The Adaptation Swing

Well, well, well...I'm back again! Really sorry to anyone who might actually look forward to when I write a blog, but I've worked about 20 out of the last 23 days at my "regular" job...don't those suck? But I guess if it weren't for that job I couldn't have this computer, or a gym membership, or go to the movies...or eat and have shelter for that matter...so I guess it doesn't suck that bad afterall!

Anyhow, I'm back for another round of blogging and thought I would discuss a little bit about adaptations, since I just went and saw what is bound to be the year's biggest adaptation if not biggest film period: The DaVinci Code. But as a backdrop I think I'll use a movie that many of you may not even realize was an adaptation to highlight what I call, "the adaptation swing," and how it came strangely into play with TDC.

So let's start with my hypothesis: the adaptation swing is not simply a tool to make boring books into exciting movies...however that is a big part, but on a deeper level it is a filter that puts books fully in line with the politics of Hollywood or its intended audience (Which Hollywood is discovering is not always the same thing).

The book I'll be using as a counterwieght to TDC is a little Sci-fi flick you may have heard of called Starship Troopers, directed by Paul Veerhoven and starring Casper "where-did-my-promising-career-go" Van Dien, the hilarious Neil Patrick Harris (not hilarious in this movie but in Harold and Kumar and on TV), and Denise Richards (whom I would marry tomorrow...if you somehow read this Denise...you may take that as a proposal...there...I said it!) The reason I use this film is becasue it fits perfectly into the normal procedure for the Hollywood Adaption Swing. Way back in 1959, Robert Heinlein, a former Naval Officer wrote Starship Troopers as a reaction to anti-military sentiment, a view of future warfare, and a slap in the face to communism. The book was very controversial because it depicted a society where a person had to earn their "citezenship," the right to vote or hold office. The other members of the society still had rights and could have business and own property, etcetera, but they could not vote. This part is somewhat the same in the film, but what really changes is how Veerhoven as opposed to Heinlein portrays the military. Now I grew up in a military family (my grandfather went to VMI, my real dad and my step dad were both West Point Graduates) and I empthize deeply with Heinlein's point of view on the military, one which Veerhoven conveniently ignores, twists, and distorts. In Heinlein's Mobile Infantry, and in the real life Military, everyone from the top down cares deeply that soldiers survive, this is not to say that they are not put in danger...they are, but every measure is taken to make them as well protected and able to carry out their mission as possible. There are examples in real history: In WWI and even in some parts of WWII, the militaries of the world charged across fields, made trenches, and died by the thousands at a time causing generals and politicians alike to finally realize something...old strategies were not working against new weapons. So in the late 50's, early 60's a new tactic for the military was initiated by of all people, a Democrat, John F. Kennedy; this initiative was Special Forces, using technology and less man power to accomplish the same things that entire brigades did in previous centuries and to train insurgents to fight against their own oppressive regimes. In fact, there is a measurable difference in the number of men it now takes to control a square mile in 1918, to how many it takes now. It is predicted with the new Soldier of the future equipment now being created by the US Army, that soon, one infantry man will be able to conrol one Square mile, in Heinlein's future one soldier can patrol hundreds of miles. All this is an effort to waste less lives and make the military more effiecient, and despite what we see on the news and what we hear about Vietnam, this is working, the lives lost in Vietnam by American Soldiers were less compared to WWII, and the lives lost in Iraq now are less compared to Vietnam, this is not to mean that losing any lives is a good thing (nor does Heinlein make that seem to be) but as technology is advancing and we learn to harness it, war for Americans is overall becoming a more effiecient enterprise. Yet this is not what we see depicted in Veerhoven's future...here the soldiers walk around in unprotected groups with no air support and get chewed to pieces with sub satisfactory weapons, the army wears Nazi style uniforms and tricks people into signing up and doesn't care if they die or not. Why did he change it to be this way? Well, the overall view of the military in Hollywood's politics has been generally negative over the past 15 years and has also held a view of America as being overly imperialistic...in Heinlein's time though, there was a very real threat of spreading communism, and if you don't think that was that bad, you haven't read very much uncensored Soviet History, after you do you may wonder how valuable freedom really is and what cost its worth to keep it...Stalin and Zedong my be two of the most evil men in all of history but you rarely ever hear about it, Vietnam was an awful tragedy but it did accomplish one thing, it told the communists that there was someone who was not going to roll over for them and let them spread across the world. But for Veerhoven, the idea was to show that soldiers could be brave, but the military as a whole is foolhardy, wasteful and needlessly cruel for apparently no good reason.

But now I move on to the DaVinci Code where I saw an Adaptation that swung in a completely opposite direction. Dan Brown's novel pulled no punches in its attack on the Catholic Church and Christian belief in general, the movie however made several moves to soften its message for potentially Christian viewers, I think this shows incredible business sense on the part of Hollywood. Ever since the Omega Code, The Passion of the Christ, and the last two elections, the big heads in Hollywood have realized that the majority of Americans are not card carrying members of the ACLU, they're actually consevatives, agree with them or not. So anyway, I was very surprised that the Robert Langdon character was not so sure of himself and whether or not he actually believed in Jesus' divinity, there's even a part where Langdon explains that there was a time in his life that he prayed to Jesus and felt his presence (this was the creation of Langdon's claustrophobia, a characteristic also not found in the book). In fact, instead of being Leigh Teabing's lapdog as in the novel, Langdon and Teabing argue intensely about topics as opposed to always being in agreement. Additionally the film made the smart move to either downplay many of Brown's absolutely retarded "facts" or at least portray them as merely ideas. This probably not being so much of a filter or swing as being a necessity to not insult any members of the audience with half a clue about actual history.

