If you read Barbara Nicolosi's blog, you're aware that she was recently interviewed by the New York Times for an article about the supposed conspiracy, for lack of a better word, between right-wing politics and Christians in Hollywood.
The article is written in such stunning ignorance of reality that it's really quite the amazing read. Let's forget the somewhat astounding presuppositions that (a) all Christians are Republicans, particularly extremely right-wing Republicans and that (b) Christians would only come to Hollywood to promote an insidious agenda.
Let's instead pull back to the actual article itself. James Ulmer, the reporter, interviews at length one Stephen Bannon, whom he describes as a documentary-maker (overlooking Bannon's two actual film credits, both easily findable at imdb.com). Given the way he cherry-picked Barbara's quotes (based on her account of her actual interviews with him), we have to assume he did the same for Bannon's. And here's the key piece of Bannon's insidious agenda:
"I want to take the form that is now owned by the left -- the documentary -- and use it to help drive an overall political agenda that supports the culture of life... In the future, why wouldn't we want to take over the levers of Hollywood?"
Well, Mr. Bannon does have some real credits, so I have to assume his quotes are taken out of context. But as Ulmer spins his tale of the vast right-wing conspiracy poised to take over Hollywood, I've got a clue for him:
Documentaries aren't made in Hollywood! They have nothing to do with Hollywood! The underlying presupposition of Ulmer's whole article is nothing but hooey, made up out of his own wishful thinking, his need to fill out a word count, and his inability to get in touch with any of the people whose names would mean something in Hollywood!
I have a lot of respect for the profession of journalism, for people who fight to tell the truth often against opposition. But in writing this load of hogwash, Mr. Ulmer has abrogated his truth-telling responsibility and taken the lazy way out. For shame.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Saturday, June 25, 2005
POWER TO THE PEOPLE...?
The L.A. Times tried a bold experiment a week or so ago. They introduced the concept of a "wikitorial." An extension of other "wiki" sites such as Wikipedia.com, the concept was that the Times would write an editorial and post it online -- and anyone who wanted would be free to edit it. The original editorial would be posted alongside all versions of the wikitorial.
A thousand people signed up almost immediately to post to the wikitorial. Many changed the opinion of the editorial, others added links and photos to illustrate the original points. It was a fascinating experiment.
And a short-lived one.
The L.A. Times had to shut down the wikitorial before it really got off the ground. Aha! one is tempted to think. They didn't like what people were saying! They were trying to quench opposing opinions!
Nothing of the sort. Rather, a handful of people posted porn images to the site repeatedly -- and the L.A. Times, out of responsibility, shut the site down.
We can debate this in terms of freedom of expression, or in terms of ownership of intellectual property... But it seems to me it's really a matter of manners.
It's just rude to usurp someone's web site to put up utterly irrelevant material you know will be offensive, just because you can. Basically, the people doing this are nothing but bullies, ruining everyone's fun just so they can feel a sense of wicked power. They haven't grown up past the stage of kicking littler kids off the monkey bars on the playground.
I'm sure someone will come up with some sort of restrictive software of something like that. But the real solution is good manners and respectful behavior.
Just like on the playground.
A thousand people signed up almost immediately to post to the wikitorial. Many changed the opinion of the editorial, others added links and photos to illustrate the original points. It was a fascinating experiment.
And a short-lived one.
The L.A. Times had to shut down the wikitorial before it really got off the ground. Aha! one is tempted to think. They didn't like what people were saying! They were trying to quench opposing opinions!
Nothing of the sort. Rather, a handful of people posted porn images to the site repeatedly -- and the L.A. Times, out of responsibility, shut the site down.
We can debate this in terms of freedom of expression, or in terms of ownership of intellectual property... But it seems to me it's really a matter of manners.
It's just rude to usurp someone's web site to put up utterly irrelevant material you know will be offensive, just because you can. Basically, the people doing this are nothing but bullies, ruining everyone's fun just so they can feel a sense of wicked power. They haven't grown up past the stage of kicking littler kids off the monkey bars on the playground.
