We all have had experiences with certain types of people. For lack of a better label, I'm going to call them "bad friends." Not that they have done anything particularly awful to us. They just aren't really what you could call a true friend. In most of these cases, they are the people that call you their friend, but you cannot really see them as more than an acquaintance. It's really about how strong your relationship is. How deep is your friendship? These relationships with "bad friends" tend to be very one-sided. We have no real reason to break off the friendship, nor do we have any real reason to keep the friendship. These are the friends who only call on you when they have a problem or need some help. These are the friends that when you do meet with them, you have to do what they want to do, talk about things that interest them, or talk about/do things that they think you are into even if you aren't really into them. They aren't bad people. They are just selfish and tend not to listen. They get way more out of the relationship than you ever do.
These relationships tend to put us in a difficult position. We could tell them how we feel, but we know it isn't worth it. Either they won't hear a word you say, or they will take what you say wrong. Both cases are the result of the same thing. They are self-centered. They analyze what you say only in terms of how it affects themselves. So, what do we do? Generally, we just make do and hope they don't call. We try to focus on their good qualities. We make excuses for them. "They're really not a bad person. They honestly think they are doing the right thing. It's just the way they are." I'm sure we've all said things to ourselves or others like: "Why do they think we are such good friends? They don't know anything about me. We have nothing in common."
Now that you have a specific person or at least an image of this particular type of "bad friend" in your head, I have some bad news. When it comes to our relationships with God, we are the "bad friends." Do we try to understand God? Do we try to strengthen our relationship with God? Do we only call on God when we need help? Do we listen to God? Do we want God to be involved in things we like? Do we get involved in what God would like? Do we analyze what we hear from God in terms of how it affects us?
Come on, we're not really bad people. We are doing what we honestly think is the right thing. It's just the way we are. Society made us this way. It's just how we were raised. It's not our fault. We aren't making excuses for them any more. We are making them for ourselves. We put God in that difficult position. God could and often does put things in our lives to try to get us to listen. We don't listen. God really doesn't have a reason to break off our relationship, nor does God have solid reason to put effort into it. We are the "bad friends."
It's an odd thing to think about. What God wants out of our relationship isn't that complicated. It is quite difficult, but it's not complicated. The hardest thing in this world to do is to learn to love. Once you get the hang of it...no, once you understand the truth of it, loving isn't that hard. I have to bring up "the truth of love" because too many people mistake love for romance, lust, obsession, greed, infatuation, and so forth and so on. There is this beautiful feeling that many people never open themselves to. There is this beautiful feeling that many people are too shut off to experience. I have to assume that parents have had this feeling. I'm not a parent so I have not felt it in this circumstance, but I can't see it not being there for them. It is this indescribable feeling. Sometimes it is just a moment. It is definitely not a thing that you can set up. It just happens. It is this feeling of balancing on the tip of a needle. All emotions are surrounding you. Falling one way leads to pain. Falling another leads to joy. One way is that mixed happiness with tears. One way is that frustration that brings laughter. Every angle is a different emotion. Some are simple, some are complex, but every shade is represented. There should be massive amounts of tension as you balance there on top of the needle. There isn't though. It is a moment of absolute peace and comfort. All the emotions surrounding you are accepted as one. Everything could end right then and there. It is the peace of love. It is unconditionally loving and being loved unconditionally at the same moment. It is truth. It is love. It is peace. It is joy. It is God.
Pure love, true love, God's love is something that we only experience fully a few times in our lives. It is what we should be striving for every day though. It's what God asks of us. Love: pure, simple and true. Love God. Love our neighbors. Love ourselves. Let's stop being a bad friend to ourselves. Let's stop being a bad friend to others. Let's stop being a bad friend to God. Love cannot be explained but it can be understood. Let's open ourselves to Love.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
So Few Words So Much Pain
I live in a world of greys. Ooo look out, he's getting moody. No. I'm not. Those are not the greys I am referring to. I could just as easily said I live in a world full of colors. The world of colors concept is a bit harder for people to grasp. White light is made up of all the colors. Black pigment is made up of all the colors. Therefore all the colors are present and nothing is truly black or white. That's just brushing over the concept very quickly. It is so much easier for people to grasp the concept of the grey scale with black and white on either end. Sometimes, we have to take things down to their simplest levels to really understand them.
There can be problems breaking things down to their simplest levels however. Those problems generally arise when people break things down to their own view of what the simplest levels are. What makes the situation all the stickier is the fact that we all can only truly view the world from our personal perspective. Therefore our views of the world are going to be inherently self centric. Our society does nothing to help the situation. We are constantly bombarded with imagery and words telling us how we should be, what we should wear, or even what we should think. Class distinction is prevalent everywhere. It's just a matter of changing the labels in each situation. The struggles aren't just between the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor. We have the leaders, their assistants, and the citizenry. We have the technocrats, the rebels, and the sheep. Pick your situation and your labels, and you'll find class distinction.
Election times are always ripe with class distinctions. They are filled to overflowing with supposed black or white choices. You are with us, or you are against us. Disagree with one point and obviously you must disagree with all the other points as well. Let the propaganda, the word-smithing, the spinning, the manipulations, the partial truths, and the outright lies begin.
Politics is but one place where we see this sort of thing. Religions are filled with it. No, let me rephrase that. There are those who fill religions with those sorts of thing. This, I find to be one of the sickest twisting of truth there is. Politics, sure go ahead. We know you are all liars and cheats. Even if you aren't, you are according to your opponents. Religions though...seriously folks. If you are going to take a black or white stance on anything religious, particularly whose beliefs are correct, you have missed the fucking point. Sorry to put that crudely like that, but religious bigotry is the most idiotic of all bigotry.
I am drifting from my point. We are constantly faced with choices and decisions. We are constantly forced to face reality or accept the fictions. Because of this, we come to the center of it all. Why is it that the most painful things to say to ourselves or anyone else are always so few in words? An entire tirade aimed at someone will not equal the pain they will feel should they ever have to say these small sentences. I guess this comes back to breaking things down to their simplest forms. I guess this comes back to the colors and greys as well. The supposedly black pain leads to the freeing whiteness. Too complex? Then let's take it to its simplest form. We always feel a bit better after a good cry. Pain and freedom. Colors and greys. It is not black tears and white relief.
So we find ourselves the focus of much pain from 3 or 4 words. It is no wonder we run and hide from having to say these words. It is no wonder we avoid this pain. It is however an incredibly wonder that we keep ourselves from the freedom and joy that comes afterwards. Just what are these 3 or 4 words? What are these small sentences I am going on about?