But to get to the point, whenever a book comes to the screen it will not come through unmolested. Even The Lord of the Rings, one of the most faithful adaptations in spirit to come along in a long time had huge parts altered or removed entirely just to fit the films into a 7-9 hour (!) span.

Oh, and my thoughts on DaVinci Code as a film...not bad at all, Tom Hanks and Paul Bettany do a great job, it was a little long but not nearly as bad as those snobs over at Cannes would lead you to believe, check it out, just make sure and read some real history books afterwards so you don't play Jeopardy or Trivial pursuit with friends later and make a damn fool of yourself!

The Best Movie So Far This Year

After last week when I watched that movie (read the blog below to find out what that steaming pile was because it doesn't deserve to get mentioned in the same blog as this movie)I was despairing of my film fandom, but last night, my faith in movies as meaningful art and mediums of thought was restored.

I will admit, I was a little nervous going to see United 93, not becasue I was afraid it would be bad (it was written and directed by Paul Greengrass who did the Bourne Supremecy, in itself a great film) but because I was afraid of the emotions it would stir within me. But after watching it last night I have to say that I'm glad I went. Its already been five years since the tragedy of 9/11, but it seems like I, and us as a society I guess, have begun to forget exactly what happened and what we felt that day. United 93 brings it all back with fury, my stomach was clenched and my throat had a lump in it throughout the entire film.

If it were total fiction, right now I would be singing Greengrass' praises for creating the most moving and suspensful film of the year, but what really hits home is that as much as we can tell from the evidence this is what really happened to those people and to our country that September day. It hurt to watch it, almost like our nation was losing a last piece of its naive innocence. Greengrass, who admirably makes no political or religous statement in the film, perfectly and unflinchingly allows us to be bystanders to this horrific event, we observe it and make our own conlusions, they aren't provided for us. We watch as the air traffic controllers and the military can't believe that a hijacking took place at all, and the shock and horror on their faces when they see the second plane strike the southern tower mirrored the same sick feeling I had when I first saw it myself. We are disturbed when we see how unprepared we were for such an attack, but we are also sympathetic to the fact that no one had ever even imagined such a scenario. When the first fighter jets are scrambled they instinctively head out to sea instead of to where the hijacked planes are flying...why? Becasue it had been drilled into their heads that the threat would come from abroad to our borders, not from within our bounderies with our own planes, and we are further frustrated when we see that the military and civillian institutions were not able to communicate accurately and readily with each other, it was panic and chaos on the ground, but even more harrowing is the story of the passengers and terrorists onboard United 93.

Nothing is told to us concerning either group, they are both just sets of people on any other day as far as we can tell...they are given no back story, not made to be any more evil or heroic than their actions over the next 90 minutes will indict or elevate them. That is a master stroke on Greegrass' part, this is the most real documentarty reenactment ever made. It is here, on the plane that the film did most of its work within me, I questioned whether or not I would have the courage to do what the passengers did that day, would I have been a coward? Would I have called my family and said goodbye? Would I have been angry...sad...would I have been a hero? This film reminded me that the world is bigger than my stories and characters, than our films at twentyone, or our jobs, or our website and blogs, but yet we are still a part of it, and even just regular people like us can impact all of history if we are willing to be courageous and level headed in the face of crisis. Which brings me to the terrorists, they are portrayed as human, which they should be, they are not coldy diabolical, not robotically evil, at least they don't see themselves as evil. They believe that they are the heroes of this tale, they are nervous, frightened, and they miss their families as well...but there is a difference between the terrorists and the passengers that is so obvious that you'll miss it if you don't stop to think. The terrorists and the passengers are both brave, both determined, and in then end both willing to fight to achieve their ends, but the passengers are fighting to preserve life, the terrorists to take it. At the end of the film there is a powerful scene where both the passengers and the terrorists pray to God...the terrorists praying for success in their mission of death, the passengers pray for their lives.

So I guess I should conclude with my thoughts on the world and myself as I see them through the filter of this movie. I question myself, my motives and my goals in this life and I wonder if I will ever be put in a situation where I must decide in a split second whether or not I'm willing to sacrifice my life for the greater good, I hope that I dont have to, but I also hope that in my small decisions that I make every day that I act as honorobly as I can. But it also makes me wonder about the world...war is such a terrible thing, its evil and destructive and hurts all parties involved, and I understand people who just want us to pull out of Iraq and criticize the president for sending our young men to die there or anywhere else in the world for that matter. But what does a good person or good nation do in a world where there are people mad enough to do what was done on 9/11? Does a good man simply bow his head and feel misery for the evil in the world? Does he defend himself time and time again? Does he attack? I don't know the answers to those questions all the time, but if its any answer I think that those men and those flight attendants on United 93 did the right thing, and they were heroes that day, we can learn from them.