I'm sure someone will come up with some sort of restrictive software of something like that. But the real solution is good manners and respectful behavior.
Just like on the playground.
Friday, June 24, 2005
THE SPIRITUAL NEEDS OF THE AUDIENCE
Lee and I are privileged to be part of the planning of this year's Act Two program, which is the "graduate school" version of Act One: Writing. As we were meeting to plan curriculum the other night, Lee came up with a topic that I don't think I've ever heard covered in one focused session:
The Spiritual Needs of the Audience.
This came up in response to the auteurism which creeps in (even) to Christian would-be filmmakers: "I have a message I have to send..." "...a story I have to tell..."
"It's not about you!" we sometimes want to scream.
So instead of allowing people to focus on their own spiritual need to create (and it is a spiritual need), we've been thinking about the question: What are the spiritual needs of the audience? And how can we make sure we at least attempt to meet some of them as we write?
Lee and I hope to teach a full class on this for Act Two this fall, but we will at least introduce the concept in the class we teach on "Choosing Your Story" in July for Act One. We're still coming up with and recategorizing our ideas, but here's a very (very!) rough outline. Please send all comments!
The Spiritual Needs of the Audience:
1. The Need for Role Models.
Audiences need to see people who make the right choices, so they themselves can make the right choices. They need to see behavior modeled so they can copy that behavior and adopt it as their own. It'd be nice if we got all those role models out of real life, but it doesn't always work out that way.
Lee grew up with an extremely bad role model of a father (who, fortunately in retrospect, was absent more than he was present). But he himself is a great father. How did he learn what makes a great father? As it turns out, he learned from watching reruns of Leave It to Beaver (a show which also gave great examples of how to recognize and deal with the smoother type of bully).
One type of role model we need in particular is that of the hero. In the post-9/11 world, where every firefighter or cop is automatically labeled a "hero" regardless of his/her actual actions, we have lost by diminution the sense of the truly heroic. And let's face it, not only do most of us not come into contact with true heroes in real life, we probably would not want to be experiencing the kinds of situations that would require constant contact with heroism!
But when we need heroism, we can get it through stories: Spider-Man. Harry Potter. (Sorry, Lee, not James Bond.) And, of course, Jesus. We need to see heroes in our stories, as we probably won't get them too many other places. And I believe this is a deep spiritual need that we as storytellers can fill.
Part of what the need for role models entails is the need for people to pre-make decisions they will have to make in real life. How many of us learned how to behave in a romantic relationship based on what we saw in the movies? If an adolescent girl sees onscreen girls making wise decisions (to leave a guy who treats her badly, to say no to premarital sex, etc), then she will be predisposed to making those same choices when her time comes to do so.
2. The Need for Transcendence
We are "living in a material world," indeed these days. And as more and more of the audience turns to 24/7 connectivity (kids whose cell phones are on and plugged into their ears for 10 hours at a time, for instance, or people addicted to their "Crackberries"), I believe we are going to be more and more aware (to quote Wordsworth) that "The world is too much with us."
Wordsworth's answer was to seek out Nature. And that's a direction many are likely to go, as they seek some kind of transcendent, non-material experience. But many more will get those moments from stories.
As I've said before, I became a Christian in large part because I read The Lord of the Rings, longed for the feeling of transcendence I got from it, and began to search for it in the real world. Few stories are that powerful... but what would happen if we deliberately sought to tell stories that allowed the audience to long for a positive spiritual reality?
Barbara Nicolosi in her blog has talked recently about the need for mystery. I believe the need for mystery is a part of this greater need for transcendence.
3. The Need for Escape.
In his essay "On Fairy-Stories," J.R.R. Tolkien says, "I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove fo them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone or scorn or pity with which "Escape" is now so often used... Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls?..."
Sometimes we watch a movie or read a book simply to get away from the "real world." And we believe this is a good thing. It's probably not the highest spiritual need of the audience, but it is a real need. And the desire for a better world is something deeply ingrained in us -- a longing to return to Eden, as it were.
4. The Need for a Moral Compass
In these relativistic days, "good" and "evil" are subject to contextual definition. "It's all good," we hear repeatedly.
