Wow – now this is what you should have watched for Halloween. So scary!!
Not like a horror movie scary but like a business success seminar scary – like watching Werner Ehard, Tony Robbins, and Ted Bundy, all rolled into one, and one local famous person who many of you know. SCARY!!! Having said that – it was really good. An indictment of television news for sure, but also a look inside the mind of a true psychopath. 4 big shaky paws.
I really enjoyed this. Of course they fox you a bit with the trailer – lots of laughs and all that, when it really it’s not really a comedy at all – it’s actually a character study. And one of the best characters is the young boy, Oliver, played by Jaeden Lieberher.
This kid is really special. I liked him a bunch. Bill Murray does a very nice job tool – playing the combination of the character from Ghost Busters and the end of Ground Hog Day. Melissa McCarthy is always very sweet. She does have a habit though of playing not so engaged people – people who just aren’t really very good at doing life. Anyway, I loved the interaction between Vincent (Bill Murray) and Oliver. I say 4 paws.
Well I didn’t really know what to expect when I went to this. I had seen a clip in which Michael Keaton was walking down Broadway in his underpants, but that was about all I knew – oh well I guess I knew that it was also about a celebrity that was producing a play on Broadway, but that was it. So the show had some really good acting. Emma Stone, Amy Adams, Michael Keaton, Ed ward Norton was especially good. But here’s the thing – the script was in many ways – just an intellectual exploration of the meaning of celebrity. I’m sure that the Oscar folks (and definitely the festival people) will love this film – oh and the theatre people will go nuts, but honestly it didn’t really engage me. I felt like I was watching an Ibsen play (Hedda Gabler to be specific) in which we are shown a gun twice, and then when it shows up the 3rd time, we have been prepped to say, “Ah – I knew he was going to do that”.
The theatre stuff was amazingly real – just the way that theatre people are – full of themselves – arch, scathing, and simultaneously innocent. I don’t know – maybe it was better than I think. I feel like I should go see it again – just to make sure that I’m not missing something, but frankly, I don’t really want to – 3 paws.
Fall has finally come – which is good and not so good. Less time to be outside is soon on it’s way, but more good movies. FINALLY! This weekend I went to two really good movies. The Drop is a kind of a standard gangster movie in which an old time washed up gangster tried to rescue his dignity. Of course being played by James Gandolfini makes it bitter sweet to watch – He was so good. But honestly you can see in this film that his health is not good. I suppose looking back it’s easy to see that maybe he might die, but before it happens you just don’t think it’s going to. Anyway this film was quiet, but at the same time had an undefined tension that rides through the film. Honestly you have no idea how this is going to turn out. 4 paws.
THIS IS WHERE I LEAVE YOU.
Wow – two good movies in one weekend. Must be fall. Ok, so I really enjoyed this. It’s a “family” movie – definitely not for the whole family – but about the whole family. The basic structure is that the dad of 4 grown kids dies and their mom says they have to come home and sit shiva. That means sitting in a shiva chair for 7 days in your house while people come and visit you and talk about the deceased. Lots of food, memories and all that. But don’t worry – these guys can’t sit still for very long. The main people you know are Tina Fey, who doesn’t do comedy in this one, Jason Bateman who also doesn’t do comedy, and Jane Fonda, who does really big breasts in this one. What I loved about this was the reality of 4 siblings (grown ups theoretically) being forced to talk to each other as only brothers and sisters can. And of course being back home brings back all the old things that they thought were carefully tucked away. Very systemic. Very Hellinger – although they could have used Bert to straighten some of this craziness out. I know that if you really hate your brothers, sisters, mom or dad, you probably won’t like this one. I seemed to be the only one laughing like crazy, but I liked it, and that’s all that I can say – 4 paws.
I saw this this morning and thought it was interesting. As most of you know I go to a movie (or two) almost every week. So I’ve been watching as we went from film to digital. At first of course it seemed like digital was going to remove the beauty of film. But as the technology improved – just as it improved with CDs – it became harder and harder to tell what was digital and what was film. Now even if you use a film camera – it’s still going to be shown digitally. I’m not sure why folks want to try and buck the trend but there you are.
The real issue is that having some new whiz-bang technology doesn’t improve the writing. I still see far more films that are really poorly developed in terms of character, plot, or even just plain dialogue. Having said that, I still want to go see a film – hmmmm…….maybe tonight.
I was reading this article this morning in the NY Times, (Nicolas Kristof) and it hit me that I have lots of friends of lots of colors, although that wasn’t always true. I grew up in a very white town (Vermillion, SD) and even though I had/have a very large component of “Indian” blood, I wasn’t raised around Indians. Ben Black Elk and Oscar Howe (and families) visited our house and we were connected, but again, by and large I didn’t know much about the reservation. I sure didn’t know anything about black culture.
But that changed when I went to college. My brother and I ended up going to the University of Kansas at the same time. He was finishing school – I was just starting. I hung out at his place way more than I did at my own dorm room, and his place was an old house that had been converted into an apt. house. Upstairs where we were had 4 bedrooms and a bathroom, and 3 of those rooms had black guys living in them. It was a really interesting mix of guys. Now this was close to 50 yrs ago and I don’t remember their names, but I remember them. One guy was kind of a fraternity guy – very sharp dresser, and hip. His family had a little money and he had been going to KU for at least 2 years. The next guy was from Africa – older, studying science of some sort, and the third was from Kansas City, and didn’t seem to have any extra money at all – just starting out like me.
