How much is the matrix part of your life???
Who gives a rat’s @as? As my Zen master, [b]Ferris Bueller[/b], would say, life moves pretty fast. If you blink for a second, it might pass you by. 8)
I know you´re out there....
No shit, [b]Sherlock[/b]. Now, get your butt in here, and help me inflate my [b]Woman in Red Dress[/b] doll. ;D
I can feel you now.
Nope, that ain’t me. That’s Bernie’s @ss you’re grabbing. Remember, we came here to spend the [b]weekend at Bernie’s[/b] beach house, then he died, now we’re trying to get rid of his corpse… ;D
I know that you´re afraid.
I’m afraid I lost my spoon. Have you, perchance, seen it? ???
You are afraid of responding to this call.
Meesa afraid? What you talking ‘bout, [b]Willis[/b]?
By the way, let me clue you in, [b]there is no fun[/b]!
You´re afraid of being made fun of
OK. So I have a [b]third nipple[/b]. You’re one to talk; a minute ago you were sexually molesting a corpse. ;D
I don´t know the future.
No shit, [b]Cassandra[/b]. But I do know it. If you ask nicely, I might even tell you how the 2015 flick [b]Citizen Anderson[/b] actually ends… :P
I didn´t come here to tell you how to respond this thread.
I didn’t come here to stare at the fungi in your feet, either. So, what is it you came here for? :)
I came here to ask you a question.
But you already know the answer to that question. [b]Ricky Martin[/b] is, indeed, [b]gay[/b]! ;D
I´m going to end this post…
But we’re having so much fun. If you keep on posting, I’ll even translate the Latin inscription on the [b]MGM[/b] logo for you. Heck, I’ll even make that annoying [b]lion[/b] stop making that pussycat roar… :P
and then I´m going to see how much of an addict you are.
So, I’m addicted to writing crap on the Internet. Who’s gonna stop me? [b]Who you gonna call?[/b] ;D
I´m going to show people your addiction.
Over my collection of Barbie dolls you are! ;D
A world with happiness and joy.
And no religion, too. [b]Imagine[/b] that! [b]Morpheus[/b] may say you’re a dreamer, but you’re not the only [b]one[/b]. 8)
A world where anything is possible
A world where farts don’t smell? Get outta here! :o :o
Where we go from here, is a choice I leave to you
I don’t know about you, but me, my [b]Woman in Red Dress[/b] inflatable doll, my [b]Barbie dolls[/b], and my Delorean are off to catch the 2015 premiere of [b]Keanu Reeve[/b]’s Oscar-winning performance in the above-mentioned [b]Citizen Anderson[/b]. You have been nice, so I’m gonna tell you the end: There is no [b]sled[/b], and [b]Rosebud[/b] is actually his…[b]Father[/b]!!! :o :o
You hear that, Mr. Anderson?
The sound of Trinity´s vibrator? I feel your pain. That buzzing noise is making me crazy… >:(
[quote]That is the sound of inevitability[/quote]
Yep, it’s inevitable she will turn it on every d@mn night! Will that thing ever run out of batteries? ???
It´s is the sound of your death. Good bye, Mr. Anderson
The name is…[b]Nemo[/b]. Captain Nemo. And I’m not doing the dying thing yet. See, it’s right here in the script. I have to dodge your bullets, then I let you hit me, then I resurrect, later we make a couple of sequels. I hear there’re also prequels in the works… ;D
viernes, 26 de julio de 2024
King Arthur
De acuerdo con los mitos ingleses, érase una vez un rey, una espada, una mesa redonda, una hermosa dama...Parece que los productores de Hollywood agarraron el índice de personajes de estas historias y tomaron prestados los nombres para el film que decidieron llamar "King Arthur". Tal vez hubiera sido interesante si hubiesen decidido leer los mitos y utilizarlos como base para el film...
Pero bueno, prefirieron hacer lo que en USA llaman un "what if", es decir, un "¿qué hubiera pasado si cambiamos ciertas premisas, personajes y/o eventos de la historia?". Y eso fue justo lo que hicieron: Plantear los mitos de Camelot como si en realidad hubiesen ocurrido históricamente, tomándose la licencia artística de modificar los eventos y caracterización de los personajes. En otras palabras, no nos presentaron las leyendas arturianas que todos conocemos sino, más bien, el cómo pudieron haber transcurrido los eventos que componen esta épica narrativa.
Habiendo aclarado que éste no es un film acerca del Rey Arturo (sólo de la forma más tangencialmente posible podríamos considerarlo así), debemos preparanos para despojarnos de nuestras preconcepciones acerca de los personajes y la historia antes de observar el film (es por ello que, a lo largo de este comentario, llamaremos a Sir Lancelot como Sir Pussylot, para así mejor reflejar su caracterización dentro del film).
Hay que admitir que el enfoque está interesante: ¿Para qué realizar lo que ha sido repetido en ocasiones innúmeras (Excalibur, First Knight, la miniserie "Merlin"), cuando se pueden contextualizar los mitos dentro de nuestra propia historia y especular acerca de los eventos que pudiesen haber transcurrido bajo este escenario? Al César lo que es del César: Este es un ejercicio fresco e innovativo. Lástima que la ejecución no lo haya sido.
Por qué? Simplemente porque las modificaciones no agregan valor: La historia es superficialmente simple, sin mayor argumento o eventos que propulsaran su desarrollo; muy inferior a los mitos arturianos. En otras palabras, mis respetos para el director, Antoine Fuqua, por haber filmado una película que entretiene (porque lo hace, si bien no a borbollones) con base en un guion de tercera (por no decir de quinta). y personajes insulsos como ellos solos (hecha la salvedad de Arthur y Guinevere).
La cinta estaba destinada a glorificar a Arthur y lo hizo a la perfección: Fue el único personaje que evolucionó, siendo su travesía no solo una aventura con matices épicos sino un viaje de autodescubrimiento de su propósito en la vida. Un personaje noble y valiente, excelentemente representado por Clive Owen. Su elocuencia y dignidad me hicieron interesarme en el personaje y ansiar vivir junto con él su travesía, es decir, inmersarme en la propuesta cinematográfica ante mí proyectada (lo cual es el objetivo de todo film de aventura: Invitar al espectador a departir durante dos horas de su mundo y aceptar involucrarse en el escenario ofrecido por el cineasta). Pero un personaje no hace por sí solo un film: Su historia debe, además, capturarnos y envolvernos en ella. Es aquí donde erró fatalmente "King Arthur".
Con respecto a Guinevere, un muy buen personaje femenino: Una aldeana sin privilegios rebozante de coraje y búsqueda de justicia, la cual cristaliza a través de su desinteresada lucha por su pueblo. Es el digno equivalente de Arthur. Digno de mencionar cómo trascendieron el paradigma que encapsula a la típica heroína como una sumisa mujer cuyo rol en la historia no pasa de desplegar su belleza y ser el interés amoroso del héroe por ninguna otra razón que "porque así lo dice el guion". Dicho lo anterior, hubiera preferido que el atuendo de Keira Kneightley se hubiera asemejado más al de Jane de la Selva que al de William Wallace en Braveheart. Pero bueno, eso, pequeño Adam, es otra historia.
Con respecto al resto de los "personajes" (si merecen tal apelativo): Sir Pussylot, aparte de demostrarnos su dexteridad combatiendo con dos espadas a la vez, no era más que un cobarde pusilánime. Definitivamente, no la mehor opción para fungir como mano derecha de Arthur (imagínense algo así como que el compañero de Batman hubiese sido el Chapulìn Colorado y se harán una idea de lo que estoy hablando).
Sir Gawain y Sir Gallahad, ni fu ni fa. Pudieron haberlos reemplazado con R2D2 y C-3PO y no hubiera hecho diferencia. Sir Bors, ese sí es una joya humorística (poner atención a la peculiar forma como se refiere a sus hijos. Sólo de pensarlo me da risa). Se van a reír unas 3 ó 4 veces durante el film y todas van a ser gracias a este gracioso bufón (debió haberse llamado Sir Bozo). Los otros dos, Sir Dagonet, más bien parecía Thor (nada más prestar atención a la escena cuando utiliza el Chipote Chillón, digo, su arma, cual si fuera el martillo de Thor) pero fue de los pocos buenos personajes: Su caracterización justifica plenamente la importante decisión que debería tomar durante una escena crucial del film.
Por último, Tristán. Este señor le hace el pique a Robin Hood con el arco y flecha. Si Gran Bretaña lo hubiera llevado con el equipo olímpico de arco a Atenas, de fijo se llevaba el oro. Y hablando de Tristán, fíjense en su fiel halcón y díganme si no se les pasa por la mente que éste se iba en algún momento a convertir en Michelle Pffeiffer (¡Ya me dieron ganas de ver Ladyhawke!) .
Quién me falta? Sir Kulo, ah no, ése no salió. ¡Lástima! Otro que faltó fue Sir Percival. Ya que estaban poniéndoles nombres de famosos a los personajes, le hubieran dado a alguno este apelativo.
