|
wonderstuffreviews
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Vernon
Gender: Male
Interests: Writing fiction, reflective non-fiction, books, television, film, music, all the good stuff...
Expertise: Complaining
Occupation: Minister of Students
Industry: Huh?
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
Member Since:
3/5/2007
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Spiderman 3.
It
delivered in its usual schizophrenic, riveting way, and despite
clocking in at almost two and a half hours, I was surprised that the
heavy amount of subplots and interweaving of characters did not bore,
but actually kept me involved. However, if Raimi, Maguire, Dundst and the rest of the cast ever do decide to make a fourth installment, I fear the opening of 4 might need to include a Left Behind-like
list of characters in order to keep things straight. But, hey, that's a
comic book movie for you, which is yet another reason why Left Behind was absolute crap fiction. If only Jerry B. Jenkins had been more like that Isaac guy on Heroes...
So, thankfully, 3
was not the source of disappointment last night at the cinema. However,
I was unable to escape the Edwards without something annoying me (blame
it on my cynicism, but I have to chalk this one up to bad filmmaking/storytelling). Thankfully, Spiderman 3
did not commit what I believe is one of the chief sins in movie-making
these days. My annoyance came instead from the much anticipated
full-length trailer to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. And, you know, as soon as I recognized it, I felt my internal organs gearing up for a short bout of gagging.
The Lord of the Rings
is indeed my second favorite movie of all-time (see my profile for the
first), and as much of a cinematic blessing I feel Peter Jackson's
trilogy was, there is a dark side that swirls around that trilogy,
affecting all films during and after its five year production and
release. It seems every movie that even remotely displays similar
characteristics to an "epic" story now aims at telling that story in
trilogy form. Some do it well (Back to the Future, the original Star Wars), others have such an episodic difference between the stories they can hardly be called a true trilogy (The Karate Kid, Spiderman, Mission Impossible, Rambo), and then there are those trilogies that, let's face it, just plain suck (Scream, Star Wars Episodes 1-3, The Matrix). Unfortunately, Pirates seems to be setting sail on a bearing for the latter. In fact, I fear it will become the seafaring equivalent of The Matrix, becoming more and more confusing, existential, and cluttered by CGI. The trailer itself seems to hint that I'm right.
Why must every trilogy become some epic, cinematic barbaric yawp?
Why must everyone from children and lions, humans dwelling deep within
the earth, mutants, and now pirates make some sort of "last stand"
against their enemies? Does anyone remember what made the first Pirates
movie good? It was the tightness of the story, the fact that it had a
satisfying resolution (devoid of a cliffhanger), and the fact that,
when it came out and drew in audiences, no one was immediately thinking
the T-word. That thought was only planted in our heads once the film
company realized how much money the movie made and realized that
movie-goers are suckers for a trilogy. And so, the writers sat down and
hammered out a story that they swear they had planned all along. Guess
what? That is rarely true in Hollywood. Almost every film is made on a
probationary basis - by that, I mean that production companies don't
always plan for sequels to original stories unless they have very
little doubt the film will succeed. This is why The Matrix and Pirates
of the Caribbean did not have a "Part One" tacked onto their name when
first released. This is also why the second and third Matrix installments (and, yes, the subsequent Pirates films) had stories that confused and frustrated much more than they entertained.
I am almost positive that Pirates,
had they, in the second film, revisited the same formula that worked on
the first film, made just as much money as the cliffhanging Dead Man's Chest
made - and it wouldn't have pissed so many ticket-buyers off that the
story sucked. Things would have been wrapped up, a good romp would have
been had by both filmmaker and filmwatcher
alike, and if someone had gone out and interviewed people leaving the
theaters two summers ago, movie-goers would have responded, "Yeah! I'd
love to see another one!"
