Friday, the Ryder Cup begins. There is no other sporting event that yields so much excitement, with the possible exception of a big time heavy weight fight. Even if you are not wild about golf, there is something about the intense rivalry that is captivating.
Golf is an individual sport. If you follow the game, you sort of get to know the players, since, whether in triumph or defeat, it is hard to hide who you are on the course. A player's strength, weaknesses and character are laid bare for all to see.
Usually (for those who do not follow golf), the matches are stroke, or medal play. The lowest number of stroke at the end of the round, wins. Thus, if on the 5th hole, for example, you make a 6 while your opponent makes a 4, you are 2 strokes down and can easily make that up before the round ends. In match play, which is used in the Ryder Cup, if you lose a hole, it doesn't matter if it is by 1 stroke or 7. The hole is lost, you are 1 down, and that is it. Lose 2 holes, and you are 2 down. There is no making up strokes because they do not matter. This creates a lot of tension and each shot, on every hole, is vital. Concentration is at a premium and there is not let up.
Add to that, the rivalry. In the Ryder Cup, the American team plays the European team and many of the matches are played as foursome, 2 Americans against 2 Europeans. In some, best ball wins, with each player playing every shot. In some, players on each team alternate shots. This sort of team play in professional golf is seldom seen, and it is fascinating to watch the strategies. The final day, singles matches, 1 on 1, are played. Two sets of matches on each of the first two days, and the singles on the third. This requires stamina, both physical and mental.
The Americans, for long years, dominated these matches, which only happen every other year. For the last several meetings, the Europeans have won, and America is beside itself trying to figure our how to win. The rivalry is civil, kind of friendly, but that does not lessen the tension.
This year, the matches are played at Hazleteen, a long, difficult course that has hosted major tournaments. The American team looks superior on paper, but many of its players have not been playing well of late. The European team, while good, has several rookie players who have not been through the pressure cooker that is the Ryder CUp. This should be fun.
Wednesday, September 28, 2016
Monday, September 26, 2016
The Godfather - Moral Ambiguity
The Godfather, Parts 1 & 2, may be the finest productions in America film history. That is arguable, but I know of no one who denies the films greatness (Part 3 is another issues all together). I have seen both parts countless time and in the last couple of watchings, I became aware of the dangerous power of these films in particular, and films in general.
The characters, Don Corleone, Michael, Sonny, Fredo, and the rest are compelling. They are thugs, vicious killers, thieves, extortionists. They are power hungry, not content to rule the criminal underworld, they set out to control politicians and supposedly legitimate businesses. They are despicable. I have known several people in my lifetime who had at least some connection to la Cosa Nostra, 2 were fairly high up the chain. The movies were pretty much spot on. These folks were, one and all, warm, generous and a lot of fun, usually. But, you quickly understood that crossing them, in any way, was a very bad idea. I never did business with them; I just knew them. That was the closest I wanted to get.
The characters in the Godfather are just like that, warm, funny, and generous, and it is genuine. They really are that nice, at times. But, the other side is brutal, vengeful and greedy. They are humanity at its best and worst. There is the moral ambiguity.
People watch the Godfather and, in a twisted sort of way, see these folks as heroic. Family values are supreme to them. Loyalty rules. But, why is loyalty to such a stupidly thuggish group admirable? In reality, loyalty bred from fear is not a trait to be admired. Fear is how the Nazi's ruled. Fear is how the Communists ruled. Fear is what is motivating many in our current world. It does create a certain loyalty, and from that. oddly enough, deeper ties can develop ( look up 'the Stockholm Syndrome'), but, at the base of any emotions that so arise, even fondness, even love of a sort, there lies the negative, Fear.
My point? Beware the power of films. The better made they are, the more power. It is certainly right to portray brutal men as human. That is all they are. But, the underlying depravity, the psychopathic violence, must be shown clearly. In The Godfather, the negative is shown, clearly, but the acting is so good and the characters so appealing, that the 'good side' of the Mob very nearly outshines the 'bad.' That is a tribute to the craft of actors and of Francis Coppala, but the audience needs to keep its head and never get caught up in the glamor.
Why is this important? If you get a chance, watch Triumph of Will, the brilliant film dealing with Hitler's Nuremberg Rallies. Despite the fact that we know of the madness of the Nazis. the film is so powerful that it is almost impossible not to get caught up in the excitement.
