I am Number Four

Once I was done studying last night, I was randomly thinking about sci fi movies and how I don't really ever watch them and then remembered when I saw I am Number four last year and how I liked that one. I think the main reason was that it didn't seem as distant as other sci-fi stories (for instance alien; I've never seen it, but I know the plot and it just seems boring to me). I Am # 4 seems to try to focus more on the main character and the supporting characters surrounding him than sci-fi qualities or special effects (although I remember those being good too.) More than anything, it was entertaining with the common/ classic characters combination (the damsel in distress, the anti-hero, the lovable sidekick, the epic hero, epic villain,the sidekick's dog etc.)and the internal and external conflicts of the epic hero. I also remember how creepy the villain was; I think most of it had to do with the villains being aliens from another planet and looking like shark people with rows of ugly teeth, but they were in general, just worthy opponents ( I remember seeing one scene where #4 and his friend were being followed in the woods and at first I thought it was the aliens; when it turned out just to be school bullies who attacked them, I was like "whew, that's a relief. At least it wasn't the aliens." Of course, there were things I didn't like about the movie, it wasn't perfect, but it was entertaining and I enjoyed it.

Men In Black III trailer

It's been ten years since the last MIB movie and this coming year, there will be a third. I personally like the MIB movies, and this one seems to be an interesting follow up (time travel is involved,) although, as should be done with sequels or trilogies, I am a bit cautious about it; There's the possibility that this movie may seem disappointingly out of place from the previous two ( not only would the special effects be significantly different than that of I and II, but the idea of time travel can either be a good addition, or a predictable cheesy one.) Either way, though, it is fun to see a third one coming out.

Here's the IMDB movie trailer link:

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2656345625/

Enjoy!

Waltz with Bashir

I watched this movie on Youtube with a friend of mine the other day, and both of us were caught off guard. It is an animated foreign film (primarily spoken in English, however,)about a man who has lost his memory concerning his involvement in an Army mission of the first Lebanon war in the early Eighties. This is a kind of documentary with the filmmaker, Ari Folman, voicing himself as he interviews a number of people who were friends and comrades with him in the war.

I think one of the most astonishing things about this story is the power of the human mind; the ability of the mind to block it's owner of certain memories, or maybe more impressive, to literally fabricate an alternative explaination to traumatic events. For instance, there is a scene in which Ari is walking down a semi-damaged, abandoned terminal to find a place for the platoon to camp out, and for (at the very least,) minutes, he imagines that there are civilian people walking around, that everything is as it would normally be without a war. He is simply there on his own accord,not in the militaryand can travel where he wants . At some point, he realizes where he really is. I can't imagine fabricating just one person, let alone an entire world or environment. Another instance is when one of the soldiers is said to have viewed/remembered the war as through a camera lens (since he'd used to be a photographer) and disassociated himself from the ordeal, seeing himself only as an observer through a lens. This is similar to how the movie was shown; nearly the entire thing is animated save for a bit of footage that is actual footage of the devastation (which I think is a very very brilliant technique); until that point, the audience is only seeing the movie through animation- once actual footage is shown, it becomes something more concrete/direct.

We wondered at certain point of the film when damage was inflicted, did the soldier make the connection that they were responsible, or did they mentally shut down, and remove themselves from the action, as was the case for some? How would it be to realize that you were fireing shells or bombs or whatever, and then saw the destruction later, and knew that your action caused the result? I think the hardest part would be that you can't resolve taking a life; it's not like offending someone with words when you can confront and appologize later and then time will solve the rest. Once someone dies, that's it. They aren't physically coming back no matter how much time passes. That mistake or action's results are permanent. This is a tough movie, but I think it's better that we can understand it more; looking at percepolis, when the girl heard about the man who was tortured in jail, she and her friends didn't fully realize/understand the gravity of it, and made kind of their own game or justification of it when they were chasing the boy on the bike because of who his dad was.



We mentioned that after this, we will eventually forget the details of the movie, and quite quickly move on with our own lives, very uninterupted, but does this make us superficial, or is the story lost on us because we aren't too phased? No, becuase if we couldn't move on,we would have been effected too much to fix. It's good that when finished watching these kinds of movies, people can move on uninterupted, because we can take what we've learned from the experience of the movie without being negatively held back.