But we, as Christian writers, have to stand and say, "No! It's not all good!" There is evil in the world, and increasingly, the audience does not know how to recognize it, is afraid to label evil as evil, or has come to think that evil is in fact, a good thing.
In our stories, we can provide our audiences with a compass that points to goodas true north. Plenty of stories are out there claiming that east, or west, or even south, is north. And if you try to navigate with a defective compass, you will not reach your desired destination.
Again, if we meet this need of the audience, we give them opportunity to pre-decide. If our characters know good from evil and make decisions based on that knowledge, our audience will be given permission, and the skills, to do the same.
5. The Need for Justice
We are all too aware of injustice in this world. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and celebrities rarely go to jail even for the most heinous of crimes.
Dorothy Sayers said it best: "Detective stories keep alive a view of the world which ought to be true. Of course, people read them for fun, for diversion... But underneath they feed a hunger for justice, and heaven help us if ordinary people cease to feel that."
Seen this way, an episode of Law and Order isn't just a way to kill time for an hour. It's a time to make a viewer long for justice to be done, and to feel the sense of rightness that occurs when justice is done -- and maybe to take steps towards justice in his/her own life and circumstances.
6. The Need for Beauty
Most people do not look like Nicole Kidman or Jennifer Aniston or Sophia Loren. Or Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom or Sean Connery. And most people do not live or work in, or even drive past, places of beauty on a regular basis.
But we can bring them beauty -- physical and otherwise -- in the movies. Sometimes we will bring them the only beauty they will see in a very long time, and satisfy even a fraction of the need for the Beautiful that God has built into us.
......
Okay, these are just preliminary thoughts, not fleshed out (obviously!). I'm sure we've missed some real needs. And there is clearly much much more to be said on the ideas above. So help me fill in the blanks!
The Spiritual Needs of the Audience.
This came up in response to the auteurism which creeps in (even) to Christian would-be filmmakers: "I have a message I have to send..." "...a story I have to tell..."
"It's not about you!" we sometimes want to scream.
So instead of allowing people to focus on their own spiritual need to create (and it is a spiritual need), we've been thinking about the question: What are the spiritual needs of the audience? And how can we make sure we at least attempt to meet some of them as we write?
Lee and I hope to teach a full class on this for Act Two this fall, but we will at least introduce the concept in the class we teach on "Choosing Your Story" in July for Act One. We're still coming up with and recategorizing our ideas, but here's a very (very!) rough outline. Please send all comments!
The Spiritual Needs of the Audience:
1. The Need for Role Models.
Audiences need to see people who make the right choices, so they themselves can make the right choices. They need to see behavior modeled so they can copy that behavior and adopt it as their own. It'd be nice if we got all those role models out of real life, but it doesn't always work out that way.
Lee grew up with an extremely bad role model of a father (who, fortunately in retrospect, was absent more than he was present). But he himself is a great father. How did he learn what makes a great father? As it turns out, he learned from watching reruns of Leave It to Beaver (a show which also gave great examples of how to recognize and deal with the smoother type of bully).
One type of role model we need in particular is that of the hero. In the post-9/11 world, where every firefighter or cop is automatically labeled a "hero" regardless of his/her actual actions, we have lost by diminution the sense of the truly heroic. And let's face it, not only do most of us not come into contact with true heroes in real life, we probably would not want to be experiencing the kinds of situations that would require constant contact with heroism!
But when we need heroism, we can get it through stories: Spider-Man. Harry Potter. (Sorry, Lee, not James Bond.) And, of course, Jesus. We need to see heroes in our stories, as we probably won't get them too many other places. And I believe this is a deep spiritual need that we as storytellers can fill.
Part of what the need for role models entails is the need for people to pre-make decisions they will have to make in real life. How many of us learned how to behave in a romantic relationship based on what we saw in the movies? If an adolescent girl sees onscreen girls making wise decisions (to leave a guy who treats her badly, to say no to premarital sex, etc), then she will be predisposed to making those same choices when her time comes to do so.
