Cinematography
Cinema is a delicate art form, that can inspire and mystify. While yes my friend, cinematography is an important element to proper film technique, it has turned into a crutch over the last few decades as images can be tailored to wow with more intensity. We find that there is, or was, for the duration of the nineties and into this millenial era, an interest by the average and even rabid fan of cinema to see moving images like never before. But the emphasis has been shifted from a balance of depth and imagery amongst a moving tapestry of emotion and story telling, into a greater reliance on simple images. This though, has been shifting yet again, as the integration of digital mapping and of simulated camera work has come to a fairly level plateau, individuals are in need of other elements to accept a film as proper, and well constructed. We have a generation of film makers who have little to no appreciation of the subtlety that can be executed through cinema, and who were reared on Spielberg, Lucas, Zemeckis, Cameron and the likes. The problem is, is that this generation begat from the afore mentioned trio, were captivated solely on visual progression, and were perhaps unaware of the necessary inclusion of a rich, and layered story to accompany these visuals. Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and Zemeckis were all masters at developing stories using classic archetypes dating back to Grecian and Roman Epics and placing contemporary figures into the roles of the heroes and villians. These approaches work. They are the most elemental bases to a strong story, and therefor translates into the form of cinema well. Most of these stories resonate with strong imagery, and since technology has caught up to the imaginations of auteurs, the possibilities to meld quality genuine story telling with the images of our dreams has reached the point where film makers could craft incredible works, that stimulate and fascinate all of our emotions and senses. And what are we left with? Film makers like Francis Lawrence, Michael Bay, Roland Emmerich, who are all video directors, with little to no understanding of what quality film making should be. But those hopes for ground breaking cinema lie in the hands of those few talented individuals who understand not only how to merge visuals and story, but to ensure they are both applicable and worthy of one another. Peter Jackson (LOTR, King Kong), Robert Rodriguez (Sin City), Richard Linklater (Waking Life, Scanner Darkly), David Fincher (Zodiac, Fight Club) are all young talent in terms of directors who are crafting spectacular films. And who else? Shocker, but three of the four who inspired the revolution of visual command by directors: Spielberg, Zemeckis and Cameron. And Lucas? Well sadly, he fell into the shallow depths of those directors now despised by true cinema geeks as another vacuous realm that can breed no heart into the visuals. So in summary, particualrly to your suggestion about the understanding of formulaic film making: You are completely uneducated to make such an assumption regarding film technique. Francis Lawrence has little to no talent in cinema, but can have a great career in commercials and music videos, because those two mediums do not require talent beyond by the books technique.
Sport
Sport is a microcosm of the cut-throat society embodied and encouraged by unbridled capitalism and individualism. It's pathetic. No honor; little honesty; and rare dignity. Win (kill, steal, lie) for any reason to "succeed". Greed and selfishness are now "virtues" of the highest order. This was not the case when excellence was tempered by more noble goals. Nostalgia? Maybe, but it would be nice to see the French admit error and travesty and at least possibly offer to play the game over before the entire game (sport) is lost to shame.
Handballs
To all those saying get over it.....yeah fine but its four more years to make amends, too late for a number of Irish players who really merit a chance at the world stage
To all those comparing the injustice of Henry's handball to that of recent league games i once again refer to my earlier point, there's a big difference between four years and next week
To all those saying that Ireland are not good enough and probably wouldve lost on penalties or shouldve sealed the deal before the handball incident....fine but anyone who watched the two games can hardly say France merited victory,an own goal and this 'strike' in this second leg?!
To all those who are being racist leave it out....My disdain for French people is justified and i can back it up, I'll keep my counsel in this case because its not a suitable forum
To those English fans who empathise with us because of Maradonna in 86, take solace in the fact that he rounded half your team to score an excellent goal later in that half....France never had a serious chance of note tonight
To any French fans who had the cheek to celebrate that 'victory' tonight....we'll break your hearts one day, maybe when you can do nothing about it, maybe when we're in a qualifying group together and you need a favour from us, see what happens
To Thierry Henry everything you've ever done in football up to tonight has been diminished, the rest of your spiralling career is going to be an uphill struggle to regain any sense of self respect, it'll eat away at you gradually, knowing that you couldnt get over the fiish line without cheating
To Ireland the country that for better or worse has been my great supporter I thank you for everything, for giving me pride in the face of such pathetic deception shown by France. Our fans have travelled the world and shown great sportmanship, it is South Africa's great loss and FIFAs shocking lack of foresight that next summer will be deprived of their joviality
And finally to football, that most cruellest of Mistresses, Trappatoni and his charges tonight brought flowers of passion and chocolates of good taste, he tried to woo you with old fashioned charm but instead you went for the guy with the flash car....dont be surprised if he breaks down on the way home having run out of petrol va va voooom indeed.
