The Spread of Culture Disease

Recently, against every muscle in my body that's spends anytime during the day avoiding cultural trends, and against every chemical change in my cortex responsible for common sense, I signed up for a Twitter account, and I love it. The best way I can describe it is, "It's one of those things you didn't realize you wanted, until you have it." Controversy surrounds it, and it has a growing number of critics, from the scholarly world, to pop culture icons, all of whom ask things like, "What's the point, who cares?" Everyone is Tweeting, yet who really cares, who's paying attention? But that's not the point. The point is, Twitter is growing fast whether or not there's someone there to care or not. Everyone is getting on Twitter. It was easy to say it was worthless and who's going to care what I have to say in 160 characters or less, but once you have one, you start to use it, and you start to use it more often than you ever thought. You're Tweeting random thoughts, things you overheard, your mood, things you ate for dinner. It's a world of instantaneous gratification, and it's too much information. Still, users don't seem to care, which comes back to the point, what's the point of Twitter? Obviously, it a networking tool, but more specifically it's a communication tool. Facebook, a networking site, has become a more indepth Twitter. Facebook, which is signing up 100,000 new users daily, tells all the inner workings of your friends, their private goals and dreams, random "secretive" facts they've never told anyone before. To me, this is overkill, this is mass information and the spread of culture disease. To follow someone on Twitter, I don't need to know their favorite book, or who they like to spend their mornings with, I just get the present facts. It's static information that overflows, but soon starts to build characters out of people. It's not our wall post, or funny UTube clips we send each other that makes us humans, it's our day to day lives, the little struggles we send out to each other, the little triumphs we share with our own corner of the world. Facebook has become bloated and unworkable, almost inhuman. Twitter is pleasurable to a minimalist like me and it's a conversation starter. So who cares if I Twitter? Nobody, but that's not the point. It's free and takes about twenty seconds, so where is there loss? Where is the human depravity and collapse of society that's supposed to come with this? It's instant access to our world, and not nearly the evil it's claimed to be. Critics can ask "Who cares?" all they want, but the truth is still people are signing up and it's not stopping. Apparently it doesn't matter if anybody cares, because that's not who its for.

An Indictment of American Life

So the Oscar season is over, and I thought it would be a perfect time to write about my favorite (and not so favorite) films of the season. The running theme to this year's pictures was loneliness. Here's a quote from Richard Yates, the author of Revolutionary Road: "Most human beings are inescapably alone, and therein lies their tragedy." He's talking about the theme of his book and a sense of the flawed characters witnessed. It's interesting to note all of these films were period pieces, meaning they were set in some other time besides the present (save for one, but the exception has a note that makes it fit under this circumstance). In a year that was arguably weak with contenders, a few of the more successful ones are listed here with expanded analysis.

Frost/Nixon- A Ron Howard pic, which means it suffers from the same problem as the ones before it: it looks like it was shot for ABC Family. Don't underestimate the performances in the film: Howard directed Langella to a deserved nomination, the story was gripping meaning it had a great many things to offer the viewer as well as honest moments of tension and conflict. Yet, it all seemed like it was smoothed over, like it was polished and produced until even the moment of climax, a heated telephone conversation between Frost and Nixon, seemed glossy. There's not a true moment of connection between the characters and audience, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The actors made a great connection to the characters in becoming so much like them, the audience was still interested in watching them. The theme of loneliness appears several times in reference to Nixon. He looks alone, he looks like he doesn't know where to belong, and he's sort of alone with his chief of staff and his stories. I didn't mind it, like I don't mind watching Apollo 13 when it's on television. (7.6/10)

Milk- Funny thing is I didn't like this when I saw it the first time (primarily because it was the second film of my first double feature, so I was having a hard time sitting still) but as I thought about it more, I realized I watched it in the wrong mindset. This is the new Braveheart, a quieter, poofier Braveheart, but Braveheart nevertheless. I like it now because I see it as the anti-epic and Harvey Milk as that icon for change, that idea of never being satisfied. It's a calm story and sutble, and I think I missed that the first time. You can throw a dart at the performances, it had the best ensemble (French pronunciation please), and come up with a great (Read: beyond great, benchmark) one: James Franco stands out as the most deserving performance in the mix, even greater than Sean Penn's, but then there is Emil Hirsch, Josh Brolin (casting him is like a license to print money; the man makes Penn look bad), Victor Garber, Diego Luna. Each one is a unique character, so much so that it's very easy to keep the immense character list untangled. The obvious thing about the theme is Milk's loneliness throughout as he can never realize his dream, but the more important, and I think vital comparison is Dan White's loneliness as everyone around him sort of abandons him which leads him to ultimately make his final decision. He felt he no other options. Milk is the same way but chose to fight back instead of allowing the fight to break him down. It's a call to arms, a rally cry for change. (8.2/10)