I know we've mentioned seeing God in films, and oddly enough, though there doesn't seem to be a note of hope by the end of the movie, I think this movie strengthens and furthers my belief in God and the necessity of Him. War is man made. To see a glimpse of what we as human beings can do, how we can cause so much damage to ourselves, there is no way that we are simply all that is, the highest moral beings without there being something higher. There is a necessity for us to be redeemed from this condition.

There Will Be Blood

I really liked the discussion after this movie; especially the comment someone made describing capitalism as being portrayed almost like a train that is rotting more and more as it moves forward. I think that would describe Daniel Plainview very accurately. His character is obsessively ambitious, hatefully prideful, and altogether very entertaining to watch as he attains his goal; to be successful enough to distance himself from just about everyone.

This movie seems very raw, not in the way it was filmed, as though it were true to reality- there's a literary artistic feel to it, making it a very colorful story- but I think the energy of it is something very raw, perhaps within the story itself or within Daniel Plainview himself. As Prof. Leeper pointed out, he's had this idea of what he's wanted ever since he was a child, seeing the neighbor's house and wanting to own it, to live in it. When he catches on to drilling as a means to that end, he pursues it relentlessly doing literally just about anything he can to reach the goal in his mind and prevent the competition from succeeding. His relationships seem to be primarily destructive, and his rival with the pastor, Eli, is one of the closest in the sense that they both have a common thread of that ambition. At one point, Eli even labels himself and Daniel as "brothers."

One of the themes we talked about was the idea of "blood." It's used a number of times,( to refer to relatives as by blood, or as Daniel used it to describe oil as "the blood of the land.") most importantly when Daniel is being baptized. The blood of the lamb, for us as Christians, has tremendous redemptive power, and that is referenced in this primary scene, and also has a connection to the latter part of the film.

Well, that's it. I'm not going to say much more about the story in general, so as not to give pieces away to those who haven't seen it yet.

Neverland Trailer

With all the Neverland/ Peter Pan movies out there, I was surprised to see yet another movie coming out next week. I read the summary on IMDB.com, and found that there's a slightly different take on the movie; this is pretty much a prequel to the more common story with Wendy and James and Michael, explaining how Peter, Hook, and the others found Neverland in the first place. I think the biggest intrigue is that James Hook and Peter were at first on the same side, and then you can see the story of how they became such arch enemies. The way that Neverland is depicted looks interesting, too, (Check out the trees and the crocodile) though you can't see much for too long in the trailer. (And random fact; the guy playing Smee (Bob Hoskins) is the same actor who played him in the movie "Hook" with Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman.)

Anyhow, here's the link-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mQvk4T_XBI

TinTin Trailer

I honestly have never actually heard of Tin Tin before, (apparently it's originally a series of European comic books that first appeared in the late 1920's) but I just saw a trailer for it; what first caught my attention was the very detailed animation. At first I thought it was live action. I don't know the plot of the story or the characters, so there's not much I can say about the movie, but I did see that it's directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by Peter Jackson( who did the most recent King Kong movie). The trailer seems to have an old movie kind of feel to it, like a film noir, but not quite. Not sure how to explain it, but here's the link to the trailer on Youtube: enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xXtKRJj8nY&feature=related

Ryan

I think this video is one of my favorites that we've seen in class so far. It's intriguing that the traditional genre of a documentary is challenged by not only using animation rather than live action, but also by bringing into light the unseen realities of things( like the little hands extending from the character's heads like antennas as though extending a greeting or gathering a first impression.)It puts emotion, tension, and states of being into visual form. An example I'm thinking of would be the explosion by Ryan when the reporter mentions that he should quit drinking. There's a kind of ripple effect that's picked up by those around them, Ryan's figure suddenly has red spikes poking out of him, and the entire room is bent out of shape. Even before that when the reporter made the suggestion, a halo moved around his head, almost mockingly pointing him out as playing the role of some kind of saint. Tension is seen, Anger is seen, Brokenness is seen. In reality, it's sometimes harder to pick up on all that at first when all you see are the physically visible aspects of a person. I think the genius of this film is that it's trying to document both the facts and the truths beneath those without messing too much with the raw facts. It's also interesting to see how the attitudes of an artist are inserted as well. Look at how Ryan responded to the suggestion that he live longer to make work for his fans; He asks, "What's in it for me?" He doesn't care about what his audience wants, he doesn't make art for them, he does it just because that's what he does out of creative compulsion. He loves it like he said he loves to drink. Even in not dressing like everyone else for the Oscars, he demonstrates that the fame, people/fans is not what it's about for him. Unlike other documentaries, we get to look into the life of the reporter as well and find that the strongest similarity between he and Ryan is the gripping fear of failure for each artist. I love how it's symbolized; it's really quite scary and looks like it becomes so wrapped up and immobilizing so that the victim of that fear can't really make a move. This film seems to be bending the rules a bit, bluring some lines as to what's cheating and what isn't for a documentary, but as far as I know, it's still true to reality and in a way maybe even more so than some.



