ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

Golden Globes

4.11 Paying Attention to LADY BIRD

by 1 Comment

Is there a difference between ‘love’ and ‘attention’? Can you ever truly break free from your family upbringing? These issues and more lie at the heart of Great Gerwig’s directorial debut, Lady Bird. Having held the record (briefly) for highest rated film in history on Rotten Tomatoes, this film is connecting audiences in a big way. This week, Steve welcomes back Paul and Julie Levac to talk coming of age in the 21st Century and the help (and damage) inherent to family relationships.

Want to continue to conversation at home?  Click the link below to download ‘Fishing for More’ — some small group questions for you to bring to those in your area.

4.11 LadyBird

Thanks Paul and Julie for joining us!

For those of you in Canada who are interested, you can donate to ScreenFish by clicking the link below and simply selecting ‘ScreenFish’ from the ‘Apply Your Donation…’ area. 

https://www.canadahelps.org/en/charities/connect-city/

the real problem with Streep’s Golden Globes speech

by 1 Comment

some say celebs like Streep
should keep
their political rants
off camera when at
a purportedly non-political party,
such as the Golden Globes

meh. i didn’t mind her
speaking her mind.

Trumpsters, i suppose,
(and he, himself,
if Twitter matters)
are troubled by her
oh-so-subtle-and-clever
naming-without-naming
takedown of the prez elect

nah. seemed accurate to me.

she also called for a
“principled press”

check. no argument here.

so what *was* the problem?
this:
“Hollywood is crawling with outsiders and foreigners. If you kick ’em all out, you’ll have nothing to watch but football and mixed martial arts, which are not the arts.”

um. okay…?

[full disclosure interlude:
i’m a football fan,
and (specifically) a
mixed martial arts (mma) fan;
in other words: i have a dog in this fight;
i’ve come to the defense of mma before
(here) and pretty much always will;
mma still needing a defense is
part of the issue, of course;
however, i feel like
i’d feel the same way –
i hope i would –
even if said dog
were not my dog]

on the surface,
throwaway ones though
they seem,
these lines of Streep’s
are plenty problematic . . .

(there are no
“outsiders and foreigners”
in football or mma?
(of course there are))

(mixed martial arts
and/or
football “are not the arts”?
like as in some privileged,
elitist, ultimately arbitrary
definition of “the arts”
that includes (presumably)
cinema, but not sport?
says who? you?
or as in
“mixed martial arts is not art”?
says who? you?
i shudder to imagine
today’s mixed martial artists
or Bruce Lee
or 1,000 years of Shaolin monks
being told that their
arts are not art;
i’m saddened that someone
could watch what these
artists can do with their bodies
and not see it as art)

one level down,
the problem intensifies . . .
consider the tone:

what’s it sound like to you?
to me it sounds like disdain.
dismissal.
scoffery.
judgment in general.

this seems plainly problematic to me,
but again it intensifies
when the full speech
is considered;
particularly this tidbit:

“And this instinct to humiliate, when it’s modeled by someone in the public platform, by someone powerful, it filters down into everybody’s life, because it kind of gives permission for other people to do the same thing. Disrespect invites disrespect. Violence incites violence. When the powerful use their position to bully others, we all lose.”

now i know that these lines,
in context,
were part of the
(justified) Trump takedown;
and i know,
regarding the earlier lines,
that her carefully coded target
(also problematic), really,
was red state, republican,
uneducated, tea party, Trump voting
“white trash” . . .
you know: folks who also
watch Nascar maybe,
and probably listen to “country music”
and almost certainly
“cling to guns and religion”

but . . .
setting that aside . . .

i feel like Meryl Streep
attempted to
*humiliate* and
*bully* and
*disrespect*
any and all
footballers and/or mixed martial artists,
their fans, their respective
histories, cultures, etc. etc.

didn’t she?
i know i personally
felt that way, personally

and didn’t she just say
not to do that,
(from her
powerful public platform)?

this, to me,
was the real problem
with her speech:
the old
speck-and-plank problem;
that old problem where we all
want others to
do as we say not as we do,
where we’re all
hypocrites (Greek origin of the word: actor),
we all
love double standards,
we all
inhabit glass houses,
we all
fail and then fail by
telling others to not fail

you know: this one:

 

and even though
this Austin Powers joke is hilarious
(one of my faves),
and even though Jesus,
when he first told the
speck-and-plank story (here),
was intentionally being
funny via hyperbole,
really,
hypocrisy and double standards
aren’t funny, and constituted
the real problem
with Streep’s speech,
and constitute part of
a real potential problem
for humans in general:
that whenever we talk about others,
we also talk about ourselves

you know what else
Streep said in that speech? this:
“An actor’s only job is to enter the lives of people who are different from us and let you feel what that feels like.”

yes.
yes, indeed.
a good thing
to aspire to for
any human,
actor or otherwise;
albeit difficult;
unfortunately,
demonstrably so
in this case

3.8 Dreaming in LA LA LAND

by Leave a Comment

For our 1st ep of 2017, Steve welcomes Kevin McLenithan (co-host, Seeing and Believing) to sing the praises of Damien Chazelle’s LA LA LAND! In a great conversation, they talk about the tension between nostalgia and reality as well as finding a balance between love and purpose. In addition, the guys also reveal their Top 3 Movie Moments of 2016!

