Author Archives: rickconti

Looking in the mirror

Posted on by under Generic Rant, Movies

mirrorFor some time, I’ve had this intriguing idea for a play. I’m convinced it would be entertaining because I lived through the events I’d be chronicling and they were surreal, hysterical, and more than a little profound. The main reason I’ve hesitated writing it is my fear that it would hurt the real people who were involved. The chances of them seeing or reading any version of the play would be relatively slim, but it’s not a chance I’m willing to take. Today, anyway. There might come a time.

Meanwhile, I wonder how many people out there have felt the sting of seeing themselves in a less than flattering light in the mirror of the media, whether intentional or not. Here are a couple of areas I’ve been contemplating recently where that could easily happen.

One of the most successful TV advertising campaigns of late has been the “alternate” Rob Lowe commercials. The awkward, hairy, paranoid, and other bizarro Rob Lowes are simply hysterical. Although they’re all over-the-top stereotypes, they are types, after all. The world is filled with creepy and painfully awkward people. Do they recognize themselves? At least one group does, according to this Time Magazine article. (Who knew there was a “shy bladder syndrome”, never mind an advocacy group thereof?)

meatheadThe one that really gets me with respect to recognizing oneself, though, is “meathead” Rob Lowe. I know this guy! If you’re honest, you probably do, too. These musclebound no-brain-no-pain dudes are everywhere, but sighted most often in fitness centers picking things up then putting them down. When this commercial plays at “Fitness World” or wherever, as it surely must, how could there not be a meathead revolt of Bolshevik proportions? Huh, Bro?

On a far more serious note, there are the neanderthal racists (excuse the slight at neanderthals – do they have an advocacy group I need to be wary of?) portrayed in disturbingly large numbers in excellent films such as “Selma”, “Glory Road”, “Mississippi Burning”, and “Remember the Titans”, to name just a small sample. Given that the actual events on which those films are based occurred only 50 years ago, give or take a decade, a lot of those bigots are still slithering around. How do they view those portrayals? I can think of a few possible reactions:

  1. People of such low IQ wouldn’t see quality movies. Or any movies.
  2. They wouldn’t understand what they saw, mistaking antagonists for “good guys” and vice versa.
  3. They have, since those dark days, recognized the error of their ways and look with deep regret at the characters who most resemble them.
  4. They grind their brown, crooked teeth as they yearn for the “good old days” when they could carry out their psychotic acts with impunity.

neverending1I get it. The whole point of a good movie is to hold up a mirror so we can see ourselves in a new and unexpected light. Not everyone is up to the task of seeing themselves as they really are. I’m reminded of the quest of Atreyu in “The Neverending Story”. At one point, the “mad scientist” Engywook has this exchange with Falcor, the Luck Dragon:

Engywook: Nonsense! You don’t understand anything! The worst [test] is coming up. Next is the Magic Mirror gate. Atreyu has to face his true self.

Falkor: So what? That won’t be too hard for him.

Engywook: Oh! That’s what everyone thinks. But kind people find that they are cruel, brave men discover that they are really cowards. Confronted with their true selves most men run away screaming!

I’ve run away screaming from many a  mirror – especially in the morning – but wonder how I’d react to seeing my “true self”, i.e. the person I could be under the worst possible circumstances. Having witnessed the depths to which people can sink, I can only hope I’d do better.

May I never find out.

Haiti, Five Years Later

Posted on by under Generic Rant

 

DSC_0677

It was five years ago today that Haiti was hit by an earthquake. The tremors still shake the ground under their feet. Since that day, there has been a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing about the fate of Haiti. I’ve done my share.

Lest we forget, we’re talking about people. This special post is just a pointer to another post in my other blog. It’s mere tragic coincidence that I’ve done this twice in a few days.

January 12 will never pass without my remembering, writing, mourning, praying, and acting.

Why?

Posted on by under About writing
flip

We miss you, Flip.

In this post, I want to answer the question, “Why do I write this blog?” To do so, I feel compelled to borrow (a.k.a. steal) a brilliant technique once used by the brilliant, sadly departed, comedian, Flip Wilson.

Remember Flip? He, in the guise of his most popular character, Geraldine, invented the phrases, “The devil made me do it,” and, “What you see is what you get.” Quite a legacy.

So here goes:

“Why do I write this blog?”

I see that as a two part question. First: “Why?”