I guess the root of my laments and questions is this: "Why must we sacrifice the quality of story for the risky rush of a cliffhanger?" In the end, it rarely holds up to original, well-encapsulated stories. I mean, look at Lost, the mother-of-all-cliffhanger television shows. They're losing their audience, not gaining it. Even 24
knows better than to make their season all about the cliffhanger. If
anything, most of the plot of the season is resolved by the final
episode, and the cliffhanger is only a parlay into the next season.
Here's hoping Heroes follows Jack Bauer's lead rather than those lame island-dwellers...
And here's hoping we all, who are so ensorcelled by the power of a good story, will not so easily shirk our principled love of a well-rounded tale for the titillating bedazzlement of a yarn that is ultimately capsizing. | | |
| If there is a need to ascribe any statement of certainty toward last night's Discovery Channel premier of The Lost Tomb of Jesus, a docu-drama directed by self-claimed filmmaker/journalist Simcha Jacobovici, I believe most people can at least agree that it was captivating. The doc was produced by Academy Award-winner, James Cameron. If your sketchy on who he is, Cameron is the director of T2 and The Abyss, who followed up these mildly-entertaining films by pouring a record amount of money into making one of the most ridiculous blockbusters of all-time: Titanic, and then, in some sheer act of lunacy on the part of Hollywood and the American public, somehow reaped an astonishing amount of success from such a stinker.
But the person who came out looking the most annoying and groan-inducing was the director himself, Jacobovici. He starred in most of the films dramatic (and that term must be used loosely when viewing the doc) recreations, which he also later called "illustrations." The recreations attempted to show how the director/journalist assisted hired investigators in discovering (or, actually, rediscovering) a lost tomb located under the Talpiot apartment complex in Jerusalem.
The following are some of the claims the docu-drama makes, along with some of my own objections I cannot help but raise.
The “Jesus Family” tomb (under the Talpiot Apartments) is located in Jerusalem, rather than Bethlehem or Nazareth.
Apparently Jesus' mother, Mary, and a few of his brothers, chose to be buried with the brother they themselves claimed rose from the dead. Not necessarily a smart move on their part if they wanted their teachings to last after they themselves passed away, wouldn't you say?
Mary Magdalene is mentioned with more frequency in the canonical gospels than any other woman, therefore it is quite possible the theories of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene are plausible.
A+B=C according to the doc, but then again, if A doesn't even hold true, how plausible is the equation. I'm pretty sure Mary Magdalene's name does not show up with more frequency than other women, especially Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Mary and Martha of Bethany, to name a few. And, knowing Jesus' ability to forgive, but also his quiet spirit, why wouldn't he go for someone like Mary of Bethany before the girl out of which he supposedly cast seven demons? Which one do you think would be easier to deal with?
The people testing the DNA taken from the “Jesus, Son of Joseph” and “Mariamne” ossuaries are allegedly unaware of whose DNA they are testing.
I wonder, then, what they thought about all the cameras were surrounding them. "Here's a sample we want you run DNA on." "Sure ... um, what's with the camera crew?" "Them? Oh, there just here to capture on film your research and findings." "Oh, okay. I guess that's okay." "Great. Oh, and listen, when you get the results, here is a script with the lines we'll need you to read..."
A cement slab is simply placed over a large hole with a ladder leading down to a pristine-looking ancient wall brandishing a chevron and dot corresponding to a picture in a book.
No one seemed to care about any of this, or where the ladder led, but simply wanted to cover the hole. How likely is this, in a place like Jerusalem, where you can't probably throw a stone without hitting some ancient structure or site? I mean, seriously, even a shepherd boy hanging around the Dead Sea had the foresight to report a suspicious finding.
James, the brother of Jesus, gathered a large following as the “undisputed leader of the Jesus Movement” after Jesus’ death, and took over his ministry.
Whereas James did indeed become one of the leaders of the early Christian movement, he was never considered the "undisputed leader" as the doc narration claims. That title would most closely hold to Peter, Paul, or maybe John.
A cross is allegedly found on the “Jesus, Son of Joseph” ossuary.
