The Hunt for Gollum

I'm totally jazzed over a link I just picked up from Papa Herman's blog.

Doug Levy, for the Daily Dose, wrote:

THE HUNT FOR GOLLUM
Fan-made film taken to new levels

Director Chris Bouchard’s The Hunt for Gollum revisits the world of J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings trilogy with a glimpse at a previously unseen part of the tale.

The results belie the miniscule budget. Bouchard made the 40-minute film for just a few thousand dollars, employing makeshift camera equipment, orchestra synthesizers, and volunteer digital animators. Most of the cast and crew — roughly 160 in all — donated their time after realizing the extent of the undertaking.

Familiar faces abound. The film follows Aragorn’s quest to track down the titular ring-craving creature, also featuring appearances from Gandalf, Arwin, and other LOTR characters. The actor portraying Aragorn bears more than a passing resemblance to Viggo Mortensen, while the wizard is a dead ringer for Ian McKellen.

It’s available to watch for free. In order to steer clear of potential problems with movie studios and the Tolkien estate, the filmmakers agreed to make the production completely nonprofit, meaning that the final result is yours to enjoy in its entirety free of charge.

To see the film visit the ‘Hunt for Gollum’ click HERE

Artistic Integrity

My pal Jaquandor brought up an interesting point over on Byzantium Shores. Apparently there is a new Star Trek movie coming out. However, THIS movie takes some pretty big liberties with the back story of primary characters from the legendary cult classic. In Kelly's words, "Kirk is apparently the delinquent doofus who gets pushed into enlisting by someone else."

So, just to play devil's advocate, I challenged him on whether this was unrealistic or not. Which started us both thinking a bit more on the issues at stake.

What I'm trying to figure out now is whether or not I agree that there is any sort of ethical or artistic obligation to keep true to established characters in a work of fiction, or whether it might be acceptable to KEEP the same names and basic framework, yet re-invent the way the people interact or what their backstory is.

What do you think?

What's Your Favorite Movie?

My dear blogger pal from Buffalo, Kelly Sedinger, AKA "Jaquandor" of Byzantium's Shores has written a hearty recommendation of the movie Across the Universe. I was delighted to see this, because I don't see all that many movies. I have a personal policy of not watching anything that is rated R, which seriously cuts down on the available pool of things I COULD watch.

Then of the ones that are left, I just don't find that many good films to see. So I am now looking forward to picking up this one to find out if I like it half as much as he does.

That got me to thinking...what makes a good movie?

Sometimes I like movie that entertains, sometimes I want one that makes me think. It's a real bonus when I find one that can do both.

I'm not big on blood and guts or explosions and chase scenes.

In no particular order, some of the movies I have especially enjoyed include:
Ever After
Gattica
What Dreams May Come
Hotel Rwanda
Woodstock
The Saint
Fried Green Tomatoes
Nell
Cocoon
When Harry Met Sally
Man In the Iron Mask
Dead Poet Society

There are plenty of others, but those come to mind right now.

I need something sort of like Pandora...a service that would analyze what I have already liked and then suggest others I am likely too...I've heard Netflix does something of that sort, but I have not tried them yet.

What are your favorite movies? What appeals to you most in a film?

Disfigured

I've been screening some different movies for possible inclusion on a list of films for one of the project options my Sociology students have to choose from. (Currently there are five options. The topics are quite varied, but the methodology for all of them is the same - to do structured interviews and then write a paper about it. I decided to throw in one alternative that centered on media analysis rather than interview.)

The movie I saw tonight was Disfigured - a movie about women and weight. I figured it might be appropriate during the unit we do on the Looking Glass Self - Charles H. Cooley's term for how our social environment influences the way we view ourselves.

On the back of the video it says: "Lydia is a fat, graceful woman struggling to maintain her identity in fashionable Venice Beach, California. Though she is a member of a Fat Acceptance Group (a movement dedicated to fighting prejudice against fat people) she still struggles with complex feelings about her body and its place in the world. Darcy, a recovering-anorexic real estate agent, is struggling with the same issues from a very different perspective. Her attempt to join the Fat Acceptance Group (since she sees herself as fat) is quickly rejected--but it introduces her to Lydia. Though they seem at first to be each others worst nightmare, Lydia and Darcy begin to confide in each other. Meeting warily in the social minefield's of hunger and satisfaction, anger and femininity, sexuality and fashion, trust and fear...they become friends."

