Rent = meh

I'm not a big fan of musicals. Sure there are some that I like, but by and large, they just don't do it for me. Rent, impressive in its production values, is pretty much what I expected, except longer. I kept getting taken in by its fake out endings. The first time they resang 525,600 minutes, I thought that was it, and said, "well, I guess at least it wasn't that long". But then it kept on going, and I said, "I guess everyone has to die first." Seeing Team America's spoof of it ("Everybody has AIDS. AIDS AIDS AIDS!"), I think I got the gist of the plot. I don't think I liked any of the songs, but they were sung very well.

Also, Rosario Dawson was quite hot.

Chungking

I've liked them for a few months now, but finally got one of their CDs today. I listened through it and I've got to say, it's pretty good. From an article:

“The feel of it is a kind of early 70s radio sound. It’s a kind of familiar nostalgia,” says vocalist Jessie Banks, describing the sound of her band, Brighton’s psychedelic soul three-piece Chungking. “It took a while to settle on our sound,” she explains. “It really came down to good songs. With a good song you’re prepared to sing it for a long time.”

Here's another interview. I guess they don't have much of a web presence... Anyway, give them a shot if you get the chance...

Meat-eating

F42 from fark.com said, "When we go to the petting zoo, my mom feeds and then pokes the cows like she's shopping for meat, and she tells the cow how tasty it looks... The cows seem to enjoy it."

"If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" -Unknown

"I'm not a vegetarian because I like animals, but because I hate plants." -I forget

A well known hypothetical is, "If you could grow meat without ever killing an animal, would you eat it?"

A favorite story of mine has a girl with something akin to universal understanding; not only could she speak with humans (gasp), but also plants, animals, and the environment itself. She was a very compassionate girl and so, for a while wouldn't eat anything (after all, they were all her friends!). But, the plants were all like, "You've gotta eat! Please eat us!" (paraphrasing)

And of course, there are those who are vegetarian for health reasons or religious reasons. Can't really argue with that.

I eat meat because meat tastes good.

Starship Troopers, part the third

Fascism, from dictionary.com, "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

In the DVD commentary, Verhoeven explains that yes, the point of the film was to point out that "War makes fascists of us all." Looking at the above definition, that's really not what happened in Starship Troopers. The book jacket said it was one of Heinlein's most controversial, presumably because of fascism, but I really don't see it. There's no dictator, there's no indication of economic controls (social sure), the opposition in question was not within the human race, and they were fighting a war against aliens, so it's hard to begrudge them belligerence.

I think Verhoeven's definition of fascism would be more along the lines of using an enemy to distract the people to assume control of the country, a la Goering. Verhoeven likened the government of the story to America. The screenwriter seemed to disagree on that point, but, if I remember correctly, also agreed about the fascism.

As far as the book versus the movie go, I like the movie better. It's flashier, it's got better pacing, it's got better dialogue, it's got characters I like better. But, you really can't get as much out of it as you can the book.

Anyway, the third and final batch of notes:

heinlein brings up evolution on a planet exposed to less radiation than earth. apparently, it was a fear of scientists that colonists of a less-irradiated planet would evolve more slowly than the apparently much more irradiated planet earth. but this doesn't take into account a few things. one: i don't think physical traits are bound to be the dominant survival factor. maybe this is different in a survivalist period such as war. and while people who are physically inept or mentally inept people are passing on their genes all the time, maybe it's my mistake in thinking that this is more widespread than it actually is. two: even if people of earth and sanctuary (the other planet) evolved at the same rate, they are bound to have different evolutionary impetuses. That is, they're bound to be different. three: given a sufficiently diverse gene pool, mutations brought on by radiation might not even be necessary. of course, i am no geneticist, so i have no idea just how diverse is diverse. the book had sanctuary at around a million residents.

heinlein writes about the "revolt of the scientists", in which those who pursue knowledge attempted a coup, which failed. when i wrote up my proposed curriculum, i left off math and science subjects. this was intentional. while math and science have done much for mankind, and mathematical and scientific thought certainly can't hurt decision processes, i think the bare and essential subjects for governing have more to do with man than nature.

said by major reid, "i have never been able to see how a thirty-year-old moron can vote more wisely than a fifteen-year-old genius..." referring of course to governments with age limitations dictating voting rights. which is an interesting point. richard was arguing for voting rights for all, but clearly, even america has no such system. as heinlein lists, we have limitations regarding "age, birth, poll tax, criminal record, or other". (actually, I recall that recently, there was a proposal to remove granting citizenship to births in the US, referring to illegal immigration.) maybe what was meant by richard is that the bar should be set very, very low. is it enough just to be born in america, of the right age, and to have committed no significant crime? is it alright to be a moron but eighteen or older, but not okay to be a genius but seventeen or younger? i know my answer. major reid says, "never mind, they paid for their folly."

here's where there is breakdown, tho. in this very dense, very direct passage (chapter 12), heinlein outlines the basis for this government. it is revealed that it is not because the citizens are smarter, or more disciplined, or a smaller body aware of the consequences of franchise, that the government is successful, but because of voluntary and difficult service that demonstrates that the citizen places the group ahead of the self. well, it can't get more plain than that. i'd like to think that a person aware of history, ethics, and law would be able to recognize what is best for the group, but of course, there is no guarantee that that person would make that decision, even recognizing it. of course, in heinlein's system, i think it'd also be possible to get through without placing the group above the self, particularly in times of peace, but i'd have to admit, it'd be far less likely. and it's this lesson that seems to place service above even delineation from lethargy and apathy.

