The Soyuz was not ready.
It had many flaws.
I begged them to stop,
To allow for more testing.
They would not hear me.
You flew to your death
In a rocket ill-designed,
Because of their haste.
Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Idiots. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2020
Gagarin Mourns For Komarov
The Soyuz was not ready.
It had many flaws.
I begged them to stop,
To allow for more testing.
They would not hear me.
You flew to your death
In a rocket ill-designed,
Because of their haste.
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Anakin's No Whiner, YOU Are, Werther!
With this moping and doping!
Just get over it!
She's married, that's life.
Five minutes of a toothache
Would restore your sense.
Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Haiku Time
Dr. Boli spent last month doing Haiku. I figure I might give it shot. I will keep this about music, but will add other things to keep my creativity alive. I started my Space Race binge again, so here are two about the Nedelin Catastrophe:
Khruschev says to launch
The rocket filled with venom.
Ninety plus are dead.
No rockets will fly
On that day forevermore
To respect the dead.
I will write another one tomorrow.
Saturday, December 28, 2019
TMSR: Rewriting THE MAGIC FLUTE
The Magic Flute may be one of Mozart's greatest operas, but it is riddled with so many plot holes that it's hard to understand. The Masonic elements compound the problem even further. Seriously, how are we supposed to find something if we have no idea what it is we're looking for?
There is a lot of information that is not present. Why does Tamino immediately believe the guard's word that the Queen of the Night is a liar? This one can be solved rather easily. During the opening scene when Tamino is attacked, Sarastro can secretly be the one who kills the serpent while the Ladies think it is them. While the women are distracted by the handsome prince, Sarastro takes the monster's ears. Later at the Temple, the guard shows him the serpent's ears, proving that the Queen has not told the truth. Otherwise Tamino comes off as an easily led moron.
Sarastro needs to be more than just some blandly benevolent nonentity who hardly does anything.I talked before about a graphic novel version that suggested that Sarastro stole Pamina because he neglected the Queen and didn't want his daughter to suffer because his mistake. So what if this is a divorce situation being fueled by a lack of communication? What if Pamina is caught in the middle of their quarrel? What if the Queen wants to kill Sarastro because he has broken her heart?
There is also the business with Monostatos. Sarastro really needs to do more than just give the creep fifty lashes for attacking Pamina. Monostaos needs to be sent away completely or even executed. Is Sarastro loathe to take another person's life, even when his own or someone else's is in danger? Or is he just too soft-hearted?
If Mozart hadn't thrown in all that Masonic mysticism and ritual I think the story would be perfect. I can only take so much of the constant utterances of "Oh, we can't tell you yet," and "You're not good enough yet," before I want to punch Sarastro or one of the priests. Sarastro needs to be clear on what needs to be done from the get go.
There are many different ways to fix the story. These are just a few.
Friday, December 13, 2019
TMSR: YOU KNOW NOTHING, VAL DICTORIAN!
I am going to rant now about a musical that I was in when I was eleven-years-old. Most people will not have heard about this one because it is written for kids who are either in home-school groups or big church groups.
This musical was written by Kathie Hill and is titled Promise U. Ms. Hill's work tends to be okay at best (at least from my own experience), and at worst it is simply glurge. And Promise U falls hard into that second category. What a piece of drek! There are five reasons why I say this:
1) The plot does not exist.
The setting is at a college called Promise University and the whole student body has gathered for a pep rally/study hall Cram n Jam. They are learning about "Precious Promises to Famous Followers of the Past 2,000 Years" or P2F2P2K. Leading the group is the cocky DJ Stan "The Man" and a sexy nerd of a cheer captain Valarie Dictorian. They go through seven so-called Famous Followers, do a cheer after every song and it all culminates in Stan becoming a Christian with everything all hunk-dory at the end.
That's it, there's no conflict or anything. All it is is just talking about various people from history and a promise that applies to them. There's no beginning, no middle, and no real end either.
2) The characters are shallow.
They are little more than cartoony mouthpieces uttering platitudes in stained glass attitudes. A new character comes in every time another "Famous Follower" (oh, give me a break!) is introduced. These characters are not really given a personality so much as they are given a quirk, and these quirks get old really fast. For example, Dee Caffeinate's only trait is her coffee obsession, and Val Dictorian comes off as a condescending know-nothing-know-it-all.
3) The evangelism is all too easy.
Stan admits he's in over his head at the end, but it comes out of nowhere and doesn't feel real. All he has seen and heard was what everyone else was chanting. His character is so flat that I do not believe his life has been changed after accepted Christ. No one talks about dying to yourself and giving up whatever idols are in your life, something that is essential to the Christian life.
4) THE Promise is left out.
The "Precious Promises" are true, but no mention is made at all of the promise that was made in Genesis Chapter 3 and continues through the end of Revelation; the promise of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection and the hope of eternal life with Him in Heaven. The promises are reduced to cutesy sentimentalism that do not require sacrifice of anything. This is a big "No" when writing Christian pieces.
5) The Followers were treated without respect.
If you're going to do a case-study of various Christians throughout history, then the topic needs to be treated seriously. This is not the case in Promise U, instead the Followers are treated with more sentimentality than respect. This is particularly bad with the case of Pocahontas. I'm not going to knock her faith just because it sounded it like the writer was merely speculating. But if she was in fact a strong woman of faith, then she needs more respect than just the Christian version of a Disney Princess!
