Russia and America have to worry about agent Salt. Salt answers the age old question: What’s worse than an action movie with no plot?
CIA agent Evelyn Salt’s (Angelina Jolie) life is thrown into turmoil when her loyalty is questioned in front of her bosses by a man named Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski) who claims to be an agent high up in the Russian government. They accuse her of knowing about the murder of a Russian dignitary. Worse, she knows that her husband, a Mike Krause (August Diehl), a German arachnologist, is in danger from the people who think she’s betrayed them. Like a caged animal, she breaks out of her surroundings, to find her husband.
When I left the theater after seeing Salt, I all could hear was the eternally true expression; two wrongs don’t make a right. While the acting could pass as adequate, the writing and directing left that adage bouncing around my brain. The writing was shallow and lacking any emotional connection, even though it was obvious that there was an attempt to pull on our heart strings. Writer Kurt Wimmer tries to throw curveballs at the audience but only succeeds and t-ball quality pitches. The actions of the characters range from perplexing to downright strange.
The director, Phillip Noyce, couldn’t elevate the action scenes to a level to compensate for the thin writing. The actors, most of which were convincing and interesting, just had nothing to work with. They were like Olympic divers trying to do triple pikes off a six inch high diving board into a puddle; a bloody belly flop is inevitable.
Noyce should be nominated for the “Use of Stereotypes: Costumes Award”. One could create a drinking game around spotting a Russian. Every time he wants to plant an inference about Jolie’s character, or the other spy characters, there is a clumsy use of fur. American’s can’t be credited with the greatest international understanding, but even to us, using furry hats to tell us something about the character tells me that Noyce thinks we have the culture understanding of a bowl of soup.
I spent more time shifting in my seat than captivated. My fingernails suffered no nibbling from intense emotion but came out of the theater especially clean from the preening they experienced during Salt. I was so disinterested during Salt, I deliberately focus myself on the movie and had to stop myself from writing the review in my head in the cinema.
The ending of Salt left me shaking in fear. It was the only time in the movie that I felt truly, deeply rocked by emotion. Just as I could feel the wave of relief that the movie was finally coming to an end, the ending was a tsunami of terror washing away all my hope.
Angelia Jolie kicks major cross-continental ass, but the fight choreography and killings add nothing to the overall story. In the end she was the unfortunate Olympic diver. Salt’s answer the age old question: What’s worse than an action movie with no plot? A boring action movie with no plot.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
The Last Airbender: It's Good, If You Don't Like Good Dialogue
The Last Airbender does not just bend air to his will, he is in charge of keeping the world in balance – but he is not ready for the task. Atrocious writing is the pustule on a strikingly beautiful movie with decent acting and captivating action sequences.
While out hunting, Katara (Nicola Peltz) and her brother Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), of the water tribe, find a frozen sphere with a boy and his floating beast of burden inside. When he escapes the bubble, the brother and sister realize he is different. He is an airbender. Aang (Noah Ringer) is the last of the Air tribe. Aang is not just the last of his kind, he is what the world has been missing to keep the world in balance. When the leaders of the Fire Tribe realize Aang is alive, they dedicate their resources to hunting him down.
A bender is a person who can manipulate the elements of the earth. There are earth, fire, water and wind benders. They control the elements using what appear to be martial arts forms. Much of the movie is the characters using these forms. Occasionally the forms get a bit tiring because there is a disconnection between the motion and the effect, but generally, they are beautiful expressions of discipline. More than just the forms, the fight choreography is captivating. There are transitions between live and computer generated fights that are hard to spot.
In fact, there is no shortage of pristine aesthetics in The Last Airbender. Director and M. Night Shyamalan paid extraordinary and particular attention to the way movie’s visual story. The settings, across an entire world, are rich with cultures. Each group of people and place has their own clothing, terrain, and lifestyle. The differences between different places and people range from subtle to blaringly obvious.
Shyamalan’s most obvious point is that not respecting the sacred is not only immoral, but has world changing consequences. As an atheist, I spent the entire second half of the movie rolling my eyes at how evil those who do not respect the gods are portrayed. M. Night Shyamalan’s opinion about atheists is that 1: We put power first, 2: we don’t care about the world, and 3: we will take, take, take without remorse. It wasn’t enough for him to show spirits that show up for work, it was not enough to show the heroes as warriors of their spirits, no. He had to go a step further, showing those lacking a reverence for the supernatural beings of this realm as so ruthless that they are willing to sacrifice everything for power. Shyamalan can blame us evil atheists all he wants to, but he is only showing his complete inability to escape the restraints of his faith, not the truth of the matter.
The thinly veiled theological biases aside, The Last Airbender is full of lines dumped in the middle or end of a scene that make no sense. Twenty minutes will go by, I’d be lost in the beauty of the movie and the kung fu, when BAAM – a line, usually delivered with all sincerity but horrible timing, that made me go cross-eyed. In one particularly memorable scene, out of nowhere, one character waits fifteen seconds after the last line is delivered and then orders another character to do something so obvious, it didn’t need to be said. She might as well have said during a fight, “Hit that guy.” Every time one of those dump sentences popped up, I checked out for a moment, unable to suspend my disbelief. M. Night Shyamalan then had to earn my trust again, taking time and energy that should have been applied to being emotionally involved in the story.
If you are a theist who wants to watch fights in pretty places, The Last Airbender is just the movie for you. For my ten bucks though, I demand writing that doesn’t make it impossible to care about the story.
