Saturday, June 30, 2012
Paul (U.S./UK, 2011)
Caught this movie midway through on Cinemax and was immediately hooked, and fortunately it was broadcast again the next day when I watched it in full.
It's a fun sci-fi/geek romp about two nerds from England who travel to the U.S. on holiday to attend Comicon in San Diego and proceed on a geek road trip of "alien hotspots" in the American Southwest. On the way, they meet up with the title character Paul, who has escaped from Area 51 and is trying to reach a rendezvous point to be taken back to his home . . . um, planet.
It's definitely not for everyone, there's a certain British-ness to the humour, exposure to which helps get the movie. The movie might likely appeal to sci-fi geeks, and I'm not hardcore, but I have to admit it's in my background, and that certainly aided in my appreciation.
The movie is replete with sci-fi and cultural references, the geekiness of which encourages people to just go along with the ride and ignore the ridiculousness of the scenario and appreciate that it's silliness that is very well done.
In my own geekiness, I'm surprised in all the noted references online that the movie makes, I haven't found mention that Paul's healing power is taken directly from the Star Trek Original Series episode "The Empath", nor Paul's twice quoteth Pearl Jam nod, "It's evolution, baby" (one for the rockers maybe).
And to split hairs about cultural references, there's a difference between nods or homage in the script to cultural references and overt mention of cultural references that are within the context of the movie. So wearing an "Empire Strikes Back" shirt is not a cultural reference because it fits in with the character in the context of the movie. Anything at Comicon is not a cultural reference because those are what you would expect to see in the context of Comicon.
Characters quoting Han Solo or Lt. Ripley lines, or the "Star Wars" cantina music playing at the bar (online sources keep referring to that movie as "Episode IV: A New Hope", to which I say fuck that, the movie was "Star Wars". Period. And fuck George Lucas fucking with his own legacy) are cultural references because those references are outside of the context of the film. Those can be considered homage to where this film comes from.
I loved this movie, but it is for sci-fi geeks who would get the humor and have fun with the many references. I'll give it a fresh 8 out of 10 tomato rating. No higher because it's light, silly fare, but excellent and intelligent in the light, silly fare genre.
Monday, June 25, 2012
My latest compelling read at the library was Mackenzie Phillips' memoir High on Arrival.
In my youth, there was a hit sitcom in the U.S. I watched called "One Day at a Time". Mackenzie Phillips was a star on the show along with doe-eyed babe extraordinaire Valerie Bertinelli. But as adorable as Bertinelli was, Mackenzie had a charisma that had star quality written all over it.
She was also one of the daughters of "Papa" John Phillips of the 60s group "The Mamas & Papas". And as a daughter of a hedonistic, megalomaniacal rock star (read: bad parent), and as the title of the book suggests, Mackenzie ended up a drug addict and a junkie.
She also reveals in the book that she was a victim of incest, which apparently became the media lightning bolt for the book. Everyone immediately focused on the incest and the monster that John Phillips may have been.
Mackenzie doesn't paint her father as a monster and defends him to the end (she took care to keep the secret until after his death), but an objective look at his behavior, there is no other word for him than 'monster'. Not evil, mind you. Hedonistic and mega-selfish and self-absorbed, which to some may add up to 'evil' when applied to parenthood, but otherwise it's hard to find a description of evil in there, I opine.
I understand why there was so much attention on the incest, it's media sensational. But I don't think her memoir is defined by the incest issue. Mackenzie, herself, is certainly more than the incest, and I think what was compelling about her story to me, was a similarity to other books I've been attracted to and reading recently, which is that hers was a life of . . . difficulty.
I admit I had difficulty sympathizing with her main difficulty, drug addiction, and the difficulty she caused for people around her because of her addiction. It is hard for non-professionals to see drug addiction as a sickness that needs to be treated. Especially when the addict is a star and the money just flows in because of celebrity status.
Drug addicts treat people with impunity just to feel good for themselves, and when their behavior starts hurting people around them, it's hard to understand why they can't take responsibility for themselves, recognize the harm they're causing, and stop taking drugs. It's the ultimate in selfishness, that I suppose many people, in a similar vein, can easily equate with suicides.
I'm not quite sure why I found her story so compelling. Her difficulties aren't something I can relate to. Although the same can be said for the other reads I've found compelling.
I'm not an addict. I arguably abuse alcohol, but it's not an addiction. It's intentional, it has an aim and I monitor the effects. And it affects no one. Is there anyone who can be asked whether I'm an alcoholic and they would answer, "yes"? Absolutely not. Although there are people, I shouldn't wonder, who if told I was, in fact, an alcoholic would respond that they kinda suspected.