The Reader- Don't think for a second just because this is listed third it is some how a more inferior film than the others, but the truth is, it's hard to put this so far down the list. It was such a unique story, so full of human drama and excellent performances. It was driven by the characters and their unique situation, it was hard to look away. The film is also filled with passion and pride, and has a twist in the story. Sometimes you go to a movie expecting a twist and other times you don't expect one. I didn't expect this story to have a twist, and yet I was reward because it was a small fact that greatly change my judgement on the character and created a subtle shift in perspective. It's that type of filmmaking that should be more prevalent in our culture, making films softer and quieter. Again, the theme of loneliness is reflected in the fact the main characters have only a love affair, not a a consummate relationship, not one of love, but of passion, something formed of necessity and loneliness, not from love. And as it ends they are bitter and resentful, and years later the distance between them is still palpable. Fascinating because of its striking originality. (8.6/10)

Gran Torino- Here's a guy, Clint Eastwood, who is one of America's most beloved actors, in one of his most personal roles to date. We know him as a really tough cowboy, but he's very personal in this one. Not Million Dollar Baby personal (he basically played the same role), but in a different way because it wasn't a story about a girl fighter, it was a story about him trying to survive in the world he remembers. He's fighting with the world around him because it's ever changing, and change is something he doesn't like. A lot of people complained about the other roles in the film, like the roles of the child actors, the roles of the Asian actors and how nothing was really convincing or how nothing was really that "good." but understanding the the directing process of Eastwood, I know how he doesn't wait around for extra takes. He does simply a few and moves on. he's so confident in the performance, he knows exactly when he gets what he wants. I was not bothered by the other roles, I thought it was all part of the presentation. His role was very good, and if the rumors are true that this is his last role on screen (not behind the camera) than it was a return to form, because in the end he looks and sounds and acts like a cowboy from one of his earlier movies. I was very surprised with this film, and I was very pleased with it. The theme comes in at the very beginning after his wife dies, and his children all of a sudden have a problem connecting to him and the people around him can't connect, and he can't connect to others. He's alone in his world and refuses to change. That stubbornness prevents his happiness. (8.8/10)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button- I read the short story a number of years ago and read it again in anticipation. I was 90% sure the film would be better just because it had ample time to expand on the relationships between Ben and Daisy. I adore everything about this film. It's absolutely striking, it's got beautiful and philosophical dialogue, a unique and touching story, and tremendous acting from everyone involved. This film represents just the epitome of loneliness between people, how Ben ages in reverse and can never really get close enough to a person to love them, and if he does love them, it can never last. There are lines that were often repeated: "I was just thinking how nothing lasts, and what a shame that is," or "You never know what's coming for you." The feelings and emotions were conveyed so effectively it was hard to see where it could have been made better. It could have though, because the tragedy could have been much more obvious. They have the character sort of die out and we don't fully realize what that means that he's just gone. The story does this much more effectively, and in my opinion gives the story a much more realized sense of tragedy. This is something that sticks with you, because of the dialogue and story and imagery. (9.2/10)

Revolutionary Road- This one, however, was fully realized. Every single piece of this film is remarkable and worthwhile. There was not one thing in here that wasn't needed. The acting was some of the best ever, the drama was off the scale in its brilliance, and the tragedy was highly valuable. The scale and magnitude of this movie is significant. It's a movie that's uncomfortable to watch because you can see what the characters are headed for and you can see what's happening to them. It shows how the little things can break us down and eat away at us until we truly don't recognize ourselves or each other. This story reminded so much of A Farewell to Arms by Hemingway just because of the dynamic in relationship between husband and wife, and the eventual outcome of the characters. This is one of those pieces that comes along and it just shakes everything you know. The music, a single piano melody which is both brilliant and haunting, rips through the screen and begs you to pay attention; it creates actual moments of stress and anxiety for the audience. I just felt overwhelmed by all the emotions the characters wrestled with, and the range of parts they played. Loneliness is the whole theme throughout the movie, simply because they are married and it love and don't really know each other or how to communicate with each other. The man labeled as "crazy" in the movie (an academy-nominated role) is actually the most intelligent in the movie and knows exactly what's going on the room between people. The fact he knows and the others don't is such a fascinating display as well. The reason it can't be higher is this movie can only be taken on one level: it's the story of a married couple in the 50s. It was shot is a conventional manner and done in a usual style, but the story is so good, the acting so above par, that it doesn't need to do anything else, and I applaud it for that very reason. (9.4/10)

