As David Sang

I find it fascinating how people talk about the Psalms in ways that suggest they haven't read them. Everyone knows Psalm 23, but most psalms don't read like that. There are feelings and ideas that many religious people would seem to be shocked by. But that's reality, and THAT's the way David and others talked to God. No filter, just throw it out there, and sing about it. Sometimes, for others to sing too. Would it surprise you to learn that the Psalms say God is angry all the time (psalm 7:11) or that David longs to bathe his feet in the blood of his enemies?

When I was in middle school, we were assigned to each write a psalm. Only two of us really did, with everyone else simply writing bad poems. But mine was a cry of despair about the faculty, so I was given a bad grade and forced to rewrite it and make them look good. I stand by my original words; that's how David wrote. It doesn't matter whether he was right or not to hate his enemies "with a righteous hatred" (and remember, this likely included Saul, the king of Israel); that is how he felt and expressed it.

I've recenty discovered a band called Red. They are essentially Christian metal. I like "Let It Burn" particularly, as I consider it much more a psalm as David would sing than the kind of things sung in churches these days. To me, most of today's Christian music is poorly written, and certainly shies away from the realities of pain. I appreciate a band that writes something like this.

And just for the other side of the equation, here's Red's answer with their song "Not Alone".

If I Wrote For "Glee"

Glee returned from its brief hiatus this week and started it's stretch of episodes before the season finale. Unfortunately, after the previous cliffhanger they took the easy way out and didn't pick up this episode with the immediate aftermath. I hate when TV doesn't deal honestly with what just happened, and instead jumps ahead in time. We don't get to see how the gang found out about Quinn or anything else, we're just quickly filled in with a five-minute exposition scene. That bothered me, but it was evidentiary of the sometimes lazy and uneven writing I'm finding the show slump into (and I say this as a writer so lazy he ended that clause with a preposition). So I started thinking what kinds of things I would do if I were on the writing staff for Glee.

1. Remember the pilot -- The first episode was such a hit not just because of the music, but because it had a great sardonic wit. That wit carried over for the next few episodes, and the series felt a lot like Popular used to feel. Popular was a prior series from the same creators on the WB, that had a bit of a bite to it for people who didn't watch Dawson's Creek. Sometimes there were sweet moments, but it didn't forget what it was. Sometimes Glee doesn't know what it is anymore and lets itself get too silly in its humor, too unrealistic, too preachy, or too "musical". It's gotten into a rut, which they sometimes self-consciously comment on, but I always appreciate it more when the writing has that satire to it. I find also that there seem to be chunks of episodes that focus on one idea, then it's totally forgotten about for the next chunk of episodes. Like the seasons are written in three or four blocks with little thought to integrating them over a whole year. But mostly, I just liked the feel of the pilot, and it hasn't often felt that way in awhile.

2. The band doesn't know the song -- I know this show wants to follow the illogic of being a musical, and with that come certain conventions that we just accept. For instance, in any Gene Kelly movie, you know that he'll suddenly start tapping at some point, even though his shoes have no taps on them for the rest of the scene. The series used to straddle this line better when it had more fantasy sequences or had characters bring in sheet music. But for some reason now there always seem to be enough musicians in the room (even sometimes playing random instruments just for that one song) and they ALWAYS know how to play and how to play it perfectly. Nobody ever criticizes them. So I think it would be great if there were a moment in some episode where one of the kids says he doesn't know the song and can't play it. Or someone else plays a wrong note somewhere. They can still play it right for the album, but it would not only lend a little more reality to the show, it would also make for a witty commentary on the series to date.

3. A band-centered episode -- And while we're at it, I'd like to see a special episode that focuses exclusively on these band kids who are forced to stay in the background. Star Trek: The Next Generation once did an episode called "Lower Decks" that was about a group of junior officers on the ship and what life was like for them. It was insightful and interesting, and only marginally featured the main cast. I think it would be an interesting experiment to explore some of these other people that we see all the time, but don't get to hear about.

