The Musings of a Confused Man

Last night, I bought and watched "Revenge of the Sith" on DVD. I neglected to catch the film when it originally came out in theaters, so this was my virgin viewing experience. Overall, I found it an enjoyable film.

I think the thing that stood out to me was how Annikan's transition from up-and-coming Jedi to the monstrous Darth Vader was portrayed. Lucas's decision to make the combination of Annikan's pain over losing his mother and fear of similarly losing Padme the fulcrum and primary motivator for Annikan's change was masterful. It created something that we could grasp as the hero fell and was reborn as a villain. Personally, as someone who prefers a villain whose motives I can at least understand if not support over a villian who's just plain evil for no apparent reason, I appreciated Lucas's mostly masterful explanation.

Of course, that's not to say there wasn't a rough spot in that part of the story. Lucas did lose me during the pivotal scene. I was with the program right up through the point where Annikan stopped Mace from killing Palpatine. But when Annikan immediately turns around and begins to follow Palpatine's order to kill all the Jedi at the temple wihtout question, I felt Lucas had dropped the ball. The transition from a confused Annikan who just wanted to spare an admittedly evil man who could save his love to a dispassionate killer of younglings was just too rough for me. There needed to be something more to smooth out that last stage of the change.

The other thing I liked is how Lucas skillfully slipped the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy into the movie. During the entire movie, Annikan was motivated by his fear brought on by the knowledge that Padme would die if he didn't find a way to intervene. But in the end, it was his actions, and his realignment with the Sith that directly led to the fulfillment of his nightmarish foreknowledge. As in the case of MacBeth and the visit with the Oracle in the first Matrix movie, it begs the question: Would Padme have lived if he hadn't had those dreams in the first place?

I also liked the moments of insight into the mentality of the Sith that Palpatine offered from time to time. With the story of Darth Plagaris (Sideous's own mentor, perhaps?), we learn why that the relationship between the student and teacher is a treacherous one which must inevitably lead to the death of one of them. This is brought on by the combination of fear and lust for power. Either the master must destroy the pupil before said pupil becomes too powerful, or the student must kill the master so that he might survive and ascend to mastery himself. It leaves me wondering why Sith would take a pupil in the first place. But it does explain why there are only two of them. In such a cutthroat relationship, there's never time to teach a second pupil as long as the first survives.

I just finished watching Dorian Blues. It's a curious movie that I had never heard of until I ran across it in Blockbuster's tonight. I have to say that I'm glad I rented it, as it was well worth watching.

The movie centers on Dorian, a young man who discovers he's gay and attempts to deal with his self-discovery in light of his less than supportive family. The movie takes us through his senior year at college, his conversations with his therapist, his first sexual experience, his coming out experience, his first relationship in college, the eventual breakup, and the resulting depression. All through these experiences, Dorian consistently demonstrates himself an intelligent and wonderful man, held down by past hurts and his unwillingness to let them go.

Most of Dorian's problems stem from his relationship with his father, an overly demanding man whose general displeasure with his older son only became more intense when Dorian came out to him. This situation was further exacerbated by a mother who would do anything to avoid a confrontation and a younger brother, Nick, who loved Dorian but was constantly held up by their father as the "perfect" son, who Dorian should strive to be more like. This of course, created a strain in the two brothers' relationship, though the two tried their best to support each other in their own way. This emotional baggage weight down Dorian in every aspect of his life, causing him to be bitter and edgy. This cost him more than one friend and even the perfect relationship.

In the end, Dorian and Nick -- who had been visiting his older brother at NYU -- end up making the trip back home to attend their father's funeral. Their father had died of a heart attack due to stress -- most likely due to the fact that Nick had been cut from Syracuse University's football team earlier that week and had therefore lost his scholarship.

The bes scene of the movie was the conversation between Dorian and his mother outside the church just before his father's funeral. In it, his mother confronts her son about the fact that he had become mean and disapproving lik his father. She tells him, "I want you to be a good man, despite the fact that your father was never good to you...and your mother never stood up to him and made him stop."

I cannot express how appropriate this theme is. Far too often, coming to term with one's sexual orientation is the easy part. The hard part is learning to let go of all of those past hurts and fears, as well as the defense mechanisms and bitterness that we tend to build up in the process. Learning to let go of these things so that they don't continue to affect our current lives is a painful and difficult process. Watching this movie enabled me to revisit this lesson, identify with Dorian's character, and experience this letting go process one more time.

And I have to admit that scene where Dorian is franticly brushing his teeth was well worth a laugh.

Apparently, I started an unplanned tradition when I wrote my previous review of the movie, Dorian Blues a couple weeks ago. This past weekend, I decided to watch the 2005 movie, FAQs, and I find myself with the desire to similarly review it.

First of all, let me just say that producer Everett Lewis did an excellent job in this movie. It's a truly moving tale about a group of gay men (and one young lesbian, though she plays such a bit part, unfortunately) trying to not only survive in the face of the hate directed towards them, but to be themselves and thrive because of it. India -- a young man living on the streets of LA after his homophobic parents disowned him -- is rescued from a pair of gaybashers by an old drag queen, Destiny. Destiny gives India a home and begins to teach him to protect, love, and respect himself. Destiny, India, and Lester (a young lesbian Destiny similarly saved and "adopted" in years past) are soon joined by Spencer, who becomes India's main love interest in throughout the rest of the movie. The plot of the movie then revolves around the dual themes of "saving" India's would-be bashers (who turn out to be closeted queers themselves) and India trying to convince Spencer to give up on his plan to kill his parents, who had abused him until he ran away. These dual themes perfectly frame the central message of the film: Love conquers all if you just give it a chance. One of my favorite quotes from the movie was when India tells Spencer, "Our kisses are like bombs going off in the straight world."

