Today I will re-watch Bambi and attempt the direct-to-video sequel Bambi II. I will share my thoughts on my podcast. If anyone here wants to chime in... skype me (mousepod) or call me (714-408-7855).

As far as my earlier post on The Illusionist, to clarify: the entire concept was predictable. My problem with the plot of the first half was a result of the framing technique of the opening scene. Since it was clear who "she" of the first scene was within moments of the flashback beginning - I had a "get on with it" feeling that disappeared after the story "caught up" to the opening.

I'm actually with Alex on both counts.

I thought The Illusionist was-- much like a magician's act-- all flash and no substance. Very pretty to look at, but not at all emotionally involving. I also thought Norton's acting was woefully overstated.

Little Children had its moments, but it was uneven at best. Acting? Yes. Overindulgent? Indeed. An oops-we'd-better-wrap-this-all-up-neatly closure? Quite.

I just finished watching Jesus Camp.

This was a depressing experience. Watching this group of bright, gregarious children being indoctrinated, emotionally manipulated, harangued and exploited made me queasy, the moreso because my own childhood included similar experiences. (Thankfully, not quite to this extreme)

The movie serves as an interesting litmus test. To me, it looked like an exposé, but its central figure, camp leader Becky Fischer, reportedly thought the movie was fair, and showed her operation in a good light. (She has, however, shut down the camp since as a result of vandalism and negative scrutiny engendered by the film.)

As an unblinking document of pathological faith, Jesus Camp has few equals. I realy hope there will be a follow up in a few years. I'd love to know how these kids do further down the line. Will they stay with this lifestyle? (This type of highly charged "spirit-filled' Christianity is emotionally exhausting, for one thing. These kids are pushed to tears again and again in the course of a week.) Will they start asking important questions? Will they rebel? I'd be curious to know.

Pastor Ted Haggard, y'know, the guy who bought some meth and didn't take it but got a nice massage, appears here, just months before his fall from grace. He comes off poorly, seeming arrogant and cynical when he talks to one of the kids. Also, there is a moment, comical in retrospect, when he turns to the camera and, with all the machismo of Liberace, says "This is a FABULOUS lifestyle!" (Millions of dollars, a luxurious mansion and sex and drugs on the side? I'm sure it is!)

Just out of curiosity what would distinguish non-pathological faith from patholigical faith?

I'd be tempted to say that all blind belief in irrational things is a kind of pathology, but that's painting with too broad a brush. I probably reached for the phrase here because it's one that I picked up back in my days as a moderate liberal Christian.

Pathological faith could be described as the type of faith that places additional psychological burdens on the believer, increasing anxiety rather than relieving it. This may involve;

- Forced accountability to a leader or hierarchy (as in the "discipleship" type ministries)
- Expectation of enormous commitment of time and resources (especially financial)
- Intolerance of questioning or independent thought
- Subjugation of personal identity
- Inordinate "Us vs. Them" mentality
- Ostracism or punitive treatment for those who deviate

These are just some elements that could distinguish an unhealthy faith or community, as opposed to those that espouse a more compassionate outlook, are less judgmental, or more community oriented. (Y'know, those wishy-washy mainline churches with their emphasis on "love.")

This is just a quick reply - this is obviously a huge topic.

Yeah, but is it patholigical if it turns out that god is an asshole?

Anyway, not a religion thread.


Saw one and a half movies today. To fill out the Oscar ballot I hauled myself out to The Painted Veil. Of course, when I got home I remembered it hadn't actually been nominated for anything and I'm trying to figure out why I thought it had.

Oh well. The big reason for my reticence is that Edward Norton has just gone sour for me. Haven't liked him in his last several movies.

He's ok here, though he still feels miscast. Decent performances. Prettily flimed. But it just never connected to me. But the book never did either so I'm not surprised (significant changes from the book to the movie).


Tried to watch Don't Tell (La Bestia Nel Cuora), the 2005 nominee for best foreign language film from Italy. I've only made it about halfway through.

On this one the subtitles are killing me. Now, when I'm at all into a movie I don't even notice them, but when I'm not absorbed my eyes tend to wander. I get distracted by other things in the house.

I really enjoy being taken by surprise. The Last King of Scotland was not at all what I expected; the marketing-- and the award clips-- are not showing the depth and tone of the movie as much as they're showing a few key moments of Amin's fury. But in truth, the movie spent about two hours showing only Amin's charms; we only begin to see the cracks in the facade once the young doctor he dupes into acting as his advisor discovers Amin's heinous crimes for himself. I have never laughed more in a movie about a dictator. And this, I think, is an excellent choice. Dictators are able to take power because of their ability to trick people into believing they are worthy of following. This is, I think, rarely shown in films about leaders like Idi Amin. Whitaker's performance is the best male variety of the year, yes-- but sadly overlooked is the young doctor's performance; it's a tricky part and he handles it well.

We also saw Notes on a Scandal. I don't have much to say, as I thought it was a puffy melodrama not worthy of Oscar attention. I will say that it seemed strange to meet a character (Dench's) who was so terrible, so pathetic, and so lacking in complexity that Idi Amin seemed quite pleasant and layered in comparison.

Thanks, Alex, I did not know that. And it would have made for a more interesting movie. Having been in the dark about everything but the fictional nature of Garrigan, I just enjoyed it at face value.

We saw Junebug last week. We were both kinda ambivalent about it. I thought the characters were really "great" ("great" as in well portrayed, but horrible, horrible people). Contrary to Bornieo's assessment, it started out well then slowed to a painful crawl. It was really in need of an editor with the balls to tell the director, "You know, an extended establishing shot of a grassy field is a nice trick one in a while, but not the WHOLE DAMN MOVIE!" 3/4 of the way through, CP and I found ourselves spontaneously turning to each other and saying either, "Aaaaaaand action" as a scene started with some over-long still shot or, "Okay guys, scene's over, next scene please" as one ended with the same. It was figuratively every scene. I would have liked it a whole lot better had it been edited a bit more crisply.

I need to add that I'm already finding it forgettable, which is a bummer, because it could have been great. Wonderful concept, poor execution.