I am a student of film but I'm no god. I don't know everything. I don't know what good acting is or good special effects or any of that stuff. All thats important but I usually don't consider those things when determining if I did in fact like the movie. So having said that, when I continue this little diatribe about Godzilla (1998), know that I'm not going to discuss any of those things. I am going to talk about the plot and what the movie says about people as a culture or species or however you'd like to classify us.
The plot is weak. A group of scientists and soldiers must kill the monster before it destroys the city, multiply, and take over the world. This may seem all well and good but my problem with it is, "Who is the antagonist/protagonist"? If you think that Godzilla is the antagonist, you have to ask yourself, "Is Godzilla trying to stop the protagonist"? That's what an antagonist does, they try to stop the protagonist from accomplishing thier goal.
So what's the protagonists' goal? First, who's the protagonist? Let's just say it's Nik Tatopolous played by Matthew Broderick. So what's his goal? He wants to stop Godzilla, or better, he wants to kill it because if he doesn't, it will multiply and take over the world. Okay. But that means that the way Godzilla is trying to stop Nik from accomplishing his goal is by...uh...not being killed.
Well that's not very compelling! Of course it doesn't want to die. It's stupid. But if you think about it even more, you ask yourself, "What side should I be rooting for"? And this leads to what I really wanted to talk about - what does this movie say about us? What's it say about our values and culture?
Well, it's not good. In the beginning of the film, we are shown nukes going off in French Polynesia and various reptiles being exposed to the radioactive fallout which turns Godzilla from mild-mannered komodo dragon to gigantic lizard. And as the movie progresses, people get scared and decide that this thing poses a threat to mankind and it must be destroyed. And we destroy it. We destory it and it's kids. Nice. Now this thing did considerable damage to NYC but that's the only thing it did that prompted the military to be involved. It wasn't malicious, that's the point.
So this is what I got out of it: competition must always be destroyed, even if it doesn't pose an immediate threat. And what's worse is the fact that we created the thing from the nuclear bombs. I think Godzilla should have won. We created the monster, its only fitting that it destroy the creator. That idea is a classic literary and cinematic technique. But the ending they had just summed up humans this way - we destroy. And the only thing that comes from our destruction are horrific monstrosities that, should punish us for our destructive ways, but instead, they too are destroyed.
My ending would have been hundreds of Godzillas roaming some grassland in Africa in harmony with the other animals. In the foreground, a band of humans hide behind some bushes wielding spears. The world would have been returned to a simplier place thanks to the Godzillas. That ending would have been poetic justice served to people for creating nuclear weapons.
But no, nothing is learned from this film. No insights gained, nothing can be taken from this film other than reinforcement for our collective appetite for destruction.
22 August 2007
20 July 2007
To Kill a Celebrity
A scary thought is that any person that I know could, potentially, become a celebrity. They walk among us, everyday, donning civilian clothes and attemping to fit in. You could be in line at the bank or a grocery store and a celebrity could be just behind you buying milk, eggs, and maybe even cereal. It's a scary thought. But there is hope. We need not live in fear. No longer must we constantly be looking over our collective shoulder, thanks to Us Weekly.
Yes that supermarket tabloid we've all come to know and love has saved humanity. There is a section of the magazine entitled, "Celebrities: They're just like us!", where paparazzi take photos of celebs doing everyday things like walking, yawning, putting in eye drops, and other banal activities to prove their humanity.
Everytime I see those articles, I think of the movie Reign of Fire with Matthew McConnehey and Christian Bale. When Van Zant and his team of ruffians come to London, he tells Quinn about the true nature of the dragons. "They're made of flesh and blood! They got a heart, liver, and mind. You take out one of them, you bring down the beast!" I love that speech just because McConnehey is bald, bearded, and ripped to shreds and is almost always crying tears of absolute passion in every scene. But when ever I watch that movie, I always think of Us Weekly and the reminders they give us about how "normal" celebrities are. I guess some people think you have to decapitate celebrites Highlander style or shoot them with silver bullets to bring down.
