Today on Big Think, I uncovered an article on the evolution of the human brain, an intriguing subject to me personally:
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/our-brain-didnt-need-to-evolve-so-why-did-it
The author presents their theory on why this happens, establishing their credibility by providing evidence from notable intellectual sources and provides a link to another thorough article on the subject. However, the articles don't really go into just why the evolution occurred in detail, and I have my own theory on why it did, which is very much different to the basic-at-best reasons the articles gave, but supports the same process. What you have to understand is that I am a proponent of the theory that modern humans evolved in what's now the middle east, in modern-day Arabia, several hundred thousand years ago before migrating to Africa. I could spend hours talking about the basis for this theory and my reasons for supporting it, but I'll try to sum it up; Arabia and the Sahara desert were, at the time we first evolved, fertile swamplands. In addition, fish and shellfish are more rich in the lipids and amino acids and other nutrients required for big brains than red meat. But their range overlapped with that of another species of human; the neanderthal. For the record, the common view of neanderthals as slightly shorter humans with bigger noses and eyebrows is incredibly inaccurate; neanderthal skulls more closely resemble those of chimpanzees than they do our own. Don't take my word for it; check out this comparison between a neanderthal skull and a human skull (http://hugequestions.com/Eric/Neanderthals/Neanderthal-and-Cro-Magnon-skulls.jpg) and this example of a neanderthal skull relative to a chimpanzee head (http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2012/06/mandus_comparison.jpg). If you're still not convinced, check out this photo of a chimpanzee's skull (http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/12/27/Chimp.jpg). Neanderthals had a smaller jaw, less-pronounced brows, and a larger cranial capacity than chimps, but all in all, the features of their skulls are more similar. So it's safe to say that they would have been more apelike than we are. In addition, since they'd evolved in the harshest environment in the world at the time (Ice Age Europe), they were much stronger than we are, and were likely almost exclusively carnivorous, owing to a lack of edible plants. It's a fact that neanderthals cannibalized one another (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061205-cannibals.html), so it isn't much of a stretch to imagine them viewing their scrawny southern cousins as a food source. Back then, modern humans were in the middle of the food chain. Our early, less complex-brained answers could think up ways to fend off the big cats and wild dogs they would have faced regularly, but neanderthals, as another species of human, would have been a bigger challenge. I believe that the early humans would have had to think of creative ways to deal with the neanderthals, who would have been much stronger and just as smart as we are, and that our shellfish-fuelled brains would have expanded to boost our problem solving techniques to give us a leg up on the neanderthals. Of course, this took time, and I believe that the neanderthals eventually forced us into Africa; however, what occurred in the middle east acted as a catalyst for change in the human brains. Over the next few tens or hundreds of millennia, we would have perfected our problem-solving skills in the African savannas, as suggested by the article, so that by the time we went back into the middle east and entered Eurasia, we were ready for round two with the neanderthals. And we came out on top.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
Free Post: Political Parties: Good or Evil?
This morning, my English class was cancelled. I spent the period in the library, engaging a friend of mine in a nonpartisan political conversation. During that conversation, it occurred to me just how willing we were to agree with each other, and how thoroughly we were able to discuss topics, a trait the American government seems to have lost, thanks to the deep-seated divisions of political parties. That got me thinking: would we be better off without political parties, or do these deep-seated divisions actually help the American people?
Let's start with the easier topic; the downsides of political parties. This is, perhaps, best demonstrated through our conservative Republican Party. Everybody has the stereotype of Republicans as rich old straight white men, completely disregarding others and caring for nothing but the money in their pockets. This stereotype is only reinforced by Republican presidential candidates, namely George W. Bush, John McCain and Willard Mitt Romney, all of whom come across as Tea Party stooges no matter how you look at them, proponents of big business and tax cuts for their wealthy friends. However, the vast majority of American Republicans are simple, hardworking members of the middle class, willing to work with the Democrats and compromise for the common good. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. Though Republican by party affiliation and ideology, Christie has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to work alongside Democrats and collaborated with Barack Obama for reconstruction efforts after Hurricane Sandy. Christie's bipartisan efforts have allowed him to be elected, and re-elected, as the governor as a heavily Democratic state. Rumors have circulated about a presidential run for Christie in 2016, reinforced by his own statements and recent re-election. And it's quite possible that, if nominated, he would succeed. Republicans, the majority of whom are represented by Christie, would staunchly support their candidate, and a fair number of Democrats sick and tired of partisan bickering would likely throw him their vote as well. Several of my heavily liberal friends and family members have already voiced their willingness to support Christie if he were to run for the nation's top office in two years time. However, thanks to the Tea Party leaders of the Republican Party, it's highly unlikely that Christie would be nominated. And so, political parties will continue to behave as they always have; fighting each other like mad dogs, driven to battle to the death and yet immortal at the same time. They will halt progress, delay change, and dig our nation an even deeper hole. So how could there be any good?
There is one pro to the whole scheme of political parties; that one benefit is the order they instill. Back in the pre-party days when George Washington was first elected, everything worked out dandy. The nation was united under its new constitution, behind its new not-quite-partisan president. In his famous farewell address, Washington warned that political parties would be our nation's downfall. He may very well have been right. However, political parties do exist for a reason, and that is to provide unity and order for individuals who share most of the same beliefs and ideas. And let's face it; without political parties, every individual who ran for president would basically be their own political party. You could have a congressman who supported the right to assault weapons, gay marriage, and world peace, working alongside presidents who supported nuclear arms and feeding the hungry. As staunchly divided as our people are today, at least we're primarily divided into two camps with relatively similar ideals (ignoring our other, less influential political parties). Of course, this is a double-edged sword, as people who identify as Republican are automatically judged by liberals to be racist, sexist homophobes, whereas Democrats are viewed as drug-addicted Communist sympathizers by conservatives. In the vast majority of cases, this is not at all true, but people who associate with specific parties often have to support the darker sides of their party in exchange for those aspects they value. So in the end, political parties are a double-edged sword, as I mentioned, but the edge against them is much sharper, so to speak, than the edge for them.
Let's start with the easier topic; the downsides of political parties. This is, perhaps, best demonstrated through our conservative Republican Party. Everybody has the stereotype of Republicans as rich old straight white men, completely disregarding others and caring for nothing but the money in their pockets. This stereotype is only reinforced by Republican presidential candidates, namely George W. Bush, John McCain and Willard Mitt Romney, all of whom come across as Tea Party stooges no matter how you look at them, proponents of big business and tax cuts for their wealthy friends. However, the vast majority of American Republicans are simple, hardworking members of the middle class, willing to work with the Democrats and compromise for the common good. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie. Though Republican by party affiliation and ideology, Christie has demonstrated time and time again that he is willing to work alongside Democrats and collaborated with Barack Obama for reconstruction efforts after Hurricane Sandy. Christie's bipartisan efforts have allowed him to be elected, and re-elected, as the governor as a heavily Democratic state. Rumors have circulated about a presidential run for Christie in 2016, reinforced by his own statements and recent re-election. And it's quite possible that, if nominated, he would succeed. Republicans, the majority of whom are represented by Christie, would staunchly support their candidate, and a fair number of Democrats sick and tired of partisan bickering would likely throw him their vote as well. Several of my heavily liberal friends and family members have already voiced their willingness to support Christie if he were to run for the nation's top office in two years time. However, thanks to the Tea Party leaders of the Republican Party, it's highly unlikely that Christie would be nominated. And so, political parties will continue to behave as they always have; fighting each other like mad dogs, driven to battle to the death and yet immortal at the same time. They will halt progress, delay change, and dig our nation an even deeper hole. So how could there be any good?
