Right, I've just finished this acclaimed Disney ‘masterpiece’ and it’s swiftly becoming quite likeable. I have laughed out loud more than once. It is, admittedly, magnificently flawed but that adds to what its makers call the ‘charm’ of the film.
You can tell it’s a Disney film when ‘evil’ is defined as spoilt, selfish and unkind. I mean, to be honest, that makes almost every aristocrat ever ‘evil’, which is a neat bit of class-warfare propaganda. I mean, come on; he has everything he wants, no wonder he’s spoilt and selfish, and it’s tough to be those two things and not be unkind too. Being honest, the enchantress is far more evil than the prince/beast, as she condemns some poor eleven year old boy to being turned into an animal that looks like many folklore descriptions of the devil for all his life – or ever, the film isn’t clear on that point – simply because he doesn’t let her in when she looks like an old hag and offers to pay rent with a rose.
Really? That’s a legitimate and reasonable thing to do with ones glorious, magical powers? Go around terrorizing pre-teen boys because they don’t understand the concept of inner beauty and/or don’t trust old women? Yes, it’s teaching him an important moral lesson, but she could have done it for, say, a year and then changed him back while threatening to do it again if he didn’t buck up and find some decency. That woman is heartless.
As an aside, where will you find someone who will take in an old lady for the night who offers recompense with flowers? I mean, gypsies give flowers away all the time and you wouldn’t let one in your house, right? Admittedly, you would wake up grateful that they’d brought the flower but that’s only because pretty much everything that wasn’t nailed down would be gone the next morning.
Now the Beast; he’s a little ungrateful for his condition. Yes, he’s not human any more. No, he’s probably not classically attractive to women. But at least he has shiny, healthy fur, super-human strength and agility AND still retains opposable thumbs. I mean, in medieval Europe he could have carved out an empire; he’s already got the castle and everything else he wanted (apparently), a private army shouldn’t be too hard to come by. Plus, at the age of eleven being turned into a hugely strong and fast animal is what a lot of boys pretend to do anyway; realistically, he wouldn’t become depressed until puberty hit hard at about 15-16, and since there are no women in the castle anyway this would be mitigated quite a bit I’d imagine.
That’s another thing; that bitch of an enchantress turned all the prince’s servants into furniture. Now what was that for? What moral lesson does that teach you? Honestly, some people have some warped codes of ethics.
Gaston is very quickly become a bit of a hero for me – he grew up being taught by society what was attractive and, quite wisely to be honest, decided to become the paragon of those virtues. Yes, he’s a bit of a chauvinist and a little insensitive but this is provincial France; what did you expect? Charm? Egalitarianism? Mon Dieu and zoot alors.
Belle is odd. I know there’s a whole song about it at the beginning, but you don’t really understand until later on in the film. Her father, while patently weird, is still in control of his mental faculty and quite rightly points out he’s pretty old anyway and she shouldn’t trade places with him in the Beast’s castle. Then, once she has met the Beast, she decides to be as rude, nosey and rule-breaking as she can be with all the suicidal persistence of manically depressed lemming. She could inherit this trait from her father who, before becoming trapped in the Beast’s castle, decides to take a dark and winding path rather than the straight, well lit one when lost after uttering the famous last words, “This way, don’t worry; it’s a short cut.” I can excuse him somewhat in that, having grown up pre-20th century, he wouldn’t have seen any American horror movies. If he had, he’d know that phrases like, ‘it’s a short cut,’ and ‘let’s split up,’ are nearly always synonymous with ‘we’re all going to die.’
Big, angry beast-person bellows at you not to go into the West Wing. Logical response: Go there. This, in my opinion, is a bit of a cognitive failure.
Oh yeah, and where the hell did Belle learn to read in pre-renaissance provincial France?
Back to her suicidal urges. When she does go into the already forbidden West Wing, she investigate with all the blind hope and willful neglect of personal safety only otherwise found in science fiction characters, computer gamers and the late Steve Irwin, who will go to any lengths and reach any point in the search for something new or shiny.
