Another year has gone and come, another ball has dropped in Times Square (couldn't bear to watch Dick Clark attempt to count backwards from 10, so we opted for Carson Daly - not much of an improvement, I must say).
I'll need to double-check, but it looks like my favorite movie seen in 2010 is a toss-up, between "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" and "The Time Traveler's Wife", both scoring a solid 9 out of 10. Runners-up with a score of 8 are "Slumdog Millionaire", "Up", "The Simpsons Movie", "The Prestige" and "The Hurt Locker". Yep, that seems about right.
Two years ago, I made a resolution to watch a movie a day in 2009, and 1 year ago, I made a resolution to continue the process. Today, I make a resolution to end the process this year. Oh, not right away - after watching 730 movies in a row, the big number 1,000 is looming in the distance, and it would be a shame to stop now. But I resolve to ONLY watch enough movies this year to get me to a nice round grand. 270 movies in 2011? No problem.
This means that I don't have to force myself to stick to an average of a movie a day - if I want to take a vacation, or not bring movies with me to Comic-Con, that's OK. And if I miss a day, I miss a day. So I finish in mid-October rather than early October, big whoop. I'd like to take some time this year to enjoy the holidays - I make a themed CD of Christmas music each year that goes out with my cards, and though this year the theme and the songs kind of just fell into place, I won't necessarily get that lucky again.
Watching movies is easy, but the toughest part is the organization of my list - I've now managed to compose TWO 365-movie strings, where each movie had something in common with the movie before it and after it, whether they were thematically linked, or just shared an actor. Now eventually I'll be left with a list of random leftovers, with nothing in common, and that makes it difficult to proceed. Sure, I could pick randomly, or decide what I'm in the mood for each day, but where's the fun in that?
So, after staring at a blank January calendar for a few days, I decided to look up some famous birthdays, some actors who I've highlighted already and some whose films I've been putting off - overlaying a few famous birthdays gave me a rough structure for January, and at least an idea of how I want to proceed. So look for some notable Birthday Shout-outs in 2011.
The numbers are encouraging - I started 2009 with a list of 435 movies, and since I was constantly adding to the list, the first year's viewing of 365 films only reduced the list to about 410 at the start of 2010. Today the list has been reduced to 338, so a lot of good progress was made this year. I still won't be able to polish off the list by watching 270 more movies, but maybe I can come close.
This year's dedication is a little tricky, since I figured by now I'd be dedicating this thing to my cat - but he's approaching 20 and hasn't packed it in yet, so I've got to go another direction. Maybe to Irvin Kershner, director of "The Empire Strikes Back", who passed away a month ago - George Lucas was an obvious source of inspiration for my movie-based career, but Kershner's like a (mostly) unsung hero. And I met him at Comic-Con way back, just when I was starting to learn digital cameras, and I flubbed a picture of Kersh posing with Mark Hamill and Billy Dee Williams - there's a photo opportunity that I knew would never come around again. I suppose my back-up choice would be puzzle expert Martin Gardner, who also died in 2010, but Kershner's got a better connection to the movie world.
Now, on with the countdown...
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Friday, December 31, 2010
Angels & Demons
Year 2, Day 365 - 12/31/10 - Movie #730
BEFORE: I brought this DVD up to Massachusetts, and I intended to watch it the day after Christmas, but my mom said that she'd already seen it. That's rare, that my moms watches a film before I do - a sign I've got to step up my game. Anyway, my wife wanted to see it (we both read the book) so I re-scheduled it for tonight.
We don't go out on New Year's Eve, it's a good night to stay in and watch a movie together. I think the last day of the year should be used for either quiet reflection, or something like cleaning out your attic or organizing your comic books (or whatever it is you've got too much of...).
THE PLOT: Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon works to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican.
AFTER: I have to admit that I was all set to switch my blog posts and make "Nuns on the Run" the last movie of the year - I started the year with "The Commitments", another film set in the U.K. - but that would compromise the integrity of the list. Plus, with the plot of this film concerning a bomb set in the Vatican that's set to detonate at midnight, it actually made for a very appropriate New Year's Eve flick.
Of course, there's a lot of unbelievable outrageousness to this film - how often does a symbologist save the day? Not a secret agent, not a political negotiator, but a symbologist? Come on... Like Harvard's got a symbology department? What the heck are you supposed to do with that degree after you graduate?
