I've been thinking... Not necessarily about Gibson's film specifically, but about the teachings about the Passion and crucifixion.
I can't speak for all Christian faiths, but I can speak for mainstream Catholicism (ie. not the brand of Catholicism Gibson subscribes to--he's a member of a uber-Conservative Catholic sect that does not recognize the reforms of Vatican II. A few of the tracts written as part of The Second Vatican Council include Gaudium et Spes and Nostra Aetate.)
I think mainstream Catholics, when considering the Passion in itself or in its recent cinematic incarnation, must keep in mind the following passages from Nostra Aetate:
As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)
The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.
As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone. [Emphasis added.]
Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.
Now, all this has me thinking...
I can't say that I know of a Church document which expresses this, so I can only say with certainty that I am speaking for myself when I say that it seems to me that anyone who would make a particular group culpable in Christ's crucifixion in fact denies the true nature of the Passion. To blame certain individuals is to deny the great love that is at the heart of the Passion. To say that Christ was crucified because of so-and-so and so-and-so is to deny that His death was a sacrifice; it makes His death like any other murder and therefore denies any divinity/spirituality associated with it.
Culpability--because of Original Sin--is universal. To suggest otherwise is to ignore one of the most fundamental Christian truths.
So I think the Vatican needs to respond to Jewish groups' requests that the Vatican restate the Church's position on the crucifixion. There's certainly no harm in reiterating it.
Thursday, February 26, 2004
The Passion of the Christ (~!~ Some SPOILERS ~!~)
So I saw it. Last night. And now I think I've had enough time to organize my thoughts...
An interesting film experience to be sure. Shall I enumerate the film's successes first?
1.) Caleb Deschanel's cinematography. It's been said that Mel Gibson asked him to make the film look and feel like a Caravaggio painting. Mission well accomplished. Deschanel's shots of the Last Supper and of Gethsemane render a cinematic interpretation of chiaroscuro. I was--and still am!--most impressed.
2.) The casting of the movie's main characters. James Caviezel is great. Even better, though, are Maia Morgenstern (The Virgin Mary), Francesco De Vito (Peter), Jarreth J. Merz (a Jewish Simon of Cyrene), and Hristo Jivkov (John). These three were, for me, the emotional barometers in the film. Morgenstern is simply fantastic. I can't say anything more. De Vito's rendering of Peter's grief over denying Jesus was raw, real. It literally made me cry. Merz intelligently utilised and developed the character he was given in the limited amount of screen time he had. And Jivkov's John--sweet, innocent with a quiet, otherworldly strength--the apostle John as I envisioned him.
3.) The film is indeed moving; however, I'm still not sure if the film is genuinely moving, or if I was moved because of my personal beliefs...
The film is, after all, seriously flawed.
In particular, the following things are problematic:
1.) The Romans. By and large, the Romans are not people, but ridiculous caricatures. They are SO ridiculous that their involvement can be discredited. And this is a HUGE problem in light of the debate about whether The Passion of the Christ is anti-Semitic or not. The more I consider it, the more I think this film ISN'T anti-Semitic (after all, as it has been pointed out, most of the film's sympathetic figures are indeed Jewish. The Romans are the unrelenting, blood-thirsty sadists); however, it is dangerous that Gibson makes it easy to discount the Roman involvement. Downright irresponsible, actually. Not everyone who sees this film is going to look at it critically. There will be some who take this film as fact. And for those people The Passion of the Christ, while not inherently anti-Semitic, could incite anti-Semitism. And this, of course, is a MASSIVE problem!;
2.) The obnoxious slow-motion bits in the Gethsemane sequence;
3.) Barrabas and Herod. More ridiculous caricatures;
4.) The violence. Yes, crucifixion still remains one of the cruelest, most brutal forms of death. However, I must agree with those who have noted that the film is almost a pornographic depiction of violence. It has been said, too, that Gibson "fetishizes" the violence. Shots that focus on a cane or whip ripping a square of flesh, or a nail driving into a hand take the focus away from the whole person. The focus is on the body part, not on the person to whom violence is being done. This is the crux of fetishization: it glorifies a part instead of a whole. A serious flaw for a film that aims, as Gibson has been keen to note, to put a human face on the Passion;
5.) The inaccuracies (historical and Biblical.) If you're going to claim that this film is faithful to the Gospels, you must not embellish! If you want to give your own artistic spin, Mel, DON'T CLAIM THAT THIS FILM IS GOSPEL TRUTH!; and
6.) The symbol a la Gibson. Gibson ignores some of the story's inherent symbolism (ie. the number three. True, he does have a Mary-Mary-John triumvirate at the foot of the cross, but he neglects other threes. In particular, Gibson ignores the fact that Jesus falls three times while carrying His cross to Golgotha. I counted five falls in this film [six, if you count the fact that Gibson has Caviezel collapse at the procession's end]). Now, this MIGHT have been excusable had Gibson not decided to insert some of his own symbolism (ie. Judas' guilty conscience represented as a crowd of demonic-looking children, Satan carrying a baby who looks strangely like Pilate, the crow on the cross of the unbelieving thief, and Satan screaming in Hell). Each time Gibson inserts one of these little flourishes, the effect is heavy-handed, jarring. Ridiculous. It wrecks the mood. Not very intelligent filmmaking, if you ask me.
