Only when our kids are vitally affected do we tend to act...but the straw that breaks the camel's back has now been snapped, and in a thoroughly unpolitical, non-partisan, almost apolitical fashion President Barack Obama has taken the lead...to finally do something...about America's sorry record of civilian violence. He has stepped up to the mark at a turning point in U.S. history and shown the one quality essential in a true leader: yes, leadership. At this pivotal moment. And it's uncannily, eerily, almost palpable - even from afar, via the omnipresent television set - that the nation is, silently but ever so staunchly, right behind him; backing him 100%. In much the same way the entire nation, and much of the world, stood full square behind President George W Bush in the seconds, minutes, hours and days immediately following 9/11. As J R R Tolkien's Samwise Gamgee might have put it: "You've shown your quality, Mr President."
Yes, it could, ever so easily and glibly, quite legitimately be asked: Well, what else could President Obama have done? The answer is: absolutely nothing. Precisely what has been done - for all too long. The point is he hasn't; that's the difference.
Yes, Obama's only taken slight - though not at all hesitant - very tentative steps...thus far. But 'from small beginnings great things may come'. As the 'ole ditty puts it: 'It only takes a spark to get a fire going...'.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
All Hail To Our Own Home-grown "Leader of Men": Peter Jackson - JRR Tolkien Fantasy Works Adaptor Extraordinaire
R Rating: Meant only for those who have already seen the film. (Unless one has no intention of going, in which case my various comments will be well-nigh meaningless anyway.)
Necessary Disclaimer: I'll admit I'm not a film reviewer by trade or hobby, but as a lover of The Hobbit - rereading it multiple times, including during the recent run-up to its grand premiering - my passionate interest and 'jealousy', as in loyalty, to Tolkien's writing makes me a fair judge, I believe. Much as sports fans and automobile enthusiasts are a reasonable source to consult when it comes to judging the merits of a particular team, game and/or performance. And best I can recall the few book and film reviews I did while taking creative English writing classes at our local varsity a decade or so ago were judged reasonable enough.
Hugely conscious that Low-Lifers Anonymous, certain doctrinaire partisan political ideologues, elitist film critics and literary purists, and other signed-up and sealed members of Peter Jackson Knockers Incorporated (both domestic and global) are busily crawling out of their snake-pits to spout their vitriolic venom at Sir Peter and spread their snivelly slime (read: 'snot' - and not the troll variety) upon his new creation and infect the body populace with their viral viciousness as I write - just for starters, let me declare, vis-a-vis The Hobbit film #1: Overall, a *supercalifragilisticexpialidocious kinda flick - 'wunderbar' as the Germans (apparently 'as a nation' huge fans of the (**most recent) film adaptation of J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy) would say. (*My local library assures me of the correctness of this spelling!**There actually was an animated two-hour version of Tolkien's LOTR in 1978, largely unknown and for good reason long since faded into obscurity.)
The following features were what particularly grabbed me - and held me fast - in viewing the film: 3D High Frame Rate the day it premiered nationwide (Wednesday, December 12th, but no midnight session for me); and again yesterday evening on my 48th birthday, the 18th of December, when I saw it in simple, good 'ole-fashioned 2D, and was pleasantly surprised to find it had already grown hugely upon me in less than a week. So how do I rate it, as one humble pleb among a nation, indeed world, of such viewers? In visual impact, simply superb, even breathtakingly brilliant, quite literally out of this world - if not that of Middle Earth. Here I include the scenery (surpassing all 3 ***'predecessor' Lord Of The Rings' films in toto), costuming, special effects (revisiting good 'ole CGI), dramatic tension and resolution, colour, lighting etc. As with the Rings' films, the various flashback scenes are almost flawlessly enacted and moreover are brilliantly 'cut' and weaved rather seamlessly into the surrounding story, especially the various introductory scenes of the Lonely Mountain and the assorted dwarf versus orc and goblin battle royales. In characterization (both casting and acting delivery): off the charts, yes, you'll even want to write home about it; especially the main character/ hero, Bilbo Baggins, ("Bagginses" to Gollum), played by Martin Freeman. (***In chronology of production and release, admittedly, but actually 'successors' in the real time of Middle Earth.)
