BlackChampagne Home

In association with Amazon.comBuy Crap! I get 5%.
Direct donations to cover hosting expenses are also accepted.

Site Information
--What is Black Champagne?
--Cast of Characters & Things
--Your First Time.
--Design Notes
--Quote of the Day Archive
--Phrase of the Moment Archive
--Site Feedback
--Contact/Copyright Info

Blog Archives
--Blogger Archives: June 2005-
--Old Monthly Archives: Jan 2002-May 2005

Reviews Section
Movie Reviews (153)

Ten Most Recent Film Reviews:
--Infernal Affairs -- 5.5
--The Protector/Tom Yum Goong -- 6
--The Limey -- 8
--The Descent -- 6
--Oldboy -- 9.5
--Shaolin Deadly Kicks -- 7
--Mission Impossible III -- 7.5
--V for Vendetta -- 8.5
--Ghost in the Shell 2 -- 8
--Night Watch -- 7.5

Book Reviews (76)
Five Most Recent Book Reviews:
--Cat People -- 4
--Attack Poodles -- 5
--Caught Stealing -- 6
--The Dirt, by Motley Crue -- 7.5
--Harry Potter #6 -- 7

Photos Section
--Flux Photos
--Pet Photos (7 pages)
--Home Decor Photos
--Plant Photos
--Vacation Photos (12 pages)

Articles
See all 234 articles here.

Fiction
Original horror and fantasy short stories.

Mail Bags
Index Page

Features
--Links
--Slang: Internet
--Slang: Dirty
--Slang: Wankisms
--Slang: Sex Acts
--Slang: Fulldeckisms
--Hot or Not?
--Truths in Advertising

Band Name Ratings
(350 Rock Bands Listed)
FAQ -- Feedback
A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- X -- Y -- Z

Hellgate: London
--The Unofficial HGL Site
--The Hellgate Wiki

Diablo II
--The Unofficial Site
--Flux's Decahedron
--Middle Earth Mod

Locations of visitors to this page

Powered by Blogger.

BlackChampagne -- no longer new; improvement also in question.: Movie Appreciation



Monday, April 16, 2007  

Movie Appreciation


Now that the Bourne Identity/Supremacy (or whatever the first 2 movies are called) films have become staples of cable programming (Bourne 1 is on TBS or USA or TNT every other time I turn on the TV), and I've seen them several times on DVD, I must admit to having grown quite fond of them both. I didn't want to like them in advance, since after all, it's Matt Damon. Or possibly Mark Whalburg -- like anyone can tell them apart (a fact the movie company is clearly banking on by casting Whalberg in the new Bourne-looklike action flick that no one is going to see).

The source material is dreck as well, at least based on the bit of Ludlum's purple prose I read (and cited in my review) on Amazon.com, but however it improbably happened, the two Bourne movies (and there's a third coming this summer) are very smart, fast, exciting, well-acted, and no-nonsense. And I think that's what I like about them.

I loathed the last few James Bond films, until they successfully reinvented the series in Casino Royale. They were bloated and ridiculous, with totally over the top plots, mugging villians, laughably future-tech inventions, horrid female costars (Denise "Nucular Scientist" Richards), and had basically become almost as ridiculous as the Austin Power's parody of them. They were just one long, absurd set-action-piece after another, and could not be salvaged no matter how many wryly-arched eyebrows Pierce Brosnan turned loose.

The Bourne films have taken a very different approach, and that's what I initially liked about them, and what keeps them interesting to me through multiple viewings. They're very streamlined and quick and realistic, and they feature lots of smart characters who talk fast, know what they're doing, and get the job done. Bourne doesn't win because the bad guys monologue instead of just shooting him, or are in love with their own cleverness, or because he's got gadgets that more successfully prove Clarke's third law. He wins because even though they're very good, he's better. And that's inspiring to me, and enjoyable to watch. I sat through most of Bourne 2 over the weekend, and I found myself rooting for the CIA people even as they were hunting Bourne. They're not evil, in the film. They're just doing their jobs, and doing them pretty well. They're furiously pulling surveillance tapes and spotting their needle in a train station quarry, they're putting out manhunts with local authorities, they're sending in the SWAT team when necessary, and they're all highly competent, both in action and in verbal skills. It's comfort food for my mind, in a way -- just seeing people who know what they're doing and are highly-articulate and skilled in word and deed.

I like it perhaps because it's so very unlike real life.

