Satire. It is a great form of comedy. From the Latin "satura" which literally meant 'full dish', satire means to ridicule a vice or a folly by being an extreme example. Or "saturated" example. It can be really funny, in a somewhat horrible and mean-spirited way.
Satire can be difficult to understand. Not just for stupid people, but for anyone. If you think you understand satire and are never fooled, you are wrong because sometimes, it isn't obvious. Sarcasm, by its very nature, is ambiguous; satire is not the only form of comedy. How can you tell when someone is being sarcastic or simply pokin' fun at themselves? This is why there are countless examples of satire being misinterpreted, the target of the satire being wrongly assumed. But then, perhaps the newer analysis is wrong.
Then there is the tendency for those satirized to believe their assailant commiserates with them, rather than disagreeing with them. According to a study from Ohio State University, both liberal and conservative viewers of the Colbert Report believed Colbert was on their side in the domestic cold war called Politics.
From my point of view, it seems obvious that Colbert is anything but conservative he satirizes them so completely. But then, I'm following the pattern predicted by Ohio State, so how can I be sure? However, I'm not sure about Glenn Beck. He could be satire, he could be serious, he could be neither. Until recently, I bucked Ohio's prediction, but now... I'm just not sure. Beck is weird. He could just sort of be there.
Then there is an example from "Men Who Stare at Goats", which actually spurred the line of thinking which engendered this essay. The movie makes fun of hippies pretty completely, but at the same time, seems to promote the very 'hippy wisdom' they make fun of. Is it satire or ridicule? Which would mean that I'm believing the 'wisdom' I saw while the writers thought it dumb. Or is it a different type of humor, which could mean I'm right (but not necessarily).
Even as I think of it, analyze it, I fit into Ohio State's predictions. Which suggests, to me, that I'm not more intelligent than a pattern. That it's not my reasoning that's brought me to a 'correct' conclusion, but rather the one I want. I want to be supported, to have allies.
Perhaps now that this is known to me, I can think more clearly.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Four Christmases (movie)
This movie was interesting to me because I was, somehow, able to see both sides. At once it demonizes family and demands that everyone have kids. I was able to agree, in the beginning, with the main couple who decry family and vacation obligations. Not because I don't like my family, but because they didn't really like theirs (and you get to see why!). Instead, they want to vacation on their vacation. They seem like a well adjusted, happy couple and really good together, so why not?
Because one of them is played by Vince Vaughn, so you know it can't last. Vince annoyed me more in this movie than he ever has before. There was to much screaming. Reese Witherspoon annoyed me more than she has before as well, come to think of it, but she's never been as obnoxious as Vince and couldn't match him here either.
The opposite position of this couple is that they should go to Christmas with their families. Those two are being rather selfish, lying to their families, but this is pretty normal for them. They are rather self-absorbed. And strangely easy to set off; pissed they didn't know something about the other when they already knew they knew nothing of their pasts. It's hard to believe such people could have ever been a successful couple.
The movie is all about getting to see why these two don't usually visit their families. But considering that they live in the same blessed city as their families, I don't see why their parents didn't visit them once in three years either.
That is the big problem with this movie. If you think about it for more than a few minutes, you realize that it falls apart. How in the world could these two have been happy for three years together? Why is anyone mad when nobody makes an effort? (Ok, maybe that's realistic, but you would think their parents would visit them sometime, right? They are minutes away...) How did they do so much in one day!?
That being said, it wasn't nearly as corny as I expected it to be; better than most Christmas movies; "decent".
Because one of them is played by Vince Vaughn, so you know it can't last. Vince annoyed me more in this movie than he ever has before. There was to much screaming. Reese Witherspoon annoyed me more than she has before as well, come to think of it, but she's never been as obnoxious as Vince and couldn't match him here either.