I'm sorry.
I was wrong.
I didn't know.
I never thought of that.
How was I so blind?
It's not about me.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Ok so that last one was particularly nerdy and quite longer than the others. The point is that these and countless other admittances cause us so much pain that we seem to avoid them at all costs. Why though, why are they so powerful and painful? They can destroy our views of heroes. They can shake the very foundations of how we were raised. They force us out of ourselves. More than anything, I think no one wants to admit that a situation or even the world is not exactly how they perceive it. It is scary to think that our reality is not necessary the reality.
I'm reminded of the part in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, when Peter and Susan go to the Professor in regards to their sister "telling stories." There they stand, on the verge. There they are in one of those situations where they can either "stick by their whatevers" or prepare themselves to say one of those little sentences. The Professor uses a bit of logic and basically gets Peter and Susan to see that there may be a bit more to their realities than they think. Effectively saying since Lucy isn't known to be a liar and since she is holding onto her convictions without wavering, maybe they should at the very least consider what she is saying.
Ultimately the choice was theirs, just like is ours. Most times we aren't lucky enough to be presented with something as blatant and undeniable as landing in a different world. But then again, each time we are faced with a decision, aren't we really faced with the choice between this world and a slightly different one? Doesn't the journey from the pain of admittance to the freedom afterwards always leave us in a "different world?"
If I took a red apple and painted half of it green (or conversely a green apple and painted half red), then placed it between two people, what color is the apple? One side says red. One side says green. They each think they are right and the other is wrong. Depending on how they were raised, each one might even have as their ideal of an apple as it being red or green. Depending on the personalities, they might get into a ridiculously heated argument over the color of the apple. It seems so simple when put into terms like this. The thing though that gets me is that I feel like most people would say the only solution is to show each the other side of the apple. Generally this is based on the idea of "if only they could see my side they would know that they are wrong." Not many would stop to think to turn the apple a mere 90 degrees. That would allow a person a peek at the other side. If they can see a little bit of the other side, they will have more information than before. It will be information in their reality. Hell, if 90 degrees is too much, 45 degrees would have the same effect. The point is that just seeing even the slightest bit of "the other side" can have major effects.
Of course, even with new information, a person may not wish to face the little sentences. They may choose to alter their view of reality to counter whatever they just saw. They may choose their world and not a slightly or vastly different one. I pity these people. Not in some "oh look at me being all high and mighty" way. I pity them the freedom they pass on. The world is not black and white. Nothing should be a "you are either with me or against me" scenario. Oh and to those who might liken these thoughts to the old adage "there are two sides to every coin," I say close but no cigar. Actually, if I am to be totally honest here, and I see no reason not to be, I don't say close but no cigar. "There are two sides to every coin?" Bullshit! There is the edge as well. There is always the edge. No matter how black or white you think something is. Remember there is always the edge. There is always the "dividing line" that is neither side. I guess my edge or dividing line is just bigger than my sides.
I say all of this with conviction because it truly is my belief. I will stand by my statements. I will continue to try to get people to see that there is more to the world than maybe is in their world. BUT....I do all this with the knowledge that I myself have to face the decisions between my world and a slightly different one. I do all this with the faith that when those decisions arise, I will take the journey from pain to freedom and say one of those little sentences. Life is a journey that begins with knowing yourself. If you don't know where you stand, if you don't know where things around you are standing, you'll never really know where you are or what direction to travel in. Walking in circles is not much of a journey if you ask me. I'd rather break free and enjoy the sights as my world changes a little with each step. I may not know where I am going, but sometimes, when you really think about it, sometimes it is the journey itself that is the true destination.
Peace.
There can be problems breaking things down to their simplest levels however. Those problems generally arise when people break things down to their own view of what the simplest levels are. What makes the situation all the stickier is the fact that we all can only truly view the world from our personal perspective. Therefore our views of the world are going to be inherently self centric. Our society does nothing to help the situation. We are constantly bombarded with imagery and words telling us how we should be, what we should wear, or even what we should think. Class distinction is prevalent everywhere. It's just a matter of changing the labels in each situation. The struggles aren't just between the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor. We have the leaders, their assistants, and the citizenry. We have the technocrats, the rebels, and the sheep. Pick your situation and your labels, and you'll find class distinction.
Election times are always ripe with class distinctions. They are filled to overflowing with supposed black or white choices. You are with us, or you are against us. Disagree with one point and obviously you must disagree with all the other points as well. Let the propaganda, the word-smithing, the spinning, the manipulations, the partial truths, and the outright lies begin.
Politics is but one place where we see this sort of thing. Religions are filled with it. No, let me rephrase that. There are those who fill religions with those sorts of thing. This, I find to be one of the sickest twisting of truth there is. Politics, sure go ahead. We know you are all liars and cheats. Even if you aren't, you are according to your opponents. Religions though...seriously folks. If you are going to take a black or white stance on anything religious, particularly whose beliefs are correct, you have missed the fucking point. Sorry to put that crudely like that, but religious bigotry is the most idiotic of all bigotry.
I am drifting from my point. We are constantly faced with choices and decisions. We are constantly forced to face reality or accept the fictions. Because of this, we come to the center of it all. Why is it that the most painful things to say to ourselves or anyone else are always so few in words? An entire tirade aimed at someone will not equal the pain they will feel should they ever have to say these small sentences. I guess this comes back to breaking things down to their simplest forms. I guess this comes back to the colors and greys as well. The supposedly black pain leads to the freeing whiteness. Too complex? Then let's take it to its simplest form. We always feel a bit better after a good cry. Pain and freedom. Colors and greys. It is not black tears and white relief.
So we find ourselves the focus of much pain from 3 or 4 words. It is no wonder we run and hide from having to say these words. It is no wonder we avoid this pain. It is however an incredibly wonder that we keep ourselves from the freedom and joy that comes afterwards. Just what are these 3 or 4 words? What are these small sentences I am going on about?
I'm sorry.
I was wrong.
I didn't know.
I never thought of that.
How was I so blind?
It's not about me.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Ok so that last one was particularly nerdy and quite longer than the others. The point is that these and countless other admittances cause us so much pain that we seem to avoid them at all costs. Why though, why are they so powerful and painful? They can destroy our views of heroes. They can shake the very foundations of how we were raised. They force us out of ourselves. More than anything, I think no one wants to admit that a situation or even the world is not exactly how they perceive it. It is scary to think that our reality is not necessary the reality.
