Since I have restricted myself to 'feel-good' movies, I have not found many new ones to attend. However, Juno has to be on my list as such.
The topic of teen-age pregnancy can be morally upsetting to those who have not caught up to the looser sexual mores of today. This movie, Juno, is beautifully timed and the dialogue moves quickly, making great graphic images. Ellen Page is a wonderful actress and makes the part really come alive. Her matter-of-fact view of her situation seems precocious for one so young until one sees she is just being a practical teen-ager, somewhat callous in her lack of maturity but not without a sense of working out what is best for all. Michael Cera, her teen-age accomplice for the theme, is also to be lauded for his acting. J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney add to their roles of parent and step-mother like frosting on a cake. Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman, as the couple interested in adoption, add social contrast, a great deal of alternate perspective regarding the situation, as well as turning in excellent performances.
In all, there are no weak players here and Diablo Cody has written a very strong dialogue that adds depth, humor, practicality, hopefulness, and all sorts of good things to what could otherwise have been a rather maudlin plot.
If you are not in need of an adrenalin boost, of being terrorized and forced to watch blood and gore, I recommend this movie as a delightful, short movie, after which you can leave the theater smiling, recalling some of the witty script, and feeling warmth for the characters portrayed.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
ADDENDA TO 2/7/08
Apparently the Archbishop didn't bother to ask the Muslims in the UK what they wanted. It seems that 60% do not want the Sharia laws to supersede the laws of Britain. My guess is that the Archbishop acted on his own thinking, just as the Bush administration did in invading Iraq. When will people ask to get informed before they make global assumptions about what others feel and want?
While I did not find a law prohibiting FGM (female genital mutilation), it appears the US does have one. A test case appeared in 2004. The ruling seems to have found that no crime had been done by the two accused but that FGM is considered torture and therefore the USA prohibits it. In order for women to emigrate here for protection they have to prove their country approves FGM.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Archbishop of Canterbury had good intent with his initial comments, but his statements were made from a religious perspective, not a governmental/legal one, and I, as an American, resent the intrusion of religion people into the laws of the land. Granted, the Archbishop was only stating his opinion, but the question of whether his opinion might be limited (as a recommendation/consultation to the Administration of the country) or broadly spoken to the public and all congregates of the church given the power of his position, remains an issue for me in such cases.
We have too many laws as it is. To muddy them up with, 'if you bow to God, Allah, or L. Ron Hubbard, there are exceptions to our laws of the land for you', would seem to be a big mistake.
While I did not find a law prohibiting FGM (female genital mutilation), it appears the US does have one. A test case appeared in 2004. The ruling seems to have found that no crime had been done by the two accused but that FGM is considered torture and therefore the USA prohibits it. In order for women to emigrate here for protection they have to prove their country approves FGM.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Archbishop of Canterbury had good intent with his initial comments, but his statements were made from a religious perspective, not a governmental/legal one, and I, as an American, resent the intrusion of religion people into the laws of the land. Granted, the Archbishop was only stating his opinion, but the question of whether his opinion might be limited (as a recommendation/consultation to the Administration of the country) or broadly spoken to the public and all congregates of the church given the power of his position, remains an issue for me in such cases.
We have too many laws as it is. To muddy them up with, 'if you bow to God, Allah, or L. Ron Hubbard, there are exceptions to our laws of the land for you', would seem to be a big mistake.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
ANOTHER REASON FOR SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE
In the US, driver's licenses serve as identification. As I recall from a couple of years ago, a Muslim woman in Florida refused to take off her veil for her picture. The court decided that law supersedes religious practice, at least in so basic an American law. The Archbishop of Canterbury believes adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. Dr Williams said an approach to law, which simply said, "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger". "There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law." I do not know where else law gives in to religion though some customs may.
It may work in the UK to start making all kinds of exceptions to laws, but I think it would be far too complicated here in the States. Does it mean that we should allow female genital mutilation in the US because a religion tells us to do so? I would worry if we, as a country, tried to push that one through. In fact, I worry enough about how the country is being run right now!
Stephen Prothero, chairman of the religion department at Boston University, isn't laughing. Americans' deep ignorance of world religions — their own, their neighbors' or the combatants in Iraq, Darfur or Kashmir — is dangerous, he says.
