Friday, November 16, 2007

And Now For Something Completely Different...

Recently, I received a phone call from an elder in the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses. He wanted to arrange a meeting with my wife and me. I inquired as to the nature of the meeting and he stated that “certain accusations” had been made against me. He said a meeting involving my wife, me, and a couple of elders should be held as soon as possible in an effort to “sort out the facts” and to make sure we hadn’t “enticed” anyone else.

Strangely, though, regardless of anything I might or might not have ever done, the Watchtower Society does not recognize me as one of its members. The Watchtower Society reported the number of Witnesses worldwide to be 6,741,444 last year. In order to be counted amongst these ranks a person must be an active publisher. That is, they must go door-to-door at least once a month. I have not performed this activity for well over a year, and my wife has not done so for over two years; neither of us, therefore, are counted as members of the congregation. Consequently, I fail to see why the elder felt he had any jurisdiction over me or my wife. It’s as if I walked out of a job a year ago and only now does my ex-boss call to inform me I may be fired for conduct unbecoming his company.

Nevertheless, I inquired as to who made these accusations. The elder initially resisted providing me with any information, but as I reasoned with him, he divulged that four people had written letters to the elders stating that they were concerned about some of my recent actions. I reminded the elder that if his primary concern is to follow Theocratic order, he should provide me with the names of my accusers so that I may contact them in person. His response was that the people did not live nearby, upon which I said I was not adverse to making long-distance calls to speak with the accusers in the hope of sorting out the matter. He then went back to his original intent, saying again that it would just be best if we met with them. I reminded him that the correct course of action would be for those people to contact me directly if they have issues with me, and that, by going directly to the elders, they violated the very teachings they claim to support. Since, according to that elder, the accusers are all members of Witness congregations, they are the ones “dirtying” the congregation by their willful refusal to follow the Watchtower’s direction.

As proof, consider these excerpts from the October 15, 1999 Watchtower, in the article titled “You May Gain Your Brother”:

“If your brother commits a sin, go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother." Clearly, this is not a step based on mere suspicion. You should have evidence or specific information that you can use to help your brother to see that he committed a wrong and needs to set matters straight. It is good to act promptly, not letting the matter grow or letting his attitude become entrenched. And do not forget that brooding over it can damage you too. Since the discussion is to be between you and him alone, refrain from talking to others beforehand to win sympathy or improve your self-image.

Jesus showed that after the first step, you should not give up trying to gain your brother, to keep him united with you and others in worshiping God acceptably. Jesus outlined a second step: "If he does not listen, take along with you one or two more, in order that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every matter may be established."
He said to take 'one or two more.' He did not say that after taking the first step, you are free to discuss the problem with many others, to contact a traveling overseer, or to write to brothers about the problem."

Clearly, then, if the elder is worried about the cleanliness of the congregation, his first order of business should be either to inform me of the names of my accusers, or – in case he wishes to protect their anonymity – to contact them and remind them of their error in not following the Watchtower’s direction and to recommend that they approach me regarding any issues. I said as much to the elder, and he twice agreed that I was correct on this point.
Finally, he said he was unsure how to proceed. I exhorted him to do the right thing. He said he would confer with the other elders.
Less than an hour later, he called me again. I missed his call, but he left a voicemail stating the situation was “more than I can handle”. I returned his call. He said that the elders were unwilling to give me the names of the accusers (and, though he didn’t say, I assume the elders were unwilling to remind the accusers that they should have approached me directly). He insisted, instead, that we address ‘some’ of the accusations. These included two things: 1) Writing to the Watchtower Society and 2) Celebrating my son’s birthday.

