Staring at Mortality

Death scenes make for potent drama, right? There's the death that causes one of the characters to rage against the heavens (as seen in many of these clips from The Lord of the Rings and the Star Wars series)...



There's the quiet passing and whispered goodbyes (this also from The Lord of the Rings at the request of my younger daughter)...



And then there are the scenes where the filmmaker shows us the quiet moments before death and lets the audience make the logical and emotionally wrenching conclusion about what will happen (like this scene from Titanic that always kills me)...



Why are so many of our stories filled with death? For one thing, it's a way to bring the story to a close. When the character dies, his or her story is finished. (Spoiler alert: Unless you're Gandalf.) It ties up a loose end in the plot and gives us greater insight into the characters, although that last bit comes very close to sounding like The Dark Knight's Joker. ("You see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way, I know your friends better than you ever did. Would you like to know which of them were cowards?") I do think that it's somewhat true to say that at the end of your life, when there aren't any more personal consequences for what you say or what you do, you can really be yourself.

I guess that cinema mortality provides us with a safe space to contemplate our own inevitable demise and by extension what kind of person we want to believe we are, which is why a film like Seeking a Friend for the End of the World is so watchable. In it, everyone is faced with imminent doom so there's a reaction in there for everyone to identify with. (Warning: spoilers throughout.) There's suicide, assisted suicide, anger and rioting, no-holds-barred partying, denial, extreme denial through survivor mentality, hopeless resignation, and a final search for purpose and meaning. Somewhere in the film there's got to be a scene where people in the audience could say, "That's what I would do."

Maybe we'd have a series of reactions as we grieve for ourselves. We'd go through all of those stages - denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance - at our own pace and in our own order, but I think that all of us want to believe that when we finally come to our own end that we will have made it to acceptance. That's what kills me about the Titanic scenes - the acceptance. I know watching the movie from a historical perspective that nearly everybody on that boat is going to die; that some of them could find acceptance and peace in their final moments is the kindest blessing we could wish on them. So to see that blessing granted is almost like witnessing a miracle.

The end of Seeking a Friend similarly had me choked up. As Penny (Kiera Knightley) and Dodge (Steve Carell) lie in bed facing each other waiting for the meteor to collide with Earth and end all life, Penny is still bargaining. She doesn't think it's fair that she just found love; she just wants a little more time. This reaction elicits both empathy and tension from the audience. We have come to expect that love through adversity is rewarded in cinema. We want them to have more time together too, but at the same time we realize that the meteor is unstoppable. We tensely await the moment she accepts her fate because to leave her trapped forever in our minds in a state of anxiety is just too cruel.

It's Dodge who brings about a feeling of catharsis for both Penny and us. He brings her to accept both of their deaths. He reassures her that their destinies only came together BECAUSE they had so little time left - that the end of their lives also brought them the thing they had both been seeking: true love. Perhaps that sentiment is corny, but it is the other aspect of cinema deaths that we personally crave - meaning.

Our fiction is very good at providing meaning. Everything in a book, movie, or TV show is there for a reason; it has a purpose. And the deaths in these stories are imbued with meaning. They happen for a reason. That person's life and death had an effect on the universe. Someone was there to mourn them. Someone was there to shout, "NOOOOOO!"

And I think we all crave that for ourselves - the comforting knowledge that we had an effect, that we mattered, that someone else cared, that our lives had purpose and meaning. Cinema deaths allow us to experience that vicarious death. We are both the dying and bereaved. And we cry at movies, not just because a character that we have come to appreciate is leaving us, but because we are leaving them. But we leave knowing that we will be missed, which is really all we can ask of life.

So we continue to watch sad movies really because they give us hope for ourselves. As we vicariously experience the end of the character's lives, we too prepare ourselves to face death. Watching them meet their finality with grace, dignity, and acceptance, surrounded by people whom they have impacted,  gives us faith that such a thing can happen for us to. That, in our final moments, we too will receive that kindest of blessings.

Next up: Something less morbid: Neil Young whips his hair back and forth.

Ew. Seriously? So funny.