In short, Promise U was garbage. It is disrespectful towards Christians of the past, is insulting to kids' intelligence, and it had nothing to offer but preachy nonsense.
This musical was written by Kathie Hill and is titled Promise U. Ms. Hill's work tends to be okay at best (at least from my own experience), and at worst it is simply glurge. And Promise U falls hard into that second category. What a piece of drek! There are five reasons why I say this:
1) The plot does not exist.
The setting is at a college called Promise University and the whole student body has gathered for a pep rally/study hall Cram n Jam. They are learning about "Precious Promises to Famous Followers of the Past 2,000 Years" or P2F2P2K. Leading the group is the cocky DJ Stan "The Man" and a sexy nerd of a cheer captain Valarie Dictorian. They go through seven so-called Famous Followers, do a cheer after every song and it all culminates in Stan becoming a Christian with everything all hunk-dory at the end.
That's it, there's no conflict or anything. All it is is just talking about various people from history and a promise that applies to them. There's no beginning, no middle, and no real end either.
2) The characters are shallow.
They are little more than cartoony mouthpieces uttering platitudes in stained glass attitudes. A new character comes in every time another "Famous Follower" (oh, give me a break!) is introduced. These characters are not really given a personality so much as they are given a quirk, and these quirks get old really fast. For example, Dee Caffeinate's only trait is her coffee obsession, and Val Dictorian comes off as a condescending know-nothing-know-it-all.
3) The evangelism is all too easy.
Stan admits he's in over his head at the end, but it comes out of nowhere and doesn't feel real. All he has seen and heard was what everyone else was chanting. His character is so flat that I do not believe his life has been changed after accepted Christ. No one talks about dying to yourself and giving up whatever idols are in your life, something that is essential to the Christian life.
4) THE Promise is left out.
The "Precious Promises" are true, but no mention is made at all of the promise that was made in Genesis Chapter 3 and continues through the end of Revelation; the promise of Christ's sacrifice and resurrection and the hope of eternal life with Him in Heaven. The promises are reduced to cutesy sentimentalism that do not require sacrifice of anything. This is a big "No" when writing Christian pieces.
5) The Followers were treated without respect.
If you're going to do a case-study of various Christians throughout history, then the topic needs to be treated seriously. This is not the case in Promise U, instead the Followers are treated with more sentimentality than respect. This is particularly bad with the case of Pocahontas. I'm not going to knock her faith just because it sounded it like the writer was merely speculating. But if she was in fact a strong woman of faith, then she needs more respect than just the Christian version of a Disney Princess!
In short, Promise U was garbage. It is disrespectful towards Christians of the past, is insulting to kids' intelligence, and it had nothing to offer but preachy nonsense.
Monday, November 18, 2019
The Mad Soprano Rants: Love In Vain/Despairing Songs
I Don't Know, But...has two recent blog posts about what he refers to as "evil songs". These include songs like "Sweet Dreams", "Owner of a Lonely Heart?", etc..
I am not surprised that these songs are described as evil, because quite frankly they are. The thesis of "Sweet Dreams" is that love is a lie and people are only looking to use and abuse people. The music is ghastly as are the lyrics. It sounds like someone has been so badly hurt by a luckless relationship that they have given up on ever knowing love.
"Owner of a Lonely Heart" is even more disturbing with the line "Better than the owner of a broken heart". If I may steal from the recent opera The Enchanted Island, hearts that love all will be broken. You cannot love without risking pain. C.S. Lewis once noted that the only place where you are safe from the pains of love is Hell. I myself have heard it said that it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
I have sung many songs about unrequited/spurned love, but they were more about how the narrator couldn't go on living without the beloved or dying on a kiss. They never crossed the line by saying that love was a lie or that it was better to never love at all. People need to know that they are loved, and it starts with one person making the decision to love someone. This is not limited to just romantic love, but to friendship and familial love as well.
Granted one person hearing "Sweet Dreams" might say, "Right on," while another says, "I love a sad song." But it's still very sickening to hear such nasty and wicked lyrics oveer the radio.
I am not surprised that these songs are described as evil, because quite frankly they are. The thesis of "Sweet Dreams" is that love is a lie and people are only looking to use and abuse people. The music is ghastly as are the lyrics. It sounds like someone has been so badly hurt by a luckless relationship that they have given up on ever knowing love.
"Owner of a Lonely Heart" is even more disturbing with the line "Better than the owner of a broken heart". If I may steal from the recent opera The Enchanted Island, hearts that love all will be broken. You cannot love without risking pain. C.S. Lewis once noted that the only place where you are safe from the pains of love is Hell. I myself have heard it said that it is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all.
I have sung many songs about unrequited/spurned love, but they were more about how the narrator couldn't go on living without the beloved or dying on a kiss. They never crossed the line by saying that love was a lie or that it was better to never love at all. People need to know that they are loved, and it starts with one person making the decision to love someone. This is not limited to just romantic love, but to friendship and familial love as well.
Granted one person hearing "Sweet Dreams" might say, "Right on," while another says, "I love a sad song." But it's still very sickening to hear such nasty and wicked lyrics oveer the radio.
