"...If what I feel were equally distributed to the whole
human family, there would not be one cheerful face on earth. Whether I shall ever be better, I cannot tell...to remain as I am is impossible." -- Abraham Lincoln
Somehow it seems more okay that I suffer unipolar depression, knowing that Abe also did, and his accomplishments stand as tremendous testimonies to how overcoming or channeling such things can be marvelous.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Money Misinformation
http://www.good.is/post/americans-are-horribly-misinformed-about-who-has-money
This article illustrates the entrenched wealth gap in USA, and how wrong my hero, Ronald Reagan was about economic policy in light of the human condition. He was an elitist who believed in that the rich would be motivated to maintain a standard of moral capitalism which insured the stability of the American society and family, to insure the future of their businesses, etc.
But the problem is that businesses don't think beyond the next quarter now. We've got no long-term business plans which require as much. People want to earn as much money as they can before they die, period. They care little for the future of their own company or society.
What I know I want is for "trickle down" to actually work.
I didn't buy it when Reagan said it, and have lived a life which has reinforced that it doesn't. What is ridiculous is that the majority message of the right is essentially in support of an even more brutal "trickle down" world view.
But that doesn't match with human nature. Some people have to be forced to share.
The philosophical bedrock for why this is true is that they earned their wealth within the society that they currently reside in. It's enabled by the society, and was built on the backs of the people of the society and within the structures which the citizens pay taxes to create. They could not move away, create their own country and have the same success.
Even more important is that they cannot sustain their own success unless they insure that they don't take more than a reasonable share of the resources of the economy (i.e. the resources needed to make money). The fact is that greedy capitalists have become more and more able to take a larger and larger share.
Wealth is not evil. Wealth without responsibility and perspective is.
The philosophical conundrum is even deeper than this. Take, for example a race. Who should win the race? The fastest runner, right? And should that fastest runner get the reward? Simple, right?
It seems so if one assumes that all runners start at the same point in the race, with all the same resources to win the race.
But you wouldn't pit racers who were malnourished, aged, disabled, or lacking the training to race versus professional athletes in tip-top condition. The race would be a sham and a spectacle.
Even if by all appearances the folks all look healthy, fit, and well-trained in the starting blocks there may be unseen obstacles which will hold back certain runners. One may not have a ligament in one knee. One may have had a poor trainer who didn't teach him what it took to win.
Hell, even birth-order, something as arbitrary as there is, has a massive impact on who wins. The first born of the group have been proven to excel in the race (at least they do in school and in society). The vast majority of Ivy Leaguers are firstborn, for example. So if all else is equal the firstborn in the starting blocks will be most likely to win.
We talk about the American Dream like it's some equitable "unicorn ranch in fantasy land" (thanks Sarah). We preach personal responsibility and education as the justification for the current inequity. We fight to protect the liberties of the rich as if it represented some glorious proof that hope exists for all in this nation.
But the reality is that we've stopped adequately funding the majority of schools in this nation, we've ignored the needs of the poor and minorities. We've allowed the rich to squash efforts to make up for the inequity of birth, class, race, and disability.
We've created generational poverty and legacy wealth by doing so. We've also become so myopic and self-deluded as a nation to think that the poor deserve to be so. We've dismissed the responsibility to the marginalized.
It's something we want the liberty to help with if we "want to". But my Sociology education has taught me that there is a nation-wide "Bystander Syndrome" whereby folks thing someone else will serve the poor, or heal the problems they see locally.
I used to believe that the local government and non-profits were best equipped to serve these needs. In some ways they are. But the needs far outweigh the reach of these little rays of hope. Societal structures need to change.
Plus, people want the police to stop crime. People want the sewers to work (a Milwaukee Socialist innovation). People expect the mail to be delivered. They demand their trash be picked up. And this isn't because they feel entitled that these things should happen.
It's that the structures of the city are set up, along with laws, so that these things must function in this way. Folks cannot just unhook their sewer, build their own electric grid, bury their own fiber optic cable, and create their own trash dump (as much as solar panels, composting, and unhooking rain gutters might lead them to think they can).
We should not tear down a bridge until we know why it was built. In this same way, for example, Scott Walker, has been selling off our Parks and public structures to privatization. But that's an ignorant approach.
It ignores why the parks exist. It ignores the amount of money spent, time sacrificed, taxes paid, and other factors which make them legacy assets to those who live near them. For example, in my neighborhood the lots are impossibly small. They were built that way BECAUSE of the park nearby for the working class families who lived here. It was part of the social contract with the citizens by the county as the development happened.