The insurance company Geico has been producing funny and memorable commercials for a while now. Some people say that their strategy of running several different types of spots at once is counter-productive to maintaining a unified, memorable message. I think what they're trying to do is throw out a bunch of stuff in the hopes that ONE will stick instead of putting all of their eggs in one basket.

It's a strategy that works for me. I don't like the gecko, especially the commercial with Richard Simmons. I don't care for the pig either. I can't tell you how many times I've seen those commercials, but I still have no recollection of how the images tie to the message or what the message is.

But I think they hit it out of the park with the talking heads "we needed to save money" line of ads. The opening is always the same: a person or couple sits down talking to an off-camera interviewer about how money is tight and so they need to cut back. Then they propose a ridiculous solution to their money problems: karaoke dating service, security panther, pet possum.

But I think this one tops them all:

 

The genius of these commercials is that at the start they could be for anything. The talking head interview is such a cliché that just about any product could and has used it. So from the beginning we're set up to at least take the commercial at face value. Then the people leap to an absurd conclusion that they think will solve their problem.

"Ew. Seriously? So Gross" is the best of the bunch though because it taps into a more generalized anxiety than the others: people's concerns about their weight and their ability to fit in. We're a heavyset nation that is becoming more and more concerned with shedding fat and becoming more active to compensate for our mainly sedentary lives. You're very unlikely to hear people say these days, "You know, I think I need to sit around the house and put on a few more pounds." We're much more likely to say we need to get up, move around, and lose some of this weight.

But we're even more likely to just kick back and reach for a handful of snacks. So we identify strongly with this guy's desire to create a healthy lifestyle and understand that he needs some motivation. The beauty of it is that the motivation comes in the form of these middle school girls. Adolescence is probably the time when we were most conscious of our appearance. Appearance was status in those days. We were sure it led to the things we wanted and needed most - a high position on the social ladder and a boyfriend or girlfriend.

Now that we're older (and interested in buying things like insurance), appearance has slipped down the list of important things in our lives. What better trigger to get us back to that adolescent emotional core than a bunch of adolescents whose sole purpose is to remind you that you need to lay off of the fatty stuff?

The set-up and execution in the commercial is great. A medium shot of the guy in his T-shirt, searching the fridge for a snack. This shot allows us to see him reach in and pull out a huge sandwich, sniffing it and smiling. Suddenly a reverse shot of him with the middle school girls in the background. "Ew. Seriously? So gross."Cut to a closeup of the guy. Disappointment lingers, then he reluctantly puts the sandwich back.

As he reaches into the fridge to put the sandwich back, we cut to a bird's-eye close-up of another hand continuing that action, setting down a big plate of waffles and bacon. My first thought was "Yum." But as soon as that thought could enter my head, we cut to the girls again in a medium long shot. "Ew. Seriously. That is so gross."

As much as the commercial is playing with the idea that older people need to give up fatty foods, it also plays on the idea that the only form of communication that middle schools girls use is curt and repetitive phrases. Middle aged men and women are are the target audience and are likely to have or to know young people who talk in this irritatingly abrupt manner and can feel superior to them conversationally even as the young girls make them fell inferior in their eating habits.

Returning to the commercial, once again the man cannot have the food he wants and ruefully grabs a menu, but with a smaller pause than the first time. Before he opens it, we cut to him biting into a burger. I love the fact that he doesn't eat this burger in the restaurant or wait until he gets home. He's eating it in the car shamefully as though he can't even be around other people. This moment of silent shame and perhaps guilty pleasure is interrupted by the flash of a cameraphone. "Ew. Seriously? Dude, that is so totally--"

"Gross. I know," says the man as he tosses the burger into the sack, a blob of mustard smearing his face. The director and editor of the commercial know their comedy and have managed to make the most of the pacing in this thirty second spot. The reaction time to the girls has sped up each time we return to them. In the first scene, there's a moment of hesitation after "So gross." In the second scene, he immediately reaches for the menu after "So gross." But the third time, he abandons the burger before the girl can finish.