I'm not sure what I think of this film. It had no rating, but had it gone through that process would certainly have earned an R for language and nudity. (There is one sex scene that starts out tastefully cut to give the sense of it without revealing too much and then all of a sudden goes across the line, at least for my tastes).

Still, there is much of value in the film - disturbingly so.

Both the obese woman and the frighteningly thin woman in this movie are struggling with feelings of disgust and loathing for their bodies. They are trying to break through and conquer that self hatred, to learn to appreciate and embrace who they are as they are. Why is that so hard?

There is so much in our culture that teaches us to feel inadequate, that we do not fit, do not measure up.

Jen has been addressing some of these issues over on her blog Lords of the Manner, and is hosting a Self Esteem Carnival on Dec 2.

I'll be very interested to read what others have to say on this topic, and if I have time to pull something coherent together may contribute a piece as well.

I encourage any of you other bloggers who stop by here to consider posting something on the subject and linking it in to Jen's carnival.

Bond DUD

On Saturday my husband and brother and I went to go see Quantum of Solace, the new James Bond film.

NOT my kind of movie. chase chase, boom boom, kiss kiss, more boom boom - NO DISCERNABLE PLOT, shoddy editing, Has a few nice shots of Austria, Italy and South America. But I was not particularly entertained.

I like movies where special effects and elaborate stunts are strategically placed to ENHANCE the film rather than becoming the whole point.

This movie COULD HAVE tapped into some complex things.... loyalty, revenge, betrayal, redemption. But the pace did not allow for much development of any of that. Consequently, I never got invested enough in the outcome to build suspense. I just watched it play out, knowing that no matter how many explosions or harrowing battles there were our 007 hero would come out with barely having his hair mussed.

I still like the old Bond movies...but this new one leaves me flat.

Book or Movie?

Mimi brought up a good question over at Bigger Than A Breadbox.

“What movies are better than the book that they are based on?”

Rather than repeat the list she gave I'll let you wander there if you are curious.
But it has gotten me to thinking some on my own book vs. movie perceptions. Also, as I said in my comment at Mimi's blog, I'm noticing I process differently when I READ a book with my eyes vs. LISTENING to audio books - even when hearing unabridged books that have exactly the same words.

How about you? Are there movies you think out shined their book origins? Which movies have been the greatest letdowns after a book that was a great read?

BEOWULF

No - I'm not talking about Angelina Jolie in Gold Paint with a tail to die for. (Although I DID go see the 3-D digital movie currently playing...)

I'm talking about the epic poem.

I read it years ago - can't say I much understood it at the time. However, the new movie has got me anxious to give it another try. Click HERE for a reason for why to read Beowulf.

As for the movie...it's quite a spectacle. I went on the recommendation from my 11 year old grandson. He loved it. Obviously his daddy is far more lenient in what sort of media his children see than I ever was, or am.

The Sky is Falling!

Well it looks like Chicken Little is not the only one who thinks the sky is falling.

I just read the report of the meteor that fell on Peru, causing more than 600 people to become ill. Strange that this should occur just as I was finishing up the book "Hammer of God" by Arthur C Clarke about the possibility of an asteroid falling to earth.

There is a pretty amazing (although not very scientific) YouTube video of a meteor fall HERE

Movies like Night of the Comet (1984) and Deep Impact ( 1998) have sensationalized what might happen to the earth if some big hunk of rock from the sky came calling. The special effects guys were more interested in movie ratings than scientific accuracy, but it's not beyond the reach of imagination to think of some celestial body crashing through our atmosphere and wreaking havoc. Having grown up in Arizona, one of my most memorable school field trips was to visit Meteor Crater near Flagstaff when I was in the 8th grade. Of course, that one came down before people had populated nearly every region of the planet.

A few weeks ago my beloved and I layed out on the lawn late one night curled up in blankets into the wee hours of the morning watching an amazing meteor shower. They are pretty when up in the sky and something romantics hang a wish on.

But it would be a whole different matter if they came down here.

The science of "Hammer of God" was interesting enough, but I was more intrigued by the sociology that Clarke proposed. How would people on earth react if they knew scientists had discovered a huge object on a collision course with our planet that was due to hit us in 1 year or 10 years or 100 years?