Now, since the "entropy by neglect" policy has been employed by Walker, the private citizens have risen up and done the work of maintaining them. We've put nearly 2 million dollars into rehabbing a bandshell in our urban park, and done much to maintain what the county won't. If it becomes privatized we'll be monetizing something which we already own!
What we have as working class people is always being taken away for "the common good". But it's not for our good. We don't know who is common, apart from that top group on the chart, whose interests are being protected.
But back to whether these services are entitlement... No, they are minimum serviced required to function in our society. As citizens, they have forfeited some autonomy by being born into this society. They've got to work within the structures which have been established by the local, state, and government authorities for long-developed sound reasons. They should hope to benefit from the perpetual improvement of the wisdom of time in regard to the same. They are active participants and recipients of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Why should the poor and middle class be denied the basic things which are required to succeed in this nation? They're told that they ought to work harder, study harder, and take responsibility for their futures. But they're met with obstacles which those born into privilege do not.
We all love rags to riches stories, or movies which highlight the folks who make it out of poverty to make "something of themselves." Why? I think it justifies the inactivity of the rest of us. Yeah, we feel better about the sinking realization that suffering could be eradicated if we did more about it.
But these folks were "something" valuable even before they found success. We're not willing to acknowledge it until they clean themselves up and get beyond the obstacles though. Otherwise, we'd feel a responsibility of helping them to overcome them.
Our humanity is at stake here, guys.
It IS morally superior to help the unfortunate. It's not a self-righteousness delusion. Those who do the hard work of advocacy and social justice aren't buoyed by pride. They're devastated by the identification with the suffering, stretched by the vantage point of the oppressed, and humbled by their own sin--and the lack of resources to help them.
So often the poor impart more to the advocate than the advocate gives to them. That doesn't mean that we should keep them around...
The race isn't equitable. The wealth gap isn't morally or ethically justifiable in it's current state. I don't believe that it should be eliminated. But if we're a nation, we're like a team. If our weakest members suffer, so do we.
And we all ought to realize how arbitrary our station in life is. We haven't earned a single thing. Anything we possess is on loan, and we're always on the precipice of complete disaster. That's why some of the wealthy hold so tightly to their wealth. They know that no one is their to catch them.
Why don't they help to insure that all those who do fall from any height won't be smashed to pieces? Then they would have so much less to fear, and there would be less propensity for victimizing the less fortunate as a measure of personal insurance.
This article illustrates the entrenched wealth gap in USA, and how wrong my hero, Ronald Reagan was about economic policy in light of the human condition. He was an elitist who believed in that the rich would be motivated to maintain a standard of moral capitalism which insured the stability of the American society and family, to insure the future of their businesses, etc.
But the problem is that businesses don't think beyond the next quarter now. We've got no long-term business plans which require as much. People want to earn as much money as they can before they die, period. They care little for the future of their own company or society.
What I know I want is for "trickle down" to actually work.
I didn't buy it when Reagan said it, and have lived a life which has reinforced that it doesn't. What is ridiculous is that the majority message of the right is essentially in support of an even more brutal "trickle down" world view.
But that doesn't match with human nature. Some people have to be forced to share.
The philosophical bedrock for why this is true is that they earned their wealth within the society that they currently reside in. It's enabled by the society, and was built on the backs of the people of the society and within the structures which the citizens pay taxes to create. They could not move away, create their own country and have the same success.
Even more important is that they cannot sustain their own success unless they insure that they don't take more than a reasonable share of the resources of the economy (i.e. the resources needed to make money). The fact is that greedy capitalists have become more and more able to take a larger and larger share.
Wealth is not evil. Wealth without responsibility and perspective is.
The philosophical conundrum is even deeper than this. Take, for example a race. Who should win the race? The fastest runner, right? And should that fastest runner get the reward? Simple, right?
It seems so if one assumes that all runners start at the same point in the race, with all the same resources to win the race.
But you wouldn't pit racers who were malnourished, aged, disabled, or lacking the training to race versus professional athletes in tip-top condition. The race would be a sham and a spectacle.
Even if by all appearances the folks all look healthy, fit, and well-trained in the starting blocks there may be unseen obstacles which will hold back certain runners. One may not have a ligament in one knee. One may have had a poor trainer who didn't teach him what it took to win.
Hell, even birth-order, something as arbitrary as there is, has a massive impact on who wins. The first born of the group have been proven to excel in the race (at least they do in school and in society). The vast majority of Ivy Leaguers are firstborn, for example. So if all else is equal the firstborn in the starting blocks will be most likely to win.
We talk about the American Dream like it's some equitable "unicorn ranch in fantasy land" (thanks Sarah). We preach personal responsibility and education as the justification for the current inequity. We fight to protect the liberties of the rich as if it represented some glorious proof that hope exists for all in this nation.
