Monday, December 8, 2008
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Affect
It's a weird thing to be affected by things.
I feel like I'm someone who is greatly affected by everything and everyone. My failing sometimes is that I assume that other people are unaware or don't take the same things seriously that I do. Something infinitely meaningful for me can be a regretted moment for someone else. In reality, everyone is affected by things, I know this, but I don't have an outside perspective on it. This is where hurt feelings come from.
A perceived anything can be taken to mean anything. It's impossible to go a day and get every single reaction you want and everyone to respond promptly or at the right time. Still, I end up very sad for no reason a lot of the time.
-cjfer-
I feel like I'm someone who is greatly affected by everything and everyone. My failing sometimes is that I assume that other people are unaware or don't take the same things seriously that I do. Something infinitely meaningful for me can be a regretted moment for someone else. In reality, everyone is affected by things, I know this, but I don't have an outside perspective on it. This is where hurt feelings come from.
A perceived anything can be taken to mean anything. It's impossible to go a day and get every single reaction you want and everyone to respond promptly or at the right time. Still, I end up very sad for no reason a lot of the time.
-cjfer-
Friday, August 15, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Amedment
I think I spelled Gordon wrong in my Batman post. This is because I had seen it written by a friend who has poor spelling, but a great love of batman, and figured he knew more than I. Retraction. Gordon.
-cjfer-
-cjfer-
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Dark Knight: A Review
So, I finally saw "The Dark Knight" last night, about a week after most of my friends saw the movie.
What I've heard from most people is that it's very very good, but just shy of perfect. Or that it met very high expectations, but didn't necessarily surpass them. Having not seen it at that point, I'm sure people didn't want to ruin the movie by going in to too much detail. I'll do my best to share my thoughts.
What was effective -
1. The story. Often times we're told as students, that the most important thing is the story. I agree, though, understanding the visual language of cinema is important too. The story of this film is superlative, and reminded me much of many Shakespearian tragedies. Our hero is put in situations where he is forced to make choices. This is what we want from movies because when the character we're asked to identify with is put it situations where he must make choices, we ourselves ask "What we do in that situation." Therefore, we are more personally invested in the story on screen. It's us in that situation. What would I do?
Batman, unlike other comic movies, and indeed unlike other movies, posits a notion of good and evil that is not black and white. Yes, we want our hero to do the right thing, but we come to realize that there are consequences with acting righteously, and that doing good isn't simple, or easy. There are always complications in life. The joker is an effective villain because he only believes in chaos and destruction, yet, he is grounded in a sense of reality - as is the whole film. Make no mistake though, this is not the real world. Ultimately, it's a wonder we don't kill ourselves more than we do, but we all have choices we make every day on how we should act. Doing the right thing is not easy, or simple, but it is necessary and must be endured.
2. The acting. Everyone is going to talk about the masterful performance of Heath Ledger and they'd be right to do. I believe it to be Oscar worthy. Because I have nothing new to offer, I might offer some thoughts on the other actors. I think Christian Bale's Batman, is made very interesting here because we have deal with his choices (yes, i use that word a lot). His very character becomes more interesting because we're watching him wondering what he'll do. He leads the film in a very steady, sturdy direction. His Bruce Wayne is sarcastic and a little dickish, which proves a wonderful foil to his Batman who will sacrifice to save the people and city he really loves, but will be a jerk to protect. Aaron Eckhart turns in a solid turn as Harvey Dent. He had much more screen time than I anticipated, and Bale less, but he carries it with action, decisiveness and a complicated aggressiveness that I haven't seen in other incarnations of Two-Face. He is not simply a do-gooder, he wants to do good, but will take the law into his own hands if necessary. The idea of "Two-Face" or doppleganger is an important one to the film. Batman has two sides as well. In truth, the human condition often has more than one side (and sometimes more than 2). The film asks us, are we willing to do evil in order to do what we think is right? Is acting right more important than living?
Also, Maggie Gellenthal is a much stronger actress than Katie Holmes. And he is faced with complicated choices that are nearly impossible to make. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are thoughtful mentors and are certainly not sleepwalking through this movie, though they could easily have done so. They are not featured players, but they give the film weight and plant it firmly in the ground.
3. The screenplay/direction of theater. The heists, the complicated situations, the fact that everything comes back into play when you didn't necessarily see it coming is really cool. These are some of the most complex, thoughtful crimes that I've ever seen on film. There are some very good moments. I give Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan all the credit in the world for being master storytellers. These guys are playing on a different level. Some of the joy in this movie is that these guys are smarter than we are, and we're trying to out think them, but it's hard to. This is the storytelling in a superhero movie that I've ever seen.
What could be improved
1. The pacing. This is good and bad. The movie is 2.5 hours but feels way short of that. This movie went by incredibly fast. I want to see the three hour + version where there's more time to go into characters (which are great), and where the movie has more time to breathe. It is unlike Hellboy2 that rushes through the movie, this movie doesn't do that. But still there are scenes that could have been played more slowly and developed more. Instead we feel like we're always on edge, which diminishes the effectiveness of playing with it, because we're constantly saturated with fast-paceness. Sometimes we're struggling to figure out what happened a scene before when we should be in the moment of the current scene.
2. The dialog. The dialog is not helped by the pace of the film, or technical aspects of the film making. It often goes by too fast and it's hard to really understand what's being said.
3. The direction of the camera/problems with cinematography. There are a few scenes that stood out to me as cinematic issues that could have been improved. Note: These may be issues that I have, that are not shared by others.
A. Problems with exposure. There were two scenes in particular where characters are sitting in front of a bright object in the background. One is Harvey Dent in front of a window in his office, the other is a 50-50 between Morgan Freeman and the Chinese accountant. In both scenes, the exposure is set to the background object. The object in the background is exposed normally, while the characters in the foreground are underexposed. I have no problem with want wanting to light the show darkly, and make our characters in shadow. Yet, when the object in the background is so massive, it takes our focus off the characters and places it on the thing. Our eye is directed out the window or through the characters in a 50-50. Ultimately, I feel that this effect should be done with lighting and not with exposure. Use a tighter shot, don't stage it in that location, or expose for the characters, not the background, and then light them the way you want them. (With my limited knowledge I realize that I may be wrong about the cinematic process, though I stand behind my feelings of the way the it looks.)
B. The scene when the Joker crashes the fund raiser. Much of the steadi cam work here seemed out of focus to me, where it shouldn't have been. Either the focus puller messed up, I saw it wrong, or it was shot at such a low stop that it was impossible from the jump. Either way, because this is the only time it happens, and because it happened so quickly, I saw it as a mistake.