The opposite position of this couple is that they should go to Christmas with their families. Those two are being rather selfish, lying to their families, but this is pretty normal for them. They are rather self-absorbed. And strangely easy to set off; pissed they didn't know something about the other when they already knew they knew nothing of their pasts. It's hard to believe such people could have ever been a successful couple.
The movie is all about getting to see why these two don't usually visit their families. But considering that they live in the same blessed city as their families, I don't see why their parents didn't visit them once in three years either.
That is the big problem with this movie. If you think about it for more than a few minutes, you realize that it falls apart. How in the world could these two have been happy for three years together? Why is anyone mad when nobody makes an effort? (Ok, maybe that's realistic, but you would think their parents would visit them sometime, right? They are minutes away...) How did they do so much in one day!?
That being said, it wasn't nearly as corny as I expected it to be; better than most Christmas movies; "decent".
The Ugly Truth (movie)
"The Ugly Truth" isn't really ugly, but I'd still call it "Unattractive". It had some good moments in it. Some pretty funny scenes, one good joke on the characters. But overall, I didn't laugh as much as I would want to by sitting through it.
Apart from being a pretty standard Chick-Flick, not any sort of 'battle of the sexes' as it claims to be, this movie makes me afraid that some people will believe the Ugly Truth that is espoused by the main man. They don't really debunk it, after all, and it seems to be a popular thought in our culture. One that I disagree with. A gross over-simplification of one type of person represented by the characters in the film. Reality is far more complicated then they make it out to be. There is more than one type of man and more than one type of woman.
But this is probably being a little paranoid. Who could take a chick-flick seriously?
I did like Katherine Heigl's acting. I'm not highly acquainted with her acting, but I found that her quirks of facial expression endearing in this movie. It fit the insecure, yet weirdly arrogant, control-freak she played. But this is the best thing I can say for the movie.
Perhaps I'm just tired of reviewing Chick-Flicks. Which is similar to reviewing the taste of various ketchups from fast-food joints. There isn't that much difference and, while popular and good with potatoes, not that deep or involved.
Apart from being a pretty standard Chick-Flick, not any sort of 'battle of the sexes' as it claims to be, this movie makes me afraid that some people will believe the Ugly Truth that is espoused by the main man. They don't really debunk it, after all, and it seems to be a popular thought in our culture. One that I disagree with. A gross over-simplification of one type of person represented by the characters in the film. Reality is far more complicated then they make it out to be. There is more than one type of man and more than one type of woman.
But this is probably being a little paranoid. Who could take a chick-flick seriously?
I did like Katherine Heigl's acting. I'm not highly acquainted with her acting, but I found that her quirks of facial expression endearing in this movie. It fit the insecure, yet weirdly arrogant, control-freak she played. But this is the best thing I can say for the movie.
Perhaps I'm just tired of reviewing Chick-Flicks. Which is similar to reviewing the taste of various ketchups from fast-food joints. There isn't that much difference and, while popular and good with potatoes, not that deep or involved.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Growth is not Good and the progress of Gunnison Falling
Growth is Good. That is what we are told by our greatest economists. If you are not growing, then obviously you are shrinking and who wants that? Bigger is better. ...Unless you are a cell phone or an iPod... Or pretty much anything made of silicone and copper. This mentality, coupled by the vast acreage of land in the Americas, has lead us to build, copiously, out.
Even Gunnison has bought into this. A few months ago, I knew of hardly anyone who liked the idea of "Gunnison Rising", now it seems that many people are for it, especially our entrepreneurs. But I don't completely understand why. All kinds of arguments are put forth by the proponents (and the opponents), most of which are beside the real point I think. I know this is true for me. My real point is that I don't want to the fields shrink, but I also don't want to see Gunnison grow. I don't want to see our Main Street die. I'll give all sorts of other arguments, but I give them only in hopes that they will be important to others. I assume my opponents are fairly similar. The primary reason I have gotten, so far (besides a belief that is is the 'lesser of two evils') is that this growth will solve our economic woes. Even though it is understood that the building on the annexation will not be complete for 30 years at least.
