This is one of my biggest pet peeves: parents who complain about "kids these days." The older generation, fine, they're not currently raising any children, so it's a little different, but basically this applies only to parents who currently have kids in the home.
Here's the complaint: "Well, if I said that to my parents, they would have beat my ass," or "I remember when kids had respect for their parents," or "Kids these days really need a good spanking,"or "Every kid now has a cellphone, or a car - I had to work for mine!" and so on. I think you get what I mean.
Basically, parents are complaining that the current generation has a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of discipline.
Now, here's the tricky part... I'm not disagreeing. I worked in retail for a long time - I've seen kids of all ages and backgrounds - and I actually agree that most kids need stricter discipline in their lives. BUT it's ultimately the parents' responsibility to provide that discipline. If you're complaining about "kids these days," and you've got kids, you're essentially criticizing your own job as a parent.
Life changes. Sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. We've got to keep up with those changes. A number of people believe kids would show more respect and be better disciplined if they were physically punished more often (or at all)... Fine, then do that. A number of people believe kids would be smarter and better as individuals if they had less technology (ie, no TV in their bedroom, no phone at a young age, no iPod, etc)... Fine, then do that.
Essentially, this is my message for parents: put your money where your mouth is. If you think you had the ideal childhood, or the ideal parent, or the ideal mix of love/discipline, then replicate that for your child... If you think your parents did a terrible job and you know where they went wrong, then do that for your child.
Stop complaining and do something.
They're your kids: their upbringing is completely up to you.
21 March 2013
18 February 2013
Nothing New
For as long as I can remember, I've found writing a cathartic, relaxing, and invigorating exercise. Jumping-jacks for the mind. The same with reading - an absolute requirement for any writer worth his salt.
A big part of writing is being frustrated. Maybe the biggest part, in fact. At least for me (and, I suspect, for most other writers, too). Aside from the purely practical aspects - ie, actually making time to sit down and hammer something out, good or bad - there are also the purely creative. These are an animal all their own. "What's the best way to say what I want to say?" "Is it worth saying in the first place?" ... and (for me), "What if someone else said this before... and better?"
Things started very simply... I used to write movie adaptations. Don't misunderstand me: I wasn't trying to adapt books into movies, I was making movies into short stories. This started at about age ten with my (then-)favorite movie, Predator. And from there Aliens (naturally). These weren't straight adaptations - I'd change the ending or hone in on characters/elements I thought were really cool, but for the most part it was all about the movie.
Not exactly "creative" writing.
Then I discovered the world of Monty Python, followed quickly by George Carlin, and I started trying to write funny little skits or poems. And after that came Woody Allen, perhaps the biggest influence on my life to that point in more ways than one. Woody Allen showed me that you could do anything in any medium, so long as you had the skill to pull it off. I'd never seen a movie where people talked to the camera, or where there were amusing little asides that had nothing to do with the story... So, naturally, these sorts of things started popping up in my stories and scripts.
(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)
Most of these stories have long since been lost. I wasn't exactly meticulous about saving things, and when the family computer crashed, I didn't make too strong an effort to recover them. As a point of fact: I don't really care what happens to them. It's fun to write and to see the collection I've amassed, but I almost never reread anything. Again, like Woody Allen, once it's done, I pretty much never look at it again. I'll craft and hone and finesse it for months, but once I have the thing in a finished form, that's it. I've never been big on rewriting; if I can't get it right after focusing my attention for all that time, it's probably not worth writing. Plus, it's good to learn from mistakes. Generally speaking, I start with an image or a sentence or an idea and just start writing - see where the piece takes me. One time I tried to outline everything beforehand - mapped out every "scene" and plot turn - and absolutely hated it. That was the most bland, heavy-handed piece of writing I ever did, and it was a chore to finish. That's why I like to just write and write and write and see what happens.