C. A scene where Batman meets Harvey Dent and Gordin on the roof of the police station near the Bat signal. The camera moves wildly around in a circle, but seems to be motivated on Gordin's movement and not Batman's. This needs to be Batman's movie, no Gordins. We should be involved with Batman, and not seem him as just a participant in the scene. We don't get his point of view strongly enough.
D. The scene where Batman interrogates the Joker. The camera jumps the 180 degree line. I don't really know why, other than to be jarring. Yes, having the Joker on the right side of the screen makes him feel more uncomfortable, but start with him there. Don't just jump it, because it takes us out of the movie. Heath Ledger's performance is so strong that we don't need the Camera jumping around in order to heighten it. Still is scarier than movement. Let him work. The camera moves so much in this movie that it's hard to focus on what they're saying or what's going on. There are some moments where we could slow down a little here. These scenes would be emotionally powerful, and then highlight the scenes where the camera is moving more. Trust what you're doing is good.
E. Rachel's death. This moment is never really drawn out, she never gets a real close up before she dies. Therefore, it is not as emotional as it could have been. This and the fact that we have a new actress mean that we're not as emotionally attached to her. We don't want her to die, but her death happens off screen in a way that is less powerful than if she happened on screen. In general there were a few moments that could have been stronger - ie. the scene where the people on the boat decide not to kill each other. I think there could have been more of a moment there - and indeed some other places. This all gets back to the fact that the movie feels like it's rushing.
I think that's it for now. I would give the movie the highest rating I had, if I had a rating. It's the best of it's kind, and even better than most "oscar" type movies. It's a movie that should be recognized for how brilliant it is, and it's odd to think that there were a few things that could have could have made it even better.
-cjfer-
What I've heard from most people is that it's very very good, but just shy of perfect. Or that it met very high expectations, but didn't necessarily surpass them. Having not seen it at that point, I'm sure people didn't want to ruin the movie by going in to too much detail. I'll do my best to share my thoughts.
What was effective -
1. The story. Often times we're told as students, that the most important thing is the story. I agree, though, understanding the visual language of cinema is important too. The story of this film is superlative, and reminded me much of many Shakespearian tragedies. Our hero is put in situations where he is forced to make choices. This is what we want from movies because when the character we're asked to identify with is put it situations where he must make choices, we ourselves ask "What we do in that situation." Therefore, we are more personally invested in the story on screen. It's us in that situation. What would I do?
Batman, unlike other comic movies, and indeed unlike other movies, posits a notion of good and evil that is not black and white. Yes, we want our hero to do the right thing, but we come to realize that there are consequences with acting righteously, and that doing good isn't simple, or easy. There are always complications in life. The joker is an effective villain because he only believes in chaos and destruction, yet, he is grounded in a sense of reality - as is the whole film. Make no mistake though, this is not the real world. Ultimately, it's a wonder we don't kill ourselves more than we do, but we all have choices we make every day on how we should act. Doing the right thing is not easy, or simple, but it is necessary and must be endured.
2. The acting. Everyone is going to talk about the masterful performance of Heath Ledger and they'd be right to do. I believe it to be Oscar worthy. Because I have nothing new to offer, I might offer some thoughts on the other actors. I think Christian Bale's Batman, is made very interesting here because we have deal with his choices (yes, i use that word a lot). His very character becomes more interesting because we're watching him wondering what he'll do. He leads the film in a very steady, sturdy direction. His Bruce Wayne is sarcastic and a little dickish, which proves a wonderful foil to his Batman who will sacrifice to save the people and city he really loves, but will be a jerk to protect. Aaron Eckhart turns in a solid turn as Harvey Dent. He had much more screen time than I anticipated, and Bale less, but he carries it with action, decisiveness and a complicated aggressiveness that I haven't seen in other incarnations of Two-Face. He is not simply a do-gooder, he wants to do good, but will take the law into his own hands if necessary. The idea of "Two-Face" or doppleganger is an important one to the film. Batman has two sides as well. In truth, the human condition often has more than one side (and sometimes more than 2). The film asks us, are we willing to do evil in order to do what we think is right? Is acting right more important than living?
Also, Maggie Gellenthal is a much stronger actress than Katie Holmes. And he is faced with complicated choices that are nearly impossible to make. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are thoughtful mentors and are certainly not sleepwalking through this movie, though they could easily have done so. They are not featured players, but they give the film weight and plant it firmly in the ground.
3. The screenplay/direction of theater. The heists, the complicated situations, the fact that everything comes back into play when you didn't necessarily see it coming is really cool. These are some of the most complex, thoughtful crimes that I've ever seen on film. There are some very good moments. I give Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan all the credit in the world for being master storytellers. These guys are playing on a different level. Some of the joy in this movie is that these guys are smarter than we are, and we're trying to out think them, but it's hard to. This is the storytelling in a superhero movie that I've ever seen.
What could be improved
1. The pacing. This is good and bad. The movie is 2.5 hours but feels way short of that. This movie went by incredibly fast. I want to see the three hour + version where there's more time to go into characters (which are great), and where the movie has more time to breathe. It is unlike Hellboy2 that rushes through the movie, this movie doesn't do that. But still there are scenes that could have been played more slowly and developed more. Instead we feel like we're always on edge, which diminishes the effectiveness of playing with it, because we're constantly saturated with fast-paceness. Sometimes we're struggling to figure out what happened a scene before when we should be in the moment of the current scene.
2. The dialog. The dialog is not helped by the pace of the film, or technical aspects of the film making. It often goes by too fast and it's hard to really understand what's being said.
3. The direction of the camera/problems with cinematography. There are a few scenes that stood out to me as cinematic issues that could have been improved. Note: These may be issues that I have, that are not shared by others.
A. Problems with exposure. There were two scenes in particular where characters are sitting in front of a bright object in the background. One is Harvey Dent in front of a window in his office, the other is a 50-50 between Morgan Freeman and the Chinese accountant. In both scenes, the exposure is set to the background object. The object in the background is exposed normally, while the characters in the foreground are underexposed. I have no problem with want wanting to light the show darkly, and make our characters in shadow. Yet, when the object in the background is so massive, it takes our focus off the characters and places it on the thing. Our eye is directed out the window or through the characters in a 50-50. Ultimately, I feel that this effect should be done with lighting and not with exposure. Use a tighter shot, don't stage it in that location, or expose for the characters, not the background, and then light them the way you want them. (With my limited knowledge I realize that I may be wrong about the cinematic process, though I stand behind my feelings of the way the it looks.)
B. The scene when the Joker crashes the fund raiser. Much of the steadi cam work here seemed out of focus to me, where it shouldn't have been. Either the focus puller messed up, I saw it wrong, or it was shot at such a low stop that it was impossible from the jump. Either way, because this is the only time it happens, and because it happened so quickly, I saw it as a mistake.
