There was this neighbor kid, Rene, who was a pathological liar (probably still is,) who told us all these wild stories. Some may even have had a basis on reality, I'm sure he had some kind of life when he wasn't spending time with us.
The one movie he told us about, that I remember, was titled SHARK! and it came out just about the time of Jaws. Of course, since he couldn't see Jaws, he made up his own version of it. It featured a little bald guy being attackd by hundred of sharks and chasing them and fighting them while riding on a motorcycle. It took him weeks and weeks to develop the full story and he would tell us little snipets of this little bald guy doing amazing stunts while hunting sharks.
I am also guilty of this, once I became a connoisseur, I would tell people about these weird movies, and describe the most incredible events in them in an exaggerated manner and adding mind boggling stuff in a simple throwaway manner. Of course they did not believe me, but I was simply describing Smoky Mountain Christmas (Dolly Parton in a Snow White role) or Killer Klowns from Outer Space or some other such nonsense or ridiculous premise that actually got made into a movie.
They I would just laugh the whole time as they got to see the movie in amazement.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Images Of Male Fertility Gods In Cinema
There have certainly been lots of male fertility symbols, typically phallic in origin in the past.
If you look for them in art, you will see lots of representations of male fertility, maybe they are not particularily identified or named as an official fertility god, but they function as symbols of one.
All you need to do is look.
I can easily think of pre-Colombian or other American images with giant phalluses.
You will also find them in Indian architecture and art. Unfortunately this art is destroyed or hidden away by modern culture.
I am not a historian, but I can easily extrapolate that if they are hidden or destroyed in the current cultural climate, they are likely to have also been destroyed in the past.
Did the Spanish not destroy most records, art and architecture of the Mesoamerican cultures?
The comic genre devoted to sex (among other adult subject matter) is know as Underground Comix.
Currently, phallic symbols are still used by men. Ties, skyscrapers, cigars, guns, etc. Whether by intent or not is debatable, but ultimately they are interpreted as phallic symbols even after the fact.
Now, as to what I mean by Male Fertility God, obviously one that is officially recognized as one, but also an icon that has taken over the role, or has filled the cultural void in the absence resulting from the disappearance of the religion or cult that worshiped them. In the same way that Santa Claus comes not only from the story of Nicholas of Myra, but also from traditions of Odin, Ruebezahl and Knecht Ruprecht, among others.
The Easter Bunny, (though sometimes seen as female, but often as male,) mentioned earlier becomes a symbol of Spring, birth and fertility, thus a fertility god.
I just finished reading Lords and Ladies by Terry Pratchett. It is basically a reworking of Midsummer Night's Dream, but set in Discworld.
Of course Oberon and Titania are there, though not mentioned by those names.
On the one had we have the Queen of the Elves and then there is her Husband (played in this photo by Patrick Stewart).
The Husband lives under a mountain with a giant sign of male genitalia, and though the King of Elves is supposed to be similarly endowed, a dwarf comments that he is not half of what he is supposed to be, maybe referring to his general size or maybe his endowment (which makes for a good joke, but not much sense, since he only appears to be, his real nature is something else entirely.)
Here is a similar giant as seen in Religulous:
I can think of two movies featuring the Green Man but can find no good photos: The Green Man (1990) and Gawain and the Green Knight (1973.)
The King appears as a horned giant, and immediately made me think of this drawing.
But also of the many horned hart of Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke:
and in turn of the forest giant, since they are two faces of the same god:
For example the Tororo spirit in My Neighbor Totoro, seems to have a shrine, even if no actual worshippers or cult. Maybe the shrine was for the overall forest and not specifically build to worship/venerate him, though the girls' father seems to imply that.
A forest spirit (or god or demon) that spreads seeds around (and gives them to girls/women) and makes plants sprout and trees grow is not, maybe, a Fertility God, but has to be seen as a spirit closely related to fertility of a kind.
Here I am assuming that Totoro is a male god, though I have no idea if gender even applies to him/her. I know Miyazaki has detailed Totoro's background further, but am not aware of specific discussions of sex.
And while Totoro is probably related to the Mononoke Forest God, at least conceptually, I don't know that Miyazaki consciously intended a connection.
Hellboy II has an intimate connection to Mononoke, in that Del Toro used a similar forest elemental giant:
And also a horned King of Elves/Faerie:
Which makes sense, since both figures are linked to male fertility, although in this case the forest elemental is a separate agent of the King, and not the King himself.
Now, let me point out that I am an idiot, and that it took me this long to see that both aspects of the Shishigami are not merely a Japanese religion/myth conception, but more universal myth figures.
This chain of thought made me start thinking of all the different manifestations of Male fertility gods, which include satyrs, the god Pan, and lead up to the "modern" versions of devils and their connection with goats (horns, hoofed feet, etc.)
This includes the conception of Hellboy himself. Thus the Elf King, and Hellboy are two different aspects of the Male fertility god.
Why are two fertility gods featured in the same movie?
Well, that is simple. Hellboy is named as the Destroyer Of Worlds, which I initially thought meant it in the Catholic sense of bringing the ultimate end of the world and somehow the end of Mankind (and not merely the end of the world as we know it.)
As we see, Hellboy II, not only brings upon the death of the King of Elves, but that of his son and daugther (who happen to be twins.) Hellboy then engenders two twins himself, (did it really take me this long to see this? Duh!)
Thus Hellboy is bringing upon the end of the world of Elves (Destroyer Of Worlds, remember?) while replacing it with a new world of his own progeny. Did the prince not clearly state that he would not be challenged/replaced by someone not of royal blood?
