| 12~27~99 |
| We enter the last week of the 1900s. I don't know if it's
all that significant or if it will change our basic outlook on the world.
"Our outlook," being the outlook of us in the Western world. The
phrase "back in the 1900s" will enter our speech at the very least and
lowest of levels. In ways the year 2000 symbolized the very concept
of the future, a foundation to build upon or springboard to launch all
our ideas of what the contents of the future would be. Now that framework
to think within is about to disappear forever and a new construct for the
past arises which is all the last 1,000 years or the ten-hundreds. Maybe
that subtle shift in thought will be what allows people to move forward
in the west. Perhaps the lack of anything religiously significant
occurring will assist in divorcing religion from how we are to conduct
our lives. It wouldn't be surprising if the symbolic gesture of transferring
from the 1000s to 2000s frees us up from shackles of the past. True
it doesn't change the past and some might say, therefore it won't change
the way we look at the past which determines how we see ourselves, but
a suit and a tie doesn't change the man even though it changes how people
view him. The old adage says, "Adorn a monkey in gold chains and
jewels and you still have a monkey." True, but it changes the way
people see the monkey, and what they want out of the monkey, which is to
hold it down and strip it of its valuables or the items that disguise its
monkeyosity. We might just do the same to the world once we dress
it up with four new numbers. Numbers that have loomed large on the
horizon my whole life which isn't an astonishing number of years but seems
like quite awhile to me. Expectations for 2000 haven't been met.
The world of the future isn't here...today! This has to cause change.
It might not be all that noticeable all at once but it must cause change.
It can let us think as if we are in the future and not as if we are a bunch
of primitives anticipating its coming. That is unless Jesus comes
back and commences to slaughter the billions of non-Christians on this
planet and squash them all into a big bucket of Hell.
|
| Following is my review of "Man on the Moon"
The movie was undoubtedly conceived when either the writer or Milos were hanging out with some friends, slipping into drunkenness and laughing about Andy Kaufman's life and comedy stunts. In their inebriated state they would impersonate some of Andy's characters, poorly of course, and laugh even harder. Cut ahead in time to the completed project that is more or less the same thing except without the alcohol and Jim Carrey mimicking Kaufman quite well. Oh yeah, there is also some clumsily added filler about Andy's life that has something to do with his childhood (for about five minutes), his love life (ummm, roughly ten minutes of that), and him dying of lung cancer (fifteen to twenty minutes). The remainder is a multi-million dollar recreation of a greatest hits reel. Added up altogether, you get a rather clunky dramatic, pointless and thematically confused film with funny Andy Kaufman moments experienced vicariously through another performer. Yay. End of review. |
| Following is my advice to Courtney Love...
Milos Forman has lost it as a director as his last two movies show. Both have films haphazardly trace the lives of not so significant men who are remembered more for stunts and outlandish behavior than anything else. Both men could be the subjects of good films, but now that will never happen. So, my advice is to find new director and start sucking his dick for dramatically empty roles. End of advice. End of column. |