The man has got to hear those messages of disgust over and over again until he says it for himself. Not unlike an audience who has to hear the company's message over and over before it becomes ingrained in part of their responses. Geico picked a winner with this one - a relatable commercial that pokes fun of its target audience in a way that lets them be self-deprecating while at the same time making fun of a younger demographic so the target audience can feel superior.

Well played, Geico. Well played.

Next up: Seeking a Friend for the End of the World (maybe at a dollar theatre near you)

Face the Horror Movie

I have just a few faces when I watch horror movies. Just four really.

1. The "Really?" - I make this face usually at the beginning of the movie. It says, "The filmmakers really want me to believe that people act like this?" and "People are really scared of this kind of stuff?"

2. The "Eww" - I make this face when something is gross or unsettling, like the zombies are tearing their victim open or the violin music starts to go up two octaves.

3. The "No!" - This is for when I'm really into the movie, and the people on screen don't do what I say.

4. The "Grudge" - I save this for when the movie is in full swing. I pretend that I'm a crazy ghost because there's no way the scary stuff on screen will come out of the television and mess with a scary ghost. The scary stuff will be afraid of me.




I try not to watch scary movies when other people are around.

I get weird looks.

Next up: This Geico commercial

The Dark Knight: You Can't Handle the Truth

Warning: Spoilers throughout.

As Christopher Nolan’s Batman Trilogy concludes, it’s a good time to reflect back on what the previous two films have had to say about the human condition. Yes, these are movies where people seriously wear capes and spandex, but make no mistake: these are films that also seriously ask questions philosophers and moralists wrestle with all the time.

The most important questions for me in The Dark Knight (the second movie of the trilogy) deal with our ability to discover the truth and our moral obligations to share it once we have it. Wanting to know the truth is seemingly fundamental to us as humans. Science is founded on the search for truth. It’s a cornerstone of religion: “I am the way, the truth, and the light.” In our personal relationships, if someone were to say, “That story she just told you isn’t what really happened,” how many of us would say, “Whatever, the first story was good enough”? No way. We’d pester the other person until we knew every juicy little detail.

So what do we make of The Joker in this scene? What's the truth of this scene? (The person who posted this video helpfully cut out the car chase shots from this section, but it will look a little choppy.)

How much of what The Joker said there is true? Do we believe him when he says that Dent's scarring and Rachel's death were nothing personal? Does he truly not plan anything? He certainly seems genuine in his "apology," and in this scene he seems to be treating Harvey as an equal. The Joker doesn't lie to his equals; for example, he lets the mob bosses that he is the one who stole their money.

But he's a notorious liar; that he tells two distinctly different stories about how he got his scars is the most obvious example of his penchant for deception. And he's definitely the bad guy of the film. Harvey Dent is the good guy. So why does Harvey believe The Joker and accept The Joker's worldview?  Good guys should be able to tell truth from lies, right from wrong. We need the good guys to be able to do that because the bad guys can't.

Batman and Commissioner Gordon decide that Gotham needs as many good guys as it can get. Harvey is the White Knight of Gotham, and when he becomes Two Face and begins to kill people, Batman and Gordon reason that Gotham has lost its best hope. So, to give hope back to Gotham, they conspire to blame Batman for Two Face's killings and his holding Gordon's family hostage. They plan to lie to the world about the circumstances of Harvey's death, making Batman a villain and Two Face a hero.

Aren't the good guys supposed to tell the truth? I mean, Superman stands for truth, justice, and the American way; truth is the FIRST thing he stands for. Batman and Gordon just want to make sure that The Joker doesn't win, that he doesn't break the spirit of Gotham. But when the three great spirits of Gotham - Harvey, Batman, and Gordon - have turned to killing, terrorizing, and perpetuating lies (at the great potential risk to Gordon's family's mental health [aren't they going to have to lie too?]), when the good guys use the tools of the bad guys, don't the terrorists win?

Next up: I look at horror movies.

When Spoilers Spoil!

Are spoilers a good thing or a bad thing? Spoiler alert: I'm going to have it both ways. Here's the podcast!

