So I didn't actually watch the Oscars Sunday night, though I did look up the winners. But this post started itching my brain before that.
Friday in homeroom a couple of people, myself included, were talking about some of the films nominated for best picture and how I was disappointed in myself for not seeing as many nominated movies as last year. Last year I had seen several serious 'films' not just movies. Last year I was a movie snob.
Then we got to talking about Avatar, because really who isn't talking about Avatar these days? And one girl mentions she sees Avatar more as an animated film. I understand her argument and quite honestly somewhat agree with her. Avatar is an animated film in the same way Mary Poppins and Who Framed Roger Rabbit are. Interpret that how you will.
She goes on to say how she doesn't think Avatar should be nominated for best picture. Again, I see the validity of her statement. Avatar's plot was completely unoriginal, though it never pretended to be, and if we're going for best picture of the entire year plot is certainly a factor. Did Avatar's special effects, detailed creation of an entire planet and culture, and monetary success outweigh the lack of original plot? Again, there are plenty of opinions on that subject too.
I guess I'll state, for the curious, that I don't personally consider Avatar, Mary Poppins, or Roger Rabbit fully animated features. I will say where the line is drawn between real life and animation can be drawn, pardon the word, by someone else, because I don't care. I also think that while Avatar wasn't the the best thing ever, I feel its special effects and attention to detail deserve the utmost recognition, and the special effects were honored.
Anyway back to the ranting girl.
She then goes on to say she doesn't understand why Up was nominated either. And that got me, because you see, that film snob I mentioned earlier fell in love with Up. Not only was it a fun cartoon it was also an excellent film. Those first ten or so minutes are some of the most poignant and honest moments I have ever seen in my life. (I, of course, refer to Carl and Ellie's life montage.) If two characters hardly speak in that ten minute span and yet you can be moved to tears when one of them dies, or even before that when you find out they are unable to have children, that is truly great story telling/film making.
Back on track...
The girl then says she doesn't think animated films should be in that category. No justification, no solid reasoning, they just should 'count.' I'm very angry, so I will try to remain civil here. Why does it matter if something is animated or live action. Can't a true piece of art be a cartoon? What about Batman: The Animated Series? One of the highest quality television series out there, and it says animated in the title. Some may argue that it failed in Prime Time, but that is due to the animation age ghetto (adults don't watch cartoons because clearly they are all for kids, end sarcasm.)
I don't think this kind of snobbery is animation age ghetto. I don't think age has anything to do with cartoons being for children. I think that this is just, people think Cartoons aren't good enough to compete.
That's the part that confuses me the most. Why do people feel that animation, puppetry, or other stop motion animation lessens a film?
I believe that some people feel the actors don't have to work as hard. Which I don't personally understand. You have to have the right vocal cues to match the situation, with no one to work off of, usually (actually depends on the company). It has to flow cohesively and making sure your dialogue does that is not always the easiest. On top of that, everything about that character has to flow from your voice, nothing else. To me this seems harder than having your whole body to work with.
And if it is the Animation Age Ghetto, so what? Just because it's a children's movie doesn't mean it is inherently a poorer quality film. There are good children's movies (Toy Story, Beauty and the Beast) and there are bad children's movies (The Barney Movie, Quest for Camelot). But the same goes for movies for 'adults' too.
But I don't honestly know why people feel this way. If you know or have a better idea, feel free to tell me.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Monday, March 8, 2010
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Cue Abortion Rant:
To understand the following rant please follow these next few facts:
1. I HATE MASS EMAILS! Plain and simple, they rub me the wrong way. I don't send 'em (all but once). I don't like gettin' em. Sure I'll respond if I know something (for a survey) but usually it's a waste of my time. They are some of the first things to get deleted even when I'm not cleaning out my inbox.
2. I don't like misrepresented and/or falsified facts. I don't like 'quote mining.' I don't like not being able to believe something because an organization uses above tactics to try and prove another point. I also don't like it when people buy into said "facts" at face value.
3. I don't like it when people assume one thing automatically equals another. As it pertains to what I'm about to rant about I'll use the old AntiAbortion ALWAYS=ProLife. It doesn't. Being "ProLife" really means that not only do you think abortion is wrong, you refuse to believe in euthanasia, capital punishment (of anyone). You should also practice what you preach by, adopting a child of any age and of any ethnicity. You believe in Health Care for all, no matter what. Unfortunately in America many people don't see past the "oh dear we're killing cute little babies" part of the all inclusiveness of "Pro Life." A cute baby is easy to defend, grizzly prisoners...not so much. Some people just do the easy part and call it Pro Life.
So those facts being said I check my email today (after a loooong day), and what do I find? A Mass email, about how we should all send President Obama an empty red envelope with a cutesy little note on the back, urging him not to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (with an equally cutesy name of FOCA... makes me want to do jazz hands for some odd reason).