I'm reminded of the part in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe, when Peter and Susan go to the Professor in regards to their sister "telling stories." There they stand, on the verge. There they are in one of those situations where they can either "stick by their whatevers" or prepare themselves to say one of those little sentences. The Professor uses a bit of logic and basically gets Peter and Susan to see that there may be a bit more to their realities than they think. Effectively saying since Lucy isn't known to be a liar and since she is holding onto her convictions without wavering, maybe they should at the very least consider what she is saying.
Ultimately the choice was theirs, just like is ours. Most times we aren't lucky enough to be presented with something as blatant and undeniable as landing in a different world. But then again, each time we are faced with a decision, aren't we really faced with the choice between this world and a slightly different one? Doesn't the journey from the pain of admittance to the freedom afterwards always leave us in a "different world?"
If I took a red apple and painted half of it green (or conversely a green apple and painted half red), then placed it between two people, what color is the apple? One side says red. One side says green. They each think they are right and the other is wrong. Depending on how they were raised, each one might even have as their ideal of an apple as it being red or green. Depending on the personalities, they might get into a ridiculously heated argument over the color of the apple. It seems so simple when put into terms like this. The thing though that gets me is that I feel like most people would say the only solution is to show each the other side of the apple. Generally this is based on the idea of "if only they could see my side they would know that they are wrong." Not many would stop to think to turn the apple a mere 90 degrees. That would allow a person a peek at the other side. If they can see a little bit of the other side, they will have more information than before. It will be information in their reality. Hell, if 90 degrees is too much, 45 degrees would have the same effect. The point is that just seeing even the slightest bit of "the other side" can have major effects.
Of course, even with new information, a person may not wish to face the little sentences. They may choose to alter their view of reality to counter whatever they just saw. They may choose their world and not a slightly or vastly different one. I pity these people. Not in some "oh look at me being all high and mighty" way. I pity them the freedom they pass on. The world is not black and white. Nothing should be a "you are either with me or against me" scenario. Oh and to those who might liken these thoughts to the old adage "there are two sides to every coin," I say close but no cigar. Actually, if I am to be totally honest here, and I see no reason not to be, I don't say close but no cigar. "There are two sides to every coin?" Bullshit! There is the edge as well. There is always the edge. No matter how black or white you think something is. Remember there is always the edge. There is always the "dividing line" that is neither side. I guess my edge or dividing line is just bigger than my sides.
I say all of this with conviction because it truly is my belief. I will stand by my statements. I will continue to try to get people to see that there is more to the world than maybe is in their world. BUT....I do all this with the knowledge that I myself have to face the decisions between my world and a slightly different one. I do all this with the faith that when those decisions arise, I will take the journey from pain to freedom and say one of those little sentences. Life is a journey that begins with knowing yourself. If you don't know where you stand, if you don't know where things around you are standing, you'll never really know where you are or what direction to travel in. Walking in circles is not much of a journey if you ask me. I'd rather break free and enjoy the sights as my world changes a little with each step. I may not know where I am going, but sometimes, when you really think about it, sometimes it is the journey itself that is the true destination.
Peace.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
You Keep the Oscar. I'll Stay the Grouch
How can I put this nicely? The modern Academy Awards are....no, there's no nice way to put it. I guess I'll just put it as non-vulgarly as I can. The modern Academy Awards are an absolute joke. It hasn't always been this way. There used to be a time when winning an Oscar meant something. I'm not sure when things changed exactly. At some point, it went from recognizing greatness in the medium of film to just being an insulting party of back slappers and in-crowders boosting egos and celebrating how great they think they are with little regard to the actual films.
I can still remember the exact Academy Awards Ceremony that was the final straw for me. It was 2001. I was watching it because of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. When I saw that it had won for Best Foreign Language Film, I knew that it was not going to win the Best Picture Award it truly deserved. Even back then, I was cynical enough to know that since it was foreign, the Academy would give it A Best Picture but not THE Best Picture. That was it for me. I was done with them.
Now, before you go on about my love of foreign film, especially Wu Xia, making me bias, let's look at some of the other mistakes the Academy made in just that one year. Gladiator won Best Picture. Give me a break. That was a piece of crap. It tried to be an Epic and failed. It was so full of cliches and slow and...I could go on and on, but I'll hold myself back. I will admit that I have not seen all of the movies that were nominated, but here's the list. Someone please tell me not only how Gladiator made it onto the list, but how the hell did it win? Gladiator, Chocolat, Erin Brockovich, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Traffic were the nominations. Also out that year and nominated in other categories were Cast Away, Requiem for a Dream, Wonder Boys, O Brother Where Art Thou, Pollock, Billy Elliot, etc. etc. etc. Granted, some of those are not Best Picture contenders....wait...what? Cast Away wasn't a Best Picture contender!?! Nope, but you know what was? Sadiator. Get it? Sad because compared to many many films it is just sad. Not sad emotionally, although I'm sure at points they tried to evoke that emotion, but like with so much of that film, they failed.
Let's just continue our investigation a little further. Best Leading Actor...I just mentioned Cast Away being out that year. Of course Tom Hanks had to of won the Best Leading Actor Oscar. I mean, that movie hinged entirely on him, and he succeeded. I cannot think of any other actor that would have really made that role work. Well, at least the Academy got it right on that one....OH WAIT! NO! NO THEY DIDN'T! Russel Blows...err Crowe won it for Gladiator. Hmm, oh how about Best Costume Design. Did it go to Crouch Tiger? How about a period piece like Quills? I know, a live action Dr. Seuss? Nope. Gladiator again. I know with movies nominated like The Perfect Storm, Cast Away, U 571, and the Patriot, I'm sure Best Sound wouldn't go to Gladiator, except that it did. Best Visual Effect? There were only 3 nominations. Two of them were Hollow Man and The Perfect Storm. Any guesses on what the 3rd nomination was. Hint: it won the award. Hint 2: It didn't deserve it. That's right. Gladiator again.
Ok, I should probably pick some other mistakes the Academy has made. Let's look at 2011. The biggest travesty was Hailee Steinfeld. If you have not seen the new version of True Grit. Go and see it. Once you see it, maybe you'll be able to explain something to me. The girl in it, Hailee Steinfeld, was in fact nominated for an Oscar. Considering that the entire film centered on her character, it is quite obvious that she is not only A Leading Actress in the film but is THE Leading Actress in the film. One could even go so far as to say that without her character the movie couldn't have been made. She is the cornerstone of the whole thing. It is her story. Jeff Bridges' role is supporting her role. So why in the name of all things holy, did she not get nominated for Best Leading Actress? She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. WTF!!!! Explain this to me! Explain this to me now! Oh and Jeff Bridges was nominated for Best Leading Actor. So the support gets the lead and the lead gets the support. Neither won by the way.
