Sometimes a movie comes along that you know nothing about, you see it on a whim, you spend the day out with a friend and see it together. Sometimes you want badly to have a good time, to enjoy a spectacle, to share a good movie. I was sorry to disappoint on a recent outing with a friend of mine. I made the regrettable decision to see Nicolas Cage in "Knowing".
Sitting in the theater, tensed and pissed off, I fidgeted endlessly as this movie assaulted me in an almost sexual fashion. I felt violated by its emotional bludgeoning, sullied by its pathetic lack of subtlety and technique. I was genuinely offended by its plot, its heavy-handed messages and trite, cliche straw-men of atheists and rational thinkers. Everything about this film sickened or angered me in one way or another.
If you ever have the chance, I fucking dare you to watch this movie with an aim to enjoy it.
No groaning, no sighs. Don't be pestered by the inappropriate score, don't sit with mouth agape at its ludicrous plot, nor its sick manipulation of historical tragedy for a catalytic plot point.
If you can actually sincerely enjoy this movie, in all its bland glory, its facsimile of Christian endtimes lunacy, its tired and predictable plot, and its confused melange of science fiction, disaster voyeurism, environmental alarmism, and religious smugness, you may want to seriously re-examine your ability to enjoy good movie-making.
Let's begin, shall we?
Nic Cage is basically rehashing "Next" here. No bones about it. As always, I was okay with Nic, because I think he does good work and he has a persona as an actor that I like. However, I didn't like his character. John Koestler is a poorly-written skeptic; he sounds like the most cliche atheist a Christian could dream up. He's angry at being the son of a pastor, he lost his faith because of a personal tragedy, and basically espouses nihilism. In short, he's exactly what a person who had never met an intellectually justified atheist would think atheists are like. Argh.
The 'story', such as it can be called, begins in 1959 with a young girl, Lucinda Embry, writing a string of numbers on a sheet of paper to be put into a time capsule. The girl apparently hears overly loud whispers that are mixed too high in the film's audio. That's how early I began to shit on this movie in my mind- immediately following the credits. The first mind-blowingly idiotic thing in the movie is John Koestler's lecture to his class on cosmology. He presents a thinly veiled debate between naturalistic and supernaturalistic viewpoints, and takes up the "atheist" side by declaring "shit just happens". Conflating nihilism with non-deterministic philosophies? Thanks, director Alex Proyas and writing staff, you dicks.
John's son attends the same school that the spooky little girl did, so of course when the time capsule from the opening scene is unearthed, who gets the string of numbers but Caleb Koestler, and brings them home to our depressed, nihilistic caricature of an atheist. The numbers Lucinda wrote are apparently predictions of the next 50 years' worth of disasters, told to her by annoyingly loud whispers. But how does John discover that the numbers are not random? Now, this kind of future prediction plot is not entirely uncommon, but if done well it can be mildly entertaining. However, this is the only "future-disaster" movie I know of that had the utter tastelessness and absurd hubris to abuse a national tragedy still fresh in the minds of Americans for a plot point. That's right, when John Koestler's son brings home the number string from the time capsule opening, the first thing John notices is the number string 91101. Way to disrespect a nation.
A couple of punctuation marks later, John's got a full-blown delusion-made-reality on his hands. He goes back through the list of numbers, circles out some date and casualty strings, and confronts one of his fellow skeptical colleagues, who, like any good skeptic, believes that it is a coincidence, not least because of the large amount of uncircled numbers that appear to be random. He thinks John is just looking for a pattern where there isn't one, like those Bible code buffoons.
Of course, what could possibly happen next but John coincidentally being at the exact spot of the next disaster in sequence? How laughably predictable. He looks at his GPS when on the freeway, matches the numbers to the paper, and voila, he's in just the right spot for a disaster. In true "Final Destination" fashion, he tries to do something, anything, to help when a plane crashes. He is however helpless as the camera lingers horrifically on writhing, burning bodies in a positively bloodthirsty fashion. Truly, tastelessness is elevated to an art form by this hellish train wreck of a movie.
The next disaster in sequence is even worse. John chases down a guy who he thinks is going to bomb the subway, but, oops, he was just stealing CDs! Oh, man, talk about being on the wrong track! (Canned laughter) Speaking of wrong tracks... the subway train derails in a gloriously cheesy CGI fashion! Wheeeee! It plows into countless people (some of them even in first-person 'kill-train' camera!) in an orgiastic display of brutish violence. Joy... Mawkish aftermath music would be bad enough, but "Knowing" again assaults the audience by shoving an American flag into the next shot, just like with shoehorning 9/11 into the plot. I don't know what the film seeks to gain by appealing to our sense of patriotism, but it comes off as crass and trashy.
Torturous story short, through some ridiculous non-logic, John finds out that the next disaster will be the end of the world, and that the bible had some prescience of this event (double ugh). A solar flare wiping out the third planet away from the sun? Yeah, that sounds completely plausible.....
To wrap it all up, John finds, in some Rapture-like theological lunacy, that only a few humans have been chosen to be saved from the impending disaster by aliens, who have been stalking him in order to save his son. Caleb and Lucinda Embry's granddaughter are saved by infuriatingly angel-esque aliens, the vast majority of humans die in a huge wave of fiery fucking doom, and Nic Cage reconverts to theism just before disintegrating. Heavy-handed enough for ya?
Sitting through it was hell. I saw every shitty plot point coming a mile away. Poorly executed, trite, preachy, and stupid in the worst way, "Knowing" is a mess of theological and science fiction daftness. Fuck this movie.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Finally, it's the Weekend. No, not the literal one.
Godard. 1967. Weekend.
Everything led up to this. A culmination, an encapsulation of an aesthetic, a singular talent, an idea, perhaps an idea that was the entirety of a person.
Weekend is not a film. It's much more. Treatise, work of art, self-portrait, screed, bore, declaration, and semi-coherent narrative; these are proper, but not entire. It's visual poetry, arresting and savage critique of every sacred cow of consumer and mass culture. It's the big crunch of shopping malls, the heat death of the factory lines, a mushroom cloud to punctuate Godard's political era.
Weekend contains more content, more ideas, more art than most ten films put together. It's scattershot and bizarre, true, but when it works, it sets fire to the intellectual mind.
As an absurdist film, it lacks in terms of plot, but shines in its setup and execution of thoroughly skewed scenes. The whole mad journey plays out in stops and starts, dragging its feet through intentionally annoying conceptual gags and then hurtling headfirst into a morass of philosophical and historical exposition. Hardly any of the film could be considered easy to watch; whether it's assaulting the viewer with a deviant sexual liason, annoying them with overly long shots and too-loud car horns, or lambasting them for their political apathy, Weekend is a film that does its best to try the patience of its audience. It is all for the best, though, as its techniques force the viewer to confront the film on its own terms. Weekend forcibly restrains any who see it from turning their mind off and just enjoying a simple film. It demands attention, its impish gags and heady philosophical ramblings commanding an uncommon force that I imagine most other 'provacateur' movies simply could not muster.
Our crazed journey begins with one of many pop-art styled intertitles, proclaiming that this is a film 'lost in the cosmos'. In a bourgeois apartment, some light conversation about death. Our materialistic main characters, Corinne and Roland, are making a trip to Oinville to make sure they get their inheritance- the hard way. A fight breaks out in the parking lot below, and our detestable lead bitch remarks that it would be wonderful if someone had died in the altercation. A bizarre conversation follows, with the foreboding score floating into and out of the scene, becoming more obtrusive and annoying, then retreating, as Corinne recounts, in graphic detail, an evening of depraved menage a trois. When asked if the story is true, or a nightmare, she says simply, "I don't know". After bashing in someone else's bumper on the way out, a brief, highly class-related struggle follows. Corinne and Roland, after a little absurdist argument, are on their way. The most famous gag of the movie stops them dead in their tracks; a sprawling traffic jam on a narrow country road that takes up an entire five minute sequence, soundtracked by hellish cacophonies of car horns and yells, and the score once again ominously looms upon the entrance of a Shell gasoline truck. At the very end, a disastrous accident has killed multiple people, but between the start and end of the jam, all manner of ridiculous activities are taking place. Chess games on the roadside, children frolicking, balls tossed between cars, and impossible collisions are everywhere. It's a thoroughly testing scene, but also entertaining in its silliness. It is perhaps one of the best encapsulations of the Weekend style, save perhaps the political screeds that take place later on.
As Roland and Corinne continue into the nearest town, a tractor collides with an expensive sports car. The driver of the car is killed, and his girlfriend verbally eviscerates the man in the tractor. As epithets rife with snobbery and class warfare pile up, the farmer and bourgeois woman try to drag Corinne and Roland into the argument over who had the right of way, and, finding no help, both the girl and the farmer unite in their hatred of our anti-heroes, showering them with racial slurs. As Roland speeds off, our bourgeois bitch and lumbering working class fool stand shoulder to shoulder, arms around each other, grieving the loss of their right to judge.
Our couple then have a short discussion that reveals their attitudes towards other human beings. Contemplating the farmer's claim, "We're all brothers, as Marx said", Roland asserts that "another communist said it. Jesus said it." Corinne replies, "I don't care, even if it's true. These aren't the Middle Ages." Apparently, both feel that modern society has entirely progressed past brotherhood and unity, and that the dawn of modern capitalism should require every man to act in his own self-interest.
The rat race of capitalism is the subject of our theater of the absurd, and Godard skewers it with gusto. Automobiles, as metaphors for modern industrial capitalist societies, are wrecked ubiquitously on every stretch of road. Over and over, the message hits home: modern societies are an insult to human decency, where we value only possessions; where boredom and drudgery are our lives, where sex is a farce and a distraction from ennui, where the working classes are manipulated, and the rich gorge themselves on the carcasses of wrecked lives, leaving only husks. Prescient, non?
The title of my blog comes from the next scene, where Roland and Corinne are carjacked by a madman, armed with a gun, and his accomplice. The madman rambles on, mixing comic pronouncements with bizarrely perceptive mots justes. He asks Corinne her name, then refuses her answers. "Durant is your husband's name. Dupont is your father's name", eventually announcing, "See? You don't even know who you are. Christianity: the death of language, the denial of self-knowledge." Here, he's taking to task the patriarchal nature of religions and societies that both make women subservient and impress upon them the names of their husbands. The director basically self-inserts his own opinions regarding film here, and announces "I'm here to inform Modern Times of the Grammatical era's end, and the beginning of Flamboyance, especially in cinema." Godard boldly states that his film endeavors to signify the beginning of a renaissance of films that are unafraid of absurdity and pass by the merit of their ideas, not their formal structure and rigid lockstep with reality. If we had been lucky, more films would be have taken up this clarion call. Or, perhaps it is best that they didn't, and Weekend remains a singular experience.
After running some other drivers off the road, Roland wrecks his car, in one of the many audio-visual mismatches that serve to highlight the unreality of the film. First, the image of the crash and a scream from Corinne, then a cut back to the preceding moment of tranquil driving, then the crash again. Corinne comically mourns the loss of her handbag, a really nifty one from Hermes. Godard hits hard once more with his brutal critique of consumerism.
The film also contains several scenes of concentrated political commentary, one featuring a man dressed as Napoleon shouting seeming platitudes (which, in actuality, are rather stinging barbs striking at humanity's greatest follies), another featuring a juxtaposition of two political manifestos laid out by off screen characters while the onscreen characters stare and eat a sandwich. The effect of having two men spell out each other's views with perfect mental clarity is a very interesting technique and manages to make these sorts of scenes rather arresting in their unique setup.
Corinne and Roland have a number of meta-referential lines in the movie pertaining to 'fictional' characters within the film. They even set fire to Tom Thumb and Emily Bronte simply because they won't tell them the way to Oinville. However, they do take time to note that they're only fictional characters. When hitching a ride, they ask if the driver is in the real world, or a film. This perfectly compliments the film's aesthetic choice to embrace the absurd and refuse to tell a mundane and hyper-real story, instead presenting a gaudy theater of brilliant and provocative ideas.
