Blog on the Lillypad
Saturday, March 20, 2004
 | More Insightful Comments from Fundamental Dan
Fundy Dan offers some new, intriguing insights regarding his time at Windsor Hills Baptist Church. Click Here for his brief commentary based on I Corinthians1:21-24. |
 | The New Doctor has been announced: Christopher Eccleston
As some of my readers know, the BBC is putting together a new season of Doctor Who after nearly 20 years of the show being in hiatus in BBC-limbo. They have picked Christopher Eccleston (who has done parts on Poirot, Inspector Morse, and Cracker) as the next Doctor. Eccleston's got some solid acting behind him. I still prefer a grouchy old Doctor to a charming young Doctor, but Eccleston can adopt a variety of looks, so he's probably a good pick for somewhere in the middle. I'm encouraged. I never thought Paul McGann (the most recent Doctor) was a good pick for a Doctor (nor did I like the fifth Doctor, though I think both men are fine actors). I'm encouraged by what I regard as a step away from the teeny-bopper's Doctor to a more classic looking guy who can do the eccentric, intense, brilliant, wily, cold, warm, funny aspects to the Doctor all by turns and make him a believable whole. |
Of course, the newest Doctor and the series will go no where if the scripts aren't pure Doctor Who. That's a hard thing to define, but I think we'll know what it ain't. I hope they stay away from the "tried, true and trite" that Fox injected into the television movie and instead go with bare-bones, simple effects, innovative plots, and genuinely resourceful and strategically brilliant resolutions. I also say away with bearded guys for the Master and have Stephen Frye play him. Frye's got a perfect voice and a beguiling charm. What an excellent villain he would make!
No co-dependent lame chicks! No wounded spirits---PLEASE!
 | Here Comes Boston!
OK, I don't leave for Boston until the end of this week, but last night I packed all my clothing and accessories for the trip. Not that I'm excited! My convention buddy Kevin Parker has arranged to meet me just outside of Washington, and we will take the train up together. Kevin has offered to bring a few Doctor Who audio adventures for me to listen to. He's got the modern stuff (from Big Finish producers), and I have several older stories from the series converted to audio (Second Doctor). |
| As Kevin is the benchmark test for good Sarah Jane Smith stories, I suggested that he help me create a good Third Doc/Sarah Jane Smith story outline. No reply to that, but I will have him trapped on that train for nine hours or so. My own Sarah Jane Smith story is still hanging fire. In spite of interest in it on the alt.drwho.creative newsgroup, haven't had time to add to it. You can catch the first episode of Death and Chocolate here in this blog, but I haven't had a chance to write Episode Two. |  |
Friday, March 19, 2004
 | Anybody Remember Equinox?
Solstice is today. The sun ticks over into Aries, and a new year has begun. Brings to mind a film that I suppose is horribly bad by any adult standard but which, when I was a kid, both fascinated and terrified me. It's an old BW B-flick about four college students hiking through the woods to find a college teacher who has invited them up for the day to discuss his latest research. The story is a series of the unexpected: a monster or two even before they get to where they are going, a madman who gives them a heavy, leather-bound book, and the wreckage of what is left of the college professor's cabin. |
Somewhere in the first hour of the flick the four college kids try to figure it all out and look into the book, which is a sort of multi-cultural compendium of every symbolic defense known to man against evil. So the kids decide to make little crosses and stars of David for themselves out of twigs to carry as protection. Fat lot of good it does them. [On top of everything else, bad theology has ruined many a fine picnic.] But the concept that caught my attention as a child was that they realize that their late college professor has unleashed dark forces onto the earth to the point that now the good and the evil are in exactly equal parts (hence the title, "Equinox").
A truly spooky forest ranger comes onto the scene and tries to hypnotize one of the girls and then attacks her. Later, he tries to bargain with one of the guys for the book and offers him anything he wants for it, but the kid declines because he wants to understand the book. The spooky ranger declares that none of them will survive for longer than one year and one day. And then monstrous creatures destroy three of the four. The fourth kid, the lead guy, goes insane and the last scene is of him in a straight jacket, and the undead version of one of the girls is walking into the insane asylum to finish up the job.