( To watch "Ryan," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrsVa3CzQj0)

World of Glory

I was kind of mad that we watched the "World of Glory," movie, to be honest. I watched Schindler's List Junior year, and I was just as upset watching that long movie as watching this 15 minute one. It practically made me cry; even after I left the class, I felt my eyes getting warm and almost tearing up. I was so angry watching the first scene with the truck and knowing that all those people standing there were watching with me, but had no inclination to stop what they were themselves doing. At first I was so bitter towards those in the first scene, but as the narrator continued to lifelessly talk , sadness was mixed in with the anger so that it wasn't

directed at him or the others anymore; because they were apart of the tragedy- they were dead too, and were not allowed to move on after that event (e.g. the narrator hearing screaming in the night.) Though they were not actually there, as we talked about later, that guilt is passed on to and carried by them. They're literally dwelling in that condemnation, and I think it may be best seen in the Eucharist scene. It's also interesting that they continued to look at the audience through the camera. Maybe as if to watch for our reactions to what they say and do? Maybe to see if we are accusing them for anything, as a kid does when telling his parents he did something wrong? Either way, there's that deep, stoic

anxiety that is translated on the screen, and it's really depressing to see that saturate the lives of those in the film. The worst part of evil acts is when the acts are both committed by and inflicted upon people, because both become victims of the evil. (I'm also wondering about when the narrator thought he was blind, what the significance behind that was...)

Creepy Kermits

At the beginning of that video with the "puppet frogs" I thought it was kind of creative, seeing the puppet appear to play the trumpet (music seems to play an ever present role in the story; a sad trumpet in the beginning, more up beat music when they all act as though he's still alive, and a violin at the dinner table, etc.) Anyhow, when it first started, I thought, "Okay, it's a sort of mellow sounding tune, so I guess we're going to be introduced to a sad story." And then when it was clear there were like a hundred Muppet frogs with pupil-less eyes tucking the deceased man into bed (who I assume is their creator) the initial sadness was replaced by a sort of horror and at some parts, humor- I think the fact that the puppets just assume that dressing him up and acting as though he's still with them is okay is disturbing enough; something about a dead body seems to, not quite scare most of us, but at least cause us to be sensitive to the deceased, out of respect. The fact that the puppets crossed that line so easily (and that they could act independently of a controller at all!) was enough to elicit uneasy reactions. It's furthermore disturbing when he is a puppet and is sort of dancing with the other puppets around him.(It almost ties into the Uncanny Valley in this way; when he was at the dinner table and for the first time is seen as an actual puppet with propped up arms and such, his movements were very unnatural, and obviously limp, so just that visual alone is creepy...by the way, what was on his face in that scene? ) I would imagine the line between dead and alive would have been, in some sense, blurred by the man in the first place when he made all those puppets. The home film they watched in the little movie theater would suggest that the man had a kind of connection and empathy towards what he had made, even though he is aware that he is the only source of their appearance of life.

( speaking of the Uncanny valley, it is interesting that because of the story with the man being dead, the filmmakers wouldn't have had to worry about making the man appear life-like in terms of intentional movement, or facial expression, except in the home video clip of course).

Friday Trip

I went on the Shakespeare behind bars trip last Friday and for those of you who don't know what that is, it's a 9-month drama program for prison inmates in which they perform a full Shakespearean play by June. (and here's a picture of Shakespeare with pink sunglasses.) We actually got to visit one of their rehearsals in the Chapel, where we could sit with them, ask questions about the program and even get involved in a warm up activity they do to help them with timing while rehearsing. It was a very eye opening experience to interact with people who we have either consciously or not, placed in our minds as "the Other." The crazy thing was, if it weren't for the uniforms and the security and such, I never would have guessed that we were in a prison- they were so welcoming, and worked well together to get their work done. I think the most interesting part was how each inmate could find a way to relate to his character, and literally confront and deal with his problems through the character. One of the inmates said he came from a dark past and realized he needed to learn how to express certain emotions that were lacking from that past. His character this year is one that is trying to find out what love is and what that means to love someone, and he's also going through a similar process through that. Overall, the program helps the inmates develop their humanity, become influential actors, and gives them a community.