It seems commonplace these days for a movie to win multiple awards. In some cases, I'm sure this is appropriate. Well, at least it was back when the awards meant something. The Deer Hunter deserved all of its awards and nominations. That's another thing. The nominations. It used to mean something to have been nominated. Putting that on a DVD case to promote a movie had some value. Back then. It used to be there were 4 maybe 5 nominations for any of the major Oscars. These represented the best. The winner was therefore the best of the best. 2011 had 10, count them 10, nominations for Best Picture. 2012 had 9. 2010 had 10. Damn near every other year, had 5 or less. I'm sorry, but even though there are probably some really good films amongst the 29 nominations over the past 3 years, I'm guessing many of them are not Oscar-worthy. Well, at least they wouldn't be if they were actually held to the standards of the past.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there was some back slapping and ego stroking back in the earlier days of the Oscars too. I just don't see where it was nearly as prevalent or as blatant as it is in modern times. Also, just as a little word of warning, not only should you be cautious of any movie claiming nominations and wins as part of its selling points, at least any post a certain time period when the Oscars lost meaning, be sure to check to see what the awards were actually for. I saw a DVD case that spouted the director as being an Academy Award Winner. It was true. He was. It just wasn't in directing. It was for special effects or sound editing or something technical of that sort.
Oh yeah, and one last thing before I forget. When did the critics and studios start labeling certain movies as "their Oscar contender." It has seriously gotten to the point where instead of just making great film, you can simply make your film a certain way to practically guarantee not only a nomination but an award itself. And this year, the award for best contribution to the degradation of film and its art goes to....Hollywood. Go ahead, stroke your egos and pat your backs. I'll be over here watching good film and spreading the little lesser known gems to people I know who appreciate film. Even if I do it in the most pretentious, cliquey, and snooty way I can, I will be safe in the knowledge that every year, the Academy Awards Ceremony will outdo me.
Now stop reading my ranting and go watch some good films. Peace.
I can still remember the exact Academy Awards Ceremony that was the final straw for me. It was 2001. I was watching it because of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. When I saw that it had won for Best Foreign Language Film, I knew that it was not going to win the Best Picture Award it truly deserved. Even back then, I was cynical enough to know that since it was foreign, the Academy would give it A Best Picture but not THE Best Picture. That was it for me. I was done with them.
Now, before you go on about my love of foreign film, especially Wu Xia, making me bias, let's look at some of the other mistakes the Academy made in just that one year. Gladiator won Best Picture. Give me a break. That was a piece of crap. It tried to be an Epic and failed. It was so full of cliches and slow and...I could go on and on, but I'll hold myself back. I will admit that I have not seen all of the movies that were nominated, but here's the list. Someone please tell me not only how Gladiator made it onto the list, but how the hell did it win? Gladiator, Chocolat, Erin Brockovich, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, and Traffic were the nominations. Also out that year and nominated in other categories were Cast Away, Requiem for a Dream, Wonder Boys, O Brother Where Art Thou, Pollock, Billy Elliot, etc. etc. etc. Granted, some of those are not Best Picture contenders....wait...what? Cast Away wasn't a Best Picture contender!?! Nope, but you know what was? Sadiator. Get it? Sad because compared to many many films it is just sad. Not sad emotionally, although I'm sure at points they tried to evoke that emotion, but like with so much of that film, they failed.
Let's just continue our investigation a little further. Best Leading Actor...I just mentioned Cast Away being out that year. Of course Tom Hanks had to of won the Best Leading Actor Oscar. I mean, that movie hinged entirely on him, and he succeeded. I cannot think of any other actor that would have really made that role work. Well, at least the Academy got it right on that one....OH WAIT! NO! NO THEY DIDN'T! Russel Blows...err Crowe won it for Gladiator. Hmm, oh how about Best Costume Design. Did it go to Crouch Tiger? How about a period piece like Quills? I know, a live action Dr. Seuss? Nope. Gladiator again. I know with movies nominated like The Perfect Storm, Cast Away, U 571, and the Patriot, I'm sure Best Sound wouldn't go to Gladiator, except that it did. Best Visual Effect? There were only 3 nominations. Two of them were Hollow Man and The Perfect Storm. Any guesses on what the 3rd nomination was. Hint: it won the award. Hint 2: It didn't deserve it. That's right. Gladiator again.
Ok, I should probably pick some other mistakes the Academy has made. Let's look at 2011. The biggest travesty was Hailee Steinfeld. If you have not seen the new version of True Grit. Go and see it. Once you see it, maybe you'll be able to explain something to me. The girl in it, Hailee Steinfeld, was in fact nominated for an Oscar. Considering that the entire film centered on her character, it is quite obvious that she is not only A Leading Actress in the film but is THE Leading Actress in the film. One could even go so far as to say that without her character the movie couldn't have been made. She is the cornerstone of the whole thing. It is her story. Jeff Bridges' role is supporting her role. So why in the name of all things holy, did she not get nominated for Best Leading Actress? She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. WTF!!!! Explain this to me! Explain this to me now! Oh and Jeff Bridges was nominated for Best Leading Actor. So the support gets the lead and the lead gets the support. Neither won by the way.
It seems commonplace these days for a movie to win multiple awards. In some cases, I'm sure this is appropriate. Well, at least it was back when the awards meant something. The Deer Hunter deserved all of its awards and nominations. That's another thing. The nominations. It used to mean something to have been nominated. Putting that on a DVD case to promote a movie had some value. Back then. It used to be there were 4 maybe 5 nominations for any of the major Oscars. These represented the best. The winner was therefore the best of the best. 2011 had 10, count them 10, nominations for Best Picture. 2012 had 9. 2010 had 10. Damn near every other year, had 5 or less. I'm sorry, but even though there are probably some really good films amongst the 29 nominations over the past 3 years, I'm guessing many of them are not Oscar-worthy. Well, at least they wouldn't be if they were actually held to the standards of the past.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure there was some back slapping and ego stroking back in the earlier days of the Oscars too. I just don't see where it was nearly as prevalent or as blatant as it is in modern times. Also, just as a little word of warning, not only should you be cautious of any movie claiming nominations and wins as part of its selling points, at least any post a certain time period when the Oscars lost meaning, be sure to check to see what the awards were actually for. I saw a DVD case that spouted the director as being an Academy Award Winner. It was true. He was. It just wasn't in directing. It was for special effects or sound editing or something technical of that sort.
