Why would you preach a message inspired by a movie that you tell your parish not to see? I only ask this because it seems like one man is.
This guy claims to be trying to reach out to people by simply getting their attention with the movie stuff, but in even joking about them and dressing up as the characters isn't that endorsement of the movies?
Now, as a student of popular culture who gets most of my academic direction from a theologian and religious leader, I have no problem with the idea of the church and the megaplex sharing a common ground. I will gladly tell you that we live in a world where the movie theater is the church, the DVR is the confessional, and the convention is the hajj.* The problem is when you try to use one to boost the other even if that boost is based on something that is condemned.
For example, if I were at a nut allergy conference I would not dress up like Mr. Peanut for the first half of my talk only to take off the monocle and say, "Seriously though, don't eat nuts." The whole point of the gentleman legume is to sell nuts. Likewise, the jokes of white guys playing black guys is about getting people to go see the movie.
This isn't hypocriticalism. That would be much more obvious to see. It is actually a kind of disillusionment. It is a feeling that you can take things from the culture at large and apply them to your pure religion while still condemning them for existing.
This is partially my complaint about Christian Rock. While yes "rock and/or roll music" is a genre that is defined by a distinct sound from its fast tempo to its ability to be complex or simple, it is also carries a distinct philosophy. That is it is all about being subversive. The problem is that Christian Rock doesn't seem to be subversive at all.
This is because of one of two things. First, it could be that no one seems to notice this dichotomy. I doubt this. There have been plenty of louder voices than mine shouting about this. We all know that these two things should not go together when described like this. But there is always the off chance that everyone is really just as dense as this idea would suggest.
The second is much worse than the first. What if rock is no longer subversive? Clearly, it isn't subversive now, but was it ever? While there is always the old joke of the dad banging on the door telling his kind to turn off that shitty music, this stereotype is dieing. Instead we are getting a generation of kinds whose dads are banging on their doors demanding that they return their shitty music.
I might enjoy sitting back and listening to Led Zeppelin with my dad, but in doing so I am admitting that I (and my generation by extension) am neither rebellious nor subversive in the way his might have been.
This worries me because it might mean that we have reached a point where we must redefine rock music, admit that it is mainstream, and realize that the young culture of today is the culture that even the gray feel that they are a part of.
*Yeah, I am sure this is an imperfect analogy. So enjoy it as humor.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
The End of Summer
Well, this is the last night before the end of summer for me. I enjoyed it and feel that it was mildly productive. Spending most of it in LA was pretty much awesome, but the parts that were just here in Arkansas were fun too.
With school starting I hope to be getting into a more writerly mode of operations. This means that the several posts I have started on here might get past the draft stage and will become interesting discussions. I also hope that I might start to post sections of my actual thesis here as I work them out. All and all I want to just have more content here.
All said I hope you all had a good summer.
With school starting I hope to be getting into a more writerly mode of operations. This means that the several posts I have started on here might get past the draft stage and will become interesting discussions. I also hope that I might start to post sections of my actual thesis here as I work them out. All and all I want to just have more content here.
All said I hope you all had a good summer.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
LA is almost gone...
In about a day or so I will be leaving LA for the desert city of Las Vegas. From there I will stop by the Grand Canyon to get a post card or two, then home to Arkansas. Most of this will be driving down I-40, but I have never shied away from road trips.
I won't be sad doing this. When I get back to AR I have plenty of catching up to do in terms of videogames, friends, and rainfall. I also won't miss the horrid parking or at least having to pay to park anywhere that exists out here. There is also the excitement of moving into a house just off campus with some of my best friends that is also less than a block from my sister's residence. Life is waiting for me to get back there in other words.
While I have been out here my time has been fun. I have gone to the beach a few times, been in neighborhoods looking at houses that cost more than the net worth of most people I know, attended a filming of The Price is Right, eaten chicken and waffles at the same time, eaten Pink Berry, eaten Chinese food in a crowded restaurant in which Hannah and I were the only people of Western descent, seen famous movie houses, and over all just been around some of the most awesome places in the world. All said, it has been good in getting a feel for LA.