But I digress...the framing device here is the death of a pope and the election of a new one - but the kidnapping of four likely candidates suggests that there are sinister elements working within the Vatican hierarchy (say it ain't so!). And somehow only a symbologist with access to the Vatican library can save them...oh yeah, he's got a hot sidekick who is a scientist, but she also seems to be an expert in art, Latin, medicine, and whatever else is needed to advance the plot. (Again, come on!)
Having read the book, I just reviewed the changes made for the movie (conveniently listed on IMDB.com) - and for the most part, I have to say, "Bravo". They took out things that would have slowed the movie down, and corrected some of the wildest improbable occurences, also simplifying the plot at the same time.
The race around Rome following symbols from statues is quite ridiculous, but at least it's good clean action-movie fun. And that's the last film of 2010 - I couldn't really predict where the chain would end, since I only program about a month ahead at a time. But there it is - an update will follow next concerning the future of the Movie Year Blog.
Starring Tom Hanks (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), Ewan McGregor (last seen in "The Men Who Stare at Goats"), Armin Mueller-Stahl, Stellan Skarsgard (last seen in "Ronin")
RATING: 7 out of 10 votive candles
BEFORE: I brought this DVD up to Massachusetts, and I intended to watch it the day after Christmas, but my mom said that she'd already seen it. That's rare, that my moms watches a film before I do - a sign I've got to step up my game. Anyway, my wife wanted to see it (we both read the book) so I re-scheduled it for tonight.
We don't go out on New Year's Eve, it's a good night to stay in and watch a movie together. I think the last day of the year should be used for either quiet reflection, or something like cleaning out your attic or organizing your comic books (or whatever it is you've got too much of...).
THE PLOT: Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon works to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican.
AFTER: I have to admit that I was all set to switch my blog posts and make "Nuns on the Run" the last movie of the year - I started the year with "The Commitments", another film set in the U.K. - but that would compromise the integrity of the list. Plus, with the plot of this film concerning a bomb set in the Vatican that's set to detonate at midnight, it actually made for a very appropriate New Year's Eve flick.
Of course, there's a lot of unbelievable outrageousness to this film - how often does a symbologist save the day? Not a secret agent, not a political negotiator, but a symbologist? Come on... Like Harvard's got a symbology department? What the heck are you supposed to do with that degree after you graduate?
But I digress...the framing device here is the death of a pope and the election of a new one - but the kidnapping of four likely candidates suggests that there are sinister elements working within the Vatican hierarchy (say it ain't so!). And somehow only a symbologist with access to the Vatican library can save them...oh yeah, he's got a hot sidekick who is a scientist, but she also seems to be an expert in art, Latin, medicine, and whatever else is needed to advance the plot. (Again, come on!)
Having read the book, I just reviewed the changes made for the movie (conveniently listed on IMDB.com) - and for the most part, I have to say, "Bravo". They took out things that would have slowed the movie down, and corrected some of the wildest improbable occurences, also simplifying the plot at the same time.
The race around Rome following symbols from statues is quite ridiculous, but at least it's good clean action-movie fun. And that's the last film of 2010 - I couldn't really predict where the chain would end, since I only program about a month ahead at a time. But there it is - an update will follow next concerning the future of the Movie Year Blog.
Starring Tom Hanks (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), Ewan McGregor (last seen in "The Men Who Stare at Goats"), Armin Mueller-Stahl, Stellan Skarsgard (last seen in "Ronin")
RATING: 7 out of 10 votive candles
Nuns on the Run
Year 2, Day 364 - 12/30/10 - Movie #729
BEFORE: OK, so it's only tangentially related to religion, but topically I'm grasping at straws. You try stringing over 700 movies together, so that each one has something in common with the one before it and the one after it...
THE PLOT: Brian and Charlie work for a gangster. When their boss sets them up to be killed, they steal the money for themselves, but when their escape doesn't go to plan, they have to seek refuge in a Nuns' teacher training school.
AFTER: Essentially it's a revamp of "Some Like It Hot", and I think I'd seen bits of it before, but never the whole thing. Another slapstick farce, with unbelievable bits, like the ability of two men, one extra burly, to disguise themselves as nuns. And of course the plot hinges on a character's near-sightedness and her inability to find her glasses...
Amusing but not really laugh-out-loud funny.
Starring Eric Idle (last seen in "Hollywood Homicide"), Robbie Coltrane (last seen in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix").
RATING: 5 out of 10 meat cleavers
BEFORE: OK, so it's only tangentially related to religion, but topically I'm grasping at straws. You try stringing over 700 movies together, so that each one has something in common with the one before it and the one after it...
