Review and Analysis: Goran Dukic's WRISTCUTTERS: A LOVE STORY (2006)

Rating: B+ -- WRISTCUTTERS was philosophically thought-provoking, that's why I liked it. I'm not sure if the film makes complete sense yet. I want to watch it again and plug in some ideas, especially during the last thirty minutes where Will Arnett appears as Messiah King. I also enjoyed the music in the film (e.g. Tom Waits, Joy Division), especially the film's theme song: "Through the Roof" by Gogol Bordello.

SPOILERS FOLLOW (Argument and Analysis): The film is set in an afterlife designed for suicide victims, which according to the film, everything in this afterlife is just a "little shittier" than the former life. Suicide happens when one no longer finds a meaning to his/her existence. The film seems to argue that this meaning to life, or whatever it is that fulfills a person's longing for meaning in his/her own life, can only be found when finding this meaning no longer matters to the person. It is then that he/she finds meaning. Zia, the protagonist (Patrick Fugit), searches for his true love and ends up falling for a girl (Shannyn Sossamon as Mikal) he meets as he searches for his ex-girlfriend (She's the reason he slits his wrists and ends up in the desolate afterlife.). Mikal spends her time trying to find the People in Charge (These people represent God) because she feels she has been unfairly placed here, for she OD'd; she didn't intentionally kill herself. And another character, Eugene the Russian (Shea Whigham), has nothing better to do, so he joins Zia in his journey to find his ex-girlfriend.

SPOILERS CONTINUE: It seems fitting that Eugene is the first to find meaning, for finding meaning never really mattered to him (He had nothing better to do, right?). He ends up falling in love with a woman, which, as I may have mentioned before on this blog, is representative of conventional film philosophy (which is reflective of conventional human philosophy): finding true human love is the meaning to life. Zia does the same, and Mikal DOES find the People in Charge, suggesting that God DOES exist. But these are my conclusions after one viewing. My desire to RE-watch this one is reason enough for you to simply watch it for the first time.

Review: John Steinbeck's THE GRAPES OF WRATH

Another 11th grade Summer Reading book finished. Since my school emphasizes student choice (within reasonable confines) and I feel obligated to read books before testing my students on those books, I have four Summer Reading books left to read before May 2010. Other teachers chose the first two (Ernest Gaines's A LESSON BEFORE DYING and GRAPES). The next four are books of my own choosing: Eric Schlosser's FAST FOOD NATION, Kurt Vonnegut's SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE, Flannery O'Connor's WISEBLOOD, and Alice Walker's THE COLOR PURPLE. When I finish I'll restart the cycle (unless I choose all the books ... then I'll choose the same books ... I want to read what I want to read for a change, and I want to read HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE, which is not an American work).

GRAPES is Steinbeck: Great characters that make intimate and emotional attachment an easy task. Enough biblical allusions to trace to keep you busy for awhile. And the inescapable moral dilemmas fleshed out using the conventions of literary Regionalism. Steinbeck also reflects the Modernist narrative technique. Every few chapters is a poetic inter-chapter written in biblical style. Very amazing writing on display here. I recommend that you read one of these inter-chapters as a taste of Steinbeck's sour wine, to see if you want to ride down Route 66 with the Joads to California.

This is my third Steinbeck novel (1st was THE PEARL; 2nd was OF MICE AND MEN). I will more than likely keep going. I hope to read EAST OF EDEN and WINTER OF OUR DISCONTENT next.

Thoughts on Tool's "Intolerance": Hypocrisy and the Contemporary Church

I've been deeply involved with conservative church life for a decade. If you read this blog, you already know that, and quite frankly, you're tired of hearing about it. I think I can speak on church life (I still like the term Christendom) with some authority. Based on my experience with Christians, I truly think that they are somewhat misrepresented by non-Christians, specifically on the television and in the lyrics of those God-forsaken rock n' roll songs.

