This might come as a shock

But we've been hit with a wave of medical problems over the last few weeks.  Hence my slowness in either posting or responding to comments, which I always try to do.  Hopefully things will slow down soon.  It's almost July and we haven't even finished our herb garden yet (or done much in our yard for that matter)!  This is getting serious.  

But as soon at things slow, I should be back with a couple things.  In the meantime, if I'm not back by then, have a safe and blessed Independence Day and relish that time of year that things begin to come back to us.  

The Reality of JAWS

THIS IS FROM AN EARLIER POST.

Since today marks the 50th Anniversary of the movie that started the whole Summer Blockbuster era that would eventually separate Oscar from Box Office, it's worth reposting.  FWIW, JAWS itself, like Star Wars, ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Rocky, and Raiders of the Lost Ark were also Blockbusters but widely praised by the Academy.  JAWS was, in fact, nominated for Best Picture (losing out to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).  So here it is, with the musing I had from the day: 

"None of man's fantasies of evil can compare to the reality of Jaws."

That was the line that opened one of the TV commercials for JAWS in 1975.  It was the movie everyone was talking about.  There are famous movies, legendary movies and great movies.  And then there are those historic movies.  Not movies about history, but movies that made history.  Gone With the Wind, Citizen Kane, King Kong (33), Star Wars, the Ten Commandments, The Godfather, The Exorcist, Easy Rider, and of course JAWS.

At a time when many believed it would be endless years before the 100 million dollar mark was breached, when movies were aimed at general audiences, when realism was beginning to dominate and the R-Rating was allowing Hollywood to shatter taboos, a young Stephen Spielberg unleashed what many consider to be the greatest horror film of all time on an almost ill-prepared movie going audience.

Much has been written about the movie.  And next to Citizen Kane, few other movies have become as

known for the production as the finished product.  Everyone knows the mechanical shark didn't work.  State of the art for the day, salt water did it in, forcing Spielberg to adopt a more Hitchcockian approach to what would have been a 'monster shark eats people' disaster film of the mid-70s. Union problems, zoning problems, difficulties shooting on the ocean, cantankerous crew, bickering actors - Spielberg has said that for many months after the film's release, he would wake up in a cold sweat thinking he was still working on the set.

And yet, when it hit theaters in the summer of 1975: movie magic.  Hollywood realized there was a whole new way to package and market films.  The Summer Blockbuster, whose bastard children are still alive today, was born.  Spielberg became a superstar.  John William's iconic score went down as one of the greatest ever composed for a film.  One of the greatest monologues in movie history. Martha's Vineyard officially became a major tourist spot.  And in the summer of 1975, revenues for the beach industry took a sharp plunge.

And why not?  Even then it was recognized as better than your average horror thriller, garnering an Academy Award nomination (losing to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest).  And though some criticized the lack of character development among some of the cast (though usually not the principle characters), today it looks like a Shakespearean drama by comparison.

Spielberg's insistence on filming on the high seas rather than a studio tank paid off, and the atmosphere and

the ocean become major players in the film.  Robert Shaw, Roy Scheider, and a young Richard Dreyfuss all give stellar and sympathetic performances.  Even though the movie relied on locals to round out much of the town's population, they actually pull their weight well.  And while the shark has gotten some ribbing over the years (sharks don't really have 'jaws'), when looked at as a model, it really isn't far off an actual Great White.  It was just the lack of information saturation that movie makers today would have that the model builders then weren't privy to.

Still, by the time the shark appears, it's lack of continual appearances keeps it menacing until the end.  The tension and stress of the movie keeps the audience alive, and just like other great films of the past - anything by Harryhausen, the original King Kong - most are able to mentally transfer the images and remember that this isn't really a shark, but it's a character in the movie.  Just like Shaw wasn't really a fisherman, or Dreyfuss a scientist, so the mechanical shark was an actor.  And what an actor it was.  Though modern CGI creatures have the benefit of unlimited access to any scholarship about any topic, and  of course the limitless bounds of CGI graphics, few have ever sustained the menace or the horror that 'Bruce' the shark managed off the coasts of Amity all those years ago.