This is why I would never want to be famous and/or a celebrity: you lose your humanity and you spend the rest of your life trying to get it back. This is probably why so many celebrities form charities and foundations, so they look like they care. I'm sure they do, too. I don't think all celebrities are shallow and callous and full of hate. I don't think they think of themselves as gods on Olympus. But we do. That's how we see them. I know this because there is a section in Us Weekly called "Celebrities: They're Just Like Us!". If we thought celebrities were just normal Joe Schmos then that article would never exist. But I guess in the long run, that section is good. People shouldn't think of celebrities as superpowerful uber-people and the article definate brings them down from that stature. I just think it's silly that we NEED that article to do so.
Yes that supermarket tabloid we've all come to know and love has saved humanity. There is a section of the magazine entitled, "Celebrities: They're just like us!", where paparazzi take photos of celebs doing everyday things like walking, yawning, putting in eye drops, and other banal activities to prove their humanity.
Everytime I see those articles, I think of the movie Reign of Fire with Matthew McConnehey and Christian Bale. When Van Zant and his team of ruffians come to London, he tells Quinn about the true nature of the dragons. "They're made of flesh and blood! They got a heart, liver, and mind. You take out one of them, you bring down the beast!" I love that speech just because McConnehey is bald, bearded, and ripped to shreds and is almost always crying tears of absolute passion in every scene. But when ever I watch that movie, I always think of Us Weekly and the reminders they give us about how "normal" celebrities are. I guess some people think you have to decapitate celebrites Highlander style or shoot them with silver bullets to bring down.
This is why I would never want to be famous and/or a celebrity: you lose your humanity and you spend the rest of your life trying to get it back. This is probably why so many celebrities form charities and foundations, so they look like they care. I'm sure they do, too. I don't think all celebrities are shallow and callous and full of hate. I don't think they think of themselves as gods on Olympus. But we do. That's how we see them. I know this because there is a section in Us Weekly called "Celebrities: They're Just Like Us!". If we thought celebrities were just normal Joe Schmos then that article would never exist. But I guess in the long run, that section is good. People shouldn't think of celebrities as superpowerful uber-people and the article definate brings them down from that stature. I just think it's silly that we NEED that article to do so.
16 July 2007
Internshit and Actors Welcome
If there is one thing that I can pull from my internship it's that work can never always be fun. And by work, I mean work at a career, not at some stupid summer job or an hourly gig. I mean like what you want to do when you "grow up" or whatever. Luckily, it's worse when you just start out but sadly, that's where I am right now. Mind-numbing is the only word to describe the work I did today. Absolutely mind-fucking-numbing. I had to log footage from interviews for a Towson University promotional video. That was a complete fuck.
But it was actually kind of funny. The people they interviewed didn't know what to say. They couldn't make the school look good. They talked a lot without saying anything. Oddly enough, one of them was a political science major and I think that skill will definately come in handy for him at some point.
Anyway, so they are just going on and on with countless "um's" and "uh's" that I actually have to type. But the best part came at the end where the interviewers asked them to do a little plug in about the school's tour. They basically asked them to act which I think was asking too much of them. They asked the interviewees to be energetic and spontaeous and to "just have fun". Well the only fun to be had was at thier expense with all of the nonsense that spew out of thier mouths.
The first guy just started screaming. But he was a political science major so he didn't want to pull a Howard Dean and so he threw in some big words with the screaming to off-set the ridiculousness. He said, "OH MY GOD IT'S AWESOME! IT'S....STUPENDOUS!!!!"
What?
He continued by saying if we don't go on the tour, a part of him will die.
BUT WHAT PART WILL IT BE!?!?!?!
The next guy was pretty calm but he just went off on one of the wilder tangents I've heard. He starts talking about Stephan's Hall:
"Oh man, Stephan's hall is like...so old! Oh my God, it's crazy how old it is. And then you go over to the other side of campus on the other side and it's like the 70s and you're like, "Wow, did I just step into a time warp or something?" you know. It's awesome".
I don't think I need to comment.
They were just saying the stupidest shit. I almost thought it was better than the internet but I didn't want to get ahead of myself. I wanted them to completely go off the deep end and say like, "If you don't go on the tour then your mom will get AIDS and your dog will be raped by a homeless man!" That's the sort of incentive our youth needs to get them motivated! I just hope that they say in the beginning "Not an actor" when they're picture pops up in the video. Although, I don't think that will be necessary.