But alcohol is still a substance, and perhaps that is what I may perceive to share with Mackenzie or drug addicts. That fucking with reality. The way alcohol fucks with my reality is part of my challenge to reality (which likely has nothing to do with drug addicts' motivations).
I dunno. I relate to Mackenzie's memoir, but I'm not an addict. Alice Sebold's autobiographical "Lucky" spoke of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I related to it, but I can't identify any trauma in my current lifetime to be stressed out about post facto to become a disorder.
And then there are all those high-altitude climbing nuts on Mt. Everest and K2, participating in an activity which I describe as inherently suicidal, but still relate to on some incomprehensible level. It all means something, yo.
In my youth, there was a hit sitcom in the U.S. I watched called "One Day at a Time". Mackenzie Phillips was a star on the show along with doe-eyed babe extraordinaire Valerie Bertinelli. But as adorable as Bertinelli was, Mackenzie had a charisma that had star quality written all over it.
She was also one of the daughters of "Papa" John Phillips of the 60s group "The Mamas & Papas". And as a daughter of a hedonistic, megalomaniacal rock star (read: bad parent), and as the title of the book suggests, Mackenzie ended up a drug addict and a junkie.
She also reveals in the book that she was a victim of incest, which apparently became the media lightning bolt for the book. Everyone immediately focused on the incest and the monster that John Phillips may have been.
Mackenzie doesn't paint her father as a monster and defends him to the end (she took care to keep the secret until after his death), but an objective look at his behavior, there is no other word for him than 'monster'. Not evil, mind you. Hedonistic and mega-selfish and self-absorbed, which to some may add up to 'evil' when applied to parenthood, but otherwise it's hard to find a description of evil in there, I opine.
I understand why there was so much attention on the incest, it's media sensational. But I don't think her memoir is defined by the incest issue. Mackenzie, herself, is certainly more than the incest, and I think what was compelling about her story to me, was a similarity to other books I've been attracted to and reading recently, which is that hers was a life of . . . difficulty.
I admit I had difficulty sympathizing with her main difficulty, drug addiction, and the difficulty she caused for people around her because of her addiction. It is hard for non-professionals to see drug addiction as a sickness that needs to be treated. Especially when the addict is a star and the money just flows in because of celebrity status.
Drug addicts treat people with impunity just to feel good for themselves, and when their behavior starts hurting people around them, it's hard to understand why they can't take responsibility for themselves, recognize the harm they're causing, and stop taking drugs. It's the ultimate in selfishness, that I suppose many people, in a similar vein, can easily equate with suicides.
I'm not quite sure why I found her story so compelling. Her difficulties aren't something I can relate to. Although the same can be said for the other reads I've found compelling.
I'm not an addict. I arguably abuse alcohol, but it's not an addiction. It's intentional, it has an aim and I monitor the effects. And it affects no one. Is there anyone who can be asked whether I'm an alcoholic and they would answer, "yes"? Absolutely not. Although there are people, I shouldn't wonder, who if told I was, in fact, an alcoholic would respond that they kinda suspected.
But alcohol is still a substance, and perhaps that is what I may perceive to share with Mackenzie or drug addicts. That fucking with reality. The way alcohol fucks with my reality is part of my challenge to reality (which likely has nothing to do with drug addicts' motivations).
I dunno. I relate to Mackenzie's memoir, but I'm not an addict. Alice Sebold's autobiographical "Lucky" spoke of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I related to it, but I can't identify any trauma in my current lifetime to be stressed out about post facto to become a disorder.
And then there are all those high-altitude climbing nuts on Mt. Everest and K2, participating in an activity which I describe as inherently suicidal, but still relate to on some incomprehensible level. It all means something, yo.
WordsCharactersReading time
WordsCharactersReading time
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Future Life Resonances: Christianity
I grew up in the U.S., a Christian country, but nothing about Christianity ever rang true to me. As a youth, I recall being exposed to Sunday school. I even have an extant copy of the New Testament from a completely forgotten Sunday school teacher who apparently had taken to me. Touching, as she wrote a message to me in it, but it's just an anomaly to me now.
Back then, there was absolutely nothing known about the teachings of Jesus other than what was contained in the canon, promulgated by the Roman Empire. Shall I emphasize that point? Promulgated by the Roman Empire.
Since then, scholarship on the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" has come a long way, along with the discovery and multiple translations and analyses of the "Gospel of Judas". I actually didn't even know how vilified the Judas character was in the Roman/Pauline Christian canon that is dominant today.
