“A Propaganda É a Alma do Negócio

Um português abre uma filial, de sua empresa de pregos em Roma. Como propaganda, fez um outdoor com a figura de Cristo pregado na cruz e embaixo estava escrito:
-”PREGOS GARCIA – 2000 ANOS DE GARANTIA!”
Foi aquele rebuliço!
O Bispo de Roma foi pessoalmente conversar com o Português e explicar que ele não podia fazer isso. Então o português resolveu fazer um novo outdoor. Colocou Cristo com uma das mãos pregadas na cruz e a outra solta, dando tchau. Embaixo estava escrito:
- “ADIVINHE EM QUAL MÃO FOI USADO PREGO GARCIA!”
Meu Deus do céu!!! Até o Papa foi conversar com o português.
- Assim não dá! O senhor não pode usar Jesus Cristo como garoto propaganda. Invente outra coisa…
-”Então vou fazer um novo outdoor…” – pensou o Português.
Colocou uma foto da cruz vazia, e embaixo escrito:
-”SE O PREGO FOSSE GARCIA, O CARA NÃO FUGIA…”

Muito bem, muito bem, muito bem bem bem! Hoje nosso blog será patrocinado por nada mais nada menos do que as propagandas que sempre quisemos ver, mas nunca tivemos a oportunidade! O objetivo aqui é estimular a criatividade e a liberdade de expressão! Afinal, se a propaganda é boa, naum deve ser censurada!!! Vamos conhecer, portanto, as propagandas censuradas que gostaríamos de ver por aí (com comentários super idiotas criativos do blog Amor com Humor)! A melhor concorrerá ao prêmio Criatividade Amor com Humor 2009! Façam suas apostas…

Candidato 1: Oi! – Pedro cadê meu “chips”?!?!

Candidato 2: Yakult! – Sucesso agora também no seu pc…

Candidato 3: Activia! - Quem disse que novela não traz nenhum benefício?

Candidato 4: Telefônica! – Custo reduzido para ligações no 7º dia…

Candidato 5: Fonoaudiologia! – Você nun cago nun cago nun ca gostou de mim!

Candidato 6: Colgate! – Experimente só o “tripla ação”!

Candidato 7: Casas Bahia! – É pegar ou largar!

Candidato 8: IPVA 2008! – Vá de GOLF (grande ônibus lotado e fudido)!

Candidato 9: Luftal! – Aquele que vc inventava que tava com dor de barriga só pq tinha gostinho bom!

Candidato 10: Natura! – Ops! Caiu o sabonete…#)

Candidato 11: Santal! – Carmen Miranda?!

Candidato 12: Trident! – Sem comentários!!!

Candidato 13: Viagra! – Por favor Não apague a luz quando sair!!

Candidato 14: Personal! – Onde esssssssstá vc meu preciossssssssso?!?!

Candidato 15: Honda! – Pedimos ao Rubinho ajudar no comentário, mas ele ainda naum chegou….

Candidato 16: Banco do Brasil! – O banco é Seu! O seu dinheiro, Deles!

Candidato 17: Hipoglós! – Item fora de estoque. Todas as unidades disponíveis foram reservadas para o jogo de hoje contra o Goiás.

Candidato 18: Hipoglós! – Boatos indicam suposto patrocínio com clube paulista…

Candidato 19: Brokeback Mountain! – Promoção! Só Hoje! Compre o DVD e ganhe uma camisa do Tricolor Paulista!

Candidato 20: CET! - Dois tomates atravessando a rua: ”Olha o carro!” Ploft! “Que carro?!” Ploft!

Candidato 21: Johnsons! – Versão feminina: “Sua filha nunca mais vai querer largar a chupeta!”

Candidato 22: Winia! – Não se faça de boba, vc entendeu sim!

Candidato 23: Chocooky! - Repita o slogan rápido 15 vezes…

Candidato 24: Jontex! – O que acha de pularmos os comentários?

Candidato 25: Levitra! - Praticamente um coelho…

Candidato 26: Tap Air Portugal! – Cabral usou e aprovou!

Candidato 27: HP! – Sem dinheiro pra comprar tinta?

Candidato 28: Loterias! - Porque o amor é cego, surdo, mudo e tem osteoporose…

Candidato 29: Velho Barreiro! - Produto de qualidade inconstestável!

Candidato 30: Vick! – Outro produto aprovado pela equipe São-Paulina!

É isso ae pessoal. Espero que tenham gostado e citem nos comentários a propaganda que acharam mais criativa! Também convidamos a todos para acessarem nossa comunidade e perfil do orkut! Basta procurarem por Amor com Humor, ou acessarem o link no menu esquerdo da sua tela! No Natal, sortearemos um convite para o novo orkut exclusivamente para os amigos cadastrados em nosso perfil! Bjundas!

Primero, la historia. Dice que, habiendo invadido los persas Grecia como venganza por la famosa batalla de Maratón que puso fin a la primera intentona persa de diez años atrás, el famoso estratega ateniense Temístocles ideó un plan defensivo que compaginaba hacer frente al ejército persa (de unos trescientos mil soldados) en las Termópilas a la vez que su flota era rodeada en Artemisio por las naves aliadas. Así, siete mil griegos (entre los que se contaban trescientos espartanos) bloquearon el famoso paso montañoso en el verano de 480 a.C. durante siete días, de los cuales hubo jaleo en tres de ellos. Leónidas, rey de Esparta, que comandaba la fuerza de, insistimos, siete mil griegos, resistió durante los dos primeros días el empuje persa pero, traicionados por un pastor llamado Efialtes, que reveló un camino oculto que podía conducir a las tropas persas a la retaguardia griega, el espartano ordenó la marcha de la mayoría de sus tropas hacia el sur e hizo frente hasta la muerte a los persas con unos dos mil hombres, que incluían sus famosos trescientos espartanos y además cuatrocientos tebanos, casi mil tespios y algunos centenares de voluntarios de otras ciudades griegas, a los cuales la historia ha olvidado. Derrotadas fácilmente las débiles fuerzas de Leónidas, los griegos levantaron el bloqueo naval de Artemisio y se refugiaron en Salamina (consulta al oráculo de Delfos por parte de Temístocles, o al menos eso cuenta la leyenda, de por medio), donde tuvo lugar la famosa victoria naval griega; una vez sin flota, los persas fueron derrotados definitivamente por los griegos en la batalla de Platea.

Y ahora, la película. Un espanto, no sólo por su prácticamente nulo respeto a los episodios comprobados históricamente, sino por su forma demencialmente violenta y narrativamente absurda. El tebeo de Frank Miller en que se basa la película es la primera piedra de toque que echa por tierra buena parte del rigor histórico que sería deseable cuando se reflejan con su nombre y apellidos episodios y personajes de una época determinada (aunque aquí la propia leyenda haya aumentado el papel de los espartanos y casi ninguneado al resto para enfatizar el ejemplo de heroísmo y sacrificio), más si cabe cuando la pretensión añadida es establecer paralelismos con situaciones geopolíticas presentes, en este caso, de manera tan torpe, maniquea y propagandística. Empezando mal, pues, al aceptar la devaluación histórica que se permite el argumento del tebeo como base para la historia, Zack Snyder, autor de pseudocine reconocido entusiásticamente por los fans de los superhéroes y los muñequitos en la pantalla, diseña una película, por llamarla de alguna forma, cuyo interés se diluye entre la sangre digital que salpica al objetivo de la cámara y los excesos visuales de una estética fundamentada en el orgiástico festival de efectismos y en la explotación de la épica de baratillo modelo Michal Bay (cámara lenta y gorgoritos operísticos incluidos -¿por qué en todas las películas sobre la Antigüedad desde Gladiator para acá siempre hay una batalla en la que se rueda a cámara lenta con músicas siempre más o menos parecidas?-). Partiendo pues de un muy deficiente retrato de la verdad histórica (que muchos dirán que no es necesaria y que hablamos de un tebeo, pobrecitos), la película pretende ser un monumento visual y, a decir verdad, a ratos lo consigue, aunque escoja bazofia pura para retratarla con sus modernas técnicas digitaloides.

