New Class Now Available

So, for some months I have been considering starting a new column here at T.A.A.R.

As you may well have gathered, I love story telling. The conflict, the resolution, the adventure created by brilliant people, and illustrated by your minds eye (reading) or simply visually enjoyed.

That is why I started SpentCasings, to collaborate with my cohorts in a mutually appreciated form (for me, it's a love affair), which failed miserably. (yes, you can read that however you want.) For whatever reason. I don't care any more. I have gotten over the disappointment. And I have not forgotten about SpentCasings either. It just seems like I have.

Then I tried to encourage the exchange of ideas in reading literature with The Looking Glass Wars. And that fell flat too. But that's okay. S'all good.

And to prove that I am undaunted, unfazed by past failures, I am going to begin what I call "Film Deconstruction 101: An interactive study of movies, what works, and what doesn't."

This is the After Action Report after all.

As you may have noticed I like movies, and what you may not have noticed, I am interested in making movies. I also believes that a wise man learns from his mistakes, and an even wiser man learns from ANOTHER MAN'S mistakes. If I can avoid the mistakes that others have made, why wouldn't I?

So, look for Film Deconstruction 101 in the coming weeks.

Saturdays Gone

What did you do last Saturday? I hope it was more than I did. And more than I am doing today (I started this last Sunday) All I did was lay around and read, and fend off climbing, clambering, screaming, squawking, tricycle motors. (That is actually an accurate description of one.)

I spent the morning reading up on G.I. Joe. When I was about six or seven I was given my first second hand G.I. Joe action figure, Mutt, and that was it. It was on. Until I was thirteen that was all I spent my money on: Joes, and G.I. Joe Comics. Of course, the comics continued past 13.

What got me started on my Joe diving last Saturday is that I bounced over to IMDB (which KitKat has still not answered my question about). They have finally made a G.I. Joe movie, due to be released in '09. And much to my chagrin, I think that they have messed it up but good. I am SO TOTALLY looking forward to being proven wrong. I was whining to Belle that I have been waiting for this movie for ten years, and it threatens ominously to be another X-men.

Now, I was never a big fan of the X-men comics as a whole, all those crazy mutant "powers" with their pretentious, ostentatious galactic conflicts between good and bad mutants while normal humans squabbled in fear and stereotypical prejudice in the background, suffering the consequences of "homo-superior's" actions. But there where certain characters that I did like.

I always liked Wolverine, the tough, military anti-hero who was paternally protective of the defenseless teenage girls on their own. I always liked Storm, her black skin and white hair and ability to control air currents to fly (among other weather related abilities). Who hasn't wanted to be able to fly? I think that it's a Divine inspiration that has managed to prevail in popular literature. But I digress. Last but not least (did you know that Shakespeare coined that phrase?) There's Rouge, who could absorb the abilities of others; the villain who saw the light and was filled with remorse for her wrong actions and, like a good Catholic, sought to make reparations for them.

But then Brian Singer came along and mulluxed it up but good. "I don't want you to read one comic!" he emphatically told his actors. What brazen stupidity! How can you seek to remake something that came into existence before you were born and that, by popular consent, is not even broken? (We won't even bring up his travesty of a Superman) Contrast that action with those of Sam Raimi, of Spiderman. He took stacks of comics to his actors and said, essentially, "Here is your source material, this is what people expect." And boy did they ever. One of the highest grossing movies in the US and the World (7 and 17 respectively).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against change in movies. With one caveat: the movie must stay within the confines of the source materials "flavor." Unfortunately, from preliminary observations: publicity stills, notation of six different writers (the more writers, the messier the script - many cooks ruin the soup), selection of actors, etc. I am deeply afraid that G.I. Joe is going to be like so many horrid Marvel creations, and NOT like their good ones. Of course, there's only two that I can think of at the moment, Spiderman (that includes all three, yeah, I'll go ahead and put the last one in there) and Ironman, which may be the best superhero movie ever made.