Now we get to the misrepresentation of facts bit (my favorite part): Anti Abortioners (I'll call them this because I don't know where most stand on other life issues) LOVE to cite the fact that Barack Obama once said "Well, the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" at Planned Parenthood. Iz teh evil demon and he shud be aborted rite? Uh no. While said quote is quoted correctly it should be looked at in the context of the (I assume) evening. He was asked a question about how he as President would protect a woman's right to choose, keeping the decision in her hands as opposed to the Previous Administration's "choice" to leave it to a bunch of politicians. The above is his response to the question. So his response means that it would be the first thing he'd do as President about abortion. AS of late he's been busy with the economy and hasn't dealt with FOCA or abortion much lately has he? So this point shouldn't even be a point, but it still gets brought up in annoying emails.
Now comes the "Oh, you're just ProChoice/ProDeath" bit. Well, no I'm not ProDeath, that would be highly illogical of just about anyone. I just can't in GOOD CONSCIENCE make abortion illegal for several reasons
1) Illegal abortions=dangerous abortions. In some ProLife tainted religion class we were told that abortions now are dangerous and can result in sickness or even death. Gee, what happens when they're no longer being performed in safe clinics or hospitals but in back alleys, backs of vans, peoples homes? Simple MORE people get sick or die because things are no longer sterile.
2) Let's say a woman has one or two illegal abortions. The maximum sentence in the State of Missouri(where I and my one reader live) for a premeditated murder is...Capital Punishment! I smell hypocrisy already. Some have argued, to me, that you should punish the doctor or whoever performed it, to which I point out anyone who hires a hit man also gets punished, usually worse.
3) I know that these are getting to be rare but if a mother would die in child birth leaving kids behind I think, as sad as it is, she should be able to choose to be a mother to the children she's already had instead of dying. Do I think it's the best situation (or even likely)? No, but should it occur a mother should be able to not have a baby.
4) If someone is raped they should be able to have an abortion. I've heard the 'destroying the evidence' argument, but listen: there are seminal fluids, pubic hairs and all sorts of other pieces of evidence the police find in a simple rape kit. Second even if all these other traces of evidence were not present DNA could probably (I'm not sure, but I think we can do genetic testing on unborn babies such as Downs Syndrome testing) be extracted before or (probably less likely) after abortion. And as my brother has said if a fourteen year old girl is raped she shouldn't have to carry the shame around for months. I've heard the "having an abortion causes twice as much pain" argument, but the only people I've heard it from have gotten so many other facts wrong I can't take it at face value anymore, and it disheartens me. I've heard the "there is only a 10% chance a woman can actually get pregnant while being raped" argument too, to which I respond, why yes 10%, doesn't sound like zero and that too has the taintedness of other wrong facts.
5) We don't adopt what kids we do have. I know several families who consider themselves "Pro Life" but haven't adopted a single child who needs a loving stable home. There are some who adopt a BABY from a foreign country, but we have several older children in need of homes in our own country as well who are left in the system until they are turned out on the street at 18. As cute as foreign babies are, we need to be able to provide homes for children in our own country as well.
Back to FOCA. I've heard FOCA is supposedly going to wipe out everything from freedom of conscience laws, sterilization of instruments and other crazy things, all of which is untrue, I'm not gonna go into it myself, the people at Snopes do a much better job= http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp
Does it get rid of lots of limitations? Yes, but to me these only seem to be helping people stuck in bad situations. This Link also addresses common issues such as Catholic Hospitals and their stake, parental consent, partial birth abortion, and taxpayer funding. Really worth the read.
This is where I should end with either something witty or something powerful, but I suck at conclusions. They are my weak point.
If you want to argue, feel free. I am always up for a debate, but a few requests: when finding facts try to find them from a third party source, not a religious pamphlet (I'm sorry I just have issues trusting things that have lied to me); use facts not just beliefs (it'll be hard I know, really not trying to be facetious); read the snopes link (so I don't have to end up quoting it back to you anyway). That's about it. Also I don't take kindly to statements such as: "You should be aborted." etcetera. That only shows low brow hypocrisy and I won't have any of it.
1. I HATE MASS EMAILS! Plain and simple, they rub me the wrong way. I don't send 'em (all but once). I don't like gettin' em. Sure I'll respond if I know something (for a survey) but usually it's a waste of my time. They are some of the first things to get deleted even when I'm not cleaning out my inbox.
2. I don't like misrepresented and/or falsified facts. I don't like 'quote mining.' I don't like not being able to believe something because an organization uses above tactics to try and prove another point. I also don't like it when people buy into said "facts" at face value.
