Monday, December 29, 2014
Answer me this LGBTACDEFGers ...
Why is somebody, all of a sudden, "gay" if they're rumored to be dating (or are dating) someone of their own sex even if previous relationships were with the opposite sex? Isn't there a thing called "bisexuality" or even bi-curious (not exactly "bi" but just "seeing where it goes"/"experimenting")?
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Christian movies
I was reading a thread dedicated to Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas on CAF (Catholic Answers Forum) and it made me think what makes Christian theme movies, for the most part, feel like very bad Lifetime Original movies.
These are what I've seen, so far: I thought Fireproof was decent at best; October Baby was quite good for what it was; Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ still remains the cinematic apex of the group besides Ben-Hur to me. Doubt, though not really a Christian film, is also a very good one. I haven't seen Courageous yet (made by the same director who made Fireproof).
I'll admit that I haven't watched many faith based movies so my criticism is more on narrow grounds than one based on a wider catalog.
But still, I have a strong feeling, that many who do make - either direct or script - faith based movies aren't all that talented. Why do so many directors who are, no doubt, very talented tend to be of the secular cloth? Darren Aronofsky, maker of Noah (roughly based of off Noah's Ark and not really Christian as well), directing talent speaks for itself, but he's an atheist (of Jewish background). I don't think John Patrick Shanley (Doubt) is religious even though Doubt is a rough snippet of his Catholic upbringing.
Again, many of the faith based films that are being made today, if they aren't made by the Aronofskys or the Shanleys of the world, are cheesy - not intentional it seems - so I'm left to conclude that there is a lack of talent in front of the camera and in back. This upsets me because as someone who has much familiarity with movies that come out of Cannes, TIFF, Sundance - basically the more "raw"/"real" indie/Europa fare - I see the stark difference and it's telling. It could say something that I don't want to be true: That those who make such movies, as secular & liberal/progressive as they are, are just innately more talented in making movies than Christians who make things like Saving Christmas. It's like how certain races fare better in (certain) sports. Does this hold true, in the artistic department, for secular & liberal/progressive types?
What's the deal? Why are most faith based films that I looked at seem quite horrible? Where are the directors, script writers and actors that can deliver a movie that's on the level of The Passion of the Christ year in and year out? The actors don't have to be Christian, but I do think it takes someone who knows the feeling of being an traditional Christian to write & direct a decently made faith based film -- oh and talent, as well.
It kind of reminds me of a discussion about the talent pool for USA soccer & classical music. I was reading that the problem that men's team did not advance as far as others national teams in the World Cup is because of the lack of talent. There is a somewhat strong narrative saying that other sports such as baseball, football and basketball "steal" athletes from soccer that might other wise excel at the sport. I don't necessarily agree, but I do understand where those who advocate this narrative come from. If only a few thousand that might look at baseball. basketball and football look at soccer instead at the age of five the talent gap would be shortened, so the theory goes. (This greatly reminds of the 1% vs 99% wealth distribution that has been touted ... and out of all the sports, soccer. Go figure.)
The same was said about the almost barren land of great modern day classical composers. Those that believed the narrative that many great composers, such as Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin etc, existed during their times was because music - classical to be exact - was the main "thing" to get into. The narrative continues that if many of the talents today, in various fields, such as computer technology (Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates) and movie making (take your pick from many talented directors) focused on making music - classical - instead we'd have more Handels, Beethovens, Mozarts and Chopins. Again, it's the "other sports 'stole' potential greatness for [insert field that is seeing much mediocrity]." I find this very interesting and even compelling. There might a grain of truth to it, or it might be more than that.
This also makes me think: Is it that movie making, a relatively new medium of art, is just more conducive to debauchery and the narcissism of the human condition? Sculpture and paintings (with writing, be it poetry or novel writing a close third) still remain, to my knowledge, the best mediums that can honestly portray religious themes. Many of the movies that I think are well-made have directors & script writers that, I think, are non-religious. Maybe this is a medium where secular & faith are rightly so divided -- that faith, for all its complexities and wonder, is much trickier to be cinematic, to actually "reach" to the audiences. It just seems that way to me.
Is it that film making might be an inferior medium to broadcast/show/tell a deeply human religious life and events? Or is that the religious who have directing & script writing interests just aren't talented enough to make a film that isn't a cheese fest and its narrative isn't "beating me over the head"? After all, movies tend to be two hours long -- not a very gracious length of time to fit in a script that is about 120 pages double spaced.
It's a complex issue with many factors and many potential theories.
I'm confused on why this hasn't been addressed before by someone either in the industry (who is a Christian and is as talented as Darren Aronofsky) or someone from the outside looking in (not using the "Hollywood" term to include the mainstream fare that make up the lineup at your local theater).
These are what I've seen, so far: I thought Fireproof was decent at best; October Baby was quite good for what it was; Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ still remains the cinematic apex of the group besides Ben-Hur to me. Doubt, though not really a Christian film, is also a very good one. I haven't seen Courageous yet (made by the same director who made Fireproof).
