The 2005 Oscars: Neville's will, should, want and why list

I love trying to guess what movies WILL win the Academy Awards but equally amusing is trying to name what movies SHOULD win compared to what movies I WANT to win (sometimes it's a deep, dark secret for why I want something to win--other times it's not). So here it goes...in all the categories I actually really care about.
----------

BEST PICTURE
Will win: "Million Dollar Baby"
Should win: "Million Dollar Baby"
Want to win: "Finding Neverland"

Why? Because after years of Lord of the Rings' movies, it's time to award the quiet, real gems of the year.

BEST ACTOR
Will win: Jamie Foxx "Ray"
Should win: Jamie Foxx "Ray"
Want to win: "Don Cheadle" "Hotel Rwanda"

Why? Foxx is brilliant, yes...but Cheadle is always brilliant and here, he IS "Hotel Rwanda"--but then again, Jamie Foxx is "Ray" also. Either way you look at it, an African-American man must win in this category.

BEST ACTRESS
Will win: Hilary Swank "Million Dollar Baby"
Should win: Kate Winslet "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
Want to win: Kate Winslet "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"

Why? Hilary Swank will likely upset Benning again (see 1999 when she beat her "American Beauty" performance with her "Boys Don't Cry" Oscar-winning role. However, Kate Winslet deserves to win because she took on the only role in the group that could literally fall apart if not acted out to near-perfection. Swank and others slip up at times, but Winslet never does.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Will win: Morgan Freeman "Million Dollar Baby"
Should win: Clive Owen "Closer"
Want to win: Morgan Freeman "Million Dollar Baby"

Why? Two words: Morgan Freeman. He's a favorite yes, and he's always good (even when he's in crappy movies like "High Crimes") and he was the better man in "Million Dollar Baby"...but Clive Owen knocks us flat and stands out high and tall above Jude Law's somewhat flimsy portrayal and Julia Roberts somewhat unconvincing turn. I believed Owen was who he was in this...I didn't always believe in Roberts or Law.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Will win: Virgina Madsen "Sideways"
Should win: Natalie Portman "Closer" or Virgina Madsen "Sideways" (too close to tell)
Want to win: Sophie Okonedo "Hotel Rwanda"

Why? Virginia Madsen was the best thing about "Sideways" (apart from Paul Giammatti, but since he was snubbed...she's in control here) because I believed in her and never doubted her character for a second. However, Natalie Portman deserves it for the outstanding year that was her's. Yet, I would love to see the underdog Sophie Okonedo win for "Hotel Rwanda." The scene where she and Cheadle are split up, and she's in the back of the truck is probably her greatest moment! And what a heart-tugger she was, huh?

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Will win: "The Incredibles"
Should win: "The Incredibles"
Want to win: "The Incredibles"

Why? The name says it all. The other two don't stand a chance ("Shark Tale" and "Shrek 2" that is).

BEST ART DIRECTION
Will win: "The Aviator"
Should win: "The Phantom of the Opera"
Want to win: "A Very Long Engagement"

Why? "The Aviator" will get it because it looks like a big, classy, Hollywood picture (and that's hard to come by). But "Phantom" overwelms audiences by sight more than sound and so I think it deserves it here. However, "A Very Long Engagement" should not be dismissed---like in "Amelie," the set direction is alive, bursting with vitality and at times, overshadowing the movie as a whole. That's hard to do.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will win: "The Aviator"
Should win: "The Passion of the Christ"
Want to win: "A Very Long Engagement"

Why? Because part of "The Passion of the Christ"'s true greatness IS its cinematography---and the fact the voters remembered it proves it! But "The Aviator" will likely win which is okay but not so overwelmingly memorable as both "Passion" and "Engagement" were. I'd love to see "A Very Long Engagement" take the win though---because war has never looked so dreary and dreamy all at once.

