April 05, 2007
Movie Junk
I know I am about to have a kid, which means I won't be able to go to the movies for 15 years or so. That sucks, because there is lots of cool movie-ness out there. Seeing the trailers has me sold that Transformers will be cool, despite earlier misgivings. And there's the new Pirates movie, which will be fun even though the last one was a little over-the-top (not in a good way). There is also, of course, Grindhouse, which, according to this review (for adults only) promises to be better than a napalm zombie explosion. There's also Indiana Jones 4, which finaly starts filming this summer. Live Free or Die Hard looks pretty rockin (I love how the teaser is just explosions, car chases, and gunfire). And there's Sunshine, which I just found out about today. The premise looked a little shoddy, but it's Danny Boyle directing, who pretty much kicks all ass.
I guess I need to start lining up babysitters now.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot Spider-Man 3. Duh.
Posted by Nakia at 11:25 AM | Comments (0)
March 28, 2007
On the "No TV" thing
Loyal readers (ha!) may remember I gave up TV for lent, but would still watch DVD's. With just under two weeks left before Easter, I thought I'd give an update on my promise.
First of all, I admit I have not been 100% faithful to my promise. I did watch some of NCAA basketball tournament. Winthrop played two games and I watched most of both of those. I also watched a few others, mainly on a Sunday afternoon. Not exactly devout, am I.
Still, I haven't just turned on the TV and watched any shows. No channel surfing. No Pardon the Interruption. No Scrubs reruns. Just some basketball and DVD episodes of Lost and How I Met Your Mother (and movies). Not too bad, I think.
Here's what I've found out: In certain ways, TV is really bad for me. It can certainly be a time suck. It can certainly eat up hours and hours, leaving nothing in return. Not watching TV has directly resulted in me reading more (although I am not reading anything now -- more on that later). Not watching TV contributed to me getting more done faster on my film and philosophy of education project. And not watching TV has directly led me to writing this entry at 9:00 on a Wednesday night. That's all good.
But here's the other thing: Sometimes I want NOT to think. I spend most of my time thinking, focused on some problem or another -- how to present material to my classes, articles I want to write, what to do for baby preparation, how can we pay down are debt faster, will the new car hold up over time, etc. TV is great for non-thinking escape, which we all need from time to time. In the beginning of Lent, I spent a lot of my evenings working on something or another -- grading papers, reading for the film paper, reading for class. That was good and necessary, but could easily lead to burn-out. I am sure I'd find other ways to not-think, but TV is an easy way of vegging out.
When Lent's over, I am sure I'll watch TV again. But I hope I am more aware of my watching. The trick is to be able to turn off the brain for awhile without the complete time-suck.
Posted by Nakia at 09:04 PM | Comments (0)
March 15, 2007
A Goal Has Been Achieved
In the process of writing my film paper, I have achieved a major personal and professional milestone:
I have managed to use Ferris Bueler's Day Off in an academic paper.
After the stuff I posted on Tuesday, I have a section of the paper that attempts to develop a pragmatist view on film. In doing so, I address three vital pragmatist concepts that need to be explained in order for that view to be understood -- educational experience, aesthetic experience, and culture. I don't discuss any one of them enough, but it's a good start to bring to the panel.
Ferris Bueler comes in when I discuss culture. One of the things I argue for is that film needs to be understood in two ways. One, is as a work of art. As a work, it does all those things we expect art to do, including provide new categories and vocabularies for understanding and interpreting our experience. This isn't terribly new or insightful, although seeing art as a function rather than a quality of an object is a different way of seeing art. Two is as a part of our cultural experience; we live in a culture where movies are part of a shared body of experiences. We all see movies. Many of us see the same moveis and talk about them. Many of us have seen the same sets of movies over and over, to the point where they become part of the way we communicate. I use Ferris Bueler's Day Off as an example of a film I've seen over and over, can recite almost by memory, and can reference casually in a way that others can pick up on and recite back. I think a failure of film theory and aesthetics that talk about film is the fact that it does not address the way in which films, as popular art, becomes and inescapable part of our cultural experience.
Posted by Nakia at 12:09 PM | Comments (2)
March 13, 2007
Spring Break and the film paper
Spring break is proving relaxing, fun, and productive. Our friends Laura and David are visiting, so we've been cooking with them, playing lots of dominoes, and showing them what Rock Hill and the surrounding area have to offer. We're about to head up to campus and take a Professor Pope led tour of Winthrop.
Speaking of Winthrop -- Go Eagles! Beat Notre Dame!
I've also been working on the film and philosophy of education paper. It's coming together pretty well. Here's what I've got so far (in rough, note-like form):
1. Introduction:
The visual and narrative elements of philosophy have been with the discipline since the beginning. See Plato's Cave. (Thanks to Winston). These narratives have been used to explicitly illustrate philosophical ideas in a different/more understandable way. Aesthetics has also been a part of philosophy since the beginning, which seeks to explore questions of art and, in so doing, asks what philosophical content is expressed by works of art. Film is a new and a self-conscious art. That is, it is an art that has consciously attempted to justifiy its status as art since its inception. In this attempt, a body of theory has developed about film that has evolved into its own discipline. Film theory has evolved as something distinct from philosophy or aesthetics (or philosophy of education).