What can one say? This was and is and will no doubt prove to be throughout the remainder of the films, a brilliant typecast by Peter Jackson - whose unfailing instincts failed to fail him yet again. (Yours Truly early on sent Peter Jackson (even if, I suppose, it's extremely doubtful he ever saw it) a photo (magazine shot) of a potential (indeed lookalike) Bilbo Baggins - an American by the 'unreal' name of Bob Gass, who was the absolute spitting image of that older Bilbo (Senior - who appears in both the Rings' trilogy and the start of this film).) Seeing as, since finding the ring, Bilbo wasn't supposed to have aged at all, I couldn't quite see why the same good 'ole (Sir) Ian Holm - or a virtual replica such as Bob Gass, if Ian had no longer been available - wouldn't have well sufficed. (At the appropriate juncture, that is, i.e. halfway through the film (#1), though I accept the practical logistics of such would entail numerous potential difficulties.) Nevertheless Martin Freeman's Bilbo, serving as the perfect younger counterpart to the equally superbly cast and acted (Ian Holm's) Bilbo of (mainly) the Rings' trilogy, is so supremely wrought that all niggling criticisms vanish in the proverbial puff of magical dragon smoke.
In reproducing 'the letter' of the book. The Hobbit leaves much - in every way - to be desired, quite frankly; in reflecting and representing the essential 'spirit' of Tolkien's The Hobbit, as with PJ's LOTR film adaptation of J R R's classic tome Lord of the Rings, it is an exquisitely, even beautifully rendered offering to Tolkien aficionados. And containing the perfect mix of serious and comic elements, especially at its outset, befitting the much loved kid's fantasy story that it is. Moreover, fulfilling - if not exceeding - all hopes of Rings' movie devotees, in their introductory, connecting, storytelling roles at the film's beginning, both Ian Holm's Bilbo Senior and Elijah Wood's Frodo faithfully come to the party and ably meet longstanding viewer expectations. As Galadriel might be imagined intoning in the background: "Welcome back [to the Shire] Masters Frodo and Bilbo Baggins."
Other characterizations are worthy of note, such as these excellent performances (and casting decisions): Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield - suitably and preeminently grave, intense, focused and clearly defined; and Sylvester McCoy's Radagast the Brown alongside his wonderful avian confidants, beloved hedgehogs, and rabbit (sled) crew. Though some understandably regard Radagast's portrayal as somewhat odd, even eccentric in the extreme - and who's disputing that? - I found it a delightful touch, marrying both the film's much noted and extensive use of both the Lord of the Rings' ****trilogy's voluminous appendices, and Tolkien's understated character development of the rather obscure backblocks wizard Radagast in that epic. (****Or rather sestet, seeing as Tolkien himself actually split each of the three parts in his LOTR series into two smaller books, though in fact had them published only as a trilogy.)
I also (especially) loved these guys' beards and fierce, dwarfish demeanour and attitude: Graham McTavish's Dwalin, John Callen's Oin and Peter Hambleton's Gloin. However the combination of ultra-modern (if dwarfish) hair-dos (even 'weir-dos'!), extremely humanish (in particular hairless) faces, and laid-back, cutesy-funny personae of other dwarfs, though intriguing, still seemed an at times incompatible, unbefitting, even unbecoming feature. And so these didn't impact me as powerfully as those preceding characters who displayed an arguably more 'native' dwarfish temperament, though perhaps the latter thus served as an effective foil to their serious cousins' personalities, and, like humans, dwarfs surely vary considerably from dwarf to dwarf. Mark Hadlow's Dori and Ken Stott's Balin seemed to (successfully) combine both elements - i.e. a real, physical dwarfishness with a certain light-hearted personality streak. Overall, an eclectic hodgepodge of physico-temperamental characterizations of which Tolkien might have approved, though 'have been proud' would probably be stretching things. That is, if J R R would or could ever have reconciled himself to a modern-day big screen adaptation of his beloved and ever-so-idiosyncratic Middle Earth, itself somewhat of a stretch admittedly, as Peter Jackson also once openly mused.
But hats and scarves and any other available paraphernalia off to the tale's major villains. Such as Barry Humphries' Goblin King, or the Great Goblin (Under the Mountain) - and as a minor (key) highlight, the little flying fox messenger goblin (the GK's personal assistant/'scribe'), apparently played, animatronically, by Kiran Shah, of Rings, *****Narnia and other blockbuster movie fame.