Films are powerful. You must keep them in perspective.
The characters, Don Corleone, Michael, Sonny, Fredo, and the rest are compelling. They are thugs, vicious killers, thieves, extortionists. They are power hungry, not content to rule the criminal underworld, they set out to control politicians and supposedly legitimate businesses. They are despicable. I have known several people in my lifetime who had at least some connection to la Cosa Nostra, 2 were fairly high up the chain. The movies were pretty much spot on. These folks were, one and all, warm, generous and a lot of fun, usually. But, you quickly understood that crossing them, in any way, was a very bad idea. I never did business with them; I just knew them. That was the closest I wanted to get.
The characters in the Godfather are just like that, warm, funny, and generous, and it is genuine. They really are that nice, at times. But, the other side is brutal, vengeful and greedy. They are humanity at its best and worst. There is the moral ambiguity.
People watch the Godfather and, in a twisted sort of way, see these folks as heroic. Family values are supreme to them. Loyalty rules. But, why is loyalty to such a stupidly thuggish group admirable? In reality, loyalty bred from fear is not a trait to be admired. Fear is how the Nazi's ruled. Fear is how the Communists ruled. Fear is what is motivating many in our current world. It does create a certain loyalty, and from that. oddly enough, deeper ties can develop ( look up 'the Stockholm Syndrome'), but, at the base of any emotions that so arise, even fondness, even love of a sort, there lies the negative, Fear.
My point? Beware the power of films. The better made they are, the more power. It is certainly right to portray brutal men as human. That is all they are. But, the underlying depravity, the psychopathic violence, must be shown clearly. In The Godfather, the negative is shown, clearly, but the acting is so good and the characters so appealing, that the 'good side' of the Mob very nearly outshines the 'bad.' That is a tribute to the craft of actors and of Francis Coppala, but the audience needs to keep its head and never get caught up in the glamor.
Why is this important? If you get a chance, watch Triumph of Will, the brilliant film dealing with Hitler's Nuremberg Rallies. Despite the fact that we know of the madness of the Nazis. the film is so powerful that it is almost impossible not to get caught up in the excitement.
Films are powerful. You must keep them in perspective.
Thursday, September 22, 2016
The Power of Orchestras
A few years back, we went to a Pops Concert done by a Symphonic orchestra. I had not heard an full orchestra for many years and I was floored. I spent many a day during the years of my strangely spent youth, attending rock concerts. They were, universally, loud.
But, loud is not necessarily powerful. There is something about a full orchestra, with the intertwining of all of the instruments, that is overwhelmingly powerful. I believe it is because, with the various sounds, the orchestra is more effective at creating a kind of sensory overload. The music just takes over your mind and emotions and sends waves of vibrations through all of your body.
Rock, which I love, is more of a visceral experience. Powerful, yes, but somehow limited, both by the nature of the music( rhythmically simple), and the fact that you can only get so many sound out of one drummer, a bass, a guitar, and maybe a keyboard (even with electronic attachments and enhancements).
Hearing a live, full orchestra is not an option available everywhere, but many larger cities do have symphonies. Now, if Classical music is not your cup of tea, fine. However, many symphonies, especially around various holidays, put on Pop Concerts. They are a bit less formal and a lot of fun and, best of all, frequently the ticket prices are lower. If you have a chance to attend either a Pop Concert or a full on symphony and can afford it, by all means, go. I promise that you will be amazed at the sound.
But, loud is not necessarily powerful. There is something about a full orchestra, with the intertwining of all of the instruments, that is overwhelmingly powerful. I believe it is because, with the various sounds, the orchestra is more effective at creating a kind of sensory overload. The music just takes over your mind and emotions and sends waves of vibrations through all of your body.
Rock, which I love, is more of a visceral experience. Powerful, yes, but somehow limited, both by the nature of the music( rhythmically simple), and the fact that you can only get so many sound out of one drummer, a bass, a guitar, and maybe a keyboard (even with electronic attachments and enhancements).
