Living with cats can often feel like living with ghosts, especially when they learn to open doors. It used to be unsettling to look across the apartment and see a door seemingly open and close by itself, but now it's just like living out the second half of a movie about the Invisible Man and his roommate. I have come to terms with my unusual circumstances, and we have a routine now.
Our apartment is on the second floor of a small house in Bay View on the south side of Milwaukee. Sometimes I hear foot steps on the stairs that lead up to our flat, but when no one materializes at the top of the stairs I realize that,Hegel, named for the 18th century German philosopher, or Murs, named for the twenty-first century gangsta rapper, have had one over on me again. Not that they have any idea what kind of Ghostbusters/Ghost Dad scenarios they create. They only know that they have no yard to run in or wild creatures to hunt. So they hunt each other around our one bedroom apartment, occasionally bumping into a coffee mug or candlestick. When I look to see who is there, all that remains is the spinning cup or a toppled ornament and a spire of smoke. Almost as if some paranormal prankster were trying to make me think I was hallucinating.
"But I'm telling you, officer, someone is lurking around in my home causing all kinds of ruckus. The individual is either incredibly sneaky or returned from the dead to conclude the unfinished business of scaring the begeesus out of me. You don't happen to know if an assistant professor of Art History, overcome with grief over repeated career disappointments, committed suicide in this apartment, because this spook seems to hate my sister-in-law's Pop Art. The same painting has fallen of the wall six times this week. I'm afraid my she is going to notice the wood glue bubbles oozing out of the cracked frame next time she comes over for dinner."
Still, even when I cannot see my feline roommates it is nice to be reminded of their presence by a constant thumping of books being knocked off the book shelf, the scattering of our mail all over the dinner table and surrounding floor or a cry like the restless spirit of an unwanted child thrown off a bridge many years ago.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Hunger
Today I felt a hunger that was not unlike starvation or a hypoglycemic fit, which left me shaking and uneasy--even a little panicked. This is not the first of these episodes I have experienced, and I cannot say why I have never had myself examined by a doctor or at least asked for advice. Being the sensible person I am, I can only reconcile the absurdity of feeling ravenous a mere four hours after breakfast, with a psychological explanation. The idea that I am actually starving being too far-fetched to me. Even hypoglycemia seems to complex an explanation to survive Ockham's discriminant blade.
Regardless, it is at times like these that I find the thought of picky eaters most repulsive. I have no use for those who will altogether reject a particular food because of one single ingredient. I hate raisins. There flavor is completely offensive to my pallet. But if someone offers me oatmeal raisin cookies I will accept with both hands held out, as thankfully as if it were my final communion. I love food. If someone wants to offer me additional options to increase the amount of food I may have for no extra charge I am not going to refuse. I will never conclude a restaurant order with the phrase, "...hold the _____." If they'll add onions or cheese or even fucking sesame seeds for free, I will take them.
In a moment of perceived, irrational trepidation, when I feel that jittery pang wash over me, and my paces begins to clumsily overlap, my mind wanders to the last time I turned down food, not wanting to appear pathetic or greedy to my companions who have forgotten their starving college years. I think of how stupid and overly self conscious I was. If only I had seized the opportunity for a prepared feast, free of charge, I would not be suffering now. I would be satiated and content. Never mind the fact that this probably occurred weeks ago. The satisfaction of that late lunch or late-night snack would have passed, and I would still have this aching in my gut, this hollow-ness. I would still be pawing this very moment at the carb-shaped hole in my soul, longing for the sweat relief of a pita stuffed with lettuce and lamb or a boston cream donut. Oh regret.
Regardless, it is at times like these that I find the thought of picky eaters most repulsive. I have no use for those who will altogether reject a particular food because of one single ingredient. I hate raisins. There flavor is completely offensive to my pallet. But if someone offers me oatmeal raisin cookies I will accept with both hands held out, as thankfully as if it were my final communion. I love food. If someone wants to offer me additional options to increase the amount of food I may have for no extra charge I am not going to refuse. I will never conclude a restaurant order with the phrase, "...hold the _____." If they'll add onions or cheese or even fucking sesame seeds for free, I will take them.