C. A scene where Batman meets Harvey Dent and Gordin on the roof of the police station near the Bat signal. The camera moves wildly around in a circle, but seems to be motivated on Gordin's movement and not Batman's. This needs to be Batman's movie, no Gordins. We should be involved with Batman, and not seem him as just a participant in the scene. We don't get his point of view strongly enough.
D. The scene where Batman interrogates the Joker. The camera jumps the 180 degree line. I don't really know why, other than to be jarring. Yes, having the Joker on the right side of the screen makes him feel more uncomfortable, but start with him there. Don't just jump it, because it takes us out of the movie. Heath Ledger's performance is so strong that we don't need the Camera jumping around in order to heighten it. Still is scarier than movement. Let him work. The camera moves so much in this movie that it's hard to focus on what they're saying or what's going on. There are some moments where we could slow down a little here. These scenes would be emotionally powerful, and then highlight the scenes where the camera is moving more. Trust what you're doing is good.
E. Rachel's death. This moment is never really drawn out, she never gets a real close up before she dies. Therefore, it is not as emotional as it could have been. This and the fact that we have a new actress mean that we're not as emotionally attached to her. We don't want her to die, but her death happens off screen in a way that is less powerful than if she happened on screen. In general there were a few moments that could have been stronger - ie. the scene where the people on the boat decide not to kill each other. I think there could have been more of a moment there - and indeed some other places. This all gets back to the fact that the movie feels like it's rushing.
I think that's it for now. I would give the movie the highest rating I had, if I had a rating. It's the best of it's kind, and even better than most "oscar" type movies. It's a movie that should be recognized for how brilliant it is, and it's odd to think that there were a few things that could have could have made it even better.
-cjfer-
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Our Changing World
Our series about "our changing world" continues this evening with two looks at how our world is changing from the new york times.
the first article is here - apparently europe has adopted a "back door" policy, and their population is declining.
Secondly, we have a read here - which is about US air carriers having to cut down on the number of flights they make.
It's a scary thing to live in the world today. The 1990's a decade of relative peace and prosperity brought us a lot of things without really providing a decent enough infrastructure for it. The bubble as they say is bursting. But this may not be such a bad thing, as the first article reminds us (last two pages). Perhaps we've built something huge and unsustainable and now we're in a period (maybe years) of readjustment. Perhaps it's better to start scaling things back as a globe, start using less, starting having fewer people.
It wasn't until native americans had over hunted certain animal populations that they developed their sophisticated approach to using the land. Maybe we're at the start of a period where we begin to rethink how we treat the world and ourselves. Maybe we'll have fewer people, less pollution, less hunger, less unemployment, etc, because things will naturally balance themselves out. We'll see.
-cjfer-
the first article is here - apparently europe has adopted a "back door" policy, and their population is declining.
Secondly, we have a read here - which is about US air carriers having to cut down on the number of flights they make.
It's a scary thing to live in the world today. The 1990's a decade of relative peace and prosperity brought us a lot of things without really providing a decent enough infrastructure for it. The bubble as they say is bursting. But this may not be such a bad thing, as the first article reminds us (last two pages). Perhaps we've built something huge and unsustainable and now we're in a period (maybe years) of readjustment. Perhaps it's better to start scaling things back as a globe, start using less, starting having fewer people.
It wasn't until native americans had over hunted certain animal populations that they developed their sophisticated approach to using the land. Maybe we're at the start of a period where we begin to rethink how we treat the world and ourselves. Maybe we'll have fewer people, less pollution, less hunger, less unemployment, etc, because things will naturally balance themselves out. We'll see.
-cjfer-
great interview with glen phillips.
Listen here - (copy and paste it into your window)
http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/shows/show_190022.mp3
great thoughts about music and art in today's world from my favorite singer/songwriter.
-cjfer-
http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/shows/show_190022.mp3
great thoughts about music and art in today's world from my favorite singer/songwriter.
-cjfer-
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Two differing versions of what it means to go "around the world"
The old high school Jam.
If it doesn't kill you, it might make you stronger. Or it might kill you slowly.
And...
I echo the same sentiment.
-cjfer-
If it doesn't kill you, it might make you stronger. Or it might kill you slowly.
And...
I echo the same sentiment.
-cjfer-
Monday, June 23, 2008
Emerson essay on Nature
This is the first paragraph of the introduction to Ralph Waldo Emerson's essay on Nature. I looked back to it for an earlier blog post.
"Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship." -RWE
To read the rest of the essay go HERE.
-cjfer-
"Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship." -RWE
To read the rest of the essay go HERE.
-cjfer-
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The not so secret life of the American Teenager
Soon, the ABC family channel will debut a new series called, "The secret life of the American Teenager."
You can read about it at this Website.
The show deals with a teenage girl, affluent and white, who becomes pregnant while in high school. While it is not stated, this girl is no doubt 16 years old. Why would I venture that guess? Well, this isn't a story that we haven't seen before, let alone see recently.
See
Gilmore Girls
Saved
Juno
(and who can forget Mr. and Mrs. Bo Jo Jones)
In fact, one can venture a guess that this new series is on the air because the success of Juno. I just wonder what it is about this same story that needs a constant retelling. Teenage pregnancy is a serious issue in our society and I in no way intend to make light of it. Two things. One, the teenager in these films are white and affluent. Two, they are often the smartest characters in the show. These same circumstances keep appearing because for whatever reason you can't deal with this issue with minority or poor characters. Would it then become too real? Too serious?
To that end, I also offer an addendum. Juno owes a lot to 90's female TV icons Buffy Summers, Joey Potter and Rory (and Lorelei) Gilmore. The idea that a teen girl in a tough situation could be witty and smart and quick is really nothing new. For some reason it's new to movies, but in fact, this character has been a staple of American television for years now. Yet there is no mention of the debt owed to these characters of the people who created them. Juno offers nothing particularly new, which is fine, what irks me is that it makes the appearance of being singular when it is not.
As serious as teen pregnancy is, we always see it occurring in a comedy. Why is that? Is it that it would seem like a lifetime movie (fifteen and pregnant) otherwise?
-cjfer-
You can read about it at this Website.
The show deals with a teenage girl, affluent and white, who becomes pregnant while in high school. While it is not stated, this girl is no doubt 16 years old. Why would I venture that guess? Well, this isn't a story that we haven't seen before, let alone see recently.
