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