“Why?” is a question that has plagued mankind since time immemorial. Every philosopher, theologian, statesman, and all who have confronted their own mortality have been confronted with and tried to satisfactorily answer the profound question, “Why?” It’s been debated, sermonized, and written about extensively since man was able to reason, yet no one has ever been able to find a resolution to the eternal “Why?” Given all that has gone before, none of which has borne meaningful fruit, it seems both presumptuous and pointless for this humble writer to add what would amount to a comparatively insignificant contribution to the discourse. Thus, I defer.

The second part: “Do I write this blog?” Yes.

 

That’s a flippant (pun intended) answer to a serious question. Why does anyone write a blog? Many do it for purely mercenary reasons. They desire to build up sufficient following in order to attract advertising dollars and thus, write for a living.

Closely related to those are the dilettantes who want to have their 15 minutes of fame and, when it doesn’t come in the first 15 posts, chuck the whole business.

It’s pure therapy for many. Disgorging whatever thoughts come to mind gives them the healing they need to assuage the frustration daily life dumps on all of us. It doesn’t matter one bit whether anyone reads it.

My two-part answer to that one-part question is, all of the above and none of the above. There’s at least a modicum of truth to each of those for me.

It is sometimes therapeutic, but I do care if people read it.

I am trying to earn a living as a writer, but not by selling advertising. In fact, that’s the last thing on my mind. Building a “platform” is an important step in creating a demand for writers trying to ply their trade. This is how I’m doing it for now.

I’m not looking for fame, but I do want readers and I do want to sell some of my writing. Am I lying to myself?

Besides those schizophrenic answers, there’s the hope that writing on a regular basis will improve my skills at the craft. I have no right (believe it or not, on the first pass, I spelled that “write”) foisting poor or even mediocre writing on an unsuspecting public. That doesn’t seem to be a problem for some very successful writers. I don’t know how they’ve done it, but I applaud their ability to do so and I wouldn’t mind being let in on their secret(s).

Believe it or not, writing just one of these posts can take a few hours. That’s just long enough to develop a thought, but not really long enough to do it justice. I could be using the time to work on one of my other projects – I always have a few on the front burners – or just to relax.

In spite of the fact that, between this and my other blog, Limping in the Light, I’ve written well over 300 posts, I’m constantly questioning my efforts in this quixotic quest. Will something ever come of it? Is it worth it? Is anyone reading this? Should I deep six the whole thing and do something that pays some more tangible benefit to society… in my lifetime? Ultimately, why am I writing this blog?

The questioning continues as I suspect it will as long as I continue. Writing is a lonely calling. Especially if no one’s reading.

Entitled

Posted on by under About writing

snoopytypeI love to write or I wouldn’t be doing this. Even if no one read my scribblings, I suppose I’d scribble them anyway. That’s a recurring theme from writers. We write because we have no other choice. It’s not like we don’t have any other skills, we simply have the overwhelming need, passion, desire, yearning – call it what you will – to write.

Still, it’s gratifying to have others read what I write. Getting my words to an audience beyond immediate family and friends takes a lot of self-promotion, networking, schmoozing, and building of a platform. None of that comes easily to the average writer. They tend to be introverts. I have the advantage of being an extrovert, but promoting myself remains a chore. To improve my lot, I’ve decided I need to take a drastic next step:

I need a title.

Adding a title to a name immediately increases its credibility. Where would “Cedric the Entertainer” be without “the Entertainer”? Many of us wouldn’t know what to make of him absent the built-in endorsement; at least we know what he’s supposed to be. Which would get more press, King Richard I or “Richard the Lionheart”? No contest. Numbers get confused or forgotten. Lionheart will live on forever.

So a title would be a big boost, but the choice is a dilemma. It should be influential without being obnoxious, positive without being presumptuous. You can’t undersell yourself. Seriously, would you remember a ruler called Alexander the Adequate?

weegeeThere’s no guarantee that adopting such an appellation will work, however. Photographer Arthur Fellig was more commonly known as Weegee. Somewhere along the line, he gave himself the title “Weegee the Famous”. He even marked all his photos with a stamp bearing his title as shown on the right. Have you heard of him? I rest my case.

Some titles could be misunderstood. I fancy myself a relatively humorous person. “Rick the Humorous” is too understated, but “Rick the Hysterical” could get me in trouble.

It’s also a good defensive move to assign a title to yourself. Otherwise, you could end up with something less desirable than you might like. Jack the Ripper, Ivan the Terrible, and Mack the Knife probably didn’t choose those labels. If they’d been more proactive, who knows? Maybe we could look back fondly on Jack the Repairer, Ivan the Tender, and Mack the Spoon.

