Best mumble mumble 2009

Best Movie of 2009:

The Hurt Locker

I'm always a sucker for a good action flick, but action flicks with this much depth, guts, emotion, and sheer storytelling bravura rarely get made. This is more than just "2009's war movie." This is a great story about 3 young men dealing with each other in the most hellish environment possible.

There were other really good movies this year, too:

Coraline

Stop-motion was in vogue this year in a big way. Both Henry Selick's stylish and scary adaptation of a Neil Gaiman story and Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox (Also an adaptation) were visual successes, but where Anderson lost me with his idiosyncratic sense of humor, Selick hooked me with a gaudy and unique visual feast.

Up

Up did something very special for me. The first time I saw it, I had heard so much about the infamous opening 20 minutes that I readied myself for it and only felt some colorful flitting of emotion somewhere in the cold recesses of my dead heart. When I saw it again with my family, I knew what was coming and had a similar reaction. When I saw it again on Thanksgiving, my guard was down, and an unprecedented two tears were coaxed from my left eye. Must have been something in the turkey.

District 9

It's a neck-and-neck race between District 9 and Moon for my favorite sci-fi movie of the year. Neil Blomkamp's sci-fi-flavored apartheid fable has my love for its thematic content, blistering action, and two-steps-forward-one-step-back approach to race issues on film. The only failings for me are the jittery editing and uneven third act, but I can forgive those on the sheer strength of the rest of the film.

The Cove

Not only a great film, but an important film. Watching The Cove is akin to throwing that cardboard in the recycling bin instead of the the trash. It's not much, but it leaves you feeling like you donated your time to a worthy cause. Plus, it's just fun to watch, thanks to the whole "Ocean's Eleven meets The Bourne Identity" feel it has going on.

Ponyo

Miyazaki's latest animated adventure may not have blown me away like some of his other masterpieces, but there is so much inventive beauty packed into the charming tale that it's impossible to ignore.

Paranormal Activity

It seems the unqualified success of Oren Peli's low-fi ode to horrors of the night has prompted an enormous backlash, because no matter where I go online, all I read is how lame this movie supposedly is. Well, some felt the intense dread and some apparently didn't. I was one of the lucky few who did.

A Serious Man

The Coen Brothers always seem to be treated as if they're playing in their own sandbox. All their movies are so unique and so completely their own that it's tough to compare them to any other films released around them. Still, I'd say A Serious Man could hold its own against most every movie that came out this year.

Moon

Where District 9 faltered in its flashy, shaky direction, Moon wowed with its supremely assured presentation. While I wasn't bowled over by the somewhat unimaginative story (I kept waiting for some sort of twist to shake things up a bit), Sam Rockwell's powerful performance and Duncan Jones' marvelous direction more than made up for it.

(500) Days of Summer

A charming if somewhat annoyingly self-aware romantic comedy about love, and how it really isn't ever how we expect it to be. The humor ranges from cute to hilarious, and Joseph Gordon-Leavitt proves why he will win an Oscar one day (just watch).


Other fun movies came out, but they were either mediocre or overrated:

Star Trek

People won't like me for this, but Star Trek was good, but only good. Critics and audiences seemed to receive the J.J. Abrams reboot like it was Kirk's long-lost sex tape, but I had fun and not much beyond that.

Taken

Liam Neeson tearing up the very foundations of Paris in his search for his missing daughter sounds like a whole lot of fun, and it is, but the novelty wears off quick when you realize the movie doesn't have much more than that.

The Brothers Bloom

I really liked most of this goofy crime thriller, especially the great performances by the leads, but I have to admit the pacing and story were a little muddled and the whole thing went on a little too long.

Teminator: Salvation

I still say this one is underrated, but I can't deny that it still doesn't amount to a whole lot beyond some fun action and nostalgic moments.

Zombieland

Again, this is a fun movie, but it really got way too much praise from the zombie-crazed crowd when Shaun of the Dead did it so much better way back in 2004.

