Some replies to a recent blurb.
Re: George Lucas, the Star Wars Blu-ray edits, and the status quo
Posted By Jawsphobia 1 September 7, 2011 07:09:10 PM
Lucas does this and knows it will cause outrage. The customer may not always be right, but this is a case where the artist has too much time to overthink and to use his own property as a ginnea pig in research and development. Objectively, it's just jot good filmmaking. What's missing from this article is the fact that we DON'T HAVE TO rebuy these movies on BluRay. What am I doing with the Back to the Future Trilogy in two formats? The only new thing we might want from Lucasfilm here is the Bonus disc of missing scenes. Chances are we can find a bootleg rip of that and pick it up or download it with a clear conscience. It's not worth forking over the expense of three needlessly changed good movies we already have and three mediocre prequels. Then in February the next hype will be the theatrical 3D release of the movies Lucas has already sold you. Beginning with The Phantom Premise. I'm skipping this theatrical run, thanks, 3D or no 3D. I don't need to see Jar Jar again, much less hear Vader's "Nooooo!" in Sith let alone in Jedi. And by the way there's nothing wrong with fans being fed up. Let the BluRays collect dust on the store shelf. Let the theaters sit empty during the 3D money grab. That's the one right we do have.
Spielberg on E.T.
Posted By Jawsphobia 1 September 7, 2011 07:11:07 PM
Spielberg now recommends only the 1982 version of E.T. not the digitally changed 2002 version.
Just say noooooooooooo!
Posted By Jawsphobia 1 September 7, 2011 07:17:14 PM
I don't know about anyone here, but I've seen all the Star Wars flicks in a theater and I have them all on DVD, even the original cuts of the Original Trilogy from when they were sold with the second DVD release. We can do without the BluRay. We can do without the theatrical re-releases in 3D. We can spend money on something other than BluRay versions of movies we already have (and regular DVDs can be used on more players than BluRays). I don't have the influence to "boycott" anything, and I'm no Sparticus, but the BluRay coming out and the re-release of these special ed versions in 3D just aren't meant for me. Time to save money and enjoy what we already have. Just say no.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Run, Don't Walk, from The Blog
I don't know whether this blog should just be used for my "four pages" each morning a la The Artist's Way, except that people would be reading it so I might censor myself a bit. I just don't like the idea of spending time on something that is meant to just vent and to never be of any practical use.
But I know I have to spend that evergy on getting my screenplays solid and that means another pass for almost all of them through the laptop and through my thoughts and excreted out the printeer. If I can get my perfectly good printer to communicate with Windows 7.
I'd feel sorry for anyone actually trying to follow my blogs.
Last month I got to shoot most of video footage for a play's multimedia material.
Good experience to goose me back into the rhythm of shooting. I have to be careful not to let life beat out the filmmaker in me. I need to have my ass kicked once in a while to even take note of a time and location and commit to that. Things end up working out. Many of my own projects have been compromised one way or another - maionly by the idea that everything HAS TO be done within an allotted time, which is the case with every project. I have to ensure that in my own projects the script is respected and actors learn their lines because otherwise the lines read flat and there is less probability of the actor truly bringing more to it. The labor is the memorization. They have to be willing to do that labor. Now I've seen some actors pretty much commit themselves to someone's dialogue and build from there.
I've thought about writing a one-man show for one of the characters I've created, but the actor wants a teleprompter. That's kind of a heartbreak. And he'd rather have the play be more about himself, which is a no-go, really. I don't think I'll be writing anything based on anyone else's ideas, aside from specific adaptations of books I like. Working from anyone else' idea or life sets up a paradigm where it is all about "getting it right" according to someone else. Mind-reading interests me as a topic, but not as something I would have to do.
I also have to be especially careful about whatever I am eating. I can have great bursts of energy peter out so easily because of the type two. I have to beat that and lose weight, whether the work of weight loss is tedious or not. And that means a slightly new life. Not something to sneeze at.
Also, I have to refrain from watching so much TV on-line. I'm into No Ordinary Family, starring the guy from The Shield and Wired, as well as Julie Benz who was Rita on Dexter another favourite show. Nice touch on their anniversary episode where Benz' character at a restaurant changes reservation order with someone with the last name of Morgan. As in Rita and Dexter Morgan. I's details like that I apparently need to have grafted onto my brain instead of spending my time fine-tuning and perfecting the screenplays that are the reason I am in Toronto and alive.
So the last thing I need is this blog to update every now and then. Still not getting enough hours at work. Had a glimmer of hope that maybe the new company I'm with might inherit the last site I was supervisor at and maybe then I'd have a more clear say in how to ditch a troublesome guard who had been told showing up on time and leaving only when relieved was optional. Returning to a set site might be an improvement over the current situation, but I would also have to get rid of that problem even before committing. The same principle also applies to a film. Never accept responsibility over anyone you can't get rid of.
But I know I have to spend that evergy on getting my screenplays solid and that means another pass for almost all of them through the laptop and through my thoughts and excreted out the printeer. If I can get my perfectly good printer to communicate with Windows 7.
I'd feel sorry for anyone actually trying to follow my blogs.
Last month I got to shoot most of video footage for a play's multimedia material.
Good experience to goose me back into the rhythm of shooting. I have to be careful not to let life beat out the filmmaker in me. I need to have my ass kicked once in a while to even take note of a time and location and commit to that. Things end up working out. Many of my own projects have been compromised one way or another - maionly by the idea that everything HAS TO be done within an allotted time, which is the case with every project. I have to ensure that in my own projects the script is respected and actors learn their lines because otherwise the lines read flat and there is less probability of the actor truly bringing more to it. The labor is the memorization. They have to be willing to do that labor. Now I've seen some actors pretty much commit themselves to someone's dialogue and build from there.
I've thought about writing a one-man show for one of the characters I've created, but the actor wants a teleprompter. That's kind of a heartbreak. And he'd rather have the play be more about himself, which is a no-go, really. I don't think I'll be writing anything based on anyone else's ideas, aside from specific adaptations of books I like. Working from anyone else' idea or life sets up a paradigm where it is all about "getting it right" according to someone else. Mind-reading interests me as a topic, but not as something I would have to do.
I also have to be especially careful about whatever I am eating. I can have great bursts of energy peter out so easily because of the type two. I have to beat that and lose weight, whether the work of weight loss is tedious or not. And that means a slightly new life. Not something to sneeze at.
Also, I have to refrain from watching so much TV on-line. I'm into No Ordinary Family, starring the guy from The Shield and Wired, as well as Julie Benz who was Rita on Dexter another favourite show. Nice touch on their anniversary episode where Benz' character at a restaurant changes reservation order with someone with the last name of Morgan. As in Rita and Dexter Morgan. I's details like that I apparently need to have grafted onto my brain instead of spending my time fine-tuning and perfecting the screenplays that are the reason I am in Toronto and alive.
So the last thing I need is this blog to update every now and then. Still not getting enough hours at work. Had a glimmer of hope that maybe the new company I'm with might inherit the last site I was supervisor at and maybe then I'd have a more clear say in how to ditch a troublesome guard who had been told showing up on time and leaving only when relieved was optional. Returning to a set site might be an improvement over the current situation, but I would also have to get rid of that problem even before committing. The same principle also applies to a film. Never accept responsibility over anyone you can't get rid of.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Glee creator and sour grapes
Here are a couple of posts I left responding to this news of a show creator griping about bands who have denied him permission to use their music, and his obligatory down-play of his rejected feelings. Not everyone wants to jump aboard the Glee bandwagon. I liked the show better when I was a teen myself, when it was called Fame. Back then there was a stronger message – work. The Glee thing is more of a counter-myth suggesting that everyone is special and deserving of fame – especially if they are considered outcasts. It makes Grease 2 look like West Side Story.
Jawsphobia Tue, Apr 5, 2011, 1:40 PM
Even as "musicals" go, Glee is poorly done. Simply covering the acts in a talent show or showing people rehearse a song just to get the songs in there is a cheat. The premise is lame. Madonna, Britney Spears and Olivia Newton-John I can understand participating; it's not like they could be any less relevant. If Victoria Jackson had kept quiet about being "grossed out" by gay kissing, she might have ended up singing on the show herself. As for the story-lines? A gay kid is bullied by one kid, so he transfers to another school which makes ensemble is even more unfocused. No unity of time, conflict and location. And how many talent competitions are going on in that area? Good for the Kings of Leon and anyone else who says no to Glee. John Travolta has to be the best, saying he needs 6 months to relearse. Like he got 6 months to dance in Pulp Fiction or Be Cool. LOL.
Read more: http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b234676_glee_guru_ryan_murphy_apologizes_kings.html#ixzz1IgTyqMrr
Jawsphobia Tue, Apr 5, 2011, 1:51 PM
I remember the full Ryan Murphy thing went beyond f-you to something like "They're not looking at the big picture, the awkward kid out there watching Glee and being inspired by it and Glee clubs starting up in schools." As if that is the big picture. There are a few token "outcast" characters on Glee, the man-ish female coach who was serenaded, the morbidly obese girl who is routinely also serenaded, and the guy in glasses in a wheelchair, as well as the gay boy who used to wear a cheerleader outfit and who won a Golden Globe for "acting" last year thanks to the belated reaction to gay suicides and the rush to prop-up gay as hip. Sorry. Neil Patrick Harris he is not. Sir Ian McKellen he is not.
Read more: http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b234676_glee_guru_ryan_murphy_apologizes_kings.html#ixzz1IgTs78PR
Jawsphobia Tue, Apr 5, 2011, 1:40 PM
Even as "musicals" go, Glee is poorly done. Simply covering the acts in a talent show or showing people rehearse a song just to get the songs in there is a cheat. The premise is lame. Madonna, Britney Spears and Olivia Newton-John I can understand participating; it's not like they could be any less relevant. If Victoria Jackson had kept quiet about being "grossed out" by gay kissing, she might have ended up singing on the show herself. As for the story-lines? A gay kid is bullied by one kid, so he transfers to another school which makes ensemble is even more unfocused. No unity of time, conflict and location. And how many talent competitions are going on in that area? Good for the Kings of Leon and anyone else who says no to Glee. John Travolta has to be the best, saying he needs 6 months to relearse. Like he got 6 months to dance in Pulp Fiction or Be Cool. LOL.
