Anyway, here's an awesome little video that talks about what a leap year is really all about:
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
What is Leap Year About?
Leap Years always sneak up on me. I should know it's the same year as Presidential Elections, and yet it's never till someone mentions it (usually the day of) that I remember.
Anyway, here's an awesome little video that talks about what a leap year is really all about:
Anyway, here's an awesome little video that talks about what a leap year is really all about:
Day 56: Obama's Deal
My rooommate Jonny and I got into a conversation about healthcare reform and quickly concluded we both know very little about the issue and what has changed about it since Obama took office. I've been on my parent's insurance my whole life so I never had reason to involve myself in understanding the complexities of healthcare or insurance. It seems unnecessarily complicated.
Anyway, it was good for what it was and I will always sit through anything Obama-related.
What I learned: This hour long Frontline episode focuses less on the mechanics of healthcare and more about the political moves needed to make it happen. It plays on the apparent contradiction of Obama running on a campaign of transparency and being a Washingtion outsider, but promoting back-room deals to get his ambitious healthcare deal pushed through Congress.
A lot of it centered on Rahm Emanuel and his history with healthcare bills. Rahm was an instrumental member of the Clinton administration and worked on the bill for years only to watch it fall apart in Congress. He vowed to return to the issue someday, and had his chance once Obama took office.
No wonder Rahm supports better healthcare; look at his messed up finger!
Obama, for his part, was playing it cool for the start of the public and political debates, believing his staff could handle the criticisms and smear campaigns of Republicans and insurance companies. Eventually Obama realized he had to get involved directly, and that helped the bill get passed.
What I liked: The film painted in-depth and multi-layered portrayals of Obama and his staff, especially Rahm. Rahm is interesting to me; tough as nails, rough around the edges, but he knows how to get things done in Washington. The contrast between him and Obama also intrigues me: Obama is polished and well spoken, but slow and methodical and too inexperienced to see much progress with Congress. Although I'm glad to have Rahm as my mayor I was sad to see him leave the White House.
What I didn't like: Though I didn't expect a simple hour-long episode to cover all the complexity of the enormous healthcare bill, I did expect to gain at least a decent understanding of what it was and what it meant for the average American. But the film focused less on the content of the bill and more on the process of the bill being passed. I will have to do more research on my own I suppose.
Anyway, it was good for what it was and I will always sit through anything Obama-related.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Day 55: Nerdcore Rising
Saturday, Feb 18th.
I've always been a nerd. I've been a nerd for long, so ingrained in the very fabric of my being, I've forgotten that it's supposed to be an insult. People actually use words like "nerd" and "geek" to make others feel bad. In the same way that I don't see "4-eyes" as an insult (it's a factual statement), I don't have any negative connotations with these words. It's so much a part of who I am, it'd be like someone using my name as an insult, you know?
Nerds and geeks have worked to reclaim these words and grant them a positive feeling. We are living in an age when it's finally cool to be a nerd (notice I could have said "Hip to be Square", but resisted the obvious and very cheesy joke. You're welcome). 'Nerdcore Rising' is about one rap group trying to make being a nerd not only cool, but funny, entertaining, and profitable.
I also enjoyed the questions that were raised throughout the film regarding nerdcore's place within rap. Is it inherently racist for a rapper's gimmick to be that he's white and rapping about nerdy things? Or, at best, is it just extremely tacky? How long should you invest in your dreams (slash pipe dreams)? At a certain age do you have to put them aside and move on if they aren't working out?
I've always been a nerd. I've been a nerd for long, so ingrained in the very fabric of my being, I've forgotten that it's supposed to be an insult. People actually use words like "nerd" and "geek" to make others feel bad. In the same way that I don't see "4-eyes" as an insult (it's a factual statement), I don't have any negative connotations with these words. It's so much a part of who I am, it'd be like someone using my name as an insult, you know?
Nerds and geeks have worked to reclaim these words and grant them a positive feeling. We are living in an age when it's finally cool to be a nerd (notice I could have said "Hip to be Square", but resisted the obvious and very cheesy joke. You're welcome). 'Nerdcore Rising' is about one rap group trying to make being a nerd not only cool, but funny, entertaining, and profitable.
I really like this cover image
The film follows rapper MC Frontalot (Damien Hess) and his band as they embark on their first ever tour. Hess puts it bluntly in the first few minutes of the movie: if the tour doesn't go well, he'll keep rapping on the side as a hobby. But if it does go well, he's ready to quit his job and take on his rap career as his full time job. A lot of pressure to put on a tour.
So we follow them in their tiny van as they go around the country playing small clubs and meeting their small pockets of fans. Interspersed with that footage are some interviews with other rappers and mc's of the "nerdcore" genre- basically nerd rap. They discuss where the genre came from and how it's affecting mainstream rap, if at all.
What I learned: I was familiar with the name of the film and the rapper, but that was it. I knew nothing about the nerdcore genre or the people involved in it. I learned that Frontalot basically started it all with his raps about computers and video games, and it's been gaining traction across the country over the last couple of years.
What I liked: All the dudes in the band seem like totally cool guys. They are sweet, funny, and really nerdy. The film does a good job of playing fly-on-the-wall and catching them in their mild manner, non-performing personas.
I also enjoyed the questions that were raised throughout the film regarding nerdcore's place within rap. Is it inherently racist for a rapper's gimmick to be that he's white and rapping about nerdy things? Or, at best, is it just extremely tacky? How long should you invest in your dreams (slash pipe dreams)? At a certain age do you have to put them aside and move on if they aren't working out?
The coolest part were the interviews with rapper mc chris and Weird Al. I've been a big fan of both these dudes for a long time (the first cd I ever bought was Bad Hair Day) and it was cool to hear their views on the music industry. In fact, I found myself more interested in them than the band.
What I didn't like: I hate to say it, but I wasn't impressed with the music. Which sucks, cause it was a music documentary. As a fan of rap, especially intellectual rap, I thought I'd really dig it. Maybe it's because all the footage was of live shows- I bet the albums sound better.
Overall, I found the movie slow and a little shallow. None of the topics were delved into deep enough for me to walk away with a new perspective. I liked the guys in the band, but not enough to buy their album. I was ready to write the film off as sub-par till the last 20 minutes where the film took on a whole different tone. After we watch Hess sign autographs for fans after a show for a few minutes, we cut to an interview with one of the teenage fans, who tells us about his life in high school; few friends, eats lunch in the art room by himself everyday. We cut to Hess talking about his own memories of high school, which sound strikingly similar. Then it's a montage of the band members and some of the interviewees (including a really sad story by comedian Brian Posehn) in kind of a "It Gets Better" for nerds.
Suddenly this movie that was all about a couple of nerd musicians becomes a story about people bonding over shared interests and music. Frontalot may never win a Grammy or get on MTV, but he's giving hope to thousands of nerdy kids all over the country, showing them that things do get better after high school. That's pretty awesome.
Here's the trailer:
The film is on Netflix instant.
Day 54: Waiting For Guffman
Friday, Feb. 17th.
I heard back from another one of my graduate schools today; I didn't get in. That's 2 down, 1 to go. I'd be lying if I said I'm not pretty bummed. Sociology grad school was one of the main reasons I moved to Chicago, and I've dreamed of getting my doctorate since I was a little kid. But because it's my dream I'll just reapply and try again. Keep your fingers crossed for 2013.
In an attempt to raise my spirits I decided to turned to a trusted source of comedic documentaries: Christopher Guest. You may know him as The 6 Fingered Man from Princess Bride, Nigel from Spinal Tap, or husband to Jamie Lee Curtis. But I first knew him as Corky St. Clair in Waiting for Guffman.
I heard back from another one of my graduate schools today; I didn't get in. That's 2 down, 1 to go. I'd be lying if I said I'm not pretty bummed. Sociology grad school was one of the main reasons I moved to Chicago, and I've dreamed of getting my doctorate since I was a little kid. But because it's my dream I'll just reapply and try again. Keep your fingers crossed for 2013.
In an attempt to raise my spirits I decided to turned to a trusted source of comedic documentaries: Christopher Guest. You may know him as The 6 Fingered Man from Princess Bride, Nigel from Spinal Tap, or husband to Jamie Lee Curtis. But I first knew him as Corky St. Clair in Waiting for Guffman.
Waiting for Guffman is a story about losers. All of Christopher Guest's movies are about losers; losers who love dogs, losers who love folk music, losers who want to be rich and famous. Hopeless people who lack even the most tiniest shred of self awareness and have convinced themselves they are destined for more than their current lot in life. People whose opinions of themselves far outweigh their actual talent, charisma, intelligence or other traits necessary to make it in the world.
I know it doesn't sound funny, but it is. It's filmed as a dead-pan documentary, following a small community theater as it prepares its annual play. The humor's in the writing, the ridiculously unique characters, and the situational irony. The characters don't know they are pathetic, they think they are awesome. But the audience knows, and we laugh at that gap created by a lack of self awareness.
Sometimes I get in my head about my own talent and self-worth. Am I talented, or do I just want to be? Does wanting something strongly enough mean you should get it? If I wasn't smart or talented, I'd be able to tell...right? There'd be unmistakable signs that would show me the path I'm taking isn't going to end in success, so I should drop that dream and move onto something new...right?
Anyway, the cast's awesome: Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Parker Posey, and the master of dead-pan, Bob Balaban.
As vapid as these characters are, you still care about them, and you want them to be happy. Even the worst of the bunch (probably Fred Willard's character; a pompous know it all) is still a decent person at his core. And that makes them the ultimate underdog- characters you want to see succeed even though they don't have the talent, drive or opportunities to do so.
Like most of Guest's films, 'Guffman' ends in a crushing defeat, leaving the characters with nothing else to do but pick themselves up and try again.
And that's what I'm going to do. Pick myself up, reapply, and try again.
Here's the trailer:
And here's the best 40 seconds of the entire movie:
Not sure if you can find this online- I own it.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Day 53: Road to Nashville
Thursday, Feb. 23rd.
PBS has really been killing it with these 'American Experience' episodes. First their Jimmy Carter one, now this one about Martin Luther King Jr and James Earl Ray.
So this film focuses specifically on MLK and his killer, James Earl Ray. It talks about what brought them both to Nashville on that fateful day in 1968, what kind of men they were, and what they believed in.