But the reality is that we've stopped adequately funding the majority of schools in this nation, we've ignored the needs of the poor and minorities. We've allowed the rich to squash efforts to make up for the inequity of birth, class, race, and disability.
We've created generational poverty and legacy wealth by doing so. We've also become so myopic and self-deluded as a nation to think that the poor deserve to be so. We've dismissed the responsibility to the marginalized.
It's something we want the liberty to help with if we "want to". But my Sociology education has taught me that there is a nation-wide "Bystander Syndrome" whereby folks thing someone else will serve the poor, or heal the problems they see locally.
I used to believe that the local government and non-profits were best equipped to serve these needs. In some ways they are. But the needs far outweigh the reach of these little rays of hope. Societal structures need to change.
Plus, people want the police to stop crime. People want the sewers to work (a Milwaukee Socialist innovation). People expect the mail to be delivered. They demand their trash be picked up. And this isn't because they feel entitled that these things should happen.
It's that the structures of the city are set up, along with laws, so that these things must function in this way. Folks cannot just unhook their sewer, build their own electric grid, bury their own fiber optic cable, and create their own trash dump (as much as solar panels, composting, and unhooking rain gutters might lead them to think they can).
We should not tear down a bridge until we know why it was built. In this same way, for example, Scott Walker, has been selling off our Parks and public structures to privatization. But that's an ignorant approach.
It ignores why the parks exist. It ignores the amount of money spent, time sacrificed, taxes paid, and other factors which make them legacy assets to those who live near them. For example, in my neighborhood the lots are impossibly small. They were built that way BECAUSE of the park nearby for the working class families who lived here. It was part of the social contract with the citizens by the county as the development happened.
Now, since the "entropy by neglect" policy has been employed by Walker, the private citizens have risen up and done the work of maintaining them. We've put nearly 2 million dollars into rehabbing a bandshell in our urban park, and done much to maintain what the county won't. If it becomes privatized we'll be monetizing something which we already own!
What we have as working class people is always being taken away for "the common good". But it's not for our good. We don't know who is common, apart from that top group on the chart, whose interests are being protected.
But back to whether these services are entitlement... No, they are minimum serviced required to function in our society. As citizens, they have forfeited some autonomy by being born into this society. They've got to work within the structures which have been established by the local, state, and government authorities for long-developed sound reasons. They should hope to benefit from the perpetual improvement of the wisdom of time in regard to the same. They are active participants and recipients of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
Why should the poor and middle class be denied the basic things which are required to succeed in this nation? They're told that they ought to work harder, study harder, and take responsibility for their futures. But they're met with obstacles which those born into privilege do not.
We all love rags to riches stories, or movies which highlight the folks who make it out of poverty to make "something of themselves." Why? I think it justifies the inactivity of the rest of us. Yeah, we feel better about the sinking realization that suffering could be eradicated if we did more about it.
But these folks were "something" valuable even before they found success. We're not willing to acknowledge it until they clean themselves up and get beyond the obstacles though. Otherwise, we'd feel a responsibility of helping them to overcome them.
Our humanity is at stake here, guys.
It IS morally superior to help the unfortunate. It's not a self-righteousness delusion. Those who do the hard work of advocacy and social justice aren't buoyed by pride. They're devastated by the identification with the suffering, stretched by the vantage point of the oppressed, and humbled by their own sin--and the lack of resources to help them.
So often the poor impart more to the advocate than the advocate gives to them. That doesn't mean that we should keep them around...
The race isn't equitable. The wealth gap isn't morally or ethically justifiable in it's current state. I don't believe that it should be eliminated. But if we're a nation, we're like a team. If our weakest members suffer, so do we.
And we all ought to realize how arbitrary our station in life is. We haven't earned a single thing. Anything we possess is on loan, and we're always on the precipice of complete disaster. That's why some of the wealthy hold so tightly to their wealth. They know that no one is their to catch them.
Why don't they help to insure that all those who do fall from any height won't be smashed to pieces? Then they would have so much less to fear, and there would be less propensity for victimizing the less fortunate as a measure of personal insurance.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Get Low: FILM REVIEW
First off, let me say that Robert Duvall and Sissy Spacek are wonderful in this film. They play complex characters which are thoroughly believable. They make the film. Lucas Black also delivered a thoroughly developed performance as the undertaker understudy to Bill Murray's character.
The latter was a bit of a problem for me. Murray has revitalized his career by doing quirky indie films over the past few years since his days of sophomoric films after he left SNL. That has worked brilliantly. But this is not an indie film; it's a dramatic feature film with a lot to say about forgivness and self-imprisonment. The film is about shame and regret. I regret that Murray was cast as the undertaker.
