Ah, NPR. The source of so many infuriated tirades, and also occasionally the source of information.
Last night I was driving home from Aspen, listening to NPR as I navigated the curves and turns of I-70 in the dark. To avoid falling asleep like my lovely wife, I started talking to the radio in my head, since it is more fun to actively mock people in my mind than it is to merely listen to them. Anyway, that late at night, Colorado NPR carries broadcasts from the BBC World Service, which is generally staffed by Brits who sound more bored by the news they are announcing than they would be by, say, their cereal boxes. These stuffy Queensmen happened to be talking about Haiti, and the relief effort going on over there. This is generally not something I would rant about, since I completely support the relief, and am pulling for the Haitian people to not only get relief but to also get a leg up towards economic success in the long-term. However, this bored-as-watching-paint-dry reporter had two guests on, who were supposedly experts on the relief effort. They were talking about their frustrations that America has suspended emergency evacuation flights from Haiti to the US for critically wounded persons. Certainly news-worthy content. The official line is that America stopped the flights due to "logistical complications," and the un-official line was that American hospitals would not take more Haitians until someone had first agreed to pay for their care.
I honestly don't know anything about this aspect of the story, but that is not what I am ranting about, anyway. Just back-story so you can understand what I am about to go off on, see.
So this one dude with something like a French-Canadian-Speaking-English accent started unloading on the US relief effort. He made all sorts of claims that the Americans were doing this and that wrong, and that "logistics" were always the problem with Americans, and dontcha-remember-Katrina-where-the-Yanks-couldn't-even-take-care-of-their-own-people, and on and on. The female co-guest also added her own pepper to the mix, stating that America had "barged" into Haiti and "commandeered" the relief effort, and she claimed essentially that we were making a dog's dinner of the whole operation.
So you know what? Maybe they are right. Maybe we are not doing a great job of things down there. I honestly don't know. But here is my question: who else is there? Who else has the wherewithal to come in as an outside power and even attempt an operation like this? (If you are thinking UN, I would just like to take this moment to ask you to research which UN nation constitutes over 50% of the UN's funding and man-power).
So the US isn't helping out fast enough, and there are hurdles. OK. Well, actually, NOT OK. It is not OK to bite the hand that feeds you. Beggars cannot be choosers, and there are few if any people who more adequately fit the bill of beggars than do the Haitian people right now. They have so little, and the little they do have is lying amid rubble more often than not. They need help, and nobody is in a better position financially, militarily and economically to help the Haitians than the US. So what do we get for our efforts?
Why, the same thing the US always gets when we help out anywhere: suspicion, recrimination, criticism and blame. Whatever we do, it is not good enough. However many people we help, there are always other vociferous boobies who can only find fulfilment in searching for criticisms. If we pull a survivor out of the rubble, we get complaints that the survivor was too dusty. If we stabilize an economy, we get accusations of being profit-motivated, heartless capitalists. If we liberate a country from a dictator, we are accused of being imperialist expansionists.
In short, whatever we do is wrong, nothing we do is enough. Why? Because we are America, and since nobody can do what we do as well as we do, all they are left with is little-man syndrome of complaint and whining. What makes me proud among all of this is that America still goes about helping people and following American values. We are far from perfect, and we are admittedly opportunistic and (like everyone else) do things that reflect well upon us. But we still go out and do things to help other people in the world, no matter how popular or beloved we are for our efforts. So the critics can go to hell, and we will go to Haiti.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
State of the Union
Of course, there is no way I could let something like the State of the Union go past without adding my own pepper to it.
I like Obama. I think he is charismatic (and after Bush, having a president who at least sounds intelligent is hugely refreshing). He looks like a leader. He comes across like a man who knows where he is going, and who knows what he wants. Even if I don't always agree with him, at least I feel comfortable with him at the helm.
He gave a fantastic speech. Full of potent sound-bites, tough and firm on his issues, and admitting to some mistakes. He even was inspiring, motivational and energizing; things that SoU speeches rarely manage to be.
But it was not the speech itself that I found most telling. I kept my eyes on the ladies and gentlemen sitting in the audience, wearing their expensive suits and dresses, paid for by you and me. I could not help but notice the powerful physical display of partisan division in our government. At regular intervals, the speech was interrupted by thunderous applause and standing ovations. Some of those ovations came from the whole combined house, but more of that applause came from only half. There were times when only one half clapped at all, while the other sat in clear disapproval, not even gracing the president with so much as a clap.
