I figure that most people reading this know about the "Kony 2012" video that has been circulating the web, but in case you haven't seen it, it is below. As a warning, this is a half hour long so it requires a bit of a time commitment to watch.
For the uninitiated who don't have a spare half hour to watch the film, the video details the goal to capture Joseph Kony, a warlord from the region around northern Uganda, so that he can be tried for war crimes. The goal is a noble one, at least in intent. Many will disagree with the notion that the U.S. should get more involved in foreign affairs, but a scant few would disagree with the assertion that the world would be a better place with Kony put away for a long time.
I get some positives out of this. First, I do believe that the nations that are the "haves" have a moral obligation to assist in dealing with the issues that the "have-nots" deal with that result in massive suffering and death. Second, while I am not technically a neo-conservative or a pacifist, I get some pleasure seeing something targeted to the people most likely to be pacifists making what amounts to a neo-con's argument.
Two negative things strike me about this too, and I don't know right now whether these two things are mindless gut reactions or valid concerns.
First, this video seems like it is promoting slacktivism, which is something that seriously bugs me. On some level I have always believed that purposeful people work to accomplish tangible goals and lazy people who want to feel good about themselves spend the mere seconds it takes to share a video to raise awareness. I know that is an unfair generalization, and I know that this post could be construed as slacktivist as well. However, generalizations usually have some grain of truth, and issues such as this do not exist for the sole purpose of allowing people
to feel good about themselves for taking a popular stance on them. You're against a warlord stealing children from their families to use in his child army? You must be a wonderful, caring person!
Second, it occurs to me that Kony's victims may have different ideas regarding the best policy for capturing Kony than the video presents. Indeed, the following video from Al Jazeera—I know, the source isn't the most trusted with a U.S. audience, but bear with me—and the reactions they captured to a screening of the Kony 2012 video at least appeared overwhelmingly negative. Video can be cut to prove nearly any point, but I still have the open question in my mind regarding the best way to deal with Kony.
If I were in a decision-making role on this issue I would probably support the current course of action. I don't know if it is the right action, but on it's face it appears to be the best. That said, if the locals did not support it, how could we, the foreigners?
I don't really have many more opinions to add. I think this is one of those topics where people bring their own opinions and really aren't going to be easily swayed from them. The issue genuinely is worth serious thought, though.
Update (3/17/2012): I feel I should note that the Ugandan government has responded to the video with what at least appears to be a reasonable point that Kony hasn't been in Uganda since 2006 when he was forced out by the Ugandan military, so U.S. involvement in the country may not be the best targeted. I don't know any better than anyone else if the military assistance that the U.S. is providing does any good or not.
Also, in case anyone reading this is wondering why I have not mentioned it, I know very well that Jason Russell, who was behind the creation of the Kony video, was recently arrested for pointedly embarrassing behavior in public. I just don't think that the incident is relevant to the question of whether the Kony video itself is ultimately a good or a bad thing.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Friday, March 09, 2012
something light
I actually have a very difficult time coming up with light topics for this blog. The deeper or more involved ones take some time to type, but I usually have several in the back of my mind that I am mulling. The problem with that is I expect that most people wanting to read a blog are not looking to commit a lot of time reading through multiple treatises that simply state the blogger's personal viewpoint, and are instead looking for something light.
So, here's a random list of statements about light.
So, here's a random list of statements about light.
- I used to think that foods labeled as "lite" were labeled using an improper spelling to get around FDA rules. At least today, there are FDA rules for what can be labeled as "lite," so I was probably wrong.
- Thomas Edison did not create the world's first incandescent light bulb. He created the world's first economically viable incandescent light bulb.
- A lightsaber's colors are determined by the crystal used in its creation.
- The person who was struck the most times in his life by lightning was Roy Sullivan, who was struck seven times over a period of thirty-five years and change. He died at his own hand due to relationship troubles rather than directly due to the lightning.
- A boxer who is in the official Lightweight class weighs between 135 and 140 pounds. The limit for heavyweight is a mere sixty pounds more than the upper bound of this at 200 pounds.
- About ten years ago some researchers successfully stopped and restarted light by forcing it through a super cold cloud of atoms. This all occurred in the span of a thousandth of a second, which makes you wonder if the validation process was the researchers asking each other, "You saw that, right?" and responding in the affirmative to make each other feel good.
