The Best Of The Decade

Time magazine is calling it the decade from hell. Between 9/11, George
Bush, the War in Iraq, a tanked economy and the impending take over of Miley Cyrus, it is easy to think there is nothing left to live for. At the rate we’re going, maybe our impending 2012 doom isn’t so difficult to believe.

But I like to go into an apocalypse with at least a positive attitude. These are the things I have enjoyed the most over the past ten years. Some require less comment, some deserve more, but all of them belong on the list for one reason or another.

You Tube
Lets face it. Some of our best times in the 2000’s have been gathered around the computer with the Numa Numa guy and Charlie the Unicorn. More importantly, YouTube became a platform for the common man to join the mass media. After all, could we have lived without Justin Beiber?

Facebook
Of the social networking sights that have popped up over the past few years, none have had the same widespread impact. I knew things were out of control when I received a friend request from my dog, but Facebook has always been more than just adding friends. I like to think Sonoma State itself is run on Facebook. If I’m hearing about a lecture, a dance, or an event, it’s almost always through Facebook. I no longer give out my phone number to class members, “Just add me on Facebook.” However, the hours of my life lost to farmville will never return to me. But I think I can live with that.


American Idol
At the turn of the century, nothing was more funny than watching strangers make complete fools of themselves. American Idol was the dawning of the era of talent competition reality shows. The idea that anybody can make it big, and that your vote could make somebody’s dream come true propelled television of the new millennium. American Idol picked people of off the streets and turned them into actual stars (Kelly Clarkson, Jennifer Hudson, Carrie Underwood) with the occasional oddballs (Clay Aiken, Taylor Hicks). Of course, this all excludes the fact that show got a little tired five seasons in. But who knows - now that Elen is a judge the show may be worth a second chance. Maybe.

My iPod
Remember when your phone and your mp3 player were two separate devices? Or for that matter, does anyone remember life with CD’s? Portable music is now part of everything I do. I hate walking to class in silence. I can’t do homework even or sleep without my headphones in. I’m patiently waiting for Steve Jobs to invent the iPlug that can stay in my ear 24/7, and then I could get to work on the soundtrack for my life.


Johnny Depp
Whether you like him or not, this has been Johnny’s decade. From Jack Sparrow to John Dillinger, Depp has been delivering smash, sometimes weird, though always entertaining performances on the silver screen. He and pal Tim Burton are scheduled to release their latest oddball romp “Alice In Wonderland” in 2010. Maybe the legacy will continue. But if not, I can always go back to the entertaining myself thinking about Tim Burton and Helena Bonham Carter’s children. Is crazy hair hereditary?

Christopher Guest
Christopher Guest is a British-American director, actor, screenwriter, composer, and comedian. He is more widely know for directing, writing, and staring in a series of “mocumentary” films featuring the same troop of comedic actors including Eugene Levy, Catherine O’Hara, and Fred Willard. The films “document” everything from heavy metal bands to dog shows. My personal favorite, “A Mighty Wind” (2003) pokes fun at the folk music scene. His more recent “For Your Consideration”(2006) spoofs the film industry itself. They may not be the “best”, but as far as I’m concerned the sky is the limit when it comes to Guest and his ideas. Personally, I’m hoping for an in depth look at the Bush administration. I’ve always thought Levy would make a good president.


Harry Potter
On the night of July 7, 2000, I was one of the thousands of children lining up outside of the local bookstore to receive their copy of “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”. Right around the same time, Chris Columbus was being approved as director for the film version of the first book, “The Sorcerer’s Stone”. What ensued was of one of the largest book franchises of all time. A franchise that would ensure the popularity of a series of books that in many ways, changed a generation. I and many others like myself awaited the new books with more eagerness than all of the Christmas mornings and birthdays combined.

One of the most valuable things J.K. Rowling brought us was an eagerness to read in an age of technology. Classic lessons of good vs. evil or right vs. wrong were given human faces for parents to discuss with their children. And as the children grew up, the books grew with them. I was nine when I first read my first Harry Potter Book. I was eighteen when I read my last. It’s the only thing that I never grew out of. And now with the franchise winding down, the last film is scheduled for release next year, I hope that the following generation will have something to be as excited about. I mean, once we get over the vampire fad of course.

The Uncanny Valley

Ever since early flipbooks and nickelodeons, animation has captured the hearts and minds of artists and moviegoers. And from the doodles of “Steamboat Willie” to the final rendering of “Up”, animation has certainly come a long way.