Also - and equally brilliant (in both sheer physicality and characterization): the Trollshaw Trio: Bert, Tom and William (played by Mark Hadlow (again) and William Kircher and Peter Hambleton (again) respectively), alongside some digital animation worthy of Andy Serkis cum cgi-creation Gollum. If ever the perfect embodiment of Tolkien's own characterization, in both spirit and letter, can be said to have been carried out to flawless perfection in any of the Jackson films, these three - Bert, Tom and William - personify it. And for sheer creepiness combined with conscious power and malice, Azog (Chief Goblin Above The Mountain) put in a stellar performance - surprisingly, the only significant character going ******unmentioned in Brian Sibley's just released Official Movie Guide. (*****#1: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where Yours Truly met him in person. ******But perhaps Sir Peter et al were determined, following months of mini-releases of film highlights over the worldwide web, to keep a few surprises up their cinematic sleeve.)
Unfortunately the initial snippets of Smaug the Dragon (the chief villain of the saga - in Bilbo's words from the book "the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities") were also a chief, a great disappointment to this ardent book fan (that is, if the oriental 'dragon streamers' were meant to be a representation of Smaug, seemingly highly unlikely though the two to three (lone) images in quick succession seem to leave no alternative conclusion)...redeemed - hugely, however - by the final, fleeting glimpses of the same emerging from his treasure hordes in Mount Erebor as the film ends...'unfinished' and awaiting instalments two and three. And although (Sir) Ian McKellen's performance as Gandalf in possibly the second (alongside Thorin) major role - at least in this first film - is more than adequate, even a classy act, it seems somewhat below his - admittedly hard to emulate - LOTR performances. Similarly with all three of the minimally featured senior 'old-timers' from LOTR - i.e. Hugo Weaving's Elrond, Cate Blanchett's the Lady Galadriel and (Sir) Christopher Lee's Saruman. Though again, all more than adequate performances, Saruman, like Gandalf, appeared overly tired, weary, but perhaps they're simply getting on in years, and looking every bit of it as well. Gollum also didn't quite do it for me - perhaps from seeing so many LOTR backgrounders - yet when I recollect seeing him again on screen last night, there's absolutely nothing to fault about his performance; if anything, he seemed a mirror image of the Gollum we've come to love so dearly in The Two Towers and Return of the King.
Maybe the cgi treatment - certainly not Andy Serkis' performance much less voice - didn't seem to have anything novel (even if technically it did). But enough of my musings.
As with Lord of the Rings, it would appear from initial soundings in the international film critic community that, for whatever reason: be it all the numerous controversies swirling seemingly endlessly around the creation of this new epic trilogy, and its director; be it a hangover of resentment from how the second LOTR film, The Two Towers, so closely correlating chronologically and
ostensibly substantively with the Twin Towers tragedy of 9/11, was thus seen as apparently, implicitly lending its endorsement to the worldwide War on Terror that ensued; be it simple envy of Peter Jackson, Weta et al's rollercoaster success ride in recent years; be it simple fatigue with the apparent plethora of fantasy films in recent times; be it a super-abundance this year of other excellent film offerings; be it the sense of inevitability that the other films in the trilogy, or at least the last, will see PJ et al - as they assuredly did with Lord of the Rings, when the excellent first part of the trilogy was conspicuously and strangely ignored - scoop up a dragon horde's worth of awards that come late but not never; or be it an actual, genuine dislike of the substance and (adapted) storyline of this first hobbit film: Hobbit #1 is destined to be overlooked, even positively ignored when the gilded largesse of movie-making internationale is soon enough distributed. That will be a pity - if not the type (of pity) shown by Bilbo towards Gollum when given the chance to finish him off for good. For this film and its splendid, superbly cast crew will not have been judged upon their actual merits but upon apparently arbitrary and extraneous standards and criteria, whether these be:
political prejudice and/or personal pique; inevitable and understandable fantasy fatigue; a veritable bread-basket of alternative film offerings; a sense of resentful or fatalistic inevitability about PJ et al's soon enough rebounding and metaphorically slaying all their numerous film rivals; or sincere dislike or disdain. And let's be brutally honest: except for the third and very last of these, that's well beyond the remit of the Oscars and Academy Awards.
