Religion, Spirituality, Higher Power.... It's All a Mystery to Me, Not too Mention a Matter of Faith

My last couple of posts have skirted the issue of religion, usually with me saying something along the lines of "I'm not all that religious." Frankly, I tend to stay away from the discussion because there are far too many viewpoints, interpretations, and people who think they have all the answers to the afterlife. My personal belief is that there simply isn't enough information to form a suitable hypothesis one way or another, and people get far too heated when discussing something so personal. And so, I try to stay far away from discussions of religion unless the discussion is of an academic nature, when feelings are less likely to be hurt.

Notice my use of the word "try" because I'm going to delve, somewhat foolishly I'm sure, into the realm of religion, or if you prefer spirituality, or faith, or the afterlife (see, too many ways to address the issue).

Anyway, I am no religious scholar, nor do I pretend to be; however, I do try to rely on my reason, intuition, and experience as much as possible before making any kind of decision. I believe I've always waited before making decisions: The more serious the decision, the longer the wait. Of course, this waiting tends to push the limits on things like deadlines and life in general. A patient child I was, which has translated into being a patient adult, as well. I guess it's a good thing I was called to the profession of teaching. Since waiting is one of my more powerful characteristics, I feel I will be waiting until the end of my life to make a decision on my faith.

My parents always told my sister and me that we had a choice which religion to follow. Now, they may have hoped for a Christian denomination of some kind, and probably hoped against a more pagan form of spirituality like Wicca, a religion I did flirt with for a time and still have a few books on the subject. However, it is this freedom of choice that has plagued me for my whole life. This is not to say I feel my parents did me a disservice. On the contrary, I believe their decision to give my sister and me a choice at all has led me to seriously, and I mean seriously, consider the role religion would take in my life. From the moment a choice was presented, I was free to question what many take on faith and faith alone. I was free to question how comfortable, or uncomfortable, I felt in the hallowed halls of various churches. My favorites tended to be Catholic because Catholics tend to take the presentation of religious rites and practices VERY seriously, which also is a reason why many are turned away from Catholicism. I found the grandeur and pomp to be a form of elevation, like Milton's use of language in Paradise Lost: the subject deserves a higher form of presentation.

Of course, to each his own. The form of presentation makes a difference to us all and not all of us react the same. Some love the language of Paradise Lost and other epic poetry, while others do not. The Catholic form of delivery was suitable to my own tastes. But this is not to say I now find myself a true Catholic; after all, because I never decided on one particular faith, I never went through the necessary rituals of being a true Catholic. No, there was a slight hiccup in the development of my faith, what I'll lovingly call my gay realization. Here was a dilemma set in front of me: How do I reconcile being gay with belonging to a religion?

To start, I need to explain a bit. I apologize on the outset about the brief bit of history I'm about to divulge, but for the sake of this particular blog I feel it's necessary.

There are plenty of people out there who believe being gay is a choice, and I'm the first to say that yes, it can be a choice, but that's not to say it is always a choice. Human psychology is far too varied and complex to limit personal identifications to black/white standards. For me, it's not a choice. Sorry ladies, I just don't find woman sexually appealing. Even when I was little and acting out the role of obsessed male adolescent, I had a couple of pictures of beautiful women (I had a thing for Sandra Bullock.... still do as a matter of fact), but none that I can recall were in provocative poses. Indeed, my own feelings about them were a bit strange, I began to notice.

I believe it all started with a simple movie, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids. In an earlier post, I expressed that I had a crush on the older boy in the film. I wanted to be the girl in the film not because I desired to be a woman but because I desired to be in her shoes. I wanted him. The same probably... No, it did happen with Ms. Sandra Bullock. She had starred in Speed (just a quick FYI, Speed was the first R rated film my parents let me own) and I believe my fascination with her was due to her close proximity to a hunky looking Keanu Reeves, who wouldn't look so scrumptious again until The Matrix.

My apologies, I digress. These feelings weren't driven by any kind of sexual abuse, or fear of women. No, they were just there. I couldn't control them then, and I can't control them now. My dilemma then, and to some extent now, is that if I accepted the idea that I was born attracted to men and if I accepted the idea that most religious doctrine doesn't look too kindly on same-sex coupling, what was I to do? This was a terrifying mental state for a teenager just starting junior high school. How is an adolescent, with very little life experience and knowledge of religion and philosophy, supposed to deal with those kinds of issues? To be perfectly honest, it's no wonder there is such a high rate of suicide among GLBT youth. Now, I'm not blaming religion, but the pressures exerted on our youth today is immense, especially when the pressure is coming from the institutions that are supposed to help teens deal with such issues.

Well, those were my thoughts. Just as I was supposed to be discovering the joys of love, I was terrified I was going to hell. But something didn't feel right about all of it. God is supposed to be all powerful. God tests us with temptation. God is vengeful. God is merciful. All of this didn't seem to add up to my adolescent mind. To use the language of adolescents, God is a sick fucker.

At least, that's how I felt.

How could all of these ideas be merged together into one being. Well, the answer lies in the first item in my list above: God is omnipotent. God encompasses everything in us and outside us, which means God's infinite complexity includes the psychological complexities of humanity. As some decide to murder, so does God. As some decide to give, so does God.

I was told once by a friend, a pair of friends actually, that my sexuality was a sign from God to take a vow of abstinence and join the priesthood. I politely declined, while simultaneously thinking "Hell, no!" Abstinence is a nice idea but a failure in practice, and I knew I would fail miserably, even if the study of religious texts seemed a promising career choice, which it did; I'm a nerd after all.

All these ideas proved too much for my mind, so I decided to just forget about it all. I decided I was an Atheist.

I was a junior in high school.

Thankfully, my boyfriend at the time informed me that that wasn't such a good idea. An outright rejection of God, in whatever form, was not a reasonable way to approach the problem, and he introduced me to a new word: Agnostic.

Agnostics, of course, are by nature "fence sitters", which I'm sure is frustrating for all those who so blissfully exist on either side of the divide. Even so, an agnostic I remain to this day. Even though my knowledge has expanded a bit since my junior year, I can't quite get off the fence. Granted, I lean more toward the believers than the non-believers, however I just can't subscribe to any particular doctrine. All are too limiting to my conception of God. Even the name "God" and its variations seems too limiting for the power in the universe that is simultaneously destroyer and creator, the beginning and the end. God is too vast for our simple minds to comprehend, even if we were immortal. The knowledge we seek will not become a part of our consciousness until that consciousness is no longer attached to the limitations of the human body, miracle in engineering though it is.

Some will argue that the power that is God makes itself know to us through religious texts. But which should I choose? I mean really, even within one religion there are texts that are considered gospel and others that are not. What's the difference? And who has the authority to make such a decision to either include or dis-clude any particular text? I know I'm not qualified. However, I do have a problem with the strict adherence of any religious text for the simple fact that they are mere translations. Anyone who has had experience with translation can tell that it's not an exact art. And I'm including the originals in this context, too. After all, they were but the writings of men who had particularly potent dreams. Have you ever tried to write down a dream after waking? I enjoy writing and it's like trying to hold onto a watermelon dripping with oil. Elements change with the writing, so who can say if the man (for most older religious texts were written by men) got it right?