That last statement is hard to make as I love Batman Begins, Chris Nolan's reboot of the Batman franchise which was much needed and anticipated. (Tim Burton trashed it and it just went from one bad garbage dump to the next worst until we were served Batman and Robin on a dirty, fetid plate) But Nolan left out one major story development in Begins that I have always loved. In the movie, Bruce Wayne learns all of his arcane knowledge from Ras al-Ghul. But in the comics, the canon source material for all things Batman, he doesn't even encounter Ras al-Ghul until after he has become Batman and then only because Ras al-ghul's daughter, Talia, introduces them. In the comics he gains his knowledge from a wide variety of sources. He learns his martial arts form a Japanese master, illusion from a Master Stage Magician, detective skills from a Scotland Yard inspector, etc. Batman becomes possible because of the wealth of information that he gathers from many different instructors all over the world through years of study. In the movie, it's like he leaves as a college drop-out and wanders the world as a petty crook (yeah he picks up some martial arts training) but then in a very short frame of time, learns everything he needs from Ras al-Ghul, all in less then ten years, I guess. Now, I'm sure Chris Nolan, who did an awesome job and is a brilliant director, just didn't want to go the montage route or the narrator route, which is old hat for an adventure flic and would be awful for a Batman movie. But it could have be done. That's my only gripe with Batman Begins, and unfortunately, it's big enough to keep it out of the running for Best Super Hero Movie Ever

But I said all of that to get to this: Last Saturday I finished Bull Hunter, that I had barely started the night before and started on the sequel, Bull Hunter's Romance, which I have since finished. (I am now reading Mere Christianity and The Millionaire Next Door.) I thumbed my nose in the stern face of responsibility and maturity and the fact that my shed is a cluttered disaster that I have been needing to clean out and organize all spring and the fact that I haven't gotten into the bees since I hived them in the middle of April. Of course, I can only claim sloth for the last two weekends. Every other time, when I could have actually done something productive I either was, or the weather was not co-operating. But that didn't finish my day: stir craziness set in about at four-o-clock. So what did I do? Five hours later I kissed my girls good night, and told Belle that I loved her and that I would be back in a couple of hours and Cuz and I went to town at nine-o-clock.

Which is why SC wasn't updated. Instead of being productively creative, I was at the shows, watching the reboot of The Incredible Hulk. If it has caught your interest this is all I have to say: Saturday Morning Matinee. Or better yet, twilight pricing. But ONLY after you've watched your paint dry, and your grass grow.

It's not a bad movie, as pg-13's go. It does have some funny parts "You're making me . . .hungry. You won't like me when I'm hungry" Bruce Banner says in stumbling Portuguese. And some other scenes played to the American Pie crowd which WERE NOT funny at all.

Of course, Cuz and I whispered back and forth the whole show, laughing at different points, much to the disdain of our fellow movie goers. Oh, we weren't loud or obnoxious, there were others doing that for us. At one scene, involving a rain storm and a white shirt, one fellow threw both arms into the air and cheered. He was disappointed. hehehe. But one woman did give us a long look after the credits began to roll and the lights came up. It wasn't the hairy eyeball. But almost. I think she was undecided on what to think about us. Perhaps she was reserving judgement because she held similar opinions about the movie. But that's probably transference.

I was not disappointed with The Incredible Hulk because there were several scenes where I felt like the ushers had come in and flipped over to the Soap Opera Chanel or because of the cliches or the convenient rains storms (there is one scene where there is this massive explosion and subsequent fiery inferno at the end of a big fight and it starts raining, out of a clear blue sky) or because I felt like I should be in the front row with two robots. My problem with the movie is two fold: One - it is a Total Reboot. Two - the shocking lack of fidelity.

On the first matter. Ang Lee produced Hulk in 2003, a movie that I have seen once in it's entirety, when it came out on rental. I have never had a desire to see it again. Oh, I've watched it for a few minutes on TV and frankly I do love the scene where the big green guy is being hounded by Comanche attack helicopters and the General, from his command Huey says "Turn it into a parking lot" and the attack choppers launch their rockets and level a big portion of desert monument property. That's pretty cool.