I'll admit that I haven't watched many faith based movies so my criticism is more on narrow grounds than one based on a wider catalog.
But still, I have a strong feeling, that many who do make - either direct or script - faith based movies aren't all that talented. Why do so many directors who are, no doubt, very talented tend to be of the secular cloth? Darren Aronofsky, maker of Noah (roughly based of off Noah's Ark and not really Christian as well), directing talent speaks for itself, but he's an atheist (of Jewish background). I don't think John Patrick Shanley (Doubt) is religious even though Doubt is a rough snippet of his Catholic upbringing.
Again, many of the faith based films that are being made today, if they aren't made by the Aronofskys or the Shanleys of the world, are cheesy - not intentional it seems - so I'm left to conclude that there is a lack of talent in front of the camera and in back. This upsets me because as someone who has much familiarity with movies that come out of Cannes, TIFF, Sundance - basically the more "raw"/"real" indie/Europa fare - I see the stark difference and it's telling. It could say something that I don't want to be true: That those who make such movies, as secular & liberal/progressive as they are, are just innately more talented in making movies than Christians who make things like Saving Christmas. It's like how certain races fare better in (certain) sports. Does this hold true, in the artistic department, for secular & liberal/progressive types?
What's the deal? Why are most faith based films that I looked at seem quite horrible? Where are the directors, script writers and actors that can deliver a movie that's on the level of The Passion of the Christ year in and year out? The actors don't have to be Christian, but I do think it takes someone who knows the feeling of being an traditional Christian to write & direct a decently made faith based film -- oh and talent, as well.
It kind of reminds me of a discussion about the talent pool for USA soccer & classical music. I was reading that the problem that men's team did not advance as far as others national teams in the World Cup is because of the lack of talent. There is a somewhat strong narrative saying that other sports such as baseball, football and basketball "steal" athletes from soccer that might other wise excel at the sport. I don't necessarily agree, but I do understand where those who advocate this narrative come from. If only a few thousand that might look at baseball. basketball and football look at soccer instead at the age of five the talent gap would be shortened, so the theory goes. (This greatly reminds of the 1% vs 99% wealth distribution that has been touted ... and out of all the sports, soccer. Go figure.)
The same was said about the almost barren land of great modern day classical composers. Those that believed the narrative that many great composers, such as Handel, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin etc, existed during their times was because music - classical to be exact - was the main "thing" to get into. The narrative continues that if many of the talents today, in various fields, such as computer technology (Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates) and movie making (take your pick from many talented directors) focused on making music - classical - instead we'd have more Handels, Beethovens, Mozarts and Chopins. Again, it's the "other sports 'stole' potential greatness for [insert field that is seeing much mediocrity]." I find this very interesting and even compelling. There might a grain of truth to it, or it might be more than that.
This also makes me think: Is it that movie making, a relatively new medium of art, is just more conducive to debauchery and the narcissism of the human condition? Sculpture and paintings (with writing, be it poetry or novel writing a close third) still remain, to my knowledge, the best mediums that can honestly portray religious themes. Many of the movies that I think are well-made have directors & script writers that, I think, are non-religious. Maybe this is a medium where secular & faith are rightly so divided -- that faith, for all its complexities and wonder, is much trickier to be cinematic, to actually "reach" to the audiences. It just seems that way to me.
Is it that film making might be an inferior medium to broadcast/show/tell a deeply human religious life and events? Or is that the religious who have directing & script writing interests just aren't talented enough to make a film that isn't a cheese fest and its narrative isn't "beating me over the head"? After all, movies tend to be two hours long -- not a very gracious length of time to fit in a script that is about 120 pages double spaced.
It's a complex issue with many factors and many potential theories.
I'm confused on why this hasn't been addressed before by someone either in the industry (who is a Christian and is as talented as Darren Aronofsky) or someone from the outside looking in (not using the "Hollywood" term to include the mainstream fare that make up the lineup at your local theater).
NYT : Millennials and the Age of Tumblr Activism
The heading sums up my generation succinctly, at least for this year and years past. As someone who has a tumblr page (see right side for link) I will have to say that tumblr is a place where activism is probably the strongest theme besides fandoms of "whatever floats your boat."
Read the article here.
In my words: My generation - the more political active ones - despises hatred, bigotry, injustice and discrimination. My generation loves their feelings & emotions; such things dictatealmost everything they do.
Read the article here.
In my words: My generation - the more political active ones - despises hatred, bigotry, injustice and discrimination. My generation loves their feelings & emotions; such things dictate
It's Sorta Written In Stone So It's Not Really Debatable.
No That's what I read from two guys on two different subjects:
1. Late POTUS Reagan failed to help the LGBT community when AIDS became a national epidemic.
2. Blacks are given less quality roles in ratio when compared to whites due to racism.
For the first it was "it's been written and documented - go read yourself" and for the second "this is quite non-debatable."