THE PLOT: Brian and Charlie work for a gangster. When their boss sets them up to be killed, they steal the money for themselves, but when their escape doesn't go to plan, they have to seek refuge in a Nuns' teacher training school.
AFTER: Essentially it's a revamp of "Some Like It Hot", and I think I'd seen bits of it before, but never the whole thing. Another slapstick farce, with unbelievable bits, like the ability of two men, one extra burly, to disguise themselves as nuns. And of course the plot hinges on a character's near-sightedness and her inability to find her glasses...
Amusing but not really laugh-out-loud funny.
Starring Eric Idle (last seen in "Hollywood Homicide"), Robbie Coltrane (last seen in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix").
RATING: 5 out of 10 meat cleavers
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Doubt
Year 2, Day 363 - 12/29/10 - Movie #728
BEFORE: Went back to work today, but fortunately it's only a two-day work week. Sweet.
THE PLOT: In a Bronx Catholic school in 1964 a popular priest's ambiguous relationship with a troubled 12 year old black student is questioned by the school's principal.
AFTER: Hmmm. I'm not seeing what all the fuss was about, as far as this movie's plot is concerned. I mean, it seems pretty one-note. I suppose it's a microcosm for the entirety of the priesthood, and all of their foibles where young boys are concerned, but because it's set in 1964, everyone speaks with these veiled references about an "improper relationship", and it seems like everyone's afraid to come out and say what's on their minds.
And essentially it's a game of "He said/she said" between the priest in question, and the school's principal - but because we never saw what happened, there will always be...well, you can see the title.
I did my time as an altar boy in the late 70's, and I emerged (relatively) unscathed. Is it wrong of me to wonder how I got so lucky? Was there something wrong with me, was I not cute enough?
When the big scandals broke in the late 90's, I sort of sat back and waited for Catholicism as a whole to crumble, and I'm still waiting. I'm always quick to point out that celibacy was not originally part of the church, and in fact has no real connection to a person's holiness or divinity. The entire reason that priests are required to be celibate has everything to do with the Catholic Church's ownership of land in the Middle Ages - because if there were no offspring of priests, there could be no claims of inheritance on their land. That's it - there's nothing in the Bible that says priests should be celibate, and in fact if you count Jesus's disciples as the first priests, he even instructed them to "Be fruitful and multiply", so there would be more believers.
So I feel that the whole system is a put-on, and over time this connection has been made between celibacy and divinity, and that connection is nothing more than an imaginary human construct. Asking someone to deny their human natures seems quite unnatural, and somehow (through a process no one really understands very well) this leads to priests who lust after young boys. It's a complex issue, and I'm sure it's not a strict cause/effect relationship, but I've still got my suspicions.
Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), Meryl Streep (last seen in "Lions for Lambs"), Amy Adams (also last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), and Viola Davis (last seen in "Kate & Leopold")
RATING: 6 out of 10 free throws
BEFORE: Went back to work today, but fortunately it's only a two-day work week. Sweet.
THE PLOT: In a Bronx Catholic school in 1964 a popular priest's ambiguous relationship with a troubled 12 year old black student is questioned by the school's principal.
AFTER: Hmmm. I'm not seeing what all the fuss was about, as far as this movie's plot is concerned. I mean, it seems pretty one-note. I suppose it's a microcosm for the entirety of the priesthood, and all of their foibles where young boys are concerned, but because it's set in 1964, everyone speaks with these veiled references about an "improper relationship", and it seems like everyone's afraid to come out and say what's on their minds.
And essentially it's a game of "He said/she said" between the priest in question, and the school's principal - but because we never saw what happened, there will always be...well, you can see the title.
I did my time as an altar boy in the late 70's, and I emerged (relatively) unscathed. Is it wrong of me to wonder how I got so lucky? Was there something wrong with me, was I not cute enough?
When the big scandals broke in the late 90's, I sort of sat back and waited for Catholicism as a whole to crumble, and I'm still waiting. I'm always quick to point out that celibacy was not originally part of the church, and in fact has no real connection to a person's holiness or divinity. The entire reason that priests are required to be celibate has everything to do with the Catholic Church's ownership of land in the Middle Ages - because if there were no offspring of priests, there could be no claims of inheritance on their land. That's it - there's nothing in the Bible that says priests should be celibate, and in fact if you count Jesus's disciples as the first priests, he even instructed them to "Be fruitful and multiply", so there would be more believers.