But Ang Lee's project is only five years old. I was expecting this new version to be a sequel, picking up where the last left off and this thought was only encouraged by the fact that the movie opens with Bruce Banner in South America, where we see him in the last scene of Ang Lee's Hulk. But no, as the movie progresses, the writer and director make if very plain that their film is no sequel. As a builder, this really irked me. I would never in a thousand years come to a house that is only five years old and say: "Tear it down!" just because I don't like the trim or the paint colors or how the interior flows. If I was given the task of remodeling or adding to the existing structure I would find a way to correct its weaknesses, improve upon its qualities and leave its perfect parts alone. But that isn't what the makers of The Incredible Hulk have done. They stuck thumb to nose, waggled their fingers and said "Thbbbbbbbbbt!" to Ang Lee. And after they tore his infant house down, they built back a house that was exactly the same! And in some points, worse. One such is demonstratively noticeable. How Banner became the Hulk.

In Lee's version, as a child he was experimented on by his psychotic father and then as an adult he intervened in a lab experiment to save his companions, exposing himself to deadly gamma wave radiation which combined with his fathers previous medlings to produce the rage induced monster. In this current product, Banner's hardly controllable transformation is brought about by experimenting upon himself. You tell me, which is better?

On the Second Matter. The lack of fidelity. We discover that Bruce has not talked to the love of his life Betty Ross in five years (further muddying Ang Lee's waters). When he goes back to society he checks in on the girl of his past, and discovers that she has moved on. Met a new man and is apparently in a relationship with him, as is demonstrated by their mutual affection. But the moment that Betty discovers that not only is Bruce still alive, but that he is within reaching distance, she dumps the new beau as fast as you can say "Jack Spratt." As a dude, observing this action, I would have instantly been put upon my guard. "Wait a minute now . . . I'm out of you life for five years and you've moved on to a new man and now that I'm back you're just gonna run away from this guy without a word? What happens if/when I have to run again? Are you gonna go back to him?" I would have preferred to see that love expressed differently. Either she hadn't moved on, was still single, saving herself for her man, or "Bruce I love you, I'll always love you, like a very good friend. By the way this is Joe, my whatever. Anything you need that I can do for you, I'll do it." Instead, it was just plain ol' lust. "Oh, the object of my old desires, lets get it!"

The one good thing about The Incredible Hulk was the casting of Edward Norton. He is a very good actor and it helps that he is this short, scrawny man who then turns into this giant green monster. The polar differences are pretty cool. The advancement of computer technology helped also. This Hulk looks much better than Ang Lee's. He doesn't look like an over grown, simple minded farm boy. More like a professional wrestler, complete with lowered chin pointing down from broad shoulders to tapered waist.

So that's what I did last Saturday. And today is not shaping up to be much more exciting.

On Prince *cough* Caspian

Honestly? I have been looking forward to this movie's release. I thought that the first movie was awesome, after having seen it in the theaters (more on that later). I think that Belle was looking forward to it more than I was though, because it means a Big Night for her. The kids go to Grandma's and then we get all polished up and go and have a nice steak dinner and then we sit side by side for two hours with no "distractions" and then Saturday morning rolls around and there still aren't any kids to wake her up three times a night (I'm a heavy sleeper. It takes dynamite to wake me) and she gets to sleep-in, undisturbed, till about eight or so. I don't know, I was still asleep. At nine.

I have been looking forward to this movie, but not nearly as much as some others on the Blogosphere. In preparation for the release, I dug our copy of the book out last month, or so, and read it as I was driving back and forth from work. In small bites, it took me a couple of days.

When I was done with the book, I was disappointed. I wanted more. I wasn't satisfied with what I got. I wanted more detail, more action. More, substance. And then I realized, that C.S. Lewis' target audience had been children, and for a kid, 6, 7, 8, it was probably a great story. But despite this lack of satisfaction, that is pro'bly a better way of describing my thoughts, I new that as a book, it would never translate directly over into a film, like, say, Lord of the Rings did. One, it would ultimately be too short, and two, it would just be a lousy motion picture. So I was curious to see how they would make it work, and made more so by the trailers that I started to see.

Belle had been Lurking flowershopgirl, because of Jak's impending information regarding her special pre-release showing of the movie, and had relayed to me what Jak had said. So I was prepared to be disappointed, with at least the beginning. Belle and I had also been talking, over steak, that with movies like this, it's best to try and curb your expectations with the exception of two: that it would be good, and that if it wasn't better, then at least it would be as good as the first one.