Haciendo hincapié en los músculos de gimnasio, debidamente tuneados por el ordenador para la ocasión, de los protagonistas del bodrio en cuestión, la película realiza un pesado y reiterativo intento por tomarse en serio a sí misma, por traspasar su devaluada naturaleza de entretenimiento para amantes de lo sanguinolento y sentar cátedra como recordatorio histórico y como clave de interpretación del actual antagonismo entre oriente y occidente (en el que los malos siempre son los de oriente y los portadores de valores eternos siempre somos los mismos), sin, obviamente, conseguirlo, ya que involuntariamente sin duda, pero habiendo tomado las decisiones tomadas acerca de argumento, estética e intérpretes, indudablemente el carácter superficial y casi autoparódico van servidos en el mismo lote. El pretendido sustrato intelectual, la reflexión en torno a la guerra, al sacrificio, y peor aún, las lecturas políticas en clave de actualidad, quedan apuntadas a través de una serie de personajes arquetípicos, superficiales, que repiten los eslóganes según el lado, de los buenos y de los malos, que les ha tocado encarnar, y provocan por tanto la inexistencia de un discurso serio, maduro, elaborado más allá de la apología de la estupidez que suponen gran parte de las frases de guión. Este vacío intelectual va acompañado de un descuido absoluto por retratar la vida de los soldados, limitándose a cuatro fórmulas convencionales repetidas hasta la saciedad: relación entre padre e hijo, nostalgia de la amada abandonada en casa, veterano que se sacrifica por sus semejantes, la figura del traidor por despecho (con Efialtes convertido aquí en una especie de mezcla de Gollum y Jordi Pujol que traiciona a Leónidas por su rechazo a que forme parte de sus tropas, un añadido argumental tan estúpido como innecesario) etc., etc.

Así, la película pretende ser tan tan épica que deriva en muy muy ridícula, pretende apabullar pasando por alto la historia y consigue un inmenso vacío sobre el que montar su apoteosis de gratuito salvajismo, empaquetado por ordenador, y en cuanto a sus pretensiones de erigirse en metáfora del presente, ni que decir tiene que asume los postulados dominantes en las tesis neocons, felizmente (al menos en apariencia) abandonadas por la actual administración del imperio, basadas en la guerra preventiva, la imposición de los propios intereses por encima de valores universales reservados para ellos mismos, el racismo latente en la creencia de la superioridad y mayor legitimidad de unas naciones sobre otras (llama la atención cuántos generales persas son encarnados por actores negros de manera un tanto ilógica teniendo en cuenta el reducido número de negros que viven, por ejemplo, hoy, en Irán y el resto de países de la antigua Mesopotamia) sobre las que hay que mantenerse atentos y vigilantes, en la incompetencia intelectual para comprender otras culturas y en el papel mojado en el que quedan reducidos los derechos de los pueblos considerados inferiores o enemigos cuando plantean sus legítimas exigencias, todo ello con el edulcorado discurso protagonizado por palabras interesadamente vaciadas de significado y blandidas como bandera por la que justificar incluso el crimen como medio de consecución de los propios intereses, casi siempre espurios: libertad, derechos, democracia y demás vocabulario devaluado por la democracia meramente formal que padecemos.

Éxito de recaudación gracias a la impagable labor de marketing de los grupos de comunicación que siempre se hacen eco del cine de tercera división, la buena noticia es que, habiendo mantenido al menos el final de la historia como tal, con la aniquilación total de los espartanos y compañía (mucha menos de la que habla la historia auténtica, reducida aquí a mera comparsa, a presencia auxiliar de otros griegos que, sin embargo, en la historia eran la fuerza principal), sabemos positivamente que no habrá segunda parte. Eso, si no llega un “iluminado” de los que esconden sus deficiencias de talento en el cine de muñecos y se le ocurre resucitarlos y hacer con ellos una peli de zombis o vampiros de la Antigüedad, que todo se andará…

Acusados: todos
Atenuantes: ninguno
Agravantes: los excesos violentos, su carácter pretenciosamente grandilocuente, su artificiosidad
Sentencia: culpables.
Condena: depilación a serrucho de las zonas blandas

der aufschrei war schon im vorfeld groß – umso erstaunlicher ist es, dass die cdu-lobby um roland koch ihren plan von der absetzung nikolaus brenders als chefredakteur des zdf tatsächlich umsetzen konnte. doch einmal von vorne: wie konnte es dazu kommen? das zdf ist als öffentlich-rechtliche sendeanstalt, die sich größtenteils über rundfunkgebühren finanziert, mit einem kontrollgremium ausgestattet, das insbesondere die haushaltspolitischen entscheidungen des intendanten überwachen soll. der verwaltungsrat. sicherlich, eine wichtige und richtige maßnahme – geht es doch um die verwendung von zwangsabgaben aller deutschen mit fernseher oder/und radio.

nun heißt der intendant des zdf markus schächter. markus schächter ist also derjenige, dessen entscheidungen (den haushalt des zweiten deutschen fernsehens betreffend) kontrolliert werden sollen. neben dem intendanten hat das zdf einen chefredakteur. der heißt nikolaus brender und wird immer wieder für seinen vorbildlichen journalistischen stil, seine überparteilichkeit und unabhängigkeit gelobt. genau das wurde ihm jetzt bizarrerweise zum verhängnis. eine seilschaft aus cdu-politikern und -unterstützern hat trotz heftiger proteste verhindert, dass brender für eine weitere amtszeit von fünf jahren die journalistischen geschicke des zdf leitet, wie vom intendanten vorgesehen. da halfen keine offenen briefe, keine auszeichnungen brenders, keine appelle und keine warnungen vor gefährlicher politischer einmischung seitens der christsozialen.  klickstu

fassen wir zusammen: obwohl der verwaltungsrat beauftragt ist, haushaltspolitische entscheidungen des intendanten zu beleuchten und zu hinterfragen, hat er die wiederwahl brenders erfolgreich verhindern können. dabei

• ist brenders personalie und dessen aufgabenbreich in allererster linie eine journalistische und keine haushaltspolitsche,
• heißt der intendant des zdf, der ausdrücklich kontrolliert werden soll, markus schächter und nicht nikolaus brender,
• haben persönliche und parteipolitische ziele bei einer solchen entscheidung nichts zu suchen.

betrachtet man die zusammensetzung des verwaltungsrats, drängen sich allerdings schon ein paar fragen auf. von den 14 mitgliedern sind explizit 6 politische vertreter, 5 aus den ländern und 1 aus dem bund. der vertreter des bundes heißt bernd neumann und ist staatsminister für kultur und medien in diensten der – richtig… – cdu. vertreter der länder sind neben dem stellvertretenden vorsitzenden des komitees roland koch (cdu) noch die halbtoten partei-grandenurgesteine peter müller (cdu), edmund stoiber (csu)… platzek und beck scheinen gegen diese übermacht wenig ausrichten zu können. an dieser stelle muss auch ein vorwurf an die vertreter der anderen parteien gehen, weil diese es zugelassen haben, dass der cdu-block mit wenig aufwand und wenig werben um aliierte jede personalentscheidung blockieren kann: zur wiederwahl brenders wären 9 der 14 stimmen nötig gewesen.

auch, wenn über dieses thema viel gestritten und geschrieben wurde: man kann die leute nur zu gut verstehen, die von diesem vorgang schockiert sind, sich entmündigt fühlen und mit recht die chinesischen verhältnisse in deutschland kritisieren. wohl nur wenige hätten mit diesem durchhaltevermögen des selbsternannten hessen-obamas gerechnet. wohl nur wenige hätten erwartet, dass allein aus parteipolitischen interessen ein journalist im märz 2010 seinen stuhl räumen muss, der durch einen tadellosen job, seine unbestechlichkeit und geradlinigkeit herausstach. deutschland – land der unbegrenzten möglichkeiten.

#nachtrag#

wie ich gerade gesehen habe, ist es nicht das erste mal, dass sich koch & freunde in sachen medien-zensur einen namen machen. ein weiterer anlass (natürlich auch bei einem leicht politisch zu beeinflussenden öffentlich-rechtlichen sender) war die wahl zum “arsch des jahres”, zu der koch neben einem bse-rind und einem kampfhund von hr-moderator matthias münch aufgestellt wurde. dieser bericht hat mich gerade aufs beste amüsiert… kurzfassung gibts auch bei shortnews.

I hear that it’s much in demand.

If I didn’t write, then I wouldn’t be sitting by myself in my room right now, huddled over my laptop like Gollum with his Precious, typing with in syncopatic stop-start-rhythms, trying to get the imagery, words, phrases and sentences in my head onto the screen in front of me.

Instead I’d be out having drinks with friends,
wishing that society would start deeming it acceptable
to sit scribbling with a notebook and pen while in the
company of others

I sat there watching Lord of the Rings.  I was a little scared, but I liked the movie.  Gollum, looked creepy, and he went from bouts of greedy malice, to fearfully helpful, to torturous inward turmoil.  I didn’t know I had OCD at this time, but the way Gollum grabbed his head while he sat on the ground frustrated by his inner voices freaked me out to no end.  I was taken aback by how much I felt like him.  I knew I didn’t have schizophrenia which he seemed to sort of resemble having, but I recognized that grinding hold he put with his fingers to his forehead, covering his eyes, trying to control his thoughts with his hands.  It’s been a symbol that I think about every once in a while.  It’s the sort of thing that comforts me, while at the same time bothering me.  When I start to break down, I grab my head like Gollum does.