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Click here if you'd like to read a report of the Christenfeld and Leavitt study.
Click here if you'd like to read A.V. Club writer Zack Handlen's thoughts on spoilers.
Click here if you're tired of spoilers and want to watch cute videos of cats. Spoiler alert: Cats will fall off of things.

Come for the Movie; Stay for the Experience

The rest of the kids were out at recess, but I was alone with my teacher planning an unprecedented event. In two weeks, my grade school would have a VCR (!!!), and I got to help choose which movie the whole fifth grade would get to see. It was a logistical nightmare. With only one television and ninety kids, how would everyone fit into one classroom? The solution was to get three television sets (I think one of the teachers brought one from home). A consultant from Radio Shack was brought out to determine the lengths of coaxial cabling we would need. The principal brought a popcorn machine to hand out treats during the show. The superintendent came out to watch with us for a while. A local news team was on hand to cover the event. A squadron of fighter planes flew overhead and a parade ten miles long kicked off the whole event.

I may be misremembering some of those details, but I do remember that being able to watch Hollywood movies at school or in your home was a big deal. These days, when we can watch movies on our phones, having ready access to big screen entertainment may not seem like such a big deal. We can watch whenever wherever. But does that make it better?

I think it's more cost effective. When the whole family can watch a movie rented from Redbox for a buck or two, it certainly puts paying $46.50 for the fam to see Ice Age 3 in 3D in perspective. A subscription to Netflix or Amazon Prime can lower the per movie cost even further.

The increasing prevalence of HDTVs, Blu Ray players and digital surround sound all help to make the home theatre feel more like a movie theatre, which make it that much less enticing to go out and see a movie elsewhere. Why fight the crowds when you can sprawl out on your couch? You don't even have to sign a loan application to get movie snacks when you eat at home.

All of this is great, and I readily admit that I watch far more movies at home than I do out, but there is something about the movie theatre experience that cannot be replaced. The studios are making more efforts to connect with people wherever they are, but I believe that people who really love movies have to go see them for the best possible experience.

When you go to the cinema, you have a shared experience. There's a social contagion theory - that personal feelings become more intensified and vocal when they're shared with a group - that is missing when you watch a film by yourself or with just a few other people. For example, I don't often find old comedies to be laugh-out-loud funny, but when I watched the 1954 Sabrina with a theatre full of people I laughed along with everybody else - and at things I normally wouldn't have even found funny when watching it alone. Watching Pet Sematary in a theatre with a vocal crowd was one of the very best scary movie experiences ever because before the movie was over I was shouting too: "Don't trust that zombie-lookin' kid! Can't you see he's got a knife?" And taking my kids to the midnight showing of the last Harry Potter movie and finding it full of other Harry Potter geeks dressed in costume was an experience we could never have had at home.

Even with the best home theatre system, the picture and sound in a theatre is going to be better and truer to what the filmmaker wanted you to see most of the time. The smaller the screen, the more compressed the picture is going to be. I remember a sight gag in one of the Naked Gun movies (22 1/2?); there's a moment where Drebin's food is so old that it actually moves across the refrigerator in the background. It was a very funny moment in the theatre, but when I watched it home on cable, my screen was too small to register any movement; the cake (or whatever it was) didn't have far enough to go. In a lot of the big action movies these days, there is so much going on all over the screen that it takes the big canvas of a movie screen to paint it all. And maybe this is just at my house, but I can never turn up the volume to movie theatre levels without someone complaining.

For these reasons I really love movie theatres. One place I used to love to go was The Paramount Theatre in Oakland, CA.

View Larger Map
It is a beautifully restored movie palace that will occasionally show classic films. I saw Gone with the Wind for the first time ever on the big screen with a couple hundred other people. In that place, with that size of a crowd, with that movie, it was almost like I was going back in time and seeing it the way the filmmakers intended it to be seen in 1939.

When I'm visiting family in Delaware, OH, we always make it a point to go The Strand Theatre.