Starship Troopers, part the second

Hey, I read slow, but here's the next batch of notes:

heinlein uses dubois as his mouthpiece when refuting the founding father's declaration of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness". he says that neither life nor liberty are rights; they must be bought and paid for like anything else of value. on pursuit of happiness, tho, he says that any man will pursue happiness regardless. i agree

but reading this, and his dialogue, it seems to me that a lot of this is heavy handed. nothing is subtle. then on some points, such as the one where he insists on flogging juvenile criminals, i can't help but think that it is too simplistic. after all, i have a hard time believing that, for example, a mother didn't spank her child prior to that child joining a gang some years later (heinlein seems to think that a lack of spanking was due to parents believing in "pseudo-scientific" beliefs of the time). a lot has to do with environment (village to raise a child). or perhaps he's suggesting that being flogged by government authority carries some educational weight that a parent's spanking does not.

another part of his extended analogy that didn't make complete sense was spanking a puppy versus spanking a juvenile. depending on the age of the juvenile (which he said was up to 18), a person has a capacity to reason that a puppy does not.

a lot of this led up to heinlein's putting a duty-based society over a rights-based one. i seem to recall an article from a canadian calling for just such a thing. i also believe that if everyone had to do what was right, rather than did what they were allowed, then society would be a much more civl place. but i don't think i'd be one to give up such freedom, even if i never exercised it.

but a duty based society is one in which its citizens championed the group above the individual. that would certainly seem like a hallmark of fascism.

one thing that I was curious about going into the book was heinlein's take on fascism versus the movie's. at this point, with putting forth a duty-based society versus a rights-based one, I think heinlein is firmly in favor of the good of the whole above the freedom of the individual.

Starship Troopers

After rewatching Starship Troopers, I borrowed the book from a friend, and I've started reading it, taking some notes along the way. Here's the first batch:

interesting that heinlein too required a history class (history and moral philosophy), not too different from my proposed history, law, and ethics class. his class was mandatory and had no grades, not even pass fail. of course, that seems right given that citizenship isn't a right. (i too thought that the class should be taught, mandatory, but thought that there would be no passing requirement regardless of voting rights to encourage learning; but i didn't think that'd work either).

another interesting thing is a character, mr dubois i think, said "you can lead a child to knowledge, but you can't make him think", or words to that effect. which, of course, is my own take on mandatory schooling above.

having only a service for citizenship exchange didn't really make sense. as noted by myself and others, it doesn't guarantee intelligence, and that was the whole point of my gripe about the voter pool. although not spelled out, by having the h&mp class above, heinlein espressly advocated governmental education. it is the combination of a properly educated (in h&mp) person with a service-secured citizenship that made heinlein's government.

"What we obtain to cheap we esteem too lightly... it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated." Thomas Paine.

Disillusionment...

Of course, no one thinks there's really a Superman, but that there is a concept of Superman (not necessarily in the Nietzscheian sense), is a very heartening idea. So reading about the stark contrast Jerry Siegel was to his character is quite disillusioning. From the article:

Jones said Michael grew up with few memories of his father, only Bella’s anger at how Jerry left them.

Jones said, according to Michael, Jerry “never tried to see me. He never asked about me even when he had to talk to my mother. And after the first few months, he didn't pay a cent of alimony or child support."

In many ways, I think that a comic book company's ownership and continual renewal of a character is very stifling and unimaginitive. However, with a character like Superman, and a creator like Jerry Siegel, it really does seem like the right thing happened in this case.

Gerard Jones (interviewed in the article for his book) makes a comparison between Jerry Siegel's creation and his son:

“Partly to make up for my earlier mischaracterization of Mike, and also because it creates an intriguing contrast between father and son Siegels,” said Jones. “Michael Siegel grew up to be an athlete and a community volunteer, winning Tae Kwon Do competitions and coaching a youth Tae Kwon Do team for the Cleveland Heights-University Heights Board of Education.

One interesting thing is, Michael grew up to be a plumber. In Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (a story about the end of Superman), Superman also ends up as a plumber. Probably a coincidence, but interesting anyway.

At any rate, Jones's book Men Of Tomorrow sounds like it'd be an interesting read.

Service Guarantees Citizenship!

I was just watching Starship Troopers again today. I like that movie for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is its idea that citizenship isn't conferred by birth.

Talking about the Virginia's governor's race and voting, I said, "I feel it's better to make no decision than an uninformed decision". I really don't think that all people should have the right to vote. Some people are just stupid. Some are just ignorant. I thought that maybe some kind of test to evaluate a person's knowledge prior to allowing the person to vote might be good (on an at least yearly basis), but I think the test writers would then have a lot of political sway.

The idea in Starship Troopers that you have to earn citizenship is an interesting one though. I suppose the idea is that if you care enough about your country to do something for it, then it shows that you should have a say in that country's government. I haven't read the book, though, so I don't really know anymore than that.

The bottomline is, I think people, in general, are stupid. In America, it seems like we have more than our fair share of stupid people. And sometimes even a minority of stupid people can move the country towards more stupidity.

Whether it's through testing or some kind of public service requirement (or whatever), there really does seem to be a need to weed out those that would do harm to the country.

Grave of the Firelies, a little debate (SPOILERS)

So I got into a discussion about Grave of the Fireflies with some people on the Nausicaa.net mailing list. E-mails have been removed, and everything here's been republished without permission.