That is precisely what is broken with our country. There is no way that those educated, intelligent individuals are truly ideologically that divided. I don't buy it. It is artificial, and that artifice goes both ways. Not all of the Dems are vociferous supporters of Obama. And not all of the Republicans are fervent opponents. But they all cave to the pressure of their party. When the party shouts "hooray," all the members are compelled to shout along, whether they feel to or not. And when the party says "boo," only the career suicidal will go against the grain.
This is clear evidence of one of my major complaints about our country: we are not represented by our representatives. Rather, they are cowed, pushed, bribed, pressured into representing their party. Only statements that are clearly popular (like "America does not quit") get the approval of all. I don't buy it. I feel cheated by it. And so should you. If you voted for someone who now follows the dictates of a party, then you have been robbed of your vote.
Anyway, that is one issue. Another thing I loved was that he called out the Supreme Court for their moronic decision from last week about campaign finance. They deserve to have some serious negative heat focused their way. It was great to see them eat a little crow, seated there in the position of greatest honor in the crowd.
The last thing I will only touch on actually came from the Republican response, and I can't talk about it for too long or my computer will melt. In general, I felt that the response was pathetic. Clearly written well in advance of the speech, the response reflected more of the president's points than it refuted or challenged. It was weak sauce. But there was one statement that made my blood boil: when what's-his-face the Governor of Virginia claimed that America has "the best health care system in the world" and that people don't want the Federal Government to run it.
OK, this is nothing more than evidence that this guy has not a single clue as to what he is talking about. America has the best health care system in the world? Where the hell did he get that information? Our health care is the most broken in the developed world! How often have you heard of people coming to America for medical tourism? Never. Instead, Americans go to places like Columbia to have life-saving surgeries BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD AMERICAN HEALTH CARE and the Colombian surgeons are just as good as ours. Look it up - Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year getting health care elsewhere, precisely because our health system is NOT better, just more expensive. Now, I will admit that our hospitals are very good. For those fortunate enough to be able to afford good health insurance, American health coverage just might be the best in the world. However, so many people simply can't afford this care, that America does not even have the best average health care in the world. That honor goes to Sweden, with their (gasp) socialized heath care. Yup, the Swedes are the healthiest people in the world, and have the highest standard of living, and their health care is entirely run by their government. So, that leaves us looking at what can only be referred to as luxury health care, available only to the wealthy. So America has the world's best luxury health care.
But I don't think health care should be a luxury, given only to those who can afford it. I compare it to a steak house with the world's best steak. As long as I don't have enough money to afford that steak, this world's best steak house might as well be the very worse as far as I am concerned. I can't afford it either way. Only if I have the means of accessing the system does the quality of that system even apply to me. So no, we do not have the best health care system in the world. And I know what I am talking about. I work with the Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill, traditionally the most under served health care population for myriad reasons. These people are constantly denied coverage, shuffled from one care giver to another, and generally mistreated. Why? Because they can't afford good care. Since they don't have money they have no power. They can't demand good care because they can't pay out of pocket, and can't afford insurance. So they tend to go untreated, and when they do have a crisis and need treatment, that treatment must be paid for by anemic system that cannot support them. There must be a better way. In America, there MUST be a better way.
I like Obama. I think he is charismatic (and after Bush, having a president who at least sounds intelligent is hugely refreshing). He looks like a leader. He comes across like a man who knows where he is going, and who knows what he wants. Even if I don't always agree with him, at least I feel comfortable with him at the helm.
He gave a fantastic speech. Full of potent sound-bites, tough and firm on his issues, and admitting to some mistakes. He even was inspiring, motivational and energizing; things that SoU speeches rarely manage to be.
But it was not the speech itself that I found most telling. I kept my eyes on the ladies and gentlemen sitting in the audience, wearing their expensive suits and dresses, paid for by you and me. I could not help but notice the powerful physical display of partisan division in our government. At regular intervals, the speech was interrupted by thunderous applause and standing ovations. Some of those ovations came from the whole combined house, but more of that applause came from only half. There were times when only one half clapped at all, while the other sat in clear disapproval, not even gracing the president with so much as a clap.