Hearing a live, full orchestra is not an option available everywhere, but many larger cities do have symphonies. Now, if Classical music is not your cup of tea, fine. However, many symphonies, especially around various holidays, put on Pop Concerts. They are a bit less formal and a lot of fun and, best of all, frequently the ticket prices are lower. If you have a chance to attend either a Pop Concert or a full on symphony and can afford it, by all means, go. I promise that you will be amazed at the sound.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
The Yearling
If you have read my blog before, you know that I love stories, especially human stories. The novel was written by Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings and published in 1936. A movie was made of the tale in 1946, starring Gregory Peck and Jane Wyman. Here you have the rare case of both the novel and the film being excellent.
The story is set in North Florida, shortly after the Civil War, among the dirt poor farmers who worked that land. The Baxter family has had six children born and only on a boy named Jody lived. His Mother is understandably bitter and his Father, well, he just works.
The boy adopts a stray fawn, despite his Father's warning that things will not turn out well. They don't. I will tell you no more details about this story because I really hope you will read the novel, see the movie, or both.
I will say that you will never find a better coming of age story. Jody is forced into hard decisions and learns how difficult it is to become a man. The world the Baxters live in is radically different from our world but, humans are still humans, and the lessons Jody learns are still the lessons young people have to learn. It is hard growing up, very painful and as hard as it is for parents to watch them struggle, you have to let them go through the pain. You do them no good by shielding them.
The Yearling is a beautiful story and the novel is beautifully written. The movie is equally good and I hope you set aside a little time for this lovely old story.
The story is set in North Florida, shortly after the Civil War, among the dirt poor farmers who worked that land. The Baxter family has had six children born and only on a boy named Jody lived. His Mother is understandably bitter and his Father, well, he just works.
The boy adopts a stray fawn, despite his Father's warning that things will not turn out well. They don't. I will tell you no more details about this story because I really hope you will read the novel, see the movie, or both.
I will say that you will never find a better coming of age story. Jody is forced into hard decisions and learns how difficult it is to become a man. The world the Baxters live in is radically different from our world but, humans are still humans, and the lessons Jody learns are still the lessons young people have to learn. It is hard growing up, very painful and as hard as it is for parents to watch them struggle, you have to let them go through the pain. You do them no good by shielding them.
The Yearling is a beautiful story and the novel is beautifully written. The movie is equally good and I hope you set aside a little time for this lovely old story.
Saturday, September 17, 2016
Batman
One of our cultures iconic figures is, oddly enough, Batman. I was struck by this today, for some odd reason that I can't figure. It seems that this weird comic book character simply won't go away.
The comic books of the 50s and 60s were kind of fun. Batman was an excuse for the writers to turn their imaginations loose and invent all sorts of exotic technology for the Caped Crusader and the Boy Wonder. It was cool to have a super hero who was just a man, no super powers or alien origin. Sort of Sherlock Holmes on steroids.
Then, in the late 60s, we had the wonderful TV series with Adam West as Batman. It is still around on TV and I urge you to watch it. It is incredibly funny and, really should have been the death knell for the whole super hero genre. The Batman TV show was high satire presented as low humor and it completely devastated the whole idea of crime fighting heroes. Or should have.
But, some things die a hard death. I never gave the character another thought until, in a relatively short period, back he came, multiple times. Alan Moore did The Killing Joke, Grant Morrison did Arkham Asylum, and Frank Miller did The Dark Knight series. They were all good efforts but, them we had the films starring at various times Michael Keeton, Val Kilmer and George Cloony. A motley bunch of movies (although I did think Danny Devito did a great Penguin). Well, I figured that would be the end of that.
Nope. Then we had the Christian Bale version which might have been good if only I could have understood what he was saying. Why do some actors feel that mumbling is a good technique? I will say Heath Ledger's Joker was the best; so good it seemingly was too much for the poor guy; it is not a healthy character to immerse yourself in. Well, I thought, surely that will be the end of it.
Wrong again. Ben Affleck is the latest to take a stab at it. I will not be watching. Are there simply no new ideas anywhere? Perhaps we should declare a moratorium and vow to abstain from movies sequels. And, we probably should add to that, any movie based on any super hero.
Oddly enough, I sort of like TV's Gotham, but I really question the idea of putting a program that deals explicitly with mind control experimentation (the Doctor Strange story line) on at 8 PM for the little ones to watch. Gotham is grim fare, a bit frightening in places, but, at least it's pretty well done (the ones I have seen, at least, maybe 4 total).