2. What is the panel doing? (Heavily influenced by Carl Plantinga's "Film Theory and Aesthetics: Notes on a Schism")
We're not really engaging in film theory, at least as film theory has traditionally been understood. Contemporary film theory draws heavily upon continential thinkers (Lacan, Saussure) and their accompanying activities (psychoanalysis, semiotics, deconstruction). Our film analyses are not explicitly political. We are not approaching these films with a feminist, Marxist, or other political framework or analysis. Nor are our analyses "cultural" in the contemporary film theory sense of that word. For film threorists, then, our work at best, probably doesn't count. At worst, it engages in dangerous hegomonic practice, that marginalizes the important cultural content of film.
Nor is the panel really engaging in Anglo-American aesthietcs, as understood traditionally/contemporarily. In pedigree, we don't reference Danto or other contemporary aesthetic scholars (except Shusterman, actually). In activity, the typical aesthetic issues of beauty, representation, and the like are not explicitly considered.
The difference, I believe, between what this panel is up to and those two broad categories of scholarship is the explicit concern with the pedagogical content of film. This is expected, given our background, but it is an approach that situates us between these two sides of Plantinga's schism. It also puts our sort of analysis in what I will call a Deweyan aesthetic vein (except, no one really mentions Dewey).
3. A short explanation of the Deweyan aesthetic, it's relation to pedagogy, and film analysis in that vein.
Forthcoming
Posted by Nakia at 10:02 AM | Comments (0)
March 02, 2007
Steampunk Star Wars
The Table of Malcontents blog at Wired sent me to Eric Poulton's blog, where he does some art of familiar Star Wars characters in a steampunk style. Very cool stuff. I think my favorite is the bowler hat and bow-tie on "Mr. Chewbacca."
Talk about some fodder for gaming ideas. . .
Posted by Nakia at 09:18 AM | Comments (0)
February 12, 2007
Great idea in video collaboration (featuring The Shins!)
This article in Wired details how Ths Shins short their newest video -- by allowing fans at their Austin City Limits festival gig to upload footage, then cutting it all together to make the video.
The Shins + Web 2.0 collaboration = cool!
Posted by Nakia at 05:11 PM | Comments (2)
January 25, 2007
I am not sure why I find this so cool.
Apparently, you can learn about Roman history from Peter Weller, the guy who played RoboCop:
And, okay, I find it cool because RoboCop is working on his PhD. That's pretty cool.
Posted by Nakia at 03:53 PM | Comments (120)
January 19, 2007
Looks like I will have to get HBO
According to Variety, there is a production deal in the works (done?) for a series based on A Song of Ice and Fire. Hopefully, he will finish writing the damn books so I can read them AND watch them all on HBO.
Posted by Nakia at 01:00 PM | Comments (3)
January 10, 2007
Wil Wheaton on ST:TNG
I'm a fan of Wil Wheaton's blog. I think he's a good writer and strikes the perfect geek chord -- enough for you to empathize, but not overbearing geekiness. Checking in today, I found out he's been writing reviews and commetary on Next Generation episodes for TVSquad. Good grief, they are funny.
And, yes, I like TNG. And, double yes, I liked Wesley Crusher as a character. Of course, I was 11 when the show premeired, so that explains a lot.
I think "Wesley Crusher" should be one of the "Things that everyone thinks sucks but do not, in fact, actually suck" essays Josh wants me to write.
Posted by Nakia at 04:40 PM | Comments (2)
November 08, 2006
Office Space Recut
This is funny:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1722814/
Posted by Nakia at 11:01 AM | Comments (0)
October 26, 2006
Lost: 25 October: "Did you make art?"
Our Lost watching rotation continues, as last night we went over to James' to watch the show with him and Lisa. Sarah had to drag me off the couch to do so (it's been a long week), but I am glad we went. This season feels a little different to me so far. Maybe it is the separation of the castaways, maybe it's the fact that some of the mystery of the Others is being revealed. I think there is less supernatural mystery and more human drama and conflict. That's not a bad thing, just a little different.
1. Hurley, again, gets off a great line: "Did you make art?" I thought that was hysterical.
2. So, Desmund can see into the future. That could come in handy.
3. I really enjoyed Sawyer's flashback. Nice paralell to his current situation. I couldn't remember if we had seen any the people in the flashback before, except for Sawyer's visitor. I also like it that Sawyer is so well read.
4. The two island thing explains a lot but leaves a lot unanswered. There was mention of a "sub", which would explain how the Others get around so quickly and quietly (like to capture the sailboat). Which island do the Others live on? How did Ethan and the other guy get to the crash sites so quickly if they lived on another island?
5. Is the whole thing a plot to get Jack (a world reknowed spinal surgeon) to opperate on Ben/Henry? When I mean the whole thing, I mean getting Jack on the plane and crashing the plane? That seems a bit chancy. Or is it "just coincidence" that this great spinal surgeon happened to crash on a lost island run by crazy people whose leader has a spinal tumor?
Only two more episodes in this first arc and I'll miss next week because I'll be traveling. ARGGH!
