Stardust by Neil Gaiman (1998)

I finally got to read Stardust after having watched and loved the movie. Unfortunately for me, I didn't get to read the one with Charles Vess's illustrations, which vexes me and I am determined to eventually get ahold of a copy of that. Those illustrations are there for a reason, I feel, but, as this book was just left in my basement by an old housemate, I couldn't hardly pass it up.

And indeed, I read it in one sitting. Interrupted by sleeping, but it was still really one sitting. After having read sciency books and environmental stewardship tales (neither of which I am completely through with, though the first is also a very good book) my hunger for a real Book, a Story. Fiction. was insatiable. It may have happened with anything, but Stardust is still a very good story. Very pretty, somewhat simple, enjoyable, but it is a faery tale and it is Neil Gaiman and I have come to expect that.

The book is, here's a shocker, not exactly what the movie was. The movie has some conventions that movies must follow (it has more action, for example) but having watched it first, I suppose it is only natural that the film is my favorite version. Even though I usually don't like movies half as much. It was such an enjoyable movie with such fun characters. The book has a lot of fun as well, but there are less characters and my favorite characters (the pirates) and arcs from the movie aren't really here. Usually it is the other way around, but usually I read the book first as well.

Stardust is unashamedly a romance story. It advertises itself as such and you know it to be one by the end of the first chapter. Thus, you know where this is all going. But like any good romance, there is much more going on than just two people falling in love. There is adventure here and talking trees (Tori Amos, apparently) and the witchcraft of the land of faery. And there is good and humorful prose. As I expected from the first hints of Vess's illustrations, the book is more of a "Faery Story" than the "fairy story" the movie was. I hope this attracts some readers.

One thing I find interesting about the reception of Stardust is how hung up people get on some short sex scene. It is a romance, after all, which leads to The Act. I am not sure Neil was trying to be "daring" with its inclusion, or "dumb". It is no more or less graphic than the violence which inhabits this story, but no one seems to care about that. The story is advertised as a "Faery Story for Adults", but I would give this to a child of 10. They'd love it.

Stardust builds itself up for a picturesque, almost Disneyesque, conclusion and then ends with an almost out-of-place realism. The movie, not written by Gaiman, has an ironically more mythological end and is one of the things I like about it more. But I appreciate the wisdom espoused by the book. It does mean more in a more literary sense.

8 Crazy Nights (2002 movie)

Adam Sandler has a certain sense of humor which takes some acclimatizing. Like beer, I hear. I have listened to it since I was a wee lad on CDs, so I am somewhat used to it and 8 Crazy Nights was almost nostalgic in the reminiscence to his old talking goat skits.

8 Crazy Nights is a Hanukah-themed version of Charles Dicken's classic A Christmas Carol. There is the story of Hanukah past, showing up as golden memories; there is the Hanukah present, most of the movie; and the threat of the Hanukah which will be... Instead of ghosts, there are advertisements (which says something about out overall culture, I suppose...) And instead of Tiny Tim, there is a disabled old basketball coach. His role is actually a little larger than Tiny Tim's, but he is still a pretty close allegory.

If you do not like fart-humor and poop jokes (or just the word 'poop'), then this might not be a movie you should watch. I liked it, however. It is funny, maybe debasingly so, but it still made me laugh. Especially the songs, some of which I am still singing from time to time. It could have been called "Mr. Hankie's Hanukah" as it is "Crass", animated, musical, about the holidays, and full of poop humor.

8 Crazy Nights does have some emotional moments. One. Or rather, one attempt at such. The character growth is in someways more profound than that of Ebenezer Scrooge, but it is flat and unmoving despite how sad it is. When the movie tries be something besides crass, it falters and fails and is probably why so many people don't like it.

But at least it is light-hearted. In this it succeeds. Though it may not really be appropriate for small children, it is a rather fun movie.

Dumbo (1941 movie)

I haven't seen Dumbo in over a decade, probably close to two. The most amazing thing about the movie was how short it is. Just over an hour long, it could have just been a Silly Symphonies episode. It is very surprising. The ending just happens about a minute after the climax. If you happen to yawn, you may just miss it. But there are a great many more amazing things about this movie.

Of course, because it is a Disney movie from the forties, music plays a very import role. Like Lady and The Tramp or Snow White, this movie is a choreographed dance. But unlike my natural assumption for Disney movies, this movie doesn't hide from a dark and tormented storyline. There are some rather distressing emotional moments in this film that Micky (not really, but yeah, it's Micky.) smooths over quickly. And it does end very peachily. It has stereotyped a lot of different people and seems to have an aversion to showing that black people do, indeed, have faces.

I am not sure who this movie was marketed to. It doesn't seem to be something that children would really get. Besides the colors and the face on the train (and a flying elephant), there is little here for them. But it is also a little squeaky for have much marketability to an older audience. Maybe it was different back then; perhaps Walt was trying to gauge how much a feature-length cartoon could get away with. I think the best thing to call it is a "Silly Symphony" of a movie. Which is definitely not a bad thing, but not at all what I remembered it being from when I was 2.

Now I just need to go back and watch Bambi.

