Milk: Part Two (after thoughts)

I posted a fairly long argument after my MILK review regarding gays, gay rights and gay marriage. I have something in follow-up to say regarding the issue:

At the end of the post I proposed a solution to the issue:

The solution: give both sides complete civil rights and take nothing away. Give the homosexual community all the civil rights of a marriage. A loved one or a partner should be able to visit someone in the hospital when they are ill, without this civil right they arn’t considered family and therefore are denied aspects that a married couple would. Simply give them all the civil rights that a married couple would and then don’t deny rights to the other side. When blacks or women got civil liberties, nothing was taken away from other races of gender.

The LDS church has recently undertaken action to support the solution-in-principle, the following link is something I found comforting, if you haven't seen it already. It actually was a big moment, gave me a lot of comfort to see for a lot of reasons, people can't possibly say that the church is against gays, after seeing this article, we can officially say that the church doesn't oppose gay rights, in fact the LDS church has gone out of its way to support them:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/11/salt-lake-city-oks-gay-ri_n_353399.html

When someone says why is YOUR church against gay marriage, it is obtuse to conform that approach due to the fact that the LDS church is a small, tiny fraction of the population, a population that is predominantly christian, Muslim or any other faith which opposes its sanctions. Moreover, to say YOUR church is not the issue at hand, in fact there is more credibility to flip it the other way and argue why do YOU not believe in it, the population is more than in your favor to do so...it is so easy for people to pick on certain faiths as the odd one out, when in fact they are by millions upon millions of people. When someone poses this argument I feel that the best thing to say is, no matter what there are going to be ideas that conflict with what is "right" and what is "wrong" no matter the church there will always be opposition, however the only solution is to promote RIGHTS themselves....the right to be homosexual is an equally important right to practicing your religion.

There should be no hindrance in promoting quality of life because of who you are and the best part of this is, the church has gone out of its way to promote the fact that the two can co exist. The church proclaimed its support to abolish the discrimination of gays, so the important question is: why then do the gay rights communities continue to discriminate the churches? One thing to remind someone too is that the members of the church are not under obligation to subscribe to any political ideology and are free to believe and vote according to their own wishes no matter the issue:
The church released this statement regarding politics:

As citizens we have the privilege and duty of electing office holders and influencing public policy. Participation in the political process affects our communities and nation today and in the future.
Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties.

Therefore, in this election year, we urge you to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then to vote for and actively support those you believe will most nearly carry out your ideas of good government.
The Church affirms its neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates. The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues.
Sincerely, The First Presidency

The above statement in mind, it is important to remember that no matter the issue, or conflicting ideology to the church that someone pins on you or stereotypes you as, the LDS church clearly states that the individual reserves the right to vote or advocate what they choose politically.

Finally, "I believe" arguments are credible and something I have learned to value recently is that they cannot be and shouldn't be pushed down. There is no way to argue with someone that begins their argument with "I believe" because it is simply that, their belief. I have to respect the fact that you have a belief that you feel makes you stronger. The same goes for anyone that holds strong beliefs in anything, even homosexuality or freedom of religion. They both have a belief that they should be accepted for who they are, and so we, as citizens amongst them have a duty to accept them for who they are. Having said this, I should also say that even though you have a belief does in no way give you the excuse to be stubborn. People need to have an open mind with all issues, without critical thought and openmindedness, society has no growth, it will remain static.

In conclusion, I think the cooperative approach should go both ways: while supporters of same-sex marriage disagree with religious groups on various issues, they can (and should) recognize the right of religious groups and individuals to believe and teach religious principles that may include opposition to homosexuality. For the past few years it has appeared that the gay rights movement and religious liberties were on a collision course, but cooperation like that in Salt Lake is a good reminder that the conflict is both unnecessary and avoidable.

My motto on the issue is simple regarding gay marriage, It's not the right thing to do, but it's their right to do it.

"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," said Brandie Balken, director of the gay rights advocacy group Equality Utah. "I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don't have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies."

Where the Wild Things Are

Spike Jonze has been known for some memorable pieces in his career (the best Weezer and Tenacious D videos, Jackass, Being John Malkovich and a Co-director on a film I have always wanted to review but haven't felt like I could give a worthy description of: The Fall). His 2009 film, based on my favorite children's book of all time "Where the Wild Things Are" aims to please a range of viewers. On the one hand you have a children's classic, with lovable characters of make-believe fabricated in the main character's mind (Max). On the other hand, each character, as the adult viewer catches onto throughout the film, represents a different manifestation of Max's emotions that he is feeling on the surface. My mom used to read the book to me at bedtime and I recall such vivid images of Max's bedroom page by page slowly turning into a new world, the far-off land of the wild things, and those creatures with their yellowy eyes. It was oddly scary and comforting at the same time to hear that story each night. That's probably why I was curious to see what director Spike Jonze would do with the big screen adaptation.

