Showing posts with label intention. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intention. Show all posts

Monday, February 25, 2008

The Signal & Be Kind Rewind

It's kind of funny how the universe works sometimes. I've often said that if you pay attention, the world is trying to tell you something. Maybe it's some sort of cosmic thing, maybe it's just our very human capability to find patterns in chaos. I don't know and I don't really care. (Leave that to the philosophers.) What matters is that I get the point therein and do something with it.

Over the last two weeks, I saw The Signal and Be Kind Rewind. Both deal with the influence of media and human connectedness. In one, the media is an overwhelming presence that drives people to kill, and the other shows people making media for themselves and growing as a community.

The Signal is a triptych of short films about a mysterious signal emanating from every TV, radio, and phone that causes people to kill each other. Ironically, everyone thinks everyone else is crazy and the reasons they use to justify murder make a bizarre sort of sense to themselves. The eponymous signal is inescapable. TVs and radios just come on with the broadcast playing.

Be Kind Rewind is about two guys remaking older movies with a VHS camcorder after a magnetized Jack Black inadvertently erases the store's stock of VHS movies. The self-made remakes become a hit and the people in the neighborhood get in on the action. Of course, the studios come in to piss all over the parade.

The reason I bring this up is because I feel like I've been taken too much with the mass media. I've been watching too much TV. I've been reading Digg way too much. I would be totally vulnerable to some sort of killer transmission.

I haven't been working on my back-burner projects. I haven't been making my own media. I keep worrying about finding the next gig so I can pay my bills. I keep living in this weird, fear-based state instead of embracing the whole "do what you love and the money will follow" edict. This kind of progression will only continue to lead me away from the work I wanted to do when I got into this whole industry in the first place.

I'm shifting gears. I'm not sure of how I'm going to get to my destination just yet, but the journey should be pretty cool.

Thursday, May 31, 2007

Haters Hating on The Secret

Okay, this post isn't really film or art related, but since I do believe that synchronicity does happen, I wanted to weigh in on all this.

The Chicago Reader published an article today about the latest self-help book craze, The Secret. Their article is just one of many now that refutes the ideas brought up in the movie and companion book.

For the most part, I agree with the Reader's article in that Rhonda Byrne (the woman behind The Secret) is a nutjob. I think that assertions she makes in her book such as "you're fat because you think fat thoughts" or relating the story of a woman who used visualization to beat breast cancer are irresponsible at best. However, nowhere in the film (I didn't read the book since the movie makes the point pretty well. The book seemed more like a way to keep milking the cash cow.) does it say that everything will occur with only visualization. In fact, in the film, they explicitly say that you must act when the opportunity arises to reach or further yourself toward your goal.

That being said, I'm trying to figure out why so many people seem to be so incensed by the idea of setting your intentions and manifesting them. Is it that scary?

The point of The Secret is simple: If you believe that you can do something, you can. There it is. Simple. There's really no magic to it. Fuck, we're talking The Little Engine That Could here.

This concept has been around for at least a century. Earl Nightingale talks about it in his audio program, The Strangest Secret, which was originally a pep talk to his sales staff. Napoleon Hill alludes to it throughout his book, Think & Grow Rich. James Allen writes about it in his book, As a Man Thinketh.

Honestly, what is bad about this? Teaching people to train themselves to think positively is not a bad thing. Bhuddist monks spend their lives training their minds toward positivity. We live in a culture that almost seems to glorify pessimism and constant kvetching. A little dose of real optimism once in a while is like a breath of fresh air.

I think the backlash against this not-so-secret Secret is that to accept the idea that positive thinking (and taking action when opportunity appears) is to also accept that you've limited yourself by your own negative beliefs in the past. That's a scary thought. Who wants to be the blame for all the bad shit that's happened to them? It's easier when you can say outside circumstances kept you working a dead-end job or your mother's lack of understanding caused you to quit your passion.

Positive Thinking isn't a bad thing and it isn't mystical, quantum physics alchemy either. It's just the belief (the faith) that you'll get whatever it is that you want if you believe and try hard enough. Rhonda Byrne just took an old idea and dressed it up in mumbo-jumbo, added in a lot of good ol' New Age guilt (It's your own fault you're in a shitty relationship since you attracted it into your life!) and got Oprah to hawk it. It doesn't matter how the message is delivered as long as it is delivered.

Here's a great link to another non-magical look at The Secret: Why Henry Ford Knew More Than The Secret.

Monday, April 30, 2007

Introduction to Shot Reverse Shot

Yes, this is yet another blog about film and art. Yes, there are many blogs on this subject out in the blogosphere.

I don't care. This one is mine. You can read it or not.

Quick introduction on me and my intention for this:

I'm a filmmaker. Was a film student, but then graduation happened. Being a filmmaker is a lot like being a film student, only with more debt and projects cost more to make. Of course, there's way more freedom too. I feel that my position as a filmmaker gives me more credibility than what mere fandom would and more insight than a regular, journalistic critic in the newspaper would have for the process. Roger Ebert (who I do admire) has to watch 500 films a year. I don't know how anyone could maintain a non-jaded view of film with that much viewing. I have no time to watch that many movies. I'm too busy making my own work.

So what I'm offering you, the casual surfer, is a viewpoint on film from an artist's perspective. Don't worry about heady deconstructions or over-reading symbols for messages about masculinity in a post-feminist era and how it relates to the simulacra of our post-modern culture.

Sometimes I may review a film I've recently seen. Sometimes I may just call attention to a filmmaker I like. Other times I may just reflect on life as a filmmaker and artist. People who know me know that I'm of a very divergent mind. Besides, I like variety.

Either way, enjoy yourself. When you're done, go check out that masturbating cat video on YouTube. It's fucking awesome!