I recently watched Rachel Getting Married and the Wrestler. I feel an obligation to watch movies that have prominent Oscar nominations, these being two of them with critical acclaim. With all the hype surrounding both of these movies I tucked myself in for what I expected to be a moving and breathtaking experience. Neither of these movies, I felt, delivered.
Now when I say moving or breathtaking I don't just mean that the movie is beautiful to look at or the dialogue is so intense that I well up immediately but I do expect to feel something and crave more from the movie as each minute passes.
Rachel Getting Married was a realistic portrayal of a woman who has been in and out of rehab for much of her life and her sister is getting married. The interaction between each of the family members as they struggle to reconcile a tragic past of one daughter with a bright and happy future of another was well done in its fidelity to such a stuation. I, however, felt uncomfortable for much of the film and was anticipating the end of the movie like a person after a long day of work anticipates a strong drink. The destroyed sister, as it were, was self indulgent and pretty selfish as much of her family accused her of being. Her monologues were filled with self loathing and stories of her troubled past. It made me want leave the room immediately and I wondered why anyone would pay to feel this way when they can feel it for free in life.
The Wrestler on the other hand was a look into a small niche of society. A man, who used to be a legend in a circuit like the WWE and has found he has reached a time in his life where he isn't relevant to anyone, including his own (surprise surprise) estranged daughter. The film was poignant in its character portrayal of a man whose life has figuratively come to an end but yet he continues to eat, drink and breathe. While the film did a good job with its long takes and minimal dialogue, of showing a man who's down on his luck and life I didn't feel I gained anything by watching the movie. Now some would say (*cough cough- a friend of mine who I work with) that I always feel I have to gain something out of a movie, whether it be a profound experience, to escape, or to learn something new. And I say, well why the hell shouldn't I expect that? I pay almost 12$ to see a movie in the theater. I expect to get my money's worth. While the Wrestler certainly took me to a world I have never experienced or seen (either on TV or from the inside) at the end of it I didn't feel like I learned anything more than I had at the beginning of the movie; either about wrestling or the main character. And while I certainly felt for the guy I didn't see any evolution in the character, either upwards or downwards and I wondered, what the hell is the point then of those two hours?
Some would say I'm crazy for not appreciating either of these movies but my boyfriend--who will subsequently be known as Joosh Man (or JM when I'm lazy) brought up an interesting point: Why is it that the Academy feels that all these indie, pseudo-realistic films are the ones that are worth merit? It seems to be the case year after year that these small films with their shaky camera work and their character investigations get all the clout and movies that take you somewhere you never imagined, like Wall-E get shoved into the assumed Animation category and never thought of again. Maybe someday I'll create a new Academy that will have clout with the public and re-invite this whole idea of "good movies". Until then, I'll have to be satisfied with the movies that thrill me like my new peach "Bye Bye Birdie" (classic!).
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
What's monotony worth?
I have been pretty bad at keeping up with this blogging thing I know but I'm working on it. In an effort to keep working I have decided I need to create a schedule for my blogging, a routine that I can stick to thereby remembering to blog and having new and exciting topics on a consistent basis. In making this schedule and trying to adhere to the routine it got me thinking about responsibility. The responsibility of blogging, sure, but what other responsibilities require a routine? And with routine does monotony inevitably follow because of the constant similarity; the repetition of said routine? Routine is usually something we put in place to make sure we do something on time and correctly, aka Responsibility. Does monotony equal responsibility?
I got into a discussion about this with my father, a wise man, and he thought otherwise. Dear old Dad believed that routine was a comfort, something that fills our days and that allows us to have a constant rhythm to our life, a beat to follow. I agree with that, I actually like routine. It helps the days move along when you have something that you must do everyday. It creates a sense of achievement when that task is done or maybe something to look forward to constantly when that task is something as enjoyable as writing (if of course you like to write, though why would you if you didn't?).