Race-neutrality
re: “race-neutral roles”
Are there any race-neutral roles? I feel like this is an impossiblity (at least right now and in history leading up to now). I agree that getting outside the box of White assumptions is difficult for white writers, directors, and producers right now (and even for some non-white writers, directors, and producers, because these narratives are harder for everyone to tap into when they are suppressed and not as widely disseminated), but I feel like opening people up to the idea that they are making more assumptions about their characters than they realize is the better strategy. I think some of these writers, etc. don’t even realize how their creativity is restricted by their presumptions about the human experience. The creative people I know are generally all about innovation and pushing boundaries, but it’s hard to surmount an obstacle or challenge an assumption you aren’t acknowledging exists. (Of course, I’m sure a fair number just don’t care, but screw ‘em.)
I would love to see fewer “neutral” (e.g., white, straight, cis, TAB, middle-class, male) roles out there, especially when plots focus around identity struggles. I am immensely bored by them, and I think that the potential power of many of these stories is totally undermined by how over-played these identities are. (Also, I may have recently watched WAY too many movies about the midlife crises of exactly these kinds of characters.) I am all for A) more POC involved in the creative processes (without being forced to conform to the current standard or being devalued and marginalized), and B) more white people getting a clue, and learning how to apply their critical and creative thinking to the White default.
Grunge
Grunge was not born out of naivete or nihilistic apathy. Gen X is not apathetic; that's what the Baby Boomers like to say about us. A more appropriate description is we were truly cynical -(def. Believing or showing the belief that people are motivated chiefly by base or selfish concerns; skeptical of the motives of others...) After growing up listening to the self-indulgent, self-congratulatory, navel-gazing me, me, me tones expressed by the Baby Boomer generation in the late 70s and throughout the 1980s, of course, Gen X had to vent and thus, grunge was born. Unfortunately, it has left a bitter aftertaste of cynicism that is still lingering in our mouths. RIP Kurt - It was cynicism that took you...
Vegetarianism
I think we should follow the sensible advice of science writers like Michael Pollan, social critics like Eric Schlosser, nutritional experts who are not in the pockets of agribusiness like Marion Nestle, and food writers like Mark Bittman. They all concur that our dietary choices should NOT be dependent on the ever changing result of study after study - many of which that are flawed and biased by being sponsored by the food industry (continued).
What all the above mentioned people agree on is that a sensible diet that promotes longevity and good quality of life can be found by looking at the world, and which cultures tend to have vitality and long life spans. It turns out that in terms of longevity countries like Japan, France, and Italy top the list. None of these countries have large segments of the population that are strictly vegetarian or vegan (continued)
(continued from previous post) What these countries did have in common is a diet low in processed and refined foods, high in vegetable content, and meat consumption that is maybe 40 percent lower than Americans. If all it took for people to live long and healthy lives was a switch to vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, then India and China should have the healthiest population, because they have the largest vegetarian populations. This is simply not the case (continued).
(continued from previous post) So we can conclude that it is not a diet that excludes meat entirely or includes lots of it that is the best path to a healthy and long life. What facilitates a long and healthy life to is follow the lead of Japan, France and Italy. Consume 3 to 4 times more vegetables and fruits than the meat you consume, use meat sparingly but dont eliminate it, and stay away from overly processed/refined foods, and most importantly, EAT SMALLER PORTIONS.
What all the above mentioned people agree on is that a sensible diet that promotes longevity and good quality of life can be found by looking at the world, and which cultures tend to have vitality and long life spans. It turns out that in terms of longevity countries like Japan, France, and Italy top the list. None of these countries have large segments of the population that are strictly vegetarian or vegan (continued)
(continued from previous post) What these countries did have in common is a diet low in processed and refined foods, high in vegetable content, and meat consumption that is maybe 40 percent lower than Americans. If all it took for people to live long and healthy lives was a switch to vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, then India and China should have the healthiest population, because they have the largest vegetarian populations. This is simply not the case (continued).
(continued from previous post) So we can conclude that it is not a diet that excludes meat entirely or includes lots of it that is the best path to a healthy and long life. What facilitates a long and healthy life to is follow the lead of Japan, France and Italy. Consume 3 to 4 times more vegetables and fruits than the meat you consume, use meat sparingly but dont eliminate it, and stay away from overly processed/refined foods, and most importantly, EAT SMALLER PORTIONS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)