As I read on Fark.com the other day, Fahrenheit 9/11 was the number one box office draw over the weekend. That says something about the public in two ways. One, that there is something going on about public opinion of documentaries and two-
People are really not liking President Bush right now. And those people who saw the movie are probably nailing their right wing buddies right now with what they saw Saturday night.
documentaries have really taken a huge leap in the entertainment business these days, I'm thinking as a result of so many reality television programs being so popular. Docs weren't always easy to watch. Long before MTV style editing, the docs were really regulated to National Geo and PBS specials, the stuff you feel asleep watching when you felt you needed something smart to watch.
But reality shows, if they have a redeeming quality at all, is that the whole of life has somekind of story. You just need a filmmaker that can some how bring that out.
Mr. Morgan Furlock (I think that's his name) found one such story. He became so involved, he turned the camera on himself. He wanted to explore the detriments of our fast food society and went on a binge. I think, in some minute way, he enjoyed the experience...He was, afterall, living the American Dream in his own sick way.
Hardly scientific, the story gets our attention not so much with facts about the abuses put upon society by big business, but with our growing care for his self-induced plight. We really become worried as he get progressively worse, eating one Big Mac and Filet of fish after another. The experience is very guttural. We've all eaten at any of these places.
I read the book Fast Food Nation last summer and was effected from the information put forth. Apparently, I'm a visual learner, for this movie had a, by far, greater impact on my perception of the message. I'm thinking it's because Furlock gives the audience a central character (himself) for us to experience his criticism together.
He wants us to know McDonald's is a large corporation, and we need to remember that their goal is money. Ours is food. They do not have our welfare in mind. We have to remember that, Furlock's tale reminds us. AOL wants our money. Disney wants our money. Starbuck's wants our money. If we live or die, that is not of their consequence.
It's sad really.
What a tangent I've been on here.
Is the movie good? Yes, very much so. I noticed my attention did not wander at all as I really wanted to find out what happened to the narrator throughout the experience. And my jaw was agape the entire time. Very good movie. It's a good time to see documentaries, apparently.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Movie Review: O Brother, Where For Art Thou?
If you read my last two reviews, you'll see two important items that I feel I need to remit here. First off, I read some good books in college and whatnot--some that effected the way I percieve art. And two, that a great story stays a great story, you really have to bring something novel to it before I'll notice some intelligence.
The reason I bring this up, is because I was forced to read James Joyce's piece-du-resistance, Ulysees. I finally understood the concept of analogy through that work. I also learned that great literature is not always written well, but that's another story. This movie is the tale of Ulysees, complete with Cyclops and Sirens.
I also bring this up is that the original tale, the Odyessue is a great story, so it takes something really well worked before I'll take notice.
I did take notice, and it wasn't because George Clooney is proving himself to be a very good (looking) actor.
I had heard prior to the rental that this was based on Ulysees' tale and noticed that I quickly forgot that and really just watched the action unfold. It is something comedic, but in the oldest form of the term: it's not laugh-out-loud humor, it's more subtle and intellectual.
Three escaped convicts in the rural, depression era South get wound up in a governor's campaign while singing one of the best soundtracks in year's? I never would have thought. It's original, and should be rewarded as such.
The images are shot through a yellow-hued lense and the colors show a world that is borderline black and white. It's like watching a movie by candle light, very effective. There are several unique moments, like the camera riding the view from the top of a tsunami or the long tack the camera takes without edit before the closing credits.
A very good movie. You might even say, "it's bone fide."
The reason I bring this up, is because I was forced to read James Joyce's piece-du-resistance, Ulysees. I finally understood the concept of analogy through that work. I also learned that great literature is not always written well, but that's another story. This movie is the tale of Ulysees, complete with Cyclops and Sirens.
I also bring this up is that the original tale, the Odyessue is a great story, so it takes something really well worked before I'll take notice.
I did take notice, and it wasn't because George Clooney is proving himself to be a very good (looking) actor.
I had heard prior to the rental that this was based on Ulysees' tale and noticed that I quickly forgot that and really just watched the action unfold. It is something comedic, but in the oldest form of the term: it's not laugh-out-loud humor, it's more subtle and intellectual.
Three escaped convicts in the rural, depression era South get wound up in a governor's campaign while singing one of the best soundtracks in year's? I never would have thought. It's original, and should be rewarded as such.
The images are shot through a yellow-hued lense and the colors show a world that is borderline black and white. It's like watching a movie by candle light, very effective. There are several unique moments, like the camera riding the view from the top of a tsunami or the long tack the camera takes without edit before the closing credits.
A very good movie. You might even say, "it's bone fide."
Movie Review: Underworld
I blame Shakespeare, I really do. I mean, you make a damn good story like Romeo and Juliet, die, wait a few gazillion years and poof...Hollywood beats the living shit out of it.
Why couldn't old Will have written stuff that when people copied it, it would still be good.
It's because Will wrote some amazing shit and you can't just photocopy a Picasso, right?
Case in point, Underworld. I guess it sounded pretty cool, right? Werewolves and Vampires, but two fall in love. So their love is doomed forever, for they are immortal and since they'll friggin live forever, issues will probably never get resolved. Can you see the arguments in the kitchen, "honey, remember last millenium when you had your little Lycanthrope buddies over for the dog show and they got so drunk they pissed on the couch leg?"
"Dear, do you have to bring that up again, I mean, shoot, that's like the 5, 488, 237th time you've mentioned it."
So it goes.
This movie made it feel like an eternity by the time it ended. You see, with monsters in legend, myth and horror, there are rules. Rules on how they live, how they die, what they can or cannot due. That's the coolness of monsters...it gives them boundaries wherein a story may lie. Vampires can't be photographed or have a reflection (except in this movie--they do both), werewolves change on a full moon until they have fed. These rules give them limitations. You can change them, but it makes good copy to LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW, so they can adjust their pradigm accordingly.
This movie doesn't do that.
Then there's this issue with costuming. I'm guessing the Matrix look must be very vogue, for not only does this movie copy their HongKong "bullet" time fighting style, it even copied their clothing. To the last overcoat. I swear, people must be freezing in London, with nothing left to wear. The problem is, um, EVERYONE LOOKS THE SAME! I couldn't tell one villian from one good guy in the next.
As a matter of fact, I couldn't tell one villian at all. I had no idea who we were supposed to be routing for.
And that Romeo and Juliet story, we've heard it so many times. Rome-0 and Julie-8 where they were robots. West Story where white people played Latino. The list goes on and on. If you are going to do it again, add some, I don't know...umph. Have some action. Maybe some gunplay. Not just enough for the previews either.
Where was the romance, as well. They met one night, she saved his life. It would be nice if they looked at each other's eyes at some point. I think they only time they embrace is when she's sucking the life out of him.
But then again, isn't that always the case?
Why couldn't old Will have written stuff that when people copied it, it would still be good.
It's because Will wrote some amazing shit and you can't just photocopy a Picasso, right?
Case in point, Underworld. I guess it sounded pretty cool, right? Werewolves and Vampires, but two fall in love. So their love is doomed forever, for they are immortal and since they'll friggin live forever, issues will probably never get resolved. Can you see the arguments in the kitchen, "honey, remember last millenium when you had your little Lycanthrope buddies over for the dog show and they got so drunk they pissed on the couch leg?"
"Dear, do you have to bring that up again, I mean, shoot, that's like the 5, 488, 237th time you've mentioned it."
So it goes.
This movie made it feel like an eternity by the time it ended. You see, with monsters in legend, myth and horror, there are rules. Rules on how they live, how they die, what they can or cannot due. That's the coolness of monsters...it gives them boundaries wherein a story may lie. Vampires can't be photographed or have a reflection (except in this movie--they do both), werewolves change on a full moon until they have fed. These rules give them limitations. You can change them, but it makes good copy to LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW, so they can adjust their pradigm accordingly.
This movie doesn't do that.
Then there's this issue with costuming. I'm guessing the Matrix look must be very vogue, for not only does this movie copy their HongKong "bullet" time fighting style, it even copied their clothing. To the last overcoat. I swear, people must be freezing in London, with nothing left to wear. The problem is, um, EVERYONE LOOKS THE SAME! I couldn't tell one villian from one good guy in the next.