In terms of productivity... I wrote a bit for my thesis. It needs way more work, but in the pages I have written so far I have the ball rolling with my thoughts. I have read just about everything published by Chuck Klosterman. A man with whom I feel a certain bullshitter's connection. I have read a few other things as well, but nothing to point out. While I wish I had read and written more overall, there is nothing too specific that I did not do that I wanted to.
So while I go off into the future in the next few days I will be ready for it. Soon school will be starting and I will be forced to go into heavy work mode, something I forget that I am capable of doing during the summer but seem to fall right into the moment I find I have dozens of pages to write while studying for that many tests while trying to have a life and be an active Honors person too. It makes me wish I was going to be a PA again...
I won't be sad doing this. When I get back to AR I have plenty of catching up to do in terms of videogames, friends, and rainfall. I also won't miss the horrid parking or at least having to pay to park anywhere that exists out here. There is also the excitement of moving into a house just off campus with some of my best friends that is also less than a block from my sister's residence. Life is waiting for me to get back there in other words.
While I have been out here my time has been fun. I have gone to the beach a few times, been in neighborhoods looking at houses that cost more than the net worth of most people I know, attended a filming of The Price is Right, eaten chicken and waffles at the same time, eaten Pink Berry, eaten Chinese food in a crowded restaurant in which Hannah and I were the only people of Western descent, seen famous movie houses, and over all just been around some of the most awesome places in the world. All said, it has been good in getting a feel for LA.
In terms of productivity... I wrote a bit for my thesis. It needs way more work, but in the pages I have written so far I have the ball rolling with my thoughts. I have read just about everything published by Chuck Klosterman. A man with whom I feel a certain bullshitter's connection. I have read a few other things as well, but nothing to point out. While I wish I had read and written more overall, there is nothing too specific that I did not do that I wanted to.
So while I go off into the future in the next few days I will be ready for it. Soon school will be starting and I will be forced to go into heavy work mode, something I forget that I am capable of doing during the summer but seem to fall right into the moment I find I have dozens of pages to write while studying for that many tests while trying to have a life and be an active Honors person too. It makes me wish I was going to be a PA again...
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Why LOST Is Better Than Heroes.
Hopefully this will be the first of many posts about my Comic-Con '08 experiences. It was only one day, but there were many things there that I gave me fuel for writing.
Right after getting our tags Hannah and I went down to get in line for Hall H's morning events of two of the biggest TV shows to be at the con, Heroes and Lost. I am much more of a Lost fan if only because the show lets me create wild solutions to what is going on only to have even wilder things happen on the show. Heroes just doesn't do this for me. Heroes tends to tell a neat story, but I have always felt that it gets bogged down in character development. To that point I do watch and enjoy both though.
Now this line I mentioned, I started walking toward the end of it not really sure where the end was. I just assumed that it was so winding that the end was somewhere within the grassy area next to the public art at the doors to Hall H. I was wrong. It actually was twisty, but the line wrapped around the convention center for what must have been over a mile. If there had been more than 6000 people in front of me I would have been sad.
So I waited. Hannah however felt the need to talk to the two very socially awkward guys standing near us. While I have a distaste for scenesters and pathetic IT guys, Hannah just wanted someone to talk to hopefully about Lost. My how she was disappointed. Both of these guys found Lost to be repulsive. They said that they never could get into it, that it was boring, and then tried to talk about what Hiro and Ando will do next season. Both Hannah and I were just baffled by this. When we finally narrowed down what it was that they didn't like about Lost, it seems that they only really like the cool superhero part of the show making anything about the story and plot development unimportant.
After we got in and the show actually started Jeph Loeb showed us the third part of the Heroes webasodes (I hate that name). The story is neat, if only as a back story for what a character in the next season, so it's cool we got to see it first. Then acting as if he had brought someone back from the dead he brought the entire main cast out on stage only to have them run away so that they could then show the entire first episode of the season.
After what seemed to me to be a pretty typical episode, the cast came back out for some Q&A. The problem with this is that there is nothing to ask any of these people. Anything that we might have questions about, we have no clues or even breadcrumbs to follow to the clues. Sylar says that Claire is different, but we have no hits as to what that means, even thematically. This means we get questions like this:
"Milo, I'm a single mother. Can I hug you?"