What I learned: A whole bunch about Ray. I never knew that much about him, so I had just lumped him in with the other killers of his day; Oswald, Ruby, Sirhan, and the like. It turns out he was much different. First off, he was old. Like 40. Not super old, but too old to suddenly jump into the assassin business. Also the dude had a seriously messed childhood full of severe poverty and abuse that probably led him down a road of crime and violence.
He also didn't kill King for moral reasons. He was racist, and he did kill him because he thought it'd help presidential candidate (and big ol' racist) George Wallace win the election. But the main reason was for the bounty that had been put on King's head, dead or alive. (side note- do they still put out bounties? I thought that died out along with spurs and saloons). Ray wanted the money, and all the fame that'd come with collecting it.
Plus, he was surprisingly handsome. Is that a weird thing to say? Maybe it's just cause everyone was more dapper back then.
What I liked: Great amount of interviews with journalists and colleagues of King. Dan Rather had a lot of really moving things to say; I love that dude.
Also some cool insight into the search for Ray went. So they found the gun right away, and got perfect prints off it. But back then they didn't have any kind of database to compare it to. So police sat with magnifying glasses and compared the prints to a PILE of finger prints they had on file from anyone with a criminal record. They had 50,000 files! Can you believe that? That's like finding out Disney had to draw each frame hand by hand. Miraculously after 700 files they found a match with James Earl Ray.
What I didn't like: Man, obviously we all know how this story ends. King was in Nashville to help with a sanitation worker's strike. King had spent the last years focusing on combating poverty and defending workers' rights, and his "Poor Man's March" was just a little ways off before he died. I get teary eyed thinking about all the good that he could have done had he lived.
The film also purposed an interesting theory; that the culture of violence that led Ray to murder King was sown in the rhetoric of the government at the time. Men like Wallace, who openly supported segregation, and J Edgar Hoover, who vehemently hated MLK, spoke often about the problem of race in America. Their tone could easily have influenced an unbalanced man like Ray to think killing King was not only okay, but necessary in keeping America safe. It pains me to see public figures, political and pundits alike, not taking responsibility for the power of their words.
A great, sad film about a strong man and a troubled man, and how their lives crossed.
It can be found online at PBS.com and netflix.
PBS has really been killing it with these 'American Experience' episodes. First their Jimmy Carter one, now this one about Martin Luther King Jr and James Earl Ray.
PBS AKA: Pure Badass Shit
So this film focuses specifically on MLK and his killer, James Earl Ray. It talks about what brought them both to Nashville on that fateful day in 1968, what kind of men they were, and what they believed in.
What I learned: A whole bunch about Ray. I never knew that much about him, so I had just lumped him in with the other killers of his day; Oswald, Ruby, Sirhan, and the like. It turns out he was much different. First off, he was old. Like 40. Not super old, but too old to suddenly jump into the assassin business. Also the dude had a seriously messed childhood full of severe poverty and abuse that probably led him down a road of crime and violence.
He also didn't kill King for moral reasons. He was racist, and he did kill him because he thought it'd help presidential candidate (and big ol' racist) George Wallace win the election. But the main reason was for the bounty that had been put on King's head, dead or alive. (side note- do they still put out bounties? I thought that died out along with spurs and saloons). Ray wanted the money, and all the fame that'd come with collecting it.
Plus, he was surprisingly handsome. Is that a weird thing to say? Maybe it's just cause everyone was more dapper back then.
Not bad (for a racist)
What I liked: Great amount of interviews with journalists and colleagues of King. Dan Rather had a lot of really moving things to say; I love that dude.
Also some cool insight into the search for Ray went. So they found the gun right away, and got perfect prints off it. But back then they didn't have any kind of database to compare it to. So police sat with magnifying glasses and compared the prints to a PILE of finger prints they had on file from anyone with a criminal record. They had 50,000 files! Can you believe that? That's like finding out Disney had to draw each frame hand by hand. Miraculously after 700 files they found a match with James Earl Ray.
What I didn't like: Man, obviously we all know how this story ends. King was in Nashville to help with a sanitation worker's strike. King had spent the last years focusing on combating poverty and defending workers' rights, and his "Poor Man's March" was just a little ways off before he died. I get teary eyed thinking about all the good that he could have done had he lived.
The film also purposed an interesting theory; that the culture of violence that led Ray to murder King was sown in the rhetoric of the government at the time. Men like Wallace, who openly supported segregation, and J Edgar Hoover, who vehemently hated MLK, spoke often about the problem of race in America. Their tone could easily have influenced an unbalanced man like Ray to think killing King was not only okay, but necessary in keeping America safe. It pains me to see public figures, political and pundits alike, not taking responsibility for the power of their words.
A great, sad film about a strong man and a troubled man, and how their lives crossed.
It can be found online at PBS.com and netflix.
Day 52: This is My Home
Wednesday, Feb. 22nd.
Today I watched a short little ditty called "This is my Home", which I found randomly someplace online.
The film follows eccentric New Yorker Anthony Pisano who lives in what looks like an impressively sized antique store. Actually it's just his house, filled to the brim with the odds and ends that he has collected over the years. For reasons unexplained, he likes to sit outside his apartment in the hopes that strangers will walk by and want to look around his place. Once he's explained that nothing's for sale, he tends to strike up conversations with the non-customer, and enjoys their company.
Pisano seems like a cute, funny, quirky old man who wants more than anything someone to talk to. He's probably realized that a life of collecting objects isn't nearly as satisfying as collecting friendships and relationships, so maybe he's looking to make up for lost time by welcoming strangers into his home.
It's an interesting look on what the things we own say about us.
It's on vimeo right now:
This is My Home
Today I watched a short little ditty called "This is my Home", which I found randomly someplace online.
The film follows eccentric New Yorker Anthony Pisano who lives in what looks like an impressively sized antique store. Actually it's just his house, filled to the brim with the odds and ends that he has collected over the years. For reasons unexplained, he likes to sit outside his apartment in the hopes that strangers will walk by and want to look around his place. Once he's explained that nothing's for sale, he tends to strike up conversations with the non-customer, and enjoys their company.
Pisano seems like a cute, funny, quirky old man who wants more than anything someone to talk to. He's probably realized that a life of collecting objects isn't nearly as satisfying as collecting friendships and relationships, so maybe he's looking to make up for lost time by welcoming strangers into his home.
It's an interesting look on what the things we own say about us.
It's on vimeo right now:
This is My Home
What's Fat Tuesday All About?
I can honestly say I've never once wondered about the history of Fat Tuesday, Mardi Gras, lent, or any of the other million holidays that seem to be intricately involved in this short span of weeks. It's not that I don't enjoy celebrating them, I guess I just assumed there wasn't a story there; it was just a party for the sake of a party.
I spent a summer in New Orleans and got to experience the parties first hand. Even though it wasn't Mardi Gras season, those people found an excuse to celebrate every single night. I was working as a children's librarian in Americorps, and had a small apartment in Uptown. I shelved books a few hours a day and had the rest of the day to wander the city. I know it's cliche to say things like "the city never slept", or "the city had a pulse", but man...NOLA never slept, and it certainly had a pulse. It was a tough adjustment moving back to Emporia, KS, a town with 4 radio stations, and a McDonald's to public library ratio of 3 to 1.
Anyway, so Mardis Gras is actually French for Fat Tuesday, which is just a silly name translated to an even sillier name. Fat Tuesday is the day where people gorge themselves before the long hibernation of vices that is Lent. I'm no morality expert but doesn't it seem like it'd cancel all the good you're doing during Lent if you cram your body full of beef and cigarettes the night before?
The most interesting thing I learned was about Carnivale. The word literally means "a farewell to meat". I think that's pretty neat- a big party without meat. I should make up shirts that say "Everyday's a Carnival When You Don't Eat Meat!".
So lots of countries celebrate Carnivale, mainly because it was a tradition long before the Catholics came in and co-opted it. But they all do it a little different. In England they celebrate Pancake Day where they, you guessed it, eat a bunch of pancakes. In the Netherlands the parades are filled with Zaate Hermeniekes, or "drunken marching bands", which are intentionally sub-par bands picked for their amateurish amount of talent.
My favorite is Carnival Thursday in Germany, called "Old Woman's Day", which celebrates the anniversary of an 1824 washwoman's revolt where women "stormed city hall, cut mens' ties, and kissed any man who came their way".
Happy Old Woman's Day!
PS- You know who loves Carnival? Arnold! (Probably a little too much, if you ask me)
I spent a summer in New Orleans and got to experience the parties first hand. Even though it wasn't Mardi Gras season, those people found an excuse to celebrate every single night. I was working as a children's librarian in Americorps, and had a small apartment in Uptown. I shelved books a few hours a day and had the rest of the day to wander the city. I know it's cliche to say things like "the city never slept", or "the city had a pulse", but man...NOLA never slept, and it certainly had a pulse. It was a tough adjustment moving back to Emporia, KS, a town with 4 radio stations, and a McDonald's to public library ratio of 3 to 1.
Anyway, so Mardis Gras is actually French for Fat Tuesday, which is just a silly name translated to an even sillier name. Fat Tuesday is the day where people gorge themselves before the long hibernation of vices that is Lent. I'm no morality expert but doesn't it seem like it'd cancel all the good you're doing during Lent if you cram your body full of beef and cigarettes the night before?
The most interesting thing I learned was about Carnivale. The word literally means "a farewell to meat". I think that's pretty neat- a big party without meat. I should make up shirts that say "Everyday's a Carnival When You Don't Eat Meat!".
Eating too much meat has been known to cause jaundice
So lots of countries celebrate Carnivale, mainly because it was a tradition long before the Catholics came in and co-opted it. But they all do it a little different. In England they celebrate Pancake Day where they, you guessed it, eat a bunch of pancakes. In the Netherlands the parades are filled with Zaate Hermeniekes, or "drunken marching bands", which are intentionally sub-par bands picked for their amateurish amount of talent.
My favorite is Carnival Thursday in Germany, called "Old Woman's Day", which celebrates the anniversary of an 1824 washwoman's revolt where women "stormed city hall, cut mens' ties, and kissed any man who came their way".
Happy Old Woman's Day!
PS- You know who loves Carnival? Arnold! (Probably a little too much, if you ask me)
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Day 51: The Singing Revolution
Tuesday, Feb 21st
Happy Fat Tuesday! Whatever that means. I'll have to look up the meaning of this whacky, booze filled day.
I'm really enjoying looking up the history of holidays/traditions. Most of the time it's about what I'd expect but it's been fun taking in the new information. I'll be able to recycle the knowledge year after year; the gift that keeps on giving!