I’ve yet to home in on just the right title. As of now, I have only this list of unsuitable candidates:

Rick the …

  • …Writer (trite)
  • …Blogger (too on-the-nose)
  • …Wicked Awesome (too pompous)
  • …Storyteller (I kinda like that one – hey, I can dream)
  • …Ridiculous (a quality alliteration, but nothing I want to advertise)

So the jury is still out. If anything strikes me soon, I’ll have to give it serious consideration. Too much is at stake.

Suggestions are welcome… within reason.

Dickens and Christmas

Posted on by under Books, Movies

ChristmasCarolBookThere are plenty of folks out there crediting Charles Dickens with “inventing” Christmas. That’s a pretty drastic overstatement, but there’s a grain of truth to it. At least one author posits that, with the publication of “A Christmas Carol”, Dickens rescued his own career and shaped the celebration of Christmas as we know it today. For those who wish to pursue the matter, an intelligent refutation of that premise can be found here.

For the record, as much as a lot of people would prefer otherwise, Christmas is in fact the celebration of the birth of Christ. In our pluralistic society, people are free to ignore that fact, just as they ignore the “true meaning” of Thanksgiving and Memorial Day. You don’t have to celebrate it as such, but that’s the way it is.

The mode of that celebration, however, is quite a different matter. For example, the December date is well known to have been a later invention. Reindeer, Christmas trees, gift giving, and wassailing – not to mention Santa himself – are all among the pieces of extraneous baggage that have been heaped mercilessly on what is a simple observance of a historical and spiritual event of significance to a huge percentage of the world’s population.

Neither Dickens nor his masterpiece needs the superfluous acclaim. “A Christmas Carol” is as brilliant as it is timeless. It honors what people call the “spirit of Christmas” with only a slight nod to the religious aspect of the holiday. As such, it tends to be tolerable to all stripes. Yet the theme of repentance and transformation conforms perfectly with Christian orthodoxy. In the grand tradition of great art, it works equally well as edification and entertainment.

XmasCarolI just watched my favorite filmed rendition of the story, the 1984 version starring George C. Scott. It edges out the surprisingly high quality animated Mr. Magoo musical version.

(One reason I prefer that version to any other is the supporting cast, which includes several performers from the Royal Shakespeare Company’s production of Dickens’s “The Life and Adventures of Nicholas Nickleby”. In a previous post, I made no bones about my tremendous admiration for that production.)

Some of the scenes and lines of dialog in the book are as fresh and meaningful today as they’ve ever been. The poor still struggle, barely noticed, at the feet of the rich. Dickens’s bleak portrayal of that situation is neglected in many dramatic presentations of the story.

I reproduce the exchange between Scrooge and The Spirit of Christmas Present below. Now as it was then, the prose is rich and evocative, the message relevant and convicting.

From the foldings of its robe, it brought two children; wretched, abject, frightful, hideous, miserable. They knelt down at its feet, and clung upon the outside of its garment.

“Oh, Man! look here. Look, look, down here!” exclaimed the Ghost.

They were a boy and girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and dread.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.

“Spirit! are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.

“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. “Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And bide the end!”

“Have they no refuge or resource?” cried Scrooge.

“Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. “Are there no workhouses?”

The bell struck twelve.

It makes me wonder what the bell strikes today.

NB: As I’ve noted elsewhere, the lesson of Scrooge and other Yuletide scoundrels has been lost on us today, to our shame.

TV full circle

Posted on by under Generic Rant, Movies

[No time for a long post today. Life takes up all my time. Weird about that, huh?]

magni-tvIt occurred to me recently that a lot about television, in spite of its rapid evolution, is coming full circle. For a long time, in the early days of TV (no, I don’t remember them) interest seemed to focus more on the newfangled technology than on the admittedly skimpy and weak content.

Today, although the content is more sophisticated than ever, talk is still mostly about technological innovations in things like screen size, type, and resolution, sound, source (cable, satellite, Internet), 3-D, and other novelties.

A big topic is resolution: What used to pass for HD is already old hat. 4K is hot. Great if you have a nice big screen at home. Not such a big deal if you’re watching on your phone or tablet, which everyone seems to be doing. As the screens get smaller, seeing anything at all is a challenge for some of us.

I see us going back to TV’s nascent days, when families would put some kind of magnifying device (including fishbowls!) in front of the tiny screens so the whole family could sit brasiltvaround to watch. I’m not alone in this outlook. According to Terry Gilliam’s brilliant film “Brazil” that’s what our future holds, along with a lot of other nasty stuff. His vision wasn’t meant to be realistic, but it turns out he wasn’t far off the mark in more ways than one.