That is precisely what is broken with our country. There is no way that those educated, intelligent individuals are truly ideologically that divided. I don't buy it. It is artificial, and that artifice goes both ways. Not all of the Dems are vociferous supporters of Obama. And not all of the Republicans are fervent opponents. But they all cave to the pressure of their party. When the party shouts "hooray," all the members are compelled to shout along, whether they feel to or not. And when the party says "boo," only the career suicidal will go against the grain.
This is clear evidence of one of my major complaints about our country: we are not represented by our representatives. Rather, they are cowed, pushed, bribed, pressured into representing their party. Only statements that are clearly popular (like "America does not quit") get the approval of all. I don't buy it. I feel cheated by it. And so should you. If you voted for someone who now follows the dictates of a party, then you have been robbed of your vote.
Anyway, that is one issue. Another thing I loved was that he called out the Supreme Court for their moronic decision from last week about campaign finance. They deserve to have some serious negative heat focused their way. It was great to see them eat a little crow, seated there in the position of greatest honor in the crowd.
The last thing I will only touch on actually came from the Republican response, and I can't talk about it for too long or my computer will melt. In general, I felt that the response was pathetic. Clearly written well in advance of the speech, the response reflected more of the president's points than it refuted or challenged. It was weak sauce. But there was one statement that made my blood boil: when what's-his-face the Governor of Virginia claimed that America has "the best health care system in the world" and that people don't want the Federal Government to run it.
OK, this is nothing more than evidence that this guy has not a single clue as to what he is talking about. America has the best health care system in the world? Where the hell did he get that information? Our health care is the most broken in the developed world! How often have you heard of people coming to America for medical tourism? Never. Instead, Americans go to places like Columbia to have life-saving surgeries BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD AMERICAN HEALTH CARE and the Colombian surgeons are just as good as ours. Look it up - Americans spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year getting health care elsewhere, precisely because our health system is NOT better, just more expensive. Now, I will admit that our hospitals are very good. For those fortunate enough to be able to afford good health insurance, American health coverage just might be the best in the world. However, so many people simply can't afford this care, that America does not even have the best average health care in the world. That honor goes to Sweden, with their (gasp) socialized heath care. Yup, the Swedes are the healthiest people in the world, and have the highest standard of living, and their health care is entirely run by their government. So, that leaves us looking at what can only be referred to as luxury health care, available only to the wealthy. So America has the world's best luxury health care.
But I don't think health care should be a luxury, given only to those who can afford it. I compare it to a steak house with the world's best steak. As long as I don't have enough money to afford that steak, this world's best steak house might as well be the very worse as far as I am concerned. I can't afford it either way. Only if I have the means of accessing the system does the quality of that system even apply to me. So no, we do not have the best health care system in the world. And I know what I am talking about. I work with the Severely and Persistently Mentally Ill, traditionally the most under served health care population for myriad reasons. These people are constantly denied coverage, shuffled from one care giver to another, and generally mistreated. Why? Because they can't afford good care. Since they don't have money they have no power. They can't demand good care because they can't pay out of pocket, and can't afford insurance. So they tend to go untreated, and when they do have a crisis and need treatment, that treatment must be paid for by anemic system that cannot support them. There must be a better way. In America, there MUST be a better way.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Broken Things
American Campaign Finance:
So the American Supreme Court decided today that it is OK for corporations to essentially buy elections. They just overturned an old campaign finance law that restricted the political contributions of corporations, and opened the doors for them to give unrestricted amounts of money to candidates. So essentially, what we will have is corporations pouring massive amounts of money into the election funds of candidates, producing even more of those asinine campaign ads, and making for even more corrupt politicians. Just what this country needed. Yeah - that is broken.
Aid Delivery to Haiti:
I keep hearing basically the same exact story coming out of Haiti: there is tons of aid just waiting to be delivered to the starving survivors, but there is no way to get the aid to the people because the airport is jammed, the port is busted, and the roads are impassable. Man, it makes me almost wish that someone had invented some kind of aircraft that is capable of vertical take-off and landing, that could fly supplies and troops and aid workers to the remote areas where people need help. With a vehicle like that, we could have helped all of these people already, it seems. . . .
Heck, I dunno: HELICOPTER anyone? All these excuses about not getting aid out are pathetic. If we can drop food and guns and jeeps and tanks behind enemy lines via helicopter while those choppers are getting SHOT AT, why on earth can we not do the same thing to help people who are desperately in need? That is broken.