In a moment of perceived, irrational trepidation, when I feel that jittery pang wash over me, and my paces begins to clumsily overlap, my mind wanders to the last time I turned down food, not wanting to appear pathetic or greedy to my companions who have forgotten their starving college years. I think of how stupid and overly self conscious I was. If only I had seized the opportunity for a prepared feast, free of charge, I would not be suffering now. I would be satiated and content. Never mind the fact that this probably occurred weeks ago. The satisfaction of that late lunch or late-night snack would have passed, and I would still have this aching in my gut, this hollow-ness. I would still be pawing this very moment at the carb-shaped hole in my soul, longing for the sweat relief of a pita stuffed with lettuce and lamb or a boston cream donut. Oh regret.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Revolver
Today I watched Guy Ritchies latest film, "Revolver". While this movie resembles Ritchie's other works, save "Swept Away," set in the seedy criminal underworld, this time Ritchie adds a Freudian twist. Borrowing the words of many psychologists, who are given exhibition in the credits, Ritchie tells the metaphysical emancipation story of gambler and recent ex-con, Jake, played by Jason Statham, who seems to be good for nothing if he is not in a Ritchie movie. Jake is riding high having made a killing at casinos, since his release from prison. He has spent 7 years solitary confinement--five of those years were spent between the cells of two con men, who play chess and share professional ideas via the pages of prison library books. Jake gets in on the conversation, and, while he gets a grifter's Ph.D. he also shares the location of his nest egg for when he gets out. Two years after his mentors escape prison without him, he returns to the crime boss, Macha, Ray Liotta, whose freedom he maintained by serving time, looking for payback.
Once Jake publicly humiliates Macha and takes him for a large sum, Jake takes a spill and ends up in the hospital where he is diagnosed with a rare blood disease leaving him only weeks to live. Just before the fall Jake was approached by a stranger, Vincent Pastore, offering a prophetic business card. The stranger, after returning to rescue Jake from an ambush, set up by Macha, reveals himself to be a lone shark, who, along with partner, Andre Benjamin, will provide Jake revenge on Macha and protection on the condition that he give them all the money he has.
Revolver is, unsurprisingly, a highly stylized crime/heist movie with strong performances from Pastore, Benjamin and Liotta. Statham also holds his own. Now if he could just deliver this performance to another director, or, at least offer it to a director who deserves it. While all the shine and grime we have come to expect from Guy Ritchie is present, he goes overboard a little with the voices in the head scenes that leave the viewer wondering if they are supposed to recognize two voices or three. Revolver looks at an area of psychology that would sound hokey if it were not within a story of killers and crooks. This grunges up the concept just enough to obscure Madonna's kooky influence on the story.
It's no "Abre Los Ojos," but Revolver succeeds at keeping your attention, while making you think. I suggest a second viewing just to catch up on what you misunderstood the first time through.
Once Jake publicly humiliates Macha and takes him for a large sum, Jake takes a spill and ends up in the hospital where he is diagnosed with a rare blood disease leaving him only weeks to live. Just before the fall Jake was approached by a stranger, Vincent Pastore, offering a prophetic business card. The stranger, after returning to rescue Jake from an ambush, set up by Macha, reveals himself to be a lone shark, who, along with partner, Andre Benjamin, will provide Jake revenge on Macha and protection on the condition that he give them all the money he has.
Revolver is, unsurprisingly, a highly stylized crime/heist movie with strong performances from Pastore, Benjamin and Liotta. Statham also holds his own. Now if he could just deliver this performance to another director, or, at least offer it to a director who deserves it. While all the shine and grime we have come to expect from Guy Ritchie is present, he goes overboard a little with the voices in the head scenes that leave the viewer wondering if they are supposed to recognize two voices or three. Revolver looks at an area of psychology that would sound hokey if it were not within a story of killers and crooks. This grunges up the concept just enough to obscure Madonna's kooky influence on the story.
It's no "Abre Los Ojos," but Revolver succeeds at keeping your attention, while making you think. I suggest a second viewing just to catch up on what you misunderstood the first time through.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The most striking feature of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons" is the special effects used to make Brad Pitt look like a seven-year-old boy that looks like an eighty-year-old man. I feel relieved that this story was not attempted by the Sci-Fi Channel or some other third-rate joke of a cable channel. This movie could not have been made ten or even five years ago, at least not without having the mood of the film diluted by hammy CGI. More amazing still is the level to which Brad Pitt performs an impossible role. Sure Mark Hammill had to pretend that he had a laser on the end of that stick, but Brad Pitt had pretend he was a miniature old man, who wanted nothing more than to play like other six-year-olds his own age. I realize I am cramming a lot of contradictions into one paragraph, and if you do not know anything about this movie, check it out before continuing. For those who do know something about this "curious" tale, see this movie. It is visually stunning and heart-breaking--two words often used to describe adaptations of F. Scott Fitzgerald's works, but this is no Great Gatsby. This is surrealist fantasy on the level of H.P. Lovecraft or even Stephen King. And the horror is this tale is not visceral, besides the site of a rinkled newborn, but instead, psychological and metaphysical. I cannot escape the suspicion that this story informed Audrey Neffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife, which deals with a similar love relationship that is limited by incongruent paths of the character through time. The love story is none-the-less sufficient and satisfying for the purposes of the story.