Let’s take these one at a time:
1) I am unable to find any indication that writing to the Watchtower Society is considered an offense. I had questions, the local elders were unable to answer them, the Witnesses’ literature was unable to answer them, thus I wrote to the Watchtower Society. My letters were a sincere desire to learn the truth; something every Witness ostensible places in high regard. The Watchtower Society’s periodicals contain articles titled “Questions from Readers” and “From Our Readers”, thereby encouraging correspondence between them and their readers. Also, if writing the Society is some kind of sin, I am dumbfounded as to why no one has attempted to ‘correct’ my error during the twenty-one years that have elapsed since I first wrote the Watchtower Society.
2) It is true that I willfully celebrated my son’s second birthday, a fact easily discovered on the web. For the record, I also celebrated his first birthday. It has never bothered my conscience that each year, on my birthday, my parents and grandparents (all active Witnesses) called to wish me a happy birthday. Nor did it bother me when, in 1994, I attended a birthday party for the son of a close Witness friend. Nor did I feel there was any sin in allowing friends and family (all active Witnesses) to host birthday parties for my son shortly after he was born.
If it isn’t clear already, my issue here is not whether or not I did celebrate a birthday (clearly I did) but whether or not it was wrong in the first place.
I was an active Witness for approximately 25 years and during that time I was perpetually vexed that there was no sufficient explanation as to why Witnesses do not celebrate birthdays. Watchtower rationale on why birthdays are sinful can be boiled down to the following reasons:
a) Two birthday parties are mentioned in the bible. Neither of the birthday boys were worshippers of Jehovah. At both birthday parties, someone was killed. True, most birthday parties don’t end in murder, but since everything is in the bible for a reason, we must conclude that birthdays are not for true Christians.
b) Birthday celebrations involve giving undue attention to the individual; setting them up in a place of importance.
c) There is no indication that first century Christians celebrated their birthday.
d) Birthdays often include pagan traditions, such as cakes topped with candles and an encouragement of materialism via the giving of gifts.

Okay, let’s break these down.

First, the two biblical birthday party-related deaths: It is noteworthy that both of the deaths fulfilled prophesy, so the deaths weren’t all bad – had the deaths not occurred, God and Jesus’ words would have not come true! Also, if God really wanted us to abstain from birthdays, doesn’t it seem reasonable to conclude that he would have said so somewhere? After all, he spent pages and pages detailing sex crimes and proper disposal of human waste, so surely He didn’t leave out anything important. Why is there no law in either the Old or New Testament that simply says: “Thou shalt not celebrate birthdays”? He even saw fit to command women not to braid their hair, yet Witness women routinely flout this dictate. If we are to assume that all birthdays are evil because two birthdays (19 centuries apart) are mentioned in the bible under negative connotations, then what about dogs? Dogs are mentioned in the bible 40 times, and never once are they spoken of in a positive way. They are described as low, unclean animals that eat corpses and their own vomit. Anyone who condemns birthdays on the basis of the two bible citations, must likewise condemn dogs. And pigs. And hair-braiding.
Next, what is so wrong with giving an individual special attention on one particular day? If this truly is a reason to avoid birthday celebrations, then why are graduation parties, retirement parties, wedding receptions, wedding anniversaries and baby showers acceptable? Incidentally, a baby shower is a birthday party. What Witnesses really condemn, then, is technically not birthday celebrations, but the anniversaries of birthdays. This is especially bizarre considering they celebrate the anniversaries of weddings. I once asked an elder why wedding anniversaries were acceptable practices, while birthday anniversaries were not. He said: “Because marriage is God’s arrangement”. So then what is a birthday? Satan’s arrangement? God commanded humans to be fruitful, thus creating billions of birthdays. Never once did he command people to marry.
Next, while first-century Christians may not have celebrated their birthdays, neither is there any record that they insisted upon clean-shaven faces, or that they used birth control, or that they attended meetings three times a week, or that they produced their own literature, or that they held wedding anniversary parties or graduation parties. Yet all these things are practiced by twenty-first century Witnesses. Why the inconsistency?
Finally, the pagan tradition of candle-topped cakes surely can not be that sinful as I myself have had such a dessert placed before me on numerous wedding anniversaries. Each time I have been presented with such a cake, it has been from an active, faithful Witness. The same is true of gift-giving. While I by no means condone the rampant materialism in this country, Witnesses do not frown upon the giving of gifts on special occasions for anything besides birthdays. During my graduation party, at which every attendee was a Witness, I received 54 gifts. At our wedding and every subsequent anniversary, my wife and I receive scores of gifts, usually from faithful Witnesses. Some Witness parents even use the occasion of their wedding anniversary to give gifts to their children, as a way of making up for not celebrating their birthdays. At any rate, a birthday can be celebrated without the giving of gifts. My wife recently mentioned that, for a future birthday party for our son, she would like to invite all the kids to arrive with food or toys for animals and then all the children can go together to an animal shelter together and donate the items to the unwanted animals. To which I replied, “SINNER!”
At any rate, the elder never did provide me with the names of my accusers and, to my knowledge, he willfully chose not to inform my accusers of my desire to speak with them directly. So here, now, I give you that chance. Let’s be honest, you visit this site regularly even though you feel guilty doing so. Please address the comments above, including your justification on knowingly violating Watchtower dictates by going first to the elders instead of approaching me and what your specific scriptural reasons are for taking offense at letter writing and birthday parties. As the above Watchtower article outlined, I require specific information to help me see that I committed a wrong and to set matters straight. If you do not wish to make yourself known on a public forum such as this, please email me. If I do not hear from you within two weeks, I will assume you agree that you violated the Watchtower’s policy regarding reporting ‘wrongdoing’, that you agree letter-writing to the Watchtower Society is an acceptable avenue for finding answers, that the Witnesses’ belief regarding birthday anniversary celebrations is erroneous and that everything in this post is totally correct and reasonable.

