Proof of heaven

Check out this show this Sunday on OWN. I read through the book on several stops to Barnes and Noble. I scanned through it looking for the parts about his Near Death Experience

Life of Pi

My first introduction to Ang Lee was when my mom and I saw the double feature of “Sense & Sensibility” and “Leaving Las Vegas”. I am happy that they showed “Sense” first because I told my mom we had to leave after watching the first few minutes of “Leaving Las Vegas” (if anyone remember those first minutes they would know why I was uncomfortable watching that with my mom). Ang Lee went on to direct three fine films after “Sense and Sensibility” (“The Ice Storm”, “Ride with the Devil”, and “Crouching Tiger/Hidden Dragon”) before his mainstream crash “The Hulk”. While I could defend “the Hulk” to some extent, I wasn’t satisfied with Nick Nolte’s rat villain to call it a happy movie experience. He then bounced back with “Brokeback Mountain”. Honestly, I wasn’t even aware he had directed two other features (“Lust Caution”, and “Taking Woodstock”-which I will add to my Netflix queue) prior to “Life of Pi”. I should mention prior to all of these films is my favorite Ang Lee film “Eat Drink Man Woman”.

Something I always remembered about Ang Lee was when I watched the director’s commentary to “Sense” he talked about how in his movies he always tries to set the tone of the film during a scene where food is eaten. In “Sense” there is cold meat on the table. In “Life of Pi,” the meal was between Pi and his interviewer: it looked a like a traditional vegetarian Indian meal with fresh, warm naan. “Life of Pi” was written by Yann Martel and published in 2001. According to wonderful Wikipedia, it was rejected by five publishing houses before finally being accepted. Imagine the regret of those publishers-Doh! Reportedly, Mr. Martel wrote it because he was lonely and was looking for direction in his life.

Based on the recommendation of Mr. Ebert, I saw the film in 3D. In his review, he writes, “I've never seen the medium better employed.” Ebert is still not a believer in the technical enhancement but with the addition of his last endorsement of 3D, Scorsese’s ‘Hugo,” he may slowly be converting. “Life of Pi” is a visual epic. As a teenager I used to think about what films would be “fun to trip to”. This would be a fun film to trip to. Lee is successful with his visual effects because they are not thrown in for artificial decoration, but to demonstrate the grandiosity the film aims to deliver.

Pi’s story, as claimed by Pi’s uncle, is a story that will make you believe in God. “The Life of Pi” isn’t as much a story about faith, which let’s face it can be dry and boring, but about the vibrancy that can be had when one sees God in the mundane. I don’t want to be a spoiler to the end of the film but there are two versions of Pi’s story of being out on sea that he tells the audience. At the end of the film, I was puzzled when Pi asked his interviewer about the story he prefers. The interviewer tells Pi “the one with the tiger” Pi answers “so it is with God”. What does Pi mean when he says “so it is with God”? After searching the net I found this on gradesaver: “This quote is essential to the story-Yann Martel himself has described 'the better story' as the novel's key words. Here Pi enlarges the themes of truth, and story versus reality to encompass God, and all of life. If there is no way to prove that God's existence is true or untrue, and if the assumption of the truth either way in no way makes a factual difference, then why not choose to believe what Pi believes to be "the better story"-that God exists? This passage thus connects these central themes in the book, and so weaves everything together.”

Without being asked to, the audience is put into a dilemma as to which story they believe. True to the point, it is irrelevant which story is true. Pi could have had a mental breakdown and gone schizo imagining he was on a ship with a tiger. “So it is with God” is to imply that while you can't prove or disprove God’s existence, the better story is that there is a God. If this is supposed to be the clincher, then I am not sure I am a buyer. As a believer in God, is my reason for believing is because it makes for a better story? Um, no. The alternative is a much better story. This reminded me about the time I first heard about Hoyle’s fallacy. “According to Hoyle's analysis, the probability of cellular life evolving was about one-in-1040000. He commented: The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” Now to me, if the watch doesn’t have a watchmaker that would be more amazing. But I guess that is why I find atheists puzzling.

Cloud Atlas

I had debated what to write about Cloud Atlas. As soon as I finished the film I wished to communicate, to anyone that would listen, the joy I felt as I watched it.

