Post 13: Conclusion

And now I’m back to where I was. Square one. Passed go, but a handsome $200 nowhere to be found. I started my journey talking about my LEOPARD syndrome. Something I’ve always been struggling with to hide my true adoration for my freckled skin. It was hurdling this that felt most rewarding of all the challenges I’ve faced in this discovery of self. I did like after I was able to clear this hurdle everything seemed so much easier. Life’s odd like that. I never liked to write about myself because of all the little nagging fears in my head, or insecurities about the differences I had compared to everyone else. For the longest time, it had seemed like I was truly, and utterly alone.

But this class showed me that all it takes is conviction. To not buckle or break in the face of adversity and continue writing. Not just for yourself, but because the challenges you face in life are interesting. We as a culture tend to breed thoughts of solitude. From a highly increasing divorce rate, to the ability to close off others with the inclusion of headphones and an iPod. But our challenges are interesting. Not to everyone, of course (that is the nature of varying opinions). But if you truly feel alone in this world, I beset you to seek out other opinions through creative nonfiction. You might be surprised how many people are experiencing these thoughts and doubts and hardships.

Earlier in the blog, I mentioned how I disliked the film I Am, for it’s comparison to monkey’s to altruistic caring. That’s not the case at all. Apes, like man are extremely violent and territorial. But they are playful and caring within their tribes. We as a species aren’t that different. However our tribes are no longer founded by bloodlines, but by ideas.

The internet was said to originally be dreamt to connect all of mankind all over the world, a great step towards peace. However, since the commercial availability of the internet since the mid 1980’s we’ve become nothing but more devided and seperated. Star Wars vs Star Trek fans duking it out over message boards, as Twilight fanpages erupt in hostility to who is better for Bella.

This blog has reminded me that I am a warrior of words, and must fear nothing as a charge into the world wide web spear first. I feared whether my views were alien, or how would others think. While it is vital to remember your colleagues, this class reminded me that I must wear my freckles as a badge of honor and to be unflinching in my personal views. Yell at the heaven’s for my love of old Star Trek and rock and roll. May my warcall be heard to rally forces elsewhere as we continue to battle with wit and idea over our cyber space battlefield.  Progress is made by starting new challenges. To write about what makes one happy, fearful, terrified. One might fail in their ability to deliver on an intended goal, but what is brilliant about writing is that one may always start again, hardened by the fall and ready for future bloodshed.

Not that this is a battle to the death. Far from it. The freedom to believe in whatever chooses is a necessity in modern society. However, no ideas will ever sync completely, and to those that oppose each other, the art of debate and rebuttal are our only means of keeping our ideology alive. May it be through utilizing your skills in uniting others to change the world, to the simple act of human interaction through interview. We are warriors of word.

Post 12: My Failures

Here’s the thing, while my first two days were successful, I was unable to complete my blog. The deadlines I set up for myself had gotten too crowded with other work and I enviably was forced to focus my attention on other projects. Projects that are focused on the English language are so easy to procrastinate on or to put off entirely. I had made a huge mistake and inevitably let my workmanship suffer because of it. Not much to say other than that.

Post 11: First Two Days of Stunt

Day 1

I choose to start my journey off easy. Today I will only watch Citizen Kane, widely regarded as the best film ever made. The story is classic. After the dying words of world famous icon Charles Foster Kane, a personal friend goes about to discover what the cryptic message behind “Rosebud” is. Through interviews from Kane’s friends we learn of his origin, a poor boy who was whisked away at a young age to receive an education.   What follows is a gripping relection of the phycology of one of the most powerful men on the planet, and why a man so powerful could be so unhappy. For those readers who haven’t seen this film, I will not spoil the ending, but needless to say it is powerful and is still masterful 70 years later.

In Ebert’s review of the film (SPOILER WARNING) he exemplified what made him such a great critic. In regaurds to a simple shot, he claimed, “There is a master image in “Citizen Kane” you might easily miss. The tycoon has overextended himself and is losing control of his empire. After he signs the papers of his surrender, he turns and walks into the back of the shot. Deep focus allows Welles to play a trick of perspective. Behind Kane on the wall is a window that seems to be of average size. But as he walks toward it, we see it is further away and much higher than we thought. Eventually he stands beneath its lower sill, shrunken and diminished. Then as he walks toward us, his stature grows again. A man always seems the same size to himself, because he does not stand where we stand to look at him.”

This was one of the reasons I always loved Ebert. Once every so often, his reviews would boil down into frame by frame looks into it and drawing rich and deep symbolism from it. I personally love the film. The acting is amazing, the story is fresh, and the cinematography is astounding given the time period and lack of modern-day technology. Simply astounding. A standard for anyone living in the modern era.

1. Agguirre, Wrath of God (Werner Herzog)
2. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola)
3. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles) 
4. La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini)
5. The General (Buster Keaton)
6. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese)
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)
8. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu)
9. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)
10. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock)

Day 2

Today I decided to hit two out of the park. 2001: A Space Odyssey and Vertigo. Lets do this quick and easy.