Posted by Nakia at 08:13 AM | Comments (3)
October 17, 2006
Friday Night Lights/Explosions in the Sky
Last Friday, Sarah and I watched Friday Night Lights, the film based on the popular book about high school football in West Texas. We liked the movie, even if the DVD kept screwing up. Although the impact of the well done Friday night lights was lessened by the fact that I had seen Varsity Blues. I kept expecting one of those guys to say "I don't want your life!". Anyway, the movie was about what you'd expect and good for that.
I really enjoyed the soundtrack to the film, which was done by an Austin-based band called Explosions in the Sky. I'd describe them as instrumental, angular, emotional indie-rock. Very good stuff.
Posted by Nakia at 01:43 PM | Comments (1)
October 12, 2006
Lost -- October 11th
James and Lisa are becoming our Lost buddies. They came over last night to watch episode #2 of this season.
I like the expading circles method this season seems to be going with. First we get Jack, Kate, and Sawyer. Next week get those three plus Sun, Jin, and Sayid. Looks like next week we get the hatch folks (pretty much everyone else). Although I am not sure if I saw Hurley in the preview for next week. Poor bastard is trecking it over the island by himself.
1. It's highly likely Jin is not the father of Sun's baby, given his infertility and her affair with her English teacher.
2. Sun is not really a nice person in certain ways. She's a good liar and does so frequently. She's not afraid to shoot somebody. That Sun's not nice was reinforced by blonde lady in the boat. Sun's not wanted by the others, who only take good people. Or something like that.
3. Kate is beginning to annoy me. I am tired of the whole "Kate screws up our plan against the Others by getting held at gunpoint" angle. That's happened three times now? At least she seems like she knows she keeps screwing up.
4. Sawyer was great. The "Cool Hand Luke" references were nice, as was his kiss and taking out those Others.
5. Gotta love incredulous references to the Red Sox and the World Series.
6. Will Jack break?
7. Juliet is intriguing. What's up with her?
8. The Others have contact with the outside world. This suggests they want to be on the island. From last episode we learned they didn't know the plane was gonna crash or cause it to crash, but were quickly able to mobilize to take advantage of it. After doing so, they began to learn all the stuff about the survivors -- details about Jack's wife, Sawyer's real name, etc. Their ultimate purposes are still a mystery.
Lost Wiki
Posted by Nakia at 02:07 PM | Comments (2)
October 05, 2006
Lost -- October 4th
Hooray for more Lost! We watched it last night over at James' place with James and Lisa. James had hooked up an LCD projector, so we got to watch it in big screen. Very cool, but it made me realize how crappy our analog cable signals are. Ugh.
Spoliers within.
1. Very cool to see the Other's village and their super-keen preparatory powers to jump all over the plane when it went down. I also liked the book group set up, with the one guy complaining about the literalness of the book, how it was without metaphor, etc. Seems like the writers of Lost were taking a little swipe at some critics and fans who try to over-metaphorize the show.
2. I wonder what Stephen King book they were reading.
3. I liked the Jack flashback. His relationship with his dad is so messed up, which is why its so believable. Dad constantly criticizes Jack, leading him to become a kick-ass surgeon who is also obsessive (you probably have to be to be a kick-ass surgeon). This obsessiveness leads to Jack's failed marriage and Jack assuming his dad is the cause of it. That assumption and conflcit looks like is drives Jack's dad back to drinking, which leads to Jack getting him fired, which leads to the dad in Australia drinking himself to death.
4. Ben/Henry gale is one scary dude. Is there conflict between him and Juliet?
5. What they hell are they doing to Kate? Maybe I don't want to know.
6. Sawyer in the (polar?) bear cage was great. "it only took the bears two hours." Nice.
7. Who the hell was that other guy who escaped and let Sawyer free? Why was he locked up?
8. This Juliet figure intriges me. Evil or not? Messing with Jack's head -- probably.
Posted by Nakia at 11:39 AM | Comments (0)
July 28, 2006
American Hardcore
This looks cool:
(note: It's not porn. It's about music, you perverts).
Posted by Nakia at 01:13 PM | Comments (0)
May 25, 2006
Lost -- Season Finale
I not MUST buy the first two season's worth of episodes, because there is no way I can make it to the fall without watching some Lost.
I really liked the finale. It did what it needed to do: answer some questions and pose some new ones for next season.
Spoilers, of course.
Comments and questions:
1. What the hell was up with the stone foot? Why are four toes important? I thoguht of Shelly's Ozymandias: "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair." I also thought of Planet of the Apes
2. Glad we saw lots of Desmond. I like him and hope he's not dead. Still some Desmond questions, though, like why was he in jail?
3. Speaking of Desmond, wasn't his full name Desmond David Hume? This is the third Enlightenment era philosopher that has been referenced: John Locke, David Hume, and Rousseau. If Spinoza, Kant, or Berkeley show up next season I am freaking out.
4. What was with the look Jack gave Kate just before they were lead away? A fellow professor also pointed out that Jack and Michael shared a look as Michael sailed away. Was this all part of a plan to get inside the Other's camp? Are Michael and Walt going to sail and meet up with Sayid, Sun, and Jin? I don't really think they are leaving. Besides, they don't have Vincent.
