Saturday, October 25, 2003

hell i suppose theres alot more places you can go with it too... i layed awake for over an hour thinking about some of the relations in the film. take the irony of the Man With No Eyes [who doesnt SPEAK!], and where he shoots Luke... hmm.. someone left an angry message about how Luke couldnt be gay... well... how about how is woman left him, how about how he has to FAKE the picture with women to gain acceptance with the rest of the men, or how Luke seems unaffected by the woman washing the car, and how he doesnt have flashes like the rest of the men in the camp. could it be so far out there to say that Luke is not like everyone else; who are licking the boots of this woman just for memories... selling glances at women in print.. and why everything is a struggle for Luke, how he wont disclose his past, how he yearns to fit in... etc. etc. maybe its just a boring movie about a man fighting with God. maybe its nothing more than a man trying to escape the devil. or just something having to do with death. yes, just death. but there are so many things about the movie that i dont understand... watch it.

kinda like Easy Rider. i watched that one again tonight. the end always gets me. it comes out of no where. i suppose most of the movie doesnt make a hell of alot more sense, even the plot is rather sketchy. i have yet to see the point of showin the opening scenes about the drug deal. instead, it would have made a much more powerful film just assuming these are two normal guys that society cant fathom at its current state [much in the way George's [Jack Nicholson]'s speech iterates]. hell. even George's death isnt very well done. seems like a poor way to get rid of a character used for the commentary in only 2 places. one about the acceptance/rejection of the 60's evolving counterculture; and second to show the lack of effect on a quasi normal person immersed in teh drug culture of the time. remember george questions the weed, gives the answers people popularly assume should deter those from drugs, and still nothing happens to him BECAUSE of the drugs. instead it is the mask of the entire subculture that brings about his death. something --- i stress again--- could have been done in much better ways... like the scene in the dinner... very good. the trip sequence in the graveyard is out of place, and so is the whole shitty 8mm filming sequence that precurses it. just artistic crap. especially the various fades and pans used in the film... nothing more than for art's sake. but the scenery is beautiful for most of the movie. i guess that doesnt make up for the entire lack of plot [other than a druggy road trip]. but it came out at roughly the same time as Cool Hand Luke. both use a very distinct and cliched subculture to make their commentaries about greater society. just some parts of them do it better than others. especially flamming motorcycles shooting across a field. what does that prove again? anyway. watch them both. think about them more than just the pretty pictures. youll realize a few more things about life than you ever cared to notice before thinkin of it that way.

Friday, October 24, 2003

well ive never seen all of Cool Hand Luke before. just about 20 minutes here and there, and ofcourse the snipet used in GnR's Civil War. so watching the movie was cool. knowing only that the movie was pretty well recieved in the late 60s during its release, and also knowing that this is one of the movies that made Paul Newmann, it was worth watching; aside from the fact that it was up for Academy Awards in 67. i probably watched it on one of the original reels. very grainey, very out of balance colors. so it was very true to what i guess id expect to have seen then. turns out its not so much a drama as it has comedic parts, and it has too many weighty sections to be laughable. havent quite figured it out. it is going to go on my xmas list. maybe some commentary or something on the DVD may help jog my thoughts... but ive pieced together that the movie its self is much more complex than the simple prison life story it containts. death figures in, but not really how youd expect... not like in Shawshank, Green Mile, or Last Castle even... instead death presents its self in a quite way. much like the Man With No Eyes. who, actually does have eyes... and we see them, vaguely at two points... but call him The Man With No Voice, as it seems more fitting. anway; its a struggle about redemption. ill put money there. not alot. but ill bet the spread on it. it has much more to do with that then happiness. religion is a central role, but not as clearly major as some people will think it is. the overtones are obvious, but its what its suggesting thats more important as a story. it also has something to do with fitting in. not the ultra obvious that Luke doesnt fit it; but that HE DOES. more importantly its about Luke's ability to cross over from fitting in, to becoming a misfit; to fitting in again. his ability to walk this line is something that seemed important to me. why? well in a movie about redemption; which is anything but an exact science; we find constant metaphors and visuals of straight lines. train tracks, walls, ledges, boards, roads, fences. even the bricks in the HotBox are positioned in very straight rows [compared to the falling apart structure] as is the hole that Luke digs for himself. interesting. besides whenever we have Luke fleeing, he crosses these things. he meanders across roads, fences, bridges, lines, traintracks. again, showing that the road to redemption is not a logical one. so it is about redemption. and its not about religion. why? no. thats too easy. come on. look past that. its about Luke and his father... the same relationship exploited by Speilberg and Lucas years later... but its Luke and his father. the father he never knows, the son he can never guide. this is why God is The Old Man, this is why Luke only begins his wanderings after his mother's death; because he is in search of his father. his father though, never having been named or met, stalks Luke. through the war, through his law problems, until the end. is The Man With No Eyes metaphorically Lukes father? could be. im torn between that and the signiffigance of the Captain. his role means something more. The Man... never corrects Luke; that IS IMPORTANT to understanding the relation with the father; but so is the Captain. the Captain is the one that brings Luke back, the Captain is the one that corrects Luke, the Captain is the one trying to tie Luke home.--- just like Luke's mother. Lukes mother wants Luke to behaive, to have grandchildren.. Luke is the child she put her hope in to. but she dies in vain. i dont get that one. but i like her line about people... people should be more like dogs... that someday even a bitch wouldnt know'd her own pups anymore, and it would save her the pain of watching them. lots of things i need to watch for again. besides... think of the little stuff. why The Man kills only animals... what about the ironic scene of the white man in chains before two black boys. how about the metaphors about war, and why The Man removes the bolt from his rifle, and forces prisoners to bring it to him. but im settling on this for tonight... it has much more to do with redemption than a simple story. religion isnt so important to it. Luke could be gay. and we should all do a little more to find out about our fathers. watch it sometime. i know im missing it. the main line of this story is something i can see pieces of, but i cant quite get my hands around. its frustrating. it makes it another movie to buy and watch again....

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

Fraud Is Fun

gee isnt it. fraud is fun? deception is game, and its the best kept secret one can have. kinda like buying a phone on ebay.. listed as new in box... still wrapped and stickered... THATS STOLEN. Fraud Is Fun. its crooked fun i suppose. maybe Phun even. but the rigors of staying fraudulent... those are pretty concrete. so Fraud is Phun. i got a great paper weight out of this. it lights up and everything. does calculations, laptimes, games... hell its even supposed to answer my phone calls for me... but it wont. since its a stolen phone. im working on clearing my name in the legal legistics circus this will become. but Fraud Is Phun! att then gets my money; again for service, and now for another phone. one that does work. best part is ATT wouldnt even tell me who is the rightful owner of this stolen phone. i offered to ship it back to the owner, at my expense, because its the right thing to do. a no go. ATT said they dont know, and dont care. they are just happy that no one can ever use this phone again. except me. or who ever it really belongs to. sigh. Fraud Is Phun.