Animals presumably lack God-belief. Are they atheists?

To so define atheism as the mere lack of God-belief is absurd.

Would it then therefore, be more reasonable to presume that “agnostic” would be more accurate? Or perhaps, would anti-theist be more accurate?

There are things outside ourselves which we do not know, and cannot now know, and perhaps may never know. Yet, at some time in the future, some things now not known may be known, an example of which is the existence of the atomic particles.

From such an one’s perspective (as from those whom so describe themselves as “atheist”), the existence or nonexistence of God can neither be proven, nor denied.

Science, for example, has failed to prove that God does NOT exist. And while there are individual claimants whom so assert, no scientific body of evidence has arisen to assert – or dissuade through proof – otherwise.

Atheism can be and is defined as “the doctrine or belief that there is no God,” which also claims “a lack of belief in the existence of God.” And it so narrowly defined, that though it is variously worded, the bottom line is that there is a belief.

Belief, however, is accurately defined and understood as an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists, and perhaps secondarily, as trust, faith or confidence in something or someone.

Atheism is defined as the belief that God does not exist; then is it not inherently antithetical to assert that God does NOT exist?

There is no proof that God does NOT exist.

According to select individuals (not necessarily active upon this forum) whom self-identify as “atheist,” and organizational dogma (principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true) a “belief” is what they possess, yet simultaneously argue against their possession of a belief, or existence of the same.

The American Atheist website says that “…atheists certainly do not “deny” that gods exist. Denial is the “refusal to believe.” ” However, they further conclude that “There is no proof or evidence for the existince (sic) of gods.”

Yet the site also states that “We are atheists because in our view…” Other suitable words for “view” are “perspective” and “opinion.” And an “opinion” is synonymous with “belief.” Thus, their site could also accurately state, “We are atheists because we believe…” How inherently contradictory!

Such a remark is antithetical to that which is previously espoused, that “The common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief…”

Yet setting all that aside, even Richard Dawkins remains open-minded about the claim that Intelligent Design is a scientific hypothesis writing in his 2006 tome “The God Delusion,” that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other.”

There is logical conclusion to which those such as Dawkins arrive, whom assert in The Great Ape Project that chimpanzees, gorillas or baboons have moral rights, or warn of allegedly dire consequences of the “overpopulation” of Earth. Truly, they must be Enemies of Reason. For if apes have the same rights as you… then they are your peers.

Go ask the residents or visitors to Kyoto’s district of Arashiyama, with Japan’s “Monkey Mountain” if they think those viciously dangerous apes ought to have the same rights as humans.

Yeah… don’t keep that chimp in jail! Imprisoning him just because he flung a turd at you because you wouldn’t give him your banana and peanuts!? So he stole your purse, and infected you with SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus) when he scratched open your face with his claws… so what?! Why, he has the same rights as you!

Who would be the judge? What law school would they attend?

Planet of the Apes, anyone? “Get your stinkin’ paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”

Now… what’s that about being a “monkey’s uncle”?

Les Voyeurs #88 – Des Voyeurs dans l’avion

Diffusion le : jeudi 19 novembre 2009 à 18h sur Radio Grille Ouverte
vendredi 20 novembre 2009 à 18h sur Radio 16.
Rediffusion le samedi 21 novembre 2009 à 10h sur RGO.
En téléchargement pendant une semaine ici.
Et en écoute permanente là.

Actualité

Capitlism – A Love Story : Sortie au cinéma le 25 novembre 2009 du nouveau film de Michael Moore.
Spiderman 4 : Confirmation de la présence au casting de l’acteur Dylan Baker, interprétant le personnage du Dr Connors, devenant dans la BD le super-vilain Le Lézard.
Buffy, la tueuse de vampires : une web-série animée adaptant la 8ème saison des aventures en comics de la tueuse de vampires, va bientôt voir le jour, faisant donc suite à la 7ème saison de la série TV.
Delta Blues : la série créée en 2008 par Joshua Harto et produite par Georges Clooney à enfin trouvé son acteur principal en la personne de Jason Lee (le héros de “Earl”).
Prince of Persia – Les Sables du Temps :  Le prince de Perse doit combattre un Vizir rebelle désireux de s’emparer des Sables du Temps, un artefact conférant à son possesseur le contrôle du Temps. Adaptation cinéma de la célèbre licence de jeux vidéos. Réalisé par Mike Newell. Avec Jake Gyllenhaal. Sortie France 26 mai 2010. BA visible en VF pourrie ou VO HD.
L’actualité des Arcades : A l’origine ; L’Imaginarium du Dr Parnassus, Le Ruban Blanc (en VO), Away We Go, Micmacs à tire larigot, 2012, Twilight chapitre 2 : Tentation, Saw VI.
Les Beaux Gosses : Le beau coffret collector du film est disponible depuis le 12 novembre. Contient le film en édition collector 2DVD mais également le CD de la BO du film et surtout le “manuel pratique du puceau” !! Dépêchez-vous c’est pas cher !
L’actu du Sémaphore de Nîmes : L’Imaginarium du Dr Parnassus (en VO), mais aussi le film qui n’est plus à Alès et c’est dommage Panique au village !. Le Sémaphore organise également jusqu’au 26 janvier 2010 des projections des grands classiques du cinéma italien dont Affreux, sales et méchants, Les Monstres, Le Fanfaron, Hier aujourd’hui demain, L’Étranger. Plus de détails sur la programmation sur le site du cinéma ici => Sémaphore.

Dossier de la semaine : Des Voyeurs dans l’avion

La saga des “Airport”

Airport (1970) de Georges Seaton
Airport 75 (747 en péril – 1975) de Jack Smight
Airport 77 (Les Naufragés du 747 – 1977) de Jerry Jameson
Concorde : Airport 79 (Airport 80 Concorde – 1980) de David Lowell Rich

Les vols de l’extrême

L’Étoffe des Héros (The Right Stuff – 1983) de Phillip Kaufman
Des serpents dans l’avion (Snakes on a plane – 2006) de David R. Ellis
Des Zombies dans l’avion (Flight of the Living Dead : Outbreak on a plane – 2007) de Scott Thomas
Les Ailes de L’Enfer (Con-Air – 1997) de Simon West
Flight Plan (2004) de Robert Schwentke
Air Force One (1997) de Wolfgang Pertersen
Independence Day (1996) de Roland Emmerich
Die Hard 4 – retour en enfer (Die Hard 4.0 – 2007) de Len Wiseman

Les avions “cartoons” : les Z.A.Z. aux commandes

Les avions du futur

Furtif (Stealth – 2005) de Rob Cohen
D.A.R.Y.L. (1985) de Simon Wincer
Firefox, l’arme absolue (1982) de et avec Clint Eastwood

Coups de Cœur

Les Chevaliers du Ciel (2005) de Gérard Pirès
Aviator (2004) de Martin Scorsese

La bande originale de la semaine :

Papa Loves Manbo par Perry Como
Extrait de la bande originale du film Ocean’s Eleven (2001) de Steven Soderbergh

Chronique : La Carte Postale Sétoise

L’Enfer d’Henry-Georges Clouzot de Serge Bromberg et Ruxendra Medrea

Musique :
Who’s Driving Your Plane ? par The Rolling Stones

Extraits :
Airport 75 (747 en péril)
Des Serpents dans l’Avion
Firefox, l’arme absolue

Présentation : Cédric Cance, Erik Antolin, Jérôme Bauzon
Chronique : l’irremplaçable Jan Jouvert !
Technique : Jérémie Adrian

Toegegeven. De documentaires van Michael Moore zetten mij aan het denken. Of het nu over 9/11 gaat, over de wapenindustrie in de USA of over de gezondheidszorg in datzelfde Amerika; hij weet mij altijd te verbazen.