Spoilers in great number, so if you haven't seen the movie, you probably ought not to read this.


Noel Vera Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 3:53 PM

A little debate I got over Takahata's film in one online forum:

http://journals.aol.com/noelbotevera/MyJournal/entries/909
--------------------------------------------------------------------
gabe Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 6:17 PM
First, I just wanted to say, I don't like GotF. I despise the brother character. I don't like the way he shirked his responsibilities, but mostly I don't like how he let his sister starve to death. And I too got the "Look at me, I'm art" vibe that Dock Miles did ("Dock Miles: I'm on a different vibe with Fireflies. I agree that it's trying to be an animated version of Forbidden Games. And I think that's just a bad, pretentious, tedious idea. Some films slap you in the face every few moments: "I'm ART, goddammit, I'm ART!" For me, Fireflies just kinda whispered it over and over. Had a hard time finishing it."). Mind you I watched it only once, and that was in my high school years, almost a decade ago, so I don't recall a lot of specific details.

Regarding "to animate or not to animate", as someone has previously said, it may not be the best thing to do to starve child actors to make a movie. Given that, and looking at the state of live action film making, I don't think any real starvation would have to be done in order to achieve the same effect. In fact, it may have been even more visceral if done in live action. Then again, I'm no expert on special effects, so take that for whatever it's worth.

Regarding the "Maus" effect of the animation style, I wouldn't think that would be a consideration of Takahata. As you said, animation is Takahata's chosen profession. He wanted to tell this story, and animation was probably just a matter of fact decision. If the effect is there, I doubt it's intentional. That being said, I think there is no such effect in GotF. Looking at GotF, I think the designs, relatively speaking, are quite realistic, and the movement of the
characters is also quite realistic. For me at any rate, I never felt that kind of shift in perspective.

With animation in general, the way I see it, if you draw a human figure, I attribute to it the label of 'human', real or not. It's not so much a matter of realism or style, although extremes probably do factor in (e.g., a stick figure versus a Rembrandt). So a drawn mouse dying illicits a different reaction (from me) than a drawn human dying, even though, clearly, no mouse or human has died (in liveaction, obviously, this may not be so clear).

I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:I'd say forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get around to doing so again) as a story. Is the story told well? I think so, but maybe if you set the question of "to animate or not to animate" aside, some other reason why it seems so unlikeable or pretentious might come up.). And with regard to that, please see my first paragraph.

gabe
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael E. Kerpan Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 7:41 PM
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:17:29 -0400, gabe wrote:

>First, I just wanted to say, I don't like GotF. I despise the brother
>character. I don't like the way he shirked his responsibilities, but
>mostly I don't like how he let his sister starve to death.

Do you really think Takahata _approved_ of the choices the brother made? Do you have any idea where the story comes from (and how the author of the
underlying story viewed the events)?

> And I too got the "Look at me, I'm art" vibe that Dock Miles did

I never had the slightest sense of this. quite the contrary. I seriously doubt that imitating "Forbidden Games" remotely entered into Takahata's mind.

> Mind you I watched it only once, and that was in my high school years,
> almost a decade ago, so I don't recall a lot of specific details.

Perhaps, with a more adult perspective (and more refined artistic judgment), you would not be so dismissive of this film -- oif you saw it today.

>I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:I'd say
>forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get
>around to doing so again) as a story. Is the story told well? I think
>so, but maybe if you set the question of "to animate or not to
>animate" aside, some other reason why it seems so unlikeable or
>pretentious might come up.). And with regard to that, please see my
>first paragraph.

I really hate it when people fling around the word "pretentious" -- that is one of the few things I find to be genuinely pretentious.

I find the film sad and depressing at times -- but never unlikeable. And the story is told exceptionally well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 8:13 PM
On 10/25/05, Michael E. Kerpan wrote:
> Do you really think Takahata _approved_ of the choices the brother made? Do
> you have any idea where the story comes from (and how the author of the
> underlying story viewed the events)?

Yes, I know precisely why the brother did those things [1], and as I said ("I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:'I'd say forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get around to doing so again) as a story.'"), I'm judging the story.

> > And I too got the "Look at me, I'm art" vibe that Dock Miles did
>
> I never had the slightest sense of this. quite the contrary. I seriously
> doubt that imitating "Forbidden Games" remotely entered into Takahata's mind.

Actually, I've never heard of or seen "Forbidden Games". I was merely quoting that one guy. Either way, I found GotF to be trying to hard. Granted, war is hard on children and in no way a good thing, but even so, I found GotF reaching the realms of bathos, punctuated by scenes of childhood innocence.

> Perhaps, with a more adult perspective (and more refined artistic judgment),
> you would not be so dismissive of this film -- oif you saw it today.

Maybe, maybe not. I respect that you and others like it, but I feel no need to suffer through it again. I only mentioned that it's been a while since I've seen it so that I wouldn't get dragged into arguing details.

> >I think you're right regarding the best way to view it (Noel:I'd say
> >forget that it's animation and try looking at it (if ever you get
> >around to doing so again) as a story. Is the story told well? I think
> >so, but maybe if you set the question of "to animate or not to
> >animate" aside, some other reason why it seems so unlikeable or
> >pretentious might come up.). And with regard to that, please see my
> >first paragraph.
>
> I really hate it when people fling around the word "pretentious" -- that is
> one of the few things I find to be genuinely pretentious.