There's far too much instability in religious texts for my liking, and so I'll remian blissfully on-the-fence until my soul makes a break for nothingness or the next realm. Either way, I'll continue to grow and expand my knowledge of our world; and I'll continue to act in a way that harms no one. In the end, whether you believe or not, our actions on this earth have consequences.

A Definition of Pretty and a Decision to Wait: The Beauty of Language

I'm always on the lookout for including videos in my classes and squeal with joy whenever one crosses my path. Well, maybe not squeal, but I am usually guilty of some serious fist-pumping.

Some days ago, a couple of friends on Facebook posted two videos of some poetry slammers, and I was struck by the power of these women's performances and lyrical prowess. Granted, poetry is not my favorite form of literature; and although I've often heard of poetry slams, I hadn't experienced such a performance until a few days ago. So, to those two friends I say "Thank you!" because I now want to watch more. This is a form of poetry I can get into.

Below are the two videos I saw. Hopefully, the links I embed won't be taken down.

The first video is this poet's definition and refutation of "pretty." Fair warning, she utters one curse word, so the video may not be appropriate for work or around children. That being said, the word is completely appropriate for the context. At least, that's how I feel, and I have no qualms about showing this to students.

Now, I'm not particularly religious, at least not in a church-going or Bible-reading sense, but this next video uses biblical imagery in such a way that is both vivid and moving, all to support her decision to wait for the right man to enter her life. I would go to church if messages were delivered in this way. Although I'd be going for the the beauty of the language usage rather than a sense of spiritual fulfillment. Anyway, enjoy!

Freaking awesome, isn't it?!

Well, these are two videos I hope to use in my classes next semester, somehow. However I decide to use them, they will make their way into my writing classes, even if only to show students the power and beauty of language.

The Luminescence of Michelle Williams

My Week with Marilyn is a good film, not a great one, but a good one. Actually, nothing much seems to happen in terms of plot. A movie is being made, and the plot follows the progress of the film within the film. However, that being said, I believe the acting within this particular film is quite phenomenal, especially Michelle Williams who has probably the hardest job of any other actor in the film. Of course, due to the film's subject--Marilyn Monroe--everyone's focus should be on Michelle Williams' performance because Monroe's ability to draw everyone's attention, no matter whatever else was going on, is legendary. Despite the fact that the film's hero is Colin Clark (played by Eddie Redmayne), everyone is waiting for the moment when Monroe graces the audience with her presence, and from the opening song, to her final moment onscreen, Williams evokes the legendary aura of Monroe in such a way that I forgot I was watching Williams act. I, a gay man, wanted to be Clark; I wanted to pick up that vulnerable image of innocence in my skinny little arms and take her away from her troubles. It was a strange experience, to say the least, but from what I hear, that's exactly the kinds of feelings Marilyn Monroe elicited.

Sir Laurence Olivier (Kenneth Branagh), that legend of acting, is directing The Prince and the Showgirl. The stage version starred Olivier's wife, Vivien Leigh (Julia Ormond), but she was deemed too old to play the same character on screen, a sad fact that is made even harder to bare when the most famously beautiful actress in the world is cast to replace her, Monroe. Colin Clark wants so desperately to be in the film business that he works his way into being hired as the Third Assistant Director, which basically means he's the director's (as well as everyone else's) errand boy. Yet, despite his status on set, Monroe grows to trust this young man and they form a relationship.

The film doesn't reveal whether or not the two ever had sex, but that's beside the point. Monroe doesn't need another sexual partner: What she really needs is a friend to support her, one without some ulterior motive. At that point in her career, Monroe was suffering what few people on this planet can truly claim: worldwide adoration and fame. Such recognition comes at a price, and that price is privacy and paranoia. Elvis and Michael Jackson would be able to empathize. Indeed, there is so much pressure on Monroe that I'm surprised it didn't take even longer to complete The Prince and the Showgirl.

The other two performances that stand out are Kenneth Branagh, who stands out in any production he's in, and Dame Judi Dench, who is a joy to watch even when she graces us with her presence for the briefest of spells. Branagh playing Olivier delivering Shakespearean dialogue is like being in Shakespeare-Heaven, I imagine. But aside from that, Branagh brings off the frustration and sexual tension Olivier experienced while working with Monroe quite well. Bouts of explosive anger are coupled with quiet moments of reflection, and Branagh makes Olivier a sympathetic character despite his bullying of Monroe.

There were two memorable scenes for Dench, who plays an old actress who acts as mother to everyone on set. During one scene, Dench is required to deliver a long, rambling bit of dialogue and shows no hint of frustration or anger when Monroe can't seem to get one line out of her mouth. Indeed, she goes out of her way to comfort Monroe and in a later scene berates Olivier for being a bully. These scenes are a reminder why Dench received an Oscar in Shakespeare in Love (despite being onscreen for a short amount of time); and why, aside from Daniel Craig, I eagerly await the next Bond film.

As I wrote before, this is a Michelle Williams' film, much like every film with Monroe in it is a Marilyn Monroe film. My Week with Marilyn doesn't quite deserve a Best Picture nomination, but Williams certainly deserves a Best Actress nomination.

Favorites: The Holiday Edition

With the holidays approaching, I though it might prove interesting to write about my favorite holiday movies; and by "holiday" I mean Christmas movies. I have a couple of favorite horror films I like to watch during Halloween, but that holiday passed by without me even thinking about adding them here. Maybe next year. Thanksgiving isn't a holiday I generally associate with any particular film because I can't think of any Thanksgiving-themed film I enjoy all that much, at least enough to write about.

Since I missed Halloween, I thought I should write a post about the next big holiday coming up: Christmas. Of course, if you don't celebrate Christmas but instead another December holiday, then please just insert your holiday of choice whenever I write Christmas; as someone who was raised Christian--though as an agnostic I don't think I fall under that category anymore--Christmas is just the name that has stuck around. But this blog entry is not about religion (though I may write one someday entirely devoted that subject), and none of the films listed here are religious in theme or plot, at least not the in the way I relate to them.

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

First up is a comedy. I decided to start with this film because the others will have a more serious interpretation attached to them, and my enjoyment of this particular gem is not academic: I just simply love watching this film around the holidays. It makes me laugh.

Christmas Vacation follows the adventures of the Griswold family as they deal all the fun and terror of hosting Christmas at their home. Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo star as the patriarch and matriarch of the Griswold family and it is D'Angelo's character, Ellen, who, along with the children, seem the sanest of the bunch. Indeed, much of the laughter comes from the crazy antics of Chase's character, Clark, and the rest of the family.

One of my favorite scenes involves Clark applying some kind of lubricant to the bottom of his snow sled--more of a snow shield used as a sled--and rocketing like a bullet over a frozen pond, through a forest, and eventually stopping the middle of a road.

Another sequence that just cracks me up is when the oldest--and I do OLD--members of the family arrive, played by William Hickey and Mae Questel. The combination of a dotty old woman and the hysterically annoying voice of Hickey is wonderful, not to mention a reminder that while we cannot choose our family, the holidays are a socially acceptable time of the year to get plastered.

And then there's the beauty of a line, delivered by the wife of Clark's boss, played by Natalia Nogulich: "Yes officer, it seems my husband's been abducted. The man was wearing a blue leisure suite. Plates were from Kansas. He was a huge, beastly, bulging man." I can't quite pinpoint exactly why that line gives me the giggles, but even as I typed it out, I chuckled.