This Guy:
So the American Supreme Court decided today that it is OK for corporations to essentially buy elections. They just overturned an old campaign finance law that restricted the political contributions of corporations, and opened the doors for them to give unrestricted amounts of money to candidates. So essentially, what we will have is corporations pouring massive amounts of money into the election funds of candidates, producing even more of those asinine campaign ads, and making for even more corrupt politicians. Just what this country needed. Yeah - that is broken.
Aid Delivery to Haiti:
I keep hearing basically the same exact story coming out of Haiti: there is tons of aid just waiting to be delivered to the starving survivors, but there is no way to get the aid to the people because the airport is jammed, the port is busted, and the roads are impassable. Man, it makes me almost wish that someone had invented some kind of aircraft that is capable of vertical take-off and landing, that could fly supplies and troops and aid workers to the remote areas where people need help. With a vehicle like that, we could have helped all of these people already, it seems. . . .
Heck, I dunno: HELICOPTER anyone? All these excuses about not getting aid out are pathetic. If we can drop food and guns and jeeps and tanks behind enemy lines via helicopter while those choppers are getting SHOT AT, why on earth can we not do the same thing to help people who are desperately in need? That is broken.
This Guy:
Good ol' Conservidiot Pat "Wouldn't Know God if He Shook My Hand" Robertson. Listen to what he said recently, in his typical way of speaking first, looking goofy second, and thinking sometime next week:
"It may be a blessing in disguise. ... Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. Haitians were originally under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon the third, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, we will serve you if you will get us free from the French. True story. And so, the devil said, okay it's a deal. Ever since they have been cursed by one thing after the other." –Pat Robertson, on the earthquake in Haiti that destroyed the capital and killed tens of thousands of people, Jan. 13, 2010
OK, Pat: we all know you are a blathering moron, but please explain this: what precisely did the devil do to overthrow the French? Were you there when this deal was made? Is it in some voodoo journal you read? Or maybe you know about it from your own extensive Satan worship. Whatever the case may be, one thing is completely clear: God would NEVER do this to people, especially not for something as silly as making some supposed pact with the devil. God LOVES people, and earthquakes just happen. If God punished people for doing evil things, why didn't he wipe Rome off the map after killing thousands of innocents during the Crusades? Or why didn't he throw Palestine into the sea after the Jews killed his son? Or, better yet, why hasn't he afflicted Pat Robertson with every disease known to man for sowing his particular brand of toxic ignorance and hate?
So yeah, this guy is broken.
Monday, January 11, 2010
The American Non-Democracy
Ah, I was just thinking back to my Jr. High American History class. I'm sure you all remember it: it was the class where I first really understood what democracy meant, and learned in a meaningful way that America was a democracy.
Well, from that time to this, it seems I have been forced to unlearn that fact. America is not in fact a democracy. A democracy is a system in which a body of people get together to elect someone who then goes to the law-making place and represents the people who elected them.
Yeah, America doesn't have that.
We have a coin toss.
See, this last year (you remember; Obama, Hope, change, failing banks, foreclosures, wars, etc.) we had all these high hopes about getting real change done in Washington because there was a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democrat in the White House. Surely this would be a prime year for some progress.
Well, fast-forward back to the present, and you see that the world has not, in fact, been saved. Not even Washington has been saved. All the high hopes for getting stuff done have been thwarted. And why? Our useless, non-democratic, non-elected, non-interested-at-all-in-what-you-want political parties.
Last year, the House of Representatives cast more than 1/2 of all of its votes straight along party lines. The Senate cast 2/3 of its votes the same way, which was a new record. So, in a year where progress was supposed to happen and change be accomplished, instead we got Our Side vs. Your Side. Asses vs. Elephants.
It seems to me that when the choice is Republican vs. Democrat, the unmentioned loser is Americans. Whatever one side wants, the other side hates, if for no other reason than because the idea comes from the other side. This set up cannot allow elected officials to actually vote their conciences, especially when the balance of power is so tight. Step outside of party lines and you make yourself a pariah, and you can kiss your future funding goodbye. So, no sooner than our officials are elected, they bid farewell to their constituent loyalties, and become loyal to their new bosses: their party.
So we do not have a democracy. Not at all. We vote people into their party, and then the party decides what gets done. Do you remember ever voting for the head of a national party? No, because they are not democratically elected. You and I don't get to pick the people who run the country from behind the scenes. Nobody votes for the Wizard of Oz.
