film: Secondhand Lions

Jerman's rating: 3 steps forward, 1 step back. This film will be enjoyed most by people the main character's age- middle-schoolish and on. Defcon 2 for some mild violence, bad family examples, and two rough uncles.

The film's main discussion is life, and what you are going to make out of your. Many facets of this discussion are also addresssed, like earning and losing fortunes, what kind of man will you be, falling in love, having a family, and choosing your own course. We don't hear all of the "to be a man speech" but the part we do hear are amazing words. It is good to believe in somethings whether or not they are true.

If you have money you can spend it on family, relatives, on essentials, important things, unimportant things. Money isn't addressed very well in many places, but I like it here- it has very little value, or at least have little value by the end. Lots of people are obsessed with the money, and we learn that that isn't good- there are many things more valuable than wealth.

The plot isn't very special, or complicated, its a little slow, but very fun and catching. It plays off a theme of telling stories and telling lies, history and fiction. This theme makes one of the most important plot points. Walter makes the uncles into honorable men, which the other adults can't stomach, because while its ok to steal from dishonest men, it wouldn't be right to steal from honorable men. Even though Walter is being told the stories, he is the main story teller.

While you see some fantastic acting, you can see some 'family relations' themes discussed. What makes a family (members or values?), and whats important in a family (kids' future or parents comfort?).
All in all a good family film- good morals told through a medium which is comedic and very entertaining (its not a comedy though). This is one of the rare gems, a best kept secret. Once I make a nifty logo for the Allen's list award, I'll put that up.

film: A Series of Unfortunate Events

Jerman's Rating: 2 steps forward and 2 steps back. The film will be enjoyed most by people 10-12 and older (the ages of the main characters). Defcon 2 for bad examples, scariness, a few deaths.

The thing that bugged me most during the re-watch was that the villain was the comic relief. Above all characters he made people laugh the most- which means he and his actions were glorified. *spoilers*Count Olaf killed several people, even if not shown, and always gets away with it. He burns down a house killing two, tries to and nearly kills the main characters using a train, ties one guy to the front of a train (he is shown), poisons another, feeds one to flesh-eating leeches, and is ready to drop an infant to her death. Its all done with an air of comedy (not the Looney Toons kind) never letting it have the gravity it deserves. Well- its not that he's glorified, it that he isn't demonized.

Granted, most the morals are provided just at the end, not quite afterthoughts, there are other good morals woven through like: sticking together, using your talents, "there's always something you can do."

There is an interesting interaction between the adults and adolescents, which is kind of cute and sometimes accurate and always appealing the the younger generation. It seems the adults can never make a decision without an error in judgment, have their eyes half closed, and are largely oblivious. They certainly do not know what it best. The two adolescents are full of wisdom, and would be quite fine on their own if only they could find a competent adult.

This film succeeded where many other films failed and I love this movie for that: it felt like reading a book while watching it, it's quality and 'feeling' was very unique and very enjoyable. Jim Carrey did take over the movie, and if it wasn't for the absence of his demonization it would be a fantastic film.

I believe I have posted before about a few special fortune cookies that I've got, almost exactly two years ago I got a very applicable one, as well as last year too. Perhaps one day they will be declassified and I can release the information to the public. This holiday has reminded me of them all, and that I need to find a Chinese restaurant as soon as I can so I can find my fortune for 2007.

MPAJ v1.2

I know its Christmas eve, but inspiration strikes as it will and I have to blog this immediately. I finally have two answers I've been wanting plus a third answer I didn't know I wanted.
New to the rating system:The age to be for watching something. Technically, you can watch a movie whenever you want, however understanding the movie is a little bit different. This will be listed in the rating paragraph from now on.

New to the rating system:A rating for content, I've decided to go with the defcon system. I don't know how many defcon levels there are in the military (5??) but I'm tentatively going with 6 levels right now. This will show how much questionable content there is in a film (with no regard to the morals). Main areas are sexuality (immodesty, innuendos, jokes, general sexuality), language, violence (slapstick, humanized violence), and gore (throwing up, bloody knees, general gross stuff you don't want to see). One of these things can either be referenced to happening, shown or heard happening, or emphasized (good close up) as its happening. Depending on how much there is of everything the defcon will rise and I'll give a little blurb about why. Kinda like the current MPAA. In the military, Defcon5 is peace, and Defcon1 is full-out war, which we have never experienced. Defcon stands for Defense Condition which still applies to watching movies, but this is not the military, this is the MPAJ, so I can pretty much do whatever I want.

• Defcon1- very light (from Dora the Explorer to Mary Poppins)
• Defcon2- light (Lion King to Secondhand Lions)
• Defcon3- Moderate (Unbreakable)
  
• Defcon4- Heavy (Sixth Sense to Lord of the Rings)
• Defcon5- Disturbing (Fight Club)
  
• Defcon6- Very Disturbing
  

I don't really make it a point to watch 5s and 6s, so I don't have many examples of them. Here is an example for ya'll: Lion King gets Defcon2 for scary hyenas, a bad guy that kills (and is shown), very strong emotions of hate shown. Really- this is the type of thing that calls for committee action which I will try for, but I'll try my best when I have to do it alone.


Lastly it came to my attention recently that the current output of the film industry has turned a lot of people off from watching movies at all. A friend will speak highly of it so you'll see it and you finish watching it disgusted. I want to let all of you know that there is so much good film and good media out there that your entire life is not long enough to watch it all. There is a lot of good stuff that will inevitably make better people out of you. So, I'm considering making an Allen's list, consisting of gems from out of all the dross stuff the industry puts out. Allen's kids' list may also be created.

If any of you have input to the list influencing defcons (things for me to consider while selecting the rating) please let me know! Any other suggestions or input will also be greatly appreciated.

film, theater and religion

I've been working diligently creating a make-believe curriculum for a class. I've been making it as good as I can, so that some day it can be adapted to create a class I can teach in High School. This class is kind of my dream class, if I had my way, this is the class I would teach most of, it deals with very important things that apply to real life just as easily as to film.

During my research, I came across this blog and post. It is really fantastic. It talks about Mormon theater, a bit of history. Further down it has some great quotes by Church leaders. A little bit further down and you get the "artists dilemma" as he calls it and uses Joseph Smith as an example- really great stuff. I've been thinking about this scaffolding that is the thematic and moral core of a film around which everything is created and tailored. I suppose that also must be true in our lives- the themes, morals, virtues we get to pick. We choose which morals and virtues are most important and we build our lives around that core. When choosing a major many people choose to build around money- which makes this essay I've linked to very interesting to me, especially the Joseph Smith part. Shouldn't the 'artist's dilemma' be everyones' dilemma?

I encourage you to read the essay.

Musings on an airplane.

I realized two things while traveling today. This was my first time flying domestically, and not internationally, my start and end destination were in the same country- - weird.

I didn't plan on either of the flying legs to be very long. I was surprised after a quick take-off-nap that there was a movie on. I didn't know the flight was that long. Then I looked closer and saw that it was "Lady in the Water." I visibly jumped in my seat and quickly got headphones on. It was during that film that I decided I could really care less if the plane fell down and crashed- so long as that movie still played. In fact I decided that instead of dying quietly in my sleep, I'd rather die while watching that movie.

I must briefly apologize for spelling errors- my holiday hosts do not have Firefox.

film: Eragon

Jerman's Rating: 1 step forward, 1 step back. Really there isn't much to go off of in this film. Teenagers would be a good crowd to appreciate this film. It has a good amount of killing and stabbing, but its a different flavor keeping the film a pretty good family friendly movie. This film is first a fantasy, second a movie, and does story and characters last.

