Not Like the Movies...

My wife knows.

When we are watching a movie, she knows that the minute they show someone paddling a canoe, I will tense up. Clearly I want to say something, but I am holding back. She knows that I want to complain about how Natalie Portman can study ballet for a year to play the lead in Black Swan, but the producer of this film apparently can't spare $30 to hire some summer camp recreation director for 1/2 hour to teach his lead actors how to properly paddle a canoe. She knows that my barely suppressed rage at this travesty is only surpassed by my knowledge that she has forbidden me to speak on the subject ever again. Ever.

That's what happens when you rant one too many times, I guess.

It's just that it jars me out of my willing suspension of disbelief when the supposedly woodscrafty hero, a man wise and skilled in the ways of making his way through the wilderness can't even paddle a gosh darn canoe straight without switching sides every 3 strokes and getting water in the boat to boot. Drives me up a wall.

The movies just can't seem to get the details right.

In the same way, it seems that neither script writers, nor directors nor any actor seems to be able to get the portrayal of religious belief right on the screen. It seems lately that almost every time some religious thread is introduced into a story, something about the way it plays just seems off. It seems off in almost the same way as when you are trying to speak to someone with eyes that point two different directions. All the pieces of the face are there, but it's all just far enough off the mark to make the result disconcerting.

I can understand how this can happen. If you have never had an authentic religious experience, if you have not had extensive firsthand familiar with the religious subculture and the real people that live it, or even more importantly if you do not respect religious folk enough to look past the surface, it is almost a given that the result will tend more to caricature than to characterization. To authentically portray such people, you may not need to be one of them, but you must have a certain sympathy and certainly a real familiarity with them as people. Otherwise your dialogue will never rise above a ragtag collection of religious cliches. I watch these plays and the words jar me in the same way as a poorly paddled canoe.

I recently viewed a video on youtube that comes from a completely opposite pole. In our film, television, books and stories, missionaries are mostly vilified. They are presented variously as cultural imperialists, deluded naifs, or corrupt powermongers, just to name a few options. Quick. Do an inventory of all the films and stories you have viewed which include missionaries. How many actually treat the missionary with any type of real respect or seriousness? Include pastors and priests in that mix.

I know missionaries. I grew up with missionaries. The fact is that they are real people who are seeking to live out their real faith in direct confrontation with a real world. The most important thing, beyond all else, is that they help the people to whom they go. As people, they are just as susceptible to all human stumblings. Nevertheless, in so many cases the work they do is highly valued by the people with whom they choose to live and love and help.

This youtube video struck me because it takes the viewpoint of the people helped by christian missionaries. And not just in terms of medical care, agricultural training or food relief. No, these people are joyful from the deepest place and grateful to the missionaries for the MESSAGE that has been brought to them. There is no acting, no mediating by writers or directors to dilute the genuine joy with which these people greet the coming of God's Word in their language to their people.

It seems to me that the testimony of these people is worth far more than that of most filmmakers and TV producers.

In fairness, I have to point out that the people aren't rejoicing over the missionaries. But they are certainly rejoicing over the gift the missionaries have brought to them. I suspect that this type of occurrence is more common than we know. It should be shown on Nightline, 60 Minutes, and 20/20 more often, but it doesn't really align with the popular understanding of how the work of missionaries are received by the people to whom they minister.

It's just not like in the movies.

The Fungibility of Symbols

There is a movie coming out soon called How to Train your Dragon.

Just in the interest of full disclosure, I haven't seen it. I probably will eventually (can't remember the last time I saw a movie in the theater although I LOVE going to movies). I am reasonably sure that it is cute, somewhat clever, and at least mildly entertaining in that Hollywood  *nod nod, *wink wink kind of way.

Having said that, it also troubles me and makes me just a little miffy.

For centuries, possibly millenia, in most civilizations that I know of, dragons are beasts to be taken very seriously. In western civilization, the dragon has been a symbol of wickedness, of sin, of the presence and power and danger of evil. The dragon is a foe and one that must be slain lest it lay waste the kingdom. It is a wily and cunning enemy, skilled in wordplay and deceit. It is powerful and difficult to destroy. It despoils green and fertile and ruins the beautiful and innocent.

Even in Asian culture, where the dragon is not necessarily evil, it is still an exceptionally powerful force, one that must be reckoned with carefully, and not taken lightly.