BEST DIRECTING
Will win: Clint Eastwood "Million Dollar Baby"
Should win: Martin Scorsese "The Aviator"
Want to win: Alexander Payne "Sideways" (because he did "About Schmidt" and should've won more for that one)

Why? Directing is most evident in the acting which is why "Million Dollar Baby" should win here. "The Aviator" was too long, although it was an impressive achievement (and I'd love to see Marty win)....I'd love even more to see Alexander Payne win here because he's the most consistently good director around (even if "Sideways" is overly hyped up). Plus, this would award him for his fabulous "About Schmidt" work he did, to which he won no Oscars for (same goes with "Election" too). Third times a charm? Maybe for writing..but probably not directing. Sorry Payne.

BEST SCORE
Will win: "Finding Neverland"
Should win: "Finding Neverland"
Want to win: "Finding Neverland"

Why? Even though it's not amazing or anything, it's the best of the bunch. Sadly, this may be the only award "Neverland" will win.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will win: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
Should win: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
Want to win: "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"

Why? "The Aviator" screenplay was lacking a lot so it better not win here. "The Incredibles" or "Hotel Rwanda" were both very good, but seem almost mediocre compared to the visionary and unpredictable genius of Kauffman's "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind."

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will win: "Sideways"
Should win: "Million Dollar Baby"
Want to win: "Before Sunset"

Why? "Sidways" will win here because they've got to let it win SOMETHING. However, the better adaptation is "Million Dollar Baby," even though I think the standout in this category is the simple, yet profound, the ordinary, yet extraordinary "Before Sunset." It's the closest thing to humanity in the entire Oscar race I think.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Will win: "Born into Brothels"
Should win: "Super Size Me"
Want to win: "Tupac: Resurrection".......okay not really, "Super Size Me" again!

Why? Even though serious subject matter is good, "Born into Brothels" can't do what "Super Size Me" did: make an American fast-food nation rethink their way of life, again and again and again. Plus, it's funny and deathly serious, all at once! Yay!!!
----
That's all. Sorry for taking up 10 pages.

Go Big Red!

"BECAUSE YOU DROVE ME"

For all those times you drove with me,
for all the truth that you let me see,
for all the joy you brought to my life,
for all the wrong turns that you made right,
for every dream you made come true,
for all the love i've found in driving you,
you're the one who helped me out--never let me fall,
you're the one who drove me through, through it all!

You were my strength when I was weak,
you were my voice when i couldn't speak,
you were my eyes when i couldn't see,
you saw the best there was in me,
Lifted me up when I couldn't reach,
you gave me faith cause you believed,
I'm everything I am--because you drove me.

You gave me miles and made me fly,
your wheel touched my hand and made me want to touch the sky,
I lost my faith in things old, you gave it back to me,
you said no star or state was out of reach,
you drove with me and I drove half-proud,
I had your love I had it all!!

I'm grateful for each day you gave me,
Baby I don't that much but I know this much is true,
I was blessed because I was driven by you, with you, in you!
---
Nate, I hope this poetic adaptation from the great Celine Dion serves as my presence at your blowout, 200,000 mile block party for Big Red today. Treat him well. He still needs the Lord you know.

Before the Dream

What is this life?
Taken up in the night sky,
Together, and off-balanced;
Changing always today
With tomorrow the same;
lost and found--yet, here am I.

What is this time?
When we touch just to breathe,
When we love just to feel,
And we can't reverse the
'Seeing over hearing';
Can you take it any more?

What is this night?
Running into darkness,
Walking into the light,
Always fighting while still
Never winning it quite,
Is this what you want from life?

What is this place?
Please don't leave me alone.
Blankets cover my self,
Pillows cover my eyes;
I want it and I don't,
Is this life a paradox?

For who can know what dreams will come
When dust is back and I am gone,
And fear is lost behind the sun,
Then I shall speak this prayer with love,
'Please say everything will be alright,
Please say all will be well tonight.'

What is religion?