However, certain routines are the signatures of being an adult such as paying bills and rent every month, taking your car in to be cleaned, oil changed, tires rotated, and if you're truly ambitious, walking a dog, feeding it, cleaning it, etc. These routines are not necessarily enjoyable though neither are they truly abhorrent but they certainly signify adulthood. If you are able to pay bills and rent on your own it can be assumed you have a job, another flag that you must be what society deems a "responsible adult". The same can be said for a car. Having a dog is usually something people do when they have what they like to call stability in their life, where they feel they can cater to a dog's need. Said stability comes from the routine of adulthood where money, time and the desire to have something else rely on you are in place.
Another argument could be made that all this consistency also comes from having a constant flow of cash which unfortunately cannot just be plucked off trees. The cash needs to come from a working job whereby repetitiveness tends to reign. Maybe not all the time but jobs usually have a daily steadiness where we do the same things everyday.
Yet another argument is that this whole idea of being what society calls an adult isn’t necessarily being an adult. Maturity is a large portion of what people like using as a qualifier for determining an adult. I have know people who were wise beyond their years and younger than I. By the same token I have known people who were 15 years my senior and had the maturity level of a teenager. I hate to say it but it’s usually men who have the hardest time growing into the maturity level of their years which is why I feel you usually see older men with younger women, they have a maturity match.
So what makes adulthood interesting? How do you break up the routine without feeling the shakiness? Do you need that routine and stability to be in place to be called an adult? One day I hope to test the boundaries of my routine and mix things up, maybe get a job that requires me to never be in one place for more than a few days. But until I feel that sudden urge to be a risk taker, I'll stick to the ebb and flow or lack thereof of good ol' regularity.
I got into a discussion about this with my father, a wise man, and he thought otherwise. Dear old Dad believed that routine was a comfort, something that fills our days and that allows us to have a constant rhythm to our life, a beat to follow. I agree with that, I actually like routine. It helps the days move along when you have something that you must do everyday. It creates a sense of achievement when that task is done or maybe something to look forward to constantly when that task is something as enjoyable as writing (if of course you like to write, though why would you if you didn't?).
However, certain routines are the signatures of being an adult such as paying bills and rent every month, taking your car in to be cleaned, oil changed, tires rotated, and if you're truly ambitious, walking a dog, feeding it, cleaning it, etc. These routines are not necessarily enjoyable though neither are they truly abhorrent but they certainly signify adulthood. If you are able to pay bills and rent on your own it can be assumed you have a job, another flag that you must be what society deems a "responsible adult". The same can be said for a car. Having a dog is usually something people do when they have what they like to call stability in their life, where they feel they can cater to a dog's need. Said stability comes from the routine of adulthood where money, time and the desire to have something else rely on you are in place.
Another argument could be made that all this consistency also comes from having a constant flow of cash which unfortunately cannot just be plucked off trees. The cash needs to come from a working job whereby repetitiveness tends to reign. Maybe not all the time but jobs usually have a daily steadiness where we do the same things everyday.
Yet another argument is that this whole idea of being what society calls an adult isn’t necessarily being an adult. Maturity is a large portion of what people like using as a qualifier for determining an adult. I have know people who were wise beyond their years and younger than I. By the same token I have known people who were 15 years my senior and had the maturity level of a teenager. I hate to say it but it’s usually men who have the hardest time growing into the maturity level of their years which is why I feel you usually see older men with younger women, they have a maturity match.
So what makes adulthood interesting? How do you break up the routine without feeling the shakiness? Do you need that routine and stability to be in place to be called an adult? One day I hope to test the boundaries of my routine and mix things up, maybe get a job that requires me to never be in one place for more than a few days. But until I feel that sudden urge to be a risk taker, I'll stick to the ebb and flow or lack thereof of good ol' regularity.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Is a Picture really worth a thousand words?
I'm not the best at this idea of writing frequently on a blog I guess. I had hoped I would be more of a--responsible is not the right word-- consistent writer than I am. But writing is writing nonetheless and here I am again putting in my two sense. My lack of writing could be due to several reasons, some of it being sheer lack of worthwhile topics, some of it being busy with a full time job, a full time life and a photojournalism class I have recently started. In our first class many people, including our instructor brought up some interesting questions and thoughts about pictures and taking pictures, one of which is: Do people really like their picture being taken?
