Forming our own narratives..

I have a minor confession to make: our family went and saw The Interview on Christmas Day.   There's a lot of critiques of this movie out there,  that probably give every point of view possible already.  But you'll also find  - as often happens in movie reviews - that there's aspects of that movie that the critics miss. As this was written up as "frat boy humor comedy" blah blah, I expected that.   Another review mentioned some racist remarks by one of the characters.  My wife and son did not seem to notice (probably since the object of humor related to those remarks was Seth Rogen's character - that was left out of one of the reviews.)

So while I tend to agree with much of what was posted in some places before the movie was reviewed, I did want to see the film just to see what was behind this masterpiece of PR.  Yes, Rogen and Franco make things I usually don't want to see, still can't beat the way the PR was done.  While the final product did point out some of the nasty things about North Korea, it was done by this generation's answer to the Three Stooges, more or less.  And yeah, there's nothing here that any informed person would learn about North Korea.  But You Natzy Spy!  was similar fare, and so was Duck Soup, which was banned in fascist Italy, if what I've read is correct.

Happy New Year, all! I hope I'll have more chances to post here in the coming months.

Cringe inducing...

That's how I'd describe this recent article on  the Washington Post website on "Shaolin" films and "spirituality," by way of introducnig “Shaolin,” a "new" movie starring Jackie Chan and Andy Lau.

“Most people don’t realize kung fu is internal and external, a peaceful and a martial application, and a Shaolin movie will include both, while most kung fu movies are about anger and shooting,” says Ric Meyers, author of “Films of Fury: The Kung Fu Movie Book.”

“Shaolin is all about spirituality, karma, your well-being,” adds Doris Pfardrescher of Well Go USA, which is distributing “Shaolin.” All other martial-arts films are “ just about action, fighting,” she adds, “but Shaolin is about religion, spirituality, being with Buddha.”

 It gets worse.

But Shaolin did not become just an Asian phenomenon. The 1970s TV series “Kung Fu” featured David Carradine as a Shaolin monk. Wu-Tang Clan named their first hip-hop album “Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers)” — the 36 Chambers being a reference to a Shaolin movie. The animated hit “Kung Fu Panda” was influenced by Shaolin martial-arts styles. In the “Kill Bill” movies, Uma Thurman is taught martial arts by a Shaolin monk. And even the cartoon series “The Simpsons” helped establish the monastery’s cultural bona fides when Homer visited it during a trip to China.

Since the Shaolin craze began, martial arts have become fairly ubiquitous in movie fight scenes — hits such as “The Matrix” and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” helped popularize the form — but Shaolin remains an iconic name and style all its own. “A lot of other martial-arts films are just throwing out different styles,” says Reid, “but when you see a bald-headed monk in a martial-arts film, you know it’s a Shaolin monk. Other movies are just entertainment. The Shaolin movies are a way to tell the audience about the Shaolin martial arts.”

 It might be a bit much, I know, to expect the Washington Post to actually produce an article evocative of what kung fu actually is, let alone why a Buddhist might do such things.  But 2 minutes of googling would have told the author that Pai Mei wasn't a Shaolin monk.

And the "new" movie "starring" Jackie Chan (he has what is almost a supporting role but isn't quite the main point of interest in the story)  is most notable for its implicit flavor of Chinese nationalism more than anything, which, as far as I'm concerned, is not a problem, but would otherwise be expected these days.  Perhaps more to the point, though, is why this film has a Buddhist message (which is more explicit than the nationalist message): because of a warlord's greed, a violent struggle ensues which ultimately takes the life of his daughter, and the only way the warlord can ultimately live with himself is to renounce his past and take up a life with the Shaolin monks, on the eve of their temple's (latest) destruction.  And that story is poignant regardless of any branding.

Then again, the whole story of Buddhism in China in the past century or two is rife with struggle and endurance that people in America barely understand at all, myself included.

Ah, well whatever.

Wow...if this isn't alienation I don't know what is...