And I reserve the last word on the film to Yours Truly - i.e. to me, myself and I. If The Hobbit #1 was really so very bad, the fact that my personal appreciation only blossomed within a week, at a time when a number of negative reviews were rapidly gaining oxygen and traction, and when I then viewed it again without any special (3D or HFR) technical aides and effects whatsoever, surely provides an apt, if admittedly anecdotal, rebuff to such assessments. If I do say so myself.
Necessary Disclaimer: I'll admit I'm not a film reviewer by trade or hobby, but as a lover of The Hobbit - rereading it multiple times, including during the recent run-up to its grand premiering - my passionate interest and 'jealousy', as in loyalty, to Tolkien's writing makes me a fair judge, I believe. Much as sports fans and automobile enthusiasts are a reasonable source to consult when it comes to judging the merits of a particular team, game and/or performance. And best I can recall the few book and film reviews I did while taking creative English writing classes at our local varsity a decade or so ago were judged reasonable enough.
Hugely conscious that Low-Lifers Anonymous, certain doctrinaire partisan political ideologues, elitist film critics and literary purists, and other signed-up and sealed members of Peter Jackson Knockers Incorporated (both domestic and global) are busily crawling out of their snake-pits to spout their vitriolic venom at Sir Peter and spread their snivelly slime (read: 'snot' - and not the troll variety) upon his new creation and infect the body populace with their viral viciousness as I write - just for starters, let me declare, vis-a-vis The Hobbit film #1: Overall, a *supercalifragilisticexpialidocious kinda flick - 'wunderbar' as the Germans (apparently 'as a nation' huge fans of the (**most recent) film adaptation of J R R Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy) would say. (*My local library assures me of the correctness of this spelling!**There actually was an animated two-hour version of Tolkien's LOTR in 1978, largely unknown and for good reason long since faded into obscurity.)
The following features were what particularly grabbed me - and held me fast - in viewing the film: 3D High Frame Rate the day it premiered nationwide (Wednesday, December 12th, but no midnight session for me); and again yesterday evening on my 48th birthday, the 18th of December, when I saw it in simple, good 'ole-fashioned 2D, and was pleasantly surprised to find it had already grown hugely upon me in less than a week. So how do I rate it, as one humble pleb among a nation, indeed world, of such viewers? In visual impact, simply superb, even breathtakingly brilliant, quite literally out of this world - if not that of Middle Earth. Here I include the scenery (surpassing all 3 ***'predecessor' Lord Of The Rings' films in toto), costuming, special effects (revisiting good 'ole CGI), dramatic tension and resolution, colour, lighting etc. As with the Rings' films, the various flashback scenes are almost flawlessly enacted and moreover are brilliantly 'cut' and weaved rather seamlessly into the surrounding story, especially the various introductory scenes of the Lonely Mountain and the assorted dwarf versus orc and goblin battle royales. In characterization (both casting and acting delivery): off the charts, yes, you'll even want to write home about it; especially the main character/ hero, Bilbo Baggins, ("Bagginses" to Gollum), played by Martin Freeman. (***In chronology of production and release, admittedly, but actually 'successors' in the real time of Middle Earth.)
What can one say? This was and is and will no doubt prove to be throughout the remainder of the films, a brilliant typecast by Peter Jackson - whose unfailing instincts failed to fail him yet again. (Yours Truly early on sent Peter Jackson (even if, I suppose, it's extremely doubtful he ever saw it) a photo (magazine shot) of a potential (indeed lookalike) Bilbo Baggins - an American by the 'unreal' name of Bob Gass, who was the absolute spitting image of that older Bilbo (Senior - who appears in both the Rings' trilogy and the start of this film).) Seeing as, since finding the ring, Bilbo wasn't supposed to have aged at all, I couldn't quite see why the same good 'ole (Sir) Ian Holm - or a virtual replica such as Bob Gass, if Ian had no longer been available - wouldn't have well sufficed. (At the appropriate juncture, that is, i.e. halfway through the film (#1), though I accept the practical logistics of such would entail numerous potential difficulties.) Nevertheless Martin Freeman's Bilbo, serving as the perfect younger counterpart to the equally superbly cast and acted (Ian Holm's) Bilbo of (mainly) the Rings' trilogy, is so supremely wrought that all niggling criticisms vanish in the proverbial puff of magical dragon smoke.