See
Gilmore Girls
Saved
Juno
(and who can forget Mr. and Mrs. Bo Jo Jones)
In fact, one can venture a guess that this new series is on the air because the success of Juno. I just wonder what it is about this same story that needs a constant retelling. Teenage pregnancy is a serious issue in our society and I in no way intend to make light of it. Two things. One, the teenager in these films are white and affluent. Two, they are often the smartest characters in the show. These same circumstances keep appearing because for whatever reason you can't deal with this issue with minority or poor characters. Would it then become too real? Too serious?
To that end, I also offer an addendum. Juno owes a lot to 90's female TV icons Buffy Summers, Joey Potter and Rory (and Lorelei) Gilmore. The idea that a teen girl in a tough situation could be witty and smart and quick is really nothing new. For some reason it's new to movies, but in fact, this character has been a staple of American television for years now. Yet there is no mention of the debt owed to these characters of the people who created them. Juno offers nothing particularly new, which is fine, what irks me is that it makes the appearance of being singular when it is not.
As serious as teen pregnancy is, we always see it occurring in a comedy. Why is that? Is it that it would seem like a lifetime movie (fifteen and pregnant) otherwise?
-cjfer-
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
An Open Love Letter to Kirsten Dunst
Dear Ms. Dunst,
First of all, let me introduce myself. I am a blogger on this site. Okay, introductions aside. In conversations recent and not so recent with my male contemporaries, it has occurred to me that many of them find you unattractive - if not really unattractive. It then occurred to me that these colleagues of mine are not so dissimilar from the average guy. Therefore, I feel that it must be fairly difficult for you to get a date. I think that is really a shame. To be a movie star who has appeared in many different films, you must feel alone in the world, no one to share in your triumphs and joys as well as your crestfallen moments. I am different. Unlike my counterparts, I do find you attractive. So, you don't have to feel so alone anymore. (yay me!). As you read this I'm sure you're thinking, sure, whatever, I've read these letters before. And you know what, maybe you have. But I'm asking you to take a chance with someone you've never met, and who must appear pretty crazy. But you know what? Maybe it's crazy to think that two kids can make it in this world, but it's a chance I'm willing to take. The only question then, is, are you willing to take a chance?
If I don't hear back from you in three days, I'll just have to think that you've read the letter and have decided not to act.
-cjfer-
First of all, let me introduce myself. I am a blogger on this site. Okay, introductions aside. In conversations recent and not so recent with my male contemporaries, it has occurred to me that many of them find you unattractive - if not really unattractive. It then occurred to me that these colleagues of mine are not so dissimilar from the average guy. Therefore, I feel that it must be fairly difficult for you to get a date. I think that is really a shame. To be a movie star who has appeared in many different films, you must feel alone in the world, no one to share in your triumphs and joys as well as your crestfallen moments. I am different. Unlike my counterparts, I do find you attractive. So, you don't have to feel so alone anymore. (yay me!). As you read this I'm sure you're thinking, sure, whatever, I've read these letters before. And you know what, maybe you have. But I'm asking you to take a chance with someone you've never met, and who must appear pretty crazy. But you know what? Maybe it's crazy to think that two kids can make it in this world, but it's a chance I'm willing to take. The only question then, is, are you willing to take a chance?
If I don't hear back from you in three days, I'll just have to think that you've read the letter and have decided not to act.
-cjfer-
Friday, May 30, 2008
The art of my generation
I'm really interested in what kind of Art my generation produces, especially the films. My generation, those say 20-28 (a generation they say is 25 years, but I don't feel I have much in common with 1 year olds), I feel are a sort of bi-polar generation. On the one hand I see a generation of young people committed to public service and generally committed to the saving the world (that's the east coast part of me) and then I see a generation as equally self involved, under-educated and under-responsible (the west coast).
In a way I think it's easy to draw parallels between these times and the times of the late 1970s. We have oil issues that don't seem to be getting solved, we have crises in the middle east that we're helpless to change and the body politic seems to be growing restless, cynical, and we feel like there's nothing we can do about it. These feelings aren't unique, and they don't speak for everyone - I'm sure some people don't quite care what's going on - but insofar as these feelings are new to us, they are important.
Whereas the film climate in the mid 1970s, before Jaws and Star Wars came out - was one of cynicism, politicking, and feminism. Those two films came out and changed the film culture forever, the blockbuster was born. When I look at the climate of films today, it seems as if we're not quite in the same world. While we have a growing concern for the way the world is going, (far more nebulous than any time in history as there is no more real enemy and the real enemy is hard to find - you can't put a face on global warming) our films don't seem to reflect that. Our films are still fairly big popcorn movies, a hold over from the late '70s and early 80's. We'll have to wait until the fall to get into the more political things. But is important to know that we can't just make fun movies that will capture people's imaginations in the same way that those first blockbusters did because those types movies are being made today. But we can't necessarily make the scathing political films we might want to because those films are also being made to some extent as well.
So then the question begs itself, what kinds of films will we make, given the opportunity? Well, first of all, our parents generation will have to retire or quit or something to give us a chance. While the kings of that generation aren't hurting for money, it's going to be hard for them to slow down. Nonetheless, in 10 years we'll be in our primes and they will be that much older. So what?
While I see the general climate of my generation as being politically moderate to apathetic, there is another section that is quite politically active. The problem is that we've come up in a time when the most political members of our generation are split in their political ideologies quite fervently.
My fear is that our films will be polarized. I see our artists, in many cases, either being too far on the left, or being too apathetic to make a statement, whatever it might be. Therefore, I can't predict what we might do. Will we continue to muddle in the current state of Hollywood affairs, will we be political partisans, or will we find a new and original relationship to cinema, storytelling, and the interpretations of our times. If nothing else, we continue to make films because they serve as documents of our own times. I hope our films about Vietnam are made with an observational tone (if not an emotional one) but I hope that we should be able to see more clearly and accurately the events of the 20th century, because we weren't blinded by the politics of the time. Oliver Stone, therefore, has no place here (which is not to say that his films aren't important or valuable). Will we even go back and examine history, or will be preach about the Iraq war and oil prices?
Our challenge is going to be in finding honesty and peace in our films and our decisions as artists and filmmakers. We must not be blinded by desire to create propaganda, right or left wing, but instead be driven to be moved and compelled by the facts, and dare I say it, truth, whatever that means. Let us not give in to the maudlin, or the over-intellectualized preaching that comes with standing completely apart from history. Let us be moved and understand the times, and then, if we are actually artists we might be able to interpret events for the benefit of a society as a whole. Then again, we might not actually be artists, we might have chosen to do this because it seemed fun. Hopefully not.
-cjfer-
In a way I think it's easy to draw parallels between these times and the times of the late 1970s. We have oil issues that don't seem to be getting solved, we have crises in the middle east that we're helpless to change and the body politic seems to be growing restless, cynical, and we feel like there's nothing we can do about it. These feelings aren't unique, and they don't speak for everyone - I'm sure some people don't quite care what's going on - but insofar as these feelings are new to us, they are important.
