The plus to all of this effort and struggle is that my parents gave my wife and I free passes to a movie. While this might seem fantastically exciting to a pair of people living below the poverty line, the restrictions on said tickets made it much more difficult to redeem than we had thought.
We were not allowed to use these for any film that had been released in the last two weeks, since these are considered "special engagements." In years gone by, this would not be a major problem, but in the last couple of years, it has become very rare for any but the most successful and/or family oriented films to last more than two weeks in major theaters.
Finally, we noticed that a special preview of "Must Love Dogs" for some reason was not considered a "special engagement." I defy you to tell me the logic of this process.
Now, I did my master's thesis on teen comedies of the 1980s, so I was excited to see the progress of Mr. John Cusack. Furthermore, he starred opposite the beautiful and talented Diane Lane, my example of how older women are often much more alluring than the teen of the week (Take that Lindsey and Hilary!).
I am glad to report that while the film is pedantic and totally predictible, it goes to show how even the simplest script and direction can become something entertaining when combined with enough talent.
I have in the past discussed the difference between "entertaining" and "great" cinema, but I will recap for those of you who do not know me personally. "Entertaining" means that neither my wife or I had any desire to request our time or money back following a film. "Great" cinema makes the audience sit back and look at the world in a slightly different way. This should not be reserved for the epic, Academy Award winning films that tackle a huge issue or event, although sometimes these do a credible job.
For the purpose of illustration, i will include a couple lists of films that fall under either, both, or none of these categories.
Great Films: These films made me rethink the world around me but are not necessarily the kind of thing that I want to watch regularly.
Chuck and Buck
The Apostle
The Sweet Hereafter
The Conversation
Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye
Entertaining Films: These are fun but do not really stand up to a lot of repeated viewing. They are also usually great examples of genre filmmaking.
In Good Company
Sense and Sensibility
Most things with John Wayne or Clint Eastwood
Some Kind of Wonderful
Spies Like Us
Great, Entertaining Films: Generally, I put films in this category that take a genre and stretch its boundaries a bit, or maybe more than a bit.
Next Stop Wonderland
Sliding Doors
Hero (Ying Xiong), not the 1991 film with Dustin Hoffman.
The Seven Samurai
The Princess Bride
Neither Great nor Entertaining: There are really too many of these to even give examples of, but these are often genre films that do nothing but fulfill the most basic requirements of said genre. Don't hate me if your favorite film is here.
Armageddon
Bad Boys II
Alien vs. Predator
Wedding Crashers
Kramer vs. Kramer
Thirteen Ghosts
Sure, I realize that these groupings are subjective. They are also based on genres to some degree, which could cause some problems for theorists. I also realize that not every film is made to be great or entertaining. Many films are made to make money. Maybe in the future, I will write a bit about why this is intrinsically a destructive force in American narratives across all media.
For now, i should get back to work.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Hardwood floors and other tests of patience...
Rather than beginning with my usual apologies for not posting for a while, I'm going to explain the reason that it has been a month since my last post.
I mentioned a few weeks ago about the fun of dealing with parents and ideology. Well, let me just advise those of you who think that you get along with your folks well that you should never volunteer to help with large renovation projects unless you are sure that you will be good working with said parents.
This past spring, I offered to help my parents in the renovation of their kitchen and dining nook. Part of this process was the tearing up of their old linoleum floor and installing a beautiful hardwood floor. This, by itself, is not the central problem. I spent a few years in college earning a living by my adaquate carpentry skills.
The problem evolves when you are dealing with homeowners who have no clue about the problems of tearing up a central living area for a matter of weeks. I wrote out a detail list of the things that would need to be done before my wife, my friend, and I would go down and actually put the floor in.
Needless to say, none of this was accomplished. None of the required tools and materials were purchased. The area was not prepared, and all of a sudden, my parents had decided that they wanted to try to retain a large quantity of moldings that I had said, "would be incredibly difficult to salvage."
So this last weekend, I went down to my parents' house to try to finish off the final stage of trimming the floor and installing the baseboards. Of course, none of the issues were really resolved. So for 14 man-hours later, we had about 7 pieces installed.
On the plus side, two of the transitions between the reconstructed area and other rooms is complete, but the negative side is that the baseboards are not finished. We found that a number of the walls do not contain the normal spacing of studs to affix the baseboards to, and my parents want to retain the complete height of the molding, rather than sink the wood below the floor level.
What does this have to do with being a public intellectual? I have no real clue, but I know that the fact that, between the four of us, we have eight-and-a-half degrees in a wide range of disciplines. None of them helped us develop an approach to a project that would result in a simple accomplishment of the task.
So the next time that you look down on any one in any of the various trades, stop! Think about the large quantity of work that it would take for you to do that for yourself. Offer them a cup of coffee or order a pizza or sandwiches for lunch. Then thank them profusely for their efforts.
I mentioned a few weeks ago about the fun of dealing with parents and ideology. Well, let me just advise those of you who think that you get along with your folks well that you should never volunteer to help with large renovation projects unless you are sure that you will be good working with said parents.
This past spring, I offered to help my parents in the renovation of their kitchen and dining nook. Part of this process was the tearing up of their old linoleum floor and installing a beautiful hardwood floor. This, by itself, is not the central problem. I spent a few years in college earning a living by my adaquate carpentry skills.
The problem evolves when you are dealing with homeowners who have no clue about the problems of tearing up a central living area for a matter of weeks. I wrote out a detail list of the things that would need to be done before my wife, my friend, and I would go down and actually put the floor in.
Needless to say, none of this was accomplished. None of the required tools and materials were purchased. The area was not prepared, and all of a sudden, my parents had decided that they wanted to try to retain a large quantity of moldings that I had said, "would be incredibly difficult to salvage."