P.S. For the record, no one was beheaded at any birthday party I ever attended.

Friday, November 9, 2007

My Two Favorite Motion Pictures

2. Rope (1948)
The first color film directed by Alfred Hitchcock, and one of only two in which he served as producer, Rope is a flawlessly executed experiment in film-making. I’ve seen a lot of film “experiments”, and this stands out above all others in that it not only contains a narrative, but a spellbinding narrative at that.
But getting back to the experiment – the first thing I ever heard about this film was that it contained no cuts and, therefore, transpires in real time (i.e., during the 80 minutes it takes to watch the film, eighty minutes transpire in the lives of the characters). My initial reaction was: “Cool idea, but probably boring”. But I was wrong. Hitchcock experimented with long cuts (e.g., Under Capricorn) and confined sets (e.g., Lifeboat) on other occasions, but in Rope, he uses them both to perfection
For one thing, Rope does contain cuts, and part of the fun is spotting the cuts, especially before they happen (it’s fun to see how the furniture and characters have to line up for a cut to be “hidden”). For another thing, those 80 minutes take place during sunset, and the skyline out the apartment windows makes for a more interesting film in itself than some Oscar winners I’ve seen.
Then there’s the story. Only Hitchcock would have the bravado (back in ’48) to put such arrogance on film; wherein two college students kill a third just “to see what it feels like”. It’s the ultimate for-the-hell-of-it act, and these boys justify it by claiming their own superiority over the mass of humanity. That in itself isn’t very satisfying, but throughout the next 79 minutes, we are treated to all manner of rationalizations and arguments that supposedly led to that moment of homicide.
Jimmy Stewart stars in this film, and though he is only one-third of the unholy trinity here, he’s still just as great as always. Did he ever give a bad performance? I don’t think so. Even in so-so movies, he manages to shine above the mediocrity. Incidentally, he’s the only person to star in two films in my top ten. In Rope, he’s given the best roll and he gets many of the great lines, including the best one: “Did you think you were God, Brandon?” (It’s better in context.)
And what Hitchcock would be complete without dark humor? His cameo appearance, the double-entendre of snippets of conversations, the decision of where to serve dinner, even the binding used to fasten the stack of books – all keep a viewer raptly attentive.
In most motion pictures with suspense, the suspense tends to rise and fall in episodic fashion throughout the story, culminating in a grand bit of suspense called the “climax”. But Rope is, yet again, different in this regard; the suspense never falls. While this makes for an exhausting filmic experience, it is fun to feel the suspense mount higher and higher until at last a resolution (of which the viewer is never certain) occurs. With each viewing, I revel in the fun of watching the guests, like pawns, being manipulated by their hosts.
When it comes to well-made and enjoyable motion pictures, it is my opinion that Rope stands out as one of the best ever. Maybe even the best. Except for…

