(Looks around university dorm room) *SIGH* My life is so hard... )_:

I'm getting the sense that if you dropped me anywhere in the world, I'd be unhappy. Chillin' in Indonesia? Unhappy. In the North Pole wit' my main man Claus? Unhappy. Rockin' in China with endless free movies? Unhappy.
The thing is, I want more. Maybe it's a human thing, but for myself at least I'm always trying to improve, and that includes my situation in life. I want not only to do better, but to be somewhere better, too. Why not?, I figuire. It's my life. I deserve the best. If I don't say that, no one will.
The trouble is in the way I motivate myself: guilt. How come you didn't do homework tonight? Now you'll have to cram it all in tomorrow. And Counter-Strike is a terrible video game! Why are you still playing that? Remember, you don't just have that assignment to do, but you should work on your Philosophy paper, too. And those readings for English next week. And did you make time to hang out with friends? I think all of that, and I prioritize all the things I have to do--but then, try as I might to break it into pieces, the number and scale of my tasks daunt me and I just want to play some more of that Counter-Strike. (Don't play the game, if you can avoid it.)
I've got to keep everything in context, though. What reason do I have to be sad? I've got food--hell, I've got plenty of food. I've got a nice room, a family that loves me, a caring living environment (for the most part), good friends, and a solid postsecondary education. Why complain? I shall try to remember all of this in the future: you can always be doing more with your life, but you must keep in mind the good things you have as you chase the other things you want. Remember that things are dandy right now.
Motivation, then, becomes a problem. I motivate myself with guilt, which is weird, but it gets me places. When I rest on my laurels for a few days and just relax, I find myself falling behind: things I want to do (but usually don't) pile up, deadlines loom closer before I start to work. It seems some days that if I didn't have stress, I wouldn't get much of anything done. Finding that balance between a drive to succeed and perfectionism is a challenge, and I haven't found it yet.
Well, I've got some assignments to do now; I'll go and do what makes me feel best about them: get them finished.
(image source: http://www.pwnem.com/t-buddypoke-game-characters)

Personal stuff

Hello, all. I'm just signaling a bit of a new direction for my blog.

Occasionally, I'll think of things that are completely separate from personal experience that I'd like to talk about. Ideas. Comments on pop culture. Philosophy. This has been the focus of my blog. But this has been rather challenging to keep up, as most of the stuff I think about is tied to my life--what can I say, I'm a self-centred guy.

From now on, expect more posts to be on my life and times. Consider this an alternative to posting notes on Facebook or sending massive e-mails. Just come and check my content when I post something new, and you'll see what I'm up to. I won't share everything--I'm sorry, internet, but some of your members are creepy--but I'll give you the gist, and maybe I'll talk more about this stuff in person.

I'll have to send out an e-mail to my core constituents--erm, family--again. That way, they'll know that I've written since that one week 2 years ago when I e-mailed them about it.

Peace,
--Aaron

Why I hate 2001: A Space Odyssey

2001: A Space Odyssey is my least favourite film of all time. I don't think I've finished a movie feeling angered--as if I'd wasted my time--before or since. A friend of mine was really shocked to hear this, so I thought I'd write about it.
First off, I think 2001 is a bad film; though I feel it's quite awful, I know it did some things well, and featured some cutting-edge direction. It has an innovative film score, groundbreaking special effects, and that bit 3/4 of the way through the film with HAL 3000 is fascinating. In this way, I suppose I see why the film is so well-liked.

The problem is, 2001 is dreadfully boring and pointless. Let's start with boring: almost every scene in the film is stretched far longer than it needs to be to get its point across. I remember in particular one scene where a space shuttle was simply flying across the moon; to illustrate that, Kubrick (the director) shot a scene where a shuttle flies slowly across a barren moonscape--FOR OVER 20 SECONDS. I don't know how long it was exactly, but it was at least that long, and I got the message easily, and long before that 20 seconds was up. (The message? "Some people are travelling across the moon in a shuttle." There wasn't much moon scenery to note.) Worse, the climax of the film is 20 minutes (minutes!) of flashing lights. What purpose does that serve? 3 minutes into that "scene", I think I got the picture. There are many, many scenes like this--even the few scenes with dialogue in the film are spoken slowly and dryly. sometimes I wish Michael Bay would be around to direct this thing, because at least he'd have the decency to blow something up.

I suppose a boring film would be all well and fine if it had a good point to make about something, and made it well. 2001: A Space Odyssey does neither of those things. The film has a lot of interesting imagery, recurring symbols, etc.: giant black monoliths appearing at different points in space and time, for example. but the film is so vague and indefinite so often that you can't connect the odd images with anything real. There are no clear answers in this film, which means the audience has to slog through this movie only to find that those slow, symbolism-heavy scenes don't have anything to say.