One last thing...I hear Oliver Stone is doing a 9/11 movie...I hope he can take a lesson from Greengrass...Let people make up their own minds about what happened that day or who's to blame, don't be a Michael Moore and use a terrible tragedy to push your own agenda and make a profit. I swear to God, I know its hard sometimes to tell what's right and what's wrong, and I know that everyone has their own political viewpoints that think are important, and I'm sure that they are, but to use a day like 9/11 so close to its pain for anything but modest reflection, honoring the dead, and solemn soul searching (my hat is off to you Paul Greengrass) is wrong right now, save the prosecutions and theories for the lawmakers and officials for the moment, save your preaching for works of fiction or other histories for the time being, let the victims and heroes and families of 9/11 be honored for their generation, please! Leave the conspiracy theories for the next set of Moores and Stones, okay?

Back With a Vengance!

Sorry for the long delay folks, (as though I know whether or not I have any readers), but after a couple weeks of not having anything to blog about in particular I've unfortunatly stumbled upon a sharp rock along my path of film lover bliss...and that jagged stone was Silent Hill...and I must say...I am pissed!

Now before I dive deeper into the misery and anguish that was the two hours I sat through this debacle, let me preface with this: Dave, Russell and I LOVE movies! I mean, movies that most other people don't have the time to sit through, aren't willing to think seriously enough about, or even don't require any thought at all, we are there for all of them, and we generally appreciate them (Russell even sat through all of Brown Bunny and found some things he liked about it...I didn't, but Russell did and that should count for me and Dave too, right?) Some of our buddies lament our movie choices when we're bummin on a friday night instead of going out because you never know what we'll pick, and we usually find something to like about every movie. We nearly always can seek out some point of the film we relate to, or something we recognize the filmmaker was trying to do, or find ourselves transforming our attitudes into those of the film's intended audience. All that to say this: You now understand how bad a movie must be for me to find the level of disgust I had with Silent Hill. Yet to be fair, throughout my forthcoming diatribe I will try and intersperse some polite comments about the artists involved. There...I said it...

Anyway, back to my misery. Silent Hill was the first big film I was looking forward to in the 2006 movie season, and man, the trailer was kick ass and spookie, I thought I was going to be scared out of my mind at this thing, my buddy Dave bought our tickets early on Fandango and our pal Trey even saved us prime center seats...all to find out that...I have never been so wrong about a movie in my entire life! Lets start with the plot...okay, I'm trying to remember a solid story arc running through this thing...uhhh...oh yeah, a little girl sleep walks and talks about a town called Silent Hill that burned down because of a supposed coal fire, but really it was fanatic pentacostals roasting chestnuts and children over an open fire in a hidden hotel room downtown (but more on that later). So anyway, it turns out the kid is adopted and really is somehow from Silent Hill in 1974, but she's still a kid and not really the same girl from Silent Hill but all that kids goodness stored up in a cute little package by the devil...who looks like the little girl. Yes, it is as confusing as that when you watch it. So anyway, the mom loves her little girl enough to chase her down into Silent Hill which every so often goes into Psycho mode and she gets chased around with the only other normal character in the town, a cop, who WILL remind you of Police Academy, I promise. Anyway, the story just doesn't make any sense, characters pop up out of nowhere and then dissapear again with little or no explanation, bad guys are bad just because, and apparently the devil is the good guy...or something.

Okay, so lets get down to the meat and potatoes of my rage. Here you have a talented director (Christophe Gans) who directed a good movie once called Le Pacte de Loups (The Brotherhood of the Wolf). That movie had all kinds of good stuff, witty dialogue, cool action, hot girls, and GREAT cinematography from Dan Lausten (who provides Silent Hill with its only bright spot, his excellent lighting and camera work). So what happened here? I think Gans forgot one of the most important rules of Horror films, and that is that Gore does not necessarily translate into scares. And there is plenty of gore to go around in this flick, in fact the film's finally just made my stomach churn and caused me to want to get up and walk out of the theater...but no...like an idiot I just sat there praying for the film to end. Take a night and go back and watch some of the great Horror flicks...Holloween, Friday the Thirteenth, the Exorcist, etc. Is there gore in these movies? Yes...but its the suspense and concern for the characters that keeps you on the edge of your seat, the gore is just a little pay off to get you to flinch and be even more worried about the other character's fates. But that's the problem here, there's not suspense and you don't give a damn about any of the characters...why? Because they don't seem like real people. That's where I come to Roger Avary, the writer. Now Avary has writing credentials I can only wish I had, and maybe I don't have the right to critique him becasue I'm not there yet, but I've got to be honest, I've never heard such terrible dialogue in a movie, people in the theater were laughing out loud...seriously...and not at funny lines either. Okay...here's an example. The cop and the mom and some weird chick they pick up along the way are digging around in the towns Old Hotel about an hour into the movie after they've already talked about how terrible the fires were and the deaths, and the freaky demon who chases them around with bugs and a huge sword (no explanation mind you, that's just what happens) when the cop states after looking around for a bit that "it looks like there was a fire." OH MY GOD!! The dialogue was so on the nose and in your face that as I said before, people were laughing. That made me a little sad becasue they were laughing at Radha Mitchell (Pitch Black) and Sean Bean (insert one of the many AWESOME Sean Bean movies here). These are two good actors, I would even go so far as to call Sean Bean a GREAT actor. The only actor in the film I won't stick up for is Laurie Holden (who plays the cop), she is indeed a hottie, but just gives a completely turgid performance with absolutely no life whatsoever, but I blame half of that on the script and the other half on the directing (so maybe I'll stick up for her after all).