Avatar

Yes, the visuals are astounding, the effects are incredible, and the direction is solid. And yes, the film's critics often go a little too far in defending their dissent from the generally-positive norm. But let's be honest here; the story is so old and doesn't even try to be inventive, and the subtext says some troubling things about race issues.


There were also some huge disappointments:

Watchmen

It should have been so much better.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I am embarrassed for Hugh Jackman at this point. Come on, man, make any excuse you can and then jump ship!

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

And to think I defended the first film when the sequel revealed the true core of the franchise: dog sex and robot testicles.

9

How could a film that looks so good and has so much action be so boring? Ah, by having almost no story beyond "robot burlap people and the apocalypse."

Public Enemies

Michael Mann's take on John Dillinger was decent, but failed to justify its very existence.

The "Bizarro George Lucas" award for long-running series that somehow manages to avoid becoming awful:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Steady direction, artful cinematography, and elevated performances from the whole cast distracts us from the vacuum of a plot.

The "First Evil Dead Movie" award for films that made me feel like I missed the point:

Where the Wild Things Are
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Inglourious Basterds

All three of these films received huge amounts of praise, and I didn't really enjoy any of them. Okay, I did enjoy Fantastic Mr. Fox to some extent, and I loved Cristoph Waltz's performances in Inglourious Basterds, and there were parts of Where the Wild Things Are that I thought were well done, but I couldn't ever see where all the supposed brilliance of any of them lied. I just don't get it.


The "Face/Off" award for brainless fun if you're in the right mood:

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
2012
Drag Me To Hell

Of all of these, Sam Raimi's Drag Me to Hell was probably the most well done, but they all relied on a certain switch in most theater-goer's brains that shut down thought for 90 minutes or more. If you can ignore or embrace the inherent stupidity in any of these movies, you'll have as much fun as I did with them.

Other notable films of 2009:

Brüno

Not as good as Borat, but not as bad as some people made it out to be. Sure, it felt like a rehash, but some parts were nothing less than hernia-inducing hilarity.

The Princess and the Frog

Yes, I did gush all over it in my review, but most of that was due to my excitement at seeing traditional animation from Disney again. In the end it can't hold a candle to Up or Coraline.

Sherlock Holmes

Fun, but not in a completely brainless way. The writing and overall story were much better than I was anticipating, making the action scenes the only real dull parts of the film.

I didn't get around to watching a lot of movies that I wanted to see that I heard are also good:

Gomorrah
Bart Got a Room
Rudo Y Cursi
The Hangover
Food, Inc.
Whatever Works
It Might Get Loud
Big Fan
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
The Informant!
Bronson
Black Dynamite
The Messenger
Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
The Road
Up in the Air
Push: Based on the Novel Precious
Nine
An Education


A lot of critics and bloggers are doing "Best of Decade" lists like this one, but I've only been doing the "movie obsession" thing since like 2006. I really don't have a good enough handle on the best and worst of the decade to make that sort of list yet. But according to my flickchart account, my top twenty movies of the decade are:

1: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2: Hot Fuzz
3: Unbreakable
4: The Dark Knight
5: The Incredibles
6: Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World
7: Spirited Away
8: Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
9: Let the Right One In
10: Amélie
11: Once
12: Shaun of the Dead
13: Pan's Labyrinth
14: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
15: Casino Royale
16: American Psycho
17: The Hurt Locker
18: No Country for Old Men
19: The Wrestler
20: Memento

Aye, 'tis a fine list indeed.

Avatar (2009) Review

Released after a nearly decade-long incubation process in which its creator obsessively tinkered with its almost completely-computer-generated world and characters, sowed the seeds of failure with his "industry-changing" hyperbole, and drove a literal army of digital artists to the brink of insanity with his attention to minute detail, Avatar was nearly guaranteed to be a failure on the scale of the Hindenburg.

The reality of the finished film just goes to show; you never, ever bet against a mad genius like James Cameron.