Alan Moore's The Watchmen should have killed the whole super hero mythos, It was a devastating deconstruction of the whole mad genre and that should have been it but, super heroes won't go away. That must say something about the audience but, this is not a psychology blog, so, I'll leave things there
The comic books of the 50s and 60s were kind of fun. Batman was an excuse for the writers to turn their imaginations loose and invent all sorts of exotic technology for the Caped Crusader and the Boy Wonder. It was cool to have a super hero who was just a man, no super powers or alien origin. Sort of Sherlock Holmes on steroids.
Then, in the late 60s, we had the wonderful TV series with Adam West as Batman. It is still around on TV and I urge you to watch it. It is incredibly funny and, really should have been the death knell for the whole super hero genre. The Batman TV show was high satire presented as low humor and it completely devastated the whole idea of crime fighting heroes. Or should have.
But, some things die a hard death. I never gave the character another thought until, in a relatively short period, back he came, multiple times. Alan Moore did The Killing Joke, Grant Morrison did Arkham Asylum, and Frank Miller did The Dark Knight series. They were all good efforts but, them we had the films starring at various times Michael Keeton, Val Kilmer and George Cloony. A motley bunch of movies (although I did think Danny Devito did a great Penguin). Well, I figured that would be the end of that.
Nope. Then we had the Christian Bale version which might have been good if only I could have understood what he was saying. Why do some actors feel that mumbling is a good technique? I will say Heath Ledger's Joker was the best; so good it seemingly was too much for the poor guy; it is not a healthy character to immerse yourself in. Well, I thought, surely that will be the end of it.
Wrong again. Ben Affleck is the latest to take a stab at it. I will not be watching. Are there simply no new ideas anywhere? Perhaps we should declare a moratorium and vow to abstain from movies sequels. And, we probably should add to that, any movie based on any super hero.
Oddly enough, I sort of like TV's Gotham, but I really question the idea of putting a program that deals explicitly with mind control experimentation (the Doctor Strange story line) on at 8 PM for the little ones to watch. Gotham is grim fare, a bit frightening in places, but, at least it's pretty well done (the ones I have seen, at least, maybe 4 total).
Alan Moore's The Watchmen should have killed the whole super hero mythos, It was a devastating deconstruction of the whole mad genre and that should have been it but, super heroes won't go away. That must say something about the audience but, this is not a psychology blog, so, I'll leave things there
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Ken Kesey, Sometimes A Great Notion
I have read a lot of books and I read all types. I am not a book snob reading only 'great literature.' I love genre fiction, mystery/suspense thrillers, westerns, historical fiction, horror, sci-fi. Just tell me a good story and tell it well. That's all you need do to get my attention. However, today, I am going to write about a great work of literature.
Kesey's first novel was One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, a fine novel about a psychiatric ward that expands into a commentary on the struggle between individual freedom and the controls society forces upon us. It was a good novel, but, over time, I began to see it as too simple. The world does not divide so neatly between good and evil.
Well, Sometimes A Great Notion does not make things that simple at all. The entire story is an interplay of forces that are so mixed up that good and evil simply do not factor in. What's good for someone at one point is bad for others and turns sour for the person it first benefits. In other words, it's just like life, a confusing blend of choices and risks, of unintended consequences, and the twistings inherent in family dynamics.
It is a story of family and neighbors. In short, in the logging country of Oregon, a union is about to go on strike against the big corporation. A family run operation, outside the union's grasp, strikes a deal with the corporation to deliver the logs they need, thus undercutting the union. Of course, this means that they are undercutting friends and neighbors, and the story revolves around that conflict. At the same time, the superman-like guy that runs the operation needs workers and sends for his younger brother who is being educated back East (keeping things in the family is how they keep the union out). These brothers have a twisted history, full of secrets and the blend of love and hate common to brothers everywhere. How these conflicts play out is the story and I'll tell you no more because I don't want to spoil the story.
Add to all of that a cast of relatives, friends and neighbors, all of them carefully developed, all of them strange, mix in some of the finest descriptive writing you will ever read, and a deep understanding of how everything we do and have done, reflects on and influences everything else, and you have one hell of a book.
The novel was not especially well received when first released and I believe that was because of its politics. In the mid-60s, when it was published, the Literary Establishment was decidedly left wing (it still is), and to write a novel in which the union was not the hero was not a popular move. In recent years, the novel has begun to be recognized as the brilliant work it is.