One of the basic laws in making film is: show don't tell, and if you can- imply. Eragon had some trouble with this, but gets better as time goes on, you do have a lot to get caught up on, it just wasn't done very artisticly. There isn't a whole lot of character development, really only with one or two characters, but there is a lot of closeups on the main characters faces, several death scenes (poorly done) which takes away from time that could be spent showing other things. Part of the lack of development included the bad guys. They were over-the-top typcial, a bunch of fat stupid ugly guys standing around being stupid while intimidated by the 'bad'-er guys. It kind of reminded me of the bad guys on Gummi Bears or something similar.

Lots of things are put into the film, but are horribly underdeveloped, one wonders why they were put in at all. You may not understand right now, but once you watch you will see how they kind of come out of nowhere, it just sort of is. There is a weird love interest thrown in, the angsty archer just kind of jumps into the story, joining the rebel army is kind of whimsical, there are more examples.
All in all there isn't much meat on this films bones. A lot of that is because things don't translate easily from this world to the real world (like the morality of using magic and other magical bonds and stuff). You can pick at the bones and find some meat. The little bits I found talk about your life going in a direction or getting a 'calling' that you don't want or didn't ask for. Rising up to the 'calling' (cause you'll die if you don't). This is really only referenced well in one scene and even that doesn't get justice. There is a little bit of duty and honor, and courage, and friendship thrown in there, but are still really underdeveloped like I mentioned before.

I need to be a little bit less nagative before I end this review. The story wasn't all bad, the details were really good, the visual effects amazing (which I am always a fan of). The overarching story and history might be lacking, but there are some great moments, great characters (not a whole lot, but I'm a big fan of some of them), even though there isn't a whole lot of morals thrown in there, it is quite entertaining as long as you aren't too offended by the poor book to movie transition.

And thus ends. . .

And thus ends Fall semester of 2006! I had a TTE breakfast this morning, a 4 hour work break, and then history class, which ended with the class giving our professor an applause. He was a fantastic teacher, possibly in my top 5.

One final on Monday, finishing up a curriculum on film and then I can rest again, which will be nice, since I got 4 hours sleep on Sunday, 4 on Monday, none on Tuesday, at which point I started getting sick, and about 8 last night, which definitely wasn't enough.

I'm planning on seeing Eragon tomorrow early afternoon and hope to have a rating online soon as I can afterward, be sure to come check it out. Finally I can rate something before many people see the movie and the rating/review will actually be useful for once.

me-centric + thanklist

Sorry all of you, I've realized that this blog has been very self-centered, I need to stop that and start talking about things I find on the internet, and quotes that my friends say. I have one more post to get out of me before that happens.
I missed a lot of the thanksgiving posts, maybe because I was out of state, I don't know, but I have some things to write about now, and I don't think I need a holiday or an excuse to write whatever the heck I want to. So I'll list some things I'm thankful for right here.

Not this summer, but the summer before that I got hooked into a job that could have potentially made me a lot of money, I was stoked about it. It turned out that it was a huge money hole and I was significantly worse off financially than I was before it all happened. It is for this crappy crappy job that I am thankful, because it was here, because of this job that I met one of the most amazing people in my life, who continues to be amazing. I'm speaking about Pixie.

Number 2- for my computer, It was a gift I got the Christmas after my mission and is probably the gift that I've gotten the most use out of, of all the gifts I've ever got.

Number 3- for a jean blanket Dado made for me quite a while back, this gift comes in a close second after the computer, I use it all the time and its lovely.

As for future posts, I recently wrote a lot about teaching and different ideas and standards and philosophies, I may make a few posts about those, you probably shouldn't read them, they'll be boring. I am going to try to move away from me and get some better posts out there, and I'll try to get another movie up there soon.

Lessons learned

I hit another boulder along my path that has redirected my course a little. I'm a very trusting person by nature, I've been told this, maybe that I'm too trusting. Well I've picked up some experience that has taught me that I need to stop that. I need to be more cautious of who to trust because there are good people to trust, and bad people to trust. Maybe I'm new to this whole 'life' thing but I haven't known many bad people, or at least have been able to spot them. I put my faith and trust in someone I shouldn't have, told them things because I trusted them and . . . was betrayed. on many levels. So, I know things now, that I hadn't known before, sure is nice to know, and a little bit not.
So with the above, I desperately want to bury it and put it to rest (Ever wonder why we bury our dead, putting the underground? Is it to get the pain out of sight? Is it so it is more healthily decomposed?) I really want to bury it all and forgive. But I'm having trouble with it, I don't seem to be able to forgive.
So- lesson learned. the hard way. People earn trust, and don't deserve it freely. Watch your front and your back, even though you're human you won't be treated that way.

War, Patriotism, and Civilization

I have another history post that I have to get out of me, even if it is lengthy, which it is. For those of you who want to read it all, but don't have time, I'll change the color to the really important paragraphs to yellow.

We have discussed at length what civilization means. Europe for most of time (since the renewal) thought they were pretty civilized, and took it upon themselves to 'help' the rest of the world become civilized. Now the rest of the world was confronted with a hard choice of become more modern, more like the west, or staying. Choice between tradition or changing. Every organization has to confront this challenge. Some people questioned why the Europeans did this 'civilizing' to the rest of the world. One man wrote about Europeans condemning the cannibals for being uncivilized, but pointed out that the European Christians would torture people endlessly while they were still alive, while the cannibals killed people quickly. He pointed out that those cannibals were more civilized in many respects than the highly civilized and moral Christian nations.

We just read Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" as a class, where this is discussed. We understand by the end the Igbo culture, folklore, and religion, at least in part. The painting isn't a rosy one, it has its problems, but it does work, and it has its virtue. Yes, they killed twin babies because that was part of their beliefs in their gods. The Christians killed an entire village of people because a white man had been killed there. Earlier in the story we see how the Igbo people dealt with murder- a slave was given in place of the life. An entire village wiped out with machine guns was unheard of; it was uncivilized behavior in the extreme. Were the Igbo people civilized? Why or why not? If you've never heard of the Igbo people, analyze a different people- like the one "The Gods Must Be Crazy" or the Native Americans.

What kind of basis can we assign to civilization? Does it just mean that people can live together in more or less peace? Does it involve morals? Does it involve technology? Does it involve religion? Can a society stand alone and be civilized or do you have to have something to compare it against? For a lot of history its based on religion. The Muslims saw themselves as more civilized and imposed their religion on other. The Christians did the same. Think of all the wars that were fought in the name of God.

Wars and civilization is what I really want to talk about. There was a wave that swept through the world in the 17th and 18th centuries. People began to think of themselves as "us," we are of common stock and we are brothers. Its called National Identity. Its been pretty important in history. It the reason for a lot of things like the Declaration of Independence, civil rights, women's rights, and constitutions throughout the world.

When we talk about wars (World War I for example) we can name off different causes for the war, so we can avoid those (few causes) and not have wars in the future. There was a weird balance of powers, weights and counter weights, alliances and counter alliances all over the place, it really was a powder keg ready to blow up and put to waste the high civilization that had developed. National Identities are always attributed an important role in why wars escalate and other countries join in, but aren't given too much credit.

National Identity also known as 'Patriotism' is one of the most destructful of forces we enjoy. This patriotism is the primary cause of the majority of wars both modern and ancient; the good wars and the bad ones. It is not only responsible for the wars, but the atrocities too. This is where ethnic cleansing, racism, the holocaust, everything similar that builds walls and separates people based on distinction or puts people in compartments.

You can see it happen can't you? I'm an American, and I'm proud of it, you reader are also American and you are my brother. Over there across the sea, are 'other' people, they are not our brother, they are Germany, or Spanish, or English, or whatever, but not American, the Germans are not my brothers. I'm Anglo-saxan (white), so are a lot of people I know, those blacks- they aren't Anglo-saxan, they're black, they aren't my brother either. I'm proud to be an American (...where at least I know I'm free...), thank goodness that I wasn't born Italian, because its better to be American than Italian- this is what patriotism is. We put up these walls and divisions, and its just a stones throw away from saying that we are superior the the other, whatever the other is- a country, a race, a religion.

