Mank (a movie review post)

I don't know that I've ever mentioned on here before that I almost went to film school. After The Empire Strikes Back came out, I was intensely interested in special effects and, for many years, that's what I wanted to do. When I say "almost," I mean it. I was accepted to USC but, even after a very sizeable scholorship, it was going to be more expensive than I could afford, especially considering that my parents took on a "no help" stance if I chose to move to California to attend. All of that to say that what was left to me at the college I did go to was one intro to cinema class.

But we did cover Citizen Kane in that class.

Orson Welles was a fucking genius. I wish I had half of the marketing savvy he had. A tenth, even. His genius was not the movie Citizen Kane but that he was able to invent a mythology that said he was soley responsible for that movie, which was a work of genius. And it's true that he had some very important roles in creating the movie, both directing and starring in it. But he would have us believe that the story came from him as well and so devoted himself to creating that mythology that people are still arguing about it today. In fact, when I studied Citizen Kane in college, Herman Mankiewicz wasn't even mentioned.

The fact is, though, that Mankiewicz was the preeminnet screen writer/doctor of the time. He shaped the way the movies of that time period were written and was responsible for creating the dialogue heavy, witty movies of his day, movies that became the stereotype of the "American movie." He was also responsible for the Kansas sequences in The Wizard of Oz being filmed in black and white.

And, most importantly, he was chums with William Randolph Hearst.

I'm not going to explain the importance of the connection. If you don't understand from me saying that, you actually need to know more about the time period than I can tell you in a movie review.

So... the movie.

The movie is excellent. By what I am sure is not an accident, it is remarkably timely, the main conflict dealing with a conservative push, led by Hearst, to keep a progressive candidate (Upton Sinclair) from becoming governor of California. Yes, you will get to see back into the days when California was unenlightened and the "coastal elites" where all Republicans. Republicans bent on protecting their wealth just as they are today. The movie suggests that it was this political race that caused the falling out between Hearst and Mank (easy to believe considering that Hearst caroused with Nazi sympatthizers and Mank was personally responsible for funding the escape from Germany of hundreds of Jews) and became the catalyst for Mank's writing of Kane.

In short, Citizen Kane was a revenge piece.

Gary Oldman is... well, what can you say about Oldman? He was perfect in the role. I have no idea whether or not he was accurately depicting Mank or not, but his performance was amazing.

Having now seen Tom Burke as Orson Welles, I can no longer picture anyone else as Welles. He may be a better Welles than Welles was. So, yeah, I have a Burke bias because of The Musketeers, a series which ended much too soon.

And Amanda Seyfried was endearing as Marion Davies.

It might even be the kind of movie that I would watch again, not that I think I will, because I don't often re-watch, just as I don't often re-read, but I certainly wouldn't plead "I've already seen that" as a reason to get out of a second viewing.

Also, just to say it, this movie has "best picture" written all over it. Not necessarily because it is the best picture of 2020 (how is that even a thing for this year? do "movies" even still exist? what even is a "movie theater"?), but it's about Hollywood, and we all know that the Oscars loves movies about Hollywood.

The Man in the High Castle (a book review post)

As I've said previously, any good adaptation should make you at least curious about the source material, hopefully beyond, "Oh, it was based on some book," though I'm sure, people in general not being much for reading, that's where most people stop. But not me!

And, well, looking at the list of books PKD wrote, I can see that I haven't read enough of his works anyway.

Let's just get it out of the way that the Amazon series is only loosely based on the book, which is fine when that's what you set out to do and how you present it. The series, being a format which is ongoing, is able to do a little bit more with some of the concepts Dick introduced. But don't think that if you've watched the series that you have any idea of what the book is really about. You should definitely read the book.

The obvious premise of the book has to do with what the world might be like if the Axis powers had won World War II. That's a frightening thought, isn't it? What would the world be like under a totalitarian rule that covered most of the planet? It's a theme that unexpectedly resonates with our current political climate. Unexpectedly, because we all thought we had put that kind of shit behind us long ago, but here we are with a president (#fakepresident) with all of the leanings of a fascist dictator. If only, you know, people (Democrats) would just get out of his way and let him take over the world.

But I digress...

The book is fascinating on many levels, but Dick's use of language is one of the most interesting aspects. The characters are loosely grouped into two categories: the Japanese and the German, though the individual characters are not necessarily Japanese or German. When the focus is on one of the characters in the Japanese group, the prose (not just the dialogue) is stilted. There's a noticeable lack of articles. The dialogue and prose when centered on one of the German-side characters is fairly standard. There also seems to be a difference in thought processes from one side to the other, but it's possible that's just the prose speaking.