It is not an easy novel to get into. The first 100 pages are taken up with scene setting. Characters are established and a great deal of family history is presented. This is necessary to the understanding of the intricate web of the community. Also, the river that flows by the community is of vital importance, almost becoming a main character, and Kesey takes his time describing the natural setting of the story. Just relax and take your time because, in those first 100 pages (it's around 800 total), you will enjoy some of the best descriptive writing you will ever see. Then, when the setting is firmly established, hang on, because the rest of the story just explodes and, from there on, it is an all out run.
Kesey also plays a bit with time and, here and there, uses multiple stream of conscious techniques. Don't let that throw you, he always gives clues that let you know what's happening, and the passages work wonders, reminding you of how tied together everything is.
He said, after completing the novel that he would never write anything better, and he was right. Kesey became famous as the leader of the Merry Pranksters, infamous LSD promoters of the 60s, went to jail for a marijuana change, and settled into life as a family man and dairy farmer. He continued writing and turned out some good work, a book of essays ( The Demon Box), a kind of screen play ( The Further Adventures), and a pretty good novel (Sailor's Song), but nothing to touch Sometimes A Great Notion. That is not surprising. He put a lot into that novel and such work takes its toll. It is a great, great novel.
Kesey's first novel was One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest, a fine novel about a psychiatric ward that expands into a commentary on the struggle between individual freedom and the controls society forces upon us. It was a good novel, but, over time, I began to see it as too simple. The world does not divide so neatly between good and evil.
Well, Sometimes A Great Notion does not make things that simple at all. The entire story is an interplay of forces that are so mixed up that good and evil simply do not factor in. What's good for someone at one point is bad for others and turns sour for the person it first benefits. In other words, it's just like life, a confusing blend of choices and risks, of unintended consequences, and the twistings inherent in family dynamics.
It is a story of family and neighbors. In short, in the logging country of Oregon, a union is about to go on strike against the big corporation. A family run operation, outside the union's grasp, strikes a deal with the corporation to deliver the logs they need, thus undercutting the union. Of course, this means that they are undercutting friends and neighbors, and the story revolves around that conflict. At the same time, the superman-like guy that runs the operation needs workers and sends for his younger brother who is being educated back East (keeping things in the family is how they keep the union out). These brothers have a twisted history, full of secrets and the blend of love and hate common to brothers everywhere. How these conflicts play out is the story and I'll tell you no more because I don't want to spoil the story.
Add to all of that a cast of relatives, friends and neighbors, all of them carefully developed, all of them strange, mix in some of the finest descriptive writing you will ever read, and a deep understanding of how everything we do and have done, reflects on and influences everything else, and you have one hell of a book.
The novel was not especially well received when first released and I believe that was because of its politics. In the mid-60s, when it was published, the Literary Establishment was decidedly left wing (it still is), and to write a novel in which the union was not the hero was not a popular move. In recent years, the novel has begun to be recognized as the brilliant work it is.
It is not an easy novel to get into. The first 100 pages are taken up with scene setting. Characters are established and a great deal of family history is presented. This is necessary to the understanding of the intricate web of the community. Also, the river that flows by the community is of vital importance, almost becoming a main character, and Kesey takes his time describing the natural setting of the story. Just relax and take your time because, in those first 100 pages (it's around 800 total), you will enjoy some of the best descriptive writing you will ever see. Then, when the setting is firmly established, hang on, because the rest of the story just explodes and, from there on, it is an all out run.
Kesey also plays a bit with time and, here and there, uses multiple stream of conscious techniques. Don't let that throw you, he always gives clues that let you know what's happening, and the passages work wonders, reminding you of how tied together everything is.
He said, after completing the novel that he would never write anything better, and he was right. Kesey became famous as the leader of the Merry Pranksters, infamous LSD promoters of the 60s, went to jail for a marijuana change, and settled into life as a family man and dairy farmer. He continued writing and turned out some good work, a book of essays ( The Demon Box), a kind of screen play ( The Further Adventures), and a pretty good novel (Sailor's Song), but nothing to touch Sometimes A Great Notion. That is not surprising. He put a lot into that novel and such work takes its toll. It is a great, great novel.
Monday, September 12, 2016
What's Happened to TV
With the exception of news and a little sports, I find that there is little on TV that I care to watch anymore. Maybe my taste has changed, but I honestly don't think it's changed that much.