The movie is so lame in many respects that I won't pan it here. It has some strengths. First, it was the student project of Dennis Muren, and he tooled it mostly as a vehicle to get some good special effects into it. The story is really built around the monsters. Later, when a producer reworked it to bring it to theatrical release, some scenes were re-shot, but the monster footage stayed in. The monster scenes look like Harryhausen to the lay viewer, but they are the work of Jim Danforth, who was already well known in FX circles at the time and has continued to work with top Holly wood films (as has Muren, whose first love is special effects).
But without doubt the better known Blair Witch Project owes a lot to this movie. In spite of bad acting, a laborious start, and some confusion in the plot, the film generates a genuine creepiness and edginess. The woods are a primitive place, and strongly suggest that the earth itself is a battle ground between good and evil, where in dark corners untouched by man, the mysterious and unknown still wield power. It's almost like Hansel and Gretel in that sense, or Little Red Riding Hood: Dark Woods and strange creatures that will destroy us. The four students enter a forest from which escape is impossible, except at the forest ranger's decree. And even then, it's only for insanity and death.
 | As a young person, I would watch Equinox every time one of our UHF channels in the Philadelphia area ran it. To me, the team of young people fighting evil by every device they could think of was appealing. And my greatest complaint of the film was that the good guys lost. I'm sure if I went back to it now, I would see how stupid the film really is, so that's why I'm not going to watch it again. It intrigued me and probably has a lot to do with my grasp of storytelling and my use of two devices in many stories: "The Happy Team" as a collective protagonist; and a tightly woven chain of unexpected events (or events exactly opposite of reader expectations) to form the plot. |
Another element that I like about the film is what one reviewer called its "Hey let's put on a show!" format. It's a quality shared with Doctor Who, in which the film makers decide that if you have some good ideas and a pocketful of cash with a few free Saturdays, you ought to try to string the ideas together and make a story out of them. From the beginning, both producer and viewer accept that things will go wrong in the effects, acting, possbily even the plot, but you're looking for concepts and scenes that are intriguing. There's an optimistic expectancy that anything might pop up in a story, so let's get the story rolling and see what we get. As a professional film, Equinox has little merit. As a student project, it shows promise of genius to come and raises suggestions for macabre and frightening story ideas that Blair Witch Project and even Evil Dead used with greater success. (Evil Dead, by the way, is not a movie I would recommend, but it is more well known than Equinox and undoubtedly its step child.)
For a less affectionate review, Click here.
For a sort-of affectionarte review, Click Here
Thursday, March 18, 2004
For the Fiction deprived: What Makes Fiction Pertinent (even to grown ups)
After reading a jaw-dropping statement over on the FFF, ("I don't much care for fiction anymore. I grew up a long time ago"), I decided to post the hyperlinked table of contents to the essays on fiction. I doubt the person who made the statement will bother to read why fiction is so pertinent, but others may benefit. If you didn't have the benefit of an extensive literary criticism class in college, here are some essays that will give you an overview of the most significant concepts of fiction in terms of its meaningfulness and effectiveness:
 |
The Purpose of Fiction The Structure of Fiction The Design of Fiction The Action of Fiction The Integrity of Fiction The Limits of Fiction |
 | An Ironic Ending to "The Emperor Has No Clothes"
Do you remember that story? A foolish emperor cares only for his appearance. Sound like any IFB "emperors" you've heard in the past? But in this story, the foolish emperor is deceived by scoundrels who pretend to have a magic fabric that is invisible to fools and visible to the wise. So the emperor and all his deacons---I mean courtiers----declare that they can see it. And the alleged weavers spend a few weeks creating an elegant garment for the emperor that he and his deacons---uh, courtiers----swear is perfect, refined, and stylish. |
On the appointed day, the emperor parades down the main avenue in his alleged finery. Until a child exclaims in surprise, "The emperor has no clothes!" Horrified to realize he has been duped, the emperor continues as though walking in great state. Everybody must pretend that the naked man is wearing royal garments.
