The lead vocalist and co-primary songwriter of The Cranberries died last year in January. I just found this out. Probably not going to see a proper The Cranberries release this year or anytime soon.
Their last album of entirely new material was rather bland imo but I was hoping they'd regain their footing.
Linger
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
I like some things
I had received the impression that "Your Own Special Way" (1976) was Genesis' first song to reach the top 40 in England. I also got the impression that the U.S. was more liking of Genesis. Maybe that was more true in their later years, idk. "I Know What I Like", a song from the bands' days with Peter Gabriel primarily on lead vocals, reached no. 23 in the U.K. Wikipedia doesn't say how high it charted in the U.S.
Weird. I just looked up "Your Own Special Way" and was only able to find info about the album it was from.
It does say it was the 1st to reach the Hot 100 in the U.S but says nothing about its reception at home. If i recall what I had read correctly & was not misinformed, it did a little better in England than in the U.S. i don't remember where I read that.
"Follow You Follow Me" performed much better in England than stateside. But it was indeed the band's first top 40 song in the U.S. They didn't crack the top 10 until 1983s' "That's All".
And that's today's excerpt from my OCD-esque thoughts.
Weird. I just looked up "Your Own Special Way" and was only able to find info about the album it was from.
It does say it was the 1st to reach the Hot 100 in the U.S but says nothing about its reception at home. If i recall what I had read correctly & was not misinformed, it did a little better in England than in the U.S. i don't remember where I read that.
"Follow You Follow Me" performed much better in England than stateside. But it was indeed the band's first top 40 song in the U.S. They didn't crack the top 10 until 1983s' "That's All".
And that's today's excerpt from my OCD-esque thoughts.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
ain't no ting
Pale Waves' MY MIND MAKES NOISES (Sept 28 2018) is, for the time being, "out". Not sure why exactly. I have to admit there are a few duds on the album, songs I've never felt all too fond of. But even the songs that had my heart going full throttle are just kinda "meh" nowadays. I don't know. I also haven't been digging CHVRCHES' LOVE IS DEAD (May 25th, 2018) which has a similar modern day synthpop sound. Listening to Steve Winwood's BACK IN THE HIGH LIFE (1986), which I've often over the last several years cited as being too repetitive and much of the time feel is just too mellow and monotonous. It might be going smoother because I'm not just sitting or standing listening to it with undivided attention.
GHOSTBUSTERS 3 (or something to that effect) is coming!!! Summer 2020 is their target. I'm guessing either SONY/Columbia Pictures is secretly agreed to it or the filmmakers are assuming SONY et al. *will* agree to it. No greenlight has been made public.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like Avril Lavigne has decided to jump on the CCM bandwagon. I don't know if it's necessarily an insincere cash grab. She very well be a misguided soul victim of the oft cited notion that being a Christian is merely about knowing the story of Jesus Christ and evoking His name here and there. Her new album comes out next month on the 15th.
American Football, after a full 20 years since their debut was released, and only 3 years since their last album, have returned with -- LP3 (self titled v 3.0). I wonder if their record label will make them change LP4 into something with an actual title like Geffen did to Peter Gabriel when he decided to release SECURITY (1982).
Mike Rutherford is actually in action...I hadn't heard any word on his professional life (or lack thereof) since a couple years ago he and his crew of "Mechanics" released this incredibly dull album...not even sure what it was called. I've never been much of a fan of Mike + The Mechanics. I liked a few of their songs, but I don't think they have enough good songs on their hands to make even a modest size Greatest Hits type release. I can think of maybe 4 songs that they did that I truly like, and maybe 3 or 4 more that are so-so. They might have a few nuggets buried somewhere on their albums scattered here and there, but I've never heard them or been enticed into hearing them. I like his guitar work especially on Genesis' ballads. That riff he had on "Follow You Follow Me" was rather nifty and the way his axe was handled on "Hold On My Heart" was even more impressive. I can't believe how many people find it difficult to like that song because it's "too slow". I heard this bootleg where the audience, somewhere like in Germany or something, was getting ready to boo Genesis off the stage after about the 4 minute mark of the song being played. They tried to keep going, but caved in and wrapped it up and then as if mocking the crowd decided to give them a hair band-esque rendition of "Jesus He Knows Me".