I think the cool thing about this was how these plays, these stories can become so instrumental in changing and allowing growth at the unlikeliest of times and places.

Raster (Computer Graphics class)

I just started working with Sketch book Pro and Photoshop in my computer graphics class and it's a whole lot of fun (Probably more fun once I actually start to know what I'm doing.)I am not very tech savvy, so when prof. Hopper, who teaches the class, goes on about pixels and dpi/ppi and what a raster is and what a vector is, at the time, I can only break all that info down into very simple, basic concepts before moving on to more. The media of computers is just so mind-blowing; the things to create on a computer and programs are just so vast,almost limitless, and elaborate(especially since they keep changing every- what? two or three years, maybe even one?. Anyhow, I've only been able to work with a few things so far while clicking buttons and finding out what does what, and came up with these.

Talent vs. Work

I was originally reading this article for a Ceramics I journal abstract assignment, but then I realized it could relate to the book "Art and Fear" and so I'll briefly mention it.

I chose an article which basically talks about a production potter (John Bauman) who after graduating from college, started off with making 3,200 pieces annually as a living. Eventually, he was able to take part in a David Leach Workshop where he learned more about the aesthetic aspects of his work and his personal preferences. “I like the sense of the vessel being full when there’s nothing in it.” He now considers himself to be more of a craftsman than an artist, seeing the future as determining the actual art side of the works. Even when repeating forms, he claims that his “‘Identical’ is never intentionally that identical.” He calls the changing and evolving “a wonderful thing.”
I was quite amazed to see how this artist could replicate his work so successfully, especially by mostly building by hand. I can’t imagine making 3,200 pieces a year! What I also thought was interesting was the idea that he saw himself as more of a craftsman and later on mentioned that the learning curve for a production potter is much slower than normal since he doesn’t get to explore very many different methods and ideas when replicating. It sort of reminds me of the concept that an HU alumnus artist mentioned (An idea from "Art and Fear") at his art reception this year, that at a certain point, "hard work becomes indistinguishable from natural talent."

I definitely think that hard work is a given whether one has great or little talent. I think that as humans, we all can at least have some comprehension of art and story, it just varies and is allotted differently (Lady Gaga is no Mozart, but she does have both an understanding of music and talent-though one can argue that's debatable.) I think often times there are very artistic people who just haven't found where their talent fits, and if they don't practice, it doesn't grow and is underdeveloped. Concerning the art of storytelling whether it's writing, drawing, animating, film making etc. I think it's all in the mind; a person has to change the way he/she views and interprets things through practice and experimenting and that's how one gets better. Anyhow, I don't know that hard work and talent can be indistinguishable, but John Bauman certainly makes a good case for that theory.

Story and Image

I've been thinking about the videos we've watched in class recently, and immediately, the first thing that comes to mind is either that tune that the owl was humming in "the Owl and the Raven" or the lullaby the wolf was humming in "Tale of Tales." The next thing that comes to mind are the images of the animations, and I remember what Prof. Leeper said briefly in class, "Story is image."

I don't think there is any story that exists independent of an image; It may not even be possible to try and think of one. If I say "I lost my phone the other day while riding my bike to the science hall," that immediately conjures up an image of that statement in action. The statement becomes an image, which is how it is understood, and the image can become a statement, like when someone summarizes a film that they saw- they pull from the image understanding and then communicate that understanding through words so that someone else can derive the image.

This also reminded me of something we talked about in my Philosophy class just recently; A Causal Principle for ideas. According to this, The cause of an idea must have at least as much formal reality as there is presentational reality in the idea. I can't quite explain it very well, but it's part of a meditation by Descartes in which he presents the well-known theory, "I think, therefore, I exist." An example we used is the idea of a horse- The idea itself and its existence is dependent upon the existence of the person having the idea. Because this person can think, doubt, decide, and have an idea, they exist. I know this doesn't completely tie in to what this blog started with, but oh well.

Why Prof. Leeper wasn't at the Dowdens.