Truly, this is the film I turn to every Christmas for a good laugh, and it never disappoints.

The Nightmare Before Christmas

On the surface, this film may not look as though it really fits within the category of Christmas films since it bridges the divide between the most scared holiday for many and the most sinful. The beauty of Nightmare is in its daring to bring together two holidays that, before, many had not. What's funny is that Tim Burton got the idea while shopping and was struck by the odd pairing of Halloween and Christmas decorations as the store was shifting between the two seasons. See, inspiration can come from all sorts of places.

Now, in my analysis, I find that Jack Skellington represents the creative spirit, or the creative spark of imagination. After all, in order to truly bring about anything new, one must practically roam to the edge of sanity, cross that border, and hopefully come back with some fresh new insight, if they even come back at all. There's a reason why some of the most creative minds in the world don't do well when interacting with mere mortals; they just think differently.

And Jack is just that type of character. Watch as he follows through with his desire to take over Christmas (though not in a dictatorial way as he simply wants to give Santa a break); he goes along with such enthusiasm, despite being warned by Sally, that it's hard not to be swept up along with his crazy scheme.

I was not allowed to watch the film when it first came out because my parents believed it was sacrilegious and disgraced the true meaning of Christmas. I, however, now that I've seen it multiple times think nothing of the sort. In fact, my second favorite scene in the whole film occurs when Jack has been blown out of the sky and lands in a cemetery. Take heed, the director doesn't shoot him in a grave, but in the arms of an angel. Jack's intent was not to terrify or destroy Christmas, but to bring something new to those he loves and the people who celebrate during the all the different holidays. Despite the fact that he doesn't understand the nuances of Christmas, he understands the spirit and that is to spread joy and happiness to those around us. One person's joy is another's misery.

Since I told you about my second favorite scene in the film, I think it would be unfair to then move on the next film in my list without mentioning my favorite scene in the film. "Jack's Lament" is by far the most beautiful moment of the film, which is fitting because it sets up Jack's motivation. The song itself is sung by Danny Elfman, who also wrote all the songs and orchestrations. Elfman's voice is mesmerizing here (not to mention throughout the entire film), coupled with the striking visuals of Jack standing on top of hill with a curious little curved appendage and framed by a massive yellow moon. The first time I saw this particular scene, my jaw dropped to form a perfect "O".

This film is still the standard to which I measure all stop-motion films, and so far I haven't seen another quite like it, and likewise, Jack Skellington is among my favorite characters in literature.

The Polar Express

The Polar Express has quickly become not only my favorite 3D IMAX film ever (really the only 3D film I've seen that was worth the price), but also my favorite Christmas film.

There's not a single reference to any specific religion in the film, at least not one I can think of beyond the obvious reference in the fact that Christmas is being celebrated, but the holiday has become so separated in recent years from its religious roots that it's quite easy to not think of the birth of Christ when thinking of Christmas.

Well, I promised I wouldn't get into any religious talk and there I go writing about the lack of Christ in Christmas. Moving on...

As far as the film goes, it's a wonderfully mysterious film that doesn't make the main character's journey on the road to belief easy, and such a journey shouldn't be easy: Faith isn't easy. Indeed, at times there seem to be more questions raised than answers.

However, it's Robert Zemeckis' subtly that wins me over every time. In quite a few of Zemeckis' films, especially Contact (which I consider to be his best), a subtle magic works it's way through the hearts and minds of the film's audiences.

Take for instance the scene when Hero Boy decides to board the train, against his own skepticism, and notices the snowman in his front yard waving. But is it really waving? The train's slip stream could have caused the snowman's arm to move. There are many moments like that where seemingly magical elements are presented in such a subtle matter that the hero's skepticism is understandable.

Another of my favorite visuals occurs when the train is winding its way up a mountain, heading to the apex. Zemeckis' camera placement gives the audience the impression that the train will just fly off into the air (after all, it did just make its way across a frozen lake), but with a slight shift in perspective, we're shown a bridge that had been hidden by the mountain. It's a wonderful moment that plays with our desires to see something magical, only to have the expectation deflated when we realize it was only a trick, which is exactly what Hero Boy is experiencing: Moments of what look to be created by magic are only later revealed to be tricks of perception.

Now, the reason I believe this film is the best 3D film I've ever seen comes from the simple fact that the film is enhanced by the extra dimension rather than giving us something to distract our eyes. The first time I saw the film was on TV, and I loved it from the moment I saw that snowman wave. however, I felt the animation wasn't all that great. It was flat and seemingly without warmth, and the human animations seemed just a bit creepy. But when I saw it again in 3D IMAX, I saw animation so detailed and so wonderfully rendered that I was amazed I hadn't seen it that way before. The film's visuals were truly enhanced, and not just by the size of the screen. The human characters no longer looked like flat caricatures of what a human is supposed to look like, but characters with depth, shading, and rounded features that showcased all the minute facial expressions I didn't see on TV, or rather couldn't see.

If more 3D films were made with his type of enhancement in mind, I wouldn't mind paying the extra moment for tickets. Maybe not....

These are my favorite holiday films. They remind me of what I like best about the holidays: It's the time of the year when the best of humanity is on display; Christmas is the time of the year when I have the most hope for us all, hope that deep down most of us are good and that all we need in life is a little faith; not faith in a higher power, but faith each other.

On that note, I'm actually curious to know what films all of you like to watch during the holidays. What films make you feel all warm and fuzzy? What films make you want a hot, steaming cup of hot chocolate?

Just an Update of Sorts

Hello all! It has been over a month since my last post and I figured I should add something here, just to let everyone know that I'm still very much alive.

Really, this semester has flown by much faster than I had anticipated. With four classes and my new job as tutor (technically Instructional Specialist II) at the Writing Center, I haven't had much time to think about anything except work, grading papers, helping students with their essays, and decompressing on the weekends.

Of courses, this does not mean I've neglected my movie watching. On the contrary, I've watched a few good films and a couple great ones. The only thing I've missed over the past month is my inability to make it to the theater. All of my movie watching has taken place primarily at home through Netflix.

Below is a short rundown of the films I've recently seen and a quick statement on what I thought about each. Nothing too extensive, just my reviews in miniature. This is not all of them, I think, but it's enough for now.

Young Frankenstein

I have no idea how I've missed this film over the years, but finally it made its way to my TV screen and in a beautiful Blu-ray version. The film itself is hysterical; however, it really is Gene Wilder's film as his facial expressions alone sent me into fits of giggles. Gene Hackman is equally as funny, and he only has one scene. Needless to say, I loved it and can't wait to buy it for my own library.