Anyway...I don't usually hear about Mike Rutherford doing anything except crappy Mike + The Mechanics music, which is seldom as it is. But he's contributed guitar work on this German abstract pop musician's upcoming album. I had never heard of the guy. The guy's stage name is Schiller, because it started out as a duo, not just one guy with some friends helping out here/there, but it's now just down to one guy, so it's kind of like a solo project much like Owl City (to cite a more well known example; obviously the music itself is different, or at least I'm assuming it is...)
Hmmm...
Been weary about the concept of "being a Christian" as of late. Paul speaks a few instances of being "set apart for destruction". And in one of his writings, he talks about God electing people. I'll do what I can, but I don't expect to get into Heaven. If God permits it, great. If not, then, well, maybe --- with any luck --- Hell isn't as bad as they say.......or maybe there's some 3rd door that The Bible doesn't talk all that much about.
I finished The Old Testament with the exception of Psalms and Proverbs. I started out on The One Year Bible as annotated by Charles Stanley, which had the psalms and proverbs broken up to accompany different sections of the Old & New Testament beside each other, then I started using this Bible app, I think it's called "YouVersion", not sure. The app icon just says "Bible" on it.
Anyway; I finished it and found that the stories I've heard, such as Satan being a beautiful angel who fell from Heaven because he contested God and was banished to Hell etc, none of that was in The Old Testament. But then i got to looking this up and it actually IS in The Bible, but it's written is a sort of stream of consciousness manner, like in the middle of a different topic, it just goes off on this almost riddle for the reader to figure out. I did suspect when I was reading it that it was referring to Satan, but I was given no confirmation, at least none that I was sure of. The Holy Spirit may have said "yes, that's it, you're on it" but all the voices in my head sound the same. Not to imply that I "hear" voices, but I've never had a thought that I could say without uncertainty was from The Holy Spirit.
GHOSTBUSTERS 3 (or something to that effect) is coming!!! Summer 2020 is their target. I'm guessing either SONY/Columbia Pictures is secretly agreed to it or the filmmakers are assuming SONY et al. *will* agree to it. No greenlight has been made public.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it looks like Avril Lavigne has decided to jump on the CCM bandwagon. I don't know if it's necessarily an insincere cash grab. She very well be a misguided soul victim of the oft cited notion that being a Christian is merely about knowing the story of Jesus Christ and evoking His name here and there. Her new album comes out next month on the 15th.
American Football, after a full 20 years since their debut was released, and only 3 years since their last album, have returned with -- LP3 (self titled v 3.0). I wonder if their record label will make them change LP4 into something with an actual title like Geffen did to Peter Gabriel when he decided to release SECURITY (1982).
Mike Rutherford is actually in action...I hadn't heard any word on his professional life (or lack thereof) since a couple years ago he and his crew of "Mechanics" released this incredibly dull album...not even sure what it was called. I've never been much of a fan of Mike + The Mechanics. I liked a few of their songs, but I don't think they have enough good songs on their hands to make even a modest size Greatest Hits type release. I can think of maybe 4 songs that they did that I truly like, and maybe 3 or 4 more that are so-so. They might have a few nuggets buried somewhere on their albums scattered here and there, but I've never heard them or been enticed into hearing them. I like his guitar work especially on Genesis' ballads. That riff he had on "Follow You Follow Me" was rather nifty and the way his axe was handled on "Hold On My Heart" was even more impressive. I can't believe how many people find it difficult to like that song because it's "too slow". I heard this bootleg where the audience, somewhere like in Germany or something, was getting ready to boo Genesis off the stage after about the 4 minute mark of the song being played. They tried to keep going, but caved in and wrapped it up and then as if mocking the crowd decided to give them a hair band-esque rendition of "Jesus He Knows Me".
