Spanglish, part two

This quotation I found in PREMIERE magazine from December 2004/January 2005 seems to relate to what I was saying earlier today about this film.

[From an interview by Jason Matloff with director James L. Brooks]
You also explore the positive relationship between father and his children, something rearely examined in movies.
I wanted to do a movie about an American man who didn't ahve to learn that his kids are important and that he's being a jerk.

Cool! This man thinks outside his own box! I love it. I love people who look at society critically and come up with something good. It's even better when they don't panic or become cynical.

8.7/10

sporadic sizzles

God makes beautiful things - can I just go on the record as saying that?
The smell of bananas frying (lost in pancakes) is simply amazing. Why do we even think we can copy what was here before us?

I jumped to the front of the line when they were giving out Your Free Trial-Period Brainwashing! and I think I'm still paying for it. I could ask myself: what ever possessed me to say I'd rather have licorice over a bowl of grapes or Oreo cookies over home-made tea biscuits? It's a joke to even TRY to have some sort of competition. I know what I go for and I am saddened when I have moments like these where I remember that less human intervention means good things. Good, good things. This dishsoap smells horrible.

"Spanglish" (2004)

I enjoyed this film a great deal. My memory tells me that the reviews for it from the Adam Sandler expert/fan collective were not good. I understand why this would be so.

At the risk of sounding like a retired, affluent and bored woman just being invited on an outing, I was delighted with this. Something about it was just good. It did not move like most movies move. I didn't understand things and they weren't readily explained to me. It reminded me of Runaway Bride because the dialogue - along with other great things - was very real. I enjoyed Adam Sandler's acting. I enjoyed Tea Leoni's acting. Not a one person in the film did a poor job. This film did for me what (I think) Rosanne did for the television-viewing public: it showed a dysfunctional family and made no apologies. Spanglish hardly ended on a happy note. It hardly tied up loose ends the way I expected it to. I loved every minute of it; every minute but one. (There was a very awkward "sex scene" ...... no comment.) One of my favorite lines is as follows: John (Sandler's character) was being pressured to do something at work that he did not want to, even though he is the boss, and so he said, "If you don't [let me have this] then I'm gonna light my hair on fire and punch myself in the face until you do." He stopped walking and made a face. He turned to face the man he was yelling at and said, "Yea, that was a really weird way to make my point."
Another of my favorite attributes of this was that Sandler was not the main character. In fact, I don't think we saw him until 20 or maybe 25 minutes into the film. Man, I can't even describe all the things I love about it. I think that, in doing that, I would take something away. I don't even know if I would watch it again. Hmmmmmm

It strikes me as somewhat sad that all I blog about these days are films but on the other hand I think this is OK because, if a film is worth blogging about, it aint that bad. I am on a quest, after too many years of watching too many films, to find the truly good ones, the ones that allow filmmaking to be classified as an art, and to leave the others behind. It truly becomes a saltwater waste of life. It's too easily sunk into.

While I'm here, let me say that Father of the Bride (1991) and its sequel (1995) are good films, too. Steve Martin surprized me and I learned a few things about him that I think are cool. He's more wirey than I remember and he looks like his ankles get more rotation than any other human's do. Now Martin Short on the other hand, he is impressing me evermore with his magnificence. I don't know what it is about him I just LOVE to watch him act. I love that he is Canadaian, too. He is one of those few people who can convince me that physical comedy is a real talent. There are others like Lee Evans, Jim Carrey and Rowan Atkinson who do the same. Short's character made me gape sometimes. I watched and listened with my eyes wide and my mouth open in a stupid smile because I was so mesmerized by how hilarious and flawless this man was.
The film itself was slightly more cheezy than my tastes prefer but I did survive. This was another of those not-what-I-expected and very-real-life films. Hmmm .. it's like a trend. What I found very cool was that I almost bought Diane Keaton and Steve Martin as a married couple. If I did not know better from real life, I would believe them fully. (This is hard to fake.) Good acting all around, again. B.D. Wong was in this movie and that was like the sprinkles on the icing of the cake. I know B.D. Wong best from Law & Order: SVU so in this role his prowess as an actor just skyrockets. Man! good times.