Clarke wrote of mass panics and suicides. He wrote of governments having to implement marshall law. He wrote of the scientists scrambling to avert the catastrophe. At one point in the novel, it becomes apparent that there is no way that the scientific teams aboard the vessel that are setting out to change the meteor's course will be able to escape. It's interesting to watch how the various characters respond to that news.

I compare that to what we know of the actions of the folks aboard the Titanic.

I can't help but wonder how I would react if I had word of my eminent doom. None of us are getting out of this world alive, we all know that. But there is something about the great uncertainty of our length of days that keeps us scrambling forward.

What would I do if I KNEW my life, or the whole world was about to end? What if I had a date that was a week away or a year away? How would I spend that time?

Perhaps more importantly, what AM I doing NOW so that I'll be ready to meet my maker whenever it does come?

I can only imagine what those Peruvian people must have thought when they saw a ball of fire approaching out of the sky. It would be interesting to carry on a long range cultural study to see what sorts of legends, folklore and other cultural responses there may be over the next 50 years in response to this.

LANDMINES

Up to my usual insomnia tricks, tonight I stayed up to watch the movie "Beyond Borders" with Angelina Jolie and and Clive Owen. I'm familiar with the reviews that call this flick a dog. Still, for me, it was very powerful on so many levels. If you are not familiar with the movie - the basic premise is summed up HERE.

As I watched the movie I thought about a lot of different things. But what got to me the most was not the scenes of famine and war in Ethiopia. It was not the horror of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. It was not the brutality of Chechnya.

It was the landmines.

I first became aware of the seriousness of the problem of landmines back in the early 90's when I participated in a Michigan International Development Outreach Network (MIDEON) conference at Michigan State University.

MIDEON was formed by faculty members from Michigan universities and community colleges who were concerned with teaching international development issues. Rather than present information to the regular student population, they focused on teaching other teachers. They provided a forum to exchange ideas and experiences, sponsor workshops, and promote the idea of development education. The idea was that by planting seeds of awareness into the minds and hearts of educators the impact would be far reaching as those teachers would go on to teach differently from there on.

It worked. The summer institute that I attended had a very powerful affect on how I think and how I teach.

One of the issues we talked about A LOT at that conference was the problem of landmines.

The average American does not usually think a whole lot about landmines. I do. But what have I actually DONE between that long ago training and now? Not nearly enough.

There are so many issues in the world today clamouring for our time, our attention, our money. Save the whales, recycle, stop global warming, plant a tree, the list goes on and on. From the old posters of Smokey the Bear saying "Only YOU can Prevent Forest Fires" to the fight against AIDS to the war on drugs...there are so many social problems it can make a person's head spin.

It's easy to see why some people get to overwhelmed by it all they numb out, become immobilized.

I am reminded of the time my father took all us kids to see Ringling Brother's and Barnum & Baily Three Ring Circus when I was a child. Most of my siblings had a fabulous time. Not me. I was so terribly frustrated. To me, it was awful. If I watched the clowns I missed the bears. If I watched the bears I missed the trapeze lady. If I watched the trapeze lady I missed the dancing horses. If I watched the ...oh, you get the idea. No matter what I focused on, the sense that I was missing out on something truly spectacular just ate away at me. I finally just cried and went to sleep to avoid the total sense of overwhelm and anxiety.

Sometimes, when I try to support worthy causes, I feel much the same way. I believe in microfincance, so I share dollars with Kiva. Every month I also donate dollars to Humanitarian Aid and the Perpetual Education Fund. I give blood to the Red Cross. I help pick up litter along our local highway. I also volunteer my time to help specific individuals in need.

But no matter how much I do, there is so much more that goes undone. Sometimes that truly haunts me.

The idealist in me wants to make a difference, remembering the words of Margaret Mead who said: "Never doubt that a few committed individuals can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has."

The more pragmatic side of me says to remember the Starfish story, and to take solace in the fact that I DO make a difference to those particular people whose lives I touch.

But sometimes when I remember the burning desire I once had to get involved in the issue of Landmines (or other social causes that caught my passion in my youth) and then face up to how little I've really done I can't help but hang my head in chagrin.

We grow older. Our priorities shift. That's natural, I suppose. Or maybe it's just a cop out.

