gun license, much less what it takes to prevent one from expiring. But I think an annual eye test and perhaps a practical (ie, you know how to properly disassemble/reassemble, clean, etc) might be a good idea. The idea for this one is to encourage responsible gun ownership, as I'm sure the vast majority of gun owners do these things already (though they probably substitute the shooting range for an eye exam).
(5) A universal ban on high-capacity, rapid-fire weapons, unless you've had requisite training/licensing... I realize this is extremely unlikely, which is why it's listed lower than the others, but I really don't understand why a civilian would need a military-grade weapon. I know hunters - you don't go hunting with an AR15. You can defend yourself just as well with something less conspicuous... So why do these need to bought by regular people? Simply because they can? Maybe a gun owner can explain this one to me because I just don't get it.
Concluding Thoughts
That's all I got. It's not much, but I really just wanted to open up a dialogue and put a few ideas out there. As always, I welcome criticism, corrections, and the further exchange of ideas. That's the wonderful thing about this country - we can talk about anything. Let's take advantage of that opportunity.
...And, lest you think me complete naive and short-sighted, a word to those who jump up and say, "Criminals will always find a way around the law" - Yes, you're absolutely right. If someone is bound and determined to hurt others, nothing will stop him. Even if guns never existed, he'd use a knife... he'd use a rock... he'd use his bare hands... and so on. Some people simply want to hurt people, and there's little we can do to stop that.
What we can do, however, is make it more difficult for them to hurt people. (Again, analogies: you can kill someone with a rock, certainly, but not nearly as easily, and not nearly as quickly. It's hard to commit a mass killing with a rock, or even a knife for that matter.) That's the whole reason we have laws - to restrict, deter, or otherwise slow those who would hurt or exploit others. Very little to do with those who follow the law.
Violence will continue to happen. I get that. But I don't think the solution is to simply throw up our hands and say, "Well - that's just the way it is!" We have to do something. And if we fail, then we try something else... and something else... and something else. Social well-being is up to us. It's our cross to bear. The whole point of this entry is not to go on some anti-gun rant because (as I hope you noticed) I'm really not anti-gun; I'm pro-responsibility. And what I hope we can do is foster an environment of responsibility and accountability, and hopefully that can help prevent future tragedies from happening.
22 December 2012
26 November 2012
Walking Dead: The De-Evolution of a Series
Let me just start right out: I'm a horror movie fan. I spent a whole series of posts last year defending the horror film, and I relish each October for the plethora of movies I can throw onto the DVR.
I have to say, though: it's hard to find good horror material. And with horror being a hot commodity right now (vampires are the current fad, but it looks like zombies are on the rise), that means there is even more garbage to wade through.
One former bright spot was The Walking Dead - a show I used to look forward to for its suspense, intrigue, and character dynamics... Now in its third season and more popular than ever, I fear that the show has jumped the shark, and I doubt the strong character traits and suspenseful moments of the first season and a half will be returning any time soon.
There are several issues... (1) Zombies have a limited shelf-life. As Roger Ebert once pointed out, zombies work better as comic figures (think Shaun of the Dead) because they're essentially moving props. They aren't characters really - they only want one thing, they can't learn or grow... in fact, all they can do is eat or die. Not much to do with a villain that thin. That's why any zombie movie, really, is just a survival movie. Barricade the doors, stock up on ammunition, etc. How you go about that can be interesting, and you can take the story to interesting places, but your options are very limited. (2) Walking Dead has gotten too big for its own good, and now it's starting to get repetitive... Again, it's a survival story. The first season and a half were tension-filled because information was hard to come by, everybody was on the run, and zombies were all over populated areas... As the characters gradually moved further and further into the outskirts (for a time they occupied a farmhouse), there were other issues to contend with. Food was scarce, trust even scarcer. Then, as reality had time to settle in, the characters had to confront the harsh truth: zombies are the new norm. No matter what, when they go to get food, when they seek recreation or even just housing, there's a chance of running into them...
They face two options: isolationism, or risk attack. You can do some interesting things, but I'm afraid the writers of the show have worn the options thin... The problem with isolationism in media is that, well, if your characters isolate themselves - once they're done, the whole point is they're safe. Nothing bad can happen. And that makes for poor drama... So, they spice things up a bit: missing characters, distrustful characters, power struggles, and so on. This works, for a time, but eventually those arcs play themselves out. What next? Well, in the case of Walking Dead, you start to repeat yourself. More power struggles, more missing characters, more distrust... Rather than the bucolic farmhouse, they find a stark prison. At first, this seems "perfect" - built-in fences and alarms, towers from which to stand guard - but already, after just a few episodes, the prison is wearing thin and the leader (Rick) is seeking some place better... "safer."