Anyway...I don't usually hear about Mike Rutherford doing anything except crappy Mike + The Mechanics music, which is seldom as it is. But he's contributed guitar work on this German abstract pop musician's upcoming album. I had never heard of the guy. The guy's stage name is Schiller, because it started out as a duo, not just one guy with some friends helping out here/there, but it's now just down to one guy, so it's kind of like a solo project much like Owl City (to cite a more well known example; obviously the music itself is different, or at least I'm assuming it is...)
Hmmm...
Been weary about the concept of "being a Christian" as of late. Paul speaks a few instances of being "set apart for destruction". And in one of his writings, he talks about God electing people. I'll do what I can, but I don't expect to get into Heaven. If God permits it, great. If not, then, well, maybe --- with any luck --- Hell isn't as bad as they say.......or maybe there's some 3rd door that The Bible doesn't talk all that much about.
I finished The Old Testament with the exception of Psalms and Proverbs. I started out on The One Year Bible as annotated by Charles Stanley, which had the psalms and proverbs broken up to accompany different sections of the Old & New Testament beside each other, then I started using this Bible app, I think it's called "YouVersion", not sure. The app icon just says "Bible" on it.
Anyway; I finished it and found that the stories I've heard, such as Satan being a beautiful angel who fell from Heaven because he contested God and was banished to Hell etc, none of that was in The Old Testament. But then i got to looking this up and it actually IS in The Bible, but it's written is a sort of stream of consciousness manner, like in the middle of a different topic, it just goes off on this almost riddle for the reader to figure out. I did suspect when I was reading it that it was referring to Satan, but I was given no confirmation, at least none that I was sure of. The Holy Spirit may have said "yes, that's it, you're on it" but all the voices in my head sound the same. Not to imply that I "hear" voices, but I've never had a thought that I could say without uncertainty was from The Holy Spirit.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Calories
I managed to get over 3.5k steps in by going from Target on Scenic Hwy all the way to Best Buy. I was collecting points on my Shopkick app. I now have $4 in Walmart goft cards. Half of that I had already accumulated. If I had received the proper points for entering Marshall's, i would have had enough to get a $5 gift card.
In any case, the real good news for that day-- Sunday - was that I ate -- at the very most --1,800 calories.
I'm pretty sure I sunk it yesterday. I had 3 sandwiches. Didn't measure how much pb i used so can't be too sure how many calories that was. Then i ordered egg rolls from Asian Max on UberEats. Have no concrete idea how much was in that but i figured that it equated an overage of calories. Then i had rice pilaf - an entire box. Was thinking I'd eat it the following day but that was a dumb notion as i half knew going in.
Today's plan is o more than 2 calories pe mnute. I don't anticipate being awake more than 18 hrs. May be awake less than 16. Gotta keep on keepin on.
In any case, the real good news for that day-- Sunday - was that I ate -- at the very most --1,800 calories.
I'm pretty sure I sunk it yesterday. I had 3 sandwiches. Didn't measure how much pb i used so can't be too sure how many calories that was. Then i ordered egg rolls from Asian Max on UberEats. Have no concrete idea how much was in that but i figured that it equated an overage of calories. Then i had rice pilaf - an entire box. Was thinking I'd eat it the following day but that was a dumb notion as i half knew going in.
Today's plan is o more than 2 calories pe mnute. I don't anticipate being awake more than 18 hrs. May be awake less than 16. Gotta keep on keepin on.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
what the heck?
Wow.
Stupidity alert @ the peanut gallery soundoff section for the Blu ray release (available for pre-order) of 2018's SUSPIRIA, a film inspired by the 1977 film of the same title.
Guy starts his review by saying "how bad" the film is and then instead of criticising the film for being a bad movie, he lists the ways in which the movie differs from the 1977 film as if a frame by frame reshoot of the original would serve any purpose what so f""n ever. Nobody wants to labor over something that's already been done. If filmmakers didn't enjoy their work to some extent, they would "get a real job". Yes, I'm sure filmmaking has its set backs. There's stress with the job, no matter weather you're the director or a crew member, like any other, but if it weren't an alluring career, it wouldn't be a career. There's plenty of jobs that exist for the simple fact that people gotta eat and make a living. If you're entire job is going to consist of "giving the audience what they want", there's always Burger King. There's factory jobs where you can oversee the manufacturing of household goods that people feel are important to own, like toothpaste, stationary, clothing, etc. etc. etc.....There's shipping facilities for ecommerce companies like Amazon and TransUnion Entertainment etc., not to mention stocking and scanning jobs at "real world" retailers like WalMart and Target There's plenty of mundane robotic by the numbers jobs people can do that don't involve deviating from any standard or precedent.