Today's documentary came on recommendation from my friend Heather. She traveled to Estonia a few years ago on a school choir trip, and learned all about the country's rich history and love for singing. She let me borrow a couple of " The Singing Revolution".
The film details the long, painful history of Estonia as it suffers through the Soviet and Nazi occupation for decades. Pogroms, genocides, oppression and strife fill Estonia's history. But throughout it all the Estonian people are able to preserve their way of life and heritage. And they do it through song. Apparently the whole country loves singing; it's been their thing for hundreds of years. So the film shows how the people use song and concerts to protest for their national independence. Pretty inspiring, to say the least.
What I learned: A lot about Estonian history. Before this I could not have placed Estonia on the map let alone told you about their relationship with the rest of Europe. Like a lot of smaller Eastern European countries, Estonia served as a whipping boy for the Soviets for many many years, crippled by the failing government and threatened by its abusive regime. For a few years surrounding WWII the power shifted and the Nazis took control, but (surprise surprise) things weren't any better. Eventually the Estonians regained power and democracy reigned.
What I liked: The first half of the film is easily one of the most inspiring tales I've ever heard. A peaceful country is invaded by tyrants and thousands of citizens are killed and shipped off to Siberian death camps. All forms of national pride and unity are outlawed; no Estonian songs are permitted, no flags can be flown. But the people don't take the oppression lying down; they fight back. Instead of guns and knives, the Estonians use their words and their arts to spread their story around the world. Massive choir concerts, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, are performed, and Estonian pride is blatantly displayed despite being against the law. Inspired by the acts of defiance, the people grow more and more bold, demanding more rights from their Soviet oppressors. Soon a cultural revolution has transformed into a political one, taken from the streets to the capitol buildings.
What I didn't like: ...And that's when the movie took a turn for the boring. While the first half was full of uprising in the streets, the second half is how the country fought the laws and politicians that were oppressing them. 90% of it is footage of old parliament meetings and press conferences from the 80's.
It's kind of like Star Wars: the original 3 films were about hope and pure goodness triumphing over pure evil, but the later 3 movies were about senate sub-committee meetings and votes of non-confidence. Pretty anti-climatic.
If you want a feel good movie about the power of people and art, this is for you.
Here's the trailer:
Happy Fat Tuesday! Whatever that means. I'll have to look up the meaning of this whacky, booze filled day.
I'm really enjoying looking up the history of holidays/traditions. Most of the time it's about what I'd expect but it's been fun taking in the new information. I'll be able to recycle the knowledge year after year; the gift that keeps on giving!
Today's documentary came on recommendation from my friend Heather. She traveled to Estonia a few years ago on a school choir trip, and learned all about the country's rich history and love for singing. She let me borrow a couple of " The Singing Revolution".
The film details the long, painful history of Estonia as it suffers through the Soviet and Nazi occupation for decades. Pogroms, genocides, oppression and strife fill Estonia's history. But throughout it all the Estonian people are able to preserve their way of life and heritage. And they do it through song. Apparently the whole country loves singing; it's been their thing for hundreds of years. So the film shows how the people use song and concerts to protest for their national independence. Pretty inspiring, to say the least.
What I learned: A lot about Estonian history. Before this I could not have placed Estonia on the map let alone told you about their relationship with the rest of Europe. Like a lot of smaller Eastern European countries, Estonia served as a whipping boy for the Soviets for many many years, crippled by the failing government and threatened by its abusive regime. For a few years surrounding WWII the power shifted and the Nazis took control, but (surprise surprise) things weren't any better. Eventually the Estonians regained power and democracy reigned.
What I liked: The first half of the film is easily one of the most inspiring tales I've ever heard. A peaceful country is invaded by tyrants and thousands of citizens are killed and shipped off to Siberian death camps. All forms of national pride and unity are outlawed; no Estonian songs are permitted, no flags can be flown. But the people don't take the oppression lying down; they fight back. Instead of guns and knives, the Estonians use their words and their arts to spread their story around the world. Massive choir concerts, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, are performed, and Estonian pride is blatantly displayed despite being against the law. Inspired by the acts of defiance, the people grow more and more bold, demanding more rights from their Soviet oppressors. Soon a cultural revolution has transformed into a political one, taken from the streets to the capitol buildings.
What I didn't like: ...And that's when the movie took a turn for the boring. While the first half was full of uprising in the streets, the second half is how the country fought the laws and politicians that were oppressing them. 90% of it is footage of old parliament meetings and press conferences from the 80's.
It's kind of like Star Wars: the original 3 films were about hope and pure goodness triumphing over pure evil, but the later 3 movies were about senate sub-committee meetings and votes of non-confidence. Pretty anti-climatic.
Senates: Where all good ideas come to die
If you want a feel good movie about the power of people and art, this is for you.
Here's the trailer:
Like I said my friend let me borrow a copy of the movie so I don't know where it's available online, but if you search hard enough, you can find anything online.
Day 50: His Excellency George Washington
Monday Feb 20th
Wooo! I'm on Day 50! That means I've watched 50 documentaries! The really cool part is that I'm nowhere sick of watching them yet. Which is good, as I still have another 315 to go.
George, Simpsons-style
In honor of President's Day and ole' George Washington's b-day, I picked a doc that celebrates the nation's first president. While technically less of a documentary and more a conversation with an author, it's posted on a documentary website, so I'm not gonna fight it. Author Joseph Ellis wrote "His Excellency: George Washington" about, you guessed it, George Washington and his role in the founding of a nation. He sits down on 'Books of Our Time', a book talk show I guess.
What I learned: Guess I never gave a lot of thought to the time and era of GW. I openly admit I don't know much about our founding fathers. I can barely keep them separate actually. All old rich white men tend to look alike to me. I knew that they had their fair share of disagreements, but it's always been hard to remember what those disagreements were and who was on what side.
One point that stood out was the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I recognize the points behind both, but never realized that while most supported the DOI there was some debate on the necessity of a new Constitution. Colonists were ready to separate from Europe but didn't know for certain that a brand new country should be established. I wonder what they would have done instead? Just hung out till Mexico colonized them?
What I liked: Ellis does an amazing job painting a detailed picture of who Washington was; this guy obviously did his homework. I was taught about what the man had done, but was told nothing about who the man was. Did you know he married Martha for her vast fortune? That he preferred everyone to refer to him as "His Excellency"? That he was effing huge (tall and broad), and was so quiet it made others uncomfortable to spend time with him?
What I didn't like: Well, as exciting as GW was, this was still just two dudes sitting and talking. Also, the host kept coughing which was kind of gross and took me out of the conversation.
It's sparked an interest in learning more about our founding fathers. If they are all as interesting as GW, I'll be in for a treat.
The film can be found here:
His Excellency George Washington
Wooo! I'm on Day 50! That means I've watched 50 documentaries! The really cool part is that I'm nowhere sick of watching them yet. Which is good, as I still have another 315 to go.
George, Simpsons-style
In honor of President's Day and ole' George Washington's b-day, I picked a doc that celebrates the nation's first president. While technically less of a documentary and more a conversation with an author, it's posted on a documentary website, so I'm not gonna fight it. Author Joseph Ellis wrote "His Excellency: George Washington" about, you guessed it, George Washington and his role in the founding of a nation. He sits down on 'Books of Our Time', a book talk show I guess.
What I learned: Guess I never gave a lot of thought to the time and era of GW. I openly admit I don't know much about our founding fathers. I can barely keep them separate actually. All old rich white men tend to look alike to me. I knew that they had their fair share of disagreements, but it's always been hard to remember what those disagreements were and who was on what side.
One point that stood out was the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. I recognize the points behind both, but never realized that while most supported the DOI there was some debate on the necessity of a new Constitution. Colonists were ready to separate from Europe but didn't know for certain that a brand new country should be established. I wonder what they would have done instead? Just hung out till Mexico colonized them?
What I liked: Ellis does an amazing job painting a detailed picture of who Washington was; this guy obviously did his homework. I was taught about what the man had done, but was told nothing about who the man was. Did you know he married Martha for her vast fortune? That he preferred everyone to refer to him as "His Excellency"? That he was effing huge (tall and broad), and was so quiet it made others uncomfortable to spend time with him?
What I didn't like: Well, as exciting as GW was, this was still just two dudes sitting and talking. Also, the host kept coughing which was kind of gross and took me out of the conversation.
It's sparked an interest in learning more about our founding fathers. If they are all as interesting as GW, I'll be in for a treat.
The film can be found here:
His Excellency George Washington
How could I not post this?
Day 49: Dark Days
Sunday, Feb. 19th
Another day, another amazing documentary. Yesterday's film made it to my Top 5 list, and today's is my new #1. Good week.
'Dark Days' follows a group of homeless men and women who've decided, for various reasons, to live underground in NYC's abandoned subway stations. They construct shanties out of found materials, basically putting together mini-apartments deep in the heart of the NYC subway system. Some live alone, some with a friend or partner, most with pets of some kind. They spend their time collecting cans, sorting through garbage for things to sell, or scavenging for food.
What I learned: I've never seen a film follow homeless people so closely and consistently before. You follow 4 or 5 of the same people throughout their day. The film does a good job of portraying all dimensions of living the life of a nomadic vagabond. We see how they shower and cook their food, but we also see them relaxing, sleeping in and idly chatting with their friends. It's a tough life, for sure, but the film includes a lot of lighter sides too.
They are homeless for a lot of different reasons. Some were kicked out of their homes, some had crippling drug addictions and others have mental disorders. Most of them had been living on the streets when they found out about the underground tunnels that provided warmth, free electricity and a place to keep their possessions.
What really shook me was how genial most of them seemed. I guess after 10 years of being homeless, you'd be less down in the dumps about it. Half the film seemed to be of them laughing or goofing around with their friends. Very few scenes were angry or negative- the only argument was between two roommates about not leaving food out for the rats to find. If I were in their shoes I'd be despondent with sorrow all day, every day. I guess it's amazing what kinds of lives you can get used to.
What I liked: Man...so much. For one, it's not preachy. There are no heavy handed lectures from the filmmaker about the need to wipe out homelessness, or the usual pointing of fingers to the culprits of poverty such as the police or our society's selfish nature. In fact, the film lacks both a narrator and a narrative, relying instead on a simple progression of interrelated segments. This allows the film to flow naturally from one scene to the next, with shots of mice running through the streets or water dripping from an errant faucet as segues.