To my way of thinking, you can be a Republican or a Democrat or an American. But not more than one at a time.
Well, from that time to this, it seems I have been forced to unlearn that fact. America is not in fact a democracy. A democracy is a system in which a body of people get together to elect someone who then goes to the law-making place and represents the people who elected them.
Yeah, America doesn't have that.
We have a coin toss.
See, this last year (you remember; Obama, Hope, change, failing banks, foreclosures, wars, etc.) we had all these high hopes about getting real change done in Washington because there was a Democratic majority in both houses and a Democrat in the White House. Surely this would be a prime year for some progress.
Well, fast-forward back to the present, and you see that the world has not, in fact, been saved. Not even Washington has been saved. All the high hopes for getting stuff done have been thwarted. And why? Our useless, non-democratic, non-elected, non-interested-at-all-in-what-you-want political parties.
Last year, the House of Representatives cast more than 1/2 of all of its votes straight along party lines. The Senate cast 2/3 of its votes the same way, which was a new record. So, in a year where progress was supposed to happen and change be accomplished, instead we got Our Side vs. Your Side. Asses vs. Elephants.
It seems to me that when the choice is Republican vs. Democrat, the unmentioned loser is Americans. Whatever one side wants, the other side hates, if for no other reason than because the idea comes from the other side. This set up cannot allow elected officials to actually vote their conciences, especially when the balance of power is so tight. Step outside of party lines and you make yourself a pariah, and you can kiss your future funding goodbye. So, no sooner than our officials are elected, they bid farewell to their constituent loyalties, and become loyal to their new bosses: their party.
So we do not have a democracy. Not at all. We vote people into their party, and then the party decides what gets done. Do you remember ever voting for the head of a national party? No, because they are not democratically elected. You and I don't get to pick the people who run the country from behind the scenes. Nobody votes for the Wizard of Oz.
To my way of thinking, you can be a Republican or a Democrat or an American. But not more than one at a time.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Terminator: Salvation Review
Remember that whole scandal back when Terminator: Salvation was being made? You know, the one where Christian Bale went all psycho on a crew member for walking into the shot, and verbally assaulted him for about five minutes? Yeah, well I finally figured out where all that anger came from.
See, I just watched that movie. It makes complete sense to me now. I think that if I had been given several hundred million dollars to make a major blockbuster movie, and despite my best efforts that movie refused to be saved from complete suckiness, I would be pretty testy too.
This movie was a complete joke. It had all the elements of post-apocalyptica that Hollywood does so well, with the dazzling explosions and car crashes, and cool CGI robots. They even resurrected young Arni to come back and kick some trash for a while. The tragedy is that the movie failed to do one crucial thing: make sense.
The list of stupid impossibilities that I saw in this movie completely obliterated my suspension of disbelief. For instance: Sky Net is capable of finding and hunting down three lonely little people in all the vastness of blown-to-hell Los Angeles, simply because someone played some old butt-rock on a car radio. But for some inexplicable reason, this same omnipotent Sky Net can't manage to find the fully operational AIR BASE and all the HELICOPTERS. (sorry, but this kind of stuff makes me angry. Something about insulting my intelligence for the sake of taking a short-cut to a dramatic scene, and letting logic and rationality suffer for cinematography.
There were a bunch of other things. Like why on earth are there random fires burning all over the place? Didn't this war happen years ago? Not even tires burn that long. Sure, it looks cool and all desolate-like, but seriously: fires. burn. out. eventually. And while we are talking about fire, there was this hall-of-famer: someone tells the new cyborg GI Joe that it is dangerous to move around at night because the uber-bots see infrared. Good to know. But then, maybe ten minutes later, Cyborg GI Joe has saved a street-savvy A-10 Warthog pilot and they hole up for the night AND MAKE A BONFIRE! Holy sweet *#@#! For the love of $%#&! Oh, the HUMANITY!!!
Ok, I am calm again. But seriously, this is what Hollywood spends millions on? Flashy lights, chase scenes, and super-star paychecks? It seems to me that there must have been at least some money in that pot to pay a guy to check the story-board and catch these blatantly illogical snafus. Such as the dramatic final "bad-guys-get-what-they-deserve" scene, when they blow Sky Net straight to Hades in nuclear fire. Why, oh sweet mercy, why does the rescue helicopter have to be flying RIGHT OVER THE EXPLOSION?