But even in those jobs, if you can find a way to do something and do it better, a promotion is often in the forseable future, if not the immediate one. Creativity is not a bad thing, in most cases.
Stupidity alert @ the peanut gallery soundoff section for the Blu ray release (available for pre-order) of 2018's SUSPIRIA, a film inspired by the 1977 film of the same title.
Guy starts his review by saying "how bad" the film is and then instead of criticising the film for being a bad movie, he lists the ways in which the movie differs from the 1977 film as if a frame by frame reshoot of the original would serve any purpose what so f""n ever. Nobody wants to labor over something that's already been done. If filmmakers didn't enjoy their work to some extent, they would "get a real job". Yes, I'm sure filmmaking has its set backs. There's stress with the job, no matter weather you're the director or a crew member, like any other, but if it weren't an alluring career, it wouldn't be a career. There's plenty of jobs that exist for the simple fact that people gotta eat and make a living. If you're entire job is going to consist of "giving the audience what they want", there's always Burger King. There's factory jobs where you can oversee the manufacturing of household goods that people feel are important to own, like toothpaste, stationary, clothing, etc. etc. etc.....There's shipping facilities for ecommerce companies like Amazon and TransUnion Entertainment etc., not to mention stocking and scanning jobs at "real world" retailers like WalMart and Target There's plenty of mundane robotic by the numbers jobs people can do that don't involve deviating from any standard or precedent.
But even in those jobs, if you can find a way to do something and do it better, a promotion is often in the forseable future, if not the immediate one. Creativity is not a bad thing, in most cases.
A film that Lars made
Lars Von Trier has made some good movies. Not exactly "wholesome" or "holy" films --- they're not Hallmark movies, I certainly can't imagine someone confusing one of his movies for a film distributed by PureFlix --- but despite his quirks and my ultimate inability to connect deeply with any of them enough to endure their entire running time, I can't say anything unilaterally bad about MELANCHOLIA (2011) or...damn, whatever that movie was called that had Emily Watson in it...Ok, IMDB here I come...BREAKING THE WAVES (1996). Some of his other movies might have more of a shady-ness to them...I haven't bothered watching (trying to watch) most of them. ANTICHRIST (2009) was interesting, not enough so that I felt the need to watch the entire thing, but what I saw of it did have a palatable look and feel, and a mood that I found morbidly comforting (it opens with a child walking out of a window and subsequently the mother's grief over it)
But then there's 2018's THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT, which attempts to present a slasher film as art, by ruminating on the "nature" of art --- as if to say that all art is by nature an assault on one's senses.