Then there are the characters: a Jew hiding out in Japanese territory under an assumed name, which is still not safe, because the Japanese and Nazis are ostensibly allies and it's routine for Jews to get sent to Germany for extermination when discovered; a "white," which is how the Japanese think of Americans in the part of America they control (just a white), small business owner who is enamored of Japanese culture and thinks they deserve to be in charge; a Swedish businessman on a trade mission to San Francisco; and more, but that should give you a taste. Almost none of the characters are precisely what they seem, though, an experience possibly like pulling on a rope only to find out it's a snake as it gets closer to you.

There's also a question as to what is or what constitutes reality, something Dick frequently does. You can see this just by looking at the basic question, "What would it be like if the Axis powers had won World War II?" But, within the book, there is a book which asks the question, "What would it be like if the Allied powers had won World War II?" The different perspectives on the answer to that question are interesting, to say the least, and they're not always what you would expect.

Maybe not as much as, say, 1984 or Brave New World, but this is definitely a book for our time and definitely worth a read. And I'm again reminded that I should really explore of PKD's works.

Why You Worship a False god (Part Two)

[You should go back and read part one of this, because I'm not going to provide any kind of recap or summary, and this probably won't make sense without the previous post.]

I left you all last time with "Christianity is the worst," and I meant it. Why? For one simple reason:
"Christianity" provides a solution to the linear god problem then turns its back on it and walks away.

Imagine three cages with people all locked up inside each one, one for Jews, one for Muslims, one for Christians. No one can get out. Except there are people inside the Christian cage with keys to the door, but they like being in the cage and like having all the other people locked in with them, so they don't bother to tell anyone. They could, but they don't want to. That's pretty despicable. At least there isn't anyone in the other cages concealing keys.

Look, it's even true of Paul. The asshole. To paraphrase:
When Paul was approached with the idea that sin didn't matter anymore because all sin was forgiven under Christ, Paul said, "Sure, you're right. Don't sin anyway." Basically, get back in your cage and sit down and shut up. Because Paul was a legalistic douche bag, kind of by his own admittance. He was a Pharisee among Pharisees.

And this is where we get to the point:
The whole point of the idea of Jesus is that he was a final sacrifice for all sin. All sin. Everyone's sin for all of time. Yes, you have to accept it, but, if you do, all of your sin has been atoned for. All the sins you've already done and all of the sins you'll do in the future, because it's only past and future for you. God sees you as a whole human being throughout the entire timeline of your life, so the one act of accepting the forgiveness offered through the sacrifice of Christ cleanses you of all of the sin. Therefore, it doesn't actually matter what you do; all sin is forgiven.

Now, this is the point where you really need to pay attention to get to the same place that I'm going.

Only a God outside of Time can do this. Only a God who can see your whole life at once and take away all the sin at once. That's what makes God, God.

If your god demands constant repentance and/or sacrifices to be on good terms with "him," then your god is no god at all. A god who is locked into judging you based upon your latest prayer, act of contrition, or sacrifice is a fraud. If your god is a fraud, then there is no sin, and it doesn't matter what you do. If your god is a fraud and you insist on dogmatically following some esoteric list of rules, you are also a fraud, propped up only by your legalism.

If your God is outside of Time and able to look at a person as a holistic being and has given you a way to purge your sin once and for all, then there is also no sin, and it doesn't matter what you do. Because let me be clear, no little prayer of "asking Jesus into your heart" is going to fool that kind of God into forgiving you. Whatever that means. Either that kind of God is up there judging people and it doesn't matter if you've "prayed the prayer" or not, because "He" knows more about what's going on in you than you do; or that kind of God is not judging people at all because, seriously, why would God even need to do that? Either way, it doesn't matter what you do. Neither can you "be good enough" to get into Heaven, nor can you be bad enough to get kicked out.

Which leaves us all in a very uneasy space, I know. A place of real moral ambiguity.
I mean, I've just stated that it doesn't matter what you do! How will we know if people are good or if people are bad or whether they're going to get into heaven or go straight to hell or whether we should look up to them because of how "righteous" they are or look down at them and spit because they're dirty, rotten sinners?