My complaint with the film, then, is that it fails to entertain. It has nothing to say: the film asks you to sit through 2 1/2 hours of slow-moving drama, and then has the indecency to demand that you decide the film's meaning for yourself. That might sound shallow, but a boring film without meaning fails to satisfy any purpose as a film. Sure, the rich imagery will have appeal to some--but then, perhaps the book version would be better. You could read that at any pace you like, and I hear the book is clearer, too.

Recent thoughts

Well, I've been learning a lot of interesting stuff at school, and I thought I'd touch on a few things briefly. If there's enough interest, I'll explain these things in more detail down the road:

-So yeah, humans might not have character traits. In my moral psychology class, we learned that if you take a person and put them through tests to see if they're courageous, they will only be consistent in making courageous or timid actions 10%-20% of the time. That's pretty inconsistent! That's why some people (situationists) say that people are moral or immoral based on the situations they are brought up in.
-So, I have like 3 philosophy classes that are getting all huffy over the idea that all of our actions are determined. The idea is, every act we do is based on our own previous actions and the environment in which we were raised to the extent that any decision we make, we were determined to make. That is to say, if you're deciding whether to go to Western University or Ottawa University and you have more reasons to pick Ottawa University, you will pick Ottawa University. (Sorry, Western. I hear you're a fine school.)
This doesn't bug me, to be honest. When I was a kid, I used to think that if you had an epic computer and were to input all the information about life in the universe, you could predict everything that happens next. (Apparently, that was actually a rather famous concept in the 19th century; quantum physics would dispel a lot of this with its randomness, but there's not enough randomness to say that determinism doesn't work for practical purposes.)
-I learned how to propertly use a urinal! Yay!!!ONE!
-The reason people are bugging about determinism is that if everything in the world, including our actions, are determined, then some infer that we don't have free will! that's a pretty big issue, I hear. I think it's silly, though: if I were to jump in a pool and someone yelled "you were determined to do that! You were always going to do that!" at me, I'd be like, "So? It's not like there was anything stopping me."
-Citizen Kane is an awesome film. It lived up to the massive wall of hype.
-People are hypocrites. That is to say, if you tell someone that everything in a world is determined, but then tell them some violent, ruthless revenge story and ask if the criminal was fully responsible for his actions, most people will say yes; if you just straight-up ask "is a person in this world responsible for his or her actions?", most people will say no. And if you ask the people who said 'yes' a few weeks later why they chose an apparently-contradictory position, about 50% will stick with 'yes' and 50% will switch to no. I thought it was funny when I was reading that study that people would go into it thinking 'people will say that a person is determined with bare facts, but will be swayed by emotion when told a powerful story. In other words, people are dumb.' And then I read the rest of the article.
-I'm in a Film Music class, which is teaching me the history of early film. It's a fascinating subject--did you know Thomas Edison was a monopolistic b------? It's true! And we watch a lot of cool movies, like The Jazz Singer, the first movie ever with sound, and Psycho, the original (HITCHC--- ROCKS!)
Also, I've still been showing movies on my floor at residence. Every weekend, I show a movie in the common room, and every weekend, 0-4 people show up. Aside from the fact that no one's coming, that's going pretty well. That IS an important fact, though.

