Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

Powered by Twitter Tools

China has generally proven to be increasingly unwilling to co-operate with America,

via US foreign policy: Speaking too softly | The Economist.

I was pretty disappointed with The Economist’s endorsement of then-candidate Obama during the election, and since then they’ve been pretty meager in their criticism of him.  However, this article shows that President Obama’s attempts to pussyfoot around controversial international issues to avoid offending Iran, Russia, and (especially) China have not had the intended results.  For example:

The Chinese government responded by becoming more assertive. It helped to scupper a deal at the Copenhagen summit on climate change in December and snubbed the American president by sending a deputy minister to a crucial meeting. China has generally proven to be increasingly unwilling to co-operate with America, for example over United Nations sanctions against Iran.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of the Dalai Lama (as I tend not to like autocrats in general), but at least the administration is showing some backbone by meeting with him despite China’s objections.  The lesson to be learned here is that we cannot ever compromise our principles just to get along with repressive, anti-democratic regimes.

This quote made me laugh, so I thought I’d share it.  A note of context: Reppert used this quote to demonstrate the idea of fideism, which states that “religious beliefs are not open to rational evaluation.” (Reppert, p. 29)  I’ll leave it to you to determine how you think this is funny.

City Councilman from Colorado Springs (my favorite city outside of Texas) Sean Paige, when discussing the cities economic problems:

This is a city with above-average rates of volunteerism and charitable giving. We don’t look reflexively to government to do things citizens can do themselves. And we’re counting on that can-do spirit and civic-mindedness, along with a willingness to consider out-of-the-box solutions, to see us through this budget crunch. (Emphasis mine.)

This demonstrates to me the big difference between classic conservatism and liberalism/progressivism.

Second, I got volume 1 of The Walking Dead by Robert Kirkman and Tony Moore.  I had heard about this book for years but had never picked it up (as with Scott Pilgrim as well).  I felt that the beginning was too much like 28 Days Later in why the main character, Rick (a small town police officer), doesn’t know what’s going on (he was shot on duty and in a coma for a month), but overall I enjoyed it.  There were a couple of times when reading it, however, that I had to double check the pages to make sure I hadn’t missed something; at times, there is a slight jump in time, but there’s no obvious indication of it.  Other than those two quibbles, it was good, and the art style helps to capture the creepiness of a world overrun with zombies.

Third, I finally bought Night by Elie Wiesel.  I’ve wanted to read this book for a while, and I found it in the used the section.  I’m considering teaching it in my Reading class, given its shorter length.

Fourth, I got C.S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Support of the Argument from Reason by Victor Reppert.  The book is an examination of Lewis’s argument that the existence of rational thought proves the existence of the supernatural (an idea Lewis explored in Mircales).  It was fortuitous that I found this book at this time, as I was listening to a podcast in which the hosts briefly discussed recent scientific developments in brain research that suggest that there is no free will (something atheists have been claiming for years).  This “discovery” (if it’s held up) basically proves Lewis’s argument: in a “naturalist” system (in which nothing exists but nature), there cannot be true rational thought (because everything is cause and effect); thus, reason is a supernatural miracle.

Let me know if you’ve read any of them.  I may post fully reviews as I finish reading these books.

While Apple has not created a new category (despite their PR), Apple might just do what tablet makers for years have failed to do: create a market for tablets. That’s necessary because without a market, developers have little reason to enter a space and because it will help to lower prices (most tablets before were over-priced and under-powered laptops).

I also think that Apple’s potential entry into the tablet space has helped spur other companies’ development of tablets, as companies want to have something to offer in the marketplace.

Now, I won’t buy the iPad for the same reason I won’t buy an iPhone: I don’t want Steve Jobs or anyone else dictating how I’ll use a product. (I’ve already been burned by the Zune on that front.) I want to use my devices the way I want to, and I enjoy playing around on them to see what they can do. Jobs’s mentality on products is too centrally focused, too technocratic for my tastes.

But despite that, I’m glad they entered the space, if only to spur other companies to give me the device I’m looking for.

When I heard that Coraline was going to be made into a feature film, I was very excited, and I enjoyed seeing the first trailer for it in the theater. I was, to be sure, annoyed that Gaiman’s name was not giving top or second billing in that trailer; in fact, he wasn’t even mentioned. Instead, the chief name was that of Henry Sellick.

If the name Henry Sellick is not familiar to you, that’s primarily because one of his best works is usually ascribed to Tim Burton: The Nightmare Before Christmas. While Burton was involved in the creation and production, much of the work, including the direction, was done by Sellick. That film is a perfect example of what I mentioned above: a clever, quirky children’s story that appeals to adults as well, and giving the tone of Nightmare, Selllick was a good choice for the creator and director of Coraline as a film.

However, after having finally watched it, I have to admit that I am, to a certain extent, disappointed.

And, I kinda feel bad about that.

See, I think Coraline is, independent of the source material, a good film. Henry Sellick makes fine, living, colorful worlds with interesting characters. I enjoyed the performances of all the voice actors: Teri Hatcher is great as the mother and other mother, John Hodgman’s father is, although not British (a small quibble I won’t mention again) spot on, and Keith David’s cat is appropriately smug. Dakota Fanning’s Coraline fits very well, and the others are great.  The film is also beautiful to look at. I haven’t researched how they achieved all of the animation effects, but there’s a wonderful dichotomy between what looks like computer animation and real world textures. Everything has a depth to it, and it’s wonderful to look at. There are scenes that are obviously meant to appeal to those watching the 3D version, but these work appropriately in 2D, and I didn’t feel pulled out of the film because of them.