Two weeks ago, the latest example of a new form of computer-generated animation hit the theaters. However, instead of bringing some early holiday cheer, “A Christmas Carol” may have taken technological innovation a bit to far. The reviews have been lukewarm at best, with a general consensus that while the film was digitally impressive, it lacked the heart and soul of a Dickens’s classic, not to mention being downright creepy.

But what makes animation creepy? It’s a problem that has plagued filmmakers for several years, all beginning with the computer.

Computer generated imaging, or CGI, is the art of creating moving images on computers. It is the digital successor to older forms of animation including stop motion and frame-by-frame 2D illustrations. The technology was revolutionary. It made animation more believable and opened up a whole new world of special effects and graphics.

Realistic can be a good thing, but studies have shown there may be a point where enough is enough. There is a theory among robotics that if a robot or other human facsimile looks and acts too much like a human, it makes people uncomfortable.

The hypothesis, nicknamed the “uncanny valley”, describes the phenomenon when representations of humans are to close to being the real thing. It makes the animation seem “eerie”, and elicits a repulsive response from viewers. In other words, if the likeness of the animation and human comfort ability were put on a graph, there would be a significant dip just before the animation becomes live action. Essentially, the animation in movies like “A Christmas Carol” is so lifelike, that the audience cannot relate to the characters, as well as being slightly repulsed.

“A Christmas Carol”, directed by Robert Zemmicks, has not been the first movie to “creep” people out. In fact, Zemmicks’s previous two films “The Polar Express” (2004) and “Beowulf” (2007) are guilty of the same thing. The graphic fight scenes in “Beowulf” left audiences uneasy, and the overuse of Tom Hanks in “The Polar Express” was strange to say the least, Hanks playing about half of the cast including Santa Clause himself. All three films were filmed with a technique Zemmicks is now infamously known for, called motion capture.

In motion capture animation; the movements of actors are recorded into a digital format. Futuristic-looking wires are hooked up to actors as they move about and say their lines, allowing the computer to capture not only body language, but also subtle facial expressions and nuances of human behavior. Humans have traditionally been regarded as the most difficult subject to animate, and back in 2004, the visuals in “The Polar Express” blew audiences away.

Many critics have accused Zemmicks of using a dead end technology. At what sacrifice are our filmmakers forging new paths in animation? Animation is supposed to allow the storytellers of film to take audiences to places that are impossible with live action. It allows their characters to perform feats beyond normal human capacity, and to behave in new and exciting ways. It is the realm of fantasy. But motion capture and other high tech animation are blurring the line between reality and fantasy.

As humans, everything needs to fit into a category, and ambiguous films like those of Zemmicks are difficult to place. Actors in motion capture are still limited by their own laws of physics if no extra editing is done, forcing critics to wonder what the point of this new technology is, other than allowing Tom Hanks to be five people at once.

Motion capture has gone in such a different direction, that it is difficult to even consider it animation any more. It implies something more real than a normal cartoon; that something in the film applies to real life. The authenticity of animated characters can completely alter the message of a film. What kind of message would WALL-E have sent if its humans were modeled with motion capture?

Only ten years ago, critics were rejoicing the computer technology that allowed thousands of Hun soldiers to spill over a snowy hill in the Disney classic “Mulan.” Of course, the computer effects of “Mulan” didn’t come at the price of its well-told story. Motion capture may be contributing to technological advances, but not so much to art, and I refuse to pay money to see somebody’s science project.

The good ol’ days when movies were either animated or live action are behind us. Now it seems we’re doomed to deal with these spooky near-human zombies indefinitely. As for my holiday wish this year, I would love it if Zemmicks would retire, but I guess not all dreams can come true.

Family Matters

I don’t normally watch “Desperate Housewives”, and recently I was reminded why.

When I came home from class one day my roommates were watching lifetime reruns and an old episode was on. The blonde one, Lynette, was in an interview for a job. She was returning to the work force after a seven-year gap in which she stayed home to raise her four kids. However, instead of focusing on Lynette’s previous experience in the field, the interviewer chose to harass her as to what she had been doing for those seven years, as if she had somehow become “tainted.”

I personally wasn’t aware that children make you stupid. Or that stay-at-home moms, maybe even mothers in general, are somehow second-class. I myself would like to be a mother someday, and was not happy about being put down by a soap opera.

Of course, the world is a different place than it was in the fifties. Today, instead of glorifying suburban and family values as they did then, many see this lifestyle as simple-minded. The feminist movement liberated women from the chains of oppression in their homes and allowed them embark into the real world. And good for them, but where has this left the reputations of mothers and housewives?

Having grown up in a small community of a rich suburb, filled with your typical soccer moms and Stepford wives, I wanted nothing more than to get out and go to college. I felt like I was trapped in a world full of superficial people living materialistic lives. It was the last place I ever thought I would want to return to. But I can’t help but wonder if I should really be cursing my old life.