My one qualm with this story is the event in which the aged Daisy cheats on her husband with Benjamin, when he returns to visit her after a long estrangement. Benjamin returns looking to be in his twenties and actually meets Daisy's daughter and husband. While I can certainly understand the temptation to continue the affair, especially on Daisy's part, considering Brad Pitt looks like he did in Thelma and Louise, a grown woman feeling as if the only way to find closure with the love of her life is to sleep with him, seems terribly naive and immature. It is enough that she will spend the rest of her life loving a man with whom she cannot be, but she has placed an infidelity and a pernicious weight atop her marriage. A weight that cannot help but have a lasting effect on her marital relationship. I guess some would see this as a brave and empowering act carried out by a strong woman, but I cannot see it in that light no matter what angle from which I approach the situation.
One qualm aside this film is worth seeing, if only for the sheer movie magic of it all. This movie captures what is grand and commendably indulgent about cinema. It depicts real emotion and humanity inside a world of fantastic fiction that leaves one dazzled as they exit the cinema.
My one qualm with this story is the event in which the aged Daisy cheats on her husband with Benjamin, when he returns to visit her after a long estrangement. Benjamin returns looking to be in his twenties and actually meets Daisy's daughter and husband. While I can certainly understand the temptation to continue the affair, especially on Daisy's part, considering Brad Pitt looks like he did in Thelma and Louise, a grown woman feeling as if the only way to find closure with the love of her life is to sleep with him, seems terribly naive and immature. It is enough that she will spend the rest of her life loving a man with whom she cannot be, but she has placed an infidelity and a pernicious weight atop her marriage. A weight that cannot help but have a lasting effect on her marital relationship. I guess some would see this as a brave and empowering act carried out by a strong woman, but I cannot see it in that light no matter what angle from which I approach the situation.
One qualm aside this film is worth seeing, if only for the sheer movie magic of it all. This movie captures what is grand and commendably indulgent about cinema. It depicts real emotion and humanity inside a world of fantastic fiction that leaves one dazzled as they exit the cinema.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Slumdog Millionaire
My most prominent thought during Danny Boyle's "Slumdog Millionaire" is that everyone who can get out of India, should. As portrayed in this film, India is a merciless, crime-ridden jungle, where the police and other authorities do nothing to prevent the powerful and corrupt from stealing and ruining everything the weaker might hold dear e.g. friends, family or any monetary wealth accumulated, no matter how small. If someone has the physical strength to take it, they will. Perhaps, I am being naive about the state of my own country. However, I do feel that if I go to work five days a week, I am careful with keeping my belongings and family secure, then I will keep those things and be able to live comfortably and without fear of them all being taken away at the whim of a ruthless criminal. This is simply not the case for Jamal Malik, an Muslim orphan, who is trying to change his Shakespearean tragedy of a life by winning "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?". While the basic premise for this movie does nothing to prepare you for the horror of this boys life, it is anything but a cheesey melodrama.
Jamal has grown up in the slums of Mumbai India alongside his older brother Salim. Jamal and Salim are very troublesome children, always getting into trouble as shown in an early scene reminiscent of "City of God," where they both flee police officers,running in-between shanties, climbing on roofs, assaulting the officers from above and, of course, taunting them ludely. After their Muslim mother is killed by zealous Hindus, the boys quick thinking and resourcefulness saves their lives as they build a gang of "con-children," who scam tourists outside the Taj-Mahal.
Much of the story of Jamal's life is told in order to explain to the police how it is an uneducated kid from the slums has successfully answered the first seven questions on the aforementioned game show--enough questions to earn him 10,000,000 rupees. Since no one else in India has accomplished this feat, police have spent the night after the show, which ran just short of the final question, torturing Jamal in order to get him to confess to cheating.
During the course of Jamal and Salim's treacherous childhood they meet Latika, another child left alone after the Muslim massacre. While Jamal quickly develops feelings for Latika, Salim is sees her as a threat to the bond between he and his brother. Throughout the movie Salim attempts to end Jamal's infatuation, but Jamal refuses to give up hope of being with Latika.
Slumdog Millionaire's love story will capture many people's emotions, but what makes this story most compelling is the way these young children survive at all in such a cruel and unforgiving land like India. For the three main characters, life is brutal, and hope for a safe and comfortable existence is always beyond their reach. While it is obvious early on, Jamal believes that he and Latika were born for each other; as Jamal relays his story to the police, these are the questions Jamal was born to answer.
