"Dalai Lama teaches hope but not hate"
I'm right because I am, it's as simple as that. No, it's not a God-given thing, or a rational, well-thought-out thing, I'm simply right.
You're wrong because I don't like you. If you were right and I didn't like you, then I'd have to listen to you, but since you're wrong, I don't, so go away.
Of course, if you were right, then I wouldn't need to tell you this, since, well, you'd already know.
But you didn't know.
Which is why I'm telling you.
You're wrong.
So go away.
And let's face it, had they gone the live action route, no one would remember them. Hell, I can barely recall the live action Narnia series, and they went whole hog on that one (much to Lewis' chagrin, no doubt). Remember, we're talking about the 80's and early 90's, back when synthesizers and filter effects were still cool. Industrial Light and Sound notwithstanding, special effects sucked (yes, even The Neverending Story is painful to watch--and I'll not waste space on the sequels).
So animation, logically, was a mainstay for anyone who dabbled in the fantastic or futuristic. It made perfect sense for Beagle to turn his book into an animated film, after all, who in his right mind would believe for an instant that a horse with a horn on its head was anything else? So instead we start with a unicorn in a forest who overhears two hunters saying that she's the last one and off she goes to find the rest. And just like that, we're in the story. Why? Because animation, like the paintings in Lascaux and the visual koans of the Zen masters, is a medium of the imagination. As such, it is an ideal environment for magic and marvels alike.
Is it any wonder that our love affair with CGI has yet to end? Even Disney, once the gold standard in animated films (from Snow White all the way to the Lion King), has publicly stated that it will no longer pursue hand-drawn films. Granted, with the success of the Shrek, Toy Story, and Monster's Inc brands, who can blame them? Still, there's something amiss with all three, and it's most evident in newer films such as Blue Sky Studio's Horton Hears a Who. Naturally, adaptations are a tricky business, as there will always be the old fans (myself included) who feel that the new work does not do justice to the original. There's also, in the case of contemporary CGI films, the tendency for them to become, as one friend put it, "Shrecked."
Horton's a peculiar case in that it looks almost like the original while sounding nothing like it. And perhaps, if half of Seuss weren't in the words, this wouldn't be a problem; but the fact remains that Seuss was as much a wordsmith as a xenobiologist (and if you've any doubt of that then go to a Geisel exhibit and examine his sculptures).
Looking back, I think that's why I've always been a fan of Burton's. Sure his works are as realistic as Dali's clocks are accurate (although I've no doubt that somewhere, in another dimension, they're as spot on and ours are the aberrant ones). Each time I watch one of his films, I feel as if I'm being invited into a private world of his own making, one that's a much a funhouse mirror reflection of ours as a projection of the warped and peculiar child that lives within him.
Yet the difference between his world and ours is not so much a product of supernatural possession as result of surrealistic diffusion (hence the allusion to Dali earlier). Strange things not only can happen, but do, and they are accepted as normal, or at least quasi-normal. Which is why his films always have a cartoonish (as in animation, not caricature) quality to them.
How ironic, then, that Disney should cling so tightly to his Nightmare materials, which are, in so many ways, unDisneyish (yes, the Mouse has shaped my childhood as much as FenFen has mutated...well, that analogy doesn't actually need o be completed, does it?). Unsurprisingly, Disney still invests heavily in foreign-produced, hand-drawn animations, as if to say, "we can't really be bothered with this, even though we know that when it's done well it's still better than Pixar." My first encounter with this phenomenon occurred when a roommate asked if I wanted to watch Princess Mononoke. I agreed, albeit somewhat reluctantly, and was fairly entertained (then again, my introduction to Japanese animated films was Akira, which is akin to saying fuck the weed and give me the hardest stuff you've got). I was not, however, sold on the endeavor.
Not until Myazaki's Howl's Moving Castle, that is: here, I once again encountered the films of my youth. Like them, it's an adaptation, and, like them, it benefits from the simplicity of the medium. Whereas the book tends to bog down in details and side characters and odd twists and turns, the film sheds these embellishments in favor of a simple telling: the result is a delightful fable about two people who must either outgrow their circumstances or else remain forever trapped by them. The film also demonstrates the importance of realizing that magic is in the affect, not the effect.
My favorite scene, which occurs right after Sophie accidentally ruins Howl's vanity spells, illustrates this principle beautifully: in it, she enters his bedroom, carrying a glass of warm milk, and offers it to him. Like a petulant child, he shakes his head and goes "nhn nhn". And then there's a wonderful pause as Sophie, frustrated, looks about the room and realizes that it, too, is magical. After all, only a wizard could fill such a small space with so many devices and wards and toys and other childhood paraphernalia. Then we cut back to Sophie and Howl again, and there, in the corner of the scene, are two small and worn stuffed animals.
Just like Gandalf, whose mere presence is otherworldly, and Schmendrick, whose spells are constantly warped by his insecurities, the fantastic elements in Howl's Moving Castle are shaped both by the characters and by the medium, and no amount of CGI wizardry or technological gadgetry will ever be able to substitute for the magic inherent in animation.