While out hunting, Katara (Nicola Peltz) and her brother Sokka (Jackson Rathbone), of the water tribe, find a frozen sphere with a boy and his floating beast of burden inside. When he escapes the bubble, the brother and sister realize he is different. He is an airbender. Aang (Noah Ringer) is the last of the Air tribe. Aang is not just the last of his kind, he is what the world has been missing to keep the world in balance. When the leaders of the Fire Tribe realize Aang is alive, they dedicate their resources to hunting him down.
A bender is a person who can manipulate the elements of the earth. There are earth, fire, water and wind benders. They control the elements using what appear to be martial arts forms. Much of the movie is the characters using these forms. Occasionally the forms get a bit tiring because there is a disconnection between the motion and the effect, but generally, they are beautiful expressions of discipline. More than just the forms, the fight choreography is captivating. There are transitions between live and computer generated fights that are hard to spot.
In fact, there is no shortage of pristine aesthetics in The Last Airbender. Director and M. Night Shyamalan paid extraordinary and particular attention to the way movie’s visual story. The settings, across an entire world, are rich with cultures. Each group of people and place has their own clothing, terrain, and lifestyle. The differences between different places and people range from subtle to blaringly obvious.
Shyamalan’s most obvious point is that not respecting the sacred is not only immoral, but has world changing consequences. As an atheist, I spent the entire second half of the movie rolling my eyes at how evil those who do not respect the gods are portrayed. M. Night Shyamalan’s opinion about atheists is that 1: We put power first, 2: we don’t care about the world, and 3: we will take, take, take without remorse. It wasn’t enough for him to show spirits that show up for work, it was not enough to show the heroes as warriors of their spirits, no. He had to go a step further, showing those lacking a reverence for the supernatural beings of this realm as so ruthless that they are willing to sacrifice everything for power. Shyamalan can blame us evil atheists all he wants to, but he is only showing his complete inability to escape the restraints of his faith, not the truth of the matter.
The thinly veiled theological biases aside, The Last Airbender is full of lines dumped in the middle or end of a scene that make no sense. Twenty minutes will go by, I’d be lost in the beauty of the movie and the kung fu, when BAAM – a line, usually delivered with all sincerity but horrible timing, that made me go cross-eyed. In one particularly memorable scene, out of nowhere, one character waits fifteen seconds after the last line is delivered and then orders another character to do something so obvious, it didn’t need to be said. She might as well have said during a fight, “Hit that guy.” Every time one of those dump sentences popped up, I checked out for a moment, unable to suspend my disbelief. M. Night Shyamalan then had to earn my trust again, taking time and energy that should have been applied to being emotionally involved in the story.
If you are a theist who wants to watch fights in pretty places, The Last Airbender is just the movie for you. For my ten bucks though, I demand writing that doesn’t make it impossible to care about the story.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Kick Ass - It's fun but that's it.
Tired of watching innocent people get hurt, an awkward high school boy takes justice into his own hands, invents a super- hero persona he calls Kick Ass, and heads off to fight crime. Even though it is a bit bumpy in places, the cheeky nature of combat makes Kick Ass a fun use of a couple hours.
Late blooming high schooler Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) can’t seem to catch a break. Bullies make easy work of him. Frustrated with the abuse and injustice, Dave goes vigilante and becomes Kick Ass. His self-promoted celebrity does not go unnoticed by Mindy (Chloe Moretz) and Damon Macready (Nicholas Cage); a well trained father-daughter vigilante team armed to the teeth. Kick Ass’s interludes into crime fighting also catches the attention of a local crime boss, Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong).
All of us have felt the sting of injustice or have felt relegated to the humiliating circle of helplessness. I’d guess that 99.9% of us wanted to take action to correct it but because of the law or maybe just plain cowardice we took one for the “let’s be civilized” team. Kick Ass lets us play revisionist history and play out our butt kicking fantasies from the safety of a theater seat; good and bad.
Kick Ass is a pretty sincere look at what might happen if average folk went out and tried to stop criminals. Yes, it is wrapped in outlandish comedy, and sometimes over the top non-sensery but it is not a candy coated adventure for Dave. Things go terribly wrong. He screws up. Usually it’s a matter of passing importance, but occasionally, the mistake is immeasurable.
For the most part though, his dalliance into super heroism is a giggle-coaxing charm. His hero warm-ups are classic. His girl troubles are a relatable snicker-inducing mess and prove, yet again, that boys will do anything for sex.
On the other hand Mindy and Damon’s emotions run deep; their motivations are scars in their history. They have dedicated a great deal of their life’s energy to revenge and the utter destruction of their enemies. Their story has little levity, but gives weight to Kick Ass, even when he is unaware. The atypical parental relationship is tender, in a strangely brutal way.
The writing for both Damon and Mindy borders on displeasing, often not campy enough to throw it over the edge, but too campy to be taken seriously. There are no easy, unobstructed moments between the two.
My major complaint about Kick Ass is that it doesn’t merge the emotion of the two concurrent plot lines well enough. The Mindy-Damon story attempts to be heartbreaking and multi-faceted, but really only blossoms into a slightly more complex motive. When they finally meet, they still seem like they are running next to each other, not with each other.