Other “cutting edge” improvements:

Curved screens will soon appear on virtual store shelves. What’s the big deal? My old Zenith had a significant convex curve to it. Didn’t make “Lost in Space” any more credible.

3-D, which for my money adds no real value to any medium except View-Master, refuses to go away.

The worst new feature for televisions has to be “3-D multi-view”. This allows two people, both wearing geeky glasses with built-in ear buds, to watch two different shows on the same TV at the same time. Could we possibly make an isolating activity more isolating? Why would we want to?

Besides visual changes, sound is also important. HD sound is great. Unfortunately, I have low-def (closer to high-deaf) hearing.

Here’s hoping Santa brings you a fishbowl to put in front of your Android.

Peace on Earth

Posted on by under Books, Generic Rant, Movies

I’m old enough to remember the 60’s and, unlike some of my contemporaries who find the era’s fashions, language, and music a bit dated, I have no desire to distance myself from that connection. It was a great time. We’d run around in our tie-dyes and bell bottoms waving protest banners with what now seem to be quaint phrases such as:

makelovewarnothealthygivepeace

Perhaps the most naive of them all was this one:

whatifwarThis is the one most likely to make people cringe. On the surface, it’s seems so naive, almost childishly optimistic. It sounds so crazy. To quote Steely Dan, “Only a fool would say that.”

But what if it really happened?

It did.

For a very short span of time during World War I (the conflict ironically called “the war to end all wars” – talk about naive optimism!) both sides refused to play the game of killing each other for the benefit of absentee generals and politicians.

Over the years, I’d heard stories about the so-called “Christmas Truce” of 1914. This past week I read a thorough history of the events in a book called “Silent Night” by Stanley Weintraub. A movie about the truce was made in 2005. “Joyeux Noel” creates a compelling composite of the actual events by centering on a single group of combatants on the Western Front.

Both book and movie are excellent works, but the truce itself is the amazing tale. Bands of enemies mingled with each other, singing Christmas carols, playing soccer, burying their dead, trading keepsakes, sharing food and drink, and generally getting to know one another. Guns were laid down and differences forgotten. Nearly a million people had already given up their lives for this mindless standoff. Beginning on Christmas Eve that year, a hundred thousand suddenly came to their senses and grasped at the outrageous opportunity to celebrate Christmas with Peace on Earth, if only for a couple of days.

When word of the impromptu truce got back to the powers-that-were-but-no-longer-are, all ensconced in luxurious digs and downing fine food and drink for the holidays, they were incensed. Threats of transfers, court-martials, and even firing squads were brought down on the lowly servicemen who were bogged down in frozen or muddy trenches.

The high ranking officers and politicians thought it insane for the soldiers to drop their weapons and spend Christmas getting to know the enemy who had been painted by each opposing nation as barbaric, evil, less-than-humans who deserved to be and must be eradicated. Those same elites saw nothing crazy about throwing young lives at each other in a futile attempt to move their lines a few yards either way in the pointless and protracted conflict. After all, they were out of harm’s way themselves. Some things never change.

As the groups of enemies fraternized on the few hundred feet of No Man’s Land that separated them, they actually became friends, sometimes making plans to get together after the war. By meeting their foes, British and French troops came to realize that Germans weren’t monsters who crucified children as they had been told. The Germans learned that their foes were just like them, with the same dreams and desires, most with families they missed.

Some people objected. One member of the German army who was alarmed by the actions of the soldiers said:

Such things should not happen in wartime. Have you Germans no sense of honor left at all?

If you find this man’s opinion resonates with yours, be aware that his name was Cpl. Adolf Hitler.

In 1914, everyone thought the end of the war was imminent. It ended up dragging on for another four years, causing millions of casualties. Worse yet, it planted the seeds that grew into the next and even greater conflict, World War II. Author Weintraub in his book makes the compelling case that, had the perpetrators of the war followed the lead of its victims toward peace, we might have not only avoided the second Great War, but the Bolshevik Revolution might never have occurred, thus eliminating more conflict from the world in ensuing years.

Today, armed conflicts seem to be ubiquitous. Once more, it’s not quite clear what people are fighting about, but it’s usually the same thing: enemies are demonized as evil fundamentalist (or atheist – take your pick) demons who want to take away our precious way of life. If you were to talk to most of those enemies, you’d find, just like those men in the trenches in 1914, that they are human beings like ourselves who only want to live their lives in peace.

