When I first heard about this movie, I was a bit skeptical. After all, Zach Braff is funny enough on Scrubs, but can he write, direct, and star in a film that's worth the two hours it takes to watch? My past experiences with writer/director combos have been mixed at best (I still don't see what's so great about Donnie Darko), and it seemed especially unlikely that a comedy actor, whose body of work is mostly in TV, would be able to produce a film with any kind of dramatic or thoughtful interest. It turns out, my fears were pretty much unfounded, and the film posits some interesting ideas about the nature of happiness, which I will now attempt to discuss.
In my opinion, the film's main focus is on a sort of tension between happiness and pain, and how different people deal with that tension. Braff plays Andrew Largeman: a twenty-something who has been seriously medicated since he put his mother in a wheelchair when he was a kid. He has a strained relationship with his father, and seems generally as though he does not fit in any particular circumstance he ends up in. He's seen lying in a perfectly-white bed in a perfectly-white room, staring vacantly into space instead of answering his phone. This shot is repeated a bit later when he is seen looking into a mirror, wearing a shirt that matches the wall behind him almost perfectly. In both instances, he is both static and different from his surroundings; in the first shot his skin and hair are the only sources of color in the entire room, and in the second they're the only parts of the frame that aren't textured. The end effect is that Andrew is somehow categorically different from both the extreme clarity and purity of the white room, and the busy-ness and exuberance of the textured wall. Taking these two instances as emotional metaphors, perhaps for happiness and "good" emotions versus sadness and other "bad" emotions, Andrew is non-interactive with both, and thus exists in some kind of limbo between the two.
I don't personally know much about the actual drugs he's supposedly on, but the effects of those drugs are obvious from the way the character is portrayed. Through the first half of the movie, Braff's character spends pretty much all of the time with a blank expression on his face, often staring straight into the camera, or at himself in a mirror. The scene where he's at the party with his supposed friends, and everything shifts into fast-forward around him, while he sits quietly, unresponsive to the glut of movement around him. He seems to be completely sterile, as if he's just a spectator in his own life.
The audience does eventually find out why Andrew has been so heavily medicated for so long: he cost his mother the use of her legs, during a violent outburst when he was a kid. His father, a shrink, then stepped in and, in an attempt to fix the problem, prescribed the drugs for Andrew that seem to have caused much, if not all of Andrew's platitude. When Andrew finally confronts his father about this move, his father explains that he just wanted everybody to be happy again. The obvious truth is that no one has been happy at all since the incident between Andrew and his mother, and while the drugs may have taken away Andrew's pain, or perhaps his "bad" emotions, they've taken away all his "good" emotions as well. The film thus seems to make the point that having no feeling is not really any better than having bad feelings, and by extension, that happiness is more than simply the absence of pain.
I think this sentiment is one that modern American culture would say it believes on paper, but contradicts heavily by its actions. We seem to be a culture of quick-fixes, fad-dieting, and antidepressants, and we try so hard to be "not-sad," that we completely miss the boat on being happy. If someone is unhappy, we give him prozac and send him to an impersonal head-doctor, rather than sit down with him and really listen to his story. If someone's stressed out over work, he just crams more "liesure activities" into his free time, hoping that if he just plays harder, he won't regret working so hard in the first place. Instead of trying to find out how to live well, we try to find out how not to live poorly, and thus we never really solve the problems, we just try to fix the symptoms. I would liken it to a patient who deals with a sinus infection by using ten boxes of tissues per day, instead of taking some antibiotics.
I think the root of this is an inability to give up the things that, as humans, we have decided we can't live without. I've known several guys my age who repeatedly get themselves into destructive relationships, of varying degrees, because they "can't" deal with the idea of solitude. I find most areas of my life which experience recurring sin patterns are difficult to solve because I don't want to actually lose the sin, I'd rather just fix the problem. If people can't give up their own ideas about happiness and embrace God's plan for them (and here I'm speaking to Christians alone, since I don't think this is possible for anyone else), even if it means they never get that thing that seems so all-encompassing right now, they'll never be happy. Speaking as a single man, I need to realize that, while it may mean that I'll never find that "special someone" (whatever the hell that means), I will be happier in the long run if I follow God's plan in solitude, than if I take the matter into my own hands.