Read more: http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b234676_glee_guru_ryan_murphy_apologizes_kings.html#ixzz1IgTyqMrr
Jawsphobia Tue, Apr 5, 2011, 1:51 PM
I remember the full Ryan Murphy thing went beyond f-you to something like "They're not looking at the big picture, the awkward kid out there watching Glee and being inspired by it and Glee clubs starting up in schools." As if that is the big picture. There are a few token "outcast" characters on Glee, the man-ish female coach who was serenaded, the morbidly obese girl who is routinely also serenaded, and the guy in glasses in a wheelchair, as well as the gay boy who used to wear a cheerleader outfit and who won a Golden Globe for "acting" last year thanks to the belated reaction to gay suicides and the rush to prop-up gay as hip. Sorry. Neil Patrick Harris he is not. Sir Ian McKellen he is not.
Read more: http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b234676_glee_guru_ryan_murphy_apologizes_kings.html#ixzz1IgTs78PR
Three Stooges movie casting
Wil Sasso sounds like a good Curley. Now it looks like Larry is going to be played by Sean Hayes from Will and Grace, which isn’t especially exciting. It’ll still be a good movie with the Farrelly Brothers as a quality control factor, but Hayes has to prove himself.
They should have went with a Jewish Larry. I have to see the TV movie about them, which I believe Mel Gibson produced. As for Sean Hayes, I remember thinking when I saw a clip of his Jerry Lewis, "I never knew Jerry Lewis was gay."
They should have went with a Jewish Larry. I have to see the TV movie about them, which I believe Mel Gibson produced. As for Sean Hayes, I remember thinking when I saw a clip of his Jerry Lewis, "I never knew Jerry Lewis was gay."
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Lighting a fire under the Koran
The less funny, and less benign Terry Jones of the United States and a very small congregation of about 30 people followed through with the idea of public burning of a copy of the Koran after finding it guilty of inciting violence. As if to prove this verdict, Muslims in Afghanistan sprung into violent response. They burned an American flag, which might have been a balanced response if that was all. Then they killed about 8 American UN workers.
How reasonable is this? President Obama had discouraged the burning, as had the office of National Defence. The average American looks down on book burning in general. Even the atheists would argue the best way to turn someone off of the Koran or the Bible is to let them read it. So just how is it justified religiously or in any other way to kill eight people who are there to represent the United States in retaliation for the actions of someone who does not represent the United States?
Whatever opinions one might have about Islam or the Koran, it has failed to prepare its followers to deal sanely and reasonably, let alone with justice. Anyone who participated in those slayings needs to spend life in prison.
How reasonable is this? President Obama had discouraged the burning, as had the office of National Defence. The average American looks down on book burning in general. Even the atheists would argue the best way to turn someone off of the Koran or the Bible is to let them read it. So just how is it justified religiously or in any other way to kill eight people who are there to represent the United States in retaliation for the actions of someone who does not represent the United States?
Whatever opinions one might have about Islam or the Koran, it has failed to prepare its followers to deal sanely and reasonably, let alone with justice. Anyone who participated in those slayings needs to spend life in prison.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
all supply, no real demand
Here is a rant I went on against a Star Wars fan who had posted on imdb "Star Wars returns to theaters in February!"
I had argued that The Phantom Menace is what is being released in February and that it
doesn't deserve the name Star Wars and that it was like
saying The Star Wars Holiday Special and the Ewoks cartoon are Swar Wars.
"The Six features are cannon.
Each film is as much Star Wars as the other."
- sanoma6
This is like saying Godfather Part III is
automatically on a par with its predecessors.
Or Jaws The Revenge is inherently as valid as
Jaws or Jaws 2.
Or that Dumber and Dumberer: When Harry met Lloyd
is anywhere near as good as Dumb and Dumber.
I'm sure Oliver Stone considers Wall Street 2:
Money Never Sleeps "canon" in his work.
Side note: Even though nobody would argue that TV's
Young Indiana Jones prequels are as engaging as the features, they were all released on VHS in numbered
sequence, including the features, counted as one long
epic and all Cannon by Lucas. And as much as I am a defender of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I don't
dare say it is "as much Indy" as Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The Star Wars prequels are counterfeit Star Wars, even
if they come from the same printing press as real Star Wars.
They are inferior, and they have sunk a strong brand which
declined in value sharply after May 19, 1999.
Oddly, because the Clone Wars animated show require so much
content they are farmed out to a team of other writers and
directors. Despite being in an era that involves characters
I don't prefer, they are close to the tone of the OT.
The stories are all competant and often compelling, and
certainly fun.
But the Clone Wars feature - at a time when animated
features do good business - is regarded as the least
successful SW feature and Phantom Menace the "most
successful" which is nonsense.
The brand was damaged. I saw Clone Wars in a theater
and I didn't actually mind the baby Hutt because it
was the "boon" that is followed in good adventure
storytelling. It, arguably, is cannon, financed
and ordered by Lucas. But the distinction of "cannon"
means nothing.
People were burned from Phantom Menace through Sith.
Only the most hardcore fans will read all the novels
and comics, the rights to which are basically whored
out by now. Timothy Zahn's forst trilogy of post-Jedi
novels brought fans back from the late-eighties nadir
of Star Wars when the Marvel Comics had ended their
SW run and Kenner opted not to renew its licencing with
Lucasfilm. (On that last point it is terrific that Lucas
got the last laugh when Kenner was bought out by Hasboro
and Lucas was given half ownership of Hasboro in the late
nineties as the price of a new licence agreement when the
hype had returned with re-releases and optimism about the
prospect of Episode One.) How sad that Hasboro has gone
through Post-Menace period of being ready to give away
action figures, when KFC and Taco Bell cringed at the
prequel decorations in their restaurancts, and Exhibitors
resented the contract Lucas had insisted upon which kept
their screens occupied by The Phantom Menace weeks after
word of mouth caused audiences to dwindle.
The hard bargain Lucas once drove couldn't happen by the
time the Clone Wars feature was being made. He ended up
cutting a deal with Warner, but he got a lot of rejections
and for a while there were no takers even for the quite
good Tv series.
What is especially bothersome about these upcoming 3D
releases is that they will only be accepted by exhibitors
because of the 3D gimmich, which won't be Avatar quality.
it will just be another way to condition us for the regular
ticket fees to be jacked up again, even for non-3D movies.
Fans have to learn to be more critical. Nobody is really
asking for the prequels to hit theaters again. When Lucas
first showed examples of the 3D conversion at Comic-Con it
was scenes from the 1977 Star Wars made 3D.
So all this talk of a year to complete that process
is nonsense - HE HAS HAD FOUR YEARS SINCE THEN,
and has ALREADY GOT A NEW HOPE CONVERTED.
That COULD be the first one released. But he KNOWS
if he shows the OT first, nobody will go to the
prequels. And he floats a bully stance that "the
older films will be released in 3D if these ones
do well." Which is like saying "eat three turds,
with nothing to cleanse the pallet, and then I
will give you the best cheezeburger available."
The re-release of the prequels needs to be boycotted.
I had argued that The Phantom Menace is what is being released in February and that it
doesn't deserve the name Star Wars and that it was like
saying The Star Wars Holiday Special and the Ewoks cartoon are Swar Wars.
"The Six features are cannon.
Each film is as much Star Wars as the other."
- sanoma6
This is like saying Godfather Part III is
automatically on a par with its predecessors.
Or Jaws The Revenge is inherently as valid as
Jaws or Jaws 2.
Or that Dumber and Dumberer: When Harry met Lloyd
is anywhere near as good as Dumb and Dumber.
I'm sure Oliver Stone considers Wall Street 2:
Money Never Sleeps "canon" in his work.
Side note: Even though nobody would argue that TV's
Young Indiana Jones prequels are as engaging as the features, they were all released on VHS in numbered
sequence, including the features, counted as one long
epic and all Cannon by Lucas. And as much as I am a defender of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, I don't
dare say it is "as much Indy" as Raiders of the Lost Ark.
The Star Wars prequels are counterfeit Star Wars, even
if they come from the same printing press as real Star Wars.
They are inferior, and they have sunk a strong brand which
declined in value sharply after May 19, 1999.
Oddly, because the Clone Wars animated show require so much
content they are farmed out to a team of other writers and
directors. Despite being in an era that involves characters
I don't prefer, they are close to the tone of the OT.
The stories are all competant and often compelling, and
certainly fun.
But the Clone Wars feature - at a time when animated
features do good business - is regarded as the least
successful SW feature and Phantom Menace the "most
successful" which is nonsense.
The brand was damaged. I saw Clone Wars in a theater
and I didn't actually mind the baby Hutt because it
was the "boon" that is followed in good adventure
storytelling. It, arguably, is cannon, financed
and ordered by Lucas. But the distinction of "cannon"
means nothing.
People were burned from Phantom Menace through Sith.
Only the most hardcore fans will read all the novels
and comics, the rights to which are basically whored
out by now. Timothy Zahn's forst trilogy of post-Jedi
novels brought fans back from the late-eighties nadir
of Star Wars when the Marvel Comics had ended their
SW run and Kenner opted not to renew its licencing with
Lucasfilm. (On that last point it is terrific that Lucas
got the last laugh when Kenner was bought out by Hasboro
and Lucas was given half ownership of Hasboro in the late
nineties as the price of a new licence agreement when the
hype had returned with re-releases and optimism about the
prospect of Episode One.) How sad that Hasboro has gone
through Post-Menace period of being ready to give away
action figures, when KFC and Taco Bell cringed at the
prequel decorations in their restaurancts, and Exhibitors
resented the contract Lucas had insisted upon which kept
their screens occupied by The Phantom Menace weeks after
word of mouth caused audiences to dwindle.
The hard bargain Lucas once drove couldn't happen by the
time the Clone Wars feature was being made. He ended up
cutting a deal with Warner, but he got a lot of rejections
and for a while there were no takers even for the quite
good Tv series.
What is especially bothersome about these upcoming 3D
releases is that they will only be accepted by exhibitors
because of the 3D gimmich, which won't be Avatar quality.
it will just be another way to condition us for the regular
ticket fees to be jacked up again, even for non-3D movies.
Fans have to learn to be more critical. Nobody is really
asking for the prequels to hit theaters again. When Lucas
first showed examples of the 3D conversion at Comic-Con it
was scenes from the 1977 Star Wars made 3D.
So all this talk of a year to complete that process
is nonsense - HE HAS HAD FOUR YEARS SINCE THEN,
and has ALREADY GOT A NEW HOPE CONVERTED.
That COULD be the first one released. But he KNOWS
if he shows the OT first, nobody will go to the
prequels. And he floats a bully stance that "the
older films will be released in 3D if these ones
do well." Which is like saying "eat three turds,
with nothing to cleanse the pallet, and then I
will give you the best cheezeburger available."