"Civilization is the process in which one gradually increased the number of people included in the term "we" or "us" and at the same time decreases those labeled "you" or "them" until that category has no one left in it." - Howard Winters

This idea of mine really isn't popular. Patriotism in our country is as important as love. Its put on a pedestal, those who don't partake are excluded and ridiculed. Patriotism doesn't breed peace and unity. The more I hear about the merits of being American and the more flag waving I see the more worried I get. Many people might be interested to know a short history about patriotism in Germany.

Germany as a nation worried lots of people for a long long time. Countries thought it has to be suppressed or else it would become an aggressor (funny- whenever you suppress anything when its released it always does act like an aggressor). Germany was a monarchy for a long time, having rich traditional values like making beer, wursts, polka music, German attire, Germanic languages all brought the people together and eventually a National Identity was formed as happened everywhere. World War I was a time when everyone had a very strong national identity. Things were going better than they ever had just before the war, the culture, the arts, music, everything was thriving. You could say that everyone was perfectly pleased about how their country was doing. It was a golden age for each country. Thats when World War I hit, and it hollowed out the feelings of Europe, everything was for naught, there was no humanity, no civilization, no nothing. The peace treaty was (in my opinion) worse than the war itself. And so- Germany was suppressed even more, it was war torn, and had huge fines it was required to pay up. The "common plight" forged a patriotism stronger than ever. Hitler came along and acted the perfect savior for the ravaged country. Patriotism was the name of the game. Everything 'German' was emphasized, the German spirit, the folklore, the tradition, food, clothing, even the German race. We know the rest of the story, and even today people connect being German with being a Nazi. I'm the Jerman and I've been called a Nazi more times than I can count (I can't count very high by the way). Germany is sorta like a different country, it seems kind of weird having it keep the same name. Patriotism doesn't exist or is very scarce there. During the World Cup Germans flew flags all the houses, all the cars, soccer is a very serious business over there. Outside of World Cup season, there is no flag flying. There are German holidays, like reunification day, but they are nothing like anything here in America, New Years is bigger than any German holiday. I'm not sure if the Germans are afraid of being patriotic, they just aren't.

I applaud things like the World Cup and the Olympics and other organizations that bring countries together (even if it is in competition). I like the organizations best that completely break the walls between countries and between brothers.

During the cold war America had a common threat. The whole nation was acting as one, the compartments were broken up, we were united. Once that commonality was gone, the threat was gone, we turned on each other, built the walls, and we found out that we actually have a lot of problems that weren't being faced. Why is it that we can say "we are all brothers here" when we are threatened, and break that relation once we are at peace? Do we need a global threat (alien invasion perhaps) to create the bond between us all? As has been shown in the past- No.

Peace is not the absence of war. War can be a good thing, peace can be a bad thing. At least the fruit of War is peace- as long as peace is right. Sometimes the fruit of peace is war (these aren't studied so much, but there has been a lot of stupid treaties made in the past). More and more I am learning that it is more important that anything to be able to say to all men "you are my brother" and to say to all woman "you are my sister." If history has taught me anything, it has taught me that. The family is the most basic and one of the strongest relationships that we have. It certainly trumps the American bond, or racial bond, or church bond, or anything else. Saying "we are from the same family" is stronger than saying "we are from the same country" or "we worship the same God" or "we are in the same social class" or any status or preference. We ought to be able to break down the walls that divide us, however we are divided, and be from the same family. That is what civilization is. Once we are civil, I can't see how any contention or war is possible, whether large scale or small.

It's Christmas time. . .again

I've favored this since high school, I don't know where it came from first, but I've found several websites that claim it as their own, so instead of giving credit to everyone, I'm giving it to no one. I didn't write it though, I would like to be that cool though.

Santa Claus and physics

1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle most Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man- made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison, this is four times the weight of the cruise ship Queen Elizabeth II.

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to acceleration forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion - If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

if you want to eat a movie, it has to have meat on its bones.

Night before last, I slept.
Pwnzr's computer was off for once (which never happens), Pwnzr wasn't even home. The TV was off in the front room, as was the game systems, everyone was being quiet, probably in their beds. It was all quiet and dark. I was taken aback, it hasn't happened since August, I hardly recognized it. I thought to myself "This is what heaven must be like."

a few internet finds

• This is a sorta fun game, the first time I tried I got in the 200s, but then, I'm not very smart at those kinds of things- give it a whirl, see how you do. Gotta love google. Here is the link- click on "Lauch Project"
• Next theres two photo rater sites. Landscapes. and Cute pictures. worth a look, you can also go to a different page and vote for a while if you want, you'll find some good pictures there (some of the Landscape pictures are CGI- don't vote for them, they're fake).
  

film: States of Grace

Jerman's rating: 4 steps forward, 1 steps back. Just so you know I seriously considered giving this film the elusive 5 steps. It goes places other films don't go, and teaches amazing things that are rare in film. Films often teach really good things, but usually stay away from Christ, I may change this rating in the future to a 5, for now, it remains a highly moral film.

I've included two links to other reviews that are very thorough, and worth the read. My job is just to report on the morality of the film with brief notes on artistry and content. They go into morals too, I suggest you read theirs, they say much of what I would have said, they bring up many new things to think about.

This film is an experience in and of itself, its not something you can watch and then lightly pass off. All the characters are real and don't fit the molds that you want to fit them into. The trunky elder doesn't fit, the uber-righteous elder doesn't fit his. There will be some characters in the film that you'll latch onto and identify with. The experience is intense because Dutcher brings up topics that are normally taboo. Real people with real experiences and real problems, they have always existed, but not usually talked about, even though we all experience it. We can see that no one is innocent, everyone has dirt and has a crappy life, everyone is in need of salvation, and grace.

You can tell Dutcher put a lot of work into the plot, interaction, and script. You usually feel what the characters are feeling, whether it be anger, sadness, jarred, confused, hopeless, remorse. The film is very well crafted, the way it flows in atypical of most films, there are multiple climaxes, conclusions, lessons learned, twists, it matches real life closer than most films, things don't ever come to an end, there is always tomorrow, and things could get better or worse.

Two of the main characters are missionaries, you can expect a conversion story to be told. You don't know that there's going to be so many of them, all happening at different paces, everyone at a different part in their own journey. You can see clearly the different stages of change and repentance. You can see how significant change is, from what is being left behind, and compared to the possible future.

I have to add one small note that I especially liked the multi-religious tones. Other religions are accepted and glorified, just as Mormonism is. This is a theme I would like to see more of. Mormons sometimes think that they are the only good church along with being the only true church.

I've been saving the best for last. There are veins all through the movie. The veins are great, they taste good, but you don't know they lead anywhere until the very last scene. You find out what the whole movie was about, you reflect on everything you just watched and see how it ties together. Everything is led back to Christ. The scene is beautifully shot, symbolic and meaningful. Christ is the central theme of the film. This sets this film above most. Narnia symbolically taught about Christ, it was beautiful how it was done, but it was subtle. States of Grace is very blatant and unabashed that Christ is the center, and He is what's important. Its not that the film simply teaches good things and teaches about Christ, but it does it all very powerfully. This is really the most inspiring, uplifting, good film I've seen in a very very long time. (I usually don't like the connotations attached to 'uplifting' but I couldn't think of another word) I can't think of another film that is on par with it in terms of how plain and powerful the Christ theme is taught.

