Showing posts with label teachings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teachings. Show all posts

Jul 16, 2012

Papa can you hear me? A look at feminist ideas in Pixar’s “Brave” vs Disney’s “Mulan”.


Let’s face it – Pixar’s female characters aren’t having a very good decade. Much like Afghan rape victims, they are basically expected to die and get out of the way so that the guys can have cool adventures. Just think of Coral, Nemo’s mother – a victim of her husband’s unwise real-estate decisions. Or sweet Dory – she suffered brain damage so that we can learn about living in the moment. And poor barren Ellie Fredricksen, who’s life with her husband was the best adventure she could’ve wished for, but unfortunately he didn’t share that sentiment. And what about young Colette - bravely chopping her way through the male-dominated world of fine cuisine, until some talentless boy shows up, steals her heart and her career through a combination of cheating and nepotism, and makes her a waitress in his rat infested death trap of a restaurant. All in all, the 2000-s have been tough.


That’s why, when Pixar started advertising “Brave” as their great feminist epic, I was intrigued and skeptical. And, sadly, my only surprise was at just how hateful this movie really is to women. Who has hurt you, multiple screenwriters, and when will you let go of the pain?


 I would like to impose upon your patience by going over the major points of the story and comparing it to the story of Mulan, which is a much better written film, with better characters and ideas, and it is indeed very feminist in its slightly old-fashioned way. There are going to be spoilers, so if you haven’t seen Brave yet you should look away right about now.


And so, we have on the one hand Mulan – she reads, she does chores, she’s friends with a puppy. She’s a little clumsy, but cute clumsy, not Sandra Bullcok can’t-be-allowed-out-on-her-own clumsy. Her parents are cool – her mom’s kind of a defeatist, but they seem to have raised her well. On the other hand we have Merida – the proverbial selfish teenager. Her dad spoils her rotten and undermines her mom’s authority. He doesn’t believe in rules, and the mother only believes in rules for the girl child. The world of men is a big playground where you let your hair down and solve everything with brutal force, and the female world is an avalanche of rules. No wonder that Elinor, so playful in the film’s opening, is now a tired old desperate housewife. But hang in there Elinor, it gets worse.


Mulan wants to make her parents proud. She wants to be a good person in the only way she knows how, and when she fails she thinks that she’s worthless. When she runs away to join the army, she doesn’t do it out of rebellion, or to break conventions, or for love - she does it because giving her life to save her father is the only way she can think of to be useful. Merida doesn’t have any noble interests, she wants to be left alone to thrash around the forest and shoot arrows.


 So, off goes Mulan to the army to save her father’s life, and off goes Merida in a tantrum, not even caring that her father’s guests might slaughter him if she doesn’t return. And while Mulan’s family care enough to send someone after her, Merida wanders on her own and runs into the witch from “The Princess and the Cobbler”, instantly recognisable, though robbed of her charm and sex-appeal by the third and fourth dimensions. You might say that Merida’s rebellion against arranged marriage is somewhat of a feminist act, but I propose that she would’ve bucked in the same way if she had been asked to clean her room, do her homework, or stop texting at the dinner table.


The important questions – what were our characters supposed to learn from the story, did they learn it, and how? Mulan, for example, learned a bunch of important stuff – she learned that she is a strategist and a leader, which is more important than being strong or pretty. She learned that men are under a lot of pressure to live up to expectations as well. She learned that even if your friends are angry with you, you don’t abandon them in danger, and that your loyalty will make them love you. And she learned that she doesn’t have to wear the mask of a perfect lady, because the right guy will love her for who she is, when he knows her well. I can’t even be cynical about this – these are all very cool messages for girls and boys.


And what about our Scottish friends? I guess the point was for Merida to learn responsibility, and for Elinor to learn to relax and let her hair down from time to time. Did Merida learn anything? She did get her message across to the parents that their ways are outdated and teenagers rule the world now – how horrible. She did learn that her actions have consequences, and that feeding your mother an unknown substance might be a bad idea. I’ll give her that, but was it worth doing all that to poor Elinor?