If you recall there is also a fertility goddess or that giant Willendorf Venus during the auction scene. (Of course, Hellboy knocks it down!)
And Hellboy doesn't merely reproduce by himself, he needs Firegirl to do this.
So Female Fertility also plays in all of this, though Male Fertility is featured more prominently.
The difficult thing is trying to figure out what DelToro's intentions are, and whether he isn't simply throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there!
On a different issue, I started to think how Christianity addressed the subject of male fertility.
As I've said the goat imagery is taken care of in representations of the devil, but it is not generally considered a good or positive thing.
I think the image of Christ somehow takes care of it but substitutes the reproduction by way of seed to a reproduction by way of blood.
Maybe the seed and the blood are one and the same thing from a Mythical perspective.
Also, the Lords And Ladies novel reminds us of the Elves' aversion to iron.
With all of that thought on different mythologies I thought it was weird that Christ was killed by iron (nails, spear,) and in this way the Christ myth becomes sort of Faerie-like in that sense.
Since Christ is descended from David, and Solomon, and Solomon was supposed to mess around with genii and efreets and such, could Christ as myth not have had the opportunity to have Faerie blood in him?
I know Christ as alien has been done (Demon/God Told Me To,) but has Christ as Faerie ever been done? Can the thorn crown be seen as an mythic visual evolution of the horns associated with a Faerie King?
I guess the Easter Bunny is no substitute for a Fertility God, Huh?
If you look for them in art, you will see lots of representations of male fertility, maybe they are not particularily identified or named as an official fertility god, but they function as symbols of one.
All you need to do is look.
I can easily think of pre-Colombian or other American images with giant phalluses.
You will also find them in Indian architecture and art. Unfortunately this art is destroyed or hidden away by modern culture.
I am not a historian, but I can easily extrapolate that if they are hidden or destroyed in the current cultural climate, they are likely to have also been destroyed in the past.
Did the Spanish not destroy most records, art and architecture of the Mesoamerican cultures?
The comic genre devoted to sex (among other adult subject matter) is know as Underground Comix.
Currently, phallic symbols are still used by men. Ties, skyscrapers, cigars, guns, etc. Whether by intent or not is debatable, but ultimately they are interpreted as phallic symbols even after the fact.
Now, as to what I mean by Male Fertility God, obviously one that is officially recognized as one, but also an icon that has taken over the role, or has filled the cultural void in the absence resulting from the disappearance of the religion or cult that worshiped them. In the same way that Santa Claus comes not only from the story of Nicholas of Myra, but also from traditions of Odin, Ruebezahl and Knecht Ruprecht, among others.
The Easter Bunny, (though sometimes seen as female, but often as male,) mentioned earlier becomes a symbol of Spring, birth and fertility, thus a fertility god.
I just finished reading Lords and Ladies by Terry Pratchett. It is basically a reworking of Midsummer Night's Dream, but set in Discworld.
Of course Oberon and Titania are there, though not mentioned by those names.
On the one had we have the Queen of the Elves and then there is her Husband (played in this photo by Patrick Stewart).
The Husband lives under a mountain with a giant sign of male genitalia, and though the King of Elves is supposed to be similarly endowed, a dwarf comments that he is not half of what he is supposed to be, maybe referring to his general size or maybe his endowment (which makes for a good joke, but not much sense, since he only appears to be, his real nature is something else entirely.)
Here is a similar giant as seen in Religulous:
I can think of two movies featuring the Green Man but can find no good photos: The Green Man (1990) and Gawain and the Green Knight (1973.)
The King appears as a horned giant, and immediately made me think of this drawing.
But also of the many horned hart of Miyazaki's Princess Mononoke:
and in turn of the forest giant, since they are two faces of the same god:
For example the Tororo spirit in My Neighbor Totoro, seems to have a shrine, even if no actual worshippers or cult. Maybe the shrine was for the overall forest and not specifically build to worship/venerate him, though the girls' father seems to imply that.
A forest spirit (or god or demon) that spreads seeds around (and gives them to girls/women) and makes plants sprout and trees grow is not, maybe, a Fertility God, but has to be seen as a spirit closely related to fertility of a kind.
Here I am assuming that Totoro is a male god, though I have no idea if gender even applies to him/her. I know Miyazaki has detailed Totoro's background further, but am not aware of specific discussions of sex.
And while Totoro is probably related to the Mononoke Forest God, at least conceptually, I don't know that Miyazaki consciously intended a connection.
Hellboy II has an intimate connection to Mononoke, in that Del Toro used a similar forest elemental giant:
And also a horned King of Elves/Faerie:
Which makes sense, since both figures are linked to male fertility, although in this case the forest elemental is a separate agent of the King, and not the King himself.
Now, let me point out that I am an idiot, and that it took me this long to see that both aspects of the Shishigami are not merely a Japanese religion/myth conception, but more universal myth figures.
This chain of thought made me start thinking of all the different manifestations of Male fertility gods, which include satyrs, the god Pan, and lead up to the "modern" versions of devils and their connection with goats (horns, hoofed feet, etc.)
This includes the conception of Hellboy himself. Thus the Elf King, and Hellboy are two different aspects of the Male fertility god.
Why are two fertility gods featured in the same movie?
Well, that is simple. Hellboy is named as the Destroyer Of Worlds, which I initially thought meant it in the Catholic sense of bringing the ultimate end of the world and somehow the end of Mankind (and not merely the end of the world as we know it.)