So I feel that the whole system is a put-on, and over time this connection has been made between celibacy and divinity, and that connection is nothing more than an imaginary human construct. Asking someone to deny their human natures seems quite unnatural, and somehow (through a process no one really understands very well) this leads to priests who lust after young boys. It's a complex issue, and I'm sure it's not a strict cause/effect relationship, but I've still got my suspicions.
Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), Meryl Streep (last seen in "Lions for Lambs"), Amy Adams (also last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), and Viola Davis (last seen in "Kate & Leopold")
RATING: 6 out of 10 free throws
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Dear God
Year 2, Day 362 - 12/28/10 - Movie #727
BEFORE: I'm essentially housebound today, thanks to the complete mismanagement of NYC Sanitation services. The city waited until AFTER the snow was done to start plowing, which was a huge mistake. Plus, they simply don't have enough plows and sanders to cover every street, so the people who live on "non-essential" streets or in the outer boroughs found out just where they are in the pecking order. Expect heads to roll at City Hall in the New Year. And to everyone who called for small government and tax cuts, this is the result - fewer city services when they're really needed. I don't care, I was able to spend the day unpacking and catching up on some TV and comic books.
Sticking with the religion theme tonight, and a late Christmas tie-in.
THE PLOT: When letters written to God start getting results, and replies, people everywhere are amazed. The Post Office however is annoyed.
AFTER: There is a (somewhat) heartwarming message in this film - people who are on hard times and write letters to God get the help that they need, but I'm just not sure that it's coming from a genuine good place.
The central character, played by Greg Kinnear (last seen in "Flash of Genius"), is a reformed (?) con-man, who only ends up at the post office because he is ordered by the court to find a job. Even though he signs on as temporary holiday help, I'm not sure that's how the post office works...don't you have to take some kind of exam? So when he sees all the letters to God in the dead letter office, his initial thought is that he can turn this into some kind of scam - although we're never really sure what the angle is, or how answering these letters will lead to some form of profit.
The rest of the staff at the post office wants to jump on board, and they all mean well, they really do - but every single one of them is a screw-up, or is neurotic or damaged in some way. So there's no one to really root for here, my choices are the con man, or the screw-ups, or the desperately needy. It's great that people want to help other people, it's just too bad that they have to violate federal mailing laws to do so.
What's strange is that the Post Office already HAS programs in place to help the needy. Kids in need have been writing letters to "Santa" for years, and though the program was suspended for a few years (something about privacy laws, or the lack of safety in giving out people's addresses...) my understanding was that it was back on. Plus mail carriers already participate in things like canned food drives, and special stamps that raise money for worthy causes. Should they spend time on their evenings and weekends doing pro bono work too? And who should fund all of this?
What bothers me is that the first postal "miracle" happens by accident - so that one doesn't really count, does it? And then the process is continued, largely because the main character is trying to impress a woman - so those don't really come from a pure place, either. Would it have been so wrong to have someone doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds? I can't help but think about Jason Lee's character on "My Name Is Earl" - a former contemptible (yet likeable) lowlife thief, who learns about karma and then straightens out his life and atones for his misdeeds, because he believes this will bring good things back to him in the long run. Nothing wrong with that set-up at all.
The film culminates in the main character put on trial - yes, put on trial for trying to help people in need. Is this Los Angeles or Nottingham? Were the filmmakers trying for a "Miracle on 34th St." vibe? Or like the rest of this film, was the whole idea just sort of misguided?
Also starring Laurie Metcalf, Hector Elizondo (last seen in "Turbulence"), Tim Conway, Roscoe Lee Browne, Donal Logue (last seen in "Blade"), with cameos from Sam McMurray (last seen in "Lucky Numbers"), Larry Miller (last seen in "Chairman of the Board"), Nancy Marchand, Rue McClanahan, Jack Klugman, Coolio, John Pinette, Ellen Cleghorne, director Garry Marshall, Timothy Stack, Tony Danza, David Hasselhoff and Elvira (wow, what a motley bunch...)
RATING: 4 out of 10 blurred addresses
BEFORE: I'm essentially housebound today, thanks to the complete mismanagement of NYC Sanitation services. The city waited until AFTER the snow was done to start plowing, which was a huge mistake. Plus, they simply don't have enough plows and sanders to cover every street, so the people who live on "non-essential" streets or in the outer boroughs found out just where they are in the pecking order. Expect heads to roll at City Hall in the New Year. And to everyone who called for small government and tax cuts, this is the result - fewer city services when they're really needed. I don't care, I was able to spend the day unpacking and catching up on some TV and comic books.