Let’s talk about what happened to Elinor. Elinor, the female center of the story - uncool, uptight, her hair in unforgiving braids. How did we teach her to loosen up and enjoy life? Every sensible person, presented with the idea of a young girl who accidentally turns her mother into an animal, would think – ah, so she becomes a bird, or a horse, or a deer, and they go off together into the woods, and she gets to feel the freedom and beauty of nature and remembers her own youth. Even James Cameron would’ve done it that way, for god’s sake! But no, not Pixar. In Pixar’s eyes, the sin of being a well-groomed female is so terrible, that you need to be turned into the most grotesque creature available – a bear (seriously, not even a dog?). You shall be hairy, heavy and clumsy, your children shall run away from you screaming, your husband will chase you with an axe, and not even that shall be enough. You need to let go of all your humanity, and only when you’ve eaten from the ground snarling and beaten another bear to death, only then are you allowed back into human form. No running around with the wind in your hair for you, only terror, and wondering if the little snot that poisoned you will manage to thread a needle.


“Brave” is not a feminist story. It draws a male and a female world, and clearly prefers the male one. Only the male world is so pathetically superficial and brutal, that I think men have the right to be offended by it as well. Me, I’ll be getting my feminist materials from Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Neil Gaiman, and Lars von Trier.

Feb 16, 2012

From the intro to "God Bless You Dr. Kevorkian" by Kurt Vonnegut


Some of you may know that I am neither Christian nor Jewish nor Buddhist, nor a conventionally religious person of any sort.

I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I'm dead. My German-American ancestors, the earliest of whom settled in our Middle West about the time of our Civil War, called themselves "Freethinkers," which is the same sort of thing. My great grandfather Clemens Vonnegut wrote, for example, "If what Jesus said was good, what can it matter whether he was God or not?"

I myself have written, "If it weren't for the message of mercy and pity in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, I wouldn't want to be a human being. I would just as soon be a rattlesnake."

I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great, spectacularly prolific writer and scientist, Dr. Isaac Asimov in that essentially functionless capacity. At an A.H.A. memorial service for my predecessor I said, "Isaac is up in Heaven now." That was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. It rolled them in the aisles. Mirth! Several minutes had to pass before something resembling solemnity could be restored.

...

So when my own time comes to join the choir invisible or whatever, God forbid, I hope someone will say, "He's up in Heaven now." Who really knows? I could have dreamed all this.

My epitaph in any case? "Everything was beautiful. Nothing hurt." I will have gotten off so light, whatever the heck it is that was going on.

Feb 14, 2012

Valentine's Day 2012

All day yesterday I thought it was the 14-th, then I woke up and discovered it's today. I tend not to love by schedule, but there's one thought I'd like to share with you, and recommend a movie you might like to watch with your loved one tonight.

"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind",  aside from being a story with a deep understanding of what love is and how we feel and remember, is the only film I know that acknowledges the fact that Valentines Day is weirdly placed in the middle of one of the coldest and more depressing months of the year.



It is also the only Gondry film I like :)

Nov 1, 2011

A slideshow template

I spent the last two days looking for a tutorial to make a slideshow for a website I'm designing. I even came close to paying for a ready-made template, and then I found this page, which not only gives the code and explains it, but also has a .zip file (scroll down to find it) that you can download completely free and just tweak the parameters and add your own pics to make it work for you.

Enjoy :]

Oct 20, 2011

מצא את ההבלים

אומה יקרה,

אני מאמינה שחשוב לעודד אנשים כשהם עושים את הדבר הנכון. במיוחד אם מדובר באנשים שאצלם זה לא יוצא בקלות, ולא מה שמאפיין אותם ביומיום. כמו כן, כשאנשים מתנהגים בצורה עלובה, חשוב להצביע על כך בפניהם, ומהר. קיום שתי המצוות האלה הוא שמביא אותי היום לכתוב את הפוסט הזה.

גם אני מאד לא אוהבת את ראש הממשלה נתניהו, את מעשיו, את אביזריו, את המראה שלו, את הסובבים אותו, ואת הזווית של החיוך שלו שגורמת לו להיראות כמו איש עסקים מושחת שחושב שהצליח להערים על באטמן. לכן כששמעתי שהוא הצליח לחתום על עסקה להחזרתו של גלעד שליט - דבר ששימח אותי מאד - עשיתי מאמצים לפתח אליו כמות כלשהי של רגשות חיוביים. זה לא היה קל, זה היה מאבק פנימי קשה שנראה לעתים אבוד, אבל ביומיים האחרונים סוף סוף הצלחתי, וזה קרה בזכות מיזם "ביבי גאמפ" המטופש והעלוב שאתם כל כך מתלהבים לעסוק בו.