In the end, Corinne and Roland kill Corinne's mother for a handsome inheritance, but become hostages of cannibal revolutionaries. As these hippy dippy beat poets-cum-Gaullist gourmands compose odes to the ocean and feast on the dead, the film closes with Corinne having a bit of long pork, and hears that she is eating Roland. Remarking upon its good taste, she decides to have more later. The audacious closing text still rings true- "FIN DU CINEMA", not just the end of this film, but all film.
Godard's hellish vision remains prescient in its political observations, staying mordantly hilarious and farcical even upon repeat viewings. It is a quite obnoxious film at times thanks to its attempts to distance its audience from its own internal reality, but it only does so to force viewers to contemplate its ideas seriously. It truly is the end of all cinema; after seeing it, no other movie will ever seem quite so fiercely intelligent, so belligerent, brilliant, or morbidly funny. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Everything led up to this. A culmination, an encapsulation of an aesthetic, a singular talent, an idea, perhaps an idea that was the entirety of a person.
Weekend is not a film. It's much more. Treatise, work of art, self-portrait, screed, bore, declaration, and semi-coherent narrative; these are proper, but not entire. It's visual poetry, arresting and savage critique of every sacred cow of consumer and mass culture. It's the big crunch of shopping malls, the heat death of the factory lines, a mushroom cloud to punctuate Godard's political era.
Weekend contains more content, more ideas, more art than most ten films put together. It's scattershot and bizarre, true, but when it works, it sets fire to the intellectual mind.
As an absurdist film, it lacks in terms of plot, but shines in its setup and execution of thoroughly skewed scenes. The whole mad journey plays out in stops and starts, dragging its feet through intentionally annoying conceptual gags and then hurtling headfirst into a morass of philosophical and historical exposition. Hardly any of the film could be considered easy to watch; whether it's assaulting the viewer with a deviant sexual liason, annoying them with overly long shots and too-loud car horns, or lambasting them for their political apathy, Weekend is a film that does its best to try the patience of its audience. It is all for the best, though, as its techniques force the viewer to confront the film on its own terms. Weekend forcibly restrains any who see it from turning their mind off and just enjoying a simple film. It demands attention, its impish gags and heady philosophical ramblings commanding an uncommon force that I imagine most other 'provacateur' movies simply could not muster.
Our crazed journey begins with one of many pop-art styled intertitles, proclaiming that this is a film 'lost in the cosmos'. In a bourgeois apartment, some light conversation about death. Our materialistic main characters, Corinne and Roland, are making a trip to Oinville to make sure they get their inheritance- the hard way. A fight breaks out in the parking lot below, and our detestable lead bitch remarks that it would be wonderful if someone had died in the altercation. A bizarre conversation follows, with the foreboding score floating into and out of the scene, becoming more obtrusive and annoying, then retreating, as Corinne recounts, in graphic detail, an evening of depraved menage a trois. When asked if the story is true, or a nightmare, she says simply, "I don't know". After bashing in someone else's bumper on the way out, a brief, highly class-related struggle follows. Corinne and Roland, after a little absurdist argument, are on their way. The most famous gag of the movie stops them dead in their tracks; a sprawling traffic jam on a narrow country road that takes up an entire five minute sequence, soundtracked by hellish cacophonies of car horns and yells, and the score once again ominously looms upon the entrance of a Shell gasoline truck. At the very end, a disastrous accident has killed multiple people, but between the start and end of the jam, all manner of ridiculous activities are taking place. Chess games on the roadside, children frolicking, balls tossed between cars, and impossible collisions are everywhere. It's a thoroughly testing scene, but also entertaining in its silliness. It is perhaps one of the best encapsulations of the Weekend style, save perhaps the political screeds that take place later on.
As Roland and Corinne continue into the nearest town, a tractor collides with an expensive sports car. The driver of the car is killed, and his girlfriend verbally eviscerates the man in the tractor. As epithets rife with snobbery and class warfare pile up, the farmer and bourgeois woman try to drag Corinne and Roland into the argument over who had the right of way, and, finding no help, both the girl and the farmer unite in their hatred of our anti-heroes, showering them with racial slurs. As Roland speeds off, our bourgeois bitch and lumbering working class fool stand shoulder to shoulder, arms around each other, grieving the loss of their right to judge.
Our couple then have a short discussion that reveals their attitudes towards other human beings. Contemplating the farmer's claim, "We're all brothers, as Marx said", Roland asserts that "another communist said it. Jesus said it." Corinne replies, "I don't care, even if it's true. These aren't the Middle Ages." Apparently, both feel that modern society has entirely progressed past brotherhood and unity, and that the dawn of modern capitalism should require every man to act in his own self-interest.
The rat race of capitalism is the subject of our theater of the absurd, and Godard skewers it with gusto. Automobiles, as metaphors for modern industrial capitalist societies, are wrecked ubiquitously on every stretch of road. Over and over, the message hits home: modern societies are an insult to human decency, where we value only possessions; where boredom and drudgery are our lives, where sex is a farce and a distraction from ennui, where the working classes are manipulated, and the rich gorge themselves on the carcasses of wrecked lives, leaving only husks. Prescient, non?
The title of my blog comes from the next scene, where Roland and Corinne are carjacked by a madman, armed with a gun, and his accomplice. The madman rambles on, mixing comic pronouncements with bizarrely perceptive mots justes. He asks Corinne her name, then refuses her answers. "Durant is your husband's name. Dupont is your father's name", eventually announcing, "See? You don't even know who you are. Christianity: the death of language, the denial of self-knowledge." Here, he's taking to task the patriarchal nature of religions and societies that both make women subservient and impress upon them the names of their husbands. The director basically self-inserts his own opinions regarding film here, and announces "I'm here to inform Modern Times of the Grammatical era's end, and the beginning of Flamboyance, especially in cinema." Godard boldly states that his film endeavors to signify the beginning of a renaissance of films that are unafraid of absurdity and pass by the merit of their ideas, not their formal structure and rigid lockstep with reality. If we had been lucky, more films would be have taken up this clarion call. Or, perhaps it is best that they didn't, and Weekend remains a singular experience.
After running some other drivers off the road, Roland wrecks his car, in one of the many audio-visual mismatches that serve to highlight the unreality of the film. First, the image of the crash and a scream from Corinne, then a cut back to the preceding moment of tranquil driving, then the crash again. Corinne comically mourns the loss of her handbag, a really nifty one from Hermes. Godard hits hard once more with his brutal critique of consumerism.
The film also contains several scenes of concentrated political commentary, one featuring a man dressed as Napoleon shouting seeming platitudes (which, in actuality, are rather stinging barbs striking at humanity's greatest follies), another featuring a juxtaposition of two political manifestos laid out by off screen characters while the onscreen characters stare and eat a sandwich. The effect of having two men spell out each other's views with perfect mental clarity is a very interesting technique and manages to make these sorts of scenes rather arresting in their unique setup.
Corinne and Roland have a number of meta-referential lines in the movie pertaining to 'fictional' characters within the film. They even set fire to Tom Thumb and Emily Bronte simply because they won't tell them the way to Oinville. However, they do take time to note that they're only fictional characters. When hitching a ride, they ask if the driver is in the real world, or a film. This perfectly compliments the film's aesthetic choice to embrace the absurd and refuse to tell a mundane and hyper-real story, instead presenting a gaudy theater of brilliant and provocative ideas.
In the end, Corinne and Roland kill Corinne's mother for a handsome inheritance, but become hostages of cannibal revolutionaries. As these hippy dippy beat poets-cum-Gaullist gourmands compose odes to the ocean and feast on the dead, the film closes with Corinne having a bit of long pork, and hears that she is eating Roland. Remarking upon its good taste, she decides to have more later. The audacious closing text still rings true- "FIN DU CINEMA", not just the end of this film, but all film.
Godard's hellish vision remains prescient in its political observations, staying mordantly hilarious and farcical even upon repeat viewings. It is a quite obnoxious film at times thanks to its attempts to distance its audience from its own internal reality, but it only does so to force viewers to contemplate its ideas seriously. It truly is the end of all cinema; after seeing it, no other movie will ever seem quite so fiercely intelligent, so belligerent, brilliant, or morbidly funny. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Another Long Raving Post About Anime
Greetings, all. Jim here. Figured I'd better get cracking on my next post. As stated previously, this one will be about the cerebral genre of anime, the cat-and-mouse, plot-counter plot type of thing. In recent memory, 2 examples of this sort would be Deathnote and Code Geass. Both have some pretty obvious similarities, so I'll start by outlining both and move on to comparing and contrasting.
First off, Deathnote. The main character is Light Yagami. Light is a high school student, the son of a police officer, and aiming for the police himself as a career. He is shown to be highly intelligent, ambitious, hard-working, serious, and also to have a very strong sense of personal justice. However, it is these characteristics which society would view as positive that eventually enable Light to become the worst mass murderer in history. Light is, to put it one way, bored. He feels the world around him is rotten, filled with useless people without whom society would be better off. Every day it seems more criminals are making the news with increasingly wanton acts of cruelty and senseless violence. Light sees the hypocrisy and apathy of the world around him and despairs of ever making a difference.
However, Light soon gains the power to change this rotten world- to mold it to his liking using the power of the Deathnote. A powerful supernatural notebook, the Deathnote can cause the death of anyone whose name is written in it, as long as the writer can visualize the target's face as the name is written. This notebook was originally the property of a Death God named Ryuk. However, Ryuk, like Light, was bored with the apparent purposelessness of his life, so he intentionally dropped his Deathnote into the human world to stir up trouble. Light first doubts the note is genuine, but comes to realize its power by killing a criminal in the act of taking hostages. Light has some small reservations about killing humans, even murderers, but tells himself that someone has to change the world, and he is the only one with the power and intellect to do so. In his arrogance, Light proclaims that he will pass judgment on humanity and become the God of his new world.
After various trials and tests, Light begins to use his new found power to remake the world as he sees fit, placing himself firmly in the position of God-like authority. His primary targets are criminals, murderers mostly. As his intervention becomes more and more pronounced, a cult following begins to revere him as an ally of justice, naming him Kira, the savior. However, other agencies begin taking an interest in Light as well. The Japanese police brand Kira a murderer, albeit by unknown means, and eventually call in help from an outside agent. Said to be one of the smartest individuals alive, this agent has solved many cases other agencies considered unsolvable. Known only as L, nothing is known about this mysterious individual save how to contact him, and few even know that much. The deadly match of intellects between L and Kira eventually escalates into a full-scale psychological war, with both sides vying for supremacy by any means necessary. As both parties reveal more to each other to lure the opponent out into the open, the mind games reach unbelievable depths as murder and investigation continuously repeat.
A remarkably noticeable oddity is the main character's complete lack of sympathy and, indeed, much human emotion at all. In many cases, Light is portrayed as so cold and calculating that he can kill someone without even a twitch or change in facial expression. Throughout the series Light uses and discards people like tools, coldly sacrificing others-even family or friends- for personal gain. He just may be the least likable character I have seen in a long time.
One odd thing I noticed is an abrupt shift in tone about halfway through the series, where events take a rather surprising turn, and the mood is considerably lightened for a few episodes. Some sight gags pop up, and a little humor is injected into the series, ultimately giving a rather strange feeling that one has started watching a different show. It kind of comes off as somewhat lame, in my opinion, but the interval is short, and it is appropriate, in a way, I guess.
Some viewers might complain about the rather noticeable lack of physical action, however the mental intensity and great emphasis on complex thought rather than action can be refreshing after so much over saturation of action in many other anime. I cannot recall any other form of media that has made even the act of eating potato chips a dramatic and intense gesture. That may sound like a joke, but it really features into the plot. I'm not kidding. I would definitely recommend this one for anyone looking for something intelligent in the anime realm.