There are no shortage of hand to hand combat and gun fights in this flick. The close quarter fight scenes made me feel like I was dodging fists. The weapons discussions, between allies and enemies, will make even the most hardened audience member laugh out loud. The final combat sequence is worth sneaking into the theater to see alone.
Kick Ass has one huge plus: a girl hero with her clothes on. Yes, she is a sailor-mouthed elementary school student. Yes, her childhood was unconventional. Yes, she is bad ass. Kick Ass proves that girls can kick down doors, shoot guns, swear and kick the stuffing out of villains without risk of wardrobe malfunction. Take note, other directors and writers, girls in clothing don’t just get raped or beaten up; they can also rat-a-tat-tat yo ass.
Kick Ass probably won’t go down as a classic comedy or superhero movie, but it sure is a fun way to spend a couple of hours. Giving yourself a brief glimpse of your superhero career and a few good laughs is worth the price of the ticket.
Late blooming high schooler Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) can’t seem to catch a break. Bullies make easy work of him. Frustrated with the abuse and injustice, Dave goes vigilante and becomes Kick Ass. His self-promoted celebrity does not go unnoticed by Mindy (Chloe Moretz) and Damon Macready (Nicholas Cage); a well trained father-daughter vigilante team armed to the teeth. Kick Ass’s interludes into crime fighting also catches the attention of a local crime boss, Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong).
All of us have felt the sting of injustice or have felt relegated to the humiliating circle of helplessness. I’d guess that 99.9% of us wanted to take action to correct it but because of the law or maybe just plain cowardice we took one for the “let’s be civilized” team. Kick Ass lets us play revisionist history and play out our butt kicking fantasies from the safety of a theater seat; good and bad.
Kick Ass is a pretty sincere look at what might happen if average folk went out and tried to stop criminals. Yes, it is wrapped in outlandish comedy, and sometimes over the top non-sensery but it is not a candy coated adventure for Dave. Things go terribly wrong. He screws up. Usually it’s a matter of passing importance, but occasionally, the mistake is immeasurable.
For the most part though, his dalliance into super heroism is a giggle-coaxing charm. His hero warm-ups are classic. His girl troubles are a relatable snicker-inducing mess and prove, yet again, that boys will do anything for sex.
On the other hand Mindy and Damon’s emotions run deep; their motivations are scars in their history. They have dedicated a great deal of their life’s energy to revenge and the utter destruction of their enemies. Their story has little levity, but gives weight to Kick Ass, even when he is unaware. The atypical parental relationship is tender, in a strangely brutal way.
The writing for both Damon and Mindy borders on displeasing, often not campy enough to throw it over the edge, but too campy to be taken seriously. There are no easy, unobstructed moments between the two.
My major complaint about Kick Ass is that it doesn’t merge the emotion of the two concurrent plot lines well enough. The Mindy-Damon story attempts to be heartbreaking and multi-faceted, but really only blossoms into a slightly more complex motive. When they finally meet, they still seem like they are running next to each other, not with each other.
There are no shortage of hand to hand combat and gun fights in this flick. The close quarter fight scenes made me feel like I was dodging fists. The weapons discussions, between allies and enemies, will make even the most hardened audience member laugh out loud. The final combat sequence is worth sneaking into the theater to see alone.
Kick Ass has one huge plus: a girl hero with her clothes on. Yes, she is a sailor-mouthed elementary school student. Yes, her childhood was unconventional. Yes, she is bad ass. Kick Ass proves that girls can kick down doors, shoot guns, swear and kick the stuffing out of villains without risk of wardrobe malfunction. Take note, other directors and writers, girls in clothing don’t just get raped or beaten up; they can also rat-a-tat-tat yo ass.
Kick Ass probably won’t go down as a classic comedy or superhero movie, but it sure is a fun way to spend a couple of hours. Giving yourself a brief glimpse of your superhero career and a few good laughs is worth the price of the ticket.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Massive Boy Scout Sexual Abuse Cover-up and the Silent Acceptance Through Participation
This week it came to light that the Boy Scouts of America have kept “Perversion Files”; thousands of files that outlined sexual abuse in the BSA and how they systematically covered it up. As the BSA propagated acts of prejudice against nearly a quarter of the country’s population by banning gay people and atheists from participating, they allowed the sexual abuse of children in their care. This cover-up and allowance of sexual abuse has been happening for nearly 90 years in the BSA, meaning anyone still alive today who was the parent of, a participant in or a supporter of the BSA has done so during this policy.
These allegations are especially cutting when one considers that the Boy Scouts allegedly allowed Scoutmasters who they knew were pedophiles to continue to lead while they turned away honorable atheists and gay people who wanted to be leaders. The Boy Scouts of America has, through their actions, demonstrated that they find atheism less “morally straight” (part of the Scout Oath) than sexually abusing the children in their care. This is a disgusting policy, one that should shame each and every person who has participated in the BSA in the last 90 years.
One must expect that sexual abuse and abusers will find their way to children, no matter the setting. The BSA must anticipate having child molesters in their ranks, given the scale of their organization and the number of boys in their group. The “Perversion Files” allegedly are not just a list of people of whom to not allow in the BSA because of their predilections, but also contains names of people the BSA let in, knowing their predilections. This extended implanted pedophilic action makes everyone who has given money to the BSA in the last 90 years unknowing participants in the sexual abuse of children. The American federal government, meaning the tax payers of the United States, have given money to the Boy Scouts for decades.
