At the stroke of midnight, the evening of 31st December 1999, aside from partying like it was 1999 (which, as i've mentioned, it was), I was stood amongst a group of close friends within a bigger group of people i'd never met before. Gathered as we had in the Millenium Stadium Cardiff for a big gig headlined by the Manic Street Preachers, we were waiting to sing Auld Lang Sine one with another. What happened instead was we sang Let It Be.
Just yesterday i heard that song played for only perhaps the fifth or sixth time this decade, and it took me back almost ten years to the day. 'What exactly did i let be?' i began to wonder to myself...
What does this past decade mean? I aged from 20 to 30 years old; got married, stayed married; bought a house (then sold it and bought another); got a job (though not a 'proper job'); revolved around church; watched a lot of telly, and some films; didn't travel so much; learnt to drive; cheered at some sporting events, wept at others, even competed in a few; had more experience of death than in the twenty years previous (i wonder if that's related to the seismic shift that's taken place in my faith perspective?); vomitted more than i'd like; danced less than i imagined i would; laughed some too; and talked a lot of crap. Is any of that 'meaning'?
What did you let be?
20 December 2009
17 December 2009
Memo to all Gregorian calendar users
Head office has asked me to pass on the following memo to you all. It's just a minor point of administration, and there are no sanctions for those who don't go along with this, but H.O feel it will lead to better functionality all round if you do. Thanks.
As of January 1st, two weeks from now, we will be entering a new year and a new decade. H.O ask that we all refer to this year as 20-10 (twenty ten) rather than 2010 (two thousand and ten).
This for two simple reasons. First is because of the difference in the number of syllables - 3 to 5. The second reason is because if we don't do it now we never will; we'll go all the way through this century, right up until two thousand and ninety nine, sounding (and breathing) like idiots every time we refer to the year.
The only reason 'two thousand and...' was adopted was to avoid confusion between the years 2009 and 29 for instance. We never spoke of 'the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven' and we now have an opportunity to move back to normal speech. The need to speak this way has passed, it no longer serves a function except to make you sound like you're referring to some distant Kubrickian future-scape.
Many thanks,
your servant, A. Amoss.
PS. This new decade is NOT 'the Teenies' regardless of what the red-tops say.
As of January 1st, two weeks from now, we will be entering a new year and a new decade. H.O ask that we all refer to this year as 20-10 (twenty ten) rather than 2010 (two thousand and ten).
This for two simple reasons. First is because of the difference in the number of syllables - 3 to 5. The second reason is because if we don't do it now we never will; we'll go all the way through this century, right up until two thousand and ninety nine, sounding (and breathing) like idiots every time we refer to the year.
The only reason 'two thousand and...' was adopted was to avoid confusion between the years 2009 and 29 for instance. We never spoke of 'the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven' and we now have an opportunity to move back to normal speech. The need to speak this way has passed, it no longer serves a function except to make you sound like you're referring to some distant Kubrickian future-scape.
Many thanks,
your servant, A. Amoss.
PS. This new decade is NOT 'the Teenies' regardless of what the red-tops say.
25 November 2009
9-1
Glory, glory Tottenham Hotspur!
Oh when the Spurs - Go marching in - Oh when the Spurs go marching in...
I've just had it drawn to my attention that i'm older than all the players in the Spurs squad - except Cudicini. But he's a goalkeeper who spends his whole time on the bench, notwithstanding his serious motorcycle injuries he's currently recovering from. I think my goose is cooked.
Oh when the Spurs - Go marching in - Oh when the Spurs go marching in...
I've just had it drawn to my attention that i'm older than all the players in the Spurs squad - except Cudicini. But he's a goalkeeper who spends his whole time on the bench, notwithstanding his serious motorcycle injuries he's currently recovering from. I think my goose is cooked.
19 November 2009
Harry Brown
The new Michael Caine film, in which he plays the eponymous Harry Brown, is some what confused. In Taxi Driver De Niro spoke the line "One day a rain will come that will wash all the scum off the streets". He then sets about becoming that rain and we watch as it costs him his sanity, his soul and his ideals. By looking to do away with sickness, he only serves to perpetuate it. Harry Brown (the film, as opposed to the titular character) looks like it's doing a lot of moralising and has the appearance of good artistic sensibilities, but its message is essentially that the way forward is to go over the heads of the failed justice system and blow away the criminal element. It is by this means that Harry Brown (the titular character, as opposed to the film) finds peace and justice for himself and his community.
The best term i've heard used to classify the film is 'chavsploitation'. The South London estate Harry lives on is plagued by a gang completely devoid of any morality. They are, classically, raised by single mothers (fathers absent by either death, non-commitment or imprisonment), armed, connected with serious and organised criminal activity, drug-dealing, turf-conscious, violent, remorseless, wild and chaotic scum bags from your nightmares. These characters are set-up to be completely beyond redemption and vile to the core so when they get what's coming we're in no doubt about what a good thing is happening. These characters are also set-up to be associated in your mind with those kids round where you live.
The film seems to use the 'from bad stock' argument as further reason to write them off, rather than as reason to consider exploring cycles of abuse.
What's confused is that Harry and the film gradually see more and more of this underworld and how systemic and far reaching its culture, and its causes and effects, are. Yet, by the end, one man and one man's murders have solved the problems of his estate. With all that in mind it's not surprising that the Daily Mail writer says "Finally a film that really matters". The idea of wiping out a class of people as a solution completely disregards the filling of the void that would remain and the fact that the problems are symptomatic of deeper ills in society.
One of the things that was most disturbing about the film was its conviction of the unchangeable, unrepentant nature of the villainous characters. This is disturbing because it portrays our freedom of choice as a much more limited thing than we might like. Abuse and cycles of destruction in culture and through generations have enormous power, and to suggest that our individual freedom of choice is enough to counter it is probably very naive. Enter God's power into the fray! Except in my experience (which adds to my disturbed state) even 'saved' and baptised people are held by culture, addiction and patterns of old and of character.
So i think i'm left with unproven faith, my stupid hope and love.
The best term i've heard used to classify the film is 'chavsploitation'. The South London estate Harry lives on is plagued by a gang completely devoid of any morality. They are, classically, raised by single mothers (fathers absent by either death, non-commitment or imprisonment), armed, connected with serious and organised criminal activity, drug-dealing, turf-conscious, violent, remorseless, wild and chaotic scum bags from your nightmares. These characters are set-up to be completely beyond redemption and vile to the core so when they get what's coming we're in no doubt about what a good thing is happening. These characters are also set-up to be associated in your mind with those kids round where you live.
The film seems to use the 'from bad stock' argument as further reason to write them off, rather than as reason to consider exploring cycles of abuse.
What's confused is that Harry and the film gradually see more and more of this underworld and how systemic and far reaching its culture, and its causes and effects, are. Yet, by the end, one man and one man's murders have solved the problems of his estate. With all that in mind it's not surprising that the Daily Mail writer says "Finally a film that really matters". The idea of wiping out a class of people as a solution completely disregards the filling of the void that would remain and the fact that the problems are symptomatic of deeper ills in society.
One of the things that was most disturbing about the film was its conviction of the unchangeable, unrepentant nature of the villainous characters. This is disturbing because it portrays our freedom of choice as a much more limited thing than we might like. Abuse and cycles of destruction in culture and through generations have enormous power, and to suggest that our individual freedom of choice is enough to counter it is probably very naive. Enter God's power into the fray! Except in my experience (which adds to my disturbed state) even 'saved' and baptised people are held by culture, addiction and patterns of old and of character.
So i think i'm left with unproven faith, my stupid hope and love.
17 November 2009
X - crement Factor
Farce! X-factor is a farce (it's always been a farce) but now, finally, the public have realised and are treating it like the farce it is. Amen.
Between John and the other John, all the 'shock' exits, and the 'judges' impartiality being massively and pantomimically compromised by their management of particular acts, the show's true colours are exposed.
I liked Rachel, really liked Rachel - before they changed her! She was a real talent with genuine, icy and androgynous star-quality. I don't think she was getting votes because she was too much the finished article. So much so the public couldn't root for her as one of their own. Then they changed her hair and made her skip, screech and gush while being interviewed, and it's bye-bye Rachel.
Louie banging on and on about rules as though the show, or his act, or he himself have an ounce of integrity between them! And sociopathic Cowell identifying the public's spirit towards the show and thus allowing the £££££s to direct his decisions - "Oh, alright then, i Like John and Edward too really".
Meanwhile, the whole country's gone mad for it, facebook has gone into X-Factor meltdown, most of the press is page 1-5 in the show's 'controversy' and gossip, and, really, do we need 3 hours a week of this enlightenment, plus all the x-tra factor nonsense - and repeats?
