MADIAM, LANIE LEI M.                 EDU30                   BIO2Y2-1                                              26 FEBRUARY 2013

Defining Happyness

“Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t do something. Not even me.” Something along those lines did Chris Gardner, a sworn father, with knitted brows and all tell to his son how dreams can never be taken away. It is such an encompassing circumstance where trust between a parent and a child is oddly established.

Oddly enough, that is. I haven’t encountered so far anyone who would swear proper parenthood and would see their own child grow up thru the years while burning in their child’s mind that the child will have to build his own dream, pursue, and justify it regardless of future predicaments by which even his parents should deny him of his wills and dreams. Asking a child of his dreams in life is one thing. Deciding if his supposed dreams are for him is another. Having him understand your dreams is a bit on the side-track. Telling him to trust you in climbing up your way to your own dreams is a whole lot far on the other side. Why? A parent’s dream most of the time if not always consist of fulfilling his own desires and yet establishing a foreground for his child’s would-be-dreams. Doing both is not that easy. Spice in some trust and it will be the least easy. And that part of a life story is called pursuing happiness.

Pursuing happiness is such a tread where trust is hardly bought and hardly given away.  Let’s leave the matter of defining trust. Not that I do know what the word defines to a large extent (or the utter lack thereof). But trust is a matter of creating bonds – of respect, of acceptance, of acknowledgement, of breaching the gaps. Relationship-wise: it is essential. And the most profound and yet most basic form of all relations is the family.

Gardner had tried to run a complete family promising that everything will be all right from the start of his marriage with Linda. He managed to start running his family investing his entire life savings on a portable bone density scanner. He swore that he let his son grow knowing him as he has only met his father when he was around 28 years of age. That – was only the beginning.

Cutting down the chase of his life’s turning point, he was broke as soon as his scanner sales were barely mobilizing, left behind by his wife, kicked out by his tenant, imprisoned for accumulating parking tickets, lived a day in a ‘cave’ (a public restroom), jostling in line at 5 o’clock in the afternoon for a free lodge, all the while struggling as an intern in Dean Wither’s Brokerage Firm carrying his baggage around the clock and selling his scanners.

It’s quite satirical how one particular hobo could somehow save him. The hobo, although absurd, finds his scanner to be a time machine, gets the chance to have it “accidentally” in his possession. During the time when the government accessed Gardner’s bank accounts for not paying taxes leaving him only with $21, here comes mister hobo in the park and saves his day managing to survive his last days before the end of his internship.

On another hand, pulling thru in the story is the innocence of Christopher, Gardner’s son. He is a normal child with normal needs gifted with a ten-gallon head. He keeps looking for his mom, keeps asking on where his dad is going, keeps on having this various reactions with regards to their shelter-hopping, and keeps his dad amused. Nevertheless, he trusts his dad. Gardner, in return, keeps his feet on the ground for the sake of his son.

What started it all?

Thomas Jefferson in his Declaration of Freedom mentioned happiness. Ironic that in legal papers, that civilian general word exists multiple times in the declaration. Gardner took note of that. From the part of his life which he called ‘riding a bus’, he came in contact with a throng of the working class all smiles. There he questioned, when can he be happy just like that? Possibly, and not probably, the reason why he taunts on ramifying the word happyness in his son’s daycare.

Is it human nature to seek happiness? To delineate trust? To form an ideal family?

One thing, though: Never waver.

Filed under film review | hn. your pen's toilet

Hello, I'm Dr. Bean. Apparently. And my job is to sit and look at paintings. So, what have I learned that I can say about this painting? Well, firstly, it's quite big, which is excellent. If it were very small, microscopic, then hardly anyone would be able to see it. Which would be a shame. Secondly, and I'm getting quite near the end of this... analysis, secondly, why was it worth this man spending fifty million of your American dollars? And the answer to that is, that it's a picture of Whistler's mother. And as I've learned, staying with my best friend David Langley and his family, families are very important. Even though Mr. Whistler was obviously aware that his mother was a hideous old bat who looked like she'd had a cactus lodged up her backside, he stuck with her, and even took the time to paint this amazing picture of her. And that's marvellous. It's not just a painting. It's a picture of a mad old cow who he thought the world of. Well that's what I think.t

How can someone smart be so stupid? And someone stupid so smart?