Sorry, I didn't quote Noel very well, but everything within that paragraph, between the first and last parentheses was said by Noel. While I did say I got the "look at me i'm art vibe", I'm not quite sure if I'd equate that with calling it pretentious. I'm not saying that it is not artful or artistic; I am not saying that it has no worth. What I am saying is that it is very active in promoting its own worth; that it seems to be pointing it out at every turn. It's like a somewhat attractive person saying he's/she's gorgeous, repeatedly. In my opinion :)

> I find the film sad and depressing at times -- but never unlikeable. And
> the story is told exceptionally well.

As a story, I found it trite and disgusting. As a semi-autobiography, I found it sad and deplorable.

gabe

[1] http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/grave/interview.html



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Drazen Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:24 AM
--- gabe wrote:
> As a story, I found it trite and disgusting. As a
> semi-autobiography,
> I found it sad and deplorable.
>
Trite that so many Japanese civilians ended up starving to support the troops? Sad that Akiyuki Nosaka's adopted sister did indeed starve to death on the eve of the Occupation?

The movie is a novelist's attempts to lash back at the hand that fate dealt him, and there aren't that many white Americans whose privileged experiential set even comes close to what the two kids went through. You have to be able to take the movie, any movie, on its terms rather than on your own.

By the way, from the opening blog, I was struck by the quote characterizing animation as "an ostensibly less expressive medium to approximate the performance of the human face (than live action)." I maintain, as do most of us here I'm sure, that Ghibli's great strength has been the expressiveness of the faces. In this Yoshifumi Kondo was a master, and "Mimi-wo Sumaseba" was his masterwork. Some of the broad gestures by Shizuku are brilliant (especially the arguments with her sister), but so are the subtle ones (Seiji and his grandfather both using their left eye to wink at Shizuku during the "Country Roads" concert). Speaking of expressions, in GotF the face of the boy eating the umeboshi is priceless!

I've called GotF the saddest movie ever made, one which reflects the collateral costs of war, but I could watch "Mimi" everyday for the rest of my life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 12:06 PM
On 10/26/05, Patrick Drazen wrote:
> --- gabe wrote:
> > As a story, I found it trite and disgusting. As a
> > semi-autobiography,
> > I found it sad and deplorable.
> >
> Trite that so many Japanese civilians ended up
> starving to support the troops? Sad that Akiyuki
> Nosaka's adopted sister did indeed starve to death on
> the eve of the Occupation?

I specifically went through the effort of pointing out that I viewed it as a story and a semi-autobiography, individually, and in so doing, gave my appraisal of each. So please don't try to imply that I find death by starvation to be trite. I don't much appreciate it, and I don't take kindly to it.

But to answer your questions, no, I didn't find it trite because people starved to death for war. I found it trite because it was another war story that showed the suffering of children, but, in my opinion, offered nothing but the obvious and melodramatic. I don't need a story like this to tell me that war is bad for children and for people in general. In war, bad things happen.

Yes, I found it sad that the sister starved to death, but mostly because the brother let it happen, all the while allowing himself to live.

> The movie is a novelist's attempts to lash back at the
> hand that fate dealt him, and there aren't that many
> white Americans whose privileged experiential set even
> comes close to what the two kids went through. You
> have to be able to take the movie, any movie, on its
> terms rather than on your own.

While that may be true, in the author's words [1], "I was trying to compensate for everything I couldn't do myself. I always thought I wanted to perform these generous acts in my head, but I couldn't do so. I always thought I wouldn't eat and would give the food to my little sister, but when I actually had the piece of food in my hand, I was hungry after all, so I'd eat it." This is not something that he wrote in his story, but is quite obvious if you think about it, supported by the author.

And I don't "have to be able to" do anything. I take the movie as I want, and I interpret it as I see fit. Every artist expresses him/herself as they want, and not every viewier will see things the same way. If you have a sister or a sibling you may view the movie differently than if you did not have one. If you've been to or through war, you certainly would see it differently than one who hasn't. In the end, I watch a movie and think about what it's given me, what I can take away. Looking at GotF, all it's given me is sadness and I didn't take away anything that I didn't already have.

gabe

[1] http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/grave/interview.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Vera Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 4:54 PM
> From: gabe
> Yes, I know precisely why the brother did those
> things [1], and as I
> said ("I think you're right regarding the best way
> to view it
> (Noel:'I'd say forget that it's animation and try
> looking at it (if
> ever you get around to doing so again) as a
> story.'"), I'm judging the
> story.

Trite and disgusting? That needs more elaborating, if it's going to be convincing.

> Actually, I've never heard of or seen "Forbidden
> Games".

Highly recommended, along with "Shoeshine." It's roughly the same area where "Grave" comes from (quiet realist drama about children in a war).

> Either way, I found GotF to be
> trying to hard.
> Granted, war is hard on children and in no way a
> good thing, but even
> so, I found GotF reaching the realms of bathos,
> punctuated by scenes
> of childhood innocence.

"Reaching" and "trying" are often found in films where the drama is pointed up by music and overacting. I don't see that in "Grave."

> Maybe, maybe not. I respect that you and others like
> it, but I feel no
> need to suffer through it again. I only mentioned
> that it's been a
> while since I've seen it so that I wouldn't get
> dragged into arguing
> details.

It helps to see it again, if you're going to dismiss it out of hand. Helps your arguments.