But...it seems we have become too sophisticated for such symbols. Or rather, too sophisticated for the meaning of the old symbols. So we keep the old symbol and we castrate it. Keep the fangs, the scales, the wings, even the fiery breath. That's all solid comic potential. But let's take away all that danger and all that stuff about evil. Dragons are just reptiles after all, and probably misunderstood.

That's it. They are "misunderstood."

Well, our Christian Fathers did it. They took yule trees and made them into Christmas trees. They completely ripped off the Roman cross, the ultimate symbol of imperialistic power, and co-opted to use as the symbol of the New Kingdom of God. Jesus himself turned the Passover meal on its head, establishing himself as the New Pesach. OK, so such shifts in meaning aren't new.

But each of those cases remade the symbol into something More Powerful, more mystical and more dangerous than before. You might still think the symbol is wrong (as the Jews certainly do regarding Jesus appropriation of Passover), but you can't deny the power of the new thing. But this training your dragon business is just taking a good strong symbol, tearing out all the bones and guts, draining all the blood, stuffing the carcass full of lime jello and making it dance.

What worries me is that we think everything is life is "trainable." When something seems wrong we think the problem is that we aren't educated enough. The bad thing is just some kind of misunderstanding. And we go on thinking that until., just a little too late, we realize that the cute little dickens we laughed at and thought was so cute is about to burn our house, kill our family and grind us to a paste between it's jaws.

There is evil in the world, and to convert every symbol of evil into a cartoon won't make it go away, or make it less dangerous in reality. It just makes us easier to eat.

Well...I'm sure it's a fun movie. I'll try not to grind my teeth too much as I watch it.

Crumbs

Cold weather

It’s been a little brisk in these parts, with night temps falling around or below zero Fahrenheit, and windchills measured in the negative teens or lower. I love this kind of weather. Not forever, mind you, but for a season it is a wonderful thing. The air is marvelously clear so the light of the full moon is possibly the brightest I have ever seen. I actually took a book outside a few nights ago to see if I could read it by moonlight. The answer was yes.

When I mentioned to a friend recently about what great hiking weather this is, he looked at me sideways like I was out of my mind. Of course, he hasn’t really spent much time outside, certainly not in this weather, so he doesn’t understand that you simply adapt. You dress for it, you adjust your movements accordingly, you take your time and remain mindful of what’s happening to your face, your fingers, your toes. You plan for contingency and you proceed with caution but not fear. The reward is great as you can hike a trail you have walked many times in warmer weather, but find it an entirely new experience – almost a new world.

Plus, I just really like it when I get icicles hanging off my beard.

Books

Went off on a short Louis L’amour jag recently sucking up three of this tales in short order, the best being Matagorda. He is a fine storyteller, though I am slightly puzzled by the use of the term “sky-pilot” to refer to a Christian Minister. Not puzzled as if I don’t know what it means. Puzzled rather by his consistent use of it in all three books, as if it were a common term in use our west during the latter half of the 19^th century. I don’t recall ever hearing it before.

I am also re-reading The Silmarillion. Assistant Village Idiot recently posted on how the language in TS differs from the language of either the Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. This has made in less accessible to some, who are put off by the formality and complexity of tone. It seems archaic and musty to some. I find that I love it. It has a sense of majesty, an epic quality. It reads more like ancient history, skirting over novelistic detail but if you accept it for what it is, and stop expecting a novel, it seems to me that that ceases to be a problem. Silmarillion captures that sense of “Northernness” that C.S. Lewis wrote of.

Leno vs. Conan.

Whatever. Ditch them both. They are stiffs. Bring in Craig Ferguson instead. Now that boy is funny. Moreover, sensible people are all in bed anyways. 

Monsters vs Aliens

Watched Monsters vs. Aliens with my kids this weekend. Funny stuff. Gotta love B.O.B. My youngest and I had a conversation about which character we resemble the most. Apparently, I am most like Missing Link. Go figure. 

B.O.B. is the funniest one though.

/>

Toyota

I think I may end up owning a used Toyota sometime in the next few years. I’m guessing that there will be a lot of them available cheap. If it starts to run away with me, I figure I can just shift the thing into neutral, stop it, get out, and watch the engine rev up until it explodes. Should be entertaining.

Alternatively, while exiting the vehicle, I can ‘accidentally’ re-engage the transmission and watch the empty car plunge over a precipice to its complete destruction. That will not only be entertaining, but might be covered by insurance.

Ramayana Lite

I recently stumbled across one of the most amazing films I have ever seen. I am fascinated by it and keep going back to watch sections of it on YouTube.