He was pretty much the same character as he'd played in films like Groundhog's Day or Lost In Translation, a bit of a burned out husk of a human trying to make it in the real world with a forced positive affect. That works in the independent film. It's strange, and can lend itself to eccentricity-driven laughter. But in this film I didn't mind the humor from the character of the undertaker. That sort of worked. But the serious parts were just so miscast that it jerked me from my immersive experience.
Despite that, I loved this film. I did laugh and I certainly cried. It made me think of other films about forgiveness and redemption, like The Mission, for example. I've always looked for films which could illustrate spiritual truths in profound ways. I think this one is a study in so many things which resonate with every person on the planet, and it reframes them in a way which we can understand.
I learned something about myself while watching this film. I loathed the main character at the start, pitied him in the middle, then understood him by the end. I believe that the film succeeded in its utmost when one considers the journey through which it propels the viewer. It was like a bit of what makes an AA meeting or a passionate sermon inspirational. It led me to inspect myself and to consider changing some aspects of who I have become.
Film can be an evocative entity. This film is.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194263/
The latter was a bit of a problem for me. Murray has revitalized his career by doing quirky indie films over the past few years since his days of sophomoric films after he left SNL. That has worked brilliantly. But this is not an indie film; it's a dramatic feature film with a lot to say about forgivness and self-imprisonment. The film is about shame and regret. I regret that Murray was cast as the undertaker.
He was pretty much the same character as he'd played in films like Groundhog's Day or Lost In Translation, a bit of a burned out husk of a human trying to make it in the real world with a forced positive affect. That works in the independent film. It's strange, and can lend itself to eccentricity-driven laughter. But in this film I didn't mind the humor from the character of the undertaker. That sort of worked. But the serious parts were just so miscast that it jerked me from my immersive experience.
Despite that, I loved this film. I did laugh and I certainly cried. It made me think of other films about forgiveness and redemption, like The Mission, for example. I've always looked for films which could illustrate spiritual truths in profound ways. I think this one is a study in so many things which resonate with every person on the planet, and it reframes them in a way which we can understand.
I learned something about myself while watching this film. I loathed the main character at the start, pitied him in the middle, then understood him by the end. I believe that the film succeeded in its utmost when one considers the journey through which it propels the viewer. It was like a bit of what makes an AA meeting or a passionate sermon inspirational. It led me to inspect myself and to consider changing some aspects of who I have become.
Film can be an evocative entity. This film is.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194263/
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Hamstring Damnstring: A PT Story
This morning I got up for my early physical therapy appointment at 7am late, as I had forgotten that this was a "PT morning" when I went to bed last night at 7pm. Yeah, I am still paying off the sleep debt from the film festival last week.
So I missed out on a shower and hopped into the car after doing my best to refresh myself and headed to the Aurora River Center to do that rehab thang with Todd, one of the therapists who has come to know me well in the last nine months.
Today I arrived about ten minutes early to my appointment thanks to easy driving along Lisbon Ave. I had the receptionist let me in early to the exercise area and I did 2.5 miles on the recumbent bicycle at level 10, which was good. No pain while doing so. No popping in the knee as had worried me previously. I even moved the seat up one more notch.
I did 4 minutes of forward walking on the treadmill and two 2 minute side stepping sessions. That was also good. I did feel some light hamstring pain while doing one of those.
I did two sets of stepping on the highest step for the first time. After that we moved to the leg press machine where I did two reps of 15 presses with 125 pounds. No real pain there. Good strength.
He had me do two sets of left foot toe touches from a low step while my right leg was bent slightly at the knee. That was tough, as was the single right foot calf raises. I could only do 15 of those.
I did some machine work with weights where I lifted with the outside of my right leg by lifting it away from my other leg to the side, then rotated 90 degrees and extended my leg behind me. The pain I felt here was on the outside of my plant leg. That was exhausting.
Still, through it all I felt that nagging ache deep within my right inner leg, just above the knee, wrapping around to the back. Yep, my hamstring, the ever-present pain since January. It has hurt in so many ways, from feeling tight and leading me to walk poorly so as not to tweak it to intense local pain when deep tissue massage is applied.
Today it was much of the latter. Todd applied some deep pressure to the hamstring while I was prone. I was amazed at how intense and localized this pain still is. My general pain assessment at four weeks post-surgery has been less than 2 on a scale of 10. But this pain was approaching a 9. I felt a disabling burn when he was working one part, then a sensation of tiny needles piercing my skin at a different place. I could have bit a half inch dowel in half I bet.