I LOVE 2001. Kubrick has always been one of my favorite directors. His visual style is so distinct and focused, with eerie shots of empty rooms and a slow pace that adds to focus on the characters and their mental states. In this case, it’s haunting shots at the red dot, or as I should say, the HAL 9000’s face, speak volumes of computer and the human condition. I wouldn’t call it my favorite Kubrick film, that distinction falling to Full Metal Jacket, but overall it is a glorious film that both glorifies 50’s level science fiction and raised it to new heights.For future reviews I will not add full texts of the Ebert reviews, but for the sake of my love for Ebert I couldn’t resist adding his line “ I imagine cummings would not have enjoyed Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey,” in which stars dance but birds do not sing. The fascinating thing about this film is that it fails on the human level but succeeds magnificently on a cosmic scale.” A poet on poetry.

Like the previous day, I have no quarrels with Ebert’s review. It excels on everything that Kubrick had intended to do and the film presents Kubrick’s visions of human’s place in the universe. Truly shaping to be a boring blog.

The second film I watched today was Vertigo, the Alfred Hitchcock. Another classic on every sense of the word, Vertigo tells tells the tale of John Ferguson dealing with a fear of heights and tasked to take care for a suicidal woman. He madly falls in love with her, though one day is unable to save her due to his fear of heights. What follows is a classic Hitchcock thriller full of twists and turns and betrayal. Now Ebert loved this movie, claiming that it was not only a great movie, but proved to be Hitchcock’s best due to it being the most personal film he had ever made, which he reasons by Hitchcock’s previous films and his overall style of characterizations. It’s all fascinating, and wouldn’t do justice to post in a single quotation, so I will leave it in it’s entirety HERE. (Spoiler warning).

Now, this is the first occurrence where I respectfully disagree with Ebert. While I do enjoy the film, I don’t think it hold’s up, both when compared to Hitchcock’s other works and other thrillers in it’s genre. The theme of female obsession has always been a part of Hitchcock’s work, Psycho providing the best example in my opinion. Unlike Psycho however, there are many scenes that hold out a little too long and the story can be a little hard to follow at certain points. I still love the film and challenge any reader to see it, but there was my take on the matter.

1. Agguirre, Wrath of God (Werner Herzog)
2. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola) 
3. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles) 
4. La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini)
5. The General (Buster Keaton)
6. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese)
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)
8. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu)
9. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)
10. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock) 

Post 10: Intro to Personal Stunt

On April 4th, 2013 a great man, and one of my personal heros passed away. His name was Rodger Ebert. Most people know him as one of, if not THE, definitive voice when it came to editorial film reviews. A man who’s say could make or break a movie at the box office. His patented “thumbs up/down” review style might has well have been the thumb of a Roman emperor deciding the fate of a gladiator.

I have vivid memories coming back from the latest blockbuster and rushing home to see what Ebert thought of it. Those were the days were I had the time, luxury, and walking distance to a local video store to watch hundreds of movies a month. And while I would occasionally pick up a film that looked interesting, a Sci Fi B movie or a cheesey looking horror flick, almost half of my selections came from either movies that Ebert had referenced in newer reviews, or whatever episode I had just seen of his old show Siskel and Ebert and wanted to compare my thoughts to both him and the late Gene Siskel. It gave me a deep pool of reference material (though in retrospect, not the best expect people to know movies like 1980’s Caligula in order for a joke to work).

However, what will always stick with me was how much he changed journalism, and all of opinion based entrainment. Before Ebert, reviews were saved for the backpages of newspapers and bad stand up comics. Ebert along with his parter, the late Gene Siskel, pioneered the ability to make the simple act of discussing the merit of a movie not only interesting, but an art in itself. Ebert was always a master wordsmith, able to elevate the great films into new heights, as well as rip the films that failed to hit their mark asunder. He was a great man who I owe everything to, from the depth of my knowledge of film, to my writing style and uncompromising personality. As a tribute to this man, who gave the world so much, even when he was battling cancer, I want to explore his top ten favorite movies, at least according to his final interview with Sight and Sound magazine. His final list went as followed (placed in alphabetical order)

1. Agguirre, Wrath of God (Werner Herzog)
2. Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola)
3. Citizen Kane (Orson Welles)
4. La Dolce Vita (Federico Fellini)
5. The General (Buster Keaton)
6. Raging Bull (Martin Scorsese)
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)
8. Tokyo Story (Yasujiro Ozu)
9. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)
10. Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock)

Of these ten films I have seen only 5 (Apocalypse Now, Citizen Kane, 2001: Space Odyssey, The Tree of Life, and Vertigo) With this blog I will attempt to go over all ten films, taking both Ebert’s and my opinion into account and reflecting on what I discover. What’s that you say? Is this elaborately pretentious? Yup. Bring it on.

Post 9: A Chat with the Enemy: Talking Alcohol with Public Saftey

Speaking of high school….