In the next war, could we have all the leaders – political, military, and religious – slug it out among themselves while the rank-and-file watch from a safe distance? It would make great reality TV.

The more common motivation for war today is to give the big weapons manufacturers an opportunity to showcase and sell their wares. If a few thousand kids are killed in the process, that’s a price the stockholders of said companies are willing to pay. I’m reminded of the opening scenes of a rare good superhero movie, “Iron Man”, when Tony Stark, between bedding women and sipping champagne, sells a gazillion dollars worth of killing machinery to everyone in sight but misses the downside until he becomes a victim of his own products.

Jesus – He’s the guy that started this whole Christmas thing – says, “Love your enemies.” I’m pretty sure, as the saying goes, killing them isn’t what He meant. Is there a better way to celebrate the day than to refuse to kill the people Jesus said we should love?

That is what would happen if they gave a war and nobody came. Maybe it’s not so childish after all.

(For more reading, here’s a fascinating article from nine years ago.)

Pop the thought stack!

Posted on by under Generic Rant

think2muchI’ve said it before and I’m likely to say it again. I think too much.

I’d be aware of this fact even if the people around me didn’t regularly remind me. (Yeah, it’s that obvious.) Thinking too much is way-wicked better, though, than the more typical American attitude of thinking too little or the almost pandemic not-thinking-at-all. Thinking is Good.

Still, thinking too much has its own set of drawbacks.

One negative is that I get stacks and stacks of ideas to write about for blogs, articles, fiction, and scripts – more than I’d ever be able to get around to in this lifetime.

pop1To cut down on that pile, allow me to pop the stack with a random dump of topics here. With sufficient thought (of which, as I’ve mentioned, I have an overabundance) and time (of which I have precious little) some of these might justify an entire post of their own. Who’s got time for that? I’m too busy thinkin’.

Have you noticed that, as movies get shorter*, credits get longer? You’d think the equation “shorter movies = less to do = less credit” would apply, but you’d be wrong. There are more people getting credit for doing whatever they do. It bucks the whole business trend of “doing more with less.”

IAWLcreditsLook at a classic film like the seasonally appropriate “It’s a Wonderful Life”. The credits list only the major acting roles, director, screenwriter, costume designer, and a few others. Buried in the eight or nine minutes of credits today, you’ll find the insurance company underwriting the movie, five drivers, the caterer(s), several assistant background colorists, and a seemingly infinite number of other obscure jobs. (Key grip, lock grip, best boy, worst girl, mediocre pet.) No exaggeration: Today’s trailers list more credits than did entire films from the 40’s.

[*They are getting shorter in general, with the obvious exception of “Interstellar“. If movie length affected credit length, the credits for that epic-in-its-own-mind would roll longer than an average romantic comedy runs in its entirety.]

Speaking of classic movies, does anyone else see a problem with the current practice of labeling a newly released film an “instant classic”? Is that legit? It seems to me that a little passing of time is required to test whether something is truly classic. Otherwise, why not have brand new antiques? Anyone who can explain all this will become an instant legend.

gershwinWhen Robin Williams died before his time, it reminded me how much I grieve when an artist dies, not only for the loss of life, but at the loss of the great works that will never be. My most painful example is George Gershwin, possibly the greatest musical genius in American history, who died at age 38. Those first 38 years produced a wealth of memorable music. How many more great musical creations went to his grave with him? Another “Porgy and Bess” perhaps? An entire rainbow of Rhapsody’s? That’s something to mourn.

I called the doctor the other day and was greeted with a recording that said, “If this is a life-threatening medical emergency, hang up and dial 911.” I don’t even know where to begin on that one. First of all, do we need to say “hang up”? That would seem obvious. Anyone who calls the main switchboard of a hospital during a “life-threatening emergency” does indeed have serious problems, but even 911 won’t help. I seem to get this same message no matter what kind of medical practice I call. Do you suppose there are a lot of people with life-threatening emergencies calling their optometrist?

The good news: Black Friday sales were down 7%. The bad (actually, tragic) news: Sales on Thanksgiving Day were up 24%. It’s official. America has completely lost its sense and moral compass.

watchesThere’s a watch store at the mall. Are enough people still buying watches to justify dedicated stores? Why is anyone buying a watch? Everyone and their pets carry cell phones that prominently display the time. Besides, clocks are everywhere now, in everything. From where I sit, I can see the time on a radio, cable box, toaster, TV, DVD player, microwave, and phone. The bathroom is the only safe place from the invasion of the timepieces. Maybe that’s where people need their watches. I hope not. To paraphrase Brian Regan, if you gotta check your watch in the john, you’re booking yourself too tight.