אובייקטיבית, מה בדיוק הבעיה עם התמונה הזאת? יש פה צילום של אירוע היסטורי, והדמויות המעורבות בו. זה שאנחנו אוהבים את משפחת שליט ולא אוהבים את ביבי זאת בעיה אישית שלנו. וזה לא שגלעד ואבא שלו דיגמנו לפורטרט משפחתי ופתאום הנדחף הזה הופיע - הם קבוצה של אנשים בתנועה, עם צלמים של דובר צה"ל מסביב, זה הפריים שיצא, וטבעי שהצלם ינסה לתפוס את ראש הממשלה יחד עם החיבוק.

ההשוואה לפורסט גאמפ - באמת? מה, הוא הושתל שם דיגיטלית כדי לנסות להוסיף לו חשיבות? הוא נדחף בכח לאירוע היסטורי שלא נוגע לו, כמו לימור לבנת באולימפיאדה? לא. הוא דמות חשובה באירוע ההיסטורי שהוא היה אחד מיוצריו, יש לו את כל הסיבות להיות שם, וזה שיש לו חיוך מגעיל זה מצער, אבל לא רלוונטי.

אבל אם כבר פתחתם פוטושופ, בואו תנסו תרגיל כזה: הפכו את התמונה לשחור לבן, ושימו את מנחם בגין או יצחק רבין ברקע. נראה פתאום הגיוני, נכון? ואם במקום ביבי היה שם שמעון פרס או אריק איינשטיין (ששניהם גם מגעילים מאד בעיניי), הייתם הרי מדפיסים מזה חולצות, נכון או לא? ואם זאת היתה שלי יחימוביץ, שגם החיוך שלה לא הכי פוטוגני? זה היה הופך לפוסטר שהיה מנצח לה את הבחירות בשנה הבאה.

לסיום, תזכורת: הסיסמא שכולנו היינו נורא מבסוטים ממנה "איפה השליט שיחזיר את שליט?", זוכרים? אז הנה.

Oct 4, 2011

Why I detest Lady Gaga

I know I've already written a lengthy rant about this, but I want to make it clear. I don't hate Lady Gaga because she is a bad singer. I hate her because she is an amazing singer. Because she has a Liza Minnelli voice and a Paris Hilton personality. Because she can do this:



... but chooses to do this instead:

Oct 2, 2011

The Three Musketeers 2011

People who didn't spend their primary school years carrying around Alexander Dumas' novel everywhere they went, can probably let this year's cinematic adaptation pass without comment. I am not such a person, and also I'm not a person who likes to let things pass without comment. And so, here we are.

From this point on, this post contains spoilers for both the book and the movie. The movie, of course, cannot be spoiled, and if you haven't read the book by now you have only yourselves to blame.



The creators of this film obviously found some of the book's elements too vulgar for their tender tastes. For example, all the nasty extramarital affairs, and unsightly female deaths. So they took them all out - the gentle queen Anne, of course, did not have an affair with Buckingham, and the sweet young Constance was not, of course, married. How could she be? She was waiting for the love of her life to ride in from the sticks on his orange horse. And of course she survives all the dangers on the way to have her kiss at the end of the movie. Even the wicked wicked Milady gets to live - and why shouldn't she? Her worst crime in the film was loving her career more than her moody boyfriend Athos. Surely spoiling her outfit with a little salt water is enough to sort her out. Also gone are the captain of the musketeers De Treville - one of my favorites characters, the musketeers themselves - apparently disbanded just before D'Artagnan shows up due to double-dip recession, and most of the plot, especially everything that happens after the diamonds adventure.

Strangely, after cleaning the storyline of these nasty nasty things, the writers found that they needed to add some vulgarities of their own - as big and vulgar as they could think of. So they turned the musketeers - the only three they had left (hey, the title only calls for three after all) into some kind of Mission Impossible secret scuba squad (I'm not kidding, they scuba!), added flame-throwing air ships (they make the annoying trip to and from London so much easier), turned the Duke of Buckingham into a total douchebag (that way the queen couldn't possibly like him), crash-landed into the roof of the Notre Dame, and, of course, had D'Artagnan kill Rochefort in a long and boring rooftop sword fight. At the end of the book, of course, D'Artagnan and Rochefort become friends, but that would've just confused today's tender-hearted viewer. Oh, and Rochefort had an eye missing. Scars are so subtle.