The Wrestler- And so it came to be that Aronofsky, the law school dropout, made the greatest films in the history of cinema. This film is so raw and biting, it's also so uncomfortable to watch. The Ram is constantly being beat down and having health problems and making mistakes, that it's a fun train wreck to watch, but it's also a challenge to the audience. It's more like Requiem than any of the others because of its brutal realism. The scenes are stark, the landscapes are dirty, and it makes no apologies for this. The Ram is exactly the same way, sort of difficult to watch, but he's not going to apologize for his ugliness. Rourke shines on the screen in the role, and one can imagine that at anytime he's going to freak out and go absolutely crazy. It's perhaps one of the finest examples of storytelling I've seen yet and the camera choices and attention to detail is superior in every facet. Anything I can think of or compare to it pales and falls short by a lot. The Ram's loneliness is portrayed so convincingly in every single aspect of his life: his estranged daughter who he doesn't know how to talk to, the hooker Cassidy who he doesn't know how to talk to, his fans, himself. He feels like he can only connect with people when he's in the ring smashing some people up. And it's heartbreaking to watch, and tragic, but not a depressing tragic, just a human story, a real story, a worthy story. (9.5/10)

Synecdoche, New York- I can't explain this film. You wouldn't get it even if I started from the beginning, because it's about life and how we can't really realize our potential or our dreams, and how the things we do in our life really don't make a lot of sense outside the context of the events. This is the first film I've ever seen that successfully incorporated an unreliable narrator. Kaufman bends reality and it stays with you. Hoffman is in his most brilliant role ever, and at his most mature. It's hard to watch because he's failing in health. His problems become our problems. This film has motifs and metaphors. It has quotable lines and humor in the oddest places. Ebert was right, you'll have to watch the movie twice, not because you want to, but because you have to. You'll watch it a third time because you want to. I think this is the most complicated, challenging, fascinating piece of filmmaking in history (such grandiosity is not beneath me reader). Every performance is rock solid, and it's another human tragedy story. It's not depressing, it just sucks because we're watching our life up on the screen. The brilliance just can't truly be realized in one screening. It's remarkable that no one talked about it, that no one got nominated. It makes me sad that this doesn't get the recognition it deserves because it's an absolute masterpiece and believe me, I use that word a lot. (9.7/10)