Although certain ideas and themes will always capture my interest (science, religion, extreme beliefs), I've always made a conscious effort to always try something new. That's another thing I admire about Woody Allen. Yes, he's definitely got a "type" of story that he prefers and is best at, but he is otherwise the most versatile filmmaker (I think) in American film history. Dramas, comedies, morality tales, slapstick, musicals, chamber plays, even German expressionism... Grant it, they've not always been successful attempts, but I admire the work ethic. The biggest pet peeve I had about classmates in film school was how many of them had already resigned themselves to certain genres - and were content to stay in those frameworks. Some people only made "comedies" or "horror films." I had success within satire, but I at least wanted to try something different. And what better opportunity than during school! ... Hence my surreal, experimental senior film that wasn't such a hit, but satisfied my own needs nevertheless.
And then I took a break... A long, long break. I didn't write a single bit of fiction for five years.
Lately, I've had an explosion of ideas. New experiments to try. Take the novellette. The story started with a single line, and the "gut feeling" that it would be about ten pages... After a while, I really dug in and tried to write something new, challenging, and exciting - not just a story, but an experience - and it ballooned into forty-five pages, including "illustrations." It wasn't just "Who was this guy and what happened to him?", but rather "Who IS this guy, and what IS happening to him?"... and how best to express that. Now that it's finally done, I see a few spots that are a little clunky and a couple sections that could have used more attention, but overall I'm very happy. I feel like I achieved my goal, so the piece is done. It's funny, it's sad, it'll make you scratch your head... Time for the next one.
I was told a long time ago that if I ever wanted to make it in the film industry, it would be by my own devices - ie, I wasn't writing blockbuster material, but might have a chance on the independent/festival circuit. This has always been true: I've never had even the slightest inclination to write a "this happened" type story. You know - page-turners, plot twisters. No, I always wanted to explore why did this happen, or to whom did this happen. (I've a great deal of respect for Richard Linklater - a filmmaker who has somehow made multiple, amazing films in which basically nothing happens. True character pieces with only a modicum of plot.) That something happened is not interesting: it's the personalities and circumstances and the ultimate reason (if any) that make it interesting... And, skill. Great writers can (and do) make the mundane sublime; bad writers, if they're to have any chance, have to be a little more desperate in their approach.
The current piece could approach novel-length. It's a very tricky bit of business. James Joyce is my favorite author, and I adore stream-of-consciousness writing - Faulkner, Joyce himself, Woolf, Beckett, Dos Passos, etc. I'm trying to incorporate this into my latest story (even moreso than the novellette, which became stream-of-consciousness after a number of diversions and vignettes), and still find a way to actually make things happen. I don't want it to simply be a collection of non-sequitor thoughts, because then what's the point? Then I've failed on all counts. No, the idea is to really get in the heads of these people but still convey a sense of time passing and events occurring.
It's been a challenge, but a fun challenge. Some really neat devices and themes at work, and I look forward to developing them further. Ideally, I could work on this steadily and finish before school starts, but that's almost guaranteed not to happen. If I'm lucky, a first draft could be done by then, but that's the best I can hope for.
Which brings me to the tricky part (I know - brevity has never been a strength)... I feel like this is an interesting and important story to tell, but I don't want the technique or the form to overshadow the content (may be past that point already). A balancing act. I tried to write this once as a screenplay, but was never happy with the outcome; eventually, I abandoned it. I love the general concept, but could never quite get the structure right. I'm starting to have that problem again. The beginning and the end are pretty clear in mind - it's the in-between that's elusive.
What's it about? I don't want to give away too much in hope that some of you may actually read it, but essentially it's about family - a minor element of the novellette, the major theme this time: how we define it, how definitions change, what it means in the technology age. Some interesting things, I hope, but ultimately you'll be the judge.
Stephen King said once that there are essentially two types of writers: those who write for an audience ("popular" literature, essentially), and those who write for themselves. Not that I completely disagree, but I think that's too simplistic. Most fall on a continuum. For instance, I cannot fathom a writer who doesn't write for himself. But I would agree that some tend to try to satisfy curiosities within rather than describe or explore worlds without.
In the end, once it's done, the author is really the least significant part. It's up to the reader - whether one or many - to figure it out.