------------
And, on that note, I leave you the wonderful Jon Stewart's thoughts on how Mel Gibson has been suffering for his art:
"Yes, it's a courageous move releasing a pro-Jesus film in America.... Very, unusually bold. Somewhere, I believe, Salman Rushdie is playing the world's tiniest sitar just for Mel."
An interesting film experience to be sure. Shall I enumerate the film's successes first?
1.) Caleb Deschanel's cinematography. It's been said that Mel Gibson asked him to make the film look and feel like a Caravaggio painting. Mission well accomplished. Deschanel's shots of the Last Supper and of Gethsemane render a cinematic interpretation of chiaroscuro. I was--and still am!--most impressed.
2.) The casting of the movie's main characters. James Caviezel is great. Even better, though, are Maia Morgenstern (The Virgin Mary), Francesco De Vito (Peter), Jarreth J. Merz (a Jewish Simon of Cyrene), and Hristo Jivkov (John). These three were, for me, the emotional barometers in the film. Morgenstern is simply fantastic. I can't say anything more. De Vito's rendering of Peter's grief over denying Jesus was raw, real. It literally made me cry. Merz intelligently utilised and developed the character he was given in the limited amount of screen time he had. And Jivkov's John--sweet, innocent with a quiet, otherworldly strength--the apostle John as I envisioned him.
3.) The film is indeed moving; however, I'm still not sure if the film is genuinely moving, or if I was moved because of my personal beliefs...
The film is, after all, seriously flawed.
In particular, the following things are problematic:
1.) The Romans. By and large, the Romans are not people, but ridiculous caricatures. They are SO ridiculous that their involvement can be discredited. And this is a HUGE problem in light of the debate about whether The Passion of the Christ is anti-Semitic or not. The more I consider it, the more I think this film ISN'T anti-Semitic (after all, as it has been pointed out, most of the film's sympathetic figures are indeed Jewish. The Romans are the unrelenting, blood-thirsty sadists); however, it is dangerous that Gibson makes it easy to discount the Roman involvement. Downright irresponsible, actually. Not everyone who sees this film is going to look at it critically. There will be some who take this film as fact. And for those people The Passion of the Christ, while not inherently anti-Semitic, could incite anti-Semitism. And this, of course, is a MASSIVE problem!;
2.) The obnoxious slow-motion bits in the Gethsemane sequence;
3.) Barrabas and Herod. More ridiculous caricatures;
4.) The violence. Yes, crucifixion still remains one of the cruelest, most brutal forms of death. However, I must agree with those who have noted that the film is almost a pornographic depiction of violence. It has been said, too, that Gibson "fetishizes" the violence. Shots that focus on a cane or whip ripping a square of flesh, or a nail driving into a hand take the focus away from the whole person. The focus is on the body part, not on the person to whom violence is being done. This is the crux of fetishization: it glorifies a part instead of a whole. A serious flaw for a film that aims, as Gibson has been keen to note, to put a human face on the Passion;
5.) The inaccuracies (historical and Biblical.) If you're going to claim that this film is faithful to the Gospels, you must not embellish! If you want to give your own artistic spin, Mel, DON'T CLAIM THAT THIS FILM IS GOSPEL TRUTH!; and
6.) The symbol a la Gibson. Gibson ignores some of the story's inherent symbolism (ie. the number three. True, he does have a Mary-Mary-John triumvirate at the foot of the cross, but he neglects other threes. In particular, Gibson ignores the fact that Jesus falls three times while carrying His cross to Golgotha. I counted five falls in this film [six, if you count the fact that Gibson has Caviezel collapse at the procession's end]). Now, this MIGHT have been excusable had Gibson not decided to insert some of his own symbolism (ie. Judas' guilty conscience represented as a crowd of demonic-looking children, Satan carrying a baby who looks strangely like Pilate, the crow on the cross of the unbelieving thief, and Satan screaming in Hell). Each time Gibson inserts one of these little flourishes, the effect is heavy-handed, jarring. Ridiculous. It wrecks the mood. Not very intelligent filmmaking, if you ask me.
And, on that note, I leave you the wonderful Jon Stewart's thoughts on how Mel Gibson has been suffering for his art:
"Yes, it's a courageous move releasing a pro-Jesus film in America.... Very, unusually bold. Somewhere, I believe, Salman Rushdie is playing the world's tiniest sitar just for Mel."
Monday, February 23, 2004
And here's to a little "R. & R."...
Since this week is my week to work on my thesis, read, and slack as I see fit, blogging will be infrequent if at all.
Regular blogging to return Monday, March 1st.
Regular blogging to return Monday, March 1st.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Monday, February 16, 2004
Sonic splendour
A very special thank you to Ryan, who has gone and burned me the CD I created. My ideal mix is hypothetical no more! Thanks, Ry!
And on a different note, how cool is Krist Novoselic?! Very.
And on a different note, how cool is Krist Novoselic?! Very.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Waiting on a Friend
Um, why have my template changes not affected the template behind archived posts (not the archive template)? Don't tell me "because it's not supposed to" because the the template behind archived posts was affected with the last template overhaul...
Anybody?
Anybody?
