Test

This is a test post to see if my wordpress application on my iPod is working.

Mysteries

One of my favourite things in the world is sitting in a movie theatre and listening to the horrible music the cinema plays while everyone comes in, takes their seats and start to talk.

Well, to be more specific, I enjoy the few seconds that come next, when the music fades away and the lights begin to slowly dim, and everyone suddenly realises what they have paid good money for. My stomach literally drops and I can taste the adrenaline in my throat.

Hell. I’d pay $15 for five seconds of that feeling alone.

I’ve never met someone who enjoys the experience of watching films as much as I do. When I was a teenager I often went to films alone because when I was with friends, it was never the same experience. They would take time to quiet down and stop talking.

But when I was by myself, I could close my eyes and prepare myself for what was coming. I could take it in. I emmersed myself with the people around me, the smells that stuck to my skin and the feeling of the chair beneath my arms.

It sounds pretentious, and to be perfectly honest, it really is. But if you can’t tell by now, I am in desperate love with the cinema. I cannot inject enough of the craft of developing, creating and filming movies into my system.

But most of all, I love to simply experience them.

Why is it that no matter how much I know about a movie – no matter how many trailers I’ve seen or spoilers I’ve read –my entire physical body almost trembles in anticipation of what is to come.

When those lights disappear, it’s all I can do to stop myself from smiling, even if I know what I’m about to watch is the worst film of all time.

After I finished high school, when I was drunk on delusion and freedom from a religious private school, I thought I could somehow write a screenplay and make it big. I read books on the craft and studied as many scripts I could. I even tried to learn the names of the studio executives so when we inevitably bumped into each other in Starbucks I could quickly introduce myself. (No, I did not think this would really happen).  

And while I’ve tinkered with some projects along the way, I’ve (finally) realised I will never be able to write a hit blockbuster movie. But that hasn’t stopped my love of films, and it certainly didn’t stop me from taking a minor in cinematic theory while I completed my journalism degree.

While I was completing that minor course of study, I met one of the most fascinating men I think I will ever meet in all my days on this Earth. He looked exactly like Drew Carey, had thick-rimmed glasses and wore shorts to every class.

I think I’ve learned more about cinema from Peter Kemp than any book or film. Not because he would teach us the different theories of film movements, or how certain films were made and why. And certainly not because he would spruce up his stories with personal anecdotes, while taking a few seconds to push up his glasses with his middle finger.

I think I learned more from Peter because sometimes, when talking about a film that particularly moved him, he would start to cry.

In fact, I can recall about half a dozen times off-hand when Peter started to choke up when discussing various films we’d studied, and I’m sure my old class-mates can recall some more. Peter was so immersed in these stories, they touched him so deeply, that when even just talking about them he couldn’t help but shed emotion. He had a connection with these stories deeper than any of us could understand.

I’m a church-going guy. And I’ve heard a lot of stories and sermons, and I listen to a lot of lectures on the historicity and theology of biblical Christianity. And I can only recall one or two times when I have heard people weep about the message of the cross like when Peter would cry about the cinema.

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen. I know it happens, and I’ve seen it. But surely  if Peter, who by my knowledge was not religious at all, could shed tears at just the thought of 24 images per second on a screen, then I want to know why we aren’t shedding bucketfuls every Sunday.

Because we should be.

Peter connected with these films because they touched something inside of him, yet he kept coming back because just one story couldn’t sustain him. Because movies do not answer questions, but ask them.

Because movies are mysteries.

That is why descending into darkness is often the best part of a cinema experience. Because what you’re about to witness is literally the unknown. I never feel that anxiety when the movie is over. I might exclaim my delight, I might even be speechless after a great experience, but I will never be in as much anticipation as in the few seconds before the first frames flicker on screen, accompanied by the dull hum of the projector.

Because sometimes, the mystery of the unknown is more important than the knowledge of what has past.

Christianity is a mystery in the same way. There are the known things about Christ, and then there are the unknown things. We believe he came to Earth, preached the gospel and was crucified, buried and resurrected. We believe he will come back and that we will live in eternity with him.

But we don’t know what that will be like.

And really, should we know? I think there is a reason that Christ didn’t explain everything and that he spoke in parables and metaphors. It’s not just because we don’t get it, but because I honestly think He didn’t want us to. He could have told us what exactly eternity with Him would be like in practical terms, but he used grand and ambiguous imagery instead.

I think Jesus knew that life is much more interesting when you don’t have all the answers. 

One of these days…

… I will make a nice, long update. But right now I have shocking hayfever and want to go to bed.

