Brief Book Review: The Church of Scientology by Hugh B. Urban

A fascinating topic about which the author gives some useful information. He manages to say how afraid he is to take much of a stand either way on many of the controversies of the subject while strongly implying where he stands. Unfortunately, the writing is weak and repetitive. For a scholar, he sure loves the word "ironically." He'd probably think that that was ironic. He enjoys the academic habits of colons (implied or not) and subtitles. He shows emphasis with italics. It feels like the work of a low-level academic. But, you know, interesting as a stepping off point in the topic.

The Church of Scientology by Hugh B. Urban is available at most Half Price Books locations.

Giggles to be had in Looper, apparently.

SuperBruce sprays us with guffaws.

I have never seen a Die Hard or any of its direct descendants, but I think I get the gist and broad references, as I do with others I have blasphemously not seen in the American movie canon (E.T, Titanic, even The Shining ("Heeeeere's Johnny")). So I believe that I do understand the Bruce Willis Action Hero deal. At least I hope I do, as it's the only way I can wrap my mind around the fact that more than one middle-aged man in the audience was giggling during Looper.

I assume that Die Hard Bruce is a comically (in several senses) indestructible fighter for Good, with superhuman fighting and weapons skills, an eyebrow-raising pain threshold, and stamina the envy of a man any age. There is a sequence near the end of Looper where this persona is lifted* and planted right into the narrative to great affect. Now this I can maybe see giving the more seasoned action movie watcher a thrill of recognition and a knowing smirk. Okay, maybe even a giggle.

But these giggles, and they were giggles---high-pitched and weird---came here and there before and after SuperBruce's main blast of sweaty destruction. 

It came when the weird little kid did the screamy thing that made people fly around and explode. Giggle.

It came with other stuff I don't want to give away but that were in no way funny. Giggle.

I am not trying, or wait, let's say I am trying to not be critical of a human's reaction to something. It makes even more sense to avoid personal condemnation of a behavior exhibited by several people in response to the same stimuli, so let's look at this a little more broadly. Are these guys so accustomed to action and/or violence that they see it strictly as a cartoon? I don't mean, necessarily, that they have become inured or desensitized to it, like some kid who has presumably spent jillions of hours taking it in on TV.  Maybe they are impressed by what the filmmakers pulled off and their reaction is the joy of being impressed and they express joy through a giggle. Assuming the giggle equals joy, maybe their joy comes from their recognition of this particular violence or action riff, a riff I have never seen, not having seen that many action movies.

By the way, Looper is fun and exciting and I went to see it because it was directed by Rian Johnson and stars Joseph-Gordon Levitt, both of whom had the same jobs for a movie I liked a lot, The Brick. It takes all of the cliches and inconsistencies  inherent in time travel movies and shoots them down with clever plotting and direct shots at the genre itself. When Young Joe asks Old Joe, (you'll have to see it) naturally, like in all time travel movies and as you would if it happened to you, how all this works, Old Joe pretty much just tells him that it's complicated so just shut the hell up. There. Dealt with.

Willis and Levitt match up well.

Excellent villain in Jeff Daniels. If I were a henchman, I'd like to hench for him.

*Another assumption about the persona, of course.

Movies Before Books--A Radical Theory

People often rush to read the book upon which a movie is based before they see the movie. I have for some time been of the opposite opinion. If you have read the book, all you see in the movie is "what they missed" or left out of the film version. If you have seen the movie first, the book becomes a deeper study of the topic and theme. You get all the back story and inner dialogue. Plus, the main characters have faces, which I, as a not parcticularly visual person, appreciate.
In the name of science, I am following up on this. You are most welcome.
     I am currently reading Barney's Version, a comic novel by Mordechai Richler. A few months ago, I saw the film version starring the always perfect Paul Giammati. I will return to this space when I have finished the book to go on about it all. So just keep your shirt on. Let's just say that I like the book and am definitely appreciating it more having seen the film.
    Also, I not too long ago read No Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthy. The Coen brothers movie based on it came out, I guess, two  years ago? Reading the first page I thought---This is the voice of the Coen brothers. I can see why they made the movie. And reading the book, though---as is mostly the case--- it is "better" than the movie, made me appreciate the movie even more. They took a fairly simple story, added their own visual stamp, and gave us something I very much like.
     
