>
Tue - January 30, 2007
Sat - January 20, 2007
Children of Men - longer review
Theology overflows in this movie, but beyond the
fact that the main character is named Theo, many religious folks who see this
movie will not recognize the Gospel hints dropped along the way.
Children of
Men is not the kind of movie you want to see
if you are looking for a light pick-me-up movie. After my friend and I walked
out of the theater, all I could do was shake my head and say, "wow." Theology
overflows in this movie, but beyond the fact that the main character is
named
Theo, many religious folks who see this movie will not recognize the Gospel
hints dropped along the way.
It has been a long time since I actually felt suspense in a movie, since I actually cared about what happened to the characters involved. CoM put me on the edge of my seat in the most intense - and ludicrous - car chase I have ever seen. I loved the fact that the main character does not come off as a superhero. He does not know Kung Fu. He never picks up a gun. He stumbles through his mission like a normal person, and for that reason I could not help but identify and sympathize with him.
Anyway, I've been unable to stop thinking about it, off and on, for three days. To me, that's the mark of a great movie. Or a great sermon.
It has been a long time since I actually felt suspense in a movie, since I actually cared about what happened to the characters involved. CoM put me on the edge of my seat in the most intense - and ludicrous - car chase I have ever seen. I loved the fact that the main character does not come off as a superhero. He does not know Kung Fu. He never picks up a gun. He stumbles through his mission like a normal person, and for that reason I could not help but identify and sympathize with him.
Anyway, I've been unable to stop thinking about it, off and on, for three days. To me, that's the mark of a great movie. Or a great sermon.
Posted at 01:59 PM |
Wed - January 17, 2007
Wed - December 20, 2006
More Relfection on Flannery O'Connor
What Hitchcock did with camera angles and
Tarantino does with dialogue, O'Connor does with narrative.
[Spoilers!]
It's kind of odd, but I think of Flannery as a moralist, in the same way that I think of Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino as moralists. There is a kind of absurd poetic justice about their stories. I'm thinking of Hitchcock's Vertigo. In the climactic scene, where it seems John and Madeline might actually make things work out in spite of her crime, and we are actually hoping that they will, she falls to her death. In Pulp Fiction, Jules, who turns away from his life of violence, lives to walk the earth and seek adventures, but Vincent dies in the bathroom. There is the same fascination with the grotesque, the same grappling with theological questions in mundane settings. What Hitchcock did with camera angles and Tarantino does with dialogue, O'Connor does with narrative.
It's kind of odd, but I think of Flannery as a moralist, in the same way that I think of Alfred Hitchcock and Quentin Tarantino as moralists. There is a kind of absurd poetic justice about their stories. I'm thinking of Hitchcock's Vertigo. In the climactic scene, where it seems John and Madeline might actually make things work out in spite of her crime, and we are actually hoping that they will, she falls to her death. In Pulp Fiction, Jules, who turns away from his life of violence, lives to walk the earth and seek adventures, but Vincent dies in the bathroom. There is the same fascination with the grotesque, the same grappling with theological questions in mundane settings. What Hitchcock did with camera angles and Tarantino does with dialogue, O'Connor does with narrative.
Posted at 10:35 AM |
Thu - November 16, 2006
Freakonomics and Rational Argument
When I'm discussing something at a party, and
someone spouts off about air travel being safer than highway travel, I can whip
out one of the many novel ways of looking at an issue that Levitt demonstrates:
"sure, fewer people die in airplanes - but they don't spend as much time in
airplanes either.
I have been reading
Freakonomics
on our vacation. It is a fun romp. Levitt and Dubner thoroughly enjoy
overturning conventional wisdom and interrogating obscure data to make
interesting points about how human beings negotiate things of value.