A little background on the film, it was actually supposed to come out a year ago, but in a test screening to a children audience, there were children leaving the theater in tears after being scared of the monsters. The film still does contain dark themes (hints of cannibalism, and witchcraft for example) however the faces of each beast were reanimated with CGI, as per studio's request to appeal to a wider audience inclusive of children. The film also was directed using natural lighting, which is a remarkable achievement that seems to be common to Jonze's style. In fact many parts of the film reminded me of his Weezer video "Island in the Sun."

Max is a burdened child, not feeling anything extraordinary from most kids, but they are exceptional emotions to him with no one that seems to relate to what he is feeling around him. The film does an exceptional job of portraying the assumptions adolescents make from problems that everyone seems to grow out of, but shouldn't be seen as juvenile just because it is a child that experiences them. Often grownups (I think the film argues) downplay the emotions of a child just because they are just that, childish. However, the film strives to give a deeper meaning to the common experiences of what children go through. As one critic put it, "It's less ABOUT a kid and more about BEING a kid." For example, Max's school teacher describes what the end of the world would look like, starting with the death of the sun and the slow widdling away of life throughout the universe. Max, as a boy, cannot grasp any type of long-term vision around the fact and starts to become scared, assuming that the death of the sun will happen inevitably and soon. Max tries to find solace and companionship in his mother and sister, who cannot seem to relate or take the time to calm down his rash, immediate assertions. It is at this point that he runs away from it all and creates a world in his mind that he can call his own and build. Within this world he creates "wild things" that each represent a piece of his torn emotions. These emotions are vivid and obvious parallels that become fun to pick out and identify over the course of the film.

Now, Jonze decided to stray away from the book at this point. Of course you have to give him a little slack as some critics refuse to, I mean, the book is about 30 pages long with 2-4 lines per page, you have to stray a little bit. For example, the Max in the book is a garrulous young boy of about six years old. He is sent to his room without his supper. The Max of the movie is deeply disturbed and much older and he ends up running away from home. The problem here is not that Jonze decided to stray from the book, its that this straying created serious convolution of character and plot.

The characters become dealt with one at a time and introduced in the same manner. The main monster, Carol becomes the main character that Max speaks with. First of all, assigning very common, human names to the beasts gives it away that Max is tagging very human qualities to the manifestations of his imagination. Carol is the main monster that Max deals with, because he is the representation of the central emotion that Max is dealing with in real life. There could be nothing clearer to give this away then when Max first meets Carol he is wrecking and destroying pieces of his friend's houses, just as Max did in frustration with his sister's room earlier in the day. Carol is dealing with his best friend neglecting him for other friends, friends that Carol refuses to let into his life. This friend is KW who represents Max's sister in real life or the emotion of desired companionship. Carol finds himself neglected and lonely, above all he is constantly worried and insecure. These are the emotions that are at the forefront of Max's life as he experiences a lack of friendship and neglecting from his mother and sister. Max also confronts other emotions throughout his make believe journey, for example the beast named Douglas is always ignored, even bullied. Max sits down with Douglas and tells him that no one ever listens to him. After comforting Douglas into thinking that even though no one seems to notice it doesn't mean that no one cares. Every single confrontation and words of comfort that Max expresses to his beast friends are the conflicts or the words he needed to confront and hear in real life. The words he expresses to them in comfort are ironically the very words he needed to hear for himself. As the tag line of the movie says "there is one in all of us" (a wild thing), this refers to the fact that we all have an emotional burden inside each of us screaming to be let out just as each wild thing, and Max learn to howl and scream their way into exposure. He even comes to piece with the one beast that has only the one line in the entire film, but is silent the entire time. The bull tells Max he is going to miss him, finally speaking this is Max's shy side that has finally decided to come out and expose his emotions. It is after confronting each of these emotions (or beasts) that he decided it is time to go home. This part of the film is surprisingly emotional and satisfying as the film is admittedly and exhausting 2 hours long. There are definitely times when watching that you are waiting for Jonze to wrap it up.

In regards to interpreting the meaning of the Things or Beasts, one critic wrote:

"The Things are potent symbols that refuse to yield to a single interpretation. Carol blends Max’s angry, destructive impulses and anxieties with Max’s mother’s concern and, dimly, the reassuring voice of the father who isn’t there. It’s not hard to see where Carol and KW’s quarrels come from, and KW’s absences are the flip side of Carol’s surrogate fatherhood, but Max’s sister is also in KW, off cavorting with her new friends and leaving Carol, and thus Max, in the lurch.
Among the most revelatory moments are an outburst from Judith (the rhino-nosed one, voiced by Catherine O’Hara), the harshest and most cynical of the Wild Things, following a taunting match with Max. "You’re not supposed to yell back at me!” she screams. “You have to just listen and love me anyway, because that’s your job!” It is his own voice, uttering his own unspoken plea to his mother. In another scene, Max flings at Carol the very words his mother yelled at him: “You’re out of control!”
The movie is full of wonderful visions, from the burying of Max beneath a heap of Things (perhaps the most sadness-shielding moment in the film) to Carol’s tabletop model-building and the large-scale fortress the Things set about building, both of which have a nest-like textured look that evokes Sendak’s crosshatching pen-and-ink work. Max Records is ideal as Max, one of the most unaffected child actor performances since E.T.
Like E.T., which explicitly referenced Peter Pan, Where the Wild Things Are is indebted to J. M. Barrie’s classic tale. The realm of the Wild Things is wondrous but unsettling and sad, and at one point Max tells KW, “I wish you all had a mother,” just as Neverland is a heartless place because there are no mothers there.
Watching the film, at times I wished for something closer to Sendak, something simpler and less talky, with more attention to the book's most striking images: not just the missing bedroom scene, but the sea-monster Thing that greets Max before he makes land; the Things swinging through the treetops like monkey bars during the Wild Rumpus; the sweater-striped Thing (Carol) bowing in courtly fashion to the newly crowned Max. Yet put the book aside and watch the film as a Thing unto itself, as a better cousin of Labyrinth and The Dark Crystal, or a Muppet-ier cousin of E.T., and I think it is something rather wonderful.
In a word, the great difference between Sendak’s book and Jonze’s film is that the book is about anger, while the film is as much about sadness. Here is a film broken-hearted over the messiness of the world. It is sad, and beautiful, and true."


In the end, Max realizes and comes the the conclusion that each monster (or emotion) can't survive without their mother (as he fulfilled the motherly role himself). Or in other words, every piece of our childhood needs to be nurtured, not tortured or run away from as Max did.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 70% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating. Though the film provides a deeper insight into emotions that we strive to keep but our lack of innocence has detached ourselves from, it makes no effort to entertain the child inside of us. In other words, I think many of us went to the film expecting to feel like a child again, but instead we were put through a lesson on how to relate to them. Even though the studio made great effort to make it appeal more to kids, it is not wiping out the scary elements that they needed to focus on as it is the length of the film. 2 hours seemed a little too long for the kids in the theater with me, and even I was growing impatient. Through it still provided moments of nostalgia and provided plenty of elements of humor and aesthetics, the film cannot possibly be put in a category of excellence.

The Truman Show: Part One

In the last few years, America has undergone a significant cultural change. Previously, almost no criticism of the media reached the public, except for some of the complaints of business interests and conservatives. The media controlled the "means of communication" and it used that power to censor virtually all discussion of its own role in shaping events

But now -- at last -- we are starting to get some public debate over the way the media manipulates public opinion and routinely creates fictions that masquerade as facts. The change has taken place in large measure because the media itself has become so powerful and so out of control, there is no longer any way for it to keep what it is doing under wraps.

Ironically, one of the voices that is being raised against it is none other than that of the ultimate media machine, Hollywood. While celebrities take on the tabloid photographers who follow them around, the movie and television industry is giving us depictions of venal reporters and scheming entertainment conglomerates, which pull no punches when it comes to revealing how amoral our culture industry has become.

In the brilliantly-conceived (and imperfectly executed) satire, The Truman Show, it shows us a character who also challenges -- and ultimately escapes from -- a contrived world that is an invention of media. Both movies have the same message: we will have to stand up to the manipulators of television and news if we want to protect ourselves from the absurdity and falsehood that now surrounds us at every turn.

As most people know by now, The Truman Show conveys this message by depicting a series of fateful events in the life of Truman Burbank, (played by Jim Carrey) who has grown up, and lives, in a fake town full of actors. The town is enclosed in a giant dome decked out with high-tech simulations of sun and sky, in which the rain and wind are courtesy of the special effects department. Truman alone has no idea he is in a giant TV studio, as the rest of humanity watches him go from one staged situation to another in a nonstop telethon of reality programming that lets audiences enjoy a little pathos and vicarious emotion.

But into this ersatz paradise, there inevitably appears a snake. After the crew makes mistakes that cause the seamlessness of the illusion to break down, Truman figures out that his surroundings are full of staged scenes and events. He then tries to make his escape, only to come up against both his own fears, which keep him from leaving, and the obstacles put in his way by the producer-director who has made billions trapping him in a stage set and playing God with his life.

Thus does the movie offer us a metaphor for our own situation. The fake landscape Truman lives in is our own media landscape in which news, politics, advertising and public affairs are increasingly made up of theatrical illusions. Like our media landscape, it is convincing in its realism, with lifelike simulations and story lines, from the high-tech facsimile of a sun that benevolently beams down on Truman to the mock sincerity of the actor he mistakenly believes is his best friend. It is also rewarding and masquerades as something benevolent. And it is seamless -- there are almost no flaws that give away the illusion -- at least until things start to go wrong.

Truman's fear of leaving this invented world, once he realizes it is a fraud, is similarly like our own reluctance to break our symbiotic relationship with media. His growing suspicion that what he is seeing is staged for his benefit is our own suspicions as the media-fabricated illusions around us begin to break down. And the producer-director of this stage-set world, who blocks Truman's effort to escape, is the giant media companies, news organizations, and media-politicians that have a stake in keeping us surrounded by falsehood, and are prepared to lure us with rewards as they block efforts at reforming the system.