(3) The biggest problem, however, is focus. Just what is the show about? At first, it was a survival story. Would they survive? Could they survive? Just what the hell caused all this in the first place? Information is gradually being filled in, but there is no longer that driving arc which was present early on. Season One, for instance, is all about laying the groundwork... We meet the principals, get thrown into the apocalypse, and then everyone has to deal with it. There's a bit of a breather to give some general explanation, but otherwise everybody is just running, running, running... Season Two brought things to a standstill. It's more about the grind - how do you sustain health and longevity in a world like this? Add in the missing child and traumatic injuries/deaths to principal characters, and you've still got things moving and interesting...
Even then, though, the series started to falter. For a time, especially after the little girl was found, the "grind" became ponderous. It seemed like every episode was spent bemoaning the situation, how little hope there was, the lack of quality leadership, blah blah blah. I'm not saying these aren't important, real issues that people would face - but when multiple episodes drone on, it just gets old. Finally at the end, in the last two episodes, the show came back to life - killing off major characters and uprooting the principals from their idyllic farmhouse, but it may have been too little too late.
Enter Season Three. More and more characters are introduced - including a whole town of survivors where something so obviously sinister is going on that it boggles the mind none of the townspeople seem to realize it. The main group takes charge of the prison (which seems to have a literally endless supply of zombies... they claimed they were going to "clear it out" in the first two episodes, but there always seems to be a horde from nowhere whenever characters wander down dark halls), but nothing else has happened. Okay, people have died, but when you look at this from a "big picture" point of view, nothing has happened. What's the focus here? What is driving the story forward? Nothing, except that it's on, and there's an audience.
I joked a few weeks ago on Facebook that anyone who complains about gory movies obviously isn't watching television - and Walking Dead was the impetus behind that joke. Within literally one scene was more blood and gore than everything I've seen this year theatrically (and probably everything I've seen in the last two or three years) combined. Just non-stop. Decapitations galore, an on-screen field amputation, skulls split, faces cut in half... sprays of blood that put Kill Bill to shame.
Now... I've got nothing against gore. I really don't. I'm well versed in the ways of Dario Argento and Takashi Miike, I loved Wayne Kramer's Running Scared, I sat through Cannibal Holocaust... But everything has its place, and there are few things more annoying to watch than gore for gore's sake. Ichi: The Killer, Dead Alive - terrible, terrible movies. Why? Because they are, literally, non-stop gore. Each film has a story, so they're not like snuff films or anything, but the focus of the film is clearly the blood and guts. This may be fun and/or entertaining for some people, but from a narrative perspective it's just plain boring. You can't really develop a character or create compelling drama when your whole goal is to rip somebody apart with complete anatomical detail. This was the same problem I had with The Passion of the Christ - any chance of drama is cast aside to slowly torture and kill a character (yes, I lumped The Passion of the Christ in with Ichi: The Killer and Dead Alive - take that, Mel Gibson!).
And therein lies Walking Dead's problem... The focus this season is almost entirely on the gore, so it's really a pretty boring show to watch. SPOILER: Take the "birthing" episode a couple weeks ago. Lori was not the most popular character (there's a popular meme where people praise Daryl's parenting skills and chastise Lori's), but she was Rick's wife - a major player. It should be a big deal when she goes into labor, and an even bigger deal when she dies. But the whole focus was on the disgusting nature of the birth: how deep Maggie has to cut, how much blood Lori loses, and then of course the bullet Carl has to deliver ("artistically" omitted, of course).
The solution is easy... Just dial it back. The writers really need to take a look at this cast of characters and figure out what they all want and need, and more importantly - what's in the way. That's how you create a compelling show. I'm not expecting greatness here. Few shows can match the intelligence and intensity of something like Breaking Bad or The Wire, but it would be nice to try, right? Right now, they're a slave to the audience. Ratings are better than ever with the ridiculous violence, so why stop there? The show is in a mad race to one-up itself, and if the audience is happy, it will continue to do so...
Those of us who remember the strong, humble beginnings will have to subsist on gory mediocrity, hoping the story will one day return to its roots... or better yet, strike a balance between the two tones. Then you could really have something special.
I have to say, though: it's hard to find good horror material. And with horror being a hot commodity right now (vampires are the current fad, but it looks like zombies are on the rise), that means there is even more garbage to wade through.