In tenth grade on an average weekend night I attended a party with a large group of kids in the theater program. The party, unsurprisingly for a a high school party in Santa Barbara, had alcoholic drinks. At this party, one of my best friends (whom for the sake of privacy, I have changed his name) Tom had been drinking heavily that night, and like many do, found themselves with their head in a toilet. He was in there for an incredibly long time, and soon some of the party goers began to suspect alcohol poisoning. However, given that this was a high school party, the notion of calling an ambulance was considered too large of a risk to call for medical assistance. And if that wasn’t all, Tom’s larger and older brother, who was also at the party, preceded to physically assault Tom due to his fear of what his parents might think or do to him, given that he was responsible for Tom’s wellbeing.

I bring this up today because while Tom did eventually feel better, stories like this are countless in a country that in where the risk of enjoying a freedom to partake in a legal substance is somehow determined by age, especially ones

Over the course of human history, many have found solace in the comfort of drink. From that I mean the consumption of a beverage with contains glucose, fructose, and sucrose molecules which have undergone a ethanol fermentation process and now has an abundance of ethanol molecules. The consumption of ethanol can result in many negative effects on the human body including liver damage, the formation various cancers, and most importantly damage to the central nervous system, most notably to the brain. However, in moderation, the consumption of alcohol can be an enjoyable experience.

While there is no exact date to pinpoint, man’s discovery of alcohol can be traced back to 9000 years ago in China, where ancient jars have been discovered to contain beverages common with modern day beer. The Middle Eastern region of Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon contain wine pips (the seeds of grapes that have been fermented into wine) can be dated back to 8000BC. And while many cultures differ in practices, the majority of ancient civilizations can be traced to have invented some form of alcohol. Cultures separated by hundreds of miles of ocean have been recorded to have found one way or another to drink alcoholic beverages; including the Mayan Empire, Iroquis Native Americans who resided what is modern day New York and Canada, and select areas of Sub Saharan Africa. The drink would go as far to have cultural and religious significance within the cultures from where they came. Egyptian hieroglyphs depict alcoholic beverages to be very spiritual drink that would be used in sacrifice, while religions such as Judaism and Buddhism both praise the benefits and dangers alcohol, and some Christians partake in symbolic wine drinking. Currently beer is the third most popular beverage in the world, (followed only water and tea) and liquor distribution has been the livelyhood of countess farmers, brewers, and pub managers.

The reason that I bring these up is that, like many college students, have been acquainted with alcohol and find it is a social activity I find enjoyable. However, if you are a college student you are most likely aware that current United State laws prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages to individuals younger than 21 years old. I personally believe that the laws that are in place are not sound, for a number of reasons. The first being admittedly fairly steryotypical when talking about this issue, but I find frustrating is that current US laws state that at the age of 18 one can be legally independent, which includes purchases of tobacco products, jury duty, and military service; yet still it appears that alcohol consumption is still considered to be a choice that you have no control over.. I find that the reason current laws are in place bad in the fact that there is no current US law that mandates a state drinking age of 21, rather the National Drinking Age Act signed in by President Reagan in 1984 simply drastically cuts state funding for road and freeway maintenance that don’t set a legal drinking age of 21. Its a practice that, while good looking on paper and done for the right intentions, but it’s notions of needing to stop the scourge of car induced fatalities was not an overall success as a look at the overall rate of car fatalities has been decreasing at a rate, during which the National Drinking Age Act did no noticeable change.

However I am no expert when it comes to enforcement of laws, so I was able to sit down with Chapman University’s Pubic Safety own Chief Randy Burba to discuss his experience with underaged drinking and opinions on the way it is currently being upheld.

Patterson: Thank you so much for meeting. What position do you currently hold at Chapman University and how long have you been working here?

Burba: I’m currently the Chief of Public Safety at Chapman University. I’ve been her for about seven and a half years, I’ve been here since about 2005. I was previously the Patrol Captain at USC for about twenty years. So I’ve been doing this job for about 25 years.

Patterson: Wow. Given your time working both here and at USC, how many instances of underaged drinking would you think you’ve seen?

Burba: Thousands! Thats really the crux of young people branching out, exploring new freedoms away from home. For them it really feels like a right of passage. Which is a strange dichotomy because I get that, but at the same time I’ve seen people go to the hospital near death from alcohol poisoning. I’ve seen people die from alcohol poisoning. It’s very concerning for me in that when you make a choice to do something legal or illegal, obviously if your of age it’s legal and if you’re underage it’s illegal, but whatever choice you make illegal or legal, it’s that you be smart about it and you do it in moderation. That’s the biggest thing we preach. Thats Nobody’s going to hear me say, “If you are twenty one do not drink!” That will go in one year and out the other. But if I can say I don’t want you to go to the hospital, I don’t want you dead, I don’t want you to ruin your life, I don’t want you to drink and drive and end up with a felony and not be able to get a job. You know you find the smart way to get it across. You say, “If you’re going to drink, don’t have twelve shots in an hour.”

Patterson: Oh, of course.

Burba: But yes, over the course of my time here I have seen a lot of underaged drinking. It’s prevalent, it’s always going to be prevalent at a University. It’s not going to go away, it’s not going to be eliminated. You just have to manage it and make people smarter.