As we see, Hellboy II, not only brings upon the death of the King of Elves, but that of his son and daugther (who happen to be twins.) Hellboy then engenders two twins himself, (did it really take me this long to see this? Duh!)
Thus Hellboy is bringing upon the end of the world of Elves (Destroyer Of Worlds, remember?) while replacing it with a new world of his own progeny. Did the prince not clearly state that he would not be challenged/replaced by someone not of royal blood?
If you recall there is also a fertility goddess or that giant Willendorf Venus during the auction scene. (Of course, Hellboy knocks it down!)
And Hellboy doesn't merely reproduce by himself, he needs Firegirl to do this.
So Female Fertility also plays in all of this, though Male Fertility is featured more prominently.
The difficult thing is trying to figure out what DelToro's intentions are, and whether he isn't simply throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there!
On a different issue, I started to think how Christianity addressed the subject of male fertility.
As I've said the goat imagery is taken care of in representations of the devil, but it is not generally considered a good or positive thing.
I think the image of Christ somehow takes care of it but substitutes the reproduction by way of seed to a reproduction by way of blood.
Maybe the seed and the blood are one and the same thing from a Mythical perspective.
Also, the Lords And Ladies novel reminds us of the Elves' aversion to iron.
With all of that thought on different mythologies I thought it was weird that Christ was killed by iron (nails, spear,) and in this way the Christ myth becomes sort of Faerie-like in that sense.
Since Christ is descended from David, and Solomon, and Solomon was supposed to mess around with genii and efreets and such, could Christ as myth not have had the opportunity to have Faerie blood in him?
I know Christ as alien has been done (Demon/God Told Me To,) but has Christ as Faerie ever been done? Can the thorn crown be seen as an mythic visual evolution of the horns associated with a Faerie King?
I guess the Easter Bunny is no substitute for a Fertility God, Huh?
I thought of The Wicker Man, But I couldn't really remember any Male Fertility imagery, it's been a while. There's probably horns in there somewhere...
The dirty song at the pub has more to do with female sexuality than male. Maybe the Maypoles...
Here in California there is not much of a Maypole tradition, but I've been at some Renaissance Festivals where Maypole dances get pretty wild, Panic and Saturnalia all rolled into one.
And, is that where they show the snails (hermaphrodites) having sex? Or am I confusing it with La Bete (which also features snail sex)?
This is the other side of the coin, and I was thinking of this while lying in bed this morning. This is the first go and I'll polish it up during the next few days, but I wanted to put it down.
I ended the previous article on the Easter Bunny, which is fitting, since it represents an emasculation of sorts of Male Fertility Gods. In general, maybe in Western or American culture the Fertility Gods have gone underground. They are still there, but in hiding.
Highly iconic fertility images (horns) are no longer used very often, but the Superhero as a Male Hero or God is still there. However, the Superhero is strangely lacking in virility.
Yes, we still have James Bond, and we still have Captain Kirk, but for the most part the Superhero is expected to behave in a chaste manner. I can quickly mention a few examples: Superman II, shows Superman having to renounce his powers to be able to engage in sexual activity.
The Hulk, sidesteps the sex issue in his new movie. While the scene is funny and adequately worked into the story, it reinforces the adolescent (read chaste or immature, your choice,) nature of the hero.
Another example is the White Cowboy in Rustler's Rapsody, who loses his mojo if he engages in sex (read, if he matures.) In a way this example relates to the myth of Galahad (from The Once And Future King, I haven't read Morte D'Arthur) who is so pure that he ceases to be human, and becomes almost angelic.
The nature of Galahad is, however, misunderstood in Western Cinema, since Lancelot did not need to be that pure to excel at being Arthur's champion. Remember, he was boning Guenevere all that time.
So, do heroes need to be chaste? I say no to that. I say that the modern chaste hero is more a result of Puritanical influence than out of any actual need of heroic purity.
The Greek heroes certainly were not pure. And I've already mentioned Lancelot.
The other option for the existence of this perpetual adolescence is a denial of Death, as I've mentioned in another thread. An attempt at a denial of Death brings about a denial of growth in addition to a denial of maturity.
La petite mort refers to the period after orgasm (sex.)
And General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove denies women his "essence," for some reason or other, but likely related to adolescent fears of death.
Is it that by engendering a child, you are thereby creating your replacement and thus become obsolete? Possibly that as well, but it doesn't cease to be an immature fear.
I am looking at maturity in two different ways. One implies reproduction. A seed is not mature till it is able to reproduce. Thus these heroes, stand-ins for Male Fertility Gods, are immature till they show an ability to reproduce.
James Bond has no kids. Both Indiana Jones and James T. Kirk are cheated into maturing. They engage in adolescent behavior their whole lives.
They have kids and are not even aware of it, thus show no growth or maturity. (And here we go full circle, since Kirk's surrogate, Picard, played by Patrick Stewart is shown as Oberon above.)
Over the course of several movies none of these, or Superman, or Batman, or Spiderman ever truly mature.
The other aspect is that these superheroes are born out of adolescent fantasies of empowerment, thus by origin, immature.
Witness attempts at allowing growth and maturity for the Superheroes in Chasing Amy's scene with Stan Lee, by acknowledging their sex lives.
In Superman II he loses his super powers by engaging in adult activities (maturing) and regains them by "erasing" the events. In Superman Returns, the writers have a dilemma of sorts, in that they acknowledge these events, but Superman becomes, then, a cuckoo, in addition to an irresponsible, absent, immature father.
I cannot imagine George Reeves' Superman ever doing any of this. His Superman was always very fatherly to begin with, except, of course that he is TV celibate (immature.)
