Movies

And I bet it isn’t what most of you might be thinking it is.

How cool is this? Joss Whedon has turned his quirky directorial eye to Shakespeare. Behold: Much Ado About Nothing. Shiny! A world of “yes” to seeing this as soon as it comes out!

Here’s a cool interview with Joss Whedon that ranges from Dr. Horrible to Firefly, Buffy, and other interesting stuff. We are all big Dr. Horrible fans, and it’s good to know the project is progressing, even if glacially.

Creating a live–action movie from a book must be an amazing, arduous process. The director probably likes the book to even consider such a project. So it would stand to reason that certain details provided by the author would be preserved, insofar as such things are possible. I guess the only explanation is that Hollywood reason is like no other reason I know.

Guns And Weed
Because there's no such thing as "half-free."

I’ll put this video on in the library since it has some language those of you with sensitive ears might not wish to hear:

I am perhaps the last individual in the U.S. older than 10 to have seen the first installment of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies, The Fellowship of the Ring. That wasn’t by choice, but rather of necessity. Having acquired first a TV, then a decent VCR, and now a copy of the movie, I have at last seen Jackson’s rendering of Tolkien’s tale of the nine who set out for Mount Doom, to destroy the One Ring of power.

Knowing I was unlikely to see the movie in the cinemas, I didn’t pay much attention to the hype running up to its release, nor did I read any reviews, which often contain too much information and thus are spoilers. It’s been years since I read any of the Tolkien books, although I have read them multiple times with much enjoyment. I came to The Fellowship of the Ring with few expectations, and ready to soak in Jackson’s vision of the story. While I have the inevitable quibbles about some omissions and changes, the movie delivers the essence of the story with remarkable clarity and emotional punch. What surprised me most about watching The Fellowship of the Ring was my reaction to Boromir’s death scene. It was a highly charged account in the book, one I remembered well, yet the depth of my response to its portrayal in the movie seemed inappropriate. Why had his fall affected me so?

Jackson does a truly masterful job, and actor Sean Bean, who is compelling as Boromir throughout the movie, is perhaps at his best in the death scene. But my response was not due to the superb crafting of the scene, but rather a thought I had upon first seeing it—one that returns to me every time I see it: there are few individuals I’m aware of in the pro-freedom movement who would likely be so valiant. As far as I can tell, we have at best very few sons of Boromir.

I’m not talking about Boromir’s courageous fighting, battling vainly to protect two of the hobbits from the orcs even as the orc leader shoots arrow after arrow into his body. Nor is it his unflinching stance when the leader takes aim at point-blank range that I refer to. In the scene immediately prior to the battle with the orcs, Boromir has unsuccessfully tried to take the One Ring from Frodo. Its power began weaving its spell on Boromir from first sight at the council in Rivendell, and ultimately led him to confront Frodo. When he realizes what he’s done, Boromir is horrified. He calls out an apology to Frodo, but it is too late. Frodo has gone, and the Fellowship has begun to break up. Boromir immediately recognizes that he has done wrong, and it is his attempt to set it right, to his last breath, that leaves me near tears every time I see the movie.

Some Tolkien scholars have interpreted much of the Lord of the Rings in terms of religious themes. Thus, according to some who ascribe to this view, Boromir’s actions are explained by a need for redemption, of setting things right before he dies. But Boromir can’t do that: the Ring is being carried away, unbeknownst to him, even as he fights the orcs. Indeed, his actions have set in motion a series of events that needs to happen—the Fellowship of the Ring needs to be broken up—for good to triumph over evil in Middle Earth.

Boromir’s heroism is ultimately much more simple, and noble to my mind, than that. He is human. It’s no small part of his heroism that he rises above his human flaws in the last battle of his life. Rather than sitting and thinking, or whining and playing the victim, he battles bravely, in part to counter his perceived failing of the Fellowship and his comrades.

How many libertarians would follow in his steps? I can think of a few men whom I can envision doing so, and maybe one woman (no, not me) ... but sadly, I see no more than that in my fairly wide circle of friends and acquaintances. The freedom movement seems to spawn individuals of talk and analysis rather than action. But there comes a time when talking, philosophizing, and analyzing are for naught; there comes a time when the only thing that will make a difference is taking up one’s chosen weapon, and making the best stand one can in defense of one’s principles. Many seem to pine for a John Galt to appear among us—but there are, and never will be, no such individuals. We are human, with frailties, flaws, foibles, and fears. That isn’t to be denied, nor is it to become an excuse or a copout. We can choose a nobler course.