One former bright spot was The Walking Dead - a show I used to look forward to for its suspense, intrigue, and character dynamics... Now in its third season and more popular than ever, I fear that the show has jumped the shark, and I doubt the strong character traits and suspenseful moments of the first season and a half will be returning any time soon.
There are several issues... (1) Zombies have a limited shelf-life. As Roger Ebert once pointed out, zombies work better as comic figures (think Shaun of the Dead) because they're essentially moving props. They aren't characters really - they only want one thing, they can't learn or grow... in fact, all they can do is eat or die. Not much to do with a villain that thin. That's why any zombie movie, really, is just a survival movie. Barricade the doors, stock up on ammunition, etc. How you go about that can be interesting, and you can take the story to interesting places, but your options are very limited. (2) Walking Dead has gotten too big for its own good, and now it's starting to get repetitive... Again, it's a survival story. The first season and a half were tension-filled because information was hard to come by, everybody was on the run, and zombies were all over populated areas... As the characters gradually moved further and further into the outskirts (for a time they occupied a farmhouse), there were other issues to contend with. Food was scarce, trust even scarcer. Then, as reality had time to settle in, the characters had to confront the harsh truth: zombies are the new norm. No matter what, when they go to get food, when they seek recreation or even just housing, there's a chance of running into them...
They face two options: isolationism, or risk attack. You can do some interesting things, but I'm afraid the writers of the show have worn the options thin... The problem with isolationism in media is that, well, if your characters isolate themselves - once they're done, the whole point is they're safe. Nothing bad can happen. And that makes for poor drama... So, they spice things up a bit: missing characters, distrustful characters, power struggles, and so on. This works, for a time, but eventually those arcs play themselves out. What next? Well, in the case of Walking Dead, you start to repeat yourself. More power struggles, more missing characters, more distrust... Rather than the bucolic farmhouse, they find a stark prison. At first, this seems "perfect" - built-in fences and alarms, towers from which to stand guard - but already, after just a few episodes, the prison is wearing thin and the leader (Rick) is seeking some place better... "safer."
(3) The biggest problem, however, is focus. Just what is the show about? At first, it was a survival story. Would they survive? Could they survive? Just what the hell caused all this in the first place? Information is gradually being filled in, but there is no longer that driving arc which was present early on. Season One, for instance, is all about laying the groundwork... We meet the principals, get thrown into the apocalypse, and then everyone has to deal with it. There's a bit of a breather to give some general explanation, but otherwise everybody is just running, running, running... Season Two brought things to a standstill. It's more about the grind - how do you sustain health and longevity in a world like this? Add in the missing child and traumatic injuries/deaths to principal characters, and you've still got things moving and interesting...
Even then, though, the series started to falter. For a time, especially after the little girl was found, the "grind" became ponderous. It seemed like every episode was spent bemoaning the situation, how little hope there was, the lack of quality leadership, blah blah blah. I'm not saying these aren't important, real issues that people would face - but when multiple episodes drone on, it just gets old. Finally at the end, in the last two episodes, the show came back to life - killing off major characters and uprooting the principals from their idyllic farmhouse, but it may have been too little too late.
Enter Season Three. More and more characters are introduced - including a whole town of survivors where something so obviously sinister is going on that it boggles the mind none of the townspeople seem to realize it. The main group takes charge of the prison (which seems to have a literally endless supply of zombies... they claimed they were going to "clear it out" in the first two episodes, but there always seems to be a horde from nowhere whenever characters wander down dark halls), but nothing else has happened. Okay, people have died, but when you look at this from a "big picture" point of view, nothing has happened. What's the focus here? What is driving the story forward? Nothing, except that it's on, and there's an audience.
I joked a few weeks ago on Facebook that anyone who complains about gory movies obviously isn't watching television - and Walking Dead was the impetus behind that joke. Within literally one scene was more blood and gore than everything I've seen this year theatrically (and probably everything I've seen in the last two or three years) combined. Just non-stop. Decapitations galore, an on-screen field amputation, skulls split, faces cut in half... sprays of blood that put Kill Bill to shame.