While American bigotry allowed the Boy Scouts to perpetrate acts of hate in the name of “being morally straight”, the resulting lack of examination allowed these crimes to continue. The pseudo-religious, paramilitary, “morally straight” organizational structure creates the perfect storm for concealing wrong-doing. When the moral standard of the organization is the purpose of its existence, it can only continue to thrive if the people the group serves, in this case, boys and their parents, and the overall community believe the organization provides a strong ethical structure for the group. Thus, the reputation of a group becomes more essential than the actual practices of the group. Anything that damages the reputation or image of the organization must be contained, to prevent exposure. In a press release the BSA reaffirms this point by discussing values, image, and ideals but not actions of the Boy Scouts of America.
While we are deeply disturbed by the actions alleged in this lawsuit, they do not represent the values and ideals of the BSA or its councils, professionals, members, or chartered organizations.
It is less important to groups like the BSA that their actions be “morally straight”, but that their image is “morally straight.” When a child comes forth with allegations of abuse, this one case becomes an overall case of brand image. As a consequence, the organization’s image and missions are entirely threatened. It is no longer an issue of child abuse or rape, but an issue of damaging the reputation of millions of people and the group as a whole. A well-meaning person could see it as doing a greater good to hush up the child.
When applied on the scale of the BSA or the Catholic Church, it becomes a systematic practice that harms thousands, maybe millions of children as well as their families. The only way to assure abuses do not becomes systematic is to ruthlessly decimate the false ultra-moral image of the BSA, demand transparency, jail those who covered up abuses and demand they comply with societal standards of behavior.
This is done most effectively by parasites, not attack dogs. People already inside the organization need to withdraw their children and financial support. They need to make it clear that they are leaving the group as long as there are “perversion files” and as long as all people are not allowed in their ranks. I suspect a 5% reduction in numbers would significantly damage the financial bottom line enough to get their attention.
Parents of young boys who have considered entering their boys into Boy Scout programs need to write and tell them that they will not be enrolling their child in the BSA as long as they have a policy of covering up the molestation of the children in their group. I suggest including a check for the enrollment amount with the word VOID written over it. Nothing gets a big organizations attention like a check they cannot cash.
Eagle Scouts (the highest rank in the BSA, a lifelong title that earns an instant promotion in the Army as well as other social considerations) need to come forward with the radical stance that molesting children is wrong, even in the BSA. If they actually believe in the title of an Eagle Scout and what it is supposed to mean, they need to come forward and act bravely, a demand of an Eagle Scout. Speaking directly to their local councils and demand they take a position on the “Perversion Files”, will make a contract with the boys in their charge to report any abuse to the authorities, require them to act within the law, will train Scoutmasters how to report abuse, establish a confidential abuse reporting service and force transparency on the national level. After discussing it on a local level, a council of Eagle Scouts needs to be conveyed independently to write a formal demand of the Boy Scouts of America.
Eagle Scouts need to refrain from participating in any BSA activities. This includes scout meetings, trips, jamborees, or any other event. I encourage Eagles to continue their activities informally until the BSA comes into compliance with common decency.
Scoutmasters, Assistant Scoutmasters, Cubmasters, Assistant Cubmasters and Den Mothers need to withdraw from the organization, with the same policy as the Eagles, until they condemn pedophilia, and commit to a culture of transparent inclusiveness. They need to do this for two reasons. First, it’s the morally correct position. Second is the matter of self-preservation. Until the BSA roots out all the pedophiles and pedophile enablers, the taint is on every single, individual Scout Leader, Assistant Scout Leader, Council Member, Den Mother, etc. The outside world should look upon them as potential threats, because they are, as long as there is an exclusionary, secretive culture in the BSA. Without a significant change, the image of the BSA will be that of NAMBLA, with the same connotations. They should join with the Eagle Scouts and write a separate formal demand with the same provisions as the Eagle Scouts.
I encourage the former scouts and their parents to write letters of disgust and support any demands for transparency made by people inside scouts. This policy put them or their children in danger. Even if they were not hurt, the policy did not assure the utmost protection for their children and violated the trust they put in the organization.
The Scout Law, “A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent” is the perfect trap for a pedophile to lay. If a child actually believes these things, a molester and the BSA could use the law against them. A boy who wants to refuse a sexual advance is being disobedient. Then the pedophile can warn the child that if he tells someone he is not loyal to his troop or to the BSA by making the group look bad. Talking about sexual abuse is certainly not friendly or cheerful. Putting people in jail is not kind or helpful. Having sex before married or having gay sex is unclean and irreverent. If he goes against the wishes of Scoutmaster and tells someone, he is not being obedient. Trustworthy scouts would know how to keep secrets. Lastly, a brave child would deal with the sexual abuse themselves, without telling someone.
Without a significant change in the culture of the BSA, the pedophilia will continue, the cover-up will persist, and this cycle of violence will persevere. Refusing to take action against the BSA policies of pedophilia is to enable it to occur. Any Eagle Scout, Scoutmaster, Den Mother, Council Member, parent, child, supporter, or person, who cannot stand up against the molestation of children has no place in any organization with children.