So in Garden State, the final solution is to give up this dream of eliminating pain, and replace it with an honest struggle for happiness. As humans, we need to either take both the good and the bad, or neither, but we'll never be able to take just the good. That's not how life works.
The happiest man will be the one who also experiences the worst pains, and in the end this leads to the richest life of all.
Saturday, April 16, 2005
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Sin City
In an effort to avoid giving away the plot of Band of Brothers, I will address Sin City instead. Dad, get working on those Bands of Brothers. It seems to me they've been in your queue for like a year now, and I will not postpone my comments forever.
First of all, let me put out a disclaimer on this one: this film should not be seen by anyone with a faint heart. The "R" rating is quite deserved, as the violence is second only to Kill Bill Vol. 1, in my opinion (though like Kill Bill, it's stylized in such a way that it looks less realistic, and is therefore not as jarring as it would be otherwise). There's also a decent amount of sexual content, including some nudity, so be warned. I know I said I wouldn't concern myself much with this kind of film assessment, but in this case I want to make sure that people know I'm not recommending the film by reviewing it. Anyone I would recommend this film to has undoubtedly already seen it, so use your judgment.
That said, Sin City is a difficult film to analyze from a Christian perspective. In terms of the film's entertainment value, it's nearly flawless. Robert Rodriguez has done excellent work before (Desperado had some great action sequences), and I put him on par with Tarantino, except without the bizarre and unnecessary sex scene tarantino likes to throw in, though Rodriguez isn't a saint in that area either. However, the world depicted in the film has a bizarre morality, in that it's almost entirely survivalistic. Of the main characters in the film, only Bruce Willis's character is truly a good guy, though the audience gets the sense that Mickey Rourke's character is probably misunderstood. Clive Owen is a badass, but not a particularly moral guy. I think this setup has interesting ramifications, but I'll get to them in a bit.
The first and most obvious selling point of Sin City is the visual presentation. This seemed to be one of the selling points of the film, according to the previews, and it does not disappoint. In a style similar to Sky Captain..., the film was shot mostly in front of a green screen, and then all the scenery was added digitally. For the most part, this method works incredibly well, though at times it seems to me like the characters are cutouts in front of a backdrop. Of course, since this film is a graphic-novel-adaptation, the prospect of characters being cutouts is actually not that different from the source material.
And ultimately, that's what this movie is all about: staying true to the source material. According to an interview with Rodriguez (www.ign.com, it shouldn't be hard to find), no one even wrote a proper screenplay for the film. Instead they worked directly from the books, down to copying the framing of individual cells for the film (IGN also has a side-by-side comparison of the film and the books, and the resemblance is astounding). The reliance on computer effects largely made this adaptation possible, as I understand that even the lighting on the characters was added in post-production.
The film also has an interesting use of color, as bits and pieces of the characters often have a primary color attached to them. I'd have to watch the film again to decide what was the motivation behind the color choices, but, if nothing else, it's great to look at. I don't know if this color scheme is used in the books at all, as I actually thought the books were completely black-and-white, but either way I think it adds rather than detracts.
So the visual aspects of the film are more or less top-notch, but as I said in my introduction, the film is more interesting in terms of its themes. Basin City, as depicted in the film, is almost completely devoid of order. Its political and religious leaders are completely corrupt, and the police force is just another army with its own motivation. Everyone is out for himself, and for the most part nobody seems concerned with what is right or wrong, with the exception of Willis and, to an extent, Rourke and Owen. The city seems to be populated by relentless and selfish violence, and one can't help but wonder how the city manages to continue to exist at all.