Despite being so moral and upstanding etc. you may hate the film, you may like the film. All I can tell you is that it teaches incredible things, I can't predict if you'll like it. It does have gang violence in it, a few people die (more blood during rescue and healing, not so much during the violence), the film is gritty, not that much is shown on screen, but you know what's happening, or what has happened. You may not like the depiction of the missionaries, I haven't ever seen a film that depicts them correctly, its impossible in my mind. You might not like the mission president or other authority figures, the rules; it was a part of these people's lives, and were very important to them, just as the characters portray. You also might not like how Mormonism has a darker side, a shadow; you may ignore it, but that doesn't make it go away and it doesn't solve the problem, accepting there is a problem is the first step to correcting it. There are plenty of things to not like. There are plenty of things to love. I regret two things: first that I waited this long to see the film, and second that it only made back 7.5% of its budget.


For those who have not seen the movie and would like more to read there is an excellent review by Eric D. Snyder that can be found here. Another good review can be found on imdb's website here.

film: Rat Race

Jerman's rating: 1 step forward, 3 steps back. My first negative rating. I've been waiting.

The film sports a good cast, interesting premise, and is an easy comedy. It ought to be very popular and highly viewed, which from what I tell it was.

The film first discusses money, and how people love it, then its about gambling. The characters ask themselves, as you might ask yourself while watching "How far are you (they/ am I) willing to go for money?" How much money? What kind of things? Its a valid question. Its not handled very well in this film.

This film almost writes the definition for 1 step forward films. The good morals are unimportant and have the same effect as an afterthought. Spoiler ** The money goes to a good cause at the end, but it feels awkward in the situation, out of place, like it belonged in a different story. The good thing wasn't done for good's sake, but because it was the "cool", "fad" thing to do, because of girl friend /boy friend, because of pressure and wanting to 'look good'.

Things to pick up: Gambling is cool, especially the more innovative and expensive it is. Everybody is in it(life) for the money, its really all thats important, sure it runs the world, but its so much more important than that. There's a good amount of violence (treated as crazy but ok), stealing (you gotta do what you gotta do), and there is definite objectionable sexual content. I found a few things just ridiculous- like two people deciding on getting married and living together because of $2 mil that they don't even have but will supposedly bring them together, a very good way to start a marriage: "We'll both be rich, we ought to get married!"

Overall it could be an enjoyable entertaining movie, not the greatest morals though. It does have good laughs.

note: One thing I've noticed is that the more moral the film is the more there is to write about, you could write novels on a good movie, for this one though- even though I've left out some things, there isn't much else to say.

Jerman Rating System Reviewed

ok, so I need to a lot of practice with this rating system, which is why I've practiced with just about every movie I've seen in the last month. I have a few concerns.

First- and this is important. This rating system rates only the morality of the film. It doesn't, it can't have anything to do with how "good" or "likable" the movie is. There are three different criteria people use when choosing a movie to watch

• 1)How professional is the Movie? Lord of the Rings near the top of the chain, old Japanese Godzilla movie would be unprofessional.
• 2)How moral is the movie is.
• 3)How well the movie clicks or clashes with you personally.

Every movie in the world is categorized by you in this way. Usually your favorite movies pass all three questions. Then your next favorites fail one question, and so on. The bad movies that you hate fail all three.

One quick example: I love the movie Good Will Hunting. Yes it teaches some very good things, its also very dirty and unabashed about it. I still love it though. Artificial Intelligence - very professionally done, good film making, most people hate it though- out of personal preference (I'm undecided).

Onto my Second concern. How am I supposed to apply the JMPA rating to my life? Is there supposed to be a line to draw? There probably should be...The Prophet told us not to watch immoral movies...I'm finding the rating system less useful than I had hoped. The Transporter - I haven't seen it in a while, but it'd probably be a +1 and -3. It still like the movie. Is that bad of me? I know what the 13^th Article of Faith says, I know watching immoral movies is bad and dangerous. But there has to be a way to apply the rating to my movie selections, just as there is a way to rate the movie itself. Perhaps its a personal thing. Everyone has to decide and come up with it on their own. I'm still bouncing around a few ideas. There has to be a good method.

Currently in Mormon-dom the R rating is like the kiss of death- the reason Saints and Soldiers was edited down, it was primarily for Mormon audiences, it wouldn't do well with the "evil R" rating. If I dictated and drew the line (as I am about to do)- I would be re-inventing the kiss of death. The Rater would still have the power to include or exclude movies that are bordering on the 'kiss of death' border out of personal preference- which is not the way its supposed to happen.

So far this is my watchable list: +5 or +4(any amount of steps back), +3(must be -3 or less), +2 or +1 (-2 or less).

I'm looking for feedback as well, which I haven't received a whole lot of. Please tell me your thoughts- whatever they are- I want to know them. As long as they aren't "You're the best I love you" or "you're the worse , I hate you." I'm looking for some real advice or feedback. The entire JMPA has only happened because I've surveyed hundreds of people, and is constantly being refined as more people are surveyed.

Daily Universe says something good??

I found a piece, not an opinion piece, a full opinion column written by an employee, I don't really know the position of the writer, but it wasn't in with the other whiny opinion letters.

Her name is Julie Espinosa and she wrote something fantastic! Here is the link. I highly encourage you all to take 2 minutes and read it, it won't even take two minutes. She lightly or heavily criticizes BYUSA and the administration, and Mormon culture in general (depending on how you look at it).

The middle part when she quotes Brigham Young and Orson Scott Card is amazing. You can make up your own mind, I certainly don't agree with every sentence, but it was a breath of fresh air to read it.

For all you nerds. . .

I made my first flash game. It was supposed to be a kids game where the kid can match the colored circle (red, green blue) to match the words. I thought that was boring, so I made the names be hexadecimal, and the colors all get randomized. different every time you play. Lets see how well YOU know your hex codes!
Heres the link
Disclaimer- I don't know flash very well, and used dynamic text fields, so you have to drop the circles in the area around the hex codes, not right on top.
EDIT: I fixed the game- it now works properly as it is supposed to work, try out the new HexGame v1.02!

Caffeine, the mormon 'drug'

A few of you can attest to the fact that I'm slow with the up-take. I just recently found out that caffeine doesn't affect me. I was tired while driving, and decided to get a mountain dew from a place we stopped at. I drank the Dew, and was still as tired as I ever was. The sugar affected me like normal- awake for a while, then a sugar low that puts me right to sleep. I've heard from reputable sources that Mountain Dew has more caffeine than coffee. Yet as I was doing history reading, I was asleep the whole time, almost slept through my class.

I had this problem in High School too. I'm not a very good test taker, I hated the ACT. Even though I got good sleep and everything, I fell asleep every time I took it. So the last time I bought 2 Mountain Dews, one I drank before it all, and I drank the other during the break. Yeah- I still fell asleep, nothing different.

Which brings me to asking other questions. If I'm not affected by it can I still get addicted? because I've sure found out that Coke, Dr.Pepper, and Mountain Dew are a lot better than most the other drinks (except European Fanta- thats the best stuff in the world!).

Its also going to suck when I'm up late and have to drive home, and have nothing that'll keep me awake.

film: Garden State

Jerman's Rating: 3 steps forward and 3 steps back. If these steps canceled each other out (which they don't) it would be morally neutral, but it is actually a phenomenal movie. I know I loved it, and would recommend it, except for the heavy usage of certain 4 letter words, and an unnecessary sexual scene. If this keeps you from not watching the film- this isn't the movie for you. However this doesn't bother everyone on the planet- you all will enjoy the movie a.k.a. get stuff out of it.

This film has a unique style and pace. It didn't bother me, but I can see it bothering some people. If you don't know whats going on- don't be bothered by it, its on purpose- you'll be caught up. The story is told in a slow, random weird way. But, the characters aren't boring. You'll be intrigued by the weirdness and get caught up in it. There's a magical, endearing, realistic quality to the characters. The dialog fits them all, and is very telling. The words were carefully chosen. I'd say the plot falls between loose and non-existent. Its first a finding yourself journey which connects with a love story. Perhaps not very intricate of a plot, but that doesn't mean its less good. Onto thematic things.

