Hallmark Movies: A small reason for my love of movies

Before I even start, I need to say that I think Hallmark movies are generally poorly made, horribly written, cheesily acted, and entirely manipulative attempts at filmmaking. That said, a Hallmark movie yesterday made me realize a small but definite reason for my love of movies (just not Hallmark ones). I'll explain.

My mom likes to watch sappy Hallmark channel movies so that she can shut her mind off and just be entertained by cheap love stories. I often make fun of them when I am around and she is watching one of them and yesterday was no different. I don't know the plot but the ending I walked in on basically went that the female protagonist had just realized that rather than the man she was chasing the whole film, it was actually the "good guy" best friend that she always depended on but never looked at as more than a friend that she suddenly loved and wanted to marry. She leaves the sought-after guy (who I presume is a jerk and she never noticed/cared) and finds the best friend and proclaims her love, only for him to tell her that he has finally moved on with his life (I presume after loving her for a long time) and doesn't know what she expects him to say after a long time of being unwanted. He then walks away and goes rock climbing (apparently a few feet away?). She decides that "hey, maybe it's time I actually put forth effort into caring about this guy rather than just walking all over his affections" (my guess at her thought process, not actual dialogue) and promptly switches outfits with the guy's climbing buddy, climbs up to where he is, and surprises him and proclaims her love. The guy is apparently able to change his mind after climbing fifty feet (or six feet up on a prop rock) and decides that even though he's been walked all over, unwanted, and has suffered numerous days of emotional pain and toil (again, I'm just assuming here, there's no dialogue to indicate), he's gonna go ahead and let it all slide and marry this girl. Then there's a jump forward to the wedding where they find some random card wishing them well and the girl throws it out for some reason. Boom. The end.

So what on earth does something this trite have to do with my love of movies? Well, I love movies (in small part) because of the fictional world of happy endings that they produce. It's the same in TV and books as well. In movies (and the other forms), the nice guy actually does get the girl (at least a lot of the time). In movies, the male best friend who has loved the girl for a long time actually ends up winning the girl's heart. In movies, love never remains unrequited or one-sided; the lovable loser finds love and the nice guy gets the girl. It's these sentiments that are nice thoughts. I'm not sure that I believe that any of it actually happens in reality, though. Of all the people that I know, I can't think of many "Hallmark moments" where the noble guy's feelings are eventually returned by his love. Most couples I know either just started dating or they had some early connection off which they built their relationship. I honestly don't know of any situation (with one possible exception) in which the guy who loves from afar gets the girl in the end. I'm not so cynical as to say it doesn't happen at all in reality, I just don't see it around me and I certainly have never seen it happen to me. So, it's nice to see those things in movies because it's a reminder that even though it may be fiction and might never actually happen in reality, there are other people who have laid eyes on such situations as unrequited love or love from afar and have fictionalized their own hopes onto a film script. "I'm not alone, I'll never be."

"I am a writer, a writer of fictions"

"I am the heart that you call home.


I've written pages

upon pages

trying to rid you from my

bones."


- The Engine Driver

Ripples & childhood

"You know what sucks? Realizing that everything you believe in is complete and utter bullshit? It sucks."


Hello, 2015.

The above is a line from (500) Days of Summer. That's one of the few films I know of that sends ripples through my heart and mind every time I watch it. It especially does so when you watch it while feeling very similar to the movie, both in character and circumstance ss. It's a film that I think is the most thoroughly "guy movie" in recent years. It's not filled with explosions, guns, sex symbols, or booze. In fact, I imagine most people would not view it as a "guy movie" much at all. However, I'll make my case nonetheless. I think it is thoroughly such a movie for two reasons: it is an amalgamation of different ways in which men get their heartbroken and it is also picture of the general underlying desires of most men, at least in our day and age.

