In 1969, Peggy Lee had a hit song called "Is That All There Is?" The song, written by Jerry Leiber and Mike Stoller, was a meditation on life. Some of you may remember the chorus:
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is
It seems to say to me that "if that's all there is" to life, then why bother trying to do good? Just look out for yourself, have as much fun as you can, make as much money as you can, and the heck with everything and everyone else. I see this view as related to atheism.
I'm a lukewarm fan of Bill Maher's HBO series, Real Time With Bill Maher. Lukewarm, in that I don't entirely agree with his attacks on religion or his admitted atheism, which also implies that there is no afterlife.
I was raised Catholic, and although I'm no longer a churchgoer, I still believe in the teachings of Christ, I still try to follow them, and I still pray every day. I suppose that there's a certain fallacy in that statement, because Christ founded the Church, and therefore I should still be a churchgoer, but I have a real problem with what the institutional Catholic Church has become. In my opinion, it has failed to follow Christ's example and become irrelevant. As such, it has nothing left to teach me.
To me, the kind of life that most of us experience and live on this earth makes no sense unless there is an afterlife that either rewards or punishes us for the life that we live now. If this is all that there is, then why do so many of us try to do good with our lives? Why do so many of us do unselfish things that help others but bring no earthly rewards to ourselves? Why do we show love and affection to our family members? Why not just live for the moment and accumulate all the wealth that we can, no matter whom we have to hurt in the process? Why do most societies condemn acts such as murder, stealing, and adultery? "If that's all there is," then stealing and adultery, at least, should be considered perfectly natural.
The answer is that if we all lived as if "that's all there is," life on earth would be totally chaotic and unbearable. Life can be hard enough as it is, but being kind to our fellow human beings can at least make it tolerable.
I firmly believe that this is not "all there is." I believe that there is a God and that there is an afterlife. Partly because of my Catholic upbringing, I believe in heaven, hell, and purgatory. However, I believe that there are very few souls in hell and that most souls go to heaven.
As for purgatory, the traditional Catholic teaching has been that it's just as bad as hell but there is an end point where those in purgatory will eventually enter heaven. I don't buy into that belief entirely. I believe that most of us suffer our purgatory here on earth.
I don't know of anyone over the age of 50, including myself, who hasn't suffered greatly, in such a way that is out of proportion to whatever sins they may have committed. I believe that this suffering is a test of our faith, our belief in God, and if we pass the test, we will go straight to heaven when we die. This suffering that almost all of us go through makes no sense unless there is a heaven or some other form of afterlife where we will be rewarded for our suffering.
As I understand it, Buddhists believe that we will be reincarnated. I do not disbelieve this possibility, and hence my use of the term "afterlife." There are those, also, who believe that animals are reincarnated, and if they live a good life, they will be reincarnated in a higher form. If that's the case, my cat, Stripes, should be reincarnated as a wealthy person who devotes his life and wealth to helping others.
I prefer to believe that animals go to heaven. I have read theologians who have rejected this idea because, they say, animals never reach the age of reason where they can decide between right and wrong. None of my pets have ever done anything particularly evil, but I have seen them do good things that they didn't have to do countless times.
For example, our cocker spaniel, Buffy, would always protect the smallest living being in the house, whether it was a child or a kitten. My sons learned to walk by pulling themselves up on him. I'm sure that they must have pulled his fur many times, but he never hurt a child. He seemed to understand that they were children and were not a threat to him. I'm convinced that Buffy is standing next to Saint Peter, licking his ear.
I certainly hope that we are reunited with our pets in heaven. People who have had near-death experiences have described loved ones who have predeceased them reaching out to them and trying to draw them into heaven. Frankly, I'd rather spend my time in heaven with my pets than with most of my relatives.
FYI, if you want to see a marvelous film about souls who are making the transition, check out the Japanese film After Life, released in 1999 and directed by Hirokazu Kore-Eda. Of all the films that I've seen about heaven and the afterlife, this is the best.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
It's the Film, Not the Story, That Matters
The year-long (and then some) drought of worthwhile movies from Hollywood seems to be over, at least for now. It's been that long since there's been anything at either my local multiplex or the art-house cinema about 20 miles from here that has compelled me to part withe the price of a ticket. The last ones were The Hurt Locker and Up. Admittedly, I did buy a ticket to Inception earlier this year, but that one was a total disappointment, in my opinion.