4. 4-week run with no soapbox -- A big part of Glee has always been about acceptance and tolerance of everyone and that of course has included the gay community. However, the series has gotten bogged down in making characters gay, in exploring its gay characters, and in parading them sometimes for no reason, or worse to make some preachy statement. This was especially harmful in season 2, which began by exploring Kurt beyond his sexuality and into his thoughts on religion and his relationship with his father. But then they started the bullying storyline, and Kurt has been mainly "the gay one" again. I'm not saying they shouldn't have gay characters or write storylines for them or give them love interests. But I think it would be healthy for the series to take 4 consecutive episodes and not touch on it at all. This goes for doing heavy-handed "message" episodes as well. Ryan Murphy has gotten so used to using his show as a forum (the recent valentine's episode felt like it was written solely as a response to Victoria Jackson) that it sometimes seems that he's forgotten that his characters are people first. Consider the way they write Artie. He's there, but they don't always focus on the wheelchair. They do every now and then, but it doesn't come up all the time. The constant focus on Kurt and Blaine and now Santana is becoming repetitive, makes them one-note characters, and takes focus away from other cast members. They've found ways to take Quinn away from being the stereotypical cheerleader (sadly, they've put Brittany more in that dumb blonde category), and I think it only right that they take Kurt away from being a stereotypical gay character. Every now and then they make real progress, but they constantly seem to slide back. Especially now that they have Blaine.

5. Stop adding characters!!! -- Another reason they can't service all their actors is that there are just too many characters now. This is another reason that storylines keep getting started and dropped; they can't keep that many balls in the air.

6. Do a Beach Boys episode -- Glee has surprisingly done comparatively little music from the 1960s. The Beach Boys have a decade-spanning career. Granted, this same point could be made for a number of other artists and it also comes down to what songs they can get. But I'd love to hear an a capella version of "Good Vibrations."

7. Focus on '90s music -- The series has done a lot of music from the '70s. It's done a lot with classic rock, as well as funk and there's an upcoming disco number. This is all music from before the kids' time. On the other end of the spectrum, there has been a lot of contemporary music (sometimes too much); Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Lady Antebellum, Avril Lavigne. But that one piece that they've really avoided is the sound of the 1990s. For these kids, the 1990s is just as foreign as the 1970s. It weirds me out to think of it, but high school students today are people who weren't born when Lion King first came out. Some '90s songs would be the soundtrack of their childhoods, others they might know through bands still popular like Green Day. But up until now the series has almost exclusively avoided this decade. Usually, songs of this period are Broadway showtunes or hits from the careers of '80s icons like Michael Jackson or Madonna. I think it would be just as beneficial to focus on some of that '90s indie rock sound as it is to do funk or disco.

9. Return to the internal logic of competing -- In the first season, or at least the first 13 episodes, there was a sense that the glee club was choosing songs and rehearsing them for competition. But as the series went on, they got more and more away from that to the point where they never seem to do the same song twice (except "Don't Stop Believin'") and worse, go to competition without a final set list. In the early episodes, there were requirements for types of songs to be sung. Now that seems like it's all out the window. It's making the show a joke. Yes, they've undone some of that damage by commenting on it this season, but until we actually see things done differently, it still feels false.

10. Educate the writing staff about musical theater -- Every single time the series puts on a musical, it follows the movie version even when that is vastly different. It happened in the first season when Rachel was doing Cabaret and she was rehearsing dialog from the movie and doing a song written for the film (it was later put in some revivals). It happened in season 2 when they put on Rocky Horror, but it was really a love letter to the movie. And it happened this season with West Side Story, when they performed the movie version of "America". There was a lot wrong with the way they did West Side in those episodes (particularly the casting of Kurt). But my point is that they don't seem to really know anything about the shows themselves. Or about the realities of high school productions. Musical theater gleeks make up a large portion of their audience, and they do themselves a disservice when they don't write it properly.

That's just my two cents. I know I haven't done anymore of my episode reviews for this season. I just haven't had the time. Perhaps I'll have more to say on some of this if I get to them eventually.

The Destination is the Journey

I just read a fascinating interview regarding the closing of a video store in Brooklyn. It made me so sad. In the discussion, they bring up so many areas about which I have felt the same for years. Sometimes when people ask me what I want to do, I ponder whether I'd like a video store. But reading stories like this reminds me that it's hard enough to start small business right now, and the rental world is dying unnecessarily. So why bother doing something that isn't going anywhere?

I encourage everyone to follow the link and read this piece because it is amazing. This beautiful elegy reminds me of the things that make me happy and are important to me, and sadly reminds me that the world is leaving me behind. Don't throw away the chance of buying things in stores, or visiting stores, or renting hard copies instead of doing it all on a computer. Sometimes you get more than just what you thought you wanted. It's good to have a place for these things; sometimes you'll find the destination was really the journey.

Read the original article here: http://www.hammertonail.com/interviews/be-kind-remember-alex-ross-perry-and-joe-martin-discuss-the-closing-of-reel-life-south/

St Patrick's Day

A little lesson for the day from VeggieTales. It's fun, despite the fact that it's idea of paganism is vastly oversimplified for kids, and takes a shot at Disney's Pocahontas for no reason.