The fact is, that I owe almost all of who I am today to parents who devoted their lives to me. Despite whatever they had going on outside of the family; they were at every softball game, every performance and every parent-teacher conference. We ate dinner as a family almost every night. We went on vacations. We genuinely loved each other.

What is so horrible about that? People like to throw around the word “housewife” like it is some deplorable weakness, as if a woman becomes a stay-at-home mom because she lacks any other redeeming qualities that would allow her to actually contribute to society.

Women are expected to lead double lives in today’s society. They are supposed to be ambitious career women hungry to prove their worth against the men, but when things suffer at home they are called bad mothers.

The housewives of today shape the generation of tomorrow. Good parenting produces healthy and happy children that will grow into successful, well-adjusted adults. I think people lose sight of how important that is.

It is brilliant the way women have advanced in society, but must it come with a price? The feminist movement should not have to come with such a negative status for housewives. When women introduce themselves as stay-at-home moms, I want them to be admired and not scoffed at.

Whether it be mother or father, aunt or uncle, grandparent or friend, don’t sneer at a person who cares enough about his or her family to commit full time and attention to them. It is probably one of the least selfish career paths you can take, and it deserves respect.

Here at Sonoma State, as in many other colleges, women are using education to propel them in society. They are preparing for the work force, to make something of themselves, and maybe even change the world. Our twenties are supposed to be for “big dreams” and having fun. We’re told to wait until our thirties to ruin our lives with long-term commitment and children.

Not a lot of people in college make having a family a top priority. In fact many attend college, women in particular, to escape traditional family values and strike out on their own, planning on saving marriage and babies for later in life if ever.

My friend Julia and I like to laugh about one day earning our pearls and moving to houses with white picket fences and going to book clubs and P.T.A meetings. While maybe not to this extreme, one of the things I am most excited for in life is to be a mother and have my own family. And if I need to take a couple of years off work to be with them, I don’t think that makes me any less intelligent or ambitious.

It doesn’t matter how “big” your dream is, only how happy it makes you. I may not be the next woman president; and I may never be an astronaut or a movie star. My dream is to be happy. And it may not be good enough for the world, but its more than enough for me.

Tripping On Acid: The Search for a Plot

I’m not sure what you can expect from a film titled “The Men Who Stare At Goats.” But I can guarantee it is nothing like you have ever imagined. Director Grant Heslov tells us right away, “More of this is true than you would believe”, which basically implies that portions of this film are a big fat lie. But what actually follows is a disjointed, uneven attempt at satire that may poke at you funny, but ultimately leave you scratching your head.

The film follows small town journalist Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor). After suffering a nasty divorce with his wife, Wilton flees to the Middle East seeking adventure and headlines. There he meets Lyne Cassady (George Clooney), member of a special army unit that teaches super powers to its soldiers. Lynne is the only soldier to have become so skilled at his psychic powers, that he could stop the heart of a goat with a single stare. They proceed to journey across the desert in pursuit of Lyne’s “mission”, which he refuses to describe to Bob. The film flashes between present day and twenty years in past during the glory days of the “Earth Army.”

Clooney and McGregor all but save the movie. Clooney is wild-eyed and quirky alternative to the suave sophisticate we usually see him as, and the difference is very enjoyable. McGregor’s innocent rendition of the likeable lead is expertly delivered. Along with other Hollywood professionals Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges, who plays Cassady’s hippie commanding officer, the cast of “The Men who Stare at Goats” channel all their enthusiasm to create an all around stellar performance.

The problem is that for all the fun this movie must have been to make, I was not that fun to watch. There are some good moments, like Clooney crashing a car on the only rock in an entire desert. However most of the humor was lost on me. It’s like wanting to laugh at a joke when you aren’t fully sure if you got it.

In fact there were many things about this film I didn’t understand at all. For example, the notion that this is all based on true events. The movie is based on a book of the same title written by Jon Ronson, which deals with the U.S. army’s exploration of potential military application of the paranormal. Apparently the army has been experimenting with these “New Age” concepts for decades. Does this mean we’re supposed to believe a real life soldier used his mind power to stop the hearts of goats and walk through walls? What the heck is this movie getting at?

It is clear that the film is supposed to be making fun of something. But it seems to have forgotten to tell us what that something is. Is it the hippie antiwar movement? The Special Forces? Blockbuster war Dramas? Or simply psychics themselves? Somebody needs to tell Heslov, that for satire to be successful you need to make it clear to your audience what you are making fun of.