I'm a romantic, perhaps thats why I liked this movie. Romanticism is this film's doctrine. What exactly constitutes being alive? Can you be alive without living? Whats the difference between having no emotions, no feelings, and being dead? We are shown that emotions, passions, love, pain all make you alive. Yes, love is put on a pedestal, but so is pain, and hurting- there is glory in all feelings, not just the good ones. That's what romanticism is all about.


There is a discovering yourself theme, which would appeal to teenagers and young adults. "Exploring the endless Abyss" There's a kind of weird randomness climb, crescendo, and climax (when finding yourself is referenced), and slow down.

Strong cuss words are used freely, used as a means to express yourself. A weird thing happens which is sexual (main characters not involved). Its treated as being weird, with much annoyance from the main characters, but is not condemned. Acceptable as long as other people do it, is what's taught. There is a good amount of drugs. They are shown to be white trash, but aren't discouraged either. Except prescription anti-depressants- these are shown in a strong negative light, and dependence on them is bad.

Here is one quote which I'll end with, its a good indicator of the language. These lines jumped out at me.
"f-- this hurts so much" "I know it hurts. but its life. and its real. and sometimes it f-- hurts, but its life. and its pretty much all we got"

film: the Sixth Sense

Since starting the blog, This has been the first movie I wanted to review, but felt intimidated and kept putting it off. I don't think any review I do could do justice.

Jerman's Rating: 4 steps forward, 1 step back. This film teaches very pure, very good things. The step back is only for scariness factor, which I'll get to in a second.

Bruce Willis is the star, but Haley Osment is the main character. The previews showed it was about seeing ghosts and how both our worlds interact, its actually about something better, deeper, the 'stuff life is made of.' People think the re-watch value is to 'catch' the twist ending throughout the movie, that really isn't important. This film has just as much replay value as any other solid movie. I've probably seen this movie as many times as I've seen Star Wars.

Film elements first. The scripting is one of the first things that sets Shyamalan apart. Its natural and very expressive. Same goes for the story, plot, and editing- natural and expressive. Long camera shots, interesting angles and framing, and reflected shots.

After watching bonus material on the DVD people get excited about the color 'red' rewatch it, think its cool and never get it. This is good for you first time watchers too: the color red serves as a visual poke. Shyamalan can't sit next to you and poke you to get your attention or direct you to things, so he uses the color red. Its like saying: "This is significant, pay attention or take a note of it" Red things are absent in the film except when its needed.

Onto thematic things. First the scariness factor. I get upset when this film is put in the horror section in stores. Its not a horror- far from it. It is scary, but for one very important reason- so you can put yourself in Cole Sear's shoes. The kid's life sucks, he thinks he's cursed, the thing he wants most is to not be scared- you have to understand his life, thus there are a few jump scenes and disturbing images. They are not there just to be there and make a gory movie. You'd be freaked out and scared out of your mind too.

One theme I enjoy every time is the way Mothers are shown. Toni Collette plays the best mother I've seen in any fiction. She loves her son a lot and the way that's shown is beautiful. Then there is the other mother, the one in red. In one boring shot, with bad resolution of a video tape I get more disturbed than anything else in the movie. That one shot makes me sick to my stomach, the shot isn't very amazing, there's nothing special about it, but its the context, the naturalness that gives it the effect.

The film discusses prioritizing family and work. The difference between life curses and life talents/strengths. Hidden talents and gifts people have, and how they are different. One of the film's taglines is: Not every gift is a blessing. Think about that- and how the idea changes. Its also about: Making single parent homes work. Telling people close to you things about yourself. and Trust. Most of all its about the 6th Sense, not the extra sensory itself, but how its used and affects your life. Does it use you, or do you use it? Which has ownership over the other one? Curse owns person? or Person owns gift?

This film is very cathartic. If you're a crier you'll probably cry in some parts. The best way I could describe the movie immediately after watching it is 'beautiful.'

Photograph post 2: strikes back

These were scanned in, not that great of pictures, but felt like posting them anyway. Some of them are really old, just a warning.

This one is maybe the oldest, as you can see we are a big skinny family, everybody is, which we sometimes laugh at, just we are sometimes laughed at. Thats my brothr in the BYU garb, come from that stock as well, it was how I was raised. Notice the shoes I'm wearing? no coincidence.



Here our family is in Itally somewhere, I'm not sure exactly where. We traveled a bit, we all had dorky haircuts, but so did you in the mid 90's so I don't care.




These are some of the best people I know, back from freshman year. That was a good year. Unfortunately the person that took the picture wasn't in it, he's uber-cool as well.




We're starting to catch up, everyone is looking a little bit older. We're back to the fam, this picture was taken in Utah.




Here we are hanging out at Emily's tiny house in Provo, Her first house. I'm wearing the Superfan shirt, yes I was one of those, too bad I still don't have the shirt. . .




Here is the last picture, one of my favorites. Too bad it didn't scan well. Everybody is here looking good, there are a few more kids that exist now that didn't exist then- 4 actually. Emily is getting married, the guy with the beard is Matt- Karen's husband. Isaac liked Emily a lot, probably why he is standing right up against her dress. This was taken at the Salt Lake Temple. I really hate wedding photos, but I like this picture.

just a quick post, a shout out to a few people. After getting a call from Burley, EgyptianQueen, and MissPiggy, I realize I really like to talk with them. Thanks for calling, and welcome!

The Biggest Picture Post Ever!

**right click and select "View Image" so see it full size**

I'm going to start going from oldest to youngest, introducing to you all my family. Any anonymity I have will shortly be destroyed.

First there is Karen born in 76, she married Matt Martin and now has three kids.

This is the oldest. Isaac. He likes Star Wars a LOT. He recently started reading Harry Potter and is quite addicted.


This is MaKenna. She is a girly-girl. Loves playing damsel in distress or mom. She use to have to go everywhere wearing a dress, she's doing better now.


This is Jessica. She was born when I was on a mission, when I came home we bonded, I'm still one of her favorites, She's the cutest relative I have.


picture from Isaac's birthday, cameos from Grandma and Grandpa (his, not mine):


Jess was born on New Years, and always has a NewYears themed birthday, she didn't like it the first year.


One more of the girls together:





The next is David born in 78 I think.
I couldn't find very many of just him, Brian took this one. Don't worry, David comes back in other pictures too. He's the family member I play video games with.




Next is Emily. born in 80, she married Justin Allen, now has three kids.


This is Kate, she's little but very grown up, speaking early, reading early, writing early, whenever I talk to her it seems that she is 5 or 6 years older than she actually is.


There aren't too many pictures of Hyrum or Lucy, but you will be seeing them in other pictures as well.



Then there is me, born in 83, the odd year, the only one in the family. No pictures of me



After me comes Brian, born in 86. He's in Spain right now, but generally he's the coolest person I know. You can visit his blog here. He's kinda vain and takes lots of pictures of himself, his blog is where most of my pictures came from.


Last comes Kimberly. She comes from 88 She is pretty cool too, and is coming to Utah next year to hang out with me.
This is Brian and Kim when we went on some trip to Holland (thus the windmills behind them). Kim hasn't changed much.

Here's one of the youngest three:


This one is me, mom, and Kim visiting Hungary for a few days. It was freezing, thats the Duna behind us.



My Dad doesn't get a lot of pictures taken of him, we have gotten a few of our mom though. Here she is in Gyor.



I have a few more pictures to post, but they are hard copy, and I don't have a scanner available right now. I'll post this and soon there will be a follow up "The Biggest Picture Post Ever 2- the remix"

a first for me.