"So what will heal this damn hamstring," I asked.
"Time," Todd said, "That's about it."
So for now I continue walking through my life with my painful companion. I'm trying everything I can to help it heal, but it's recovery has been slower than I could imagine. Now I regret giving my sports heroes the business for not coming back from a hamstring injury. I used to think they were "dogging it" out there on the field, or sitting out to collect a paycheck the easy way. Not any more. I get it, oh, I get it in a more personal way than I would ever have wanted.
So I missed out on a shower and hopped into the car after doing my best to refresh myself and headed to the Aurora River Center to do that rehab thang with Todd, one of the therapists who has come to know me well in the last nine months.
Today I arrived about ten minutes early to my appointment thanks to easy driving along Lisbon Ave. I had the receptionist let me in early to the exercise area and I did 2.5 miles on the recumbent bicycle at level 10, which was good. No pain while doing so. No popping in the knee as had worried me previously. I even moved the seat up one more notch.
I did 4 minutes of forward walking on the treadmill and two 2 minute side stepping sessions. That was also good. I did feel some light hamstring pain while doing one of those.
I did two sets of stepping on the highest step for the first time. After that we moved to the leg press machine where I did two reps of 15 presses with 125 pounds. No real pain there. Good strength.
He had me do two sets of left foot toe touches from a low step while my right leg was bent slightly at the knee. That was tough, as was the single right foot calf raises. I could only do 15 of those.
I did some machine work with weights where I lifted with the outside of my right leg by lifting it away from my other leg to the side, then rotated 90 degrees and extended my leg behind me. The pain I felt here was on the outside of my plant leg. That was exhausting.
Still, through it all I felt that nagging ache deep within my right inner leg, just above the knee, wrapping around to the back. Yep, my hamstring, the ever-present pain since January. It has hurt in so many ways, from feeling tight and leading me to walk poorly so as not to tweak it to intense local pain when deep tissue massage is applied.
Today it was much of the latter. Todd applied some deep pressure to the hamstring while I was prone. I was amazed at how intense and localized this pain still is. My general pain assessment at four weeks post-surgery has been less than 2 on a scale of 10. But this pain was approaching a 9. I felt a disabling burn when he was working one part, then a sensation of tiny needles piercing my skin at a different place. I could have bit a half inch dowel in half I bet.
"So what will heal this damn hamstring," I asked.
"Time," Todd said, "That's about it."
So for now I continue walking through my life with my painful companion. I'm trying everything I can to help it heal, but it's recovery has been slower than I could imagine. Now I regret giving my sports heroes the business for not coming back from a hamstring injury. I used to think they were "dogging it" out there on the field, or sitting out to collect a paycheck the easy way. Not any more. I get it, oh, I get it in a more personal way than I would ever have wanted.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Mesrine Part I & II: FILM REVIEW
These films which celebrated the life of Jacques Mesrine, the former French Public Enemy No.1, and criminal cult hero was divided into two two hour segments.
The films showcased great acting by several notable actors, and I have no complaint about the acting or the screen writing. Cassel and Depardieu were well cast in their roles, and delivered performances which will not disappoint. Still, I loathed Mesrine from the very start, and I could not suspend disbelief in regard to the legendary exploits portrayed in the films.
Supposedly the events are "true" in some fashion, although liberties were certainly taken.
Supposedly the events are "true" in some fashion, although liberties were certainly taken.
It was a chore to watch these films at times. I cannot imagine having watched them back-to-back. I was tired by the end of each of the two parts separately. I resented being dragged along for the ride with such a horrible excuse for a human being and through improbable circumstances of grandiose mythology.
There were glimpses of his humanity, but they were so brief, and quickly refuted by his next episode of bravado gone wrong. It wasn't so charming or funny as I have read reviewers mention but I resonated with the psychotic and disturbing characterizations which were mentioned in the same breath.
Sometimes French films escape me. This time it was not the films or the culture of France so much; it was the fascination with this man, Jacques Mesrine that I could not identify with. That's odd to me. I love gangster films as a genre. But I guess that I am not a fan of the amoral psychotic character. I don't take pleasure in watching anarchy unfold or in pointless exploits of egotists.
The films themselves succeeded in so many ways. The settings were gorgeous, the acting was incredible, and the film was certainly remarkable. I wanted to love them but i couldn't get past that one significant thing, Mesrine. They succeeded in bringing about strong emotion in me, and that can be a kind of success.
I also kept asking myself what the significance of the opening scene was to the rest of the film. That was never made clear. It was an unanswered question that plagued me throughout the entire film. Was this moment in time supposed to have led Mesrine to become mentally unhinged? Was I supposed to see that event as that which led him to become a criminal? Was I supposed to pity him and see that as justification for the mayhem and death he created thereafter? I was not able to find answers within.