While I'm certainly glad that I do not live in such a moral vacuum, I can't help but wonder what kind of a man I would be if I did. I think the most interesting concept that arose in my mind after watching this film is the interplay between complacency and prosperity. Basin City is a place where life is hard for everyone, and in such an environment, I think, a person is forced to be honest. In reading a lot of the literature that I've read this semester, much of which being focused on the nature of man and morality, the concept of supply and demand seems paramount. For example, people are less likely to fight when there's enough food to go around, but the minute things get scarce, people start getting killed. Therefore, in a place like the one depicted in Sin City, it may not be that people are necessarily any more evil than they are here in modern America, it's just that there they are unable to hide behind wealth and luxury. Men use violence to get what they want/need, and women do what they have to to get the same. Sin City may very well be an accurate depiction of the human condition, once the trappings of modern human society have been removed.
It is also that much more impressive when a good man rises from the din in Basin City, since he has to break with soceity to be good, rather than simply conform. In modern America, everyone is all smiles and sunshine to his neighbor's face, but "breathes murderous threats" in his mind. We're all nice to each other because it's the thing to do, and hence our lauded morality is, in some ways, just a fashion statement. It seems telling to me that people often describe violent criminals as "such nice guys" in their private lives. It seems that, in a America, if a man can convince everyone that he's a nice guy, then it doesn't matter what goes on inside his house, as long as it stays there. In Basin City, most people can't afford the farce.
I guess Sin City speaks volumes to me about how little civilization actually does for the souls of men. While the film is brutal in its depiction of man, it's also pretty accurate. It seems to me that, for all our ideas about "higher moral standards" and "personal betterment," a staggering portion of us are still happily trotting down the wide road to destruction. The fact that it's all sunshine and smiles until the end doesn't change the fact that the end is darkness and death.
I'll probably get back to Band of Brothers next, though I'm not quite sure. Again, leave me any comments you might have, and pass this blog on to anyone you think might be interested.
First of all, let me put out a disclaimer on this one: this film should not be seen by anyone with a faint heart. The "R" rating is quite deserved, as the violence is second only to Kill Bill Vol. 1, in my opinion (though like Kill Bill, it's stylized in such a way that it looks less realistic, and is therefore not as jarring as it would be otherwise). There's also a decent amount of sexual content, including some nudity, so be warned. I know I said I wouldn't concern myself much with this kind of film assessment, but in this case I want to make sure that people know I'm not recommending the film by reviewing it. Anyone I would recommend this film to has undoubtedly already seen it, so use your judgment.
That said, Sin City is a difficult film to analyze from a Christian perspective. In terms of the film's entertainment value, it's nearly flawless. Robert Rodriguez has done excellent work before (Desperado had some great action sequences), and I put him on par with Tarantino, except without the bizarre and unnecessary sex scene tarantino likes to throw in, though Rodriguez isn't a saint in that area either. However, the world depicted in the film has a bizarre morality, in that it's almost entirely survivalistic. Of the main characters in the film, only Bruce Willis's character is truly a good guy, though the audience gets the sense that Mickey Rourke's character is probably misunderstood. Clive Owen is a badass, but not a particularly moral guy. I think this setup has interesting ramifications, but I'll get to them in a bit.
The first and most obvious selling point of Sin City is the visual presentation. This seemed to be one of the selling points of the film, according to the previews, and it does not disappoint. In a style similar to Sky Captain..., the film was shot mostly in front of a green screen, and then all the scenery was added digitally. For the most part, this method works incredibly well, though at times it seems to me like the characters are cutouts in front of a backdrop. Of course, since this film is a graphic-novel-adaptation, the prospect of characters being cutouts is actually not that different from the source material.
And ultimately, that's what this movie is all about: staying true to the source material. According to an interview with Rodriguez (www.ign.com, it shouldn't be hard to find), no one even wrote a proper screenplay for the film. Instead they worked directly from the books, down to copying the framing of individual cells for the film (IGN also has a side-by-side comparison of the film and the books, and the resemblance is astounding). The reliance on computer effects largely made this adaptation possible, as I understand that even the lighting on the characters was added in post-production.