This last week I did something that I haven't ever done before. I bought artwork. Churchy art work too. I generally hate church art. Paintings by Greg Olson and the like just aren't my cup of tea. But there are several artists who are not Mormon, and I do enjoy their art. Behold: A detail of the painting I bought. The real one has birds and the boat also in the painting. I wasn't sure how legal it would be to put online, (probably not at all) so I added the nasty watermark, hopefully that makes it more legal...

I'm really glad I bought it, it my favorite. Other art I like is the Carl Bloc paintings, and that one big one in the MOA, but I think that might be Carl Bloc too...

Jerman's Rating Explained

The MPAA is broken, the rating system most of America uses. It doesn’t work how we want it to work. The reason we use it, and the purpose in creating it are two different things. The MPAA isn’t a scale of morality, which is what we need- the answer? We make our own.

I’ve been working of this for a long time. Is almost impossibly hard. I’ve recently dubbed this the JMPA or MPAJ, I haven’t decided which is better (‘J’ for Jerman…I know, How vain of me…

Lets start. Does each film start bad (F, 0%) and earns righteous points (raising the grade)? Does it start good (A+) and accumulates wicked points? Does it start neutral, a C (75%) on the grade scale, or a 50%(F) on the point scale? Is a number system good (1 dimensional)? Is 2 dimensions better, or 7? What kind of rubric do you use, or is using a rubric even possible? After bouncing around a few ideas, I’ve decided to use this system. Each film starts at zero, and earns points in both directions (moral, and immoral) at the same time The two vectors don’t cancel each other out. The highest and lowest is a 5, something you will rarely or never see. It’d probably be bell-curve-ish. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a +5 film. +4 would be Chronicles of Narnia. Lord of the Rings- possibly, M. Night Shyamalan- probably.

It gets more difficult when looking at the rubric you are forced to use, intentionally or otherwise. You have to use some sort of criteria to say how many steps forward, and backward. Example: Girl wears immodest skirt (please forgive me for using such a lame example, its just for illustration). However the filmmakers are using the Girl to explain how immodesty is bad. Do I still give points in both directions? Don’t worry about content because only morals matter? I don’t have an answer yet. For right now- content does have a place, maybe small, but it does have influence on the whole rating.

We love generalities so much, so here is a general rule. If it is glorified, it is encouraged (fighting and kung-fu in Matrix), if it is demonized it is discouraged (Killing people- just about every movie). If a liked character does something, that action is encouraged (James Bond drinks Martinis , drives nice cars, and has sex), if a disliked character does something it is discouraged (cutting down trees is bad, because Saruman did it).

At this point in time, I and I alone, have the power of discretion to say what things are good and what is bad. I’m working on a way to make it more objective and less based on me, but this is the way it is now, until it gets fixed. Still- its better than the MPAA, which really is broken. To everyone who has read through this (which looking at the numbers of people visiting this blog, is a heck of a lot of people) I would encourage you to decide on making your own rating system. Your own XMPA replacing X with your nickname. Tailor it how you want it, set it up as perfect as you can.

• +5 Teaches many many things, that are essential, rarely taught, and would elevate mankind to a higher plane. Don’t expect to ever see any of these films.
• +4 Teaches variety of and quality morals. Film this moral is rare.
• +3 Not as wide a variety, or less stressed than 4, yet retains a strong message which is generally outstanding. High class morals
• +2 Bulk of movies. Think low class Disney films.
• +1 Token morals, almost an afterthought
• +0 Only exists on paper, not in real film. Well…Maybe a Burger King training video would have nonexistent morality.

AND (not or)

• -0 Same as above
• -1 Things aren’t quite right, there is token immorality thrown in, almost as an after thought.
• -2 Glorify that which is bad, Demonize good things, This is a lot more common. Watch out, be sure to notice when this is happening.
• -3 Sex, Violence, Drugs, Language, all glorified. These movies defiantly are being made, they are more rare than 1 or 2, not usually popular by the common people, but you can find them without much trouble.
• -4 Super bad things taught, If the whole world followed these things, we’d be living in a very evil world. If a –4 movie has been made, it’d be really rare.
• -5 As bad as possible, If a +5 is teaching about Jesus, and becoming better, this would be the opposite, I highly doubt a –5 movie has ever been created.

film: Moulin Rouge

What is this story about? It would tell you itself right in the beginning: freedom, beauty, truth, but most of all, a story about love. Bohemian. Also, before you watch it know that this film is very unconventional. It breaks a lot of rules of good film making, redefining it in the process. This doesn't mean the same thing as overly sensual. Unconventionality, and sensuality are two different things. Moulin Rouge is both. EDIT: I've decided to put the Jerman rating (soon to be explained) at the beginning rather than the end, and have the body support the rating

Jerman's rating: 3 steps forward, 2 steps back. Despite having a rating that returns it to almost neutral, I highly recommend seeing this movie, as long as you can watch it as a mature adult.

The music is amazing, one of the best qualities, and those singing voices are the actual actors. Ewan McGregor can sing! The music is modern, witty, very enjoyable. By referencing modern songs is able to pull volumes of feelings and ideas into that moment, and the situation adds volumes onto that. The Roxanne song is probably my favorite- really well done and well shot.

The camera moves a lot, as do characters on the screen- sometime in ways that people shouldn't move: flying around the room like a balloon you blow up and let go. Its not annoying, and adds greatly to the feel of the film.

The story isn't the most amazing. Shakespeare wasn't amazing either, but the way Moulin Rouge is shot, presented, etc. makes it what it is, you'll fall in love with the story, even if it is simple, idealistic, and WAY over the top.

First the steps backward. This film is very sensual, filled with innuendos, scantily clad women, and well... you know what the Moulin Rouge was don't you? There is lots of talk about prostitution, or having sexual relations as part of a career. This usually is done very tastefully, as we'll talk about in a second. After the first few chapters (after the "emergency rehearsal"), the sensuality hides, and doesn't come out for the rest of the movie. This film is kind of famous for how sexual it was- you need to know what you are going to watch, but it really isn't all that scary.

As if the film refutes itself, there are several interesting things. When Satine meets Christian in the elephant she isn't wearing much, she wears the same thing through the next few scenes, but the thing she's wearing does change. During the song she sings with Christian the lingerie changes into a modest evening gown. Its subtle, so you might not notice it, but ask yourself: Why would the filmmakers do that? Why have it transform into a modest dress for the song about falling in love? There are lot of nice surprises like this (modesty over immodesty), clearly countering the sensuality- thesis, antithesis. Whats the moral of the story, the end of the battle? You will see.

At the end (trying not to give anything away), Satine is torn between continuing her career at the Moulin Rouge, and moving on to grander things. She says, "I belong in the underworld, I don't deserve a better life." Right along with 'Moulin Rouge is my home.' Satine (you learn as you are introduced to her character) is a dancer, and a prostitute, a very successfully one. Can we rise above what life has given us? Are we chained, and unable to escape a bad life? People do throw in the towel, stop fighting, and just live a bad life- Why do they do that?
The Moulin Rouge is used as a symbol of everything it represents, that life, all the values, the epitome of everything made glamorous in that lifestyle. Is Moulin Rouge evil? Is there a better life? A higher life? The film talks about these things. The Moulin Rouge ends up as a corrupting institution that ruined lives (may have become ruined anyway, on their own), yet was a medium for good things to happen.

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return" Memorize it. When you hear it said in the film, ask yourself quietly if you think its true.

One quick example of great film shots and composition. Satine learns something awful near the end. Is stuck between a rock and a hard place, and as I just said, is contemplating (again) leaving the Moulin Rouge for grander things. She is juxtaposed with an empty bird cage. Meaning one: she decides to stay trapped inside Moulin Rouge, just as a bird gifted with the gift of flight is kept in a small, yet beautiful cage. Meaning two: the cage is empty, Moulin Rouge while lovely is a horrible place that destroys beauty: human beauty and the beauty of life, has no meaning inside, is hallow. Meaning three: She decides to leave the cage, leave it empty. All three of these meanings are referred to in other scenes as well.