Having said all that, I need to insist that there were several excellent things in this movie, which made it almost worth watching:

All of the production design was breathtakingly beautiful, as was Milla Jovovich (what the hell is that woman made of?!). Most of the casting was spot-on, in ways that it hasn't been in previous adaptations. D'Artagnan was an adorable young goofball (the kid leading the horse), and so was the king - excellent! It was very smart to make them so much alike, in fact in all their scenes together they look like they're about to collapse into each-other's arms.

Usually the Cardinal and Athos (feather hat guy) are the sexiest men in the story, but this time Athos was totally flat, and Christoph Waltz as the Cardinal was good, but unexciting. This made room for two very sexy actors to take the parts of Porthos and Aramis (the big one and the one with the cross). I dare any hot-blooded  woman to watch this film and not fantasize about a threesome with those two!

The fact that they made Buckingham a strutting douchebag bugged me, but on the other hand Orlando Bloom as a strutting douchebag was great, and it's about time for him to lay off the elf stuff.

In conclusion ... oh hell, I don't have a conclusion. Long live the king, long live Paris, long live the Louvre, Notre Dame Cathedral and the Musee d'Orsay!

Sep 13, 2011

Fat lies and the fat lying liars who make us fat.

Al Franken once wrote a book named "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". It's hard to think of another title for this post, when I think about how millions of people in the world torture themselves with low-fat and low-calorie diets.

I was lucky enough to be exposed to most of this information in my early twenties, when I developed some blood sugar problems, but I didn't have a good enough tool to pass the information on to others, until now.

The first three parts explain how there really is no connection between cholesterol and heart disease. Weird, right? Well, it has been known for decades, and still they keep lying to us. The last two parts explain why eating low-fat food and counting calories will not help you lose weight, but will in fact make you miserable and fuck up your metabolism. Sound a little more familiar? I should hope so.











P.S. The documentary Mr. Naughton keeps mentioning is called "Fat Head". It's his answer to "Super Size Me", and it covers all those issues and many more, but in kind of a "talk to the audience as if they were kids" way that I don't approve of. Still, it's an hour and a half well spent, if you want to check it out.

May 25, 2011

A Song of Ice and Fire, or how to lose your fans in five extremely complicated steps.

Since A Game of Thrones began, I've been wondering how, being a known fantasy geek, and moving in geeky enough circles, I could've missed hearing about the Ice and Fire books, and how come I don't know anyone who's ever read them? Now that I've almost finished reading the currently published four books, and learned more about them, I understand why this is.

George R.R. Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" books are very long, very complicated, and very rich with characters. So rich that there's an iPhone app to help you keep track of who is who and what they've done. There are about fifteen main characters, through which the story is told. Meaning that each chapter is named after one of those characters, and is told through their point of view. The first three books, published respectively in 1996, 1998 and 2000, tell the story very well, switching from one POV character to the next, and moving forward in time through all of them. Then, apparently, Martin spent five years writing book 4, and announced in 2005 that it had become so long and complicated that he had decided to split it into two books. He published the first of them around the end of that year, and the next one is due this July. However, here's the little surprise: the book was split in two not chronologically, but per character. Meaning that both of them would cover the same time period, but each would feature only half the main characters.

So, to sum up; in 2000 Martin published book 3, which ended with rather nasty cliffhangers for most of the characters. Five years later he released book 4, which only continues half the story, and the other half is expected this July 2011.

Now, I became an eager Harry Potter fan in the worst possible moment, just after book 4 was published, so I know something about authors blueballing their readers, but even I have to say that this is beyond cruel. Much like the mad king from the Ice and Fire novels, who once placed a man in a situation where he had to watch his father burn or hang himself in the attempt to save him, George R.R. martin is abusing his power over his audience. And I know about the time it takes to create as well, and about artistic perfectionism, but it's too much. The thought that there are people out there who've been wondering about the faith of Tyrion Lannister, the only relatable character in the bunch, for over ten years, makes my blood run cold.

Where was I going with this? Oh, I remember. So, I now understand that the reason I hadn't met any Ice and Fire fans until now, was that they've all probably died, lost their minds, or are trying to forget the books ever existed. As well they should. Not cool Mr. Martin, not cool at all.