Juris Americanis

Aretha Franklin was on television tonight singing the song everyone knew she would sing when they hear she was singing on television. Franklin has sung Respect for over forty years. Diva years might be slightly longer, I'm not sure, but in that time here's what happened: she stopped singing it. While it's true she was on television tonight singing Respect, it wasn't her singing it. It wasn't even the song. They've both become painful representations of what both her and the song used to be. Human memories degrade over time, science confirms this, so when we watch Franklin on television in a live event, it sounds just like it did forty years ago. Even she hasn't changed, still belting out the high notes, and still larger than life. I watched closely though, and she doesn't have the range like she used to have, her face has aged considerably, and there's not much life in it anymore. In her defense, we all age, but this is different than aging, this is wear out. She's worn out from singing it so much, because it's her very definition. If she doesn't sing it, people will assume something is wrong. This is because the song has become bigger than her. This is not Aretha Franklin singing Respect, this is people standing and dancing to a song they remember from decades ago that still has not vanished. Their memories have faded, so it's easy to hear the song and still think it's just as good as it was all that time ago. It's not though, and Franklin probably knows that, which is why when she has to come out of the dressing room and perform that song, it's lacklustre. People cheer and applaud, but it's lost something. It's only a shell of what it used to be. Imagine if the Colosseum came crashing down, or they had to remove it because a new superhighway or wind farm was going in there. People would complain about desecrating a sacred site, and removing history forever, so in order to broker a deal, the builders agree, at great cost to the public, to build a new Colosseum in a different spot, away from the tourist centers. It would be just like the old Colosseum in every way, in every specification, and even built using methods the Romans would have used, so no one can tell the difference. No one would visit it, because it would be real. Even if the builders said it was a joke and they moved the real Colosseum to a different location, it still wouldn't be the same. Sure it's the Colosseum, but somethings not right, things aren't like they ought to be. If the Colosseum were torn down though, what would we actually be losing? A piece of humanity's past to which it can't connect anymore? Does anyone really experience anything when they visit the ruins? It's not even a building anymore, it's a standing abandoned building that's come to represent our society's collective interest in history. It doesn't do anything, and is only a shell of itself. Even historians can't agree what it was used for. Don't believe me? Take a tour of it, or read a book. Everyone who's spent anytime there has heard so many stories about it, they can't confirm or deny any of the claims factually. With Franklin it's a bit different, because gradually we've seen her slide into this position, we've heard the song moving in this direction. It doesn't matter the song was better thirty years ago, or she sung it with spit and teeth, what matters is it's still around, even though we don't know what to do with it. If we could isolate her 1967 performance, and compare it to the performance tonight, I bet the crowd gives a different reaction, confusion perhaps, as in "Why is she still singing this song, and why are we eating it up?" It's not a good song, and not too many people listen to Motown anymore, yet the song continues to be popular every time she sings it. She even had other number one hits: Chain of Fools, Ain't Nothing Like the Real Thing. A quick scan of Wikipedia shows she's had twenty number-one singles, won twenty-one Grammys, holds a Presidential Medal of Freedom, was the first female artist inducted into the Rock and Roll HOF, was the first black woman to appear on the cover of Time, holds a key to the city of Memphis, and just this month, Rolling Stone named her the greatest singer of all time--not female singer, singer period. So many accolades, and yet, still sings the same song. So what happens if the song disappears? She can still sing, just never sing the song again. Would we really miss it? or would we just miss the nostalgia it brings back for some of us? She doesn't sing it now like she used to, so doesn't that mean she's really not singing it anymore? And Americana somehow survives. This is what saddens me most about the people I meet, the people I have contact with: they all seem to be so afraid of letting go of their own past. There is always a lover who has hurt us but we still love them, even though an acknowledgment of those feelings is so painful. There is always something we've said to someone they can't forgive us for, or something said to us we can't forgive. I say we because I'm guilty, we're all guilty. We're emotional pack rats. Every situation, every conversation with people is held somewhere in our cortex and resurfaces later when we want to call attention to it. "There's Jane. I like her, but there was this one time she did this and that to me, and it really offended me." Everyone struggles to forget the girl we loved before, especially when things aren't looking up for us. Time heals because our memories fade. We can't remember the relationship as clearly as we could before, and things didn't seem like they were working out for the best. But right after it's over, we stop for a time of reflection and self-loathing. We feel pity for ourselves that everything we've known, doesn't get to come with us anymore. I have an ex-friend who practically kills herself everyday because her boyfriend of two years broke up with her, and she doesn't have direction now. She ruined her friendship with me, and a perfect romance in blossom because she was too overcome with guilty and self ruin. She feels compelled to her feelings of her memories. She's loyal to her memories because that's all she has. It's almost like we're afraid to feel things, like if we have an emotional reaction to something, we're unhealthy. Actually, emotional reactions are the healthy things to do. If you are a functioning human, the loss of a boyfriend is supposed to make you sad, it's supposed to make you cry. It's okay to feel like crap for a month, but to continually revisit those memories, and torture yourself with images from your past is cruel, and hurts your future. Respect is dead, you have to accept it, and move on. Let a new song, that's better than Respect enter your life for a little, allow yourself that freedom to latch on and lose control because of it.