Films have always been scary, some of them. 1957's WAIT UNTIL DARK was one of AFI's Top 100 pulse pounding films (the list had a more elongated title, don't remember what exactly it was; I saw a TV special about it on what at the time was referred to as "expanded basic" cable in Southeast Missouri via Charter Cable Co.). I still haven't seen it, perhaps because I'm trying to cherish movies made in the modern day rather than digging in the past. I know most movies from the 40s and 50s just don't appeal to me. Most movies today don't appeal to me and filmmakers today have a much higher expectation when it comes to eliciting empathy from an audience. Much more so with me because of my limited life experiences, even on a vicarious level. Movies of any time frame are unlikely to connect with me mentally OR emotionally, but especially movies made before the 1980's. There's a good chunk of movies from the 1970's I can get behind, weather by choice or by original sin, and there's almost as many from the late '60's I can say the same about. But there's very very few I've managed to enjoy that were made in the '50s and prior that I've managed to enjoy on any level. 1957's 12 ANGRY MEN is an astonishing example of a movie that was so damn awesome, a late '90's remake actually pales in comparison. The remake was good, but I can't say it did anything to improve upon or augment the original. 1999's THE HAUNTING was a worthwhile remake, despite what others have said. The 1963 original had its strengths but was mostly pretty boring. That being said, the 1999 remake was probably not worth what likely cost $100 million to make. I saw it in theaters and was more able to enjoy it because of that (this was before theaters felt the need to crank everything to ear shattering level, such as was the case with 2011's INCEPTION which I found to be an absolute mess of a film, partly because the bass level was turned way up so that resin from the dialogue was more audible than the actual words being spoken....wtfFFFF!!! I stil think every detail of the movie was way too symmetrical for a film that takes place largely in someone's subconcisous even though the story was probably the most "stream of consciousness" thing about the movie, considering it was kinda all over the place, with plot devices thrown in every which way and none of them having any real consequence or feeling of urgency or anything that caused any feeling at all really...some people it seems can feel bouts of fellowship and empathy on cue.......I know going in that it's a fucking movie with fake people programmed with what to say and do. If I can be distracted from that, then the filmmaker's have succeeded. Most of the time that is not the case Peter Jackson's unruly early title MEET THE FEEBLES is an example of this kind of failure. He truly did improve by the time HEAVENLY CREATURES was released. Either that or I was too pre-engulfed in the subject matter...not sure; it's been some time since I've seen it and I was in kind of a transition state regarding my tastes in movies. MEET JOE BLACK struck me as an amazing film when I first saw it. I saw it again around this time and just about coughed up my recent food intake).
Anyway....
My point originally was that movies do not need to be barbaric and disgusting. Yes, there are movies that are that way and some of them are rather two faced in their depiction of violence. Martin Scorsese's films often seem simultaneously defending the value of life while at the same time demonstrating a morbid attraction to death and destruction. I don't think those movies need to be censored as they deal with subject matter that children (pre adolescents) don't need to be concerning themselves with on an extended level to begin with, and in some cases don't need to be concerning themselves with at all. The mafia is mostly deactivated, so unless your neighborhood is in the grips of a mafia, the subject matter in GOODFELLAS and MEAN STREETS means nothing to an 11 year old. Maybe a 14 year old might be introspective and caring enough to want to contemplate the nature of social dynamics and the manipulations and potential consequences and dangers, etc....... but most often that is not the case. I saw GOODFELLAS when I was 19 or so and was bored to death by it. I tried watching it again and was a little more able to enjoy it. I was still kind of confused why the filmmaker felt the need to make a movie with a sole message: "THE MAFIA IS BAD" Ooh...glad we spent 2.5 hours clearing that up. Thanks? Then I saw it again a few years later, and was then more thoroughly able to enjoy it for what it was. Especially knowing how movies like THE GODFATHER gave people a somewhat favorable impression of the mafia and that the mafia was still very active up until and maybe a little after the time GOODFELLAS was released in theaters in 1990.
THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT might not be as grotesque as it sounds. But reading the marketing for it, it just sounds rather unnecessary. There are films that are downright obscene with no reason at all to exist except to challenge obscenity laws. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is one of them. BEYOND THE DARKNESS (1979) is another. Thankfully many of these movies are virtually unheard of by 99% of people in the world. If that were not the case, I think people would be taking a greater stand against them.
Mankind's fascination and attraction to violence has been a topic of conversation for far longer than Lars von Trier has been around. Nobody needs THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT. It's a shocker, probably, I would assume. Nothing inherently wrong with that. But if it's as disturbing as I get the impression it is, does it really need to exist?
