Quentin unchained...

So I debated whether or not to write something about Django Unchained. I had considered writing about the movie before I had seen it, because what I was planning on writing didn't have so much to do with the movie itself, but the reaction to it. However, because of laziness, and also because of a certain uneasiness with writing about movies that I haven’t seen, I decided to hold off.

Well I saw Django Unchained over the weekend, and while I’m still digesting the film, I think I’m at least comfortable writing a post about it.

Let me begin by saying that while Spike Lee is an intelligent man (or seemingly so), a creative filmmaker, and an undisputed maven in black cinema (an American cinema in general), I question his criticism of Django before even seeing the film. I can’t say that no one will find this movie racist (I personally did not, but more on that later), because it is subjective, after all, and that means that what I took away from it is not necessarily what someone else will take away from it. But I can’t help but accuse Spike Lee of bias, as he has a history of criticizing Quentin Tarantino (don’t get me wrong, I’m no Tarantino apologist) for being a racist; so the context of a white filmmaker – especially Quentin Tarantino – making a glib film about slavery naturally would rub him the wrong way. But as a filmmaker – especially a filmmaker that deals with racial issues – should at least give Tarantino a chance to make his argument before completely debasing the film, and calling it racist.

That being said, had Spike Lee seen the film, he still might have come to the same conclusion. And to be fair, I’ll agree with Spike Lee in saying that Tarantino’s use of the “N” word in his movies seems more about his potential desire for using a controversial word freely than to create authenticity in his characters and movies. In my reality – and my reality in no way reflects anybody else’s – people don’t just throw around the “N” word, whether that be in the company of black people or not. The “N” word is a taboo word, and just because a white person is friendly or comfortable with an individual or group of black people, doesn't mean that the word becomes standard nomenclature. In the black community it could be different, and I understand that, but I think Lee’s criticism is more of Tarantino’s white characters’ flippant use of the word, rather than his black characters.

Sorry, I trailed off a bit there. So while I understand Lee’s issues with Tarantino’s use of the “N” word, and the “N” word was used A LOT – I repeat A LOT – in Django Unchained, the use actually seemed very apropos to the film, and actually added a certain authenticity that Tarantino sometimes lacks in his historic pieces. If you read my blog, you might have stumbled upon a piece where I talk about the “N” word, so you know that I’m no fan; but as I said, it’s use in Django Unchained, while very liberal, actually seemed quite realistic. The use of the word itself, I hope at least, didn't solely create the impression in some people’s minds that this movie, or Tarantino himself, is racist.

Now to the film itself. I personally did not find the film racist. It is true that a filmmaker ought to be sensitive when addressing a topic such as slavery; but Quentin Tarantino is not a sensitive filmmaker, so while should doesn't equate to is, that doesn't mean he was being racist with his insensitivity. The film, similar to his efforts in Inglorious Basterds, is essentially a revenge movie where Tarantino rewrites history to make oppressed people beat their oppressors. While people may question why Tarantino made the movie, if I was to venture a guess I would say that it’s because he’s a filmmaker who is interested in the idea of oppression and social injustice, and therefore wanted to make a bloody farce based upon what would happen if history were fair.

That’s my take on the movie, but I’m interested in knowing what others thought of the movie. Did you find it racist? Did you think there was a point in Tarantino making the movie? Is it fair for Spike Lee to disavow the movie without ever seeing it?

It's time. No, no, no...it's time...

I’m not necessarily anti-gun, although in my perfect world guns would not exist at all (neither would war, hate, discrimination, etc.). However, there is a statistical reality that exists, and in this statistical reality guns, while they may make individuals feel safer in an isolated anecdotal situation, “up-the-ante” so they say, and turn a bad situation into a potentially (or almost assuredly) a deadly situation.