Oh yeah, and one last thing before I forget. When did the critics and studios start labeling certain movies as "their Oscar contender." It has seriously gotten to the point where instead of just making great film, you can simply make your film a certain way to practically guarantee not only a nomination but an award itself. And this year, the award for best contribution to the degradation of film and its art goes to....Hollywood. Go ahead, stroke your egos and pat your backs. I'll be over here watching good film and spreading the little lesser known gems to people I know who appreciate film. Even if I do it in the most pretentious, cliquey, and snooty way I can, I will be safe in the knowledge that every year, the Academy Awards Ceremony will outdo me.
Now stop reading my ranting and go watch some good films. Peace.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
It's been a bit since I last blogged. This is really just an update more than anything else. I just spent a week with family visiting. It was fantastic. I'm a bit worn out, especially since I had to wake up rather early this morning in order to get mom to the airport. I had a wonderful time. We all went to the zoo one of the days they were here, and that was great. My niece is so adorable and quite frankly without bragging too much tops the ranks of the smartest 2 year old I've ever met. Her grasp of language at this early age is seriously spooky.
Anyway, I'm not sure what my next topic will be. I have an idea or two floating around. I'm also contemplating starting a 2nd blog devoted just to reviews of movies and such. I'm thinking of calling it Going Critical with Gnomie Svenson. I'm debating on whether to make it a new blog or just have it be a feature of this blog. We'll see.
Nothing else really to say. So, peace to all of you.
Anyway, I'm not sure what my next topic will be. I have an idea or two floating around. I'm also contemplating starting a 2nd blog devoted just to reviews of movies and such. I'm thinking of calling it Going Critical with Gnomie Svenson. I'm debating on whether to make it a new blog or just have it be a feature of this blog. We'll see.
Nothing else really to say. So, peace to all of you.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The Great British Panel Show
I think it would be pretty easy to argue that the best humor is natural humor. Thought out jokes and routines can be very funny, but their humor is fleeting. That is to say that although the jokes themselves may continue to be funny with each retelling, the humor and good feelings that build pre and post joke don't stay. I think part of this has to do with that odd little socio-quirk of not laughing as much alone as you do when others are around. The jokes are just as funny, but the need to laugh out loud differs. This goes for wit as well. A good witty response or off-the-cuff joke generally comes across much funnier than something that was planned and written. This is what I call natural humor. It is humor that arises naturally in the situation. This is humor that is funny without the participants necessarily trying to be funny. I'm not going to try to argue this with some philosophical argument about "natural vs artificial." I just want to put that sense of natural humor into your minds. I think the best way to really describe it would be with comparing two nights. On one night, you go to see a stand up comedian. It's just you and a friend or two. You go to the show and have a good time. On a different night, you get together with a few friends, maybe have dinner together, and then sit around having a good time playing cards, playing a board game, or even just chatting over coffee. You laugh and joke and have a genuinely good time in their company. Granted this might depend on your group of friends, but isn't the second night the kind that stays in your mind? Isn't it the kind that builds inside jokes? Isn't it the kind of night that you want regularly?
I may have gone off track a little. I wanted to get the idea of natural humor across though because it is so important to this topic. As with anything, it is so easy for us to generalize things and make opinions without having enough exposure to something. This can be seen in many people's opinions of Britcoms. Most know Britcoms as being either insane like Monty Python or dry like As Time Goes By. It's the same as saying that all anime is kids stuff like Pokemon or perverted like something hentai. Regardless, I'm just trying to make the point of ignoring your opinions on Britcoms since I am not actually talking about them.
I am talking about panel shows. What is a panel show? Well, imagine a quiz/game show with two team captains and a host. The quiz/game show concept is pretty loose here generally. Oh yes, they will have quiz type questions, rounds, and points to be scored, but these are secondary to the show especially the points. These aren't games you go on to win. These are games you go on to have fun and entertain people. Also, not all of them follow the host and 2 captains formula. Each captain's team is then filled out with other entertainers. Sometimes they are Reality TV stars, sometimes they are musicians, but usually they are other comedians. Much of this depends on which panel show it is.
We have nothing like this here. Granted I don't watch much television, but the only two shows I can even think of that remotely resemble a panel show are Hollywood Squares and Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. While these are the closest to the concept, both are quite far from the mark. Politically Incorrect was too serious. Also, there weren't many guests on the show that worked well in the format. Either the guests were intelligent with a good grasp of politics or they were completely out of their element. So while there were good discussions on the show, there were also many awkward moments of comedians forcing jokes in an attempt to be funny. Hollywood Squares is too scripted and the comedians are restrained. Picture Hollywood Squares without the players. Now, let Whoopi Goldberg , Gilbert Gottfried, and Penn Jillette have free reign. Let's add either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert as the host. Oh, sure, there will be chaos, but can imagine how funny it would be?
The sad part of it all is that panel shows are one of the few types of shows that won't be "imported." Oh, we've "imported" many shows. American Idol, X Factor, America's Got Talent, Top Gear, Dancing with the Stars, and Big Brother are just a few. The problem is that there are far too many egos that would end up competing. They would each be trying to use the program as a vehicle for themselves. There are also too many egos that bruise easily. This is not conducive to a panel show. Think about it. We live in a day and age where stars go on talk shows where hosts are told what they can and cannot talk about. We have shows built on hosts like Donald Trump or Judge Judy who are supposed to be curt and rude, but should a comedian jokingly slag someone off, there will be apologies. We have to be careful around certain stars and treat them with kid gloves because otherwise they might get butt hurt and then we won't get them back on the show and then we'll lose ratings and money. F' that.
A word of warning, however. Should you start watching these shows, there are going to be people you've never heard of and jokes that you won't understand. This falls under the topical humor that I discussed in a previous topic. The jokes are funnier if you know who/what is involved, but many of them are still funny because you get the gist of them. A good bit of the humor is funny no matter what. Also, after watching a number of them, you will begin to learn who the different comedians are. There are a bunch of them that go from show to show.
Just to get you started, check out:
Never Mind the Buzzcocks
Would I Lie to You
Q.I.
8 Out of 10 Cats
Big Fat Quiz of the Year
Hope these bring smiles to your faces.
I may have gone off track a little. I wanted to get the idea of natural humor across though because it is so important to this topic. As with anything, it is so easy for us to generalize things and make opinions without having enough exposure to something. This can be seen in many people's opinions of Britcoms. Most know Britcoms as being either insane like Monty Python or dry like As Time Goes By. It's the same as saying that all anime is kids stuff like Pokemon or perverted like something hentai. Regardless, I'm just trying to make the point of ignoring your opinions on Britcoms since I am not actually talking about them.