The re-release of the prequels needs to be boycotted.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
imdb debates -further trashing of Star Wars prequels
Okay, here are a few things I've said in response to a young Star Wars prequel fan who refuses to look at them with a critical eye. I know it's beating a dead cat, but the upcoming aboninations of 3D-converted re-release make it part of the soft boycott I'm sort of doing.
OCCASSIONALLY wooden acting? Compare the work of any cast member to their non SW prequel work. Even Jake Lloyd is more bearable in Jingle All the Way. And I'm sure it's no accident that there isn't any mention of Haley Joel Osment screen testing for Anakin on the DVD documentary.
Minor plot holes with OT - Padme's death in III despite Leia's memory of interacting somewhat with her, as described in VI ? That's minor?
- Here, have something to drink without even sniffing it for poison despite the disturbance you feel in the Force.
- Why would anyone want balance to the Force when there are supposedly two Sith in the Universe and a community of Jedi? That's the right kind of ratio.
- The wisdom of the Jedi is apparently to be humorless, reckless and fearless despite paying lip service to the opposite. A character must REACT with fear to new surroundings so the audience can feel suspense, even if they summon the strength to overcome it.
- In OT, decisions were usually made under fire and in a crunch, on the fly. In the prequels, there is usually no urgency and things are decided or discussed in periods of rest. (Except of course scenes like "rational" Obi Wan jumping through a window instead of pulling the floating robot to himself with the Force, despite saying he "hates when" Anakin jumps from a flying vehicle).
- One point in the Sith review that makes GREAT sense is that it would be common practice for the Jedi to "watch the watcher" or keep an eye on Palpatine or anyone else in power. Knowing that absolurte power corrupts absolutely. They need only look into the heart of anyone they encounter, including Palpatine, and if they are blocked then they know that person is communing with the Dark Side in order to do so.
- I don't care about the rationalizations. "I didn't really come here to free slaves, " is an INFURIATING line coming from "Schindler" but it is also not befitting any Jedi or any protagonist in a heroic adventure. Freeing slaves and disregarding an outlying system's WRONGHEADED tolerance of it would have been a rousing and engaging central premise. And LEAVING Shmi Skywalker to live as a slave and not even check in on her for, what, 10 years?
Fear of Anakin's mother suffering is a REASONABLE fear, and NO relation whatsoever to Fear that we overcome, like prejudice -- which I what I thought Yoda was talking about when I saw the trailer, and what other fans nodded appreciatively over.
The business of "attachment" being forbidden is paradoxial, since a Jedi may be attached to irrelevant rules at the expense of what is worth a hero giving his life to defend.
- Anakin talks about a device he has invented for scanning where slaves have their incendiary devices planted in their skin. THAT should lead to a quite worthy sequence! Is Qui-Gon removing Anakin's explosive when he takes the blood sample? I don't recall WHAT he was doing. Then why not Shmi's explosive next? Why not make a point of covertly ridding all of Anakin's friends of their bombs? Maybe Shmi is off at work when this happens and she has to be among the last, and maybe she crosses a perimeter and Watto sees this and activates his remote.
THAT would have been an ideal circumstance for her to die, right in front of Anakin, and maybe in reflex he mentally swats Watto against a wall like a fly. Might not be apt for a children's film, but certainly okay if Lucas cared to establish a tone that naturally ended with the PG-13 finale of Anakin's legs being chopped off before he burns beside a lava lake.
- The chief accomplishment of Attack of the Clones is they manage to have a battle between armies of robots and Jedi and make it boring. They have also made peace boring, which is quite offensive in a set of stories about war and mostly released during war time.
That's not even the tip of the iceberg. Years from now melchiahdimension-1 you'll watch these prequels and wonder WTF you were thinking.
On close examination of the most basic points, it all falls apart.
George Lucas is all about negotiations and deals and those transactions are a big part of the "story" in the prequels. It doesn't make them more civilized. It makes them false and out of touch with the human spirit.
The fact that Lucas will re-release The Phantom Menace in 3D February 2012 and not stick to the OT just willfull greed and shortsightedness. The prequels are a disgrace.
OCCASSIONALLY wooden acting? Compare the work of any cast member to their non SW prequel work. Even Jake Lloyd is more bearable in Jingle All the Way. And I'm sure it's no accident that there isn't any mention of Haley Joel Osment screen testing for Anakin on the DVD documentary.
Minor plot holes with OT - Padme's death in III despite Leia's memory of interacting somewhat with her, as described in VI ? That's minor?
- Here, have something to drink without even sniffing it for poison despite the disturbance you feel in the Force.
- Why would anyone want balance to the Force when there are supposedly two Sith in the Universe and a community of Jedi? That's the right kind of ratio.
- The wisdom of the Jedi is apparently to be humorless, reckless and fearless despite paying lip service to the opposite. A character must REACT with fear to new surroundings so the audience can feel suspense, even if they summon the strength to overcome it.
- In OT, decisions were usually made under fire and in a crunch, on the fly. In the prequels, there is usually no urgency and things are decided or discussed in periods of rest. (Except of course scenes like "rational" Obi Wan jumping through a window instead of pulling the floating robot to himself with the Force, despite saying he "hates when" Anakin jumps from a flying vehicle).
- One point in the Sith review that makes GREAT sense is that it would be common practice for the Jedi to "watch the watcher" or keep an eye on Palpatine or anyone else in power. Knowing that absolurte power corrupts absolutely. They need only look into the heart of anyone they encounter, including Palpatine, and if they are blocked then they know that person is communing with the Dark Side in order to do so.
- I don't care about the rationalizations. "I didn't really come here to free slaves, " is an INFURIATING line coming from "Schindler" but it is also not befitting any Jedi or any protagonist in a heroic adventure. Freeing slaves and disregarding an outlying system's WRONGHEADED tolerance of it would have been a rousing and engaging central premise. And LEAVING Shmi Skywalker to live as a slave and not even check in on her for, what, 10 years?
Fear of Anakin's mother suffering is a REASONABLE fear, and NO relation whatsoever to Fear that we overcome, like prejudice -- which I what I thought Yoda was talking about when I saw the trailer, and what other fans nodded appreciatively over.
The business of "attachment" being forbidden is paradoxial, since a Jedi may be attached to irrelevant rules at the expense of what is worth a hero giving his life to defend.
- Anakin talks about a device he has invented for scanning where slaves have their incendiary devices planted in their skin. THAT should lead to a quite worthy sequence! Is Qui-Gon removing Anakin's explosive when he takes the blood sample? I don't recall WHAT he was doing. Then why not Shmi's explosive next? Why not make a point of covertly ridding all of Anakin's friends of their bombs? Maybe Shmi is off at work when this happens and she has to be among the last, and maybe she crosses a perimeter and Watto sees this and activates his remote.
THAT would have been an ideal circumstance for her to die, right in front of Anakin, and maybe in reflex he mentally swats Watto against a wall like a fly. Might not be apt for a children's film, but certainly okay if Lucas cared to establish a tone that naturally ended with the PG-13 finale of Anakin's legs being chopped off before he burns beside a lava lake.
- The chief accomplishment of Attack of the Clones is they manage to have a battle between armies of robots and Jedi and make it boring. They have also made peace boring, which is quite offensive in a set of stories about war and mostly released during war time.
That's not even the tip of the iceberg. Years from now melchiahdimension-1 you'll watch these prequels and wonder WTF you were thinking.
On close examination of the most basic points, it all falls apart.
George Lucas is all about negotiations and deals and those transactions are a big part of the "story" in the prequels. It doesn't make them more civilized. It makes them false and out of touch with the human spirit.
The fact that Lucas will re-release The Phantom Menace in 3D February 2012 and not stick to the OT just willfull greed and shortsightedness. The prequels are a disgrace.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
V for Vagnerian, Veneration, Vegetarian. . . .
A twit on the imdb.com discussion board for Scott Peters the current producer of the reboot of Kenneth Johnson's V found an old post of mine where I was rejecting the show and calling it an anti-Obama tract. But that was in the earliest episodes of the reboot where frankly it wasn't a well written show. The plotting and transitions were very scattershot and I think the scenes had an arbitrary rushed pace to them. The show eventually found its way. But the thing about an imdb post is that people find the old ones and reply as if they were written yesterday.
I still kinda prefer the old 1980's version with its World War II analogy, but I also think whatever had been intended as a subtext for the current V for Version of V isn't much there anymore and we're better off without that. Subtext worked for Battlestar Galactica's reboot, but now that the Bush era is over there is not as much to seeth over.
Here is my reply to that imdb user:
Actually the show has improved vastly since its first few episodes. And one thing that has eased off and then disappeared is any connection to that subtext. Now that the fuss over the flu is done there isn't much in V to mirror it anymore. Any connection between blue energy et cetera and healthcare would be laughable. There is nothing sinister behind universal healthcare in Canada. Let alone big, sharp teeth and pointy tails to impail people.
I'm not the one with something to cry about. I don't live in America where the people who still have a stranglehold are the Republicans. And by the way Ms ALLCAPS Esplin obviously by "EVERY OTHER TV SHOW" you skip Fox "News" and CNN, which is surprizing considering the Republican tendancy to cower from anything other than their own camp. In most TV there isn't any such thing as absolute right or absolute left. Just because someone supports Obama doesn't mean we TiVo Glee hoping to swoon each week as two guys sing to each other. There is just enough smart-Liberal stuff is out there that we don't have to settle for Pandering-Liberal.
Somehow I get the sense you are not an avid fan of Bill Maher or even Jon Stewart. V has become a fun show, shocking and interesting, and my boycott stopped after it corrected course returning from its abrupt break in the middle of season 1. Season 2 with Jane Badler is outstanding and they've shown excellent taste in the gesture of filling the void of her departure with the inclusion of Marc Singer. I no longer read any Republican underpinning into the program.
I do however think that it is vital that people "kill" their idols or heros in the sense that they say the highest level of Buddhism encourages adherants to "kill the Buddha" and Christians can get more out of our own stated values if we "Kill" our image of Christ and the facts of stories so we can see the forest through the trees. People need to band together and not expect an indivual to be the perfect saviour and solve all problems. Interestingly enough in the case of Obama you mention -- his biggest FAULT has turned out to be his bipartisan approach. Had he been as underhanded as Republicans had been for 8 years and had he shoved all left-wing policies down the throats of Americans during his first year while he had a Democratic house (which he should have) then I can understand the Right demonizing him as a V. Instead he let himself be mired in bipartisanism so even his allies at the Left are drifting to the middle (ironically, that's where he is and yet it is hurting his team).