Professor Leeper had every intention of going to the study break on October 5, 2011 at the Dowden's. He even had already cancelled two other appointments that night in order to make it (I don't know what appointments would be made for midnight or one in the morning, but they had been made and were likewise cancelled.) Shortly before 11:30 pm. Professor Leeper left to go to the Dowdens when he realized that he had left his pajamas in the house. He had just stepped out of his car when he saw a black squirrel on the low branch of a tree across the street. Clutched in his paws were a striped pair of pajamas. Professor Leeper didn't need to look in the house anymore.

The squirrel stared with beady eyes.

Professor Leeper stared back.

Before either could blink, the Pajamas and the little animal that carried them flew down from the branch and bolted down the street.

Professor leaper ducked back into the driver's seat and pulled out into the road, tires screeching, and drove wildly after the furry little thief.

He bounded down street after street, but the animal seemed to elude the tires of the car each and every time, darting off into another direction. By now it was half past Midnight and Professor Leeper's car was running low on fuel; He floored the pedal and aimed for the rodent. The squirrel seemed to maintain a good pace, but then the distance between him and the front tire began to close. Inch by inch, the spinning tire came closer and closer, and the tail of the animal just barely made contact with the spinning rubber. For one sickly moment, it seemed as though the little animal would disappear beneath the wheel.

Suddenly, he jumped to the right, and Leeper followed-

right into a tree.

After pushing past the airbags and the crumpled door, Leeper jumped out of the car and looked up just in time to see a pair of striped pajamas disappear into the leaves. He ground his teeth, clenched his fists and rolled up his sleeves. In a rage, he marched to the back of the smoking vehicle, opened the trunk, and pulled out a 20 foot ladder. Then, totally and inexplicably uninjured from the recent crash, Leeper began to climb.

And climb.

And climb.

Until all at once, Leeper noticed just how tall the tree was; he could see the entire town of Huntington- no, the entire County of Huntington, and there was still quite a ways to go.

Professor Leeper glanced at his watch, the numbers staring- 1:20 am. He sighed and was just about to call it quits when something in the branch to his far right caught his eye-

His stripped Pajamas. And the little squirrel trying to make a hammock out of it with a shoelace.

Leeper reached for the closet thing he could- in this case an acorn that hung from the branch above him- and carefully aimed before bending his arm back and-

Too late. Leeper dropped the acorn.

The squirrel turned, screeched with alarm and jumped, holding on the the pajamas that caught the wind, serving as a kind of parachute and allowing the little animal to float to the ground. So Leeper climbed.

and climbed.

and climbed.

Until finally, he reached the ground just as the squirrel floated softly on the grass. Professor Leeper leaped in one final desperate attempt to catch the animal in his grasp and-

missed by two inches. The squirrel chattered away in what sounded like unbridled and preposterous laughter. Tears came into his beady little eyes and his furry body shook as he started to scurry off into the night when at that very moment, the leaves rustled above as something moved past them, and in the next instant, the acorn that Leeper had dropped hit the little animal on the head then bounced to the ground. The squirrel dropped, and didn't move.

After taking back his pajamas, Professor Leeper felt bad for the squirrel, so he scooped up the lifeless rodent, buried him, then drove back home in his mangled car, and when anyone asked him what happened to the vehicle, he explains simply- "I hit a squirrel."

Dead Man Walking

Jeez, where to start; there's so much going on in this movie, but I think the discussion helped to pick out some of the main stuff. I think what got me while watching was the parallels between Matthew and his family and the families of the victims. I think all three families that Helen visited showed pictures of their lost kids- the families of the couple that died and of Matthew. Matt's mother lost him like the parents of the victims lost their kids. Each home was affected in a similar way. I think it was mentioned that there was a sort of cycle of hatred; Matthew's reaction was hatred toward the rest of the world and the parents of the victims were filled with nothing but hatred toward Matthew. For instance, the father of the murdered boy told sister Helen at the end of the movie that he still had hatred toward Matt, even after he was dead.

About the possum flashback of Sister Helen: did she hit the possum first and then stand back and watch the other kids continue to beat it to death? Does she then see herself in Matthew and reasons that the fact that she killed a living thing before (or at least participated) doesn't give her reason to judge, or at least helps her to understand him a bit more as a human rather than just a monster?