Para los que se preguntan el porqué no he mencionado a Merlín, simplemente les comento que estaba genial para un comercial de Palmolive. Antes de usar Palmolive: Sale todo tufoso, tal como en el film. Después de Palmolive: Sale bien chaneado de la mano de Guinevere, mientras ella exclama: "Merlín, has hecho magia con tu apariencia!". No, chiquita mía --responde Merlín-- magia no, ¡¡¡Palmolive!!! Estoy seguro que en algún momento durante la proyección debieron haber pasado un mensaje subliminal de Palmolive (a lo Tyler Durden). Caso contrario,escapa a mi imaginación la razón de la inclusión de Merlin en la película.
No puedo concluir sin hacer referencia a la batalla en el hielo: Muy, pero muy buena. La táctica utilizada en el combate estuvo creativa; la acción emotiva y muy bien coreografiada. La segunda mejor batalla en hielo / nieve de todos los tiempos (la primera siendo, sobra decir, la Batalla de Hoth en "El Imperio Contraataca").
En resumen, una película que, sin seducir por completo a la audiencia, entretiene, cuenta con buena acción y unos cuantos chispazos de fina comedia hábilmente entrelazados dentro de la narrativa. Como "pop-corn movie" (película para divertirse un rato), pasa la prueba dejando los pelos en el alambre. Como intento de reproducir y/o reinterpretar la historia del Rey Arturo, mejor vean "Excalibur".
Pero bueno, prefirieron hacer lo que en USA llaman un "what if", es decir, un "¿qué hubiera pasado si cambiamos ciertas premisas, personajes y/o eventos de la historia?". Y eso fue justo lo que hicieron: Plantear los mitos de Camelot como si en realidad hubiesen ocurrido históricamente, tomándose la licencia artística de modificar los eventos y caracterización de los personajes. En otras palabras, no nos presentaron las leyendas arturianas que todos conocemos sino, más bien, el cómo pudieron haber transcurrido los eventos que componen esta épica narrativa.
Habiendo aclarado que éste no es un film acerca del Rey Arturo (sólo de la forma más tangencialmente posible podríamos considerarlo así), debemos preparanos para despojarnos de nuestras preconcepciones acerca de los personajes y la historia antes de observar el film (es por ello que, a lo largo de este comentario, llamaremos a Sir Lancelot como Sir Pussylot, para así mejor reflejar su caracterización dentro del film).
Hay que admitir que el enfoque está interesante: ¿Para qué realizar lo que ha sido repetido en ocasiones innúmeras (Excalibur, First Knight, la miniserie "Merlin"), cuando se pueden contextualizar los mitos dentro de nuestra propia historia y especular acerca de los eventos que pudiesen haber transcurrido bajo este escenario? Al César lo que es del César: Este es un ejercicio fresco e innovativo. Lástima que la ejecución no lo haya sido.
Por qué? Simplemente porque las modificaciones no agregan valor: La historia es superficialmente simple, sin mayor argumento o eventos que propulsaran su desarrollo; muy inferior a los mitos arturianos. En otras palabras, mis respetos para el director, Antoine Fuqua, por haber filmado una película que entretiene (porque lo hace, si bien no a borbollones) con base en un guion de tercera (por no decir de quinta). y personajes insulsos como ellos solos (hecha la salvedad de Arthur y Guinevere).
La cinta estaba destinada a glorificar a Arthur y lo hizo a la perfección: Fue el único personaje que evolucionó, siendo su travesía no solo una aventura con matices épicos sino un viaje de autodescubrimiento de su propósito en la vida. Un personaje noble y valiente, excelentemente representado por Clive Owen. Su elocuencia y dignidad me hicieron interesarme en el personaje y ansiar vivir junto con él su travesía, es decir, inmersarme en la propuesta cinematográfica ante mí proyectada (lo cual es el objetivo de todo film de aventura: Invitar al espectador a departir durante dos horas de su mundo y aceptar involucrarse en el escenario ofrecido por el cineasta). Pero un personaje no hace por sí solo un film: Su historia debe, además, capturarnos y envolvernos en ella. Es aquí donde erró fatalmente "King Arthur".
Con respecto a Guinevere, un muy buen personaje femenino: Una aldeana sin privilegios rebozante de coraje y búsqueda de justicia, la cual cristaliza a través de su desinteresada lucha por su pueblo. Es el digno equivalente de Arthur. Digno de mencionar cómo trascendieron el paradigma que encapsula a la típica heroína como una sumisa mujer cuyo rol en la historia no pasa de desplegar su belleza y ser el interés amoroso del héroe por ninguna otra razón que "porque así lo dice el guion". Dicho lo anterior, hubiera preferido que el atuendo de Keira Kneightley se hubiera asemejado más al de Jane de la Selva que al de William Wallace en Braveheart. Pero bueno, eso, pequeño Adam, es otra historia.
Con respecto al resto de los "personajes" (si merecen tal apelativo): Sir Pussylot, aparte de demostrarnos su dexteridad combatiendo con dos espadas a la vez, no era más que un cobarde pusilánime. Definitivamente, no la mehor opción para fungir como mano derecha de Arthur (imagínense algo así como que el compañero de Batman hubiese sido el Chapulìn Colorado y se harán una idea de lo que estoy hablando).
Sir Gawain y Sir Gallahad, ni fu ni fa. Pudieron haberlos reemplazado con R2D2 y C-3PO y no hubiera hecho diferencia. Sir Bors, ese sí es una joya humorística (poner atención a la peculiar forma como se refiere a sus hijos. Sólo de pensarlo me da risa). Se van a reír unas 3 ó 4 veces durante el film y todas van a ser gracias a este gracioso bufón (debió haberse llamado Sir Bozo). Los otros dos, Sir Dagonet, más bien parecía Thor (nada más prestar atención a la escena cuando utiliza el Chipote Chillón, digo, su arma, cual si fuera el martillo de Thor) pero fue de los pocos buenos personajes: Su caracterización justifica plenamente la importante decisión que debería tomar durante una escena crucial del film.
Por último, Tristán. Este señor le hace el pique a Robin Hood con el arco y flecha. Si Gran Bretaña lo hubiera llevado con el equipo olímpico de arco a Atenas, de fijo se llevaba el oro. Y hablando de Tristán, fíjense en su fiel halcón y díganme si no se les pasa por la mente que éste se iba en algún momento a convertir en Michelle Pffeiffer (¡Ya me dieron ganas de ver Ladyhawke!) .
Quién me falta? Sir Kulo, ah no, ése no salió. ¡Lástima! Otro que faltó fue Sir Percival. Ya que estaban poniéndoles nombres de famosos a los personajes, le hubieran dado a alguno este apelativo.
Para los que se preguntan el porqué no he mencionado a Merlín, simplemente les comento que estaba genial para un comercial de Palmolive. Antes de usar Palmolive: Sale todo tufoso, tal como en el film. Después de Palmolive: Sale bien chaneado de la mano de Guinevere, mientras ella exclama: "Merlín, has hecho magia con tu apariencia!". No, chiquita mía --responde Merlín-- magia no, ¡¡¡Palmolive!!! Estoy seguro que en algún momento durante la proyección debieron haber pasado un mensaje subliminal de Palmolive (a lo Tyler Durden). Caso contrario,escapa a mi imaginación la razón de la inclusión de Merlin en la película.
No puedo concluir sin hacer referencia a la batalla en el hielo: Muy, pero muy buena. La táctica utilizada en el combate estuvo creativa; la acción emotiva y muy bien coreografiada. La segunda mejor batalla en hielo / nieve de todos los tiempos (la primera siendo, sobra decir, la Batalla de Hoth en "El Imperio Contraataca").
En resumen, una película que, sin seducir por completo a la audiencia, entretiene, cuenta con buena acción y unos cuantos chispazos de fina comedia hábilmente entrelazados dentro de la narrativa. Como "pop-corn movie" (película para divertirse un rato), pasa la prueba dejando los pelos en el alambre. Como intento de reproducir y/o reinterpretar la historia del Rey Arturo, mejor vean "Excalibur".
miércoles, 26 de mayo de 2010
"Avatar" Comments (SpoilerFest)
Let’s be clear from the outset: Avatar is nothing more than a meshing of religious, mythological, evolutionary themes, within a mostly well-concocted (if extremely formulaic) plot, powered by visually stunning scenery and innovative effects. As such, it neatly conjures the Matrix and Star Wars recipe (among many others): a collage of heavy-handed themes explored within tried-out plot templates and spectacular FX, be it bullet time, space explosions or motion capture / 3D. Aside from the technological merits, it brings about nothing new, yet it’s entertaining enough to make a good product. It reminds one of Solaris and Being John Malkovich, without being deep enough to be as thought-provoking.
A few bulleted thoughts that grabbed my attention:
-Gaia: The high point was how the Gaia hypothesis was presented: a collective set of memories from the planet’s (moon, actually) sentient inhabitants from eras bygone preserved within itself; a planetary Library of Alexandria for the ages. It’s an interesting evolutionary concept, the natives’ fortunes tied to their ecological surroundings; their shared experiences, their past, being preserved in the spirits of their ancestors. No need for books (or memorizing them à la Fahrenheit 451) or computers, one can simply use a built-in biological “port” to connect with the shared collective wisdom: a true democracy of knowledge.