The film also has an interesting use of color, as bits and pieces of the characters often have a primary color attached to them. I'd have to watch the film again to decide what was the motivation behind the color choices, but, if nothing else, it's great to look at. I don't know if this color scheme is used in the books at all, as I actually thought the books were completely black-and-white, but either way I think it adds rather than detracts.
So the visual aspects of the film are more or less top-notch, but as I said in my introduction, the film is more interesting in terms of its themes. Basin City, as depicted in the film, is almost completely devoid of order. Its political and religious leaders are completely corrupt, and the police force is just another army with its own motivation. Everyone is out for himself, and for the most part nobody seems concerned with what is right or wrong, with the exception of Willis and, to an extent, Rourke and Owen. The city seems to be populated by relentless and selfish violence, and one can't help but wonder how the city manages to continue to exist at all.
While I'm certainly glad that I do not live in such a moral vacuum, I can't help but wonder what kind of a man I would be if I did. I think the most interesting concept that arose in my mind after watching this film is the interplay between complacency and prosperity. Basin City is a place where life is hard for everyone, and in such an environment, I think, a person is forced to be honest. In reading a lot of the literature that I've read this semester, much of which being focused on the nature of man and morality, the concept of supply and demand seems paramount. For example, people are less likely to fight when there's enough food to go around, but the minute things get scarce, people start getting killed. Therefore, in a place like the one depicted in Sin City, it may not be that people are necessarily any more evil than they are here in modern America, it's just that there they are unable to hide behind wealth and luxury. Men use violence to get what they want/need, and women do what they have to to get the same. Sin City may very well be an accurate depiction of the human condition, once the trappings of modern human society have been removed.
It is also that much more impressive when a good man rises from the din in Basin City, since he has to break with soceity to be good, rather than simply conform. In modern America, everyone is all smiles and sunshine to his neighbor's face, but "breathes murderous threats" in his mind. We're all nice to each other because it's the thing to do, and hence our lauded morality is, in some ways, just a fashion statement. It seems telling to me that people often describe violent criminals as "such nice guys" in their private lives. It seems that, in a America, if a man can convince everyone that he's a nice guy, then it doesn't matter what goes on inside his house, as long as it stays there. In Basin City, most people can't afford the farce.
I guess Sin City speaks volumes to me about how little civilization actually does for the souls of men. While the film is brutal in its depiction of man, it's also pretty accurate. It seems to me that, for all our ideas about "higher moral standards" and "personal betterment," a staggering portion of us are still happily trotting down the wide road to destruction. The fact that it's all sunshine and smiles until the end doesn't change the fact that the end is darkness and death.
I'll probably get back to Band of Brothers next, though I'm not quite sure. Again, leave me any comments you might have, and pass this blog on to anyone you think might be interested.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Band of Brothers, Part 1
Ok, I know, this isn’t really a “film” per se, but since I make the rules here, I’ll decide what’s worth writing about. If you think it’s ironic that my first significant entry would prove my foreword to be partly untrue, well, so do I.
For those of you who don’t know, Band of Brothers is a miniseries about the exploits of the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. It follows actual events, which are tied to actual veterans of said division via snippets of interviews at the beginning of each episode. There is also a final episode that contains nothing but interviews, which I found riveting, after witnessing the rest of the series. All in all, it’s a series of good stories made better by the fact that they’re all true, or at least as true as the soldiers’ collective memories.
I originally heard about this series from a sort of general buzz floating around amongst my friends at school. A number of them were getting together regularly to watch the episodes, and my curiosity was piqued, though I remained wary. My past experiences with “miniseries events” had consisted largely of Stephen King adaptations that, for lack of a better word, sucked. Still, Band of Brothers originally aired on HBO, as opposed to network TV, and thus I was hopeful that the war scenarios would remain untainted by broadcast standards. By “untainted,” I mean that the realistic and often horrific violence of war would not be slashed down to a few cuts and bruised, with all the character deaths insinuated just off camera, and wonderfully-fake teardrops in everyone’s eyes. Still, I had no idea what kind of a budget this project was working with, though I was pleased to note that both Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg were involved.