- The poem Charge of the Light Brigade retells the true story of a cavalry charge in the Crimean War that occurred due to miscommunication. The poem supposes that the soldiers knew the charge was a mistake, but gave their lives for it anyway.
- Hasbro has an online Lite-Brite that you can use to make and print designs.
- The first traffic light in a form similar to today had two colors (red and green) and used a buzzer as a warning of light change rather than a yellow light.
- Gordon Lightfoot's Wikipedia page lists his various musical styles as, "folk, folk-rock, and country music." I could have sworn that was three different ways of saying the same thing.
- The word, "lite," in Swedish means, "a little."
Thursday, March 01, 2012
goals in marriage
This indirectly builds off a short post from earlier about communication in marriage.
I should note that this is not about some specific discussion or argument that Golden and I are having. This is about me reflecting on how our approaches and motivations have been very different throughout our lives together, and we have not always identified that fact.
When I was seventeen, a Holiness pastor and general contractor I worked for told me something that irritated me at the time, but I have grown to understand. He told me that romantic relationships at my age at the time were unwise because someone that age doesn't even know what he wants. While I believe that God intentionally designed people to be very interested in the opposite sex at that time in life, I think my former boss was right about not knowing what you want at that stage of life.
I think the most difficult lesson that I have learned in marriage that has been that different people have different goals in life, and aligning them can be difficult or impossible. It sounds so straightforward and easy to address, right? Goals seem like obvious things that can be discussed with a future spouse and potential landmines diffused very early in the relationship. It isn't so simple, though. Goals like wanting a house or a certain number of kids by a certain age, or to make a certain amount of money or to own certain big-ticket items are only the tip of the iceberg when compared to the wants and motivations from which they are derived.
I'll pick an example that doesn't apply to Golden and me. A couple may agree that they want to buy a house by a specific age. While it will appear to both parties that they are in significant agreement, there is still far more not agreed on than agreed on. What type of house do you agree you are going to buy? Does one spouse want to buy a fixer-upper and fix it up and the other not want to spend the time? Does one spouse prefer to spend on form and the other to spend on function? Do the spouses agree on how much they will put down and who is ultimately responsible for coming up with the down payment, mortgage, upkeep, insurance, and taxes? Does one spouse expect new furniture and decorations for the new house? How hard and fast is that age limit?
This is only scratching the surface, but where one spouse assumes that they agreed to a smaller house with a big yard and a two-car garage that both spouses would work to save on until they got a 50% down payment even if it takes a few more years, the other might think they agreed to buying a split-level in a specific color with four bedrooms, two baths, and a good-sized kitchen with a 10% down payment or whatever they happen to have in savings at the age in question. No one is more at fault than another in this scenario, but all of these little assumptions that one party had that the other did not will lead to both parties feeling like the other is not holding up their end of the agreement. "He said we could buy a house when I turned thirty," and/or, "She said we would both sacrifice until we could afford a nice house," will lead to arguments and resentment.
So, all we need to do is be ultra-detailed in laying out our life goals, then come to a consensus about how to get there, right? That's much better than before, but it's still not enough.
As I noted before, at least in my personal experience, even when you know what you want in life, you don't really know what you want in life. You may think you want to be rich, but what you really want is peace, and what is necessary to reach a specific salary by a specific age causes more net anxiety than being moderately poor. You may think you want to have a house full of kids, but you really are just drawn to always nurturing a baby, and when your kids get older you feel less fulfilled and more and more exhausted. You may think you want to continue learning or improve your marketability, but you really want the honor and respect that comes from a graduate-level degree and letters after your name. The long and short of it is that if you do not really know what you want your spouse does not know either, and any discussion about life goals without self-awareness is going to be incomplete.
Another pitfall is that it is easy to ignore potential differences in what you want in everyday life because any rational person would agree that it's important. This is where I place the whole women want to talk about their day and men want to mentally shut down at the end of their day. She thinks that, of course, any rational person would want to talk about their day; and he thinks that, of course, any rational person would want some down time. Any rational person would agree that spending time with the kids is more important than working overtime, and any rational person would agree that working overtime to pay the mortgage to put a roof over the kids' head is more important than a game of catch. Any rational person would lease a car so as to always be able to drive something nice and classy, and any rational person would purchase and own a car for ten years or more to avoid constant car payments. Any rational person would agree with you about a plethora of things.