Given how well everything works, it remains to find a reason for my disappointment. A part of it definitely comes from plot and character differences between the movie and the book, and this is one of those conundrums that fans of any book often find themselves in when it’s adapted to a movie. We want the movie to be exactly like the book, but we understand it cannot be. However, although we understand that it cannot be, we still (however slightly) resent the movie for not being the book. Admittedly, it’s not fair at all, but it’s just the way it is. No matter how much I try, I cannot approach this movie as someone who hasn’t read the book.  So take the following criticisms with a grain (or even a shaker) of salt.

First, I felt the character of Wybie to be completely unnecessary. That’s not to say I don’t understand why Sellick wrote him in (which I suppose to be to give boys a character to identify with and to give Coraline someone her own age to interact with), but I think it was not needed. What he did do was to take screen time away from Coraline’s interactions with the other characters, and I think this was a mistake. Wybie’s presence necessitates that some really great moments (especially between Coraline and the cat) had to be left out for time’s sake, which is, I think, always a problem.

Second, I didn’t care for the reordering of parts of the plot, specifically the number of times Coraline goes to and from the other world. Sellick adds one extra to-and-fro, and I feel this alters the dramatic tension. I think this might be one instance where the 3D imposed itself on the story; perhaps Sellick added one more journey to utilize the tunnel between worlds for the 3D version. Also, Coraline gets locked up with the ghost children earlier here, whereas in the book her parents are already missing and she has gone back to retrieve them. The separation of these events (her going back to get her parents and meeting the ghost children) weakens the story from a dramatic and thematic perspective.

My last criticism is really the reason that I think I was disappointed by Sellick’s Coraline. Although parts of the movie maintain some of the tone of the book, overall the book has a darker tone; the other world is not quite as happy, and there is more of a sense of danger even from the beginning. I suppose some people (perhaps Sellick himself) felt that making the other world lighter made it more appealing to Coraline, but I think this misses a key point of Coraline’s character. She is bored with the real world and craves something more interesting, even if it’s a little dangerous. And this is, for me, a completely believable character trait in a kid. For example, in the movie, Coraline is lured to the door in the drawing room by Mr. Bobo’s jumping mice. Certainly, this makes sense; the jumping mice are very cute. But in the book, Coraline is drawn to the door by hearing it creak open and by seeing a small dark shadow flit out from her room and into the drawing room. While this is much more creepy than Sellick’s version, the fact that Coraline is interested in the shadow and the creaking door fits with her character, and I think it makes her a more interesting and stronger character than just some girl chasing something cute.

Interestingly enough, there is one change in the movie that I think works. I like the way the other mother was portrayed as more like Coraline’s real mother. The reason I think this works is that this accentuates the weirdness of her button eyes, and in this way she comes across more disturbing than if the eyes were just one of many differences.

Given all of that, I did enjoy Sellick’s Coraline. It was fun to watch and continues the tradition of children’s entertainment that adults can enjoy as well.

UPDATE: Having watched the film again, I wanted to comment that I definitely appreciate it more the second time.  I think watching Coraline the first time worked out any disappointments/expectations that I had going in.  Now that all that’s worked out, I can enjoy the film on its own merits.

First, the costumes were amazing.  I’ve seen pictures of them but seeing them in action, and especially watching the interaction of the actor’s with them, was incredible.  This show would not work near as well as if it were done with people in traditional animal costumes.

Second, the music was very interesting.  I’m generally not a fan of most musicals, usually because the music and singing styles are not my thing, but this was wonderful to listen to.  The singing was great (although still “musical theatre”), and I liked seeing the drummers on either side of the stage.  I do with I had been able to see some more of the musicians at work, but the orchestra pit at the Majestic was under the stage, so that only the conductor was visible.

Another great part of the performance were the times when the action came out into the audience.  I always love things like that, and I think it helps to bring the audience more into the show.  Also, the staging was suitably dramatic, with many levels.  The use of moving platforms and wire work added to the drama.

Performances were generally great throughout.  Several stood out to me.  Rafiki was a wonderful character, and the actress appeared to have a lot of fun with it; also, her singing voice was amazing.  Scar was also quite good.  Jeremy Irons did a great job with the character in the movie, and the actor here built on that foundation without just mimicking Irons’s performance.  Timon and Pumba were (as always) great fun to watch.  I also really liked Zazu, especially the actor’s interaction with his puppet, which broke the fourth wall at a couple of moments.

There were a couple of negatives.  I am confused as to the inclusion of the song “Morning Report” in this show.  That song was not included in the original version of the movie for a reason.  First, it is a weak song overall.  Second, it fails completely to advance the plot or provide any substantial character development (the only two reasons for a song in a musical).  The only reason I can think of for including it here was to give Zazu more stage time, but I don’t think that was necessary.

Also, I disliked the addition of a subplot in which Scar wants to make Nala his queen.  While I can see its justification, nothing is ever done with it later on, so it just sits there in the storyline.

Finally, and this is a criticism of the Majestic rather than the show, I found the ushers and waiters moving back and forth in front of us distracting.  I suppose the ushers have their reasons, but the waiters with trays of drinks was completely unnecessary.  Yes, I understand that people probably paid money for those seats, but I think that’s a sad justification.  In raising money for the theatre, the Majestic should consider the impact on all of its patrons, and if something like serving drinks negatively impacts some of those patrons (even if those patrons pay a little less), it should not be considered.

Despite those minor quibbles, however, I thoroughly enjoyed the show and would suggest that anyone who gets a chance to see it does so.  You won’t be disappointed.