There is one pro to the whole scheme of political parties; that one benefit is the order they instill. Back in the pre-party days when George Washington was first elected, everything worked out dandy. The nation was united under its new constitution, behind its new not-quite-partisan president. In his famous farewell address, Washington warned that political parties would be our nation's downfall. He may very well have been right. However, political parties do exist for a reason, and that is to provide unity and order for individuals who share most of the same beliefs and ideas. And let's face it; without political parties, every individual who ran for president would basically be their own political party. You could have a congressman who supported the right to assault weapons, gay marriage, and world peace, working alongside presidents who supported nuclear arms and feeding the hungry. As staunchly divided as our people are today, at least we're primarily divided into two camps with relatively similar ideals (ignoring our other, less influential political parties). Of course, this is a double-edged sword, as people who identify as Republican are automatically judged by liberals to be racist, sexist homophobes, whereas Democrats are viewed as drug-addicted Communist sympathizers by conservatives. In the vast majority of cases, this is not at all true, but people who associate with specific parties often have to support the darker sides of their party in exchange for those aspects they value. So in the end, political parties are a double-edged sword, as I mentioned, but the edge against them is much sharper, so to speak, than the edge for them.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Big Think Post: Beyond Good and Evil
Today's topic on Big Think was Paleolithic morality. While I searched the articles connected to this topic, I found this video, which has a great deal to do with duality.
http://bigthink.com/videos/beyond-good-and-evil-understanding-our-capacity-for-moral-failure
The video starts off strong, establishing the speaker (the Dean of the Harvard Business school) as a credible, intelligent source who is obviously qualified to speak on the subject. The video corroborates one of my principal views on duality; that black and white are very rare in the world, with gray being very common (the colors representing, of course, evil and good and in-between the two). Personally, I feel that there are no people in the world who are completely good, and only a few people who are completely bad. My own opinion, as I believe I may have mentioned previously, is that we all have good sides and bad sides, making us both good and bad at the same time; a shade of gray, if you will. Owing to our own differences in personality, background and mentality, we each are a different shade of gray, some darker than others. (No reference to the literary pornography is intended, of course.) The human ego factors into the reason why we see the world in shades of black and white, as mentioned in the video. Thanks to our big heads, as Nohria mentions, we feel that when somebody does something horrible, or even slips up in a minor way, such a thing would never happen to us, because we feel that we are perfect beings living in an imperfect world, when we are actually flawed beings living in an equally flawed world. For example, it's easy for us to blame the citizens of Nazi Germany for the atrocities their nation committed to many people, and to assume that it would never happen to us. But say the economic crisis took a turn for the worse. Say that more than half the people in the nation lost their jobs. Say inflation was so bad, what could buy a Lamborghini today would be less than the price of a loaf of bread. And say a man brought us back from all that, and laid out a path for us to follow. Would you follow him? That's exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. No matter how you spin it, Hitler saved Germany as a whole from total destruction. And as for the Nazi citizens' guilt when it comes to the Holocaust, most of them were completely unaware. To the majority of the German people, Hitler was their hero, their savior. It's hard for us to view Hitler in any light that could even be remotely viewed as positive, of course, but try and see things from the perspective of the German people of the time, and that changes radically; from the 1930's German Protestant's point of view, it was hard to view Hitler in a light that was anything but positive. This in no way vindicates any of the atrocities that the Nazis committed, but, in all honesty, Americans would have acted the same way as the Germans did if the situation was reversed. So were the citizens of Nazi Germany black or white? We'd say black, thanks to our American egos, but in actuality, they were gray. A very dark gray, in some instances, but gray nonetheless.
http://bigthink.com/videos/beyond-good-and-evil-understanding-our-capacity-for-moral-failure
The video starts off strong, establishing the speaker (the Dean of the Harvard Business school) as a credible, intelligent source who is obviously qualified to speak on the subject. The video corroborates one of my principal views on duality; that black and white are very rare in the world, with gray being very common (the colors representing, of course, evil and good and in-between the two). Personally, I feel that there are no people in the world who are completely good, and only a few people who are completely bad. My own opinion, as I believe I may have mentioned previously, is that we all have good sides and bad sides, making us both good and bad at the same time; a shade of gray, if you will. Owing to our own differences in personality, background and mentality, we each are a different shade of gray, some darker than others. (No reference to the literary pornography is intended, of course.) The human ego factors into the reason why we see the world in shades of black and white, as mentioned in the video. Thanks to our big heads, as Nohria mentions, we feel that when somebody does something horrible, or even slips up in a minor way, such a thing would never happen to us, because we feel that we are perfect beings living in an imperfect world, when we are actually flawed beings living in an equally flawed world. For example, it's easy for us to blame the citizens of Nazi Germany for the atrocities their nation committed to many people, and to assume that it would never happen to us. But say the economic crisis took a turn for the worse. Say that more than half the people in the nation lost their jobs. Say inflation was so bad, what could buy a Lamborghini today would be less than the price of a loaf of bread. And say a man brought us back from all that, and laid out a path for us to follow. Would you follow him? That's exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. No matter how you spin it, Hitler saved Germany as a whole from total destruction. And as for the Nazi citizens' guilt when it comes to the Holocaust, most of them were completely unaware. To the majority of the German people, Hitler was their hero, their savior. It's hard for us to view Hitler in any light that could even be remotely viewed as positive, of course, but try and see things from the perspective of the German people of the time, and that changes radically; from the 1930's German Protestant's point of view, it was hard to view Hitler in a light that was anything but positive. This in no way vindicates any of the atrocities that the Nazis committed, but, in all honesty, Americans would have acted the same way as the Germans did if the situation was reversed. So were the citizens of Nazi Germany black or white? We'd say black, thanks to our American egos, but in actuality, they were gray. A very dark gray, in some instances, but gray nonetheless.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Free Post: What's Wrong With The Hobbit
As I believe you all have likely gathered from previous posts of mine, I'm quite the Tolkien fan. I've read all of Tolkien's novels cover-to-cover, including the extensive indexes on the characters themselves, and I've seen all of the movies they inspired directed by the one and only Peter Jackson. And the three films based on The Lord of the Rings...don't hate me, but I love them as much as I love the original Star Wars trilogy. Maybe even more. But now Peter Jackson's making a new trilogy based on Tolkien's first book, The Hobbit. And I'm not quite so enthralled with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as I was (and arguably still am) with Jackson's first trilogy. Here's a list of the reasons why:
1) Prequel vs. Sequel
When Tolkien wrote the books, there was a great deal of time between them, both in our world and in the characters' world. The Hobbit, published in the nineteen thirties, was the story of a three-foot humanoid name Bilbo Baggins, who went on an adventure with a company of dwarves and the wise wizard Gandalf to recover the home of the dwarves from the dragon Smaug. The Lord of the Rings, released fifteen years later, was set sixty years after the events of The Hobbit. Gandalf explains, in a lecture lasting several pages that somehow manages not to bore the audience out of their skulls (owing to Tolkien's genius in storytelling), how the events of The Hobbit served to catalyze events happening early in The Lord of the Rings. So, The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit; at least, that's how Tolkien intended it. In P.J.'s version, however, The Hobbit is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Now, in some ways, I feel this is a positive trait, especially in the scenes with Gollum. However, I feel that the prequel-nature is the cause for more deviations from Tolkien. There are a good fifteen minutes of film making specific references to Mordor and the Dark Lord Sauron, when neither is so much as named in the book, and I feel that it draws away from the storyline as the characters experienced it in the book.