Monday, July 22, 2019
The Opera That I Both Love And Hate
Mozart's opera Die Zauberflöte---more commonly known by it's English title The Magic Flute---is both one of my favorites and one of my least favorites at the same time. The opera is best described as an enchanting mess as it has amazing music but the story and most of the characters are nonsensical.
First, the cons:
I know I'll get some flak for this, but Sarastro is the lowest part of the opera. He is uninteresting and his arias are not memorable in my opinion. They're supposed to noble-sounding and gentle, but they are not Mozart's best work in my opinion. And Sarastro himself is twenty flavors of boring. He has no real character beyond that of platitude-spewing generic benevolent guy who doesn't really do anything. He has no trouble kicking out the Queen and her cohorts at the end. And he doesn't really have a motive for stealing Pamina other than her mother is evil, which unfortunately makes him come off as a total jerk.
Now, I remember there being a graphic novel adaptation of the opera. While it amounted to little more than just another generic fantasy story, it did try to make Sarastro a more believable character. Sarastro says at one point that the Queen was in fact his own wife whom he neglected and hence why she turned evil. So you could make the argument that in the opera he is motivated by regret. But Mozart doesn't provide enough info.
As for Tamino and Pamina, they are pretty generic. Their music is decent, I guess. "Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön" is a pretty song about falling in love a portrait, and as whiny as "Ach, ich fühl's" sounds in the text, it is pretty in its own way. But Tamino switches sides without any questions and has no trouble getting through the ordeals. While many sopranos have argued that Pamina is a strong character for taking action and "rescuing herself" (they have to if they're trying to play the role), she doesn't have a personality. And when the two are married at the end, it feels like filler, without any of the heartwarming elements present in Papageno and Papagena's duet.
The story itself is full of Masonic ritual and symbolism which I think brings the story down considerably. The whole business of "We can't tell you until you've been initiated properly," is very counter-intuitive; how are you supposed to find the truth when you have no idea what it's supposed to be? Now if there was far less cryptic mysticism and much clearer reasons for why the characters need to do the things they need to do, it would work a lot better.
Now to the pros:
The best music in The Magic Flute---heck the best moments of the opera itself---belong to Papageno and the Queen of the Night. Papageno is a bird-catcher with two magnificent arias and even the most beautiful love duet in opera. He owns every scene he's in, whether it's when he brags about killing the serpent or when he's about to hang himself in despair. His two arias "Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja" ,and "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen" are some of the most memorable pieces that Mozart has ever written. He is meant to be the comic relief and a foil for Tamino, but considering that Papageno has the harder challenge, I think he is the real protagonist. He is much more real than all the other characters. And when he finally gets his Papagena in the end, I feel like I'm truly happy for them. They sing about how happy they are to be together at last and the children they want---not to mention all the chicken-like chanting of "Pa-Pa-Papageno!"---is what really sells it for me.
Also Tamino and Pamina's best moments are with Papageno; Pamina when Papageno comes to tell her of Tamino and help her escape, and Tamino when they first meet and when they are undergoing the Ordeal of Silence. The way Papageno plays off the other characters is amazing.
The Queen of the Night does not get much screen time (twelve minutes in total), but she has two unforgettable arias, these being "O Zittre Nicht" and "Der Hölle Rache". Allthough she send Prince Tamino off to rescue her daughter, she is supposed to be the villain. But she is not on stage long enough for there to be much info about her character. She hates Sarastro for getting her husband's money and taking her daughter (whom she abandons out of spite when Pamina will not kill Sarastro), other than that there isn't much to her. However, her music is so awesome I don't really care about her flat character. Forget her motivation, enjoy the vocal fireworks!
So yes, I love Die Zauberflöte and I hate it at the same time. While I can't stand Sarastro and the young lovers are one-dimensional, the music is good and Papageno and the Queen of the Night make it worth going to see. Just ignore the confusing symbolism and listen to the Bird-Catcher and his bride making out.
First, the cons:
I know I'll get some flak for this, but Sarastro is the lowest part of the opera. He is uninteresting and his arias are not memorable in my opinion. They're supposed to noble-sounding and gentle, but they are not Mozart's best work in my opinion. And Sarastro himself is twenty flavors of boring. He has no real character beyond that of platitude-spewing generic benevolent guy who doesn't really do anything. He has no trouble kicking out the Queen and her cohorts at the end. And he doesn't really have a motive for stealing Pamina other than her mother is evil, which unfortunately makes him come off as a total jerk.
Now, I remember there being a graphic novel adaptation of the opera. While it amounted to little more than just another generic fantasy story, it did try to make Sarastro a more believable character. Sarastro says at one point that the Queen was in fact his own wife whom he neglected and hence why she turned evil. So you could make the argument that in the opera he is motivated by regret. But Mozart doesn't provide enough info.
As for Tamino and Pamina, they are pretty generic. Their music is decent, I guess. "Dies Bildnis ist bezaubernd schön" is a pretty song about falling in love a portrait, and as whiny as "Ach, ich fühl's" sounds in the text, it is pretty in its own way. But Tamino switches sides without any questions and has no trouble getting through the ordeals. While many sopranos have argued that Pamina is a strong character for taking action and "rescuing herself" (they have to if they're trying to play the role), she doesn't have a personality. And when the two are married at the end, it feels like filler, without any of the heartwarming elements present in Papageno and Papagena's duet.