Of course, the movie itself had plenty of "bombs." There are several highly erotic scenes in which various boys are shown caressing, kissing, and rubbing up against one another. And while no genital contact is shown (though there are a few scenes involving full frontal nudity in non-sexual settings), I imagine that this might be a bit "explosive" for some viewers. (Personally, as someone who often wryly jokes about "gratuitous straight sex scenes" in most movies, I found it a nice change.)

One of the problems that I had with this movie, however, was that it was too optimistic. There were several potentially dangerous scenes (some of which were created by an overly-optimistic India who tended to make unwise decisions) in which someone could have died, yet everyone made it through the movie virtually unscathed. The particular scene which bothered me was when Quentin -- one of the bashers from the start of the movie -- shows up at the boys' home with a gun after having gotten their address off his answering machine from a message India told Guy to leave. Considering that the movie had been building up a highly distrought Quentin -- who not only held a gun under his chin at one point, but also was shown firing said gun at a roadside sign fantasizing about killing his former friend "turned fag" -- it just seemed like a poor climax. It also sends the message that doing something stupid like giving your home address to a known basher -- even one you think is really gay and needs to be "saved from himself" -- is okay. It's not. It's dangerous, and it's stupid. So Lewis gets points taken off for being too optimistic and implicitly encouraging needless and foolish risk-taking.

In closing, I would like to say that I particularly liked the final scene. Without giving too much away, I will just say that I found it appropriately cyclical.

This past weeken, I watched Lattere Days. This is a tale about a gay man, Christian, living in Los Angeles who meets, sets out to bed, and eventually falls in love with anotehr young man by the name of Aaron. Of course, Christian's plans are complicated by the fact that Aaron is a missionary for the LDS church, just starting his two year mission.

The remarkable part about this movie is that it's not just a movie about a young man from a religiously conservative background coming to terms with his sexual orientation and being excommunicated from his church (and presumably biological) family. This is also a movie wherein a cynical and superficial gay man begins to take a closer look at his own life and initiates a search to give it deeper meaning. In effect, this movie seeks to strike the balance between criticizing harmful repression and taking an honest look at the emptiness that can come from the superficiality we sometimes fall into while trying to escape the latter. In effect, both boys face their own demons as a result of coming into each others lives.

The scenes between Aaron and his mother after he's found out and sent home are well done. Particularly, the scene where Aaron challenges his mother to actually look at him is quite incredible, and something that I think most gay people with religiously (or otherwise) conservative parents can appreciate on some level. Of course, even Aaron's mother has her moment, when confronted with Christian's act of love in coming to Idaho just to tell her how sorry he is for the loss of her son (at this point, Christian was falsely led to believe that Aaron had committed suicide).

This was truly a touching movie, and one I think many people will be able to connect with on one level or another.

I spent most of yesterday with Becky. We had a pretty good time. The day started with me going to the one office she works out of for a massage. I didn't have anything in particular I wanted her to work on, so she basically did a full body massage. In practice, though, she spent most of the time on my legs.

She yelled at me during this part of the massage. I was having trouble relaxing my legs. Particularly, when she would go to move my legs, I'd move them for her. Apparently, that makes certain part of the massage process difficult to do effectively. I don't know why it was such an issue for me. Probably because I have control issues, anyway.

Once the massage was over, I got dressed and we ran some errands together. Becky had to go to the printer to get flyers printed and get new business cards created. I ended up helping her with figuring out some of the details of her business cards -- such as what color paper to use and the font to use for her name. Once we were done there, we swung by my bank so I could deposit a cashier's check. You see, over Thanksgiving break, I decided to close out my savings account at the bank near my parents' home. Because of the amount, I had them give me a cashiers check rather than giving me the balance in cash. So now that's in my checkign account up here. Which is good, because I needed money to pay rent and a couple bills.

Once the errands were done, we decided to go catch a movie. After looking over our options, we finally decided to see "Deja Vu." Personally, I thought it was a pretty good movie, though I found some annoying inconsistencies in the underlying concept. (Warning: Stop here if you don't want any spoilers.) The big problem is they never made up their mind whether they wanted past events to be unchangeable with a single, permanent timeline or whether they would allow changes to the past to spawn alternate timelines. As a result, they ended up alternating between the two scenarios based on what was convenient for the plot. The end result was that they created a alternate timeline in the end, but allowed things that should have been only in the alternate timeline (such as finding the ATF agent's fingerprints in the victim's home) appearing in teh original timeline anyway. So it got messy. But other than that, it was a good movie. And Denzel Washinton was as great as ever when it came to playing his part.

After the movie, Becky and I went to check out Red Robin, which just opened here in the past couple of weeks. It was a pretty nice experience, though it's quite obvious that they're not kidding about their reputation of being a "Burger and Spirits" establishment. They're just about the only things on the menu. But the BBQ burger I had was excellent and the desert was practically orgasmic, though entirely too big. Fortunately, Becky was there to help me eat it all. And of course, there were plenty of cute guys to check out.

All in all, I felt it was a delightful day.

Seeing as I'm still only working part time, I had today off. One of the things I did to pass some of my day off was to watch the copy of The Covenant that I had rented. It was an interesting movie, and I mostly enjoyed it. I'm certainly glad that I did not waste the money to see it in the theater, however. It would not have been worth the extra expenditure.