2) Makeup vs. CGI vs. No Makeup at All
All right, let's get to the business of makeup. In P.J.'s original film, the various dwarves and orcs and goblins were created through makeup. And, as those of you who have seen the films can concur, the makeup was masterful. The artists behind it breathed life into the masks of orcs, so that you were seeing a race of malevolent goblins rather than people wearing clay noses, ears and some greenish blush. And the dwarves wore elaborate prostheses to bring them closer to Tolkien's descriptions of their facial features. But in The Hobbit, all that's gone. The orcs and the goblins are completely computer generated. So the audience goes from seeing these beautifully done, realistic orcs that seem like tangible, living creatures to watching a bunch of computer generated, obviously fake humanoids running around the screen. And the dwarves...they aren't even wearing the facial prosthetics that John Rhys-Davies suffered through during his performance as Gimli. So, rather than hardened warriors, they look like a bunch of male models showing off the latest medieval outfits. We were led to expect a certain standard by The Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit simply doesn't meet those standards.
3) Deviations from the Plot
I briefly mentioned the deviations from the plot earlier. Now it's time to dig deeper, people. The great thing about The Lord of the Rings is that the film version followed Tolkien very closely. Very few elements were cut out, very few were added. And when elements of the plot changed, it had no big impact on the flow of the story. However, this isn't the case in P.J.'s version of The Hobbit. Various elements are added for the sake of the whole prequel-thing, but that's not the point. What's important is that The Hobbit film version is to the literary version what blackberries are to blueberries; elaborating on this metaphor, the film version of The Lord of the Rings would be to the literary version what green apples are to red apples. Many characters from The Lord of the Rings make cameo appearances when they had no place in the book. P.J.'s also invented a few characters, or highly elaborated them, simply for the sake of the plot. Is this - are any of these - really necessary? Well, that's arguable, and you do need to take into account the context. But out of context, I would certainly say no.
1) Prequel vs. Sequel
When Tolkien wrote the books, there was a great deal of time between them, both in our world and in the characters' world. The Hobbit, published in the nineteen thirties, was the story of a three-foot humanoid name Bilbo Baggins, who went on an adventure with a company of dwarves and the wise wizard Gandalf to recover the home of the dwarves from the dragon Smaug. The Lord of the Rings, released fifteen years later, was set sixty years after the events of The Hobbit. Gandalf explains, in a lecture lasting several pages that somehow manages not to bore the audience out of their skulls (owing to Tolkien's genius in storytelling), how the events of The Hobbit served to catalyze events happening early in The Lord of the Rings. So, The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit; at least, that's how Tolkien intended it. In P.J.'s version, however, The Hobbit is a prequel to The Lord of the Rings. Now, in some ways, I feel this is a positive trait, especially in the scenes with Gollum. However, I feel that the prequel-nature is the cause for more deviations from Tolkien. There are a good fifteen minutes of film making specific references to Mordor and the Dark Lord Sauron, when neither is so much as named in the book, and I feel that it draws away from the storyline as the characters experienced it in the book.
2) Makeup vs. CGI vs. No Makeup at All
All right, let's get to the business of makeup. In P.J.'s original film, the various dwarves and orcs and goblins were created through makeup. And, as those of you who have seen the films can concur, the makeup was masterful. The artists behind it breathed life into the masks of orcs, so that you were seeing a race of malevolent goblins rather than people wearing clay noses, ears and some greenish blush. And the dwarves wore elaborate prostheses to bring them closer to Tolkien's descriptions of their facial features. But in The Hobbit, all that's gone. The orcs and the goblins are completely computer generated. So the audience goes from seeing these beautifully done, realistic orcs that seem like tangible, living creatures to watching a bunch of computer generated, obviously fake humanoids running around the screen. And the dwarves...they aren't even wearing the facial prosthetics that John Rhys-Davies suffered through during his performance as Gimli. So, rather than hardened warriors, they look like a bunch of male models showing off the latest medieval outfits. We were led to expect a certain standard by The Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit simply doesn't meet those standards.
3) Deviations from the Plot
I briefly mentioned the deviations from the plot earlier. Now it's time to dig deeper, people. The great thing about The Lord of the Rings is that the film version followed Tolkien very closely. Very few elements were cut out, very few were added. And when elements of the plot changed, it had no big impact on the flow of the story. However, this isn't the case in P.J.'s version of The Hobbit. Various elements are added for the sake of the whole prequel-thing, but that's not the point. What's important is that The Hobbit film version is to the literary version what blackberries are to blueberries; elaborating on this metaphor, the film version of The Lord of the Rings would be to the literary version what green apples are to red apples. Many characters from The Lord of the Rings make cameo appearances when they had no place in the book. P.J.'s also invented a few characters, or highly elaborated them, simply for the sake of the plot. Is this - are any of these - really necessary? Well, that's arguable, and you do need to take into account the context. But out of context, I would certainly say no.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Myths and Duality: My Outtake
Just as a heads-up: my posts this week will probably be below their usual standards, what with the musical. However, I'll do my best to keep them up to par.
I feel as though The Power of Myth makes the subjects that it deals with far more appealing to people in our society, which, although theoretically secular, is based strongly on Christian ideals. That's a double-edged sword in some ways, but that's an entirely different, highly controversial matter for another time. Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers present Campbell's theory in a way that does not try to discredit religion as a whole; rather, it supports all religions, which makes it appeal to a variety of people with different backgrounds and different beliefs. Among the things that stood out to me were the connections made between Christianity, specifically the Old Testament, and African myth. In both cases, the creator had made man and woman and a variety of animals. In both cases, the creator had forbidden all to eat the fruit of a specific tree. And in both cases, a dastardly talking serpent convinced man and woman to eat said forbidden fruit, and was blamed. The striking similarities of these two stories, which likely developed independently of one another, is another matter entirely. But what made this stand out is that Campbell and Moyer took a well-known Christian story and projected it outside of Christianity in the very beginning, making the largely-Christian-influenced audience more likely to listen to the rest of the documentary.