Now, I am probably better off not watching as much, but there are times, rainy days and days when I don't feel well, that I would enjoy watching anything decent, but I just don't see much on. I remember (God, I sound like an old man, but it's true) when I could almost always find some good drama or comedy. When I was growing up, we had programs as varied as Westerns (Gunsmoke, Rawhide, Wagon Train, Maverick), Science Fiction (Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits), Mysteries (Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Ellery Queen, Perry Mason), Comedies (The Honeymooners, Dick Van Dyke, and Lucy) and Dramas (Dr. Kildare, Ben Casey, The Fugitive, Playhouse 90).
In later years, we had the great comedies (All in the Family, Bob Newhart, Mary Hartman) and fine Dramas ( Hill Street Blues, Kung Fu, Masterpiece Theater), and incredible mini-series (Shogun, Lonesome Dove). We even had great live music shows (PBS's Soundstage and Austin City Limits)
Closer to the present, we have had programming as good as House and The Simpsons and the various Star Trek spin offs.
Now, we are stuck with drivel like The Voice and Real Housewives and a host of simple minded comedies that seem to thrive on sexual double entendres that are on a junior high school level. Cable channels that used to have good programming like The Learning Channel (now devoted to dating and wedding shows), Bravo (Real Housewives from various cities), and USA (your choice of Law and Order SVU, NCIS, The Crissleys, or Modern Family), and Discover (oddly devoted to Commercial Fishing programs) are loaded with programs that they show over and over and over again.
Movies? From what I see, unless you want to pay for premium channels or Net Flix, and let's face it, not all of us can afford any extra costs, you are stuck with endless repeatings of drivel like Fast and Furious or a plethora of sophomoric romantic comedies.
I know that a lot of folks watch TV on their computers and that is fine except that staring at a computer screen is a bit hard on the eyes. Oh well, as I said earlier, I suppose I'm better off not watching so much. Still, on days like today, when I have a little virus playing in my intestines and it's going to be cloudy outside, it would be nice to settle back and watch something decent and entertaining.
Now, I am probably better off not watching as much, but there are times, rainy days and days when I don't feel well, that I would enjoy watching anything decent, but I just don't see much on. I remember (God, I sound like an old man, but it's true) when I could almost always find some good drama or comedy. When I was growing up, we had programs as varied as Westerns (Gunsmoke, Rawhide, Wagon Train, Maverick), Science Fiction (Star Trek, The Twilight Zone, The Outer Limits), Mysteries (Alfred Hitchcock Presents, Ellery Queen, Perry Mason), Comedies (The Honeymooners, Dick Van Dyke, and Lucy) and Dramas (Dr. Kildare, Ben Casey, The Fugitive, Playhouse 90).
In later years, we had the great comedies (All in the Family, Bob Newhart, Mary Hartman) and fine Dramas ( Hill Street Blues, Kung Fu, Masterpiece Theater), and incredible mini-series (Shogun, Lonesome Dove). We even had great live music shows (PBS's Soundstage and Austin City Limits)
Closer to the present, we have had programming as good as House and The Simpsons and the various Star Trek spin offs.
Now, we are stuck with drivel like The Voice and Real Housewives and a host of simple minded comedies that seem to thrive on sexual double entendres that are on a junior high school level. Cable channels that used to have good programming like The Learning Channel (now devoted to dating and wedding shows), Bravo (Real Housewives from various cities), and USA (your choice of Law and Order SVU, NCIS, The Crissleys, or Modern Family), and Discover (oddly devoted to Commercial Fishing programs) are loaded with programs that they show over and over and over again.
Movies? From what I see, unless you want to pay for premium channels or Net Flix, and let's face it, not all of us can afford any extra costs, you are stuck with endless repeatings of drivel like Fast and Furious or a plethora of sophomoric romantic comedies.
I know that a lot of folks watch TV on their computers and that is fine except that staring at a computer screen is a bit hard on the eyes. Oh well, as I said earlier, I suppose I'm better off not watching so much. Still, on days like today, when I have a little virus playing in my intestines and it's going to be cloudy outside, it would be nice to settle back and watch something decent and entertaining.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
The Disappearing Art of Doing Nothing
We all have things we enjoy doing. I love writing, watching movies, reading, and watching some sports. I love talking, walking, dining out, and even shopping, here and there. When I run into people often the first thing they ask is some variation of 'What have you been doing?' Perfectly valid question that can lead to fine conversation. I ask it myself and get responses ranging from just working to watching TV to playing with the kids. All great answers and all certainly things worth doing.