A big part of writing is being frustrated. Maybe the biggest part, in fact. At least for me (and, I suspect, for most other writers, too). Aside from the purely practical aspects - ie, actually making time to sit down and hammer something out, good or bad - there are also the purely creative. These are an animal all their own. "What's the best way to say what I want to say?" "Is it worth saying in the first place?" ... and (for me), "What if someone else said this before... and better?"
Things started very simply... I used to write movie adaptations. Don't misunderstand me: I wasn't trying to adapt books into movies, I was making movies into short stories. This started at about age ten with my (then-)favorite movie, Predator. And from there Aliens (naturally). These weren't straight adaptations - I'd change the ending or hone in on characters/elements I thought were really cool, but for the most part it was all about the movie.
Not exactly "creative" writing.
Then I discovered the world of Monty Python, followed quickly by George Carlin, and I started trying to write funny little skits or poems. And after that came Woody Allen, perhaps the biggest influence on my life to that point in more ways than one. Woody Allen showed me that you could do anything in any medium, so long as you had the skill to pull it off. I'd never seen a movie where people talked to the camera, or where there were amusing little asides that had nothing to do with the story... So, naturally, these sorts of things started popping up in my stories and scripts.
(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)
Most of these stories have long since been lost. I wasn't exactly meticulous about saving things, and when the family computer crashed, I didn't make too strong an effort to recover them. As a point of fact: I don't really care what happens to them. It's fun to write and to see the collection I've amassed, but I almost never reread anything. Again, like Woody Allen, once it's done, I pretty much never look at it again. I'll craft and hone and finesse it for months, but once I have the thing in a finished form, that's it. I've never been big on rewriting; if I can't get it right after focusing my attention for all that time, it's probably not worth writing. Plus, it's good to learn from mistakes. Generally speaking, I start with an image or a sentence or an idea and just start writing - see where the piece takes me. One time I tried to outline everything beforehand - mapped out every "scene" and plot turn - and absolutely hated it. That was the most bland, heavy-handed piece of writing I ever did, and it was a chore to finish. That's why I like to just write and write and write and see what happens.
Although certain ideas and themes will always capture my interest (science, religion, extreme beliefs), I've always made a conscious effort to always try something new. That's another thing I admire about Woody Allen. Yes, he's definitely got a "type" of story that he prefers and is best at, but he is otherwise the most versatile filmmaker (I think) in American film history. Dramas, comedies, morality tales, slapstick, musicals, chamber plays, even German expressionism... Grant it, they've not always been successful attempts, but I admire the work ethic. The biggest pet peeve I had about classmates in film school was how many of them had already resigned themselves to certain genres - and were content to stay in those frameworks. Some people only made "comedies" or "horror films." I had success within satire, but I at least wanted to try something different. And what better opportunity than during school! ... Hence my surreal, experimental senior film that wasn't such a hit, but satisfied my own needs nevertheless.
And then I took a break... A long, long break. I didn't write a single bit of fiction for five years.
Lately, I've had an explosion of ideas. New experiments to try. Take the novellette. The story started with a single line, and the "gut feeling" that it would be about ten pages... After a while, I really dug in and tried to write something new, challenging, and exciting - not just a story, but an experience - and it ballooned into forty-five pages, including "illustrations." It wasn't just "Who was this guy and what happened to him?", but rather "Who IS this guy, and what IS happening to him?"... and how best to express that. Now that it's finally done, I see a few spots that are a little clunky and a couple sections that could have used more attention, but overall I'm very happy. I feel like I achieved my goal, so the piece is done. It's funny, it's sad, it'll make you scratch your head... Time for the next one.