This is the reality of the matter: Kids shouldn't get into my DVD collection. If I owned every movie I highly value on DVD, I would at some point need to keep it locked. HOWEVER, if the locks were bypassed or I forgot to lock it, then what would I say to my nephews if they saw a movie in my DVD collection? What would they say if they saw MYSTERIOUS SKIN or HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER? Or BASKET CASE? I know what I would say, roughly, in response to those questions. "What kind of a person are you for owning that movie?" Heck, I've known adults who would ask me that. My nephews at this point are too young to consider the concept of dshonesty and hypocrisy. But they will be and I will need to have an answer for them just in case. Maybe my answers won't be good enough for God...but...well, maybe my answers won't make sense to them either, but I'll cross that bridge when the time comes. If they end up scared to their core and nothing else, my sister and her husband will probably have words of comfort for them. Maybe I'll be invited to comfort them and I will have things to say although they might not be relevant or come across as comforting. Probably leave that to them. Child psychology is totally not my area of expertise. I thought adult psychology was f***ed up. Seeing my 2 year old nephew grow up just demonstrates to me that intellect is a gift from God, fashioned by our experiences and influences. We are all somewhat stupid when we enter this Earth. We are born absolutely helpless. Our ability to reason is extremely limited, our knowledge is even more limited, our understanding of language despite constantly being exposed to it takes years to develop, and what's worse, we have to have help developing a sturdy walking ability.
My initial point in writing this may be flawed given I haven't plopped down $6 to see the newest monstrosity that Lars von Trier came up with. But if reading THE BIBLE is not enough to demonstrate the relationship between mankind of violence, then why do you need to watch THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT? That movie is getting way too much attention from film goers and I just have to wonder what the f*** is going through people's heads. But like it always is, God is watching us and waiting for many of us to choose Him and The Way that he provided for us to connect with Him, but people largely would believe that NOTHING is at the end of one's individual life rather than the definition of reality minus God.
But then there's 2018's THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT, which attempts to present a slasher film as art, by ruminating on the "nature" of art --- as if to say that all art is by nature an assault on one's senses.
Films have always been scary, some of them. 1957's WAIT UNTIL DARK was one of AFI's Top 100 pulse pounding films (the list had a more elongated title, don't remember what exactly it was; I saw a TV special about it on what at the time was referred to as "expanded basic" cable in Southeast Missouri via Charter Cable Co.). I still haven't seen it, perhaps because I'm trying to cherish movies made in the modern day rather than digging in the past. I know most movies from the 40s and 50s just don't appeal to me. Most movies today don't appeal to me and filmmakers today have a much higher expectation when it comes to eliciting empathy from an audience. Much more so with me because of my limited life experiences, even on a vicarious level. Movies of any time frame are unlikely to connect with me mentally OR emotionally, but especially movies made before the 1980's. There's a good chunk of movies from the 1970's I can get behind, weather by choice or by original sin, and there's almost as many from the late '60's I can say the same about. But there's very very few I've managed to enjoy that were made in the '50s and prior that I've managed to enjoy on any level. 1957's 12 ANGRY MEN is an astonishing example of a movie that was so damn awesome, a late '90's remake actually pales in comparison. The remake was good, but I can't say it did anything to improve upon or augment the original. 1999's THE HAUNTING was a worthwhile remake, despite what others have said. The 1963 original had its strengths but was mostly pretty boring. That being said, the 1999 remake was probably not worth what likely cost $100 million to make. I saw it in theaters and was more able to enjoy it because of that (this was before theaters felt the need to crank everything to ear shattering level, such as was the case with 2011's INCEPTION which I found to be an absolute mess of a film, partly because the bass level was turned way up so that resin from the dialogue was more audible than the actual words being spoken....wtfFFFF!!! I stil think every detail of the movie was way too symmetrical for a film that takes place largely in someone's subconcisous even though the story was probably the most "stream of consciousness" thing about the movie, considering it was kinda all over the place, with plot devices thrown in every which way and none of them having any real consequence or feeling of urgency or anything that caused any feeling at all really...some people it seems can feel bouts of fellowship and empathy on cue.......I know going in that it's a fucking movie with fake people programmed with what to say and do. If I can be distracted from that, then the filmmaker's have succeeded. Most of the time that is not the case Peter Jackson's unruly early title MEET THE FEEBLES is an example of this kind of failure. He truly did improve by the time HEAVENLY CREATURES was released. Either that or I was too pre-engulfed in the subject matter...not sure; it's been some time since I've seen it and I was in kind of a transition state regarding my tastes in movies. MEET JOE BLACK struck me as an amazing film when I first saw it. I saw it again around this time and just about coughed up my recent food intake).