When she removed the case from the rose, I was reminded horribly of the scene in Alien where the scientist puts his head over the self-opening alien egg to look inside. Sure enough, BAM! The Beast appears and is, surprise, surprise, pretty pissed off. Yes, he has an angry fit but he does have pending psychological worries and a unique physical condition to be concerned about. Belle’s answer to the question, ‘What are you doing here?’ is classically terrible – ‘I’m sorry!’ No explanation.
You can also tell this was set in western France, as the Beast’s castle is massive yet unnoticed. As in vast, huge and colossal at the same time. If this had been the area now known as Germany or further into Eastern Europe, this would never have happened. Instead, pretty soon after the enchantress pulled her nasty little stunt on the prepubescent prince, a mob of peasants with pitchforks and burning torches would have rushed to castle screaming, “Slay ze monster!” Apparently, the inhabitants of nearby villages in France look up at an amazing piece of gothic architecture and just thing, “That’s nice, I wonder who lives there?” and then forget all about it.
This happens later when Gaston saves the day; as soon as he finds out about the Beast, he’s there to protect the village, with courage and keen blade. And lots of fire, the logical weapon of choice when attacking a stone castle. Classic mob mistake, but I'll forgive it; you need to follow tradition, right?
As for the ever present and apparently limitless pack of wolves outside the Beast’s castle, well. They look pretty well fed, glossy coats and all. I doubt they’d attack anything as large and clearly predatory as the beast just to get at Belle and her horse. In fact, they seem pretty intent on decidedly not attacking either of them convincingly; no hamstringing, no surrounding tactics, no normal wolf maneuvers. Maybe French wolves are just less up for violent things. Or maybe the Beast paid them so he could impress Belle. Cunning ploy there.
Gaston let me down at the end by begging for his life. I guess he is French so there was only so long before his courage failed and he had to stab someone in the back.
At the end of the film, suddenly all is forgiven and the castle becomes host to a huge ball – quite where, in the countryside of provincial France, so many well-to-do aristocrats appeared is an interesting question but I’ll let it go for now.
Moral of the story is; if an old woman comes to your door needing a place to stay and all she offers as a thank you is a rose, shoot her.
J.C.
N.B. Firstly, I worked out that the prince was eleven when cursed because the rose would wilt on his 21st birthday and the servants/furniture said they’d been waiting ten years for a girl to come to the castle. Secondly, Fifi the feather duster is hot when she gets turned back into a human. Lucky Lumiere.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Self-improvement through re-education.
A lot of my friends have started talking about self-improvement recently. I don't know why; maybe it's because New Year's is coming up and they need resolutions, or they've had an experience that's made them feel unhappy about how they conduct themselves. Personally, I feel self-improvement isn't something that should be talked about, it should just be done.
Well done everyone who goes out (or stays in) and does a good thing everyday. Even better done if you didn't tell anyone about it.
I say this because while good works are all well and, ha ha, good, seeking credit or reward for them undermines the action a little bit in my opinion. If you're only 'self-improving' to be rewarded for it, then really your just self-indulging, right? Yes, you've something good but really you did it for you, so you could get that nice little glow inside. Unfortunately, because it wasn't an honest act of altruism that glow goes away pretty soon and you think, 'What's the point? I didn't get much out of it.'
Which is exactly why you should do things for other people; because then every time you see them you'll get a warm glow inside. Anyone out there who knows me will be a mite suspicious right now as they'll be wondering exactly why I'm talking about this - I don't usually do the charity thing. I'm not afraid to admit it, I like to see the results of my actions. Giving money to a faceless organization that claims to help the world etc and not seeing it happen seems like a quick-fix or get-out clause for someone's morals to me.
Every time I walk into town where I live at the moment, I will pass one or more homeless people. I am increasingly considering stopping to talk to one of them - which one exactly I'm not sure of, there's a bit of choice where I live - and maybe buy them a sandwich or something if they'd appreciate it. Again, I'm skeptical about giving money to beggars because you never know quite what they do with it. I have images of some of them, so desperate are they to get ahead in life, throwing it into every wishing well or body of water they can find in a superstitious and ill-founded attempt to gain that which they desire.
