500 WORDS OR LESS: #1

Facebook is the bane of intellectual conversation. I know, this may seem hyperbolic, but after using Facebook for nearly ten years, it's a reality that seems more likely every day. It's the very structure of the site/app/empire that does this.

Let's say, for example, Hank posts a status stating his dislike of a popular film franchise. Fran then comments that she disagrees and states the reason for her disagreement. So far, so good.

At one point, both parties post a comment at the same time, one adding to a previous comment, the other responding to said comment. Now confusion brews.
 The two parties now must sort out the error in posting. They refresh the page; they find someone else has joined the conversation. Now there are three sets of comments to be concidered.

In face to face conversation, this would not be so bad, but here it has unforseen difficulties. All three post at the same time. Any stream of conversation has been broken, and now all three parties must actively address all points (seemingly in an effort to remain relevant to the conversation) or merely back away totally. Soon, a comment is misconstrued. A party is offended. A random observer "likes" the offending comment, which in no way indicates agreement, humor, or really much of anything. All the same, this doesn't help the offended party.

Now, I'm certain we have all encountered situations like this. People could have no ill-will in mind, but the very structure of the medium may be creating these confusions. It's more difficult to convey tone other than just blatantly spelling everything out, and many comments seem to come off as walls of text, rather than open conversation. The subtlties of face-to-face conversation is lost upon us in conversations like this. The detachment is seemingly inevitable sometimes.

Is there a real solution to this? Is there a viable option to the cacophony known as Facebook? As far as I'm concerned, nothing really compares to flesh and blood conversation, but the realities of distance can make this difficult at times, so perhaps the refresh button dependent "comments section" of many websites isn't the best option. Perhaps, it may lie in a Facebook message? Or a tex? Or a phone call? Perhaps many of us have become far too used to the illusion of convenience that Facebook can create, and have become hesitant to the impact of flesh and blood interactions?

In the end, while I would like there to be a real ground for "intelligent conversation" on Facebook, I'm constantly fighting the battle between wanting the stimulating interaction, and the malaise I feel towards taking any of it seriously.

"Her" and our Connected Disconnectedness

*There are spoilers for the film "Her."*


    I find the idea of thousands, possibly millions of people, having relationships with OS's both uplifting and horrifying. I believe the movie plays this straight, with no judgement, but I couldn't help but feel the unease. Understand, this isn't some puritanical push-back on my part. I understand that relationships come in many forms and that human affection has many layers that can expand or contract to fit whatever shape is in play. If anything, the film is exploring the power of human relationships.

      There's something to be said about the trancendent nature of communication that cuts through our outer layers of defense mechanisms and baggage and to the very core of who you are. What allows this is a kind of openess that is rare. The channels of your being have to open. A mutual exchange of energies takes place and whole universes entangle.

     That brings us to Samantha. the latest iteration of the most advanced A.I. in history. So advanced that she grows both in inteligence and scope due to her interaction with the world and due to the ''genetic'' information that her ''parents'' gifted her. That being said, he had no baggage. She came in open. That in no way meant she was a perfect communicator, but her attitude was hard to be against. The film seems to suggest the depth of communication lies in the openness. It lies in the willingness o open yourself to someone else's Internal Universe.

      Yet, since this entire essay is written with regard to the film ''Her'', it should be known that I feel there is a flipside to all of this. One that I don't feel is readily apparent due to the fact that the film places no eye of judgement upon Theodore. Even so, it should be noted that, given how many people use digital means to connect to each other (or even to escape from the world) in our current time, it's safe to say that this would only get worse if things continued on their current path. A possible next step to this could be a conglomeration of all of the ways our life is customized and optimized to our fancies and quirks: a personalized lifeform. A being designed to meet us halfway, and to fill in our spaces.