Avatar is set in a possible future in the year 2154. Humanity is fully engaged in scouring the stars for resources, and focus their sites on Pandora, a harsh jungle hell with a toxic atmosphere and nightmarish creatures only H.P. Lovecraft could love. Paraplegic marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is transferred to this life-ending getaway to take the place of his recently-killed twin brother in an experimental attempt to win over the native Na'vi species. Jake remotely "drives" a Na'vi avatar, or genetically-manipulated clone, in order to gain the trust of the primitive, hostile race of ten foot tall blue cat people.

Things take a turn for the predictable when Jake falls in love with the creatures and their oneness with Pandora's deadly nature. Tension between the scientific arm of humanity's operation on Pandora, headed by Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), and the corporate/military complex, led by the trigger-happy Colonel Quaritch (Stephen Lang), reach a breaking point, and armed conflict becomes inevitable. Which side will Jake end up fighting for?

If you genuinely don't know the answer to that question, then you obviously haven't seen many movies. Yes, Avatar's story borrows liberally from many different sources and doesn't necessarily add anything new to the mix. The science fiction trappings and technological devices never really raise any serious questions that cinema hasn't already explored thoroughly. This is essentially the same critique of colonialism that we've seen dozens of times before with a familiar helping of white-guilt fable thrown into the mix, but it's a story that doesn't demand a lot of attention away from the game-changing visuals.

Yes, I said game-changing. James Cameron has always been known to be riding the wave of special effects innovation; he put creature effects to shame with Aliens, he revolutionized the use of CGI in The Abyss, and took a giant step further into that pool with Terminator 2; and Avatar is certainly nothing near an exception. The fully-realized world of Pandora is nothing short of breath-taking to watch unfold. Bio-luminescent plants, trees, and flowers light the night scenes with their gentle glow. The branches, leaves, and shoots all carry realistic weight when impeding a desperate foot chase. Enormous floating rocks teem with vicious winged creatures. Lovers of spectacle and pretty lights alike will gaze in ecstasy at the beauty James Cameron has lovingly crafted. It must be stated: If you plan on seeing Avatar, do yourself a big favor and see it in 3-D.

With all the unique locations Jake Sully and his blue cat friends visit on Pandora, one place they rarely go is the uncanny valley. Having been utterly unconvinced by purely digital creations in any films prior to this (save Gollum from the Lord of the Rings trilogy), I am happy to report that Avatar represents the first true advance in realistic CGI human animation on film. The facial animations, eye movements, and interactions between the digital Na'vi creatures is completely convincing, allowing us to completely accept these beings as real creatures of worth to the story. Only on a few occasions did the Na'vi hold their arms stiffly or produce robotic movements. Of all the accomplishments Avatar makes in the name of James Cameron, I am most in awe of the giant leap forward for realistic CGI animation. And when the eye-friendly action really shifts into high gear at the climax of the film, it's a good thing we have Cameron's steady and assured hand on the camera, rather than the jittery Bourne influence.

It's a shame, then, when such an otherwise-well-crafted film harbors other seemingly neglected components. On top of a rehashed story we have a lazy script, which contains plot devices like "unobtainium." I must have been the only one in the theater to break out into chuckles when I heard that one, delivered with the straightest of faces by Giovanni Ribisi. Compared to the other films in his portfolio, Avatar has no real quotable lines. "I see you" and "You're not in Kansas anymore" certainly will never hold a place alongside other Cameron classics like "Game over, man!" and "I'll be back."

The cast of Avatar is refreshingly strong, with Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana bouncing back from unmemorable roles to deliver much better performances. Stephen Lang as the villainous Col. Quaritch is perhaps Avatar's most memorable character. His complete disregard for his own safety when savagely pursuing a target is truly something to behold. The supporting cast all do well in their own right, but unfortunately play underdeveloped characters that we never have any reason to care about.

Despite a few minor complaints about originality and the general studio-processed feeling that it sometimes produces, no one can argue that Avatar is a very good film from a legitimate cinematic talent. Unlike other technologically-obsessed filmmakers his age, James Cameron continues to prove that he has the patience to craft lovely character moments, push the art of film-making forward, and . . . well, actually direct a film, rather than paint it. In any other director's hands, Avatar would have been nothing more than a extended tech demo, alá Beowulf or the Star Wars prequels. Cameron's Avatar is an fully entertaining celebration of spectacle, and one ride worth taking, if only to briefly glimpse what the future holds.