Something further that I am still grasping is that, while spouses should work on goals together, it is not one spouse' responsibility to assure that the other spouse's goals are all met. This is hard for me for a number of reasons, some of them rational and some not. It seems to make sense that if you put all of your relational eggs in one basket for life, so to say, that the other person has some responsibility to help you be fulfilled, but this can in reality be a horrible burden to place on someone and a horrible burden to accept. Some life goals simply are not possible, or impose too great a burden on the spouse or family. Some goals will be mutually exclusive with the other spouse's goals.
All of this comes back to the inability to communicate when you are both speaking different languages, and the importance of learning the other person's language. I think that God devised relationships in this way to help us grow in ways that we could not otherwise, and the effort necessary to learn the other person's perspective and language is a big part of that growing process. Either that, or all of this relational confusion exists for His amusement. I'm going with the first option, though.
I should note that this is not about some specific discussion or argument that Golden and I are having. This is about me reflecting on how our approaches and motivations have been very different throughout our lives together, and we have not always identified that fact.
When I was seventeen, a Holiness pastor and general contractor I worked for told me something that irritated me at the time, but I have grown to understand. He told me that romantic relationships at my age at the time were unwise because someone that age doesn't even know what he wants. While I believe that God intentionally designed people to be very interested in the opposite sex at that time in life, I think my former boss was right about not knowing what you want at that stage of life.
I think the most difficult lesson that I have learned in marriage that has been that different people have different goals in life, and aligning them can be difficult or impossible. It sounds so straightforward and easy to address, right? Goals seem like obvious things that can be discussed with a future spouse and potential landmines diffused very early in the relationship. It isn't so simple, though. Goals like wanting a house or a certain number of kids by a certain age, or to make a certain amount of money or to own certain big-ticket items are only the tip of the iceberg when compared to the wants and motivations from which they are derived.
I'll pick an example that doesn't apply to Golden and me. A couple may agree that they want to buy a house by a specific age. While it will appear to both parties that they are in significant agreement, there is still far more not agreed on than agreed on. What type of house do you agree you are going to buy? Does one spouse want to buy a fixer-upper and fix it up and the other not want to spend the time? Does one spouse prefer to spend on form and the other to spend on function? Do the spouses agree on how much they will put down and who is ultimately responsible for coming up with the down payment, mortgage, upkeep, insurance, and taxes? Does one spouse expect new furniture and decorations for the new house? How hard and fast is that age limit?
This is only scratching the surface, but where one spouse assumes that they agreed to a smaller house with a big yard and a two-car garage that both spouses would work to save on until they got a 50% down payment even if it takes a few more years, the other might think they agreed to buying a split-level in a specific color with four bedrooms, two baths, and a good-sized kitchen with a 10% down payment or whatever they happen to have in savings at the age in question. No one is more at fault than another in this scenario, but all of these little assumptions that one party had that the other did not will lead to both parties feeling like the other is not holding up their end of the agreement. "He said we could buy a house when I turned thirty," and/or, "She said we would both sacrifice until we could afford a nice house," will lead to arguments and resentment.
So, all we need to do is be ultra-detailed in laying out our life goals, then come to a consensus about how to get there, right? That's much better than before, but it's still not enough.
As I noted before, at least in my personal experience, even when you know what you want in life, you don't really know what you want in life. You may think you want to be rich, but what you really want is peace, and what is necessary to reach a specific salary by a specific age causes more net anxiety than being moderately poor. You may think you want to have a house full of kids, but you really are just drawn to always nurturing a baby, and when your kids get older you feel less fulfilled and more and more exhausted. You may think you want to continue learning or improve your marketability, but you really want the honor and respect that comes from a graduate-level degree and letters after your name. The long and short of it is that if you do not really know what you want your spouse does not know either, and any discussion about life goals without self-awareness is going to be incomplete.
Another pitfall is that it is easy to ignore potential differences in what you want in everyday life because any rational person would agree that it's important. This is where I place the whole women want to talk about their day and men want to mentally shut down at the end of their day. She thinks that, of course, any rational person would want to talk about their day; and he thinks that, of course, any rational person would want some down time. Any rational person would agree that spending time with the kids is more important than working overtime, and any rational person would agree that working overtime to pay the mortgage to put a roof over the kids' head is more important than a game of catch. Any rational person would lease a car so as to always be able to drive something nice and classy, and any rational person would purchase and own a car for ten years or more to avoid constant car payments. Any rational person would agree with you about a plethora of things.