The basic premise of the movie was actually quite good, and the special effects were about what you'd expect in such a supernatural thriller. (Though to be honest, I'm not sure it deserves that designation.) There were certain plot elements that were rather noteworthy, such as the idea of one person being able to will their power to another with the caveat that doing so would mean death for the one giving up their power. Unfortunately, these concepts were underdeveloped in many cases. Also, the concept of a darkling was introduced, but never sufficiently explained. Indeed the appearances of the darkling in the movie served little purpose, other than providing a convenient way to let the main characters know someone was "using."

The other poorly emphasized plot element was at the end where Caleb's mother visits her aged and dying husband. As a result of that meeting, Caleb's father wills his power to the younger man, enabling him to defeat Chase. Such a sacrifice deserved much more attention than the brief blip in the final battle.

Of course, like any good thriller, they left the obligatory opening for a sequel. In the end, no sign of Chase was never found, leaving the characters and moviegoers alike to wonder whether the power-mad youth was truly gone or merely biding his time for another attempt at his goal. To be hoenst, I think that such a movie that shut all the doors on the possibility of a future sequel would be a refreshing change of pace.

When this movie originally came out, several friends in the Pagan community expressed their concern about it. They were concerned that this movie would create an insurge of youths with warped ideas of what real magic and Pagan spirituality was about looking to form "covenants" and gain the kinds of power wielded by the characters in this movie. And this concern is not unfounded. After all, I've fielded my own share of requests for spells to change one's hair color or eye color from girls who had recently watched The Craft.

However, I think that the life-threatening aspect of "the power" in this movie might mitigate the tendency for boys and young men looking for the fast path to power after watching this movie. After all, I don't know of many youths who are prepared to sacrifice their youth, let alone their lives, in the pursuit of power. So as long as said youths don't try to separate that aspect of the movie's premise from the rest, I'm hopeful that we won't see an upsurge of "Covenant wannabes" in the near future. Indeed, in some ways, I'm thankful that Hollywood imposed some "price" on these characters in exchange for their powers, as I'm tired of magic being presented as a "get everyhing for nothing" ventures.

Personally, I think the bigger concern is that too many people will take the cautionary message in this movie too much to heart. I can see this movie reinforcing popular images of magic and the occult arts involving some sort of pact in which a person gives up their lives, youth, soul, or other "thing of value" for power. Unfortunately, this notion is no more realistic than the "something for nothing" concept expressed by other movies.

Of course, the underlying problem behind both concerns is the simple mater that we no longer require our youths to develop the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction, espcially when that fiction is presented to them via a large screen and surround sound.

Today, I watched Serenity again. I'm not sure what it is about that movie that I love so much, but it's one of those titles that I just fin myself putting in the DVD player time and again. I think I've watched it once a month since I bought it.

What really stuck out in my mind this time around was the conversation between Mal and River at the end of the movie. During this conversation, Mal tells River the secret of flying:

Love. You can know all the math in the 'verse, you take a bird in the air you don't love it'll shake you just as sure as the worlds turn. Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down. Tells you she's hurting 'fore she keenes. Makes her a home.

As I sat listening to this, I realized that these sentiments applied to far more than flying, let alone flying fictional spaceships. In fact, I think these words can be applied to life itself. Love is the great mystery of life, that which ultimately makes it all work. Life without love is simply not worth living. And a life with love is worth living, no matter what may come. It's what keeps us going. It's what heals all wounds, not time. It's what makes the wounds worthwhile.

I'd face any trial that involves love than a million moments of loveless comfort. Indeed, I find myself wondering if the latter isn't an oxymoron of the highest order.

Last night, I decided to rent a couple of movies. One of the movies I chose to rent was Bob Saget's "mockumentary," Farce of the Penguins. Let me just say that it was strange to watch a movie like this that was written, directed, and even played in by the same guy who starre in Full House, a family-oriented sitcom I watched religiously all through junior and senior high school.

While the movie was quite funny and had some incredible one liners in it, I particularly liked it because of the social commentary that Saget created with this film. This movie was more than just a parody of the more serious documentatry, March of the Penguins. In this movie, Saget takes the ways in which we humans complicate our own love lives and turn them political and overlays them on the lives of penguins. By doing this, he allows us to see just how ridiculous our attitudes about and approaches to love and sex really are at times. This situation offers us a chance to go from realizing how crazy it would be for penguins to act like us in this realm of their lives to wondering if we might need to find a more sane approach for our lives.

The movie is packed with some great talent, talent that I was somewhat surprised to discover they'd get involved in such an over-the-top movie. I think the most surprising one to me (besides Saget himself) was Samuel L. Jackson, who acts as the ever-faithful narrator through the entire film. How he managed to say some of his lines without laughing is beyond me. I can only chalk it up to a sign of what an accomplished actor he really is.

In general, it was a fantastic movie, though not one I'd recommend watching with young children.

Today, while recuperating from whatever illness beset me late yesterday afternoon, I decided to watch But I'm a Cheerleader, which is possibly one of the cheesiest movies I have ever seen. This is a movie that tries to play off of every stereotype of gay men and lesbians they can think of. And amazingly, it works in this instance.

I think the reason it works for this movie is because it's a movie about a group of young people who have been shipped off to some insane camp to turn them all straight. The camp attempts to do this by teaching each teen to break away from the queer stereotypes and try to act more like tha "proper" boy or girl, based on gender stereotypes we've all heard.

I think part of what makes the whole thing funny, if a little scary, is that based on some of my own investigations of groups that try to turn gay people straight -- including one book I read while back in college, such programs really do put a significant amount of stock in such stereotypes. Suddenly, being a straight guy is as much about being able to talk cars and sports as it is about who you want to cuddle with. (And we won't even mention all the other things we want to do together!)