> It's like a
> somewhat attractive person saying he's/she's
> gorgeous, repeatedly.

I'm pretty sensitive to that sort of thing as well (Schindler's List, for one, I felt had it). But in a film with very little music and very little hysteria
on the part of the characters, it's hard to see where you can find this.


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Sing Yung JONG Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 11:28 PM
I think the problem some people have with GotF is that it is an "animated art film". Let me explain (read: long post).

I remember an old Takahata comment (can't remember which article, older list members know) which sums up GotF-- he said he wanted to show or let the audience experience a "natural death". I believe this is the "proper" way to see GotF, but it also means seeing GotF as an "animated art film", i.e. the audience must get over it being an "animated film" AND an "art film". Of course, Nothing wrong with not wanting to like/enjoy it in the first place.

Firstly, there is the convention that "animated films" should be fantastic (fun?), appeal to the (inner?) child, etc., so some people have seeing "straight" drama/character study in an animated film would immediately give it low grades for being "pointless" or "unrealistic" (read: not using live-action).

Then there is the "art film" aspect, by which I mean a film that is NOT plot-driven. I mean, some "stories" are really mood-driven, character- driven, theme-driven, etc., rather than story-driven. So some people not seeing any direct/clear Aristotleian "action" (A fights B to get C) in a film would give it low grades for being "pointless" or "unrealistic" (read: lack of cause-&-effect).

My reading of Dock Miles in his discussion with Noel Vera, is that he couldn't get over GotF being an animation trying to do a "live-action" (realistic?) story and my understanding of Gabe is that he didn't think GotF had a good (new?) "story" to begin with. Nothing wrong with prefering realism or a good story-- but it would be a mistake to think that those were the things GotF was trying to get through.

GotF basically takes the audience through a journey of being abandoned to die, so all it wanted to show was the premise and not a good "story". That's why the narrative/background was so minimalistic. For the same reason, the animation in GotF was done to create a certain mood/atmosphere (of death & abandonment) and not to "recreate" live-action. I think a live- action film would only "look" like GotF if it used lots of colour filters.

That's why I think it's a great idea for the Japanese TV series based on the book to use the aunt as a viewpoint character. I mean, live-action TV always seem to have difficulty portraying young children directly (which is why Totoro is so brilliant). Really looking forward to Nanako's performance (as the aunt) cause she has been quite good at playing characters I would love to hate. 8^)

Sing Yung
--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:08 AM
On 10/26/05, Noel Vera wrote:
> Trite and disgusting? That needs more elaborating, if
> it's going to be convincing.

Well, beyond what I've already written (repeatedly) regarding that children and war is something that's obvious and that I found the brother's actions/inactions disgusting, I'm not sure what else I can/should tell you. I'm not trying to convince you that it's a bad film. I'm trying (if anything) to convince you that /I/ think it's a bad film. As I've also said previously, I respect that you and others like the film. Is it really that hard to just accept that some people aren't going to like it?

I hate it when people don't like what I like, but then can't tell me why. I've at least answered your questions to the point where I'd be satisfied if our situations were reversed.

> "Reaching" and "trying" are often found in films where
> the drama is pointed up by music and overacting. I
> don't see that in "Grave."

I really don't remember the music (a hallmark of a good soundtrack some might say), and I would never count myself a good judge of Japanese acting (voice or otherwise), so I doubt that played into my decision. When I said that I felt it was trying too hard, I was referring to it's plot and situations (from a story point of view, not from a biographical point of view). See my statement regarding bathos.

> It helps to see it again, if you're going to dismiss
> it out of hand. Helps your arguments.

Not that I want anyone to, but I don't think anyone has actually refuted my main point of the brother's actions being disgusting. That is why I don't want to see the movie again (along with other points already brought up). I don't want to see him letting his sister starve to death again. That, to me, is not a good story. Why would I want to see THAT again?

And I think it's a little harsh to say that I've dismissed it out of hand. Clearly I've seen the whole movie. I understand that war is hard on children and on those children in particular. I've made comments not only regarding the story, characters, and author, but the points you brought up originally in your argument with Dock. Further, it is not clear on what point any of my arguments would be helped by viewing the movie again. While discussing any subject it certainly helps to be well-versed on the subject matter, I don't see how any of my discussion to this point has been inadequate.

gabe



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Joe Monson Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:51 AM
On 10/27/05, gabe wrote:
>
> Well, beyond what I've already written (repeatedly) regarding that
> children and war is something that's obvious and that I found the
> brother's actions/inactions disgusting,

Going by what the brother says at the end of the film (IIRC, since it's been a while since I watched it), I think that's the way you are supposed to feel. He wasn't happy that he'd been selfish and let his sister die, either.

I think that the film accomplished at least one of its purposes with you, regardless of whether you liked it or not.


Joe

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Geir Friestad Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:10 AM
Quoting gabe :
|
| I found the brother's actions/inactions disgusting, [...]

But that's exactly the point. The author of the original story did feel guilty about his actions/inactions, which led to his sister's death. GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES is essentially a confession, and that's how it should be viewed. It's not really trying to make a greater point than that, although one can certainly be extrapolated from it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Noel Vera Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 1:41 PM
> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 21:24:12 -0700
> From: Patrick Drazen
> By the way, from the opening blog, I was struck by
> the
> quote characterizing animation as "an ostensibly
> less
> expressive medium to approximate the performance of
> the human face (than live action)."