What gives this metaphor life is the way the movie depicts two attitudes we routinely take toward media. In one, we are absorbed by it; we accept its rendition of reality because it occupies our view. We are like children whose parents define their world. The lifelikeness and seamlessness of media fabrications and the fact that they are entertaining, help induce this attitude in us. We frequently experience it while reading news stories and watching television and movies.

In the second attitude, we distance ourselves from media. We examine its meaning and try to understand the intentions of its authors. This second attitude is what makes criticism -- and freedom -- possible.

In life, we frequently switch from one attitude to another and mix them together. In watching television, we may easily become absorbed in the program. Then something will jar us out of our spell, such as a breakdown in the illusion or the expression of ideas we disagree with. As a result, we will suddenly distance ourselves from what we are watching, and perhaps ridicule it or suspect the intentions of its creators. The critics of media have been trying to get us to cultivate this second attitude, so we will see through the falsehood we are offered on a daily basis.

The movie depicts just such a change in attitude as a transformation in the way Truman sees his surroundings and as a physical journey. First, Truman is absorbed by his stage-set world. He is convinced it is real and it occupies his view. Then, as a result of flaws in the seamlessness of the illusion, he begins to question it. He develops a healthy paranoia -- are they watching him; can he know what is authentic? As he makes his escape, and the producer of the show blocks him at every turn, that is the creators of the movie telling us that we too have to take a journey -- of mind -- and distance ourselves from this media landscape, if we want to secure our freedom.

The movie also depicts the critics who invite us to see through media illusions in the form of characters who try to warn Truman he is on television. Most notably, there is the woman who reveals to him that he is on TV, before she is removed from the set. His dream of finding her is also the dream that, at first, he doesn't know he has, of finding the truth of the outside world, where there are genuine relationship in place of the saccharin marriage he believes is authentic.

The movie wants to play the role of just such a critic for us. It tells us to look around and break the spell that keeps us believing in the media-fabricated illusions of popular culture.

Of course, the movie is also a form of media. As it conveys these ideas to us in dramatic form, we are absorbed by its own take on the meaning of things. Like Truman, we are manipulated and entertained by its lifelike simulations and story line. We identify with Truman and psychologically become a part of his world. So the movie uses the manipulations of media in order to manipulate us into seeing through the manipulations of media.

As with many other forms of media, we are enriched by allowing ourselves to be taken over by its theme. But we also need to create a more critical distance, escape its invented world, and think about its meaning and effect on us, so we can use it to enhance our perceptions instead of allowing it to use us.

What is said here is true of all media -- including this site. It too seeks to draw you in; to try to structure your perception of things. It too requires a critical distance, so you can use it to enhance your perceptions and not merely be manipulated by it.

That brings us to another element depicted in the movie -- you (and me). The movie isn't only a satire of television and other forms of media. It aims many of its most pointed barbs at us, the audience. After all, as we watch the characters hanging on Truman's every expression so they can feel something, that is us we see depicted on the screen. We are the one's who make this system possible, the movie tells us. The willingness of the audience to exploit Truman so it can enjoy his life as entertainment is our own willingness to exploit an endless parade of human victims of news and reality programming because they have the misfortune to be part of some "newsworthy" event. And both the audience and Truman portray our willingness to experience an easier and more exciting substitute for life, which is what fuels the media machine.

So Truman and the audience depict us. We're the villains and victims and hero of The Truman Show. And, ultimately, the only illusions we have to escape are the ones we create ourselves.

Finally, the “Truman Show” encapsulates the most virulent attack on capitalism in a long time. Greedy, thoughtless money machines in the form of billionaire tycoon-producers exploit Truman’s life shamelessly and remorselessly in the ugliest display of human vices possible. The Director indulges in his control-mania. The producers indulge in their monetary obsession. The viewers (on both sides of the silver screen) indulge in voyeurism. The actors vie and compete in the compulsive activity of furthering their petty careers. It is a repulsive canvas of a disintegrating world. Perhaps Christoff is right after all when he warns Truman about the true nature of the world. But Truman chooses. He chooses the exit door leading to the outer darkness over the false sunlight in the Utopia that he leaves behind.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 95% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating. Though emotionally pleasing on the surface, The Truman Show raises questions about the reality we are presented with and imprisoned under. The profound nature of this film also can raise significant questions into controversial themes in religion, creationism, morality, what's right and what's wrong with reality television, politics and totalitarianism. With fine acting (Ed Harris won an Oscar for best supporting Actor) and Peter Weir attempting American cinema, this film comes off as a near perfect and necessary movie for everyone who knows movies to see.

W.