I didn't realize this till' tonight but came to find out that the word religion is only defined in one place in the Bible: in the book of James. What's even more interesting is that James defines religion in two ways: (1) as ministering to the poor and the widows and the orphans, and (2) as practicing personal reflection and/or concerned with affairs of oneself. Call me crazy, but doesn't it seem like churches tend to do one or the other and not both?

My church upbringing tends towards the latter, where everything revolves around the individual and social justice isn't even mentioned, talked about, or advocated. But in other church settings, it seems that everything from the sermon to the liturgy reflects a keen awareness for a social gospel. Yet, in these churches, they lack any personal self-evaluation and/or reflection. Why can't we marry the two? Is it simply too hard for us today as it was for the audience of James' letter?

In other "bible talk," Rahab continues to fascinate me. I think if I could only meet a few people from history (who are mentioned in the Bible) she'd be one of them. Like Paul, her turning to God was radical and suspicious. Others doubted her faithfulness but yet she's mentioned in Hebrews as having faith like Abraham! And yet ironically (is it ironic?), she lied to keep the spies safe.

I don't know about you but I love it when Bible stories trump our so-called "ethical problems." I believe there is an absolute in every situation but could it be that the absolute in one situation differs from the absolute in another? That is, could lying be the best option in one scenario and the wrong one in another? This sounds sticky but look at the story of Rahab and tell me that's not what was happening.

Good night all. Sorry for the preaching.

God, send me a sign!

As a pastor's kid, I can honestly say that myself (and almost every other P.K.) have a corner on the Christian subculture's obsession with "how to live like a bold Christian." My favorite personal rut I tend to trap myself in, and then beg for God to send me a sign to help get me out, is when I feel like God is giving me an opportunity to be vulnerable with a friend who's not a Christian. Let me explain with an example: the prayer goes something like this (also, it's more often than not an inner conversation that I have with myself really).

"Oh God, please give me an opportunity to talk to Joe!"

And then, God does.

"Now God, should I ask Joe Saturday night when we're out having drinks to come to church with me OR should I ask Joe when I see him at work this week about it? Which one is your will? Send me a sign!"

And then, God doesn't send a "sign," or so I thought He didn't.

"Oh God, why didn't you send me a sign as to which decision to make! Now the opportunity is lost!"

And then God shakes His head, throws down a little more grace and I feel dumb, yet again.

Lately, I've thought a lot about God's will for our lives, and I think I've come to understand that this whole Americanized/Rick Warren surge of "your purpose-driven life" thing (though not bad, it's certainly not free from any criticism) is just not totally biblical. Sure God cares about everyone of us--individual and all--but can I be so bold as to say that God really doesn't give a rip about whether or not we should take the job A promotion as opposed to the job B promotion? It's like we say that we want to jump on board and "be in God's will," (which sounds good and all) but in reality, it usually is just another means of delaying decision-making and prolonging the call to true discipleship. Sometimes I feel like God is looking down at me and saying, "Make a decision! The gospel train is going and you can either jump on and go where I'm going or stay put in the safety of your own normal, comfortable, living space!" It's a macro-thing and we Americans keep trying to make it a micro-thing. How sad we are.

I don't think it's really possible for us to escape God's will though. All throughout the Bible it seemed like God's will was being done when people were at their very best and when people were at their very worst and when people weren't even believers in God to begin with. God's will was being carried out when Paul, the worst of sinners, was chosen to be God's apostle and it was being carried out when Deborah, the judge who prophesized that Jael (a woman) and not Barak (a man) would be the one to receive God's glory (and yet, Jael didn't even profess to know God)!

So despite ourselves and how hard we may try, we can't turn a macro-gospel into a micro-one. It just doesn't work.

Thank the Lord. Good day.

Come again some other day...

Rain! Rain! Go away!

I'm sorry to all of you who just can't get enough of rain but I'm ready to throw in the towel and be done with it. California is not equipped to handle such massive dumps of water and if you've watched the news at all lately, it shows. I realize our world needs rain to go on surviving, but this is ridiculous. Will it ever end?