MAGIA, ESPADA Y FANTASÍA (VI)

La segunda parte de la monumental adaptación a la pantalla de la obra de J.R.R. Tolkien por Peter Jackson y su equipo da comienzo en el punto en que la Comunidad del Anillo se disuelve: Frodo y Sam siguen su camino hacia Mordor, Merry y Pipin han caído prisioneros de los orcos de Sauron, y Aragorn, Legolas y Gimli, dejando a los pequeños portadores del anillo que encuentren su propio destino, van tras los cautivos para liberarlos, mientras Sauron y su aliado Saruman siguen acumulando fuerzas con las que aplastar a las razas libres de la Tierra Media, desunidas y parapetadas tras sus débiles defensas…

Tras el impactante efecto sorpresa de la primera entrega, Las dos torres ofrece más de lo mismo (pero peor) en la forma, aunque empieza la decadencia en cuanto al fondo. Como dijimos en su momento en esta misma sección, a medida que la trilogía avanza, sus grandes virtudes se van poco a poco diluyendo y los pequeños inconvenientes del primer capítulo, minimizados ante la grandiosidad del conjunto, van creciendo hasta poco a poco adueñarse de este puente hacia la conclusión. El problema, precisamente, es la entrega incondicional a la espectacularidad de las formas y el paulatino descuido de unas, ya de por sí, demasiado elementales, lineales, esquemáticas cuestiones de fondo (personajes, psicología, motivaciones, reacciones ante los hechos…) siguiendo, obviamente, las pautas marcadas por Tolkien pero haciendo que la película, exactamente igual que su antecesora y su continuación, dependa en exclusiva de los conocimientos previos del espectador sobre la obra literaria a fin de que pueda entender la lógica de acontecimientos y personajes, sin que se trate de un producto cinematográfico autónomo. A ello no es ajena la introducción de las grandes batallas y de las escenas de acción propias de la historia en las que la entrega a la espectacularidad es total, y en las que se desvirtúan algunos logros de la primera parte. Por ejemplo, donde hay un ingente esfuerzo por utilizar el maquillaje y la caracterización para la construcción de las diversas criaturas “no humanas” y de ambientación y dirección artística para los espacios, comienza a haber demasiada labor de computadora a fin de recrear enormes ejércitos en movimiento, espacios abiertos o decorados en los que transcurran los combates, auténticamente de videojuego por más espectaculares que sean, y también en el momento de provocar un buen número de efectos de la violencia sobre individuos y objetos. La batalla principal es tan grandiosa como artificiosa, con algún que otro guiño que supera lo humorístico para adentrarse en lo ridículo, completamente fuera del tono general de la historia, y las múltiples y complejas tramas paralelas que como un mosaico van salpicando la narración y cambiando el punto de interés y de tensión a cada momento, unidas a la excesiva duración del film, hacen que el ritmo vaya desde la lentitud más extrema al servicio del crecimiento de una tensión no siempre lograda (porque hay que entender que al igual que se depende del libro para presuponer aspectos de los personajes el espectador ya conoce el desenlace de los hechos sobre los que se pretende cargar emoción) hasta la vertiginosa sucesión de acontecimientos acelerados que siembran la película de altibajos y lagunas de emoción.

El problema es que la ingenuidad y expectación del discurso de la primera parte se torna aquí en una oda a las imágenes animadas desprovistas de discurso de cualquier tipo o, lo que es peor, intentando alcanzar la sublimidad de ciertos mensajes a través de la mera repetición de frases y situaciones pretendidamente trascendentes y decisivas (cuando, insistimos, el lector de Tolkien, espectador a quien va dirigida la película, no como intención, pero sí como construcción, ya sabe qué va a pasar y qué no) pero que, a través de ese culto a lo entendido como modernidad e innovación visuales, son en el fondo de una emotividad vacía, de una emoción nula, sin una aventura real, sin un riesgo o un peligro que realmente cruce al otro lado de la pantalla, sin unos personajes vivos por los que podamos sentir una empatía que vaya más allá de lo que los personajes dicen representar, sin llegar a sentir algo por los personajes en sí.

La película acumula historias que transcurren de manera paralela pero no por ello gana en solidez, muy al contrario, es una forma de perder pulso, de deshilvanar un puzzle que en la primera entrega había quedado ensamblado de manera aceptable. Se vuelve facilona, vulgar, reiterativa, simple y lineal, por más que visualmente pretenda todo lo contrario, resultar majestuosa, abigarrada, rica, espectacular; busca enganchar por la belleza y el impacto de imágenes grandilocuentes, olvidándose de atraparnos por el cariz de los acontecimientos que cuenta, y es ahí donde, a pesar de que engancha y obliga a seguirla, apuesta por explotar los elementos más pobres y simplones del lenguaje cinematográfico y busca convencer a través de algo, en el fondo, tan fácil como es apabullar, embaucar por aplastamiento.

Habiendo alcanzado así la trilogía la cúspide de lo que podía ofrecer, buena parte de esta segunda entrega y toda la tercera parte son un lento caer hacia la superficialidad en el discurso y el tributo a las formas animadas por ordenador en detrimento de la historia misma, al metraje excesivo en la creencia de que la mejor adaptación es la que cuenta todo (ya dijo Voltaire que el secreto de aburrir consiste en decirlo todo), de que a más, siempre es mejor. Y el cine nos ha dado gran cantidad de muestras, seguramente las mejores, de que lo mejor suele ser siempre lo contrario.

Interviewing trackers …

Later …

And then …

Earlier this week, a friend posted this Twitter: “If you could pick one movie and have it actually be a true story, what movie would you pick?”
I took this too seriously, I’m sure, and reflected on it through the afternoon.  After great contemplation, it was suddenly clear to me: Lord of the Rings.  Hobbits – real.  The Shire – real. Gandalf – real. Ents – real. Yes, I would love to live in that world. (I realize that means wraiths, balrogs and the like are included too… but what world, including our own, doesn’t have it’s share of baddies?)  I guess I kind of cheated on my answer since it was a book first… but don’t all great things come from literature? 

“Eucatastrophe” is one of my favorite words.  Tolkien coined it to represent the great thing that surprisingly happens when it seems all hope has failed.  Basically, it’s the opposite of a catastrophe.  And, isn’t it great to have a word for that??  It’s what happens at the end of Return of the King: it seems that Sauron has won; Frodo gives up; Gollum claims the ring.  There is no sign of hope.  Yet, suddenly, we have that great eucatastrophe  – Gollum and the One Ring fall into Mount Doom and the world is saved.  Big. Sigh. Of. Relief.

I love used to love the ending of Return of the King.  I do love the notion of Valinor, the undying lands, especially after reading The Silmarillion.  And the idea of Frodo going there is so… peaceful…

But, wait a minute… Didn’t Frodo just give up?!? Didn’t he fight against all odds and endure every difficulty and then lose strength?  I’ll be honest with you – Frodo and I have been fighting about this for a couple years.  For the longest time, he was my favorite LoTR character.  For reasons I won’t go into, I related to him.  I empathized with him.  But, then, a few years ago, I suddenly realized how weak he was being.  He couldn’t deal; he gave up; then he still couldn’t deal, and he basically bailed on this earth.  Ummm… yeah… that sounds less inspirational.  So, help me out, fellow Ringers.  I’m really mad at Frodo!  The eucatastrophe is amazing – but Frodo doesn’t bring it about.  In fact, his final decision would have led to nothing but catastrophe.  I know it’s important that he spared Gollum earlier, for if it wasn’t for that mercy Gollum would not have been there to inadvertently destroy the ring…. but why did you give up Frodo?  Why??

Earlier this week, a friend posted this Twitter: “If you could pick one movie and have it actually be a true story, what movie would you pick?”
I took this too seriously, I’m sure, and reflected on it through the afternoon.  After great contemplation, it was suddenly clear to me: Lord of the Rings.  Hobbits – real.  The Shire – real. Gandalf – real. Ents – real. Yes, I would love to live in that world. (I realize that means wraiths, balrogs and the like are included too… but what world, including our own, doesn’t have it’s share of baddies?)  I guess I kind of cheated on my answer since it was a book first… but don’t all great things come from literature? 

“Eucatastrophe” is one of my favorite words.  Tolkien coined it to represent the great thing that surprisingly happens when it seems all hope has failed.  Basically, it’s the opposite of a catastrophe.  And, isn’t it great to have a word for that??  It’s what happens at the end of Return of the King: it seems that Sauron has won; Frodo gives up; Gollum claims the ring.  There is no sign of hope.  Yet, suddenly, we have that great eucatastrophe  – Gollum and the One Ring fall into Mount Doom and the world is saved.  Big. Sigh. Of. Relief.

