Chronicles of The Kwan

Pocahontas: Was Disney's Animated Film Offensive?

2015-08-09T13:20:00.000-07:00

Pocahontas; the woman, the legend, the myth. Matoaka, also known as Amonute, Pocahontas, and later, Rebecca Rolfe; was a Virginia born Native American woman. She is often remembered for her association with the settlement of Jamestown, Virginia as well as being famous for supposedly saving the life of Englishman, John Smith. In 1995, the famed daughter of chief Powhatan was given an animated film chronicling the events leading up to her meeting John Smith, saving him, doing her best to help put a stop to English/Native hostilities. Many fans have regarded the film as a timeless treasure showcasing the power of interracial romance overcoming current prejudices , however, I have found evidence to prove otherwise.

Evidence #1: John Smith's relationship with Pocahontas

Throughout history, the life of Pocahontas has been the subject of much debate thanks to claims made by John Smith, an English explorer, soldier, and author, who claimed she saved his life by placing her head on his own. Soon after, Matoaka became a legend possessing a number of myths romanticizing accounts of her meeting with Smith. Contrary to popular belief, there was never a romantic connection built between Smith and Pocahontas. Despite this, some writers inspired by accounts of a love story have often preferred the myth over historical fact, leading to several misconceptions of her life given from false information. Much like John Davis, author of Travels in the United States of America (the first known author to publish a Pocahontas/John Smith love story ), Roy Disney had also been inspired by fictitious tales of Matoaka's romance with John, creating an animated film based on her legend & folktales. After receiving a complaint from Powhatan Nation regarding how her story would be handled, Roy claimed the film was: "responsible, accurate, and respectful.", however, Powhatan Nation disagreed. When offered assistance for historical/cultural accuracy by the nation, Disney rejected their offer. Despite his claims, Disney failed to understand this: regardless of his intentions, using a glorified myth that fabricates information of a historical figure's tragic life, greatly contradicts his statements on giving an accurate, respectable portrayal.

Evidence #2: The Abduction of Pocahontas and Historical Inaccuracies

In Pocahontas II: Journey to a New World, Governor Ratcliffe frames John smith, labeling him a traitor during a meeting with King James in a plot to wage war with Powhatan nation as well as avoid any punishment for crimes he committed. In light of this, the king decides to send a diplomat, John Rolfe to speak with chief Powhatan and escort him to London for negotiations in hopes of preventing any possible bloodshed. However, after greeting citizens of the newly formed Jamestown, eventually meeting the chief; Powhatan refuses to travel to London. A curious Pocahontas volunteers to go in her father's place under the impression she can bring peace between both nations, but this is not the case for the real Pocahontas.

In real life, Matoaka was kidnapped in the first of three conflicts known as the Anglo-Powhatan wars, a series of disputes between Jamestown settlers and Native Americans that began in 1609. Matoaka was held captive for more than a year; king James never sent Rolfe to Virginia for any negotiations. John Rolfe wasn't a diplomat either; instead, he was an Agriculturist, colonist known for successfully cultivating tobacco as an export crop in Virginia's colony. During her captivity, Pocahontas was held for ransom, not for money, but for the release of English prisoners who were captured by her father. As promised, Powhatan returned the prisoners, however he failed to provide the settlers with weapons and tools they found satisfactory. As a result, his daughter remained in their custody. It was at this point in her captivity Pocahontas was met by a deeply infatuated John Rolfe. Soon after, the chief's daughter was finally freed, but this only happened after she agreed to marrying John. Disney completely disregarded an important historical fact which exposed the truth about Matoaka's horrendous abduction by Jamestown settlers in favor of presenting a fictitious hero in a man who harvested tobacco for the sake of entertainment. If Disney truly wanted to boast accuracy they wouldn't have taken out a crucial piece of a story they were trying to recreate. Some may argue her being captured wasn't suitable for the target audience, however that has been proven false considering Disney's track record for having female protagonists kidnapped constantly as well as having some of the most cleverly displayed horrific deaths in children's movies ever to be filmed.

Evidence #3: A Song Titled Savages and The Death of Kocoum

In the original film, a song titled: Savages, was chosen to be featured near the end in order to set the tone as both Jamestown settlers as well as Native Americans prepared for war. The song was intended to represent tension growing between settlers and natives. In the end, it was successful, however this particular musical insults native culture, equating them to mindless beasts who act solely on their emotions. Powhatan's tribe members were portrayed as being filled with a similar level of hate which rivalled Virginia's settlers, expressing their own form of bigotry. In reality, it was Ratcliffe along with his English colonist who were the aggressors. Another issue concerning "Savages" would be it's own title. The term itself is just as offensive as the lyrics it contains, giving weight to an old stereotype of a good/bad Indian archetype. Considering the high level of racism found within it's lyrics you can tell there was an ambitious attempt to provide something meaningful by making both sides holding onto prejudices towards each other appear legitimately outraged for similar reasons; showing they truly aren't that much different from one another, fearing what they do not understand, but all it did was add more fuel to an old fire. Prior to events taking place during Savages, Kocoum, Chief Powhatan's strongest warrior and second in command was promised to have Pocahontas' hand in marriage, but due to her affection for John Smith, he became jealous. As a result, Kocoum attacked John with the intention of killing him. Near the end of their battle, a soldier named Thomas, another English settler who was sent to follow Smith, decides to intervene, shooting the Powhatan warrior in his heart. Kocoum's death along with John's capture was the precursor to Jamestown settlers waging war with Virginia's natives.

Kocoum's portrayal as a jealous villain automatically places John Smith in the role of a hero who had looked beyond his people's prejudices in favor of true love, however this couldn't be further from the truth. As I stated in the first form of evidence, there never was a romance between Smith and Matoaka. According to Mattaponi traditions, Powhatan's daughter was married to Kocoum long before she was captured. The nature of their relationship as well as his existence is often debated amongst scholars and historians, but his role in the film was only to serve as an antagonist to John; with his death practically symbolizing white man's dominance over Native Americans as well as presenting another instance of a good/bad Indian stereotype.

Was Disney's version of Pocahontas truly offensive?

After looking over all the evidence for this theory, it's clear Roy Disney set out to create a faithful adaption to myths surrounding Matoaka's life. Even though his intentions weren't necessarily ill conceived, the outcome of his vision resulted in representing old stereotypes, a music score littered with racist lyrics, inaccurate information regarding historical events, and misleading content pertaining to Native American culture. In closing, Disney's Pocahontas started out with harmless intentions, but in the end it turned out to be nothing more than a tasteless display of cinematic entertainment loaded with offensive material.

Major Historical Inaccuracies:

Pocahontas's age- In her first animated feature, Pocahontas is 18 years old when she meets John Smith, but her real life counterpart was only 11 while Smith's recorded age was 28, further proving the romantic aspect of the film is false as well as making the mere thought of such a romance between the two unsettling and disgusting.

John Smith- Smith was portrayed as a clean shaven, tall man with tight fitting pants and some armor. In reality, John was a short man sporting a full grown beard, wearing puffy pants. However, he was seen wearing a similar style of armor as his animated counterpart.

John's planned execution- In the animated film, Smith was going to be executed at dawn in front of an army of colonist who had come to rescue him. The real John Smith was actually going to be executed in Chief Powhatan's long house in front of his warriors and counselors. During his capture none of the colonist knew where Smith was. The true nature of whether the "execution" was meant as a tribal ceremony, was intended to be a real execution, or was a fabricated story told by Smith is still up for debate among scholars.

Sandra Bland

2015-07-27T15:22:00.001-07:00

For the past three months, it appears to have been open season on black men and women. Last month at a pool party in Texas, police were called after a woman picked a fight with the event organizer; Tatyana Rhoades. As a result, an innocent 15 year old girl was thrown to the ground and wrestled by an overly aggressive police officer. Adrian Martin, 18 year old black man who was trying to calm down the girl was arrested for interfering. This month, Sandra Bland was pulled over for not using a traffic signal when she decided to switch lanes. Once the State Trooper spoke to Bland, he claims she became argumentative as well as uncooperative. A video surfaced of the incident showing an officer asking Bland to put out a cigarette. When she refused to put it out, he threatened to "light her up" with his Taser. Sandra was then asked to get out of her vehicle. Law enforcement officials also state Sandra kicked the trooper before she was arrested, but another video shows a woman who most likely was Sandra as her lawyer suggests, being manhandled, having her head banged against the ground and has her body pinned down by the police officer using his knee to hold her in place, injuring her arm, causing damage to her back. Sandra was then arrested.

