If stupid is as stupid does does that make me stupid?

Forest Gump is a great movie. Period. It tells a story, runs with it covers it fully and flavorfully and beautifully. Let me end any pretense of a review by saying it gets 10/10 in my book.
Now apparetly Bob Dole said that the movie affirms that the American Dream is within the reach of any man. I dunno about that, Forrest really doesn't have a dream. That's kind of the point of the film. He ends up in a lot of places and circumstances, but usually it's just through fortune. Where he ultimately ends up, living in a small town as a father of a boy smarter than him. I suppose that's the American dream, actually one version of the American Dream, which I used to subscribe to a bit more passionately, I suppose back in the days (it's always a bit odd saying back in the day when I'm 23) when I was more focused on my future as a family man, is that the dream ought to be that the next generation has a better life than the previous (of course that leaves quite a burden to those living pretty good lives to begin with), and perhaps his son would have that, with the intelligence of his mother and the loving parent of his father.
But again this is something stumbled onto, accidentally. But maybe what it is, is being the theme of the movie, is that a simple perseverance through the unfortunate accidents allows one to enjoy the happy accidents.
But perhaps another way to look at this isn't to see Forrest as the every man, stripped even of the intellect to differentiate him from others, but rather a highly sincere man. His sincerity allows him to throw him fully into anything he stumbles upon, and perhaps that's the key to his success.
Now is that enough? I dunno, I'm not sure, but I don't think so. One principle I hold is that a quality of a movie isn't how much you agree with it or the truth of its themes. If Forrest's sincerity isn't really enough for life, the movie paints his sincerity enough to make itself great. And what does that signify? Nothing really, but a great movie is worth noting every now and again. As I said, 10/10, well done movie maker people (I'm never sure how to allot the thanks for a movie, especially with a book before it), well done. And that's all I have to say about that.
So take it to your head, take it to your heart and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!
And God Bless.

And are thee an equivocator?

It's easy for me to overstate my intelligence. I've done well in school, but not that well. I'm well read, but again not that well read. I'm a jack of all trades but certainly a master of none and indeed, there are some trades I haven't jacked quite yet. And while at times I feel dispassionate and analytical, how I feel about myself is by no means an objective metric of how I'm looking at an issue. So let me throw all those cautions out there before I proceed (I should make this a standard disclaimer).

Now The House Next Door is an excellent source for some excellent reads about film, tv and culture (somewhat less so since the departure of the irreplaceable Matt Zoller Seitz stepped down as editor, no insult to the current editor but note the irreplaceable adjective), however, there are some authors I like more and some I like less. One I like in a middling sort of way is Lauren Wissot. She writes with decent skill but is undermined by over-the-top political exclamations (actually, all and all, she makes a number of over-the-top generalizing exclamations in many fields, but the political ones are the most egregious and common). It helps that she is often on the right side of the issue, if very extremist on that side, but such extremism weakens the prose of her reviews and often blurs the reality of complex issues.

My disclaimer was not for my analysis of Lauren Wissot, I am fairly confident that I am correct in my assessment of her and I think, with the partial exception of that last clause, agree with the assessment. My disclaimer takes effect now though, since I am wading into one of the issues that I feel Ms. Wissot oversimplified.

The issue comes up in a film Ms. Wissot glowingly reviewed from the Human Rights Film Festival (human rights are always a good cause and often are shown in excellent and tragic ways in film, so even if you don't check out this film festival, I suggest you still check out human rights films) called USA vs. Al-Arian.

I don't disagree with her central point (or at least her central descriptive point, her central thematic point about the American Dream being a shame I thoroughly disagree with) that what happened to Mr. Al-Arian is a clear violation of the spirit of the law (if perhaps not the letter) and human rights, is a shame upon our country and never should have happened.

Granted.

But besides the demonizing of the Bush administration, her review in general seems to ignore the complexities of the issue, even if some of the less-flattering points she makes about the Bush administration and US gov. in general still stand.

Let me step back for a moment, from the chasm I am about to leap into, by explaining why I felt I needed the disclaimer before. Now for you, my dear readers, it is probably unnecessary, since your razor-sharp minds and ability to spot the many "may"s and "probably"s would likely show that I am a bit uncertain here on matter of fact. But the real reason for my earlier disclaimer is because I am morally uncertain here. Am I just trying to lessen the situation to weaken the shame I feel for my government and my country? Am I just trying to shoehorn this into my "they're wrong but not necessarily evil" vision of the Bush administration?

Or even worse, have I become an equivocator who can brush off any moral failing by saying "You're not looking at the full complexity"?