Oliver Stone is famously known for his period pieces of American history (World Trade Center, Platoon), specifically events surrounding American presidents such as JFK or Nixon. In W. he explores the life of George W. Bush, beginning at his freshman year at Yale all the way to the end of his presidency. The movie holds a few contradictions with history that I will outline, but that aside, I found it to be a surprising portrayal of the man who, at one time held the lowest approval rating in presidential history. Surprising because, all controversy aside, the film shows sympathy towards George Jr. and one could say lets him off the hook to easily.

The film surrounds the complex Bush had with satisfying his father, George Sr. who was also president. It continuously brings up the issues he had with his older brother being the one his father was proud of and perhaps suggests in the end that it was this complex that caused him to proceed and insist on pushing the Iraq war (because George Sr. pulled out of the Gulf War in what W. thought was too early). The film implicitly suggests that the only way W. could make his father proud was to do what his father could not.

It seems outlandish to say, but the film even suggests that it was simply because of W's wish to please his father and be better than his brother Jeb that he became governor of Texas and even President. Outlandish because of what the film accurately reveals Bush to be; an immature, lazy rebel with a free ride because of the prestige of his family name. Bush quits the multiple opportunities that were handed to him though his family and somehow finds a way to find his own niche in the world. He becomes owner of the Texas Rangers with the help of investors that his family knows. As the eyes of his father cause him to doubt his place in the world, his life in politics begin.

Josh Brolin plays Bush and his performance can only be described as mystifying. He proves that he studied Bush's walk, mannerisms and even the piggish way he eats. He shows a rude and egotistical man who shows his human side through his insecurities. Brolin watched hours of Bush clips and phoned random hotels in Texas to get the accent down while studying for the role. It is interesting to note that Christian Bale was initially cast to be Bush but he backed out at the last minute. Personally I don't see how Bale would have pulled it off being so young, but he hasn't ceased to amazine before. Regardless I think Brolin was meant to be. The cast is stacked (Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheyney, Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush, James Cromwell as George Sr.). Thandie Newton's performance as Condeleeza Rice was hard for me to put a finger on. I couldn't figure out if it was a horrible job or she was going for something. As everyone else in the film was acting like they've done their homework, I couldn't figure out why she stuck out as if she hadn't done any homework at all. I came to realize that in the film, Rice is portrayed as a sinister sidekick who punches in not alot of lines, but the right ones to swing Bush her way. The other characters are overbearing and obvious in how they convince Bush to go into Iraq (Cheyney with oil, others to get reelected) but Rice seems to chirp her way into his head by convincing him that there were nuclear weopons in Iraq, without actually saying so. Everyone but Colin Powell is the villan in the boardroom, who speaks from his heart, but in the end sides with the majority and addresses the UN against his will in favor of invasion.

As Bush adresses congress to convince them Iraq is the right move, he is reading a teleprompter where every word is finely written by a team of speechwriters. During breaks in the speech the teleprompter woudl read "applause" and at the end of the speech the teleprompter reads "massive applause" as if to suggest that every aspect of convincing the room, and the country was intensely orchestrated according to the team's exact intention.

The theme of God is overarching throughout the film. Between every big event in W's life there is always consultation with his priest or after every big meeting in the White House they always bow in prayer. Overarching it seems because it suggests that every decision Bush made was justified by his belief in God. He states to his priest in the film that he doesn't even want to run for president but God is asking him to. Again when Rice askes him what his father thinks of invading Iraq he says he doesn't care about his father, only his higher father. Bush was criticized for creating or pushing a theocracy in his presidency and meshing church with state in his politics, these examples are the manifestation of those criticisms.

The choice of soundtrack in the film is carefully crafted. As he addresses congress in regards to invading Iraq the famous happy song plays, "It's wonderful world" in ironic fashion. There is a folk song that tells the story of Robin hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor that plays a couple different times in the film as he plans the Iraq invasion. Perhaps this is to say that Bush thinks he is a good guy doing it through criminal means, stealing from the powerful and giving back to the people in Iraq. Or its just meant to be funny calling Bush Robin Hood as a hero is something he surely thought he was, but was not. In the film as you watch pay special attention to other soundtrack choices as they are also interesting.

Historically in the film there are a few discrepancies. During the fraternity hazing scene, a person asked if Bush was legacy, Bush says yes and says his father and grandfather, etc were all delta kappa's. This is not true, his grandfather Prescott was in Zeta Psi. Only Bush Sr. and Jr. were in Delta Kappa Epsilon. It was mentioned in the film that Laura Bush had voted for LBJ. Johnson ran for president only in 1964, on the day that Laura had attained the age of 18. Before the 1972 election the minimum voting age was 21, so she could not have voted before 1968. At several points, real life quotes from George W. Bush are used in very different contexts. For example, "Rarely is the question asked 'Is our children learning?'" is shown being said during his Texas Gubernatorial run, but was actually said in January 2000.

