I was given the priveledge of being one of the first people in the country, and probably the world to see Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" the other night. For those of you who don't know, Danny Boyle directed 28 Days Later, probably the best horror movie to come out of the UK, despite borrowing rather heavily from the book "Day of the Triffids".
Anyway, Sunshine is his move into sci-fi, although Boyle does well to keep the feeling that the whole mission of stopping the sun from, well stopping, could go wrong at any point. We also saw this in 28 Days Later, where few zomibes appear but we are still very aware of their overarching presense. The film isn't perfect, there are plenty of plotholes you could pilot spaceships through and the dialogue is hardly sparkling.
However, the film hinges on the idea that being in a confined space in space for years with the same people will drive you mad. And the film focusses on what people worship/focus on to get them through. Each character has something they hold dear whether it be family, the mission, or a certain aspect of it, God, or the sun itself. And we see the lengths people will go to to save these things as the movie progresses. This very compelling idea is enough to carry the film through to its finale, and is what stops it from simply being an Alien/Aliens wannabee.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The Problem with Atheism
I'd encourage you to watch the following debate between a Christian and an atheist before reading this post, although it's not entirely necessary:
http://www.atheistdebate.org/
Anyway, one of the points Atkins, an atheist makes is that:
"Atheism is an absense of a belief in anything. It's really the foundation on which evidence must be provided for placing anything further."
The problem with such a statement is that it assumes one thing to be better than another. Why is reason better than feeling, why is logic better than assumption? Because by these things arguments are made and things proved. However, what are we proving, and how are we proving it. In saying that everything can be proved by reason, you are therefore stating a belief by which everything else flows. Why should we use reason? In trying to answer a question you must use reason, therefore you hit a roadblock, and therefore you come to an assumption: reason is the best way to figure out how things work. Note, this does not make reason incorrect, but it does require an assumption. And no matter what you come to in life, you will require such an assumption. However, what is yours?
An easy way to find this out is to take the child who asks why the sun comes up in the morning, you may say something about the earth rotating and being on an axis "But why" they again ask, and so on, until ultimately you come to a roadblock where you must answer with "I don't know", "God", "Chance", or "It just is". From those four explanations you can find out who/what your God is, and upon what you base you ulitmately base your life.
I hope you see the problem with the argument Atkins gives here, objectivity is an impossible thing to obtain, because we are subjective people, and therefore can only view things in the confines of our human bodies. In aiming to define objectivity we do it as subjective beings and such defintions require assumptions which ultimately we cannot prove.
Is belief in God any worse than in reason? Perhaps, but one can only show us so much. Why do good people die? Is there a soul? What is right? What is wrong? Do we have a soul? What makes us as humans unique? Did the universe always exist? Does anything exist outside it? What is 'love'?
All things can be answered by reason and without God. However, I would say the answers make more sense if we assume a God to be behind them all. Why? It simply makes more sense of those questions: especially to those who say the world is here because "it just is". Such an answer, does not answer the question, but instead is rather like looking at a painting and asking the curator: "who painted it? where did it come from?" and he merely says "it just did". Such an answer is not a real answer, but avoids the question.
Science is based upon theories. These theories are based on evidence, which lead us to the one that 'makes the most sense' of all this evidence. Therefore to believe in God based on the mere evidence that 'stuff exists" seems to me to be a scientific thing to do.
http://www.atheistdebate.org/
Anyway, one of the points Atkins, an atheist makes is that:
"Atheism is an absense of a belief in anything. It's really the foundation on which evidence must be provided for placing anything further."
The problem with such a statement is that it assumes one thing to be better than another. Why is reason better than feeling, why is logic better than assumption? Because by these things arguments are made and things proved. However, what are we proving, and how are we proving it. In saying that everything can be proved by reason, you are therefore stating a belief by which everything else flows. Why should we use reason? In trying to answer a question you must use reason, therefore you hit a roadblock, and therefore you come to an assumption: reason is the best way to figure out how things work. Note, this does not make reason incorrect, but it does require an assumption. And no matter what you come to in life, you will require such an assumption. However, what is yours?
An easy way to find this out is to take the child who asks why the sun comes up in the morning, you may say something about the earth rotating and being on an axis "But why" they again ask, and so on, until ultimately you come to a roadblock where you must answer with "I don't know", "God", "Chance", or "It just is". From those four explanations you can find out who/what your God is, and upon what you base you ulitmately base your life.
I hope you see the problem with the argument Atkins gives here, objectivity is an impossible thing to obtain, because we are subjective people, and therefore can only view things in the confines of our human bodies. In aiming to define objectivity we do it as subjective beings and such defintions require assumptions which ultimately we cannot prove.
Is belief in God any worse than in reason? Perhaps, but one can only show us so much. Why do good people die? Is there a soul? What is right? What is wrong? Do we have a soul? What makes us as humans unique? Did the universe always exist? Does anything exist outside it? What is 'love'?