So back to future life resonances. It did occur to me that being reincarnated in South Korea might mean being born into a Christian household. It isn't a major concern. I do believe that once firmly on the path, we will always find our way back to the path in whatever lifetime or circumstance.
Then I realize how much I've been interested in and reading about the Gnostic Gospels recently. I think I even mentioned that if those alternative gospels had been available and taught, I might not have been so turned-off by Christianity. They make sense in terms of divine insight, rather than the controlling brain-washing of canonical Christianity with its superficial morality.
I'm inclined to take this interest in this other side of Christianity that has been suppressed for 1700 years as also possibly a future life resonance. Maybe I'll be born in South Korea, maybe I'll be born into a Buddhist household, maybe a Christian household, maybe like in this life a non-religious household. But no matter, I think I'll still continue on this path, and if I'm born in a Christian household, I'll be karmically/subconsciously primed against the current Christian canon.
If karma really does have force, I'll still question canonical Christian hegemony even if surrounded by it, but now that the gnostic teachings and scholarship on them are available and being spread, I'm not at all concerned that I can still find my way onto the path, even if surrounded by Christianity.
I mentioned before how disappointed I was in reading Elaine Pagel and Karen King's conclusion in their otherwise incredible scholarship in their book "Reading Judas". They opined that what comprises the Christian canon needn't be revisited to include the recent findings in the gnostic gospels because of the centuries of guidance the canon has provided, ignoring the centuries of harm, destruction and suffering that has happened in the name of the canon.
And they are conveniently willing to ignore teachings of truth, or more accurately the ability of people to determine what is truth when presented with a full spectrum of divergent teachings. I don't necessarily condemn them for their opinion, but I definitely don't agree with it.
Aside from it being their opinion, it is also a reality that 1700 years of brain-washing is not easily erased. Current Christians versed in the canon are deeply convicted in their belief that anything outside of what was decided by a council (Nicene) appointed by a Roman emperor (Constantine – who might as well be George W. Bush as far as I'm concerned) as gospel is heresy.
"Revisiting the canon" is simply not an acceptable option according to the church and unthinkable to the vast majority of Christians. It's not unlike one physics professor I had in college who cut me off when I mentioned "faster than the speed of light", and wouldn't even consider my question if that was the basis of it. Scientific canon states nothing in the classical physical universe can go faster than the speed of light. It's still cosmic law, but physicists today are more open-minded and willing to consider thought experiments whereby the speed of light isn't the cosmic speed limit.
No, scholarship into the other teachings of Jesus that are being uncovered are likely to remain in the realm of academic scholarship, and not likely to be considered as part of the Christian faith anytime soon, whether or not it was, in fact, an aspect of what Jesus taught, which I think it was. While what modern Christians believe for most part has little to zero to do with what Jesus taught. It is what it is, I have no problem with their faith and belief and how they pursue it, but it's simply not what Jesus taught. They changed it and should own up to it, even if it means they made truth out of fairy dust.
Anyone who takes such scholarship seriously would be, like author and scholar Bart Ehrman, who was a Bible thumping evangelist in his youth, forced out of the church, voluntarily or not. He now considers himself an agnostic but writes in a solely Christian context, and I think that's kind of too bad. Reading the Gnostic Gospels, even I'm convinced that Jesus was a big deal with a radical spiritual message in his time.
If punk band Mission of Burma was onto something when they wrote "The Roman Empire never died/It just became the Catholic Church", then the Christian canon is not about the truth or the true teachings of Jesus, but about control and domination. And 1700 years of control and domination is a powerful thing. Powerful . . . "karma".
Actually, all I wanted to say in this post is that my recent exposure to so many things related to the so-called Gnostic Gospels, the alternate teachings of Jesus regarding true divinity (including these two documentaries: The Gospel of Judas and The Lost Gospels), might also be what I term "future life resonances", similar to geekiness about Korea.
Back then, there was absolutely nothing known about the teachings of Jesus other than what was contained in the canon, promulgated by the Roman Empire. Shall I emphasize that point? Promulgated by the Roman Empire.
Since then, scholarship on the so-called "Gnostic Gospels" has come a long way, along with the discovery and multiple translations and analyses of the "Gospel of Judas". I actually didn't even know how vilified the Judas character was in the Roman/Pauline Christian canon that is dominant today.
So back to future life resonances. It did occur to me that being reincarnated in South Korea might mean being born into a Christian household. It isn't a major concern. I do believe that once firmly on the path, we will always find our way back to the path in whatever lifetime or circumstance.