"Sylar, you're the coolest, but if you could have anyone's power (thus just one, thus not Peter's) whose would it be?"
"What was Volume 3 going to be called originally."
Only that last question shows that the fans of this show might be anywhere near thinking about the show. There are things that could have been asked if you wanted to learn anything about the show:
"Is Peter's Irish girlfriend going to be able to be saved from a future that doesn't exist any more?"
"If Sylar was able to learn Claire's ability without killing her, doesn't that make all that "Save the Cheerleader..." stuff kind of null and void (especially if she can't be killed like Sylar says)?"
"What things did the strike keep you from being able to do with Volume 3?"
Anyway, the cast just sort of smiled and looked ready to run for most of the Q&A.
When that was finally over a faux news ad for an expose about the Oceanic 6 came on the screens. It was very tasty and pushed that extratextual experience that Lost does so well. Next, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse came out on stage. As the major creative forces behind the show, and probably some of the only people in the world who know how the show is going to play out, they are the public face of the show. They have really achieved this celebrity thanks to their dryly funny podcasts in which they avoid answering fan questions, but always give just enough to keep people satisfied with what they are(n't) saying.
They took Q&A, but that was mixed with a Dharma spokesman calling out for the winners of an "interview" that was given to people in the Lost booth down on the floor of the Con. These people then went off to get to see something that the rest of us were not going to get to see. That is until one of them "secretly" recorded what he saw. This was a video of the guy from all the Lost training videos talking about how the past needed to be fixed and a bunch of other things that are currently being processed by Lost fans on every Lost messageboard out there. All told, not only was the video interesting, but the presentation of it was pretty funny what with the Dharma getting mad and storming off stage.
Back in the Q&A, they did bring out Matthew Fox at one point, but most of the time was spent answering questions in the same pithy way that they do on their podcasts, but with the ability to hand out prizes related to the questions (i.e. ask about Jin get a stuffed panda). And the reason they were able to do this was simple. The fans actually asked good questions:
"Since the name Jeremy Bentham came up as a leader of the Island, would the Island happen to be a Panopticon?"
"Will Kate ever see Sawyer again?"
"Will we ever see Faraday and his tie again?"
While no one really expected a direct answer to any of these questions they were answered with enough tongue-in-cheek to know that the fans are on the right track in some of their discussions.
So in combination of what exactly was done by the shows' producers and the fans' questions it is clear that Lost is a smarter show that has a level of quality that rubs off on its fans.
Right after getting our tags Hannah and I went down to get in line for Hall H's morning events of two of the biggest TV shows to be at the con, Heroes and Lost. I am much more of a Lost fan if only because the show lets me create wild solutions to what is going on only to have even wilder things happen on the show. Heroes just doesn't do this for me. Heroes tends to tell a neat story, but I have always felt that it gets bogged down in character development. To that point I do watch and enjoy both though.
Now this line I mentioned, I started walking toward the end of it not really sure where the end was. I just assumed that it was so winding that the end was somewhere within the grassy area next to the public art at the doors to Hall H. I was wrong. It actually was twisty, but the line wrapped around the convention center for what must have been over a mile. If there had been more than 6000 people in front of me I would have been sad.
So I waited. Hannah however felt the need to talk to the two very socially awkward guys standing near us. While I have a distaste for scenesters and pathetic IT guys, Hannah just wanted someone to talk to hopefully about Lost. My how she was disappointed. Both of these guys found Lost to be repulsive. They said that they never could get into it, that it was boring, and then tried to talk about what Hiro and Ando will do next season. Both Hannah and I were just baffled by this. When we finally narrowed down what it was that they didn't like about Lost, it seems that they only really like the cool superhero part of the show making anything about the story and plot development unimportant.
After we got in and the show actually started Jeph Loeb showed us the third part of the Heroes webasodes (I hate that name). The story is neat, if only as a back story for what a character in the next season, so it's cool we got to see it first. Then acting as if he had brought someone back from the dead he brought the entire main cast out on stage only to have them run away so that they could then show the entire first episode of the season.