Sticking with the religion theme tonight, and a late Christmas tie-in.
THE PLOT: When letters written to God start getting results, and replies, people everywhere are amazed. The Post Office however is annoyed.
AFTER: There is a (somewhat) heartwarming message in this film - people who are on hard times and write letters to God get the help that they need, but I'm just not sure that it's coming from a genuine good place.
The central character, played by Greg Kinnear (last seen in "Flash of Genius"), is a reformed (?) con-man, who only ends up at the post office because he is ordered by the court to find a job. Even though he signs on as temporary holiday help, I'm not sure that's how the post office works...don't you have to take some kind of exam? So when he sees all the letters to God in the dead letter office, his initial thought is that he can turn this into some kind of scam - although we're never really sure what the angle is, or how answering these letters will lead to some form of profit.
The rest of the staff at the post office wants to jump on board, and they all mean well, they really do - but every single one of them is a screw-up, or is neurotic or damaged in some way. So there's no one to really root for here, my choices are the con man, or the screw-ups, or the desperately needy. It's great that people want to help other people, it's just too bad that they have to violate federal mailing laws to do so.
What's strange is that the Post Office already HAS programs in place to help the needy. Kids in need have been writing letters to "Santa" for years, and though the program was suspended for a few years (something about privacy laws, or the lack of safety in giving out people's addresses...) my understanding was that it was back on. Plus mail carriers already participate in things like canned food drives, and special stamps that raise money for worthy causes. Should they spend time on their evenings and weekends doing pro bono work too? And who should fund all of this?
What bothers me is that the first postal "miracle" happens by accident - so that one doesn't really count, does it? And then the process is continued, largely because the main character is trying to impress a woman - so those don't really come from a pure place, either. Would it have been so wrong to have someone doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds? I can't help but think about Jason Lee's character on "My Name Is Earl" - a former contemptible (yet likeable) lowlife thief, who learns about karma and then straightens out his life and atones for his misdeeds, because he believes this will bring good things back to him in the long run. Nothing wrong with that set-up at all.
The film culminates in the main character put on trial - yes, put on trial for trying to help people in need. Is this Los Angeles or Nottingham? Were the filmmakers trying for a "Miracle on 34th St." vibe? Or like the rest of this film, was the whole idea just sort of misguided?
Also starring Laurie Metcalf, Hector Elizondo (last seen in "Turbulence"), Tim Conway, Roscoe Lee Browne, Donal Logue (last seen in "Blade"), with cameos from Sam McMurray (last seen in "Lucky Numbers"), Larry Miller (last seen in "Chairman of the Board"), Nancy Marchand, Rue McClanahan, Jack Klugman, Coolio, John Pinette, Ellen Cleghorne, director Garry Marshall, Timothy Stack, Tony Danza, David Hasselhoff and Elvira (wow, what a motley bunch...)
RATING: 4 out of 10 blurred addresses
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
Year 2, Day 361 - 12/27/10 - Movie #726
BEFORE: We waited out the blizzard at my parents' house and drove back to Queens today - the highway was mostly clear, but it seems that New York City Sanitation gave up and only plowed a portion of the streets, so we had to park four blocks from our house, and had to slog through the snow with our luggage and Christmas gifts - thanks a lot, Mayor Bloomberg! I'm continuing with religion-based documentaries, but tonight's film is sort of the opposite point of view from last night's, with intelligent design standing in for creationism.
THE PLOT: Ben Stein examines the issue of academic freedom and decides that there is none when it comes to the debate over intelligent design.
AFTER: There's a lot of repetition in this film - THIS teacher was fired for teaching intelligent design, and THIS reporter was told not to mention it in an article, and then THIS one, and so on...
But interviewer Ben Stein then makes some large leaps in logic, pointing out the Nazis' use of Darwinism to justify their terrible actions - however, this does not mean that today's believers in evolution have beliefs similar to Nazis. It's a cheap shot, evoking the concentration camps, which also clouds the issue.
It's probably just that most scientists seem to not be very religious people, and vice versa, which is actually quite comforting to me. The most science-oriented people, at least the ones depicted in this film, have found the existence of God to be incompatible with their studies and research - so Ben Stein, here sticking up for the Old Testament God, is not preaching to the choir, but instead doing the opposite.
There are a lot of shots of Stein traveling to interviews, which to me seems like a great metaphor - he's constantly on the road to a point, but never quite gets there. I'm all for academic freedom, but science and religion are more like magnets with opposite charges than, say, peanut butter and chocolate.