What is Wrong with WikiLeaks

I am a hopeless idealist. In my little head, I inhabit a world filled with considerate people who work and ply their trade because it is needed (or at least wanted) by their neighbors, not for money. So there is none. The god of this world doesn't even exist.

But of course, I can't actually live there any more than I could travel to Middle Earth, which would be just as awesome, but for a very different reason. No, I live here, in the real world where the concept of Greed has somehow become sanctimonious and the economy and market are believed omniscient. Physically, I have to interact with reality more often than I would like to and that drags my mind along into this screaming, fiery, tormented world that we have created. The comparison makes me want to do something about the horrors that exist here.

...I am also a cynic.

Because I am an idealist first, the idea of WikiLeaks is compelling to me. I sorta like it and I like the disestablishmentarians who maintain and support it. I laugh at their audacity to take down Visa's website for a few hours and cheer on the effort happily. In my ideal world WikiLeaks would be valued and would be as energetically plied by those people who currently oversee it as it is in the real world. But in this ideal world, they would have very little to do. In my ideal world, everyone has absolute freedom because they are wise enough not to use it; and that is the true key. The secrete. Freedom is something that shouldn't actually be used. We (people) do not have absolute freedom anywhere on this earth anymore. Instead we have a disturbingly labyrinthine, casted, multi-layered, endlessly faceted legal system which we have been designing and refining for the last 4 to 10 thousand years. Since the days of Urukagina and Hammurabi at the least.

We maintain it because we know that it is needed. "Freedom" is a nice word and a fine idea, but there is and should be a limit to everything; otherwise it is called "anarchy", which is not such a nice word. Only the worst parent in the world would give to their toddler the same liberties they afforded their teenager and we could only hope the toddler (and the teen) would be confiscated from their parents by Social Services before they got killed by a passing truck or methamphetamine needle.

That is how WikiLeaks treats information: like a toy. They profess to know the power of information, which is the entire reason they do what they do. But complete freedom of information can be far more damaging in the hands of the wrong people than the freedom to cross the street is to a toddler. We, as a species, are not ready for such a power. Unlike Spiderman, we can't just can't handle that kind of responsibility. No, we cannot handle the truth!

Not that it is beyond the realm of our minds. There are people on this planet I would trust with this information. I think there are very many people with the maturity to deal rationally with this level of power. And all of them are far too rational to have gained any 'power' for themselves. They are not congressmen or CEOs; they are not dictators or heads of state. They are sometimes business owners, often activists, but not much more.

However, even then, the main thing is that this information doesn't concern them directly. That can change something. I wouldn't tell everyone of my friends all the mean, nasty, ugly things I hear about them, said behind their backs. If I did, not only would I shortly have no friends at all, but few of them would have any friends either. And if we were playmates on the scale of Israel and Palestine, our scuffles might leave some holes in the ozone layer and maybe even the earth's crust.

Most people with their eyes open can see that there are a lot of problems abound in our world. The question of what to do about it can be tormenting and sometimes lead to rather egregious decisions. WikiLeaks, while a nice idea, I don't think is really sustainable. It could be more dangerous to the world's ecosystem than excess carbon if the wrong person reads the wrong thing.

Joe Dirt (2001 movie)

Joe Dirt is just as campy, corny, cheesy, and funny as you would expect a movie with David Spade in a mullet to be. I like it. It doesn't fail to be entertaining and it even manages to be somewhat poignant. There is nothing in our culture more vilified than a mullet (besides maybe a turban right now). This movie acknowledges that and bullies back against those who trash talk the hairdo. Then it waxes philosophical about being positive.

It has a lot of "Fun" doing it. Watch Joe Dirt if you like hicky humor, some sex jokes, and a completely impossible story line. This is a movie about being fun and about entertainment. It is not about the story, it is about the jokes; it is not meticulous; it doesn't employ it's soundtrack; it doesn't really care about its acting, as long as the delivery is good. It is no wonder critics don't like it, but most people should have a good time with it.

Blast from the Past (1999 movie)

My first thought was that the writers of Blast from the Past would glorify the 50's as if it was our undisputed golden age. While there is a little of that, the movie also makes light of the stupidities of the age. It also does a decent job of depicting what a hapless man would be like if he were released into society without any previous social contact. Though it is more funny then that would actually be. The movie is not realistic, thankfully, but the characters in this film are more stable than most movie citizens and the plot stays true to the world that it created rather than pander to genre contentions.

I really like Brendan Frasier romantic comedies for this very reason. Conventions are boring and most romantic comedies are so suffocated under the pile that's accumulated that they are rarely different stories. Seen one, seen 'em all; just like a car explosion. While Blast from the Past isn't quite as unique as Bedazzled in this regard, it is still new enough to be "Very Fun".

Aside from that, there is little spectacular about the movie. It is pretty standard fare as far as production values are concerned and Frasier's acting is... um, appropriate for the character, I suppose, but it feels like an excuse. The makers have a lot to say on the subject of religion, but it's abstract enough that I am not sure exactly what it is. They do have fun with this most ingrained and fascinating feature of human societies.