After what seemed to me to be a pretty typical episode, the cast came back out for some Q&A. The problem with this is that there is nothing to ask any of these people. Anything that we might have questions about, we have no clues or even breadcrumbs to follow to the clues. Sylar says that Claire is different, but we have no hits as to what that means, even thematically. This means we get questions like this:
"Milo, I'm a single mother. Can I hug you?"
"Sylar, you're the coolest, but if you could have anyone's power (thus just one, thus not Peter's) whose would it be?"
"What was Volume 3 going to be called originally."
Only that last question shows that the fans of this show might be anywhere near thinking about the show. There are things that could have been asked if you wanted to learn anything about the show:
"Is Peter's Irish girlfriend going to be able to be saved from a future that doesn't exist any more?"
"If Sylar was able to learn Claire's ability without killing her, doesn't that make all that "Save the Cheerleader..." stuff kind of null and void (especially if she can't be killed like Sylar says)?"
"What things did the strike keep you from being able to do with Volume 3?"
Anyway, the cast just sort of smiled and looked ready to run for most of the Q&A.
When that was finally over a faux news ad for an expose about the Oceanic 6 came on the screens. It was very tasty and pushed that extratextual experience that Lost does so well. Next, Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse came out on stage. As the major creative forces behind the show, and probably some of the only people in the world who know how the show is going to play out, they are the public face of the show. They have really achieved this celebrity thanks to their dryly funny podcasts in which they avoid answering fan questions, but always give just enough to keep people satisfied with what they are(n't) saying.
They took Q&A, but that was mixed with a Dharma spokesman calling out for the winners of an "interview" that was given to people in the Lost booth down on the floor of the Con. These people then went off to get to see something that the rest of us were not going to get to see. That is until one of them "secretly" recorded what he saw. This was a video of the guy from all the Lost training videos talking about how the past needed to be fixed and a bunch of other things that are currently being processed by Lost fans on every Lost messageboard out there. All told, not only was the video interesting, but the presentation of it was pretty funny what with the Dharma getting mad and storming off stage.
Back in the Q&A, they did bring out Matthew Fox at one point, but most of the time was spent answering questions in the same pithy way that they do on their podcasts, but with the ability to hand out prizes related to the questions (i.e. ask about Jin get a stuffed panda). And the reason they were able to do this was simple. The fans actually asked good questions:
"Since the name Jeremy Bentham came up as a leader of the Island, would the Island happen to be a Panopticon?"
"Will Kate ever see Sawyer again?"
"Will we ever see Faraday and his tie again?"
While no one really expected a direct answer to any of these questions they were answered with enough tongue-in-cheek to know that the fans are on the right track in some of their discussions.
So in combination of what exactly was done by the shows' producers and the fans' questions it is clear that Lost is a smarter show that has a level of quality that rubs off on its fans.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Some thoughts on the GOP
So it turns out that the GOP is really earning that Old part of their name. This doesn't really surprise me though. Not only is it the party most closely associated with old white guys, it is also the party that keeps making deals with that thrid of the US population who don't actually expect that the world will be around for the next election.
A year or two ago on my campus the president of the College Republicans was also an active member in the Young Democrats. He wasn't even really into politics, he was just a business major who wanted a nice thing to put on his resume, but enjoyed the YDs and thier parties. In fact, I seriously doubt whether or not he was even registered to vote. I do know that he was very much the type of person who would vote Republican if he could.
Now I go to a school located in what I refer to as the buckle of the Bible belt, and yet the YDs have more members than any other group on campus. It's even a public school! The reasons why the GOP is not stronger here is talked around in that article, but I think they are missing the point. Sure reaching out with modern campaign tactics is one thing, but just getting John McCain to start Twittering won't fix the party.
Here's what will:
1) Ditch the old dudes. The only really high ranking Neo-Con of the Reagan era that has not been pushed out of office or died is Cheney. The same Cheney who is hated by most Americans and seen as the guy who helped talk Bush into some of the many thing he has done in the last eight years. Clearly, he and his friends are of a dying breed. Let them and their military plans and overly scary big business connections die as well.
Also McCain... Please never let anyone his age run again unless they are some sort of rock god. Too bad all the Ramones are dead. They would have been perfect for this in a few years.