Whereas the film climate in the mid 1970s, before Jaws and Star Wars came out - was one of cynicism, politicking, and feminism. Those two films came out and changed the film culture forever, the blockbuster was born. When I look at the climate of films today, it seems as if we're not quite in the same world. While we have a growing concern for the way the world is going, (far more nebulous than any time in history as there is no more real enemy and the real enemy is hard to find - you can't put a face on global warming) our films don't seem to reflect that. Our films are still fairly big popcorn movies, a hold over from the late '70s and early 80's. We'll have to wait until the fall to get into the more political things. But is important to know that we can't just make fun movies that will capture people's imaginations in the same way that those first blockbusters did because those types movies are being made today. But we can't necessarily make the scathing political films we might want to because those films are also being made to some extent as well.
So then the question begs itself, what kinds of films will we make, given the opportunity? Well, first of all, our parents generation will have to retire or quit or something to give us a chance. While the kings of that generation aren't hurting for money, it's going to be hard for them to slow down. Nonetheless, in 10 years we'll be in our primes and they will be that much older. So what?
While I see the general climate of my generation as being politically moderate to apathetic, there is another section that is quite politically active. The problem is that we've come up in a time when the most political members of our generation are split in their political ideologies quite fervently.
My fear is that our films will be polarized. I see our artists, in many cases, either being too far on the left, or being too apathetic to make a statement, whatever it might be. Therefore, I can't predict what we might do. Will we continue to muddle in the current state of Hollywood affairs, will we be political partisans, or will we find a new and original relationship to cinema, storytelling, and the interpretations of our times. If nothing else, we continue to make films because they serve as documents of our own times. I hope our films about Vietnam are made with an observational tone (if not an emotional one) but I hope that we should be able to see more clearly and accurately the events of the 20th century, because we weren't blinded by the politics of the time. Oliver Stone, therefore, has no place here (which is not to say that his films aren't important or valuable). Will we even go back and examine history, or will be preach about the Iraq war and oil prices?
Our challenge is going to be in finding honesty and peace in our films and our decisions as artists and filmmakers. We must not be blinded by desire to create propaganda, right or left wing, but instead be driven to be moved and compelled by the facts, and dare I say it, truth, whatever that means. Let us not give in to the maudlin, or the over-intellectualized preaching that comes with standing completely apart from history. Let us be moved and understand the times, and then, if we are actually artists we might be able to interpret events for the benefit of a society as a whole. Then again, we might not actually be artists, we might have chosen to do this because it seemed fun. Hopefully not.
-cjfer-
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Time to Get a Move On
With a witty title like that, you would think I would be talking about MoveOn.org or something, but no, I'm not that witty or topical. It's 2009 people. We've got to wake up. Is it going to be Barackalacka ding dong or HillRodimus Prime doing the political mumbo jumbo in Noverbercon?
Honestly, I think neither. Hear me out.
So picture this: you've got two wolves circling each other in the wild. They're hungry, and there is nothing to eat but each other. They each go for a tasty bite, and then another, and pretty soon they've devoured each other. Now, imagine that the candidates are doing this. They R doing this...in fact so much so that I didn't even feel I needed to write the word "are". Now, imagine a third wolf shows up and just stands there, like an idiot.
This is where Howard Dean comes in. No, seriously. The guy got the shaft last election, and now he's the head of the party. He's biding his time, people. He's making all sorts of claims about how "the results won't matter" and how "the candidate needs to be electable". Let me ask you this. If I make the rules to a game, and you're playing my game, won't I change the rules so that I can win? I mean, this guy could declare himself the high overlord of Democratania if he wanted to. Now, I'm sure there are things like "delegates" and "representatives" to deal with, and some sort of "convention", but don't you think the best candidate will find a way around these things?
After all, the Dems need to beat the Republicans at their own game...
Electoral Politics.
And Handball.
Honestly, I think neither. Hear me out.
So picture this: you've got two wolves circling each other in the wild. They're hungry, and there is nothing to eat but each other. They each go for a tasty bite, and then another, and pretty soon they've devoured each other. Now, imagine that the candidates are doing this. They R doing this...in fact so much so that I didn't even feel I needed to write the word "are". Now, imagine a third wolf shows up and just stands there, like an idiot.
This is where Howard Dean comes in. No, seriously. The guy got the shaft last election, and now he's the head of the party. He's biding his time, people. He's making all sorts of claims about how "the results won't matter" and how "the candidate needs to be electable". Let me ask you this. If I make the rules to a game, and you're playing my game, won't I change the rules so that I can win? I mean, this guy could declare himself the high overlord of Democratania if he wanted to. Now, I'm sure there are things like "delegates" and "representatives" to deal with, and some sort of "convention", but don't you think the best candidate will find a way around these things?
After all, the Dems need to beat the Republicans at their own game...
Electoral Politics.
And Handball.
Monday, March 24, 2008
My Favorite Poem
This is my favorite poem. It's written by Galway Kinnell. It's about a man (presumably him) talking to his baby daughter - in the background is the Vietnam War.
-cjfer-
VII
LITTLE SLEEP'S-HEAD
SPROUTING HAIR IN THE MOONLIGHT
1
You scream, waking from a nightmare.
When I sleepwalk
into your room, and pick you up,
and hold you up in the moonlight, you cling to me
hard,
as if clinging could save us. I think
you think
I will never die, I think I exude
to you the permanence of smoke or stars,
even as
my broken arms heal themselves around you.
2
I have heard you tell
the sun, don't go down, I have stood by
as you told the flower, don't grow old,
don't die. Little Maud,
I would blow the flame out of your silver cup,
I would suck the rot from your fingernail,
I would brush your sprouting hair of the dying light,
I would scrape the rust off your ivory bones,
I would help death escape through the little ribs of your body,
I would alchemize the ashes of your cradle back into wood,
I would let nothing of you go, ever,
until washerwomen
feel the clothes fall asleep in their hands,
and hens scratch their spell across hatchet blades,
and rats walk away from the cultures of the plague,
and iron twists weapons toward the true north,
and grease refuses to slide in the machinery of progress,
and men feel as free on earth as fleas on the bodies of men,
and lovers no longer whisper to the presence beside them in the
dark, O corpse-to-be . . .
And yet perhaps this is the reason you cry,
this the nightmare you wake screaming from:
being forever
in the pre-trembling of a house that falls.
3
In a restaurant once, everyone
quietly eating, you clambered up
on my lap: to all
the mouthfuls rising toward
all the mouths, at the top of your
voice you cried
your one word, caca! caca! caca!
and each spoonful
stopped, a moment, in midair, in its withering
steam.