Something further that I am still grasping is that, while spouses should work on goals together, it is not one spouse' responsibility to assure that the other spouse's goals are all met. This is hard for me for a number of reasons, some of them rational and some not. It seems to make sense that if you put all of your relational eggs in one basket for life, so to say, that the other person has some responsibility to help you be fulfilled, but this can in reality be a horrible burden to place on someone and a horrible burden to accept. Some life goals simply are not possible, or impose too great a burden on the spouse or family. Some goals will be mutually exclusive with the other spouse's goals.
All of this comes back to the inability to communicate when you are both speaking different languages, and the importance of learning the other person's language. I think that God devised relationships in this way to help us grow in ways that we could not otherwise, and the effort necessary to learn the other person's perspective and language is a big part of that growing process. Either that, or all of this relational confusion exists for His amusement. I'm going with the first option, though.
Monday, February 20, 2012
the good and bad from yoda
The Good: Fear, Anger, Hate...
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."When I first heard this I kind of wrote it off as standard Eastern philosophy, but there is more Biblical here than I would like to admit. Even before looking at Scripture, the Fear → Anger → Hate linkage is fairly obvious. Most acts of hate can be traced back through anger issues to fear. Looking at Scripture, though, puts this in a new light.
Fear (other than fear of God) is a sign of a lack of trust in God. Godly love does not coexist with fear.
"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."The purpose of Yoda's statement is indeed far different from John's. Yoda is pointing to the danger he sees in a specific character's future and the political and physical implications of that danger. In context, John is providing an internal litmus test for whether someone truly has God's love.
The Bad: There is no try
"No, do or do not. There is no try."I think this is supposed to make sense in the context of the force, but I have never been sure. Regardless, this philosophy is a perfectionist's recipe for disaster. The sort of person who takes, "there is no try," to heart is the sort for whom effort is of no value and only results matter. That sort of person is a nightmare to appease, and I would suspect is a nightmare to be as well.
An observant person might make the argument that we are to be perfect in the same way that God is (Matt 5:48), and so this idea of results being what matters is right. Another observant person might point out that God performs the work in us (Phil 1:6), and so the idea that we can try to be better is futile. I would respond that our path to perfection is one during which we are still imperfect, and that the work in us is incomplete, so the best we can do is live from the level that God has helped us reach. Beyond that, we try to emulate the examples we are given with God's help and mercy.
"Only let us live up to what we have already attained. Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you"The Ugly
"When 900 years old you reach, look as good you will not "Ha!
As a final note, it is a little bothersome that the same person who voices Yoda also does Fozzie Bear's voice. I keep expecting a, "wocka, wocka," after everything Yoda says. Annoying it can be.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
rules and relationship
I have spent a lot of time in my life trying to reconcile the passages in Scripture that can be interpreted legalistically with the passages that outright state that legalism is not what God is looking for from us. I alluded to this a while back, but how could God in one moment tell us that we don't earn salvation and in the next list the sorts of sins that people who don't get salvation commit? Certainly, this is partially answered by the fact that we sin because we are sinners rather than being sinners because we sin, but there was still something I wasn't getting. There are still things we are supposed to do or not do and it still smacks of legalism.
The strongest example that I could give of a Scripture passage that seems on its face to be legalistic is probably Ephesians 4:17-5:21. I have heard many, many of what I have considered legalistic sermons quote pieces from this passage. It's tempting to do because Paul is pretty straightforward about a few things that believers shouldn't do. While I have always also felt bad to have a lowly opinion how the passage was used, I also always felt that I was right about this being the wrong approach to the passage. It was only recently that I noticed that the passage itself actually address the potential legalism in 4:22-24, in that our goodness is something God creates rather than something we earn.
I am posting this on Valentine's Day for a reason. I remember early on in my relationship with Golden I kind of dreaded Valentine's Day, not because I didn't love her, but because I was scared I would break some unwritten rule about the day in what I gave her or did for her. You can say it doesn't matter all you want, but in the first few years of a relationship when you haven't had many Valentine's Days together there's no telling what will be interpreted as, "I don't love you," or, "You aren't special." Now, Valentine's Day does not worry me too much because I understand better what makes Golden feel loved and appreciated.
That Valentine's Day fear of triggering some unknown rule violation is like taking a legalistic approach to God. Early on when we are new in our relationship we have these rules that we follow, even if we don't always understand them, because we don't know if we might accidentally make God mad by doing such-and-such a thing. As we grow in the relationship, though, we should not require rules to understand the life He specifically wants us to live. While some things are flat-out wrong as if they were serious rules that should not be broken, it is the fact that they violate our relationship with God that is wrong rather than that they break some arbitrary rule.
