Fiction to Film: 2012's Films vs the Past 10 Years

This year, like last year there are 9 Oscar nominated films. Of those 9 films, 3 of them are based on novels...just slightly above the average of what we've seen over the past 10 years.

This years novel to film best picture nominees are:

• Les Miserables based on the book by Victor Hugo
• Life of Pi based on the book by Yann Martel
• Silver Linings Playbook based on the book by Matthew Quick

The other 6 there are:

• 3 original works (Armour, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty)
• 2 films based on non-fiction work (Lincoln and Argo)
• 1 film based on a stage play (Beasts of The Souther Wild based on "Juicy and Delicious" by Lucy Alibar).

How does this compare to the past 10 years?

This years percent of Oscar nominees from Novels - 3 of 9 nominees : 33.3%

The percent of Oscar nominees coming from Novels over the previous 10 years - 18 of 64 nominees: 28.1%

3 of the past 10 years saw the winner coming from a novel.

Nominees for Best Picture from Novel from the Previous 10 Year (2002-2011 films)
• 2011  films - best picture nominees: 5 of 9 adapted from a novel (Kaui Hart Hemmings' The Descendants, Jonathan Safron Foer's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Kathryn Stockett's The Help, Brian Selznick's Hugo, and Michael Murpurgo's War Horse)

• 2010 films - best picture nominees: 2 of 10 adapted from a novel (Charles Portis' True Grit; Daniel Woodrell's Winter's Bone)

• 2009 films best picture nominees: 2 of 10 adapted from a novel (Saphire's Push [source material for Precious]; Walter Kirn's Up in the Air)

• 2008 films best picture nominees: 2 of 5 adapted from a novel (Vikas Swarup's Q & A [source material for Slumdog Millionaire]*; Bernard Schlink's The Reader)

• 2007 film best picture nominees: 3 of 5 adapated from a novel (Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men*; Ian McEwan's Atonement; Upton Sinclaire's Oil! [source material for There Will Be Blood])

• 2006 films best picture nominees: 0 of 5 adapted from a novel

• 2005 films best picture nominees: 0 of 5 adapted from a novel

• 2004 films best picture nominees: 1 of 5 adapted from a novel (Rex Pickett's Sideways)

• 2003 films best picture nominees: 3 of 5 adapted from novels (J.R.R. Tolkein's The Return of the King*, Patrick O'Brian's Master and Commander, Dennis Lehane's Mystic River)

• 2002 films best picture nominees: 2 of 5 adapted from novels (J.R.R. Tolkein's The Two Towers, Michael Cunningham's The Hours)

*won the Oscar for best picture

StrangeCulture's 7th Blogaversary & The 7 Year Itch

Happy 7th Blogaversary Cake! (Image from Lady Fi Blog)

I can't believe I'm been blogging consistently for the past 7 years!

Today is my 7th Blogaversary, and not breaking with tradition I find a cake picture. (Previously blogaversary post & cakes: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th).

One of the things I wonder going into year 7 is how long I sustain this blog and if this year brings the end. I don't think that I will quit blogging, but I have to wonder. Over the past 7 years the blog-o-sphere has changed.

Some Itchy Points:

Community: I personally have found blogging to be less interactive then in previous years. It seems that the "community of blogging" has diminished, surely much of that has been a drifting to other social networks. Whether that's people have moved their personal blogging to the Facebook experience, or if the micro-blogging rapid fire world of Twitter serves some readers and content makers better. I've specifically seen this in a decrease in comments and interaction in that regards.

Most Popular Posts For Search: In terms of traffic, I've sensed a loss of some of the "community type" visitors, but continue to pick up tons of one time traffic hits. But the search-oriented hits land all over my blog, but sometimes I am disappointed that some of what I would consider some of my best posts are not the one's that get this type of traffic. Instead traffic goes to pages like "Pigs in Costumes."

In fact, my most popular post of this past year was the post I did with a pictorial overview of Tom Hardy's films. Certainly not what I would consider my most unique and meaningful content.

Relevant Film Conversation: This blog has never been strictly devoted to film, but film related content probably makes up at least 80% of the content. As my life has changed over the past 7 years one of the biggest changes as it relates to my blog content is my availability to see new releases as early or as frequently as I would like to talk about films as they come out.