The first sentence of my reaction I had read in Dengeki Dasiy before. And now I personally experience it. Aside from me doing it. I'm not surprised. But, I'm in the throes of admiration.

Filed under film review, through red-colored spectacles | hn. your pen's toilet

More like Fringe's, or J.J's, or whoever thought of it first. The idea that when you have a deja vu, it is in reality a window to an alternate reality. To me, it would explain why we dont really know why or from where we get these deja vus.
The other explanation, that the deja vu happened in our dream, seems less credible. To accidentally re-create a dream, something that is created out of million possiblities, is very rare. To me, deja vus happens constantly. I would say once a month. Its absurd to say I'm reliving my dream once a month.
Then again, it is also somewhat absurd to say we are looking at through a window into an alternate reality.

An Excerpt from the Fringe-Forum started by IvanGD in 2009.

Filed under film review, through red-colored spectacles | hn. your pen's toilet

THE

PASSION

OF THE CHRIST

“You are my friends, and the greatest love a person can have for his friends is to give his life for them.”

            The Passion of The Christ is an inspiring religious movie about the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth’s life, depicting the old customs and traditions of the ancient Jews. Concentrating on one point, Christ’s Passion and Death, the story is indeed inspiring even from the title alone because it gives a deep soul-searching in our lives as human beings.

            Indeed, Christ is our Savior and our very best friend. He sacrificed Himself to die on the cross just so that we will be saved from our sins. This is the greatest love the world has ever known. His Resurrection is the greatest miracle ever. It revives and strengthens our faith and hope as we come to realize that His words and teachings bring us true happiness and give us the true meaning of life by accepting Him as our Lord and Savior.

            The suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus bring to us a new and meaningful life. He is the true Lamb who took away the sins of the world. By dying, He destroyed our death; and by rising, He restored our life.

            From the sufferings and death of Christ, we learn of God’s love for men and the evil of sin. Christ chose to suffer agonies because He loves us.

            From the passion of Christ, we learn that evil is sin (and vice versa) and that God hates sin and evil. We cannot ask God to be with us if we commit sins. Sin separates us away from Christ.

            I consider the sufferings of Christ as the most striking because they serve as an example for us, to strengthen us under trials. Christ gave us an example of patience and strength. If we encounter or receive trials, we should accept them with resignation. We must also do our tasks willingly and joyfully without complaining or grumbling. We must do things all for the honor and love of Christ.

The agony of Jesus is one of the most dramatic manifestations of His humility, humanity, and of His  brotherhood  with all mankind. #

Filed under film review | hn. your pen's toilet

EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING
Running time: 114 mins
Starring: Stellan Skarsgård, Izabella Scorupco, James D'Arcy, Remy Sweeney, Julian Wadham

It's been 31 years since The Exorcist frightened a generation of film-goers and in the process, brought a new credibility to the horror genre with 10 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. In the intervening years there have been two attempts to follow up the brilliance of director William Friedkin's take on William Peter Blatty's chilling novel about a 12-year-old girl possessed by the devil. Both failed miserably, but that hasn't deterred this latest effort. Nor the fact that Paul Schrader's completed version was all but scrapped and Renny Harlin hired to shoot a new account.

 
Apparently Schrader's version lacked the requisite blood and gore, and while Harlin's Exorcist: The Beginning contains its fair share, it's certainly not in abundance. What is lacking, though, is a decent story. One of the original Exorcist's most chilling aspects was that it involved real people in an everyday setting, elements that are always starkly more frightening than a horror tale set in some imaginary world with unrecognizable characters.