I hope and overall think that my fears are misplaced. This was indeed a great moral failing, even once complexity is given, and this is a moral failing worse than that of ordinary men and even most extra-ordinary men. The treatment of Mr. Al-Arian is a true sin, an act that moves the actor further away from God. What happened (and is happening (despite my cautions, I advise you to read the review and watch the movie (which I myself ought to do) to get a sense of things) was wrong, that is simple.

The depth of the wrongness and how it came to be, however, are matters for complexity.

Let me finally lay out the gist of what happened to Mr. Al-Arian (more of the gist is in the review and the full account of things can be found elsewhere or in the movie). He was a Palestinian rights activist, a rather famous one, in fact, and after 9/11 he was swept up in the arrest sweeps of "suspected" terrorist sympathizers on nebulous charges (if any) that plagued the country in the fall and winter of 2001 (in truth these things did not begin in 2001, or did they end after 2001, but they were not as bad before, and while still somewhat troubling now, are not that bad currently. But in 2001, these terrorist sweeps were truly tragic). Treated badly and publicly humiliated, the eventual case against him was typical of the weakest of the cases. He was charged with contributing to a terrorist organization through a charity.

The weakness of the charge is amplified by the maddening amount of wire taps that were taken against him over the last 9 years! (seeing as they never got more than this charge, how could they justify this? I am sure there may be some technical ground, but if the spirit of the law is at all adhered to?) (as I said things didn't start with 2001 or Bush even, 9 years before 2001 is well before Bush)

Here is a perhaps important, perhaps incorrect legal aside. The charges that came from contributing to charities linked to terrorist groups (linked and then banned in a vague manner, but in one that is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to overturn) veer very close to ex-post facto laws, that is laws made after the alleged crime was committed. There are ways that at any time giving money to these charities might have been regarded as criminal, since these charities often minorly or majorly support groups that are inter-linked with terrorist organizations. However, that is because some terrorist organizations, especially those claiming to be alternative governments, often do also try to support the community. This is not necessarily an Islamic thing, often anti-colonial governments or US political radical groups also had charitable sides (for example PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is linked, in an indirect way, with ELF, the Earth Liberation Front, a designated terrorist organization).

So there might have been an indirect degree of truth to the claim that Al-Arian was supporting terrorism, but if so it was in a way that had rarely before been labeled a crime, since the link is so incredibly indirect. As Ms. Wissot points out, it was admitted that the prosecution wasn't alleging a direct link to murder, but there likely was a credible case for an indirect link, but this was so indirect, and so overlooked in the past!

Yet this was 9/11, we had been attacked by terrorists who essentially declared war on us. Some might say that if we leave groups like Al-Quaeda alone, they'll leave us alone. I don't believe that. I've studied Al-Quaeda, and their ideology is so total and destructive that it is clear to me that that they want a world revolution, and they see the United States as the main stumbling block to that goal (as has been said before (hence where I got it from) by many experts in the field, Al-Quaeda doesn't resemble anti-colonial terrorist groups who their apologists cite, rather it resembles the more hard-core communist groups, who fight on until they're too tired or too drained of men to fight any more).

After 9/11, no link was too indirect, after all, all's fair in war, right?

But did we not say that "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights"?

Isn't that the founding principle of the United States of America, right?

But apparently, it was deemed that rights were not the question here, any link to terrorism, even if the link by the spirit of the law should have been ignored, should certainly not have been publicly broadcast, and should never have been taken to trial, any link to terrorism was enough by the standards set forth by the government at that time.

And so Mr. Al-Arian went to trial.

A note here, Ms. Wissot makes a big deal about the sight of suicide bombings being shown and not the Palestinian side. It is questionable to show the suicide bombings because of the prejudicial nature of such sights, but in a trial about whether or not someone supported the murder of a group of people, the question cannot be "Well, did they deserve it?" Evidence to that point therefore cannot be shown. That's like showing photos of a girl who was raped and asking "Doesn't she look trampy?" The only way that could factor in if the case was being made for self-defense. But suicide bombings target mostly civilian targets, the only way you could argue self-defense was alleging that the whole of the people was attacking yours and you had to respond by attacking all of them. Such group-rights defenses are morally flimsy and open to endless interpretations, I could go into that more, but I am digressing a lot.

A more telling counter-point however, would have been to show Hamas' social services and such, and say that's where I was sending money to (I've been assuming Mr. Al-Arian innocent, it is possible he was giving via means that less distinctly allocated things, but I doubt it), anything else was like the 0.00001 cents that goes toward the spread of Christianity when you give to Catholic Relief Services.