After being held in custody officers claim Sandra hanged herself in the cell by using a trash bag, noting how she spoke of depression and PTSD. They even go so far to attack her character by bringing up irrelevant information pertaining to her past usage of marijuana and an unfortunate event where she had a miscarriage in an attempt to discredit her as some no good, ghetto trash with a possible edge towards being suicidal. Some law enforcement officials along with the media is commonly known for portraying people of color in a negative, stereotypical manner, often missing the facts of several individuals until it is either presented or discovered that officials weren't being completely honest. In truth, Bland was actually a college graduate who attended Prairie View A&M University in Texas; she was returning as a student ambassador, she was not some average uneducated hood rat.

In the case of Sandra Bland, the facts clearly show it's not possible for her to have killed herself the way it was reported, nor is there any evidence to support their claims, but sadly there are still some people in the black community as well as some white people who fail to acknowledge her death as a murder, believing she truly committed suicide. Others who have heard her exchange words with the trooper from viewing the video openly express disdain for how Mrs. Bland handled herself, arguing she should not have been combative, feeling she brought most of this issue on herself. Many who hold this view refuse to believe racism is still a major problem in America, wanting to believe racial biases no longer exist. Despite their lack of understanding on this matter, racial profiling has been going on for years and it still continues to this day with some places far worse than others, especially if you live in southern states. Given the fact she was pulled over in Texas, a state which is very well known for it's racism throughout history; it should come to no surprise as to why anyone in the black community would be outraged by this act of social injustice.

There are five important facts to consider when you examine the death of Sandra Bland found in this post I came across on Facebook, presenting some valid points:

In America, people often boast about just how much this country has changed, which in regards to our technological advancements, discoveries of different planets, acceptance/ understanding of many differences found within a variety of cultures; America still has a long way to go as far as dealing with numerous incidents concerning it's long standing racism as well as the racial biases that come along with them. Despite what millions of Americans want to believe, there is a hefty amount of social inequality that derives from society's stereotypical misconceptions pertaining to how they view black people as a whole.

The War on Black People: Misconceptions of Black Lives Matter

2015-06-19T02:49:00.001-07:00

The current state of the black community has been attacked with an overwhelming onslaught of bigotry mostly coming from police officers in the form of brutal beatings, false arrests, racial profiling, and more; leaving others to wonder just how much has changed in the last 55 years. As problems continue to increase, people who are not affected by this display of unnecessary aggression often ignore it, claiming there is no sign of these problems being racially motivated, despite visual evidence proving them to be race related issues. Some the same people who are blind to the reality also have developed a misunderstanding towards anyone presenting the idea of Black Lives Matter, treating it as if it were akin to white supremacy. In reality, most people supporting B.L.M., are fully aware that all lives matter, however they also acknowledge not everyone in this society feels the same; in fact there still exist a large number of people who view blacks as less than human and at this time many are openly displaying hatred of African Americans, prompting people in the community to be supportive by expressing to each other as well as the world; they matter. In truth, if blacks weren't being singled out during any of these incidents, no one would feel a need to express a sentiment regarding their lives being important.

In today's society, people want to believe racism no longer exists, as a result we are left with individuals who fall for stereotypical depictions of how a few black people act, equating them to a majority in a grossly overgeneralized view, contributing to the problem at hand. Given all that has happened, black people just want to be treated with respect and deserve to have justice served whenever law enforcement becomes trigger happy, overzealous, racist assholes. Another misconception often mentioned is an assertion of black people trying to slander the names of all officers, which isn't the case. Black people are fed up with being harassed by police officers, but this does not mean they view all of them as being corrupt and racist; they only have an issue regarding those who are bigots.

America is often regarded as the land of the free, home of the brave, yet men and women continue to be falsely arrested, beaten and killed. This land has become nothing more than a place for corrupt cowards, lies, illusions of freedom, fake equality and dead black bodies.

Idol Worship

2015-06-17T17:24:00.000-07:00

In the event of worshipping an idol, we begin to lose a sense of skepticism, hanging on nearly every word of whomever is the subject of our interest. In truth, everyone has had at least one or more people they have been influenced by and possibly look up to, often seeking this person or people, for guidance on any given number of topics, which can be ideal when help is needed. However, a large number of people tend to forget that their idol is still only a human who has faults.

The main cause of idol worship comes from an abnormal level of admiration. This particular form of admiration usually begins in childhood when a kid finds an adult or teen mentor (and even a fictional character or possibly an athlete) who inspires them to push themselves above and beyond their limits, leaving a long lasting impression. Because of these kind of interactions, people who fall into this category generally have an issue accepting when their hero has made some bad decisions in life, wanting to believe the idol is perfect.

Reasons people view idols as perfect-

Individuals who refuse to see their idol in a negative light often present a low level of self esteem and lack confidence in themselves once they come to the realization the person who inspired them may not have been as great as once thought, leading them to have self doubt and become depressed. People who share this view also appear to be overly obsessive in terms of their fandom as well as some of their favorite activities. Others who suffer from this condition may become angry, feeling hurt and betrayed, resulting in holding slightly nihilistic views or having anti-social behavior.

In the end we all need someone in this world to guide us in the right direction, help us make a difference and reach our goals. As a whole, humans are prone to making mistakes, many of which can be corrected and is essential for ones growth from childhood to adulthood, however this does not mean we should view our idols or mentors as a higher power; they are far from being perfect.

In the event of worshipping an idol, we begin to lose a sense of skepticism, hanging on nearly every word of whomever is the subject of our interest. In truth, everyone has had at least one or more people they have been influenced by and possibly look up to, often seeking this person or people, for guidance on any given number of topics, which can be ideal when help is needed. However, a large number of people tend to forget that their idol is still only a human who has faults.

Coming soon...

2015-06-12T20:02:00.000-07:00

Change of plans

2015-06-12T03:08:00.001-07:00

Due to unforeseen issues, I have decided to hold off on a few articles I planning to finish this year, instead I will be working on a few older articles for Theoretical Inquiry that need my attention. The next theory I'll be focusing on has to do with Pocahontas and whether or not Disney's portrayal of her life was a tasteless film romanticizing events that never took place; so keep an eye out for it. For any past theories, check out the box on your right titled: Theoretical Inquiry.

-Kwan

Random: If Humans Were To Go Extinct Would We Be Worth Remembering?

2015-06-04T20:16:00.000-07:00

Art by Jeremy Chong.

Earth is filled with a vast number of cultures, traditions, and customs derived from the minds as well as actions of one of it's most interesting inhabitants: humans. It is often subject to debate whether another species would consider us to be inferior, destructive, and dangerous, or intelligent, fascinating, and compassionate. The major problem found once this particular question of how an alien species would view our species, lies deep within our own limited view of alien thought processes along with personality traits. When asked what they think could happen if Earth was visited by extraterrestrials, humans often claimed to view aliens in one of two ways:

1. World dominating conquerors- in this view, aliens are regarded as tyrants who would wage war with humans, enslaving all who do not perish, eventually claiming the planet as their own.

2. Peaceful helpers- this view centers around the idea of E.T.'s visiting, offering technology far beyond what we have ever seen.

With views of alien species mindset as well as their motives, both merely assume they are adherent to the very same form of thinking we often used in our efforts to discover new countries, states, etc. Each view also asserts aliens are prone to similar emotions with their own collection of biases. Neither view has been able to answer the question in a satisfactory manner. Perhaps the issue isn't the differing views, but maybe the solution can be found in how we have been perceiving them as completely separate possibilities when in reality, it's more than possible for the answer to be a combination of both. If we are to assume another intelligent species may be similar to us, we have to consider some aliens could potentially be dangerous to us while others may be harmless.
Given the massive size of our universe, it's fairly reasonable for one to come to a conclusion; aliens probably will have multiple sub-species in relation to them (in one way or another), but will differ in a multitude of ways with distinct physiology, reflecting on their native planet, leading to an infinite number of possibilities.
Much of our existence in the universe has significantly altered the environment we inhabit for better or worse with a number advancements in science and technology, but as of right now our significance in the universe itself can only be defined by how we relate to our fellow humans and what we choose to believe of it, as well as how much higher we choose to believe our importance is in comparison to other species. Beyond that, our importance as a race of humans in this universe is much smaller than we want to imagine. If humans had become extinct some years before any kind of contact could be established and aliens discovered our history I think there would be a certain percentage (not sure how much) of them that might be intrigued by it and find us fascinating while another percentage wouldn't. Much of it depends on exactly what they're after or where their own interests of other life forms lie. As to whether or not we'll be worth remembering, in a sense I would say yes for two reasons: 1. many of our failures and cognitive dissonance can be used as an example to expose problems they may have in their society if any.
2. The more positive traits of the human race as well as their accomplishments might be of interest purely to have a record of things that happened in the universe along with the negative portions for the sake of having a source to reference.