2. The Need for Transcendence
We are "living in a material world," indeed these days. And as more and more of the audience turns to 24/7 connectivity (kids whose cell phones are on and plugged into their ears for 10 hours at a time, for instance, or people addicted to their "Crackberries"), I believe we are going to be more and more aware (to quote Wordsworth) that "The world is too much with us."
Wordsworth's answer was to seek out Nature. And that's a direction many are likely to go, as they seek some kind of transcendent, non-material experience. But many more will get those moments from stories.
As I've said before, I became a Christian in large part because I read The Lord of the Rings, longed for the feeling of transcendence I got from it, and began to search for it in the real world. Few stories are that powerful... but what would happen if we deliberately sought to tell stories that allowed the audience to long for a positive spiritual reality?
Barbara Nicolosi in her blog has talked recently about the need for mystery. I believe the need for mystery is a part of this greater need for transcendence.
3. The Need for Escape.
In his essay "On Fairy-Stories," J.R.R. Tolkien says, "I have claimed that Escape is one of the main functions of fairy-stories, and since I do not disapprove fo them, it is plain that I do not accept the tone or scorn or pity with which "Escape" is now so often used... Why should a man be scorned if, finding himself in prison, he tries to get out and go home? Or if, when he cannot do so, he thinks and talks about other topics than jailers and prison-walls?..."
Sometimes we watch a movie or read a book simply to get away from the "real world." And we believe this is a good thing. It's probably not the highest spiritual need of the audience, but it is a real need. And the desire for a better world is something deeply ingrained in us -- a longing to return to Eden, as it were.
4. The Need for a Moral Compass
In these relativistic days, "good" and "evil" are subject to contextual definition. "It's all good," we hear repeatedly.
But we, as Christian writers, have to stand and say, "No! It's not all good!" There is evil in the world, and increasingly, the audience does not know how to recognize it, is afraid to label evil as evil, or has come to think that evil is in fact, a good thing.
In our stories, we can provide our audiences with a compass that points to goodas true north. Plenty of stories are out there claiming that east, or west, or even south, is north. And if you try to navigate with a defective compass, you will not reach your desired destination.
Again, if we meet this need of the audience, we give them opportunity to pre-decide. If our characters know good from evil and make decisions based on that knowledge, our audience will be given permission, and the skills, to do the same.
5. The Need for Justice
We are all too aware of injustice in this world. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and celebrities rarely go to jail even for the most heinous of crimes.
Dorothy Sayers said it best: "Detective stories keep alive a view of the world which ought to be true. Of course, people read them for fun, for diversion... But underneath they feed a hunger for justice, and heaven help us if ordinary people cease to feel that."
Seen this way, an episode of Law and Order isn't just a way to kill time for an hour. It's a time to make a viewer long for justice to be done, and to feel the sense of rightness that occurs when justice is done -- and maybe to take steps towards justice in his/her own life and circumstances.
6. The Need for Beauty
Most people do not look like Nicole Kidman or Jennifer Aniston or Sophia Loren. Or Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom or Sean Connery. And most people do not live or work in, or even drive past, places of beauty on a regular basis.
But we can bring them beauty -- physical and otherwise -- in the movies. Sometimes we will bring them the only beauty they will see in a very long time, and satisfy even a fraction of the need for the Beautiful that God has built into us.
......
Okay, these are just preliminary thoughts, not fleshed out (obviously!). I'm sure we've missed some real needs. And there is clearly much much more to be said on the ideas above. So help me fill in the blanks!
Thursday, June 23, 2005
MOVIE THOUGHTS: THE ADVENTURES OF SHARK BOY AND LAVA GIRL
So your kids are 10 or under, and already you're running out of things to do for the summer, and it's getting hot, and the icy cold air conditioning of a movie theatre sure sounds good, and they've seen the ads for Shark Boy and Lava Girl and think it sounds cool.
It doesn't matter.
Do not see this movie.
