ScreenFish

where faith and film are intertwined

meaning

Fall Kickoff: Sports; Future of College & Work; Meaning in Life

by Leave a Comment

your sunday drive podcast

Fall is here and with it the 150th season of college football in the U.S.!

In this episode of the Your Sunday Drive podcast, we use this occasion as a kick-off point to revisit the topic of spirituality in sports.

Then the conversation goes deep into the current state of higher education, and the future of college and work.

Finally, the concept of God’s image is used as a touchstone principle to connect these topics to larger questions about purpose and meaning in life.

Take a listen and let us know what you think! Want to interact with us? Comment here, or on Spreaker or Facebook!



Why I Love (and Fear) Jordan Peterson & Russell Brand

by Leave a Comment

Jordan Peterson and Russell Brand

tldr version

Jordan Peterson
and Russell Brand
both see a
current crisis
and both see it as
primarily “spiritual”

however, for each,
there are issues
when it comes to how
*truth*
and “spirituality” relate

and how they relate
is vital

bit longer version

fanboying

i love me some
Peterson and Brand

always generally dug
Brand’s flicks
and standup,
and have been a
fan of his podcast/YouTube
for a year plus

(fun fact:
the pic above is
from once when
Peterson went
on said podcast;
and don’t they look
smashing together?
🙂 )

Peterson came to
my attention
more gradually,
but then like a
hurricane recently –
seriously:
give him a Google
and marvel at the
moment he’s been having

i have Recovery and
12 Rules for Life
on my bedside table
(along with some more
explicitly Christiany books
and a tablet, upon which
i theoretically read,
but mainly just
obsess over guitar gear
i don’t really need)

both are excellent texts
and both feel
supremely plugged in
to a zeitgeisty sense
that something’s amiss,
in general,
with ppl rn

(i agree)

both also,
and both men
in their public lives,
propose something
like a
spiritual cause
for this
“something amiss” –
what might be called a
“spiritual crisis of meaning”
stemming from
God
(or something like God;
more on this later)
no longer holding
significant sway
for so many

(i agree for sure)

caveating

please note here
that these gentlemen
are obv far more complex
than i’m making
them seem, as is
this whole topic
(and i’m not
even addressing
their politics);
i’m attempting to
essentialize here;
i considered deep diving,
but am refraining
for the sake of brevity
and also because i’m
kind of lazy

in any case, here are
some decent articles
related to this post;
go ahead and Google –
there’s plenty more:

“Jordan Peterson vs. Russell Brand”

“The religious hunger that drives Jordan Peterson’s fandom”

“Is Dr. Jordan Peterson A Gateway Drug to Christianity, Or Just A Highbrow Joel Osteen?”

here are two of my own,
also related:

“Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God”

“What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story “Means”)”

problematizing

but here’s the problem:
as much as i *love*
Peterson and Brand’s
respective approaches
to the significance
of the spiritual,
i *fear* that
neither approaches
*truth* sufficiently

what do i mean?

well, with Brand,
the issue appears to be
lack of specificity –
many manifestations
of spirituality
might address the
problems he sees
(note that his book
is based on the 12-steps,
which speaks of “God,
as we understand him”)

and while this is
well and good to a point,
of course,
in the end,
truth commonly understood
is *specific* and *exclusive*
by its nature,
and not addressing this,
it seems to me,
is a problem

for Peterson,
the issue is confusing
*truth*
with something like
“what works”

he tells us to live by a
certain ethic
and seek a certain meaning
grounded in
certain Jungian archetypes,
not because it is true
or because the
archetypes are –
at least not in
the usual
historical/correspondence
way generally meant –
but because it
just happens to reflect
how things have gone
re: humans
when it comes to
our psychology
from an
evolutionary perspective;
it is what is and
therefore what “works”
and therefore “true”

again, all well and good
to attach some
functionality to truth,
of course,
perhaps,
but conflating the two,
it seems to me,
is a problem

also, this is why
Peterson kind of
dodges/ducks/complicates
the question he’s
often asked:
“do you believe in God;”
he may or may not,
but he definitely
does not think of
that question primarily
as it relates to *truth*
commonly understood