Random: Is The Vampire Diaries superior to the Twilight Franchise?

2015-02-06T12:07:00.002-08:00

Since the very beginning of it's series, The Vampire Diaries has shared a few notable comparisons with the movie series Twilight, not only for it's use of vampires, werewolves, etc. but it's tendency to focus on a love triangle as a core element of the plot in their first three seasons.
Despite this reliance on the love triangle aspect, V.D. has proven to be more versatile in it's method of storytelling by employing a variety of other known mythical creatures such as doppelgängers, witches, werewolves, hybrids, ghosts, travelers, and more. In addition to their vast amount of mythical species, there are three other components that place the vampire diaries above twilight:

1. Acting: In the first film of Twilight's franchise the acting is stale, lifeless and dull, seemingly lacking any form of emotional depth, making you feel as though the characters are pretty much bland with little to no development ever being present. However, the vampire diaries acting since their first season has had some relatively good acting with nearly all of it's main cast receiving a great deal of character development as the series went on from season to season. Of course in this case, diaries, has a clear advantage over twilight with it being a TV series versus a movie series, it's worth mentioning the reality of V.D.'s main cast only needing two and a half seasons to achieve versus Twilight's characters never receiving any over the course of five movies.

2.  Vampire lore: In it's defense, Twilight has created a unique version of vampirism, daring to go for something different, but their version of vampires lack the gothic feel as well as dark tones of which all forms of bloodsuckers have been known for, making them appear to be watered down light weights. Removing this aspect takes away one of the central points of their creation, leaving them to be far less intimidating. In contrast to this, Vampire Diaries, has been more faithful to the gothic atmosphere of vampire lore while being able to add their own unique spin to it. V.D. also presents itself with a more realistic approach in execution.

3. Characters and story: As I stated above, Vampire Diaries' most interesting aspect is the versatility it possesses in it's story structure, using a good amount of realism, blending old myths and legends with modern day themes, as well as jumping back and forth between character's past and present through the use of flashbacks. This method of story telling gives us a more interesting visual representation of events, making it a modern tale with trace elements of a period piece. In regards to the overall story of Twilight, much of it is very similar to it's TV series counterpart, but the weakest parts of the franchise are some of the same things that make V.D. a good show. Twilight's stories lack a great deal of versatility in the writing department, under utilizing any of the potentially great elements it may have. In a sense some of the aspects attributed to their vampires are pretty creative and imaginative, but it fails to make up for it's one dimensional storytelling. Given the fact Twilight has a considerably lighter tone than V.D., it doesn't hold the same level of maturity or realism that diaries has continued to display.

Characters in Twilight, particularly the main ones of the series, feel more like archetypes of a character instead of actual people; one exception to this might be Bella, who has come off as a naïve, desperate girl who makes ridiculously bad choices when it comes to a man. For example; even though Elena, Bella's TV series counterpart, plays the same type of roll in her respective series, she has shown noticeable differences in her resolve. Elena is more or less; smarter, stronger, and far more mentally stable having gone through much more losing parents at a young age unlike her movie counterpart. However they both share a few similar flaws and have made some seriously dumb choices. What makes Elena superior is her ability to realize her mistakes as well as admit to them in order to become a stronger woman.

In truth, both series do their best telling an almost identical tale about a woman's love for a vampire having significant differences made apparent in execution, but in the end what it really comes down to is which of the two is able to deliver a more believable performance, possesses better writing, and has more interesting, fully developed characters to entertain beyond a simple love triangle plot. In every single area presented, Vampire Diaries has proven itself to be the better of both series.



                              This has been another addition of Random, thanks for reading.

Update

2014-10-03T16:30:00.001-07:00

Hi everyone, I'm officially back from an unexpected hiatus with a brand new laptop to resume making some articles. I have a lot planned for everyone to check out soon, so expect a new article for Theoretical Inquiry and Random in the coming weeks.

-Kwan

Random: Are Sequels & Reboots worth it?

2014-07-31T15:03:00.000-07:00

Sequels: Often regarded as a follow-up or continuation of another movie, sequels have received mixed views from audiences who were both excited as well as disappointed by how well the film was produced. There has been a plethora of viewers claiming originals are always better than the sequel, even though more often than not, this statement has been proven false. Great examples of this are; Dark Knight and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Many sequels are able to surpass the first film in the franchise due to having a pre-existing figure and story which provides them with opportunity to create a new chapter in the series. In the process, much of a character's history or origins can be expanded upon which can add more depth to the narrative as well as the film series in general. Sequels also work as a catalyst for providing characters with growth in a similar fashion to people maturing from past events. However, sequels are far from being perfect. Many of them have continuity issues, often contradicting source material introduced by previous films and some have absolutely no link to the original movie at all except for the name being used in it's title. Another problem with sequels come whenever a franchise expands beyond the second movie. The main reasons as to why they fail after the second film usually depends on whether or not the following films are nothing more than a half baked attempt to re-create their original one. Once a franchise begins working from that angle, much of it's series turns out to be repetitive.

As we move forward, current times have shown us just how well a sequel can be if enough care is given to a story's narrative, development of characters, along with great dialogue. When it comes to films continuing where their first left off, there will always be a bunch that misses their intended mark, but for each miss, we can be sure to find one winner able to hit a home run right around the corner.

Reboots: Many of the reasons people love reboots generally comes from the nostalgia they feel from the original, wanting to re-live that exhilarating experience, but in a new way. It is for this same reason alone, people also hate them. Reboots are amazing for breathing life into a dying or already dead franchise, re-imagining a story, filling it with a brand new twist. Because of this, a large portion of the original films fanbase becomes a hard bunch to please since their nostalgia goggles are always present, scanning for any changes that seem too much of a drastic departure from what it's message was. At the heart of the matter, reboots are necessary for reviving any franchise for another generation to experience their own piece of cinematic gold, so it's not just about pleasing the generation who is familiar with it's source material. Several have failed to capture the original's essence simply because what was achieved in the past had become known as the first of it's kind. It held an advantage since it was original and different from what audiences were expecting; leading to it becoming a host for their own nostalgic fantasy, but does that make them worthy of attention?

Despite the shortcomings of what any Reboot attempts to regain and bombs in the process, when the script is able to recapture what the original content had aimed to create with actors who understand their character well enough, a director who respects source material and finds an incredible way to enhance or put an intriguing spin on it, it becomes something even greater than the original, improving anything the first of the franchise may not have been able to present because of limitations found in the era it was created. So, in a sense reboots are worth seeing, but you must be willing to look beyond nostalgia to embrace it's potential of creating a home in your hearts and fondest memories. Of course there will always be many installments that will not live up to it's hype, but even if only a handful will deliver what has been claimed; a few gems will always be better than none at all.

Coming soon...

2014-07-20T16:26:00.001-07:00

After the last article I wrote for Theoretical Inquiry, I began brainstorming ideas for the next one. Here's a list of topics I have planned to explore:

Twilight: Why Bella is good example of how some desperate women overlook red flags.

What's The Real Message Behind "The Butler "?

Lilith: Evil Demon or Iconic Symbol for Feminist?

Random: Can Batman Beat Anyone He Faces?

2014-06-28T22:33:00.001-07:00

Batman was created by Bob Kane and is regarded as one of the best comic book characters. Over the years he has been known for taking on impossible odds for any human to face, often winning each time, but can he really beat anyone?

As much as I love Batman comics, movies, and TV series, too many fans have this absurd notion that he can beat anyone if given prep time. Granted, Batman is one of those type of heroes who has the ability to outsmart a multitude of villains or other heroes using strategy, detective skills, martial arts, and technology, but even with all this in his favor there are many characters he will never be able to beat who are either superior to him in these areas or have way too much power for him to compensate for. Many of the people he has faced often showed signs of having an exploitable weakness which he would be able to capitalize on at some point during the fight. Even though it can be argued from another point of view that we all have an exploitable weakness and anyone who is smart enough can use against us in the real world, but in the world of comics this is not always the case nor is it always going to be something you're fully able to utilize against them. This is also true for Batman. The reason most people feel as though he can beat anyone comes as a result of him winning in a fight against Superman.