Now... I've got nothing against gore. I really don't. I'm well versed in the ways of Dario Argento and Takashi Miike, I loved Wayne Kramer's Running Scared, I sat through Cannibal Holocaust... But everything has its place, and there are few things more annoying to watch than gore for gore's sake. Ichi: The Killer, Dead Alive - terrible, terrible movies. Why? Because they are, literally, non-stop gore. Each film has a story, so they're not like snuff films or anything, but the focus of the film is clearly the blood and guts. This may be fun and/or entertaining for some people, but from a narrative perspective it's just plain boring. You can't really develop a character or create compelling drama when your whole goal is to rip somebody apart with complete anatomical detail. This was the same problem I had with The Passion of the Christ - any chance of drama is cast aside to slowly torture and kill a character (yes, I lumped The Passion of the Christ in with Ichi: The Killer and Dead Alive - take that, Mel Gibson!).
And therein lies Walking Dead's problem... The focus this season is almost entirely on the gore, so it's really a pretty boring show to watch. SPOILER: Take the "birthing" episode a couple weeks ago. Lori was not the most popular character (there's a popular meme where people praise Daryl's parenting skills and chastise Lori's), but she was Rick's wife - a major player. It should be a big deal when she goes into labor, and an even bigger deal when she dies. But the whole focus was on the disgusting nature of the birth: how deep Maggie has to cut, how much blood Lori loses, and then of course the bullet Carl has to deliver ("artistically" omitted, of course).
The solution is easy... Just dial it back. The writers really need to take a look at this cast of characters and figure out what they all want and need, and more importantly - what's in the way. That's how you create a compelling show. I'm not expecting greatness here. Few shows can match the intelligence and intensity of something like Breaking Bad or The Wire, but it would be nice to try, right? Right now, they're a slave to the audience. Ratings are better than ever with the ridiculous violence, so why stop there? The show is in a mad race to one-up itself, and if the audience is happy, it will continue to do so...
Those of us who remember the strong, humble beginnings will have to subsist on gory mediocrity, hoping the story will one day return to its roots... or better yet, strike a balance between the two tones. Then you could really have something special.
16 November 2012
Finally ... Greatness!
I've been trying to steer this away from strictly movie reviews (and have been swamped with school-related issues for some time), which has led to a dearth of posts. Right now, though, I can't help but talking about one that's been gnawing at me...
Cloud Atlas - 4/5
(dir. Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski, Tom Tykwer)
I've written about Cloud Atlas once before, in reference to actually having read it before I knew a movie version was coming, and thus being ahead of the cultural curve.
Cloud Atlas is big, far-reaching, take-no-prisoners filmmaking at its finest. This is a film so assured of itself and so well planned and prepared that you can't help but admire the craftsmanship. (It's said that David Mitchell, author of the novel, actually thinks the film does a better job capturing the themes and ideas he was aiming for.) The visual effects are first-rate, the dialogue is appropriately lofty without drifting into pretense (these are BIG THEMES we're talking about here, so don't expect naturalism), and the editing keeps the film moving briskly, even at three hours. Much has been said about the make-up effects in the film, and while I can admire the intention and especially the ingenuity in creating some characters, you can't ignore the fact that some of these make-up jobs draw too much attention to themselves. A number of actors completely disappear, but just as many (if not more) stand out like sore thumbs. It makes sense thematically why certain actors continually fill certain "types," but it may have been a bit too much for them to change races/genders to do so. Hugo Weaving is a great example. A long-time favorite of the Wachowskis, he is here again playing a number of heartless villains; but given his build and distinct voice, it was a bit of a stretch for him to play a ruthless female nurse.
What impresses me most about the film is just how singular, complete, and unified the material feels, given the disparate storylines/themes/tones and multiple directors (three total - one working singly, the other two as a team). The "story," as it were, spans hundreds of years (maybe even a millennium - we're not given a "hard" date for the final one) and focuses on about six protagonists, if I remember right. Most of the tales are dramatic, but there is also a pot boiler/whistle blower-type story and a broad, hilarious farce to keep things from getting too "heavy." As you might assume, this is more a story of ideas and themes than traditional "protagonist's journey" material.
The film is largely concerned with history, relationships, and revolutions. History: in the ways we constantly repeat the same mistakes and societal short-comings (slavery and subjugation a recurring theme); relationships: in what defines "love" and "family," and the mad things those values can lead us to do; and revolution, of course, in the way we subvert these ideas and initiate change - hopefully for the better. This is the film's "message," perhaps writ a little too large: things may be bad, but they can always change - hopefully for the better... always for the better.