(Moreover, the representation of a symbiotic evolutionary process wherein both, people and planet, evolve together as a holistic, interdependent Being, and are sufficiently entangled to the point that the fate of different tribes is (ostensibly) intertwined with that of their home celestial body, is a nice metaphor of the Cold war doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The biological and ecological dependence is an organically-developed—by Nature itself—system of checks and balances: if sectarian strife brings about war, collective destruction of all factions, sooner or later, is assured. Every martial “victory” one tribe may attain over another is, by design, a pyrrhic one. The equivalent of the contemporaneous “armed peace” here on Earth—sans technology extrapolated to its tragic worst: nuclear weapons—has organically materialized. Darwinism at its romantic best!).
Religious undertones notwithstanding, the proposed scientific model (neural networking of “spirits” in another phase of existence with not only planet, but its flora and fauna too) analogizes an actual human brain in a quite elegant fashion: an Armstrong-ian giant leap from the mystical to a rational, scientifically-feasible template for an ecosystem in inextricable communion with the living beings that populate it.
-Buddhism: Just as Terminator presented Christian parallels in the annunciation of John Connor’s birth and supposed messianic stature, here Cameron threads a line towards a more philosophy-friendly, deity-less religion: Siddhartha’s own, Buddhism: Sigourney Weaver’s character’s is the Buddha that not only reaches Nirvana and becomes one with Truth & Perfect Knowledge (represented by the sacred tree, which is a proxy for Gautama’s Bodhi Tree), but also serves as the catalyst that, through its enlightened perspective, informs Pandora’s “sentient ecosystem” about the impending danger to its existence, awaking it from its passive, dormant state, so it can fulfill its own Darwinian purpose: survive through centrally coordinating its planet-encompassing neural network for an all-out, survival-of-the-fittest war against an exogenous enemy menacing the status quo upon which its existence is predicated.
(Sully himself can reasonably be read as a bodhisattva that abstains himself from reaching Nirvana and remains with his people, perhaps, not only out of love for la femme de ses rêves, but to eventually lead them to an evolutionary scientific leap harmonious with Nature, ushering a new era of progress).
-McGuffin: Cameron tends to use McGuffins in his films (John Connor in the 1st Terminator, la Coeur de la Mer in Titanic), and now he brings forth the unoriginally-named unobtanium, a priceless mineral that abounds in Pandora, coincidentally right under the tree where the native protagonists dwell. This serves to introduce the theme of the resource curse, i.e., the presence of a valuable commodity causing strife and exploitation to poor civilizations (rather than enhanced lifestyles) for reasons both endogenous as well as exogenous (this was most recently brought to life in the magnificent Blood Diamond). The “twist” here is that the natives were in such an early evolutionary stage (a non-commoditized, spiritual society) that they had no need for what the colonizers could offer them (i.e., no shiny mirrors for gold rip-off); their only desire being the status quo of their simple, yet spiritually-fulfilling existence, hence no bargaining was feasible, and war, inevitable (avatar infiltration or not).
(One glaring faux pas was using an actual piece of unobtanium rock placed in the corporate manager’s office in order to facilitate visual exposition to the audience, serving inadvertently to compromise the credibility of the story: in an actual corporate setting, a 20 million (or so) dollar mineral wouldn’t be idly sitting in a manager’s office to be shown to curious visitors; rather, it would be earning a profit in the market. Most shareholders would agree with this, to paraphrase one of the characters. Again, this is a small instance of actually detracting from the believability of the plot by trying to visually enhance exposition to the audience).
-Lack of peripheral characters: Besides the main 4 Na’avi protagonists (the leaders of the clan), the rest of the tribe is an anonymous mass of acolytes apparently devoid of individuality or opinions of their own. It would have been interesting if they had expounded more upon the basis of their society and shown a collage of the village’s daily activities.
-Emotional Evolution: The hero’s journey story prototype is made more interesting by the use of the antagonists to show the character’s emotional transition from human (when a Na’avi was his bête noire), to a man emotionally detached from his original race and progressively more attuned to his new nature and surroundings (the Colonel, initially a paternal figure of sorts, becomes his enemy). Kudos for this nifty trick!
-Deus ex machinas aplenty. The various other clans are only obliquely mentioned in one quick scene, yet that‘s sufficient to summon them at a moment’s notice, and garner their blind acquiescence and servitude when needed. This point should have really been worked upon via more screen time explaining the commonalities linking together Pandora’s different Na’avi clans (yes, they are symbiotic and common belief in Toruk Makto takes care of the leadership issue, but still it seems too contrived and convenient) . Without said scenes, the impromptu “coalition” seems like a gratuitous platform for an FX extravaganza typical of lesser films such as 2012 and 10,000 B.C.
On a lesser scale, the Na’avi poison arrows suddenly being able to penetrate the helicopter’s cockpit was a stretch, but most sad of all, was the wasted opportunity in the scene were Sully’s avatar was selected by the “flowery” souls of generations-past to be invited by Neyteri to the village. This introduced the messianic-chosen one theme—without justifying why he was chosen—when there was an actual reasonable explanation consistent with the screenplay: Sully’s avatar was, DNA-wise, part human, part Na’avi. Couldn’t his Na’avi side have been the previous Toruk Makto which, after being instantly organized by the spirits, received their protective embrace, thus explaining his sudden acceptance? Did Cameron left this (seemingly) correct explanation out to provide a more mystical feel? Whatever the case may be, the picture is lesser in its absence.
Screenplay: This was definitely the film’s nadir. All the interesting themes explored (colonialism, capitalism, human—and alien— individual and societal nature, symbiosis with the environment, et cetera), are diffused in an extremely formulaic script that seems back-engineered to fit the director’s agenda. That being said, the main characters are very well delineated and show a malleable emotional growth in alignment with the plot’s progression (excepting of course the hardcore capitalist and warmonger colonel who remain as static in the film as they would likely have in a real life setting).
The dialogue, on the other hand was more effective, drawing on a minimalist, to-the-point style—with few witty one-liners—as is to be expected from scientists and tribal beings in communion with their spiritual selves. George Lucas should take note: verbosity sometimes distracts attention from the plot. In Avatar’s case, the dialogue struck a perfect chord with the mood of the film and characters. Less is more, sometimes. Well done.
-The middle of the film seemed a bit overlong than it should perhaps be, but in retrospect it’s necessary to understand the character’s immersion into his avatar’s world and his subsequent emotional transformation.
Score: Frankly, this is one of the most spectacular scores I’ve been treated to, not because of a particular piece of music that elevates itself about the rest (like the signature John Williams’ scores from Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Superman, and such), but because of the seemingly perfect way the sound coalesces with the spirit of each and every scene it accompanies. When a score can tell a story by evoking the feeling of the images before your eyes, when image and sound fuse to capture the essence of a shot in richly textured detail, you know you’re in the presence of greatness. Hail, Mr. Horner!
Oscar. Besides set design, score and a plethora of technical awards, I just can’t see this film deserving any of the major recognitions. (Definitely not original screenplay or best picture, although best Director looks like a reasonable proposition). Despite the solid storytelling and a creative meshing of well-known themes and ideas, the overall framework of the film is too formulaic to make it a deserving winner. Of course, the paradigm shift brought about by the 3D technology is a technical element that fortifies its case and surely must be considered.
But in the end, it’s the sociological context in which the film’s technological prowess is being introduced that will secure the best-picture Oscar: at a time when the business model of movies as a (theatrical) experience is being challenged by a tsunami-like wave of new media that menaces to shift film-watching to the PC, laptop, cellphone (maybe even the microwave, eventually!), Avatar brings hope that its added dimension (both literal and metaphorical) will help galvanize the public back towards the theaters, and maintain alive the romance between audiences and the silver screen as the medium of choice that links generations together (a Tree of Souls, if you will).
A few bulleted thoughts that grabbed my attention:
-Gaia: The high point was how the Gaia hypothesis was presented: a collective set of memories from the planet’s (moon, actually) sentient inhabitants from eras bygone preserved within itself; a planetary Library of Alexandria for the ages. It’s an interesting evolutionary concept, the natives’ fortunes tied to their ecological surroundings; their shared experiences, their past, being preserved in the spirits of their ancestors. No need for books (or memorizing them à la Fahrenheit 451) or computers, one can simply use a built-in biological “port” to connect with the shared collective wisdom: a true democracy of knowledge.
(Moreover, the representation of a symbiotic evolutionary process wherein both, people and planet, evolve together as a holistic, interdependent Being, and are sufficiently entangled to the point that the fate of different tribes is (ostensibly) intertwined with that of their home celestial body, is a nice metaphor of the Cold war doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The biological and ecological dependence is an organically-developed—by Nature itself—system of checks and balances: if sectarian strife brings about war, collective destruction of all factions, sooner or later, is assured. Every martial “victory” one tribe may attain over another is, by design, a pyrrhic one. The equivalent of the contemporaneous “armed peace” here on Earth—sans technology extrapolated to its tragic worst: nuclear weapons—has organically materialized. Darwinism at its romantic best!).
Religious undertones notwithstanding, the proposed scientific model (neural networking of “spirits” in another phase of existence with not only planet, but its flora and fauna too) analogizes an actual human brain in a quite elegant fashion: an Armstrong-ian giant leap from the mystical to a rational, scientifically-feasible template for an ecosystem in inextricable communion with the living beings that populate it.