You do feel the filmmaker's presence, even if it's not through heavy-handed commentary. Marc Singer is a not just the filmmaker, he's a member of the underground community: after stumbling upon the subterranean population he decided to live among them. He was so interested in their story he decided to make a film about it, in part to share the story but also as an excuse to get to know some of the eccentric characters that shared the space with him. His interest and respect for his subjects comes through in the film. Unlike some of the films I've watched, he's not exploiting his subject, or projecting his own views through heavily edited footage.
Finally, and maybe what I appreciated the most, the film was just done really well. It's always pivotal to have strong content, interesting subjects, and enough themes to give the audience something to discuss, but if you're movie's effing boring, then no one's gonna make it past the first 30 minutes. The film is shot with a lot of....well, I guess the only word that fits is patience. There are long, meandering shots of the overcast NY sky or bustling traffic, while minimal music plays in the background. Interviews with subjects were rare. This fits the feel of the film so perfectly; none of these people have anywhere to be, or anything waiting to get done. They experience a deeper sense of freedom than most of us will ever know. Most of the shots were more vicarious; watching silently as they went about their day or talked with their friends.
What I didn't like: I hate to say it, but I'm dying to know what happened to these people. At the end of the film, the city has kicked them out of the subway station and has put them in govt.-owned apartment complexes. Seems like the perfect ending right? Well, what happens to the ones who were addicted to hard drugs? None of them had jobs, so how are they taking care of themselves? How are they adjusting? I know if I were to find out, some wouldn't be doing well, and it'd just bum me out. But I grew so invested in their lives I guess I want to know.
Homeless is a big problem. It's a social issue that just does not compute for me. I can understand violence and war before I can understand how we still have homeless and destitute poverty in this country. I can't fathom how an entire society can continue to turn a blind eye to an entire group of people crying out for help. But the way to fix it won't be by pitying them, or by throwing money at them either. It's going to be through developing a sense of understanding and empathy, and this film does just that.
The film can be found on Netflix instant.
Here's the trailer:
And here's one of my favorite scenes. Two guys discuss their long history of pets:
Another day, another amazing documentary. Yesterday's film made it to my Top 5 list, and today's is my new #1. Good week.
'Dark Days' follows a group of homeless men and women who've decided, for various reasons, to live underground in NYC's abandoned subway stations. They construct shanties out of found materials, basically putting together mini-apartments deep in the heart of the NYC subway system. Some live alone, some with a friend or partner, most with pets of some kind. They spend their time collecting cans, sorting through garbage for things to sell, or scavenging for food.
What I learned: I've never seen a film follow homeless people so closely and consistently before. You follow 4 or 5 of the same people throughout their day. The film does a good job of portraying all dimensions of living the life of a nomadic vagabond. We see how they shower and cook their food, but we also see them relaxing, sleeping in and idly chatting with their friends. It's a tough life, for sure, but the film includes a lot of lighter sides too.
They are homeless for a lot of different reasons. Some were kicked out of their homes, some had crippling drug addictions and others have mental disorders. Most of them had been living on the streets when they found out about the underground tunnels that provided warmth, free electricity and a place to keep their possessions.
What really shook me was how genial most of them seemed. I guess after 10 years of being homeless, you'd be less down in the dumps about it. Half the film seemed to be of them laughing or goofing around with their friends. Very few scenes were angry or negative- the only argument was between two roommates about not leaving food out for the rats to find. If I were in their shoes I'd be despondent with sorrow all day, every day. I guess it's amazing what kinds of lives you can get used to.
What I liked: Man...so much. For one, it's not preachy. There are no heavy handed lectures from the filmmaker about the need to wipe out homelessness, or the usual pointing of fingers to the culprits of poverty such as the police or our society's selfish nature. In fact, the film lacks both a narrator and a narrative, relying instead on a simple progression of interrelated segments. This allows the film to flow naturally from one scene to the next, with shots of mice running through the streets or water dripping from an errant faucet as segues.
You do feel the filmmaker's presence, even if it's not through heavy-handed commentary. Marc Singer is a not just the filmmaker, he's a member of the underground community: after stumbling upon the subterranean population he decided to live among them. He was so interested in their story he decided to make a film about it, in part to share the story but also as an excuse to get to know some of the eccentric characters that shared the space with him. His interest and respect for his subjects comes through in the film. Unlike some of the films I've watched, he's not exploiting his subject, or projecting his own views through heavily edited footage.
Finally, and maybe what I appreciated the most, the film was just done really well. It's always pivotal to have strong content, interesting subjects, and enough themes to give the audience something to discuss, but if you're movie's effing boring, then no one's gonna make it past the first 30 minutes. The film is shot with a lot of....well, I guess the only word that fits is patience. There are long, meandering shots of the overcast NY sky or bustling traffic, while minimal music plays in the background. Interviews with subjects were rare. This fits the feel of the film so perfectly; none of these people have anywhere to be, or anything waiting to get done. They experience a deeper sense of freedom than most of us will ever know. Most of the shots were more vicarious; watching silently as they went about their day or talked with their friends.
What I didn't like: I hate to say it, but I'm dying to know what happened to these people. At the end of the film, the city has kicked them out of the subway station and has put them in govt.-owned apartment complexes. Seems like the perfect ending right? Well, what happens to the ones who were addicted to hard drugs? None of them had jobs, so how are they taking care of themselves? How are they adjusting? I know if I were to find out, some wouldn't be doing well, and it'd just bum me out. But I grew so invested in their lives I guess I want to know.
Homeless is a big problem. It's a social issue that just does not compute for me. I can understand violence and war before I can understand how we still have homeless and destitute poverty in this country. I can't fathom how an entire society can continue to turn a blind eye to an entire group of people crying out for help. But the way to fix it won't be by pitying them, or by throwing money at them either. It's going to be through developing a sense of understanding and empathy, and this film does just that.
The film can be found on Netflix instant.
Here's the trailer:
And here's one of my favorite scenes. Two guys discuss their long history of pets:
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Day 48: The Interrupters
Saturday, Feb. 18th.
It can be found on PBS Frontline:
And here's the trailer:
Today's doc. was filmed in Chicago. I get a strange sense of satisfaction living in a city that appears so often in pop culture. I remember seeing 'Contagion' in theaters and getting a momentary thrill when part of the story took place just a few blocks from where I used to work.
But that's not what makes this doc good. In the usual PBS style, it's the hard hitting, emotional look into lives of danger and hardship that makes it worth my time. This is easily in the top 5 of the year so far.
The film follows members of the non-profit CeaseFire, a group of ex-gang members determined to end gang violence before it starts. We watch them mediate with active gang members of Chicago for a full year, from the blistering heat of the summer to the blistering cold of the winter. Within that year they focus on the stories of 3 or 4 main kids as they learn to deal with confrontation in non-violent ways.
What I learned: How bad the gang problem is in Chicago. I figured it was bad, but man, it's real bad. They tell many, many stories about the effect gang violence has had on South Chicago: kids shot and stabbed, put in jail, permanently crippled, and even killed. The worst is the stories of innocent bystanders caught in the middle of gangfights; young kids shot or run over because of a confrontation. There are some heart-wrenching interviews with parents who lost their kids this way.
What I liked: The CeaseFire people are heroes, no doubt about it. I'm amazed at their ability to talk to kids about solving problems nonviolently without sounding cliched and old-fashioned. Maybe it's because most of them come from the same backgrounds as these kids, so they are able to directly relate to them.
The hero of the film is definitely Ameena Matthews, ex-gang member and daughter of famous Chicago gang leader Jeff Fort. Ameena has an amazing presence; from the moment she shows up onscreen she steals the show. She's able to be both mentor and friend to the troubled teens, calling them out on their actions one minute and cracking jokes with them the next. And I was almost in tears after her amazing eulogy at a young boy's funeral who was killed by neighborhood violence.
Ameena Mathews: badass
What I didn't like: I would have liked to hear more about what I could do to help. I'm in the city, for pete's sake. I'm not naive enough to think I could go down to the South Side and take part in some "Real Talk" with these gang members. I'd get shot, or slapped at the very least. But after watching this I feel a need to get involved, but I'm not sure how.
A good documentary should be shocking; it should take you out of your element and your comfort zone. It should stay with you the rest of the day. And, even if it's sad, it should provide enough hope to keep you from becoming pessimistic. This film did all of that. Go watch it, right now.
Here's an awesome review from Slate, where they call it "the most necessary film of the year":
Slate's Review of 'The Interrupters'Finally, here's Ameena on The Colbert Report. Even when discussing something this serious she can still maintain a sense of humor and a joyful disposition. Amazing.
Colbert Report Interview And here's the trailer:
Day 47: Strange Sex (Episode 2)
Friday, Feb. 17th.
Because I got so much disgusting pleasure from Strange Sex yesterday, I thought I'd try my luck and watch another episode. Turns out I had reached my fill of terrible body malfunctions.
The episode seemed oddly similar to the one I watched yesterday; we meet a husband and wife who are no longer having sex because everytime they tried the wife accidentally peed all over her husband. I'm no statistician but the amount of people suffering from this affliction cannot be high enough to warrant two episodes, can it? Aren't there other sexual disorders waiting in the wings?
What this story did offer that was missing from yesterday's was a vivid, graphic description of the sensations the woman experienced during sex. This woman must write poetry in her free time or something because she had an uncanny talent for finding the perfect words to make my skin crawl and my stomach turn.
I should preface this by stating two things: I'm a germaphobe and because of that I think the human body is a disgusting, nasty thing. Or maybe I'm a germaphobe because the human body is so gross; it's hard to say. I've never understood people who marvel at the complex intricacies of the human body. To me it's just a giant pooping, burping, decaying pile of skin and farts. Every time I clip my fingernails or clean my ears I can't help but wonder why, of all the millions and billions of designs the human body could have taken, we landed on what we got.
AKA: A diagram of disgusting
Because I got so much disgusting pleasure from Strange Sex yesterday, I thought I'd try my luck and watch another episode. Turns out I had reached my fill of terrible body malfunctions.
The episode seemed oddly similar to the one I watched yesterday; we meet a husband and wife who are no longer having sex because everytime they tried the wife accidentally peed all over her husband. I'm no statistician but the amount of people suffering from this affliction cannot be high enough to warrant two episodes, can it? Aren't there other sexual disorders waiting in the wings?