This fact has not hindered my ability to speak about upcoming films, but once they come out I am not always able to jump into the conversation how I might have at other times.

How I Am Fighting The Itch: 

Extending the Community Borders: I have taken StrangeCulture to twitter. You can find me there @StrangeCulture. My best content will still be here, but with 1000+ tweets today, I am paving out how StrangeCulture interacts in that space.

Diversified Content: I will still continue blogging within the scope of many of my favorite series and themes. But I am freeing myself up to continue to expand my content and adjust my ratio of film blogging as I feel appropriate. Not sure what exactly this will mean, but it could mean more post related to social, political, cultural, or economic topics. Maybe even sports? Probably food? It also means I will continue to blog from the perspectives that I have, which include through the lens as a father & a Christ follower.

Only When...: There are times over the past 7 years where I've felt a stress or burden to create content. My regular posting patterns over the past years have been a push to blog three-four times a week, and there has been months in the past year where I didn't hit the point that I wanted to hit, and it made me feel like I was dropping this ball. I fighting the 7 year itch by dropping the guilt factor, and instead blogging only when (1) I have time (2) Have Something to Say (3) Have Fun saying it.

Especially with more people using blog readers, or getting e-mail notifications when posts are published the frequency factor seems less relevant than days years back when people would "click" over or save the blog in their favorite's and check back regularly. So, I'm releasing myself of that burden. And if you don't subscribe in a reader or get posts delivered by mail you can certainly sign up (sign up here through feedburner.)

Thanks for hanging with StrangeCulture and here's to the year ahead! Have 7th blogaversary Strange Culture Blog!

Dame Fatigue? Judi, Helen & Maggie

Dame Judi Dench (Exotic Marigold Hotel), Dame Helen Mirren (Hitchcock), Dame Maggie Smith (Quartet)

Sometimes, it seems like Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, and Maggie Smith have become names that must be considered in any sort of award race pre-announcement. 

Despite the limited popularity (and releases, in some cases) of these three dames, there names were regularly tossed around as Oscar contenders this past year. And when the Golden Globe nominees were announced, each of these women were nominated for golden globes in feature films (The Exotic Marigold Hotel, Hitchcock, and Quartet).

In addition to these "Globe-worthy" performances, Maggie Smith has also done well this year picking up awards for Downton Abbey as well as her own attention for The Exotic Marigold Hotel and Judi Dench has received some awards attention and high praise for her work in the James Bond film Skyfall. 

Yet, none of them were Oscar nominees. Perhaps these ladies were close runner-ups in the nomination votes, or perhaps there's some "Dame Fatigue," and the Academy is ready to give them an awards rest for awhile from the award circuit.

Regardless, of whether that's the case. It's inevitable, that if these ladies are in a film people will be asking...will they be nominated for an Oscar? 

So here's a look at each of these Dame's 2013 schedules now, just to get the ball rolling. Who knows...maybe a year off from Oscar is just what they needed?

Judi Dench

Judi Dench's next project in post-production is Philomena, directed by Stephen Frears (who has come in and out of Oscar love with his most Oscarific success story coming from directing Dame Helen Mirren in The Queen). This film directed and staring Steve Coogan alongside Judi Dench is a little harder to tell where it falls on spectrum. Judi Dench plays a real life story of a woman, Philomena who is forced by the Catholic church to give up her son to an American family, and searches him out once he is an adult. 

Oscar potential...of course. Watch out for Dench in 2013.

Helen Mirren

So far, nothing on the 2013 calendar...unless you think playing Victoria in Red 2 is Oscar-worthy.

Oscar potential...all signs say "no."

Maggie Smith

What, more nominations for Downton Abbey? As for film work, so far, no evidence of potential film work for Smith in 2013, but that can change.

Oscar potential...it's looking like a "no."

Ben Affleck: Golden Globe Winning Director, Not Even Oscar Nominated...Is He The First?

