Zinn's book was a long read. The is substantial in both shear number of pages and in the amount of information packed in between the covers. Because I was reading it during a presidential election cycle between an explicitly corporate man and a centrist made it even more difficult.
Zinn's writing is ponderous. He clearly has a message and never misses an opportunity to bludgeon the reader with it. The research, secondary, and primary sources, are prodigious and drives home the point like a sledgehammer.
Despite the writing, I forged through because I found the story Zinn was telling compelling. It is true that the victors write the history, so when the losers get a chance it is a troubling treat. As part of the mollified middle class, it is disheartening to be reminded that my happiness is a well constructed myth and that in many ways I, along with my peers, have been duped, and are in league with, the rapacious captains of capitalism.
Reading the book I moved between feeling angry and despondent-mostly despondent. I thought that perhaps the best way to effect change was to vote for Romeny and accelerate the rapid decimation of the middle class. I also thought that despite the fact that Obama was part of the grand compromise that kept the existing balance in place, it was better than the pain of revolution. I eventually found a balance by accepting that Zinn and his ilk present a false choice.
It is not the case that the current balance is fundamentally flawed and that it needs to be torn down. The current balance is still weighted towards the haves, and is arguably getting more lopsided, but it is far better than many systems. Revolution will not get us any closer to a healthy balance; it will only get us further away. That doesn't mean we accept the balance. The answer is constant vigilance and never accepting the status quo.
Monday, November 12, 2012
The Artist
The Artist was one of the most praised movies out last year. It was a box office surprise and an award season darling. Normally these things make me suspicious. It is a rare film that is both commercially successful and critically praised. More often than not, it is a marginally entertaining gloss or a tedious, but pretty, attempt to show off important ideas. When it is a silent, black and white movie, my suspicions are heightened.
I am happy to say that The Artist earned its praise. The story, the performances, the amazing use of sound all just work. I was riveted throughout the movie. The actors did a great job of making one feel without words. There was humor and drama. In short, it was excellent.
I am happy to say that The Artist earned its praise. The story, the performances, the amazing use of sound all just work. I was riveted throughout the movie. The actors did a great job of making one feel without words. There was humor and drama. In short, it was excellent.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Limitless
I had moderate hopes for Limitless, but Brad Cooper's name on the poster should have scared me off. Still the concept seemed ripe for a smart movie that plumed some depths. Hollywood has recently shown that it will make smart blockbusters....
Sadly, this is not one of the smart blockbusters. It is dumb and dull. Instead of digging into the issues raised by chemical enhancement, addiction,the ethics of being "super", or the implications of corporate control of access to healthcare, it punted. The entirety of the side-effects, or any other consideration, is just one more obstacle to be conquered. In the end, the message is that any lazy idiot can pop a pill and become awesome.
The plot is just as sad as the intellectual depth. It plods along predictably with little suspense or stunning action. The acting, if it can be called that, is wooden. The characters are so thin that it is hard to care about them.
I think that I should be paid for the time I spent watching this dreck. $10 should be just about enough.
Sadly, this is not one of the smart blockbusters. It is dumb and dull. Instead of digging into the issues raised by chemical enhancement, addiction,the ethics of being "super", or the implications of corporate control of access to healthcare, it punted. The entirety of the side-effects, or any other consideration, is just one more obstacle to be conquered. In the end, the message is that any lazy idiot can pop a pill and become awesome.
The plot is just as sad as the intellectual depth. It plods along predictably with little suspense or stunning action. The acting, if it can be called that, is wooden. The characters are so thin that it is hard to care about them.
I think that I should be paid for the time I spent watching this dreck. $10 should be just about enough.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Moonrise Kingdom
Last weekend H and I got a rare opportunity to see a movie! There wasn't much out that we could agree on seeing: other than the lingering Avengers and Dark Knight Rises it was mostly just the typical late summer Hollywood crap polluting the screens.
With some trepidation, and based on a good Kermode review and a 94% Rotten Tomatoes rating, we decided to give the latest Wes Anderson outing, Moonrise Kingdom, a shot.
Most Wes Anderson movies are infuriatingly kooky. It worked alright in The Royal Tannenbaums, but the rest of Anderson's catalog to date has been just too much. In fact, I found most of them to be kooky to the point of smugness. It is almost like he is saying if you don't find this funny, you are too crass to watch the movie. It is a little like Joyce's and Elliot's attitude towards the common reader, except Anderson doesn't have an iota of the talent to earn the attitude.
In Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson is able to temper the kook just enough to make a good movie. It helps that the story is centered around two endearing children and Anderson is smart enough to treat the characters with respect and tenderness. The strong center holds the kookiness of the rest of the movie in check.
The movie also benefits from an excellent performance from Bruce Willis as a downtrodden, good hearted police offer that becomes the surprising hero of the film.
Anderson favorite Bill Murray turns in a workman like performance. Murray's performance is paltry compared to Frances McDormand's portrayal of his wife. She makes you feel the conflicts of being a good mother, good wife, and lusting for more adventure in life. You can see from McDormand's character where Suzy gets her chutzpah.
This movie, like all Anderson movies, is full kookiness. In many ways it adds to the humor and tenderness of the film. It is always, however, threatening to overpower the whole endeavor. It wouldn't take much for the film to devolve into a version of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou where the kookiness destroys what could have been a smart commentary on family, fame, and obsession.
Ultimately, Anderson is able to restrain his tendencies and make a tender, funny, and smart movie. It is to his credit that he let the strong characters and endearing story dominate the story telling. It is the strong center that works the rest is just window dressing.
With some trepidation, and based on a good Kermode review and a 94% Rotten Tomatoes rating, we decided to give the latest Wes Anderson outing, Moonrise Kingdom, a shot.
Most Wes Anderson movies are infuriatingly kooky. It worked alright in The Royal Tannenbaums, but the rest of Anderson's catalog to date has been just too much. In fact, I found most of them to be kooky to the point of smugness. It is almost like he is saying if you don't find this funny, you are too crass to watch the movie. It is a little like Joyce's and Elliot's attitude towards the common reader, except Anderson doesn't have an iota of the talent to earn the attitude.
In Moonrise Kingdom, Anderson is able to temper the kook just enough to make a good movie. It helps that the story is centered around two endearing children and Anderson is smart enough to treat the characters with respect and tenderness. The strong center holds the kookiness of the rest of the movie in check.
The movie also benefits from an excellent performance from Bruce Willis as a downtrodden, good hearted police offer that becomes the surprising hero of the film.
Anderson favorite Bill Murray turns in a workman like performance. Murray's performance is paltry compared to Frances McDormand's portrayal of his wife. She makes you feel the conflicts of being a good mother, good wife, and lusting for more adventure in life. You can see from McDormand's character where Suzy gets her chutzpah.
This movie, like all Anderson movies, is full kookiness. In many ways it adds to the humor and tenderness of the film. It is always, however, threatening to overpower the whole endeavor. It wouldn't take much for the film to devolve into a version of The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou where the kookiness destroys what could have been a smart commentary on family, fame, and obsession.
Ultimately, Anderson is able to restrain his tendencies and make a tender, funny, and smart movie. It is to his credit that he let the strong characters and endearing story dominate the story telling. It is the strong center that works the rest is just window dressing.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Fatherhood
It's been two years since Bug joined our family. It hardly seems like it could be that long ago and it feels like an eternity. Mostly, it feels great; terrifying, overwhelming, joyous, proud, thrilling....
I now understand what people mean when the say a child takes over your life. Bug takes a lot of time and energy. It feels like our job is to entertain, and feed, her and there are no mandated eight hour work days. She is on the go from 6am to 7pm, with a few hours of napping (most days). It is exhausting and frustrating, and yet the most fun I know how to have. It really isn't a job because it is amazing, and tiring and frustrating and head wracking.
The past two years have been and incredible ride. I look at Bug and cannot believe that she was the tiny baby in all the pictures. She is a little girl now. She is talking in sentences; often we have no idea what she is saying, ,but they are definitely sentences. She runs, climbs, feeds herself, and has definite opinions about what she wants and doesn't. Her favorite phrases are "Me do!" and "Why?".
Both phrases are the best and worst of dealing with a two year old. It is great that she is so curious and independent. It is crazy making when she insists on doing things like changing her own diaper or spending 20 minute trying to put a shirt on when we are trying to get out the door for work. Coming up with answers for the tenth why occasionally makes me want to bang my head against a hard surface repeatedly. There are times when I almost resort to the "because I said so" non-answer. When I am quick enough to remember that she can answer questions, I do pull out the "I don't know, do you know why?"