For example, someone who is married should not have to have a rule that says he or she should not cheat on his or her spouse to understand that cheating is violating their relationship. Having to create a rule that says, "No cheating," while perhaps necessary in fragile times in the marriage or when one spouse is a little dense, can frankly be insulting that it was necessary at all. Likewise, as we put on the mind of Christ there are some things that we should intuitively know we personally should or shouldn't do, even though there are not official rules created for them. They may or may not be fine for other believers, depending on what specifically God is requiring of them, but our obedience in this case should not be to a rule book, but to our heart.
The most important aspect of this, though, is that when God expects something of us, it is through Him that it is possible to complete it. We cannot ever be good enough for God. This is important because it flies in the face of the popular, yet legalistic, attitude that says I have to continually try harder in my own power to measure up to God. My role is to submit, put on Christ, and let Him make the necessary changes that will result in me doing the right things. When Jesus said that his yoke was easy and his burden light (Matt 11:28-30) He was implicitly stating that we would not be doing the bulk of the work ourselves.
A further point that builds off my belief that sin is not breaking a rule, but rather violating a relationship, I think one of the greatest dangers that faces the modern church is the generational rifts and resulting isolation that appear when sin is defined through cultural rules. In both liberal and conservative churches, Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, et al, I believe the priorities are typically in enforcing social mores rather than using Scriptural principles to lead people to an ever-strengthening relationship with Christ. Those are the gnats we strain out while swallowing a camel (Matt 23:23-28).
The strongest example that I could give of a Scripture passage that seems on its face to be legalistic is probably Ephesians 4:17-5:21. I have heard many, many of what I have considered legalistic sermons quote pieces from this passage. It's tempting to do because Paul is pretty straightforward about a few things that believers shouldn't do. While I have always also felt bad to have a lowly opinion how the passage was used, I also always felt that I was right about this being the wrong approach to the passage. It was only recently that I noticed that the passage itself actually address the potential legalism in 4:22-24, in that our goodness is something God creates rather than something we earn.
"You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness."In these verses we see that the way to do the right things is not to just to accept Paul's chastening and be better people, but to put on a new self and allow God to change the attitude of our minds. The idea that we're going to stop stealing if our nature is to steal (4:28), or to stop slandering if our nature is to badmouth (4:29), or to do any of the other things listed in the passage without God changing our attitude is ludicrous. Our role is to put off our old selves (4:22) and not give the devil a foothold by clinging unnecessarily to that old self (4:27). It is God who actually performs the changing of our attitude and allows us to put on the new self that is created by Him if we let Him (4:24).
I am posting this on Valentine's Day for a reason. I remember early on in my relationship with Golden I kind of dreaded Valentine's Day, not because I didn't love her, but because I was scared I would break some unwritten rule about the day in what I gave her or did for her. You can say it doesn't matter all you want, but in the first few years of a relationship when you haven't had many Valentine's Days together there's no telling what will be interpreted as, "I don't love you," or, "You aren't special." Now, Valentine's Day does not worry me too much because I understand better what makes Golden feel loved and appreciated.
That Valentine's Day fear of triggering some unknown rule violation is like taking a legalistic approach to God. Early on when we are new in our relationship we have these rules that we follow, even if we don't always understand them, because we don't know if we might accidentally make God mad by doing such-and-such a thing. As we grow in the relationship, though, we should not require rules to understand the life He specifically wants us to live. While some things are flat-out wrong as if they were serious rules that should not be broken, it is the fact that they violate our relationship with God that is wrong rather than that they break some arbitrary rule.
For example, someone who is married should not have to have a rule that says he or she should not cheat on his or her spouse to understand that cheating is violating their relationship. Having to create a rule that says, "No cheating," while perhaps necessary in fragile times in the marriage or when one spouse is a little dense, can frankly be insulting that it was necessary at all. Likewise, as we put on the mind of Christ there are some things that we should intuitively know we personally should or shouldn't do, even though there are not official rules created for them. They may or may not be fine for other believers, depending on what specifically God is requiring of them, but our obedience in this case should not be to a rule book, but to our heart.