The Boy Scouts have two choices: the status quo, or live up to their oath, law, slogan and promise. Continue to allow children to be abused or change. How could anyone who believes in any aspect of the Scout Law think covering up pedophilia or not speaking up makes a person, trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, or morally straight? I ask the Boy Scout community: do you pay these ideals lip service, be a hypocrite and do nothing, or act with bravery to honor the trust given by these boys, their families and the community? Will you do nothing to wipe the stain of pedophilia from the sash worn so proudly?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/eveningnews/main3213145.shtml
http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/03/19/boy-scouts-let-confessed-pedophile-remain-as-scoutmaster/
http://scouting.org/News/Oregon.aspx
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/19/boy-scouts-kept-secret-files-on-molestors-lawyer-says/53597/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_boy_scouts_sex_abuse
http://www.redwoodbsa.org/ContactUs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Position_on_atheists_and_agnostics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Scout_%28Boy_Scouts_of_America%29
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/ThePack/cmast.aspx
These allegations are especially cutting when one considers that the Boy Scouts allegedly allowed Scoutmasters who they knew were pedophiles to continue to lead while they turned away honorable atheists and gay people who wanted to be leaders. The Boy Scouts of America has, through their actions, demonstrated that they find atheism less “morally straight” (part of the Scout Oath) than sexually abusing the children in their care. This is a disgusting policy, one that should shame each and every person who has participated in the BSA in the last 90 years.
One must expect that sexual abuse and abusers will find their way to children, no matter the setting. The BSA must anticipate having child molesters in their ranks, given the scale of their organization and the number of boys in their group. The “Perversion Files” allegedly are not just a list of people of whom to not allow in the BSA because of their predilections, but also contains names of people the BSA let in, knowing their predilections. This extended implanted pedophilic action makes everyone who has given money to the BSA in the last 90 years unknowing participants in the sexual abuse of children. The American federal government, meaning the tax payers of the United States, have given money to the Boy Scouts for decades.
While American bigotry allowed the Boy Scouts to perpetrate acts of hate in the name of “being morally straight”, the resulting lack of examination allowed these crimes to continue. The pseudo-religious, paramilitary, “morally straight” organizational structure creates the perfect storm for concealing wrong-doing. When the moral standard of the organization is the purpose of its existence, it can only continue to thrive if the people the group serves, in this case, boys and their parents, and the overall community believe the organization provides a strong ethical structure for the group. Thus, the reputation of a group becomes more essential than the actual practices of the group. Anything that damages the reputation or image of the organization must be contained, to prevent exposure. In a press release the BSA reaffirms this point by discussing values, image, and ideals but not actions of the Boy Scouts of America.
While we are deeply disturbed by the actions alleged in this lawsuit, they do not represent the values and ideals of the BSA or its councils, professionals, members, or chartered organizations.
It is less important to groups like the BSA that their actions be “morally straight”, but that their image is “morally straight.” When a child comes forth with allegations of abuse, this one case becomes an overall case of brand image. As a consequence, the organization’s image and missions are entirely threatened. It is no longer an issue of child abuse or rape, but an issue of damaging the reputation of millions of people and the group as a whole. A well-meaning person could see it as doing a greater good to hush up the child.
When applied on the scale of the BSA or the Catholic Church, it becomes a systematic practice that harms thousands, maybe millions of children as well as their families. The only way to assure abuses do not becomes systematic is to ruthlessly decimate the false ultra-moral image of the BSA, demand transparency, jail those who covered up abuses and demand they comply with societal standards of behavior.
This is done most effectively by parasites, not attack dogs. People already inside the organization need to withdraw their children and financial support. They need to make it clear that they are leaving the group as long as there are “perversion files” and as long as all people are not allowed in their ranks. I suspect a 5% reduction in numbers would significantly damage the financial bottom line enough to get their attention.
Parents of young boys who have considered entering their boys into Boy Scout programs need to write and tell them that they will not be enrolling their child in the BSA as long as they have a policy of covering up the molestation of the children in their group. I suggest including a check for the enrollment amount with the word VOID written over it. Nothing gets a big organizations attention like a check they cannot cash.
Eagle Scouts (the highest rank in the BSA, a lifelong title that earns an instant promotion in the Army as well as other social considerations) need to come forward with the radical stance that molesting children is wrong, even in the BSA. If they actually believe in the title of an Eagle Scout and what it is supposed to mean, they need to come forward and act bravely, a demand of an Eagle Scout. Speaking directly to their local councils and demand they take a position on the “Perversion Files”, will make a contract with the boys in their charge to report any abuse to the authorities, require them to act within the law, will train Scoutmasters how to report abuse, establish a confidential abuse reporting service and force transparency on the national level. After discussing it on a local level, a council of Eagle Scouts needs to be conveyed independently to write a formal demand of the Boy Scouts of America.
Eagle Scouts need to refrain from participating in any BSA activities. This includes scout meetings, trips, jamborees, or any other event. I encourage Eagles to continue their activities informally until the BSA comes into compliance with common decency.
Scoutmasters, Assistant Scoutmasters, Cubmasters, Assistant Cubmasters and Den Mothers need to withdraw from the organization, with the same policy as the Eagles, until they condemn pedophilia, and commit to a culture of transparent inclusiveness. They need to do this for two reasons. First, it’s the morally correct position. Second is the matter of self-preservation. Until the BSA roots out all the pedophiles and pedophile enablers, the taint is on every single, individual Scout Leader, Assistant Scout Leader, Council Member, Den Mother, etc. The outside world should look upon them as potential threats, because they are, as long as there is an exclusionary, secretive culture in the BSA. Without a significant change, the image of the BSA will be that of NAMBLA, with the same connotations. They should join with the Eagle Scouts and write a separate formal demand with the same provisions as the Eagle Scouts.