As a matter of fact, I couldn't tell one villian at all. I had no idea who we were supposed to be routing for.
And that Romeo and Juliet story, we've heard it so many times. Rome-0 and Julie-8 where they were robots. West Story where white people played Latino. The list goes on and on. If you are going to do it again, add some, I don't know...umph. Have some action. Maybe some gunplay. Not just enough for the previews either.
Where was the romance, as well. They met one night, she saved his life. It would be nice if they looked at each other's eyes at some point. I think they only time they embrace is when she's sucking the life out of him.
But then again, isn't that always the case?
Movie Review: The Stepford Wives
I have to admit, if hindsight is really 20/20, well, I really did have some good teachers in high school and college. When I go back and realize the stuff they subjected me to, it was, in all actuality--quite good stuff. I mean, I had to read The Catcher in the Rye, and at first, my teenage brain came up with the ever deep response of:
"It was weird."
Low and behold, I've reread it and there is so much, much more. Same with the other works they had me work through. King Lear. The Thief of Time. Some really good stuff, yo, very respectable.
Even the Stepford Wives. Yes, I had to read the book for my gender awareness ( I did get an A, folks, which is kinda ironic. I mean, I'm queer, people would think I would need as much gender awareness as I could get!) class. The book had already been made into a cheesy (by today's standards) television horror flick. But I remembered the book and it's author. I later saw Deathtrap ("my God, Superman's GAY!) and was really impressed with its humor/horror contrivances.
I wish I could say the same now.
The Stepford Wives is not a good movie. Oh sure, as the cliche goes, the book was good.
But that's about it.
A bevy of great people seemed to have gotten together to make it, but here's the proof, people, you really have to have a good story. This was written by someone who wrote two of my favorites--The Addams Family and Addams Family Values--Paul Rudnick. But the milieu there worked to his advantage. He had the dark, spooky, undefined family. They loved each other in their own way, regardless of what the world at large thought. In this format he was critiquing the American image of the family with great effect. He showed that love is the drive in making a family, not the nuclear format so prized by the right these days.
And it was evident that we was trying to relive his old glory days with this picture. Here we have another send up of the definition of the family. The one liners are truly zingers, but you know? There really isn't much story other than that. The movie builds the mystery of a small Connitecut town where all the women are exactly how Emperor Bush wants them by public decree.
Of course, Rudnick, however, doesn't go that route. Instead, he makes a bunch of caricatures (Bette Midler, wasted, as a the token Jewish member with her equally chunky husband; Matthew Broderick, also wasted, as the milquetoast hubby...HELLO? Why does he marry an overbearing maven if he wants to change her?) go through the motions. They don't interact in as much as they are just typing up funny bits.
You see, Nicole Kidman was once this big name television producer who works for an evil television station that makes even more evil programming. Of course, for some reason, when one contestant goes a bit crazy, she gets fired. Um, what? The station appears to have producing this drek for years, but we just needed to get her to move, I'm supposing?
Then her husband, who merely sleeps next to her, nor shows any liking of her (maybe it was the money?) decides she needs to calm down a bit and takes her into the secret society of the Stepford men. You know, make her into a subservient robot. Of course, they show how's it's done--with a microchip in the brain--but for some reason, there's a naked clone robot (who's eyes open with much fanfare) on the table. It then disappears.
Um, what? Are you getting this? It worked in the book, no microchips at all. Not here.
Why not go with the fact that this is the kind of town Bush is espousing in so much of his retoric? That Reagan had lived there for a spell perhaps? He injects a queer couple, but doesn't even use them. They just make the one fey gay man more masculine.
There's also something that should be said about pacing. The movie moves, like, really, really well. I'm guessing editing. But then, once Nicole and Matt head into the bowels of the "Stepford Society," the movie rushes to completion. It's as if the producers knew the film was really crappy and just wanted to end the whole mess.
Sad, really, because the book was so, so much better. Maybe someone should have taken them underneath the studio of Paramount and replaced the filmmakers with ones who had a better idea of what they are doing. With or without a robot.
"It was weird."
Low and behold, I've reread it and there is so much, much more. Same with the other works they had me work through. King Lear. The Thief of Time. Some really good stuff, yo, very respectable.
Even the Stepford Wives. Yes, I had to read the book for my gender awareness ( I did get an A, folks, which is kinda ironic. I mean, I'm queer, people would think I would need as much gender awareness as I could get!) class. The book had already been made into a cheesy (by today's standards) television horror flick. But I remembered the book and it's author. I later saw Deathtrap ("my God, Superman's GAY!) and was really impressed with its humor/horror contrivances.
I wish I could say the same now.
The Stepford Wives is not a good movie. Oh sure, as the cliche goes, the book was good.
But that's about it.
A bevy of great people seemed to have gotten together to make it, but here's the proof, people, you really have to have a good story. This was written by someone who wrote two of my favorites--The Addams Family and Addams Family Values--Paul Rudnick. But the milieu there worked to his advantage. He had the dark, spooky, undefined family. They loved each other in their own way, regardless of what the world at large thought. In this format he was critiquing the American image of the family with great effect. He showed that love is the drive in making a family, not the nuclear format so prized by the right these days.
And it was evident that we was trying to relive his old glory days with this picture. Here we have another send up of the definition of the family. The one liners are truly zingers, but you know? There really isn't much story other than that. The movie builds the mystery of a small Connitecut town where all the women are exactly how Emperor Bush wants them by public decree.
Of course, Rudnick, however, doesn't go that route. Instead, he makes a bunch of caricatures (Bette Midler, wasted, as a the token Jewish member with her equally chunky husband; Matthew Broderick, also wasted, as the milquetoast hubby...HELLO? Why does he marry an overbearing maven if he wants to change her?) go through the motions. They don't interact in as much as they are just typing up funny bits.
You see, Nicole Kidman was once this big name television producer who works for an evil television station that makes even more evil programming. Of course, for some reason, when one contestant goes a bit crazy, she gets fired. Um, what? The station appears to have producing this drek for years, but we just needed to get her to move, I'm supposing?
Then her husband, who merely sleeps next to her, nor shows any liking of her (maybe it was the money?) decides she needs to calm down a bit and takes her into the secret society of the Stepford men. You know, make her into a subservient robot. Of course, they show how's it's done--with a microchip in the brain--but for some reason, there's a naked clone robot (who's eyes open with much fanfare) on the table. It then disappears.
Um, what? Are you getting this? It worked in the book, no microchips at all. Not here.
Why not go with the fact that this is the kind of town Bush is espousing in so much of his retoric? That Reagan had lived there for a spell perhaps? He injects a queer couple, but doesn't even use them. They just make the one fey gay man more masculine.
There's also something that should be said about pacing. The movie moves, like, really, really well. I'm guessing editing. But then, once Nicole and Matt head into the bowels of the "Stepford Society," the movie rushes to completion. It's as if the producers knew the film was really crappy and just wanted to end the whole mess.
Sad, really, because the book was so, so much better. Maybe someone should have taken them underneath the studio of Paramount and replaced the filmmakers with ones who had a better idea of what they are doing. With or without a robot.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Movie Review: The Ring
I work with kids, and it's amazing how, in the press, all I hear are organizations screaming about violence and sex in the movies. And they're probably right, I agree. But what's truly amazing? How many of the kids I see get to see these kinds of movies with full knowledge of their parents.
It's like the time I worked in a flicka and we had the movie Fantasia. Boring stuff, excellent art. Mickey's in it for five minutes too. There have been textbooks written about this movie, I'm sure UCLA offered a course on it as well.
And the parents came streaming in to drop off kids at this "Disney" movie. None of them thought it through; nor did they care.
The Ring, when it came out, was the topic of my kids I worked with--well under the age of 17. They were scared, it was that good, they told me. And their parents dropped them off, sometimes even buying the tickets.
Whatever.
The point is, this is NOT a movie for kids. And then next time a kid tells me they saw this kind of movie, I'm calling the police for abuse charges. It's the only answer.
And no, I don't mind violence and sex in movies. That's my choice to see the movie, I'm the adult. There's warnings for reasons, people. The director, writer and production team makes decisions on a movie on what would best carry a scene or a story. Sometimes that does involve things we don't wish to acknowledge.