5. Penelope (nice Odyessy referece with her and Desmond, btw) and her Russian spotters now know something about the Island. It looks like they've been watching out for electromagnetic surges. That's a cool development. But I wonder how they know to look for that sort of energy in the first place. Is Penelope's rich father connected with Hanso/Dharma?
6. It looks like we know why the plane crashed -- Desmond let the energy spike by not punching in the numbers, thus crashing the plane. But questions remain. The largest question is how all those interconnected people were together on the plane in the first place. Wasn't the plane way off course before it crashed? It looks like even if the plane crashing was an accident, the plane being near the island and full of people whose lives were related was not.
7. It was good to see Charlie take a strong role and good to see some lingering Charlie/Locke animosity. Charlie is still mad at Locke for Locke getting so friendly with Claire and for making him look like a fool during the whole baby baptism incident.
8. Good to see Libby again in the flashback. It will be interesting to see how she relates to Hurley and Desmond. Let's hope that thread develops.
I still like the show, although some of the conventions that were "WOW" at the beginning are now almost expected -- mainly the appearance of other Lostaways in individual character flashbacks.
Oh, and there are gonna be toys!
Posted by Nakia at 01:22 PM | Comments (1)
April 13, 2006
Lost 4/12/06
This is not turning into a "Lost" blog, I promise. I've just been busy finishing up some backlogged grading and getting ready to end the semester. Now, my grading is finished just in time to post about last night's episode.
Real blog updates will begin again soon.
I enjoyed last night's episode a lot. It was good to get some backstory on Rose and Bernard. I've always enjoyed those two characters, as they seem the least mysterious out of all the group. Very little drama or mystery with those two, which is refreshing. Although last night's episde gave us both drama and mystery with the happy couple.
Things we learned (most of these were hinted at earlier, but confirmed last night):
1. The island heals. It made Locke walk and cured Rose's cancer.
2. Eko and Charlie are building a church. This looks like it's Charlie's way to redemption, but we'll see. This scene also supplied the funniest line of the episode: "I think I liked you better when all you did was beat people with a stick."
3. Rose knew Locke was in a wheelchair before the crash. Given that it's Rose, there's not a lot of drama there, but Rose sharing her knowledge with Locke seemed to be key to Locke's renewal of faith in the island. He seems to be back on track after several episodes of Gale-induced self-doubt.
Other things that were cool:
1. Michael's back! I wondered when they would get around to getting him back in the mix. I'm glad he's back. His character can be pretty grating, but that prickliness spurs a lot of action and drama within the group. From the previews, it looks like that's going to happen again.
2. Kate & Jack. I was glad Kate finally told Jack about what she and Claire found in the other hatch. I was also glad she called Jack on hiding Henry for so long without telling her. It also looks like some romantic sparks were flying again between the two, which is a good thing. I'm glad the show doesn't overuse the sexual tension angle between the main protagonists (that got tired in the X-Files), but having all these people on the island together without any "hooking up" just strains credibility. (bit of humor there).
3. Is Jack superman? Seriously, is there anything he cannot do? He's was a world-famous surgeon beofre the island. He's competent in almost every area of medicine (obstretrics, pedicatrics, even optometry!). He's got pretty good wilderness skills. He's great at poker. Now we know he can really shoot a gun. Maybe that was a lucky shot, just put in there to create a bit of humor and tension between him and Kate. And maybe Jack's competency in almost everything is just a dramatic device. Or maybe there is a lot more going on with Jack than we know. It could be either, but I wonder.
A few weeks to any new episodes. Looks like Sarah and I will be in Ireland for the new stuff. Do they get Lost in Ireland? I'm going to have to get someone to tape the episodes.
Posted by Nakia at 08:54 AM | Comments (5)
April 06, 2006
Lost 4/5/06
Is it me, or did we learn more in this episode than in the "Five Things Will Be Revealed!" episode?
This was one of my favorite episodes, I think.
Spoilers, of course, follow.
Please don't spoil anything from future episodes in the comments. I like my surprises!
Things we learned:
1. Island is probably not somebody's dream. (and I think Cutter's comments about nods to the fans are right on. Hurley is usually the vehicle for these comments).
2. Libby was in the hospital with Hurley.
3. The reason Hurley was in the hospital.
4. Inputing the numbers really doesn't do anything. (Unless Henry is lying).
5. Henry is an Other. (we learned this last ep, but had it confirmed in this one)
6. Zeke is not the leader of the others. There's another guy who makes Zeke look like Strawberry Shortcake, apparently.
7. The outside world (and, God, I guess) doesn't know the island exists.
Other comments:
I wonder if Henry's comments to Locke about God not even knowing about the island was done on purpose to mess with Locke's head.
Good to see Eko again! I liked it how, in this episode, a lot of folks were involved. We got to see Sayid, Anna-Lucia, Kate, Sawyer, Hurley, Libby, Eko, Charlie, Locke, Jin, Sun, and Jack.
The Hurley-Sawyer fight was hysterical. Sawyer getting pulled back into the tent. Hurley shouting out all of Sawyer's little pet names ("Jabba", "Stay-Puft") as he pounds him. Nice.