finning

and so:
when it comes to
Peterson and Brand,
i love them,
but i also fear them

i find them both
engaging and articulate
and brilliant, etc.,
and *correct;*
but, concerningly,
on this point,
only to a point

i want people to
hear their message(s) –
i know good can come
of it –
but i fear ill may too

i see them as
important,
*prophetic* even
in this current moment –
both have
cut through the mix
in a way that’s so
unusual anymore,
given the noise –
but probably only
“part way down the path”
to the true destination
they both seem to
have glimpsed
(or, better,
which has glimpsed them):

not God
“as we understand him,”
not a “God” that
simply works,
but the *true* God

the true God
as He really is

 

The Dark Tower Ending Explained

by 1 Comment

screenfish matt hill dark tower
[there be SPOILERS ahead,
may it do ya fine]

yesterday i finished
sai Stephen King’s
The Dark Tower series –
entered the clearing
at the end of that path

it took me right around a year,
all told;
i think the longest extended
narrative i’ve ever read

by way of a mini-review:
i dug it 🙂

i’m a fan of King
and his style,
and the story here is
obv epic in scope,
full of wonders, adventure,
humor, tragedy,
characters you can relate to,
ones you wish you couldn’t,
and, ultimately,
it MEANS something
(more on that soon)

it was not perfect,
certainly –
many sections
and even entire books
got to be a bit of a slog
(like the characters’
journeys themselves),
there were build ups
to ultimate let downs,
promises not kept imo,
digressions, confusions, etc.,
much of which may be
due to the series’
long, fascinating
actual history
(which you can google) –
but in the end, for me,
it was worth the trip
for sure

saying more would only
hold up what i
mainly intend to say:

The Dark Tower Ending Explained

so what does the
series
and its ending
mean?

for such a long,
complex tale,
and such a
seemingly tricky question,
it’s surprisingly simple

The Dark Tower is
a story about stories

what about stories?

they end.

they themselves
inevitably reach
the clearing
at the end of the path.

to shoot straighter:
stories resolve.

King himself,
near the end of Book 7,
the last,
even cheekily
chides the reader
for needing
an ending,
basically daring us
not to read on;
but nevertheless,
he gives us the end
as he knows he must

and, also, as well,
the specific end he gives,
in context,
underlines the point:
stories resolve

see, The Dark Tower
is about how
“there are other worlds
than these;”
about, basically,
“the multiverse” –
the idea that
there are
different worlds,
and also that the lives
of the different
people within them
(including those of
King himself and
his decades-deep
cast of characters)
are somehow
actually happening together,
intertwined in space/time

sitting at
multiverse center?
the Dark Tower itself –
the nexus of all worlds

a knight errant –
Roland Deschain,
the gunslinger,
the main character –
is destined by ka
to seek this tower
and reach the
room at its summit;
the series tells
of this quest

at the end of Book 7,
the coda,
Roland reaches the
top of the tower,
only to walk through
a door
(and back in time)
to the opening line
of Book 1:

“The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed.”

in other words,
the multiverse
is not only made
of many worlds,
it also apparently
runs in many cycles –
the “end” is
just the beginning

but, however,
most ultimately importantly,
just as the many worlds
of the multiverse
converge on the one spot,
one thing for Roland
is different
in this one new cycle
that begins at the end:
he has an item
(the Horn of Eld,
though the specifics
probably aren’t
what’s important)
which promises
the possibility
of a final and last cycle –
an actual end,
the inevitable resolution

So What?

great question 🙂

one this post
won’t address

but i encourage you
to ask more deeply:

why do stories resolve?

why must they?

why must we humans
tell them –
all of them variations
of the same
resolving tale,
over and over?