Hoe doet hij dat toch?

Als journalist een uitermate interessante vraag, maar niet alleen voor journalisten. Veel mensen zijn na het zien van de documentaire Fahrenheit 9/11 gaan geloven in de complottheorieën over de aanslagen op het World Trade Centre.  Ook ik twijfel aan de rol van George W Bush in het hele gebeuren rond 11 september 2001, maar is er nog wel plaats voor enige nuance?

We geven wel kritiek op de voormalige president van Amerika, maar willen we ook kritisch kijken naar de manier waarop Moore de documentaire heeft gemaakt?
Ik in ieder geval wel. Niet omdat ik Bush hier wil verdedigen, maar omdat de werkwijze van Michael Moore juist zo interessant is om te beschrijven. 

De kracht van zijn werk. Wat definieert zijn werkwijze?

De lach
Ter illustratie een fragment uit Bowling for Columbine:

Moore gebruikt deze cartoon om op humoristische wijze de geschiedenis van Amerika te kak te zetten. De uitleg weerspiegelt Moore’s visie op de komst van wapens in de Verenigde Staten. Omdat de cartoon langzaam naar een climax toewerkt en aanzet tot lachen, raakt de kijker geboeid en blijft kijken tot het eind. Aan het einde stelt Moore een vraag. Deze vraag blijft hangen. Juist vanwege de cartoon.

De lach. Een machtig instrument.

De confrontatie en het geweten
Naast de lach heeft Moore diverse andere manieren om zijn verhaal neer te zetten. Wat mij in Bowling for Columbine  vooral opviel, was het einde waarin Michael Moore acteur Charlton Heston, de toenmalige president van de National Rifle Association (NRA) sprak en confronteerde met de dood van een zesjarig meisje.
Hier het fragment:

Confronteren. Dat is waar Michael Moore goed in is. Ook in dit fragment. Toch is het niet alleen de confrontatie die hier een belangrijke rol speelt. Hij speelt in op het geweten. Op geweten van de kijker én op het geweten van de inmiddels overleden Charlton Heston. Als kijker krijg je het gevoel dat Heston er indirect voor heeft gezorgd dat het meisje is gedood. 

Een onterecht gevoel. Toch laat dat gevoel je niet los.

Nare gevoelens bekruipen ook Charlton Heston. Hij gaat de discussie uit de weg. Als president van de NRA spreekt hij namens de organisatie en kan niet ontkennen dat geladen wapens thuis geliefd zijn bij leden. Ook hijzelf heeft immers geladen geweren staan. Twee belangrijke aspecten van Moore’s werk worden hier duidelijk; de confrontatie en het inspelen op het menselijk geweten.

Een fragment uit Fahrenheit 9/11  die zich ook kenmerkt door de confrontatie en het geweten:

Muziek
Een heel ander middel dat Michael Moore inzet, is muziek. Met de songteksten ondersteunt hij zijn filmfragmenten, waardoor het geheel een erg cynische toon krijgt. Het sarcasme druipt ervan af. Soms moet de kijker zelfs even slikken vanwege de tegenstelling van beeld en geluid.  Naast tegenstellingen gebruikt hij ook versterkingen. Van beiden hier wat voorbeelden:

Hier een gedeelte met Amerikaanse soldaten in Irak:

Sarcasme
Door de schrijnende tegenstellingen die Michael Moore verwerkt in zijn documentaires en de toon van zijn ‘eerlijke’ stem zit het boordevol saracasme. Op sommige momenten zelfs tegen het cynische aan. Hiermee krijgt hij de kijkers op zijn hand, omdat de tegenstellingen af en toe té absurd zijn. Gevolg is dat de kijker blijft kijken.

Benieuwd? Hier een fragment uit Sicko:

Goed werk?
Nu is de vraag of deze instrumenten horen bij een goede documentaire. Persoonlijk vind ik van wel. Als we naar het werk van Michael Moore kijken, zien we dat hij bepaalde methoden vaak en op een humoristische wijze gebruikt. Niets mis mee. Is zelfs vermakelijk.

Toch wil ik u als laatst nog wijzen op het volgende:

Blijf dus kritisch en neem eens een kijkje door de bril van een documentairemaker. Dan lijkt de wereld ineens een stuk sensationeler.

Neem ook dit laatste filmpje met een korreltje zout. Journalisten benaderen ook op hun eigen manier de film van Michael Moore!

Maar hoeveel kritiek Moore ook krijgt, hij blijft maatschappelijke misstanden aan de kaak stellen.

“Keep on doing that, Moore!”

Onze Oscars, 8 mil figurantes, mais de 300 peças de cenário e 100 mil de figurino e um valor de produção recorde na época — US$ 15 milhões — multiplicado por cinco. “Ben-Hur”, de William Wyler, protagonizado por Charlton Heston, completa hoje, 18.11.2009, meio século de estreia nos Estados Unidos. Da Folha Online, em reportagem de Antonio Martin Guirado, da Efe:

Há filmes que ficam para a história e o épico “Ben-Hur” é um deles. Foi o filme que ganhou pela primeira vez 11 Oscars, a mesma quantidade conquistada por “Titanic” (1997) e “O Retorno do Rei” (2003), parte da saga “O Senhor dos Anéis”.

O filme, máximo expoente de um cinema artesanal já extinto, rendeu um Oscar de melhor ator a Heston e de ator coadjuvante a Hugh Griffith, além de ter recebido o prêmio pelas categorias de melhor filme, melhor diretor, melhor direção artística a cores, melhor fotografia, melhor figurino a cores, melhores efeitos especiais, melhor montagem, melhor trilha sonora e melhor som.

Também foi o primeiro remake — existem dois outros “Ben-Hur”, ambos mudos: um curta de 15 minutos de duração filmado em 1907 e outra versão de 1925, dirigida por Fred Niblo — a ganhar a estatueta dourada de melhor filme.

Leia mais clicando aqui.

Ficha no IMDB:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618/

Não é todo dia que é possível ver em um filme milhares de personagens, sem que estes sejam repetitivos ou evidentes cópias digitais.

Se formos transformar em números Bem-Hur é: 100.000 figurinos. 8.000 extras, 300 sets de filmagem e 11 Oscars ( a mesma quantidade que Titanic e Retorno do Rei).

Considerado o maior épico Bíblico de todos os tempos, a película tem como estrela principal nada menos que Charlton Heston, que traz uma presença física e moral irrepreensível na pele de Judah Ben-Hur, um judeu de família nobre na Palestina.

O filme, máximo expoente de um cinema artesanal já extinto, rendeu um Oscar de melhor ator a Heston e de ator coadjuvante a Hugh Griffith, além de ter recebido o prêmio pelas categorias de melhor filme, melhor diretor, melhor direção artística a cores, melhor fotografia, melhor figurino a cores, melhores efeitos especiais, melhor montagem, melhor trilha sonora e melhor som.

Também foi o primeiro remake de um filme que manteve, ou melhor, melhorou muito uma produção (existem dois outros Ben-Hur, ambos mudos: um curta de 15 minutos de duração filmado em 1907 e outra versão de 1925, dirigida por Fred Niblo – a ganhar a estatueta dourada de melhor filme).