Today, I saw two excellent films--Secretariat and The Social Network, which I will discuss in later posts. There are two or three others out now that I plan to see as time and my wallet permit, and hopefully more are on the way between now and the end of the year.
As I write this, I'm saying to myself that there are scores of good film critics who have reviewed these two films. Who is going to care about what I write about these same films? Then it dawned on me that every good critic will see the same film in a different way, depending on their background and life experiences.
Often Roger Ebert, my favorite critic, sees things differently than other well-respected critics, and I think I know why. It's his Catholic educational background. He and I are roughly the same age and got the same type of education, and I can see it coming through in his writing. At that time, Catholic education was heavily influenced by the Jesuits. They taught us to think in a certain way, to analyze, to question, and to look beyond the obvious.
One thing that I have come to understand lately is that there is a difference between what a film's story is about and what the film itself is about. The story is only one of the components that make up a film. Take The Hurt Locker, for example. The first time that I saw it last year, I looked upon it as an ordinary war or action-adventure film and I came away somewhat disappointed. Later that night, as I was eating dinner, I thought about the film again and realized that I had completely missed the point and had to see the film a second time.
The story was about how Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) and his squad go about defusing bombs in Iraq, always in very dangerous situations. The film, however, was about what motivates him to do this life-threatening job, about his relationships with his squad mates and his family, and most interestingly, about his genuinely-positive feelings toward Iraqi people in general and an adolescent boy who sells him pirated DVDs and games in particular. There's also a compelling scene near the end where he tries valiantly to save the life of an innocent Iraqi man who has been forced to wear a suicide bomb. These things took it beyond the bounds of the typical war or action-adventure film. When I saw the film a second time a month or so later, everything fell into place and I realized that it was one of the best films of the year.
I have found that most great films are about character, not plot, although there are notable exceptions, such as the best work of Alfred Hitchcock. The characters drive the story, not the other way around. The events that happen in the film happen because of who they are and the decisions that they make.
I like films that make me think and expand my understanding and point of view. That doesn't mean that I don't also like a good comedy or action-adventure film. I accept them for what they are and if they deliver on their promise, then for me they are a good film.
What I'm saying here is that when you are watching a film that attempts to go beyond these genres and be taken seriously, try to look beyond the story and see the underlying film. Hopefully you'll find substance there that you hadn't expected and that enhances your enjoyment of the film.
Today, I saw two excellent films--Secretariat and The Social Network, which I will discuss in later posts. There are two or three others out now that I plan to see as time and my wallet permit, and hopefully more are on the way between now and the end of the year.
As I write this, I'm saying to myself that there are scores of good film critics who have reviewed these two films. Who is going to care about what I write about these same films? Then it dawned on me that every good critic will see the same film in a different way, depending on their background and life experiences.
Often Roger Ebert, my favorite critic, sees things differently than other well-respected critics, and I think I know why. It's his Catholic educational background. He and I are roughly the same age and got the same type of education, and I can see it coming through in his writing. At that time, Catholic education was heavily influenced by the Jesuits. They taught us to think in a certain way, to analyze, to question, and to look beyond the obvious.
One thing that I have come to understand lately is that there is a difference between what a film's story is about and what the film itself is about. The story is only one of the components that make up a film. Take The Hurt Locker, for example. The first time that I saw it last year, I looked upon it as an ordinary war or action-adventure film and I came away somewhat disappointed. Later that night, as I was eating dinner, I thought about the film again and realized that I had completely missed the point and had to see the film a second time.
The story was about how Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) and his squad go about defusing bombs in Iraq, always in very dangerous situations. The film, however, was about what motivates him to do this life-threatening job, about his relationships with his squad mates and his family, and most interestingly, about his genuinely-positive feelings toward Iraqi people in general and an adolescent boy who sells him pirated DVDs and games in particular. There's also a compelling scene near the end where he tries valiantly to save the life of an innocent Iraqi man who has been forced to wear a suicide bomb. These things took it beyond the bounds of the typical war or action-adventure film. When I saw the film a second time a month or so later, everything fell into place and I realized that it was one of the best films of the year.