The complete statement I wrote goes on to say that in the hands of a real artist (Takahata, Miyazaki, Jan Svankmajer), 'inexpressive' material can be made to
express genuine human emotions, much as actors do. In effect, they transcend the limitation of their material through art.

I do agree with everything else you said.

>Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:06:23 -0400
>From: gabe
> Yes, I found it sad that the sister starved to
> death, but mostly
> because the brother let it happen, all the while
> allowing himself to
> live.

That's where the story achieves the status of tragedy, or as much tragedy as can be achieved nowadays. If they simply starved without any alternative, it would merely be a very sad case history. With the element of choice, it's tragedy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles Schoppet Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 2:04 PM
We in the West, are so far removed from the pain of daily hunger.

I can understand the actions of the brother in GOTF. It's so easy for an adult to miss the signs of starvation in a child, that they see everyday. The changes are slow as malnutrition takes a life. Remember, we are dealing with a sixteen old year boy, who dies in the same way as his sister.

However, I do believe he should have taken his Aunt's lead and found work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 8:10 PM

For both you and Joe...

On 10/27/05, Geir Friestad wrote:
> Quoting gabe :
> |
> | I found the brother's actions/inactions disgusting, [...]
>
> But that's exactly the point. The author of the original story did
> feel guilty about his actions/inactions, which led to his sister's
> death. GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES is essentially a confession, and that's
> how it should be viewed. It's not really trying to make a greater
> point than that, although one can certainly be extrapolated from it.

I'm not sure you can say definitively that that was the point. From that link I keep trotting out, clearly, what happened and what was portrayed is not the same thing. To say it is a confession is somewhat incorrect. The author said that in the story, the brother became a better person at the end (or words to that effect). Whereas, clearly, by the end of the actuality, we are left with a brother that ate his sister's food, leaving her to die. Guilty sure, but well aware. So there becomes a question of guilt, and degree of guilt (degree of responsibility, culpability), and it becomes necessary to separate the
brother character from the brother person.

That either brother felt guilty about the death of his sister is without question. But without admitting the brother character logically had to have eaten his sister's food, viewing the movie might seem that the brother character placed a relatively larger part of the blame on the situation rather than his own decision.

Logic break: I am no biologist/nutritionist/medical doctor, but it seems to me that a person that is larger, as the brother was, would require more nutrients than a person who is smaller, as the sister was. This is purely from a survivalist standpoint, not a developmental standpoint.

I have two uncles, one much older than the younger, the older also being much shorter. Of course, there is a chance that it was simply just the way the genetics played out, but there is another factor. The older uncle grew up in postwar China, and was therefore, sometimes deprived of the optimal amount of food for proper development. When the younger uncle was born, the older was really more of a third parent. The older told the parents, "make sure he gets plenty of food", or words to the effect. And there he is, much taller than even I am, an admittedly, privileged American.

But all my previous generation relatives had experiences with poverty, as they're all Chinese, and they all grew up right after the war.

/break over

Reading the author's words, there was a very clear admittance of guilt and wrongdoing on his part. Watching his story, I don't think he went so far as to fully disclose the depths of his depravity.

Either way, I hope you now feel that I have fully appreciated his point, and I still don't like the movie :)

gabe



--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 8:13 PM
On 10/27/05, Charles Schoppet wrote:
> I can understand the actions of the brother in GOTF. It's so easy
> for an adult to miss the signs of starvation in a child, that they see
> everyday. The changes are slow as malnutrition takes a life. Remember,
> we are dealing with a sixteen old year boy, who dies in the same way
> as his sister.

Perhaps he missed it, but the doctor, as I recall, made a fairly clear diagnosis. To which the brother fairly energetically declared his outrage and demanded he be shown where he could find food.

> However, I do believe he should have taken his Aunt's lead and found work.

Agreed.

gabe
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Jee Hoon Lee Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 10:55 PM
On Oct 27, 2005, at 5:10 PM, gabe wrote:

>
> Reading the author's words, there was a very clear admittance of guilt
> and wrongdoing on his part. Watching his story, I don't think he went
> so far as to fully disclose the depths of his depravity.
>
> Either way, I hope you now feel that I have fully appreciated his
> point, and I still don't like the movie :)
>
> gabe


A lot of discussion but it seems to boil down to primarily: your dislike of the brother character colors your impression of the whole thing. I can understand that, there are many movies I hated mostly because none of the people in it were likable or approachable in any way. It's a legitimate beef.

My take of Grave is that as a tragedy. That's the whole point, people behave like fools leading to misery. I mean, where have we seen that before? Shakespeare perhaps? Lot of his classics have pretty rough protagonists. I mean look at Richard III or Othello, etc. Lot of flawed people there.

But those stories are classics. I think Grave of the Fireflies is a classic as well (not that it's in any way derived from Shakespeare-- I'm just saying, tragedies with oafish main leads don't necessarily mean one can't get some value out of the story).

Jee Hoon Lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------

gabe Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:14 PM
On 10/27/05, Jee Hoon Lee wrote:
> My take of Grave is that as a tragedy. That's the whole point, people
> behave like fools leading to misery. I mean, where have we seen that
> before? Shakespeare perhaps? Lot of his classics have pretty rough
> protagonists. I mean look at Richard III or Othello, etc. Lot of
> flawed people there.

When Noel said it, I thought to myself, "Gee, really? Children dying of starvation is tragic?" And proceeded not to write anything because it wasn't very nice, and besides, it wasn't very intelligent. But rereading it in what you wrote, it does cast GotF in a different light.