Os 212 minutos do filme foram gravados em sua maioria, durante nove meses, nos estúdios Cinecittà, em Roma, e uma das cenas mais famosas da história do cinema – a corrida de bigas que provoca a derrota de Messala, amigo de infância de Judah Ben-Hur – foi filmada em três meses. Esta cena foi muito copiada e satirizada ( cena que uma lâmina na roda da biga tenta destruir a roda do adversário), até no pica-pau (desenho) teve esta cena.

O sucesso do filme salvou da quebra os estúdios da Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, que arriscaram a investir na produção um valor recorde na época – de US$ 15 milhões -, que terminou por faturar cinco vezes esse total, e muito mais até hoje.

A trilha sonora foi composta pelo húngaro Miklos Rozsa e a fotografia de Robert Surtees fizeram o resto,

Hoje em dia, parece impossível imaginar outro ator com o rosto de Ben-Hur, mas a MGM ofereceu o papel a Paul Newman, Burt Lancaster e Rock Hudson.

Todos rejeitaram a oferta. Newman porque não conseguia se imaginar  em uma túnica, Lancaster porque era ateu e não queria ajudar a promover a Cristandade, e Hudson quase aceitou, até que seu agente chamou sua atenção ao subtexto homossexual na relação entre Ben-Hur e Messala, o que poderia pôr sua carreira em risco. E pode ter certeza que se arrependeram muito, mas muito mesmo.

O leitor se pergunta, “mas o filme é muito antigo”, sim antigo, porém imperdível, imagina se hoje em dia, se poderia reunir esse números de pessoas? Seria impossível e inviável.

Concluindo, assista a película, não por ser modinha de 50 anos de produção, mas sim para aumentar seu acervo e conhecimento cinéfilo, pois a experiência vale a pena, se não achar nas locadoras, com certeza acha nessas lojas populares por um preço menos que uns 15 reais.

Curiosidades:

• - Gore Vidal declarou certa vez que o roteiro original previa um relacionamento homossexual entre Ben-Hur e Messala. Como o diretor Wyler sabia que Heston nunca aceitaria interpretar um personagem assim, Vidal sugeriu contar apenas a Stephen Boyd (Messala) sobre esse relacionamento — o que pode ser notado nas interpretações de Ben-Hur e Messala.
• - A MGM queria que um autêntico barco romano fosse utilizado nas cenas de batalha. Para tanto, contratou um engenheiro que se dedicava à arquitetura romana. Quando ele apresentou o design do barco aos engenheiros da MGM, estes disseram que o barco afundaria, pois era muito pesado. Ainda assim o barco foi construído e, ao ser colocado no oceano, inicialmente flutuou. Porém uma pequena onda foi suficiente para afundar a embarcação. Por causa disso, as cenas foram rodadas em um gigantesco tanque, com cabos prendendo o barco ao tanque.
• - Após a construção do tanque, era preciso dar à água (que estava marrom-escura) o tom azul-mediterrâneo necessário para que as cenas parecessem reais. Foi utilizado um composto químico que realmente azulou a água, mas também formou sobre ela uma crosta, que precisou ser toda retirada do tanque por operários da MGM.
• - Durante as filmagens no tanque, um dos figurantes caiu na água e lá ficou por muito tempo. Ao sair, ele estava totalmente azul, e teve seu salário pago pela MGM até sua pele voltar ao normal.
• - Só a construção da arena para a corrida de quadrigas (na Cinecittà, em Roma) custou um milhão de dólares. Nessa seqüência – dirigida em 94 dias por Andrew Marton, Mario Soldati e Yakima Canutt, especialista em cenas de perigo –, utilizaram-se cinco câmeras, oito mil figurantes e 76 cavalos.
• - Para a entrada dos corredores, o diretor de fotografia Robert Surtees usou uma grua de mais de trinta metros de altura: o espectador vê as quadrigas desfilando na pista como se sobrevoasse a arena. O efeito é realçado pela utilização do processo cinematográfico Camera 65, um aperfeiçoamento do CinemaScope.
• - Apesar de na Itália haver cavalos brancos, os quatro que foram utilizados nas filmagens vieram da Tchecoslováquia, trazidos na primeira classe de um avião fretado e que teve seus assentos retirados.
• - O estádio confeccionado para Ben-Hur seguiu detalhes do que fora utilizado na versão de 1926.
• - Após as filmagens, os cenários de Ben-Hur foram todos destruídos por ordem de Sam Zimbalist, que temia que eles fossem utilizados em produções italianas menores.
• - Miklós Rózsa compôs a trilha sonora de Ben-Hur em oito semanas.

“Take your stinkin’ paws off me, you damned dirty ape!”

Whenever I lay in my bed after a long night of drinking, attempting in vain to focus my double vision on the picture of Anne Clark that hangs on the wall in front of me, I can’t help but hear those words echo in the recesses of my mind. In the tiny studio apartment that is mine alone, I realize how ludicrous and insane I must sound to an outside audience as I giggle in solitude and struggle to lift my head to survey the damage of my humble abode.

The only lighting I have is dim–the rising beams of the next day’s sun peaking through my window–but it is enough to create a glint off the sea of empty beer cans scattered throughout my little home. There may not have been a war in here, but there certainly was a goddamn battle, and the vast amount of disemboweled alcoholic containers were the lost soldiers necessarily sacrificed to ensure victory against the senses. Yes, shotgunning beer and downing shot after agonizing shot is a risky gambit on a Thursday night, but sometimes you need to go for the hard six. That’s what I did Thursday, and you’re goddamn right I’ll do it the next.

So why was I there, in my bed at daybreak giggling to myself when I should have peacefully fallen asleep hours ago with a textbook shoved in my face? Because I made a conscious decision to tell Heston to go and fuck himself, that he was wrong. I don’t want that ape to get away from me, I want him as near as possible to my conscious thought. That 800 pound gorilla trying to manhandle (or should I say apehandle?–sorry for the terrible pun) wasn’t trying to control him, to force him into a cage. No oh no, that ape was really the lower recess of his mind, the limbic system, that area below the neocortex which is primal and our shared heritage with animals. It is our lower thought, and I was cracking up because the copious amount of liquor and cigarettes shut down my higher functioning like a tomahawk to the face. I was laughing because that Ape was me–my brain was operating at a subhuman level and that is exactly what I intended for it to do.

It is why the name for this blog is what it is. Over the last 4 years of college, I haven’t been searching for higher culture, sophistication, modern transcendence. In fact, I choose to actively avoid it when possible. I get more than enough of that during the week. Call it immature, call it naive or a superficial fantasy, it doesn’t matter. What is wrong with shirking responsibility? Why do we all have to carry the yoke of society? Maybe that makes me lazy or a bad American, but it is what I want and I’ll be damned if I try to fight against it. I still do my part, I have (had) a part-time job, did my dues as a full-fledged member on the dean’s list. But that’s not all I wish to study. I participate in the higher, dreary parts of normal life. But tell me, what is wrong with also seeking the opposite end of the extreme? With preferring to engage in the dredges of human activity–lust, gluttony, sloth, etc.–every once in a while. Isn’t it a new experience? Isn’t it a part of becoming a ‘well-rounded person’ like every college mission statement has as a goal for its students? Maybe it isn’t me who needs to grow up and be less immature, but rather you who need to sit back, relax, and let that ape wrap his big furry arms around your mind.