However, I do not believe this is true. Denver is huge, but it has economic woes. Large than ours, I think. They "control their growth", but it doesn't solve any labyrinthine parking-lot issues or beautify their city. What I think will happen if Gunnison Rising passes will actually be the slow disintegration of our Main Street as more conglomerate chains have the opportunity to move in. No local business can compete with a business more powerful than the government.
Such as Super Wal-Mart. Gunnison Rising heralds their approach, and they eat small business for appetizers. Somehow, they appeal to people, though. If Gunnison's population begins to grow, they will try to build again and they will not be as easy to stop. Especially if some of our not-so-average-in-a-good-way citizens move out because they don't like the development and are not here to stop them.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we wont lose to many people and those who move it will be just as anti-corporate greed. I'm not so fatalistic to believe that everything will get worse. No matter what. Which is why I don't completely understand those who say that the alternative is a bunch of County houses springing up. For two reasons: the Brattons have stopped unplanned development so far and there isn't room for that many people. Gunnison rising has plans for a commercial district because there wouldn't be any jobs for new residents. So why would they come?
That doesn't mean we're doing all that bad now, though. For the residents here. Not relative to anyone else, anyway. Bad economy has affected big and small. Actually, small economies seem to weather it better. Such as North Dakota or Alamosa. They never had as far off the ballooning artificial economy we live in. We have that idea that growth is good, it will solve all our economic woes. But all it really is is growth. A bigger economy not so much different from ours now, just bigger and therefore less wieldy. What we need, instead, are plans to improve the economy as it stands. So that, no matter the size, it will function for all the people who live here.
There are multiple benefits, as I see it, to taking this stance instead, not the least of which are affects felt sooner than 30 years from now.
Even Gunnison has bought into this. A few months ago, I knew of hardly anyone who liked the idea of "Gunnison Rising", now it seems that many people are for it, especially our entrepreneurs. But I don't completely understand why. All kinds of arguments are put forth by the proponents (and the opponents), most of which are beside the real point I think. I know this is true for me. My real point is that I don't want to the fields shrink, but I also don't want to see Gunnison grow. I don't want to see our Main Street die. I'll give all sorts of other arguments, but I give them only in hopes that they will be important to others. I assume my opponents are fairly similar. The primary reason I have gotten, so far (besides a belief that is is the 'lesser of two evils') is that this growth will solve our economic woes. Even though it is understood that the building on the annexation will not be complete for 30 years at least.
However, I do not believe this is true. Denver is huge, but it has economic woes. Large than ours, I think. They "control their growth", but it doesn't solve any labyrinthine parking-lot issues or beautify their city. What I think will happen if Gunnison Rising passes will actually be the slow disintegration of our Main Street as more conglomerate chains have the opportunity to move in. No local business can compete with a business more powerful than the government.
Such as Super Wal-Mart. Gunnison Rising heralds their approach, and they eat small business for appetizers. Somehow, they appeal to people, though. If Gunnison's population begins to grow, they will try to build again and they will not be as easy to stop. Especially if some of our not-so-average-in-a-good-way citizens move out because they don't like the development and are not here to stop them.
But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we wont lose to many people and those who move it will be just as anti-corporate greed. I'm not so fatalistic to believe that everything will get worse. No matter what. Which is why I don't completely understand those who say that the alternative is a bunch of County houses springing up. For two reasons: the Brattons have stopped unplanned development so far and there isn't room for that many people. Gunnison rising has plans for a commercial district because there wouldn't be any jobs for new residents. So why would they come?
That doesn't mean we're doing all that bad now, though. For the residents here. Not relative to anyone else, anyway. Bad economy has affected big and small. Actually, small economies seem to weather it better. Such as North Dakota or Alamosa. They never had as far off the ballooning artificial economy we live in. We have that idea that growth is good, it will solve all our economic woes. But all it really is is growth. A bigger economy not so much different from ours now, just bigger and therefore less wieldy. What we need, instead, are plans to improve the economy as it stands. So that, no matter the size, it will function for all the people who live here.