Now for Code Geass. One immediate difference to note is a much higher emphasis on action, and also a more sympathetic main character. Code Geass takes place in an alternate time line in which an empire similar to Great Britain, appropriately named Brittania, has conquered much of the world around the time of WW II. After the invasion of Japan by the Empire, the government is dismantled. The people of Japan lose their homeland, their rights, and even their very national identity as the country is renamed Area 11. Japanese are coldly referred to as "Elevens" and forced into a low position in the social hierarchy.
Our main character here is Lelouch Lamperouge, a former prince of Britannia disinherited by the Emperor and forced into hiding in Area 11. Lelouch has two overwhelming desires- to create a world where his sister Nunnaly can live in peace, and to avenge his mother's murder by unknown assailants. Lelouch lacks any significant military or political power, until one day when he encounters a mysterious girl named CC sealed in a capsule. She grants Lelouch the power of Geass, the "power of the King". While each person manifests Geass differently, Lelouch gains the power of absolute obedience. Any one order he gives to a person he makes eye contact with must be obeyed. Using this power and his tactical genius, Lelouch organizes a rebellion in Area 11 in order to overturn the balance of power in the world, both for the sake of a more peaceful world that his sister desires, and for his revenge on his distant father for coldly discarding him.
One crucial difference between Code Geass and Deathnote is the main characters' motivations. While Light is motivated by selfish egotism and a petty desire to take over the world, Lelouch is much more selfless and sympathetic as a main character. It is true that Lelouch will sacrifice others if he must, but he genuinely feels remorse for his actions and even sacrifices his own safety at times in order to protect others. Light would do no such thing.
Another important difference between the two main characters is their confrontational styles. While Light is more subtle and engages in psychological contests of will with his opponents, Lelouch is more dramatic in his gestures and relies on tactical, military, and political maneuvering to overwhelm his opponents, dominating them with an overwhelming show of force (with lots of grand pronouncements and overly dramatic acts of showmanship for good measure).
The emphasis in Code Geass is more on physical action and some mecha combat, along with tactical and political ploys. Deathnote, on the other hand, is more purely cerebral and focuses on the neat little tricks employed to deflect investigation and suspicion. Also, Code Geass has more actual characters to develop, so it comes off better in that department. Deathnote focuses almost exclusively on Light and L's confrontation, with little time devoted to secondary characters.
Lastly, Code Geass has a more satisfying ending, in my opinion, which I will not spoil. Deathnote's ending is rather anticlimactic, actually. A very small detail is what ultimately decides the contest. Still, some of the huge, grand plots in Code Geass can come off as a little unnecessarily ridiculous, but other than a few minor complaints on both sides, I would still rate both series rather highly.
First off, Deathnote. The main character is Light Yagami. Light is a high school student, the son of a police officer, and aiming for the police himself as a career. He is shown to be highly intelligent, ambitious, hard-working, serious, and also to have a very strong sense of personal justice. However, it is these characteristics which society would view as positive that eventually enable Light to become the worst mass murderer in history. Light is, to put it one way, bored. He feels the world around him is rotten, filled with useless people without whom society would be better off. Every day it seems more criminals are making the news with increasingly wanton acts of cruelty and senseless violence. Light sees the hypocrisy and apathy of the world around him and despairs of ever making a difference.
However, Light soon gains the power to change this rotten world- to mold it to his liking using the power of the Deathnote. A powerful supernatural notebook, the Deathnote can cause the death of anyone whose name is written in it, as long as the writer can visualize the target's face as the name is written. This notebook was originally the property of a Death God named Ryuk. However, Ryuk, like Light, was bored with the apparent purposelessness of his life, so he intentionally dropped his Deathnote into the human world to stir up trouble. Light first doubts the note is genuine, but comes to realize its power by killing a criminal in the act of taking hostages. Light has some small reservations about killing humans, even murderers, but tells himself that someone has to change the world, and he is the only one with the power and intellect to do so. In his arrogance, Light proclaims that he will pass judgment on humanity and become the God of his new world.
After various trials and tests, Light begins to use his new found power to remake the world as he sees fit, placing himself firmly in the position of God-like authority. His primary targets are criminals, murderers mostly. As his intervention becomes more and more pronounced, a cult following begins to revere him as an ally of justice, naming him Kira, the savior. However, other agencies begin taking an interest in Light as well. The Japanese police brand Kira a murderer, albeit by unknown means, and eventually call in help from an outside agent. Said to be one of the smartest individuals alive, this agent has solved many cases other agencies considered unsolvable. Known only as L, nothing is known about this mysterious individual save how to contact him, and few even know that much. The deadly match of intellects between L and Kira eventually escalates into a full-scale psychological war, with both sides vying for supremacy by any means necessary. As both parties reveal more to each other to lure the opponent out into the open, the mind games reach unbelievable depths as murder and investigation continuously repeat.
A remarkably noticeable oddity is the main character's complete lack of sympathy and, indeed, much human emotion at all. In many cases, Light is portrayed as so cold and calculating that he can kill someone without even a twitch or change in facial expression. Throughout the series Light uses and discards people like tools, coldly sacrificing others-even family or friends- for personal gain. He just may be the least likable character I have seen in a long time.
One odd thing I noticed is an abrupt shift in tone about halfway through the series, where events take a rather surprising turn, and the mood is considerably lightened for a few episodes. Some sight gags pop up, and a little humor is injected into the series, ultimately giving a rather strange feeling that one has started watching a different show. It kind of comes off as somewhat lame, in my opinion, but the interval is short, and it is appropriate, in a way, I guess.
Some viewers might complain about the rather noticeable lack of physical action, however the mental intensity and great emphasis on complex thought rather than action can be refreshing after so much over saturation of action in many other anime. I cannot recall any other form of media that has made even the act of eating potato chips a dramatic and intense gesture. That may sound like a joke, but it really features into the plot. I'm not kidding. I would definitely recommend this one for anyone looking for something intelligent in the anime realm.
Now for Code Geass. One immediate difference to note is a much higher emphasis on action, and also a more sympathetic main character. Code Geass takes place in an alternate time line in which an empire similar to Great Britain, appropriately named Brittania, has conquered much of the world around the time of WW II. After the invasion of Japan by the Empire, the government is dismantled. The people of Japan lose their homeland, their rights, and even their very national identity as the country is renamed Area 11. Japanese are coldly referred to as "Elevens" and forced into a low position in the social hierarchy.
Our main character here is Lelouch Lamperouge, a former prince of Britannia disinherited by the Emperor and forced into hiding in Area 11. Lelouch has two overwhelming desires- to create a world where his sister Nunnaly can live in peace, and to avenge his mother's murder by unknown assailants. Lelouch lacks any significant military or political power, until one day when he encounters a mysterious girl named CC sealed in a capsule. She grants Lelouch the power of Geass, the "power of the King". While each person manifests Geass differently, Lelouch gains the power of absolute obedience. Any one order he gives to a person he makes eye contact with must be obeyed. Using this power and his tactical genius, Lelouch organizes a rebellion in Area 11 in order to overturn the balance of power in the world, both for the sake of a more peaceful world that his sister desires, and for his revenge on his distant father for coldly discarding him.
One crucial difference between Code Geass and Deathnote is the main characters' motivations. While Light is motivated by selfish egotism and a petty desire to take over the world, Lelouch is much more selfless and sympathetic as a main character. It is true that Lelouch will sacrifice others if he must, but he genuinely feels remorse for his actions and even sacrifices his own safety at times in order to protect others. Light would do no such thing.
Another important difference between the two main characters is their confrontational styles. While Light is more subtle and engages in psychological contests of will with his opponents, Lelouch is more dramatic in his gestures and relies on tactical, military, and political maneuvering to overwhelm his opponents, dominating them with an overwhelming show of force (with lots of grand pronouncements and overly dramatic acts of showmanship for good measure).
The emphasis in Code Geass is more on physical action and some mecha combat, along with tactical and political ploys. Deathnote, on the other hand, is more purely cerebral and focuses on the neat little tricks employed to deflect investigation and suspicion. Also, Code Geass has more actual characters to develop, so it comes off better in that department. Deathnote focuses almost exclusively on Light and L's confrontation, with little time devoted to secondary characters.
Lastly, Code Geass has a more satisfying ending, in my opinion, which I will not spoil. Deathnote's ending is rather anticlimactic, actually. A very small detail is what ultimately decides the contest. Still, some of the huge, grand plots in Code Geass can come off as a little unnecessarily ridiculous, but other than a few minor complaints on both sides, I would still rate both series rather highly.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Chairs Missing- The Music of Wire
Few bands could match them for versatility by the time they made their third album. It's really too much to ask that anyone match them now that they've made 11 studio albums and countless other ephemera. Wire is a rare case, a band that keeps getting better, pushing boundaries, and evolving far into its career. From their debut to their latest album, hardly a track goes by in their discography without a twitch of the head, a nod from the listener- "well now, that's interesting." Don't call them post-punk. Just call 'em bloody well good.
There are a lot of reasons 1977 was an amazing year. The Talking Heads' debut album, Marquee Moon by Television, Ramones and all that. But Wire's Pink Flag has them all beat for prescience. Pink Flag buzzes and drills right past punk into strange territory, becoming an art school Rocket to Russia. 21 tracks, 35 minutes. That's all they need to hook you.
Drill, drill, drilling into your head
The album basically has one guitar tone, that of a scratching, insistent power-drill boring through pop-song forms and the occasional dark epic. The opener, 'Reuters', is named for a news agency that often covered wars. The closing words of the song showcase an ironic band-wide shout of "Looting! Burning! RAPE!", with the 'rape' initially drawn out, and then repeated on certain beats for the duration of the song, forming a near-chant. It even becomes catchy by the end, if you can believe it. The track following, "Field Day For The Sundays", clocks in at 28 seconds, as the narrator expresses his desire to be scandalized, so as to appear in the paper as a tasteless controversy. "I wanna be a target for the dailies so they can show/ pictures of me with a nude on page three/ so lacking in taste/ touched up near the waste, looking as limp as Monday morning". Fun stuff, when you actually can puzzle out the run-together, heavily English idioms.
Each track gets in some memorable licks, welding funky yet often sweetly melodic bass lines and martial drumming to its metallic guitar riffing. Jaunty and bitter proclamations assault the listener, popping up like whack-a-moles, then ducking back, leaving the silence to describe the import of every chant, yell, and pithy lyrical flourish. Some are political, some are willfully obscure, but all dazzle with wit in print, and confound when heard aloud. All this and some genuinely great harmonies to boot. What a record.
Chairs Missing, containing some of Wire's finest mood pieces.
Pink Flag was the start of a promising career as punk-rockists, but Wire weren't content to just sit on their laurels. Their next album was even weirder, darker, and better. For Chairs Missing, they pumped up the eerie soundscapes and keyboard parts, whipped up even more arty-but-not-pretentious lyrics, and dammed up most of the punk stuff, instead favoring haunting, creepy contemplations on insanity, suicide, and all manner of psychological quirk and malformations. The guitars adopt a wider range, the bass rumbles in a frequently evil fashion, and squeedly, bleeping keyboards lend an air of unreality and delusion to masterpieces of madness, from the (literally) killer "Practice Makes Perfect" to the raving, rocking closer "Too Late". Often, the lyrics are themselves as atmospheric as the music, quietly suggesting daft ideas, screwy bouts of violence, and tragicomic singsong from the mouth of the asylum. Pop gems sit uncomfortably and fidget next to screwy black comic farce, and through it all, safe, sensible musical ideas take up their corners and hug themselves into the fetal position, afraid to look into the psychotic abyss. Chairs Missing is, for this fact, one of the most effective Wire albums, perhaps the best, but it does no favors to neophytes with its unerringly arty vision and squirrely keyboards. I do suggest getting to know this one on its own terms, taking it in as a piece and letting its eccentricities slide. (Also, go turn on "I Am The Fly" and see if it syncs up with the Cronenberg remake of The Fly. I'm still wondering if these two can do that Wizard of Oz/ Pink Floyd thing.)