I think the phrase I’ve heard from politicians regarding the response of the NRA to the Newton shootings has been “tone deaf”. I couldn’t say it better myself. First of all, let me say that both the president of the NRA, David Keene, and the Executive Vice President of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, saying that the only thing that will NOT have an effect on gun violence is stricter gun laws is absolutely insane. These two gentlemen will not even admit that the type of gun or size of magazine have any effect whatsoever on the types of shootings (mass shootings) that have taken place over the last few decades. I guess I don’t understand this perspective. If you limit the size of magazine and limit the rapidity with which guns can fire, you obviously limit the amount of damage that can be done in a specific amount of time. That is a statistical fact. If someone uses a hunting rifle with a five round clip, the person would have to chamber the bullet after every shot, and reload the magazine after about 5 shots. This is going to take significantly longer than a gun with a thirty round clip that fires with every pull of the trigger until the clip is done. Tone deaf, indeed.

The tone-deafness doesn’t stop with whether or not guns have to do with shootings, the ridiculous (and incredibly insensitive) suggestion that we should put armed guards in every school is outrageous. Adding more guns to schools, no matter who has them, makes children unsafe. How do we know when the gun-toting security guard is going to go crazy and not only have access to the school, but have access to the school carrying a gun. This puts the children in immediate danger. The best way to protect our children in schools is to continue to make it difficult for people not affiliated with the schools out, keep children (and all others) from bringing weapons into schools, give more funding toward mental health treatment, and limit the size of magazine, rapidity of fire, and number of guns that an individual can own. More guns in school’s is such a poor idea that I can’t figure out how the NRA, typically an organization that is so strictly on message, that it scares me it has either become a scary organization or completely political.

An Unexpected[ly long] Journey...

I saw The Hobbit last night, and I have to say I was underwhelmed. Now, I should preface my review here by saying that I missed the last 30 minutes of the movie, because the lights came on and movie shut off, and we were forced to evacuate due to a fire alarm. However, I can honestly say that I wasn’t that disappointed about having to head home.

I guess I should start by saying that the movie is not bad. It just lacked something; something that made the Lord of the Rings so exciting to watch. It might have been a mistake for Peter Jackson to try and stretch a small adventure book (smaller than any of the Lord of the Rings books) into three movies. I’m not sure what his motivation for doing so was, but if the goal was to include every last detail of the book (even the minutiae), then he accomplished that. There were just too many scenes where we watched the characters running, or looking out over the scenery. Some of that stuff is good, but too is much is, well…too much.

There were some exciting parts, and the actors for the most part did a good job. However, the development of the dwarves was a bit thin, even for Thorin, the main character. The first 20 minutes of the movie is spent telling the back story; most of which seemed superfluous to the story. We needed the main points, and then wanted to jump into the movie. The Lord of the Rings did a great job of this with the Galadriel voiceover, and explained everything in about 3 minutes.

It’s possible that the final 20 minutes of the movie really brought everything together for the first movie. Or, it’s possible that once the three movies have been released that the whole story will be a cinematic masterpiece. But, as of now, it seems that this movie was incredibly overwrought, like Jackson was simply trying to rehash his success in making Lord of the Rings, by remaking the movie with a different plot. And to the plot specifically; The Hobbit was a much lighter romp than the Lord of the Rings, but Jackson brought none of the light adventure that was possible, and instead tried to make the dwarves quest as being similar in significance and scope to that of the characters in the Lord of the Rings – which is isn’t.

Overall score: B-

How....

I don’t get it. I can’t comprehend what would make someone come into a mall, or into a school and just start randomly shooting people. Obviously these people have mental health issues that are not dealt with. But you know what, fuck the shooters; everyone spends all of their time talking about them, and forgets about the victims – both dead and alive.

We mourn for those who died, because it is so tragic for someone to die when they’re just going about their everyday lives. A child in a classroom. A person doing holiday shopping. A college student walk to class. A private at a recruitment depot. These people didn't deserve to die (not that anyone ever “deserves” to die, necessarily), they were in what they considered a safe situation. But it seems that nowhere is safe anymore. We live in a world where fear has become constant, even if kept at a hush. Maybe it’s like this in a lot of place in the world, and the United States is finally starting to be privy to it. Maybe not, I don’t know.