I was told a long time ago that if I ever wanted to make it in the film industry, it would be by my own devices - ie, I wasn't writing blockbuster material, but might have a chance on the independent/festival circuit. This has always been true: I've never had even the slightest inclination to write a "this happened" type story. You know - page-turners, plot twisters. No, I always wanted to explore why did this happen, or to whom did this happen. (I've a great deal of respect for Richard Linklater - a filmmaker who has somehow made multiple, amazing films in which basically nothing happens. True character pieces with only a modicum of plot.) That something happened is not interesting: it's the personalities and circumstances and the ultimate reason (if any) that make it interesting... And, skill. Great writers can (and do) make the mundane sublime; bad writers, if they're to have any chance, have to be a little more desperate in their approach.
The current piece could approach novel-length. It's a very tricky bit of business. James Joyce is my favorite author, and I adore stream-of-consciousness writing - Faulkner, Joyce himself, Woolf, Beckett, Dos Passos, etc. I'm trying to incorporate this into my latest story (even moreso than the novellette, which became stream-of-consciousness after a number of diversions and vignettes), and still find a way to actually make things happen. I don't want it to simply be a collection of non-sequitor thoughts, because then what's the point? Then I've failed on all counts. No, the idea is to really get in the heads of these people but still convey a sense of time passing and events occurring.
It's been a challenge, but a fun challenge. Some really neat devices and themes at work, and I look forward to developing them further. Ideally, I could work on this steadily and finish before school starts, but that's almost guaranteed not to happen. If I'm lucky, a first draft could be done by then, but that's the best I can hope for.
Which brings me to the tricky part (I know - brevity has never been a strength)... I feel like this is an interesting and important story to tell, but I don't want the technique or the form to overshadow the content (may be past that point already). A balancing act. I tried to write this once as a screenplay, but was never happy with the outcome; eventually, I abandoned it. I love the general concept, but could never quite get the structure right. I'm starting to have that problem again. The beginning and the end are pretty clear in mind - it's the in-between that's elusive.
What's it about? I don't want to give away too much in hope that some of you may actually read it, but essentially it's about family - a minor element of the novellette, the major theme this time: how we define it, how definitions change, what it means in the technology age. Some interesting things, I hope, but ultimately you'll be the judge.
Stephen King said once that there are essentially two types of writers: those who write for an audience ("popular" literature, essentially), and those who write for themselves. Not that I completely disagree, but I think that's too simplistic. Most fall on a continuum. For instance, I cannot fathom a writer who doesn't write for himself. But I would agree that some tend to try to satisfy curiosities within rather than describe or explore worlds without.
In the end, once it's done, the author is really the least significant part. It's up to the reader - whether one or many - to figure it out.
11 February 2013
Progress Report
So, just a little update on how things are going with the New Year's resolutions...
(1) So far, no luck on the novellette. One magazine said No, and it's currently under review at another. Shouldn't expect it at all, but it'd be really cool to be a published author. Fingers crossed!
(2) Been very good with the resistance training, not so consistent with the cardio. Kate has fallen in love with Jillian Michaels, so we bought a few of her workout DVDs. It sounds silly, but she does a good job! Seriously. The favorite so far is No More Trouble Zones, which targets glutes, triceps, abs, and thighs. Just short of an hour, it's a chore to get through, but a good workout nevertheless. We've been trying to do that disc every other day, but sometimes our schedules (and sore bodies) demand otherwise.
Also changing things up with the weights: I'm going to try my hand at 5x5 training. Very simple in principle: choose a weight, do five exercises with five sets of five reps. Quite frankly, though, the workout program found through that link is too easy. You can finish in like fifteen minutes - barely enough time to get your heart rate up. So I combined all three workouts into one big routine. THAT'S a workout!
(3) I've been very good about the soda. I had a couple that I didn't really enjoy afterward (ie, drank one just to drink one), but I've been good about keeping it out of the house - pretty much only at movies.
(4) And the diet has been better too. I used to make my own trail mix and a sandwich for work every day, but I've changed that to a salad (spinach/walnuts/cranberries/goat cheese) and sandwich (PB&J)... and if I'm running late and only have time to make one, I make the salad. My hemoglobin should be nice and high!
Other than that, things are fairly mundane. Working on taxes, trying to sort out financial issues before grad school. We recently changed cable/internet providers to lower our monthly payment, and I'm also going to change my cellphone plan for the same reason. Gots to save money!