As demonstrated by the above track, 154 moved things in a decidedly different direction. The punks became completely post here; keyboards are integrated more fully, there are dancier and even more atmospheric songs, and the boys crank out more grotesque pop permutations. Graham Lewis, their bassist, gets his first turn on vocals on a number of songs. The tempos slow to a molasses crawl for some more experimental pieces, none of which particularly thrill. That said, most of the material is extremely solid, both presaging the Sonic Youths of later years and the My Bloody Valentines to follow them. Immersive production and smooth electronic elements complement their delicious guitar tones and doomy bass. If it weren't for "A Touching Display" and "The Other Window" to destroy the momentum, this might be the best Wire album. As it is, it's still great.
From here, Wire split for an extended hiatus, and reformed after five years. Since then, their evolution, though not as rapid, has hopped madly from pop, electronic, and dance music to their punk roots between bouts of activity and breaks. One of their most notable periods is their current tenure, starting from 1999. Since their reformation, Wire have looked back fondly on their punk roots even as they approach middle age, something Mission of Burma have done to similar effect. Their current line of albums and EPs, encompassing Read and Burn numbers 1-3 in the EP series and the albums Send and Object 47, show a band still full of restless energy and nowhere near spent for ideas.
Some favorite tracks:
There are a lot of reasons 1977 was an amazing year. The Talking Heads' debut album, Marquee Moon by Television, Ramones and all that. But Wire's Pink Flag has them all beat for prescience. Pink Flag buzzes and drills right past punk into strange territory, becoming an art school Rocket to Russia. 21 tracks, 35 minutes. That's all they need to hook you.
Drill, drill, drilling into your headEach track gets in some memorable licks, welding funky yet often sweetly melodic bass lines and martial drumming to its metallic guitar riffing. Jaunty and bitter proclamations assault the listener, popping up like whack-a-moles, then ducking back, leaving the silence to describe the import of every chant, yell, and pithy lyrical flourish. Some are political, some are willfully obscure, but all dazzle with wit in print, and confound when heard aloud. All this and some genuinely great harmonies to boot. What a record.
Chairs Missing, containing some of Wire's finest mood pieces.Pink Flag was the start of a promising career as punk-rockists, but Wire weren't content to just sit on their laurels. Their next album was even weirder, darker, and better. For Chairs Missing, they pumped up the eerie soundscapes and keyboard parts, whipped up even more arty-but-not-pretentious lyrics, and dammed up most of the punk stuff, instead favoring haunting, creepy contemplations on insanity, suicide, and all manner of psychological quirk and malformations. The guitars adopt a wider range, the bass rumbles in a frequently evil fashion, and squeedly, bleeping keyboards lend an air of unreality and delusion to masterpieces of madness, from the (literally) killer "Practice Makes Perfect" to the raving, rocking closer "Too Late". Often, the lyrics are themselves as atmospheric as the music, quietly suggesting daft ideas, screwy bouts of violence, and tragicomic singsong from the mouth of the asylum. Pop gems sit uncomfortably and fidget next to screwy black comic farce, and through it all, safe, sensible musical ideas take up their corners and hug themselves into the fetal position, afraid to look into the psychotic abyss. Chairs Missing is, for this fact, one of the most effective Wire albums, perhaps the best, but it does no favors to neophytes with its unerringly arty vision and squirrely keyboards. I do suggest getting to know this one on its own terms, taking it in as a piece and letting its eccentricities slide. (Also, go turn on "I Am The Fly" and see if it syncs up with the Cronenberg remake of The Fly. I'm still wondering if these two can do that Wizard of Oz/ Pink Floyd thing.)
As demonstrated by the above track, 154 moved things in a decidedly different direction. The punks became completely post here; keyboards are integrated more fully, there are dancier and even more atmospheric songs, and the boys crank out more grotesque pop permutations. Graham Lewis, their bassist, gets his first turn on vocals on a number of songs. The tempos slow to a molasses crawl for some more experimental pieces, none of which particularly thrill. That said, most of the material is extremely solid, both presaging the Sonic Youths of later years and the My Bloody Valentines to follow them. Immersive production and smooth electronic elements complement their delicious guitar tones and doomy bass. If it weren't for "A Touching Display" and "The Other Window" to destroy the momentum, this might be the best Wire album. As it is, it's still great.
From here, Wire split for an extended hiatus, and reformed after five years. Since then, their evolution, though not as rapid, has hopped madly from pop, electronic, and dance music to their punk roots between bouts of activity and breaks. One of their most notable periods is their current tenure, starting from 1999. Since their reformation, Wire have looked back fondly on their punk roots even as they approach middle age, something Mission of Burma have done to similar effect. Their current line of albums and EPs, encompassing Read and Burn numbers 1-3 in the EP series and the albums Send and Object 47, show a band still full of restless energy and nowhere near spent for ideas.
Some favorite tracks:
- 'Mannequin', a personal favorite from Pink Flag. The band-wide harmonies during the chorus are just sublime. Fantastic bass runs as well.
- 'Too Late', closing out Chairs Missing. Great riffing, but after the first chorus gradually builds in intensity, we get an electronic blot of freakout that lasts for the rest of the track, vocals chiming back in to ask that eternal question, "Is it too late to change my mind? Too late, too late, too too too too too late!"
- 'Map Ref. 41n 93w', one of the finest pop songs they penned, from 154. Heavily layered production, delicious keyboard riffs and guitars chiming and drifting, a little self-referential 'chorus' announcement, wonderful vocal production, it's absolutely gorgeous.
- 'Comet', from Read and Burn 01. Insanely fast drumming, especially considering the age of the drummer, Pink Flag-style metallic guitar slashing into your skull. Machine-precise drum breaks, and some whipsawing electronics. Breakneck fast, penetrating riffage.
- 'One of Us', from their latest full-length, Object 47. Silky smooth keyboard textures, bouncy, groovy bass lines, tightly-reined disco drums, and an ace chorus that is completely betrayed by the pop songform- "One of us will live to rue the day we met each other." Very catchy stuff.
New Mission of Burma album in the works.
Not to say that I called it, but MoB appear to be back in the studio for their fourth album. No title, no details or anything, but there are a couple photos floating around. Should be out by the end of this year. In addition, Sonic Youth are putting out their billionth album around April, aptly titled "The Eternal". If past records are any indication, Mission of Burma will put out the better record, but both will be good.
In the meantime, have some classic Burma.
From the Bradford ballroom, 1983, the early set, "Red". Please note the tape loops and bad-ass bass lines.
In the meantime, have some classic Burma.
From the Bradford ballroom, 1983, the early set, "Red". Please note the tape loops and bad-ass bass lines.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Much More Interesting Post, Hopefully
Well, I'm at an impasse here. I'm unable to sleep, but just finished a long-ass writing session. What to do... Keep writing I guess. I suppose I should properly introduce myself, first. I'm Jim. Ron is my twin. Anything Ron said in his bio pretty much is ditto for me.
So, Ron's more of a music nerd than I am. When he began retreating to music more and more, I began reading and playing video games in order to isolate myself. In college, when Ron's interest in music really picked up, I started getting really heavily into anime. I'm not really much of a fanboy in the normal sense, I guess. I'm not really into a lot of action anime or anything. For me, what's most important in anime is the story. If the universe is well-presented, the story is coherent, the meaning is actually discernible, then I'm pretty sure I'll like it.
Simply put, I like anime that tries to say something true and meaningful, not just boring and cliche. To give an excellent example right off the bat, the finest anime I have seen to date, hands down, is Urusawa Naoki's "Monster". The main character in the anime, Dr. Tenma, has to choose between following orders to protect his status and position, or throwing it all away to save a young boy's life, proving to himself that all human lives are equally valuable. This is all in the first episode. From there, it only gets better.
Later, Tenma finds out that the defining moment of his career in which he saved the young man was the cause of horrible tragedy. Shockingly, the young man, Johan, is revealed to be a highly charismatic, hyper-intelligent, sociopathic, monstrously manipulative serial killer. Dr. Tenma is faced with the hard truth of his own culpability in the young man's crimes- he is responsible for bringing that monster back to life. His journey to discover the roots of the monster and atone for his own well-intended sin span several years and many countries, ultimately culminating in a shocking final showdown in which the true origin of the monster and his ultimate intentions are finally revealed.
Simply put, Monster is the most perfect story I have seen to date in any anime, or most other media. Spanning 74 episodes, the plot is intricate beyond belief. Of the various characters that are presented in the anime, all are convincingly portrayed, with their own foibles and personality traits that make them all truly memorable. Even incidental characters are given surprisingly detailed motivations and personalities, and some characters that seem to be one shot characters have a tendency to pop up anywhere from 10 to 30 episodes later with fully realized stories building around them.
Every episode in the series is absolutely essential to the plot, which may put some casual viewers off at first, but I tend to despise filler in shows anyway. Also, given the vast and complex nature of the plot, and the various flashbacks and back stories needed to maintain that level of complexity, the show can get overwhelming over time. However, the series is made for, and deserves, repeat viewing. If I had to recommend any one anime that I've seen over the years to anyone, regardless of their liking anime or not, this would be it. A friend of mine described it best when he said that it transcended the bounds of traditional anime. It was a drama that happened to be animated. But enough talking about it. This is the point where everyone who reads this should simply go and watch the series.
Now, to move on to other anime of similar caliber. One of my favorite current shows is a boxing anime called Hajime no Ippo, which translates literally to "The First Step". In America, the series was licensed under the title "Fighting Spirits". The problem with the change in title is that the name of the anime and the main character (Ippo) have a sort of pun-ish similarity in Japanese. The main draw of this show is the excellent artwork and great fighting action, though the characters and plot aren't slouches either. The main character, Ippo Makunouchi, is a shy high school boy who is often bullied because of his quiet and wilting personality. However, when he is saved from a gang of his punk classmates by a professional boxer, Ippo begins to wonder if he too could learn what it means to be strong. His journey from bumbling, shy youth to confident professional boxer is the main focus of the story.
The characters in the anime are all very well presented, with each being a fully fleshed out individual with their own ambitions in the ring. Some fight for glory, others for money, but no two dreams are exactly alike. Another surprising aspect of the show is that there really aren't any clear antagonists for the viewer to immediately dislike and wish failure upon. Each character's story and motivations are convincingly presented, with no "obvious bad guy" stereotypes. Even one of the more menacing boxers with a rougher, dirtier fighting style is given a very good reason for his savagery- having taken up street fighting to protect a sibling, as both were orphaned at a young age.
One important item to note is that the anime series first aired several years ago and was based off a manga, as is usual in many cases. However, the anime consisted of 72 episodes and 2 follow-up animations- one OVA and a TV movie, while the manga is still being produced. At more than 845 chapters to date, the manga was at least twice as long as the series at the time of its airing, and is now edging even further away. Therefore, reading the manga is necessary in order to get the full story, which is in itself still incomplete. Good news abounds, though. A second series has recently started this year, and resumes exactly where the first left off. Eventually, the series may even catch up to the manga, or even possibly reach the end of the entire story, if we are lucky and the manga finishes up before the show's budget does.
To say that the animation is excellent is no understatement. Much of the action portrayed is pretty realistic, albeit with some over-the-top effects to add emphasis. Any fan of boxing or fighting anime would do well to give this one a try.
These two serve as my current two picks for best of all time, and best I'm currently watching, respectively. However, I could go on for quite a while on this subject, so I'll try to just give a brief overview of some other recommended series.
For mecha anime, that is with giant robots and such, I'd have to recommend Evangelion, especially the new theatrical release of a 5 film series that is currently in the works, with only the first film released as of yet. Or perhaps one of the Gundam series- an old fan favorite. Everyone has their favorite Gundam, be it the original Gundam 0079, Turn A Gundam, 08th MS Team, Gundam Seed, Gundam 00, or Gundam Wing. I've liked quite a few, but the most often cited one for me is Wing. 0079 has the points on originality, but Wing has a better political intrigue dynamic going on, with constantly shifting loyalties and conflicting motivations on all sides. Most of the Gundam series are good in their own way, but there are a few that are considered sub-par. Seed, in my opinion, wasn't as good. Not enough originality, lack of quality animation. G-Gundam wasn't really a Gundam series in the traditional sense. Gundam X was too rambling. However, the others are pretty much all good.