Something bugged me though, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it until page 148, when the authors began getting reflective on the roles of pundits and parenting experts. They were criticizing the way so many experts come up with impressive-sounding rationalizations for their opinions and the way "experts" often simply pull questionable data out of their nethers. For example, parents are far more likely to freak out over children being killed by guns in the home than by swimming pools - even though the latter kill far more kids than the former. Levitt and Dubner write:
An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemize his homespun theory into conventional wisdom. His best chance of doing so is to engage the public's emotions, for emotion is the enemy of rational argument.
It's that last bit that jumped out at me. Here is a tenacious bit of conventional wisdom: emotion is the enemy of rational argument. This is why Mr. Spock, in the original Star Trek, was supposed to be without emotion. Emotion is the enemy of reason, logic, rational argument. Only - where is the data that support such a claim? I would go so far as to argue that strong emotion is the only reason to engage in rational argument. If people have no stake in a question, why bother seeking an answer?
I even believe that part of the appeal of Freakonomics is emotional - which I suspect Levitt would happily acknowledge. It is fun to uproot conventional wisdom. When I'm discussing something at a party, and someone spouts off about air travel being so much safer than highway travel, I can whip out one of the many novel ways of looking at data that Levitt demonstrates: "sure, fewer people die in airplanes - but they don't spend as much time in airplanes either. If you look at the risk of dying per hour, air travel and highway travel are about the same." Now everyone else in the room whispers to each other (I assume) about how smart I am. I bask in their admiration, and mentally add t tally mark to my social points for the evening. (I learned long ago that what I lack in wit and social skills I can almost make up for with obscure trivia.)
Of course, the authors mean strong emotions, like fear. They mean the general public overreaction to minor risks like terrorism and underreaction to major risks like swimming pools. They resent the inertia of conventional wisdom, which is simply enough people repeating an idea often enough that they all assume it to be true. I sympathize - much the same way that I sympathize with Dawkins' attacks on religion - even though he has no actual data to support the claim that religion has a negative influence on society. What he does have are strong opinions, a set of sophomoric prejudices, and a penchant for inflammatory speech - which makes him something like the atheist's Rush Limbaugh. Come on, scientists. Support your strong opinions with data, please!
What I really love about Freaknomics is the way that Levitt uses operational definitions and scientific method to look at social policy and the way human beings actually behave. It's the stuff that made me enjoy my research design, psychology, and economics classes in college. There are places where philosophy and number-crunching connect, where scientific method breaks open new ways of understanding ourselves.
Something bugged me though, and I couldn't quite put my finger on it until page 148, when the authors began getting reflective on the roles of pundits and parenting experts. They were criticizing the way so many experts come up with impressive-sounding rationalizations for their opinions and the way "experts" often simply pull questionable data out of their nethers. For example, parents are far more likely to freak out over children being killed by guns in the home than by swimming pools - even though the latter kill far more kids than the former. Levitt and Dubner write:
An expert must be bold if he hopes to alchemize his homespun theory into conventional wisdom. His best chance of doing so is to engage the public's emotions, for emotion is the enemy of rational argument.
It's that last bit that jumped out at me. Here is a tenacious bit of conventional wisdom: emotion is the enemy of rational argument. This is why Mr. Spock, in the original Star Trek, was supposed to be without emotion. Emotion is the enemy of reason, logic, rational argument. Only - where is the data that support such a claim? I would go so far as to argue that strong emotion is the only reason to engage in rational argument. If people have no stake in a question, why bother seeking an answer?
I even believe that part of the appeal of Freakonomics is emotional - which I suspect Levitt would happily acknowledge. It is fun to uproot conventional wisdom. When I'm discussing something at a party, and someone spouts off about air travel being so much safer than highway travel, I can whip out one of the many novel ways of looking at data that Levitt demonstrates: "sure, fewer people die in airplanes - but they don't spend as much time in airplanes either. If you look at the risk of dying per hour, air travel and highway travel are about the same." Now everyone else in the room whispers to each other (I assume) about how smart I am. I bask in their admiration, and mentally add t tally mark to my social points for the evening. (I learned long ago that what I lack in wit and social skills I can almost make up for with obscure trivia.)