It causes me to wonder whether the personna of our public conscious would be able to sustain such a level of passion and commitment to something more meaningful, and if so, why doesn't it?
Olly to win! And then be completely forgotten about until his guest appearance on next years puppet show.
9 November 2009
5 November 2009
Not Just Jack, something brighter too.
So, last night right, our Wednesday night family service thing - Stone Soup - is about to start and my phone goes. It's Danny Cope, he says "I've got guest passes to see Just Jack tonight, do you want in?". After checking all the details, which reveal such an option to be a possibility, i say "Defo!".
I never really thought much of Just Jack, mainly because his breakthrough hit (starz in their eyes) is all about the way people clamour for fame, combined with the way record companies and media bodies use and dispose of artists. I always thought that was a bit rich a theme for an upcoming star, whilst agreeing with his sentiments. Anyway, free live music is free live music, so i let my sympathies with him take precedence.
In the car the joke is made: the police pick up two boys, one's swallowed a firework, the other's swallowed a battery. In the end they let one off and charged the other.
Don't worry, the evening was all uphill from there.
He was brilliant! I was familiar with about a third of his set and I was really quite moved by much of his stuff which, lyrically, is simultaneously quite honest, grimy and beautiful. His music is a sort of funk-disco-pop, from an urban stable (ok, that might not be a formally recognised genre, but that's how it sounds to me). His themes often come back to family, love, ambition and brokenness, which, given the way he speaks, can sometimes make it difficult to dance to, no matter how buoyant the underlying music is.
I was stunned on several occasions, but most notably by the repetition of the lines "Through all of the devilish things we do", "I can't help my stupid hope, it's always with me" and "We are all embers from the same fire" in the track Embers. The ideas in that, combined with a sort of prophetic edge in many of his lyrics, engaged my spirit and highlighted a connection with a higher being, let's call her 'God'.
I never really thought much of Just Jack, mainly because his breakthrough hit (starz in their eyes) is all about the way people clamour for fame, combined with the way record companies and media bodies use and dispose of artists. I always thought that was a bit rich a theme for an upcoming star, whilst agreeing with his sentiments. Anyway, free live music is free live music, so i let my sympathies with him take precedence.
In the car the joke is made: the police pick up two boys, one's swallowed a firework, the other's swallowed a battery. In the end they let one off and charged the other.
Don't worry, the evening was all uphill from there.
He was brilliant! I was familiar with about a third of his set and I was really quite moved by much of his stuff which, lyrically, is simultaneously quite honest, grimy and beautiful. His music is a sort of funk-disco-pop, from an urban stable (ok, that might not be a formally recognised genre, but that's how it sounds to me). His themes often come back to family, love, ambition and brokenness, which, given the way he speaks, can sometimes make it difficult to dance to, no matter how buoyant the underlying music is.
I was stunned on several occasions, but most notably by the repetition of the lines "Through all of the devilish things we do", "I can't help my stupid hope, it's always with me" and "We are all embers from the same fire" in the track Embers. The ideas in that, combined with a sort of prophetic edge in many of his lyrics, engaged my spirit and highlighted a connection with a higher being, let's call her 'God'.
4 November 2009
Horror shows.
The season of horror is over (unless of course you count the celebratory burning of effigies of a Catholic who failed in a gunpowder plot as falling within that season). Masks were worn, fake blood was liberally applied and tricks, treats, monsters and evil all came to the fore. However, the terms by which this darkness was presented meant it's a very cartoony and caricatured thing, so as to distract us from evil's reality.
It's a very similar line to this that Christians often use to object to the celebration of Hallowe'en (aside from the 'why celebrate evil at all?' line): "When you make light of dark and demonic forces you underestimate their reality and their true power". This angle is often spoken from a perspective which considers evil's primary identity to be found in a spiritual and occultic dimension.
I would like to share the line of argument, but present it from a quite different perspective. If, in order to present evil, we have to put on hideous masks and think in terms of ghosts, ghouls, witches on broomsticks, and suggest evil is something alien and removed, we do two things which are damaging. First we deny evils within ourselves and evils which we participate in and perpetuate by our daily lives; by virtue of our systems and structures. The second thing is that we enforce the assumption that we will recognise evil when we see it, rather than acknowledge the insipid means by which it most commonly operates.
Within this however, and in the celebration of Hallowe'en, is also the fact that to scare ourselves is a good thing. Getting to know and tame the effects of fear on us, and to rehearse our responses in situations that induce fear in us is key to our survival. It's the same system kids employ when they play, and the way playing equips them to become adults. The value in scary films is that we ask ourselves 'How would i respond in that situation?' and that we shout things at the screen like 'No, don't run upstairs!!'.
I saw 3 scary films this Hallowe'en period, only one was a horror, this was John Carpenter's quintessential 1978 Halloween. The films that i found most horrifying and disturbing were however the other two. They were were completely unrelated in genre, country of manufacture, primary theme of exploration, intended audience and certification. But they were released in the same year (2006) and expose and condemn the same practise - adults using children to further their own ends.
First was the supremely difficult watch of the excellent London To Brighton
This film, set over two days, follows the story of a young runaway girl who gets trapped into prostitution and used as a pawn by characters inhabiting a world which she barely understands.
Secondly was the very uncomfortable Jesus Camp.
(Can i also recommend following the youtube link to the Bill Maher discussion about the film).
This film is a documentary about an American youth pastor's work with children whereby they entirely and passionately adopt the Christian Right's political stances and therefore become pawns to those ends.
What's scary in both these cases is not the bogeyman, it's the way these children are at the mercy of the powers - be they emotional, financial, cultural, psychological or philosophical (read 'spiritual' where you will) - influencing the adults exploiting them. I was left reeling after both these films and the fear was two-fold. On the one hand was my response to the overwhelming force of the reality of both these stories. Secondly was my helplessness in addressing the actual situations represented, and again helplessness in the way i perhaps use children in accordance with my own ideology. You can keep your Michael Myers.
It's a very similar line to this that Christians often use to object to the celebration of Hallowe'en (aside from the 'why celebrate evil at all?' line): "When you make light of dark and demonic forces you underestimate their reality and their true power". This angle is often spoken from a perspective which considers evil's primary identity to be found in a spiritual and occultic dimension.
I would like to share the line of argument, but present it from a quite different perspective. If, in order to present evil, we have to put on hideous masks and think in terms of ghosts, ghouls, witches on broomsticks, and suggest evil is something alien and removed, we do two things which are damaging. First we deny evils within ourselves and evils which we participate in and perpetuate by our daily lives; by virtue of our systems and structures. The second thing is that we enforce the assumption that we will recognise evil when we see it, rather than acknowledge the insipid means by which it most commonly operates.
Within this however, and in the celebration of Hallowe'en, is also the fact that to scare ourselves is a good thing. Getting to know and tame the effects of fear on us, and to rehearse our responses in situations that induce fear in us is key to our survival. It's the same system kids employ when they play, and the way playing equips them to become adults. The value in scary films is that we ask ourselves 'How would i respond in that situation?' and that we shout things at the screen like 'No, don't run upstairs!!'.
I saw 3 scary films this Hallowe'en period, only one was a horror, this was John Carpenter's quintessential 1978 Halloween. The films that i found most horrifying and disturbing were however the other two. They were were completely unrelated in genre, country of manufacture, primary theme of exploration, intended audience and certification. But they were released in the same year (2006) and expose and condemn the same practise - adults using children to further their own ends.
First was the supremely difficult watch of the excellent London To Brighton
This film, set over two days, follows the story of a young runaway girl who gets trapped into prostitution and used as a pawn by characters inhabiting a world which she barely understands.
Secondly was the very uncomfortable Jesus Camp.
(Can i also recommend following the youtube link to the Bill Maher discussion about the film).
This film is a documentary about an American youth pastor's work with children whereby they entirely and passionately adopt the Christian Right's political stances and therefore become pawns to those ends.
What's scary in both these cases is not the bogeyman, it's the way these children are at the mercy of the powers - be they emotional, financial, cultural, psychological or philosophical (read 'spiritual' where you will) - influencing the adults exploiting them. I was left reeling after both these films and the fear was two-fold. On the one hand was my response to the overwhelming force of the reality of both these stories. Secondly was my helplessness in addressing the actual situations represented, and again helplessness in the way i perhaps use children in accordance with my own ideology. You can keep your Michael Myers.
29 October 2009
i love it when a plan comes together.
Can you guess when i was raised?
After a long wait and much speculation the cast of the new A-Team movie have been confirmed, brought together and photographed. Personally, i think they look great.
There's been loads of speculation about who should play whom, with Mel Gibson / George Clooney as faves to take on Hannibal; plenty of shouts of "Jim Carrey" for Murdock; Brad Pitt was almost demanded as Faceman. B.A has really caused the problems with so-called 'fans' insisting only MR.T can do it, and others wanting Ving Rhames or Michael Clarke-Duncan.
I firmly believe(d) that the A-Team has already been remade as David O.Russells 1999 Gulf War set Three Kings.
This had all the elements:
- A group of renegade soldiers chasing money but finding themselves completely compelled by the plight of the people they come across.
- A hard-bitten leader figure calling the shots.
- A very angry, very tough, but soft centred black man.
- A smooth talking but vulnerable cool kid.
- A half-crazy, never quite getting it, but completely lovable liability.
This film is brilliant and should well be seen by you if you've not already caught it. This renders it a very successful (though unofficial) remake in my eyes, which led to my reservations about the making of a formal movie version. We still don't know what the setting is for the new version, whether it will play for laughs, action or drama, or whether it's a kid's film or an adult movie. The picture, however, has got me very excited.
Just for confirmation, we have:
Col. John 'Hannibal' Smith - Liam Neeson
Sgt. Boscoe 'B.A' Baracus - Real life ultimate fighter Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson
Lt. Templeton 'Faceman' Peck - The Hangover's Bradley Cooper
Cpt. 'Howling Mad' Murdock - District 9's Sharlto Copley
I love the Jazz!
After a long wait and much speculation the cast of the new A-Team movie have been confirmed, brought together and photographed. Personally, i think they look great.
There's been loads of speculation about who should play whom, with Mel Gibson / George Clooney as faves to take on Hannibal; plenty of shouts of "Jim Carrey" for Murdock; Brad Pitt was almost demanded as Faceman. B.A has really caused the problems with so-called 'fans' insisting only MR.T can do it, and others wanting Ving Rhames or Michael Clarke-Duncan.
I firmly believe(d) that the A-Team has already been remade as David O.Russells 1999 Gulf War set Three Kings.
This had all the elements:
- A group of renegade soldiers chasing money but finding themselves completely compelled by the plight of the people they come across.
- A hard-bitten leader figure calling the shots.
- A very angry, very tough, but soft centred black man.
- A smooth talking but vulnerable cool kid.
- A half-crazy, never quite getting it, but completely lovable liability.
This film is brilliant and should well be seen by you if you've not already caught it. This renders it a very successful (though unofficial) remake in my eyes, which led to my reservations about the making of a formal movie version. We still don't know what the setting is for the new version, whether it will play for laughs, action or drama, or whether it's a kid's film or an adult movie. The picture, however, has got me very excited.
Just for confirmation, we have:
Col. John 'Hannibal' Smith - Liam Neeson
Sgt. Boscoe 'B.A' Baracus - Real life ultimate fighter Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson
Lt. Templeton 'Faceman' Peck - The Hangover's Bradley Cooper
Cpt. 'Howling Mad' Murdock - District 9's Sharlto Copley
I love the Jazz!
26 October 2009
What the BNP want.
All this BNP stuff has been going round and round in my head for a week or so now. Their whole proposition is ridiculously short sighted - and then it struck me. Perhaps they haven't gone far enough. The BNP should be given what they want, after following their ideals to their logical conclusion, and then they should see how much they like it.
They want to defend the rights of the people indigenous to this fair isle (whoever the chuff they are). They'd like to ship home everyone who isn't originally from this land and live in a world where people keep to their own (whatever any of that means). Fair enoungh i say (with a liberal amount of irony). According to the dreams of the BNP, what ought to follow then though is that all those around the globe who can trace their roots back to this land of ours be forced to come 'home'.
At that point, after the overwhelming influx from Australia, North America and ex-pats living across Europe, Africa and Southern Asia, we should do some more maths to see how population, employment, benefits, transportation, housing and food markets have been affected. Then we should ask the BNP if we weren't better off before.
Idiots.
They want to defend the rights of the people indigenous to this fair isle (whoever the chuff they are). They'd like to ship home everyone who isn't originally from this land and live in a world where people keep to their own (whatever any of that means). Fair enoungh i say (with a liberal amount of irony). According to the dreams of the BNP, what ought to follow then though is that all those around the globe who can trace their roots back to this land of ours be forced to come 'home'.
At that point, after the overwhelming influx from Australia, North America and ex-pats living across Europe, Africa and Southern Asia, we should do some more maths to see how population, employment, benefits, transportation, housing and food markets have been affected. Then we should ask the BNP if we weren't better off before.
Idiots.
21 October 2009
Is all publicity good publicity?
"So, instead of talking about racial purity, we [the BNP] talk about 'identity'." - Nick Griffin, BNP Leader.
This Thursday evening Nick Griffin will appear on the BBC's Question Time show. The BBC has come in for loads stick for this, being criticised for giving the far-right, racist and fascist party a legitimate platform from which to broadcast it's views.
I got an email from the Hope Not Hate campaign asking that i appeal to the BBC not to allow Mr Griffin on the show. I don't think that's the way forward. Indeed, to ban the presentation and exploration of any given ideal usurps the values of freedom, liberty and democracy. This looks a lot like anti-fascist groups adopting fascist practises. Personally i want him on the show; give him all the rope he needs to trip up, tie up and hang up his and his party's unGodly ideology.
On the other hand the BBC is talking about its responsibility to impartiality, which is fair enough. It then however extends this argument to defend a pro-BNP / anti-fascist movement split in the audience it selects (this has obviously sparked concern over what incidents might arise in the studio). It seems to me that such a move is a perversion of what impartiality is about. Let's not forget that, despite all its controversy and growth, the BNP is a minority party and therefore granting them and those in their favour a 50% stake in the audience gives them a much bigger piece of cake than they're due. This is neither impartial nor neutral on the part of the BBC, but rather it frames the discussion in a very negatively skewed way. Thus the real problem is not the actual appearance of Nick Griffin, but the assumption of the BBC that 'fair' means the same as 'half each'.
My hope is that Mr Griffin is given enough screentime that the lights shine through his flimsy spin and exposes the dangerously malicious and desperately shortsighted core for all to see.
This Thursday evening Nick Griffin will appear on the BBC's Question Time show. The BBC has come in for loads stick for this, being criticised for giving the far-right, racist and fascist party a legitimate platform from which to broadcast it's views.
I got an email from the Hope Not Hate campaign asking that i appeal to the BBC not to allow Mr Griffin on the show. I don't think that's the way forward. Indeed, to ban the presentation and exploration of any given ideal usurps the values of freedom, liberty and democracy. This looks a lot like anti-fascist groups adopting fascist practises. Personally i want him on the show; give him all the rope he needs to trip up, tie up and hang up his and his party's unGodly ideology.
On the other hand the BBC is talking about its responsibility to impartiality, which is fair enough. It then however extends this argument to defend a pro-BNP / anti-fascist movement split in the audience it selects (this has obviously sparked concern over what incidents might arise in the studio). It seems to me that such a move is a perversion of what impartiality is about. Let's not forget that, despite all its controversy and growth, the BNP is a minority party and therefore granting them and those in their favour a 50% stake in the audience gives them a much bigger piece of cake than they're due. This is neither impartial nor neutral on the part of the BBC, but rather it frames the discussion in a very negatively skewed way. Thus the real problem is not the actual appearance of Nick Griffin, but the assumption of the BBC that 'fair' means the same as 'half each'.
My hope is that Mr Griffin is given enough screentime that the lights shine through his flimsy spin and exposes the dangerously malicious and desperately shortsighted core for all to see.
16 October 2009
Deep Beauty Is Skin Only
Why do we believe that if something is beautiful it must be the truth, when actually it's rather that if something is true, it is beautiful - regardless of it's apparent 'ugliness'?
I think this video should be seen as widely as possible. The fact this is essentially a dove advert is neither here nor there, since, when adverts start saying things like this, the product can be sold in its true perspective.
I think this video should be seen as widely as possible. The fact this is essentially a dove advert is neither here nor there, since, when adverts start saying things like this, the product can be sold in its true perspective.
15 October 2009
The 3D revolution; Cinema has changed!!
I've not been to the cinema for an age, so this week i went twice. First was to see District 9 which was essentially The Office, Alien Nation, Cry Freedom, The Fly, Robocop, Mac and Me, Terminator 2 and the latest Rambo all combined together - then shot at until all that remains is a mist of spattered blood. All the reviews were terribly excited about this film, whereas it seemed to me to be exciting, but terrible.
It set itself up as a documentary formatted telling of an analogous group of aliens whose craft ceases working over Johannesburg and who are received by the city as unwelcome refugees. Hhhmmmm, inter-stellar racism and posing of the classic "And who is my neighbour?", interesting. It then gets political in exposing the humans' pursuit of control of alien weaponry. This therefore highlights our addiction to power, control, militarisation and violence. Wow, plenty to explore there too.
Then, however, it abandons it's documentary styling in favour of a heavy action shoot 'em up, which undermines and ignores all that it had suggested it might have been attempting to do. The main character, Wickes, who undergoes a gradual and grotesque transformation into one of the alien race through the course of the film, is clearly left unchanged in his personhood by the end. Thus the point is made: "see how we're all the same underneath really". This point is fine, but it's a far cry from the discussion it looked like was going to be had.
Next up was Up. Not just Up though, Up in 3D! I've not seen a 3D film until now, well, not since the green and red lensed glasses nonsense. I've since remained a sceptic and sided with those who say it's not the next big leap in film-making, it's just a gimmicky, defensive reaction to stem the popularity of cinematic piracy.
Up was preceeded by a 3D trailer for the forthcoming Jim Carrey ladened A Christmas Carol. The trailer looked amazing! It seems that the 3D version of the film will be a real showcase for the effect. Up also looked incredible, and it struck me that if used sparringly and with the appropriate films (CG animation primarily) 3D might be a very welcome boost to cinematic experience and film-makers' tool belts.
There is, however, more to consider than just the boost of effects that are presented on the screen though. Up begins with a staggering and beautifully moving 10 minute sequence. As this part drew to a close i found that i had been robbed. Where i would usually (as is part of the lore of cinematic wonderment) turn to check the response of kelly to what was being shown, and see her either half smiling, laughing out loud, jaw dropped with shock, or perhaps, her face wet with tears reflecting the lights of the screen, i saw instead that i was sat next to one of the blues brothers. Her glasses, too big for her face and completely concealing any physical expression of emotion that might be happening deep beneath, had stolen a moment of transcendance and replaced it with a cheap piece of slap-stick. I'm not sure the whole 3D thing is worth that.
It set itself up as a documentary formatted telling of an analogous group of aliens whose craft ceases working over Johannesburg and who are received by the city as unwelcome refugees. Hhhmmmm, inter-stellar racism and posing of the classic "And who is my neighbour?", interesting. It then gets political in exposing the humans' pursuit of control of alien weaponry. This therefore highlights our addiction to power, control, militarisation and violence. Wow, plenty to explore there too.
Then, however, it abandons it's documentary styling in favour of a heavy action shoot 'em up, which undermines and ignores all that it had suggested it might have been attempting to do. The main character, Wickes, who undergoes a gradual and grotesque transformation into one of the alien race through the course of the film, is clearly left unchanged in his personhood by the end. Thus the point is made: "see how we're all the same underneath really". This point is fine, but it's a far cry from the discussion it looked like was going to be had.
Next up was Up. Not just Up though, Up in 3D! I've not seen a 3D film until now, well, not since the green and red lensed glasses nonsense. I've since remained a sceptic and sided with those who say it's not the next big leap in film-making, it's just a gimmicky, defensive reaction to stem the popularity of cinematic piracy.
Up was preceeded by a 3D trailer for the forthcoming Jim Carrey ladened A Christmas Carol. The trailer looked amazing! It seems that the 3D version of the film will be a real showcase for the effect. Up also looked incredible, and it struck me that if used sparringly and with the appropriate films (CG animation primarily) 3D might be a very welcome boost to cinematic experience and film-makers' tool belts.
There is, however, more to consider than just the boost of effects that are presented on the screen though. Up begins with a staggering and beautifully moving 10 minute sequence. As this part drew to a close i found that i had been robbed. Where i would usually (as is part of the lore of cinematic wonderment) turn to check the response of kelly to what was being shown, and see her either half smiling, laughing out loud, jaw dropped with shock, or perhaps, her face wet with tears reflecting the lights of the screen, i saw instead that i was sat next to one of the blues brothers. Her glasses, too big for her face and completely concealing any physical expression of emotion that might be happening deep beneath, had stolen a moment of transcendance and replaced it with a cheap piece of slap-stick. I'm not sure the whole 3D thing is worth that.
A Celebration.
Words fail me.
This is a human being exploring potential, and my gosh does he strike upon some!
I thought i'd bob this up on narcissi-silly just to show there is some life back in the old girl.
This is a human being exploring potential, and my gosh does he strike upon some!
I thought i'd bob this up on narcissi-silly just to show there is some life back in the old girl.
7 October 2009
Journey To The Land Of Lost Blogs.
I haven't blogged since April, even that was just part of a catch up series prior to which i'd not blogged since who knows when. Sufficient people (3) have expressed, with mixed degrees of sincerity, that it was missed. And so, keyboard in hand (and fedora on head) i hack my way through the dense undergrowth of logins and forgotten passcodes in search of a rumoured former commentary on 'civilisation'.
I now aim to revive that which once was common place here; namely bewilderment, self-aggrandisement and definitively correct opinion. What follows here are portions of the past 5 months in bulletpoint format - in no particular order.
> I did a 6 week church placement at Harehills Lane Baptist Church in Leeds. I was very warmly welcomed and it was good, and a privilidge, to briefly see and be invloved with a different picture of church life.
> Kelly had a spot on the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square.
> Glastonbury 2009 - Blur, Kasabian,(absolute stand-out acts) Fleet Foxes, Dizzee Rascal, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Crosby Stills and Nash, The Specials, Roots Manuva, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Dan Le Sac V Scroobius Pip, Bloc Party, (Tom Jones, Jason Mraz, Ting Tings - these acts were embarrassing) Beardyman, Mark Thomas (comedian / political activist / author), Speech DeBelle, Emmy The Great, Khaled, N.E.R.D, Spinal Tap and Bruce Springsteen (of whom it was said by many - given his energy, stamina and charisma - how good he must be in bed. I agree with this to a point, but there was also enough in his performance to suggest he'd spend the whole time checking himself out in the mirror).
> Without wishing to capitalise on the lives of others too much, i'm beginning to grasp what heroine addiction, alcohol abuse, the benefit system, and emotional and mental difficulties really look like. It leaves me angry, spinning and weeping - all of which i seek to do before God, but, if anything, this only enhances these responses.
> I found out that lots of the stuff i really struggle with about the institutionalisation of the mission of Christ, as found in the church, puts me in a camp that has a name. It's called Christi-anarchy. I like it! It's untamed, unbound, chaotic, desperatley dynamic, doesn't care which banners it flys under or disowns, but is ultimately free to seek to be Godly and good.
> I've entered my fourth and final year at college. Over the course of this year the plan is that i will be 'settled' with the church community who will take me on in a proper sense, rather than in a student placement sense. (This is one of the reasons for kick-starting the blog again, because if they're worth their salt they'll google me, find this and this might be enough to give them an accurate picture of me and scare them off. Let's see if it works).
> Dan and Bex got married at the end of August! I grew up with Dan and had the enormous privilidge of presiding over the ceremony. This event also afforded me the opportunity to spend 2 weeks back in Pontyclun (the longest time spent there since leaving home) where i got to hang out with old cronies and speak to loads of people not seen in an age. The whole thing was absolute magic. Congrats Dan and Bec!
> One of the things blogging does is it offers me help in tracing single threads of thought from the mess of my mind. One of the things going round and round are questions about how genetically bound we are, how much choice we ever really have and what amount of potential for change there actually is in people. Some of this stuff is neatly raised in this video which is more squarely aimed at another issue regularly raised here.
> Kelly and i have started getting our weekly fresh fruit and veg from The Hungry Snail. If you're in or around the Wakefield area, i strongly recommend it and would encourage you to consider buying from them.
> My knee is better, i'm now back playing football (currently 3 times a week - no less). I cannot tell you how good it feels, despite how creaky some of my joints have become over this last year. Time to roll out the cod liver oil?
> Tottenham Hotspur are doing reasonably well, better than this time last year anyway. Really need Modric back and fit, but for now a top 3 place is making my smile real broad.
> I turned 30 years old. That's left it's mark i assure you.
> I tried swine flu, it ain't no thang, but the fever makes you sweat like a...
> TV wise, i watched Dexter season 2, Flight of the Conchords season 1 and Northern Exposure season 1. Getting into Flash Forward, but no matter what i try, i just can't fill The Wire shaped hole in me.
> We've gone from Credit Crunch(tm) to "banking crisis" to full blown recession. And still i seem to be left with the sense that political parties are looking to score points for the looming general election rather than plan a proper response.
> Michael Jackson's death remained 'breaking news' for longer than the collapse of the twin towers according to comedian, writer, broadcaster and Guardian colomnist Charlie Brooker.
> Natural disasters in South East Asia are being given lessened air time because party conferences happen to be going on at the same time.
For now though it's good to be back, i didn't have to use my whip once and my fear of snakes was allowed to lie dormant. Hopefully i'll be back soon. Don't be a stranger.
I now aim to revive that which once was common place here; namely bewilderment, self-aggrandisement and definitively correct opinion. What follows here are portions of the past 5 months in bulletpoint format - in no particular order.
> I did a 6 week church placement at Harehills Lane Baptist Church in Leeds. I was very warmly welcomed and it was good, and a privilidge, to briefly see and be invloved with a different picture of church life.
> Kelly had a spot on the 4th plinth in Trafalgar Square.
> Glastonbury 2009 - Blur, Kasabian,(absolute stand-out acts) Fleet Foxes, Dizzee Rascal, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Crosby Stills and Nash, The Specials, Roots Manuva, Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, Dan Le Sac V Scroobius Pip, Bloc Party, (Tom Jones, Jason Mraz, Ting Tings - these acts were embarrassing) Beardyman, Mark Thomas (comedian / political activist / author), Speech DeBelle, Emmy The Great, Khaled, N.E.R.D, Spinal Tap and Bruce Springsteen (of whom it was said by many - given his energy, stamina and charisma - how good he must be in bed. I agree with this to a point, but there was also enough in his performance to suggest he'd spend the whole time checking himself out in the mirror).
> Without wishing to capitalise on the lives of others too much, i'm beginning to grasp what heroine addiction, alcohol abuse, the benefit system, and emotional and mental difficulties really look like. It leaves me angry, spinning and weeping - all of which i seek to do before God, but, if anything, this only enhances these responses.
> I found out that lots of the stuff i really struggle with about the institutionalisation of the mission of Christ, as found in the church, puts me in a camp that has a name. It's called Christi-anarchy. I like it! It's untamed, unbound, chaotic, desperatley dynamic, doesn't care which banners it flys under or disowns, but is ultimately free to seek to be Godly and good.
> I've entered my fourth and final year at college. Over the course of this year the plan is that i will be 'settled' with the church community who will take me on in a proper sense, rather than in a student placement sense. (This is one of the reasons for kick-starting the blog again, because if they're worth their salt they'll google me, find this and this might be enough to give them an accurate picture of me and scare them off. Let's see if it works).
> Dan and Bex got married at the end of August! I grew up with Dan and had the enormous privilidge of presiding over the ceremony. This event also afforded me the opportunity to spend 2 weeks back in Pontyclun (the longest time spent there since leaving home) where i got to hang out with old cronies and speak to loads of people not seen in an age. The whole thing was absolute magic. Congrats Dan and Bec!
> One of the things blogging does is it offers me help in tracing single threads of thought from the mess of my mind. One of the things going round and round are questions about how genetically bound we are, how much choice we ever really have and what amount of potential for change there actually is in people. Some of this stuff is neatly raised in this video which is more squarely aimed at another issue regularly raised here.
> Kelly and i have started getting our weekly fresh fruit and veg from The Hungry Snail. If you're in or around the Wakefield area, i strongly recommend it and would encourage you to consider buying from them.
> My knee is better, i'm now back playing football (currently 3 times a week - no less). I cannot tell you how good it feels, despite how creaky some of my joints have become over this last year. Time to roll out the cod liver oil?
> Tottenham Hotspur are doing reasonably well, better than this time last year anyway. Really need Modric back and fit, but for now a top 3 place is making my smile real broad.
> I turned 30 years old. That's left it's mark i assure you.
> I tried swine flu, it ain't no thang, but the fever makes you sweat like a...
> TV wise, i watched Dexter season 2, Flight of the Conchords season 1 and Northern Exposure season 1. Getting into Flash Forward, but no matter what i try, i just can't fill The Wire shaped hole in me.
> We've gone from Credit Crunch(tm) to "banking crisis" to full blown recession. And still i seem to be left with the sense that political parties are looking to score points for the looming general election rather than plan a proper response.
> Michael Jackson's death remained 'breaking news' for longer than the collapse of the twin towers according to comedian, writer, broadcaster and Guardian colomnist Charlie Brooker.
> Natural disasters in South East Asia are being given lessened air time because party conferences happen to be going on at the same time.
For now though it's good to be back, i didn't have to use my whip once and my fear of snakes was allowed to lie dormant. Hopefully i'll be back soon. Don't be a stranger.
22 April 2009
Output.v
(That's right - still playing catch up.)
The Gospel of Mark
On Maundy Thursday we held a reading of the whole of Mark's gospel. It was brilliant, the only thing was there were just six of us there, and four of those were reading! For this reason we'll do it again, and soon.
It's really good to get a picture of the whole flow of Mark - the way the stories roll together and reference one another - gradually building a portrait of Jesus, his ministry and the ways he is misunderstood, even by those closest to him (ouch!). For me personally one of the things i'm most appreciative of in doing this is the implied seriousness with which we're invited to take each gospel on it's own standing. It alleviates the pressure that can be there to mash the four gospels together in a bid to force them to make one coherent, linear whole.
I could only see doing this as a good thing and those there all said similar things - and all with slightly different reasons for the value of it. How peculiar then that we don't do this, and things like it, in church more often. I guess it's part the fault of me and folk like me, and part the expectation of church communities as to what a service looks like. An event like this, is it worship? Yes. Is there teaching / learning taking place? Yes. Is it prayerful, or is there space for prayer to take place around it? Yes. Is there space to hear from God? Yes. There seems such a broad palate from which we can devise what a service is and yet it seems we almost insist on using such a narrow part of it. Even when we do something different, it's exactly that: 'different', and when it's over, even if it's been seen as good, there's a huge sense of "can we go back to 'normal' now, please?".
I guess that's just part of the draw of the status quo...
The Gospel of Mark
On Maundy Thursday we held a reading of the whole of Mark's gospel. It was brilliant, the only thing was there were just six of us there, and four of those were reading! For this reason we'll do it again, and soon.
It's really good to get a picture of the whole flow of Mark - the way the stories roll together and reference one another - gradually building a portrait of Jesus, his ministry and the ways he is misunderstood, even by those closest to him (ouch!). For me personally one of the things i'm most appreciative of in doing this is the implied seriousness with which we're invited to take each gospel on it's own standing. It alleviates the pressure that can be there to mash the four gospels together in a bid to force them to make one coherent, linear whole.
I could only see doing this as a good thing and those there all said similar things - and all with slightly different reasons for the value of it. How peculiar then that we don't do this, and things like it, in church more often. I guess it's part the fault of me and folk like me, and part the expectation of church communities as to what a service looks like. An event like this, is it worship? Yes. Is there teaching / learning taking place? Yes. Is it prayerful, or is there space for prayer to take place around it? Yes. Is there space to hear from God? Yes. There seems such a broad palate from which we can devise what a service is and yet it seems we almost insist on using such a narrow part of it. Even when we do something different, it's exactly that: 'different', and when it's over, even if it's been seen as good, there's a huge sense of "can we go back to 'normal' now, please?".
I guess that's just part of the draw of the status quo...
20 April 2009
Output.iv
Now then.
I can't post this without acknowledgement of Glen's blog Nah then, but sadly the two have nothing to do with each other beyond their similar sounding titles, so i'll move on.
College retreat, an age ago now, was all about the sacramentalism of the present moment. I've long thought that the only things we really have are moments and memories, so the topic and mode of the retreat wasn't difficult for me to grasp. As far as the idea of a given moment being sacramental is concerned, that also was something that sat quite comfortably.
I always really struggle with the idea of sacrament, largely because of the particularity with which people identify that which is sacramental and that which is not. Even more so when the definition offered is along the lines of 'an act in which God promises her presence and by which his grace is outworked' - my response is always 'oh, so that's only every breath i take then?'. Suffice to say i take a low view of sacramentalism, or, to be more accurate, i take a very high view of the whole of life.
In relation to 'The Now' i had one thought going round-and-round my head which i couldn't get away from, but which seemed largely self-gratifying, pseudo-philosophical, pointlessly whispy twaddle. It was that either The Now is everything; it's all we have - the future doesn't exist yet and the past is gone. Or there is no such thing as The Now at all because of how fine the line between the past and the future is (if it exists at all) means it's impossible to inhabit. We simply live a couple of beats in the past with an eye on the future.
I couldn't work out which of the two perspectives to take, but more importantly, i couldn't work out a way in which either of them mattered; they had no effect and made no difference - and yet it seemed to me that there must be something in it. The following week Kez was preaching from John 12.20-33 where Jesus speaks about his forthcoming death. All the language is 'now...this hour...' etc even in reference to judgement. It does seem as though Jesus' emphasis is in relation to the idea of The Now being everything, inclusive of it being the place where our eschatology is achieved - it also being the place of the Kingdom of God (if we dare play our part now). Of course, from our contemporary view point that 'now' has become a 'then' and so a whole linear take on time is reduced, or at least threatened.
So indeed, as far as the gospel is concerned, the time is now, while it also remains true that (to quote Magnolia) "as the book says, we may be through with the past, but the past isn't through with us".
I can't post this without acknowledgement of Glen's blog Nah then, but sadly the two have nothing to do with each other beyond their similar sounding titles, so i'll move on.
College retreat, an age ago now, was all about the sacramentalism of the present moment. I've long thought that the only things we really have are moments and memories, so the topic and mode of the retreat wasn't difficult for me to grasp. As far as the idea of a given moment being sacramental is concerned, that also was something that sat quite comfortably.
I always really struggle with the idea of sacrament, largely because of the particularity with which people identify that which is sacramental and that which is not. Even more so when the definition offered is along the lines of 'an act in which God promises her presence and by which his grace is outworked' - my response is always 'oh, so that's only every breath i take then?'. Suffice to say i take a low view of sacramentalism, or, to be more accurate, i take a very high view of the whole of life.
In relation to 'The Now' i had one thought going round-and-round my head which i couldn't get away from, but which seemed largely self-gratifying, pseudo-philosophical, pointlessly whispy twaddle. It was that either The Now is everything; it's all we have - the future doesn't exist yet and the past is gone. Or there is no such thing as The Now at all because of how fine the line between the past and the future is (if it exists at all) means it's impossible to inhabit. We simply live a couple of beats in the past with an eye on the future.
I couldn't work out which of the two perspectives to take, but more importantly, i couldn't work out a way in which either of them mattered; they had no effect and made no difference - and yet it seemed to me that there must be something in it. The following week Kez was preaching from John 12.20-33 where Jesus speaks about his forthcoming death. All the language is 'now...this hour...' etc even in reference to judgement. It does seem as though Jesus' emphasis is in relation to the idea of The Now being everything, inclusive of it being the place where our eschatology is achieved - it also being the place of the Kingdom of God (if we dare play our part now). Of course, from our contemporary view point that 'now' has become a 'then' and so a whole linear take on time is reduced, or at least threatened.
So indeed, as far as the gospel is concerned, the time is now, while it also remains true that (to quote Magnolia) "as the book says, we may be through with the past, but the past isn't through with us".
17 April 2009
Output.iii
Overnight Shelter
One of the most significant things that's been going on in the time my blog dried up has been the church's work with the roughsleepers' night shelter project. When this first came to us and we agreed to take it on i thought it would, firstly, be brilliant, and secondly, really be something worth blogging about with easy access to lots of stuff to say.
In hindsight i think i was right on both counts, the issue is i wasn't aware of the extent to which the relationships built up with the people using the service would make blogging about it (and them) feel like some sort of exploitation. It's a tricky thing because i think the story of the impact had on the church by running the shelter is a vital one to tell, but it's that very impact itself (i.e. the change to the nature of the community in terms of the individuals who comprise it) which - if that community is to be genuine - kind of prohibits a 'selling of the story'. I suppose the forums and means used to tell (or show) the(se) story(s) need to be very carefully thought about, as should what is sought to be achieved by their telling.
One of the most significant things that's been going on in the time my blog dried up has been the church's work with the roughsleepers' night shelter project. When this first came to us and we agreed to take it on i thought it would, firstly, be brilliant, and secondly, really be something worth blogging about with easy access to lots of stuff to say.
In hindsight i think i was right on both counts, the issue is i wasn't aware of the extent to which the relationships built up with the people using the service would make blogging about it (and them) feel like some sort of exploitation. It's a tricky thing because i think the story of the impact had on the church by running the shelter is a vital one to tell, but it's that very impact itself (i.e. the change to the nature of the community in terms of the individuals who comprise it) which - if that community is to be genuine - kind of prohibits a 'selling of the story'. I suppose the forums and means used to tell (or show) the(se) story(s) need to be very carefully thought about, as should what is sought to be achieved by their telling.
15 April 2009
Output.ii
The Passion of The Christ.
If The Shack wasn't quite passe enough for you, this should hit the spot. I shan't keep you long, i imagine most of you have seen it, or like me, have deliberately chosen not to see it.
It was Holy Week so on Good Friday we had a showing of this film. I'd originally chosen not to see the film because i had a good handle on what Roman flagellation and crucifixion meant. When i was younger i was at a youth event where one of the speakers went through the whole thing in a manner Mel Gibson would approve of. I therefore didn't have much interest in seeing the film. My head was initially turned though just a few months back when i met someone without any profession of Christian faith who said they'd seen it five or six times and "were always stunned to see what he'd gone through and thought it was worthy of spending some time thinking about". So opportunity arose, £3 copy, Good Friday it was.
On the whole i was right. It did what it said on the tin and in a manner largely devoid of insight. The one moment i will credit it with was where Simon of Cyrene assists in the carrying of the cross. He initially protests, but then agrees on the condition it's acknowledged that he is an innocent man carrying the cross for the condemned man. By the end of their time together he doesn't want to leave Jesus and it's become clear to him somehow that his initial description of the situation is in fact a reversal of the truth.
I'm most critical of how it fails to function according to cinematically affecting methods though. Mel Gibson knows cinema and has directed some reasonably good stuff, but for some reason he opted to ignore the potential offered to him by the medium. It seems that he deliberately chose to show every stroke of the whip and every fall so the audience 'endures it with him' - or something. Only two minor points missed there then. First, it would be impossible for the audience to endure it with him - that's the point, particularly if you go with a substitutionary take on the Crucifixion and atonement! Secondly, if that's what he wanted to do, why ignore the 'less is more' fact of film. Think on what Tarantino achieved with the ear slicing that never was - he had people being sick and walking out. Even the Gorno genre; the likes of Saw and Hostel, know better than to show everything, or at least have a better take on timing and the balance of tension and release.
I was puzzled by the anti-Semitic claims made about the film. Yes, the Jewish leaders are pantomimically sneery but there is a point that i've best heard made by a stand up comic (i believe it's Dylan Moran but i could be quite mistaken). He said everyone's getting all heated about blaming the Jews for killing Jesus" and his response is "Well... it wasn't the Mexicans!" The point being, if God will be incarnate to the point of death, it can only ever happen in one context or other and there will be specifics of those regarded as responsible. All this is beside the point though, because my reading of the film was that the Jews weren't blamed. One of the main purposes of the film was that we're all to blame. It goes to lengths to show all the people who didn't stop it: Jewish leaders, Roman authorities, soldiers, crowds, disciples - everyone. "Why doesn't someone stop this?" is the line from an anonymous source that's left ringing at the end of the trial. If anything, it's about power: the more powerful someone is, the less likely they are to have stopped it. As a white, male, Western, able-bodied, working, educated person, the charge of the guilt of the powerful is not one i can even pretend to shirk.
Anyway, really glad i got all these thoughts out there in time. No one could accuse me of being topical!
If The Shack wasn't quite passe enough for you, this should hit the spot. I shan't keep you long, i imagine most of you have seen it, or like me, have deliberately chosen not to see it.
It was Holy Week so on Good Friday we had a showing of this film. I'd originally chosen not to see the film because i had a good handle on what Roman flagellation and crucifixion meant. When i was younger i was at a youth event where one of the speakers went through the whole thing in a manner Mel Gibson would approve of. I therefore didn't have much interest in seeing the film. My head was initially turned though just a few months back when i met someone without any profession of Christian faith who said they'd seen it five or six times and "were always stunned to see what he'd gone through and thought it was worthy of spending some time thinking about". So opportunity arose, £3 copy, Good Friday it was.
On the whole i was right. It did what it said on the tin and in a manner largely devoid of insight. The one moment i will credit it with was where Simon of Cyrene assists in the carrying of the cross. He initially protests, but then agrees on the condition it's acknowledged that he is an innocent man carrying the cross for the condemned man. By the end of their time together he doesn't want to leave Jesus and it's become clear to him somehow that his initial description of the situation is in fact a reversal of the truth.
I'm most critical of how it fails to function according to cinematically affecting methods though. Mel Gibson knows cinema and has directed some reasonably good stuff, but for some reason he opted to ignore the potential offered to him by the medium. It seems that he deliberately chose to show every stroke of the whip and every fall so the audience 'endures it with him' - or something. Only two minor points missed there then. First, it would be impossible for the audience to endure it with him - that's the point, particularly if you go with a substitutionary take on the Crucifixion and atonement! Secondly, if that's what he wanted to do, why ignore the 'less is more' fact of film. Think on what Tarantino achieved with the ear slicing that never was - he had people being sick and walking out. Even the Gorno genre; the likes of Saw and Hostel, know better than to show everything, or at least have a better take on timing and the balance of tension and release.
I was puzzled by the anti-Semitic claims made about the film. Yes, the Jewish leaders are pantomimically sneery but there is a point that i've best heard made by a stand up comic (i believe it's Dylan Moran but i could be quite mistaken). He said everyone's getting all heated about blaming the Jews for killing Jesus" and his response is "Well... it wasn't the Mexicans!" The point being, if God will be incarnate to the point of death, it can only ever happen in one context or other and there will be specifics of those regarded as responsible. All this is beside the point though, because my reading of the film was that the Jews weren't blamed. One of the main purposes of the film was that we're all to blame. It goes to lengths to show all the people who didn't stop it: Jewish leaders, Roman authorities, soldiers, crowds, disciples - everyone. "Why doesn't someone stop this?" is the line from an anonymous source that's left ringing at the end of the trial. If anything, it's about power: the more powerful someone is, the less likely they are to have stopped it. As a white, male, Western, able-bodied, working, educated person, the charge of the guilt of the powerful is not one i can even pretend to shirk.
Anyway, really glad i got all these thoughts out there in time. No one could accuse me of being topical!
Output.i
The Shack - It's a bit rickety.
I know this is ripe (if not, a bit over-ripe) blog-fodder, but i read it, i have some opinions on it, and i think the book is worth a mention at least.
The Writing
Just a few points or comments here:
- As far as the more thrillery aspects of the writing are concerned, it reads not unlike Harlan Coben stuff, except characters stop and pray together more.
- There were bits which were difficult and moving even for someone who isn't a parent, I'm not sure how i'd deal with reading it if i were someone with young children.
- The ending (without giving anything away) is C grade GCSE stuff sadly; predictable, pedestrian and not offering anything of greater weight or depth to the content that had preceded it.
- The forward and the afterword were written as though by one of the minor characters. I think i liked this, but i don't know why, and i don't really know why the author chose to do it - other than it being a free and easy means of character introduction and exposition.
The Content
- The book's main concern is addressing the prevalent and potent question of how a good, powerful and loving God can allow suffering, particularly the suffering of innocents.
- There are two things the book does very well; one is to continually remind readers that suffering isn't something which is alien or second-hand to God, the second is the way it emphasises God's ideal being found in genuine human relationship and community, from a position of freedom. It seems that the main point of the book is best captured in one of the chapter leading quotes. Each chapter is sort of sub-headed or introduced by a quote gathered from somewhere. One of them is along the lines of 'God's chosen primary mode of being as not that of 'Almighty', but rather, as one who desires relationship'.
- The book lives and dies very hard by the doctrine of the trinity, though, interestingly, it does grant God's wisdom a persona of its own - sort of. The characters it ascribes to the person(s) of God aren't anywhere near as daring as the book thinks they are. Jesus is, well, Jesus - except he's got a contemporary pseudo-lumberjack thing going on - Male, 30ish, likes wood but prefers sawdust. The 'Father' is a rotund African-American woman who cooks, feeds and cleans (stereotype broken... stereotype enforced!) and the Holy Spirit is the mystical Eastern one who's a bit vague, whispy and see-through. Not only this, but the three remain in this state throughout, unlike the much cleverer Joan of Arcadia, (US teenage comedy-drama - a bit like if 'The O.C' went to church, about Joan, from the town of Arcadia, to whom God speaks directly) where, when God appears, it's always in surprising and unassuming guises. This has the two-fold effect of having to get to know the character of God rather than the image (idolatry), and forcing the lead character to live as though anyone they come across might be God.
- In this book the thing that scared me most was that it's presented as though God gets to speak for herself. Therefore, great unfathomable mysteries are unravelled by the author who presumes to speak with the voice of God. I'm not saying there isn't a place for such things, after all, where would we be without the prophets (look how we do with them!). It's just that i think a much stronger level of grace, humility and self awareness than the book offers are required when doing this. I'm much more comfortable with Brian McLaren's 'New Kind of Christian' series where things are worked out by means of dialogue between two people. Everything is much less 'definitive' that way.
- Finally, the book presents a perspective on humanity as 'God' sees it, however, even with all the emphasis on human relationship, human sexuality is conspicuously absent from the discussion. Either a) the author dodged it knowing that one way or another a storm was coming that he didn't want to bear b) it's so apparent that heterosexuality is God's way that it needn't be argued again in the book, or c) there's enough alluded to about love and relationship that not excluding gay relationships was enough of a statement, and the readership are welcome to read between the lines as they are able. I suspect, since both 'b)' and 'c)' are possible readings, that 'a)' is the case.
The book is being raved about. On the one hand it's exciting that a piece of theology is able to appear on the radar in popular culture (largely because of the prevalence of the question of suffering and the power of story - oh that the Church might learn to better use story rather than doctrine), on the other, where it's endorsed by Christians whole and without critique, that leaves me uncomfortable. Plus, if Christians really wanted people to read it they should campaign for it to be banned.
In short, it's not the messiah (as some are treating it), in fact it's just a bit meh..
I know this is ripe (if not, a bit over-ripe) blog-fodder, but i read it, i have some opinions on it, and i think the book is worth a mention at least.
The Writing
Just a few points or comments here:
- As far as the more thrillery aspects of the writing are concerned, it reads not unlike Harlan Coben stuff, except characters stop and pray together more.
- There were bits which were difficult and moving even for someone who isn't a parent, I'm not sure how i'd deal with reading it if i were someone with young children.
- The ending (without giving anything away) is C grade GCSE stuff sadly; predictable, pedestrian and not offering anything of greater weight or depth to the content that had preceded it.
- The forward and the afterword were written as though by one of the minor characters. I think i liked this, but i don't know why, and i don't really know why the author chose to do it - other than it being a free and easy means of character introduction and exposition.
The Content
- The book's main concern is addressing the prevalent and potent question of how a good, powerful and loving God can allow suffering, particularly the suffering of innocents.
- There are two things the book does very well; one is to continually remind readers that suffering isn't something which is alien or second-hand to God, the second is the way it emphasises God's ideal being found in genuine human relationship and community, from a position of freedom. It seems that the main point of the book is best captured in one of the chapter leading quotes. Each chapter is sort of sub-headed or introduced by a quote gathered from somewhere. One of them is along the lines of 'God's chosen primary mode of being as not that of 'Almighty', but rather, as one who desires relationship'.
- The book lives and dies very hard by the doctrine of the trinity, though, interestingly, it does grant God's wisdom a persona of its own - sort of. The characters it ascribes to the person(s) of God aren't anywhere near as daring as the book thinks they are. Jesus is, well, Jesus - except he's got a contemporary pseudo-lumberjack thing going on - Male, 30ish, likes wood but prefers sawdust. The 'Father' is a rotund African-American woman who cooks, feeds and cleans (stereotype broken... stereotype enforced!) and the Holy Spirit is the mystical Eastern one who's a bit vague, whispy and see-through. Not only this, but the three remain in this state throughout, unlike the much cleverer Joan of Arcadia, (US teenage comedy-drama - a bit like if 'The O.C' went to church, about Joan, from the town of Arcadia, to whom God speaks directly) where, when God appears, it's always in surprising and unassuming guises. This has the two-fold effect of having to get to know the character of God rather than the image (idolatry), and forcing the lead character to live as though anyone they come across might be God.
- In this book the thing that scared me most was that it's presented as though God gets to speak for herself. Therefore, great unfathomable mysteries are unravelled by the author who presumes to speak with the voice of God. I'm not saying there isn't a place for such things, after all, where would we be without the prophets (look how we do with them!). It's just that i think a much stronger level of grace, humility and self awareness than the book offers are required when doing this. I'm much more comfortable with Brian McLaren's 'New Kind of Christian' series where things are worked out by means of dialogue between two people. Everything is much less 'definitive' that way.
- Finally, the book presents a perspective on humanity as 'God' sees it, however, even with all the emphasis on human relationship, human sexuality is conspicuously absent from the discussion. Either a) the author dodged it knowing that one way or another a storm was coming that he didn't want to bear b) it's so apparent that heterosexuality is God's way that it needn't be argued again in the book, or c) there's enough alluded to about love and relationship that not excluding gay relationships was enough of a statement, and the readership are welcome to read between the lines as they are able. I suspect, since both 'b)' and 'c)' are possible readings, that 'a)' is the case.
The book is being raved about. On the one hand it's exciting that a piece of theology is able to appear on the radar in popular culture (largely because of the prevalence of the question of suffering and the power of story - oh that the Church might learn to better use story rather than doctrine), on the other, where it's endorsed by Christians whole and without critique, that leaves me uncomfortable. Plus, if Christians really wanted people to read it they should campaign for it to be banned.
In short, it's not the messiah (as some are treating it), in fact it's just a bit meh..
Output
Out of the habit of blogging, lost the rythym and perhaps the ability to discern what's fit to blog and what's not. It's not that nothing's been going on, quite the opposite in fact. What follows is some catch up, assuming anyone is either still there or gives a monkey's.
10 March 2009
no gloss, no sheen, simply my first post in a while. That's how it is.
A bear walks into a bar and says "I'll... ... ...have a pint of beer please" the barman says "Sure. Why the big pause?"
Boom-boom!
Big pause on here, or what!?
Before we get serious i'll just mention two other jokes i've been giggling to myself at all day today. The first one i heard on the radio this morning: I used to go out with a dolphin. We just clicked.
It reminded me of the second one: I used to go out with a tall girl. I had to jack it in.
I'd like to say that's out of my system now, but i'm still tittering away.
So, where have you been? I've been doing assignments, involved in the night-shelter, having and recovering from a knee operation and watching The Wire.
The Wire - Wow! Profoundly affected i am. The Wire could well be the reason that televisual media exists. If that's potentially an overstatement, then saying it's the very best TV (perhaps audio-visual media) i've seen isn't.
It comes with a health warning: contained within is some of the strongest motherf^%$ing language ever to grace the airwaves. There's a scattering of strong sex scenes - heterosexual, homosexual, casual and drunken. The use of hard drugs is depicted regularly and frankly throughout, and vicious acts of violence are portrayed unflinchingly and with a certain ambivalence.
All that said though, if truth is important to God and something we might deem a 'Kingdom value', it remains one of the most Christian ventures in broadcasting. The Wire has it by the pound, without gloss and devoid of compromise. It strikes me that The Wire doesn't have much of a mission statement beyond letting you know the truth, that thus the truth might set you free. It is brutal in its commitment to showing how things are and it succeeds in authenticity in ways that other TV shows can only dream of.
The effect of this is that the audience is indeed set free. Viewers are completely relieved of their paradigms of goodies and baddies and of victory and defeat. What remains is the most valuable thing of all; portraits of people as whole (broken) beings. Everyone is victim, everyone is perpetrator, everyone is responsible for their own demise and everyone is bound by compulsion - and you root for them all. Through all of the unveiled depths of brokenness though, run ever such faint and delicate threads of hope. I think The Wire is the most graphically accurate rendering of the human condition i've seen. If you hold on to Jesus' hand, we'll all be safe from Satan when the thunder rolls. We've just got to keep the Devil way down in the hole.
Sorry, did i mention that (if i were to squeeze it into a crudely designated genre) it's a cop show? Set in Baltimore, the police have their story whilst also serving as a way into the stories of the streets and the stories of City Hall. Told over five series, it scans a regenerating city from the angles of drug dealers and addicts, blue collar workers, political and legal structures, education and the media, with glimpses of the penal system and homelessness briefly covered too.
The truth hurts. Fact.
Boom-boom!
Big pause on here, or what!?
Before we get serious i'll just mention two other jokes i've been giggling to myself at all day today. The first one i heard on the radio this morning: I used to go out with a dolphin. We just clicked.
It reminded me of the second one: I used to go out with a tall girl. I had to jack it in.
I'd like to say that's out of my system now, but i'm still tittering away.
So, where have you been? I've been doing assignments, involved in the night-shelter, having and recovering from a knee operation and watching The Wire.
The Wire - Wow! Profoundly affected i am. The Wire could well be the reason that televisual media exists. If that's potentially an overstatement, then saying it's the very best TV (perhaps audio-visual media) i've seen isn't.
It comes with a health warning: contained within is some of the strongest motherf^%$ing language ever to grace the airwaves. There's a scattering of strong sex scenes - heterosexual, homosexual, casual and drunken. The use of hard drugs is depicted regularly and frankly throughout, and vicious acts of violence are portrayed unflinchingly and with a certain ambivalence.
All that said though, if truth is important to God and something we might deem a 'Kingdom value', it remains one of the most Christian ventures in broadcasting. The Wire has it by the pound, without gloss and devoid of compromise. It strikes me that The Wire doesn't have much of a mission statement beyond letting you know the truth, that thus the truth might set you free. It is brutal in its commitment to showing how things are and it succeeds in authenticity in ways that other TV shows can only dream of.
The effect of this is that the audience is indeed set free. Viewers are completely relieved of their paradigms of goodies and baddies and of victory and defeat. What remains is the most valuable thing of all; portraits of people as whole (broken) beings. Everyone is victim, everyone is perpetrator, everyone is responsible for their own demise and everyone is bound by compulsion - and you root for them all. Through all of the unveiled depths of brokenness though, run ever such faint and delicate threads of hope. I think The Wire is the most graphically accurate rendering of the human condition i've seen. If you hold on to Jesus' hand, we'll all be safe from Satan when the thunder rolls. We've just got to keep the Devil way down in the hole.
Sorry, did i mention that (if i were to squeeze it into a crudely designated genre) it's a cop show? Set in Baltimore, the police have their story whilst also serving as a way into the stories of the streets and the stories of City Hall. Told over five series, it scans a regenerating city from the angles of drug dealers and addicts, blue collar workers, political and legal structures, education and the media, with glimpses of the penal system and homelessness briefly covered too.
The truth hurts. Fact.
8 January 2009
Never felt warmer, or tireder.
So, Christmas has gone. Did anyone see where? I could really do with a Christmas about now. I've been just writing assignments for weeks. And some church stuff over Christmas. Oh, and there's been the 'extreme weather rough sleepers emergency shelter' too.
I've seen way to many 4, 5 and 6AMs recently. You know that point where your world is like a bleary dream - or is it that your dreams become like a bleary world? Well, that's me and my world, or my dreams. It's felt a lot like when i should be going to bed i'm staying up, and when i should be getting up i'm already up, and it's always dark, and i know that means different things in the Winter to what it does in the Summer but i don't know what it means now, and Spurs went a goal down to Burnley (was that a dream?), and Spurs beat Burnley 4-1 (did i dream that?), and Israel's agreed to stop carpet bombing Gaza for 3 hours a day, so aid can get through - before they start bombing again, and i'd like to put a film reference down but it's been so long since i've seen one i've forgotten what they look like, and woolworths went, and - what do you mean 'my grammar's gone to pot'? If you feel like i...if i felt li... if you felt like i feel - you know what i mean! Anyway, i don't make you read this, if you don't like it, fine! Go away!...Oh, now i got myself all cranky.
Anyway, yeah, where was i? Yeah, I'm a bit tired, but the main thing right now is that i've never been so conscious of temperature before; be it alertness to the cold outside or appreciation of the privilege of my bed's warmth.
I've seen way to many 4, 5 and 6AMs recently. You know that point where your world is like a bleary dream - or is it that your dreams become like a bleary world? Well, that's me and my world, or my dreams. It's felt a lot like when i should be going to bed i'm staying up, and when i should be getting up i'm already up, and it's always dark, and i know that means different things in the Winter to what it does in the Summer but i don't know what it means now, and Spurs went a goal down to Burnley (was that a dream?), and Spurs beat Burnley 4-1 (did i dream that?), and Israel's agreed to stop carpet bombing Gaza for 3 hours a day, so aid can get through - before they start bombing again, and i'd like to put a film reference down but it's been so long since i've seen one i've forgotten what they look like, and woolworths went, and - what do you mean 'my grammar's gone to pot'? If you feel like i...if i felt li... if you felt like i feel - you know what i mean! Anyway, i don't make you read this, if you don't like it, fine! Go away!...Oh, now i got myself all cranky.
Anyway, yeah, where was i? Yeah, I'm a bit tired, but the main thing right now is that i've never been so conscious of temperature before; be it alertness to the cold outside or appreciation of the privilege of my bed's warmth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