A number of people have asked me about the film's relationship to the book... As I mentioned in my review of the book (very bottom of the page), the technique is so bold and unusual that you can't help but talk about it. The book is good and a wonderful read, but we have to be honest: it is a bit gimmicky. The film version (even at three hours) pares each narrative down to its essential elements, and as such feels more thematically unified - no small feat for a film with such a wide range of tones and settings. If you're a big fan of the book, I think you'll admire the film. I can't imagine why you wouldn't. Looking at each narrative on its own, you might say that a number of characters aren't as well developed (a constant problem in film adaptations), or that too many things were altered - or outright removed - but when you look at the result, I think we can all agree that the changes were actually for the better. By removing extraneous material, by focusing on the protagonists and their essential relationships, by having the actors repeat archetypes - all these changes underline the broader arc and "story" that much better... At least in my opinion. And if you haven't read the book, don't worry - it's not necessary. You may have a bit more mental juggling to do to keep up with the shifting timelines and narratives, but the editors do a nice job of linking and transitioning throughout centuries.
After being perpetually disappointed at the movies this year, it's nice to be surprised. It's nice to see something worth writing about.
Cloud Atlas - 4/5(dir. Lana Wachowski, Andy Wachowski, Tom Tykwer)
I've written about Cloud Atlas once before, in reference to actually having read it before I knew a movie version was coming, and thus being ahead of the cultural curve.
Cloud Atlas is big, far-reaching, take-no-prisoners filmmaking at its finest. This is a film so assured of itself and so well planned and prepared that you can't help but admire the craftsmanship. (It's said that David Mitchell, author of the novel, actually thinks the film does a better job capturing the themes and ideas he was aiming for.) The visual effects are first-rate, the dialogue is appropriately lofty without drifting into pretense (these are BIG THEMES we're talking about here, so don't expect naturalism), and the editing keeps the film moving briskly, even at three hours. Much has been said about the make-up effects in the film, and while I can admire the intention and especially the ingenuity in creating some characters, you can't ignore the fact that some of these make-up jobs draw too much attention to themselves. A number of actors completely disappear, but just as many (if not more) stand out like sore thumbs. It makes sense thematically why certain actors continually fill certain "types," but it may have been a bit too much for them to change races/genders to do so. Hugo Weaving is a great example. A long-time favorite of the Wachowskis, he is here again playing a number of heartless villains; but given his build and distinct voice, it was a bit of a stretch for him to play a ruthless female nurse.
What impresses me most about the film is just how singular, complete, and unified the material feels, given the disparate storylines/themes/tones and multiple directors (three total - one working singly, the other two as a team). The "story," as it were, spans hundreds of years (maybe even a millennium - we're not given a "hard" date for the final one) and focuses on about six protagonists, if I remember right. Most of the tales are dramatic, but there is also a pot boiler/whistle blower-type story and a broad, hilarious farce to keep things from getting too "heavy." As you might assume, this is more a story of ideas and themes than traditional "protagonist's journey" material.
 |
| Little preview of the "types" everyone plays, as well as some of the make-up effects |
The film is largely concerned with history, relationships, and revolutions. History: in the ways we constantly repeat the same mistakes and societal short-comings (slavery and subjugation a recurring theme); relationships: in what defines "love" and "family," and the mad things those values can lead us to do; and revolution, of course, in the way we subvert these ideas and initiate change - hopefully for the better. This is the film's "message," perhaps writ a little too large: things may be bad, but they can always change - hopefully for the better... always for the better.
A number of people have asked me about the film's relationship to the book... As I mentioned in my review of the book (very bottom of the page), the technique is so bold and unusual that you can't help but talk about it. The book is good and a wonderful read, but we have to be honest: it is a bit gimmicky. The film version (even at three hours) pares each narrative down to its essential elements, and as such feels more thematically unified - no small feat for a film with such a wide range of tones and settings. If you're a big fan of the book, I think you'll admire the film. I can't imagine why you wouldn't. Looking at each narrative on its own, you might say that a number of characters aren't as well developed (a constant problem in film adaptations), or that too many things were altered - or outright removed - but when you look at the result, I think we can all agree that the changes were actually for the better. By removing extraneous material, by focusing on the protagonists and their essential relationships, by having the actors repeat archetypes - all these changes underline the broader arc and "story" that much better... At least in my opinion. And if you haven't read the book, don't worry - it's not necessary. You may have a bit more mental juggling to do to keep up with the shifting timelines and narratives, but the editors do a nice job of linking and transitioning throughout centuries.
After being perpetually disappointed at the movies this year, it's nice to be surprised. It's nice to see something worth writing about.