Hellboy, refreshingly, matures over the course of two movies. And, if you discount the first film, he grows from child to mature adult in only his second film, resulting in two offspring.
I think this has to do with Guillermo Del Toro's own maturity as an artist, see, for example, his concerns regarding children in Mimic, El Espinazo Del Diablo, but also due to his status as an North American and Hollywood outsider.
The Puritanical influence is minimal in his artistic/creative makeup.
So where are the Fertility God icons? The answer to that is that partially this function has been relegated to the movie stars themselves, their view by the public as Sex Symbols in a way takes care of this, even if as sex symbols they barely take care of the reproduction aspect.
They are very deficient as Fertility God icons.
The other option is to look underground. Take a look at Stag or Adult Films (hey.. ...stag, there is that horn imagery again!) The Adult film industry has never gone away. It simply lies beneath the surface. And the actors and actresses main cultural job is to function as the priests and priestesses of the modern Fertility Gods.
Every once in a while (Flesh Gordon) we still get a genre movie that is simply a silly celebration of virility and sexuality.
Maybe this underground aspect of fertility gods has always been there.
I don't doubt it.
There certainly are private collections and museums of historic sex related ephemera, but they remain obscure and hidden.
I do acknowledge that comics, a different media than film, has allowed the superheroes to mature, have children and die. Superman, for example has done all of these.
But even comics fail to address proper or realistic aspects or fertility, for example, Superman is an alien with different gene plasm than that of a human being, thus would not be able to reproduce. Also his stories fail to address the Man Of Steel, Woman Of Kleenex aspect of said reproduction.
http://www.rawbw.com/~svw/superman.html
For now, I am only addressing Cinema.
Los Cronocrimenes (a.k.a. Timecrimes) 2007 - Film Review
 Los Cronocrimenes (2007) A time travel story very much in the vein of Memento, and if you are familiar with Heinlein's All You Zombies, or By His Bootstraps, you pretty much know what to expect, storywise. However, the movie is a tight little, enjoyable, thriller. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmi3OY7cQfA This is Heinlein's Worm Of Ouroboros theory. As far as I know it's the first time it's been done on film, but there are plenty of literary antecedents. The "plot hole" is no plot hole at all, it is simply your typical time travel paradox, which no one really wants to address, even Dr. Who tries to stay away from them at all costs. In Stainless Steel Rat, the simple act of the first ever, initial trip thru time disrupts the continuum enough to generate something even worse than this. Once a working time machine is built it is inevitable that it will be used, even if only to test it, or to travel thru time and end up stepping on a butterfly (The Sound Of Thunder.) They only way to avoid it is never to attempt time travel or to never build a working time machine. The "plot hole," that is, showing the time travel paradox is the entire reason for the film, or for stories like Bradbury's, Heinlein's or Fredric Brown's. The character here becomes a willing slave of time, in part because he is told he must be. Yet if he did not do that he could possibly have avoided everything that happened, depending on which theory of time travel you look at. If you believe that there are small deviations in the story, than the answer is that he could have avoided all of it. If you believe that there are no changes then he is already a time slave, as are all of us. In a nutshell let me describe Robert A. Heinlein's All You Zombies: Girl is born and abandoned in an orphan home. You can say there is a plot hole there, but you'd be missing the point. Causality no longer works in a conventional sense since we are not dealing with normal time flow. The whole thing is not a conventional story, it is an exercise where the author attempts to study (probably) the most extreme time paradox possible. There are some time travel stories that feature "Time Police" who go around trying to fix paradoxes that time travelers get themselves into. When they fix a time mistake, they sometimes end up with little time loops isolated from the overall time stream. This movie describes just such a leftover loop. If you do not see the cause of it all, it may be just because it's been erased already by yet an additional travel thru time. The cause has been erased, it no longer exists, and the effects of the error have been sealed away on its own little time loop. I'm am not saying that the makers even intended this. But if you need it, there it is. In Dark City, you have a similar situation. There is no beginning, because there is no memory of one (the memory was erased.) You can go outside the story and try and figure something out, but the story itself will not give you a solution to what is, in effect, already unsolvable. Jack Finney (From Time To Time, Time And Again) came up with a neat trick, he allows Time to heal itself of paradoxes. You are allowed to go back and kill Gramps, but then you cease to 'exist,' and the time stream changes. People who knew you forget you or events that relate to you, yet, even though you no longer 'exist,' some might have feelings such as deja vu concerning you and the events surrounding you. Someone outside of the time stream is still allowed to remember you. But Gramps remains dead. According to Finney's version of time travel, this guy could have been free to do or not do whatever he wanted. He would have had to live with the consequences, but would not have disappeared nor have the Universe disappear with him if he did not attempt to slavishly follow the memories he had. Fredric Brown explored all the different options for time travel in his short short stories. Back To The Future addresses the matter in a ridiculous way, McFly starts to disappear little by little so that he has an opportunity to fix the paradox. And yet, the rules allow him to change the future, and go back to a new life, where the possibility of him existing simply because his parents got together again (for the second time,) somehow does not get eradicated. What are the chances that even after that change in life, the parents had sex at the same time, with the same resulting egg and sperm that