Sita Sings the Blues is a personalized retelling of the Ramayana, one of the great sanskrit epics, the twin tale of the Mahabarata. The movie is subtitled The Greatest Breakup Story Every Told. Nina Paley took inspiration from this ancient tale, the breakup of her own marriage and the songs of Annette Hanshaw. She created this stunning interweaving of animation styles, ad lib interview, storytelling and music. The animation alone is inventive and beautiful work, fascinating to watch and sheer delight. The integration of Annette Hanshaw's music is exceptionally clever, but manages never to feel strained. And for westerner's like me, this Ramayana lite is an easy way to be introduced to this ancient and profound tale.

You can see the movie streamed in it's entirety here.

It's about 1:20 long, but worth every bit of it. If you want to take it in chunks, it is also available on YouTube broken into 10 sections. I warn you...they are like potato chips. You may not be able to stop once you start.

As you might imagine, there are many detractors of this film. Because of it was made by a white american woman who is not Hindu, and because it takes a light tone regarding some things that many Hindus feel are very sacred, it treads some difficult ground. As a westerner, I can see where Ms. Paley actually was working out of a real reverence for the material, but her way of honoring it is to personalize it. She makes it very clear also that she is really focusing on the role of Sita, and developing her concept of Sita's side of the tale. In the actual sanskrit story, Sita's role is very small -- almost a side note -- compared to that of Raman.

The idea of honoring a story by personalizing it is a very western concept. I get it, but I can see why some of her critics might not. Regardless, I would encourage everyone to see this.

Movie Movie

I love movies. I especially love going to the movies. I like the bigger screen and the way too loud sound and the dark room. I can’t fold clothes or work on the laptop or anything else but watch the movie. It is bliss. I get to do it maybe a few times a year, if I am lucky. Such is the fate of the father of small children, especially when there are no in-laws around to baby-sit.
But I still love movies, and watching the DVD will suffice. It’s the story thing really. I love the stories.
This weekend I have had a most unusual opportunity. I viewed 6 films this weekend. They were not deep. They were not artsy. They were not poigniant portrayals of the human condition. They were, however, pretty rollicking good tales. I chose them for that quality primarily.
And, as far as tales go, I am (I think I have said this before) a sucker for the heroic. So these were heavy on the lone hero going it alone against heavy odds. A few words about each.

Beowulf
The curious thing about this film is that the director used some kind of technique that created a sort of animation veneer over the live action. It took a little getting used to, especially in the scenes where expressions and faces and emotional reactions mattered. Fortunately, these weren’t all that important anyway. Also, I’m not English major, so that fact that it took major liberties with the original epic bothered me not one whit. I have long since accepted that a movie is not the book, even if they share the same name, characters and other accidental commonalities.
I will say that the opening battle with Grendel is terrifying. I am not one to be overly impressed or bothered by screen violence, but my jaw hung slack with amazement as I gazed horrified at the monster wreaking his havoc. Yet I loved it, because Grendel should be horrible. In the end, Beowulf betrays himself and those he loves, and the redeems his betrayal by brave deeds. Glad I saw it. Now I shall go back and read it for the third time.

The Kingdom
The FBI goes to Saudi Arabia to catch a bomber. Much hijinks ensue.
OK, that’s not fair. It’s a pretty serious picture, in the sense of solemn. It captured the one essential truth that I think many people (like 2 of our potential presidents) may not seem to realize – they really do want to kill us all. No quarter asked and none given.
Some truly outstanding scenes involving automatic weapons, rocket propelled grenades, and the old-fashioned hand thrown kind. I found myself shouting at the screen.

Live Free or Die Hard
Bruce Willis resurrects his John Mclain character. Hard not to love this guy. The fluffiest of the bunch, but still fun. My wife and I watched this one together, and we both found ourselves mocking some of the gunplay and fistfights. How many bullets are there in one clip? Am I the only one that counts them and ask out loud where they are getting their ammo? Still, fun if enjoy practicing your willing suspension of disbelief. Definitely enjoyed the abundance of tough guy one liners.

I am Legend
I remember Charlton Heston in Omega Man. For some reason some images from that movie are burned into my brain, so I really wanted to see this one. Pretty cool. I really enjoy watching Will Smith. He is just a lot of fun on screen.
Another post-apocalyptic fantasy. The “dark-seekers” were a bit overdone, but the setup and exploration of the “what-if” scenario is pretty intriguing. Smith’s character is not only a scientist and a soldier, but damn clever with his hands – I gotta give him that. To construct the kind of hideout he has put together is pretty impressive. Oh…and it’s a bit of a plot problem with some woman shows up for no other apparent reason than to advance the plot. Still…I enjoyed it.