The other elements of the documentary that stood out to me were those dealing with the Hindu myths and culture. The statue-carving of the "Mask of God" in the cave was particularly intriguing. The shots incorporated helped the audience, or at least me, draw a sense of the scale of the carvings, and their location. The location itself - deep within an underground cave - was enough to grab my attention, although I may not necessarily speak for everyone else. But the whole concept of duality represented by the mask and the two opposite faces - one male, one female - kept the audience listening. The whole concept of good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, all with humankind smack dab in the middle, is very relevant. Most religions encourage us to do what's right, but we all have darkness in our hearts; some of us more than others. Heck, there are quite a few people that I would kill in painful ways if I thought I could get away with it. And you all thought I was a halfway decent guy...but in all honesty, how many of you haven't wished death upon someone before?
The teachings of the Hindu guru Campbell referred to in the documentary were also highly significant. Campbell asked the guru that, if all the universe was sacred to Hindus, were all the evils of the universe sacred as well? The priest replied that yes, they were all sacred. This is a very different way of thinking than the general western mindset; here in America, we feel that evils should be punished, in accordance to how evil they were. The idea that Hitler's murder of millions of innocents, the horrors of slavery, and the 9-11 attacks are something to be idolized doesn't quite sit well with us. But that's taking things a bit out of proportion; I'm no Hindu (I'm sure you're all shocked by that), but I would guess that these things are relative. Hopefully I'm not offending anyone with my inferences, but I don't think any person in their right mind would be willing or able to vindicate the Nazis, even if they have a respect for all actions. Campbell presented the events in this way, at any rate, saying that it applied to us all, and that our darker sides were just as important to who we are as individuals as our good sides.
The presentation of the myth of Indra and the carpenter god Vishvakarma was particularly notable to me, personally. As religions, Hinduism and Christianity are very similar and very different at the same time. "Like, and yet unalike," as J.R.R. Tolkien put it (although he was referring to a very different topic). Many people here in the U.S. are automatically inclined to be hostile to beliefs that are not their own, and in regards to the deities involved, Hinduism and Christianity are as different as they come. However, the use of the images to portray the myth itself greatly boosted Campbell's telling of the myth; all in all, it simply seemed like storytelling. The gods in the myth simply seemed like regular people, going about their business, trying to get themselves out of fixes. That's an easy story for anybody to relate to, which is why Campbell's choice to utilize it when comparing religions was so affective.
I feel as though The Power of Myth makes the subjects that it deals with far more appealing to people in our society, which, although theoretically secular, is based strongly on Christian ideals. That's a double-edged sword in some ways, but that's an entirely different, highly controversial matter for another time. Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers present Campbell's theory in a way that does not try to discredit religion as a whole; rather, it supports all religions, which makes it appeal to a variety of people with different backgrounds and different beliefs. Among the things that stood out to me were the connections made between Christianity, specifically the Old Testament, and African myth. In both cases, the creator had made man and woman and a variety of animals. In both cases, the creator had forbidden all to eat the fruit of a specific tree. And in both cases, a dastardly talking serpent convinced man and woman to eat said forbidden fruit, and was blamed. The striking similarities of these two stories, which likely developed independently of one another, is another matter entirely. But what made this stand out is that Campbell and Moyer took a well-known Christian story and projected it outside of Christianity in the very beginning, making the largely-Christian-influenced audience more likely to listen to the rest of the documentary.
The other elements of the documentary that stood out to me were those dealing with the Hindu myths and culture. The statue-carving of the "Mask of God" in the cave was particularly intriguing. The shots incorporated helped the audience, or at least me, draw a sense of the scale of the carvings, and their location. The location itself - deep within an underground cave - was enough to grab my attention, although I may not necessarily speak for everyone else. But the whole concept of duality represented by the mask and the two opposite faces - one male, one female - kept the audience listening. The whole concept of good and evil, right and wrong, light and dark, all with humankind smack dab in the middle, is very relevant. Most religions encourage us to do what's right, but we all have darkness in our hearts; some of us more than others. Heck, there are quite a few people that I would kill in painful ways if I thought I could get away with it. And you all thought I was a halfway decent guy...but in all honesty, how many of you haven't wished death upon someone before?
The teachings of the Hindu guru Campbell referred to in the documentary were also highly significant. Campbell asked the guru that, if all the universe was sacred to Hindus, were all the evils of the universe sacred as well? The priest replied that yes, they were all sacred. This is a very different way of thinking than the general western mindset; here in America, we feel that evils should be punished, in accordance to how evil they were. The idea that Hitler's murder of millions of innocents, the horrors of slavery, and the 9-11 attacks are something to be idolized doesn't quite sit well with us. But that's taking things a bit out of proportion; I'm no Hindu (I'm sure you're all shocked by that), but I would guess that these things are relative. Hopefully I'm not offending anyone with my inferences, but I don't think any person in their right mind would be willing or able to vindicate the Nazis, even if they have a respect for all actions. Campbell presented the events in this way, at any rate, saying that it applied to us all, and that our darker sides were just as important to who we are as individuals as our good sides.
The presentation of the myth of Indra and the carpenter god Vishvakarma was particularly notable to me, personally. As religions, Hinduism and Christianity are very similar and very different at the same time. "Like, and yet unalike," as J.R.R. Tolkien put it (although he was referring to a very different topic). Many people here in the U.S. are automatically inclined to be hostile to beliefs that are not their own, and in regards to the deities involved, Hinduism and Christianity are as different as they come. However, the use of the images to portray the myth itself greatly boosted Campbell's telling of the myth; all in all, it simply seemed like storytelling. The gods in the myth simply seemed like regular people, going about their business, trying to get themselves out of fixes. That's an easy story for anybody to relate to, which is why Campbell's choice to utilize it when comparing religions was so affective.
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Big Think: T.R. and Journalism
Today on Big Think, I came across this article on one of America's greatest presidents, and the way he influenced a significant element of modern culture.
http://bigthink.com/the-voice-of-big-think/teddy-roosevelts-lessons-in-media-savvy
Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth president of the United States, held the nation's highest office from 1901 to 1909. A moderate Republican by today's standards, he was considered progressive at the time, and campaigned for "Square Deal" reforms throughout many spheres of the nation. What's interesting in this article is the idea that Teddy Roosevelt used the media to his advantage, something I hadn't considered. Previously, I'd thought that Roosevelt had felt nothing but disdain for the journalists he deemed "Muckrakers." As the name Roosevelt coined implies, he felt that journalists were there only to get the metaphorical dirt on him and make a profit out of it. However, the author's claim - that Roosevelt used the journalists of the time to his advantage - makes perfect sense. Roosevelt was a war hero, and one of the best-known men in America at the time. As I mentioned before, he was a Progressive Republican, and appealed to many people as a result of this. And he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent man; he had an extensive military background, both as a strategist and a soldier, and an innate knowledge of human psychology. The latter of these qualities influenced many of his policies, both foreign ("Speak softly and carry a big stick") and domestic. Why wouldn't such a man have used the public's desire for reform, his own desire for reform, and the media's desire for a new scoop to his advantage when pushing through reform. Although the article doesn't specify how, it doesn't take too much imagination to believe that Teddy Roosevelt could have accomplished this with ease.
Another thing the author does well is their refusal to disclose too much information. Generally, that is something I would criticize such a post for; however, this article in particular is trying to promote a book on the subject of Teddy Roosevelt's relationships with some of the muckraking journalists he seemed to despise, and how he used this relationship to boost his reform. If the author were to say, "Oh, and Roosevelt also did this, this and this to use the media to boost his popularity," nobody would buy the book they're promoting; they'd have all they wanted to know there. Rather than make this mistake, the author proposes an idea that makes sense to audience members with a historical background, provides context and information on the subject, but refuses to go into detail in order to actually achieve their purpose. I feel that this post was very well-written, especially with regards to its intent, and the subject matter interests me greatly.
http://bigthink.com/the-voice-of-big-think/teddy-roosevelts-lessons-in-media-savvy
Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt, the twenty-sixth president of the United States, held the nation's highest office from 1901 to 1909. A moderate Republican by today's standards, he was considered progressive at the time, and campaigned for "Square Deal" reforms throughout many spheres of the nation. What's interesting in this article is the idea that Teddy Roosevelt used the media to his advantage, something I hadn't considered. Previously, I'd thought that Roosevelt had felt nothing but disdain for the journalists he deemed "Muckrakers." As the name Roosevelt coined implies, he felt that journalists were there only to get the metaphorical dirt on him and make a profit out of it. However, the author's claim - that Roosevelt used the journalists of the time to his advantage - makes perfect sense. Roosevelt was a war hero, and one of the best-known men in America at the time. As I mentioned before, he was a Progressive Republican, and appealed to many people as a result of this. And he was, by all accounts, a very intelligent man; he had an extensive military background, both as a strategist and a soldier, and an innate knowledge of human psychology. The latter of these qualities influenced many of his policies, both foreign ("Speak softly and carry a big stick") and domestic. Why wouldn't such a man have used the public's desire for reform, his own desire for reform, and the media's desire for a new scoop to his advantage when pushing through reform. Although the article doesn't specify how, it doesn't take too much imagination to believe that Teddy Roosevelt could have accomplished this with ease.
Another thing the author does well is their refusal to disclose too much information. Generally, that is something I would criticize such a post for; however, this article in particular is trying to promote a book on the subject of Teddy Roosevelt's relationships with some of the muckraking journalists he seemed to despise, and how he used this relationship to boost his reform. If the author were to say, "Oh, and Roosevelt also did this, this and this to use the media to boost his popularity," nobody would buy the book they're promoting; they'd have all they wanted to know there. Rather than make this mistake, the author proposes an idea that makes sense to audience members with a historical background, provides context and information on the subject, but refuses to go into detail in order to actually achieve their purpose. I feel that this post was very well-written, especially with regards to its intent, and the subject matter interests me greatly.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Quarter 2 Free Post #1: The Genius of J.R.R. Tolkien
To kick off the second quarter, I've decided to discuss the most iconic writer of the last century. J.R.R. Tolkien, for those of you who have never read his books, is basically the god of literature. Even though he was one of the last English Catholics, he's still the god of literature. Why? Because, quite literally, every fiction writer since Tolkien has taken a leaf (or seven) from his works. For those of you who are saying, "Oh, Brian must be a real Tolkien geek," I have two things to say to you. Number one...yes, you're right. Number two...you must not have read the books. Because the thing about writers (and I don't think I speak for myself) is that they like to read. And people who like to read like to read good books. (This is meant to be sarcastic, but the Internet is new the whole "irony" thing.) I challenge you to find any fiction novel written in the last fifty years that an educated Tolkien geek like me cannot connect to The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings. Just for the heck of it, let's list a few well-known young adult books from this time period, shall we?
1) Harry Potter:
For those of you who think that Harry Potter and his gang are unique, I would say something, but I'd be too busy laughing at you. Don't get me wrong; I grew up on and love the Harry Potter books, but half of J.K. Rowling's plot is word-for-word Tolkien. Let's start with this whole "Voldemort" concept. Vanquished long before the start of the series, by the least likely hero imaginable? Check. Brutal, monstrous murderer who betrayed his own people and started a conflict that lead to hundreds upon hundreds of deaths? Check. Reborn for the series? Check. Who does this remind you of? Well, certainly not the Dark Lord of Mordor, Sauron, who had the exact same thing happen to him fifty years before J.K. took out her pen and started writing. And don't get me started on those Horcruxes; enchanted objects, usually jewelry, that contains part of the life force of a villain. So long as the villain's Horcrux (and Voldemort had seven) remains intact, the villain survives. Gosh, where did J.K. get her original ideas from? Certainly not THE ONE RING, the single most famous literary object in history, which is exactly what the Horcruxes are. The list goes on and on, too; the giant spiders, the dragons, the magic. Dumbledore is an obvious spoof of Gandalf, while Harry himself combines elements of the characters of Frodo and Aragorn. Ron is a sort of Sam-Pippin character, a funny guy who turns out to be vital to the plot. I could go on and on about this, but I don't want to bore you all.
2) Percy Jackson and the Olympians
This series, a childhood favorite of mine, contains fewer Tolkien references than the Harry Potter series. However, there is a big one, one that most readers would overlook, as it has become so ingrained in modern literature; the presence of a female character who is smarter and, in many ways, stronger than the male characters. This element is present in numerous films and books from the last century (I'm looking at you, J.K.). But, as we discussed in class, Tolkien did it first, with the character Eowyn. Owing to a poorly-worded prophecy, she is the lone character who can kill the chieftain of the demonic Nazgul, the Witch-King, who spends a great deal of time boasting how "No man can kill [him]." After four pages of an intense literary battle, Eowyn sticks a sword in his face, shutting him up for all eternity.