My first point is primarily a point that only men would likely grasp. The movie sums up the subtle heartbreaks of different facets of a relationship. The hopeful man whose expectations don't match with reality. The thought of a chance of being with a woman being crushed by either her selfishness, her indifference/disinterest, or her choice for someone else. That glimpse of gleeful joy upon connection (sadly portrayed through Summer and Tom's first night act of sex) not lasting. The all-too-cruel concept of a girl displaying interest and care, only to then state that she only wants friendship and nothing more. The difficulty of watching the relationship wither and die and being unable to fix it. The strain of being so close to the person you care deeply for ss and yet being unable to change how they feel. The longing to defend, protect, and love a woman being met with the resentment of independence and relational autonomy. The feeling of being so very close and so very far at the same time. I could go on, but this has become enough of a rant as it is.
My point is that the film is filled with ways in which men are heartbroken. Perhaps I'm just reading my own stuff into it and maybe most men don't actually feel any of this and I'm just wrongfully generalizing, but from my interactions with friends, my viewings of film and television (Which are sourced by actual writers), and my readings of various books depicting relationships between men and women, it seems like this really is a collection of the difficulties of being the man in a relationship.

Additionally, I think this all leads to heartache because of the underlying desires of modern men. Only this morning I really grasped how much I have been affected by the culture around my childhood and I imagine it's the same for most others. I grew up watching tv shows and movies filled with examples of the man, often not the "cool" guy or the clear hero, simply being "there" for the woman and oftentimes laying down his life (either in small metaphorical ways or in literal ways). It's this idea of the "nice guy getting the girl" that has permeated my childhood ss. I just watched an episode of Phil of the Future and Kim Possible, two old Disney Channel shows I used to watch that are now on occasional replay. Both shows are great examples of what I'm talking about. Phil is the nice guy who does the right thing and becomes friends with Keely and because he's the good guy, he wins her heart. In Kim Possible, Ron is the best friend who is always willing to sacrifice his own time, desires, and even life (though it never comes to that point since it's a kid show) for Kim because he cares about her and loves her and at the end of the series, Kim realizes that she loves Ron and he's been the one she wanted the whole time. Now what does this have to do with my point? Well, I think it is an underlying desire of many men (At least in this day and age) to love and care for the girl, all the while carrying a hope that she would love him back. Or maybe it's not many men and it's only me and a few others. Maybe that's why I love the movie so much, 'cause it's rare.


Ultimately, it's Tom's own fault for his own heartbreak. Summer tells him she wants only casual (i.e. empty) and because of his desire for "the one," he's willing to adhere to that in hopes that it will progress. There's a key but subtle scene early on in their relationship where Summer tells Tom she isn't looking for a relationship and only wants it to be a casual thing. Tom responds by agreeing and says "Yeah, like casual, right? Take it slow." Right there is the difference between the two people. "Take it slow" implies there is an end goal, one that should be slowly traveled to. Summer, however, never implies that. She only claims casual. They're both at fault. Summer for being shallow and misleading to a guy who clearly has emotional instability and unrealistic expectations. Tom for being foolish and trying to fit Summer into his own keyhole ideal even though she clearly does not want the same as he does.

Anyway, enough of this madness.

"Isn't it peculiar how some traditions just fade away?

Long time no post, blog!

I'm watching A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving a day late and I don't care. While I don't think the Thanksgiving special is as good as the Great Pumpkin or the amazing Christmas special, the Thanksgiving one has its own set of joys. It has the usual Snoopy antics, the consistent worry of Charlie Brown, and the fun of characters like Peppermint Patty ("We'll keep these intimate feelings between us, Chuck"), Lucy (Always the trickster), and Marcy ("What do you think, sir?") Ever since I was young, I've loved the Charlie Brown holiday trilogy and I hope my love for it remains for the rest of my life.