-Buddhism: Just as Terminator presented Christian parallels in the annunciation of John Connor’s birth and supposed messianic stature, here Cameron threads a line towards a more philosophy-friendly, deity-less religion: Siddhartha’s own, Buddhism: Sigourney Weaver’s character’s is the Buddha that not only reaches Nirvana and becomes one with Truth & Perfect Knowledge (represented by the sacred tree, which is a proxy for Gautama’s Bodhi Tree), but also serves as the catalyst that, through its enlightened perspective, informs Pandora’s “sentient ecosystem” about the impending danger to its existence, awaking it from its passive, dormant state, so it can fulfill its own Darwinian purpose: survive through centrally coordinating its planet-encompassing neural network for an all-out, survival-of-the-fittest war against an exogenous enemy menacing the status quo upon which its existence is predicated.
(Sully himself can reasonably be read as a bodhisattva that abstains himself from reaching Nirvana and remains with his people, perhaps, not only out of love for la femme de ses rêves, but to eventually lead them to an evolutionary scientific leap harmonious with Nature, ushering a new era of progress).
-McGuffin: Cameron tends to use McGuffins in his films (John Connor in the 1st Terminator, la Coeur de la Mer in Titanic), and now he brings forth the unoriginally-named unobtanium, a priceless mineral that abounds in Pandora, coincidentally right under the tree where the native protagonists dwell. This serves to introduce the theme of the resource curse, i.e., the presence of a valuable commodity causing strife and exploitation to poor civilizations (rather than enhanced lifestyles) for reasons both endogenous as well as exogenous (this was most recently brought to life in the magnificent Blood Diamond). The “twist” here is that the natives were in such an early evolutionary stage (a non-commoditized, spiritual society) that they had no need for what the colonizers could offer them (i.e., no shiny mirrors for gold rip-off); their only desire being the status quo of their simple, yet spiritually-fulfilling existence, hence no bargaining was feasible, and war, inevitable (avatar infiltration or not).
(One glaring faux pas was using an actual piece of unobtanium rock placed in the corporate manager’s office in order to facilitate visual exposition to the audience, serving inadvertently to compromise the credibility of the story: in an actual corporate setting, a 20 million (or so) dollar mineral wouldn’t be idly sitting in a manager’s office to be shown to curious visitors; rather, it would be earning a profit in the market. Most shareholders would agree with this, to paraphrase one of the characters. Again, this is a small instance of actually detracting from the believability of the plot by trying to visually enhance exposition to the audience).
-Lack of peripheral characters: Besides the main 4 Na’avi protagonists (the leaders of the clan), the rest of the tribe is an anonymous mass of acolytes apparently devoid of individuality or opinions of their own. It would have been interesting if they had expounded more upon the basis of their society and shown a collage of the village’s daily activities.
-Emotional Evolution: The hero’s journey story prototype is made more interesting by the use of the antagonists to show the character’s emotional transition from human (when a Na’avi was his bête noire), to a man emotionally detached from his original race and progressively more attuned to his new nature and surroundings (the Colonel, initially a paternal figure of sorts, becomes his enemy). Kudos for this nifty trick!
-Deus ex machinas aplenty. The various other clans are only obliquely mentioned in one quick scene, yet that‘s sufficient to summon them at a moment’s notice, and garner their blind acquiescence and servitude when needed. This point should have really been worked upon via more screen time explaining the commonalities linking together Pandora’s different Na’avi clans (yes, they are symbiotic and common belief in Toruk Makto takes care of the leadership issue, but still it seems too contrived and convenient) . Without said scenes, the impromptu “coalition” seems like a gratuitous platform for an FX extravaganza typical of lesser films such as 2012 and 10,000 B.C.
On a lesser scale, the Na’avi poison arrows suddenly being able to penetrate the helicopter’s cockpit was a stretch, but most sad of all, was the wasted opportunity in the scene were Sully’s avatar was selected by the “flowery” souls of generations-past to be invited by Neyteri to the village. This introduced the messianic-chosen one theme—without justifying why he was chosen—when there was an actual reasonable explanation consistent with the screenplay: Sully’s avatar was, DNA-wise, part human, part Na’avi. Couldn’t his Na’avi side have been the previous Toruk Makto which, after being instantly organized by the spirits, received their protective embrace, thus explaining his sudden acceptance? Did Cameron left this (seemingly) correct explanation out to provide a more mystical feel? Whatever the case may be, the picture is lesser in its absence.
Screenplay: This was definitely the film’s nadir. All the interesting themes explored (colonialism, capitalism, human—and alien— individual and societal nature, symbiosis with the environment, et cetera), are diffused in an extremely formulaic script that seems back-engineered to fit the director’s agenda. That being said, the main characters are very well delineated and show a malleable emotional growth in alignment with the plot’s progression (excepting of course the hardcore capitalist and warmonger colonel who remain as static in the film as they would likely have in a real life setting).
The dialogue, on the other hand was more effective, drawing on a minimalist, to-the-point style—with few witty one-liners—as is to be expected from scientists and tribal beings in communion with their spiritual selves. George Lucas should take note: verbosity sometimes distracts attention from the plot. In Avatar’s case, the dialogue struck a perfect chord with the mood of the film and characters. Less is more, sometimes. Well done.
-The middle of the film seemed a bit overlong than it should perhaps be, but in retrospect it’s necessary to understand the character’s immersion into his avatar’s world and his subsequent emotional transformation.
Score: Frankly, this is one of the most spectacular scores I’ve been treated to, not because of a particular piece of music that elevates itself about the rest (like the signature John Williams’ scores from Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Superman, and such), but because of the seemingly perfect way the sound coalesces with the spirit of each and every scene it accompanies. When a score can tell a story by evoking the feeling of the images before your eyes, when image and sound fuse to capture the essence of a shot in richly textured detail, you know you’re in the presence of greatness. Hail, Mr. Horner!
Oscar. Besides set design, score and a plethora of technical awards, I just can’t see this film deserving any of the major recognitions. (Definitely not original screenplay or best picture, although best Director looks like a reasonable proposition). Despite the solid storytelling and a creative meshing of well-known themes and ideas, the overall framework of the film is too formulaic to make it a deserving winner. Of course, the paradigm shift brought about by the 3D technology is a technical element that fortifies its case and surely must be considered.
But in the end, it’s the sociological context in which the film’s technological prowess is being introduced that will secure the best-picture Oscar: at a time when the business model of movies as a (theatrical) experience is being challenged by a tsunami-like wave of new media that menaces to shift film-watching to the PC, laptop, cellphone (maybe even the microwave, eventually!), Avatar brings hope that its added dimension (both literal and metaphorical) will help galvanize the public back towards the theaters, and maintain alive the romance between audiences and the silver screen as the medium of choice that links generations together (a Tree of Souls, if you will).
miércoles, 17 de febrero de 2010
(500) Days of Summer
A quirky look back at what is, perhaps, the truest film about the nature/concept/idea of love you may ever see
This is not a film about romance.
It is a voyage to try and decode the concept of love.
A romantic comedy, this is not.
A few laughs are sprinkled to keep you engaged, though.
Just forget nomenclature, and enjoy the ride.
Peace out.
(And Happy Valentine’s)
Day (-11,628)
You won sperm race. Congratulations!
Day (498)
If there’s no sunlight in Summersville, why not move? A fantasy cannot provide shadow (or warmth) when cold, icy snow dominates the panorama at the other side of the window.
(Punxsutawney Phil can be a bitch sometimes).
Day (3)
A vision. An oasis of hope in your Sisyphus-like existence. !Y el azul celaje de sus ojos! (Now you’re even thinking in another language!). Could she be the one?
Day (73)
Usually a child is endowed with innocence and unbounded idealism. Here, Tom’s kid sister showcases the opposite: experience, reason, common sense, i.e., the qualities Tom has unconsciously blocked to keep alive the fantasy he so passionately wants to indulge. A kid as the voice of reason? Perhaps this is not a typical film.
Day (29)
She has an eclectic musical taste—which matches yours! What if that over-used cultural meme, “Opposites attract,” was wrong? After all, you enjoy being around each other!
Day 314
Yes, the ending of The Graduate is (ostensibly) blissful. Have you asked yourself what happens after they get out of the bus? Moreover, what do you actually know about Summer? Her history? Family? Red flags are your friend.
Day (272)
Penis! PEnis! PENis! PENIs! PENIS!!!!
(...)
(Love?)
Day (17)
Having a steady job? Good.
Assisting your best friend in his drunken escapades? Not as good.
Getting osculated at the copy machine by the girl of your dreams? Priceless!
(For everything else, there’s Hallmark).
Day (432)
Perspective: Noun. An event can be interpreted differently by the same person, given enough time.
(...)
Getting osculated at the copy machine by the girl of your dreams? A nightmare?
Day (47)
Mot: French term for word. (And, also, an anagram of Tom). What are the odds? Having a name that speaks about what you do: using words to build sentences—not edifying buildings out of concrete blocks. What if la femme de tes rêves worked at the same greeting card factory you write your words out? Wait, she does. Clearly meant to be! The footprint of Destiny could not be clearer...
Quoth the Bard: “What’s in a name?...”
Day (387)
Hallmark isn’t evil, nor is it good. It’s a tool. As such, it can be wielded wisely...or poorly. There are 2 kinds of people: those who defer to greeting cards to communicate their feelings, and those who rather speak their own words. Of course, many a times, neither group is sufficiently attuned to their own feelings for their message to be rooted in actual emotions. How close are you connected to your metaphorical heart?