Ticked-Off Trannies with Knives

This particular film will not be everyone's ideal choice for a date night. However, it has its charms. Anyone who has seen the drag shows in S4's Rose Room here in Dallas will recognize the main characters as regular drag performers. The film is intentionally poor in some areas, due to the nature of the genre, but two performances stood out the most: Kelexis Davenport and Tom Zembrod. Davenport is my personal favorite, especially when she utters the line, "You hit like a bitch" in a stone-faced deadpan. However, Zembrod should have toned down the creep factor a bit. His performance is best when he just speaks the lines given to him; they're creepy enough on their own. His performance reminded me of Hamlet oddly enough:

"Suit the action to the word, the word to the action, with this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature." (3.2.1)

Winter's Bone

This film is an exercise in restraint and demonstrates why sometimes it's better to underact than to overact. The tension is so thick throughout the entire film that my stomach received quite the workout during the film. It's a shame the result was not a six-pack. Anyway, I'm not sure if the film had more of an effect on me than its fellow Best Picture nominees, but it definitely deserved to be recognized, as did Jennifer Lawrence. Interesting to note that most of the actors in the film had never acted before; a bit terrifying, actually, considering how scary most of them are.

Red State

I've long been a fan of Kevin Smith, beginning with Clerks, although I try to forget I ever watched Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. And seeing how most of his films are sometimes grotesque, but always sweet comedies, I was intrigued to learn of his latest film being a thriller. Truth be told, I enjoyed it. Not as much as Dogma or Chasing Amy perhaps, but it was the first time I forgot I was watching a Kevin Smith and was held there in seat by the story and a chilling performance from Michael Parks. There is no happy ending. Only a couple of poignant final lines spoken by the great John Goodman: "People just do the strangest things when they believe their entitled. But they do even stranger things when they just plain believe."

My one complaint: the siege went on for far too long. It seemed to last forever without anything really happening except people firing assault rifles at each other.

Shaun of the Dead

On a lighter note, Shaun of the Dead did exactly what it set out to do: be simultaneously scary and hysterical, with the latter dominating the former. I think my favorite scene has to be the continuous shot of Simon Pegg doing his normal walk to the convenience store and not noticing that everyone around him is a zombie because there isn't that much of a difference from what they were like before. Now that's some funny social commentary.



 

21 Grams

21 Grams could have been so much better if Inarritu had dispensed with the nonlinear storytelling and just told the story. The story's devastating enough on its own. Otherwise the performances are well worth slogging through the choppy narrative, especially Namoi Watts, who I adore. 

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

And finally, there's this film. Along with the remake of True Grit, it has reminded me of how great a western film can be. It's a shame not many people went to the theaters to see 3:10 to Yuma. Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are mesmerizing as two men trying to make it in an unforgiving society and landscape. The last scene is the best of the entire film.






So, there you go. Just a few films I'd recommend if you haven't seen them already. If you have, well, hopefully you enjoyed them as much as I did.

Brains vs. Brawn: A Shift in Representation

An article I read today reminded of an idea I've been tossing around for about week or so. The article itself can be found here. 

In the article, the writer explains that a current shift in representations of masculinity is occurring in this season's lineup, and I'd have to agree. As a student of popular culture, I frequently look at how women, men, children, and all other "character types" are represented. It's a fascinating past-time, and it's this studying of representation that gets me through Tim's fascination with all things reality (namely, all the Housewives and Big Rich Texas). However, how the genders are being represented is not the subject of this blog post; although, I hope the above articled get the mind to thinking.

The idea I've been kicking around for the last couple of weeks is a shift in representation throughout the years in the heroes of animated films, an idea that came about when the televisual airwaves were saturated with advertisements for the re-release of one of my animated favorite films growing up: The Lion King. Of course, I own the DVD (soon to own the Blu-Ray), so I watched it at home the other day and was struck by a dynamic that had always puzzled me when I was younger: Parents and society in general push for children to demonstrate some kind of intelligence, but for some reason the heroes of my childhood rarely expressed a heightened form of intelligence; such extreme intelligence was reserved for the villains, not the heroes. The heroes were to be intelligent so long as they weren't too intelligent. 

Thankfully, this characterization has changed, as demonstrated by another favorite of mine (a more recent film): How to Train Your Dragon. In this particular film, the hero lacks any kind of physical strength, a bad thing in a society that prizes physical prowess over an intellectual ability to solve problems. Of course, society sees the error of its ways when a combination of intelligence and physicality is required to save them all from a monstrous dragon.

As opposed to The Lion King, How to Train Your Dragon demonstrates how artistic representations of heroes and villains have shifted due to society's increased need for "geek" knowledge to navigate through all the rapid technological changes we've experienced. Both films remain two of my favorites; nevertheless, I'm glad for the change. Now I don't have to harbor secret fascinations with villains like Scar and Ursula, who display cunning and intelligence, but instead can see intelligence displayed on screen as a positive, not something to be feared.

Dallas Pride and the BITCH Comes Out!

This past weekend, I finally had a taste of what it's like to celebrate Gay Pride here in Dallas. Sure, I've been to Gay Days at Disney World, but I didn't participate in any of the events outside of the park, opting for visiting the parks instead (I mean, that's why you go to Disney World, right?).

Well, this year Dallas Pride was most assuredly was a "gay" weekend. And boy was it fun!

I got to see a couple of amazing drag shows at the Rose Room.

Cher even made an appearance... well, her impersonator, anyway. :) She even lip-synched my favorite Cher song: "Dark Lady."

 Unfortunately, I didn't get that many pictures of the lovely ladies that performed. They were moving too fast the first night, and I forgot the camera the second night, which really bit the big one because that was probably the best drag show I've seen yet in Dallas.

The parade was cool, but more for the people watching the parade route than for the parade itself. Although, there were some really cool floats. Like this one:

;)

No really, the people were the best and worst parts of the parade. Our group of four even got bowled over by a massive woman wanted to "move [her] BIG ass to the front." There were also plenty of boys and girls in their underwear, often prompting the phrase, "Skinny bitch." A few people in leather. And one really brave woman who opted to go shirt and bra-less, covering up her naughty bits with some well-placed electrical tape.

Despite all of this, and quite unfortunately as you will discover, our group couldn't quite get passed the quiet one of the group (me) releasing his inner bitch on a poor unsuspecting Black-Eyed Pea server. Poor thing. I still feel incredibly bad about that. My reaction became a mantra of sorts for the rest of the weekend.

Here's what happened:

I had ordered the fried chicken tenderloins with macaroni and cheese and seasoned rice. Our order arrived and I was horrified to see my fried chicken tenderloins accompanied by fries and mashed potatoes. I hate mashed potatoes (with a passion apparently).

The server started handing me my plate and I said, "Um, I ordered macaroni and cheese and seasoned rice. I hate mashed potatoes, so I know I didn't order mashed potatoes."

Everyone was stunned. The server looked shocked. And I didn't notice that I'd said anything amiss.

The server left my plate and promised to bring out my sides quickly, which he did. At this point, my fiance, his cousin and her fiance, informed me of how bitchy my response was. Now it was my turn to be shocked. I was horrified to have said such a thing in that way. Needless to say, I was very nice to him from that moment on. And we left a good tip.

Lesson of the weekend: Be careful of Pride, because too much can cause unsuspecting symptoms of the bad kind of "bitchy gay."

Aside from that embarrassing episode, we had a fabulous time. I hope to have a great time again next year, minus my snob-moment from above, of course.

Reflected Images: J.K. Rowling's Posthuman Epic

A couple of weeks ago, I delivered a guest lecture for one of my colleagues and it was one of the best experiences I’ve had as an instructor. The class itself was covering the basics of mythology and its role in society. I was asked to discuss how witches and wizards are being represented in today’s popular literature. More specifically, how the Harry Potter series’ representations of witches/wizards fit into the overall understanding of modern myths.