When I finally got around to watching the first few episodes, which I have recently revisited, I was immediately impressed by the characters. Though it can be hard to keep all the soldiers straight, especially when they’re all wearing helmets and are covered in mud, the series does a good job of creating believable characterizations for each of the men. I’m sure it helps that these were all real people, and that some of them are still alive. Still, the actors and the filmmakers have to be able to effectively convey the personalities of the men in a way that a) makes them people and not caricatures, and b) makes them likeable without making them perfect. Right from the start, we see people who are just trying to get by, we see some who are trying to prove something to the world, and we see some who are just plain heroes.
The first episode focuses largely on the training of the men, and it features David Schwimmer as Lt. Soble. Your initial reaction might be something like mine: “Great, that whiny jerk from that abominable sitcom is supposed to be a tough boot-camp trainer.” While I freely admit that he’s not the man I’d pick as a tough guy, and especially not in such a prominent role in the “first-impression” episode, Schwimmer does a commendable job. He’s initially a just a hard-ass, exampled by him making his men run up and down a serious hill far more often than anyone else in the camp, by disciplining every minor infraction with excessive measures, and even by giving the men a nice spaghetti dinner just so they can vomit it all up during a surprise run up the infamous hill. However, as time progresses he turns out to be actually somewhat insecure. He can’t read a map, which leaves his men in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his orders during training maneuvers get all of his men “killed” because he can’t take the pressure of waiting. For all his tough-guy posturing during the physical training days, he’s scared by his command, and his exaggerated desire to make sure he’s doing the right thing has repeatedly disastrous results. It’s apparent, when he gets promoted to a training/command position for non-coms, that he has a vision of himself as a strong leader, one that his men want to follow. When he’s essentially removed from active duty, he takes it well, but I couldn’t help but feel sorry for him; he worked long and hard to create a group of soldiers who were united and rock-solid, but who also hated him and didn’t trust his leadership.
There’s something horrible about watching a man do his best but still end up failing miserably. Maybe it’s just that I can rather closely identify with that feeling of powerlessness in such a situation, but I feel for the guy. He seems to have this idea of himself as a great warrior, leading his men into the fray and paying for it with the sweat and blood of his own body and those of the men around him. Instead he gets to teach doctors how not to break their legs when jumping out of airplanes, because he can’t read a map or make decisions quickly enough. The truth is, the duty he ends up performing is probably just as important as the one he would prefer, he just never gets to see the benefit of it firsthand. It’s tough being the only person around who can’t seem to get his act together.
That’s all for now. Band of Brothers is a goldmine, though, and I will certainly return to it as soon as I can. I’d like to address two other characters, namely Winters and Nixon, before I put my “spiritual” interpretation into it (I put that word in quotes here because I’m not sure there’s any other kind). I may also take a break from BoB at some point to throw in some other movie discussions. Who knows, maybe they’ll even be movies.
On the potential horizon are Sin City, Garden State, and Hero, in no particular order. There are also some classics that will undoubtedly make appearances.
Let me know what you think.
For those of you who don’t know, Band of Brothers is a miniseries about the exploits of the 101st Airborne Division during World War II. It follows actual events, which are tied to actual veterans of said division via snippets of interviews at the beginning of each episode. There is also a final episode that contains nothing but interviews, which I found riveting, after witnessing the rest of the series. All in all, it’s a series of good stories made better by the fact that they’re all true, or at least as true as the soldiers’ collective memories.
I originally heard about this series from a sort of general buzz floating around amongst my friends at school. A number of them were getting together regularly to watch the episodes, and my curiosity was piqued, though I remained wary. My past experiences with “miniseries events” had consisted largely of Stephen King adaptations that, for lack of a better word, sucked. Still, Band of Brothers originally aired on HBO, as opposed to network TV, and thus I was hopeful that the war scenarios would remain untainted by broadcast standards. By “untainted,” I mean that the realistic and often horrific violence of war would not be slashed down to a few cuts and bruised, with all the character deaths insinuated just off camera, and wonderfully-fake teardrops in everyone’s eyes. Still, I had no idea what kind of a budget this project was working with, though I was pleased to note that both Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg were involved.