I encourage the former scouts and their parents to write letters of disgust and support any demands for transparency made by people inside scouts. This policy put them or their children in danger. Even if they were not hurt, the policy did not assure the utmost protection for their children and violated the trust they put in the organization.
The Scout Law, “A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent” is the perfect trap for a pedophile to lay. If a child actually believes these things, a molester and the BSA could use the law against them. A boy who wants to refuse a sexual advance is being disobedient. Then the pedophile can warn the child that if he tells someone he is not loyal to his troop or to the BSA by making the group look bad. Talking about sexual abuse is certainly not friendly or cheerful. Putting people in jail is not kind or helpful. Having sex before married or having gay sex is unclean and irreverent. If he goes against the wishes of Scoutmaster and tells someone, he is not being obedient. Trustworthy scouts would know how to keep secrets. Lastly, a brave child would deal with the sexual abuse themselves, without telling someone.
Without a significant change in the culture of the BSA, the pedophilia will continue, the cover-up will persist, and this cycle of violence will persevere. Refusing to take action against the BSA policies of pedophilia is to enable it to occur. Any Eagle Scout, Scoutmaster, Den Mother, Council Member, parent, child, supporter, or person, who cannot stand up against the molestation of children has no place in any organization with children.
The Boy Scouts have two choices: the status quo, or live up to their oath, law, slogan and promise. Continue to allow children to be abused or change. How could anyone who believes in any aspect of the Scout Law think covering up pedophilia or not speaking up makes a person, trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, or morally straight? I ask the Boy Scout community: do you pay these ideals lip service, be a hypocrite and do nothing, or act with bravery to honor the trust given by these boys, their families and the community? Will you do nothing to wipe the stain of pedophilia from the sash worn so proudly?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/28/eveningnews/main3213145.shtml
http://chattahbox.com/us/2010/03/19/boy-scouts-let-confessed-pedophile-remain-as-scoutmaster/
http://scouting.org/News/Oregon.aspx
http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2010/03/19/boy-scouts-kept-secret-files-on-molestors-lawyer-says/53597/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_boy_scouts_sex_abuse
http://www.redwoodbsa.org/ContactUs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies#Position_on_atheists_and_agnostics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Scout_%28Boy_Scouts_of_America%29
http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/AboutCubScouts/ThePack/cmast.aspx
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Diary of a Wimpy Kid - A Perfect Dump and Run Movie
Sixth grader Greg Heffley learns important lessons about friendship, being a good friend and identity in Diary of a Wimpy Kid. A light-hearted, middle-school buddy movie, Diary of a Wimpy Kid is a perfect dump and run movie.
Entering middle school wasn’t as easy as Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon) anticipated. Some of the kids are way bigger than him. The same things that are cool in elementary school become a badge of shame in middle school. Greg does everything he can to fit in and be a school favorite. He wants to change everything, including his best friend Rowley Jefferson (Robert Capron). The harder he tries to fit in, the worse the consequences to his image.
I was never an eleven year old boy but I can see how Diary of a Wimpy Kid touches on issues boys have during the change from a kid to a teen and what it means. A kid of either gender faces many issues as they experience changes in their body, and social lives. How do I become a successful teen? Why is my body doing that thing? How can I be stronger? Are my friends holding me back socially? Is loyalty more important than popularity?
Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an utterly sterile look at this change. There are no controversial moments, nothing that a PTA mother might find too mature for their child. Even the most uptight ninny of a mother should have no concern. The most deviant part of the movie is a scene where Greg is trying to avoid his brother but really has to pee, so he has to hold it for an extended period. The horror. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an innocent examination of the age and sense of self felt by tweenie aged children.
Controversy and conflict are how more in-depth moral issues are examined on film, so adults may find the glossiness of Diary of a Wimpy Kid like wading through an intellectual kiddie pool. Then again, like kiddie pools, Diary of a Wimpy Kid isn’t for adults.
It is the non-odious script that makes it a perfect movie to not see with your tweenie child. Feel free to send your child into the theater with no fear of nightmares, offensive language or sexual content. If you time it right, you can see a rated R movie with your spouse, your kid can see the young buddy film Diary of a Wimpy Kid (without his stupid parents) and everyone can have a pleasant, age-appropriate time.
Just this once, you don’t have to feel guilty about dumping your kid and running off to do something grown up.
Entering middle school wasn’t as easy as Greg Heffley (Zachary Gordon) anticipated. Some of the kids are way bigger than him. The same things that are cool in elementary school become a badge of shame in middle school. Greg does everything he can to fit in and be a school favorite. He wants to change everything, including his best friend Rowley Jefferson (Robert Capron). The harder he tries to fit in, the worse the consequences to his image.
I was never an eleven year old boy but I can see how Diary of a Wimpy Kid touches on issues boys have during the change from a kid to a teen and what it means. A kid of either gender faces many issues as they experience changes in their body, and social lives. How do I become a successful teen? Why is my body doing that thing? How can I be stronger? Are my friends holding me back socially? Is loyalty more important than popularity?
Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an utterly sterile look at this change. There are no controversial moments, nothing that a PTA mother might find too mature for their child. Even the most uptight ninny of a mother should have no concern. The most deviant part of the movie is a scene where Greg is trying to avoid his brother but really has to pee, so he has to hold it for an extended period. The horror. Diary of a Wimpy Kid is an innocent examination of the age and sense of self felt by tweenie aged children.
Controversy and conflict are how more in-depth moral issues are examined on film, so adults may find the glossiness of Diary of a Wimpy Kid like wading through an intellectual kiddie pool. Then again, like kiddie pools, Diary of a Wimpy Kid isn’t for adults.
It is the non-odious script that makes it a perfect movie to not see with your tweenie child. Feel free to send your child into the theater with no fear of nightmares, offensive language or sexual content. If you time it right, you can see a rated R movie with your spouse, your kid can see the young buddy film Diary of a Wimpy Kid (without his stupid parents) and everyone can have a pleasant, age-appropriate time.
Just this once, you don’t have to feel guilty about dumping your kid and running off to do something grown up.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Shutter Island: You invest 2.5 hours and get 3 minutes in return
U.S. Marshalls go to Shutter Island, a mental hospital for the criminally insane, to find an escaped prisoner and stumble across a bigger mystery. Brief, but frequent moments of shoddy writing and cinematography damage the experience of what might have otherwise been a memorable and insightful film.
United States Marshalls Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are dispatched to Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of a patient who seems to have evaporated into thin air. Doctor Cawley (Ben Kingsley) shows them around, tells them about the facility and the patient, but seems to be hiding his true motives. While on the island, some of Teddy’s personal and war experiences come to the surface, affecting his ability to investigate effectively. A storm, both environmental and emotional, overtakes the grounds and reveals some painful truths.
Shutter Island has introspective moments that could shine lights on long forgotten skeletons in anyone’s closet. Sadly, just as one might be forced to ask themselves hard questions, the light goes out. Occasionally, it is because the writing or execution of the lines is unnatural. Even more frustrating are the dollar store green screen visuals.
Director Martin Scorsese and director of photography Robert Richardson pay meticulous attention to the lighting, framing and shadow in Shutter Island. Each location is lit to draw the viewers attention where the director wants it, where the story demands it be, and creates a deeply entrenching mood for the audience.
Then out of nowhere, while the audience is sitting obediently in the visual trench Scorsese dug for us, he throws dirt on our heads. The carefully lit scenery is replaced by green screen effects that would be rejected by the producer of any late night show. There are a few dream or fantasy sequences that are technically well done but leave the audience scratching their heads. Occasionally, Scorsese pays better attention to how the scene looks than how it is acted or written and it distracts from the overall film.
Much of Shutter Island relies on the relationship between Teddy and Chuck. For the most part, their relationship, streams smoothly across the screen. Just as you buy into the silky ride, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, and writer Laeta Kalogridis throw tires onto the road. They aren’t interesting; they are the nuisances of bad acting and unpolished writing. The phraseology used by Teddy is inconsistent and bizarre. Even when Teddy‘s dialogue is written within the believable range, DiCaprio occasionally overacts relatively tame scenes. Ruffalo and DiCaprio’s consistency lack chemistry or sincerity. As the film progresses, the nature of their relationship changes, but the feeling between them does not.
My biggest frustration when I reached the end of Shutter Island is that I never feel attached to the characters. The use of fantasy and the obvious secrets throughout the story made me feel like the filmmakers were keeping me at an uncomfortable distance.
Even given all the problems, Shutter Island does leave the audience with something to think and talk about at the end. For those of us who have skeletons hung amongst our skinny jeans, the ending may give pause and may even force introspection. My husband and I discussed the ending and its meaning for nearly two hours.
Shutter Island’s pay off did not feel worth the two and a half hour investment of my time. We can ask ourselves the same question and have the same honest discussion without the context of Shutter Island’s story. There is little, besides the last three minutes of the film, to really grasp onto as powerful, entertaining or interesting. It might be good for a discussion group but barring that, it has little to offer a general audience.
United States Marshalls Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are dispatched to Shutter Island to investigate the disappearance of a patient who seems to have evaporated into thin air. Doctor Cawley (Ben Kingsley) shows them around, tells them about the facility and the patient, but seems to be hiding his true motives. While on the island, some of Teddy’s personal and war experiences come to the surface, affecting his ability to investigate effectively. A storm, both environmental and emotional, overtakes the grounds and reveals some painful truths.
Shutter Island has introspective moments that could shine lights on long forgotten skeletons in anyone’s closet. Sadly, just as one might be forced to ask themselves hard questions, the light goes out. Occasionally, it is because the writing or execution of the lines is unnatural. Even more frustrating are the dollar store green screen visuals.
Director Martin Scorsese and director of photography Robert Richardson pay meticulous attention to the lighting, framing and shadow in Shutter Island. Each location is lit to draw the viewers attention where the director wants it, where the story demands it be, and creates a deeply entrenching mood for the audience.
Then out of nowhere, while the audience is sitting obediently in the visual trench Scorsese dug for us, he throws dirt on our heads. The carefully lit scenery is replaced by green screen effects that would be rejected by the producer of any late night show. There are a few dream or fantasy sequences that are technically well done but leave the audience scratching their heads. Occasionally, Scorsese pays better attention to how the scene looks than how it is acted or written and it distracts from the overall film.