In reproducing 'the letter' of the book. The Hobbit leaves much - in every way - to be desired, quite frankly; in reflecting and representing the essential 'spirit' of Tolkien's The Hobbit, as with PJ's LOTR film adaptation of J R R's classic tome Lord of the Rings, it is an exquisitely, even beautifully rendered offering to Tolkien aficionados. And containing the perfect mix of serious and comic elements, especially at its outset, befitting the much loved kid's fantasy story that it is. Moreover, fulfilling - if not exceeding - all hopes of Rings' movie devotees, in their introductory, connecting, storytelling roles at the film's beginning, both Ian Holm's Bilbo Senior and Elijah Wood's Frodo faithfully come to the party and ably meet longstanding viewer expectations. As Galadriel might be imagined intoning in the background: "Welcome back [to the Shire] Masters Frodo and Bilbo Baggins."
Other characterizations are worthy of note, such as these excellent performances (and casting decisions): Richard Armitage's Thorin Oakenshield - suitably and preeminently grave, intense, focused and clearly defined; and Sylvester McCoy's Radagast the Brown alongside his wonderful avian confidants, beloved hedgehogs, and rabbit (sled) crew. Though some understandably regard Radagast's portrayal as somewhat odd, even eccentric in the extreme - and who's disputing that? - I found it a delightful touch, marrying both the film's much noted and extensive use of both the Lord of the Rings' ****trilogy's voluminous appendices, and Tolkien's understated character development of the rather obscure backblocks wizard Radagast in that epic. (****Or rather sestet, seeing as Tolkien himself actually split each of the three parts in his LOTR series into two smaller books, though in fact had them published only as a trilogy.)
I also (especially) loved these guys' beards and fierce, dwarfish demeanour and attitude: Graham McTavish's Dwalin, John Callen's Oin and Peter Hambleton's Gloin. However the combination of ultra-modern (if dwarfish) hair-dos (even 'weir-dos'!), extremely humanish (in particular hairless) faces, and laid-back, cutesy-funny personae of other dwarfs, though intriguing, still seemed an at times incompatible, unbefitting, even unbecoming feature. And so these didn't impact me as powerfully as those preceding characters who displayed an arguably more 'native' dwarfish temperament, though perhaps the latter thus served as an effective foil to their serious cousins' personalities, and, like humans, dwarfs surely vary considerably from dwarf to dwarf. Mark Hadlow's Dori and Ken Stott's Balin seemed to (successfully) combine both elements - i.e. a real, physical dwarfishness with a certain light-hearted personality streak. Overall, an eclectic hodgepodge of physico-temperamental characterizations of which Tolkien might have approved, though 'have been proud' would probably be stretching things. That is, if J R R would or could ever have reconciled himself to a modern-day big screen adaptation of his beloved and ever-so-idiosyncratic Middle Earth, itself somewhat of a stretch admittedly, as Peter Jackson also once openly mused.
But hats and scarves and any other available paraphernalia off to the tale's major villains. Such as Barry Humphries' Goblin King, or the Great Goblin (Under the Mountain) - and as a minor (key) highlight, the little flying fox messenger goblin (the GK's personal assistant/'scribe'), apparently played, animatronically, by Kiran Shah, of Rings, *****Narnia and other blockbuster movie fame.
Also - and equally brilliant (in both sheer physicality and characterization): the Trollshaw Trio: Bert, Tom and William (played by Mark Hadlow (again) and William Kircher and Peter Hambleton (again) respectively), alongside some digital animation worthy of Andy Serkis cum cgi-creation Gollum. If ever the perfect embodiment of Tolkien's own characterization, in both spirit and letter, can be said to have been carried out to flawless perfection in any of the Jackson films, these three - Bert, Tom and William - personify it. And for sheer creepiness combined with conscious power and malice, Azog (Chief Goblin Above The Mountain) put in a stellar performance - surprisingly, the only significant character going ******unmentioned in Brian Sibley's just released Official Movie Guide. (*****#1: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, where Yours Truly met him in person. ******But perhaps Sir Peter et al were determined, following months of mini-releases of film highlights over the worldwide web, to keep a few surprises up their cinematic sleeve.)