The story itself is full of Masonic ritual and symbolism which I think brings the story down considerably. The whole business of "We can't tell you until you've been initiated properly," is very counter-intuitive; how are you supposed to find the truth when you have no idea what it's supposed to be? Now if there was far less cryptic mysticism and much clearer reasons for why the characters need to do the things they need to do, it would work a lot better.
Now to the pros:
The best music in The Magic Flute---heck the best moments of the opera itself---belong to Papageno and the Queen of the Night. Papageno is a bird-catcher with two magnificent arias and even the most beautiful love duet in opera. He owns every scene he's in, whether it's when he brags about killing the serpent or when he's about to hang himself in despair. His two arias "Der Vogelfänger bin ich ja" ,and "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen" are some of the most memorable pieces that Mozart has ever written. He is meant to be the comic relief and a foil for Tamino, but considering that Papageno has the harder challenge, I think he is the real protagonist. He is much more real than all the other characters. And when he finally gets his Papagena in the end, I feel like I'm truly happy for them. They sing about how happy they are to be together at last and the children they want---not to mention all the chicken-like chanting of "Pa-Pa-Papageno!"---is what really sells it for me.
Also Tamino and Pamina's best moments are with Papageno; Pamina when Papageno comes to tell her of Tamino and help her escape, and Tamino when they first meet and when they are undergoing the Ordeal of Silence. The way Papageno plays off the other characters is amazing.
The Queen of the Night does not get much screen time (twelve minutes in total), but she has two unforgettable arias, these being "O Zittre Nicht" and "Der Hölle Rache". Allthough she send Prince Tamino off to rescue her daughter, she is supposed to be the villain. But she is not on stage long enough for there to be much info about her character. She hates Sarastro for getting her husband's money and taking her daughter (whom she abandons out of spite when Pamina will not kill Sarastro), other than that there isn't much to her. However, her music is so awesome I don't really care about her flat character. Forget her motivation, enjoy the vocal fireworks!
So yes, I love Die Zauberflöte and I hate it at the same time. While I can't stand Sarastro and the young lovers are one-dimensional, the music is good and Papageno and the Queen of the Night make it worth going to see. Just ignore the confusing symbolism and listen to the Bird-Catcher and his bride making out.
Wednesday, January 9, 2019
THE MEG Can't Tell A Story Worth Beans
This film cannot make up its mind what it wants to be. Is it a black comedy, is it a thriller, is it a horror movie, what in blazes is it?
The plot is as follows: Scientists working at a remote research facility off the coast of China discover an unknown region below a gas cloud at a depth below that of the Mariana Trench, and soon get attacked by a mysterious creature Miocene and Pliocene Epochs. Disgraced diver Jonas Taylor (Statham) comes out of hiding and goes down to rescue the team and finds out that the creature is Megalodon, a giant predatory shark that lived between 23 to 2.6 million years ago and died out before the last Ice Age. Spoiler Alert, the shark begins attacking and eating people and racks up a fairly sizable body count before it is finally defeated.
Now I have to give credit where it is due, the shark is shown at closer to its natural size than other films have done in the past (see here for more on that topic). Even when one appears that's seventy five feet long rather than sixty, it still looks more natural and less like a photo-shopped Great White. The So-Bad-It's-Good movie Shark Attack 3: Megalodon had it so huge that it could swallow a good-sized life raft in one go. Here, it's just large enough to tangle with a giant squid.
The fights with the shark itself are pretty thrilling and awesome--in a stupid kind of way. The climatic scene, for example, features Taylor chasing the shark through through rocky tunnels before stabbing it in the eye. That was very well done. And it was unnerving seeing a diver in a shark cage get stuck in the animal's maw (yeesh!). The humor is also good at times, with the best moments being references to Shark Week.
However, that's where my praise for this movie ends. The movie's problems are as follows: The humor may be good, but the shark kills unintentionally fall into this category, being treated as a punchline rather than horrifying. This is not helped by the fact that the film glosses the deaths over for the most part.
Making things worse is the surprising lack of gore. This may seem strange coming from someone who doesn't like gratuitous amounts of blood and guts in a movie, but I found that to be a disappointment. I enjoyed Jaws despite all the blood and guts, but then again there's bound to be blood whenever a shark attacks someone. Apparently it was originally planned to be an R-rated bloodbath of a movie, but there was some major executive meddling and it got demoted to PG-13. If they had stuck with the original idea, I think they would have had something truly terrifying.
The Meg's biggest problem is the characters. They are a huge part of the reason the movie seems to be unable to make up its mind about what it is. With the possible exception of Statham, most of the actors don't seem to know what they're supposed to be doing exactly, and just walk around with wide-eyed expressions of confused nervousness. But the worst offenders are Jonas ex-wife Lori (Jessica McNamee) and his girlfriend Suyin (Li Binging) Lori has little to no facial expressions beyond Stone-Faced Zombie and Stepford Wife Smiling even when she takes a screwdriver to midriff; and Suyin goes around looking like she's scared of everything.
And Neither Lori nor Suyin had any depth at all. This movie is based off of a novel, and in the novel Jonas' ex-wife is a power-mad woman seeking publicity. In the film, she's blandly amiable. There's mention that Jonas and Lori were bad couple, but hwy is never explained. The writers wasted a perfectly good opportunity for some good drama.