06 October 2012
What's Goin' On
I know I don't need to announce this, but I've been too busy for the blog... plus, I haven't had much to write about lately. I've seen a number of movies since my last batch of reviews, but as I've mentioned, I don't want this strictly to be a review site; additionally, the movies I've seen have either been a disappointment or just not exceptional enough to warrant lengthy discussion. (Even The Master, which I had been looking forward to for literal years was a let-down. Not a bad movie, mind you, but not as good as it should have been.)
So, what's been taking up all my time? School hoops and black holes, in a sense. I'm back at the community college - not for a prerequisite this time, but to try and keep my anatomy sharp. I'm taking Pathophysiology in the hopes that some more of this complicated medical information will sink in. Thus far the class has been a bit of a disappointment: the teacher is determined to discuss things at only a cursory level, flying through chapters without really covering the material to any discernible depth. He'll mention a disease, give a few signs/symptoms, key words, and abnormal labs, and then go on to the next one. The class isn't really difficult (he's very "loose" with his grading: so long as you have the concept, you're generally okay), but I'm disappointed that I'm not getting a better understanding.
On top of that, I'm also finally starting to get responses from grad schools. In total, I applied to eight this past June. As of this writing, I've received three interview offers and one rejection. I'm hoping to hear from the other four by the end of the month, but it could be as late as February (!).
My other great time-consumer is a "book" I've been working on. It's been more than five years since I wrote any sort of fiction, and over the summer I finally started writing again. I have to say, it feels great. I'm a born writer, and while you can debate my talents, there's no denying the way I feel afterward: it's great catharsis, but also great pleasure.
I put "book" in quotes because it's not nearly long enough to be a novel, but it's also going to be substantially longer than a short story. Not a novella... a novelette maybe? Right now I'm at about thirty pages, with a bit more to go. At most, I imagine it will be about fifty pages, seventy would be pushing it; I have a hard time believing it will go any longer than that. My wife tells me I should expand it into a full-length novel, which I could with enough time, effort, and research, but my response is that I don't want the story to be boring; and to reach that length, it would have to be significantly padded. There's enough material for a book - hell, even a few - but I'd rather touch on several topics and keep people interested than drone on and on and lose them. It's a special writer than can be verbose and engaging. James Joyce I am not.
The writing of this story has been much different from anything I've ever done. Not that I'm the biggest fan of structure (often, I simply start with a phrase or image and just go from there), but generally I at least have an idea of where I want the story to go, altering things as necessary to keep it natural and fluid... But this time, the entire story is some strange, organic thing. Very instinctual, very primitive. I find myself writing and going, "No, that needs to go there," or "I need to address a whole new topic here," or writing bits and pieces of completely different sections so they can be assembled later; it's being written piece by piece and then cobbled together like some strange bit of music. Very experimental, and very exciting.
My chief concern is that when all is said and done, it will feel disjointed and thrown together (which is intentional for some sections), but my hope is that the technique and the subject matter will be compelling and interesting enough to overcome any weaknesses. I'm trying to develop several different perspectives and styles: keeping it cohesive has been the hardest part.
This is where Harlan Ellison has been a big help. Over the past few months, Ellison has become one of my favorite writers; he's not in the same league as James Joyce, but then no one is. I've gone through every book of his I can get my hands on, and while some of his work is rather pedestrian, he's also written some of the most extraordinary short stories I've ever read. He's a man teeming with interesting ideas and phrases - a beautiful, fragile, morbid grasp of the ephemeral, the etheral - but it's the passion with which he writes that inspires me. I've found myself mimicking some of his phrasings and his rhythms (I should be so lucky).
Some of you (hopefully) are wondering just what the story is about, and to that I say: just you wait. One of these days I'll finish, and with any luck be published. (Wouldn't that be a trip!) It's science-fiction, I'll give you that much, but there are also pieces of mysticism, political theory, textbook, autobiography - all wrapped within humor, tragedy, and an ending that could only be described as a kind of linguistic thought-experiment. Can't wait to see what everybody thinks - can't wait to finish!
So, what's been taking up all my time? School hoops and black holes, in a sense. I'm back at the community college - not for a prerequisite this time, but to try and keep my anatomy sharp. I'm taking Pathophysiology in the hopes that some more of this complicated medical information will sink in. Thus far the class has been a bit of a disappointment: the teacher is determined to discuss things at only a cursory level, flying through chapters without really covering the material to any discernible depth. He'll mention a disease, give a few signs/symptoms, key words, and abnormal labs, and then go on to the next one. The class isn't really difficult (he's very "loose" with his grading: so long as you have the concept, you're generally okay), but I'm disappointed that I'm not getting a better understanding.