But what an irony if the child who declared the truth would have been punished for indecency simply because he pointed out the obvious truth: "The Emperor has no clothes!" Who was actually the one who violated the laws of decency? You have to hope, even in such a kingdom of vanity and appearance, that the direct observation of a simple child would not be punished but rather acknowledged for the truth it declares.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
 | Meeting with a Raleigh Book Club
To my surprise and delight, a book club here in Raleigh NC chose to read my online book, Strange Darkness and discuss it for their monthly meeting, held last night. They invited me, as the writer, to come and talk over the story with the group. Pizza was served, and knowing this ahead of time, I ate dinner at home (I'm allergic to most of the ingredients in pizza). I later wished I had not done this, as Linda, the hospitable hostess for this month's meeting, also served up a salad that in itself was a smorgabord of selections. And then there was a white chardonnay and also some red wine, elegant chocolates, and a lavish cake. |
I'm not used to having the general public take my Doctor Who stories that seriously, but the group enjoyed Strange Darkness. I started the meeting by explaining my history of writing Doctor Who fan fiction, explained the series to them, as briefly as I could, and then fielded questions and comments. With at least one forthright feminist in the group, they were taken back when I said I was not a feminist (as most professional women are). But the conversation focused on the story's assertion that while equality is a term that gets bandied about quite a bit (and yet is rarely defined), the workable method of good relationships between men and women rely on balance and adaptation.
The story is a mystery about men who are loving husbands killing their wives as this "strange darkness" overtakes them. The London police call in UNIT (a military intelligence organization) to help the investigation, and so the Doctor, the Brigadier, and Jo Grant enter the story and form an uneasy alliance with Chief Inspector Jules and his uniformed officers. The story explores gender differences and the different methods by which men and women approach problems to solve them. I was able to express the Bible's view of men and women and expand on it by talking about the principles of masculine and feminine (as opposed to male and female).
And, of course, we also talked about writing, about the use of fiction as an escape, as a commentary, and as a means of comforting others. We also talked about Doctor Who and what made it survive for 26 years in production with almost no budget. It was a good experience for me, and the members told me they enjoyed it very much.
Monday, March 15, 2004
BJU publishes a statement on The PASSION
In another phase of the "My how things have changed" era at Bob Jones University, Bob Jones III has released a statement giving a pretty even handed commentary on The Passion of the Christ, which he has, admittedly, not seen. He relies on the narratives and reviews of others to offer some brief comments that are accurate as far as they go.
Two points about the press release stand out. First, while I respect his heartfelt conviction that prompts the statement, "I cannot encourage Christians to see it in the theaters; it will be released on DVD soon enough," I am also struck by the irony of the same statement. While I agree that he should not do what he thinks is wrong (encourage Christians to go to theaters to see it), I cannot reason out how he concludes that going to a theater is wrong but watching a movie release on DVD is not wrong.
Perhaps soon, as modern events continue to point out the outdated structures of barely-pertinent Fundamentalist distinctives, Dr. Jones will recognize that the standards of a bygone era no longer even apply. You can buy very little these days that does not put money in the pocket of some major company that also gains earnings from Hollywood. Internet connections, cell phones, DVD players, televisions, and computers are all part of the same industrial conglomeration of many pieces, many pies, but only a few bakers. And Gibson's film was made entirely outside of the Hollywood elite studios and production companies. Mel Gibson footed the bill. So while seeing the movie will support theaters willing to show Indy films (and by that profit you will hinder---to a small extent---the profits of the big studios), most of your money is paying back Mel Gibson for the huge risk that he took.
The second item to note in the statement seems to have missed other commentaries on it. Dr. Jones, being true to his convictions, which I believe are heartfelt and very well stated, writes, "I look at the production of an occasional good film from Hollywood the same way" [as having good peanuts in a tavern]. But the great irony is that Bob Jones University, with a film studio of its own, a film crew that has shown a lot of talent in the past (at least in technical work if not in screenplay structure) has never produced anything nearly as compelling or thought provoking as The Passion.
BJU films are tame, bland, and predictable, though beautifully shot and immaculately produced. After a couple decades of feature length films, they steadily trimmed and trimmed product length, and I don't know what they produce now. But they had half a century to get their act together in film making, get a single creative vision, take huge risks to boldly assert the dignity, glory, and redemptive work of Christ, and they never did. Granted, they produced a lot of tame stuff that was okay. But as has always been true of Christian Fundamentalism, they never seized the beauty [and the terror] of the truths we believe in order to make a bold artistic statement. If, after over fifty years of failure to produce a cornerstone Christian film, BJU has seen the task carried out better (though not perfectly) by a Roman Catholic film maker, then neither God nor the papacy nor Mel Gibson are to blame. Why, I ask, did Mel Gibson have such a determination to show the starkness, horror, and scope of the passion of the Savior that no Christian Fundamentalist has ever equaled?
