Here's a rare example of a time I agree with the AFI's revisions to its list. In the original 1998 list, this charming number was ranked 76th, but in the 2007 revisions it was, I think rightly, moved up to number 11. I had never watched a silent feature length film before, so my expectations were low, but I was captivated throughout. City Lights is everything a romantic comedy should be: by turns hilarious, suspenseful, socially astute and deeply moving. While Chaplin's comedic chops are the obvious star here, I think he deserves even more credit as writer and director for accomplishing without words (without spoken words at least) what all the Matthew McConaugheys and Cameron Diazes and Nicholas Sparkses in all of modern cinema can't do with scores of well-paid writers and technicians.
Sometimes, out of habit, I judge a piece of media by its "teachableness", by which I mean whether I could show it to a class of low socioeconomic status students (I am thinking of a specific class from my fourth year of teaching), and have them learn something from it without being bored to tears. I would love to show this movie (or part of it) to such a class, and watch their minds expand a little. At first they would roll their eyes and groan at the prospect of watching a black and white movie--let alone a silent one. I can hear it now "What the fuck, Payne? Do you hate us or something?" Then they would self-consciously repress a giggle when Chaplin's pants get caught on a statue. After about five minutes, one of them would break the ice and give a full belly laugh, probably when the blind girl throws water in his face. It would be all smiles from there, and at the end of the class, one of them would begrudgingly say, "I didn't think old shit could be that funny . . ." Although I enjoyed City Lights immensely, especially the ending, I'm aware that my enjoyment alone does not make a great movie. To have soften the hearts and open the minds of a group of juvenile delinquents is a much better measure.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Monday, May 14, 2012
Liveblogging the Bible: Colossians
1:1 One can't help but wonder what exactly Timothy's role was in the composition of this letter. Was he simply an amanuensis? An editor? A co-contributor? Or simply a comrade who wished to add his greetings to Paul's?
1:3 The use of the plural here seems to suggest that Timothy's role was more substantial than one might think, which raises theological questions. Paul has yet to indicate that this letter is directly inspired (as he does elsewhere), an omission which does not stop some from taking this as the literal, word-for-word transmission of a divine message. If one chooses to take it thus, is Timothy also inspired of God?
1:7 Was Epaphras, therefore, the originator of the congregation in Colossae, if it was from him that they first heard the message?
1:9-14 Paul's wishes here are interesting, more for what is not included than for what is. He wishes them to have gifts of wisdom/knowledge/understanding, and strength/endurance patience. His mention of forgiveness and good works are results of these other two elements, not independent of them.
1:15 Appositive referent problem. Is "the firstborn of all creation" meant to refer to Christ, or God?
1:20 In what way are those things in heaven in need of Christ's redemption?
1:23 This is a quid pro quo that is incompatible with common understandings of salvation. The audience here is saved "provided that [they] continue securely established and steadfast . . ." And if they don't, what becomes of that salvation? Some would argue that those who do not continue were never saved, but that would render Paul's argument invalid.
1:24 And what could possibly have been lacking in Christ's afflictions, such that Paul has to suffer them for him. Seems like a bit of poetic license, rather than a point of doctrine.
2:1 This confirms the suspicion in 1:7
2:3,4 Again this focus on knowledge. Paul is far to canny and conscious of his audience to have done this offhandedly. He is clearly writing for the purpose of purifying their doctrine, and specifically to root out some unknown "plausible arguments" that are not in sync with the party line.
2:6 One could try to infer then, what exactly he is trying to correct about their doctrine, by seeing what gets the bulk of his time. In this case, it seems to be the idea of the ransom, and of Christ's headship of the congregation.
2:11-15 This is Pauline rhetoric at its very best. He appeals to the Colossians on multiple emotional fronts, all while giving his case a sound logical underpinning.
2:18 and this confirms that Paul's goal is primarily to focus their attention on Christ, and deter them from developing a sort of pantheon, or an independent order that subscribes to harsher standards as an expression of piety. Both of these are things that Catholics are guilty of in abundance, naturally.
3:5 This is a lovely job of wrapping worship of lesser deities and self-abasement in the same cloth as fornication and wrath, in that all of them are of earthly concern. A nice taxonomy, that brooks no argument, especially as nice as Paul has set it up in the preceding chapters.
3:17 And if he stopped right here, I would have no argument with him . . .
3:18-25 But he didn't. After all of the beautiful and sound rhetoric of the preceding chapters, he loses his way here. He has just convinced his audience to focus only on spiritual things, that everything physical has no real meaning. Yet here he brings it back to the physical realm again, and loses some of his credibility.
4:1 And of course, I see no way to justify this by Paul's own logic. It has no place in a treatise on distancing oneself from the physical realm. Not to mention the fact that it is morally repulsive.
4:12 Evidently their own founder, Epaphras, was with him at the time of the writing, no doubt mentioned tactically.
4:16 And is this letter to the Laodiceans less inspired, such that it has been lost?
4:18 Well, that lets Timothy off the hook as an amanuensis. And he could scarcely have been mentioned just as a way to tender his regards, insofar as somehow Timothy's contribution to this letter deserved greater mention than these others named here. Which leaves the other two possibilities . . . I can't help but wonder if that section that seems so out of place with the rest bears his mark somehow.
1:3 The use of the plural here seems to suggest that Timothy's role was more substantial than one might think, which raises theological questions. Paul has yet to indicate that this letter is directly inspired (as he does elsewhere), an omission which does not stop some from taking this as the literal, word-for-word transmission of a divine message. If one chooses to take it thus, is Timothy also inspired of God?
1:7 Was Epaphras, therefore, the originator of the congregation in Colossae, if it was from him that they first heard the message?
1:9-14 Paul's wishes here are interesting, more for what is not included than for what is. He wishes them to have gifts of wisdom/knowledge/understanding, and strength/endurance patience. His mention of forgiveness and good works are results of these other two elements, not independent of them.
1:15 Appositive referent problem. Is "the firstborn of all creation" meant to refer to Christ, or God?
1:20 In what way are those things in heaven in need of Christ's redemption?
1:23 This is a quid pro quo that is incompatible with common understandings of salvation. The audience here is saved "provided that [they] continue securely established and steadfast . . ." And if they don't, what becomes of that salvation? Some would argue that those who do not continue were never saved, but that would render Paul's argument invalid.
1:24 And what could possibly have been lacking in Christ's afflictions, such that Paul has to suffer them for him. Seems like a bit of poetic license, rather than a point of doctrine.
2:1 This confirms the suspicion in 1:7
2:3,4 Again this focus on knowledge. Paul is far to canny and conscious of his audience to have done this offhandedly. He is clearly writing for the purpose of purifying their doctrine, and specifically to root out some unknown "plausible arguments" that are not in sync with the party line.
2:6 One could try to infer then, what exactly he is trying to correct about their doctrine, by seeing what gets the bulk of his time. In this case, it seems to be the idea of the ransom, and of Christ's headship of the congregation.
2:11-15 This is Pauline rhetoric at its very best. He appeals to the Colossians on multiple emotional fronts, all while giving his case a sound logical underpinning.
2:18 and this confirms that Paul's goal is primarily to focus their attention on Christ, and deter them from developing a sort of pantheon, or an independent order that subscribes to harsher standards as an expression of piety. Both of these are things that Catholics are guilty of in abundance, naturally.
3:5 This is a lovely job of wrapping worship of lesser deities and self-abasement in the same cloth as fornication and wrath, in that all of them are of earthly concern. A nice taxonomy, that brooks no argument, especially as nice as Paul has set it up in the preceding chapters.
3:17 And if he stopped right here, I would have no argument with him . . .
3:18-25 But he didn't. After all of the beautiful and sound rhetoric of the preceding chapters, he loses his way here. He has just convinced his audience to focus only on spiritual things, that everything physical has no real meaning. Yet here he brings it back to the physical realm again, and loses some of his credibility.
4:1 And of course, I see no way to justify this by Paul's own logic. It has no place in a treatise on distancing oneself from the physical realm. Not to mention the fact that it is morally repulsive.
4:12 Evidently their own founder, Epaphras, was with him at the time of the writing, no doubt mentioned tactically.
4:16 And is this letter to the Laodiceans less inspired, such that it has been lost?
4:18 Well, that lets Timothy off the hook as an amanuensis. And he could scarcely have been mentioned just as a way to tender his regards, insofar as somehow Timothy's contribution to this letter deserved greater mention than these others named here. Which leaves the other two possibilities . . . I can't help but wonder if that section that seems so out of place with the rest bears his mark somehow.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Edgar Allan Poe: Complete Tales and Stories with Selected Essays
This incredibly dense volume has taken me a year to muddle through, partly due to my own easily distracted nature, and partly due to the fact that every time I tried to get through a chunk I fell asleep after a few pages. In fact, after this happened a few times, I took to reading a bit of Poe whenever I was having trouble falling asleep. My mind often races, causing me to lie awake, but this has proven to be the easiest over-the-counter cure for that I have found.
There are those who will be incensed by this declaration, but I mean it in earnest. No other author can put me to sleep the way Poe can. He just tries so hard to prove himself--that he's smart, or avant-garde, or of a poetical nature. His word choice and condescending tone consistently leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is no wonder that he met with but little recognition in his own time.
What is a mystery is that he has such devout followers in modern times. What is usually familiar of his body of work is often limited to the three or four stories that are not tediously self-conscious. One that I was pleasantly surprised by was The Mask of the Red Death, which I had read before, but the lovely symmetry and well-crafted structure of which I had not fully appreciated at the time.