(for a bit of
my personal take, see:
“What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story ‘Means’)”

here’s a hint:
it has something to do
with Gan (God),
commala come you)

in any case,
long days
and pleasant nights
to ya –
till you too
reach the clearing

 

The Ready Player One “Easter Egg” That Bypasses the Backlash

by Leave a Comment

this quick post plays
through three short stages

the third contains
the Easter egg

all three potentially
contain SPOILERS


Stage One: “Microreview”

if you haven’t seen Ready Player One
(or read Cline’s book),
you really should;
particularly if you’re the
target demo:
a “nerd,” “geek,”
pop culture afficionado
of a certain stripe
(70s-80s gaming, sci-fi, etc.)
(more on this later)

but even if you’re not
the target demo du jour,
you should still see it,
cuz it’s a fun,
eminently Spielbergian,
bombastic popcorn flick
(tho, prepare to
suspend plenty disbelief
and prepare to groan
at the too-neat ending)


Stage Two: “Context”

if you’ve seen this movie already –
more certainly if you’ve
read the book,
have this kind of thing
on your radar, etc. –
you may have a sense of the
Ready Player One backlash
that’s been afoot:

e.g. 1: Steven Spielberg’s Oblivious, Chilling Pop-Culture Nostalgia in “Ready Player One”

e.g. 2: The Ready Player One backlash, explained

(those two pieces are helpful
primers and there are others)

the gists of the criticisms
have to do with
Cline, Spielberg, or both
succumbing to certain
negatives of nostalgia and some
nasty exclusivity concerning
particular pet passions
(this involves something
called “Gamergate”)

i think there’s obv
plenty valid points here,
but delving in fully
is beyond this post

(for some
thoughts on nostalgia, see my
good, bad, ugly: nostalgia edition)

(for some
thoughts on how groups
(like gamers)
crave things like
ownership, community, etc. –
relevant to them
playing out negatively
re: Gamergate – see my
a pop invite to the church)


Stage Three: “Spiritual < Spiritual”

while in general i agree with
Rob Bell that
“everything is spiritual,”
i think some
desires
(longings,
hungers,
senses of privation,
experiences of lack,
problems,
issues,
whatever)
are more clearly so

in this instance, by “spiritual”
i mean something like
“essential to our being
as humans;”
i also mean something like
what’s at play here:

“If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world.” ~ C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

here, in other words,
spiritual = supernatural

and HERE is where we discover
the titular EASTER EGG –
the “secret” that “saves”
Ready Player One
from some potential negatives
brought up in Stage Two….

Ready Player One, really,
is about these spiritual/supernatural
longings/desires;
specifically, i see
The OASIS
(the movie’s VR game world)
as a proxy for
desires for
things like:
love, belonging, community,
escape, freedom, victory,
meaning, enjoyment, passion

Ready Player One
says this about people:
people need
love/meaning/etc.
and they’ll do
whatever it takes
to get it
(including create
fictional worlds where they do)

but now notice how
Ready Player One‘s
counterintuitively anti-gaming ending –
when we’re told something like
“the real world is what’s real” –
also says this about people:
real (read: spiritual) problems require
real (read: spiritual) solutions,
and *bigger* ones, too

in other words: spiritual < spiritual

it may seem like The OASIS
can give Wade (the main character)
what he needs,
but nah: he needs Samantha (the girl)
irl for that;
in this same way,
our ultimately
spiritual/supernatural
desires for
love/meaning/etc.
must be “solved” by something/someone
ultimately
spiritual/supernatural –
and *bigger –
too

and,
to me,
with this Easter egg
of perspective in hand,
Ready Player One –
though imperfect –
communicates something
very valid,
very real
about being a human

(for some
thoughts on how
humans often
sneak these kinds of
Easter eggs
into pop culture, see
what it means that you like things that are like other things that you like
and
Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God)

 

 

The Holy Fool of ABC’s The Middle (or: What Would Sue Heck Do?)

by Leave a Comment

not sure if you watch
ABC’s The Middle;
if not, you might consider it

it’s just a family sitcom,
but a pretty good one,
especially if you
watch with your kids,
which is how we do it
and how it’s intended, i’d say

it’s in its 9th (and final) season,
so i’ve been thinking
a bit about it,
especially about how
there’s something
particularly significant
about the character of
Sue Heck

over the years,
Sue became my
hands-down fave on the show;
compared to the
frazzled downtroddenness
of Frankie,
or the
practical indifference
of Mike,
or the
charmed nonchalance
of Axl,
or the
odd aloofness
of Brick,
there’s something
unique/
special/
different
about Sue

she’s…
romantic;
quixotic;
a true believer
when it comes to life

where others frown,
she smiles;
where they dismay,
she hopes;
where they doubt,
she trusts;
where they lay fallen,
she gets back up

i mean, seriously:

of course,
this type of
(supposedly)
overnaive/
overgullible/
overhopeful/
overidealistic/
character is oft made
the butt of the joke
by other characters,
and this holds
true for Sue, too