But it was actually kind of funny. The people they interviewed didn't know what to say. They couldn't make the school look good. They talked a lot without saying anything. Oddly enough, one of them was a political science major and I think that skill will definately come in handy for him at some point.
Anyway, so they are just going on and on with countless "um's" and "uh's" that I actually have to type. But the best part came at the end where the interviewers asked them to do a little plug in about the school's tour. They basically asked them to act which I think was asking too much of them. They asked the interviewees to be energetic and spontaeous and to "just have fun". Well the only fun to be had was at thier expense with all of the nonsense that spew out of thier mouths.
The first guy just started screaming. But he was a political science major so he didn't want to pull a Howard Dean and so he threw in some big words with the screaming to off-set the ridiculousness. He said, "OH MY GOD IT'S AWESOME! IT'S....STUPENDOUS!!!!"
What?
He continued by saying if we don't go on the tour, a part of him will die.
BUT WHAT PART WILL IT BE!?!?!?!
The next guy was pretty calm but he just went off on one of the wilder tangents I've heard. He starts talking about Stephan's Hall:
"Oh man, Stephan's hall is like...so old! Oh my God, it's crazy how old it is. And then you go over to the other side of campus on the other side and it's like the 70s and you're like, "Wow, did I just step into a time warp or something?" you know. It's awesome".
I don't think I need to comment.
They were just saying the stupidest shit. I almost thought it was better than the internet but I didn't want to get ahead of myself. I wanted them to completely go off the deep end and say like, "If you don't go on the tour then your mom will get AIDS and your dog will be raped by a homeless man!" That's the sort of incentive our youth needs to get them motivated! I just hope that they say in the beginning "Not an actor" when they're picture pops up in the video. Although, I don't think that will be necessary.
02 July 2007
Wikipedia: The Cracked-Out Human Brain on the Internet
The internet sucks. There are too many idiots on it who think they know what the hell they are talking about. But I know better. It seems like anyone can create a website, write something, and feel important. This all started back in high school when we were taught how to identify "credible sources". My disdain for the internet only grew as the years passed. I now have three websites that I visit everyday (excluding Google) and two of them are the essentially the same. They are: Rottentomatoes, IMDb, and Wikipedia.
Having said that, you're probably thinking that I am a huge hypocrite. And I am to some degree, I won't deny that. Those who need help understanding why I am a hypocrite need only visit Wikipedia.org once. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is compiled by everyday websurfers. What makes this interesting is that, while you can cite it, articles can be added by ANYONE. Wikipedia is not reliable by any means but that is not why I enjoy it. No, there is a more primal, instinctual appreciation.
Wikipedia is set up with a variety of links on every page. These links are usually related to the current page but some go off on tangents both great and small. I prefer the bigger tangents though because they will transport me to a page that I would not have visited otherwise. One can be looking up cooking tips and be transported to Pro-Pedophilic Activism in a matter of seconds. Once I was "researching" chloroplasts for my biology class last semester and, through no fault of my own, I was taken to a page dedicated to the "Art of Murder". Coincidentally, just as I had clicked the link my roommate walked in on me looking at a page called "Art of Murder" and asked what exactly it was I was doing. And the great thing was I didn't have an answer. The only thing I could mutter out was, "Dude, it's wikipedia."
And that's what I want to talk about really. The techo-psychological correlation between wikipedia and a phenomoeon called stream of consciousness.
We all do it. When we are alone or walking to class or whatever, we think about the most random shit. And the topics vary from somewhat related to completely off-the-fucking-wall. A good example of this is in the film THE WEATHER MAN with Nicolas Cage during the scene where he goes to get tartar sauce. We think of something and, for one reason or another, we begin to think of something else.
But it's hard to study or analyze stream of consciousness because a) You're not really thinking about whatever it is you're thinking about. It's a lot like staring, just because you're looking at something doesn't mean you know what you're looking at. Unfortunately this gets guys in trouble with the ladies on many occasions. And b) It's nearly impossible to backtrack your thoughts because of point A. You're not thinking about it, so you can't recall why you ended up on a thought that made you think, "Why the hell am I thinking about this!?!?!"