Furthermore, the shamrock is NOT a metaphor for God, and I don't know why they continue to tell kids this. It has three separate leaves. God is much more like water than he is like a shamrock.

But you don't want to read my blatherings, just watch the video. And hey, is that tiny stonehenge a reference to Spinal Tap?

Best Films of 2011

I now present my annual best films list for the previous year. It took this long because I didn't want to compile a list until I had seen more of the movies. Again, this only covers movies I actually saw, so there could be great movies out there that I missed. Other good but flawed movies nearly made this list, but I wanted to keep it to ten. Sorry Martha Marcy May Marlene.

10. Drive -- There are certain movies that go on to define a season or a year regardless of their quality. Both Bridesmaids and The Help fit into this category. And even though it almost made this list, Bridesmaids had a fatal flaw that made me exclude it: the movie hates its protagonist. For some reason, the message seems to be that everything is her fault, though it clearly is not, and that she just has to get over herself. That, and the fact that the movie really didn't need it's much-talked-about bathroom gross-out scene. But the other movie that got everyone talking this summer was Drive, with Ryan Gosling. It's a strange movie with an odd energy to it that is both engrossing and off-putting. Gosling is good in it, but he's been good in a lot of films over the past ten years. In some ways, this movies a kind of modern Taxi Driver. The premise is that Gosling is a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights driving get-away for criminals. Like certain other films, the movie is schizophrenic; the second half becomes a very violent maelstrom, while the first half is more slow and brooding. If you're put off by gore, do not be fooled by the first half! This movie gets bloody really fast, and doesn't let up. But I was still taken with some of the performances. It was great seeing Bryan Cranston in a supporting role, playing someone both different form and similar to his Breaking Bad persona Walter White. But the real stand-out here is Albert Brooks who gets to put aside comedy to play a very menacing character. The fact that he was denied a supporting actor nomination is shameful. Drive is not as good as many people extolled it to be, but it's engaging for what it is and impossible to ignore.

9. The Muppets -- We have to appreciate that Jason Segal was able to bring the Muppets back to the big screen. But let's be clear, this is not as good as the best of the classic Muppet films. Nothing can replace the work of Jim Henson and Frank Oz on films like The Great Muppet Caper. But it's a lot of fun, and helps wash away the taste of disappointment left by Muppets From Space. There are some very funny moments and some great references to previous Muppet stuff. This is the only Muppet movie to really reference the Muppet Show, and makes it the center of the plot. Unfortunately, the references sometimes hurt the movie, and it sometimes starts feeling less like a great Muppet movie and more like very good fan fiction. The story of Segal and Amy Adams' characters is sidelined midway for the "let's reunite the gang" story. The movie isn't always sure what plot to follow. But Adams is charming as she always is and has a lovely solo moment in a restaurant (there are so many good musical moments its a shame the Academy only recognized one song). She even pays homage to Charlie Chaplin in The Gold Rush. Since Frank Oz has retired, it takes a little getting used to the new voicing for Piggy and Fozzie (though it's a little better than it has been in recent specials and appearances). I came out of the movie charmed, but missing just a little something, which is why it's so low on the list. And yet, the sheer energy of the movie, the love for what the characters used to be, the cameos from Mickey Rooney and others I won't spoil, make it a movie well worth seeing, hopefully signaling even better things to come from the Muppets now that they are back.

8. The Descendants -- George Clooney puts in another great performance in this movie, playing one of the remaining descendants of Hawaiian royalty who are trying to decide whether or not to sell their remaining plot of untouched Hawaiian real estate. Meanwhile, his wife is in the hospital following a water skiing accident, and he's just now learning she had an affair. He's torn between taking care of his daughters and his love for his dying wife, and facing this revelation of her infidelity. He's in an emotionally impossible situation. In moments like this, the film really works. Both his daughters are good characters, and ably played. Unfortunately, the movie pays attention to the younger one at the start of the movie, but then she drifts into the background for precocious moments of comic relief once her older sister returns. It bothers me that the movie is unable to really deal with both girls at once. This could have been handled had it been pointed out that Clooney's character can't handle both at once, making this deliberate. But it doesn't feel that way. Also, there's a little too much voice over, and the ultimate resolution of the Hawaiian land plot could be seen a mile away. These facts keep me from thinking of it as a truly great movie, but it is a very good one. I don't want to make it sound like it's a bad movie. It's not.

