Author: Tucker

Only Angels Have Wings

Published on by Tucker3 Comments

Recently I’ve been introducing Lily to the films of Howard Hawks, which is also an excuse (not that I needed one) to watch some of my favorite films. So far we’ve seen Bringing Up Baby (1938) – which I mentioned in my previous post – His Girl Friday (1940), and last night, Only Angels Have Wings (1939).

Only Angels Have Wings was my introduction to Howard Hawks as a director and, as such, it holds a sentimental place in my cinephilia. I probably saw some of his other films earlier in my life, but in the grand cinema survey course I took in college this film was the Hawks film we saw. And that’s when I really began to learn about Hawks. At that time I was blown away by the film. I don’t know if I was just in the right mood then, even so I still love the film today.

I have been trying to find a DVD version of the film, but haven’t. I did find, to my delight, that TCM was showing it and it was listed in the Comcast on-demand free movies. So, voila!

For me the critical scene is when, after a pilot has died upon crash landing his plane, some of the men divide up his few things – trinkets really: his wallet, some coins, maybe a ring. In effect that scene boils down the value of a person’s life to a few insignificant things. For Hawks life was like a pick-up song among strangers in the midst of a crazy world. One can choose to live a life of courage or of safety. In the end it’s not what one left behind so much as how one is remembered, and even that is mostly vapor because behind it all is an unknowable absurdity.

This is in stark contrast to the films of John Ford.

Ford saw great value in the traditions of society: weddings, burials, a man taking his hat off when going indoors, etc., and these things symbolize the significance of human beings, their actions, and the society they create. Hawks, or at least his characters, valued courage, but did not overly emphasize the inherent worth of a human being. Ford was more the romantic, Hawks more the existentialist. (Note: I write this off the cuff without having examined these two director side by side for 20 years, so I am happy to be corrected.)

Of course, I love the films of both directors. They both speak to the human situation, but from different angles.

And speaking of John Ford, soon on the docket for Lily and I are Stagecoach (1939) and Young Mr. Lincoln (1939). Wasn’t 1939 just an amazing year for cinema?!

>We love Nick & Nora

Published on by Tucker3 Comments

>The other night we finished After the Thin Man (1936). I have seen them all before, but this was a chance to introduce Lily to these classic comedies. She liked it a lot. We had already seen the original The Thin Man (1934) a couple months ago.

What a fun, goofy film, even with all its plot holes and jumps in logic. I have to ask myself if these films could be re-made. If so, who would play the central parts?

And we love Jimmy Stewart. After the Thin Man provided Stewart his first substantial part in a film. Here he is, the kind, lovable Jimmy that we have come to know and love:

And here he is turned into the maniacal killer soon to be apprehended:

It was great to see Stewart transform from kind man to killer. He was already showing us his wonderful talents. Maybe I shouldn’t say we love Jimmy Stewart, Lily is not sure if she does after only seeing him play the bad guy. Now I will have to show her some of his other films.

* * * * * * *

I have to say that we have been watching a few other films lately, but I have not been writing about them. Lily LOVED Bringing Up Baby (1938). We also just saw Jason and the Argonauts (1963), which she also loved. A couple days later she had a friend over and they decided to watch Jason. Lily’s friend had never heard of the film. At one point I overheard Lily saying “Harryhausen” and I knew I had done my job. Last night we also watched about 45 minutes of Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972). I had to help her with some of the subtitles, but Lily was transfixed. So was I, even though I’ve see the film several times.

>grab the details

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>For some time now my credit union has been running an add for free tunes when one signs up for their free checking. The campaign, I believe, is targeted toward college students. I mean, who else would want free tunes, or think that’s a good enough incentive to open their first checking account after moving out of mom and dad’s place?

I have to say, however, that I am curious about the visuals.

This image has been popping up on the credit union’s web site for about a year now, and it kinda disturbs me (in a humorous way, I must say). What is going on here? Along with the text I see two young hip college students apparently very happy about the free tunes with the free checking. They look like they are dancing.

Obviously their visual relationship is a construction, they are not in the same space in reality but have been manually juxtaposed by the graphic designer. So the image is a manipulation. They form a kind of visual unit that has been constructed to create a particular effect, whether conscious or subconscious. What that effect is remains to be seen.

The man stands, leaning back, pelvic forward, right arm extended outward and slightly up. His legs are spread, and he has a kind of hip college confidence. The woman also standing leaning back, also pelvic forward, her arms at her sides. She appears to be standing between the legs of the man. There is a kind of forced intimacy, forced in that the arrangement is arbitrary. The look on her face, with her mouth wide open, is one of delight, as though she is exclaiming something joyous, or maybe she is ready to take a bite of something.

In effect, without appearing to acknowledge each other’s presence, these two seem to be presenting their clothed bodies to each other.