All things can be answered by reason and without God. However, I would say the answers make more sense if we assume a God to be behind them all. Why? It simply makes more sense of those questions: especially to those who say the world is here because "it just is". Such an answer, does not answer the question, but instead is rather like looking at a painting and asking the curator: "who painted it? where did it come from?" and he merely says "it just did". Such an answer is not a real answer, but avoids the question.
Science is based upon theories. These theories are based on evidence, which lead us to the one that 'makes the most sense' of all this evidence. Therefore to believe in God based on the mere evidence that 'stuff exists" seems to me to be a scientific thing to do.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Unappreciated Gems: Desperate Houswives
Perhaps the most surprising entry out of the one's I made is Desperate Housewives. Why does it deserve to be watched? Well firstly, its humour. (that's the same thing as humor for anyone reading this stateside) The show can always rely on scenarios which see Susan, expertly played by Teri Hatcher, do something clumsy, or Gabby something bitchy. Whether over-the-top, subtle or dark the audience is always taken on an enjoyable 60-minute ride through the world of Wisteria Lane.
Secondly its use of drama and suspense is in my opinion, better than even a show like 24. Why? Well, much as I love 24, often it can be seen to sacrifice characters (often in the literal sense) for drama. So we may see 45 minutes of Jack chasing someone, or being tortured and learn little-or-nothing about him as a character. This type of television is great for those who love it, but for those of us who watch shows for interest in the psychology of a character and the choices they make, Housewives must be near the top.
In the first series we see the Youngs, and what caused housewife Mary-Alice to kill herself. As an audience, our opinion of her husband Paul would change with each episode. This type of twisty-turny writing is always well done, and new characters brought in are often full of intrigue and depth (like Orson and his family this season). As such, it separates Housewives from other soaps like Grey's Anatomy, ER, and the OC, and is one of the reasons a number of my male friends watch this show as oppose to any of those other programmes.
Finally, its characters are well-drawn, likable and their existence isn't too far from real life as to be unsympathetic. Sure they burn down houses, and have to live next to serial killers/paedophiles on a surprisingly regular basis, but the real issues they deal with are: how to be a mother, wife and a career-woman (Lynette); forming one's identity having married(Gabby); being a single-mother(Susan); and bringing up your kids in what you believe is the 'right' way when they're obviously the spawn of satan (Brie). (NB: eBlogger's spellcheck wants me to capitalise 'satan' like he's God. Strange or what?)
Anyway, if you're a guy and doubting how such a show could be worth watching, then I'd encourage you to grab a manly beer, maybe even eat a particularly bloody steak and be wowed by the wit, cynicism and suspense Marc Cherry and co. bring before you each and every week.
Secondly its use of drama and suspense is in my opinion, better than even a show like 24. Why? Well, much as I love 24, often it can be seen to sacrifice characters (often in the literal sense) for drama. So we may see 45 minutes of Jack chasing someone, or being tortured and learn little-or-nothing about him as a character. This type of television is great for those who love it, but for those of us who watch shows for interest in the psychology of a character and the choices they make, Housewives must be near the top.
In the first series we see the Youngs, and what caused housewife Mary-Alice to kill herself. As an audience, our opinion of her husband Paul would change with each episode. This type of twisty-turny writing is always well done, and new characters brought in are often full of intrigue and depth (like Orson and his family this season). As such, it separates Housewives from other soaps like Grey's Anatomy, ER, and the OC, and is one of the reasons a number of my male friends watch this show as oppose to any of those other programmes.
Finally, its characters are well-drawn, likable and their existence isn't too far from real life as to be unsympathetic. Sure they burn down houses, and have to live next to serial killers/paedophiles on a surprisingly regular basis, but the real issues they deal with are: how to be a mother, wife and a career-woman (Lynette); forming one's identity having married(Gabby); being a single-mother(Susan); and bringing up your kids in what you believe is the 'right' way when they're obviously the spawn of satan (Brie). (NB: eBlogger's spellcheck wants me to capitalise 'satan' like he's God. Strange or what?)
Anyway, if you're a guy and doubting how such a show could be worth watching, then I'd encourage you to grab a manly beer, maybe even eat a particularly bloody steak and be wowed by the wit, cynicism and suspense Marc Cherry and co. bring before you each and every week.
Monday, March 5, 2007
Unappreciated Gems
To set-up some sort of defense of some TV shows I love, I'm first going to post a list of my favourite ones that simply don't get the appreciation they deserve by certain members of the public. To make it clear what I consider to be a 'good' TV show, I'd say what I'm looking for in order of importance is:
Character development, dialogue/wit, use of theme, and plot.
Pretty simple I think. Anyway, on those criteria the following emerge triumphant:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Angel
Desperate Housewives
Firefly
Veronica Mars
Doctor Who
Special mention should also go to Lost, which doesn't make the list simply because everyone I know appreciates its worth, even if they themselves don't like it. Otherwise, I'd say those are the shows that have kept me most engrossed over the past 10 years.
Character development, dialogue/wit, use of theme, and plot.