I think I find this mentality particularly strange because there are certain stereotypes I fit that have nothing to do with the fact that I'm gay. For example, I absolutely stink at sports. Whether it's volleyball, baseball, soccer, football, or any other sport you can name, I'm lousy at it. However, that's because of how my brain chose to adapt to the fact that I lived the first twenty eight or so years of my life with a lazy eye. Having your entire perception of the world shift to the left or right by a couple inches at a critical moment tends to make catching, hitting, or kicking a quickly moving object quite the challenge. Being gay has nothing to do with it. It's just one of those odd coincidences.

And that's the problem with such stereotypes around gender and sexuality. They completely miss the bigger picture.

I just got done watching Eragon on DVD. Overall, it was an excellent movie with a pretty good, if predictable plot. The development of that plot and the characters themselves were pretty good for the 100 minutes or so that everyone had to work with.

I should admit right up front that a few of the issues I had with this movie are the result of a misconception I had going into it. When I saw previews for this movie, I heard the word "dragonrider" and immediately thought of Anne McCaffrey and her series of books about Pern and its dragonriders. Because of this, I noticed some glaring discrepancies, that made me wonder how closely the movie followed the books. However, a bit more research on my part revealed that this movie was not based upon McCaffrey's works, but on the first book in Christopher Paolini's Inheritance Trilogy. Apparently, Paolini's writing was heavily influenced by Ms. McCaffrey's books. However, this certainly explains some of the discrepancies, such as the fact that the dragons in Paolini's world actually choose their riders before they hatch. (Come to think of it, that's a nice touch.)

I think that my favorite part of the movie was the oft repeated phrase, "one part brave, three parts fool." It seems to sum up the nature of many heroes, both in this story and in general. I also like the addition of the fact that Brom (played by the venerable Jeremy Irons, no less) reveals that his quest for vengeance results in the death of the last dragon, save for the evil Galbatorix's own dragon.

The one part I will note as being underdeveloped was the part of the other boy (his name escaped my notice) whose father turned out to be a dragonrider who joined forces with Galbatorix. They ntroduced this information and the boy's desire to follow a better path than his father did rather late in the plot. As such, it seemed underdeveloped to the point of being extraneous.

One thing I particularly liked, however, was the fact that they didn't play heavily on the romantic aspects of the movie. Certainly, they hinted at some underlying romantic tensions between Eragon and Arya, especially at the end. However, most Hollywood movies would have brought that far more to the forefront, even turning it into a major plot element. Those in charge of this movie made a different choice, and I think it was to the benefit of the movie's overall integrity.

On a loose tangent, when looking for Anne McCaffrey's website to link to it, I discovered that she actually has posted guidelines for fan fiction and fan art based on her works. I find it a rather interesting approach to the topic, and I wonder if many other authors have done similar things. Of course, I also wonder if the fan fiction authors and fan art creators actually bother following them. But it's nice to see an author trying to find a peaceful compromise with those who would emulate her.

While responding to a comment that Artharaja left me a couple days ago, I found myself reminded of a small exchange from the movie "Mary Poppins" that I've always loved. It's a brief exchange between Mary and the children's father which I believe comes shortly after the whole scene with the chimney sweeps. After the children run upstairs, the father begins to get quite agitated and demands that the nanny explain herself. After listening to him, Mary responds by saying, "Well, the first thing that you need to understand is that I never explain myself." Upon uttering these words, she trots up the stairs after the children.

What makes this scene so great, and clearly demonstrates that Julie Andrews is an acting goddess, is the delivery of that single line. The first part of the statement (that which I didn't italicize) is spoken with a calm, almost conciliatory tone. However, once the nanny begins the second portion of her statement (the italicized portion), her tone undergoes a transformation into something that clearly tells the father, "You may pay my salary, but do not make the mistake of thinking you're my boss." Mary's entire response and the delivery of that response makes it clear that this is a subject that will tolerate no debate. It's an attitude that I can completely appreciate in many situations.

Of course, Mary Poppins has the distinct advantage of living in a film world that caters to her every whim. The father must continue to sign her paychecks simply because the script says he must. Should I choose to take such an approach with my own employer, I could find myself collecting unemployment in the near future. And despite the fact that I am likely able to gain a great deal of leeway with my employer due to being a great employee, I have no delusions that I'm the superman that Mary Poppins is (diary name aside).

And yet, there are those areas in my life in which I can get away with such an attitude. A good number of my friends are willing to put up with a certain amount of obstinance on my part simply because they know that I'm a good friend. (Of course, it helps that I don't abuse the privelege as a rule.) And in those social situations where such an attitude might cost me something, I'm in a position where I can actually choose to accept the loss. Like Mary, I can simply say my peace and walk away. The trick is making sure I'm prepared to walk away and can live with that choice.

This weekend, I rented and watched The Birdcage. This is one of those movies that I love to watch every now and then, as it never fails to make me laugh. Of course, this time, I also noticed another reason I loved this movie.

When Val first asks Armand to "tone down" the house and "act straight" during his future in-laws' visit, Armand responds quite negatively and vehemently. The groom-to-be's father indicates quite clearly that he is a "middle aged fag" and happy with himself. He further goes on to point out that he didn't spend years getting to the point he was at to hide now. In fact, it's my memory of that speech that inspired me to rent the movie for this weekend.