People might argue that portraits are a way of looking into the subjects soul, their eyes being the gateway to everything they are and will be. But portraits are often posed images where the subjects are placed just so in situations that are generally contrived or preconceived. A lot of the time people in said portraits can look uncomfortable because their smile may be plastered on, not having reached the eyes through genuine mirth. Other times a portrait says nothing about those within it, merely, here we are, do we look normal?
In taking this class I had to think about what I liked taking pictures of and why. I mentioned my love of capturing people who are unaware of a camera being there at all. When they are laughing or being silly you can truly see who someone is, especially in a photo where the eyes can be looked at more closely and without the individual’s knowledge of a camera sometimes it seems as though the soul really does shine through. Maybe the reason that portraits can sometimes look so unnatural is because there is a camera present in the first place.
I have noticed that people suddenly stiffen up or plaster on some sort of look that they have cultivated over the years believing that it truly represents who they are. But how can something be a representation of you when you put it on pre-meditatively and hold it for the duration of time it takes for everyone to get in the picture and get their poses on or for the flash to go off? The flash is a whole other story that can also dilute the sincerity of an image, though technology is advancing now where kids don't look like demons from red eyes or dogs look like aliens because of their eye pigmentation being augmented by the flash.
The problem lies then in capturing those beautiful moments between people or a person with themselves without making them aware of the camera and without making it something that you plan in advance. I guess that is the test of a true photographer. I am going to experiment with a different notion. Take enough pictures with people around, even though they may be aware of it, they will become accustomed to its presence and forget the ideas they may have about photographs or even forget they are being photographed at all. We'll see how it goes. Until next time...
People might argue that portraits are a way of looking into the subjects soul, their eyes being the gateway to everything they are and will be. But portraits are often posed images where the subjects are placed just so in situations that are generally contrived or preconceived. A lot of the time people in said portraits can look uncomfortable because their smile may be plastered on, not having reached the eyes through genuine mirth. Other times a portrait says nothing about those within it, merely, here we are, do we look normal?
In taking this class I had to think about what I liked taking pictures of and why. I mentioned my love of capturing people who are unaware of a camera being there at all. When they are laughing or being silly you can truly see who someone is, especially in a photo where the eyes can be looked at more closely and without the individual’s knowledge of a camera sometimes it seems as though the soul really does shine through. Maybe the reason that portraits can sometimes look so unnatural is because there is a camera present in the first place.
I have noticed that people suddenly stiffen up or plaster on some sort of look that they have cultivated over the years believing that it truly represents who they are. But how can something be a representation of you when you put it on pre-meditatively and hold it for the duration of time it takes for everyone to get in the picture and get their poses on or for the flash to go off? The flash is a whole other story that can also dilute the sincerity of an image, though technology is advancing now where kids don't look like demons from red eyes or dogs look like aliens because of their eye pigmentation being augmented by the flash.
The problem lies then in capturing those beautiful moments between people or a person with themselves without making them aware of the camera and without making it something that you plan in advance. I guess that is the test of a true photographer. I am going to experiment with a different notion. Take enough pictures with people around, even though they may be aware of it, they will become accustomed to its presence and forget the ideas they may have about photographs or even forget they are being photographed at all. We'll see how it goes. Until next time...
Monday, January 12, 2009
Who's in control now?
The other day I was sitting, watching TV, full of food and feeling like there was no way I could possibly get up to make my lunch let alone go outside and walk around the block with the dog. It got me thinking, I'm not quite sure how but I started to wonder whether the mind or the body is in more control.
Most people are aware of the effects the brain can have over the physical body. Stress can cause people to loose hair, stop eating, or even have a heart attack. The placebo effect, a now common practice scientifically, is when someone shows marked signs of improvement from an illness when given medication they believe will work, though the medication they are given might be nothing more than sugar pills. Because the patient believes that the treatment will be beneficial they end up showing signs of progress.