Day (212)
Life is lived linearly. Memories, meanwhile, flash forward and back in a non linear, unpredictable pattern; they are disorderly structured. Chaos theory at work: one day you feel liked (lying in bed, with her...in front of a chinese family), the other ignored (how could she not notice you playing her song!), then you could swear she loves you (she's just having trouble articulating it. No worries). (...)
Love (or the perception of it) is a rollercoaster ride which capriciously trascends the tidiness of time.
Day (167)
If your best memories about domestic life with your (desired) partner spring forth from a visit to an IKEA furniture store, perhaps mystery is not afoot; rather, something might be clearly amiss...
Day (238)
When Cupid beats you at chess, be a knight in shining armor and kneel down your king. If your own dreams have metamorphosed into a nightmare, maybe you ought to wake up, look at the board and reassess your strategy, mate.
Day (432)
She comes back to your life. Maybe the self-destructive, cynical defense mechanisms you, like a great architect, craftfully erected, were faulty. Perhaps she is actually the missing chandelier in the edifice of your romantic life.
Day (366)
Illusion: Tom is as good looking as Han Solo.
Reality: Summer is much better looking than Leia.
Day (366 1/2)
Tom: I love you.
Summer: I know.
Day (477)
Might spending your time with the (alleged) love of your life preclude you from actually meeting and recognizing HER who would be a better (and willing) life companion? While you wish for Pygmalion to come to life, SHE might pass you by...
Bueller? Bueller?
Day (23)
Meet cute at an elevator going up. Good omen!
Day (501)
Meet cute at top floor, where only way is down. Bad omen? Haven’t you watched the film? Now get out, stop looking for signs and let life—and spontaneous serendipity—be.
(And be a man for all seasons).
Day (-10,XYZ)
SHE won sperm race...
End Credits
This film pits the paradigm of illusion vis à vis reality. It uses the concept of love as its muse (although it is, actually, an abstract MacGuffin).
This film is dialectical: the clash between reality and make-believe breed perception. The closer perception gets to reality (and distances itself from the cloak of illusory imagination), the clearer the picture, and the better the foundations for your decisions, romantic or otherwise. (Yes, this film is Platonic, but from a philosophical perspective, not a romantic one).
This movie is Socratic, also. It doesn’t hand out answers, but it poses the right questions. The tools to solve them lie latent within you. If you dig deep, you will see the truth.
(And it shall set you free).
See you next Autumn.
This is not a film about romance.
It is a voyage to try and decode the concept of love.
A romantic comedy, this is not.
A few laughs are sprinkled to keep you engaged, though.
Just forget nomenclature, and enjoy the ride.
Peace out.
(And Happy Valentine’s)
Day (-11,628)
You won sperm race. Congratulations!
Day (498)
If there’s no sunlight in Summersville, why not move? A fantasy cannot provide shadow (or warmth) when cold, icy snow dominates the panorama at the other side of the window.
(Punxsutawney Phil can be a bitch sometimes).
Day (3)
A vision. An oasis of hope in your Sisyphus-like existence. !Y el azul celaje de sus ojos! (Now you’re even thinking in another language!). Could she be the one?
Day (73)
Usually a child is endowed with innocence and unbounded idealism. Here, Tom’s kid sister showcases the opposite: experience, reason, common sense, i.e., the qualities Tom has unconsciously blocked to keep alive the fantasy he so passionately wants to indulge. A kid as the voice of reason? Perhaps this is not a typical film.
Day (29)
She has an eclectic musical taste—which matches yours! What if that over-used cultural meme, “Opposites attract,” was wrong? After all, you enjoy being around each other!
Day 314
Yes, the ending of The Graduate is (ostensibly) blissful. Have you asked yourself what happens after they get out of the bus? Moreover, what do you actually know about Summer? Her history? Family? Red flags are your friend.
Day (272)
Penis! PEnis! PENis! PENIs! PENIS!!!!
(...)
(Love?)
Day (17)
Having a steady job? Good.
Assisting your best friend in his drunken escapades? Not as good.
Getting osculated at the copy machine by the girl of your dreams? Priceless!
(For everything else, there’s Hallmark).
Day (432)
Perspective: Noun. An event can be interpreted differently by the same person, given enough time.
(...)
Getting osculated at the copy machine by the girl of your dreams? A nightmare?
Day (47)
Mot: French term for word. (And, also, an anagram of Tom). What are the odds? Having a name that speaks about what you do: using words to build sentences—not edifying buildings out of concrete blocks. What if la femme de tes rêves worked at the same greeting card factory you write your words out? Wait, she does. Clearly meant to be! The footprint of Destiny could not be clearer...
Quoth the Bard: “What’s in a name?...”
Day (387)
Hallmark isn’t evil, nor is it good. It’s a tool. As such, it can be wielded wisely...or poorly. There are 2 kinds of people: those who defer to greeting cards to communicate their feelings, and those who rather speak their own words. Of course, many a times, neither group is sufficiently attuned to their own feelings for their message to be rooted in actual emotions. How close are you connected to your metaphorical heart?
Day (212)
Life is lived linearly. Memories, meanwhile, flash forward and back in a non linear, unpredictable pattern; they are disorderly structured. Chaos theory at work: one day you feel liked (lying in bed, with her...in front of a chinese family), the other ignored (how could she not notice you playing her song!), then you could swear she loves you (she's just having trouble articulating it. No worries). (...)
Love (or the perception of it) is a rollercoaster ride which capriciously trascends the tidiness of time.
Day (167)
If your best memories about domestic life with your (desired) partner spring forth from a visit to an IKEA furniture store, perhaps mystery is not afoot; rather, something might be clearly amiss...
Day (238)
When Cupid beats you at chess, be a knight in shining armor and kneel down your king. If your own dreams have metamorphosed into a nightmare, maybe you ought to wake up, look at the board and reassess your strategy, mate.
Day (432)
She comes back to your life. Maybe the self-destructive, cynical defense mechanisms you, like a great architect, craftfully erected, were faulty. Perhaps she is actually the missing chandelier in the edifice of your romantic life.
Day (366)
Illusion: Tom is as good looking as Han Solo.
Reality: Summer is much better looking than Leia.
Day (366 1/2)
Tom: I love you.
Summer: I know.
Day (477)
Might spending your time with the (alleged) love of your life preclude you from actually meeting and recognizing HER who would be a better (and willing) life companion? While you wish for Pygmalion to come to life, SHE might pass you by...
Bueller? Bueller?
Day (23)
Meet cute at an elevator going up. Good omen!
Day (501)
Meet cute at top floor, where only way is down. Bad omen? Haven’t you watched the film? Now get out, stop looking for signs and let life—and spontaneous serendipity—be.
(And be a man for all seasons).
Day (-10,XYZ)
SHE won sperm race...
End Credits
This film pits the paradigm of illusion vis à vis reality. It uses the concept of love as its muse (although it is, actually, an abstract MacGuffin).
This film is dialectical: the clash between reality and make-believe breed perception. The closer perception gets to reality (and distances itself from the cloak of illusory imagination), the clearer the picture, and the better the foundations for your decisions, romantic or otherwise. (Yes, this film is Platonic, but from a philosophical perspective, not a romantic one).
This movie is Socratic, also. It doesn’t hand out answers, but it poses the right questions. The tools to solve them lie latent within you. If you dig deep, you will see the truth.
(And it shall set you free).
See you next Autumn.
viernes, 12 de febrero de 2010
Un amigo a través de la ventana
Quizo el destino que decidieras contruir tu casa en la palmera justo frente a mi ventana. Agradezco a las Fates esa aparentemente fortuita escogencia de locación domicilial, pues resultó en la ofrenda de tu compañía. Posiblemente nunca me conociste, si bien durante 3 semanas te saludaba todas las mañanas al despertarme. Tal vez, a través del vidrio polarizado distinguías mi presencia, mas nunca supistes que te observaba cariñosamente --como un padre a un hijo-- y deseaba hablar contigo y conocer más de tí --además que eres un prodigioso arquitecto, claro está--.
Durante las tardes lluviosas de fin de semana, observaba preocupado tu palmera columpiarse, víctima de los caprichos de la naturaleza, mientras tú permanecías impertérrito, paternalmente protegiendo al huevo del cual 5 días atrás finalmente brotaría a la vida tu pequeño hijo.
Recuerdo con alegría cuando elongaba mi cuello más allá de sus límites físicos para lograr --acaso-- observar ese blanco como la nieve ovoide tranquilamente reposando sobre el nido cuando tú te ibas en procura de alimento; sonrío para mis adentros cuando te recuerdo regresar a casa, cambiar de posición el frágil huevito --temporal hogar de tu futuro heredero-- y señorialmente acomodarte sobre él, dándole calor y --más importante-- transmitiéndole amor.
Las noches heladas de invierno, tu mojado cuerpo noblemente colocado sobre tu futura cría, tus húmedas alas cobijándole protectoramente. Cómo hubiese querido comunicarme contigo y ofrecerte posada en mi humilde hogar, tener la posibilidad de alimentarte, calentarte...Desafortunadamente, la Naturaleza no diseñó un lenguaje común para que pudiésemos entendernos.