1. Psycho (1960)
At last I get to discuss what has been my favorite motion picture for the past 16 years. At the time I first viewed it, I realized that no film more fully enraptured, thrilled, excited and intriqued me quite like Psycho. Ever since, I have weighed all subsequent films against this one, and, though some have come close, I just can’t honestly rank any film higher. No other motion picture excels in absolutely every aspect. Psycho, in my opinion, is the most perfect film ever created, or, if you prefer: Psycho contains the least amount of stuff I did not like. Even the opening titles are brilliant!
This film stands in contrast to all others for not one, but several reasons. Allow me to delineate the outstanding features of Hitchcock’s pièce de résistance…
1. The entire story itself is totally changed from what it appears to be at the outset. I love when I can’t guess what’s gonna happen next, but this takes it to a whole new level. I’ve never seen a movie devote so much time to throwing a person off the main trail (except maybe The Sound of Music).
2. Symbolism! I love symbolism in motion pictures, and Psycho has it in full measure. From the opening credits chopping from name to name, to the hanging sickles in the hardware store, to the positioning of the hotel in relation to the house, to the changing color of Crane’s clothing, to the pictures on the wall, to the record on the record player, to the license plate number, to the avian references, to the names of the main characters…symbolism is everywhere here. Heck, Bates’ name alone carries two pieces of symbolism.
3. Dialogue. The often strange, stilted dialogue brings these characters to life. There are so many great lines that, after multiple viewings, serve as hilarious bits of foreshadowing: “We all go a little mad sometimes, haven’t you?”, “A son is a poor substitute for a lover”, “12 rooms, 12 vacancies”, “We're always quickest to doubt people who have a reputation for being honest”, “Mother’s not quite herself today”, and so on…
4. The music. There are only a handful of movies in which I even notice the music (I’m excluding musicals here, obviously). Star Wars, Jaws, Vertigo, The Godfather and The Third Man are all examples of non-musicals in which the music is first rate. Psycho, with its screeching violins sans percussion, easily makes this list.
5. The acting. No one here does a bad job, and a few actors do so well, I wonder if they were born to play the part. Anthony Perkins is primary in this regard, but, to a lesser extent, so are Vera Miles, Martin Balsam and Mort Mills.
6. The camera work. I know I’ve droned on about the camera work in other films here, so let’s just say that Psycho’s is pretty darn good, too. My favorite pieces are probably the opening shot where the camera goes through the blinds, allowing us to peek in on the lovers, and the sweeping track up the stairs to the Bates’ house.
7. The calendar. It’s weird, I know, but I tend to get preoccupied with the flow of time in movies. Just the other day, I was commenting on the appearant time inconsistency in Mary Poppins. Not only is time given it’s due in this movie, it’s scrupulously attended to; the date at the outset cues us in to the appearance of Xmas decorations in the summer, and the wall calendar at the end shows us a passage of nine days – all logically accounted for.
8. The climax. While other movies have more sweeping climaxes, Psycho’s was totally unexpected. Other movies on this list, such as Return of the Jedi, Back to the Future, Rear Window, Ingen Numsil and The Princess Bride all have very satisfying climaxes, but in those cases, I probably could have guessed how it was going finish. The fun of those movies was just watching how the climax would play out. With Psycho, I had not idea what the climax would be, much less how it would play out. This was largely due to…
9. The twist. I love a film with a secret. Again, other movies reveal great secrets: The Usual Suspects, The Empire Strikes Back, Citizen Kane, Fight Club (to name a few) but in every one of those examples, the story is not fundamentally altered by the revelation, it’s more of a clever trick, leaving the viewer saying: “Oh, that’s so cool!” …and then rolling the credits. In Psycho, the twist’s revelation forces one to go back and rethink the entire film (okay, I guess Fight Club is sort of like that, but that movie didn’t have near as great a story).
10. The Denouement. Critics often lambaste Psycho’s denouement as unnecessary at best, stupid at worst. I find the therapist’s breakdown of his conversation with Bates to be most fascinating, particularly in how he so causally dismisses the money (that we had cared about so much!) and insists that it was Bates’ mother who told him the truth. But it gets even better: the film then cuts to Bates’ mother thanking the guard for the blanket, and then we hear her disdain for her dutiful son, and her assurance that she would not even hurt a fly (and, indeed, she doesn’t). Finally, in a triple-exposure, Bates wryly grins for the camera, as if he is coming for us next, which ever-so-briefly fades to a skull and then a chain pulling out his heart. Finally, the car in the swamp, which we realize was only there to dupe us.
Allow me, too, to mention one other thing. Although this does not affect the quality of the movie at all, I find it funny that Psycho originally was not rated, then was rated Approved, then M, then PG, and currently resides at R. I grew up in a religion where people believed all movies rated R were violent, immoral, foul piles of crap…and I had lots of fun asking them about this movie. Many who saw it in the sixties and seventies felt ashamed that they saw (what became) a rated-R movie. I would usually explain this to them following a conversation wherein we extolled the virtues of this wonderful bit of celluloid.
...Whew! All that I never even mentioned the infamous shower scene.
My list is constantly changing (in fact, I’ve altered it since I began posting here). This is just a snapshot of my motion picture preferences on this day. But Psycho? Psycho has withstood the test of time in my books. Though I am always on the lookout, I would be very surprised to find a film I consider superior. Surprised, but also delighted!