Chris Brown Can Transform Ya, Part II

I was talking with a friend of mine, and he made an interesting point: did I care about Chris Brown? Why should I care now? I never particularly liked his music. Heck, since the publicity his actions got generated real discussion and action on the part of abused women's groups, maybe his assault did a lot of good, too. (It doesn't justify his actions, of course.)
But I had paid attention to him, as a person. He was famous, but more importantly: he was important. I read about him so that I could understand him better, and be able to talk about him. I was interested in him, cared--if only a little. And when he attacked his girlfriend, I personally disapproved: the part of me that took an interest in him was hurt. How could this person I'd never met be like that?! I felt betrayed!
And I cared a little more about Rihanna. No, I still don't know who she is and will probably never meet her, but I liked her music! I might still buy her last album. So I was surprised to find that I became defensive when she was assaulted. Chris Brown! You let me down! How could you?! I pretended to know you so well!
But that kind of interest in a person is dumb. In an essay that came with his album "Everything is Wrong", the artist Moby notes "I know more about idiot actors in hollywood that I've never met than i (sic) do about the womyn who lives next door to me (and is probably more interesting)." I read that recently and it really resonated: why should I care about people I've never met? I hardly know some of the people I see every day, and they surely are interesting; why should I invest myself in the lives of the people in the news? Sure, Brad Pitt's an alright actor, but I don't think he's any more important than the person who wrote his script, or the person who produced the film. (Ironically, I'm starting to care more deeply about Moby now. Still, I admire him for his intelligence, and that's a good start.)
I follow these people even though I know they're not really that special because they're topical: I can discuss them, make bigger points by referencing what they do. Heck, in part I I discussed spousal abuse and the sexist nature of the music industry by examining a Chris Brown song! And I bet many of you reading this wouldn't have if I'd just written some stuffy academic article on the subject: "the music business is sexist. Here's why." (multiply that by 6 pages, size 8 font, 2 columns.) I know I certainly enjoy reading about celebrity lives more than some abstract opinion piece: the knowledge that what I'm reading isn't all that important gives me a little thrill. And after discussing them, and paying more attention to them because I know their lives aren't really that important, I start to invest in them as people. It's weird, I know.
I'm being harsh on myself, though. Celebrities garner attention from millions of people, even though some have no discernible talents. And even in our own lives, the same technology that has allowed us better interaction with the popular people of our time (the airplane, the telephone, the internet, etc.) allows us to connect with each other over long distances--and some of those people, we will never meet. I think it's all a little unnatural, since it means that there will be people who have deep relationships but will never meet each other, for example, but it's certainly beneficial. And the care we place on celebrities is not based on logic but emotion, which is infinitely more powerful--no wonder a movie starring Megan Fox can rake in millions at the box office while important philosophy papers on the free will debate lay unfunded. Should we reject our emotions, and the care we place on celebrities, whether or not they are reasonably worth celebrating? No: if we grow attached to a person, it's best that we not immediately wonder if that attachment is the rational thing to do, but let it grow. (You should check to see if those ties are harmful first, though!)
I often hear people rage in anger or confusion about how this supposedly-awful film or another made tons of cash, while Art House Film X made no money at all. I'll still probably be bugged by such things now and again--what can I say? Reason is awesome! And Independence Day was sooooo stupid!
...But I get it now.

Chris Brown Can Transform Ya, part I

I was reading about Chris Brown's album, and I decided I should probably hear some of his album before I talk about it, so I looked up the video for the first single. I was making fun of Brown before because his album had bad reviews and wasn't selling well, but after hearing that first song, I gotta say, I love...Swiss Beatz! He made a thrilling song here, and if you don't like the singer on the track, you can ignore him! It's awesome.
Kidding, really. But there's some stuff in this song that made me think of the slightly sexist and certainly cynical nature of relationships posed in many pop songs these days. Sure, it's not fair to judge entertainment based on how moral it is, but I'm going to do it anyway--err I mean, it's important to consider the direction popular music is taking because it is exposed to so many people.
"What you need, you can have that,
my black card they won’t decline that,
see potential in ya,
let me mould that..."
So, Chris Brown can "Transform Ya". It's a promise: he's telling a potential girlfriend what the benefits of having a Chris Brown boyfriend are. He can alter you with his money; he can make you better by bringing out something great in you that you couldn't change yourself.
I think you can transform most people with money, but it's irrelevant: if you believe that you can deeply change someone with money (or what it provides: power), you are cynical about that person; I, too, am cynical in that respect. In this song, Chris Brown is cynical about women.
I never had high hopes for him, though. Some of his songs engaged women with sensitivity, like "Yo" or "Forever", but there were others that spoke about women the same way, like "Kiss Kiss": "I got paper girl, the Lamborghini..."
I'm not saying this makes Brown a bad person; I've had a low opinion of the man since it was revealed that he was beating his girlfriend, but there's nothing to show that in the song. And the cynicism I highlighted above isn't even rare in modern R&B, to say nothing of rap or metal. But I'd been wondering how a person who had expressed so much love for women--in general--could be so violent to them in his own life. Who makes a living writing love songs towards or about women, when the women in your life can propel you into a violent rage? I'll never know: I've never met Chris Brown, I don't intend to, and even if I did I could hardly provide any kind of psychological analysis. But now I see that his songs featured women as objects of desire, who care a great deal about the material wealth of the man courting them--and I'm not so confused anymore.

(first half of the video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyI26E5agM4)
Maybe Lil' Wayne has the right idea. I'm sure all kinds of people have been shocked with his appearance on the first Chris Brown single since the incident. Chris Brown, the celebrity pariah! Who would dare associate with him? (I suppose it's worth noting that they've collaborated before, on Brown's "Gimme That".)
But I think I know how he feels about Brown. When asked if he's concerned about being a role model for other people, Lil' Wayne responded "I'm not an example for people on how to live their lives...if you need an example for how to live, then you just shouldn't have been born. Straight up." (the question's at about 3:10 in the video above.) I wouldn't say it so strongly, but perhaps I shouldn't be looking at Brown to be an example of a great person--entertainers aren't meant to be role models. For many people, they are, but entertainers are supposed to entertain first and foremost; trying to be a good example of how to live, in a person's music and deeds, would hurt the music and cast doubt on how good those deeds really are. (after all, if people will respect you more for doing a good deed, and respect of that kind gives you attention and better sales, then maybe you're not doing good just for the sake of it.)
I like Brown's new song, and I even agree with his cynical view. Maybe that's enough.