Today is one of those bland days that comes to you and gets stuck in your stomach in the most uncomfortable way. It makes me feel incapable of doing what I need to get done. Every direction seems to be calling and I feel like nothing inside of me wants to go any which way right now. How can you communicate what being "stuck in a moment" feels like? U2 tried I suppose but I need more helpful advice than "You've got to get yourself together!" That doesn't seem to solve the problem. I don't know. I guess I'll keep trying and maybe later, come up with something better.

I See Them all the Time

My church small group is still in the stages of getting to know one another, so I understand that I shouldn't expect it to be close-to ideal or perfect or anything like other amazing, communal-focussed small groups I've been apart of in the past, but...

The other night a girl from my church small group shared that she was starting some counseling courses offered through our church. After she finished telling us this, she shared how in a few weeks they would actually get to simulate with people in the class a biblical counseling session (mind you, the people in her class are all church members of our church). I chimed in, excited, and said how that was going to be so beneficial and shared how in one of my Fuller classes, we were doing something similiar. Each of us from my Wholeness class have to share our spiritual autobiography (containing all the dirt, and messed up parts of ourselves and our pasts) to our own small groups formed within the class. Then I explained how beneficial this was for me and how she'd really get a lot out of this, and that's when she interrupted me.

"I don't want to share my deepest, darkest secrets with these people though because they're from church---and I see them all the time!!!" She said it as if she could share it to non-church people but not to her friends she stood and worshipped with week after week, and this bothered me.

What is the problem here? Why is it that so many people our generation feel more comfortable sharing about their past to friends outside of the church then they do to people inside? 'Something is wrong with this picture' I thought.

However, I really can't blame my friend for saying what she did because in all honesty, I tend to think the same from time to time. It takes time to unlearn what American culture, legalism, broken families and religious judgmentalism teaches us Christians today. So much of it is unconciously learned that we don't even see ourselves guilty of what we tend to preach against. And if it weren't for grace, I don't think I'd even bother trying to unlearn anything taught in the name of Christian religion.

Sad? Yes. True? Yes. Hopeless?

I hope not.
Happy Weekend!

200,000

Congratulations to my little buddy of a car Skyy Cordy (thank you Tara for the inspiration back in 2003 for the name) for making his 200,000th mile tonight on the way home from classes in Pasadena. As I shared with a friend, I feel like I should've done something for him to commemorate such a milestone but I didn't really. And what's worse is that I was talking to another friend on the phone when it happened and so my feeble attempts to take pictures (yes, I was driving 70mph and taking pictures at my odometer) didn't go that smoothly.

I hope he can forgive me. Perhaps I will take my friend's advice and treat him to a nice car wash tomorrow or something. The bird poop is beginning to pile up spots.

Thank you Cordy for such a wonderful ride. I hope the next 200,000 miles is just as sweet.

A Grammy Tribute

Don't get me wrong or anything, but after watching much of the Grammy awards show (and fast-forwarding through most of it--thank God for tiVo) I couldn't help but say that the Tsunami tribute performance by Bono, Stevie Wonder, Norah Jones, Steven Tyler, Alicia Keyes, etc., etc, of the Beatles' song "Across the Universe" was a bit of a let down. I would've much rather had Rufus Wainwright doing his cover of the song up there, by himself. Now that would make me want to rush to iTunes and download it (if I didn't already own it).

No big surprises this year...Ray Charles won many, Alicia Keyes is still one of the most talented mainstream artists around (did you see her play that piano and belt out those tunes???).

However, my biggest complaint about this year's Grammys was the lack of awards presented. I think for the duration of the 3 and a half hour show, there were about 8 awards presented. I feel bad for all of those this year that were told, "oh, we're doing your award before the show...sorry." What a let down.

But do I really care all that much? Nahhh. If it were the Oscars it'd be another story, though.