I guess the point is this, they spent millions of dollars making this movie with big stars and a big director, and it all came down to the story and the writing. In a genre like horror, people will forgive alot if you can hold them in suspense or make them jump. Take Stay Alive for example, it was made for less than 10 mil, didn't have great acting or great sets, no big names attached, and almost no gore whatsoever, but you know what? I was interested in the main character and what happened to him, and the scary scenes actually made me jump! It was worth the price of admission...Silent Hill wasn't worth the price of the paper my ticket was printed on...period. So for all us Indies out there, we need to remember, whether its horror, thriller, drama, or sci-fi, its not always the bucks or names attached to your project that make it quality...its the story and the storytelling. and I suppose I should be thankful that I was reminded of that by Silent Hill.

Oh!! And one last thing! I know Gans is from France where they aren't big fans of religion of any kind...but is anyone else tired of all the film negativity toward some religions? It was a lesser theme in Brotherhood, in that movie all the bishops and what not were evil...just because I guess, and Mani the spiritual Indian guy is chided by the main character (a naturalist of course) to "cut it out" when he gets spiritual. In Silent Hill though, Gans goes a step further...to making the Devil the good guy. Yes folks, thats right, the church people are psycho evil and burn children over an open fire because they don't know who the dad is (that is actually the only reason for the cook out given in the movie) and the devil, who has taken on a sudden interest in justice, makes sure they get paid back for it. So much so that the Alice Krieg character is wrapped by the ankles in barbed wire, and while praying to remain pure has more barbed wire shoved up her you know what and then gets ripped in half and the Devil (who looks like a little girl) dances under her blood as it rains down. I think this was supposed to be a stand up and cheer moment...GIVE ME A BREAK!! I almost got sick...So I guess the moral of the story is...Silent Hill is a POS, so don't go see it...yeah, I'll try and talk about something more positive next time...like how paying my taxes went or something.

A Tip for the Little Guys: Beef Up with Internet Supplements!

For the past few years, at least 3 or 4 times a week I've been hitting the gym and throwing up some weights. Now any one who knows me can tell you that I'm not exactly a beefcake, and WWE hasn't tried to recruit me for a pay-per-view throwdown...yet:-) But when I look at pictures of myself in high school and pictures now...there's no comparison, I fit better in my clothes, I'm more self confident, and I feel better physically (even when I'm sore!) But I didn't get bigger muscles over night and for the longest time it felt like no matter how much stronger I became, I was still really skinny (I mean...like bean pole thin...and for those who don't know what a bean pole really looks like, imagine a straightened out hanger standing on its end...yeah).

Anyway, sometimes it can really feel like that on the independant film scene, or the unpublished writer scene, or whatever other artistic endevour those of us out there are trying to break into as a career. It seems like no matter how much more talented we get, no matter how finely we tune our skills and hone our abilities we never seem to get further.

Well, let me take you back to my early attempts at weight training. Before I got really serious into weights, my best sports were boxing and wrestling, I also enjoyed running and callistenics, these sports, though requiring great amounts of time, effort, and skill, had no real emphasis on size or appearance (in fact, it was better to stay lighter in many cases). So even though I carried over a good work ethic and the self discipline to apply myself, I still didn't understand one of the basic conccepts of resistance training for size and shape: nutrition. Specifically that as a skinny kid with a high metabolism I had to eat alot, and not just a lot of anything, but a ton of protein. After finally learning this valuable lesson from some ginormous dudes curling my body weight in dumbells who claimed to have once been in my shoes I decided that in addition to working hard at the gym I would work hard away from the gym too, disciplining myself to eat more protein more often...and wouldn't you believe it...it worked! I started putting on pounds in a hurry and before long my entire physique changed...it was great!

I think the same is true for us "skinny guys" in the art industry...we work hard to make ourselves better at what we do: Dave and Russell have been great about researching the business of movies on the internet and through countless books, Russ is constantly reading books on directing and listenting to the greats in podcasts, commentaries, and featurettes, I keep writing and never stop finding books on technique and substance, and the technology we use improves by leaps and bounds each year. I've even picked up a new hobby, photography, because I think it will help me better understand form and visuals and make me a better and more knowledgable team member. So we keep getting better at what we do, and like us, you are probably just as disciplined and aggressive with whatever it is you are pursuing...but there's a poblem, we're busting our butts but we still aren't getting the attention and growth we're looking for, we need a supplement, a boost that will give us results: we need the internet!

I have to admit, I was about as ignorant on the internet when I signed on with Twenty One as I was with protein when I first started lifting, and while I'm still not an internet pro (and still haven't transformed my mortal body into the sculpted image of a greek god...yet) I've started to see the power of the internet for small companies that don't have huge budgets. In fact, if you're reading this right now, you're doing something that never would have happened without the internet...you're reading my words, and for a young writer, that makes me feel like a million bucks!

With minimal cost we've been able to create a place where we can let people see our creations, read our ideas, share in our successes and frustrations, buy our gear, and get to know who we are. Most recently, we've added two new internet features to our site: a podcast and a forum, so that you can actually meet us, and we can actually meet you! Who knows how we might be able to inspire and cheer each other on to doing bigger and better things? But the biggest thing to remember is this, when we all took our first step toward becoming filmmakers or writers or artists or whatever, we had to sit down and do it, and getting your work on the internet is no different. Even if you aren't the most tech savvy person of all time and for you using email seems as complicated as calculating the max air velocity of an African Swallow, I garauntee you've got some buddies or family that can give you a lesson or two, or maybe even help you get started.