LLegaría la mañana del pasado domingo cuando, al despertar e ir a verte, te encontraría posado sobre el borde de tu hogar, delicadamente extendiendo tu cabeza hacia abajo, de manera que la lombriz sostenida en tu pico pudiese ser alcanzada por tu recién nacido hijo: ¡Zippy, ya eres padre..Tu nido se había convertido en cuna! No tienes idea cuánto disfruté ese mágico momento; tras emocionalmente vivir contigo la prolongada espera hacia la culminación de la gestación de tu ahora nacido bebé, el verlo brotar a la vida y alimentarse por primera vez de la boca de su padre --para luego nuevamente esconder su aún tenuemente plumado cuerpo y disfrutar de su banquete en el comfort del acogedor hogar de ramitas que tan hábilmente le diseñaste-- fue un hito que dudo olvidaré.
El tormentoso invierno amenazantemente azotando, las ramas de los árboles caprichosamente estremeciéndose, tu hogar valientemente resistiendo los crueles embates desde la frágil palmera de la cual ya por 3 semanas habías sido inquilino. Mi temor por tu destino --y el del encantador regalo que tan sólo 2 días atrás hubiese dejado la cigueña: Zippy lassos stork!-- se acrecentaba. La mañana del martes, tu cuna se mostraba parcialmente inclinada hacia el piso; una despiadada espada de Damocles se cernía inevitablemente sobre su estabilidad estructural: Sólo nos quedaba anhelar que la Fortuna permitiese que tu encantadora criatura --bautizada "Nildito" en honor de mi querida hermana-- hubiese logrado ya desarrollar sus alas para el inevitable momento cuando su cuna no resistiese ya más.
La mañana del miércoles iniciaría promisoriamente. La calle lucía seca; al parecer no había llovido durante la noche. Seguramente la cuna de Nildito habría aguantado un día más...Desde mi lado de la ventana predominaba la confianza, la alegría, el regocijo: Todo permanecía igual, mas, al levantar la mirada, la magnitud de la tragedia acribilló mis ojos sin misericordia alguna: El nido-cuna perpendicular al suelo, casi por completo derrumabo. En eso momento te ví, posado sobre la negra reja que circunda mi casa, observando frenéticamente tu derredor, percibiendo visualmente todo el jardín con la esperanza aún latiendo. Diez minutos permaneciste sólo en esa fría reja, la amargura de lo inevitable poco a poco haciendo mella en tu corazón. Tu búsqueda fue infructuosa; es mejor que haya sido así, que no hayás visto lo que minutos después me tocó comprobar.
El jardín alrededor de una palmera, un recodo de verdor en el artificial panorama urbano. La hierba recibiendo el acogedor calor del Sol, ignorando de que sus rayos no eran para ella, sino para la frágil figura que inerte yacía posada sobre ella. Aún sin plumas, sus alas apenas ligeramente formadas, descansaba una tierna criatura, su existencia prematuramente interrumpida por el gélido abrazo del suelo 7 metros debajo de su cuna. Con su pico abierto, el cuerpo inmóvil de Nildito reposaba, mientras su alma --envuelta de pureza e inocencia-- ascendía hacia los Cielos, donde su fulgurante --si bien efímera-- luz, brillaría eternamente.
Hoy miércoles 24 de mayo, pasa a mejor vida Nildito. Con especial cariño lo recordarán por siempre Carlos y su querido amigo del otro lado de la ventana, Zippy, el pajarito más encantador que jamás haya existido.
Durante las tardes lluviosas de fin de semana, observaba preocupado tu palmera columpiarse, víctima de los caprichos de la naturaleza, mientras tú permanecías impertérrito, paternalmente protegiendo al huevo del cual 5 días atrás finalmente brotaría a la vida tu pequeño hijo.
Recuerdo con alegría cuando elongaba mi cuello más allá de sus límites físicos para lograr --acaso-- observar ese blanco como la nieve ovoide tranquilamente reposando sobre el nido cuando tú te ibas en procura de alimento; sonrío para mis adentros cuando te recuerdo regresar a casa, cambiar de posición el frágil huevito --temporal hogar de tu futuro heredero-- y señorialmente acomodarte sobre él, dándole calor y --más importante-- transmitiéndole amor.
Las noches heladas de invierno, tu mojado cuerpo noblemente colocado sobre tu futura cría, tus húmedas alas cobijándole protectoramente. Cómo hubiese querido comunicarme contigo y ofrecerte posada en mi humilde hogar, tener la posibilidad de alimentarte, calentarte...Desafortunadamente, la Naturaleza no diseñó un lenguaje común para que pudiésemos entendernos.
LLegaría la mañana del pasado domingo cuando, al despertar e ir a verte, te encontraría posado sobre el borde de tu hogar, delicadamente extendiendo tu cabeza hacia abajo, de manera que la lombriz sostenida en tu pico pudiese ser alcanzada por tu recién nacido hijo: ¡Zippy, ya eres padre..Tu nido se había convertido en cuna! No tienes idea cuánto disfruté ese mágico momento; tras emocionalmente vivir contigo la prolongada espera hacia la culminación de la gestación de tu ahora nacido bebé, el verlo brotar a la vida y alimentarse por primera vez de la boca de su padre --para luego nuevamente esconder su aún tenuemente plumado cuerpo y disfrutar de su banquete en el comfort del acogedor hogar de ramitas que tan hábilmente le diseñaste-- fue un hito que dudo olvidaré.
El tormentoso invierno amenazantemente azotando, las ramas de los árboles caprichosamente estremeciéndose, tu hogar valientemente resistiendo los crueles embates desde la frágil palmera de la cual ya por 3 semanas habías sido inquilino. Mi temor por tu destino --y el del encantador regalo que tan sólo 2 días atrás hubiese dejado la cigueña: Zippy lassos stork!-- se acrecentaba. La mañana del martes, tu cuna se mostraba parcialmente inclinada hacia el piso; una despiadada espada de Damocles se cernía inevitablemente sobre su estabilidad estructural: Sólo nos quedaba anhelar que la Fortuna permitiese que tu encantadora criatura --bautizada "Nildito" en honor de mi querida hermana-- hubiese logrado ya desarrollar sus alas para el inevitable momento cuando su cuna no resistiese ya más.
La mañana del miércoles iniciaría promisoriamente. La calle lucía seca; al parecer no había llovido durante la noche. Seguramente la cuna de Nildito habría aguantado un día más...Desde mi lado de la ventana predominaba la confianza, la alegría, el regocijo: Todo permanecía igual, mas, al levantar la mirada, la magnitud de la tragedia acribilló mis ojos sin misericordia alguna: El nido-cuna perpendicular al suelo, casi por completo derrumabo. En eso momento te ví, posado sobre la negra reja que circunda mi casa, observando frenéticamente tu derredor, percibiendo visualmente todo el jardín con la esperanza aún latiendo. Diez minutos permaneciste sólo en esa fría reja, la amargura de lo inevitable poco a poco haciendo mella en tu corazón. Tu búsqueda fue infructuosa; es mejor que haya sido así, que no hayás visto lo que minutos después me tocó comprobar.
El jardín alrededor de una palmera, un recodo de verdor en el artificial panorama urbano. La hierba recibiendo el acogedor calor del Sol, ignorando de que sus rayos no eran para ella, sino para la frágil figura que inerte yacía posada sobre ella. Aún sin plumas, sus alas apenas ligeramente formadas, descansaba una tierna criatura, su existencia prematuramente interrumpida por el gélido abrazo del suelo 7 metros debajo de su cuna. Con su pico abierto, el cuerpo inmóvil de Nildito reposaba, mientras su alma --envuelta de pureza e inocencia-- ascendía hacia los Cielos, donde su fulgurante --si bien efímera-- luz, brillaría eternamente.
Hoy miércoles 24 de mayo, pasa a mejor vida Nildito. Con especial cariño lo recordarán por siempre Carlos y su querido amigo del otro lado de la ventana, Zippy, el pajarito más encantador que jamás haya existido.
Film Q & A (SERIOUS version)
1. La película de tu infancia: Ferris Bueller's Day Off
2. Tu película favorita (la #1): It’s a Wonderful Life / Love Actually / Star Wars.
3. La peor de todas las que has visto: The Fog.
4. Géneros cinematográficos preferidos: Romantic Comedies, Dystopic Sci-fi.
5. Lloraste a moco tendido viendo: IaWL, when Clarence gets his wings. Niagara Falls meets Iguazú and Victoria.
6. Pasaste un miedo espantoso con: When the phone rang while watching The Ring!
7. La más divertida: Eurotrip. (But don’t tell Scottie: he doesn’t know!).
8. Cine independiente y/o extranjero o made in Hollywood: Hollywood, by 12 parsecs.
9. Una gran decepción fue: Fart: The Movie / Children of Men
10. Mejor actor: Christian Bale / Jimmy Stewart
11. Mejor actriz: Kate Winslet
12. Mejor actor hispano: N/A
13. Mejor actriz hispana: N/A
14. Peor actor: Pauly Shore
15. Peor actriz: Pamela Anderson , Carmen Electra...
16. Peor actor hispano: N/A
17. Peor actriz hispana: N/A
18. Actor/Actriz más atractiva: Jennifer Connelly
19. Una escena dramática inolvidable: Field of Dreams (spoiler): When the catcher takes off his mask revealing himself to be Ray’s estranged dad.
20. Una escena cómica: When they give the Bratislavan waiter a few cents and he goes: “I’m rich. I quit!—Eurotrip
21. Una escena realmente terrorífica: Hannibal Lecter feeding some dude HIS own brain. As if!
22. Una frase emblemática que atesores: Chance favors the prepared mind—Undersiege 2: Dark Territory.
23. El mejor director vivo: M. Night Shyamalan
24. Y el mejor director ya fallecido: Frank Capra
25. La mejor película de animación: Meet the Robinsons
26. La mejor adaptación de un libro: The 10 Commandments.
27. La mejor adaptación de un cómic: Batman Begins
28. Película más esperada en estos momentos: Sherlock Holmes.
29. Película que esperas tener en tu colección: It Happenned One Night.
30. La última que adquiriste: Pride of the Yankees
2. Tu película favorita (la #1): It’s a Wonderful Life / Love Actually / Star Wars.
3. La peor de todas las que has visto: The Fog.
4. Géneros cinematográficos preferidos: Romantic Comedies, Dystopic Sci-fi.
5. Lloraste a moco tendido viendo: IaWL, when Clarence gets his wings. Niagara Falls meets Iguazú and Victoria.
6. Pasaste un miedo espantoso con: When the phone rang while watching The Ring!
7. La más divertida: Eurotrip. (But don’t tell Scottie: he doesn’t know!).
8. Cine independiente y/o extranjero o made in Hollywood: Hollywood, by 12 parsecs.
9. Una gran decepción fue: Fart: The Movie / Children of Men
10. Mejor actor: Christian Bale / Jimmy Stewart
11. Mejor actriz: Kate Winslet
12. Mejor actor hispano: N/A
13. Mejor actriz hispana: N/A
14. Peor actor: Pauly Shore
15. Peor actriz: Pamela Anderson , Carmen Electra...
16. Peor actor hispano: N/A
17. Peor actriz hispana: N/A
18. Actor/Actriz más atractiva: Jennifer Connelly
19. Una escena dramática inolvidable: Field of Dreams (spoiler): When the catcher takes off his mask revealing himself to be Ray’s estranged dad.
20. Una escena cómica: When they give the Bratislavan waiter a few cents and he goes: “I’m rich. I quit!—Eurotrip
21. Una escena realmente terrorífica: Hannibal Lecter feeding some dude HIS own brain. As if!
22. Una frase emblemática que atesores: Chance favors the prepared mind—Undersiege 2: Dark Territory.
23. El mejor director vivo: M. Night Shyamalan
24. Y el mejor director ya fallecido: Frank Capra
25. La mejor película de animación: Meet the Robinsons
26. La mejor adaptación de un libro: The 10 Commandments.
27. La mejor adaptación de un cómic: Batman Begins
28. Película más esperada en estos momentos: Sherlock Holmes.
29. Película que esperas tener en tu colección: It Happenned One Night.
30. La última que adquiriste: Pride of the Yankees
Film Q & A (tongue-in-cheek version)
1. La película de tu infancia: The Exorcist
2. Tu película favorita (la #1): The one with the gay rabbit
3. La peor de todas las que has visto: Children of Men / Junior / The one where the gay rabbit dies.
4. Géneros cinematográficos preferidos: Porn
5. Lloraste a moco tendido viendo: Crying is for sissies.
6. Pasaste un miedo espantoso con: My Little Pony: The Movie
7. La más divertida: Saving Private Ryan
8. Cine independiente y/o extranjero o made in Hollywood: Cine pirata
9. Una gran decepción fue: Fart: The Movie
10. Mejor actor: Pauly Shore
11. Mejor actriz: Jessica Simpson
12. Mejor actor hispano: Enrique Gómez Bolaños
13. Mejor actriz hispana: La Chilindrina
14. Peor actor: Leo (aunque es un rico!).
15. Peor actriz: Rupaul
16. Peor actor hispano: Ignacio Santos
17. Peor actriz hispana: Jennifer López’ ass
18. Actor/Actriz más atractiva: Vincent Schiavelli / Darlene Cates
19. Una escena dramática inolvidable: When Jim Carrey farts in the elevator-Liar, Liar.
20. Una escena cómica: La muerte de la mamá de Bambi
21. Una escena realmente terrorífica: Heath and Jake's passionate kiss. The horror!
22. Una frase emblemática que atesores: Greed is good-Gordon Gekko.
23. El mejor director - vivo: Mel Gibson
24. Y el mejor director - ya fallecido: Mel Gibson (resucitó!).
25. La mejor película de animación: Bring it on (qué bien animan esas porristas!).
26. La mejor adaptación de un libro: Da Vinci Code.
27. La mejor adaptación de un cómic: Cualquiera en la que salga Brandon Routh!
28. Película más esperada en estos momentos: The one where the gay rabbit loses his virginity to a hippo.
29. Película que esperas tener en tu colección: The one where the hippo tells the rabbit he’s his father.
30. La última que adquiriste: Why buy them? Become a movie critic and they give them to you for free!
2. Tu película favorita (la #1): The one with the gay rabbit
3. La peor de todas las que has visto: Children of Men / Junior / The one where the gay rabbit dies.
4. Géneros cinematográficos preferidos: Porn
5. Lloraste a moco tendido viendo: Crying is for sissies.
6. Pasaste un miedo espantoso con: My Little Pony: The Movie
7. La más divertida: Saving Private Ryan
8. Cine independiente y/o extranjero o made in Hollywood: Cine pirata
9. Una gran decepción fue: Fart: The Movie
10. Mejor actor: Pauly Shore
11. Mejor actriz: Jessica Simpson
12. Mejor actor hispano: Enrique Gómez Bolaños
13. Mejor actriz hispana: La Chilindrina
14. Peor actor: Leo (aunque es un rico!).
15. Peor actriz: Rupaul
16. Peor actor hispano: Ignacio Santos
17. Peor actriz hispana: Jennifer López’ ass
18. Actor/Actriz más atractiva: Vincent Schiavelli / Darlene Cates
19. Una escena dramática inolvidable: When Jim Carrey farts in the elevator-Liar, Liar.
20. Una escena cómica: La muerte de la mamá de Bambi
21. Una escena realmente terrorífica: Heath and Jake's passionate kiss. The horror!
22. Una frase emblemática que atesores: Greed is good-Gordon Gekko.
23. El mejor director - vivo: Mel Gibson
24. Y el mejor director - ya fallecido: Mel Gibson (resucitó!).
25. La mejor película de animación: Bring it on (qué bien animan esas porristas!).
26. La mejor adaptación de un libro: Da Vinci Code.
27. La mejor adaptación de un cómic: Cualquiera en la que salga Brandon Routh!
28. Película más esperada en estos momentos: The one where the gay rabbit loses his virginity to a hippo.
29. Película que esperas tener en tu colección: The one where the hippo tells the rabbit he’s his father.
30. La última que adquiriste: Why buy them? Become a movie critic and they give them to you for free!
Even if Kurt Warner retires, the Hall Beckons
(Written before Warner's last game prior to calling it quits)
Much controversy has been built around the recent rumor of Kurt Warner calling it quits after this post-season culminates, thus voiding the last year of his contract. Considering the same musings were ubiquitous after Arizona’s implausible Super Bowl run last season, apparently it’s déjà vu all over again. However, there’s one subtle distinction this time: Warner’s concussion midway through this season presents a health scare that might tilt the balance of an almost 40 year-old family man—as accomplished as any QB is expected to be at the NFL level—towards taking the less risky route and biding adieu to the game he loves.
Such situation would depend, in no small measure, to the success of the Cards in the playoffs—a Super Bowl victory would provide a perfect swan song to a storybook career. (And after gun-slinging his team to an epic 51-45 wild card victory against Green Bay on the strength of 377 yards and 5 TD passes, such an scenario is not as far-fetched as previously imagined).
Leaving such imponderables aside and regardless of how this season ends, one thing’s certain: Kurt Warner has earned his trip to Canton. In a shortened career that started in his late twenties after going undrafted and taking a circuitous detour through Arena Football and NFL Europe, he made the most of his maiden opportunity with the Rams, leading the Greatest Show on Turf to 2 Super Bowls in 3 years, winning one—and collecting 2 regular season MVP awards in the process. After injuries and lesser performances derailed his success, leading to being released by Saint Louis, and a failed stint with the Giants, he rejuvenated his career in Arizona, leading a young team without any semblance of a running game to the Big Show and, ever so cruelly, being left to impotently watch his defense fail to hold a lead in the waning seconds of the game.
Taking 2 different teams to a Super Bowl is no small feat, nor is it posting the 3 best passing yards game in Super Bowl history—or owning a 9-3 playoff record, for that matter—but when one combines such stellar postseason play with regular season numbers than rank among the most efficient ever in such metrics as yards per pass (7.95), completion percentage (65.5%) or QB rating (93.7), one can brush aside his shortened career (as evidenced by “only” amassing 208 passing TDs and over 32,000 yards) and without hesitation accept the self-evident narrative: Kurt Warner can hold his own with the legends of the game as one of the best passers to ever throw a football.