View Larger Map
It too is an old movie house (one of the oldest continuously running movie theatres in the country), but it has been split into a three screen theatre. We enjoy going there because the prices for tickets to first run movies and concessions are very reasonable. Ohio Wesleyan University operates it as a nonprofit organization, which keeps the costs down, and it's a model I wish more communities would adopt.

Nostalgia is a big factor in why my family likes to go to The Boulevard Drive-In in Kansas City.

View Larger Map
My wife and I both remember going to the drive-ins with our families when we were kids - staying up late and catching fireflies before the show, sometimes staying up super late to see two movies back to back, and sometimes having to crawl into the sleeping bag and sleep through the second picture which was just for grown-ups, getting to have snacks at 10:00 at night. Good times. This drive-in, like most these days, has a very local radio station for you to listen to the movie through your car's speakers.

But the place we go most frequently these days is the AMC Studio 30 in Olathe, KS.
View Larger Map
It has 30 screens so even when there's a big event movie, there's always something else to see. They have specialty theatres like the IMAX theatres, Fork and Dine (a more family-oriented set of screens that have "booths" and restaurant-style food service at your seats), and the Cinema Suites (a more grown-up oriented set of screens with reserved seating in leather recliners with food and bar service at your seats).  It's a quality place that combines the best of home comfort and the movie theatre experience.

So I encourage you to make it a point to see movies on the big screen. There are always places around that offer unique opportunities to have the communal experience of sharing a cinematic story. Yes, staying at home is cheaper, but with movies, as with so much else in life, you get what you pay for.

Next up: Spoilers

Community Slashes Mediocrity for 20 Hit Points

From the very beginning of the Cate Blanchett-sounding Lord of the Rings-inspired opening, I knew the "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" episode of Community was going to be a keeper.

You see, I’m a bit of a geek. I played Dungeons and Dragons in grade school and middle school. Collected comics in my early teens, decided it was uncool in my later teens, and then decided it was okay to admit that I missed it and started collecting again in my thirties. I read the Lord of Rings series, The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever, the Magician series, The Dragonlance series, the MythAdventures…You get the picture.

Either you looked at those titles and nodded approvingly or shook your head and rolled your eyes (as my wife will), but you know just from the titles that these books have a devoted little community of people who know and understand the characters in these books like they know their own family. Much like the community of people who are devoted to Community.

Community is a show like Louie in a couple of ways: it can shift in tone very rapidly but naturally and also an audience does not know what they’re likely to get when they tune in from week to week. “Advanced Dungeons and Dragons” fits into a season that has already featured shows that used the DNA of movies like Space Camp, Adaptation, The Terminator, and The Secret Garden. It borrowed the conventions of thriller/action movies, claymation Christmas specials, and Just Say No programs. It’s a show that continually surprises by showing us familiar cinematic and television tropes in unfamiliar ways.

So it was absolutely appropriate that “AD&D” opens by recalling the epic sweep of Peter Jackson’s fantasy trilogy. This kind of majesty is what players of the game hope to create in their roleplaying. Unfortunately, what we look like instead is Chang, made up in blackface, overacting like a bad Shakespearean actor: “I am BRUTELLATOPS! The magician! Ha ha ha hee hee. Magic user, baby. What?!” Much of the humor of this episode comes from the incongruity of the ordinary situation – people sitting around a table – being elevated to mythic and legendary proportions.

The post-production sound effects such as the unsheathing of swords and the whizzing of arrows, the dramatic camera moves such as the great boom shot that swings down and catches Abed in closeup while he narrates the adventure, the non-diagetic mournful soundtrack as Chang’s character dies and the attendant slow-motion walk to Abed as Chang turns in his character’s sheet, the low angle shot of Pierce on his throne of janitorial supplies – all of these cinematic tricks make the mundane business of sitting at a table and talking larger than life.  This exaggeration is funny because, really, how hard is it to sit around a table and roll some dice?