I've lately been in unfortunately close proximity with two human adult males who remove years from my life when they begin speaking. One guy isn't especially dumb, he's just remarkably inarticulate, perhaps due to his constant pot smoking (I've never seen it, but my god does he reek of the herb.) When he talks, which is mercifully-seldom, he has a strong voice and if he's directed to remain on topic he can make some points... he just has no presence and uses "like" after literally every sentence, if not more often. I've never been able to follow the meaning of his words for more than a sentence or two, since roughly every fifth word is "like." And it's not an affectation, Valley Girl style, he just uses it when he pauses to "think" and since he does that a lot: yeah... I want to record him someday and then post the audio file online just to provide an example to every teenager on earth how not to talk. (Or perhaps how to talk if they want to cause intelligent adults to not retain any approximation of their meaning.)
"Well, my project was like focusing on like the ways in which, like, people, like, study other like cultures and like ideas, and like their methods of like coping with changing societal conditions and like, attitudes."
That is not an exaggeration, I assure you. I've found myself counting the likes several times while listening to him talk, since I can't get past his inarticulateness to make sense of what he's saying. I should have written down the tallies, but he easily liked into the 30s during several short discourses.

The other guy's worse. He doesn't "like" you to death, but he is so mumbly and muttery that I think it has to be at least somewhat intentional. This sounds both cruel and hyperbolist, but swear to you that it took me a good two months of seeing him once a week before I could safely conclude that he wasn't mentally retarded. I don't mean he talked like it, I mean I honestly thought he might suffer some LMR, and I wasn't sure if I was allowed to be so annoyed at his hemming and hawing, if I should feel sorry for him, or be inspired by his nearly-normal functioning despite his handicap.

I've since accepted that he lacks mental or chromosomal aberrations, and that it's me, not him. Other people don't seem to mind so much when he tries to talk, but I have to grip myself to keep from beating my head into a wall, or shaking him like a crying baby. I wonder if a smack to the back of the head would unstick the words, and I wonder if he's ever won an argument in his life. Can he get in a word edgewise in a group of more than four people? (There's plenty of time to ponder these issues while waiting for him to try talk, I assure you.)

"Talk faster!" I want to shout, and this is exactly why they don't let me around children or old people. I have zero patience with people who can't articulate themselves, and I don't much care whether they don't know the words or can't find them or are lost in their memories. Life is short, your point isn't that good anyway, and it's getting worse every extra second you spend stammering your way towards it. Of course I do wait; I just seethe or laugh inside meanwhile.

The irony is that I can easily see the first guy becoming the second guy. He can't be aware of how ignorant he sounds with all his likes and dis-likes. He just can't. If he was he'd have to do something to change it, or at least try to control it, unless all the pot he's smoked has burnt out his mental motor skills -- a possibility I'm not entirely ruling out. Imagine that someday some friends of his stage an intervention (I'd help, but my intervention would be a lot like the one the villagers with torches staged for Frankenstein's monster.) and make him listen to himself talking. He's not bright enough to formulate his points faster than his mouth can deliver them, but he could learn not to use like as a constant crutch. Perhaps he could incorporate pauses, or just speak more slowly to allow his mind time to catch up and move ahead... just like the second guy, who I find even more annoying!


So, to reduce this to the element most blogs focus on... what does this tell me about me? I've often commented that what we most dislike about others is usually a reflection of something we dislike in ourselves. I know I dislike it when I can't get a point out, or can't articulate myself, or when I'm feeling mentally slow. I don't often have those problems, but it drives me crazy when I do. On the contrary, my verbal weakness is excessive haste. I've always got so many points to make or ideas to express that I talk way too quickly, and only Malaya can understand me (almost) all of the time, since her mind is in tune with mine, her ears are good, and she knows me very well. I have to remind myself, when speaking with other people, to slow down, to enunciate, and to sometimes belabor a point since they're probably not on my mental wavelength. And I still talk way too fast.

Interestingly, I do the same thing with words. Not so much on the keyboard, but when I'm writing by hand I get so frustrated at the sloth-like pace of word formation, and the imprecision of my motor skills and the medium of ink on paper that I can't stand it. As a result I form the first few letters or words adequately, before inevitably descending into a series of squiggles that no one, including myself, can later decipher. I write the squiggles very quickly though, I must admit.

The other realization this prompts is that I overvalue verbal ability, especially of the glibly-eloquent style. I judge anything said quickly and clearly far more highly than its content might deserve, while lacking the patience to wait out slower speakers who might have better points. The "like" guy might actually be brilliant in some fields, but I'll never realize it since I can't filter out his annoying verbal ticks. It reminds me of l33tsp33k. Most adults online can't tolerate that stuff, and immediately disregard anything said in it. I know I get snobby, and if someone's writing a forum or blog post and using "u" and "2" and "ur" in something other than a the caption on an amusing cat photo, and disregarding punctuation and sentence structure, they pretty much vanish into my mental junk filter. They might have a great point to make, but I'm not going to get it. Just as a general rule; if you're not typing with one thumb on a phone, you need to use real words if you expect anyone older than about 14 to read them.