I love used to love the ending of Return of the King.  I do love the notion of Valinor, the undying lands, especially after reading The Silmarillion.  And the idea of Frodo going there is so… peaceful…

But, wait a minute… Didn’t Frodo just give up?!? Didn’t he fight against all odds and endure every difficulty and then lose strength?  I’ll be honest with you – Frodo and I have been fighting about this for a couple years.  For the longest time, he was my favorite LoTR character.  For reasons I won’t go into, I related to him.  I empathized with him.  But, then, a few years ago, I suddenly realized how weak he was being.  He couldn’t deal; he gave up; then he still couldn’t deal, and he basically bailed on this earth.  Ummm… yeah… that sounds less inspirational.  So, help me out, fellow Ringers.  I’m really mad at Frodo!  The eucatastrophe is amazing – but Frodo doesn’t bring it about.  In fact, his final decision would have led to nothing but catastrophe.  I know it’s important that he spared Gollum earlier, for if it wasn’t for that mercy Gollum would not have been there to inadvertently destroy the ring…. but why did you give up Frodo?  Why??

Campanie “Verde pentru Biciclete”

este prima iniţiativă din Timişoara care încurajează adoptarea mersului pe bicicletă ca şi alternativă ecologică pentru deplasarea prin oraş. Scopul este de a atrage atenţia asupra importanţei si beneficiilor mersului pe bicicletă, de a evidenţia faptul că există biciclişti pe străzile oraşului şi de a atrage sprijinul autorităţilor locale pentru construirea mai multor piste pentru biciclete

Rezultatele obtinute de-a lungul unui an de campanie „Verde pentru Biciclete” sunt următoarele:

o    4400 de numere de biciclist distribuite

o    Peste 3000 de semnături pentru crearea de piste pentru biciclete adunate (online şi fizic, la evenimentele desfăsurate)

o    Acţiuni pentru biciclisti aproape in fiecare lună : Numărătoarea Bicicletelor (25 octombrie 2009), „Măsuri de siguranţă in trafic” (22 noiembrie 2008), “Amintiri pe două roţi” (8 decembrie 2008-25 ianuarie 2009), “Siguranţa în trafic a tinerilor biciclişti”(12 februarie-28 martie 2009), “Numărătoarea de primăvară”(25 aprilie 2009), “Plimbare de plăcere la Pădurea Verde”- inaugurarea traseelor nou marcate de la Pădurea Verde (16 mai 2009), “ROcicleta- Ziua copilului pe bicicletă” – 1(unu) Iunie Biciclist (31 mai 2009), Ture Cicliste Bănăţene „Verde pentru Biciclete” (iunie – august 2009); Cupa Cetăţilor (5 septembrie 2009) – parteneriat cu CS Gratzu, „Micul Dejun Biciclist” (21-25 septembrie 2009); am luat de asemenea parte la Festivalul Bega Bulevard (iunie 2009) şi la Festivalul PLAI (septembrie 2009)

o    Donarea a 40 de biciclete Serviciului Poliţiei Comunitare Timişoara

o    De la debutul campaniei, au fost amenajate cel puţin 8 piste de biciclete in Timişoara

Aceste rezultate, alături de numărul mare de participanţi la evenimentele „Verde pentru Biciclete” şi atitudinea pozitivă faţă de campanie, reflectă impactul pe care il are mişcarea in comunitate. Susţinătorii campaniei poartă tricouri  şi agăţătatoare şi folosesc stickere şi insigne, toate marca “Verde pentru Biciclete”.

“Verde pentru biciclete”  este o mişcare pentru pedalare susţinută de Fundaţia Bega Timişoara, în colaborare cu Clubul Sportiv Gratzu, KissFM, Ziua de Vest, timisoreni.ro, tion.ro şi Timiş Expres .

PRET 42,00 Lei
contact@gratzu.ro, 0769 562 555

Link catre MAGAZIN

(thanks to Knox)

iPhone users have a hard time letting the thing out of their hands. They’re constantly rubbing it or tapping it. It seems to dominate their consciousness and give meaning to their existence. What distress when they lose it! Moans and wailing!

Plus, they think it makes them invisible. In the middle of a group, they’re reading and writing texts, checking the weather or the score, even taking calls. As though we couldn’t see.

Gollum would recognize the behavior.

Watch out. You know what the Precious did to him.

There is this difference, thanks to the wonder of mass production. iPhone users don’t hide their Precious for fear that you might steal their one and only. No, they love to show off how it works because they want you and me and everybody to have one.

Even so, if you happen to be holding the Precious, and you’re near a veteran user who has lost or misplaced his own—watch out for your fingers.

MAGIA, ESPADA Y FANTASÍA (III)

Un icono instantáneo en la Historia del cine. Ése es el primer y más importante tanto a favor de Peter Jackson y su amplio equipo tras asumir la titánica tarea de adaptar a la pantalla la monumental obra de J. R. R. Tolkien, superando por fin el complejo de una industria cinematográfica incapaz durante décadas de afrontar el reto de poner en imágenes el único libro que se le resistía. Habiendo adaptado en varias ocasiones con más o menos fortuna narraciones ricas y complicadas como El Quijote, Las mil y una noches o incluso La Biblia, de El señor de los anillos solamente había podido hacerse una cinta de animación de algo más de dos horas de duración y una continuación televisiva con el segundo de los libros de la trilogía, también de dibujos animados. El gran obstáculo para que el cine hubiera salido airoso antes de tan ingente esfuerzo era sin duda la enorme complicación que suponía reflejar en la pantalla el mundo imaginario diseñado por Tolkien, esa Tierra Media instalada en una eterno medievo, poblada por seres humanos y criaturas fabulosas de atributos fantásticos, poseedora de casi todos los ecosistemas existentes en el planeta Tierra y nutrida de centenares de referencias y trasvases culturales, históricos, mitológicos y legendarios procedentes del mundo real y de los que Tolkien era amplio conocedor gracias a su profunda erudición, a su dominio de las lenguas antiguas y al desempeño de sus tareas académicas. En los albores del siglo XXI, en cambio, a través de las nuevas tecnologías y con una encomiable actitud por parte de Jackson y compañía para utilizar los efectos especiales de manera respetuosa y no abusiva, usándolos para cubrir las lagunas que el maquillaje y la dirección artística no pueden satisfacer, la adaptación consigue una maestría formal absoluta.

Con un acertado planteamiento que incluía como medida indispensable (para la lógica narrativa y las necesidades de la taquilla) la realización de una película para cada una de las partes de la obra, esta primera entrega cubre el primer volumen de la trilogía literaria, la historia desde que Frodo (Elijah Wood) y Gandalf (Ian McKellen) tienen conocimiento de que el Anillo del Poder forjado tiempo atrás por Sauron, el Señor Oscuro, con objeto de controlar los anillos entregados a todas las razas de La Tierra Media, está en manos de Bilbo (Ian Holm) tras habérselo arrebatado años atrás a la criatura Gollum, hasta que la compañía creada por las razas de la Tierra Media para escoltar a Frodo en su arduo camino hasta el Monte del Destino, lugar donde el anillo debe ser arrojado para ser destruido, queda disuelta con la desaparición de Gandalf, la muerte de Boromir (Sean Bean), la marcha de Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen), Legolas (Orlando Bloom) y Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) a la caza de orcos y la dispersión de los hobbits Frodo y Sam (Sean Astin), por un lado, y Merry y Pippin (Dominic Monahan y Billy Boyd), por otro. Entretanto, por su periplo han desfilado personajes como Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Arwen (Lyv Tyler) o el ambiguo Saruman (Christopher Lee).

La tercera gran virtud de la cinta la constituyen los exteriores escogidos como localizaciones para la filmación, los impresionantes paisajes de los Alpes Neozelandeses, todo un descubrimiento para quienes nunca habían tenido oportunidad de ver, ni siquiera en los documentales de La2, las maravillosas y bellísimas riquezas naturales de nuestras antípodas. Esta elección viene sustentada por un soberbio trabajo de dirección artística y maquillaje, así como de vestuario y caracterización, aspectos para los cuales los efectos especiales, contra lo que suele ser habitual, son meramente accesorios aunque tremendamente efectivos y decisivos. Todos los aspectos relacionados, pues, con el escenario en el que transcurre la acción, desde el aparente cuento infanfil inicial en los deliciosos parajes de La Comarca hasta el inquietante cuento de horror y tinieblas en que se convierte la aventura de los hobbits, son sobresalientes, disminuyendo un tanto la magnificencia del espectáculo, por ejemplo, en ciertos momentos, escasos pero algo chirriantes, en que las Minas de Moria o la ciudad de Rivendel son recreadas al modo y manera de los videojuegos, muñequitos incluidos.