I have found that most great films are about character, not plot, although there are notable exceptions, such as the best work of Alfred Hitchcock. The characters drive the story, not the other way around. The events that happen in the film happen because of who they are and the decisions that they make.
I like films that make me think and expand my understanding and point of view. That doesn't mean that I don't also like a good comedy or action-adventure film. I accept them for what they are and if they deliver on their promise, then for me they are a good film.
What I'm saying here is that when you are watching a film that attempts to go beyond these genres and be taken seriously, try to look beyond the story and see the underlying film. Hopefully you'll find substance there that you hadn't expected and that enhances your enjoyment of the film.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Washington Nationals: Now What?
In the spring, a young man's fancy turns to...making it to the playoffs, at least if you're a professional baseball player.
For "one brief, shining moment"* this spring, it looked as the Washington Nationals might actually accomplish that goal, or at least have a winning season with, let's say, about 85 wins. There was only one slight problem: They had to make it through the summer and early fall. Summer was cruel to the Nationals. Early fall brought a ray or two of hope, but for next year, not 2010. As a result, the Nationals reverted to form. Instead of 85 wins they ended the season with only 69. At least this was 10 more than last year.
So what do the Nats have to do to turn things around next year? Here's how I see it:
1--Set a goal of having a winning season. An improvement of, let's say, 15 wins would be a huge accomplishment. However, their fans have waited long enough, and if they don't come away with a winning season, they'll lose whatever remaining fan base they still have left.
2--Sign Adam Dunn, and do it now, not later. Sure, he's a defensive liability at first base, but he's coming off a typically-solid year offensively (second in home runs in the National League) and he's young enough to have four or five more good years left. In addition, he's a well-liked, positive force in the clubhouse, and in my opinion, this has to weigh in his favor. The team needs him to help maintain its morale.
3--Send Dunn to the Ripkin Brothers' baseball academy to learn how to play first base. I'm kidding, of course, but Adam must commit himself to improving his fielding skills. Anyone who's built like Paul Bunyan is never going to be agile and fast on his feet, but Adam has plenty of room for improvement in his ability to catch throws on the bounce or slightly off-line. The other three infielders need to feel confident that if they get the ball anywhere in his vicinity, he'll make the play 99 times out of 100, not three out of four or whatever it is now.
4--Sign the best starting pitcher that they can get in the free-agent market. For most of the 2010 season, their starting rotation consisted of Livan Hernandez--a legitimate starting pitcher--and a parade of wannabes, has-beens, and never-weres. Jason Marquis proved to be a major disappointment. Stephen Strasburg brought a flame of hope that was quickly extinguished, at least for the next year.
Jordan Zimmermann has shown great promise in the last month or so. Strasburg will hopefully come back better than ever. Next year, Marquis will get another chance to prove he was worth what the Nats paid for him. Maya pitched far better this year than his record indicates. The rest of this year's starting rotation should be traded or shipped back to the minors. A starting rotation of Hernandez, Zimmermann, Maya, a Marquis who has returned to form, and late in the year, Strasburg, would have promise, and adding a quality starter from this winter's free-agent market would make it quite respectable.
The bullpen has done a remarkable job considering the absurd number of innings that it has had to absorb. Improve the starting rotation and you will also improve the bullpen, which should be left alone.
4--Make Danny Espinoza the starting second baseman. He's earned it. Hopefully Ian Desmond has gotten his rookie mistakes out of his system and will start to realize his full potential. A left side of the infield consisting of Ryan Zimmerman, Ian Desmond, and Danny Espinoza could develop into one of the best in the majors and could be together for a long time.
5--Trade Nyjer Morgan and put Roger Bernadina in center and Mike Morse in right. Roger and Mike have both earned the right to be everyday players. As for Morgan, he may still have great potential, but despite his speed, his baserunning is a liability and his emotional maturity is that of a two-year-old spoiled brat. He's not a young kid anymore. He's pushing 30 and has been in the majors for several years. If he hasn't grown up by now, he never will. No major league team can afford to have that type of loose cannon on its roster.