One more sub-theme found several places in the film. "The show must go on." Very interesting language. 'Show' as in an act, pretending to be something you aren't really. You could say "put your mask back on." We see Satine is very skilled at this, and most of us are too. We are sad, depressed, in pain, literally torn between different forces in our life- so we put on a mask. We hide everything inside and put on a show for everyone watching. Really it is one of the most cruel things to say to some one: "the show must go on." Even though its cruel, sometimes it has to be done.

One last observation. This really shows some great aspects of film. The movie is a story within a story within a story within a story, nested I don't know how many times. It is simply beautiful how the plot, and characters are the same in every instance. The nested plots interact with each other, the one its nested inside, and the one nested inside it, they play off each other, greatly enhancing the film. You don't have to watch for it, its obvious, its just really cool.

Closing plug. Yes the film is idealistic, overly romantic (romantic ideals, not romantic as in lovey-dovey), very stylized, and very unrealistic. I would highly recommend it though. It does teach some bad things (only if you don't watch carefully)(if you pay attention to what is really being said, all those bad morals are turned on their head- just like the irresponsibility theme in Lion King), but teaches more good things. Is this film the perfect way to portray these morals? maybe not, but I wouldn't say its doing the right thing in the wrong way either. I can definitely say that I'm a better person for watching the movie, not on a big scale, but it was food that I've digested and is now a part of me.

10 Things

10 things that will change your life:

• Tabbed Browsing. If you haven't tried Mozilla Firefox or Opera, I highly suggest it. I think the newest Safari does tabbed browsing, I don't know about IE7, but they are still inferior to Firefox. Having multiple web pages on tabs in the same window is amazing- it will change your life.


• RSS. Just as tabbed browsing changed my life a few semesters ago, RSS has changed my life this semester, I will never again be the same. It really is the way to go, getting notified when updates happen, and having them be given to you in neat little packages. Where have you been all my life?


• Being home schooled. Even if it was just for one year- its too late, you've been changed, the mark of being home schooled will be upon you forever. Depending on how you vote, and your personal values, this can be a good or bad thing. From my experience, its bad...usually.


• Living in the Glenwood. Also referred to affectionately as the "Glenhood". Same category as being home schooled: once you live there for even one day- your life is forever altered. I miss the good old days before I was tainted...sigh.


• Running or training for a Marathon. This is the only item on this list that I have not done. Props to my older sister who recently trained for and ran a marathon. Big feat for her. I kind of equate this with the lump 'near death experiences'. I know that it can change you- which is why I will never never do one.


• Buying your first Cellphone. Once you pop it, you just can't stop it. You will forever be bound once you get your first one. Be cautious. I held out as long as I could before I got one, I sometimes (although rarely) regret it, but there is NO way I could ever go back to how it "used to be."


• Using body wash with a lufa^(sp?). I was first introduced on my mission. Yes it does require a corner to be cut off your masculinity card, but I don't ever regret this one. It feels kind of like using sandpaper the first time, but then its like heaven. Cheaper, lasts longer, gets you cleaner, makes you smell better, doesn't make your skin fall off like the alternative.


• Working at fast food. I don't need to say anything do I?
  


• Memorizing a large portion of Lord of the Rings movie- any of them. There are two kinds of people in the world- those who have memorized most of any of the "LotR" movies, and those who have not. And wide is the gap between them.


• Eating Hungarian food. This item may seem at first very inconsequential- but don't be fooled. This is nothing to mess with! Just a word of warning: if you aren't willing to experience radical change in your life, don't even try it, remove yourself from any situations that could be tempting.

Castle-ing III is up!

Everything isn't done yet, all the levels aren't there, but the mechanics are! All new weapons, charge shots, all very cool. Mad props to Allan Buzbee for creating this flash game!
Try this one out and get good, so that when the real deal comes out, you'll be ready.

film: Timeline

If you haven’t read the book, read the book. Its captivating, entertaining, has some philosophical ideas thrown around like other Michael Crichton books, but not much substance. Just as most of the really great philosophic stuff was lost in Jurassic Park, Lost World, etc. the same is true with Timeline. This does not make this a crap movie,. It still holds the fight ingredients for an entertaining, yet potentially thought provoking (if you’re into that) movie.

When the movie was announced I was excited, when it came out, I wasn’t able to see it, but heard from others that it was nothing but terrible, I was let down, until I actually saw it, and learned yet again that I need to not rely on others too much.

The music was better than expected, and usually matched the fast pace.

The costume and set designer, I think, did a good job of keeping everything historically accurate.

There was some terrible acting, and some great acting. Of course the poor people weren’t given that great of lines to work with in the first place, but none of that interferes too much with the story, or with liking the movie (just with liking the characters).

There were a lot of characters introduced in quick succession which made it kind of hard to follow and keep everyone separate. Many of them had accents which made this easier, but harder to understand what they were saying.

There was some anti-French attitudes through the movie, which was cool, but just as much pro-French attitudes. Except when people died because of their nationality or mother language- that wasn’t so cool. This is one thing I think Timeline excelled in . The makers showed loss, grief and the sadness at losing a friend very realistically- and it continued through the film, not just the 90 seconds following the death. This was very well done- something even great films fail in.

The makers used one technique that got on my nerves. During crisis lot of people talked all at the same time, to give this kind of mood to the scene, but was really annoying. They repeated the same few words, it just sounded like a buzz, once you watch- you’ll know what I’m talking about. Not terribly important- but unfortunate.

One sub-theme was played through them movie: Is history about romantic knight in shining armor, when life actually meant something when men had honor, and women had virtue, and it was lofty and romantic. Or was history (we’re talking about medieval times here) a horrible and ugly page in history books, brutal, Darwinistic, unkind, and uncaring, dark and without enlightenment? The question is asked a few times, and answered both ways, but we see that there are people in both camps, both today, and ‘back-then’ which leads to a few very flat characters (damsel in distress, knight in shining armor, modern depthless meanie, and medieval depthless meanie)

Saving the best for last- the fighting. I don’t know how big the budget was or how big a production, but the fighting was fantastic. There were several small fights, and a castle siege. The sequences are visually stunning and sometimes very large scale, but has a very different feel from Lord of the Rings or Narnia- the battles not as glorified. There is a lot of fire- it gets pretty hot.

Jerman’s rating: two steps forward, one step back. If it wasn’t for the kill’n I’d recommend it for everyone, the deaths are very tasteful- not anything like Rambo, James Bond, or Indiana Jones. If its not a big deal for you, I’d certainly recommend it- you don’t have to buy it, but watch it at least.

off.the.hook

Last night I attended the 2nd annual holloween kick-off party. It was totally off the hook, I had a blast with one short unrelated event that I was unprepared for. The festivities inlcuded palm-reading for an hour or so. I was giddy from the sheer awesomeness of a party of this excellence and that the hosts had secured a palm reader who was all dressed up in typical gypsy garb (they really wear that stuff btw). I was all smiles and laughs as I sat down and she proceeded to tell me "usually the left hand if easier to read, but your opposite, your right hand is better", after initial palm examination she told me that I was a very independent person- I didn't rely too heavily on my friends, and on my family even less. There was a silence, then she asked- "you don't fall in love very often do you?" Rather than respond, I was more taken aback that I was asked that. She continued, "You don't have much direction when it comes to love, mainly because you choose not to fall in love, its not a priority to you." pause "But your career line is very strong, You have excellent direction and are sure of what you will do, you will be very successful your career." she stops looking at my hand and looks up at me and kind of smiles "looks like you'll make a lot of money but be very lonely. . .Its not impossible for you to fall in love, but you make it difficult for yourself" By this point I was wide eyed and wasn't laughing much. I tried to make as strong a mental note as I could while stumblind down the stairs a little disoriented by what just happened.

