My wife and I decided to make a date Sunday afternoon, so we went to the cinema and watched Jurassic World, Steven Spielberg's fourth, and latest, installment of the Jurassic Park franchise.
This film may have shattered records as the highest grossing opening weekend blockbuster in history, but I personally feel that Jurassic World is a little bit overrated as movies go.
In my humble opinion, the movie is just a little bit better than the second and third installments of the series; but a far cry from equaling the original film.
My most significant complaint with World is that same as Lost World and JPIII: the rather casual violence and gratuitous death that the first film did not have.
While the "terrible lizards" killed and/or ate people in the first Jurassic Park, the deaths were strategic and integral parts of the story. In other words, when people died in the first film, it was part of telling the story. They weren't gratuitous.
But in Jurassic World, as in the previous two Jurassic movies, death came swiftly and often to people who otherwise weren't part of the story, or held insignificant bit parts that had little to no baring on the story's development.
Like the poor park employee who looked pathetically at Pratt, whimpering in sad silence a moment before Indominus Rex stuffed him in its mouth. Why not let the poor fellow live? His death had no significance to the story.
Either did the death of the hapless Brit girl tasked with keeping tabs on the female lead's nephews. She literally got carried away by flying dinosaurs before being dropped into a large pool of water, where she survived long enough to get picked up again by the airborne reptiles. She continued to fight but it was all for not as the giant aquatic dinosaur leaped from the water to snag the Pterodactyl that held the poor girl in its grasp. So, not only did the flying lizard get eaten, but so did the girl.
Why couldn't the girl have been dropped a second before the monster came out of the water to eat the dinosaur trying to kill her?
Then there were the velociraptors, who turned on the commando unit and shredded them to pieces. Screams of horror, pain, and terror resonated as the pack lizards had, their way with the troopers.
Sprays of blood, the sound effects of bones crunching, and shrieks of pain, pretty much told the story of the Indominus Rex and the velociraptors.
Don't get me wrong here: I understand the movie's undertones. The dinosaurs are supposed to be scary. We are supposed to be afraid of them, and the power they once possessed over the planet 65 million years ago. We are supposed to think critically about the wisdom of cloning and bringing back to life animals that could realistically wipe us off the map completely.
But is all of the gratuitous death really necessary? No, it's not. And I'm sure even Steven Spielberg would agree with that. However, movie makers and producers are continuously pushing the envelope of what is conventional. Boundaries are constantly being pressed toward the edge. Sometimes they go over it, too. They are on the look-out for ways to add "shock" value to their films. That is really the bottom line. Shock sells; be it sex, language, or blood.
Spielberg wants to see his movie to as many people curious enough to check it out. The edgier he makes it, the more shock it contains, the more money he makes. Period.
It is a sad reality that popular culture places a high value on shock, and the viewing public tends to soak up popular culture values like a sponge. Because movie-goers have been conditioned to enjoy, even love, shock in films, the more shock there is in a movie the more people seem to like it.
Hence why Jurassic World contains so much gratuitous death and casual violence. It isn't necessary; it's essential to selling movies anymore.
Very sick.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Sunday, June 28, 2015
A word on the Confederate flag
The recent mass shooting at a South Carolina black church by a supposed white supremacist has become like a spark to damp sticks of unstable dynamite.
More than just dander or ire has been raised by the shooter's violent crime. Holy heck is about to rain down on American whites. In some parts of the country, it may no longer be healthy to be white. It is already that way in South Central Los Angeles, Harlem, New York, and other big cities where racial minorities have carved out ethnic niches for themselves where they may exist apart from those danged anglo-saxon whites.
In a matter of months, there has been severe racial unrest from Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore, Maryland. In response, riotous protests have occurred across the nation. The deadly South Carolina shooting is like throwing a can of gasoline onto the white-hot coals of a campfire. And it has the potential of exploding out of control into a raging bonfire.
Something is going to happen that pushes our country's pride--its racial diversity--over the edge into martial law. And it may well be brewing now in the wake of the South Carolina shooting.
Waves of protesters throughout the South, and across the country, are now demanding the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouses as symbols of local government. This comes after learning that the South Carolina church shooter had an affection for the flag as part of his racist zeal.
Many American blacks view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racial hatred on par with the Nazi swastika of the 1930s. Although I am not black, I am also not without empathy. I can understand where black Americans might draw such a parallel.
But a word about that: The Confederate flag is nothing like the Nazi swastika. The swastika represented a regime that deliberately killed people who didn't agree with it, or who represented threats, or were just easy scapegoats used to advance the agenda of propagandists.
The Nazi flag represented not only hatred, but war crimes against humanity: millions of them, to be precise.
The Confederate flag, although insensitive to the descendants of slaves, represented a government nowhere near the level of the Nazi regime that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Under the Confederate flag, men fought for many of their own personal reasons. Preserving the institution of slavery was a national consequence of their service in the Confederate army and navy. But these guys fought predominantly because they were expected to. Sons followed fathers, brothers followed each other, cousins followed cousins, and neighbors followed neighbors off to war. It was believed to be the right thing to do, because their states needed their service.