Needless to say, I was very excited about the prospect of delivering a lecture on one of the best reading experiences I’ve had over the past nine years. In addition, I was being given an opportunity to discuss something I’d only discussed with my thesis committee: my thesis. After all, I doubt anyone but my committee has read it. This lecture provided me the opportunity to cut some of the fat from my thesis and present it in a manner that would be digestible by an undergraduate audience.

The class was a fantastic audience. They asked probing questions that demonstrated they’d paid attention throughout the whole lecture. Unlike my usual lectures on grammar, punctuation, and essay structure, all of these students were wide awake and attentive. I couldn’t have been more pleased.
After the lecture, a friend of mine showed interest in what I covered, so I thought my blog would be the perfect place for the written version of my presentation. And that’s exactly what I present to you today, my analysis of the Harry Potter series … minus the off-topic protrusions that characterize my normal delivery process, of course.

Reflected Images: J.K. Rowling’s Posthuman Epic

Recently, Harry Potter series was declared the most successful film franchise of all time, topping even James Bond, and with fewer films. The power of J.K. Rowling’s imagination has captivated millions of filmgoers, but what’s more impressive is the fact that her series is also one of the most successful stories in publishing history.

The story is relatively simple: a humble orphan learns he has magical powers, learns more about his abilities, and battles with the forces of evil. This outline could describe any number of myths and stories throughout the years. Indeed, this could describe the Star Wars saga. Both Harry Potter and Star Wars share a common mythical ancestry: the hero myth. In addition, they also share another interesting aspect: a focus on technological influences on society.

One of the more interesting characteristics of Rowling’s story is the battle between differing versions of humanity, or rather different conceptions of what it means to be human. Harry and Voldemort’s battle illustrates a struggle that is very pertinent to contemporary society: as technology changes so does our perception of its possibilities. Voldemort uses technology in order to extend and prolong his life, discounting the disastrous effects it has not only for his community but also for his own consciousness. Harry, on the other hand, accepts the fact that human consciousness is intrinsically tied with body and that life has one inevitability: We are all mortal, and so we all must eventually succumb to death.

In order to better explain my approach to Rowling’s series, it is important to explain a few of the theories used in my analysis. James Berger’s book After the End: Representations of the Apocalypse, N. Katherine Hayles’ How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, and Joseph L Henderson and Joseph Campbell’s work on the heroic myth have all been especially helpful in illuminating Rowling’s work.


Trauma and Apocalypse

Representations of trauma and apocalypse are fascinating subjects in literature. Trauma has always been around, but not until Freud began studying shell-shocked soldiers of World War I did trauma’s psychological effects become the focus of extensive study and analysis. James Berger takes Freud’s theories and expands on them to include traumas suffered at the cultural, or societal, level: the apocalyptic event.

Trauma is the psychiatric form of apocalypse… Trauma produces symptoms in its wake, after the event, and we reconstruct trauma by interpreting these symptoms, reading back in time… Both apocalypse and trauma present the most difficult question of what happened “before,” and what is the situation “after.” The apocalyptic-historical-traumatic event becomes a crux or pivot that forces a retelling and revaluing of all events that lead up to and all that follow. (Berger 20-1)

Indeed, the apocalypse is frequently depicted in art and literature, and at times real-life scenarios seem to mimic those representations. 9/11 and Hiroshima/Nagasaki are two events that can be considered modern apocalyptic events as the images of those tragedies proliferated around the world, creating a feeling of shared-experience despite the distance most people were from the events. For the people living at “ground zero” all forms of narrative, the normalcy of their lives, were destroyed, obliterated to the point where nothing but a gaping void was left. This void, this lack of narrative, produces similar traumatic symptoms felt by an individual but at the societal level. Instead of one person suffering from the scars of trauma, a whole group of people demonstrate symptoms that stem from a shared traumatic experience.

Posthumanity and Information Technologies

The concept of a posthuman existence is relatively new, or rather tied with the advance of information technologies, most notably the Internet. As technology takes over tasks for the human brain, posthuman theorists beg the question: “In an age where technology’s influence over us grows day by day, how do we define what it means to be human?” What concerns N. Katherine Hayles, in her book How We Became Posthuman, is the perception in representations of human interaction with technology that the body can be dispensed with in a few keystrokes.

If my nightmare is a culture inhabited by posthumans who regard their bodies as fashion accessories rather than the ground of being, my dream is a version of the posthuman that embraces the possibilities of information technologies without being seduced by fantasies of unlimited power and disembodied immortality… and that understands human life is embedded in a material world of great complexity, one in which we depend for our continued survival. (Hayles 5, my emphasis)

So are we becoming cybernetic beings?

The short answer: Not yet.

The long answer: The posthuman is not necessarily a robot but a human being who perceives human consciousness as disembodied, without a body and with a consciousness that is potentially capable of moving from one bodied form to another. Cyborgs are a prevalent fixture in sci-fi literature, and the Borg in the Star Trek universe and their complete disregard for individual subjectivity is just example in popular culture of the path humans can take when interacting with information technologies. Hayles is attempting to assert the fact that our brains are tied to our bodies through much more than bits of data. Indeed, our bodies contain the evolutionary codes that have been passed down generation to generation; and to separate human consciousness from the very processes that gave birth to it in the first place would be detrimental to human subjectivity. In other words, we could no longer consider ourselves to be human, but something else entirely. Thankfully, we have not reached that point, yet.


Heroic Quest

The hero myth continues to resurface in our art, our literature, and in other aspects of popular culture. Psychologically speaking, it is a process of individuation, where an individual struggles, matures, and discovers his/her own place within society. Joseph L. Henderson describes the heroic myth, found in his chapter in Man and His Symbols, in the following way:

[Hero] myths vary enormously in detail, but the more closely one examines them the more one sees that structurally they are very similar… Over and over again one hears a tale describing a hero’s early proof of superhuman strength, his rise to prominence of power, his triumphant struggles with the forces of evil, his fallibility… his fall through betrayal or “heroic” sacrifice that ends in his death. (Henderson 101)

The heroic archetype as a cultural artifact works in a different way than an individual’s heroic psychological process because the hero usually acts as sacrificial figure, saving society from whatever evil is besetting it. Jesus is a powerful sacrificial figure in society, acting in the same way Henderson writes above. His sacrifice is believed to have saved the whole of society from sin, so each person can have a fresh start in leading a good and humble life. Instead of relieving the world of sin, the literary heroic figure can serve as the savior for the psychological well-being of an entire culture. Luke Sykwalker’s journey and struggles with a dictatorial government mirror our own struggles with the problems of our society. As Skywalker matures so do we… At least that’s the theory.

Only birth can conquer death--the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something new.  Within the soul, within the body social, there must be--if we are to experience long survival--a continuous "recurrence of birth" ... to nullify the unremitting recurrences of death. (Campbell 11-6, my emphasis)

Trauma and Harry Potter

Now, how does all of this apply to Harry Potter? Well, trauma is the easiest to spot because it is so prevalent throughout the entire series. The whole series begins with a traumatic event: the death of Harry’s parents. Everything in the series revolves around this specific event, but there are plenty of other traumatic events as well.