On paper, it sounds cool. Robert Rodriguez, who gave us a fun and inventive ride with Spy Kids, asks his son what he'd like to see in a movie. The son spins a fanciful tale about two characters, Shark Boy and Lava Girl, and the normal kid who gets into an adventure with them. Rodriguez takes notes, and basically makes his son's movie. How empowering for kids everywhere!
Except that it doesn't work, except to prove that coming up with a good story for a full-length movie is probably beyond the reach of most kids, even the most imaginative. It's harder than it looks, even for adults. Even for adults with training. Even for adults with years of discipline and practice.
The story is weird to a fault. It doesn't make much sense. It does, admittedly, have moments that are cool. But it's fairly incoherent.
All that could still lead to a fairly enjoyable two hours. But--!
The movie is shown primarily in 3-D. And it's the worst 3-D I have ever seen in my life. The glasses they hand out (Shark glasses for guys, Lava glasses for girls) are so cheap, you can see the color separation between the two lenses while you're looking through them. And the color during the 3-D sequences is completely washed out. It's as if the movie is shot in sepia (which is a problem when you're supposed to be watching a girl with violent purple hair and streaks of glowing lava running through her costume).
And there's no real use of the 3-D. Not once did I have one of those great 3-D moments when you want to reach out and touch the thing that's emerging from the screen toward you (and no kids around me were even taken in enough to do this). And only once was there a 3-D moment that made me flinch away from the screen. A total waste of the medium.
You want 3-D? Go to Disneyland/World and see any 3-D show there.
You want a good movie? Go see... well, anything else currently in theatres has to be better than this.
Sorry. But I can't remember the last time I had such an unpleasant time watching a movie. Think of this as a public service.
It doesn't matter.
Do not see this movie.
On paper, it sounds cool. Robert Rodriguez, who gave us a fun and inventive ride with Spy Kids, asks his son what he'd like to see in a movie. The son spins a fanciful tale about two characters, Shark Boy and Lava Girl, and the normal kid who gets into an adventure with them. Rodriguez takes notes, and basically makes his son's movie. How empowering for kids everywhere!
Except that it doesn't work, except to prove that coming up with a good story for a full-length movie is probably beyond the reach of most kids, even the most imaginative. It's harder than it looks, even for adults. Even for adults with training. Even for adults with years of discipline and practice.
The story is weird to a fault. It doesn't make much sense. It does, admittedly, have moments that are cool. But it's fairly incoherent.
All that could still lead to a fairly enjoyable two hours. But--!
The movie is shown primarily in 3-D. And it's the worst 3-D I have ever seen in my life. The glasses they hand out (Shark glasses for guys, Lava glasses for girls) are so cheap, you can see the color separation between the two lenses while you're looking through them. And the color during the 3-D sequences is completely washed out. It's as if the movie is shot in sepia (which is a problem when you're supposed to be watching a girl with violent purple hair and streaks of glowing lava running through her costume).
And there's no real use of the 3-D. Not once did I have one of those great 3-D moments when you want to reach out and touch the thing that's emerging from the screen toward you (and no kids around me were even taken in enough to do this). And only once was there a 3-D moment that made me flinch away from the screen. A total waste of the medium.
You want 3-D? Go to Disneyland/World and see any 3-D show there.
You want a good movie? Go see... well, anything else currently in theatres has to be better than this.
Sorry. But I can't remember the last time I had such an unpleasant time watching a movie. Think of this as a public service.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
MOVIE THOUGHTS: BATMAN BEGINS
Batman Begins is a thoroughly respectable telling of the Batman origin story, as envisioned by Frank Miller in his "Dark Knight" graphic novels. It's intellectually satisfying for those of us who know all the touchstones that have to be touched: The batcave. The death of Bruce Wayne's parents. The training. The double life of Bruce as a playboy. Alfred the butler. Commissioner Gordon. The creation of the Batmobile. The Batsignal. The Batsuit. The utility belt. Even the Batarang (after a fashion). It's all there.
The movie is also true to the themic undertones of Justice that drive the Batman mythos. This is a Batman who knows why he does what he does. Who sees that justice is unattainable by ordinary methods, and who is willing to make a huge sacrifice to see justice done.