6--Use the second year of Pudge Rodriquez's contract to develop the promising catchers that the Nats have, so that at least one of them will be ready to play full-time in 2012. In the meantime, make sure that they learn everything that they can from Pudge.
7--If they can't resign Adam Dunn for whatever reason, they absolutely must sign free-agent Derrek Lee. He would replace Dunn's power and be a major upgrade defensively.
There you have it--my advice to the Nationals, based on my experience as a baseball fan of 60 years. But what do I know? I'm just a fan, not a baseball professional.
* From the title song of the musical Camelot, by Lerner and Loewe.
For "one brief, shining moment"* this spring, it looked as the Washington Nationals might actually accomplish that goal, or at least have a winning season with, let's say, about 85 wins. There was only one slight problem: They had to make it through the summer and early fall. Summer was cruel to the Nationals. Early fall brought a ray or two of hope, but for next year, not 2010. As a result, the Nationals reverted to form. Instead of 85 wins they ended the season with only 69. At least this was 10 more than last year.
So what do the Nats have to do to turn things around next year? Here's how I see it:
1--Set a goal of having a winning season. An improvement of, let's say, 15 wins would be a huge accomplishment. However, their fans have waited long enough, and if they don't come away with a winning season, they'll lose whatever remaining fan base they still have left.
2--Sign Adam Dunn, and do it now, not later. Sure, he's a defensive liability at first base, but he's coming off a typically-solid year offensively (second in home runs in the National League) and he's young enough to have four or five more good years left. In addition, he's a well-liked, positive force in the clubhouse, and in my opinion, this has to weigh in his favor. The team needs him to help maintain its morale.
3--Send Dunn to the Ripkin Brothers' baseball academy to learn how to play first base. I'm kidding, of course, but Adam must commit himself to improving his fielding skills. Anyone who's built like Paul Bunyan is never going to be agile and fast on his feet, but Adam has plenty of room for improvement in his ability to catch throws on the bounce or slightly off-line. The other three infielders need to feel confident that if they get the ball anywhere in his vicinity, he'll make the play 99 times out of 100, not three out of four or whatever it is now.
4--Sign the best starting pitcher that they can get in the free-agent market. For most of the 2010 season, their starting rotation consisted of Livan Hernandez--a legitimate starting pitcher--and a parade of wannabes, has-beens, and never-weres. Jason Marquis proved to be a major disappointment. Stephen Strasburg brought a flame of hope that was quickly extinguished, at least for the next year.
Jordan Zimmermann has shown great promise in the last month or so. Strasburg will hopefully come back better than ever. Next year, Marquis will get another chance to prove he was worth what the Nats paid for him. Maya pitched far better this year than his record indicates. The rest of this year's starting rotation should be traded or shipped back to the minors. A starting rotation of Hernandez, Zimmermann, Maya, a Marquis who has returned to form, and late in the year, Strasburg, would have promise, and adding a quality starter from this winter's free-agent market would make it quite respectable.
The bullpen has done a remarkable job considering the absurd number of innings that it has had to absorb. Improve the starting rotation and you will also improve the bullpen, which should be left alone.
4--Make Danny Espinoza the starting second baseman. He's earned it. Hopefully Ian Desmond has gotten his rookie mistakes out of his system and will start to realize his full potential. A left side of the infield consisting of Ryan Zimmerman, Ian Desmond, and Danny Espinoza could develop into one of the best in the majors and could be together for a long time.
5--Trade Nyjer Morgan and put Roger Bernadina in center and Mike Morse in right. Roger and Mike have both earned the right to be everyday players. As for Morgan, he may still have great potential, but despite his speed, his baserunning is a liability and his emotional maturity is that of a two-year-old spoiled brat. He's not a young kid anymore. He's pushing 30 and has been in the majors for several years. If he hasn't grown up by now, he never will. No major league team can afford to have that type of loose cannon on its roster.
6--Use the second year of Pudge Rodriquez's contract to develop the promising catchers that the Nats have, so that at least one of them will be ready to play full-time in 2012. In the meantime, make sure that they learn everything that they can from Pudge.
7--If they can't resign Adam Dunn for whatever reason, they absolutely must sign free-agent Derrek Lee. He would replace Dunn's power and be a major upgrade defensively.
