I was watching From the Earth to the Moon a few months ago and it got me thinking about an interesting idea. What if there were no cost, no concept of money? Everybody worked for the benefit for each other, or were forced to work and develop due to outside influences? You may ask what does this have to do with From the Earth to the Moon?
From the Earth to the Moon is a miniseries that chronicles the space program from the moment Kennedy declared, "We choose to go to the moon," all the way through the Apollo program to the end of the Moon missions. As I was watching it, I began to think about how incredibly resourceful humans can be.
When Kennedy made that demand to put a man on the moon before the decade was out, our space program was a laughable joke. The Russians had just launched their Sputnik to much worldwide rejoicing and plenty of Washington headaches. It looked as though the Russians were going to beat us into outer space. This was something that the United States, in all its glorious, competitive spirit, could not allow. You can bet that when NASA got the news, they were a little bit overwhelmed. But you know what? They did it.
NASA pulled themselves together, set up a very ambitious plan and went about to make history. With plenty of setbacks and cost overruns they accomplished what was unaccomplishable: put a man on the moon. It is an amazing story about how it all came together, defying odds and inspiring a nation and the world. I recommend watching the series if you haven't seen it before.
But the thing that I realized was that NASA had, for the most part, a blank check. They were on a mission, mandated by a president that the country loved and missed, and nothing would stand in their way. So it got me thinking, what could we accomplish today if NASA was given similar circumstances? Those circumstances being an unlimited budget, rival international pressure, and a determined president's order. Now add our technology and knowledge of today, and you have a dangerous combination. We could build a Death Star!
But once I thought about this set of unusual circumstances, I began to apply it to every problem in our wold today. Everything is limited by cost and time. What if the expense were taken out of the equation? What if we had no concept of money, everybody working for the betterment of mankind? The only problem would then be time. So put a little pressure of an impending war, or ongoing war. Look at all the things to come out of two world wars. It is a fair argument to say that life would be very different today if Arch Duke Ferdinand wasn't assassinated, thus bringing about WWI and then WWII. Our lives today would be very different.
So what would this look like? What would a society that had no monetary value and a little bit of competition look like? I don't think it'd be all that great to be honest. The concept almost sounds like communism. But I see it more like a perfectly functioning utopia, everybody works for each other and for the betterment of man. Wow, that does sound communist.
In short I find that it would never work. Money or trade is a necessary part of society and culture. I simply find it fascinating to think of the possibilities if you simply took away a cost.
Think about the medical field. No longer limited by budgets and grants, they could throw all their resources into the hat to find cures and advance medicine. Or what about our infrastructure? How about those fuel economic cars? Think of the advances we could make if people weren't holding back.
And I return to space. If NASA had no budget limitations, we could be building that ship to go to Mars. We could be building that elevator to ferry equipment out of the atmosphere. The ideas are there. The science is there. All that is missing is oodles and oodles of cash, or an organization that doesn't need it.
It may sound a little dark, but I almost feel that a large scale war is needed to jump-start our ailing system. If the need were present and pushing, we could accomplish anything. All we have to do is put forth the effort, and put aside the cost.
Sphere: Related Content
Friday, August 7, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Lingering in Misery
Everybody's seen this guy already. He opened fire in a fitness center, killed 4 people, including himself. If you're not in the know, go here, here, or here.Very sad. But, he kept a small online diary. This has been all over the news, so I'm not going into details. Instead I wanted to get some thoughts out about why this guy did this.
I just finished reading the entire diary. Yeah, I was a little curious. I think this is an excellent opportunity to try and understand the motivations behind wanting to hurt and kill people. My initial impression after pouring through the few entries, is one of sadness, and almost sympathy. I know the guy has done something very hateful and completely uncaring, but his words suggest a very tortured soul. A soul who has just never had things line up for him.
He goes on to describe what the media had labeled "a hatred for women." I don't think that's very accurate. He clearly states at several points that he has longed for a companion, that he has not wanted to be alone. But throughout his life he has not been successful. He states that he had dated and been with women, but for whatever reason or another it never worked out.
Unfortunately it is incredibly difficult to get an exact view on this guy's situation. We don't know why people never seemed to get along with him. He does state at several points that people think of him as a "nice guy." But you also get the impression that his burden of childhood is clearly shown on his face. Someone made the comment if he had liked high school, they, thinking he had been bullied around. So obviously people have been able to see his torment, but why nobody ever stepped across that line to help him is a mystery. Who's to say he didn't ward them off somehow?