Finally, this analysis also makes me realize that I, like most everyone else, judge others by my own standards. I think I'm smart, and I talk fast and think fast and can make jokes and jump from one point to another without losing my train of thought. Therefore I think other people who speak in similar fashion are also smart, and that people who talk really poorly, or really slowly, aren't smart. I realize that plenty of idiots can machine gun out words, and that a smart person might not be verbally articulate, or may be struggling to elucidate a difficult concept, but unless English is clearly not their first language, I have trouble waiting and not letting my thoughts wander to fill the time.

Likewise, I figure that while I'm grinding my teeth at the second guy's ponderous attempts at discourse, he thinks he's being thoughtful and insightful. And when I'm talking he probably winces at my glib tongue and thinks I'm a superficial chattering mynah bird.

Labels: , ,

Comments:

"it's Matt Damon. Or possibly Mark Whalburg -- like anyone can tell them apart"

Matt is hotter.


So if you hate slow speakers so much, have you ever listened to any of Churchill's speeches? Painful.


 

I'm with Lanthanide on this one, Matt Damon is way hotter!

Your description of writing with pen and paper is a pretty accurate description of the way my writing looks as well. I can remember a time when my writing used to look fairly good. Never John Hancock on the constitution pretty, but legible at least. Now it seems that every letter I write in lower case looks exactly the same, with the exception of the y's. I have to really concentrate to keep my writing legible, and find it easier -albeit much slower- to use block print when leaving notes for myself or others. The downside to that is that I scrimp on words because it takes so damn long. Right now I have a post-it note on my desk that has three words on it: Banana, Cat, Lampshade. I know why I wrote down lampshade, the other two are beyond me. If I had written it instead of printing it, I could just assume that it was something terribly important that was since forgotten. Instead, I have to spend the rest of my day pondering banana cat.


 

Sorry Flux, but I'm going to pull out the "people who seem stupid aren't always stupid" card. I too tend to talk real fast--sometimes so fast I stumble over my own tongue and end up having to rewind so I can repeat myself to those listeners. For me, that's mostly a physical issue of me slurring my words together and not annunciating--I know very well what I want to say, but I'm just not moving my lips well enough.

My girlfriend, on the other hand, has Ausberger's Syndrome, so she's the perfect poster child of "words not coming out fast enough." In casual conversation she's "normal" (as far as general defitions go) but if I try to get her to explain something specific and concise, she goes blank. For the next 60 seconds she'll spit out words and half-phrases of what she's "trying to say she means." Often she'll tell me the end result of what she's trying to say before explaining the natural progression up there, which leaves us both confused, because now we both know the answer but still doesn't know how to achieve it. Kind of like getting the answer to a mathematical process first--okay, now I know the number, but I need to know how you got there so I can understand the process and put two and two together in my own head.

This is important to me, because my girlfriend and I are quite devoted to each other, so austistic, slow-speaking children are almost a certainty. I do have comfort knowing that my girlfriend's ability to arrive at the answer--not just in math, but everywhere--before going through the natural motions of progression means she's quite intelligent in that head of hers; there's just a misconnection between the tongue and the brain, so the rest of the world wonders what the hell is wrong. This theory of mine is further supported by her writing, which is almost always coherent.


 

I'm in the "eloquent writer, bumbling speaker" camp. I'm a fairly well-spoken individual with a keyboard at my fingertips (by God, I have the same problem you have with pen and paper. Those hand cramps are a bitch!), but once I get in front of someone, I'm a fairly monosyllabic conversationalist unless we're pretty well acquainted.

I've also noted about myself that I have a pretty healthy lexicon, and neat words always come out before their simpler counterparts, but I can almost *never* invoke the cool words in conversation. 9 times out of 10 I know an awesome word exists for what I'm trying to say, but it simply doesn't come to me. This, as you may have guessed, doesn't occur on paper.

As a result of this, I'm a very quiet individual, and I equate intellect with silence coupled with the impression of understanding; if I see them smiling at intelligent jokes or convincingly acting as though they're following complex concepts (though not actively participating in conversation), I assume intelligence, because that is pretty much how I am.


 

Post a Comment << Home

Archives

May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2012  

All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007.