Indeed, one traumatic event, which does not appear in the series itself, seriously affected everything that came after. J.K. Rowling’s mother passed away not long after Rowling began writing the series. She writes on her website, “[On] December 30th 1990, something happened that changed both my world and Harry’s forever: my mother died…” (Official Site). After her mother died, Rowling’s own writing changed in regards to Harry’s feelings about his parents’ death. It became more real.

Plenty of time is devoted to the fact that Harry and Voldemort have so much in common. What is missing from the films is Voldemort’s complete backstory. In the films, Voldemort is not all that complicated, but the personification of pure evil. However, Rowling demonstrates that evil is not necessarily inherent in all beings, even one so horrible as Voldemort. Indeed, Voldemort’s mother, Merope Guant, suffered much in her own life, so much so that she drafted a love potion and administered it to the son of a wealthy muggle family: Tom Riddle Sr. They married, but not long after, she decided to stop giving Riddle Sr. the potion out a need to feel real love and not the manufactured infatuation of her magic. Needless, to say Riddle was shocked and left his wife, saying he’d been tricked, drugged, all despite the fact that she was very pregnant.

Devastated, Merope made her way to a London orphanage, delivered her baby, told the women there what the baby’s name was to be (Tom Marvolo Riddle), and subsequently died. Tom Riddle Jr. lived the first eleven years of his life in that orphanage, enjoying it as much as Harry enjoyed living with his aunt and uncle. He discovered his special abilities and used those abilities to control others. Once he discovered he was a wizard, through Albus Dumbledore, he knew his family must have been special, powerful. Needless to say he was disappointed to discover that his father was a Muggle and that his mother, poor and weak, had died rather than raise her son. A seething hatred began to grow within the young boy. How could a woman with magic powers die? There had to be a way to overcome the fate of all mortals: death.


Apocalypse and Harry Potter

In addition to Harry and Voldemort’s traumatic pasts, the whole of society has suffered as well, but for the wizarding community it would better termed an apocalyptic event. Hagrid, that wonderful character who sums up everything pretty well, tells Harry about the days before his parents were killed:

“Dark days, Harry. Didn’t know who ter trust, didn’t dare get friendly with strange wizards or witches… terrible things happened. He was takin’ over. ‘Course, some stood up to him—an’ he killed ‘em. Horribly. One o’ the only safe places left was Hogwarts.” (Sorcerer’s Stone 54-5)

The entire community is coming out of its own apocalyptic event when Harry discovers he’s a wizard. People still fear to speak Voldemort’s name, preferring instead He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named or You-Know-Who. After all, no one really understands what happened the night Voldemort disappeared and a one-year-old child survived the Killing Curse, a curse that had caused so much devastation. The society does not have the entire story; they do not know the whole narrative of what happened. Also, Voldemort’s body was never found as it had been blasted away, obliterated as the curse rebounded. Like a specter, an unholy spirit, his presence was still felt in the community. The community trauma had not been purged from the cultural consciousness. And so, Harry enters the story, a story already in progress, and finds that a second Wizard War is approaching, yet another apocalyptic event.

Dumbledore understands the necessity of knowing the whole story before acting. He was pleased with Harry when Harry asked Dumbledore what was to happen to Flamel and his wife now that the stone had been destroyed; “’You did do the thing properly’” (Sorcerer’s Stone 297). And when Dumbledore invites Harry to for lessons in his office, Dumbledore stresses the importance of knowing Voldemort’s story before attempting to attack him. Indeed, it is Harry’s knowledge of Voldemort’s personality that leads him to the horcruxes.

Knowing the whole story, or narrative, is one of the most important aspects to Rowling’s series. And while many readers probably found some of the explanations in the series a bit boring, they were very necessary. For only after knowing the full story is an individual and community able to truly begin the healing process.


Magic as Technology?

Arthur C. Clarke is famous for saying, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” This part of the lecture is probably the most difficult to prove and also the most interesting to hear because of its implications.

The world of Harry Potter begins in early 90’s England; the Internet was in its infancy and more and more homes were getting desktop computers. Now, it seems at first that Harry and his friends leave this technological world for a seemingly pre-industrial world without computers, without television, and without electricity. However, this is merely window dressing. The wizarding community does not use magic in the traditional sense. They do not conjure spirits, speak to gods, or act as mediums between the spirit world and the real world. All of the magic performed in the Harry Potter series is actually much more mundane.

Take a look at the scene in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, when Harry first sees exactly what a wizard family’s home is like. Mrs. Weasley has set some dishes to wash, needles are working some yarn, and a wonderful clock provides real-time information on the whereabouts of the Weasley family. Or take a look at another scene, this one from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry walks into the Leaky Cauldron to meet with the Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge. A waiter is busing a table, making a bottle of wine disappear, and waving his hand to command the chairs to put themselves away; a customer is reading A Brief History of Time and stirring his cup of tea without touching the spoon. All of these events can hardly be considered as grand as conjuring spirits.

Yes, it seems witches and wizards in Rowling’s universe use magic in much the same way as we use technology. (Note: If you’re wondering about television and film, don’t forget that the portraits and the pictures in newspapers and advertisements move just like the images on our television/film screens. Granted, most of the time they don’t tell a straight narrative, but some shows and films hardly deliver anything more interesting than what the pictures in Rowling’s universe deliver.)

Voldemort uses the technology of the wizarding community to achieve immortality, by breaking apart his consciousness and downloading that part into an object of some kind; “’Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die’” (Sorcerer’s Stone 57, my emphasis). He’s basically using the “Save” button, saving bits of consciousness at various stages in his life! Now, when I hit the save button nobody dies (at least I hope not!), but a piece of my life, a piece of my writing is being saved for the unforeseeable future, unless I decide to delete the project. And now that Cloud software is becoming more and more available, I could save my work, those little pieces of my soul, and it would continue to exist (conceivably) for a very long time, possibly beyond my death. 

Professor Slughorn describes the process of creating horcruxes to young Tom Riddle Jr. in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince:

“Well, you split your soul, you see,’ said Slughorn, “and hide part of it in an object outside the body. Then, even if your body is attacked or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound and undamaged.” (Half-Blood Prince 497)

He goes on to tell Riddle Jr. that in order to create a horcrux a person must commit an act of murder, “’an act of violation, it is against nature’” (Half-Blood Prince 498). Dumbledore even mentions that Voldemort had performed such dark magic that he had transformed his body to the point that it was hardly recognizable as being human in form. Rowling describes Voldemort as being a hybrid of snake and man.

Voldemort is looking more and more like Locutus.

Harry’s Sacrifice

The heroic sacrifice discussed above happens when Harry discovers he has the power to destroy Voldemort, but Harry will have to die to accomplish Voldemort’s destruction: “’And while [a fragment of Voldemort’s soul]… attached to and protected by Harry, Lord Voldemort cannot die’” (Hallows 686). In order to save the wizarding community, Harry must sacrifice himself. This is the point where Harry solidly demonstrates his difference from Voldemort. Having experienced so much death in his life, Harry is under no illusion; he is aware that he is fated to die; Harry harbors no illusion of immortality. And if his death will save others so they can live fuller lives, Harry is willing to lay down his life.