But as busy as our lives are, the few notes I had jotted in my head became buried beneath the countless other items that stack up over the course of days. I was resigned to let my review sit in the pile of “never quite make it to the light of day” stack until I happened to come across an article by AO Scott and Manholo Dargis, both film critics for the Times, called “When do we get it? Films Dispense with Storytelling Conventions.” I was aghast to find that Scott didn’t quite share the enthusiasm I felt for the film, “The problem with the movie isn’t that there’s too much going on but that the abundance is often clumsily handled, so that it feels crowded and hectic rather than rich and fascinating.”

As I often do with my reviews is to leave out what exactly the movie is about and instead try to focus on my reactions to what the film was about. Partly because I get bored with having to retell what a functioning person can figure out if they took the time to sit down and watch it. In Scott’s review of the film he does a wonderful job of explaining the details of the plot, which in the case of Cloud Atlas would take longer than most films.

Here is what I can tell you: Cloud Atlas is based on a novel written by David Mitchell and is brought to the screen by the directors of the Matrix and Run Lola Run. I have not read the book, but I have been told that what is in the movie is “5%” of what is in the book. While this probably true for almost every adaptation of a book, something that is common in both Scott’s and Roger Ebert’s reviews is that the movie tends to focus exclusively on the spiritual issues and excludes the political issues discussed in the book.

If this is not a reason for exultation after our recent election when both Republicans and Democrats alike are exhausted from any mention of politics I don’t know what is. When asked on Thanksgiving what Americans were most thankful for I’d bet that most were thankful for family, but in the back of the collective unconscious I would make a large wager that all of us were thankful we didn’t have to suffer through more election coverage. Some of this is tongue in cheek, but maybe not as much as you think. After an article I read recently, I am reminded that there might not be as big of a difference between spirituality and politics as we think, because at the center of both is values.

As I think most Americans would agree political discussion is at a dangerous intersection in history. It is at a low point. What’s this have to do with Cloud Atlas? Some of you might be asking, as am I as I get lost in this tangent. How do you transcend differing values? It isn’t through rationalization, as anyone can attest to if they have ever participated or witnessed an argument between a Democrat and a Republican. More and more in this day, facts aren’t always facts-or at least, that’s what the pre-rationalists want you to believe. The debate on climate control from non-scientists is laughable until you consider that politicians won’t touch the issue because of the political consequences. Even more harrowing is the danger it will present to future generations if we can’t agree on what is science and what is non-science. Again, what does this have to do with Cloud Atlas?

Cloud Atlas is about karma and re-incarnation throughout time. The movie revisits the theme of liberation, a theme common to the Matrix creators’ films. The characters in the film are the same souls that are traveling through the different time periods in the film. Has this been done before in film? Nothing comes to mind. And how appropriate and daring that a film like this could be done in this day and age. How conscious are we in our day-to-day lives of how our choices affect not just those we immediately deal with but perhaps our future lives?

It takes a movie like this to breakthrough to the general population. God knows there is not enough discussion of it on television, our newspapers and even our movies. I was heartened to find in the recent bestseller lists two books by two doctors that explain their near death experiences ("Proof of Heaven" and "Heaven and Back").

AO Scott’s argument against the film is this, “For a movie devoted to the celebration of freedom, “Cloud Atlas” works awfully hard to control and contain its meanings, to tell you exactly what it is about rather than allowing you to dream and wonder within its impressively imagined world. The movie insists — repeatedly and didactically — that a thread of creative, sustaining possibility winds its way through all human history, glimmering even in its darkest hours.” If you listen closely to this critique you will hear two major arguments that are difficult to attack in film criticism-didacticism and literalism. To be didactic and literal in film is the equivalent of a ABC after school special about the dangers of drugs that goes something like this: Jean was the most popular girl in high school and cheerleader captain. Jean smoked pot. Jean got pregnant. Jean had an abortion and had to live on the streets where she prostituted herself out and started using smack. Jean died. Message-don’t use drugs. And here is where I get to use some of my favorite English words-I am simply flabbergasted and dumfounded that Scott would not see the joy in this film. Yet again, one of his favorite films of 2011 was War Horse.

It is unfortunate that a film buff like Scott passes it off as a nice attempt. I am hoping Cloud Atlas gets the recognition it deserves around Oscar time to get more of an audience since it has not done well at the box office. It is the type of a movie that deserves to be seen in the theatre and to reach more of a critical mass.