It's also a movie that holds a solid moral compass. "It's not what inside that matters. It's what you do that counts" (or words to that effect). A statement that could come straight out of the book of Proverbs. Repeated at least twice, to make sure we got the point. And a highly relevant one in this day and age when relatives of serial killers say, "Oh, but he's such a nice man on the inside." When teenagers excuse themselves from all sorts of heinous behavior by saying, "I didn't mean it on the inside." What we do does matter, and it's nice to hear it from a superhero.
They also did a good job of tying the movie together thematically. Bruce Wayne has to face his childhood fears (bats, tied in to the death of his parents -- and I thought it was v. nice how they tied those together at the opera), so it's only right that Batman has to face a villain whose weapon is fear: The Scarecrow. Thematic unity like this often gets ditched as a script goes through draft after draft, and it was nice to see it intact here (and to see the next movie / villain set up).
Batman Begins also has great performances. Christian Bale is a terrific Batman, in my opinion. I think it's a good idea to cast a near-unknown in parts like that (as witness Christopher Reeve when no one knew who he was), so we watch the character and not the actor. The supporting cast is stellar, with very solid performances. Michael Caine is perfect as Alfred. Gary Oldman as (the future Commissioner) Gordon. Morgan Freeman. Rutger Hauer. All terrific. And Cillian Murphy as (eventually) The Scarecrow -- by the way, where have we seen him before? Anyone? He was a real find.
Technically the movie looks good. Good effects. Good design work. Cool Batmobile. Cool Batcave, etc. (A quip: The score is pumped up way too loud. Several people in the group I saw the movie with couldn't hear key bits of dialogue over the score and sound effects.)
So it's all good.
But....
Two things are missing.
Batman's angst. Where is it? Yes, he's tortured by the death of his parents, but he comes to grips with it, he deals with it, he's pretty much over it, actually. This is a Batman who dresses up like a bat to fight crime because it's the logical thing to do and what's needed for the good of the city, not because he's driven by some strange compulsion that he wishes he could do away with.
Also missing: Any real sense of fun and excitement. I wanted to love this Batman. I really did. I wanted to be at the edge of my seat, as I was for Spider-Man, both I and II, and as I was for X-Men II. I wanted to laugh out loud at the clever lines, not nod sagely (as I did), saying to myself, "Hmm, clever line." I wanted to gasp, to yelp, to have my jaw hang open. I wanted to walk out of the movie absolutely pumped and say, "Wow!" Or even, "Whew!"
But I didn't. I walked out respecting the movie a lot. I even liked it quite a bit.
But I didn't love it.
Will others feel the same way? Will they be tempted to yawn once or twice? Will they find the movie respectable, but not exciting?
I hope enough people do love the movie to revive the franchise. I hope that, in the next movie in this vein, everyone can relax and allow themselves to have some fun.
Because if they don't, Warner Bros. may have to give up the attempt to resurrect their second-most widely-known DC Comics franchise, and decide that, sadly, Batman is a hero for the 20th century.
And that would be a real shame.
The movie is also true to the themic undertones of Justice that drive the Batman mythos. This is a Batman who knows why he does what he does. Who sees that justice is unattainable by ordinary methods, and who is willing to make a huge sacrifice to see justice done.
It's also a movie that holds a solid moral compass. "It's not what inside that matters. It's what you do that counts" (or words to that effect). A statement that could come straight out of the book of Proverbs. Repeated at least twice, to make sure we got the point. And a highly relevant one in this day and age when relatives of serial killers say, "Oh, but he's such a nice man on the inside." When teenagers excuse themselves from all sorts of heinous behavior by saying, "I didn't mean it on the inside." What we do does matter, and it's nice to hear it from a superhero.
They also did a good job of tying the movie together thematically. Bruce Wayne has to face his childhood fears (bats, tied in to the death of his parents -- and I thought it was v. nice how they tied those together at the opera), so it's only right that Batman has to face a villain whose weapon is fear: The Scarecrow. Thematic unity like this often gets ditched as a script goes through draft after draft, and it was nice to see it intact here (and to see the next movie / villain set up).