I'm thinking on this because of Tool's "Intolerance" (first track on UNDERTOW). Maynard slaps around the Southern Baptist church (he was raised in this tradition) for 5:00 (1). Maynard seems frustrated with the hypocrisy of the church. He writes of its "veil of virtue" hung to hide its "method," which becomes a "shroud of virtue" that hides its "stigma." It's hard to tell whether he's saying that the church HAS a stigma or the church PLACES a stigma on others. Since the "method" mentioned a few lines prior refers to the ACTIONS of the church, I'll assume the same for "stigma," and claim that Maynard argues that the church pretends to practice virtue but methodically stigmatizes others. But, you know, "stigma" also refers to a stain or wound and closely resembles the world "stigmata," a wound that resembles the wounds of Christ. This strategic word is fitting, for it connotes three similar but different ideas.

Maynard continues, "I am not innocent. / You are not innocent. / No one is innocent," suggesting to me that he is countering the church's claims of self-innocence as they "lie, cheat, and steal." Maynard vows to no longer tolerate this hypocrisy, regardless of the consequences he might face ("Even if I must go down beside you"). Maynard's church experience differs from my experience with the church. Who knows what factors cause us to differ, but I'll explain why I feel the way I do.

Does the conservative church stigmatize? Yes. In my experience the church stigmatizes homosexuals, political liberals, and theological liberals. I'm confident that they stigmatize liberals. I've been in and overheard too many conversations to claim otherwise. As for homosexuals, I'm not as confident. Maybe I'm repeating the voices of the liberal branches of popular media. I only hear Christians talk of gays when discussing marriage legislation. Tones of disgust abound, and although many Christians will lump homosexuality in with all the others sins and try to make comparisons to genetic and environmental tendencies toward the others sins (like alcoholism and porn addiction), I hear a bit of a stigmatic tone.

Does the conservative church wear a veil or shroud of virtue? No. Maybe the political figures who parade God's name. But Machiavellian political figures shouldn't represent Christendom. And even if I counted them as the norm, I would argue that those truly Christian politicians who fall from grace in the public's eye only appear MORE evil because of the perception they've worked so hard to create, a perception that politicians NEED in order to win votes. They lift themselves up (and they have good reasons to do this) only to succumb to a sinful reality that they probably only talk about with their closest friends.

The same goes for pastors and preachers. These guys are in charge of the spiritual well-being of hundreds and sometimes thousands of people. They must maintain a public perception, and this maintenance does not require them to lie or mislead. It requires them to NOT discuss the details of their sins with very many others. Preachers and pastors need accountability relationships built on confidentiality. The majority of people are stupid, and perception drives their hinge-less opinions. The public (including these pastors' own congregations) need only know the generalizations of their pastors' sins (i.e. "I am a sinful worm"); they can't handle the particulars. The naive public would never understand, especially with guys like Maynard reinforcing stereotypes derived from his personal church experience.

Christians are usually the first to confess their frequent sin habits. Get to know one a little. I promise that they'll make it clear to you that they are both sinner AND saint, and their sainthood is 100% credited to Christ's imputed righteousness. Christians recognize an experiential change from a dead conscience to a living conscience and a new awareness and reduction of past sins, and they battle for purity and sanctification in a world that understands them not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Wiederhorn, Jon. "Album by Album: UNDERTOW." Revolver Magazine's BOOK OF TOOL. 2009.

Review: Regardt van den Bergh's FAITH LIKE POTATOES

Rating: B+ -- This South African film was released three years ago, receiving critical acclaim overseas. It finally made its way into my bedroom. The title of this film sounds silly. I would have named it something else. But the film is good. The acting is above average. Now the plot has a few holes (probably due to editing) but nothing major. And keep in mind that sometimes plot holes reflect the pot holes in my inattentive brain, meaning that I may have blanked out during the introduction of new info. The film is based on a true story. I watched the documentary about Angus Buchan (in the DVD Special Features). He claims God did what the film depicts God doing. I wish God would raise the dead and grow potatoes here in America. Why does Africa get all the good miracles? (Don't bother answering this one. I've heard the answer a thousand times.) One more thing I got from this film: the men in the film use the S. African word "boet" when talking to one another, sort of like Americans use the term "man" or "dude" or "bro." Jess and I have enjoyed calling each other "boets" for the past few days. "Would you pass me the salt, boet?" "Good morning, boet!" I think this DVD is worth your time, boets. Enjoy.