Then I realize how much I've been interested in and reading about the Gnostic Gospels recently. I think I even mentioned that if those alternative gospels had been available and taught, I might not have been so turned-off by Christianity. They make sense in terms of divine insight, rather than the controlling brain-washing of canonical Christianity with its superficial morality.
I'm inclined to take this interest in this other side of Christianity that has been suppressed for 1700 years as also possibly a future life resonance. Maybe I'll be born in South Korea, maybe I'll be born into a Buddhist household, maybe a Christian household, maybe like in this life a non-religious household. But no matter, I think I'll still continue on this path, and if I'm born in a Christian household, I'll be karmically/subconsciously primed against the current Christian canon.
If karma really does have force, I'll still question canonical Christian hegemony even if surrounded by it, but now that the gnostic teachings and scholarship on them are available and being spread, I'm not at all concerned that I can still find my way onto the path, even if surrounded by Christianity.
I mentioned before how disappointed I was in reading Elaine Pagel and Karen King's conclusion in their otherwise incredible scholarship in their book "Reading Judas". They opined that what comprises the Christian canon needn't be revisited to include the recent findings in the gnostic gospels because of the centuries of guidance the canon has provided, ignoring the centuries of harm, destruction and suffering that has happened in the name of the canon.
And they are conveniently willing to ignore teachings of truth, or more accurately the ability of people to determine what is truth when presented with a full spectrum of divergent teachings. I don't necessarily condemn them for their opinion, but I definitely don't agree with it.
Aside from it being their opinion, it is also a reality that 1700 years of brain-washing is not easily erased. Current Christians versed in the canon are deeply convicted in their belief that anything outside of what was decided by a council (Nicene) appointed by a Roman emperor (Constantine – who might as well be George W. Bush as far as I'm concerned) as gospel is heresy.
"Revisiting the canon" is simply not an acceptable option according to the church and unthinkable to the vast majority of Christians. It's not unlike one physics professor I had in college who cut me off when I mentioned "faster than the speed of light", and wouldn't even consider my question if that was the basis of it. Scientific canon states nothing in the classical physical universe can go faster than the speed of light. It's still cosmic law, but physicists today are more open-minded and willing to consider thought experiments whereby the speed of light isn't the cosmic speed limit.
No, scholarship into the other teachings of Jesus that are being uncovered are likely to remain in the realm of academic scholarship, and not likely to be considered as part of the Christian faith anytime soon, whether or not it was, in fact, an aspect of what Jesus taught, which I think it was. While what modern Christians believe for most part has little to zero to do with what Jesus taught. It is what it is, I have no problem with their faith and belief and how they pursue it, but it's simply not what Jesus taught. They changed it and should own up to it, even if it means they made truth out of fairy dust.
Anyone who takes such scholarship seriously would be, like author and scholar Bart Ehrman, who was a Bible thumping evangelist in his youth, forced out of the church, voluntarily or not. He now considers himself an agnostic but writes in a solely Christian context, and I think that's kind of too bad. Reading the Gnostic Gospels, even I'm convinced that Jesus was a big deal with a radical spiritual message in his time.
If punk band Mission of Burma was onto something when they wrote "The Roman Empire never died/It just became the Catholic Church", then the Christian canon is not about the truth or the true teachings of Jesus, but about control and domination. And 1700 years of control and domination is a powerful thing. Powerful . . . "karma".
Actually, all I wanted to say in this post is that my recent exposure to so many things related to the so-called Gnostic Gospels, the alternate teachings of Jesus regarding true divinity (including these two documentaries: The Gospel of Judas and The Lost Gospels), might also be what I term "future life resonances", similar to geekiness about Korea.
WordsCharactersReading time
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Nothing about Korea resonated until I came to Taiwan in 2006 and met classmate Hyun Ae who
introduced me to K-pop after I asked her to make me a mix CD of music
she liked. I'd been swapping mix CDs with people for years and gotten into bands and music as a result, but nothing compares to the impact and change K-pop brought. And it wasn't necessarily about that mix CD. Hyun Ae's CD may not have even been the start. I liked songs off that CD and most of it went into my iTunes collection, but it didn't make me a dedicated K-pop fan. It was just good music I was introduced to.
YouTube also started becoming big in 2006 and I credit YouTube for helping launch the second Hallyu wave, which otherwise might have been contained in South Korea without the international exposure YouTube brought. Trying to reconstruct my personal history of K-pop, I recall an early YouTube video of a karaoke competition variety show called Korean Madness catching my attention. Aside from those teenage high school students being hilarious and full of personality (Hyun Ae informed me later that the show was a competition and that those girls ultimately won), I ended up liking the song (the original is played at the end of the clip and, yes, I have it in my collection now) as well as the other songs they sang in the course of the competition. Those girls had good taste.
