Don't Judge a Movie Before You See the Advertisements!

Critics these days are absolutely ridiculous when it comes to critiquing a movie! If the story has heart they will call it "soft" and "sappy." If it is has blood and gore they will call it a "blockbuster." If it is controversial and offends any group of people they will call it a "must-see." Sometimes they don't even read the small synopsis about the movie before they go and see it. Then they make claims against the movie when it is obvious they haven't read anything about it!

A perfect example of their stupidity is the critiques I read for the new movie August Rush. The movie is about an orphaned musical prodigy who believes that if he plays his music his parents will find him and they will live happily ever after. It's a story with heart and very little controversy! However, all the critics seem to say is that it is completely unrealistic. This comes after the movie advertised itself as a drama with fairytale elements!

I swear it's like they don't even listen to the advertisements before they watch it! They just want to tear something apart because it lacks the three essentials to make it in Hollywood: sex, violence, and controversy. If it doesn't have naked women, guns blazing, and something offensive then it will be torn apart. What a sad state Hollywood is in!

Holiday for Two

Okay, I'm taking a short break from my movie rants to address a problem that has been coming to my attention quite frequently recently. Why do commercials during the holidays promote couples? I was watching tv and I swear within a 30 minute period I must have seen 4 Zales commercials! Why? I feel like I am constantly being slammed with this promotion of marriage. And it only increases during the holidays!

I know that holidays are generally the time you spend with the ones you love. Places like Zales are just taking advantage of that in their commercials. However, when you are constantly hounded by commercials with flowers, jewelry, "get her what she wants this holiday season," and vice versa... it
all gets a little overwhelming!

You can call me bitter and you can even call me a Scrooge but in reality I think you see my point. The holidays should be a time of celebration and peace not of being hounded by some commercial that makes you begin to feel inadequate! So join with me and say no to commercials like Zales! It's Christmas not Valentine's Day!

It's That Time of Year Again...

Well, as you know the holiday season has begun and with the holidays comes...

Holiday Movies!!!

Now, personally, I love this time of year because movies we've been waiting all year for come out around this time. This year the heavy hitters are: Enchanted, I Am Legend, Beowulf, and The Golden Compass. Some must sees for me will be August Rush and Juno.

Holiday movies tend to be more family movies, centered on the themes of family, adventure, and hope. This year is no different. However, I wonder how this years movies will hold up. Previous years have released Harry Potter films, Narnia, and Lord of the Rings. Will The Golden Compass follow these movies? With the writers strike now hitting the movies, I'm left to wonder what next years holiday movies will be or if they will even be any.

Strike!

Well, the writer's strike in Hollywood is in full swing now. Daily talk shows are showing reruns, movies in production have been postponed, and by January tv will turn to reality shows. I think this is a sad time for Hollywood and for the viewers.

I love television! I have my shows that I watch religiously. I understand the arguements that are going on at the moment and I support the writers. However, what am I supposed to do come January when shows like The Office and Pushing Daisies are replaced with crap like Marry My Mom or Eat As Many Gross Things As You Can? My tv will be off until my shows come back, I guess.

I hate reality television for the reason that there is nothing to it. It's absurd! Shows like The Bachelor, The Biggest Loser, Beauty and the Geek, and various others are ridiculous. It's a load of people's 15 minutes of fame. I avoid all MTV reality shows which are even more ridiculous than the ones already listed. Even a huge favorite, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition borders on ridiculous!

I end this post with a plea: Hollywood, please make peace!

Classic or Trash???

Who decides what is "classic" and what is "trash?" I've seen so many things lately that I hear are "classics" and all I really saw was worthless trash that someone deemed "classic-worthy." Who are these people that deem movies, works or art, literature...etc, "classics?" What are their backgrounds? How do they make their decisions?

Take for example, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" with Audrey Hepburn. I still don't see the point. And the fact that this movie is what Audrey Hepburn is known for makes my head spin! She's a social climber, using anyone she can for money. He's a man-whore, having affairs with married women who support him while he attempts to write novels. And they unite over a cat! Who deemed this a classic and why?

If someone could explain this to me I would be forever grateful. I just don't understand what makes something a classic while other things go by unnoticed.

The Generation Gap in Technology

How is it that an eight year old can set up a Wii while a forty year old watches in amazement and confusion? Why can a twelve year old figure out a cell phone faster than a fifty year old? If you've ever asked yourself these questions then you have struggled with the comprehension of the generation gap.