But gamers laugh because, yes, we know how silly this looks from the outside but outsized opera is actually what’s happening in our imagination. “AD&D” demonstrates how powerful imagination can be in the scene where Annie/Hector seduces the elf maiden. First the story is shocking and gripping enough that the group is either horrified that the seemingly-innocent Annie could describe the scene in such vivid detail (Shirley), intrigued that she could have such a dirty mind (Jeff), or eager to take notes for a future seduction of their own (Troy). Yet the real power of this scene comes entirely from the minds of the audience who must supply their own version of what is happening during the seduction since the scene plays out without dialogue. “AD&D” allows the audience to make the seduction as epic as they want.

All of which brings me to the real beauty of this episode. “Advanced Dungeons and Dragons” shows us that what all of us want to feel is that our lives are epic. The hyper-reality of the episode is kind of like how we see ourselves in our minds. Neil sees himself, not as someone who has been given a cruel nickname, but as a lowly peasant whose destiny is intertwined with his girth. Jeff sees himself, (SPOILER) not as someone who thoughtlessly gave someone else a cruel nickname, but as a knight who must find redemption at all costs. Pierce sees himself, not as someone who got left out of a game, but as a deposed king who must reclaim his power.

I think most of us want to be the stars of our own movies. It just makes everything more fun. As Neil says at the end of the episode, “That was the best game I ever played in my life.” It is better to use our imagination and our ego to make believe that we are the heroes of a mythic quest. Because believing it begins to make it real.

Next up: Where you watch makes a difference

Louie, Like Abraham, Wrestles with God

Louie can be puzzling the first time you watch it. Louie is not a sitcom. It’s not a drama, it’s not a stand-up concert, it’s not an art film. Louie is just an experience like few others on television right now.

I have to admit that when I watched the first couple of episodes, I felt let down. Louie did not act like other tv shows I was watching. The comedy club footage made it seem like it was going to be like Seinfeld, but the stories weren’t really stories and they didn’t have jokes. The character of Louie wasn’t even always likeable, with his excessive profanity and extremely harsh and out of left-field “I’m just telling it like it is” observations. I wanted this Louis CK (star, director, writer, and editor of the series), but instead I got a guy who calls a kid who can’t open his milk “a little b***h.” Not to his face, mind you, but it still put me off a little.

I’m not sure what made me give the show another chance. I think it was because I wanted to watch a little tv, and Louie was the only short tv show in my Netflix queue. Something hit me when I watched “Playdate,” and that was that this show wasn’t trying to be tv, with some contrived plot and wacky neighbor – the kind of show Louis CK deliberately shows us he rejected in the second season episode “Oh, Louie.” This was a show where the stories are little filmed observations, sketches of moments, scenes of everyday life. Louie wanted to show life as it is – fragmentary, funny, puzzling, alienating, touching, evolving. It was TV not tv.

Of all which brings me to “God.” While the opening scene in the men’s room and the stand up about God’s relationship with Abraham were funny and set up the episode nicely, I want to focus on the main story. (I’m also skipping over these sections because they’re primarily where the rated R stuff comes into play.) In the main story – and there are spoilers ahead – we see nun teaching a young version of Louie learning about the torment and crucifixion of Jesus. He and his friend are not taking this discussion very seriously, which leads the nun to bring in a medical expert the next day to discuss in precise and graphic detail the physical suffering of Jesus. Louie’s friend is brought up to be the stand-in for Jesus, and at the end of the lesson, the doctor asks Louie to help him to crucify his friend for real.

It was at this point in the episode that I got very nervous. By this time in the season, grown-up Louie has been enough of a wise guy and had enough weird experiences that I honestly thought there was at least a possibility that young Louie would go through with it. Maybe he would think it was all a big set-up or that it was going to be some kind of magic trick. In any event, he doesn’t do it, at which point the doctor asks Louie why, if he can’t torture this rotten little kid, does he torture Christ with his sinning?

This question gives Louie nightmares as he remembers all of the sinning that he has done. In a moment of religious epiphany and sympathy he runs to the church, removes the nails from the crucified icon of Jesus and cradles it in his arms, begging for forgiveness. This moment was one of the most touching and deeply religious things I have ever seen on the television. You can see how, if you were expecting a traditional sitcom, you would totally be thrown for a loop.

