POEM

Roses are red
If they aren't dead
I'm the greatest
Muhammad Ali shakes a lot
(Not that that's a laughing matter)
The devil is hungry
For peanut butter and jelly
(On Wonder Bread)
But you can't get the jar open
So he just breaks it.

BLah Blah Blah

By: Your Name Here

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals. Talking about talking. Talking about talking. Blah blah blah. Writing is good. Do well on finals.

Advertising Paper - Altoids Ad

text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text text v text text text text vtext text text text

Art School Confidential

5 out of 7

Art School Confidential goes a long way out of its way to make a very simple, but needed point: Every artist has his/her muse. Pulling from the old cliché of Pablo Picasso and his mistress/muse, Jerome Platz (Max Minghella) journeys to art school only to find that it is filled with stereotypes and cardboard cut outs of artists. He, however, does not want to give up on his notion of art, however romantic it may be, and is edified in his belief when he meets Audrey Baumgarten (Sophia Myles). She instantly becomes the woman he pines for and who inspires his art. Sadly, though, he cannot have her.

The film’s message is a great one, but unfortunately it gets quickly bogged down with a lot of boring plot (i.e. Jerome’s American Pie-esque search for a sexual partner and a serial murderer around campus). These elements add very little to the overall moral, which seems then to maybe even confront the moral for now there exists a piece of art, made, assumably, by an artist(s) (Daniel Clowes writes and Terry Zwigoff directs in a return of the same guys who brought us Ghost World), who would then have their own muse(s), but then they create an art that gives a message of the importance of a muse and surrounds it with a bunch of gibberish that detracts from the message. See the conundrum?

Ultimately, though, romantic notions of art are always necessary and that Jerome learns that the reality of art needs more than a muse may be implicit in the movie’s need for subplots. Basically, if one is going to create a film that is really an essay on the essence of art, one had better surround it with some action.

Ordinary People

7 out of 7

The Judith Guest novel turned Robert Redford directed Academy Award wining film, Ordinary People, is a touching and honest look at the strength it takes to recover from loss.

The film begins in media res, so to speak, after the death of the eldest son in the Jarrett family and the attempted suicide of the only remaining son, Conrad (Timothy Hutton). The initial half hour of this 2-hour film is slightly confusing because exactly what has happened isn’t spelled out. Rather, Redford directs the film so as to allow the audience no further narrative perspective than any one in the family is permitted, especially Conrad, from whose eyes the film is viewed most frequently and forcefully. Part of Conrad’s narrative perspective involves his seeking psychiatric counseling from Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch). Through his relationship with Berger, Conrad begins to rediscover one of the elements that keeps people, people: emotion. After his brother’s death, Conrad shut down his capacity to feel so as to avoid the pain that would result. The film then does a great job of watching Conrad as he begins to reengage feelings – for all their ups and downs – and begins to heal from his past wounds. Sadly, though, the movie ends with he and his father (Donald Sutherland) sitting on their back steps after his mother (Mary Tyler Moore) has left. For his mother, who has also shut down her feelings (Conrad’s father even says at one point in the movie that she and Conrad are quite alike), it is better to cling to what is left than try to regain what is lost. The film makes the point that such a stance toward trauma will not work, as all of her clinging still results in her losing the rest of her family.

Made in 1980, I believe that this film was probably influential in helping remove the taboo around psychiatric counseling (a taboo that, one lifted, did manifest itself in the form of self-help books in the 90’s sadly, but a taboo that probably needed to end all the same). The scenes between Dr. Berger and Conrad are the best acted in the film and never lean too far into psychology/psychiatry, but rather shows how the articulation of pain and trauma is the first step to healing from it.

For anyone who has experienced loss (and that would denote most everyone) this film is a must see. For those who have lost someone recently, avoid it. The acting is too good, which makes for a much too realistic portrayal of hurt. If you’ve just recently experienced hurt, it is probably better to deal with it rather than a film.