would result in Marty a second time? I don't remember any SF fan being bothered by this enough to deny the Nebula Award to the movie. Yes, there is a paradox, and by its very nature there is no solution. As I've said, other authors shy away from them. You basically have two alternatives, simply restructure the events so that effect follows cause (The Time Travelers, where you still get the resulting time loop,) or have Hector never meet himself (The Time Machine, which hardly explores the concept of time travel, they might as well have just had the guy make a spaceship that goes to the Morlock planet.) But, then, you don't get to blow the viewer's mind... The Terminator series, Back To The Future series all deal with paradoxes, and no one seems to complain. The artistic choice to present the paradox openly is a brave and valid one in my opinion. Otherwise you get cheated out of the real monsters (Mark Of The Vampire, Scooby Doo.) Also, don't miss the short 7:35 En La Manana included in the DVD, it's a neat little comment on musicals and movies vs reality. Will have some more comments when I finish watching it. --- Ok, I finished watching it, and here are my final comments. I am very impressed by it. The story can be read on several different levels. Some comments have been made that the decision to present the paradox in this manner is somehow an artistic mistake. I do not think so. The authors are using a language that is well known in the SF readership community. In any event, the whole time travel thing is nothing more than a MacGuffin. The authors follow their own rules and don't cheat the audience. They are logically consistent. So I have no problem with the paradox. The important aspect of the story is not the external time travel paradox that is presented, but the internal changes it provokes in its main character. The character Hector is presented in three distinct stages. Stage One in which he is told the universe is what it is and he cannot change his destiny, and where he believes this so. Stage Two, which is an intermediate stage where he begins to suspect that he might be able to change his life destiny, but in the meantime is running around trying to catch up with events and still attempting to follow the rules. And Stage Three in which he realizes he must become responsible of his destiny (there are no rules,) he must pay a high price for being responsible, but there is not much of a choice since the result of being irresponsible is an even bigger price (it does however come the added trade-off comfort of knowing he is not responsible for it; Karma, Destiny, the Universe or God is.) So which is it, do you let the Universe alone and claim you are not responsible for whatever becomes of it? Or do you take responsibility and live with the choices you must make? In the process of the story we also see what might be construed as the effects of a casual fling in the life of a(n apparently) happily married character, and the steps (and high price that must be paid) to resolve it. Yes, the story is about a crime, but in reality it is no more criminal than the irresponsible restructuring of the universe that is created by Marty McFly in the Back To The Future film, or the Tales From The Darkside, The Word Processor of the Gods (1984) episode, it is more like the hard decision that the Mom must make in The Good Son. |
Monday, October 12, 2009
Creciendo Con Fe
De niño iba yo a misa. Tipicamente cumplia con mi hora requerida los domingos en el templo.
Pero llego el momento en que pare de ir. Ya sea por que entre a la Universidad, por que estaba ocupado, por flojera, o lo que sea. Parte es la decepcion que senti al separarse y divorciarse mis padres.
Me case, tuve hijos, y mientras estos estaban chicos no habia justificacion o manera de regresar.
En los años de por medio fui expuesto a gente de diferentes culturas, religiones y filosofias, y lei libros que discutian diferentes aspectos de mitologia, religion, ateismo, etc.
Ahora los ninos estan yendo al catecismo. En las clases de catecismo le estan pidiendo que vayan a misa.
Por razones personales cruzamos la linea y los llevamos los sabados a Tijuana.
Asi que tambien regresamos al templo los domingos.
Desde este punto de vista, yo tuve una "ventaja" que mis hijos no estan teniendo: fui a una escuela particular catolica. Creci aprendiendo las enseñanzas basicas de la religion.
Ellos estan yendo a una escuela publica. En la escuela no estan aprendiendo nada de religion.
En casa, he tratado de ser sumamente positivo en lo que les enseño en cuestiones de religiosidad.
Por ejemplo en la religion catolica se hace mucho enfasis al aspecto de la culpa y el pecado y el castigo.Yo he tratado de enfatizar aspectos de responsabilidad personal y las recompensas que aquello trae.
Cuando los niños me preguntan algo trato de contestarles de la manera mas honesta que puedo, aunque esto posiblemente contradiga la instruccion que yo recibi.
Trato ante todo de contestar algo que yo si creo, y de no ser hipocrita.
En ese aspecto he tratado de analizar lo basico de las enseñanzas de Jesucristo y basar lo que les digo mas en mi interpretacion, mas que en lo que posiblemente yo haya escuchado previamente.
Como ya mencione, estudie con los hermanos Maristas, y tuve tres o cuatro muy buenos maestros.
El primero fue en quinto año, y se llamaba "Armandaro". "Armandaro" nos enseño, primero que Dios nos ama; que la manera de intercedir con Dios es por medio de Maria; y que nuestra responsabilidad esta en crecer para ser Personas.
Estas fueron sus principales lecciones. Un aspecto importante de el fue que Armando se dirigia al salon y hablada de "tu." Es decir se dirigia personalmente a cada uno de nosotros.
Las lecciones de este hermano Marista fueron muy formativas para mi y para mi fe. Y los maestros que tuve despues de el fueron para mi simplemente una continuacion de sus lecciones. Solo para que vean que no los he olvidado los menciono de nombre: "Lincoln", "Seven-up" y "Gasparin."
Algunos de estos hermanos dejaron la comunidad Marista posteriormente, pero esto realmente no viene al caso.
Una de las cosas que yo veo en la iglesia catolica es que existen infinidad de interpretaciones de las bases de la religion. Cada quien ve las cosas a su manera.
Por ejemplo vean la pelicula de Bill Maher, Religulous.
Bill crecio aprendiendo muchas cosas de la fe, pero la iglesia cambio de opiniones y el se quedo con las creencias y la fe del pasado. Esto posiblemente no esta sucediento a todos los catolicos.