On top of that, I'm also finally starting to get responses from grad schools. In total, I applied to eight this past June. As of this writing, I've received three interview offers and one rejection. I'm hoping to hear from the other four by the end of the month, but it could be as late as February (!).
My other great time-consumer is a "book" I've been working on. It's been more than five years since I wrote any sort of fiction, and over the summer I finally started writing again. I have to say, it feels great. I'm a born writer, and while you can debate my talents, there's no denying the way I feel afterward: it's great catharsis, but also great pleasure.
I put "book" in quotes because it's not nearly long enough to be a novel, but it's also going to be substantially longer than a short story. Not a novella... a novelette maybe? Right now I'm at about thirty pages, with a bit more to go. At most, I imagine it will be about fifty pages, seventy would be pushing it; I have a hard time believing it will go any longer than that. My wife tells me I should expand it into a full-length novel, which I could with enough time, effort, and research, but my response is that I don't want the story to be boring; and to reach that length, it would have to be significantly padded. There's enough material for a book - hell, even a few - but I'd rather touch on several topics and keep people interested than drone on and on and lose them. It's a special writer than can be verbose and engaging. James Joyce I am not.
The writing of this story has been much different from anything I've ever done. Not that I'm the biggest fan of structure (often, I simply start with a phrase or image and just go from there), but generally I at least have an idea of where I want the story to go, altering things as necessary to keep it natural and fluid... But this time, the entire story is some strange, organic thing. Very instinctual, very primitive. I find myself writing and going, "No, that needs to go there," or "I need to address a whole new topic here," or writing bits and pieces of completely different sections so they can be assembled later; it's being written piece by piece and then cobbled together like some strange bit of music. Very experimental, and very exciting.
My chief concern is that when all is said and done, it will feel disjointed and thrown together (which is intentional for some sections), but my hope is that the technique and the subject matter will be compelling and interesting enough to overcome any weaknesses. I'm trying to develop several different perspectives and styles: keeping it cohesive has been the hardest part.
This is where Harlan Ellison has been a big help. Over the past few months, Ellison has become one of my favorite writers; he's not in the same league as James Joyce, but then no one is. I've gone through every book of his I can get my hands on, and while some of his work is rather pedestrian, he's also written some of the most extraordinary short stories I've ever read. He's a man teeming with interesting ideas and phrases - a beautiful, fragile, morbid grasp of the ephemeral, the etheral - but it's the passion with which he writes that inspires me. I've found myself mimicking some of his phrasings and his rhythms (I should be so lucky).
Some of you (hopefully) are wondering just what the story is about, and to that I say: just you wait. One of these days I'll finish, and with any luck be published. (Wouldn't that be a trip!) It's science-fiction, I'll give you that much, but there are also pieces of mysticism, political theory, textbook, autobiography - all wrapped within humor, tragedy, and an ending that could only be described as a kind of linguistic thought-experiment. Can't wait to see what everybody thinks - can't wait to finish!
02 September 2012
I Don't Have Faith in Fate
About a month ago I read Jesse Bering's Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? (and Other Reflections on Being Human), a collection of essays exploring various evolutionary phenomena and curios (most of them somehow centered on sexual organs or sexual activity). My favorite essay in the book wound up being the one most out of character with the rest of the text: "Scientists Say Free Will Probably Doesn't Exist, Urge 'Don't Stop Believeing!'" As you could guess from the title (a great title, by the way), the essay deals with the classic argument of free will versus determinism, with some surprising results. Specifically, a hard view of science pretty much requires a deterministic view of the universe... what makes the article interesting is that most people tend to resign themselves to a humdrum life and become depressed thinking that way - hence the "Don't Stop Believing." I've always been drawn to this argument, just as I've always been drawn to questions about God, faith, and other "big" issues. They're interesting. But a deterministic view is not one I can get behind. It makes sense - I can't deny the logic of it, or even the correctness of it - but morally I just find myself opposed to a hard deterministic view of the world.
Determinism (broadly speaking) maintains that, essentially, the conditions of the universe (or world, or human body - whatever you want to talk about) at any specific moment dictate a specific, unavoidable outcome. The timeframe on this may be only on the scale of milliseconds (which Bering's essay touches on), but those few milliseconds determine the entire history of what follows. (In one sense, this is analogous to Aristotle's "Prime Mover" argument, without the divine intervention... However, I don't want to get into the moral implications of a deterministic universe right now, so I'll stop there.)
