![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. If you love Winnie the Pooh, this is just...adorable ... Christopher Robin Trailer -- it's a live action version of Winnie the Pooh, where the animals from Christopher Robin's childhood come and save the adult. Sort of similar to the "Hook" concept, but different. Also it's adorable, and touching, and I want to hug it. (It should be noted that I know nothing about AA Milne or his son's real life, nor do I want to know or particularly care. I just loved the Winnie the Pooh books and Disney Cartoons.
2. I was listening to a Q&A the other day, and the actor said something that...was rather interesting.
There's something to that age-old quote: "The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions."
After listening to that, I started re-watching Angel episodes from S5 on Hulu and it hit me clear as day...that was a major theme of the series and what it was about, you can't be a "Champion" or a "Hero" by saying your a hero and you're going to save the world -- your ego is dictating the show. If anything, you are a bit of jerk. You have no humility. It's your pride and vanity that is running things. And Angel demonstrated the consequences of that rather well -- depicting the problem with "playing" at being a hero or "thinking" you are one.
It's also shown in The Avengers 1 and The Avengers - Age of Ultron, where the writer undercuts the whole hero thing -- showing how the heroes are as destructive as the villains they fight. In fact all of the Marvel movies question what it is to be a hero. In Avengers:Infinity War --the bad guy, Thanaos, sees himself as "the hero", he's doing what must be done, what is needed to save the Universe. No one else has the strength of character, the resolve to do this thing! This in a way is an echo of the characterization of Angel, who shares a lot in common with Thanaos. It's my destiny to save the world. Only I can do this thing. I was prophesied to do it. Or if not, if prophecies aren't true, then I need to the right thing, the thing no one else can do, because I'm the best choice, I'm the vampire with a soul. I can't accidentally become human and be happy with Buffy -- no, because I haven't earned it with great deeds, I have to save the world! I have a greater purpose. I can't save her otherwise! It's a subversion of the hero trope. Those who set out to be heroes, often destroy what they think they can save, in order to save it, and themselves in the process. Their ego has taken over the show. Most villains see themselves as heroes. From their perspective, they are the hero of the piece. A true hero doesn't see themself as a hero at all.
Also Angel unlike Buffy was a series about regret. And if we can ever quite forgive ourselves for the things we've done that we've regretted. Angel's problem isn't whether other's will forgive him, but whether he can ever forgive himself. Forgiving oneself isn't the same thing as not feeling remorse. Or justifying the acts. It's saying, I did these horrible things. I regret that I did them. I cannot take them back. I forgive myself for being horrible and strive to do better tomorrow. Not forgiving yourself ...tends to land you in a depressive hole, of moping and brooding. The guilt overwhelms and either you fall back on old habits, or just disappear. If you don't forgive others...your hate and need for justice which can easily slide into vengeance takes over and eats away at you, until you very well may become the person you hate. The trick is to let go of both emotions...and that can only be done by forgiving the person, not the act, and letting it go.
Humans are horrible at doing this, because we can't often see past the act and how it feels, and as a result we let the emotions and pain of the act destroy us.
3. Hee...cjlasky decided to expand on my musical meme. This is for music geeks only, if you aren't a music nerd or geek, it will annoy or irritate you. I'm pretty much an all-around cultural nerd. And I find discussing this stuff relaxing and comforting.
*.Sinatra or Bing Crosby
Interesting. I've thought this one over a lot over the years...and I'd have to say Sinatra. It's sort of like comparing Astair to Gene Kelly...you either like the classical style or the raw and edgy one. Sinatra had a rawness..a street smart tough guy edge to his music that eluded Crosby. Crosby's voice was clear as a bell, but Sinatra's was well you felt his words in your gut.
Take for instance --- "My Way" which is a painful, twisting, declaration of self vs. say, the song White Christmas...which is soft and nostalgic balladary. Sinatra came from the streets of Hoboken, dirty, raw, and associated with crooks, Crosby from higher class.
Watch High Anxiety some time and see the differences in styles, it's no accident that Crosby plays the upper crust gent, while Sinatra plays the down and dirty journalist.
And Sinatra knew how to act the songs...he was in some respects the better actor of the two, with a broader range.