There is one dream sequence that continues to run throughout the film. Bush states that his dream job would be in baseball, but his father tells him he isn't good at it. The dream is Bush continuing to catch fly balls in center field. After each monumental moment in Bush's life he catches a fly ball. However, after it shows the failure of his presidency in finding out that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq after all, the movie ends with the crack of a baseball and Bush getting ready to catch a ball but it never comes down as he lowers his glove he looks confused followed by the credits. This sums up his presidency and maybe his life, looking up for something big to happen amongst his rise to power, but unfortunately power doesn't always come with success. The fact that the movie ends with this scene further makes the viewer feel sympathy for a man that could have been misunderstood. The famous incident of Bush choking on a pretzel while watching a football game takes place in the film but is given an ambiance that actually makes you concerned instead of something worth mocking or used as a giant joke to the media and variety TV programs that month. In regards to this baseball dream sequence, I'm curious to hear what you think it means.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 59% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating because, even though it is not necessarily an important film about an important figure, it attempts to prove a unique portrayal of a man we view so typically as. I would go slightly higher and give it a 6.5/10

Again, I wouldn't say it is an important film to watch. Nor would I say that it's a crucial piece of media for someone studying his life or presidency. However, what does stand out is how the film takes events that the world is familiar with and makes us wonder, as we watch the film and think, "how did this guy, and that happen to that country?" How the hell did this happen? It is an astonishing film that makes you realize how ridiculous it was that the reigns of America were under such an insecure, incompetant man.

Miracle at St. Anna

Miracle at St. Anna follows four black soldiers of the all-black 92nd Infantry Division who get trapped near a small Tuscan village on the Gothic Line during the Italian Campaign of World War II after one of them risks his life to save an Italian boy.

In my last review of Milk, I discussed a historic movie with an agenda. In Milk, the true story was placed in defense to current events as a political statement with honorable intent. In Miracle at St. Anna, Spike Lee presents his agenda in defense to the lack of portrayal of Blacks in World War II films. Unfortunately, though it may be a fact that there are no representations of Blacks in war films, and there are indeed many untold stories of their heroism, this portrayal of their sacrifice plays it to shame. Clint Eastwood made two films which juxtaposed both sides of the same WWII story in Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Spike Lee publicly criticized Eastwood for not having a single African American in both films, even though they were a very real and important part of the war. Eastwood never released a response, and rightfully so. It was not only a shameful way to plug his own movie, but Spike Lee in this fashion pushed in what he thought was relevant to a story that didn't involve or even contain any blacks within it. It would be like criticizing Spike Lee for not having any whites good at basketball in He got Game. Seems racist doesn't it? It is an important step in stopping racism to stop bringing attention to the fact that there is racism when it is negligible. Personally I think this was an attention-seeking move by Lee in order to plug his own movie.

The movie, by the way is a horrid representation of what Lee was going for. Todd Gilchrist made a great point by revealing that "By choosing for his definitive portrait a tale based on a fictional novel rather than an actual true story, Lee has undermined his own efforts to properly depict the wartime experience for WWII-era blacks." Jules Brenner says, "There are endearing moments but we're in a Spike Lee world where it's okay to interject his "black vs. the privileged white-man" lecture time and again to the detriment of the film."

The movie seems like an appropriate piece for prime time made for TV that should have premiered on BET.

If Lee truly wanted to represent and honor the Buffalo Soldiers of WWII, why did he use a work of fiction to manifest true events in history? The film came under controversy as Wikipedia states:

Protests were scheduled for the film's Italian premiere in Viareggio, Italy, by unspecified organizations resulting from the plot line of a partisan collaborating with the Nazis. This runs directly counter to the accepted Italian version of events, which is that the slaughter was not a reprisal but an unprovoked act of brutality and that the hunt for partisans was a pretext. Giovanni Cipollini, deputy head of Anpi, said the film was a “false reconstruction” and a “travesty of history”. However, Lee unrepentant, stated “I am not apologizing.” He told Italians there was “a lot about your history you have yet to come to grips with. This film is our interpretation, and I stand behind it." McBride, the novel's author, stated: "As a black American, I understand what it’s like for someone to tell your history...unfortunately, the history of World War Two here in Italy is ours as well, and this was the best I could do...it is, after all, a work of fiction.”

Spike Lee, although he has made pieces of cinema that reveal the African American perspective in flawless forms both fiction (Do the right thing) and has successful represented African American history as well (Malcolm X), this film is by far one of Lee's greatest shortcomings next to Ray Allen's acting in He Got Game. Sean Gandert points out why, perhaps the movie seems like a conflict of interest "The combination of Lee's concerns for his characters' depictions with Disney's concerns for mass-market appeal ends up pleasing no one." The film seems about an hour too long and forgive me as a movie critic, but i fast forwarded a chunk in the middle, don't blame me though I"m no Roeper, I'm a common viewer telling you exactly what you would have done. Peter Rainer says of the film's length "Clocking in at 160 minutes, this interminable movie comes across like a rough cut. Perhaps Lee believed its length would give it gravitas. The opposite is true."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 34% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

I was happy to see after watching the film that people agreed with me. I thought for a second that I was being racist by not liking the film, however many shared the same sentiments with me that it was an overbearing piece of fiction attempting to portray the realities of war. Although I am a fan of Derek Luke, and he does a great job delivering his role, the story itself is long, dry and uneventful. I immediately went to look at many parts of the film that didn't seem to make sense. Ask ten people who've seen this movie what the title's "miracle" is referring to, and you'll get a couple of different guesses and a whole lot of blank stares and shrugs. The ending is definitely going for tears, but I couldn't help but laugh. Do not see this film.