Mar 29, 2011

Nosy Bear by Fran Krause

Contrary to what we were thought in highschool, I've seen that people who take things easy sometimes accomplish more in life. Take me for example - I take nothing easy and I don't accomplish much. On the other hand, you can take this story of how Fran Krause made his short "Nosy Bear" in his sketchbook, probably while sucking on a straw, as an example of the opposite:





Original Post Here

Jan 30, 2011

Roman Polanski's "Bitter Moon"

A couple of years ago I sat in the first lecture of a course about Roman Polanski in the Tel-Aviv university, given by a much beloved but very pompous professor. He began by listing all of Polanski's films, and I fell into his silly little trap by raising my hand and pointing out that he had left out "Bitter Moon". His well-rehearsed answer was "I've left it out, because it isn't worth talking about, and I'd rather forget that it was ever made".
Then he spent a month talking about "The Tenant".

"Bitter Moon" - in French, "Lunes de Fiel", meaning "Moon of Gall", as opposed to "Lunes de Miel" which means "Moon of Honey" i.e. "Honeymoon" - is one of the most underrated films in history. Just as the wonderful "Starship Troopers" is mistaken for a cheesy action film, when it is in fact an earth-shattering social commentary, so "Bitter Moon" is mistaken for a romantic drama gone wrong, when it is in fact a grotesque indictment of the modern ideas of romantic love.

As I read some of the reviews for this film, my hands start to shake with anger. The consensus seems to be that Polanski started out with the intention to describe a moving love affair, then got lost in his stupid desire to create provocations by inserting as much soft-core porn as he could get away with. They mock the cliche lines that Peter Coyote's character speaks with a straight face: "Have you ever truly idolized a woman? Nothing can be obscene in such love. Everything that occurs in between it becomes a sacrament." and nobody knows what the hell Hugh Grant and Kristin Scott Thomas' characters are doing there. Roger Ebert is the only one who seems to have some kind of idea of what this film is really about. So, listen carefully, I'm only going to explain this once:

Oscar and Mimi are living out the romantic fantasy of romantic Parisian romance that we've been conditioned to want and fantasize about. He is a brooding American writer who lives in Paris and expects to become the next Henry Miller or Ernest Hemingway. He meets a divine creature on the bus and falls in love at first sight, but doesn't get to speak to her. After looking for her for months and almost giving up, he finally runs into her by mistake, and this "written in the stars" affair can finally begin. Of course she remembers him, of course she has also fallen in love with him at first sight. As they crash into each-other's arms with phrases like "I might have been Adam with the taste of apple fresh in my mouth. I was looking at all the beauty in the world, embodied in a single female form.", they reach the point where Meg Ryan films usually end, and step into uncharted territory. What happens next, or rather what doesn't happen, is that they never reach the comfortable, "boring" stage of the love affair. They never learn to enjoy eating breakfast together without tearing their clothes off and licking milk off each-other. They giggle and kiss while shopping for sex toys, but they will never giggle and kiss while shopping for groceries.

And so the grotesque part of the story begins - how far can you go on desire alone? At what point does sexual exploration become a silly cartoon? What do you do when a person kneels at your feet and tells you "You can do anything you want to me, just don't send me away"? How does it feel to go in an instant from being all-powerful to being completely powerless? And after all the battles have been won and lost, how do you spend eternity? Perhaps by poisoning the lives of a young couple you meet along the way, by mocking their seemingly boring and lustless relationship, and forcing your personal hell on them.

Just like Mimi and Oscar's love, Roman Polanski the masterpiece director is gone now, and it's too late to hug his ankles and cry "Please don't go, I'll do anything!". Instead, we can quote another cliche and say "We'll always have Paris", we'll always have "Chinatown", "Rosemary's Baby", and "Bitter Moon".

Dec 27, 2010

Tron Legacy

For the life of me I can't understand why, in this age of over-population, the majority of texts our mainstream culture manages to produce still preach the doctrine of reproduction above, and instead, of all other acts of creation.

Kevin Flynn has attempted the god-like act of creating an entire alternative universe from scratch, and he expects to get results from it that will benefit our world as well - something about perfecting the human genome, eliminating disease and so on that I didn't entirely follow. But oh no! He has been swallowed up, literally, by his work, and can't spend time with his son. How unfortunate. Too late he realizes that the only perfection he should've ever attempted is the one that hides inside this child. All his ideas about making the world better for the kid to grow up in - too bad, he should've scrapped those the moment the stick turned blue.