Again, just to keep track, here is some hard data...
Height: 5' 11" (unchanged)
Weight: 161 pounds (-3 from January 1)
BMI: 22.45 (didn't measure)
Body Fat (approximate): 12.5%
Measurements:
Neck: 13" (-1)
Chest: 38" (-0.5)
Shoulders: 14" (R)/13" (L) (unchanged)
Arms: 14" (R)/13.5" (L) (unchanged)
Forearms: 11" (R/L) (unchanged)
Waist: 33.5" (-2)
Hips: 37.5" (-0.5)
WHR: 0.89 (didn't measure)
Thighs: 21" (R/L)
Calves: 14" (R)/15" (L) (+1R/+1.5L)
(1) So far, no luck on the novellette. One magazine said No, and it's currently under review at another. Shouldn't expect it at all, but it'd be really cool to be a published author. Fingers crossed!
(2) Been very good with the resistance training, not so consistent with the cardio. Kate has fallen in love with Jillian Michaels, so we bought a few of her workout DVDs. It sounds silly, but she does a good job! Seriously. The favorite so far is No More Trouble Zones, which targets glutes, triceps, abs, and thighs. Just short of an hour, it's a chore to get through, but a good workout nevertheless. We've been trying to do that disc every other day, but sometimes our schedules (and sore bodies) demand otherwise.
Also changing things up with the weights: I'm going to try my hand at 5x5 training. Very simple in principle: choose a weight, do five exercises with five sets of five reps. Quite frankly, though, the workout program found through that link is too easy. You can finish in like fifteen minutes - barely enough time to get your heart rate up. So I combined all three workouts into one big routine. THAT'S a workout!
(3) I've been very good about the soda. I had a couple that I didn't really enjoy afterward (ie, drank one just to drink one), but I've been good about keeping it out of the house - pretty much only at movies.
(4) And the diet has been better too. I used to make my own trail mix and a sandwich for work every day, but I've changed that to a salad (spinach/walnuts/cranberries/goat cheese) and sandwich (PB&J)... and if I'm running late and only have time to make one, I make the salad. My hemoglobin should be nice and high!
Other than that, things are fairly mundane. Working on taxes, trying to sort out financial issues before grad school. We recently changed cable/internet providers to lower our monthly payment, and I'm also going to change my cellphone plan for the same reason. Gots to save money!
Again, just to keep track, here is some hard data...
Height: 5' 11" (unchanged)
Weight: 161 pounds (-3 from January 1)
BMI: 22.45 (didn't measure)
Body Fat (approximate): 12.5%
Measurements:
Neck: 13" (-1)
Chest: 38" (-0.5)
Shoulders: 14" (R)/13" (L) (unchanged)
Arms: 14" (R)/13.5" (L) (unchanged)
Forearms: 11" (R/L) (unchanged)
Waist: 33.5" (-2)
Hips: 37.5" (-0.5)
WHR: 0.89 (didn't measure)
Thighs: 21" (R/L)
Calves: 14" (R)/15" (L) (+1R/+1.5L)
11 January 2013
New Year's Resolutions
This is more to keep myself accountable than anything, but here are some of my goals for the year...
(1) Get the novellette published. It's an awkard length (just shy of 17,000 words - on the cusp for most magazines), but I think my chances are pretty good. I actually submitted to a magazine in mid-December; obviously, I don't expect it to work out the first time, but I feel pretty confident that it will be published some time this year. Spooky Action at a Distance - (hopefully) coming to a publication near you!
(2) Work out more consistently. I did really well the second half of the year (ie, after the honeymoon) and gained about ten pounds of muscle, but really dropped off in December. The ideal schedule would be alternating days of resistance and cardio. Obviously, that's not realistic as things will come up, but it's a good goal to shoot for.