What I can’t stop thinking about is those children that were in the school in CT, or at Columbine in CO, or at any of the other school shootings that have taken place in the country, and how the situation will define them. Probably more so for younger kids, but this situation will define them for the rest of their lives. To have someone come into your school and kill 18 of your classmates - classmates who you sat with, and played with, and ate lunch with, but will never do so again – will unfortunately define them for the rest of their lives. It isn't fair. I guess a lot of things happen to a lot of people who don’t deserve it, and it ends up defining them; but this shooting happened on this day, and I couldn't help but think of how awful that is not only to take someone’s life by killing them, but to control someone’s life by defining them.

Sorry if this was disjointed, I’m just at a loss for how someone could do this. Mass murder is mass murder, and it’s always awful; but somehow it just becomes unfathomable when it happens to kids.

What's the magic number...

Having a conversation with a friend of mine, Crystal Marie over at A Word or Three, got me to thinking about something that I’m not sure why I never thought of before. I've thought a lot about relationships. I've thought a lot about love and lust. I've thought a lot about married couples and how in the hell people are able to stand each other for 20, 30, 40, 50+ years. And I've also thought about what causes marriages to fail. But in all that time about thinking of relationships, I’m not sure why it never occurred to me to actually put the question in front of people who have not only been married for a long time, but have been happily married for a long time. I didn't do this (although I would like to at some point).
I don’t want to create a matrix, or do some empirical study, per se, but rather get real answers from couples to open-ended questions about how they've stayed true and happy with one another for so long (I suppose this doesn't have to include married couples, because that would preclude gay and lesbian couples that have been together for a long time, prior to the “turning of the tide” we’re seeing finally happening in this country).
However, I digress.
While I haven’t done this study yet, I’m going to make a conjecture about what I think are the strongest factors that determine not only a lasting, but a happy marriage as well. I’m no expert – hell, I’m not even married – but here goes:
HONESTY. Honestly is the single most important thing in a relationship. And while brutal honestly can at times be hurtful, I think that people develop and understanding of their partner, and therefore know how to deal with them in an honest, and yet unhurtful way. Honestly can be as simple as letting your partner know where you are going, whether you’re upset about something (important one), or especially if you’re beginning to feel as though you’re drifting apart. While honestly won’t save every marriage, it’ll make the relationships that do last a lot closer.
MUTUAL ENJOYMENT. This should be a no-brainer, but it doesn't seem to be so these days. I’m not saying that people have to marry (or date long-term) someone that excites them like no one else, but in order to stay interested in one another you should have both independent and shared interests. Independent interests (and friends, for that matter) allows for each person to continue developing outside of the relationship, and keeps the conversation fresh when they come back together. Shared interests are important, because it gives a couple something to do together, and it’s those shared interests that can also help to break through those tough times when things might have become distant.
INTIMACY. This might have been more of what people were thinking when I said “mutual enjoyment”, but I think intimacy is separate. While sex and intimacy is certainly part of “shared interests” (I guess it works as an “independent interest” for some couples, as well), I think it deserves its own category. I’m not so naïve to believe that a couple is going to have passion throughout their relationship; however, they should have intimacy. Intimacy includes a whole range of things; sex, talking together, taking a walk together, enjoying just sitting with one another, and sharing information with your partner that you wouldn't share with anyone else. I guess for me, it would be assumed that I would know my partner better than anyone else does – I think the term is warts and all.
ALLOWING EACH OTHER TO CHANGE. Next to honestly, this is probably the most important thing to maintaining a happy, healthy, long-lasting relationship. The reality is that we as people are going to change throughout our lives. The way we look is going to change, the way we act is going to change, and the way we interact is going to change. So expecting that the person you married today is going to be the same person in 50 years is absurd. However, there should be an expectation that as each of you change, you will be open and honest about the way you’re feeling, and don’t change apart, but grow together. This allows you develop the relationship instead of doom it. I've heard it said that people wake up after 25 years of marriage and say they don’t know the person they’re married to anymore. Well where the hell were you during all that time when they were changing? If you don’t know them, then chances are they probably don’t know you. Couldn't you have, at any point along the way, stopped and asked the person how they were feeling about their lives, about your relationship, about whether they thought they were changing? It’s better to grow together than to grow separate; because while growing together makes you stronger, growing separate makes you grow apart.
Alright, that is all from me, the relationship expert (who’s not in a relationship). I don’t know everything, and you probably shouldn't listen to me, but these are just things I've come up with from watching relationships and listening to intelligent people I know.