Which brings us to the Ring. Obiviously a horror movie--and one the kids do not need to be seeing.
This is an excellent production. I really got into the design of the film. All of the colors are shades of black, gray or white. Even the blood is painted dark, as if nothing is what it seems. Much attention was paid to detail. David Finchner would be proud. He's a filmmaker that I've noticed who has the same style. If you've seen Se7en or Alien 2 or the Game, you'll noticed many of the same details.
They even used real actors. Naomi Watts? She's acting, so rare in horror flicks. And they even scored, IMHO, our generation's Vincent PRice, Brian Cox. Have you seen this guy? He could be cutting up your dog and you'd watch him with zeal. Every time I've seen him, from XMen2 to L.I.E. I had to hear what he was saying. The dude's got presence.
Such a high value production, however, why didn't they pay, I don't know, just a teensy bit more attention to the script? Probably because the Japanese version of the film did so well, they had to hurry--gotta make money ya know? But really, around the time of the
Scream titles and Silence of the Lambs I noticed something wonderful happening with a few horror flicks. They added in a storyline that was chock full of mystery. The characters onscreen had no idea what was going on, and instead of running away, they investigated--and brought us with them. That's great spooky stuff. Why don't they know to do it more often? Audiences don't need a huge body count to get the usual creepiness going.
So this is surely a good movie and an excellent horror flick. I'd give it 3.5. You have to see it yourself and decide, unless you like horror--then it's a five stars.
It's like the time I worked in a flicka and we had the movie Fantasia. Boring stuff, excellent art. Mickey's in it for five minutes too. There have been textbooks written about this movie, I'm sure UCLA offered a course on it as well.
And the parents came streaming in to drop off kids at this "Disney" movie. None of them thought it through; nor did they care.
The Ring, when it came out, was the topic of my kids I worked with--well under the age of 17. They were scared, it was that good, they told me. And their parents dropped them off, sometimes even buying the tickets.
Whatever.
The point is, this is NOT a movie for kids. And then next time a kid tells me they saw this kind of movie, I'm calling the police for abuse charges. It's the only answer.
And no, I don't mind violence and sex in movies. That's my choice to see the movie, I'm the adult. There's warnings for reasons, people. The director, writer and production team makes decisions on a movie on what would best carry a scene or a story. Sometimes that does involve things we don't wish to acknowledge.
Which brings us to the Ring. Obiviously a horror movie--and one the kids do not need to be seeing.
This is an excellent production. I really got into the design of the film. All of the colors are shades of black, gray or white. Even the blood is painted dark, as if nothing is what it seems. Much attention was paid to detail. David Finchner would be proud. He's a filmmaker that I've noticed who has the same style. If you've seen Se7en or Alien 2 or the Game, you'll noticed many of the same details.
They even used real actors. Naomi Watts? She's acting, so rare in horror flicks. And they even scored, IMHO, our generation's Vincent PRice, Brian Cox. Have you seen this guy? He could be cutting up your dog and you'd watch him with zeal. Every time I've seen him, from XMen2 to L.I.E. I had to hear what he was saying. The dude's got presence.
Such a high value production, however, why didn't they pay, I don't know, just a teensy bit more attention to the script? Probably because the Japanese version of the film did so well, they had to hurry--gotta make money ya know? But really, around the time of the
Scream titles and Silence of the Lambs I noticed something wonderful happening with a few horror flicks. They added in a storyline that was chock full of mystery. The characters onscreen had no idea what was going on, and instead of running away, they investigated--and brought us with them. That's great spooky stuff. Why don't they know to do it more often? Audiences don't need a huge body count to get the usual creepiness going.
So this is surely a good movie and an excellent horror flick. I'd give it 3.5. You have to see it yourself and decide, unless you like horror--then it's a five stars.
Movie Review: Shrek 2
I've always loved hating the summer season of movies. Nothing arty at all, mostly sequels.
And we all hate sequels, don't we? I mean, everyone talks about, "it's not as good as the first part," or, "did you know Yoda dies?"
We detest them.
That's why they do so well and Hollywood keeps making them.
And so we arrive at Shrek 2. I wanted to hate it as well, but you know what? It's actually not that bad, kinda like Harry. The storyline has so much you can do with it, and since it's not being produced by Disney, you don't have to be concerned about a specific audience.
Really, it's kinda like a kids' movie made for adults. I mean, look at the casting. Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother. If you don't already know, she's from Ab Fab. When I heard her voice, I half expected her to pull out a smoke and paint stimata on her forehead and palms in lipstick. Alas, this is a kids' movie, so she's oddly restrainted. So then, why cast her? To bring in we adults.
The humor, I'd say is about half of the original, but if you are going to compare, the first movie was pretty freggin' funny, wasn't it? So, there's a good deal of humor here as well. Maybe not a laugh a minute, but still, good stuff. The scene stealer in this one is Antonio Banderas as Puss'n'Boots. I was reminded how Genie, when voiced by Robin Williams, arrived in Aladdin. The flick suddenly went up three notches. Same here. I noticed I'm still quoting him and only. He might be the main reason to pay full price.
The other thing I need to mention is, well, very personal. This movie has a great theme. Maybe it's because I work with tykes or that I'm partnered, but I really appreciated the message: It's okay to be who you are. And the coinciding message of: You will find love as is. That's so rare in kids movies. I liked it and felt it was something that needed to be communicated. Heck, Fiona is FAT people, and she is loved and happy. Shrek is as well.
Very good stuff, I have to admit. Worth the admission.
And we all hate sequels, don't we? I mean, everyone talks about, "it's not as good as the first part," or, "did you know Yoda dies?"
We detest them.
That's why they do so well and Hollywood keeps making them.
And so we arrive at Shrek 2. I wanted to hate it as well, but you know what? It's actually not that bad, kinda like Harry. The storyline has so much you can do with it, and since it's not being produced by Disney, you don't have to be concerned about a specific audience.
Really, it's kinda like a kids' movie made for adults. I mean, look at the casting. Jennifer Saunders as the Fairy Godmother. If you don't already know, she's from Ab Fab. When I heard her voice, I half expected her to pull out a smoke and paint stimata on her forehead and palms in lipstick. Alas, this is a kids' movie, so she's oddly restrainted. So then, why cast her? To bring in we adults.
The humor, I'd say is about half of the original, but if you are going to compare, the first movie was pretty freggin' funny, wasn't it? So, there's a good deal of humor here as well. Maybe not a laugh a minute, but still, good stuff. The scene stealer in this one is Antonio Banderas as Puss'n'Boots. I was reminded how Genie, when voiced by Robin Williams, arrived in Aladdin. The flick suddenly went up three notches. Same here. I noticed I'm still quoting him and only. He might be the main reason to pay full price.
The other thing I need to mention is, well, very personal. This movie has a great theme. Maybe it's because I work with tykes or that I'm partnered, but I really appreciated the message: It's okay to be who you are. And the coinciding message of: You will find love as is. That's so rare in kids movies. I liked it and felt it was something that needed to be communicated. Heck, Fiona is FAT people, and she is loved and happy. Shrek is as well.
Very good stuff, I have to admit. Worth the admission.
Monday, June 21, 2004
Movie Review: The Transporter
Ever hear of a guilty pleasure? It's something we patently know is bad for us, yet we indulge for the sheer thrill of it. I mean, hello? Britney Spears? She lipsynchs her concerts people!
And yet I know all the words to "Toxic."
Or better, COPS on Fox.
It's been on for 15 years, I believe. It's basically human scum at it's worst and I still tune in when there's nothing else on.
Help.
This brings me to my guilty pleasure. I've got several, and I'm sure if you read enough reviews, you'll hit on most of them. But for me? Martial arts movies. Hong Kong triads. Kill Bill. Drunken Master.
I can't get enough of them. It's one of the reasons I love Netflix. Their search engine can drag up some of the most out of the way titles from my texts.
Yes. I do have texts about martial arts movies.
See what I mean? I'm hooked.