Something Lucy says early on in the special got me thinking. The quote of the blog post refers to the proposed tradition of kicking the football before every Thanksgiving, which Charlie Brown believes and of which suffers the consequences. But what got me thinking is how things change and stay the same, almost always simultaneously. For example, holidays always look and feel different for different individuals, but it seems there are always consistent feelings toward the holiday season. Some people get all excited and happy during the season, while others are prone towards loneliness and alienation. It makes me think of a quote from the film Enemy at the Gates, "We tried so hard to create a society that was equal, where there'd be nothing to envy your neighbor. But there's always something to envy, a smile, a friendship, something you don't have and want to appropriate. In this world, even a Soviet one, there will always be rich and poor. Rich in gifts, poor in gifts. Rich in love, poor in love." I think that the holiday season brings about rich and poor in immaterial ways. Some people are rich in love, with families and friends surrounding them. Others are poor in love, feeling little to no community or warmth from those around them. I think our response to this should be two-fold. I think everyone ought to examine their own life in order to recognize the richness and poorness around them. Maybe you're feeling lonely because you don't have any significant other. Maybe that person you care for doesn't care back. Maybe someone in your family died recently. Maybe everything is going really great for you and you have an abundance of joy. Maybe you won't shed a single tear of sorrow this December. Regardless, I think it wise if we all remember to count the joys in our lives and also be mindful of the pain around us. Ultimately, I think Marcy sums it up well:
"Thanksgiving is more than eating, Chuck...we should just be thankful for being together. I think that's what they mean by 'thanksgiving.'"

Archipelago

Welcome 2014!

Anyway, I'm rewatching a movie called The Descendants. It's a movie about a father trying to handle his family situation dealing with the recent tragedy of his wife being in a coma following a boating accident, all the while dealing with two daughters he is not very close with. To further complicate things, he finds out his wife will not recover and in addition she was having an affair before the accident. All-in-all, it's a pretty good commentary on family and life. George Clooney plays the father and does it all, and his children do a good job of portraying the realistic difficulties of family life. All this, shot in the rarely-used backdrop of the Hawaiian islands.

There are two things that stand out to me in this movie. The first is the examination of family. Early on, Clooney's character describes his family, "A family seems exactly like an archipelago. All part of the same whole, but still separate and alone and always drifting slowly apart." I think this quote is very reflective of the culture we live in. Media dominates all of our lives and with the growth of cell phones, personal screens becoming escape routes from dealing with real life situation. I think there is a growing longing to return to older times, times not filled with images and flashing lights but defined by conversation, relationships, and community. Throughout the movie, the family first shows this separation very well and then slowly brings them together in the necessary community of family. And I think it is necessary, which brings me to the second thing that stood out to me. In an emotional scene with his wife after finding out both that she will die and that she was unfaithful, Clooney's character states, "Isn't the idea of marriage to make your partner's way in life a little easier? For me it was always harder with you." In a lot of the recent weddings I've attended (mostly very Christian), there has been multiple instances of "maintaining your marriage as the primary relationship in your home." I think this is very much a necessary statement to make. This has obviously been a difficulty since the Garden of Eden, but it is such a prevalent issue in modern times. Most often couples focus their attention and affections on the children, or on work, or on home life. It's no wonder divorces are so prevalent these days. Marriage has become so outside focused that often couples grow distant from each other. In The Descendants, Clooney's character focuses on his law practice more than on cultivating his marriage or raising his daughters. Not to say that it's not his wife's fault for her adultery, 'cause she made the choice, but the husband is never blameless in marital infidelity.

At this point, I want to return my focus to the movie and so I will end here.

The center?

Long time no see, blogger.com. I don't really have much a reason for the absence except busy-ness. Oh well.


Today I was watching this music video of a song by a band called Mogwai. The song is decent but as I watched the video, one of the early shots really intrigued me. The shot begins in the sky and then descends to focus on a person walking. The shot is very clearly done in order to make the person the focal point of it. This got me thinking. Why are we all so man-centered? Why is all of our culture, all of our politic, almost all of our everything focused on man? Even our religion, something that should be so distinctly NOT focused on man, is often more about us and OUR relation to God than it is to God Himself.