I mostly avoid dramas, but when it comes to tragedies, I'll move to a different state. Had I looked at it in that way (or had it been sold to me in that manner), I probably would've never even watched it.

Anyway, I guess that's all I have to say about that...

gabe

Prussian Blue

So I was reading Something Awful today, and they had an article up on a duo called Prussian Blue, a pair of Aryan, pre-teen musicians. "What is this?" I ask myself. Is it more made up stuff that SA usually does? It is pretty awful, after all. A quick Google search later, and I'm convinced they're real.

While we're at it, I also learned a new word today, miscegenation. And in context, anti-miscegenation...

On one of the message boards, a person asked, "Someone please explain to me the difference between hate and pride in the vernacular. The dictionary is in black and white, but it's definitions certainly aren't." In this context, pride is what this group uses to elevate themselves above others. Hate is what they use to push others down beneath them.

I Hate Jack Thompson (too)

Man, what a complete and utter asshole. He abuses the legal system and the media for his own twisted vision of righteousness (which comes at the cost of free speech, btw). Now he's fucking around with Penny Arcade because Tycho and Gabe had the audacity to call him out on his shenanigans.

Anyway, in case you're not aware, this is the creep that keeps on saying that video games are a CAUSE of violence in youth, along with a lot of other stupid crap. Seriously, the guy is, from all outward indications, out of touch with reality. If you hear the guy say the sky is blue, you'd better double check for yourself.

Virginia Governor's Race

An ad came up blasting Tim Kaine about his support of Virginia's death penalty. In it, it pandered to people's emotions and seemingly used no sense of reason at all. Because of it, I was put off by Jerry Kilgore quite a bit. So I looked up a little info on them, and turned up this article that presents some of the key issues in both their platforms. As it turns out, Kilgore actually has some more substantial things to talk about than his negative ad campaigns led me to believe.

For one, apparently Kaine ran for Lt. Governor on a campaign promise not to increase taxes, and subsequently (if Kilgore is to be believed) OK'd "the most massive tax increase in Virginia history".

Apparently they both want to overhaul education. Kaine wants to, basically, add a grade before kindergarten. Doesn't sound terribly useful. Kilgore wants to add some as-of-yet undetermined method of linking teacher performance to teacher pay. That just sounds really weird and open to all sorts of abuse and unfairness. Plus the idea that he hasn't said how he plans to accomplish it seems kind of really shady.

Anyway, between the two, I'm not sure who I'd pick, if I'm going to pick at all. The third, independent candidate, Russell Potts, Jr., although he sounds like he has a mind of his own, has pledged to increase taxes, which as far as I know is equal to political death. Although I'm sure he has good reason to, I'm not sure that even I could be convinced...

Zounds, tagged!

Thanks Deals!

The instructions:

1. Go into your archives.
2. Find your 23rd post.
3. Post the fifth sentence or closest to it.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your blog along with these instructions.
5. Tag 5 other people.

So, assuming I know how to count, it might be this post, and I'm going to say that the fifth sentence is...

*drum roll*

*envelope handed over*

*envelope opened, presenter stares at card, widens eyes, dons a great, big, stupid smile and says*

When the masters fend off the gangsters in the first big fight scene, I must've been smiling the whole way through.

Clearly, I was speaking on some matter of unbelievable importance, providing piercing insight and razor wit! Of course fortune favors the well-prepared, and I must say that there are none quite so prepared as me. Nosiree...

Anyhoo, I don't really know anyone, so Heather, Chris, Bob-o if you're reading this, you're it!

Great comics post

Troy Brownfield at Newsarama had a great post about the new Infinite Crisis in particular, DC continuity in general, and comic book heroism all around. From the post:

It’s just a thought, and why not. Our worldviews are cynical and jaded now. The essence of wonder is easily sacrificed for the attempt to look cool, even apathetic, in the eyes of our peers. The younger generation, who I see and speak to every day in my classrooms, often seem to embrace groundless cynicism in the face of all things. Certainly, recent and current events have been a strain on the public trust. We know that governments can be corrupt, we know that people (even children) can kill without reason, and we know that in many ways our world is darker than it ever has been. Obviously then, this should be a time for heroes. This should be a time when someone stands up, unafraid, and says, “This is not how things should be”, and, instead of simply stopping at the declaration (which, in the internet age, we’re all good at), leads us into the future.

If you have any questions about DC continuity or want an idea of where DC might be headed, it's definitely worth a read. If you want an idea of why people read comic books, it might also be worth a read.

Gross National Happiness

From a link at BoingBoing, I was directed to an absolutely astounding concept being implemented by the government of Bhutan. The Bhutan government, led by their king, is trying to get a measure of his subjects' happiness. From the article:

"We have to think of human well-being in broader terms," said Lyonpo Jigmi Thinley, Bhutan's home minister and ex-prime minister. "Material well-being is only one component. That doesn't ensure that you're at peace with your environment and in harmony with each other."

I was reminded of it when I wrote previously about society having to provide its members with the means for happiness.

Optimally, not only would this shift a government's goals, but it would also provide a way for the people of the world to determine where they might be better off. It would facilitate a free market of world government. As the article says, focusing only on money is a narrow view indeed.