And it had cool guest stars -- Dave was Charlotte's husband from "Sex and the City" and the doctor was the senator from the "X-Men" movies.
Posted by Nakia at 10:25 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
March 02, 2006
Lost 3/1/06
There are three types of "Lost" episodes:
1. Episodes where important things happen in relation to the island's mysteries.
2. Episodes where there is significant character development accompanied by flashbacks.
3. Transition episodes where we get bits of #1 and #2. Small things may become important later.
Last night's episode was type #3.
Spoilers, of coruse, if you go further.
I liked last night's episode, even though I felt it was "filler" at times. I enjoyed the focus on the female characters, although Claire annoys me a little (and has from the beginning). It was good to see Rousseau (again) show her mettle. Of course, this ep set up more conflict that it resolved. Questions emerging:
1. So the whole "Zeke as mad pirate" angle of the Others is just a sham? Kate found what looked like costumes in the lockers. Are the Others kicking it in some beach cabanna's on the other side of the island? It looks like Dharma is still working on things on the island and the Others are part of it.
2. Henry Gale is manipulative, even if he's not a plant. Trying to turn Locke against Jack, eh? My thinking is Locke was angry (at the end) not at Jack, but at himself for being manipulated like that. Maybe Locke believes Henry is an Other now.
3. What was up with Ecko's confession? Does he think Henry is an Other and wanted to confess that he killed Others to an Other? Or did he just want to tell someone not connected to the plane people?
4. Anyone catch what Sawyer was reading on the beach? I got The Brother's Karamozov was given to Henry. Having (embarrassingly) never read it, I cannot say of that text is significant or symbolic to the situation, other than it set up the Dostovesky/Hemingway Jacke/Locke conflcit perpetrated by Henry.
I guess a lot did happen after all; it was just subtle. Setting up future conflicts and revalations. Unfortunately, I think we have to wait 4 weeks before we get a new episode.
Posted by Nakia at 08:23 AM | Comments (12)
February 09, 2006
Lost 2/8/05
I'm glad Lost is back. I am completely addicted. Now I'm discussing it in my blog, which may make me one of those people I talked about a couple of months ago.
At least I don't have any screenshots. In fact, I am more interested in discussing theme, tone, etc that "what really happened" or "what will happen next". I'm content to let the narrative unfold.
And, yes, I made us leave the Winthrop basketball game early so we could get home and watch it. Winthrop was up by 30, so it was not a big deal.
Spoilers for everything up to this week, including the previews for next weeks show.
Dark Charlie = wearing hood. When will the folks on the island pick up on the fact that all you have to do to make Charlie behave is take away his jacket? Seriosuly, every time Charlie is up to something, he wears the hood.
Seems like a theme of the show, one that will be continued next episode, (a clip showed Sayid saying "I am a torturer") is that you can't change who you are. Sawyer is still a con man, even though conning people he's stranded with really does him no good. Jack still has control issues, which is what puts him in conflict with, well, everyone he comes into conflict with. Charlie's still shiftless, even though he's not using.
The only people who seem to have undergone signficant change on the island is Locke. His change has primarily been physical, but he seems much more competent and self-assure on the island than he did in his flashbacks.
One could argue that Shannon and Boone also changed. Boone was able to resolve his love/overprotectiveness of Shannon. Shannon was able to love and find someone to believe in her. Of coruse, they both died, which gives some creedence to the Purgatory theory, I guess, if one wants to ignore the distinction between narrative, meta-narrative, and non-plot reasons for people leaving the show.
Other notes, many gleaned from the ENWorld thread in this topic:
The waitress in the diner where Sawyer and the other conman met was Kate's mother. I knew she looked familiar.
Hurley is becoming the writer's voice to the rabid fan. His comment last ep, with Sayid, about the radio signals coming from "another time" were an example, as were his line about the newer washing machine in the Hatch a few episodes ago. At the end of season one, he was involved in the conversation with the High School science teacher about why he was still heavy and how he was part of the "cool crowd" on the island.
Posted by Nakia at 11:18 AM | Comments (6)
February 08, 2006
Going to the Movies
Lots going on, lots to talk about, but I've got my Annual Report due next week and it's pretty time consuming.
I just took a break from said report to check out Mark Cuban's blog.
I haven't been to the movie theatre since before Christmas (King Kong, actually). There are lots of reasons for that -- Netflix, money, the fact that a good theatre is 30-40 minutes away. But I can't help but think that if I had the kind of theatre Cuban talks about in this post, I'd be a little more likely to go. Sarah and I have date night once per week, yet we never go to the movies. Some of that is because the movie going experience isn't that enjoyable to us any more.
I'm curious as to what others think. Do you still go to the movies as much as you used to? If not, why not?
Posted by Nakia at 11:47 AM | Comments (9)
January 04, 2006
HFC Moment of the week (archive.org)
HFC = Holy Freakin' Crap, used when you find something that is almost unbelievable.
In this case, it is archive.org, an internet repository of public domain media. They have texts, films, music -- if it's digital and public domain, it's in there.