I also kept asking myself what the significance of the opening scene was to the rest of the film. That was never made clear. It was an unanswered question that plagued me throughout the entire film. Was this moment in time supposed to have led Mesrine to become mentally unhinged? Was I supposed to see that event as that which led him to become a criminal? Was I supposed to pity him and see that as justification for the mayhem and death he created thereafter? I was not able to find answers within.
I can understand why others would like the films, but have to apologetically admit that I am not in that camp. These films did inspire me to loathe a historic figure on levels which I did not think were previously possible and I also learned a bit about what I find deplorable. That's worth something.
Marwencol: FILM REVIEW
I loved this film. I'm not ashamed to say it before I say why. It was thoroughly enjoyable.
The film was visually interesting, psychologically compelling, and socially significant. I was effortlessly drawn into caring for Mark Hogancamp as his created world was presented on screen.
The world which he created in 1/6 models which had characters within it that represented himself and his friends was set in a WWII town he named Marwencol after the three names of significant women in his life. Mark created settings like a church, bar, and other establishments in which he created images that were startlingly real.
There were times that i suspended my knowledge that I was looking at dolls. It looked so very real. And the stories Mark crafted to cope with his personal story of recovery from a hate crime were entertaining, and often paralleled his interactions on the full-sized level.
Mark seemed to thrive in the 1/6 world, but struggle in the real one. But I liked the images of him walking along the road into town delicately pulling the jeep with his character and varying numbers of friends and weaponry. The images of him in WWII garb while doing so set up a really interesting finale which I won't ruin here.
But let me say that I loved the moment when he finally put on his high heels at the gallery. It was a sign of how far he'd come since the brutal attack which stole his former life.
Admittedly, his former life wasn't anything to write home about, with a failed marriage and alcoholism as the main storylines. He did have what appears to be a fascination with women's shoes, and possibly did some cross-dressing -- a hidden world for himself which was quite different from the alpha-masculine 1/6 one he created for his own therapeutic needs since the attack. That contrast was interesting to me.
Still, there was something similar about his obsessive collecting of shoes and miniature things, and the fantasy which each represented. He had a passion for the details of both. At one moment he is very thorough in how he describes one little miniature handgun in particular, dismantling it and pointing out its features as if to bring the town of Marwencol that much closer to reality. The little gun had most all of the parts it needed to actually work. There's a metaphor there...
Mark was a Geppetto without the magic fairy to bring his creations to life. Even so, his miniature world came alive onscreen and in the stories he told in a tangible way for me.
I wish the best for him in his continued journey alongside that road to town. May he finally put to death the horror of the violence he faced, and meet that woman he loves in the 1/6 world in real life.
http://www.marwencol.com/
http://vimeo.com/user2786053
The film was visually interesting, psychologically compelling, and socially significant. I was effortlessly drawn into caring for Mark Hogancamp as his created world was presented on screen.
The world which he created in 1/6 models which had characters within it that represented himself and his friends was set in a WWII town he named Marwencol after the three names of significant women in his life. Mark created settings like a church, bar, and other establishments in which he created images that were startlingly real.
There were times that i suspended my knowledge that I was looking at dolls. It looked so very real. And the stories Mark crafted to cope with his personal story of recovery from a hate crime were entertaining, and often paralleled his interactions on the full-sized level.
Mark seemed to thrive in the 1/6 world, but struggle in the real one. But I liked the images of him walking along the road into town delicately pulling the jeep with his character and varying numbers of friends and weaponry. The images of him in WWII garb while doing so set up a really interesting finale which I won't ruin here.
But let me say that I loved the moment when he finally put on his high heels at the gallery. It was a sign of how far he'd come since the brutal attack which stole his former life.
Admittedly, his former life wasn't anything to write home about, with a failed marriage and alcoholism as the main storylines. He did have what appears to be a fascination with women's shoes, and possibly did some cross-dressing -- a hidden world for himself which was quite different from the alpha-masculine 1/6 one he created for his own therapeutic needs since the attack. That contrast was interesting to me.
Still, there was something similar about his obsessive collecting of shoes and miniature things, and the fantasy which each represented. He had a passion for the details of both. At one moment he is very thorough in how he describes one little miniature handgun in particular, dismantling it and pointing out its features as if to bring the town of Marwencol that much closer to reality. The little gun had most all of the parts it needed to actually work. There's a metaphor there...
Mark was a Geppetto without the magic fairy to bring his creations to life. Even so, his miniature world came alive onscreen and in the stories he told in a tangible way for me.