Jamal has grown up in the slums of Mumbai India alongside his older brother Salim. Jamal and Salim are very troublesome children, always getting into trouble as shown in an early scene reminiscent of "City of God," where they both flee police officers,running in-between shanties, climbing on roofs, assaulting the officers from above and, of course, taunting them ludely. After their Muslim mother is killed by zealous Hindus, the boys quick thinking and resourcefulness saves their lives as they build a gang of "con-children," who scam tourists outside the Taj-Mahal.
Much of the story of Jamal's life is told in order to explain to the police how it is an uneducated kid from the slums has successfully answered the first seven questions on the aforementioned game show--enough questions to earn him 10,000,000 rupees. Since no one else in India has accomplished this feat, police have spent the night after the show, which ran just short of the final question, torturing Jamal in order to get him to confess to cheating.
During the course of Jamal and Salim's treacherous childhood they meet Latika, another child left alone after the Muslim massacre. While Jamal quickly develops feelings for Latika, Salim is sees her as a threat to the bond between he and his brother. Throughout the movie Salim attempts to end Jamal's infatuation, but Jamal refuses to give up hope of being with Latika.
Slumdog Millionaire's love story will capture many people's emotions, but what makes this story most compelling is the way these young children survive at all in such a cruel and unforgiving land like India. For the three main characters, life is brutal, and hope for a safe and comfortable existence is always beyond their reach. While it is obvious early on, Jamal believes that he and Latika were born for each other; as Jamal relays his story to the police, these are the questions Jamal was born to answer.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Who is to blame for America
I was thinking about this 'Letter from 2012,' and I am struck by the insistance that all the horror that is looming over us for our election of Barack Obama (and I stress "our")says nothing of what we Christians have done to get where we are today. It completely ignores our involvment in the shaping of the present United States. Perhaps that is because we have done so very little good. We have elected a president to term twice that only pays us our 'values' lip service. He wins elections on the issues we claim to hold dear, but does nothing to uphold those 'values.' For some time Christians have aligned themselves with the Republican party because of a majority in said party wearing the badge pro-life, pro-marriage and, curiously, self reliance. Why would self-reliance be a Christian virtue? While I personally put a great deal of value on personal responsibility, I do not see it in any Christian creed or scripture. I read proclamation and commandments asking my to put my faith, trust even hope in God. I am continually reminded by scripture that all good things come from God. He will provide. I must surrender my life and "cast all my cares upon him." Does this mean I am a socialist? Not hardly! However, when people are starving, it is no better for the government that represents me to turn a blind eye than it is for me to ignore this deficit.
Was our country founded on Christian principals. As much as Constantinople was. However, the Roman Empire is hardly a model for the body of Christ. At no time was America the Church, and it never will be. In a country with the diversity of America, we cannot hope to maintain our status by giving Christianity special license to run the government. Also, we cannot make people righteous with laws. Ancient Israel was a failed nation, and hardly the example by which we should hold our own nation up against. America will never be what God wanted for Israel for one simple reason. We were not chosen. No matter how much we insist it is so, we cannot make it so by sheer will. We can only foster a people in the body of Christ that will lead and vote for a just government. If our nation is full of Christians the we will be a nation of Christians, but we will not be a Christian nation
Was our country founded on Christian principals. As much as Constantinople was. However, the Roman Empire is hardly a model for the body of Christ. At no time was America the Church, and it never will be. In a country with the diversity of America, we cannot hope to maintain our status by giving Christianity special license to run the government. Also, we cannot make people righteous with laws. Ancient Israel was a failed nation, and hardly the example by which we should hold our own nation up against. America will never be what God wanted for Israel for one simple reason. We were not chosen. No matter how much we insist it is so, we cannot make it so by sheer will. We can only foster a people in the body of Christ that will lead and vote for a just government. If our nation is full of Christians the we will be a nation of Christians, but we will not be a Christian nation
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Wow, I have not written on here in a while!
I recently read Lord of the Flies by William Golding. I had been told that it influenced the making of the show Lost, of which I am a huge fan. I had already seen the movie, because when I hear about a story that i believe I will like, I often watch the movie, being too impatient to read the book. In this case it was a mistake to watch the film first, because it is so different from the book. I found that my knowledge of the film's story left me overly anxious for particular events that never happened in the book. This made me impatient while reading the book. It made ejoyment of the author's physical description of the landscape and characters nearly impossible.