   Barney's Version--A brief review on Flixster by some handsome devil

Certified Copy

The questions are whether an original piece of art and an exact replica have the same value, whether  the dedicated acting out of the arc of a relationship is essentially the same if the relationship is not "real," and whether, perhaps, said relationship is real.
     Juliette Binoche is Elle--though I don't recall hearing anyone say her name--and that may be significant-- a single mother and gallery owner in Tuscany. We know nothing of her history at the beginning, before picking up just enough to support the theme later on. William Shimell is James Miller,  a visiting British lecturer of whom we know even less, who professes a subdued hedonism.
     Elle is late, and then must leave early, for James's lecture/book flacking, but leaves her number with a colleague to give to James. He shows up the next day and they set out on a seemingly aimless driving trip with Elle as the tour guide and, at first, somewhat fawning fan of the author; though she has already indicated to her adolescent son a certain "annoyance" with the man's work, the theme of which is that replicas of art are as good as the real thing as it's all in the interpretation. The son sees that his mother is at least as interested in James the man as she is in James the author and her behavior at the beginning of the day bears this out. She is a bit clumsy and nervous. He, though having a certain quiet charm and the aura of intellectual confidence of the academic raconteur, seems to be merely killing time until his train leaves at 9 PM that night.
     Elle seeks to question the theme of James's work by pointing out that her "simple" sister agrees with it  in that she feels that a replica is as good as the original. He frustrates her argument by saying he envies said sister, pointing out that the sister is allowed to have essentially the same philosophy he has because hers is an examined view but Elle won't accept his because he has written a book about it. Thus, the magic of the "date" is passed and the familiar honesty of criticism is introduced.
     Then the arrogance of the apparently personally unburdened is brought to for with his thesis---and he does think in theses---that children, with their natural lack of understanding of consequences for themselves and---more significantly to a single parent like Elle---others have the right idea about life. Elle knows that this is all well and good but points out that someone has to be responsible and that if you are the one with burden than all that theorizing is "bullshit."
     Another nick in his aloof, theorized life---if that's what it really is, and not just some pose either out of  traveling professorial persona or a wish to escape something from his never-revealed past.
     When, while James is outside taking a call, the  proprietress of a cafe takes them to be a married couple and begins to offer observations and advice, Elle does not disabuse her of the idea. The old woman's advice  essentially amounts to giving him what he needs, even if you don't understand it and even if it's not fair.
     When James comes back in, he is let in on the game--if it is one and not the recognition that they have indeed met before-- and finds himself caught up in it. Now they have become the couple married fifteen years where the husband is distant both physically, with his work, and emotionally. Later, an older man gives James essentially the same advice from a male perspective---All she really needs right now is for you to put your hand on her shoulder. James realizes that this is right, and even clumsily attempts it, as if trying to salvage the day out, if not the entire "marriage."
      Once James has attempted this physical intimacy, no matter how small, it seems that the marriage has become real. They go to have dinner and he becomes the overbearing, uncomfortable, impatient man of a longish marriage. He is rude and arrogant just when she is trying for something more warm and intimate. This comes to a head with nettled confusion on his part and knowing, angry tears on hers.
     Next comes his apology---heartfelt and puny, but good enough for her in order to save the day in the country (especially when the marriage isn't real). From here we go to the quiet and satisfyingly undetermined denouement.
     They have gone through most of the permutations of conflict and feeling that occur in a long-term relationship in the space of a few hours. They have done it sincerely, thoughtfully, and with depth but, and here is the part that most of us can envy, without the actual baggage. The issues, though universal, are imaginary. They work through them with real anger and tears, but without the cutting and cruel memories, and that is a wonderful fantasy.
     Unless, of course, this past was all real. And then, if it is all real, maybe they have found a way to work through it, to get it out there, playfully but sincerely, and come to some beneficial conclusions. To learn, as is said at one point near the end of the film, to be tolerant of each other's weaknesses is what love--or at least a successful relationship-- is. All of us of a certain level of experience know that, but unfortunately this simple epiphany tends to come with age and hindsight, if it comes at all. The fact that it so often it is an epiphany, and not just common sense behavior, makes one want to slap one's forehead repeatedly--especially when this simple truth is so tragically difficult to live out.
     BinocheShimell is a fine choice as the physical type, is able to keep up with Binoche, and they make a believable pair but, and this may partially be because his character in this foreign land has less overt backstory, there are brief moments where he doesn't quite come off.
     At least, that's what I got out of it.