The Race Card

It takes a lot to get me upset, but this was about all it took yesterday morning: 

I was watching a sports news channel while I ate my breakfast, and they ran a piece about black football coaches in college football. The statistic was something like only 3.3% of college football coaches are black. They were interviewing the head of some department about this, and of course this was unacceptable to him. He claimed that in this day and age, it's simply uncalled for to have such a low percentage of blacks coaching. He went on to say that Americans were thought to have been moving toward equality but this shows signs of negative equality, like America is moving backwards. Of course there were things said about how we can have a new president, African-American, but we're not giving all those qualified a chance because those in power are still viewing skin color. This is a fabulously over-the-top argument because how does he know black coaches aren't getting hired based on their skill and racism? He doesn't, he's got no proof. I remain that the best person is always hired for the job. Maybe because I'm growing up in a different generation, but why would the athletic director hire a worse candidate for the job just because the best candidate is black? It used to be NCAA mandate that in the hiring process, at least one minority candidate must be interviewed for the position. I think this is a step backwards. Affirmative action is keeping racism alive because when it comes to race, nothing should be mandatory. Directors should feel free to interview and hire who they wish. And when will it be good enough? Is 25% good enough? 50%? 100% Do all the coaches need to be black in order for us to stop calling racism on each other?

Sausage Workshop

It seems everyone is a writer now. The Internet makes that easier for everybody. When people find out I'm a poet or a writer there are two reactions. The first one I expect: "Oh, I don't know how to write, it's so difficult." I launch into my pre-recorded speech about writing being like learning a second language and writing being a technology that humans invented and because we weren't born with it, we can learn to use it. That's usually met with a glazed over look. More and more however, they are very eager to admit they too, in fact, are a writer and wish to collaborate with me and do writer things. Writers love to get together and talk about characters and new ideas they have and line breaks and titles. There's nothing greater in the world to do than to network with another writer. We imagine ourselves on a deserted island, with nothing but water and sun for miles in every direction, and the second we spot a boat in the distance, we're hoping someone on it has a manuscript ready to talk about. It's like a big community that supports each other, because writers are moody and need lots of help. Except, it doesn't work. What happens instead is when all these writer friends get together, they delude themselves into thinking what they're writing is brilliant and all the ideas they have need to be pursued. This seems like a bad idea because it is. Take one of my friends I just met; I'll call him Steven. Steven fancies himself a good writer because all of the people he's come in contact with seem to like what he writes and can identify with it. They write comments on his blog saying, "This is so true, you're a genius," or "I could never write like you Steven. Keep up the good work." To the trained ear, this is the kiss of death. Because I've been writing and taking criticism for a dozen years doesn't make me an automatic authority on this, but I think I'm in a better place than this. What Steven doesn't realize is his friends have no idea what to say to it. Maybe they in fact did enjoy the piece, but they don't know why, and they don't know what was good about it. Worse, they can't point out the bad parts. To Steven, it reconfirms what he already knows, that he has talent as a writer, and people respond to his work. I can see passed this, however, because I know Steven is not producing quality work, and no one can ever tell him that. His friends don't get what quality work is supposed to look like, so all they see is Steven, and all they hear is his voice, which they like. I hate being the bearer of bad news. Steven doesn't know yet that I'm a writer, nor does he know I also write poetry and have a blog, and he must never know. Because when he finds out he's going to want to share work, and I'm going to have to say no. I'll make an excuse like my work isn't good enough for other people to read (writers eat that excuse up because we all think it's not good enough for other people to read, so when someone says it before us, we think we're better than them immediately) and he'll try to convince me otherwise. Then I'll be stuck reading his stuff (which I already have) and he'll read mine and not know what to say about it because he's not really good enough to give criticism on my pieces, but he'll beg me for reaction to his work where I'll be confronted with a couple of options: I can tell him where he went wrong and why it doesn't work and why it's more or less boring and can't connect with the reader (you see I've spent time with his work already) or I can get in line with all his other friends and tell him it was a very good read and I can't wait to read the next one. Meanwhile, writers should be very careful who they invite as friends. For every boat that passes, I just hope there's not a writer on board with a manuscript, because I'm going to have to read it. A good reader, an honest reader of your work is the most important tool one can have as a writer because he or she can save you from potential embarrassment. The honest reader is to be treasured, not flaunted. The honest reader should be the first one to read anything one writes, and it shouldn't just be shared with everyone until the time when it's been worked with and refined. When Steven shows me his work he's going to tell me to be honest about what I think, but that doesn't mean he wants an honest reader. He wants me to tell him what he wants to hear, he wants me to tell him anything but the truth. I have no problem being the honest reader because I like to work with other writers to help them correct what went wrong, and how they can correct it exactly. That's not what most writers look for. They instead want to post things on their blog and let people comment on how funny it is and rife with wisdom and hope. That's why writing is hard. Writers should be very acquainted with each other before they start handing out samples. This is not the supermarket where everyone gets a free taste of Jimmy Dean sausage. When I pass up their sausage, it's not because I don't like them, it's because I don't like sausage. The only critique I can give you is sausage is bad, but I won't say it. If everyone else likes it, I'm gonna shut my mouth.