However, after much frustration I finally latched onto the story itself, and was able to finish it with a profound appreciation of the book apart from the film. The story is about a group of young boys who survive a plane crash and are left to fend for themselves on a desert island. As one might imagine, this is a thrilling prospect for many of the boys: being on an island filled with unknown adventure and absolutely no adults. What unfolds are power struggles, childish irresponsibility and, eventually, brutality that is anything but child's play. The message Golding seems to be presenting is that humanity is brutal even in youth. He is denouncing innocence of the young child, which anyone might claim would produce a more peaceful or utopian society. For Golding, man is selfish and barbaric. Even with the strong and seemingly just leadership of Ralph, even with level headed rationality of Piggy as his adviser, the society will pull free of these at the first sign of weakness. Man will be assuaged by their own interests and the rhetoric of the brash and confident revolutionary to do unspeakable horror to their fellow man, or in this case child.
I agree that this story has likely influenced the writers of Lost. One big similarity, apart from the obvious plane crash on a desert island scenario, is the way the children go back and forth between rational and meta-rational or supernatural explanations of particular events e.g. "the Beast". This element of Lost has always been my favorite part of the show. I particularly like the contrast of the character of "Jack Shepherd" vs. "John Locke". Jack represents the side of science and rationality. While John Locke represents the side of faith and belief in the supernatural, i.e. fate, destiny or God.
Apart from this, I found myself fascinated by the similarity of this utopian experiment put forth by Golding with the experiment of the God of Genesis with Noah. In both cases the greater society is taken out of the picture. Golding hopes to exhibit man's cruelty, even with a fresh start. God is hoping that the new start will give humanity a chance to flourish. I see the wisdom in Golding's effort. However, I am having trouble in finding the wisdom in God's effort. I am certainly struggling with the justice of his experiment. I do not know that I believe It did any good. I am more inclined to agree with Golding that man will create another evil society, than I am with the idea that man will improve by having all but the righteous eliminated.
Having found this odd problem with the story of Noah, I am first inclined to believe that the lesson to be taken from this story is that God will preserve a remnant on earth in the end of time for re-creation or new Earth after judgment. However, I find this to be a valuable lesson only in the case that this story is merely a parable or myth. If it is a true story than I find it more troubling than the story of Job. I am perplexed by this dilemma, and uncertain what to think of it.
However, after much frustration I finally latched onto the story itself, and was able to finish it with a profound appreciation of the book apart from the film. The story is about a group of young boys who survive a plane crash and are left to fend for themselves on a desert island. As one might imagine, this is a thrilling prospect for many of the boys: being on an island filled with unknown adventure and absolutely no adults. What unfolds are power struggles, childish irresponsibility and, eventually, brutality that is anything but child's play. The message Golding seems to be presenting is that humanity is brutal even in youth. He is denouncing innocence of the young child, which anyone might claim would produce a more peaceful or utopian society. For Golding, man is selfish and barbaric. Even with the strong and seemingly just leadership of Ralph, even with level headed rationality of Piggy as his adviser, the society will pull free of these at the first sign of weakness. Man will be assuaged by their own interests and the rhetoric of the brash and confident revolutionary to do unspeakable horror to their fellow man, or in this case child.
I agree that this story has likely influenced the writers of Lost. One big similarity, apart from the obvious plane crash on a desert island scenario, is the way the children go back and forth between rational and meta-rational or supernatural explanations of particular events e.g. "the Beast". This element of Lost has always been my favorite part of the show. I particularly like the contrast of the character of "Jack Shepherd" vs. "John Locke". Jack represents the side of science and rationality. While John Locke represents the side of faith and belief in the supernatural, i.e. fate, destiny or God.
Apart from this, I found myself fascinated by the similarity of this utopian experiment put forth by Golding with the experiment of the God of Genesis with Noah. In both cases the greater society is taken out of the picture. Golding hopes to exhibit man's cruelty, even with a fresh start. God is hoping that the new start will give humanity a chance to flourish. I see the wisdom in Golding's effort. However, I am having trouble in finding the wisdom in God's effort. I am certainly struggling with the justice of his experiment. I do not know that I believe It did any good. I am more inclined to agree with Golding that man will create another evil society, than I am with the idea that man will improve by having all but the righteous eliminated.
Having found this odd problem with the story of Noah, I am first inclined to believe that the lesson to be taken from this story is that God will preserve a remnant on earth in the end of time for re-creation or new Earth after judgment. However, I find this to be a valuable lesson only in the case that this story is merely a parable or myth. If it is a true story than I find it more troubling than the story of Job. I am perplexed by this dilemma, and uncertain what to think of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