12 days until Mallory moves here, forever!

Lacking in content…

I should be updating more, especially since I’m not busy with school anymore. Unfortuantely working full time takes it out of me, especially since I’m writing all day. I know writers should love to write, and I do, but it’s hard coming home from writing to sit in front of the computer and write again. I suppose I’m just not motivated enough at first, but I usually get into the swing of things once I get starte.d

The visa is nearly approved, thank God. I think we did fairly well, we were contacted within about 7 or 8 weeks for three more documents that we forget/missed sending/didn’t actually know about, so we’ve sent those off and if everything goes to plan we should be approved next week. Hopefully! I’m just looking forward to bringing Mallory back from the airport and never actually having to take her back. Except for our honeymoon – woohoo!

The oscar nominations came out a few weeks ago, and I have to say this is probably the blandest year since 2003 when Seabiscuit was up for Best Picture. Admittedly I’ve only seen a couple of the Best Picture noms, but I have seen most of the other nominations for the awards and they’re lacking the excitement of other years. This year is certainly “The best pictures of the last two months” rather than the best pictures of the year – and no, I don’t think The Dark Knight should be up for a best picture nominee. Most of the people arguing that case are either internet nerds or just haven’t seen enough films. It was a great summer movie, even a very good film in its own right, but not Best Picture worthy.

I suppose I would be amiss if I didn’t mention anything about the devestating bushfires that are currently destroying much of Victoria’s countryside. As of right now I can go outside my house, and barely see about 100 metres away. My clothes smell like smoke, and it’s caused me to cough more than usual – but I can barely complain. Over 180 people have died as a result of these fires – more than the Ash Wednesday fires. I’ve heard a lot of people say, “But how can you get caught by a fire? It’s so slow”. But that’s exactly it – they aren’t slow. These fires are so big and dangerous they create their own mini-weather systems, sucking up oxygen and causing wind gusts in excess of 100 kilometres an hour. And when those winds shift and move at those speeds, the fire also moves at the exact same speed. Have you ever tried to outrun a car moving at 100 kilometres an hour? It can’t be done, so nor could you escape a fire moving that quickly. And when those fires reach a person running away, or a family trapped in a car, they’ll quickly burn and destroy anything in its path. So much so that bodies are now being identified by only jewellery and teeth. 

And so, as per the usual questions when something horrible and tragic happens, people begin to struggle with how to deal with their grief. When people die, we look for a reson, because if we have a reason we can learn to understand it. And if that reason is not understandable, we have a point where we can place our grief and anger. People ask, “Why did this happen?” Some ask, “If God is real, why did he allow all those people to die?” But what is interesting. is that I don’t hear many people asking, “Wow, God must be real – look at the thousands of people who survived”. People always want to pin the blame on someone else – why can’t things just exist? 

Sometimes, when people die, there is no reason. Somethings things just happen.

We still like cake…

Brian, in his post “Cake and Video Games”  a few weeks ago, says he was hit with the severity of the downturn when he heard video game companies were downsizing. But a word of hope, Brian – according to GFK research, Australian retailers have experienced their best Christmas season ever for video game sales. Not sure whether that’s a good or a bad thing, in terms of what we *should* be spending our money on – but it’s a sign that people are indeed buying cake.

Now, I understand Australia is in a better position than the United States at the moment. But downsizing is often a precautionary move. I wouldn’t worry about a full-blown depression, as we’re just moving out of the worst of the downturn. And yet, that saddens me. Because as Brian rightly points out – maybe we ought to have one.

Well then.

Aaron Sorkin – writer of The American President, A Few Good Men and The West Wing – personally responded to a question I put to him on a Facebook group he created.

I think I can die now.

Some thoughts on associations

I try to avoid using stereotypes in my day-to-day language. It isn’t that I don’t recognise some stereotypes do exist, or that some are quite valid. It’s just that I cringe whenever I think of reducing someone to one or two syllables. And that’s what stereotypes do – reduces a complex being to something contained and understandable. I think stereotypes are used partly because people are afraid of what they don’t understand and try to simplify complex behavior. 

Take the recent United States presidential election. Never before, I imagine, has the country seen such division between “conservative” and “liberal”. 

I hate those words.