Singing the soul
Just 'cause I feel like it, I'm going to re-post something I first posted on Sunday, August 3, 2003--my Hypothetical Perfect Mixed CD:
-"How to Disappear Completely" by Radiohead;
- "Ny Batteri" by Sigur Ros;
- "Not the Red Baron" by Tori Amos;
- "Sullen Girl" by Fiona Apple;
- "Staralfur" by Sigur Ros;
- "Idiotheque" by Radiohead;
- "Pinned Together, Falling Apart" by The Dears;
- "This Night Has Opened My Eyes" by The Smiths;
- "Summer of Protest" by The Dears; and
- "The Eternal" by Joy Division.
I would love to listen to that CD right now. Nice. Kinda mellow. Definitely NOT upbeat. Perfect for my present mood.
Too bad my stereo is only a three disc changer. Otherwise I could've programmed myself the aforementioned "CD".
-"How to Disappear Completely" by Radiohead;
- "Ny Batteri" by Sigur Ros;
- "Not the Red Baron" by Tori Amos;
- "Sullen Girl" by Fiona Apple;
- "Staralfur" by Sigur Ros;
- "Idiotheque" by Radiohead;
- "Pinned Together, Falling Apart" by The Dears;
- "This Night Has Opened My Eyes" by The Smiths;
- "Summer of Protest" by The Dears; and
- "The Eternal" by Joy Division.
I would love to listen to that CD right now. Nice. Kinda mellow. Definitely NOT upbeat. Perfect for my present mood.
Too bad my stereo is only a three disc changer. Otherwise I could've programmed myself the aforementioned "CD".
On the Function of Art
Friday night I found myself doing something I don't often do anymore: take in 20/20. And while I usually find John Stossel and his "Give Me a Break!" segment obnoxious and showy (ie. instead of getting a chemist, he used a magician-turned-investigator as his "expert" decrying the values of homeopathy), Friday night's segment proved thought-provoking for me.
Using the factual inaccuracies in the Patty Jenkins' film Monster as a point of departure, Stossel asked what an adaptation owes those affected by the real events. In his defence of the film, Brad Wyman--one of Monster's producers--said that the filmmakers were trying to achieve a "kind of a greater truth rather than a ... a factual truth. [sic]"
This, in particular, is what made me think. All the questions I have had been asked before, but--given that the traditional answers are generally uncertain/unclear--I felt these questions needed asking again.
What happens when art abandons the little things for a "greater truth"? What happens when art becomes disinterested with the world around it? What happens when art exists for itself alone?
Theodor Adorno asks these same questions in his exploration of the possibility of art in a post-Holocaust society, the essay "Commitment." The essay is a personal favourite of mine and it's one I find myself coming back to time and again.
In this essay, Adorno argues convincingly, "The artistic principle of simplification purifies the real political dynamics of the illusory differentiations they take on in the subjective reflection of social objectivity; [...] a representation of essence that fails to take into account its relationship to appearance is inherently as false as the substitution of the lumpenproletariat for those behind fascism." For Adorno, to simplify, to try to depict that "greater truth" the Monster filmmakers are searching for, is to risk out-and-out lying. It is to risk propagandizing art.
But is it okay for art to lie? Oscar Wilde and his ilk believe that all art lies, and the best art is the art which lies most, is most disinterested in the world around it. For Adorno, this is unacceptable. The disinterested sneer of l'art pour l'art is frighteningly similar to the perverted "greater truth" scenario: both cases lead to the audiences' spoon-feeding. With TRULY disinterested art (and even the most Decadent work cannot claim complete self-interest!), the audience is forced to believe in an aesthetic and thematic free-for-all; it is forced to accept an "all art is valid; there are no standards" dictum. The audience must accept all art--truthful or not. This is the same problem with art that seeks to universalize.* The audience must accept generalizations which are just that: generalizations. And how easy it is to move from generalizations to stereotype to complete perversion!
Rather art, as Adorno astutely asserts, "is not a matter of pointing up alternatives but rather of resisting, solely through artistic form, the course of the world, which continues to hold a pistol to the heads of human beings." Art must challenge; it must make its audience think critically about the work of art itself and the world around it.
Just how art must do this remains unclear in Adorno's essay and, I believe, the world of criticism today.
So I ask--feel free to answer!--how should art relate to the real world? What does art owe--what debt has it to pay?
* = Yes, there are universals in all art; however, I believe--and it seems to me that Adorno agrees--that these universals should rise from a depiction of the specific. Shakespeare's Hamlet is a wonderful example of a study of the universal nature of humanity that arises from a depiction of a VERY specific situation.
Using the factual inaccuracies in the Patty Jenkins' film Monster as a point of departure, Stossel asked what an adaptation owes those affected by the real events. In his defence of the film, Brad Wyman--one of Monster's producers--said that the filmmakers were trying to achieve a "kind of a greater truth rather than a ... a factual truth. [sic]"
This, in particular, is what made me think. All the questions I have had been asked before, but--given that the traditional answers are generally uncertain/unclear--I felt these questions needed asking again.
What happens when art abandons the little things for a "greater truth"? What happens when art becomes disinterested with the world around it? What happens when art exists for itself alone?
Theodor Adorno asks these same questions in his exploration of the possibility of art in a post-Holocaust society, the essay "Commitment." The essay is a personal favourite of mine and it's one I find myself coming back to time and again.