With all the amount of praise given to the dark knight, some of his more enthusiastic fans overlook the fact no one can beat everyone, even Bruce Wayne has his limits. In reality, Batman only beat the man of steel because he had access to some thing he knew would diminish his natural power, making him weak in the process. (also a result of the pain) So, technically his win doesn't count. Not much strategy was needed for what he did in this fight. Depending on how you play it, anyone could beat Superman when he's like that. If Superman did not have Kryptonite as a weakness, the dark knight would have been killed or would be left with no choice but to escape. In a similar scenario, if we were to replace the man of steel with another such as Thor, Batman would easily lose this fight because he simply has no exploitable weakness he could use to beat him. No amount of preparation, technology, or human physicality can compete with a being who is light years beyond average or Olympic levels of power, specifically godlike entities. Another point worth noting is Bats' track record against foes smarter and more skilled then him. He has been beaten many times by Slade Wilson a.k.a. Deathstroke, Lady Shiva, and a few others throughout his career which he has never outsmarted or beaten in a fight.

As he stands, Batman is a symbol, he embodies many of the good qualities as well as physical and even mental abilities we can all strive to achieve in reality, but with good qualities also comes terrible shortcomings. He may be regarded as one of the greatest comic book characters of all times, but he is not invincible or unbeatable.

Random: Zombies

2014-04-25T17:52:00.000-07:00

Zombies are one of the most over used, repetitive forms of undead creatures seen in movies to the point where it is all too predictable and boring. In nearly all forms of media they have been shown in they have done nothing significant to differentiate themselves from others that came before them. I never could understand how something like it would grow to the heights it was able to reach when most movies about them were pretty much mediocre films with a seriously weak, basic plot; survive the mindless flesh eating creature. Despite this, many still love them and revere them as a horror movie staple, along with Vampires and Werewolves. To be fair they have earned that right.

In recent years, zombies have been receiving new films as well as a TV series; further proving Zombie lore is still relevant and interesting to the mass majority of it's viewers. I myself have never been particularly intrigued by the concept of a walking corpse who tries to devour your flesh, carrying with it the potential to infect others to become just like them after I reached a certain age, so much of it held no true importance to me, but for many that was not the case. When you get down to it, as repetitive and one dimensional as the concept is, it's clever for one reason only; the survival aspect. At it's core, zombies play off our natural fears when it comes to our own survival. Because of this, it also personifies viruses which elevate to the same magnitude of a plague, often times being the very embodiment of what a plague is. For many it is the gore factor reeling them in, but that is only a small margin pertaining to what the atmosphere presents. Audiences have been given an opportunity far different from anything else related to horror; they are given the privilege of experiencing rough, relentless, disturbing, survival methods. This in turn, allows one to ponder, "What if it were me", "what would I do"? Resulting in some even going so far as to create their own methods for each situation both mentally or physically; whether it was for fun or just because some people truly believe in them or at least in a metaphorical sense.

In closing, Zombie films and TV series are pretty much predictable, repetitive, and highly overrated, but they are cherished mostly for what it's main focus is, centering on our primal instincts, challenging us mentally, personifying human fears, providing depth in the form of a psychological experience done in one of the best metaphorical ways anything horror related can bring you. So, despite it's mind numbing shortcomings, Zombie survival as a theme in any type of media, captures people in a way that vampires or werewolves never could.

Random: Is the movie "IT" really scary?

2014-04-16T17:41:00.001-07:00

Welcome to Random, a brand new section that will take a look at a variety of topics to analyze. Unlike Theoretical Inquiry, this section may be shorter (depending on the topic) and will be more of an open exploration. In many ways, it could be considered a quicker, easier to write version of Theoretical Inquiry with no structural restrictions.

Stephen King's IT, was a two part miniseries/movie based on the classic 1990 novel of the same name. In recent years, the film is regarded by many fans as something scary or creepy, but loved all the same in comparison to horror flicks of today, but is it really? I would have to say yes and no. When it comes down to it, the movie has it's fair share of creepy moments, however nothing about it is realistically what anyone can truly classify as scary. At best, it gives off vibes of being disturbing much more than anything else. Much to my surprise, I have heard people were terrified by the movie, even today rather than simply enjoy it for the sake of nostalgic value. The central reason for this is none other than; Coulrophobia. Coulrophobia is fear of clowns. Some have speculated the fear most likely developed during the 80's when clowns had become more prominent in a wide assortment of mediums; One of which was horror. Some might ask how the hell does an adult develop this kind of fear? Well, to put it simply; their childhood. As I stated above clowns were in some horror movies during the 80's prior to, It, and the majority of kids who have seen it when they were young had become terrified by their appearance, actions, and overall attitude. For the most part, depending on a kids age as well as their level of maturity, something as simple as a clown can appear menacing given proper setting or actions with a semi-horrific atmosphere. Much of this can be said for why many find it to be scary despite it only being mildly creepy or downright annoying or just plain crazy.

Some of the very same reasons people like clowns are also why people are scared of them. Generally they are depicted as dopey, fun-loving individuals with either a corny sense of humor or a great sense of humor (some times....) , and yet they also present a visual image of an odd, unfathomable, disfigured, diseased looking human/creature hybrid. The confusion as to what it is, causes the kid to be uneasy. Making matters worst, everything about a clown is unpredictable. So, in a sense, clowns creepy look can be enough to scare a child, but if you remove the fear of clowns out of the equation, IT, is only mildly creepy with dark elements built within it. Other than that, the other things added such as balloons for eerie mystique, fail to present a menacing visual. Although it works well with the character, it doesn't do anything except ruin the eerie mystique.

In conclusion, the movie might be scary only to a certain age demographic who had been previously exposed to clowns and developed a fear of them, without these hanging in the balance, we can see that "IT" isn't the least bit scary. Creepy, a bit dark, bizarre as hell, annoying as fuck (in the second half... wanted to shoot his ass in that one scene... you know the one), but not scary.

Aaron Loves Angela: a movie reflection

2014-04-08T22:25:00.002-07:00

In the early 1970's, Blaxploitation films reigned supreme. During this era, the genre had been known for producing great movies like Shaft, Foxy Brown, and Coffee just to name a few. The genre was notable for casting black people in leading roles as well as centering mostly around a majority of black people in general. Among most films in this era, one continues to capture my admiration, filling me with laughter as well as warming my heart; that movie is, Aaron Loves Angela. What set this flick apart from the others had more to do with it's main focus: Aaron's romance with Angela. What truly adds a great amount depth to the movie is how their story is portrayed as a cross between Romeo & Juliet and a West side story. The story itself is about a black man, (Aaron) played by Kevin Hooks, who falls in love with a Puerto Rican girl (Angela).

Highlights: Moses Gunn does an amazing job playing as Aaron's father who is now a former athlete, owning his own bar. His role also helps to add a balancing touch of real life issues he's been going through which relates to the absence of Aaron's mother having to raise his son himself as well as reflecting on failures in his past career.

The chemistry between Aaron and Angela is instantaneous as well as genuine, eventually it develops into a strong passion on both ends. Even though there are some bumps along the road, they manage to pull through in the end. Another aspect it focused on was the prejudice tension between blacks and Puerto Ricans during this particular time period.

Willie (played by Leon Pinkney) is Aaron's hilarious best friend. Some of the best moments in the film center on his interactions with Aaron and others. By far, he is without a doubt, the most funniest character there.

The subplot centered on Beau, the local drug dealer/pimp (played by Robert Hooks) beautifully ties in with the main plot of the film adding more depth to the overall story. The whole story itself was nicely constructed, giving an equal amount of romance, action, and comedy with a great dose of drama. The main characters (excluding the villains) are all likable. Also worth mentioning was the acting; there were many good performances throughout the movie. I must also mention how incredible their script was, with amazing sense of quality as well as it's firm hold on realism leaving a great amount of structure.

Fails: honestly there really aren't any real issues with this movie that I could classify as bad. At times some of the lines projected come off as a bit forced, certain aspects of the emotional scenes also give off this vibe, some parts seem a bit awkward or off, like the sex scene, but I mostly contribute these problems with the era, so I don't take too much from it into account.