I saw this film with my boyfriend and he wanted Suyin to just die, for which I do not blame him. Suyin is the worst love interest I have ever seen in a story. There's no chemistry between her or Jonas; their love scenes are little more than shy glances with no real emotion behind them. She's a terrible mother as well. She lets her daughter Meiying (Sophie Cai) have free run of the research station, and doesn't seem to discipline her when she should (do you really want your eight-year-old to be saying the word "a-hole"?). And she's just plain dumb, trying to shark dive with the Megalodon, in a cylindrical cage. Sorry, but Nigel Marven's design was better.
Overall rating: 4 1/2 out 10. Fun action, bad characters. Goofy humor, sloppy story.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Female Characters
I often hear about Strong Female Characters in stories. In recent years I have heard the term used more and more frequently; so much so that I'm wondering if people even know what they are talking about.
Sure, we all love our women characters to be strong and independent. I grew up with characters like Princess Leia and her mother Padme from Star Wars. My favorite cartoon series (and by that I mean the only cartoon series I watch at all at this point) is all about young mares who learn about friendship and protect their home from evil. But what is a Strong Female Character (SFC)? And how do we differentiate between her and an Obligatory Feminist Archetype (OFA)?
The first place to start would be characterization. Does the woman have both strengths and weaknesses? A good writer knows that that character is more interesting if she has qualities that are both good and bad. For example, Hermione Granger from the Harry Potter series is very intelligent, in fact, she's the best student in Hogwarts. She is not afraid to speak her mind and desires to help those who most need it. But she can also be an annoying know-it-all and sometimes doesn't think her ideas through. This combination of virtues and flaws make her an interesting three-dimensional character.
Sure, we all love our women characters to be strong and independent. I grew up with characters like Princess Leia and her mother Padme from Star Wars. My favorite cartoon series (and by that I mean the only cartoon series I watch at all at this point) is all about young mares who learn about friendship and protect their home from evil. But what is a Strong Female Character (SFC)? And how do we differentiate between her and an Obligatory Feminist Archetype (OFA)?
The first place to start would be characterization. Does the woman have both strengths and weaknesses? A good writer knows that that character is more interesting if she has qualities that are both good and bad. For example, Hermione Granger from the Harry Potter series is very intelligent, in fact, she's the best student in Hogwarts. She is not afraid to speak her mind and desires to help those who most need it. But she can also be an annoying know-it-all and sometimes doesn't think her ideas through. This combination of virtues and flaws make her an interesting three-dimensional character.
Another thing to consider is that an SFC can be found in any role, traditional or otherwise. Molly Weasley is an example of an SFC in a more traditional feminine role, that of the stay-at-home mother. She is devoted to her family and friends and cares about their safety. She looks after the house while her husband is at work and her kids are at Hogwarts. But she is certainly no pushover. Anyone foolish enough to get between her and her family—particularly her children—will more than likely find themselves in the afterlife.
Teneniel Djo of the Star Wars franchise is an example of an SFC in a non-traditional female role, the Amazon. She is a huntress who roams the planet Dathomir. She is a tough warrior and does not shy away from a fight. Although she does not know it as the Force, she knows she is powerful and proves an invaluable ally to Luke Skywalker and Company when they are on Dathomir. But she is not without vulnerability. She is wandering soul because she was ousted from her clan and is trying to avoid the evil Nightsisters. And she gradually learns that a man may want to be her partner and not so much her slave.
And an SFC understands the value of companionship. Even if she is a fiercely independent woman, she will acknowledge that she cannot do everything on her own. She may not want the man to stand in front of her and take the bullet, but she will be more than happy if he's watching her back from a distance and taking down those whom she does not see coming.
An OFA at first sounds like an SFC, but in fact she is a kind of Mary Sue. The first thing to notice is that she will be an insufferable equality queen** who is always right. Tauriel from the Hobbit films exhibits this behavior in The Desolation of Smaug when she bluntly says, "This is our fight." She is always right in the film and Thranduil is almost always wrong. This is not a mark of strength but of arrogance. The love-triangle thing didn't help matters either*.
The OFA can only be found in one role, an exaggerated form of tomboy known as the Girl-in-Boy's-Clothes. This is a woman character who holds traditional feminine trappings in contempt and acts as tough as she possibly can and is always better than the men. Rey from the Disney canon behaves like a tough girl every chance she gets. She defeats an evil overlord in less than a minute and is more powerful than Luke Skywaker. She uses her anger on a regular basis and belittles the men around her. And Disney wants her to be role model?
Finally, the OFA's entire purpose is to promote an agenda. She will not have any personality save for whatever socio-political ideas the author wants to trumpet. This means that any other characters in the story who are not the OFA will fade into the background and have little to no relevance no matter how often they appear. And when that happens, the story dies.
To sum it all up Strong Female Characters are likeable, fun, and entertaining. Obligatory Feminist Archetypes are annoying, insufferable, and boring. A woman should not have to cast aside all things feminine in order to be strong. And no one wants to be around anyone who thinks she's right all the time. Obligatory Feminist Archetypes give Strong Female Characters a bad name and should never be used in stories again.