Lent

Madeleine L'Engle refers to the time of Lent in the Church year as a "strange bleak season" and I couldn't agree more. It is the time when seasons are often bleak (depending on where you live) and where also, people in general, are bleak as well. It is a time to give up something--usually something meaningful--and offer it as a sacrifice to God, proving humble yet human devotion. But is there anything we can do that is worthy to God? Can we really prove our feeble, finite love to God? After all, God knows our hearts and knows that our devotion is far from pure or holy or righteous. And yet still, God accepts our broken offerings--our ashes--and sweeps them up into the sky, holding onto them as tiny treasures offered from his beloved ones. We are His beloved, but do we believe this? Do we know this? Do we live this?

Lent is a time usually ignored by most Protestant traditions and although I'm not attacking the Protestant faith--for I myself, was raised in it and appreciate so much of what it taught me--I am saying that I'm saddened that Lent was not observed by any church I grew up in. And why? Is it seen as too "Catholic" or "Anglican" or "Reformed" or "Orthodox"? I'm not sure.

But I wish I had a greater appreciation for this time of the Church calendar year because it's really hard to act like you care about something you've been missing your whole life. I want to participate in the time of Lent not to fit in, or to be spiritually savvy, but because I think it's a way of worship and love and adoration that I've been missing out on. For I don't think the time of Lent is soley about God getting glory (although surely it is) but it's about his followers, mustering up all they can offer and their best loves in life, and taking them before His open hands and simply rejoicing. This is true freedom in Christ!

Today is Ash Wednesday--the beginning of Lent--and I love what this means for all who believe. If Lent is a time to remind us of what is soon to come (Christ's suffering) and of the glory behind the corner (Christ's resurrection) and of the ultimate crowning that has come and continues to come (Christ's Ascension), let us be brushed with ashes as humbly as we can, marked as His beloved little Ones, and let us choose to love, love, love.

For 40 days, and 40 nights.

Beauty, Beauty, Beauty (part 1)

I used to think inner beauty was all that mattered. Now, I realize not only is that not true but it's basically deceitful and in a sense, undermines much of how we human beings were created.

We've all been told our whole life that it doesn't matter if we're not as pretty or cute or gorgeous as our compadre and friend sitting next to us in school. After all, external beauty will fade but interior beauty will last forever! Some may even call beauty "meaningless," and say it is a "luxury" and not something we humans should be primarily concerned with. But what if there was something within us that made us care? What if it wasn't just cultural influences, social hype, magazine centerfolds, or oppressive glamour standards forced upon us by evil TV executives that caused us to want and desire to possess the latest style or simply look beautiful?

It gets tricky to talk about because right away, people assume you are shallow and that you're just some crazy, image-obsessed American consumer who thinks about what hair product to buy all day long or whether or not this Prada handbag goes with your new Diesel jeans. However, I think my own thinking on the subject of beauty is shifting. I used to have little sympathy for people spending $5,000 for a monthly face lift but now I'm beginning to step back and weigh the bigger picture. Obviously, most middle-class Americans would call this outlandish spending but how is it different than our own feeble attempts to look, feel, and maintain the feeling of 'being hip and stylish and savvy and pretty?' The fact that I'd rather go to a thrift store to buy a Banana Republic t-shirt may make me a minimalist, but it still says something about what I like to wear and what I think will make me look good, essentially. I may not be forking out five grand a month on clothes but I'm still choosing to care about how I look as opposed to--oh, let's say--not caring.

People who say they don't care how they look or what they wear are liars I think and really just in a state of self-denial (i.e., I think many of us Christians were raised to talk like this). Because sooner or later, given the option of wearing something absurdly ugly compared to something just 'normal,' I dare such a person to pick to wear the absurdly ugly. Even the most least fashion-conscious guys and girls I've come across care about how they look. Even if your own judgments made on these people would have you believe that they could not possibly care becuase if they did, 'why on earth would they wear that top with those shoes,' I'd still argue these people care, even if your opinion of their personal taste would say otherwise.