Anyway....
My point originally was that movies do not need to be barbaric and disgusting. Yes, there are movies that are that way and some of them are rather two faced in their depiction of violence. Martin Scorsese's films often seem simultaneously defending the value of life while at the same time demonstrating a morbid attraction to death and destruction. I don't think those movies need to be censored as they deal with subject matter that children (pre adolescents) don't need to be concerning themselves with on an extended level to begin with, and in some cases don't need to be concerning themselves with at all. The mafia is mostly deactivated, so unless your neighborhood is in the grips of a mafia, the subject matter in GOODFELLAS and MEAN STREETS means nothing to an 11 year old. Maybe a 14 year old might be introspective and caring enough to want to contemplate the nature of social dynamics and the manipulations and potential consequences and dangers, etc....... but most often that is not the case. I saw GOODFELLAS when I was 19 or so and was bored to death by it. I tried watching it again and was a little more able to enjoy it. I was still kind of confused why the filmmaker felt the need to make a movie with a sole message: "THE MAFIA IS BAD" Ooh...glad we spent 2.5 hours clearing that up. Thanks? Then I saw it again a few years later, and was then more thoroughly able to enjoy it for what it was. Especially knowing how movies like THE GODFATHER gave people a somewhat favorable impression of the mafia and that the mafia was still very active up until and maybe a little after the time GOODFELLAS was released in theaters in 1990.
THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT might not be as grotesque as it sounds. But reading the marketing for it, it just sounds rather unnecessary. There are films that are downright obscene with no reason at all to exist except to challenge obscenity laws. LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is one of them. BEYOND THE DARKNESS (1979) is another. Thankfully many of these movies are virtually unheard of by 99% of people in the world. If that were not the case, I think people would be taking a greater stand against them.
Mankind's fascination and attraction to violence has been a topic of conversation for far longer than Lars von Trier has been around. Nobody needs THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT. It's a shocker, probably, I would assume. Nothing inherently wrong with that. But if it's as disturbing as I get the impression it is, does it really need to exist?
This is the reality of the matter: Kids shouldn't get into my DVD collection. If I owned every movie I highly value on DVD, I would at some point need to keep it locked. HOWEVER, if the locks were bypassed or I forgot to lock it, then what would I say to my nephews if they saw a movie in my DVD collection? What would they say if they saw MYSTERIOUS SKIN or HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER? Or BASKET CASE? I know what I would say, roughly, in response to those questions. "What kind of a person are you for owning that movie?" Heck, I've known adults who would ask me that. My nephews at this point are too young to consider the concept of dshonesty and hypocrisy. But they will be and I will need to have an answer for them just in case. Maybe my answers won't be good enough for God...but...well, maybe my answers won't make sense to them either, but I'll cross that bridge when the time comes. If they end up scared to their core and nothing else, my sister and her husband will probably have words of comfort for them. Maybe I'll be invited to comfort them and I will have things to say although they might not be relevant or come across as comforting. Probably leave that to them. Child psychology is totally not my area of expertise. I thought adult psychology was f***ed up. Seeing my 2 year old nephew grow up just demonstrates to me that intellect is a gift from God, fashioned by our experiences and influences. We are all somewhat stupid when we enter this Earth. We are born absolutely helpless. Our ability to reason is extremely limited, our knowledge is even more limited, our understanding of language despite constantly being exposed to it takes years to develop, and what's worse, we have to have help developing a sturdy walking ability.
My initial point in writing this may be flawed given I haven't plopped down $6 to see the newest monstrosity that Lars von Trier came up with. But if reading THE BIBLE is not enough to demonstrate the relationship between mankind of violence, then why do you need to watch THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT? That movie is getting way too much attention from film goers and I just have to wonder what the f*** is going through people's heads. But like it always is, God is watching us and waiting for many of us to choose Him and The Way that he provided for us to connect with Him, but people largely would believe that NOTHING is at the end of one's individual life rather than the definition of reality minus God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)