                                                                        Final thoughts:


Overall, I can truthfully say; Aaron Loves Angela is an amazingly well written romance/drama worthy of praise. The few shortcomings of the film are outweighed tremendously by the large amount of time, effort, and passion each cast member had devoted to this project. In many ways, Aaron Loves Angela actually captures the essence of how two young adults can fall deeply in love with each other, defying all odds, conquering all obstacles that stand before them. This movie is a classic, I highly recommend for anyone into romance.

Update

2014-03-01T13:11:00.004-08:00

If you haven't already, check out the latest article of Theoretical Inquiry. This one is an in depth analysis of whether or not Psychic Sylvia Browne was a fraud in the first part of my special Psychic Watch edition of Theoretical Inquiry. If you missed any of my other articles for Theoretical Inquiry, as well as the one I just mentioned; check the page listings on your right and enjoy. Also, due to software issues I will be pushing back the movie review of Paranormal Activity until further notice.

Alvin and the Chipmunks Trilogy: A Reflection

2014-02-08T18:53:00.000-08:00

At the start of the new year, I took on the task of watching all three, Alvin and the Chipmunk movies for the sake of curbing some Nostalgia that surfaced as a result of their 1980's cartoon show catching my interest once again. In the end I both enjoyed them as well as despised them at the same time, so I decided to reflect on what I've seen; hope you enjoy.

In 2007, Alvin and the Chipmunks was produced by singer, voice artist, record producer, Ross Bagdasarian, Jr. and his spouse; Janice Karman. Much like the 1980's cartoon series, also produced by the duo, the film centered around three singing chipmunk brothers; Alvin, Simon, Theodore.

Highlights:

Some of the best scenes are due in part to effects displayed by having all three brothers in CGI. Because of this incorporation for their live action films, it allowed them a chance to grab a hold of more creative, inventive, forms of comedy as well as pulling off top tier level of acrobatics added to performances. The first film in the trilogy focused heavily on all three brothers singing career as well as their relationship with adoptive human father; David Seville. Though it cannot be considered as an origin story of how they grew prior to meeting Dave, considering much of their past is somewhat of a mystery that for some reason is left unexplored, but it is however an origin story in the sense it shows us how they met Dave and how they became famous. To some degree, the movies manage to satirize the music industry. In their sequel we are introduced to their female counterparts; Brittany, Janette, and Eleanor; the Chipettes.

Fails:

Much of the issues found in this trilogy can also be attributed to the main attraction: the CGI. In their defense, this aspect of the films was doomed before it had even started. When it comes down to it, Bagdasarian and Karman envisioned  a live action feature length film, with that in mind; making them look more like actual chipmunks as well as designing them to fit the same height as real chipmunks was in reality the best and quite possibly the only way it could have been done. Sadly even with it's creativity included, at best, none of it can truly be considered innovative or new, I dare say half of it was recycled from other more inventive programs done to a lower degree of success in execution. As with most live action films based on cartoon characters; it suffers from having poor acting when it comes to the human cast.



                                                       Final thought

Despite all it's shortcomings the film series isn't all that bad; certainly not spectacular by any means, but it is good in a sense that it reaches it's target audience and in doing so it became a commercial success. Throughout the series, characters received a good amount of growth which in turn helped to shape them as many returning fans of the cartoon series can remember, with the third film in the trilogy cited for having the most shown in character development for both Chipmunks and Chipettes. It may not be the greatest film trilogy in the world, but in a sense it does it's best to re-capture most elements found within the cartoon, because of this the trilogy is something the family can enjoy during holidays.

Coming Attractions

2013-12-03T03:38:00.001-08:00

Theoretical Inquiry: Psychic Sylvia Browne; real or fake?

In my next theory I will tackle whether or not the famed, recently deceased psychic truly could predict anyone's future or talk to dead people as a part of psychic week.

Paranormal Activity: A Movie Review

In the weeks to come, I will explore Paranormal Activity's appeal, what has happened to modern horror and the influence it has on the populace.

Neo Druidism: An open examination of an abstract religion

2013-12-01T18:06:00.001-08:00

Neo Druidism by: Kwarmaine Council

Neo-Druidism is commonly referred to as Druidry by those who practice the religion. It is a modern form of spirituality promoting harmony, worshipping nature, and overall holding respect for all beings, whether they are human or not as well as the environment itself.

There are many forms of Druidry that are recognized as religions, while some others are considered to be more along the lines of philosophy that are not seen as having any form of religious dogma within it expressing that it may not be entirely, if at all, religious in nature. It's origins can be traced back to the 18th century Britain, where it was originally conceived as a cultural movement which had not received any religious or spiritual connotations until the 19th century. At it's core, Druidry holds such high regards for nature that it has often participated in the environmental movement as an influential force. Modern Druids are also known for their belief in veneration of ancestors from pre-historic societies.

In light of the 18th century's Romanticist movement in Britain, a movement which was based on glorifying the ancient Celtic people of the iron age, early Druids initially aimed to imitate the Iron Age priest who were also known as Druids. There wasn't much accurate information on the ancient priests at that time, but some modern Druids claim there is a direct connection between the two groups despite there being no actual evidence to support this claim.

At the start of the twentieth century, modern Druids had developed fraternal organizations, which they modeled after Freemasonry which employed a romantic figure of British Druids and Bards as a symbol of indigenous British spirituality. Their set of beliefs vary with no belief system to which all choose to adhere to as a whole. In fact, Druids do not believe in living by a strict dogma and proclaim there should not be any strict dogmas, which is a major key component; There are no central religious texts that they teach from or adhere to. In addition to their refraining from religious texts, modern druids choose not to have a man or woman hold a position of authority over any other members in favor of seeing each other as equals. Many of the core ideas modern Druids share is the honoring of their ancestors and the honoring of the land. Emma Restall Orr, founder of the Druid Network, stated: "Druidry connects with all the other Earth-ancestor traditions around the globe, such as the Native American, the Maor and Huna, the Aboriginal, the Romany and the indigenous spirituality's of Africa and Asia".

A large part of Druidry revolves around the veneration of nature. Phil Ryder, a member of the Druid Network who also holds the position, Chair Of Trustees, has stated: Druidry largely revolves around the veneration of nature. Phil Ryder stated: "within Druidry, Nature is considered to be unconditionally sacred and an expression or manifestation of deity and divinity". Most Druids view all aspects of nature as something filled with soul or spirit, literally or metaphorically speaking. Because of this, many Druids are said to be Animists; people who believe that all forms of nature have a spirit or soul.

Modern Druids generally hold their practices outside during the daytime, in what they call "The Eye Of The Sun". Sometimes their rituals are held indoors or at night. Many Druids hold their ceremonies in a circle around an alter or center of fire. Neo-Druids mostly meet and practice in groups known as "Groves" or "Henge's". Sometimes they would also meet at stone circles as well as other megaliths which are pre-Celtic. A Neo-Druidic ritual at the Summer Solstice is notable for being held at Stonehenge in England. Glastonbury, another sacred place in England, is also one where they practice. When performing said rituals, some modern Druids wear ceemonial cloaks and robes, some of which imitate the Iron Age style of the Celts. In some other orders of Druidry, robes of different colors are considered to be a way of indicating the grade of Druid within the order. The Order of Bards, Ovates & Druids, an order based in England, asign the colors, blue, green, and white as their grades. A ceremony in Druidry known as Eisteddfod, is a specific ceremony which is dedicated to reciting poetry along with musical performances. Those who are skilled in their recitation of poetry or their performance of music are referred to as "Bards". a term based upon the word bardoi, which the ancient Greek historian Strabo claimed was the term for poets in Iron Age Gaul. Bards generally perform at Eisteddfod on various occasions ranging from formal rituals to pub get-togethers camps and environmental protests. Instruments include: bagpipes, flutes, and whistles.

2013-01-04T14:42:00.003-08:00

Hey everyone, I'm currently working on another movie review, but in the meantime I decided to make a video with my thoughts on destiny and what it generally entails whenever mentioned as well as some of the main reasons people buy into such concepts. The over all goal is to expose the illogical disposition of a person believing any, if not all, things as being predetermined and of course to promote belief in yourself with self motivation. Hope you enjoy.