Patterson: So what is your stance on the fact that drinking under the age of twenty-one is illegal? Do you think it should be…

Burba: Again thats an interesting question. Taking off my Public Safety hat, putting on my personal hat…one of the things I find funny is that you can join the military and pick up a riffle and defend your country at eighteen, but you can’t have a beer. So if you’re a soldier you can’t have a beer. I also understand at eighteen you don’t make the best decisions, you don’t have much life experience and then if you exacerbate that by giving them alcohol. But I think we have a weird situation with…I don’t think we should let eighteen year olds join the military either. It seems like they should go hand and hand. If you’re old enough to join the military, and pick up a gun, and fight for your country, you can have a beer. But if you’re eighteen, I don’t think you should join the military. Thats what I think.

Patterson: So what’s your stance on the notion that drinking is a constitutional right? We’ve seen a lot of trouble in the past with the 18th Amendment and Prohibition.

Burba: Well I believe in freedom. I believe if it’s not illegal, then I assume it is your right. So if you’re eighteen year old and an adult guess it would be drink, unless there was a law that was voted in or passed through the proper legislation process ie that the drinking age is twenty-one. If you this is where you choose to live there you have to follow the law. I think if you’re twenty-one I feel you do have a Constitutional right to drink because those were the laws that were originally passed. If there were no laws you could drink at any age. I don’t want it abolished. Like any constitutional right I don’t want it taken away, but like any constitutional right it has restrictions. There’s a right for freedom of speech, but you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater.

Patterson: How effective do you feel that Californian law has been in regards to underage drinking. I know we’re one of the few states, in where it’s legal if you were underaged and at a parter and someone passed out, you could call the police and not get in trouble.

Burba: Right, there’s protections to people wanting to call the police because of the medical issues. I think that that has effective in the fact that we have gotten calls for people in need of help that would have ended in tragedy. So I think that law has been effective in that. There’s that “Good Samaritan” law where you won’t be punished if you called and you were underaged and drinking. But I feel laws are effective in a percentage of the population. There are some people who want to be law abiding and will not do it. I think that is helpful. However, there is a large percentage of the population in where the law is irrelevant. They would do it whether there was a law or not. And I feel underage drinking is particularly a challenge because there’s a lot of peer pressure.  People with alcohol abuse tendencies, by the time they get to a university, have already drunken in high school, they’ve already done a lot themselves and a law itself wont fix the issue. Some might argue that the good samaritan law might exacerbate the problem, because now people might feel like they have that right, were as if they would get in trouble, they would not drink. You can argue both sides all night long, but what I think given what I’ve seen in young peoples decision making, that the law is good. At least preventing a tragedy is something we can do. I don’t think we’ll ever make underaged drinking go away, it’s never not going to be a problem. Even if you change the drinking age to eighteen, they’ll still do it at sixteen, fifteen fourteen! It’s never going to go away. What it takes is constant efforts. Constant parents. Constant community. Law enforcement doing their job. It takes all of those recourses coming together. Working on young peoples’ self esteem. Finding reasons why they want to drink. Are they trying to escape? Is it peer preasure? Trying to get to the source of the problem, whether it be a mental health issue, if one is depressed. It’s never going away.

Patterson: Not trying to focus on the negative, but what do you think could be improved with underage drinking laws?

Burba: I don’t disagree with that they are twenty one, whether they should be twenty one….I think that we could have tougher laws on merchants serving drinks to someone who is already intoxicated. But, if you work in a bar, maybe there should be flat out limits if you are in public. So if you are at a bar and you’re running up a tab. Lets say you’ve had two shots and three beers within the hour, maybe they should say, “We’re not going to serve you.” Maybe there should be a law there. Then again you bring the binge drinking to your own house, which is where most college drinking happens. They can’t really afford to pay six dollars on beer, so will most likely pick up a very cheep beer at the liquor store, taking it into their room, and then they’re playing drinking games which exacerbates the problem. Because its all about a large amount of alcohol in a short amount of time. And thats where I think that the drinking age is part of it, but the environment is that other half. If you’re eighteen, and you’re off to the bar after a hard days work, you’re not going to drink fourteen or twenty-five beers and get blitzed. If you’re eighteen years old and with a group of friends to play drinking games, the odds are your much higher you are going to overdrink. Its not the same as having a drink to blow off steam or use your undergo your right to drink. It’s two different situations. And I think how do we get people smarter about this is the big situation. I don’t think age is the issue, rather what the later of how we get people to think. I don’t even think age is the issue, but how do you get people to make smart decisions on drinking if you are eighteen or twenty-one. The problem doesn’t go away when they’re twenty-one. These binge drinking problems that start with drinking games and going to the hospital and alcohol poisoning. It has to do with behavior and groupthink, it’s a lot more complicated than an age.

Patterson: Oh I’m not trying to imply that seventeen to eighteen is a milestone of anykind. I understand…What’s your opinion of the National Drinking Age Act? I’m not sure if you’re completely aware of it….

Burba: No I’m not completely aware. Is that the one that set it universally twenty-one across the states?