Unfortunately the initial snippets of Smaug the Dragon (the chief villain of the saga - in Bilbo's words from the book "the Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities") were also a chief, a great disappointment to this ardent book fan (that is, if the oriental 'dragon streamers' were meant to be a representation of Smaug, seemingly highly unlikely though the two to three (lone) images in quick succession seem to leave no alternative conclusion)...redeemed - hugely, however - by the final, fleeting glimpses of the same emerging from his treasure hordes in Mount Erebor as the film ends...'unfinished' and awaiting instalments two and three. And although (Sir) Ian McKellen's performance as Gandalf in possibly the second (alongside Thorin) major role - at least in this first film - is more than adequate, even a classy act, it seems somewhat below his - admittedly hard to emulate - LOTR performances. Similarly with all three of the minimally featured senior 'old-timers' from LOTR - i.e. Hugo Weaving's Elrond, Cate Blanchett's the Lady Galadriel and (Sir) Christopher Lee's Saruman. Though again, all more than adequate performances, Saruman, like Gandalf, appeared overly tired, weary, but perhaps they're simply getting on in years, and looking every bit of it as well. Gollum also didn't quite do it for me - perhaps from seeing so many LOTR backgrounders - yet when I recollect seeing him again on screen last night, there's absolutely nothing to fault about his performance; if anything, he seemed a mirror image of the Gollum we've come to love so dearly in The Two Towers and Return of the King.
Maybe the cgi treatment - certainly not Andy Serkis' performance much less voice - didn't seem to have anything novel (even if technically it did). But enough of my musings.
As with Lord of the Rings, it would appear from initial soundings in the international film critic community that, for whatever reason: be it all the numerous controversies swirling seemingly endlessly around the creation of this new epic trilogy, and its director; be it a hangover of resentment from how the second LOTR film, The Two Towers, so closely correlating chronologically and
ostensibly substantively with the Twin Towers tragedy of 9/11, was thus seen as apparently, implicitly lending its endorsement to the worldwide War on Terror that ensued; be it simple envy of Peter Jackson, Weta et al's rollercoaster success ride in recent years; be it simple fatigue with the apparent plethora of fantasy films in recent times; be it a super-abundance this year of other excellent film offerings; be it the sense of inevitability that the other films in the trilogy, or at least the last, will see PJ et al - as they assuredly did with Lord of the Rings, when the excellent first part of the trilogy was conspicuously and strangely ignored - scoop up a dragon horde's worth of awards that come late but not never; or be it an actual, genuine dislike of the substance and (adapted) storyline of this first hobbit film: Hobbit #1 is destined to be overlooked, even positively ignored when the gilded largesse of movie-making internationale is soon enough distributed. That will be a pity - if not the type (of pity) shown by Bilbo towards Gollum when given the chance to finish him off for good. For this film and its splendid, superbly cast crew will not have been judged upon their actual merits but upon apparently arbitrary and extraneous standards and criteria, whether these be:
political prejudice and/or personal pique; inevitable and understandable fantasy fatigue; a veritable bread-basket of alternative film offerings; a sense of resentful or fatalistic inevitability about PJ et al's soon enough rebounding and metaphorically slaying all their numerous film rivals; or sincere dislike or disdain. And let's be brutally honest: except for the third and very last of these, that's well beyond the remit of the Oscars and Academy Awards.
And I reserve the last word on the film to Yours Truly - i.e. to me, myself and I. If The Hobbit #1 was really so very bad, the fact that my personal appreciation only blossomed within a week, at a time when a number of negative reviews were rapidly gaining oxygen and traction, and when I then viewed it again without any special (3D or HFR) technical aides and effects whatsoever, surely provides an apt, if admittedly anecdotal, rebuff to such assessments. If I do say so myself.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Yes, Isn't Everyone An Instant Genius After the Fact
Tragedies still happen. Mistakes occasionally do occur. People aren't always perfect. Stuff goes down.
So what's new? Welcome to the human race. No, life isn't fair, even if way back yonder it was apparently created to be (so). It's long since ceased to be (thus) - "with knobs on", as some like to say.
Yet every action carries its own consequence/s, each cause has its effect/s. Sure, some small - and oh so gradual - but inevitable nonetheless: someday - somewhere - somehow... . But oh, how brilliant is hindsight. We're all - ever, always - experts 'after the fact', when all is done and dusted, when the proverbial dust has settled, when everything's over, rover...especially when(ever) we're home and hosed. Oh yes, we're top of the class.