Batman Begins also has great performances. Christian Bale is a terrific Batman, in my opinion. I think it's a good idea to cast a near-unknown in parts like that (as witness Christopher Reeve when no one knew who he was), so we watch the character and not the actor. The supporting cast is stellar, with very solid performances. Michael Caine is perfect as Alfred. Gary Oldman as (the future Commissioner) Gordon. Morgan Freeman. Rutger Hauer. All terrific. And Cillian Murphy as (eventually) The Scarecrow -- by the way, where have we seen him before? Anyone? He was a real find.
Technically the movie looks good. Good effects. Good design work. Cool Batmobile. Cool Batcave, etc. (A quip: The score is pumped up way too loud. Several people in the group I saw the movie with couldn't hear key bits of dialogue over the score and sound effects.)
So it's all good.
But....
Two things are missing.
Batman's angst. Where is it? Yes, he's tortured by the death of his parents, but he comes to grips with it, he deals with it, he's pretty much over it, actually. This is a Batman who dresses up like a bat to fight crime because it's the logical thing to do and what's needed for the good of the city, not because he's driven by some strange compulsion that he wishes he could do away with.
Also missing: Any real sense of fun and excitement. I wanted to love this Batman. I really did. I wanted to be at the edge of my seat, as I was for Spider-Man, both I and II, and as I was for X-Men II. I wanted to laugh out loud at the clever lines, not nod sagely (as I did), saying to myself, "Hmm, clever line." I wanted to gasp, to yelp, to have my jaw hang open. I wanted to walk out of the movie absolutely pumped and say, "Wow!" Or even, "Whew!"
But I didn't. I walked out respecting the movie a lot. I even liked it quite a bit.
But I didn't love it.
Will others feel the same way? Will they be tempted to yawn once or twice? Will they find the movie respectable, but not exciting?
I hope enough people do love the movie to revive the franchise. I hope that, in the next movie in this vein, everyone can relax and allow themselves to have some fun.
Because if they don't, Warner Bros. may have to give up the attempt to resurrect their second-most widely-known DC Comics franchise, and decide that, sadly, Batman is a hero for the 20th century.
And that would be a real shame.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
A BLOG CHAIN LETTER
My blogging mentor and good friend Barbara Nicolosi has tagged me with what must be the latest chain blog or "meme" (does that come from the French word for "same"? And how is it pronounced? Anyone?). I have to answer these five questions and invite five other bloggers to do the same. So here goes:
1. Total number of books I own. Ha! I am saved from having to actually answer this by having just moved, so all my books are in boxes (awaiting the painting or construction of bookcases, since I have lost my floor-to-ceiling-with-two-library-ladders office). It's actually a blessing, as I think I would have started compulsively counting. I can tell you however, that I packed 110 boxes of books -- different sizes, but I would guess an average of 15 to 30 books per box.
2. The last book I bought. Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (reviewed here a couple of months ago). I am waaaay behind on my reading for the year, due to the upheaval in my life. But July 16th is coming!
3. The last book I read. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling. I am re-reading the first five books in anticipation of July 16th. I haven't been rushing on to book 3 because Sabrina has decided to read them all, and she reads, um, just a tad slower than me. And she's working her way through book 4 right now. So I have time.
4. Five books that mean a lot to me.
***The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Always first on the list. I became a Christian in large part from reading Tolkien's book, which awakened in me a longing for something as beautiful, as true, as worth dying for as what I saw in Middle-Earth. "Poetry may not save a soul, but it may force a soul into the precinct of its last invasion." That's what happened to me with LOTR. Forget the movies. Read the books.
***The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard. Fundamentally this is a look at the Sermon on the Mount, but it is so much more. Every time I read this book, my soul is awakened to God in a new way. I am continually amazed at the depths of insight and the clarity of writing. Now when I read it, I read tiny sections at a time, and try to let things sink in.
***The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. A paradigm-shifting book that helped me look at social change (and how to accomplish it) in a radically different way. And helped me come to a new understanding of myself.