I do not speak for the slaveowners of the period, but I daresay that however misguided their beliefs were on liberty and who was entitled to it, history shows that they generally took care of the things they owned; including, and especially, their slave property. Although paternalistic and patronizing in their view of the African race, Southern slaveowners weren't the murderers that led and carried out the orders of Germany's Third Reich.
Furthermore, slaveowners of the period took up arms to preserve their Constitutional right to own property--yes, even slave property--which they felt was being infringed upon with laws meant to keep them out of the new territories west of the Mississippi River. They genuinely felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, and that few in the federal government were willing to defend those rights. However mistaken we may feel today about the antebellum South's view of human property, the fact remains that certain human beings were property in the United States until after the end of the Civil War. This property was recognized in and protected by the United States Constitution.
Playing devil's advocate here, put yourself in the shoes of a Southern plantation owner of the period, and ask yourself what would you do if a government overtly denied your right to property by saying you couldn't have this property or that property with you if you wished to move to a new territory? Would you think perhaps the government was preparing to eventually take away this property from you outright?
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe humans should be slaves to other humans. But, in playing devil's advocate, I think my point is made.
Slaveowners weren't the monsters that the members of the Nazi Regime proved themselves to be. And their flags? Two different flags for two different times, reasons, and circumstances. Not the same.
Now, about the Confederate flag coming down: There are multiple reasons given in support of this argument. One is that the flag supports a period in our history in which racism from one group of people held another down. A second reason is that the Confederate flag represents rebellion against the United States government. I see the points of both arguments.
However, do we really want to open this can of worms? Should we take down all flags flown in support of the American Revolution fought 240 years ago? These flags represented rebellion against an established government, and the families of many Continentals owned slaves.
If we take down the Confederate flag, then we ought not ever fly the Spirit of 76 flag, the Gadsden Flag, or the Liberty Tree flag, because these were symbols of wreckless, oftentimes violent rebellion against a civil governing authority. And some of the people who fought under them were slaveowners, family of slaveowners, or who endorsed and embraced the institution.
As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, slavery remained legal in the United States until December 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This occurred nearly three years after slaves had been set free in the Confederate Southern states by the Emancipation Proclamation. (January 1, 1863) Ultimately, then, slavery legally existed longer in the United States than it did in the Confederate States.
And, so, it begs the question: Why not the uproar over the United States flag, the banner under which slavery was protected even after it was outlawed in rebelling states?
This is not the time to be hypocritical. If we are going to remove one flag, and deny the First Amendment on grounds that it is hurtful, then we ought to remove all symbols ever associated with hurtful activities, such as slavery.
Should American Indian tribes be allowed to tear down the Stars and Stripes because it symbolizes the hatred of white society over their ancestors? How about the civil and military oppression suffered by numerous Indian tribes throughout the 19th Century as thousands were marched away from their homes and placed on reservations? Would not the American flag be hurtful or offensive to Indian tribes? What if the tribes wish to follow suit, after the Confederate flag is successfully removed from statehouses, and demand that the American flag be taken down on their reservations for the same reason identified by black Americans? Heck, American Indians living off the reservation might still find offense to the flag flying wherever it does, and demand it be removed.
If the Confederate flag can be removed or banned because it is offensive and hurtful to others, then why not Old Glory itself?
Do we really want to go down this road, this slippery slope? Do we really want to open this can of worms? Precedents can have very damaging cascading effects not unlike a trail of dominoes that fall after one is knocked over.
I advise caution and restraint in the midst of angry passion. White-hot anger is dangerous, even deadly. The victims of the shooting at the South Carolina church are proof of that. How much more white-hot anger should we be fanning? How many more deaths must occur before reason and rationale take the place of passionate anger?
If the Confederate flag can be removed, other things can, too. It won't stop with just one thing. Kind of like the butterfly effect, something else always seems to happen in consequence.
Count on it, America.
More than just dander or ire has been raised by the shooter's violent crime. Holy heck is about to rain down on American whites. In some parts of the country, it may no longer be healthy to be white. It is already that way in South Central Los Angeles, Harlem, New York, and other big cities where racial minorities have carved out ethnic niches for themselves where they may exist apart from those danged anglo-saxon whites.
In a matter of months, there has been severe racial unrest from Ferguson, Missouri, to Baltimore, Maryland. In response, riotous protests have occurred across the nation. The deadly South Carolina shooting is like throwing a can of gasoline onto the white-hot coals of a campfire. And it has the potential of exploding out of control into a raging bonfire.
Something is going to happen that pushes our country's pride--its racial diversity--over the edge into martial law. And it may well be brewing now in the wake of the South Carolina shooting.
Waves of protesters throughout the South, and across the country, are now demanding the removal of the Confederate flag from statehouses as symbols of local government. This comes after learning that the South Carolina church shooter had an affection for the flag as part of his racist zeal.