Ben Affleck took home the Golden Globes tonight for best director. Having won for Good Will Hunting (screenplay) in 1998, he had only been nominated once after that, as a supporting actor (Hollywoodland, 2007 ceremony). But tonight, he walked away as the Golden Globe winning best director of the Golden Globe best drama.

Since the inception of the Golden Globe awards in 1943, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), has given out an honor for best directing.

The first Golden Globe winner in this category was Henry King for The Song of Bernadette.

Henry King did not win the Oscar that year, instead Michael Curtiz won for Casablanca. Henry King was one of the 5 nominees for Oscar that year, though.

And where Oscar and Globes do not always line-up 1-to-1, it seems to be an oddity that Ben Affleck would win the prize for Best Director at the Golden Globes but not even be an eligible nominee at the Oscars.

A friend asked me if this oddity had ever occurred before.

So I checked:

1951 - László Benedek wins the Globe for Death of Salesman, he isn't an Oscar nominee (George Stevens wins Oscar for a Place in the Sun - he was a Globe nominee)

1956 - Elia Kazan wins the Globe for Baby Doll, he isn't an Oscar nominee (George Stevens wins the Oscar for Giant - he was a Globe nominee)

1968 - Paul Newman wins the Globe for Rachel, Rachel, he isn't an Oscar nominee (Carol Reed wins the Oscar for Oliver! - he was a Globe Nominee)

1969 - Charles Jarrott wins the Globe for Anne of A Thousand Days, he isn't an Oscar nominee (John Schleshinger wins the Oscar for Midnight Cowboy - he was a Globe Nominee)

1983 - Barbara Streisand wins the Globe for Yentl, she isn't an Oscar nominee (James L. Brooks wins the Oscar for Terms of Endearment - he was a Globe nominee)

1988 - Clint Eastwood wins the Globe for Bird - he isn't an Oscar nominee (Barry Levinson wins the Oscar for Rain Man - he was a Globe nominee)

2012 - Ben Affleck wins the Globe for Argo - he isn't an Oscar nominee.


So...here's 2 trends I gather from this list:

1. When Globes dramatically break with Oscar in this regarding it appears that the Golden Globes have awarded "actors as directors" (Newman, Streisand, Eastwood, and now Affleck) in a way that perhaps the academy directors branch is less interested in doing.

2. In years where we see this dramatic break, the eventual Oscar winner was in the Golden Globes pack. In the case of this year only two nominated Golden Globe directors are Oscar nominees (Ang Lee, Life of Pi & Steven Spielberg, Lincoln).*


*Globe nominated Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty) and Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained) are not Oscar nominees. Michael Haeneke (Amour), David O.  Russell (Silver Linings Playbook), and Behn Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild) were not globe nominees.

Les Silver Linings OscArgo NomPinations Unchained

Just some quick quick Oscar Nomination Morning Thoughts (I know, over 12 hours past due...how's that for current?)

• Seth McFarlen & Emma Stone were fine, but I'd prefer the standard cold style with the gasp, cheers and applause from the crowd getting attention.
  
• I was super excited when Jacki Weaver was announced as a nominee. I really enjoy Silver Linings Playbook and am excited that with the nomination of Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, and Jacki Weaver makes Silver Linings Playbook the first film to get nominations in all four acting categories since 1981's Reds. Silver Linings Playbook is the 14th film to earn that honor (Full list here).
  
• Where Lincoln is the "most nominated film" I think it's impressive that Life of Pi picked up 11 without a single acting nomination.
  
• I don't like the term "Snubbed" and with 9 Best Picture nominees instead of 5, no film was snubbed for Best Picture (including Skyfall, The Dark Knight Rises, The Master). I consider it instead 4 films are lucky to have made the cut when years past they would not have been honored.
  
• No snub talk here - but clearly one of the surprises in a year with a crowded film schedule of top films is the director nominations. Frankly, the films nominated for editing mirrored what I would have expected in directing. Films nominated for editing were Argo, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, and Zero Dark Thirty. Where I would have expected these corresponding directors (Ben Affleck, Ang Lee, Steven Spielberg, David O. Russell, Kathryn Bigelow). But Bigelow and Affleck were not included in favor of Michael Haneke (Amour), and Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild). Tom Hooper (Les Miserables) and other contenders Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained) or P.T. Anderson (The Master). But please, oh please...don't tell me that Christopher Nolan or Sam Mendes were snubbed.
  