In this essay, Adorno argues convincingly, "The artistic principle of simplification purifies the real political dynamics of the illusory differentiations they take on in the subjective reflection of social objectivity; [...] a representation of essence that fails to take into account its relationship to appearance is inherently as false as the substitution of the lumpenproletariat for those behind fascism." For Adorno, to simplify, to try to depict that "greater truth" the Monster filmmakers are searching for, is to risk out-and-out lying. It is to risk propagandizing art.
But is it okay for art to lie? Oscar Wilde and his ilk believe that all art lies, and the best art is the art which lies most, is most disinterested in the world around it. For Adorno, this is unacceptable. The disinterested sneer of l'art pour l'art is frighteningly similar to the perverted "greater truth" scenario: both cases lead to the audiences' spoon-feeding. With TRULY disinterested art (and even the most Decadent work cannot claim complete self-interest!), the audience is forced to believe in an aesthetic and thematic free-for-all; it is forced to accept an "all art is valid; there are no standards" dictum. The audience must accept all art--truthful or not. This is the same problem with art that seeks to universalize.* The audience must accept generalizations which are just that: generalizations. And how easy it is to move from generalizations to stereotype to complete perversion!
Rather art, as Adorno astutely asserts, "is not a matter of pointing up alternatives but rather of resisting, solely through artistic form, the course of the world, which continues to hold a pistol to the heads of human beings." Art must challenge; it must make its audience think critically about the work of art itself and the world around it.
Just how art must do this remains unclear in Adorno's essay and, I believe, the world of criticism today.
So I ask--feel free to answer!--how should art relate to the real world? What does art owe--what debt has it to pay?
* = Yes, there are universals in all art; however, I believe--and it seems to me that Adorno agrees--that these universals should rise from a depiction of the specific. Shakespeare's Hamlet is a wonderful example of a study of the universal nature of humanity that arises from a depiction of a VERY specific situation.
Saturday, February 14, 2004
Be my Valentine?
Nothing says "lovin'" like a Smiths' song... 'Cept for maybe a Joy Division tune... Or The Cure...
Bigmouth Strikes Again
Lyrics - Morrissey
Music - Johnny Marr
Sweetness, sweetness I was only joking
When I said I'd like to smash every tooth
In your head
Oh ... sweetness, sweetness, I was only joking
When I said by rights you should be
Bludgeoned in your bed
And now I know how Joan of Arc felt
Now I know how Joan of Arc felt
As the flames rose to her roman nose
And her Walkman started to melt
Oh ...
Bigmouth, la ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh, bigmouth, la ... bigmouth, la
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
And now I know how Joan of Arc felt
Now I know how Joan of Arc felt
As the flames rose to her roman nose
And her hearing aid started to melt
Bigmouth, la ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
Bigmouth, oh ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
Bigmouth, oh ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
Bigmouth, oh ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
[Lyrics via It May All End Tomorrow: A Smiths and Morrissey Website]
And a Happy Valentine's Day to you all.
Lyrics - Morrissey
Music - Johnny Marr
Sweetness, sweetness I was only joking
When I said I'd like to smash every tooth
In your head
Oh ... sweetness, sweetness, I was only joking
When I said by rights you should be
Bludgeoned in your bed
And now I know how Joan of Arc felt
Now I know how Joan of Arc felt
As the flames rose to her roman nose
And her Walkman started to melt
Oh ...
Bigmouth, la ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh, bigmouth, la ... bigmouth, la
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
And now I know how Joan of Arc felt
Now I know how Joan of Arc felt
As the flames rose to her roman nose
And her hearing aid started to melt
Bigmouth, la ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
Bigmouth, oh ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
Bigmouth, oh ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
Bigmouth, oh ... bigmouth, la ...
Bigmouth strikes again
And I've got no right to take my place
With the Human race
Oh ...
[Lyrics via It May All End Tomorrow: A Smiths and Morrissey Website]
And a Happy Valentine's Day to you all.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Not very "Superstitious"
Well, since I haven't posted to this affect in a while, here are my answers to today's Friday Five:
1. Are you superstitious? Hm. I guess that depends on what you consider superstitious. Do I believe that if I drop silverware, I should expect company? No. Do I believe that if my palm itches, I'm going to come into money? No. Do I believe that if I step on a crack, I'll break my mother's back? Certainly not.
I do, however, believe in the paranormal. I believe that ghosts exist. And I do believe E.S.P./intuition exists (it's a condition that runs in my family), but not in the Psychic Friends Network/Coco way.
2. What extremes have you heard of someone going to in the name of superstition? I don't know very many superstitious people. I know many people with irrational fears (I sometimes even count myself as one of them), but no one I know has ever done anything beyond throwing a pinch of spilled salt over their left shoulder or forwarding a chainletter.
Well, except for my Uncle Kevin, my mother's older brother.
He actually cancelled a trip to Florida after my mom told him about a dream she had.
Over breakfast one morning, my mom recounted how she dreamt that my uncle and his best friend purchased plane tickets for a trip to Florida. The plane crashed, killing only two passengers: my uncle and his friend.
Across the table from my mother, my uncle sat, frozen, the colour draining from his face.
"Witch," he sputtered.
Unbeknownst to my mother, my uncle and his friend had purchased plane tickets to Florida. So shaken as he was, my uncle couldn't bring himself to take the trip.