I bring this up because I stumbled across this title from said search engine and it brought up some cool pieces. Luc Besson, the writer created one of my personal faves, Kiss of the Dragon by Jet Li. ALso, the lead in this movie, Jason Stratham was in another personal fave of mine, The One. Luc even wrote the Fifth Element, I figured I would give it a try.
My mistake. YOu know how your mother told you try aspargus saying, "you'll never know until you try"? Then you tried gagged and vomited and never trusted her manipulations again?
Well, I gagged on the Transporter.
Look, I gotta explain a few things about really good martial arts formulas: they have a variety of rules, which you start to pick up on after a few gazillion. Like:
1. Plot? Not really. It serves as something that carries to from fight scene to fight scenes.
2. Fight scenes. Screw reality. No one breaks out into song when they are happy and no one needs to do a roundhouse side kick when a bullet is free from the current government. They should be long and waaaay coooooool
3. Cool. Interpret that as style. You gotta have a style, something that makes you worth looking at. I don't mean like knowing the Wing Chung Tai Chi soft form. I mean, you move like you've been kicking rears since the age of -2. I mean, you have that expression the same throughout the entire fight scene (see-Jet Li) or not even own sweat glands (see Chow Yun Fat). That's style. That's coolness.
The reason I list these, is, you guessed it, so I can rip them apart.
The Transporter starts out well enough with an excellent car chase. Not really a staple in Martial Arts flicks but exciting.
Then the plot kicks in.
And keeps going.
Then we see Jason kicking butt!
But, remember the second bit above? It ends in a few seconds.
And the plot comes back.
And stays. And develops.
And keeps going. And then there's some more.
By the time, the protagonist gets his mad on and starts to whoop tuchus, I'm snoozing wondering what's in the latest Entertainment Weekly.
Sad really.
Worse? The lead. Poor Jason. My guess is that he made buds with Jet Li and went to Paris with him after making "the One and worked out a deal of his own. He appeared next in The Italian Job as Handsome Rob and was very appropriate in a same, fun role. Then they gave him this. Did he really think he could be a martial artist? The only comparison I could think of is Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon. You see, Clint can't sing. He looked like an actor trying to do something.
Ditto here. Jason looks like a martial artist but does have that coolness factor we were talking about earlier. It was laughable really, watching him do these fight scenes. You see him hit, pause and wait for the edit. No fluidity.
Something should also be said about his chest. His pectorals, IMHO, should have gotten a credit in the movie. He takes off his shirt no less then three different times. I read somewhere that he used to be a diver.
Is Sea World hiring? Because if he keeps making crap like this, it might be good for him to have a back-up plan.
And yet I know all the words to "Toxic."
Or better, COPS on Fox.
It's been on for 15 years, I believe. It's basically human scum at it's worst and I still tune in when there's nothing else on.
Help.
This brings me to my guilty pleasure. I've got several, and I'm sure if you read enough reviews, you'll hit on most of them. But for me? Martial arts movies. Hong Kong triads. Kill Bill. Drunken Master.
I can't get enough of them. It's one of the reasons I love Netflix. Their search engine can drag up some of the most out of the way titles from my texts.
Yes. I do have texts about martial arts movies.
See what I mean? I'm hooked.
I bring this up because I stumbled across this title from said search engine and it brought up some cool pieces. Luc Besson, the writer created one of my personal faves, Kiss of the Dragon by Jet Li. ALso, the lead in this movie, Jason Stratham was in another personal fave of mine, The One. Luc even wrote the Fifth Element, I figured I would give it a try.
My mistake. YOu know how your mother told you try aspargus saying, "you'll never know until you try"? Then you tried gagged and vomited and never trusted her manipulations again?
Well, I gagged on the Transporter.
Look, I gotta explain a few things about really good martial arts formulas: they have a variety of rules, which you start to pick up on after a few gazillion. Like:
1. Plot? Not really. It serves as something that carries to from fight scene to fight scenes.
2. Fight scenes. Screw reality. No one breaks out into song when they are happy and no one needs to do a roundhouse side kick when a bullet is free from the current government. They should be long and waaaay coooooool
3. Cool. Interpret that as style. You gotta have a style, something that makes you worth looking at. I don't mean like knowing the Wing Chung Tai Chi soft form. I mean, you move like you've been kicking rears since the age of -2. I mean, you have that expression the same throughout the entire fight scene (see-Jet Li) or not even own sweat glands (see Chow Yun Fat). That's style. That's coolness.
The reason I list these, is, you guessed it, so I can rip them apart.
The Transporter starts out well enough with an excellent car chase. Not really a staple in Martial Arts flicks but exciting.
Then the plot kicks in.
And keeps going.
Then we see Jason kicking butt!
But, remember the second bit above? It ends in a few seconds.
And the plot comes back.
And stays. And develops.
And keeps going. And then there's some more.
By the time, the protagonist gets his mad on and starts to whoop tuchus, I'm snoozing wondering what's in the latest Entertainment Weekly.
Sad really.
Worse? The lead. Poor Jason. My guess is that he made buds with Jet Li and went to Paris with him after making "the One and worked out a deal of his own. He appeared next in The Italian Job as Handsome Rob and was very appropriate in a same, fun role. Then they gave him this. Did he really think he could be a martial artist? The only comparison I could think of is Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon. You see, Clint can't sing. He looked like an actor trying to do something.
Ditto here. Jason looks like a martial artist but does have that coolness factor we were talking about earlier. It was laughable really, watching him do these fight scenes. You see him hit, pause and wait for the edit. No fluidity.
Something should also be said about his chest. His pectorals, IMHO, should have gotten a credit in the movie. He takes off his shirt no less then three different times. I read somewhere that he used to be a diver.
Is Sea World hiring? Because if he keeps making crap like this, it might be good for him to have a back-up plan.
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Tao Meditation: Mercy
I really liked today's poem from my Tao book, it spoke of one of the few times to rise above the nature of things. The item was with mercy. I agree. For so long I've wanted to crack the living crap out of some people, but still, they live. A sign of a love that goes well beyond me.
I say this as I observe Emperor Bush's newest confection. A commercial where he points out that the economy is on the rise and that 4. something jobs are back.
Didn't he lose 10 million jobs in the first place?
He wanted to improve improvished schools by subjecting them to testing and analysis.
But he didn't pay for it.
I even saw his robot at the Hall of Presidents mention that we must work "together" for a better nation.
And then he alienates gays and lesbians with a consistutional amendment.
I suppose the mere fact that I remember these faux pas is because I am unable to be merciful. I'm thinking that needs to change.
He can be who he wants to be, he just won't have my vote.
I think that's merciful enough.
Let him be a good man in Texas. They need it.
I say this as I observe Emperor Bush's newest confection. A commercial where he points out that the economy is on the rise and that 4. something jobs are back.
Didn't he lose 10 million jobs in the first place?
He wanted to improve improvished schools by subjecting them to testing and analysis.
But he didn't pay for it.
I even saw his robot at the Hall of Presidents mention that we must work "together" for a better nation.
And then he alienates gays and lesbians with a consistutional amendment.
I suppose the mere fact that I remember these faux pas is because I am unable to be merciful. I'm thinking that needs to change.
He can be who he wants to be, he just won't have my vote.
I think that's merciful enough.
Let him be a good man in Texas. They need it.
Movie Review: One Hour Photo
I'm not fickle enough to individually see a movie on a star's draw. It's not my thing, really, I like to think that a movie has so many other things to criticize, why limit it to one actor.
Alright, you caught me, I will go see Jackie Chan and Jet Li. And if Jean Claude and Vin Diesel are in a scene without sleeves on (or better, no shirt!)? I'm there as well.
But that's it. I draw the line there.
The reason I bring this up is to mention I am not a fan of Robin Williams, at least not normally. I saw his Broadway revue on HBO, and yes, it was entertaining, but I saw him do similar works on The Actor's Studio. So why would I want to see him do the same schtick again? It's getting to be a bit dated.
Luckily for us, he's got an Oscar and therefore, a farely decent paycheck. As such, he can actually try different things.
Like acting.
And here's the evidence people. This movie is all about Robin and creating sympathy for the devil. The tale is surely an art house piece, the perfect example of anal retentive film making. There are only 5 characters, it seems, because, well, the art house filmmaker only needed that many. The lines are straight. There are no props. Everyone moves like they've been darted by the zookeeper.