En cuanto a la trama, la casi imposible adaptabilidad de una obra tan compleja, abundante y rica impone limitaciones, cortes y refritos tan comprensibles como inevitables. En esta primera parte, de ciento ochenta minutos de duración, al menos las labores de cortado y pegado no perjudican en modo alguno al conjunto más allá de lo habitual en una película de tres horas que alterna pasajes de enorme tensión y emoción con pausas de ritmo y escenas más contemplativas o largas (probablemente demasiado) transiciones. Sin embargo, lo que en entregas siguientes se convertirá en un problema (el ritmo y la excesiva duración, no digamos ya en las versiones extendidas que circulan en las ediciones de lujo en DVD), aquí queda meramente apuntado y es perdonable una vez que se juzga la majestuosidad de todo el metraje, convirtiéndose en virtud lo que a priori sería un defecto, la supresión de buena parte de lo superfluo y más farragoso del libro de Tolkien, aunque las tijeras de Jackson bien pudieran haber hecho algún que otro corte más y, por otro lado, el resultado final adolezca en algunos momentos de ciertas imprecisiones en la continuidad.

Todos estos aspectos técnicos, recompensados con cuatro premios Oscar de la Academia de Hollywood, hacen que la película sea toda una experiencia visual. Entrando, eso sí, en los aspectos dramáticos, la cosa cambia. En este punto tanto Jackson como los guionistas parten de un principio: el espectador conoce la obra de Tolkien y tiene una clara imagen de los personajes, por lo que no se molestan en introducirnos en la “realidad” de La Tierra Media ni en presentar los protagonistas al espectador más que en breves pinceladas arquetípicas que, si bien es cierto que permiten hacerse una idea del carácter de cada uno de una manera directa y rápida, hacen de todos ellos, exceptuando al Boromir de Sean Bean, unos personajes planos, previsibles, sin fuerza. Si a ello sumamos la ausencia de escenas en que la tensión o la emoción la pongan los personajes y no el entorno, la música, los paisajes o la violencia, nos encontramos con que la mayor parte de los actores no aportan a sus personajes más que la percha (excepción hecha quizá de McKellen, Holm, Bean o Wood) y que se limitan a cubrir etapas de su viaje como el muñeco escogido en un videojuego. Todo ello contribuye a que la película no sea una obra autónoma, sino que sea tributaria, quizá en demasía, de la información aportada por el libro que un espectador que sea desconocedor del mismo tendrá que completar de su propia cosecha si no quiere ver reducido lo que sucede en la pantalla a las escasas notas con que el director caracteriza personajes y fenómenos.

Con todo, y a pesar de los inconvenientes citados, la irrupción en la pantalla con la sala sala del cine a oscuras de las doradas letras del título de la cinta acompañadas por la estimable composición de Howard Shore (su música es quizá una de las mayores virtudes de la trilogía), supone una de las puertas abiertas a la fantasía más logradas del cine actual, un estallido de épica y magia, de grandilocuencia formal y profunda emotividad, de factura impecable y sutil majestuosidad, en la que triunfa claramente la forma sobre el fondo y cuyo desarrollo en las dos películas siguientes conservará, aunque no en la misma medida, las virtudes formales, y poco a poco acrecentará de manera ostensible los defectos apuntados.

Si en la Tierra Media se libran cruentas batallas, y sus protagonistas tienen que sortear múltiples escollos, el proyecto de la producción de “El Hobitt” no se ha quedado atrás afrontando problemas.

Tan sólo hace unas semanas que la demanda presentada por los herederos de J. R. Tolkien y la editorial HarperCollins, contra la productora New Line, relacionada con la participación en los beneficios brutos sobre la trilogía de “El señor de los anillos”, tuvo su resolución legal, dando vía libre al rodaje de las dos películas de “El Hobbit”.

Pero, solventado ese problema, que ha significado un gran retraso para el comienzo del proyecto, se comenzaron a escuchar rumores sobre la difícil situación económica de los estudios Metro Goldwing Mayer. Rumores que tenían una base real, pues en un comunicado de hace unos días, el estudio ha anunciado que después de haber llegado a un acuerdo con sus acreedores, en el que se comprometen a no hacer efectivos sus cobros, y también a proporcionarles una liquidez adicional, en una asociación al 50% con Warner y New Line, podrán rodar sin más trabas las dos películas proyectadas.

En este caso, los acreedores juegan sobre seguro. “El Hobbit” proporcionará a la MGM una buena inyección de millones con los que podrán hacer frente a las deudas. Pero, para tenerlo todo mejor atado, también tienen proyectado, que en caso de que los estudios llegaran a la bancarrota total durante el rodaje de las películas, se quedarían con el resultado de la subasta de los derechos de la obra de Tolkien.

Así las cosas, todo parece indicar que Guillermo del Toro (arropado por Peter Jackson) puede comenzar por fin la pre-producción de “El Hobbit”, que se rodará como una sola película, pero que será estrenada en dos partes, como ya se hizo con la trilogía de “El señor de los anillos”, y que llegarán a las pantallas en las Navidades de 2011 y 2012 respectivamente.

Nueva Zelanda prestará escenarios naturales para la Tierra Media, al igual que en la trilogía.

De momento, se desconoce quienes serán los actores que compondrán el reparto, aunque se dan por seguras las participaciones de Sir Ian McKellen, como el mago Gandalf, la de Hugo Weaving, que daría vida nuevamente a Elrond, rey de los elfos, y la de Andy Serkis, que volvería a repetir en el papel de Gollum.

Quien interpretará al joven Bilbo Bolsón, es un secreto bien guardado por Guillermo del Toro y Peter Jackson, siempre en el supuesto de que ya tengan en mente al actor que lo encarnará.

Mucho no tardaremos en conocer ese dato, y otros que ahora despiertan curiosidad. El rodaje está previsto que comience a primeros del año que viene, y todo tiene que estar ya bien atado para entonces.

-

Podéis leer una información anterior, pinchando en el enlace de abajo

“El Hobbit” – Imágenes de los trabajos de reconstrucción de Hobbiton

Vía: Variety

-

Swanson 

Entrada dedicada a nuestro querido amigo Kalifer.

Un testigo de Jehová se sienta junto a un andaluz en un vuelo Sevilla-Tenerife.

Este testigo de Jehová estaba librando, por eso iba sin uniforme de camisa blanca, corbata, mochila, gafas y tarjeta... aun así se le veía a la legua.

 
Cuando el avión ha despegado empiezan a repartir bebidas a los pasajeros.
 
El andaluz pide un cubatita de ron.
 
La azafata le pregunta al testigo de Jehová si quiere beber algo.
 
Contesta el testigo de Jehová con mal tono:
 
“¡Prefiero ser raptado y violado salvajemente por una docena de putas de Babilonia antes que una gota de alcohol toque mis labios!”.

¿qué tienen de especial las putas de Babilonia???

El andaluz le devuelve el cubata a la azafata y dice:
 
“Yo también. No sabía que se podía elegir”

Gollum Bernie is spotted donning some casual gear in what appears to be a long sleeved polo-type shirt made of thick jersey (or sweatshirt?) material. The exposed overlocked seams and team crest/team number add to the casual feeling … as opposed to his usual white collared shirt that he sports on race days. As for the number 67 on the shirt… my hypothesis is that Bernie probably wishes he was only 67 years old… HAH =x

Do you like this look on Gollum Bernie? Is it flattering? Somehow, this makes him seem more like a real person to me (instead of a the ring-obsessed-Gollum a la Lord of the Rings). Imagine him wearing a Caterbury polo or shopping at Abercrombie & Fitch… good lord whilst looking for the ring of power and being suffocated by the horrid A&F cologne…hahahaha

Species Name: Dysfunctionus Realitywhoricus

It’s hard to believe that one family could become famous off a sex tape, a deceased patriarch, and a ex-Olympian stepfather who has one too many botulism injections to his leathery face. Oh who am I kidding, this is the type of family that American television audiences eat up. Either way, the fact is that I’d give just about anything for the Kardashian’s to take an extended family vacation to Hell.

Let’s start with Kim, since she’s the real breadwinner of this clan. Kim burst onto the scene by banging Brandy’s brother and letting the guy film it, because of course there was never a chance he would try to make a few bucks off of it. Well, congratulations Kim, you have become a household name because you’re a whore. You may take your place alongside Paris Hilton and Screech.

Let’s move on to Shrek…uh I mean Khloe. Khloe would’ve remained sharing her cave with Gollum if it wasn’t for her sister.  By all accounts that is what she should’ve done so we could’ve been spared a second fucking reality show from this uninteresting family. Next there’s Mother Kris, the epitome of motherhood, trying to whore out her children at every possible chance, all the while being that mom. You know who I mean, the mom who tries to act like she’s cool enough to hang out with her kids and her kids friends. Guess what Kris? Despite your efforts of trying to find the fountain of youth through countless face lifts…you’re still 54, start acting like it.

The rest of the family I don’t have much of a problem with, but unfortunately for you guys, you get to be thinned from the herd by proxy.

In a world where the Kardashians weren’t around to occupy 90% of E!’s programming schedule:

• Lamar Odom would be forced to find some other troll doll to marry.