“that Sue,”
we laugh with them,
“always failing,
but never giving up –
she’ll just never get it!

what a fool!”

but that’s just it:
she’s not a fool;
she’s so much not a fool
that, truly understood,
the other characters –
characters not like her,
people not like her –
perhaps need to
consider for themselves
where that moniker might
truly fit best

Sue Heck is,
actually, truly, what’s called
a holy fool:
in the words of a
Russian hymn,
someone whose
“imaginary insanity
[reveals] the insanity of the world”

( i want to say so much more
about holy fools rn –
about Jesus Christ himself,
about Paul (who called himself
“a fool for Christ”),
about the Hebrew prophets,
about the myriad incarnations
of holy fools in art
(Don Quixote, Prince Myshkin,
Solaire of Astora from Dark Souls) –
but time is short;
if you’re interested, Google a bit;
also, check out this great piece:
“The Holy Fool” by theburkean )

in other words,
though her
perpetual smile
seems foolish,
it really only
shows us to be foolish
for smiling less

though her
unstoppable optimism
seems foolish,
it actually shines light
on our too-easy
doubting and despairing

though we want to say
“just stay down,
just give up,”
the fact that
Sue doesn’t
only makes us the fools
for saying so
in the first place

in biblical language,
we might say
Sue’s foolishness
exemplifies love,
for surely she
“bears all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things,
endures all things;”
and, surely,
living like this can seem
pretty silly,
pretty out of place –
pretty foolish –
in the warp and woof
of the day to day
of this world

but, we’re saying:
that doesn’t mean
that it actually is 

in fact,
we’re saying:
it may be
actually the opposite

and,
indeed,
doesn’t this all
seem to fall
pretty well in line
with the God who
goes down a “failure,”
the God who dies “like a fool,”
scoffers and mockers afoot,
but then gets back up
and comes back to life –
because of love –
despite the “insanity,”
despite the ridiculousness,
despite the foolishness 
of the story?

🙂

 

seeing it coming [The Last Jedi SPOILERS]

by 6 Comments


when old wineskins
make way for new,
who sees it coming?

if one waits on royalty
but receives rabble,
will one still receive?

and though death is
obviously an end,
isn’t it always also a beginning?

even so . . .

shred the Jedi texts and
burn the sacred tree,
for the force is
the force for everyone –
“The wind blows wherever it pleases.
You hear its sound, but you
cannot tell where it comes from
or where it is going.” –
true always,
clearer now

when the one book
in the one tongue
gets Gutenberged,
then can the word
truly be writ
on its true home:
the hearts of all,
not the papers of the few

even so . . .

if Rey be the seed of nobodies,
that need not mean
she cannot still be
the start of a new hope –
for the last shall be first,
the weak shall be strong,
the poor shall be rich

also forget not
the lamb yet lion,
the servant yet master,
the pauper yet king –
forget not that
things many
can yet be one

even so . . .

Skywalker is dead.
the call of the
force/wind/God
made in a way most final.
his shoot of a branch
seemingly snipped.
the Jedi –
once but a
dreamer of a boy
looking aloft to
binary stars –
finally, the last.

yes, but,
who supplants him?

who but he himself:
yet another boy dreamer,
looking aloft to a
new sky of his own

so can you see?

can you see it coming?

the new wineskins?
the royal rabble?
the end-yet-beginning?

can you see that
Luke is Rey is
the boy dreamer
is all the dreamers is
me
is
you?

and can you see that
this is the way of the
force/wind/God?

i hope,
yes

 