But with wikipedia, this is possible. If you find yourself in a daze and browsing through wikipedia and you end up on "Gay Male Pornstars of the 80s" when you started on particle acceleration, you can simply click the "back" button on the browser and see how you came to your current page.
The main difference between stream of consciousness and wikipedia is reassurance - reassurance that you are not insane. If you start thinking about one thing and end up on something horrific and/or taboo, you can start doubting yourself or your mental health. But on wikipedia it's okay because you can simply retrace your steps and go back to where you started. If you choose to do this, you can at least lie to yourself that you are not out of your mind or a goddamn psychopath.
Having said that, you're probably thinking that I am a huge hypocrite. And I am to some degree, I won't deny that. Those who need help understanding why I am a hypocrite need only visit Wikipedia.org once. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that is compiled by everyday websurfers. What makes this interesting is that, while you can cite it, articles can be added by ANYONE. Wikipedia is not reliable by any means but that is not why I enjoy it. No, there is a more primal, instinctual appreciation.
Wikipedia is set up with a variety of links on every page. These links are usually related to the current page but some go off on tangents both great and small. I prefer the bigger tangents though because they will transport me to a page that I would not have visited otherwise. One can be looking up cooking tips and be transported to Pro-Pedophilic Activism in a matter of seconds. Once I was "researching" chloroplasts for my biology class last semester and, through no fault of my own, I was taken to a page dedicated to the "Art of Murder". Coincidentally, just as I had clicked the link my roommate walked in on me looking at a page called "Art of Murder" and asked what exactly it was I was doing. And the great thing was I didn't have an answer. The only thing I could mutter out was, "Dude, it's wikipedia."
And that's what I want to talk about really. The techo-psychological correlation between wikipedia and a phenomoeon called stream of consciousness.
We all do it. When we are alone or walking to class or whatever, we think about the most random shit. And the topics vary from somewhat related to completely off-the-fucking-wall. A good example of this is in the film THE WEATHER MAN with Nicolas Cage during the scene where he goes to get tartar sauce. We think of something and, for one reason or another, we begin to think of something else.
But it's hard to study or analyze stream of consciousness because a) You're not really thinking about whatever it is you're thinking about. It's a lot like staring, just because you're looking at something doesn't mean you know what you're looking at. Unfortunately this gets guys in trouble with the ladies on many occasions. And b) It's nearly impossible to backtrack your thoughts because of point A. You're not thinking about it, so you can't recall why you ended up on a thought that made you think, "Why the hell am I thinking about this!?!?!"
But with wikipedia, this is possible. If you find yourself in a daze and browsing through wikipedia and you end up on "Gay Male Pornstars of the 80s" when you started on particle acceleration, you can simply click the "back" button on the browser and see how you came to your current page.
The main difference between stream of consciousness and wikipedia is reassurance - reassurance that you are not insane. If you start thinking about one thing and end up on something horrific and/or taboo, you can start doubting yourself or your mental health. But on wikipedia it's okay because you can simply retrace your steps and go back to where you started. If you choose to do this, you can at least lie to yourself that you are not out of your mind or a goddamn psychopath.
12 May 2007
Stupid Old Man
Today in my biology class, we watched a video on psychological evolution. The scientists set up this experiment to test olfactory senses. The experiment called for a group of young men to wear the same white t-shirt for several days without washing it. As the days past, their unique biological "musk" was infused into the shirt. Then, a bunch of ladies were asked to smell the shirts and see which one they found more appealing. As it turns out, ladies found shirts from young men with opposite biological genes more appealing. This means many different things including ethnicity. But they found them more appealing because when people with different genes mate the offspring are more diversified and therefore "stronger" than the parents. The smaller the difference in genes, the weaker the offspring's genes will be. This explains why children whose parents are different races are healthier and, to some degree, more attractive than those from the parents of the same race. So the women are smelling a mate who would provide the strongest offspring. And while the appeal is subconscious, it is strong and convincing nontheless. This isn't a case for "opposites attract" though because this is based around science while that idea is based around nonsense.