I am talking about panel shows. What is a panel show? Well, imagine a quiz/game show with two team captains and a host. The quiz/game show concept is pretty loose here generally. Oh yes, they will have quiz type questions, rounds, and points to be scored, but these are secondary to the show especially the points. These aren't games you go on to win. These are games you go on to have fun and entertain people. Also, not all of them follow the host and 2 captains formula. Each captain's team is then filled out with other entertainers. Sometimes they are Reality TV stars, sometimes they are musicians, but usually they are other comedians. Much of this depends on which panel show it is.
We have nothing like this here. Granted I don't watch much television, but the only two shows I can even think of that remotely resemble a panel show are Hollywood Squares and Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher. While these are the closest to the concept, both are quite far from the mark. Politically Incorrect was too serious. Also, there weren't many guests on the show that worked well in the format. Either the guests were intelligent with a good grasp of politics or they were completely out of their element. So while there were good discussions on the show, there were also many awkward moments of comedians forcing jokes in an attempt to be funny. Hollywood Squares is too scripted and the comedians are restrained. Picture Hollywood Squares without the players. Now, let Whoopi Goldberg , Gilbert Gottfried, and Penn Jillette have free reign. Let's add either Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert as the host. Oh, sure, there will be chaos, but can imagine how funny it would be?
The sad part of it all is that panel shows are one of the few types of shows that won't be "imported." Oh, we've "imported" many shows. American Idol, X Factor, America's Got Talent, Top Gear, Dancing with the Stars, and Big Brother are just a few. The problem is that there are far too many egos that would end up competing. They would each be trying to use the program as a vehicle for themselves. There are also too many egos that bruise easily. This is not conducive to a panel show. Think about it. We live in a day and age where stars go on talk shows where hosts are told what they can and cannot talk about. We have shows built on hosts like Donald Trump or Judge Judy who are supposed to be curt and rude, but should a comedian jokingly slag someone off, there will be apologies. We have to be careful around certain stars and treat them with kid gloves because otherwise they might get butt hurt and then we won't get them back on the show and then we'll lose ratings and money. F' that.
A word of warning, however. Should you start watching these shows, there are going to be people you've never heard of and jokes that you won't understand. This falls under the topical humor that I discussed in a previous topic. The jokes are funnier if you know who/what is involved, but many of them are still funny because you get the gist of them. A good bit of the humor is funny no matter what. Also, after watching a number of them, you will begin to learn who the different comedians are. There are a bunch of them that go from show to show.
Just to get you started, check out:
Never Mind the Buzzcocks
Would I Lie to You
Q.I.
8 Out of 10 Cats
Big Fat Quiz of the Year
Hope these bring smiles to your faces.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Holding Movies to My Standards
There are those out there that would say I am over-critical of movies. It would be foolish to try to deny these claims. I do pick up on little details and let them bother me more than they should. One the same token though, I don't usually let these details ruin a movie for me. Correction, I don't let them if the movie is good.
I do not consider myself a "film snob." If you've ever run into a stereotypical film student, that is what I consider a film snob. If you were to go through my collection, not only would you find that some classic films that any proper film snob would include are missing, you would also find many movies that no snob would touch. Seriously, I don't think any film snob would have a copy of Puss in Boots starring Christopher Walken in their collection even if they were trying to be ironic and hipster. Now, don't think that it is in my collection for any good reason beyond it being just too bizarre to get rid of. Well, that and having it around to inflict on people.
Ignoring for a moment those previous couple of sentences, I consider my critical opinions and general pickiness to come from my having standards. That sounds rather snobbish, I know. My standards come from the variety and number of movies I've seen and have collected. The problem comes from seeing so many really good films. Sadly, at least for Hollywood, the majority of these really good films seem to be foreign or independent. We you watch and collect these quality films, other films, especially modern Hollywood made ones, fall flat. I'll save my tirades and opinions on modern Hollywood for another blog.
Since I can't seem to do anything simply, this is a good place to mention that my "standards" vary depending on the film. I am not going to hold a '70s Blacksploitation to the same standards as a Period Epic. That would just be silly. In order to be able to justify this varying scale of standards when it comes to film, I must address an X factor. A movie should simply be what it is. This gets a bit philosophical. We're seeing lately in American Cinema a push (not just the remakes and being generally uncreative) to try to capture an essence or style from other movies in an attempt to be one of those movies. It seems like they want to recreate "exploitation films" and the whole "grindhouse experience." Or, there is this idea of trying to make independent films have this "independent film" feel. These "feels" they are trying to create pretty consistently hurt the quality of the movies. If the movie has a good script, good director, and some good actors, generally speaking the end result will be an good movie. If you are trying to give the movie a certain "feel" that is unnecessary to the development of the film, it will show. You'll be able to tell that they were "trying too hard." Just let the movie be what the movie is.
Let me give you some examples. Hobo with a Shotgun had many elements that would make it fall into the exploitation genre. The problem is that the elements were taken from the '70s but none of their essences were. They tried to make it an "exploitation film." They failed. They simply made a bad movie. Had they simply tried to make Hobo with a Shotgun instead of Hobo with a Shotgun the grindhouse-style exploitation movie, it may have worked. In not trying to become something, there was a fair chance that they would have actually become that very thing. Let's look next at all those so called parody films that got mass produced straight to DVD based of the success of the first Scary Movie. I don't think I really need to go into any kind of detail as far as the "trying too hard" argument goes. A joke is funny simply because it is funny. A forced joke loses its humor. I think I could easily make the comparison of these types of movies to the deterioration of something as you continue to make copies of copies. ("She touched my pepe, Steve.") The problem can be traced to the very first copy. Scary Movie based its parody off of Scream. This is problematic. Why? Most people, I'm assuming the makers of Scary Movie are included here, missed the fact that Scream was a satire of horror movies. So they made a parody of a satire. Of course they threw in a bunch of topical jokes and toilet and drug humor too. Given that those are three areas of humor that require a subtle touch and are rarely understood by the people who use them, they probably weren't the best choices to add to their "parody." Granted, topical humor generally doesn't translate well years later. Although, a properly done topical bit is still funny, just not as funny as it would be if you knew where it was coming from. The other problem was that there people were trying to make a "Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker film." I would be remiss if I didn't say that I know at least one of the Zuckers was involved in some of the Scary Movies. Regardless, we are still looking at copies of copies.