Both Bill Maher and Ben Stein want the members of their "silent majorities" to start coming forward and speaking up, which raises the question - which group is bigger, with more potential as a voting bloc - the quiet atheists, or the scientific creationists?
RATING: 3 out of 10 dinosaur skeletons
BEFORE: We waited out the blizzard at my parents' house and drove back to Queens today - the highway was mostly clear, but it seems that New York City Sanitation gave up and only plowed a portion of the streets, so we had to park four blocks from our house, and had to slog through the snow with our luggage and Christmas gifts - thanks a lot, Mayor Bloomberg! I'm continuing with religion-based documentaries, but tonight's film is sort of the opposite point of view from last night's, with intelligent design standing in for creationism.
THE PLOT: Ben Stein examines the issue of academic freedom and decides that there is none when it comes to the debate over intelligent design.
AFTER: There's a lot of repetition in this film - THIS teacher was fired for teaching intelligent design, and THIS reporter was told not to mention it in an article, and then THIS one, and so on...
But interviewer Ben Stein then makes some large leaps in logic, pointing out the Nazis' use of Darwinism to justify their terrible actions - however, this does not mean that today's believers in evolution have beliefs similar to Nazis. It's a cheap shot, evoking the concentration camps, which also clouds the issue.
It's probably just that most scientists seem to not be very religious people, and vice versa, which is actually quite comforting to me. The most science-oriented people, at least the ones depicted in this film, have found the existence of God to be incompatible with their studies and research - so Ben Stein, here sticking up for the Old Testament God, is not preaching to the choir, but instead doing the opposite.
There are a lot of shots of Stein traveling to interviews, which to me seems like a great metaphor - he's constantly on the road to a point, but never quite gets there. I'm all for academic freedom, but science and religion are more like magnets with opposite charges than, say, peanut butter and chocolate.
Both Bill Maher and Ben Stein want the members of their "silent majorities" to start coming forward and speaking up, which raises the question - which group is bigger, with more potential as a voting bloc - the quiet atheists, or the scientific creationists?
RATING: 3 out of 10 dinosaur skeletons
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Religulous
Year 2, Day 360 - 12/26/10 - Movie #725
BEFORE: I'm snowed in at my parents' house, today was originally set aside for post-Christmas visiting with friends, but that was made impossible by a blizzard - as it is, I'll be lucky to leave on schedule tomorrow to drive back to New York. I'll continue with another religion-based documentary.
THE PLOT: Bill Maher's take on the current state of world religion.
AFTER: Bill Maher interviews Christians, Muslims, Jews and Scientologists in an effort to point out the hypocrasies and discrepancies inherent to their faiths. Faith is portrayed here as the opposite of rational thought, a substitute explanation for things that cannot be explained. Like with Rev. Billy, I appreciate Maher's message, but not necessarily all of his methods - though I myself enjoy getting into philosophical arguments with overzealous believers, such as preachers on the subway.
I admit I'm hard-pressed to think of a better way to deal with religious people other than arguing with them - and I also admit that like Maher, I consider most of them misguided, if not ignorant. I'm no longer a practicing Catholic (I figured that I practiced enough, and I wasn't getting any better at it) and I suppose I identify as more of an agnostic than an atheist. I'd like to believe that there is a higher power, but I've seen no direct evidence of it, and I'm not arrogant enough to say for sure how any of it works, or which religion, if any, is correct.
In fact, the very presence of multiple religions was the deal-breaker for me. Why would my religion be right, and the others wrong? Why were the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Pagans any less correct than today's believers? Maher even points out the similarities between Jesus, Mithra and Horus - all of whom were supposedly born to virgins, had powers to heal the sick and raise the dead, and who all died and were resurrected three days later? When you realize how much of Jesus's story was co-opted from other religions, it all starts to sound like a giant con game. And, just like with Santa Claus, if any part of the story isn't true, then most likely the whole deal isn't true.
Maher suggested that the silent majority of rational non-believers rise up and band together, to counter the smaller but more vocal evangelistic groups that seem to have control over certain elements of our government, even though we're supposed to have a separation of church and state. My only question - where do I sign?
My major complaint is that the documentary is quite unfocused, jumping around from one minor point to another, without ever congealing them into a major, definitive statement. And it didn't really need to poke fun at fringe religions like Scientology, or ones based on things like marijuana - those factions do enough of a job ridiculing themselves.