The thing I am trying to get at is this man lived and wallowed in his own misery. He seemed to embrace it as the way things HAD to be. He felt that he HAD to go into that gym and fire shots into a crowd, and take his own life. People can take a very valuable (and costly) lesson from this. I know I will be taking a lesson from this.
The reason why I said before that I almost felt sympathy with the man, is that I can understand his position. I can understand his frustration with social interactions. I can understand his broken childhood. I can understand the idea of being a "nice guy" that gets nothing and goes nowhere. For those reasons I feel bad for the guy. But the thing I can't understand is obviously why he felt he had to go and kill. And that's going to be the thing people will debate endlessly.
I get his turmoil. I don't get the need to murder. But the lesson to take is to keep an eye out for your fellow man. Be mindful of people, and not in a paranoid tattle-tell way. People could use the most help before they act. Because like in this case, there might not be another chance.
And the other thing to take away is about the dangers of stewing in your own misery. I've been guilty of being happy in misery. It sounds weird and contradictory, but it is a genuine feeling. Life is filled with highs and lows. Both are vital parts of a human life. They are what makes us unique and world wise. But it is important to not dwell in the lows, lingering in misery. Get help. Seek interaction. Even if you don't feel the need, meet people, have friends. Don't dwell?
Here's the link to his site. Sphere: Related Content
Monday, August 3, 2009
Classic Movie Monday: Pale Rider
Labels:
Classic Movie Monday
Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old (or there abouts) that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...
Pale Rider
Released: June 28, 1985
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Michael Moriarty, & Carrie Snodgress
Plot in a Nutshell:
A mysterious stranger, known as the "Preacher" comes to the aid of a small mining camp that is being terrorized by their big money neighbors.
What I thought:
Unforgiven is easily one of my most favorite movies of all time. The themes that it presents about violence and the carelessness of youth are some of the best. The regret and remorse of Clint's character is so skillfully and meticulously constructed throughout the film, that when it is completely and brutally destroyed in the final reel, it carries all the more meaning. I mention Unforgiven because Pale Rider so closely resembles it in its relaxed tone, at least for a western. You can clearly see the efforts of Eastwood, in trying to create something different here.
Much as Unforgiven was not your typical western, neither is Pale Rider. Your main character is essentially viewed as a preacher, a spiritual man of God that only acts when forced to. In the last act, he literally trades his collar for a gun belt. But more than the main character's attitude, the general feel and look of the film is much mellower than I was expecting.
There are no broad and colorful characters, rather we get very real characters. The protagonists are simple miners, just wishing to be left alone to do what they do. The villain is not boisterous or conniving, he wants his land, and he'll do anything to get it. And Clint.., is well Clint. Very sparse in performance he doesn't need to act, he just is. Effortlessly, he manages to inhabit his characters time after time.
The only thing I didn't really enjoy about the film, was that their wasn't a big idea. There was no major theme that the story could carry through the film. There was an element of a group of people refusing to run away from bullies, and wanting to "grow roots" as it were. And a little bit of spiritualism to the Preacher, but beyond that, there was little of substance to Pale Rider. I would say that it doesn't need substance as long as other elements pick up the slack. However, the serious manner in which it was told was never supported by the plot. Parts of it wanted to be heavy, and others wanted to be enthralling, but it never seemed to gel.
I think it all boils down to a still-learning director. At this time in his career, Eastwood had directed many films, and I have to imagine that with each he got better and better (look at the ones he has recently churned out). Some of the choices here, as far as the other performances, the camerawork, and editing, it all sits just on the edge of good. It isn't great, nor is it awful.
You can see in every frame that this is a spiritual precursor to the far superior Unforgiven. That doesn't mean that on its own, Pale Rider is not a good film. No, Pale Rider is a serviceable western that more than anything, never fully conveys it's message. Instead it is a realistic and interesting take on the classic western that looks as though its trying to bite for something meaty, yet gets nothing. I'm just glad Clint pulled it all together for Unforgiven. God, I love that movie.
Bottom Line:
A western that falls somewhere between a meaningful piece of film-making and an action packed western extravaganza, but with not much of either.
B- Sphere: Related Content
Pale RiderReleased: June 28, 1985
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Michael Moriarty, & Carrie Snodgress
Plot in a Nutshell:
A mysterious stranger, known as the "Preacher" comes to the aid of a small mining camp that is being terrorized by their big money neighbors.