But again, I am digressing.

Overall, the jury in Mr. Al-Arian's case saw through the fear and found him not guilty.

The exactitudes of what happened afterward likely are only known to internal government records. But Mr. Al-Arian was kept in jail, charged again, and eventually fell into a deportation sentence, which was then shifted to prison time, in a maze of legal abuses.

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. The reason why you might deport someone who was found not guilty is because "beyond a reasonable doubt" means that the person was 90+% guilty, which may be under your tolerance level for a person who might, just might be a potential terrorist.

Hey, he was giving to groups that have a tenuous tie to terrorism.

Hey, he was advocating for a case that is associated with terrorism.

Hey, now that we started this thing, we can't look weak, maybe we're just frustrated with how stupid people are being, maybe...

I'm tired of playing the devil's advocate.

There are mitigating factors here to what happened, but that doesn't mean what happened to Mr. Al-Arian isn't a massive abuse of the law.

I'm willing to admit to complexities here, but this is not a case where all sides are right. I will not equivocate a clear human rights violation, even if it does bring shame on the country I love.

And there has been so much to be shameful of in America's past, so much to be proud of too, but...

And yet we strive on, boats against the current...

The American Dream I always believed was more about fighting the current than actually getting somewhere, and so despite America's failings, I still believe in her. After all, I believe patriotism is about love, and I love the United States of America.

Anyways, take it to your head, take it to your heart and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight. And God Bless.

Sometimes you need to go where everyone has a gun or my Arsenal review

Don't you need to go where everyone has a gun? ie, the Arsenal!

And so I watched Arsenal (I posted up the movie in parts in a previous session). Weird, stirring, long, meandering, epic, more adjectives stuff, it really is. The movie traces the full course (well most of the full course) of the Russian Civil War in Ukraine (I don't want to imply that Ukraine is part of Russia, but I don't have a good term for the action in Ukraine and in many ways it was an extension of what was going on in Russia, so I'm sticking with that terminology), it starts with the ending period of World War I, when all of Ukraine was devastated (really stark imagery in that), going to the establishment of the Ukrainian People's Republic (it was a short lived government that was German and later US/UK/France/Poland backed), moving on to the raging war between the White Russian Army and Ukrainian forces and finally to engagements between the White Russian Army and the Ukrainian Bolshevik Army. It doesn't quite get to the end where the Bolsheviks are triumphant but instead shows the triumphant Ukrainian Bolshevik spirit (I'm not endorsing here Bolshevism, I actually hate Communism quite immensely, but I'm just trying to give you a sense of the movie).

This movie is quite the mixed bag. It has been called a classic and I can see how people can look at it as one. It has amazing use of montage at times that juxaposes vivid images, creating immense emotional reactions. It also has immense symbolism to its scenes which are sometimes painstakingly crafted. Even some of the long takes which just dwell on scenes of men without legs or mothers who lost their children are heart breaking. In addition, as a historical document it is a fascinating as a document of the Bolsheviks defending their crushing of Ukrainian nationalism. As a piece of film theory it reflects early Russian theories of montage, of agi-film (agitation films), of semi-plotlessness and of semi-herolessness (for another good example of all this film theory stuff (an example I'll be citing), check out Battleship Potemkin). However, I can't say I'm thrilled with movie. It has many brilliant pieces. The best is probably when a soldier is hit by laughing gas (I don't think laughing gas was actually used in World War I (although mustard gas was), but I suppose its symbolic of the insanity of war as the soldier laughs at the corpses of his comrades) and an opposing soldier looks at him, and throws down his gun asking "Where is the enemy?" and then, as montage flashes with other scenes, the questioning soldier's commanding officer comes up behind him, orders him to pick up his gun, and finally shoots the soldier who refused to fight. There are several other moments like this where the film seems brilliant.

And yet, there lacks a force to string it together. The film lacks narrative tension. The plot is often absent, and when present it is stretched out far too long. Unlike Battleship Potemkin, which also stretches out a simple plot, the montage is too slow in many scenes (although there are scenes with quick cutting) and is too focused on exposition to provide visual tension. Perhaps the problem is that the film wants to do too much. It wants to explain the revolutionary cause, it wants to denounce Ukrainian nationalists, I think it even takes a symbolic swipe at Ukrainian anarchists. And it goes across a significant number of events without any developing any character (although there is a sort of main character he is largely blank except for his symbolic credentials as the Ukrainian worker) or even a sense of character in the masses (as Battleship Potemkin in some ways does (especially in the specialized mass of the battleship)) to personalize the events. Maybe I'm just not used to this type of film, maybe it's just because I watched the film in pieces on youTube (I know that sounds bad, but I watched them back to back and I think overall it didn't have too big of an effect), but I couldn't find any driving force between the moments of brilliance this film offered. Without some tension pulling me through the movie, I couldn't fully connect with it on an emotional or intellectual level.