3. Believer or not, what's your favorite superstition? I've always liked the one that says that if your nose itches, you'll kiss a fool. I don't put any stock in it (though I have kissed my share of fools!), but it does appeal to the romantic in me (yeah, that same romantic who only yesterday railed against Valentine's Day... I still stand by that rant--love should be celebrated every day!)
4. Do you believe in luck? If yes, do you have a lucky number/article of clothing/ritual? You make your own luck. I do have a favourite number, though: six. But, of course, it's never brought me any luck.
5. Do you believe in astrology? Why or why not? I don't really believe in astrology. Are you surprised?
While there are a number of my personality traits which are allegedly common to all Geminis, there are more of them that aren't. Astrology pingeonholes people into particular categories--categories which in no way allow for genuine human experience. The astrology question is one of Nature versus Nuture. And I happen to believe socialization is ultimately stronger.
Plus, while most things in life I have no control over, I'd like to believe that I have control over the choices I make (some might say that choice is an illusion, but I'll leave that debate for another date.) For me, to believe in astrology would mean I'd have to relinquish any sense of control over my own destiny. And that's something I choose not to do.
-------------------
And now, via Becky, we have The Cyborg Name Generator. If I were a cyborg, you could call me the following:
But really, you could just call me C3-PO... Wink, wink...
1. Are you superstitious? Hm. I guess that depends on what you consider superstitious. Do I believe that if I drop silverware, I should expect company? No. Do I believe that if my palm itches, I'm going to come into money? No. Do I believe that if I step on a crack, I'll break my mother's back? Certainly not.
I do, however, believe in the paranormal. I believe that ghosts exist. And I do believe E.S.P./intuition exists (it's a condition that runs in my family), but not in the Psychic Friends Network/Coco way.
2. What extremes have you heard of someone going to in the name of superstition? I don't know very many superstitious people. I know many people with irrational fears (I sometimes even count myself as one of them), but no one I know has ever done anything beyond throwing a pinch of spilled salt over their left shoulder or forwarding a chainletter.
Well, except for my Uncle Kevin, my mother's older brother.
He actually cancelled a trip to Florida after my mom told him about a dream she had.
Over breakfast one morning, my mom recounted how she dreamt that my uncle and his best friend purchased plane tickets for a trip to Florida. The plane crashed, killing only two passengers: my uncle and his friend.
Across the table from my mother, my uncle sat, frozen, the colour draining from his face.
"Witch," he sputtered.
Unbeknownst to my mother, my uncle and his friend had purchased plane tickets to Florida. So shaken as he was, my uncle couldn't bring himself to take the trip.
3. Believer or not, what's your favorite superstition? I've always liked the one that says that if your nose itches, you'll kiss a fool. I don't put any stock in it (though I have kissed my share of fools!), but it does appeal to the romantic in me (yeah, that same romantic who only yesterday railed against Valentine's Day... I still stand by that rant--love should be celebrated every day!)
4. Do you believe in luck? If yes, do you have a lucky number/article of clothing/ritual? You make your own luck. I do have a favourite number, though: six. But, of course, it's never brought me any luck.
5. Do you believe in astrology? Why or why not? I don't really believe in astrology. Are you surprised?
While there are a number of my personality traits which are allegedly common to all Geminis, there are more of them that aren't. Astrology pingeonholes people into particular categories--categories which in no way allow for genuine human experience. The astrology question is one of Nature versus Nuture. And I happen to believe socialization is ultimately stronger.
Plus, while most things in life I have no control over, I'd like to believe that I have control over the choices I make (some might say that choice is an illusion, but I'll leave that debate for another date.) For me, to believe in astrology would mean I'd have to relinquish any sense of control over my own destiny. And that's something I choose not to do.
And now, via Becky, we have The Cyborg Name Generator. If I were a cyborg, you could call me the following:
But really, you could just call me C3-PO... Wink, wink...
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Now I've heard of bitter singletons, but THIS is ridiculous!
Okay. So I'm not a fan of the commercial free-for-all that is Valentine's Day, but this is, um, excessive.
First of all, Valentine's Day is about as much the feast day of a Catholic saint as Purim is a Christian festival--ie. NOT AT ALL. No one really even calls it "St. Valentine's Day" any more; it's just "Valentine's Day." Valentine's Day may have its roots as a Catholic feast day, but in its modern incarnation--a secular incarnation that began in the Middle Ages--there is nothing Catholic about it.
Nowadays in particular, the day is especially lacking in everything but consumerist/commercial ethos. It is a day designed to make people buy: if you're in a relationship, you are compelled to send cards/chocolates/flowers/whatever or you become the bad guy (anyone see that Bell Mobility commercial with the three guys sitting at the bar by themselves? The bartender mistakes them for singles--?) It's a day to honour love! Why can't you honour your love?! How could you forget your loved ones?! (I ask you: why do people need to set aside a day to celebrate love? Love should be celebrated EVERY day. If you have to set aside a day to tell someone you love them, then your relationship's pretty fucked up to begin with!) And if you happen to be a single loser (like I've been for all Valentine's Days, save one) on Valentine's Day, well, goshdarnit!, you'd better do something to mark the day, loser, because you don't want other people to think you're an ineligible loser, now would you? So the single buys. Buys chocolates, rents movies, spends the night with a carton of chocolate ice cream, et cetera.