• With some great performances and films this year, there's bound to be some omissions and so exclusions. It's fun that this year had some surprises in part because of full categories. This is part of the fun. And it's nice that this year's nominees have had some respectable box office success so that the stories and news all seems more relevant.

Largest Collective Movie Preview Groan: Dark Skies

Keri Russell Hitting Her Head Against a Glass Window in Dark Skies

Last night, I was sitting in a full theater to watch Silver Linings Playbook. The previews were necessarily well calibrated to the film we were about to watch, because coupled with the film was a preview for Dark Skies.

The film with star Keri Russell is directed by Scott Stewart and is about a suburban home that appears to be possessed (or the family's been targeted by some type of paranormal event).

Never in my life have I heard a theater crowd collectively groan at the conclusion of the preview and say dozens of audible comments such as "that's just awful," or "what a horrible preview," or "who would watch that?"

This is part of the joy of the theater experience and I love the fact that this awful looking movie warranted such a powerful and audible response from the crowd. This is on my thumbs down list for 2013. I don't expect I'll be seeing this one.

A Separation - Praise For Its Presentation of Honesty and Integrity

Sarina Farhadi as Termah, in the Iranian Oscar Winning film (directed by her father Ashgar Farhadi), A Separation

I can think of very few films in modern times that create a picture of moral conflict in the way we see in 2011's Oscar winning foreign language film, A Separation.

What strikes me in regards to their moral conflict is that the heart of their dilemma comes from the way their words way on their moral character.

In the film, a woman, Simin, attempts to divorce her husband for what the judge considers "small things" and does not grant the divorce. With general apathy and stubbornness on the part of her husband, Nader, the woman leaves, pretending to leave the country. Nader and Simin's daughter Termah stays at her home with her father, knowing her mother has not gone far. At her home, the eleven year old girl lives with her father and senile grandfather, and a woman is hired to watch over the grandfather while everyone else is gone during the day.

A series of events play out that puts these characters in conflict, and with layers of stage play style secrecy (everyone knows a little bit of something, but not the whole story) the inner conflict comes out. The conflict is with one another on the surface, but in a powerful way the conflict is truly internal conflict with their own morality, and in this case with God, particularly when characters are asked in a few scenes to swear on the Qur'an.

One of the things I appreciate about this film is it's presentation that integrity matters. It's unfortunate that one of the questions I find myself asking is whether this theme comes out in this film because integrity is more of an Iranian value than a Western or American value we see out of Hollywood. Where other films seem to question or challenge the idea of right and wrong, this film demonstrates the way dishonesty destroys human relations with one another, as well people as individuals.

My favorite character in this film is Termah, because at eleven years old she possesses an innocents and black-and-white perspective that no one else seems to have. Even the other young character in this film, the four year old, Someyeh (the care-takers daughter) early on tells her mother she will keep a secret from her father regarding a potential sin her mother has committed.

Yet, Termah is the silent observer in this film, who is pained by the presence of dishonesty she see's particularly when she catches her own father in what he has written off as a small lie that could mean the difference between freedom and a prison sentence. It is Termah who's innocence is does not seem naive but instead beautiful. Yet, it is not longer after this scene that Termah is caught in this similar web, and the challenge she faces is heart breaking.

I love this theme of honesty and integrity, and not only wish that it could have such a sensitive and artful portrayal in western cinema, but also wish that there was a similar sensitivity in real life. 

5 Broken Cameras

Emad Burnat with his "5 Broken Cameras"

I recently watched the documentary 5 Broken Cameras. I was surprised at how I personally connected to the story of a Palestinian farmer in Bil'in, a West Bank Village.

Our lives and worlds are miles apart, but there was an initial hook I didn't expect with the story of this non-violent protester. The connection, Emad Burnat is a father. The film starts with him getting his first video camera when his fourth son Gibreel is burn.

While the structure of this film is Emad's five cameras he has over a period of five years in the West Bank in a time when Israeli settlements are encroaching on his village, for me what I watched was not the story of five broken cameras, but of Gibreel's first five years.