After much thought, I have decided that I am disappointed with it.

Now, so that I don't get screamed at for spoiling it for you, don't read any further. Go watch it, form your own opinion and then come back and finish reading. All you need to know from me, at this point, is that it's PG, though how they pulled that off I will never know, and that there is absolutely no language or sex. And Moms and Dads, if you let your kids watch this movie, but won't let them watch LOTR, I only ask: Why? Are minators, satyrs, centaurs, fauns, hags, werewolves, incantations, and evil sorceresses really better than orcs (goblins/demons) getting what they have coming to them? But, that's another discussion.

Now. On with the story

I like the way that it opened. It wraps up that whole Prince Caspian sub-story in the first ten minutes, where if they had transliterated it, it would have taken at least a half hour. And though that whole scene would have made a good TV slot, it would have been kinda slow in a Motion Picture.

I was very surprised that the first scene that you see the Pevensie kids in, one is a lying snob, and another is a brawling jerk with a chip the size of Texas on his shoulder. The writers failed to realize that, yes, they were children in the real world, but in Narnia, they had already lived a lifetime. Aslan had breathed upon them. They had grown out of their childishness, their "adolescent fears." This would have made them odd in the real world. Superior, in the true sense, and very mature in their comportment. It had only been a year for them; the memories of a lifetime in Narnia would still be fresh, vibrant, overshadowing their behavior. If the one had been approached by a curious boy she would have been sweet and understanding. And if the one had gotten into a scrap, say, defending the defenseless, he would never have been mastered. He really would have "sorted" it. Narnian years of martial training would have seen to that. Especially when later, he "takes it to the enemy."

Its convenient how they explained how Trumpkin comes to be captured by Telmarines and about to be drowned, though I don't know how or why in the world they would have taken him all the way to Cair Paravel to do it. Where was Mirazes castle anyway?

The mice were cool. Vicious little assassins. Ankle and throat slashers.

I liked the added scene: the storming of Mirazes castle. That was cool. The gryphons are awesome. I want one. The best scene is when Edmund is deposited on the minaret roof and then you just see gryphon feet silently snatch up the wary guard. But then it turned into what it did. And it ended very poorly. When Glenstorm nods to his son, all those Narnian's left behind would have rallied to at least try and make a difference.

And what is up with the whole Susan/Caspian thing? And the kiss at the end? That just made her look easy and loose. Are they trying to set her up for The Last Battle? What can we expect in Dawn Treader? Painted face and riding in hot rods with boys? Sorry, I forget for a moment that that is an American institution. I could understand the initial reaction: Caspian to himself: That's Queen Susan? Dang, she cute! Susan to herself: Oh, that's Caspian? Wow, he handsome! But then to have it turn into some sort of romance? How? When did they have time? Comradeship forged by war, absolutely. It was a waste of time to try and gin up anything more. It left me confuzzled and ultimately disappointed. Did they really need to pander to the teeny-boppers like that?

The best part of the movie: when Edmund delivers Peter's letter to Miraz. That was clever, and smart. That whole scene was awesome.

Come to think of it, I think that Edmund was not only the best actor in the bunch, but his scenes where the strongest.

And then it just ends. The kids go home, and inside of thirty seconds the credits roll. What about all that conflict at the beginning? Where is the resolution to that? Where is the change in those two unlikable characters that we thought we knew?

There is no resolution to their real world predicament. There is no evidence of change in their previously flawed characters.

Even when "Phyllis" is given the chance to make right her wrong, she doesn't. Are we left to believe that perhaps the director saw nothing wrong with this behavior? Where were the producers who owned the rights to the story? Why didn't they set this wrong right?

And where was Aslan? You hardly see him at all. He was much more predominate in the book.

Ultimately, there were too many mistakes, and not just minor. Too many cliched shots, like five people hiding in bright clothes behind a small pile of logs in the middle of hundreds of pairs of eyes, some of which belonged to war tested Generals and Kings; falling off of towers with smiles on faces to be snatched up by flying wings, like Gandalf from Fellowship; blurry, slow motion sword fights that were always awful anyway but made archaic with the advent of Hero and House of Flying Daggers and Gladiator. And far too many cliche's in the dialogue. To many "You're not what I expected . . .Neither are you" lines for at least the first hour and a half. There was a point where the dialogue and the action got noticeably better, or perhaps it's more accurate to say that I didn't notice anymore cliches. It became more natural, fresh, flowed smoother. I think it was about the castle scene or just after.