What this story did offer that was missing from yesterday's was a vivid, graphic description of the sensations the woman experienced during sex. This woman must write poetry in her free time or something because she had an uncanny talent for finding the perfect words to make my skin crawl and my stomach turn.
I should preface this by stating two things: I'm a germaphobe and because of that I think the human body is a disgusting, nasty thing. Or maybe I'm a germaphobe because the human body is so gross; it's hard to say. I've never understood people who marvel at the complex intricacies of the human body. To me it's just a giant pooping, burping, decaying pile of skin and farts. Every time I clip my fingernails or clean my ears I can't help but wonder why, of all the millions and billions of designs the human body could have taken, we landed on what we got.
So when I hear stories of human bodies malfunctioning, I'm rarely surprised. They are already gross, so why shouldn't they be poorly wired too? At the same time I'm obsessively fascinated by disorders; they cover a spectrum of symptoms and ailments, from the minor to the fatal. It's amazing all the things that can go wrong.
Anyway, so this lady starts getting really graphic with her descriptions. After about 5 mins I decide I can't take anymore and have to turn it off. It's the first doc of the year I haven't been able to finish all the way, but I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Day 46: Strange Sex
Thursday, Feb. 16th
Sometimes I like to watch disgusting things. Like most people, I'm drawn to the proverbial car wrecks. That's why I love scary movies. That's why I watch all the Jackass movies. And that's why I watched TLC's "Strange Sex".
Sometimes I like to watch disgusting things. Like most people, I'm drawn to the proverbial car wrecks. That's why I love scary movies. That's why I watch all the Jackass movies. And that's why I watched TLC's "Strange Sex".
Get Ready to Get Gross
I stumbled upon it on Netflix. The description states:
This is the ultimate series on extreme sexual disorders and anomalies. Many of these scenarios might sound funny, or even desirable, but for those who must live with them, sex can be a nightmare.
So we are treated to two stories per episode, both relating to weird fetishes or sexual disorders. And this is what passes for television these days. Lucille Ball would be rolling in her grave. But Marv Albert would probably be totally cool with it. (Is Marv Albert dead?) Anyways.
The first story was about a lady who couldn't stop from peeing on her husband during sex. She accidentally did it once, then it started happening all the time, every time. She went to a doctor but he wasn't much help; he couldn't tell her why it was happening or how to stop it. So, I guess it's just a thing she does now? Forever? I thought it was weird it started up in the middle of her life randomly.
It reminded me of the car I drove in high school, a brown Ford Taurus. One day it just started making a loud clanking noise. There wasn't anything seriously wrong- I took it to a mechanic and they couldn't find any problems. I figured it would go away as easily as it came, but it never did. Over the years it got louder and louder to the point that I couldn't hear the radio or hold normal conversations inside my car. But the weird thing was I got used to it, to the point that I didn't even hear it anymore. I wonder if someday this lady's gonna look back on her life and think, "Man...remember when I didn't pee during sex? Feels like a lifetime ago."
The second story was, excuse my French, a steaming pile of bullshit. We are introduced to this 3rd rate rock star (he was in Scorpion or something for like, 3 years) who suffers from "sex addiction". If I could make the quote marks around "sex addiction" any more pronounced, I would. There is no such thing thing as being addicted to sex; those are just people who really like sex. I hate when celebrities and athletes get caught cheating on their spouses and try to throw the blame on an addiction to sex. First off, everyone likes sex. Sex is like pizza; even when it's bad, it's still pretty good. Second, these famous sex addicts only seem to be having sex with super models and groupies. Real addicts drink mouthwash and shoot heroin into their eyeballs. That's like saying you're an alcoholic and only drinking top shelf booze.
Maybe I shouldn't say sex addiction absolutely doesn't exist; I imagine there are people out there who are actually addicted. But for the millionaires and the celebs who claim it, it falls on deaf ears.
The second story was, excuse my French, a steaming pile of bullshit. We are introduced to this 3rd rate rock star (he was in Scorpion or something for like, 3 years) who suffers from "sex addiction". If I could make the quote marks around "sex addiction" any more pronounced, I would. There is no such thing thing as being addicted to sex; those are just people who really like sex. I hate when celebrities and athletes get caught cheating on their spouses and try to throw the blame on an addiction to sex. First off, everyone likes sex. Sex is like pizza; even when it's bad, it's still pretty good. Second, these famous sex addicts only seem to be having sex with super models and groupies. Real addicts drink mouthwash and shoot heroin into their eyeballs. That's like saying you're an alcoholic and only drinking top shelf booze.
Maybe I shouldn't say sex addiction absolutely doesn't exist; I imagine there are people out there who are actually addicted. But for the millionaires and the celebs who claim it, it falls on deaf ears.
On top of all that, the segment feels like one giant commercial for this guy to get his own reality show. TLC's been in this business long enough to know American viewers love three things: redemption stories, freaks, and sex. This guy has all that in one package. I felt like the show is kinda testing the waters, and if enough people dig this guy they could give him his own show. That's how Kate Plus 8 started, remember? Just a few years ago they were a family of nobodies who let a camera crew into their house.
Who knew giving birth to 8 kids could do so much for your bangs?
My point is, it's gross watching TLC pimp out people with addictions in hopes of better ratings, and it's gross watching these people pimp themselves out for 15 minutes of fame. Way more gross than peeing during sex.
It's on Netflix Instant.
Day 45: Wild and Wonderful Whites of West Virginia
Wednesday, Feb. 15th.
So when I started this I didn't realize that counting day by day would get waaay more difficult after the first month ended. So I'm gonna start including the day of the week and month too. 45 days down, 320 days left!
Today I watched a doozy of a doc. This transported me to a whole entire world I've never been apart of, or even know anything about. The culture is influenced by the economy, and both are in poor conditions.
The Whites are a large family living in West Virginia. They do drugs, they get in fights, they get arrested, they drink, cuss and cause trouble. They yell and scream at each other, and laugh and pull down each other's pants too. The movie's about family life in small towns, how the actions of our family members affect us, and how our environment shapes who we are.
What I learned: Okay, let me see if I can find a good starting place. Here's the White Family Tree:
Throughout the movie we meet just about everyone in the family. It focuses on Mamie, who seems to keep the whole family together. Her brother Jesco is a semi-famous figure in the area, as a documentary "The Dancing Outlaw", focused on his dancing and his outrageous lifestyle. So the family already carries some buzz and has a reputation of infamy in their area.
Jesco White: Classy.
We follow the different siblings and their children, grandchildren and various romantic partners. Some have kids in jail, some are battling child services, but all of them are drinking, cussing, and fighting.
What I liked: It was a real eye-opener. I never realized there were people like this out there. I had thought characters like this only existed in cartoons or episodes of Bonanza. The whole point of this doc-a-day adventure is to open my eyes to all the different people who exist, and man, that totally happened today.
My parents were born and raised in small Kansas towns, and make it very clear they moved to a big town when my siblings and I were born to get us away from that environment. They wanted us to grow up with more opportunities than they had. I'm just now getting to the point where I understand why. You watch people like the Whites who have lived in the same county their parents and grandparents and great grandparents lived, and it's no wonder they never moved or "made anything" of themselves. They are trapped by their environments. One of my favorite scenes was of the White that got away; one of the siblings moved from Virginia with his family and is doing well; good job, nice house, his kids attend a good public school. He looks at the camera straight on and says if he had stayed in Virginia, he'd be dead by now; either from fighting, drugs, or mining. He's proof that at least to some degree, the Whites are victims of their own environment. If they had better schools, better job opportunities, better access to health care, who knows what kind of people they could have been.
It's easy to laugh at these people and their misadventures, or look down on them for their flaws and their problems. But it's harder to see them as real people, which is what I think the film wants you to do. By the half-way point of the film I've gotten past their thick accents and their drug addictions, and I'm earnestly worried whether or not they are gonna be able to get their newborn child back from Protective Services. I stop seeing them as characters and start seeing them as people.
What I didn't like: While I do think the film wanted us to empathize with the Whites, there were times I felt they were being used as fodder to get laughs. What do the filmmakers want to say with this movie? Are we supposed to be laughing at them? I'd be interested to see what the Whites think of the film's success and what their experience being filmed was like.
At times I was reminded of The Trailer Park Boys, a mocumentary show from Canada. Like the Whites, this show follows the adventures and misadventures of a group of rowdy, drug and drink-addicted hooligans who dream of making it big but never make it out of the trailer park. But while Trailer Park Boys is obviously supposed to be funny, it's harder to say with the Whites.
So when I started this I didn't realize that counting day by day would get waaay more difficult after the first month ended. So I'm gonna start including the day of the week and month too. 45 days down, 320 days left!
Today I watched a doozy of a doc. This transported me to a whole entire world I've never been apart of, or even know anything about. The culture is influenced by the economy, and both are in poor conditions.
The Whites are a large family living in West Virginia. They do drugs, they get in fights, they get arrested, they drink, cuss and cause trouble. They yell and scream at each other, and laugh and pull down each other's pants too. The movie's about family life in small towns, how the actions of our family members affect us, and how our environment shapes who we are.
What I learned: Okay, let me see if I can find a good starting place. Here's the White Family Tree:
Jesco White: Classy.
What I liked: It was a real eye-opener. I never realized there were people like this out there. I had thought characters like this only existed in cartoons or episodes of Bonanza. The whole point of this doc-a-day adventure is to open my eyes to all the different people who exist, and man, that totally happened today.
My parents were born and raised in small Kansas towns, and make it very clear they moved to a big town when my siblings and I were born to get us away from that environment. They wanted us to grow up with more opportunities than they had. I'm just now getting to the point where I understand why. You watch people like the Whites who have lived in the same county their parents and grandparents and great grandparents lived, and it's no wonder they never moved or "made anything" of themselves. They are trapped by their environments. One of my favorite scenes was of the White that got away; one of the siblings moved from Virginia with his family and is doing well; good job, nice house, his kids attend a good public school. He looks at the camera straight on and says if he had stayed in Virginia, he'd be dead by now; either from fighting, drugs, or mining. He's proof that at least to some degree, the Whites are victims of their own environment. If they had better schools, better job opportunities, better access to health care, who knows what kind of people they could have been.
It's easy to laugh at these people and their misadventures, or look down on them for their flaws and their problems. But it's harder to see them as real people, which is what I think the film wants you to do. By the half-way point of the film I've gotten past their thick accents and their drug addictions, and I'm earnestly worried whether or not they are gonna be able to get their newborn child back from Protective Services. I stop seeing them as characters and start seeing them as people.