Watching this film in the context of the Sandy Cook Elementary school shooting in New Town, Connecticut I was drawn to the idea of the innocents of children, and heart broken at what Emad Burnat's children were exposed to, particularly the violence that was part of their life.

Emad Burnat's Youngest Son, Gibreel

I was heartbroken when the first words of Gibreel are shared. They are "wall," "cartridge," and "army."

I was heartbroken at the sight of Gibreel joining a children's protest at the age of three.

And I was touched, troubled, and moved by some of the final lines of the film when co-director and father Emad Burnat says: "Gibreel is four-years old now...the only protection I can offer him is allowing him to see everything with his own eyes. So he can just see how vulnerable life is."

Directors Emad Burnat and Guy Davidi have done a fantastic job telling this story in such a sympathetic way, in a way that shows a history and footage that couldn't be found anywhere else.

Beyond the story of Emad and Gibreel the bigger story is interesting, even from the stand point that relative to other similar conflicts, I found the Isreali Army men seeming young, powerless, and uncertain of what actions that they should take in certain confrontations. The scenes were Emad goes to the hospital also reminded me another recent documentary from this area, Precious Life about another Palestinian/Israeli interactions. Films like this create a context that reminds us that things half a world away are real and involve real people, real families, and real everyday issues.

5 Broken Cameras is one of the fifteen documentary films short lsited by the Academy Awards for a potential Oscar nomination this year.

Favorite Films From Years That End in "3"

In celebration of the new year, and in spirit of similar posts I did in 2010, 2011 and 2012...

Below are my favorite films from each year of the decade that ends in 3.

1933: Duck Soup (dir.Leo McCarey)
1943: The More The Merrier (dir. George Stevens)
1953: I Confess (dir. Alfred Hitchcock)
1963: It's A Mad Mad Mad Mad World (dir. Stanley Kramer)
1973: The Sting (dir. George Roy Hill)
1983: The Right Stuff (dir. Philip Kaufman)
1993: Schindler's List (dir. Steven Spielberg)
2003: In America (dir. Jim Sheridan)

If there's some of these you haven't seen...see them.

Here's a toast in hopes of great films in 2013.

Video Games & Adult Men

From Houston  News Radio KTRH story about Adults Taking Off Work to Play Call of Duty.

The past two days I have done post on my concerns regarding video games and young children and teenage boys.

I'm sure that this post has the potential to offend some adult video game players. So read the post, and present your comments on why you disagree or "what I'm missing."

But when it comes to adult men who play video games, some of the same points from other post carry over. Like kids who play video games with violence, I question for adults whether, although permissable is it beneficial to be subjected to first-person shooter style violence (under any circumstances, even if you are killing zombies). And like teenage boys playing video games I question the social consequences of hindered relationship development (and sustainability) caused by the massive quantity of time these games consume.

But my concerns with adults extend beyond violence and isolation. My concern with video games and adult men is that the interest in playing these video games is a substitution for other unmet desires.

Video games are not just about relaxing or "mindless escape" like watching a TV show or a movie. It seems to me that instead, there's a sense when playing these games of a sense of accomplishment. And yet, the irony is that for all the accomplishment that is experienced in a game (beating the game, getting to a new level, unlocking a new weapon or character, etc), is not really true accomplishment at all.

A video game player might be able to admit this, but the question is why does this male feel the need to get a false rush of accomplishment?

And maybe this is where there is some opportunity for the conversation to meet in the middle. This topic in itself might open up the opportunity to discuss how families (spouses, parents, etc) honor and don't honor men for their time and contribution to families. It might be a statement of how the workforce treats people (men and woman) who have long aspired to professional accomplishments but instead feel like small cogs instead of valued contributors.

But beyond family and work, it also might be about the calibration of men's dreams to be something greater than the feeling of accomplishment, by finding ways to actually accomplish. I'm not talking about ending poverty in Africa, but instead wondering what can make an adult video-game playing man transition from taking a day off work to play a video game (after waiting in line at midnight to buy it) and staying up late night after night, to doing something productive and meaningful.