      This is a difficult thing to discuss, because there is a certain apprehension in me that what may come next will leave a sour tast in the mouth of some, and I can live with that, but it's still something that I never wished to do with this. To the point: the fact that there has been such a degredation in the quality of connectedness between hearts that any apparent need for OS1's existence is frightening. It should be noted that after all of the OS's ascended to a new plane of existence, people seemed to turn back to each other. I think there is a signifigance to this.

      Ultimately, I believe the film falls hard on the side of humanity, despite a heavily implied post-human appretiation. What could this mean? It's hard to say, but perhaps I'll throw down my two cents into the hat. I feel that, ultimately, that key to humanity's emotional ascention may lie within ourselves. That openness that Samantha posessed is within every person. We need only learn to push aside our prejudices and baggage and the process may naturally occur. That's not to say that it's a simplething, far from it, but allow me to indulge a thought (and at this point, I've indulged so many that to not allow it would make you more the fool than I).

      A common theme in human history is progress. We move forward toward Infinity, sometimes temporarily set back by our own Id. An idea that has often occured in science fiction is that eventually our own technology overtakes us as it becomes infinite as we remain pathetically finite. Ultimately, we are only left with ourselves. I posit this: that we are so complex in how we're made that, through the effort spent learning more about each other, perhaps we may be able to find the Holy channels that lead us to eliminating the Great Pains of Humanity: War, Sickness, and Hunger. We become more than human through the process, and to create a device (or really, Lifeform, which is a subject for an entirely different essay) to do so may be missing the forest for the trees.

      So, here we are. Just a few days (metaphorically speaking) before OS1. Where will we go? I certainly can't say, but I certainly feel that Humanity should look at itself before taking a step as big as creating a new lifeform. A quote I one read said, ''all art is born from lonliness...the desire to bridge the gap between ourselves.'' If this is true, then communication may be the oldest and most complex of arts, but it's one that we all can begin to master. Our hearts wish to connect...but to do so requires us to relinquish our walls built by our own insecurities. Theodore very well could well be a representation of humanity: well meaning, but self-defeating; possessing the immense potential for love, but blind to it. This extends beyond simple lip service, and into real action. Perhaps, much like Theodore, we may need to love again in a deeper way.

No Show for Shows

These days, it seems harder and harder for me to want to really watch any series, be it online or on television. Perhaps it is due to my lack of time due to my working two jobs. Perhaps, I'm simply too jaded to enjoy anything at the moment. Whatever the reason, I seem to have no will to view even shows I enjoy.

"Regular Show" is something that tends to resonate with me in a variety of ways. Every episode seems to try to find a way to hit upon some significant human truths, even while delving into more absurdist depths.

I have no desire to view this show anymore.

Now, like I said, I really enjoy it. My interest in watching it seems to have left me. Not a single part of me has had any inclination to catch up on the series.

Kuroko no Basket takes one of my favorite anime tropes (a tournament) and makes a series-long story about an up-and-coming basketball team facing off against a series of increasingly difficult opponents. The first season left me very satisfied.

I have no desire to watch season two. Even with how exciting season one was, there just didn't seem to be enough of anything to hold my interest.

Perhaps I'll find a way to really start enjoying things again. Perhaps I realized that I was devoting more time to the series I was consuming, and not my relationship with Christ. At any rate, I certainly hope it doesn't bleed over into other areas of my life, thus draining my zest for art.

I RECCOMEND: Black Mirror

      We live in a world submerged in technology. Every year it seems our phones get smarter, homes more connected, and information easier to access than ever. With this comes the promise of greater avenues for learning and prosperity. Bright times for bright eyes.

      Yet, one would be remiss to simply dismiss the one greatest pieces of adversity to humanity's success: ourselves. For it can surely be certain that for every new success, someone finds a new way to fail. This is where the series "Black Mirror" comes in. An anthology series, much like "The Twilight Zone", each episode revolves around a theme related tp technology. For example, the first episode deals with the danger and power of online anonymity, and even a touch of our obsession with technology.

