Laziness at the movies?

A few days ago Laura and I were talking about the Harry Potter movies that have been released so far and whether or not they've represented the books well. Let me just start by saying that as far as movies go, they're very good and very well done. The directors have made wonderful decisions with regard to the visual effects that they have to represent in these movies. These men have, so far, not fallen into the trap of using CGI gratuitously, unlike the directors of quite a few popular films in recent history (e.g. George Lucas). That said, I think my biggest criticism of these movies stems from a problem endemic in the movie industry that has existed since as far as I can remember, which is impatience.

They made the movies too soon. Only four of the seven books had been published when the first movie was released. Right now only six of the books have been published and we are several months away from seeing the fifth movie. I think that this has had an adverse effect on the way that the grand narrative, told in seven installments, is told by the film makers. There hands have been tied by not seeing the outcome of the greater story before they were able to make their representations. Much of a story's strength comes from the way that it is told. People were thrown for a loop by Chuck Palahniuk and then David Fincher when they find out that Jack (the unnamed character played by Edward Norton) was Tyler Durden. Despite the claims I've heard from a lot of people that they knew this was the case, they didn't. You, the reader or the viewer, are too immersed in what is going on right then to notice the clues. I suppose the best crystallization of my criticism is in the clues and events being together. The problem that I see the directors of these films having is that they are unable to place clues in their films with the events. If something new happens in book six that they could have alluded to in the second movie they would be crafting a better telling of the narrative.

That criticism aside, the laziness in film making is best exemplified in the brevity of movies today. Decades ago people went to movies that had intermissions. Now we go, sit for an hour and a half and then we go home. There's not real commitment on any one's part to do more than they have to. I think that the freedom J. K. Rowling and other novelists have, as story tellers, is one of the greatest appeals of reading over watching movies. though that may not be the popular consensus, I don't think we should take that as an indication of an inability on the part of people to sit in a theater for hours on end watching the same thing, despite the fact that the norm for most Americans is TV. I think that people can learn to move past their episodic adventures and appreciate stories no matter how long they are. About a month or so ago, I was listening to a podcast from Princeton University by Cornel West. The person introducing professor West made mention of his having attended a University at the age of 13. Why is that an extraordinary age for higher education? I remember when I was a child seeing the movie Parenthood and seeing a small girl who knew Japanese (at least I think it was Japanese). This was supposed to be a sign of her brilliance. Why is learning a language indicative of genius? For that matter, why is learning several languages a sign of great intelligence? In antiquity, especially under Roman rule, people with little or no education were often bilingual. And it was not uncommon for adolescents to attend Universities two or three hundred years ago.

I'm not trying to take away from West or anyone else who is a genius. The problem is that when I propose that movies be made longer to fit in the narrative that they should be telling, I told that people, especially children won't be able to sit through it. We're becoming so lazy that in another thirty years, if things continue to go the way they are now, the US will have either imploded from the strain of an ever growing economy or there will be absolutely no substance to culture. It, and the stories and art that form a large amount of it, will have been co-opted by corporations into fifteen minute cartoons surrounded by eight minutes of commercial ads. That's how I feel. I apologize for my thoughts not being organized.

Grace and Peace, Jared

To buy or not to buy...

I'm in the middle of a pretty tough decision.

Laura and I have been watching the History Channel a lot lately (consequently I've learned that they have shows about things other than war) and there was an episode of Modern Marvels about alternative fuels. I'm really interested in the advances in this area, I'd love to use vegetable oil or natural gas to run our car or paint that acts as a solar panel to power your house. In fact, there's a part of me that would like to cancel the cable and by some stock in one of these companies. Which brings me to my quandary.

The purpose of buying stock is to provide a company with the capital to do what they do. In turn, providing the money for a company entitles you to a portion of the profits. This is both my motivation and deterrent for wanting to buy stock in one of these "green" companies. The idea of providing just a little bit more cash to people who are trying to establish a sustainable society excites me. I want my son to grow up not realize at some point that he's caused a portion of the earth's destruction. But at the same time the mode of thinking that corporations were birthed in is one of unmitigated greed and endless acquisition. That too is something that I want my son to grow up with as little exposure to as is possible.

Maybe it seems a bit hippie of me to take such a seemingly self-righteous tone about buying stock, but every time I pass a news channel on TV talking about business they reiterate to me the cancerous nature of our economic system. There's only so far you can dig a hole before you run out of dirt. There is also only so much commerce that can be done with the limited resources when you want to make more simply to make more. I suppose I feel like I'd be grabbing my shovel and jumping farther down into the whole we're digging (I say farther because I'm already in there).

I suppose, for now, that the best course of action is to wait until I can afford to power my home, car or whatever with ecologically sound fuels. But when that times comes I hope to see the manufacturers of those products don't conduct themselves in the same slovenly and inhuman manner that characterizes the vast majority of people selling me things as though that's what I were put on earth to do.

Grace and Peace,
Jared