Get Re-Enchanted: Stranger Things 2, Pop Culture & God

by Leave a Comment


i am
*so* psyched
for Stranger Things 2

like, *psyched* psyched

i want more mystery,
more stylish 80s homage,
more dope soundtrack,
way more Eleven;
i want #justiceforbarb,
Eggos ate raw,
Winona Ryder everything,
coffee and contemplation

honestly, who can deny
that the whole
Stranger Things thing –
like much of what
it lovingly calls back to –
is one of those
oh so pleasant
serendipitous revelations;
one of those things where,
now that it’s happened,
you can no longer imagine
the pop landscape
without it

however,
(serendipity be damned),
why?

why such a strong reaction
to Stranger Things,
by so many,
seemingly
“out of nowhere”
?

i thought
Alissa Wilkinson
(in a Christianity Today
article called
“How ‘Stranger Things’
Re-Enchants the World”)
was onto an answer:

In a modern world—where science can explain everything from depression to deja vu to the Aurora Borealis… even religious folk yearn for a re-enchanted world, one where fairies, or demons, or other intelligences exist just beyond what we can see.

What we’re after is joy—the serendipity of discovery, the thrill of mystery, the feeling of excitement lurking around the corner…

Our desire for magic doesn’t let up… art still seems best poised to capture that magic. Stranger Things is just the latest version of this yearning…

agreed for sure:
part of the draw,
the allure
of Stranger Things,
is that it sort of
re-imbues the world
with a magic,
a mystery,
an enchantment;
Stranger Things
takes the “regular world”
and adds the “upside down” –
takes plain old “things”
and makes them “stranger”
(again)

so is that it?
Stranger Things
speaks to us so
cuz it’s a reminder that
“there’s more to things
than meets the eye”
?
and cuz the experience
of that is… fun?

no, that’s not (just) it

as Wilkinson notes,
the show is
“the latest version
of this yearning
[for magic];”
Stranger Things is also
powerful precisely
because it participates
in this long line of
pop culture manifestations
of a specific
human yearning

what yearning,
specifically?

a yearning not only for magic –
read: the supernatural –
but for a universe
*built* with and on magic;
a magical universe
that not only
brings “joy,”
but makes possible
an explanatory
and existential
completeness
that an un-strange,
mundane,
materialistic,
naturalistic universe of
pure scientism
actually *cannot*

a yearning, in other words,
for a universe of meaning

what meaning?

literally *any* meaning

for in an un-strange,
mundane,
materialistic,
naturalistic universe of
pure scientism,
science is the only
game in town;
but though science excels
at explaining the “how”
of things,
it is exceedingly bad
at explaining the “why;”
in fact, science
does not,
*cannot*
speak the language of “why”
at all, and therefore
cannot lend meaning
in the sense we mean

you need things to be a bit…
stranger…
for that kind of meaning;
you need a magic universe
of possibilities
for that kind of meaning;
for that kind of meaning,
you need
a universe with a God

once you have that,
magic and the
possibility of
knowing the
“why” of things
reappear,
along with all
our dearest, deepest meanings –
good is better than evil,
love defeats hate,
sacrifice overcomes greed –
the narratives
we inescapably spin
to demonstrate
those meanings,
and the pop avatars
we create to animate
those narratives…
Stranger Things,
thankfully,
awesomely,
 among them

(for some related
ideas about narratives,
see “What IT Means
(and How *Any* Good Story ‘Means’)”)

What IT Means (and How *Any* Good Story “Means”)

by Leave a Comment

this thing you’re reading
is going to have
zero jump scares in
three expedient little parts:

1. a micro-review of the
2017 movie IT

2. mini-musing on the
meaning of IT

3. more mini-musing on
how *any* good story
“means” in a similar way

so, here we go…

IT Reviewed

you know what IT was?

super good, i thought

it made great use of
the superb,
monstrously mineable
source novel
(by the by-now-legendary
Stephen King);
captured that novel’s
unique blend of
coming-of-age story
and horror story
(thankfully ditching
the adults for now,
nailing the terrifying
scary/funny of Pennywise);
masterfully employed
genre movie tropes;
was well cast,
well acted,
capitalized on
1980s nostalgia
(no small thanks to
Stranger Things);
heck, it was even
timed and marketed
nearly perfectly

was it perfect?
nah.
imo there were
some pacing quibbles,
some moments where
i was taken out
the moment,
etc., (i could go on),
but, bottom line,
IT is excellent,
and especially if
you’re already a
fan of the story,
seeing it’s a no-brainer