Technically, that could be a reference to alcoholism. It's not, but look at it as one if you like. It's really quite clever that way, rather than watching homeless people throwing money away as an offering to a probably-non-existent-water-deity.
back to my point - which some might say I have yet to make - I feel self-improvement happens as a by-product of ones actions rather than it being something you can pursue or set your mind to achieving; there's no defined manner in which people can improve themselves, except by almost accidentally achieving it. I'm sure people will point out to me that you can do good things etc, but as I tried to explain (probably poorly) above doing good things for your benefit reduces the goodness of those things. However, deciding to do something to actually benefit or help others somehow - as a small number of my friends have begun to do - and getting something out of it almost coincidentally will actually go further towards a self-improvement goal.
Good for those who self-improve, better for those who help improve the lives of others. Best of all to those who did it anyway and didn't ask for recognition.
Actions speak louder than words, and some actions have the power of a gunshot, and can shock and awe the world to the same extent.
-------
N.B. Don't take the above analogy literally - there are very few good acts that can be done with a gun, they aren't exactly the primary instrument of charity. At least, no charity I'd consider charitable.
Well done everyone who goes out (or stays in) and does a good thing everyday. Even better done if you didn't tell anyone about it.
I say this because while good works are all well and, ha ha, good, seeking credit or reward for them undermines the action a little bit in my opinion. If you're only 'self-improving' to be rewarded for it, then really your just self-indulging, right? Yes, you've something good but really you did it for you, so you could get that nice little glow inside. Unfortunately, because it wasn't an honest act of altruism that glow goes away pretty soon and you think, 'What's the point? I didn't get much out of it.'
Which is exactly why you should do things for other people; because then every time you see them you'll get a warm glow inside. Anyone out there who knows me will be a mite suspicious right now as they'll be wondering exactly why I'm talking about this - I don't usually do the charity thing. I'm not afraid to admit it, I like to see the results of my actions. Giving money to a faceless organization that claims to help the world etc and not seeing it happen seems like a quick-fix or get-out clause for someone's morals to me.
Every time I walk into town where I live at the moment, I will pass one or more homeless people. I am increasingly considering stopping to talk to one of them - which one exactly I'm not sure of, there's a bit of choice where I live - and maybe buy them a sandwich or something if they'd appreciate it. Again, I'm skeptical about giving money to beggars because you never know quite what they do with it. I have images of some of them, so desperate are they to get ahead in life, throwing it into every wishing well or body of water they can find in a superstitious and ill-founded attempt to gain that which they desire.
Technically, that could be a reference to alcoholism. It's not, but look at it as one if you like. It's really quite clever that way, rather than watching homeless people throwing money away as an offering to a probably-non-existent-water-deity.
back to my point - which some might say I have yet to make - I feel self-improvement happens as a by-product of ones actions rather than it being something you can pursue or set your mind to achieving; there's no defined manner in which people can improve themselves, except by almost accidentally achieving it. I'm sure people will point out to me that you can do good things etc, but as I tried to explain (probably poorly) above doing good things for your benefit reduces the goodness of those things. However, deciding to do something to actually benefit or help others somehow - as a small number of my friends have begun to do - and getting something out of it almost coincidentally will actually go further towards a self-improvement goal.
Good for those who self-improve, better for those who help improve the lives of others. Best of all to those who did it anyway and didn't ask for recognition.
Actions speak louder than words, and some actions have the power of a gunshot, and can shock and awe the world to the same extent.
-------
N.B. Don't take the above analogy literally - there are very few good acts that can be done with a gun, they aren't exactly the primary instrument of charity. At least, no charity I'd consider charitable.
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Apologies to my housemates - kinda
It has been noted by my housemates that during my week without Xbox I was not completely Xbox-less. I did 'play' Call of Duty 4 - 2 somewhat but since it is described by its designers as a cinematic experience rather than a game I feel I am slightly excused. My housemates would disagree but that would be their problem.