 Well, I'm sorry, but screw you, Mr. Kosinski, and screw you, eight (!) people it took to write this script, and screw you (passionately and at length, and sleep for a while and wake up and then screw you again, but always with contraceptives), Mr. Bridges, but being able to create something other than offspring is what separates us from the animals. It's one of the few good things that separate us from the animals. If you don't mind, some of us would like to keep that option open.

Dec 15, 2010

OK, one more. This one is really cool:

"Which represents good and which represents evil --" he asked me, "the rifle or the rubbery, jiggling, giggling bag of bones we call the body?"
I said that the rifle was evil and the body was good.
"But don't you know that this rifle was designed to be used by Americans defending their homes and honor against wicked enemies?" he said.
So I said a lot depended on whose body and whose rifle we were talking about, that either one of them could be good or evil.
"And who renders the final decision on that?" he said.
"God?" I said.
"I mean here on Earth," he said.
"I don't know," I said.
"Painters -- and storytellers, including poets and playwrights and historians," he said. "They are the justices of the Supreme Court of Good and Evil, of which I am now a member, and to which you may belong someday!"
How was that for delusions of moral grandeur!
Yes, and now that I think about it: maybe the most admirable thing about the Abstract Expressionist painters, since so much senseless bloodshed had been caused by cockeyed history lessons, was their refusal to serve on such a court.

Dec 2, 2010

Dinner for Schmucks

Well, I didn't want to see this movie, but now that I have I need to talk about it. If you watch it, which I don't recommend, notice this: it's a movie in which a lot of wonderful British comics take the back seat to a lot of mediocre American comics. There's Steve Carell, who is adorable, but I think everyone is as sick of him as I am at this point. There's Paul Rudd, the ultimate non-threatening "vegetarian" male lead, Zach Galifianakis, who belongs to the Tina Fey school of comedy (i.e. the belief that doing something annoying with a straight face and repeating it ad nauseum equals funny), and a female love interest - Stephanie Szostak - who, frankly, inspires even less passion than Paul Rudd. Then, in the smaller roles, you have a wonderful appearance by Lucy Punch - I've been fixating on her since Woody Allen's "Tall Dark Stranger", David Walliams from "Little Britain", and the hilarious and much loved in our house Chris O'Dowd from the cult "IT Crowd". It's a masterpiece of bad decisions, and mostly inspires wishful thinking. For example, my boyfriend (who made me watch it in the first place) said at the end how great this movie could've been if Wes Anderson had directed it. Could've, would've should've...

Nov 8, 2010

The dimensional subtraction conundrum

This is, I guess, from the "How to train your dragon" DVD extras. Not the most necessary piece of work out there, but there are two interesting things to be observed in it. One - apparently the studios take care to invent some work for the poor 2D animators out there, maybe as a form of social security or something. Two - as they switch between techniques, notice how the transition from 3D to 2D is relatively passable, but the switch from 2D back to 3D feels odd, it leaves you with the same feeling in your stomach as when you miss a step going downstairs.

The embed video option is disabled, so here: Legend of the Boneknapper Dragon

Nov 7, 2010

The Social network

I'm not sure exactly how David Fincher has done this, but it's pretty amazing to watch - a story that could be utterly uninteresting and dull, told in a way that makes you hang on the edge of your seat from the very start until the end credits roll up. It's the editing of course, and the way the different parts of the story are woven into each-other. The good actors, the depth of the characters, so unusual in a film about college students. The trailer makes your skin crawl, and the film itself is fascinating.

Jesse Eisenberg is great, I hope he gets more of those serious roles.



P.S. Of course, the answer to "How has David Fincher done this?" is that David Fincher is an extraordinary director.

Sep 16, 2010

WALK! - - my big walk tutorial

How do I put my work after Fellini's? Let's try.

This is a tutorial I've been working on for a while, after thinking a lot about how they teach walk animation in schools and books, and how each animator discovers a very different reality when he or she go out to their first jobs. I've shown the method that works for me, and I hope it helps other people as well.