This has made me think a little: I very frequently get fortune cookies, and palm-reading gypsies to give me helpful advice and insights into myself and the future. When I pray and seek such things on my own I only get silence, I've gotten the same silnce for a long time. Or is it that God is choosing to work through fortune coookies and actor-gypsies? Waiting until I go to a chineese restraunt for New Years to give me a particularly relevent message or an off-the-hook halloween party to talk to me? Somehow- I dont think so. Which leaves a lot unexplained, and me with a lot of unanswered questions.

The Castle-ing

One of my friends in the TTE program made this in Flash in TTE125. There are some other places that link to it, but it needs to be linked from here too. If you can defeat the purple wizard- you're pretty good. I know that he is updating the game right now with lots of fun new stuffs to impove the game, when the update is made I will be sure to post again to let you all know.
Have fun Castle-ing!

oh really?

You are a Social Conservative (36% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (21% permissive) You are best described as a: Totalitarian Link: The Politics Test

Name Game

I've decided that I hate the name game.
Everyone knows that every mormon's favorite past time is playing the name game, and we train our kids so that when they meet someone new they will attempt creating a connection through mutual acquaintances. While I casually enjoy this as much as the next guy, I really can't stand playing sometimes. Sometimes like: when you meet 'new person' and find a connection, but then find out that 'connection' and 'new person' are mortal enemies. Since you already said you were friends with 'connection' that means that 'new friend' can't actually be your friend because you are now mortal enemy by association. Sometimes like: finding that the common link creates a connotation which foretells your judgement by 'new friend,' this includes being judged as: righteous by association, wicked by association, nerdy, dumb, sophisticated, any number of things. The least liked one is having a connection carry a connotative association of being uncool and dangerous.

Why do I have to be defined by the people that have come and gone in my life? Can I instead be judged (if judging is going on at all) by my own merits and not by random friends and people whose names I happen to remember? If I don't like football can I have friends from the U without scaring away my Y friends? or vice versa?

These have been just a few results of the (now horrible) name game. May people never try to find a connection with me, 1-you probably won't, 2-if there is a connection it probably doesn't put either of us in a good light. boycott? I think so.

Things that make you go "hmmm"

I haven't posted in about a week. As much as I would like to sit down, watch a good film and contemplate it, there simply was not time for it, although I'm going to have to do it sooner or later to retain my sanity. Any suggestions on what to watch would be appreciated.
I'm taking a history class right now that I am loving. A few one liners that I especially like:

If you were a good Catholic church member in Galileo's time, who would you side with? the eccliastical instiution or the scientist? Would you yourself dare to look into Galileo's heretical telescope? When to stick with what you have vs. when to change is a hard question.

The enlightenment is generally thought of as a good thing- to be called an enlightened person, is to be given a compliment. Its about freedom, justice, democracy, daring to know, progessiveness, seeking new knowledge, challenging old ideas, seeking deeper understanding. These are dangerous ideas- they were uber-dangerous during the enlightenment era, and they are just as uber-dangerous now. Any institution, buiseness or anything that espouses tradition, hates and loathes enlightenment. The point? good in past tense, bad in present tense... right?

Romanticism vs Realism/Classicalism. This fascinates me for some reason. Classics are about tradition, upholding the established, reason, order, reducing and inducing mathematical expressions for natural and human laws and life, unity, conformity- people that live in the Clyde building. The Romantics hate everything about classicalism and hate reason, its all about emotion, passion, spontaneity, creativity, humanness, both the highs and the lows of human existance, love, and as much emotion you can. This is epidomized in Moulin Rogue (overly romantic the whole way thru). The battle between the two is the greatest thing ever. Which is maybe why I like Dead Poets Society so much- because the romantics won in the end...right?

Quote from John F. Kennedy: "Those that make reform impossible make revolution inevitable."

These are a few of the things I liked, and for some reason I could never stop thinking about BYU, To me- it is the traditionalist institution described in all points. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'd first say that its bad, because its obvious, but now I have to think about it again.

it Was Never Sent

A short while ago there was some talk in a newspaper about film morality, I felt a strong twang to write a letter to the editor, I never did. I'm not sure if it was good or bad, but I'm going to publish it now, I reworked it and it has become quite long, but Martin Luther Kings talks were long too, I just hope I write important things that have relevance. So here you go:

The last few weeks I’ve been reading about how films are good and bad morally. People wrote in that the MPAA does this or that, or perhaps the content does it, or perhaps the message does: the lesson is what’s important. There was one guy who wrote a good letter about how the content and message are both equally important, you can’t single out the content only- which is what many LDS people like to focus on.

We believe that the Book of Mormon is a perfect book, maybe the most perfect book on the world, however, at the same time its about murder, rape, adultery, secret combinations, bloody wars, betrayals, hate, pride, greed, etc. We’re told to read this book everyday, to study it. Now it also contains some positive content, but it has huge portions of it that are predominately negative. Try to focus on Alma 47, or similar chapters, maybe Moroni 9 for a few days in a row, haven’t studies those chapters real in depth? I guess not. The Book of Mormon has a lot of good content (remember we aren’t talking about lessons and messages, those come later), but it doesn’t have perfectly white spotless content, its really very bloody. What I’ve just wrote is irrelevant, I know. The Book of Mormon is valuable to us because of its message.

Content and Message aren’t two brothers that influence you together. Content supports the message- always- and then the message influences you, or at least that’s how it should be.
In the Book of Mormon there are heroes and there are villains and there is no gray. In real life or better yet, in film, the protagonist can mess up, make a mistake, maybe steal something or tell a lie- this creates ‘bad’ content, but if that content is used to teach a good value (such as his life gets messed up as a consequence, and the message is that stealing is bad) then the ‘bad’ content is irrelevant, it was as a means to teach. In the Book of Mormon, Nephi and Alma and Moroni are already perfect, they don’t mess up, they aren’t human, the only bad example we get is from the bad guys themselves.

In film the good guy usually does what’s good. Which is why it is so frustrating when the hero saves the day, is a wonderful role model, and then sleeps with the female lead (not his wife). This not only is this bad content, but a much worse message. Being able to recognize those bad messages when they do come up is what’s important.

Lets start now on the MPAA. First, the MPAA rates content first, then maturity age limits, and also looks at themes, though how much is questionable. If the content is bad, it automatically falls in the rating chart, no matter what themes that content is being used to teach, it is very possible the Book of Mormon if rated would receive an R rating, or more mature due to its violence and graphic descriptions.

The second way the MPAA rates is maturity levels. “Is a xx year old mature enough to handle what he sees and what he hears?” The first Matrix that came out was originally PG-13, until the directors thought it need to go to a mature-er audience and resubmitted the film. There is an age when children don’t understand the concept of death, and how a dead person doesn’t “wake up.” There is also an age that doesn’t understand complex emotions and motives behind many things that happen in modern cinema.

There is an odd trend among many directors and in Hollywood to make really good films with good messages R, some of the best films ever (message wise) may be R rated, but PG-13 films are sometimes notorious for the good-guy sleeping around and doing other equally bad things, the content stays clean (nothing is shown), but the message is just as bad as if you were to see him committing the wrong. In a significant way PG-13’s are worse than R’s, if you believe that message is more powerful on the human mind than content is (which it is).

These are the beginnings of ideas from which come: disregarding the MPAA entirely, or using a different moral rating system, or why the Church does not use the MPAA as a standard and references it in manuals, and why many people choose to watch whatever rating system guilt-free.

There might be a higher law: instead of avoiding R films and watching everything else and thinking you’re ‘good’- seeking good film and avoiding bad film, which really is what the prophets have told us all along, its just taken us a while to realize the MPAA is not a judge of how morally good/bad a movie is.

If you learn nothing else: Message is everything, and content isn’t.

Link to: MPAA website