Why is this a HFC moment? First, there is the music. All kinds of live shows, from Greatful Dead stuff to a David Gray concert to Rose Hill Drive's set from Asheville, where I saw them open up for Wilco. (You can find their set here. Then you can download it, listen, and see why Sarah and I had to wait in the lobby for a while.) The music on the site is cool, especially if you are into jam band sorts of music.
It really excites me from an educator's point of view. I can download clips and newsreels, edit them with iMovie or whatever, splice in Powerpoint slides, put different clips together, and do whatever else to create a primary-text multimedia presentation. If I am a history teacher and we are going to learn about WW II, there are newsreels, speeches, and all sorts of other material in archive.org that would be an incredible resource for my students.
The educational possibilities make me just go HFC!
Posted by Nakia at 03:01 PM | Comments (0)
December 14, 2005
The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Sarah was working late Monday so I went and saw the Narnia movie by myself. I drove to the Regal off 485; it's a little nicer theatre than we have here in Rock Hill and I have that Regal club card where you get points for seeing movies. It's good to be in the club, since I got a free popcorn coupon after buying my ticket Monday.
I read and enjoyed the Narnia books very much when I was younger, but have not read them in a long time. I was looking forward to the movie a lot, just to see what would be done with the property, and to see how the movie "felt" compared to LotR.
I liked it, but didn't love it. 7 out of 10.
There are spoliers in the rest of the review.
I enjoyed the film very much up until the "war". The actors who played the children were very good (Lucy and Edmund especially). The faun and other creatures were well done. The White Witch was meanacing, yet seductive (in a PG appropriate way). The film made it clear why Edumund would have betrayed the other children. The religious overtones were there, of course, but not in an obnoxious way. The story is a very nice retelling of the Passion and the essence of Christ's sacrifice.
I have a hard time putting my finger on why I did not enjoy the movie more, but it had something to do with Peter. Not with the actor, or even the character, really. I think I had my suspension of disbelief damaged a bit by the fact that these four children go from being just ordinary kids to great warriors and leaders of Narnia in about 36 hours. There was an attempt to show Peter's reluctance of taking up the leadership mantle, to approach the difficulty even a prophesized king would have taking a life for the first time, but that never really worked for me. Maybe it was the "clean your sword" comment from Aslan about a not-bloody sword (which I suppose was not bloody to keep the movie PG and kid friendly). If they would have held that scene a little longer, given us a shot of Peter wiping the blood of the foe from his blade with a look of sadness yet determination on his face, maybe things would have been fine for me, I don't know.
Maybe expecting character development from a two hour film that comes from a children's story is asking too much. Maybe it's the source material; the book probably just has the children assume their roles as Narnian royalty without batting an eyelash. Maybe that lack of character drama is why I have only read the Narnia books two or three times since that first time in the third grade and I have read Tolkien's stuff fifteen or twenty.
Good, yes. Definetly worth a viewing. A very good children's movie, but ultimately just and only that (for me at least).
Posted by Nakia at 01:58 PM | Comments (0)
December 08, 2005
Upcoming Movies
Sarah and I used to go to the theatre a lot to see movies, despite only having crappy ones in Charlottesville. Since we've moved, we've gone to the movies a lot less. I think we have seen maybe four movies in the theatres since July (Batman Begins, War of the Worlds, Wedding Crashers, and Walk the Line). There are a lot of reasons, I guess: Netflix, money, crappy movies in the theatres, and a not so great theatre in Rock Hill.
But there are a number of movies coming out that I want to try and get to, beginning this Friday.
Syriana is already out in select markets. I don't think it will make it to Charlotte, but who knows. This looks good, with a good cast and engaging issues.
The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe tomorrow. I'm excited about this one. I read these books before LotR. Weta did the effects. It looks very cool.
King Kong on December 14th. Giant ape, dinosaurs, Peter Jackson. How could you go wrong? This is also one of those "must see in the theatre" movies. I'll probably have to see it twice in the theatre because it's three hours long and I know I will have to get up during the movie at some point to go pee.
The New World on January 13th looks interresting as well, with Terance Malik directing and Christain Bale and Colin Farrell starring.
Next year also brings the new Superman movie, the next X-Men movie, and perhaps both of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels.
Posted by Nakia at 12:46 PM | Comments (5)
December 05, 2005
Primer
Sarah was out of town this weekend, which meant Nakia watched movies Sarah has no interest in whatsoever.
Saturday night I watched "Primer". Made for $7000 and filmed in Dallas, it was a Sundance selction. Two guys build a "time machine" in their garage while researching superconductors. Put that way, the film sounds kind of silly, but it actually was a complex movie that realistically addresses the paradoxes of time travel and important issues of trust. Not wanting to meet themselves when they go back in time, the hole up in a motel while their temporal doubles go back and relive the day again. They become day traders, finding out what stocks increased the most in one day, then going back in time and buying those stocks. But what happens when you (or your double) screws something up one day? Is it okay to go back and fix it? How do you go back and fix it and avoid meeting yourself? Are you sure the other guy isn't going back and changing things when you're not around?