3. I don't like it when people assume one thing automatically equals another. As it pertains to what I'm about to rant about I'll use the old AntiAbortion ALWAYS=ProLife. It doesn't. Being "ProLife" really means that not only do you think abortion is wrong, you refuse to believe in euthanasia, capital punishment (of anyone). You should also practice what you preach by, adopting a child of any age and of any ethnicity. You believe in Health Care for all, no matter what. Unfortunately in America many people don't see past the "oh dear we're killing cute little babies" part of the all inclusiveness of "Pro Life." A cute baby is easy to defend, grizzly prisoners...not so much. Some people just do the easy part and call it Pro Life.
So those facts being said I check my email today (after a loooong day), and what do I find? A Mass email, about how we should all send President Obama an empty red envelope with a cutesy little note on the back, urging him not to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (with an equally cutesy name of FOCA... makes me want to do jazz hands for some odd reason).
Now we get to the misrepresentation of facts bit (my favorite part): Anti Abortioners (I'll call them this because I don't know where most stand on other life issues) LOVE to cite the fact that Barack Obama once said "Well, the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" at Planned Parenthood. Iz teh evil demon and he shud be aborted rite? Uh no. While said quote is quoted correctly it should be looked at in the context of the (I assume) evening. He was asked a question about how he as President would protect a woman's right to choose, keeping the decision in her hands as opposed to the Previous Administration's "choice" to leave it to a bunch of politicians. The above is his response to the question. So his response means that it would be the first thing he'd do as President about abortion. AS of late he's been busy with the economy and hasn't dealt with FOCA or abortion much lately has he? So this point shouldn't even be a point, but it still gets brought up in annoying emails.
Now comes the "Oh, you're just ProChoice/ProDeath" bit. Well, no I'm not ProDeath, that would be highly illogical of just about anyone. I just can't in GOOD CONSCIENCE make abortion illegal for several reasons
1) Illegal abortions=dangerous abortions. In some ProLife tainted religion class we were told that abortions now are dangerous and can result in sickness or even death. Gee, what happens when they're no longer being performed in safe clinics or hospitals but in back alleys, backs of vans, peoples homes? Simple MORE people get sick or die because things are no longer sterile.
2) Let's say a woman has one or two illegal abortions. The maximum sentence in the State of Missouri(where I and my one reader live) for a premeditated murder is...Capital Punishment! I smell hypocrisy already. Some have argued, to me, that you should punish the doctor or whoever performed it, to which I point out anyone who hires a hit man also gets punished, usually worse.
3) I know that these are getting to be rare but if a mother would die in child birth leaving kids behind I think, as sad as it is, she should be able to choose to be a mother to the children she's already had instead of dying. Do I think it's the best situation (or even likely)? No, but should it occur a mother should be able to not have a baby.
4) If someone is raped they should be able to have an abortion. I've heard the 'destroying the evidence' argument, but listen: there are seminal fluids, pubic hairs and all sorts of other pieces of evidence the police find in a simple rape kit. Second even if all these other traces of evidence were not present DNA could probably (I'm not sure, but I think we can do genetic testing on unborn babies such as Downs Syndrome testing) be extracted before or (probably less likely) after abortion. And as my brother has said if a fourteen year old girl is raped she shouldn't have to carry the shame around for months. I've heard the "having an abortion causes twice as much pain" argument, but the only people I've heard it from have gotten so many other facts wrong I can't take it at face value anymore, and it disheartens me. I've heard the "there is only a 10% chance a woman can actually get pregnant while being raped" argument too, to which I respond, why yes 10%, doesn't sound like zero and that too has the taintedness of other wrong facts.
5) We don't adopt what kids we do have. I know several families who consider themselves "Pro Life" but haven't adopted a single child who needs a loving stable home. There are some who adopt a BABY from a foreign country, but we have several older children in need of homes in our own country as well who are left in the system until they are turned out on the street at 18. As cute as foreign babies are, we need to be able to provide homes for children in our own country as well.
Back to FOCA. I've heard FOCA is supposedly going to wipe out everything from freedom of conscience laws, sterilization of instruments and other crazy things, all of which is untrue, I'm not gonna go into it myself, the people at Snopes do a much better job= http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/choice.asp
Does it get rid of lots of limitations? Yes, but to me these only seem to be helping people stuck in bad situations. This Link also addresses common issues such as Catholic Hospitals and their stake, parental consent, partial birth abortion, and taxpayer funding. Really worth the read.
This is where I should end with either something witty or something powerful, but I suck at conclusions. They are my weak point.
If you want to argue, feel free. I am always up for a debate, but a few requests: when finding facts try to find them from a third party source, not a religious pamphlet (I'm sorry I just have issues trusting things that have lied to me); use facts not just beliefs (it'll be hard I know, really not trying to be facetious); read the snopes link (so I don't have to end up quoting it back to you anyway). That's about it. Also I don't take kindly to statements such as: "You should be aborted." etcetera. That only shows low brow hypocrisy and I won't have any of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
