The first was on April 29,1962, by President John F. Kennedy. He was welcoming a group of Nobel Prize winners to a dinner in their honor at The White House. And so, he said, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered together at the White House — with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.”
When I first read that, I honestly felt chills. It gives you an idea of the reverence for Thomas Jefferson. And you know what, his legacy is one of the most enduring of all-time - the Declaration of Independence. If you notice, in American history, no one has ever disputed the ideals behind the Declaration:-
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
You see, in the major conflicts in American history, it wasn't these ideals that were being debated (unlike, say, in another country we know). It was when society deviated from these ideals that conflict arose - Civil Rights Movement, Women's Suffrage, Civil War, World Wars 1 and 2 etc etc. Americans generally hold these ideals firmly, they just disagree on how to attain those ideals.
But, if a set of ideals have lasted for so long, gone unchallenged, isn't that a hell of a legacy? No one can really argue with the notion that all men are created equal and the right for these men to pursue life, liberty and happiness (please don't get uptight about men versus women bla bla bla - I obviously mean all humankind). And isn't that brilliant? An unassailable argument for a way of thinking about justice.
Anyway, that was quote 1. Quote 2 is more contemporary and hit home far more resoundingly, thought not quite so deep.
"I have never been more cognisant of my mortality than in 2012. If I die between now and July 20, I will not get to watch "The Dark Knight Rises.""
- Some commented on Youtube
That made me think, "Holy crap. That's true." You see, while I am most looking forward to The Hobbit, I already know the story of The Hobbit. I have no idea how the plot in the Dark Knight Rises is going to pan out.
But anyway, as we all know, time does pass by rather quickly. And y'know, before we know it, it's July the 20th and I'm all set in IMAX at Berjaya Times Square waiting to watch the Dark Knight Rises. Or so I tell myself anyway.
Though, to be fair, it's already March! End of March even! Hell, tomorrow's April. Isn't that so bloody quick? Sometimes, I'm happy to let life pass me by just so I'd get to a given destination quicker. But even so, there was much to be excited about in March. One of which was the return of Mad Men (did not make my earlier list simply because it wasn't confirmed then that Mad Men would return). The other was The Hunger Games (which didn't make my earlier list either simply because I wasn't that keen).
But let's start with Mad Men, which as we all know, I'm very excited about. And it did not disappoint.
Not least for the hotness that is Alison Brie.
But, really, I thought it did very well in capturing where we left off last and bringing us back onto the path. It sets up some very nice storylines for the future. Especially with Don and his you-may-know-what. How will Don Draper handle the new season? I also liked the storyline where Pete is now a serious go-getter and one of the top 3 most critical cogs of SCDP. And acting like a proper boss too.
Of course, as curvy as ever:-
I swear, she and Scarlett Johansson absolutely murder the notion that skinny is sexy. Look, curves are sexy. And much easier on the eye. Though, in fairness, calling Christina Hendricks curvy would be like calling Stephen Hawking smart or Usain Bolt fast. As my favourite sportswriter, Bill Simmons, puts is:-
"Joan's figure became obsolete for Hollywood characters in the age of healthy eating, chain-smoking, overexercising, plastic surgery and a few nefarious weight-watching tricks I'm not allowed to mention. In 1962, you could take Joan on a date to a diner, and she would order a patty melt, onion rings and a vanilla malt and finish off everything with a smile on her face. In 2008, if you took her to that same diner, she would order a Diet Coke and a garden salad with the dressing on the side, leave three times to smoke Marlboro Lights, stare at your onion rings for 20 minutes before eating two of them, disappear into the bathroom for another 20 minutes, then ask you to pay the check because she couldn't be late for her Pilates appointment. Also, there's a decent chance one of her ribs would break when she put on her seat belt on the way home."
And
"I have a friend who went to the 2008 Emmys and reported that the actress who plays Joan (Christina Hendricks) nearly caused a riot every time she walked across the room, left her seat for a bathroom trip or whatever. People were gaping at her the same way everyone would stare at a UFO if it just randomly landed on the stage. What's wrong with curves? What's wrong with a few female celebs defying the unwritten rule that it's much more appealing to men if they whittle themselves down to an unnatural weight like they're training to fight Brian Chute?"