IT Dissected

but what does IT mean?

the beauty here is:
most people already know,
or have a sense of it,
anyway;
the movie even does
(what i’d call a
too-heavy-handed)
bit of service here, having
Pennywise literally speak
his symbolism aloud –
“FEAR” –
as he is dispatched
(for now)
by “the losers”

and what defeats
Pennywise/FEAR?
something like
courage through
togetherness,
something like
love –
the central image of
the signed cast
with “loser”
made into “lover”
becoming a sort-of
stand-in for the point of
whole damn thing

(reminding people
familiar with scripture,
maybe,
of lines like
“perfect love casts out
all fear;”
prompting questions,
perhaps,
like:
how are the losers
like the church?)

but tbh, to me,
these meanings are
pretty clear,
pretty obv;
they are, tbh,
too big to miss

i don’t disagree with them,
of course,
but i found myself watching,
remembering the book,
and wanting to take time
to unpack some of IT‘s
knottier themes –
how does sexuality tie in?
cuz it seems to;
how do the kids’ parents?
they seem to;
what about race and
identity and history and
how they’re related?
does King mean to say
that growing up and
fear are inextricable?
(the book, of course,
provides plenty
more fodder for
these kinds of questions)

however, i promised
mini-musing only
and zero jump scares,
and so these peripherals,
uberrelated tho they be,
aren’t for here/now

besides,
IT is a good story,
at least partly,
because
its themes
and meanings –
losers become lovers,
evil dies to good –
operate at this totemic,
mythically big
and primal
level of largeness

which gets us to…

IT Related

finally,
i want to say
something like:
all good stories
(like IT) –
inevitably,
when dug at
deeply enough –
will have a
thematic bigness
like i’ve just described;
and it’s this bigness,
at least partly,
that makes us
see them as good
and which allows them to
“mean”
for us in such a
consistent,
seemingly ever-present
and popular-to-the-
point-of-compulsive
way

if i were being
Jungian or Campbellian,
i might say:
all good stories
are variations of
the monomyth

if i were being Christian,
which i am,
i would say:
all good stories are
reverberating echoes –
forward and backward
through time –
of the true story
of the universe…
the one where
good defeats evil
through love…
the one about Jesus

C.S. Lewis,
in The Voyage of
the Dawn Treader,
said it like this:

On the next page she came to a spell ‘for the refreshment of the spirit.’ The pictures were fewer here but very beautiful. And what Lucy found herself reading was more like a story than a spell. It went on for three pages and before she had read to the bottom of the page she had forgotten that she was reading at all. She was living in the story as if it were real, and all the pictures were real too. When she had got to the third page and come to the end, she said, “That is the loveliest story I’ve ever read or ever shall read in my whole life. Oh, I wish I could have gone on reading it for ten years. At least I’ll read it over again.”

But here part of the magic of the Book came into play. You couldn’t turn back. The right-hand pages, the ones ahead, could be turned; the left-hand pages could not.

“Oh, what a shame!” said Lucy. “I did so want to read it again. Well, at least I must remember it. Let’s see . . . it was about . . . about . . . oh dear, it’s all fading away again.

And even this last page is going blank. This is a very queer book. How can I have forgotten? It was about a cup and a sword and a tree and a green hill, I know that much. But I can’t remember and what shall I do?”

And she never could remember; and ever since that day what Lucy means by a good story is a story which reminds her of the forgotten story in the Magician’s Book.

so,
do you have
a sense
that you know –
very, very deeply
in your heart,
though you can’t
fully explain it –
a magic story?
a story that
is the best thing ever?
so much so that
every other good story
reminds you of it?

a sense that

There’s a song that’s inside of my soul.
It’s the one that I’ve tried to write over and over again.
I’m awake in the infinite cold,
But You sing to me over and over again.

in the words of
“Only Hope”
by Switchfoot?

a sense that,
for example,
when Pennywise loses,
you somehow win,
because there’s
something afoot there
that’s more than
just that story?
that there’s
something afoot there
that’s story itself –
a story you’re
actually a part of?

maybe?