His new book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know — and Doesn't, argues "that everyone needs to grasp Bible basics, as well as the core beliefs, stories, symbols and heroes of other faiths."
Belief is not his business, says Prothero, who grew up Episcopalian and now says he's a spiritually "confused Christian." He says his argument is for empowered citizenship.
"More and more of our national and international questions are religiously inflected," he says, citing President Bush's speeches laden with biblical references and the furor when the first Muslim member of Congress chose to be sworn in with his right hand on Thomas Jefferson's Quran. Judging from the current crop of politicians, would it matter which book they got sworn in on? If one does not fear the wrath of God, what hypocrisy does the ''swearing in' represent? Have we not witnessed enough religious people violate laws from within the churches they represent?
It may work in the UK to start making all kinds of exceptions to laws, but I think it would be far too complicated here in the States. Does it mean that we should allow female genital mutilation in the US because a religion tells us to do so? I would worry if we, as a country, tried to push that one through. In fact, I worry enough about how the country is being run right now!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
KNOWING YOUR FRIENDS AND RELATIVES
Just when I think I can judge people fairly accurately, the conversation turns to politics or religion and I am floored by the realization that people I love think so differently than I. I tell myself that everyone has a right to think what they think. But, when what they think seems so poorly researched or thought out, I wonder what else do they blindly, impulsively, shallowly, mistakenly on erroneous data, or whatever else is involved in their position.
To tell myself that it should not change my feeling for my friend or relative falls flat. It does change my respect for their judgment, and I find myself trusting their stance on many other things more warily. Occasionally someone will differ but offer very logical (though different from my own) empirical thinking and conclusions based on criteria other than my own which gets me to change my earlier view. However, making a statement by voting for someone you know will have no chance to win, rather than your second choice who might win when there are millions of votes, does not make sense to me. As I listened to interviews of voters and the reasons they gave for voting, I only became more convinced that people don't really bother to acquaint themselves with a candidate but make early decisions based on rhetoric and empty promises. Now why should I be forever surprised at that? I have seen enough elections, especially the last one, when so many people voted for 'a man that looked like someone they could have a beer in a backyard barbecue with', that I should not be startled by these statements.
Perhaps my expectations should be lowered, yet I must be true to my own conscience and hope that people will take the electoral process more seriously, that people will consider all aspects of their lives and choose wisely, that people will stop thinking that plastic=cash, that vacations and the latest technology are more important than assuring the roof over your head is there to stay, that a 'spend today; tomorrow will take care of itself' attitude is acceptable. If only they did not believing vacant promises and studied real possibilities instead. But, alas, that does not seem likely during my lifetime.
To tell myself that it should not change my feeling for my friend or relative falls flat. It does change my respect for their judgment, and I find myself trusting their stance on many other things more warily. Occasionally someone will differ but offer very logical (though different from my own) empirical thinking and conclusions based on criteria other than my own which gets me to change my earlier view. However, making a statement by voting for someone you know will have no chance to win, rather than your second choice who might win when there are millions of votes, does not make sense to me. As I listened to interviews of voters and the reasons they gave for voting, I only became more convinced that people don't really bother to acquaint themselves with a candidate but make early decisions based on rhetoric and empty promises. Now why should I be forever surprised at that? I have seen enough elections, especially the last one, when so many people voted for 'a man that looked like someone they could have a beer in a backyard barbecue with', that I should not be startled by these statements.
Perhaps my expectations should be lowered, yet I must be true to my own conscience and hope that people will take the electoral process more seriously, that people will consider all aspects of their lives and choose wisely, that people will stop thinking that plastic=cash, that vacations and the latest technology are more important than assuring the roof over your head is there to stay, that a 'spend today; tomorrow will take care of itself' attitude is acceptable. If only they did not believing vacant promises and studied real possibilities instead. But, alas, that does not seem likely during my lifetime.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
HOW CAN ONE UNITE OIL AND WATER?
It makes me chuckle when I hear all these promises of uniting this country. I doubt we'll ever be united though we might reach agreement on lots of issues in common. I think agreement on how to proceed, bills and laws to pass, mutual goals, investment in the US before others, caring about our citizens, and some the goals being mentioned by the major Democratic candidates is much more important.
I've spent the evening watching for primary results until I'm utterly exhausted with the continuing campaign speeches and lack of number results.