Review: Avatar

James Cameron. He directed Terminator 1 and 2, Aliens, and eventually Titanic, the highest-grossing film of all time. And then he went "underground", so to speak: he didn't direct a single feature film for wide release after that. Though he did make a documentary or two about aquatic life. And he may or may not have found the lost tomb of Jesus. (probably not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lost_tomb_of_jesus) And now he's back, with an allegorical film about the destruction of nature and native homelands by big business in one of the most expensive films ever made. It's clear: either this film would be incredible, or it would be a flop--you can't have a middle-ground with a backstory like that. And I'm placing my vote firmly in the 'incredible' camp.
The film is about the works of a mining company on an alien planet named Pandora in 2154 AD, and the conflicts with the natives--the Na'vi--over land destruction. The central protagonist is Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a self-proclaimed "jarhead" from Earth who is paralyzed from the waist down. He was not trained for his mission--it was initially his twin brother's; but after his brother is killed in a mugging, the army asks Jake to take his brother's place: his DNA is important. Jake seems to have some disdain for the job, as he would become a hired mercenary of sorts, but agrees because the money he is promised would help him walking again.
So, what's the job? The mining company wants the Na'vi to move: one group called the Omaticaya clan in particular lives over the richest seam of unobtainium on the planet, which is worth $20 million a kilo--whatever that means in the future. (At any rate, it's a lot.) To do that, they can employ their military might--but they don't want to. Not because they've grown a conscience, heavens no: it would generate bad press, which they don't want, but they'd be willing to handle if it comes to that. As Parker Selfridge, the company administrator, (Giovanni Ribisi) says: "the only thing worse than bad press is bad first-quarter earnings...I don't make the rules, you know how it is." Well, I guess that clears his conscience!
Moving on, to avoid that conflict, they have a group of scientists on the military base that try to engage the Na'vi by having people control "avatars" (hence the title) specially made for each of them that are composed mainly of Na'vi DNA. By spending the days controlling these avatars, their goal is to convince the natives to move, so that the company doesn't have to go to war--at least, that's their stated intent. Sigourney Weaver's character, Dr. Grace Augustine, leads the scientists. She wants to understand the Na'vi and seems to understand their connection to Pandora, and goes along with the mining company because they pay the bills.
One of the most obvious criticisms to make of this film is that the characters are caricatures. Aside from Jake, just about every character in the film fits a storywriting cliche. There's Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), the tough military leader who doesn't believe Augustine and the avatars will achieve anything with diplomacy, and is intent on preparing for battle--picture Lieutenant Surge. Mo'at (C. C. H. Pounder), the Na'vi religious leader, is a typical old mystic lady, braided hair and all. Eytucan (Wes Studi), Mo'at's husband and tribal leader, is a tough, wisened advisor of sorts; if this film was centred in Japan, he'd be the wise tutor to a student. And Weaver puts a lot into her acting here, but her character is the same tough-woman-leading-team-in-combat-situations thing she's been doing since, well, Aliens. Without getting into detail, the plot is pretty predictable, too.
These would usually be major sticking points, but I didn't care, and successfully ignored the part of my brain predicting coming plot points. Jake is eventually taught the ways of the Omaticaya clan by Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), the tribe princess, and you come to understand the tribe, and why the earth is so important to them. And nothing sells that point better than the visuals: if you go to see this film, see it in 3D. It looks fantastic: James Cameron obviously spent the years he did on this film not only perfecting the animation, but thinking of all kinds of creative designs for the plant and animal life on Pandora. The nature here is varied, fantastic, and almost always stunning. This is key: he managed to sell the idea that Pandora is something majestic worth preserving to me, and I live in a cement box. Well, my university room's not that bad, I suppose, but the closest I come to nature in here is the potted plant my roommate keeps by the window. After he convinced me of that, everything flowed, because when the Na'vi expressed outrage at the intrusion of these "aliens", I felt the same way. That's probably the greatest achievement of his allegory: I saw how utterly wrong the destruction of nature and native homeworlds can be. So not only did the nature scenes strike me--and there are many of those--but because of that, the plot began to grab me as well.
All those years we went without hearing from Cameron were put to good use. Welcome back, James.