Although I am neither a fan of Austen nor a devotee of Tolkien, I found myself strangely situated on airplane back to Los Angeles with a rather large and ungainly text whose author has been compared to both literary personages. Which makes sense, given the blend of English folklore, alternate history, and fantasy that fill Clarke's pages. Of course, there are footnotes too--sometimes pages of them--as well as frequent tangents and roundabouts. All of which are generally amusing if occasionally overlong.
To call the text slow, however, is somewhat of a misnomer. Clarke is at her strongest when she indulges in historical interludes and careful, detailed studies; for example, the chapter entitled "Heart-break Farm" describes the origins of one of the two title characters in a fashion that is both illuminating and entertaining. In contrast, her action sequences, such as those depicting Norrell and Strange's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars, tend to be lacking in dramatic chutzpah. If you are undaunted by this, then you will be suitably rewarded by the fascinating and peculiar conclusion.
Suffice to say, those who enjoy nibbling on bits of this and that will relish the opportunity to explore Clarke's richly decorated world while those who prefer leaner prose should best look elsewhere.
Alright, so Barack Obama won a Grammy for his spoken-word version of The Audacity of Hope. Given the precedent set by previous award-winning presidential hopefuls (i.e. Gore), I can only assume that the Grammy was given as a consolation prize. Of course, if Hillary wins a Pulitzer for her upcoming take on Bush's presidency, It Takes a Village: The Idiot Years then I'm moving to a saner planet.
Found a rat running
around in my toilet bowl;
he isn't dead yet.
"Hi. There's a rat in my toilet and I'd like someone to get rid of it."
"Really?"
"Yes."
"Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww."
"..."
Is it dead?"
"Someone's going to be if you don't transfer me."
"So, like, how can I help you?"
"There's a rat in my toilet."
"Oh--mygod, that's like, disgusting--is he alive?"
"At the moment."
"Well, that just gross."
"Yes. Yes it is. Which is why I'd like to talk to Animal Control, incidentally."
And now, to round off our tour of LA's civic service, the Cro-Magnon from Animal Control.
*Incoherent mumbling*
"Come again?"
"An'mul cun'trol."
"Animal Control?"
"Yeah."
"Good. There's a rat in my toilet."
"So?"
"I'd rather it weren't."
"Not my problem."
"Actually, I think it is."
"Nope. Busy."
"Busy?"
"Yeah."
"How?"
"Only got one unit, an' it's busy."
"One unit. For the entire county?"
"Guess so."
What followed after that was a long and tiresome debate about logistics and my phone companion's inability to comprehend them. In the end, I had the maintenance guy come over and flush bleach down the toilet. By then, of course, the rat was long gone. Or so we think. But it's been two days and I still look for those beady little eyes whenever I take a leak.
There is a concept in film-making called mise-en-scene, which, roughly translated, means "to put into the scene." Toward this end, every shot and frame is composed with the notion of transcending time and space such that the audience is literally transported into the world of the film.
Yet film is not the only place where such an effect is desired, or even necessary. All too often, we stumble upon stories that falter and hesitate; they tell you the story instead of revealing it to you. As a result, you, the audience, have the distinct impression of being outside the world of the story; you are a mere witness or passerby. Such a tale becomes a monologue told in a vacuum; it is there to be heard, but no one is listening.
On occasion, I've witnessed a similar phenomenon in some of my students' work: the language is forceful, but the argument lacks impetus. What you get is something akin to a man pushing a barge up a dry riverbed; there is no current, no flow, to carry things forward. How, then, does the author avoid such a quandary?
Consider the following:
In this excerpt, which was taken from an earlier draft of my novel, we glean the that narrator perceives his subject as something consumable, yet we lack a sense of how and why the subject could be seen that way. Equally problematic is the stage direction equivalent: "He looks at her as if she were something edible." Of course, some might rally to the cause and suggest that such ambiguity is essential to creative interpretation on the director's or actor's part. Yet I would argue that the sentence, be it narration or stage direction, fails to reveal anything about the character undertaking the action. Still, we will strive to fill in the details, using whatever scant information we have in our possession. Assuming the narrator was of a predatory nature, we could imagine him licking his lips salaciously in anticipation of a devouring such a delectable treat.She seemed almost edible, to me. Like a piece of candy.
Now compare the previous excerpt to one from a more recent draft:
She was a pretty woman, this Sophia; I detected a bit of Pacific Islander blood in her, just enough to render her skin a most arresting shade of coffee, much like the tea we drank. She wore her hair casually, letting it drape in vanilla folds about her body. Looking at her, I had the feeling of gazing upon some Easter confection, and the blue of her eyes did little to allay that suspicion. Still, I shuddered when she lifted her eyes to look into mine, for she returned my stare with an artful expression that was equal parts curiosity and disdain.
In contrast to its previous incarnation, this version conveys information about both the narrator and his subject. Gone are the possible sexual and predatory overtones; in their place we find a more somber, contemplative tone. The woman, Sophia, is still framed as something to be consumed, yet the act of consumption is placed within wholly different context. Here, she is an object of ritual sacrifice, a confectionery proxy for communion. And she knows it. There is almost a certain nobility in her demeanor, in the way she silently undermines the narrator's assumption of her vulnerability. Even in this small moment, we are fully within the scene, caught between these two as they play out their battle of wits.
And thusly does a story unfold.
on Just a thought...