***The Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling. Yes, I'm sure it's a cheat to list five (and eventually seven) books as one. But so what. Not since I was a teenager have I read books that kept me so breathless as I raced to see what happens next!. And not since then have I found a world I so deeply wanted to live in, that I loved rereading so much, and that were so worth talking about with others. When a friend told me she had always thought of me as Hermione, I was as honored as it's possible to be.
***The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. No, I'm not kidding. As a linguistics major, I was fascinated by the history of the English language, and also by how slang entered the language (how a word reaches a "tipping point," one might say). And this meticulously researched reference work covers both areas. Unfortunately, only the first two volumes have been published (A-O). And from what I hear, funding problems may make it unlikely that volume S-Z will ever be completed. (Alas!) This is the kind of project I would love to work on (I would have loved to have been part of the creation of the OED as well), and I use it for every historical project Lee and I write. In fact, the slang lists I prepare before writing (with the help of this work) are my way into the world we're writing about.
5. Tag five people. I can't begin to narrow down to five (especially because I'm supposed to be leaving for a wedding in five minutes, and I'm wearing jeans at the moment. Oops.). So here's the deal: If you have a blog, do this "meme" and post a comment here with a link to your blog so we can follow it up. Okay?
1. Total number of books I own. Ha! I am saved from having to actually answer this by having just moved, so all my books are in boxes (awaiting the painting or construction of bookcases, since I have lost my floor-to-ceiling-with-two-library-ladders office). It's actually a blessing, as I think I would have started compulsively counting. I can tell you however, that I packed 110 boxes of books -- different sizes, but I would guess an average of 15 to 30 books per box.
2. The last book I bought. Blink by Malcolm Gladwell (reviewed here a couple of months ago). I am waaaay behind on my reading for the year, due to the upheaval in my life. But July 16th is coming!
3. The last book I read. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling. I am re-reading the first five books in anticipation of July 16th. I haven't been rushing on to book 3 because Sabrina has decided to read them all, and she reads, um, just a tad slower than me. And she's working her way through book 4 right now. So I have time.
4. Five books that mean a lot to me.
***The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. Always first on the list. I became a Christian in large part from reading Tolkien's book, which awakened in me a longing for something as beautiful, as true, as worth dying for as what I saw in Middle-Earth. "Poetry may not save a soul, but it may force a soul into the precinct of its last invasion." That's what happened to me with LOTR. Forget the movies. Read the books.
***The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard. Fundamentally this is a look at the Sermon on the Mount, but it is so much more. Every time I read this book, my soul is awakened to God in a new way. I am continually amazed at the depths of insight and the clarity of writing. Now when I read it, I read tiny sections at a time, and try to let things sink in.
***The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. A paradigm-shifting book that helped me look at social change (and how to accomplish it) in a radically different way. And helped me come to a new understanding of myself.
***The Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling. Yes, I'm sure it's a cheat to list five (and eventually seven) books as one. But so what. Not since I was a teenager have I read books that kept me so breathless as I raced to see what happens next!. And not since then have I found a world I so deeply wanted to live in, that I loved rereading so much, and that were so worth talking about with others. When a friend told me she had always thought of me as Hermione, I was as honored as it's possible to be.
***The Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang. No, I'm not kidding. As a linguistics major, I was fascinated by the history of the English language, and also by how slang entered the language (how a word reaches a "tipping point," one might say). And this meticulously researched reference work covers both areas. Unfortunately, only the first two volumes have been published (A-O). And from what I hear, funding problems may make it unlikely that volume S-Z will ever be completed. (Alas!) This is the kind of project I would love to work on (I would have loved to have been part of the creation of the OED as well), and I use it for every historical project Lee and I write. In fact, the slang lists I prepare before writing (with the help of this work) are my way into the world we're writing about.
5. Tag five people. I can't begin to narrow down to five (especially because I'm supposed to be leaving for a wedding in five minutes, and I'm wearing jeans at the moment. Oops.). So here's the deal: If you have a blog, do this "meme" and post a comment here with a link to your blog so we can follow it up. Okay?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