Of course, the authors mean strong emotions, like fear. They mean the general public overreaction to minor risks like terrorism and underreaction to major risks like swimming pools. They resent the inertia of conventional wisdom, which is simply enough people repeating an idea often enough that they all assume it to be true. I sympathize - much the same way that I sympathize with Dawkins' attacks on religion - even though he has no actual data to support the claim that religion has a negative influence on society. What he does have are strong opinions, a set of sophomoric prejudices, and a penchant for inflammatory speech - which makes him something like the atheist's Rush Limbaugh. Come on, scientists. Support your strong opinions with data, please!
What I really love about Freaknomics is the way that Levitt uses operational definitions and scientific method to look at social policy and the way human beings actually behave. It's the stuff that made me enjoy my research design, psychology, and economics classes in college. There are places where philosophy and number-crunching connect, where scientific method breaks open new ways of understanding ourselves.
Posted at 10:16 PM |
Sat - October 28, 2006
Man Church
I've been harping on this
for a while - that Jesus gets "feminized," that church devalues male virtues,
that many Christians seem to believe the world would be a better place if men
acted more like women and women acted like men. This unspoken androgynous ideal
makes many men feel lousy.
But I have similar concerns about an antifeminist backlash. For example, while we might acknowledge and honor strength and competition, we don't have to acknowledge violence.
But I have similar concerns about an antifeminist backlash. For example, while we might acknowledge and honor strength and competition, we don't have to acknowledge violence.
Posted at 12:58 PM |
Sat - September 9, 2006
Nina Paley on the Adventures of Sita
This is the kind of stuff that makes
interpretation and reinterpretation so fascinating and fun to me. It is, in a
way, good preachin'.
There are some wonderful animated shorts at comix
artist's Nina Paley's
website based on the Ramayana. I love the soundtrack and the (feministish?)
twist she gives to the stories.
This is the kind of stuff that makes interpretation and reinterpretation so fascinating and fun to me. It is, in a way, good preachin'.
This is the kind of stuff that makes interpretation and reinterpretation so fascinating and fun to me. It is, in a way, good preachin'.
Posted at 10:28 AM |
Fri - August 11, 2006
I am *SO* Excited About this Movie
I'd heard about this awhile back, but after
reading the review, I can't wait to see
it:
Son of Man
Son of Man
Posted at 11:09 PM |
Thu - July 13, 2006
Media Vaccine
Jean Kilbourne
(Killing Us
Softly,
Can't
Buy My Love) describes advertising
as "a public health issue." If you watch any of these films, you'll probably
agree.
I'm putting together a short-term study I'm calling Media Vaccine: Protecting Your Family From Advertising. It's going to be a video-discussion format, and the videos I'm planning to use are:
Killing Us Softly 3: Advertising's Image of Women
Tough Guise: Violence, Media, and the Crisis in Masculinity
Supersize Me (Clips)
The Merchants of Cool
Beyond Killing Us Softly: The Strength to Resist
Jean Kilbourne (Killing Us Softly, Can't Buy My Love) describes advertising as "a public health issue." If you watch any of these films, you'll probably agree. They are also good to view with the books Reviving Ophelia and Raising Cain.
edit: (7-14-06) Just found out that Raising Cain is also available through Netflix.
I strongly recommend that every parent read Raising Cain and Reviving Ophelia.
Tags:
feminism, media, mass culture, advertising, developmental psychology
Posted at 06:14 PM |
Sat - July 8, 2006
Indecision about Movies
I tried to narrow it down to "movies that have
influenced me in some profound way," but even that would take much more than 10
spaces.
I'm no good at making Top 10 Lists. I'm trying to
compile my favorite
movies, and I just can't decide! Too many good movies to pick from. I
tried to narrow it down to "movies that have influenced me in some profound
way," but even that would take much more than 10 spaces.
As for books - I shudder to even attempt it.
Any recommendations for things to add to my Netflix account? Something you've seen recently that made an impact on you?
As for books - I shudder to even attempt it.