There is not much that can excuse this film’s overall lack of plot. This is the type of story you would expect from a Cohen Brother’s flick. “The Men who Stare at Goats” is full of unbelievable situations and mind-boggling humor. In other words, you can’t make this stuff up. The concept was promising, but apparently all of the most interesting material in world could not get Heslov to tell a good story.

I’m still trying to figure out what the point was. Sure, it was an entertaining movie and all, but I cant help but feel like Heslov made off with not only 90 minutes of my time, but a few of my brain cells as well.

And as for the message, I’m not sure one was ever delivered. Maybe its something like: in times of great adversity, we must not be confined by the rules and let ingenuity guide us. But remember, that is just a guess.

Of course, let’s not forget the real reasons to go see this film. 1: Getting to stare at George Clooney for an hour and a half. Which, lets face it, is appealing to a wide range of people. 2. Enjoying the immense irony of Ewan McGregor discussing “Jedi” mind powers. 3. The ultimate oxymoron: Hippie soldiers.

This film is one big inside joke that I just don’t get. Go ahead and add it to your netflix cues, and maybe take some advice from Jeff Bridges character and trip on acid while you watch. Maybe it will make more sense then.

Don't Stop 'Till You Get Enough

On June 25, 2009, one of greatest entertainment legends of all time passed away. We all knew where we were when we heard the news. I was busy at work when I received the simple, heavy hitting text message: Michael Jackson just died. It has been just over three months since then. So what does a post-Michael Jackson world like?

From the hardcore worshipers crying over the flowers outside Neverland ranch, to the cynics who rolled their eyes and bid the “freak show” good riddance, it is difficult to know what to think.

Well, I can certainly see why the extremes exist. Michael Jackson’s life was full of constant ups and downs, celebration and controversy. He was a child star turned super star turned philanthropist turned bizarre sideshow. Its difficult to believe this is all one person. So people are selecting what they want to remember him by. His loyal followers remember him for his music and philanthropy. The critics remember him for his child molestation charges, his abnormal lifestyle, and mysteriously translucent skin.

Being a child of the 90’s, it was difficult seeing anything positive about Michael Jackson. The first images I saw of the “King of Pop” were of him on his way to the court house or dangling his son over a four-story balcony railing.

So much of this media about Michael Jackson was negative. Why had the King fallen so far? Was he simply a bad man? I believe there is more to it than that.

Jackson stated in a 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey that his childhood was shrouded in darkness. He confessed that his father had beaten him on numerous occasions and verbally abused him during grueling rehearsal sessions. Many attribute Jackson’s antics on the Neverland Ranch to his lack of a normal childhood, that it was a desperate attempt to relive the childhood he never had. Perhaps he genuinely wanted the camaraderie of young boys, having never had any real friends when he was a boy himself. But many people were satisfied with calling him a pervert and moving on.

Few have never taken the time to get the facts straight. For example, the awful rumor that Michael purposefully bleached his skin to look “whiter”. Believe it or not, I can sympathize with MJ on this one. Both Jackson and myself suffer from a rare skin condition known as Vitiligo. Vitiligo results in the loss of pigment producing cells in the skin. In other words, loss of skin color. Of course, being extremely pale already, my vitiligo is less noticeable. However in people of darker skin, say African Americans, the effect can be devastating.

It is an extremely unfortunate condition to have when the world is putting pressure on you to look your best. I can’t say I blame Michael for layering on the makeup. I myself am terrified that the de-pigmentation will someday make its way to my neck and face. I would be horrified if anybody ever called me a freak because of my condition, or thought that I was doing it on purpose.

Right or wrong, there will always be that question mark about Michael because of the number of scandals and the manner in which he lived his life. Many say that death should be a reason to respect a bad person. And to the families whose lives he turned upside down, he will always be remembered in this way. It can’t be helped.

All I know is that the people who have chosen to remember Michael as the “freak show” have been going back and forth online ever since his death, arguing the same points over and over again. These conversations will never bring anyone any satisfaction. I much prefer seeing the comments on the fan sites. On michaeljackson.com in particular, there is a section for people to post memories. The entries are astonishing. Many describe the detailed way in which the king of pop had changed their lives. Many reminisce about their first Michael Jackson album or 45. Many simply wish him love and peace. And finally, they say thank you. Thank you for the music he brought to them.

The website also provides the anxiously awaited “This Is It” film, which will profile Jackson’s tour that was scheduled for this past summer. Exclusive behind the scenes footage will provide a rare look at Jackson as he developed, created and rehearsed his tour. The film will be out for a special two-week period beginning Wed. October 24th.