I remember growing up I had a Fisher Price tape recorder (remember those?) that had five large buttons with symbols on them. It didn't say what they were or anything. A green triangle pointing right, a red square, a blue outlined arrow going left, a matching outlined arrow going right, and a red circle. This was my introduction into technology. From these complex symbols I learned play, stop, rewind, fast forward, and record. This is essentially what has gotten me through it all. Sure I've learned things on computers, learned how to use speed dial and voice commands on my cell phone, and even programming a tevo; but what it all really came down to for me was those five little symbols.

I know people like my parents and grandparents didn't have Fisher Price tape recorders to carry them through the technology age. For them, this is a completely different world then what they remember. And I'm not saying I know everything here. My twelve year old cousin makes me look like a fool when it comes to anything video games.

I'm not really sure what divides us in the end. My generation was around for the beginning of the technology age. Years from now I'll tell my grandchildren all about when I was around for the Apple Iphone, in which case they will probably laugh at me for how dated I am.

Slasher flicks gone wild!

I just saw 30 Days of Night about vampires taking over a small Alaskan town. It was the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a long time. People are being torn apart left and right, and not just adults but children as well. The movie has no real plot and the whole thing is mainly blood and gore. Yet this crap is what tops the box office. Instead of seeing a movie with heart or, god forbid, an actual plot, people rush to the theaters to see people being torn apart, their worst nightmares projected on the screen. I guess I don't get it.

Is it the exhilaration of fear and adrenaline? It is a way to release our morbid sides? Is it the pychotic in all of us that gets to live through the action on the screen, even if only for an hour or so?

It seems like more and more slasher flicks are being released every year. Now they are being released around Christmas time which I think is absolutely absurd! I know they are cheap to make and for some crazy reason draw big crowds. I just don't understand what our morbid fascination with this crap!

Right and Wrong in a World of Gray

This week we read Brighton Rock by Graham Greene which discussed the matter of right and wrong and how nothing is concrete. This got me thinking about how we live in a world of gray. There are very few things that are absolutes. Mathmaticians and scientists will tell you that certain theories and such are absolutes that have been proven and cannot be argued against. However, when the newest discovery that contradicts what they previously believed is found to be true, they change their story. Nothing is set in stone, black and white, right and wrong. We live in a world of gray.

I am a huge Friends fan, if anyone remembers that show and I really hope you do. One of my favorite episodes is the one where Ross tries to convince Phoebe that evolution is the only truth out there. He shows her bones, discusses theories,... anything to prove to her that she is wrong. Her arguement, however, is the best explanation of anything and everything that I've ever heard. She says that scientists believed along time ago that the atom was the smallest thing there was. However, when they split it open they found tinier stuff and proved themselves wrong. So why should she believe them when they could very well be wrong. When Ross, stumped as he is by her reasoning, agrees with her, she states she has lost all respect for him for giving up his beliefs so quickly.

Now this is not a rant against evolution. And this is not a praise session for Friends, although I do love Friends!!! What I am trying to say is that Phoebe proves an excellent point here. The world is constantly changing. New discoveries are constantly being made. Therefore, right and wrong, and various other issues can never be set in stone due to change in our evolving world. We live in a world of gray and we should appreciate it!

The Simple Life

This week we read Evelyn Waugh's A Handful of Dust. It described the deterioration of the marriage of a British couple. While quite satirical, the under lying sadness of the realities these people faced was heartbreaking.

The husband, Tony, is an all-around good guy. He takes care of his family. He goes to church every Sunday. He loves his little boy and even his wife (although some may disagree with me on this point). He takes care of his home which is out of the current fashion of the time. He lives a simple life and doesn't get involved in the scandals and gossip of London, yet he finds himself in the middle of one when his wife begins an affair with a man in London.

Tony was the most sympathetic in the story to me because he seemed the character most removed, if you know what I mean. He lived and stayed in the country, in his little house. He, at times, seemed to not care what was happening around him. Even when his wife wants a divorce, he takes the blame and puts down it was he who had the affair just so she could get alimony. And then he dies and his house gets left to some relatives who will make it into something else. Tony was a good guy who got a raw deal. All he wanted was a simple life. He wasn't too happy and wasn't too miserable either.

Sex and the Rise of Women

This week we conquered D.L. Lawrence's Lady Chatterley's Lover where the protagonist, Constance is "trapped" in a loveless marriage to an impotent, diabled veteran and begins having an affair with her gamekeeper. While Constance is looked at with great sympathy by most of the great critics and readers of the century I found her to be selfish.

Constance and her sister are described from the beginning as free-thinking, intellectual women who have sexual relations with men just so that they can keep the sintilating discussion going. It means nothing to them who they're with or why, they just do it so they can stay included. Well, if this is what the early 1900s were like am I glad that I grew up when I did!