Love In The Nick of Tyme

2012-11-16T03:34:00.000-08:00

Love In The Nick of Tyme: a play review

Today in honor of me actually getting a request, I decided to review a play. This one in particular seemed promising at first glance, but everything that followed had fail written all over it..... the first sign would be it's appearance on B.E.T. what I found to be amazing is the fact it wasn't a Tyler Perry play, but sadly, it had a similar flair, which brings me to blacks in drama.... well, there's not really much to talk about here is there? Well, there is a reason for that; most plays starring African Americans tend to be horrible with poor acting being the major issue, their plots are generally weak, the subject matter is never anything deep or complex; their stories lack a certain amount of depth, which would warrant them to be taken serious, and overall, they have a tendency to be stereotypical as well as being riddled with various degrees of foolishness. What's even more disturbing is the lack of a socially conscious message; no metaphor can be seen in relation to any form of realistic empowerment within the majority of the plays. My last most recent look at any play made by an African Americans prior to this one was my introduction to Tyler Perry's work, and boy was I outraged by his ridiculous characters, poor interpretations of black people, and those damn religious overtones. I would go on to rip into him, but it was already covered in the Diary of a Mad Black Woman review. Thankfully this is a different writer. Although given the current state of plays in relation to blacks, that doesn't seem to make a difference in this case. The man I'm speaking of is none other than David E. Talbert, a playwright, director, and producer, who is probably best known for his first feature length film: First Sunday, a movie that starred Ice Cube and Tracy Morgan as two petty thieves that attempt to rob a church. To simply say: "that movie sucked", would be an understatement of epic proportions.

To be honest, the idea of the plot centering on robbing a church wasn't necessarily bad, it could have been a device used to open a constructive dialogue about how the church takes money from black communities making their pockets fatter so they can ride in Mercedes, own a house or two as well as make the church look ten times better with big screen TV's, extravagant decorations, and more, meanwhile the community looks like a desolate wasteland. This movie could have been something admirable and praiseworthy daring to break their bond of social conformity within the black community, but the shit falls short of anything on that level. I mean, after all, blacks loooove church..... *sigh*

David had also produced a reality TV show, Black Stage, a program where actors and singers compete for a part in one of his plays. Pretty much like any other form of "reality" TV series where people compete.

The play.....

In 2009, Talbert, produced what appeared to be his 12th play for B.E.T. titled: Love In The Nick Of Tyme. Like others in his field, David has managed to perfect the art of creating plays with a superficial atmosphere centering on lust as a major proponent and materialistic glorification masking the insecurities we hold. Remember what I said above about it looking promising? Well, that may have been a temporal lapse in judgment as well as sanity. Appearances can be deceiving.... Love In The Nick Of Tyme is a play about a woman who owns and runs a (insert the generic career for a black woman to have in any given form of media) beauty shop and is stuck in a love triangle between a jazz musician and a UPS man . Not that I'm against it, but damn, is there nothing else? She couldn't be a doctor instead? Oooh, wait, that would take some deep mental construction to develop a form of art that is compelling. (my mistake) The play begins with some black guy in a purple suit lighting a cigarette looking like a wannabe pimp with a fake white beard. (looked fake to me, if not it was colored) Not quite sure what he was supposed to be, I honestly could not figure it out. Pimp might be a stretch considering no women were even acknowledging this dude at all, he reminded me of a fake ass Ving Rhames, but apparently this guy is our narrator. Although with his picture shown hanging on the door, it would imply that he was either a jazz musician or owner of the club he was standing outside of.. (he really looked more like Barney the purple Dinosaur) The next scene opens with Tyme, portrayed by actress Terry Dexter, as she walks into her shop that just so happens to have the alarm going off.(sounds like a bad neighborhood to keep your shop in) turns out to be nothing more than faulty wiring. What follows next can only be described as a tasteless personification of ignorance that goes by the name Elgin.... *sigh* why...?

Elgin is an incompetent security guard who apparently likes to wear shorts showing off his ashy knees in 30 degrees, because his "mamma" suggested he should wear his own clothes if the work pants didn't fit him. (What moron picks shorts to wear when it's 30 degrees outside? And why the hell are the shorts that he owns the only thing he could find to fit him? The hell does he spend money on? Probably those donuts shown in the play) Everything about this character is annoying and sad.(I mean, he couldn't even afford to pay for some much needed lotion) I would like to say he's the only clown in the whole play, but the truth is a crackhead will make an appearance alongside a hustler selling stolen goods... (worst neighborhood to run a shop) Later, Tyme's son, Man (too lazy to give him an actual name I guess) shows up. He seemed to be an okay character, but he came off too cheery with the most cheesiest looking smile painted on his face leaving him to be one of the corniest of characters in the cast. Actor, Morris Chestnut plays the role of Man's father, Marcelles, a jazz musician who can't seem to keep his promises and is always on the road. He also is the on again off again boyfriend of Tyme. That last sentence let's us no right away what their relationship is like; not stable. Throughout the course of them both being on screen together we learn from Ms. Dee Dee, portrayed by Elia English( Jamie Foxx Show) in one of her rants that he doesn't pay child support, and we all know that's a bad sign.... We also learn a bit more about the relationship between Tyme and Marcelles as they begin to reminisce over the good times such as, the time she slashed his tires when she was under the impression he was cheating on her, and who could forget day she keyed his car with an ice scraper, because she thought he was cheating? This insight tells us she has some jealousy issues and considering the type of guy he is, one would wonder why she continues to play this game.

In the second act of the play we are introduced to three women who work at Tyme's salon, two of which were the most ghetto of all the women in the play. In fact the only women that weren't was Tyme and Lauren. Lauren was the third woman employed at the salon. She was portrayed by Lyn Talbert, who is the wife of David. (Damn, her husband didn't give her the lead role? That's messed up) I actually liked this character, but sadly she was over shadowed by the other women in the shop. Next person to arrive is the neighborhood hustler, a fake interpretation of a Pan African male. He wasn't as bad as Elgin, but he was a moron as well.Believe it or not, he was played by the singer, Avant. (music must not be selling like it used to; last I heard, he only had four minutes) Once he leaves, a dancing crackhead shows up at the window.... yes, the same one I mentioned above. David obviously got the idea for look of the crackhead from Chapelle, but does not do the look any justice, it was just a knock off of Tyrone Biggums. zero points for originality.

As we began to reach the middle, Henry, the UPS man enters the salon. Henry is the polar opposite of Marcelles and the man who wants to be with Tyme. Though a few of his lines were corny, I couldn't really say much more, the actor's portrayal was fairly decent, until he began to break into song. Apparently Andre Pitre, the man in the role of the UPS man, is an R&B singer like Avant. Trust me, he's not all that... Anyway, after that crappy watered down duet with Tyme and the UPS boy, Ms. Dee Dee decides to talk about dicks and not just any kind either, no sir, she was talking about the ones the size of a yard stick, after Tyme has finished doing her hair. Ms. Dee Dee feels that Tyme may be whipped because Marcelles has the magic stick. (allegedly)

In the last act of the play, Tyme eventually starts going out with Henry and enjoys his company, but our boy Marcelles finds out. Instead of being a man, owning up to his mistakes, he chooses the next best thing; sleeping with one of Tyme's employees. While Marcelles messes around, he also does his best to get inside Tyme's head. Eventually Tyme gets fed up with this loser. Thank goodness!!

Final thoughts.....

I actually liked the character of Tyme and love the portrayal by Terry, but as the play progressed she sounded like she could barely catch her breath. Besides that, the musical aspect was poor and overly exaggerated, and the acting was terribly over done. I will say this: half of the cast actually grow over the course of time and Ms. Dee Dee wasn't really a bad character, she seen through the bullshit of everyone, essentially calling them out. In truth. this play is pretty much a Tyler Perry play minus Madea and the man bashing. It failed because of that reason in particular. I do feel that the play would be better as a movie, if he took out all the crap hindering it from being viewed positively. Is it worth watching? Hell no. The plot was weak and predictable, the performance level was mediocre, and Avant needs to keep his day job, he really sucked. If you are a reasonably intelligent person, trust me, I do NOT recommend.