In the area of comedy, I'd say Excel Saga is one of the greats. However, I'm accused of being stuck-up when I say that I refuse to watch anime in English. I prefer Japanese with English subtitles, and maybe some cultural notes up top or in the background. This series is one of the reasons I hate English dubbing. Excel's voice actress in English is just too grating. In Japanese I could stomach the extreme speed and pitch at which she talked, but in English it sounds too forced and aggressively annoying. That, and I hate English dubs having to change dialogue to fit mouth movement. It never works and detracts from the meaning. Most of the puns only work in Japanese anyway, like saying "I am like scrub brush". This was just left out in the English dub, but the play on words here is that the word for I in Japanese- "watashi", is very phonetically similar to the word scrub brush- "washtashi". Now, add to that the enormous list of character names which are puns on other Japanese words or other anime characters, and it's obvious that the original format is superior.
For anime that doesn't really fit into any other category, I can name a few interesting ones right off the bat. First off, a zany action comedy rock anime called FLCL (pronounced variously as fooly-cooly, or furi-kuri, or even just phonetically spelled F-L-C-L). The plot is nonsense, and proud of it. The main draw for the series is of course humor and general anime parody, but the soundtrack is what most people tend to remember the most. This tends to happen because the anime was devised around the soundtrack in many parts, scripted to follow the timing and mood already established in the songs. That, combined with the star power of the band that made the soundtrack-The Pillows- and the fame of the animation studio that produced the anime- Gainax, of Evangelion fame- the whole production was a pretty much surefire hit.
Next, for the realistic sci-fi genre, PlanetES comes to mind. Given that the plot sounds absolutely mundane- the retrieval of space debris and the lives of the debris workers- the whole production is far more entertaining than one would expect by description. The tone is very nice, alternately showing some pretty good comedic dynamics between the odd ducks who end up the the debris collecting occupation, and switching to really moving poignant stories that ponder the role of humanity in outer space, where the future will take us, and what our responsibilities to each other as human beings will mean in the context of the new frontier of space. Very well done animation, realistic portrayals of technology progression, and great interpersonal relationships between characters make this a great watch.
To continue in the vein of great character-driven stories, another great watch is the mystery/horror series Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni, which translates to "When the Cicadas Cry". This one has a weird tone to it. First scene is a brutal beating by baseball bat. Next is a flashback to a few weeks earlier, where the tone shifts to lighthearted cuteness and school slice of life comedy. Then, things just get weird. Shrine gods, festivals, curses, murders, paranoia, and horrible brutality ensue. Things that can't be undone are done, and the story wraps up... in 4 episodes. Then, for absolutely no discernible reason, time rewinds, the story starts over, but certain things are different...
The structure of the series turns out to be pretty amazing. Each arc of 4 or 5 episodes tells a story leading up to a series of murders, with certain details changing every time, and a different culprit and theory behind the brutality. Each of the first 4 arcs corresponds with a later arc that presents an alternate version of the story. The interesting aspect of the series is that in the beginning, supernatural explanations are all that are given, but later explanatory arcs offer more natural ways that certain events play out. By the end, the entire truth behind the case is (almost) completely explained by watching and interpreting each arc together. Very neatly done.
The anime's unique structure comes from its origins as a mystery game and sound novel, meaning the game is mainly presented through spoken dialogue and auditory ambiance. The game features several branching paths and multiple endings, each of which is necessary to achieve the true ending. It is from this structuring that the anime takes its cue.
Well, I could go on, but bed calls. Expect more soon, in the vein of "cerebral cat-and-mouse, plot-counter plot" anime.
So, Ron's more of a music nerd than I am. When he began retreating to music more and more, I began reading and playing video games in order to isolate myself. In college, when Ron's interest in music really picked up, I started getting really heavily into anime. I'm not really much of a fanboy in the normal sense, I guess. I'm not really into a lot of action anime or anything. For me, what's most important in anime is the story. If the universe is well-presented, the story is coherent, the meaning is actually discernible, then I'm pretty sure I'll like it.
Simply put, I like anime that tries to say something true and meaningful, not just boring and cliche. To give an excellent example right off the bat, the finest anime I have seen to date, hands down, is Urusawa Naoki's "Monster". The main character in the anime, Dr. Tenma, has to choose between following orders to protect his status and position, or throwing it all away to save a young boy's life, proving to himself that all human lives are equally valuable. This is all in the first episode. From there, it only gets better.
Later, Tenma finds out that the defining moment of his career in which he saved the young man was the cause of horrible tragedy. Shockingly, the young man, Johan, is revealed to be a highly charismatic, hyper-intelligent, sociopathic, monstrously manipulative serial killer. Dr. Tenma is faced with the hard truth of his own culpability in the young man's crimes- he is responsible for bringing that monster back to life. His journey to discover the roots of the monster and atone for his own well-intended sin span several years and many countries, ultimately culminating in a shocking final showdown in which the true origin of the monster and his ultimate intentions are finally revealed.
Simply put, Monster is the most perfect story I have seen to date in any anime, or most other media. Spanning 74 episodes, the plot is intricate beyond belief. Of the various characters that are presented in the anime, all are convincingly portrayed, with their own foibles and personality traits that make them all truly memorable. Even incidental characters are given surprisingly detailed motivations and personalities, and some characters that seem to be one shot characters have a tendency to pop up anywhere from 10 to 30 episodes later with fully realized stories building around them.
Every episode in the series is absolutely essential to the plot, which may put some casual viewers off at first, but I tend to despise filler in shows anyway. Also, given the vast and complex nature of the plot, and the various flashbacks and back stories needed to maintain that level of complexity, the show can get overwhelming over time. However, the series is made for, and deserves, repeat viewing. If I had to recommend any one anime that I've seen over the years to anyone, regardless of their liking anime or not, this would be it. A friend of mine described it best when he said that it transcended the bounds of traditional anime. It was a drama that happened to be animated. But enough talking about it. This is the point where everyone who reads this should simply go and watch the series.
Now, to move on to other anime of similar caliber. One of my favorite current shows is a boxing anime called Hajime no Ippo, which translates literally to "The First Step". In America, the series was licensed under the title "Fighting Spirits". The problem with the change in title is that the name of the anime and the main character (Ippo) have a sort of pun-ish similarity in Japanese. The main draw of this show is the excellent artwork and great fighting action, though the characters and plot aren't slouches either. The main character, Ippo Makunouchi, is a shy high school boy who is often bullied because of his quiet and wilting personality. However, when he is saved from a gang of his punk classmates by a professional boxer, Ippo begins to wonder if he too could learn what it means to be strong. His journey from bumbling, shy youth to confident professional boxer is the main focus of the story.
The characters in the anime are all very well presented, with each being a fully fleshed out individual with their own ambitions in the ring. Some fight for glory, others for money, but no two dreams are exactly alike. Another surprising aspect of the show is that there really aren't any clear antagonists for the viewer to immediately dislike and wish failure upon. Each character's story and motivations are convincingly presented, with no "obvious bad guy" stereotypes. Even one of the more menacing boxers with a rougher, dirtier fighting style is given a very good reason for his savagery- having taken up street fighting to protect a sibling, as both were orphaned at a young age.
One important item to note is that the anime series first aired several years ago and was based off a manga, as is usual in many cases. However, the anime consisted of 72 episodes and 2 follow-up animations- one OVA and a TV movie, while the manga is still being produced. At more than 845 chapters to date, the manga was at least twice as long as the series at the time of its airing, and is now edging even further away. Therefore, reading the manga is necessary in order to get the full story, which is in itself still incomplete. Good news abounds, though. A second series has recently started this year, and resumes exactly where the first left off. Eventually, the series may even catch up to the manga, or even possibly reach the end of the entire story, if we are lucky and the manga finishes up before the show's budget does.
To say that the animation is excellent is no understatement. Much of the action portrayed is pretty realistic, albeit with some over-the-top effects to add emphasis. Any fan of boxing or fighting anime would do well to give this one a try.
These two serve as my current two picks for best of all time, and best I'm currently watching, respectively. However, I could go on for quite a while on this subject, so I'll try to just give a brief overview of some other recommended series.
For mecha anime, that is with giant robots and such, I'd have to recommend Evangelion, especially the new theatrical release of a 5 film series that is currently in the works, with only the first film released as of yet. Or perhaps one of the Gundam series- an old fan favorite. Everyone has their favorite Gundam, be it the original Gundam 0079, Turn A Gundam, 08th MS Team, Gundam Seed, Gundam 00, or Gundam Wing. I've liked quite a few, but the most often cited one for me is Wing. 0079 has the points on originality, but Wing has a better political intrigue dynamic going on, with constantly shifting loyalties and conflicting motivations on all sides. Most of the Gundam series are good in their own way, but there are a few that are considered sub-par. Seed, in my opinion, wasn't as good. Not enough originality, lack of quality animation. G-Gundam wasn't really a Gundam series in the traditional sense. Gundam X was too rambling. However, the others are pretty much all good.
In the area of comedy, I'd say Excel Saga is one of the greats. However, I'm accused of being stuck-up when I say that I refuse to watch anime in English. I prefer Japanese with English subtitles, and maybe some cultural notes up top or in the background. This series is one of the reasons I hate English dubbing. Excel's voice actress in English is just too grating. In Japanese I could stomach the extreme speed and pitch at which she talked, but in English it sounds too forced and aggressively annoying. That, and I hate English dubs having to change dialogue to fit mouth movement. It never works and detracts from the meaning. Most of the puns only work in Japanese anyway, like saying "I am like scrub brush". This was just left out in the English dub, but the play on words here is that the word for I in Japanese- "watashi", is very phonetically similar to the word scrub brush- "washtashi". Now, add to that the enormous list of character names which are puns on other Japanese words or other anime characters, and it's obvious that the original format is superior.
For anime that doesn't really fit into any other category, I can name a few interesting ones right off the bat. First off, a zany action comedy rock anime called FLCL (pronounced variously as fooly-cooly, or furi-kuri, or even just phonetically spelled F-L-C-L). The plot is nonsense, and proud of it. The main draw for the series is of course humor and general anime parody, but the soundtrack is what most people tend to remember the most. This tends to happen because the anime was devised around the soundtrack in many parts, scripted to follow the timing and mood already established in the songs. That, combined with the star power of the band that made the soundtrack-The Pillows- and the fame of the animation studio that produced the anime- Gainax, of Evangelion fame- the whole production was a pretty much surefire hit.
Next, for the realistic sci-fi genre, PlanetES comes to mind. Given that the plot sounds absolutely mundane- the retrieval of space debris and the lives of the debris workers- the whole production is far more entertaining than one would expect by description. The tone is very nice, alternately showing some pretty good comedic dynamics between the odd ducks who end up the the debris collecting occupation, and switching to really moving poignant stories that ponder the role of humanity in outer space, where the future will take us, and what our responsibilities to each other as human beings will mean in the context of the new frontier of space. Very well done animation, realistic portrayals of technology progression, and great interpersonal relationships between characters make this a great watch.
To continue in the vein of great character-driven stories, another great watch is the mystery/horror series Higurashi No Naku Koro Ni, which translates to "When the Cicadas Cry". This one has a weird tone to it. First scene is a brutal beating by baseball bat. Next is a flashback to a few weeks earlier, where the tone shifts to lighthearted cuteness and school slice of life comedy. Then, things just get weird. Shrine gods, festivals, curses, murders, paranoia, and horrible brutality ensue. Things that can't be undone are done, and the story wraps up... in 4 episodes. Then, for absolutely no discernible reason, time rewinds, the story starts over, but certain things are different...
The structure of the series turns out to be pretty amazing. Each arc of 4 or 5 episodes tells a story leading up to a series of murders, with certain details changing every time, and a different culprit and theory behind the brutality. Each of the first 4 arcs corresponds with a later arc that presents an alternate version of the story. The interesting aspect of the series is that in the beginning, supernatural explanations are all that are given, but later explanatory arcs offer more natural ways that certain events play out. By the end, the entire truth behind the case is (almost) completely explained by watching and interpreting each arc together. Very neatly done.
The anime's unique structure comes from its origins as a mystery game and sound novel, meaning the game is mainly presented through spoken dialogue and auditory ambiance. The game features several branching paths and multiple endings, each of which is necessary to achieve the true ending. It is from this structuring that the anime takes its cue.
Well, I could go on, but bed calls. Expect more soon, in the vein of "cerebral cat-and-mouse, plot-counter plot" anime.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Jim Speaks!
Greetings, loyal followers of Ron's blog. (All 3 of you.) This is Jim. Do not try to adjust your monitor. We control the horizontal, and the vertical, and the verbal. Well, I've been thinking about contributing to Ron's blog for a while now, but couldn't find a good opportunity, until now. Today, I found a cute little pamphlet at work shaped like a wallet. Unsurprisingly, the content was less cute. It was a religious tract. Oh, joy...
Now, I'm sure Ron's gotten through most of the general objections to religion already, since I've read his previous posts. So, I'll focus on the tract itself, and on the specific objections to it that I have. Now, first off- the wallet thing is a bit cutesy, and detracts from the seriousness of the message about hell, salvation, sin and all that crap. The inner portion of the wallet folds out to reveal a purported "Personality Analysis", which is a thinly veiled guilt trip in the form of 10 questions. I'll quote the questions here. Now, keep in mind that these are not of my own invention. I couldn't think up worse shit if I tried. The tract is put out by Living Waters, whatever the fuck that is. Anyone who feels like it can check them out and see I'm being honest here. Anyway, on to the schlock.
1.) If this was a real wallet, packed with real money, would you:
Keep it, take it to the police, or give some of the money to the poor?
I shall commence to give this inane question an ass-whooping. First of all, I work in a fast food restaurant. People leave stuff all the time. I've never taken anything that didn't belong to me unless it was cash laying out on a table, clearly intended as a tip. Change on the floor behind the counter goes into the drawer, since one of the employees had to have dropped it. Change on the floor near a table is pointed out to whoever might have dropped it. Lost items are taken to the office for safe keeping. We have policies in place for these things, and there are cameras watching us.
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would try to return a wallet if there was ID in it. I try to follow the principle of reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule- "Treat others as you would like to be treated." I've never really had this one fail me. If I were a masochist, it might be different, but then that's an entirely different story.
To get back to the other stupid response, who the HELL would give that money to the poor!? There is absolutely no way that would happen. Anyone honest enough to return the wallet wouldn't take any of the money. Anyone dishonest enough to keep it isn't going to give their ill-gotten gains to someone else. The whole thing is a non sequitur. Whoever wrote this thing wasn't thinking things through. On to question 2.
2.) You have been underpaid for years. There's a BIG mistake in your paycheck to your advantage, would you:
Tell the boss, keep quiet, or give some to a church?
I think most of the same objections to question 1 apply here. In fact, this is pretty much the same question. I'm pretty sure they had to inflate the number of questions to get it to reach 10, since they couldn't think of 10 good question, or even 1 really.
3.) If telling a white lie would save a friend's job, would you:
Tell the truth, act dumb, or lie?
Well, this one is a bit better formulated, but it's not really a religious issue in my mind, so I'm not sure this is a good question for this sort of tract. In my opinion, if my friend deserved the job, I wouldn't have to lie to save him. What kind of white lie saves someone's job? "No, he hasn't been embezzling for years."? Any infraction severe enough to cost someone their job should automatically preclude the usage of the term "white lie". That's not a little thing, like "You don't look fat in that dress." or "I'm sure she's just lost your number." That's some serious bullshit.
4.) Do you consider yourself to be a "good" person?
Yes or no?
I'm pretty sure most people would answer yes. Who actually thinks they aren't a good person? Everyone tries to rationalize and justify their behavior, especially to themselves. Most likely, anyone who thinks they aren't a good person is already into some religious guilt trip for sinning or some shit, so they wouldn't even need this tract to tell them they are a sinner. Moot point, dumb question. Let's continue.
5.) Have you ever told a lie for any reason (including "fibs" and "white" lies- be honest)?
I'm guessing everyone is gonna say yes, at this point. Humans have been lying to each other since we developed language. Some lies are harmful, some less so, and others are necessary for social reasons. Tell me, can you imagine someone who always told the unvarnished truth, all of the time? They would be miserable. Any time someone asked their opinion, they wouldn't be able to soften the blow. No "It's... ok.", or "You look fine...", or "It's probably nothing." Every response would be the equivalent of "You have cancer." Again, bullshit moralizing on an issue which isn't religious.
6.) Have you ever stolen something- irrespective of its value?
I'm not going to object to the idea that stealing is wrong, but I think that this comes back to the Golden Rule instead of being a religious issue. I'm pretty sure if someone stole something from me, I'd be a bit miffed. I can take that knowledge and extrapolate from it that other people probably don't like getting stolen from. I'm going to admit, yes, I stole stuff when I was a kid. Small stuff, it's true, but I still did. I didn't really think about it at the time. I just wanted that candy, or whatever it was. However, as an adult, I can see now that it was wrong, and so I try my best to make up for it by not stealing anymore. Once more, not a religious issue.
7.) Would you consider someone who admits to being a liar and a thief a good person?
Ah, here we have another difference of opinion. See, the point of this question is the big guilt trip, the "AHA! GOTCHA!" part of the act. Now I have to disagree with automatically applying the labels of liar and thief to anyone who has ever lied or stolen. The problem here is that I would call someone a thief or liar if they regularly or habitually engaged in the aforementioned acts. If the person in question committed these acts and later came to regret them, or possibly tried to make amends, I might call them a former or reformed thief or liar. Or I would let them get on with their life and hope they learned their lesson. If not, we have jails and police for just that reason.
8.) Who do you think will enter Heaven?
Those who say they are good when they are not, liars and thieves, or those whom god has forgiven and cleansed of sin?
This right here presents a false choice, and not a very good one at that. There are really a lot more than three types of people in the world. As for all the myriad assumptions one has to make to even believe Heaven exists in the first place, don't even get me started. The problem with this question, even from a religious point of view, is that most sects and churches disagree on this very issue. Some say baptism is essential to get to heaven, some say good works and confession of sin, and some say merely being a good person is enough. Hell, even Jesus gives three different explanations on how to get there in the Bible, but of course I couldn't give a shit about that.
9.) Did you realize that the Bible warns that thieves, liars, fornicators (those who have had sex out of marriage), idolaters (those who create a god to suit themselves), adulterers, and the covetous (the greedy), will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Oh, God. Here we go. The first problem I have with this question is that it assumes that the reader is stupid or ill-read. Anyone with a decent vocabulary knows what fornicators, idolaters, and covetousness are. I have to disagree strongly with religion having any say at all about reproductive morals, simply by virtue of the fact that most religions are hideously sexually repressive, usually in regards to women, and most of these religions were conceived back before we had a lot of scientific knowledge about human anatomy and biology. Hell, some religions still "circumcise" (read: mutilate) women by cutting off the clitoris, a scarring and painful process that has lifelong consequences, usually resulting in a complete destruction of pleasurable sexual sensation. Other religions believed menstruation was some sort of curse or impurity. This kind of Dark Age bullshit is not worthy of mention in today's society.
Now, I find it interesting that they mention idolatry, since the changing and making of gods to suit oneself is how religions got their start in the first place. Whatever is most convenient for the upper class of religious authority is set down as law. Since the decline of organized religion, the churches we see nowadays are pretty much peddling their wares on the street corner. If you want to pick and choose the god that's right for you, you can mix and match till you find a church that suits you. Seriously, there are over 1000 denominations in the US alone. If all of them can't be the one true religion, then what makes any one of them any better than the 0thers? It's simply so that people can reinforce their own biases with a bunch of like-minded crazies. Religious believers cherry-pick quotes and rules to suit themselves all the time, since the Bible is vague enough to say just about anything you want to make it say. Religion is idolatry.
The next problem with this one is covetousness. In my opinion, wanting something isn't really a bad thing. Taking it by force or trickery isn't good by any means, but without the drive and ambition to achieve one's goals, where would we be as a species? If the US and Russia hadn't been trying to "keep up with the Jones' " (or the Rasalnikovs), as it were, then most of our recent achievements in space flight or mathematical theory would have taken decades longer.
Finally, we've reached question 10- the wall of text that throws together a bunch of bullshit Bible quotes and admonishes you to revile yourself as a horrid, dirty little sinner. Every tract ends like this. It's not even a question by the end of it. Here it is, and I quote (of course):
10.) Did you also realize that the Bible says "whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already with her in his heart"? On Judgment Day God will bring to light "every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil." When you stand before God on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell (there is no such place as Purgatory)? Please, let go of your self-righteousness (saying that you are good when you are not). Instead, put your faith in Jesus Christ. He suffered and died on the Cross, taking the punishment for all of your sins: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Then Jesus rose from the dead and defeated death. If you will repent and trust Him, God will forgive your sins and give you everlasting life. Death will lose its sting!- "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?" Pray something like this right now: "Dear God, I have sinned against you. I now turn from all sin and trust Jesus Christ alone as my Lord and Savior. I will read Your Word daily and obey what I read. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."
Fuck. That was painful to type. That much concentrated idiocy in one place gives me a headache. Let's start from the beginning and tear this piece of shit apart, line by line.
A.) Did you also realize that the Bible says "whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already with her in his heart"?
a.) This admonishment has got to cause a lot of grief, since the human brain is hardwired to enjoy sex, and to find its contemplation pleasurable. Why is it that thoughts are somehow equivalent to deeds? If I was punished for everything I thought, I'd be pretty well fucked by now. However, the great thing about self-restraint is that we can deny ourselves the temptation to act out our base desires for rapacious gluttony. The text is pretty much assuming that anyone who reads it has no self control.
B.) On Judgment Day God will bring to light "every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil."
b.) Here comes the End Times theological scare tactic. This fails pretty much at the starting line since Jesus was under the impression that the End Times were coming about 2000 years ago! That's a pretty big margin of error there. He specifically states that the Kingdom of Heaven will come to pass within the lifetime of the people he has preached to. That is, from around 30 A.D. onward, there was a time frame of about one generation for the whole Armageddon thing to do its work. That's around 30 to 45 years, at best, since the average lifespan was a bit shorter then. After that, people should have just given up and gone back to their lives.
However, the shame of devoting their lives to a sham just made them believe all the more stubbornly. This is what is commonly known as cognitive dissonance, or Festinger's Syndrome. Cognitive dissonance is commonly defined as an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously, such as "the end of the world is at hand", and "Oh. No it isn't. My mistake." The most common feelings associated with cognitive dissonance are anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other various negative emotions. Commonly, cognitive dissonance also results in rationalizations, confirmation bias, and denial of evidence. These are mostly steps taken to reduce damage to one's ego after making what might be considered a bad decision. If that doesn't just scream religion to me, I don't know what does.
Funny story, the first use of the word cognitive dissonance was coined in relation to a failed religious prophecy. It was observed that a particular sect of a doomsday religion had predicted the end of the world on December 21, 1956. When the day arrived, and Armageddon didn't, the results were surprising. Several members of the church actually clung to their beliefs all the more irrationally, inventing numerous reasons for the failure of the prophecy. From this phenomenon, scientists theorized that the emotional investment in the irrational belief actually prevented the cultists from admitting to a failed belief. From this, it can be further theorized, though this is somewhat conjecture on my part, that one reason the early Christian religion was so fervently clung to in the face of compelling contradictory evidence is the feeling of cognitive dissonance.