What I thought:
Unforgiven is easily one of my most favorite movies of all time. The themes that it presents about violence and the carelessness of youth are some of the best. The regret and remorse of Clint's character is so skillfully and meticulously constructed throughout the film, that when it is completely and brutally destroyed in the final reel, it carries all the more meaning. I mention Unforgiven because Pale Rider so closely resembles it in its relaxed tone, at least for a western. You can clearly see the efforts of Eastwood, in trying to create something different here.
Much as Unforgiven was not your typical western, neither is Pale Rider. Your main character is essentially viewed as a preacher, a spiritual man of God that only acts when forced to. In the last act, he literally trades his collar for a gun belt. But more than the main character's attitude, the general feel and look of the film is much mellower than I was expecting.
There are no broad and colorful characters, rather we get very real characters. The protagonists are simple miners, just wishing to be left alone to do what they do. The villain is not boisterous or conniving, he wants his land, and he'll do anything to get it. And Clint.., is well Clint. Very sparse in performance he doesn't need to act, he just is. Effortlessly, he manages to inhabit his characters time after time.The only thing I didn't really enjoy about the film, was that their wasn't a big idea. There was no major theme that the story could carry through the film. There was an element of a group of people refusing to run away from bullies, and wanting to "grow roots" as it were. And a little bit of spiritualism to the Preacher, but beyond that, there was little of substance to Pale Rider. I would say that it doesn't need substance as long as other elements pick up the slack. However, the serious manner in which it was told was never supported by the plot. Parts of it wanted to be heavy, and others wanted to be enthralling, but it never seemed to gel.
I think it all boils down to a still-learning director. At this time in his career, Eastwood had directed many films, and I have to imagine that with each he got better and better (look at the ones he has recently churned out). Some of the choices here, as far as the other performances, the camerawork, and editing, it all sits just on the edge of good. It isn't great, nor is it awful.
You can see in every frame that this is a spiritual precursor to the far superior Unforgiven. That doesn't mean that on its own, Pale Rider is not a good film. No, Pale Rider is a serviceable western that more than anything, never fully conveys it's message. Instead it is a realistic and interesting take on the classic western that looks as though its trying to bite for something meaty, yet gets nothing. I'm just glad Clint pulled it all together for Unforgiven. God, I love that movie.Bottom Line:
A western that falls somewhere between a meaningful piece of film-making and an action packed western extravaganza, but with not much of either.
B- Sphere: Related Content
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Classic Movie BONUS: Midnight Express
Labels:
Classic Movie Monday
Welcome to Classic Movie Monday, BONUS edition. Every Monday (and random days like today), I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...
Midnight Express
Released: October 6, 1978
Directed by: Alan Parker
Starring: Brad Davis, Randy Quaid, & John Hurt
Plot in a Nutshell:
A Student from America is caught trying to smuggle drugs out of Turkey. After he is thrown in prison for at first only a few years but eventually the sentence is expanded to 30, does he attempt escape or go insane?
What I thought:
I enjoy films in similar veins to Midnight Express. It's always good to see somebody break out of jail, right? I love movies like the Great Escape, Escape from Alcatraz, or even Shawshank Redemption. With Midnight Express, the tone becomes far darker and more dangerous. The character here, Billy (Davis), is incarcerated in a strange and hostile country, the punishment is harsher than it should be, and the prison is a place where madmen are born. What a tough movie to watch.
This is a cautionary tale about how to respect a foreign country's rigid rules. I remember going to Singapore where the laws there are very strict and the punishments even harsher. God forbid, I look at a woman wrong or chew gum. In this story the danger is there with a Muslim government, but Billy actually tries to smuggle hash. Because terrorist concerns are running high at the time, he is searched more thoroughly than to be expected, and of course he gets busted. The opening sequences detailing this attempt and failure, are probably the best moments in the entire film.
What happens when he gets into the system is often scary, but is it unjustified? The man had two kilos of hash on him in a nation that strictly forbids drugs. So while I think getting sentenced to prison for a few years fits the crime, it is the subsequent re-sentencing that really boils the blood. He was doing his time, he was waiting his sentence, as I think he should. But then to be told they're throwing the book at you and you won't see freedom for 30 years, that's absurd.
It was at this point that things went sour for our character (as if they weren't sour enough). Constantly being oppressed by the guards, and seeing his friends brutally beaten for the pettiest of crimes, he slowly begins to lose his mind. Brad Davis plays this character very well. He has just enough boyish naivete and American confidence, that it begins to burn when you see him dealing with the pains of the harsh prison. A scene, early in the third act, where he completely goes crazy on a snitch, is a real highlight for Davis.