Confessions From a Hopeless Cinephile

Being that Labor Day is the unofficial end of summer, it's also the unofficial end of the blockbuster season. I saw more movies this summer than any other summer and I've decided to rank them and provide my reflections on them. They are ranked worst to best, and some may surprise you.

13. The Happening- I nearly left this off my list as this doesn't register as a movie. I went to the theatre so excited for this movie, ready to be freaked out and amazed at the same time. I was not there for the tragedies of Lady in the Water or The Village so I didn't have the previous history; I was just going on what I knew of the trailers and musings online. I didn't want to walk out because I thought there would be a twist at the end to tie everything up, but there wasn't. This movie failed in several ways, most of all it was to provide a plausible scenario, conflict, or story. There was this strained hint of an extramarital affair we neither cared about nor knew about, and before the movie was half over, everyone was forgiven. MNS may never make another movie. The good news is, Mark Walbergh can act, and even with a pitiful script and story, does a remarkable job holding the viewers' attention. Mark Walbergh gets ten points in this review, but loses nine for agreeing to this rubbish even after reading the script. (1/10)

12. Prince Caspian- Sorry CS Lewis that this happened to one of your best stories. I thought it was boring and over produced. As soon as it started I wanted it to be over immediately, and the script sounded like it was written by children, like a bunch of eleven-year olds got bored after school one day, borrowed Mom's video camera, and filmed this out in the woods. (3/10)

11. Babylon AD - Unlike The Happening, even though this was a poor movie, I enjoyed the heck out of it. My first reactions were not good. The story was there, but at no point was I made aware of it. The characters were there cause I could see them on screen, but I just didn't know who they were. I didn't care about any aspect of the movie: the conflict, the progression, the resolution. It was put together terribly, and new elements and characters were introduced all over the place, even in to the climax of the story. Even though it was a futuristic movie, it was unbelievable to the point of lunacy. Then I remembered: it's a Vin Diesel movie. In fact, it's a Vin Diesel movie in which he was actually good. Surprising, I know, but he's obviously not going to be winning awards for the part. I was entertained for the first hour, and then, after Diesel destroys a $3 billion government fighter drone from a $5500 snowmobile, I lost interest. Seven more characters were introduced, none of whom had specific roles like a game of The Sims. The best moment came when the lead female, Melanie Thierry, declares at the end of a poorly written conversation: "We will all die when we get to New York." Then she falls asleep. I laughed and laughed. (4.5/10)

10. Swing Vote- I actually liked this movie, and the fact it's left open at the end only adds to its value in my opinion. It's a very classic setup with Costner playing a dead beat dad whose kid is more of an adult than he is. The whole purpose of the story is to mark his change, and that's successful. The elements surrounding the story were highly convoluted and coincidental. Costner doesn't do well in his role unfortunatly, but has enough help from Nathan Lane, Kelsey Grammar, Dennis Hopper (who really should be in more movies), and Stanley Tucci. I laughed at the parts that were funny and generally didn't mind seeing it. It's doubtful, with a script and story like that, it could have been any better. (5/10)

9. Wanted- Just for comparison measures, this was Morgan Freeman's worst movie (not his worst role), and Angelina Jolie's best. I expected this to be early in my rankings, but after comparing it, it moved up. Originality counts for so much when it comes to entertainment. While a bit campy and testosterone driven, the story made sense. The stylized script and camera work didn't get on my nerves too much. I actually appreciated the idea of a no-brainer story made for more intelligent audiences. Overall I enjoyed it, though there were parts that strained my idea of possibility, and the ending really got out of control, but most of the elements were in place. In the end, the good outweighed the bad, and it was successful. (6.5/10)

8. Hancock- I thought it was too conservative and could have been better. It was a superhero movie, but more importantly it was a made up superhero, not from any comic book originally. It also was a vehicle for Will Smith, just something to get him back on the screen. I thought Smith did a good job, but Hancock was played without passion, and the laziness of the character didn't translate well, that is to say, one can never be called a good actor portraying laziness. For that reason, I thought Jason Bateman had a more convincing role and out acted Smith who seems more adept at playing the everyman rather than a larger than life superhero. Think about Independence Day and how he was just a regular guy. Much better at that than this. Hancock also contained one of the poorest written endings all summer (save for numbers 11 and 13). This one was good enough to leave me entertained, but I wouldn't see the sequel. (6.5/10)