Any recommendations for things to add to my Netflix account? Something you've seen recently that made an impact on you?
Posted at 09:16 PM |
Sun - June 25, 2006
"Black" and "White" Twins
The article consistently refers to the kids as
"black" and "white," and goes so far as to refer to "white genes" and "black
genes." I think the reporter does a good job breaking down some of the science
into simple language, and lets the parents have the most dominant voice in the
article.
Apparently two sisters, fraternal twins, were
born with radically
different skin color. The article consistently refers to the kids as
"black" and "white," and goes so far as to refer to "white genes" and "black
genes." I think the reporter does a good job breaking down some of the science
into simple language, and lets the parents have the most dominant voice in the
article. And it isn't the job of the reporter to address hundreds of years of
wrong-headed thinking. But this story should call into question the very concept
of race - biologically, if not socially.
Posted at 09:58 PM |
Sun - May 14, 2006
A Surefire Way to Create a Hit Television Show
I assure you, my record is solid and goes back at
least 20 years - most of my favorite shows will last no longer than a season,
and none will last more than two.
Dear Network Television
Producers,
I can save you a lot of money. You don't need to pay focus groups or do a lot of market research to find out which shows will bomb or be hits. You only need one person - me.
Put me in a room and let me watch the first two or three episodes of the series you have planned. I will give it a rating on a ten-point scale. If I rate a show 9 or 10, immediately cancel all production and do not even bother to air the show.
Here are my three most favorite shows of the past ten years:
Firefly
Freaks and Geeks
Nothing Sacred
As you can see, none of these shows aired more than one season, and two didn't even finish their first season. I assure you, my record is solid and goes back at least 20 years - most of my favorite shows will last no longer than a season, and none will last more than two. Shows I rate a 7 or 8 will tend to stick around and have some success (for example, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, or any of the Star Trek series). Shows I rate 6 or lower will most likely be hits (like American Idol). But anything you produce that I really, really love is destined for failure.
Just thought I could save you the trouble. If you'd like to hire me as a sort of one-man focus group, my rates are very reasonable. In this way I can ensure you the very best quality control - I mean mediocrity control money can buy.
Yours truly,
Dave
I can save you a lot of money. You don't need to pay focus groups or do a lot of market research to find out which shows will bomb or be hits. You only need one person - me.
Put me in a room and let me watch the first two or three episodes of the series you have planned. I will give it a rating on a ten-point scale. If I rate a show 9 or 10, immediately cancel all production and do not even bother to air the show.
Here are my three most favorite shows of the past ten years:
Firefly
Freaks and Geeks
Nothing Sacred
As you can see, none of these shows aired more than one season, and two didn't even finish their first season. I assure you, my record is solid and goes back at least 20 years - most of my favorite shows will last no longer than a season, and none will last more than two. Shows I rate a 7 or 8 will tend to stick around and have some success (for example, Seinfeld, The Simpsons, or any of the Star Trek series). Shows I rate 6 or lower will most likely be hits (like American Idol). But anything you produce that I really, really love is destined for failure.
Just thought I could save you the trouble. If you'd like to hire me as a sort of one-man focus group, my rates are very reasonable. In this way I can ensure you the very best quality control - I mean mediocrity control money can buy.
Yours truly,
Dave
Posted at 10:03 PM |
Sat - May 13, 2006
Thank You, Hayao Miyazaki
One of the neatest things about Miyazaki films is
that as the protagonist goes through the story, they accumulate a community
(often of oddballs and misfits) around them.
Our toddler's favorite films are currently
Kiki's Delivery
Service and
My Neighbor Totoro.
This pleases me for the following
reasons:
1.Imaginative space. "Children's film" in America means non-stop frenetic action. In every frame someone must be falling, singing, jumping, spazzing out, laughing, or insulting. This is because the producers of children's fare think kids have short attention spans, and so they pack every minute with stuff. But Miyazaki creates space in his films. He'll show you several seconds of a still lake, or clouds moving across the sky, or a drop of rain growing heavier and heavier until it falls off its leaf. He actually takes time to create beauty, and gives the viewer a chance to let their imaginations play in the world he has made. He hints at stories behind the stories, as when Mai peers inside a roadside shrine in Totoro, and turns away with a sense of fear and reverence. Wow.