When I finally got around to watching the first few episodes, which I have recently revisited, I was immediately impressed by the characters. Though it can be hard to keep all the soldiers straight, especially when they’re all wearing helmets and are covered in mud, the series does a good job of creating believable characterizations for each of the men. I’m sure it helps that these were all real people, and that some of them are still alive. Still, the actors and the filmmakers have to be able to effectively convey the personalities of the men in a way that a) makes them people and not caricatures, and b) makes them likeable without making them perfect. Right from the start, we see people who are just trying to get by, we see some who are trying to prove something to the world, and we see some who are just plain heroes.
The first episode focuses largely on the training of the men, and it features David Schwimmer as Lt. Soble. Your initial reaction might be something like mine: “Great, that whiny jerk from that abominable sitcom is supposed to be a tough boot-camp trainer.” While I freely admit that he’s not the man I’d pick as a tough guy, and especially not in such a prominent role in the “first-impression” episode, Schwimmer does a commendable job. He’s initially a just a hard-ass, exampled by him making his men run up and down a serious hill far more often than anyone else in the camp, by disciplining every minor infraction with excessive measures, and even by giving the men a nice spaghetti dinner just so they can vomit it all up during a surprise run up the infamous hill. However, as time progresses he turns out to be actually somewhat insecure. He can’t read a map, which leaves his men in the wrong place at the wrong time, and his orders during training maneuvers get all of his men “killed” because he can’t take the pressure of waiting. For all his tough-guy posturing during the physical training days, he’s scared by his command, and his exaggerated desire to make sure he’s doing the right thing has repeatedly disastrous results. It’s apparent, when he gets promoted to a training/command position for non-coms, that he has a vision of himself as a strong leader, one that his men want to follow. When he’s essentially removed from active duty, he takes it well, but I couldn’t help but feel sorry for him; he worked long and hard to create a group of soldiers who were united and rock-solid, but who also hated him and didn’t trust his leadership.
There’s something horrible about watching a man do his best but still end up failing miserably. Maybe it’s just that I can rather closely identify with that feeling of powerlessness in such a situation, but I feel for the guy. He seems to have this idea of himself as a great warrior, leading his men into the fray and paying for it with the sweat and blood of his own body and those of the men around him. Instead he gets to teach doctors how not to break their legs when jumping out of airplanes, because he can’t read a map or make decisions quickly enough. The truth is, the duty he ends up performing is probably just as important as the one he would prefer, he just never gets to see the benefit of it firsthand. It’s tough being the only person around who can’t seem to get his act together.
That’s all for now. Band of Brothers is a goldmine, though, and I will certainly return to it as soon as I can. I’d like to address two other characters, namely Winters and Nixon, before I put my “spiritual” interpretation into it (I put that word in quotes here because I’m not sure there’s any other kind). I may also take a break from BoB at some point to throw in some other movie discussions. Who knows, maybe they’ll even be movies.
On the potential horizon are Sin City, Garden State, and Hero, in no particular order. There are also some classics that will undoubtedly make appearances.
Let me know what you think.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
Getting Started
Hello, and welcome to the new incarnation of my particular vein of ranting-space. I have previously maintained a blog on xanga (www.xanga.com/davekearns), which has not been updated since sometime last summer. I have made the jump to blogger because the accessibility by others (mainly those who do not know me personally) was diminished on xanga, while this address is tied directly to google. Am I selling out? Probably.
I decided to start this because I feel the need to put some of my thoughts in writing. Those of you who know me (and I'm here making the large assumption that someone other than myself will ever read this) know that I'm not an extraordinarily outgoing chap, but that I have a lot of opinions about all manner of topics that might occasionally be of interest to others. Rather than spending hours talking to myself, I can instead write and post. Perhaps someone else will then benefit from my thoughts.