So I wouldn't say that I'm "crying" but I am concerned. More about the real world than what has now turned out to be a pretty cool show more in the spirit of classic V than the mess it was during the first few reboot episodes.
I still kinda prefer the old 1980's version with its World War II analogy, but I also think whatever had been intended as a subtext for the current V for Version of V isn't much there anymore and we're better off without that. Subtext worked for Battlestar Galactica's reboot, but now that the Bush era is over there is not as much to seeth over.
Here is my reply to that imdb user:
Actually the show has improved vastly since its first few episodes. And one thing that has eased off and then disappeared is any connection to that subtext. Now that the fuss over the flu is done there isn't much in V to mirror it anymore. Any connection between blue energy et cetera and healthcare would be laughable. There is nothing sinister behind universal healthcare in Canada. Let alone big, sharp teeth and pointy tails to impail people.
I'm not the one with something to cry about. I don't live in America where the people who still have a stranglehold are the Republicans. And by the way Ms ALLCAPS Esplin obviously by "EVERY OTHER TV SHOW" you skip Fox "News" and CNN, which is surprizing considering the Republican tendancy to cower from anything other than their own camp. In most TV there isn't any such thing as absolute right or absolute left. Just because someone supports Obama doesn't mean we TiVo Glee hoping to swoon each week as two guys sing to each other. There is just enough smart-Liberal stuff is out there that we don't have to settle for Pandering-Liberal.
Somehow I get the sense you are not an avid fan of Bill Maher or even Jon Stewart. V has become a fun show, shocking and interesting, and my boycott stopped after it corrected course returning from its abrupt break in the middle of season 1. Season 2 with Jane Badler is outstanding and they've shown excellent taste in the gesture of filling the void of her departure with the inclusion of Marc Singer. I no longer read any Republican underpinning into the program.
I do however think that it is vital that people "kill" their idols or heros in the sense that they say the highest level of Buddhism encourages adherants to "kill the Buddha" and Christians can get more out of our own stated values if we "Kill" our image of Christ and the facts of stories so we can see the forest through the trees. People need to band together and not expect an indivual to be the perfect saviour and solve all problems. Interestingly enough in the case of Obama you mention -- his biggest FAULT has turned out to be his bipartisan approach. Had he been as underhanded as Republicans had been for 8 years and had he shoved all left-wing policies down the throats of Americans during his first year while he had a Democratic house (which he should have) then I can understand the Right demonizing him as a V. Instead he let himself be mired in bipartisanism so even his allies at the Left are drifting to the middle (ironically, that's where he is and yet it is hurting his team).
So I wouldn't say that I'm "crying" but I am concerned. More about the real world than what has now turned out to be a pretty cool show more in the spirit of classic V than the mess it was during the first few reboot episodes.
Red Letter Media's review of Attack of the Clones
Harry S. Plinkett's bang-on observations use clips as proof, whether or not he is as insane as his home movie clips demonstrate from time to time throughout the visual essay on Attack of the Clones.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
film analysis: The Phantom Menace
With the announcement that George Lucas plans to re-release Star Wars movies in 3D but starting with "Episode 1" from 1999, the worst of the series, it might be a good time to remind people of the thorough, but-busting funny practical essays by Red letter Media. It's long, but never a dull moment (which can't be seen of the movie).
At least the psycho storyline that runs through his reviews of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith shift speculation away from whether he is a geek. We can be assured that he is merely insane. But his points about the prequels are well observed.
At least the psycho storyline that runs through his reviews of Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith shift speculation away from whether he is a geek. We can be assured that he is merely insane. But his points about the prequels are well observed.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Justin Bieber on rape and abortion ?
Remember when the Internet had a collective meltdown over what Justin Bieber said about abortion to Rolling Stone? Well, the magazine apparently made a slight “editing error” (their words) when it came to his answer. “The full quote, his response to whether abortions should be allowed in cases of rape, reads: ‘Um. Well, I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I don’t know how that would be a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position, so I wouldn’t be able to judge that.’” Do with this information what you will.
That's the blurb I've recently seen posted. I left this remark in the comments:
I missed hearing about the fuss over the truncated version. He seems to be giving a sensitive answer that should alienate nobody. It's a little fishy that he was asked anything other than a softball question. A question about abortion seems designed to trip up someone with his target audience. It could be noted that a fetus gets DNA and RNA from the mother but only DNA from the father, so it is more a part of her. Also, intelligence is supposedly passed maternally, so the kid is not likely a destined rapist. And there is a 51 percent chance the unborn mystery guest is female, so even less likelihood she will rape anyone. People will abort, but let's not varnish the why: she likely thinks she is getting back at the rapist, who most likely would be delighted to show she aborted. Forcing someone to give birth might very well be an extension of the rape, but if I were talking to the pregnant woman I would not spin the fact of gestation as a mere phase of human life. Justin is right in saying that it is sad.
That's the blurb I've recently seen posted. I left this remark in the comments:
I missed hearing about the fuss over the truncated version. He seems to be giving a sensitive answer that should alienate nobody. It's a little fishy that he was asked anything other than a softball question. A question about abortion seems designed to trip up someone with his target audience. It could be noted that a fetus gets DNA and RNA from the mother but only DNA from the father, so it is more a part of her. Also, intelligence is supposedly passed maternally, so the kid is not likely a destined rapist. And there is a 51 percent chance the unborn mystery guest is female, so even less likelihood she will rape anyone. People will abort, but let's not varnish the why: she likely thinks she is getting back at the rapist, who most likely would be delighted to show she aborted. Forcing someone to give birth might very well be an extension of the rape, but if I were talking to the pregnant woman I would not spin the fact of gestation as a mere phase of human life. Justin is right in saying that it is sad.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Published Philosophies
On Sex Talk
Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.
On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip
There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.
On Abortion
People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.
To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.
Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.
Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.
Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.
Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.
Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”
On voting under a veil
Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.
Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.
Attraction is an involuntary reaction and not a choice, as usually argued about gay people and their nature, not something to judge or debate, a reflex; conversation is a series of choices, political, and likely to invite judgment or debate. So it seems that a conversation about sexual attraction, even what you like or don’t in a sexual partner, is a useless exercise. It is bound to offend somebody needlessly. Suppose you are a dwarf, round, with goitres on your neck but you are in love with – or at – a supermodel. The likelihood of consummating that attraction doesn’t change the fact of it, and if you are disgusted by your own reflection chances are that being set up with someone who has the same afflictions will not solve your dilemma.
On Scandals and Celebrity Gossip
There is no even trade-off between the artist’s need for publicity and the media’s need for copy or content. If there were, Paris Hilton’s music and movie career might be in better shape and Anna-Nichole Smith might have. . . No, maybe that train of thought is already derailed. (I remember a director’s commentary on Naked Gun 33 and a Third describing the way he had to direct Anna-Nichole to shift her eyes to indicate thinking about something; he had to point to objects for her to look at.) Let’s look at the other end of the spectrum. Obviously if an actor calls a press conference or babbles in an agreed-upon sit-down interview then it is his or her own fault whatever damage is done. But some of the most respected figures in Hollywood appear on front covers heralding “What they Look Like Without Make-Up” or speculating on who is secretly gay or heading for a break-up or may have had a miscarriage. None of this helps up anyone’s asking price. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Jodie Foster, any well established performer with a body of work and a foothold in their respective industry has earned respect. The current 18-25 demographic may not be aware of or may not have seen the best of their credits and may only have the word of bottom-feeding gossips to round out their public image. In the worst case scenario, should a celebrity choose to keep some of his/her personal life “on the down low” they should be as entitled to do that as a gay or lesbian is to come out. They will however be branded as “self-loathing” by morons who presume that “self” is entirely defined by how that person gets his/her kicks romantically. Public speculation about whether someone has had an affair, an abortion, lived on welfare or has paid for sex might fall into the same class of journalism – gutter trash scum. Performer or athletes may reinvent themselves or overcome something or change their fortune and are entitled to consider their new status as a survival story without having old dirt rubbed in their faces by garbage picking low-lives. The celebrities usually are people who generate a product that we want; the gossip industry (loosely calling itself entertainment media) is a parasite giving us nothing. At most the latter group creates is filler in a newspaper or a website homepage cluttered with anti-news and moronic, misinformed opinion. Paparazzi are a dangerous extra element in public events and in the private lives of artists and athletes which can impede their movement and even contribute to fatal accidents as in the case of Princess Diana’s car crash. (If they were not present it either would not have happened or the assassination attempt would have been more efficiently reported.)
Gossip rags need to be boycotted and held more accountable. Celebrities can party on.
On Abortion
People tend to retro-fit their philosophy to support whatever they have done or plan to do.
To avoid or suppress a feeling of guilt, some will go so far as to change or spin definitions of human, life, gestation, or death. It may be considered rude to publicize the fact that doctors and nurses use codes or numbers to refer to arms, legs, or head (Number 1 being head, the last item typically removed during a D&C). This can cause undue stress to a woman who has suffered a miscarriage and may not need be reminded that her foetus had human body parts. But sensitivity to her feelings or those of the abortive mother need not prevent the facts from being confronted.
Since an unhappily pregnant woman can malnourish, injure and neglect the resident of her womb any number of ways up to and including back alley abortions, it is a compelling argument that enforcement of anti-abortion laws would be a waste of energy and attention. This concession seems to be pro-choice, but it need not be a picket-waving embrace of that “side” in the debate. There are, after all, many abortion issues and not simply the question of keeping it legal or forcing doctors in remote areas to perform it.
Whose choice is it? Many woman are compelled by boyfriends or husbands to abort.
Is abortion pro-female? Women around the world routinely have ultrasounds to determine the gender of the foetus and if it is female have a sex-selection abortion.
Does an act have to be spun into ethically pure before it can be accepted? The tiny soap-bubble cluster of cells that is a fertilized human embryo can be harvested and used for stem-cell research without denying that letting it attach to the lining of the uterus and come to term likely will result in a baby with birth certificate, crying and shitting. Medical advancement historically straddles the fence of morality. People are so used to being told what they want to hear by advertisers and media that it is easy to believe that no baby exists before the umbilical cord is cut and that nine months of gestation is merely time to arrive at that unimpeachable stage of choice. It may also be tempting to believe that because a sperm and the fertilized embryo are both microscopic they are of equal value, forgetting that a sperm left alone will die merely a sperm and an ovum left alone will be evacuated as unused but the fertilized embryo left to its process may potentially grow to cast a vote in an election 18 years and nine months later.