One of the most incredible parts of the journey has been how much it has changed my life. I have developed much better eating habits and started brushing my teeth twice a day. I have learned to be more present in each moment. I have discovered wells of patience I never knew I had. I have learned to be more cognizant of my own behavior and how it effects those around me. Everyday I feel like I've grown a little bit.
The growth springs from my fervent desire to give Bug the best life possible. That means being able to play with her and take her into the wilderness for explorations. I want to instill a love of being active and nature. It means that I need to be a good role model and a good coach. It means being aware of how what we do today effects the future.
Parenthood is, while daunting, frustrating, wearisome, etc, is also the most important, rewarding, and challenging thing I will ever do. It is my labor of love.
I now understand what people mean when the say a child takes over your life. Bug takes a lot of time and energy. It feels like our job is to entertain, and feed, her and there are no mandated eight hour work days. She is on the go from 6am to 7pm, with a few hours of napping (most days). It is exhausting and frustrating, and yet the most fun I know how to have. It really isn't a job because it is amazing, and tiring and frustrating and head wracking.
The past two years have been and incredible ride. I look at Bug and cannot believe that she was the tiny baby in all the pictures. She is a little girl now. She is talking in sentences; often we have no idea what she is saying, ,but they are definitely sentences. She runs, climbs, feeds herself, and has definite opinions about what she wants and doesn't. Her favorite phrases are "Me do!" and "Why?".
Both phrases are the best and worst of dealing with a two year old. It is great that she is so curious and independent. It is crazy making when she insists on doing things like changing her own diaper or spending 20 minute trying to put a shirt on when we are trying to get out the door for work. Coming up with answers for the tenth why occasionally makes me want to bang my head against a hard surface repeatedly. There are times when I almost resort to the "because I said so" non-answer. When I am quick enough to remember that she can answer questions, I do pull out the "I don't know, do you know why?"
One of the most incredible parts of the journey has been how much it has changed my life. I have developed much better eating habits and started brushing my teeth twice a day. I have learned to be more present in each moment. I have discovered wells of patience I never knew I had. I have learned to be more cognizant of my own behavior and how it effects those around me. Everyday I feel like I've grown a little bit.
The growth springs from my fervent desire to give Bug the best life possible. That means being able to play with her and take her into the wilderness for explorations. I want to instill a love of being active and nature. It means that I need to be a good role model and a good coach. It means being aware of how what we do today effects the future.
Parenthood is, while daunting, frustrating, wearisome, etc, is also the most important, rewarding, and challenging thing I will ever do. It is my labor of love.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Thor
Thor finally made it onto Netflix, so when H announced she needed to go to the mall for something I took my rare opportunity to watch a full length geek boy movie. I enjoyed the pure escapism for a couple of hours.
Make no mistakes, Thor is not a great movie, but it is a good popcorn super hero movie. It lacks the depth o f Nolan's Batman, the edge of Iron Man, and the heart of X-Men. However, it is significantly better than either of the recent Hulk outings, the last few Superman outings, and the last Wolverine movie.
It pulls off a delicate balancing act. The principles clearly know that this is comic book movie, but they take it seriously enough to give solid performances based on a well written script. The big set pieces and special effects are first rate. The plot moves along at a decent clip. It does feel a little jumbled when switching between locations and the script never does anything to explain it away. The love story doesn't really ring true. It is hard to see how a smart woman would fall for a big lunkhead in the time provided, but it never really matters much to the story. Perhaps in the sequel the love story will matter and become more flushed out.
Hemsworth does a great job as Thor. He certainly looks the part. His wooden acting style fits the character's haughty nature. Portman does her usual good work. She is believable as a scientist.
The true star of the movie is Loki. He is deliciously malevolent. Even before he turns completely dark, you can see his mean streak and his underlying shifty nature. Yet he still retains a small morsel of my sympathy because he really does love Thor and his family. He wants to be loved, trusted, and honored for his strengths. It is his insecurity and jealousy that get the best of him.
I'm torn about wanting to see the inevitable sequel. While not a classic, Thor was a solid piece of escapist comic book fun. Sequels, think Iron Man 2 and the X-Men sequels, usually fall short of the original. For a movie like this falling short puts it squarely into rubbish category. On the other hand, there have been sequels that surpassed the original such as The Dark Night. If Marvel can pull that off, the result could be an excellent movie. There is certainly enough material to work with.