3) A Song of Ice and Fire
I'm not sure if all of you are familiar with this series, the inspiration for the top-rated HBO series Game of Thrones. What I do know, and I think those who've read the books would agree, is that the author, George R.R. Martin, certainly did not take many plot elements from Tolkien. However, he does use many Tolkienic (I'm actually surprised that isn't a real English word) devices in the construction of his fictional world. The big one is the creation of a complex history for his world. Tolkien did it first, in posthumously released book called The Silmarillion, which his son found in his desk. Tolkien had written a history for Middle-Earth, incredibly detailed and complex to an impossible degree, several hundred pages in length. You just can't compete with that, and what makes Martin's works great (in this regard, even if you ignore all the other elements that make his works genius) is the simple fact that he doesn't try to. Another way in which Martin tips his hat to Tolkien is the fact that he created a language for the Dothraki, a race of horsemen living in the east of his world. He did call on his fans to help him out; to be fair, Tolkien did base one of his languages (Elvish) heavily on Finnish. But that doesn't change the fact Tolkien created a language for every race, every nation, every group in his books; the grand total includes Elvish, Dwarvish, Rohirric, Entish, Gondoran, the Black Tongue of Mordor, and a few scattered words in several dialects of Orc-Speech. And then Tolkien goes and creates poems and songs, many of which last for pages, out of these languages. Once again, to be fair to Martin, Tolkien was the kind of guy who did this in his spare time because he thought it was fun. I think I would have gotten along pretty well with Tolkien.
Side note: Tolkien drew his stories from Norse mythology, Christianity, his own experiences in the first World War, and...Shakespeare! Many elements from his stories are based on Shakespeare, or his improvements of them. Eowyn's ability to kill the Witch-King, based on poor word choice, is a tribute to Macduff's ability to kill Macbeth in the play of the same name. Another Macbeth reference is present, which requires a bit of backstory: supposedly, as a child, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, saw a production of Macbeth, and was disappointed when the forest's arrival at the hill was simply the actors carrying branches. According to Tolkien, he decided at that moment that, some day, he would do that scene the way it was supposed to be done. Lo and behold, in the second volume of The Lord of the Rings (one book published in three volumes, the second of which is The Two Towers), Tolkien devotes an entire chapter to the destruction of the fortress of Isengard at the hands of the Ents, a race of giant tree-men (with their own language and history). So, by extension, everybody making a reference to Tolkien is making a reference to Shakespeare! Oh, Shakespeare, how thou art still in culture!
1) Harry Potter:
For those of you who think that Harry Potter and his gang are unique, I would say something, but I'd be too busy laughing at you. Don't get me wrong; I grew up on and love the Harry Potter books, but half of J.K. Rowling's plot is word-for-word Tolkien. Let's start with this whole "Voldemort" concept. Vanquished long before the start of the series, by the least likely hero imaginable? Check. Brutal, monstrous murderer who betrayed his own people and started a conflict that lead to hundreds upon hundreds of deaths? Check. Reborn for the series? Check. Who does this remind you of? Well, certainly not the Dark Lord of Mordor, Sauron, who had the exact same thing happen to him fifty years before J.K. took out her pen and started writing. And don't get me started on those Horcruxes; enchanted objects, usually jewelry, that contains part of the life force of a villain. So long as the villain's Horcrux (and Voldemort had seven) remains intact, the villain survives. Gosh, where did J.K. get her original ideas from? Certainly not THE ONE RING, the single most famous literary object in history, which is exactly what the Horcruxes are. The list goes on and on, too; the giant spiders, the dragons, the magic. Dumbledore is an obvious spoof of Gandalf, while Harry himself combines elements of the characters of Frodo and Aragorn. Ron is a sort of Sam-Pippin character, a funny guy who turns out to be vital to the plot. I could go on and on about this, but I don't want to bore you all.
2) Percy Jackson and the Olympians
This series, a childhood favorite of mine, contains fewer Tolkien references than the Harry Potter series. However, there is a big one, one that most readers would overlook, as it has become so ingrained in modern literature; the presence of a female character who is smarter and, in many ways, stronger than the male characters. This element is present in numerous films and books from the last century (I'm looking at you, J.K.). But, as we discussed in class, Tolkien did it first, with the character Eowyn. Owing to a poorly-worded prophecy, she is the lone character who can kill the chieftain of the demonic Nazgul, the Witch-King, who spends a great deal of time boasting how "No man can kill [him]." After four pages of an intense literary battle, Eowyn sticks a sword in his face, shutting him up for all eternity.
3) A Song of Ice and Fire
I'm not sure if all of you are familiar with this series, the inspiration for the top-rated HBO series Game of Thrones. What I do know, and I think those who've read the books would agree, is that the author, George R.R. Martin, certainly did not take many plot elements from Tolkien. However, he does use many Tolkienic (I'm actually surprised that isn't a real English word) devices in the construction of his fictional world. The big one is the creation of a complex history for his world. Tolkien did it first, in posthumously released book called The Silmarillion, which his son found in his desk. Tolkien had written a history for Middle-Earth, incredibly detailed and complex to an impossible degree, several hundred pages in length. You just can't compete with that, and what makes Martin's works great (in this regard, even if you ignore all the other elements that make his works genius) is the simple fact that he doesn't try to. Another way in which Martin tips his hat to Tolkien is the fact that he created a language for the Dothraki, a race of horsemen living in the east of his world. He did call on his fans to help him out; to be fair, Tolkien did base one of his languages (Elvish) heavily on Finnish. But that doesn't change the fact Tolkien created a language for every race, every nation, every group in his books; the grand total includes Elvish, Dwarvish, Rohirric, Entish, Gondoran, the Black Tongue of Mordor, and a few scattered words in several dialects of Orc-Speech. And then Tolkien goes and creates poems and songs, many of which last for pages, out of these languages. Once again, to be fair to Martin, Tolkien was the kind of guy who did this in his spare time because he thought it was fun. I think I would have gotten along pretty well with Tolkien.
Side note: Tolkien drew his stories from Norse mythology, Christianity, his own experiences in the first World War, and...Shakespeare! Many elements from his stories are based on Shakespeare, or his improvements of them. Eowyn's ability to kill the Witch-King, based on poor word choice, is a tribute to Macduff's ability to kill Macbeth in the play of the same name. Another Macbeth reference is present, which requires a bit of backstory: supposedly, as a child, John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, saw a production of Macbeth, and was disappointed when the forest's arrival at the hill was simply the actors carrying branches. According to Tolkien, he decided at that moment that, some day, he would do that scene the way it was supposed to be done. Lo and behold, in the second volume of The Lord of the Rings (one book published in three volumes, the second of which is The Two Towers), Tolkien devotes an entire chapter to the destruction of the fortress of Isengard at the hands of the Ents, a race of giant tree-men (with their own language and history). So, by extension, everybody making a reference to Tolkien is making a reference to Shakespeare! Oh, Shakespeare, how thou art still in culture!