cheese, "two compounds away from plastic"

Yesterday I mentioned to my brother, 34 days from 17 years of age, that I failed English last semester. My grade was 47 and yes, it hurts. He said, "Wow, that's great! Now I know I'm not the only failure in this family." Later he said something like, "That goes to show: even if you have all the brains, it doesn't mean..." (fill in the blank). This is the most common response I get to telling people about my poor academics. I mean some people are just awkward, saying, "Hmm, oh, that's nice." But usually people almost get mad at me (and, of course, I resent this as they have no right to do that). One friend told me that I simply couldn't fail: I was the one giving her hope that university is surmountable. Onus much? I am glad that my brother took heart, in some twisted way. If it makes him feel better about how he is doing in school then that is great. We had the closest thing to a real conversation we have had in a LONG time (maybe more than a year or two) and I am very glad for this. Though I hate the phrase, I think "baby steps" is appropriate here. I have been realizing over the past several years (probably since I left for university.... [insert moment of reflection here]) that there is a small gap forming between my siblings and I because we simply do not talk that much anymore. Now, with other family members (three of them, I guess) we communicate on the telephone and via the Internet, too which means that the large breaks between actually seeing one another in person cannot phase us too much. But with the others, all I've got is the face-to-face and this Victoria Day weekend marked the end of what I estimate to be a 6 or 8 week drought. My sister suggested that we all go to Dad's so it could be the whole 10 of us together for once (for RARELY) and I liked the idea. It was worth the every crap I went through to get there. I need to get to know these kids because they will soon need something to rely on. I know it. They're about to spin off and away and I want to know who they are before they go. I want to be available. I want some food.. I'm out.

No wait, I'll write the song lyrics stuck in my head in hopes of getting them out:
And now, now it seems
I'm wide awake in this dream
do dooooo do do doooo
Just to stay here foreveeeeer-oo-eee-e-e-e-eerr.
That didn't help at all! Confound it!

I'm getting my foot back

I wish to be untethered.

I don't want keys or a debit card. I don't want to have four coins perpetually jangling in my pocket for bus fare. In fact, I don't want to read another bus schedule again. I don't even care about a belt, about earrings, shoelaces. I don't want a bag or a purse (gag) and I don't need a hollographic trillium to prove I'm old enough to drink. But forget beer.

I want to leave my house with a shirt, shorts and some of the simplest shoes you'll ever see. (Maybe I don't need those.) I would explode down the dirt rode, madly flicking gravel up behind me with each snap-twist of the pads of my feet. Untethered I run because I can. It's not a dream, I can run as fast as I need to. I can also hit as hard as I need to. Pow! Knuckles hit brick or bark. I could scream as loud as I need to. I want to express joy or show the solitude of these open planes. I want to scream as loud as I can. I can feel that running. I can feel the spikes that have grown underfoot, giving me the grabbing and propelling power of baseball cleats that I need to run without reservation. Catch-explode, catch-explode; gone, gone gone am I.

says Wentworth Miller,

"My father is black and my mother is white. Therefore, I could answer to either, which kind of makes me a racial Lone Ranger, caught between two communities."

From Game Five of the 2006 Stanley Cup finals:

"Sweat is the cologne of accomplishment."

in review

What I found overwhelmingly refreshing about Runaway Bride (1999) was that the dialogue was REAL. Characters responded to eachother like we do in everyday ways. That was uber nice to see. Sometimes I think that if we made our entertainment too everyday we would not enjoy it. (Isn't that what "reality TV" is all about?) This was good. Maggy, the main character, she had this habit of repeating questions or statements. She might apologize for something, clarify, or backtrack slightly in the middle but she could still continue with that line she was intent on getting out there.