Rating:
7.5 out of 10

Holy swoon . . .

So as part of my all-consuming movie fixation, I have a volunteer-ish job with a local radio station to do their movie reviews. Volunteer-ish in the sense that I don't get paid, but I get free tickets to early showings of upcoming movies as long as I write up a review for them. It's a good gig. I write movie reviews as a hobby already, so there's no reason I can't take it to the next level.

Well, another perk of the, erm, experience is that every once in a while I get to participate in interviews with various movie personalites.

Here's my sister and I posing with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson following our interview in late 2007.

And here's a photo of me with Pete Docter, director of Disney/Pixar's 2009 film Up:

While these interviews were both cool in their own ways, my favorite, I think, happened just this morning. Over the weekend, I got to see Disney's new film, The Princess and the Frog. It was a fun, delightful return to the now-classic Disney animated films of the late 80s and early 90s with a jazzy new flavor. As part of the promotion for the film, I got to interview a couple of the animators from the film and had a blast doing it. Randy Haycock (supervising animator for the character Prince Naveen) and Bruce Smith (supervising animator for the villain Dr. Facilier) both brought their sketchpads to the interview and busted out a few quick character sketches while they answered our questions. I forgot to bring my camera this time, but instead I got a much cooler souvenir.

I think I may be in love . . .

Unconventional Thanksgiving Movies

My facebook page recently poked fun at the distinct lack of movie support for the Thanksgiving holiday. During the month of October, my sister and I came up with a hefty list of great horror movies to watch on a nightly basis to really spice up the Halloween season. We revisited classics like John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), David Cronenburg's The Fly (1986), and Shaun of the Dead (2004), while discovering new favorites, like the insanely scary Paranormal Activity (2009), or the Spanish-language pseudo-zombie spree [REC] (2007). After experiencing that much cinematic scariness, my sister and I began the month of November in the mood for more nightly movies in the spirit of the season. Too bad Hollywood has never found Thanksgiving interesting or profitable.

When I shared this dilemma with my facebook friends, I got a very informative reply from my cousin who shared a number of pilgrim-themed movie titles that I had never heard of before. While she left the quality of each movie up to my imagination, I was surprised that November had at least four movies made about it.

But seriously. there's pretty much nothing out there in movie land to celebrate Thanksgiving. The best movie I know of that features Thanksgiving as a focal plot device is the John Hughes classic buddy comedy Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (1987). In it, Steve Martin plays a high-strung business man attempting to return home from his job in New York in time for Thanksgiving when he is waylaid by a fierce snowstorm and paired with a bumbling, good natured oaf who sells shower curtain rings, played by John Candy. However, after the movie mentions Thanksgiving as Steve Martin's motivation for getting home on time, the holiday is quickly brushed to the side as the comic duo fill the screen with their odd-couple schtick until it's time for the heart-warming ending. It's not exactly extolling the virtue of gratitude.

In the midst of our cinematic drought, my sister and I decided to watch The Shawshank Redemption (1994), since she had never seen it and I simply wanted to watch it again. Watching it again reminded me how downright inspiring that movie is. Its message of hope through the darkest (and longest) of ordeals carries a phenomenal power. After the movie ended and I went to bed with the warm fuzzies, I thought to myself, "Why can't Shawshank be a Thanksgiving movie?"

It may not be a film that is strictly about Thanks and the giving thereof, but it communicates many ideals I'm thankful for; true friendship, kindness, and the sheer power of hope. So why can't I build a list of Thanksgiving movies that are about things I'm thankful for? Yesterday I sat down in front of my DVD collection and pulled out a few movies to carry me towards this Thursday on a wave of celluloid gratitude.