The most important aspect of this, though, is that when God expects something of us, it is through Him that it is possible to complete it. We cannot ever be good enough for God. This is important because it flies in the face of the popular, yet legalistic, attitude that says I have to continually try harder in my own power to measure up to God. My role is to submit, put on Christ, and let Him make the necessary changes that will result in me doing the right things. When Jesus said that his yoke was easy and his burden light (Matt 11:28-30) He was implicitly stating that we would not be doing the bulk of the work ourselves.
A further point that builds off my belief that sin is not breaking a rule, but rather violating a relationship, I think one of the greatest dangers that faces the modern church is the generational rifts and resulting isolation that appear when sin is defined through cultural rules. In both liberal and conservative churches, Evangelical, Mainline Protestant, Catholic, et al, I believe the priorities are typically in enforcing social mores rather than using Scriptural principles to lead people to an ever-strengthening relationship with Christ. Those are the gnats we strain out while swallowing a camel (Matt 23:23-28).
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
forboding movie previews
Most weekends I watch a couple of movies. Lately, it has mostly been movies I am fairly sure that I will at least find tolerable, but every once in a while I take a chance on a movie that there is a good chance that I will not like. Nothing makes me more leery of these movies than watching preview after preview at the beginning of the DVD of other movies that I have absolutely no interest in. "Maybe I misjudged what type of movie this was going to be," I wonder to myself. "I'm not really in the mood for an artsy/dramatic/ultra-low-budget/emotional/understated drama."
Usually my reticence is proven unwarranted, as I do end up finding some enjoyment in the movie. Even so, there are times when I get a few scenes in, decide that my initial fears were spot-on, stop the movie, and move on to something else.
The previews that make me concerned usually fall into one of the following categories.
Do you have any types of movie previews that makes you wonder if you made the right choice to watch some specific film? What are some of your red flags?
Usually my reticence is proven unwarranted, as I do end up finding some enjoyment in the movie. Even so, there are times when I get a few scenes in, decide that my initial fears were spot-on, stop the movie, and move on to something else.
The previews that make me concerned usually fall into one of the following categories.
- The previews that show that every character in the movie has a horrible life and there is no indication things are going to change. These previews are usually edited to be extremely gritty. They make me wonder if the movie I picked out for the night will leave me in a state of nihilistic depression.
- The previews for corny family comedies. I start to think, "Wait, am I going to laugh at any of the jokes in this movie?"
- The previews for artsy European movies with poor protagonists on a journey to find themselves or just surviving in a stifling culture. The film is always a bit grainy and usually makes note of all the film festival awards it got. This immediately makes me wonder how drawn-out the storyline of the movie I am about to watch is going to be, and whether there will be a real conclusion to the movie.
- The previews for other movies I have already seen and did not like.
- The previews for foreign films in general. If all of the previews are foreign films I suspect that the film makers for the movie I am about to watch were not overly concerned with the interests of the American movie watcher.
- The previews for mid-nineteenth century period pieces. Almost no movies I like take place in the nineteenth century, as it is dominated by romances and spaghetti westerns. The ones I do like that take place in that time period almost always bring something different to the table (Should I be embarrassed that I'm thinking of Cowboys and Aliens as a good film placed in the nineteenth century? At least I was not thinking of Wild, Wild West.).
- The previews for teen movies. There are teen movies I like, but it makes me nervous if the people picking previews for this movie only selected other teen movies for the previews.
- The previews for revenge movies. I'm not very interested in movies where the central point is revenge and nothing else of value is brought to the table, so I don't want to think I'm about to see a movie like Death Wish or The Last House on the Left.
Do you have any types of movie previews that makes you wonder if you made the right choice to watch some specific film? What are some of your red flags?
Saturday, February 04, 2012
manic pixie dream girl
Cracked has several times in the last few months referenced a specific story character type that has been grating at me for the last few years, but didn't know had a name. The character type is called the "Manic pixie dream girl." I will refer to this character as MPDG from here on.
I would encourage you to follow the link and click on the example movies to get an idea of what I am talking about. However, Nathan Rubin, who is the coiner of the term, describes the MPDG thusly:
The MPDG is absolute proof that Hollywood is less concerned with realistic relationships than with idealistic fantasies that ultimately result in a painful break-up or divorce. What usually happens is a straight-laced and highly-structured male character is introduced and we find out that he is not happy with life because being structured means he obviously is broken. He meets the MPDG and decides to change his approach to life, though it varies how related and in what order these events are. Hilarity ensues. There is relationship conflict, and the conflict is resolved by the highly-structured male accepting the MPDG's approach to life and progressing in a serious relationship with her. Movies where I have noticed this are Elizabethtown, Stranger than Fiction, and (most egregiously) Yes Man.