7. Step Brothers- There's not much to say regarding a Will Ferrell flick. The story was semi-original and I laughed really hard at it. His funniest since Anchorman, which makes sense considering it was written and directed by the same guy. One doesn't go into a Ferrell movie expecting good direction or acting. I did however laugh more than I thought I would, and because of that surprise, I liked it very much. (7/10)

6. X-Files 2- I'm a fan of the series and the movie was one extra long episode. I was pleased with the simplicity of the story and how easily Billy Connolly made a believable character. Connolly is definitely under utilized. The story didn't attempt to be too much or something it was not and that made it refreshing. There was some backstory Carter pulled up dealing with Fox and Scully's relationship I wasn't familiar with so it made it confusing, possibly distracting. Xzibit was in it, and I didn't fully understand that choice. It was one of the best sci-fi movies I've seen in a while, and I would venture a guess that I liked it more than most everyone else. (7/10)

5. Get Smart- This movie wasn't great, and Carell played more of a clown than I would have liked, but again, the surprise element of a movie I didn't expect to be good goes a long way. It was actually really funny. I nearly giggled through the whole thing. I think the whole cast worked well together and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sequel. That one I would see. (7.5/10)

4. Traitor- I was really excited to see this movie, and within the first ten minutes knew it would be worth it. I was even more excited when I left the theatre because it was simply an incredible story, with terrific acting, directing, dialouge. This was the whole package. Cheadle soars as the lead which is no surprise and Pearse matches his performance which, again, is no surprise. Jeff Daniels did an excellent job in a serious role, and I didn't have a hard time taking him seriously, probably because I was too involved in the story. The camera work was significant for such an involved story. It was full of politics, suspense, twists, some of which I predicted, others I did not. I suspect it will be nominated for a few awards in various categories: screenplay, best actor, cinematography. (9/10)

3. Wall-E- A lot of people liked Kung-Fu Panda better, probably because it had more dialogue and more action, but I did not see it. Wall-E was not only a great movie, it was beautiful. How often is the word used to describe an animated movie? It was also romantic. Wall-E was such a dynamic character even without speaking. It gave a nice lesson without being preachy which is always appreciated, and the story was so original. I think Pixar has some of the most original ideas in moviemaking today, which I suppose makes sense because they don't have to use human actors. Most people I think found this movie boring and slow because of the lack of dialogue, but I don't think they could appreciate the subtlety of the story and character arc, because a lot of moviegoers are stupid. IMDB users however have voted this the 29th best movie of overall, so someone out there liked it. I wouldn't mind seeing it again, whether in the theatre or DVD. (9.5/10)

2. Iron Man- What worked for Iron Man is it didn't try and tell anymore story than the story of Iron Man. It was simple and well acted: Favreau directed Downey Jr. and Bridges to at least a nomination. It was full of comedic elements which helped make a serious action movie a little more lighthearted and easy to watch. It was devoid of a romantic subplot which distracts in these types of movies. It was like an arrow that stretched from the beginning of the movie and didn't stop until the end. I'm so excited everyone is signed on for a two and three because this could be a very popular franchise. My favorite superhero movie ever, and a very surprising pick. Interestingly, this was the first movie I saw for the summer season, and it just doesn't compare with the others. (9.5/10)

1. The Dark Knight- I'm not going to do a very good job explaining what this movie means to me. It's my favorite movie of all time, and that's saying something because it's a movie about Batman. This movie has everything: romance, violence (the two most important elements producers look for), intelligence, excitement, story lines that cross, twists; and those are just the elements of the story. The actors all gave A+ performances: In my opinion Gary Oldman had the best performance as a man under control amid the chaos of his city around him, even better than Eckhart's which other people seemed to prefer. I'm not going to talk about Ledger's performance because I don't think it's fair to other actors any where. Ledger's performance was otherworldly. One hates to mention the tragedy of it, but if there could be one performance an actor would die for, this was it. He will for sure win the oscar for supporting actor, even though he out acted everyone on the set. Every actor turned in the top performance of his career. The dialogue was perfect, the story was perfect. I've seen it three times and it gets better each time. I get chills at the end cause the ending is so breathtaking. The only sour note was Gyllenhaal's performance, which even for her was sub. Ignore that and we have the most beautiful movie is a very long time. (10/10)

Now here's what we have to look forward to in the fall Oscar season: Righteous Kill, Burn After Reading, Lakeview Terrace, Blindness, Miracle at St. Anna, Choke, Body of Lies, City of Ember, Flash of Genius, The Road.