The possibilities are limitless and, in the case of the film, occasionally confusing and a little slow. But overall I enjoyed this indie for it's realistic take on a sci-fi trope and the thought provoking issues it brings up.
Posted by Nakia at 01:58 PM | Comments (3)
November 10, 2005
Lost
It's official. I am addicted to this show.
I saw the second and third episodes of the first season when they aired originally and thought "This looks REALLY cool, but there's no way I'm going to be able to watch it every week (it was up against West Wing), so I'll just wait for it on DVD." I started watching this season with the Season 1 recap, have kept up with this season, and am watching season 1 on DVD.
Best.Show.Evar.
For a spoiler filled discussion of last night's show, read on.
Okay, you know a show is good when you have dreams about it afterward and are seriously bummed out when a semi-minor character dies.
I said to Sarah during the show 'I hope Sawyer doesn't die." I don't like Sawyer, but think he serves a vital function on the show -- as the "bad guy" and foil to Jack. I didn't realize how bummed I would be that Shannon (apparently) died. Her flashback did a good job of developing sympathy for her and I like Said, so I was pretty unhappy when she got shot at the end.
How come I did not notice Jack walking in the background when Shannon comes to the hospital? Apparently, Jack does not save Shannon's dad so he can save the other woman in the accident.
Well, I guess I should say apparently shot. There is all this internet speculation and screen shots about how Anna was right handed but the gun is in the left hand (wait, Jack's left handed!) of someone in one scene. Or that maybe Shannon wasn't shot at all, but stabbed by an Other and then the person shot at the other, or even that the two groups didn't even meet yet since they were never shown together. Sometimes, I hate the internet regarding stuff like this. It gets a little silly.
Sarah and I were talking about the Apparitions (Walt to Shannon and Jack's dad to Jack. Maybe there are more but I have not finished Season 1 yet). In each case, the apparition appears to help someone work out some deep emoitional pain. In each case, the apparition also leads to the person dying. Jack falls off a cliff, but gets saved by Locke. Shannon gets shot after she gets Said to believe her about Walt and believe in her becuase of his love. I was toying with the idea that the Island is some sort of Purgatory where people have to work out their issues (I've heard this from somewhere else). When they work them out, they "die" on the island and are thus set free. This only really works with Shannon, I guess, so it's probably not the best idea.
I had this dream last night that "I" was on the island (in most of my dreams I'm never really me, just some person that has some of my thoughts and memories, but looks different and sometimes acts different. In this case I was Said but not), and we had found my mom's house. We were exploring my mom's old house and "Shannon" got lost underneath it. What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Posted by Nakia at 04:00 PM | Comments (4)
October 26, 2005
Cool web comic
Geek AND Hookup/sex humor! What's not to love?
The Least I Could Do
The first few are not so great, but it gets funnier.
Posted by Nakia at 02:46 PM | Comments (1)
October 24, 2005
The Transporter
One of the things I did this weekend was watch The Transporter. Not high-art by any means, but here are some thoughts:
1. The oil-slick fight was pretty cool.
2. How come all these action movies fall prey to the "helping out the girl" syndrome? Badass transporter gets screwed over, but is going to walk away until the girl appeals to him for help. This is lame. Do studio execs think it makes the movie more appealing to women? Do women who aren't forced to by men watch these movies anyway? Would men care if the motivation was just "badass wants to get back at the guy who tried to blow him up"? For movies like this, I'm fine with that. It's not like we watch this movie for riviting plot anyway.
3. Movie comparisions: Ronin. Maybe it's just because they're both set in the south of France. Ronin actually puts a nice twist on the "help the girl" angle, as de Niro and Co. are hired by the girl, then get double and tripple crossed. Ronin was, of course, 500000 times better.
4. The entire end fight in the 18 wheeler was ripped off from Raiders of the Lost Ark. I was complaining vocally about this during the movie, to the point of annoying Sarah. After the Transporter, I put in the Raiders DVD to demonstrate. Even Sarah, who has not seen Radiers 7650 times like I have, agreed that the two fights were basicly the same. Then I got to hear the "It's not the years, it's the milage" line, which was just gravy.
I'm not sure why I needed to write all that about a movie that's average at best. There was REALLY good baseball on this weekend, yet I write about The Transporter.
Am I becoming one of those "complain about it on the internet" people?
Posted by Nakia at 04:48 PM | Comments (5)
October 04, 2005
Sincerely.
Last night I was not in a good mood, for various reasons. I found myself flipping around the channels; I landed on AMC and The Karate Kid. I watched this movie uncoutable times during my childhood; it was one of the few we had on tape. Sure, it's a little silly now, though I found myself actaully getting a little tense during the big tournament at the end. Sweep the leg, Johnny, indeed.
What affected me more was the movie after The Karate Kid. Stand By Me started at 10:30. I was tired, so I only watched an hour of it (it was the edited version anyway), but I do love that movie.
Stand By Me, based off the Stephen King short story "The Body" is great for many reasons. It features a host of young (male) acting talent -- River Phoenix, Wil Wheaton, Kiefer Sutherland (who is damned scary in the movie), Jerry O'Connel, and John Cusak. It also has Corey Feldman, who is the ubiquitous 80's teen. Richard Dreyfus narrates and briefly appears. Great cast.