Amelie (2001) - Plenty of people love this French charmer starring Audrey Tatou and directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, and I'm one of them. It may broach the line of good taste when it comes to its cutesy quotient, but it balances it out by telling a great story. Odd duck Amelie Poulain is a upbeat and inquisitive soul whose discovery of an old tin box in her apartment sets her on a quest to brighten the lives of as many of the people around her as she can (while dishing out sweet comeuppance to at least one abusive fellow). Watching the light flood into the eyes of Amelie's beneficiaries while she ultimately receives her just desserts can turn the mopiest sobs into the happiest chaps.

Things I'm grateful for: Charity, love, the word "comeuppance."

8 1/2 (1963) - Well, whaddayaknow? Another foreign film. This one comes from the land of Italy and from the mind of legendary director Frederico Fellini. The synopsis for this one may not totally convince you that it's a movie to be grateful for, but somehow it all makes sense in my head. Written while Fellini was struggling on his ninth film, 8 1/2 stars Marcello Mastroianni as a director struggling with his ninth film. If you can ignore the self-indulgent nature of the premise, the substance of the film is intriguing. Mastroianni's Guido vies with an arrogant writer, a pushy producer, a self-conscious diva, his own troubled history with women, and his own infidelity to simply produce a work of art. It's a complex film, filled with flashbacks, fantastical dreams, and angry women, and it all ends with the entire cast dancing in a circle around an unfinished movie set. Pretentious? Sure, but in the best possible way.

Things I'm thankful for: The complexity of life, art, free expression, human relationships.

The Visitor (2007) - Richard Jenkins stars in this small, quiet tale about illegal immigrants. Whoops, I mean, best friends. No, seriously, Jenkins is a lonely college professor who finds illegal immigrants squatting in his Manhattan apartment. Instead of kicking them out, he allows them to stay for a few weeks, during which he bonds with his guests and they unlock his creative side through the power of music. When one of them is caught and detained by U.S. authorities, the professor fights for the rights of the friend who rebooted his drab existence. While it certainly has something political to say, the focus of the film is on Jenkins and his visitors, and the heart-warming story they tell.

Things I'm thankful for: Music and new beginnings.

There are probably plenty more movies I could watch in the Thanksgiving spirit, but since I started this exercise late in November, I don't have much time for anymore films. I think 3 will suffice for 2009. However, when Thanksgiving 2010 rolls around, I'm going to make sure I have a list of gratitude-promoting films to rival the scares I have in October.

Some thoughts on movies from a restless mind

So I am sitting. I have been doing a lot of sitting recently. Far too much, if I had to be honest, but at least I'm actually making some money sitting. I am living the loafer's dream.

Maybe I'll explain why I'm sitting and making money for it later, but for now my current position is what matters.

I'm sitting at a second-story window of a two-story apartment building, glancing outside occasionally to see the odd person walking down the relatively quiet street. I am listening to "500 Miles" by The Proclaimers and just got done listening to "One Night in Bangkok" by Murray Head. I see leaves on the trees outside browning and hanging on to their branches desperately while the tree itself struggles to shove them off, a natural interaction I just learned about thanks to NPR. I don't have access to the internet, so I'm typing this down on a blogger page I opened earlier before I lost the connection. I'm now listening to the theme song from the movie The Blob (1958) by Burt Bacharach. I've had Split Enz's "Late Last Night" stuck in my head for almost 48 hours, and I need to get it out. Maybe if I listen to Luke Temple's "More Than Muscle" next . . .

And I'm fighting to stay productive. I don't want to play S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl for 8 hours straight again, no matter how fun it is.

So I'm blogging. I may as well.

So let's make this about movies, since that's all I ever think or talk about, apparently. The last movie I watched was Gimme Shelter (1970), a documentary about The Rolling Stones. But it wasn't really about The Rolling Stones, since I probably wouldn't have watched it if it was only about The Rolling Stones. I don't like The Rolling Stones. What Gimme Shelter was really about was the end of a very bizarre era. It was about the ill-fated free concert at the Alamont Speedway in San Francisco, where the ideals of the 60s collided with the realities of humanity, where music only provoked the wild beast, and where a guy got stabbed to death. It was a fascinating look at a time altogether alien to me.