I'd also make apologies about other things but that's not really what I'm going to write about. Today I'm going to write concerning...world peace. Yes, world peace. And why I disagree with it. Not as an ideal, but as a concept.
You really think world peace is achievable in the next hundred years? Think about for it a second; every single nationalistic and patriotic tendency put to rest, every prejudice forgotten and discarded and rivalries and feuds ended for the greater good? Doesn't sound very human, does it?
This is because, at heart, I don't think people want to be at peace. Everyone likes a challenge - those who don't I'm going to generalize into either the category 'liar' or 'afraid of failure', neither of which I accept as a good reason to deny a challenge.
Without challenge, we wouldn't better ourselves - what would be the point? What would we need to improve if there were no challenges? The only life-form that has no real challenges in its existence is plants and trees, and even then I'd argue that a chainsaw might warrant some rather interesting selective evolution on behalf of the Earth's vegetation.
But what about the fuel crisis? Fossil fuel shortage? The O-zone layer? Extinction of other species? The solving of the mysteries of life?
I would say people would be more inclined to find an answer if there was some competitive reward to it - who finds the answer first. And whoever finds that answer, or whichever nation, will then play that advantage against the others, trading extortionately for will become an invaluable and necessary resource. Why have peace when you can be better than someone, right? Or everyone else.
Admittedly, that's not a very nice way to look at humanity but it's historically accurate. Did the U.S. share its discovery of fusion with the world to help deal with power shortages? Did the British Empire share its steam engine designs with the world? Was not gunpowder first traded extortionately before others could find its secret? Did Rome spread civilization peaceably to its neighbouring nations?
No, no, no and no. Because if you have an advantage, you use it. Otherwise it's not really an advantage. I'm pretty sure whoever invented the wheel covered in in canvas or animal skins to hide its secrets from others before letting the cat out of the bag when he died.
People argue that people don't share advantages with everyone because then others will use it against the creators. Shock horror. If, say, Kazakhstan perfected solar power and refused to share the technology with the U.S. or Europe, it would be for just political reasons - admittedly, we'd probably go in and do war until we got it but the those wily Kazaks might tear down the facilities and burn the evidence so we get nothing. They wouldn't share it because they'd fear to have it used against them and I'm pretty sure America would well do in one of its crusades for oil.
As soon as the second monkey found out how to use a club, he killed the first because it was the only other one who knew the secret. The secret of the club was a distinct advantage over other monkeys, and the best monkey got all the food and girl monkeys. So why share if you don't have to?
Yes, I'm judging, Yes, harshly and without a view to religion or other such humane elements of humanity. Doesn't change the fact that in the predominant number of examples I'm, sadly, right.
I'd be upset but since I'm not too bothered about world peace etc right now then I can hardly get too emotionally involved. I'm not bothered because right now in my house there's no hot water and a host of other more immediately applicable, albeit selfish, concerns.
But if I didn't care about me, I wouldn't be human right? No, I don't think I'm better or more deserving than other people. I just can't help them right now and going to the trouble of finding a way to do so would mean I'd compromise my position in a capitalist society built around the one and self-service. Sad but true. I'd hate the world but lucky for me I'm in quite a good position to cogitate on these things - and if you cared about personally saving the world you wouldn't be reading internet blogs when you're bored, would you, Adrian?
Your name's probably not Adrian but it was worth a shot for the chance someone named Adrian might fall off their desk chair in shock and then go change the world for the better. See, I'm doing my part; are you?
I'd also make apologies about other things but that's not really what I'm going to write about. Today I'm going to write concerning...world peace. Yes, world peace. And why I disagree with it. Not as an ideal, but as a concept.
You really think world peace is achievable in the next hundred years? Think about for it a second; every single nationalistic and patriotic tendency put to rest, every prejudice forgotten and discarded and rivalries and feuds ended for the greater good? Doesn't sound very human, does it?