I wish the best for him in his continued journey alongside that road to town. May he finally put to death the horror of the violence he faced, and meet that woman he loves in the 1/6 world in real life.
http://www.marwencol.com/
http://vimeo.com/user2786053
Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives: FILM REVIEW (sort of)
I would have to agree with the Daily Telegraph’s assessment, “It’s barely a film; more a floating world.” Agreed, but I don’t mean that in a complementary way.
I was one of many who left the theater bewildered by this floating world. Maybe it speaks to my Thai cultural illiteracy, but so little of the film moved beyond the enigmatic that I didn’t find myself able to maintain my interest.
That fact, combined with a lack of sleep and 20 previous screenings in seven days meant that I fell asleep twice during the screening. Oh, I hope I didn’t snore.
I had hoped to be mesmerized and educated by this film which was a fave of Sundance. I had hoped to gain cultural insight to pair with my love of Thai food. I’d hoped for so much more from this film that I was ultimately likely to be underwhelmed by it.
But even that could not explain how disappointed I was when this was over. I’ll have to get a synopsis and maybe a director’s commentary and see it so that I can learn to appreciate it. Thailand is one country which I very much want to visit, and a culture I would love to understand. This wasn’t an ideal primer for either of those pursuits.
I was lost as to what the character was experiencing and who the people were in the film. I couldn’t follow the flashbacks and didn’t know what the significance of monkey spirits are to appreciate them. They were rather odd looking, like taller Jawas without the heavy linen cloaks.
But some art needs to be appreciated over time and with the assistance of educators. I could learn to appreciate this film with the right tutor. Anyone got the time to help me out? Beuller? Beuller?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1588895/
Rise, Rise, Roar: FILM REVIEW
This was a thoroughly enjoyable behind-the-scenes documentary for me. I was lucky enough to have been at the Milwaukee concert which David Byrne gave at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee a couple of years ago and this film was nearly as enjoyable as the real thing.
It did help me to appreciate that experience even more thoroughly with the help of thorough explanations and backstory laid out by Byrne and his choreographer. It was enlightening to know how last minute the decision to tour was. I appreciated the way the non-traditional dance accompaniment was formed and performed on stage. That answered some creative questions I had during the concert.
I had admired the asymmetrical trio of dancers and their use of props and unique dance moves. I found myself marveling at the compatibility of their movements to the songs. Hearing Byrne describe the creative process of their creation in this film made so much sense. It was genius.
I also loved the concept which was used to select the three dancers, and how they were put in a space and told to create a unique repetitive movement and to perform in the group with the other dancers. When the dancers would come upon another dancer doing a movement which was more “strong” than their own they were instructed to switch to that movement. This went on until the whole room of dancers was doing the same movement. That was powerful.
The film is really a lot like a concert with some backstage glimpses spaced throughout. Like Rattle & Hum, this film is a concert and a documentary. It’s something which resonated for me as one who attended one of the concerts which were highlighted onscreen, but I am sure that anyone who loves music or documentaries would find something to love here.
David Byrne has again proven his relevance and longevity, this time with a glimpse into how he remains so.
http://www.rideriseroar.com/
http://www.rideriseroar.com/
Wild & Scenic Environmental Film Festival: FILM REVIEW
Before this collection of shorts started I was excited. I was ready to learn and be inspired anew about environmental causes by stories on the forefront of the green movement. There were UWM staff in attendance who I know from my work at the university, and we chatted before and after the film about what we hoped for the screening.
There were nine short films which were part of the 90 minute event. Big River, a companion film to the acclaimed short Big Corn by Ellis and Woolf. There were two shorts sponsored by VW which used what they termed "the fun theory" to promote awareness about how enjoyment can change attitudes and practices. Planting Hope: Wangari Maathai & The Green Belt Movement, a film about a tree planting effort by a woman who earned a Nobel prize for her efforts in Africa. The Secret Life Of Paper, another of INFORM’s Secret Life Series. Signatures, a film by Nick Waggoner that featured skiing and surfing as an art form. The New Amsterdam Market, a film about an effort to create a farmer's market in NYC. And Watershed Revolution, a film about the Ventura River watershed conservation movement.
When all was said and done on screen, my friends and I were a bit disappointed. We remarked that we've seen better on POV or Independent Lens, and we agreed that we hadn't learned anything which we didn't already know.
I did appreciate the "fun theory" spots, and Big River was somewhat enjoyable albeit rather simplistic and lacking continuity. It would likely be better if I had seen the companion film first because it really couldn't stand alone.
I found it hard to understand the inclusion of Signatures, which was gorgeous but irrelevant. I felt that it was an indulgent film amidst what ought to have been films which celebrated conservation.