Patterson: Correct. President Reagan signed it into action when he was pressured by a group called Mothers Against Drunk Driving…

Burba: MADD, right

Patterson: Yeah. And essentially it won’t give public road funding to a twenty one drinking age.

Burba: So it held them hostage. I knew that. I knew something in the back of my mind about the drinking age of the United States and I knew that was why, because all of the sudden we need the funding so we got to get on that…

Patterson: ...they’re not going to give up free money.

Burba: Exactly. Which is pretty much how the government gets its hooks in you. With any organization…with any university. You know why we follow all of the federal laws and regulations? Because we take federal money. So they tie everything to that. You want federal aid? You gotta do this, you gotta do this, you gotta do this, (sigh).

Patterson: I’m not trying to shout conspiracy theories or anything…

Burba: …right. It’s legalized extortion, is what it is. Um, so based on that, I think it was a smart move by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Age to me is not the issue. I do believe in states rights, I do believe that each individual state has the right of setting their law at eighteen. But it is interesting because that legislation didn’t take take that right away from them, they could still have it at eighteen, it’s just they’re giving away money. It is interesting, because I don’t feel that twenty-one is necessarily a bad age, you know you’re a little more mature at twenty one, but I do feel like we need to focus on the problem that drinking brings.

Patterson: One last question, as you are an experienced officer do you remember a time when the National Drinking Age Act wasn’t in effect. I believe it was set up in 1984.

Burba: No. In fact I started my career in 1986, so it was twenty-one since I’ve started. I couldn’t tell you the difference or seen a difference. And it was twenty-one in California anyway.

Patterson: Really? I just remember stories from my dad, who grew up in the midwest…

Burba: Yeah, because it was like seventeen, it was sixteen, it was all different ages. Minnesota for the longest time was seventeen I believe.

Patterson: Ha ha, yeah. I actually think I have one more. If the National Drinking Age Act were to be revoked, through magic or a legislative process, do you think that there would be negative repercussions?

Burba: I think there are people who, again, are a law abiding section of society that would abide the laws just because they are laws, I think there would be eighteen year old who would drink because they would know there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that. But typically those are the people that wouldn’t do it in excess anyway, so I don’t know if there would be negative repercussions or any more evidence, or incidents I should say, of binge drinking or younger people drinking in excess as there already are, though I feel it would probably increase.

The interview from that point ended with a thank you, and a small discussion on the nature of the shirt I was wearing at the time (featuring the fictional character Mudoc Niccals from the virtual band Gorillaz). Overall I learned a great perspective on the whole matter, and was able to openly talk to an so called enemy of my generation. We are living in an odd time, and God only knows how much I need a drink in regards to that.

Post 8: Demon Days

But to show that I am a man with varied tastes, I will now post one of my favorite songs of all time. Demon Days, by Gorillaz.

To me, this song is a symphony. I love the way it goes through such a broad range of emotions, to a melancholic diddy about a woman leaving her boyfriend.

Put me in a cab to suburbia
I just took a line but it wasn’t with you
There was more of it there, when I got back home
But you’d left me, you don’t know my soul…
You’re a hoe girl
Yeah you’re a hoe

To an enchanting solo on the loneliness one faces in life…

In demon days, it’s cold inside
You don’t get nobody, people sigh
It’s so bad, lasting far, but love yourself
Hiding in a hole in there

To a grand finale exploring how one honestly would deal with all of the negativity in the world..

When lies become reality you numb yourself with drugs and TV
You pick yourself up it’s a brand new day so turn yourself round
Don’t burn yourself, turn yourself, turn yourself around into the sun

I love that phrase “This song got me through high school,” namely because I’ve heard it so much. For me, Demon Days was that song. I can’t recount the sleepless night I would have just listening to this in the dark. And now I have officially typed the most sappy cliche in the book. On the blog. Moving on….

Post 7: Rocket Man

Things are getting a little too serious for my liking here. So I’ll post you a video that always brings a smile to my face. And not for the ironic ” Ha ha ha , William Shatner is a bad actor.” manor this video tends to be sent around as.

I am a pretty big fan of Star Trek, especially the Original series staring Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk. The action was nice, actors incredible, and while the effects may not hold up today, the depth of moral dilemas the show was able to explore is incredible.

I chose this particular video clip because I do respect Shatner, and I feel this was a very unique way to portray a popular Elton John song at the time. It’s funny, dramatic, and just irradiates the good vibrations that old video’s from the 70’s would bring. Like when your parents would show you movies they saw as a kid. Its a nostalgic feeling thats not like most.

Without further adieu,

ROCKET MAN

Image credit to http://patart-pat.blogspot.com/

Post 6: Letter to Myself

When I tasked myself with writing a paper about change, I surprisingly struggled with it. A lot. Although the notion had sounded fresh originally, it quickly turned into battle within myself to continue and even understand the prompt. The following is a letter, to myself I had addressed, spouting my anger towards the topic. I then however, choose to write about my writing skills in order to encourage me. God I’m weird.

