6/28/09

A Flash of The Future (1 of 2)

I believe in change. That's not the words I stole from Harvey Dent or Obama campaign: I believe it myself. And in my perspective, the world hasn't change much today. Despite every stem cell implantation that worked, every cloning attempts that succeed, every new equation in mathematics and physics world, every new location named in brain by neuroscientists, every new words added to dictionary, actually we haven't moved much from the past era.
Something stopped us. Something made us stagnate here. And that 'something' was the old thinking.

The old thinking. Yes, those Olde-Worlde filth that stay within us to this very day. Old thinking believed in saving the world, saving the earth--and they took it literally. For the old minds, saving the world meant to save it biologically. Save the globe, save the forest, stop global warming, stop animal hunting, stop eating meat and so on. You're all welcome to attack me right now, but I believe: global warming isn't that devastating. Mass media blown it up, made it to something so frightening and unavoidable. Take a look at our past: even at our worst and most destructive, we would never be able to render this planet lifeless. Not even with our superior nuclear program, not even with our unhealthy lifestyle we can ever stop the life on earth. It goes on, you know. Don't ever stop it. It's the old thinking way, to stop something from happening, awww, that was so hundred years ago!

Saving the world can’t mean preserving the world as it is right now. Saving the world can't mean to stop eating meat, stop pollution, oh fuck that, saving the world can't mean staying in status quo. That may sound like a nice idea, but it’s also out of reach. Even if the entire human race vanished tomorrow, the world wouldn’t stay the way it is today. We will never, under any circumstances, be able to stop the change that happened on this planet. So how is it to save the world? Well, that's a wrong question. Let me correct it: who is it that's going to save the world? It can't be us, not the people of today. Why? Because our minds are the old minds, and the old minds--like I said before--believe in 'stopping'. Here’s how old minds think of stopping us. They think of stopping us the way they stopped poverty, the way they stopped drug abuse, the way they stopped crime. With programs. Programs that have been implanted in our minds for too long, for centuries or maybe millenniums. When the rainforest numbers are declining, governments made a programs to stop it, when poverty exposed in some area of the world, we made programs to feed the poor, when child abuse happened, we launch a program to prevent it. Programs, programs and more programs. Programs never stop the things they’re launched to stop. No program has ever stopped poverty, drug abuse, or crime, and no program ever will stop them. And no program will ever stop us from devastating the world.

Programs make it possible to look busy and purposeful while failing. If programs actually did the things people expect them to do, then human society would be heaven: our governments would work, our schools would work, our law enforcement systems would work, our justice systems would work, our penal systems would work, and so on. When programs fail (as they invariably do), this is blamed on things like poor design, lack of funds and staff, bad management, and inadequate training. When programs fail, look for them to be replaced by new ones with improved design, increased funding and staff, superior management, and better training. When these new programs fail (as they invariably do), this is blamed on poor design, lack of funds and staff, bad management, and inadequate training. This is why we spend more and more on our failures every year. Most people accept this willingly enough, because they know they’re getting more every year: bigger budgets, more laws, more police, more prisons—more of everything that didn’t work last year or the year before that or the year before that. Old minds think that if we're failing this year, we gotta do MORE on the next year. If we're failing a class this year, we gotta learn MORE the same subject next year. If the stop AIDS campaign is failing this year, put MORE budgets and MORE publications next year. Bullshit. Why didn't try this: if it didn’t work last year, let’s do something ELSE this year.

Then, the next question you may raised is this: If not programs, then what?



(The answer is on the next post)

6/27/09

2009 Blockbusters Quick Review!!

Okay, we've been through the first semester of 2009, actually, I've seen many movies during this period, but I choose six of recently released blockbusters to be reviewed, here they go!

stats

(THE GOOD)

Watchmen: Zack Snyder lived up the dystopian future of Alan Moore's story. The movie adaptation of Watchmen is well-balanced and well-measured, it was fresh enough for casual moviegoers, yet deep and insightful enough for anyone who had literacy in the original graphic novel. Nothing seems out of the bound, even the significant change in the ending is a great addition to the rich and brooding world of Watchmen.

Star Trek: I might be fed up with Lost and slightly disappointed with Mission Impossible 3, but J.J Abrams and his mystery box philosophy keep me guessing. In this reboot of Star Trek, J.J is boldly going where no man has gone before, and outdid himself. From perfect casting for Spock and Kirk (I'm no boy-lover, but I think Chris Pine and ZQ are fit for the role), to the shocking story involved quantum physics and time-travel thing, the new Star Trek could be listed as new classic sci-fi masterpiece.

Drag Me To Hell: Many of my friends complaining about this movie. They said it was horrible and tasteless, but hey, this is Sam Raimi back to the origin! Raimi--a connoisseur in cheap horror--actually revived the genre with his Evil Dead franchise, started back in 1981. With over the top gore, disgusting properties, and shocking scenes, Drag Me To Hell could be counted as something like Raimi taking back his throne over the genre. (Heck, even his trademark and style could even be seen in Spider-man trilogy!!) And now, Raimi back on his track once again, following his bliss and produce a slapstick, humorous, highly-entertained horror movie. Well, I can't blame any of my friend who hated the movie, they might not know about Sam Raimi's historical stuff at all, that's why the didn't 'get' the movie, but for those who do understand a thing about Sam Raimi, the movie was total fun.

 

(THE BAD)

Transformers Revenge of The Fallen: Michael Bay's fucking epic sequel of 2007's Transformers is--sadly--are just the same old story. I'm not going into contradiction here, I knew about director's trademark: Raimi's cheesy horror, Tarantino's ultraviolence, Guy Ritchie's quick-cut-editing, and Michael Bay's big explosions. And here's the flaw, director's trademark should be adaptable and not fucking immoveable. Raimi went from Evil Dead to Spider-man, Tarantino switched from Reservoir Dogs to Kill Bill, William Friedkin tried everything from The Exorcist to The French Connection, Kubrick went sci-fi in 2001, then horror in The Shining, every named directors are known for their capability of switching genres and high adaptability over the script's and story demand. And that's what missing from Michael Bay: visual effect abuse, bullet-shooting and big explosions are all that he can do. Nothing more.

Terminator Salvation: The war depicted in previous installments of Terminator franchise finally told. And is it good? No! Terminator--in its own terms meant 'a machine sent back through time to prevent something happening.' The three predecessors of Salvation got those time travelled machines (or cyborgs), while Salvation really got nothing to be told except war, war and war all the time. The story was just a micro detail in Salvation, and it got no interesting development. Pathetic.

X-Men Origins - Wolverine: One golden rule in franchise movie-making: don't left out the audience who were having literacy and deep knowledge about the story. Don't treat anyone the same, as if they do not know anything at all. That's why Batman Begins succeed, it gave a refreshment of Batman mythology without stripping the original idea. It redefine, not deconstruct. It embraced new audiences as well as the old fans. But Wolverine? It mocked our intelligence. It's dumb as hell

 

(AND I’M STILL WAITING FOR PIXAR’S UP!!)