Knowing the movie and its place in history and the quality of its production, it was inevitable that I'd want to see it with the boys.  Our oldest had seen it a couple years ago.  But our next two youngest hadn't seen it yet.  So last weekend, busy with Mothers Day and preparations for Confirmation this weekend and  Graduation next, we set aside any major plans, popped some corn and sat down to watch JAWS.  I was curious to see how my boys would react.  After all, in 1975, unless you were able to see Rated R movies, chances are you hadn't seen much in terms of blood and violence.  JAWS made some people leave the theaters because of the blood.  I remember my then teenage sister being utterly freaked out by the huge amounts of blood.  But this is 2014.  My boys grew up on a diet of PG-13 violence, and have actually seen some select rated R movies (or scenes from them, for instance battle scenes from Gladiator). Would this be old?  Would it be dated?  Would it be a bore?

When the movie was over, and Dreyfuss had tossed out his final quip, as the credits ran I looked and my eighth grader was literally clutching the arms of his chair.  My oldest, who had already seen it once, was shaking.  My ninth grader laid back as if exhausted.  So what did they think?  My soon to be confirmed eighth grader was first to speak, and he summed up something I've been think about since.  He said, "You got to like those guys.  You didn't want to see any of them killed.'   The others agreed.  Far from two dimensional fodder, you cared about them.  Almost half the movie was spent getting to know the main characters, and even though common sense said that at least one of them had to go, you didn't want it to be any of them.  But it wasn't just that.   It was intense.  How was it intense I asked.  Because it was, well, real.  They couldn't quite put their finger on it, but they said it wasn't just 'it was real because sharks are real.'  It was because the people didn't seem like today.

I pondered that and pressed on.  According to them, today many (not all, but many) characters are not overly sympathetic.  Bad guys are supposed to be bad and get what they have coming.  Good guys are good guys, usually because they represent PC values.  Characters aren't real.  They're like types.  They are either supposed to get what they have coming, or not.  And even though the gore and violence is more, it isn't the same.  They just couldn't but their finger on what made this 1975 movie so intense.

And yet, they've encountered that more than once.  Not that they don't enjoy movies and TV shows today,

but they have time and again admitted that, with few exceptions (Christopher Nolan being a consistent example), movies today lack something. They're not 'real.'  Yes, the acting quality in JAWS among the three leads is wonderful, and that helps.  But actors today are good.  Writers.  Directors.  What is it that so struck a nerve with my boys?  I'm not sure.  To quote Quint when asked if he'd seen a shark do this: I don't know.  But it's got me to thinking.  Thinking about the media pool in which our youngsters swim.  Maybe it's my boys.  Maybe others would just laugh and guffaw.  Maybe they would cheer whenever someone got taken down by the shark.  Part of me fears that might be true.  But I can't help but think it means something, and I'll be thinking about it over the months to come.

Maybe it's not fair to compare what many (or at least pre-internet many) consider one of the greatest movies of all time to the entire package today.   After all, there was more than one pile of lousy, superficial junk movies in 1975.  But for now, three men went into the water, two came out alive, and the reaction of my boys gave me something to ponder as I think of our culture, our society, and the world which we have given them as our oldest's graduation approaches.

Why the sudden attack on alchohol?

So by now I'm sure you've heard that the research is in, and alcohol leads to cancer.  I first saw it announced last year, and since then almost every other week I've seen news stories about how more and more research is drawing a thick, straight line between drinking and cancer.  So much so that, as this story says:

"There really isn’t a safe level of drinking when it comes to cancer risk."

You see that?  There just isn't a safe amount of drinking where cancer is concerned.  This isn't the usual 'research says a glass of wine is good for you/research says a glass of wine is bad for you' that we're used to hearing.  No.  This is a growing, concerted, coordinated assault on alcohol in general.

So I ask myself - why?  Yes, cancer seems to be on the rise, though you never know. I've heard it is on the rise one day, then I'm told it isn't on another.  I do know many things are getting worse - food allergies and Alzheimer's/dementia are said to be increasing and at younger and younger ages.  That much I can see and don't need research to point out the obvious. 

But for some reason, the press and medical establishment have gone pit bull on alcohol. Which is strange.  Because the processing of alcohol in some parts of the world, and perhaps even here in the States, is one of the few things left whereby traditional, more natural and less synthetic and artificially created chemical processes and preservatives are used.  Why in an age of most foods being injected with endless chemicals or pesticides or processed in ways hell and gone from natural, it's wine and beer that is the target has me scratching my head.