Weirdly, I'd have pitted Sinatra against Tony Bennet or Harry Connick Jr, instead, which are in some respects easier and harder.
*. Johnny Cash or Ray Charles
Hmmm...I wouldn't have put Cash against Ray Charles, I'd have pitted him against Willie Nelson, mainly because it's easier -- I don't like Nelson. (I don't like twangy voices. I like rough voices and clear voices. Nasal Southern Twang grates on my ears -- it's my problem with a lot of Country music. Cash has no twang. Nor does Ray Charles.)
Now you might think there's nothing to compare these two...but you'd be wrong. Both are deep voices, both told stories, and both were sort of boundary pushers. I'm less familiar with Ray Charles. Listened to a few songs here and there, watched the film with Jamie Fox, and I have a few on my MP3 player. But Cash -- I've got boatloads of songs from. I have some of his memorized. Cash's songs speak to my soul. Everything from "Man in Black" to "Ring of Fire" to the song about a folk music group that broke up because they made the mistake of talking about politics. (It's a hilarious song.)
Oh, and "Boy Named Sue". The man's a genius. He is by far my favorite country western singer and song writer. Ray Charles is more Rhythm and Blues, and he has song good songs...such as "Hit the Road Jack", similar to Cash's humorous tunes.
*. Hendrix or Clapton
Clapton lived longer than Hendrix and was able to make more music. So had more range. Hendrix's rendition of various Bob Dylan songs...blew me away, but I'm not sure he wrote many of his own. I remember seeing him on film in Monterey Pop and Woodstock, also saw the documentary, The Jimi Hendrix Story...I think it was called that, all way way back in the 1980s, when I was dating a Hendrix fan.
(I was raised with a brother, folks, and my brother is a music geek. He introduced me to Hendrix before my boyfriend did. My brother is such a music geek that he has rigged audio speakers around his house and has a streaming sound system. We both took up various instruments but neither of us has any musical talent whatesoever. We can't sing. And we can't play an instrument to save our lives. But it's not without trying. I tried piano and guitare, he tried cello, trumpet, and electric guitare. He actually did slightly better than I did. Neither of us can reproduce a note of music that can be endured by others.)
Anywho...Hendrix is known for his guitar solos. And his take on "All Along the Watch Tower" is legendary. I love it to pieces.
But Clapton...ah, Clapton...he is ranked as one of the best and enduring guitarists of all time. He started out in the band "Cream" but is known mainly for his lengthy solo career. And he changed music in ways that Hendrix sort of did, but died too young to fully accomplish. Clapton took what Hendrix had and built on it.
I like both, but I have to admit if push came to shove, I'd pick Clapton. Tears in Heaven, or Sunshine of Your Love, the versatility... For versatility and longevity...Clapton but for long complicated guitar solos...Hendrix?? God, I don't know. Now that I'm listening to them, I find myself jumping back and forth between the two.
[Leaving the rest of it for another time.]
2. I was listening to a Q&A the other day, and the actor said something that...was rather interesting.
Question: What do you think about the fact that Buffy, as a hero, always lied to her friends?
Actor: Well, heroes often are jerks if you think about it. When you go out with the idea that "you" will "save" someone or can save someone. Humility goes out the window. You're a bit on the wrong path right there. In Buffy, the hero was being forced to save people, she didn't want to be a hero, she didn't think she could be one, so she lied to the people around her -- hoping they'd never know, and the show was dealing with the problematic nature of that. How to be humble and be a "hero".
There's something to that age-old quote: "The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions."
After listening to that, I started re-watching Angel episodes from S5 on Hulu and it hit me clear as day...that was a major theme of the series and what it was about, you can't be a "Champion" or a "Hero" by saying your a hero and you're going to save the world -- your ego is dictating the show. If anything, you are a bit of jerk. You have no humility. It's your pride and vanity that is running things. And Angel demonstrated the consequences of that rather well -- depicting the problem with "playing" at being a hero or "thinking" you are one.