Much of Shutter Island relies on the relationship between Teddy and Chuck. For the most part, their relationship, streams smoothly across the screen. Just as you buy into the silky ride, Leonardo DiCaprio, Mark Ruffalo, and writer Laeta Kalogridis throw tires onto the road. They aren’t interesting; they are the nuisances of bad acting and unpolished writing. The phraseology used by Teddy is inconsistent and bizarre. Even when Teddy‘s dialogue is written within the believable range, DiCaprio occasionally overacts relatively tame scenes. Ruffalo and DiCaprio’s consistency lack chemistry or sincerity. As the film progresses, the nature of their relationship changes, but the feeling between them does not.
My biggest frustration when I reached the end of Shutter Island is that I never feel attached to the characters. The use of fantasy and the obvious secrets throughout the story made me feel like the filmmakers were keeping me at an uncomfortable distance.
Even given all the problems, Shutter Island does leave the audience with something to think and talk about at the end. For those of us who have skeletons hung amongst our skinny jeans, the ending may give pause and may even force introspection. My husband and I discussed the ending and its meaning for nearly two hours.
Shutter Island’s pay off did not feel worth the two and a half hour investment of my time. We can ask ourselves the same question and have the same honest discussion without the context of Shutter Island’s story. There is little, besides the last three minutes of the film, to really grasp onto as powerful, entertaining or interesting. It might be good for a discussion group but barring that, it has little to offer a general audience.
Friday, January 15, 2010
The Lovely Bones - Toothpaste and Orange Juice
In The Lovely Bones, a young girl struggles to reach out to her grieving, self-destructive father as he tries to solve her death. Segmented bits of semi-connected subplots sever the audience’s connection to the story.
Jack Salmon’s (Mark Wahlberg) world comes crumbling down around him when his daughter Susie (Saoirse Ronan) disappears on her way home from school. Even as time passes, he cannot let her go and obsesses about where she is, if she is alive and who killed her if she was murdered. Susie Salmon chooses not to cross into heaven and to stay in her own world between heaven and the world of the living. She looks down on her father, occasionally able to make contact. They both are haunted by the life of her killer.
In an attempt to create a surreal experience, writer-director Peter Jackson and writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens make The Lovely Bones uncomfortable and unbelievable. Separately, the story styles may have worked: one a magical, overly-exaggerated, yet tragic world of grief and beauty; the other story a cutting examination of the power of grief to tear a family apart and strength of love to glue it back together. Together they are nothing less than a cinematic see-saw. When one side goes up, the other plunges down and the audience is left wondering what and where they should be paying their attention. The unpleasant confusion and the nauseating back and forth murder any of the pleasantries in the film.
The absolute worst part of The Lovely Bones is the non-heaven in which Susie lives. The landscape is always in transition and the meaning of the place seems to change. Susie speaks in riddles when the subject of the world creep forth. There is a cast of useless characters who visit Susie in her segregation. Her personal resting point was less ethereal and more commercial break.
The real shame of the really poor decision making by the director and writers is that it takes away from some surprisingly resonating acting. Mark Wahlberg’s grief requires no weapon to remove your heart from your chest. Rachael Weisz, who plays Susie’s mother, Abigail, has a breakdown that could anger the most stoic in the seats. I was most fond of Rose McIver, who plays Lindsey, Susie’s little sister. Her performance is subtle, but genuine. She reminds me a great deal of my own little sister, in personality, and courage.
Personal sentiment aside, The Lovely Bones is an exercise in toothpaste and orange juice. Both may be refreshing alone, but together, they make drinking bleach a real option – no matter how nice the packaging.
Jack Salmon’s (Mark Wahlberg) world comes crumbling down around him when his daughter Susie (Saoirse Ronan) disappears on her way home from school. Even as time passes, he cannot let her go and obsesses about where she is, if she is alive and who killed her if she was murdered. Susie Salmon chooses not to cross into heaven and to stay in her own world between heaven and the world of the living. She looks down on her father, occasionally able to make contact. They both are haunted by the life of her killer.
In an attempt to create a surreal experience, writer-director Peter Jackson and writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens make The Lovely Bones uncomfortable and unbelievable. Separately, the story styles may have worked: one a magical, overly-exaggerated, yet tragic world of grief and beauty; the other story a cutting examination of the power of grief to tear a family apart and strength of love to glue it back together. Together they are nothing less than a cinematic see-saw. When one side goes up, the other plunges down and the audience is left wondering what and where they should be paying their attention. The unpleasant confusion and the nauseating back and forth murder any of the pleasantries in the film.
The absolute worst part of The Lovely Bones is the non-heaven in which Susie lives. The landscape is always in transition and the meaning of the place seems to change. Susie speaks in riddles when the subject of the world creep forth. There is a cast of useless characters who visit Susie in her segregation. Her personal resting point was less ethereal and more commercial break.
The real shame of the really poor decision making by the director and writers is that it takes away from some surprisingly resonating acting. Mark Wahlberg’s grief requires no weapon to remove your heart from your chest. Rachael Weisz, who plays Susie’s mother, Abigail, has a breakdown that could anger the most stoic in the seats. I was most fond of Rose McIver, who plays Lindsey, Susie’s little sister. Her performance is subtle, but genuine. She reminds me a great deal of my own little sister, in personality, and courage.
Personal sentiment aside, The Lovely Bones is an exercise in toothpaste and orange juice. Both may be refreshing alone, but together, they make drinking bleach a real option – no matter how nice the packaging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)