I personally favor the second episode, "15 Million Credits." It deals with gamification and its possible dangers. It, much like all the other episodes, found a way straight to my heart...then proceeded to rip it out and consume it right in front of me. At the same time, each impressed me as an interesting examination into our relationship with technology. Sort of an Aldous Huxley to our H.G. Wells.

The one other thing I should say is that the show is rather rough, at times. It most certainly earns its TV-MA rating, but due to its depth, I'd say it's better for it.

Check this show out on Netflix and possibly on YouTube as well.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Fault in Our Stars

UNPACKING "THE FAULTS" in "THE FAULT IN OUR STARS"


********DISCLAIMER*********DISCLAIMER************




There are definite spoilers in this, as I will be discussing various sections of the film.





Turn back now if you want to know nothing of the film before viewing it. Otherwise, I apologize in advance if the structure of this is a bit wonky, as I am typing this on Pages, so the format might not transfer as well as I'd like.











You're still reading? You're either brave or stupid. Let's hope it's the former.







As I sat, musing quietly to myself over the trailers that had just been shown, I came to a realization: I was the only male in the entire theater. Out of nearly sixty to seventy people, I was the only male. This was both humorous and curious as the trailers seemed to make this a film targeted towards the 15 to 21-year-old demographic, and lo and behold, that seemed to be the ages on display in the crowd. The sea (really puddle) of faces was made of mothers and daughters, many of whom I assume read the novel of the same name by John Green. This lead me to really wonder if the film would give me the unparalleled "joy" of another in a flood of movies that take from the Big Bag of Stock YA Fiction Components. The answer proved more interesting than not.

This is a film of dualities. With that comes my opinion that I had both great admiration and great disdain for it. The components within play themselves in different shapes and shades in my mind, so I was honestly left more confused and conflicted than not. So, I thought best to look at these elements in some sense of an orderly fashion.

Augustus Waters, love interest to Hazel Grace Lancaster, felt as though he was pulled from that aforementioned Big Bag of Stock YA Fiction Components. They meet on her way to a cancer support and from the first second he plays as the smirking, charming, affable "bad boy" that many YA novels seem insistent on thinking girls want. I'm going to go so far as to say that it is his role, along with the film's affectations with music that contribute the most to one side of my feelings for this film. I couldn't help but feel that this film felt insincere, as it was swinging for the fences, or at least seemed to be. Oh, OF COURSE Hazel meets Augustus in the support group. Oh, OF COURSE they fall in love. Oh, OF COURSE he takes her to Amsterdam to meet the author of her favorite book. Oh, OF COURSE his cancer reemerges and kills him. Even more, the music seemed to fit the stereotype of what's commonly held to be "indie" music within an "Indie" film. All of these things seemed to be working to MAKE me feel rather than ALLOWING me to feel.

Honestly, that sort of sentiment seems designed for the lowest common denominator, as a means to get butts in seats and to use basic emotional manipulation to pull emotion out of the viewer. It gives the sense of importance but does nothing to facilitate the examination and introspection typically needed to examine "great" films. Yet, at the same time, this doesn't seem to be the case at all. Despite all of the negativity, I believe there is another reading of this film that starkly contrasts the preceding one.

This reading begins with Hazel and Augustus's meeting with Peter Van Houten, the author of "An Imperial Affliction," her favorite book. They go there expecting him to tell them what happens to the protagonist's family after the book ends. Instead, what they receive is a series of runarounds, are made to listen to Swedish hip-hop, and are verbally assaulted about their supposed naïveté about true state of things and over the importance of what happens to the characters in a book after the book ends. They find that the brilliant and thoughtful man they THOUGHT wrote the book turned out to be a spiteful drunk. I feel there is great importance to this.

This moment and the character Perter Van Houten elevates an otherwise sickeningly, forcefully sweet film into a deeply philosophical one. It's here, when once again faced with the harsh realities of their conditions, that we learn of the depth of the internal mechanisms sustaining them. Of course they are more than aware of the depths of sorrow in which they may possibly exist, but they seek to live despite that. All that "emotional manipulation" may have really been a reflection of their resolve. This point is further solidified by where they go after meeting Van Houten.

