Noble Experiment

Hey y'all,

so I finally saw the film Cloverfield the other day and I have a few things I would like to share about the movie without giving any spoilers away. First off, the handi-cam was very shaky and while it provided a little (very little) extra "realism", it provided a lot of extra nausea. Though, I would say, it detracted from the movie overall, I'm glad the movie was trying something new, even if nothing else from the movie was really new. But, yes, cross that off the list of future projects, no more big special effects movies shot on hand held cameras. I got a small taste of it in Blair Witch and it was cool, and I got a little more of a taste for it in Black Hawk Down and it was not cool, and now I think we've (I mean I) had our (I mean my) fill. (And contrary to the popular opinion, I did not enjoy the shakiness of the camera-work in the Bourne Ultimatum and it made me physically ill.) If you want to try something new that's not so new, let's bring back to smell-o-vision.

On an unrelated note, but a legitimate tangent about the nature of the beast and animal nature, is it just me or are dogs getting more brazen and bold? They are now peeing in the middle of the sidewalk and in the middle of the streets, when they used to go only on the walls, trees and fire hydrants. I'm not mad; frankly I'm impressed. No, actually, I'm a little mad. To be fair, more irritated than mad. And dog owners (or whatever the proper term is) for some reason choose my building as the optimal spot to relay their dog's waste. It's as if my building calls out to dogs everywhere, come here and go here. Worse yet, the owners are proud that their dog chose my building and think I should be excited about the discharge. They smile at me politely as their dog defiles my stoop. I smile politely back, because what else am I going to do? Avenge my building with a snide comment? I've never come up with anything good enough. So, my building's entrance still smells like poopy.

Speaking of poo and of New York being ravaged, the Cloverfield follows in a long proud movie tradition of New York destructions. And each of these films have had some sort of biblical analogy about Sodom and NY being chosen for its evil ways. Even movies like the Day After Tomorrow, which was an environmentalist propaganda piece, was meant punish NY, specifically, and the US, in general, because of our evil environmental ways. King Kong punished us for our obsession with spectacle and by providing an ultimate spectacle. Of course, Godzilla punished humanity for the hydrogen bomb, but notably did not target NY. (The remake with Broderick did attack New York, but not nearly as much as the remake of The Producers attacked NY.) But, in Cloverfield, the antagonist likely chooses NY because it's particularly bright (in terms of wattage, not intellect,) and thus NY would provide an ample food source for the behemoth. This end of NY scenario punishes us for being scientifically viable, but science ultimately saves us. Which is yet another thing, I respect about the Cloverfield. I guess another movie in this tradition was Independence Day, but that movie was great for many reasons, so I don't want to compare the two movies and thus belittle Cloverfield's minimal accomplishments... but man, were they minimal.

I also just read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which I had heretofore not read and it is extremely funny, hilarious at times. But, I was concerned that the book tried too hard to be funny by throwing every comedic device Adams could think of into the book. In so doing, the book sacrificed a little of my empathy for an otherwise relatable character in Arthur Dent, who I can only picture as Tim from The Office (British version) and the fluffer in Love Actually. I saw the movie first and felt Martin Freeman and Zooey Deschanel brought life to the characters and the fact that they had a four dimensional relationship added to the book. Most of the jokes were funnier in the book, of course, but the story was better in the movie. And ultimately, I am of the belief that a story makes a movie. To those of you who think I am being sacrilegious for attacking a masterpiece, I am not disrespecting Adams, he co-wrote the screenplay.

Also, I wanted to touch on the Obama South Carolina victory, and kudos to him for standing up to Hillary on the experience issue for once. Her experience fighting for change was being on the board of wal-mart. No offense to the fine company, but that's not part of any 35 years of political experience. And I wanted to note that the media and the Clintons are relatively effectively diminish the South Carolina victory as a Black state, rather than stressing how well Obama did among young people or even that Hillary lost the White vote too. And his victory gave us another dominant victory speech. Also, the impending decline of the Rudy campaign is leaving me with two candidates in the race. I have some reason to believe that a McCain-Obama debate would sincerely be about the issues, and not Clinton-Bush political tactics. But, as long as one of them wins, I'll have something to root for. But, wouldn't that be refreshing? A debate where people are not trying to insult each other, or doubt the other candidate's intentions? A debate where they each acknowledge the integrity of the other candidate, but only argue the very different visions for the future? Now, that would be a noble experiment. But, it might come off as soft or boring or it might make me nauseous, but it's definitely worth a try. And can we make it happen? "Yes we can."

Marked,
Papa Bear