Or so we like to think. But is it really so? Are we actually so perfect, so flawless ourselves. No, really?
So for all those frantically scrambling onto the frenzied media-generated bandwagon and baying for blood in the aftermath, the fallout of a U.K nurse's tragic suicide: look, it was really 'just a prank', which went badly wrong...yet there, but for the grace of God, go you and I...no, really.
But no, I'm sorry; my earnest, heartfelt apologies - and forgiveness requested: you'd never do that, would you... . Well, if that's your verdict, well-considered or otherwise, then so be it - only don't expect myself or anyone else to beat down a path to your door, extending mercy and forgiveness whenever you foul up.
Hasn't One spoken thus?: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." And: "Those who are well have no need of a Physician, but (only) those who are sick." Yes, you can hold on for dear life to all your accumulated, lifelong-purchased perfection and self-righteousness, but - ultimately - you can't expect to have it both ways, as the man who was (effectively) my step-dad for much of my childhood, at least teenage years liked to say: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Though I've little doubt you'll try hard enough.
Yes, everyone's an expert after the fact. But really, who'd've guessed the ultimate outcome from recent well-reported events over the telephone cables between Australia and Great Britain? Oh, you did? Well then, congratulations - and celebrations - as the old song goes. Sorry, you actually didn't? Then please refrain from carrying on as if you did. And acting as two innocent jokesters' judge, jury and executioners.
But if you persist, did you realize there's a name for your kind? Well there is. If not the long-foretold Antichrist, then let's just say you're one of his dutiful minions, one of many antichrists. No, I'm really not kidding, if you're pardon the irony. You've just seen fit to usurp the prerogatives of The Only Just Judge, and has He not said, through His messenger James, the Lord's own (earthly) brother, in words admitting of no possible misunderstanding whatsoever, no ifs, buts or even (the slightest) maybes?:
"Judgment is [i.e. is now and will be later on as well] without mercy to the one [i.e. all those] who has[have]
shown no mercy." So watch out - you might well be next!
So what's new? Welcome to the human race. No, life isn't fair, even if way back yonder it was apparently created to be (so). It's long since ceased to be (thus) - "with knobs on", as some like to say.
Yet every action carries its own consequence/s, each cause has its effect/s. Sure, some small - and oh so gradual - but inevitable nonetheless: someday - somewhere - somehow... . But oh, how brilliant is hindsight. We're all - ever, always - experts 'after the fact', when all is done and dusted, when the proverbial dust has settled, when everything's over, rover...especially when(ever) we're home and hosed. Oh yes, we're top of the class.
Or so we like to think. But is it really so? Are we actually so perfect, so flawless ourselves. No, really?
So for all those frantically scrambling onto the frenzied media-generated bandwagon and baying for blood in the aftermath, the fallout of a U.K nurse's tragic suicide: look, it was really 'just a prank', which went badly wrong...yet there, but for the grace of God, go you and I...no, really.
But no, I'm sorry; my earnest, heartfelt apologies - and forgiveness requested: you'd never do that, would you... . Well, if that's your verdict, well-considered or otherwise, then so be it - only don't expect myself or anyone else to beat down a path to your door, extending mercy and forgiveness whenever you foul up.
Hasn't One spoken thus?: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance." And: "Those who are well have no need of a Physician, but (only) those who are sick." Yes, you can hold on for dear life to all your accumulated, lifelong-purchased perfection and self-righteousness, but - ultimately - you can't expect to have it both ways, as the man who was (effectively) my step-dad for much of my childhood, at least teenage years liked to say: "You can't have your cake and eat it too." Though I've little doubt you'll try hard enough.
Yes, everyone's an expert after the fact. But really, who'd've guessed the ultimate outcome from recent well-reported events over the telephone cables between Australia and Great Britain? Oh, you did? Well then, congratulations - and celebrations - as the old song goes. Sorry, you actually didn't? Then please refrain from carrying on as if you did. And acting as two innocent jokesters' judge, jury and executioners.