But here's the thing, man clearly has a moral compass of sorts. Humans have a pretty standard idea of what's right and wrong across cultures. It doesn't matter whether you believe if that's something divine or if it's some kind of genetic inheritance because we're a social species, there is a clear call to uphold the social good. Maybe the idea is to be good for goodness' sake, not out of fear of some kind of punishment. Maybe the idea is to do the Right thing because it's the right thing.
And God doesn't matter in that decision.

Here are the things I can tell you for sure:
1. Any God is so far above man that we are incapable of any kind of understanding about who or what God is. Anyone who tells you differently, anyone who tries to tell you what God is about and what God approves of and what "he" doesn't, is a liar and a fraud. Any person claiming to know God's mind worships a false god. Anyone who ever utters the phrase, "You need to get right with god," worships a god trapped in a linear timeline, and that god is not a god at all.
2. The current "christian" establishment in the United States (possibly the entire "christian" establishment across the world) clearly worships a linear god; therefore, the current "christian" establishment worships no god at all.
3. Anyone supporting "christianity" and Trump are clearly not even "christians," let alone a Christian. There is nothing in "christianity" which supports the support of a person like that. He is the antithesis of what it is to be a Christian, so anyone supporting him is clearly paying lip service to a religion they know nothing about. Clearly those people are worshiping a god they have made up in their own minds, not a God who lives outside of Time. The fact that they can't see the glaring divide between the character of Jesus in the Bible and the caricature that is Trump highlights their ingrained hypocrisy.

What I'm saying here is that most of you out there, if you believe in "God," have no idea what you believe. You've been told what to believe by other people and your idea of God is flawed. If your idea of God is flawed, you can't believe in God, only god. You have no idea what the Bible is about or what it says because you've never bothered to read it. And reading the Bible should only be the beginning of your learning about what you believe. That is, if you believe it. Because, really, most of you don't believe in anything; you just think you do.

The New Civil War

240 years ago, we fought a war that we say was a war for freedom. For independence. But it was only a war for white freedom and white independence. From other white men. At least, that's what it became because the Founding Fathers couldn't work their way through the issue of slavery.

So we had to have another war 150 years ago to finish the first war and state that freedom is for everyone. Freedom is for everyone, no matter their skin color.

Evidently, not everyone got that memo, so, now, here we are again in the midst of another Civil War, the New Civil War. Sure, this time it's not being fought on the battlefield with guns and bullets (yet) because this war is more like a spiritual war. Last time, the Civil War was fought with actual bodies, but, this time, it's being fought for the Soul of America and what kind of soul it will be, and it's mostly being fought in the information realm.

Will we be an America filled with hate and fear, or will we be an America filled with respect and tolerance?
The irony? Those who claim to belong to the religion of love -- and not just love, unconditional love -- are the ones preaching hate and fear the loudest. I suppose they think "god" is racist, too, just like them. I don't think you can come to any other conclusion if you look inside their churches.

Of course, the "Christians" tend to forget that it is the Jews who are "God's" chosen people. I don't seen anywhere in the Bible where it says "God" changed his mind about that, so, maybe, white people shouldn't be so stuck on themselves about how cool and important they are.
But I digress... [Actually, I do digress, because that's for an upcoming post. Sort of.]

But it sort of brings me to my point, and the point is this:
All of this is still about slavery and race. Still.
I mean, Fuck. What the fuck, people? It's been 150 fucking years since the Civil War. It's time to get over it and quit idolizing your fucking moments to racism and slavery. Tear that shit down.
Look, if Germany can do it, so can you.

And my other point, which is that you can't actually talk to those people, and it's time for liberals, those on the left -- whatever you want to call the people who aren't part of the 25-33% of the country who make up these hardcore Conservative GOP asshole Trump-followers -- to stop trying to reach over to the 25-33% of the country who make up these hardcore Conservative GOP asshole Trump-followers and convince them of the wrongness of their ways. They're NOT going to be convinced. Ever. You're wasting your time and, frankly, everyone else's time, too.

Look, these "people" know that Trump is a lying pile of shit -- which is an insult to lying piles of shit, but they don't make words that go low enough to accurately describe what Trump is (and my mind just isn't degenerate enough to make that kind of stuff up) -- and they have repeatedly shown that they don't care. They don't know or care anything about what "America" means or stands for (the fact that there were people who got upset about NPR's presentation of The Declaration of Independence on fucking Independence Day is proof enough of that). They have repeatedly shown that all they care about and, thus, all they know is some deranged fantasy where white people rule the world and they get to lay waste to it as they please without suffering any of the consequences. They are not going to be talked out of that delusion.