Apart from the fact that the MPDG as portrayed in the movies would not likely exist in real life, movies do real harm in romanticizing a personality type to people with clashing personality types. I can see where in real life an MPDG would be intriguing just long enough to get into a serious relationship with that person and realize the horrible mistake that has been made. True free spirits should not typically be merged with structured people. The movies kind of get around this by implying that this is a journey for the structured male character, and he will change for his beloved MPDG, but the whole idea is ridiculous. The tendency toward being structured or free-spirited, on the whole, is not a choice. A structured or free-spirited person might force themselves to live their opposite for a time, but after a while that would be a miserable existence.
Early in our relationship Golden heard someone describe similarities between partners in a relationship as money in the bank and differences as loans that will have to be paid back with interest. I can appreciate that far more now that we have been married more than a decade. We are very similar in a lot of areas, and those similarities have limited the issues we have had from our differences. In the course of our relationship most of the differences between us have resulted in or will result in some sort of compromise. Those compromises are sometimes easy and sometimes hard, but they always require care and effort and some pain.
My theory as to why the MPDG is so frequently worked into movie plots is that the character is something of a fantasy to freelance workers like writers or directors. This free-spirited non-existent girlfriend never pressures them to get a real job or asks whether they paid the water bill. She doesn't get upset when he gets distracted in his work or hobbies for days or weeks at a time, and doesn't care if he spends his money frivolously because she only exists for the moment. In truth, all the MPDG character does is romanticize irresponsibility.
There are certainly other grating character types that show up in movies a lot, but I think the MPDG has to rank among the most annoying for me. I say that as a structured man who doesn't believe he needs fixing.
I would encourage you to follow the link and click on the example movies to get an idea of what I am talking about. However, Nathan Rubin, who is the coiner of the term, describes the MPDG thusly:
"The Manic Pixie Dream Girl exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is an all-or-nothing-proposition. Audiences either want to marry her instantly (despite The Manic Pixie Dream Girl being, you know, a fictional character) or they want to commit grievous bodily harm against them and their immediate family."
The MPDG is absolute proof that Hollywood is less concerned with realistic relationships than with idealistic fantasies that ultimately result in a painful break-up or divorce. What usually happens is a straight-laced and highly-structured male character is introduced and we find out that he is not happy with life because being structured means he obviously is broken. He meets the MPDG and decides to change his approach to life, though it varies how related and in what order these events are. Hilarity ensues. There is relationship conflict, and the conflict is resolved by the highly-structured male accepting the MPDG's approach to life and progressing in a serious relationship with her. Movies where I have noticed this are Elizabethtown, Stranger than Fiction, and (most egregiously) Yes Man.
Apart from the fact that the MPDG as portrayed in the movies would not likely exist in real life, movies do real harm in romanticizing a personality type to people with clashing personality types. I can see where in real life an MPDG would be intriguing just long enough to get into a serious relationship with that person and realize the horrible mistake that has been made. True free spirits should not typically be merged with structured people. The movies kind of get around this by implying that this is a journey for the structured male character, and he will change for his beloved MPDG, but the whole idea is ridiculous. The tendency toward being structured or free-spirited, on the whole, is not a choice. A structured or free-spirited person might force themselves to live their opposite for a time, but after a while that would be a miserable existence.
Early in our relationship Golden heard someone describe similarities between partners in a relationship as money in the bank and differences as loans that will have to be paid back with interest. I can appreciate that far more now that we have been married more than a decade. We are very similar in a lot of areas, and those similarities have limited the issues we have had from our differences. In the course of our relationship most of the differences between us have resulted in or will result in some sort of compromise. Those compromises are sometimes easy and sometimes hard, but they always require care and effort and some pain.
My theory as to why the MPDG is so frequently worked into movie plots is that the character is something of a fantasy to freelance workers like writers or directors. This free-spirited non-existent girlfriend never pressures them to get a real job or asks whether they paid the water bill. She doesn't get upset when he gets distracted in his work or hobbies for days or weeks at a time, and doesn't care if he spends his money frivolously because she only exists for the moment. In truth, all the MPDG character does is romanticize irresponsibility.
There are certainly other grating character types that show up in movies a lot, but I think the MPDG has to rank among the most annoying for me. I say that as a structured man who doesn't believe he needs fixing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