I would really like to know who wrote what? Three people wrote this one; four for TLWW. Unless it's a writing team, that writes better as two people than most people by themselves, you run the risk of muddying the waters. Many times you end up with wallpaper over original paint and new paint over that wallpaper and new wallpaper over all of that: a great big mess. (exactly)

Now, I understand that their target audience was PG; children. But they forget about all of the adults who, as children, read the books and were looking forward to an acceptable interpretation of Master Lewis' dream. My girls won't be watching this one when it comes home on DVD. At least not for a while. 10, 12, 13 maybe. And if they were targeting children, then why was it so violent? I was expecting it to be like the first, with it's cut away scenes. Is that what they want? Stupid, silly, loose, violent children?

It was nothing like Enchanted, which I think is the cutest movie I have ever seen. Enchanted is kid friendly, at lest until the end, but smart and honestly funny. Prince Caspian had none of that. Smart and Original were left unemployed for too long.

But honestly, Incomplete, what do you expect from the director of Shrek? But the first one was so good! Yes it was. In small doses. The more you watch it, the more it's short comings are made apparent. As good as it is, it is no Princess Bride: timeless

Would I recommend going and seeing Prince Caspian? Sure. But only once. And if you can catch the twilight matinee (5 bucks around here) do that. Cuz called me on the phone and asked me what I thought. I gave him the nutshell of this briefing. He's gonna go check it out.

It's not bad. It's just not nearly as good as it could have been. What would be cool, in my humble opinion, is if they fired the director and got someone fresh. Maybe Michael Bay is available, or John Favreau, or even Kurt Wimmer. Heck, maybe Sam Raimi would even consider it, as long as he didn't try and push it over the top like he did with Spider Man 3. Of course, my preferred choice would be Peter Jackson, but that's expecting too much. After all, he is already getting a good slice of the pie with Weta doing so much already.

The second best part of the movie? Regina Spektor and The Call. I can't get enought of it.

I won't be buying any of her albums, but I love her voice. Blue eyed soul wrapped in an anti-folk package. Makes me think of my sis KitKat and my sisinlaw KT. Not the voice, the face and the behavior. I spent two hours last night watching her videos on YouTube. Let's just say, she needs Jesus.

So, go enjoy. And don't be afraid to tell me where I'm wrong. I crave change.

Bon Voyage!

So, I finally saw Life is Beautiful. It was good. The writer/director is a genius. It was very well woven together. You see all sorts of little things happening in the background that are brought into the forefront later in the film. I even got choked-up at one scene, where the hero selects a record, puts it on a gramaphone and turns the bell to an open window. Belle bawled like a baby(just in general). Definitely worth seeing. The only thing wrong with it, is some marital referrences. I think that's why it's PG-13.

I love foreign films because you never know how the movie is going to turn out. I don't always like how they turn out, but that's part of the fun. Most of the time, you can see how all these other countries are several years behind in their technology and technique. Sometimes, as with Zhang Yimou, you can see how they're just Masters in their own right. It's like when I was a kid and still living in California and would go to the midwest, and would see how everyone was wearing last years fashions, styling their hair in trends that were dead and gone back home, and how even the radio stations would be playing songs that were already forgotten in Cali. I wonder if it's still like that, or if technology has equalized things. It's been so long since I've been home.

American movies are somewhat predictable. Probly because of how many of them have been made and are made every year. We kind of know what is going to happen next. The leader of the resistance is captured: the rebels are going to break him out. The leading lady and the leading man hate each others' guts: we know they're going to end up together at the end of the movie. But it's not like that in foreign films. At least not always. You never know where the movie is going to go. And that is half of why I like them. The other half is because of the language. I love foreign languages. Farsi has got to be the prettiest.