That statement reflects the driving principle of myself right now, self-acceptance and self-expression. After all, these are the central themes of not only gay pride, but pride in general. It's the growing realization of who I am, what I want to be, what I like, and what I want. Beyond realization, it's the constant choice of embracing these things and seeking them out. It is the never-ending choice of being true to myself and the deep desires of my being and allowing nothing to deter me from it.

Of course, I think I can really identify with this movie because it hits close to home in another way. Towards the end, Barbara's father asks her how many other lives she must "ruin" in order to be happy. While such a question is over the top and unfair, it does point out that while it's easy to take an outlook of "the world be damned" in general, our choices do affect those close to us in various ways. And that's never an easy thing to grapple with.

I'm struggling with this in my own life right now. For various reasons, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that I need to put a pride sticker on my car. And in many ways, it's something I want to do, because it's important to me. And yet, for the last few years, I have refrained from doing so because of the problems it could cause in my family. After all, I drive this car to family reunions and similar events.

To be honest, if my only concern was that certain members in my extended family would give me grief over it, I'd go ahead anyway. I've accepted that some of my relatives are self-righteous jerks, and I'm perfectly fine with that. After all, I don't really have to spend any time with them. After all, I don't even have to go to family functions, and have certainly skipped a significant number of them in the past.

However, I also know that those same family members would not restrict themselves to making comments to me. I know they will most likely make comments to my parents. I've seen them do it in the past. I listened as they made hurtful comments to another aunt and uncle when their own daughter made choices that the rest of the family decided were "inappropriate" and "immoral." And the thought of my own parents going through such an experience because of my choices is a bitter pill to swallow.

And yet, I'm coming to realize that it's still my life. It's still my choice. And making my choices for my parents' sake rather than following my own path is ultimately just another way of failing to be true to myself. So as painful as it may be, I know I need to follow my own heart and hope my parents find the strength to endure.

It's been nine days since I've written here. As I mentioned in a previous post, that's the thing about getting more of a life. There's less and less time for actually sitting down and writing about all the things I'm doing and all of the things going on. Of course, I'm not exactly sure that I'd change that, either. After all, if my life wasn't so full, it would be downright boring. However, I'm continuing to look for the balance that will work for me.

Yesterday, I spent the majority of the day at Psychic's Thyme again. We ended up having a full house in the back room, as there were three readers on duty. Add to that the fact that Char was there, and Belinda and I were fulfilling our role as "official hangers on," and you have quite the gaggle. Of course, the high numbers and dynamic mix of personalities made for a lively day full of energetic conversation.

If any of my readers are considering opening a Pagan, "New Age," or metaphysical store, allow me to offer you a bit of advice. Whenever possible, make sure that those who are working there are positive people and tend to get into lively conversations. The energy such situations generate are incredible for business. One of the things that I have noticed while hanging out at the shop is that the better the time we have there, the more customers come waltzing in the front door. The number of times the laughs get interrupted because a customer needs help or someone needs their purchase rung up is just phenomenal. Of course, you have to make sure things don't get too out of hand. There was more than one time yesterday when Char had to remind us keep the noise down a bit.

After the store closed, Michele Belinda and I went to Bugaboo Creek for dinner and then headed back to their house. I provided the entertainment in the form of Night at the Museum and Happy Feet. Both were hillarious and we had a great time. Happy Feet got a bit too agenda-oriented for my tastes towards the end, but it was still a cute movie. And the idea of tap dancing penguins is just great for a laugh.

Saturday night, a group of friends went to the Silver Lake Drive-In. We ended up watching Spiderman 3 and Ghost Rider, both of which were excellent movies. I ended up sitting in Belinda's car watching the shows with her. The experience that night brought back a few memories.

Of course, any trip to a drive-in theater always brings back childhood memories. My parents, being frugal people, never took my sister or I to the movie theater. However, they were perfectly happy to take my sister and I to the drive-in theater a couple times each summer. Each time we'd go, they'd bundle the two of us into our pajamas before taking us out to the small drive-in (I was amazed when I learned that some places had more than one screen and offered a selection of movies to watch). I don't remember many of the movies we saw, the only two that stick out vividly are The Fox and the Hound (which I cried at because of the ending) and Herbie Goes Bananas. I also remember that the one time we went, the second movie they showed was Canonball Run. I particularly my mother mentioning the next day that she was glad that my sister fell asleep during that movie. (We often fell asleep during the second movie, which is why we were always bundled in our pajamas.)

Back then, going to the Drive-In was a special treat. We didn't go often, but Mom and Dad always made sure we saw at least one movie each summer. They would usually tell my sister and me a couple days in advance, and we'd look forward to the "big night" from that moment on. I suppose that's why going to a drive-in is still a magical event to me over two decades later. There's a certain sense to the experience that I doubt even seeing a movie at an I-Max theater could compare to in my mind.

The other memory that Saturday night brought back to me was the last time I went to a drive-in. That was during college. A group of us went to see Pocahontas with our friends Dennis and Mary and their three small children. There was a second movie we saw that night, but I forget what it was. I do remember that neither James nor I were impressed with it and spent most of the movie whispering snide comments about it between ourselves.

That was the night that I learned that some of the larger drive-in theaters have more than one screen, a fact that totally surprised me. I also remember my surprise at discovering that some drive-in theaters also broadcast the sound for their movies using a very small range FM radio transmitter. During my childhood, the theater we went to only had the small speakers that you hung on the edge of your car window.

That was also the first time that I didn't stay in the car. Dennis backed his mini van up into the spot so that the rear of the van was facing the screen. We then all climbed out and opened the back doors on the van. Some sat in the back of the van while the rest of us lined up in front in our lawn chairs. It was a different experience for me, and quite a pleasant one.