And if his prose is unbearable, his poetry is even more so, containing, as he admitted, "Nothing of much value to the public, or very creditable to [my]self" (Poe, 1845). This is, of course, an exaggeration. Certain of his poems have become deservedly famous, but the vast majority are clumsy, unfinished, and boring. To use his own words again,
...the writer of these lines
in the mad pride of intellectuality
maintained "the power of words"--denied that ever
a thought arose within the human brain
beyond the utterance of the human tongue ("To Marie Louise" 1-5)
It is exactly this mad pride of intellectuality that infects all of Poe's work, including the few examples from his essays included in this collection. This is a terrible shame because that cloying frosting of pseudo-intellectualism covers up the ideas behind Poe's work, which, when they peek through, are visionary and poetic in the highest degree. I just wish he had an editorial-minded friend who could have sat down with him and extracted those things. I wish some of the truly lovely passages and turns of phrase were not nestled in such glutinous dishes as Poe served. Some of my favorite examples:
Ours is a world of words: Quiet we call
"Silence"--which is the merest word of all.
All nature speaks, and ev'n ideal things
Flap shadowy sounds from visionary wings
and
Up!--shake from your wing
Each hindering thing:
The dew of the night--
It would weigh down your flight;
And true love caresses--
O! leave them apart!
They are light on the tresses,
But lead on the heart.
Both of these sections are from "Al Aaraaf", which, with a little direction, could have been one of the greatest poems ever written. Instead, it's a bit of a mess with some lovely pieces poking through, and Poe is definitely remembered for the tidier "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven".
Of course, perhaps is it because of all this, and not in spite of it, that he has found such an audience. Perhaps it is not even Poe's work that people are drawn to, but his spirit, that of one with deep, even visionary things to say, who couldn't quite seem to get them across--certainly not in his own time. Who would bother to pick through the work of a living writer to find out what he means, after all? More's the pity, because many indeed are they who can relate to his sentiment, summed up perhaps best here:
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were--I have not seen
as others saw--I could not bring
my passions from a common spring--("Alone")
There are those who will be incensed by this declaration, but I mean it in earnest. No other author can put me to sleep the way Poe can. He just tries so hard to prove himself--that he's smart, or avant-garde, or of a poetical nature. His word choice and condescending tone consistently leave a bad taste in my mouth. It is no wonder that he met with but little recognition in his own time.
What is a mystery is that he has such devout followers in modern times. What is usually familiar of his body of work is often limited to the three or four stories that are not tediously self-conscious. One that I was pleasantly surprised by was The Mask of the Red Death, which I had read before, but the lovely symmetry and well-crafted structure of which I had not fully appreciated at the time.
And if his prose is unbearable, his poetry is even more so, containing, as he admitted, "Nothing of much value to the public, or very creditable to [my]self" (Poe, 1845). This is, of course, an exaggeration. Certain of his poems have become deservedly famous, but the vast majority are clumsy, unfinished, and boring. To use his own words again,
...the writer of these lines
in the mad pride of intellectuality
maintained "the power of words"--denied that ever
a thought arose within the human brain
beyond the utterance of the human tongue ("To Marie Louise" 1-5)
It is exactly this mad pride of intellectuality that infects all of Poe's work, including the few examples from his essays included in this collection. This is a terrible shame because that cloying frosting of pseudo-intellectualism covers up the ideas behind Poe's work, which, when they peek through, are visionary and poetic in the highest degree. I just wish he had an editorial-minded friend who could have sat down with him and extracted those things. I wish some of the truly lovely passages and turns of phrase were not nestled in such glutinous dishes as Poe served. Some of my favorite examples:
Ours is a world of words: Quiet we call
"Silence"--which is the merest word of all.
All nature speaks, and ev'n ideal things
Flap shadowy sounds from visionary wings
and
Up!--shake from your wing
Each hindering thing:
The dew of the night--
It would weigh down your flight;
And true love caresses--
O! leave them apart!
They are light on the tresses,
But lead on the heart.
Both of these sections are from "Al Aaraaf", which, with a little direction, could have been one of the greatest poems ever written. Instead, it's a bit of a mess with some lovely pieces poking through, and Poe is definitely remembered for the tidier "Annabel Lee" and "The Raven".
Of course, perhaps is it because of all this, and not in spite of it, that he has found such an audience. Perhaps it is not even Poe's work that people are drawn to, but his spirit, that of one with deep, even visionary things to say, who couldn't quite seem to get them across--certainly not in his own time. Who would bother to pick through the work of a living writer to find out what he means, after all? More's the pity, because many indeed are they who can relate to his sentiment, summed up perhaps best here:
From childhood's hour I have not been
As others were--I have not seen
as others saw--I could not bring
my passions from a common spring--("Alone")
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)