The truth is that this is a war. An actual war, and we on the Left need to start treating it as such. This is really not a time for debating. We're long past that. The world is teetering on the brink, a lot of brinks, actually... Maybe it's better to say that world is currently finely balanced on the head of a pin. Anyway, we're all teetering on the edge of destruction, environmental destruction even if there weren't other things, and we have to stop letting asshole idiots make the decisions. Decisions which have as their sole goal of making them more rich and damn the consequences because they won't be around to suffer them.

I'm not saying we need to arm ourselves and take to the streets or anything like that (though it would be disingenuous not to point out that a significant portion of those on the Right have been stockpiling weapons for decades), but it is time to quit pussyfooting around and trying to engage in conversations. Get the fuck out and do things like voting. It's not hard! [There is no reason that Ossoff should have lost in Georgia or that Measure C should have failed here in Sonoma county other than that Liberals didn't get out and vote. And that's just messed up. At that point, you're basically just -- and I'm going to be crude here, even for me -- bending over and taking it.]

Here's the deal:
If you're Liberal or anti-Trump or whatever you want to call yourself and you're whining about how things are going, but you're not doing anything about it, then shut the fuck up! Seriously, if you're not going to take action and do simple things like voting, then you don't have the right to complain. It's time to take this shit seriously. It's not a game.
For all intents and purposes, this really is a war. The New Civil War.

The Freedom Line

To borrow a line from Spider-Man:
With great freedom comes great responsibility.

But what do you do when some people show that they can not or will not be responsible with the freedom given to them?

That's a tough question and not one I see an easy answer for.

Where do you draw the line between freedom and security? Because, see, I'm all for freedom. Seriously. I believe in it. And I want my own freedom, although you might not be able to tell considering I have three kids. And that's kind of the point, kids bring a responsibility that contain an inherent restriction to Freedom. It's part of the package, and, if you're not ready to give up Freedom for Responsibility, you have no business having kids.

And some of you might be saying, "Yes, but I don't have kids, so why can't I have complete Freedom?" And that is a good question. Honestly, as long as your expression of Freedom doesn't interfere with someone else's expression of Freedom, theoretically, there should be no reason you shouldn't have complete Freedom.

But let's look at that for a moment...

Your expression of Freedom shouldn't and cannot interfere with the Freedom of others. That means your Freedom cannot harm other people. And you might be thinking, "Well, that's just not fair." But is it fair when your Freedom of driving as fast as you want to drive causes an accident that kills someone else? Is it fair when your Freedom to take whatever you want causes someone else not to be able to eat or not to be able to feed his kids? Is it fair when your Freedom to smoke cigarettes results in health issues for other people? Sorry, it's not fair, and these are examples of why we have laws that govern freedom. To help us know where the exercising of our Freedom can cause harm to other people.

And, so, some of you may be thinking "what does this have to do with my Freedom (and Right) to own guns?" And that, also, would be a good question.

I'm gonna sort of change the subject for just a moment but not really. It will only look like it. I just want to start at a different place and bring us back to the same spot. The same question, so to speak.

Jesus came to set us free. I know this because He said it. Most people think this means He came to set us free from sin, that he came so that we could more perfectly follow the Law, but that's not what He said. I'm not going to break down all of the scriptural passages at this point, because it would take too long, so to sum it up, Jesus replaced the Law with Grace. He gave us Freedom, the same kind of Freedom that existed in the Garden before Adam ate of the fruit and introduced the Law (by gaining the knowledge of Good and Evil). [Yeah, I know this is a bit deep and metaphysical, but hang with me for a few minutes.] Basically, what Jesus was saying was, "Look, you can't really do all of this stuff. It's crazy to think that you can, and the Pharisees are crazy for thinking they can. What you really need to do is love God and love people, and, if you do those things, you'll be okay." Basically, forget the Law.

Okay, so we're in a state of complete Freedom at that point. We can (kind of) do whatever we want. Some of the early Christians really went with this, too. There was a movement that Right and Wrong no longer existed and anyone could do whatever s/he wanted to do. The problem was, evidently, these people didn't care whom they hurt in the process. Freedom was their Right and by God they were going to exercise that Freedom.