Which “side” is more silly and illogical, the idea that gestation from conception to birth is a phase of human life or the idea that we “become” human at birth? Avowed atheists have been heard to say that the baby becomes “quick” at birth, which would seem to attribute to them such a thing as a soul. There is a high-handedness in both camps, but it is not accurate to perpetuate the pro-life side as religious and the pro-choice side as secular. Long before Christ managed to live without weighing in on the subject, Aristotle suggested that the potential of the unborn feeling pain should determine right and wrong on the matter; he also said that no abortion should be allowed unless the baby was expected to be “deformed or female.”
On voting under a veil
Is a passport photo ID valid if the person is depicted with face covered by a veil or a mask? If not, and a woman voting has posed for a passport photo without a veil then she has set a precedent that there is no religious urgency that should outweigh the obligation to show her face to the returning officer when giving ID to vote in an election.
Furthermore, it should be understood that a person becoming a Canadian citizen renounces allegiance to their country of origin. Arguments that values and conflicts or traditions carried over such as female genital mutilation or female circumcision / castration or patriarchal tolerance of domestic abuse therefore have no merit.
Oscars 2011
I didn''t watch them broadcast. I saw a bit of youtube crap from the red carpet and I find I have a low threshhold for Fashion talk.
I caught a few blurbs and opinions from people disappointed by the program and the hosts, then I actually found the ceremony on a file-sharing website which is illegal but also noble, generous and necessary. The show and the hosts were no worse than other years. I had no problem with James Franco other than when he sported a dress. There was a weird time-killing moment with Anne Hathaway singing a song apparently to Hugh Jackman which went nowhere, and I could have done without the Somewhere Under the Rainbow" ending which was pure cheese. I think there is legitimate complaint that the kid from Lost Boys was not included in the dead montage. After all, there are some names I'd never heard of included and a simple google would have likely coughed up a complete list of dead celebrities of 2010. In fact, didn't a couple of those people that were included die in 2011 ? I'm not sure how they organize that.
For Franco's movie, I would have made a joke about the sound of one hand clapping.
I caught a few blurbs and opinions from people disappointed by the program and the hosts, then I actually found the ceremony on a file-sharing website which is illegal but also noble, generous and necessary. The show and the hosts were no worse than other years. I had no problem with James Franco other than when he sported a dress. There was a weird time-killing moment with Anne Hathaway singing a song apparently to Hugh Jackman which went nowhere, and I could have done without the Somewhere Under the Rainbow" ending which was pure cheese. I think there is legitimate complaint that the kid from Lost Boys was not included in the dead montage. After all, there are some names I'd never heard of included and a simple google would have likely coughed up a complete list of dead celebrities of 2010. In fact, didn't a couple of those people that were included die in 2011 ? I'm not sure how they organize that.
For Franco's movie, I would have made a joke about the sound of one hand clapping.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Secure and postal
Remember when postal workers were "going postal"? I have thought it is odd you don't hear a lot about security guards going "secure." There must be at least a comparable amount of maddening office politics. Maybe guards aren't paid enough to be able to afford a gun. My theory, or the one that makes sense to me whoever is the author of the theory, is that it is a mistake to believe we are all so sane that we can't snap like O.J. and maybe blackout and let unconscious rage erode choice. I think it is better to assume that the alcoholic should stay out of the bar, the overeater should stay out of the bakery, and the angry divorcee should stay away from interaction with a former spouse. By the same token, if there is a powder keg in the workplace it serves nobody to pretend it is less a problem than it is. Too often we pride ourselves in what we can tolerate or what won't get to us. But we will never know the limit until it is too late. It may not even take much to turn a functional working environment into an unworkable and hostile one. And backing down is not a solution, because you will also never know how far back you have to back down and how much your opponent will take advantage. For this reason, I persist with issues that have to be nipped in the bud. And there are tao choices - assertive (which is what I strive for) and passive-agressive (which is the powder keg caused by allowing spin or blame-shift to prevail).
This anectote may be extremely boring for most people, since it just involves politics of a security company. Do not operate heavy machinery after reading this blog. I have omitted names and such, but I have no problem with airing dirty laundry. One drawback is that it's not a very heroic or chivilrous position I'm taking, unless you remember the chiv part of the word is a knife. Nobody likes to admit having someone on staff who brazenly disrespects one's supervisory authority - let alone someone successfully circumventing and undermining it. Sure, I've had many compliant guards and I've earned respect but it's not much comfort when you are faced with the one staff person you supposedly have to supervise during the day thumbing her nose at you essentially. And that's one rotten apple that has to be dealt with before the rot spreads.
I have worked for a company that is careful to hold workshops and hand out
pamphlets about the workplace environment and ethics and so on, and
which promotes the idea that if you have a problem with your immediate
superior you can do "upward communication" which is going over their head.
Perhaps going upside their head would be more productive.
A bunch of bosses work down the hall from each other and they are mainly
in the business of fending off lawsuits. I'm not saying I'd have the
patience to go for that, but seeing as how I have now spoken to three
ranks of bosses it seems that there is either a reader comprehension problem
on their part or they aren't even reading anything.
In short, suppose you are a supervisor on a job site and one of your staff
decides that her job can be easier and there is a short cut -- maybe she
doesn't have to wait around for the next shift, she can just leave and YOU
will have to stay. And for weeks she has been leaving nobody on the site
when you have gone. And she says she got this permission from someone
above you at head office, a spouse or whatnot who works there.
Both of you are gunning for each other and would slit each other's
proverbial throats if you had the chance. She tries and temporarily
succeeds to turn a major co-worker of the client against you. This
is fixed thanks to discussion with the client, but the threat remains
that this person is putting spin on any admonishment you give.
You can't just suspend this person and send her home, which is the
logical impulse, because you have to get confirmation from head office
about whether she is making empty threats about her connections or whether
they are real and you are therefore toothless.
But no such confirmation nor reassurance comes. Only irrelevant and
mimimalizing silence and stretches of nothing. The subordinate makes
snarky remarks in your brief book for staff - directed at you. So you
advise that the day shift must clear briefs with yourself verbally and
not write in the book. Then you find a little doodle with page numbers
inside the cover, with the name of a head office boss. Next thing you know
she is hiding this book in a drawer. Finally, you come to work one morning
and find out someone from head office has TAKEN the book to head office.
No word whatsoever about why, and no response when you tell head office that
the book had emergency contact numbers in it.
Two weeks later you have been away on sick leave and find out that
the book was never returned and your staff has been without those numbers.
My title was Site Supervisor. At head office there is an Account Supervisor (a new guy whom I have not met face to face), the Account Manager (whom I have seen in person and who seems quiet), and the Field Operations Manager who has been boss for a long time. I've pitched to all three. As a team they've pitched back. Three strikes and I'm out.
There is one person in schedualing I respect very much, named Craig, who has a good reputation among many employees I have spoken to over the years. There is also a pleasant-sounding guy that I have not clashed with over the years but I suspect this is the husband of my nemesis. And I know what you're thinking - if you are clashing with a female you have one hand tied behind your back. True. But even if it was a male connected to people from head office I would still have to pull my punches and I would still be waiting around anxiously for a straight answer.
From: William [mailto:@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:09 PM
To:
Subject: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
The following issues were conveyed in e-mails and were
mimimalized to an extent that I feel the process and
relations between C P, J S and
at least one person in schedualing should be scrutinized.
The opportunity to comment and argue these issues
has been put off repeatedly by the gentlemen above,
so this is offered for the record.
After being employed by ******* 10 years, it has taken
a lot (over a very small span of 4 weeks) to alienate me
to the point where I can't do my job as site supervisor
of (****************):
(My) Grievances from January/February 2011
1. That these issues could have been dealt with when they were current,
before I went on sick leave, but answers were further put off during
that period ostensibly to protect me from answers that would impede
healthy recovery. . .leaving me with the same unresolved issues and
anticipatory stress during said ongoing recovery.
2. Key concern not taken seriously – that s/o ??????? on my site
turned a minor site organizational issue into a grandstand and told
me off as s/s on the grounds that she is not under my authority. This
case was immediately conveyed to J in a Monday e-mail and
by Friday the main insubordination issue was glossed over and the
threat that head office shows preference for this s/o over me as s/s
appears to stand proven (or fail to be disproven to offer reassurance).
3. The active brief book of the site was taken by PSD ostensibly
for delivery to C, but no answers given as to whether he asked
for it or ???????? did, the latter possibility compounding the
danger of issue #2. There was also no answer as to what was gleaned
from inspection of said brief book. Even after I advised that the guard
numbers and emergency contact list for OSMOS et cetera were in
that book, there was no comment and no return of it to site.
4. Not advised of any reaction or action taken over the fact that
s/o ???????? attempted to (and temporarily succeeded) turn a
key client rep (safety guy) against me and create a poison workplace
we have to share. I was flabbergasted by this episode, and was able
to diffuse it after a couple of days by talking to the main client but
it shouldn’t have happened and it illustrates that any disciplinary
gesture from myself as s/s will result in such tactics by Sarfraz and
leave an unruly impression of (____) staff.
5. Just before December 15, s/o ??????? was advised by “scheduling”
that she did not have to continue a procedure for end of shift she had
complied with for months. I was not advised by this schedualing person
despite the obvious possibility for confrontation. I did not push the matter
at the time because Samina was supposed to transfer to another site.
In the new year I had to revisit this because she had changed her plan.
There should be no secrecy about who advised her, yet the question
met with a very threatening outpouring from ???????? meant
to discourage any supervisory admonishments in the future.
It was urgent that I get the matter straightened out from
Head office – WHY does ???????? think she is pulling rank on
her s/s? And yet I have still heard nothing to reassure me that I
can realistically co-exist on that site with ???????.
6. No reaction to my suggestion that arguments about
“special coverage” versus “regular” shifts and the related
problems of relief be solved as follows: My 0700-1600
shift is technically over-complicated by being broken into
0700-0800 special coverage and then 0800-1600 regular.
So that I don’t relieve anyone by coming early and their
only relief is the “special coverage” 0800-1600 who I am
told now has no obligation to show up on time or stay to
be relieved by anyone. ??????? has many times arrived
after 0800 and may or may not seek me in the dock to
use the site cell to call on as I have instructed people.
My solution was: Change the semantic designation of my
0700-1600 shift to “special coverage” which seems more
suited to a supervisor. Leave the 0800-1600 as “regular.”