7. War Horse -- Here's one that many critics wrote off as being too old-fashioned, and I don't understand why that is a bad thing. It's a classic Hollywood Technicolor epic. It's shot to have that feel of older movies, and I love it for that. People always complain that "they don't make movies like this anymore", but when movies like that get made, they are written off. While this movie lacks the novelty of the stage play with it's puppet horse, it does a lot with the actual horse, really following him as a character. It's a great "boy and his horse" movie, like The Black Stallion. Yes, it gets a little bit long as it heads into the war sequences, but it's just a solid feel-good movie. If you love horses, I highly recommend it. There's no profanity (save one "bastard" in the first scene), and only a fair amount of war violence no worse than Gone With the Wind.

6. Red State -- This movie totally took me by surprise. When I first read that Kevin Smith was writing a horror movie with a religious subject, I wasn't sure what to think. But it ends up being a fascinating look at extremism. The movie is about a church like the Westboro Baptist Church only cranked up even crazier. These guys don't just show up at funerals with gay-bashing signs; they have an arsenal of guns in their church, and they lure perverts in with sting operations so they can execute them publicly in church for their sins. There's a real frightening charisma on display. There are echos of real-life cult incidents. The young leads in the movie start off like typical Kevin Smith stoner characters just looking to score. What happens to them is one of the most disturbing shifts since Janet Leigh was slashed in Psycho. In fact, the movie owes a lot structurally to Psycho, right up to the final expository wrap-up. It's Smith's most well-directed movie, as he's finally grasped the knack of the moving camera. He seems to have studied a lot of modern horror in the way he shoots it. Michael Parks is impossible to ignore (kind of like if Robert Duvall in The Apostle were a serial killer). It's certainly not a movie for all tastes, nor is it flawless. There's a moment or two that feel like characters say things just to be darkly humorous or satirical, but that feel out of place in context. At one point a character is told to behave "like a good Christian" and it just feels trite. But I was effected by the movie, and I have to commend Smith for that.

5. Moneyball -- A better movie than I expected, exploring the use of Bill James' ideas about statistics in baseball and their real-life application with the Oakland A's in the early 2000s. Brad Pitt gives a great performance, his best in awhile, and Jonah Hill is just as good, still managing to be funny without breaking character. Sometimes understanding the exact details of what's going on may be hard for people who don't follow baseball, but the movie succeeds in making the feeling of it all make sense despite this. I loved the use of actual game footage and the way the sound would sometimes drop out. I also thought it was a nice way to give a little of the other side of the Red Sox' eventual World Series win. It's weird to see this movie open with the A's losing Johnny Damon to Boston. The movie makes a good case that their win would never have happened without these events playing out first. A must-see for baseball fans and anyone who likes unconventional thinkers.

4. Midnight in Paris -- Woody Allen does it again! He shoots Paris the way he used to shoot New York, even opening the movie with a montage of still shots that echo the opening of Manhattan. The movie is a gentle fantasy following a modern writer who finds himself in 1920s Paris hobnobbing with famous writers and artists at midnight each night. It's a light-hearted meditation on the deceptiveness of nostalgia, and it's also quite funny at times. Many of the jokes will play better for hyper-literate people who will get all the references. I particularly like the scenes with the surrealists; Adrien Brody is a hoot as Salvador Dali. I love the moment when Gil tries to suggest to Luis Bunuel the plot for The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.

3. The Artist -- Oh look, a silent movie! I find it remarkable that the same critics who fault War Horse for being old-fashioned are praising this movie which does the same thing in a different era. The movie is set in the late 1920s and early 1930s at the end of the silent movie era, so the movie is (almost) entirely done as a silent film. It handles this quite accurately in the way it is scored, shot and edited. There's even a moment of surprise that derives solely from a title screen. The basic plot is of a great silent film star who doesn't want to go along with the sound revolution. It's sort of a mix of Singin' in the Rain and some of the reality of Charlie Chaplin, who continued making silent movies until 1940 (well, Modern Times had sync sound, but no dialogue). It's a very cute movie, but there's not a whole lot of story here or much that we haven't seen before. I liked it, though I found I didn't love it. May have worked better as a 40-minute short subject than a full feature, but the cast does a good job with the material and for the most part they remain true to the conceit which, though a little precious, does what it sets out to do. It's really a metaphor for George refusing to be heard in the movies. One of the first lines in the movie is "Speak!" This is of course the point of the whole concept and I at least can't fault the movie for committing to it.