Fine media player, I didn't want to listen to anymore music anyway. Up yours.

I was wondering recently why movies are such a big deal amongst people here in Utah. And I'm not conceited enough to think that anyone reading this isn't just a personal friend of mine, so I won't bother explaining what I mean. I'm pretty sure you get what I'm talking about. Why is so much emphasis placed on the movies we should and shouldn't watch? I'd like to say I used to understand, but since my uptight teenage self died several years ago, I haven't the slightest clue what the deal is. There are vague guidelines for music, video games, and even vaguer rules for literature. However, we suddenly have a culturally-enforced, letter-based code on which we shun or embrace (but mostly shun) certain movies.

I'm serious, let's really chew on this one for a second, and keep some things in perspective. Let's break it down to its base components. What is a movie? What makes movies special? Where did the R-rating nonsense come from, and how is it perpetuated? Why am I even talking about this, and where am I going with this? Keep in mind that since I have limited to no internet at the moment most of my musings won't necessarily be paired with relevant sources. This is purely a personal spewing of mine.

This is going to sound silly, but what is a movie, precisely? You know what one is, but what is it at it's core? Is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen simply a means of telling a story? Is Roman Holiday nothing more than a product of Hollywood? Is Repo Man a comment on society? I'm hoping the answer to all these is no, because I don't think that's what they really are. All the substance and craft of There Will Be Blood and 8 1/2 and Jacob's Ladder all boil down to this fact: They are sequentially-aligned pictures, projected on a large screen in rapid succession, accompanied by some sort of audio track. This definition can include just almost every single film ever produced, as even the silent classics were often shown with some kind of audio accompaniment.

So when we make the leap from this definition to the prohibition of films with certain ratings, it seems like something of a silly proposition. But I'd like to start out with this perspective, as I think it helps keep the argument grounded.

Now comes the concession part of the discussion. Sure, I skipped several steps on the way from "series of pictures" to "seemingly arbitrary rules," like how powerful imagery can be to the human mind, or how persuasively some can utilize auditory signals. I will concede there is power in these elements, multiplied several fold when combined. In fact, that may be one reason why I obsess over movies so much. Their inherent ability to communicate to me on an emotional level is more important than the pretty colors and kick ass action I so often fawn over.

Hey look, it's next Wednesday and I'm sitting in the same spot I was on Friday. Might as well finish working on this.

So movies are really flip books with music and sounds. But some people find certain images and sounds offensive. Okay, I'll buy that. I found some things offensive when I was a teenager, so I can understand the position, but I feel like I've either grown out of that phase, or just become a soulless husk of a human being. Either way, I see where those people are coming from, and I accept the notion that parents don't want their children consuming some of that offensive material when they are too young for abstract thought. So begins the need for the movie industry to self-regulate and rate its own movies so that parents can make informed decisions about what movies they want to keep their kids away from.

However, I propose a little thought exercise. Let's imagine two offensive scenes from two different (and theoretical) movies. Let's say scene one is comprised of two thugs planning a vicious mugging on a wealthy businessman in order to grab some quick and easy cash. The attack takes place off screen, and all we see is the police reporting the breadth of the man's injuries to the press, which ultimately resulted in his death. We then see the crooks getting away with it and enjoying their ill-gotten plunder without harassment from the law. Contrast that with a similar scene of two crooks perpetuating an attack in an excessive display of on-screen violence. We see the stabbings in slow-motion, we see the jaw broken in even slower motion, and maybe even some arterial spray in mesmerizing slow motion. Once the gruesome scene is over, we see the criminals caught and faces the consequences of their actions in even more explicit detail. Whether or not they get the death penalty, we get to see them endure the torments of prison in grisly, visceral intimacy.