To be continued when more results come in............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
I've spent the evening watching for primary results until I'm utterly exhausted with the continuing campaign speeches and lack of number results.
To be continued when more results come in............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........
Monday, February 4, 2008
SUPERBOWL 2008
As a NE Patriot's fan, the game was certainly a disappointment but. in all honesty, it has not changed the course of my daily life. Early this morning my sister phoned me from New Jersey to offer her condolences. The concept was very strange to me and I had to struggle with it. I don't own the team, I am not a team member nor does my budget depend on a team member, the Pat's were not robbed by unfair calls, and my life after the initial empathy for the team (which already had broken lots of records and lost making yet another) goes back to rest then start training for the next year. I chalked the loss up to better playing by the Giants, and assumed the Giants knew Brady's ankle was in bad shape and helped, when they could, to make it worse. That's acceptable behavior in these violent, big boy sports.
Life will go back to having to find other ways to avoid getting caught up with Iraq and the presidential contest. The media will go back to reporting every trivial element in Britney's life, Hillary bashing, and turning the news into opinions rather than reporting facts, fans will turn their sadness to anger at the Pats, then they will find another source with which to identify to feel like winners.
Go Red Sox!
Life will go back to having to find other ways to avoid getting caught up with Iraq and the presidential contest. The media will go back to reporting every trivial element in Britney's life, Hillary bashing, and turning the news into opinions rather than reporting facts, fans will turn their sadness to anger at the Pats, then they will find another source with which to identify to feel like winners.
Go Red Sox!
Sunday, February 3, 2008
WHEN YOUNG MEETS OLD AND CONNECTS
My young friend was born when most of my children were nearing high school graduation. We have been educating each other on a musical era I lived through and he is now just learning. He is educating me on music he knows, historically in his shorter life, which bypassed me in the last 30 years. I am exposing him to music that existed in a genre that still exists today but not in spheres he frequents.
Last night we did a 'you-play-one, then I'll play one' music exchange. He played the Star Wars sound track by John Williams and I played Holst's The Planets. We both observed the similarities of sound and feeling, changes in pace, and shared what one experiences in listening to both. I was introduced to a better understanding of bands such as ACDC, Van Halen, Guns and Roses, Smash Mouth, Jet, God Smack, Eagles, System of Down, Arrowsmith, and even Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Air Men. He heard the purity of vocals by a young Chet Baker and trumpet playing, and to him boring, Mel Torme vocals. However, he also learned that many great vocalists played a musical instrument well, which influenced their vocal interpretation. Mel Torme played Drums, Sarah Vaughan played piano. I played a video of the George Shearing Quartet playing Claude Bolling's Suite for Guitar and Claude Bolling's writing was more intricate and required greater virtuosity, but both were exciting to hear. Since my friend loves cats, I played Eddie Bracken and Carol Channing doing Archie and Mehitabel, written in 1916 by a NY reporter, Don Marquis. It came to life in the 50's with a stunning musical background and was later made into a movie in 1971, titled Shinbone Alley.
My friend correctly observed that our criteria for music differs. He listens to lyrics more than I. I listen to harmony and chord structures, pitch, precision, tempo and balance. He listens to raspy voices that try to shout over the band's volume; I listen to bands which furnish a soft, melodic background for the vocalist. He listens to rhythm that overpowers all else; I listen for rhythm that adds an unfailing tempo and sets mood, equally as his does, but overpowers nothing. He appreciates many genres, so do I. We concluded that we both pick a limited amount from many genres though our basic criteria may differ.
Recalling how my husband loved classical music while I thought it boring and too full of violins, I realized that somewhere in the last 10 or more years, I have come to really love much of classical music and, having been exposed to more, have become more able to be selective. Without doubt, my musical taste has changed. I no longer listen only to a single genre like New Orleans Jazz or Dixieland. Whether one reaches a saturation point or finds more agreeable music to hear, or there are other reasons that alter one's taste over time, I leave that conclusion to the reader's introspection.