In the morning, the nun cannot see Louie’s intentions, only his actions. She tells Louie’s mother that he has vandalized the church and suggests he be punished at home. Later, when Louie explains to his mother why he acted the way he did, Louie’s mother is horrified that the church would terrify her son that story in such a manner. She herself is not a Christian, but she recognized the importance of religion in other people’s lives and didn’t want to deprive her son of that aspect of his life. She doesn’t believe in Christ, but she does believe that his moral message of treating everyone kindly is the best path to follow.

So at this point, this episode has shown how a boy found his faith, how his faith was summarily dismissed by church leaders, and how his faith was replaced by a kind of humanism. How then to wrap all of this up? Louis CK leaves us with two small ambiguous endings, and this ambiguity makes the entire episode even better. After telling her son that there is no God, that it's enough just to be good to people, Louie's mom decides to take him out for some donuts. Except the car won't start, and they’re forced to sit there outside of the church. Just a coincidence? Another crappy event in an already crappy morning? Or is it some small sign from the petty God that Louis C.K. describes in his monologue that Louie and his mother cannot leave Him?

The second interesting coda is a very short shot where a volunteer nails Jesus back on the cross. Why include this shot? Does Louis CK just want to show that the statue was fixed after he tore it down? Does he mean it as a commentary on all of us, that we still willingly crucify Jesus? Is he participating in the debate of whether the appropriate symbol for the Christian church is one of Christ suffering (reminding us of our sinful nature) or of an empty cross (reminding us of absolution and the promise of rebirth)?

I think the answer to all of these questions depends on the person viewing the episode. Louie (and by extension Louis CK) comes across as agnostic, deeply suspicious of religion but not discounting it entirely. At the beginning of the episode, the questions he asks the man who is about to risk physical injury for “heaven” are the same questions any agnostic would ask a devoutly religious person: “Why would you do that?” “Why would you take that risk?”

These questions get at the heart of religious doubt. What purpose does religious worship serve? What happens if you devote a life to a God who ultimately doesn’t exist? What if you discover you’ve worshipped the wrong god or followed the wrong teachings or tried and failed to worship in a way that was pleasing to your god?

In this episode, Louie struggles to understand his relationship with God, in the same way that in other episodes he struggles to understand his relationships with his family, his friends, his kids, his neighbors, and everything else around him. In Louie, these struggles are honest, blunt, often funny, and sometimes not. Each show is an ambitious effort to depict an everyman’s struggle with existence. He may not even understand the fight and he certainly doesn’t always win it. But that’s what elevates this supposed “sitcom” into a rare and unique work of art.

Next up: Community: "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" (Available on Hulu Plus)

Turn on and tune in to avoid dropping out

How do you tell when a movie or TV show is any good? That’s an important question, although the answer is very subjective. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure (see the success of Jersey Shore).

Let me tell you how I go about answering the question of quality. The first thing that I try to discern is whether what I’m watching is a movie or a film, tv or TV. Those terms may seem synonymous (or just a matter of capitalization), and for most people they are. I use them to make a distinction about what the work is trying to do. A movie and tv are primarily intended to entertain; a film and TV try to illuminate some facet of the human condition. Movies and tv are lowbrow; the others are highbrow. Film and TV are literature; the others are just stories.

Does that mean that one is all bad and the other is all good? Well, there are times you need a snack and times you need a meal. At the end of a long week, I don’t want to sit down and watch Schindler’s List. On the other hand, a steady diet of nothing but How I Met Your Mother is no better than a steady diet of candy with no fruits or vegetables. (Although such a diet would be legen – wait for it – dary.) Watching too many movies and tv shows leaves you intellectually stunted while too many films and TV shows make you pretentious.

Knowing the filmmakers’ aims is important for setting expectations and gauging the amount of effort you'll have to put into your viewing. For example, the final few episodes of the sitcom Mad about You got very serious as the couple that had engaged in several seasons of lighthearted banter and kooky adventures suddenly began to grow emotionally apart and contemplate having extramarital affairs. This was not the entertainment my new wife and I tuned in to watch.  We wanted tv and got TV.