The idea is that this blog will hopefully be a record of my thoughts primarily concerning films. I am a fan of cinema in many of its various forms, and I think the artistic expression they represent is an interesting way to interpret worldview and philosophy. I am a Christian, and thus my writings will be created based on that foundation
Because of my religion, I feel it is important to engage the culture in a way that brings an intelligent picture of Christianity into the mix. It is my understanding that modern Americans are acquainted with many more movies than books, and thus it is more of a common ground through which to approach the culture. Films seem to be the modern incarnation of literature, and although the unfortunate crowding-out of the written word has resulted from this fact, films can still be just as artistic in their own right, and I think they contain just as much potential as traditional literature in promoting the philosophy of their creators.
In my writing process, I do not intend to evaluate films as many Christians feel the need to. I do not count "f-words," nor do I intend my discussions to warn people about graphic violence or sex. This is not to say that I condone such images in film, but rather that I do not think they are always inappropriate (though certainly much, or even most of the time they could be skipped or toned down with no loss to a film's artistic vision). If a reader is looking for such assessments, he should look into www.screenit.com for such information (their coverage is quite comprehensive). I have a rather strong stomach for films, and I do not intend people to read my comments on any particular film as an instant recommendation to go out and see it. Please use your own judgement in this area, and pay attention to the rating system.
Finally, I have no idea how often this site will be updated, as I do not have access to the internet from my current habitat, and will only be able to update this site when I am at work. While this situation shouldn't hamper my ability to write my thoughts out, it will probably lessen my ability to respond to comments, should anyone ever happen to read, and respond to, my rants. Still, feel free to leave comments, as I would appreciate hearing other people's ideas, as well as having some idea of how many people actually visit this site.
That's all for now. I hope someone finds my writings interesting, and perhaps even thought-provoking.
I decided to start this because I feel the need to put some of my thoughts in writing. Those of you who know me (and I'm here making the large assumption that someone other than myself will ever read this) know that I'm not an extraordinarily outgoing chap, but that I have a lot of opinions about all manner of topics that might occasionally be of interest to others. Rather than spending hours talking to myself, I can instead write and post. Perhaps someone else will then benefit from my thoughts.
The idea is that this blog will hopefully be a record of my thoughts primarily concerning films. I am a fan of cinema in many of its various forms, and I think the artistic expression they represent is an interesting way to interpret worldview and philosophy. I am a Christian, and thus my writings will be created based on that foundation
Because of my religion, I feel it is important to engage the culture in a way that brings an intelligent picture of Christianity into the mix. It is my understanding that modern Americans are acquainted with many more movies than books, and thus it is more of a common ground through which to approach the culture. Films seem to be the modern incarnation of literature, and although the unfortunate crowding-out of the written word has resulted from this fact, films can still be just as artistic in their own right, and I think they contain just as much potential as traditional literature in promoting the philosophy of their creators.
In my writing process, I do not intend to evaluate films as many Christians feel the need to. I do not count "f-words," nor do I intend my discussions to warn people about graphic violence or sex. This is not to say that I condone such images in film, but rather that I do not think they are always inappropriate (though certainly much, or even most of the time they could be skipped or toned down with no loss to a film's artistic vision). If a reader is looking for such assessments, he should look into www.screenit.com for such information (their coverage is quite comprehensive). I have a rather strong stomach for films, and I do not intend people to read my comments on any particular film as an instant recommendation to go out and see it. Please use your own judgement in this area, and pay attention to the rating system.
Finally, I have no idea how often this site will be updated, as I do not have access to the internet from my current habitat, and will only be able to update this site when I am at work. While this situation shouldn't hamper my ability to write my thoughts out, it will probably lessen my ability to respond to comments, should anyone ever happen to read, and respond to, my rants. Still, feel free to leave comments, as I would appreciate hearing other people's ideas, as well as having some idea of how many people actually visit this site.
That's all for now. I hope someone finds my writings interesting, and perhaps even thought-provoking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