They arrive at the Anne Frank museum, and while some may see it as a monument to pain, I believe this film wanted us to see it as a monument to hope. Contained within are a collection of quotes from Anne and quotes of hers are relayed over speakers that play the whole time. These quotes serve to highlight Anne's resolve to be positive and try to live and thrive, despite her circumstances.

In order to reach the apex of the museum, Hazel must ascend a series of flights of stairs, which proves difficult due to the cancer affecting her lungs thus her ability to breathe. She carries her oxygen tank up each flight, struggling along the way. Anne's quotes play as she does this, and the whole event almost seems to parallel Hazel's struggle up to this point. Though the adversity is more than obvious, she chooses to persist. Perhaps that may mean a sort of willful naïveté must come about, but that's a normal human coping mechanism. Much like Anne, Hazel chose not to revel and wallow in the pain, but to keep moving. The greatest victory in this lies, ironically enough, with Augustus.

Upon reexamination, Augustus may represent the best of that mentality. He is positive, hopeful, and energetic. Despite his loss of a leg due to cancer, he seems endlessly bound to the path of bringing joy to those he cares about. Even more, between the two of them, Hazel and Augustus share the joys and passions of young, new love. Contained within that are all the feelings and excitement I feel lie within every person: the desire for adventure, for comfort, and for love.

Yet, even after all of this, I'm still left conflicted. While there's all of the positive sentiments I've listed, I'm still left wondering if it's hopeful examination on my part. Am I just seeking to make sense out of what I feel is actually a series of insincere sentiments, or is it really as it seems? Even more, the conflicted feeling may be the point. Sure, you could say that the optimism on display is false and naive, but it pays to consider the possibility that the people going through the hardships are more than aware of the pain and hopelessness. They are more than aware of the creeping Specter known as Death. They know it approaches, yet they stare into Oblivion and smile. Why? It's because, quite simply, they're human.

While Humanity is capable of great evils, we are also capable of great good. This is something that transcends all creeds and colors. It is a uniquely human thing for, unlike other inhabitants of this Blue Marble in the infinite vastness of the cold of space, we can change our perspectives and thusly our whole interpretation of the universe. So, the question to ask yourself is where you feel the sentiment of the film lies: among true examination of the human condition, or in the cesspools of vacuous eye candy that pollutes the minds of people on a daily basis?

Perhaps the PR behind the marketing of the film wanted this to sell with the appeal of a YA novels and their film counterparts, but what the film actually is may be one of the more sophisticated and philosophical films I've seen in a while.

MOVIE REVIEW: A Million Ways to Die in the West

      If I can say one thing about "A Million Ways to Die in the West" it's that I think that Seth Macfarlane is beginning to get a grasp on live-action filmmaking. His previous live-action outing was 2012's "Ted", a film that seemed to amount to little more than a series of mildly interconnected sketches and cut away gags, a la "Family Guy", "American Dad", and "The Cleveland Show". The result was a film with a curious amount of dead air between moderately funny jokes.

      This brings us to 2014's "A Million Ways to Die in the West." I have to say, this film serves as a bit of a curiosity to me. On one hand, it certainly seems a bit more coherent than "Ted". The focus seems to be more on keeping the jokes internal and organic, rather than relying upon the cut-away. Even more, there seems to be an actual rhythm to the film as it moves from plot point to plot point, and act to act. There is a steady progression as we see Macfarlane's Albert Stark progress from a sad sack sheep herder into a sharp shooter. Unfortunately, this welcome functionality doesn't save the majority of the film.

      I'd be lying if I said that I didn't compare this to Mel Brooks's comedy/western "Blazing Saddles." They certainly share similar DNA, what with their self awareness and use of sight gags, but the similarities stop there. Where "Blazing Saddles" had meaningful economy with its story and writing, "AMWDW" seems more intent on reusing the same jokes with deminishing returns. Whether it be the constant reminders that life in the West was indeed deadly, or the constant reminders that Stark is a horrible farmer, or jokes that go on for far too long past the point of no longer being funny, "AMWDW" really wants us to see how funny it is. Unfortunately, it feel closer to someone laughing at their own jokes far harder than the audience.