I understand that people get obsessed with style, how they look, and often it morphs into abnormal, near-addictive-like behavoir when all you think about is looking good, but I'm not saying that's a good thing (in fact, it's a totally different issue really). I'm saying I believe--after this last Fall and after much reading on the subject--that the inner need to look good and feel beautiful or good-looking, may be a totally natural, God-given, human gift. So to say it's wrong to want to look good is what I really have a problem with I guess. This need--in and of itself--is not evil, even if beauty sometimes can be a cover for something evil.

More parts to come in the future I'm sure, so let's just keep this "blog essay entry" open.

Movies you might have missed

Earlier this week, I did a post about "movies to miss" (i.e., horrible movies that you should never see). So I thought it was only appropriate to pick out a few movies this past year, that may have slipped under your own movie radar, and give them the proper attention they most certainly deserved.

"Shaun of the Dead"--What would happen if the zombie-horror-film genre was made fun of with a movie that plays by its rules and ironically, acts as if these rules are ridiculous all at the same time? If you were smart a director, you'd get something like "Shaun of the Dead" which is one of those movies you see previews for and moan. However, it's also one of the ones (if you end up seeing) that you're so glad you did. Sure by the end, you're ready for it to be the end. But what's new? I can't think of a zombie movie I've watched without wanting it to be over sooner than it actually was, so let's toss that objection out. What you get when you come to "Shaun of the Dead" is a surprisingly smart and surprisingly stupid zombie movie that is tongue-and-cheek-to-the-max. It is a homage to zombie movies and a witty critique as well. Warning: best when viewed in large groups and with people who can tolerate a stupid fart joke every once and awhile.

"Tarnation"--Even if watching student films makes you want to puke--with their shaky camera movement and artsy-wannabe editing techniques--you still should check out (when you're in a gloomy mood) "Tarnation" and see how a man can take bits and pieces of his childhood, and piece together a full-length feature film. Johnathan Caouette's mini-masterpiece (partially because it seems like it's been 20 years in the making) will disturb you, make you cringe, make you squeam, and make you shake your head more times than you can count. It's a classic example of a movie you don't necessarily like but at the same time, you cannot help but admire the filmmaker for such a bold, unnerving, and emotionally naked way to allow film as art, do its healing through time. Caouette, a gay man in his late 20s living in New York, tells of his childhood, mostly shedding insight to horrible things happening to his mother, and its a really fascinating way of showing how family affects so many parts of our lives, even if we refuse to let it. Despite some very very very low-budget Apple iMovie editing moves that were used just way too many times for emotional impact, there are a handful of moments and scenes that stand out as so mind-jarringly out there, you'll swear you're watching the closest thing to reality filmmaking ever. And, it probably is the weirdest and most interesting film you'll see all year long, even if you end up hating it---so give it a chance.

"Mean Creek"--This movie (now available on DVD) is a perfect example of how a movie can somewhat go against the formal screenwriting three act structure, and still be pulled off as affecting and intense and oddly mesmerizing. "Mean Creek" is the kind of movie that is so simple, it feels like it could've happened in your backyard or something. It's about a bunch of young, stupid kids--yes--but it's also about every one of us. While many people may call it a movie that "goes nowhere," I'd have to disagree. This movie is on to something, and even if it doesn't quite totally latch onto it by the time the end credits are rolling, it has you hooked and it's the kind of movie that lingers in your head for days after you watch it (even though you think it won't). In a few words, it's haunting, ordinary, and way too chilling to be called stale.