Cuando yo creci, en Mexico, se hacia enfasis en la humildad y pobreza y en servir a los demas. Ahora que vivo en los Estados Unidos percibo a la iglesia catolica norteamericana como algo extraño.
Parece que la iglesia catolica en Estados Unidos es algo basicamente distinto que la iglesia catolica en Mexico.
Para empezar, historicamente ha habido inmensa influencia de la inmensa cantidad de grupos Cristianos fundamentalistas. La interpretacion de la Biblia tiende a ser mas literal.
Otra cosa es, posiblemente por que muchas de las familias descienden de trabajadores de campo, que veo tradiciones o creencias que no coinciden o que contradicen lo que yo vivi. Aunque en Mexico vi supersticiones, etas no tendian a aparecer en el ambiente escolar.
Parece que los sacerdotes que me tocaron actualmente viven en un vacio que ignora lo que sucede en el resto del mundo.
Nunca mencionan u organizan programas de ayuda a los demas. Cuando yo que iba a un templo humilde, escuchaba constantemente mencionar a las colonias aun mas pobres, y se nos pedia ayuda para ellas.
Los hermanos Maristas eran misioneros, y yo siempre vi enfasis en la hermandad de Africa, China, la Sierra Tarahumara, etc. Se me hace raro y se me hace dificil identificarme con esta comunidad que ignora al resto de mundo, empezando por Mexico.
Vivo a tres minutos de la frontera, y sin embargo el sacerdote de la parroquia nunca menciona a nuestros vecinos mexicanos. Nunca menciona los problemas sociales y politicos que actualmente hay en Tijuana, y creanme son muchos.
Sin embargo, simpre se asegura de pedir dinero para la propia parroquia. Como hace enfasis de esto! Hasta hay dos colectas diferentes durante la misa.
A la hora de el sermon es raro que este yo de acuerdo con el sacerdote. Si veo que hay algo que me parece bien, de inmediato lo contradice con otra cosa.
Dentro de la iglesia, orgullosamente, hay una bandera mexicana y una bandera americana. Y las demas banderas del resto del mundo, que?
En las oraciones pedimos por el ejercito norteamericano, sin embargo no pedimos por otro ejercito, no pedimos por el otro pais o por el resto del mundo.
Creo que es bueno que en Mexico se haya separado el Estado de la Iglesia, por lo menos los sacerdotes mexicanos no sienten al patriotismo mas fuerte que a su sentimiento de ser miembros de la raza humana.
Yo se que no es un error que la iglesia nortemericana difiera de la iglesia mexicana, o por lo menos por la que yo vivi. Pero me es dificil encajar. Me es dificil pensar que mis hijos van a crecer de esta manera y no van a poder ver un mundo mayor, una hermandad mundial.
Ahora, no crean que no tengo problemas con la iglesia mexicana. Cuando dejamos a los niños en el catecismo en Tijuana nos quedamos a escuchar una platica para padres, a veces dirigida por una hermana, a veces por un sacerdote.
Se me hace raro que personas que nunca han tenido que lidiar con una pareja o con hijos crean que pueden aconsejar a aquellos que si lidiamos con esta clase de problemas de una manera cotidiana.
Es dificil para ellos hablar de temas que realmente se aplican a la vida de diario de una familia, y en ocasiones hablan de temas que no tienen razon.
Por ejemplo en una ocasion la hermana hablo en favor de la union de la familia y en contra del aborto.
El problema de esto es que esta hablando con padres de familia que ya tuvieron hijos y ya tienen una familia establecida.
¿No tiene mas sentido hablar de estos temas con gente soltera?
¿De que sirve hablar de esto con gente que ya esta convencida de los valores en discusion?
En otra ocasion, el sacerdote hablo en contra de la homosexualidad.
De nuevo, ¿de que sirve hablar en contra de la homosexualidad si esta hablando con gente que ya establecio que quiere vivir una vida heterosexual, con una pareja del sexo opuesto y con hijos?
¿Tan importante es hablar que Dios esta en contra de las parejas homosexuales por la razon de que no pueden tenir hijos?
¿Y la adopcion que?
¡En la Biblia esta establecido que los hijos por biologia o por adopcion, igual son hijos!
¿De que le sirve a una pareja ser heterosexual (por mas hijos que tenga) si no hay cariño, si no hay respeto, si solo hay violencia y abuso?
Estoy seguro de lo que Cristo responderia ante esta situacion. Ya que Cristo no se juntaba con los justos, sino con los pecadores y las prostitutas, segun nos dice la Biblia. Cristo solo les decia: "Ni yo te condeno, vete y no peques más" (Juan 8:3-11)
Pelicula recomendada 1: Religulous (2008)
Pelicula recomendada 2: The Milky Way (1969)
Pelicula recomendada 3: The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)
The Golden Compass - A Movie Review - Part II
Later:
I saw the second half. It does get better, and in fact if the first half was as good as the last we'd have an excellent movie. The best things: Sam Elliot's cowboy, the girl's acting, the visual design, and if you insist, the bear warriors, even if they don't make much logical sense.
My recommendation: Only see the second half. You won't miss the exposition of the first half at all.
Regarding the bear warriors. A war is mentioned and the cowboy (who is a friend of the bear warrior sez "War? I haven't heard of any war?" Which only proves my point about the unjustified existence of a warrior race in this planet.
A recommendation to writers and movie makers in the future: Quit ripping off Star Wars. While the first movie was fun, the dramatic components of the series (and I am talking about the three first movies,) are at the level of TV soap operas. It is not worthwhile to rip this off. I am talking to you Eragon, and to Golden Compass on a lesser degree (lesser than Eragon, but still quite substantial.)