Run Lamar! Run for your life!!!

• “For the Love of Ray J” would’ve never happened, because the big wigs at VH1, would never have had the thought, “Hey that guy banged Kim Kardashian, lets give him his own show!
• Ryan Seacrest would have to find another celebrity trainwreck to base a “reality” show around…oh wait, they all already have shows on E!
• Bruce Jenner would’ve dodged a bullet by not marrying into the Kardashian family, avoiding life plagued with therapy and suicidal thoughts.
• The Armenian population would no longer have to live in shame of the Kardashians.
• Reggie Bush may have actually had a successful career in the NFL without Kim’s voluptuous ass getting in the fucking way.
• People would be forced to find a show on TV with an actual premise. Hell, even The Hills has a plot…probably cause it’s scripted reality. A whole other topic for another time…
• Plastic surgeons across Los Angeles will notice a sharp drop in profits, as it takes every plastic surgeon in the city to keep this family “functioning.”

Okay, here’s the plan:  We schedule a fake movie premiere and invite the whole Kardashian clan.  Once they show up, and they will because they’re fucking media whores, we take em out Inglorious Basterds style.  Ah, what a lovely dream.  But alas, this family of pop culture cancers will be around as long as there is a camera they can expose themselves in front of.

But one has to have dreams right?

My new MacBook Pro came with a free iPod Touch with the academic discount. (Well, what amounts to the value of an 8GB model anyway–I had to fork out the difference to upgrade to 32GB.) The much touted unibody indeed looks sleek: the edges seem precariously razor-sharp, I get goosebumps when I run my fingers over them; the microphone and LED lights that indicate battery life are mere pinhole perforations, they’re almost invisible; the ON/OFF switch fits snug and flat in its hole, it looks like it was drawn there with a draftsman’s pencil. It looks as clean and keen as IM Pei’s National Gallery (East Wing) at Washington, DC.

Source: Ezra Stoller, The Architect’s Newspaper

This attention to design, perhaps more than its OS X operating system, is the main reason I lean towards Mac. I loved my old 12” Powerbook G4, and did not understand why Apple dropped the size, when, for a time, only 15” and 17” were offered. I did not want to lug a tray around, and almost considered getting the black MacBook. It was a good thing I hung on–the 13” MacBook Pro is exactly what I wanted: sleek, silver, and slim. For a short time, this body type and size was offered as a MacBook. Why Apple did that again boggled me; it only confused/diluted the Pro (Powerbook) brand, and would only alienate customers who bought it before it was upgraded to Pro.

Knock on wood that I don’t dent this unibody. I’m sure Apple would ask a pound of flesh for its repair. This is the problem I have with Apple: when you buy their products, you sign away your soul to the Corporation. They are fiercely proprietary and exclusive, exerting control over the product even after your purchase. I spent $400 to replace the optical drive on my G4 that can only be repaired with original parts in an Apple-certified shop. Customer service wanted me to spend “a bit more” to buy instead a new computer. (This was the time they phased out the 12” model.) No thanks. I didn’t like being bullied into buying. When I wanted to buy the iSight for the G4, they just so happen to have discontinued it to pave way for newer models with built-in camera. Customer service dismissed my complaint by saying that Apple “can’t keep on supporting older models”. My G4 was barely 2-years old at the time. There were no third-party Firewire cameras around, and the prices on used iSight cameras soared at eBay. Appealing to Apple is like talking to a brick wall, the Corporation is as veiled and draconian as a politburo, as self-contained and monolithic as the products they sell.

Take their recent row with Google, for instance, over the Google Voice app. Apple rejected the app because

[it] duplicated the core dialing functionality of the iPhone… [by appearing] to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. (The Apple Blog, 21 Sep 2009 and Apple Answers the FCC’s Questions).

What harm is it to me as a consumer to replace the native iPhone interface for a potentially improved one, or revert back if I don’t like the Google Voice product after all? Apple does not seem to have the same problem if I run Microsoft Windows on the Mac; in fact, OS X 10.5 comes bundled with Boot Camp precisely to do this.

It is clear that Apple wants to corner the smartphone market by making their product a self-contained, self-sufficient “experience”–something as ubiquitous as Philip K. Dick’s Ubik, a metonym that stands for everything that can fulfill one’s desires, from consumer products to religious salvation. Why else would they collude with a singular service provider (AT&T, formerly Cingular) and not let different companies compete for the business? This, to me, makes them suspect, and I continue to resist getting an iPhone, buying from iTunes, and enrolling in Genius, precisely because of this. I do not want my “experience” to be governed by a single Corporation.

Friends, this is clean-up time and we’re discounting all our silent, electric Ubiks by this much money. Yes, we’re throwing away the bluebook. And remember: every Ubik on our lot has been used only as directed. (from Ubik, Ch. 1, 1969)

When I synced my spanking new iPod Touch with iTunes for the first time, the first thing it did was to tell me that the operating system needed an upgrade, and that Apple was selling it for $10. What?!? This damn thing just arrived in the mail–the wrappings are still strewn about. Customer service told me that the new OS 3 had not yet been released when my stock shipped from their warehouse (somewhere in China, from the tracking info). I hope the smart people at Apple realize how ridiculous this stock statement sounds to their customers. How in the world could I have known what version of the operating system is installed in the stocks at their warehouse? Well, according to customer service, I need not upgrade to the newer operating system, the old one would do just as well. As a customer, this only left a bad taste in the mouth. It was as if I was sold something OBSOLETE, when I was buying brand new. Apple, however, would not budge; they know they can nickle-and-dime cult members.

I was not aware of the Kindle hoo-ha until I read this piece by Nicholson Baker from the New Yorker: A New Page, Can the Kindle really improve on the book? I was dissuaded before I even considered buying one, and felt sorry for the unfortunate owners. What disturbs me most about this product is that it would put me (i.e. my reading experience) under the mercy of Amazon forever. The text format is not open and non-standard; it can’t even read pdf files–only those that one could buy from Amazon. This in itself raises a red(-white-and-blue) flag of… monopoly! No thanks. I’ve already learned my lesson in dealing with Apple. Second, because only the Kindle device can read this text format, Amazon would have absolute Stalinist control of one’s use and right to the text. This is fine for consumers of chicklit or techno-thrillers who toss the paperbacks after reading. As a true bibliophile, I love the embodiment of books on my shelf (not least because they look sumptuous together), and resist the idea of warehousing them in some virtual space to be accessed by an anemic device. But see, even those who bought the lifeless versions of their magazines and newspapers on Kindle were up in arms when they were swindled access to their purchases on the upgraded devices.

I recently discovered two apps for the iPod Touch that allows me to read books: Classics (free until recently) and Eucalyptus ($10). The latter gives you access to more than 20,000 public domain books in Project Gutenberg–that’s more books than I need for all the flights I will ever take in my lifetime. I don’t have to give Amazon a buck for Moby Dick–it’s free. I can virtually flip the pages too (Classics adds a warm rustling sound); they don’t eerily appear and disappear on me. I tested the reading experience with these apps for what Jeff Bezos’ calls the “flow state”–the ability to get lost in the text that Kindle aims to reproduce. To begin with, such turn of phrase sound like gimmicky self-help mantra than some real idea. (Hear Bezos get excited about it in Charlie Rose. Doesn’t his affected chuckle make him seem sketchy?)

The first ebooks I read were, appropriately enough, Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, the volumes being slender enough just to test “the flow”. (The metaphor of the looking-glass for the iPod’s touch-screen did not escape me either. How affected!) It was not hard to get lost in the text, owing more perhaps to Carroll’s engaging stories than the whiz-bang of the interface. What I found remarkable was that I can carry books with me in this small thing that fits in my pocket. I can thus take it to lunch, to the bus on the way to the grocery store, to the toilet break, without the extra burden of lugging a hefty tome and looking like an affected bookworm. I can even steal a few pages while waiting for the lab instrument to finish scanning a sample. What’s more–and this is what trumps Kindle–I can listen to the audiobook along with the text. This is particularly helpful with Joyce’s Ulysses, which I am reading at the moment. The rousing performance of Jim Norton makes the work come alive, and adds, not only to the meaning of the text, but to the enjoyment of the reading experience, especially to one who is unfamiliar with the twists and turns of Joyce’s Irish. Ulysses ceases to be the opaque, intimidating, “literary” text it has been made out to be.

In the war for control of the world’s Knowledge (e.g. between Amazon and Google), it is inspiriting to encounter the Eucalyptus reader. It works on the common ASCII text format–it does not claim exclusivity–but presents itself only, truly, as an e-text reader. It is truly in the spirit of the inventor of the movable type, in the way it disseminates and democratizes the text. Amazon, on the other hand, wants to enslave you to their device. (What has Bezos got in his pocketses?) I will stay away from the Kindle like it’s some baleful Elvish ring.