In Defense of Tool

Full Title (Styled After the Form of a 16th-18th Century Argument): In Defense of Tool: A Pointed Response to Lethaldose's Failure in Regards to Musical Appreciation and an Attempt to Gently Persuade Lethaldose to Repent of His Egregious Misjudgment Concerning Tool's Genius

I remember Stephen King, in his EW column a year or so ago, expressing the difficulty of writing about music. How does one use language from the head to explain or defend a language from the heart? Here's my attempt to defend Tool from oversimplification and misrepresentation and justify them as musical geniuses.

I hear a different Tool. Instead of penis-slapping soup cans and boring verse-chorus-verse formulas, I hear hurricanes and tidal waves, the rise and fall of empires, and the ICU moments where life and death hang in the balance. I confess: Tool's music IS formulaic, but the formula they use is an original recipe. I realize that their influences (mainly 1970's progressive rock) helped shape them, but I recognize and argue that they've reshaped that shape into anomalous rapture.

The closest thing to the sound of a clangy soup can would be the intro to "Eulogy," but even the repetitious intro holds my attention as it builds to its epic climaxes. Yes, climaxES. Tool introduced me to musical climaxES, those tsunami moments where the song peaks two to three times.

Their best songs begin with simple riffs and progressions, the three-chord motif plays for a minute or so, the loud and almost-obnoxious bass guitar begins, often avoiding a mimic of the electric guitar (as most bass players do) and instead complementing it. Carey's drums roll their thunder in a stereo blast to begin the conquest. Maynard, with soft hostility, glides ashore. Sometimes his thoughts are spoken rhythmically, barely audible amidst the apparent cacophony of "Wings for Marie (Pt.1)," but the momentum builds and Maynard crashes through the gates of heaven at the end of "10,000 Days (Wings Pt. 2)." Other times the arrival is not so subtle; he implacably gallops, confused but adamant, onto the blood and shit-drenched battle-field in "Prison Sex," jabbing unremittingly.

Tool's best songs tweak the usual verse-chorus-verse structure. Tool prefers verse - chorus - verse - chorus (with slight variation)- chorus (in a higher key to build the crescendo) - bridge 1 - bridge 2 - release - instrumental (sprinkled with the motifs established earlier in the song) - rerelease - bridge 3 - chorus (with another slight variation) - all previous elements meld and melt - listener stunned - next song begins - enjoyment continues - life renews - death threatens - life renews - wait - there it is - breathe easily - not too easily ....

If the sounds alone were Tool, you'd have a great band, but the genius becomes even more evident when delving. "Lateralus" reflects intentional form and meter, creating the Fibonacci Sequence in its lyrics and time signatures. Tool's style in this regard reminds me of Shakespeare and Milton, both apostrophe-ing and accenting their way to unblemished iambic pentameter, wrestling with language to form literature. Tool wrestles. The lyrics burst with literary engineering and ingenuity. Tool's videos reflect an unmatched artistic integrity and personal involvement. Tool creates. Their aloofness and eccentricity pulse with mystery and raise the value of interpretation. Tool muddles.

Tool's biggest fans share a passion that even Tool fans have trouble describing (as evident in this blog post), for we know that we FEEL Tool when we listen. Listen to "Jambi" and try to describe the FEELING in your gut when the song abruptly ends ... flatlines. Listen to "H" and pay particular attention to the tingling sensation you FEEL when a bridge arrives and Maynard sings of crumbling walls, drowning snakes, and fading fear. Revisit that feeling in "Aenima" as Maynard prays for rain and tidal waves to flood California.