Milk

The 2008 film Milk explores the last ten years of Harvey Milk's life, the first openly gay man to win an election in a major political office in the United States. Walking into this movie, I was excited to review it as a typical Hollywood film where anything about being gay automatically gets Oscar nods and is critically acclaimed as a classic film pushing and transcending boundaries. As it turns out, after seeing the film I didn't find this at all, though it may push boundaries for some, it is a true story and one that brings exposure to important issues. The movie is filled with inspiring quotes that can be applied to many mediums, not just the fight for gay civil rights. The movie shows the opposition to the fight for gay rights from the political, religious and most bigoted perspectives. Though it spoke with a clear agenda aiming towards glorifying Harvey Milk, its obvious placement in theateres after proposition 8 and not considering the other sides credibility in perspective, I found it to be a wonderful film in regards to an average person creating exceptional circumstances.

Harvey Milk: All men are created equal. No matter how hard you try, you can never erase those words.

The film's roles gave opportunities for high caliber actors to shine their true potential as Emile Hirsch, James Franco and Sean Penn made noise with their roles as homosexuals, Josh Brolin played an amazing jealous politician who was trying to do what he thought was right, until it drove him so mad that he shot the mayor and Milk.

Milk's presence in political office came with charisma and presence as he used his influence to not only be a voice for gays but senior citizens and the poor. In the movie, the portrayal of the religious right is perhaps a bit extreme and makes each person in opposition to Milk in even the slightest seems extreme, however the film will turn (even they can stomach to watch a couple dude on dude make out scenes) the most extreme bigot into a more tolerant person I would hope as it illustrates the inhumane circumstances a homophobic America has put the gay population through over decades of abuse. Before his death, Milk was quoted as saying, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let the bullet destroy every closet door." His fight for proposition 6 in California succeeded that no openly gay teacher could be fired for their sexuality.

Harvey Milk: If it were true that children emulate their teachers, we'd have a lot more nuns running around.

After his assasination Dan White (Josh Brolin) went on trial and was given a minimal sentance even for shooting two politicians at work including the mayor. The jury was biased towards White and it is no wonder he got off so easy for having too much sugar in his diet. Wikipeda states "Milk's and Moscone's murders and White's trial changed city politics and the California legal system. In 1980 San Francisco ended district supervisor elections, fearing that a Board of Supervisors so divisive would be harmful to the city, and that they had been a factor in the assassinations. A grassroots neighborhood effort to restore district elections in the mid-1990s proved successful, and the city returned to neighborhood representatives in 2000. As a result of Dan White's trial, California voters changed the law to reduce the likelihood of acquittals of accused who knew what they were doing but claimed their capacity was impaired. Diminished capacity was abolished as a defense to a charge, but courts allowed evidence of it when deciding whether to incarcerate, commit, or otherwise punish a convicted defendant. The "Twinkie defense" has entered American mythology, popularly described as a case where a murderer escapes justice because he binged on junk food, simplifying White's lack of political savvy, his relationships with George Moscone and Harvey Milk, and what San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen described as pandemic police "dislike of homosexuals". Dan White served a little more than five years for the double murder of Moscone and Milk. On October 22, 1985, a year and a half after his release from prison, White was found dead in a running car in his ex-wife's garage. He was 39 years old. His defense attorney told reporters that he had been despondent over the loss of his family, and the situation he had caused, adding "This was a sick man."

After hearing of the easy sentance the gay community was furious and a surge of people from the Castro District walked again to City Hall, chanting "Avenge Harvey Milk" and "He got away with murder".Pandemonium rapidly escalated as rocks were hurled at the front doors of the building. Milk's friends and aides tried to stop the destruction, but the mob of more than 3,000 ignored them and lit police cars on fire. They shoved a burning newspaper dispenser through the broken doors of City Hall, then cheered as the flames grew. One of the rioters responded to a reporter's question about why they were destroying parts of the city: "Just tell people that we ate too many Twinkies. That's why this is happening." The chief of police ordered the police not to retaliate, but to hold their ground. The White Night riots, as they became known, lasted several hours.