I'm on the fence with this film. I think it has excellent moments in it and does present a great cautionary tale, yet it is so unbelievably depressing. I can only guess that that was the intent of the film, but it is so dour, so harsh that I can't say it is an easy film to watch. I found myself about 2/3rds of the way through, just wanting it to be over, needing this poor guy to just get out. It really brought me down. So I'm not sure what to think of it. I can't say it didn't have an impact on me. The performances are strong, and the film as a whole is well made. I just don't think I'll ever watch it again, simply because it is so depressing.
As an afterthought, the films I mentioned earlier; Shawshank, Alcatraz, and Escape, all have one thing Midnight doesn't: hope. There is no source of hope, no moment of inspiration, not one uplifting moment that makes it all worthwhile. While I think a filmmaker could make a good argument for hitting an audience square in the nuts by presenting a hard, unforgiving film like this, I ultimately feel you do your audience a great disservice by not providing a source of hope. Films are a roller-coaster, You have your highs, and you have your lows, they should be balanced. But when a film lingers in despair for so long, it becomes a bit of a discouraging and upsetting mess.
Bottom Line:
While the film itself is strong, it is unforgiving, and relentless in its own hopelessness. I'm very tired after this.
B- Sphere: Related Content
Midnight ExpressReleased: October 6, 1978
Directed by: Alan Parker
Starring: Brad Davis, Randy Quaid, & John Hurt
Plot in a Nutshell:
A Student from America is caught trying to smuggle drugs out of Turkey. After he is thrown in prison for at first only a few years but eventually the sentence is expanded to 30, does he attempt escape or go insane?
What I thought:
I enjoy films in similar veins to Midnight Express. It's always good to see somebody break out of jail, right? I love movies like the Great Escape, Escape from Alcatraz, or even Shawshank Redemption. With Midnight Express, the tone becomes far darker and more dangerous. The character here, Billy (Davis), is incarcerated in a strange and hostile country, the punishment is harsher than it should be, and the prison is a place where madmen are born. What a tough movie to watch.
This is a cautionary tale about how to respect a foreign country's rigid rules. I remember going to Singapore where the laws there are very strict and the punishments even harsher. God forbid, I look at a woman wrong or chew gum. In this story the danger is there with a Muslim government, but Billy actually tries to smuggle hash. Because terrorist concerns are running high at the time, he is searched more thoroughly than to be expected, and of course he gets busted. The opening sequences detailing this attempt and failure, are probably the best moments in the entire film.
What happens when he gets into the system is often scary, but is it unjustified? The man had two kilos of hash on him in a nation that strictly forbids drugs. So while I think getting sentenced to prison for a few years fits the crime, it is the subsequent re-sentencing that really boils the blood. He was doing his time, he was waiting his sentence, as I think he should. But then to be told they're throwing the book at you and you won't see freedom for 30 years, that's absurd.It was at this point that things went sour for our character (as if they weren't sour enough). Constantly being oppressed by the guards, and seeing his friends brutally beaten for the pettiest of crimes, he slowly begins to lose his mind. Brad Davis plays this character very well. He has just enough boyish naivete and American confidence, that it begins to burn when you see him dealing with the pains of the harsh prison. A scene, early in the third act, where he completely goes crazy on a snitch, is a real highlight for Davis.
I'm on the fence with this film. I think it has excellent moments in it and does present a great cautionary tale, yet it is so unbelievably depressing. I can only guess that that was the intent of the film, but it is so dour, so harsh that I can't say it is an easy film to watch. I found myself about 2/3rds of the way through, just wanting it to be over, needing this poor guy to just get out. It really brought me down. So I'm not sure what to think of it. I can't say it didn't have an impact on me. The performances are strong, and the film as a whole is well made. I just don't think I'll ever watch it again, simply because it is so depressing. As an afterthought, the films I mentioned earlier; Shawshank, Alcatraz, and Escape, all have one thing Midnight doesn't: hope. There is no source of hope, no moment of inspiration, not one uplifting moment that makes it all worthwhile. While I think a filmmaker could make a good argument for hitting an audience square in the nuts by presenting a hard, unforgiving film like this, I ultimately feel you do your audience a great disservice by not providing a source of hope. Films are a roller-coaster, You have your highs, and you have your lows, they should be balanced. But when a film lingers in despair for so long, it becomes a bit of a discouraging and upsetting mess.