There are multiple benefits, as I see it, to taking this stance instead, not the least of which are affects felt sooner than 30 years from now.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Watership Down by Richard Adams
"Watership Down" is a unique book. In the beginning, it reads very short. Conversations seem short, chapters seem short, most everything seems truncated. It feels somewhat amateurish for a book proclaimed as such a classic. However, as the book progresses, this appears the be the intentional style because his characters are rabbits. He explains the psychology of rabbits some, in the book, or at least how he imagines rabbits would think. There are some points I would contend with (rabbits would probably be hyper-specific, like horses; meaning any 'new' thing is a thing to be afraid of, even if it was the same object just approached from the other side), but that is neither here nor there. That is arguable. He did do some research on rabbits.
However, back to the style, it could be that he hadn't hit his stride with the book until mid-way and the dealings with Efrafa because he becomes more fluid here. Then again, it could have been that he was better at writing the kinds of stuff that happened in the second half. I think the latter is more likely.
Still, it is a "Fine Read" if you can get over how much he uses the term "rank and file". It is nearly as good as it could be given the limitations inherent in the format that Adams used for the book. One of these limitations is that there are simply far, far too many characters! You cannot possibly keep them all straight. At times, it seems like you are expected to keep track of them all; but you can get away with not knowing anyone. However, I still find it annoying when a character is mentioned and I have to pause and say, "Ok... who's that again?" Perhaps a character glossary would have been nice, but my copy had no such thing.
"Watership Down" glosses over a lot of topics, not addressing them specifically but mentioning them in such a way that you can get a grasp on where Adams stands himself. The worst of these is his stance on the female. Like Tolkien, his book is very highly male oriented. When I read that new warrens are, in reality, often started by females and warrens are, in reality, matriarchal, his sexism is very apparent. The book also has a very karmic overtone...
Spoiler alert:
Both of these appear to me in the same way: it is in who Adams kills. The beginning of the book tries to be all "the world's dangerous for rabbits! We're all gonna die!" without killing one character. The first character to die, that it's an enemy (they die really easily because they are bad guys) is a female. Two of them die really quickly, but none of the main male characters will ever bite it. Until they die of age, of course. But like Aragorn they live weirdly long.
However, back to the style, it could be that he hadn't hit his stride with the book until mid-way and the dealings with Efrafa because he becomes more fluid here. Then again, it could have been that he was better at writing the kinds of stuff that happened in the second half. I think the latter is more likely.
Still, it is a "Fine Read" if you can get over how much he uses the term "rank and file". It is nearly as good as it could be given the limitations inherent in the format that Adams used for the book. One of these limitations is that there are simply far, far too many characters! You cannot possibly keep them all straight. At times, it seems like you are expected to keep track of them all; but you can get away with not knowing anyone. However, I still find it annoying when a character is mentioned and I have to pause and say, "Ok... who's that again?" Perhaps a character glossary would have been nice, but my copy had no such thing.
"Watership Down" glosses over a lot of topics, not addressing them specifically but mentioning them in such a way that you can get a grasp on where Adams stands himself. The worst of these is his stance on the female. Like Tolkien, his book is very highly male oriented. When I read that new warrens are, in reality, often started by females and warrens are, in reality, matriarchal, his sexism is very apparent. The book also has a very karmic overtone...
Spoiler alert:
Both of these appear to me in the same way: it is in who Adams kills. The beginning of the book tries to be all "the world's dangerous for rabbits! We're all gonna die!" without killing one character. The first character to die, that it's an enemy (they die really easily because they are bad guys) is a female. Two of them die really quickly, but none of the main male characters will ever bite it. Until they die of age, of course. But like Aragorn they live weirdly long.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)