How about some old school sci-fi? Last man on Earth is based on the Richard Matheson science fiction classic “I am Legend”. It was later remade as “The Omega Man” with Charlton Heston.

I never knew just how many famous people dropped off society’s radar because of Alzheimer’s/dementia! I was surprised to see certain people in this list, because often the news would only say that so-and-so passed away; the person’s Alzheimer’s/dementia diagnosis was not always mentioned.

(Please ignore the depressing soundtrack and overly dramatic ending; the names and faces are really the most interesting part of this video.)

OK. Let’s “Oedipus out” this writing as far as it will go.
(Professor Nelsen used to tell us in fiction-writing class to “weird out” our short stories.)

stiff-necked

I woke up hearing my mother’s voice: “You are a stiff-necked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against you.” It’s a biblical quotation (Exodus 32:9). God screaming at the Israelites through Moses, my mother changing the words just enough to make it obvious that God was angry at me.

This is a morning when my writing is trying to catch up with what I want to say, and I have no way to make sense because it’s so confused in my mind that it would take four or five well-reasoned essays, and this morning well-reasoning is beyond my ability. 

The stiff-necked people are the ones Charlton Heston came down from Sinai and smashed the Golden Calf built by Edward G. Robinson with the gold he bilked his friends out of. Did you ever think that “Charlton” is a faggy (I can use that word; you can’t) name for a macho man who wanted us to pry his cold dead fingers from around his gun when he died? I had a high school friend named Charlene who looked like Ben-Hur (blonde hair, blue eyes, and a jutting chin). It would be slanderous for me to say Bruce Hoffman looks like a skinny Edward G. Robinson. See? I told you this wasn’t going to make sense.

Back to Mother’s voice. I have no idea why she was in my head this morning, except yesterday I was thinking about the “stiff-necked” people dancing around the Golden Calf and making Charleneton go back up that ridiculous mountain, bizarre fireballs zooming out at him again writing on those silly tablets. I was thinking about “stiff-necked people” because even Obama got in on the act yesterday saying that we have to hate the Ft. Hood killer because he’s a Muslim (read the speech!). 

Let’s all hate, OK? Stiff-necked. Bearing false witness. The ninth fireball.

That got me to thinking about Mother and me. Don’t ask me to explain the connection. She and I had this sort of special musical relationship. She was ridiculously more musically talented than I. But she was the preacher’s wife and mother of three kids, and had no chance of a “career.” When they were in high school her brother would buy her sheet music of all the popular tunes, and she could still play them from memory when I was learning to play. I have some of that sheet music. And you should have heard Mother play gospel hymns after she was too far gone with Alzheimer’s to make much sense in any other way.

So I’m thinking about Mother and stiff-necked Americans-who-hate-Muslims (I do wish the NPR “hosts” would learn to pronounce “Muslim” so it doesn’t sound like a racial slur), and then suddenly (and there is absolutely NO connection here, but I can’t not write about it) I remember her taking me to hear a traveling men’s choral group with a small orchestra and one woman (soprano) soloist through the Community Concert Association in Scottsbluff (stopover of Charlie Starkweather) at the high school auditorium. This men’s choral group plus one woman sang Stravinsky’s Oedipus Rex. One of the great formative musical moments of my life. Why on earth they were singing Stravinsky in Nebraska in the ‘50s I will never know. But it’s one of those “Small Good Things” (see Raymond Carver) for which I will be eternally grateful (or at least until this poor abused body dies and I cease to exist—back to my disbelief in heaven).

I remember the music. 

Oedipus and mom

So we have ole Oedipus gouging out his eyes because of the monstrosity he has committed. Imagine. Gouging out your eyes because you couldn’t look at the disaster you’d caused. 

I’m back to yesterday. Finally, but the strands are still not-tied-up out in the universe. Oh well. Yesterday I wrote about Bruce Hoffman which I’m sure hardly anyone understood because the quotes were too long (but no one would have read my bizarre attempt to write all of that out myself and tie it together). I let people who know what they are talking about say what I was trying to say. 

I’ll quote the crux of the matter one more time. 

There is now a Homeland Security Institute as well as related journals, degree programs, and conferences, all of which continue to develop approaches and procedures rooted in the idea of a United States in a perpetually defensive mode against a hostile world . . . . the fact of the war [on terror] was rapidly concretized for audiences across the political, professional, and cultural spectrum. Distinguished academics from the country’s most prestigious universities provided intellectual grounding; Washington think tanks supplied the administration with a perpetual flow of policy assessments that . . . .played the overall role of confirming the larger effort; and the mainstream media either cheered the war or muted its criticism…

The American people are wacko. Wacko. They believe the idiocies that Bruce Hoffman (I don’t care if he is a full professor at Georgetown University) spews out—every Muslim, everyone with an Arabic name, everyone who has a friend who is in jail because he’s been convicted of “terrorism” is himself a terrorist. (I wonder why the FBI hasn’t set up Muslim American women to entrap them in bogus plots to bomb 60-story buildings. The FBI is as sexist as the next US government agency.) 

How does this relate to the “stiff-necked” people or to Oedipus or to Scottsbluff? or to Charlene Heston or the golden calf? or Bruce Hoffman? I feel like a Greek oracle singing in Latin. 

It’s pretty simple. The American people are so willing to be hoodwinked and propagandized by weaselly (in the Hebrew Bible sense of “unclean”) little men like Bruce Hoffman—just as the Hebrews were convinced by weaselly Edward G. Robinson—whose entire career has been spent doing research (RAND Corporation, anyone?), not to find the truth but to prove his presuppositions, and then to feed to the results of his “research” to a government made up of weaselly little men and women who want desperately to hold onto their jobs (their Golden Calf), so they propagandize YOU and scare good sense out of you (us) so you will believe that a deranged murderer who happens to have an Arabic name is a terrorist. To them that’s logical, of course, because every Muslim is a terrorist—or at least in a “sleeper cell” devoted to destroying American Christianity. 

This country is wacko. Wacko. The likes of Bruce Hoffman have driven us out of our collective mind. I’ll bet there wasn’t one letter to the editor of the Christian Science Monitor asking what in God’s name Bruce Hoffman meant by saying, “I don’t see a nervous breakdown as being mutually exclusive of terrorism,” or why a newspaper with the word “Christian” in its name would print such an incendiary, xenophobic statement.

And so we’re back to “STIFF-NECKED PEOPLE.” Edward G. Robinsons all. Not a Charlene Heston in the lot (much less a gun-toting, ten-commandmants-toting Charlton) to tell us that Yahweh is pissed. Tell us that we should at least have the decency to repent—maybe not go as far as Oedipus, but repent. Get over our worship of the Golden Calf of xenophobia. 

I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“I’ll give you my gun when you take it from my cold, dead hands!” is a slogan popularized by the National Rifle Association (NRA) on a series of bumper stickers.

It is a variation of a slogan mentioned in a 1976 report from the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency: “I Will Give Up My Gun When They Peel My Cold Dead Fingers From Around It.”

The original version did not originate with the NRA, but with a rival group, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, based in Bellevue, Washington. It, along with “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”, is a slogan that is often used by gun owners and their supporters in discussions of gun control in the United States.