Here's January's routine: handstand pushup, diamond pushup, knee jump, one-leg squat, headstand leg raise, door pullup, and the Mahler body blaster. It's a bodyweight circuit taken from Mike Mahler. The goal for this month is to simply get to the point where I can do one complete circuit with minimal rest: 5 reps each exercise, except for the "blaster," which will get ten, and the "diamond," which will get thirty (eventually, the diamond will be replaced with a one-arm pushup, so I'm starting with an alternate exercise in order to build strength). Should be fun and effective.
Cardio will be a combination of things. Kate and I used to jog quite a bit, but it's far too cold right now. We have a stepper which really works the calves/quads, but I don't want things to get too repetitive, so I'm actually considering yoga/pilates/dance/etc. Anything new to keep it engaging. We also have a jump rope, but not really a place to use it until the snow melts.
(3) Drink less soda. A constant goal. I used to drink two or three Pepsis a day in college. Thankfully, that's tapered off, but I still drink more than I should. The goal is to only have soda "outside" the house - ie, at the movies, parties, etc - if at all. Sounds pretty realistic.
(4) Eat less sugar/fat. I'm starting to get concerned about my intake. I don't get enough vegetables, and I think I'm eating too many sweets. This will be hard because I'm always fighting to supplement caloric demands (and the easiest way is to have a "treat" or two throughout the day), but it's important. I want a long, healthy life! My thinking is: start taking salads to work rather than snacks. I'm almost always hungry during the day (even after lunch), and I think this is from calorically dense/nutritionally light foods. I'll keep taking sandwiches because they're quick and easy, but rather than my usual trail mix I'm thinking a salad to go with. Sounds tasty!
Obviously, the overall goal here is health. We're getting older, we want to start a family in the next couple years - time to get ahead of the curve. Now, I don't want to turn out like Marky Mark here...
...because he looks ridiculous (I know he's supposed to be playing a 'roided out buffoon, but he's so big he looks awkward - should have lost some muscle), but overall strength and fitness is important. Wish me luck!
(1) Get the novellette published. It's an awkard length (just shy of 17,000 words - on the cusp for most magazines), but I think my chances are pretty good. I actually submitted to a magazine in mid-December; obviously, I don't expect it to work out the first time, but I feel pretty confident that it will be published some time this year. Spooky Action at a Distance - (hopefully) coming to a publication near you!
(2) Work out more consistently. I did really well the second half of the year (ie, after the honeymoon) and gained about ten pounds of muscle, but really dropped off in December. The ideal schedule would be alternating days of resistance and cardio. Obviously, that's not realistic as things will come up, but it's a good goal to shoot for.
Here's January's routine: handstand pushup, diamond pushup, knee jump, one-leg squat, headstand leg raise, door pullup, and the Mahler body blaster. It's a bodyweight circuit taken from Mike Mahler. The goal for this month is to simply get to the point where I can do one complete circuit with minimal rest: 5 reps each exercise, except for the "blaster," which will get ten, and the "diamond," which will get thirty (eventually, the diamond will be replaced with a one-arm pushup, so I'm starting with an alternate exercise in order to build strength). Should be fun and effective.
Cardio will be a combination of things. Kate and I used to jog quite a bit, but it's far too cold right now. We have a stepper which really works the calves/quads, but I don't want things to get too repetitive, so I'm actually considering yoga/pilates/dance/etc. Anything new to keep it engaging. We also have a jump rope, but not really a place to use it until the snow melts.
(3) Drink less soda. A constant goal. I used to drink two or three Pepsis a day in college. Thankfully, that's tapered off, but I still drink more than I should. The goal is to only have soda "outside" the house - ie, at the movies, parties, etc - if at all. Sounds pretty realistic.
(4) Eat less sugar/fat. I'm starting to get concerned about my intake. I don't get enough vegetables, and I think I'm eating too many sweets. This will be hard because I'm always fighting to supplement caloric demands (and the easiest way is to have a "treat" or two throughout the day), but it's important. I want a long, healthy life! My thinking is: start taking salads to work rather than snacks. I'm almost always hungry during the day (even after lunch), and I think this is from calorically dense/nutritionally light foods. I'll keep taking sandwiches because they're quick and easy, but rather than my usual trail mix I'm thinking a salad to go with. Sounds tasty!