C.) When you stand before God on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell (there is no such place as Purgatory)?
c.) Oddly enough, people still have to go and point out that there is no Purgatory. It was abolished fairly recently, so I suppose it makes sense. My question here is, do these people deny the truth of Purgatory from the beginning, or is there no longer a Purgatory? It was established pretty explicitly that there was a Purgatory by St. Augustine and Pope Gregory I. Are these people accusing a saint and a Pope of lying? Where do they get their authority? I'm guessing a later Pope, but how do we decide which infallible representative of God to believe? They can't both be right. I say let 'em fight it out. Winner takes all, no-holds-barred Pope fight. Winner gets to issue God's commands like a big boy, loser sulks and goes home to Heaven.
D.) Please, let go of your self-righteousness (saying that you are good when you are not). Instead, put your faith in Jesus Christ. He suffered and died on the Cross, taking the punishment for all of your sins: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
d.) Having to define self-righteousness shows again how condescending these people are to their readers about their intelligence. One of the major problems with the Crucifixion is the simple question of "why?". Could God have not simply forgiven humanity its sins without the need for a sadomasochistic sacrifice? No, the Old Testament laws demand a sacrifice to appease God. There must be blood. The Abrahamic God is, most of all, bloodthirsty. Killing rival tribes, destroying their cities, dashing their children against the stones, raping the virgin girls as spoils, the God of the Old Testament certainly commands violence.
See, the Crucifixion just ties back to the absurd Jewish rite of scapegoating, or the expiation of sin by proxy. The first scapegoats were literal goats, but damned if God didn't do the Jews one better and send a demigod to kick things up a notch.
The New Testament may put on a new costume and tart itself up as a great new thing for even the Gentiles to have, but God is still a wolf in sheep's clothing. Jesus might love us, but he certainly didn't have any love for the Gentiles then. He even comes out and says his daddy is God of the Jews. He refuses to heal a Gentile girl until her mother debases herself, and then only grudgingly. Not the best example, eh?
E.) Then Jesus rose from the dead and defeated death. If you will repent and trust Him, God will forgive your sins and give you everlasting life. Death will lose its sting!-"What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?"
e.) Here, we get to the crux of the matter, one of the primary primitive motivations for believing such absurdities- wishful thinking and the fear of death. Believing one will survive one's own death is the height of arrogance. Hoping it is so is just being human. That doesn't make it any more likely, however.
One of the primary objections to the life after death theory is the uncertainty of the existence of the soul. Generally, the soul is described as being the essential essence of a person, what makes them who they are. Now, for this essence to survive the process of death, the personality of a person would have to be outside of the brain, or in some other medium than the physical realm. However, since brain injuries and alterations in brain chemistry have been shown to produce personality changes, it is highly unlikely that the personality is not specifically tied to the brain, and the physical processes that make up its operation. In essence, there is no soul. Therefore, physical death is the end. Consciousness dies with the brain.
F.) Pray something like this right now: "Dear God, I have sinned against you. I now turn from all sin and trust Jesus Christ alone as my Lord and Savior. I will read Your Word daily and obey what I read. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."
f.) Ambrose Bierce had a pretty clever definition of "to pray": "To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." From there, let us move on to the issue of God's Word. We're supposed to read it every day. Which one? The King James? The NIV? The NET? The ESV? Authorized Version? Gnostic Gospels? There are no two versions of the Bible that are exactly alike, and any deviation violates the sanctity of God's Word. How is one supposed to obey what they read without getting jailed for it? Killing children for disrespecting their parents, killing gays, stoning adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath- these are all out of style. We have moved past these primitive rules for our conduct. There are better ways to live our lives.
Well, that about wraps it up. I hope someone is still reading this, otherwise I've just wasted a huge chunk of time and effort. Anyway, I promise my next post won't be such dry reading. I'll be covering the other end of the nerd spectrum. Ron will handle music and some movies, I'll go for games, manga, comics, and anime. We'll probably collaborate on some movie and book reviews too, so look forward to it.
Now, I'm sure Ron's gotten through most of the general objections to religion already, since I've read his previous posts. So, I'll focus on the tract itself, and on the specific objections to it that I have. Now, first off- the wallet thing is a bit cutesy, and detracts from the seriousness of the message about hell, salvation, sin and all that crap. The inner portion of the wallet folds out to reveal a purported "Personality Analysis", which is a thinly veiled guilt trip in the form of 10 questions. I'll quote the questions here. Now, keep in mind that these are not of my own invention. I couldn't think up worse shit if I tried. The tract is put out by Living Waters, whatever the fuck that is. Anyone who feels like it can check them out and see I'm being honest here. Anyway, on to the schlock.
1.) If this was a real wallet, packed with real money, would you:
Keep it, take it to the police, or give some of the money to the poor?
I shall commence to give this inane question an ass-whooping. First of all, I work in a fast food restaurant. People leave stuff all the time. I've never taken anything that didn't belong to me unless it was cash laying out on a table, clearly intended as a tip. Change on the floor behind the counter goes into the drawer, since one of the employees had to have dropped it. Change on the floor near a table is pointed out to whoever might have dropped it. Lost items are taken to the office for safe keeping. We have policies in place for these things, and there are cameras watching us.
Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I would try to return a wallet if there was ID in it. I try to follow the principle of reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule- "Treat others as you would like to be treated." I've never really had this one fail me. If I were a masochist, it might be different, but then that's an entirely different story.
To get back to the other stupid response, who the HELL would give that money to the poor!? There is absolutely no way that would happen. Anyone honest enough to return the wallet wouldn't take any of the money. Anyone dishonest enough to keep it isn't going to give their ill-gotten gains to someone else. The whole thing is a non sequitur. Whoever wrote this thing wasn't thinking things through. On to question 2.
2.) You have been underpaid for years. There's a BIG mistake in your paycheck to your advantage, would you:
Tell the boss, keep quiet, or give some to a church?
I think most of the same objections to question 1 apply here. In fact, this is pretty much the same question. I'm pretty sure they had to inflate the number of questions to get it to reach 10, since they couldn't think of 10 good question, or even 1 really.
3.) If telling a white lie would save a friend's job, would you:
Tell the truth, act dumb, or lie?
Well, this one is a bit better formulated, but it's not really a religious issue in my mind, so I'm not sure this is a good question for this sort of tract. In my opinion, if my friend deserved the job, I wouldn't have to lie to save him. What kind of white lie saves someone's job? "No, he hasn't been embezzling for years."? Any infraction severe enough to cost someone their job should automatically preclude the usage of the term "white lie". That's not a little thing, like "You don't look fat in that dress." or "I'm sure she's just lost your number." That's some serious bullshit.
4.) Do you consider yourself to be a "good" person?
Yes or no?
I'm pretty sure most people would answer yes. Who actually thinks they aren't a good person? Everyone tries to rationalize and justify their behavior, especially to themselves. Most likely, anyone who thinks they aren't a good person is already into some religious guilt trip for sinning or some shit, so they wouldn't even need this tract to tell them they are a sinner. Moot point, dumb question. Let's continue.
5.) Have you ever told a lie for any reason (including "fibs" and "white" lies- be honest)?
I'm guessing everyone is gonna say yes, at this point. Humans have been lying to each other since we developed language. Some lies are harmful, some less so, and others are necessary for social reasons. Tell me, can you imagine someone who always told the unvarnished truth, all of the time? They would be miserable. Any time someone asked their opinion, they wouldn't be able to soften the blow. No "It's... ok.", or "You look fine...", or "It's probably nothing." Every response would be the equivalent of "You have cancer." Again, bullshit moralizing on an issue which isn't religious.
6.) Have you ever stolen something- irrespective of its value?
I'm not going to object to the idea that stealing is wrong, but I think that this comes back to the Golden Rule instead of being a religious issue. I'm pretty sure if someone stole something from me, I'd be a bit miffed. I can take that knowledge and extrapolate from it that other people probably don't like getting stolen from. I'm going to admit, yes, I stole stuff when I was a kid. Small stuff, it's true, but I still did. I didn't really think about it at the time. I just wanted that candy, or whatever it was. However, as an adult, I can see now that it was wrong, and so I try my best to make up for it by not stealing anymore. Once more, not a religious issue.
7.) Would you consider someone who admits to being a liar and a thief a good person?
Ah, here we have another difference of opinion. See, the point of this question is the big guilt trip, the "AHA! GOTCHA!" part of the act. Now I have to disagree with automatically applying the labels of liar and thief to anyone who has ever lied or stolen. The problem here is that I would call someone a thief or liar if they regularly or habitually engaged in the aforementioned acts. If the person in question committed these acts and later came to regret them, or possibly tried to make amends, I might call them a former or reformed thief or liar. Or I would let them get on with their life and hope they learned their lesson. If not, we have jails and police for just that reason.
8.) Who do you think will enter Heaven?
Those who say they are good when they are not, liars and thieves, or those whom god has forgiven and cleansed of sin?
This right here presents a false choice, and not a very good one at that. There are really a lot more than three types of people in the world. As for all the myriad assumptions one has to make to even believe Heaven exists in the first place, don't even get me started. The problem with this question, even from a religious point of view, is that most sects and churches disagree on this very issue. Some say baptism is essential to get to heaven, some say good works and confession of sin, and some say merely being a good person is enough. Hell, even Jesus gives three different explanations on how to get there in the Bible, but of course I couldn't give a shit about that.
9.) Did you realize that the Bible warns that thieves, liars, fornicators (those who have had sex out of marriage), idolaters (those who create a god to suit themselves), adulterers, and the covetous (the greedy), will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Oh, God. Here we go. The first problem I have with this question is that it assumes that the reader is stupid or ill-read. Anyone with a decent vocabulary knows what fornicators, idolaters, and covetousness are. I have to disagree strongly with religion having any say at all about reproductive morals, simply by virtue of the fact that most religions are hideously sexually repressive, usually in regards to women, and most of these religions were conceived back before we had a lot of scientific knowledge about human anatomy and biology. Hell, some religions still "circumcise" (read: mutilate) women by cutting off the clitoris, a scarring and painful process that has lifelong consequences, usually resulting in a complete destruction of pleasurable sexual sensation. Other religions believed menstruation was some sort of curse or impurity. This kind of Dark Age bullshit is not worthy of mention in today's society.
Now, I find it interesting that they mention idolatry, since the changing and making of gods to suit oneself is how religions got their start in the first place. Whatever is most convenient for the upper class of religious authority is set down as law. Since the decline of organized religion, the churches we see nowadays are pretty much peddling their wares on the street corner. If you want to pick and choose the god that's right for you, you can mix and match till you find a church that suits you. Seriously, there are over 1000 denominations in the US alone. If all of them can't be the one true religion, then what makes any one of them any better than the 0thers? It's simply so that people can reinforce their own biases with a bunch of like-minded crazies. Religious believers cherry-pick quotes and rules to suit themselves all the time, since the Bible is vague enough to say just about anything you want to make it say. Religion is idolatry.
The next problem with this one is covetousness. In my opinion, wanting something isn't really a bad thing. Taking it by force or trickery isn't good by any means, but without the drive and ambition to achieve one's goals, where would we be as a species? If the US and Russia hadn't been trying to "keep up with the Jones' " (or the Rasalnikovs), as it were, then most of our recent achievements in space flight or mathematical theory would have taken decades longer.
Finally, we've reached question 10- the wall of text that throws together a bunch of bullshit Bible quotes and admonishes you to revile yourself as a horrid, dirty little sinner. Every tract ends like this. It's not even a question by the end of it. Here it is, and I quote (of course):
10.) Did you also realize that the Bible says "whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already with her in his heart"? On Judgment Day God will bring to light "every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil." When you stand before God on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell (there is no such place as Purgatory)? Please, let go of your self-righteousness (saying that you are good when you are not). Instead, put your faith in Jesus Christ. He suffered and died on the Cross, taking the punishment for all of your sins: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Then Jesus rose from the dead and defeated death. If you will repent and trust Him, God will forgive your sins and give you everlasting life. Death will lose its sting!- "What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?" Pray something like this right now: "Dear God, I have sinned against you. I now turn from all sin and trust Jesus Christ alone as my Lord and Savior. I will read Your Word daily and obey what I read. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."