If there is a change, I could always be plugged back into
the “regular” but a reduction to 1 guard during days is
not expected for a long while.
--
These are the key issues of my complaint, the root of which
perhaps being the question of whether ???????????? has
allies at head office who have had any influence on the
items of concern which have not panned out in my favor
and fail to support my authority/responsibility as a site supervisor
(or anyone else who follows in that capacity).
I realize that pushing these items upward
will alienate people further, but the situation is already
unworkable and the only way to move forward is with clarity.
I see red flags of ethics and no concern about
poison work environment. At this place, all I can do is
present the issues above. I don't have the energy to fix
something so broken, but at least I can see that you are
aware at your level. Even if the matter is academic.
Thanks for your time.
(name)
Subject: RE: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:41:50 -0500
From: *****
To: e@hotmail.com
William,
Am aware that you are off on leave due to an ongoing illness, hope that your recovery is going well.
When an employee is on a medical, leave ****** has no expectation of the employee to deal with site or company issues or have contact with the client, but to utilize the time on medical leave to rest and recover from the condition of the illness. Believe this has been conveyed to you via email from C P on more than one occasion.
Do not take kindly to the accusation that favouritism is being shown to individual employees or issues that are raised are being swept under the carpet. The protocol being followed on your concerns was to follow up on the matter, meet with you upon your return from medical leave and hopefully resolve the issues. Again believe this was conveyed to you by C P via e mail.
Thank you
R S
Manager Field Operations
*****
Toronto, Ontario
Tel:
Fax:
Direct:
Web: .com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited.
REMARQUE DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ : L’information contenue dans ce courriel est de nature privilégiée et confidentielle. Son usage est réservé uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité nommée ci-dessus. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser nos bureaux immédiatement. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous êtes par la présente avisé que toute utilisation, distribution, diffusion ou copie de ce courriel ou de tout fichier joint est strictement interdite.
(Fu*k that sh*t !!!!)
My final reply:
All of the issues could have been addressed and resolved before I went on sick leave.
I am no longer on sick leave.
I don't expect someone to take kindly to an accusation that is correct, but there it is.
The whole thing has been demoralizing enough that I have resigned, R***.
Thanks for your time.
This anectote may be extremely boring for most people, since it just involves politics of a security company. Do not operate heavy machinery after reading this blog. I have omitted names and such, but I have no problem with airing dirty laundry. One drawback is that it's not a very heroic or chivilrous position I'm taking, unless you remember the chiv part of the word is a knife. Nobody likes to admit having someone on staff who brazenly disrespects one's supervisory authority - let alone someone successfully circumventing and undermining it. Sure, I've had many compliant guards and I've earned respect but it's not much comfort when you are faced with the one staff person you supposedly have to supervise during the day thumbing her nose at you essentially. And that's one rotten apple that has to be dealt with before the rot spreads.
I have worked for a company that is careful to hold workshops and hand out
pamphlets about the workplace environment and ethics and so on, and
which promotes the idea that if you have a problem with your immediate
superior you can do "upward communication" which is going over their head.
Perhaps going upside their head would be more productive.
A bunch of bosses work down the hall from each other and they are mainly
in the business of fending off lawsuits. I'm not saying I'd have the
patience to go for that, but seeing as how I have now spoken to three
ranks of bosses it seems that there is either a reader comprehension problem
on their part or they aren't even reading anything.
In short, suppose you are a supervisor on a job site and one of your staff
decides that her job can be easier and there is a short cut -- maybe she
doesn't have to wait around for the next shift, she can just leave and YOU
will have to stay. And for weeks she has been leaving nobody on the site
when you have gone. And she says she got this permission from someone
above you at head office, a spouse or whatnot who works there.
Both of you are gunning for each other and would slit each other's
proverbial throats if you had the chance. She tries and temporarily
succeeds to turn a major co-worker of the client against you. This
is fixed thanks to discussion with the client, but the threat remains
that this person is putting spin on any admonishment you give.
You can't just suspend this person and send her home, which is the
logical impulse, because you have to get confirmation from head office
about whether she is making empty threats about her connections or whether
they are real and you are therefore toothless.
But no such confirmation nor reassurance comes. Only irrelevant and
mimimalizing silence and stretches of nothing. The subordinate makes
snarky remarks in your brief book for staff - directed at you. So you
advise that the day shift must clear briefs with yourself verbally and
not write in the book. Then you find a little doodle with page numbers
inside the cover, with the name of a head office boss. Next thing you know
she is hiding this book in a drawer. Finally, you come to work one morning
and find out someone from head office has TAKEN the book to head office.
No word whatsoever about why, and no response when you tell head office that
the book had emergency contact numbers in it.
Two weeks later you have been away on sick leave and find out that
the book was never returned and your staff has been without those numbers.
My title was Site Supervisor. At head office there is an Account Supervisor (a new guy whom I have not met face to face), the Account Manager (whom I have seen in person and who seems quiet), and the Field Operations Manager who has been boss for a long time. I've pitched to all three. As a team they've pitched back. Three strikes and I'm out.
There is one person in schedualing I respect very much, named Craig, who has a good reputation among many employees I have spoken to over the years. There is also a pleasant-sounding guy that I have not clashed with over the years but I suspect this is the husband of my nemesis. And I know what you're thinking - if you are clashing with a female you have one hand tied behind your back. True. But even if it was a male connected to people from head office I would still have to pull my punches and I would still be waiting around anxiously for a straight answer.
From: William [mailto:@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 2:09 PM
To:
Subject: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
The following issues were conveyed in e-mails and were
mimimalized to an extent that I feel the process and
relations between C P, J S and
at least one person in schedualing should be scrutinized.
The opportunity to comment and argue these issues
has been put off repeatedly by the gentlemen above,
so this is offered for the record.
After being employed by ******* 10 years, it has taken
a lot (over a very small span of 4 weeks) to alienate me
to the point where I can't do my job as site supervisor
of (****************):
(My) Grievances from January/February 2011
1. That these issues could have been dealt with when they were current,
before I went on sick leave, but answers were further put off during
that period ostensibly to protect me from answers that would impede
healthy recovery. . .leaving me with the same unresolved issues and
anticipatory stress during said ongoing recovery.
2. Key concern not taken seriously – that s/o ??????? on my site
turned a minor site organizational issue into a grandstand and told
me off as s/s on the grounds that she is not under my authority. This
case was immediately conveyed to J in a Monday e-mail and
by Friday the main insubordination issue was glossed over and the
threat that head office shows preference for this s/o over me as s/s
appears to stand proven (or fail to be disproven to offer reassurance).
3. The active brief book of the site was taken by PSD ostensibly
for delivery to C, but no answers given as to whether he asked
for it or ???????? did, the latter possibility compounding the
danger of issue #2. There was also no answer as to what was gleaned
from inspection of said brief book. Even after I advised that the guard
numbers and emergency contact list for OSMOS et cetera were in
that book, there was no comment and no return of it to site.
4. Not advised of any reaction or action taken over the fact that
s/o ???????? attempted to (and temporarily succeeded) turn a
key client rep (safety guy) against me and create a poison workplace
we have to share. I was flabbergasted by this episode, and was able
to diffuse it after a couple of days by talking to the main client but
it shouldn’t have happened and it illustrates that any disciplinary
gesture from myself as s/s will result in such tactics by Sarfraz and
leave an unruly impression of (____) staff.
5. Just before December 15, s/o ??????? was advised by “scheduling”
that she did not have to continue a procedure for end of shift she had
complied with for months. I was not advised by this schedualing person
despite the obvious possibility for confrontation. I did not push the matter
at the time because Samina was supposed to transfer to another site.
In the new year I had to revisit this because she had changed her plan.
There should be no secrecy about who advised her, yet the question
met with a very threatening outpouring from ???????? meant
to discourage any supervisory admonishments in the future.
It was urgent that I get the matter straightened out from
Head office – WHY does ???????? think she is pulling rank on
her s/s? And yet I have still heard nothing to reassure me that I
can realistically co-exist on that site with ???????.
6. No reaction to my suggestion that arguments about
“special coverage” versus “regular” shifts and the related
problems of relief be solved as follows: My 0700-1600
shift is technically over-complicated by being broken into
0700-0800 special coverage and then 0800-1600 regular.
So that I don’t relieve anyone by coming early and their
only relief is the “special coverage” 0800-1600 who I am
told now has no obligation to show up on time or stay to
be relieved by anyone. ??????? has many times arrived
after 0800 and may or may not seek me in the dock to
use the site cell to call on as I have instructed people.
My solution was: Change the semantic designation of my
0700-1600 shift to “special coverage” which seems more
suited to a supervisor. Leave the 0800-1600 as “regular.”
If there is a change, I could always be plugged back into
the “regular” but a reduction to 1 guard during days is
not expected for a long while.
--
These are the key issues of my complaint, the root of which
perhaps being the question of whether ???????????? has
allies at head office who have had any influence on the
items of concern which have not panned out in my favor
and fail to support my authority/responsibility as a site supervisor
(or anyone else who follows in that capacity).
I realize that pushing these items upward
will alienate people further, but the situation is already
unworkable and the only way to move forward is with clarity.
I see red flags of ethics and no concern about
poison work environment. At this place, all I can do is
present the issues above. I don't have the energy to fix
something so broken, but at least I can see that you are
aware at your level. Even if the matter is academic.
Thanks for your time.
(name)
Subject: RE: up-com, ethics, poison workplace
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2011 07:41:50 -0500
From: *****
To: e@hotmail.com
William,
Am aware that you are off on leave due to an ongoing illness, hope that your recovery is going well.
When an employee is on a medical, leave ****** has no expectation of the employee to deal with site or company issues or have contact with the client, but to utilize the time on medical leave to rest and recover from the condition of the illness. Believe this has been conveyed to you via email from C P on more than one occasion.
Do not take kindly to the accusation that favouritism is being shown to individual employees or issues that are raised are being swept under the carpet. The protocol being followed on your concerns was to follow up on the matter, meet with you upon your return from medical leave and hopefully resolve the issues. Again believe this was conveyed to you by C P via e mail.
Thank you
R S
Manager Field Operations
*****
Toronto, Ontario
Tel:
Fax:
Direct:
Web: .com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: The information outlined in this Email is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify our office immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this email or any attachments is strictly prohibited.