This web site's been up for a few years now, mostly due to Russell's hard work, but also thanks to some of our friends like Justin Durban out in LA, and let me tell you from experience, if it weren't for the site, nobody would even know we existed! And maybe we aren't where we'd like to be yet, but I can't explain to you how cool it is to know that other people from other places see what we're doing...and like it! Its like an added boost of energy that keeps us striving to make better and better stuff. So don't waste any more time with me...get you're own web site up and running, get your own blog going, drop me a comment to let me know where you are on the web so I can check it out...don't wait for success to come and find you, you have to get out there and find it for yourself and the internet is my far and away the best way to start looking.

Brown vs. Crichton and the value of "Faction"

I don't know about you, but I really enjoy reading fiction that challenges my views on reality, the same could be said for movies or music I suppose. In fact, most great fiction, whether it be in literature or film, is explicitly concerned with explaining or developing thoughts and ideas about the real world and humanity. Now, we would never claim that these great novels or films, like The Brothers Karamazov or Citizen Kane were true stories, but that doesn't mean that they didn't contain some "truths" or ideas that could be useful or true about real life.

But times are changing, and enter now the new hot item on our book shelves and soon to be in our movie theaters: Faction. I think thats a good word for it, bookstores are filled to the brim these days with works of fiction that are supposedly based on factual information. This is not an entirely new subgenre, Its at least partially related to historical fiction, which places fictional characters in actual historical events, can be very entertaining. But much of this new work has a different intent than to make history more alive and human, it wants to change our minds about certain beliefs and opinions; to open our thoughts to the possibility that certain "facts" we now possess may be untrue and supplant them with "the real truth." Two great examples of this are Michael Crichton's State of Fear, and Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code.

SPOILER WARNING: Go no further if you don't want to know what happens in these books!

State of Fear is the fast paced thriller we Crichton fans love, stuffed full of technical jargon and cool technology that Crichton always throws in his work, like the genetically engineered dinosaurs in Jurrasic Park, the sign laguage capable apes in Congo, and the out of control nano technology in Prey. But there's something new in this thriller. Crichton has included a vast array of information about global warming and in the midst of his chases and shootouts makes a very bold statement about his beliefs on the topic, he even goes so far as to conclude his novel with a personal note on what should be done about it.

The Da Vinci Code has fast become one of the best selling books of all time and in the same span has grown into one of the most controversial books in all of popular literature. Infusing exciting chases and very cool puzzle solving mysteries with his hypothesis on the truth about Jesus and the Catholic Chuch, Brown created a sure fire hit and a firestorm of debate. At the outset of his story he claims that much of what is written in the following pages is factual.

So here we have two novelists, best sellers, men at the top of their game with huge fan bases, but more than that we have a problem: we are used to accepting what they write instantly because it is fiction, we wonder about the ideas they present but only abstractly, exptrapolating their points and applying them to reality, but now we are confronted with two books that claim to actually be based in truth and we are left with this quandry: How do we seperate the fact from the fiction? How much do these guys actually know about their topics? Is what they say is true...really true?

Let me start with this, as a writer I can assure you that any responsible author, writing fiction or especially if writing non fiction, will have read and studied a great deal on their subject even if just to make sure that their work "feels legitimate." Whether or not they choose to use the facts or knowledge that they gain properly, or whether or not to embellish them in fiction usually isn't a problem because its...well...fiction. But now these two authors are making a greater claim, that their facts are indeed real and that something needs to be done becasue of the truth they've revealed to us. In this respect, Crichton has succeeded where Brown has not in that he has provided his readers with a tool that allows them to clearly see where he is inserting his own research and where he is simply writing his story. This tool is called Notation, and it is Brown's failure to use this elementary device that landed him in a recent lawsuit.

Crichton's claim is that Global Warming may be an invention of the media and scientific community for their own gain, the media needed a story to continue to keep viewers glued to their sets after the end of the cold war and scientists needed something to keep them busy and keep rich folk funding their lives. Ouch! Bold claims in a world that has all but accepted Global Warming as fact, and if Crichton had left it at that, I'm sure we would probably just write him off as being overly critical, but he keeps hitting us with that damned notation and even goes so far as to include actual temperature measurements from across the world over the past several years and goes on to use the evidence to make his own claims about natural phenomena: That deforestization and the earth's own cycles are the cause and not global warming, which he insists, (this time without notation) is around to push a liberal agenda. He goes so far in this aspect to have a Patagonia sporting, leftist, Hollywoodite insist that natives living in undeveloped countries are better citizens of earth than those of us who wastefully live in develped cities...the natives then eat said actor in a canabalistic rite...(okay, I laughed my head off becasue I thought it was pretty hilarious, I'm sure it pissed off a lot of actors who really aren't so stupid or self absorbed, but man, it was funny) So any way, Crichton presents his ideas and the literary community and the rest of us pass off an exciting novel that has actual documention in it without much thought, except for a spiteful review in Popular Science that claims that Crichton's work was anti-science.