I'm overall glad I watched this movie, and I can see how some people could absolutely love it, but I can't really recommend it. On the other hand, I can't not recommend it. If I had to rate it (and I do because I want to and I AM RAND) I'd give it a 6 out of 10. Maybe I'm being cruel to a classic, but if that's the case, well, sometimes you just got to seize the arsenal.

So take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!

Transformers, more than meets the eyes, DAMN IT!

So I haven't seen the new Transformers movie, but I'm not confident about it. The critical consensus, among those critics who have actually liked it, is that the movie is good "dumb fun". Look not every movie has to be sophisticated, or complicated, "dumb fun" is fine. But that isn't what Transformers was all about. Transformers was about an epic battle between good and evil, it was at times a space-opera, at times a concept-driven sci-fi show, and yes it was a kids show, but it contained a short of grandeur that ignited kids' imagination. It wasn't "dumb fun", from a visceral stand point it often wasn't that exciting, but it was thrilling to see this magical world unfold. Once you got to the space episodes and the full space opera, then it got more exciting and even more wondrous. It was an amazing universe, and I'm sad to see it smushed down into "dumb fun."

Transformers the Movie: Is it Transfomerrific?

I am a very big Transformers fan. So when I heard about the movie I was very very happy, now... a little less so. I've seen the previews and as my older brother pointed out the movie seems more human centered than the properly robot centered tv show. Moreover it has Shy Lebuff (I have no idea how to spell his name), the kid from Even Stevens which makes this seem like it might just end up being a highly cutesy movie, which would be highly annoying. One of the most important things about Transformers is that it took itself seriously, if this movie can't do that...well, no matter what I'll probably see it, I'm too big of a fan not to unless it's a complete and utter travesty (like the Aeon Flux movie).

Rand's Cowboy Bebop Review or When Legends walk the small screen

So this is my TV review day, and since this is the first I thought I'd start it with a bang, so here is the review of one of my favorite shows.
Cowboy Bebop: 10/10
So if you've read this webpost (or you like bad words, blog) consistantly you might have noticed that I reference Cowboy Bebop a lot, and if you've read it a lot you might have noticed a couple times I've called Cowboy Bebop a legendary series. So you might ask, am I exaggerating, am I blowing it's quality way out of proportion? Let me first say, that Rand the grand and glorious does not exaggerate! (Alright I exaggerate a little sometimes.) Next let me say that Cowboy Bebop deserves all the praise it gets and then some it truly is a legendary series.
Usually a legendary series defines its genre, but in this case it's a little different since it doesn't exactly fit into a genre exactly. Now it's more than the fact that it combines references to Cowboys and Bebop and related music. There are also Sci-Fi and tons of movie stuff, but beyond that, the whole of the influences and ideas and elements combine to create something undefinable. Given that I find it undefinable, it is hard to describe.
Let's start with the premise. A group of bounty hunters (at first just two men, but eventually a woman, a kid and a dog are added into the mix) hunt their bounties among the planets in the future. They are good, even great, although they have a bad habit of letting their bounties die a lot, and so they are often low on cash. Each has a complex back story, but they try to leave the past behind as they live their lives hunting down criminals, even though the past often returns to haunt them.
The whole thing, well, it's beautiful. Look at the art, it's just perfect really, every cell, perfect, right down to the eyecatches (the stills before and after commercial breaks). The colors, the lines, the details, the stylization and the realistic elements all combine into a perfect beauty. There's so much to it that I often miss a lot (I have friends who tell me all about the different references found in the tiny details in the frames), but it never feels garish or overdone. And the beauty extends from the frames to the motion with masterfully correographed fight scenes and perfectly flowing motion.
But there's lots of beautiful nonsense out, sometimes the beauty is great enough that the nonsense does not bother me, other times there is so much nonsense that despite the beauty I can't stand it. But this is not one of those cases, in fact here the beauty of the art is matched by beautiful content. There is hilarity, there is drama, there are movie references. The characters are complex and versetile with excellently worked out back-stories, multi-layered and engaging relationships, and personalities that are at times both subtle and larger than life. The plots often echo old movies but they are more than homages, they take what was best about those old movies but the main strength of the plot is how beautifully it works with the characters, how engaging they are, how they hook the watcher in and never let him go. The setting is such an immensely fascinating world that you could spend eons in it (I kind of wish there was more episodes, but then again if there were too many it might dilute the quality of each episode, remember a TV show must be judged by the whole it creates). There are so many facets of it, that I cannot begin to really say all the stuff I like about the show. I'm really not sure what else I can say that will convince you how awesome the show is but it is as I've said, a legendary series (I really wish they'd put it back on the Adult Swim rotation (I know I can just get the episodes and watch them on my computer or on DVD, but I like watching TV when it's actually broadcast, it gives me a sort of community feel and a greater connection to the world of the television), sure there are other good anime, but even in an endless loop of reruns it's still good enough to deserve a slot.).
So as you might of guessed from this immensely glowing review, or as you might have read from the start of the session, on a ten point scale this gets a 10/10.
Let me add a couple extras onto this review.
So favorite episodes.
Well, the character building episodes are fantastic. Ballad of Fallen Angels, Ganamyde Elegy, Jamming with Edward, My Funny Valentine (I think that's the episode's name, maybe not, I have a bad memory so what you want to fight about it? (little Family Guy joke for you there)), etc.
Outside those, Wild Horses excellent episode, Boogie Woogie Fung Shei, Mushroom Samba, Sympathy for the Devil, Pierrot Le Fou, Bohemian Rhapsody, Asteriod Blues, and of course the epic finale The Real Folks Blues. So many good episodes really.
Best quotes, best moments, well there are so many and I have bad memory (I'm going to do a session about that sometime), but the point is watch this show, watch it, watch it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh I should mention, the music...well, it is fantastic, never realized the Japanese could do the blues so well, but there you have it with the ending theme.
Yeah, that's about it, so I think I'll wrap thing up then. So take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!