The lesson, as always, curves are sexy.
Back to Mad Men. The coolest thing about Mad Men is the little intricate plots that start from virtually a twitch of the face, for example. Or a drop of an umbrella. Whatever. That's what makes it so exciting. Anything can happen. And throw in the setting of the Civil Rights Movement - the possibilities are endless. Will SCDP engage in desegregation? Will MLK and his assassination feature in the series? I don't know but my lips are licking for more.
Now, on to the Hunger Games. I haven't read the books for these, so my observations are just based on the movie.
Overall, I quite liked the movie. I thought a lot of the acting was very good individually though I think the sum of the parts was greater than the whole. Meaning, as a cast, it wasn't too great - a lack of chemistry. I think there were some very poignant and moving scenes. Where Katniss acknowledges District 11 was particularly memorable for me. And I thought it did a good job in capturing what a participant, in this case Katniss Aberdeen, would undergo while partaking in such a competition.
Speaking of, Jennifer Lawrence also proves that curves are sexy.
She's 22, I checked.
In terms of the movie, I thought the camerawork could have been a bit better. I guess they were going for a Cloverfield sort of feel but it was hard to see what was going on at times. However, I think, thematically, there should have been a far larger focus on the notion of "The Crowd."
As I was leaving the theater, I heard this one girl talking to her friends and saying, "Shows how perverse humanity can be." And yes, I agree. We, as humans, are a particularly brutal species. There are some among us willing to commit genocide just to achieve our aims. But to me, it's not the Games itself - the rumble between the 24 contestants - that is particularly perverse. In fact, it's not a new thing. We've been pulling this sort of shit in our history. Where people train to participate or are forced to participate in battle-to-the-death type sporting events. We have the gladiators, jousters, tribal initiations and all that sort of thing. That's quite well-documented throughout history.
What is perhaps not so obvious is the people who are watching these things, cheering for these things and essentially, providing demand for these things. In a way, we still do it these days - we cheer on people in sporting events (though obviously these aren't to-the-death battles, though you could argue boxers may end up dead after bouts) like they were commodities. We bet on player X to score 2 goals in a game. We bet on player Y to win the next Augusta Nationals. Whatever.
So, viewers of sporting events exist through history. But I find it really perverse that people can cheer on a to-the-death battle. I mean, sticking 24 kids in an arena and watching them battle has to be some serious Middle Ages fascist stuff. But it's one thing if it's for the amusement of the royals. It's another when EVERYONE else partakes in it. That, to me, is more chilly.
Stephen King has a book, where he writes under his pseudonym Richard Bachman, called "The Long Walk." Essentially, it's the same concept as this - dystopian future, the absolute rulers want a competition, kids take part etc etc. Instead of a battle to the death, 100 kids (who volunteered!!) are selected to take part in a walk to the death. Meaning, from the starting line onwards, the kids just have to keep walking.
No stops. Not for a break at all. Not for rain. Not for snow. Not for sleep. Not for food. Not for calls of nature. Nothing. If you stop, you get a warning. If you sabo someone else, you get a warning. If you walk below 6km/h, you get a warning. Once you accumulate 3 warnings for whatever reasons, you get a 'ticket'. The 'ticket' is a Carbine bullet to the head from the soldiers managing the race. Basically, you can't stop walking until you die or win.
The cool thing about this book, I thought, was its explication of "The Crowd." And how the Walkers, the participants, begin to recognise "The Crowd" as an entity of their own. And how they know "The Crowd" are essentially cheering on dead men but seem to have no qualms. That, I think is the real perverseness of it all.
But anyway, it's another 4 months or so till The Dark Knight Rises. As always, I would hope that the time blows by quickly enough. The Avengers comes up next. Chugging along. One foot at a time. Till I get to watch The Dark Knight Rises. Or, y'know, die.
No comments:
Post a Comment