What I liked about The Mummy (1999) (and The Mummy Returns(2001)) was that I seemed to find myself learning things but I could not pinpoint what. I'm not talking about things to do with history or legend but something to do with people. I was going to say that I understood emotions better but that somehow does not seem right. I like the film because it seems quiet. It is so old that I forget how the public recieved it and so I feel like I am watching something that perhaps only a handful of other folks have seen. I loved to see that the two main characters kept it in wedlock. You never see that anymore. I am guessing the writer opted for this because the time was around 1930.

an excerpt (4.1)

"The things we overlook as simple and ordinary and that we take for granted are truly wondrous!
A gentle reminder: That the most precious things in life cannot be built by hand or bought by man."
[source unknown]

This came in another email.. I smell a trend...

an excerpt (4)

To succeed at anything you have to make trade-offs. Here are 3 of the biggest:
1) Immediate pleasure for personal growth. It takes decades to grow an oak tree, but days to grow a squash. Which do you want to be? Are you willing to discipline yourself?
2) Everything for one thing. The younger you are the more experimenting you should do. But once you've found God's purpose for your life, stick with it, give it all youve got, and refuse to be sidetracked. (Philippians 3:13)
3) Quantity for quality. You don't really pay for things with money, you pay with time. For example, you might say, "In five years I'll have enough to buy my dream home, then I'll slow down." Five years from now could be one tenth of your adult life. By translating the dollar value of something into time, youll knowwhether its worthwhile investment.
[source unknown]

I don't fully agree with this stuff. I would prefer to be a squash over an oak tree. I love squash. (The name gives it bad press, I think.)
I love the unappealing nature of the second one. Who wants to give up more for less? God only makes sense because He doesn't. That reminds me of something I realized during a conversation about grace. Grace is about giving what is not deserved and expecting nothing in return. It does not make any sense to us because we are not familiar with selflessness. In fact, we are usually very skeptical and suspicious of it. I am content with not understanding grace - namely God's grace - but in that moment of passionate discussion, I continued talking into a spot where I thought I needed to give SOME kind of explanation. I was talking to a believer but orating as if I wasn't (because I believe this is good practice and often a refreshing way to relate to believers because there are some things we do not talk about, thinking they are understood, when we actually should). I quoted my brother from a discussion we had about forgivness. He does not believe that true forgiveness exists. I asked, "What would someone have to do to make you believe they have actually forgiven you?" He replied, "They would have to give me the chance to hurt them again," and I was like Serious. It's true; it's a very good and accurate statement. Therefore with the grace of God, we see that He does not ask anything in advance (like a promise to change) or in its wake (like gratitude). Aside from loving us intensely and unconditionally, what could be the motivator? (God is omniscient and omnipotent but He can still get His feelings hurt (especially by us, quite regularly).) I looked at our reaction: When we are given a second chance with a clean slate we do not say, Yes! Another chance to screw up! (I suppose some do... but I aint heard.) Instead we say, Wow, I really need to change. When an earthly parent - or even a teacher - does this, we feel like the bar has been raised, like we need to avoid disappointing them. God gives us grace because He believes we are capable of something better. How cool is it when someone who knows you well (as in good and bad) tells you they think you have potential?
As for number three, it's true. Time is one of those things you can't get back (or enough of, it seems). As Paul said in Six Degrees of Separation, "Money is the one commodity you can always get enough of." Money is a placeholder at best. When you try to put a price on things you cannot pay for you cheapen them. For example: offering your wife twenty bucks to sleep with you. [I saw a couple on television telling how this had actually taken place. The wife asked for thirty and called it a deal. I call it watered-down prostitution.] There was some James Bond movie I watched many years ago (probably one starring Sean Connery) which made me think about the idea of value. Two dudes (regular henchmen) grown greedy had decided they were going to steal some gold bars. They took the gold but got lost in the dessert and wandered around for most of the film until they crossed paths with Bond and posse (again?) and started threatening them with guns. The peeps tried handing over whatever treasure/money they had picked up but the men with guns were like, "I aint havin nunnadat! We wants yer water!" So they handed over their canteens and Bond said something cheesy about how interesting it was that people's priorities change (like this).
This reminds me of another great learning moment brought to me by Hollywood. In John Q, a boy's parents need to come up with too much money so he can have a heart transplant. We watch for a few minutes as the parents do all they can to liquidate their assets. It was sick to see how some people actually took advantage of these people, knowing where the money was going but still bartering prices down knowing the sellers were desperate. I was impacted by this. I thought this man was finding out what was important to him, belonging by belonging. I tried to put myself in his spot. There would be some things that would be easy to part with and some would be very hard or seemingly impossible to lose. I imagine looking at each thing and asking myself a question to decide what I would do with it. "Which do you want more, this or Jesus?" The answer is the same every time but I need to keep asking. ugh