REMARQUE DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ : L’information contenue dans ce courriel est de nature privilégiée et confidentielle. Son usage est réservé uniquement à la personne ou à l’entité nommée ci-dessus. Si vous avez reçu ce courriel par erreur, veuillez en aviser nos bureaux immédiatement. Si vous n’êtes pas le destinataire visé, vous êtes par la présente avisé que toute utilisation, distribution, diffusion ou copie de ce courriel ou de tout fichier joint est strictement interdite.
(Fu*k that sh*t !!!!)
My final reply:
All of the issues could have been addressed and resolved before I went on sick leave.
I am no longer on sick leave.
I don't expect someone to take kindly to an accusation that is correct, but there it is.
The whole thing has been demoralizing enough that I have resigned, R***.
Thanks for your time.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
separate schools
Another Eye Weekly thing. I got a generously long e-mail response when I questioned an Eye assertion that "we" the general public fund separate schools and that they are anwerable to all taxpayers. I still say I'm right.
Separate School trusties or board members are elected by Catholics who in turn DON'T get to vote for public school board members. Board members should be answerable to those who voted them in and will vote them in again.
Even though head count determines how much tax goes into each school system, parents do get to indicate on tax forms which system they want to support.
Those two issues - the votes and the tax allocation - are an agreement already made. For someone from a competing system to step in and say "Gee, those tax dollars should be part of the whole pool, and you should conform to the values and mores of the faithful Eye Weekly reader and back pages patron" would be a betrayal of a contract.
Even those like myelf who attended a Catholic Secondary School and grew up to question some positions of the Catholic Church and its prejudices must acknowledge that Catholic is the brand chosen by the parent (and in some cases also the student) and it should follow the expected course. A gay student who knows he/she is gay might be wiser to choose a more accepting public board in which to start a club, as opposed to where it is going to provoke antagonism. By the same standard, there is nothing stopping such a group from being hosted by its members instead of asking a political body (a school board) to officially accept or endorse it.
But of course my argument and my e-mail was reduced to one sentence that stripped away any level of reasonableness and my name was printed in the editorial column with my out-of-context quote.
Here is a more full version:
I appreciated the generous e-mail I got in response to my concerns about this article, but I don't buy the idea that money going to Cathic schools should be diverted to the public system at the expense of agreements already in place. I still say that - like it or not - Catholic voters vote in the Catholic board members and do not have a voice in electing the public board, so their respective trustees are accountable ONLY to those who VOTED THEM IN. That's where their loyalty belongs. And even if it is head count that determines the amount of tax money a system gets, and not just the space filled on a tax form, by sending one's children to one or the other system that still is a CONTRACT and EXPECTATION that certain antiquated values will be promoted. And with the proposed gay club you are asking a political body to take responsibility for use of a school room after hours and openly endorse it to what end? To antagonize those who voted you in, or those whose taxes pay for the school? Or to satisfy the opponent or competition? The safety of gay kids is a worthy issue, and it's not a case where Catholic students are reporting bullies and not getting action taken by the staff. That would be another story. We're talking about what might be a reverse-bullying of the Catholics by uber-liberal media.
I much prefer the old way of printing even a truncated version of the letter itself.
Here are som older letters to the editor:
Outreach and grasp
I say the positive principles we get from religion or stories that are considered religious in origin will survive the badgering of skeptics and the like. As a Catholic I would much prefer that my religion and its leaders embody these principles rather than pay lip service to them. The God I continue to believe in would not be so insecure as to hold atheism against one of his/her/its children. All the same, there is something a little precious and stuffy about organized atheism. If you are not smart enough to be invited into Mensa, you may still have a club. It still boils down to wanking away intelligence. Want to be considered a "scientist" without getting a degree? Join the atheist club and pay lip service to science. That's how it reads.
Older blurbs printed in Eye Weekly:
Tony Scott was involved
Re your review of The A-Team: In all fairness, the movie was well done. I can’t say as much for the reviews I’ve looked at. In EYE WEEKLY’s review, the critic says the movie should have been done by Tony Scott. Well, it is a Scott Free production, so both he and Ridley Scott would have consulted on it. But I will say your review is not the worst sample I’ve seen. Most critics will have this movie reviewed before they actually see it anyway, knee-jerk politics being what they are. » William La Rochelle
PORNO-TASTIC
I don’t know what’s wrong with Jason Anderson in his review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno (On Screen, Oct. 30). I mean it can’t out-subversive EYE WEEKLY, but this movie has the groove those of us who are Kevin Smith fans look forward to. It has the individual stamp that allows for extreme filth to co-exist with earned sentiment. It feels truthful even in its depiction of the cheap and false world of pornography, but it is more about community and affirmative vibes amid the mischief.
Jason Mews has the audacity to casually shock us and somehow the worst you can expect is OK. Brandon Routh even gets to thumb his nose at gossipmongers with an excellent bit of casting. Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks are, yes, a perfect fantasy match in my eyes and likely to enrage (and have enraged) some female critics who want to go off on the obvious tangential rant. That might account for the movie not having a more uniform high rating.
It’s a good movie, fun, and exactly what it should be. I’m shocked that anyone focused on having too few fake porn titles. It has a little fun with that, but the movie has better things to do. And it’s not Kevin Smith trying to do a Judd Apatow style; it is clearly, scene for scene, a Kevin Smith movie, right down to Zack’s inspiration about a last-minute shoot location. It still has a personal voice and hopefully will reach a wider audience for Smith. WILLIAM LA ROCHELLE
Separate School trusties or board members are elected by Catholics who in turn DON'T get to vote for public school board members. Board members should be answerable to those who voted them in and will vote them in again.
Even though head count determines how much tax goes into each school system, parents do get to indicate on tax forms which system they want to support.
Those two issues - the votes and the tax allocation - are an agreement already made. For someone from a competing system to step in and say "Gee, those tax dollars should be part of the whole pool, and you should conform to the values and mores of the faithful Eye Weekly reader and back pages patron" would be a betrayal of a contract.
Even those like myelf who attended a Catholic Secondary School and grew up to question some positions of the Catholic Church and its prejudices must acknowledge that Catholic is the brand chosen by the parent (and in some cases also the student) and it should follow the expected course. A gay student who knows he/she is gay might be wiser to choose a more accepting public board in which to start a club, as opposed to where it is going to provoke antagonism. By the same standard, there is nothing stopping such a group from being hosted by its members instead of asking a political body (a school board) to officially accept or endorse it.
But of course my argument and my e-mail was reduced to one sentence that stripped away any level of reasonableness and my name was printed in the editorial column with my out-of-context quote.
Here is a more full version:
I appreciated the generous e-mail I got in response to my concerns about this article, but I don't buy the idea that money going to Cathic schools should be diverted to the public system at the expense of agreements already in place. I still say that - like it or not - Catholic voters vote in the Catholic board members and do not have a voice in electing the public board, so their respective trustees are accountable ONLY to those who VOTED THEM IN. That's where their loyalty belongs. And even if it is head count that determines the amount of tax money a system gets, and not just the space filled on a tax form, by sending one's children to one or the other system that still is a CONTRACT and EXPECTATION that certain antiquated values will be promoted. And with the proposed gay club you are asking a political body to take responsibility for use of a school room after hours and openly endorse it to what end? To antagonize those who voted you in, or those whose taxes pay for the school? Or to satisfy the opponent or competition? The safety of gay kids is a worthy issue, and it's not a case where Catholic students are reporting bullies and not getting action taken by the staff. That would be another story. We're talking about what might be a reverse-bullying of the Catholics by uber-liberal media.
I much prefer the old way of printing even a truncated version of the letter itself.
Here are som older letters to the editor:
Outreach and grasp
I say the positive principles we get from religion or stories that are considered religious in origin will survive the badgering of skeptics and the like. As a Catholic I would much prefer that my religion and its leaders embody these principles rather than pay lip service to them. The God I continue to believe in would not be so insecure as to hold atheism against one of his/her/its children. All the same, there is something a little precious and stuffy about organized atheism. If you are not smart enough to be invited into Mensa, you may still have a club. It still boils down to wanking away intelligence. Want to be considered a "scientist" without getting a degree? Join the atheist club and pay lip service to science. That's how it reads.
Older blurbs printed in Eye Weekly:
Tony Scott was involved
Re your review of The A-Team: In all fairness, the movie was well done. I can’t say as much for the reviews I’ve looked at. In EYE WEEKLY’s review, the critic says the movie should have been done by Tony Scott. Well, it is a Scott Free production, so both he and Ridley Scott would have consulted on it. But I will say your review is not the worst sample I’ve seen. Most critics will have this movie reviewed before they actually see it anyway, knee-jerk politics being what they are. » William La Rochelle
PORNO-TASTIC
I don’t know what’s wrong with Jason Anderson in his review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno (On Screen, Oct. 30). I mean it can’t out-subversive EYE WEEKLY, but this movie has the groove those of us who are Kevin Smith fans look forward to. It has the individual stamp that allows for extreme filth to co-exist with earned sentiment. It feels truthful even in its depiction of the cheap and false world of pornography, but it is more about community and affirmative vibes amid the mischief.
Jason Mews has the audacity to casually shock us and somehow the worst you can expect is OK. Brandon Routh even gets to thumb his nose at gossipmongers with an excellent bit of casting. Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks are, yes, a perfect fantasy match in my eyes and likely to enrage (and have enraged) some female critics who want to go off on the obvious tangential rant. That might account for the movie not having a more uniform high rating.
It’s a good movie, fun, and exactly what it should be. I’m shocked that anyone focused on having too few fake porn titles. It has a little fun with that, but the movie has better things to do. And it’s not Kevin Smith trying to do a Judd Apatow style; it is clearly, scene for scene, a Kevin Smith movie, right down to Zack’s inspiration about a last-minute shoot location. It still has a personal voice and hopefully will reach a wider audience for Smith. WILLIAM LA ROCHELLE
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
The War on God article in Eye
Interesting article in Eye Weekly.
I wonder why members of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and other such organizations expect atheists
to be included in interfaith discussion events organized by members of organized religions. CFI sounds like it has
more potential as a porn spoof title of CSI. If you didn't get invited into Mensa, it's nice to know smarties who
consider themselves scientists have a group they can join.
The slogan, "You are probably not going to get a book published, so stop worrying and watch Idol (or Scooby Doo,
as it turns out)." CFI makes the extraordinary claim that their outreach efforts and advertizing do not seek to
persuade or convert anyone, merely to gloat perhaps. I'd like to see evidence of their intentions, and that there is no
hate involved (often defined as desire to inflict emotional, psychological stress as bullies do). But it wouldn't
be cheeky enough to demand that evidence of their intentions.