This is because, at heart, I don't think people want to be at peace. Everyone likes a challenge - those who don't I'm going to generalize into either the category 'liar' or 'afraid of failure', neither of which I accept as a good reason to deny a challenge.
Without challenge, we wouldn't better ourselves - what would be the point? What would we need to improve if there were no challenges? The only life-form that has no real challenges in its existence is plants and trees, and even then I'd argue that a chainsaw might warrant some rather interesting selective evolution on behalf of the Earth's vegetation.
But what about the fuel crisis? Fossil fuel shortage? The O-zone layer? Extinction of other species? The solving of the mysteries of life?
I would say people would be more inclined to find an answer if there was some competitive reward to it - who finds the answer first. And whoever finds that answer, or whichever nation, will then play that advantage against the others, trading extortionately for will become an invaluable and necessary resource. Why have peace when you can be better than someone, right? Or everyone else.
Admittedly, that's not a very nice way to look at humanity but it's historically accurate. Did the U.S. share its discovery of fusion with the world to help deal with power shortages? Did the British Empire share its steam engine designs with the world? Was not gunpowder first traded extortionately before others could find its secret? Did Rome spread civilization peaceably to its neighbouring nations?
No, no, no and no. Because if you have an advantage, you use it. Otherwise it's not really an advantage. I'm pretty sure whoever invented the wheel covered in in canvas or animal skins to hide its secrets from others before letting the cat out of the bag when he died.
People argue that people don't share advantages with everyone because then others will use it against the creators. Shock horror. If, say, Kazakhstan perfected solar power and refused to share the technology with the U.S. or Europe, it would be for just political reasons - admittedly, we'd probably go in and do war until we got it but the those wily Kazaks might tear down the facilities and burn the evidence so we get nothing. They wouldn't share it because they'd fear to have it used against them and I'm pretty sure America would well do in one of its crusades for oil.
As soon as the second monkey found out how to use a club, he killed the first because it was the only other one who knew the secret. The secret of the club was a distinct advantage over other monkeys, and the best monkey got all the food and girl monkeys. So why share if you don't have to?
Yes, I'm judging, Yes, harshly and without a view to religion or other such humane elements of humanity. Doesn't change the fact that in the predominant number of examples I'm, sadly, right.
I'd be upset but since I'm not too bothered about world peace etc right now then I can hardly get too emotionally involved. I'm not bothered because right now in my house there's no hot water and a host of other more immediately applicable, albeit selfish, concerns.
But if I didn't care about me, I wouldn't be human right? No, I don't think I'm better or more deserving than other people. I just can't help them right now and going to the trouble of finding a way to do so would mean I'd compromise my position in a capitalist society built around the one and self-service. Sad but true. I'd hate the world but lucky for me I'm in quite a good position to cogitate on these things - and if you cared about personally saving the world you wouldn't be reading internet blogs when you're bored, would you, Adrian?
Your name's probably not Adrian but it was worth a shot for the chance someone named Adrian might fall off their desk chair in shock and then go change the world for the better. See, I'm doing my part; are you?
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Life Goes On
So my week without Xbox comes to a close. It wasn't that big a sacrifice, as it turns out; I had plenty of fun and got some work done. But I didn't go out that much more, I didn't crave it's sweet radiated rapture and I didn't get any additionally work done - less, probably, but for unrelated reasons.
From this I can pretty much be safe in saying I'm not addicted to it, I just enjoy it. What I have done is watch a lot more films, which is worse for my mental and intellectual health I'm sure. This is not a slur on films in general, just on the ones I watched.
Apart from Starship Troopers, which is epic, and the Chinese films the others were not that fantastic. During Jennifer's Body I actually found myself wanting to turn it off because I was so uninvolved, and a couple of the others were just annoying - I almost shouted at the screen because of their lack of feasibility.
I very nearly gave up what remains of my soul by voluntarily watching Twilight, but my hand got leprosy when I touched the DVD. Taking this to be a bad sign, I didn't watch the film. The morning afterward my hand was fine.