The phrase gained newfound popularity on May 20, 2000, when veteran actor and NRA president Charlton Heston capped a speech at the 129th NRA convention in Charlotte, North Carolina by concluding:

“ For the next six months, [presidential candidate and Vice President of the United States] Al Gore is going to smear you as the enemy. He will slander you as gun-toting, knuckle-dragging, bloodthirsty maniacs who stand in the way of a safer America. Will you remain silent? I will not remain silent. If we are going to stop this, then it is vital to every law-abiding gun owner in America to register to vote and show up at the polls on election day. ”

Near the end of his remarks, Heston paused to pick up a replica of a Revolutionary War musket, and continued:

“ So, as we set out this year to defeat the divisive forces that would take freedom away, I want to say those fighting words for everyone within the sound of my voice to hear and to heed, and especially for you, Mr. Gore: ‘From my cold, dead hands!’ ” — Charlton Heston, May 20, 2000

He repeated the phrase at the end of each NRA convention over which he presided as president of the NRA. When he announced his retirement, he concluded by repeating “From my cold, dead hands.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The family of an 8-year-old boy who fatally shot himself at a gun show in western Massachusetts say the Uzi submachine gun jammed twice before he lost control of the weapon and fired into his head.

The family of Christopher Bizilj (bah-SEEL’) of Ashford, Conn., says in a civil lawsuit filed Friday that a 15-year-old instructor who cleared the gun and handed it back to the victim failed to provide proper guidance.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/10/christopher-biziljs-famil_n_351732.html

“From my cold, dead hands.”

Periódicamente un servidor tiene que discutir, más o menos acaloradamente, con lectores y comentaristas de éste y otros blogs cuando uno se queja amargamente de la dependencia del cine-espectáculo actual de los aparatitos con teclas, botoncitos, pantallitas y numeritos. En esos casos, uno generalmente recibe amables calificativos que van desde el tan manido “gafapasta” hasta sarcasmos e ironías bastante ridículos en cuanto a la supuesta avanzada edad de mi menda o a la antigüedad de los gustos de uno aplicables a otras esferas de la vida más personales, hechos que, según estos humanoides, dificultarían la adaptación de un servidor a la vida moderna, eso por no hablar de las proclamaciones públicas como ignorantes de quienes no sabemos apreciar las virtudes del cine colonizado por el videojuego.

Quien escribe no es enemigo, ni mucho menos, del empleo de efectos especiales ni del uso de las nuevas tecnologías aplicadas al cine (sí de cruzar, eso sí, los límites insalvables de la dependencia de la tecnología contra los que ya nos advirtió, por ejemplo, Luis Buñuel, hábito de nuestro tiempo cuyo único fin suele ser recaudatorio y no artístico); lo contrario sería una estupidez: es propio del cine la investigación y la experimentación técnica y creativa como vehículo de retroalimentación. Lo que no entienden los partidarios del cine “de muñequitos” (término en absoluto despectivo con el que aquí nos referimos a esos circos de pirotecnia que copan por aplastamiento las multisalas) es que a veces hay modos mejores y más efectivos (y también más baratos) de hacer las cosas que el recurso al ordenador, y que muchas veces éste es una coartada para la falta de talento y de capacidad de los promotores de un filme. Los efectos digitales pueden apabullarnos la vista, cortocirtuitar nuestros cerebros, colman nuestras retinas, llenan nuestros ojos, pero rara vez, por no decir nunca, pasan de ahí, casi nunca llegan al alma o tocan el corazón: nada más espectacular e impactante que Matrix. Y también nada más frío, mecánico, distante y vacío.

Y lo que no entienden, y no entenderán jamás porque hablamos casi de una secta, los hooligans del actual cine “de muñequitos”, sea de superhéroes, adaptaciones de los tebeos o demás productos casi siempre prescindibles, es que una computadora, cueste los dólares que cueste, y un ingeniero, ídem de ídem, jamás podrán igualar el grado de perfección técnica y de emoción y calidez narrativas que ofrecen escenas como ésta, creada por ese genio de los efectos especiales y maestro del oficio de especialista que fue Yakima Canutt (el indio que cae a los pies de los caballos en La Diligencia de John Ford, 1939) para la nueva adaptación que del best-seller de Lewis Wallace, Ben-Hur, filmó William Wyler en 1959, protagonizada por Charlton Heston (la primera versión es de 1925 y no es menor en cuanto a espectacularidad y perfección técnica). La película ganó, entre muchos otros, el Oscar de la Academia a los mejores efectos especiales y hoy, cincuenta años después, no tenemos ninguna duda de que si optara al premio volvería a ganarlo de calle. Porque el cine de verdad posee un valor y, sobre todo, un estilo y una fuerza, en suma, un poder, que las vulgares imitaciones mecánicas del cine, hoy por hoy no van a igualar. Aunque claro, para estos esclavos de modernidad, 1959 es la prehistoria, y no digamos ya el cine en blanco y negro (pobres, no saben lo que se pierden), y como tal, hay que despreciarlo. Modernos que son, oye, aunque no se den cuenta de que no se es moderno sólo por parecerlo. Y también son, tristemente, un poco inconscientes.

Y en cuanto al cine “de muñequitos”, mientras no sea capaz de crear un prodigio técnico como el que sigue a continuación, seguirá siendo de segunda categoría.

Het is misschien een redneck, maar wel een grappige redneck.

Via.

5 movies that were better than the book:

We all know them, heck some of us ARE them, those people who huff as soon as the credits roll and scoff, “The book was sooooooo much better!” Nothing wrecks the after-glow of a good movie quite like that line. OF COURSE the book was better, its a BOOK! There is a level of intimacy you experience with characters in a book that is rarely rivaled via the medium of movies. But there are a few exceptions where the movie really does come off better than the book, here are my 5 picks of movies that are actually better than the books they are based on:

1) Where the Wild Things Are:

Might as well come out of the gate swinging. Yes, i know Where the Wild Things Are is a beloved and timeless children’s book, a Caldecott winner and that Maurice Sendak is an artistic Genius. i love the book! i think it’s great. But when i read the book it feels like the story of a bratty kid who gets sent to his room, spends a few hours fantasizing and returns to reality to find his dinner waiting for him. When i saw the movie it felt much more profound: Bratty kid acts like brat, gets in trouble and embarks on a journey of imagination that reminds us all that our ideal life may not be exactly what we think it is, that we need to face down our inner demons because if we don’t we’ll deal with them till we do.

Book:     93% Awesome

Movie:    95%  Awesome

2) Ben Hur:

One of my all time favorite movies. This movie is an Epic movie in every sense of the word. i don’t think any other movie even touched on the scale of it’s story-telling until Peter Jackson took a break from making horrible slashers and took the risk of putting Tolkien’s trilogy onto film (L.O.T.R.: Book better than the movie: Book 110% Awesome. Movie: 98% Awesome).

Charlton Heston really gets absorbed by Judah Ben Hur in the movie, quite a feat considering Heston’s stature. The movie takes a few minutes to wind up, but then grabs me by the guts and won’t let me go till the ending. The pacing is slower than modern movies, but it’s got that golden age of cinema pacing that makes everything feel so much more grandiose. The book on the other hand has this slower pacing that makes it feel well, just slow. If you haven’t seen the movie watch it! And remember, that chariot race is 0% CGI & cost human lives to film!