And notice the angles. Her body position, and especially her left arm, makes a definite line angling downward to the right. That line seems to end, it would seem, at the man’s crotch. The man’s body angles up to the right. His arm and his gaze angle up to the left. If we were to draws lines to represent these visual vector forces, they might look like this below:

A triangle of vector lines is the most common of visual constructions. It mentally ties together visual elements, creating visual relationships that weave connotations for the mind to land upon.

So what does this mean? Honestly, I can’t say for sure. If I had to come up with something I would say the man is represented as being strong, masculine, and erect (symbolically emphasized by his arm thrusting outward). The woman is represented as being more diminutive than the man, not merely because she is smaller, but because she is placed in a lower position than the man. She seems to be focused on the man’s crotch, with a look of extreme delight. I don’t mean to be crude. I am just stating the obvious.

Finally, on the left-hand side of the image there is the phrase “Grab the details.” The clickable triangle/arrow that goes with the phrase is on the same visual plane, and pointing in the same direction, as the woman’s hand and the man’s crotch. Is she the one who is going to grab the details? One wonders. Again, I don’t mean to be crude.

I don’t think this image needs my interpretation or evaluation. One can make of it what one wills. But it reminds me of the advertising I studied at university in media studies. And I find it funny to see it on my credit union’s web site. I also find it rather peculiar. Why does a credit union have to use such advertising, whether stupid or sexual or both, to sell checking? It’s just checking. But, then I don’t work in advertising.

>"Hello, I’m Amy Walker. I’m twenty five…"

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>I remember some college friends of mine studying the theater arts back in the day. Along with being amazed at their ability to memorize lines and produce wonderful performances, I also enjoyed their audition tapes (I believe this that’s what they were called). These friends of mine would put together audio tapes of themselves doing a variety of voices and dialects in order to demonstrate their range and talent. Often the tapes were very funny and quite good.

Of course today the audio cassette tape has gone the way of the pet rock. Now it’s all video, YouTube, etc. That’s what I assume this is:

I have to say I think that’s a lot of fun, and excellent.

>Easter

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>This is a holy weekend for more than 2 billion people. It is rather remarkable how many people this very day will celebrate something they believe to be true, that is, that the man Jesus of Nazareth, after having been brutally tortured and murdered (on what is now called Good Friday, just two days ago), rose from the dead on this day. Like Christmas celebrates his birth, Easter celebrates his resurrection.

Resurrection is a rather incredible claim. The apostle Paul made a big deal of it: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless.”

It is something to seriously ponder. Even for the cynical. Personally I think a good personal project is to cut through the garbage of so much religiosity (remember it was those hypocritical, self-righteous religious types that murdered Jesus) and just get to know the story and think about it. Wonder about it. It’s rather remarkable.

The apostle John wrote about those who loved Jesus, who new him personally, talked with him, walked with him in life, listened to him teach, saw him perform healings, saw him walk on water, witnessed him feed five thousand and turn water into wine and cast out demons, saw him command the wind to stop, walked with him triumphantly into Jerusalem for the Jewish Passover celebration, then saw him crucified and buried on Friday, and then found his tomb empty on Sunday. John wrote:

Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb. So she ran and came to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him.” So Peter and the other disciple went forth, and they were going to the tomb. The two were running together; and the other disciple ran ahead faster than Peter and came to the tomb first; and stooping and looking in, he saw the linen wrappings lying there; but he did not go in. And so Simon Peter also came, following him, and entered the tomb; and he saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the face-cloth which had been on His head, not lying with the linen wrappings, but rolled up in a place by itself. So the other disciple who had first come to the tomb then also entered, and he saw and believed. For as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that He must rise again from the dead. So the disciples went away again to their own homes. But Mary was standing outside the tomb weeping; and so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying. And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid Him.” When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” Jesus said to her, “Mary!” She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher). Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'” Mary Magdalene came, announcing to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.



“I have seen the Lord.” That’s an incredible statement.

Happy Easter!

>there will be puppets

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>What force is it that compels people to take found audio and create puppet interpretations of it? This is a cosmic mystery, I’m sure, but it can lead to some funny, even insightful, products. Here are three that caught my attention.

Poet Allen Ginsburg with William F. Buckley:

The infamous (but who cares) drunk David Hasselhoff video:

The Beach Boys and Mr. (passive/aggressive) Wilson:

Possibly, this puppet-interpretation thing moves along the same arc of the “making strange” function of art. That is, to create a kind of distance from the original (from the reality) to give us eyes to see the original more as it is in its essence, rather than through the common mental filters that cloud our everyday perceptions.

And then, not of puppets, but related in that same cosmic force, and rather brilliant, There Will Be Vader:

>a milestone

Published on by Tucker6 Comments

>

Today I have reached a milestone of sorts. I turned in my final rough draft of my thesis.

God be praised!

This thing has been a weight on my back for over a year. It has interfered with much of my life. But it is also a good thing which I chose to do. Alas. I know I will get feedback and will then have to make some changes, but I think it’s not too bad, even passable depending on how gracious my thesis committee is willing to be. Of course, helping me improve it is also gracious, as well as their job. And I still have to defend the thing, but, honestly, that’s the easy part.