Now we have the Da Vinci Code, an exciting tale of suspense and intrigue in the vein of Indian Jones. There are cool Anagrams, secret messages written in art (or worse) and vast conspiracies that cover up centuries of real truth with orthodox falsehoods. In truth, this novel is a real page turner, and Brown does a great job of keeping you on the edge of your seat, but he also presents us with a problem, he never divides his fact from fiction. He makes astronomically large claims: Jesus was married to Mary Magdelane, they had children, the early church made up stuff about Jesus to gain power and at the same time stifled the outgrowth of the original teachings and stamped out the peaceful religion of the "sacred feminine," not too mention has a whole slew of battle ready monks and priests ready to take names and kick some ass in the name of the Pope. (Of course, if that were true I think more people my age would be becoming Catholic and hoping to get let into the Special Forces Catechism classes so we could take it to the streets!) So how do we know if what Brown is saying is true or not? Well, we don't, so we have to look it up ourselves, which I don't guess very many people have, because unfortunately, unlike Crichton's charts in State of Fear, the reality behind Brown's work is a little dull. I'm sure most of you have seen that Brown was in a court case involving the authors of a book called Holy Blood, Holy Grail. This work, written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln was an historical hypothesis presented in 1982 based on the claims of Frenchmen Pierre Plantard and also makes many of the same claims as the Code does (the law suit is for plagiarism) But do yourself a favor, and just type in the book (Holy Blood, Holy Grail) and the man (Pierre Plantard) into an online encyclopedia (I like Wikipedia.) HB, HG was denounced by mainstream historians as inaccurate and even one of the books own authors deep sixed it as not having much to do with any proveable history, just an idea, and P. Plantard turned out to be one of the biggest cons and frauds in French history (He even claimed in the 1960's that he was the true King of France...take that Chirac!) Anyway, maybe that's why Brown didn't include any notation, becasue even a brief online encyclopedia search nearly debunks his entire claim.

So in the end, if an author is going to make a claim that his/her fiction is based in truth, I think they should go the Michael Crichton route and include notation, but even if they don't, (I mean, in a film its sort of impossible unless the filmmakers encourage you to do dig into some particular works) we as readers or film goers should be responisble enough to at least do a little bit of research before believing the claims presented in entertainment.

So until next time, I guess I'll leave you with my G.I. Joe lesson for the day: Gee, Duke, State of Fear was really a great book! That's right Scarlett, keep reading these challenging books, and thinking about their ideas, just don't buy into them without careful thought and study! GOOOO JOOOEEE!!

"V" For Very Thought Provoking

"Right is laid aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by tranferring it to another...and when a man hath in either manner abondoned or granted away his right, then he said to be obliged or bound, not to hinder those to whom such right is granted...that he ought and it is his duty, not to make void that voluntary act of his own: and that such hinderance is injustice."

Thomas Hobbes, from "Leviathan"

WARNING: Spolier Alert for V for Vendetta

Well, I just got back from watching V for Vendetta, and I have to say that those Wachowski brothers sure know how to get inside your head. I think a film is a successful film if it can accomplish at least one of two things: a) simply entertain and engross me for a couple of hours; or b) really make me think about the world I live in and my part in it. By these standards V succeeds, whether or not I agree with the film's point (or even if I've actually grasped the Wachowski's true intentions) I will discuss shortly, but first a short review of the movie itself.

First of all, it looks great, I mean, what do you expect from the guys who brought us the Matrix trilogy? Every set is perfect and I believe that the lighting and effects achieved their intended purpose (which I will discuss shortly), but anyway, the parts that are supposed to look like real life do, and the parts that look like a comic book are really cool. If you're a big fan of Equilibrium (as I am) you might be able to draw some comparisons, and while not as frequent or full tilt, V's knife fighting scenes are every bit as kick ass as Preston's Gun Kata and sword fighting. Of course, much of the film is dialogue and idea, again, what would you expect from the guys who brought you the Matrix trilogy? But that gives us an opportunity to see Natalie Portman give an outstanding performance and get an earful of Hugo Weaving's velvet thick vocal quality and control. Several other characters give helpful performances, but the curious and earnest police detective, an actor I was unfamiliar with, does probably the best supporting job. So overall, looks, acting, sound, music, entertainment, any and all technical aspects are pulled off with the precision you expect from a major production and from artists such as the Wachowskis, but its the ideas that they present that give me some trouble with the film (except for when V manages to crawl all the way back down a tunnel after being shot like, 50 times to die in Natalie Portman's arms...pleeeeaaassse).

In America, we love the underdog and we love Rebels, and why shouldn't we? I mean, literally we're a country of rebels: we overthrew the Brits to secure our freedom, we saw the African American community rebel against white suprememcy, hell...we even invented Rock n' Roll, the most rebellious musical art form since...well, Rock n' Roll. It only stands to reason that this drive and love for the fight against opression should be ingrained in our art: See Star Wars if you want a perfect example, the heroes are all rebels or freedom fighters, they won't tolerate opression and they stand up for liberty even if it costs them their lives. That's what America was built on and I think it is 100 percent important that our art, music, and lives reflect that, so that we don't forget the cost of liberty. But here's the catch: all of that art (if we take movies for example, Star Wars, Equilibrium, vigilante movies like Batman, X-Men, etc) that demonstrates these THEMES, are completely fictional, they present an idea that we as clear thinking adults can incorporate in some way into the vastly more complex real world...but this is where I think the Wachowskis may have gone too far. Instead of leaving their dystopian future in a fictional realm from whence we can extrapolate its ideas and lessons, they explicitly connect it with the real world and real events that occuring in our present age, and that creates some issues for me, logically speaking.

