Dec. 6th, 2006

shadowkat: (againts the grain)
[As an aside, figured out the heat problem, the landlord has been turning down the thermostate during the days thinking we are all at work. Sigh. Informed him that I'm at home job-hunting. And this week has not been a good one. Today was by far the hardest, two rejections. One that was my fault. The other that was something I'd hoped for, and did not work out. So to cheer self, went to the movies. Fairly cheap - $7.50. Yes, it is scarey when 7.50 is considered a discount. This probably means movies will go up to $12 soon. Also, according to the News - The Iraq Study Group came back with a bad report card regarding the Bush Administration's record in Iraq. It was a bi-partisian study group commissioned by all three branches - so about as impartial as we can get. Stated there was no hope for "victory" in this situation. Best we could hope for was not find ourselves cartwheeling into the abyss. The study's report reminded me a great deal of Francis Ford Coppola's haunting depiction of the Vietnam War by way of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness - Apolcalypse Now. But there was hope at the heart of it - hope for a peaceful non-victorious resolution. Just hope the powers that be listen.]

Saw possibly one of the best movies I've seen this year since The Prestige, a film that like The Prestige may not be for everyone, it is more of a character study, and more metaphorical than literal in nature, and I've learned that most people think literally. I think metaphorically. Which is why I feel I'm often at odds with people. Course it's not as simple as that. It's more I think metaphorically when they are thinking literally, and I think literally when they are thinking metaphorically.

At any rate, was feeling mildly hopeless today. Panic attacks the last three nights - you know lying awake staring at the ceiling at 3 am, wondering if you can climb what appears to be an unclimbable cliff and why the frigging hell you attempted the climb to begin with? James Butcher describes the feeling quite accurately in his novel Grave Peril - where he states there are different types of fear - the leaden fear that gathers in the belly and weighs heavy on your shoulders and neck, coming late at night, with all the problems you can't solve or feel unsolvable, filling you with a feeling of hopelessness and despair making sleep almost impossible.

So went to the movies. Movies historically have been used to escape ourselves and enter someone else's world. Although I'm not sure that's possible. I think it's an illusion. The movie basically gives our emotions an outlet - a filter, and sometimes if we are really lucky the themes of the movie will answer questions and emotional turmoil inside ourselves. ie. It speaks to us. The best films speak to you. Those are the one's I think that people buy on DVD or see again, or remember long afterwards. And I can't help but think we sublimially choose those films - we certainly know enough about them to be able to make that sort of choice. Not always, perhaps. But sometimes.

The theater was sparse, since the film I chose, Stranger Than Fiction had been out a while. And it was a 2:15 pm show on a weekday. Hence the cheaper price. Only four or five people were in the theater. Most of them sat by themselves. Little islands in a sea of empty seats. Fitting if you know that the film is about people who are in a way islands in of themselves. Except for the lead, who may or may not be merely a figment of someone else's imagination.

Stranger Than Fiction is not what you would think. It is not a comedy. Even though that's how it has been marketed. It is a dramedy. I cried and laughed during it, although that could partly be due to hormones and overall mood. Unlike a lot of recent comedies - it is not interested in blasting the audience with joke after joke after joke. It is interested in something deeper - a sort of metaphyiscal musing on the nature of characters and authors, mortality and the quality of life. What makes life worth living? Why does an author kill a character? Why do some people die and other's live? What is the point? At the heart of it is this statement, which stays with me, now, long after the film is over, and made me feel better. It's a simple statement, almost obvious in its simplicity, yet the writer who finally discovers it finds it in way that provides it with a deeper meaning - which is why films can at times be more powerful than books - because they are a marriage of visuals and words.

It is the accessories of life, the small ordinary things that we take for granted, often don't notice, and rarely see, that save our lives when we lose all hope. They are the answer to our hopelessness. They are the small picture not the big one, but often, what makes life worth living, what keeps us going, give us comfort when things feel hopeless and impossible. Such as Bavarian iced cookies, a random gesture of kindness, a card in the mail, a touch of a hand, a kind voice, or even spending a day reading a quality piece of fiction, engrossed in it. Or say something as small as a wristwatch.

This is not the exact wording, it was better in the film. My oral memory sucks beans. But it is close enough. The film is about a writer who is writing about an IRS tax man, except the IRS tax man actually exists and her writing determines what happens in his life. She is in an odd way his God, his fate. Or the one determining it. Yet, yet, he appears to have control in how he reacts to it. His awareness changes his fate. It's a musing on fate, writing, god, and well free will. We may not have control, the movie seems to state, over the big events such as when we will die, or who we will fall in love with - but we do have control in how we react to it. How we decide to accessorize. How we decide to live.