take a moment
to consider…

yes? no?

maybe not.

maybe i took
The Neverending Story
too seriously.

but, then again,
maybe that’s just
another good example
of exactly 
what i’m talking about

and maybe –
oh, so hopefully –
maybe now,
you might
at least
consider
seeing it so too

don’t be scared…
try it

Three Reasons Style Matters, According to Baby Driver

by Leave a Comment

you know what matters?

style.

whyzzat?

well, i could tell you
why i think so,
but instead
let me give you
three reasons style matters,
according to the
sleekly-stylish-
yet-(ironically)-
ever-so-serviceable
Baby Driver

ONE – style’s stylish

check out this story:
a bunch of robbers
rob some stuff
and almost get away with it,
but they end up
turning on each other –
as robbers do –
and then one of them
makes it out in the end (kinda)

sounds good, right?

now picture all that again, but
hear:
supercool throwback soundtrack,
see:
sexies like Jon Hamm,
wear:
shades, always shades

(i could go on)

get the point?

same story,
but do it with style –
that elusive,
hard-to-define-
but-you-know-it-
when-you-see-it
*it,*
which Baby Driver
simply ooooozes with –
and everything is
just so much more
. . . stylish . . .
so much more . . .
. . . better

TWO – everything is style

go back to the story above

it’s pretty basic, right?

looking back at some other
Edgar Wright movies,
they’re all kinda that way, right?
Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz,
The World’s End,
all awesome, imo,
(in a lot of people’s o, tbh),
but all generally
formulaic,
got plots you’d see coming,
“work out in the end,” etc. –
all basically basic, yeah?

but this isn’t a negative,
no, this is the point:
at the bottom,
everything is this way –
especially stories –
and there is something
essential and ancient and
meaningful and
not-to-be-missed
about that fact
(i.e. we need to ask
why is it this way?)

well then, what makes
different stories different?
(cuz they do be different)

style.

style:
the different clothes
you put on the
different iterations of the
same body

all these Edgar Wright films
are very different, sure,
but it’s their styles, really,
that make them so –
a zombie flick,
a buddy cop flick,
an apocalypse flick,
a heist flick,
etc. –
while the basicality
of the stories themselves,
of story itself,
remains basically constant

so: everything is the same,
yet,
everything is different,
cuz style;
therefore,
everything is style
(and style is everything)

whoa.

THREE – (good) style wins

so, for the scorekeepers,
so far we’ve meant
“style” as in
that indefinable cool,
and “style” as in
type or kind,
but for this third thing,
we mean “style” as in
the way a person is –
his/her character
or even lifestyle  –
as in “that’s my style”
or “that’s not my style”

in Baby Driver,
it’s not Baby’s style
to kill people;
it’s really not even Baby’s style
to rob people –
he does that cuz
he’s gotta

in other words,
in Baby Driver,
Baby is a good person,
a moral person,
a just person who
tries doing what’s right,
even tho
he sometimes don’t

and this fact allows
Wright to say:
(good) style wins

bad guys get theirs and
good guys get theirs
(though they may need some
lesson learning along the way –
though they might could use some
r   e   d   e   m   p   t   i   o   n
(might couldn’t we all))

(good) style wins

one reaps what
one sows,
(ultimately, eventually)
justice prevails,
yada yada

(good) style wins

cuz good > evil

you know,
(good) style wins – 
that same basic story,
again
(surprise)
(but, again, why?)

so, to sum and say goodbye,
you should do a few things:

  1. check out “Cruising with BABY DRIVER” 
    for even more analytic goodness
  2. stream that supersweet
    Baby Driver soundtrack
  3. see the movie, obv,
    which is excellent,
    so’s you can
    see all these style insights
    in person, yourself, and
    ask those couple “why?” questions
    from above,
    plus other interrelated ones
    that might come
    (like “am i stylish?”
    “what style of the story
    do i be in?”
    “what’s my style
    and do it win?”
    and so on
    and on

