My attempt as an Art Critic

I wrote up a post to Newsbusters regarding the "Unauthorized Abortion of W" sculpture presented during this weekend's episode of Showtime Network's The L Word.  Most of the contributors to the site expressed the vitriol one expects from such a deplorable display.  I attempted to develop a comparative criticism that the art world, and producers of the show, may want to consider:

In junior high, I made my sole trip to New York City, taking part along the way in an obligatory visit to the UN.  Amongst their sculptures on the grounds is the famous one that shows a revolver with the barrel tied in a knot.  You can argue about the intentions of the artists if you want, and you may even disagree with the political insinuation, but the piece itself is not objectionable and presents a point of view in a manner that encourages responsible debate and progression of human nature.

Compare that to the abortion sculpture.  It makes me think of the stories regarding how Nazi propaganda, whatever form they used, was so powerful in hate that it caused women to orgasm.  No thought comes from this type of art.  The only rational response is rage, whether you are for or against.  It is akin, in some degree (not equating), to the emotions experienced amongst witnesses to a lynching.  There are people who watch in a state of catatonic jubilation, while others are equally terrified and angry.

The simplest recourse is to terminate your services with Showtime.  I don't subscribe to them anyway because their programming overall is pitiful.  You could take it a step further and go after their parent, CBS.  Remember, the Super Bowl is on CBS this year.  If a boycott was sufficient enough, it would be devastating to their network.  That is not likely, of course.  Wish it could be like Super Bowl I when 2 networks carried it.

Compare to Any Article

This list of journalism groaners provides excellent humor material when reading any over-the-top piece of drivel hacked-up by a supposedly learned reporter.

To Google, or Not to Google...

Google is receiving flack again for its attempts to "protect its trademark" by discouraging the use of its name as a description for general Internet searching.  Honestly, I do not see how having a name that integrates itself into the international lexicon is a bad thing for any company.  Not everyone will use Google "to google," but not everyone drinks Coca-Cola when they say they are "having a coke" (except in the South, where Pepsi is a no-no).

 

Google is better off focusing only on those who directly make money off the trademark, not everyone who uses it (especially the media).

The Billy Graham Interview

Just finished reading an extensive article on and interview of Reverend Billy Graham, written by Jon Meacham for Newsweek.  The work focuses on a "moderating" of Reverent Graham's views, in an effort by the writer to expose the differences between the world-renowned evangelist and today's leaders of Christian fundamentalism (including his son, Franklin).  One such effort at identifying contrasts goes like this:

 

"For Graham, politics is a secondary to the Gospel, which transcends party lines and, for believers, transcends earthly reality itself. When NEWSWEEK asked Graham whether ministers—whether they think of themselves as evangelists, pastors or a bit of both—should spend time engaged with politics, he replied: "You know, I think in a way that has to be up to the individual as he feels led of the Lord. A lot of things that I commented on years ago would not have been of the Lord, I'm sure, but I think you have some—like communism, or segregation, on which I think you have a responsibility to speak out." Such proclamations, however, should not be "the main thing," and he admits he has no perfect formula: "I don't know the total answer to that."

"A partial answer may lie in a distinction Graham draws between lobbying organizations and the spirit of individual Americans. "In the founding era of our country, it was not organized religion but personal faith that brought focus and unified the early leadership—maybe an unspoken faith in God, and certain values that came with that faith," he says. "So in that sense, we cannot discount, in my judgment, religious faith in politics." But he is talking about faith as one factor—perhaps the most important, but still just one—in the life of a people, not about churches or lobbies using the name of God to win votes.

"One way for a minister to fulfill his duty to his flock on public-policy questions is to focus on ends while leaving the means to others. An example of this in Graham's own life was his work for nuclear disarmament. When he spoke out on the cold-war arms race, he urged a change of heart—he did not rally support for a particular treaty or a particular agenda.

In reality, the author draws his own conclusions to Reverent Graham's thoughts in a way that promotes the belief that modern Christian fundamentalist has "strayed" for true Christianity.  While I will be the first to admit that some of their doctrine does not abide well to the modern world, or to positive values that we hold within it, I do not see their actions as an affront to the message of Christ.  They are merely interpretations designed to guide followers in living a better life,  so long as they do not endanger the lives of others who pose no threat ( Peace on Earth to Men of Good Will).