I think I should reel this back in. Simply put, stop trying to hard to make these movies something that they aren't. You can imitate a director's style, but you'll never make one of those director's films. So yeah, anyway, standards. I hold the movies to the standards of their fellow films. It's just a shame when so many foreign, independent, or older American films set the bar so high. So, I for one, am not going to sit back and eat, drink, or buy into what the machine is saying is good. That is a different rant though.
Highly critical though I am and holding the high standards that I do, I can say one thing for sure. I don't recommend movies lightly. If I don't think you'll like it, I won't recommend it to you. If I think it is one of those movies that is simply fantastic, I will probably recommend it to everyone. I hate to put it in this pompous way, but if the general populace finds many of the modern mediocre movies to be really good, imagine how blown away they would be if they saw a film that was actually really good.
Regardless of your level of love for film, music, literature, or whatever is your thing, at the very least, I hope that you love them for what they are. I hope that you love them because you love them. Don't like anything simply because others say you should. If we can't love our entertainments for simply being what they are, how can we ever learn to love others simply for being who they are?
I do not consider myself a "film snob." If you've ever run into a stereotypical film student, that is what I consider a film snob. If you were to go through my collection, not only would you find that some classic films that any proper film snob would include are missing, you would also find many movies that no snob would touch. Seriously, I don't think any film snob would have a copy of Puss in Boots starring Christopher Walken in their collection even if they were trying to be ironic and hipster. Now, don't think that it is in my collection for any good reason beyond it being just too bizarre to get rid of. Well, that and having it around to inflict on people.
Ignoring for a moment those previous couple of sentences, I consider my critical opinions and general pickiness to come from my having standards. That sounds rather snobbish, I know. My standards come from the variety and number of movies I've seen and have collected. The problem comes from seeing so many really good films. Sadly, at least for Hollywood, the majority of these really good films seem to be foreign or independent. We you watch and collect these quality films, other films, especially modern Hollywood made ones, fall flat. I'll save my tirades and opinions on modern Hollywood for another blog.
Since I can't seem to do anything simply, this is a good place to mention that my "standards" vary depending on the film. I am not going to hold a '70s Blacksploitation to the same standards as a Period Epic. That would just be silly. In order to be able to justify this varying scale of standards when it comes to film, I must address an X factor. A movie should simply be what it is. This gets a bit philosophical. We're seeing lately in American Cinema a push (not just the remakes and being generally uncreative) to try to capture an essence or style from other movies in an attempt to be one of those movies. It seems like they want to recreate "exploitation films" and the whole "grindhouse experience." Or, there is this idea of trying to make independent films have this "independent film" feel. These "feels" they are trying to create pretty consistently hurt the quality of the movies. If the movie has a good script, good director, and some good actors, generally speaking the end result will be an good movie. If you are trying to give the movie a certain "feel" that is unnecessary to the development of the film, it will show. You'll be able to tell that they were "trying too hard." Just let the movie be what the movie is.
Let me give you some examples. Hobo with a Shotgun had many elements that would make it fall into the exploitation genre. The problem is that the elements were taken from the '70s but none of their essences were. They tried to make it an "exploitation film." They failed. They simply made a bad movie. Had they simply tried to make Hobo with a Shotgun instead of Hobo with a Shotgun the grindhouse-style exploitation movie, it may have worked. In not trying to become something, there was a fair chance that they would have actually become that very thing. Let's look next at all those so called parody films that got mass produced straight to DVD based of the success of the first Scary Movie. I don't think I really need to go into any kind of detail as far as the "trying too hard" argument goes. A joke is funny simply because it is funny. A forced joke loses its humor. I think I could easily make the comparison of these types of movies to the deterioration of something as you continue to make copies of copies. ("She touched my pepe, Steve.") The problem can be traced to the very first copy. Scary Movie based its parody off of Scream. This is problematic. Why? Most people, I'm assuming the makers of Scary Movie are included here, missed the fact that Scream was a satire of horror movies. So they made a parody of a satire. Of course they threw in a bunch of topical jokes and toilet and drug humor too. Given that those are three areas of humor that require a subtle touch and are rarely understood by the people who use them, they probably weren't the best choices to add to their "parody." Granted, topical humor generally doesn't translate well years later. Although, a properly done topical bit is still funny, just not as funny as it would be if you knew where it was coming from. The other problem was that there people were trying to make a "Zucker, Abrahams, Zucker film." I would be remiss if I didn't say that I know at least one of the Zuckers was involved in some of the Scary Movies. Regardless, we are still looking at copies of copies.
I think I should reel this back in. Simply put, stop trying to hard to make these movies something that they aren't. You can imitate a director's style, but you'll never make one of those director's films. So yeah, anyway, standards. I hold the movies to the standards of their fellow films. It's just a shame when so many foreign, independent, or older American films set the bar so high. So, I for one, am not going to sit back and eat, drink, or buy into what the machine is saying is good. That is a different rant though.
Highly critical though I am and holding the high standards that I do, I can say one thing for sure. I don't recommend movies lightly. If I don't think you'll like it, I won't recommend it to you. If I think it is one of those movies that is simply fantastic, I will probably recommend it to everyone. I hate to put it in this pompous way, but if the general populace finds many of the modern mediocre movies to be really good, imagine how blown away they would be if they saw a film that was actually really good.
Regardless of your level of love for film, music, literature, or whatever is your thing, at the very least, I hope that you love them for what they are. I hope that you love them because you love them. Don't like anything simply because others say you should. If we can't love our entertainments for simply being what they are, how can we ever learn to love others simply for being who they are?
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
The Script Calls for Crazy
So, I just finished watching The Perfect Host starring David Hyde Pierce. I was thinking about reviewing it on here, but I decided against that. The movie is great. There where several good OMG moments. The acting was fantastic. David Hyde Pierce's performance blew me away. This is one of those movies, however, that are better left discussed after viewing. So, go see it so we can talk about it. Tee hee. Seriously though, due to the twists and turns as well as character motivations and psyches, it would be hard to review this film without giving too much away.
What am doing on here typing about it anyway if I'm not going to review it? The answer is pretty simple actually. I want to address crazy in movies. Mental illness of all sorts can be included in this monologue, but I'm going to be leaning more to portrayals of characters that are seriously crazy. It is an actor's profession to be able to express the emotions, thoughts, motivations, and such of a character. Some obviously are better at this than others. A good director, crew, and supporting cast can help raise an actor's apparent skill. However, I feel that it takes a very special kind of actor to do crazy properly. Most either go too far or fall short.