The people who grew up on Star Wars and are now writing novels or making films seem to have read or watched nothing else at all.
Also, while it is obvious that Golden Compass was to be a series, and it is likely to remain unfinished as such (since it tanked,) the open ending manages to work quite well. We don't need to see a series of what is likely to be fantasy cliches played out. We already know how the thing ends.
...this is an adaptation of a highly regarded literary work...
I've never read the novel, so I cannot comment there.
But the execution certainly does not work as film.
While the poetry may work in the novel, the fact that these people deal day in and day out with this leads me to think that people would not even mention it, specially if the daemon has its own name, as Pan does.
I can go a whole day without mentioning I have an immortal soul or what I think of it and its nature.
When everyone knows that Pan is a daemon, there is no need to call attention to it.
I would mention my companion Pan by name, if I needed to refer to him, but I wouldn't even need to mention that he is what is known as a daemon.
An outsider would simply think of it as my pet, or my animal companion. My familiar even, to a particularily perceptive audience member.
I could call my son, my "human son," every time I mention him, but it would have a weird effect on my conversations.
Just think of the movie Dragnet, when Joe Friday kept calling the lady a virgin. This has a comedic effect simply because people do not express themselves in this manner and do not call attention to what is obvious to everyone else or what is simply superfluous information.
There are movies about homosexuality that do not mention the word homosexual because of this same reason of avoiding controversy. I'm sure it could be done and that it would work. That at least would have circumvented the backlash.
As I said, the backlash is but a small problem with the movie, but one that stopped and will stop many people from seeing it.
...To suggest that the word "daemon" not be used is kind of like suggesting that Peter Jackson should have discarded the word "hobbit" and gone with "half-pints" or "small fry" instead.
I disagree, simply because "Hobbit" is not something that might be offensive or might disorient the audience. Plus consider the fact that "Hobbit" has been a part of the current popular culture much more than the obscure term "daemon".
And yet, personally, I don't have a problem with the term "daemon".
I knew the movie used it even before getting the movie. (The movie was recommended at the office as a beautiful film, which I agree it is.)
I have a small kid who is beginning his Catechism and I had to explain the difference between "demon" and "daemon" to him (I'm sure he still didn't "get it").
I had no problem with him seeing the movie.
But it is obvious to me that others do and will.
An example is the word shag" in the Austin Powers movies. The American audience did not have a problem, because "shag" was a term not frequently used, if not a new term.
To some European audiences, it was however offensive, from what I heard. However, in a movie like Austin Powers that was probably an unintended bonus.
...I don't think starting to watch at the midway point is really going to help, but maybe you were joking about that.
My wife saw only the last half, and she quite enjoyed it. I told her she could watch the first half if she really wanted to, but that I did not recommend it. I don't know if my appreciation of the movie exceeds hers, but at least she didn't suffer thru the initial bad portion of the movie.
Like I said, I did not read the novel, nor do I feel like reading it, and I certainly don't feel as if the movie needs to be faithful to it. Especially when the translation of novel to film doesn't work.
...your lack of even the remotest interest in the source material is hard for me to understand.
I have piles of reading stuff on my night table. I am (actively) going thru Dirk Gently (which I never read before, but for some reason thought I had) currently in addition to the two last issues of VW Magazine.
I also just purchased 4 Discworld novels that I wanna read.
I started Stars In My Pocket Like Grains Of Sand... and laid it to the side, but I intend to finish it.
I just finished the three volumes of DVD Delirium which I started in June of last year.
I have literally hundreds of movies and TV shows which have been purchased and are sitting on a shelf and in boxes waiting for me to watch them.
I'm sorry I don't have time or interest to read this series, I don't know the author and he hasn't been recommended to me, in addition to the fact that I find myself not having patience with Juvenile Fiction lately.
I don't think the material should be dumbed down, I simply think that for the movie to work much exposition needs to be taken out. If that screws up some of the story clarity, so be it. How many obscure films have I seen? God knows. When I watch a surrealist movie I don't understand everything I see, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it, or thinking about it or discussing it.
They can take the word "daemon" out of it, without dumbing it down, easily: leave everything exactly the same in the script, but every time someone says daemon substitute the name of that particular daemon instead.
That would simply make it more accessible to lots of people who would otherwise not see it, I know the author would not be happy with it. But they never are, anyway.
Monday, September 21, 2009
The Golden Compass - A Movie Review - Part I
I've started watching it, and even though I haven't finished I have some thoughts. Most of the dialogue so far is expository: what the world is, how the universe works, who each of the groups mentioned are and a complete dictionary full of weird new terms used, which serve no purpose at all, etc. That is a lot of exposition to sit thru for so little characterization. Most of the actors feel wasted (Chris Lee?)
The story seems to be about a kidnapping and a rescue. Do we really need all those earlier things explained? They are unnecessary and should be cut out.
You wanna see how it's done? See Howl's Moving Castle, for example. Another universe with different laws, visually beautiful, but does not waste any time in this exposition, instead, it focuses on the characters, and even though one character (Howl himself!) fails the rest make up for it.
In Harry Potter and Narnia (or other similar movies) we also have a lot of exposition, but it is justified, because Harry and the Pevensies are being introduced to a new world/universe, thus they stand in for the viewer.
In this world all dialogue feels artificial because characters are constantly explaining to one another what words mean, what things are, and how they operate, things that should be taken for granted by people who've lived there their whole lives!