But sometimes having chocolate in the peanut butter (peanut butter in the chocolate?) is a good thing. I went into The Dark Knight wanting a movie about a guy with a utility belt who fights crime in the dark, and what I got was that AND a thoughtful movie about the nature of truth and morality. The film gave me everything I expected and more.

All of this is just to say that before you judge a work on the big or small screen, I would encourage you to take a moment to align your mindset with the filmmakers’ intention. This will prevent you snobs from delivering a kneejerk dismissal of Friends with Benefits and you slobs from trashing An Education before you see it. If you’ve done your best to see the film in the right frame of mind and you still don’t like it, by all means say so, but at that point you’ll have better reasoning behind your review.

Next up: The Louie episode I promised in my last post; I just needed to get this discussion out of the way first. Oh, by the way, I think this episode would be RATED R if it were in the theatres because of the opening scene before the credits. Louie is filled with profanity and R rated discussions of sex; however, this episode really stuck under my skin, and I want to explore why.

Troll 2 Puzzles and Delights

Troll 2 may be the worst movie of all time. It is #93 on IMDB’s bottom 100 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105643/). It has a 0% critical fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/troll-2/). It is the subject of the documentary Best Worst Movie, which is where I became familiar with it. (This documentary is also available on Netflix Watch Instantly.)

It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Some movies are terrible, but afterward you can say, “At least the acting was good” or “Well, the cinematography was interesting” or “The costumes were stunning anyway.” There is nothing to recommend this movie.

And that is, of course, why it has gathered a cult following. It’s a train wreck of a movie, but catastrophe is compelling. According to Best Worst Movie, the people who worked on Troll 2 set out to make the very best movie they could, but the results show they failed in every way. So there’s a certain level of schadenfreude to it.

I mean, this is a movie where shape-shifting, vegetarian goblins (not trolls) force humans to eat food that will turn them into a vegetable goo buffet. It’s a movie where the scariest monsters look like children wearing potato sacks and remaindered Halloween masks.  This is the movie that asks us to believe that a ghost that can stop time, deliver a secret weapon to his grandson, manifest himself physically to wield an axe and create Molotov cocktails, cause lightning to target people, and yet can’t help inadvertently becoming a peeping Tom on his granddaughter. This is terrible, terrible movie.

And part of the pleasure is seeing how bad the movie gets. It starts out awful and then gets worse. Yet, as several people in Best Worst Movie point out, it’s hard to hate this film. The movie reminds me of stories that my kids developed as they played with their toys. In their stories, Cinderella played with Simba while magical unicorns bathed cats in a school bus. I knew that those stories were never going to be good or satisfying in any traditional sense, but there was a pleasure in knowing that almost anything could happen.

Another reason I think this movie has such an appeal is that I think, deep down, most of us realize that if we ever tried to make a movie, it would probably end up looking more like Troll 2 than Aliens. I have a tremendous amount of sympathy for the filmmakers and actors. I can easily imagine myself thinking I was being terribly clever naming the vacation spot Nilbog and scripting a revealing moment when my protagonist would look into a mirror and discover that Nilbog backwards is Goblin. I’d be so pleased that I crafted makeup to look like someone was turning into a tree. I’d practice acting outraged for days so that when it came time for my big “You can’t piss on hospitality! I won’t allow it!” scene, I’d just nail it.

And all of it could be crap. Every last bit of it. That’s the scary part about being creative: our very best efforts are more likely to be terrible than genius or even adequate. But God bless creative people; we keep trying anyway.

Watching Troll 2 helps us recognize that movies are a giant puzzle, and it takes more magic than can be found in a Stonehenge rock swirling with eldritch mists to put all of the pieces together into something that someone else will want to watch and truly enjoy. If just one piece is wrong, the audience can immediately see it when they step back and look at the picture. Troll 2 illustrates just how many pieces there are in a movie because not one of them fits with another. And there, but for the grace of God, go I.

Next up: An episode from the TV show Louie: “God” (available on Netflix Watch Instantly: Season 1, Episode 11)