Dear Student Writer,

What this topic means is beyond me. I understand writing for a social cause, but how it has anything to do with Creative Nonfiction is beyond me. But hey, who am I to judge. Teacher wants assignment, teacher gets assignment. It’s the tricks of the trade. Now…..

You want to write a paper about change? Ain’t that dandy. For starters I’d pick a project thats doable. There are countless problems facing the world today and the amount of suffering is sometimes unbearable to think about. But remember, this is a blog account, not a wishing rod that will cure all of lifes problems. Remember your target audience is either Professor O’Keefe or some student with blog account, are currently streaming the newest season of Breaking Bad because they don’t want to wait for tomarrow’s rerun to see it. If Netflix is too expensive for these kids, then the social atrocities in some third world country isn’t even worth a skim. It’s also good to point out to put some goddamn balance in your paper, and I’m not talking about writing about the horrors of McDonalds making $.50 hamburgers out of Grade D meat. No what I’m talking about, is knowing AND showing the opposing side to your argument. As much fun as putting an Adolph Hitler mustache on (insert politically/socially relevant opponent here), at the end of the day remember people are people and while they may not be the most intellectual or informed, they aren’t intentionally wallowing in a shithole trying to make society regress. Whatever actions they’re doing that seem like the actions of a stormtrooper, through their eyes you look just as evil and they are fighting for the good guys. The only examples of malevolence acting for the sake of malevolence comes from either Skeletor or halfbaked teen books like the Hunger Games.

Ok. What do you do well? Well since I am you I know you got a pretty good sense of humor. Look at that. It only took 300 words for you to make a He-Man reference. Aren’t you witty? (Snark snark snark.) But seriously, you have a pretty good sense of humor about you and, for the most part, you take on a challenge head on and don’t buckle in the face of adversity. Those seem like the pretty good qualities for writing about change.

What could I improve on. Well, this paper is over two months late. Kinda missed the ball on that one didn’t you? What would your mother say, seeing you turn in assignments late. Tisk tisk. Other than that blatant and self referential garbage, you could improve on better grammar and the tendency to rely on run on sentences hasn’t quite left.

Did I remember any of the manifestos? You remember, the ones YOU researched in order to have a better understanding of the prompt YOU chose to do? I do remember a manifesto of vitamins that was rather interesting. The others are a backfaded memory at this point. I do remember that reading them was fairly useful though. God, maybe choosing to do this was a bad idea.