But in some way, it works. I was brought to think of Hitchcock, so long ago, when he talked about the art of moviemaking. Of course, no one believed good old sir Alfred--his movies made too much money. But there was a reason for everything he did, every scene before the camera. And here is his offspring.
The filmmaker is still not totally confident, for sequences go far too long and parts that could have been cut aren't. Not really a drawback, but we should see more, better works later on.
But Robin, dear Mr. Williams, really does steal the show. Without revealing too much, he's something of a psychopath. Normally, my experience has been comedic actors can play serious better than dramatic actors doing comedy. Here's a perfect example. Mr. Parris, his character is totally unlikeable for a myriad of reasons. But due to his performance, that underlying bit of humor, you become sympathetic for him and his plight.
I'm going to give the movie 3.5 stars. It's surely one of those movies you just have to see for yourself, no amount of criticism is going to help your decision. It is a thriller, but there's really only one jolt. The rest is very staged and easy to follow. It's not something you would rent with a group of intoxicated guys and hope there's some good creepiness. This is the kind of spooky where you sit on the couch and merely get the shivers.
Alright, you caught me, I will go see Jackie Chan and Jet Li. And if Jean Claude and Vin Diesel are in a scene without sleeves on (or better, no shirt!)? I'm there as well.
But that's it. I draw the line there.
The reason I bring this up is to mention I am not a fan of Robin Williams, at least not normally. I saw his Broadway revue on HBO, and yes, it was entertaining, but I saw him do similar works on The Actor's Studio. So why would I want to see him do the same schtick again? It's getting to be a bit dated.
Luckily for us, he's got an Oscar and therefore, a farely decent paycheck. As such, he can actually try different things.
Like acting.
And here's the evidence people. This movie is all about Robin and creating sympathy for the devil. The tale is surely an art house piece, the perfect example of anal retentive film making. There are only 5 characters, it seems, because, well, the art house filmmaker only needed that many. The lines are straight. There are no props. Everyone moves like they've been darted by the zookeeper.
But in some way, it works. I was brought to think of Hitchcock, so long ago, when he talked about the art of moviemaking. Of course, no one believed good old sir Alfred--his movies made too much money. But there was a reason for everything he did, every scene before the camera. And here is his offspring.
The filmmaker is still not totally confident, for sequences go far too long and parts that could have been cut aren't. Not really a drawback, but we should see more, better works later on.
But Robin, dear Mr. Williams, really does steal the show. Without revealing too much, he's something of a psychopath. Normally, my experience has been comedic actors can play serious better than dramatic actors doing comedy. Here's a perfect example. Mr. Parris, his character is totally unlikeable for a myriad of reasons. But due to his performance, that underlying bit of humor, you become sympathetic for him and his plight.
I'm going to give the movie 3.5 stars. It's surely one of those movies you just have to see for yourself, no amount of criticism is going to help your decision. It is a thriller, but there's really only one jolt. The rest is very staged and easy to follow. It's not something you would rent with a group of intoxicated guys and hope there's some good creepiness. This is the kind of spooky where you sit on the couch and merely get the shivers.
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Tao Meditation: Pivoting
One of the main tenets of Taoism is the noticing and reacting to natural changes and cycles in the environment. It uses nature as the analogy, but there's a deeper way of interpreting it--natural interactions with friends, coworkers and family.
I am in a relationship. It's up to me to go with what is said and see the natural ebb and flow of it's goings-ons. In this manner, not one person takes the lead or becomes the boss, it moves in a manner that is organic and appropriate for being Tao.
There is also a spiritual component that arises from such a concept. By paying attention to what my partner needs, I am donating energy to the relationship--and become better for both of us, as well as, growing myself.
It's especially important now, for I am very aware we are at a crossroads. We have the wedding, the dog and the house. College and education are completed, we both have good cars. In terms of goals, we've done everything we elected to do. This is natural. What I'm noticing now is that we are redefining our relationship with a new set of goals: making the house worth more, paying off debt and growing towards midlife. It's the 'pivot' of the meditation's title.
I think I've found a connection to today's poem. We're set.
Peace out.
I am in a relationship. It's up to me to go with what is said and see the natural ebb and flow of it's goings-ons. In this manner, not one person takes the lead or becomes the boss, it moves in a manner that is organic and appropriate for being Tao.
There is also a spiritual component that arises from such a concept. By paying attention to what my partner needs, I am donating energy to the relationship--and become better for both of us, as well as, growing myself.
It's especially important now, for I am very aware we are at a crossroads. We have the wedding, the dog and the house. College and education are completed, we both have good cars. In terms of goals, we've done everything we elected to do. This is natural. What I'm noticing now is that we are redefining our relationship with a new set of goals: making the house worth more, paying off debt and growing towards midlife. It's the 'pivot' of the meditation's title.
I think I've found a connection to today's poem. We're set.
Peace out.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
You know, it's hard to be hard on a movie you enjoyed. It really is. So I don't know how quick with the quips I'm going to be this evening, but I do know I need to say something.
And, Lord knows, I really did try to find something really bad about this motion picture, I really did. But the mere fact that my mind didn't wander off or I left prior to the credits is a good sign.
Again, I'm baised. I did not read all of the Harry Potter books. Fantasy is not my thing. I'm more of a Steve King, Ann Rule and Laura Joh Rowland kinda guy. But when I heard all the conservative groups leap up in arms years back about these books possibly teaching black magic to children, I knew I would have a liking for them. BTW, they don't teach black magic. However, if you do listen carefully, Latin is thrown in.
I'm part of that group that believes if a kid is reading, like real words on real pages in a real book...let them.
I read the first book and that was it, so I arrived at this motion picture with only the knowledge of the previous two films. And here is place were familiality does not breed contempt. The storyline has grown accustomed to itself. There's not a single moment with some special effect illustrating the prevasiveness of magic in Harry's world. Posters move in the background; tea serves itself. And in the process, we can move on to the interactions and the story, instead of wondering about the details.
And what a story it is. If you've looked at the poster advertisting the movie, it's different from the previous two pictures. Blackness envelopes the leads and instead of illustrated characters, black and silver photo headshots fill the frame. It's an apt analogy. The characters seem a little more real this time and the threat of conflict is much more pervasive.
Little Harry takes on a new director with this movie--and he's an art-house gem. And he's making Little Harry grow up.
Take, for example, the required Quidditch game (rugby on broomsticks). In this movie, it's played in the grays of rain with horrid nightmares called Dementors floating above. Hermione has lost her innocence and now relies on punching a bully in the face instead of sly, plotting and manipulation. These are all incidents that represent a darker vision. I can assume that those who have read Harry's tales are growing up as well, so such changes are reflected in the books. But for the audience, the experience is a bit jarring. It's like bringing kids to see Bambi and getting the last few minutes of Chernabog. The quality is the same, but the emotional reponse was not pre-prepared.
My experiences with kiddie literature are fairly expansive--and this movie played along with what I've noticed about the greatest of children's stories. First off, tragedy always isolates the protagonist and helps him or her develop on their own (a house being taken away in a storm, a new brother is doted upon). Secondly, there's a serious darkness looming in the background (Seeking a Wizard, people keep disappearing in a chocolate factory). Thirdly, there's a web or spirituality or magically whimsy that somehow flows through the characters (A wicked witch chases the heroes, the oompa-loompas).
This is, by no means, a comprehesive piece of research. I'm writing on the fly here. But when I think of tales like The Wizard of Oz, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, even Judy Blume's SuperFudge, there's a representation of some of these elements. I think that's what attracts people to Harry. There's enough of these elements to keep tweens and teens reading (probably the most important thing here, lest we forget) but not enough formula that the endings are still being pulled off as a surprise.
As did with me at the end of this movie. James Bond movies? You can predict the end of the movie by the end of the opening credits...most sequels tend to be that way. But, outside of the Quidditch game and the same villian, I was truly surprised at the components of the movie. Good stuff, yo.
So, if you liked the first two, great, I think you'll be pleased. Think before taking kids, however. This isn't the usual Haunted Mansion kinda fluff.