But if you persist, did you realize there's a name for your kind? Well there is. If not the long-foretold Antichrist, then let's just say you're one of his dutiful minions, one of many antichrists. No, I'm really not kidding, if you're pardon the irony. You've just seen fit to usurp the prerogatives of The Only Just Judge, and has He not said, through His messenger James, the Lord's own (earthly) brother, in words admitting of no possible misunderstanding whatsoever, no ifs, buts or even (the slightest) maybes?:
"Judgment is [i.e. is now and will be later on as well] without mercy to the one [i.e. all those] who has[have]
shown no mercy." So watch out - you might well be next!
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Replaying That Worn Out Record Over and Over and Over Again: Well, We've [All] Been There, and Now We're Back Again - already
*The script has been oh so predictable, really quite corny.
*The villain of the piece: one overtly and overly successful and widely popular 'leader of men', alongside his latest pet project.
*The crime: being - way - too successful and popular for his own good, and failing to bear fools gladly.
*The heroes & heroines: a ragtag assortment of envious and spiteful, ne'er-do-well also-rans, seeking for publicity and fame off the back of their arch foe, and ever eager to knock yet another presumptuous tall poppy off his high perch before it all starts to go to his head.
*The chief protagonists: one dark-complexioned, cagey conspirator from foreign fields, with his three local accomplices: one sharp and smooth-tongued and seemingly sage, the other two good-hearted though naive, one outrageously fortunate, the other hailing from close to home.
*The plot: A variety of concocted, trumped-up charges, posited fast and furiously by a cabal of apparently unassociated, unrelated individuals and groups, in order to knock said villain from his lofty and heady heights, to 'bring him down to earth' and attempt to show him just one more mere mortal among a world of such beings. Attempting, in the process, to destroy his reputation and credibility, alongside those of his many and similarly esteemed colleagues, and thus bring their major lifework into disrepute and dishonour.
**Success of the plot? Eventually a total flop - a failure on a grand scale - as the plot unravels thick and fast even as the various protagonists scramble furiously every which way seeking to turn any remaining loose ends to their advantage, while also stitching up new and ever more intriguing conspiratorial subplots and subtexts into the overall narrative of their endgame grand design.
**Ultimate moral of the story? As either Aesop or the Good Lord might have put it, the one who rolls a stone will have it roll back upon her own person, those who dig a pit will eventually fall into it themselves.
**Rating? "PG"(Parental Guidance Recommended) In order to explain the inherent subtleties and innate nuances of the plot to uninitiated observers, onlookers and newcomers, in case they too are, all too easily and cleverly, taken in by each and every unexpected twist and turn the story takes as it progresses.
*The villain of the piece: one overtly and overly successful and widely popular 'leader of men', alongside his latest pet project.
*The crime: being - way - too successful and popular for his own good, and failing to bear fools gladly.
*The heroes & heroines: a ragtag assortment of envious and spiteful, ne'er-do-well also-rans, seeking for publicity and fame off the back of their arch foe, and ever eager to knock yet another presumptuous tall poppy off his high perch before it all starts to go to his head.
*The chief protagonists: one dark-complexioned, cagey conspirator from foreign fields, with his three local accomplices: one sharp and smooth-tongued and seemingly sage, the other two good-hearted though naive, one outrageously fortunate, the other hailing from close to home.
*The plot: A variety of concocted, trumped-up charges, posited fast and furiously by a cabal of apparently unassociated, unrelated individuals and groups, in order to knock said villain from his lofty and heady heights, to 'bring him down to earth' and attempt to show him just one more mere mortal among a world of such beings. Attempting, in the process, to destroy his reputation and credibility, alongside those of his many and similarly esteemed colleagues, and thus bring their major lifework into disrepute and dishonour.
**Success of the plot? Eventually a total flop - a failure on a grand scale - as the plot unravels thick and fast even as the various protagonists scramble furiously every which way seeking to turn any remaining loose ends to their advantage, while also stitching up new and ever more intriguing conspiratorial subplots and subtexts into the overall narrative of their endgame grand design.
**Ultimate moral of the story? As either Aesop or the Good Lord might have put it, the one who rolls a stone will have it roll back upon her own person, those who dig a pit will eventually fall into it themselves.
**Rating? "PG"(Parental Guidance Recommended) In order to explain the inherent subtleties and innate nuances of the plot to uninitiated observers, onlookers and newcomers, in case they too are, all too easily and cleverly, taken in by each and every unexpected twist and turn the story takes as it progresses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)