Gollum is back, and this time in reality, roaming the world, seeking his precious. I mean he was back until 4 kids (probably modern day hobbits) aged 14-16 killed it by throwing rocks at him until he couldn’t live no more. The “gollum” encounter happened last Saturday (12.09.2009) when he emerged from a cave near Cerro Azul (Northern Panama) and was spotted by the kids who were playing in the lake waterfront. Being reasonably scared of him they attacked it with everything they got and came out victorious in the battle for their lives. After wasting the creature they took his five-foot lifeless body and threw it back into the lake. I’m saying back into the lake because the exact location of his emerging is still unknown. Some say it came out from a cave, a cave behind a waterfall, or it came out of the lake. When the disbelieving parents went to investigate the following day, it had been washed up on the shore and picked apart by buzzards. Now the corpse is being investigated at Panama’s National Environment Authority (or at area 51) and the zoologists there say that it’s probably a mutated sloth that lost all it’s fur. Others say it’s a pit bull terrier. Nobody knows. Although we are still convinced that it’s gollum. Even one of kids said so when he told The Sun: “I have only seen that creature once before – and it was in the Tolkien film.” And who would know better then the men who killed it. Besides, if we put this creature on the grossness scale witch starts at “zero” (rainbows, unicorns and Sid the sloth) and goes to “ten” (gollum), this creature is pretty high up. So based on that, this most likely is a distant relative of gollum, although we couldn’t say for sure due to the low quantity and quality of pictures and articles available…

Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth. Luke 15:1-10

Luke 15 begins with the religious leaders noticing something—that Jesus seems to attract and befriend “tax collectors and sinners,” moral outcasts of respectable society.

In the Lord of the Rings we find a weird creature named Gollum. He is always offering riddles for the Hobbit Bilbo Baggins to solve. One of them I will offer for you:

Voiceless it Cries
Wingless it flutters
Toothless it bites
Mouthless it muttters

(Answer – the Wind)

We read in verse 2 that they “murmur” to one another about this. “to mutter, murmur, grumble, say anything in a low tone” The air was stirring with their murmurings! We can almost hear them saying: “He welcomes sinners! This kind of person never comes to our meetings. This must be because he is telling them what they want to hear. He is not calling them to repent or change.”

This murmuring prompts Jesus to tell the three parables of Luke 15.

• Parables of the Lost Sheep
• Lost Coin
• the Lost Sons.

By listening carefully to all three parables, and especially to the last one, traditionally called The Parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus challenges his listeners’ fundamental assumptions about God, sin, and salvation. He gives them an entirely new way of thinking about God, themselves, and the whole world.

Most people think of religion as “humanity’s search for God.” We like to think of ourselves as spiritual seekers, as honest inquirers. We look at the religions of the world and, while giving somewhat different directions about how to do so, they all seem to agree that if we sincerely search for God we will find him. Millions of people the world over believe that by believing and obeying God’s law in the Bible, they can find God.

The problem is that anyone who feels they have searched for and found God will naturally disdain those who seem to be making no effort at all. They will look at “sinners” and say, “I found God! If you try, you can. I did.”

And here is the first great blow to the “religious” people of the world. Religion and religious behavior is NOT the way to God! Jesus is telling us that God had to come down into the world to seek and save us. Salvation must be by His grace, not our achievement.

The end of each parable challenges not just the categories of the Pharisees but their heart and attitude. A theme through all three parables is the joy of finding the lost. God does not look at spiritually lost people the way the Pharisees do. Because the Pharisees do not see themselves as lost sinners saved by grace, they disdain “sinners”. They feel superior to them. But heaven rejoices when “sinners” are reached and found.

Jesus is declaring to the religious establishment that He is creating a New Community of People. A Community of People bonded together by the experience of Death & Life. To Understand this New Community, we will look closely at the first two parables. In the next four weeks following we will examine the Parable of the Lost Sons.

This week we look at the first two of these parables. Let’s notice three sets of characters:

1. the listeners
2. the lost things
3. the joyful seekers.

1. The listeners—verses 1-3.

There are two groups of people around Jesus—“tax collectors and ‘sinners’”, and “Pharisees and the teachers of the law.” The ‘religious’ group is especially offended that Jesus eats with sinners. In the Middle East an offer of a meal is an offer of Friendship. It is an offer of Community. Table fellowship was considered a sign of acceptance and friendship. How, they thought, can he be so open to them? Doesn’t he realize that they are the “bad people”— who are the real trouble with the world? (And, therefore, that we are the “good guys”?)

Jesus does not give a direct, compact answer. Instead, he responds with three stories or parables.It is important to realize that these parables were not spoken in a vacuum. The purpose of all three parables was to challenge the “Religious Peoples Point of View” of what Jesus was wanting to do.

When we get to the final parable, we will realize that BOTH groups of people—“sinners” and “religious people”—are actually in the parable. That is why the last story, the story of the prodigal son, is Jesus’ final answer. But that is to come later. For now, let’s notice how he begins to challenge our attitudes and categories of thought in the first two parables.

2. The lost things—verses 4-5, 8.

Jesus uses these “Lost” things to teach us religious types what He is all about. Why He came to this planet, and what He is accomplishing. The impact of these parables is lost on us because we do not look at them from a Middle Eastern viewpoint. These teach us about the community that Jesus want to build within His body – the church.

In order to understand and grasp the meaning of parables, I find it helpful to meditate on the visual images Jesus uses. People of the middle east are very visual in their thinking. It comes from a long line of oral history. That is why God painted very visual images of His miracles in the hearts of His people. That is why all the Jewish feasts and Holy Days are very visual.

The Sheep, the Search, & the Shepherd.

First, Jesus confronts their View of themselves and their Righteousness. The Pharisees thought they had it made. They were children of Abraham. They were children of the Covenant. They were chosen. They followed the Law. But Jesus says none of that is important to him. If we are to be important to Jesus, we must realize we are sheep.

In the parable of the lost sheep, the shepherd leaves the 99 sheep to go looking for the one lost sheep. We think that being a sheep is a warm fuzzy huggy type of description. We think of Mary and her little lamb, or Little Bo Peep. Being called a Sheep is an INSULT!

A Sheep is a stupid animal. It loses its direction constantly, in a way a cat or dog never does. Even when you find a lost sheep, the sheep will rush to and fro, but will not follow you home like a dog or cat might. So when you find it, you must seize it, throw it to the ground, tie its feet together and carry it over your shoulders.A sheep is a stupid animal that is completely helpless when lost. We need to view sheep like these people did.

• Sheep will go after grass no matter how impossible the place is.
• They will go onto the most dangerous place to eat grass.
• They will need to be rescued, or they will fall to their death.
• In the second parable the lost object is a coin, even more incapable of finding its way home.

The three lost “objects”—the sheep, the coin, and (in vv. 11-32) the son—all represent people who are spiritually lost, far from God. This is Jesus characterizing the people the Pharisees view as “sinners.” They are lost, yet they are lost in quite different ways. The sheep is lost through foolishness, the coin through thoughtlessness, and the son through willfulness.

But no matter the ‘Lostness’, they are each valued by Jesus, because of their condition.To have value to Jesus, we must realize to the depths of our soul that we are LOST, with NO HOPE of ever being saved.

The Sheep Teaches us We Need to be rescued

In liturgical churches sometimes the Pastor will administer the Lord’s Supper by saying this:

May the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for you, preserve your body and soul to eternal life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for you and feed on him in your heart by faith with thanksgiving.

It implies that your soul is feeding on something. And of course, this is true, no matter your spiritual condition. We all cling to something.The deepest hopes of your heart for security and love are resting on something. It can be image, status, wealth, career, position, family, Mr X or Miss Y.

If you are feeding on anything but Jesus for your peace, well being, satisfaction; You are like a sheep feeding on the ledge of a mountain. Say you are dating Mr. X, and decide he is the “one”. You rest your hearts deepest hopes on that person or that relationship. You believe you are valuable because this person loves me.

The truth is that if you are relying on anything or any person other than Jesus, you are in danger of an emotional and spiritual plunge off the mountain side.

You are like a stupid sheep, searching for sustenance in dangerous places, without any sense of your impending doom. You are headed for a spiritual and emotional plunge.

You will have no self worth, no hope left, for you have fed your soul on the wrong person, the wrong things.

We are all like sheep, we have all gone astray

We all need to be rescued. We can contribute nothing to our salvation. The shepherd has to walk the sheep all the way home. We are utterly lost in sin. We must be saved totally by the grace of God.

Salvation is not a process of cooperation. Our shepherd is not telling us how to live, not giving us self-help pointers. Being a Christian is not trying to live like Jesus. Not wearing a wrist band “What Would Jesus Do?” We must be asking ourselves What is Jesus Doing for Me at this very moment? Jesus must be our life!