There you have it--my advice to the Nationals, based on my experience as a baseball fan of 60 years. But what do I know? I'm just a fan, not a baseball professional.
* From the title song of the musical Camelot, by Lerner and Loewe.
Friday, October 1, 2010
HBO: The New Tiffany Network
CBS, in its heyday from the 1950s to the 1970s, used to be called the Tiffany Network because of the quality of its programming. This was a time when the networks dominated television and there was no competition from cable networks or video rentals. People used to stay home on Saturday evenings to watch the prime-time lineup of M*A*S*H*, All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, Bob Newhart, and Carol Burnett, probably the greatest lineup of sitcoms and variety shows in the history of television.
Sadly, no one would call CBS, or any other broadcast network, a Tiffany network today. However, in my opinion, there is a new Tiffany network, namely Home Box Office, or HBO.
Historically, once or twice a year HBO has come up with a program or series that has made having a cable service and paying a premium to subscribe to HBO worthwhile. In the past, HBO has givn us such gems as the following:
From Earth to the Moon, the story of how the United States put a man on the moon in the 1960s. The theatrical film The Right Stuff also told this story very well, but in my opinion the HBO series, because it could take the time to tell the story in great detail, was even better. The series was executive-produced by Tom Hanks, who has had a hand in several other high-profile HBO projects.
Band of Brothers, the true story of a company of paratroopers in World War II, co-executive-produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.
The Wire, David Simon's gritty series on various types of crime in Baltimore, where he had been a newspaper reporter. This excellent series went on for five seasons.
The Gathering Storm, an adaptation of the first volume of Winston Churchill's World War II memoirs, starring Albert Finney as Churchill. Finney was incredible in the role. I'm old enough to remember seeing news clips of Churchill. In his first scene, Finney steps out of a car to view the countryside. My first reaction was, "My God--he is Churchill."
This was followed by an adaptation of the second volume of Churchill's memoirs, the name of which escapes me, starring Brendan Fraser. This was also an excellent program, although perhaps not quite as good as the earlier one.
The list goes on:
Wit, starring Emma Thompson
Angels in America, starring Emma Thompson and Al Pacino
Last year, HBO gave us Taking Chance, starring Kevin Bacon in a true story about a Marine who accompanies the remains of another Marine from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to the home of the deceased Marine's parents. The real story is in the people he meets along the way and the lengths that they went to to show respect to the dead Marine. If you despair of the ugliness that seems to characterize some American citizens today, this film will help to restore your faith in this country.
This year, however, HBO has outdone itself.
First came The Pacific, an outstanding series that followed several Marines as they fought in the South Pacific during World War II. Also co-executive-produced by Hanks and Spielberg, the series spared no expense in showing the horrors of the battles in the Pacific and what these men had to go through.
This was followed by Treme, David Simon's series on the difficulties faced by the African-American residents of the Treme district in New Orleans, one year after Hurricane Katrina. Although not as good as Simon's The Wire, in my opinion, it was rich with performances by today's best New Orleans musicians. I'm hoping that it returns for a second season.
Treme was followed by the biopic about Jack Kevorkian, starring Al Pacino. I haven't seen it so I can't comment on it.
Now we have Boardwalk Empire, a fictionalized account of the corruption in Atlantic City, New Jersey, during the Prohibition era. It was executive-produced by Martin Scorsese, who directed the first episode. That episode wasn't exactly vintage Scorsese, in my opinion, but to my knowledge it is the only television program that Scorsese has ever directed, unless he did some TV work in his early days that I don't know about. Nevertheless, the series is well worth watching.
HBO quality doesn't stop with its big productions. It has many highly-regarded regular series, which I won't comment on because I haven't seen them, and gives regular exposure to many documentaries. For years, it's been home to the country's best stand-up comedians, and its boxing coverage is excellent. Finally, many good movies wind up on HBO after the pay-per-view stage.
It's easy to lament the quality of television programming today, especially at the broadcast network level. But it's also nice to know that there is still a network that cares about quality and is willing to take risks and give its projects decent budgets, production values, and support.
Leonard Maltin's annual movie guide has many listings labelled "Made for cable." That label generally implies a film that isn't as good as a theatrical release and is just above "Made for television" in quality. In the case of HBO, however, this is simply not the case. In my opinion, there's nothing shameful about making a film for HBO. Its best efforts can hold their own with any theatrical film. I think that Leonard Maltin needs a new label, "Made for HBO."
My hat is off to HBO.
Sadly, no one would call CBS, or any other broadcast network, a Tiffany network today. However, in my opinion, there is a new Tiffany network, namely Home Box Office, or HBO.
Historically, once or twice a year HBO has come up with a program or series that has made having a cable service and paying a premium to subscribe to HBO worthwhile. In the past, HBO has givn us such gems as the following:
From Earth to the Moon, the story of how the United States put a man on the moon in the 1960s. The theatrical film The Right Stuff also told this story very well, but in my opinion the HBO series, because it could take the time to tell the story in great detail, was even better. The series was executive-produced by Tom Hanks, who has had a hand in several other high-profile HBO projects.
Band of Brothers, the true story of a company of paratroopers in World War II, co-executive-produced by Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg.
The Wire, David Simon's gritty series on various types of crime in Baltimore, where he had been a newspaper reporter. This excellent series went on for five seasons.
The Gathering Storm, an adaptation of the first volume of Winston Churchill's World War II memoirs, starring Albert Finney as Churchill. Finney was incredible in the role. I'm old enough to remember seeing news clips of Churchill. In his first scene, Finney steps out of a car to view the countryside. My first reaction was, "My God--he is Churchill."
This was followed by an adaptation of the second volume of Churchill's memoirs, the name of which escapes me, starring Brendan Fraser. This was also an excellent program, although perhaps not quite as good as the earlier one.
The list goes on:
Wit, starring Emma Thompson
Angels in America, starring Emma Thompson and Al Pacino
Last year, HBO gave us Taking Chance, starring Kevin Bacon in a true story about a Marine who accompanies the remains of another Marine from Dover Air Force Base in Delaware to the home of the deceased Marine's parents. The real story is in the people he meets along the way and the lengths that they went to to show respect to the dead Marine. If you despair of the ugliness that seems to characterize some American citizens today, this film will help to restore your faith in this country.
This year, however, HBO has outdone itself.
First came The Pacific, an outstanding series that followed several Marines as they fought in the South Pacific during World War II. Also co-executive-produced by Hanks and Spielberg, the series spared no expense in showing the horrors of the battles in the Pacific and what these men had to go through.
This was followed by Treme, David Simon's series on the difficulties faced by the African-American residents of the Treme district in New Orleans, one year after Hurricane Katrina. Although not as good as Simon's The Wire, in my opinion, it was rich with performances by today's best New Orleans musicians. I'm hoping that it returns for a second season.
Treme was followed by the biopic about Jack Kevorkian, starring Al Pacino. I haven't seen it so I can't comment on it.
Now we have Boardwalk Empire, a fictionalized account of the corruption in Atlantic City, New Jersey, during the Prohibition era. It was executive-produced by Martin Scorsese, who directed the first episode. That episode wasn't exactly vintage Scorsese, in my opinion, but to my knowledge it is the only television program that Scorsese has ever directed, unless he did some TV work in his early days that I don't know about. Nevertheless, the series is well worth watching.
HBO quality doesn't stop with its big productions. It has many highly-regarded regular series, which I won't comment on because I haven't seen them, and gives regular exposure to many documentaries. For years, it's been home to the country's best stand-up comedians, and its boxing coverage is excellent. Finally, many good movies wind up on HBO after the pay-per-view stage.
It's easy to lament the quality of television programming today, especially at the broadcast network level. But it's also nice to know that there is still a network that cares about quality and is willing to take risks and give its projects decent budgets, production values, and support.
Leonard Maltin's annual movie guide has many listings labelled "Made for cable." That label generally implies a film that isn't as good as a theatrical release and is just above "Made for television" in quality. In the case of HBO, however, this is simply not the case. In my opinion, there's nothing shameful about making a film for HBO. Its best efforts can hold their own with any theatrical film. I think that Leonard Maltin needs a new label, "Made for HBO."
My hat is off to HBO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)