Saturday night, we stayed in our cars (though one of the girls did go sit outside in a chair). We hadn't brought chairs or blankets (well, the others hadn't brought blankets, but I had one). As it was quite chilly this weekend, we decided to stay in the cars for the most part. However, a great many people did choose to go sit or lay out on the lawn in front of all of the cars. We particularly admired the family who had the foresight to bring not only sleeping bags, but bean bags to lay on and a tarp to put down and keep everything else dry with.

It was a truly magical evening, and I look forward to repeating it again. Who knows, with any luck, I might get a chance to share the experience with someone special before the summer is out.

Matt Hill posted the following clip from Loggerheads on his blog. I had to share it here.

The horror!

Of course, what I think is particularly funny is how the husband makes the comment about another neighbor only being "half mad" since only one of the new neighbors is Mexican. It demonstrates how we can easily make fun of another person's prejudice while being completely oblivious to our own.

Last night, I saw Out at the Wedding, one of the films shown as part of this year's ImageOut film festival. It was a hilarious comedy, filled with many one-liners and thinly veiled innuendos (though that may well be a generous classification on my part).

The movie takes you along as Alex, a young woman from the South now living in New York city, spins a complicated web of lies that eventually ensnares her and all her loved ones hopelessly. She tells her fiancé, Dana, that her family is dead in order to avoid introducing him to them out of fear that they'll reject him because he's black. Then when her best friend from childhood, a gay man named Jonathan, accidentally starts a rumor that Alex is a lesbian during her sister's wedding reception, Alex picks up the ruse and continues it in order to calm her sister, who is accusing her and Jonathan of starting the rumor simply to ruin the wedding. From there, each new lie is created to cover up a previous lie. The resulting web of deception eventually becomes too unwieldy and begins to unravel. However, as this is a comedy rather than a tragedy, no relationships are permanently ruined, except for the Jeannie's (the sister) marriage, as she comes out as a lesbian and becomes the girlfriend of Risa, Alex's "girlfriend-for-hire."

It's important to note that Alex is not the only deceiver in this movie. Jonathan, who now also lives in NYC, also plays several deceptive tricks on his boyfriend, Kenny, throughout the movie in order to get Kenny to eat less and become more active so he'll shed some extra weight. (Given that Kenny is a mere thirty pounds overweight and looks fantastic to this viewer, I could go on a separate discussion concerning ludicrous standards of beauty. But this review is long enough as is.) Jonathan also helps Alex to maintain many of her own lies as well. Indeed, these two schemers-in-arms seem to be immersed so much in their lives of deception that one wonders i their entire friendship is based on the bonds of deceiving everyone around them.

Another interesting theme is that Alex often sees the need for her lies to be beyond her control. This is best exemplified by the fact that the first two lies (the death of her family and her lesbianism) originated as mere misunderstandings, a fact she takes solace in while ignoring the fact that she didn't stop either misunderstanding when she first became aware of them, thereby perpetuating them and turning them into lies. But ignoring that fact allows her to avoid taking responsibility for the lies, something she is intent on doing until she no longer can.

I think that part of what makes this movie so funny and enjoyable is that most of us have seen these themes play out in our own lives at one time or another, so we can identify with the situations played out on the screen. And by portraying them in a comedic light, this movie frees us from the discomfort of that realization and enables us to laugh about it all. And hopefully, while laughing, we internalize the lesson and strive to live the simpler life offered by being more honest.

After seeing the previews for it, I've decided that I want to go see Beowulf on opening night, next Friday night. After checking out the movies official site, I learned that, as I had hoped, they are releasing it in IMAX theaters as well. In fact, they're doing an IMAX 3D release. And it's even playing at my local IMAX theater. This will make it my first IMAX movie experience.

I don't normally go to see movies on opening night. I tend to like to avoid large crowds, which is hard to do if you attend the premier night of a well-advertised and much-anticipated movie. However, given the fact the subject matter is related to the mythical basis of my own spirituality and the fact that the previews look great, I've decided to make an exception this time around. So next Friday will find me in line at the IMAX theaters waiting for the Beowulf experience. I'll consider it a special treat to myself.

Of course, I was also further motivated by the discovery that Neil Gaiman had his hand in the screenplay.

Last Saturday, I went to see Into the Wild with my friend, Rick. The entire movie fascinated and captivated me from first scene to closing credits. The story told was both touching and powerful. It covers the story of Christopher McCandless, a young man who takes off after college graduation to roam the country (with a brief trip into Mexico) for two years before entering the Alaskan wilderness to discover himself. During his travels, he demonstrates great insights and touches the lives of more than one person before his story comes to an unfortunate end.

In addition to telling a powerful story, this movie offered up many themes and thoughts that I could identify with. The movie suggested time and again that one of the driving motivations behind McCandless's journey was a dissatisfaction with society and its structures and facades, preferring a simpler, more direct life. In more than one scene, McCandless promotes the idea of stripping away facades as well as becoming more self-reliant. This is a sentiment I often share with McCandless, though I do not plan to disappear into the Alaskan wilderness anytime.

But I think that to a lesser degree, McCandless offers us all sage advice to us all about learning to step beyond the complexities and games that have become an innate part of our civilization. He calls us to consider becoming more direct, more honest, and more authentic. And these are all things that we can benefit from. And if it leads us to lead somewhat simpler lives, all the better.

In the end, McCandless learns one truth in his isolation near the end of his journey. He reveals that truth by writing in one of his precious books, "Happiness is nothing unless it is shared." (That may be a paraphrase rather than a direct quote.) It is both strange and unfortunate that to learn this wisdom, he had to spend an extended time alone. But then, I suppose we all are prone to take for granted the people with whom we share our lives with.