Your’s Truly,

Connor Patterson

Post 5: A Change in the Box Office

On July, 28th 2010 it was made public that Guillermo Del Toro (famed director of The Devils Backbone and Pan’s Labyrinth) was finally given a green-light to create his dream project: an adaptation of At the Mountains of Madness by H.P. Lovecraft. The project he had been working to with not only Tom Cruise speculated to star, but the 3D effects were to be seen by none other than James Cameron. It was looking to be a fantastic sci-fi epic to define the decade. However, mere weeks before the initial filming, Universal Studios pulled it, and the project was left dead in the water. The reasoning? Del Toro refused to back down from an R rating. Del Toro wanted to give the most intense experience possible, and the leap from R to PG-13 is drastic and artistically stifling.
This is the story of countless films and productions. Productions being greenlit and pulled because of complications with directors, producers, and various other aspects that make up the Hollywood madhouse. However, in my opinion, one cause appears to be the underlying problem. One problem that cuts at the core of the industry that forces auteurs like Del Toro to have dreams taken away. People need to see more movies.
To fully understand Universal’s reasoning behind this, some history might be required. 2010 Universal Studios was taking big risks in many of there big releases. In February they released a fifty million dollar remake of The Wolfman, which not only featured an all star cast (Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Hugo Weaving, etc.) but relied on the principle Wolfman effects to be done practically rather than CGI. The film was a box office bomb. Their sci-fi action flick Repo Man didn’t do much better. And on top of it all their critically and culturally acclaimed love letter to comic books and video-games Scott Pilgrim vs The World was such a failure at the box office, it barely broke even after massive DVD sales and a thirty-million dollar tax break. Now, if you were a producer or executive working for Universal Studios at the time, would it seem like a good investment to give millions of dollars to make a film based off of obscure 1920’s horror fiction about dimensional squid-gods? Especially one that is so intense that the large teenage filmgoing audience would not be able to see?
Yeah, though the loss of Del Toro’s project was heartbreaking, to both the filmmaker and the fans of his work, one could see how one could rationalize it being too large of risk. And that’s where my key argument lies, all films are in themselves risks. They are art projects that are given millions upon millions of dollars, and while the economic probability of a film doing well is complicated (I recommend Hollywood Economics to those that are interested), we as a film going public ultimately determine what films will do well soley by ticket sales and box office outcomes.
Now two things should be noted before I indulge with the mathematical and financial side of my manifesto. This is not, I repeat NOT, a rant against mainstream blockbusters making more money than independent films. This is a doctrine that means to open ones eyes on how the success of one film at the box office has a ripple effect, and how the movies that do poorly will create ripples that potentially destroy other films. I like me some cheesy schlock just as much as the other guy, my weakness for Nicolas Cage flicks knows no bounds. My philosophy just states by supporting movies you like, more movies that are like them will be produced. I pledge to you, the reader, that if you do not support films of your particular taste that are currently running in theaters today, then you are not only hurting movie makers like Del Toro, but you are allowing for the failures of the Hollywood system to constantly repeat themselves.
In the aftermath of WWII, the film industry suffered a massive crash due to the rising availability of television. Throughout the 50’s and 60’s film became a much less prevalent force in popular culture as the film industry’s attempts at to draw people away from their homes accelerated to epic flops and the government regulations that had been set in place during the conservative 30’s held back filmmakers ability to appeal to the growing counter-culture. Soon independent films and filmmakers began to make up for the lack of counter-culture, and the growing number of art and film schools in the country saw raunchy careers of Rodger Corman and Russ Meyer become icons if not for their ability to make low budget movies targeted at a young adult demographic. For the first time in nearly three decades, the MPAA amended their previous rating system (the Hays Code) for the less restrictive rating system currently used today and the Hollywood studio system were desperate enough to accommodate to the wishes of fresh filmmakers. It was this era in the 1970’s that talent such as Steven Spielberg and Frances Ford Coppola sprang forth and completely dismantled what was left of the decaying system of old, and built upon it’s ashes “New Hollywood.”
“New Hollywood” is a term used to define the time period of 1965-1985 in which filmmakers such as Steven Spielberg, Frances Ford Coppola, and dozens of other filmmakers were making fresh and inventive movies straight out of film school, with a high emphasis on sex, violence, and niche genres like horror and science fiction. And while the movies being made at the time were well made, what made “New Hollywood” such a game changer is that it was the first time in film history where film studios were taking notes from the actions of the filmmakers.
Spielberg not only made a fantastic horror movie with the release of Jaws, but changed the notion of film advertisement and distribution. Jaws was thought to be a quick cash in of a popular novel at the time, however it’s summer release date coupled with television advertisement, allowed to become the highest grossing movie of all time (circa 1975). Coppola’s The Godfather Part 2  was not only a marvelous film in it’s own right, but had completely changed the stigma that was traditionally attached with movie sequels when not only the film was a hit, but well received enough to be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture, let alone that along with best director, writing, and score. And on top of it all, a shy man named George Lucas would not only change the country’s perception of the science fiction genre but would define the century of showing movie studios how to blend niche genre films with enough action and glitz to attract a wider audience, but also showed them how make a movie even more profitable through merchandising through brand recognition. And with the actions of these three men, and the countless other filmmakers at the time, Hollywood changed it’s business practices overnight. The rise of the Hollywood geek would mark the return of the Hollywood studio system, now trained in targeting to niche groups as well as general crowd pleasing. The tactics of the early studio age, now being fought over creative license and creative property ownership.
Now, would it be nice to live in a world without studios? Perhaps, but at the end of the day they are a necessity in making films. Film is an art, and just like any art genre there will be a creator and one who picks up the bill. The only difference being that with film it requires hundreds of checks for the collaborative efforts of directors, cinematographers, lighters, set designers, the countless jobs that make up post production, as well as the actors themselves. It is not a medium that can maintain a business model without the help of outside support. The rise of computer technology through special effects work alone has made the need for studio money a necessity. This company is more worried about breaking even, and if they were to believe that a product would fail then they will try to exert creative control. The way that they judge what will do well is from previous examples, and if a similar movie that was previously released did fail, that would no doubt scare producers into altering if not delaying or ending production on similar movies in the works.
As a fan of cinema in all forms I personally try to see as much movies I am personally interested in, because I not only get to experience the film in a large theater, but give incentive to film studios that the particular film was worth their investment and that other films like it will be financially viable for control to be in the filmmakers hands. Of course there will always be neigh sayers and those who either see the movies through illegal purposes, but to them I remind them that film is an art, and by it’s definition NOT ESSENTIAL. Film is not a vital life necessity, and if one can’t afford to see a $10 movie at the multiplex than a adjustments at ones priorities is going to have to be made.
For any reader that uses this personal excuse, it is a terrible one that hinders the industry. I am aware that piracy can be a lesser of two evils in some cases, especially to those living in foreign countries that either have outlandish trade policies or countries that ban art altogether, but for the majority of “hackers” and “pirates” you are doing a disservice to filmmakers to expect to gain entertainment without a price. Modern movie prices are more than reasonable enough for the average American individual and those who pirate because it DVD prices are too expensive, are still acting like petulant children when there are countless means to see movies such as online video streaming services such as Netflix or the simple act of renting the film from a store.
Just like any other industry, the film industry is one that counts on money. And if we don’t see movies, than the industry reacts to this accordingly. Not just by taking into account what movies might not be popular, but by outright going back on previous arrangements to make up for lost money. Acclaimed author Paul Rogat Loeb once wrote, “We work for justice, I’ve come to believe, when our hearts are stirred by specific lives and situations,” and it is this mindset that I take into account every time I see a movie. I see movies not only because I want to see a visually dynamic story for an hour and a half, but because I want directly support the filmmakers responsible.
Nearly one year ago, on March 1st, 2012, Andrew Stanton (Director of critically acclaimed PIXAR films such as Finding Nemo and WALL-E) made his live action debut with the release of John Carter, a big budget adaptation of The Princess of Mars (first in the Barsoom science fiction series written by Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1917). The film was set to be the first of a trilogy, marking both the first time that Pixar studios would be involved with live action filming, and the first time this series (of which nearly all science fiction stems from) would be adapted. However the film was a failure. A colossal one. A film costing over $250 million with returns only making a quarter of that. The production was such a failure that it is widely believed that Rich Ross, chairman of Walt Disney Studios at the time, stepped down from his position directly because of the films poor reception.
Now of course the failure of this film can be accounted for many reasons, including poor marketing and the adaptation of a story which is nearly a century old. But at the end of the day, John Carter will be remembered as a movie that was bad simply on the notions that it did terrible at the box office. Paradoxically a movie that no one sees will be thought of more poorly than the trashiest blockbuster or the most tripe melodrama. Our money matters, and whether your interest in cinema be action, romance, or western, it is important to know that each film deeply effects the other. The “New Hollywood” films of the 1970’s showed that one film could completely change the world. What the future of film holds is unpredictable, but there will be no future at all if the filmgoing public does not care enough to support the art. Statistics shown by the Motion Picture Association of America show that the last decade (containing some of the highest grossing movies of all time) has been a declining market for the film industry, dropping nearly 5%.
The future of this medium rests in our hands people. Not the filmmakers, not the studios. Films get made because the movie going public watches. Without us there is no industry. We shape it. If you don’t like one genre, don’t see it because it is a vote for more of it. If you want to, it is your duty to support it. Few changes occur because of looking at grey areas and in the case of filmmaking there is only the act of buying a ticket and changing the industry or sitting at home and letting it stagnate.