Yes,
you cling because
I, like you, only sooner
than you, will go down
the path of vanished alphabets,
the roadlessness
to the other side of the darkness,
your arms
like the shoes left behind,
like the adjectives in the halting speech
of old men,
which once could call up the lost nouns.
4
And you yourself,
some impossible Tuesday
in the year Two Thousand and Nine, will walk out
among the black stones
of the field, in the rain,
and the stones saying
over their one word, ci-gicirct, ci-gicirct, ci-gicirct,
and the raindrops
hitting you on the fontanel
over and over, and you standing there
unable to let them in.
5
If one day it happens
you find yourself with someone you love
in a cafe at one end
of the Pont Mirabeau, at the zinc bar
where white wine
stands in upward opening glasses,
and if you commit then, as we did, the error
of thinking,
one day all this will only be memory,
learn,
as you stand
at this end of the bridge which arcs,
from love, you think; into enduring love
learn to reach deeper
into the sorrows
to come-to touch
the almost imaginary bones
under the face, to hear under the laughter
the wind crying across the black stones. Kiss
the mouth
which tells you, here,
here is the world. This mouth. This laughter. These temple bones.
The still undanced cadence of vanishing.
6
In the light the moon
sends back, I can see in your eyes
the hand that waved once
in my father's eyes, a tiny kite
wobbling far up in the twilight of his last look:
and the angel
of all mortal things lets go the string.
7
Back you go, into your crib.
The last blackbird lights up his gold wings: farewell.
Your eyes close inside your head,
in sleep. Already
in your dreams the hours begin to sing.
Little sleep's-head sprouting hair in the moonlight,
when I come back
we will go out together,
we will walk out together among
the ten thousand things,
each scratched too late with such knowledge, the wages
of dying is love.
-Galway Kinnell
-cjfer-
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Sunday, March 16, 2008
This lady rocks
I'm not a big country music fan, but Gillian Welch and David Rawlings know how to do it right.
-cjfer-
-cjfer-
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Monday, February 18, 2008
funny conversation with my brother
regarding his 6 month old son, Jack.
Matt: off to bed...babies are good. jack rolled over today. he also almost threw up in my mouth.
Matt: off to bed...babies are good. jack rolled over today. he also almost threw up in my mouth.
Chris: yuck
you must be so proud?
Matt: yeah, that would have been gross.
Chris: so long as he doesn't get stuck face down on that head of his
Matt: they're fun to hold up and have them look down on you, but it's dangerous
Chris: it seems it
Matt: his head is a little more proportional now.
Chris: the thought occured to me when i was there
Matt: but not much
Chris: i'm going to feel bad when they're teenagers
Matt: me too. they're gonna push me around
Chris: but i'll be gigling on the inside
they're gonna be really cool kids
so yeah
Matt: we'll both be depressingly old when they're teenagers.
Chris: you're in trouble
speak for yourself
Matt: i'll be 48 when they go to college
wait
Chris: i'm working on a potion
Matt: what the fuck! 48!
jeez
Chris: 30 was no problem?
Matt: crap
30 was fine
Chris: i'll be 42ish
Matt: 48 sounds f'ing old
Chris: ahh!
get out of my head
Matt: i don't want to be 48?
Chris: closer to the finish line my friend
Matt: i mean, i don't want to be 48!
how old does that sound!
Chris: we have some time
it's ridiculous
Matt: ok, now i feel old.
Chris: it's stupid, it's a stupid age
i feel old too
i'm 42
Matt: i'm almost 48
Chris: in 18 years, but yeah, start working out
Matt: 30 didn't sound bad, but 40 still sounds old
Chris: but you'll be less stressed
well, other than the dying soon thing
Matt: maybe i'll feel the same way about 40, in which case i've already started kidding myself
Chris: but they'll be older, and you won't be running around as much
Matt: no, people will live on as heads attached to robots by the time i'm 60 or so.
Chris: right on
Matt: that's what i'm counting on, at least
Chris: it's possible
Matt: crap
Chris: just the other day i saw a tiny flashlight
so, you never know
Matt: good thing i spent my 20s in a f'ing hospital.
how tiny?
very tiny?
Chris: real tiny
Matt: wow
so there's hope
Chris: i hope so
Matt: hopefully
i can hear the wheels turning as you try to think of another word with "hope" in it
Chris: we can only hope
Matt: hopetastic
Chris: hopelicious
Matt: hopetacular
Chris: hopediculous
Matt: hip-hope
Chris: hopetacular
damn!
Matt: i win.
cause i'm old
Chris: get 'em in
Matt: ok, sleepy night-night time
Chris: you won't remember this after a while
goodnight old man
Matt: i should stop saying that
good night.
oh, and during the next three hours, kosovo rejoins serbia and then goes independent again.
you may not hear anything about it, cause it happens pretty fast
good night!
-cjfer-
-cjfer-
Monday, February 11, 2008
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Best Essay Ever.
For real.
January 28,2008
The Honorable Christopher Shays 1126 Longworth Building United States House of Representatives
Dear Representative Shays,
January 28,2008
The Honorable Christopher Shays 1126 Longworth Building United States House of Representatives
Dear Representative Shays,
I'm a 13-year-old kid so you probably won't care about or even read what I am about to write but my social studies grade counts on it so I'll write on. I am writing to tell you about a bill that I wrote. You see, Chrissie, I am a genius so my bill is no less that brilliant. Immigration is an important issue because people older than me say that it is. This needs to be solved because Connecticut alone spends an amount of money on illegal immigrants every year. That's more money than we spend on other things!
Some the points on my bill include setting found illegal immigrants on a track to citizenship. This will help to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in America. To keep immigration from Mexico to a minimum there will be a quota of 100,000 legal Mexican immigrants per year. Now most immigrants from Mexico are not here legally so I thought that the fence on the border of Mexico should be twenty feet tall, flat, cast in steel, and lubricated. All of these ideas are outstanding and ingenious and should be put in place as soon as possible.
There are a lot of illegal Mexican immigrants in America. Because these people came into this country illegally they are breaking the law, they are criminals. These felons need to be stopped. The amount of illegal immigrants in this country is a number that is more that one hundred. The amount of money that the government spends on education for babies popped out by Illegal immigrants once they are over the border is, in my opinion, costing us a lot more than the money that they bring in.
One example of my ideas working out in an historical scale is the Great Wall of China. You can't tell me that if you were a resident of Mongolia whom was longing for an egg roll that you would not want to try to hop over that monster. It also worked way back when the Chinese were at war with the Mongols. An example from American history is when we used to have an immigration quota things worked out great plenty of good stuff happened. Also, I bet that you cannot give me one example from history when it was easy to climb a lubricated fence.