Now, if both cinematic sequences were submitted to the MPAA for a rating, the first one would likely get a PG or PG-13, while the second would probably get and R. Now let's have a theoretical child watch both scenes and wonder upon the results he or she is likely to extract from the parade of intertwined video and audio. Is he or she likely to grow more uncomfortable from the explicit nature of the second scene? Probably. Is he or she likely to enjoy the first one better, because of the happy ending? Again, that's possible. Is the emotional and narrative context of the first scene likely to communicate to the child that violent crime can pay in our society, so give it your best shot and hope you don't get caught? Despite the offensive nature of the second scene, would the child pull a different lesson out of it?

This is my problem with the way the Motion Picture Association of America is set up to rate movies (among other things). In their effort to help parents protect their children from media-induced harm, they are primarily concerned with the content of the films they are ranking - counting the instances of the word fuck, numbering the onscreen boobs and butts, and checking off a list of various types of violence - and almost completely ignoring the thematic content and emotional impact implicit in moving pictures. Sure, you could say, "But Kyle, they have a ranking for "some thematic material," so your point is moot!" However, really think of the last time you saw that ranking criterion used to justify a PG-13 or R rating. I have only ever seen it used to differentiate the slightly darker PG kids movies from the bright and cheery G movies.

In the mid-1980s, Ezra Taft Benson, then president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, gave three separate talks to youth of the church stating that they should avoid movies with the R rating. So, naturally, the entire church took all their R-rated VHS tapes to the used video store. Ever since then, word-of-mouth has caused the entire church (and, by extension, the cultural fabric of Utah) to think that God's will concerning movies is communicated through the MPAA. Some overzealous members of the church even banish all PG-13 films from their home, and smartly discipline their children if they watch anything more raw than Secondhand Lions.

I was raised in this world, where R was a letter to be feared and used as seldom as possible. Despite this restriction, I still developed a deep love of film, and watched all that I was allowed. While serving a mission for the church, I realized the contradictory nature of the R-rating ban, and started living without the ruling once I was home. I can't say how glad I am that I gave it up. Some of the best, most morally uplifting and inspiring films I've ever seen since have been rated R. My parents were briefly disappointed to hear about my decision, but soon began asking me how I liked many of their favorite R-rated films from their teenage years. I never knew my mom had been such a horror nut.

So why is so much effort put into dictating just what we may or may not see or hear from movies here in Utah? The conspiratorial side of me screams "social control!" While that may be a small element of it, I am more ready to believe it comes from a misguided sense of genuine concern. I think my parents wanted to shield me from some of the same stuff they saw in their youth simply because they thought I'd be better off without it, but I can't say I agree with their point of view. Movies are so much more than a smattering of potential offensive material that a Satan-possessed Hollywood industry is trying to poison our society with. They are a way to communicate emotionally when words simply aren't big or fluent enough. They are a method of expressing ideals when other mediums aren't persuasive enough. They are a way to entertain in a way that is completely unique. For all these reason, film is a medium that deserves more thought than a letter when deciding what to share with your friends, family and children.

I really don't care if you read all of that, but congrats if you did. Maybe if I have more big thoughts like this, I'll write another megablog about them. For now, I think I'll watch Aliens for the 67th time.

A Coronation, or: The first post of a doomed experiment

And it comes to this.

I am blogging.

Thanks to a recent bout of curiosity that I'm still trying to recover from, I decided to question a blogging friend about the appeal of the web log. Being someone who spent the majority of his elementary school years warming up to the concept of the written word, it seemed only fitting I be just as unreasonably skeptical about e-journaling.

Facebook was a similar struggle, but, now that I think about it, a somewhat anachronistic one. In any case, I had a hard time seeing a personal page on the web as anything but leashless narcissism. Still, the ebbing tide of peer pressure (which shouldn't have even been a thing at that point in my life) eroded my cynicism and I started a facebook account. Despite a nearly year-long hiatus, it remains active to this day.

So now the bulwarks have fallen and I am officially a blogger. I remain skeptical about the fame and legions of fans this move is promised to bring me, but thanks to my blogging friend, I now view this blog as less a means for accolades and more a font of self-reflection. Hopefully I can maintain a healthy update schedule (insert an audio clip of someone laughing derisively) in order to reap the benefits.

And who knows? Maybe when I retire I'll finally get a Twitter account!