Pretty simple I think. Anyway, on those criteria the following emerge triumphant:
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Angel
Desperate Housewives
Firefly
Veronica Mars
Doctor Who
Special mention should also go to Lost, which doesn't make the list simply because everyone I know appreciates its worth, even if they themselves don't like it. Otherwise, I'd say those are the shows that have kept me most engrossed over the past 10 years.
Science of Sleep
Michel Gondry's (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) latest film tells the story of Stephane, a man who is so wrapped up in his own little world he finds it difficult to tell dreams from reality. And so the film brings us into his world: we spend a fair chunk just in his dreams, with its giant hands, cardboard cameras and bands dressed as kittens.
Yet, beneath this surreal and unreal setting lies one of the most realistic portrayals of life you'll ever see.
"What? Last time I checked, my hands were normal size - or at least not the size of the rest of my body."
Ah, but if we look merely at the setting of the film: the stage, the props, the weather and fail to look deeper, of course that's all we see. Instead, to see a film's true worth, we must examine the characters around which it is based.
So, Stephane: is he actually realistic?
Well first off, tell me how you've spent the last 24 hours. You may:
"I got up, washed/ate, went to work/college, came home, ate, watched TV then slept. "
And while such an answer wouldn't be a lie, it wouldn't be telling the whole truth either. No, in the last 24 hours you may well have been a pirate, flown high above the earth, walked naked into work, and run away from some sort of serial killer... possibly while doing all 3 of the previous things.
Dreams are the most private parts of our lives: even we as individuals sometimes don't know how we spend them. However, they're rarely depicted in films, and if they are it's normally either a prophecy, or so cliche as to be ridiciulous.
Gondry takes us into all of Stephane's world: whether he's awake or asleep. Most of it is ridiculous: of course it is. But it's also realistic.
The second thing he does is to create a central relationship more like the one's I tend to have than any Curtis film has ever managed to achieve. Now, whether that means anyone else can identify with the ridiculous fears Stephane goes through when about to go on a first date, or when he ends up shouting at the source of his affections, I cannot say.
However, the stupid things that often mar two people getting together are again more realistically portrayed here than in anything I've ever seen before. How often have you actually walked into a hotel room to find the woman/man you thought liked you with her boy/girlfriend ala Notting Hill (or in fact Bridget Jones Diary)?
What's that? Never. Perhaps that's part of the fun: the traditional set-up/misunderstanding/pay-off of rom-coms makes for a much better ending the bigger the misunderstanding and the later the pay-off. However, to say their portrayal of relationships is anything like real life is ignorant a best, horrendously stupid at worst.
So the Science of Sleep can be considered a triumph. Why? Because it takes us through the sleep/eat/work cycle we all go through and in doing so gives us the complete picture of Stephane's life. Yes it's weird. But then think about what you dreamt about last night: Is that normal?
Yet, beneath this surreal and unreal setting lies one of the most realistic portrayals of life you'll ever see.
"What? Last time I checked, my hands were normal size - or at least not the size of the rest of my body."
Ah, but if we look merely at the setting of the film: the stage, the props, the weather and fail to look deeper, of course that's all we see. Instead, to see a film's true worth, we must examine the characters around which it is based.
So, Stephane: is he actually realistic?
Well first off, tell me how you've spent the last 24 hours. You may:
"I got up, washed/ate, went to work/college, came home, ate, watched TV then slept. "
And while such an answer wouldn't be a lie, it wouldn't be telling the whole truth either. No, in the last 24 hours you may well have been a pirate, flown high above the earth, walked naked into work, and run away from some sort of serial killer... possibly while doing all 3 of the previous things.
Dreams are the most private parts of our lives: even we as individuals sometimes don't know how we spend them. However, they're rarely depicted in films, and if they are it's normally either a prophecy, or so cliche as to be ridiciulous.
Gondry takes us into all of Stephane's world: whether he's awake or asleep. Most of it is ridiculous: of course it is. But it's also realistic.
The second thing he does is to create a central relationship more like the one's I tend to have than any Curtis film has ever managed to achieve. Now, whether that means anyone else can identify with the ridiculous fears Stephane goes through when about to go on a first date, or when he ends up shouting at the source of his affections, I cannot say.
However, the stupid things that often mar two people getting together are again more realistically portrayed here than in anything I've ever seen before. How often have you actually walked into a hotel room to find the woman/man you thought liked you with her boy/girlfriend ala Notting Hill (or in fact Bridget Jones Diary)?
What's that? Never. Perhaps that's part of the fun: the traditional set-up/misunderstanding/pay-off of rom-coms makes for a much better ending the bigger the misunderstanding and the later the pay-off. However, to say their portrayal of relationships is anything like real life is ignorant a best, horrendously stupid at worst.
So the Science of Sleep can be considered a triumph. Why? Because it takes us through the sleep/eat/work cycle we all go through and in doing so gives us the complete picture of Stephane's life. Yes it's weird. But then think about what you dreamt about last night: Is that normal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)