We try to be a dog or a cat, but we are sheep. A Teacher is not enough, we need a Savior. We need someone who is able to do everything that we have to do, but are unable to do. He lives the life we should have lived, He dies the death we should have died. Everyone is utterly lost in sin.

The Search Teaches Us:

Jesus is friends with those who need rescuing. The community of Jesus is with the broken, the lost, the sinners, the failures of society. Jesus is building a faith community with these people in it. Normally these people are excluded-they can’t be included.

The Pharisees shake their fingers at them and say “These are the type of people we are NOT supposed to be like! But Jesus says these are the very people I want in my community. Jesus is creating a new faith community that includes publicans and tax collectors.

No Matter the Source of your sin, You Must realize your Lostness.

Here’s an example. Mr. Smith has a problem with abusive anger—he often flies off the handle and is verbally abusive and sometimes physically so. Why? Is his problem genetic? Is it a matter of brain chemistry? Is it just part of his inborn nature, as in the example of the sheep? Or is his problem the result of a bad environment? Perhaps the result of poor parenting and family life? Was he, like the coin, mismanaged by his “supervisors”? Or does his problem stem from selfishness and pride, as with the prodigal son?

The answer is that usually, in varying degrees, it is all of the above.

Sin is deeply complex. It is inborn in you, it is magnified by sinful treatment, and it is deepened and shaped by your own choices. Jesus’ view of sin is more comprehensive and multi-dimensional than that of many psychologists, sociologists, and many religious leaders. It is certainly more comprehensive than the view held by the Pharisees listening to him.

Jesus’ view is that no matter your sin, you must realize it is sin, that you are lost and you need saving, or you will die out on a ledge somewhere.

The Shepherd Teaches us

He is the only one who can rescue the lost. The lost are worth rescuing. The coin was the woman’s dowry, livelihood. The shepherd is not complete til he finds all of his sheep.

3. The Joyful Seekers—verses 6-7, 9-10.

Jesus confronts their categories about salvation. He reveals that He comes from a community in heaven that is this way. “I come from a community in heaven that celebrates sinners saved by grace” It does not celebrate righteous people who don’t realize their lostness. I am creating a community like this here.

Community – bonded into a body through an intense common experience.

The more intense the experience, the stronger the bond. The Karen People are being brought into the United States by our State Dept. They have suffered persecution and death at the hands of the Myanmar Military Junta. No matter where they are placed in the United States, they quickly form a close-knit community with fellow Karen. What is the bond-it is their shared death and life experience. The persecution and killing has created an intense bond amonst the Karen in the US.

We all have “identity” factors that create bonds with other people. Black, white, College, No, Good school, acheivements, all come to represent our identity in the world. This identy is our self worth, self image. It is hat makes us distinctive. It is the foundation of who we are.

Christians should have an intense bond that forms the basis of our identity and how we relate to one another. Ephesians 2 begins with Christians who are dead in trespasses and sin, but who share the bond of being made alive by Jesus. Ephesians 2 ends stating we are all like living stones that are fitted together to build a temple in which God’s spirit will dwell.

Other religions aspire to make you better so that you might be like God. In otherwords they treat you like a dog or a cat. Take you to the groomers, to obedience school. You’ll be fine.

The Gospel is for sheep-we must realize we can do nothing to be saved.It is a life and death experience. I am infinitely lost, but I am infinitely loved and infinitely treasured. I am infinitely valued. The Shepherd will do anything to bring me home. It blows your complete identity factor away.

WHO I THINK I AM DOESN’T MATTER

I can be from an IVY league college, be moral, come from a big family. I can derive joy from these things and even feel superior to others. Certain things automatically make us feel better than other people. That joy excludes people who are worse off than we are. It excludes publicans and tax collectors.

Jesus declares that these things don’t matter, that TRUE JOY comes when these Lost people are FOUND! His community doesn’t look down on people, but welcomes all with open arms!

This community has the common bond of death and lostness, but now we are found and saved!

THE QUARRY

This is the Community of “1 Kings 6”. When building the Temple, the Quarry masons worked so well preparing the monstrous stones for the Temple that on the Temple Mount the stones needed no further hammering, the stones fit together perfectly. So the temple went up in silence-no need for hammering, no need for mortar!

If you have been to the quarry, if you have been through life and death, nothing matters, not your pedigree, your accomplishments, your wealth, nothing matters. You have a bond – a Life and death bond.

Jesus knocks down all barriers to seek those that are lost.

Shepherds aren’t consultants, they aren’t trying to improve the sheep. Sheep are absolutely dependent upon the shepherd.Sheep should give themselves to the Shepherd COMPLETELY!

Jesus desires to do two things with His Church:

1. Build a community that is filled with His beautiful, unified difference – acceptance for sinners!
   
2. Provide a place where sinners are free to admit they are sinners.

Christians need to stop eating their wounded. We need to be able to confess our faults one to another without fear of condemnation. Religiousity permits no one to be a sinner, but Jesus welcomes all sinners. Masks will do no good before Jesus. He knows, so we all should know. We are all sinners.We are all lowly sheep who have been rescued by our loving shepherd.

Jesus is the Great Shepherd, even more intent and joyful than the shepherd of the parable. For Jesus knew that he would have to die to bring the lost home, but “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame” (Heb. 12:2). The joy he had in doing his Father’s will, and the joy he had in finding us, was so great that he was willing to endure the cross.

A new 39 minute Lord of the Rings episode telling of Aragorn’s hunt for Gollum before The Fellowship of the Ring. This high concept short film is brought to the screen for free by Independent Online Cinema. www.thehuntforgollum.com
Made by talented volunteer filmmakers for under $5,000, the film is a faithful tribute to the style of Peter Jackson’s trilogy and the world of J.R.R. Tolkien telling how Aragorn tracked down Gollum between The Hobbit & The Fellowship of the Ring.

The film achieved over 1 million views in the first week of release in May 2009. (Dailymotion) and wide press acclaim for it’s high production values on a microbudget.

This Youtube version is slightly extended with 1 scene added back in.

www.thehuntforgollum.com
www.independentonlinecinema.com

Something poisonous, but delicate. Macaw-frey’s (Flickr) Snow White-inspired wicked witch outfit was concocted for her self-portrait, but I think it makes a great–and very sinister–Halloween costume.

Welcome to what is becoming a regular feature of mine–the post-Halloween costume round-up as determined by picture uploads on the ‘Net.  As always, I’m fondest of the people who have broken the mold in some fashion. Here are a few of my favorites.

Gallagher costume by wine me up (Flickr).  For anyone who was born after the 1980s, Gallagher was a popular, stand-up comedian of the time. Part of his act was smashing watermelons with a sledgehammer, hence the melon prop in this photo. Great likeness!

My own, my precious. Gollum mask and costume by zenwithin (Flickr). His wife dressed as Frodo. Photo by Audrey Goforth.

I’ve seen a lot of Headless Horsemen costumes, but this one has to be the most elaborate. I love the way the guy’s real head does double-duty as the prop head. It looks like he had to have some help marching. Photo by jmtimages (Flickr). Taken in Austin, Texas in Oct. 2009.

Yellowmerline created this great ostrich costume (Flickr). This is a swell idea and one I think lends itself to numerous variations e.g. flamingo, etc.

A closeup of Yellowmerline’s ostrich mask, made from papier mache. The eyes are ping pong balls and the details are drawn in with ink.

This is a wonderful, low-budget superhero costume that still captures the essence of the character. Robin Girl Wonder photo by PinkGooseCalgary (Flickr).

A “concept” costume that I really liked. The heroine is tied to the railroad tracks. Photo by Jim Kiefer (kieferman) on Flickr. Taken in New York in Oct. 2009.

I saw a couple of swine flu costumes, but I think that this was the best rendition. Again, a low budget costume that conveys the main idea. Posted on Insight Marketing Design Flickr feed. Insight Marketing is an advertising company in Sioux Falls, SD and this costume was part of their Halloween party.

Now here’s something you don’t see every day–a sexy Hamlet costume. Actually, photographer Lika Kalandadze (Flickr) was just setting up a Gothic, atmospheric shot, but I like the idea of turning the characters of the Bard into Halloween costumes.

Igårkväll precis innan vi gick och la oss försvann Robin plötsligt ut i köket och började prassla i kylskåpet. “Förbannade kylskåpsråtta!!1″ tänkte jag och smög efter med kameran i högsta hugg…

Förklaring: Han hittade butterkaka och hetsåt den över spisen, smulade överallt och tja.. Betedde sig högst normalt.

När vi var och handlade nyss köpte vi satsumas (clementiner). Det plus Robins period av the crazies inatt fick mig att tänka på en bild jag “ritade” för ett tag sen. Var inne i ett djupt citrusberoende och drack apelsinjuice, åt clementiner och apelsiner så ofta jag kunde – och drabbades av the crazies om jag någon gång inte hade det hemma.

True story.