I should probably go ahead and give the disclaimer that I don't know what the Wachowski's were intending to say (if anything) with this film. After all, they used a ton of religious and philisophical undertones in the Matrix, but those were mostly tools to tell a gripping story, and maybe that's what's going on here, but I just got this feeling that they had a message hidden in there, and I'm not sure if I think it is a reasonable one.

First of all, V is not a vigalante, he is a terrorist, or freedom fighter, depending on your perspective, at one point he walks into a newsroom with a bomb strapped to his chest so that he can give a desperate message of freedom, or propoganda, to the people of Britain: Who, it should be pointed out, have access to no other information but that which their government provides them. Insert here: Standard Nazi symbolism, Right Wing religious dictator who only yells when he talks and has really bad teeth, sleezy propogandist, and shadowy SS-like leader. Anyway, I got this really queasy felling in my stomach when V did that, and of course later when he actually says to Natalie Portman that blowing up a building can be good for the world, and of course in the climactic finish to the movie makes good on his word.

So here we have a terrorist, blowing up buildings, sending out video messages, and brainwashing his followers (a truly disturbing montage of scenes and Natalie Portman's finest moments in the film). Is this the right hero for our time? Well, what is he up against? What has driven him to these desperate acts? Well, good reasons, I suppose, the government he lives under attacks its own people with chemical agents, forces one religion on them, has secret police that take advantage of innocents and black bag them, dragging them away to internment camps, kills a newscaster that performs an antigovernment skit on TV, performs experiments on its own citizens, and generally suppresses the populace in every way it can.

So here's where I come to the crux of my problem. If this governmetn were my government, I might consider V the hero of the hour, and if it were a fictional place in a fictional time, again, I would probably be rooting for V as a symbol of the neverending struggle against tyrrany, whether it be personal or global, but as I said earlier, the Wachowskis relate this film to our time and our situation at present. I can't help but get the feeling that much of this film is a stab at our current administration's poicies and actions over the past 5 years and at the conservative elements in our society. So what's the problem with that, you might ask? Well, I just have some logical concerns (and I should probably go ahead and get this out of the way before you take me as some kind of zealot defending my own institutions: I'm an Independant and I'm not a Catholic, so just bear with me for a few moments).

Go back up a couple of paragraphs and read the description of the government in V's society...okay, good. What does it remind you of? I'll tell you what it reminds me of: The government of Iraq that was removed not too long ago by a world coalition. Was it not there that the government suppressed its people, nerve gassed them, rounded up political enemies and killed them, controlled information, forced one religion on its citizens, etc., etc.? so why do I still get the feeling that its Blair and Bush that are getting criticized here? Do I agree with everything they've done over the past four or five years? No, but that doesn't make them Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler. In the fact, the Wachowskis are from a country where the CAN take a stab at their own government, criticize it for a couple of hours, mock its institutions, and then leave their studios and walk down the street in perfect peace without the fear of retribution, and to go even futher, they can then, and probably do, expect that same government to protect them from censorship, outlaws, put out fires in their great state of California, and keep their roads free of potholes for them. THAT is a free society, and that is what our Rebels fought for. That is what all those people walked around the streets of Baghdad with blue fingers for, in a place where terrorists (freedom fighters?) are blowing them up for it. Perhaps those brave people are the heroes the Wachowskis should have made a movie about: people who change their world by taking part in their government, by being their government, not by destroying it.

I didn't vote in the last election...but after seeing those Iraqis vote for the first time, and then get killed for it, I was ashamed that I didn't. The reason I put the Thomas Hobbes quote at the top is because its from a section that speaks about covenants, promises or contracts if you will, between people and their governments. We pledge our allegiance to our government and support, and are even given the right to pick the agents of that government ourselves, in exchange for that government's promise to take care of us, and to protect us. Its not an easy balance, and maybe sometimes we don't get it right, but that's why we have checks and balances and a free press. in any case, WE elected this government that we have now...no matter what our individual votes may have been...becasue we have a covenant, not only with the government, but with each other, to stick together, and take care of each other. Read Hobbes and I think you'll have an undertanding of the complex nature involved in the gaining and surrendering of personal liberties when we take up a government.

I guess it just bothers me that the Wachowskis seem so eager to cast such a dystopian prophecy on the very governments that just waged a war to destroy just such an evil dictatorship. I know that particular war is unpopular: GOOD! It SHOULD be unpopular, when a war IS popular that's when we should be worried, so much evil happens in war and I'm thankful I never had to be in one myself, and I don't wish we were still in a war now...but just becasue something is tragic, sad, and dirty, doesn't mean it isn't necessary. Take V for instance, we watch the movie and we root for him as he kills security guards and dirty politicians, his work is extremely bloody but he remains the hero because he stands for what is right. I just wonder why these filmakers felt more drawn to the terrorists as heroes than the government that fights them, or the people that use their rights to express their freedoms in a proactive way, like those people now voting in Iraq.