Want to continue to conversation at home?  Click the link below to download ‘Fishing for More’ — some small group questions for you to bring to those in your area.

3.8 La La Land

A special thanks to Kevin McLenithan for coming on the show!  You can hear more from Kevin on the Seeing and Believing podcast with Wade Bearden and read his work at Christ and Pop Culture!

David Bowie, Jim Carrey & “this terrible search”

by Leave a Comment

David Bowie and Jim Carrey
lots of people
are talking about
David Bowie,
as they should

icons, artists,
musical geniuses
like him
seldom appear,
and when they do
it behooves us to
consider,
to reflect

however, i
don’t want to
just say more
words
about Bowie himself . .
plenty are
being said
and by people
with better ones
to say than i

and other than
just now,
i don’t even want
to share my
personal appreciation
or favorite songs
or memories
related to him,
chief of which
is how my
siblings and i
would watch Labyrinth
(starring David Bowie)
often,
happily and repeatedly,
most notably at
our father’s
post-divorce
bachelor pad
on weekends,
our escape into
the fantasy of that story,
perhaps,
no, definitely,
vital at the time

what i do want to do,
however,
is pause to note
an interesting,
real-life
(serendipitous,
hopefully
thought-provoking)
juxtaposition

i heard about
Bowie’s passing
on Monday morning . .
the night before,
i watched the
Golden Globe Awards . .
at said awards,
Jim Carrey,
typically hilarious,
before announcing
nominees for
best comedy,
joking about how
he’s “two-time
Golden Globe winner,
Jim Carrey,”
said this:

And when I dream, I don’t just dream any old dream. No, sir. I dream about being three-time Golden Globe-winning actor Jim Carrey. Because then I would be enough. It would finally be true, and I could stop this terrible search, for what I know ultimately won’t fulfill me.

But these are important, these awards. I don’t want you think that just because if you blew up our solar system alone you wouldn’t be able to find us or any of human history with the naked eye. But from our perspective, this is huge.

playing the part of
the wise “fool,”
smuggling truth
inside laughter,
Carrey took the
Globes as an opportunity
to poke fun at the
whole idea of
awards:
humans congratulating
humans for endeavors,
for fame,
which finally,
in the grand cosmic sense,
is inconsequential,
eventually nonexistent,
ultimately unfulfilling

but despite
sensing this,
joking about it,
we sure do
still try, don’t we?
which brings us
to Bowie

according to
multiple people
in the know,
he spent
what he knew
to be his
last months
creating the
death-obsessed
songs and videos
of Blackstar –
his final album,
released only
days before his death –
as a sort of
“parting gift”
to the world . .
his death,
says producer Tony Visconti,
was “a work of art”
(see here and here . .
and see the poignant,
telling video “Lazarus” here)

in “Lazarus,”
Bowie croons,

Look up here,
I’m in heaven…
Everybody knows me now…
This way or no way
You know, I’ll be free
Just like that bluebird
Now ain’t that just like me

so, is Bowie singing
as himself?
did he truly,
as the song seems
to suggest, see
art and fame
as the pathway to
freedom,
heaven,
Lazarus-like
immortality?

one cannot
say for certain,
of course,
but between
what was known of
him before (plenty),
what is known
of his intentions
for Blackstar,
and lyrics like these,
it seems safe to say
that, yes, he
may have seen it
this way . .
or at least
acted like it

but
so what?
many have seen
it thus for ages . .
and our modern
social-media-steeped
world is nothing
if not a machine
for quick
dopamine-infused
fixes of “fame” . .
Bowie deserves
no indictment,
of course . .
still:
that comment
from Carrey,
sounding like
Ecclesiastes:
“fame and power
are meaningless” . .
so terrifyingly obvious
with but a
moment’s sober thought . .
again though:
“From our perspective,
this is huge.”