2) Ditch the Religious Right. Fell free to stay against abortion. That is a basic argument that seems to be going on in most of the 1st world. However, drop anything about any social issue that is only raised that marks your line too far into what many (young people) see as craziville. This means no more barking about a marriage amendment, talk about stem-cells, or even sex education. These are things that if you are asked about say that they are large social issues that must be put to masses to answer. In doing this you will seem not only more democratic, but also less reactionary. And we all know that reactionary is the feeling we all get when politics and religion intertwine on too deep a level.
3) Ditch the connections to the rich. The problem is that most Americans aren't rich and never plan to be. To be fair this isn't so much the GOP's fault as it is the beginning of limits in the US economy, but those limits need to be talked about. No one feels like they will be able to make their own way in the world today the same way they might have in the 50s and 60s.
4) When it comes to the economy push for quality not quanity. This is a problem that most American conservatives have. They see that as the whole pie gets bigger everyone gains more. This often doesn't quite work out in the proportional way that it should, and even when it does it just makes people feel like things aren't changing. All the economists you talk to should at least be willing to admit that Keynes was right about some things.
5) Don't ever talk about Regan or W. ever again. Regan is of a golden past that people seem to remember as being better than it was. This is because the 80s did that to people. After all, it was the decade that had mall rock. If you are going to talk about a president of the recent past, talk about Nixon. Not only is he a figure that had the strength to run again after loosing so bitterly to Kennedy, he also did a good job before the world got to him and made him do something terrible. He is flawed but at least he lacks the cheese of Regan-worship. And as far as W., well lets just say that he will the the most popular president for a long time if only because he didn't do anything good (much less all the bad he did).
*Note to anyone named Jason - I am not a Republican. I just feel like the party does have something to offer, if it could just stop being so one sided.
A year or two ago on my campus the president of the College Republicans was also an active member in the Young Democrats. He wasn't even really into politics, he was just a business major who wanted a nice thing to put on his resume, but enjoyed the YDs and thier parties. In fact, I seriously doubt whether or not he was even registered to vote. I do know that he was very much the type of person who would vote Republican if he could.
Now I go to a school located in what I refer to as the buckle of the Bible belt, and yet the YDs have more members than any other group on campus. It's even a public school! The reasons why the GOP is not stronger here is talked around in that article, but I think they are missing the point. Sure reaching out with modern campaign tactics is one thing, but just getting John McCain to start Twittering won't fix the party.
Here's what will:
1) Ditch the old dudes. The only really high ranking Neo-Con of the Reagan era that has not been pushed out of office or died is Cheney. The same Cheney who is hated by most Americans and seen as the guy who helped talk Bush into some of the many thing he has done in the last eight years. Clearly, he and his friends are of a dying breed. Let them and their military plans and overly scary big business connections die as well.
Also McCain... Please never let anyone his age run again unless they are some sort of rock god. Too bad all the Ramones are dead. They would have been perfect for this in a few years.
2) Ditch the Religious Right. Fell free to stay against abortion. That is a basic argument that seems to be going on in most of the 1st world. However, drop anything about any social issue that is only raised that marks your line too far into what many (young people) see as craziville. This means no more barking about a marriage amendment, talk about stem-cells, or even sex education. These are things that if you are asked about say that they are large social issues that must be put to masses to answer. In doing this you will seem not only more democratic, but also less reactionary. And we all know that reactionary is the feeling we all get when politics and religion intertwine on too deep a level.
3) Ditch the connections to the rich. The problem is that most Americans aren't rich and never plan to be. To be fair this isn't so much the GOP's fault as it is the beginning of limits in the US economy, but those limits need to be talked about. No one feels like they will be able to make their own way in the world today the same way they might have in the 50s and 60s.
4) When it comes to the economy push for quality not quanity. This is a problem that most American conservatives have. They see that as the whole pie gets bigger everyone gains more. This often doesn't quite work out in the proportional way that it should, and even when it does it just makes people feel like things aren't changing. All the economists you talk to should at least be willing to admit that Keynes was right about some things.