I was also invited to see New Moon. That person may not know it yet, but we're no longer friends - it's official, I de-added on Facebook. Yeah, that shit got real...
So, moving swiftly away from silly films about adolescent vampires and desperate, necrophiliac teenage girls, I believe that Xbox is a healthy divergence away from other anti-boredom activities, like watching terrible films. So problem solved.
I also discovered that the apple juice I drink has as much sugar per hundred mill as a can of coke. Yes, I may have run out of things to do once. But at least my teeth will thank me.
From this I can pretty much be safe in saying I'm not addicted to it, I just enjoy it. What I have done is watch a lot more films, which is worse for my mental and intellectual health I'm sure. This is not a slur on films in general, just on the ones I watched.
Apart from Starship Troopers, which is epic, and the Chinese films the others were not that fantastic. During Jennifer's Body I actually found myself wanting to turn it off because I was so uninvolved, and a couple of the others were just annoying - I almost shouted at the screen because of their lack of feasibility.
I very nearly gave up what remains of my soul by voluntarily watching Twilight, but my hand got leprosy when I touched the DVD. Taking this to be a bad sign, I didn't watch the film. The morning afterward my hand was fine.
I was also invited to see New Moon. That person may not know it yet, but we're no longer friends - it's official, I de-added on Facebook. Yeah, that shit got real...
So, moving swiftly away from silly films about adolescent vampires and desperate, necrophiliac teenage girls, I believe that Xbox is a healthy divergence away from other anti-boredom activities, like watching terrible films. So problem solved.
I also discovered that the apple juice I drink has as much sugar per hundred mill as a can of coke. Yes, I may have run out of things to do once. But at least my teeth will thank me.
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Nearly done...
So the week is nearly up...I've lost 2 pounds of weight and gone to the gym far more than I am used to. Depressingly, this has only put me off going more often.
While technically I have used the Xbox, it was only for films and dvds. I found I have a good number of Jackie Chan films, most of which I've revisited, and have come to the conclusion that this is not a bad thing. While not having deep, insightful or philosophical messages, they are very entertaining. I think that this is, in part, because they were fun to make and the actors enjoyed doing so.
I get this idea for no real reason, no documentary proof, so really it's just an opinion but I like to think these films, and all entertaining films too, were not a chore to create and shoot, but something fun and enjoyable. I personally find anything I do that is fun will be fun to watch.
Sex is an exception, mostly. 'Mostly' because I think watching Megan Fox and Elisha Cuthbert have sex would be great fun.
Yes, I just lowered the tone but hey, this is an internet blog; what did you expect? High quality and insightful dialogue? Life changing soliloquies? Decency? That's not what the Internet's for, sorry.
I may be dead tomorrow, not because of lack of Xbox, but Twilight exposure; my housemate found a way to trick me into watching it. So I might have to find a way out of watching it.
Girls being love sick over walking corpses was never my thing. Chinese theatre, now at least that's entertianing.
While technically I have used the Xbox, it was only for films and dvds. I found I have a good number of Jackie Chan films, most of which I've revisited, and have come to the conclusion that this is not a bad thing. While not having deep, insightful or philosophical messages, they are very entertaining. I think that this is, in part, because they were fun to make and the actors enjoyed doing so.
I get this idea for no real reason, no documentary proof, so really it's just an opinion but I like to think these films, and all entertaining films too, were not a chore to create and shoot, but something fun and enjoyable. I personally find anything I do that is fun will be fun to watch.
Sex is an exception, mostly. 'Mostly' because I think watching Megan Fox and Elisha Cuthbert have sex would be great fun.
Yes, I just lowered the tone but hey, this is an internet blog; what did you expect? High quality and insightful dialogue? Life changing soliloquies? Decency? That's not what the Internet's for, sorry.
I may be dead tomorrow, not because of lack of Xbox, but Twilight exposure; my housemate found a way to trick me into watching it. So I might have to find a way out of watching it.
Girls being love sick over walking corpses was never my thing. Chinese theatre, now at least that's entertianing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