Post 4: A Review of I Am and Creative Nonfiction, Diversity Dialogues.

The whole process actually came from watching the film I Am….. or rather a various readings from the textbook Creative Nonfiction, Diversity Dialogues in addition to the film I Am. I feel like I should explain. When I chose to write a blog about self, I was given friendly advice from a colleague to read passages from Creative Nonfiction, Diversity Dialogues along with watching the film I Am, directed by CAS. Being the good samaritan that I am, I took my academic friend’s opinion very well and chose to comply to these instructions. Almost as if I was in a class….
I digress. The first of these works, Creative Nonfiction, Diversity Dialogues was fairly effective in teaching me various writing techniques to write creative nonfiction. I wasn’t a fan of all the stories themselves (in fact several were a chore to even get through), but I can not deny that they did have a good variety to them which made me at least continuously engaged in the book.

In retrospect I remember very little of them. The initial readings were quite good. “The Brown Study” by Richard Rodriguez was an interesting look at genealogy and how ones heritage defines oneself. “Snapshots in Black and White” by Sarah McCallum on the other hand were rather boring and lifeless. Some played more like short stories, some played like autobiographies, and some had a nice mix of the two. However, at the end of the day, I would not reccomend the book. I’m sure there are better collections then this out there, and by the end of my “journey to find self” I abandoned the book altogether.

The other source she had me look at was a film called I Am, directed by Tom Shadyac of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective fame. I couldn’t be more exited. As a big fan of his work, my mind boggled at the notions of what might come. However, one and a half hours later I sat there staring at the screen trying to comprehend the mess I had just witnessed.To say I hated the film would be an understatement.

I not only hated this film, I loathed it. Loathed every self-righteous, pretentious, intellectually devoid hour and a half I had ever witnessed. Film, which intends to show the “horrors” of the excessiveness of modern culture, is a true and utter mess. They portray the upperclass along the same lines as what President Bush is to a Micheal Moore documentary, constantly spouting how the more we own, the less happy we are. Which would be fine, there is a discussion to be found there. But unlike most documentaries, I Am is not only one that does not attempt to humanize the opposing side (which some documentaries can get a way with), but goes so far as to never include any factual evidence.

The closest thing we get are statements from him saying several statements of a personal change in philosophy he went through after a serious injury, which is fine, but there is nothing else there. He gets many supposed “experts” whose job titles are rarely explained, who seem to only speak fluent in Halmark Greeting Cards.

What stuck in my craw most about this film, (SPOILERS) about an hour into the film the try to tie the problems with modern day society with stating how chimps and various other monkey’s have evolved to care for eachother, and we should try to get back to those basic needs. Now, other than completely ignoring Darwin’s very harsh notions of “survival of the fittest” and notions how lesser specimens of a species will only dilute the gene pool, what gets me is that Shadyac goes so far as to portray a view on chimps and animals in general in terms that a Disney animator would roll their eyes.

The film is a complete mess and as I sat there boiling in that anger that only a terrible movie can get me to, I came to a realization. I would challenge myself to do what Shadyac did, but better. I would write a paper on creating change in a societal aspect I feel needs improvement. How hard could it be?