Take this Waltz

Take this Waltz is a film by Sarah Polley, who previously directed the film Away from Her in 2006. Polley, 33 years young, has written two mature films, both directed with an auteur eye. Take this Waltz stars Michelle Williams and Seth Rogen, as husband and wife, Margot and Lou. An actor I hadn’t heard of previously to this film, Luke Kirby, plays the love interest of Margot, Daniel. I am not a fan of infidelity movies and generally have no interest in watching the soft horror of them. From the onset of the film, it is clear the film’s focus will be between Margot and her love interest Daniel.

Recently, in the headlines CIA director David Petraeus resigned after having an affair with Paula Broadwell. What was more interesting to me was an op-ed piece written by Lisa Belkin for the Huffington Post on what the label is for a “male” mistress. Lover? Gigolo? Paramour? Mister-ess? In a bit of a role-reversal, Michelle Williams’ character is the one in the unhappy in the relationship and goes sauntering into an affair with Daniel. Seth Rogen plays the happy-go-lucky, chicken cookbook maker husband that is portrayed innocently in the film. He is attentive to Margot and is not portrayed as the villain in the film. By doing this, Polley doesn’t have her audience turn against Lou. Instead, the attention is turned onto Margot as being either the heroine, for seeking what will make her happy, or the “shameful woman she is,” as Ebert describes her in his review. I don’t believe the intent of the film is for the audience to judge Margot, but rather it is presented as an unapologetic portrayal of a modern relationship. The gender reversal of the infidelity is new and refreshing, I believe, for both man and woman that are tired of the same old Hollywood man cheats on wife theme. That is not to say that Hollywood hasn’t reversed these roles, Unfaithful in 2002 with Diane Lane comes to mind. That film had a distant, unrelatable, steamy novel feel to it. Margot, Lou and Daniel could be your neighbors.

By the end of the film I was expecting the role reversal infidelity formula to wrap up but was surprised to find it spin into the existentialist territories of Margot’s life. The direction of the film is unpredictable and strong. Most films are kitsch, but in Take this Waltz, you can strongly hear the voice of its director Sarah Polley. If you can suspend your judgment of Margot’s life or character, by the end of the film will you will have an honest dissection of life beautifully rendered in art.

Is Superman "super" any more?

Time to bust out my nerd card! I have enjoyed reading comics since I was a kid. For whatever reason, I never was a fan of Superman. At least in my childhood, there never was a story that piqued my interests. With the “Man of Steel” movie set for release in 2013, I wondered if there would ever be a Superman story that could be of interest. My peak of reading comics was over 20 years. I am sure I have missed out on many titles that probably better explores Superman. One story that I heard of when listening to Grant Morrison’s audiobook “Supergods” was a story by Mark Millar, called “Superman: Red Son”. Instead of landing in America, Superman lands in USSR. Now, that is a twist on Superman I am looking forward to reading. Until then, here is my take on the American icon-Superman!

Superman is the quintessential superhero. He can fly, shoot lasers out of his eyes, run as fast as Flash and is impossibly strong. Everyone is familiar with Superman. His Achilles heel is kryptonite. Something I was unaware of is until I was listening to Morrison’s book is that kryptonite was introduced later in the Superman chronicle and that variations (different colors) of kryptonite affects Superman differently. Green, I believe, being the color that weakens Superman the most. While Superman has an archenemy in Lex Luthor and an Achilles heel in Kryptonite, I never related to Superman as a character when I read comics as a youth. Maybe related isn’t the right word, rooted for might be more appropriate. My first introduction to Superman, that I can recall, is the 1978 movie version with Christopher Reeve as Superman, Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. It’s an amazing film that holds up over time. The film begins with Clark pretty much cleaning the jockstraps of the football team, only to show them up by running faster than a locomotive and beating them to their destination.