Pro-Choice, Pro-Assisted Suicide, the Meaning of Life

I think the meaning of life is you find your own meaning. I'm sure that's no great revelation, but there it is. I don't have the overarching goals of a deity hanging over my head, so the way I look at it, everyone is born, they have biological imperatives, emotional needs, genetic predispositions, learned preferences, familial obligations, societal expectations... Everyone, either individually or as a group, strives towards his or her own goals and what makes him or her happy. I refer to this motivator and these factors as the basis for social/societal evolution.

Largely, I believe in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is also known that the population growth rate in well developed countries is far less than that of less developed countries. I think these two things are linked by things like education and access to various entertainment. So as a person's baser needs are fulfilled and any obligations or expectations are met (love/belonging/esteem), he or she might turn to hobbies or self-betterment instead (being needs). In a well developed country, this would be far more likely, and so that's why I think places like America, Japan, and Europe would all see population declines if it weren't for immigration.

Abortion and assisted suicide are things that affect society and population (and the affected people, on a personal level, of course). On one hand, abortion does not give new life a choice in the matter, but in my view, new life isn't necessary. It isn't necessary in the sense that human civilization does not depend on the birth of another child to survive. With assisted suicide, clearly the person has a choice in the matter, but it is now society's (those that are opposed) intent to take that away. (Quite hypocritical, but that's for another time.) But again, human civilization is not dependent on the life of a single person, sci-fi movies aside.

To value human life is one of the basic tenets (if not the basic tenet) of morality (probably all of them, but I'm no expert). Specifically regarding assisted suicide, I believe it is more moral to aid someone in pain. Regarding abortion, I don't think I would ever, but that is my decision. Another person with a different set of circumstances (physical/emotional needs, societal expectations) may choose differently. It is my position that human life, per se, has no value; no more than any other form of life, anyway. It is what is done with that life, the ability of a person to fulfill his or her goals and ambitions that gives life value; that gives life meaning.

As society evolves, the ability to provide its members with the means to meet their higher needs, the needs of being, should be emphasized. It's ironic then that I think that two of the means might be for the cessation of being. The happiness a single person is probably not terribly important to society as a whole, but denying that person the ability to achieve happiness is a matter for all people. It is in my view, then, that it is morally imperative to allow individuals the freedom of choice governing their own life.

Harriet Miers

I don't know much about Harriet Miers, but what little I do know, I don't like. First and foremost, she appears to be a hardcore W crony. Secondly, she has no judicial experience. While there have been, apparently, 39 appointed (or nominated, I forget), including Rehnquist, to the Supreme Court, I doubt they have been appointed by the likes of W.

Political games aside, I would dismiss her out of hand, and I would have no problem with that. While I heard a rumor that she might be pro-choice, there really doesn't seem to be much to substantiate her position on anything really. While Roberts had tons of decisions out there, Miers has comparatively nothing except for the support of W.

An anti-W friend of mine had a lot to say in support of her nomination (but not appointment), including her age (she'd have to retire before too long), that it would further build the case for W's cronyism, and that she would supposedly vote for pro-choice under a Rowe v. Wade type case.

Who knows? A lot of information could come out about her in the next few weeks.

I Like the Like

I just finished listening to The Like's are you thinking what i'm thinking?. Guitar and bass matched with a sultry voice. Good album. I never know what to say when describing music, but give them a shot sometime if you get the chance...

An idea about copyright

Disney is notorious for pushing for the extension of copyright lengths. Anybody that knows anything about intellectual property laws knows that IP rights were not meant to be indefinite. However, since copyrights were first legislated they were given a certain amount of time. Creators under that law were given that amount of time to profit from their creativity, and that's akin to a contract between the government and the creators. All this is fairly well known. What seems to get lost in the fuss is that there was also something akin to a contract between the government and the people, which is that limited amount of time.

When I entered into government employ, it was under a certain set of contractual obligations, both mine and my employer's. Of course, (ancient worker that I am) since then, terms of employment have changed, for example, retirement benefits. However, having entered employ under one set of rules, I can choose to retire by the rules I entered under rather than the new rules.

Further, for example, legislators can't make laws for past actions, and then go back and arrest people having committed those actions in the past, ex post facto.

So then, why is it that when new copyright legislation gets passed, all existing copyright holders can enjoy an extension in copyright term? Maybe the analogies aren't perfect, but I think it gets the point across. If I recall, when new copyright legislation is passed, it's worded with words like "100 years from the date of publishing" or some such, rather than "works from 1938 are protected for 100 years". Clearly, the wording of the latter concerns specific works, whereas the wording of the former is intended to be general. Either way, each time the term is extended, it is extended to cover specific works.

It seems to me that the only people pushing for copyright extensions are big companies; big companies built on creative works whose copyrights would have expired and passed into public domain long ago. If the system worked by my logic, even if they did push for copyright term extensions, it wouldn't affect existing works. That would really disincentivize such lobbying and benefit the public at large, I think.

Halo and Sprocket

Halo and Sprocket is a comedic series with a lot of philosophical and intellectual ramblings, not unlike Calvin and Hobbes. Click on the link; it goes to the first (and in my opinion, the seminal) story. Even if you never pick up the trade, be sure to read this story.

In a nutshell, it's the story of a robot discovering humanity with the help of a woman and an angel. Or it's the story of how a woman teaches a robot about humanity with the help of an angel. Or any of a number permutations thereof.

Although the art isn't quite up to a lot of mainstream standards (lacking in detail, cartoony, black and white), it's still quite good, and very excellently matched with the subject matter.