So yeah, if it was my movie, I would be pissed as all get out. So Christian Bale, I am right with you. After watching this movie, I think you may have even been too easy on the guy.
See, I just watched that movie. It makes complete sense to me now. I think that if I had been given several hundred million dollars to make a major blockbuster movie, and despite my best efforts that movie refused to be saved from complete suckiness, I would be pretty testy too.
This movie was a complete joke. It had all the elements of post-apocalyptica that Hollywood does so well, with the dazzling explosions and car crashes, and cool CGI robots. They even resurrected young Arni to come back and kick some trash for a while. The tragedy is that the movie failed to do one crucial thing: make sense.
The list of stupid impossibilities that I saw in this movie completely obliterated my suspension of disbelief. For instance: Sky Net is capable of finding and hunting down three lonely little people in all the vastness of blown-to-hell Los Angeles, simply because someone played some old butt-rock on a car radio. But for some inexplicable reason, this same omnipotent Sky Net can't manage to find the fully operational AIR BASE and all the HELICOPTERS. (sorry, but this kind of stuff makes me angry. Something about insulting my intelligence for the sake of taking a short-cut to a dramatic scene, and letting logic and rationality suffer for cinematography.
There were a bunch of other things. Like why on earth are there random fires burning all over the place? Didn't this war happen years ago? Not even tires burn that long. Sure, it looks cool and all desolate-like, but seriously: fires. burn. out. eventually. And while we are talking about fire, there was this hall-of-famer: someone tells the new cyborg GI Joe that it is dangerous to move around at night because the uber-bots see infrared. Good to know. But then, maybe ten minutes later, Cyborg GI Joe has saved a street-savvy A-10 Warthog pilot and they hole up for the night AND MAKE A BONFIRE! Holy sweet *#@#! For the love of $%#&! Oh, the HUMANITY!!!
So yeah, if it was my movie, I would be pissed as all get out. So Christian Bale, I am right with you. After watching this movie, I think you may have even been too easy on the guy.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Avatar Review
For a while now I have flirted with the idea of putting some movie/tv/book critiques up on my blog. I have been held back mainly by the fact that I think most critics are self-important, pedantic wannabes who lack the creativity to make their own new things, so instead analyse the creations of others, often stroking their own underachieving egos by lambasting the work of their creative betters. So a critic I would rather not be. However, I often find myself most in the mood to share my opinions after I have read a book, seen a movie, or watched TV. So I found myself in a quandary: how to blog about movies and books without stooping to the level of critic.
The solution I have come up with is this: I am in no way qualified to claim to be an educated, hoity-toity critic, but I am an opinionated consumer. So that is what my reviews will be: consumer opinions, nothing more. Anyone who takes them to be educated criticisms is only fooling themselves.
So lets begin: Last night we went to see the movie Avatar in 3D. Dana and I debated whether we should go or not, since we both had heard mixed reviews. Some people said it was mindless drivel, while others thought it was the best movie experience ever. We finally decided to see for ourselves.
My personal verdict is leaning strongly towards Best Movie Experience Ever. I give it a 9 of 10. However, the Best Movie Experience Ever is different than the Best Movie Ever. This was clearly an experiential movie, and was also clearly meant to be. The 3D effects and the pure visual beauty of this movie were phenomenal. At several points I felt like I needed to dust ashes or dirt off my legs from explosions on screen. The action was phenomenal, and the only thing that kept me from feeling like I was flying my own dragon/bird thingy was that the floor didn't move. It was truly an overwhelming, convincing, transporting experience. It was one of those movies where you leave the theater knowing that the extra money you dropped was worth it simply for the experience. Even the extra money they make you pay for the 3D glasses was worth it.
But if you are going into this movie expecting to see a new Tale of Two Cities or Les Miserables, you are going to be disappointed, and it is your own dumb fault. It is not high literature. The plot is familiar and predictable: hard-bitten soldier contacts new culture, learns to love them, then works against his old people to save his new people (see: Dances with Wolves). Character development is formulaic, and there are a thousand things you can find that his movie does not do. Again, if you came into this movie expecting an academic or intellectually challenging experience, then you deserve to be disappointed, and it is your own dumb fault.