Anyway, after watching the video all I could think about was that stupid old man from those eHarmony commercials. You know the guy. He stresses "compatibility" in relationships. Some degree of me believes him but I still see him as a stupid old man who profits off of love, which to me seems terribly morbid.
But it's funny. Our culture does stress compatibility in relationships yet nature stresses difference. Subconsciously we may find someone appealing from either sight, smell, touch, or taste, yet our brain is telling us that another person is better because said person is more like ourselves. Perhaps this is why everyone is so fucked up. We are being pulled in so many goddamn directions we just don't know what to do. Thanks, life.
Anyway, after watching the video all I could think about was that stupid old man from those eHarmony commercials. You know the guy. He stresses "compatibility" in relationships. Some degree of me believes him but I still see him as a stupid old man who profits off of love, which to me seems terribly morbid.
But it's funny. Our culture does stress compatibility in relationships yet nature stresses difference. Subconsciously we may find someone appealing from either sight, smell, touch, or taste, yet our brain is telling us that another person is better because said person is more like ourselves. Perhaps this is why everyone is so fucked up. We are being pulled in so many goddamn directions we just don't know what to do. Thanks, life.
07 May 2007
Required Reading
I work at Fridays and as a result I must interact with the scum of society. After 10pm, the IQs of the customers coming in drops a solid 50 points and I'm left to translate what they think they are reading on the menu. I don't even know what reading level a menu is but it can't be higher than a 3rd grader's. And now I'm sad because so many of these people seriously cannot read a fucking menu. Christ.
Here are two examples from tongiht that made me doubt the future of our species:
Scene 1
Customer: "Gimme that Toucan (as in the tropical bird) Chicken Sandwich"
Me: "You mean Tuscan (as in the place in Italy) chicken sandwich?"
Customer: "WHAT?!?!!"
Scene 2
Customer: Gimme that Chedder (as in the cheese) Salmon Pasta."
Me: You mean cedar (as in the wood) salmon pasta?
customer: WHAT?!?!??!
And I have to correct them not so that I look superior to them, but simply to set expectations. They guy who wanted the Toucan Chicken Sandwich might actually expect a fucking jungle bird in between a two buns. As ludicris as that sounds, I just don't want to disappoint people. And if they get it and it's not a toucan they are eating, they will get upset. And then I have to explain to my boss why they didn't want it. "Oh, yeah, he thought it was Toucan and it's not Toucan. i don't think Perdue sells Toucan meat."
What would be even wierder is if the guy actually could taste the difference between Toucan meat and regular chicken meat. Like if I just didn't want to get into a fight with the guy and he's like, "Is this toucan?" I'm like, "Yeah. It's toucan meat alright." And then he bites into it and is like, 'This is very low quality Toucan meat". That would blow my mind. If that happened I would just admit to the guy that it's not toucan meat and that I was lying simply because he knew the difference or had at least tasted high quality toucan meat.
But it is embarrassing. These words are not to difficult to spell. The cheddar one really gets me. I know english is hard sometimes. Like when does a "c" sound like a "k" or an "s"? But come on. "Ch" makes the "ch" sounds. That's it. There is no "h" in cedar. I'm so accepting of that ambiguous "c" sounding rule that if they said "Keeder" I wouldn't correct them. But again, I can't let them think that they are going to get a pasta with cheddar cheese on it because when they don't they will get upset and then I have to explain to my boss that they don't have to pay for thier meal because they can't read.
Also, it should be noted somewhere (I suppose this will do) that if you're working at Fridays and someone orders a Strawberry Lemonade Slush, it should be assumed that they will NOT tip you.
Here are two examples from tongiht that made me doubt the future of our species:
Scene 1
Customer: "Gimme that Toucan (as in the tropical bird) Chicken Sandwich"
Me: "You mean Tuscan (as in the place in Italy) chicken sandwich?"
Customer: "WHAT?!?!!"
Scene 2
Customer: Gimme that Chedder (as in the cheese) Salmon Pasta."
Me: You mean cedar (as in the wood) salmon pasta?
customer: WHAT?!?!??!