We all hung out – as dorm-mates will do. Chit chatting about whatever. The frat guy made fun of me all the time because I was pretty un-informed- about the hip things of life. He was a lot of fun. Once, the guy from Kansas City invited me to his house in KC to meet the family and like that. I was excited and we drove over – I din’t have a car, but he had borrowed one, so it was a nice day trip. I remember his mom was very nice, and their house was just regular house. In fact – every thing about these guys was “regular”. I never really caught that there was a “black” culture that had secret passwords or was unapproachable. It was the 60’s and we just hung out together.
That was my introduction to people I didn’t know much about. Since then, I have gathered all sorts of friends – black, white, red – maybe even a yellow person – lots of brown. I can see that people have different cultural experiences but I have to say that life in general seems to be about the same stuff for pretty much everybody – family, making a living, creating what you want, getting along in a good way. I wish that other folks could see that too.
I was reading an interesting article this morning in the NY Times. It was about whether or not one should do what one loves. And it the article was a link to a video about a guy who calls himself Slomo. (as in Slow Motion) Now when I read the article I got the impression that this guy doesn’t think this other guy (Slomo) should waste his life roller skating all day – everyday. But in fact that’s not what the guy did. First of all he worked as a doctor for many many years – 30 or 40 and then he started skating all day.
The article suggests that one should do what one needs to do to in order to be good, or useful. “Duty-bound” as it might say in the bible. Kant believes that’s what we ought to do.
One of the reasons I thought about this so much is that I realized that I have pretty much always done what I loved, and yet…most of what I did was because I had a family that I needed to support. I’ve been a documentarian for over 40 years, and the vast majority of the time I was doing commission work – jobs that I got because we needed the money and the money was there, so I did it. Now I don’t deny that I enjoyed what I was doing, and pretty much of the time, I found something enjoyable in the topics that I was documenting. But I know I never would have chosen to do a piece on building a water pipe line, or public safty, or any of a hundred other topics that people wanted me to do. I just wouldn’t have. Probably wouldn’t have even thought about them. But simultaneously, I loved doing documentaries. Editing what people said into a form that was enjoyable to watch.
Since we moved to Minnesota, I have been splitting my time between commissions about topics that are OK, and pieces that I’m doing strictly because I love the idea. I don’t know what the answer is, or if I’m even capable of just doing what I want to do. I can say that I think the author of the Times piece didn’t really pay attention to Slomo – maybe he didn’t watch the film.
When I was a kid – maybe 3 or 4 I was over at another kid’s house – in the alley. There was a fire – someone was burning their garbage, and my brother who was 3 years older, and his buddies suggested to me that I should grab a wire that was white and directly in the fire. They told me it would be fine, and because it was white – that meant it was cool enough to grab. So I did. Wow, did that hurt! I don’t remember what happened next but I can type and use my hands well enough today so I assume I recovered.
There are many aspects to this event that I’ve left out though. Where we were at was about 4 blocks away from where we lived. There were no parents around at all – none. Of course this was not unusual: there never were. They were all working, and so the best way to take care of the kids (that was us) was to turn us loose and tell us NOT to come back until lunch – or supper depending upon the day part. Nobody was concerned that we would get snatched away, or that we wouldn’t come back. Of course there were the occasional events that caused our parents anguish (like the time Dean fell out of a tree and broke his arm) but that wasn’t enough to change the habit of turning us loose to wile away the hours.
Yesterday I heard a piece on public radio with the author of a wonderful article in the new Atlantic, and then the magazine appeared in our mailbox, and I’ve started to read it. What the author was saying on the air was that parents today have done just about everything to remove any chance of a child experiencing anything that might actually build their character or subject them to some pain. I think this is nuts, and I wonder about my grandkids – growing up in a world where they are not allowed to be by themselves – so that they can figure out how to navigate the world and the lives they will eventually have to lead – all by themselves.
I came across this this morning at . It’s a terrific article about the process that these folks used. Here’s the video that they shot:
I love this article and the video for a number of reasons. First of course because it’s amazing news, and fascinating. But on a more personal level – I’ve been a documentarian for over 40 years, and I love the way that they did the piece: no faking it, no setups, no “over the shoulder” shots that tell you it was all setup – just one camera (with a high quality mic which I love) – shooting something as it happens. I love it. It shows you the power of what simple emotions and straight ahead shooting really is.
I saw Her last summer and really enjoyed it. And since then, it has stayed in my mind, raising lots of questions. This morning I ran across this piece in the New York times and it raised even more questions.
But here’s the thing that doesn’t seem to come into the equation whenever I hear about the notion of “will machines become human minds?”. While folks speculate about whether or not you could actually have a machine with a human mind – as Samantha in HER does, they rarely consider the question of wondering. Wondering about stuff that you have never seen before, or even know if it exists or not does not seem to be in the cards. How could a machine create a new thought about something that isn’t there. What would be it’s reference point? Actually there are many aspects of something that isn’t there that come to mind (at least to my mind – which I assure you is somewhat human):
Deciding that you like something, or not. Choosing to do something because it makes you happy, and conversely choosing to not do something because it makes you sad. Creating an entirely new thing – something that no one has ever even thought of – just to name a few.
I’m not worried about computers becoming real live thinking machines – mostly because they would still leave the realm of art to us poor humans. Ah now that’s a fascinating thought.