Edmond

3 out of 7

William H. Macy continues his cinematic plight to make people act right in this surprisingly disturbing indie release written by David Mamet. Macy plays Edmond Burke, who after meeting with a fortune teller, decides that he must change his life. He does this by leaving his wife and searching for fulfillment in sex, though sex that he doesn’t have to pay too much for (the ironic part of this all is that his wife, who isn’t even given a name in the film (Rebecca Pidgoen) is very sexy). He tries first in a strip club with an “Allegro B-Girl” (Denise Richards – Allegro B is the name of the strip club). Then with a girl in a peep show, appropriately titled “Peep Show Girl” (Bai Ling) and then with a high-scale gentleman’s club girl, whose cast name is “Whore” (Mina Suvari). All of his searching only results in him being used or disregarded, until, within the same night, he purchases a brace-knuckle/knife combination from a pawn shop (where he pawns his wedding ring) and beats up a pimp who tries to rob him. After this, Edmond is feeling much more alive and finally finds the sex he wants in a waitress, Glenna (Julia Stiles). Sadly, though, this fulfillment doesn’t last as Edmond kills Glenna. He is ultimately arrested, sent to jail and sodomized by his cellmate, cast name “prisoner” (Bokeem Woodbine). The film ends with Edmond accepting his “bitch” role in prison and falling asleep cuddling with “prisoner.”

The film’s only redeeming quality is that Edmond regularly seeks humane interaction among people, even if he is seeking it within the underbelly of society (and, it should be noted, after not acting humanely with his wife in the up-scale part of society). Ultimately, the film boils down to some sort of exercise in karma, as Edmond does not act responsibly, but then seeks to find it in others. I’m sure there’s plenty of psychoanalysis that could be done on this film, but that isn’t really my schtick.

The film’s one redeeming quality (besides the all-star cast)? It’s only 80 minutes long. So, if you don’t like it, you won’t suffer for long.

P.S. Watch out for George Wendt, Norm from Cheers, as the Pawn Shop Guy. His role isn't big or interesting, but its "Norm!"

Judgment at Nuremberg

7 out of 7

I watched this film as an extra credit assignment for my Intro to Ethics class at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. What follows below are the questions I had to answer for the extra credit and my answers. The questions and answers, I feel, provide plenty of information...at least enough to suffice as a review. The film stars Spencer Tracy, Burt Lancaster, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and a young William Shatner.

1. What sort of competing pressures does the tribunal judge, Judge Hayward, face as he tries to make the right decision?

Judgment at Nuremberg does a great job of never allowing the viewer an objective stance on the dilemma at hand, that is to say that the viewer is constantly (if he or she is watching carefully) wrestling personally/emotionally along with Judge Hayward, as the film’s narrative perspective is through him. With that said, the pressures on Judge Hayward are many and change throughout the development of the plot. This question, however, probably necessitates a more concise answer, thus the predominant pressures on Judge Hayward are to “…find a code of justice that the whole world will be responsible to” and to define what it means to be an accessory to a crime. These pressures are intensified by his personal relationship with Mrs. Bertholt, the widow of a former Nazi General, by his experiences in war-weary Germany and by the Russian invasion of Berlin and the impending “Cold War.”

2. How do the defendants, their defense attorneys, and Judge Hayward each see the ethical responsibilities of the judges during the Nazi regime? What do they each see as justice, and whose view seems most correct to you and why?