For some people, crop circles were proof of UFOs. I don't recall reading the rational explanation for them. Atheists
often cite the Bible or other holy books and incidents from the history of flawed human institutions such as churches
as if religion or faith is a house of cards. There is God the security guard we blame for doors that we leave open
for our own convenience and God the parent who we refuse to let control us and who told us all they could about
how to live life and may end up being blamed or abandoned when we (or some of us) do horrible things.
Bill Maher's "Religulous" ends with a mushroom cloud and talk of how great science is and how dangerous faith is,
forgetting that the A-bomb which provided such a great go-to graphic was a product of science. And I don't know
about Oppenheimer, but Einstein was an atheist.
It perpetuates the polarization that makes most debates possible or easy to follow: believers are this and
atheists are that. My high school in Ontario was Roman Catholic, and yet we learned about evolution in history class.
The religion class I remember became World Religion and then Man in Society, more like sociology.
And this was in the nineteen-eighties. It's easy for someone to look at Westborough "Baptist" Church and make
them spokes people for believers. The Pope and the Vatican don't help, but Catholics I know are fed up with
the old boys' club and Rome putting its foot in its mouth to embarrass us every now and then. That doesn't mean
rejection of "love your enemy" or a respect for Jesus as a figure whether he existed as written or not.
The best case scenario for a group like CFI is to pathologize religious ideas and push churches underground.
That way, hey, only the most zealous people will seek it out and endure sneaking around in order to connect
with their fellow believers. And of course that breeds nothing dangerous at all. At least then it won't be a
boring routine attendance to be seen as part of the flock. No, that can be reserved for the Center for Inquiry,
center of the universe, where all the oxygen is sucked out of the room by free-form jazz and people playing
Six Degrees of Charles Darwin.
Funny thing about the "There probably is no God, so don't worry. . ." slogan is that people who believe there
is a God actually aren't worried about it. The line seems to address people in fear of hell. What they could
be doing to keep company in Hades with Hitler, I don't know. It just seems like a childish exercise, but if
they want to spend money lumping God in with Bigfoot (never disproven) and acupuncture (which actually
did help my back once and apparently eases muscles that can't be helped by massage) I suppose CFI is
entitled to making their little duty and we will applaud them for the size. I do think some vulnerable people
are hurt and injured by it, and may feel despair if they aren't used to really vetting what bullies tell them.
But again, that's not for me to enforce. If they start actually trashing churches and kicking out believers like
the officially atheist People's Republic of China, maybe it'll draw wider criticism.
I wonder why members of the Center for Inquiry (CFI) and other such organizations expect atheists
to be included in interfaith discussion events organized by members of organized religions. CFI sounds like it has
more potential as a porn spoof title of CSI. If you didn't get invited into Mensa, it's nice to know smarties who
consider themselves scientists have a group they can join.
The slogan, "You are probably not going to get a book published, so stop worrying and watch Idol (or Scooby Doo,
as it turns out)." CFI makes the extraordinary claim that their outreach efforts and advertizing do not seek to
persuade or convert anyone, merely to gloat perhaps. I'd like to see evidence of their intentions, and that there is no
hate involved (often defined as desire to inflict emotional, psychological stress as bullies do). But it wouldn't
be cheeky enough to demand that evidence of their intentions.
For some people, crop circles were proof of UFOs. I don't recall reading the rational explanation for them. Atheists
often cite the Bible or other holy books and incidents from the history of flawed human institutions such as churches
as if religion or faith is a house of cards. There is God the security guard we blame for doors that we leave open
for our own convenience and God the parent who we refuse to let control us and who told us all they could about
how to live life and may end up being blamed or abandoned when we (or some of us) do horrible things.
Bill Maher's "Religulous" ends with a mushroom cloud and talk of how great science is and how dangerous faith is,
forgetting that the A-bomb which provided such a great go-to graphic was a product of science. And I don't know
about Oppenheimer, but Einstein was an atheist.
It perpetuates the polarization that makes most debates possible or easy to follow: believers are this and
atheists are that. My high school in Ontario was Roman Catholic, and yet we learned about evolution in history class.
The religion class I remember became World Religion and then Man in Society, more like sociology.
And this was in the nineteen-eighties. It's easy for someone to look at Westborough "Baptist" Church and make
them spokes people for believers. The Pope and the Vatican don't help, but Catholics I know are fed up with
the old boys' club and Rome putting its foot in its mouth to embarrass us every now and then. That doesn't mean
rejection of "love your enemy" or a respect for Jesus as a figure whether he existed as written or not.
The best case scenario for a group like CFI is to pathologize religious ideas and push churches underground.
That way, hey, only the most zealous people will seek it out and endure sneaking around in order to connect
with their fellow believers. And of course that breeds nothing dangerous at all. At least then it won't be a
boring routine attendance to be seen as part of the flock. No, that can be reserved for the Center for Inquiry,
center of the universe, where all the oxygen is sucked out of the room by free-form jazz and people playing
Six Degrees of Charles Darwin.
Funny thing about the "There probably is no God, so don't worry. . ." slogan is that people who believe there
is a God actually aren't worried about it. The line seems to address people in fear of hell. What they could
be doing to keep company in Hades with Hitler, I don't know. It just seems like a childish exercise, but if
they want to spend money lumping God in with Bigfoot (never disproven) and acupuncture (which actually
did help my back once and apparently eases muscles that can't be helped by massage) I suppose CFI is
entitled to making their little duty and we will applaud them for the size. I do think some vulnerable people
are hurt and injured by it, and may feel despair if they aren't used to really vetting what bullies tell them.
But again, that's not for me to enforce. If they start actually trashing churches and kicking out believers like
the officially atheist People's Republic of China, maybe it'll draw wider criticism.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
I have broken my rule about piracy
I have seen illegal versions of movies I had actually intended to pay to see,
but this is the nature of pre-Oscar season. We end up finding some good copies of screeners that have been uploaded by thoughtful criminals.
Here are the titles I have seen as pirated versions on-line this year:
Black Swan is stylish and in love with itself. This movie is indeed well acted and might engage people who have no interest in ballet and backstage rivalries real or imagined. But those cultural trappings won’t hurt it with people who do have a keen interest in all things artsy. Comparisons to Dario Argento are a bit overstated, since there is very little horror and only some pain. A few stabs to reflect upon, but for me it felt forced and engineered so that a character’s journeys become pathologies . I think people are prepared to impose deep meaning on unfortunate outcomes.
True Grit The Dude assumes a signature role of The Duke in this remake about a Marshall and a Ranger both engaged by a 14 year old girl to track her father’s killer. Hardship, infighting and frontier justice are brought to life with natural bits of humour that play to a modern audience without creating distance. I still want to see Jeff Bridges play stoner Lebowski again, but at least he is back with the Cohens and enveloped in the world of True Grit. Of special note is James Brolin’s characterization of the villain.
The Fighter Meddling family members highlight this boxing drama. Mark Wahlberg is committed as a labourer who is also pursuing his vocation as a boxer, in the shadow of his one-time promising brother played with note perfection by Christian Bale who has ended up spending more time in a crack house than functioning as a manager.
Get Low Reflective and slow-starting, the movie is more accessible once it introduces Bill Murray as a funeral director in a town where there isn’t enough death. Robert Duvall’s hermit with a guilty conscience plays his cards so close to his vest that some viewers may at first become restless although his back-story proves to be engaging and moving. The rustic setting feels like a western, though it is the nineteen-thirties or thereabouts.
The Town is an entertaining crime thriller directed by Ben Affleck within the world of Boston he had previously explored in Gone Baby Gone and as co-writer of Good Will Hunting. The nature of friendship and loyalty are explored as well as justice and corruption in their many guises. Sam Hamm has amusing moments as the antagonist who should be the protagonist. Top notch cast even for small parts give them respect relative to their position in the main guy’s mind. Chris Cooper is the father behind bars and Pete Postlethwaite is the flower-keeping crime boss who is determined to clip the balls of others. On the other hand, it helps that I didn’t recognize the leading lady Rebecca Hall centers the movie for non-criminal and non-FBI viewers. In fact, her character is an outsider to Charlestown itself.
but this is the nature of pre-Oscar season. We end up finding some good copies of screeners that have been uploaded by thoughtful criminals.
Here are the titles I have seen as pirated versions on-line this year:
Black Swan is stylish and in love with itself. This movie is indeed well acted and might engage people who have no interest in ballet and backstage rivalries real or imagined. But those cultural trappings won’t hurt it with people who do have a keen interest in all things artsy. Comparisons to Dario Argento are a bit overstated, since there is very little horror and only some pain. A few stabs to reflect upon, but for me it felt forced and engineered so that a character’s journeys become pathologies . I think people are prepared to impose deep meaning on unfortunate outcomes.
True Grit The Dude assumes a signature role of The Duke in this remake about a Marshall and a Ranger both engaged by a 14 year old girl to track her father’s killer. Hardship, infighting and frontier justice are brought to life with natural bits of humour that play to a modern audience without creating distance. I still want to see Jeff Bridges play stoner Lebowski again, but at least he is back with the Cohens and enveloped in the world of True Grit. Of special note is James Brolin’s characterization of the villain.
The Fighter Meddling family members highlight this boxing drama. Mark Wahlberg is committed as a labourer who is also pursuing his vocation as a boxer, in the shadow of his one-time promising brother played with note perfection by Christian Bale who has ended up spending more time in a crack house than functioning as a manager.
Get Low Reflective and slow-starting, the movie is more accessible once it introduces Bill Murray as a funeral director in a town where there isn’t enough death. Robert Duvall’s hermit with a guilty conscience plays his cards so close to his vest that some viewers may at first become restless although his back-story proves to be engaging and moving. The rustic setting feels like a western, though it is the nineteen-thirties or thereabouts.
The Town is an entertaining crime thriller directed by Ben Affleck within the world of Boston he had previously explored in Gone Baby Gone and as co-writer of Good Will Hunting. The nature of friendship and loyalty are explored as well as justice and corruption in their many guises. Sam Hamm has amusing moments as the antagonist who should be the protagonist. Top notch cast even for small parts give them respect relative to their position in the main guy’s mind. Chris Cooper is the father behind bars and Pete Postlethwaite is the flower-keeping crime boss who is determined to clip the balls of others. On the other hand, it helps that I didn’t recognize the leading lady Rebecca Hall centers the movie for non-criminal and non-FBI viewers. In fact, her character is an outsider to Charlestown itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)