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Big Think Post: Neuroaesthetics
On Big Think today, I uncovered this particular article. Here's the link:
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/beauty-is-in-the-brain-of-the-beholder
This article only vaguely relevant to STAC, as it deals with something so foreign to us as art. Crazy, right? (In case you're technologically challenged, like me, that's sarcasm.) The article discusses both why and how the human brain is moved by different types of art. Personally, I think that this article is one of the best I've found on Big Think - a bit of a problem for me, as most of my Big Think posts are me finding flaws in the articles; but I digress. The article is well-written and thoroughly explains just how this all occurs. I'm a bit surprised that the article didn't elaborate more on its claim that art was vital to humanity, helping our ancient ancestors outcompete their aesthetically-challenged Neanderthal cousins. Personally, I'd have put in my two cents worth on that point, rather than simply stating, although not directly, "this happened because it happened." If it weren't for the fact that this article is more about how art appeals to us (neurologically speaking) rather than why, I wouldn't think that this is such a strong article, which I do. The article is well-written, to say the least, providing detailed explanations of the numerous scientific processes it discusses and dumbing them down for your everyday average Joe. It discusses why artists use "amplified colors" in their work (I put that in for you, Danny), describes the procedures that scientists used to determine this, and includes an excellent video from a leading authority on the subject. The video, obviously well thought-out, is straightforward and easy for the audience to understand, even if they have no prior knowledge on the subject (which I assume most of us don't, though I could be wrong). Another strength in this article is that it draws the subject outside of art by mentioning its potential applications in the fields of science and medicine. The article further strengthens itself by referring to critics who feel that neuroaesthetics are degrading our appreciation with art, and countering it with the professor's statement that this new science will not impact how we react; it will simply allow us to understand why. And as we all know, understanding why something happens or works doesn't always make it less important.
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/beauty-is-in-the-brain-of-the-beholder
This article only vaguely relevant to STAC, as it deals with something so foreign to us as art. Crazy, right? (In case you're technologically challenged, like me, that's sarcasm.) The article discusses both why and how the human brain is moved by different types of art. Personally, I think that this article is one of the best I've found on Big Think - a bit of a problem for me, as most of my Big Think posts are me finding flaws in the articles; but I digress. The article is well-written and thoroughly explains just how this all occurs. I'm a bit surprised that the article didn't elaborate more on its claim that art was vital to humanity, helping our ancient ancestors outcompete their aesthetically-challenged Neanderthal cousins. Personally, I'd have put in my two cents worth on that point, rather than simply stating, although not directly, "this happened because it happened." If it weren't for the fact that this article is more about how art appeals to us (neurologically speaking) rather than why, I wouldn't think that this is such a strong article, which I do. The article is well-written, to say the least, providing detailed explanations of the numerous scientific processes it discusses and dumbing them down for your everyday average Joe. It discusses why artists use "amplified colors" in their work (I put that in for you, Danny), describes the procedures that scientists used to determine this, and includes an excellent video from a leading authority on the subject. The video, obviously well thought-out, is straightforward and easy for the audience to understand, even if they have no prior knowledge on the subject (which I assume most of us don't, though I could be wrong). Another strength in this article is that it draws the subject outside of art by mentioning its potential applications in the fields of science and medicine. The article further strengthens itself by referring to critics who feel that neuroaesthetics are degrading our appreciation with art, and countering it with the professor's statement that this new science will not impact how we react; it will simply allow us to understand why. And as we all know, understanding why something happens or works doesn't always make it less important.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Free Post: My Favorite Soundtracks Part 2 (1970's to Present)
Here we are again; my five favorite movie soundtracks of all time (from the last forty years). The best of the best, the most powerful, meaningful, or downright most amazing soundtracks, all according to yours truly. All of these come from favorite movies of mine, with the exception of number five...
Number Five: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: Main Theme (Michael Kamen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Edkb2Qo9c
I'm not the biggest fan of this film. The plot isn't that bad, the acting (overall) is okay, and it has the man, the myth, the Morgan Freeman. The catch (and it's a big one) - I'm not so sure I dig the whole "American Robin Hood" thing. To put it as Cary Ewes did in Mel Brooks's spoof (Robin Hood: Men in Tights) when asked why the people would follow him: "Because...unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can actually do an English accent." And to be quite honest with you, Kevin Costner lapsed in that regard. A lot. It's even worse than an English Superman; at least Henry Cavill got the accent down. But you can't deny that the theme is amazing. The brassy orchestral piece is just about as heroic as they come. Maybe a bit too heroic for the film's purposes, but not for listening to on a regular basis.
Number Four: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The Bridge of Khazad-Dum (Howard Shore)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUIZvAe3RBg
Now, you know what they all say when a novel is made into a movie: the book is always better. And, as an individual who has read all of Tolkien's works and seen all of the Peter Jackson-directed films they inspired, I would have to agree. But let's be perfectly honest: Tolkien created entire languages in his spare time. He created an entire history and an entire mythos for his world of Middle-Earth, based predominantly on Norse mythology and Christianity. The characters he created are so complicated and so bound together...the strength of the friendships between all the members of the fellowship still makes me feel warm inside. This is something that nobody will ever be able to capture. And just look at the films - overall, they follow the books very accurately. The plot, although altered in ways, still flows. And the characters are the closest, most tightly-knit, and plain old best group of friends in all the films I've ever seen. Although they didn't quite capture Tolkien, they came closer than anybody could have ever imagined. That's what makes this song so powerful - the chanting you hear in the middle is actually Dwarvish (a real language, created by Tolkien), and the lament at the end is Elvish (again, another Tolkienic language), in a scene where the character's pain is terrible, thanks to some of the greatest acting I've ever seen. And it fits perfectly with the context of the scene. In fact, if you ask me, only one movie soundtrack fits better with an individual scene, and it comes in at number three.
Number Three: Braveheart: Bannockburn (James Horner)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gXApvgxQH0
(For the record, the part of the track to which I refer starts at the 3:30 mark and continues to the end of the video.)
Ah, back before Mel Gibson was completely insane...don't judge the movie by the views of the guy who made it, try to judge it objectively. Everybody had a problem with it; critics complained that the filmmakers used too much artistic license when interpreting historical facts. The English people complained that it portrayed the English people as rapacious, egomaniacal d**kheads (which, in my opinion, is the only fact the movie truly got right). And many more people complained that the scene where the prince of England's (male) lover was defenestrated (thrown out a window to his death) made fun of gay people, when in actuality it was intended to demonstrate the cruelty of the film's main antagonist (and, doubtless, some of Mel's subconscious played a role in it as well). Say what you will about the movie; I think it's pretty good, all things considered. The acting is top-notch; what really draws me in are the nonverbal cues you get from the characters in the film. The relationships between the characters is captured beautifully, and the (albeit inaccurate) plot poses no problems to me. But the ending scene, with this soundtrack...I just think it's perfect. If you haven't seen the movie, I won't spoil it for you...but the acting is just as good as it is in The Lord of the Rings. The character's emotions are tangible, and the scene is tear-jerkingly powerful.