_____________________________________________________________
*If there is anyone reading this who bore witness to the horrific argument between me and my brother as we were leaving the now-defunct Eastgate Cinema in Madison on December 14th, 2013, I apologize for my rash behavior. It was wrong of me to go into a purist fan rage in public.
**An equality queen is a woman who fights for equality in a self-righteous manner.
Updated 5-16-18 at 6:13 pm
*If there is anyone reading this who bore witness to the horrific argument between me and my brother as we were leaving the now-defunct Eastgate Cinema in Madison on December 14th, 2013, I apologize for my rash behavior. It was wrong of me to go into a purist fan rage in public.
**An equality queen is a woman who fights for equality in a self-righteous manner.
Updated 5-16-18 at 6:13 pm
Monday, May 8, 2017
Addendum on Documentaries Post
As I've been binging on the Space Race (and right in the middle of finishing a Titanic/Eastland project no less!), I have made a couple of further observations about documentaries. I did not mention these in my main post on the topic and so I will speak of them here.
The first thing I talked about was listening to how writers use the language in the documentary. A good writer will be precise in his language and back up his assertions with facts.
Sometimes you will get a piece about something in history or science that isn't very well-known. This is to be expected as history and science are always on the move. But beware of titles that say "The Untold Story", "The True/Real Story", "The Forgotten Story", or anything like that. Titles like these sound dramatic and may get the viewer interested, but they make an assertion that may or may not be true.
I have read and reread a book called The Sinking of the EASTLAND: America's Forgotten Tragedy. This is one of the few cases in which the "forgotten" label is justified. The capsizing has become largely obscure despite happening right in the middle of the Chicago Harbor. So when the book says that it's a forgotten tragedy, I can believe it.
Last week I saw a documentary called "Apollo 13: The Real Story". How are the makers sure that it's the "real story"? Most people in the U.S. know about the incident and so to try to claim that there is a real story is foolish at best.
Which brings me to my second point. Take note of the documentary's tone. Every now and then you will get a documentary written by someone with an axe to grind be it political, social, or whatever. When that happens you sometimes get conspiracy theories. And conspiracy theories will be heavy handed and unpleasant. Last week I tried watching a documentary called Secret Space: The Soyuz 1 Coverup. I wanted to know about the Soyuz 1 disaster that killed Russian cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. The documentary indulged in the Ilyushin myth and even claimed that Yuri Gagarin's death in a plane crash was engineered by Brezhnev. And the narration throughout the documentary was harsh and unsubtle.
It is true that the Soviet government tried to cover up a lot of things. But the conspiracy theories and overall harsh tone of the documentary made it unwatchable.
I like documentaries that are objective with their language. If you want to say that something is the "Untold/Real/Forgotten Story" or whatever, you have to be able to back up your assertion. While something may be genuinely obscure like in the case of the Eastland, others may seem obscure but turn out to be little more than fringe activities that had been part of an ongoing issue. Or it may turn out be a conspiracy theory, which means someone is telling a lie. Use language precisely.
The first thing I talked about was listening to how writers use the language in the documentary. A good writer will be precise in his language and back up his assertions with facts.
Sometimes you will get a piece about something in history or science that isn't very well-known. This is to be expected as history and science are always on the move. But beware of titles that say "The Untold Story", "The True/Real Story", "The Forgotten Story", or anything like that. Titles like these sound dramatic and may get the viewer interested, but they make an assertion that may or may not be true.
I have read and reread a book called The Sinking of the EASTLAND: America's Forgotten Tragedy. This is one of the few cases in which the "forgotten" label is justified. The capsizing has become largely obscure despite happening right in the middle of the Chicago Harbor. So when the book says that it's a forgotten tragedy, I can believe it.
Last week I saw a documentary called "Apollo 13: The Real Story". How are the makers sure that it's the "real story"? Most people in the U.S. know about the incident and so to try to claim that there is a real story is foolish at best.
Which brings me to my second point. Take note of the documentary's tone. Every now and then you will get a documentary written by someone with an axe to grind be it political, social, or whatever. When that happens you sometimes get conspiracy theories. And conspiracy theories will be heavy handed and unpleasant. Last week I tried watching a documentary called Secret Space: The Soyuz 1 Coverup. I wanted to know about the Soyuz 1 disaster that killed Russian cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov. The documentary indulged in the Ilyushin myth and even claimed that Yuri Gagarin's death in a plane crash was engineered by Brezhnev. And the narration throughout the documentary was harsh and unsubtle.
It is true that the Soviet government tried to cover up a lot of things. But the conspiracy theories and overall harsh tone of the documentary made it unwatchable.
I like documentaries that are objective with their language. If you want to say that something is the "Untold/Real/Forgotten Story" or whatever, you have to be able to back up your assertion. While something may be genuinely obscure like in the case of the Eastland, others may seem obscure but turn out to be little more than fringe activities that had been part of an ongoing issue. Or it may turn out be a conspiracy theory, which means someone is telling a lie. Use language precisely.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
What?
Can someone please explain why a very good documentary on the Soviet Space Program is produced by a company with the name UFOTV?