Christ has died as atonement for our sins, and when God sees us, he sees Christ- that is, he sees us as sanctified, cleansed and made holy by his grace- and the scene where Matthew is strapped down and looking through the glass to Sister Helen, in my opinion, seems to visually allude to that, whether intentional or not; his arms were eagle spread and when he turns his head to look past his arm to her, very similar to a scene from The Passion.

I think a large part of what makes this story powerful is the horrific and graphic nature of the crime itself; to see that a man who has been a part of a serious, wicked act and then proclaims to trust no one and hate everyone can at his final moment ask for forgiveness and that his death bring relief to those who want to kill him. The worse the crime and the criminal, the more powerful grace and love become because they trump the crime. They don't just cover the petty sins, like stealing candy from a store (though sin is sin), they redeem the capital criminals who are to some, not even worthy to be called animals.

Well, that's it; there's much more to talk about, though, and I really recommend Dead Man Walking if you haven't seen it yet.

Courageous @ Box-Office

So, I just looked on IMDB.com and saw that the movie Courageous came in fourth at the box office behind Dolphin tale, Money ball, the Lion King, and ahead of 50/50. I looked it up since I spoke with my dad a short time ago and he mentioned it.

Anyhow, it's by the same people who did "flywheel" and "facing your giants" and "fireproof," and I have to admit, I'm quite surprised it did this well. I've seen all 3 of their previous movies and initially, I didn't like them; they just seemed so fake, and I don't think it was just the fact that they were low budget. I looked through the comments on this recent film and found right off the bat an interesting statement calling people who hate the movie to just admit that they hate the film because it's pro-christian, pro-god, and they hate what it stands for.
Personally, I think that's bogus.

I won't sit through a second viewing of any of the previous movies, and it's not because "I hate what it stands for" I just think, like Leeper mentioned, maybe there's too much editing going on. Tough situations are watered down to cliche dialogue, such as in the case of "fireproof" when the husband yells at his wife during an argument.

It really irks me because by doing this, I ,as an audience member, feel somewhat insulted.

By smoothing out edges a bit, it's almost as though they're assuming I can't handle the gravity of a situation portrayed in a rawer light; I'm not saying they should throw in a few curse words or anything, but I think more should be demanded of the dialog and of the actors, otherwise, they're not believeable and are practically lying to us.

Some comments on the website agreed; there are other Christians who demand more as well:

"I just want films to have ambition and this had nothing more in its goal than to be a cash cow for middle American protestant sentimentality and a aversion to any sort of risk through experimentation."
RE:
"To say this film lacks ambition is simply a statement of ignorance. The ambition for Courageous is very specific and righteous. It is to teach and offer families struggling with raising children how God designed the father's role to be."

Looking at the bold part in that last statement reminds me of one of the previous readings we've had insisting that the purpose of art is not to teach, but to delight; suppose Courageous is effective in teaching this lesson and it produces something positive- does this mean that it's right in having this ambition, or should teaching not even be part of the intent, as the reading asserted? What makes a film different so that it is clearly intended to delight, but may have "taught" or shared some lesson and caused change within the audience member(s) as a result?

I'm not quite sure where I'm going with this, but I was just surprised that it was in the top five, so I figured I'd blog. ( No offence intended to anyone who likes these movies).

Last class

I was thinking about the video "Rocks and Chocolate" that we watched the other day, and I was kind of wondering about the girl's initial motives behind what she did; did she take the coins to buy the chocolate knowing her father's Birthday was that day and wanted to get him something, or did she initially want to get the chocolate for herself ? She did act like she didn't want him to find her switching the coins with the rocks, and seemed like she didn't want the lady at the counter to say anything about her buying the candy. I guess you could interpret that as her wanting to keep it a surprise, but the more I think about it, I'm guessing she just gave him the chocolate out of guilt and the want to make up for her taking the money. It seems to me like she definitely has an eye for things, like when she saw the truck drive by and exclaimed to her father that she wanted a truck like that, even though she probably realizes she and her father don't have anywhere near enough money to buy their own vehicle. She especially seemed to be feeling guilty when they were home and eating the eggs; she didn't want to eat at all and when she saw him put a few coins in the can, she flinched, probably feeling convicted about taking the coins in the first place. Okay, that's it I guess; I don't have much more to say, except that I think my favorite video from last class was either the one with the little girl who was finger painting or the dog who saved his family. One was cute and light, the other was more dark, more like a fable, but I enjoyed them both.