Many American blacks view the Confederate flag as a symbol of racial hatred on par with the Nazi swastika of the 1930s. Although I am not black, I am also not without empathy. I can understand where black Americans might draw such a parallel.
But a word about that: The Confederate flag is nothing like the Nazi swastika. The swastika represented a regime that deliberately killed people who didn't agree with it, or who represented threats, or were just easy scapegoats used to advance the agenda of propagandists.
The Nazi flag represented not only hatred, but war crimes against humanity: millions of them, to be precise.
The Confederate flag, although insensitive to the descendants of slaves, represented a government nowhere near the level of the Nazi regime that controlled Germany from 1933 to 1945.
Under the Confederate flag, men fought for many of their own personal reasons. Preserving the institution of slavery was a national consequence of their service in the Confederate army and navy. But these guys fought predominantly because they were expected to. Sons followed fathers, brothers followed each other, cousins followed cousins, and neighbors followed neighbors off to war. It was believed to be the right thing to do, because their states needed their service.
I do not speak for the slaveowners of the period, but I daresay that however misguided their beliefs were on liberty and who was entitled to it, history shows that they generally took care of the things they owned; including, and especially, their slave property. Although paternalistic and patronizing in their view of the African race, Southern slaveowners weren't the murderers that led and carried out the orders of Germany's Third Reich.
Furthermore, slaveowners of the period took up arms to preserve their Constitutional right to own property--yes, even slave property--which they felt was being infringed upon with laws meant to keep them out of the new territories west of the Mississippi River. They genuinely felt their Constitutional rights were being violated, and that few in the federal government were willing to defend those rights. However mistaken we may feel today about the antebellum South's view of human property, the fact remains that certain human beings were property in the United States until after the end of the Civil War. This property was recognized in and protected by the United States Constitution.
Playing devil's advocate here, put yourself in the shoes of a Southern plantation owner of the period, and ask yourself what would you do if a government overtly denied your right to property by saying you couldn't have this property or that property with you if you wished to move to a new territory? Would you think perhaps the government was preparing to eventually take away this property from you outright?
Don't get me wrong: I don't believe humans should be slaves to other humans. But, in playing devil's advocate, I think my point is made.
Slaveowners weren't the monsters that the members of the Nazi Regime proved themselves to be. And their flags? Two different flags for two different times, reasons, and circumstances. Not the same.
Now, about the Confederate flag coming down: There are multiple reasons given in support of this argument. One is that the flag supports a period in our history in which racism from one group of people held another down. A second reason is that the Confederate flag represents rebellion against the United States government. I see the points of both arguments.
However, do we really want to open this can of worms? Should we take down all flags flown in support of the American Revolution fought 240 years ago? These flags represented rebellion against an established government, and the families of many Continentals owned slaves.
If we take down the Confederate flag, then we ought not ever fly the Spirit of 76 flag, the Gadsden Flag, or the Liberty Tree flag, because these were symbols of wreckless, oftentimes violent rebellion against a civil governing authority. And some of the people who fought under them were slaveowners, family of slaveowners, or who endorsed and embraced the institution.
As a matter of fact, if memory serves me correctly, slavery remained legal in the United States until December 1865 when the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. This occurred nearly three years after slaves had been set free in the Confederate Southern states by the Emancipation Proclamation. (January 1, 1863) Ultimately, then, slavery legally existed longer in the United States than it did in the Confederate States.
And, so, it begs the question: Why not the uproar over the United States flag, the banner under which slavery was protected even after it was outlawed in rebelling states?
This is not the time to be hypocritical. If we are going to remove one flag, and deny the First Amendment on grounds that it is hurtful, then we ought to remove all symbols ever associated with hurtful activities, such as slavery.
Should American Indian tribes be allowed to tear down the Stars and Stripes because it symbolizes the hatred of white society over their ancestors? How about the civil and military oppression suffered by numerous Indian tribes throughout the 19th Century as thousands were marched away from their homes and placed on reservations? Would not the American flag be hurtful or offensive to Indian tribes? What if the tribes wish to follow suit, after the Confederate flag is successfully removed from statehouses, and demand that the American flag be taken down on their reservations for the same reason identified by black Americans? Heck, American Indians living off the reservation might still find offense to the flag flying wherever it does, and demand it be removed.
If the Confederate flag can be removed or banned because it is offensive and hurtful to others, then why not Old Glory itself?
Do we really want to go down this road, this slippery slope? Do we really want to open this can of worms? Precedents can have very damaging cascading effects not unlike a trail of dominoes that fall after one is knocked over.
I advise caution and restraint in the midst of angry passion. White-hot anger is dangerous, even deadly. The victims of the shooting at the South Carolina church are proof of that. How much more white-hot anger should we be fanning? How many more deaths must occur before reason and rationale take the place of passionate anger?
If the Confederate flag can be removed, other things can, too. It won't stop with just one thing. Kind of like the butterfly effect, something else always seems to happen in consequence.
Count on it, America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