In the past twelve or so hours,  merely from looking at the blogs & Salon, I saw a quite disturbing viewpoint of how a significant cross-section of Americans view themselves.

First up is P.Z. Myers' wonderful review of David Brooks'  "The Social Animal: The Hidden Sources of Love, Character, and Achievement."  I quote:

... I had begun reading it determined to be dispassionate and analytic and fair, but I couldn't bear it for long: I learned to loathe Harold and Erica, the two upscale avatars of upper-middle-class values that Brooks marches through life in the story. And then I began to resent the omniscient narrator who narrates this exercise in unthinking consumption and privilege that is, supposedly, the ideal of happiness; it's like watching a creepy middle-aged man fuss over his Barbie and Ken dolls, posing them in their expensive accessories and cars and houses and occasionally wiggling them in simulated carnal relations (have no worries, though: Like Barbie and Ken, no genitals appear anywhere in the book), while periodically pausing to tell his audience how cool it all is, and what is going on inside his dolls' soft plastic heads. I did manage to work my way through the whole book, however, by an expediency that I recommend to anyone else who must suffer through it. I simply chanted to myself, "Die, yuppie scum, die," when I reached the end of each page, and it made the time fly by marvelously well. In addition, there is a blissful moment of catharsis when you reach the last page and one of the characters does die, although it isn't in a tragic explosion involving a tennis racket, an overdose of organic fair-trade coffee, and an assassination squad of rogue economists at Davos, as I was hoping...

 David Brooks' idea of people, and presumably himself, amounts to cardboard cut-outs or dolls - they lack any of the things that really allow us to have character it seems.

Next up... you  gotta see this to believe it - via Firedoglake, we get a treat to a scene from the movie "Atlas Shrugged Part 1," which  is coming to the big screen, April 15 (but of course).

 

This is going to be the "Battlefield Earth" of politically themed movies; I can hardly wait for the reviews.  I especially liked the end part - it reminded me so much of  this bit from Monty Python:

The difference is that evidently the "Galt" figure in Atlas Shrugged Part I is playing it so seriously he makes it even funnier.  Seriously though,  the idea that  any  "progressive" charity would request money from a right winger, and stipulate that the right winger do so anonymously is simply ridiculous.  Furthermore,  I like the opportunity to give anonymously - what's wrong with giving anonymously? I'm no Christian but I remember there was some kind of parable about rich being seen as giving means "they already have their reward."  Buddhists have parables about giving too:



Finally, check out this review of Atlas Shrugged, the book:



The idea that there are no other stakeholders in the world other than one's self isn't going to get this young woman very far in life, I'm afraid.

About "Groundhog Day" and "Buddhist Themed Movies" and "Wabisabi"

I cannot believe that some folks in the blogosphere are still pointing to that movie and saying "See? It's got Buddhist themes!"  I appreciate the spirit of Kyle's post on the subject, but I think I'd like to go a bit further.

It was Soen Nakagawa who mentioned that even tabloid headlines could be read as sutras in the right view, or something like that.  (Yeah, that's right, that was  Eido Shimano's teacher, who died tragically in some event following a depression resulting from a brain injury.  It was very Zen.)

Hey, I'm not immune to putting forth my own nominees for "Buddhist Themed" films.  But frankly, because of the viewpoint I kind of inherited I don't want to watch a movie because I think it's got some "Buddhist" theme. I want to watch a movie because I hope it's a great movie, and can appreciate the skills of all who came together to make the movie.  I never watched "Groundhog Day" because Bill Murray gives me that praecox feeling.  I am not inclined to laugh at someone because they're jerks.  Unless of course they're genuinely humorous, and frankly Murray doesn't cut it for me.  But I digress.

The notion of explicitly "Buddhist" themed films (think "Kundun" or "Seven Years in Tibet") as well as allegorical "Buddhist" themed films  is fraught with the identical sad baggage that plagues so-called "Christian" themed films: quite simply such films suck at least in part because it would look like somebody's trying to say "See? Buddhism is so great!" rather than making a damn fine work of art.