Near the end of the movie, Frodo recalls an earlier conversation with Gandalf, after Frodo expressed the wish that “none of this” had happened to him. Gandalf replied, “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.” With the USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security Acts pressing upon us, challenging times are here—and likely to be present for some time—for those who cherish liberty. If ever there was a time to test our mettle, it is now. We can choose not to give in to our inevitable human weaknesses, and instead choose to fight the fight of our lives for a cause we believe in. We can do as Boromir did. The question is: will we?

Joey Bishop has died. I must say that I vaguely recall him—my Rat Pack faves were Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr.—but he will be missed with all of the gents. And I’ll miss them as much for their talents as for the camaraderie they displayed. Don’t think we’ll see the like again anytime soon.

You are a pirate

and talk like a pirate day comes tomorrow.

Still a small bit of time away, until then you might check out my latest movie review at Endervidualism, which also gets linked from my latest Ender's Review.

... but it appears that I agree, in small part, with Michael Moore.

I saw this movie last night. It may not be in theaters much longer. It has qualities that a large screen will show better than a small one.
First the trailer -

The idea of freedom presented in the film 300 ( which is based on Frank Miller's excellent graphic novel of the same name) is a modern concept that had no real basis in the ancient world. Sparta was a police state that was kept strong through the practice of eugenics and the complete suppression of the individual in the service of the state.

Still, the movie as such is inspiring, especially to men, as it presents a powerful picture of what true masculinity can and should be: men who are not afraid to be masculine,in the service of freedom.

Writer-psychologist friend Shaun alerted me to an interesting news story: Erasing the Pain of the Past: Scientists Are Developing Drugs That Could Eliminate Traumatic Events From Our Memories. A brief quote from the three-page article:

Much about why painful memories come back to haunt soldiers and those who live through other traumatic experiences remains unknown. Scientists say that is because little is known about how the brain stores and recalls memories.

But in their early efforts to understand the way in which short-term memories become long-term memories, researchers have discovered that certain drugs can interrupt that process. Those same drugs, they believe, can also be applied not just in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event – like a mortar attack, rape or car accident – but years later, when an individual is still haunted by memories of event.

The hope is that a post-traumatic stress disorder patient can work with a psychiatrist and focus a traumatic event, take one of these drugs and then slowly forget that event. With that hope, however, comes a series of ethical concerns. What makes up our personalities – the essence of who we are as individuals – if not the collected memories of our experiences?

Multiple cans of worms opening up here. I found the timing interesting, as I’ve been wanting to see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind again; I commented on that movie some time ago. I certainly understand the strong desire to help a hurting individual deal with an awful event, but I do not see how erasure might accomplish that. Others won’t necessarily forget the incident; and it will almost certainly come up, again and again over the person’s life. And how can one learn and grow from that which has been banished? One can’t.

Lots more I could say, but no time today.

B.W. Richardson tagged me for the “Meme of Four” last Saturday. I’ve taken a while to respond, but better late than never, I hope.

Only because 1] I'm up early again and 2] since he doesn't allow non-Blogger commenting any more, this is about the only way I can let my buddy Freeman know I still read his terrific blog, I'll respond to his blog tag. [Updated 3/8: see end of fourplay list]

What a treat to encounter Butler Shaffer's latest article at LRC, Myths, Fables, Fairy Tales, and the Real World.
I'm not a big movie-goer, but I'd recently seen The Chronicles of Narnia in the theatre and found it disappointing. It seems to be a movie intended for children, rather than a movie for "children of all ages" -- including sappy adults like me who tend to prefer thoughtful content to "adult content," which usually means stuff thoughtful parents tend to avoid especially when taking the kids out to the theatre. I enjoy good movies, but I dislike being "entertained" -- where does this seemingly constant emphasis on adult VS children's entertainment come from? -- what happened to comedy and drama, or good old story-telling not because the audience requires entertainment but because the story needs telling?

Schools seem increasingly absent the "fun" factor that might make learning enjoyable, while entertainment seems to lack the "educational" element that might profit consumers as well as producers. I find Butler's observation interesting:

This is a principal reason that the entertainment industry seems to thrive during the decline of civilizations: individuals become content with moral, intellectual, and existential passivity, preferring to live their lives through projected extensions of themselves with whom they identify.

Well, sure ... civilizations ascend and decline on an individual basis, and therein lies the success and the failure of collectivism. An enterprise that fails to the extent that it succeeds, the moral of that story perhaps?

I don't want to spoil any endings, but IMO Butler nails the flaws in Narnia with his concluding paragraph. But what do I know ... I'm an adult, and everyone seems so intent on saving the children these days that perhaps adults deserve consideration as an endangered species.