Make no mistakes, Thor is not a great movie, but it is a good popcorn super hero movie. It lacks the depth o f Nolan's Batman, the edge of Iron Man, and the heart of X-Men. However, it is significantly better than either of the recent Hulk outings, the last few Superman outings, and the last Wolverine movie.
It pulls off a delicate balancing act. The principles clearly know that this is comic book movie, but they take it seriously enough to give solid performances based on a well written script. The big set pieces and special effects are first rate. The plot moves along at a decent clip. It does feel a little jumbled when switching between locations and the script never does anything to explain it away. The love story doesn't really ring true. It is hard to see how a smart woman would fall for a big lunkhead in the time provided, but it never really matters much to the story. Perhaps in the sequel the love story will matter and become more flushed out.
Hemsworth does a great job as Thor. He certainly looks the part. His wooden acting style fits the character's haughty nature. Portman does her usual good work. She is believable as a scientist.
The true star of the movie is Loki. He is deliciously malevolent. Even before he turns completely dark, you can see his mean streak and his underlying shifty nature. Yet he still retains a small morsel of my sympathy because he really does love Thor and his family. He wants to be loved, trusted, and honored for his strengths. It is his insecurity and jealousy that get the best of him.
I'm torn about wanting to see the inevitable sequel. While not a classic, Thor was a solid piece of escapist comic book fun. Sequels, think Iron Man 2 and the X-Men sequels, usually fall short of the original. For a movie like this falling short puts it squarely into rubbish category. On the other hand, there have been sequels that surpassed the original such as The Dark Night. If Marvel can pull that off, the result could be an excellent movie. There is certainly enough material to work with.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
The Pirates!
After nearly two years, H and I finally got out to see a movie in a theater. Instead of jumping into something heavy, we decided for lighter fare: The Pirates! Band of Misfits (In the rest of the English speaking world, where they are not afraid of science, the subtitle is Adventures with Scientists.
It is an Ardman claymation film. Ardman are the people who created Wallace and Grommet, Chicken Run, and Sean the Sheep. As one would expect from Ardman, the film looks incredible. I am always amazed at how detailed and lush their films look. The characters are amazingly expressive. They have facial expressions, body postures, and movements that are, in some cases, even more expressive than what you can get from a human actor. The backgrounds were equally detailed. Some of them are digital, but they all flow together seamlessly. We saw it in 2D and I cannot see how 3D would do anything to improve the visuals. It would probably detract from the experience by being a distraction.
The story was OK. It had a good number of laughs and a wicked portrayal of Queen Elizabeth. Overall, it is a pretty standard issue story for a family movie. The writing will appeal to kids and adults alike. H felt like the first part of the movie dragged a bit, but I didn't mind the beginning at all.
The most impressive thing about the movie was the craftsmanship. It was clearly made by people who care about turning out high quality products. The movie was years in the making and it shows. It is a stark contrast to a lot of the poop that studios crank out simply for a buck. If you want to support quality, skip Transformers, John Carter, G. I. Joe and all of the cookie cutter romance movies spit out from the Sparks factory, and see Pirates!.
It is an Ardman claymation film. Ardman are the people who created Wallace and Grommet, Chicken Run, and Sean the Sheep. As one would expect from Ardman, the film looks incredible. I am always amazed at how detailed and lush their films look. The characters are amazingly expressive. They have facial expressions, body postures, and movements that are, in some cases, even more expressive than what you can get from a human actor. The backgrounds were equally detailed. Some of them are digital, but they all flow together seamlessly. We saw it in 2D and I cannot see how 3D would do anything to improve the visuals. It would probably detract from the experience by being a distraction.
The story was OK. It had a good number of laughs and a wicked portrayal of Queen Elizabeth. Overall, it is a pretty standard issue story for a family movie. The writing will appeal to kids and adults alike. H felt like the first part of the movie dragged a bit, but I didn't mind the beginning at all.
The most impressive thing about the movie was the craftsmanship. It was clearly made by people who care about turning out high quality products. The movie was years in the making and it shows. It is a stark contrast to a lot of the poop that studios crank out simply for a buck. If you want to support quality, skip Transformers, John Carter, G. I. Joe and all of the cookie cutter romance movies spit out from the Sparks factory, and see Pirates!.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)