I'm not saying that this isn't still happening today. How many women sleep with their bosses to get a promotion? Come on! All I'm saying is that this idea that women have to lower themselves to men just so they can rise to their level is a ridiculous concept!

I hope to someday live in a world where sex is not the only way for a woman to get a job she more than well deserves. We're on our way now!

Trust Issues

This week we read Forrester's A Passage to India, which unravelled the true nature of the relationship between India and the British. The problem was that no one could really trust anyone because everyone had a motive. It really got me thinking about the issue of trust.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once stated, “ Trust men and they will be true to you; treat them greatly, and they will show themselves great. ” Maybe if this had happened in the novel there would not have been so many problems. I understand why the natives of India could not trust the British because they had taken their land from them. Maybe they would have maintained a better relationship if the British had actually bothered to treat the natives like people instead of slaves.

I think Emerson had it right. If the British had treated the natives with respect, the whole relationship could have been better.

The Stereotyping of Female Writers

Why are most female writers considered lesbians? I am in no way saying that all female writers are lesbians but since I have arrived at college and going through my lit. courses I have noticed that a lot of professors (usually male professors) claim that writers such as Emily Dickinson and Mary Shelley were lesbians and that their works hint this fact.

This week we read Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, which follows Clarissa Dalloway, as well as various other characters through one day in their lives. The novel mentions an incident between the main character Clarissa and her friend Sally where they kissed. Now it has been said that Virginia Woolf was a bisexual so I will not argue with this fact. However, this made me think back to other discussions I've had with professors about other female writers. One such case, I argued for Emily Dickinson that she was in no way a lesbian and her poems were more about life and death rather than her suppressed love of women.

I find it stereotypical to claim that a female writer is bisexual or a lesbian just because they had success during a time when male authors were in control. I'm not saying that some females weren't. That would be denial. All I'm saying is that it is ridiculous to place a woman in this catagory without real proof which has not been found yet.

The Nature of Infidelity

This week we read Ford Madow Ford's The Good Soldier which told the sad tale of two wealthy, established couples and the betrayals and scandals they hid from one another. It was a twisted tale of deceit and infidelity, yet it made me question the true nature of infidelity.

The central character, Edward Ashburnham, is "the good soldier" who is your typical nice guy. He is a great soldier, kind landlord, friendly, and noble... a real man's (and apparently ladies) man. Outwardly, he is totally devoted to his wife. However, hidden behind his noble demeanor lies years of secret affairs, almost bankruptcy, and children that have had to been "taken care of." His wife is well aware of his philandering yet she doesn't leave him due to her faith and her love of him. Even his best friends whose wife he sleeps with for nine years, still adores him even after the fact is revealed.

If he is such a great guy and so noble then why can't he control his passions? Why drag your poor wife through all that misery and heartbreak if you are so "devoted" to her? What made Edward do it time and time again?

In the end, I think the true nature of infidelity lies in an unattainable passion for something that does not exist. Sure Edward loved Leonora and respected her but he needed someone that couldn't see his flaws, that he was merely human. He needed someone who saw him as a hero, someone like Nancy who was much younger than him and didn't know better. Someone like Florence who was looking for English nobility. Someone like Maisie and the servant girl on the tracks, and the countless numbers of women he just had to have to fulfill his selfish needs.

The true nature of infidelity is selfishness. Sure back then they may of had an excuse with the arranged marriages and all that, but what is our excuse now? Just do your significant other a favor and let them go before you decide to move on to that next person. Stop being so selfish and consider others unlike Edward who merely thought of himself like the "good soldier" he was.

The Concept of Artist

This week, we read A Portrait of the Artist As A Young Man and were asked: Is Stephen an artist? Many of us had various answers on this question. This made me think about the concept of "artist" in the world of today. What does it take to gain the title of "artist?" Do you have to actually sell a work or does the fact that you created something make you an artist?

If you simply take Art 101 in high school or college, does that make you an artist or do you have to present your work in a gallery? Does the simple act of writing a poem make you a poet or do you have to be published to gain the title.

Or maybe the real determining factor is passion? If you are passionate about your art, does that make you an artist?

It all comes down to talent vs. passion. I think, in the end, if you are passionate about your work that makes you an artist. Sure you may never be published, your work may never appear in a gallery of any kind, your songs may never be heard but you can take comfort in the fact that you have created something. An expression of yourself for the world (or maybe just your immediate family) to experience.

More to Come...

Hello Everyone!

This is my first blog so I am trying to work out the kinks. Please bear with me. The title of my blog comes from a song by Debussy. Check him out, he's really great!