Overall, this movie is incredible, and I would highly recommend it to everyone.

As I foreshadowed in a previous post, I made my way to the IMAX theater last night to see Beowulf in 3-D. Belinda joined me, for which I was grateful. I would have gone to see the movie alone, but preferred the company. It turned out to be a fun evening for both of us.

The movie itself was fantastic. The special effects and fight sequences were expertly done without being overwrought. The plot, while perhaps a bit underdeveloped in places, was fantastic and portrayed the underlying themes of temptation and betrayal quite well. The 3-D aspect of the movie was also well done and there were a few points where I just about jumped out of my seat.

The ending was particularly powerful in my mind. It left me wondering whether Beowulf's friend and successor would slay the troublesome she-demon or make the hero's same mistakes, thereby repeating the cycle. Belinda is sure the latter is more true, but I'm not entirely sure. But then, I suppose that just shows my eternal optimism.

As I mentioned previously, this was the first time I've ever seen a movie in IMAX. I think that I could not have chosen a better show for my first experience. There's something about seeing the battle scenes in this movie on such a large screen that is well worthwhile. In fact, I enjoyed it so much, that I'm considering repeating the experience with other friends who couldn't make it last night. Considering the fact that I usually complain about the cost of regular theater tickets, I'd say that says a lot about how I feel about this movie.

Of course, I now have yet more reason to buy myself a copy of the original epic poem.

Last night, my friend, Rick, and I went to see Dan in Real Life. It was a fantastic movie about a widower and father of three daughters, Dan. Dan also wrote an advice column geared towards parents and family issues. So picture a nice, quiet guy with a number of deep insights and rather sensitive side. (No, he wasn't gay.)

While spending time with his parents and siblings, Dan ends up meeting an intelligent and good looking woman, Marie, with whom he strikes up a conversation. After managing to get her phone number despite her admission that she's in a relationship, Dan returns to his parents house and begins to tell one of his brothers about the girl he met. Of course, as in most closely-knit families, the news starts to travel fast and they even call on the new girlfriend of another brother to offer insight on how soon is "too soon" to call a woman. Of course, imagine Dan's surprise when said new girlfriend turns out to be -- you guessed it -- the lovely Marie herself.

I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of Steve Carell (or at least not The Office, for which he is best known). However, he plays the role of Dan in this movie extremely well, and makes his character believable. The movie is absolutely fantastic (though I have to admit it may have hit a bit closer to home than I cared for), and it's a touching, despite being slightly cliche in some places. (For example, I saw the ending of the bowling alley scene coming from a mile away.) But in the end, I was moved and even shed a few tears, so I'd say it was a great movie overall.

Tonight, I rented and watched a copy of Rock Haven. This movie is the tale of young man, Brady, who moves to a new town (I get the impression it's actually a small island off the west coast based on clues from the movie). Brady is a quiet young boy raised in a conservative Christian environment, planning to head to Bible college at the end of summer. However, Brady's plans and life become quite upset when he meets his new neighbor, the nineteen year old Clifford who comes from a non-traditional background (his mother appears to be a part of the New Age movement). As the movie progresses, the two boys become friends and fall in love. Indeed, the entire plot revolves around Brady's struggle to come to terms with his feelings for Clifford in light of his faith.

Let me first say that as I've lived some aspects of Brady's life, I am struggling not to be too critical of the movie. The writer, director, and actor set a monumental task for themselves by taking on the challenge of trying to portray this subject matter in a seventy eight minute movie. There is simply no way for them to truly portray the struggles -- not to mention the intensity those struggles reach -- in such a short amount of time. If I were to measure their portrayals against my own experiences without considering this fact, I would have to call the movie a complete failure. However, given the time constraints, I admit that they did a fair job.

I think that one of the things the movie did quite well was to demonstrate how lonely this struggle can be. As Brady first reacts poorly to Clifford's advances, Brady realizes that the "problem" lies within himself and he feels drawn to Clifford despite what he believes about such attractions. And yet, he realizes that there is no one he can turn to. He suffers through this alone. Certainly, he goes to the pastor of his church a few times to discuss Clifford, but he takes care never to tell the pastor the whole truth. I recognized this self-editing and self-imposed isolation all too well and found myself thinking of my own past.

The movie also does well to demonstrate that this struggle ultimately affects everyone around Brady. Clifford finds himself facing a new challenge each time he comes into contact with his love. Brady's mother confesses that she can feel the walls building between herself and her son. Even Peggy, the girl that Brady's mother tries to fix him up with (with the help of Peggy's own mother, of course) is the occasional target of Brady's frustrations.

I did feel that the movie lost me after Brady and Clifford spent the night together. Perhaps it was because my own life took a different path (I actually clung to my first lover for dear life out of a sense of desperation), but Brady's choice to seek help afterwards just seemed ill conceived to me. It seemed too unreal to me for Brady to lay in bed with another man and talk about being safe, yet turn around and decide to abandon his love and try counseling after a single conversation with his mother. Perhaps if the movie had done more to re-instill the sense of guilt over a couple more scenes, it would've made more sense to me.

I will say that the conflict between Brady and his mother was well done, (though not as well as the conflict between young Aaron Davis and his mother in Latter Days. The scene where the two talk in Brady's bedroom after he announces he's not going away to get help was truly touching and showed the pain of two people who love each other facing off from immovable points of view. Of course, I particularly loved the extra touch where Brady announced to his mother that he forgave her.