Obviously, the overall goal here is health. We're getting older, we want to start a family in the next couple years - time to get ahead of the curve. Now, I don't want to turn out like Marky Mark here...
...because he looks ridiculous (I know he's supposed to be playing a 'roided out buffoon, but he's so big he looks awkward - should have lost some muscle), but overall strength and fitness is important. Wish me luck!
02 January 2013
Is That It?
After watching Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained, I'm in a bit of a quandary... How does one review this film? Do we look at it critically, citing a couple nice scenes, strong performances, and strong cinematography? Should we look at it intellectually, delving into character dynamics and trying to puzzle out the reasons why certain things happen? ... Or is this taking the film more seriously than it wants to (or deserves to) be taken? After all, it becomes abundantly clear within the first few seconds of Django Unchained that this is not a serious, historical look at slavery, slaves, slave-owners, or even the violence which the film is so steeped in. Is it best to admire the film for its cleverness and persistent, ironic sensibilities, as seems to be the preference with most people?
I don't know. Like I said: quandary.
One thing I do know: I was not impressed. I've touched on this before (see link), but I've not been a fan of Tarantino's most recent "phase"; though, guessing by the last nine years of his career (ie, from Kill Bill on), I'm not sure that term is appropriate. My father-in-law and I talked about this once before: Tarantino's always been a movie-lover first, and a filmmaker second. He has virtually no interest in recreating the "real" world - he's having too much fun in the reel world. His movies are full of winks, nods, homages, sometimes outright thievery of his favorite scenes, filmmakers, actors, and music cues... And yet, something's changed. This is not the same man who brought us Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown. Even Reservoir Dogs shows a restraint sorely missing from his last five films.
What do we think of when we think of Quentin Tarantino? I'd venture most would say they think of pop violence and foul language: cool guys hurting people in cool ways, cursing all the while and yet somehow being cool and clever, and "Hey, don't get upset - it's all in good fun. This isn't the real world, these characters are basically flesh-and-blood (heavy emphasis on the blood) cartoons."
And I don't mean to sound like a stick in the mud, but that's not the Tarantino that intrigues me. That's not the Tarantino I admire. Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are great films because of what's not shown. Because of how people behave in increasingly extreme circumstances. Those are films about believable people cast in unbelievable scenarios. Tarantino once said that he liked to take real people and put them in the movies - that's what makes his early films memorable. As strange, extreme, and absurd as situations got, you could believe what the characters were doing because they still acted like real people. (Though, to be fair, he also broke this mantra: Harvey Keitel's "The Wolf" is a reel character interacting with real people.)
Then came Kill Bill; then everything changed. Suddenly, the man who almost always showed violence as being either (a) offscreen, or (b) bloodless when it was on-screen, added red to his palette, and his films have become increasingly blood-soaked. This was not a movie about real people, real situations, or anything we'd see in the real world. As Tarantino himself once said, Kill Bill is the kind of movie his characters from Reservoir Dogs would go watch - ie, ultra-violent, campy, and over-the-top.
Then came Kill Bill; then everything changed. Suddenly, the man who almost always showed violence as being either (a) offscreen, or (b) bloodless when it was on-screen, added red to his palette, and his films have become increasingly blood-soaked. This was not a movie about real people, real situations, or anything we'd see in the real world. As Tarantino himself once said, Kill Bill is the kind of movie his characters from Reservoir Dogs would go watch - ie, ultra-violent, campy, and over-the-top.
This modality has brought him increased popularity, controversy, and (I imagine) revenue, but I fail to see how any serious movie-lover can continue to support it. His is a story of wasted talent. It was fun for a while, but he's become the author of his own redundancy. Four of his last five movies have been revenge stories - Kill Bill I & II about a spurned mother rescuing her baby, Inglourious Basterds about Jews exacting revenge on Nazis for their atrocities, and now Django Unchained, which we'll get to finally...