The film about the NYC market was a nice film, but it wasn't anything special, and we're way ahead of them in Milwaukee at this point. I do appreciate that the challenges in their neighborhood might mean that it takes more effort to pull off, but I would have rather seen something which highlighted the lessons learned after the birth of the market, to know what a developed system had shown them about how to sustain such an entity.
The Secret Life Of Paper did remind me of some things I already knew, and galvanized my efforts to reduce paper waste. I like that they brought up European efforts to remove paper boxes from things on store shelves and the reminder of how much water is used in the process of making paper. That's going to be more important than even the trees are as time goes on.
Planting Hope was confusing because my friends and I were asking questions throughout which the average person would. How did planting trees help the woman get food, a new dress, and become prosperous? What did planting these trees do to improve the lives of the Africans who lived nearby? The film left more questions than answers. It was quite odd. If you're a hard-core tree-hugger you'll probably not care. But I cannot see from this film why Maathai won a Nobel Prize.
Watershed Revolution was a solid film about a place which was mildly inspiring. There are some translatable lessons about water conservation within this film, but the context was so closed that it made it hard to find them. I think that the film would have been better if they'd finished it after the dam mentioned in the film was removed, so that we might see the scope of what could be done, and the complications of dam removal and environmental restoration.
I was disappointed. I'd like to see some local filmmakers do shorts about people like Will Allen and Growing Power or local spots like the Riverwest Co-op. We've got a vibrant series of local farmers markets here in Milwaukee which could educate the world far more than these films did. Allen is being acclaimed throughout the nation but largely ignored in his hometown. Next year I would love to see a collection of shorts entitled: Brewtown Green or Growing Power: The Rise Of Urban Farming.
There were nine short films which were part of the 90 minute event. Big River, a companion film to the acclaimed short Big Corn by Ellis and Woolf. There were two shorts sponsored by VW which used what they termed "the fun theory" to promote awareness about how enjoyment can change attitudes and practices. Planting Hope: Wangari Maathai & The Green Belt Movement, a film about a tree planting effort by a woman who earned a Nobel prize for her efforts in Africa. The Secret Life Of Paper, another of INFORM’s Secret Life Series. Signatures, a film by Nick Waggoner that featured skiing and surfing as an art form. The New Amsterdam Market, a film about an effort to create a farmer's market in NYC. And Watershed Revolution, a film about the Ventura River watershed conservation movement.
When all was said and done on screen, my friends and I were a bit disappointed. We remarked that we've seen better on POV or Independent Lens, and we agreed that we hadn't learned anything which we didn't already know.
I did appreciate the "fun theory" spots, and Big River was somewhat enjoyable albeit rather simplistic and lacking continuity. It would likely be better if I had seen the companion film first because it really couldn't stand alone.
I found it hard to understand the inclusion of Signatures, which was gorgeous but irrelevant. I felt that it was an indulgent film amidst what ought to have been films which celebrated conservation.
The film about the NYC market was a nice film, but it wasn't anything special, and we're way ahead of them in Milwaukee at this point. I do appreciate that the challenges in their neighborhood might mean that it takes more effort to pull off, but I would have rather seen something which highlighted the lessons learned after the birth of the market, to know what a developed system had shown them about how to sustain such an entity.
The Secret Life Of Paper did remind me of some things I already knew, and galvanized my efforts to reduce paper waste. I like that they brought up European efforts to remove paper boxes from things on store shelves and the reminder of how much water is used in the process of making paper. That's going to be more important than even the trees are as time goes on.
Planting Hope was confusing because my friends and I were asking questions throughout which the average person would. How did planting trees help the woman get food, a new dress, and become prosperous? What did planting these trees do to improve the lives of the Africans who lived nearby? The film left more questions than answers. It was quite odd. If you're a hard-core tree-hugger you'll probably not care. But I cannot see from this film why Maathai won a Nobel Prize.
Watershed Revolution was a solid film about a place which was mildly inspiring. There are some translatable lessons about water conservation within this film, but the context was so closed that it made it hard to find them. I think that the film would have been better if they'd finished it after the dam mentioned in the film was removed, so that we might see the scope of what could be done, and the complications of dam removal and environmental restoration.
I was disappointed. I'd like to see some local filmmakers do shorts about people like Will Allen and Growing Power or local spots like the Riverwest Co-op. We've got a vibrant series of local farmers markets here in Milwaukee which could educate the world far more than these films did. Allen is being acclaimed throughout the nation but largely ignored in his hometown. Next year I would love to see a collection of shorts entitled: Brewtown Green or Growing Power: The Rise Of Urban Farming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)