The next step was the Wonder Girls "Tell Me" dance phenomena. Wonder Girls debuted in 2007 and their dance for "Tell Me" went viral with high school students, flight attendants, military personal, traffic police, etc. etc. uploading themselves doing the Tell Me choreography. I watched a lot of those, starting with one high school student, and got into the song. Isolating the backing track, it's quite groovy and subtle, although I'm sure I didn't notice how cool it was right away.
Hyun Ae and I had fallen out of touch by the time I saw the video for Girls' Generation's (SNSD) Gee (2009) on MTV probably in 2010. That was when it took off. Initially, part of me was practically offended by what was on my TV screen, likening it to awful, superficial, garish, candy J-pop. What the hell is this crap? the snob in me sneered, reaching for the remote to change the channel, and I pointed the remote at the TV and . . . didn't. Not only did I stand there with the remote pointing at the TV for the rest of the song, afterwards I immediately went online to look them up.
So much of that video and song should have had me cringing. Even now I don't know what attracted me more to the video against what should have repulsed me. I should've considered it god awful and I wouldn't blame anyone clicking that link thinking it is god awful. But it's going to be a classic K-pop song if it isn't already and I agree with that. It wasn't pivotal only to me. SNSD had debuted in 2007 to much acclaim domestically in South Korea, but it was "Gee" that made them famous throughout Asia and led to a string of hits that made them the reigning queens of K-pop all through Asia.
Very soon after that, Invincible Youth started airing in Taiwan with two members of Girls' Generation (Sunny and Yuri) cast and I watched religiously even though it only had Chinese subtitles. The other cast members introduced me to other girl groups leading the second Hallyu wave (T-ara, 4minute, Brown Eyed Girls, Secret and Kara). K-pop became an obsession since 2010. No explanation except that it's a future life resonance. It seems I've determined that my next locale of rebirth will be South Korea and all this is an indication of it.
YouTube also started becoming big in 2006 and I credit YouTube for helping launch the second Hallyu wave, which otherwise might have been contained in South Korea without the international exposure YouTube brought. Trying to reconstruct my personal history of K-pop, I recall an early YouTube video of a karaoke competition variety show called Korean Madness catching my attention. Aside from those teenage high school students being hilarious and full of personality (Hyun Ae informed me later that the show was a competition and that those girls ultimately won), I ended up liking the song (the original is played at the end of the clip and, yes, I have it in my collection now) as well as the other songs they sang in the course of the competition. Those girls had good taste.
The next step was the Wonder Girls "Tell Me" dance phenomena. Wonder Girls debuted in 2007 and their dance for "Tell Me" went viral with high school students, flight attendants, military personal, traffic police, etc. etc. uploading themselves doing the Tell Me choreography. I watched a lot of those, starting with one high school student, and got into the song. Isolating the backing track, it's quite groovy and subtle, although I'm sure I didn't notice how cool it was right away.
Hyun Ae and I had fallen out of touch by the time I saw the video for Girls' Generation's (SNSD) Gee (2009) on MTV probably in 2010. That was when it took off. Initially, part of me was practically offended by what was on my TV screen, likening it to awful, superficial, garish, candy J-pop. What the hell is this crap? the snob in me sneered, reaching for the remote to change the channel, and I pointed the remote at the TV and . . . didn't. Not only did I stand there with the remote pointing at the TV for the rest of the song, afterwards I immediately went online to look them up.
So much of that video and song should have had me cringing. Even now I don't know what attracted me more to the video against what should have repulsed me. I should've considered it god awful and I wouldn't blame anyone clicking that link thinking it is god awful. But it's going to be a classic K-pop song if it isn't already and I agree with that. It wasn't pivotal only to me. SNSD had debuted in 2007 to much acclaim domestically in South Korea, but it was "Gee" that made them famous throughout Asia and led to a string of hits that made them the reigning queens of K-pop all through Asia.
Very soon after that, Invincible Youth started airing in Taiwan with two members of Girls' Generation (Sunny and Yuri) cast and I watched religiously even though it only had Chinese subtitles. The other cast members introduced me to other girl groups leading the second Hallyu wave (T-ara, 4minute, Brown Eyed Girls, Secret and Kara). K-pop became an obsession since 2010. No explanation except that it's a future life resonance. It seems I've determined that my next locale of rebirth will be South Korea and all this is an indication of it.
Labels:
future life resonances,
geeking out,
Hyun Ae,
K-pop,
memory lane
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