Facing the Giants.
Watched this one with the kids. All I will say it that it is surprisingly inspiring, and it spoke strongly to me in my current situation. The acting is generally wooden, but again, if you look past that, it’s a good old fashioned David and Goliath story. That’s always worth watching if it’s even half way well done.

Mr. Magorian’s Wonder Emporium.
Ok, I actually slept through most of this one. Nothing blowing up. No guns or knives or people fighting to the death. But that Natalie Portman sure is purty.

Guilty Pleasures

A few weeks ago, a friend asked me what my guilty pleasures were. She was specifically referring to music, but it’s an especially fascinating question when you apply it to other areas. I define a guilty pleasure as something that you really like, but you don’t like to admit it. The reason for your reluctance to own up to your cravings really doesn’t matter much, but it is instructive. For instance, there are some things I keep quiet because they don’t really fit in with a certain image I have of myself…ok, a certain image I like to project of myself. Sometimes it’s just that you know that your pleasure is a lowbrow thing. In some cases (not mine) you just feel that it’s somehow morally wrong.

Of course, if it actually is a matter of morality, one should just stop doing it. But the kind of guilty pleasure I’m talking about is more a matter of taste.

And as we all know De gustibus non est disputandum, especially since Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. So here is my basic list.

MUSIC
This is an easy choice. My guilty pleasure is ABBA. I listen to an ABBA tune once, and I can’t get those crazy Swedes out of my head. And I LIKE that I can't get it out of my head. Catchy tunes, scintillating harmonies, hooky hooks. And none of them could actually speak a word of English. You gotta admire that on some level.

I also like Gilbert and Sullivan and Burl Ives. I would have to include Sugar Sugar by the Archies. I can't help it, I like it.

BOOKS
I have to admit a certain fondness for most anything by Bernard Conrwell, especially the Richard Sharpe series. But those aren’t too bad really. Cornwell is a fine storyteller, does first rate research on his historical settings, and one comes to love his characters. If I truly come clean about actual guilty pleasures, I would have to admit that I have enjoyed any number of Dick Marcinko’s Navy Seal stories. The writing is horrible, the storytelling is completely formulaic, cliché-ridden and predictable – but I still enjoy it. For my money, it's hard to beat hard drinking, foul mouthed, bad ass former soldiers going renegade to save the world from being overrun by Tangoes. Guns, bombs, blood and dirt. That's some good reading right there, you betcha.

MAGAZINES
I have always been fond of Reader’s Digest, even as a kid. My kids seem to be picking that up as well.

MOVIES
I remember as a kid going to see a film called the Devil’s 8 in a Saturday Matinee at the Scenic Theater. I suppose it really wasn’t a good movie for kids to see, and I had never heard about it since. It was a total B movie (maybe even a C) but it made such an impression on me that I never forgot it. I can’t remember any of the plot, just that there were good guys, bad guys, lots of cars racing and flying through the air and guns. It was like, the coolest thing ever. I just looked it up on IMDB, and here are the tag lines.

They're the dregs of the prisons... scum of the chain-gangs... welded into a shock squad to smash an Underworld Empire the law can't touch!

All they had was a skill for violence and nothing to lose but their lives!

Nice! I’m sure my mother would have been proud.

On a more up to the minute note, I will say that I have no problem whatsoever viewing movies commonly pigeonholed as ‘chickflicks” with one proviso – that they are actually good stories. When Harry Met Sally, and Sleepless in Seattle are two that come to mind that I thought were pretty enjoyable. I wouldn’t rate them as best movies ever, but I enjoyed them because they were good stories about likeable people, well told. I did not cry at any of them, but I did laugh a lot.

TV
For some time I followed the Highlander series. Immortal sword wielder defeats other immortals by chopping off their heads and receiving their power into himself in an orgy of lightning, thunder, screaming and roaring. Totally ridiculous. Lots of fun.

FOOD
I never feel guilty about food. Ever. I eat what I want, and I don’t eat what I don’t want. If you don’t like it, that’s fine. Just means more for me.