Monday, February 13, 2017
How To Tell A Good Documentary From A Bad One
We've all seen documentaries at some point or another. They are all over movies, television, and the internet, and they cover everything from dinosaurs to Operation Desert Storm. Some are less than half and hour in length while others can go on for two hours. And often they are part of a long series with a particular theme, like disasters, mummies, scandals, etc.. I have watched numerous documentaries over the course of twenty three years and have recently started to learn how to tell the difference between a good documentary and a bad one. Now this can be tricky, so the way to vet your sources is to actively research the topic on your own.
How can you tell a good documentary from a bad one? Well, here are a few things to look for.
1) How is the language being used? Are the people being precise? Are they repeating themselves? Are they going out their way to be dramatic? Being precise is very important because you want the audience to understand what you are saying. No one is going to understand you if you are being vague and unclear with what you are trying to get across. And persistent repetition is a sure sign that you are just trying to fill in the spaces and hoping that if you repeat yourself over and over again, people will believe what you are saying. It is very tempting to be dramatic in order to hold the audience's attention, but many of these topics are dramatic already, so trying to make them even more so is Coals to Newcastle.
2) How are the makers supporting their claims? What evidence are they using to back up their arguments? And are they exploring other possibilities in case they are wrong? Sometimes the evidence being examined is good, but sometimes it is less than insufficient.
For example, a story that sounds juicy might have some good insight into a situation, but then again it could be the exception rather than the rule. You may decide you want to use it to support your claim, but the use of juicy stories when doing documentaries is dubious at best and dishonest at worst. And there may be other possible reasons for something, so give some time to those possibilities as well. Biased sampling tends to skew results.
3) How is the documentary presented? Be mindful of the use of visuals. There are two ways to do this. One is to use either Live Actors or CGI, the other is to use pictures, artifacts, and location shots. Let's look at these two methods.
Using live actors and/or Computer Generated Imagery isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but it is all too easy for them to upstage everything else. A good director knows how to use live actors and CGI to illustrate the point and not overpower the audience's retinas.
Live actors have been used in documentaries for years. There are some advantages to this. Being able to present a historical event with real people acting out the parts can make history look more alive and real. And it means that someone can get into another person's mind in order to try to understand them. However, one problem with this method is that the audience just sees one person's interpretation of a historical person, and so that's the one that sticks with them, which could skew someone's perception of history. Also, people tend to cast actors whose are photogenic, so the audience may not realize that King Tutankhamen was actually club-footed and had an overbite.
CGI has its uses as well. Aside from bringing dinosaurs, mammoths, and other prehistoric creatures back to life, it has been used in live-action documentaries when working with such things historic volcanic eruptions and major battles. It can digitally restore ruined buildings and illustrate the incredible world of microorganisms. All in all, CGI has been a great tool for demonstration in documentaries. That being said, CGI has to be used very carefully. Spectacular special effects can distract very easily from the main point, resulting in a visual feast that doesn't really serve any purpose.
The second option involves panning the camera over photographs, paintings, statues, etc. if live footage cannot be used*. Often music and sound effects will be used to help evoke particular scene. This particular style is known as the Ken Burns effect, named after a filmmaker who made much use of this technique is his documentaries.
The advantages to using static images is that is much less expensive than hiring actors and spending money on complex animation programs. You can evoke the scene just by panning over a lithograph of the Battle of Antietam and adding in prerecording sound effects of gunshots and cannon fire. And it also means that typically you'll be looking at a picture from that era rather than animation where you'd just be making up the scene.
The disadvantages of just panning over static images is that it doesn't represent fully what you're trying to accomplish. A painting of Colonel Chamberlain's Charge at Little Round Top may look lifelike, but it cannot accomplish the same thing that a group of Civil War reenactors can. And unlike photographs which are taken with cameras at the scene, paintings, lithographs, and engravings are more likely to be stylized, and thus not fully representative of the event.
4) What sources are being used? This is absolutely critical. People who are active in science, history, etc., will know the ins and outs of the subject matter. They will ask questions and seek the answers to them, and usually they will find them even if it isn't the answer they may have originally had in mind. For example, an archeologist trying to understand how the people of Herculaneum lived before the 79 A.D. eruption of Mt. Vesuvius might examine the contents of the sewer in order to ascertain the diet of the average person. Further information can be obtained be chemical analysis of the bones found in the boathouses. And the resulting information gives not just the archeologist but the audience watching the documentary a new insight into the lives of a group of people who lived 2,000 years ago.
The danger in this case is putting the emphasis on speculation and mystery. While mystery may be part of the appeal of dinosaurs, most of us actually want to solve the mystery and see how these creatures really lived. As C.S. Lewis once said, "Inquiry was made for truth,". And we ask questions because we want to know the answers even if we cannot fully know them because the dinosaurs all died 65 million years before humans came along. If the people making the documentary go out of their way to be all about speculation without any real answers, then they have not done anything to benefit the audience.
And then there are speculative documentaries about things like aliens, ghosts, and that sort of claptrap. Neither of those things are real and while it's fun to write all sorts of amazing stories about them, it's a waste of time trying to figure out if they even exist. So don't even bother with that sort of thing.
I myself do not claim to be an expert on history and science, but I do love learning about both, and I want to know that when I'm watching a documentary that the people who made tried to teach me something. I once had to sit through a very biased documentary on the American Justice System, and I tried to watch one that spent ten minutes saying how bad the devastation of Carthage was. I like documentaries that teach me something new as the one on Life and Death in Herculaneum did.