It's sorta like retorting with "deal with it" or "we win, give up." There is little room for questioning because history has made up its mind. But -BUT -let's talk and question and change (read: forever change) institutional structures like marriage, healthcare, the military, education and our own minds in order to accommodate those who believe they are oppressed, were cheated and just plain butt hurt for whatever reason.
Oh, and if it matters, these two guys were homosexuals of your progressive garden variety sorts.
I must be honest
spotting the bizarre existence of a butthurt progressive -- that fits practically every stereotype you might have of them, but in the most saddest way -- is somewhat gratifying ... because when I push their buttons, direct them a certain way, they mostly crash and burn.
Yea, I troll them. I have no shame in this because it exposes them for what they are (and I bet it does the same for me). I'm blunt in my delivery if I must be and I don't mind slinging a few ad homs at them because the ones I do are the hard-core butthurt ones. They're already lost for the most part so I sling away.
Yea, I troll them. I have no shame in this because it exposes them for what they are (and I bet it does the same for me). I'm blunt in my delivery if I must be and I don't mind slinging a few ad homs at them because the ones I do are the hard-core butthurt ones. They're already lost for the most part so I sling away.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Using celebrities & movies to push an agenda.
SPOILERS
In the movie Still Alice the character Lydia (Kristen Stewart) brings up that her roommate is gay. Her mother, Alice (Julianne Moore), doesn't react negatively or positively; she doesn't seem to care either way. Now, I haven't seen the movie and I only know this tidbit because it was brought up on IMDb. The person that brought it up was, I guess, a homosexual or at least liked his own sex and appealed to the "we're people too" card. I'm not disagreeing with the poster on that. But here's what I read:
All of what the OP said kind of confuses me.
What's weird is that the poster is obviously hinting to LGBT "rights." That's pandering -- giving them what they want -- marriage, adoption etc. I'm not sure of his experiences in the past and how he was treated, but I take that most gay people are treated "normally", like people, just that numerous people don't see homosexuality as "normal" yet treat such people with respect when they meet in real life. It's not like they a ramp to go up an incline surface or that people shift away from them when they see them. I also don't necessarily buy into stories that say that they were fired because of their sexuality. The Matthew Sheperd case was a lie. The waitress saying the coupe didn't leave tip because she was a lesbian was a made up story.
When homosexuals say they aren't treated like normal people they're, I'm taking a stab, talking about marriage most of all. Well, if I go up to my local parish and say that me and my best friend of the same sex wants to get married we'd be denied - not because we're homosexuals (which we aren't) but because we're of the same sex.
I know Mark Ruffalo is a proponent of anti-fracking. A slew of others are on the PETA train. No doubt gay "rights" are a pet issue to the movie industry. Out of all the three social issues I've mentioned the LGBT issue is the most vested in emotions - it's a very easy social issue to bandwagon on.
In the movie Still Alice the character Lydia (Kristen Stewart) brings up that her roommate is gay. Her mother, Alice (Julianne Moore), doesn't react negatively or positively; she doesn't seem to care either way. Now, I haven't seen the movie and I only know this tidbit because it was brought up on IMDb. The person that brought it up was, I guess, a homosexual or at least liked his own sex and appealed to the "we're people too" card. I'm not disagreeing with the poster on that. But here's what I read:
A poster shared skepticism ("It doesn't work that way.) and the OP pushed -ever since i saw still alice i just can't stop thinking about the line where she said her roommate was gay. it was just so natural, like it didn't even make a difference. similarly, the way alice didn't react at all is important too and i think julianne moore may be on her way as well. i really think these two can do a lot for gay rights. i can definitely sense a shift in society ever since this movie came out. it seems like it's all downhill from here.
why not? i find her very similar to judy garland actually. she didn't pander to them. she treated them like normal peopleOne poster pointed out that Stewart is big with lesbians (but not with gay men, which is strange to me) saying it's possible.
All of what the OP said kind of confuses me.
What's weird is that the poster is obviously hinting to LGBT "rights." That's pandering -- giving them what they want -- marriage, adoption etc. I'm not sure of his experiences in the past and how he was treated, but I take that most gay people are treated "normally", like people, just that numerous people don't see homosexuality as "normal" yet treat such people with respect when they meet in real life. It's not like they a ramp to go up an incline surface or that people shift away from them when they see them. I also don't necessarily buy into stories that say that they were fired because of their sexuality. The Matthew Sheperd case was a lie. The waitress saying the coupe didn't leave tip because she was a lesbian was a made up story.
When homosexuals say they aren't treated like normal people they're, I'm taking a stab, talking about marriage most of all. Well, if I go up to my local parish and say that me and my best friend of the same sex wants to get married we'd be denied - not because we're homosexuals (which we aren't) but because we're of the same sex.
I know Mark Ruffalo is a proponent of anti-fracking. A slew of others are on the PETA train. No doubt gay "rights" are a pet issue to the movie industry. Out of all the three social issues I've mentioned the LGBT issue is the most vested in emotions - it's a very easy social issue to bandwagon on.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)