Milk was included in the "Time 100 Heroes and Icons of the 20th Century" as "a symbol of what gays can accomplish and the dangers they face in doing so". Despite his antics and publicity stunts, "none understood how his public role could affect private lives better than Milk ... [he] knew that the root cause of the gay predicament was invisibility"

Sean Penn is a revelation as Milk. He not only has a remarkable resemblance to the real man but his energy drives the story. Something I really enjoyed about the film's acting is it revealed the many sides to homosexuality. The gays in the film were not stereotypical and some were true to life just like every day people. James Franco for example is very much like he speaks in real life, wheras Penn and Hirsch resemble different manifestations in themselves. Overall the film is worth seeing, Van Sant (director) has a powerful story to tell, and he tells it with craft, as it was written.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 93% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

In conclusion, I'd like to switch it up a bit and write a personal piece in response to a movie that begs such controversial questions and in emulation of Harvey Milk, I'd like to be a voice within my own community.
Why someone can still be religious and support gay civil rights:
The mormon document "The family: A proclamation to the World" states blatantly that each child is entitled to a mother and a father. Personally I beleive that I would rather have a child be adopted into any family with a loving parent than be an orphan, whether the "mother" and "father" roles are male and female, as long as they love eachother and show love to their child I feel that that is a power that is special either way. Seeing The plan of god is freedom to choose/free agency, the whole reason (the church believes) that we are here is to have a freedom of choice. I don't think personally in all honesty that being homosexual is the right thing, but I do believe that if you do think it is right then you should have the free agency to choose and the rights that go along with it. It’s obviously a human rights issue; we are beyond the times when we can ignore it as immoral. It’s not about political ideology or proving you are accepting and liberal, it is about believing that people should have the right to act as people. There is a theory that if we allow homosexuals their right, who is to say a man can’t marry a horse or pedophilia shouldn’t have its demands heard? First of all, to compare the two in the same breath is arrogant and secondly the percentage of the population that actually believes that this is okay is a dot on a very large map. The day when pedophiles and advocates of bestiality want their voice heard and it is actually getting recognized is when I will admit we have definitely stepped in the wrong direction.

The church is under a lot of heat because of proposition 8 in California. It funded a third of the campaign to get it passed. There are protesters outside of temples and even persecuting people when they go into church on Sunday. I have a lot to say about this. There are so many elements of irony and paradox in the way the gay community is handling the situation. first of all I should mention that not all Mormons were along side with the church, many put signs up to the contradictory view on their lawn because they believe the same as me...does this mean we are unfaithful or bad Mormons or even thinking of leaving the church?...I don’t think so, the ultimate doctrine of the church is that god will look into your heart. And in my heart I feel I’m right.

Secondly, the protesters decide to pick on our church, which makes sense, but the other 2/3rds of the funding came from African American churches, Baptists and Catholics. When interviewed, an African American said that he denies the gay community the right to compare their struggle with that of the blacks in the civil war because it’s totally different and what he called immoral. He also criticized them for being contradictory because they all solicit a vote for Obama and because they are gay push attitudes of acceptance for the blacks as well, however not one protester has come to a black Baptist church or any black church because he said they are scared to be seen as racist. I just thought it was kind of funny that hundreds of protesters have been outside Mormon buildings but fail to recognize all the other sects.

Finally I have my main point as to why if I was in California I may have not voted for prop 8 despite my beliefs: It was the plan of democrats and the gay community that soon, since gay marriage was legal bylaw any church that did not allow gay marriage would therefore not be allowed to practice marriage at all. This is outrageous, if the whole principle for gay marriage is based on rights, then why deny a hetero couple the right to marry the way they want or a church to act in the way they wish. It’s almost a revenge wish and quite frankly the criticism of if there were only gay people the human race would cease to exist: doing something like this actually gives credit to that notion. To me, this is completely ironic and hypocritical. If the world ever becomes this liberal I think it’s gone downhill. Religion isn’t a bad thing, the world definitely has blinders on the great things religion has created within people despite the views of Islamic fundamentalism and political theocracies (bush).

The solution: give both sides complete civil rights and take nothing away. Give the homosexual community all the civil rights of a marriage. A loved one or a partner should be able to visit someone in the hospital when they are ill, without this civil right they aren’t considered family and therefore are denied aspects that a married couple would. Simply give them all the civil rights that a married couple would and then don’t deny rights to the other side. When blacks or women got civil liberties, nothing was taken away from other races
of gender.

The bottom line is: I find that there are many like me. Liberal views and the church can still mix, my faith is secure with my liberal ideology: I feel non-discriminate even though I do believe that being homosexual is not the right thing to do, or rather the natural order of things meant to happen (which does not contradict with what the church believes), outside of the church I can still practice my civil rights (which are separate) to be accepting of how people want to practice their free agency. When issues like this come up in church, I defend my view and it is not discriminated or mocked, it’s accepted. There are people in the church who are bigoted, and even racist. But there are people like this everywhere. The point is there are people in the church that are very liberal minded as well and we keep practicing our faith because it brings me closer to that pure heart spirit that I believe ultimately matters. I think almost all churches can help someone achieve this, but for me personally this is the best church to help me do just that. To be frank, I will go as far as to equivocate the view of many people on homosexuality and homophobia to the extremist racist views of just a few decades ago, our children or grandchildren will be ashamed of the way society has treated gays just as I am ashamed of how society has treated blacks and aboriginals.