I have noticed, however, that I rarely hear someone answer, "oh, nothing," and when I do, that person usually seems a might sheepish, as if doing nothing is a source of embarrassment. No one should be embarrassed to admit that they are doing nothing, unless that's always their answer.
Actually doing nothing is a fine art and, I am afraid it is becoming a lost art. Now, by doing nothing, I do not mean sitting watching TV or playing video games. If that is what you are doing then you are, indeed, doing something. I am talking about a completely passive activity wherein you just turn your mind off, find a relaxed posture and let the world come to you. I don't mean sleep, although, during the course of doing nothing you may doze off.
Just sit, or stretch out, or stand, if that is comfortable, and let your attention wander where it will. Don't try to focus your attention, just let it be drawn where it will. You will be surprised at the little bits of beauty and interest you normally miss. And, doing nothing is not necessarily a visual thing. Allow all of your senses to engage. I have a poor sense of smell, but, even I can catch a captivating scent every now and then ( I sometimes wish, that just for a little while, I could, like a dog, experience the world through smell) Sounds may grab your attention and, if you let them, the mix of voices and traffic and birds machines, will blend into a grand, though unusual, symphony. Here and there, I have spent long periods just enjoying the way the sun and the wind feel on my skin.
I grew up around people who were the first generation to have TV and they were not captured by it. Thus, we often spent hours sitting outside. Sometimes, we would talk, or drink, or play games, but often, we simply sat. It was wonderful, sort of an informal meditation. Personally, I find informal meditations much more fruitful than formal types. But, alas, I fear that doing nothing is becoming a lost art. Well, after I do a few things, I believe I may just spend a few minutes or so, trying to keep that art alive
I have noticed, however, that I rarely hear someone answer, "oh, nothing," and when I do, that person usually seems a might sheepish, as if doing nothing is a source of embarrassment. No one should be embarrassed to admit that they are doing nothing, unless that's always their answer.
Actually doing nothing is a fine art and, I am afraid it is becoming a lost art. Now, by doing nothing, I do not mean sitting watching TV or playing video games. If that is what you are doing then you are, indeed, doing something. I am talking about a completely passive activity wherein you just turn your mind off, find a relaxed posture and let the world come to you. I don't mean sleep, although, during the course of doing nothing you may doze off.
Just sit, or stretch out, or stand, if that is comfortable, and let your attention wander where it will. Don't try to focus your attention, just let it be drawn where it will. You will be surprised at the little bits of beauty and interest you normally miss. And, doing nothing is not necessarily a visual thing. Allow all of your senses to engage. I have a poor sense of smell, but, even I can catch a captivating scent every now and then ( I sometimes wish, that just for a little while, I could, like a dog, experience the world through smell) Sounds may grab your attention and, if you let them, the mix of voices and traffic and birds machines, will blend into a grand, though unusual, symphony. Here and there, I have spent long periods just enjoying the way the sun and the wind feel on my skin.
I grew up around people who were the first generation to have TV and they were not captured by it. Thus, we often spent hours sitting outside. Sometimes, we would talk, or drink, or play games, but often, we simply sat. It was wonderful, sort of an informal meditation. Personally, I find informal meditations much more fruitful than formal types. But, alas, I fear that doing nothing is becoming a lost art. Well, after I do a few things, I believe I may just spend a few minutes or so, trying to keep that art alive
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Comic Books
When I was a kid, all those many years ago, we pretty much all read comic books. It has taken me years to refer to some of them as graphic novels. There are a few I can refer to that way, some of Alan Moore's work, maybe Grant Morrison and Neil Gaiman, but you know, I still think they should be called comic books.
We read the funny ones, Bugs Bunny, etc. and they truly were funny, but the ones we loved were the super hero comics. I was never big on Superman or Wonder Woman. Batman was okay. but I was especially fascinated by The Flash and The Atom. I think they were the most science fiction of the lot. There were also military comics, such as GI Joe, and a lot of Westerns, which I loved. Then, of course, there were Romance comics, for girls ( at least I never knew a boy who read them, although, who knows?).