 

 

 

 

At the Movies (on my comfortable couch)

Since I'm up a little past 3 in the morning, I thought I would share some thoughts on recent movie screenings.  I'm not going to crib my work with a rating system, so you will have to read what I say to understand the review (sorry for being so difficult).

 

Cars

 

Overall, this is a pretty good film.  The animation appears amazingly realistic, especially in several landscape scenes (except for the cars, of course).  The story works well, yet it still follows Pixar's continued effort to interject some degree of liberalism into their plots.  This time, they discuss how the creation of the Interstate Highway, ruined one facet of America.  Not as bad as the politics of Monsters, Inc., which infuses commentary on energy source dependence and the promise of alternative fuels, but it is still there.  The best part is including Richard Petty as the voice of "The King".  I was also impressed how they incorporated a remake of his spectacular late-1980's Daytona 500 crash during the into the script.  One review I saw criticized the movie for manufacturing a moral focal point, as if it was trying too hard.  Honestly, it was telegraphed from about the first 5 minutes of the movie, and everything fell pretty easily into place.  Not much guess work for an adult, but plenty of fun and thoughtfulness of younger audiences.

 

The 40-Year Old Virgin

 

My wife prefers Wedding Crashers, but I really think, having now seen this movie a couple more times, that this is easily comparable.  The fact that Steve Carrell and friends join an adult movie full of debauchery with a pretty serious and positive message promoting responsible relationships without making it seem like it is preaching in a sinner's lair ( i.e., Christian Metal), shows what is possible if Hollywood's inspiring minds focus on their craft.  The humor gets better with every viewing, as does the acting.

 

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

 

This movie just made the video rental counter after a short time early in the year in theatres.  It should have gotten more publicity early on, because it is a great film.  The banter between Val Kilmer and Robert Downey, Jr. is fantastic, as is the storyline intermixing Hollywood, murder, rekindling of relationships, and personal introspection.  The best part, in my mind, was the fascinating action sequences, featuring some of the best gun play I have seen in quite a while.  What else do you expect from Richard Donner (of Lethal Weapon fame).

 

Brokeback Mountain

 

Yes, I saw the film.  For a movie to work, especially a drama, you have to have sympathy for at least some of the characters.  Not all, just some.  This would include identifying a protagonist.  Even if they are only a shade of gray better than the antagonist, it does help to have one.  This film does not have one, nor do its characters encourage you to feel sympathy or share their struggles.  Gay sex aside, the principals (Jack and Ennis) are both flawed and undeserving.  Those around them, save Ennis' wife and Jack's parents, are not much better. It also does not help that the second half of the film feels twice as long as the first half.  Perhaps this was Ang Lee's intent, to emphasize that Jack and Ennis, though they did not know it until it was too late, had a long, meaningful life together.  I really do not know.  If someone can clue me in, please do so.

 

Transamerica

 

This was far better than Brokeback.  Your are able to come away from this film without morally judging Felicity Huffman's character, a transsexual awaiting gender changing surgery.  You can still disagree with her lifestyle, as I do, but the film does not portray her as anything more than someone seeking to be happy with themselves, not necessarily concerned with the acceptance of others.  While the film does probe into the lead's relationship with their estranged family, made complex with the revelation of a teenage son, you do not see the usual "will you accept me for who I am" cry often found in movies featuring characters of alternative lifestyles.  Also, you have to kind of admire an successful mainstream television actress (and network at that) performing in a full frontal nude scene that actually, as my wife explained it, served a purpose with regard to the story.

 

Match Point

 

To wrap up this round, I want to praise my choice for last year's Best Picture.  It should have been nominated, and it should have won.  Woody Allen finally resurrected himself as a writer and director, putting together a riveting story that resurrects the forbidden love storyline, cast in a modern light.  The acting was superb as well.  I remember the previews emphasizing the conclusion, and I honestly felt disappointed... until the last three minutes.  I honestly think that this is Allen's best work, of those I have seen.

 

With the exception of Cars, all of these films were seen at home, on DVD (The 40-Year Old Virgin is now available on HBO).  Honestly, it's how I prefer to see them nowadays.  Theatre visits are for important, life-changing exceptions.

Is training useless?

Most of it, according to this management coach .  His arguments are sound.  I agree that the best training leads its students toward searching out for their own information.  As a self-starter, this is pretty easy.  Noticing a deficiency in my work, I seek out information and perform self-study.  Not everyone acts this way, especially when dealing with skill improvement (rather than knowledge).