Although E:TB features Father Lancaster Merrin - with Stellan Skarsgård in the role made famous by Max von Sydow - the action is set in a remote part of Africa, where the arid landscape, along with the film's archeological thread, conjures up comparisons with The Mummy. E:TB is certainly closer in spirit to The Mummy, with its more fantastical brand of horror, than the original Exorcist.

 
Merrin first appears in Cairo in 1949, where he's plying his trade as an archeologist and looking not unlike Indiana Jones. His wartime encounters with Nazi atrocities have caused him to renounce his faith and suffer vivid flashbacks. He is approached to recover an ancient relic from a recently uncovered Byzantine church in Turkana, Kenya. That the church was reportedly built a thousand years before Christianity arrived in the region is but one of the many mysteries surrounding the church. When Merrin arrives, he finds the local villagers scared of the church, the excavation of which has brought with it a plague of death and sickness. #

Filed under film review | hn. your pen's toilet

Dominion: The Prequel to the Exorcist

By David DiCerto
Catholic News Service

NEW YORK (CNS) -- Here's something proponents of auteur theory -- that the primary creator of a film is the director -- will be chewing on for a while. Take roughly the same story, the same lead actor, the same setting, and let two directors armed with different visions and different scripts go off and make a movie.

This isn't some film-school experiment. It actually happened -- well, sort of. Several years back, the Morgan Creek production company decided to make a prequel to William Friedkin's 1973 horror classic, "The Exorcist."

Originally, Morgan Creek hired Paul Schrader to direct, but company executives felt Schrader's film wasn't scary enough (no spinning heads). So they axed Schrader, shelved the film, hired director Renny Harlin, recast some secondary roles and started from scratch. Some $80 million later, they released the refilmed movie as "Exorcist: The Beginning" in 2004. It bombed.

Schrader's subdued yet somewhat involved version is now being released -- as "Dominion: The Prequel to the Exorcist" (Warner Bros.).

The basic plot outline remains the same in both films. Set in 1949 British East Africa, lapsed priest Father Lankester Merrin (played in both by Stellan Skarsgard) wrestles with a crisis of faith wrought by wartime memories of Nazi atrocities in his native Holland, before reluctantly assuming the role of exorcist to help a possessed local boy. In both tellings, the problems start after an ancient evil is unleashed by the excavation of a Byzantine church buried in pristine condition.

Violence also erupts between the local tribesman and a regiment of British soldiers dispatched to guard the archeological dig, giving new meaning to "the devil made me do it."

In "Dominion," Clara Bellar plays village doctor and concentration camp survivor Rachel Lesno (a similar role made intentionally more sexy and played by Izabella Scorupco in "Beginning") and the idealistic young missionary, Father Francis, is played by Gabriel Mann as opposed to James D'Arcy.

Where the two films really part ways is how their respective directors handle the climactic exorcism sequences (during which Merrin rediscovers his lost faith). Harlin went for a traditional horror-film showdown, pitting Merrin against his unholy adversary in a mano-a-Mephistopheles free-for-all.

Schrader, raised a strict Dutch Calvinist, opts for a more introspective approach, having Merrin locked in a theological debate about guilt and forgiveness with Satan (androgynously played by Billy Crawford). And while Merrin is shown to be conflicted (though ultimately redeemed), the priesthood is portrayed with respect.

More a thinking-man's horror movie, "Dominion" is a marked improvement over Harlin's gorier "alternate" version, but that's not saying much.

"Dominion" thoughtfully explores the nature of evil, as well as themes of faith and doubt. In one scene Father Francis says, "Faith is not there to conquer evil, but to help (people) survive it."

However, the at times dry film is hampered by laggard pacing, shaky theology and narrative gaps -- not to mention some cheesy computer-generated effects.

The film contains some strong violence, including a graphic suicide, and several grisly murders and executions, demonic violence, a disturbing childbirth scene, a bloody medical procedure and a few racial slurs. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is L --- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R -- restricted.