My conclusion is that there are always good musicians around. Ability for good musicianship is built in at birth and perfected by training and practice. Whether musicians are heard depended for a long while on non-musical agents and producers who picked and hyped lots of poor quality music, forcing listeners to hear the only things, primarily through radio and CD sales. This does not differ in the world of symphonic music, either. Maestro Levine of the Boston Symphony Orchestra insists he will force Boston audiences to like modern music such as by Elliott Carter and Olivier Messiaen. Despite masses of the audience walking out when these are played, the Board of Directors persist in allowing their conductor to force people to listen to what the majority don't want to hear rather than presenting music for which they pay large sums of money to hear.
Whether you are musically educated or not, seems not to effect musical taste. People hear and prefer music that does what they want it to do for them; calm, excite, stay in memory, create moods, make people want to get up and dance, touch their heart, and all the many things that music does for people. As the world slowly changes its tastes and musical offerings, it reflects sociological times. While I am not a serious analyst of these changes, it is fun to listen to music, find out what was going on in the world when it was written, and note how often it becomes popular long after the time in which it was written because it fits better today.
The one commonality we all have is that there is music out there for all of us, even the deaf who can often revel in feeling tempos vibrate through their bodies.
Last night we did a 'you-play-one, then I'll play one' music exchange. He played the Star Wars sound track by John Williams and I played Holst's The Planets. We both observed the similarities of sound and feeling, changes in pace, and shared what one experiences in listening to both. I was introduced to a better understanding of bands such as ACDC, Van Halen, Guns and Roses, Smash Mouth, Jet, God Smack, Eagles, System of Down, Arrowsmith, and even Commander Cody and the Lost Planet Air Men. He heard the purity of vocals by a young Chet Baker and trumpet playing, and to him boring, Mel Torme vocals. However, he also learned that many great vocalists played a musical instrument well, which influenced their vocal interpretation. Mel Torme played Drums, Sarah Vaughan played piano. I played a video of the George Shearing Quartet playing Claude Bolling's Suite for Guitar and Claude Bolling's writing was more intricate and required greater virtuosity, but both were exciting to hear. Since my friend loves cats, I played Eddie Bracken and Carol Channing doing Archie and Mehitabel, written in 1916 by a NY reporter, Don Marquis. It came to life in the 50's with a stunning musical background and was later made into a movie in 1971, titled Shinbone Alley.
My friend correctly observed that our criteria for music differs. He listens to lyrics more than I. I listen to harmony and chord structures, pitch, precision, tempo and balance. He listens to raspy voices that try to shout over the band's volume; I listen to bands which furnish a soft, melodic background for the vocalist. He listens to rhythm that overpowers all else; I listen for rhythm that adds an unfailing tempo and sets mood, equally as his does, but overpowers nothing. He appreciates many genres, so do I. We concluded that we both pick a limited amount from many genres though our basic criteria may differ.
Recalling how my husband loved classical music while I thought it boring and too full of violins, I realized that somewhere in the last 10 or more years, I have come to really love much of classical music and, having been exposed to more, have become more able to be selective. Without doubt, my musical taste has changed. I no longer listen only to a single genre like New Orleans Jazz or Dixieland. Whether one reaches a saturation point or finds more agreeable music to hear, or there are other reasons that alter one's taste over time, I leave that conclusion to the reader's introspection.
My conclusion is that there are always good musicians around. Ability for good musicianship is built in at birth and perfected by training and practice. Whether musicians are heard depended for a long while on non-musical agents and producers who picked and hyped lots of poor quality music, forcing listeners to hear the only things, primarily through radio and CD sales. This does not differ in the world of symphonic music, either. Maestro Levine of the Boston Symphony Orchestra insists he will force Boston audiences to like modern music such as by Elliott Carter and Olivier Messiaen. Despite masses of the audience walking out when these are played, the Board of Directors persist in allowing their conductor to force people to listen to what the majority don't want to hear rather than presenting music for which they pay large sums of money to hear.
Whether you are musically educated or not, seems not to effect musical taste. People hear and prefer music that does what they want it to do for them; calm, excite, stay in memory, create moods, make people want to get up and dance, touch their heart, and all the many things that music does for people. As the world slowly changes its tastes and musical offerings, it reflects sociological times. While I am not a serious analyst of these changes, it is fun to listen to music, find out what was going on in the world when it was written, and note how often it becomes popular long after the time in which it was written because it fits better today.
The one commonality we all have is that there is music out there for all of us, even the deaf who can often revel in feeling tempos vibrate through their bodies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)