Let's say, I dunno, 4 out of five stars.
And, Lord knows, I really did try to find something really bad about this motion picture, I really did. But the mere fact that my mind didn't wander off or I left prior to the credits is a good sign.
Again, I'm baised. I did not read all of the Harry Potter books. Fantasy is not my thing. I'm more of a Steve King, Ann Rule and Laura Joh Rowland kinda guy. But when I heard all the conservative groups leap up in arms years back about these books possibly teaching black magic to children, I knew I would have a liking for them. BTW, they don't teach black magic. However, if you do listen carefully, Latin is thrown in.
I'm part of that group that believes if a kid is reading, like real words on real pages in a real book...let them.
I read the first book and that was it, so I arrived at this motion picture with only the knowledge of the previous two films. And here is place were familiality does not breed contempt. The storyline has grown accustomed to itself. There's not a single moment with some special effect illustrating the prevasiveness of magic in Harry's world. Posters move in the background; tea serves itself. And in the process, we can move on to the interactions and the story, instead of wondering about the details.
And what a story it is. If you've looked at the poster advertisting the movie, it's different from the previous two pictures. Blackness envelopes the leads and instead of illustrated characters, black and silver photo headshots fill the frame. It's an apt analogy. The characters seem a little more real this time and the threat of conflict is much more pervasive.
Little Harry takes on a new director with this movie--and he's an art-house gem. And he's making Little Harry grow up.
Take, for example, the required Quidditch game (rugby on broomsticks). In this movie, it's played in the grays of rain with horrid nightmares called Dementors floating above. Hermione has lost her innocence and now relies on punching a bully in the face instead of sly, plotting and manipulation. These are all incidents that represent a darker vision. I can assume that those who have read Harry's tales are growing up as well, so such changes are reflected in the books. But for the audience, the experience is a bit jarring. It's like bringing kids to see Bambi and getting the last few minutes of Chernabog. The quality is the same, but the emotional reponse was not pre-prepared.
My experiences with kiddie literature are fairly expansive--and this movie played along with what I've noticed about the greatest of children's stories. First off, tragedy always isolates the protagonist and helps him or her develop on their own (a house being taken away in a storm, a new brother is doted upon). Secondly, there's a serious darkness looming in the background (Seeking a Wizard, people keep disappearing in a chocolate factory). Thirdly, there's a web or spirituality or magically whimsy that somehow flows through the characters (A wicked witch chases the heroes, the oompa-loompas).
This is, by no means, a comprehesive piece of research. I'm writing on the fly here. But when I think of tales like The Wizard of Oz, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, even Judy Blume's SuperFudge, there's a representation of some of these elements. I think that's what attracts people to Harry. There's enough of these elements to keep tweens and teens reading (probably the most important thing here, lest we forget) but not enough formula that the endings are still being pulled off as a surprise.
As did with me at the end of this movie. James Bond movies? You can predict the end of the movie by the end of the opening credits...most sequels tend to be that way. But, outside of the Quidditch game and the same villian, I was truly surprised at the components of the movie. Good stuff, yo.
So, if you liked the first two, great, I think you'll be pleased. Think before taking kids, however. This isn't the usual Haunted Mansion kinda fluff.
Let's say, I dunno, 4 out of five stars.
Friday, June 11, 2004
Tao Meditation: Translation
The poem today deals with not saying much about the Tao, and letting the message get through. I have to laugh, for I've already made two comments/posts. Have I said too much?
The thing I've liked about the Tao, what has drawn me to it, is there is very little anger about it. World religions, on a whole, argue and yell and scream. I've never heard of a Tao flying an aircraft into a building or spilling poison on the train.
Taoism was not exported. It was not imported. It just is, and I enjoy that aspect and respect it. There's no elaborate ceremony to accept it, and no pledging of your income. What more can you ask for?
So the Tao is translated very little. But the huge concepts are actually very, very basic.
What more can I say?
Peace once more.
The thing I've liked about the Tao, what has drawn me to it, is there is very little anger about it. World religions, on a whole, argue and yell and scream. I've never heard of a Tao flying an aircraft into a building or spilling poison on the train.
Taoism was not exported. It was not imported. It just is, and I enjoy that aspect and respect it. There's no elaborate ceremony to accept it, and no pledging of your income. What more can you ask for?
So the Tao is translated very little. But the huge concepts are actually very, very basic.
What more can I say?
Peace once more.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Movie Review: Camp
You know, I was hesistant to move to this little hamlet for several reasons. Being too close to parents, I'm not grown up enough and probably the most crucial: There's no entertainment. Oh sure, the multiplex plays the latest Shrek confection or The Ring, part gazillion. But where are the art movies? I read about them in my entertainment rags, but never seen them. I could make the trek to Denver, but that's not always an option.
Then came Netflix, and I have to tell you folks, I'm thinking I'm not missing out on anything. Maybe it's the big screen, maybe it's the real butter on the popcorn or even the fuchia mohawked haired college kid next to me, but something has been lost when these tiny flicks reach an even tinier screen. I joined Netflix to see what I was missing.
So here is my review of the movie: Camp
I'm going to give this movie a 3 out of five stars. I really wanted to like this movie. It has my own personal bias--I performed in a similar performing arts camp many moons ago. But my experience was nothing like I saw here.
The movie is unsure what it wants to be and it's sadly put up on screen. If it's a comedy (and with a name like 'Camp' you would think with bunches of bad taste) it isn't very funny. A joke surfaces here in there, but there are no send ups or plot twists. If it's a gay movie, there isn't much gay about it. Sure, many gay men surface, but the swishy stereotypes with excellent drag (I don't know you, but where can you find a pink boa in Upstate New York woods?). If it's a tale of the trials of becoming famous, I don't see anyone without talent.
The script, written by the director, starts and stops. Great ideas are brought up (why is the straight kid there?), dropped and started again without resolution. A drunken character drinks in excess, stops to discuss something in another scene, completely sober, and takes up drinking when everything works out well.
Huh?
The main straight character hits on the 'moderate' girl (we know this becuase she merely tells us) has sex with a pretty one, goes back and then his girlfriend who he has been cheating on this entire time shows up. And are we supposed to like him? I can't help thinking that if the director took time to think about what he wanted to communicate and carry out in the making of this motion picture, it would have held everything together. Instead, we're happy, lost and then really confused by the end.
Where I do give this movie credit--why didn't the director do this onstage? There is an obvious affection for the boards and the scenes work up to great musical numbers, obviously also written by the director. I've always hated when HBO and Showtime would videotape/camera-fy a stage play. The mediums are all wrong. There are no takes in theatre, no changing shots. Here is where such a set up would have been successful.
So I like the music, the staging, and well, I really wanted to like this movie. I like the leads and really want to see them sing again. But can we please see a movie where the gay man is the lead, doesn't have a crush on every straight male and comes out successful and happy and doesn't even wear a dress? Where is Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss when you need it?
peace.
Then came Netflix, and I have to tell you folks, I'm thinking I'm not missing out on anything. Maybe it's the big screen, maybe it's the real butter on the popcorn or even the fuchia mohawked haired college kid next to me, but something has been lost when these tiny flicks reach an even tinier screen. I joined Netflix to see what I was missing.
So here is my review of the movie: Camp
I'm going to give this movie a 3 out of five stars. I really wanted to like this movie. It has my own personal bias--I performed in a similar performing arts camp many moons ago. But my experience was nothing like I saw here.
The movie is unsure what it wants to be and it's sadly put up on screen. If it's a comedy (and with a name like 'Camp' you would think with bunches of bad taste) it isn't very funny. A joke surfaces here in there, but there are no send ups or plot twists. If it's a gay movie, there isn't much gay about it. Sure, many gay men surface, but the swishy stereotypes with excellent drag (I don't know you, but where can you find a pink boa in Upstate New York woods?). If it's a tale of the trials of becoming famous, I don't see anyone without talent.
The script, written by the director, starts and stops. Great ideas are brought up (why is the straight kid there?), dropped and started again without resolution. A drunken character drinks in excess, stops to discuss something in another scene, completely sober, and takes up drinking when everything works out well.
Huh?