Of course even the best documentaries cannot compare with books.
___________________________________________________________________________________
*Thank you Wikipedia.
Updated 3-6-17 at 6:14 pm.
How can you tell a good documentary from a bad one? Well, here are a few things to look for.
1) How is the language being used? Are the people being precise? Are they repeating themselves? Are they going out their way to be dramatic? Being precise is very important because you want the audience to understand what you are saying. No one is going to understand you if you are being vague and unclear with what you are trying to get across. And persistent repetition is a sure sign that you are just trying to fill in the spaces and hoping that if you repeat yourself over and over again, people will believe what you are saying. It is very tempting to be dramatic in order to hold the audience's attention, but many of these topics are dramatic already, so trying to make them even more so is Coals to Newcastle.
2) How are the makers supporting their claims? What evidence are they using to back up their arguments? And are they exploring other possibilities in case they are wrong? Sometimes the evidence being examined is good, but sometimes it is less than insufficient.
For example, a story that sounds juicy might have some good insight into a situation, but then again it could be the exception rather than the rule. You may decide you want to use it to support your claim, but the use of juicy stories when doing documentaries is dubious at best and dishonest at worst. And there may be other possible reasons for something, so give some time to those possibilities as well. Biased sampling tends to skew results.
3) How is the documentary presented? Be mindful of the use of visuals. There are two ways to do this. One is to use either Live Actors or CGI, the other is to use pictures, artifacts, and location shots. Let's look at these two methods.
Using live actors and/or Computer Generated Imagery isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but it is all too easy for them to upstage everything else. A good director knows how to use live actors and CGI to illustrate the point and not overpower the audience's retinas.
Live actors have been used in documentaries for years. There are some advantages to this. Being able to present a historical event with real people acting out the parts can make history look more alive and real. And it means that someone can get into another person's mind in order to try to understand them. However, one problem with this method is that the audience just sees one person's interpretation of a historical person, and so that's the one that sticks with them, which could skew someone's perception of history. Also, people tend to cast actors whose are photogenic, so the audience may not realize that King Tutankhamen was actually club-footed and had an overbite.
CGI has its uses as well. Aside from bringing dinosaurs, mammoths, and other prehistoric creatures back to life, it has been used in live-action documentaries when working with such things historic volcanic eruptions and major battles. It can digitally restore ruined buildings and illustrate the incredible world of microorganisms. All in all, CGI has been a great tool for demonstration in documentaries. That being said, CGI has to be used very carefully. Spectacular special effects can distract very easily from the main point, resulting in a visual feast that doesn't really serve any purpose.
The second option involves panning the camera over photographs, paintings, statues, etc. if live footage cannot be used*. Often music and sound effects will be used to help evoke particular scene. This particular style is known as the Ken Burns effect, named after a filmmaker who made much use of this technique is his documentaries.
The advantages to using static images is that is much less expensive than hiring actors and spending money on complex animation programs. You can evoke the scene just by panning over a lithograph of the Battle of Antietam and adding in prerecording sound effects of gunshots and cannon fire. And it also means that typically you'll be looking at a picture from that era rather than animation where you'd just be making up the scene.
The disadvantages of just panning over static images is that it doesn't represent fully what you're trying to accomplish. A painting of Colonel Chamberlain's Charge at Little Round Top may look lifelike, but it cannot accomplish the same thing that a group of Civil War reenactors can. And unlike photographs which are taken with cameras at the scene, paintings, lithographs, and engravings are more likely to be stylized, and thus not fully representative of the event.
4) What sources are being used? This is absolutely critical. People who are active in science, history, etc., will know the ins and outs of the subject matter. They will ask questions and seek the answers to them, and usually they will find them even if it isn't the answer they may have originally had in mind. For example, an archeologist trying to understand how the people of Herculaneum lived before the 79 A.D. eruption of Mt. Vesuvius might examine the contents of the sewer in order to ascertain the diet of the average person. Further information can be obtained be chemical analysis of the bones found in the boathouses. And the resulting information gives not just the archeologist but the audience watching the documentary a new insight into the lives of a group of people who lived 2,000 years ago.
The danger in this case is putting the emphasis on speculation and mystery. While mystery may be part of the appeal of dinosaurs, most of us actually want to solve the mystery and see how these creatures really lived. As C.S. Lewis once said, "Inquiry was made for truth,". And we ask questions because we want to know the answers even if we cannot fully know them because the dinosaurs all died 65 million years before humans came along. If the people making the documentary go out of their way to be all about speculation without any real answers, then they have not done anything to benefit the audience.
And then there are speculative documentaries about things like aliens, ghosts, and that sort of claptrap. Neither of those things are real and while it's fun to write all sorts of amazing stories about them, it's a waste of time trying to figure out if they even exist. So don't even bother with that sort of thing.
I myself do not claim to be an expert on history and science, but I do love learning about both, and I want to know that when I'm watching a documentary that the people who made tried to teach me something. I once had to sit through a very biased documentary on the American Justice System, and I tried to watch one that spent ten minutes saying how bad the devastation of Carthage was. I like documentaries that teach me something new as the one on Life and Death in Herculaneum did.
Of course even the best documentaries cannot compare with books.
___________________________________________________________________________________
*Thank you Wikipedia.
Updated 3-6-17 at 6:14 pm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)