"Maria Full of Grace"--I like to think of this movie as 2004's equivilent of "Whale Rider," only it's about Columbian drug mules and their ties with American drug lords, and how everything can really just go to S&#@ when you're dealing with the wrong kind of people. Kudos to the Academy for recognizing young Catelina Sandino Moreno (she is nominated for Best Actress, in her debut role--similar to Keisha-Castle Hughes was for "Whale Rider") which hopefully will make more people see this movie because it's just one those movies just about everyone needs to see. Again, you may not like it (almost all the movies on this list seem to be like that) but you can't just let it go by and watch it go from New Releases to Foreign to GONE at your local Blockbuster store. It's an eye-opening, unsettling movie, yes, and it achieves moments of intense suspense that no other Hollywood movie from this past year has, but it does so many more things than that, it really limits the film itself by comparing it to other movies because there's no movie that's like it. I wasn't a big fan of the movie "Traffic" back in 2000, so forgive me for that if you were one of those people who "loved it." I think this movie is much better, much stronger, and much more emotionally affecting than "Traffic" could ever be thought of as being. Why this got snubbed and "Traffic" did not, probably has to do with the lack of big names attached to this film and to the lack of a well-known American director but having said that, you really have no excuse now not to see this one...because it's in the New Release section right now and it's a perfect DVD rental flick.

Hope this helps. More to come later. Good night.

Freaks and Geeks: A masterpiece from television

I'm not a fan of TV programs in general but after a recomendation from Taylor professor Jeff Cramer to see the lost, ran-only-one-season-and-cancelled-but-now-it's-a-cult-phenomenon show "Freaks and Geeks," I saw the very first episode last Fall and loved it. Lately, I've been watching more episodes (as I got the entire show on DVD for Christmas) and at the end of each episode I'm happy and sad, knowing that it's one more down and only a few more left. I don't want it to end. It's really quite sad.

If you haven't seen this show, do yourself a favor and borrow it from someone (Jamin has it I think for you Taylor folks, and if not, it's available to rent). It hits on pretty much everything from high school that you never thought you'd like to remember, and of course, all of those other things that seem to be universal to growing up. From freshmen boys not wanting to take showers in P.E. (but forced to...was there anyone else who went to a school where taking showers was "extra credit?") to a guy liking a girl and then that girl telling that guy that she likes this OTHER guy (thus, putting the original guy in the "i like you as a friend" category), high school is often not thought of as a "wonderful time," but watching "Freaks and Geeks" made me laugh, cringe, and think that maybe it wasn't such a bad time after all.

I wish more TV shows could accomplish so much in such a short amount of time. And for anyone who's seen the show, the boy who plays Sam deserves an Emmy...I don't care if the show is off the air. He captures the very essence of what the "nice guy" in high school felt like all throughout.

Opposites Attract

Perhaps Paula Abdul was right.

I've been thinking about my friends lately, and thinking how many of them are the exact opposite personality from me, and how at first, meeting this kind of person in high school would've made me throw up. And that's when I realized something: I'm not sure I'd like myself from high school if we were to meet now. I think I'd annoy him and vice versa, and I think we'd eventually kill each other (if we really did what we thought about doing). Which poses an interesting question for anyone to consider: if you met yourself on the street, and started to hang out with yourself, would you like it or hate it or both or neither? Obviously, no one is going to be honest if they think, "I'd love it but I can't say that because that might look like I'm totally self-absorbed." Heck, maybe I am one of these people and I'm telling you in a blog that I'd hate to meet myself just to "sound NOT self-absorbed." I don't know. But it is an interesting thought and if you can bypass all the crap that comes with such a loaded question, and stop for a second worrying about what other people will think of your answer, I really do feel it will tell you way more about yourself then any other personality test would or could.

And for the record, I used to think it'd be fun being a twin but I'm now going back on what I used to think and now, don't think that anymore. I hope you know I'm glad I'm not a twin.

Happy Friday.

Is it really ironic?

It's like rain on your wedding day,
It's a free ride when you've already paid,
It's the good advice thatchya just didn't take,
And who would have thought it figures?

Back in eighth grade English class, my group got together and chose this song to serve as our "poem," and you better believe that we thought this was deep. Now though, I don't think it's really deep, or really ironic. I tihnk it's just sad, unfortunate, or "too bad." I mean come on, how many times do we actually sit and think about the advice we just didn't take about being oh-so-very ironic? Not me. Maybe you're different though.