Akeelah and the Bee

OK, this is one of those movies where you just know how it ends as soon as it starts, and that's perfectly OK because you want it to end that way because that is just the way it is supposed to end. It's not about the destination, it's about the journey.
I freely admit that I am not a cinema sophisticate. I generally do not look to film for my philosophy, theology or much of anything I think of as really important. Mostly I just want good stories I can enjoy. I especially appreciate heroic action (Legends of the Fall, Last of the Mohicans, Air Force One), but I am not averse to many movies commonly lumped under the chick flick category (I desist from naming names) if it's a good story and the characters are not morons. Serious films don't get too much play in my house, not because I'm never serious, but mostly because on a Friday night, after the kids are in bed, I really am not all that interested in engaging in the worlds problems. I have nothing against such films, and when I do watch them, I'm typically glad I did (assuming it was a good film). Akeelah falls into a different category. It's a feel good film, with a fair amount of life lessons built in. Preachy? Sure. But since I grew up in the church, I appreciate good preaching. And this is pretty good preaching.
Here's what I loved the most...it captured my girls and gave them a great story that they can reflect on about how to deal with fear, pain, goals, ridicule, community, family, and reaching out into the unknown. I have already had several conversations where Akeelah was discussed. My youngest even cried when the film ended because she wants to do what Akeelah did when she gets old enough. Like I said, it captured them.
Keke Palmer plays the title character and she nails it. Laurenc Fishburne is full of Fishburnian gravitas, and in a few scenes goes all stiff and wooden, but it's easy to overlook if you aren't being critical. And I do not recommend approaching this with a critical eye. It ain't sophisticated or cynical, but it is written with grace and charm, a generous spirit seasoned with humor, toughness and tenderness all mixed together. I laughed. I cried. You should see it.

Three Hundred

I have not seen the film “300” yet, other than the 6 or 7 clips available on Yahoo!Movies. Although I suspect that those 6 or 7 clips probably give a pretty good flavor of the primary themes and direction of the film, I suppose you should take what I say with a grain of salt.

In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I fully intend to see this film and I’m really looking forward to it. I think it will be a blast. You see, I am already biased in favor. Just thought you oughta know.

At this point, however, what fascinates me most about this film is the way the publicity has been unfolding. In general the critics hate it, the public loves it, and the historians are tearing out their hair.

It seems that the critics hate it because they are, for the most part, complete wieners. They come across as prissy little mommy’s boys (and girls) exhibiting a haughty distaste for what they see as crude, over the top, film-making with a bludgeon, saturated with (gasp) violence, and (even worse) racist and (most horrific of all) homophobic overtones. All the while they make knowing winking remarks about the buff bodies of the Spartans, as if this only proves that homophobes are all homos at heart. Hmmm.

I could be wrong (I’m not) but all such reviewers, the legion of them, seem to have committed the cardinal sin of the literary critic. They fail to judge the film by it’s own standards. Girls! Listen up. It’s a comic book!

When you read a comic book, you judge it by the standards and conventions of comic books. You allow for extreme action, superhuman postures, heroic proportions. It’s all part of the genre. Are women really shaped like that? Well….not most, that’s for sure. Men? We like to think so, but no. Can Spiderman really…? How can Wolverine do that? The simple answer is…it’s a comic book. Exaggeration, bombastic speeches, witty repartee, exciting action – it’s all just part of the fun. If we didn’t want that, we would just read Jane Austen and be done with it.

Their complaint seems to be that "300" is badly done Jane Austen. What they want is well done Jane Austen. Fine. But this is a moving comic book and they just don't seem to like comic books. I have no sympathy or much patience for people who don't like comic books. Their distaste is mostly an affected desire to appear intellectual, high-minded, or both. They do not wish to dabble in the vulgarities. Heroes, they contend, are for fools. To enjoy the heroic is childish.

The masses think differently. It seems the masses long for heroes. Bombast and big muscles have a thrill factor. They appeal to something deep. Not base. Just deep. I suspect that may be the appeal of "300." It is a story of heroes told heroically.

I have a bit more sympathy for the complaints of historians. I heard recently of a high school class that was required to see “300” as if it were a documentary on the Battle of Thermopylae. Hmmm. Not so sure that’s smart. I can see where historians are envisioning everyone from 2007 forward growing up thinking that Xerxes was a hyper-gay super-pierced drag king whose empire consisted of mobs of monsters, freaks and fiends. Of course, he wasn’t and they weren’t. And it’s probably true that many people will be unable to separate the fantasy from the fact.

But, consider this. Now EVERYONE has heard of Thermopylae. Now EVERYONE will remember what the Spartans did there. That is worth knowing. And maybe a few will be inspired by that story to do something worthwhile at great cost. Maybe.
I’ll provide my own review after I’ve seen it. Maybe I’m wrong (probably not) but I think it’ll just be a hoot. I’ve always loved comics.