When actors go too far with the crazy, it doesn't play right. It is either hokey and laughable or annoying and unbelievable. In either case, it usually comes across as "hey look at me. I'm crazy. Can't you see that I'm crazy?" A lot of what I like to call "Hillbilly Horror" contains this kind of madness. It's over the top. It starts out with you figuring something just isn't quite right, and it ends with them laughing hysterically whilst they and the corpses of their relatives dine on a character's friend. Usually, my reaction is, "oh yeah, figured they were nuts." Rarely in these cases am I surprised, shocked, or can even find a reason to care. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of Hillbilly Horror. It seems in many of the cases where they go too far with the crazy that the reason they are crazy is simply because they are crazy. "Ok, Steve, you're character is crazy, like I'm talking nuts. I like what you did in that scene, but I want you to go even crazier." The fact that they are "crazy" is enough for the script writers, cast, and director.
When actors fall short with the crazy, it is usually because they don't go deep enough. Their characters come across as either a bland generic example of a mental illness or as someone who may have a couple of issues but nothing too extreme. Unlike when they go too far, falling short comes across as, "oh I guess he's crazy. Ok, whatever." In the really bad cases, it just leaves the audience wondering why the character is doing what they are doing.
There are exceptions in both cases of course. If a movie is itself completely over the top and nuts, the crazy characters have to be that much more crazy. If they don't stand out as crazy, they are just another aspect of the craziness of the movie in general. If the character is some minor character like a henchman in an action flick, they are allowed to fall short and be typical. They don't really matter to the plot and will most likely be killed off pretty quickly.
Finally, we arrive at those that do crazy right. Here we have two classes. The first are those that do crazy right, but don't necessarily shine. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys is a good example of this. He did his research, embraced his role, and quite frankly did a great job... but it doesn't grab you inside. Jack Nicholson in the Shining is another good example. His descent into madness is pretty good, and he goes really nuts well. It still though doesn't hit that nerve.
The other class is really a class all to itself. This is the class where not only do they do crazy right, they nail it. They do is so perfectly that you feel...words fail me here. It is some internal feeling of not quite shock, not quite stirring, not exactly creeped out. You are captivated and yet a little unsettled. If you have felt it, you'll know what I mean. It is kind of inexpressible. Two prime examples of this are Heath Ledger and Anthony Perkins. Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was above and beyond. His Joker was so complete that I wasn't watching an actor's portrayal of a character. I was watching the real guy. There was no "character." Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was another fantastically complete character. All the credit cannot go to Hitchcock because even in the sequels, Norman Bates doesn't change. Perkins took the character and made him real. He had such a subtlety and depth with his portrayal of Bates that just made it all so complete and real. UGH! I really wish I could express that feeling!
I can now add David Hyde Pierce to that list. I wish I could give you my reasons for adding him to the list, but doing so would ruin so much of The Perfect Host for those who haven't seen it. So, yeah, I guess I'll wrap this up with: if you're going to play crazy, do it right or go beyond to near perfection. Your audience will thank you for it.
What am doing on here typing about it anyway if I'm not going to review it? The answer is pretty simple actually. I want to address crazy in movies. Mental illness of all sorts can be included in this monologue, but I'm going to be leaning more to portrayals of characters that are seriously crazy. It is an actor's profession to be able to express the emotions, thoughts, motivations, and such of a character. Some obviously are better at this than others. A good director, crew, and supporting cast can help raise an actor's apparent skill. However, I feel that it takes a very special kind of actor to do crazy properly. Most either go too far or fall short.
When actors go too far with the crazy, it doesn't play right. It is either hokey and laughable or annoying and unbelievable. In either case, it usually comes across as "hey look at me. I'm crazy. Can't you see that I'm crazy?" A lot of what I like to call "Hillbilly Horror" contains this kind of madness. It's over the top. It starts out with you figuring something just isn't quite right, and it ends with them laughing hysterically whilst they and the corpses of their relatives dine on a character's friend. Usually, my reaction is, "oh yeah, figured they were nuts." Rarely in these cases am I surprised, shocked, or can even find a reason to care. Then again, I'm not much of a fan of Hillbilly Horror. It seems in many of the cases where they go too far with the crazy that the reason they are crazy is simply because they are crazy. "Ok, Steve, you're character is crazy, like I'm talking nuts. I like what you did in that scene, but I want you to go even crazier." The fact that they are "crazy" is enough for the script writers, cast, and director.
When actors fall short with the crazy, it is usually because they don't go deep enough. Their characters come across as either a bland generic example of a mental illness or as someone who may have a couple of issues but nothing too extreme. Unlike when they go too far, falling short comes across as, "oh I guess he's crazy. Ok, whatever." In the really bad cases, it just leaves the audience wondering why the character is doing what they are doing.
There are exceptions in both cases of course. If a movie is itself completely over the top and nuts, the crazy characters have to be that much more crazy. If they don't stand out as crazy, they are just another aspect of the craziness of the movie in general. If the character is some minor character like a henchman in an action flick, they are allowed to fall short and be typical. They don't really matter to the plot and will most likely be killed off pretty quickly.
Finally, we arrive at those that do crazy right. Here we have two classes. The first are those that do crazy right, but don't necessarily shine. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys is a good example of this. He did his research, embraced his role, and quite frankly did a great job... but it doesn't grab you inside. Jack Nicholson in the Shining is another good example. His descent into madness is pretty good, and he goes really nuts well. It still though doesn't hit that nerve.
The other class is really a class all to itself. This is the class where not only do they do crazy right, they nail it. They do is so perfectly that you feel...words fail me here. It is some internal feeling of not quite shock, not quite stirring, not exactly creeped out. You are captivated and yet a little unsettled. If you have felt it, you'll know what I mean. It is kind of inexpressible. Two prime examples of this are Heath Ledger and Anthony Perkins. Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was above and beyond. His Joker was so complete that I wasn't watching an actor's portrayal of a character. I was watching the real guy. There was no "character." Anthony Perkins as Norman Bates was another fantastically complete character. All the credit cannot go to Hitchcock because even in the sequels, Norman Bates doesn't change. Perkins took the character and made him real. He had such a subtlety and depth with his portrayal of Bates that just made it all so complete and real. UGH! I really wish I could express that feeling!
I can now add David Hyde Pierce to that list. I wish I could give you my reasons for adding him to the list, but doing so would ruin so much of The Perfect Host for those who haven't seen it. So, yeah, I guess I'll wrap this up with: if you're going to play crazy, do it right or go beyond to near perfection. Your audience will thank you for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)