And I have to correct them not so that I look superior to them, but simply to set expectations. They guy who wanted the Toucan Chicken Sandwich might actually expect a fucking jungle bird in between a two buns. As ludicris as that sounds, I just don't want to disappoint people. And if they get it and it's not a toucan they are eating, they will get upset. And then I have to explain to my boss why they didn't want it. "Oh, yeah, he thought it was Toucan and it's not Toucan. i don't think Perdue sells Toucan meat."
What would be even wierder is if the guy actually could taste the difference between Toucan meat and regular chicken meat. Like if I just didn't want to get into a fight with the guy and he's like, "Is this toucan?" I'm like, "Yeah. It's toucan meat alright." And then he bites into it and is like, 'This is very low quality Toucan meat". That would blow my mind. If that happened I would just admit to the guy that it's not toucan meat and that I was lying simply because he knew the difference or had at least tasted high quality toucan meat.
But it is embarrassing. These words are not to difficult to spell. The cheddar one really gets me. I know english is hard sometimes. Like when does a "c" sound like a "k" or an "s"? But come on. "Ch" makes the "ch" sounds. That's it. There is no "h" in cedar. I'm so accepting of that ambiguous "c" sounding rule that if they said "Keeder" I wouldn't correct them. But again, I can't let them think that they are going to get a pasta with cheddar cheese on it because when they don't they will get upset and then I have to explain to my boss that they don't have to pay for thier meal because they can't read.
Also, it should be noted somewhere (I suppose this will do) that if you're working at Fridays and someone orders a Strawberry Lemonade Slush, it should be assumed that they will NOT tip you.
05 May 2007
The Bush Mystique
This article is not about the president or the plant. No this article is about the band with that English guy. I was listening to Bush today and thought to myself, "They are pretty good". But I've never met someone one who told me that Bush was thier favorite band. Why is that? What's wrong with them? What surrounds Bush to attract fans only to a certain point. That point being the "They're good" or the "Yeah, I like 'em" point. They're music can be defined as art-rock but they aren't as pretenious as Genesis or Yes. This is probably because Gavin Rossdale isn't that good of a singer. So they are technically grunge but really they stem from those art-house rock bands of the 70s.
Bush has a few songs that are near-classics like "Glycerine" or "Machinehead". They are songs readily identifiable but no one really knows the words or really cares what they mean. They always seem in the shadow of bigger acts like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Three Doors Down, or Everclear. They associate themselves as being the "British version of that one band". In a sense, Bush is popular for being unpopular which could give rise to a whole new definition of cool. Maybe those parents who think they are cool because they try not to be cool are, in fact, cool. Maybe they are cooler than thier kids according to the Bush Mystique.
A little side thought: What would happen if Rose McGowan and Gavin Rossdale got married? I think the world would end. Thier names are too similar. It would be a media frenzy. I'm sure some paparazzi is sitting by some super-clock with a massive erection counting down the days to when the two celebs get hitched. And it is certainly possible, the two are of equal celebrity standing. And McGowan has actually dated a rock star already so the change wouldn't be that drastic. But if they got married, I just couldn't handle everyone saying Rosa McGowan and Gavin Rossdale. I swear those names are anagrams or something wierd.
Bush has a few songs that are near-classics like "Glycerine" or "Machinehead". They are songs readily identifiable but no one really knows the words or really cares what they mean. They always seem in the shadow of bigger acts like Red Hot Chili Peppers, Three Doors Down, or Everclear. They associate themselves as being the "British version of that one band". In a sense, Bush is popular for being unpopular which could give rise to a whole new definition of cool. Maybe those parents who think they are cool because they try not to be cool are, in fact, cool. Maybe they are cooler than thier kids according to the Bush Mystique.
A little side thought: What would happen if Rose McGowan and Gavin Rossdale got married? I think the world would end. Thier names are too similar. It would be a media frenzy. I'm sure some paparazzi is sitting by some super-clock with a massive erection counting down the days to when the two celebs get hitched. And it is certainly possible, the two are of equal celebrity standing. And McGowan has actually dated a rock star already so the change wouldn't be that drastic. But if they got married, I just couldn't handle everyone saying Rosa McGowan and Gavin Rossdale. I swear those names are anagrams or something wierd.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)