But I still have a place in my past for Alanis---you oughtta know!

Movies to Miss

Just as everyone needs a little prodding along now and then to go see the good movies that are out there, everyone also could benefit from some good advice warning people not to go near certain films out there. So here's a few to steer clear of...indefinitely.

"Vanity Fair"--I thought it would at least work as a rental, but this confused adaptation has nowhere to go, makes us care very little about what's going on and as a friend put it so nicely, "WHY DOESN'T SOMETHING JUST HAPPEN!!!"--I'm all for movies taking their time to unfold but this was just a waste of time and the movie never really unfolded. How sad.

"De-Lovely"--Kevin Kline and Ashley Judd are so sappy and mawky and blah-blah-blah in this biopic of Cole Porter that feels like it was trying to be the next "A Beautiful Mind," except, without the brilliant Paul Bettany and without a story worthy of our praise. I like Cole Porter's music but this movie made it stale and pretentious.

"The Ladykillers"--This was one of those movies that when it was over (and still, to this day) I wanted to kill the makers for making me waste 2 hours of my life watching it. It's bad bad bad bad bad Cohen brothers (usually, they're great...see "Fargo" or "Raising Arizona") but here, it's just all flat humor that is not funny 'slapstick funny' nor is it funny in a 'just funny' way. Tom Hanks...why did you do this? And the worst part is, it tries to turn into a black, "Fargo"-esque comedy by the film's end which couldn't feel more wrong or out of place.

Hope this makes your walking through aisles at Blockbuster a little easier now. Or I hope it eliminates three more movies that can be taken immediately out of your Netflix queue. Good night.

"The Passion of the Christ" did not deserve a Best Picture nomination!

Recently, there's been a hoop-la of ink spilled calling the recent Oscar nominations anti-God as "The Passion of the Christ" only garnered three award nominations (i.e., Best Musical Score, Best Cinematography, Best Make-Up). These feverent Christians are saying the film was snubbed for not getting a Best Picture or Best Director nomination and gripe also that it was one of the best edited pieces of the year (citing those quick cuts from the whippings to the people's disgusted faces and then back to the whippings I suppose) and was not noted for this in the Best Film Editing category either.

Now, this made me roll my eyes repeatedly and I happen to like the movie. But with many Christians, I think we forget that this movie is not Jesus and it's actually a movie about Jesus. Confusing the two sounds impossible but trust me, it's happening all over. I'm not sure if it's because Christians feel they need their own super-hero-like movie to hide behind or to rally up against and root for, but it's really getting a bit ridiculous. I wonder if the movie had been as bad as "Left Behind" and not made any money like "Left Behind," if Christians would still be out on the Oscar prowl?

I don't believe "The Passion of the Christ" deserved a best picture nomination. In fact, I don't believe it deserved a best original score nomination (did the Academy even SEE "Bad Education," "Friday Night Lights," or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"?). The cinematography and make-up nods were well-deserved though, and I'm happy the Academy's memory did not fail them when they came to these two categories. But anyways, back to Jesus.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised about people fearing that by snubbing the film the Academy was REALLY snubbing Jesus himself because that kind of mentality has been going on for thousands of years. Hot-wired Christians who think they are protecting the sacredness of Christ with their raving rants were around during the Crusades and I guess to some extent, they're still around today. I talked to one woman who insisted that if the movie didn't get nominated for Best Picture it would be a "travesty." Now correct me if I'm wrong but since when did getting nominated for Academy Awards mean so much to the majority of evangelical Christians in the first place? It's as if this is a make-or-break, Left Behind-ish, prophetic "mark" of what end times are soon to come. Apparently, this Oscar snub might have more to do with the book of Revelation than many of us would think. If this is true and these people riling up against this national travesty are right, then I for one will be very glad because it would mean all along that God really does care about movies more than most Christians would like to think.