The Thing About Chris Cornell

by 1 Comment

Chris Cornellthere’s a lot i want to say
about Chris Cornell
having gone away

truth told,
it hit me kinda hard
late last week and
over the weekend

i kinda want
to go on at length
about how
his singing voice
was the one for me –
at least, one of the ones –
and how i’d try
(and fail)
to belt along
with his intensity
while driving

i kinda want to tell you
about my favorite
songs of his;
maybe link to videos –
so much fire to choose from

but then, of course,
i’d naturally note
how the horrible irony
of hindsight has
already started
to mar and morph
song meanings,
like nooses once pretty

then, quickly, maybe
i’d try to bring it back and
lightheartedly reminisce
about how i
was once even told i
look a little like him
(one could, doubtless,
do much worse 🙂 )

but kinda eventually
i’d inevitably again
attempt unpacking
the actual event itself:
that
awful
S word

i’d understandably want
to plumb my personal stake
in this particular one

is it cuz i’m “gen-x?”
is it a Cobain flashback,
Seattle grunge thing?
just nostalgia for that
specific time
when i too was
first in a band?

maybe is it cuz i was literally
*just* listening to that dude?
literally *just* saw him on
Jimmy Fallon?

i would wonder why
the pretense of
social media mourning
bothered me so this time –
the performativity,
the constructedness of it…
the rush to suddenly
and publicly be in the
Chris Cornell club,
even as i now
tempt hypocrisy
and do the same…
doing so, perhaps,
unavoidable now,
given the internet and all,
which can make
the truth seem fake
and vice-versa,
to the point that
one seriously considers silence

then i would want to
slow down,
to think more about,
maybe even
attempt the dreaded task of
saying something about,
his family,
even though i have no right

then i would note, rightly,
that it’s not right to
really just
think and talk
about oneself
under the guise of
thinking and talking
about this thing,
except that this thing, now,
is about him *and*
the rest of us,
including even me;
and except that
it’s not possible to not
think and talk about oneself,
regardless of who or what
else one thinks and talks about

i would want to invoke God, for
death and God go together,
like God goes with everything,
like oneself does too

but a wise person
once (recently) said to
say one thing at a time
and that seems like solid advice,
so –
passing wordlessly
past the fact that
i’ve already in truth said plenty
(tis a common trope) – here’s
the thing about Chris Cornell:

humans make meaning
via story,
and i think his passing has
particular sting
because, as a story,
it seems to
undermine meaning

i have personally,
over the past week,
variously felt the
story of his passing as
very sad to be sure,
but also as
terrifically *absurd* –
an *offense* even,
insofar as it is a
story that does not go
as we would expect,
or want,
or as we think it should,
or as it could,
were this world different…

were this world better

it reminds me,
in various respects,
of how i felt about
the death of
my own father,
who also went away
too young, and
to the awful strains
of what seemed to be
missed opportunity
and *tragedy*
and *meaninglessness*
and *waste*

and, to be clear,
this is not some statement
about people’s personal choices
or my inability to understand them

this is not an indictment of persons,
but of situations
and of a world
that contains such
absurd
offensive
tragic
waste –
a world where
stories sometimes just suck as
meaning makers

and it is, since
death and God go together,
like God goes with everything,
including this world,
i must admit,
an indictment of Him

and yet…

when Matthew Arnold
wrote “Dover Beach,”
he leaned on his “love”
as the “Sea of Faith” retreated;
even so, Chris Cornell,
in his own version of
that same story –
“Preaching the End of the World” –
looks for “someone out there,
who can understand,
and who’s feeling,
the same way as me”

i submit that this is why
his passing
isn’t *actually* absurd –
why no one’s passing
is actually absurd –
and why any indictment
of God isn’t the last word:

because
in the face of the absurd,
we still can’t help but
want things to mean things,
and inevitably,
we still find that meaning,
ultimately, in
stories of another

because
death itself only makes one
think of resurrection

because though
death and God go together,
the latter continues
past the former

because,
finally,
though “Jesus wept” for Lazarus –
as we may weep for
Chris Cornell, for his family,
for what might have been,
for the loss of a
story we’d suspect,
a story we’d hope for –
those tears aren’t the end…
and they’re certainly not,
though they may seem to be so,
signposts to nowhere;
and certainly not,
though they may seem to be so,
symbols of divine absence

ironically,
but happily,
meaningfully,
quite the converse