Harry and Voldemort represent a clear delineation of how Rowling perceives and defines humanity: acceptance of death and the fact that our bodies are intrinsically linked to our consciousness, our soul. She does present the possibility of an afterlife, but it is the next journey of our consciousness/soul. We are not meant to exist on this plane of existence after our bodies have expired. As technology and our information systems take over more of our lives, we are faced with how to define what it means to be human. Rowling presents a posthuman epic of how we can incorporate technology into our lives without sacrificing the basic realities of being human.

Works Cited

Berger, James. After the End: Representations of Post-Apocalypse. Minneapolis: Minnesota UP, 1999. Print.

Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1949. Print.

Hayles, N. Kathernine. How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1999. Print.

Henderson, Joseph L. "Ancient Myths and Modern Man." Man and His Symbols. Ed. Carl G. Jung. London: Aldus Books, 1964. Print.

J.K. Rowling Official Site: Harry Potter and More. 2006. Lightmaker. 16 March 2009. Web.

Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. New York: Scholastic, 2007. Print.

---. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. New York: Scholastic, 2007. Print.

---. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. New York: Scholastic, 1997. Print.

Recent Viewing Habits: A Netflix Love Affair

Lately, my viewing habits have consisted mostly of the televisual variety with a few films thrown in, most were good, two were excellent, and another was very bad. Due to this lag in viewing (plus me not being in "writer-mode" the last couple of weeks) I have not had anything to write about, at least nothing of interest here. I'm still posting chapters to another blog, but that blog concerns an entire work that has already been completed (save some editing work), so it's nothing new to me.

Old television shows on new technology have swept up my desires for watching new (or rather new-to-me) films. The wonderful service called Netflix is a treasure trove of viewing goodness, and the streaming package happens to be my favorite. Sure, at peak times the streaming speed lags a bit (well, more than a bit at times; thankfully I do most of my viewing during the day), but the sheer variety of material to watch is very impressive, even as Netflix looks to increase its rates. I imagine my future may no longer include cable, and so I am currently in a love affair with this particular service.

Through this wonderful service I've recently rediscovered an old favorite show and found a new one. When I was younger, nothing was better than Star Trek: The Next Generation. Now, I didn't have the luxury of watching the original series, only the films, so a televisual Enterprise was new to me, and boy was it fascinating. Nothing seemed more desirable to me than being a member the Enterprise D's crew. Watching each episode now is like traveling back in time to when I was a kid, crazy to get to space. I realize now making it to space is something that will probably never happen, but as a child the potential was still there, burning inside me. It has been nice to be reminded of it again.

The other series I became entranced with is Avatar: The Last Airbender. This one was a surprise. Yes, I knew I'd probably like it as it's the type of show that's right up my ally, but what I didn't expect was to love it as much as I do. The story and characters are complex, and each episode is so well-written they feel much longer than they are (and not in the bad way either). Each character is given a chance to shine and develop. The world within the show is detailed, filled with fascinating people and creatures, a complete and whole world. In fact, the only thing I found disappointing about the whole Avatar experience is the film adaptation of the first season. It's a film unworthy of its association with the show.

The film is a disappointment in more ways than I can list, but the most disturbing aspect of the film is the director, M. Night Shymalan. I'm a fan of his previous work, even when others have dismissed his last few films: Lady in the Water, The Happening. True, he hasn't fully demonstrated his potential past Sixth Sense, Signs, and Unbreakable, but that does not mean he still can't make good films. He just needs to find the right story, and The Last Airbender was definitely not it. I'm still rooting for him. Hey, even Spielberg made a dud or two.

Anyway, both shows have been taking up quite a bit of my viewing time, although I've still managed to watch a few new-to-me films, one of which I may write about in another post when my brain flips back into "writer-mode". Until then, I'll finish with a short list (including trailers) of what I've seen the last couple of months. Of course, these are the films I enjoyed, the others are, well, forgettable.

Macbeth, starring the GREAT Sir Patrick Stewart: A PBS production I know, but its quality is cinematic in all aspects and a great production of my favorite Shakespearean play.

A Single Man: I have a confession to make: I am in love with Colin Firth. This movie, though a bit pretentious in its use of color tinting, is a wonderful and emotional film. Firth probably deserved the Best Actor Oscar for this film rather than The King's Speech, although that film is quite good too.

Harlem Nights: It's odd to put this film in the same list as the two above because a great movie it most definitely is not. However, it's still funny enough (thanks mostly to the performances of Della Reese and Richard Pryor) for me to consider it a gem of a film... with a few imperfections. Had I seen it in the theater when it was released I may have felt differently, but as a rental this movie is worth the time.

Changes

When I asked for feedback from those reading my book, Guardians and Dreamers, I was surprised to learn that my choice in templates and overall layout didn't make for a good reading experience, a white on black contrast is too hard on the eye. So I've been going through each of my blogs and changing them around to help address this problem.

Let me know what you all think of the new layout. It's a basic template, of course, because I'm don't know how to customize a webpage. I'm afraid HTML is beyond my understanding.

Favorites: The Harry Potter Series

And so it is that after a decade and eight films, the Harry Potter series comes to a close with an action-packed and emotional finale that is quite satisfying for any fan of the series. Thankfully, David Yates uses the same visual style he used starting with Harry Potter and Half-Blood Prince and the first half of Dealthy Hallows. The final film is a fitting end to a series that began in 1997, a few years before I even knew of its existence. However, I'm not going to write about the last film in the series. Like I stated in my previous review of Transformers, reviewing something like Harry Potter is almost pointless. Even if a critic said it was utter crap, the devoted will still make the trek to the theater. Mercifully, the Harry Potter series has experienced a rare phenomenon where critics and audiences agree for the most part, and the series has meant more to me than examples of good literature and filmmaking.

I came to the Harry Potter series only after the first film had had a very successful run at the theaters and was on its way to becoming a top-selling DVD. There was no desire in me to see the film as it was a child's film, nothing more. Thankfully my mind was changed, for it was in a child's film that I found a new spark of curiosity and creative inspiration.

Sometime between my high school graduation and my first year of college I became depressed. Of course, depression doesn't announce itself with any kind of visual symptom, expect for those who know you best, so I was unaware of any change in my behavior. Yes, I was rarely happy; yes, I hardly found enjoyment in anything; reading and writing no longer held my interest, and even school had lost its luster, but that didn't mean I was depressed, at least not in my mind; it simply meant that I was bored, nothing more.

Oh, how wrong I was.

Indeed, it took a film (two films in fact, but I'll leave the other film that helped for another post) for me to realize just how far I had sunk into a mentally debilitating depression. While visiting my parents house one evening I noticed they needed to return a DVD to Blockbuster (ah, remember those days, not that I miss them much). They had just watched Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and had quite enjoyed it. I had heard of the film and was curious, not enough to run to the video store myself, but curious enough to promise to return the film once I'd watched it that night.