Paul came along and clarified some things at that point and said, basically, "Sure, in theory, you guys are correct, you can do whatever you want to do, but you shouldn't. You still need to respect other people, because, if you don't respect other people, you aren't showing them love, and Jesus said to love them just like you love yourselves." Even Peter had a problem with all of this stuff, because he realized (with God's help) that he didn't have to follow all of the Jewish dietary restrictions; he could eat just like the gentiles. And, boy, did he go hog wild (pun intended) with it. The problem was that he started bragging about it, and some of the Jews that didn't believe the way he did started having issues with the whole thing.

Paul had to step in there, too, and slap some sense into Peter: "Look, Dude, you know it's okay to eat pig, and I know it's okay to eat pig, but all these other guys... they don't know that, yet. What you're doing is messing them up and making them do things they believe are wrong. You're hurting them." Essentially, what Paul was saying is that eating pig for these other guys was wrong because they believed it was wrong.

And this... this is a really sticky issue, the difference between what is right and what is wrong, and it's why there is such a huge divide in the USA, right now. Some people, a lot of people, still believe that eating the metaphoric pig is WRONG. But that's actually beside the point.

Because the real point is this, and this is where we go back to those other questions I was asking up above:
Paul said that the way to deal with this issue of how to behave when you believe that something is okay but someone else does not is not to do it. If what you want to do, even if you believe it's completely okay and right to do, is going to hurt someone else because they believe it's wrong, you should give up your Freedom to do that thing by taking up the Responsibility to act in a loving manner to that other person so that other person will not be tempted to do something s/he believes is wrong.

In the pig example, a lot of the Christian Jews started eating piggies because they saw Peter doing it, but they all believed it was wrong, that it was a sin, so they were wracked with guilt over it. The point is that, for them, it was wrong to do because they believed it was wrong to do (and I'm gonna stay away from anymore of the relativity of good and evil in this post). Peter needed to stop eating pork (at least when he was with other Hebrews) and quit bragging about it so that he wouldn't cause his fellow Jews to stumble over their own beliefs. We're not all at the same spot in the journey.

Do I think you should have the Freedom to own a gun? Sure. Do I think you should have the Freedom to own any kind of gun you want to own? Sure. I believe those things as long as you are going to be responsible in your Freedom to not hurt other people. To not take away their Freedom with your Freedom (because none of us have that Freedom, especially the freedom to end a life).

The problem here is that too many people in our society currently cannot use their freedom to own a gun responsibly. Too many people are being caused to stumble and do wrong because they have the freedom to own a gun. Too many people are taking away other people's freedom by doing them harm. Clearly, these people are just like the Jews that saw Peter eating pork and ate it too even though they believed it was wrong. To keep these people from doing the wrong thing, according to Paul, we should willingly lay aside our freedom so that they will not do what is wrong. We should choose Responsibility over Freedom.

And that's kind of where I come down on this whole gun thing at this point. I look at my kids and I wonder which is the higher Freedom: your freedom to own a gun or my kids' freedom to live. I look at all the kids and wonder that. What was the higher Freedom, the lives of 20 kids (and half a dozen adults) or the Right (Freedom) of one person to own some assault weapons? I ask that question all the time. What is my Freedom worth?

I have to tell you, I have laid aside an awful lot of Freedom for the sake of my children. I have laid aside an awful lot of Freedom for the sake of other people's children. I don't have a problem with this. I get that some of you do, but I have to wonder if you're looking at the issue from the correct standpoint. If my Freedom is going to cause someone else to screw up, I need to go to the higher place of Love and abandon my Freedom. Why? Love God and love people. If I'm willing to sacrifice other people so that I can get to do whatever it is I want to do that certainly isn't Love. If I'm willing to sacrifice your children or, even, my own children, so that I can live the way I want to live, that certainly isn't Love.

And, you know what, that extends to owning firearms. If other people cannot act responsibly within their Freedom to own a gun, then we all should be willing to lay aside that freedom so that those other people will not screw up. Just like we have to sacrifice the freedom of driving as fast as we want to drive to prevent accidents and just like we have to sacrifice the freedom of taking whatever we want because it harms someone else and just like... well, I could go on and on.

Is your freedom to own a gun worth the life of someone else? Just one life? Is it? Really? I see some of you out there right now saying, "Yes, it is." Well, whose life is it going to be? My kid's? Your kid's? Your brother's or your mother's? Is it worth it now? If you're out there and you're willing to sacrifice the life of someone dear to you just so that you can own a gun, let me know. Because it may not actually be someone dear to you, but it's going to be someone dear to someone else, and, tell me, is that fair? Is it?