This seems strange, as the cross was always considered symbolic of a curse, and as much as many of us ignorantly where crosses around our necks today, marking Jesus' ossuary with the image seems in the same vein as carving an electric chair on the tombstone of a death-row inmate. Talk about kicking a guy when he's down...
In the gospels, Jesus answers his disciples question about what he’s up to (direct words of Jacobovici in one of the documentary's recreation sequences), “Read the Book of Jonah.” He says this after pointing out that a bunch of discarded texts (buried) are found in the tomb under the cement slab. The documentary claims one of them is a book called the Book of Jonah.
In the gospels, Jesus never refers to "the Book of Jonah" but only "the sign of Jonah," referring to a way to understand the point and purpose of his miraculous signs and the public's cry for more and more, which only ticks Jesus off.
Another claim of the documentary: An ossuary is found that contains the inscription, “Judah, Son of Jesus.” Jesus’ son would have been a target of arrest/crucifixion because Jesus was a rival to the throne. This is why John the Baptist is beheaded, as well as his brother, James, is later stoned. Furthermore, when Jesus speaks to Mary from the cross, he is actually telling Mary Magdalene to “Behold your son,” or, to protect their son, Judah, not speaking to his mother about the beloved disciple.
Even if some people might have seen Jesus in such a simplistic light - as a rival to the throne (either Herod's or the Roman emperor) - this was not the reason John the Baptist is beheaded. He was arrested because he was making his own enemies with no help from Jesus, and King Herod, in his revelry and lust, offered a young woman (traditionally known as Salome) anything she wanted, for which her mother instructed her to ask for the Baptist's head on a platter. Herod did this not to get at Jesus, but because he was stupid. In that same way, James was killed for preaching Jesus as God, not because he was the guy's brother. That would have been against Roman law and even the twisted Jewish law to arrest and kill a man simply for being some annoying guy's brother. Finally, the part about Jesus actually speaking to Mary Magdalene from the cross ... you know, I'll let you poke holes in that yourself, because this paragraph will become far too long if I do it.
Because of the collection of names, despite all of them being extremely common, it is strong evidence that this is Jesus’ family.
The person who originally discovered the tomb and inspected the ossuaries, a world-renowned archaeologist named Amos Kloner, insists these are the most common of names of this time in Jewish history, and that the inference is ridiculous. Jacobovici includes a segment in the doc that shows an ungrounded formula a professor puts together to determine the likelihood of the tomb belonging to Jesus and his family, apparently believing this will tie up loose ends and sway doubters. Unfortunately, the reasons for constructing each part of the formula are left out, and the answer (600 to 1) is still coupled with hearsay devoid of real scientific and archaeological testimony to even begin to appear as "strong evidence."
In addition to all of these things, Jacobovici and his investigative partner, a professor at UNC, appeared on a forum after the documentary aired. The forum was facilitated by Ted Koppel and also included first, two archeology professors, and then three theological professors, who all had serious doubts about both the science behind the investigation as well as the inferences of the documentary regarding religious and Christian issues and beliefs. Jacobovici must have frustratingly admitted to being "a journalist" and "a filmmaker" about ten times each over the course of the hour forum, and also claimed his documentary was merely something to spark debate of the findings. And, of course, he and his buddy have every right to defend their findings. The problem, though, is that every part of the documentary screams "entertainment" over "science," and "generalization" over "archaeologically-sound conclusions." My favorite quote was by one of the archeology professors who called the documentary "archeo-porn." Honestly, in my opinion, it came across as something not far from that.
So I suppose the debate will go on for a little while. Personally, I think the findings are interesting but the inferences of Jacobovici and his "team" are almost unquestionably ridiculous. If Indiana Jones had been there, and please pardon my single use of a curse - he'd have bitch-slapped Jacobovici (and maybe, if I am lucky, James Cameron) back into 1980 when real archaeologists concluded that the tomb was interesting, but certainly not a world-shaking discovery | | |
|