Rev. Al Sharpton, a family friend of the Jackson’s who spoke at the memorial service on July 7th, could not have summed it up better, “He put on one glove, pulled his pants up, and broke down the color curtain… it was Michael Jackson that made us sing “we are the world” and feed the hungry… he out-preformed the pessimists. Every time he got knocked down he got back up again… Michael never stopped.” What he said to Michael’s children was met with a standing ovation, “Wasn’t nothing strange about your daddy. It was strange what he had to deal with, but he dealt with it anyway.”

Considering everything he went through in his life, I think the easiest judgment to pass is humanity. He was only human, and people make mistakes. I’m willing to accept that and move on. You can call it mindless celebrity worship, I call it forgiveness. And in times like these, a little forgiveness could go a long way.

The Mind of a Child

Inside of all of us, there is hope, adventure, fear, and even something a little wild. “Where the Wild Things are” brings yet another children’s book classic to the silver screen this fall. Spike Jonze (Being John Malcovich) directs as well as collaborating with Dave Eggers on the screenplay.

The story follows Max (Max Records), an imaginative, rambunctious boy who revels in his world of pretend. But one night, his games earn him a harsh scolding from his mother, prompting him to run from the house and disappear into the night. After sailing across a wide ocean for several nights, he comes upon the island of the wild things.

This strange place is home to a “family” of seven monsters: Carol (James Gandolfini), Alexander (Paul Dano), Judith (Catherine O’Hara), Ira (Forest Whitaker), Douglas (Chris Cooper), KW (Lauren Ambrose) and The Bull (Michael Berry Jr.). The creatures have been through some tough times, but their main goal is to stick together, and also to have fun.

And fun is definitely on Jonze’s radar. He has taken a book of only ten sentences and elongated it with a beautiful script, moving score, and visuals that other, less daring, film makers would not even consider attempting.

Despite early plans of a fully animated film, all of the creatures are played by real actors in costumes provided by the Jim Henson Company, famous for the Muppets and Labyrinth characters. Each costume is between six to eight feet tall, and despite advanced animatronics, rely mainly on computer generated effects to enhance the facial expressions. The designers at Henson were forced to take out a great deal of animatronics in the large heads due to the actors not being able to stand upright while in costume.

And in case anyone was wondering, nobody forced Forest Whitaker into a massive fuzzy monster suit. After the vocal cast staged their performances, the Australian actors on location watched footage from the voice recording, and then donned the gigantic costumes to mirror what the voice actors did to physically animate the wild things.

Maurice Sendak, author of the children’s book, was as involved in the production process as much as possible. He took the production of a potential film so seriously, that the entire project was put on the backburner for over a decade because he could not find a suitable director. Eggers and Jonze, hand picked by Sendak, kept in close contact with him all through the process, and their efforts are clearly shown in the story and design. The basic structure of the book remains while Jonze and Eggers delve deeper into the emotions and imaginings of the main character, Max, and his world.

Jonze’s vision is all about realism and innocence. Portions of the film are shot from handheld cameras to heighten Max’s experience running around with the wild things. Academy Award winning composer Carter Burwell’s chilling pianos and harps play melodies so beautiful yet so simple, that Max himself could be playing them out of his level one piano book.

In fact, the entire film feels like it could take place inside Max’s imagination. The script itself sounds like it was written by a child. Watching Max and his monsters is like watching one big game of pretend. The monsters think like Max. They believe what he tells them. They become friends just as fast as they were enemies. Jonze and Eggers created a place removed from reality and illustrated by the wonderfully simple mind of a child.

There are no opening credits, and there even doodles and scribbles over the opening logos. The pacing is disjointed, the dialogue is simple, but the child’s imagination is a complex place, and often does not make sense at all.

The film however, makes perfect sense. “Where the Wild things are” takes us to a place where we can be kids again. We can build giant forts, have dirt clot wars, sleep in giant dog piles, and bay at the moon.

However, the film cannot be exclusively a “kids” film. It is a must see for anyone looking to rekindle childhood fantasies, but may not work for younger children. Viewers should be warned that there are some upsetting themes in the film. It is neither a fairy tale nor a cookie-cutter Disney “feel good” flick. There is betrayal, devastation, and a great deal of rough housing.

As the characters learn, there is a disconnect between where imagination meets reality. And sometimes, the real world forces us to abandon our dreams. But as Max sits down to dinner with his mother at the end of the film, we see that perhaps reality does not have to be as bad as we make it out to be.

Needless to say, I left the theater with a mixture of feelings. Its funny how the mind of a child makes everything seem so simple, yet so complicated. Its true and its terrifying.

It never ceases to amaze me.