The yoke on Fundamentalists is a heavy yoke that binds them to people of limited scope and limited vision. I hope that someday people with the skills and resources to make great books, great movies, and great music will shake off the restraints of a provincial conservativism too often confused with godliness, and step out in faith to boldly proclaim through every medium that Jesus Christ is the Savior.
In another phase of the "My how things have changed" era at Bob Jones University, Bob Jones III has released a statement giving a pretty even handed commentary on The Passion of the Christ, which he has, admittedly, not seen. He relies on the narratives and reviews of others to offer some brief comments that are accurate as far as they go.
Two points about the press release stand out. First, while I respect his heartfelt conviction that prompts the statement, "I cannot encourage Christians to see it in the theaters; it will be released on DVD soon enough," I am also struck by the irony of the same statement. While I agree that he should not do what he thinks is wrong (encourage Christians to go to theaters to see it), I cannot reason out how he concludes that going to a theater is wrong but watching a movie release on DVD is not wrong.
Perhaps soon, as modern events continue to point out the outdated structures of barely-pertinent Fundamentalist distinctives, Dr. Jones will recognize that the standards of a bygone era no longer even apply. You can buy very little these days that does not put money in the pocket of some major company that also gains earnings from Hollywood. Internet connections, cell phones, DVD players, televisions, and computers are all part of the same industrial conglomeration of many pieces, many pies, but only a few bakers. And Gibson's film was made entirely outside of the Hollywood elite studios and production companies. Mel Gibson footed the bill. So while seeing the movie will support theaters willing to show Indy films (and by that profit you will hinder---to a small extent---the profits of the big studios), most of your money is paying back Mel Gibson for the huge risk that he took.
The second item to note in the statement seems to have missed other commentaries on it. Dr. Jones, being true to his convictions, which I believe are heartfelt and very well stated, writes, "I look at the production of an occasional good film from Hollywood the same way" [as having good peanuts in a tavern]. But the great irony is that Bob Jones University, with a film studio of its own, a film crew that has shown a lot of talent in the past (at least in technical work if not in screenplay structure) has never produced anything nearly as compelling or thought provoking as The Passion.
BJU films are tame, bland, and predictable, though beautifully shot and immaculately produced. After a couple decades of feature length films, they steadily trimmed and trimmed product length, and I don't know what they produce now. But they had half a century to get their act together in film making, get a single creative vision, take huge risks to boldly assert the dignity, glory, and redemptive work of Christ, and they never did. Granted, they produced a lot of tame stuff that was okay. But as has always been true of Christian Fundamentalism, they never seized the beauty [and the terror] of the truths we believe in order to make a bold artistic statement. If, after over fifty years of failure to produce a cornerstone Christian film, BJU has seen the task carried out better (though not perfectly) by a Roman Catholic film maker, then neither God nor the papacy nor Mel Gibson are to blame. Why, I ask, did Mel Gibson have such a determination to show the starkness, horror, and scope of the passion of the Savior that no Christian Fundamentalist has ever equaled?
The yoke on Fundamentalists is a heavy yoke that binds them to people of limited scope and limited vision. I hope that someday people with the skills and resources to make great books, great movies, and great music will shake off the restraints of a provincial conservativism too often confused with godliness, and step out in faith to boldly proclaim through every medium that Jesus Christ is the Savior.
 | Secret Radio resumes
After two weeks of dormancy, Secret Radio resumes today. The first episode depicts one character in this memoir of a fictional Baptist college explaining to another that copulation has nothing to do with the police. Needless to say, this story is intended for Christian adults, not children. For graduates of IFB-style schools, it may offer some insights. |
The Face in the Shower Curtain
For a pareidolic start to your Monday, check out The Face in the Shower Curtain, a bizarre, funny glimpse at glimpses.
For a pareidolic start to your Monday, check out The Face in the Shower Curtain, a bizarre, funny glimpse at glimpses.