The main straight character hits on the 'moderate' girl (we know this becuase she merely tells us) has sex with a pretty one, goes back and then his girlfriend who he has been cheating on this entire time shows up. And are we supposed to like him? I can't help thinking that if the director took time to think about what he wanted to communicate and carry out in the making of this motion picture, it would have held everything together. Instead, we're happy, lost and then really confused by the end.
Where I do give this movie credit--why didn't the director do this onstage? There is an obvious affection for the boards and the scenes work up to great musical numbers, obviously also written by the director. I've always hated when HBO and Showtime would videotape/camera-fy a stage play. The mediums are all wrong. There are no takes in theatre, no changing shots. Here is where such a set up would have been successful.
So I like the music, the staging, and well, I really wanted to like this movie. I like the leads and really want to see them sing again. But can we please see a movie where the gay man is the lead, doesn't have a crush on every straight male and comes out successful and happy and doesn't even wear a dress? Where is Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss when you need it?
peace.
Tao Meditation: Subservience
First, I have to mention, when it comes to my log, I merely just "go with it." I do a spell check when I remember, but other then that, I have to write and get on with. In Stephen King's On Writing he recommends writing first and then finding the meaning. Well, since this is an online journal, I'm writing first.
The poem I read this morning dealt with the sudden onslaught of summer storm. It may ruin your plans, but you have no choice but to go with it. BTW, if you are interested, the text I'm taking these poems from is called 365 Tao by Den Ming-Dao.
Anyways, the gist of the poem is that nature dictates schedule and we are helpless to it. I tend to agree. Last year, when I was at Walt Disney World during the rainy season, we were enslaved to the downpour. We worked with it, instead electing to by rain ponchos and not let it dampen our spirits, but there is much to be said from this poem.
Here's my a-ha moment. I'm also reading a text about Celtic Wisdom. I truly love the Idiot's Guides and for Dummies texts, they are fairly comprehensive and a great way to start a journey on a given topic. I'm Irish as well, and my brother is doing research on our genealogy. I figured it a good place to start.
My problem? There's a lot of nature talk, just like in the Tao. I'm not a nature kinda guy. I go camping and I tend to think the fun is what fun things we can bring with! I'm learning, but I had an a-ha moment in the similarity between the Tao's focus on natural cycles and Celtic's same targeting.
There's something there.
Does this mean I start recycling? I guess I might have to. I'm thinking however, more metaphorically. That means grow when you can and do what feels right--like a tree does or plants. Move more by instinct.
Of course, the throwback to that is you can't choke the living crap out of someone you are furious with, no matter how natural it feels. That put aside, I understand that we are to step back and see the more honest 'Path.'
Am I getting this right?
And can I even do that?
Peace out.
The poem I read this morning dealt with the sudden onslaught of summer storm. It may ruin your plans, but you have no choice but to go with it. BTW, if you are interested, the text I'm taking these poems from is called 365 Tao by Den Ming-Dao.
Anyways, the gist of the poem is that nature dictates schedule and we are helpless to it. I tend to agree. Last year, when I was at Walt Disney World during the rainy season, we were enslaved to the downpour. We worked with it, instead electing to by rain ponchos and not let it dampen our spirits, but there is much to be said from this poem.
Here's my a-ha moment. I'm also reading a text about Celtic Wisdom. I truly love the Idiot's Guides and for Dummies texts, they are fairly comprehensive and a great way to start a journey on a given topic. I'm Irish as well, and my brother is doing research on our genealogy. I figured it a good place to start.
My problem? There's a lot of nature talk, just like in the Tao. I'm not a nature kinda guy. I go camping and I tend to think the fun is what fun things we can bring with! I'm learning, but I had an a-ha moment in the similarity between the Tao's focus on natural cycles and Celtic's same targeting.
There's something there.
Does this mean I start recycling? I guess I might have to. I'm thinking however, more metaphorically. That means grow when you can and do what feels right--like a tree does or plants. Move more by instinct.
Of course, the throwback to that is you can't choke the living crap out of someone you are furious with, no matter how natural it feels. That put aside, I understand that we are to step back and see the more honest 'Path.'
Am I getting this right?
And can I even do that?
Peace out.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Tao Meditation: Insignificance
Every morning I read one Tao poem and then try to relate it to my life, when and if I can. It helps me spiritually and also to connect unlike items into something greater. Sometimes I run on a tangent, sometimes it's very, very focused.
As for today, I've not a clue. Insignificance? My fingers are going to fall off if I have to keep typing that word.
Tao is difficult to write about. If you define it with the parameters of words, you limit the limitless and are not truly talking about the original Tao. But then how are we to bring it to others? Confusion, confusion.
Of should I say, Confucius, Confucius.
Today's poem did not get me riled up into an ego-frenzy likes yesterday. Nor was there the 'a-ha!' moment when I found a link. Perhaps it's my Western upbringing, but I cannot see myself as insignificant. I feel we all have a purpose in the tapestry of life. Annoying as it is, yes, that includes the politicians, if even to rally against.
I suppose I have caught myself saying, when work was really hellish, "it's just a job and in the grand scheme of things, really nothing." But I cannot go much deeper than that, for I don't want to live on the streets.
It is, however, only stuff. It's just so bloody hard to remember that on occasion.
I guess I want to make a point here and in the tomorrow. I like to think we are all important. We all have purpose in the Grand Scheme.
Except for the aforementioned politicians.
And those who charge too much for gasoline.
They are less important.
"How long will it take to see the Tao?
"Until you no longer see self-importance."
Dang. That might be a while.
Peace out.
As for today, I've not a clue. Insignificance? My fingers are going to fall off if I have to keep typing that word.
Tao is difficult to write about. If you define it with the parameters of words, you limit the limitless and are not truly talking about the original Tao. But then how are we to bring it to others? Confusion, confusion.
Of should I say, Confucius, Confucius.
Today's poem did not get me riled up into an ego-frenzy likes yesterday. Nor was there the 'a-ha!' moment when I found a link. Perhaps it's my Western upbringing, but I cannot see myself as insignificant. I feel we all have a purpose in the tapestry of life. Annoying as it is, yes, that includes the politicians, if even to rally against.
I suppose I have caught myself saying, when work was really hellish, "it's just a job and in the grand scheme of things, really nothing." But I cannot go much deeper than that, for I don't want to live on the streets.
It is, however, only stuff. It's just so bloody hard to remember that on occasion.
I guess I want to make a point here and in the tomorrow. I like to think we are all important. We all have purpose in the Grand Scheme.
Except for the aforementioned politicians.
And those who charge too much for gasoline.
They are less important.
"How long will it take to see the Tao?
"Until you no longer see self-importance."
Dang. That might be a while.
Peace out.
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Today's Thoughts
I feel, since other people are, hopefully, going to read this, I need to say something, anything important. But it's not like I've seen any movies lately or there's something happening in the world that I feel I have enough acumen to make comment on.
One thing I do want to make comment on? Gay marriage. I support it. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this is an issue. Let's take a look at the arguments, one after another.
It's in congruent with the Bible--this very well be true. But there are several faults with this argument.
1. The segments that people quote deal with a code of living (Code of Leviticus, I believe it's called) that also includes the improvishment of women and even mentions burning a cow before those who are non Christians. But, as typical, no one is looking to the entire piece, just the parts to oppress. They could argue back that the reason they are not burning cows is due to their participation in the Atkins diet, but that would mean they are straying away from the Bible in the first place.
And Jesus, by the way, said nothing of homosexuality. Aren't we to be following His example?
2. Separation of church and state. No one religion should dictate the leanings of government. Of course, Iraq eliminated this with their Baath government some time ago, sadly replacing it with a totalitarian regime. And now, from what it sounds like, they are moving to a theocracy with one major religion making the majority. Um, what?
I was on a tangent there, sorry.
Anyhow, this second point kinda clears the board for people to really think and find a reason to suppress freedom for all Americans.
It destroys marriage as we know it.
I just have to laugh at this one. The only thing I can think of that has done the most damage to marriage is the Boomer Generation. Born into free love, they decided against it when they actually had to pay for their kids in the 80's and 90's. I'm a Gen Xer and I grew up with all of my friends having different homes to go to every weekend and the wonderful world of stepparenting.