What I didn't like: While I do think the film wanted us to empathize with the Whites, there were times I felt they were being used as fodder to get laughs. What do the filmmakers want to say with this movie? Are we supposed to be laughing at them? I'd be interested to see what the Whites think of the film's success and what their experience being filmed was like.
At times I was reminded of The Trailer Park Boys, a mocumentary show from Canada. Like the Whites, this show follows the adventures and misadventures of a group of rowdy, drug and drink-addicted hooligans who dream of making it big but never make it out of the trailer park. But while Trailer Park Boys is obviously supposed to be funny, it's harder to say with the Whites.
TPB: Like the Whites, except intentionally funny.
If you want to watch something that will blow your mind, make it this.
It's on Netflix instant right now, y'all.
Friday, February 17, 2012
What is Valentine's Day About?
Happy Valentine's Day! I hope you had something fun happen. I don't necessarily love this holiday, but I'm not one of the VDay haters who rails against it either. I just figure it's a good day to tell loved ones you love them.
Though the holiday doesn't fascinate me that much, its history does. Like most major holidays there are multiple theories regarding its origins. According to NPR the holiday originated in Ancient Rome as a multi-day love fest. Men would sacrifice animals then beat women with the dead animal skins. Romantic, right?
The name of the holiday might have come from a weird coincidence: Emperor Claudius II executed 2 different men named Valentin on Feb. 13th in two different years. Then the Catholic Church decided to martyr them and the name St. Valentine.
The cheesy card sharing, candy eating, and flower giving really took off once Hallmark got involved. I didn't know Hallmark was from KC- that's neat! One more successful thing to come out of the Mid. West.
NPR states that Valentine's Day sales are averaging around 17 billion dollars a year.
That's a lot of money being spent to say "I Love You"
Dark Origins of V-Day
Recently some funny variations on the theme have popped up, thanks to Amy Poehler and Tina Fey. On Parks and Rec Amy's character hosts a yearly "Gal-entine's Day", where she gathers all the women in her life who inspire her together for a giant love-in.
Galentine's Day Clip
Meanwhile, Liz Lemon rejects the traditions and hangups of VDay in place of "Anna Howard Shaw Day", the famed suffragette.
I couldn't find a related clip, so here's Liz dancing.
Happy Valentine's Day!
Day 44: Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love
I'm very happy I stumbled upon this documentary because it gave me a lot to think about. And it just happened to be Valentine's Day, which was oddly appropriate!
"Virtual Adultery and Cyberspace Love" follows one story, 3 people, and 2 dimensions. In real life,Lee and Caroline are a married couple with kids. In the virtual life, Caroline spends her time flirting and sexing with men all over the world. Spending 13+ hours a day on the computer, she neglects her kids and no longer shares a bed with her husband. The doc follows Lee as he deals with the woman he loves and her addiction.
Never having used Second Life, or any virtual world like it, I'm fascinated by adults who get sucked into it. I just assume it's something kids or young adults would get addicted to, more than actual adults with bills, a job, and especially kids.
What I learned: I'd seen stuff on internet addiction before; this is such an interesting topic to me. This film focuses on 2 themes: internet addiction/the attraction of a virtual personality, and infidelity. We all realize we've become a digital society, almost completely dependent on the technology that surrounds us. But do we know when it becomes too much? How would you know you were 'addicted' to the internet or the opportunities it offers? Was that addiction created, or just brought out from inside of you? If Caroline lived 300 years ago, would she have been looking for an form of escapism, or was that desire created by our digital age as well? Then there's the fidelity aspect- is it cheating if it only takes place online? What does it take to cheat? Does it have to be physical? Or can it be emotional: an intimate connection with someone else while you're already in a committed relationship?
What I liked: The film did a great job of not painting anyone as a villain; though Caroline was obviously doing some shitty things, that's not really debatable, they let her tell her story. Though she loves her husband she suffers from depression and doesn't feel fulfilled. These feelings led her to Second Life. I also really liked her family: they seem to be doing nothing but supporting her through all this, which is the right attitude to take towards an addict. Especially the husband. He seems to be taking everything with patience. At one point Caroline goes to meet one of her online boyfriends to see if what they have is more than just an online connection. Lee allows it and stays at home to take care of the kids. The online relationship doesn't pan out and she returns home to her husband and kids, still not happy but willing to work to make it better.
What I liked: The film did a great job of not painting anyone as a villain; though Caroline was obviously doing some shitty things, that's not really debatable, they let her tell her story. Though she loves her husband she suffers from depression and doesn't feel fulfilled. These feelings led her to Second Life. I also really liked her family: they seem to be doing nothing but supporting her through all this, which is the right attitude to take towards an addict. Especially the husband. He seems to be taking everything with patience. At one point Caroline goes to meet one of her online boyfriends to see if what they have is more than just an online connection. Lee allows it and stays at home to take care of the kids. The online relationship doesn't pan out and she returns home to her husband and kids, still not happy but willing to work to make it better.
What I didn't like: It would have been cool to hear from some experts or sociologists about how often internet addiction like this happens, and what can be done about it. It would have been cool to go back and forth from this personal story to the broader picture.
The video can be seen in 4 parts on youtube:
Last week I read an amazing article in Wired about the perils of falling in love online. It's about a middle aged man who pretends to be a young Marine online and falls in love with a 17-year-old girl in another state. It was shocking and sad, and reminded me that you never can trust who you are talking to online.
You can read the article here:
http://www.american-buddha.com/wakinglife.flirtingwithdisaster.htm
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Day 43: The Untold Story of Emmett Louis Till
February has been a month of contention for me. I had never put much thought into Black History Month before; in the past I'd gone out of my way to read more books by black authors or watch movies with prominent black actors, but that was it. This year, I've really decided to discover what Black History Month is supposed to mean. What is its point? What should Americans get from it?
Most people I've talked to dismiss BHM. They say at best it's redundant, as we've become such a racially diverse country that black history is just American history. At its worst BHM is just racial favoritism, undermining the very reason the holiday was created in the first place by promoting segregation.
Though my mind is still not made up on the intentions and consequences of BHM, I have to believe it's doing more good than bad. Race is still a big issue in this country; that shouldn't be up for discussion. And history is still being written by the victors; white, rich males. If BHM isn't the key to creating a better perspective of our country's history, I am all ears to what the better answer is.
So the point is I'm going to try and find out what BHM means to me. I need to find meaning in it and make it matter on a personal level before I can expect society to care about it. That being said, this month I'll be watching as many films regarding race and African American culture/history as possible.
Today I watched a touching, tragic doc on the life and death of Emmett Till. Like most of us, I knew his story and his impact on the Civil Rights movement. But I didn't know the details, and that's where the story really lives.
What I learned: Through immensely personal interviews with Emmett's family, we get a really good picture of who 14-year old Emmett was. He was brash and adventurous and loved mischief.
I never knew what happened to the two men, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, who committed the crime. I knew the details of the grisly act, beating and drowning Till for speaking suggestively to a white woman, I guess I never heard what became of them. They were tried and acquitted in a southern court with a jury of all white, middle-aged men. Big surprise, right? What really angered me was the two men later admitted to killing Till in a magazine interview, once they were protected by double jeopardy. Though the case was reopened in 2004, no further legal action was taken.
What I liked: You really get a sense of who Till was, and I liked him. They didn't canonize him, they didn't say he was perfect; his cousins who were with him admitted he should've known better than to whistle at a white woman in public. But he never deserved what he got.
Even more than Emmett, I liked his mother, Mamie Till-Mobley. Most of the film is seen through her narrative as she recounts the last day she saw him alive, where she was when she was told the news, and the long, painful funeral and court process. She spoke with clarity and directness; you could tell she had told this story a thousand times before. But she also spoke with emotion, and with so much love for her son; it was really moving. It's famously remembered that she was the one who demanded her son's coffin be left open at the service, to show the world what those men had done to her child. She sat in court for a large portion of the trial despite death threats to her and her family; letters sent to her saying "he got what he deserved" and "one less n***** in the world". Emmett is the story's martyr, but Mamie is the hero.
What I didn't like: I would have liked to learn more about Till's impact on the blossoming Civil Rights Movement. They spoke briefly on how groups such as SNCC were involved in the trial, but I'd love to hear more about individuals who were motivated to action because of Till. I'm a passionate advocate for non-violence, but watching the footage of those 2 men walk out of the court scott-free filled me with such anger, I know why blacks moved to violence during the 60's and 70's; it felt like the only way real justice was going to be achieved.
I could fill a few more pages on how much this documentary got me thinking. The more I learn about black history, and the many wrongs that were committed, the more moved I feel to support Black History Month.
The documentary can be viewed here:
http://freedocumentariesonline.org/the-untold-story-of-emmett-louis-till/
Most people I've talked to dismiss BHM. They say at best it's redundant, as we've become such a racially diverse country that black history is just American history. At its worst BHM is just racial favoritism, undermining the very reason the holiday was created in the first place by promoting segregation.
Though my mind is still not made up on the intentions and consequences of BHM, I have to believe it's doing more good than bad. Race is still a big issue in this country; that shouldn't be up for discussion. And history is still being written by the victors; white, rich males. If BHM isn't the key to creating a better perspective of our country's history, I am all ears to what the better answer is.
So the point is I'm going to try and find out what BHM means to me. I need to find meaning in it and make it matter on a personal level before I can expect society to care about it. That being said, this month I'll be watching as many films regarding race and African American culture/history as possible.
Today I watched a touching, tragic doc on the life and death of Emmett Till. Like most of us, I knew his story and his impact on the Civil Rights movement. But I didn't know the details, and that's where the story really lives.
What I learned: Through immensely personal interviews with Emmett's family, we get a really good picture of who 14-year old Emmett was. He was brash and adventurous and loved mischief.
I never knew what happened to the two men, Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, who committed the crime. I knew the details of the grisly act, beating and drowning Till for speaking suggestively to a white woman, I guess I never heard what became of them. They were tried and acquitted in a southern court with a jury of all white, middle-aged men. Big surprise, right? What really angered me was the two men later admitted to killing Till in a magazine interview, once they were protected by double jeopardy. Though the case was reopened in 2004, no further legal action was taken.