I hate those words because they convey a world where left-wing policy cannot meet right-wing, and vice versa. They portray a country where people are so easily divided. It happens in Australia, too. But I don’t hate them just because of that. I hate those words because they try to portray someone who is so simple that all of their ideologies come from one end of the political spectrum. Well, most rational people understand a society can’t survive long with an extreme slant towards one end of political ideology. You need both right and left to form a healthy, balanced government. Some countries prefer more left than others, and vice-versa, but that’s okay – you still have both. And that is why the words “conservative” and “liberal,” are so disgusting, because they refuse to acknowledge that anyone is complex enough to understand rational thought in dealing with two ideologies and finding a compromise. Right away, it does away with any possibility of negotiating, or reasoning, or whatever.

These words are also used as slander. “He’s a red-hearted liberal” or a “gun-toting conservative”. I think the use of these words is a good indication that the slanderer hasn’t spent enough time with people – talking, discussing, getting to know them. And I think if they spent more time with people who hold different – perhaps radical – political views, they would know people can’t be subjected to such petty and simplistic terms. I heard so many people say, “we cannot let the conservatives run the country,” or “we cannot let the liberals back in the government” . I recognise two main problems with those statements. Firstly, they neglect to take into account the character of the person running for office. I would much rather choose an intelligent, driven and thoughtful “conservative” who deals with issues on a case-by-case basis than a “liberal” who refuses to listen to his advisors. The second problem is that these cries, once again, divide a nation into believing that someone is either left or right. Pick or choose, take it or leave it. That is not politics. That is not even rational thought. The reality is, most people take both “conservative” and “liberal” views. Many voters leaning towards the right will likely advocate the use of progressive taxation brackets, while those leaning towards the left would balk at any attempt to stifle a man’s right to worship as he sees fit, or own a gun. (That last one is debatable, but you get my drift).

Some division is good. Some partisanship is good. It allows everyone to have their say. And sure, there are certainly some who sit on one side of the political fence who may never take a peek at the other side. And of course, some stereotypes are good, but problems start when people use those associations as the same stereotype they wish to slander you with. 

“Oh, he’s a Republican.” 

These people put their own personal interpretation on an organisation, and then use that to stereotype someone. For instance, many people take Focus on the Family to be an evil organisation, so of course, if they want to slander someone they may say, “Oh he was involved with Focus on the Family.” 

Is it absurd to just me?

Surely we should come to *know* the people we are attacking, first?

Can anyone reading this honestly say they haven’t heard about someone before, never hearing anything about them except a political association, and then already form opinions about that person’s character without even talking to them, or learning anything about them?

I have, and I think anyone who says they haven’t is a liar. 

Of course, associations with organisations and people are a way to judge someone’s character. But I think the more you spend time with someone, and talk with them, you realise that while some stereotypes exist…they are almost always incapable of encapsulating someone’s full personality.

People are complex. Amazingly so – thank God they are. But I think it’s good to realise that men and women are wonderfully and divinely made, and are intelligent – let’s not do them a disservice by reducing them to a syllable.

A review….

Here’s a review I wrote for a university elective subject a few months ago. Not my best work, I’m not proclaiming it to be a work of art, but it still presents my view on the film accurately:

No more than 50 years ago, adaptations of comic books into other media were treated with disdain. Television shows such as the ultra-camp 1960’s “Batman” were the only representation the general public had of comics, and understandably gave them little time. The silly gadgets, over-the-top villains and awkward dialogue made people dismiss them as merely children’s entertainment, something to keep them quiet for an hour or two.

However, such low expectations are now remnants of the past. Hollywood, following the comic industry’s path, has produced a number of comic book films designed to be taken seriously. Director Christopher Nolan, in his follow-up to 2005’s re-boot “Batman Begins”, has crafted a genuinely grim, psychologically complex and emotionally daunting piece of cinema in “The Dark Knight”.     

Set six months after the previous film, “The Dark Knight” introduces an anarchic force of evil in face-paint: the Joker. Wielding nothing in his pockets “but knives and lint”, he manages to steal a sum of money from the mob, now led by the suave Salvador Maroni. The Joker then persuades them, who are already frustrated by Batman’s diligence in ridding the streets of crime, to let him “handle” the caped crusader. Batman, alongside Lieutenant James Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent, attempt to put the mob away, but the Joker offers an ultimatum: unless Batman turns himself into authorities, he will kill people every day. The Joker continues to spill innocent blood as Bruce Wayne deals with a new ethical dilemma: give up his moral code by killing the Joker, or save lives by turning himself in when he was just starting to see crime disappear in Gotham City.

Meanwhile, assistant district attorney and childhood friend of Wayne’s, Rachel Dawes, is in love with the dashing Harvey Dent. Equally impressed with Dent but hungry for Dawes’ love, Wayne pins his hopes on Dent being able to take down the city’s criminals so he can finally hang up the cowl, and start a real relationship with Dawes.