Number Two: King Arthur: Woad to Ruin/Knights March (Hans Zimmer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJDB1G4z4g
A piece that very nearly made the top spot of my list, from what I feel is one of the most underrated films of all time. IMDB gives it a 6.1 out of ten, and many other sources give it mediocre ratings I feel it does not deserve. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it's a take on the possible historical basis for the mythic figure of King Arthur, who historians agree was based on a Romano-British leader who fought the invading Saxons after the Roman Empire withdrew from the island. In particular, this film focuses on a unit of auxiliary cavalry stationed at Hadrian's Wall, commanded by a descendant of the real Roman leader Lucius Artorius Castus...known to the native Celts as "Arthur."What makes me angry is the argument that critics use to justify their poor ratings. It's not the relationships between the characters, which are impeccable. It's not the quality of the acting, which (with the exception of some minor parts) is up there with the best. And it's not the plot, even though the historical accuracy is subject to debate. No; it's the fact that this film does not follow the Arthurian legend. And that just infuriates me. That's like watching a movie about the American Revolution and complaining that it doesn't involve the Civil War. It's not supposed to follow the Arthurian legend, you dunces. It's a possible demonstration of what a historical basis for King Arthur might look like. But I digress...the song itself, from the genius of Hans Zimmer, is amazing. Zimmer leads the listener on, fooling them with a series of false climaxes. And around the nine minute mark, he gives you the true climax of the work. But don't you dare skip ahead to try to find it; listen to the duration of the track. You won't regret it.
Number One: Star Wars: The Imperial March (John Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
Need I say anything?
Fine, I'll say something; this soundtrack, intended as a theme for the Galactic Empire, perfectly fits the greatest film villain of all time. And no, American Film Institute, Hannibal Lector is not a better villain than Darth Vader. Ask yourself, how would a meeting between the two of them go?
"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a...gaack..."
"I find you (inhale-exhale) disturbing."
If you can't figure out what action I'm referencing...I'm sorry, but you don't deserve to live in the civilized world.
Number Five: Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves: Main Theme (Michael Kamen)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5Edkb2Qo9c
I'm not the biggest fan of this film. The plot isn't that bad, the acting (overall) is okay, and it has the man, the myth, the Morgan Freeman. The catch (and it's a big one) - I'm not so sure I dig the whole "American Robin Hood" thing. To put it as Cary Ewes did in Mel Brooks's spoof (Robin Hood: Men in Tights) when asked why the people would follow him: "Because...unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can actually do an English accent." And to be quite honest with you, Kevin Costner lapsed in that regard. A lot. It's even worse than an English Superman; at least Henry Cavill got the accent down. But you can't deny that the theme is amazing. The brassy orchestral piece is just about as heroic as they come. Maybe a bit too heroic for the film's purposes, but not for listening to on a regular basis.
Number Four: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The Bridge of Khazad-Dum (Howard Shore)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUIZvAe3RBg
Now, you know what they all say when a novel is made into a movie: the book is always better. And, as an individual who has read all of Tolkien's works and seen all of the Peter Jackson-directed films they inspired, I would have to agree. But let's be perfectly honest: Tolkien created entire languages in his spare time. He created an entire history and an entire mythos for his world of Middle-Earth, based predominantly on Norse mythology and Christianity. The characters he created are so complicated and so bound together...the strength of the friendships between all the members of the fellowship still makes me feel warm inside. This is something that nobody will ever be able to capture. And just look at the films - overall, they follow the books very accurately. The plot, although altered in ways, still flows. And the characters are the closest, most tightly-knit, and plain old best group of friends in all the films I've ever seen. Although they didn't quite capture Tolkien, they came closer than anybody could have ever imagined. That's what makes this song so powerful - the chanting you hear in the middle is actually Dwarvish (a real language, created by Tolkien), and the lament at the end is Elvish (again, another Tolkienic language), in a scene where the character's pain is terrible, thanks to some of the greatest acting I've ever seen. And it fits perfectly with the context of the scene. In fact, if you ask me, only one movie soundtrack fits better with an individual scene, and it comes in at number three.
Number Three: Braveheart: Bannockburn (James Horner)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gXApvgxQH0
(For the record, the part of the track to which I refer starts at the 3:30 mark and continues to the end of the video.)
Ah, back before Mel Gibson was completely insane...don't judge the movie by the views of the guy who made it, try to judge it objectively. Everybody had a problem with it; critics complained that the filmmakers used too much artistic license when interpreting historical facts. The English people complained that it portrayed the English people as rapacious, egomaniacal d**kheads (which, in my opinion, is the only fact the movie truly got right). And many more people complained that the scene where the prince of England's (male) lover was defenestrated (thrown out a window to his death) made fun of gay people, when in actuality it was intended to demonstrate the cruelty of the film's main antagonist (and, doubtless, some of Mel's subconscious played a role in it as well). Say what you will about the movie; I think it's pretty good, all things considered. The acting is top-notch; what really draws me in are the nonverbal cues you get from the characters in the film. The relationships between the characters is captured beautifully, and the (albeit inaccurate) plot poses no problems to me. But the ending scene, with this soundtrack...I just think it's perfect. If you haven't seen the movie, I won't spoil it for you...but the acting is just as good as it is in The Lord of the Rings. The character's emotions are tangible, and the scene is tear-jerkingly powerful.
Number Two: King Arthur: Woad to Ruin/Knights March (Hans Zimmer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dJDB1G4z4g
A piece that very nearly made the top spot of my list, from what I feel is one of the most underrated films of all time. IMDB gives it a 6.1 out of ten, and many other sources give it mediocre ratings I feel it does not deserve. For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it's a take on the possible historical basis for the mythic figure of King Arthur, who historians agree was based on a Romano-British leader who fought the invading Saxons after the Roman Empire withdrew from the island. In particular, this film focuses on a unit of auxiliary cavalry stationed at Hadrian's Wall, commanded by a descendant of the real Roman leader Lucius Artorius Castus...known to the native Celts as "Arthur."What makes me angry is the argument that critics use to justify their poor ratings. It's not the relationships between the characters, which are impeccable. It's not the quality of the acting, which (with the exception of some minor parts) is up there with the best. And it's not the plot, even though the historical accuracy is subject to debate. No; it's the fact that this film does not follow the Arthurian legend. And that just infuriates me. That's like watching a movie about the American Revolution and complaining that it doesn't involve the Civil War. It's not supposed to follow the Arthurian legend, you dunces. It's a possible demonstration of what a historical basis for King Arthur might look like. But I digress...the song itself, from the genius of Hans Zimmer, is amazing. Zimmer leads the listener on, fooling them with a series of false climaxes. And around the nine minute mark, he gives you the true climax of the work. But don't you dare skip ahead to try to find it; listen to the duration of the track. You won't regret it.
Number One: Star Wars: The Imperial March (John Williams)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
Need I say anything?
Fine, I'll say something; this soundtrack, intended as a theme for the Galactic Empire, perfectly fits the greatest film villain of all time. And no, American Film Institute, Hannibal Lector is not a better villain than Darth Vader. Ask yourself, how would a meeting between the two of them go?
"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a...gaack..."
"I find you (inhale-exhale) disturbing."
If you can't figure out what action I'm referencing...I'm sorry, but you don't deserve to live in the civilized world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)