This bill is constitutional, fair and necessary because when our forefathers established this country and immigrated here they wanted to be original and did not want any copycats to storm into this country and claim it as their own when there are clearly people already living there. Come on, that was our idea. You should really think about what I have said Topher I mean it for real Holmes.
-cjfer-
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Big Three - and Second World Countries
Really fascinating article in the NY times magazine. I believe it's excerpted from a book. It's long, about 8 pages. If you're not up for the length, I'd suggest reading the first page, and then the last two pages. He (or she) talks about the lack of American Hagemony in the world, in deference to a big three of superpowers, America, the EU, and China. America is facing a new position in the 21st century. What's dope about this article is that the author actually suggests how we might go forward in the world. How we might actually deal with the changes of globalization. How terrific. Someone not just telling us how it's going to change, but to give us solutions too. America may be facing a new position on the world, but it may not be such a bad thing. Interesting.
Read HERE.
-cjfer-
Read HERE.
-cjfer-
Friday, January 25, 2008
Counter Point: I agree
Can we really call it a counterpoint? (PS this post is too long to proofread. So sorry for any mistakes.)
I haven't seen No Country For Old Men or There WILL BE Blood but I can tell you that they're probably better than Juno. Juno is a good movie, don't think that's it's not. But that's it. It's not a truly transcendental movie. It's about a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant, but it really doesn't seem to be about any more than that. Juno is a girl who is overly intelligent, sardonic and sarcastic and really only services as a conduit for Diablo Cody to show us how hip, cool, tough, sweet, and uncanny she is. It's a well made movie that definitely functions as a third generation Post-Wes Anderson Film. (Think "In Good Company" "Arrested Development" "Lost in Translation" "Marie Antoinette" as examples). What it does is it calls my attention to a more interesting film called "Saved!" Starring Jena Malone. The 16 year old girl getting pregnant accidentally isn't a new story. And to be sure, when we see in mainstream film, it's always an affluent white girl. Why? So that we know that there aren't any real world or serious consequences. In fact, in Juno there are no consequences of any kind - nothing changes. When we look at stories like this including "gilmore girls" we really have stories of affluent white girls, who are very very smart, getting pregnant and keeping the child. (and in fact, they're all comedies). These stories don't really represent, I think, the majority of young girls who find themselves in this situation. That's why I like Saved! No, the exclamation point is part of the title. Saved! also seems to be about the rigors and dangers of religious zealotry. The Jenna Malone character gets pregnant in the first place because it's her belief that she can change her boyfriend from gay to not gay. It's amusing, but that's an actual belief of many in the far-right Christian camp. The movie seems to be about more than a showcase for wit and cool. It's about the dangers of adherent belief and reconciling inconsistent beliefs, and in dealing with ideology vs. the real world.
I don't know why Juno is so popular, but I don't begrudge it it's popularity. It's a good movie that is funny, sweet, cute, and has some wonderful performances. Is it best picture worthy? I don't think so. But I think what we have is a time where there really weren't a whole lot of amazing choices for best picture. We're in a time period when films of any quality seem to be made outside of the studio system. We used to live in a time where the best picture nominees were big studio productions with wonderful production values. Juno, this years "Little Miss Sunshine" is not that. But it's good. Studios need to make better movies. That being said - ever since my confidence in the Oscars was destroyed in 1998 when Saving Private Ryan didn't win Best Picture - how do you feel now guys? - I haven't necessarily looked to the Oscars or any awards show to dictate my feelings on the best pictures. And in retrospect, I think Brokeback Mountain should have won best picture the year Crash won. Then again, I never liked the Crash movie. It's overly didactic and to be honest, a little racist.
Any awards ceremony that doesn't give Martin Scorcesse an Oscar until the departed, arguably his least challenging directing job in the last 10 years, is suspect. Gangs of New York rocks, time will bear me out that.
-cjfer-
I haven't seen No Country For Old Men or There WILL BE Blood but I can tell you that they're probably better than Juno. Juno is a good movie, don't think that's it's not. But that's it. It's not a truly transcendental movie. It's about a 16 year old girl who gets pregnant, but it really doesn't seem to be about any more than that. Juno is a girl who is overly intelligent, sardonic and sarcastic and really only services as a conduit for Diablo Cody to show us how hip, cool, tough, sweet, and uncanny she is. It's a well made movie that definitely functions as a third generation Post-Wes Anderson Film. (Think "In Good Company" "Arrested Development" "Lost in Translation" "Marie Antoinette" as examples). What it does is it calls my attention to a more interesting film called "Saved!" Starring Jena Malone. The 16 year old girl getting pregnant accidentally isn't a new story. And to be sure, when we see in mainstream film, it's always an affluent white girl. Why? So that we know that there aren't any real world or serious consequences. In fact, in Juno there are no consequences of any kind - nothing changes. When we look at stories like this including "gilmore girls" we really have stories of affluent white girls, who are very very smart, getting pregnant and keeping the child. (and in fact, they're all comedies). These stories don't really represent, I think, the majority of young girls who find themselves in this situation. That's why I like Saved! No, the exclamation point is part of the title. Saved! also seems to be about the rigors and dangers of religious zealotry. The Jenna Malone character gets pregnant in the first place because it's her belief that she can change her boyfriend from gay to not gay. It's amusing, but that's an actual belief of many in the far-right Christian camp. The movie seems to be about more than a showcase for wit and cool. It's about the dangers of adherent belief and reconciling inconsistent beliefs, and in dealing with ideology vs. the real world.
I don't know why Juno is so popular, but I don't begrudge it it's popularity. It's a good movie that is funny, sweet, cute, and has some wonderful performances. Is it best picture worthy? I don't think so. But I think what we have is a time where there really weren't a whole lot of amazing choices for best picture. We're in a time period when films of any quality seem to be made outside of the studio system. We used to live in a time where the best picture nominees were big studio productions with wonderful production values. Juno, this years "Little Miss Sunshine" is not that. But it's good. Studios need to make better movies. That being said - ever since my confidence in the Oscars was destroyed in 1998 when Saving Private Ryan didn't win Best Picture - how do you feel now guys? - I haven't necessarily looked to the Oscars or any awards show to dictate my feelings on the best pictures. And in retrospect, I think Brokeback Mountain should have won best picture the year Crash won. Then again, I never liked the Crash movie. It's overly didactic and to be honest, a little racist.
Any awards ceremony that doesn't give Martin Scorcesse an Oscar until the departed, arguably his least challenging directing job in the last 10 years, is suspect. Gangs of New York rocks, time will bear me out that.