2. Strong female characters. Their social value does not depend entirely on their sexuality. I especially like Kiki. I first saw Kiki shortly after reading Reviving Ophelia, which talks about the ways young girls are "silenced" as they approach puberty. They lose self-confidence and self-esteem as they learn that even though their parents may have taught them they can be and do anything they like, their world will value them only according to a slim set of superficial values. Kiki approaches adolescence with fear and trembling and begins to feel the pressure of conformity to social expectations - but chooses to be herself.
3. Supportive parents. The first time I watched Totoro, I was amazed. When Mai, the little girl, tells her father she's seen a fantastic giant creature, he does not reply with condescension. He says, "we believe you." I don't think I've ever seen a kids' movie in which the parents were not part of the problem. In most kids' programming, parents are either stupid, authoritarian, or both. Setting up parents and kids in opposition to each other helps to sell us crap we don't need.
4. Growing community. One of the neatest things about Miyazaki films is that as the protagonist goes through the story, they accumulate a community of oddballs and misfits around them. They become family. Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away do it most explicitly, but it happens to some extent in Kiki also. (A friend pointed out the same thing to me in The Outlaw Josie Wales).
5. Nobody dies, blows up, gets eviscerated, or runs from the mafia or the KGB. There are no car chases or gunfights. Sure, Miyazaki has made some stunning fighting movies, like Nausicaa and Princess Mononke and even Castle in the Sky. But in Kiki and Totoro, we're dealing with normal kids in semi-realistic neighborhoods. They do not have to save the world. They just have to live.
6. There are seldom bad guys. Even in his conflict-based movies like Princess Mononoke and Howl's Moving Castle, very seldom is anyone completely evil. In fact, Miyazaki's antagonists usually find redemption, and his heroes extend forgiveness and compassion even to their enemies.
Kiki and Totoro are two movies I love for my son to watch. I love the fact that he pretends to be Tombo or Kanta or Kiki. And I wish, oh how I wish, that someone would make more movies like these. Kids don't have to have purple dinosaurs and preachy dialogue. They don't have to have slapstick and nonstop action. It is possible to make movies for kids that make us glad to be human beings.
Hello? Hollywood?
1.Imaginative space. "Children's film" in America means non-stop frenetic action. In every frame someone must be falling, singing, jumping, spazzing out, laughing, or insulting. This is because the producers of children's fare think kids have short attention spans, and so they pack every minute with stuff. But Miyazaki creates space in his films. He'll show you several seconds of a still lake, or clouds moving across the sky, or a drop of rain growing heavier and heavier until it falls off its leaf. He actually takes time to create beauty, and gives the viewer a chance to let their imaginations play in the world he has made. He hints at stories behind the stories, as when Mai peers inside a roadside shrine in Totoro, and turns away with a sense of fear and reverence. Wow.
2. Strong female characters. Their social value does not depend entirely on their sexuality. I especially like Kiki. I first saw Kiki shortly after reading Reviving Ophelia, which talks about the ways young girls are "silenced" as they approach puberty. They lose self-confidence and self-esteem as they learn that even though their parents may have taught them they can be and do anything they like, their world will value them only according to a slim set of superficial values. Kiki approaches adolescence with fear and trembling and begins to feel the pressure of conformity to social expectations - but chooses to be herself.
3. Supportive parents. The first time I watched Totoro, I was amazed. When Mai, the little girl, tells her father she's seen a fantastic giant creature, he does not reply with condescension. He says, "we believe you." I don't think I've ever seen a kids' movie in which the parents were not part of the problem. In most kids' programming, parents are either stupid, authoritarian, or both. Setting up parents and kids in opposition to each other helps to sell us crap we don't need.