2. Hugo -- Martin Scorsese's 3D family film is very well-made and a love letter to film preservation in some ways. It encompasses many aspects from a number of the Best Picture nominees: it has Paris in the '20s like Midnight in Paris, the making of silent film like The Artist, and a number of plot similarities to Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close. If it get's the younger generations learning more about the early days of cinema, special effects, and the genius of George Melies, then I'm glad it was made. There is one seemingly giant plot hole regarding the automaton that leads Hugo to the revelations he seeks, and that does bother me. I don't know if these are flaws in the novel or unique to the movie. However, it remains a well-constructed ode to the silent era of film and to neglected artists just trying to get by in the world. The 3D is well-done. I only wish that Scorsese hadn't stereo-converted the old Melies footage at the end; I thought that was unnecessary and to me doesn't sit right with the movie's message of film preservation; that's alteration, and bothers me. Fun fact: the movie has the standard "the story and characters in this movie are fictitious" disclaimer at the end of the credits, despite the fact that George Melies was a real person and those were all real films of his!

1. Take Shelter -- Just like the past two years, the best movie of the year is the one that the Academy completely ignored. Take Shelter is a movie I wanted to see as soon as I saw the trailer, but wasn't sure what to expect. I have to say no movie has moved me more this year. It's got a little bit of Noah's ark, a little bit of Field of Dreams. The basic story is that Curtis, a working class guy in Ohio, starts having disturbing dreams of a coming catastrophic storm so he works hard to build out the tornado shelter in his yard. However, this action puts strains on his job, his relationships with friends and family, and may be due to mental illness; he has a family history of schizophrenia. I loved the detail of his having a deaf daughter. I think Jessica Chastain does great work here, and should have been nominated for this film and not The Help. But the real centerpiece here is Michael Shannon's amazing performance. The best actor category is weird this year, and Shannon's absence is both conspicuous and horrible. The movie maintains a reality, even amid it's more poetic, fanciful elements. It had only a very small theatrical release, but has just been issued on DVD. I encourage everyone to seek it out. I don't want to say much more about it for fear of spoiling it, but you have to see this movie.

T-totalers

I saw mentioned on the news this week a story about the MBTA doing away with advertisments for alcohol on their trains. Now, for those outside the area who don't know, the MBTA is the transit system in and around Boston, commonly known as "the T". If you watch a TV series set in Boston, you'll see the round T signs everywhere.

Anyway, the news broadcast had a poll question as to whether the public thought it was a good idea for the T to stop taking ad revenue from alcohol manufacturers. I should also mention that right now the MBTA is in a major debt crisis; they are, if I recall the number correctly, 160 million dollars in the hole. There is serious talk right now about cutting bus lines, late night trains, service to certain areas and drastically raising fares. These things make frequent commuters angry, especially as some of us think they've been throwing money away on useless stuff for the past five years. So the question really being posed is, can the T afford to be so choosy about where its ad money comes from?

The argument being made is that they don't want to advertise these things were children can see it, and thus be encouraged to drink. The vox pops interviews mentioned that again and again: "Think of the children!" And I am so tired of that. To that I say a hearty "Fie!"

Why is it that when it comes to drinking, the public thinks children are moronic sponges? The ads are not saying "Hey kids, let's drink!" This isn't about marketing something to children; it's no Joe Camel situation. This is a product marketed to adults. Underage kids who are going to drink are not going to do it just because they see a sign with a beer on it. I know that people are going to disagree and say, "Yes they will! Children are impressionable!" Well can I ask you then, how many print ads for sports cars have resulted in underage or unlicensed driving? ...Can't answer that, can you? Why? Because nobody is bothering to ask the question, since it is absurd on its face. And I think alcohol ads are not any different.

If we start denying ad space for fear of influencing children, how long is it before we stop advertising cola, or cookies, or video games? This sort of thinking sounds good and gets people all riled up, but it really means the death of print advertising. Frankly, I think print advertising is LESS dangerous than video ads where people are depicted drinking. Most print ads are just a picture of the product with some text. We're afraid that ads will make people want to drink? Well, that just means the ad is doing its job. It won't have any special effect on children. And remember, kids can't buy alcohol; so why make the issue about the train ads instead of about cutting off access to the product?

If a print campaign were really so influential, then all those anti-smoking ads should have resulted in a drastic decline in teen cigarette use. Did they? I don't know, I'm not a statistician. But I think ultimately a few advertisements aren't going to make kids go out and break the law any more than an ad for body wash is going to make a kid want to immediately take a shower.

The T needs all the money it can get. Can we please stop pretending that people magically become smarter only at 21? Because after listening to these arguments, the opposite seems true.

So... Random Question

Is it wrong that some days I just hope that somebody punches Joel Osteen in the face? Not like permanent damage or anything, but I think a good sock in that smile of his might do him some good.

Am I the only one?