What I liked: You really get a sense of who Till was, and I liked him. They didn't canonize him, they didn't say he was perfect; his cousins who were with him admitted he should've known better than to whistle at a white woman in public. But he never deserved what he got.
Even more than Emmett, I liked his mother, Mamie Till-Mobley. Most of the film is seen through her narrative as she recounts the last day she saw him alive, where she was when she was told the news, and the long, painful funeral and court process. She spoke with clarity and directness; you could tell she had told this story a thousand times before. But she also spoke with emotion, and with so much love for her son; it was really moving. It's famously remembered that she was the one who demanded her son's coffin be left open at the service, to show the world what those men had done to her child. She sat in court for a large portion of the trial despite death threats to her and her family; letters sent to her saying "he got what he deserved" and "one less n***** in the world". Emmett is the story's martyr, but Mamie is the hero.
What I didn't like: I would have liked to learn more about Till's impact on the blossoming Civil Rights Movement. They spoke briefly on how groups such as SNCC were involved in the trial, but I'd love to hear more about individuals who were motivated to action because of Till. I'm a passionate advocate for non-violence, but watching the footage of those 2 men walk out of the court scott-free filled me with such anger, I know why blacks moved to violence during the 60's and 70's; it felt like the only way real justice was going to be achieved.
I could fill a few more pages on how much this documentary got me thinking. The more I learn about black history, and the many wrongs that were committed, the more moved I feel to support Black History Month.
The documentary can be viewed here:
http://freedocumentariesonline.org/the-untold-story-of-emmett-louis-till/
Monday, February 13, 2012
Day 42: The Secret You
Okay so I JUST finished watching this one, so I'm still processing it.
Mathematician Marcus du Sautoy seeks to understand a very complicated question: "Who am I?". How do we differentiate ourselves from every other person in the world? What makes an individual uniquely themselves; their soul, their minds, their dreams? At what age does a person recognize they are a totally separate being from those around them? These are just some of the questions Sautoy attempts to answer through a series of scientific and social experiments
What I learned: All the different ways a person can consider themselves a person. The film's a comprehensive look at the many different aspects of being an individual; the soul, the body, and the mind. It gave me a lot to think about in regards to what makes me...well, me.
What I liked: For a mathematician Sautoy had a great sense of humor. He was fun and a good host through this journey. And because he provided a narrative, his own strong desire to understand himself as an individual, I became more invested in the story.
And the experiments were pretty neat. Some were relatively simple: the age old 'mirror test' to see if children or other animals can identify themselves in a mirror, thus proving they possess a concept of self. Others were more involved: scientists tested which neurons fired when subjects were shown images of different people and places. They found that some neurons only fire in response to specific photos. One subject had neurons that only fired when shown images of Jennifer Aniston. Out of 100 photos, the neurons only fired 6 times, 1 for each Aniston photo that was shown. The weirder part is that when shown pictures of Aniston with Brad Pitt, the neuron didn't fire, which means it might only be for identifying an individual by itself and not in groups or with others. Scientists use this to show that neurons exists in complicated patterns within our brains and can be assigned amazingly specific tasks, such as recognizing a certain celebrity.
What I didn't like: While all of the experiments were fascinating, it was hard to gauge their effectiveness simply by watching someone else take part in them. For one experiment Sautoy was equipped with a helmet-viewer hooked to nearby cameras. The goal was to create the feeling of an out of body experience. Sautoy obviously experienced the desired effect and seemed pretty moved by it, but for the viewers it was harder to feel the impact. And since I don't have any VR cameras currently at my disposal I don't think I'll get to try it myself anytime soon.
Also, though I was thrilled at the start of the film to hear him discuss so many different aspects to understanding identity, I soon realized there was no way it was all going to be covered in-depth inside of an hour. And low and behold, I was correct. Like all documentaries that try to cover too much, it felt rushed and didn't dive into each aspect as much as it could have.
A little over my head at times, a little rushed all the time, it still presented some interesting information.
It can be found on youtube:
Mathematician Marcus du Sautoy seeks to understand a very complicated question: "Who am I?". How do we differentiate ourselves from every other person in the world? What makes an individual uniquely themselves; their soul, their minds, their dreams? At what age does a person recognize they are a totally separate being from those around them? These are just some of the questions Sautoy attempts to answer through a series of scientific and social experiments
What I learned: All the different ways a person can consider themselves a person. The film's a comprehensive look at the many different aspects of being an individual; the soul, the body, and the mind. It gave me a lot to think about in regards to what makes me...well, me.
What I liked: For a mathematician Sautoy had a great sense of humor. He was fun and a good host through this journey. And because he provided a narrative, his own strong desire to understand himself as an individual, I became more invested in the story.
And the experiments were pretty neat. Some were relatively simple: the age old 'mirror test' to see if children or other animals can identify themselves in a mirror, thus proving they possess a concept of self. Others were more involved: scientists tested which neurons fired when subjects were shown images of different people and places. They found that some neurons only fire in response to specific photos. One subject had neurons that only fired when shown images of Jennifer Aniston. Out of 100 photos, the neurons only fired 6 times, 1 for each Aniston photo that was shown. The weirder part is that when shown pictures of Aniston with Brad Pitt, the neuron didn't fire, which means it might only be for identifying an individual by itself and not in groups or with others. Scientists use this to show that neurons exists in complicated patterns within our brains and can be assigned amazingly specific tasks, such as recognizing a certain celebrity.
Jennifer Aniston makes my brain hurt.
What I didn't like: While all of the experiments were fascinating, it was hard to gauge their effectiveness simply by watching someone else take part in them. For one experiment Sautoy was equipped with a helmet-viewer hooked to nearby cameras. The goal was to create the feeling of an out of body experience. Sautoy obviously experienced the desired effect and seemed pretty moved by it, but for the viewers it was harder to feel the impact. And since I don't have any VR cameras currently at my disposal I don't think I'll get to try it myself anytime soon.
Also, though I was thrilled at the start of the film to hear him discuss so many different aspects to understanding identity, I soon realized there was no way it was all going to be covered in-depth inside of an hour. And low and behold, I was correct. Like all documentaries that try to cover too much, it felt rushed and didn't dive into each aspect as much as it could have.
A little over my head at times, a little rushed all the time, it still presented some interesting information.
It can be found on youtube:
While watching it, I suggest keeping this simple mantra in mind: "How am I not myself?"
Day 41: Let it Be
In the world of documentaries there are going to be the grey areas that not everyone would count as a documentary, or even a real 'film'. Today's one of those days.
I decided to watch The Rooftop Concert because: 1. I love the Beatles. 2. I hadn't listened to them this week yet. 3. I don't know if I'd seen all of it before.
What I learned: Pretty straight forward: after finishing their last album The Beatles surprise the London public with an impromptu rooftop concert. Unbeknownst to the world, this would be their last live show before breaking up. The rest of the film is fly-on-the-wall scenes of the band rehearsing and discussing during their last album's creation.
What I liked: As a life long Beatles fan, I'm always going to love seeing Beatles footage. They could be watching paint dry and I'd still find it entertaining. And that's because they are entertaining. Even towards the end of the band's career, when the bitterness was at its peak, they still could make each other laugh and clearly enjoyed playing together. And of course, how could you not like their clothes and facial hair?
I decided to watch The Rooftop Concert because: 1. I love the Beatles. 2. I hadn't listened to them this week yet. 3. I don't know if I'd seen all of it before.
What I learned: Pretty straight forward: after finishing their last album The Beatles surprise the London public with an impromptu rooftop concert. Unbeknownst to the world, this would be their last live show before breaking up. The rest of the film is fly-on-the-wall scenes of the band rehearsing and discussing during their last album's creation.
What I liked: As a life long Beatles fan, I'm always going to love seeing Beatles footage. They could be watching paint dry and I'd still find it entertaining. And that's because they are entertaining. Even towards the end of the band's career, when the bitterness was at its peak, they still could make each other laugh and clearly enjoyed playing together. And of course, how could you not like their clothes and facial hair?
What I didn't like: I know the concert is the whole point of the whole film, but the sound quality is sub-par. I guess if I wanted to hear the songs I'd just listen to the albums. The point of the video is to show them and the affect they can have on the audiences.
Really cool film and not very long at all. I highly recommend it.
It can be found here:
While we're at it, check out Paul's performance at the White House last year for the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song. Foo Fighters, Jack White, Stevie Wonder and...a Jonas Brother? Who let him in?
Day 40: Secrets of Body Language
Somedays it's hard to just watch one documentary. That's a good sign!
Today I watched a History Channel doc about the secrets of body language, which is aptly titled "Secrets of Body Language".
Body language specialists examine clips of celebrities and politicians and discuss what their body language is expressing. Sometimes the body language aligns with the verbal language, and sometimes it betrays what they are trying to say.
What I learned: I learned some interesting terms about body language. Micro-expressions are the tiny facial expressions that occur milliseconds before a real, typically forced, expression is expressed. Micro-expressions are believed to be subconscious and thus more truthful.
What I liked: It was awesome viewing and reviewing clips of celebs and Presidents to see what messages they were really conveying. We watched clips of Obama, Nixon, FDR meeting with Stalin and Churchill, and celebs like Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt. It was so interesting to see how even the rich, famous, and pretty don't have total control over their physicality and sometimes let it say more than their words ever can. One of the most interesting clips was of Clinton's famous interview during the Lewinsky trial. Though he words say one thing, his head and hands say something different. One body language specialist states that his fingers point in one direction but his eyes look in another, a tell-tale sign of lying.
Today I watched a History Channel doc about the secrets of body language, which is aptly titled "Secrets of Body Language".
Body language specialists examine clips of celebrities and politicians and discuss what their body language is expressing. Sometimes the body language aligns with the verbal language, and sometimes it betrays what they are trying to say.
What I learned: I learned some interesting terms about body language. Micro-expressions are the tiny facial expressions that occur milliseconds before a real, typically forced, expression is expressed. Micro-expressions are believed to be subconscious and thus more truthful.
What I liked: It was awesome viewing and reviewing clips of celebs and Presidents to see what messages they were really conveying. We watched clips of Obama, Nixon, FDR meeting with Stalin and Churchill, and celebs like Paris Hilton and Brad Pitt. It was so interesting to see how even the rich, famous, and pretty don't have total control over their physicality and sometimes let it say more than their words ever can. One of the most interesting clips was of Clinton's famous interview during the Lewinsky trial. Though he words say one thing, his head and hands say something different. One body language specialist states that his fingers point in one direction but his eyes look in another, a tell-tale sign of lying.