And in spite of all those clocks, most people are still late.

I keep hearing people complain about getting phone spam even though they’re on the do-not-call list. What do these folks think, criminals check the DNC list before making their illegal robo-calls? Do they suppose murders would cease overnight if we had a do-not-kill list? Heck, let’s give it a try. I’d sign up.

Have you been in a sporting goods store lately? The floor space in these places is taken up by about 5% sports equipment and 95% clothes. It appears that no one is actually playing any sports these days, but if one breaks out, we’ll be ready.

Back here, I listed some things that have disappeared in my lifetime. I keep thinking of new ones:

  • searsCRTs
  • Fotomat (Remember those short-lived dinosaurs?)
  • film
  • All-encompassing catalogs such as Sears, JC Penney, and Montgomery Wards

Actually, all catalogs have outlived their usefulness as much as slide rules, Yellow Pages, and unfoldable road maps, but the individual retailers keep sending them out, especially around Christmas. I’m getting catalogs from companies I last did business with over ten years ago. Others are from companies I never even heard of. My recycling bin could have a field day if it had an internet connection.

Driving down the road recently, I was cut off by a guy whose car sported a “coexist” bumper sticker. He wants all races and religions to coexist peacefully but he can’t even coexist with the next car.

That’s a load off…

Too big to be good

Posted on by under Movies

tooBig2There’s an infamous saying that almost brought down the American economy. “Too big to fail.” (I already wrote about this in my other blog here, but this post takes the idea in a different direction.) My own take on that absurd concept is, if something’s too big to fail, it’s too big. Period. Note that the statement is actually a lie. Nothing is too big to fail. Failing happens regardless of size. Just ask the Empire.

My own preference is for small: small cars, small churches, small stores, small restaurants, small businesses in general. I’ve worked for big companies – I’m talking BIG companies – and small companies. There’s no comparison. For the most part, the big ones are hell, the small, paradise.

My preference for the petite extends to movies and movie theaters. Yes, there’s a place for the blockbuster playing at the regional Imax theater, but it’s a small place. (That shouldn’t surprise you.) This was brought home to me in the most tangible way possible this past week. I saw BIG movie in a BIG movie house. A few days later I saw a small movie in a cozy little theater. The former was torture, the latter a joy.

technicolorAt the risk of life and limb*, I’ll tell you about the BIG movie. “Interstellar” was BIG in stars, budget, marketing, and most painfully, length. It felt more like a three hour physics lecture than a story. (You remember “story”, don’t you?)Yes, of course the special effects were amazing. Let’s agree that effects are always amazing and be done with it. They no longer have any meaningful impact on the quality of a movie, any more than the fact that it’s in “full living color!”

For my money, the more important contributors to movie quality consist of things like the following: Consistent characters, cohesive story, and humility of length, all in short supply in Interstellar.

When the credits finally, mercifully rolled, I realized I’d forgotten it had been directed by Christoper Nolan, a man who specializes in BIG, at least since “Dark Knight”. So I hated the BIG movie, with its physics borrowed from Madeline L’Engle, interviews stolen from Ken Burns, and everything else taken from Stanley Kubrick.

And the venue? There’s nothing to like about Generic Cinema 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-∞.

LunaTktForget BIG. Let me tell you about the small venue. It’s called “Luna” and it’s found in a remodeled mill building, nestled in with a bunch of funky little (do you see a theme emerging?) shops. The audience sits in easy chairs with tables nearby on which to put snacks and drinks. None of the seats are half a mile from the screen from which the movie is just a rumor. Even the tickets at Luna are cooler than the the ones at Generic Cinema 1-2-3-4-5-∞. See what I mean? →

stadium

Take a seat, any seat at all.

luna

Luna in your living room.

Which looks like a more enjoyable way to see a movie?

 

The movie I saw at Luna was small. It was about people, not aliens – ideas, not bombs – real places, not CGI landscapes. Most movies happen to you. I like a movie I can settle into. There’s a place for both in the world, but not in Generic Cinema 1-2-3-4-5-∞.

I don’t think there’s a place for me there either.

* Publicly criticizing a Christopher Nolan movie, I’ve come to find out, can be hazardous to your health. When I made disparaging comments about “Inception” in this post, I was taken to task with a profanity-laced harangue from someone who must have a degree in Missing the Point. I expect to hear from the same guy this time, with his master’s thesis in Cluelessness.