But the draft is done.

As a kind of footnote: I typed the thing using the Open Office word processor called “Writer.” And I used an old laptop running a version of linux known as Ubuntu. Neither were without their quirks, but I like open source, so whatever.

Now, a beer.

>gagging and weeping

Published on by Tucker6 Comments

>

Recently Showbiz Tonight’s AJ Hammer did a story/interview with Tori Spelling. Below is some of the transcript of that segment from CNN.com.

HAMMER: [W]ith everyone talking about sex scandals right now, here’s one I just had to ask about, Tori cheated on her husband number one with now husband number two. I asked Tori point blank if she ever stopped to think about the damage she was doing not only to her marriage but to her now husband’s marriage as well.

SPELLING: That was the hardest thing for both of us is that there were children involved. There were two other people innocently involved. You know, whether they were happy marriages, whether they were meant to work out, it’s still at the end of the day people are going to get hurt. And that was the hardest thing about that whole situation. But, you know, in life you have to really – you have to look out for yourself and I found my soulmate and I couldn’t deny love. So what was I supposed to do?

First of all, GAG!

Second, what a tragedy of morals, not merely in her actions, but more remarkably in her truly sad and hurtful philosophy. I say this not to aim barbs at Ms. Spelling per se, because she is fundamentally no worse than any one else. We all have dark and selfish hearts. But I say it because it is true, and it is so starkly presented by her words.

There are few projects in all of human existence more difficult than marriage. Marriages fail all the time. There is nothing surprising in that.

What I find shocking (but am I really shocked?) is how openly she excuses her actions by saying: “You know, whether they were happy marriages, whether they were meant to work out, it’s still at the end of the day people are going to get hurt.” Yes, people got hurt, by her actions. And that language of “meant to work out” sounds like marriages are fated, that their success or dissolution are matters ultimately beyond anyone involved, that there really is no persons to blame or praise, just luck.

She then says: “And that was the hardest thing about that whole situation.” From what I can tell it looks like she’s over that now. Any bad stuff is apparently all in the past. Clearly the hardest part is not facing into her moral failings or the ongoing effects of two broken marriages.

Finally, to cap it off she says: “But, you know, in life you have to really – you have to look out for yourself and I found my soulmate and I couldn’t deny love. So what was I supposed to do?” Short answer: honor your commitments,love your husband, repent. I didn’t realize that looking out for oneself trumps all other considerations, as though with a wave of the hand it absolves all other choices.

Maybe I’m being too snippy. I know marriages are complex relationships, and the reasons they succeed or fail are also complex. There are no easy answers. There are no quick solutions. Sometimes, even, it is best for a marriage to end. I have a feeling that there was a lot more to the whole affair than Ms. Spelling is saying. I know nothing of her life. But I have to say that it is sad to hear such bald faced excusing and unashamed selfishness presented as a matter of course.

Finally, it is interesting that she says, “I couldn’t deny love.” What does this mean? It sounds as though she understands love to be something outside herself, a kind of force that is undeniable, unstoppable, untamable. But that is not love she is giving in to, that is romance, and romance is a good, but fleeting thing.

Romance is like a drug, it wears off after time. Love, on the other hand, is a choice, a series of actions, an orientation on one’s character towards another. Love is something you don’t feel as much as something you do, for love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things. Love isn’t here and then gone. One has to work at it, choose it, make the effort, and seek to be the kind of person who loves. Love often (usually?) involves sacrifice, giving of oneself, even denying of oneself and one’s desires.

But, like Tori Spelling, we live for ourselves. In that sense we are all soulmates.

I can see the same tendencies in both myself and in others all the time. In one way or another we all choose to love ourselves more than we love others, and then we all make excuses for it. We tell ourselves stories, and then we actually believe the stories. Now that’s something to really make you weep, if you have eyes to see.

Blesssed are those who mourn . . .

>open mic

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>languid and low
smoke sifts through
this designer basement
beckoned with the strings
of sweet acoustic blues

the alcoves are full
neon doors wrap around
day’s end caps
and curls

the changes carry us
into the soft light,
sweet swaying night

and with a flourish
blues man closes the opener
thanking the late stars
and there comes Dave
Gulf-Canada cap on that boy
singin’ Uncle Tupelo
his three fingered guitar
elliptical, emotional,
shakes like transcendence
and we can’t remember
Jane’s #

then the next guy
tries real hard
while his girlfriend smiles
like some beautiful sky

~2000/2008

>the thermals

Published on by TuckerLeave a comment

>Thermals are created by the uneven heating of the Earth’s surface from solar radiation.

The Thermals are a band out of Portland, OR. I likes’em!

How We Know

Pillar of Salt

Returning to the Fold

No Cultural Icons

From their bio-page:

The Thermals’ crowning achievement came in fall of 2005, when, reworking the pop-punk format, they discovered a fourth chord. It’s F#minor, in case you were wondering.