Book: 33% Awesome

Movie: 98% Awesome

3) Flowers for Algernon (Charlie)

When i was in High School, for some reason that is beyond me, we were forced to watch Flowers for Algernon in my 10th grade health and P.E. Class. Knowing the nature of P.E. teachers who teach us not only their passion of propelling various spherical & near spherical objects of varying resiliencies through the air for competitive reasons; but also are forced by school boards to teach us miscellaneous facts about how our bodies work*, i’m sure that at least to some extent their motivations were: Hey, watching a movie would eat up 90 minutes of class time OR a week of health class (with the alternation between “Gym Days” & “Class Days”).

i remember it was quite an affair, they herded all the Health and P.E. classes into the auditorium (my school had 3 gyms & therefore i think as many health and P.E. classes running simultaneously) and for three days one week we sat on those dark stained wooden seats and watched Flowers for Algernon. The tale of a mentally retarded man, Charlie (which is the name of the book),  who receives an experimental treatment that augments his intelligence to Hawking-esque levels. But alas- only temporarily. i remember shedding tears as it wound down, and tears in a 10th grade Health & P.E. class are the equivalent to throwing a lacerated hemophiliac into a shark pool. It’s a tough movie to find, but worth the time to watch it, the book on the other hand feels like it was written by Charlie after his experimental treatments have concluded.

Book: (aka: Charlie)  20% Awesome

Movie: (aka: Flowers for Algernon)  75% Awesome

By the way; Algernon is a lab mouse that also receives the treatments in the story.

*why any legitimate educator would pick P.E. teachers to teach  us Sex Ed is beyond me! We take the men who were the jocks in their own school career and task them with laying the foundation for the budding sexual awareness of the youth of our nation? On what level does this seem like a good idea? English teachers are the ideal choice for that job, the same people that teach you to de-code Shakespeare, it’s scandalous some of the things they required us to read, and aspire to be novelists would be much more equipped to share what is euphemistically referred to as the birds and the bees.

4) I Am Legend

The Movie I Am Legend is a great little Sci-Fi romp into a post-apocalyptic world where a modified virus has transformed humanity into a sort of zombie/vampire jacked up on PCP sort of monstrosity. It follows Robert Neville, played by Will Smith* (who is a class A action movie guy- if you don’t hold Wild Wild West against him), as he seeks to find a cure for the virus. In the movie  he has depth and does things that i confess i would probably do if i lived in an abandoned NY city, like set up a small population of mannequins  at his most frequent haunts and do things just because you could, like tearing through Central Park in a super-charged GT Mustang or hitting golf balls of the U.S.S. Intrepid into the city.

Really the movie came of as smart and engaging and i rooted for Neville through the whole thing, crying when Sam (his beloved dog) dies and literally sitting on the edge of my seat earlier when he searches for her in a building packed full of the infected.

The book on the other hand… well it felt like it was written by a 17 year old to target an audience of 17 year olds. Humanity had turned into what is closer to more traditional vampires and well, there really wasn’t anything wildly creative about it. Had i read the book first i would have skipped the movie altogether and that would have been a mistake on my part. When i read the book, instead of rooting for the main character, i found myself anxiously waiting for the vampires to finally get around to killing his boring self. When he finally does die it is boring and inglorious.

Skip the book, rent the movie

Book: 10% Awesome

Movie: 95% Awesome

* Will Smith is also one of the few human beings that if, via a tear in the time space continuum found himself in a no-holds barred cage match against himself, 40 years old vs 25 years old; the 40 year old version would literally break the 25 year old version. Literally. Break. Him.

5) The Princess Bride

For two weeks running one of the greatest movies of all times makes an appearance in my senseless ramblings!

It’s hard to best a master-piece. Honestly i almost skipped this one (although i do think the movie is better than the book) because comparing the movie to the book is like comparing the Mona Lisa (painting) to whoever the real Mona Lisa (the model) was.

Like Where the Wild Things Are, there is nothing at all wrong with the book, it’s just that the movie is so near to perfect that it almost “goes the way of Enoch”- it walked with God and was no more! The book fills in some gaps, and by claiming to be an “abbreviated version of S. Morgenstern’s longer tale” peppered with Goldman’s commentary it pulls off the same schticky feel that the movie pulls off by cutting to a protesting Fred Savage, “Wait there isn’t more kissing is there?”

Read the book and watch the movie; or watch the movie and read the book; or watch the movie, read the book and watch the movie again; or read the book and watch the movie between chapters- over and over again…

Book:   99.8% Awesome

Movie:  100% Awesome (not from concentrate)

Well, there’s my 5 picks for Movies that are better than the books. My fellow humans ; do you have any picks for movie over book? If so let me know (so i can enjoy the movie without feeling guilty for skipping the book it’s based on!)

According to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution,
“. . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.  The word “Arms” was deliberately capitalized, a common practice at the time used for emphasis.  Since Thomas Jefferson later owned a private cannon, the largest weapon in his day, the term “Arms” to the original framers clearly meant more than small arms one can easily “bear”; note, to “keep” and bear Arms.

The word “gun” is found nowhere in the Constitution, a very carefully worded document.  It should also be noted that in the Consitution’s pre-amble, one of the main purposes listed is to “insure domestic Tranquility” (also capitalized).  To honestly and correctly interpret the intentions of the framers, everything that follows the Preamble, including all ten original amendments soon added, must be viewed in light of the Constitution’s stated purpose.

For many years, the NRA has been guilty of drawing a non-existent, artificial line down the center of the 2nd Amendment, limiting the debate to guns, knives, grenades and similar small arms.  To contend that the 2nd Amendment permits unlimited unregulated private ownership of modern assault weapons, is no more Constitutionally rational than to pretend that the 2nd Amendment allows unlimited private ownership of chemical weapons, nuclear bombs and space-ray weapons, which are also modern “Arms” unknown to the framers.

In order to engage in an honest Constitutional debate, the NRA must admit that, according to their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, we have just as much right to own private nuclear bombs and Anthrax as we do to own a multi-round handgun, none of which existed when the 2nd Amendment was drafted.  If we wish to have a society at all, then the 21st Century question is not “if” we are going to restrict the NRA’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but rather, in what manner are we going to restrict it.

For the record, if any living Americans have the right to argue in favor of restricting the 2nd Amendment, it is Jim and Sarah Brady.  And, as the “founding fathers” wisely allowed for, we can always amend what they originally wrote down.  A perhaps better and much saner idea would be to amend the NRA, entirely and altogether, by forcing our reluctant media to point out their deceptive and entirely irrational position.

The NRA has no more rational or Constitutional right to limit the 2nd Amendment to an issue of small Arms ownership than the ACLU has a right to restrict the 1st Amendment to their Constitutionally, historically and scientifically irrational interpretation of the known evidence. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson’s re-write of the New Testament, while he was a sitting president, would today include the following wry observation:  If conservatives and liberals crawl into a similar dark bed of deception, they will likely both end up in the same bottomless black hole, accordingly.

Does the NRA really defend the 2nd Amendment?  You decide.

Link to footnotes and documentation for the above article.

So I broke tradition this year and watched two movies, which are not horror movies during October, d’oh! “What are these movies?” you ask. Well believe it or not, I broke tradition for 17 Again (ugh!) and Whip It (which I enjoyed). Anyway, I’m back to all horror, all the time now until Halloween rolls around. Here are the films I’ve watched since my last post.