The film is a must-see for writers, I think. Because it plays with themes most writers - of fiction at any rate - will identify. The pressure to write a masterpiece. The decisions involved. Writer's block. Overcoming it. What causes it. The despair and loneliness. The fear of killing off a character and the decision to do so. Spoilers for Stranger Than Fiction. Difficlut film to talk about without bringing up spoilers, unfortunately )

I highly recommend Stranger Than Fiction, next to The Prestige - I think it may be the best film I've seen this fall. Certainly made me think quite a bit. It also came at the right time. The right moment. The right mood. Providing me with hope, when I found myself falling into hopelessness. Movies that do that are worth treasuring, I think.
shadowkat: (againts the grain)
Somewhat bored at the moment. Half-watching Daybreak in the background. This is a show I watch for the cast more than the plot, which defies logic even beyond my abilities to suspend to disbelief. It stars Ty Diggs (Rent) and Adam Baldwin (Firefly, Angel). Also there's zip else that is grabbing my interest.

Saw another fan meme making the rounds - my problem with it is well, there's really only two or three tv shows I ever got into enough to be be considered a fan. The rest? I watch but do not have an emotional investment in. (ie. I don't re-watch.) Personnally? I find the "fannish" aspects of fandom annoying. Take the people out of it? They are great. In it? Crazy. When I was in BTVS fandom, I discovered that if I didn't write anything about Spike, I was safe. If I focused on him, watch the flames. After a while it just got old and I gave up, because by the time both series ended, I have to admit Spike (and possibly Illyria) were the only characters who I felt the writers and actors hadn't really finished with and were still interested in playing with - there was more story there. I was curious to see how they'd be explored. Everyone else? I was satisfied by how their arcs were completed or rather knew everything I needed or wanted to know about them. Spike and Illyria? I was still curious about - and for me that's what intrigues me in a character. I could care less if the character is a morally upstanding individual - not going to date them for crying out loud, also hate to say this but morally upstanding characters tend to bore me in fiction and come across a little one dimensional and not real. I tend to like morally ambiguous ones - much more interesting from a writing stand-point. You can do more. Delve into those dicy emotional issues. This may explain why I like Apollo, Starbuck, Adama and Roslyn in BSG. And find the Chief more interesting than Helo in BSG. Again - not in love with them. Not shipping them. Just intrigued to see how they are explored. It's the characters other people tend to dislike that I often find the most interesting. And the ones they adore, that tend to bore me.

Am still reading "Lamb" which had a really good section on fear last night. In the story, Joshua and his pal Biff are in a Buddhist monastary. Joshua has found enlightment and become the bodhisattva (and for the first time I actually get what this means - the analysis on fanboards always confused me, probably didn't help that people kept posting that a 240 year old cursed vampire could be the bodhisattva or a valley girl slayer into clothes could be - yes, fan is a derivative of fanatic this we know) - anyhow here's what Moore states: when one reaches the place of Buddha-hood (which is when you realize you are a part of all things, not separate from anything, and do not require anything - literally anything, including a body for that matter, you are a part of all things) and realizes that there is no Buddha because everything is Buddha, when one reaches enlightenment, but makes a decision that he will not evolve to nirvana until all sentient beings have preceded him there, then he is a bodhisattva. A savior. A bodhisattva, by making this decision, grasps the only thing that can ever be grasped: compassion for the suffering of his fellow humans. Anyhow, as a reward, his teacher sends him off to shave a yak. (A yak is a huge wooly mamoth type of creature. And hates to be shaved. Also stomped on Biff and almost killed him when Biff tried to shave him. Biff survived because Joshua healed him. Biff offers to do it instead and is terrified of Joshua doing it.) Joshua shaves the yak without any problem. And Biff asks him how he did it.

I told her what I was doing, said Joshua. She stood perfectly still.
You just told her what you were going to do?
Yes
She wasn't afraid, so she didn't resis. All fear comes from trying to see the future, Biff. If you know what is coming, you aren't afraid.
That's not true. I knew what was coming - namely that you were going to get stomped by the yak and that I'm not nearly as good at healing as you are - and I was afraid.
Oh then, I'm wrong. Sorry. She must just not like you.

Yep. It's not just trying to see the future that causes fear, it's fear of what we believe the future will hold or repeating an experience that was nightmarish the first time around. The child fears fire - because the child has been burned by it. We fear what we believe will be the consequences. If we knew the fire would not burn us - or did not know it would - we would not fear it.

Profile

shadowkat: (Default)
shadowkat

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated May. 25th, 2025 01:15 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios