Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Sunday, October 28, 2007

I am - yet again - on hiatus...

I'm going to be writing some college application essays this week...once I finish those, I'll be putting out an essay on A Bright Shining Lie, which is a huge nonfiction book without a hero, and return to my chattering.


Meanwhile, here's some stuff I've dredged up...


There once was a lady called Ayn Rand, who wrote huge novels championing "Objectivism" (a sort of atheistic libertarianism); I found this old review of her book Atlas Shrugged interesting. (I still can't believe any sane person would name a fictional character Midas Mulligan.)


The B-Movie Catechism discovers that my web-name of "Histor" isn't quite that original, and takes a look at the lottery system in the meantime. Furthermore, his post on costumes for Hallowe'en (or All Saints' Day, if you prefer the latter celebration as my family does) inspired me to come up with animal/creature costumes:


A FROG from Frogs, (sorry, folks, no pic)

A GIANT GILA MONSTER,

AN ALIEN FROM WAR OF THE WORLDS (dare you to try it!),

THE DEADLY MANTIS from the movie of the same name,

and of course GODZILLA.



As for me, I'm going to dress up as one of the Blues Brothers...









Anyone got a pork-pie hat they could lend me?

Saturday, October 13, 2007

A recommendation:

If you watch movies, I'd suggest you go to this website. The reviews are really good, such as this one on Elizabeth: The Golden Age:

...in [this sequel] everything bad, evil and corrupt in the world ultimately is
ultimately the bitter fruit of Religion. And by Religion, I mean
Catholicism.

Yes,
technically Protestantism might be a form of religious devotion too. But The
Golden Age carefully expunges anything like actual belief or religiosity from
its minimal portrayal of the faith affiliation of its heroine.

The problem with Elizabeth was that she devised a reasonable, temperate religion intended to please everyone, and killed everyone who was not pleased by it. She was proud as a peacock, excessively secretive (excusable, considering her decidedly tense and dangerous childhood), and somewhat dishonest.

I wonder how the filmmakers would portray the Nine Year's War, in which (to use a similar modern example) Elizabeth played Khrushchev to the O'Donnell and O'Neill clans' Hungarian freedom fighters.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Texas History intersects with Movie History!

Today (da-da-DUM!) I had to study the history of Texas. (The lesson plan recommends, of all things, The Alamo with John Wayne as an "accurate depiction" of its namesake. Maybe I should rent it.)

Oddly, the text mentioned a story about Sam Houston I had never heard before. After San Jacinto, Santa Anna originally refused to sign a document acknowledging Texas as an independent republic. Apparently Houston told Santa Anna:

"General, in one minute, either your signature or your brains will be on this
paper."


Apparently, Houston made him an offer an offer he couldn't refuse.

Thursday, April 26, 2007

TV and Cultural Chicken

In the May issue of First Things, there's an article by Ross Douthat on modern TV shows and their spiritual elements - spiritual in the sense of relating to morality, religion, and virtue.

He opens by summarizing the condition of 1950s film culture: two fairly small groups repeatedly clashed over morality in movies.

Certain directors would introduce profanity or other objectionable things, certain "conservative Christian" groups would protest, and the resulting fuss would drive up movie sales. Next time, the directors would introduce worse profanity, or a little nudity - anything to annoy the "conservative Christians."

Douthat doesn't say it, but I will. This was just another version of "Chicken," where winning depends on scaring the opponent. The directors risked financial ruin; the religious groups, the downfall of public morality. In each film, they charged at each other, risking collision to get what they wanted.

Take a look at TV Guide and you'll see who lost the game.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

18 down, 32 to go

2001: A Space Odyssey

By Arthur C. Clarke

Let me first elucidate one basic principle of my literary work, namely:



That genre known as science fiction, containing as a main feature of its plot the changes wrought in man's life by technological advances, whether those of man or those of nonhuman, ahuman, or superhuman beings, is cool. Particularly those books of the genre which feature swordsmen, enormously fat noblemen, lasers, lots of war and explosions, giant bugs, or good monks.



2001 features none of the above, except an explosion at the very end. However, it still is very good.

I have never watched the film version of 2001, but the preface states both book and film have the same plot. Anyway, I'll recount it and mention some issues about the book.

1. The Basic Plot
2. Question one: What are these Star-Beings?
3. Question two: Is HAL possible?
4. Question three: Where's God?

1.

THE BASIC PLOT

It begins with a monolith, a rock with the dimensions 1:4:9. This strange thing appears in an ape-tribe's backyard and turns them into men. Then it disappears.

It returns again - on the moon. Man has been on the moon for a long time, and in 2001 has made a moon trip just an expensive business flight - like riding the old Concorde. Some men are even born in space. But it is in 2001 that the US finds the monolith, named TMA-1. As soon as sunlight touches it, it lets out a huge electromagnetic screech, which scientists decide is a signal to an extraterrestrial race. So, the space ship Discovery sets out with five crewmen to find the position it's signaling to. Scientists have deduced one of Saturn's moons hold something odd on them, and that something has to do with the monolith.

Fast-forward some. Two men, David Bowman and Frank Poole, and the sentient robot HAL are closing in on Saturn, with all the other men in suspended-animation. The radio antenna that communicates with earth suddenly stops operating. Poole fixes it, but it malfunctions again. When Poole trys to fix it, he gets killed in an "accident." Things get worse, until Bowman figures out the problem - namely, HAL. He overcomes HAL and continues to Saturn.

At Saturn, Bowman now heads off to Japetus, one of Saturn's moon. He manages the touchdown, finds a second monolith - and falls into it. After a confusing faster-than-light trip, he ends up transformed into a strange, spiritual being. He has now become a Star-Child.

These Star-Children mastered travel through space to the extent where they simply ignore all distances; they have also found areas beyond time in which they reside. They are extremely intelligent, and seek (for their own purposes) to change any forms of life they can into thinking creatures. They are the ones behind the monoliths, the ones who started the human race. They can project power by will alone, and one of the first things Bowman does as a Star-Child is just that.

Question 1

What are the Star-Children? They seem quite confusingly like angels. They are not governed by time or space, live in a non-physical body, and meddle often with men. However, their purposes are ambiguous, unlike both angels and devils. I never figured out why they do what they do - out of malice (making animals discontent is key to their methods) or out of charity. And if they were angels, would they, not God, have given men human souls (for ensoulment is the Christian term for what happens in the beginning of the story)?

Question 2

HAL, the robot, thinks. This is an enigma I can't break, all the more so because no definition of thought is given. The "Turing test" is instead used to define whether a robot thinks or not. The British logician Alan Turing said that if a man converses a long time with a machine, but cannot distinguish between the machine's answers and those a man might give, then the machine is thinking. The problem here is, as the Britannica Encyclopedia comments: "any evidence for original thought can be denied on the grounds that it ultimately was programmed into the computer." So, no matter how smart HAL was, he could only do what his programming told him.

We, on the other hand, can create original thoughts. Except I have never seen it done. Every idea I have invented or heard of has its origins in a couple other ideas, which have their origins in some more ideas, and....overall, I suspect there hasn't been a genuinely original thought since Adam. Maybe there's no thinking at all, and it's all programmed into us by others..........but you don't need to think to have a will: you just have to have the ability to answer yes or no, not be forced into it by a program or mechanical process. Or is that thinking? I'm stuck.

Question 3

Does God turn up in here? Two statements will suffice: a)if He did, Arthur C. Clarke would be very miffed, and b) where do you suppose the Star-Children come from?


=====================================


Overall, I give this 5 stars. Even if I have to read it again, I'm glad I read it.

And maybe I did think in order to write this sketchy review. But could a robot with infinite memory and infinite processing capabilities have produced this review instead of me?

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Into Great Silence

First, the movie is three hours long, counting the trailers. There is no intermission, and two hours into the film you start expecting the end every time the screen goes blank. Of course, it didn't. It usually displayed various quotes, their favorite one being "You seduced me, Lord, and I was seduced." After my inner Puritan shut up, I decided it was a good quote.

Second, the film occasionally gave off "flower patterns" and got blurry in spots. Very annoying.

That is all I have against it. The film is good in showing what life in a Carthusian monastery is like. It's not devoid of modern technology (electric clippers, plastic scrubbers, and light bulbs make cameo appearances) but it's very quiet: no visitors, little noise, and only periodic chatting. (The chatting is provided courtesy of the Carthusian laws, which prefers keeping Carthusians sane to enforcing an ideal.) They split their days between praying (alone and in groups), eating, and working - on gardens, herding, and general maintenance. The neat thing about this is they are not going nuts because of their silence, but are enjoying it.

This, of course, has a religious cause. Nothing other than the fear (or love) of God would make anyone choose a Carthusian way of life. Or so I judge from my knowledge of myself.

At the end, one of the Carthusians - a blind priest - is interviewed. He said, in essence, that most people have no reason to live, since they don't care at all about God or what He wants of us. This reinforces the theme of the movie: nothing but God satisfies, so Carthusians aren't fools for concentrating on God.

Overall, I would recommend watching it. Don't know whether I'll watch it again.

Next time I watch it, I'll buy more candy and drinks to tide me through. Something with caffiene is recommended, as a friend of mine who watched it nodded off a number of times.

SEARCH ME, I DUNNO!

Google
WWW http://est-puzzlementem.blogspot.com
Powered By Blogger