If the dialogue was written this way (taking all of this for granted,) it would explain less or at least in a slower manner, but it'd be more effective, because, really, we don't need any of these explanations, as they have nothing to do with the basic suspense generating premise (the kidnapping)!
Why treat the story as a mystery? Isn't it enough that we are discovering a new universe? Do we also need a mystery within it to make it even more interesting?
Why cheat to the audience into thinking the kids are enemies (or in danger from each other,) while using terms the audience does not yet understand ("gobblers") only to learn a few minutes later that it is only play, and that there really are gobblers in the story, but these are not them, the danger actually lies somewhere else? The kids are not the gobblers, but are playing at being gobblers. The real gobblers are actually another group, which we've yet to meet! Why have the mom urgently try to stop the kids from this play, if she knows it is only play, even if the audience does not yet know it?
This endless audience manipulation does not work, here or in any other movie. I resent it and probably other audience members do. And it works even less when it is pointlessly used, why do we need to think that these kids might be a threat?
The use of the word "daemon" is unfortunate and unwise. Yes, some of us know the difference, but most will be confused.
Why not use something like "Dopple" instead? Any word would have done.
But anyway, the concept is weak, having two vulnerable connected bodies does not make sense. Why would I want my soul to be trapped in a small bird or mouse? I would think that people would not live very long in this universe ("oops! sorry, I stepped on your mouse, o wait, you're already dead",) unless they were able to strengthen their souls early in their childhood.
Some of the other concepts also do not make sense, and we just have to accept them.
Why are there bandits in a snowy waste, where nobody in their right mind would travel? Who do they live off? Why call them bandits at all?
Oh, we call them bandits because we want the audience to know they are evil...
Why are there polar bears warriors? Isn't it sorta established in the beginning that this is somewhat of a peaceful and prosperous world? Where is the war taking place?
How useful can a polar bear be as a warrior (even if he is armored,) when you've got plenty of technology which renders the concept of an armored warrior obsolete?
People stopped wearing armor as soon as gunpowder was invented. Doesn't the writer have any idea of this? He must, because at the point where the bear is surrounded by people with guns no one bothers to shoots him.
Isn't a polar bear limited by geography? Why not have him be simply a giant or an ogre or troll of some kind?
Oh, we have bear warriors, because they are cool, and marketable and good Coke pushers, and we might need them later on...
I'll have more comments when I finish the movie...
The story seems to be about a kidnapping and a rescue. Do we really need all those earlier things explained? They are unnecessary and should be cut out.
You wanna see how it's done? See Howl's Moving Castle, for example. Another universe with different laws, visually beautiful, but does not waste any time in this exposition, instead, it focuses on the characters, and even though one character (Howl himself!) fails the rest make up for it.
In Harry Potter and Narnia (or other similar movies) we also have a lot of exposition, but it is justified, because Harry and the Pevensies are being introduced to a new world/universe, thus they stand in for the viewer.
In this world all dialogue feels artificial because characters are constantly explaining to one another what words mean, what things are, and how they operate, things that should be taken for granted by people who've lived there their whole lives!
If the dialogue was written this way (taking all of this for granted,) it would explain less or at least in a slower manner, but it'd be more effective, because, really, we don't need any of these explanations, as they have nothing to do with the basic suspense generating premise (the kidnapping)!
Why treat the story as a mystery? Isn't it enough that we are discovering a new universe? Do we also need a mystery within it to make it even more interesting?
Why cheat to the audience into thinking the kids are enemies (or in danger from each other,) while using terms the audience does not yet understand ("gobblers") only to learn a few minutes later that it is only play, and that there really are gobblers in the story, but these are not them, the danger actually lies somewhere else? The kids are not the gobblers, but are playing at being gobblers. The real gobblers are actually another group, which we've yet to meet! Why have the mom urgently try to stop the kids from this play, if she knows it is only play, even if the audience does not yet know it?
This endless audience manipulation does not work, here or in any other movie. I resent it and probably other audience members do. And it works even less when it is pointlessly used, why do we need to think that these kids might be a threat?
The use of the word "daemon" is unfortunate and unwise. Yes, some of us know the difference, but most will be confused.
Why not use something like "Dopple" instead? Any word would have done.
But anyway, the concept is weak, having two vulnerable connected bodies does not make sense. Why would I want my soul to be trapped in a small bird or mouse? I would think that people would not live very long in this universe ("oops! sorry, I stepped on your mouse, o wait, you're already dead",) unless they were able to strengthen their souls early in their childhood.
Some of the other concepts also do not make sense, and we just have to accept them.
Why are there bandits in a snowy waste, where nobody in their right mind would travel? Who do they live off? Why call them bandits at all?
Oh, we call them bandits because we want the audience to know they are evil...
Why are there polar bears warriors? Isn't it sorta established in the beginning that this is somewhat of a peaceful and prosperous world? Where is the war taking place?
How useful can a polar bear be as a warrior (even if he is armored,) when you've got plenty of technology which renders the concept of an armored warrior obsolete?
People stopped wearing armor as soon as gunpowder was invented. Doesn't the writer have any idea of this? He must, because at the point where the bear is surrounded by people with guns no one bothers to shoots him.
Isn't a polar bear limited by geography? Why not have him be simply a giant or an ogre or troll of some kind?
Oh, we have bear warriors, because they are cool, and marketable and good Coke pushers, and we might need them later on...
I'll have more comments when I finish the movie...
Friday, September 18, 2009
Lounge Music
What I'm doing right now.
Listening to some Lounge Music.
Recommended site:
http://www.basichip.com/
Listening to some Lounge Music.
Recommended site:
http://www.basichip.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