On the other hand when one is paralyzed no matter how much they believe they may be be able to walk again or fantasize and dream about running in the fields they generally cannot will themselves to no longer be paralyzed. When we are asleep and dreaming no matter how hard we scream in our dream, most of the time our body will not awake out of the dream until our REM cycle has completed and our body has gotten the rest it needs. When our bones are broken only inactivity and rest can heal the physical.
If our body is destroyed there is nothing the mind can do but sit there. Conversely if s our imaginative abilities, rational sensors and/or emotional systems are destroyed we are deemed less than human, a vegetable, which in most cases results in ending a life that is believed to no longer be true life.
In reading various blogs and websites there were large arguments made for the mind being the true controller of all things human. We decide that we want to stand up and in those few milliseconds our brain sends signals down our arms telling them to push on the chair to stand up on our legs that have also been told by our brain to get ready for the imminent activity. But if those legs don't work doesn't that make everything the mind tries to achieve futile: in other words useless?
I'm not really sure there is an answer but I found it curious nonetheless. In reading one website a gentleman makes a diplomatic case (if we were to believe the two entities as opposing sides of an argument) that the two are inextricably linked and neither can function without the other. It seems to me that there have been cases where a person is breathing but in a coma with no higher brain function. Are they still human? And people continue to survive without the use of their limbs, thinking, creating and rationalizing with the rest of us. Are they truly human? I see his point, that the mind and the body work so closely with one another that you can't discredit one or give more credit to the other. Our bodies react to our emotions causing us to feel sick to our stomach or full of excited energy. Our brains get tired when our bodies are causing us to drone out in front of the television not really watching or listening.
I guess it's true that one cannot be without the other but it still made me wonder how much control my brain had over my body when I was in that food coma on the couch.
The Gentleman's article I referred to above is: http://ezinearticles.com/?Conceive,-Believe-and-Achieve---Mind-Over-Body,-or-Body-Over-Mind?&id=123040
Most people are aware of the effects the brain can have over the physical body. Stress can cause people to loose hair, stop eating, or even have a heart attack. The placebo effect, a now common practice scientifically, is when someone shows marked signs of improvement from an illness when given medication they believe will work, though the medication they are given might be nothing more than sugar pills. Because the patient believes that the treatment will be beneficial they end up showing signs of progress.
On the other hand when one is paralyzed no matter how much they believe they may be be able to walk again or fantasize and dream about running in the fields they generally cannot will themselves to no longer be paralyzed. When we are asleep and dreaming no matter how hard we scream in our dream, most of the time our body will not awake out of the dream until our REM cycle has completed and our body has gotten the rest it needs. When our bones are broken only inactivity and rest can heal the physical.
If our body is destroyed there is nothing the mind can do but sit there. Conversely if s our imaginative abilities, rational sensors and/or emotional systems are destroyed we are deemed less than human, a vegetable, which in most cases results in ending a life that is believed to no longer be true life.
In reading various blogs and websites there were large arguments made for the mind being the true controller of all things human. We decide that we want to stand up and in those few milliseconds our brain sends signals down our arms telling them to push on the chair to stand up on our legs that have also been told by our brain to get ready for the imminent activity. But if those legs don't work doesn't that make everything the mind tries to achieve futile: in other words useless?
I'm not really sure there is an answer but I found it curious nonetheless. In reading one website a gentleman makes a diplomatic case (if we were to believe the two entities as opposing sides of an argument) that the two are inextricably linked and neither can function without the other. It seems to me that there have been cases where a person is breathing but in a coma with no higher brain function. Are they still human? And people continue to survive without the use of their limbs, thinking, creating and rationalizing with the rest of us. Are they truly human? I see his point, that the mind and the body work so closely with one another that you can't discredit one or give more credit to the other. Our bodies react to our emotions causing us to feel sick to our stomach or full of excited energy. Our brains get tired when our bodies are causing us to drone out in front of the television not really watching or listening.
I guess it's true that one cannot be without the other but it still made me wonder how much control my brain had over my body when I was in that food coma on the couch.
The Gentleman's article I referred to above is: http://ezinearticles.com/?Conceive,-Believe-and-Achieve---Mind-Over-Body,-or-Body-Over-Mind?&id=123040
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