Bottom Line:
While the film itself is strong, it is unforgiving, and relentless in its own hopelessness. I'm very tired after this.
B- Sphere: Related Content
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Classic Movie BONUS: This Is Spıinal Tap
Labels:
Classic Movie Monday
Welcome to Classic Movie Monday, BONUS edition. Every Monday (and random days like today), I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...
This Is Spinal Tap
Released: March 2, 1984
Directed by: Rob Reiner
Starring: Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, & Harry Shearer
Plot in a Nutshell:
This mockumentary examines the "complicated" and drama infested lives of rock stars on a tour. Hilarity ensues.
What I thought:
I've heard many things about this fake documentary for years. So many people reference so many times when talking about trumped up ego-filled rock stars. Made in an interesting style, the fake documentary, this film manages to capture the absurdity of modern day rock stars so effortlessly. And it is at times, very funny.
I'm not sure what the back-story to this project is, how it got made, why they chose who they did, how things came together. The reason I don't know is that it seems everyone involved apparently wants to maintain the illusion that this is in fact a real British rock band called Spinal Tap. And they really were the subject of a documentary. So all you have to go on with this film is the film itself (funny how that works).
Mostly ad-libbed by the three primary band members, and the documentary director (Reiner), the film contains the spontaneity of a documentary shot on the cuff. But hidden within the sometimes incoherent mumbling and the dopey eyed stares of an aging rock band, is some genuine comedy. The part that is probably most well known is the talk about how their amps have dials that go to 11. So they can leave it at 10, but if they need just that little extra bit of power, they can take it up to 11.
The film is filled with interesting little moments like that. They first make you laugh with their arrogant incompetence, then you find yourself thinking, are they REALLY like that? Did the actors, really capture the essence of rock stars? Without having any friends who travel or perform on tour, I can't really say. But I can't imagine the Steven Tylers or the Ozzy Osbournes are really that far off from these crazy characters.
The thing that made it so enjoyable was just how lost these guys really are. There's a real duality to them in that they are supreme, confident, and so sure of themselves. Yet they are vacant-headed enough that they can't find their way to a stage, they can't tell feet from inches, and they can't use pieces of tiny bread to make a sandwich. They are complete airheads, that so believe in themselves and their lifestyle. You almost wonder what they are like when the tour ends, and they go home.
Bottom Line:
Cocky, dim-witted rock stars are hilarious.
B+ Sphere: Related Content
This Is Spinal TapReleased: March 2, 1984
Directed by: Rob Reiner
Starring: Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, & Harry Shearer
Plot in a Nutshell:
This mockumentary examines the "complicated" and drama infested lives of rock stars on a tour. Hilarity ensues.
What I thought:
I've heard many things about this fake documentary for years. So many people reference so many times when talking about trumped up ego-filled rock stars. Made in an interesting style, the fake documentary, this film manages to capture the absurdity of modern day rock stars so effortlessly. And it is at times, very funny.
I'm not sure what the back-story to this project is, how it got made, why they chose who they did, how things came together. The reason I don't know is that it seems everyone involved apparently wants to maintain the illusion that this is in fact a real British rock band called Spinal Tap. And they really were the subject of a documentary. So all you have to go on with this film is the film itself (funny how that works).
Mostly ad-libbed by the three primary band members, and the documentary director (Reiner), the film contains the spontaneity of a documentary shot on the cuff. But hidden within the sometimes incoherent mumbling and the dopey eyed stares of an aging rock band, is some genuine comedy. The part that is probably most well known is the talk about how their amps have dials that go to 11. So they can leave it at 10, but if they need just that little extra bit of power, they can take it up to 11.The film is filled with interesting little moments like that. They first make you laugh with their arrogant incompetence, then you find yourself thinking, are they REALLY like that? Did the actors, really capture the essence of rock stars? Without having any friends who travel or perform on tour, I can't really say. But I can't imagine the Steven Tylers or the Ozzy Osbournes are really that far off from these crazy characters.
The thing that made it so enjoyable was just how lost these guys really are. There's a real duality to them in that they are supreme, confident, and so sure of themselves. Yet they are vacant-headed enough that they can't find their way to a stage, they can't tell feet from inches, and they can't use pieces of tiny bread to make a sandwich. They are complete airheads, that so believe in themselves and their lifestyle. You almost wonder what they are like when the tour ends, and they go home.Bottom Line:
Cocky, dim-witted rock stars are hilarious.
B+ Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