RATING: 5 out of 10 prophets
BEFORE: I'm snowed in at my parents' house, today was originally set aside for post-Christmas visiting with friends, but that was made impossible by a blizzard - as it is, I'll be lucky to leave on schedule tomorrow to drive back to New York. I'll continue with another religion-based documentary.
THE PLOT: Bill Maher's take on the current state of world religion.
AFTER: Bill Maher interviews Christians, Muslims, Jews and Scientologists in an effort to point out the hypocrasies and discrepancies inherent to their faiths. Faith is portrayed here as the opposite of rational thought, a substitute explanation for things that cannot be explained. Like with Rev. Billy, I appreciate Maher's message, but not necessarily all of his methods - though I myself enjoy getting into philosophical arguments with overzealous believers, such as preachers on the subway.
I admit I'm hard-pressed to think of a better way to deal with religious people other than arguing with them - and I also admit that like Maher, I consider most of them misguided, if not ignorant. I'm no longer a practicing Catholic (I figured that I practiced enough, and I wasn't getting any better at it) and I suppose I identify as more of an agnostic than an atheist. I'd like to believe that there is a higher power, but I've seen no direct evidence of it, and I'm not arrogant enough to say for sure how any of it works, or which religion, if any, is correct.
In fact, the very presence of multiple religions was the deal-breaker for me. Why would my religion be right, and the others wrong? Why were the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Pagans any less correct than today's believers? Maher even points out the similarities between Jesus, Mithra and Horus - all of whom were supposedly born to virgins, had powers to heal the sick and raise the dead, and who all died and were resurrected three days later? When you realize how much of Jesus's story was co-opted from other religions, it all starts to sound like a giant con game. And, just like with Santa Claus, if any part of the story isn't true, then most likely the whole deal isn't true.
Maher suggested that the silent majority of rational non-believers rise up and band together, to counter the smaller but more vocal evangelistic groups that seem to have control over certain elements of our government, even though we're supposed to have a separation of church and state. My only question - where do I sign?
My major complaint is that the documentary is quite unfocused, jumping around from one minor point to another, without ever congealing them into a major, definitive statement. And it didn't really need to poke fun at fringe religions like Scientology, or ones based on things like marijuana - those factions do enough of a job ridiculing themselves.
RATING: 5 out of 10 prophets
What Would Jesus Buy?
Year 2, Day 359 - 12/25/10 - Movie #724
BEFORE: Something perhaps radically different for Christmas -
THE PLOT: An examination of the commercialization of Christmas in America while following Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir.
AFTER: Rev. Billy is a phony preacher, in the style of Swaggart or Bakker or Graham, who brings a message of rampant consumerism, what he calls the "Shopocalypse", to shopping centers in a flash-mob gospel style. The film follows him and his choir on a cross-country tour that takes place in the month leading up to Christmas, culminating in a Dec. 25 raid on Disneyland. The "happiest place on Earth" is also earmarked here the epicenter of out-of-control American consumerim.
While I don't agree with the man's methods - he seems to have studied at the Michael Moore school of attention-getting - there is a valid message underneath the trappings of an over-dramatic evangelist. Intermixed with vignettes from the choir's life on the road and stops at the Mall of America and Wal-Mart headquarters are interviews with economic experts that highlight the plight of third-world sweatshop laborers, and a look at an average pre-teen's girl's toy collection, which is about to expand again with the latest Christmas deliveries from "Santa".
Is Christmas out of control? Undoubtedly. Will American consumers spend themselves into debt, again and again? Probably. With increased American corporate culture, advertising, and overspending, we've come pretty far from the original holiday celebration and the true meaning of the season. The real religious leaders have an uphill battle, trying to get their message across to a congregration that heads straight for the malls after services. But kudos to someone for making a film that dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the best Christmas gifts aren't sold in stores and wrapped in paper.
For years I've gone to two family celebrations on Christmas Day - lunch at my parent's house with with my mother's family, and then dinner at my uncle's house with my father's family. Whereas my mother's family celebrates with a full-on turkey dinner followed by an avalanche of gifts, my father's family celebrates with cold cuts and pre-made sandwiches, followed by a Yankee Swap. The second affair is always more laid-back, less stressful, and the focus is more on conversation and catching up with relatives, rather than focusing on holiday excess and fueling the corporate Christmas machine. And the Yankee Swap is a lot like a Christmas game show - everyone who wants to participate brings a good generic gift, and we all draw for numbers. The first person unwraps a gift, which may or may not be to their liking (but everyone is generally respectful, since the gift-giver is also in the room) - the second person unwraps a gift, and has the option to either keep it, or force a trade with the first person. The third recipient can force a trade with person #1 or #2, and so on, with Person #1 is allowed one final trade, since they had the least amount of choice up to that point.