Friday, November 2, 2007

My 3rd to 5th Favorite Motion Pictures

5. The Sting (1973)
Don't blink! You just might miss something! George Roy Hill's story of two small time con artists trying to hit the big time is thoroughly entertaining. Several shifts in the plot keep you guessing until the climax, and even that has a surprise ending.
Winner of 7 Academy Awards including Best Picture, The Sting, is an intricate comedy caper deals with an ambitious small-time crook (Robert Redford) and veteran con-man (Paul Newman) who seek revenge on the vicious crime lord who murdered one of their gang. How this of charlatans puts "the sting" on their enemy makes for the greatest double-cross in movie history.
The first time I viewed this film, I enjoyed it, but I was thoroughly confused. I even said to my friend, “The bad guys won?” And he said: “No, don’t you get it?” And I said: “I guess not.” So we watched it again. After that, I loved the film and enjoyed it more with each subsequent viewing.
Right from the start, the movie let’s us know we’re in for a treat. The title cards, that start out by giving us a brief glimpse of the tale, and then proceed to divide the movie up into chapters (much like Babe), which is very much in keeping with the 1920s “feel” that The Sting is going for. Then there’s Scott Joplin's ragtime accompaniment – one of my absolute most-favorite soundtracks.

4. Memento (2001)
Here we have the epitome of “original screenplay”. Most notably, this entire neo-noirish film plays out in reverse order; that is, the very first scene you see is the last one to happen chronologically. In fact, the very first scene is entirely played backwards – so the very first frame you see on the screen shows the last thing to happen to the characters in the story. Like Citizen Kane, Memento is brilliant not just for its great plot, but for the way the story is told.
This would be good enough for my top fifty, but Memento really outdoes itself in that the main character, Leonard Shelby, (sorry if I’m spoiling something here) has amnesia, and is unable to create new memories. In that way, we experience the disorientation and vulnerability Leonard feels. We are not sure who to trust, or what will come next, and with each scene we must take a few seconds to reorient ourselves as to where things are in the stream of time.
Memento also features stellar cinematography – chromatic changes during flashbacks, great camera work and a gritty feeling for the haunts Leonard finds himself in.
Isn’t it weird that I had no trouble following this film, and yet couldn’t figure out the Sting? The biggest complaint I hear about Memento is how tough it is to follow…but I had no difficulty. In fact, I even enjoyed given it the extra thought and attention it demands. Backwards seems to suit me, I guess.

3. La Vita é Bella (Life is Beautiful) (1998)
An unforgettable fable that proves love, family and imagination conquer all.”(tagline)
When my wife and I first went to see the film at the theater, there were twenty people in the audience. Once everyone realized it was a non-English film, and that they would have to read subtitles, exactly half the people in the audience got up and left. I was glad for myself, because I like a theater as empty as possible. But I gotta think those people who left made the dumbest decision ever in their history of film watching.
This is one of those movies that have a lasting effect on you. While watching it, I found that it has less to do with the war and more to do with the human feelings and the beautiful relationship between loved ones. The holocaust provides the ultimate context, that brings and highlights the story and adds yet another deep dimension to the movie. No such piece of art has ever before combined laughter and tears of sadness in me before and that is the miracle of the movie.

In the first half of the film, we can and delight at the immense comedy talent of Benigni, who plays Guido. Unlike so many modern movies there is nothing crude or course, his is simple innocent humor, making it all the more effective. The way he ties together little strands in the film to create comedy elements shows a great writing ability, and a mastery of timing when it comes to their execution on screen. Various incidents related to the rise of anti-semitism and fascism in Italy show that there are sinister forces at work which come to the fore in the second segment. Even the two segments themselves are melded together perfectly, and I have never seen a more clever way of showing the passing of time.
During the second half, the emphasis shifts. The comic moments are still present - Guido's translation of the rules of the camp is particularly notable - but it becomes somewhat more difficult to laugh when we consider the gravity of what is going on. We see that this is a film about human spirit above all else. Guido not only appeals to the audience due to his comedy and sheer pleasantness, but also in the way that he loves his family and the measures that he will go to to protect them.
Some have decried the addition of humorous elements to something as grave as World War II and the Holocaust. Those people are idiots. Benigni is not here making fun of the plight of those who suffered in the camps, he is showing what it means to be human, and how we can find happiness(and beauty, I guess) in life no matter what may happen to us. Life is really beautiful as you watch Guido's relentless efforts to make a lovely exciting experience of the concentration camp to his son. You get exhausted just watching him going through his painful day and yet you smile as he speaks to his son and makes him laugh. One can go on forever describing the creativity of this movie, but one will not be able to capture all its beauty in writing.
From the moment the credits rolled, I proclaimed this to be the best non-English film and the best motion picture ever created during my lifetime. I laughed, I cried, I loved this film. If you only ever see one subtitled film in your life, this is the one to see.