It’s fascinating to consider Nolan didn’t want to return for a sequel unless the film was given an outstanding story. The plot is rich, with various subplots woven throughout the running time of 152 minutes. Nolan is known for using non-linear narrative in his films such as “The Prestige” and “The Memento”, but he declines jumping around timelines for a chronological narrative. However, simple it is not. The film has so much going on at such a fast pace, it may require multiple viewings to observe all of Nolan’s nuances.

 “The Dark Knight” works because it is treated as primarily a crime drama based on comic book characters, rather than the opposite. The film is similar to works such as “The Departed” or “Heat” in this way, as we see the clockwork of the criminal investigation; its officers working hard to get the job done. We see internal affairs offices loaded with paperwork, jail cells with grime on the walls. We see the former using technology and his own wits to solve crimes and save lives; for all intents and purposes, he’s a cop in a suit. The film sets itself up to be taken seriously from the first frame.

Because these characters are taking the story seriously, the audience follows along. In order to achieve that sense of reality, the cinematography must portray a realistic world similar to our own. Contrary to the neon-filled Gotham Cities of the 1990s films, Wally Pfister’s cinematography dilutes colours to portray a sense of weariness. He highlights the grit and grime of the city. Diluted yellows underline the thrilling truck chase sequence, while the Joker shoots a Tommy-gun while dressed in a torn, dark purple suit. Because the colours are diluted and subdued, they appear to be real and sinister Pfister highlights the broken and dirty elements of Gotham. This city lives. He occasionally employs the verite style of camerawork, to make the police interrogation scenes rest in the audience’s subconscious as if they are actually there.

Much like the film noirs of the 1940s and 50s, Pfister is prudent in highlighting grey skies and dark corners, emphasising the exploration of the line between good and evil. Indeed, one of the major driving forces behind the film is the exploration of the Joker’s anarchy; a world made neither black nor white but dull, grey and amoral.

The cast is solid, with Christian Bale as Batman improving on emotional subtlety in this film. Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent was an outstanding touch, making us empathise and feel tragedy for the brilliant lawyer whose fall from grace resonates with the audience, as if a friend has stumbled before us.

However, the cornerstone of the ensemble is arguably Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker. The first Batman villain ever introduced into the canon, Ledger succeeds in taking such an iconic character and delivering a fresh perspective. Physically, he dominates the screen. His sweaty and thick make-up, greasy green hair and yellow teeth portray a force of evil who simply doesn’t care. He only seeks anarchy, and as he quips to Batman, “The best way to live is in a world without rules.” Licking his lips and brandishing a knife, his maniacal laugh is never comical, only sinister.

The film explores the concept of duality with a subtle touch. Nolan clearly poses Harvey Dent as the man Batman might have been. Gordon even refers to him as Gotham’s “White Knight”, forcing Wayne to reconsider his motivation in fighting crime. “You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain,” Harvey Dent says. As he becomes the vicious vigilante known as “Two-Face”, his words become an ironic reality, and pushes “The Dark Knight” into something like a Greek tragedy.

Because “The Dark Knight” focuses not only on explosive action, but primarily subconscious conflict within both Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne, it is an emotionally daunting and complex film. While let-down by this attempt at complexity due to packing so much into a small time, the film nevertheless is a constant force that never drags during its second act.

“The Dark Knight” forces the viewer to be involved and ask themselves to solve ethical dilemmas. It is the complex nature of this story, diluted cinematography and exploration of the subconscious that make it arguably the finest comic-book film ever produced.

The holiday season and such…

Well at least I’m updating a little more frequently.

I graduated a couple of weeks ago, and it was good. The university put dozens of different stages on the grounds of the arena for all the different faculties. It made things a little overwhelming but it was enjoyable at the same time. So I’ve finally finished my eduation, at least for now.

Christmas was good. It’s my favourite time of year, so I always try and enjoy it as much as possible. To be honest I was just thankful to have some time off from work, which I’ve been thoroughly enjoying. My last day was the 23rd, and I go back on the 12th. Looking forward to another 10 days off of work, so I’m lapping it all up while I can. But the day was good, Mal and I got a DVD player that plays both Region 4 and Region 1 DVDs, so that was helpful. That’s about it, really….but my favourite present was from Mal, who gave me the entire collection of Calvin and Hobbes. Some people have sort of snickered at it, but it’s a great comic. At any rate, I enjoy it.