Avatar is a roller-coaster, and a dang good one. It is thrilling, exciting, novel, beautiful and powerful. You should go into this movie expecting a roller-coaster ride. Anyone who climbs into a roller-coaster expecting it to be like driving a Bentley is just showing that they are either completely retarded, or they have no idea what a roller-coaster is for.
Anyway, I came out of this movie thinking two main things; 1: The critics who have panned it for being non-intellectual have only managed to display their own shortcomings: they wanted this movie to be something it wasn't, and were unable to appreciate this movie for what it was.
Go and see it, and see it in 3D in the theater. You will love it, as long as you don't expect it to be Traffic or Million Dollar Baby. But even then, it remains a good story in it's own right, which brings me to 2: Even though the story is not new or original, it still manages to do one thing that much of "high art" fails to do: it tells a story that taps into a larger social consciousness. It tells the story of a people who wish they could go back and undo the harm they have done, of a people who regret what they had to lose in order to get what they have gained. It tells a story that virtually everyone can relate to, even if it is merely on the level of being a good person and protecting the weak. So what if that is not ground breaking? If every new work of art has to break new ground, then there is no room at all for tradition and convention. No room for familiarity or culture. In a very real way, revisiting these kinds of stories is more important than bringing new innovations to the table. We don't know if the new is worth the paper it is printed on, but the familiar themes of the past have already shown they have power and value.
The solution I have come up with is this: I am in no way qualified to claim to be an educated, hoity-toity critic, but I am an opinionated consumer. So that is what my reviews will be: consumer opinions, nothing more. Anyone who takes them to be educated criticisms is only fooling themselves.
So lets begin: Last night we went to see the movie Avatar in 3D. Dana and I debated whether we should go or not, since we both had heard mixed reviews. Some people said it was mindless drivel, while others thought it was the best movie experience ever. We finally decided to see for ourselves.
My personal verdict is leaning strongly towards Best Movie Experience Ever. I give it a 9 of 10. However, the Best Movie Experience Ever is different than the Best Movie Ever. This was clearly an experiential movie, and was also clearly meant to be. The 3D effects and the pure visual beauty of this movie were phenomenal. At several points I felt like I needed to dust ashes or dirt off my legs from explosions on screen. The action was phenomenal, and the only thing that kept me from feeling like I was flying my own dragon/bird thingy was that the floor didn't move. It was truly an overwhelming, convincing, transporting experience. It was one of those movies where you leave the theater knowing that the extra money you dropped was worth it simply for the experience. Even the extra money they make you pay for the 3D glasses was worth it.
But if you are going into this movie expecting to see a new Tale of Two Cities or Les Miserables, you are going to be disappointed, and it is your own dumb fault. It is not high literature. The plot is familiar and predictable: hard-bitten soldier contacts new culture, learns to love them, then works against his old people to save his new people (see: Dances with Wolves). Character development is formulaic, and there are a thousand things you can find that his movie does not do. Again, if you came into this movie expecting an academic or intellectually challenging experience, then you deserve to be disappointed, and it is your own dumb fault.
Avatar is a roller-coaster, and a dang good one. It is thrilling, exciting, novel, beautiful and powerful. You should go into this movie expecting a roller-coaster ride. Anyone who climbs into a roller-coaster expecting it to be like driving a Bentley is just showing that they are either completely retarded, or they have no idea what a roller-coaster is for.
Anyway, I came out of this movie thinking two main things; 1: The critics who have panned it for being non-intellectual have only managed to display their own shortcomings: they wanted this movie to be something it wasn't, and were unable to appreciate this movie for what it was.
Go and see it, and see it in 3D in the theater. You will love it, as long as you don't expect it to be Traffic or Million Dollar Baby. But even then, it remains a good story in it's own right, which brings me to 2: Even though the story is not new or original, it still manages to do one thing that much of "high art" fails to do: it tells a story that taps into a larger social consciousness. It tells the story of a people who wish they could go back and undo the harm they have done, of a people who regret what they had to lose in order to get what they have gained. It tells a story that virtually everyone can relate to, even if it is merely on the level of being a good person and protecting the weak. So what if that is not ground breaking? If every new work of art has to break new ground, then there is no room at all for tradition and convention. No room for familiarity or culture. In a very real way, revisiting these kinds of stories is more important than bringing new innovations to the table. We don't know if the new is worth the paper it is printed on, but the familiar themes of the past have already shown they have power and value.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)