I think some of this comes naturally. God has created us in His image and therefore we are drawn to man for the trace of the divine. Like all natural things, however, this has been corrupted and turned into something more than just an appreciation. I do not think that our culture differs very much than Graeco-Roman cultures that worshipped man as the center of all things. Sure, we don't bow down to "gods" in the shape of bronzed men, but we have games to celebrate the physique of men, we spend billions of dollars to accessorize and decorate ourselves, even a "holiday" meant to give thanks is turned into a day to gorge on food and then shop for discounts on things we don't need.

This can't be how it should be.

Out of sight, out of mind

Tonight I finally got around to watching the new James Bond movie, Skyfall. It was good, though most people I know had hyped it so much that I had somewhat high expectations. It did not live up to these expectations but it was a good action movie nonetheless.
In it, there is a scene where Bond is in a casino of sorts and he is fighting some guys over a pit where there are multiple komodo dragons. Needless to say, Bond and one assailant fall into the pit. After some fighting, the bad guy is grabbed by one of the komodo dragons and dragged into the darkness screaming. Another dragon rushes to join in as Bond leaps out of the pit to safety while the man screams and is (presumably) eaten alive. Now in the rush and context of the movie, this scene might not stand out much to people. To me, I wouldn't have paid much attention to it had it might reminded me of another scene in a movie I recently saw. I saw Django Unchained the other week and while I loved it, there was one scene that really made me feel awful. I won't go into the plot but there is a scene where a black slave, who is already severely crippled from having been forced into fighting other slaves in full-on bloody fights, is given over by his owner to be torn apart and eaten by dogs. Now this scene is much darker in context than the Skyfall scene, but while the Skyfall scene did not really bother me, the Django scene did. Why? Because Django's director, Quentin Tarantino, showed the man being eaten alive. It was not a complete take of it, but there was a good 15 seconds of flesh being ripped off bones and screams of utter anguish. This scene bothered me, as it did one of the main characters who later plays the horror over in his mind.

So what does this have to do with Skyfall? Well, the scene in Skyfall did not bother me. However, it showed me a little about myself and I think about the world I live in. The key difference between these scenes is what the audience sees and doesn't see. In Django, we watch a man being ripped apart by dogs. In Skyfall, we merely see a man disappear in the shadows and scream. I think this says something very important about humanity. We don't care as long as we don't have to see.

The world. Unreached people groups. Lost people. Unbelievers.

These are some of the things we call other people. We distance ourselves from them by assigning them to a category, group, or system. Why? Because at the root of our hearts, we don't care about anyone but ourselves. So we distance ourselves in order to remain apathetic, yet we assign categories as if to seem like we do care. What matters is my flesh and blood, my choice, my life, me. I me mine. Other beings of flesh and blood, choice, life...they just don't matter. At least, not like we matter to ourselves.

So we don't like to see the man being torn apart by dogs. We can know its happening and can lull ourselves into being okay with it (as long as its distanced from us), but just don't make us see it. We can know that large numbers of people, with the same flesh and blood, choice, and life as us, are suffering and dying all over the world, but it's not something we really care about as long as we don't see it or have to know the names of the people. We can know that those around us are burdened, and maybe even make enough effort to whisper a half-heart, generalized prayer for them, but we all have our own burdens to look at so don't make us look at anyone else's. "The desert is in the heart of your brother."

So what do we do? We love, and we fight, and we love more. We love God first and foremost, beyond anything and everything else. "Though none go with me, still I will follow." And in His grace, we fight ourselves. We fight the heart in us that seeks to worship itself, that seeks to please me and only me, that pushes everything but me out of sight. And then, as we love God and fight our nature, we love others. We deny ourselves and we put others first. We give ourselves away, not because any other people deserve it, but because life and salvation were freely given to us when we did not deserve it. "Freely you have received, freely give."