-cjfer-
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Really? Best picture?
Ok, maybe it is a good movie. I haven't seen it yet. I don't plan on seeing it in the near future. But there are unwritten rules about this sort of thing. You don't give a movie like Juno a best picture nod. You nominate it for best screenplay and that's it. What gets me is that a movie like "The Royal Tenenbaums" was only even nominated for best screenplay, and it lost (Plus, how does "Juno" get a blowjob and "The Darjeeling Limited" is ignored. They hate Wes, but they love post Wes style). Sight unseen i can promise you that was a better movie than "Juno". Well, I can tell you that "No Country for Old Men" and "There Will be Blood" are way better movies. What worries me about this nomination is that the Oscars hate downer movies. They love Hollywood endings, and man, neither of the big two ended on a good note. Bad things happen to good people. So if neither of them wins, it'll either be "Atonement" or "Michael Clayton". So chances are, it will be "Atonement" with its love story and all that jazz. But viewership is going to be down, if at all existent. This may be the year where they go with the popular choice. In this article it is argued that we need to go back to picking movies that may not be the best picture, but the most popular. I know it was just a pick to give props to a movie that hit it big, but I would be so pissed if "Juno" won. It would be the end of credibility. Hell, if this happens I'm boycotting the Oscars next year. I'll watch Nick's "Teen Choice Awards" instead.
-ccmas
-ccmas
Friday, January 18, 2008
Dan Marino and Hillary Clinton
I saw a commercial about weight loss where Dan Marino says, "If I can lose weight, so can you!"
I mean, he was a professional athlete. Come on.
My second come on moment of the year. Does being first lady count as political experience? This election is being billed by some as "Change Vs. Experience." Now, Hilary Clinton doesn't have that much more time logged in the US senate as Barack Obama. Are we counting the 8 years as first lady? Would that mean that Laura Bush is more qualified to be President than Obama or Edwards? Heck, Martin Sheen played the President for seven years - does that qualify him?
-cjfer-
I mean, he was a professional athlete. Come on.
My second come on moment of the year. Does being first lady count as political experience? This election is being billed by some as "Change Vs. Experience." Now, Hilary Clinton doesn't have that much more time logged in the US senate as Barack Obama. Are we counting the 8 years as first lady? Would that mean that Laura Bush is more qualified to be President than Obama or Edwards? Heck, Martin Sheen played the President for seven years - does that qualify him?
-cjfer-
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Politics - 'Cause it wouldn't be a Blog without it
So, I watched the Democratic debate tonight on MSNBC. The winners and losers of which may ultimately be inconsequential as many people don't get MSNBC, nor do "most" people watch whole debates. I did. Maybe I'm not a political pundit, whatever that means, but I couldn't tell the difference, really, between the candidates tonight (Obama, Clinton, Edwards). Chris Mathews, whom I like usually, has come out and said that Hilary Clinton decisively won the debate. Really? What makes you say so? Maybe it's me, but the discussion seemed polite and the candidates seemed to agree on virtually every issue. Maybe it's that Mathews has an agenda that favors Hilary Clinton. That's right! I said it!
Mitt Romney won the Michigan Republican primary. This means that in the 3 meaningful nomination contests in the republican party, there have been 3 different winners. While it remains to be seen what will happen in the Democratic party - it appears that tonight they appeared to all be aligning themselves with one another. Due to the fact that we had 3 different Republican winners, means that the party, at this point anyway, is fractured. This could be difficult in terms of the nominating process because the nomination might not be decided until the convention, at which point you'll have vying for delegates. Who knows, maybe they'll all get it together over their natural hate of democrats, and it'll be like the good old days.
What I don't buy is when Mitt Romney says "take that Washington!" Nor the other candidates for that matter. There's no homeless people running for president this year. Or, there won't be after Dennis Kucinich drops out. All the candidates are wealthy, and have deep standing political interests. The idea that one person's gonna come in and change everything is nice, but the US government is built upon a general model of being slow to change. Some say the benefits of this type of system is that it makes it difficult for politicians to really muck up the country. We essentially have a 2 party system in America - so anyone saying that one party is to blame is insane. I think we'll all be better off when George Bush is out of office. I think his type of neoconservatism was particularly vicious, divisive, derisive, and generally bad for middle class Americans. Hopefully, whoever we get will be able to "change" things - but I'm not convinced of it, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
What we as Americans need to do is to take responsibilities for our own lives, and for the people around us. We can get as rowdy as we want about our candidate, and how they're gonna make serious change, but we can't escape that we're really the ones who are responsible for our lives. The US government "could" do a lot of good - but the mean time we need to do more at the state and local levels - even in our own communities. It's not until the rich desperate housewives of the OC feel responsible for the poor in East LA, or the deep south, that is change really gonna happen.
-cjfer-
Mitt Romney won the Michigan Republican primary. This means that in the 3 meaningful nomination contests in the republican party, there have been 3 different winners. While it remains to be seen what will happen in the Democratic party - it appears that tonight they appeared to all be aligning themselves with one another. Due to the fact that we had 3 different Republican winners, means that the party, at this point anyway, is fractured. This could be difficult in terms of the nominating process because the nomination might not be decided until the convention, at which point you'll have vying for delegates. Who knows, maybe they'll all get it together over their natural hate of democrats, and it'll be like the good old days.
What I don't buy is when Mitt Romney says "take that Washington!" Nor the other candidates for that matter. There's no homeless people running for president this year. Or, there won't be after Dennis Kucinich drops out. All the candidates are wealthy, and have deep standing political interests. The idea that one person's gonna come in and change everything is nice, but the US government is built upon a general model of being slow to change. Some say the benefits of this type of system is that it makes it difficult for politicians to really muck up the country. We essentially have a 2 party system in America - so anyone saying that one party is to blame is insane. I think we'll all be better off when George Bush is out of office. I think his type of neoconservatism was particularly vicious, divisive, derisive, and generally bad for middle class Americans. Hopefully, whoever we get will be able to "change" things - but I'm not convinced of it, but I'm not sure it's a bad thing.
What we as Americans need to do is to take responsibilities for our own lives, and for the people around us. We can get as rowdy as we want about our candidate, and how they're gonna make serious change, but we can't escape that we're really the ones who are responsible for our lives. The US government "could" do a lot of good - but the mean time we need to do more at the state and local levels - even in our own communities. It's not until the rich desperate housewives of the OC feel responsible for the poor in East LA, or the deep south, that is change really gonna happen.
-cjfer-
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Britney Spears is going to be Eaten by a SHARK
You heard it here first. If this happens, you all owe me a dollar.
-ccmas
-ccmas
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)