Django Unchained (dir. Quentin Tarantino) - 2.5/5
I imagine by now a number of people have either written me off completely or find me to be a humorless, pretentious ass... This just is not true. As I've said repeatedly: I love action movies and horror movies. The degree of violence matters very little - it's to what end I care about. For instance, my question to the Django-lovers is thus: what do you love about the movie, other than being "funny" or "cool"? It's not a stuffed-shirt film about the drama of slavery and the evil deeds visited upon an entire race - I get that. But what is it, other than a piece of pop/ironic entertainment? Is it anything more? ...less?
There are good scenes in Django Unchained. There really are. Even some great ones. As a whole, though, it is not good. The film idles along for the first hour or so, introducing Django and his rescuer, a bounty hunter named Schulz. They bond quickly, Schulz proves himself a man of his word (and mighty good with a gun, too), and Django rides with him as a free man. Django helps Schulz with a job, and Schulz promptly asks him to be a partner. Django reluctantly agrees - his first priority is to rescue his wife; but, as Schulz rightly points out, it is not so simple for a freed slave in the South to try and free another slave. Their partnership remains, and they concoct a scheme to win her back. Enter Candie (DiCaprio), perhaps the film's best character (certainly the most interesting): he is an enormously wealthy plantation owner, and he owns Django's wife.
You can imagine where it goes from there... I frankly have little interest in discussing or divulging plot details. There are two fantastic scenes once Django and Schulz get to "Candie-land," as well as the film's major action set-piece. The first is a tour-de-force speech where Candie enumerates the supposed differences between whites and blacks and threatens to kill Django's wife; the second is a marvelously suspenseful bit of brinkmanship between Candie and Schulz over handshake customs.
Conversations. Tense conversations. These are the highlight of the film. Many will disagree, and will prefer the lengthy, excessively gory shootout immediately following (I'm no expert, but I'd venture it has to be the wettest shootout in film history - blood and viscera slop, spill, and squish out of virtually every character), but for me it was the conversations that gave the film hope. "Finally," I thought, "Tarantino has found what he's best at; finally, the film has a chance at greatness!" ... If only that were true.
Let's get back to the violence of the film, its one true commodity. What end does it serve? Schulz used to be a dentist, but now he's a bounty hunter... how did that happen? And, was it that easy to just up and start killing people for money? He is repulsed by slavery, presumably because it visits violence and injustice upon other human beings... Does it not bother him that he does the same? He says he only kills criminals, not innocent people, but even then - is it so easy for a dentist to become a killer? For anyone?
"You're taking this too seriously" - that's the common reply. And that's a fair point. This isn't meant to be a moral tale. The only "innocent" in the film is Broomhilda - everyone else is "bad" to degrees. Schulz kills criminals, Django kills slave-owners and those who are complicit... but they still kill. And Django doesn't just kill: he humiliates, maims, and then destroys... Are we supposed to cheer when he tortures his victims? Is that entertainment? Is that "all in good fun"? Is that all Django Unchained is meant to be? Because that's not enough.
p.s... I know, I've prattled on long enough, but here's another issue I have: Kill Bill works (if it does at all) because it adopts the modality of the samurai/revenge movie. I've seen Lone Wolf & Cub, Master of the Flying Guillotine, etc... When heads come off, they fly off; when people are cut down, they are split in two. When blood sprays, it's an arterial spray. So I get the ultra-violence of those two. Inglourious Basterds, however, is meant to be more like a Dirty Dozen kind of thing - where we're rewriting history to get a "Yeah! Go get 'em!" kind of response... And now here's Django Unchained, which is allegedly a Western. But no Western ever looked, acted, or talked like this. We know Tarantino's studied Sergio Leone (even has the great Ennio Morricone working on the score, though you'd never guess it) - how much better if he had made something along those lines. A great Western gets suspense through silence, music, and grit. This sense of suspense is sadly lacking from Django Unchained, replaced instead with the immature, gleeful desire to kill just about everyone and everything on screen - and as messily as possible, at that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)