Suspend reality (especially with sci-fi and fantasy)

Whenever my brother complains how unrealistic a tv show, book or movie is I tend to yell at him "Suspend reality, damn it!" And then I tend to call him a bum a couple times. But that might be a bit simplistic for understanding the unreal worlds in fantasy and sci-fi media (I'm going to concentrate on tv, but many of these points apply equally as well if not better to comics, books, movies, etc.). At times, certain works are supposed to be realistic. Battlestar Galactica prides itself on elements of realism (although you have to except the premises of the world they make) and if it becomes unrealistic (like when Adama encountered that crazy vetern who sends him through mental trama which he really shouldn't have experienced and then the vetern just is shoved into the fleet never to be seen again) then it loses some of the touch.

Yet other times you understand that a sci-fi and fantasy show might not act realistic even given the premises of the show. I was watching Gundam Wing and I realized, even given the space colonies and the presence of Gundanium, and Earth Alliance, etc., how did a guy like Treize become virtual ruler of the world, even if it is for but a moment. In the real world, real politics probably wouldn't of let this happen at least not as easily as it did. I also think that the abilities of the Gundams seem inconsistent at times, sometimes they are virtually invincible, sometimes they are very strong but still are not necessarily able to defeat all their enemies. But when it comes down to it, I realized that it doesn't matter. The inconsistencies, the unrealistic politics, the strange actions, they all serve to build a work of art which might not be realistic but is fantastic. It is like an abstract sculpture, it might not mimic a real object, but it can still be beautiful. The unreal elements help build the story, the characters, the setting, the ideas most of all, instead of detracting from them. It is what I would like to call, expressionistic tv. It doesn't really necessarily make sense, but that's ok, it appeals to the mind and summons up feelings that cover for that lack of sense.

I mean, it is nice sometimes to see realism in fantasy/sci-fi TV, I liked Mobile Suit Gundam 0083 in part because it was more realistic, but I've learned that I can appreciate the unreality, even the lack of sense. Serial Experiments Lain for example, although you can piece it all together, it doesn't really have to be all understood for you to get a sense of it, to get ideas from it, to empathize with the characters. It is a gestult, which means the parts build a greater whole and while the parts don't necessarily make sense (and some of the part of Serial Experiments Lain are completely insane and sometimes wildly tangental, only making sense through the deepest of analyses and some stretching of the show's main ideas), the whole does, and the whole is an excellent work of art.

So don't worry if the fantasy show doesn't show the reality of midevil warfare, or if the sci-fi show doesn't necessarily carry through all the implications of a technology, sometimes it's ok to miss that stuff as long as the whole you create is excellent. Creating that greater whole however, is incredibly difficult, but that my friends is a story for another day.

So take it to your head, take it to your heart, and remember Rand rocks. Goodnight Folks!