Something I didn’t wonder as a kid that I do now is why Clark wouldn’t be the star attraction. Maybe he couldn’t for risk of exposing his super powers. But couldn’t he bring it down just a notch to fit in a little more? Or maybe he would throw a football through his receiver or kill an opponent when he tackled him. Enough digression. Clark was destined to be an outsider, an alien on a foreign planet. Raised in Middle America, the cornbelt, implanted in a Norman Rockwell painting. I think this dichotomy, this tension, creates a beautiful origin story. An alien adopted by Ma and Pa Kent, raised in Smallville, Kansas, declines stardom in a small town, moves to Metropolis, the largest city in the United States, presumably, to fight crime. Dressed in his red cape, blue suit and “S” on his chest, the façade of Clark vanishes and Superman, the alien from another planet, appears out of nowhere to rescue his love Lois from a crashing helicopter. As a child I wished I could go into a telephone booth and come out a superhuman being-a fantastic imaginary play of transformation. The movie goes on to show Superman fighting petty crime and eventually unfoiling a ploy of Lex Luthor by flying around the world so fast he reverses time. And in the end, Superman saves the day. But here is where my problem starts with Superman, hero/alien. Of course, he saved the day, he is Superman. Unlike Batman, that is human in all aspects and is limited by his humanity, Superman, I would argue, is nothing like us. Why root for Superman when you know it comes easy for Superman? Can you make a dramatic story when in the end your hero can simply fly fast around the Earth, go back in time, if he gets it wrong the first time? Yet, as humans, do we long for a character, psychologically, like Superman?

DC Comics some years ago actually killed Superman. As if that would last, or could last. It’s fucking Superman. In Supergods, Grant Morrison reported he exited his grave 8 months later, resurrected. I would argue that DC Comics needs Superman, more than we do, at this time and age. While I loved Superman II, I saw Superman III and IV in the theaters as a youth and found them laughable, even at that age. The last reboot, Superman Returns, was tiring. There was nothing new, despite a new cast of actors and actresses playing the roles. In 2013, “Man of Steel” is due in theaters and if you look at the track record of Christopher Nolan and Zach Snyder you have to be optimistic that they can re-invent the character, much like Nolan did with Batman. I am cautiously optimistic. You cannot peddle his story and make him relevant with the same old shit. The question is how will they do this. How can you make a relevant Superman story in this post-modern world? If it was up to me, this is what I would do:

Clark quits the Daily Planet-disillusioned with the media age and the decline of the print newspaper, Clark quits the daily planet. What would Superman’s new job be? Would he need an alias? Can Clark disappear? Another factor contributing to Clark quitting is the constant refutes of Lois Lane.

Develop another love interest besides Lois Lane. Can Clark actually get some? Would that be too hard to build into the story? How about we enter a new cycle where Lois chases Clark for the next 70 years? And no-it won’t be Wonder Woman, as it is currently being played out in the comics. How long can the guy deal with rejection? He lives in a fictional New York. I think he could find another love interest. He doesn’t have to lose his inner boy scout, but he does have to develop past sexual pre-maturity.

Clark needs inner demons-this is the anxiety age for pete's sake! Can you see the headlines-Clark goes to a headshrinker! Superman on Prozac! Clark is an alien. He has a secret identity. He could destroy the Earth if he wanted to. He can tell no one his secret. He doesn't get any from Lois. Do you think he would have mental problems?

(Ooops-just googled this-already done) Lex becomes President-Recently in the comics Lex Luthor has evolved from his origin story of mad scientist to corporate shark. While the change was creative, it didn’t go far enough to create a villain worthy of Superman. I remember seeing a 60 minutes special on Elian Gonzalez, the child that was returned to his father’s custody in Cuba, in 2005. There Elian,12 years old, toured a Cuban museum that featured several art pieces depicting Superman as a destroyed figure. To them, Superman is a symbol of American imperialism. Agree or disagree, Superman is fighting crime, but is he helping deeper problems in the world-poverty, hunger? Why not have Lex become President of the United States and ban Superman from America because he is a terrorist threat.

Have Superman turn in the Cape? Is Superman smart? Can he share with his adopted planet other levels of consciousness? Rather than fight injustice with his weapons, can we get an insight into his intelligence.

Kryptonite galactic showerstorm- One of the best things about Superman II was that Superman lost his powers and was human for a short time. Something must happen to weaken Superman. I would root for Superman to gain his powers back, but also feel giddy about the idea of Clark without his powers. For me the problem with Superman is also his strength-he is indestructible. The greatest thing about Batman is his closeness to the weaknesses of humanity. For a story arc, you can make Superman as weak as Batman and see how he survives. He would only come out a greater hero.