I use meaningful here in a broad sense. Meaningful anything that involves hanging out with people and friends, moving (any type of exercise or recreation), expanding your mind in some way (reading, studying, cultural pursuits), a hobby with true end accomplishment (baking, woodwork, art), or even resting (however; physically, spiritually, emotionally).

In hierarchy of time well spent almost everything seems to come ahead of video games in my book, and I am truly fascinated by the amount of time some adult men playing video games. This is something that is new to this generation. I can't picture my father or grandfather's generation doing this, and I can't justify or excuse this phenomenon.

Video Games & Teenage Boys

Image from Parentdish

Yesterday I did a post on young children and video games, particularly violent first person shooter games.

In my post I question whether these graphic games are appropriate for anyone, and wanted to further explore the topic by discussing how apart from the valid or invalid connections that could be made about violence in video games, discuss some of my greater concern with video games as it relates to teenage boys.

I have no complaints about teens doing recreational activities. It seems that, appropriately so, in every generation the way teens "waste time" looks different. But there is something about modern video games and teenage boys that disturbs me.

The evolution of video games has certainly changed, to what degree probably depends on who you talk to and what factor you evaluating. To me the biggest change in video games over the years has been an increasing level of "adaptability" to games that keep them engaging for a longer period of time. From Pac-Man, to Donkey Kong to Super Mario Brothers, the games got more complex. Some of this by virtue of system memory, but also by a market that demanded a game that took longer than an hour or two to beat.

Many of the popular games from recent years such as sports games (NBA Jam), Fighting Games (Street Fighter or Mortal Combat), or race games (Mario Kart) were designed to be enjoyed in one sitting, often played as a multi-player game with the other person in the same room. Single-player games were often viewed as less fun, because they lacked the potential for playing with a friend.

Times have changed, it's no longer the option of playing versus a friend or a computer. Technology allows people to play games with others remotely, or single player games are designed to be played in the wee-hours of the night for hours on your own.

Unlike the premiere of big summer blockbuster, game releases of certain games (Grand Theft Auto, Halo, Assassins Creed, etc.) seem to take certain teenagers off the grid for a couple weeks, as opposed to just the evening or weekend of a premiere.

I understand the enjoyment that can come from something of this nature, I'm not opposed to games (single player or multiplayer) in itself, but I think what makes me nervous is the way that these hyper-involved games create little lasting good, and yet demand so much time.

I see how these games could have minimal individual impact, but I can also see how these games could have last individual impact. Whether it's health effects due to lack of physical activity or sleep, academic impact due to lack of attention to school, or social impact due to the lack of normal human interaction.

Of all of those, it's the social impact that concerns me. Anecdotal, it seems that teenage boys who obsess about playing video games are far less socially adjusted. It seems that they lack the ability to interact in a positive way with those in and outside their peer groups.

It seems that because these games offer a sense of interaction (more so, than say, watching TV) it creates a false sense of expense of social energy, and so some how social needs are fulfilled when a teen sits down to hours of video game play, when in reality they are not developing socially in their ability to interact with others, handle conflict, and develop meaning relationships.

I have never been a parent of a teenage boy before, so I'm not sure how I will one day handle these situations. It seems like a unique challenge in our current world to know how to help boys transition to young adults, and it seems that the topic of video games might seem like a battle not worth fighting, or a place where it's hard to know when and how to draw the line.

All the same, I think that it's a meaningful conversation worth having, and one that I know my wife and I have already begun discussing with two toddler boys. Raising video game obsessed boys is not something we want, and so this is a conversation we have talk about.

I wonder how these games will continue to evolve, and whether these games will continue to become more complex, time consuming, and involved. Imagining this is the case (and at the change of sounding like old grouchy hen) I have concerns for the impact of video games on teenage boys, and feel like more conversations about these games should be had around the dinner table, as parents and teens walk into this changing and continually developing entertainment landscape.

Video Games & Young Kids

Scene from Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 from VideoGamer.

I find myself with a negative perspective towards video games and their influence on young children, adolescence and adults who play them regularly.

One of the thing that shocks me is the way that some adults are very nonchalant about their kid's video games, particularly when it comes to the very popular games in the first person shooter category.