So that brings me to the the title of the post:

The only name that I recognized was Gérard Depardieu, and I recognized Peter Coyote, an American actor, but couldn't tell you, without looking at IMDB, what else he's been in. To my untrained ear, his French and German were perfect!

The movie starts out in a pre-war Paris, in a movie house. Hitler is posturing and France is caught in his head lights. One character glibly states later that the conflict won't last more than a couple weeks because not even Hitler wants war. In the theater we meet the leading lady, Viviane Denvers, played by Isabelle Adjani, who obviously has problems. Not just from the evident insecurity about her performance, she's the Angelina Jolie of the day, but also with a man in the main floor seating who has been watching her, not her movie. In the following scenes, we meet the aspiring author Auger, played by Grégori Derangère, who we learn is a childhood friend of and is hopelessly in love with Denvers. Always has been. And its not a romanticly sweet fact. Needless to say, he gets himself put into a tight spot because of it.

Flash forward an undisclosed period of time: Hitler is prevailing in his assualt on France and his troops are quickly approaching Paris. Everyone is fleeing to the South. Auger learns that Denvers has gone to Bordeaux with the Minister of State Jean-Étienne Beaufort, Gérard Depardieu, and so he boards an over-packed train, where he is reunited with his new found friend Raoul, played by Yvan Attal, and meets Camille, played by Virginie Ledoyen, who is a student at the University of Paris and the assistant to Professeur Kopolski, Jean-Marc Stehlé, a stateless Jew who has created an incredible liquid that everyone eventually wants.

When everyone finally arrives in Bordeaux, we learn that Raoul is a longsighted petty crook, Denvers hasn't changed at all, Auger still loves her senselessly, Camille is watching Auger, a lot, nobody wants to help Professeur Kopolski, the French governement is undecided as to what it should do, and, oh yeah, there are German's among them.

Long story short, and this has taken some serious thought: THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE THAT I HAVE SEEN SINCE THE PRESTIGE. The acting is extreemly good, and the script is tightly drawn. It's PG-13 but I think that that is for some violence. The rating noted language also, but I don't remeber much, if any. Maybe it's there in French and they didn't subtitle it

There have only been two movies that had me crawling in my seat in suspense: Frequency, with Jim "Jesus" Caviezel and Dennis Quaid, and Bon Voyage.

Bon Appetite!

On Thugs Striking

For those who enjoy my deranged sense of humor, I am so glad that you have finally joined me over here, on the funner side of life. (Yes Jak, that was said, shall we say, "tongue in cheek")

Well, I know that at least Kristi had the courage to waste about ten minutes of time and enjoy The Feast from start to finish. Yes, some are not so funny, but it helps to get a break every now and then, keeps it from getting stale and as far as who thinks these things up . . .Geniuses. With far too much time on their hands! Belle loves "The Feast is Ruined" and "Thief"-'Yoiks, and away.'

Has anyone else heard about the writers strike in Loonywood? I got my bubble pipe out when I heard that they had actually gone through with it and started dreaming about writing to the producers of my favorite shows and letting them know that I would do the same job for LESS money. There are some really good (of course we are talking about Crazywood so "good" is comparative and relative) shows out there. It would be a shame to see them get postponed. Of course if they did get postponed then I might actually do something productive, like further my walk with God, spend more time with my girls, WRITE. You never know. And these crazy strikers. Bunch of thugs. Oh I totally understand where they are coming from. The writing of a script is the most important part of a show (big or little screen). I don't care how good the Directors or actors are, if the script is lousy, specifically the dialogue and the realistic continuity, then the show stinks at the worst and suffers greatly at the least. Case in point, the latest StarWars movies. I don't doubt Lucas' creative ability (never mind its origins), but he can't write, or direct actors for nothin'. Doubt me? Watch the StarWars movies and tell me that they get better with time. Oh, the special effects are progressively more awesome but watch them and then tell me that The Empire Strikes Back is not the best one out of all six. Why is it the best? Because he didn't write the script or direct it. "Man's got to know his limitations." Now, of course I totally understand why he did direct the last three: they were his creation and he wasn't going to let anyone else get any credit for the work. That's okay. "A smart man surrounds himself with men who are smarter than he is."