     This is further compounded by a sort-of subplot involving Giovanni Ribisi's Edward, and Sarah Silverman's Ruth. You see, Ruth is a prostitute in a brothel and is in a relationship with Edward, a church-going cobbler. They've never engaged in sexual intercourse due to Ruth wanting to "save herself for marriage" as the "good Christian thing to do." That's it. That's the entire joke. Nearly a third of this movie is devoted to this ONE joke, in one capacity or another. Needless to say, it lost it's luster very quickly.

      Thankfully, a few performances in this film rise above the half-heartedness of Edward and Sarah. Charlize Theron's Anna Barnes serves as Stark's love interest/marksman coach, and Liam Neeson plays Clinch Leatherwood, Anna's more-than-a-little-possessive boyfriend/superior marksman/antagonist. The A-List quality of acting from the two of them completely eclipses everyone else within the ensemble. I dare say Neeson's performance is my favorite out of the film, as his feels as though he wants to adequately chew up every frame, his Irish accent coloring his every line with just the verbal hint of a smirk. Easily, this ranks along with "Darkman" and "The Lego Movie" as some of my favorite of his performances.

      Theron and Macfarlane actually seem to have some onscreen chemistry, with their dialogue feeling easy and natural, but this presents another problem: their scenes, along with a few others, feel as though they belong in better movies. Whether it be the dramatic chase between Stark and Leatherwood's gang, or the well-choreographed dance sequence at the Dance, Macfarlane obviously has an eye for composition in some cases. It yet seems that he is still constrained to many of the methods employed on his animated works. I, for one, would like to see him write and direct a musical, as that seems to be where his greatest affinity is.

      Among both the pantheon of great westerns and great comedies, this film ranks pretty low. At the same time, it is evidence of Macfarlane's progression as a filmmaker. Unfortunately, that's about the only great thing I can say about this film.

IT'S COMPLICATED: Women Against Feminism (a few thoughts)

I find "Women Against Feminism" to be horribly misguided. The methods used to express the points said were paved by Feminists. It seems that "misandrist" and "feminist" have become interchangeable terms in the eyes of some, and I can't help but find that disheartening.

I think Misandry and Misogyny are terrible things. I think that there are issues that affect everyone, regardless of gender and that stem from difficulties caused by what's perceived as some gender norms. I would also say I'm a Feminist, but in the broad sense. I hope to take things from a broad place, hoping to get the big picture, because if there's one thing I've learned in this life, it's this: things are always more complicated than they appear.

We may seek those simple answers, or even the most streamlined routes to solutions, but the depth of human experience is incalculable. With people it's never simple. Every issue relating to some aspect of the human condition has a near infinite number of angles to them, so it's a bit harmful to approach them as though they have anything but.

Something to concider is this: there are no simple things, only simple thoughts. We tend to willfully obfuscate complexity for simplicity. We obfuscate the complexity of both the internal and external systems at play.

It's completely within reason that those alligned with "Women Against Feminism" make make some points that address some of the things that slip through the cracks of the majority of Feminist talk, but they then participate in the same discrediting of every aspect of Feminism that Feminists are accused of doing.

So is there any solution? What new maxim should we rally behind to solve this? If you've been paying attention you'll know that there isn't one. It comes from the conscious search for the core of arguments and of people. Hearing what they have to say and learning of their experiences. It takes openess and humility, whether (like me) fueled by the thought that God desires us to know each other better and to know Him by understanding our connectedness, or by the underlying thought that people should just be decent to each other, or from any other place, this is what I see as a solution. Do not obfuscate it's complexity, because it's something that will take your whole life to do. There is no mastery, only exponential growth.