This system was initiated years ago, since my father's family is so large that it was becoming inconvenient for each person to buy gifts for every other person. But it mostly works - OK, some years you might get a "zonk" gift, but it's all part of the fun - and the emphasis is more on friendly competition and trading, and less on overspending, since there is a monetary limit on gifts. This all ties in with the message of this film, since perhaps one tenth of the gifts are exchanged than in the typical Christmas celebration, and the family is no less the worse for wear. So ask yourself - would Christmas be any worse if fewer gifts were bought? And if your answer is "yes", what are the implications of that?
So while I'm not convinced that "Stop Shopping" is the answer, it's good to provoke debate, and at least attempt to make people aware of their actions and what the consequences are. Shop local, shop at smaller stores, shop less frequently, but please don't get all uppity about it.
RATING: 6 out of 10 cans of hairspray - and a shout-out to my buddy Morgan Spurlock, who was a producer of this film and clearly a strong influence.
BEFORE: Something perhaps radically different for Christmas -
THE PLOT: An examination of the commercialization of Christmas in America while following Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir.
AFTER: Rev. Billy is a phony preacher, in the style of Swaggart or Bakker or Graham, who brings a message of rampant consumerism, what he calls the "Shopocalypse", to shopping centers in a flash-mob gospel style. The film follows him and his choir on a cross-country tour that takes place in the month leading up to Christmas, culminating in a Dec. 25 raid on Disneyland. The "happiest place on Earth" is also earmarked here the epicenter of out-of-control American consumerim.
While I don't agree with the man's methods - he seems to have studied at the Michael Moore school of attention-getting - there is a valid message underneath the trappings of an over-dramatic evangelist. Intermixed with vignettes from the choir's life on the road and stops at the Mall of America and Wal-Mart headquarters are interviews with economic experts that highlight the plight of third-world sweatshop laborers, and a look at an average pre-teen's girl's toy collection, which is about to expand again with the latest Christmas deliveries from "Santa".
Is Christmas out of control? Undoubtedly. Will American consumers spend themselves into debt, again and again? Probably. With increased American corporate culture, advertising, and overspending, we've come pretty far from the original holiday celebration and the true meaning of the season. The real religious leaders have an uphill battle, trying to get their message across to a congregration that heads straight for the malls after services. But kudos to someone for making a film that dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the best Christmas gifts aren't sold in stores and wrapped in paper.
For years I've gone to two family celebrations on Christmas Day - lunch at my parent's house with with my mother's family, and then dinner at my uncle's house with my father's family. Whereas my mother's family celebrates with a full-on turkey dinner followed by an avalanche of gifts, my father's family celebrates with cold cuts and pre-made sandwiches, followed by a Yankee Swap. The second affair is always more laid-back, less stressful, and the focus is more on conversation and catching up with relatives, rather than focusing on holiday excess and fueling the corporate Christmas machine. And the Yankee Swap is a lot like a Christmas game show - everyone who wants to participate brings a good generic gift, and we all draw for numbers. The first person unwraps a gift, which may or may not be to their liking (but everyone is generally respectful, since the gift-giver is also in the room) - the second person unwraps a gift, and has the option to either keep it, or force a trade with the first person. The third recipient can force a trade with person #1 or #2, and so on, with Person #1 is allowed one final trade, since they had the least amount of choice up to that point.
This system was initiated years ago, since my father's family is so large that it was becoming inconvenient for each person to buy gifts for every other person. But it mostly works - OK, some years you might get a "zonk" gift, but it's all part of the fun - and the emphasis is more on friendly competition and trading, and less on overspending, since there is a monetary limit on gifts. This all ties in with the message of this film, since perhaps one tenth of the gifts are exchanged than in the typical Christmas celebration, and the family is no less the worse for wear. So ask yourself - would Christmas be any worse if fewer gifts were bought? And if your answer is "yes", what are the implications of that?
So while I'm not convinced that "Stop Shopping" is the answer, it's good to provoke debate, and at least attempt to make people aware of their actions and what the consequences are. Shop local, shop at smaller stores, shop less frequently, but please don't get all uppity about it.
RATING: 6 out of 10 cans of hairspray - and a shout-out to my buddy Morgan Spurlock, who was a producer of this film and clearly a strong influence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