September 27, 2009

Torn Curtain (1966) Written by Brian Moore, directed by Alfred Hitchcock  2.5/5

Torn Curtain isn’t Hitchcock’s most thrilling film, though it does have an interesting plot, and it offers good performances by both Paul Newman and Julie Andrews. Like a lot of spy thrillers of it’s time it deals with Cold War politics/problems making the plot fairly predictable. It’s definitely not a must see film, but it’s not terrible either.

September 30, 2009

April Fool’s Day (1986) Directed by Fred Walton 3/5

If you’re looking for cheesy teen fare with a twist this film is great! I’ve been drawn to the cover of this film for years, but I’ve never actually checked it out. The minute the film starts rolling you know you’re in for campy fun, especially since the biggest names in the film are Deborah Foreman (Valley Girl) and Thomas F. Wilson (Back to the Future/Freaks and Geeks). Part comedy, part slasher film, part Scooby Do mystery this film is sure to entertain.

October 5, 2009

Omega Man (1971) Directed by Boris Sagal, written by John W. and Joyce H. Corrington, based on Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend 3/5

I am a big fan of Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend and I have yet to see a film adaptation of the story that I like. For some reason every time someone attempts to make this into a film they have to mess with an essential part of the story or add contemporary issues, when the story is timeless as it is. This film is completely dated and though Charlton Heston plays a pretty good Robert Neville, too many things have been added to ruin the story, like “The Family” and their weird religious fervor. However, if I take it as just a film which has nothing to do with Matheson’s story then it’s ok. Nothing spectacular, but it’s entertaining nonetheless, offering a strong performance by Heston like most of his other movies from this period, so despite the fact that it’s dated I’ll give it 3 stars.

October 6, 2009

Don’t Look Now (1973) Directed by Nicolas Roeg, based on a story by Daphne Du Maurier 4/5

Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie star in this bizarre psychic thriller. After they lose their daughter Laura and John Baxter make a trip to Venice where John is working on restoring an old church. There Laura meets a couple of old women, one of whom claims to be psychic. Desperate to know how her daughter is doing, Laura asks the woman to perform a séance only to find out her husband is in mortal danger if he stays in Venice. Thinking she’s hysterical, John ignores her warnings, but when Laura goes back to London to visit their injured son who’s away at boarding school John begins to see strange things himself which make the viewer question his sanity. The whole thing is capped off with a strange and unpredictable ending which leaves a bevy of unanswered questions. Roeg uses cinematography to create some of the most interesting and surreal scenes in dark and engrossing film.

October 11, 2009

Dead Alive/Braindead (1992) Directed by Peter Jackson, written by Stephen Sinclair 2/5

So I finally watched this Peter Jackson bloodfest and I must say I was disappointed. I didn’t really know what to expect going in except for gore and lots of it. It vaguely reminded me of Sam Raimi’s work, except it paled in comparison. Like Raimi, Jackson tries to be funny, quirky and gross; except it wasn’t really that funny, it ran a little long and though the bizarre plot had potential, it quickly became something contrived. It was like watching The Man with the Screaming Brain all over again (Aaaaaaaah!). Don’t get me wrong, I love a good B-movie, but there are good B-movies and then there are B-movies that look like something a group of nerdy high school kids on acid would make in their backyard with a camcorder and incredible amounts of fake blood and unfortunately for Mr. Jackson I would probably like the film the kids on acid made more than this one. I’m giving this one 2/5 stars simply because I saw potential in it.

October 13, 2009

Zombieland (2009) Directed by Ruben Fleischer, written by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick 4/5

This film is exactly what I was expecting – a little comedy, a little romance and a lot of action. Woody Harrelson is great as Tallahassee, a Twinkie hunting, gun loving zombie killer who teams up with the sweet, geeky Columbus, played by Jesse Eisenberg (a.k.a. the cute guy from Adventureland) after they run into each other on the highway. While hunting for Twinkies (and zombies) in a supermarket these two come across Wichita and Little Rock, a pair of resourceful sisters played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin respectively. But the world has become an “every man/woman for him/herself” kind of place which makes for a bumpy and exciting ride.

It looks like Moses is finally heading back to the big screen, and 53 years after The Ten Commandments was released, he’s ready to kick all sorts of ass. A new script is being penned by the writing team that brought us the critically-acclaimed Accepted, and aims to put a Braveheart-esque spin on things by telling the story of the Hebrews’ struggle for Scottish independence.

From Variety.

CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR av Mike Nichols (2007)
Med Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jud Tylor, Hilary Angelo

SPOILERVARNING

Om en film handlar om krig och den ena sidans stridande soldater kommer från USA och filmen är gjord i Hollywood, så är formeln given: man kritiserar företeelsen krig och framställer den som hemsk, men ser samvetsgrant till att med stor omsorg framhålla (inte så sällan med hjälp av en berättarröst till slutscenen och eftertexterna, som i Platoon av Oliver Stone och Flags of Our Fathers av Clint Eastwood) att de amerikanska soldaterna är hyvens och reko pojkar med äppelpaj i blick och amerikanska flaggans mönster på kalsongerna. Ja, något i den stilen, i alla fall. Kriget är ont, men amerikanerna är goda.

Det här ska nu för all del inte förvåna någon, för det är i själva verket en rätt trogen bild av Hollywoods åsikter. Filmbranschen i USA är av tradition politiskt liberal och nu när både John Wayne och Charlton Heston är döda går det endast med stor svårighet att spåra upp någon i Hollywood som är republikan. Att filmbranschen röstar på demokraterna är närmast ett axiom.

Liksom det närmast är ett axiom att filmbranschens utövande konstnärer, från manusförfattarna till regissörerna till skådespelarna, ofta har helt andra åsikter än eventuell sittande, republikansk president om när det är befogat att börja kriga någonstans i världen. Men här finns en hake, för när den republikanske presidenten väl har börjat kriga får “våra män och kvinnor i uniform” Hollywoods fulla stöd. Ibland får de till och med via satellit dela ut något av priserna under Oscarsgalan. För när pojkarna och flickorna är på plats med sina vapen och riskerar livet, ställer sig även Hollywood som sanna patrioter bakom dem.

Och därav filmerna som dels kritiserar krig, dels hyllar de amerikanska soldaterna.

Fast i Charlie Wilson’s War sker inte hyllningen som en avslutande men ohyggligt effektiv fotnot i form av berättarröst i slutet, den pågår filmen igenom. Även om det inte är just soldater den hyllar, utan en amerikansk krigsinsats. För Charlie Wilson’s War handlar alltså om kongressledamoten Charlie Wilson, som för att ta död på så många ryssar som möjligt lyckades få de amerikanska anslagen till vapen åt afghanerna då Sovjet invaderat att höjas från fem miljoner dollar till en miljard dollar. Varpå afghanerna dödade hemskt många ryssar och vann kriget. Under filmen får man sig som tittare till och med regelbundet till livs ett slags serietabell, där antalet nedskjutna, sovjetiska helikoptrar och sprängda stridsvagnar anges år för år. Meningen är nog att man ska hurra. Det gör de i alla fall i filmen.

Men nu är ju det här en film av Mike Nichols. Mannen bakom bland andra The Graduate och Carnal Knowledge.

Så inte helt överraskande överraskar den.

För den avslutas med en käftsmäll mot USA:s krigsmakt som är så talande och så skrämmande att man faktiskt kan tro på att filmen, som det påstås i förtexterna, bygger på en sann historia. Jag har spoilervarnat ovan, så jag dristar mig att tala om att en miljard dollar till vapen inte är för mycket, men att en miljon dollar till en skola i Afghanistan inte kan komma på tal. Vilket är talande.