The movie is also great because it functions on mutiple levels. One one level, it's just funny, with uncountable great lines. "Chopper, sick balls." ". . . and then your mother goes around the corner and licks it up." "LARDASS! LARDASS!" It's also a very effective coming of age tale, about friendship and the loss of friendship, about what it means to be a kid. (I claim that few adult writers write children as well as Stephen King; "The Body" is the work that proves it, I think). It's also an allegory. Four boys on the verge of adolescence ditch their folks, follow some tracks, leave the tracks to founder in a swamp, then find a dead body. Is that when adulthood begins, when you confront death for the first time? The boys are never the same after that; their quartet (ka-tet, to use another King term) is broken.
I was 10 when the movie came out in theatres, so I must have been about 12 when I saw it for the first time on video. I, too, had three good friends I spend lots of summer hours with -- building forts in woods, hanging around the school playground, playing Dungeons and Dragons. We saw ourselves in those kids in the movie. There was a tough kid and an overweight kid. I, of course, was Gordy -- the smart, kinda quiet, writer kid. One thing I am not sure I realized consciously until last night was that the kid who identified most with Chris, (the River Phoenix character), is now, like Chris in the film and River Phoenix in real life, dead. I don't know why it took me ten years to make that realization.
The film ends with "I never had friends like I did when I was 12. Does anyone?" While I am not sure about that, there is something about that time. You're on the verge of something big; you know it on some level. But for the moment your friends are your world -- your summers are free, girls are not yet part of the picture, -- almost no adult pressures are put upon you. It is the last time of Youth.
Stand by Me gets that. And that's why it's a great film.
Posted by Nakia at 10:43 AM | Comments (4)
August 25, 2005
Thursday Top Five
I'm not sure if this will be a regular feature or not, but today I'm going all "High Fidelity" and asking:
Top Five Movies Starring Former SNL Cast Members
(We're Sonic Death Monkey).
In no order:
1. The Blues Brothers
2. Fletch
3. Animal House (Does this count? Was it out before Belushi was on SNL? I'm too lazy to do the research.)
4. Vacation
5. Ghostbusters
(Honorable mention to Happy Gilmore, Lost In Translation, and Stripes).
Posted by Nakia at 04:22 PM | Comments (11)
August 04, 2005
Formulaic and Mostly Funny -- Wedding Crashers
I was eagerly anticipating this movie. Andre said it was good. Rolling Stone was calling Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn the new Belushi and Ackroyd. Sarah and I saw this movie this past Sunday. I thought it was hilarious for about forty minutes. . . unfortunately the movie was about two hours long.
Spoilers, if that matters for a movie like this
Okay, so it's a silly premise. Two guys crash weddings to have no strings attached sex with the women who go to weddings. (Okay, maybe it's not that silly, since I could totally see people I know doing that sort of thing.) It's a formulaic plot -- one of the guys actually meets someone he cares for at one of these weddings and gets into trouble because he's made all this stuff up to get into the wedding and meet the girl in the first place. But it's still funny. Wilson and Vaughn play off each other very well; you believe that they are best friends. Vaughn (who always plays, well, Vince Vaughn) takes the laughs while Wilson plays the sensitive, straight man. Movies like this are not really about the plot, since you know exactly what's coming. Nor are they about character, since every character is rather "stock" -- crazy sibling, uptight dad, the rich, villainous boyfriend. This makes it easier to for us to identify people and get into the film without exposition. No, these movies are about the little, absurd bits in between all that that make us laugh. The first half of this movie has plenty of those.
And then, something happens. I can hear the studio execs now:
"Hey, this Wedding Crashers movie is pretty funny!"
"Yes, but we're alienating the female demographic. There are lots of failrly crude jokes in the beginning. And lots of breasts."
"Can't have that happen. Turn it into typical romantic film at about minute 50. That'll get the women back in!"
So, after the hijinks are up for Vaughn and Wilson -- after they are found out to be wedding crashers, the funny stops. Not just peters out -- stops. The movie goes from way funny to not at all funny. It simply becomes a romatic semi-comedy. Wilson mopes, tries to get the girl back, alienates Vaughn, etc. Blah.
Why can't filmakers make a movie that is just funny, from beginning to end? I'm thinking Landis here (and Vaughn/Wilson being compared to Ackroyd/Belushi just brings this further into my mind). Did The Blues Brothers have a "message"? Did Animal House have a major romantic subplot? Nope. They were just designed to make you laugh from beginning to end. The last movie I saw that really did that was Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle. Despite (or, really, because of) it's absurd, juvinile plot and gags, I was very entertained and laughed very hard. A lot.
I stopped doing that (laughing) about halfway through Wedding Crashers. Which is not what is supposed to happen in a comedy.
Posted by Nakia at 03:57 PM | Comments (7)
June 23, 2005
More Cowbell
One of the funniest SNL skits in recent memory:
Man, this is funny stuff, only slightly marred by Jimmy Fallon. Was there one skit he was in where he didn't crack up in the middle of it? Glad Farrell and Walken pulled this one out. . .
Posted by Nakia at 09:30 PM | Comments (1)