Fuck. That was painful to type. That much concentrated idiocy in one place gives me a headache. Let's start from the beginning and tear this piece of shit apart, line by line.
A.) Did you also realize that the Bible says "whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already with her in his heart"?
a.) This admonishment has got to cause a lot of grief, since the human brain is hardwired to enjoy sex, and to find its contemplation pleasurable. Why is it that thoughts are somehow equivalent to deeds? If I was punished for everything I thought, I'd be pretty well fucked by now. However, the great thing about self-restraint is that we can deny ourselves the temptation to act out our base desires for rapacious gluttony. The text is pretty much assuming that anyone who reads it has no self control.
B.) On Judgment Day God will bring to light "every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil."
b.) Here comes the End Times theological scare tactic. This fails pretty much at the starting line since Jesus was under the impression that the End Times were coming about 2000 years ago! That's a pretty big margin of error there. He specifically states that the Kingdom of Heaven will come to pass within the lifetime of the people he has preached to. That is, from around 30 A.D. onward, there was a time frame of about one generation for the whole Armageddon thing to do its work. That's around 30 to 45 years, at best, since the average lifespan was a bit shorter then. After that, people should have just given up and gone back to their lives.
However, the shame of devoting their lives to a sham just made them believe all the more stubbornly. This is what is commonly known as cognitive dissonance, or Festinger's Syndrome. Cognitive dissonance is commonly defined as an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously, such as "the end of the world is at hand", and "Oh. No it isn't. My mistake." The most common feelings associated with cognitive dissonance are anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other various negative emotions. Commonly, cognitive dissonance also results in rationalizations, confirmation bias, and denial of evidence. These are mostly steps taken to reduce damage to one's ego after making what might be considered a bad decision. If that doesn't just scream religion to me, I don't know what does.
Funny story, the first use of the word cognitive dissonance was coined in relation to a failed religious prophecy. It was observed that a particular sect of a doomsday religion had predicted the end of the world on December 21, 1956. When the day arrived, and Armageddon didn't, the results were surprising. Several members of the church actually clung to their beliefs all the more irrationally, inventing numerous reasons for the failure of the prophecy. From this phenomenon, scientists theorized that the emotional investment in the irrational belief actually prevented the cultists from admitting to a failed belief. From this, it can be further theorized, though this is somewhat conjecture on my part, that one reason the early Christian religion was so fervently clung to in the face of compelling contradictory evidence is the feeling of cognitive dissonance.
C.) When you stand before God on Judgment Day, will you be innocent or guilty? Will you go to Heaven or Hell (there is no such place as Purgatory)?
c.) Oddly enough, people still have to go and point out that there is no Purgatory. It was abolished fairly recently, so I suppose it makes sense. My question here is, do these people deny the truth of Purgatory from the beginning, or is there no longer a Purgatory? It was established pretty explicitly that there was a Purgatory by St. Augustine and Pope Gregory I. Are these people accusing a saint and a Pope of lying? Where do they get their authority? I'm guessing a later Pope, but how do we decide which infallible representative of God to believe? They can't both be right. I say let 'em fight it out. Winner takes all, no-holds-barred Pope fight. Winner gets to issue God's commands like a big boy, loser sulks and goes home to Heaven.
D.) Please, let go of your self-righteousness (saying that you are good when you are not). Instead, put your faith in Jesus Christ. He suffered and died on the Cross, taking the punishment for all of your sins: "God commended His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
d.) Having to define self-righteousness shows again how condescending these people are to their readers about their intelligence. One of the major problems with the Crucifixion is the simple question of "why?". Could God have not simply forgiven humanity its sins without the need for a sadomasochistic sacrifice? No, the Old Testament laws demand a sacrifice to appease God. There must be blood. The Abrahamic God is, most of all, bloodthirsty. Killing rival tribes, destroying their cities, dashing their children against the stones, raping the virgin girls as spoils, the God of the Old Testament certainly commands violence.
See, the Crucifixion just ties back to the absurd Jewish rite of scapegoating, or the expiation of sin by proxy. The first scapegoats were literal goats, but damned if God didn't do the Jews one better and send a demigod to kick things up a notch.
The New Testament may put on a new costume and tart itself up as a great new thing for even the Gentiles to have, but God is still a wolf in sheep's clothing. Jesus might love us, but he certainly didn't have any love for the Gentiles then. He even comes out and says his daddy is God of the Jews. He refuses to heal a Gentile girl until her mother debases herself, and then only grudgingly. Not the best example, eh?
E.) Then Jesus rose from the dead and defeated death. If you will repent and trust Him, God will forgive your sins and give you everlasting life. Death will lose its sting!-"What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his soul?"
e.) Here, we get to the crux of the matter, one of the primary primitive motivations for believing such absurdities- wishful thinking and the fear of death. Believing one will survive one's own death is the height of arrogance. Hoping it is so is just being human. That doesn't make it any more likely, however.
One of the primary objections to the life after death theory is the uncertainty of the existence of the soul. Generally, the soul is described as being the essential essence of a person, what makes them who they are. Now, for this essence to survive the process of death, the personality of a person would have to be outside of the brain, or in some other medium than the physical realm. However, since brain injuries and alterations in brain chemistry have been shown to produce personality changes, it is highly unlikely that the personality is not specifically tied to the brain, and the physical processes that make up its operation. In essence, there is no soul. Therefore, physical death is the end. Consciousness dies with the brain.
F.) Pray something like this right now: "Dear God, I have sinned against you. I now turn from all sin and trust Jesus Christ alone as my Lord and Savior. I will read Your Word daily and obey what I read. In Jesus' name I pray. Amen."
f.) Ambrose Bierce had a pretty clever definition of "to pray": "To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy." From there, let us move on to the issue of God's Word. We're supposed to read it every day. Which one? The King James? The NIV? The NET? The ESV? Authorized Version? Gnostic Gospels? There are no two versions of the Bible that are exactly alike, and any deviation violates the sanctity of God's Word. How is one supposed to obey what they read without getting jailed for it? Killing children for disrespecting their parents, killing gays, stoning adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath- these are all out of style. We have moved past these primitive rules for our conduct. There are better ways to live our lives.
Well, that about wraps it up. I hope someone is still reading this, otherwise I've just wasted a huge chunk of time and effort. Anyway, I promise my next post won't be such dry reading. I'll be covering the other end of the nerd spectrum. Ron will handle music and some movies, I'll go for games, manga, comics, and anime. We'll probably collaborate on some movie and book reviews too, so look forward to it.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Talked to a pastor today.
So, I talked to this pastor at work today. In my experience, this can either go horribly awry or turn out undeniably awesome, and this one was awesome. Theological discussions have usually tended to go my way in the past, though I must say they can be pretty easy on an atheist. I mean, no atheist really has to justify much. Just bring up a few old objections that have stood the test of time, whether it be a moral argument, or the contrariety of religious claims, the logical inconsistencies, or something of your own personal favorite, a sort of 'pet argument' that comes in a variety of flavors. You really can't lose if you don't overreach, because the only one making a special claim or something needing any justification is the theist.
I've found a good style for these sorts of things. Just be careful, but be direct, polite, calm, and friendly. Lay out the case with appropriate solemnity, throw in a couple of jokes, and agree when possible.
When laying out my case for this pastor, I hit pretty hard with the contrariety of religions argument. "They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong, and it is more likely that they are all wrong than even one of them being correct." However I didn't just assert this, I explained the points of the argument and how any supernatural claim that falls short of being properly evidenced is cancelled by other exclusive claims of a similar nature. For instance, the claim of Christ's resurrection vs. Mohammed ascending bodily into heaven. Each are part of contrary religions, with Christianity assigning Christ as a messiah, part of a mysterious trinity, and a savior for humanity and Islam positing Mohammed as the last and most correct prophet of the one true god, Allah. Neither has enough evidence to support its adoption as a historic fact, and so becomes a claim of faith. Therefore, neither establishes the truth of either religion as more probable.
I've noticed that even when these people don't say, "I'll pray for you", they go around it and basically sneak it in there. This guy, who, as most of them are, was super nice and a very decent guy, tried to put it as, "I hope you keep searching, and find what you're looking for, and basically come around to my religion, you fuck."I pretty much shut that down. "Atheism isn't a journey back to theism. It's the destination." Some people actually try to get from "no god" to "yes god". And unless you go the other way, assuming he does exist, you cannot get to theism. Proof is not to be found.
Not every person just 'doubts'. Some actually, permanently, rationally deconvert. And they never go back. And good for them, I say. No atheist should re-convert unless they've got a stronger case for the other side. I've never heard of a justified, rational reconversion to theism. Antony Flew, one usually cited exception, is a deist, not a theist. He was convinced by a rather weak argument as well, that being the "argument from Ray Comfort". (Though for most people, Ray Comfort is a reason to reject all religion.)
I'm speaking of course here of the "banana argument". I'm sure a few of us are familiar with this unholy abomination against logic. Here it is in numbered points.
1. There exists in this universe a banana.
2. I have this banana in my hand.
3. This banana is the "atheist's nightmare".
4. Therefore God exists.
Alternately, "I Can Has Banana" will suffice.
No, really though. The 'argument from design' is as simplistic as all that. "I don't know how this got here. It looks really neato. GOD OF THE GAPS, TO ME!!!!"
Ignorance is denoted by caps lock in real life, too.
Honestly, I did enjoy this pastor guy, though. He was polite, he listened, he respected me. The talk really brightened up my day. If you meet a Christian tomorrow, give 'em a hug. Tell 'em some damnable atheist sent ya.
I've found a good style for these sorts of things. Just be careful, but be direct, polite, calm, and friendly. Lay out the case with appropriate solemnity, throw in a couple of jokes, and agree when possible.
When laying out my case for this pastor, I hit pretty hard with the contrariety of religions argument. "They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong, and it is more likely that they are all wrong than even one of them being correct." However I didn't just assert this, I explained the points of the argument and how any supernatural claim that falls short of being properly evidenced is cancelled by other exclusive claims of a similar nature. For instance, the claim of Christ's resurrection vs. Mohammed ascending bodily into heaven. Each are part of contrary religions, with Christianity assigning Christ as a messiah, part of a mysterious trinity, and a savior for humanity and Islam positing Mohammed as the last and most correct prophet of the one true god, Allah. Neither has enough evidence to support its adoption as a historic fact, and so becomes a claim of faith. Therefore, neither establishes the truth of either religion as more probable.
I've noticed that even when these people don't say, "I'll pray for you", they go around it and basically sneak it in there. This guy, who, as most of them are, was super nice and a very decent guy, tried to put it as, "I hope you keep searching, and find what you're looking for, and basically come around to my religion, you fuck."I pretty much shut that down. "Atheism isn't a journey back to theism. It's the destination." Some people actually try to get from "no god" to "yes god". And unless you go the other way, assuming he does exist, you cannot get to theism. Proof is not to be found.
Not every person just 'doubts'. Some actually, permanently, rationally deconvert. And they never go back. And good for them, I say. No atheist should re-convert unless they've got a stronger case for the other side. I've never heard of a justified, rational reconversion to theism. Antony Flew, one usually cited exception, is a deist, not a theist. He was convinced by a rather weak argument as well, that being the "argument from Ray Comfort". (Though for most people, Ray Comfort is a reason to reject all religion.)
I'm speaking of course here of the "banana argument". I'm sure a few of us are familiar with this unholy abomination against logic. Here it is in numbered points.
1. There exists in this universe a banana.
2. I have this banana in my hand.
3. This banana is the "atheist's nightmare".
4. Therefore God exists.
Alternately, "I Can Has Banana" will suffice.
No, really though. The 'argument from design' is as simplistic as all that. "I don't know how this got here. It looks really neato. GOD OF THE GAPS, TO ME!!!!"
Ignorance is denoted by caps lock in real life, too.
Honestly, I did enjoy this pastor guy, though. He was polite, he listened, he respected me. The talk really brightened up my day. If you meet a Christian tomorrow, give 'em a hug. Tell 'em some damnable atheist sent ya.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