The defense attorney, Hans Rolfe, sees the ethical responsibility of the judges of Nazi Germany to uphold the laws of the State. His opening comments includes an old American adage “my country, right or wrong.” For Rolfe, ethics ends where the State’s rules begin (not exclusively, that is, but potentially). By and large, three of Rolfe’s clients (Emil Hahn, Werner Lampe, and Friedrich Hofstetter) all agree with such a claim to the point that Hahn even says, upon his guilty conviction, “Today you call me guilty, tomorrow the Bolshevik’s call you guilty.” The fourth, and most credible of the judges on trial, Dr. Ernst Janning, believes that the judges had an ethical responsibility to stop the Nazi regime, but says they did not do so out of a desire for a better life, that they had accepted what they thought was a “passing phase” for “a way of life.” Judge Hayward would most likely agree with Janning (indeed, his ruling suggests as much) and says that “The principle of criminal law is that if any person who sways another to commit murder… …is an accessory to the crime” and “is guilty.” Within each character’s view is a sense of justice, with Rolfe being much more Utilitarian in his approach (he supports the removal of a few for the benefit of many, if not in his own personal action, then as a historical fact in Germany’s actions. More so, he sees the purpose of the trial as not a means to bringing about justice, but as a means of leaving the German people a shred of dignity. This very sentiment, once articulated, puts him on a different ideological playing field than the client he represents), while Janning and Hayward see justice much more as a pursuit of a virtue, in which every action either moves one closer to the virtue or further away from it and there can be no short-cutting the long road to justice. I would certain fall in line with Janning and Hayward (and Aristotle, for that matter) and say that the law, even as it is pragmatically practiced, must be in pursuit of a higher order, namely Justice. It is just as Judge Hayward says, “A country isn't a rock. And it isn't an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for, when standing for something is the most difficult!” These are words of virtue ethic, without which, I do not believe society can order itself most effectively. These words, if believed and pursued by the populous promote personal responsibility for everyone, which, by its very nature, starves off any and all forms of dictatorships and the potential deontological and utilitarian problems that can result from a bad dictator. More so, virtue allows a certain degree of individualism that the Bible shows is essential to humanity. Just as God did not create will-less replicas of Himself to worship Him, neither should the citizen be a will-less replica of the leader, meant to follow the leader without thought or concern. Finally, I believe that the very existence of the notion that we aren’t meant just to follow will-lessly the leadership of another is a by-product of our created order, but now I have breached metaphysics in my ethical pursuits.

3. From you own perspectice and the readings you've done, what role do you think the church in that time and place could most usefully have in helping the country go forward? What attitudes would the church need to challenge?

Janning ends his statement on the stand with the following line: “It is not easy to tell the truth; but if there is to be any salvation for Germany, we who know our guilt must admit it... whatever the pain and humiliation.” The church can easily recognize these sentiments when it looks upon its own infidelity to God. And like Germany, if there is to be any salvation for the church, “we who know our guilt must admit it…whatever the pain and humiliation.” Thankfully, though, the church has a loving and redemptive God to see us through the pain and humiliation and back into a right place. As this metaphor continues, then, it is possible for Germany to also admit their guilt and move forward. The church should be there, in that process, exposing as many as possible to the healing relationship found in Christ. Verhey’s article about the different ethics in the Bible, particularly his section on the New Testament, affirms such a stance. And, while Verhey may be writing to or about the individual, his words may yet have meaning for a community of people, even a community as large as a country. It is interesting to note, however, that the film tries to demonstrate (particularly through Mrs. Brecht) how each German must come to terms with this guilt on an individual basis. As such, the church would have much work in doing personal ministry to each person as he or she comes to terms, in their own time, to the atrocity perpetuate by their state and for their benefit. Those, of course, who were closest to it are most likely to have to deal with this guilt first, but as demonstrated by the Feldenstein case (and Irene Wallner), even those who had no authority, but rather were under it, also must process their pain and humiliation. As the church helps in the healing of one individual after another, it is possible that this healing will spread until it is a cultural phenomena, with each individual having a unique story, but sharing in a common experience.

This ends the Q&A section, but something else I noticed and left as a note for my professor at the end of the assignment was the way sexuality permeates the film, though hardly in a steamy or sexy way. Below is my note.

A quick note to the professor: I feel that the film had an underlying sexual strain. Each of the cases dealt with sexuality in some capacity (i.e. sterilization, “racial pollution” via sexual conduct, etc…). More so, Judge Hayward’s relationship with Mrs. Brecht almost threatened the integrity of the case and ruling. Add to that the ambiguous ending with him trying to reach her and I do not know what to make of this sexual tension throughout the film. It is not so much titillating, as it is subtly meaningful. I’d hardly want you to think I found this film arousing in any capacity, but was wondering just what to make of the continued underlying sexual issues. If you have any thoughts, please let me know.