Commerce has co-opted affection.
SO, I think, if Hindu leaders in India are going to object to Valentine's Day, I say object to it on the P.D.A grounds, not to the day's Christian heritage.
But now this brings me to something else: the punishment of Hindu couples who mark the day. Shaving heads and blackening faces? BEATING celebrants?! WHAT? (Nothing like corporal punishment for [allegedly] showing affection.) How reactionary! How illogical! How downright absurd.
How is that just?
First of all, Valentine's Day is about as much the feast day of a Catholic saint as Purim is a Christian festival--ie. NOT AT ALL. No one really even calls it "St. Valentine's Day" any more; it's just "Valentine's Day." Valentine's Day may have its roots as a Catholic feast day, but in its modern incarnation--a secular incarnation that began in the Middle Ages--there is nothing Catholic about it.
Nowadays in particular, the day is especially lacking in everything but consumerist/commercial ethos. It is a day designed to make people buy: if you're in a relationship, you are compelled to send cards/chocolates/flowers/whatever or you become the bad guy (anyone see that Bell Mobility commercial with the three guys sitting at the bar by themselves? The bartender mistakes them for singles--?) It's a day to honour love! Why can't you honour your love?! How could you forget your loved ones?! (I ask you: why do people need to set aside a day to celebrate love? Love should be celebrated EVERY day. If you have to set aside a day to tell someone you love them, then your relationship's pretty fucked up to begin with!) And if you happen to be a single loser (like I've been for all Valentine's Days, save one) on Valentine's Day, well, goshdarnit!, you'd better do something to mark the day, loser, because you don't want other people to think you're an ineligible loser, now would you? So the single buys. Buys chocolates, rents movies, spends the night with a carton of chocolate ice cream, et cetera.
Commerce has co-opted affection.
SO, I think, if Hindu leaders in India are going to object to Valentine's Day, I say object to it on the P.D.A grounds, not to the day's Christian heritage.
But now this brings me to something else: the punishment of Hindu couples who mark the day. Shaving heads and blackening faces? BEATING celebrants?! WHAT? (Nothing like corporal punishment for [allegedly] showing affection.) How reactionary! How illogical! How downright absurd.
How is that just?
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
The guilt is gone
Another reason to eat those carbs:
Dr. Robert Atkins, whose popular diet stresses protein-rich meat and cheese over carbohydrates, weighed 258 pounds at his death and had a history of heart disease, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
Atkins died last April at age 72 after being injured in a fall on an icy street.
Before his death, he had suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a report by the city medical examiner.
At 258 pounds, the 6-foot-tall Atkins would have qualified as obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's body-mass index calculator.
Diet is one potential factor in heart disease, but infections also can contribute to it. [Read more...]
Dr. Robert Atkins, whose popular diet stresses protein-rich meat and cheese over carbohydrates, weighed 258 pounds at his death and had a history of heart disease, a newspaper reported Tuesday.
Atkins died last April at age 72 after being injured in a fall on an icy street.
Before his death, he had suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing a report by the city medical examiner.
At 258 pounds, the 6-foot-tall Atkins would have qualified as obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's body-mass index calculator.
Diet is one potential factor in heart disease, but infections also can contribute to it. [Read more...]
Monday, February 09, 2004
Adventures in "Writer's Block"
I'm supposed to be writing right now.
"Supposed to be."
I should have been writing for the past four hours. But I haven't been. Not a case of writer's block. Not really, anyway. I just can't bring myself to write. (I can't seem to bring myself to do a lot of things lately, hm?) Not this, anyway.
Ya see, I have to re-tell/adapt an existing story to fit one of the Early Modern/Medieval narratological modes we've been studying in my honours (or "honors," according to the University's choice of spelling) seminar.
I, stupidly, chose to adapt part of a work by a poet I have immense respect for. Dante Alighieri. No one can improve upon anything he's written--certainly not upon the cantos dealing with the Heaven of Mars in the Paradiso cantica of La divina commedia*.
I know these cantos well. That's why I chose to adapt them. Plus, I thought it'd be interesting to re-tell them according to Anglo-Saxon conventions. Truly, it is an engaging undertaking.
But I feel like I'm bastardizing La divina commedia.
How did I put it earlier? Right. I said I felt like I was committing some "egregious sin," a "mortal sin" (as opposed to venial).
I said I feel like I should be entombed alongside Farinata and the rest of the heretics.
How to overcome this? How do I respectfully adapt Dante's vision to fit parameters that don't allow for such complex allegory? Dealing with divergent conceptions of heroism is the easy part. But the rest?
* - In Italian, only the first word in a title is capitalized. Consider this your useless fact for the day.
"Supposed to be."
I should have been writing for the past four hours. But I haven't been. Not a case of writer's block. Not really, anyway. I just can't bring myself to write. (I can't seem to bring myself to do a lot of things lately, hm?) Not this, anyway.
Ya see, I have to re-tell/adapt an existing story to fit one of the Early Modern/Medieval narratological modes we've been studying in my honours (or "honors," according to the University's choice of spelling) seminar.
I, stupidly, chose to adapt part of a work by a poet I have immense respect for. Dante Alighieri. No one can improve upon anything he's written--certainly not upon the cantos dealing with the Heaven of Mars in the Paradiso cantica of La divina commedia*.