I guess for me, the challenge is to stay AWAKE and present to the problems around me and continue to reach out and take action in whatever ways I can, instead of going numb with frustration or overwhelm and turning my back on it all as I did at the circus as a child. It's so much more pleasant to focus on pretty things. There is a time and place for that. But it's all a question of balance. And if I'm not willing to give some of my focus, my time, my resources, to the ugly things of this world, then I become part of the problem. How much is enough? That's something each person answers for them self, I suppose. For me...I need to do more.

I just need to remember the words I have posted on my Kiva Lender page - a quote from Edward Everett Hale who said: “I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something I can do.”

Double OH ZZZZZZ

My beloved and I had a date night last night - dinner out to our favorite Mexican food place and then back home with a rented James Bond movie to watch. It was the latest one - Casino Royale. I fell asleep after about the first 15 minutes.

In Bond's defense, I was way tired. I'd been going on about 3 hours of sleep per night for several nights in a row so my body was ready to collapse. (I guess I was not a very fun date.) But had the movie been even a BIT more engaging, I might have at least made it till 10 PM.

I have no objections to some chase scenes and flash in a movie. But this felt like that was all there was. Little things like plot and character development seemed entirely secondary to the explosions and menacing looks.

We have the movie for five days...I MAY take another look at it once I'm more rested. But I doubt it. I have better things to do with my time - like cut my toenails.

I've been a bit ambivalent about Bond films for years. I love the old Connery classics (ok, I admit it, I could watch Sean Connery read the phone book and consider it entertaining!) but never cared much for the others.... until Pierce Brosnan came on the scene. After totally dismissing him as an actor when watching old Remington Steele episodes it finally became evident that this guy had something to offer. In my mind, Brosnan will always be the best Bond.

How about you? Who's your best Bond?

GATTACA

Every couple years I am compelled to go to the local video store and rent the best Sci Fi movie ever made - Gattaca. I LOVE this film.

Made 10 years ago, this sweet little movie has so many layers to it... and raises some important questions.

One of the quotes from the film is when Vincent Freeman says "We now have discrimination down to a science"

Some would argue that the only reason discrimination is bad/wrong/unfair is that it is based on prejudice that inaccurately attributes negative assumptions to an entire group or class based on a few limited cases. The reason people think that ALL women are bad drivers is because SOME women are bad drivers, believe ALL African Americans are better at sports or inclined to violence is that SOME are. Individual cases or limited trends get extrapolated to blanket assumptions about the whole. Now, that's just wrong, correct?

But what if we had some sort of science which could unequivocally prove that a person was prone to certain diseases or had specific personality type, would develop particular limits of mind or body?

Would it be unethical to deny that person insurance coverage if we KNEW in advance he or she would get cancer or advanced heart disease or merely prudent on the part of the company offering the coverage? Would it be wrong to socially favor those who have demonstrated a far greater potential for achievement rather than taking a chance on someone whose genotype indicated he or she is more likely to produce marginal results? Could such a test determine entrance to colleges, to jobs, to who should or should not reproduce? Would that make the world a better place?

Do we resist the idea because it is a bad idea or do we resist the idea out of fear that we would wind up on the wrong end of the privilege stick?

American minds balk at the backward notions of a caste system whereby individuals are assigned to a profession, a way of life, AT BIRTH that cannot be changed, based entirely on the role of the parents. We are so locked into the notion of hope inherent in the possibility of social mobility that we resent any system that dictates an ascribed status that cannot be changed.

But what if those assignments were not based on the happenstance of who one's parents were, but rather based on a proven calculation of some scientific test that indicated what a person's strengths and weaknesses and aptitudes would be?

As for me, I'm with Vincent. I believe in pursuing dreams beyond all reason. I believe in scrambling for what my heart longs for even in the face of being told by rational authorities that it is utterly impossible. I don't want to be reasonable. I want to chase my dreams.

Yet as we advance in developing refinements of knowledge based on mapping the human genome there are all sorts of quirky ethical questions that arise.

Does it make sense to spend limited resources educating those with limited ability to benefit or contribute back?

Should we spend public dollars giving medical care to those we are quite sure are about to die anyway?

Is it fool hardy to marry a man (or woman) whose genes can tell you in advance you are just asking for a life on the more painful side of the balance scale in the "for better or worse" pledge?

These are the sorts of questions that will pivot through my brain whenever I watch this film. So I'll pop up a big bowl of popcorn and settle in with my favorite movie for the third or fourth time. I'll ponder big questions and dream of flying to the stars.