bah . .
this is not the place
to be comprehensive . .
only to note the
juxtaposition:
one famous man
orchestrating his
last act of fame –
a bowing at
its altar . .
another famous man,
making jokes at
fame’s expense –
a clown pulling down
the pants of the king
who feeds him

at the very least,
these represent
two ways
of seeing,
two approaches
to fame,
itself just one
(of many)
approaches to
meaning,
ultimate fulfillment,
the end of
“that terrible search”

and though i
won’t simplify
to the point of
asking whether
you’re a
Bowie or a Carrey,
something like that,
hopefully,
is what you’re
wondering

or, hopefully,
maybe you’re
wondering,
whether in fame,
or something else,
what is my hope in
when it comes to
“that terrible search?”
and why is it
that there is
so obviously
a search anyway?
and am i really
undertaking said search?
and doesn’t a search
imply that there is
a specific thing
to be found?
and what is that?
and, . . ? and, . .?

and . . ?

Trotting on the (Golden) Globes

by Leave a Comment

golden-globes-2016-ricky-essentiel-series-702x336

Upon the conclusion of last night’s Golden Globes, Oscar season has officially begun.

Run by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (or HFPA), the Globes have become one of Hollywood’s biggest parties. Alcohol flows freely. A-Listers hang out and have some laughs. Big name hosts like Ricky Gervais or Fey and Poehler run an evening more akin to a celebrity roast than an awards ceremony.

It’s got all the glitz and glamour you’d expect from Hollywood.

While stars like Leonardo DiCaprio (!) and Sly Stallone (!!) make room in their trophy case, and The Revenant and The (please don’t call me a comedy) Martian score big wins, suddenly we’re going to be told that these have immediately jumped to the forefront of Best Picture race when the Oscars roll around in a few weeks.

Don’t believe them.

That’s not to say that either of these pictures aren’t a worthy winner – or even a front-runner – but the Golden Globes aren’t necessarily the sure thing that they want you to believe. Even though they draw a substantial television audience and garner attention from some of Hollywood’s biggest and brightest, the HFPA is most guilty of their own sense of self-importance in the awards season shuffle.  (Ricky Gervais even remarked in his opening monologue that the awards were worthless, telling the celebs in attendance that “It’s a little piece of metal that some journalist made so they could take a selfie with you.”)

1895

How do we know?

For starters, the HFPA is a notoriously private non-profit organization whose membership consists only ninety journalists. Yes, you read that correctly: ninety members. That’s less than the average university film class. Or half the available seating at a standard movie theatre. When you compare this number to fact that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences consists of over six thousand members, you get the feeling that the HFPA is not nearly as accurate a gauge on what the arts community believes to be the ‘Best’ of the year.

Furthermore, the strange categorizations of films and actors/actresses doesn’t necessarily indicate that they’ll be loved by the Academy either. Remember when Madonna won Best Actress at the Globes and didn’t even receive an Oscar nod? Or when David Fincher was a lock for The Social Network? Brokeback Mountain, Boyhood, Dreamgirls, Avatar and, yes, The Hangover – all Golden Globe winners of Best Picture that failed to make Oscar’s historical list of winners. (To be fair, the Globes actually have a relatively solid record of picking the eventual Oscar winners in the acting categories but they are far from a guarantee.)

golden-globes-2016-leonardo-dicaprio

While I am actually a full supporter of the Awards season shuffle (look for my editorial on Thursday after this years nominees are announced for my reasons why), the Globes just don’t convince me. They know how to throw a great party and garner attention but, when you get beyond the sizzle, there’s simply no steak. (A great example of this came in 2008 when, as a result of the Writers Guild strike, they opted to strip down the ceremony. Without celebrities or pageantry, their awards were announced from behind a desk—and people barely noticed.)

While it would be completely fair to make this same accusation about other awards ceremonies, the Globes just strike me as particularly empty. Call them what you will but the HFPA appear to carry an overly-inflated view of themselves.

Still, I can’t put too much blame on them.

In truth, the Globes are a product of our own culture and it’s obsession with glamour. In essence, the primary reason they remain prominent in the ratings is because they put on a show of excess. We love to create an idol culture where celebrities maintain importance simply because they’re famous. Memes of Leonardo DiCaprio wincing at Lady Gaga or fashion-shaming the dresses on the red carpet remind us that we think we’re better than they are. Our own pride and sinfulness drives us, not only to create idols, but also place ourselves above them.

So, you see, the problem really isn’t the Globes.

Although I believe it’s fair to celebrate quality art, our natural—read: sinful—tendency is to view ourselves with attitudes as falsely as the Globes themselves. When we humbly acknowledge our own brokenness, it reminds us of the emptiness of a culture of celebrity and allows us to celebrate what is good. Ultimately, that’s what matters most—and what the Globes most lack.

Regardless of who’s hosting.

golden-globes