I just saw a guy acting on a TV show Midnight Masquarade (sp?) that seemed like a 3-D cartoon. His voice was snakeoil-smooth, his hair looked like it came out of Chicago Int'l Airport and he walked like Robocop.
The rest of the cast looked and gave off the feel of not having much to offer. A lot of people in real life give off such a vibe, based more on people's stereotypes and misconceptions about the nature of human beings, but a movie is a bit different - when someone in real life tells you something, you have no idea what to make of it - how much of it is embellished, exaggerated, or flat out untrue? When someone says something in a movie, it's true. If it isn't, you find out that it isn't at some point, usually soon after the lie is told, unless it's a murder mystery, and then of course the film just strings you along until the end.
A list actors are ones that have the unique ability to speak to the audience without saying a single word. Soap operas and Hallmark TV movies have gained popularity the same way Bill Clinton, George Bush (both of 'em) and Barack Obama did - they make a plea to the country to lower expectations, when expectations are already lowered to begin with. George Bush said "You may not like me, but at least you know what I stand for". Barack Obama pleaded with people to trust him, because trust is key. Both politicians betrayed this country before their first term was up and both got re-elected. Bill Clinton's impeachment is often argued as having been insignificant and a minor slip up. And it is. But the FBI was investigating Clinton years before he became president. Same with Obama. Investigations don't always mean something. But they usually do. If they didn't, then law enforcement would be a total waste of time and money. And if that were true, society would be a total wreck. I'm sure within almost every level of law enforcement, there is a person within who tries and sometimes succeeds at blockading the efforts of good. The DEA would be a lot more successful at its efforts if this were not the case. Even the FBI would be more successful. But the Italian mafia no longer wields power over the streets of New York. As more and more people live distracted and busy lives, our city counsels have put in stop lights at more and more intersections to help people avoid car crashes that sometimes lead to death. And despite the growing popularity of illegal drugs, the DEA does *try* to do its job of limiting the flow of drugs. And the NSA, although a violation of privacy by nature, does get funded to try and stop terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and abroad. And there have been, as reported on mainstream television news, at least a couple of planned attacks thwarted by the gov't. And that "doomsday" internet shutdown from a year or two ago DID NOT HAPPEN because the FBI did its job and stopped it. Yes, there's laws that give rich constituents special treatment. Many of those laws predate my mother and father. And because of reckless D.C. politicians, Medicare and Social Security will eventually cease to be. And this entire nation may eventually have its debt paid by the Antichrist, or, as an Atheist or a Buddhist might prophesize, this nation may end up being taken over by China, which would be more predictable, assuming ISIS doesn't come off with a full on invasion...which, IMO, is a little more likely given China's diplomatic stance with the U.S. - they sure seem a lot more willing to cooperate with us than Russia - vs. ISIS' sheer hatred of non-Muslin people ESPECIALLY "Americans" (citizens of the USA).
But back to what I was saying, before I felt I had to explain my startling trust in law enforcement
- just because something is popular doesn't make it ideal. Does ANYONE still rave about 1997's 11xAcademy Award winning action/drama TITANIC??? That movie stood as the TOP GROSSING film according to people that get sick of citing GONE WITH THE WIND as being just that when you factor in inflation, up until AVATAR outdid it (which, again, isn't fair because movie ticket prices have skyrocketed in that time whereas minimum wage hasn't really). And don't tell me it sold so well because it was the only good movie that came out that decade. FORREST GUMP stands as a modern classic and the peanut gallery saying "It's not believable" have no leg to stand on. It's like saying GHOSTBUSTERS isn't believable. Which a lot of people did say that, but not in regards to the giant roll of food filled with intent to kill, but because Bill Murray's character didn't have as much gunk on him as the rest of the cast members did after the Ghostbusters defeated the giant food-man.