No Spinoza Zone

"The act of weak theology has resulted in the notion of the weakness of God. In the body of thought, the paradigm of God an an overwhelming physical or metaphysical force is regarded as mistaken. The old God-of-power is displaced with the idea of God as an unconditional claim without force. As a claim without force, the God of weak theology does not physically or metaphysically intervene in nature. Weak theology emphasizes the responsibility of humans to act in this world here and now. Because God is thought of as weak and as a call, weak theology places an emphasis on the "weak" human virtues of forgiveness, hospitality, openness, and receptivity." 

I try to live my life according to those four tenets, especially openness. I don't live with regard to a particular religion because I don't think God needs a subscription like a magazine. Early christianity had a threefold message of grace, humility, and love. It was meant to get people to live like God, to enter his kingdom. But I say do it regardless of God. If one believes certain things, because one is told that's the way one is supposed to act, it's not really believing. That sort of religion and spirituality is false and should be avoided. I say do these things because you want to do them, because people are inherently good, not bad. Forgive unconditionally, not because the bible says and one obeys, but because one instinctively wants to forgive. I think if we can live like this, without regard, we can accomplish more as a people. Label this thinking as postmodern christianity, or christian existentialism; it's simply gestalt: one's individual decision is more important than the decisions of the whole. The idea of personal choice and responsibility is what I feel is absent from religion. Responsibility may exist, but only in by-product form. What if God can't respond? What if we have to live up to the weak virtues in order to respond, to do the work he can't do? What if through that, and nothing else, we can gain a personal relationship, we can become most God like?

History Lesson

I've been thinking lately about history repeating itself. The feelings of the past come suddenly to the front of my mind like I'm living where I lived years ago. I left Savannah for several reasons, money and school among the most important, but one of the ancillary reasons was I was just not in a good spot emotionally. I was flipping back and forth between depression and rage and my sleeping patterns were off. I was going to bed at 6a and waking up at 6p, delusional, depressed. 

My point is, I don't want to be in that place again, yet small hints of the history of my composure are storming up again. I wrote a poem about a girl who broke up with me three years ago. One of the lines was, "The business of spreading your wings not quite finished." Her exploration of herself and others had not been completed yet, and could not give me the completeness I desired. Here it happens again: a new girl, three years later in my life, and I go after her with gusto. This scares her and she can't predict the future, etc. To say the least, I'm making the same mistakes and not thinking things through completely. 

This doesn't scare me though. What scares me though is I can't ignore the itch of her name, and her insistence to explore life away from someone else frustrates me. Things are backwards: I should be worried about not being able to control my emotions to a reasonable degree, but what I worry about is her, and our "someday". 

What do I want these entries to be? What do I want these to reflect about me? A prose journal to highlight where my train of thought is, a map to distinguish between mountains and valleys, a compass, a flashlight. My writing no doubt reflects the things around me, my emotions responsible for my publishing, so the very fact history is repeating itself should not be a surprise to me. The fact the women in my life have an independent streak shouldn't be a surprise to me either because it's what I've always written about. What I find curious: do my writings influence my emotions, or am I an emotional writer?

Complacent

A field in winter.

Snow and earth collide like

lovers saving themselves.

Progress

Spring. New arrivals

shout their names into being.

You emerge first.

These haikus are such a great experiment because they provide such a clean and just picture of right now. They are little snapshots of remote corners of my head, and they take no time to write. They aren't drawn out and demand to be written with no thought. Like these two: the first one suggests my apprehension to be alone right now when there's something greater out there for me. The second one suggests of everything that comes to be, I can only notice her, or she's the only one worth noticing. This frustration will not get the best of me.

The Great Haiku Experiment

One months of haikus. Here's two to start.

Baggage

Autumn. Dry leaves fall

circle become little. Lord,

shake my branches firm.

Bellow

Winds from the north.

Colder year than years past.

Tomorrow no change.