A few friends I saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button the other night. I enjoyed it for a biographical piece, which I usually tend to avoid. It was of a melodramatic tone, similar to something like Big Fish. It was like a hightened sense of reality within our own reality…it was odd, it had a Tim Burton quality to it I can’t put my finger on. But the acting was great, I always like Brad Pitt. Cate Blanchett is always fantastic too. The cinematography was quite dark and diluted, which I suppose adds to the looming sense Button has that his aging will affect him in a profound way. I think his lack of dialogue was part of this as well. But as much as I liked the film for dispensing with a traditional three-act structure, I nevertheless felt Button was a character who doesn’t necessarily deserve a lot of sympathy. I only really started to connect with him towards the end of the film, but most of the time he was just going along and doing his thing. which isn’t a bad thing, of course, I’ve enjoyed  films that do the same sort of thing, but I think it needed a little more of a narratiive spark 40 minutes in. All in all though, I thought it was competent and enjoyable. 3.5./5! 

I’ve been having shocking hayfever the past week, and I’m not sure why.

Well, it’s 2009 now. I don’t want to do a big retrospective commentary on the year, but suffice to say it’s been a big one for me. I got engaged, graduated and found a writing job all in the one year. This year will be a little quieter, with the exception of a date in September. 

Speaking of which, progress on the visa is being made. We applied about three weeks ago, and our case officer has contacted us. we’ll got an initial assessment of our application soon enough, which should give us an indication as to how quickly we’re going to get approved.

Hopefully, sooner rather than later.

I don’t update nearly as often as I should.

Since I last posted, I’ve started full time work, and enjoying it very much thus far. It’s hard work, it challenges me and constantly keeps me on my toes, so I suppose that’s another thing to be thankful for. The people are great, although if we could turn the television off every afternoon during question time that would be great. Parliamentarians are a pack of primary shcoolers waiting for the holidays – or at least that’s how they act.

Mallory and I have sent away our visa application, and I am…cautiously optimistic. I think we’ve given enough evidence to grant us a visa, but at the same time I’m not sure if my income will be enough. That is, if they’ll consider my income to be enough. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see, but surely we’ve given enough to warrant an approval.

I haven’t seen nearly as many films as I might’ve liked in the past couple of months. I’ve seen Shooter, Quantum of Solace, The Shawshank Redemption (repeat) and a couple of others. I’m itching to see Australia, and I’m ticked I didn’t get to see Body of Lies before it finished its run. I really do need to make the time to see more films, because I’m losing touch with what I used to love about cinema in the first place. Then I watch a film, even an average one, and think, “Oh yeah, that’s right,” and get right back into it. But the films I want to see, no one else wants to see. I suppose I could go by myself, but after a while it just becomes sad.

Also – finished university classes and passed since the last post. I ended up graduating with a 3.08 GPA, a distinction average. It’s…not bad, but it’s not great either. I think I could have done better if I had just spent a few more minutes on some projects, but to be honest, I’m glad to be done with it all now. My graduation ceremony is on the 17th, and it’ll just be great to finally have some closure on the three-year process. 

It’s odd. When high school finished, a few people I knew wanated to take a year off and do some work, do some travelling before they head out into the “real world” of study and full time employment. I don’t have a problem with that, but it makes me think about myself. I went straight from high school, to university, to now getting a full-time job and getting married next year. And, for not one second do I doubt that I am doing the wrong thing, but it makes me think – have I seen the world enough? I’ve spent time in different countries, lived in one for five years and another for merely three months, and have stopped at countless airports along the way. I suppose I’ve done my share of travelling and swapping stories with lonely backpackers in dingy hostels at 2am, but it makes me ache for my travel. Not by myself, but with Mallory along with me. There are so many things I wish to see and so many more places I want to set foot on, but…I don’t know if I’ve given up that chance by taking the path I’m heading down now.

Please keep in mind my thoughts are not coherent right now, I’m operating on about 4 hours sleep over the past 38 or something stupid like that, but I’m just pondering whether heading into full time employment and married life has meant I’ve somehow missed an opportunity I was put on Earth to experience. Probably not though, but it’s an interesting idea to think about. 

Then again, I have a car, a job, a roof over my head and enough money in my wallet to survive me the week. I think I should really stop complaining and praise God for the blessings I *have* been given. And as I said, even if given the opportunity to go out travelling or keep going down the path I’m on now, I’d stay where I am without question.

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Matthew 5:44 – 45 (KJV)

Smile at someone you hate this week.