So this last weekend, I went down to my parents' house to try to finish off the final stage of trimming the floor and installing the baseboards. Of course, none of the issues were really resolved. So for 14 man-hours later, we had about 7 pieces installed.
On the plus side, two of the transitions between the reconstructed area and other rooms is complete, but the negative side is that the baseboards are not finished. We found that a number of the walls do not contain the normal spacing of studs to affix the baseboards to, and my parents want to retain the complete height of the molding, rather than sink the wood below the floor level.
What does this have to do with being a public intellectual? I have no real clue, but I know that the fact that, between the four of us, we have eight-and-a-half degrees in a wide range of disciplines. None of them helped us develop an approach to a project that would result in a simple accomplishment of the task.
So the next time that you look down on any one in any of the various trades, stop! Think about the large quantity of work that it would take for you to do that for yourself. Offer them a cup of coffee or order a pizza or sandwiches for lunch. Then thank them profusely for their efforts.
Monday, June 20, 2005
The Academic's Point of View...
Those of you who have read my blog know that I am sorely remiss in my efforts to post frequently. I regret this, but such is the nature of blogging.
Finally, I hope to complete my series on Academic Freedom and why I find myself horribly lost in an almost untenable position.
Those of you who need a refresher, please read this (http://publicintellectual.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_publicintellectual_archive.html)
You will find my general overview on the problem on academic freedom and my summary of David Horowitz's perspective.
Today, I would like to write a bit about the radical/academic perspective. I know that not all academics are radicals. I use this generalization merely to simplify my argument and avoid bogging down in particulars.
These views are my experiences with a few individuals and those whose writing I have read in various magazines and online. Take this presentation with a large grain of salt.
People opposing Horowitz seem to hold one or more of these positions:
1. The purpose of education is always to challenge the status quo/canon.
-to some degree, I agree. I think that education must incorporate the establishment of critical thinking abilities.
2. The instructor/professor/academic has the right and obligation to abide by some form of liberal iconoclasm.
-Indeed, it would seem that there are relatively few outlets for the voiceless to be given voices than the academy.
3. Iconoclasm, therefore, represents critical thought, and anyone who supports any aspect of the status quo/canon hold the potential betrayal of "progress" and is not educated.
-This is where I begin to have problems. It seems that this perspective leaves the academic community open to fall victim to a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. More on this later.
4. Any method necessary can and should be employed against those who resist the progress of the "right" or "tolerant" perspectives.
-Clearly, not everyone who opposed Horowitz believes this, but it has been argued to me that any concession that any academic has behaved inappropriately in the classroom or through their research represents a personal failure.
Therefore, the image of the academics' desire for institutions of learn quickly become as problematic as Horowitz's desire for lecture halls filled with quiet students absorbing "objective knowledge".
It seems that the desired state would allow anyone who is hired by an educational institution to have free reign to express themselves in any way they thought suitable for the education of the students as they see fit.
Is it wrong for professors to expect the right to show how historically almost every field of intellectual knowledge has been shaped by oppressive regimes of power?
Obviously not, but by the same token, we cannot say that every result of an oppressive regime is worthless. Or more importantly, we cannot say that those who have benefited from such regimes hold complete complicity with the instutitions and individuals who shaped and maintained oppression.
This is not quite as clear as i wanted to make it. So please, don't come after me. I hope to clarify it in my next post where I present my opinion on what to do and why.
Finally, I hope to complete my series on Academic Freedom and why I find myself horribly lost in an almost untenable position.
Those of you who need a refresher, please read this (http://publicintellectual.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_publicintellectual_archive.html)
You will find my general overview on the problem on academic freedom and my summary of David Horowitz's perspective.
Today, I would like to write a bit about the radical/academic perspective. I know that not all academics are radicals. I use this generalization merely to simplify my argument and avoid bogging down in particulars.
These views are my experiences with a few individuals and those whose writing I have read in various magazines and online. Take this presentation with a large grain of salt.
People opposing Horowitz seem to hold one or more of these positions:
1. The purpose of education is always to challenge the status quo/canon.
-to some degree, I agree. I think that education must incorporate the establishment of critical thinking abilities.
2. The instructor/professor/academic has the right and obligation to abide by some form of liberal iconoclasm.
-Indeed, it would seem that there are relatively few outlets for the voiceless to be given voices than the academy.
3. Iconoclasm, therefore, represents critical thought, and anyone who supports any aspect of the status quo/canon hold the potential betrayal of "progress" and is not educated.
-This is where I begin to have problems. It seems that this perspective leaves the academic community open to fall victim to a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water. More on this later.
4. Any method necessary can and should be employed against those who resist the progress of the "right" or "tolerant" perspectives.
-Clearly, not everyone who opposed Horowitz believes this, but it has been argued to me that any concession that any academic has behaved inappropriately in the classroom or through their research represents a personal failure.
Therefore, the image of the academics' desire for institutions of learn quickly become as problematic as Horowitz's desire for lecture halls filled with quiet students absorbing "objective knowledge".
It seems that the desired state would allow anyone who is hired by an educational institution to have free reign to express themselves in any way they thought suitable for the education of the students as they see fit.
Is it wrong for professors to expect the right to show how historically almost every field of intellectual knowledge has been shaped by oppressive regimes of power?
Obviously not, but by the same token, we cannot say that every result of an oppressive regime is worthless. Or more importantly, we cannot say that those who have benefited from such regimes hold complete complicity with the instutitions and individuals who shaped and maintained oppression.
This is not quite as clear as i wanted to make it. So please, don't come after me. I hope to clarify it in my next post where I present my opinion on what to do and why.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)