- -
DiCerto is on the staff of the Office for Film & Broadcasting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

END

Posted On: Monday, May 23, 2005

Dominion: The Prequel to The Exorcist

Starring: Stellan Skarsgård, Gabriel Mann, Clara Bellar, Billy Crawford, Ralph Brown
Director(s): Paul Schrader
Writer(s): William Wisher, Caleb Carr
Company: Warner Bros. | Morgan Creek

by Michael Sheridan

Honestly, this review’s a little late in the game. I got the opportunity to see this Dominion: The Prequel to The Exorcist at a special screening last weekend, and it was released in a handful of theaters this past Friday.

One of the reasons I’m late in reviewing this film is because I wanted to see the version that was actually released, which was directed by Renny Harlin. I’d also hoped to see The Exorcist, which I haven’t seen in years. Sadly, I wasn’t able to do either of these things last week (partially because I was swept up in Star Wars mania for the latter half of the week).

Either way, I’m taking this opportunity to sit down and dedicate myself to discussing this unique film. It’s not unique in the sense that it is particularly good, because it really isn’t, but because it’s a footnote in film history as being a film that got trashed and quickly remade by a different director.

First, let’s talk about Dominion: The Prequel to The Exorcist (kind of an oddly literal title). The story begins near the end of World War II, where Father Lankester Merrin (the priest played by Max Von Sydow in the original) is forced to pick ten people to die by a Nazi officer.

Years later, he has taken a sabbatical from the priesthood to study archeology. He makes a great discovery in Africa: a mysteriously buried ancient Byzantine church. The beautiful church ultimately hides a deadly secret: a demon had been trapped there centuries earlier. It is soon unleashed, and possess a crippled boy.

The demon quickly begins to manipulate all those around it, including a detachment of British soldiers, forcing a clash between them and the local tribesmen that could destroy them all. Merrin must rediscover his faith in order to battle the demon, before its evil can be inflicted upon the world.

Let me just say right now that in the first few minutes of the film, it’s pretty obvious why this movie was never released. In fact, the director (Paul Schrader) was summarily fired and the film was completely reshot with Harlin at the helm. The cast was also completely changed, except for its star, the always intense Stellan Skarsgård.

It isn’t that Dominion is bad, because it isn’t. Not exactly, anyway. But the first thing I thought 20 minutes into the movie was that the film had a $40 million budget, but looked like it was made for less than $10 million. The cinematography was dry, the visuals were not particularly impressive, and the scope was fairly limited. Dominion just feels like a direct-to-video movie that would air on the Sci-Fi Channel, or perhaps as the late night movie on one of the local channels. It’s completely understandable why a studio would not release it, especially with all the hype connected to it as the prequel to an infamous horror film.

The story also suffers from some needlessly slow pacing. I have no problem with a film that takes its time, but Dominion takes too long to get to the point. But the ultimate failure of the film is the lack of development for its main character, Merrin. Although we see him in the opening scene make a very difficult moral decision, and understand that this causes a serious crisis of faith for him, very little more is explored beyond that. For example, why is he into archeology? What led him to this buried church? None of this is explained or explored.

A possible romantic angle is also touched upon, but ultimately never gets realized. Aside from one or two brief scenes, no sexual tension is even developed. Being on sabbatical, as well as being human, there is plenty of room for a potential romantic relationship to evolve between Merrin and the local doctor, played with a rather stiff, detached performance by Clara Bellar, but it never even comes close to fruition.

Dominion is interesting for brief moments, but I couldn’t really call it entertaining. It’s not even particularly scary, because the audience generally knows more than the characters, so there is no suspense.

I wish I could say that I’m rooting for the underdog here. I wanted to like Dominion, because after the failure of Harlin’s version, I wanted to believe that Schrader was simply unfairly treated and his film misunderstood. And while I think Schrader probably deserved better from the studio, I also can’t blame them for shelving his movie. ##

***

{ mood } complacent

Filed under film review | hn. your pen's toilet