That is not to say that one can't bring Buddhist principles and sensibilities into their work.  In fact, one might think that it would sort of be incumbent for a Buddhist trying to practice Buddhism  to do so, and one would be right in this regard.  Two might even be right as well, but there I go again.

And I think that's where wabisabi comes in; rather than a long detailed bit on esthetics, I'll just say: go to the Wikipedia link.  My point is any kind of over-arching themes like Buddhism such be done in a manner in which it's understated - to the point where someone watching the film - or reading the report - doesn't realize there's "Buddhism" behind it.   Or, to put it another way, self-consciously trying to include "Buddhism" in a film - especially a Zen flavor - would have the very effect of undermining a message of Buddhism in the film.

It is, in fact the surest way to transform something into a Dharma Burger is to infuse it  in a heavy-handed way with Buddhist themes.  On the other hand, if there were to be  a movie that simply "nurtures all that is authentic by acknowledging three simple realities: nothing lasts, nothing is finished, and nothing is perfect" (as quoted in the reference from the Wikipedia link) that might have the potential to be simply a damn good film.

Get it?

Family Road Trip and, if cartoon violence doesn't offend, go see "Machete"

Practically no blogging til Tuesday.

I got "Dad's night out last night," thanks to my wonderful wife.

It didn't get much press attention, but if you go see the film Machete, you'll find it's probably the most overtly political film released by a major studio for mass production  in years.

Though admittedly, its over the top violence will not be conducive to the singing of the Barney theme song, its message is clear: everybody is being exploited and abused by this rash of xenophobia. To be fair to the movie though it is ridiculously cartoon violence reminiscent of cheap 60s and 70s grindhouse movies. 

Machete at IGN.com

Ok, ok, ok, here's Focus on the Family's review. I'm fair and balanced, you know.

 Machete got its start as a faux trailer targeting hard-core fans of the 2007 double-feature splatterfest Grindhouse. Then, in May 2010, a real trailer for this so-called "Mexploitation" film singled out the state of Arizona for its strict new illegal immigration law. In the trailer, actor Danny Trejo intoned, "This is Machete with a special Cinco de Mayo message—to Arizona!" The trailer that followed highlighted the film's bloody mayhem … and message.

"I simply wanted to make a special trailer that was as absurd as what was happening in Arizona," director Robert Rodriguez told aintitcool.com, "So I took some coincidentally timely lines of dialogue from the old original fake trailer from three years ago and from the new movie, reconfigured action beats, and cut it all out of context to make it look like the entire film was about Machete leading a revolt against anti-immigration politicians and border vigilantes. What can I say, it was Cinco de Mayo, and I had too much tequila."

But make no mistake: Rodriguez does have a political point to make with Machete. Volunteer border guards are sadistic racists, and illegal immigrants are heroes and martyrs. Sartana, a Latin American immigration official in the United States, is caught in between. Eventually she concludes that the "right" thing to do is scrap the badge and join Machete, an antihero who morphs into something akin to a William Wallace-like figure in his quest to fight for oppressed illegal immigrants everywhere. "If the laws don't offer us justice, they aren't laws," Sartana tells us. "We didn't cross the border—the border crossed us!"

"Rarely has the 'case' against Anglo America been made as strongly, albeit cartoonishly, as in Machete," writes James P. Pinkerton of Fox News. "In the film … all the Anglos are either evil or stupid. By contrast, the Hispanics are almost all innocent victims, until, of course, the rousing moment of liberation at the end."

 That ain't quite true, about all the Anglos. It's not about all the Anglos, just the ones that are exploiting this issue for their own ends.  Of course, this hits a bit close to home on Focus on the Family and Fox "News."

Oh, and one other thing: this is  the best performance by Robert De Niro  in years. And the best  performance by tulku Steven Seagal ever, in my humble opinion.