Fasting for The Natives

2012-11-10T13:13:00.002-08:00

Fasting in honor of the natives

Today I would like to take a break from the movie reviews and finally focus on another topic I have been meaning to cover; Thanksgiving and the reason I don't celebrate it! Since we are in the season, I figured now was a good time as any. When October transitions into November, most people are getting ready in preparation to stuff themselves with a bird and most likely get drunk with family. Not me, I realize the truth of what's really being celebrated and the truth is: nothing real. On this day, I abstain from eating in protests of what really happened that most of us choose not to take in account even when we are aware of it. We claim to be humane and care for each other, yet we ignore the deaths of native Americans in favor of a falsified historical account that we use as a symbol to bring families together. What about their ancestor's family? You know the ones that didn't have what we're having? By now if you are a christian reading this you may be angered by this, if so, good. If you're a person who uses this particular event to stuff yourself or just spend time with family, you may also be mad too. Of course if you know what this blog is known for by now, your outrage and reaction to what's expressed here is of little to no importance to me at all. This is a reality check. You can either get on the train or get ran over.

For those of you that don't know, thanksgiving, like every other major holiday, is built on the basis of a lie. Most people are familiar with the idea of the early settlers, the pilgrims,coming to america and having a beautiful feast with the native Americans getting along like family right? That never happened. That was merely a romanticized version of what really happened here. Along with European colonization came diseases like cowpox that eventually gave rise to smallpox, which was the result of the animals they had domesticated, which helped in decreasing the population of native Americans significantly. Besides that taking place, in 1637, many natives were killed in what is known as the Pequot Massacre, after a white man was found murdered in his boat. All the actions here lead up to a realization: neither the pilgrims or natives were fond of each other. The pilgrims were even thankful for the decrease in the native's population. In fact it has been argued by many historians that Thanksgiving festivities, may be
the end result of the Pequot Massacre, leading up to it being seen as a celebration of those that were slaughtered. If that be the case it is disturbing how we are willing to overlook all of this based on our own convenience. The day after the massacre, the governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony stated: "A day of Thanksgiving, thanking God that they had eliminated over 700 men, women and children." It was signed into law that, "This day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanksgiving for subduing the Pequots." Yeah, it's a bit hard to ignore something like that....

My intent here is to make you think. Question what you have been told on this subject no matter if you want to pig out with the family or not, ask yourself "should I really do that today knowing all this? Or will I do the american thing and accept shit as face value, because that's really all that's expected of me?" I'm not saying that you have to do what I do (because many of you won't anyway, you lack the type of will power in my possession, it's okay, I understand) , but you must realize that by celebrating this holiday regardless of your reasons and/or excuses, you are practically spitting on the face of Native Americans everywhere who have suffered. If you have any heart at all, you would at least consider what this day of all days mean to them. On that day I fast in memory and out of respect for those that owned this land before it was stolen from them. I fast for these people that have had their whole history distorted and the truth about them essentially erased. I fast for the Native Americans!

Diary Of a Mad Black Woman: a movie review

2012-11-08T01:56:00.000-08:00

Diary Of a Mad Black Woman, a movie review.

Welcome back to the blog that has a tendency to steam roll over various things that were of some interests and were horrible for even existing. Today I would like to direct your attention towards the most dull, lifeless, unoriginal trash to reach movie screens; Black cinema. I know some black folks will be mad about this, particularly the dumb ones who support almost anything that has to do with blacks no matter how bad it is. Poor delusional bastards.... Don't get me wrong, I used to praise black cinema for movies like: The Color Purple, Eve's Bayou, and more. movies like them were of a high caliber in both tone and quality, with brilliantly written scripts holding a level of complexity that was for a time, unrivaled. Damn, those were the days. Throughout the years black cinema lost it's edge, dissolving into a mere shell of it's former self as it was rendered hollow, tasteless and repetitive. What the hell happened?? Well, unfortunately it had become stuck in a box of it's own creation. What black cinema needed was something fresh, it needed to be expansive with a reach for sci-fi and mystery, but instead it fell into the hands of a grown man whom's acting is far more believable when he dresses up like a woman than he does as a man. No, I'm not talking about RuPaul either. (on a serious note, I bet Ru could have done a better job with making some movies. I'd watch) I'm talking about Tyler Perry.

For those of you lucky people who haven't heard of him, Tyler Perry is a director, author, and playwright who has been known to jack clothes from his mother's closet and dress up as an old woman packing a pistol in his purse.

In the early 2000's I was introduced to one of Tyler's plays. Can't say I recall the name of it and frankly it wasn't something you would want to remember, unless you go for that crap where everyone breaks into song and every problem is resolved by black people going to church, because us blacks can't do shit without praying to an invisible man in the sky, to which there is no evidence for. Damn, that pretty much sums up the whole premise of both the plays and movies.... well, minus the stereotypes and the man bashing. The message he tries to get across is meant to empower black women, which I haven't ignored and do find that to be something praise worthy and admirable, but his work truly doesn't fulfill what he set out to achieve. They stereotype and victimize the women, making them appear weak, make black men look like a constant bully and aggressor, and makes a mockery of black people by misrepresenting them as ghetto with dreadful religious overtones. On top of that, Tyler wants you to adhere to the moral philosophy of a pistol packing grandmother, his main character whom he plays, Madea. *sigh* Why do I even bother? As a black man I am appalled by his performances.

Now on to the movie......

In 2005 one of Tyler's play's had been turned into a movie. That movie was the infamous, ever popular, Diary Of a Mad Black Woman. The major issue that killed this movie would have to be that damn Madea. Remember what I wrote above about the movies mostly making women appear weak, religious, and so on? Well, that's what this one does.... of course there are some strong females in the cast, but guess what? They're mostly loud, ghetto, ignorant interpretations of black women that continue to plague the media as well as TV and movies. No thank you, seriously don't need another one of those. One is bad enough. Which brings me back to Madea. After the main character of the movie, Helen, portrayed by the lovely actress Kimberly Elise, waiting for a romantic evening only to find her stuff all packed up oh so nicely by her husband of 18 years, whom she shared a perfect life with.(ON THE SURFACE, I mean duh, no marriage is perfect) To top it all off, Charles, the husband, portrayed by some bald guy I've never even heard of, Steve Harris? (who the hell is this no name guy?) Anyway, he leaves her for his mistress,*gasp* who just so happens to be a white woman? No, not really, but that would have been funny. As it turns out the woman who was indeed black is just one of the many chicks he was screwing, but she was favored so highly that her position in Charles life had become solidified.Yup, she filed her application to become Helen's replacement and it was approved. Following these events, Helen seeks the help from her outrageous grandmother, (Tyler Perry) Madea after stealing a truck from the guy Charles had called to help her move out..... (Charles is a serious dick)
Not even 15 minutes pass of her being on screen and already we see a crackhead. Some time after, all hell has broken loose.

Madea gives her granddaughter advice on getting her half out of the marriage by pulling a buzz-saw out of her purse and ripping the furniture in half. No joke, that shit was really in the movie. Not quite sure how many people have a grandmother that would do that, hell I don't know what grown woman in her right mind would have even asked that loony for help. Oh, wait.... she wasn't in her right mind. Later on due to her grandmother's advice and willful display of destruction, they are both taken to court. Brilliant advice, I know.

By the time we hit the middle of this movie, Shemar Moore has shown up with the worst performance I had ever seen from him. You see, his character, Orlando was the guy she stole the truck from in the beginning. For some reason he falls in love with her despite her stealing the truck and treating him like crap.. please.

By the end of the movie Charles finally gets what's coming to him. *spoiler alert* He gets shot and is pretty much paralyzed from the waste down. His life continues to take a turn for the worst as the mistress eventually leaves him. (can't get jiggy with it when your johnson's not working properly) She also withdrew all of his money from his bank account and took it with her. There's even a scene where Helen, who at this point is the only person he can turn to slaps him and even attempts to leave him in a bath tub to drown. Apparently she doesn't of course.

What this movie has taught me is this: 1.watch out for black men with money, they're assholes.
2. I should take relationship advice from my grandmother who keeps a gun in her purse who has been to jail more than once.
3.if you're black and go to church magically your problem is solved no matter if they're equipped for your mental issues or not.
4. my knight in shinning armor will roll up like Shemar Moore.
5. the story is complete bullshit.

Final thoughts.....