Among the best were the Classic Comics. These were bits of classic literature, illustrated beautifully and using bits of the text from the book. It was in this form that I first read Moby Dick, A Tale of Two Cities, and Treasure Island. These were a fine way to get kids used to the idea that great literature contained great stories.
Then we, on occasion, got hold of the grand and gory EC Comics like Tales From The Crypt. These were truly scary and a bit gross, but we loved them and I don't think they did us any harm ( on second thought, as I look around the world, maybe they did, but, too late to worry about that now and besides, they were fun)
I have no idea if there are still comic books available for kids and if there are, can kids afford them? We used to get them for a dime a piece and big, bonus editions for a quarter. Not only did they get us used to reading for pleasure, they got a lot of kids I knew interested in drawing and painting. Not bad for the price. Just think, if I had all my old comic books, in good condition, I would be worth a small fortune. If you ever find any of the old comic books around, give them a look. They were fun
We read the funny ones, Bugs Bunny, etc. and they truly were funny, but the ones we loved were the super hero comics. I was never big on Superman or Wonder Woman. Batman was okay. but I was especially fascinated by The Flash and The Atom. I think they were the most science fiction of the lot. There were also military comics, such as GI Joe, and a lot of Westerns, which I loved. Then, of course, there were Romance comics, for girls ( at least I never knew a boy who read them, although, who knows?).
Among the best were the Classic Comics. These were bits of classic literature, illustrated beautifully and using bits of the text from the book. It was in this form that I first read Moby Dick, A Tale of Two Cities, and Treasure Island. These were a fine way to get kids used to the idea that great literature contained great stories.
Then we, on occasion, got hold of the grand and gory EC Comics like Tales From The Crypt. These were truly scary and a bit gross, but we loved them and I don't think they did us any harm ( on second thought, as I look around the world, maybe they did, but, too late to worry about that now and besides, they were fun)
I have no idea if there are still comic books available for kids and if there are, can kids afford them? We used to get them for a dime a piece and big, bonus editions for a quarter. Not only did they get us used to reading for pleasure, they got a lot of kids I knew interested in drawing and painting. Not bad for the price. Just think, if I had all my old comic books, in good condition, I would be worth a small fortune. If you ever find any of the old comic books around, give them a look. They were fun
Thursday, September 1, 2016
The Passing of Gene Wilder
I have long thought that comedies are the hardest sort of movies to make. I write a bit and read a lot, and writing funny lines and scenes is very hard. Laurence Olivier said that comedy was much harder to play then drama. The world lost one of its finest comedic actors this week and we are the poorer for it.
What amazed me about Gene Wilder is that he could do so many comedies now considered classic and keep up such a high standard throughout.
His work with Richard Pryor, the Silver Streak and Stir Crazy, are great fun and Pryor, who died way to young, was at his peak. Great movies.
Wilder's great film with Zero Mostell, The Producers is amazing. The subject matter, a musical comedy being staged that has Hitler as the protagonist, should be offensive to everyone, but the movie is hysterically funny.
Blazing Saddles is a great spoof of Westerns and Young Frankenstein is my all time favorite comedy.
Finally, we must never forget Willie Wonk and The Chocolate Factory. This is fantasy at its best, edgy, almost scary, very funny, and, oddly, at the same time, rather sweet. Gene Wilder was remarkable as the weird but ultimately lovable, Willie Wonka.
Blessedly, we have many fine films by Wilder.
What amazed me about Gene Wilder is that he could do so many comedies now considered classic and keep up such a high standard throughout.
His work with Richard Pryor, the Silver Streak and Stir Crazy, are great fun and Pryor, who died way to young, was at his peak. Great movies.
Wilder's great film with Zero Mostell, The Producers is amazing. The subject matter, a musical comedy being staged that has Hitler as the protagonist, should be offensive to everyone, but the movie is hysterically funny.
Blazing Saddles is a great spoof of Westerns and Young Frankenstein is my all time favorite comedy.
Finally, we must never forget Willie Wonk and The Chocolate Factory. This is fantasy at its best, edgy, almost scary, very funny, and, oddly, at the same time, rather sweet. Gene Wilder was remarkable as the weird but ultimately lovable, Willie Wonka.
Blessedly, we have many fine films by Wilder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)