I know these cantos well. That's why I chose to adapt them. Plus, I thought it'd be interesting to re-tell them according to Anglo-Saxon conventions. Truly, it is an engaging undertaking.
But I feel like I'm bastardizing La divina commedia.
How did I put it earlier? Right. I said I felt like I was committing some "egregious sin," a "mortal sin" (as opposed to venial).
I said I feel like I should be entombed alongside Farinata and the rest of the heretics.
How to overcome this? How do I respectfully adapt Dante's vision to fit parameters that don't allow for such complex allegory? Dealing with divergent conceptions of heroism is the easy part. But the rest?
* - In Italian, only the first word in a title is capitalized. Consider this your useless fact for the day.
Things You Can Tell Just by Listening to Him...
Official languages commissioner Dyane Adam announced this week that she's launching a formal investigation into whether anti-francophone comments from Cherry reflect a systemic failure by the CBC to respect the Official Languages Act.
Give me a fucking break!
How does one, known idiot who just so happens to provide some sports commentary for the CBC "reflect a systemic failure by the CBC to respect the Official Languages Act"?
Cherry's comments reflect his own ignorant opinion and his own ignorant opinion alone. I'm not going to defend Cherry; he's pissed me off more than once. The thing is that I have enough of a brain in my head to realize that he's speaking for himself alone. And I've enough of a brain to realize that he's the one who comes out of this looking intolerant and--above all--stupid.
I suggest that Ms Adam put her time on Parliament Hill to better use. Don't waste our money on this.
Everyone already knows that Don Cherry's an ass.
Afterthoughts:
Cherry admitted to [talk show host Mike] Bullard that he gets "carried away sometimes.
" But I don't mean to, it's MacLean's fault," said Cherry, referring to his longtime Hockey Night In Canada co-host, Ron MacLean.
Riiight. It's Ron MacLean's fault Cherry has no self-restraint. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Now, if he had tried to blame it on an old puck to the head... ; )
Give me a fucking break!
How does one, known idiot who just so happens to provide some sports commentary for the CBC "reflect a systemic failure by the CBC to respect the Official Languages Act"?
Cherry's comments reflect his own ignorant opinion and his own ignorant opinion alone. I'm not going to defend Cherry; he's pissed me off more than once. The thing is that I have enough of a brain in my head to realize that he's speaking for himself alone. And I've enough of a brain to realize that he's the one who comes out of this looking intolerant and--above all--stupid.
I suggest that Ms Adam put her time on Parliament Hill to better use. Don't waste our money on this.
Everyone already knows that Don Cherry's an ass.
Afterthoughts:
Cherry admitted to [talk show host Mike] Bullard that he gets "carried away sometimes.
" But I don't mean to, it's MacLean's fault," said Cherry, referring to his longtime Hockey Night In Canada co-host, Ron MacLean.
Riiight. It's Ron MacLean's fault Cherry has no self-restraint. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that. Now, if he had tried to blame it on an old puck to the head... ; )
Sunday, February 08, 2004
Stealing Bertolucci
SunMedia's Liz Braun wrote a nice little feature on Bernardo Bertolucci, whose latest film--The Dreamers--has finally opened in North America.
Now if only it would open here in London...
Now if only it would open here in London...
Friday, February 06, 2004
So there's this class I loathe.
And wouldn't you know it? I've got a quiz in said loathed class today. A quiz for which I am unprepared. Thank goodness we're allowed to drop off our lowest quiz mark; whatever I get on today's quiz will be the mark I excuse.
But excuses? The why-I-am-unprepareds? Simple. Singular, really. I am not prepared because I cannot bring myself to prepare for a class I despise.
My mother has repeatedly given me reminders to the effect that I have only two more months before graduation. Reminders to which I feel compelled to reply, "Yes, but two more months of this? Two more months of inanity, two more months of frustration? That's more than enough to make me lose my mind!"
Have you ever sat in class and wanted to poke your eye out with the tip of your ballpoint pen? Gruesome as it sounds, that looked like a viable alternative to sitting through the rest of loathed class' Wednesday lecture.
How am I going to get through this?
And wouldn't you know it? I've got a quiz in said loathed class today. A quiz for which I am unprepared. Thank goodness we're allowed to drop off our lowest quiz mark; whatever I get on today's quiz will be the mark I excuse.
But excuses? The why-I-am-unprepareds? Simple. Singular, really. I am not prepared because I cannot bring myself to prepare for a class I despise.
My mother has repeatedly given me reminders to the effect that I have only two more months before graduation. Reminders to which I feel compelled to reply, "Yes, but two more months of this? Two more months of inanity, two more months of frustration? That's more than enough to make me lose my mind!"
Have you ever sat in class and wanted to poke your eye out with the tip of your ballpoint pen? Gruesome as it sounds, that looked like a viable alternative to sitting through the rest of loathed class' Wednesday lecture.
How am I going to get through this?
Thursday, February 05, 2004
Great minds think alike
The Practical Hippie is thinking along the same lines as Becky and I as far as the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake kurfuffle goes.
I can't think of anything else that needs to be said on the matter.
I can't think of anything else that needs to be said on the matter.
I know what happened to Baby Jane!
Which Silver Screen Siren are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Oooh. Spooky.
[Via our own Ms Katharine Hepburn.]