But I got distracted. The writers, I heard, are striking because they want a cut of the DVD sales and rentals. As I said earlier I totally understand where they are coming from. I mean, they get what, 400k for a script? When the the lead actor comes in and gets 7 figures? To do what? Just repeat some lines that he doesn't even have to memorize (by memorize I mean commit to semi-permanent memory like a stage actor has to) Now, I'm not disparaging actors because we all know that there are actors (Matt Damon) and then there are hacks (Casper Van Dein) for example. Tell me though, who did all the REAL work? Without a script, the Director has no vision to shape and form; without a script the the camera man have no baseline instruction to follow; and without a script those marvelously high paid stars have no lines to repeat. BUT, and it's a big one, (Perhaps it should be more like BUT) what these strikers have done, is latch onto the the Aristocracy of Pull. They have become thugs, demanding goods over the top of a gun barrel. All strikers are thugs. The greatest part about America, besides being God's gift to the world, is that if you don't like the hand you have been dealt, you can go seek out another hand. YOU are your only hindrance. The glory of the open marketplace, is that the consumer and not the manufacture determines what goods survive. All competition is good for business. It drives the producers to strive for a more excellent, more appealing product. When you suborn realistic requests with unrealistic demands, you place creativity in jeopardy, and elevate banality.

Hopefully there will be a massive restructuring in the writing community and those who want to write in the free market will have their fresh originality produced and the hacks, with their tired cliches, will find themselves no longer receiving Top Dollar for substandard tripe.

And maybe the type of things that we really want to see will be produced, not the garbage that the elitist proclaim as enlightened, like the Emperors new clothes.

Aren't you tired of the critics saying "Oh this is the most magnificent piece of work ever made, and if you don't agree, then you are a stupid, red necked, hayseed, christian hick, and you should go kill yourself to save the whales"

But of course, I guess there is a need for a reality check: I am talking about an industry that exist for one purpose: entertainment. Entertainment that profits very little. But man its fun to escape for a little while every now and then!

So okay, I'm going stop "soap boxing" now and leave you with a little levity. Enjoy

Osama

So I've been reading like a nutcase lately. Trying to find some new authors worth reading and I'm not having much success. I found one new writer, young English guy, that is really good, only his subject matter is, hm, shall we say, questionable. No profanity in his narrative, which is a definite must/bonus, and his first book had virtually none in the dialogue. I think that there were literally two words in the first book. Then I got his second offering: hmmmm, disappointment reigns supreme. Normally I put them down, which I have done with two authors in the last two weeks, but I did finish it. There was a lot of Jane Austin mentioned in the book, particularly Persuasion, in fact he dedicated the book to her, called her a German Poet. But I digress. This post isn't about my attempt to find good authors, but rather about Osama. And, No, not Bin Laden. This is Osama.

All that other blather was to say that I was looking through the foreign film shelf at the library, I always check it first, and I saw this film. After reading the back I figured that it at least deserved a cursory viewing, and if it was awful, and slow (some times those adjectives can been joined) I could always turn it off, like I did with a Japanese film that I brought home a couple of weeks ago. It wasn't. It captivated me. There were some parts, were it seemed to drag a little, but in the end, it shook me. I know, that sounds so, Yuppie. Mod. Hollywood Blather Speak, but I don't know how else to describe it.

A friend and I were talking on Monday night on our way into town and he said "you know art is good if it disturbs you." Now, I don't agree with that at all, (in order for art to be art, it MUST be pleasing to the senses) but I thought it was ironic that two nights after we had been discussing shows and movies and stuff, I would see something that would leave me thinking about it all of the following day. Even up till now.

Osama is the first movie made in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban and it is about a girl whose father is dead, whose mother is a doctor, or nurse, it isn't made clear, and whose dotting grandmother lovingly tells her the same "beautiful story" every night. Oh, yeah, it takes place while the Taliban is still in power. Because of the restrictions placed upon women by that perverse society, "Osama's" family is starving to death and the only solution that they have is to cut the girls hair off and send her out into that hellish world as a boy. And if she's caught, it means death.