Sep 4, 2010

The Chronicles of Narnia, The Problem of Susan

I read "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" when I was young, and of course was completely oblivious to the whole Christian agenda in it. This month I finally made time to read the entire series, and I'm very happy that I waited until I was equipped to understand everything they try to teach. It would've been so depressing to have read and loved all the seven books as a little girl, and then at the age of 33 to re-read them and discover all that religious crap in there.

A couple of the books are pretty good, though none of them managed to really move me. Their most exhausting feature is the fact that all the characters are a bunch of religious nags.
Their best quality is that, despite the Christian agenda, they don't suffer from slave morality. It's a Christianity evolved from the Greek traditions, not the Judaic ones. They don't turn the other cheek, they are proud without being vain, they know that they're entitled to certain things and they don't hesitate to fight for them. Oh, and they don't take any crap from Muslims.
The other thing I love is that Aslan is the way we all wish God would be. He is present. He shows up when you call out to him. He is scary, but you can nuzzle his fur, you can bury your face in his mane, and know that he will give you lion kisses and tell you what to do. He might punish you, but always in a way that allows you to keep your dignity, and he'll always tell you his reasons for it. He doesn't leave a cryptic book to try to interpret his will, he comes to you in a flash of light and tells you what to do. How nice of him.

Book seven, "The Last Battle", is to me the worst one. It starts fine with the struggles against the false Aslan, but then the whole storyline of the second coming and the voyage to heaven feels so forced and unnecessary, not to mention morbid. And then of course there's the evil trick C.S. Lewis decided to play on the character of Susan. Evil and mean and pathetic. Luckily, Neil Gaiman has written and answer to this book in his short story "The Problem of Susan", which I enjoyed reading immediately after "The Last Battle". One day I'll meet Mr. Gaiman at some book signing or something and thank him for "American Gods" and "The Problem of Susan".

Aug 25, 2010

Caution, spoilers:

I never cease to be amazed at how many deep insights into the human condition can be found in the Battlestar Galactica series. I know that every time I rant about it I only get the result of looking like a total geek, because how can there be deep philosophical and social truths in a series so filled with space fights and evil (yet sexy) humanoid robots? A while ago I talked about what good art needs to be, i.e. allegorical, personal and immortal. In its highest form, for me, art deals with what it is to be human. Certainly a story about the battle between the "real" and "artificial" humans, and about the preservation of the human race in face of complete destruction, in the hands of some talented people, has the potential to be amazing. And that is exactly what the Battlestar Galactica series is. An amazing work of art. It looks at how humans relate to their political structure, their religion, their culture, in such a clear way, in such a deep and critical way, that you can see it mirrored in everyday life, and in historical events, and understand them more clearly because of it. It allows itself to be political, yes, but not in a petty, fashionable way which will lose its relevance in five to twenty years (Avatar), but in a way that will always be relevant.

Listen to this: In the end of the series' second season, the humans find themselves electing one Gaius Baltar as their president. This person is incompetent, vain, weak, untrustworthy and prone to playing into the hands of the enemy. He has been flattered into running for president by some malicious forces who aim to use his power as their own.

In 2006 the people of Israel found themselves electing as their prime minister one Ehud Olmert. He was not put in place by malicious forces as head of a puppet government. The conditions which brought him to power were stranger and more complicated, but he did share many of the qualities of the fictional Baltar.

After doing his bit of damage, Baltar is kicked out of power and replaced by the previous president, Laura Roslyn, who then spends a lot of time and energy to punish Baltar for all the mistakes he has made and all the lives he has cost. She never gives a moment's thought to the people who worked behind the scenes, or to her own mistakes, one of them huge, which brought Baltar to the presidency.

After doing his bit of damage, Olmert was also replaced, not by a beloved and able "benevolent dictator" like Roslyn (if only there was one available), but by some people who haven't exactly earned my respect either. Still, to this day, the nation's rage at this man for being a bad prime minister is tireless, and we can see him every day in the news being dragged to court for some old corruption scandal.

What has this bit of science fiction taught us about how people behave in real life? How about this: some people are weak, vain and corrupt. When we give them power, they will use it for vain and corrupt purposes. If there is danger about, their weakness will cost lives. This also: in a democracy, voters are easily fooled by demagogues, and easily made to act on impulse. And if they make a mistake, they don't like to blame themselves, and don't want to look at the people who deceived them. Suggest that the system is flawed? Never. They'd rather take it all out on the person who failed where no one in their right mind could've expected him to succeed.
And so it goes.