Bill Clinton: Telling the truth about China. Probably.
What I didn't like:Though I gave these specialists a lot of credit (more than most people would I think), there were parts that even I couldn't get behind. Some of the examples of micro-expressions seemed to make too big a deal out of a millisecond of video. They watched a speech frame by frame, and would pause it at random moments to tell us how the speaker was "really" feeling. Well I don't know how much you can really decipher from a single frame of footage.
Overall, pretty interesting stuff. Definitely food for thought, and entertaining to theorize about, but I haven't been completely converted to the school of body language theory just yet.
The film can be viewed on youtube here:
The film can be viewed on youtube here:
Day 39: American Experience; Jimmy Carter
I've always liked Jimmy Carter. Maybe at first it was because I'm a sucker for underdogs and Carter is the ultimate underdog of American President. But the more I learned about the man and his work the more I felt he was seriously under-appreciated. The dude is universally dismissed and discredited for his accomplishments during his time in office. Sometimes when I get tired of defending Obama I take a break and start defending Carter instead; it's a nice hobby.
This doc. does an awesome job of summarizing his time in office, and detailing all the good things he did while there.
What I learned: It was a basic overview of Jimmy's political career, from his rise to Governor in Georgia to his run for President in 1976. Before entering politics he was a simple peanut farmer.
He came into office at a very difficult time for America. The Watergate affair had severed people's trust in their government, Viet Nam was still fresh in everyone's minds, and the economy was facing the worst inflation it had seen in decades. Not a good time to be taking over.
Carter rocked it. In his 4 years he developed a peace accord between Israel and Palestine, transferred control of the Panama Canal to Panama, reduced the defense budget by 6 billion dollars, and installed solar panels on the White House roof.
But it wasn't enough- the sagging economy and a quickly devolving relationship with Iran killed Carter's reelection chances, and he lost in a landslide to Reagan in 1980.
The film also documents his work after leaving the White House. He founded the Carter Center; a non-partisan center of diplomacy where international issues could be presented to international diplomats and discussed in hopes of creating a peaceful solution. He became heavily involved in Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the needy all around the world. And, for his continued work on bringing peace to the Middle East, he received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
What I liked: I liked the whole thing. What I especially enjoyed were the direct interviews with Rosalynn Carter, Walter Mondale, and Carter's staff. It was great hearing from them what Carter was like behind doors, especially during times of crisis (like the Iran Hostage situation). He seemed to keep his cool well under pressure, and took the problems of his country to heart deeply.
What I didn't like: No problems with the documentary, but major problems with American society. After Nixon's major abuses of power, Americans demanded a Washington outsider take over. They claimed they needed a leader that wouldn't bow to the bureaucratic demands that most politicians do. Well, that's exactly what they got: Carter and his staff were young upstarts who refused to listen to the wise old traditionalists that filled Congress. They burned some bridges with their rough directness, but they thought they had the American people on their side. When inflation rose and gas station lines increased, the public turned their backs on the President. Carter's approval ratings dipped lower than Nixon's at the height of Watergate. America was more angry at a man working to save the country then they were at a man who tried to destroy the 2-party democratic system.
I hope Carter will be remembered in a better light than he was during his presidency. He was telling hard truths that the American people just weren't ready to hear. Someday we will though.
Check out his most famous speech, "The Crisis of Confidence", (AKA The "malaise" speech) given in 1979:
The 2 hour documentary can be viewed here via PBS:
Jimmy Carter
This doc. does an awesome job of summarizing his time in office, and detailing all the good things he did while there.
What I learned: It was a basic overview of Jimmy's political career, from his rise to Governor in Georgia to his run for President in 1976. Before entering politics he was a simple peanut farmer.
He came into office at a very difficult time for America. The Watergate affair had severed people's trust in their government, Viet Nam was still fresh in everyone's minds, and the economy was facing the worst inflation it had seen in decades. Not a good time to be taking over.
Carter rocked it. In his 4 years he developed a peace accord between Israel and Palestine, transferred control of the Panama Canal to Panama, reduced the defense budget by 6 billion dollars, and installed solar panels on the White House roof.
But it wasn't enough- the sagging economy and a quickly devolving relationship with Iran killed Carter's reelection chances, and he lost in a landslide to Reagan in 1980.
The film also documents his work after leaving the White House. He founded the Carter Center; a non-partisan center of diplomacy where international issues could be presented to international diplomats and discussed in hopes of creating a peaceful solution. He became heavily involved in Habitat for Humanity, building homes for the needy all around the world. And, for his continued work on bringing peace to the Middle East, he received a Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.
What I liked: I liked the whole thing. What I especially enjoyed were the direct interviews with Rosalynn Carter, Walter Mondale, and Carter's staff. It was great hearing from them what Carter was like behind doors, especially during times of crisis (like the Iran Hostage situation). He seemed to keep his cool well under pressure, and took the problems of his country to heart deeply.
What I didn't like: No problems with the documentary, but major problems with American society. After Nixon's major abuses of power, Americans demanded a Washington outsider take over. They claimed they needed a leader that wouldn't bow to the bureaucratic demands that most politicians do. Well, that's exactly what they got: Carter and his staff were young upstarts who refused to listen to the wise old traditionalists that filled Congress. They burned some bridges with their rough directness, but they thought they had the American people on their side. When inflation rose and gas station lines increased, the public turned their backs on the President. Carter's approval ratings dipped lower than Nixon's at the height of Watergate. America was more angry at a man working to save the country then they were at a man who tried to destroy the 2-party democratic system.
I hope Carter will be remembered in a better light than he was during his presidency. He was telling hard truths that the American people just weren't ready to hear. Someday we will though.
Check out his most famous speech, "The Crisis of Confidence", (AKA The "malaise" speech) given in 1979:
The 2 hour documentary can be viewed here via PBS:
Jimmy Carter
Friday, February 10, 2012
Day 38: Mythology of Star Wars
In honor of Phantom Menace returning to theaters this weekend, I watched a Star Wars doc.
Unlike most die-hard SW fans, I don't posses the complicated love-hate relationship with George Lucas. In my eyes, he made the films, they are his ideas, so he can do what he wants with them. Are the prequels bad movies? Yes, very bad. But that's his choice to make bad movies. Fanboys don't have the right to keep Lucas from doing what he wants. Mainly, keep making a sick amount of money.
Pictured: A ruthless, cold blooded egomaniac. And Bobba Fett.
It does show how much the SW story has impacted America, pop or otherwise. These movies have become so much of people's lives they become defensive when the films are modified, or sullied by sub-par prequels. It's not just a defense of the movies, but of the larger cultural landscape they are a part of.
While fanboys are worried about the legacy of SW, this documentary examines its past; influences, references, and inspirations. George is interviewed at Skywalker Ranch by journalist Bill Moyers.
What I learned: I didn't realize how much of the film pulled from traditional, well known folk lore. A lot of Greek and Roman mythology influenced the film and its characters. I had heard theories about SW being influenced by mythology but it was cool hearing it straight from the source.
What I liked: My love for Bill Moyers grows and grows. Not only is he an outstanding journalist, but he's an amazing interviewer. As someone who follows interviewers like most people follow athletes, I have learned to tell who is invested in the conversation and who is just phoning it in. Moyers if firing on all cylinders; asking good questions, keeping the pandering and celeb. worshiping to a minimum, injecting just the right amount of personality to keep things interesting but not distract from the interviewee.
Keep playing it cool, Billy.
What I didn't like: I wasn't that impressed with Lucas. I have only seen a few interviews with him in the past. As one of the most hated figures in nerd culture, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt before forming an opinion of him. Instead of coming off as cocky, conceited, or out of touch, as most of his critics condemn him for, I just found him kinda of boring. I thought he'd discuss more about the cultural inspirations for the films, and instead spent more of the time talking about what was inspiring him personally while he was writing the story. Interesting, but not what I was looking for.
I go to the theater with very low expectations. I haven't seen Phantom Menace in like 5 years, for a reason; it's the worst of the prequels. But like every fanboy, I don't have a choice; I have to go. They could fill the seats with razor blades and sneeze on my popcorn but if Stars Wars is in the theaters I have to go.
Don't know what else to post here so I'll include Imperial March on a Tesla Coil:
Unlike most die-hard SW fans, I don't posses the complicated love-hate relationship with George Lucas. In my eyes, he made the films, they are his ideas, so he can do what he wants with them. Are the prequels bad movies? Yes, very bad. But that's his choice to make bad movies. Fanboys don't have the right to keep Lucas from doing what he wants. Mainly, keep making a sick amount of money.
It does show how much the SW story has impacted America, pop or otherwise. These movies have become so much of people's lives they become defensive when the films are modified, or sullied by sub-par prequels. It's not just a defense of the movies, but of the larger cultural landscape they are a part of.
While fanboys are worried about the legacy of SW, this documentary examines its past; influences, references, and inspirations. George is interviewed at Skywalker Ranch by journalist Bill Moyers.
What I learned: I didn't realize how much of the film pulled from traditional, well known folk lore. A lot of Greek and Roman mythology influenced the film and its characters. I had heard theories about SW being influenced by mythology but it was cool hearing it straight from the source.
What I liked: My love for Bill Moyers grows and grows. Not only is he an outstanding journalist, but he's an amazing interviewer. As someone who follows interviewers like most people follow athletes, I have learned to tell who is invested in the conversation and who is just phoning it in. Moyers if firing on all cylinders; asking good questions, keeping the pandering and celeb. worshiping to a minimum, injecting just the right amount of personality to keep things interesting but not distract from the interviewee.
What I didn't like: I wasn't that impressed with Lucas. I have only seen a few interviews with him in the past. As one of the most hated figures in nerd culture, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt before forming an opinion of him. Instead of coming off as cocky, conceited, or out of touch, as most of his critics condemn him for, I just found him kinda of boring. I thought he'd discuss more about the cultural inspirations for the films, and instead spent more of the time talking about what was inspiring him personally while he was writing the story. Interesting, but not what I was looking for.
I go to the theater with very low expectations. I haven't seen Phantom Menace in like 5 years, for a reason; it's the worst of the prequels. But like every fanboy, I don't have a choice; I have to go. They could fill the seats with razor blades and sneeze on my popcorn but if Stars Wars is in the theaters I have to go.
Don't know what else to post here so I'll include Imperial March on a Tesla Coil:
The film can be watched here:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)