It's also shown in The Avengers 1 and The Avengers - Age of Ultron, where the writer undercuts the whole hero thing -- showing how the heroes are as destructive as the villains they fight. In fact all of the Marvel movies question what it is to be a hero. In Avengers:Infinity War --the bad guy, Thanaos, sees himself as "the hero", he's doing what must be done, what is needed to save the Universe. No one else has the strength of character, the resolve to do this thing! This in a way is an echo of the characterization of Angel, who shares a lot in common with Thanaos. It's my destiny to save the world. Only I can do this thing. I was prophesied to do it. Or if not, if prophecies aren't true, then I need to the right thing, the thing no one else can do, because I'm the best choice, I'm the vampire with a soul. I can't accidentally become human and be happy with Buffy -- no, because I haven't earned it with great deeds, I have to save the world! I have a greater purpose. I can't save her otherwise! It's a subversion of the hero trope. Those who set out to be heroes, often destroy what they think they can save, in order to save it, and themselves in the process. Their ego has taken over the show. Most villains see themselves as heroes. From their perspective, they are the hero of the piece. A true hero doesn't see themself as a hero at all.
Also Angel unlike Buffy was a series about regret. And if we can ever quite forgive ourselves for the things we've done that we've regretted. Angel's problem isn't whether other's will forgive him, but whether he can ever forgive himself. Forgiving oneself isn't the same thing as not feeling remorse. Or justifying the acts. It's saying, I did these horrible things. I regret that I did them. I cannot take them back. I forgive myself for being horrible and strive to do better tomorrow. Not forgiving yourself ...tends to land you in a depressive hole, of moping and brooding. The guilt overwhelms and either you fall back on old habits, or just disappear. If you don't forgive others...your hate and need for justice which can easily slide into vengeance takes over and eats away at you, until you very well may become the person you hate. The trick is to let go of both emotions...and that can only be done by forgiving the person, not the act, and letting it go.
Humans are horrible at doing this, because we can't often see past the act and how it feels, and as a result we let the emotions and pain of the act destroy us.
3. Hee...
cjlasky decided to expand on my musical meme. This is for music geeks only, if you aren't a music nerd or geek, it will annoy or irritate you. I'm pretty much an all-around cultural nerd. And I find discussing this stuff relaxing and comforting.*.Sinatra or Bing Crosby
Interesting. I've thought this one over a lot over the years...and I'd have to say Sinatra. It's sort of like comparing Astair to Gene Kelly...you either like the classical style or the raw and edgy one. Sinatra had a rawness..a street smart tough guy edge to his music that eluded Crosby. Crosby's voice was clear as a bell, but Sinatra's was well you felt his words in your gut.
Take for instance --- "My Way" which is a painful, twisting, declaration of self vs. say, the song White Christmas...which is soft and nostalgic balladary. Sinatra came from the streets of Hoboken, dirty, raw, and associated with crooks, Crosby from higher class.
Watch High Anxiety some time and see the differences in styles, it's no accident that Crosby plays the upper crust gent, while Sinatra plays the down and dirty journalist.
And Sinatra knew how to act the songs...he was in some respects the better actor of the two, with a broader range.
Weirdly, I'd have pitted Sinatra against Tony Bennet or Harry Connick Jr, instead, which are in some respects easier and harder.
*. Johnny Cash or Ray Charles
Hmmm...I wouldn't have put Cash against Ray Charles, I'd have pitted him against Willie Nelson, mainly because it's easier -- I don't like Nelson. (I don't like twangy voices. I like rough voices and clear voices. Nasal Southern Twang grates on my ears -- it's my problem with a lot of Country music. Cash has no twang. Nor does Ray Charles.)
Now you might think there's nothing to compare these two...but you'd be wrong. Both are deep voices, both told stories, and both were sort of boundary pushers. I'm less familiar with Ray Charles. Listened to a few songs here and there, watched the film with Jamie Fox, and I have a few on my MP3 player. But Cash -- I've got boatloads of songs from. I have some of his memorized. Cash's songs speak to my soul. Everything from "Man in Black" to "Ring of Fire" to the song about a folk music group that broke up because they made the mistake of talking about politics. (It's a hilarious song.)
Oh, and "Boy Named Sue". The man's a genius. He is by far my favorite country western singer and song writer. Ray Charles is more Rhythm and Blues, and he has song good songs...such as "Hit the Road Jack", similar to Cash's humorous tunes.