And watch it I did. Twice. It is an entrancing film. Witty, mysterious, and magical. Yes, I'd have to say the first is still the best. None of the subsequent films have a moment as wonderful as when Hagrid (that soft-hearted half-giant) says the words that forever change Harry's life: "You're a wizard, Harry." Even today when watching the film, those words are enough to send chills down my arms. And none of the films provides a moment as uplifting as the end. No, not when Harry defeats Voldemort, but when a boy of no remarkable magical talent, who is socially awkward and has a low self-esteem wins the House Cup for Gryffindor. It is a wonderful moment for Neville Longbottom, a touching moment for the audience, and my favorite moment of the film series, right next to his other act of bravery in the final film, but I won't give it away in case those of you reading this haven't seen it nor read the books. Those of you who have see the film or read the books will know which moment I'm writing about.

Now, even though I loved the first film from the moment I watched it, I was still unconvinced as to picking up the series, which by that time had just published the fourth book in the series, I believe. I was a serious English student and above such trivial pursuits as children's literature. Not until the second film, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets did I yearn for more, more than the celluloid versions could give. And so, after a couple of years without reading anything remotely interesting, I bought Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone; and yes, I did feel foolish buying a child's book for myself. However, I didn't care. I had to know what happened next.

From the first book to the seventh (with a few midnight releases thrown in for good measure), I was propelled on a journey as intriguing and magical as any I've read since, and the films continued to provide some great entertainment as well, although I must confess there was building gap between the quality of the books and the quality of the films, something which could not have been helped, and the fact that the filmmakers continued to produce such quality films is as much a testament to their abilities as to J.K. Rowling's invention. The problem lay in the best quality of Rowling's writing: her ability to create elaborate plots. Each book is essentially a mystery, with each previous book's events setting the scene for the next. Take one plot detail out the books and the whole thing would fall apart. And that's exactly what the filmmakers had to do: disassemble the plot from the books and put it together to make a film everyone would want to see. Only hardcore Harry Potter fans would want to sit through the eight-hour film version of their beloved series, myself included.

The journey did not end with the publication of the final book, at least not for me, and not because there were still more films to go. No, the final book was published at exactly the right time because I was in graduate school and had to write a thesis. I was struggling over what to write my thesis over. I had written a well-received paper on The Matrix trilogy and was considering expanding it into a thesis, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it; I wasn't inspired to write a longer version of that paper. So I looked back at what had inspired me in the past. Not long into my first year of graduate school, I decided what better way to end my academic career than by dedicating myself to the very books that made school tolerable while still a Freshman. My thesis was to cover the entire book series. The original plan was to include a couple of the films as well, the ones that fit within my thesis, but that was not possible; after all, my thesis could only be so long.

The process of writing my thesis was difficult, but fun nevertheless; and after a forty-five minute defense, I passed, receiving my Master of Arts in English in May of 2009. Receiving an education took a lot of hard work on my part, but I don't think it would have been possible if not for J.K. Rowling's books and the films they inspired. It's hard for me to see exactly how I would have made it through, educationally speaking. So much of the university experience requires dedication and devotion, neither of which I had until I was reminded just how much I love books, movies, school, and writing.

So for that, I thank J.K. Rowling. And I thank my parents, for they are the ones who introduced me to the series in the first place. Hopefully, I can one day return the favor by passing the gift of inspiration to others; whether through teaching or my own writing doesn't matter, what does matter is that the gift is passed on to others.

Natural Born Killers: A Study of Excess and Power in Film and Television

A few weeks ago I watched Oliver Stone's controversial (would classic be an adequate adjective here, too?) film, Natural Born Killers, and it has taken a while to think of how I'd approach the film, but even today it's hard to write about the film and its lingering effect. So much has already been written regarding the level of violence in the film, so it would be desirable to avoid yet another essay on the violence of the film; however, that would be quite impossible considering that Stone's subject is violence--well, violence in association with media and the public's insatiable need for entertainment. Instead, what I could write about is the powerful effect the film, and others like it, can have on us.

The moving picture, whether small or big, is an intriguing medium because no other art-form so closely mimics our visual perception. No other art-form simulates reality so well. However, Natural Born Killers is far from any reality I know. It plays with conventional representations of family in television sitcoms, hints at the sometimes sinister nature of "getting the story," and the inherent power in representational media. Natural Born Killers poses interesting questions: Are the main characters' murders truly the most reprehensible actions that occur in the film, or is the public's endless desire for entertainment, in whatever form it takes, the true villain of the film? What about the desire for fame and celebrity and the lengths in which we'll go to obtain both?

Stone poses these questions by integrating images and scenarios that refer back to television and film. Take for instance the quite disturbing scene when Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis) first meet at Mallory's childhood home. The scene plays out as a contrived sitcom piece (complete with laugh-track), but Stone takes the usually saccharine plots of a sitcom and fills it with a lecherous, incestuous, and violent father-figure, far removed from the world of Beaver and the Brady's. This particular scene is a play on how sitcoms represent the ideal familial unit, an ideal that is impossible to live up to, an ideal that adds pressure on families to maintain an unrealistic image. Stone is also hinting at the idea that psychosis and violence often begins at home, the one place, at least according the artistic representations, where we are supposed to be safe and happy.

Unfortunately, the psychosis and violence that begins in the home is hardly going to be contained there, which is where the dangerous power of film and television comes into play. According to Stone's film, film and television act as a magnifying glass for psychosis and violence, but the image within that magnification extends beyond, out into the realm of reality. With it's rapid succession of cuts, edits, and Stone's insistence on not having a single straight shot (the camera is always tilted), Natural Born Killers made me uncomfortable, restless, and tense; there was only one moment in the film when Stone allowed for a moment of calm, almost: the scene when Mickey and Mallory exchange vows and blood. Watching the film, I imagine, feels like looking into the mind of a narcissistic psychotic, where the entire world is both against and paying attention to you, where reality is shattered by a hyperreality, a reality so magnified and distorted that it is virtually unrecognizable.

The problem with Natural Born Killers is that it does not present an alternative to all the craziness, which is Stone's intention, of course. It's an enigmatic film that attempts to bring up more questions than it answers. It makes us all accomplices in the violence that occurs on screen; after all, would Mickey and Mallory have been as violent, or successful, without having an audience? Robert Downey Jr.'s character, Wayne Gale (a television investigator and personality), is the symbol for just such a connection between viewer and murderer. When his interview goes wrong, Gale accompanies (not willingly at first, of course) Mickey and Mallory as they escape from prison; however, he helps them in their escape, killing others as ruthlessly as they do. His motivation is twofold: Gale is willing to do anything for a great interview, more celebrity; and he is also motivated by his unfulfilling life, a suppressed rage that has had no other outlet. Mickey and Mallory are the expressions of the rage that can form in all of us and from the safety of our living rooms we can vicariously experience that rage through their exploits. The problem, of course, is that others are suffering at the hands of their rage, for our own entertainment.

Natural Born Killers has no catharsis, no psychological release of anger and rage, because it is an expression of an unsolved, and possibly unsolvable, problem in our very nature: entertainment at the expense of others. Of course, art at its best can profoundly affect all of us, change us for the better, but the other side is that it can also profoundly affect us in a negative sense. Stone focuses here on the more negative aspects of art's power, and he leaves us to make our own decisions regarding how to react to such a powerful presentation. Just like most of us control our more violent impulses, Stone is perhaps suggesting that such control needs to be exerted over our impulse for entertainment at all cost.

I'm not yet sure if I consider Natural Born Killers as a classic film, but it is definitely a powerful film... a film I don't think I'd like to experience again.