I brought this up in response to yet another story about the dangers of all alcohol, and received a puzzling answer.  I was told in the US it's often not the case that alcohol is processed naturally today. I was told we use as much artificial and manufactured chemicals in processing drinks today as with any other food group.  But to me, that seems like the problem is the artificial processing, not the alcohol. 

Yet the stories keep rolling out.  Every other week or more frequently.  So I ask, why?  Especially since it's impossible for me to think that if alcohol, something that has been consumed for thousands of years, is suddenly a problem, the rest of what we're eating and drinking should be off the scale and met with even greater warnings.  Yet little is being said there, despite a year long wave of broadsides against alcohol and alcohol alone. 

I should note that, at the end of the above story, it does say there are many, many issues in the research that need addressed, and much that is not known.  That's something I guess.  It's just that since last year, this more than anything has become a major point across the news media and in the medical fields, and I can't help but wonder why.  

Let it be known, BTW, that I'm not being paid by beer or wine companies here.  Nor am I encouraging people to drink.  It's just that in our modern age of post-truth and post-integrity, when something like this comes out of the blue when it seems so out of joint with everything else going on, it makes me wonder what is up.  What are they up to, and why. 

It must be Catholicism

Mike Lewis, over at Where Peter Is, chimes in about the whole kerfuffle in Charlotte.  That is where some documents were apparently leaked (a popular trend I'm no fan of) that suggested a willingness by Bishop Martin of Charlotte to go after the Latin Mass in a way that would make McCarthy blush.  There was backlash, not surprisingly.  

The whole assault on the Latin Mass and the traditions of the Church, that reached a fever pitch during the pontificate of Pope Francis, is one of those things that reminds me I'm Catholic. Because as goofy as Christians can be in living up to Jesus' observations about the Children of Light v. the Children of this age, Catholicism usually wins hands down.  

At a time when the world is pulling itself apart, suffering and misery exploding, paganism is coming back in vogue, global elitists are musing about euthanasia, human sacrifice and even cannibalism, and a growing number of people are leaving the Faith or staying and insisting they don't buy most of the BS anyway - an entire swath of Church leadership has decided the important thing is to abolish the Latin Mass.   You know, that part of Catholicism that even non-Catholics have traditionally associated with the Church.  It's like the Allies saying in 1944 that before we storm Normandy, we need to take care of these squirrels in the yard. 

Eh.  That's the Catholic Church for you.  Lewis' take is everything you would expect from Lewis or any contributor at Where Peter Is.  But most who visit my blog have likely seen responses from those upset at Bishop Martin's actions, so this is another point of view.  

FWIW, the only reason I went there was to see if anyone at the site has mentioned Pope Leo's June 1st emphasis on the families, babies, moms and dads and all, as the rest of the world moved into the month of pride as virtue where sex is concerned.  So far, unless they have a hidden page, the answer would be no. 

A first

A reminder of the passage of time. 

Yesterday was the first time I remember that the news didn't mention the anniversary of D-Day.  Not in the morning shows, nor in the local outlets.  

Granted, I couldn't watch every station at once.  And I didn't watch the entire broadcasts.  But in the past, I didn't have to.  At least once or twice, every June 6, just in casually having the news on and getting ready, I would see one or two mentions at least.  But not yesterday.  If it was brought up, it must have been at the bottom of the hour after I had gone. 

I wanted to wait and post on what I saw and see what they said, but I saw nothing.  In print media, the only major national outlet in the news feed that I saw was the NYT, using D-Day to criticize President Trump's relationship with our traditional allies.  But I guess at least it mentioned the day. 

I suppose this is what comes of time.  Especially today, where the past is increasingly remembered only to condemn, and as quickly forgotten.  When I was growing up, WWI was seen as ancient history, the Spanish American War even more so.  WWII was the dominant historical memory, at least until the 1980s, when Vietnam overtook WWII in the pop culture mindset.  I've often wondered if we would have remembered WWII as long as we did, had it not been for that Boomer penance period of Saving Private Ryan, The Greatest Generation and  Band of Brothers and similar (not to mention that all too brief wave of post-9/11 patriotism).   

Who knows.  Had those not brought WWII back into the public mindset, WWII might have been as obscure for my boys as the Spanish American War was for my generation. But it did get a boost and a generational round of attention in those days. So for the following years, at least December 7th and D-Day received the obligatory mention each year.