To wrap up I only have one more bone to pick with the films ideas and that is this: the Catholic church is once again the evil empire of religion in the film, and its priests are raging pedophiles. I guess why not take a shot at the Church (Everybody's doing it) but the film seems to suggest that the church and our governments are on a path to enforce that religion and destroy the religion of Islam and its "Beautiful imagery" as one character puts it. And while there are many peaceful Muslims living now, and there have been many violent Catholics in the past, I have only this to ask now: tomorrow, when the weekend in over, are Catholics worldwide going to take to the streets, stop feeding the poor and running hospitals and funding orphanages to burn pictures of the Wachowskis, destroy theatres and riot just because someone criticized them? I think not. Just as their are thousands of brave Muslims in Iraq fighting injustice and oppression peacefully by voting and taking part in their government, believe it or not there are equally as many Catholics suffering under persecution in places like the Sudan and China right now. I don't know, I just don't understand what makes them such a fair target whereas we have to watch our step when criticizing other religions. For another example, a South Park episode was recently yanked for mocking Scientology, (Scientology for crying out loud!) yet how many times has that same show mocked Jesus himself? At least the South Park guys are equal opprtunity critics of politics and religion.

In the end though, I'm glad that the Wachowskis are bold enough to make this picture, even if I don't agree with their point. I've actually written a screenplay of my own that takes place in a dystopian future and I suppose whenever we try to forecast what will happen based on current events and ideas its sure to ruffle feathers and get people talking and thinking, which is, in this writer's opinion, a very good thing. So thanks for giving me something to chew on Larry and Andy!

So anyway, next time I promise to talk about subjects that are far lighter, like basketball or the Ryan Reynold's movie: Just Friends, absolutely the funnniest movie you can rent on DVD right now...so go rent it! Then go watch V for Vendetta and see if it make you think as much as it made me think, I'm just glad I live in a place that isn't V's London, and I can talk about whatever I like and no one will bang on my door and arrest me for it.

Introductions are always so awkward!

It seems so strange to me to be introducing myself to well...everyone...literally! Yet at the same time its nothing but awesome to know that just about anyone in the world could somehow tumble down some google-link-rabbit hole to my little blog here on the Twenty One site...I love the internet! But anyhow, let's get down to it! My name is Mat Raney, and yeah, there's only one "t" in my name because it's short for Matlack. Anyway, I was born in '79 which makes me a just ripening 26 years old. Growing up in a military family meant that my sister and brother and I grew up in several countries besides our own and in more states than I can count on one hand! Basically, bad for digging roots, but great for learning some cool lessons about the world around me and the people who live in it. Eventually, I graduated from the University of Kentucky with a degree in Eastern Studies (mostly language, literature, and history for those of you who were wondering). So besides watching great basketball and football at the time (we went to two bowl games while I was a student) I got the chance to learn a new language (Russian) and read a great deal of books written by guys who not only lived in other parts of the world than me, but were writing in completely different time periods. I was so fascinated by the fact that while these genius fellows had long since kicked the bucket, their ideas were still alive and valid in their writings. It was in my reading and writing about these guys and their works in college that clued me into something I never realized about myself: I love ideas and I love writing about them! Not only did these authors enlighten me to this new aspect of my soul, but they also guided me in the pursuit of what ideas sculpt and study, namely humanity and the human condition, a topic at which I could only hope to reach a fraction of their boundless insight.


So when I first started writing seriously, with a mind to someday pursue as a profession, I started with short stories, personal narratives, and some vague attempts at poetry. These early efforts eventually led me to give a crack at a novel, which I suppose you could call a success since I did write a 400 page document, or a failure seeing as how that particular 400 page mountain just lies in a pile collecting dust in my room! The truth is I just didn't know how to get someone to read my work who possessed the know how and the connections to guide me along in the path to published author heaven (actually the real truth is I couldn't get anyone at all to read it accept my friends and my sister). So, I guess you could say I was wandering aimlessly in the wastelands of wannabe writers when an old college buddy of mine, Dave Cottingham, and I started hanging out again. You see, back in the day, Dave and I had really been big into acting, we took lessons from the same guy and sometimes we would talk afterwards about ambitious dreams and goals. One day Dave tells me about this crazy idea he has to start making his own independent films, right here in Kentucky. So, curious young man that I was, I hung out on the sets, met a guy who was directing their pictures named Russell Johnson, and in general just being a nuisance. Then pesky life got in the way and took me to various other places in the country for a while until I finally came back, which brings me back to my story. Dave has a little short movie called Hidden Truth that he and Russell came up with, I read it, and I like it, and then an idea hits me: In the contests I'd sent my work to, my highest scores were consistently in dialogue, so why not read the Syd Field textbook and try and write a screenplay?

So in an act of grace (one for which this layman writer will always be appreciative) Dave let a developing prose writer try his hand at screenplay...and I've been hooked ever since! In fact, over the past year and half or so, I've written about five screenplays and although I am without doubt only a learner in the screenwriting game, with each successive script I can feel my comfort, confidence, and ability growing, and I can't tell you how humbled and proud I am to be working with Dave and Russell, not to mention grateful, for the numerous opportunities they give me along with the patience they extend to me every day. I am truly excited about the stories and ideas that we are going to be creating for you over the next year or two!! So be ready! Twenty One is coming strong in '06 and '07!

And as for this blog, what can you expect? Well, I like to talk alot about philosophy, ideas, storytelling, sports, books, current events, and of course: movies! I'd like to try and include a review of a film, whether old or new, independent or studio, every week, but who knows! I may throw in a book review here and there as well. So anyway friends, forgive my long winded introduction, though don't expect these to get any shorter, and I hope to talk to you again soon!