And now these BoomerBozos have taken the reigns of government. They have created their problems and are now throwing it onto the next generation.
Us.
It will lead to the legalization of pedophilia, etc.
1. This is a slippery slope. Let's take a look at some other examples of this in action. For the years, the Republican guard have tried to remove abortion. Without success, they then started to detail specific kinds and outlaw them. Their thinking is that at a later date, they can say, "See? You let this happen--but not that..It's all or nothing, pal."
After Columbine, stricter laws were established to limit gun usage.
And there are still guns.
Law is an annoying slow process that has a very specific language. Every items is deducted on a case-by-case basis, so it is impossible to say that how one law will change another.
2. And most of all, there is something called consent. If the marriage is to be legal, then both parties must consent to it. But the opposition to gay marriage is unclear. How does this lead to pedophilia? Suddenly people will want to marry children? To classify them both is to ridiculous.
Marriage is create families for the purpose of having children.
This one is joke as well. My aunt never had children and was married. So is she to jailed for breaking the law? When you look at Catholic doctrine, you will see a profuse mention of having children. No wonder they outlawed touching ones' self and women going out to have jobs. They were a minority at one point. They needed offspring to carry on the religion! Think of the Mormons. They allowed multiple wives for the same purpose. More kids the more to baptize and keep in the faith forever!
Oh no, we mentioned religion again, and if we remember prior--separate church and state.
Okay, okay, so marriage doesn't have to be about children. Besides, a recent study shows that the wonderful, divorce-full homes created by the Boomers have created very normal children, even if both parents were home or not. Weird, huh.
The legalization of gay marriage is confounding to me. I cannot see why it isn't legal. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with making sure that everyone is seen equally under the eyes of the law.
My soapbox just flipped.
There, I said something important. This was spawned by my Tao poem for today, which was about 'Views.' We all have them. So I thought I would talk about my view on something.
Done.
One thing I do want to make comment on? Gay marriage. I support it. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why this is an issue. Let's take a look at the arguments, one after another.
It's in congruent with the Bible--this very well be true. But there are several faults with this argument.
1. The segments that people quote deal with a code of living (Code of Leviticus, I believe it's called) that also includes the improvishment of women and even mentions burning a cow before those who are non Christians. But, as typical, no one is looking to the entire piece, just the parts to oppress. They could argue back that the reason they are not burning cows is due to their participation in the Atkins diet, but that would mean they are straying away from the Bible in the first place.
And Jesus, by the way, said nothing of homosexuality. Aren't we to be following His example?
2. Separation of church and state. No one religion should dictate the leanings of government. Of course, Iraq eliminated this with their Baath government some time ago, sadly replacing it with a totalitarian regime. And now, from what it sounds like, they are moving to a theocracy with one major religion making the majority. Um, what?
I was on a tangent there, sorry.
Anyhow, this second point kinda clears the board for people to really think and find a reason to suppress freedom for all Americans.
It destroys marriage as we know it.
I just have to laugh at this one. The only thing I can think of that has done the most damage to marriage is the Boomer Generation. Born into free love, they decided against it when they actually had to pay for their kids in the 80's and 90's. I'm a Gen Xer and I grew up with all of my friends having different homes to go to every weekend and the wonderful world of stepparenting.
And now these BoomerBozos have taken the reigns of government. They have created their problems and are now throwing it onto the next generation.
Us.
It will lead to the legalization of pedophilia, etc.
1. This is a slippery slope. Let's take a look at some other examples of this in action. For the years, the Republican guard have tried to remove abortion. Without success, they then started to detail specific kinds and outlaw them. Their thinking is that at a later date, they can say, "See? You let this happen--but not that..It's all or nothing, pal."
After Columbine, stricter laws were established to limit gun usage.
And there are still guns.
Law is an annoying slow process that has a very specific language. Every items is deducted on a case-by-case basis, so it is impossible to say that how one law will change another.
2. And most of all, there is something called consent. If the marriage is to be legal, then both parties must consent to it. But the opposition to gay marriage is unclear. How does this lead to pedophilia? Suddenly people will want to marry children? To classify them both is to ridiculous.
Marriage is create families for the purpose of having children.
This one is joke as well. My aunt never had children and was married. So is she to jailed for breaking the law? When you look at Catholic doctrine, you will see a profuse mention of having children. No wonder they outlawed touching ones' self and women going out to have jobs. They were a minority at one point. They needed offspring to carry on the religion! Think of the Mormons. They allowed multiple wives for the same purpose. More kids the more to baptize and keep in the faith forever!
Oh no, we mentioned religion again, and if we remember prior--separate church and state.
Okay, okay, so marriage doesn't have to be about children. Besides, a recent study shows that the wonderful, divorce-full homes created by the Boomers have created very normal children, even if both parents were home or not. Weird, huh.
The legalization of gay marriage is confounding to me. I cannot see why it isn't legal. It has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with making sure that everyone is seen equally under the eyes of the law.
My soapbox just flipped.
There, I said something important. This was spawned by my Tao poem for today, which was about 'Views.' We all have them. So I thought I would talk about my view on something.
Done.
Monday, June 07, 2004
Okay, when have I done two posts in one day?
Alright, I'm going out of mind right now with the noise.
You know, like, when you have an itch insideyour ear. YOu can feel it movin' about, but can't do anything about it?
That's what it's like around here. There's all this, I don't know, activity going on upstairs and I can't concentrate. I detest the headphones, but they seem to be my only recourse right now. The noise is good...in that it means something is going on upstairs. But my head throbs with the pounding, having no real place to go.
I can only imagine what the cat is experiencing.
I had set myself three daily goals for this summer. In that way, while I was off on summer vacation, I could grow a little. Mind, Body and SPirit.
Mind=reading and writing daily.
Body=exercise daily, excluding my daily Penelope excursion.
Spirit=daily meditation.
I guess, well, I am writing SOMETHING here. Let's just hope that the day gets better, shall we?
You know, like, when you have an itch insideyour ear. YOu can feel it movin' about, but can't do anything about it?
That's what it's like around here. There's all this, I don't know, activity going on upstairs and I can't concentrate. I detest the headphones, but they seem to be my only recourse right now. The noise is good...in that it means something is going on upstairs. But my head throbs with the pounding, having no real place to go.
I can only imagine what the cat is experiencing.
I had set myself three daily goals for this summer. In that way, while I was off on summer vacation, I could grow a little. Mind, Body and SPirit.
Mind=reading and writing daily.
Body=exercise daily, excluding my daily Penelope excursion.
Spirit=daily meditation.
I guess, well, I am writing SOMETHING here. Let's just hope that the day gets better, shall we?
My very first, brand spanking new, post.
What can I say? I'm huddled down here in the basement this morning due to the fact we're having the floors done. You know the drill--sanded and then covered with something that smells like unclean armpits. The ceiling humms and is setting the cat into a frenzy. But then again, she'll get into a frenzy at 4 am when there's silence as well. Gotta love it. The dog, my more literate companion, who warms my feet when I compose anything is away at her grandmother's, sparing her the impending madness this is going to leave us with.
I suppose I should say something political or deep right now, but I can't seem to think of much. I'm married to a man, and my most images, that political enough. But we're having our floors done, so where is the political-ness in being boring? We're making a statement by not making one.
The humm is getting louder to this end of the house. Maybe it will hum me to sleep like a vacuum cleaner or something to that effect.
I had hoped on doing some creative writing. Maybe later.
I suppose I should say something political or deep right now, but I can't seem to think of much. I'm married to a man, and my most images, that political enough. But we're having our floors done, so where is the political-ness in being boring? We're making a statement by not making one.
The humm is getting louder to this end of the house. Maybe it will hum me to sleep like a vacuum cleaner or something to that effect.
I had hoped on doing some creative writing. Maybe later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Some Things Are Just Disturbing
I mean, like, why? Why does such crap and drivel like The Human Centipede exist. Well? It's probably like porn. Where everyone tires t...
-
A coworker, today, when showing her a picture of my beloved and myself having a fun time before the Millenium Falcon, mentioned, of cour... -
Anderson Cooper: "The Fact Is, I'm Gay." - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast Here I was, writing about Tom...