The other part I loved about the exchange was when his mother told him that he was making the biggest mistake of his life by staying. Brady simply responds by noting that he has already made the biggest mistake of his life (presumably letting Clifford fly to Barcelona to live with his father). I think most of us who went through a period of denying our sexuality can identify with those sentiments. I know that as I watched this movie, I found myself thinking of my teen years and what I might have done with them had I come out to myself sooner.

This afternoon, I went to a free screening of Anyone and Everyone. The screening was sponsored by WXII, ImageOut, and the GAGV.

The movie was a one-hour documentary about a handful of families with gay children. (As an aside, I should note that "children" in this post is used to describe a family relationship, as everyone in the documentary was over the age of eighteen, as near as I could tell.) Both children and parents alike talked openly about the coming out experience and how everyone responded to the situation and handled the revelation. The families themselves were from varied backgrounds. Families from liberal and conservative backgrounds as well as religious families (including one Mormon family) participated in the documentary. Also, various ethnicities and various geographic regions were represented.

As each family told how their child came out and shared their emotional experiences and how they handled the situations, the viewer got a strong sense of the variety of responses that gay children face when "breaking the news" to their parents. They even told the heartbreaking story of one young man who was thrown out of his own home upon coming out to his mother. Fortunately, for that particularly guy, he found a family willing to take him in.

Fortunately, the rest of the families came to some level of acceptance and found a way to maintain their relationships with their children, though the road was not always smooth. Indeed, some parents admitted to starting out trying to change their children at first. In fairness, it was good to see one lesbian in the documentary admit that she could've handled the coming out process a bit more tactfully and sensitively. I felt this helped to remind everyone that we kids make our share of mistakes in the coming out process, too.

One of the most touching parts of this movie for me was to hear some of the fathers' responses. At least two families told how upon finding out, the father immediately wanted to call their gay son. The one wanted to reassure his son that he was loved no matter what. Another wanted to call and apologize, because he realized that he had said some things that were hurtful, especially now that he knew his son was gay. In a world where most gay men expect our fathers to be the most upset due to our sexuality, it was moving to see fathers who showed such deep concern and compassion for their sons in such an instant way. The fact that these men were not the type to be accepting right away (both had come from conservative upbringings) merely underscored just how meaningful their immediate actions were.

After the movie, the GAGV invited some of their local speakers to hold a panel discussion. I hope to review the highlights of that discussion in my next post.

For those who may be interested in seeing this movie, both screening information and ordering information is available on the movie's website. (See the link in the first paragraph of my post.)

Tonight, I decided to finally watch Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. To be frank, people who are raving over this movie either have never seen the original musical (especially the 1982 version starring Angela Lansbury as Mrs. Lovett) or did not truly appreciate it. I watched the Tim Burton movie tonight and, while I can certainly appreciate that everyone in it were great actors and the movie had some compelling parts, I can say that it came nowhere near to the musical which inspired me when I watched it live at Mansfield University (no, that production did not star Angela Lansbury, sadly) or the 1982 stage performance on DVD since.

I think that the least offensive change I noted was Helena Bonham Carter's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett . Carter transformed the familiar senile character with no sense of right or wrong to a more aware and somewhat dark cynic of a woman. This made the character more aware of what was going around, forcing who to react to it on some more serious level than the frivolity of a more spacy baker. I also think this hurt the sense of utter and mindless devotion to the vengeful barber that is so key to the character. But if this had been the worst of the changes, I concede that it might have actually worked.

I think the greatest offense in the movie was Johnny Depp's portrayal of Sweeney Todd. Todd is an excellent actor and while many of his lines were well developed, I felt that overall, he played the character poorly. For starters, it was difficult to believe that the man on the screen had just spent fifteen years of a life sentence in Australia only to make a harrowing escape, get lost at sea, and finally rescued by sheer luck. I would expect a man who has gone through such a rough life to look far more haggard.

This was further complicated by the fact that Depp played a far more brooding Todd rather than a man who was becoming completely consumed by grief and a compulsive lust for vengeance. While he showed some excellent sparks of anger (the scene where he tossed Mrs. Lovett into the fire was phenomenal, I grant you), he more often seemed to be more prepared to write emo poetry than explode in murderous fury.

Burton's decision to cut the chorus and any number they would do from the movie entirely also hurt the production over all, in my opinion. The chorus plays an important part in the musical in that its numbers help to build up the atmosphere of intensity and fury. Without that aid, this movie did not crescendo well into the final climax, proving the point of the final words of the musical (which again, were cut from the movie):

To seek revenge may lead to hell, But everyone does it, though seldom as well As Sweeny, Sweeny Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

And that brings me to the crux of my problem with this film. Sweeney Todd is not just a musical with a grim plotline. It is a morality play demonstrating in frightening detail the dangers of becoming enthralled by thoughts of vengeance. The main character serves as an example of how one bent on revenge will become so consumed by the quest and the negative emotions involved that one can ultimately destroy everything one holds dear, and ultimately, oneself. In my opinion, while the movie got the grim plotline down, it failed to deliver the ultimate message of the drama with any real force.

I will note, however, that I was pleased with both Alan Rickman's portrayal of the judge and Ed Sanders's performance as Toby. (In all reality, I found the choice to have Toby quietly and quickly slice Todd's throat and walk away one of the more interesting changes, and I wish the rest of the movie had been done better so I could get a clearer idea of how that adaptation might have worked.) I'd like to also compliment Laura Michelle Kelly on her performance as Lucy, though I'll note that they cut way too much out of that role for her to truly show her skill at playing what is actually a surprisingly pivotal role in the whole musical.