As you should know, I got married a few months ago. And something a lot of people talk about when you're getting married - something my wife and I have discussed off and on over our years together - is the idea of a "soulmate," or if you prefer, "destiny." My wife maintains that she loves me very much, but neither she nor I believe in a soulmate - ie, only one specific person who can "complete" you. That's a nice, romantic idea, but I just don't buy it... Likewise, I don't believe in destiny - ie, being fated to do something for some grander purpose.
A destinic view seems kind of naive to me. It's nice to believe that there's some grand plan to the universe, or that we've all got some great, specific purpose to fulfill, but that doesn't work for me. From my short time on this planet, it seems quite obvious that we live in a chaotic system - ie, chance and coincidence reign, and some times (most times?) there's no greater purpose to an action other than the fact it happened. I'd rather believe that we can define our own purpose - we "choose" our destiny, so to speak.
From my view, this is the only thing that makes sense in an adult world. Remember those "moral implications" I didn't want to get into? Let's just touch on that now: if we're fated to do something, then "we" don't really exist in the true sense. If I'm destined to be a carpenter, then no matter what, I'll be a carpenter. There's no room for personality or even personal identity in that kind of framework. You're a slave to fate - bound to duty, defined by purpose. I'd rather believe that our actions have an impact, that we actually can choose to do or not do something, and that we can thus accept responsibility for our actions. Because that's really what determinism/fate/destiny are all about: who's in charge. If I was destined to be a killer, then why should I be blamed for the lives I took? If I was destined to be a doctor, then how could I take credit for the lives I saved? That's the problem.
Flip that around, now. If there is no greater purpose, no destiny, no fate, we're free to make our own choices, to pay our own prices. Everything is a result of everything else. That's a philosophy I can get behind. And in my opinion, it's even kind of romantic. My wife and I didn't wind up together because we were forced to, we wound up together because we wanted to. Isn't that nice?
Maybe it's not scientifically sound, but it's the best way I can think of to function in the world.
Determinism (broadly speaking) maintains that, essentially, the conditions of the universe (or world, or human body - whatever you want to talk about) at any specific moment dictate a specific, unavoidable outcome. The timeframe on this may be only on the scale of milliseconds (which Bering's essay touches on), but those few milliseconds determine the entire history of what follows. (In one sense, this is analogous to Aristotle's "Prime Mover" argument, without the divine intervention... However, I don't want to get into the moral implications of a deterministic universe right now, so I'll stop there.)
As you should know, I got married a few months ago. And something a lot of people talk about when you're getting married - something my wife and I have discussed off and on over our years together - is the idea of a "soulmate," or if you prefer, "destiny." My wife maintains that she loves me very much, but neither she nor I believe in a soulmate - ie, only one specific person who can "complete" you. That's a nice, romantic idea, but I just don't buy it... Likewise, I don't believe in destiny - ie, being fated to do something for some grander purpose.
A destinic view seems kind of naive to me. It's nice to believe that there's some grand plan to the universe, or that we've all got some great, specific purpose to fulfill, but that doesn't work for me. From my short time on this planet, it seems quite obvious that we live in a chaotic system - ie, chance and coincidence reign, and some times (most times?) there's no greater purpose to an action other than the fact it happened. I'd rather believe that we can define our own purpose - we "choose" our destiny, so to speak.
From my view, this is the only thing that makes sense in an adult world. Remember those "moral implications" I didn't want to get into? Let's just touch on that now: if we're fated to do something, then "we" don't really exist in the true sense. If I'm destined to be a carpenter, then no matter what, I'll be a carpenter. There's no room for personality or even personal identity in that kind of framework. You're a slave to fate - bound to duty, defined by purpose. I'd rather believe that our actions have an impact, that we actually can choose to do or not do something, and that we can thus accept responsibility for our actions. Because that's really what determinism/fate/destiny are all about: who's in charge. If I was destined to be a killer, then why should I be blamed for the lives I took? If I was destined to be a doctor, then how could I take credit for the lives I saved? That's the problem.
Flip that around, now. If there is no greater purpose, no destiny, no fate, we're free to make our own choices, to pay our own prices. Everything is a result of everything else. That's a philosophy I can get behind. And in my opinion, it's even kind of romantic. My wife and I didn't wind up together because we were forced to, we wound up together because we wanted to. Isn't that nice?
Maybe it's not scientifically sound, but it's the best way I can think of to function in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)