I'm not sure what the correct age is for these types of games (if there is one at all), but tonight my four year  old daughter had an encounter with an elementary kid who recently had been playing Call of Duty 2: Black Ops 2. The conversation went something like this "I wish we were playing a video game," he said. "I know a game we can play," my daughter responded, suggesting a silly thing to play. His response was "I have a game where I get to assassinate people with a sniper riffle." She disregarded and proceeded to tell him her idea for a game.

It is pretty clear to me that topics of gun control are going continue for at least the next couple months in the wake of the the New Haven, Connecticut elementary school shooting.

Conversations of gun control were a low level political topic in this past electoral cycle largely because it seemed neither democratic or republican parties had much to gain from the topic, other than the base of each party wanting to make sure that their candidates towed the party line, specifically this seemed true for the republican party candidates in the early primary cycles at the local and national level.

I realize that the blame for mass shootings is a combination of many things, largely unmeasurable and the partial impact of entertainment is probably lower than say mental health issues. All the same, I question what impact games with strong violent elements have on the way people perceive and interact with others in society, even if they are not going to participate in violent acts themselves.

I understand that video games have content rating systems, in which a game like Call of Duty is rated "M" for Mature (recommended for 17 and older). Yet, this puts the responsibility on the parent, and it seems to me, whether it's talking with co-workers, friends, or students who live in our town that these big games, like Call of Duty or Assassins Creed, for example, quickly enter people's homes. Parents are either accepting of these games, feel like they have no control over their child's entertainment choices, or are oblivious to the content of the games they are playing.

I hate to complain without suggesting a real solution, other than parental involvement. But, I think that the conversation about violent video games is one that should not just be limited to the discussion of "will playing this game make you a mass murderer" and instead question not "when is it appropriate for my child to play these games" but "if it is appropriate at all."

Curious Adventures with Curious George: 1941 Book and 21st Century

For a year-or-so I often refer to my 22 month year old son as our "quiet handful" (this inspired his 1 year birthday party being Charlie Chaplin themed).

So, it's not surprising that our curious little guy has found himself fascinated with Curious George. It started with enjoying the PBS kids Curious George, but really increased when he saw the 2006 Curious George movie (directed by Matthew O'Callaghan).

Soon the original 1941 Curious George book, written and illustrated by H.A. Rey and Margaret Rey, found itself in our kids bedroom.

The original story, like the movie, is in essence "an origin story" of a character who has been recreated in many settings by many authors and adapters over time.

And where the film plays off certain images from the book (i.e. Curious George hiding under the Man With The Yellow Hat's hat, or floating on balloons), contextual the story is changed, and for logical cultural reasons.

And in many ways, if I was thinking up ideas for a primary education thesis (or another related field), I might consider researching how characterizations of Curious George have changed with the way parents view and raise their children.

But in summary, reading the original story means:

1. That instead of Curious George being a stowaway on the boat continuing a game of peek-a-boo with The Man with the Yellow Hat (2006) he is captured (The Man with the Yellow Hat put out his hat to draw him out), stuffed in a bag and captured to be taken to a zoo.

From Curious George

2. That he smokes a pipe.

From Curious George

3. That he goes to Prison for making a false call to the fire department (of course, he manages away to allude the law with an escape plan, only a monkey could accomplish...involving walking on telephone wires).

From Curious George

My four year old always asks every time we read it (because of course, they love it), "What is prison?" and I struggle to explain it...especially in the context of the story.

Not quite sure if this presentation here makes me want to rush it back to the library or embrace it as a children's classic.

Life of Pi & My Take on It's Message About God

Suraj Sharma in Life of Pi

Ang Lee's Life of Pi is a powerful film, and I personally am a fan of what Ang Lee has done with the source material of Yann Martel's novel Life of Pi. Originally in 2009 when the director options were being kicked around I discussed the complexity of this story and how the directorial selection would clearly impact the tone of the tale that is about a boy on a boat, with a tiger...and yet so, much more.

Ang Lee and David Magee did an exceptional job of keeping the book's central messages and themes, without "watering them down" (no pun intended).