The DaVinci Code: my beefs #5 & 6

"Robert," Faukman finally said, "don't get me wrong. I love your work and we've had a great run together. But if I agree to publish an idea like this, I'll have people picketing outside my office for months. Besides, it will kill your reputation. You're a Harvard historian, for God's sake, not a pop shlockmeister looking for a quick buck..." (176-7)

(This is what Langdon recalls his editor saying when he started to explain how he wished to write a book exposing the true nature of the Grail and of Jesus.)

I find it so interesting, bizarre and audacious that Dan Brown would slip in a line like this which seems to be transparently talking about Brown himself.

---5---

"Many scholars claim that the early Church literally stole Jesus from his original followers, hijacking His human message, shrouding it in an impenetrable cloak of divinity, and using it to expand on their own power" (253).

This excerpt is part of a larger, multi-chaptered section which seems to take any chance of opposition or refutation away from those who know Christianity the traditional way. If the New Testament is bogus, how can we claim anything? It seems that everything we knew is useless and a lie. I would argue that the coming of Jesus and statements about His divinity first made their appearance in the Old Testament - which TDC seems to have no problems with - but that's not something I am prepared to argue.

"The grail story is everywhere, but it is hidden. When the church outlawed speaking of the shunned Mary Magdalene, her story and importance had to be passed on through more discreet channels. . . channels that supported metaphor and symbolism" (281).

Calling a woman a prostitute and expecting the church to condemn her is not a smart tactic. When Jesus preached absoulte, unconditional forgiveness for all, that's exactly what He was offering. Check it: in Matthew 21:32 He said, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him." For anybody who doesn't get it, for anyone who thinks they are above someone who works as a prostitute or a tax collector, they will find themselves condemned instead because they have not understood the truth.

---6---

I seem to have lost my notes so I will be winging this one. Dan Brown has some faults in his logic.
One that I remember wanted to rain on is about Jesus' death. The book says that Magdalene was forced to flee - pregnant and all - when Jesus was crucified. This is not Teabing or Langdon referencing the New Testament or challenging it, this is their englightened historian's account. Therefore I must ask, if Jesus was, "viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet. . . a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless" (253), why on earth would He be crucified? What kind of great man would commit a crime that incurred death by crucifixion as a penalty? Teabing said, "He walked the earth and inspired millions to better lives" (254). What inspiration comes from dying as a theif?

It was man, not God who created the concept of 'original sin,' whereby Eve tasted the apple and caused the downfall of the human race. Woman, once the sacred giver of life, was now the enemy (258).

If this is true then why do those "fake" gospels agree that Jesus was born of a virgin? Why would the man need to be left out of the picture? At the time, people believed that our sinful nature was propogated by the seed of a man which is why God opted for immaculate conception. Brown argues that the mysogenistically slanted version of the Bible allows the woman to be the one to bring the Son of God into the world. It sounds like Mary made the cut but Joseph couldn't hack it! (How does that support partriarchy?)