Much controversy has been built around the recent rumor of Kurt Warner calling it quits after this post-season culminates, thus voiding the last year of his contract. Considering the same musings were ubiquitous after Arizona’s implausible Super Bowl run last season, apparently it’s déjà vu all over again. However, there’s one subtle distinction this time: Warner’s concussion midway through this season presents a health scare that might tilt the balance of an almost 40 year-old family man—as accomplished as any QB is expected to be at the NFL level—towards taking the less risky route and biding adieu to the game he loves.
Such situation would depend, in no small measure, to the success of the Cards in the playoffs—a Super Bowl victory would provide a perfect swan song to a storybook career. (And after gun-slinging his team to an epic 51-45 wild card victory against Green Bay on the strength of 377 yards and 5 TD passes, such an scenario is not as far-fetched as previously imagined).
Leaving such imponderables aside and regardless of how this season ends, one thing’s certain: Kurt Warner has earned his trip to Canton. In a shortened career that started in his late twenties after going undrafted and taking a circuitous detour through Arena Football and NFL Europe, he made the most of his maiden opportunity with the Rams, leading the Greatest Show on Turf to 2 Super Bowls in 3 years, winning one—and collecting 2 regular season MVP awards in the process. After injuries and lesser performances derailed his success, leading to being released by Saint Louis, and a failed stint with the Giants, he rejuvenated his career in Arizona, leading a young team without any semblance of a running game to the Big Show and, ever so cruelly, being left to impotently watch his defense fail to hold a lead in the waning seconds of the game.
Taking 2 different teams to a Super Bowl is no small feat, nor is it posting the 3 best passing yards game in Super Bowl history—or owning a 9-3 playoff record, for that matter—but when one combines such stellar postseason play with regular season numbers than rank among the most efficient ever in such metrics as yards per pass (7.95), completion percentage (65.5%) or QB rating (93.7), one can brush aside his shortened career (as evidenced by “only” amassing 208 passing TDs and over 32,000 yards) and without hesitation accept the self-evident narrative: Kurt Warner can hold his own with the legends of the game as one of the best passers to ever throw a football.
After admitting to steroid use, is Mark McGwire HOF bound?
Finally, the worst kept secret in baseball is a secret no more. Mark McGwire has publicly admitted to using steroids intermittently in the 90’s, including the epic showdown against fellow slugger Sammy Sosa that caught the imaginations of millions, and revitalized the passion for baseball during that unforgettable 1998 season.
After countless allegations since his “vote of silence” pertaining to steroid usage in a series of Congressional hearings 5 years ago, Big Mac’s public image had taken a beating, as evidenced not only by his own isolation from the public eye, but by his repeated shunning by Cooperstown voters. As he prepares to initiate a new phase in his baseball career as hitting coach of his former team, the Saint Louis Cardinals, alongside his mentor, friend and staunch supporter, Tony La Russa, hopefully this (overly delayed) apology will bring some closure to the shroud of controversy and public outcry that has surrounded his persona for the better part of this recently concluded decade.
And, perhaps, this act of contrition may help pave the way to refurbishing his image and, just maybe, even allow for his eventual induction into the Hall of Fame. After all, America has time and again shown its propensity to forgive formerly beloved athletes and entertainers that, humans as they are, have committed mistakes and provided mea culpas (sometimes honest; sometimes induced by PR machinations). And, if McGwire’s steroid consumption chronology is to be believed, some of his best seasons prior to the beginning of the Steroid Era—circa 1993-94, came in years when he was clean: his 1987 record-breaking rookie season (49 dingers) and his 42 HRs back in 1992.
Moreover, considering that if one were to apply a “steroid premium” deduction to his numbers (say, a hefty 20%), he would have still attained the 50 homer plateau—twice! The fact is, Major League Baseball obligingly turned a blind eye to steroid consumption after the loss of public goodwill that succeeded the regrettable 1994 strike, resulting in an era where these substances were not officially banned, allowing for inflated offensive numbers where cheating became part of the clubhouse culture and, as such, implicitly condoned.
That does not excuse McGwire’s (and many others’) dubious behavior, but it’s only against this background that he and his fellow offenders must be judged. And in the end, history is likely to recognize that his on-field accomplishments, however illicitly aided they might have been, were otherworldly enough to warrant recognition alongside the pantheon of all-time greats that reside in Cooperstown.
After countless allegations since his “vote of silence” pertaining to steroid usage in a series of Congressional hearings 5 years ago, Big Mac’s public image had taken a beating, as evidenced not only by his own isolation from the public eye, but by his repeated shunning by Cooperstown voters. As he prepares to initiate a new phase in his baseball career as hitting coach of his former team, the Saint Louis Cardinals, alongside his mentor, friend and staunch supporter, Tony La Russa, hopefully this (overly delayed) apology will bring some closure to the shroud of controversy and public outcry that has surrounded his persona for the better part of this recently concluded decade.
And, perhaps, this act of contrition may help pave the way to refurbishing his image and, just maybe, even allow for his eventual induction into the Hall of Fame. After all, America has time and again shown its propensity to forgive formerly beloved athletes and entertainers that, humans as they are, have committed mistakes and provided mea culpas (sometimes honest; sometimes induced by PR machinations). And, if McGwire’s steroid consumption chronology is to be believed, some of his best seasons prior to the beginning of the Steroid Era—circa 1993-94, came in years when he was clean: his 1987 record-breaking rookie season (49 dingers) and his 42 HRs back in 1992.
Moreover, considering that if one were to apply a “steroid premium” deduction to his numbers (say, a hefty 20%), he would have still attained the 50 homer plateau—twice! The fact is, Major League Baseball obligingly turned a blind eye to steroid consumption after the loss of public goodwill that succeeded the regrettable 1994 strike, resulting in an era where these substances were not officially banned, allowing for inflated offensive numbers where cheating became part of the clubhouse culture and, as such, implicitly condoned.
That does not excuse McGwire’s (and many others’) dubious behavior, but it’s only against this background that he and his fellow offenders must be judged. And in the end, history is likely to recognize that his on-field accomplishments, however illicitly aided they might have been, were otherworldly enough to warrant recognition alongside the pantheon of all-time greats that reside in Cooperstown.
Double Feature: Yoda/Spidey + Yoda/Rose Dawson
Someplace in swampy Dagobah, the phone rings:
Yoda: 1-800-dildooine. Yoda, this is.
Spidey: Master Yoda, will I ever get laid with MJ?
Yoda: Hard to see, the will of the Force is.
Spidey: But could you help me out? Use your Jedi mind tricks on her, perhaps?
Yoda: Only on the weak-minded, they work.
::Hannah Montana: Hey, I resent that! ::
Spidey: Master Yoda, did you just shag Hannah Montana?!?
Yoda: Showed her the power of the Force, I did.
Spidey: You Lolita-loving dirty green muppet! Anyhoo, will you help me?
Yoda: Solve your problem I will, if Viagra you provide me.
Spidey: WTF! Do you use Viagra?!?
Yoda: When 900 years you are, wield your lightsaber as well, you won't.
Spidey: Oh my God. Listening to this is worse than fighting Doc Ock. I'm gone.
Yoda: May the Force be with you.
Painting Lessons
Rose: Master Yoda Vinci, do I really need to take my clothes off?
Yoda: A gentleman, I am. Help you, I will.
::Waves hand, clothes fall off::
Rose: Master Yoda Vinci, you're blushing. I doubt Monsieur Kenobi would have blushed.
Yoda: From the gay side of the Force, he is.
::Camera flash goes off::
Rose: Did you just take my picture naked? Weren't you supposed to paint my portrait?!?
Yoda: Portraits do not make one great. Wank off to your pic, I will. Farewell, mon coeur de la mer.
::Waves non-wanking hand, Rose's ship sinks::
Yoda: 1-800-dildooine. Yoda, this is.
Spidey: Master Yoda, will I ever get laid with MJ?
Yoda: Hard to see, the will of the Force is.
Spidey: But could you help me out? Use your Jedi mind tricks on her, perhaps?
Yoda: Only on the weak-minded, they work.
::Hannah Montana: Hey, I resent that! ::
Spidey: Master Yoda, did you just shag Hannah Montana?!?
Yoda: Showed her the power of the Force, I did.
Spidey: You Lolita-loving dirty green muppet! Anyhoo, will you help me?
Yoda: Solve your problem I will, if Viagra you provide me.
Spidey: WTF! Do you use Viagra?!?
Yoda: When 900 years you are, wield your lightsaber as well, you won't.
Spidey: Oh my God. Listening to this is worse than fighting Doc Ock. I'm gone.
Yoda: May the Force be with you.
Painting Lessons
Rose: Master Yoda Vinci, do I really need to take my clothes off?
Yoda: A gentleman, I am. Help you, I will.
::Waves hand, clothes fall off::
Rose: Master Yoda Vinci, you're blushing. I doubt Monsieur Kenobi would have blushed.
Yoda: From the gay side of the Force, he is.
::Camera flash goes off::
Rose: Did you just take my picture naked? Weren't you supposed to paint my portrait?!?
Yoda: Portraits do not make one great. Wank off to your pic, I will. Farewell, mon coeur de la mer.
::Waves non-wanking hand, Rose's ship sinks::
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)