*Spoiler Warning: Spoilers will follow in the remainder of this post*

The film opens up and closes with the premise that the story will be a story that will help you believe in God.

This presentation and premise is one that I think many will capture, or watch without catching at all.

Pi Patel has a pluralistic religious paradigm early on in the film, one where he has adopted beliefs from Hindu, Christianity, and Islam. I relate to his father Santosh Patel (Adil Hussain) who one night at dinner tells his son he must decide, and that in believing everything he believes nothing at all.

Attending a secular university with a religious heritage, I saw the University, like many places I'm sure, try to capture the best of all world's in all-inclusive religious discourse that didn't just accept different religious beliefs but tried to meld them, in a way that seemed ignorant in the midst of great contradiction. So, in the same way, I could relate to his father, who probably seems to many in this scene as a father failing to embrace his child's religious expressions. As a result his mother Gita (played by Tabu), seems more loving and compassionate.

Where I related to Santosh in this scene I also struggle with his conclusion. He seems to present two conclusions I personally disagree with (1) You choose for the sake of choosing (2) That reason is a better world view than his current religious selections.

I disagree with Santosh here because his first suggesting is devoid of choosing truth, and instead that the choice alone is valuable. I disagree with the perspective that a bad choice is worse than no choice. On his second point, I think his presentation, similar to those other might present (particularly in academia, as well as in many other circles) is that science and reason are the only truth, as opposed to be compatible and a part of God's design.

Yet, I don't critic Lee's film or Martel's story for this scene, because it's believable, real, and not unlike conversations I could imagine around some people's dinner tables. I appreciate the sensitive presentation.

Yet, in the final conclusion of the film, I find the final message and theme to be less sensitive. In the end the story of Pi Patel leaves viewers with two stories, the one with the Bengal tiger, and a less powerful story of a cook, a sailor, and his mother on the boat, and Pi Patel's own dark survivalist side coming out in the midst of some very traumatic events.

Pi (as an adult, Irrfan Khan) asks the writer (Rafe Spall) "So which story do you prefer?" and the writer responds back "The one with the tiger. That's the better story." Pi responds "Thank you. And so it goes with God."

This scene, message, and conclusion is more disturbing and offensive to me. It presents God, and religion for that matter, as something that is imaginary. Instead of choosing the reality (in this film, a story where his mother and two others die cruel deaths on a boat), a more mystical and comforting option is present. Yann Martel's story presents a message that we can make a rational choice to believe in a irrational God. A presentation that religion can be a conscious decision to undo reality, selecting the better story.

In the scenario presented here in the film and the choice with the two stories, I'll chose the one with the four shipwrecked victims over Pi and the four animals every time. I am interested in truth.

And yet, the film suggests value in choosing a lie for a better story.

This dichotomy is not one that I think is one that non-believing atheist struggle with, as much as those who believe in God (whether Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, etc) but have been exposed to a world hostile to this type of presentation. I see many people reconcile there beliefs and traditions much life Pi does in this film,  where they conclude that there is values in their religious beliefs and heritage  but they walk away from the table unable to reconcile their view of the world and their view of God.

The message I struggle with here, is that Yann Martel (and Ang Lee's telling) suggest that this is okay. The message is that you are permitted to conscious disillusionment. And I disagree.

I think people should strive to reconcile their world view and seek truth. Even now, in the season of Christmas, this film would suggest it is okay for you not to truly believe in all of the details of Jesus, but you are permitted to celebrate his birth and gleam excitement, values, and emotional experiences out of the story. But it is just that, a "better story" than an alternative. But I would hope that instead of celebrating a Jesus that they don't truly believe is true, that people would not as Santosh Patel suggests "just make a choice, an choose reason" (my paraphrase), that they would instead seek out truth, where God is a viable option on the table.

Which is the true story in Life of Pi? I think it's clear that it is one where a Buddhist sailor is used for food after he breaks his leg, the mother is stabbed by a cook and falls overboard, and a young boy kills the cook.

And as for God, Martel would suggest that choosing God is like choosing the story of the Tiger. But I believe God is more that a story. He is reality. Voiding in my mind, Martel's masterfully crafted message.