A few years ago, during the 2020 revolution, I recall some tried to insist it was time to stop remembering Pearl Harbor and instead remember the beginning of the Japanese American internments.  That didn't appear to fly. But I note that following that, no real mention was given of that day of infamy in casual news broadcasts in any event.

Now D-Day seems to have landed on the chopping block.  Whether we can draw a line between this and other events I've noticed that have received no media attention, I don't know.  I just know that yesterday, for the first time I ever remember, that Day of Days went without mention in anything I saw.  As, I suppose, all things must. 

All things must pass
None of life's strings can last
So I must be on my way
And face another day.

                           George Harrison

The nowhere pope of the postmodern age

So I noticed something.  In the months following the election of Pope Francis, the news media lit up like a solar flare.  This was especially true after his famous 'who am I to judge' remark about the LGTBQ movement.  Every week, if not every day, there seemed to be stories about Pope Francis.  All of which gushed with praise and adoration and optimism about how Pope Francis was beginning the good work of finally burning that old time religion to the ground.  For example, this one always comes to mind, from the rag dedicated to proselytizing our youngest into a world of Sodom and Gomorrah debauchery and nihilism: 

That was just part of the new age of post-modern propaganda that rotated around Pope Francis like a hurricane.  Reminds you of the messianic visions of Obama in 2008, don't it. 

Anyway, I notice in comparison to that, the press has been rather quiet about Pope Leo XIV. But so has everyone else.  Certainly in comparison to the almost daily posts unpacking the latest Pope Francis interview or talking point.  Oh, people mention Pope Leo here and there.  For instance, those of more traditional sympathies noted that on June 1st, otherwise known as our last month long foray into post-Christian paganism and dreams of a post-Western world for the year, Pope Leo chose to talk about families and mom and dad and having those babies.  

So naturally, this is what I saw after June 1st on most media outlets that bothered to mention him at all:

At least Vatican News added the family admonition to the important news

Over at Where Peter Is, where every word that proceeded from the mouth of Francis seemed to warrant its own special column (except his trashing of transgender activism), I saw no mention of his June 1st musings.  Just a column reflecting on how Pope Leo can effectively continue the reforms and activism of Pope Francis, and one reflecting on the real meaning of his emphasis on unity.  

Whether it's the Church righting itself, or people wanting to refrain from rushing in, or what, I don't know.  Clearly Pope Leo is not what the press initially hoped or imagined.  By now we know that thing we used to call the news media is merely tabloid propaganda.  They have no desire to cover news, merely promote.  And so far, it seems whatever they want to promote and what they see in Pope Leo XIV are not one and the same.  At least it looks that ways thus far.  So we'll see.  Just something I've noticed.  

For a bonus giggle, here is a Youtube video (posted on WPI) in which we realize Pope Leo and Pope Francis will be, well, the same but with different name tags.  And unity properly understood is when we realize it's the fault of those traditionalists and more conservative types misreading what Pope Leo no doubt intends to mean:

Heh.  That sort of thing always makes me chuckle.  The old leftwing trick of asking why can't conservatives stop being so damn divisive and just admit it's all their fault.  I find the stunning lack of self-awareness among those, including Christians, who tack Left is usually the most amazing thing.  And most annoying.  

Maybe it is time to stop with the talking points

We live in an era where violence and stigmatizing is across the board. We saw seen four policemen shot, one killed, in two days in our neck of the woods. We just witnessed two separate attacks on Jewish Americans, resulting in fatalities. People in every demographic are facing the results of our modern society's insistence that we break apart and hate each other. So why is this particular group somehow uniquely harmed by this so as to take it to the next level? Just saying 'mistreatment or stigmatized' - especially in our age where across our nation the LGBTQ community is almost deified, celebrated, defended and endorsed and supported - just doesn't cut it.  Again, the days of just yelling 'Bigots!' as the all explaining answer to everything is fading, at least if we really care and want to solve the problems.

I can't really speak to this

 

I don't know why people like picking on those things. When I lived in Louisville back in the 90s, I recall a news story from my old stomping grounds in Columbus.   Apparently some vandals tore down one of the Big Boy statues, dismembered it, and then drove around the city putting its parts in different locations. 

Now, I'm not one to make light of breaking the law or people engaging in property damage.  But I admit, that one made me giggle.  Still, I've never understood the glee people have in dissing on the Big Boy mascot, apart from the obvious.