Okay, you're both wrong, now move on...

I won’t claim to have a deep knowledge of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. This war (I’m not sure if we can classify it as such, but I’m not sure what else to call it – maybe occupation) has been going on since the State of Israel was established in 1948. Certainly the decision by the United Nations to place the displaced European Jews on land already occupied by the Palestinian people was questionable, but the situation for the Jews was more than dire, and therefore something had to be done; ergo, the establishment of the State of Israel.

Well, wouldn’t you know it, this didn’t sit well with the Palestinians or others in the Arab League, and it set of the Arab-Israeli War of 1948. This first war displaced many Palestinian civilians and pit the Jordanians and Egyptians against the Israelis, priming for future wars to come. Unrest continued to occur, but nothing major, until 1967 when the Israelis, expecting an attack from several Arab states, launched a pre-emptive attack on Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Iraq. The war, as stated by the name, was ostensibly over after just six days of fight, with Israel taking control of the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, the Sinai Peninsula, and occupying a larger portion of Jerusalem. The war indicated to the Arab world, and the world at large, that Israel was not to be trifle with. However, the war only increased tension in the region.

Finally, in 1978, Israel and Egypt met at the Camp David Accords, leading to the Israel Egypt Peace Treaty in 1979; this treaty gave the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt. However, Israel continued to have problems with other actors in the region, and specifically with the Palestinians (as represented by the PLO). In the early 2000s (after many fits and starts) Israel began to withdraw its settlements and occupation of the Gaza Strip, turning over authority (and giving autonomy to) the Palestinians living there. This move was not welcomed by all Israelis, and there was much pushback. However, after the elections of 2006, in which Hamas (a political party, with an army wing that is called a terrorist group by the Israelis) won a plurality of the vote, Israel no longer recognized the authority of the Palestinians to govern themselves in the region, and have basically been fighting with them since then.

The Palestinians in the Gaza and the Israelis along the border have been trading rocket sorties over the past few years, but there have been a few times when they’ve come to the brink of war. We’re now close again. The problem is that Israel, supported whole-heartedly by the United States – with both foreign aid in terms of money and weapons – has been guilty of such disproportionate response, that their claims of defense do not hold up. Hamas rockets fly over Israeli cities in small burst (and shot down by Israeli’s new missile defense system, the Iron Dome), and then Israel retaliates with a shelling that decimates buildings, killing dozens of civilians in Gaza. This is essentially a repeat of the conflict that arose in 2008, in which Hamas was firing rockets into Israel, and the Israelis sent F-16s across the border to destroy schools, mosques, etc., which they said Hamas was using for missile storage (and confirmed in certain cases). Regardless, the conflict was incredibly one-sided with regard to the death toll; more than 1,000 dead Palestinians, as compared to 13 dead Israelis.

I think we can come to the conclusion from the sordid history in Israel and Palestine that this is an incredibly complicated problem. There have been moments when an agreement was close – as in the 2000 Camp David summit where Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian State, but Yasser Arafat rejected it – but both sides have been guilty of derailing the process. What we need is a rational, fair, two-state solution that settles the issue of border control, autonomy and recognition for the Palestinians, but also a melting of the cold war that has been doing on for the last 60+ years.

P.S. IDF Spokesperson Avital Leibovich is very anti-Palestine, and justifies the killing of Palestinian civilians under the guise of defense. She feigns pity for the Israeli civilians that have to run to bomb shelters whenever they hear the air raid sirens, but cares nothing for the Palestinian civilians whose buildings are not hit with rockets, but blown up with bombs from IDF airplanes, and who have no bomb shelters to run to. This is not the type of person that should be formulating policy for the IDF.
Also, President Obama needs to recognize that he's missing half of the picture. If Israel has the right to defend itself, then so does Palestine. If the Palestinians interpret Israeli occupation in Gaza to be an act of war, then they see themselves justified in launching rocket attacks. Then escalation leads to escalation, and nobody wins in the end (although undoubtedly the Palestinians will end up with exponentially more casualties). The United States needs to be neutral in both its support and condemnation.