And I found this pic. on google and thought it appropriate considering the fact that the subject of blogging was brought up last class-

Animate Charcoal Drawing

I really enjoyed the video we watched last class about the charcoal illustrator. I especially found it easy to relate to his comment on finding that medium to be comfortable/ familiar and the challenge of getting over the fact that it isn't oil painting. I think it's often difficult to try and deviate from what you're previous notions on what art is and how to use materials/ the "status" of materials and then rediscover what art is and those materials as well; for instance using the fact that charcoal doesn't completely erase as a significant part of telling the story rather than seeing it as it's initially viewed, a drawback.

In a sense, his illustrating kind of "freed the material" in that it is no longer locked into a flat picture, frozen, but now (through the process of going back and forth between camera and drawing,) it can move, and he can create a procession of time.

I think time plays a big role in that sense, more so than it would for a traditional 2-D drawing because, as the artist mentioned, you can draw with your thought process changing, so that you can make the drawing can change while your (sometimes subconscious) thoughts change- You can expand one idea into another and another and end up at some point completely different from where you started. With a 2-D drawing, if you're doing a still-life or just drawing from imagination, you still don't know where you'll end up, but you have an idea, and ultimately, (especially with a still-life) what you end up with is more limited because you don't have that element of time to create movement and may not reach that breakthrough point that you may have otherwise.

I'm not saying 2-D drawing is not as good ( they can be just as powerful images without movement ); I'm just amazed at how different and limitless it becomes, especially for the artist, when you add the time element to it.

Shower

I actually showed up about 15-20 min late to the movie, so I didn't catch the beginning, but the gist of the story sort of fell together well enough so that I wasn't lost or confused.

The bathhouse that Darming's father and brother owned was a kind of community where those who went there were regulars (the guy who sang the same song over and over, the old guy falling asleep in the bath, the two who always fought over cricket matches, etc.) and knew each other like family. Even the father and Earming treated the guests with a kind of comradeship; for instance when one of his customers was being dragged out by thugs to whom he owed money, the father stopped them and replied that even though it doesn't concern him, that man was in his bathhouse, and therefore he has a responsibility toward him while he's here. He even provides the man with the money he owes the thugs. (The father is the glue which keeps that "community" together, and when he needs to be replaced, Darming sort of wakes up to his own responsibility to not only his challenged brother, but to the bathhouse of this little town. ) I found that scene kind of interesting in it's rarity; you wouldn't see that happen in a YMCA where the manager decides not only to save the customer, but to get even more involved and give him the money he needs. I'm sure it wouldn't be the case in the larger urban area where Darming had been visiting from either.

I also liked the discussion afterwords; it gave us more insight on the culture, like how there is much more emphasis on one's responsibility to the family, and that it was unusual not to see so many people roaming around the city in the film, and the fact that Darming means "first" and Earming means "second."

"The Help"

So, I just recently saw "The Help" with some people from my floor and they all thought it was great. I don't know why, but I just didn't really find it all that fantastic. It was by no means bad, and there were quite a few funny moments, but something about it just kind of irked me a little. I think the feel of the movie seemed kind of "idealistic" even the situation of racism felt a bit cliche- Don't get me wrong; I do take the civil rights movement and the hating opposition that people went through seriously, and I can't say that I know what society really was like at that time- but I almost felt like each scene involving racial oppression was highlighted or emphasized in the dialogue, music, or the actors' reactions, when really, that is not necessary. The situations where a character was insulted, embarrassed,or hurt drew attention to the fact itself and didn't allow the audience to connect the dots. It's like the filmmakers are saying, "see, look what I did here; That individual is clearly the villain through and through," or "This is a woman before her time and we'll show that by clearly giving her a different hairstyle, fashion, manner of speaking, and attitude like we just pulled her from the 21st century and put her back a couple decades." The characters and situations didn't seem so convincing, though I'm positive some those types of situations and characters did exist during the civil rights movement.

So that was my impression when I first walked out of the theater, that is until one of my friends brought up a very insightful point; looking at how those people viewed segregation and responded to anyone who didn't hold the same view as the rest of society, what issues may be going on today that we accept as the norm but may in fact be morally wrong? Would we be willing to stand up against whatever that may be though the rest of society says it's wrong not to agree?

I realized that my impression didn't tell the whole story, and I have found a new respect for "The Help"- not for the film itself- but for the discussion it can incite.