Fast å andra sidan är det också talande att de stridande förbanden kommer från dels Sovjetunionens Ryssland, dels Afghanistan. Det finns alltså inga amerikanska soldater att hylla. Vilket förstås är bekvämt om man nu vill överraska med kritik mot själva beslutet att kriga.

Annars lider Charlie Wilson’s War av samma verklighetssträvan som Flags of Our Fathers, men ur en annan, intressant vinkel. Medan strävan efter autenticitet fick teamet bakom Flags of Our Fathers att bränna av så många granater och skottsalvor under handlingsbärande dialog att det är omöjligt att uppfatta vad någon säger, låter teamet bakom Charlie Wilson’s War i stället alla prata i munnen på varandra när de promenerande längs kongressens korridorer bedriver politisk kohandel. Så är det säkert i verkligheten, men för filmen blir det katastrofalt – den handlingsbärande dialogen drunknar i… den handlingsbärande dialogen.

Så jag gick till dvd-menyn och knäppte på engelskspråkiga textremsor. Och det visade sig att man varit fantastiskt noggrann och med angivelse av vem som säger vad i kakofonin har skrivit ut vad precis alla säger, vilket lett till fem- eller sexradiga textremsor skrivna med mycket liten stil som täcker nästan hela bildrutan. Och tar så lång tid att läsa att man omöjligt hinner göra det när de sekundsnabbt blixtrar förbi i det kulsprutesmattrande tjattret och därför blir tvungen att gång på gång frysa bilden för att förstå vad som händer, och varför.

Kör hårt,
Bellis

70 The Glen Miller Story

I’m a big fan of Jimmy Stewart and I love big band & jazz music, so this movie provides an irresistible combo. Stewart is quite the Miller doppelganger, which I assume is a prime reason he was cast in the film. June Allyson provides perky support as Miller’s wife, and a pre-MASH Harry Morgan plays Miller’s best buddy. The story follows Glen Miller from his struggling musician days through his rise to fame to his untimely demise in a presumed plane crash during World War II. I decided to watch this movie years ago simply because I had become a fan of Stewart and wanted to see as many of his films as possible. But the movie made me a Glenn Miller fan and I continue to enjoy his music immensely.

69 The Shrek Trilogy

I have to admit…I didn’t see any Shrek films until all three were already out and available on video, so I’m fairly new to the Shrek universe. I didn’t bother with them at first because I assumed they were kiddie films. However, I decided to watch one on television a few years back and have since seen all three. I was both right and wrong in my original assessment. They are undoubtedly geared toward an demographic far younger than I, but on the other hand sometimes it’s okay to temporarily feel like a kid again. For anyone unfamiliar (which I assume would only be folks who, like me, are both single and childless because anyone with children is surely familiar with Shrek), this animated trilogy follows the adventures of a surly but loveable ogre, his talking donkey sidekick, and the ogre’s lady love. There are a host of other characters. Lending their considerable voice talents to the three films are an all star team of folks such as Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Cameron Diaz, John Lithgow, Justin Timberlake, John Cleese, Rupert Everett, and many more. Most of the visual humor and jokes in the series parody well known fairy tales, which is a huge part of the charm for me…I love parodies and who doesn’t appreciate childhood fairy tales. The animation is computer generated, which far exceeds the animation most of us grew up with. These movies need to be viewed in high definition to really get the full effect.

68 The Greatest Show On Earth

Once again my favorite actor Jimmy Stewart is paired with something cool. This time it’s the circus. I think this is one of Stewart’s best performances. It is certainly low key and subtle, as he spends the entire film in clown makeup. The bigger draw for most people, I suppose, would be Charlton Heston in one of his finest performances as well. Heston kind of became a sad parody of himself in the latter part of his career, but this is one of his earlier movies and he shows why he was once one of the top box office attractions in the world. Directed by famed auteur Cecil B. Demille (I’m ready for my close-up…indeed), the story follows the Ringling Brothers/Barnum & Bailey Circus as it travels from town to town. We meet several of the performers and become involved in their lives behind the big top, so to speak. That behind the scenes view reveals a lot of romance, intrigue, drama, and tragedy. Basically it’s a soap opera set at the circus. Demille is known for his lavish, over-the-top, extravagant productions, and he doesn’t disappoint with The Greatest Show On Earth. Like so many beloved memories of yesteryear, the circus has almost slipped into being a remnant from a bygone era. Sure they are still around, but they are no longer an event. Even when I was a kid not that long ago it was a big deal when the circus came to town. Nowadays kids are into their video games and computers and iPods and couldn’t possibly care less about the circus. But watch this movie and you will be reminded of just how extraordinary it used to be.

67 Ocean’s 13

In 2001 George Clooney, Matt Damon, and Brad Pitt teamed up to remake the 1960 Rat Pack romp Ocean’s 11, about robbing a Vegas casino. The remake was a smashing success and unlike the original spawned sequels. The first movie will be dealt with later in this list. The second movie, Ocean’s 12, was poorly written and quite forgettable. The third movie was Ocean’s 13, and it’s a nice rebound from its disappointing predecessor. This time the gang returns to Las Vegas and they don’t actually rob a casino as much as they…turn the odds in their favor through uniquely nefarious means. The bad guy is played by Al Pacino, which automatically makes this a must see. As with the other Ocean’s films, don’t try to interject logic or make sense out of the proceedings. This is pure popcorn cinema, escapism at its best.

66 The Frat Pack Three Pak (Anchorman, The 40 Year Old Virgin, & Wedding Crashers)

Anyone who grew up in the 80’s is familiar with The Brat Pack (Molly Ringwald, Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Rob Lowe, and a few others). And while imitation is the sincerest form of flattery I would not necessarily call the modern Frat Pack imitators. The only similarity is the name homage, which was itself a takeoff on the 1960’s Rat Pack of Frank Sinatra and his pallies. The Frat Pack is generally thought to be comprised of Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, Owen and Luke Wilson, Steve Carell, Jack Black, Paul Rudd, and Seth Rogen. Some combination of those actors has starred in a host of films together with a wide array of results. Zoolander and Starsky & Hutch…not so good. Old School and Blades of Glory…much better. But for me three Frat Pack films stand head and shoulders above the crowd and have stood up to numerous repeated viewings. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy stars Ferrell with Carell and Rudd in very amusing supporting roles. Vaughn, Stiller, Black, Rogen and Luke Wilson all have brief cameos. Ferrell plays an over-the-top misogynistic 70’s news anchor whose world is turned upside down when he’s forced to share the anchor desk with a woman. Anchorman is among the most quotable movies of the past two decades and is just pointless yet harmless fun. The 40 Year Old Virgin stars Carell as the titular character, with Rogen and Rudd in vital supporting roles that really make this film work. It’s hilarious but sweet, with more quotable dialogue and a few really memorable scenes. I really like Rudd in this film. Wedding Crashers, starring Vaughn and Owen Wilson, is a movie I really like but probably not as much as some people. I don’t think it’s really any better than any other Frat Pack film, which doesn’t mean anything negative it just means my praise seems to not rise to outlandish and undeserved peaks of hyperbole. Will Ferrell makes possibly one of the best cameos of all time, and to say that Rachel McAdams (who I someday intend to make my bride) is quite fetching may be one of the biggest understatements I could conceive. Plus there’s Christopher Walken and that’s just the cherry on top.