5) Don't ever talk about Regan or W. ever again. Regan is of a golden past that people seem to remember as being better than it was. This is because the 80s did that to people. After all, it was the decade that had mall rock. If you are going to talk about a president of the recent past, talk about Nixon. Not only is he a figure that had the strength to run again after loosing so bitterly to Kennedy, he also did a good job before the world got to him and made him do something terrible. He is flawed but at least he lacks the cheese of Regan-worship. And as far as W., well lets just say that he will the the most popular president for a long time if only because he didn't do anything good (much less all the bad he did).
*Note to anyone named Jason - I am not a Republican. I just feel like the party does have something to offer, if it could just stop being so one sided.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Dark Knight
As far as superheroes go, Batman is totally nuts. While I am pretty sure this view became the common and popular one in the 80s, I also think that everyone since Bob Kane has thought this about the guy. After all, what kind of guy spends all of his free time either training for or actually fighting criminals in a bat suit? He has no super powers (beyond the incredible), but is just a kind of smart guy who knows how to fight.
In fact, he isn't even a hero in the way that someone like Superman is simply because he is not seen as some sort of angle that is here to protect ourselves. He is a vigilante. He only does what the cops can't do. He can break in and tie people up as gifts for the police. Because of this he can't be totally trusted and with good reason.
That said it wasn't until Frank Miller that this stuff was really seen as important to the Batmythos. But now it is everywhere. Bats is mad at the world. He sees crime and sin and desires something like justice. He desires order and safety. And for this sort of thing ordinary criminals are not enough.
This is where the Joker steps into the modern story. While just about ever other villian in Gotham has a very clear motive for evil, the Joker is only out to be Batman's mirror image. The Joker's past called him to see the world as not something that needs to be fixed, but something that needs to burn. That people fight all the time to just be decent. The Joker thinks the world would be better without that.
The problem comes in when the Joker and Batman begin to become too symbolic for good storytelling. It is always clear why the Joker doesn't just kill Batman; he is not in for the killing but the fun of torture. Yet, why can't Batman kill the Joker. This is a man who is powerful enough to have a bomb put inside another human being, a man who takes joy in watching people die, a man who thinks all of life is one big killing joke.
In Mr. Nolan's newest bat-flick we see this come up near the end of the movie. (None of this is really spoiler-y if you have seen anything about the movie that just came out.) And this keeps the movie's ending from being truly great.
The problem is that Batman is never allowed to truly become dark. There is talk about being a hero or being "something that is needed" in the movie. Yet, he never quite makes it to the point of being what is needed. Maybe this is suppose to be what keeps him from becoming something like the Joker, but it also keeps him from achieving his goals.
Overall, the movie is pretty awesome. The action is not over the top. The acting is good enough. The Joker is scary as all get out. The pieces were all set for Bats to become what I have always though he should be and he missed it by that much.
In fact, he isn't even a hero in the way that someone like Superman is simply because he is not seen as some sort of angle that is here to protect ourselves. He is a vigilante. He only does what the cops can't do. He can break in and tie people up as gifts for the police. Because of this he can't be totally trusted and with good reason.
That said it wasn't until Frank Miller that this stuff was really seen as important to the Batmythos. But now it is everywhere. Bats is mad at the world. He sees crime and sin and desires something like justice. He desires order and safety. And for this sort of thing ordinary criminals are not enough.
This is where the Joker steps into the modern story. While just about ever other villian in Gotham has a very clear motive for evil, the Joker is only out to be Batman's mirror image. The Joker's past called him to see the world as not something that needs to be fixed, but something that needs to burn. That people fight all the time to just be decent. The Joker thinks the world would be better without that.
The problem comes in when the Joker and Batman begin to become too symbolic for good storytelling. It is always clear why the Joker doesn't just kill Batman; he is not in for the killing but the fun of torture. Yet, why can't Batman kill the Joker. This is a man who is powerful enough to have a bomb put inside another human being, a man who takes joy in watching people die, a man who thinks all of life is one big killing joke.
In Mr. Nolan's newest bat-flick we see this come up near the end of the movie. (None of this is really spoiler-y if you have seen anything about the movie that just came out.) And this keeps the movie's ending from being truly great.