4. Growing community. One of the neatest things about Miyazaki films is that as the protagonist goes through the story, they accumulate a community of oddballs and misfits around them. They become family. Howl's Moving Castle and Spirited Away do it most explicitly, but it happens to some extent in Kiki also. (A friend pointed out the same thing to me in The Outlaw Josie Wales).
5. Nobody dies, blows up, gets eviscerated, or runs from the mafia or the KGB. There are no car chases or gunfights. Sure, Miyazaki has made some stunning fighting movies, like Nausicaa and Princess Mononke and even Castle in the Sky. But in Kiki and Totoro, we're dealing with normal kids in semi-realistic neighborhoods. They do not have to save the world. They just have to live.
6. There are seldom bad guys. Even in his conflict-based movies like Princess Mononoke and Howl's Moving Castle, very seldom is anyone completely evil. In fact, Miyazaki's antagonists usually find redemption, and his heroes extend forgiveness and compassion even to their enemies.
Kiki and Totoro are two movies I love for my son to watch. I love the fact that he pretends to be Tombo or Kanta or Kiki. And I wish, oh how I wish, that someone would make more movies like these. Kids don't have to have purple dinosaurs and preachy dialogue. They don't have to have slapstick and nonstop action. It is possible to make movies for kids that make us glad to be human beings.
Hello? Hollywood?
Posted at 09:41 PM |
Sun - March 5, 2006
Religion and the Media
I had to tell him, honestly, that we weren't
representative, as much as I'd love for our congregation to be on TV and break
the stereotype of what a small Southern church is like.
March: vacation, Walk to Emmaus, Natural Church
Development, Lent
April: EASTER! Taxes
May: Bolivia
June: Annual Conference. Breathe.
Busy as usual, and I'm not able to stay up on my reading. But I did want to blog long enough to plug a site I visit regularly: Get Religion. There is a good piece here on the treatment of religion by the MSM (mainstream media).
I received a call not too long ago from a guy from the UK. He wanted to find a worship service that would be representative of rural Southern churches for a documentary they were producing. I had to tell him, honestly, that we weren't representative, as much as I'd love for our congregation to be on TV and break the stereotype of what a small Southern church is like. I also had to wonder what kind of film this would actually be - favorable? Mocking? Was he looking for something quaint? Nostalgic?
It strikes me as funny that even I - left-leaning intellectual that I am (whatever that means) - am suspicious of the MSM when it comes to religion. How much more so would I be if I were a fundamentalist?
April: EASTER! Taxes
May: Bolivia
June: Annual Conference. Breathe.
Busy as usual, and I'm not able to stay up on my reading. But I did want to blog long enough to plug a site I visit regularly: Get Religion. There is a good piece here on the treatment of religion by the MSM (mainstream media).
I received a call not too long ago from a guy from the UK. He wanted to find a worship service that would be representative of rural Southern churches for a documentary they were producing. I had to tell him, honestly, that we weren't representative, as much as I'd love for our congregation to be on TV and break the stereotype of what a small Southern church is like. I also had to wonder what kind of film this would actually be - favorable? Mocking? Was he looking for something quaint? Nostalgic?
It strikes me as funny that even I - left-leaning intellectual that I am (whatever that means) - am suspicious of the MSM when it comes to religion. How much more so would I be if I were a fundamentalist?
Posted at 08:42 PM |
Tue - February 7, 2006
Quick Links
About
Dave Barnhart
Why Vulgar Homiletics?
Personae:
All Consuming | Del.icio.us | Last.fm | MySpace | Zaadz
contact: dave at davebarnhart dot net
Why Vulgar Homiletics?
Personae:
All Consuming | Del.icio.us | Last.fm | MySpace | Zaadz
contact: dave at davebarnhart dot net
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Looking and Listening
Recently played:
Weekly Top Artists:
Blogroll
Blog Stuff
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Feb 13, 2007 09:41 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Feb 13, 2007 09:41 PM