Plug in the headphones. Revisit Tool. From OPIATE to 10,000 DAYS. Immerse yourself in the imperial tide. Learn to swim. FEEL the defibrillating resuscitation and ride that morphine drip, that disembodied rapture to Marie's shambled gates. Taste again and see again. Remove the scales and grow some fins.

Sewell on Darwin: Are Human Beings Exceptional?

I haven't studied the reasons scientists give as to why white Caucasians are not more evolved than peoples of other races. Nor have I studied science's reasons as to why dumb, poor people would not be inferior on the evolutionary scale. Charles Darwin believed smart, white people were superior. Current thought rejects these aspects of Darwin's findings. I've often suspected that current thought is embarrassed of these findings, especially with German eugenics lurking in history. But my suspicions are just that--suspicions. I haven't studied the latest science.

I remember in one of my education courses the teacher wanted us to comment on why African-American students consistently exhibited a lower performance in school than Caucasians. The teacher and her reliable textbook suggested racist teaching and testing practices as the cause. I suggested trends in African-American child-raising practices as the cause. Then, with my usual irony, I added that maybe Darwin was right about the evolutionary superiority of Caucasians. I didn't really get a response. Students, even college students, could care less about having real discussions on a forum full of obligatory comments. "Nice thoughts, Jason" counts as one of two required weekly comments. Since then I've heard that the effects of slavery and the subsequent diaspora have weighed heavily on the African-American psyche, resulting in the cultural degradation of today's black population. I think I picked this idea up from Toni Morrison and Ernest Gaines. This idea would help counter Darwin's findings.

I was reading some of British journalist Dennis Sewell's thoughts in a TIME MAGAZINE interview. He claims that Darwin was wrong about the superiority of Caucasians. I imagine he writes more on these issues in his new book THE POLITICAL GENE: HOW DARWIN'S IDEAS CHANGED POLITICS (2009). For this reason I'm interested in what he has to say.

What I found most interesting in the interview is where Eben Harrell asks Sewell, "How can we teach Darwin and also teach that humans are somehow exceptional in the natural world?" Sewell responds,

I think we have to decide what status we are going to give to the human race. Most of the world's religions hold that human life is sacred and special in some way. In teaching our common descent with animals, we also have to examine what is special about human beings, and why they deserve to be treated differently and granted certain rights.

Notice that Sewell does not exactly explain HOW we are to teach that humans are exceptional. It seems that he can't even accept the belief that humans are somehow exceptional. We need to "decide" and "examine" whether humans should even be considered exceptional. He mentions that religions value human beings. Which leads me to believe that maybe religion doesn't poison EVERYTHING, Mr. Hitchens?

For some reason, I believe that human beings are exceptional. Maybe because I am one of them. The Christian religion has taught me that human beings are valuable. Without religion I'm not sure if the value of human beings is an argument that can be sustained. But I guess it could be argued that religion is the part of our evolutionary "progression" that helps humans value human life and help ensure the survival of the human race.

Brian Robbins's THE SHAGGY DOG (2006)

Rating B -- "Tell me he's not reviewing THE SHAGGY DOG?" Yes, I am. I respond in some way, shape, or form to every film I watch. Why should I remain silent on THE SHAGGY DOG? Should I be embarrassed for reviewing kids' films? "No!" I say. I WILL review every film ... even Tim Allen's stream of endless family debacles (but honestly, I usually like his movies -- even FOR RICHER OR POORER ... hilarious!!).

SHAGGY was better than I expected. It's the basic story of the archetypal work-consumed dad who learns the value of spending time with his family--a lesson that film and television has ingrained in me. Now MY kids are learning this lesson through film, so I have some Hollywood accountability in this area. SHAGGY had some great gags; I especially liked the mutated lab animals and the old lady getting knocked into the tree. This was a good family film. We all lay in the bed last night together and enjoyed ourselves. I recommend watching it if it's lying around (We borrowed it from my brother-in-law.) but no need to rush out and rent it.