So is it better just b/c MORE people like it, even if they don't LOVE it? I can tell you firmly that after all these years, I LOVE Forrest Gump. I never did like TITANIC, and having no friends at school to tell me they were going to "unfriend" me if I said so, I was not ashamed to admit my confusion over the hype surrounding the movie. I finally did try watching it around 2003(?), but I turned it off after less than 20 minutes into it, not having gotten "Far enough" into the film to find the beginning of the story taking place. There was WAY too much "prologue" - which if I remember correctly was like 5 minutes or so of divers finding the ship in the ocean and bringing it up, then there was this excruciatingly drawn out scene of some old lady talking. And this is in addition to the necessary set up of the story itself, which rarely is "all that", and usually is just an excuse to tell the end of the story, which is almost always where the most memorable scenes come from. 99% of my movie watching time is spent looking for a movie that has a beginning and middle that makes the 5 minutes that make up "the end" actually peak my interest. Someone complained about my condemnation of John Carpenter's "come back" THE WARD. They said I couldn't say nothin' without having seen the ending. They seemed utterly confused when I told them I didn't care how it ended. Part of that may have been my own fault, granted it's a supernatural (horror) movie and I don't usually find myself scared by things like ghosts and stupid horror movie staples of that sort. Telekinesis, ESP, ghosts, invisible forces, none of that scares me. Yes, it would be worrisome if I saw it happening in front of my eyes because I have not seen it actually happening before and I've always been informed that it was only something that happened in the movies. I know it's not true, I know God is capable of things beyond imagination and before I believed in God, I did not discredit people's UFO and ghost sightings. I didn't believe them without a doubt, but I didn't try to tell myself or them that it was a figment of their imagination or that they were crazy or they saw something else that looked like a UFO or ghost, even though obviously many things can be perceived as UFOs. It's the people who claim to have been abducted by aliens that I'm interested in. DO all of these people suffer from mental illness? Do the ones that don't suffer from mental illness have some reason for imagining all of these crazy things? In THE EXORCST, the psychiatrists involved in the possessed girls' case believed she was suffering from guilt over her parents' separation. Of course, the author of the book was writing a fictionalized account of a real life exorcism that he'd read about, but as out of it as these psychiatrists seem to be, how is that any more out of it than the mere existence of mental illness, which can often take the shape of things most people don't understand? And obviously, either The Bible is true or it isn't. If you believe these alien abductee's testimony, you're not reading your bible very closely. Perhaps demons are making these people hallucinate? Again, there may be some guilt factor or some trauma that prompts these elaborate hallucinations. The concept of an exorcism is not against The Bible, but it's very different than what is shown in THE EXORCIST, as William Peter Blatty is a Catholic, and I don't believe the Protestants protested The Church for any small reason(s). It is possible that demons have possessed and exited human bodies for the same reason demons try and discourage people from doing anything righteous. The presence of a Catholic official may or may not intimidate a demon. Catholics, the lower level ones, some of them, do have good hearts and very good intent, and their Bible is somewhat similar to the protestant bible, and it used to the identical before the protestants existed, so maybe the heart of a demon is a little frightened of Catholic robes and such. I mean, the demons are eternal. They don't breed. The sheer memory of when the catholic church was pure, or mostly so, is probably still fresh in the minds of the demons. And they keep using words like God and Jesus - even if the Catholic understanding of those words is limited and obscured by various other idols - and The Bible states demons are afraid of God; there's a passage where Jesus commands a demon out of the body of a man, and they ask Jesus if they can enter the bodies of some pigs nearby. I suppose anything is technically possible, but I also believe Jesus could have killed those demons. He is God in the flesh. Yes, I know, there's a lot that he's Not doing, probably because the sins of mankind keep him from seeing our needs. And people do ask for a lot that is not needed and is counter productive. Prayers to win the lottery go against "the love of money is the root of all evil", prayers for God to strike down your enemy go against "love they enemy" - God provides what is needed. And sometimes what people need is a good kick in the ass. Yet people continue to whine and complain. And yes, there are people starving in the world. Their death is a door to a better life, a better world. And it is a tragedy that so many "Christians" rebuke the idea of letting this be known to civilizations that have not yet heard The Good News.
Again, I got soooo off topic....but yeah. The ending of a movie that doesn't start off on the right foot is irrelevant. In a lot of cases, it's just me being too grim headed or not in the mood or just incapable of wrapping my mind around it, but there is a difference between a movie that is good and a movie that isn't. If you believe that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are both Good, then obviously you're freakin' crazy and you don't know enough to warrant having an opinion. Obviously, most democrats hate Nixon, whereas Republicans' choose Clinton as their villain. Which means political parties are meaningless. Unless of course the "meaning" of political parties is to bicker and whine about the other side and avoid getting anything done. The important thing in politics is the individual. Each individual voter can interpret Democrat to mean various things. Same thing with Republican. Some people hate Republicans because of their affiliation with Christianity. Some people hate Republicans because of their affiliation with rich people. Some people hate Republicans because of their affiliation with guns. All of those three things are common complaints from Democrats. They are not the same complaint though and although it may be common to hate Republicans for all three of those reasons, it's not a scientific fact that all Democrats hate rich people, Christians and guns. There's no concrete rationale for either one of those hatreds of Republicans, because despite a lot of misunderstanding and misuse of The Bible, Christianity is not Evil. Despite a lot of connotations that people hate about guns, it is the person holding the gun that makes all the difference and society needs to do a better job at making sure our young people understand the value of human life and how to safely use guns against those who mean us harm. And despite people's lack of understanding on the complexities of the economy, not giving 90% of your money to the poor and needy is not a crime against anybody and in fact strengthens the economy as it currently is. Without Capitalism, rich people would never have gotten where they are today and there'd be no wealth TO distribute! People, of all income brackets, need to do a better job of accepting their lot in life, or improving it when/if they can.
But again, back to my main topic - only if... - too much junk out there, too many people without a sense of style, without a sense of purpose. Too many minds without heart, too many hearts without mind. Art - graceful in approach, stimulating to the brain, and worth your time and money - has become archaic. Reality TV, tabloid magazines, movies that have absolutely no business being made in the first place being heralded by critics and audiences alike and, as always, Hallmark Channel original movies and TV shows - yes, it's not Reality TV, yes it's not tabloid trash. It's actually filled with nice people saying nice things to each other. Perhaps we could use more of that in our own lives. People who watch movies 24/7 don't have anyone to say nice things to. But for those with a life actually worth living, how about watching ONE movie per week (less is good), and turning off the TV if all you can stomach is a formulaic cartoonish portrayal of romance? If you can't meet face to face, there's always the telephone. And now there's Skype! And Facebook...
No comments:
Post a Comment