*. Hendrix or Clapton
Clapton lived longer than Hendrix and was able to make more music. So had more range. Hendrix's rendition of various Bob Dylan songs...blew me away, but I'm not sure he wrote many of his own. I remember seeing him on film in Monterey Pop and Woodstock, also saw the documentary, The Jimi Hendrix Story...I think it was called that, all way way back in the 1980s, when I was dating a Hendrix fan.
(I was raised with a brother, folks, and my brother is a music geek. He introduced me to Hendrix before my boyfriend did. My brother is such a music geek that he has rigged audio speakers around his house and has a streaming sound system. We both took up various instruments but neither of us has any musical talent whatesoever. We can't sing. And we can't play an instrument to save our lives. But it's not without trying. I tried piano and guitare, he tried cello, trumpet, and electric guitare. He actually did slightly better than I did. Neither of us can reproduce a note of music that can be endured by others.)
Anywho...Hendrix is known for his guitar solos. And his take on "All Along the Watch Tower" is legendary. I love it to pieces.
But Clapton...ah, Clapton...he is ranked as one of the best and enduring guitarists of all time. He started out in the band "Cream" but is known mainly for his lengthy solo career. And he changed music in ways that Hendrix sort of did, but died too young to fully accomplish. Clapton took what Hendrix had and built on it.
I like both, but I have to admit if push came to shove, I'd pick Clapton. Tears in Heaven, or Sunshine of Your Love, the versatility... For versatility and longevity...Clapton but for long complicated guitar solos...Hendrix?? God, I don't know. Now that I'm listening to them, I find myself jumping back and forth between the two.
[Leaving the rest of it for another time.]
no subject
Date: 2018-05-27 05:29 pm (UTC)Tony Bennett is probably a better match for Sinatra. Both Italian, both had their biggest popularity at the same time and with the same general trends in music, both with very long and productive careers when teenagers moved on to other younger singers. I don't have much doubt that most people would pick Sinatra. Personally, I prefer Bennett, not trying to be the tough guy, plenty of emotional depth without setting me on edge now and then. And believe me I've enjoyed a lot of Sinatra. Harry Connick Jr.? Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery as they say. Heh, I wonder what kind of performer he would have been, if it hadn't been for Sinatra. Certainly unrecognizably different.
Hendrix was more about arranging and playing the guitar. As I hinted elsewhere it's kind of unfair to compare him to Clapton, because we never got the chance to see which directions he'd grow. Based on what we know Clapton is the clear winner in composition, and I have to give Hendrix the edge as a player.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-27 10:01 pm (UTC)Benet doesn't quite have the range as Sinatra, also he can't act -- and Sinatra acts his songs. Every song he does -- he plays a role. He sort of changed how people did it. And few have come close. There is Dean Martin, but he never really took off, and well the guy who sang Mac the Knife...Bobby Darin.
Have you ever heard Seth McFarland sing? He's who I'd pit against Connick Jr, except Connick Jr is a lot better. McFarland sort of falls closer to Benet, smooth voice, but lacks some of the raw edge and fun that Sinatra and Connick Jr have.
Hendrix was more about arranging and playing the guitar. As I hinted elsewhere it's kind of unfair to compare him to Clapton, because we never got the chance to see which directions he'd grow. Based on what we know Clapton is the clear winner in composition, and I have to give Hendrix the edge as a player.
Agree completely. After listening to both, I'd give Hendrix the edge as the player, and Clapton the winner on composition and the overall effect. But Clapton also is still alive at 77, and Hendrix died in his twenties. So it's not really fair to compare the two.
I think a better or fairer comparison is Pete Townsend and Eric Clapton.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-28 05:35 am (UTC)Ohhh, yeah. See, I couldn't call that. Clapton may be more of a household name, as it were, but Townshend is every bit Clapton's equal in both technique and versatility.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-27 06:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-27 10:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-28 01:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-28 05:38 am (UTC)Remember Zoe's famous line from Firefly?
"A hero is someone who gets other people killed."
no subject
Date: 2018-05-28 04:42 pm (UTC)