In all honesty I have nothing against the man, he seems like an okay guy, but if you expect me to be happy for his success as a black man who rose up from a troubled past, you may as well label me a hater and kiss my ass while you're at it, which ever works for you, I have low tolerance for bullshit. He made it, but at what cost? . He may have had good intentions making his movies, but the truth of the matter is this: his interpretations of African Americans ushers in nothing more than a modern day minstrel show reminiscent of Black face. His depictions are overtly offensive, ignorant, tasteless, and disgraceful. His writing is so one dimensional that it hurts. A true director should at least have a sense of variety rather than making the same damn movie over and over again. He might gain my respect if he could successfully direct a sci-fi, without him playing any character in the movie. (not holding my breath)

2012-11-04T17:21:00.001-08:00

Green Lantern: the movie (a critique/review)

Okay, before I get started I must say I was thoroughly disappointed by the catastrophe of The Green Lantern movie. Tears dropped from my eyes not only at the sight of it, but also the sound.

In 2011 Martin Campbell directed a live action film based on DC comics character The Green Lantern, specifically the silver age version of the character, Hal Jordan. With his appearance in the DC universe, the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force, was introduced. Each G.L. owns a power ring that can create solid constructs. The rings themselves are powered by the will of the owners and are technological creations that were made by an alien race known as the Guardians who are also the creators of the Corps and are also said to be the guardians of the universe. Only those who are without fear are chosen. (because not everyone is up on their comic history)

With a very interesting concept that has had a multitude of great comic book stories how does one fuck up the first ever theatrical rendition of the most legendary of all Green Lanterns? Ryan Reynolds. Nuff said...
When I first got wind of Reynolds being cast as Hal, I couldn't see it beyond the right type of resemblance and build and the fact he has some type of charm? Trust me, people dig his corny ass... why? Besides his body I have no clue. Maybe charisma? Whatever the case, he's likable, but does that mean he's what you would call the right guy to be Hal? Hell no. At the very beginning he displayed his annoying sense of wit in what I dare to characterize as one of his most corniest performances. Ever. And it just so happened that he had to use it to desecrate the screen of our emerald warrior's movie. Like a fool, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt, hoping he could pull weight and that the central corniness was due to the kid he was talking to in the movie. I was wrong! He starts off corny and by the end he upgrades to completely whack.

I will say it did stay true to the origins of course with some changes to better fit this time period since the original origin story was in the 1950's, but there were other choices that went along with part of the problem. Amazing as you would expect it to be, the movie has only two memorably great scenes in it. Sadly neither of which were able to save this pile of cinema crap that was thrust upon us that very year.... I'll get to that later.

The movie opens with a spectacularly done prologue, letting us know right away who the enemy is. They really were off to a good start; Abin Sur, the Green Lantern in control of earth's sector before Hal Jordan, appears as he should. All sounds pretty good right? Well, that ends the minute Reynolds enters the fold. The story starts with Hal Jordan, a test pilot leaving some chick he screwed in his bed ( not a bad choice, but the actor being Ryan is another story entirely) to rush to his job. The next part wasn't all that bad, well minus his lackluster wit....
Anyway, Reynolds objective was to test out what the Saber's (pretty much UN-manned fighter jets, their equivalent of a drone I suppose) capabilities in battle, but Reynolds has a different idea entirely. He uses his wingman as a decoy and comes up with a cleverly stupid plan to beat them. Not the type of dude you want on your team; dude will let you get jumped. By this point he's managed to piss everyone off. Sadly, the dogfight was one of the verrrrrrrrrrrrrry few scenes that were praise worthy. (that's right, verrrrrrrrrrry is just how dramatic I chose to make it.)

So we're going to skip pass the lame moments as well as Ryan's weak ass chemistry (or should I say lack there of) between him and his long time love interest, Carol Ferris (the wingman he used as a decoy BTW) and head towards the second praise worthy performance.

By the time we reach the middle he has the power ring in his possession and begins training with the other ring wielders. The action and special effects far exceeded my expectations with beautifully designed constructs. Out of all the great scenes that could have been used, the training parts were probably the best that this movie has to offer. In fact, I argue that it may have done better if they never went back to earth. That and have another actor cast as Hal Jordan.
So what killed this movie? Be sides Ryan's acting? Nothing. He single-handedly destroyed the whole damn thing with his performance alone at the end. I see what they were trying to do with their approach with him making a speech, but it doesn't work in the context they were aiming for, especially not with Reynolds! They couldn't even redeem themselves with an epic boss battle. That movie was bullshit. How can you not have an epic boss battle given all the other effects you used? It was supposed to go out with a bang, not some crappy moral of the day shit. It's so bad that it was worse than Twilight.

Final thought: if you come across this movie head for the nearest exit, you were warned.

Twilight: New Moon, a movie review

2012-10-30T18:58:00.001-07:00

Twilight: New Moon, a movie review

Welcome to a blog built for the purpose of holding a few rants upon any given subject, because in all honesty someone has to say this shit and at least be critical of bullshit when they see it.

Moving right along, today I will be giving you a review of one of the most terrible movies I have ever watched; Twilight. Yes, I know there are many fans out there that love the movie series, novels, etc., but of course I do not give a fuck in the slightest. Anyway, for those of you not familiar (though I highly doubt you aren't) Twilight, like I mentioned above, is a series of novels created by: Stephanie Myers, about a high school girl who falls madly in love with (of all things) a vampire and is caught in a love triangle with him as well as a werewolf, which gained a lot of success resulting in the first movie being made in 2009 as well as merchandise and t-shirts.

Let's take a step back. Twilight's first movie showed me exactly what type of girl isn't a positive role model, for instance, Bella, the main character of the series, is in rough shape mentally. From what I gathered, she was somewhat of an outcast and was a bit broken inside. Of course she made friends and seemed as though she was about to get herself on the right track, but then Edward, the emo vampire, steps into her life. That's when it all went down hill.

Further showing us how damaged she is, after finding out this dude is a vampire (with diamond skin? really?) she gets curious. Several problems with this: 1. he was waaaaaaaaay older than her. Technically it would be fair to say he's a child molester. 2.he stood over her bed while she was sleeping. That would make him a stalker. 3. she knows damn well that by nature he is a predator and can kill her. 4. Bella is dumb, period.
When you break it all down, besides the characters being beyond corny, lacking a sense of personality and Bella being a confused and slightly delusional teenage girl, it's subliminally sending the message of a girl picking the guy that's bad for her in so many ways is some how romantic and charming. It also exposes a lot more metaphorically. For example, Diamond skin, it represents the notion of the old idea that diamonds are a girls best friend, leaning towards a materialistic and shallow state of mind. Another subliminal shot comes from her wanting to be a vampire too. A firm representation of changing everything she is (you know her individuality? although she doesn't have much, at all) to become something that she is not, because she feels it's the only way they can be together. Granted she had a point, at the drop of blood his family was ready to pounce on her to obey their thirst! Apparently they don't drink the blood of humans, they're vegans, so they drink the blood of animals. Wait... what? This shit makes no sense! Also if Bella knew they were like that why the hell does she still want to be with him and hang around them? That's a sign telling you to stay the fuck away from that bunch, but no, she ignores the obvious. By the way the fight at the end was so anti-climatic...

Okay now on to the second movie......

Picking up where they left off in the first movie, Bella is indeed still in love with the emo vampire and the acting is as poor as it was last movie. (for the record, Dracula would waste him with one hand) In this sequel Bella becomes a bit more unhinged than she was in the first movie, graduating to desperate and borderline psychotic. It all happens after Edward tells her they can't be together after a single drop of blood from Bella's paper cut almost turns into a feeding frenzy, prompting the emo to throw Bella into the wall to protect her. Yeah, because flinging your girl with super strength into a wall (that could have left her with a concussion and broken bones) was the best way to save her. Right.... Anyway, after he tells her it's done, she can't deal with it. He tells her she won't be able to find him, making things much worst for the poor girl, and tells her to promise she won't do anything "reckless", but come on man, it's Bella we're talking about here. After he vanishes, guess what she does? If you guessed: looked for him aimlessly until it was dark and trips, you are a winner!

Skipping to her promise of not being "reckless", she starts putting herself in serious danger just to see him again. Little girls watched this....? I will say this much, with the wolf boy appearing he would have been the better choice, although by nature he would also be considered to be a predator as well, but still. Instead of that thought Bella decides to use him.... yeah, some role model. To be honest this movie has some qualities that could have been made into something amazing, but it fails with it's flawed concept of romance with a character who has the reasoning of a twelve year old school girl, with a warped sense of logic. Even her love for the emo is unrealistic and disturbing on so many levels.

All in all it's not worth it, spare yourselves and watch The Time Traveler's Wife.