The problem is that Batman is never allowed to truly become dark. There is talk about being a hero or being "something that is needed" in the movie. Yet, he never quite makes it to the point of being what is needed. Maybe this is suppose to be what keeps him from becoming something like the Joker, but it also keeps him from achieving his goals.
Overall, the movie is pretty awesome. The action is not over the top. The acting is good enough. The Joker is scary as all get out. The pieces were all set for Bats to become what I have always though he should be and he missed it by that much.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Dawson Fallacy
This is an idea I am toying with putting in my thesis...
The Dawson Fallacy is the suggestion that every interaction with the world must not only be meaningful and important, but also dramatic. While I am sure that there are plenty of examples of this in the world, Dawson's Creek not only represents this, but also seems to be about this.
Dawson as a character never seems to have any interaction with anyone that is simply him being friends. While part of this is just the way television must work conserving time to push the plot forward, but even sometimes a story can move along without the characters analyzing it to death.
Mostly when this sort of thing happens it is very soap opera-y and is cast aside into the pile of low quality characters that populate the pop culture landfill. Dawson is different though. A combination of being right for the times and being somewhat smart in the cultural metaphors used in the dialog and the show works. Anyone who has watched the show will agree that it is good enough to want more, even if they will tell you that melodramas are brain rotting.
This is because there is a feeling that Dawson is self-aware of his acting out for maximum drama with his friends and loved ones just trying to make their way through their pulp romance lives. He knows he is a teenager and guy, but his ideas on what to do as a teen come from what he has seen in all the movies he has watched. His desire to be a filmmaker is then played out through his life. He doesn't want to just be a film maker he wants to live in a movie. He wants there to always be conflict. If as a teen he was ever happy it would be a sign that he is doing something wrong. He is not being a teen the way he should be.
This is why the end of Dawson's Creek is both satisfying to the audience and a painful realization for Dawson. The only way that Joey can ever be with Dawson is in Dawson's world of film. That's why in the TV show Dawson creates they are together. Joey as a real person goes off with Pacey who has always been the one who ended up in overly dramatic situations without having totally put himself in them.
-
This is really all I have right now. I have only really seen about half of the show's episodes so I do not feel too comfortable talking about the show in any great detail, but I feel like I am on to something here with Dawson. If anyone would was/is a fan of the show we need to talk. I want to see just how close to base I am.
The Dawson Fallacy is the suggestion that every interaction with the world must not only be meaningful and important, but also dramatic. While I am sure that there are plenty of examples of this in the world, Dawson's Creek not only represents this, but also seems to be about this.
Dawson as a character never seems to have any interaction with anyone that is simply him being friends. While part of this is just the way television must work conserving time to push the plot forward, but even sometimes a story can move along without the characters analyzing it to death.
Mostly when this sort of thing happens it is very soap opera-y and is cast aside into the pile of low quality characters that populate the pop culture landfill. Dawson is different though. A combination of being right for the times and being somewhat smart in the cultural metaphors used in the dialog and the show works. Anyone who has watched the show will agree that it is good enough to want more, even if they will tell you that melodramas are brain rotting.
This is because there is a feeling that Dawson is self-aware of his acting out for maximum drama with his friends and loved ones just trying to make their way through their pulp romance lives. He knows he is a teenager and guy, but his ideas on what to do as a teen come from what he has seen in all the movies he has watched. His desire to be a filmmaker is then played out through his life. He doesn't want to just be a film maker he wants to live in a movie. He wants there to always be conflict. If as a teen he was ever happy it would be a sign that he is doing something wrong. He is not being a teen the way he should be.
This is why the end of Dawson's Creek is both satisfying to the audience and a painful realization for Dawson. The only way that Joey can ever be with Dawson is in Dawson's world of film. That's why in the TV show Dawson creates they are together. Joey as a real person goes off with Pacey who has always been the one who ended up in overly dramatic situations without having totally put himself in them.
-
This is really all I have right now. I have only really seen about half of the show's episodes so I do not feel too comfortable talking about the show in any great detail, but I feel like I am on to something here with Dawson. If anyone would was/is a fan of the show we need to talk. I want to see just how close to base I am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)