Now, you need to understand: this is not entertainment. Don't pop popcorn. Don't crack open sodas. To that extent the film-maker starts the film out like a documentary, but only briefly. It's a slice of life, a la Taliban style. There is a little language, in subtitles (it's in Arabic) references to the legitimacy of some boys' heritage, and there is one scene in a bath house where young boys are being "instructed" by a mullah. Definitely adult conversation. Conversation only.

The film is a very pointed commentary on the oppressive conduct of the devoutly muslim.

Having seen some documentaries previously and having spent some time on www.thereligionofpeace.com, I don't doubt the accuracy of the films' claims.

If it doesn't rattle your cage, then perhaps you should seriously consider moving to Iran.

Thank God we went to Afghanistan. Thank God we went to Iraq.

And no, the job's not done in either of those countries. It's just starting.

If it piques your interest, I know that the Blockbuster here has it, so I would imagine that the others carry it also.

An Introduction to Foreign Films

I absolutely love, sorry, strongly like foreign films. Now, I tend to stay away from the French and the Italian and Spainish (to differ from Mexican) because I can do without their kind of, um, shall we say "progressiveness." Kinda like Brokeback Mountain. I'm proud to say that that type of movie is entirely too "progressive" for me.

Ever since I was a little kid, I have loved language (it's people related). If I could afford it, I would speak twenty different languages (it costs money to learn. CDs, books, computer programs. Travel to foreign countries to learn by immersion. Blah blah blah. Time. Self diligence. Those little things). And ever since I was a kid, I have lov- strongly liked, foreign films. Back then it was the chop-socky movies of the seventies with flying ninjas and comedic violence and dubbed English. And unlike now, where they find an English word to fit the foreign language mouth movements, they would just have the English voice translate directly what the actor was saying in his native tongue. Hence, the notorious excessive lip movement. "Ho, you killed my father," as his mouth keeps moving for five more seconds.

I re-discovered foreign films with Zhang Yimou's Hero (actually it was Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon but Hero is a better movie). Now there was some controversy about CT, HD, or as I like to call it Crouching Tigger, Hidden Pooh, when it came out. There were claims that the "flying" was real. That it was spiritualism captured on film. This is not true. It was all wire work, which the Chinese are the undisputed masters of. The director, in the commentary, said and I "sum up", "Of course people can't fly. But this is a different world where they can do all of these incredible things." So, it's no different than Superman. Only more entertaining. Now, the middle of CT, HD needs to be skipped over. For about a half hour there is this "romantic" background between Jiao Long and Lo, or "Darkcloud." A complete waste of time, not to mention, shall we say, tasteless. I love DVDs. You just hit "advance" and you're in the next scene. Both of these films are PG-13, but I would recommend 17 or 18 for some of the subject matter.

Most of the foreign movies that are released in the states are dubbed, but I prefer to watch them with subtitles. I love the sound of the native language, and when they subtitle them, you get the closest to the original. And besides that, you get the original actor's voice, not some voice-over performer that doesn't even match the personality or tone or timber of the original. And you learn to deal with the subtitles. At first they detract from the picture, but once you get accustomed to them, you don't even notice. In fact, I watch a lot of English movies with the subtitles. Sometimes they just don't record certain parts of the dialog at high enough levels.

Now if you are one of those people who "don't have the patience" for a foreign film, then may I suggest that perhaps you weren't watching the right film. If the only foreign language film you have seen is The Passion of the Christ, then you are off to a great start. Storytelling is universal. If the person telling the story does a good job, then you don't need to know what is being said, you're instinctively drawn in by the presentation. Subtitles take care of the need for linguistic understanding. Or, hey, turn on the English track.

The place to start, after The Passion of the Christ, is The Road Home, by Zhang Yimou. It's really cute and warm, like a puppy. I lent this to my sister-in-law, who is very particular about what she and her sons watch, and she liked it. She said it was the first movie that they had ever watched where her boys, 9 and 7, where absolutely quiet and riveted. They had to be, in order to read the subtitles! Ha! It's G rated.

Now follow that with Shall We Dance, NOT THE AMERICAN VERSION. The original Japanese version only. It's hilarious. It has a story line that might make you apprehensive, but it all straightens outs. It's PG, for a couple profanities and some "thematic" elements.

Alright. That's it for now..