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
The Village
M. Night Shyamalan's new movie, The Village (currently slated to open July 30, 2004), has its official site up and running. Go check out the trailer there, if you haven't already done so at Apple's QuickTime page.
Add this to the list of movies I want to see: Joaquin Phoenix AND Adrien Brody in a Shyamalan flick. How can I lose?!
I truly believe Shyamalan has a brilliant sense of style. I'd rank him right up there with Sam Raimi (yeah, I know I've bitched about the Evil Dead flicks. I maintain, though, that Raimi still is the master of atmosphere. And, although I was unsatisfied with Unbreakable* and felt that Shyamalan revealed a little TOO much in the last few minutes of Signs, Shyamalan--I think--is close behind as far as style is concerned.)
* - Granted, I DO want to give Unbreakable a second viewing (and have wanted to do so for a while.) I think it's the kind of film you need to see more than once to fully appreciate it.
Add this to the list of movies I want to see: Joaquin Phoenix AND Adrien Brody in a Shyamalan flick. How can I lose?!
I truly believe Shyamalan has a brilliant sense of style. I'd rank him right up there with Sam Raimi (yeah, I know I've bitched about the Evil Dead flicks. I maintain, though, that Raimi still is the master of atmosphere. And, although I was unsatisfied with Unbreakable* and felt that Shyamalan revealed a little TOO much in the last few minutes of Signs, Shyamalan--I think--is close behind as far as style is concerned.)
* - Granted, I DO want to give Unbreakable a second viewing (and have wanted to do so for a while.) I think it's the kind of film you need to see more than once to fully appreciate it.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
A couple of must-reads for writers:
- Teresa Nielsen Hayden on rejection and the rejection slip [Via Neil Gaiman's archives]; and
- Neil Gaiman's thoughts in a similar vein.
- Teresa Nielsen Hayden on rejection and the rejection slip [Via Neil Gaiman's archives]; and
- Neil Gaiman's thoughts in a similar vein.
Fun, fun, fun
If you're like me, you probably haven't considered the parallels between the Democratic leadership hopefuls and '80s Brat Pack characters.
Luckily for us, Village Voice staffer Ashley Glacel has.
[Via DrikoLand.]
Luckily for us, Village Voice staffer Ashley Glacel has.
[Via DrikoLand.]
Monday, February 02, 2004
Synchronicity
It was downright balmy today with temperatures hovering just below freezing.
Pardon me if I'm not ecstatic.
I've long made my love of wintry weather no secret. I distinctly recall writing some months ago that I liked my winters wintry, my summers summery.
I stand by that.
But if nothing else, today broke up the monotony. One can only love those frigid, take-your-breath-away days for so long before even they become the same old shit.
Pardon me if I sound pessimistic.
I am today. And I have been lately. People are frustrating me like they never have before.
I think the universe wants me to be misanthropic.
But I'm not quite--not yet. But it's hard not to be. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe in people. One can only reach out to the darkness so many times...
But I don't want to talk about it. Talking doesn't do any good. Talk is cheap, ineffectual. People have to want to change themselves.
I feel so small.
Pardon me if I'm not ecstatic.
I've long made my love of wintry weather no secret. I distinctly recall writing some months ago that I liked my winters wintry, my summers summery.
I stand by that.
But if nothing else, today broke up the monotony. One can only love those frigid, take-your-breath-away days for so long before even they become the same old shit.
Pardon me if I sound pessimistic.
I am today. And I have been lately. People are frustrating me like they never have before.
I think the universe wants me to be misanthropic.
But I'm not quite--not yet. But it's hard not to be. I am finding it increasingly difficult to believe in people. One can only reach out to the darkness so many times...
But I don't want to talk about it. Talking doesn't do any good. Talk is cheap, ineffectual. People have to want to change themselves.
I feel so small.
Sunday, February 01, 2004
The morning after
Charity Ball came and went last night (maybe I'll post a pic of me all gussied up once I get the film developed--have to still finish the roll first). Not a bad experience, but I've still had better. There are a number of things that would have made my time there more enjoyable.
But I really don't want to get into them.
Just know that a mere three hours before the Charity Ball was supposed to start, I was curled up, weeping through the phone to my mother.
And now this morning (yes, morning--when you get to bed around four and wake up at 1 p.m., 2 p.m. is still morning) I just want to crawl back into bed. Would it be so wrong to hibernate today?
I think I deserve to.
But I probably won't.
I'm far too self-indulgent anyway.
Instead, I'll curl up in front of the t.v. with a bag of microwave popcorn and maybe a cup of coffee or two. I'll try to put my mind to working later on. Right now, nothing'll get done.
It's going to be another one of those days.
But I really don't want to get into them.
Just know that a mere three hours before the Charity Ball was supposed to start, I was curled up, weeping through the phone to my mother.
And now this morning (yes, morning--when you get to bed around four and wake up at 1 p.m., 2 p.m. is still morning) I just want to crawl back into bed. Would it be so wrong to hibernate today?
I think I deserve to.
But I probably won't.
I'm far too self-indulgent anyway.
Instead, I'll curl up in front of the t.v. with a bag of microwave popcorn and maybe a cup of coffee or two. I'll try to put my mind to working later on. Right now, nothing'll get done.
It's going to be another one of those days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
